Strategic

1
Strategic Global Planning ProgramExpanding
Our Suite of Products Services

• Federal Planning Division
• APA Philadelphia 2007

2
Planning - Emergency Management Cycle

• Preparedness Step 1
• Starts with Long-Range Comprehensive Planning
• Global Shore Infrastructure Planning (GSIP) is
  our latest Planning Product Service designed to
  support the Navys current future Readiness.

Emergency Management Cycle
3
Evolution of Navy Infrastructure Planning
Electronic Master Plans

• Regional Shore
• Infrastructure Planning

Strategic Planning NAV2030

• Installation Master Capital
• Improvements Planning

Global Shore Infrastructure Planning
2000s
1990s
1970s
2007 Navy Enterprises
1997 - Claimant Consolidation
Planning Initiatives
2006 2007 PWD Integration
2004 2006 NAVFAC Transformation
Organizational Initiatives
2004 Commander Navy Installations
1998 2004 Regionalization
4
Evolving Navy Organization Navy Enterprise
Matrix Construct

• Warfighter Enterprises
• Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE)
• Single Process Owner CNAF
• Naval Surface Warfare Enterprise (SWE)
• Single Process Owner CNSF
• Naval Undersea Enterprise (USE)
• Single Process Owner CSF
• Naval Expeditionary Combat Enterprise (NECC)
• Single Process Owner NECC
• Naval NETWAR/ FORCEnet Enterprise (NNFE)
• Single Process Owner NETWARCOM

• Providers/ Enablers
• Manpower, Personnel, Training Education (MPTE)
  - Lead N1/ NT
• Acquisition, Technical Authority Logistics
  (ATL) - - Lead Senior SYSCOM Commander
• Installations Management - Lead CNIC
• Health Care - Lead Surgeon General
• Science and Technology - Lead ONR

5
The Navy Enterprise Construct
6
Evolving Navy Organization Navy Enterprise
Governance
CNO
Navy ExComm
NE BoD
Strategic Guidance and Fiscal Decisions
Navy Enterprise
RDA
VCNO
N8/ FMC
CFFC/CPF
Ops/ Readiness Direction and Integrated
Rqmts Prioritization
FRE ExComm
All Forces Ready for Tasking
FRE BoD
FleetReadiness Enterprise

OPNAV N8/4/1
TYCOMs
ExComm
Integrated Processes and Readiness Execution
BoD
Warfare Enterprises
Units Ready for Tasking

Providers
Resource Sponsors
7
Evolving Navy Organization Navy Enterprise
Governance
8
Challenges

• Operationalize CNO vision of the future for the
  Navy
• Translate Vision into action in the most cost
  effective manner
• Maintain constancy of purpose
• Institutionalize the translation process
• Create Analytical Building Blocks
• Develop a Process Not just a Product
• Build Organizational Ties
• Coordinate Synchronize the planning (cycles)
  efforts of the TYCOMS, SYSCOMS OPNAV
• Capitalize on the Time Value of Planning
• Provide decision-makers full view of costs
• Elevate Operational Risk vs. Infrastructure
  Stability Tradeoffs
• Planning to reflect greater DoD/Navy Trends
• CNO encouraging greater interaction and
  synchronization of like missioned organizations
  with his Navy Enterprise Construct
• CNO encouraging greater interaction between Navy
  and other DoD Components and Allied Partners
  (Joint Focus).

9
Filling the Void

• Past practice did not provide an Operational link
  between Strategic Guidance and Tactical
  Infrastructure Planning/Execution.
• Investment Plans were principally built from the
  bottom up.

10
Time Value of Planning
Opportunities to achieve Cost-Wise Readiness
Require Early Involvement of both Warfighter
Provider Enterprises

• Successes (ILS)
• DD(X)
• N863 avoided 18M costs by reassessing ammo crane
  requirements
• CVN 78
• Influenced Final Hull Design to insure
  compatibility with exiting Tugs. Saved 2M/CVN
  Port
• MMA/JSF/E-2D/LHA(R)
• Launched CNRSW Study to confirm increased power
  requirements for all platforms

Time
11
GSIP - New Product to meet challenge

• Objectives
• Provide a Long-Term Plan (25 Yrs)
• Take Comprehensive Regional (world-wide) view
• Frame both issues and solutions globally
• Warfighters identify capability gaps and to
  degree to which infrastructure can overcome them
  to increase Readiness
• Providers identify alternative means of
  financing required infrastructure
• Methods
• Capabilities Analysis
• Alternatives Analysis
• (Non-Infrastructure Options Financing/Investment
  Strategies)
• Impact Analysis
• (Impact to Readiness of no investment or delayed
  investment)
• Outputs
• Status of Capabilities
• Programming Profile
• Recommended Actions
• Outcomes

12
GSIP Analytical Processes

• Methods
• Capabilities Analysis (FYDP)
• Operational Capabilities Requirement
• Assessment of supporting infrastructure to meet
  said requirement
• Gap/Excess of supporting infrastructure
• Gap in Capability
• Alternatives Analysis (FYDP)
• Alternative Solutions to Capability Gaps (e.g.
  Logistic/Schedule Changes, Land Use
  Configuration, Strategic Changes)
• Alternative financing methods/opportunities to
  needed infrastructure requirements (e.g. EUL,
  MCON, SRM
• Impact Analysis (Track over 20yrs)
• Impact to Readiness if infrastructure investment
  is provided/not provided over time
• (Not impact to condition of infrastructure per
  se)

13
GSIP Analysis Process Phase I
Drivers
Assumptions
Recom. Solution
Alternative Solution
Evaluate/ Prioritize
CAPABILITY ANALYSIS
Time Frame
1. _______ 2. _______ 1. _______ 2. _______ 3.
_______ 1. _______ 1. _______ 2. _______ 1.
_______ 2. _______ 3. _______
PRIORITIZE CAPABILITY Critical--Important--Preferr
ed
SUBFOR GSIP Global Issues Priority Capabilities
Facility Solutions Further Studies
100pt 4 130pt 3 200pt 1 170pt 2 75pt 5
1 3 1 2 2
Capabilities Reqd.
CAPABILITY GAPS
Installation
Current Capabilities (Assets)
Must Have
Critical
Capabilities
Should Have
Important
Guiding Principles
Want to Have
Preferred
0
Requires Solution
Priority Ranking
CAPABILITY EXCESSES
Working Group 1
Working Group 2 Sept 06
14
Translating Vision into Evaluation Criteria
Assumptions/ Evaluation Criteria
Capability Gap Analysis (Phase I)
NAV2030 GPs
SUB-GSIP GPs

• Installations and support functions are
  relationally and geographically aligned with
  Fleet Operations to enable surge, sustainment,
  and reconstitution. (RIGHT PLACES)

• Submarine training facilities are located in all
  submarine homeports to support tactical,
  operator, crew proficiency and communications
  training requirements.
• Infrastructure provides for future
  systems/platforms and their connectivity
  requirements.
• Effective/efficient maintenance infrastructure
  without sacrificing Ao
• (RIGHT BASES)

• Utilize 2020 force structure laydown
• 52 SSN, 14 SSBN, 4 SSGN
• 60/40 SSN PAC/LANT Per QDR
• Berthing Criteria
• Berths for 70 homeport SSN
• Berths for 67 homeport SSBN (include dry dock as
  a berth)
• Berths for 50 homeport SSGN
• Berths for 100 appropriate transient
• Nest for peak loading, surge and interim loading
• Provide minimum 50 of required adequate
  berths (condition rating) at each homeport
• (RIGHT CAPABILITIES)

• Measures the gaps or excess in infrastructure
  required to support a functional/operational
  capability.

• Amplifies NAV2030 GPs with SUBFOR Operational
  Requirements

• Translate NAV2030 Strategic Guidance into
  Planning Assumption and Evaluation Criteria.
• Informs capabilities gap analysis

• High Level Guidance to for infrastructure planning

15
Base Year Capability Evaluation
New London
Kings Bay
Point Loma
Pearl Harbor
Norfolk
Bremerton
Bangor
Guam

• Potential opportunities to consolidate facilities
  or achieve other efficiencies.

16
Planning Programming Profile
FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14
FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20
MILCON
Other Actions
Special Project
Follow-on Study
17
Impact Analysis Capabilities
Base Year 5
Base Year 10
Critical
Critical
ACTION
ACTION
Current Base Year
Important
Important
Critical
Important
Critical
Critical
PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS
NO ACTION
NO ACTION
Important
Important

• ACCOUNT FOR PROGRAMMING PROFILE
• RE-ASSESS PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS

18
Continuing Challenge Next Step

• How to Translate Infrastructure Investment
  Requirements back to Operational Capabilities How
  to keep plans and planning actions connected
  throughout the planning cycle.
• How to measure the contribution of infrastructure
  to Readiness (Fleet, Fighter Family)
• How to keep apace with the Organizational Change

19
GSIP Analysis Process Phase IIDecision Support
Impact Analysis
Planning Programming (FY)
Critical
Critical
ACTION
ACTION
Base Year
Important
Important
Critical
Iterative Process
Important
Critical
Critical
NO ACTION
NO ACTION
Important
Important
20
Completing the Cycle
21
GSIP Governance

• Purpose
• SIP Program is evolving to support the Fleet
  Readiness Warfare Enterprise construct and we
  are seeking your counsel to help shape the GSIP
  process and deliverables to provide the greatest
  possible positive impact on Future Capability
  Operational Readiness.
• Governance Board Proposal
• Responsibilities
• Define Desired GSIP Deliverables.
• Help set policies and provide advice on
  procedures for GSIP production
• Ensure GSIPs support Investment decisions
• Adjudicate Competing Resource Requirements and
  Planning Priorities (Economic vs. Operational
  Tradeoffs)
• Set Funding Levels
• Composition
• Core (FFC, CPF, CNIC, N81, N46, DASN ISA)
• Participants (NAVSEA, NAVAIR, NAVSUP, SPAWAR,
  NAVFAC, Enterprise Providers).

22
FY07 Efforts

• Fleet Readiness Enterprise
• Roll-up, de-conflicted investment Program for
  supporting infrastructure for Warfighter
  Enterprises.
• Warfighter Enterprise
• SWE
• NAE
• NECE
• NNFE Two phases
• Required Capabilities Definition COOPS
  Baseline Infrastructure
• GSIP Analysis
• Enabler Enterprise
• Supply
• MTPE

• Project Execution
• Single Contractor with Multi-Discipline Team and
  Wide Geographic Coverage
• Scoping Meetings with Stakeholders to start
  socialization and set project boundaries
• Site Visits to assess functional operations and
  fill infrastructure data gaps
• Visioning session with stakeholders to codify a
  single CONOPS and Guiding Principles to
  prioritize critical Operational Capability
  Requirements
• Report documenting the Process, Analysis,
  Findings Recommendations (incl. Capability Gap
  Assessment, Recommended Alternative Actions,
  Infrastructure Investment Profile .

23
GSIP Development Process - Current
1 Mo
2 Mo
3 Mo
2 Mo
1 Mo
2 Mo
1 Mo
Enterprise Brief
Data
Contract Effort
Capability Analysis

• Existing Facilities Data
• Current Studies
• Current Issues
• Current strategic thinking
• Leverage Installation Planners

• Infrastructure Impact
• Recommendations
• Time phasing
• Cost
• Capability gaps/excesses across time

• Define Future Infrastructure Needs
• Establish Capability Evaluation Criteria
• Identify Critical Capabilities
• Identify Gaps/Surplus

Ops Issues
Draft REPORT

• Current Ops
• Future Ops
• Global Issues
• Local Issues
• Action Officers
• Questionnaire
• Targeted Site Visits

Stakeholder Buy-in
Workshop (s)
Review Pre-Final REPORT
Alternatives Impact Analysis

• CNIC/NavFac HQ
• CFFC
• Enterprise/Enabler Action Officer
• N8/81 Rep
• NavFac Ech 3s
• Scoping Sessions
• Boundaries of the Plan

• Validate data
• Refine global installation issues
• Validate Capability Gap Analysis
• Validate the Vision Guiding Principles

• Identify Alternative Solutions
• Determine Feasibility for Non-Infrastructure
  Alternatives
• Prioritize Alternatives
• Time Phase Actions
• Develop Baseline Programming
• Time Phased Programming versus Capabilities
  Profile

Document a Vision Guiding Principles
Final REPORT

• Existing Strategic Plans
• Interviews
• Future time sensitive issues
• Op Plans
• If ... Then approach
• Visioning session required????
• Draft Guiding Principles

Workshop (s)

• Review Recommendations

1 Month
9 Months
11 Months
12 Months
6 Months
8 Months
3 Months
24
GSIPs begin at NAV 2030

• NAV 2030
• Provide a framework for installation
  assessment for BRAC 2005 analysis
• Provide Long-Range Perspective (25 Years)
• Set forth a strategy to better integrate ashore
  and afloat operations communities.
• Provide a Vision for Future Base Configuration
  that accommodates integrates market best
  practices.

• NAV 2035
• Build on the NAV2030 framework
• Installations an extension of Warfighting
  Platform
• Operationalizing Shore Infrastructure
• Family Readiness (geographic stability)
• Enterprise Focus
• Surge Requirements
• Joint Focus

25
GSIP - Purposes

• Near-Term
• Validate Warfighter Enabler Capability
  Requirements
• Identify alternatives to infrastructure
  investment
• Inform POM-10 Infrastructure Investment Decisions
  (Dec 07)
• Long-Term
• Critical step towards Operationalizing NAV2030
• Influence Ashore Planning Programming Decisions
• Expose High-Cost Engineering Solutions
• Elevate Trade-off Decisions between Operational
  Risk Infrastructure Stability to Higher
  Authority

26
GSIP Whats it Contain?

• Objectives
• Assumptions
• Planning Guidance Drivers
• Documented Vision
• Guiding Principles
• Capability Gap/Excess Analysis
• Recommendations (Alternatives, Studies, etc)
• Impact Analysis
• Planning Programming Profile (Across Time)
• Criteria for future reviews (When does the plan
  need to be revisited?)

27
SUBASE New London Capability Overview

• WATERFRONT BERTHING
• Excess capacity/ inadequate condition
• Port Ops Study funded for FY07
• MAINTENANCE
• Aging shops scattered/ poorly designed for modern
  ops
• GOCO Dry dock is damaged and no longer required
• TRAINING FACILITIES
• Potential for more efficient use of space and
  consolidation
• ORDNANCE HANDLING
• Adequate, but ESQD arcs encumber maintenance
  operations on Lower Base. Secretarial
  Certification governs.

Training/QOL
Shop area
No longer available
28
SUBASE New London Capability AnalysisWaterfront
Berthing

• CAPABILITY ANALYSIS
• GAP WATERFRONT BERTHING assets do not provide
  adequate berths for minimum (50) homeport sub
  load.
• EXCESS Total of 17 SSN capable berths provide 6
  more berths than requirement. However, most are
  physically inadequate (width, electrical,
  structural). Pier 2 is used for visiting surface
  vessels and small craft.
• FINDINGS 2 new adequate berths needed to meet
  minimum sub requirement. 5 additional new berths
  needed to satisfy overall BFR of 11 berths.
• Anticipate 1-2 VA Class Subs at NL any given time
  for Post Shakedown Availability
• RECOMMENDED ACTION(S)
• Construct new Pier 31 to meet minimum berthing
  requirement.
• GSIP guidance as input for Port Ops RSIP in FY07
  (funded).
• Construct new piers as determined by RSIP.

New Pier 6 (P-463)
Piers 4 13 demolished
29
SUBFOR GSIP Findings

• Overall SUBFOR infrastructure capability supports
  mission requirements
• Berthing and maintenance capability gaps have
  most significant negative impact on Ao
• Given the projected loading, NBK at Bangor is the
  priority location for
• investment
• GSIP Analysis provides overarching guidance for
  FY07 Port Ops RSIPs currently under execution in
  ML and SW Regions
• Other Findings
• PRV in iNFADS as calculated using DoD UFC3-701-06
  ( 30 Mar 06) is in some cases orders of magnitude
  off from actual costs for waterfront SRM.
  Infrastructure Support capability for Port Op
  functions and projected required investment for
  the Programming Profile had to be adjusted using
  a different cost estimating model.

30
SUBFOR GSIP Limitations

• About SUBFOR GSIP
• Evolved throughout the process.
• Initially a limited scope that concentrated on
  infrastructure requirements for SUBFOR Port
  Operations.
• Primary Objective was not seen as a Programmatic
  decision-support document.
• More of a world-wide functional shore
  infrastructure plan.
• Limits
• Limited coverage of many Operational Capabilities
  Requirements
• Backward linkages to pier-side activities such as
  Maintenance, Ordnance Handling all evaluated
  in-terms of their impact on Port Operations.
• Utilities/IT not addressed due to lack adequate
  technical information to assess
  requirements/gaps.
• Sailor Family support given little
  consideration.

31
Schedule
Inform POM 10
32
Under Sea Enterprise - USE

• Started in spring 2006
• Completion target May 2007
• Capability gaps / excess for homeports and
  forward operating locations
• Recommended solutions to the gaps where
  possible
• Provided guidance for suggested follow on
  regional level studies to provide detailed
  solutions to the identified gaps
• Format and model for follow-on Warfare
  Enterprise GSIPs

33
Naval Air Enterprise - NAE

• Will not provide pre-decisional plans for
  home basing of new platforms
• Operational capabilities will be linked to
  location and not necessarily weapons platforms
• Ops capabilities based on existing work and
  base-lined from existing platforms
• Plan will include
• Operational Airfields
• Aviation Training
• Fleet Readiness Commands
• RDTE.

34
Surface Warfare Enterprise - SWE

• Linkage to NAE (Carriers) and USE
• Plan will include
• Waterfront piers, logistics, ordnance
  handling, pier-side maintenance, ATFP
• Naval Weapon Stations piers, magazines
• RDTE Laboratory space, testing and
  integration, maintenance
• Ranges offshore ranges small arms
• Unit training
• Coordination with MSC and USCG

35
Naval Expeditionary Combat Enterprise - NECE

• Naval Coastal Warfare
• Navy Expeditionary Logistics Support Group
• First Naval Construction Division
• Explosive Ordnance Disposal
• Riverine
• Maritime Civil Affairs Group
• Expeditionary Training Command
• Maritime Expeditionary Security Force
• Expeditionary Combat Readiness Center
• Integrate
• Logistics Support Unit
• Training
• Reserve Program

36
Naval NetWar/ForceNet Enterprise - NNFE

• Baseline existing assets
• Solidify the Enterprise Vision and Guiding
  Principles
• Review impact on FYDP

37
Fleet Readiness Enterprise - FRE

• Roll up of Warfare Enterprise GSIPs
• Project Start in near EOY FY07
• Resolve Gaps and Overlaps between the Plans
• Provide a consolidated picture

FRE
38
Warehouse Storage

• NAVSUP, COMFISC, NAVICP, DLA/DDC Hardware
  SYSCOMs
• Broader and Deeper than Warfare Enterprise
  GSIPs
• Assets
• Requirements
• DLA / Navy processes
• More detailed plan
• Scope Funding being resolved

39
Manpower, Personnel, Training Education

• NETC is functional lead for MPTE
• MPTE GSIP has progressed under NPTIP
• Ph 1 -- Current situation assessment
• Ph 2 -- Detailed planning within fleet and
  training concentration areas
• TSIP (Training Shore Infrastructure Plans)
• Norfolk
• Southwest/San Diego
• Jacksonville
• MPTE GSIP will be a collection of plans
  capped by the NPTIP

40
Backup
41
GSIP FAQs

• Why do we have GSIPs?
• Need for greater more explicit connection to
  Strategic Acquisition communities
• Grew out of a pattern that was materializing in
  the ILS work, one that revealed how little the
  infrastructure requirements factored into
  platform design and initial siting decisions.
• Modeled and adapted the first GSIP after the
  Global Ordnance Functional Plans then expanded
  the analysis to take a more programmatic look at
  the required infrastructure investment
• How do you know when you need to provide a GSIP?
• When the Warfighter or Enabler CONOPS change
  enough to have significant infrastructure
  problems.
• What is the Problem Statement?
• What part of a Warfighter/Enabler Operational
  Capability gap is related to shore infrastructure
  and how can this be remedied?
• How do these differ from Regional Overview Plans?
• Scale, Analysis Type
• How in-depth do the plans investigate
  alternatives to construction/demolition of
  infrastructure?
• In the mature process this effort should be
  extensive
• Currently the best place to look for
  non-infrastructure alternatives to capability
  gaps is at the OPS/PWC/BOS offices
• How in-depth do the plans investigate
  alternatives to recommended infrastructure
  construction/demolition?
• Only a programmatic level determination should be
  made in the GSIP
• Subsequent Regional/Installation plans should
  determine best strategy (MCON, SRM, EUL, PPV,
  JOINT, etc)