1 / 7

Joint Basing Impact to Navy

UNCLASSIFIED. Joint Basing Impact to Navy. W. RICK McKUTCHIN CNIC, HQ N80 Regional Support Joaella Lane, NDW JUNE 2010. UNCLASSIFIED. Released on 7 May 2010 by VADM Vitale. Joint Basing (JB) Impact - BLUF. BRAC 2005 includes 12 JB sites – 7 involve Navy installations

omer
Télécharger la présentation

Joint Basing Impact to Navy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UNCLASSIFIED Joint Basing Impact to Navy W. RICK McKUTCHIN CNIC, HQ N80 Regional Support Joaella Lane, NDW JUNE 2010 UNCLASSIFIED Released on 7 May 2010 by VADM Vitale

  2. Joint Basing (JB) Impact - BLUF • BRAC 2005 includes 12 JB sites – 7 involve Navy installations • Navy designated as “Lead” at 4 sites • Overall Navy Impact • Net gain of 2,745 bldgs (17.8M SF valued at $8.3B) • Net gain of 1,559 civilian employees • Net gain of $265M in work requirements; $20.7M unfunded (see below) • OSD mandated COLS for JBs higher than Navy COLs • OSD directed that JBs be “fully funded” to meet OSD COLS • $20.7M/yr above program-of-record required meet COLS (Navy share) • 5 to 8% increase over program-of-record • FMB directed CNIC to absorb shortfalls in FY10/11 & readdress in POM-12 • OSD requires Joint Bases to report quarterly performance on COLS • Performance against 274 COLS assessed using the Cost and Performance Visibility Framework (CPVF) tool • Joint Bases must report COLS performance data quarterly and financial data annually

  3. CNR MID-ATLANTIC • NAVAIRENGSTA Lakehurst • JEB Little Creek/Ft Story, VA • CNR NDW • Anacostia /Bolling AFB • NAF Wash./Andrews AFB CNIC JB Region Overview • CNR HAWAII • Pearl Harbor – Hickam • CJR MARIANAS • Guam – Andersen AFB • Navy as Supporting Command is the BOS Provider (e.g. Host) • Navy as Supported Command receives BOS Services (e.g. Tenant)

  4. Joint Basing Impact to Navy * MILPERS performing installation management (IM) do not “transfer”; they become embedded IM workforce 3/10/2014 6:38 PM 4

  5. Navy Challenges • Breaking the Regionalization model for Navy Installations • PSD Model different from other services • Financial Management models different (region vice installation) • NSPS Conversions • NMCI conversion with Navy CAC cards

  6. Future of Joint Basing • Up front costs to implement with potential future savings • Cost savings anticipated not realized to date • Efficiencies should be realized over time as contracts are combined, work force in “overhead” functions are optimized and right-sized • Transparency and uniformity of base operating support.

  7. JB - Summary • Joint Basing = a priority for DUSD(I&E) • Stepping stone to CDIS (Common Delivery of Installation Support) and joint installation management • Additional Navy BOS FY10/11 Impact: +$20M • FMB: CNIC must absorb in FY10/11, readdress in POM 12 • We have to make adjustments as JB’s are different • JBs “immune” from Service - directed budget cuts or efficiencies • Joint Bases must report COLS performance data quarterly and financial data annually • No Joint Base is standard – each unique with Service ‘equities’ 3/10/2014 6:38 PM 7

More Related