Defense Logistics Agency Defense Wide Working Capital Fund (DWWCF) Document Automation and Production Service FY 2002 Amended Budget Submission

Similar documents
Report to Congress on Distribution of Department of Defense Depot Maintenance Workloads for Fiscal Years 2015 through 2017

Appendix D: Restoration Budget Overview

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2018 BUDGET ESTIMATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2008/2009 BUDGET ESTIMATES

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE-WIDE WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Department of Defense

Department of Defense SUPPLY SYSTEM INVENTORY REPORT September 30, 2003

Defense Environmental Funding

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE CBO. Trends in Spending by the Department of Defense for Operation and Maintenance

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET ESTIMATES FOR FY 2005

Conservation Appendix C: Conservation Budget Overview

ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO TOTAL FORCE MANAGEMENT (SEC. 933)

Department of Defense INSTRUCTION

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AGENCY-WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AUDIT OPINION

DOD INVENTORY OF CONTRACTED SERVICES. Actions Needed to Help Ensure Inventory Data Are Complete and Accurate

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET ESTIMATES - FY 2004

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

Office of Sponsored Programs Budgetary and Cost Accounting Procedures

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2010 BUDGET ESTIMATES

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET ESTIMATES FOR FY 2001

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FY 2001 BUDGET ESTIMATES FEBRUARY 2000

Defense Logistics Agency Instruction

a GAO GAO AIR FORCE DEPOT MAINTENANCE Management Improvements Needed for Backlog of Funded Contract Maintenance Work

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2011 BUDGET ESTIMATES

Report No. DODIG May 31, Defense Departmental Reporting System-Budgetary Was Not Effectively Implemented for the Army General Fund

Four4Four Plan To Avoid ADA Violations. Phil Davidson 29 May 2015, PDI New Orleans, LA

Compliance Appendix E: Compliance Budget Overview

MEDIA CONTACTS. Mailing Address: Phone:

Fiscal Year 2011 Defense Environmental Programs Annual Report to Congress

SUBJECT: Department of Defense (DoD) Procedures for Settling Financial Accounts Under the Special Temporary Contract Closeout Authority

GAO. DEFENSE BUDGET Trends in Reserve Components Military Personnel Compensation Accounts for

JUN A1. UNCLASSIFIED GAO/PLRD-Al 40

Department of Defense INSTRUCTION

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE

OMB Uniform Guidance: Cost Principles, Audit, and Administrative Requirements for Federal Awards

Department of Defense INSTRUCTION

RESEARCH SUPPORTED BY A DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) COMPONENT

Department of Defense PRIME CONTRACT AWARDS, SIZE DISTRIBUTION Fiscal Year 1986

DOD INSTRUCTION DEPOT MAINTENANCE CORE CAPABILITIES DETERMINATION PROCESS

PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND DURATION OF PUBLIC-PRIVATE COMPETITIONS (SEC. 937)

Information Technology Expenditure Approval Authority

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE. SUBJECT: Enlistment and Reenlistment Bonuses for Active Members

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE

Suffolk COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE PROCUREMENT POLICY

TESTIMONY OF KENNETH J. KRIEG UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY & LOGISTICS) BEFORE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 2005

UNCLASSIFIED. FY 2016 Base FY 2016 OCO

FY16 Senate Armed Services National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

GAO AIR FORCE WORKING CAPITAL FUND. Budgeting and Management of Carryover Work and Funding Could Be Improved

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2017 BUDGET ESTIMATES. JUSTIFICATION OF ESTIMATES February 2016 RESERVE PERSONNEL, NAVY

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2018 BUDGET ESTIMATES JUSTIFICATION OF ESTIMATES MAY 2017 RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE FY 2013 OCO

2016 Major Automated Information System Annual Report

THE STATE OF THE MILITARY

Office of the Inspector General Department of Defense

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2016 BUDGET ESTIMATES JUSTIFICATION OF ESTIMATES FEBRUARY 2015 RESERVE PERSONNEL, NAVY

Department of Defense INSTRUCTION

Report to Congress. June Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment)

June 25, Honorable Kent Conrad Ranking Member Committee on the Budget United States Senate Washington, DC

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FY 2017 BUDGET ESTIMATES BUDGET DATA BOOK OFFICE OF BUDGET

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WASHINGTON, DC

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE

DOD Leases of Foreign-Built Ships: Background for Congress

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

OUR MISSION PARTNERS DISA S BUDGET. TOTAL DOD COMPONENT/AGENCY ORDERS FOR DISA DWCF FY16 (in thousands)

Working Paper Series

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE

Human Capital. DoD Compliance With the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (D ) March 31, 2003

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE PRESENTATION TO THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES DEFENSE ACQUISITION REFORM PANEL UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

If a 20% Match Is Required:

AIR FORCE RESERVE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FY 2017 APPROPRIATIONS APPROPRIATION 3700 RESERVE PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE MARCH 2017

Other Defense Spending

UNCLASSIFIED. R-1 Program Element (Number/Name) PE A / Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Army (IPPS-A) Prior Years FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

DEFENSE HEALTH AGENCY 7700 ARLINGTON BOULEVARD, SUITE 5101 FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2017 BUDGET ESTIMATES JUSTIFICATION OF ESTIMATES FEBRUARY 2016 RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS

Operation and Maintenance

UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS - UPDATE FEBRUARY 2015

DOD Leases of Foreign-Built Ships: Background for Congress

Appendix B: Formulae Used for Calculation of Hospital Performance Measures

Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Environmental Programs Annual Report to Congress

DOD MANUAL DOD FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES (F&ES) ANNUAL AWARDS PROGRAM

Strategic Cost Reduction

MANAGER S TOOLKIT FOR A SUCCESSFUL FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT

Defense Acquisition University Civilian Faculty Plan

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE

Report No. DODIG U.S. Department of Defense SEPTEMBER 28, 2016

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE

SECNAVINST B ASN (RDA) 22 Dec 2005 PRODUCT DATA REPORTING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM (PDREP)

DoD Instruction Job Training, Employment Skills Training, Apprenticeships and Internships

Analysis of the FY 2019 Defense Budget

Department of Defense INSTRUCTION

Testimony of. Before the House Armed Services Committee on the Economic Consequences of Defense Sequestration. October 26, 2011

.:^tföhi. Slillltlfe. JMl. kws Fi -Ji -hri Mil. i'rikb. cjn. r-'-ovy-v*** ; PLEASE RETURN 70: " .JMATION CENTEJ?" ^HiNGTüNaalilÄ ' :

DoD Conference Guidance

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE

MISSISSIPPI STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DIVISION OF HEALTH PLANNING AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT MAY 2010

H. R. ll [Report No. 115 ll]

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS. Fiscal Year 2017 April 5, of United States Postal Service Financial Results and 10-K Statement

Transcription:

Defense Logistics Agency Defense Wide Working Capital Fund (DWWCF) Document Automation and Production Service FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION: The Document Automation and Production Service (DAPS) is responsible for the DoD printing, duplicating, and document automation programs. This responsibility encompasses the full range of automated printing services to include: conversion, electronic storage and output, and the distribution of hard copy and digital information. DAPS provides time sensitive, competitively priced, high quality products and services that are produced either in-house or procured through the Government Printing Office (GPO). DAPS manages this worldwide mission through a customer service network comprised of a Headquarters located at Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 80 major field locations and 185 smaller document automation facilities. CUSTOMERS: DAPS primary customers are Army (20.7 percent), Navy (28.3 percent), Air Force (21.3 percent), and Defense Agencies (19.9 percent) and non-dod customers (9.8 percent). Both appropriated and DWCF-funded activities are included in each Service's percentage. SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS: BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS In August 1999, DLA notified Congress of its decision to conduct a public-private competition in accordance with Circular A-76 guidance for the production functions of DAPS. Approximately 1,400 DAPS employees will be affected. Because of the complexity of DAPS overseas operations, those functions are excluded from the study. The submission of the most efficient organization plan is scheduled for August 2001, and the announcement of the competition winner is scheduled for June 2002. Since becoming the Department s manager for printing and duplication in 1992, DAPS closed or consolidated approximately 200 printing facilities. Continuing this trend of streamlining operations, DAPS closed or consolidated an additional 12 facilities and consolidated its four regions into two in FY 2000. Savings resulting from these actions are reflected in this submission. In March 2001, U.S. Army Printing Facilities in the Republic of Korea transferred to DAPS. DAPS provides its traditional services as well as mobilization support for the Army. The Army will recognize annual operating savings of $121 thousand and a cost avoidance of $281 thousand from the digitization of a forms warehouse.

DAPS "merchant status" allows it to accept International Merchant Purchase Authorization Cards (IMPAC) from all customers. Use of the IMPAC card reduces a customer s administrative and DFAS costs. During FY 2000, over $112 million in products and services were purchased using IMPAC cards. During FY 2000, DAPS entered into a national paper contract. The contract will result in reduced storage space requirements, quicker delivery time, and approximately 10 to 15 percent reduction in paper. The paper contains 30 percent post-consumer waste fiber and meets the requirement set forth in Executive Order 13101, Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: DAPS has five performance indicators in the DLA Performance Contract. 1) Conversion to Digital Format: This performance metric measures the number of pages (in millions) converted to digital format during the year. Conversions may be accomplished either in-house or by contract and includes hardcopy to digital, system output to digital and from one form of digital to another. DAPS successfully exceeded its goal of 31.9 million pages converted with an actual production of 46.2 million pages. 2) Customer Satisfaction: This performance metric measures satisfied customers as the percentage of customers ranking DAPS performance as satisfied or very satisfied. DAPS uses a survey, professionally prepared and administered by an independent entity to determine an overall customer satisfaction rating. The survey conducted during FY 2000 showed that DAPS met its goal of 93 percent customer satisfaction. 3) Production Efficiency Factor: This performance metric measures our production efficiency in terms of units produced per hour. The units are converted to standard hours earned. Employee time is captured by cost center as hours available. The employee hours available are divided into the hours earned to produce the production efficiency factor shown as a percentage. DAPS did not meet its production efficiency goal of 100%, the actual was 95.6% percent for FY 2000. The Goals are 100% for FY 2001 and FY 2002. 4) Rework: The percentage of revenue lost from orders not accepted by customers and reworked by DAPS. DAPS created a metric to measure the cost of rework. In-House Rework Percentage: This performance metric is calculated by dividing revenue lost from orders not accepted by the total in-house production revenue. During FY 2000, DAPS met their goal of 0.46 percent.

5) Discrepancy Reports: The percentage of GPO orders for which Notice of Quality Defects Noncompliance Change Report or when unsatisfactory GPO customer survey is received. DAPS created a metric to measure Discrepancy Reports. Commercial Rework Percentage: This performance metric is calculated by dividing problem jobs by total jobs submitted to the Government Printing Office (GPO). FY 2000 Goal was 2 percent revenue loss due to rework requirement. DAPS actual for FY 2000 was 2.1 percent. DAPS is in the process of establishing a memorandum of agreement with GPO which will address performance goals. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE MEASURE: In addition to program performance measures, DLA measures the effectiveness of program budgeting and execution with a unit cost performance measure. DAPS Annual Operating Budget (AOB) measures this performance by dividing the total units by the total cost. FY00 Goal FY00 Actual Unit Cost per In-house Production Unit.0494.0536 DAPS did not achieve its unit cost goal due to the reduction in workload, increase in document electronic conversion, which is more costly than hard copy. Hard copy pages fell 13 percent from FY 1999 to FY 2000. Hard Copy pages is one of the largest unit cost drivers for DAPS. While electronic conversion may be more costly for DAPS in the short term, there will be long term cost savings for DoD. WORKLOAD: DAPS workload reflects the transition of the Department from hard copy to digital documents. The number of pages converted to digital by DAPS in FY 2000 increased by 13 percent from FY 1999 to over 46 million. Hard copy pages fell 13 percent from FY 1999 to FY 2000. This trend is expected to continue through the budget year resulting in a decrease in total units and increase in unit cost. NET OPERATING RESULT (NOR)/ACCUMUALATED OPERATING RESULT (AOR): The NOR measures the short range, single fiscal year, impact of revenue and expenses incurred by the business. For example, a positive annual NOR demonstrates that revenues exceeded expenses for the business activity. A negative NOR - just the opposite. AOR reflects the long term, multi-year, results of previous NORs. Its measurement describes the accumulated affects of NORs and demonstrates the fiscal strength over a longer time. The budgeted goal is to break-even by the budget year.

The following chart depicts the actual NOR / AOR for FY 2000, and projected NOR / AOR for FY 2001 and FY 2002: ($ Millions) FY 00 (Actual) FY 01 FY 02 NOR (12.9) 23.1 6.5 AOR (29.6) (6.5) 0.0 DAPS finished FY 2000 with a negative NOR of $12.9 million due to lower than planned workload. Rates for FY 2001 were set to recover losses from a prior year (FY 99). Rates were set for FY 2002 to recover losses experienced in FY 2000. The FY 2002 NOR reflects a requested direct appropriation of $0.1 million for utility cost increases. PERSONNEL: DAPS continues to right size its workforce to reflect changes in workload and facility consolidations. This submission reflects full-time equivalent reductions of 12.3 percent in FY 2000, 2 percent in FY 2001, and 3.7 percent in FY 2002. CAPITAL BUDGET: The capital budget is the account available for investments that exceed the $100,000 expense/investment criteria. These investments fall into one of four categories: (1) Automated Data Processing Equipment (ADPE), (2) Non-ADPE, (3) software developed for operational and management information systems, and (4) minor construction projects. A capital budget item is assumed to have zero salvage value and is depreciated on a straight-line basis over its useful life. This depreciation is expensed and recovered, as business related cost, in DAPS prices. DAPS is being very prudent in making capital investments, as they are currently going through an A-76 competition. Only those investments that are absolutely required for the short term and investments where payback/savings are optimal are being executed. The FY 2002 capital budget has an overall increases above the FY 2001 capital budget by $1.0 million. This is primarily due to an increase in ADP replacement requirements. Non-ADP decreases by $0.5 million in FY 2002 and Software Development also decreases by $0.2 million in FY 2002. PRODUCTIVITY INITIATIVES/COST REDUCTIONS: DAPS primary challenge is to reduce the current infrastructure costs by reducing short-term fixed costs in response to reductions in customer demand to achieve NOR objectives. To meet this challenge, this budget submission incorporates productivity improvements, i.e., workload balancing and cost savings from capital investments, consolidation actions and management initiatives.

ACTIVITY GROUP PROFILE (Dollars and Workload in Millions) FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 Cost of Goods Sold 385.6 393.5 398.8 Pass through/other Appropriation 0.1 Net Operating Results (12.9) 23.1 6.5 Accumulated Operating Results (29.7) (6.5) 0.0 Workload In-House Production (Units) 3667.2 3470.0 3281.4 Unit Cost In-House Production 0.0536 0.0518 0.0535 Customer Rate 0.0482 0.0622 0.0594 Customer Rate Change 0.6% 11.5% 2.2% Document Conversion 46.2 68.0 79.5 Customer Satisfaction 93.0% 93.0% 93.0% Production Efficiency 95.6% 100% 100% Rework Requests 0.46% 0.42% 0.38% Discrepancy Reports 2.1% 2.0% 1.8% Civilian End Strength 1531 1525 1525 Civilian Full-Time Equivalents 1616 1584 1526 Capital Budget Program Equipment (Non-ADP) 0.0 1.8 1.3 Equipment (ADP/T) 0.4 3.6 5.3 Software Development 0.1 0.5 0.3 Minor Construction 0.1 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 0.6 5.9 6.9

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Defense-Wide Working Capital Fund Document Automation and Production Service Changes in the Cost of Operations ($ in Millions) Expenses FY 00 Actual: 385.6 FY 01 Estimate in President's Budget 364.7 Pricing Adjustments: Annualization of FY 00 Pay Raise (0.1) FY 01 Pay Raise 0.2 General Purpose Inflation 0.3 Program Changes: FY 00 Experience: Printing and Reproduction 21.6 US Army Korea functional transfer 2.0 Lower depreciation/lower capital investment (1.2) Higher average annual labor rates 3.0 Credit card interchange fees 1.0 Contract facilities operations 2.0 FY 01 Current Estimate: 393.5 Pricing Adjustments Annualization of Prior Year Pay Raises 0.7 FY 02 Pay Raise Civilian Personnel 2.1 Fund Price Changes 0.0 General Purchase Inflation 5.0 Other Price Changes 0.0 Program Changes: Printing and Reproduction 3.6 Energy Increase 0.1 US Army Korea functional transfer (0.8) A-76 contract support (0.7) In-House Workload Reduction (4.7) FY 02 Estimate: 398.8 Exhibit Fund-2 Changes in Cost of Operatiuons

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Defense-Wide Working Capital Fund Document Automation and Production Service Source of New Orders and Revenue ($ in Millions) FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 1. New Orders a. Orders from DoD Components 259.5 276.5 278.7 Department of the Navy 75.8 80.2 80.9 Operations and Maintenance, Navy 41.8 44.3 44.7 Operations and Maintenance, Marine Corps 11.2 11.8 11.9 O&M, Navy Reserve 4.1 4.3 4.4 O&M, Marine Corps Reserve 0.0 0.0 0.0 Aircraft Procurement, Navy 0.7 0.7 0.7 Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy 0.6 0.6 0.6 Research, Development, Test & Eval, Navy 0.3 0.3 0.3 Military Construction, Navy 0.1 0.1 0.1 Other Navy Appropriations 0.2 0.2 0.2 Credit Card Purchases, Navy 16.8 17.7 17.9 Department of the Army 74.9 81.2 81.8 Army Operation and Maintenance 20.7 23.9 24.1 O&M, Army Reserve 1.1 1.2 1.2 Army National Guard 1.7 1.8 1.8 Army Res, Dev, Test & Eval Accounts 2.3 2.4 2.4 Army Procurement Accounts 0.2 0.2 0.2 Army Other 0.7 0.8 0.8 Credit Card Purchases, Army 48.2 50.9 51.3 Department of the Air Force 71.6 75.8 76.4 Air Force Operation & Maintenance 31.3 33.4 33.6 O&M, Air Force Reserve 1.1 1.2 1.2 Air Force National Guard 0.8 0.9 0.9 Air Force Res, Dev, Test & Eval Accounts 1.4 1.5 1.5 Air Force Procurement Accounts 2.9 3.1 3.1 Air Force Other 0.1 0.1 0.1 Credit Card Purchases, Air Force 34.0 35.7 35.9 DoD Appropriated Accounts 37.2 39.4 39.7 Operation & Maintenance Accounts 11.5 12.2 12.3 Res, Dev, Test & Eval Accounts 0.4 0.4 0.4 Procurement Accounts 0.1 0.1 0.1 Military Construction, Defense 0.0 0.0 0.0 Defense Health Program 10.2 10.8 10.9 DoD Other 0.5 0.5 0.5 Credit Card Purchases, Defense 14.5 15.3 15.4 b. Orders from other Fund Activity Groups 71.3 95.0 95.7 c. Total DoD 330.8 371.5 374.4 d. Other Orders 36.1 40.1 40.5 Other Federal Agencies 28.1 31.2 31.6 Credit Card Purchases 4.9 5.4 5.5 Non-Federal Agencies and Other 3.1 3.4 3.5 Total New Orders 366.9 411.6 414.9 2. Carry-In Orders 101.2 95.4 90.4 3. Total Gross Orders 468.1 507.0 505.3 4. Funded Carry-Over 95.4 90.4 100.1 5. Total Gross Sales 372.7 416.6 405.2 Exhibit Fund-11 Source of New Orders and Revenue

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Defense-Wide Working Capital Fund Document Automation and Production Service Revenue and Expenses ($ in Millions) FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 Revenue Gross Sales 372.7 416.6 405.2 Operations 0.0 0.0 0.0 Capital Surcharge 0.0 0.0 0.0 Depreciation excluding Major Construction 0.0 0.0 0.0 Major Construction Depreciation 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other Income 0.0 0.0 0.0 Refunds/Discounts (-) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Income: 372.7 416.6 405.2 Expenses Cost of Material Sold from Inventory 0.0 0.0 0.0 Salaries and Wages: Military Personnel Compensation & Benefits 0.0 0.0 0.0 Civilian Personnel Compensation & Benefits 79.6 77.4 76.9 Travel & Transportation of Personnel 2.5 2.2 2.1 Materials & Supplies (For Internal Operations) 29.0 25.7 25.2 Equipment 0.4 2.7 2.8 Other Purchases from Revolving Funds 2.8 3.0 3.1 Transportation of Things 1.0 1.2 1.1 Depreciation - Capital 4.9 5.1 5.1 Printing and Reproduction 171.7 197.6 204.3 Advisory and Assistance Services 0.7 0.7 0.0 Rent, Communications, Utilities, & Misc. Charges 23.0 21.6 21.6 Other Purchased Services 70.0 56.4 56.6 Total Expenses: 385.6 393.5 398.8 Operating Result (12.9) 23.1 6.4 Less Capital Surcharge Reservation Plus Passthroughs or Other Appropriations Affecting NOR 0.1 Net Operating Result (12.9) 23.1 6.5 Prior Year Adjustments 27.4 Prior Year AOR (44.2) (29.6) (6.5) Accumulated Operating Result (29.6) (6.5) (0.0) Non-Recoverable Adjustment Impacting AOR: Surcharge Prohibition 0.0 Accumulated Operating Results for Budget Purposes (29.6) (6.5) (0.0) Exhibit Fund-14 Revenue and Expenses

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Defense-Wide Working Capital Fund International Travel FY 2000 Total Obligations ($ in Millions) $0.3 Total Number of individuals: 99 Exhibit PB-56 International Travel