Moving Towards Transformation Department of Defense and the DoD Chemical Biological Defense Program Moving Towards Transformation BG Patricia L. Nilo Acting Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Chemical and Biological Defense

Discussion Outline DoD Transformation Efforts 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Transformation Tenets Acquisition Decision Support Systems in Transition Transformation of CBDP Management/Organizations Planning, Programming, Budgeting & Execution in Transformation CB Defense Program Budget Update – FY04 PB CB Force Protection Initiatives Summation

The Need for Transformation “The United States will … transform America’s national security institutions to meet the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century.” President George W. Bush, September 2002 “The Department currently is pursuing transformational business and planning practices such as adaptive planning, a more entrepreneurial, future-oriented capabilities- based resource allocation process, accelerated acquisition cycles built on spiral development, out-put based management, and a reformed analytic support agenda.” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Transformation Planning Guidance April 2003 3

Quadrennial Defense Review Transformation Tenets A Capability-Based Approach Shift basis of defense planning from a “threat-based” model to a “capabilities-based” model for the future: Capabilities based model: Focuses more on how an adversary might fight rather than specifically whom the adversary might be or where a war might occur Identify capabilities required to deter and defeat adversaries who will rely on surprise, deception, and asymmetric warfare to achieve objectives Maintain our military advantages in key areas while we develop new areas of military advantage and deny asymmetric advantages to adversaries

Quadrennial Defense Review 4-2-1 Planning Construct- Paradigm Shift Need for portfolio of capabilities robust across spectrum of possible force requirements

Quadrennial Defense Review Transformation Initiatives New defense strategy identifies 6 key operational goals for deterring conflict and conducting military operations DoD investment resources must be focused on these goals Protect bases of operation at home and abroad and defeat the threat of CBRNE weapons Assure information systems in the face of attack and conduct effective information operations Project and sustain U.S. forces in distant anti-access and area-denial environments Deny enemies sanctuary by providing persistent surveillance, tracking, and rapid engagement Enhance the capability and survivability of space systems Leverage information technology and innovative concepts to develop interoperable Joint C4ISR Goals represent the operational focus for efforts to transform our Forces

Acquisition Decision Support Systems In Transformation Revolutionary Joint Capabilities Integration & Development System (JCIDS) CJCS 3170.01C 24 June 03 VCJCS/Service Chief Oversight MID 913 PPBS to PPBE 22 May 03 Evolutionary Defense Acquisition System Planning, Programming, Budgeting & Execution Process (PPBE) Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) Oversight Emerging DEPSECDEF Oversight DoD 5000 Series 12 May 03 Revision

Acquisition Decision Support Systems In Transformation Joint Capabilities Integration & Development System (JCIDS) CBDP Requirements and Acquisition Process Transforming JRO JPEO DTRA (S&T) VCJCS/Service Chief Oversight Defense Acquisition System Planning, Programming, Budgeting & Execution Process (PPBE) Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) Oversight DEPSECDEF Oversight

DoD Leadership’s Intent For DoD 5000 Revision “….create an acquisition policy environment that fosters efficiency, flexibility, creativity, and innovation.” DEPSECDEF Paul Wolfowitz, 30 Oct 2002 Revised Policy Objectives Encourage innovation and flexibility Permit greater judgment in the employment of acquisition principles Focus on outcomes vice process Empower PM’s to use the system vice being hampered by over-regulation

The Aftermath of 9-11 CBDP TRANSFORMING The entire spectrum of CB matters has received increased emphasis from the Administration, Congress, News Media, and the Public CBDP TRANSFORMING Awareness of Threat Soars Warfighting spectrum has expanded to homeland security Emphasizes importance of coordinated USG program to counter WMD proliferation Asymmetric methods are no longer a threat, but a reality

Transformation – CBDP Historical Perspectives 1993 – National Defense Authorization Act of 1994 mandates a Joint CBDP (PL 103-160, Section 1703) July 1994 – Joint Service Agreement (JSA) signed 9 Sep 02 – JROC approves Joint Requirements Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense (JRO-CBRND) under J-8 19 Sep 02 – USD(AT&L) issues Acquisition Decision Memorandum Directed significant changes to CBDP Management and lays out primary responsibilities of new management structure 22 Apr 03 – USD(AT&L) signs Implementation Plan Supercedes 1994 JSA Establishes detailed management duties for requirements, tech base, advanced development, and oversight. Creates OIPT for issue resolution.

CBDP Management & Oversight Structure ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT & REQUIREMENTS OVERSIGHT Formerly JSIG SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Formerly JSMG ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION Based on 22 April 2003 CBDP Implementation Plan

New Organization - Requirements Requirements Validation OSD Guidance POM Recommendation Army Executive Agent CJCS POM Recommendation JROC Joint Requirements Office - CBRND Acquisition Input Requirements Validation Requirements SERVICES Combatant Commanders

New Organization - Acquisition DAE CBD OIPT ATSD(NCB) - Chair Milestone Decision Authority (Sentinel Systems) AT&L Oversight Services Joint Staff OSD Staff AAE Day to Day Management (MDA for non-Sentinel Systems) JPEO CBD Coordination DTRA Tech Base Programs CB PMs Transition Requirements Input

Acquisition Organizations USD(AT&L) Milestone Decision Authority for key selected CBD Sentinel systems Delegates MDA responsibility for all but Sentinel Systems to Secretary of the Army Sentinel Systems are those programs, that because of their cost, complexity, and/or criticality, provide a representative picture of the overall health of the CBDP. Approves recommended POM for submission to SECDEF Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs (ATSD(NCB)) Overall coordination/integration of medical and non-medical CBDP Chairs permanent CBD OIPT Oversight of funds allocation for Defense-Wide CBDP accounts Develop CBDP POM Strategy Guidance Review SECARMY recommended POM and make recommendations to USD(AT&L) Conduct program oversight activities Develop, publish CBDP Annual Report to Congress

Acquisition Organization (con’t) Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical and Biological Defense (JPEO-CBD) Army TDA organization, reporting to ASA(ALT) Responsible for all Advanced Development and Procurement Multi-service Program Managers for capability areas Delegated MDA responsibility for non-Sentinel Systems Exercise year of execution re-programming authority for assigned programs Life cycle oversight Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) Manage and integrate Science and Technology Programs Exercise year of execution re-programming authority for S&T programs Manage and integrate CB ACTDs Provide funds management functions under the oversight of ATSD(NCB)

Program Analysis and Integration Program Analysis and Integration Office (PAIO) Executes “Army as Executive Agent” functions, under the operational direction of Army G8 Provide independent analysis functions Integrate planning, programming, and budgeting functions across funding lines and executing organizations Support JRO-CBRN POM build Support SECARMY review and submission of POM Develop RDA Plan Lead development of BES/PB efforts and documents Mid-year execution reviews Analyze and develop programmatic impacts/options for ATSD(NCB) Provide primary support to ATSD(NCB) for development of Annual Report to Congress, POM Strategy Guidance and responses to audit reports and Congressional inquiries Maintain programming, planning, and budgeting database

Acquisition Decision Support Systems In Transformation Joint Capabilities Integration & Development System (JCIDS) CBDP Requirements and Acquisition Process Transforming JRO JPEO DTRA (S&T) VCJCS/Service Chief Oversight DoD has three Decision-making Support Systems, all have been updated this year Defense Acquisition System How we acquire weapon systems, new 5000 series Directive & Instruction signed in May 2003 Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) - total restructuring of “requirements” process. Signed in June 2003. Focus on warfighting capabilities and gaps, analysis to determine what capability gaps to fill, and whether a material or non-material solution is appropriate. Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) – by MID 913 (DATE) replaced former PPBS. Focus on Resource Allocation – providing warfighter with best mix of forces, equipment and support attainable under fiscal constraints. Introduces new emphasis on using performance metrics to focus on output, return on investment Important Point: JCIDS and DAS are event-driven; PPBE is calendar-driven, and linked to the president’s budget submission Defense Acquisition System Planning, Programming, Budgeting & Execution Process (PPBE) Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) Oversight DEPSECDEF Oversight

FY 2004-2009 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) “The Department’s current planning, programming, budgeting and acquisition systems are rigid, unresponsive and ill-suited for a dynamic and uncertain security environment. DoD needs to streamline and integrate PPBS and the major acquisition and requirements processes with particular attention paid to those areas where technological change occurs most rapidly.” Tasked the Senior Executive Council to provide a systematic approach for replacing these processes FY04 DPG (May 04) sought to address these issues, and to better integrate resource allocation with the acquisition and capabilities/requirements processes

New Process- Defense Planning Corresponding to Four-Year Presidential Terms Year 1 (Review and Refinement): Early National Security Strategy (NSS) Off-year DPG as required (at discretion of SECDEF) Limited Changes to Baseline Program Year 2 (Formalize the Agenda): Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) – Aligned with PB submission in second year of an administration Fiscal Guidance Issued On-year DPG (implementing QDR) POM/BES Submissions Year 3 (Execution of Guidance): Year 4 (Ensuring the Legacy): On-year DPG (refining alignment of strategy and programs) Program Objective Memorandum (POM)/Budget Estimate Submission (BES) Submissions Two Year POM/BES Cycle Administration recognizes that it takes a year to get the people and processes to be able to build an agenda thus they planned for a QDR in year two of the administration’s 4 year term. Once the QDR and resultant direction are implemented in year two, year three will be a year of few changes unless there have been major situational changes in the world requiring revisiting the plan adopted in year two.

Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution Primary Resource Management System for DoD: Articulates strategy Identifies size, structure and equipment for military forces Sets programming priorities Allocates resources Evaluates actual output against planned performance and adjusts resources as appropriate PPBE is the primary resource management system for DoD. Until now, unchanged since developed by McNamara in 1961 What do we do in PPBE? Strategy - How are we going to defend the nation? National Goals Forces - What are we going to use to defend the nation? to execute that Strategy? Prioritize - Which ones, which programs will be funded now? Resources - How much will be spent on each program? Output - Where are we getting our best return? Trans: What are the phases in PPBE?

Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution Phases Assess capabilities / review threat Develop resource informed guidance Programming Turn guidance into achievable, affordable packages Six-year program (Future Years Defense Program) Budgeting Assess for efficient funds execution Scrub budget years Prepare defensible budget Execution Review (incorporated in program/budget review) Develop performance metrics Assess actual output against planned performance Adjust resources to achieve desired performance goals Brief Overview of PPBE phases: Still have same three phases: planning, programming and budgeting. The major difference is that we now have a review of program execution/program performance concurrent with the program and budget review (NOT Army’s PPBES) Planning: QDR 2001 shifted the basis of defense planning from a "threat-based" model that dominated thinking in the past to a "capabilities-based" model Capabilities-based model: – Focuses on how an adversary might fight rather than specifically who the adversary might be or where a war might occur. – Recognizes that it is not enough to plan for large conventional wars in distant theaters. Instead, the United States must identify the capabilities required to deter and defeat adversaries who will rely on surprise, deception, and asymmetric warfare to achieve their objectives. Defense Planning Guidance (DPG): Marching Orders for next phase Programming: Components develop Program based on guidance OSD & Joint Staff review for priority, affordability Info captured in the FYDP Budgeting: Components develop budget submissions OSD(C) reviews budget inputs, with emphasis on funds execution Ultimate aim, to submit a defensible President’s Budget thru OMB to Congress Execution Review Overlays both Program Review and Budget Review processes In past emphasis on input, “how much to spend on each program”; now emphasis is on output, “what are we getting for our money?” Using performance metrics to examine program execution TRANSITION: Let’s compare the old PPBS to the new PPBE…

CB Defense Program Budget Update

RDT&E, and Procurement Funds ONLY Chemical/Biological Defense Primary Program Focus Provides Chemical and Biological Defensive Equipment to the WARFIGHTER RDT&E, and Procurement Funds ONLY

DoD CB Defense Program Historical Perspective- Funding – FY04 Total Dollars in Millions RDT&E Procurement Fiscal Year First PL 103-160 Consolidated POM submitted

DoD Chemical/Biological Defense Program FY2004 PB ($M) with Congressional Adjustments Funding By Budget Activity Science & Tech Base (22.3%) $246.0 (29.4%) $363.6 Basic Research (3.2%) $35.8 (4.2%) $51.9 Procurement (45.8%) $505.7 (44.8%) $555.6 Applied Research (9.6%) $106.5 (12.4%) $153.5 Adv Tech Dev (9.4%) $103.7 (12.8%) $158.2 ACD&P (14.7%) $162.1 (10.7%) $132.8 Operational Sys Dev (0.3%) $3.4 (0.0%) $0.0 SDD (13.4%) $148.1 (11.5%) $142.8 Mgmt Support (3.5%) $39.4 (3.6%) $44.8 RDT&E = $599.0 $684.1 Procurement = $505.7 $555.6 Total = $1104.7 $1,239.7 Advanced Development (31.6%) $349.6 (25.8%) $320.4

Support to the Warfighter Making Progress in Research, Development and Acquisition: However more progress needed: Organizational/Managerial Transformation Training Readiness Joint Concepts/Doctrine Senior Service/Combatant Commanders Awareness $$ Dollars Will Not Solve Everything

CB Installation Protection Initiative The CB Installation/Force Protection Program (CBIFPP) provides: $76.6M for a CBIFPP capability on 15 CONUS installations in FY04 Prioritizes 200 installations for FY04-09 (185 CONUS, 15 OCONUS) Integrates established AT/FP capabilities through CBRNE CONOPS and Standards Adds or enhances installation CBRN defense capabilities in Sense Shape Shield Sustain Initially leverages off-the-shelf capabilities

CBDP- Emerging Directions/Challenges Threat remains diverse, dispersed, and unpredictable Capability based approach for CBRND Planning In lieu of previous validated specific threats Focuses on CBRN capabilities an adversary might employ Primary focus must remain support of the warfighter CBDP CBRND Use of new CBRND Joint Operational Concept Parlance: Sense; Shape; Shield; Sustain Acceleration of CBRND technology Emphasis on Installation Force Protection; interoperability with emergency responders Homeland Security- Evolving roles/missions for DoD/CBRNDP Interagency cooperation on vaccine development and deployment

The Chemical & Biological Threat It’s not a matter of if, it’s now.