Information Technology
DOD Needs to Ensure That Navy Marine Corps Intranet Program Is Meeting Goals and Satisfying Customers Gao ID: GAO-07-51 December 8, 2006The Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) is a 10-year, $9.3 billion information technology services program. Through a performance-based contract, the Navy is buying network (intranet), application, and other hardware and software services at a fixed price per unit (or "seat") to support about 550 sites. GAO prepared this report under the Comptroller General's authority as part of a continued effort to assist Congress and reviewed (1) whether the program is meeting its strategic goals, (2) the extent to which the contractor is meeting service level agreements, (3) whether customers are satisfied with the program, and (4) what is being done to improve customer satisfaction. To accomplish this, GAO reviewed key program and contract performance management-related plans, measures, and data and interviewed NMCI program and contractor officials, as well as NMCI customers at shipyards and air depots.
NMCI has not met its two strategic goals--to provide information superiority and to foster innovation via interoperability and shared services. Navy developed a performance plan in 2000 to measure and report progress towards these goals, but did not implement it because the program was more focused on deploying seats and measuring contractor performance against contractually specified incentives than determining whether the strategic mission outcomes used to justify the program were met. GAO's analysis of available performance data, however, showed that the Navy had met only 3 of 20 performance targets (15 percent) associated with the program's goals and nine related performance categories. By not implementing its performance plan, the Navy has invested, and risks continuing to invest heavily, in a program that is not subject to effective performance management and has yet to produce expected results. GAO's analysis also showed that the contractor's satisfaction of NMCI service level agreements (contractually specified performance expectations) has been mixed. Since September 2004, while a significant percentage of agreements have been met for all types of seats, others have not consistently been met, and still others have generally not been met. Navy measurement of agreement satisfaction shows that performance needed to receive contractual incentive payments for the most recent 5-month period was attained for about 55 to 59 percent of all eligible seats, which represents a significant drop from the previous 9-month period. GAO's analysis and the Navy's measurement of agreement satisfaction illustrate the need for effective performance management, to include examining agreement satisfaction from multiple perspectives to target needed corrective actions and program changes. GAO analysis further showed that NMCI's three customer groups (end users, commanders, and network operators) vary in their satisfaction with the program. More specifically, end user satisfaction surveys indicated that the percent of end users that met the Navy's definition of a satisfied user has remained consistently below the target of 85 percent (latest survey results categorize 74 percent as satisfied). Given that the Navy's definition of the term "satisfied" includes many marginally satisfied and arguably somewhat dissatisfied users, this percentage represents the best case depiction of end user satisfaction. Survey responses from the other two customer groups show that both were not satisfied. GAO interviews with customers at shipyards and air depots also revealed dissatisfaction with NMCI. Without satisfied customers, the Navy will be challenged in meeting program goals. To improve customer satisfaction, the Navy identified various initiatives that it described as completed, under way, or planned. However, the initiatives are not being guided by a documented plan(s), thus limiting their potential effectiveness. This means that after investing about 6 years and $3.7 billion, NMCI has yet to meet expectations, and whether it will is still unclear.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-07-51, Information Technology: DOD Needs to Ensure That Navy Marine Corps Intranet Program Is Meeting Goals and Satisfying Customers
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-51
entitled 'Information Technology: DOD Needs to Ensure That Navy Marine
Corps Intranet Program Is Meeting Goals and Satisfying Customers' which
was released on December 8, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Addressees:
December 2006:
Information Technology:
DOD Needs to Ensure That Navy Marine Corps Intranet Program Is Meeting
Goals and Satisfying Customers:
GAO-07-51:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-51, a report to congressional addressees
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) is a 10-year, $9.3 billion
information technology services program. Through a performance-based
contract, the Navy is buying network (intranet), application, and other
hardware and software services at a fixed price per unit (or ’seat“) to
support about 550 sites. GAO prepared this report under the Comptroller
General‘s authority as part of a continued effort to assist Congress
and reviewed (1) whether the program is meeting its strategic goals,
(2) the extent to which the contractor is meeting service level
agreements, (3) whether customers are satisfied with the program, and
(4) what is being done to improve customer satisfaction. To accomplish
this, GAO reviewed key program and contract performance management
related plans, measures, and data and interviewed NMCI program and
contractor officials, as well as NMCI customers at shipyards and air
depots.
What GAO Found:
NMCI has not met its two strategic goals”to provide information
superiority and to foster innovation via interoperability and shared
services. Navy developed a performance plan in 2000 to measure and
report progress towards these goals, but did not implement it because
the program was more focused on deploying seats and measuring
contractor performance against contractually specified incentives than
determining whether the strategic mission outcomes used to justify the
program were met. GAO‘s analysis of available performance data,
however, showed that the Navy had met only 3 of 20 performance targets
(15 percent) associated with the program‘s goals and nine related
performance categories. By not implementing its performance plan, the
Navy has invested, and risks continuing to invest heavily, in a program
that is not subject to effective performance management and has yet to
produce expected results.
GAO‘s analysis also showed that the contractor‘s satisfaction of NMCI
service level agreements (contractually specified performance
expectations) has been mixed. Since September 2004, while a significant
percentage of agreements have been met for all types of seats, others
have not consistently been met, and still others have generally not
been met. Navy measurement of agreement satisfaction shows that
performance needed to receive contractual incentive payments for the
most recent 5-month period was attained for about 55 to 59 percent of
all eligible seats, which represents a significant drop from the
previous 9-month period. GAO‘s analysis and the Navy‘s measurement of
agreement satisfaction illustrate the need for effective performance
management, to include examining agreement satisfaction from multiple
perspectives to target needed corrective actions and program changes.
GAO analysis further showed that NMCI‘s three customer groups (end
users, commanders, and network operators) vary in their satisfaction
with the program. More specifically, end user satisfaction surveys
indicated that the percent of end users that met the Navy‘s definition
of a satisfied user has remained consistently below the target of 85
percent (latest survey results categorize 74 percent as satisfied).
Given that the Navy‘s definition of the term ’satisfied“ includes many
marginally satisfied and arguably somewhat dissatisfied users, this
percentage represents the best case depiction of end user satisfaction.
Survey responses from the other two customer groups show that both were
not satisfied. GAO interviews with customers at shipyards and air
depots also revealed dissatisfaction with NMCI. Without satisfied
customers, the Navy will be challenged in meeting program goals.
To improve customer satisfaction, the Navy identified various
initiatives that it described as completed, under way, or planned.
However, the initiatives are not being guided by a documented plan(s),
thus limiting their potential effectiveness. This means that after
investing about 6 years and $3.7 billion, NMCI has yet to meet
expectations, and whether it will is still unclear.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is making recommendations to the Secretary of Defense aimed at
implementing effective program performance management, expanding
measurement and understanding of service level agreement performance,
effectively managing customer satisfaction improvement efforts, and
deciding whether overall performance to date warrants program changes.
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD agreed with GAO‘s
recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-51].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Randolph C. Hite at 202-
512-3439 or hiter@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Navy Has Not Met NMCI Strategic Goals and Has Not Focused on Measuring
Strategic Program Outcomes:
Contractor Has Largely Met Many but Has Not Met Other SLAs:
NMCI Customer Groups' Satisfaction Levels Vary, but Overall Customer
Satisfaction Is Low:
Customer Satisfaction Improvement Efforts Are Not Being Guided by
Effective Planning:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Customer Satisfaction Survey Questions:
Appendix III: SLA Descriptions and Performance:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: List of SLAs Organized by Tier and Category:
Table 2: NMCI End User Customer Satisfaction Survey Questions:
Table 3: NMCI Satisfaction of Performance Targets for Each Performance
Category for Fiscal Year 2005:
Table 4: NMCI End User Customer Satisfaction Survey Questions and
Results for the Quarterly Period Ending on March 31, 2006:
Table 5: Percentages of Satisfied End Users by Navy Budget Submitting
Office, as of March 31, 2006:
Table 6: Percentages of Satisfied End Users by U.S. Marine Corps Major
Command, as of March 31, 2006:
Table 7: Results of the 6-Month Periods Ending on September 30, 2005
and March 31, 2006, Commander Surveys:
Table 8: Results for the 6-Month Periods Ending on September 30, 2005,
and March 31, 2006, Network Operations Leaders Survey:
Table 9: NMCI End User Customer Satisfaction Survey Questions:
Table 10: Navy Echelon II and Marine Corps Major Command Commander's
Customer Satisfaction Incentive Survey's Questions:
Table 11: Navy and Marine Corps Network Operations Leader's Customer
Satisfaction Incentive Survey's Questions:
Figures:
Figure 1: Simplified Department of the Navy Organization Chart:
Figure 2: Organizations Responsible for NMCI Management and Oversight:
Figure 3: The Value of the NMCI Contract:
Figure 4: Site Level Performance for SLA 225:
Figure 5: Site Level Performance for SLA 328:
Figure 6: Site Level Performance for SLA 102:
Figure 7: Site Level Performance for SLA 107:
Figure 8: Percentage of Seats Meeting SLA 101:
Figure 9: Percentage of Seats Meeting SLA 103:
Figure 10: Months in Which the Enterprisewide SLAs Were Met and Not Met
between October 2004 and March 2006:
Figure 11: Trend in the Percentage of Operational Seats Meeting Either
the Full Payment or Full Performance Levels:
Figure 12: Number of Seats Achieving Either the Full Payment or Full
Performance Levels Versus the Number of Seats Eligible:
Figure 13: Trends in End User Satisfaction Levels Related to Program
Contractor Target Levels:
Figure 14: Site Level Performance SLA 101:
Figure 15: Site Level Performance for SLA 102:
Figure 16: Site Level Performance for SLA 103:
Figure 17: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 103:
Figure 18: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 104:
Figure 19: Site Level Performance for SLA 105:
Figure 20: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 106:
Figure 21: Site Level Performance for SLA 107:
Figure 22: Enterprisewide Performance for 203:
Figure 23: Site Level Performance for SLA 204:
Figure 24: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 204:
Figure 25: Site Level Performance for SLA 206:
Figure 26: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 206:
Figure 27: Site Level Performance for SLA 211:
Figure 28: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 211:
Figure 29: Site Level Performance for SLA 225:
Figure 30: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 226:
Figure 31: Site Level Performance for SLA 231:
Figure 32: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 231:
Figure 33: Site Level Performance for SLA 324:
Figure 34: Site Level Performance for SLA 325:
Figure 35: Site Level Performance for SLA 328:
Figure 36: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 329:
Figure 37: Site Level Performance for SLA 332:
Figure 38: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 333:
Figure 39: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 334:
Figure 40: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 336:
Abbreviations:
BAN/LAN: Base Area Network/Local Area Network:
BSO: Budget Submitting Office:
CIO: Chief Information Officer:
CNO: Chief of Naval Operations:
DOD: Department of Defense:
EDS: Electronic Data Systems:
IAVA: Information Assurance Vulnerability Alert:
INFOCON: Information Operations Condition:
IT: information technology:
LISI: Levels of Information Systems Interoperability:
MAC: Move Add Change:
MCNOSC: Marine Corps Network Operations and Security Command:
MTDN: Marine Corps Tactical Data Network:
NETWARCOM: Network Warfare Command:
NIPRNET: Unclassified but Sensitive Internet Protocol Router Network:
NMCI: Navy Marine Corps Intranet:
PEO-EIS: Program Executive Officer for Enterprise Information Systems:
PKI: Public Key Infrastructure:
SIPRNET: Secret Internet Protocol Router Network:
SLA: service level agreement:
December 8, 2006:
Congressional Addressees:
The Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) program is a multiyear
information technology (IT) services program; its goals are to provide
information superiority and to foster innovation via interoperability
and shared services. The Navy awarded the NMCI services contract--
currently valued at $9.3 billion--to Electronic Data Systems (EDS) in
October 2000. The contract calls for EDS to replace thousands of
independent networks, applications, and other hardware and
software[Footnote 1] with a single, internal communications network
(intranet), and associated desktop, server, and infrastructure assets
and services for Navy and Marine Corps customers (end users, network
operators, and commanders).
Because of the size and importance of NMCI, as well as continuing
widespread congressional interest, we prepared this report under the
Comptroller General's authority as part of a continued effort to assist
Congress and reviewed (1) whether the program is meeting its strategic
goals, (2) the extent to which the contractor is meeting its service
level agreements (SLA),[Footnote 2] (3) whether customers are satisfied
with the program, and (4) what is being done to improve customer
satisfaction.
To accomplish these objectives, we reviewed program documentation,
analyzed performance data (including those related to SLAs and customer
satisfaction surveys), reviewed collection processes and results, met
with customers at several large NMCI sites (Navy shipyards and air
depots) to discuss their level of satisfaction, and interviewed
officials from the program office, the Navy's Chief Information
Officer's (CIO) office, and EDS. We performed our work from April 2005
to August 2006, in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Details on our objectives, scope, and methodology
are in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
After investing about 6 years and $3.7 billion on NMCI, the Navy has
yet to meet the program's two strategic goals--to provide information
superiority and to foster innovation. A plan that the Navy developed in
2000 to measure various aspects of the program, and thereby gauge
program goal attainment, has not been implemented, and associated
performance reports have not been issued. According to Navy officials,
implementing this plan has not been as high a priority as, for example,
deploying NMCI and measuring contractor performance. While program
officials told us that NMCI has achieved much, they were unable to
provide performance data to demonstrate these achievements relative to
either the program's strategic goals or the nine performance categories
that its 2000 performance measurement plan and other initiatives
defined for these goals. Given this, we mapped contractor performance
targets and data to the nine performance categories and strategic
goals, which prompted the Navy to do the same. The Navy's mapping shows
that NMCI has met only 3 of 20 performance targets (15 percent). This
means that the mission-critical information superiority and operational
innovation outcomes used to justify NMCI have yet to be attained.
NMCI contractor performance in meeting SLAs depends on how satisfaction
of the agreements is measured and presented. When we analyzed
performance relative to operational "seats" since September 2004,
without regard to the operational status of any site,[Footnote 3] we
determined that while EDS had largely met many of the agreements, it
had not consistently met others, and still other agreements were
generally not being met. For example, during March 2006, EDS met its
agreement to resolve customer problems reported to the help desk for 91
percent of the basic seats, but did not meet this agreement for 52
percent of the mission-critical seats.[Footnote 4] According to the
Navy, it does not measure SLA performance in this manner. Instead, it
measures agreement performance as defined in the contract for purposes
of determining contract incentive payments. Using this approach, the
Navy reports that, as of March 2006, the contractor achieved "full
payment" or "full performance," which are levels of performance that
qualify for increased payments, for approximately 55 percent of the
"eligible" seats. In contrast, the Navy reports that these performance
levels were met for about 94 percent of eligible seats in June 2005.
These views on agreement performance illustrate that, by having robust
performance management efforts and considering a range of perspectives
and metrics, important performance insights can be identified and used.
NMCI customers, which the Navy divides into three groups--end users,
organizational commanders, and network operators--vary in the extent to
which they are satisfied with the program's performance. With respect
to end users, the Navy reports that the percentage satisfied with NMCI
rose from about 54 percent in December 2002, to about 80 percent in
September 2005. However, the rate of improvement dropped off after June
2004, and the percentage of end users that the Navy considers to be
satisfied is below the Navy-wide target of 85 percent. Moreover, the
percentage of end users considered to be satisfied includes many
satisfaction survey responses that are at the lower end of the range of
scores that the Navy has defined "satisfied" to mean. With respect to
commander and network operator satisfaction, the latest Navy data show
that these two customer groups are not satisfied. For example, on a
scale from 0-3, with 0 being dissatisfied and 1 being slightly
satisfied, commanders' response averaged 0.8 and operators' response
averaged 0.3. In addition, officials representing customer groups at
five shipyard or air depot installations that we visited expressed a
number of concerns and areas of dissatisfaction with NMCI. For example,
they told us that they have had to continue using their existing IT
systems to support daily operations because NMCI does not adequately
meet their needs. Without satisfied customers, the Navy runs the risk
that NMCI will not attain the widespread acceptance necessary to ever
achieve strategic program goals.
NMCI program officials told us that improving customer satisfaction is
a program priority and thus they have invested and continue to invest
time and resources in a variety of improvement activities. For example,
they said that they have expanded NMCI capabilities in a number of
ways, such as the implementation of broadband remote access. However,
these improvement efforts are not being guided by a documented plan or
plans with prioritized initiatives that are defined in terms of
activities to be performed, resources to be committed, schedules to be
met, and measurable results to be achieved. Instead, officials told us
that because they have limited resources, they undertake improvement
activities that have not been prioritized whenever resources become
available. Given the importance of NMCI customer satisfaction, it is
important to take a structured and disciplined approach to managing
improvement activities. Without it, the program office cannot
adequately ensure that improvement activities are cost effectively
managed.
To assist the Navy in managing and making informed investment decisions
about the NMCI program, we are making recommendations to the Secretary
of Defense aimed at implementing effective program performance
management, expanding measurement and understanding of SLA performance,
effectively managing customer satisfaction improvement efforts, and
deciding whether performance to date warrants changes to the program.
In written comments on a draft of this report, the Department of
Defense (DOD) stated that it agreed with our recommendations.
Nevertheless, the department also said that the Navy believes that the
draft report contained factual errors, data misinterpretations, and
unsupported conclusions. In this regard, the Navy generally made five
points.
* It said that our review focused on Navy shipyards and air depots and
excluded Marine Corps sites. We disagree. Our scope, as stated
throughout the report, extended to both Navy and Marine Corps sites and
customers.
* The Navy said that NMCI is a strategic success and is meeting its
goals of providing information superiority and fostering innovation. We
disagree. As we show in the report, the Navy's own performance targets,
along with SLA and other performance data, show that NMCI has met only
3 of 20 performance categories associated with its two goals. Meeting
program strategic goals, in our view, should be the measure of a
program's strategic success.
* The Navy said that we misinterpreted SLA data as they relate to the
contractually-specified performance categories of full payment and full
performance. We disagree. Our use of SLA data relative to the full
payment and full performance categories presents the Navy's own
analysis and includes no GAO interpretations. The analysis of SLA data
that we performed and included in the report decouples these data from
these two performance categories and offers more visibility into and
coverage of contractor performance relative to each individual SLA.
* The Navy said that our conclusion that certain customers were
marginally satisfied is not supported by the survey responses, which
the Navy contends can only be viewed as either satisfied or unsatisfied
customers. While we acknowledge that the Navy views responses of 5.5 or
higher on a 1-10 point scale as satisfied customers, our point is that
this viewing is too simplistic because it does not differentiate
between degrees of satisfaction. Therefore, our characterizing of
responses of 5.5 to 7 as marginally satisfied provides additional
insight and perspective into customers' true level of satisfaction.
* The Navy said the program office adequately reports to key program
decision makers. We disagree, as evidenced by the fact that this
reporting has not conveyed the range and magnitude of performance and
customer satisfaction issues that our report contains.
Beyond these major points, the Navy also provided various technical
comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate in this report.
Background:
The Department of the Navy is a large and complex organization with a
wide range of mission operations and supporting business functions. For
example, the Navy has about 350,000 active duty officers and enlisted
personnel, 130,000 ready reserve, and 175,000 civilian employees.
Navy's fleet operations involve approximately 280 ships and 4,000
aircraft operating throughout the world. Further, the Navy's annual
operating budget is about $120 billion and is used to fund such things
as ship and aircraft operations, air depot maintenance, and Marine
Corps operations.
The department's primary organizational components are the Secretary of
the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the
Marine Corps. The structural relationships among these components are
summarized later and in figure 1.
Figure 1: Simplified Department of the Navy Organization Chart:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO based on Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
* Secretary of the Navy: Department of the Navy headquarters recruits,
organizes, supplies, equips, trains, and mobilizes, naval forces. Among
other things, this includes construction, outfitting, and repair of
Navy and Marine Corps ships, equipment, and facilities. It also
includes formulating and implementing policies and programs.
* Naval and Marine Corps Operating Forces: The operating forces
commanders and fleet commanders have two chains of command.
Administratively, they report to the Chief of Naval Operations, and are
responsible for providing, training, and equipping naval forces.
Operationally, they provide naval forces and report to the appropriate
Unified Combatant Commanders. The operating forces include a variety of
organizations with diverse missions, such as the Atlantic and Pacific
Fleets, Naval Network Warfare Command, and Naval Reserve Forces.
* Naval shore establishment: The Navy shore establishment includes
facilities and activities for repairing machinery, electronics, ships,
and aircraft; providing communications capabilities; providing
training; providing intelligence and meteorological support; storing
repair parts, fuel, and munitions; and providing medical support. It
consists of organizations such as the Naval Sea Systems Command (which
includes shipyards), Naval Air Systems Command (which includes aviation
depots), Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, Navy Personnel
Command, Naval Education and Training Command, and the Office of Naval
Intelligence.
The Navy's many and dispersed organizational components rely heavily on
IT to help them perform their respective mission operations and
business functions. For fiscal year 2006, the Navy's IT budget was
about $5.8 billion, which included funding for the development,
operation, and maintenance of Navy-owned IT systems, as well as funding
for contractor-provided IT services and programs, such as NMCI.
The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and
Acquisition is responsible for Navy acquisition programs. Reporting to
the Assistant Secretary are numerous entities that have authority,
responsibility, and accountability for life-cycle management of
acquisition programs within their cognizance. These entities include
certain program managers, system command, and program executive
officers.
The Navy Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for developing
and issuing IT management policies and standards in coordination with
the above Assistant Secretary, the system commands, and others. The
Navy CIO is also responsible for ensuring that major programs comply
with the Clinger-Cohen Act (1996)[Footnote 5] and for recommending to
the Secretary of the Navy whether to continue, modify, or terminate IT
programs, such as NMCI.
NMCI Purpose, Scope, and Status:
NMCI is a major, Navy-wide IT services program. Its goals are to
provide information superiority--an uninterrupted information flow and
the ability to exploit or deny an adversary's ability to do the same--
and to foster innovative ways of operating through interoperable and
shared network services. The program is being implemented through a
multiyear IT services contract that is to provide desktop, server,
infrastructure, and communications-related services at Navy and Marine
Corps sites located in the United States and Japan. Through this
contract, the Navy is replacing independent local and wide area
networks with a single network and related desktop hardware and
software that are owned by the contractor. Among other things, the
contractor is to provide voice, video, and data services;
infrastructure improvements; and customer service. This type of
contract is commonly referred to as "seat management." Generally
speaking, under seat management, contractor-owned desktop and other
computing hardware, software, and related services are bundled and
provided on the basis of a fixed price per unit (or seat).
In October 2000, the Navy's goal was to have between 412,000 and
416,000 seats operational by fiscal year 2004. As of June 2006, the
Navy reported that about 303,000 seats were operational at about 550
sites. According to the Navy, initial delays in meeting deployment
schedules were due to underestimates in its existing inventory of
legacy applications that needed to be migrated to NMCI. Subsequent
delays were attributed to developing and implementing a certification
and accreditation process[Footnote 6] for all applications, as well as
legislation[Footnote 7] requiring certain analyses to be completed
before seat deployment could exceed specific levels.
The number of seats at each site ranges from a single seat to about
10,000. These sites include small sites, such as office facilities
located throughout the United States, and large sites, such as
shipyards and air depots, which use unique software to assist in repair
work.[Footnote 8]
NMCI Program Management Structure:
Various organizations in the Navy are responsible for NMCI management
and oversight (see fig. 2). The Program Executive Officer for
Enterprise Information Systems (PEO-EIS) along with the NMCI Program
Manager are responsible for NMCI acquisition and contract management.
The program is also overseen and supported by several groups. One is
the Navy's Information Executive Committee, which provides guidance
for, and oversight of, NMCI and other information issues. The committee
is made up of CIOs from a range of Navy commands, activities, offices,
and other entities within the Navy. Another is the NMCI Executive
Committee, which includes representatives of the heads of a broad cross
section of organizations throughout the Navy, and the contractor. Its
mission is to help in the review, oversight, and management of the
Navy's implementation of NMCI, as well as to assist in identifying and
resolving process and policy impediments within the Navy that hinder an
efficient and effective implementation process. Additionally, the
Network Warfare Command (NETWARCOM)[Footnote 9] and the Marine Corps
Network Operations and Security Command (MCNOSC),[Footnote 10] are the
two entities primarily responsible for network operations management in
the Navy and Marine Corps, respectively. The Navy CIO is responsible
for overall IT policy.
Figure 2: Organizations Responsible for NMCI Management and Oversight:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO based on Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
NMCI Contract Description:
On October 6, 2000, the Navy awarded a 5-year contract for NMCI
services to a single service provider--EDS--for an estimated 412,000 to
416,000 seats and minimum value of $4.1 billion. The original contract
also included a 3-year option for an additional $2.8 billion in
services, bringing the potential total contract value to $6.9 billion.
The department and EDS subsequently restructured the contract to be a 7-
year, $6 billion contract with a 3-year option for an additional $2.8
billion beginning in fiscal year 2008. Following further contract
restructuring and the Navy's decision to exercise the 3-year option,
the total contract period and minimum value is now 10 years and about
$9.3 billion. Figure 3 illustrates the value of the NMCI contract.
Figure 3: The Value of the NMCI Contract:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
The NMCI contract type is commonly referred to as seat management
because pricing for the desktop services is based on a fixed price per
"seat." Seats include desktop computers, as well as other devices, such
as cellular phones. Pricing for these seats varies depending on the
services provided. For example, having classified connectivity, mission-
critical service, additional user accounts, or additional software
installation increases the amount paid per seat.
The NMCI contract is performance-based, which means that it contains
monetary incentives to provide services at specified levels of quality
and timeliness. The contract includes several types of incentives,
including incentives tied to SLA performance, and customer satisfaction
surveys.
SLAs:
The contract currently specifies 23 SLAs divided into three tiers: 100
SLAs, 200 SLAs, and 300 SLAs. The 100 tier is referred to as base
agreements, the 200 as transitional agreements, and the 300 as
additional agreements. Examples of agreements for each tier are
provided below.
* 100--End user services (SLA 103):
* 200--Web access services (SLA 206):
* 300--Network management services (SLA 328):
SLAs are further categorized as enterprisewide, site-specific, or both.
Unlike site-specific SLAs, enterprisewide SLAs are not analyzed on a
site-by-site basis. See table 1 for a list of agreements organized by
tier and category.
Table 1: List of SLAs Organized by Tier and Category:
Base agreements:
SLA number and name: 101-End user problem resolution;
Site-specific: X;
Enterprisewide: [Empty].
SLA number and name: 102-Network problem resolution;
Site-specific: X;
Enterprisewide: [Empty].
SLA number and name: 103-End user services;
Site-specific: X;
Enterprisewide: X.
SLA number and name: 104-Help desk;
Site-specific: [Empty];
Enterprisewide: X.
SLA number and name: 105-Move, add, change;
Site-specific: X;
Enterprisewide: [Empty].
SLA number and name: 106-Information assurance incentives;
Site-specific: [Empty];
Enterprisewide: X.
SLA number and name: 107-NMCI intranet;
Site-specific: X;
Enterprisewide: [Empty].
Transitional agreements:
SLA number and name: 203-E-mail services;
Site-specific: [Empty];
Enterprisewide: X.
SLA number and name: 204-Directory services;
Site-specific: X;
Enterprisewide: X.
SLA number and name: 206-Web access services;
Site-specific: X;
Enterprisewide: X.
SLA number and name: 211-Unclassified but Sensitive Internet Protocol
Router Network (NIPRNET) access;
Site-specific: X;
Enterprisewide: X.
SLA number and name: 225-Base area network/local area network
communications services;
Site-specific: X;
Enterprisewide: [Empty].
SLA number and name: 226-Proxy and caching services;
Site-specific: [Empty];
Enterprisewide: X.
SLA number and name: 231-System service - Domain name server;
Site-specific: X;
Enterprisewide: X.
Additional agreements:
SLA number and name: 324-Wide area network network connectivity;
Site-specific: X;
Enterprisewide: [Empty].
SLA number and name: 325-Base area network/local area network
communications services;
Site-specific: X;
Enterprisewide: [Empty].
SLA number and name: 328-Network management service;
Site-specific: X;
Enterprisewide: [Empty].
SLA number and name: 329-Operational support services;
Site-specific: [Empty];
Enterprisewide: X.
SLA number and name: 332-Application server connectivity;
Site-specific: X;
Enterprisewide: [Empty].
SLA number and name: 333-Security operational services;
Site-specific: [Empty];
Enterprisewide: X.
SLA number and name: 334-Information assurance operational service-PKI;
Site-specific: [Empty];
Enterprisewide: X.
SLA number and name: 336-Information assurance planning services;
Site-specific: [Empty];
Enterprisewide: X.
Source: GAO analysis of NMCI SLA data.
[End of table]
Each agreement has one or more performance categories. For example, SLA
102 has 1 performance category (Network Problem Resolution), while SLA
107 has 3 performance categories (NMCI Intranet Availability, Latency/
Packet Loss, and Voice and Video Quality of Service). Collectively,
there are 51 performance categories.
Each performance category has specific performance targets that the
contractor must reach in order for the category to be met. An example
of a target is providing e-mail server services to users 99.7 percent
of the time that they are supposed to be available.
The contract currently specifies two levels of performance to be used
in determining, on a site-by-site basis, what performance-based payment
incentives, if any, EDS will earn in a given quarter (3-month
period).[Footnote 11] If either of these levels of performance is not
met, the contractor is to be paid 85 percent of the amount allowed
under the contract for each seat that has been cut over (i.e., is
operational).
1. Full payment. To achieve this level for a given seat, the contractor
must meet 100 percent of the applicable SLAs for that seat, and 50 to
90 percent of the planned seats at the site must be cut over. Meeting a
quarterly agreement is defined as performance at or above the
applicable target(s) for either (1) 2 out of the 3 months preceding an
invoice or (2) the current month of the invoice. If these conditions
are met, the contractor is paid 100 percent of the amount allowed per
seat. If, in subsequent months, the contractor fails to achieve 100
percent of the agreements, the amount paid is 85 percent of the amount
allowed per seat.
2. Full performance. To achieve this level for a given seat, the
contractor must meet 100 percent of the applicable SLAs for that seat,
and over 90 percent of the planned seats at the site must be cut over.
Meeting an agreement is defined as performance at or above the
target(s) for either (1) 2 out of the 3 months preceding a quarterly
invoice or (2) the current month of the invoice. If these conditions
are met, the contractor is paid 100 percent of the amount allowed per
seat. Once a site has achieved full performance, it remains eligible
for full payments, regardless of changes to the numbers of seat orders.
However, the contractor is required to provide "financial credits" to
the Navy in the event that the agreements are not met at some future
time.
Customer Satisfaction Surveys:
The contract also provides for administration of three customer
satisfaction surveys: End User, Echelon II/ Major Command,[Footnote 12]
and Network Operations Leaders. These surveys and their related
financial incentives are discussed below.
End User Satisfaction Survey:
The contractor began conducting quarterly satisfaction surveys of Navy
end users in June of 2002 and Marine Corps end users in March 2005.
These surveys are administered to a different mix of 25 percent of
eligible users[Footnote 13] each quarter, with nearly all users being
surveyed each year.
Since March 2004, the survey has consisted of 14 questions, all
relating to satisfaction with the NMCI program[Footnote 14] and 10
focusing on satisfaction with EDS.[Footnote 15] For each question,
users are asked to indicate their level of dissatisfaction/satisfaction
according to a 10-point scale, with 1-5 denoting levels of
dissatisfaction, and 6-10 denoting levels of satisfaction. The Navy
considers end users to be satisfied in general, with the program, or
with the contractor, if the average response across the 14, 4, or 10
questions, respectively, is 5.5 or higher. The survey instrument also
includes space for additional comments and asks the end users to
identify and rank reasons for dissatisfaction or suggestions for
improvements. See table 2 for a list of the 14 questions.
Table 2: NMCI End User Customer Satisfaction Survey Questions:
What is your satisfaction.
* With having access to the computer hardware you need to accomplish
your job?
With the dependability of the computer you use?
* With having access to the software you need to accomplish your job?
With network reliability?
With the professionalism of EDS personnel?
With finding and using information about NMCI services?
With the accuracy of information describing how to use NMCI services?
* With training on how to use NMCI effectively?
With technical support services provided by the help desk?
With technical support services provided by on-site personnel?
With the timeliness of problem resolution?
With the solution implemented to correct any problem you experienced?
* With the process to make changes to your IT environment?
What is your overall satisfaction with services provided by EDS?
Source: March 2006 Quarterly Customer Satisfaction Survey Report.
Note: Questions marked with an asterisk are not used for incentive
purposes:
[End of table]
Based on the quarterly survey results, the contractor is eligible for
an incentive payment of $12.50 per seat if 85 to 90 percent of the
average responses is 5.5 or higher, and $25 per seat if greater that 90
percent respond in this way. No incentive is to be paid if fewer than
85 percent respond as being satisfied.
Echelon II (Navy) and Major Command (Marine Corps) Commander Survey and
Network Operations Leader Survey:
In October 2004, the Navy designated two additional categories of
customers--commanders and network operations leaders--and developed
separate satisfaction surveys for each. In general, the commander
survey focuses on whether NMCI is adequately supporting a command's
mission needs and strategic goals; the network operations leader survey
focuses on whether the contractor is meeting certain operational
network requirements. The surveys are administered every 6 months.
The latest commander survey was distributed to the heads of 23 Navy and
Marine Corps command units. The network operations leader survey was
distributed to NETWARCOM and MCNOSC.
Both surveys are organized by major topic and subtopic. For the
commander survey, the major topics and subtopics are as follows:
* Warfighter support--including classified network support, deployable
support, and emergent requirement support.
* Cutover services--including planning, preparation, and execution.
* Technical solutions--including the new service order and delivery
process, and technical performance.
* Service delivery--including organizational understanding, customer
service, and issue management.
For the network operations leader surveys, the major topics and
subtopics are as follows:
* Mission support and planning--including interoperability support,
continuity of operations, future readiness, and public key
infrastructure.
* Network management--including network status information, information
assurance, urgent software patch implementation, and data management.
* Service delivery--including organizational understanding,
communications, issue management, and flexibility and responsiveness.
Appendix II provides a complete listing of the questions included in
the commander survey and the network operations leader survey.
Responses to the questions in both surveys are solicited on a scale of
0-3, with 0 being dissatisfied, and 3 being extremely satisfied. To
aggregate the respective surveys' results, the Navy averages the
responses by command units, and network operations units.
Based on the 6-month survey results, the contractor is eligible for an
incentive payment of up to $50 per seat, with average scores of less
than 0.5 receiving no incentive, 0.5 to less than 1.5 receiving 25
percent of the incentive, between 1.5 to less than 2.25 receiving 50
percent of the incentive, and at least 2.25 receiving 100 percent of
the incentive.
Previous GAO Work on NMCI:
We have reported on a number of NMCI issues since the program's
inception. For example, in March 2000, we reported that the Navy's
acquisition approach and implementation plan had a number of
weaknesses, and thus introduced unnecessary program risk. In
particular, we said that the Navy lacked a plan for addressing many
program requirements and information on NMCI's potential impacts on
Navy personnel.[Footnote 16]
In October 2002, we reported that NMCI's transition costs for shipyards
and air depots was unclear, which in turn limited the ability of such
industrially funded entities to set the future rates that they would
charge their customers.[Footnote 17] Accordingly, we recommended that
the program, in collaboration with the Naval Sea Systems Command and
the Naval Air Systems Command, systematically and expeditiously resolve
implementation issues that affect the ability of shipyards and depots
to plan and budget. In response to these recommendations, the Navy took
a number of actions, including establishing an Executive Customer Forum
to, among other things, adjudicate issues requiring collaborative
decision making among Navy component CIOs, including those from the
Naval Sea Systems Command and the Naval Air Systems Command, which
represent Navy shipyards and air depots, respectively.
In April 2003, we reported on the extent to which five DOD IT services
projects, including NMCI, had followed leading commercial outsourcing
practices.[Footnote 18] For NMCI, we found that while the Navy had
employed most of these practices, it did not follow the key practice
related to establishing an accurate baseline of the existing IT
environment, choosing instead to rely on a preexisting and dated
inventory of its legacy applications. Because of this, we concluded
that the Navy substantially underestimated the number of legacy
applications that needed to transition to NMCI, in turn causing the
program's time frame for transitioning to slip considerably. We
recommended that DOD take steps to learn from such lessons, so that
such mistakes are not repeated on future IT outsourcing projects.
Navy Has Not Met NMCI Strategic Goals and Has Not Focused on Measuring
Strategic Program Outcomes:
Consistent with relevant laws and guidance, the Navy defined strategic
goals for its NMCI program and developed a plan for measuring and
reporting on achievement of these goals. However, the Navy did not
implement this plan, choosing instead to focus on defining and
measuring contractually specified SLAs. According to Navy officials,
implementing the goal-oriented plan was not a priority, compared with
swiftly deploying NMCI seats and measuring satisfaction of contract
provisions. While program officials told us that NMCI has produced
considerable mission value and achieved much, they did not have
performance data to demonstrate progress in relation to either the
program's strategic goals or nine performance categories that its plan
and related efforts defined relative to these goals. Given this, we
mapped SLAs to the nine performance categories and two strategic goals,
which prompted the Navy to do the same. The Navy's mapping shows that
NMCI has met few of the categories' performance targets, and thus has
yet to meet either of the strategic goals. This means that the mission-
critical information superiority and operational innovation outcomes
that were used to justify investment in NMCI have yet to be attained.
Without effective performance management, the Navy is increasing the
risk that the program will continue to fall short of its goals and
expected results.
Navy Developed a Performance Management Plan to Measure and Report NMCI
Progress in Meeting Strategic Goals but Did Not Implement It:
Various laws --such as the Government Performance & Results Act and
Clinger-Cohen Act--require federal agencies to identify and report on
mission and strategic goals, associated performance measures, and
actual performance. Federal IT guidance[Footnote 19] also recognizes
the importance of defining program goals and related measures and
performance targets, as well as determining the extent to which
targets, measures, and goals are being met.
In initiating NMCI, the Navy established two strategic goals for the
program. According to the Navy, the program's primary goal is to
support "information superiority," which it characterizes as "providing
the capability to collect, process, and disseminate an uninterrupted
flow of information while exploiting or denying an adversary's ability
to do the same." In this regard, NMCI was to create an integrated
network in which connectivity among all parts of the shore
establishment, and with all deployed forces at sea and ashore, enables
all members of the network to collaborate freely, share information,
and interoperate with other services and nations. The second goal is to
"foster innovation" by providing an interoperable and shared services
"environment that supports innovative ways of integrating doctrine and
tactics, training, and supporting activities into new operational
capabilities and more productive ways of using resources." Related to
these goals, the Navy also cited significant benefits that were to
accrue from NMCI, including (1) an uninterrupted flow of information;
(2) improvements to interoperability, security, information assurance,
knowledge sharing, productivity, and operational performance; and (3)
reduced costs.
To determine its progress in meeting these program goals and producing
expected benefits, the Navy included a performance measurement plan in
its "2000 Report to Congress" on NMCI. According to the Navy, the
purpose of this 2000 performance measurement plan was to document its
approach to ensuring that key NMCI outcomes (i.e., results and
benefits) and measures were identified and collected. In this regard,
the plan identified eight strategic performance measurement categories,
and related them to the NMCI strategic program goals. Subsequently, the
Navy added a ninth performance category. According to program office
and the Navy CIO officials, the nine performance categories are all
relevant to determining program performance and strategic goal
attainment. Moreover, the plan states that these categories provide for
making NMCI an integrated portion of the Navy and Marine Corps
strategic vision, support the principles of using IT to support people,
and focus on the mission value of technology.
These nine categories, including the Navy's definition of each, are as
follows:
* Interoperability: ability to allow Navy systems and applications to
communicate and share information with, and for providing services to
and accepting services from, other military services.
* Security and information assurance: compliance with relevant DOD,
Navy, and Marine Corps information assurance policies and procedures.
* Workforce capabilities: ability to (1) increase people's access to
information, (2) provide tools and develop people's skills for
obtaining and sharing information, and (3) support a knowledge-centric
and -sharing culture that is built on mutual trust and respect.
* Process improvement: role as a strategic enabler for assessment and
benchmarking of business and operational processes, and for sharing of
data, information, applications, and knowledge.
* Operational performance: ability to support improved mission
(operational and business) performance.
* Service efficiency: economic effectiveness (i.e., its cost versus
services and benefits).
* Customer satisfaction: key stakeholders (e.g., end users,) degree of
satisfaction.
* Program management: ability to (1) meet the seat implementation
schedule and the NMCI budget, (2) achieve specified levels of network
performance, and (3) proactively manage program risks.
* Network operations and maintenance: includes such things as virus
detection and repair, upgradeability, scalability, maintainability,
asset management, and software distribution.
The performance plan also included metrics, targets, and comparative
baselines that were to be used for the first annual performance report,
although it noted that progress in meeting some performance targets
would not be measured until after contract award and that some of the
cited measures could at some point cease to provide useful information
for making decisions, while others may need to be collected
continuously. The plan also stated that the Navy would fully develop
performance measures for each of the categories and that it would
produce an annual report on NMCI's performance in each of the
categories.
However, the Navy has not implemented its 2000 performance management
plan. For example, the Navy did not develop performance measures for
each of the performance categories and has not reported annually on
progress against performance targets, categories and goals. Instead,
Navy officials told us that they focused on defining and measuring
progress against contractually specified SLAs, deploying NMCI seats,
and reducing the number of Navy applications that are to run on NMCI
workstations. According to these officials, measuring progress against
the program's strategic goals was not a priority.
Because measurement of goal attainment has not been the Navy's focus to
date, when we sought (from both the program office and the Navy CIO
office) performance data demonstrating progress in meeting NMCI's
strategic goals and performance categories, the Navy was unable to
provide data in this context. Instead, these officials said that data
were available relative to contract performance, to include SLA
performance levels and customer satisfaction survey results. Given
this, we mapped the available contract-related performance data to the
nine performance categories and targets and provided our analysis to
the program office and the Navy CIO office. The Navy provided
additional performance data and revisions to our mappings. Our analysis
of the Navy-provided mapping, including associated fiscal year 2005
data, is discussed in the next section.
NMCI Strategic Goals and Associated Performance Category Targets Have
Not Been Met:
The Navy has not fully met any of its performance categories associated
with achieving NMCI strategic goals and realizing program benefits. For
example, the performance category of "Program management" has four
performance targets relative to cost, schedule, performance, and risk.
For fiscal year 2005, the NMCI program met one of the performance
targets. It did not meet the other three targets and thus did not meet
this performance category. Overall, the Navy defined 20 targets for the
9 performance categories. Of these 20, the Navy met 3, did not meet 13,
and was unable to determine if it met 4. The specific performance
targets for each performance category are described below, along with
performance in fiscal year 2005 against each target. Table 3 summarizes
the number of targets met and not met for each category.
Table 3: NMCI Satisfaction of Performance Targets for Each Performance
Category for Fiscal Year 2005:
Performance area: Interoperability;
Number of targets: 3;
Targets met: 1;
Targets not met: 1;
Unable to determine: 1.
Performance area: Security/information assurance;
Number of targets: 2;
Targets met: 0;
Targets not met: 2;
Unable to determine: 0.
Performance area: Workforce capabilities;
Number of targets: 3;
Targets met: 1;
Targets not met: 1;
Unable to determine: 1.
Performance area: Process improvement;
Number of targets: 2;
Targets met: 0;
Targets not met: 1;
Unable to determine: 1.
Performance area: Operational performance;
Number of targets: 1;
Targets met: 0;
Targets not met: 1;
Unable to determine: 0.
Performance area: Service efficiency;
Number of targets: 2;
Targets met: 0;
Targets not met: 1;
Unable to determine: 1.
Performance area: Customer satisfaction;
Number of targets: 1;
Targets met: 0;
Targets not met: 1;
Unable to determine: 0.
Performance area: Program management;
Number of targets: 4;
Targets met: 1;
Targets not met: 3;
Unable to determine: 0.
Performance area: Network operations and maintenance;
Number of targets: 2;
Targets met: 0;
Targets not met: 2;
Unable to determine: 0.
Total;
Number of targets: 20;
Targets met: 3;
Targets not met: 13;
Unable to determine: 4.
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of table]
Interoperability: The Navy defined information systems
interoperability, critical joint applications interoperability, and
operational testing targets as its measures of this category. For
fiscal year 2005, it met the information systems interoperability
target. However, it did not meet the critical joint applications
interoperability target, and it could not determine whether it met the
operational testing target because of insufficient data.
* Information systems interoperability: The target was to be level 2 on
the DOD Levels of Information Systems Interoperability (LISI)
Scale.[Footnote 20] The Navy reports that NMCI was a level 2.
* Critical joint applications interoperability: The target was for all
critical joint applications to be interoperable with NMCI.[Footnote 21]
In fiscal year 2005, the Navy did not transition all of its critical
joint applications to NMCI. Moreover, of the 13 applications that were
fully or partially transitioned, one was determined not to be
interoperable.
* Operational testing: The target was to be "Potentially Operationally
Effective" and "Potentially Operationally Suitable." However, Navy
reported that the Joint Interoperability Test Command operational
testing did not produce sufficient data to determine this.
Security and information assurance: The Navy identified SLAs and
information assurance incentive targets as its measures of this
category. For fiscal year 2005, it did not meet either target.
* SLAs: The target was to meet 100 percent of all security-related
agreements. The Navy reported that it met this target during 4 months
of the fiscal year but did not meet it for 8 months, including the last
6 months of the fiscal year.
* Information assurance incentives: The target was to have the
contractor earn 100 percent of the incentive each year. However, the
contractor did not earn 100 percent of the incentive for the last 6
months of this fiscal year.
Workforce capabilities: The Navy defined the reduction of civilian IT
workforce, percentage of workforce with access to NMCI, and the amount
of professional certifications as its measures of this category. For
fiscal year 2005, it reported that it met the reduction of civilian IT
workforce target but did not meet the percent of workforce with access
target and could not determine whether it met the professional
certifications target.
* Reduction of civilian IT workforce: The target was to have a zero
reduction in its civilian IT workforce. The Navy reported that it met
this target.
* Percent of workforce with access: The target was for 100 percent of
its workforce to have access. As of September 30, 2005, 82 percent of
the applicable workforce had a seat.
* Amount of professional certifications: While Navy officials stated
that the target is professional certifications, they could not provide
a measurable target. Therefore, it cannot be determined whether the
target was met.
Process improvement: The Navy defined certain customer survey and
technology refreshment targets as its measures of this category. For
fiscal year 2005, the Navy did not meet the leadership survey target
and could not determine whether it met the technology refreshment
target.
* Information from customer surveys: The target was to have the
contractor earn 100 percent of the Echelon II survey and the Network
Operations Leaders' survey incentives. However, the contractor earned
25 percent of the incentive for the Echelon II survey, and 0 percent of
the incentive for the Network Operations Leaders' survey in fiscal year
2005.
* Technology refreshment: While Navy officials stated that the target
is technology refreshment, they could not provide measurable targets.
Therefore, it cannot be determined whether the target was met.
Operational performance: The Navy identified information from the
network Operations Leaders' survey as its target for measuring this
category. For fiscal year 2005, it did not meet this target.
* Network Operations Leaders' survey: The target was for the contractor
to earn 100 percent of the Network Operations Leaders' survey
incentive. The contractor earned 0 percent of the incentive in fiscal
year 2005.
Service efficiency: The Navy defined SLA performance and cost/service
ratio per seat targets as measures of this category. For fiscal year
2005, the Navy did not meet the SLA performance target, and it could
not determine if it met the cost/service ratio per seat target.
* SLA performance: The target was to have 100 percent of seats at the
full performance or full payment level. As of September 2005, the Navy
reported that 82 percent of seats achieved full payment or full
performance. This is down from March 2005, when the Navy reported that
96 percent of seats achieved full payment or full performance.
* Cost/service per seat: The target was to have the cost/service ratio
per seat to not exceed what it was prior to NMCI. According to the
Navy, while the per seat cost for NMCI is higher, the service level is
also higher. However, the Navy did not have sufficient information to
determine if the target was met.
Customer satisfaction: The Navy identified information from the end
user satisfaction survey as a target for measuring this category. It
did not meet this target in fiscal year 2005.
* Customer satisfaction survey: The target was to have 85 percent of
NMCI end users satisfied. However, the percentage of users reported as
satisfied from December 2004 through September 2005 ranged from 75 to
80 percent.
Program management: The Navy defined cost, schedule, performance, and
risk-related performance targets as measures of this category. For
fiscal year 2005, it reports that it met the cost target because it did
not obligate more than 100 percent of available NMCI funding but did
not meet the schedule, performance, and risk targets.
* Cost: The target was to obligate up to 100 percent of program funds
on NMCI in fiscal year 2005. The Navy reports that it obligated 97
percent of these funds in this fiscal year. Program officials stated
that the other 3 percent was spent on legacy IT infrastructure.
* Schedule: The target was to deploy all seats that were scheduled for
deployment in fiscal year 2005. The Navy reports that it deployed 77
percent of these scheduled seats.
* Performance: The target was to have 100 percent of eligible seats at
full payment or full performance. The Navy reports that, as of
September 2005, 82 percent of the seats achieved full payment or full
performance.
* Risk: The target is to be "green" in all risk areas.[Footnote 22] The
Navy reports that it was "yellow" in several risk areas, such as
schedule and organizational change management.
Network operations and maintenance: The Navy defined SLA performance,
leadership survey results, and technology refreshment targets for
measuring this category. For fiscal year 2005, it did not meet the SLA
performance or the leadership survey results targets. Further, it could
not determine if it met the technology refreshment target.
* SLA performance: The target was to have 100 percent of eligible seats
at either full payment or full performance. As of September 2005, the
Navy reported that 82 percent of seats were achieving full payment or
full performance. This is down from March 2005, when the Navy reported
that 96 percent of seats achieved full payment or full performance.
* Leadership survey results: The target was to have the contractor earn
100 percent of both the Echelon II and Network Operations Leaders'
survey incentives. Through September 30, 2005, the contractor earned 25
percent of the Echelon II incentive, and 0 percent of the operator's
incentive.
Notwithstanding the above described performance relative to performance
category targets and strategic goals, Navy CIO and program officials
described the program as a major success. CIO officials, for example
stated that NMCI has significantly improved the Navy's IT environment,
and will increase productivity through greater knowledge sharing and
improved interoperability. They also stated that a review and
certification process for all applications deployed on the network has
been implemented and thus compliance with security and interoperability
requirements has been ensured. According to these officials, NMCI's
value has been demonstrated repeatedly over the last few years. In this
regard, they cited the following examples but did not provide
verifiable data to support them.
* Improved security through continuous security assessments, a
centralized distribution of vulnerability information, configuration
control of critical servers, and an improved response to new
vulnerabilities/threats.
* Improved continuity of operations (e.g., the Navy reports that it had
no prolonged disruptions due to recent hurricanes and fires on the West
Coast).
* Increased personnel training and certification by increasing the
amount of offerings.
* Identified opportunities for improving efficiency through the use of
performance metrics.
* Improved software and hardware asset management and implementation of
standard and secure configurations.
* Provided pier-side (waterfront) connectivity and Navy-wide public key
infrastructure.[Footnote 23]
The Navy's mapping of fiscal year 2005 data to performance categories
and targets as summarized above shows that the NMCI program has not yet
met either of its strategic goals. Specifically, the information
superiority and innovation goals that were used to justify the program
have yet to be attained. Further, although the Navy developed a plan to
measure and report on NMCI progress in meeting the strategic goals,
this plan was not implemented. As a result, the development and
reporting of program performance relative to strategic goals has not
occurred.
Contractor Has Largely Met Many but Has Not Met Other SLAs:
Our analysis of Navy contractor performance data since September 2004
shows that the extent to which the site-specific agreements have been
met for all operational seats (regardless of site) varies widely by
individual agreement, with some always being met but others having
varied performance over time and by seat type. Our analysis also showed
that, although the contractor has met most of the enterprisewide
agreements during this time period, it has not met a few. The Navy's
analysis and reporting of contractor performance relative to the SLAs,
using data for the same time period, showed that the percentage of
operational seats meeting the agreements averaged about 89 percent from
March 2005 to September 2005, then declined to 74 percent in October
2005 and averaged about 56 percent between November 2005 and March
2006. These differences in how SLA performance can be viewed illustrate
how contractor performance against the agreements can be viewed
differently depending on how available data are analyzed and presented.
They also illustrate the importance of having a comprehensive,
transparent, and consistent approach to program performance management
that considers a range of perspectives and metrics.
Contractor Satisfaction of SLAs Has Varied by Agreement and Seat Type,
with Not All Agreements Being Met:
For the period beginning October 2004 and ending March 2006, the
contractor's performance relative to site-specific SLAs has varied,
with certain agreements consistently being met regardless of seat type,
other agreements being met to varying degrees over time, and still
others largely not being met for certain seat types.[Footnote 24]
Variability in performance has also occurred for enterprisewide
agreements, although most have been met.
Significant Percentage of All Applicable Seat Types Have Met Certain
Site-Specific Agreements:
Between October 2004 and March 2006, the contractor has met, or usually
met, the agreement for each seat type for many SLAs. For example, the
contractor met SLA 324, which covers wide area network connectivity,
for all seat types all of the time. Also, SLA 325, covering network
communication services, and SLA 332, measuring application server
connectivity, were met for all seat types over the same time period.
SLA 225, which measures base area network and local area network
performance, was met for essentially all seat types (see fig. 4).
Similarly, SLA 328, which measures the time to implement new seats and
application servers, was met for 94 percent or more of deployed seat
types in January 2005 through March 2006 (see fig. 5). (See app. III
for descriptions of each SLA and figures illustrating levels of
performance relative to each applicable seat type.)
Figure 4: Site Level Performance for SLA 225:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Figure 5: Site Level Performance for SLA 328:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Certain Site-Specific Agreements Have Not Been Consistently Met Over
Time:
The contractor has not consistently met certain agreements between
October 2004 and March 2006. For example, satisfaction of SLA 102,
which covers response time for network problem resolution, has ranged
from a high of 100 percent in March 2005 and June 2005 to a low of 79
percent in February 2006. As of March 2006, this SLA was met by 97
percent of all seat types (see fig. 6). Also, satisfaction of SLA 107,
which is a measure of network performance in areas of availability,
latency/packet loss,[Footnote 25] and quality of service in support of
videoconferencing and voice-over-IP, has varied over time.
Specifically, satisfaction has ranged from a high of 99 percent in
January 2006 to a low of 71 percent in January 2005. As of March 2006,
this agreement was met by 90 percent of all seat types (see fig. 7).
Figure 6: Site Level Performance for SLA 102:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Figure 7: Site Level Performance for SLA 107:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Significant Percentage of All Seat Types Have Not Met Certain Site-
Specific Agreements:
Between October 2004 and March 2006, the contractor has not met certain
agreements for all seat types. For example, for SLA 101, which is a
measure of the time it takes to resolve NMCI user issues, the
percentage of seats meeting the agreement has widely varied.
Specifically, the percentage of mission-critical seats that met the
agreement has been consistently and significantly lower than was the
case for the basic or high end seats. In particular, as of March 2006,
SLA 101 was met for about 90 percent of basic seats, 77 percent of high
end seats, and 48 percent of mission-critical seats (see fig. 8).
Similarly, for SLA 103, which is a measure of performance of end user
services, the percentage of basic seats that met the agreement was
consistently and significantly lower than that of high end or mission-
critical seats. In March 2006, SLA 103 was met for about 63 percent of
basic seats, 74 percent of high end seats, and 86 percent of mission-
critical seats (See fig. 9).
Figure 8: Percentage of Seats Meeting SLA 101:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Figure 9: Percentage of Seats Meeting SLA 103:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Most Enterprisewide Agreements Have Been Met, but a Few Have Not:
The contractor generally met most of the SLAs that have enterprisewide
applicability. In particular, of the 13 such SLA's, 8 were met each
month between October 2004 and March 2006, and another was met all but
1 month during this time period. Further, a tenth SLA was met for 14
out of the 18 months during this period.
However, the contractor has not consistently met 3 of the 13
enterprisewide SLAs. Specifically, SLA 103, which covers end user
services, was not met 12 of the 18 months. SLA 104, which covers the
help desks, was not met 11 out of the 18 months, including 8 out of the
last 9 months of this period. SLA 106, which covers information
assurance services including identifying incidents, responding to
incidents, and configuration of NMCI, was not met for 11 out of 18
months, including the last 9 months of the period. (See fig. 10 for a
summary of the months in which the contractor met and did not meet the
enterprisewide SLAs.)
Figure 10: Months in Which the Enterprisewide SLAs Were Met and Not Met
between October 2004 and March 2006:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Contractor Satisfaction of SLAs Relative to Contractually Defined
Performance Levels Has Varied:
NMCI program officials told us that they measure the contractor's SLA-
related performance in terms of the percentage of eligible seats that
have met the contractual definitions of full payment and full
performance. More specifically, they compare the number of seats on a
site-by-site basis that have met these definitions with the number of
seats that are eligible. As discussed earlier, full payment means that
the contractor has met 100 percent of the applicable agreements at a
given site, and 50 to 90 percent of the planned seats at that site have
been cut over (i.e., are operational). Full performance means that the
contractor has met 100 percent of the applicable agreements at a given
site, and over 90 percent of the planned seats at that site have been
cut over. In effect, this approach focuses on performance for only
those seats that are at sites where at least 50 percent of the planned
number of seats are actually operating. It excludes performance at
sites where less than 50 percent of the ordered seats are operating.
Moreover, it combines the results for all SLAs and, therefore, does not
highlight differences in performance among service areas.
For the period beginning in October 2004 and ending in March 2005, the
contractor's performance in meeting the agreements from a contractual
standpoint increased, with the percentage of operational seats that met
either performance level having jumped markedly between October and
December 2004 (about 5 to 65 percent), then generally increasing to a
high of about 96 percent in March 2005. Since then, the percentage of
seats meeting either of the two performance levels fluctuated between
82 and 94 percent through September 2005 and then decreased to 74
percent in October 2005. From November 2005 through March 2006, the
percentage of seats meeting either performance level decreased to 55
percent. (See fig. 11 for the trend in the percentage of operational
seats meeting either the full payment or full performance levels; see
fig. 12 for the number of seats achieving either performance level
versus the number eligible for doing so for the same time period.)
Figure 11: Trend in the Percentage of Operational Seats Meeting Either
the Full Payment or Full Performance Levels:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Figure 12: Number of Seats Achieving Either the Full Payment or Full
Performance Levels Versus the Number of Seats Eligible:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
The preceding descriptions of SLA performance illustrate that
contractor performance against the agreements can be viewed differently
depending on how relevant data are analyzed and presented. Further,
they illustrate the importance of considering different perspectives
and metrics in order to have a comprehensive, transparent, and
consistent approach to program performance management.
NMCI Customer Groups' Satisfaction Levels Vary, but Overall Customer
Satisfaction Is Low:
The Navy's three groups of NMCI customers--end users, organizational
commanders, and network operators--vary in the extent to which they are
satisfied with the program, but collectively these customers are
generally not satisfied. With respect to end users, the Navy reports
that overall satisfaction with NMCI improved between 2003 and 2005;
however, reported satisfaction levels have dropped off since September
2005. In addition, while the Navy reports that this overall level of
end user satisfaction with contractor provided services has averaged
about 76 percent since April 2004,[Footnote 26] this is below the Navy-
wide target of 85 percent and includes many survey responses at the
lower end of the range of scores that the Navy has defined "satisfied"
to mean. With respect to commanders and network operations leaders,
neither is satisfied with NMCI. In addition, officials representing
each of the customer groups at five shipyard or air depot installations
that we visited expressed a number of NMCI concerns and areas of
dissatisfaction with the program. Without satisfied customers, the Navy
runs the risk that NMCI will not attain the widespread acceptance
necessary to achieve strategic program goals.
End User Surveys Show Dissatisfaction with NMCI:
Despite reported improvements in end user satisfaction levels since
2002, end user responses to quarterly satisfaction surveys have been
consistently at the low end of the range of scores that the Navy
defines the term "satisfied" to mean, and the percentage of end users
that Navy counts as being "satisfied" have consistently been below the
Navy's satisfaction target level. Specifically, although the Navy's
satisfied users dropped from about 66 percent in June 2002 to around 54
percent for the next two quarters (September and December 2002),
satisfaction reportedly rose steadily from March 2003 through September
2005, peaking at that time at about 80 percent. Since then, the
percentage of end users that the Navy reports to be satisfied has
declined, leveling off at around 76 percent over the next several
months.[Footnote 27] This means that even with the Navy's forgiving
definition of what constitutes a satisfied end user, at least 24
percent of end users are dissatisfied with NMCI. (See fig. 13 for the
trends in end user satisfaction with the program and the contractor.)
Figure 13: Trends in End User Satisfaction Levels Related to Program
Contractor Target Levels:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
Note: Survey participants varied over time.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Exacerbating this long-standing shortfall in meeting end user
satisfaction expectations is the fact that the Navy considers a
"satisfied" end user to include users that are at best marginally
satisfied and arguably somewhat dissatisfied. That is, the Navy uses an
average score of 5.5 or greater (on its 10-point satisfaction scale,
where 1 is dissatisfied, and 10 is satisfied) as the threshold for
categorizing and counting end users as satisfied. This means that users
counted as satisfied may include a large contingent that are at the low
end of the satisfaction range (e.g., between 5.5 and 7). When the
results of the March 2006 survey are examined in this context, we see
that this is the case. For example, we see that 8 of the 14 questions
received an average score below 7.0.
Additional insights into the degree and nature of end user satisfaction
(and dissatisfaction) are apparent when the reported percentage of
satisfied users are examined from different perspectives, such as by
(1) individual survey questions and (2) organizational units. For
example, Navy-reported end user satisfaction survey results for the
quarter ending March 31, 2006, show that while the percentage of users
deemed satisfied with the program averaged about 74 percent, the
percentage reported as satisfied relative to each survey question
ranged from a low 52 to a high of 87 percent. These insights into end
user sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction are summarized as
follows:
* Variations in satisfaction levels by question. While the percentage
of end users who are categorized as satisfied with the program and the
contractor do not significantly differ (74 versus 76 percent,
respectively), variations do exist among the percentage satisfied with
the 14 areas that the questions address. For example, far fewer (66
percent) were satisfied with the reliability of the NMCI network than
were satisfied with the professionalism of EDS personnel (87 percent).
(See table 4 for the percentage of users satisfied and dissatisfied
according to each of the 14 survey questions.)
* Variations in satisfaction levels by organizational unit. The
percentage of end users who were categorized as being satisfied with
the NMCI program varied by organizational unit as much as 18 percentage
points. For example, about 66 percent of users in the Naval Sea Systems
Command were deemed satisfied with the program as compared with about
84 percent in the Commander of Navy Installations. Similarly, the
percentage of end users who were categorized as satisfied with the
contractor also varied by 17 percentage points, with the Naval Sea
Systems Command and Naval Air Systems Command having about 69 percent
of its users viewed as satisfied and the Commander of Navy
Installations having about 86 percent. (See tables 5 and 6 for
percentages of satisfied end users by Navy and Marine Corps,
respectively, organizations as of March 31, 2006.)
Table 4: NMCI End User Customer Satisfaction Survey Questions and
Results for the Quarterly Period Ending on March 31, 2006:
Survey questions: With the process to make changes to your IT
environment?a[A];
Average score: 5.5;
Percentage not satisfied: 48%;
Percentage satisfied: 52%.
Survey questions: With training on how to use NMCI effectively?[A];
Average score: 6.5;
Percentage not satisfied: 32;
Percentage satisfied: 68.
Survey questions: With having access to the software you need to
accomplish your job?[A];
Average score: 6.6;
Percentage not satisfied: 33;
Percentage satisfied: 67.
Survey questions: With having access to the computer hardware you need
to accomplish your job?[A];
Average score: 7.0;
Percentage not satisfied: 26;
Percentage satisfied: 74.
Survey questions: With network reliability?;
Average score: 6.4;
Percentage not satisfied: 34;
Percentage satisfied: 66.
Survey questions: With the timeliness of problem resolution?;
Average score: 6.6;
Percentage not satisfied: 32;
Percentage satisfied: 68.
Survey questions: With the dependability of the computer you use?;
Average score: 6.8;
Percentage not satisfied: 29;
Percentage satisfied: 71.
Survey questions: What is your overall satisfaction with services
provided by EDS?;
Average score: 6.8;
Percentage not satisfied: 27;
Percentage satisfied: 73.
Survey questions: With the solution implemented to correct any problem
you experienced?;
Average score: 7.0;
Percentage not satisfied: 27;
Percentage satisfied: 73.
Survey questions: With finding and using information about NMCI
services?;
Average score: 7.0;
Percentage not satisfied: 23;
Percentage satisfied: 77.
Survey questions: With technical support services provided by the help
desk?;
Average score: 7.2;
Percentage not satisfied: 25;
Percentage satisfied: 75.
Survey questions: With the accuracy of information describing how to
use NMCI services?;
Average score: 7.1;
Percentage not satisfied: 22;
Percentage satisfied: 78.
Survey questions: With technical support services provided by on-site
personnel?;
Average score: 7.1;
Percentage not satisfied: 25;
Percentage satisfied: 75.
Survey questions: With the professionalism of EDS personnel?;
Average score: 8.0;
Percentage not satisfied: 13%;
Percentage satisfied: 87%.
Source: GAO based on Navy-provided data.
[A] Responses to these questions were not used to determine levels of
satisfactions with contractor provided services.
Note: Scores shown may reflect rounding decisions made by the
Department of the Navy regarding the results of its calculations.
[End of table]
Table 5: Percentages of Satisfied End Users by Navy Budget Submitting
Office, as of March 31, 2006:
Navy budget submitting offices: Naval Sea Systems Command;
Percentage satisfied with NMCI program: 66%;
Percentage satisfied with contractor- provided services: 69%.
Navy budget submitting offices: Naval Air Systems Command;
Percentage satisfied with NMCI program: 67;
Percentage satisfied with contractor- provided services: 69.
Navy budget submitting offices: Naval Facilities Engineering Command;
Percentage satisfied with NMCI program: 68;
Percentage satisfied with contractor-provided services: 71.
Navy budget submitting offices: Space and Naval Warfare Systems
Command;
Percentage satisfied with NMCI program: 69;
Percentage satisfied with contractor-provided services: 71.
Navy budget submitting offices: Chief of Naval Operations;
Percentage satisfied with NMCI program: 72;
Percentage satisfied with contractor- provided services: 75.
Navy budget submitting offices: Administrative Assistant to the Under
Secretary of the Navy;
Percentage satisfied with NMCI program: 75;
Percentage satisfied with contractor-provided services: 76.
Navy budget submitting offices: Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet;
Percentage satisfied with NMCI program: 77;
Percentage satisfied with contractor-provided services: 78.
Navy budget submitting offices: Reserve Forces;
Percentage satisfied with NMCI program: 78;
Percentage satisfied with contractor-provided services: 81.
Navy budget submitting offices: Manpower, Personnel, Training and
Education;
Percentage satisfied with NMCI program: 79;
Percentage satisfied with contractor-provided services: 81.
Navy budget submitting offices: Commander, U.S. Atlantic Fleet;
Percentage satisfied with NMCI program: 79;
Percentage satisfied with contractor-provided services: 80.
Navy budget submitting offices: Aggregated Navy Budget Submitting
Offices[A];
Percentage satisfied with NMCI program: 80;
Percentage satisfied with contractor-provided services: 81.
Navy budget submitting offices: Naval Supply Systems Command;
Percentage satisfied with NMCI program: 80;
Percentage satisfied with contractor-provided services: 82.
Navy budget submitting offices: Commander, Navy Installations;
Percentage satisfied with NMCI program: 84%;
Percentage satisfied with contractor-provided services: 86%.
Source: GAO based on Navy provided data.
[A] Includes the Bureau of Medicine, Military Sealift Command, Navy
Engineering Logistics Office, Naval Meteorology and Oceanography
Command, Office of Naval Intelligence, Office of Naval Research, and
the Naval Security Group.
Note: Scores shown may reflect rounding decisions made by the
Department of the Navy regarding the results of its calculations.
[End of table]
Table 6: Percentages of Satisfied End Users by U.S. Marine Corps Major
Command, as of March 31, 2006:
Marine Corps Major Commands: Aggregated Marines[A];
Percentage satisfied with NMCI program: 69%;
Percentage satisfied with contractor- provided services: 72%.
Marine Corps Major Commands: Training and Education Command;
Percentage satisfied with NMCI program: 69;
Percentage satisfied with contractor- provided services: 72.
Marine Corps Major Commands: U.S. Marine Forces, Atlantic;
Percentage satisfied with NMCI program: 70;
Percentage satisfied with contractor- provided services: 72.
Marine Corps Major Commands: Logistics Command;
Percentage satisfied with NMCI program: 71;
Percentage satisfied with contractor-provided services: 73.
Marine Corps Major Commands: U.S. Marine Forces, Pacific;
Percentage satisfied with NMCI program: 71;
Percentage satisfied with contractor- provided services: 73.
Marine Corps Major Commands: U.S. Marine Forces, Reserve;
Percentage satisfied with NMCI program: 77%;
Percentage satisfied with contractor- provided services: 81%.
Source: GAO based on Navy-provided data.
[A] Includes Enterprise USMC, Headquarters Marine Corps, Marine Corps
Combat Development Center, Marine Corps Recruiting Command and Marine
Corps Systems Command. Surveys were distributed to 1,671 of a total
population of 6,685 end users in these Commands.
Note: Scores shown may reflect rounding decisions made by the
Department of the Navy regarding the results of its calculations.
[End of table]
Commander and Network Operator Surveys Show That Both Customer Groups
Are Dissatisfied:
The Navy conducted surveys of commander and network operations leader
units in September 2005 and in March 2006. Overall, survey results show
that neither commanders nor operators are satisfied with NMCI.
Commander Survey Results:
The results from the two commander satisfaction surveys conducted to
date show that the customers are not satisfied, with NMCI.
Specifically, on a scale of 0-3 with 0 being not satisfied, and 1 being
slightly satisfied with the contractor's support in meeting the mission
needs and strategic goals of these organizations, the average response
from all organizations was 0.65 and 0.76 in September 2005 and March
2006, respectively. The latest survey results show minor differences in
the degree of dissatisfaction with the four types of contractor
services addressed (cutover services, technical solutions, service
delivery, and warfighter support). (See table 7 for results of the
September 2005, and March 2006, commander satisfaction surveys.)
Table 7: Results of the 6-Month Periods Ending on September 30, 2005
and March 31, 2006, Commander Surveys:
Reporting organization: Assistant for Administration to the Under
Secretary of the Navy;
September 2005: War-fighter support: *;
September 2005: Cutover services: *;
September 2005: Technical solutions: 2;
September 2005: Service delivery: 2;
September 2005: Average organization score: 2.00;
March 2006: War-fighter support: 2;
March 2006: Cutover services: 1;
March 2006: Technical solutions: 1;
March 2006: Service delivery: 1;
March 2006: Average organization score: 1.25.
Reporting organization: Bureau of Personnel;
September 2005: War-fighter support: *;
September 2005: Cutover services: 0;
September 2005: Technical solutions: 1;
September 2005: Service delivery: 1;
September 2005: Average organization score: 0.67;
March 2006: War-fighter support: **;
March 2006: Cutover services: **;
March 2006: Technical solutions: **;
March 2006: Service delivery: **;
March 2006: Average organization score: n/a.
Reporting organization: Commander of Navy Installations;
September 2005: War-fighter support: 1;
September 2005: Cutover services: 0;
September 2005: Technical solutions: 0;
September 2005: Service delivery: 1;
September 2005: Average organization score: 0.50;
March 2006: War-fighter support: 1;
March 2006: Cutover services: 0;
March 2006: Technical solutions: 0;
March 2006: Service delivery: 0;
March 2006: Average organization score: 0.25.
Reporting organization: Chief of Naval Operations (CNO);
September 2005: War-fighter support: 1;
September 2005: Cutover services: 1;
September 2005: Technical solutions: 1;
September 2005: Service delivery: 1;
September 2005: Average organization score: 1.00;
March 2006: War-fighter support: 0;
March 2006: Cutover services: 1;
March 2006: Technical solutions: 0;
March 2006: Service delivery: 2;
March 2006: Average organization score: 0.75.
Reporting organization: CNO-Field Support Activity, Pacific Command;
September 2005: War-fighter support: **;
September 2005: Cutover services: **;
September 2005: Technical solutions: **;
September 2005: Service delivery: **;
September 2005: Average organization score: n/a;
March 2006: War-fighter support: 1;
March 2006: Cutover services: 2;
March 2006: Technical solutions: 1;
March 2006: Service delivery: 1;
March 2006: Average organization score: 1.25.
Reporting organization: Commander, Atlantic Fleet;
September 2005: War-fighter support: 0;
September 2005: Cutover services: 0;
September 2005: Technical solutions: 0;
September 2005: Service delivery: 0;
September 2005: Average organization score: 0.00;
March 2006: War-fighter support: 0;
March 2006: Cutover services: 0;
March 2006: Technical solutions: 1;
March 2006: Service delivery: 0;
March 2006: Average organization score: 0.25.
Reporting organization: Commander, Pacific Fleet;
September 2005: War-fighter support: 1;
September 2005: Cutover services: 0;
September 2005: Technical solutions: 0;
September 2005: Service delivery: 0;
September 2005: Average organization score: 0.25;
March 2006: War-fighter support: 0;
March 2006: Cutover services: 0;
March 2006: Technical solutions: 0;
March 2006: Service delivery: 0;
March 2006: Average organization score: 0.00.
Reporting organization: Naval Air Systems Command;
September 2005: War-fighter support: 0;
September 2005: Cutover services: 0;
September 2005: Technical solutions: 0;
September 2005: Service delivery: 0;
September 2005: Average organization score: 0.00;
March 2006: War-fighter support: 0;
March 2006: Cutover services: 0;
March 2006: Technical solutions: 0;
March 2006: Service delivery: 0;
March 2006: Average organization score: 0.00.
Reporting organization: Naval Facilities Engineering Command;
September 2005: War-fighter support: 0;
September 2005: Cutover services: 1;
September 2005: Technical solutions: 1;
September 2005: Service delivery: 0;
September 2005: Average organization score: 0.50;
March 2006: War-fighter support: 0;
March 2006: Cutover services: 1;
March 2006: Technical solutions: 1;
March 2006: Service delivery: 0;
March 2006: Average organization score: 0.50.
Reporting organization: Naval Sea Systems Command;
September 2005: War-fighter support: 0;
September 2005: Cutover services: 0;
September 2005: Technical solutions: 0;
September 2005: Service delivery: 0;
September 2005: Average organization score: 0.00;
March 2006: War-fighter support: 0;
March 2006: Cutover services: 0;
March 2006: Technical solutions: 0;
March 2006: Service delivery: 0;
March 2006: Average organization score: 0.00.
Reporting organization: Naval Supply Systems Command;
September 2005: War-fighter support: 1;
September 2005: Cutover services: 0;
September 2005: Technical solutions: 0;
September 2005: Service delivery: 0;
September 2005: Average organization score: 0.25;
March 2006: War-fighter support: 0;
March 2006: Cutover services: 0;
March 2006: Technical solutions: 0;
March 2006: Service delivery: 0;
March 2006: Average organization score: 0.00.
Reporting organization: Office of Naval Research;
September 2005: War-fighter support: **;
September 2005: Cutover services: **;
September 2005: Technical solutions: **;
September 2005: Service delivery: **;
September 2005: Average organization score: n/a;
March 2006: War-fighter support: *;
March 2006: Cutover services: 2;
March 2006: Technical solutions: 1;
March 2006: Service delivery: 2;
March 2006: Average organization score: 1.67.
Reporting organization: Reserve Forces;
September 2005: War- fighter support: 1;
September 2005: Cutover services: 2;
September 2005: Technical solutions: 2;
September 2005: Service delivery: 1;
September 2005: Average organization score: 1.50;
March 2006: War-fighter support: 1;
March 2006: Cutover services: 2;
March 2006: Technical solutions: 2;
March 2006: Service delivery: 2;
March 2006: Average organization score: 1.75.
Reporting organization: Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command;
September 2005: War-fighter support: 1;
September 2005: Cutover services: *;
September 2005: Technical solutions: 1;
September 2005: Service delivery: 1;
September 2005: Average organization score: 1.00;
March 2006: War-fighter support: 2;
March 2006: Cutover services: *;
March 2006: Technical solutions: 1;
March 2006: Service delivery: 2;
March 2006: Average organization score: 1.67.
Reporting organization: Logistics Command;
September 2005: War-fighter support: 0;
September 2005: Cutover services: 0;
September 2005: Technical solutions: 0;
September 2005: Service delivery: 0;
September 2005: Average organization score: 0.00;
March 2006: War-fighter support: 0;
March 2006: Cutover services: 0;
March 2006: Technical solutions: 0;
March 2006: Service delivery: 0;
March 2006: Average organization score: 0.00.
Reporting organization: Manpower, Personnel, Education and Training;
September 2005: War-fighter support: **;
September 2005: Cutover services: **;
September 2005: Technical solutions: **;
September 2005: Service delivery: **;
September 2005: Average organization score: n/a;
March 2006: War-fighter support: 2;
March 2006: Cutover services: 1;
March 2006: Technical solutions: 2;
March 2006: Service delivery: 2;
March 2006: Average organization score: 1.75.
Reporting organization: Headquarters Marine Corps;
September 2005: War-fighter support: 0;
September 2005: Cutover services: 0;
September 2005: Technical solutions: 0;
September 2005: Service delivery: 0;
September 2005: Average organization score: 0.00;
March 2006: War-fighter support: *;
March 2006: Cutover services: 1;
March 2006: Technical solutions: 1;
March 2006: Service delivery: 0;
March 2006: Average organization score: 0.67.
Reporting organization: Marine Corps Combat Development Center;
September 2005: War-fighter support: 1;
September 2005: Cutover services: 2;
September 2005: Technical solutions: 2;
September 2005: Service delivery: 2;
September 2005: Average organization score: 1.75;
March 2006: War-fighter support: 0;
March 2006: Cutover services: 1;
March 2006: Technical solutions: 2;
March 2006: Service delivery: 3;
March 2006: Average organization score: 1.50.
Reporting organization: Marine Corps Systems Command;
September 2005: War-fighter support: 0;
September 2005: Cutover services: 1;
September 2005: Technical solutions: 0;
September 2005: Service delivery: 0;
September 2005: Average organization score: 0.25;
March 2006: War-fighter support: 0;
March 2006: Cutover services: 1;
March 2006: Technical solutions: 1;
March 2006: Service delivery: 0;
March 2006: Average organization score: 0.50.
Reporting organization: Marine Corps Recruiting Command;
September 2005: War-fighter support: **;
September 2005: Cutover services: **;
September 2005: Technical solutions: **;
September 2005: Service delivery: **;
September 2005: Average organization score: n/a;
March 2006: War-fighter support: *;
March 2006: Cutover services: 0;
March 2006: Technical solutions: 0;
March 2006: Service delivery: 0;
March 2006: Average organization score: 0.00.
Reporting organization: Commander, Marine Forces;
September 2005: War-fighter support: **;
September 2005: Cutover services: **;
September 2005: Technical solutions: **;
September 2005: Service delivery: **;
September 2005: Average organization score: n/a;
March 2006: War-fighter support: 1;
March 2006: Cutover services: 1;
March 2006: Technical solutions: 1;
March 2006: Service delivery: 1;
March 2006: Average organization score: 1.00.
Reporting organization: Marine Forces, Atlantic;
September 2005: War-fighter support: 0;
September 2005: Cutover services: 0;
September 2005: Technical solutions: 0;
September 2005: Service delivery: 0;
September 2005: Average organization score: 0.00;
March 2006: War-fighter support: **;
March 2006: Cutover services: **;
March 2006: Technical solutions: **;
March 2006: Service delivery: **;
March 2006: Average organization score: n/a.
Reporting organization: Marine Forces, Pacific;
September 2005: War-fighter support: 0;
September 2005: Cutover services: 1;
September 2005: Technical solutions: 1;
September 2005: Service delivery: 1;
September 2005: Average organization score: 0.75;
March 2006: War-fighter support: 0;
March 2006: Cutover services: 0;
March 2006: Technical solutions: 0;
March 2006: Service delivery: 0;
March 2006: Average organization score: 0.00.
Reporting organization: Marine Forces, Reserves;
September 2005: War-fighter support: **;
September 2005: Cutover services: **;
September 2005: Technical solutions: **;
September 2005: Service delivery: **;
September 2005: Average organization score: n/a;
March 2006: War-fighter support: 0;
March 2006: Cutover services: 2;
March 2006: Technical solutions: 0;
March 2006: Service delivery: 0;
March 2006: Average organization score: 0.50.
Reporting organization: Military Sealift Command;
September 2005: War-fighter support: 0;
September 2005: Cutover services: 0;
September 2005: Technical solutions: 0;
September 2005: Service delivery: 0;
September 2005: Average organization score: 0.00;
March 2006: War-fighter support: **;
March 2006: Cutover services: **;
March 2006: Technical solutions: **;
March 2006: Service delivery: **;
March 2006: Average organization score: n/a.
Reporting organization: Naval Education and Training Command;
September 2005: War-fighter support: *;
September 2005: Cutover services: 2;
September 2005: Technical solutions: 2;
September 2005: Service delivery: 2;
September 2005: Average organization score: 2.00;
March 2006: War-fighter support: **;
March 2006: Cutover services: **;
March 2006: Technical solutions: **;
March 2006: Service delivery: **;
March 2006: Average organization score: n/a.
Reporting organization: Training and Education Command;
September 2005: War-fighter support: 2;
September 2005: Cutover services: 2;
September 2005: Technical solutions: 0;
September 2005: Service delivery: 1;
September 2005: Average organization score: 1.25;
March 2006: War-fighter support: *;
March 2006: Cutover services: 3;
March 2006: Technical solutions: 2;
March 2006: Service delivery: 2;
March 2006: Average organization score: 2.33.
Overall satisfaction average;
September 2005: Average organization score: 0.65;
March 2006: Average organization score: 0.76.
Legend:
"*" no response was provided:
"**" the organization was not included in survey report:
Source: GAO based on Navy-provided data.
[End of table]
Network Operations Leaders Survey Results:
The Navy-reported results of the two network operations leader
satisfaction surveys conducted to date show that these customers are
also not satisfied with NMCI. Specifically, on a scale of 0-3 with 0
being not satisfied and 1 being slightly satisfied with the
contractor's support in meeting the mission needs and strategic goals
of these two organizations, the average of the responses from NETWARCOM
in September 2005 was 0.33, rising to 0.67 in March 2006. For MCNOSC,
the average of the responses to both surveys was 0.00. (See table 8 for
these results.) Of the three types of contractor services addressed in
the survey (mission support and planning, network management, and
service delivery), network management services, which includes
information assurance and urgent software patching, received a score of
0 from both organizations on both surveys.
Table 8: Results for the 6-Month Periods Ending on September 30, 2005,
and March 31, 2006, Network Operations Leaders Survey:
Reporting organization: NETWARCOM;
September 2005: Mission support & planning: 0.00;
September 2005: Network management: 0.00;
September 2005: Service delivery: 1.00;
September 2005: Average score: 0.33;
March 2006: Mission support &: planning: 1.00;
March 2006: Network management: 0.00;
March 2006: Service delivery: 1.00;
March 2006: Average score: 0.67.
Reporting organization: MCNOSC;
September 2005: Mission support & planning: 0.00;
September 2005: Network management: 0.00;
September 2005: Service delivery: 0.00;
September 2005: Average score: 0.00;
March 2006: Mission support &: planning: 0.00;
March 2006: Network management: 0.00;
March 2006: Service delivery: 0.00;
March 2006: Average score: 0.00.
Overall satisfaction average;
September 2005: Average score: 0.17;
March 2006: Average score: 0.33.
Source: GAO based on Navy-provided data.
[End of table]
Shipyard and Air Depot Customers Consistently Identified a Range of
Concerns and Areas of Dissatisfaction with NMCI:
Consistent with the results of the Navy's customer satisfaction
surveys, officials representing end users, commanders, and network
operations personnel at five shipyards or air depots[Footnote 28] that
we interviewed cited a number of concerns or sources of dissatisfaction
with NMCI. The anecdotal information that they provided to illustrate
their concerns are described in the next section.
Continued Reliance on Legacy Systems:
Shipyard and air depot officials for all five sites told us that they
have continued to rely on their legacy systems rather than NMCI for
various reasons. For example, officials at one air depot stated that
NMCI provided less functionality than their legacy systems and thus
they have continued to use these legacy systems to support mission
operations. Also, officials at one shipyard told us that site personnel
lack confidence in NMCI and thus they continue to use legacy systems.
Officials at the other two shipyards voiced even greater concerns, with
officials at one saying that only NMCI seats (i.e., workstations) are
running on the NMCI intranet (their servers are still running on their
legacy network), and officials at the other saying that NMCI does not
support their applications and thus they primarily use it for e-mail.
Similarly, officials at an air depot stated that NMCI workstations are
not capable of supporting certain applications, such as high-
performance modeling, and thus they operate about 233 other
workstations to support their needs.
Loss in Workforce Productivity:
According to a memo from the Commander of one shipyard to the Naval Sea
Systems Command dated December 2005, NCMI software updates adversely
affect the operation of network applications. Consistent with this,
officials at two of the sites stated that NMCI is hurting workforce
productivity, with officials at one shipyard saying that system
downtime, particularly as it relates to major applications, has
deteriorated and is unacceptable, and officials at another shipyard
said that NMCI response time is slow both on-and off-site. To
illustrate, officials at one air depot said that personnel cannot
download more than one file at a time, while officials at shipyards
stated that "reach back" to legacy systems through NMCI is slow,
sometimes taking 45 minutes to open a document. Further, officials at
shipyards complained that users' profiles do not follow the user from
one workstation to another, causing users to recreate them, while
officials at one air depot stated that NMCI does not provide them the
capability to monitor employees' inappropriate use of the Internet
(e.g., excessive use or accessing unauthorized sites).
Lack of Support of Dynamic Work Environments:
Both air depot and shipyard officials described their respective work
environments as dynamic, meaning that they are frequently changing, and
thus require flexibility in moving and configuring workstations.
Further, shipyards operate at the waterfront, which we were told is an
environment that requires quick responses to changing needs. For
example, ships come in, barges are created to service them, and these
barges must be outfitted with computers. Decisions occur in a short
amount of time regarding new barge set ups and equipment movements.
According to shipyard officials, NMCI has not been able to support
these barge-related requirements because it is not flexible enough to
quickly react to shifting work priorities. As a result, officials with
one shipyard stated that they have had to provide their own waterfront
support using legacy systems. Similarly, officials with the air depots
stated that the NMCI contractor has a difficult time moving seats fast
enough to keep up with changing needs.
Limitations in Help Desk Support:
Officials from each of the shipyards and air depots voiced concerns and
dissatisfaction with help desk assistance. According to officials with
the air depots, the quality of help desk support is inconsistent, and
thus they have had to assume more of the burden in dealing with IT
system problems since they transitioned to NMCI. Shipyard officials
were even more critical of help desk support. According to officials at
one shipyard, help desk support is not working, as it is almost
impossible to get a help desk call done in 1 hour. Similarly, officials
at another shipyard told us that help desk responsiveness has been poor
because it takes hours, if not days, to get problems fixed. The
previously cited memo from the Commander of one shipyard to the Naval
Sea Systems Command cited an average time of 2.4 days to respond to
customer inquiries.
Problems with NMCI Site Preparation and Transition:
Officials from all five sites expressed concerns with the manner in
which they were prepared for transitioning to NMCI. According to
officials at one air depot, certain seat management requirements were
overlooked, and NMCI users have struggled with understanding the
contract processes that govern, for example, how to order new software
and hardware, or how to relocate machines, because the contractual
terms are difficult to follow, and training was not adequate. In
particular, they said users do not understand with whom they should
talk to address a given need, and officials with one air depot noted
that NMCI has no solution for their electronic classroom needs.
Officials at one shipyard attributed the lack of NMCI site preparation
to insufficient planning prior to deploying NMCI and a lack of
transparency in how NMCI was being managed, including how deployment
issues were to be resolved. As stated by officials at another shipyard,
the transition to NMCI was difficult and very disruptive to operations
because they had no control over the contractor transition team.
NMCI program officials told us that they are aware of the concerns and
sources of dissatisfaction of shipyard and air depot customers,
however, they added that many of them are either not supported by data
or reflect customers' lack of familiarity with the services available
under the contract. In particular, they said that they have not been
provided any data showing a drop in workforce productivity caused by
NMCI. They also said that continued reliance on legacy systems
illustrates a lack of familiarity with the contract because provisions
exist for moving legacy servers onto NMCI and supporting certain
applications, such as high-performance modeling. Further, they said
that the contract supports monitoring Internet usage, provides
waterfront support to shipyards, and provides help desk service 24
hours a day, 7 days a week. Nevertheless, they acknowledged that both a
lack of customer understanding, and customer perceptions about the
program are real issues affecting customer satisfaction that need to be
addressed.
Customer Satisfaction Improvement Efforts Are Not Being Guided by
Effective Planning:
The NMCI program office reports that improving customer satisfaction is
a program priority. Accordingly, it has invested and continues to
invest time and resources in a variety of activities that it associated
with customer satisfaction improvement, such as holding user
conferences and focus groups. However, these efforts are not being
guided by a documented plan that defines prioritized improvement
projects and associated resource requirements, schedules, and
measurable goals and outcomes. Given the importance of improved
customer satisfaction to achieving NMCI program goals and benefits, it
is important for the Navy to take a structured and disciplined approach
to planning its improvement activities. Without it, the program office
cannot adequately ensure that it is effectively investing scarce
program resources.
As we have previously reported,[Footnote 29] effectively managing
program improvement activities requires planning and executing such
activities in a structured and disciplined fashion. Among other things,
this includes developing an action plan that defines improvement
projects and initiatives, assigns roles and responsibilities, sets
priorities, identifies resource needs, establishes time lines with
milestones, and describes expected results in measurable terms. The
Software Engineering Institute's IDEALSM model, for example, is one
recognized approach for managing process improvement efforts.[Footnote
30] According to this model, improvement efforts should include a
written plan that serves as the foundation and basis for guiding
improvement activities, including obtaining management commitment to
and funding for the activities, establishing a baseline of commitments
and expectation against which to measure progress, prioritizing and
executing activities and initiatives, determining success, and
identifying and applying lessons learned. Through such a structured and
disciplined approach, improvement resources can be invested in a manner
that produces optimal results. Without such an approach, improvement
efforts can be reduced to trial and error.
The NMCI program office identified seven initiatives that are intended
to increase customer satisfaction with the program. According to
program officials, the initiatives are (1) holding user conferences,
(2) conducting focus groups, (3) administering diagnostic surveys, (4)
strengthening help desk capabilities, (5) expanding network services
(e.g., adding broadband remote access), (6) assessing infrastructure
performance, and (7) initiating a lean six sigma effort.[Footnote 31]
Following are descriptions of each initiative:
User conferences. The program office has conducted semiannual NMCI user
conferences since 2000. According to program officials, these
conferences provide a forum for users to directly voice to program
leaders their sources of dissatisfaction with NMCI. During the
conferences, users ask questions, participate in issue-focused breakout
sessions, and engage in informal discussions. We attended the June 2005
user conference and observed that Navy and contractor program officials
provided information, such as updates on current and planned activities
and capabilities, while users had opportunities to provide comments and
ask questions. According to program officials, the conferences are
useful in making program officials aware of customer issues and are
used to help diagnose NMCI problems.
Focus groups. According to program officials, they conduct user focus
groups to, among other things, solicit reasons for customer
dissatisfaction and explore solutions and to test newly proposed end
user satisfaction survey questions. The focus group sessions include
invited participants and are guided by prepared scripts. The results of
the sessions are summarized for purposes of identifying improvements
such as revisions to user satisfaction survey questions.
Diagnostic surveys. The program office performs periodic surveys to
diagnose the source of user dissatisfaction with specific services,
such as e-mail, printing, and technical support. According to program
officials, these surveys help identify the root causes of user
dissatisfaction and support analysis of areas needing improvement.
However, they could not identify specific examples of where such causes
have been identified and addressed and measurable improvements have
resulted.
Help desk improvement team. The program office established a team to
identify the reasons for declining end user satisfaction survey scores
relative to the technical support services provided by the help desk.
According to program officials, the team traced declining satisfaction
levels to such causes as help desk agents' knowledge, training, and
network privilege shortfalls. To address these limitations, the program
office reports that it has redesigned and restructured help desk
operations to organize help desk agents according to skills and
experience, route calls according to the skill level needed to address
the call, target needed agent training, hold daily meetings with agents
to apprise them of recent issues, and monitor help desk feedback.
However, program officials could not link these efforts to measurable
improvements in help desk performance, and NMCI customers that we
interviewed during our visits to shipyards and air depots voiced
concerns with help desk support.
Expanded network services. NMCI program officials stated that a key
improvement initiative has been expanding the scope of network-related
services that are available under the contract. In particular, they
point to such new services as broadband remote access for all laptop
users, antispam services for all e-mail accounts, and antispyware
services for all accounts as having improved customer satisfaction.
Further, they said that the planned addition of wireless broadband
access will increase customer satisfaction. However, they could not
provide data showing how these added services affected customer
satisfaction, or how future services are expected to affect
satisfaction.
Infrastructure performance assessment. Working with EDS, the program
office undertook an NMCI network infrastructure assessment that was
intended to identify and mitigate performance issues. This assessment
included establishing metrics and targets for common user functions
such as opening a Web site, then determining actual network performance
at the Washington Navy Yard and Marine Corps installations in Quantico,
Virginia. According to program officials, assessment results included
finding that network performance could be improved by balancing traffic
among firewalls and upgrading wide area network circuits. As a result
of this initial assessment, the program has begun adjusting network
settings and upgrading hardware at additional NMCI sites. Further,
program officials said they are expanding their use of network
infrastructure metrics to all sites. However, they neither provided us
with a plan for doing so, nor did they demonstrate that these efforts
have affected customer satisfaction.
Lean six sigma. Program officials said they are applying lean six sigma
techniques to improve customer satisfaction. In particular, they have
established a customer satisfaction workgroup, which is to define a
process for identifying customer problems and prioritizing improvement
projects. They said that, for each project, they will perform concept
testing using pilot projects and focus groups. They also said that they
plan to establish a steering committee that includes representatives
from the Navy and the contractor. The officials told us that they have
initiated seven projects using lean six sigma techniques, although they
did not provide us with any information about the results of these
projects or their impact on customer satisfaction.
While any or all of these initiatives could result in improvements to
customer satisfaction, the program office could not demonstrate that
they have produced or will produce measurable improvements. Moreover,
the latest customer satisfaction data provided to us show that
satisfaction levels are not improving. Further, it is unclear how these
various initiatives relate to one another, and various aspects of these
initiatives appear redundant such as multiple teams and venues to
identify root causes and propose solutions.
One reason for this lack of demonstrable improvements and redundancy is
the way in which the program office has pursued its improvement
initiatives. In particular, they have not been pursued as an integrated
portfolio of projects that were justified and prioritized on the basis
of relative costs and benefits. Further, they have not been guided by a
well-defined action plan that includes explicit resource, schedule, and
results-oriented baselines, as well as related steps for knowing
whether expected outcomes and benefits have actually accrued. Rather,
program officials stated that customer satisfaction improvement
activities have been pursued as resources become available and have
been in reaction to immediate issues and concerns.
Without a proactive, integrated, and disciplined approach to improving
customer satisfaction, the Navy does not have adequate assurance that
it is optimally investing its limited resources. While the lean six
sigma techniques that program officials told us they are now applying
to customer satisfaction improvement advocate such an approach, program
officials did not provide us with documentation demonstrating that they
are effectively planning and executing these projects.
Conclusions:
IT service programs, like NMCI, are intended to deliver effective and
efficient mission support and to satisfy customer needs. If they do
not, or if they are not being managed in a way to know whether or not
they do, then the program is at risk. Therefore, it is important for
such programs to be grounded in outcome-based strategic goals that are
linked to performance measures and targets, and it is important for
progress against these goals, measures, and targets to be tracked and
reported to agency and congressional decision makers. If such
measurement does not occur, then deviations from program expectations
will not become known in time for decision makers to take timely
corrective action. The inevitable consequence is that program results
will fall short of those that were promised and used to justify
investment in the program. The larger the program, the more significant
these deviations and their consequences can be.
NMCI is an enormous IT services program and thus requires highly
effective performance management practices. However, such management,
to include measurement of progress against strategic program goals and
reporting to key decision makers of performance against strategic goals
and other important program aspects, such as examining service level
agreement satisfaction from multiple vantage points and ensuring
customer satisfaction, has not been adequate. One reason for this is
that measurement of progress against strategic program goals has not
been a priority for the Navy on NMCI, giving way to the Navy's focus on
deploying NMCI seats to more sites despite a long-standing pattern of
low customer satisfaction with the program and known performance
shortfalls with certain types of seats. Moreover, despite investing in
a range of activities intended to improve customer satisfaction, plans
to effectively guide these improvement efforts, including plans for
measuring the success of these activities, have not been developed.
Given that the Navy reports that it has already invested about 6 years
and $3.7 billion in NMCI, the time to develop a comprehensive
understanding of the program's performance to date, and its prospects
for the future, is long overdue.
To its credit, the Navy recognizes the importance of measuring program
performance, as evidenced by its use of service level agreements, its
extensive efforts to survey customers, and its various customer
satisfaction improvement efforts. However, these steps need to be given
the priority that they deserve and be expanded to obtain a full and
accurate picture of program performance. Doing less increases the risk
of inadequately informing ongoing NMCI investment management decisions
that involve huge sums of money and carry important mission
consequences.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve NMCI performance management and better inform investment
decision making, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the
Secretary of the Navy to ensure that the NMCI program adopts robust
performance management practices that, at a minimum, include (1)
evaluating and appropriately adjusting the original plan for measuring
achievement of strategic program goals and provides for its
implementation in a manner that treats such measurement as a program
priority; (2) expanding its range of activities to measure and
understand service level agreement performance to provide increased
visibility into performance relative to each agreement; (3) sharing the
NMCI performance results with DOD, Office of Management and Budget, and
congressional decision makers as part of the program's annual budget
submissions; and (4) reexamining the focus, scope, and transparency of
its customer satisfaction activities to ensure that areas of
dissatisfaction described in this report are regularly disclosed to the
aforementioned decision makers and that customer satisfaction
improvement efforts are effectively planned and managed. In addition,
we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the
Navy, in collaboration with the various Navy entities involved in
overseeing, managing, and employing NMCI, to take appropriate steps to
ensure that the findings in this report and the outcomes from
implementing the above recommendations are used in considering and
implementing warranted changes to the NMCI's scope and approach.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In its comments on a draft of this report, signed by the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications,
Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance & Information Technology
Acquisition Programs) and reproduced in appendix IV, DOD agreed with
our recommendations and stated that it has implemented, is
implementing, or will implement each of them. In this regard, the
department stated that the report accurately highlights the need to
adjust the NMCI strategic goals and associated measures, and it
committed to, among other things, sharing additional NMCI performance
data with decision makers as part of the annual budget process.
Notwithstanding this agreement, DOD also commented that the Navy
believes that our draft report contained factual errors,
misinterpretations, and unsupported conclusions. We do not agree with
the Navy's position. The Navy's points are summarized below along with
our response.
* The Navy stated that our review focused on Navy shipyards and air
depots to the exclusion of Marine Corps sites. We disagree. As the
Objectives, Scope and Methodology section of our report points out, the
scope of our review covered the entire NMCI program and extended to
Navy and Marine Corps sites based on data we obtained from program
officials. For example, our work on the extent to which NMCI had met
its two strategic goals was programwide, and our work on SLA
performance and customer satisfaction surveys included Navy and Marine
Corps sites at which NMCI was operating and Navy and Marine Corps
customers that responded to the program's satisfaction surveys.
* The Navy stated that NMCI is a strategic success, noting that the
program is meeting its goals of providing information superiority (as
well as information security) and fostering innovation. As part of
these statements, the Navy cited such things as the number of users
supported and seats deployed, the types of capabilities fielded, and
contracting actions taken. In addition, the Navy stated that NMCI has
thwarted intrusion attacks that have penetrated other DOD systems, and
it concluded that NMCI represents a major improvement in information
superiority over the Navy's legacy network environment in such areas as
virus protection and firewall architecture. It also noted that more
Naval commands now have access to state-of-the-art workstations and
network services, which it concluded means that NMCI is fostering
innovation. While we do not question these various statements about
capabilities, improvements, and access, we would note they are not
results-oriented, outcome-based measures of success. Moreover, we do
not agree with the statements about NMCI meeting its two strategic
goals and being a strategic success. As we show in our report using the
Navy's own performance categories, performance targets, and actual SLA
and other performance data, NMCI met only 3 of the 20 performance
targets spanning nine performance categories that the Navy established
for determining goal attainment. Concerning these results, the Navy
stated that our report's use of SLA performance data constitutes a
recommendation on our part for using such data in determining program
goal attainment, which the Navy said is "awkward" because SLAs "do not
translate well into broad goals." We do not agree that our report
recommends the use of any particular performance data and targets for
determining program goal attainment. Our report's use of these data and
targets is purely because the NMCI program office provided them to us
in response to our inquiry for NMCI performance relative the nine Navy-
established performance categories. We are not recommending any
particular performance targets or data. Rather, we are recommending
that the approach for measuring achievement of strategic goals be
reevaluated and adjusted. Accordingly, we support DOD's comment that
the Navy needs to adjust the original NMCI strategic goals and
associated measures.
* The Navy stated that we misinterpreted SLA data as they relate to the
contractor performance categories of full payment and full performance.
We disagree. The report presents a Navy-performed analysis of SLA data
relative to the full payment and full performance categories that
offers no interpretation of these data. However, because the Navy's
analysis of SLA data is an aggregation, we performed a different
analysis to provide greater visibility into individual SLA performance
that the Navy's full payment and full performance analyses tends to
hide. Our analysis also avoids the bundling and averaging concerns that
the Navy raised.
* The Navy stated that some of our customer satisfaction conclusions
were unsupported. Specifically, the Navy said that the way it collects
end-user satisfaction responses, 5.5 or higher on a scale of 10
indicates a satisfied user, and such a scale is in line with industry
practice. Therefore, the Navy said that user satisfaction survey
responses do not "break out" in a way that supports our conclusion that
scores of 5.5 through 7 are marginally satisfied users. We do not
agree. While we recognize that the Navy's 1-10 scale does not
differentiate between degrees of satisfaction, we believe that doing so
would provide insight and perspective that is lacking from merely
counting a user as satisfied or not satisfied. When we analyzed the
responses to individual questions in terms of degrees of satisfaction,
we found that average responses to 10 of 14 survey questions were 5.5
to 7, which is clearly close to the lower limit of the satisfaction
range. Also, with regard to customer satisfaction, the Navy stated that
our inclusion in the report of subjective statements from shipyard and
air depot officials did not include any data to support the officials'
statements and thus did not support our conclusions. We recognize that
the officials' statements are subjective and anecdotal, and our report
clearly identified them as such. Nevertheless, we included them in the
report because they are fully consistent with the customer satisfaction
survey results and thus help illustrate the nature of NMCI user
concerns and areas of dissatisfaction that the survey results show
exist.
* The Navy stated that NMCI provides adequate reports to key decision
makers. However, we disagree because the reporting that the Navy has
done has yet to disclose the range of performance and customer
satisfaction issues that our report contains. Our message is that fully
and accurately disclosing program and contractor performance and
customer satisfaction to the various entities responsible for
overseeing, managing, and employing NMCI will serve to strengthen
program performance and accountability.
The Navy also provided various technical comments, which we have
incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of the Navy; the
Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the Director, Office of Management
and Budget. We also will make copies available to others upon request.
In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web
site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions concerning this information, please contact
me at (202) 512-6256 or by e-mail at hiter@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
Randolph C. Hite:
Director, Information Technology Architecture and Systems Issues:
List of Congressional Addressees:
The Honorable John Warner:
Chairman:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins:
Chairman:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Judd Gregg:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Olympia J. Snowe:
United States Senate:
The Honorable John E. Sununu:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Tom Davis:
Chairman:
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Thomas H. Allen:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Michael H. Michaud:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to review (1) whether the Navy Marine Corps
Intranet (NMCI) is meeting its strategic goals, (2) the extent to which
the contractor is meeting its service level agreements (SLA), (3)
whether customers are satisfied with the program, and (4) what is being
done to improve customer satisfaction.
To determine whether NMCI is meeting its strategic goals, we:
* reviewed documents provided by Department of the Navy describing the
mission need for NMCI, strategic goals, performance measures, and data
gathered on actual performance,
* conducted interviews with officials from the offices of the
Department of Defense Chief Information Officer (CIO), Department of
the Navy CIO, and Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research,
Development, and Acquisition, including officials in the NMCI program
office,
* identified the NMCI strategic goals, related performance categories,
associated performance targets, and actual performance data through
document reviews and interviews,
* developed an analysis showing NMCI's performance relative to the
strategic goals, performance categories, and targets based upon
available actual performance data, and:
* shared our analysis with program officials and adjusted the analysis
based on comments and additional data they provided.
To determine the extent to which performance expectations defined in
NMCI SLAs have been met, we:
* conducted interviews with NMCI program office and contractor
officials to gain an understanding of available SLA performance data
and potential analysis methods,
* obtained data on actual SLA performance that are used by the Navy as
the basis for making performance-based payments to the contractor and,
for each SLA, these data indicated whether one or more measurement(s)
were taken and if so, whether the measure was met or not, for each seat
type (i.e., basic, high end, and mission-critical), at every site for
each month from October 2004 through March 2006,[Footnote 32]
* analyzed data for site-specific SLAs by calculating the number of
seats that met each agreement at each site for each month and when
measurement data were available according to seat type, we calculated
the number of seats that met each agreement for each seat type.
Otherwise, we calculated the total number of seats that met each
agreement. We counted an agreement as met at a site if all of the
agreement's measured targets were met at the site for a given month. To
calculate the percentage of seats for which an agreement was met, we
added the total number of seats at all sites for which an agreement was
met, and divided it by the total number of seats at all sites for which
measurements were made,
* analyzed data for enterprisewide SLAs by determining whether an
agreement was met at all Navy (excluding the Marine Corps) and all
Marine Corps sites for each month, and we counted an agreement as met
if all of the agreement's measured targets were met for a given month,
* compared our site specific and enterprisewide SLA analyses across
months to identify patterns and trends in overall SLA performance and
in situations were an SLA is composed of site specific and
enterprisewide measures, we did not aggregate our site specific and
enterprisewide results. Thus, an SLA could have been met at the site
level but not at the enterprisewide, and vice versa, and:
* described our analysis method and shared our results with program
office and contractor officials and made adjustments based on their
comments.
To determine whether NMCI customers are satisfied, we:
* obtained and analyzed results of end users surveys conducted from
June 2002 through March 2006 and commanders and network operations
leaders surveys from September 2005 through March 2006,
* conducted interviews with NMCI program office and contractor
officials to gain an understanding of how the surveys were developed
and administered and their procedures for validating and auditing
reported results,
* analyzed data in the survey reports by comparing actual with desired
results, and we also analyzed the data to identify trends in
satisfaction levels over time and variation in satisfaction by
question, organization, and type of service, and:
* conducted interviews with a broad range of NMCI users at Navy sites:
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard, Jacksonville Naval Air Depot, and North Island Naval Air
Depot. We selected these sites because they are among the largest,
include diverse user communities, and represent different stages of
program implementation. Participants in the interviews included
officials from the Offices of the Commander, CIO, Information
Technology and Communications Services, end users relying on NMCI
desktop services in day-to-day operations, and the contractor.
To determine what has been done to improve customer satisfaction, we:
* interviewed program office and contractor officials to identify and
develop an understanding of customer satisfaction improvement efforts.
To determine the results and impact of each effort, and we interviewed
program officials and obtained and analyzed relevant documentation,
* researched best practices into effective management of improvement
activities and compared the program office's approach with the
practices we identified to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the
customer satisfaction improvement activities, and:
* attended the June 2005 NMCI enterprise conference to observe the
proceedings.
We performed our work from April 2005 to August 2006 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Customer Satisfaction Survey Questions:
This appendix includes the questions used in the three customer
satisfaction surveys: End User Customer Satisfaction Survey, Navy
Echelon II and Marine Corps Major Command Commander's Incentive Survey,
and Navy and Marine Corps Network Operations Leader's Survey.
End User Customer Satisfaction Survey Questions:
The end user customer satisfaction survey consists of 14 questions, 10
of which are tied to incentives. Users are asked to think only of the
experiences they have had with the services during the prior 3 months.
If a question is not relevant to their experience, they are asked to
indicate that it is not applicable. Otherwise, they are asked to score
it on a 1-10 scale with 1-5 being levels of dissatisfaction, and 6-10
being levels of satisfaction. Users are also currently asked
demographic information in the survey, as well as suggestions for
improvement, and sources of dissatisfaction. Table 9 lists the end user
customer satisfaction survey questions.[Footnote 33]
Table 9: NMCI End User Customer Satisfaction Survey Questions:
What is your satisfaction.
* With having access to the computer hardware you need to accomplish
your job?
With the dependability of the computer you use?
* With having access to the software you need to accomplish your job?
With network reliability?
With the professionalism of EDS personnel?
With finding and using information about NMCI services?
With the accuracy of information describing how to use NMCI services?
* With training on how to use NMCI effectively?
With technical support services provided by the help desk?
With technical support services provided by on-site personnel?
With the timeliness of problem resolution?
With the solution implemented to correct any problem you experienced?
*With the process to make changes to your IT environment?
What is your overall satisfaction with services provided by EDS?
Source: March 2006 Quarterly Customer Satisfaction Survey Report.
Note: Questions marked with an asterisk are not used for incentive
purposes.
[End of table]
Navy Echelon II Commanders and Marine Corps Major Command Commander's
Customer Satisfaction Incentive Survey:
The commander's customer satisfaction incentive survey consists of four
topics (warfighter support services, cutover services, technology
solutions, and service delivery) corresponding to key mission and/or
business objective-related services or capabilities. Each topic is
broken down into a number of subtopics. Under each subtopic, the survey
asks commanders to indicate whether they agree, disagree, or have no
basis to respond to a series of statements about EDS's performance. The
survey also asks commanders to rate their overall satisfaction with
each topic as "extremely satisfied," "mostly satisfied," "slightly
satisfied," "not satisfied," or "no basis to respond." The last section
of each topic contains two open-ended questions soliciting feedback on
satisfaction with NMCI services.
Table 10 is a condensed version of the commander's customer
satisfaction survey that includes each of the subtopics, statements
about EDS's performance, the overall topic satisfaction question, and
the two open-ended questions.[Footnote 34]
Table 10: Navy Echelon II and Marine Corps Major Command Commander's
Customer Satisfaction Incentive Survey's Questions:
Warfighter support services.
1. Please evaluate EDS support for the following warfighter support
service areas:
Classified network support.
* EDS understands the requirements unique to SIPRNet Systems;
* EDS adequately supports SIPRNet operations;
* EDS provides timely SIPRNet technical support;
* EDS provides adequate remote access to the SIPRNet from NMCI seats.
Deployable support.
* EDS provides adequate and effective predeployment training;
* EDS provides deployment process documentation that is readily
available, clear, and accurate;
* EDS provides effective NMCI help desk support to deployed assets;
* EDS effectively supports the movement of resources out of the NMCI
environment for deployment into IT21 and MTDN environments;
* EDS effectively supports the reintegration of deployed resources into
the NMCI environment;
* EDS provides "Pack up Kits" with appropriate content for supporting
resources while deployed.
Emergent requirement support (support for unplanned events).
* EDS effectively responds to emergent requirements;
* EDS provides flexible and responsive support;
* EDS is innovative in developing solutions to support emergent
requirements.
2. Please rate your overall satisfaction with warfighter support
services;
3. Comments and feedback;
* What improvement would most increase your satisfaction?;
* If your satisfaction with this service has changed during the past 3
months, what is the primary reason for the change?
1. Please evaluate EDS performance for the following cutover services:
Cutover planning.
* EDS incorporates lessons learned into its cutover planning processes;
* EDS cutover planning considers requirements unique to specific sites
and organizations;
* EDS accurately identifies infrastructure "build out" requirements.
Cutover preparation.
* EDS correctly captures site/organization data in support of NMCI
asset;
* EDS coordinates with the designated points of contact prior to asset
cutover;
* EDS infrastructure "build outs" are completed correctly and in
coordination with the government designated points of contact.
Cutover execution.
* EDS delivers complete and accurate services as ordered;
* EDS delivers according to agreed upon schedules;
* EDS fulfills its;
* "Execution Discipline" obligations;
* EDS effectively deploys specialized assets (classified, deployable,
very small site design, etc.).
2. Please rate your overall satisfaction with cutover services;
3. Comments and feedback;
* What improvement would most increase your satisfaction?;
* If your satisfaction with this service has changed during the past 3
months, what is the primary reason for the change?
1. Please evaluate EDS performance for the following technology
services:
New service order and delivery process.
* EDS makes available new services in a timely manner once they have
been added to the contract and approved for operation;
* EDS delivers ordered services in a timely fashion;
* EDS delivers accurately against submitted task orders.
Technical performance.
* EDS NMCI service (hardware/software, help desk, on-site support, and
connectivity) are available when and where needed;
* EDS provides accurate and dependable technical services;
* EDS provides quality technical services;
* EDS technical services are flexible enough to support dynamic
organizational needs.
2. Please rate your overall satisfaction with technical solutions;
3. Comments and feedback;
* What improvement would most increase your satisfaction?;
* If your satisfaction with this service has changed during the past 3
months, what is the primary reason for the change?
1. Please evaluate EDS performance in the following service delivery
areas:
Organizational understanding.
* EDS understands my command's mission requirements;
* EDS understands my command's operational processes;
* EDS understands my organizational structure and hierarchy.
Customer service.
* EDS NMCI Help Desk Support (1.866.THE.NMCI) is consistent and
effective;
* EDS NMCI on-site technical support is consistent and effective;
* EDS communicates relevant information to command personnel in a
timely fashion;
* EDS supports individual command requirements.
Issue management.
* EDS coordinates with the appropriate government personnel and
representatives;
* EDS responds to issues in a timely manner;
* EDS resolves issues timely and effectively;
* EDS develops solutions that are transferable throughout the
enterprise;
* EDS appropriately considers command and Department of Navy needs as
part of issue prioritization;
* EDS accurately tracks and provides insight into identified issues.
2. Please rate your overall satisfaction with service delivery.
3. Comments and feedback;
* What improvement would most increase your satisfaction?;
* If your satisfaction with this service has changed during the past 3
months, what is the primary reason for the change?
Source: Navy Echelon II Commands and Marine Corps Command Commanders
Customer Satisfaction Incentive Survey: Period of Performance April 1,
2005, through September 30, 2005.
[End of table]
Navy and Marine Corps Network Operations Leaders' Customer Satisfaction
Incentive Survey:
The network operations leaders' customer satisfaction incentive survey
consists of three topics (mission support and planning, network
management, and service delivery) corresponding to key mission and/or
business objective-related services or capabilities. Each topic is
broken down into a number of subtopics. Under each subtopic, the survey
asks the leaders to indicate whether they agree, disagree, or have no
basis to respond to a series of statements about EDS's performance. The
survey also asks the leaders to rate their overall satisfaction with
each topic as "extremely satisfied," "mostly satisfied," "slightly
satisfied," "not satisfied," or "have no basis to respond." The last
section of each topic contains two open-ended questions soliciting
feedback on satisfaction with NMCI services.
Table 11 is an abbreviated version of the network operations leader's
surveys that includes each of the subtopics, statements about EDS's
performance, the overall topic satisfaction question, and the two open-
ended questions.[Footnote 35]
Table 11: Navy and Marine Corps Network Operations Leader's Customer
Satisfaction Incentive Survey's Questions:
Mission support and planning: 1. Please evaluate EDS's performance for
the following mission support and planning services:
Interoperability support.
* EDS adequately supports internal (Navy/ Marine Corps)
interoperability;
* EDS adequately supports external (.mil, .com, Joint, coalition)
interoperability;
* EDS provides adequate reach back capabilities to legacy
systems/applications;
* EDS correctly identifies and is able to resolve interoperability
issues.
Continuity of operations.
* EDS is knowledgeable concerning continuity of operations plans;
* EDS demonstrates the effectiveness of its continuity of operations
plans;
* EDS can effectively recover NMCI systems and data in the event of a
disaster;
* EDS effectively utilizes and supports the NMCI Military Detachment
Training Program.
Future readiness.
* EDS solutions are scalable;
* EDS is flexible in planning for future scenarios;
* EDS is innovative in developing solutions to combat emerging IT
threats to NMCI operations.
Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) services.
* EDS has developed an efficient and effective PKI solution;
* EDS provides PKI services that are readily available and reliable;
* EDS provides PI services that are easy to understand and use;
* EDS provides adequate PKI related training and other instructional
documentation.
2. Please rate your overall satisfaction with mission support and
planning services.
3. Comments and feedback.
* What improvement would most increase your satisfaction?;
* If your satisfaction with this service has changed during the past 3
months, what is the primary reason for the change?
Network Management:
1. Please evaluate EDS performance for the following network management
services:
Network status information.
* EDS provides sufficient availability to network performance data;
* EDS provides sufficiently detailed visibility into network
performance issues;
* EDS provides network performance data that adequately represents live
network operations.
Information Operations Condition (INFOCON)/Information Assurance
Vulnerability Alert (IAVA) Awareness and Compliance.
* EDS implements IAVA's in a timely manner;
* EDS understands the requirements associated with each INFOCON level;
* EDS adjusts to INFOCON changes in a timely manner.
Urgent software patch implementation.
* EDS efficiently and effectively supports the processes required to
get urgent software patches approved so that they can be deployed onto
the network;
* EDS maintains a current knowledge of software patch availability and
deployment processes;
* EDS maintains accurate configuration management of software patch
deployment throughout the enterprise;
* EDS provides timely responses to urgent software patch releases.
Data management.
* EDS effectively manages user account data;
* EDS effectively manages systems log data;
* EDS effectively manages system permissions and trust relationships;
* EDS effectively manages system and user backup data;
* EDS effectively manages network architecture diagrams.
2. Please rate your overall satisfaction with network management
services.
3. Comments and feedback.
* What improvement would most increase your satisfaction?;
* If your satisfaction with this service has changed during the past 3
months, what is the primary reason for the change?
Service delivered:
1. Please evaluate EDS performance for the following service delivery
areas:
Organizational understanding.
* EDS understands organizational mission requirements;
* EDS understands organizational policies and operational procedures;
* EDS understands your organizational structure.
Communications.
* EDS effectively communicates with the right people;
* EDS effectively communicates planned maintenance and network outages;
* EDS effectively communicates changes in NMCI configurations;
* EDS coordinates with the appropriate parties when planning network
events that significantly impact the network.
Issue management.
* EDS provides sufficient visibility into the status of open issues;
* EDS appropriately coordinates issue resolution efforts with network
operators;
* EDS independently identifies and reports to the government network
related issues;
* EDS appropriately considers command and Navy needs in issue
prioritization;
* EDS applies lessons learned in order to resolve related issues across
the NMCI enterprise.
2. Please rate your overall satisfaction with EDS service delivery.
3. Comments and feedback.
* What improvement would most increase your satisfaction?;
* If your satisfaction with this service has changed during the past 3
months, what is the primary reason for the change?
Source: Navy and Marine Corps Network Operations Leaders Customer
Satisfaction Incentive Survey: Period of Performance April 1, 2005,
through September 30, 2005.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: SLA Descriptions and Performance:
This appendix contains descriptions and performance trends for NMCI's
service level agreements. SLAs are measured at site level,
enterprisewide, or both the site and enterprisewide. Site level SLA
performance is based on the percentage of operational seats that met
the SLA, meaning that all performance targets for a given SLA were met
for a particular month. Where applicable, the percentage of seats
meeting an SLA was analyzed by seat type (i.e., basic, high end, and
mission-critical).
Enterprisewide SLA performance is based on whether the SLA was met for
a given month, meaning that all performance targets for a given SLA
were met for a particular month.
SLA 101-End user problem resolution: This SLA measures the percentage
of all resolved NMCI problems against identified performance target
values. Figure 14 portrays the contractor's historical site level
performance with SLA 101.
Figure 14: Site Level Performance SLA 101:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
SLA 102-Network problem resolution: This SLA measures the resolution of
problems associated with the contractor provided network devices and
connections. Figure 15 portrays the contractor's historical site level
performance with SLA 102.
Figure 15: Site Level Performance for SLA 102:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
SLA 103-End user services: This SLA measures performance with end user
services, including E-mail, Web and Portal, File Share, Print, Network
Logon, Access to Government Applications, and RAS services. Figure 16
portrays the contractor's historical site level performance with SLA
103. Figure 17 portrays the contractor's historical enterprisewide
performance with SLA 103.
Figure 16: Site Level Performance for SLA 103:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Figure 17: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 103:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
SLA 104-Help desk: This SLA measures help desk services including,
average speed of answer, average speed of response, call abandonment
rate, and first call resolution. Figure 18 portrays the contractor's
historical enterprisewide performance with SLA 104.
Figure 18: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 104:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
SLA 105-Move, add, change (MAC): This SLA measures the time to complete
MAC activity, from the receipt of the MAC request from an authorized
government submitter to the completion of the MAC activity. MACs
include activities such as moving a seat from one location to another
and adding seats at a location. Figure 19 portrays the contractor's
historical site level performance with SLA 105.
Figure 19: Site Level Performance for SLA 105:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
SLA 106-Information assurance (IA) services: This SLA measures the
contractor's IA services, including security event detection, security
event reporting, security event response, and IA configuration
management. Figure 20 portrays the contractor's historical
enterprisewide performance with SLA 106.
Figure 20: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 106:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
SLA 107-NMCI intranet: This SLA measures performance of the NMCI
Intranet in areas of availability, latency/packet loss,[Footnote 36]
and quality of service in support of videoteleconferencing and voice-
over-IP. Figure 21 portrays the contractor's historical site level
performance with SLA 107.
Figure 21: Site Level Performance for SLA 107:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
SLA 203-E-mail services: This SLA measures the performance of e-mail
transfers. Figure 22 portrays the contractor's historical
enterprisewide performance with SLA 203.
Figure 22: Enterprisewide Performance for 203:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
SLA 204-Directory services: This SLA measures the availability and
responsiveness of directory services. Directory services include
supporting the management and use of file services, security services,
messaging, and directory information (e.g., e-mail addresses) for
users. Figure 23 portrays the contractor's historical site level
performance with SLA 204. Figure 24 portrays the contractor's
enterprisewide performance with SLA 204.
Figure 23: Site Level Performance for SLA 204:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Figure 24: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 204:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
SLA 206-Web access services: This SLA measures the performance of user
access to internal and external Web content. Figure 25 portrays the
contractor's historical site level performance with SLA 206. Figure 26
portrays the contractor's historical enterprisewide performance with
SLA 206.
Figure 25: Site Level Performance for SLA 206:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Figure 26: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 206:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
SLA 211-Unclassified but Sensitive Internet Protocol Router Network
(NIPRNET) access: This SLA measures the performance of NIPRNET access,
including latency and packet loss. Figure 27 portrays the contractor's
historical site level performance with SLA 211. Figure 28 portrays the
contractor's historical enterprisewide performance with SLA 211:
Figure 27: Site Level Performance for SLA 211:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Figure 28: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 211:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
SLA 225-Base area network/local area network (BAN/LAN) communications
services: This SLA measures BAN/LAN performance, including availability
and latency. Figure 29 portrays the contractor's historical site level
performance with SLA 225.
Figure 29: Site Level Performance for SLA 225:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
SLA 226-Proxy and caching service: This SLA measures the availability
of the proxy and caching services. Proxy servers are located between a
client and a network server and are intended to improve network
performance by fulfilling small requests. Figure 30 portrays the
contractor's historical enterprisewide performance with SLA 226.
Figure 30: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 226:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
SLA 231-System service-domain name server: This SLA measures the
availability and latency of Domain Name Server services. The Domain
Name Server translates domain names to IP addresses and vice versa.
Figure 31 portrays the contractor's historical site level performance
with SLA 231. Figure 32 portrays the contractor's historical
enterprisewide performance with SLA 231.
Figure 31: Site Level Performance for SLA 231:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Figure 32: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 231:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
SLA 324-Wide area network connectivity: This SLA measures the percent
of bandwidth used to provide connection to external networks. Figure 33
portrays the contractor's historical site level performance with SLA
324.
Figure 33: Site Level Performance for SLA 324:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
SLA 325-BAN/LAN communication services: This SLA measures the percent
of bandwidth utilized on shared network segments. Figure 34 portrays
the contractor's historical site level performance for SLA 325.
Figure 34: Site Level Performance for SLA 325:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
SLA 328-Network management service-asset management: This SLA measures
the time it takes to implement new assets, such as seats, and
application servers. Figure 35 portrays the contractor's historical
site level performance with SLA 328.
Figure 35: Site Level Performance for SLA 328:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
SLA 329-Operational support services: This SLA measures the
effectiveness of NMCI's disaster recovery plan. Figure 36 portrays the
contractor's historical enterprisewide performance with SLA 329.
Figure 36: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 329:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
SLA 332-Application server connectivity: This SLA measures both the
time it takes for the contractor to implement the connectivity between
the network backbone and an application server and the percentage of
available bandwidth from an application server to the local supporting
backbone. Figure 37 portrays the contractor's historical site level
performance with SLA 332.
Figure 37: Site Level Performance for SLA 332:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
SLA 333-NMCI security operational services-general: This SLA measures
the percentage of successful accreditations on the first attempt, based
on compliance with DOD certification and accreditation policies and
procedures. Figure 38 portrays the contractor's historical
enterprisewide performance with SLA 333.
Figure 38: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 333:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
SLA 334-Information assurance operational service-PKI: This SLA
measures the timeliness of revoking a PKI certificate when required,
ability of a NMCI user to obtain the DOD PKI certificate of another
NMCI user, and the time it takes for user registration of DOD PKI
within NMCI. Figure 39 portrays the contractor's historical
enterprisewide performance with SLA 334.
Figure 39: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 334:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
SLA 336-Information assurance planning services: This SLA measures the
time it takes to distribute new or revised security products (hardware
and software). Figure 40 portrays the contractor's historical
enterprisewide performance with SLA 336.
Figure 40: Enterprisewide Performance for SLA 336:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Assistant Secretary Of Defense:
6000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20301-6000:
Networks And Information Integration:
Nov 21 2006:
Mr. Randolph C. Hite:
Director, Information Technology Architecture and Systems Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Hite:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft
report (GAO-07-51), "Information Technology: DoD Needs To Ensure That
Navy Marine Corps Intranet Program Is Meeting Goals and Satisfying
Customers", October 10, 2006. (GAO Code 310602).
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft report and the
time your staff afforded us during their preparation of the report.
The Department's response contains two parts. In the first enclosure,
the Department's reply to each recommendation is provided. In general,
we concur with your recommendations. In fact, the Department of the
Navy (DoN) has previously implemented, is currently implementing, or
plans to implement the report's recommendations.
The second enclosure provides DoN comments on the draft report. The DoN
is best suited to respond to the report's details because they have day-
to-day management and oversight authority for Navy Marine Corps
Intranet. The DoN's comments seek to correct errors of fact, clarify
misinterpretations, and address unsupported conclusions.
Our point of contact is Leo Milanowski at 703-602-2720, ext 142. Please
contact him with any questions or if you need clarification.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
John R. Landon:
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense:
(C3ISR & IT Acquisition):
Enclosures:
As stated:
GAO Draft Report Dated October 10, 2006 GAO-07-51 (GAO Codes 310602):
"Information Technology: DOD Needs To Ensure That Navy Marine Corps
Intranet Program Is Meeting Goals And Satisfying Customers"
Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that the Navy Marine Corps
Intranet (NMCI) Program adopt robust performance management practices
that evaluate and appropriately adjust the original plan for measuring
achievement of strategic program goals and provide for NMCI
implementation in a manner that treats such measurement as a program
priority:
DoD Response: Concur; the report accurately highlights the need for DoN
to adjust its NMCI strategic goals and associated measures. Given that
more than six years have elapsed since the original plan was
formulated, NMCI performance measures should have evolved to reflect
changed priorities, incorporated lessons learned, and integrated
updated guidance.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that the NMCI Program adopt
robust performance management practices that expand its range of
activities to measure and understand service level agreements (SLA) to
provide increased visibility into performance relative to each
agreement:
DoD Response: Concur; NMCI currently undertakes extensive analysis of
all SLA data to understand root causes of problems and to develop plans
for corrective action. Areas that indicate special need - e.g. sites
and seats not meeting SLA, or SLA which indicate a recurring problem -
are afforded special coverage. The entire range of NMCI activities is
under constant review, and if warranted, SLA coverage is expanded. For
example, a current area under consideration is measurement metrics
across the entire DoN enterprise.
Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that the NMCI Program adopt
robust performance management practices that share the NMCI performance
results with DoD, OMB, and congressional decision makers as a part of
the program's annual budget submissions.
DoD Response: Concur; the NMCI Program Office currently provides
extensive reports to decision makers in DoN. In addition, the Program
Office has complied with other requests for program information. As a
part of its annual budget submission to the DoD and OMB, DoN submits an
Exhibit 300 for NMCI. The Exhibit 300 will be reviewed for areas where
additional performance data can be added in future submissions.
Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that the NMCI Program adopt
robust performance management practices that re-examine the focus,
scope, and transparency of its customer satisfaction activities to
ensure that areas of dissatisfaction described in this report are
regularly disclosed to the decision makers and that customer
satisfaction improvement efforts are effectively planned and managed.
DoD Response: Concur; the DoN has continually reexamined the focus,
scope and transparency of its customer satisfaction efforts. It
continues to revise survey questions, and has added surveys of the
Commanders and Network Operations Leaders. The NMCI Program Office
regularly briefs customer satisfaction results to DoN leadership via
reports, briefings, meetings, and CIO Forum updates. Through these
vehicles, leading causes of dissatisfaction are identified and actions
prescribed to address them such as contract modifications, service
additions, performance improvement efforts or other initiatives.
Recommendation S: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Navy, in collaboration with the various
Navy entities involved in overseeing, managing, and employing NMCI, to
take appropriate steps to ensure that the findings in this report and
the outcomes from implementing the above recommendations are used to
consider and implement warranted changes to the NMCI's scope and
approach.
DoD Response: Concur; the Office of the Secretary of Defense will
engage with DoN to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to implement
the report's recommendations, where warranted.
General DoN Comments On Draft GAO Report GAO-07-51:
1. The NMCI Program encompasses both the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine
Corps (USMC). The GAO did not visit any Marine Corps sites during this
audit; the audit focused on Navy shipyards and depots. Consequently,
the following comments do not reflect the USMC's views on the subject
audit. Future audits that address the DoN information technology (IT)
enterprise or its components should include the USMC through the USMC
Inspector General's office.
2. NMCI can best be characterized as a strategic success that has
endured some tactical difficulties along the way. NMCI has put in place
very stringent performance requirements, provided unprecedented
detailed visibility into DoN IT expenditures and has developed a
detailed reporting regimen for network performance and customer
satisfaction. The initial contract has taught the DoN a lot about our
environment and the challenges of operating an enterprise network. The
DoN has already begun the requirements generation process for the Next
Generation NMCI, and will be better prepared to address these
shortcomings in future contracts.
3. While NMCI's performance has been far from perfect, it has steadily
improved over time. DoN recognizes that more improvement must be shown
before NMCI can claim to be the preeminent network that DoN envisions.
Since 2001, DoN has overcome a myriad of challenges in transitioning to
NMCI from our legacy IT environment. With over 650,000 users now
supported, NMCI has become the largest corporate intranet in the world.
NMCI has consolidated over 1,000 separate legacy DoN networks into a
single, secure common computing and communications backbone with a
standardized set of hardware and software across the enterprise. NMCI
has deployed over 320,000 seats at hundreds of locations, all served by
a world-class IT infrastructure. We continue to build upon NMCI's
capabilities. For example, in the past year, secure Broadband Remote
Access (BuRAS), Cellular Wireless Broadband Access, 802.11 Wireless LAN
capabilities and anti-spam and anti-spyware capabilities have been
fielded in NMCI. NMCI was recently awarded the 2006 QUALCOMM 3G A-List
Award for its use of a secure wireless solution in support of post-
Katrina recovery efforts. We executed a contract extension in March
2006 that clarified many contract provisions, reduced seat prices by
15% in the last three years of the contract and positioned the DoN for
a re-compete of the contract in 2010.
4. One significant challenge that has been successfully met is
information security. NMCI has never suffered a root-level intrusion
and has thwarted attacks that penetrated other DoD systems on several
occasions. NMCI is the only network that completely implemented and
enforced the DoD's Public Key Infrastructure Cryptographic Log-On
mandate. Everyday NMCI strips more than 4,000 potentially harmful
attachments from e-mails. In 2005, NMCI detected and countered over 2
million unauthorized intrusion attempts. NMCI provides a previously
unavailable "fail-over" capability, the ability to re-route during
contingency operations and a centralized Network Operations Center to
maintain 24/7 surveillance of network availability. Compared with the
DoN's legacy network environment, NMCI represents a quantum improvement
in information superiority, as recognized by the Commander, Naval
Network Warfare Command in directing the shutdown of legacy networks
and migration to NMCI as part of its Operation Cyber Condition Zebra.
Improved information security has been the greatest benefit of NMCI.
The security of our network will continue to be the primary focus of
our efforts.
5. The report recommends measuring NMCI progress against performance
measurements defined in the June 2000 NMCI Report to Congress, by
mapping NMCI SLA directly to strategic performance measurements. (It
should be noted that the performance metrics in the Report to Congress
were drafted before the contract was negotiated and awarded.) In the
NMCI contract, performance requirements designed to determine the level
of payment to the vendor are in place, and are intended to measure very
specific elements that do not translate well into broad goals. Mapping
NMCI SLA directly to strategic performance measurements was attempted,
but proved awkward in that a SLA result that was less than 100%
attainment was reported as failure to achieve a goal. Many of the
performance measurements in the Report to Congress (Interoperability,
Information Assurance, Service Efficiency, Customer Satisfaction,
Workforce Capabilities and Process Improvement) required comparisons to
the DoN's legacy environment, in addition to NMCI performance data, to
accurately gauge the overall effectiveness of NMCI. The NMCI
Performance Business Case Analysis of September 2004 and other data,
documents NMCI's qualitative and quantitative improvements in
performance over the DoN's legacy environment in all of these areas.
NMCI has, and continues to make, regular reports to DoN and DoD
leadership on NMCI performance with regard to current goals as defined
by the DoN IM/IT Strategic Plan, Secretary of the Navy Objectives,
Chief of Naval Operations Guidance and DoD Enterprise Transition Plans.
6. Overall, the DoN believes that NMCI is meeting its strategic goals
of information superiority and fostering innovation. Compared with the
DoN's legacy network environment, NMCI has been a vast improvement in
supporting information superiority. The NMCI Operations Evaluation
(OPEVAL) concluded that NMCI had: the "best external security of any
Navy network"; improved network security against outsider threats;
improved virus protection; a more robust firewall architecture; and
improved ability to isolate and recover/restore from a hostile attack.
The OPEVAL further concluded that NMCI's approach to defense-in-depth
was a strength. NMCI is meeting its strategic goal of fostering
innovation by providing interoperability and a high level of common
services within the DoN. The NMCI OPEVAL found that, as a result of
NMCI, many DoN commands that previously did not have state-of-the-art
workstations and network services now do, thus eliminating the "have
and have not" issue within DoN.
7. The DoN believes the report's analysis of NMCI SLA data contains
some understandable misinterpretations. The report tends to
misinterpret the NMCI SLA categories of Full Payment and Full
Performance, and often bundles and averages SLA data. Full Payment and
Full Performance are separate calculations. The specific SLAs that
apply for payment calculations depend on the Contract Line Items
(CLINs) associated with sites and accordingly can vary from site to
site (depending on the CLINs that have been ordered by each site).
Misapplying these concepts can skew data and produce incorrect
conclusions. NMCI regularly undertakes extensive analysis of all SLA
data to understand root causes of problems and to develop plans of
corrective action.
8. We realize that customer satisfaction is not what it should be.
However, the DoN believes that the report's analysis of NMCI customer
satisfaction data reaches some unsupported conclusions. The report
implies that NMCI's customer satisfaction standards are too low (5.5 on
a scale of 10). NMCI's customer satisfaction standards are based on
industry practice and in line with those of the Gartner Group (3 on a
scale of 5) for "satisfied" users. The DoN is still not satisfied with
the current level of customer satisfaction and continues to work to
improve customer services. The report characterizes some users as
"marginally" satisfied. NMCI customer satisfaction data does not break
out this way. The customer satisfaction survey clearly indicates to the
user whether or not a given score indicates satisfaction or
dissatisfaction. The report includes subjective statements from naval
shipyard and depot officials that were not accompanied by any objective
data to support the conclusions implied and does not include
information provided by the NMCI Program Manager that addressed many of
these concerns.
9. We believe that NMCI has provided and continues to provide adequate
reports to key decision makers. NMCI is the most tested, overseen and
reported upon network in history. No other DoN or DoD network has been
tested as rigorously as NMCI; and no other DoN or DoD network has even
been the subject of an operational test evaluation. This testing,
combined with the continuous automated performance monitoring built
into the NMCI network, has given the DoN detailed knowledge of every
aspect of the capabilities, performance and daily health of NMCI. NMCI
has been the subject of extensive oversight by Congress, the DoD and
the DoN. NMCI makes regular and detailed reports to DoN and DoD
leadership on progress, performance and program issues. Several reports
on performance have been provided to Congress as a requirement for
moving forward with the program. Numerous briefings were and continue
to be provided to members of Congress and their staffs.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Randolph C. Hite, 202-512-3439, hiter@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Mark Bird, Assistant
Director; Scott Borre; Timothy Case; Barbara Collier; Vijay D'Souza;
Neil Doherty; Jim Fields; Mike Gilmore; Peggy Hegg; Wilfred Holloway;
George Kovachick; Frank Maguire; Charles Roney; Sidney Schwartz; Karl
Seifert; Glenn Spiegel; Dr. Rona Stillman; Amos Tevelow; and Eric
Winter made key contributions to this report.
(310602):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Such IT outsourcing arrangements are commonly referred to as seat
management contracts because they involve contactor-owned hardware and
software assets and services that are bundled together and provided to
a client at a fixed price per unit (or seat).
[2] SLAs are contractually specified performance level expectations.
[3] The Navy has about 550 NMCI sites. The number of seats at these
sites ranges from 1 to about 14,000.
[4] A basic seat involves the standard service that the Navy can order
from the contractor; a high end seat includes enhanced performance such
as increased processing power; and a mission-critical seat involves
enhanced services such as greater maintenance responsiveness.
[5] Among other things, this act defines the roles and responsibilities
of CIOs relative to managing IT investments.
[6] Certification is a comprehensive evaluation of security controls
that provides the necessary information for a designated approving
authority to formally declare that a system is approved to operate at
an acceptable level of risk. Accreditation is the authorization of an
information system to process, store, or transmit information that
provides a form of quality control. The accreditation decision is to be
based on the implementation of an agreed-upon set of management,
operational, and technical controls for a system and is supported by a
comprehensive evaluation or certification of these security controls
that provides the necessary information for a designated approving
authority to formally declare that a system is approved to operate.
[7] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Pub. L.
No. 107-107, Dec. 28, 2001.
[8] The Navy categorizes the sites as very small, small, or large based
on the number of seats at the site.
[9] NETWARCOM acts as the Navy's central operational authority for
space, information technology requirements, and network and information
operations in support of naval forces afloat and ashore. Among other
things, it is responsible for operating a secure and interoperable
naval network; coordinating and assessing Navy operational requirements
for and use of network; command and control; information technology;
and information operations and space.
[10] MCNOSC is the Corps' enterprise network operations center and
serves as the Marine component to U.S. Strategic Command's Joint Task
Force for Computer Network Operations. Its mission is to provide global
network operations and computer network defense in order to facilitate
seamless information exchange in support of Marine and joint forces
operating worldwide. MCNOSC is the Corps' nucleus for enterprise data
network services, network support to deploying forces, and technical
development of network-enabled IT solutions.
[11] Prior to September 2005, the contract specified a third
performance level--payment for improved performance. To achieve this
level, the contractor would have to meet all of the applicable SLAs,
and at least 50 percent of the seats would have to be operational. If
these two conditions were met at a given site, it resulted in 90
percent payment to the contractor for that site.
[12] Echelon II's, otherwise known as Budget Submitting Offices (BSOs)
are the Naval entities that report directly to the Chief of Naval
Operations, including the Naval Air Systems Command, Office of Navy
Intelligence, and Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command. Major
Commands include entities that report directly to the Marine Corps,
including Marine Forces Atlantic, Marine Forces Pacific, and Marine
Forces Reserve.
[13] To be eligible to be included in a quarterly survey, end users
must have had at least 45 days of experience with services provided by
the NMCI contractor, have an e-mail account and user identification
code, and not have been included in any other recent surveys. Because
additional end users are continually being transitioned to contractor-
provided services, the number of individuals that have had 45 days or
more of direct experience with these has increased since 2002, when the
first survey was conducted.
[14] The program is responsible for identifying end user requirements
for computer hardware and software, managing the process of making
changes to the IT environment, and conducting training to prepare end
users for the transition to NMCI.
[15] The contractor is responsible for, among other things, providing
information on its services, appropriate computer hardware and software
that meets requirements identified by the Navy, access to the NMCI
Intranet, and customer services (e.g., help desk and other kinds of
technical support).
[16] GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Observations on the Procurement of the
Navy/Marine Corps Intranet, GAO/T-NSIAD/AIMD-00-116 (Mar. 8, 2000).
[17] GAO, Information Technology: Issues Affecting Cost Impact of Navy/
Marine Corps Intranet Need to be Resolved, GAO-03-33 (Washington, D.C.:
Oct. 31, 2002).
[18] GAO, Information Technology: DOD Needs to Leverage Lessons Learned
from Its Outsourcing Projects, GAO-03-371 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25,
2003).
[19] See, for example, Executive Office of the President, Office of
Management and Budget, Evaluating Information Technology Investments, A
Practical Guide (November 1995).
[20] LISI is a DOD method for measuring interoperability. According to
DOD, it uses five levels (0 through 4 with 0 being the lowest).
According to DOD, LISI typically has four categories: (1) Procedures,
which focuses on the doctrine, policies and procedures, architecture,
and technical standards that enable systems to exchange information;
(2) Data, which covers the formats and protocols that enable data
interchange, along with the shared semantics that enable information
interchange; (3) Applications, which focuses on the applications that
enable exchange, processing, and manipulation; and (4) Infrastructure,
which addresses the technology environment (hardware, networks, systems
services, etc.) that enable interaction.
[21] According to NMCI program officials, responsibility for achieving
this target should be viewed as shared among Navy organizations because
bringing applications into compliance with security standards before
they can be used on NMCI is outside the responsibility of the NMCI
program.
[22] According to a program official, "green," "yellow," and "red" mean
low, medium, and high risk levels, respectively.
[23] Public key infrastructure is a system of computers, software, and
data that relies on certain cryptographic techniques for some aspects
of security. For more information, see GAO, Information Security:
Advances and Remaining Challenges to Adoption of Public Key
Infrastructure Technology, GAO-01-277 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26,
2001).
[24] As discussed earlier in this report, the 23 SLAs are relevant to
one or more types of seats. For each seat type, the performance
measures being used can differ.
[25] Latency is the time it takes for data to get from one designated
point to another. Packet loss is when data traveling over a network
fails to reach its destination.
[26] April 1, 2004, is the beginning of the period covered by the
quarterly customer satisfaction survey for the period ending on June
30, 2004.
[27] Beginning in March 2004, the end user satisfaction surveys, and
the reported results, have differentiated between satisfaction with the
NMCI program and the NMCI contractor.
[28] The sites visited are Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Norfolk Naval
Shipyard, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Jacksonville Naval Air Depot, and
North Island Naval Air Depot.
[29] GAO, DOD Information Technology: Software and Systems Process
Improvement Programs Vary in Use of Best Practices, GAO-01-116
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 2001).
[30] SEI is a federally funded research and development center
established at Carnegie Mellon University to address software
engineering practices. IDEALSMis a service mark of Carnegie Mellon
University and stands for initiating, diagnosing, establishing, acting,
and leveraging. For more information on the model, see IDEALSSM A
User's Guide for Software Process Improvement (CMU/SEI-96-HB-001).
[31] Lean six sigma combines two process improvement methodologies:
lean focuses on improving speed and efficiency through the elimination
of non-value added activities; six sigma focuses on increasing process
precision and accuracy through the reduction in variation during
performance of activities.
[32] These data reflect revisions to the SLAs that the Navy and EDS
agreed to in September 2004. We did not include classified seats
because data about them were not readily available.
[33] The survey questions listed are from the March 2006 survey results
report. Questions could change over time.
[34] Survey questions are from the September 2005 survey. Questions
could change over time.
[35] Survey questions are from the September 2005 survey. Questions
could change over time.
[36] Latency is the time it takes for data to get from one designated
point to another. Packet loss is when data traveling over a network
fails to reach its destination.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
