Analyzing Funding for Usace

¶ … USACE program funding, compliant with Federal Continuity Directive 1. It will also address processes required for continuing the business continuity plan for the Nation's Survivability and Critical Infrastructure. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) identifies itself with the following mission: to offer critical services in the public engineering area, during times of war and peace, for strengthening America's security, mitigating disaster risks, and energizing the nation's economy (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -- The United States Army).

Via its Regulatory Program, the USACE oversees and implements CWA (Clean Water Act), Section 404, and the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act's (RHA), Section 10. The latter forbids unsanctioned alteration or obstruction of any of America's navigable waters, unless one possesses a USACE permit. The term 'navigable American waters' refers to all waters subject to the tide's rise and fall, which have been in use earlier, or are currently used, or might potentially be used in future, for the transportation of foreign or interstate commerce (Guidance for Submittals to the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers by Council Of Government Offices). The former Act (CWA Section 404) empowers the Army Secretary acting via the Chief Engineer to supply permits, following warnings and public hearing opportunities, for discharging fill or dredged matter into American waters at specific disposal spots (See 33 CFR Part 323.) American waters are inclusive of, though not restricted to, all of the nation's Navigable Waters, wetlands, and tributaries that lie adjacent to these waters.

The Army Corps is a major engineering force comprising of well-organized individuals who work with partner units via disciplined action and thought for delivering sustainable, innovative solutions to America's engineering challenges. A crucial means to carrying out this mission of the USACE is via funding. A firm executes a sound continuity program using relevant procedures and plans; a sound continuity Test, Training, and Exercise (TT&E) initiative; and the functional capacity to back these procedures and plans.

Institution of procedural and planning goals and requirements, as well as metric use for ensuring that a key function does not pause in the course of continuity activation (in view of the priority and criticality of that key function) constitutes a critical component in the development of a holistic continuity plan.

For the Army Corps to receive ongoing funding for its program, the following is required (Federal Continuity Directive 1 Federal Executive Branch National Continuity Program and Requirements): Establishments need to come up with, and record, their continuity plans, together with relevant procedures such that, when it is executed, the procedures and the plan allow uninterrupted performance of the essential functions of the organization, under all kinds of circumstances. They also need to allow integration with non-governmental and other Governmental organizations, as applicable.

The head of the organization (for instance, its Director, Administrator, Secretary, etc.) or some designee needs to ratify the plan (evidenced by his/her signature on the document), and recommend any important addendums or updates. The organizations should review and update the plan on an annual basis, in case changes occur. Review data and names of staff members involved in the review process needs to be documented.

The continuity procedures and plan should: Deal with important continuity elements, namely, essential functions, authority delegation, succession orders, continuity communications, continuity facilities, human resources, essential records, Test, Training, and Exercise, reconstitution, and devolution, in addition to requirements linked to individual elements as observed in a given FCD (Flood Control District).

Take care of supporting continuity elements: program procedures and plans, budgeting/acquisition, risk management, and implementation and phases of operation, in addition to the requirements linked to individual elements as observed in a particular FCD; Focus on the four continuity phases: (1) preparedness and readiness, (2) continuity operations, (3) activation, (4) reconstitution; Make a process available for ascertaining organizational readiness and for making decisions with regard to related actions, for increasing its readiness position.

Offer a methodology or process for guaranteeing plan implementation Develop and maintain suitable relocation instructions and procedures with regard to relocation of members of the Emergency Relocation Group (ERG) members to alternative sites Create and maintain proper instructions and procedures on devolving roles to DERG (Devolution Emergency Response Group) members at devolution site Outline responsibility transition to deployed personnel of the DERG or ERG; Come up with a process to achieve operational capabilities at every continuity facility in the minimum acceptable time period for disruption of essential functions Provide a methodology or process for making sure sustained operations will be able to continue until resumption of normal operations, or up to a month.

Determine and institute procedures for ensuring key resources, records and facilities are protected, accessible, and available for backing continuity operations. Institutions should integrate continuity prerequisites into everyday operations to for guaranteeing immediate and smooth continuance of their essential functions.

All non-headquarters' organizational units (such as subcomponents, field and regional offices) have to submit the documents listed below, every year, to their headquarters, through proper reporting channels, for providing visibility on the continuity attempts at every organizational level: Certificate of continuity plan maintenance (with date and signature included on the document) by the office/unit, by the head of the company or some designated authority Certification of participation by the office/unit in a yearly practice of moving continuity workers to some alternative site, by the head of the company or some designated authority (the certificate must include date of implementation of the latest exercise) Organizational headquarters need to document continuity plan date, signature of authority, and data of latest continuity exercise, not only for its divisions but for the headquarters as well Organizational headquarters also need to hand in RRS (Readiness Reporting System) reports on a monthly basis.

Requirements in Human Capital Strategic Plan of 2017 Human capital's life cycle constitutes a changing process. Understanding the fact that this cycle does not stop is essential. Individual stages of the life cycle are described below. This is followed by program/initiative examples (USACE Human Capital Strategic Plan 2012-2017): Plan: Planning for human capital must be constantly performed, for meeting changing requirements and shaping the Army Corps' future workforce in carrying out diverse and challenging tasks: Succession Planning, Organizational Design, Workforce Planning.

Recruit: Employees must be recruited based on how well they 'fit' into the job requirements. Also, many organizations vie for talent, and the organization must ensure it emerges victorious in this 'talent war': Hiring Reform, Corporate Recruitment, Intern Programs, Career Programs, and Company of Choice. Develop: Employees must be developed and shaped for changing missions. USACE can do this by offering its workforce enrichment opportunities: Leadership Development Initiative, Individual Development Programs, Leadership Assessment, Learning Center, Civilian Educational System, Developmental Assignments and Competency Management.

Sustain: USACE must ensure retention of valuable employees and avoid losing them, by recognizing the contributions made by employees: Personnel Engagement, Personnel Value Proposition, Worklife Programs (like wellness and telework), Family Readiness and Recognition of Employee Achievements. Four primary goals related to human capital have been identified for meeting the changing needs of the Army Corps and its employees. These goals were formulated on the basis of a lifecycle model for organizational human capital, key personnel engagement drivers, and the existing and expected external and internal environments.

Progress towards the attainment of the above goals will guarantee USACE's advancement on the road to emerging as recruits' organization of choice (USACE Human Capital Strategic Plan 2012-2017): Human Capital Goal 1: Determination of present and future skills requirements; Outlining of the cause underlying gaps in organizational competency and; Having effective solutions in place for bridging those chasms. End State: Personnel possess required competencies described in specific terms. These are exhibited through superior workforce performance.

Human Capital Goal 2: Carrying out adaptable and agile planning for human capital, responsive to evolving personnel needs and mission requirements. End State: Creation of a dynamic and flexible talent pool capable of quickly and timely delivery of required competencies, as ordained by the requirements of the mission. Human Capital Goal 3: Preparation of next-gen leaders and equipping them to cope with future transformational challenges. End State: Development of a group of self-aware, agile, and adaptive leaders, who establish challenging expectations and achieve results even in the face of adversity.

Human Capital Goal 4: Cultivation of a diverse, motivated, engaged, and empowered workforce in the challenging modern-day environment, whilst ensuring equality and accountability. End State: Establishment of a collaborative Army Corps culture that is propelled by innovation. Another outcome would be establishment of sound leadership that inspires personnel commitment to accomplishing missions successfully.

The organization will continue promoting human capital programs by means of routine stakeholder meetings, the HR Practice Community, and performance of reviews during CMR (Command Management Reviews), CSR (Command Strategic Reviews) and DMR (Directorate Management Reviews), for ensuring the Army Corps is heading along the right path (USACE Human Capital Strategic Plan 2012-2017). Maintaining open communication lines and making corrections to course, with changing USACE needs, is imperative.

For ensuring accomplishment of human capital aims and targets outlined in the plan, a yearly implementation plan capable of identifying specific requirements needed for accomplishing the aforementioned aims and targets will be formulated.

The following elements will be included in the implementation plan: Primary actions necessary for objectives achievement Main deliverables for individual actions Metrics or measures for determination of action efficiency Requisite resources, like personnel, time, and finance Legal Basis for Continuity of Operations and Relationship with FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) The USACE's Continuity of Operations (COOP) program confirms the existence of the capacity for continuing MEFs (mission essential functions) across the entire range of emergencies.

It readies Army corporations for all contingencies capable of interrupting routine operations of the organization (U.S. Army Continuity of Operations Program Policy and Planning). COOP supports the Defense Secretary, the President, Army Department Organizations, Defense Department divisions, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS). Development of flexible COOP procedures and plans for every likely event is now an Army custom.

The Army's plans for operation continuity will be general plans, and will take into consideration procedures, capabilities, and connectivity that would offer Army leaders and organizations the ability of ensuring MEFs remain functional in all-hazard zones, with minimal disruption, in the course of events, until restoration of normal operations is complete (U.S. Army Continuity of Operations Program Policy and Planning). At the very least, COOP procedures and plans should do the following (U.S.

Army Continuity of Operations Program Policy and Planning ): (1) Back the COOP strategies of higher headquarter organizations and supported entities, as appropriate. (2) Provide implementation capabilities, during non-duty and duty hours, without or with warning. (3) Offer responsiveness and flexibility for anticipating any crises or emergencies that cause interruptions in MEF. (4) Have a decision-making process in place to ascertain suitable actions for COOP plan implementation. (5) Isolate and prioritize mission-essential functions whose implementation is crucial in times of emergencies.

(6) Recognize organizational MEFs capable of being deferred without any bearing on the core mission of the unit, until their implementation is permitted by the scenario. Deferred MEF prioritization will be employed. (7) Isolate, prepare, protect, and maintain/retain key employees and facilities needed for supporting continuity programs. (8) Ascertain key resources, databases, files, and telecommunication equipment (SIPRNET (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network) connections, secure laptops, telephones, telephone equipment, and encryption devices) as well as ensure appropriate security classifications at COOP sites.

(9) Identify, exercise, and train ERG staff and every member of the continuity unit at least once a year. (10) Ensure MEF performance capacity; provide the base for rebuilding; and support command devolution and emergency authority allocation. (11) At the very least, provide ERG workforce notifications and alerts, and establish alert, notification, and advisory procedures. (12) Make provisions for employee accountability all through the course of the crisis/emergency. (13) Make provisions for operational capability attainment (the ability of completing every unit MEF) within a period of twelve hours.

(14) Have reliable procedures and processes in place for acquisition of resources vital to MEF and operational continuance for at least a month. (15) Set up shelter-in-place capabilities for essential workers. (16) Set up shelter-in-place capabilities for nonessential employees. (17) Set up and maintain database replication and MEF application procedures. (18) The plan must include names of individuals tasked with validating requirements and handling requests of subordinate/individual units to buy key items before, during, or in the aftermath of COOP events. It must also incorporate relevant procedures for accomplishing the above.

When it comes to levees, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Army Corps are given different responsibilities and roles. The former takes care of levee-related mapping and issues of floodplain management, accrediting levees that meet National Flood Insurance Program requirements. The latter agency takes care of a variety of maintenance and operations, risk management, risk reduction, and risk communication issues, as required by the Levee Safety Program (Headquarters U.S. Army Corps of Engineers > Missions > Civil Works > Levee Safety Program > USACE/FEMA/Community Partnership).

Based on levee structure, USACE and FEMA might have to work with the community and levee sponsor separately or -- if both the agency programs are overlapped by the levee system -- jointly. In both cases, similar long-term aims are identified: risk reduction and alleviating the devastating outcomes of floods. A few Army Corps and FEMA partnership activities with regard to levees are listed below (Headquarters U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers > Missions > Civil Works > Levee Safety Program > USACE/FEMA/Community Partnership): Levee-related information sharing Joint conferences with stakeholders, including levee sponsors Levee information integration into U.S. Levee Database Dedicated task force for improving program alignment Silver Jackets units in states Another example may be explained as follows. USACE personnel were some of the first emergency workers to reach the scene of the Oklahoma tornado of May 2013.

Army Corps Emergency Support Function 3 (ESF3) members were sent to the disaster-struck site mere hours after devastating tornadoes sped across numerous areas of Oklahoma, with the greatest damage experienced by Moore, El Reno, and Shawnee. Army Corps' ESF3 unit is organized outside of the Corps' headquarters at FEMA's request, in situations of disaster, when the debris and destruction are severe enough that assistance is needed in debris management by the National Response Framework (Goodeyon, 2013).

ESF3 aids local governmental authorities in the development of debris removal agreements, and assists with environmental matters, under FEMA's Region 6 disaster response. Colonel Michael Teague -- Tulsa's District Commander -- declared state emergency at the disaster's onset. The Emergency Operations Center was activated to operate day-and-night. ESF3 was at the ready to offer help in all ways needed. USACE FISCAL BUDGET The 2016 presidential budget aims at bringing bourgeois economics to the present age.

The budget reveals what the nation will be able to do if investments are made into its future, and a commitment is made towards an economy characterized by generation of increasing incomes, rewards for hard work, and sharing of the nation's prosperity by all citizens (President's Fiscal 2016 Budget for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works released). This budget encompasses 4.732 billion dollars in the form of gross discretionary financing for USACE's Civil Works initiative.

Funding for the current financial year would be allocated among appropriations accounts in the following way (President's Fiscal 2016 Budget for U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works released): 2.710 billion dollars towards Maintenance and Operations 1.172 billion dollars towards Construction 225 million dollars towards the Mississippi River & Tributaries (MR&T) 205 million dollars towards Regulatory Program 180 million dollars towards Expenses 104 million dollars towards FUSRAP (Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program) 97 million dollars towards Investigations 34 million dollars towards Coastal Emergencies and Flood Control 5 million dollars towards ASA (CW) (i.e., Assistant Army Secretary (Civil Works)) This year's budget encompasses 1.947 billion dollars towards the analysis, planning, building, maintenance, and operation of coastal and inland navigation ventures.

The budget provides funds for capital inland waterway investments on the basis of projected revenues to Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF). It also gives precedence to inland waterways and coastal harbors having maximum commercial traffic, aside from funding harbors that promote substantial commercial fishing, public transportation, or subsistence (President's Fiscal 2016 Budget for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works released). Moreover, the Budget finances the completion of as many as thirteen researches and designs. Of these, two projects are in their PED (Preconstruction Engineering and Design) stages.

The Investigations program for this financial year is, in general, allocated 107 million dollars, with 10 million dollars set aside from the MR&T account, for funding investigations to ascertain the engineering feasibility, need, and environmental, social and economic returns of likely solutions to land and water resource issues. The Presidential Budget for the next fiscal year (i.e., 2017) will include 4.620 billion dollars in the form of gross discretionary funds for USACE Civil Works.

Fresh federal backing in the area of Civil Works comprises of about 3.59 billion dollars (General Account), 951 million dollars (Harbor Maintenance Trust Account), 45 million dollars (Special Recreation User Charges), and 34 million dollars (IWTF). Funding for the next financial year would be allocated among appropriations accounts in the following way (President's Fiscal 2017 Budget for U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works released): 2.705 billion dollars towards Maintenance and Operations 1.09 billion dollars towards Construction 222 million dollars towards MR&T 200 million dollars towards Regulatory Program 180 million dollars towards Expenses 103 million dollars towards FUSRAP 85 million dollars towards Investigations 30 million dollars towards Coastal Emergencies and Flood Control 5 million dollars towards ASA (CW) (i.e., Assistant Army Secretary (Civil Works)) Next year's budget is projected to finance recreation at about 267 million dollars, with roughly 255 million dollars in the Maintenance and Operations fund, and twelve million dollars in MR&T.

USACE is America's leading provider of national-level recreational opportunities; annual visits to USACE water and lands amount to 370 million visits. The Regulatory Program has been allocated 200 million dollars in funds for 2017; it aims at bringing about improvements in protection of America's wetlands and waters, whilst offering increased efficiency in the processing of permits.

The FUSRAP program has been allocated 103 million dollars in funds for the next year, to continue its remediation efforts at twenty sites that were contaminated by early national attempts at atomic weapons development (PR Newswire: President's Fiscal 2017 Budget for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works released).

Given the Army Corps' role in community recovery and response after the occurrence of natural disasters, as well as the inevitability of future disasters, the 2017 budget includes 35 million dollars to Emergency Management, with thirty million dollars as Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE) funds for training and preparedness to respond effectively to natural disasters like floods and hurricanes, and five million dollars to the Maintenance and Operations account.

Through collaboration with non-federal, federal, local and state partners, the Army Corps completed its 2015 study -- the North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study -- a report which led to the development of a universal framework for risk management of coastal storms. This framework identified a series of natural, non-structural, structural, programmatic and nature-based measures for flood risk management and promotion of resilience for the U.S. coastline ranging between New Hampshire and Virginia (roughly 31,000 miles).

The Presidential budget for the financial year 2017 allocates funds to 6 out of 9 Focus Areas that the aforementioned Comprehensive Study identified. These are: New Jersey (NJ) -New York (NY) Tributaries and Harbor, NJ and NY; Norfolk City, Virginia; Back Bays of New Jersey; Back Bays of Nassau County, NY; Washington D.C.; and Delaware Bay Coast and Inland Bays, Delaware (PR Newswire:President's Fiscal 2017 Budget for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works released).

The above-mentioned areas were chosen on the basis of local sponsors' willingness to share the costs of additional investigation efforts. The 2017 budget allocates 375 million dollars to restoration of aquatic ecosystem; of this, 336 million dollars is financed from Construction; 19 million dollars from Investigations, and 20 million dollars from Maintenance and Operations. The endeavor supports restorations of aquatic habitats to more natural and less degraded condition within ecosystems wherein ecosystem processes, structure, and function have been damaged.

The Budget prioritizes the following aquatic ecosystems: California Bay-Delta, the Everglades, Chesapeake Bay, Gulf Coast, and the Great Lakes. Columbia River ecosystem projects are also financed, as are priority works in the Missouri and Upper Mississippi rivers. Specific Changes Needed The Emergency Support Function 3 (ESF3) has been organized for providing engineering-related and public works support for evolving requirements of U.S. incident management; it includes preparedness, recovery, and response actions.

Some of the activities that lie within this function's scope are: performance of pre- and post- event evaluations of infrastructure and public works; implementation of emergency contract assistance for life-sustaining and life-saving services; provision of technical aid to include construction management, real estate and contracting services, and engineering expertise; provision of emergency repairs to damaged critical facilities and public infrastructure; and implementation and management of FEMA/Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Public Assistance recovery initiative, among others (Emergency Support Function #3 -- Public Works and Engineering Annex).

The Department of Defense (DOD) / Army Corps unit is tasked with ESF3 mission execution. The Army Corps' Divisional Commander can assign a Forward Commander of the Division to perform his resource management responsibilities, in order for efficient and effective execution of recovery and response missions. In case of missions that require considerable personnel, DOD/USACE can obtain a DHS/FEMA mission assignment for the establishment of field offices for supporting mission execution.

Between the financial years 2006 and 2008, the Army Corps was presented with bid protests in case of three solicitations for contract continuance with the fresh clause. Bid protests might be filed if any interested parties or bidders have cause to believe a given contract was or will be awarded illegally or improperly, or, if they feel they have been unjustly denied any contract or the chance to contest for one. One organization protested three bid solicitations which would have bestowed contracts through the novel clause.

In all instances, the protest was withdrawn after the USACE restructured its work statement, published an amendment for removal of the problematic clause from solicitations, and went on with awarding the contract using a different financing mechanism (e.g., a wholly-sponsored contract, instead of a continuing one).

The firm expressly filed its first protests with 3 districts -- New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco -- that released solicitations using the novel clause (ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Recent Changes Have Reduced the Use of Continuing Contracts, but Management Processes Need to Be Improved). While many grounds for its bid protests were cited by the firm, the main issue, which often used identical language, was that the Army Corps incorporated its new clause into solicitations.

If ongoing funding is required, changes ought to be made to ensure such a type of strategy will never be considered again. The Army Corps identified an important need for the Department of Veteran Affairs to bring about a transformative evolution in its organizational process for successfully controlling its costs and scheduling growth, within the context of a key construction venture. Veteran Affairs is in agreement with this opinion, and has published new policy identifying the responsibilities and roles for developing requirements, needs, and controlling plans and construction activities (Gibson, 2014).

It chief priority with regard to the Denver mission is: completing the facility with no additional delays, and doing so whilst delivering as much value.