National Academies Press: OpenBook

Management of the military facilities procurement program. Final report (1971)

Chapter: The Long-range Construction Program

« Previous: Master Planning
Suggested Citation:"The Long-range Construction Program." National Research Council. 1971. Management of the military facilities procurement program. Final report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/28198.
×
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"The Long-range Construction Program." National Research Council. 1971. Management of the military facilities procurement program. Final report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/28198.
×
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"The Long-range Construction Program." National Research Council. 1971. Management of the military facilities procurement program. Final report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/28198.
×
Page 7

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

2 3 2 The Long-Range Construction Program The most needed facility requirements defined by the installation master plan (comprehensive plan) constitute the elements of the long-range (5-year) military facilities procurement program The requirements deemed most urgent in the five-year program constitute the elements of the annual military facilities procurement program The planning process for the annual program i s , therefore, a contmuoiis evaluation of the relative urgency of the facility requirements of one installation versus those of another and of one military Department versus those of another This evaluation is made on the basis of the importance of the mission assigned to the installation and the need for the requested facilities to accomplish that mission One of the most important improvements that could be made in the planning process would be the establishment of a project evalua- tion system based on standard criteria to siq)port the subjective judgments involved and required These standard criteria could provide for the rating of the mission prescribed for the instal- lation on a scale that reinges from nonperformance of the mission, through reduced scope, to total mission performance 2 3 2 1 Establishment of Standard Criteria for Project Evaluation - Presently, the military Departments establish the priority of projects at each level of planning and review Projects are ordered within functional categories (operational and training faci l i t ies , maintenance and production faci l i t ies , supply faci l i t ies , etc ) in accordance with the best judgment of the commander as to the need and urgency of need for the facility The instal- lation commander does his planning using this procedure and then passes his plan forward to the next higher echelon of command where the ranking process is repeated for the several bases reporting to that echelon This priority ranking is repeated at each echelon until the total program is formulated for each military Department At the Office of the Secretary of Defense level, programs of the three Services then must be integrated with other Department of Defense programs and overall priorities established under budget guidance The commanders at each echelon charged with the review and priority ranking of projects do use criteria These criteria, however, relate to the absolute state of the installation (e g , 2,000 troops and 1,000 barracks spaces) rather than to the relative state of his installation (e g , to meet the required mission, the installation miist be provided an additional 1,000 barrack spaces, i f not, the reduction in mission scope will be to a level of 1,000 troops) Each commander, then, must develop his arguments 46

for each project by taking his absolute conditions and evaluating them in lig^t of the objectives he must meet These are then presented at each echelon of command where they are viewed m light of similar, but not standard, arguments from other commanders seeking the same construction funds, until the program is reviewed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense where the arguments of the three Services are even less similar Projects do not relate to each other, installations do not relate to each other, and -Services-do not relate to eadT other, except that during the priority ranking process, a final argument for the urgency of need for one project outweighs the arguments presented for another This process, of course, is necessary, but is time consuming It would seem desirable to have standard criteria for the quantitative aspects of the arguments, so that when a question of need for a given facility arises during the planning and review cycle, the question can be related to the criteria and not back to the source of the project The criteria also could form the basis for distingiushing between the merits of one project over another and between the merits of the projects of one installation over those of another Ihe procedure of establishing standard scales for assessing the quantitative aspects of requirements to meet objectives is not new to the military Departments They presently employ a system which relates the military readiness of one unit to another in terms of their quantitative parameters (personnel, weapons, training, etc ) The standard criteria based on these parameters relate to the ability of a unit to meet certain specified objectives The degree to which the unit meets the objectives is a function of the degree to which i t can meet the standard criteria The degree to which the objective is crit ical determines the urgency of the need to meet the requirements stated by the unit A similar system is possible for facilities The degree to which an installation can meet its mission is a function of many quantifiable aspects related to its facilities The degree to which the mission is critical to the Department of Defense relates to the priority of responding to the requirements of the installation The establishment of such a system for military installations could have far-reaching and cost-beneficial impact on the planning process Considerable time could be saved in the development of the rationale for each facility required The urgency of need could be determined from the objective or mission of the installation based on the standard criteria Time would be saved m the presentation and review of these arguments since most facility requirements would be developed 47

under the same set of criteria Finally, a standard evaluation tool would be available to enable long-range planners to examine alternative military construction pro- grams m terms of cost to meet stated objectives The standard criteria developed, however, should be used only as a planning aid during the development of the five-year construction program and not as a substitute for siobjective judgment This program represents a balance between the facilities requirements expressed in installation master plans (comprehensive plans) and anticipated funding Since both requirements and funding are subject to frequent change, re- evaluations are frequently necessary The standard criteria would reduce the effort required for evaluating the impact of such changes Use of the standard criteria also could be made m the development of the annual military facilities procurement program The following chart, for example, indicates the budgeting fluctuations for Fiscal Year 1970 Navy military facilities procurement program Each time a change in the budget guidance occurred, a reevaluation of the construction program was required Projects had to be withdrawn, some- times reintroduced, other times postponed entirely Use of standard criteria would permit a faster and more effective response to such fluctuations Date (Millions of $)* Remarks 8/15/69 500 Navy Level 9/3/69 310 OSD Changes 2/2/70 323 5 Presidential Budget Message 3/70 339 1 Executive Budget Change Decision 10/26/70 293 4** Public Law 91-511 (Authorization Act) 12/11/70 307 1** Public Law 91-544 (Appropriation Act) Therefore, i t has been recommended that the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations and Logistics) coordinate the development of standard criteria for relating facility requirements to installation mission performance or prepared- ness These criteria should be used in the priority ordering of facilities now performed as part of the development of the five-year construction program, and as part of the planning and programming of the annual military facilities procurement program * ** Does not include family housing or reserve forces construction Appropriation exceeds authorization to fund prior year authorizations 48

Next: Annual Planning and Funding »
Management of the military facilities procurement program. Final report Get This Book
×
 Management of the military facilities procurement program. Final report
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!