Performance Metric: Eliminate inadequate family housing by 2007

FY2003

FY2004

Metric Number of inadequate family housing units

ActualR

169,071

FY 1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 Projected Projected Actual Actual Target/Actual Performance Performance 182,246 170,314 NA/143,608 111,584

87,825

* Navy did not collect this data for FY1999 and prior years; therefore this figure represents only the Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force data.

Targets or Projected Performance are not established for the Percentage of total family housing units. Interim targets have not been established because housing privatization negotiations often change the scope of projects, making targets impractical.

Metric Description. The Secretary of Defense has established a goal to eliminate all inadequate family housing by the end of FY2007. Each Military Service has developed a Family Housing Master Plan that outlines the approach it will follow to achieve this long-term goal. These plans identify the program requirements, by year, to eliminate inadequate family housing by FY2007. Inadequate housing, in general, is any unit that requires a major repair, component upgrade, component replacement, or total upgrade. Each Service has evaluated its housing and identified inadequate units. Each Service has then developed a plan to eliminate this inadequate housing through a combination of traditional military construction, operations and maintenance support, and privatization.

V&V Method. Information was gathered directly from the Military Departments and supported in their Family Housing Master Plans, which are submitted annually to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment). These master plans provide detailed information, by installation, on the Service's ability to achieve the 2007 family housing goal. Performance Results for FY2002. The Department reduced inadequate family housing by 27,000 units through revitalization, demolition, and privatization. Interim targets have not been established because housing privatization negotiations often change the scope of projects, making targets impractical. Further, the housing privatization process takes over a year to complete, and during this time, varying economic conditions and financial arrangements between prospective contractors and their financial lenders can change. This would cancel a project and return inadequate inventory to the fiscal year, thereby skewing targets.

Performance Metric: Reduce Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) acquisition cycle time (months)

Note: All previous metric submissions were based on September Selected Acquisition Reports (SAR). This metric now uses the December SAR.

The December SAR, which reflects the President's budget, is used for calculating acquisition cycle time. Because the current administration did not include a Future Years Defense Program in the submission of the President's budget for FY2002, there were no December SARS.

Metric Description. Acquisition cycle time is the elapsed time, in months, from program initiation—when the Department makes a commitment to develop and produce a weapon system-until the system attains initial operational capability (IOC). This metric measures the average cycle time across all Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs). During the 1960s, a typical acquisition took 7 years (84 months) to complete. By 1996, a similar acquisition required 11 years (132 months) from program start to IOC. To reverse this trend, DoD established an objective to reduce the average acquisition cycle time for MDAPs started since 1992 to less than 99 months, a reduction of 25%. We achieved that initial objective. We did so through rapid acquisition with demonstrated technology, time-phased requirements and evolutionary development, and integrated test and evaluation. To continue that improvement, the Department will seek to reduce the average cycle time to less than 66 months for all MDAPS started after FY2001. To achieve that objective, the Department is introducing improvements to development and production schedules similar to those it initiated for managing system performance and cost. Rapid development and fielding of weapon systems--leveraging new technologies faster-will enable U.S. forces to stay ahead of potential adversaries.

V&V Method. The key measure for this objective is the average elapsed time from program start to IOC, measured in months. Average acquisition cycle time is computed using schedule estimates from Selected Acquisition Reports (SARS). The Department also monitors MDAPs through the Defense Acquisition Executive Summary reporting system and the Defense Acquisition Board review process. In FY1998, the Department began to evaluate cycle times of new MDAPs (as well as schedule changes for ongoing programs) during its annual program and budgeting process. There are 42 MDAPs in the post-FY1992 calculation of the FY2001 actual.

Performance Results for FY2002. The Department saw a minor increase in average acquisition cycle time for FY2002. Several programs were examined and then restructured with improved cost and schedule estimates. Although only a few programs have been restructured, the extensions have affected the average acquisition cycle time. The averaging nature of this measure means that dramatic improvements would be required in individual programs during FY2003 to reduce the average.

Performance Metric: Reduce Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) annual rate of acquisition cost growth (percentage)

*The December Selected Acquisition Report (SAR), which reflects the President's budget, is used for calculating acquisition cost growth. Because the current administration did not include a FYDP in the submission of the President's Budget for FY2002, there were no December SARS. Thus, the FY2001 actual reflects acquisition cost growth for a two-year period (FY2000 and FY2001).

Metric Description. Acquisition cost growth measures the difference between the acquisition costs in the current-year's President's budget and the previous-year's budget, divided by the acquisition costs for the previous-year's budget, expressed as a percentage. The population is all Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) common to both current-year and previous-year budgets. A dollar-weighted average is calculated for the common MDAPs and adjusted for changes in quantity or inflation. Acquisition cost growth can occur for various reasons, including technical risk, schedule slips, programmatic changes, or overly optimistic cost estimates. Our reform initiatives seek to reduce cost growth from all sources, providing an output target for procurement managers of individual systems, as well as for the aggregate procurement programs of the individual Services. The objective is to be on a downward trend by the end of FY2003 toward an ultimate goal of no acquisition cost growth. Managerial responses are expected to include both specific cost-control initiatives and process changes.

V&V Method. Data on acquisition cost growth for MDAPs are collected from Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs), which are published by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. SARS and the underlying data, which are maintained in the Consolidated Acquisition Reporting System (CARS), are used to veriFY and validate the measured values. There are no known SAR data deficiencies. The December SAR, which reflects the next President's budget, is used for calculating cost growth for the previous fiscal year. If annual acquisition cost growth does not decrease, the SARS provide data useful in isolating specific causes. The DoD interim guidance on the defense acquisition system requires SARS to be submitted for MDAPs.

Performance Results for FY2002. The FY2002 actual of 7.4% (based on preliminary FY2004 budget data) meets the FY2002 target of a downward trend toward no cost growth. The actual performance results for FY2003 will not be available until release of the December 2003 SAR in April 2004.

Performance Metric: Reduce Customer wait time (days)

Metric Description. Customer Wait Time (CWT) measures the elapsed time from order to receipt when a customer orders an item of material. The customer's order may be filled from assets on hand at the customer's military installation or naval vessel, or through the DoD wholesale logistics system. For purposes of this Enterprise Level Metric, CWT includes orders for spare and repair parts ordered by organizational maintenance activities. CWT captured for orders considered below enterprise level are maintained by each of the Military Services and the Defense Logistics Agency.

V&V Method. Data on transaction volume and order-receipt times are collected monthly from various Military Service systems. The Military Services roll the inputs from their respective systems into a single Service report in spreadsheet format that they submit to the Defense Automatic Addressing System (DAAS). DAAS then calculates a weighted average (based on the relative volume of transactions) for the entire DoD, which is the figure reported above. All Military Service inputs are based on an agreed-upon set of business rules. This methodology helps to ensure consistent treatment of data and valid comparisons across DoD Components.

Performance Results for FY2002. Reporting of CWT began in FY2001. The DoD set a reduction target of one day per year for FY2002, FY2003, and FY2004 from the baseline of FY2001 actual data. FY2002 actual of 16 days exceeded the target of 17 days.