|
4.1
|
Performance
and Budget Planning Process
Implementation planning
ensures that the detailed planning, resources, and performance expectations
are aligned to support the achievement of the NASA and Enterprise Strategic
Plans. Implementation planning is based on the previous cycle of NASA
and Enterprise Strategic Plans, capital investment planning, the 5-year
Agency budget, and the results of the ongoing performance evaluation process.
Essential elements of implementation planning include program planning
to establish technical, schedule, and cost, as well as performance criteria
at all management levels. NASA's budget planning process is the vehicle
for integrating these implementation plans.
|
| 4.2 |
Five-Year Budget
Planning Overview
|
| 4.2.1 |
NASA's budget planning
is an ongoing process that incorporates a detailed analysis of current
requirements with outyear projections of funding needs. Each budget cycle
is initiated by guidance from OMB that includes planning estimates, as
well as policy guidance for the preparation of the Agency's budget request.
This broad guidance uses the 5-year runout of the President's budget request
for NASA before Congress at the time, and it updates the total to reflect
further economic policy or program decisions that may have been made.
|
| 4.2.2 |
Agency guidance for
allocations among the Strategic Enterprises, priorities for decisionmaking
and tradeoffs, and any broad strategy issues are developed to initiate
both the internal planning and budget processes. The Administrator issues
this guidance, with full participation and advice of the CIC, through
the Agency CFO. The CFO and Comptroller then integrate the Administrator's
guidance with more detailed programmatic and funding guidance provided
by the Strategic Enterprises and the Functional Offices. The multiyear
budget estimates, program assumptions, and strategic direction establish
a baseline for planning and budget formulation activities and are distributed
as guidelines to the NASA Centers.
|
| 4.2.3
|
Responding to Program
Operating Plan (POP) guidance from the CFO, the Centers assess their program
planning and develop integrated resource requirements with the assistance
of their respective Institutional Program Offices. They review these requirements
with the Lead Centers and incorporate Lead Center decisions. The Lead
Centers submit integrated resource recommendations to their Enterprise
Associate Administrators and Institutional Program Officers for integration
into the Agency's annual submission of its 5-year budget. Coordination
among the Strategic Enterprises and the Functional Offices enables a comprehensive
Agency budget submission that is reflected in Program Commitment Agreements,
Program and Project Plans, and institutional planning.
|
| 4.2.4 |
As the budget formulation
process proceeds, decisions must be made about activities that have been
formulatedfor example, whether they can be afforded within the guideline
level and those that will be proposed as over-guideline activities. Each
Strategic Enterprise must justify the relevance of the requested programs
to the NASA and Enterprise Strategic Plans. New initiative candidates
must be prioritized. The approval of such initiatives for inclusion in
the Agency budget generally is subject to their having reached an appropriate
stage of maturity in the formulation processes outlined in NPG 7120.5,
as applicable.
|
| 4.2.5 |
In their capacity
as principal advisors to the Administrator in their respective subject
areas, the Chief Scientist, Chief Information Officer, and Chief Engineer
will review the Agency budget proposals and evaluate them for science,
information systems, and engineering merit.
|
| 4.2.6 |
The final budget
request transmitted to OMB reflects this decision process for the entire
Agency. The budget process will be compatible with NASA's Strategic Plan.
The content of the budget request describes the way in which the Administrator
plans to achieve progress toward meeting the goals and objectives that
appear in the NASA Strategic Plan within the multiyear funding allowance
available. The Administrator approves the final 5-year budget submittal
(see Figure 4-1).

Figure 4-1. Implementation:
NASA's Performance and Budgeting Planning
|
| 4.3 |
Performance Planning
GPRA requires the
submission of an Agency Performance Plan, following the transmittal to
Congress of the President's budget. This annual Performance Plan sets
out measurable goals that define what will be accomplished during a fiscal
year. The goals should reflect a level of accomplishment commensurate
with the resources requested and subsequently funded. For a fiscal year,
at least two iterations of NASA's annual Performance Plan are prepared:
an initial plan (submitted along with the NASA budget request to OMB)
and a final plan that reflects budget, policy, and programmatic decisions
and is consistent with the President's budget. A final plan revised to
reflect congressional action on an agency's budget request is not required
by GPRA, but may be submitted by NASA, if necessary, early in the new
fiscal year.
|
| 4.4 |
Developing and
Issuing Guidance
The development of
implementation guidelines flows from the approval of the Agency and Enterprise
Strategic Plans and approved Functional Leadership Plans. Annually, the
NASA Administrator issues guidance to the Enterprise Associate Administrators
and the Functional Office Associate Administrators and Officials-in-Charge,
consistent with those plans. The Strategic Enterprises and Functional
Offices, in turn, translate the Administrator's guidance into a set of
technical, managerial, and budgetary guidelines.
|
| 4.4.1 |
Agency Guidance
|
| 4.4.1.1 |
The Administrator's
guidance initiates the implementation planning cycle. This guidance is
developed taking into account the results of the prior-year planning cycle,
new guidance from OMB, and any significant changes in the Agency's external
and/or internal environment. The NASA Administrator's guidance will also
be influenced by policy and budget recommendations to the President from
the National Science and Technology Council and preliminary discussions
with Congress. In developing NASA's POP guidance, the Administrator establishes
first-order priorities for program content, also giving consideration
to information received from senior management.
|
| 4.4.1.2 |
On behalf of the
Administrator, the NASA Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) integrates
the budget guidance from OMB, the Administrator's guidance, the specific
programmatic guidance from the Enterprises, institutional guidance from
the Institutional Program Offices, and guidance from Functional Offices
into the integrated NASA POP guidance. The resulting POP guidance will
contain directions for preparing and submitting budget and Performance
Plan data, including formats and due dates. This guidance reflects prior-year
budget plans and capital investment decisions documented by the CIC. It
also includes additional guidance for potential new initiatives, an investment
profile for ongoing programs, performance goals, and associated metrics.
|
| 4.5 |
Performance and
Budget Decisionmaking Process
|
| 4.5.1 |
Enterprise Decisionmaking
The Strategic Enterprises
integrate program planning and resource planning during the budget process.
The Enterprises make a series of preliminary program decisions in response
to changes in funding, new program emphases, and ongoing performancedecisions
that are reflected in the POP guidance to the Centers. Once the Enterprise
offices have received their Centers' budget requirements in response to
the POP call, they work with their Lead Centers to balance anticipated
resources with activities identified during implementation planning. This
will entail integration and adjustment of Center implementation plans
with Enterprise customer requirements and expected resources. The Institutional
Program Offices are responsible for forwarding funding requirements and
corresponding implementation plans from the Centers to the appropriate
Functional Offices. This assists the Functional Offices in identifying
needs for conflicts of a functional or institutional nature. The Functional
Offices are responsible for advising and making recommendations to the
Institutional Program Offices on the Center budget submissions. Functional
Office reviews may also be used to develop associated performance measures
or indicators. Enterprise Associate Administrators then reallocate resources
among programs and revise performance requirements as necessary to establish
performance baselines. This integrated package of performance objectives
and resource requirements is subsequently provided to the Administrator,
through the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
|
| 4.5.2 |
Functional Office
Implementation Planning
Functional Office
implementation planning defines activities required to implement the Functional
Leadership Plans (described in Section 3.6). In collaboration with the
Strategic Enterprises and Centers, the Functional Offices ensure that
Agency activities are conducted in accordance with all statutory and regulatory
requirements and fiduciary responsibilities.
|
| 4.5.2.1 |
Functional Office
initiatives are efforts developed or sponsored by Functional Offices to
meet new requirements, improve a current process or procedure, adapt to
externally imposed mandates, or recognize evolving functional standards
or trends. Such initiatives can reasonably be expected to have a significant
Agencywide impact on personnel, resources, or organizations outside the
Functional Office developing or sponsoring the initiative. Because the
cumulative impact of functional initiatives on the Agency's program and
institutional resources may be substantial, proposed functional initiatives
require thorough Agency discussion and review prior to approval. The heads
of Functional Offices developing initiatives likely to have a significant
Agencywide impact on personnel, resources, or organizations outside the
originating Functional Office must meet with the affected organization(s)
to determine whether agreement on the initiative's implementation can
be reached. If the affected organizations reach agreement, which must
have the documented concurrence of the cognizant Institutional Program
Officers and/or Officials-in-Charge, implementation shall proceed in accordance
with the agreement.
|
| 4.5.2.2 |
If agreement is not
reached, the Functional Office shall prepare a statement of need, along
with an estimate of the costs and a projection of the benefits of the
initiative, and submit this statement to the CIC for review. The Administrative
Issues Board serves as staff to the CIC for these reviews and may, for
significant initiatives, request a more detailed implementation plan,
including, as appropriate, the scope, resource requirements (human, financial,
and physical), a schedule, the impact on the Centers and Enterprises,
the potential impact on other proposed or ongoing activities, and the
expected return on investment. The Administrative Issues Board may also
ask those Enterprises or Centers that do not agree to the initiative's
implementation for their analyses of the impacts on resources, operations,
or other Enterprise- or Center-related activities.
|
| 4.5.2.3 |
The CIC ensures the
integration of requirements with the support of the Administrative Issues
Board. The CIC also prioritizes funding to be included in the budget guidance
during the annual budget development and review cycle. If the CIC supports
the initiative, the CIC will recommend the proposal to the Administrator
for approval and integration into NASA's budget request. The CIC may recommend
to the Administrator that the proposing office create a Program Commitment
Agreement, which will define the Program Management Council's review requirements.
Program Commitment Agreements will be signed by the proposing office Associate
Administrator or Official-in-Charge and the Administrator after formulation
and prior to implementation. If the CIC does not support the initiative,
the proposing Associate Administrator or Official-in-Charge may appeal
directly to the Administrator.
|
| 4.5.2.4 |
Required initiatives
originating from external requirements or from the Administrator's direction
shall be reviewed by the CIC, with support from the Administrative Issues
Board, for impact and implementation issues only.
|
| 4.5.3 |
Agency Performance
Plan and Budget Submission
|
| 4.5.3.1 |
NASA's annual Performance
Plan integrates the performance plans provided by the Agency's Strategic
Enterprises. Consistent with GPRA requirements, this plan includes:
a. Performance goals
b. Level of performance to be achieved during the budget year
c. Specific nonprogrammatic actions planned within the timeframe and fiscal
scope of the proposed budget
d. Performance indicators to measure or otherwise evaluate Agency performance
|
| 4.5.3.2
|
The annual goals,
performance objectives, and associated information included in this plan
will be grouped by Strategic Enterprise and Crosscutting Process.
|
| 4.5.3.3 |
Crosscutting Process
performance targets and indicators must be developed and updated, if necessary,
in parallel with the other performance planning activities of the Agency.
|
| 4.5.3.4 |
The Office of the
Chief Financial Officer coordinates the integration of the Agency Performance
Plan, the Enterprise Strategic Plans, and the Functional Leadership Plans
with the Agency's 5-year budget. Each Enterprise or Functional Office,
as appropriate, presents its recommended resources and Performance Plan
targets to the CIC. The CIC supports this decision process as the principal
advisory group to the Administrator in resolving Agency issues, prioritizing
activities (programs, capital investments, and Functional Office initiatives),
and distributing resources among the Enterprises. The CIC develops an
integrated recommendation, which is then provided to the Administrator
and the Senior Management Council. The Administrator's decisions, taking
into account NASA's current Strategic Plan, form the basis of the Agency's
5-year budget request and Performance Plan that are to be submitted to
OMB.
|
| 4.5.3.5 |
All program planning
for the upcoming fiscal year is updated or revalidated following the submission
of the Agency budget to OMB. The Enterprises work with their Lead Centers
to balance anticipated resources with program and institutional planning.
This may entail the adjustment of Center Implementation Plans, Program
Commitment Agreements, and Program and Project Plans as necessary.
|
| 4.5.4 |
Center Implementation
Planning
|
| 4.5.4.1 |
Center implementation
planning integrates programmatic direction, resources availability, functional
needs, and institutional capabilities to achieve strategic plans. The
Center Implementation Plans define the relationship of the Agency and
Enterprise strategic plans to the Centers' missions, Center of Excellence
responsibilities, program-specific assignments, and support activities.
These plans also ensure alignment of the institutional, program, and functional
activities at the Centers with the Enterprise (Lead Center, Supporting
Center) and functional (Principal Center) assignments. The Center Implementation
Plans should be consistent with corresponding Center Program and Project
Plans and coordinated during preparation with the appropriate Functional
Offices. The plans must be updated as necessary to reflect current budget
and program realities.
|
| 4.5.4.2 |
Institutional Program
Offices are responsible for approving the Center Implementation Plans,
with the concurrence of all Enterprise Associate Administrators associated
with the Center. The Enterprise Associate Administrators approve the performance
and budget decisions of their respective Centers, ensuring that the Center
Implementation Plans support the Enterprise Strategic Plan and budget
in force at the time they are issued. The Senior Management Council reviews
the Center Implementation Plans annually.
|
| 4.6 |
Management
and Employee Performance Planning
|
| 4.6.1 |
Enterprise Associate
Administrator Performance Plans
Each Enterprise Associate
Administrator's Performance Plan is executed annually, for the upcoming
year, as a documented agreement between the Administrator and the respective
Enterprise Associate Administrator. This planning requirement also applies
to the Associate Administrator for the Office of Life and Microgravity
Sciences and Applications.
|
| 4.6.2 |
Functional Office
Associate Administrator and Official-in-Charge Performance Plans
A Performance Plan
for each Functional Office Associate Administrator and Official-in-Charge
is also executed annually, for the upcoming year, as a documented agreement
between the Administrator and the respective Functional Office Associate
Administrator or Official-in-Charge.
|
| 4.6.3 |
Center Director
Performance Plans
Each Center Director's
Performance Plan is to be executed annually as a documented agreement
between Enterprise Associate Administrators/ Institutional Program Officers
and their respective Center Directors. This plan will include performance
goals and indicators for the Center. Concurrence of other Headquarters
officials may be required if the scope of the plan is broad and as agreed
between the Center Director and the Enterprise Associate Administrator.
|
| 4.6.4 |
Individual Performance
Plans
All civil service
NASA employees, including managers and executives, will have personal
annual performance plans developed with their supervisors. These plans
will not only be consistent with all pertinent NASA directives, but also
explicitly support the overall strategic goals of the Agency. The performance
plans will serve as the reference documents for the annual performance
appraisals of all employees, managers, and executives.
|
| 4.7 |
Implementation
in the Operating Year
|
| 4.7.1 |
Preparation and
Transmission of an Operating Plan
|
| 4.7.1.1 |
As a part of the
budget planning cycle, and in anticipation of receiving new obligational
authority from congressionally enacted appropriations, the Agency prepares
a draft of a detailed operating plan. This draft documents programmatic
changes that have occurred since the submission of the President's budget,
and it identifies any associated changes in the resources required to
implement the program for the upcoming fiscal year.
|
| 4.7.1.2 |
After Congress enacts
the Agency's appropriation for the operating year, the draft operating
plan is modified to reflect any congressionally directed changes contained
in the appropriations or authorization bills. This initial operating plan
is then signed by the Administrator after clearance from OMB and sent
to NASA's congressional committees.
|
| 4.7.2 |
Appropriations
or Authorization Impact on the Performance Plan
In the event that
NASA's appropriations and authorization bills require changes to the programs
or program funding that, in turn, require changes to the performance targets
included in the final Performance Plan for the operating year, NASA will
revise the plan to reflect those changes. The revised final Performance
Plan must be cleared by the Executive Office of the President prior to
transmittal to Congress, after which program planning that is affected
during this budget deliberation and approval process is updated.
|
| 4.7.3 |
Operating Plan
Adjustments
As necessary during
the period of the appropriation's availability for obligation, NASA provides
notice to the Executive Office of the President and Congress of material
changes in program plans and funding allocations. These notifications
enable NASA to keep all parties appropriately advised of new developments
and receive in return their advice and consent.
|