Jump to In This Section

Strategic Goal 12: Management and Organizational Excellence - Performance Results for Performance Goal 6

Share
FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report
Bureau of Resource Management
November 2005
Report

VII. Performance Results

 

PERFORMANCE GOAL 6

CUSTOMER-ORIENTED, INNOVATIVE DELIVERY OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND INFORMATION SERVICES,
ACQUISITIONS, AND ASSISTANCE

 

I/P #21: WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS


Indicator #1: Integrated Logistics Management System Development and Implementation
JUSTIFICATION (VALIDATION): The Integrated Logistics Management System (ILMS), when fully implemented across the supply chain, will provide an integrated and enhanced logistics information and e-business platform for Department customers, stakeholders, and partners.
FY 2005
Performance		 Target ILMS fully integrated with the Department's financial system and fully operational domestically.
Conduct overseas pilot at up to five posts.
Results
  1. ILMS Asset Management 88% deployed in FY 2005, with full domestic deployment completed by December 2005.
  2. ILMS Transportation piloted in FY 2005, with full deployment to take place in the second quarter of FY 2006.
  3. ILMS Ariba piloted in Consulate General Frankfurt and European Logistical Support Office; Diplomatic Pouch and Mail overseas pilot/deployment in Pretoria, Tunis, Buenos Aires, Florida Regional Center and Miami Courier Hub.
  4. ILMS fully integrated with the Central Financial Management System.
Rating Below Target
Impact Extension of ILMS deployment process.
Reason for Shortfall ILMS Asset Management deployment was delayed to meet customers' requests for alternate deployment dates. No problems were encountered in the deployment. A program management decision was made to change the deployment strategy for ILMS Transportation to deploy in a pilot mode prior to full roll-out in order to minimize program risk. ILMS Transportation Pilot deployment was successfully accomplished in May 2005.
Steps to Improve Rigorous design reviews and testing procedures are in place to ensure full deployment of transportation will occur on schedule.
Performance Data Data Source ILMS Program Management Plan and Earned Value Management System.
Data Quality
(Verification)		 The performance data are accurate and complete. Data from posts are reviewed and verified on site; other data are verified by program supervisors in Washington, D.C.
Past
Performance		 2004
  1. ILMS requisitioning/procurement module deployed to all bureaus domestically with two overseas pilots.
  2. ILMS distribution module deployed to domestic warehouses.
  3. ILMS asset management deployed for motor vehicle and Worldwide Property Accountability System inventory and piloted in two domestic bureaus.
  4. ILMS fully certified and accredited.
  5. ILMS Diplomatic Pouch and Mail module piloted at one overseas post.
2003
  1. ILMS procurement module operational in four domestic bureaus (fully integrated with the Department's Central Financial Management System) and one overseas regional procurement facility.
  2. ILMS Asset Management module piloted at one overseas post.
  3. ILMS Diplomatic Pouch and Mail module fully deployed and operational at both the unclassified and classified pouch facilities.
2002 Design/development 50% complete; deployment strategy complete; initial implementation of diplomatic pouch and mail bar-code tracking system.

 

Indicator #2: Percentage of Service Contract Dollars that are Performance-Based
JUSTIFICATION (VALIDATION): Performance-based contracting is intended to provide more effective, innovative and efficient use of Department of State resources.
FY 2005
Performance		 Target

Forty percent performance-based service contract dollars

(Revised. See Appendix for details).

Results The Department has not yet compiled enough data to establish the percentage of performance-based service contracts that were awarded in FY 2005. Results will be included in a Performance-Based Service Acquisition (PBSA) report to OMB that is due on January 31, 2006. Preliminary partial results, along with ad hoc knowledge of awards, indicate that the Department will probably remain below target.
Rating Below Target
Impact The Department of State is missing opportunities to place more performance risk on our contractors through performance-based goals.
Reason for Shortfall
  1. Data integrity - we suspect the PBSA percentage is low partially because of errors in coding. Additional data analysis and validation is required to confirm this suspicion (see comments under Data Quality).
  2. Effective transition to performance-based contracting requires significant change to current business practices.
Steps to Improve
  1. Validate 2005 data in GSA's Federal Procurement Data System - Next Generation (FPDS-NG). If data validation indicates data entry is a problem, offer additional training on FPDS-NG data input.
  2. Target training and oversight for those bureaus with PBSA shortfalls. Develop a more effective training program for contracting officers and provide training, outreach and oversight for bureaus and offices in order to move the Department toward OMB goals.
Performance Data Data Source The statistical information provided for this indicator is based upon manual evaluation and manipulation of raw data from GSA's Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation, which is the government-wide automated repository for procurement related information.
Data Quality
(Verification)		 Data quality of information coming from FPDS-NG is suspect government-wide. In Letter Report GAO-05-964R, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) expressed concerns regarding the timeliness and accuracy of data from FPDS-NG. GAO also identified the ease of use and access to data from the FPDS-NG system exacerbating the data integrity concerns.
Past
Performance		 2004 15%
2003 8% of the Department's service contract dollars were performance-based, against a goal of 30%.
2002 Baseline: 16% of service contract dollars were performance-based, against a goal of 20%.

 

Photo showing Secretary Rice being accompanied by Sudan's Foreign Minister, Dr. Mustafa Osman Ismail, left, and a Diplomatic Security special agent upon her arrival at Khartoum airport, July 2005.

Secretary Rice is accompanied by Sudan's Foreign Minister, Dr. Mustafa Osman Ismail, left, and a Diplomatic Security special agent upon her arrival at Khartoum airport, July 2005.AP/Wide World Photo

 

I/P #22: OVERSEAS SCHOOLS ACCREDITATION


Indicator #3: Accreditation of Overseas Schools
JUSTIFICATION (VALIDATION): The increase of accredited schools is an indication that our promotion of accreditation through grants to accrediting agencies and direct assistance to the schools is having a positive effect.
FY 2005
Performance		 Target A total of 175 accredited schools out of approximately 187.
Results 175 schools are accredited out of 191 (the number of Department-assisted overseas schools rose since the FY 2005 target was established).
Rating On Target
Impact The increase in accredited schools means that more U.S. Government dependents are able to avail themselves of a quality education, which is an important factor in mission morale and quality of life.
Performance Data Data Source U.S. Accrediting Agencies.
Data Quality
(Verification)		 The results come to us from the U.S. regional Accrediting Agencies, which are the organizations that accredit the schools. Our confidence level in the reliability and completeness of the performance data is high.
Past
Performance		 2004 A total of 172 accredited schools.
2003 A total of 165 accredited schools.
2002 A total of 155 accredited schools.
2001 Baseline: A total of 148 accredited schools.

 

I/P #23: RECORDS AND PUBLISHING SERVICES


Indicator #4: Freedom of Information Act Backlog Reduction
JUSTIFICATION (VALIDATION): "Cases closed" is universally recognized throughout the Government, by the GAO, the Congress, the lead agency (DOJ), and the courts as the appropriate measurement for the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) program.
FY 2005
Performance		 Target Limit operating backlog to no more than 20 percent of new requests.
Results In FY 2005, the operating backlog increased slightly to 22 percent.
Rating Below Target
Impact Over the past few years, the Office of Information Programs and Services (IPS) achieved an historic decrease in the backlog through training, homegrown technology, and process improvement. In FY 2005, IPS held the line at 22 percent despite a double-digit increase in FOIA requests. IPS is seeking innovative ways to further improve processes and cut workload. However, an honest assessment of the trend in requests, competing priorities, and projected funding suggests the backlog will increase in FY 2006.
Reason for Shortfall
  1. Increase in number of new FOIA cases, attributable to the availability of electronic submission of FOIA requests.
  2. Reduction to the FOIA reviewer workforce due to reallocation of resources to special projects and to E.O. 12958.
Steps to Improve
  1. Reengineering workforce to align with current case processing requirements.
  2. Instituting performance measurements and benchmarking procedures.
Performance Data Data Source FREEDOMS (Freedom of Information Document Management System).
Data Quality
(Verification)		 Results are based on reports that are reliable, consistent, and complete. Reports are generated from FREEDOMS, which tracks all case opening, processing, and closing.
Past
Performance		 2004 More than 11,500 requests have been completed, representing a closure rate of 85% of all FOIA and Privacy Act requests. The Department has reduced the overall backlog from 6,214 to fewer than 2,000 cases, and reduced the median processing time by 65%.
2003 Achieved a fifty percent reduction as of the end of FY 2003.
2002 Baseline: Achieved a twenty-percent reduction in the FY 2001 backlog of 6,214 FOIA requests.

 

I/P #24: ALLOWANCES


Indicator #5: Status of E-Allowances System
JUSTIFICATION (VALIDATION): This indicator is intended to track the progress of replacing paper submissions to Washington with an automated process, workload, and timeliness benefits. The current Allowances system requires that posts abroad provide data manually (paper copies) to the Office of Allowances in Washington for processing. The information is entered into the Department's computer system and calculations of the appropriate allowance are made for use by U.S. Government civilian agencies with employees posted or on temporary duty abroad. The current process is very time consuming and labor-intensive process and can add several days to the processing of a complicated allowances questionnaire.
FY 2005
Performance		 Target Development of Phase One (Per Diem module). (Revised target. See Appendix).
Results System development of Phase One was completed in FY 2005. The Phase One system is currently in the Certification and Accreditation process and expected to be deployed in November 2005.
Rating On Target
Impact Lessons learned from Phase One are being incorporated into the approach and schedule development for Phase Two, with additional cycles of independent verification and validation to reduce the number of defects.
Performance Data Data Source Office of Allowances. Performance metrics identified in OMB 300.
Data Quality
(Verification)		 The performance metric for Phase One is appropriate. The analysis of the project's performance provided in September 2005 is accurate.
Past
Performance		 2004 On September 30, 2004, the project successfully completed the milestone to provide the Critical Design Review for the per diem module (Phase I) of the eAllowances Project. The system was being coded, with Phase I on schedule for planned May 2005 completion and planned July 2005 deployment.
2003 Customer Focus Team Meeting held and Alternative Analysis, Systems Requirements Specs, and Per Diem BPR completed. User requirements completed. OMB Exhibit 300 developed.
2002 Baseline: User requirement identification underway.

 

I/P #25: COMPETITIVE SOURCING


Indicator #6: Competitive Sourcing
JUSTIFICATION (VALIDATION): This program conducts public/private competitions from commercial functions to determine best provider.
FY 2005
Performance		 Target Complete agreed-upon competitions; complete 85% of full A-76 cost comparisons within 18 months of official announcement; all commercial activities exempt from competition have OMB-approved justifications. (Revised. See Appendix for details).
Results 100% (four) of agreed upon streamlined competitions have been completed within OMB approved timeframe of 90 days. Three standard competitions were announced. 100% of commercial activities exempt from competition have OMB approved justifications.
Rating On Target
Impact Competitive Sourcing provides the accountability needed to ensure that operational cost efficiencies and performance improvements are achieved.
Performance Data Data Source Office of the Procurement Executive and Acquisition Management records.
Data Quality
(Verification)		 The Department conducts extensive project planning and critically monitors milestones to ensure timeframes are met.
Past
Performance		 2004 100% (five) streamlined competitions completed within 90 days. No standard competitions announced.
2003 Streamlined competition was held for warehousing. Preliminary planning was initiated for first standard competition. Competitive Sourcing infrastructure created to include: an office of competitive sourcing; training; business case process.
2002 Baseline: No standard competitions were held. OMB approved competition plan.

 

< Go to Previous Page        Go to Next Page >