By Geoff Fein
The Navy is in the midst of planning its Program Objective Memorandum (POM) for fiscal years 2012 to 2017, focusing on total ownership cost (TOC) and overhead reduction.
According to a Nov. 9 memo from Vice Chief of Naval Operations (VCNO) Adm. Jonathan Greenert, “POM 12 development will occur in four phases tied to specific deliverables…and will be provided to OPNAV N80 (programming division) for integration.”
Those phases are: Strategy and Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution.
Among the tasks outlined in Greenert’s memo are an assessment of:
- Military, civilian and contractor manpower requirements, metrics and cost;
- Navy’s energy requirements; and
- Capability gaps and overmatches and the impact on current Navy programs.
Additionally, the memo noted that the Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding and aviation plans will be submitted to the VCNO by Feb. 26, 2010.
The Navy’s POM 12 will be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) in July ’10, according to the memo.
A separate 10-page planning order lays out the groundwork for the Navy’s POM 12 effort. Specific guidance points out that resource sponsors will not propose any force structure reductions below the President’s Budget (PB) ’11 levels in the sponsor program proposals (SPP).
And because of the budget environment there are two specific efficiency focus areas in building POM 12: Total Ownership Cost and Overhead Reduction.
“Sponsors will include a section in their SPP identifying TOC impacts to major changes to program,” according to the guidance. “Sponsors in collaboration with OPNAV N1 (chief of naval personnel) will conduct a thorough analysis of the overhead costs with their area of responsibility and initiate action to reduce overhead over the FYDP.”
Those reduction can include “converting contractors to civilian personnel, competing previously sole-source contracts, consolidation and reduction of redundant organization,” according to the guidance.
Each resource sponsor will also develop an energy strategy that will identify compliance requirements and cost as well as Secretary of the Navy and CNO requirements and cost beyond regulatory compliance, as well as potential cost avoidance and/or savings.
The guidance also called for N091 (science and technology resource sponsor) to provide how future naval capabilities and other science and technology investment will transition into capabilities to address specific weaknesses presented in program assessments.
The chief of naval personnel will also examine the total work associated with the civilian and contractor component based on force commanders and provider domain demand signals, according to the guidance.
“Propose supported options for eliminating work and corresponding manpower across the total Navy workforce. Working with USFF (U.S. Fleet Forces Command), force commanders, providers and resource sponsors, identify alternative strategies to ensure work is being performed for the best value.”
The guidance also called on N1 to provide status of manpower requirements for all irregular warfare initiatives, including language, regional expertise and culture initiatives.
The new director of information dominance (N2/N6), will need to define requirements for support to U.S. Cyber Command and U.S. 10th Fleet in accordance with the CNO’s information dominance initiatives.
The director will also “provide recommendations and resource a fiscally balanced plan to reduce the Navy’s information and information infrastructure risk, exploit adversary vulnerabilities and employ discrete non-kinetic capabilities when required,” according to the guidance.
N2/N6 will additionally provide priorities and fund programs that address the most critical cyber threats and missions, the document said.
N2/N6 will also define the Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) program including sustaining MDA Spiral 1 and delivering future capabilities and define and detail the specific programs across the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP), according to the guidance.
N2/N6 will also present a plan that properly resources the Next Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN) and reduce legacy networks, systems and applications; present a plan that funds the Consolidated Afloat Network Enterprise Services (CANES), and other command, control, computer, communication and intelligence (C4I) afloat systems.
Deputy CNO (DCNO) N3/N5, in support of DCNO for fleet readiness and logistics (N4), will provide recommendations on the appropriate levels of readiness to support the Fleet Response Plan (FRP) Operational Availability (Ao) requirements for combatant commander needs, no later than Dec. 15, 2009, according to the guidance.
N3/N5 will also “clearly define requirements across carrier strike groups, expeditionary strike groups, surface ships, submarine and expeditionary readiness levels. They will also assess operational/strategic impact across the range of options for changes to the FRP Ao. Support DCNO N4’s effort to identify risks to cost fluctuations in optimizing readiness requirements,” the document added.
“In coordination with USFF, OPNAV N81 (assessment division), and maritime component commanders, define the priority activities, desired effects, desired force presence and recommended resources required to execute the Theater Security Cooperation Engagement Plan to include Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Response, capacity/capability building, and the development of MDA partnerships. Coordinate with DCNO N4 to capture potential resourcing implications of changes to expected operational tempo (OPTEMPO),” according to the guidance.
DCNO N4 in collaboration with N1, N8F (warfare integration and assessment division), and N86 (director, surface warfare division) provide the strategy and funding plan addressing the Littoral Combat Ship mission module and DDG-1000 off-ship/shore infrastructure, crewing, maintenance, training and support philosophies, according to the guidance.
OPNAV N8F will coordinate with N81 and N3/N5 to integrate programmatic aspects of sponsor change proposals during warfighting capability plan development. N8F will also provide a snapshot of the Navy program during the Integrated Program Assessment to highlight capacity or capability shortfalls in Irregular Warfare, as well as associated risk, the document said.