Detailed Information on the
Air Force Base Operations & Support Assessment

Restructure program elements to align with new Base Support function and activity definitions.

Develop, along with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, a programmatic cost model for Base Support functions and activities.

Develop, along with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, expected levels of performance for Base Support functions and activities.

Develop, along with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, common definitions for Base Support functions and activities.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Base Support program is a collection of well defined programs that support a wide variety of critical functions and capabilities to enhance operations and readiness at U.S. Air Force bases around the world. Support activities include Base Operations, Facilities Operations, Communications, Environmental Quality, and Child Development Centers, among others.

Evidence: Title 10 U.S.C, Section 8062, directs the Air Force to provide the infrastructure necessary to support the force structure. Program purpose is consistent with objectives set out in the 2004 Department of Defense (DOD) "Defense Installations Strategic Plan," DOD Fiscal Years (FY) 2008-2013 Strategic Planning Guidance, DOD FY 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, and the U.S. Air Force Capabilities Review and Risk Assessments.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The program ensures that bases are available when and where needed, and with the capabilities to support current and future military requirements as determined by Department of Defense and Air Force policy guidance. This capability is required for combat and the daily operations of the United States Air Force.

Evidence: Requirements and guidance are contained in a number of policy planning and directives, including the 2004 Department of Defense (DOD) "Defense Installations Strategic Plan," the Fiscal Years (FY) 2008-2013 Strategic Planning Guidance, DOD Quadrennial Defense Review, the Air Force Capabilities Review and Risk Assessments, and the FY 2007 Information Technology Budget. Without Base Support municipal-type activities such as utility plant operations, purchased utilities, pavement clearance, annual services contracts, and emergency services (fire protection/crash rescue), the United States Air Force mission could not be accomplished.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The United States Air Force is solely responsible for managing base operations support activities at its installations. The Air Force manages federal, local, state and private resources are utilized to provide effective support.

Evidence: Installation commanders have the flexibility to tailor the base operations support programs and use any federal, state and local support available to increase the efficient operations and support for the installation and avoid duplication. See Government Accountability Office (GAO), "Defense Infrastructure: Issues Need to Be Addressed in Managing and Funding Base Operations and Facilities Support," (Rpt. No. GAO-05-556). The report notes that Randolph Air Force Base has combined service contracts and identified efficiencies to avoid duplication of services. At the strategic level, the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) and Joint Basing Initiatives are realigning 26 military installations into 12 Joint Bases in an effort to reduce the duplication of efforts and realize economies of scale found at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/brac.htm.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The unique circumstances and challenges at different installations have resulted in flexible program execution to maintain efficiency and effectiveness. The Base Commander uses this flexibility to consolidate activities and large contracts, as well as use open competition, to achieve financial savings through economies of scale. The program design/plan is continually updated, to incorporate efficiencies and advances that appear beneficial, based on technical assessments and/or experience of others.

Evidence: The process involving technical solutions at the base level is described in detail in Air Force Instruction-103. The technical designs (blueprints created by Science Technology and Energy Management Systems) must adhere to the Air Force's Joint Technical Architecture. Also, the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure and Joint Basing Initiatives are further improving the design of the program by realigning 26 military installations into 12 Joint Bases in an effort to reduce the duplication of efforts and realize economies of scale. Finally, the Air Force is working with Office the Secretary of Defense to develop the Common Delivery of Installation Support that includes the development of Common Output Level Standards to provide definitions, metrics, and standards for installation support across the Department of Defense.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: While the Air Force obligates its funds in a timely manner, the base support program does not have the long-term, outcome based performance measures and, therefore, cannot definitively determine whether resource address the program's purpose. At the installation level, commanders have the flexibility flexibility to make trade-offs in the face of funding limitations to best support the mission and do so effectively.

Evidence: The continued development and the eventual implementation of the Common Delivery Installation Support will include the development of standard performance measures and targets for base operating support services. Installation commanders determine resource needs based on a number of specific processes and procedures. For example, the Base Communications Program relies on standardized solutions and contract vehicles resources to provide the bulk of IT equipment and services. The Network Centric Solutions Concept is a standardized contractual vehicle which ensures a multi-faceted approach to achieve the Air Force Vision for standardization and interoperability across Air Force networks. Additionally, the Worldwide Integrated Digital Telecommunications System contract awarded to General Dynamics provides technology upgrades to Air Force base telephone systems and commercial off the shelf digital switching equipment.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The overall program does not have long-term, outcome-based performance measures. Program elements do have performance measures, though they are often input or output oriented rather than focused on outcomes that directly and meaningfully support the program's purpose. The continued development and the eventual implementation of the Common Delivery Installation Support will include the development of standard performance measures and targets for base operating support services.

Evidence: While the overall program does not have outcome-based, long-term performance measures, there are a number of documents that provide insight into aspects of base operating support, including the Department of Defense planning, programming, and budget system; Fiscal Year 2004 Annual Planning and Programming Guidance; Obligation Data from the Defense Financial Accounting System; Air Force Capabilities Risk and Review Assessment; Office of the Deputy Secretary of Defense-developed Facilities Operation Model to ensure requirements met by 2008; the Base Operation Support Cost Projection Formula to determine pay requirements; and Planned performance goals and actual performance results for selected constituent program elements are provided in the Air Force's Combat Information Transportation System 300 report.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The overall program does not have ambitious targets and time frames because of the lack of performance measures. The continued development and the eventual implementation of the Common Delivery Installation Support will include the development of standard performance measures and targets for base operating support services.

Evidence: While the overall program does not have ambitious targets, there are a number of documents that provide insight into input and outputs of base support activities. For example, the Department of Defense 2004 "Defense Installations Strategic Plan"; FY04 Annual Planning and Programming Guidance, and FY08 Program Objective Memorandum; and Planned performance goals and actual performance results for selected constituent program elements are provided in the Air Force's Combat Information Transportation System 300 report.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The overall program does not have specific annual performance measures. However, program elements do have performance measures that meaningfully support the program's purpose, such as facilities operations and base communications. For example, in base communications, reliable telephone service is an important element of overall base support. The performance measure is the availability of dial tone 99.9 percent of the time. The continued development and the eventual implementation of the Common Delivery Installation Support will include the development of standard performance measures and targets for base operating support services across Air Force installations.

Evidence: Overall objectives and capabilities required are described in the Air Force Strategic Plan and the Quadrennial Defense Review. More defined objectives in constituent program elements are identified in the Air Force Fiscal Year 2004-2009 Annual Planning & Programming Guidance, Chapter 12. Planned performance goals and actual performance results for selected constituent program elements are provided in the Air Force's Common Transportation System 300 report.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The overall program does not have ambitious targets and time frames because of underdeveloped performance measures. The continued development and the eventual implementation of the Common Delivery Installation Support system will include the development of standard performance measures and targets for base operating support services.

Evidence: Overall objectives and capabilities required are described in the Air Force Strategic Plan and the Quadrennial Defense Review. More defined objectives in constituent program elements are identified in the Air Force Fiscal Year 2004-2009 Annual Planning & Programming Guidance, Chapter 12. Planned performance goals and actual performance results for selected constituent program elements are provided in the Air Force's Combat Information Transportation System 300 report.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: All installation management proponents, support organizations, and personnel commit to and work toward annual and long-term goals that best fill U.S. Air Force needs within existing resources. Their use of extensive benefit/cost analyses during the programming, prioritization of activities during execution, and continued emphasis of professional judgment, supports these goals. The continued development and the eventual implementation of the Common Delivery Installation Support will include the development of standard performance measures and targets for base operating support services.

Evidence: To support constituent program elements of base support the Air Force has numerous partnerships with industry including multiple, competitive contracts at base level and under the Combat Information Transportations System program. In addition to partnering with industry, the Air Force participates on a number of Department of Defense (DOD)-chaired Global Information Grid and Defense Information Systems Network (DISN) working groups with the Defense Information System Agency (DISA) and other Service and Agency representatives. The Air Force is the largest user of DISA's DISN common user services (voice, data, and video) which are provisioned under the Defense Working Capital Fund. DISA has a binding DoD-level performance contract that identifies service levels and performance targets that it will provide Air Force and other DoD customers.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The entire base operating support program has received in recent years by the Government Accountabilitying Office, the Air Force Audit Agency, through the Air Force budgeting process, and the larger Department of Defense Programming, Planning, Budgeting and Evaluation process. These reviews have examined nearly all of the diverse activities implemented under the program.

Evidence: See Government Accountability Office (GAO), "Defense Infrastructure: Issues Need to Be Addressed in Managing and Funding Base Operations and Facilities Support," (Rpt. No. GAO-05-556). The Air Force Audit Agency has conducted a number of reviews, including Cellular Telephone Management (Project 99058021), Local Telephone Number Requirements (Project 00058009), Single-line Telephone Service (Project 98058030), Voice Mail Systems (Project 97058039), Fiber Optics (Project 96054023), Private Branch Exchange Maintenance (Project 96054025), Management of Emergency Telephone Systems and 24-Hour Response Centers (Project 93054019).

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: All installation management proponents, support organizations, and personnel commit to and work toward annual and long-term goals that best fill U.S. Air Force needs within existing resources. Their use of extensive benefit/cost analyses during the programming, prioritization of activities during execution, and continued emphasis of professional judgment, supports these goals. The continued development and the eventual implementation of the Common Delivery Installation Support will include the development of standard performance measures and targets for base operating support services.

Evidence: Requirements from Air Force Major Commands are submitted during the Program Objective Memorandum cycle of the Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution System. These are prioritized and compete with other Air Force requirements. Strong interest in Base Communications initiatives over the past several years have ensured that program funding has been maintained (Base Communications O&M) and in some cases increased (e.g., Combat Information Transportation Systems and Land Mobile Radio) despite strong competition in other Air Force programs. See Government Accountability Office (GAO), "Defense Infrastructure: Issues Need to Be Addressed in Managing and Funding Base Operations and Facilities Support," (Rpt. No. GAO-05-556) for examples of management practices at specific Air Force installations.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: To improve the Base Operating Support program planning and execution, the Common Delivery of Installation Support (CDIS) initiative was chartered by the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2005 to promote commonality in the delivery of installation management. The CDIS Initiative also includes the development of Common Output Level Standards that will provide definitions, metrics, and standards for installation support across the Department of Defense. The end result will be a fully developed Installation Services Model linking individual support functions to their policy advocate. Base operations support program elements are under review and modifications to meet objectives outlined in the Air Force Strategic Communication Plan, Quadrennial Defense Review, and Annual Planning and Programming Guidance (APPG), as well as Air Force Corporate Board, Communications and Information Panel, and other Panels, as required, that implement capability objectives outlined in the APPG.

Evidence: Air Force has developed a Combat Information Transportations System Roadmap which lays out how key communications infrastructure capabilities are laid in through 2020. These capabilities include base and Air Force Major Command-level network management, base information protection, network consolidation, fiber optic backbone, voice switching system, and public key infrastructure encryption. Example of improvements in planning is that capability objectives laid out in the APPG are broken out by each Air Force core competency with the specific outcomes listed for each objective. In the past, these were not cross-referenced.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The Department of Defense collects information on a regular basis from the Air Force through the Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution System. The Air Force Corporate Structure oversees program performance. Base Communications performance is monitored by Air Force Major Command (MAJCOM) and individual communications organizations. Network management of performance and trends is monitored and analyzed by MAJCOM Network Operations and Security Centers and base Network Control Centers. Each base through its contracting office works with the customer to ensure that the objectives of that particular contract are being satisfied.

Evidence: The collection of performance information varies by the constituent program element of the Base Support Program. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service measures actual obligation of funds against planned performance target. This information is then used to determine resource allocation throughout the budget formulation cycle.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Base commanders and program managers are responsible for ensuring their command uses resources properly to achieve their mission program objectives. They are held responsible through the chain of command. Program partners, in the form of cContractors providing services for base operating support, are held accountable through the use of performance-based contracting

Evidence: Air Force's blueprint database provides assurance that contracts are satisfied. In base communications, the Communications and Information Systems Officer (CSO) will measure the program's technical solution against the status criteria (GREEN, YELLOW, RED). If the result after completion is not GREEN, then the base CSO, STEM, and contractor will ensure corrections are completed or the work will not be accepted. Similar processes are in place for other base support constituent program elements.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: Air base support is audited by the Government Accountability Office, Department of Defense Inspector General, and the Air Force Inspector General. Air Staff, Air Force Major Command, and base level comptroller functions ensure that funds are properly expended. Funds obligated in base support typically exceed the programmed amount due to Commander's priorities at the installation level during the year of execution.

Evidence: Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Comptroller iCenter website explaining budget execution (www.dod.mil/comptroller/icenter/budget/budgexecution.htm) and see GAO, "Defense Infrastructure: Issues Need to Be Addressed in Managing and Funding Base Operations and Facilities Support," (Rpt. No. GAO-05-556) noted that: "Funding trend data for Base Operating Services (BOS) services and programs within the Air Force show that budgetary requests, designated funding, and BOS obligations remained more closely aligned than was the case for the other services in most years."

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The Air Force uses a variety of tools to measure and improve program efficiency. The installation commander has the flexibility to consolidate activities and large contracts, as well as use open competition, to achieve financial savings through economies of scale. Major constituent program elements have in place annual performance measures to ensure efficient program execution (see explanation in question 2.3). Standard contracts are primarily indefinite delivery and indefinite quantity that are firm-fixed price. Competition is used to select suppliers and ensure that the best value is received for information technology products and other services procured.

Evidence: Air Force Instruction (AFI) 63-124 Performance-Based Services Acquisition (dated 1 August 2005 outlines procedures for developing requirements, acquiring services, and managing service acquisitions within the Air Force. This AFI includes guidance for implementation of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 Performance of Commercial Activities.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Commanders have the flexibility to use any federal, state, or local support deemed necessary to improve base support. Additionally, to avoid duplication and gain efficiencies, Air Force bases support other DOD and other federal agencies as tenants to eliminate the need for redundant governmental systems, such as shared communications systems.

Evidence: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified examples where the Air Force gained efficiencies and prevented duplication of services by combining service contracts and working with federal, state gained and duplication of services was avoided (See June 2005 GAO audit on Defense Infrastructure to the Subcommittee on Readiness, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives (Rpt. No. GAO-05-556). Efforts such as Combat Information Transportation Systems, Public Key Infrastructure, and Information Assurance are coordinated and synchronized with deployable initiatives to provide standard base-level and end-to-end IT solutions. Additionally, the Science Technology and Energy Management process ensures that base communications initiatives are consistent with Air Force standard designs and do not duplicate similar current or future projects.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Defense Department's financial management weaknesses are well-documented. While the Department of Defense continues to make efforts to improve it, the Department has yet to obtain an unqualified audit opinion. The Air Force does not have audit reports demonstrating that its base operations and support program is free from internal weaknesses. Constituent base support elements are managed effectively but not in an integrated manner.

Evidence: The Base Support Program has multiple financial management systems and controls in place. A number of DOD-wide systems, including the Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution System and the Defense Finance and Accounting System provide accurate, timely financial data for the Office of the Secretary of Defense Comptroller, the United States Air Force and the base support programs. Quality evaluations are performed by base communications managers and quality assurance experts who accept work leading towards program completion only after all contractual requirements are satisfied.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The program is undertaking a number of ambitious initiatives to improve the integration of base support services across the Air Force, Reserve and Air National Guard.

Evidence: The 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) and Joint Basing Initiatives will realign 26 military installations into 12 Joint Bases in an effort to reduce the duplication of efforts and realize economies of scale. The Common Delivery of Installation Support (CDIS) initiative was chartered by the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2005 to promote commonality in the delivery of installation management. It will provide a new program element structure (accounting organization) to promote cost transparency and enable more consistent programming and budgetary decisions. The CDIS Initiative also includes the development of Common Output Level Standards that will provide definitions, metrics, and standards for installation support across the Department of Defense. The end result will be a fully developed Installation Services Model linking individual support functions to their policy advocate.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The Air Force does not have long-term outcome-based metrics for its base support services. However, the continued development and the eventual implementation of the Common Delivery Installation System will measure outcomes for base operating support functional activities and allow leadership to better determine the appropriate resource allocation for base support services. Program elements do have performance measures, though they need further development to directly and meaningfully support the program's purpose.

Evidence: Overall program progress will be measures once the performance measures are in place. A number of financial planning and execution documents describe output-based performance measures and goals for program constituent elements, including the Department of Defense Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution System; Fiscal Year 2004 Annual Planning and Programming Guidance; Obligation Data from the Defense Financial Accounting System; Air Force Capabilities Risk and Review Assessment; Office of the Deputy Secretary of Defense-developed Facilities Operation Model to ensure requirements met by 2008; the Base Operation Support Cost Projection Formula to determine pay requirements; and Planned performance goals and actual performance results for selected constituent program elements are provided in the Air Force's Combat Information Transportation System 300 report.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The overall program does not have annual performance measures for the program to achieve. The constituent program elements typically meet annual output goals for base support services. However, the continued development and the eventual implementation of the Common Delivery Installation System will measure outcomes for base operating support functional activities and allow leadership to better determine the appropriate resource allocation for base support services.

Evidence: Further development is needed in formulating and implementing program-wide annual performance measures. A number of financial planning and execution documents describe output-based performance measures and goals for program constituent elements, including the Department of Defense Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution System; Fiscal Year 2004 Annual Planning and Programming Guidance; Obligation Data from the Defense Financial Accounting System; Air Force Capabilities Risk and Review Assessment; Office of the Deputy Secretary of Defense-developed Facilities Operation Model to ensure requirements met by 2008; the Base Operation Support Cost Projection Formula to determine pay requirements; and Planned performance goals and actual performance results for selected constituent program elements are provided in the Air Force's Combat Information Transportation System 300 report.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The supporting constituent activities, such as base communications and transportation, gain efficiencies at the installation-level through the flexible execution of funds by installation commanders (see annual performance measures in explanation and evidence in question 2.3). These will be strengthened further by the Common Defense Installation Support (CDIS) system.

Evidence: Until there are standard performance measures for base operating support, it will be difficult to identify efficiencies and cost effectiveness. The Air Force is currently working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the development of the Common Delivery Installation Support system that will continue performance measures and metrics to display program improvements. Base support Program elements, such as Facility Operations, have robust, Office of the Secretary Defense sponsored industry-based models underpinning their requirement and allowing meaningful measurement of execution efficiency.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The lack of common metrics prevents a fruitful comparison of base support services between the Air Force and other military services. The Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corp are working together to implement a Common Defense Installation Support (CDIS) system to standardize base operating support activities. This is a Department of Defense-wide initiative and Air Force compares favorably to the other services. The Air Force has analyzed the base support management of the U.S. Navy. The Air Force approach is to proceed with centralized management like the Navy, but with execution practices determined by the unique mission of the Air Force.

Evidence: The other services face similar challenges in developing centralized management over base operations with performance measures and target dates. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), "Defense Infrastructure: Issues Need to Be Addressed in Managing and Funding Base Operations and Facilities Support," (Rpt. No. GAO-05-556) provides a perspective on the challenges facing all of the base support of all of the military services.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: A number of independent evaluations have reviewed the Air Base Operating Support. The Assistant Secretary of Air Force Installations, Environment and Logistics, coordinates and integrates policy for Base Support activities. The Department of Defense has an established planning, programming, budgeting and execution system that regularly reviews planning and execution data for this prograprogram. Government Accountability Office (GAO) audits have revealed both strengths and weaknesses of base operating support. For example, a GAO Report highlighted efficiencies gained at air bases due to installation commander's execution flexibility while noting the need for improved standardization and development (GAO-05-556). The implementation of the Common Defense Installation Support system will achieve these improvements.

Evidence: See GAO, "Defense Infrastructure: Issues Need to Be Addressed in Managing and Funding Base Operations and Facilities Support," (Rpt. No. GAO-05-556) noted that: "Funding trend data for Base Operating Services (BOS) services and programs within the Air Force show that budgetary requests, designated funding, and BOS obligations remained more closely aligned than was the case for the other services in most years." The Air Force Audit Agency has conducted a number of reviews, including Cellular Telephone Management (Project 99058021), Local Telephone Number Requirements (Project 00058009), Single-line Telephone Service (Project 98058030), Voice Mail Systems (Project 97058039), Fiber Optics (Project 96054023), Private Branch Exchange Maintenance (Project 96054025), Management of Emergency Telephone Systems and 24-Hour Response Centers (Project 93054019). In addition, through the budget review process, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Congress review the effectiveness of base support.