Detailed Information on the
Bureau of Indian Affairs - K-12 School Construction Assessment

Seek Congressional approval to either rescind the 2004 Replacement School Priority List or grant BIA the ability to reprioritize the list or offer alternative projects. This change will enable BIA to set realistic estimates for project start dates or shift projects due to more current facility condition index calculations and emergency situations such as a recent dorm fire.

Develop a long-term master plan for the BIA school system in consultation with the Tribes. Factors such as cost effectiveness of small schools and proximity to public schools should be considered.

Submit a plan for unfunded construction costs for projects authorized and funded from FY 2001 through 2007.

Measure: Percentage of schools with students' scores improving in reading and/or math within one year of construction or major renovation and repair.

Explanation:Studies have shown that the condition of school facilities can have an impact on student performance and teacher effectiveness. The school construction program is a significant contributing partner in assuring that the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act are achieved. From 2001 through 2007, the program has received more than $1.8 billion for the replacement of 32 schools and for major renovation and repair of 39 schools and maintenance of the total inventory of 184 schools. The 2005 baseline reflects the 14 schools that have been completed to date.

Measure: Percentage of BIE School facilities in acceptable condition as measured by the Facilities Condition Index (lower FCI number is good)

Explanation:Improve the condition of school facilities to provide a better environment for BIE students and teachers and improve student achievement rates. See explanation for measure 1.

Measure: Eliminate 100% of excess academic space from inventory as of September 2004 (or 300,000 square feet per year).

Explanation:The program identifies facilities and structures which have been determined to be in excess of program needs. The relevant Tribe has the option to take over responsibility for any excess property and it is removed from the OFMC inventory and operations and maintenance of the facility is no longer the responsibility of the Federal Government. If a Tribe does not opt to take over a facility, OFMC arranges for demolition of the facility. Baseline: 1.5 million sq. feet of excess space.

Measure: Percentage of replacement schools and major improvement and repair projects constructed within 2 years of commencement of the project.

Explanation:Time is money for construction projects. The longer a project takes to construct the more it costs due to rising material costs and the need to dedicate staff to manage the project. However, because of the independent nature of construction projects, it is not possible to predict the cost savings. (Planning and design which usually take between 18 months and 2 years are independent of this measure.)

Measure: Percentage of Projects Started in Year of Appropriation (Replacement, New Facility, and Major Facility Improvement and Repair)

Explanation:See explanation for completion of construction projects.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The BIA education system was established to satisfy treaty responsibilities to provide education opportunities to Native American children. As a result, the Bureau must have a facility construction and maintenance program. The Education Construction program enhances educational opportunities for Indian children by providing and maintaining safe and nurturing facilities in which to learn and live.

Evidence: In treaties dating back to the 1800s and in legislation starting with the Snyder Act of 1921, the Federal Government has assumed the responsibility to provide an education, including the construction and maintenance of schools, to Indian children who wish to attend an Indian school. Current laws governing Indian students include: the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; the Snyder Act; the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act; and the Tribally Controlled Schools Act.

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

Explanation: The BIA funds operations and facility requirements for 184 schools and education-related facilities. Approximately 46,000 students including 2,000 resident-only boarders (approximately 7% of all eligible Indian children), in 23 states, attend the elementary and secondary schools and dorms that form the BIA school system.The facility management program manages and oversees the facilities program, from day-to-day maintenance, modernization, repairs and school replacement.

Evidence: 25 U.S.C. 2005(a) requires the BIA to bring all schools, dormitories, and other Indian education related facilities operated by the BIA or under contract or grant with the BIA, into compliance with applicable Tribal, Federal, or State health and safety standards. With the school projects that are funded through FY07, 69 school projects will remain in poor condition and 115 will be in fair or good condition. The Facility Condition Index (FCI) is derived by dividing deferred maintenance by replacement cost and comparing that value to the range of values used to determine the condition: Good is less than or equal to .05; Fair is >.05 to <.10 and Poor is greater than or equal to .10.

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

Explanation: Besides the Department of Defense School system, the BIA school construction program is the only federal agency responsible for the management of an education facility program funded by the federal government.The school construction program furthers its efforts to avoid duplication by pursuing financial partnerships through Tribal cost sharing and joint funding efforts with states.

Evidence: State of New Mexico funding for Santa Fe Indian School. Tribal Cost Share - Muckleshoot Replacement School. Joint Powers Agreement between the Standing Rock School Board and the Fort Yates Public School District.

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

Explanation: The Bureau has implemented some major changes in the program since it was last PARTed. Appropriations language has been added that allows the Secretary to assume control of projects that were problematic or delayed due to poor administrative capability and capacity. The Bureau has developed a revised Education Space Criteria Handbook to clarify education space allowed for BIE-funded schools. Consequently, BIA eliminated a flaw in the program's efficiency, and schools are now appropriately sized to accommodate projected student population. However, while the program uses the best methods for costs projection available, its estimates fell short for projects funded from FY 2001 through 2007. The program still lacks the ability to quickly move funds from stalled projects to projects that could commence immediately. In addition, when emergency situations arise, such as a recent fire in one of the dorms, the program lacks the ability to readily shift funding from one project to another.

Evidence: The replacement school projects that were returned to BIA to manage are: Tuba City, Wide Ruins, Kayenta, and Beclabito. 43 CFR Part 12 & 25 CFR Part 900 (www.cfr.gov). BIA Report to Congress - Plan to Ensure the Integrity of School Construction Grants, May 1999. New Enrollment Projection - Sum of Least Squares Policy, January 5, 2004. 2005 Education Space Criteria Handbook. Example of Denial Letter for space expansion. Eighteen month appropriations language.

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

Explanation: The BIA awards contracts, compacts and grants for all of its construction projects. BIA encourages Tribes to perform the work in accordance with the BIA mission to promote self-determination. Before awards are made, BIA evaluates the management and financial capabilities of the Grantee. BIA's program is subject to needs-based prioritization. BIA uses an independent engineering firm to perform a cyclic inventory and backlog assessment on each facility. Based on this assessment, projects are prioritized and funding requested as a result of the ranking of the highest priority need projects using the FI&R Ranking Process. To ensure the right beneficiaries are being targeted, annual appropriations language specifically limits BIA's construction program to only those schools that existed in the Bureau system on September 1, 1996. No new schools or grades can be added.

Evidence: Department of the Interior - Bureau of Indian Affairs Fiscal Year 2007-2011 Five Year Deferred Maintenance and Construction Plan. FCI Ranking process. Summary of Procurement Types for OFMC School Construction, 2/24/07.

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: BIA has long term performance measures that meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program. BIA can now measure its performance on maintaining assets by using a Facility Condition Index to determine priority rankings for buildings in greatest need of repair and replacement and to assess the overall condition of its facilities.

Evidence: PART Long Term Goals Performance Summary. Indian Affairs Asset Management Plan (Draft), June 1, 2006.

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

Explanation: The OFMC construction program has ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures and has established baselines and cover a multi-year long-term period. In discussions with the Planning Office for the Albuquerque Public School (APS) system, APS has adopted implementation of a five year timeframe for planning, design and construction of schools meeting Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEEDs) requirements. In comparison, the BIA has a four year timeframe for similar projects, including LEEDs requirements, located in remote areas.

Evidence: See annual goals under the measures tab.

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: BIA has a limited number of annual performance measures that demonstrate progress toward achieving the programs long term goals.

Evidence: PART Annual Goals Performance Summary.

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

Explanation: The BIA construction program has ambitious targets and timeframes for its annual measures and baselines have been established.

Evidence: PART Worksheet and Congressional Budget Justifications

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 partners commit to and work toward the annual and long-term goals of the program as shown in the Project Management Plan. BIA/OFMC managers and program partners, PL 100-297 Grantees, PL 93-638 Contractors, Commercial Contractors, Tribal partners, and other Inter-Agency partners are committed to improving the condition of the schools because it means a healthier learning environment for the students. Partners support BIA's goal of completing comprehensive facilities condition assessments on a three-year cycle because the assessments provide the basis for priority setting for the funding of deferred maintenance in future FI&R projects. Terms and conditions for timely completion and cost controls are included in agreements between partners. Through standard PL 93-638 contract/PL 100-297 grant amendment/commercial contract language, BIA and its program partners commit to work toward, and are held contractually accountable for, project completion. Each contract or grant contains language relative to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) implementation and energy use reduction.

Evidence: Example of OFMC Project Management Plan and Partner (US Army Corps of Engineers) Project Management Plan. P.L. 100-297 Grant Clauses. P.L. 93-638 Contract Clauses. Example of Denial of School's Request to Keep Buildings Excess to Program's Need (Ch'oosh'gai.)

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: Due to the high visibility of this program since 2001, the Office of the Inspector General has performed at least one audit each year for the past several years. A 2003 report by the Inspector General found that BIA's student enrollment projection process generally produced inflated estimates which resulted in schools being planned, designed and constructed with excessive space, costing in excess of $110 million. A 2004 report by the IG found improvements were needed to ensure safety and program performance. The IG is also currently working on a facilities review of several schools. There has also been an independent contractor evaluation on the verification of studies used in planning and constructing BIA schools. BIA contracted with New West Technologies, LLC to independently review the proposed space guidelines, and analyze and provide a comparison of BIA school construction criteria to non-BIA schools. The study found BIA guidelines are now in line with other rural states. In addition, the program is subjected to an independent engineering firm's 3-year cyclic inventory encompassing one-third of its facilities each year. While the inventory does not specifically evaluate the program, its assessments are essential in determining the priority of repair and replacement of the facilities and are relied upon by OFMC management to determine current conditions and where to focus budget requests.

Evidence: IG Report 2003-I-0070, September 2003. IG Report W-FL-BIA-0047-2004, February 2004. Verification of Studies Used in Planning and Constructing BIA Schools, New West Technologies, LLC, June 2003.

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: The program has run into problems in recent years with its projected cost estimates. Problems ascertaining accurate cost estimates include factors such as remote locations, lack of infrastructure on the reservations, and differences between BIA and tribal estimates of the size of the new school.

Evidence: US DOI Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2007 BIA Monthly Construction Funding reports

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

Explanation: The BIA construction program has taken meaningful steps to improve weaknesses in its strategic plan. The 2003 IG report identified 6 audit findings; all of which have been resolved. A 2004 report by the IG identified 9 audit findings. To date, 8 have been resolved with the remaining finding resolved in the third quarter of 2007. BIA has also developed a 2007 BIA School Facilities Design Handbook which includes standardized space templates. The handbook is already in use on an interim basis for three projects and is pending approval during March 2007.

Evidence: New Enrollment Projection - Sum of Least Squares Policy, January 5, 2004. Response to IG Report 2003-I-0070, March, 2004. Response to IG Report W-FL-BIA-0047-2004, February 2004. 2007 BIA School Facilities Design Handbook cover sheet and examples of space templates.

Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals, and used the results to guide the resulting activity?

Explanation: BIA has established new policies for student enrollment projections, acceleration of school construction starts, and the use of facility improvement and new facility construction in lieu of total replacement of a school, where feasible. BIA has contracted with Project Management Institute (PMI) to make improvements in the overall management of projects. The PMI provides training, assists BIA/OFMC project managers in establishing Project Management Plans, and assists the Project Team Leader in establishing quality assurance plans. BIA has made improvements, including better construction project management scheduling and risk avoidance through increased training and use of the PMI best practices. When there is a long-term need to improve schools at a given location, BIA analyzes repair and improvement versus replacement by comparing the cost, schedule, and risk of various alternatives, which are identified in the Exhibit 300s Business Plan. BIA conducts meaningful, multiple levels of review prior to submission of a budget request.

Evidence: New Enrollment Projection - Sum of Least Squares Policy, January 5, 2004. BIA OFMC OIEP, Education Space Criteria Handbook, November 1, 2005. Project Management Institute Best Practices, Project Minicharter for Rough Rock. OMB Exhibit 300 Sample. Interagency Agreement No. AG2003K086 to review construction documents.

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: BIA/OFMC management meets with project management staff on a monthly basis to review project schedules, progress and budgets. Information obtained is compiled, generating a Construction Project Quarterly Status Report. The report is used by OFMC Management to monitor project progress, cost deviations and to manage projects as necessary to facilitate completing the school within the four year goal. In addition, the completion of construction projects reduces the FCI. Both of these are performance measures under PART and GPRA goals.When risks are identified, the data is used to develop corrective action plans, adjust program priorities, or take other appropriate management actions. The evaluation includes identifying internal and external influences that may affect the ability of BIA to achieve its program goals. In addition, this information is compiled into a monthly project status report for senior management review purposes. BIA obtains quarterly progress and financial status reports from the contractors and Grantees managing the projects. More frequent progress and financial status reports are obtained from Grantees identified as having a high risk status. In addition, BIA conducts monthly project status meetings with its Inter-Agency partner, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.BIA conducts periodic field inspections as staff resources permit. In addition, A-E firms are contracted to provide onsite day-to-day inspection to maintain quality control and ensure the project construction schedule is met in accordance with the contract requirements. Program Internal Control Reviews (of three regions per year) are conducted by BIA and include the construction program. This review provides regional facilities managers and their respective project managers with the information necessary to generate business process improvements for the national facilities construction program. A project assessment tool is used to identify project risks and assign responsibility for the required actions.

Evidence: Example of OFMC Project Management Plan and Partner (US Army Corps of Engineers) Project Management Plan. Project Management Institute Best Practices, Project Minicharter for Rough Rock. Construction Project Quarterly Status Report. US Army Corps of Engineers and BIA Summary of Cost and Project Status (Reconciliation) Sample. Office of Facilities, Environmental, and Cultural Resources Monthly Report (October 2006 - December 2006). OFMC Program Reviews.

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: BIA has incorporated performance measures in the critical elements of key BIA management staff to ensure goals are met. The Director of OFECR, the Deputy Director, OFMC and Construction Chief, Division of Program Planning for the construction program have critical elements and performance standards that relate to performance measures and target datesof GPRA/PART measures. Program partners are supposed to be held accountable for meeting the construction budget, schedules and performance requirements as established in the contract, grant or interagency agreement; however, BIA has slipped in both the timing and cost of various projects with no direct accountability to OFMC management. In BIA's commercial construction contracts, a liquidated damages clause requires the contractor to pay a pre-determined cost per day for each day of delay beyond the construction completion date. Similar provisions are included the construction contracts for P.L. 100-297 Grantees, P.L. 93-638 Contractors and OFMC's Federal partners.

Evidence: P.L. 100-297 Grant Clauses. P.L. 93-638 Contract Clauses See 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations, (www.cfr.gov). US DOI Employee Performance Appraisal Plan, November 2004. First Mesa Elementary School, LEED 2.1, USGBC Application Notebook, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED).

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

Explanation: BIA obligates funds in a timely manner and the funds are spent for the intended purpose. In FY 2006, BIA significantly improved its obligation rate. To assure program funds are spent for the intended purpose, program partners (PL 93-638 contractors and PL 100-297 grantees) undergo programmatic audits upon completion of each phase of a project. Using OMB Circular A-87 Cost Principals, disallowed or questioned costs are identified in audits and Bills of Collection are issued when warranted. The program and its partners have established schedules in accordance with their contract in order to accomplish the work and ensure completion of program goals. Payments for work accomplished are included in the contract requirements and are tracked in the program's financial system and reconciled on a monthly basis.

Evidence: BIA Education Construction Carry-Over Summary, FY 2003-FY 2006. CIP Reconciliation Summary Sample.

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 program has procedures to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness. All commercial FAR contracts and US Army Corps of Engineer Best Value contracts use competitive sealed bid construction procurement methods. Program partners are required to use either sealed bidding or competitive proposals, where justified. BIA and its partners use qualification-based selection of Architect-Engineering firms in accordance with Brooks Act provisions. Cost comparisons: Independent construction estimates are prepared by A-E firms during the planning, design and pre-construction phases of a project. Estimates are compared to budget and adjustments are made to stay within the established budgets.IT Improvements: BIA is migrating the Facilities Management Information System (FMIS) to a web-based system. Presently the internet is not available to manage the program. However, when BIA/OFMC is reconnected to the web-based system, improvement in timely communications, decision making, and data entry are expected. Appropriate Incentives: One program partner (Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, under a P.L. 93-638 contract) is using an incentive clause. A set incentive amount is included in the construction contract for early completion of the construction project.The requirements of BIA's customers necessitate unique procedures and standards for ensuring optimal efficiencies. The following guides, policies and procedures have been developed and distributed to meet those needs and ensure the efficient and effective execution of the construction program. (1) BIA School Facilities Design Handbook which is in use today on an interim basis and will be officially adopted in the 3rd Qtr FY2007. The most effective way of controlling cost is to use design standards and specifications or site adaptations of previously constructed schools. The design standards are created to meet operating and maintenance cost expectations as well. The construction market then determines the cost of construction. The efficient design results in the best value for the taxpayer. (2) Guidance for budget estimates using nationally accepted R.S. Means (an industry standard 60 year old cost data company) for cost estimating data. The data is adjusted for the specific project location (geographic indexing), size of project, building type, soil conditions and applicable Tribal and State taxes. Additionally, BIA uses historical cost data derived from recent bid openings as a cost comparison tool. (3) In a joint effort with BIE, OFMC developed the 2005 Education Space Criteria Handbook which replaces the 1995 Education Space Guidelines. This handbook provides guidance to A/E firms for the sizing of schools and dorms. (4) In 2006, in a joint effort with BIE, the BIA AMP was developed, outlining the process for effective capital planning by requiring improved long range planning and a disciplined budget development. This plan also provides management with the information it needs to identify federal assets that are excess to Bureau needs. Reduction of BIA's inventory results in reduced O&M costs and is identified as a performance measure. (5) BIA developed a Site Selection Handbook to ensure that the most viable and economical site is selected for school development. The measure selected reflects efforts to improve the timely issuance of contracts in an effort to reduce carryover by requiring that construction funds be obligated in the year of appropriation to encourage local school boards to complete the planning and design phases in a reasonable amount of time.

Evidence: OFMC Budget Estimate Policy for Construction Programs, November 5, 2002. BIA School Facilities Design Handbook, December 22, 2006. BIA OFMC OIEP Education Space Criteria Handbook, November 1, 2005. Indian Affairs Asset Management Plan (Draft), June 1, 2006. Handbook for New Facilities Site Selection, November 2002.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: BIA coordinates effectively with related programs, both internal and external. OFMC coordinated with BIE, local school boards, and public schools to develop its 2005 Education Space Criteria Handbook for school construction. In addition, BIA works with the National Indian School Board Association to convey program information and progress on projects. BIA coordinated with the Wyoming School Facilities Commission to obtain and discuss the Wyoming Facilities Design Guidelines. BIA uses this guideline as a comparison, especially for small rural schools.BIA collaborated with the New Mexico State School Facilities Authority during the State's development of its' Education Adequacy Standards. It should be recognized that the State adopted many of BIA's 1995 Education Space Guidelines.

Evidence: BIA OFMC OIEP, Education Space Criteria Handbook, November 1, 2005. The New Mexico Public School Facilities Adequacy Standards Planning Reference Guide, July 11, 2006. Wyoming Public Schools Facility Design Guidelines, Wyoming School Facilities Commission, July 2003.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: BIA has improved their financial management support program. Multiple levels of funds status review take place daily, monthly, and quarterly. Funds availability is certified by both the program manager and budget officer before any acquisition action is taken. Payments to Grantees are not made unless the required level of progress established in the grant agreements is reached, as certified by project management staff.The Audit Report for BIA for year end 2005 identified controls over Construction-in-Progress (CIP) as a material weakness. In FY 2006 BIA made significant progress to resolve weaknesses found in the CIP program. OFMC staff worked with the Office of Financial Management to revise the CIP Handbook to coincide with actual work processes. BIA staff realigned construction case files to meet CIP standards and reconcile individual projects. This effort resulted in elimination of the Material Weakness designation previously identified by the Departmen. A management letter in the FY 2006 audit showed major improvements from the FY 2005 audit.BIA has provided additional training to all project managers in order to identify real property asset ownership in a timely manner. BIA has enhanced its CIP policies and procedures to include quarterly summary reports. The construction program uses the Federal Finance System (FFS) which is a DOI-wide system. The FFS allows for the timely preparation of financial reports. It tracks funds to a level of expenditure adequate to establish that funds have not been used in violation of restrictions or prohibitions in applicable statutes. BIA's Facilities Management Information System (FMIS) interfaces with FFS data to provide financial and program management reports. The Integration of FFS and FMIS supports day to day operations and provides project management reports that permit decisions for effective program management. Controls are in place to ensure timely and accurate financial information.

Evidence: IG Report 2003-I-0070, September 2003. OFMC Capital Asset & CIP Process (Flowchart). Revised Construction-in-Progress (CIP) Handbook, June 14, 2006.

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

Explanation: BIA has corrected the findings and material weaknesses found in the CFO audit regarding the CIP Program.OFMC has developed an Internal Control Review Plan to evaluate its programs, one of which is the construction program. This Internal Review Plan captures the President's Management Agenda for improving key areas of management across the government. Program reviews are conducted at the regional and location level of the facility management operations under A-123 Internal Controls. All school facilities have completed two cycles of condition assessments. In FY 2007, the third cycle of 100% facilities condition assessments will be completed. In FY 2006, BIA contracted with the Project Management Institute (PMI) contractor to provide project management training and to develop project management tools unique to the school construction program. Tools and templates were developed for schedule monitoring, risk identification and resolution. BIA has made across-the-board improvements, including better construction project management through increased training, PMI best practices, Bureau wide condition assessments and the continued use of FCI performance measures.

Evidence: OIG Report 2003-I-0070, September 2003. Response to IG Report 2003-I-0070, March, 2004. Response to IG Report W-FL-BIA-0047-2004, February 2004. Management Controls Plan, FY07. PMI Project Analysis Tool for Project Management, 11-29-06.

Is the program managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?

Explanation: The program is having a difficult time with its cost estimates and schedule goals. Problems include remote locations, tribal disagreements on size and scope of projects, reluctance on the part of construction companies to take on tribal projects, and the lack of infrastructure such as roads and utilities. However, the program has taken steps to improve its performance in this area.

Evidence: OFMC Monthly Construction Reports

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

Explanation: BIA has made adequate progress to meet two long term goals.

Evidence: PART Long Term Performance Summary.

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

Explanation: BIA has made adequate progress in achieving its annual goals.

Evidence: PART Annual Goals Performance Summary.

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

Explanation: The program is having a difficult time meeting cost efficiences due to lack of competitive bidding on projects in some instances. Contractors are often relucant to take on tribal projects due to instability and changeover of leadership with some tribal councils. OFMC is working to eliminate the barriers to cost efficiencies including not requesting construction funding until planning and design work has been nearly completed. In addition, the program could benefit from having the ability to move funding from a stalled project to one that is capable of starting construction.

Evidence: OFMC Monthly Construction Report

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

Explanation: While the school construction program cannot be directly compared to other construction programs in the private sector, local, state or federal government, its performance compares favorably to other programs with similar purposes and goals. The intricacy and complexity of the program; applicable Federal and Tribal laws; functional requirements; mechanisms; stakeholders' interests; remoteness of projects; institutional sizes; myriad of complexities; and tribal sovereignty make any comparative analysis to private or other government entity invalid. BIA services are unique. In 2004, Baca Dlo'Ay Azhi Consolidated School project received LEED certification and it was also recognized as the 2006 Best Buildings Winner.

Evidence: New Mexico Public School Facilities Adequacy Standards Planning Reference Guide, July 11, 2006. Wyoming Public Schools Facility Design Guidelines, Wyoming School Facilities Commission, July 2003. BIA Recognized as an Industry Leader in DOI and State of New Mexico for LEED. 2006 New Mexico's Best Buildings Winner, Associated General Contractors and New Mexico Business Journal, Baca Dlo' Ay Azhi Consolidated Replacement School, Prewitt, NM, Energy Conscious Design.

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

Explanation: Independent evaluations have indicated that the program is effective and is achieving results. The September, 2003 OIG Audit Report made the following recommendations, all regarding student enrollment projections: 1. Recalculate the existing projections 2. Assign approval responsibility to the appropriate office 3. Implement procedures to verify data and methodology used for the projections 4. Require justification, documentation and approval for any exceptions 5. Clarify the planning and construction completion dates used to make the projections 6. Clarify the enrollment trends for setting the baseline for growth calculations. The findings in the OIG Audit Report of February, 2004 include: 1. Fully implement the "Plan to Ensure the Integrity of School Construction Grants" 2. Ensure BIA safety requirements are followed 3. Apply the Plan guidelines to projects constructed under P.L. 93-638 contracts and self-governance compacts 4. Adhere to Plan advance payment limitations 5. Implement a project tracking system 6. Maintain project-by-project funding records 7. Establish time frames for tribal consultations 8. Establish performance goals 9. Conduct workload analyses The BIA Chief Financial Officers Audits are performed by KPMG on an annual basis. The following are summaries of the Corrective Action Plan items regarding the CIP program: 1. Determine additional training needs 2. Develop procedure for timely transfer to PP&E for completed projects 3. Develop procedure for timely notification of ownership election changes. 4. Develop "Quick Hits" tool to monitor CIP projects

Evidence: Response to IG Report 2003-I-0070, March, 2004. Response to IG Report W-FL-BIA-0047-2004, February 2004. Corrective Action Plan for BIA Chief Financial Officers Audits.

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: Although the commitment is there, circumstances beyond the partner's control add additional time and costs to projects (e.g. delays in providing utilities to remote sites caused by tribal land clearance, delays caused by archaeological discovery on the construction site, environmental clearances, delays due to tribal approval of land leases and right-of-ways).

Evidence: PART Long Term Performance Summary. Proposed Long Term Goals Performance Summary (FI&R, LEED and Condition Assessments).