DOD Business Transformation
Status of DOD's Actions on Previous Recommendations for the Defense Travel System Gao ID: GAO-09-416T March 5, 2009In 1995, the Department of Defense (DOD) began an effort to implement a standard departmentwide travel system--the Defense Travel System (DTS). As part of its ongoing monitoring, GAO's April 2008 testimony before this subcommittee highlighted challenges confronted by the department in its implementation efforts. GAO's testimony today is based on its current follow-up work conducted at the request of this subcommittee, as well as the Subcommittee on Readiness. GAO's testimony today focuses on the actions DOD has taken to (1) implement previous GAO recommendations regarding implementation of DTS and related travel policies, (2) phase out legacy travel systems and their associated costs, and (3) implement electronic travel voucher processing. To address these objectives, GAO (1) analyzed specific documentation, such as test documentation, travel policies, and budget data, and (2) interviewed appropriate DOD travel personnel.
GAO has made 14 recommendations aimed at improving DOD's management oversight and implementation of DTS and related travel policies to make DTS the standard departmentwide travel system. GAO considers 7 of the 14 recommendations closed and the remaining 7 recommendations as being open. The 7 closed recommendations pertained to premium-class travel, unused airline tickets, use of restricted airfare, proper testing of system interfaces, and streamlining of certain travel processes, such as the process for approving travel voucher expenses. GAO's analysis of the 7 closed recommendations found that the actions taken by the department responded to the intent of the recommendations. Of the 7 open recommendations, 3 related to the adequacy of DTS's requirements management and system testing, 3 to DTS underutilization, and 1 to developing an approach that will permit the use of automated methods to reduce the need for hard copy receipts to substantiate travel expenses. In the area of requirements management and testing, GAO found that while DTS's requirements management and testing process has improved, problems still persist. The problems were generally related to missing documentation, the limited scope of requirements testing performed, or both. In the area of DTS utilization, GAO found that the department still does not have in place the metrics to determine the number of manual travel vouchers that should have been processed through DTS. Further, DOD does not have accurate and complete information on the number of legacy travel systems that are still in use by the military services. Defense Travel Management Office (DTMO) data indicates that there are 23 legacy travel systems, but military services' data identify 12--10 of which are on the DTMO list. In addition, GAO found that the department lacks visibility of the cost to operate and maintain these legacy systems. The DTMO and the military services could only provide limited cost data for each identified legacy travel system and the department's fiscal year 2009 information technology budget contained cost data for only 3 of the 23 systems on the DTMO list. According to the military services, some of the legacy systems will be needed even after DTS has been deployed to all intended locations because DTS will not include certain functionality, such as the processing of civilian permanent duty travel. Without a valid inventory of legacy travel systems, it is unlikely that DOD management or the Congress will receive reliable reports regarding when duplicative systems are likely to be eliminated and the annual savings available from avoiding the associated operating and maintenance costs. Finally, GAO found that there is a significant difference between the costs of processing a travel voucher manually and electronically. Based upon departmental data , the fee charged to process a travel voucher manually is about 15 times greater than electronic voucher processing--approximately $37 manually and $2.50 electronically. Shutting down legacy travel systems, which require manual processing, would provide cost savings to the department related to the processing of travel vouchers.
GAO-09-416T, DOD Business Transformation: Status of DOD's Actions on Previous Recommendations for the Defense Travel System
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-416T
entitled 'DOD Business Transformation: Status of DOD's Actions on
Previous Recommendations for the Defense Travel System' which was
released on March 5, 2009.
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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on
Armed Services, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 1:00 p.m. EST:
Thursday, March 5, 2009:
DOD Business Transformation:
Status of DOD's Actions on Previous Recommendations for the Defense
Travel System:
Statement of Asif A. Khan:
Director, Financial Management and Assurance:
GAO-09-416T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-416T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Armed Services, House of
Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
In 1995, the Department of Defense (DOD) began an effort to implement a
standard departmentwide travel system”the Defense Travel System (DTS).
As part of its ongoing monitoring, GAO‘s April 2008 testimony before
this subcommittee highlighted challenges confronted by the department
in its implementation efforts. GAO‘s testimony today is based on its
current follow-up work conducted at the request of this subcommittee,
as well as the Subcommittee on Readiness. GAO‘s testimony today focuses
on the actions DOD has taken to (1) implement previous GAO
recommendations regarding implementation of DTS and related travel
policies, (2) phase out legacy travel systems and their associated
costs, and (3) implement electronic travel voucher processing. To
address these objectives, GAO (1) analyzed specific documentation, such
as test documentation, travel policies, and budget data, and (2)
interviewed appropriate DOD travel personnel.
What GAO Found:
GAO has made 14 recommendations aimed at improving DOD‘s management
oversight and implementation of DTS and related travel policies to make
DTS the standard departmentwide travel system. GAO considers 7 of the
14 recommendations closed and the remaining 7 recommendations as being
open. The 7 closed recommendations pertained to premium-class travel,
unused airline tickets, use of restricted airfare, proper testing of
system interfaces, and streamlining of certain travel processes, such
as the process for approving travel voucher expenses. GAO‘s analysis of
the 7 closed recommendations found that the actions taken by the
department responded to the intent of the recommendations. Of the 7
open recommendations, 3 related to the adequacy of DTS‘s requirements
management and system testing, 3 to DTS underutilization, and 1 to
developing an approach that will permit the use of automated methods to
reduce the need for hard copy receipts to substantiate travel expenses.
In the area of requirements management and testing, GAO found that
while DTS‘s requirements management and testing process has improved,
problems still persist. The problems were generally related to missing
documentation, the limited scope of requirements testing performed, or
both. In the area of DTS utilization, GAO found that the department
still does not have in place the metrics to determine the number of
manual travel vouchers that should have been processed through DTS.
Further, DOD does not have accurate and complete information on the
number of legacy travel systems that are still in use by the military
services. Defense Travel Management Office (DTMO) data indicates that
there are 23 legacy travel systems, but military services‘ data
identify 12”10 of which are on the DTMO list. In addition, GAO found
that the department lacks visibility of the cost to operate and
maintain these legacy systems. The DTMO and the military services could
only provide limited cost data for each identified legacy travel system
and the department‘s fiscal year 2009 information technology budget
contained cost data for only 3 of the 23 systems on the DTMO list.
According to the military services, some of the legacy systems will be
needed even after DTS has been deployed to all intended locations
because DTS will not include certain functionality, such as the
processing of civilian permanent duty travel. Without a valid inventory
of legacy travel systems, it is unlikely that DOD management or the
Congress will receive reliable reports regarding when duplicative
systems are likely to be eliminated and the annual savings available
from avoiding the associated operating and maintenance costs. Finally,
GAO found that there is a significant difference between the costs of
processing a travel voucher manually and electronically. Based upon
departmental data , the fee charged to process a travel voucher
manually is about 15 times greater than electronic voucher
processing”approximately $37 manually and $2.50 electronically.
Shutting down legacy travel systems, which require manual processing,
would provide cost savings to the department related to the processing
of travel vouchers.
What GAO Recommends:
Subsequent to this testimony, GAO plans to issue a report on the status
of DOD‘s actions on GAO‘s previous recommendations, which will include
any further recommendations needed to improve the department‘s
implementation of DTS and ensure its success in the future.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-416T] or key
components. For more information, contact Asif A. Khan at (202) 512-
9095 or khana@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our prior work and the
preliminary results of our ongoing review of the Defense Travel System
(DTS). This body of work was undertaken in response to a joint request
by your subcommittee and the Subcommittee on Readiness, House Committee
on Armed Services, and builds on prior GAO reports.[Footnote 1] In
December 1995, the Department of Defense (DOD) established the Program
Management Office--Defense Travel System (PMO-DTS) to begin improving
the department's travel operations by replacing existing travel systems
with a single departmentwide system--DTS.[Footnote 2] This endeavor was
in response to the 1995 DOD Travel Reengineering Report issued by the
DOD Task Force to Reengineer Travel that pinpointed the following three
principal causes for the department's inefficient travel system: (1)
travel policies and programs focused on compliance with rigid rules
rather than mission performance, (2) travel practices that did not keep
pace with travel management improvements implemented by industry, and
(3) nonintegrated travel systems.[Footnote 3]
Today, our testimony will focus on the actions DOD has taken to:
* implement previous GAO recommendations regarding implementation of
DTS and related travel policies,
* phase out legacy travel systems and their associated costs, and:
* implement electronic travel voucher processing.
We have discussed the preliminary findings included in this testimony
with DOD officials. After completing additional work, we plan to issue
a report on the status of DOD's actions on GAO's previous
recommendations, which will include any further recommendations needed
to improve the department's implementation of DTS and ensure its
success in the future.
To address the first objective, for those recommendations that
department officials said were implemented, we analyzed specific
documentation, such as test documentation, to assess whether we
concurred with their assertions. For the remaining recommendations, we
identified specific actions the department had taken, or planned to
take, and provided our perspective on whether those actions did or
would respond to the recommendations and intent. We also met with
officials from the Defense Travel Management Office (DTMO), the PMO-
DTS, and the prime contractor, as appropriate, to obtain an
understanding of the status of the recommendations. To address the
second objective we obtained an understanding of the military services
plans for phasing out of the legacy travel systems. Additionally, we
obtained and analyzed listings of legacy travel systems from DTMO and
the military services and reviewed fiscal year 2009 budget data to
identify the legacy travel systems used by each service, and the cost
associated with operating and maintaining these systems. Finally, to
address the cost-effectiveness of processing travel vouchers, we
reviewed the methodology used by DFAS to determine the cost charged to
a customer for processing a travel voucher electronically versus
manually. We performed our work from July 2008 through March 2009 in
accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards.
Details on our scope and methodology are included in appendix I. We
discussed the preliminary findings included in this testimony with DOD
officials responsible for this program.
Background:
In September 1993, the National Performance Review[Footnote 4] called
for an overhaul of DOD's temporary duty (TDY) travel system. In
response, DOD created a task force to examine the department's travel
operations.[Footnote 5] The task force found that those operations were
costly, inefficient, fragmented, and did not adequately support DOD's
mission travel needs. On December 13, 1995, the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology (AT&L) and the Under Secretary
of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer issued a memorandum,
"Reengineering Travel Initiative," which established the PMO-DTS and
tasked it with acquiring travel services that would be used DOD-wide.
In a 1997 report to the Congress, the DOD Comptroller reported that the
existing DOD TDY travel systems were never designed to be integrated.
[Footnote 6] The report stated that because there was no centralized
focus on the department's travel practices, the travel policies were
issued by different organizations and the process had become fragmented
and "stovepiped." The report further noted that there was no vehicle in
the current structure to overcome these deficiencies as no single
individual or organization within the department had specific
responsibility for management control of DOD TDY travel.
In 1998, the department initiated efforts to develop and implement DTS
to provide the department with a single, integrated, end-to-end travel
system. According to DTMO officials, the department projects that DTS
will be deployed to all intended locations--about 9,800--during fiscal
year 2009. In response to congressional concerns regarding the
implementation and operation of DTS, the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 directed that the department
have an independent assessment of DTS to determine the most cost-
effective method of meeting DOD's travel requirements.[Footnote 7] The
assessment, which was completed by the Institute for Defense Analyses
(IDA) in March 2007,[Footnote 8] focused on three mandatory elements
specified in the legislation. The first two pertained to the
department's travel reservation process and the third to the
feasibility of making the DTS financial infrastructure[Footnote 9]
mandatory for all DOD travel transactions and phasing out legacy travel
systems.
The IDA study found that the department's mid-February 2007 updates to
DTS effectively addressed the underlying issues and concerns raised by
the study regarding continued use of DTS's travel reservation process
and recommended its continued use. Regarding the feasibility of making
DTS mandatory for all DOD travel transactions, the study concluded that
while the institute found that legacy systems are being used even when
DTS could be used, there were situations--such as certain travel types
(e.g., permanent change of station) that DTS cannot accommodate and
sites where DTS has not yet been fielded--that must be addressed before
the use of DTS can be made mandatory DOD-wide. As a result, the study
recommended that DOD mandate the use of DTS for all travel that it is
currently capable of supporting.
DOD Has Made Progress in Addressing GAO Recommendations, but Additional
Actions Are Needed:
Our January 2006[Footnote 10] and September 2006[Footnote 11] reports
contained 14 recommendations aimed at improving DOD's management
oversight and implementation of DTS and related travel policies. DOD
officials have indicated that the department has taken action to close
all 14 of our recommendations. However, based upon our work to date to
validate DOD's actions, we consider 7 of the 14 recommendations as
closed and the remaining 7 open. The 7 closed recommendations pertained
to premium-class travel, unused airline tickets, use of restricted
airfare, proper testing of system interfaces, and streamlining of
certain travel processes, such as the process for approving travel
voucher expenses. Our preliminary analysis of the 7 closed
recommendations found that the actions taken by the department
responded to the intent of our recommendations; however, we need to
perform additional work to validate the department's closed status
regarding these recommendations. Of the 7 open recommendations, 3
related to the adequacy of DTS's requirements management and system
testing, 3 related to DTS underutilization, and 1 related to developing
an approach that will permit the use of automated methods to reduce the
need for hard copy receipts to substantiate travel expenses. Below are
two examples of where DOD has acted upon our prior recommendations and
two examples where the recommendations remain open.
Premium-class travel. We reported in January 2006[Footnote 12] that the
commercial travel offices (CTO) were not adhering to the department's
policy restricting the use of premium-class travel and recommended that
the department take action to ensure that CTOs do so.[Footnote 13]
Because each premium-class ticket costs the government up to thousands
of dollars more than a coach-class ticket, unauthorized premium-class
travel can result in millions of dollars in unnecessary travel costs
annually. Our preliminary work found that the department has made
changes to DTS requiring approval of premium-class travel by the
authorizing official prior to the issuance of the airline ticket to the
traveler by the CTO. Additionally, in October 2007, DOD released a Web-
based management tool, which captures premium-class travel approvals
and provides monthly reports related to premium-class travel to DTMO.
Further, according to DOD officials, the CTO contracts include a
monthly reporting requirement regarding premium-class travel. The
department's actions are responsive to the intent of our
recommendation.
Unused airline tickets. We reported in January 2006[Footnote 14] that
DOD had not recovered millions of dollars in airline tickets that DOD
travelers purchased but did not use.[Footnote 15] To address this
issue, we recommended that the department consider the viability of
using commercial databases to identify unused airline tickets, for
which reimbursement should be obtained, and to help ensure that the
actual travel taken was consistent with the information shown on the
travel voucher. In its efforts to implement this recommendation, DTMO
found that commercial sources could not readily identify unused airline
tickets. In implementing this recommendation, DTMO officials
acknowledged that the ongoing CTO initiative, which is scheduled for
completion by June 2009, requires CTOs to identify and cancel an unused
airline ticket 30 days after the planned trip date and then initiate
the refund process. CTOs will be required to provide monthly unused
airline ticket reports. DTMO officials stated that as the department
negotiates new CTO contracts, this reporting requirement will be
included in all new contracts. The department's actions are responsive
to the intent of our recommendation.
Requirements management and system testing. Our January 2006 and
September 2006 reports[Footnote 16] noted problems with DTS's ability
to properly display flight information and traced those problems to
inadequate requirements management and system testing. Specifically,
the system was not displaying all eligible flights that travelers could
choose within their anticipated departure and arrival times due to
inadequately defined requirements. Properly defined requirements are a
key element in developing and implementing systems that meet their
cost, schedule, and performance goals since requirements define the (1)
functionality that is expected to be provided by the system and (2)
quantitative measures by which to determine through testing whether
that functionality is operating as expected. We recommended that DOD
implement the processes necessary to provide reasonable assurance that
requirements are properly documented and adequately tested and to
simplify the display of airfares in DTS. To determine if the department
acted on our three previous recommendations, we selected 90
requirements related to DTS's display of flight information for
detailed review and analysis of the testing performed. We also selected
an additional 119 requirements that were covered by DOD's testing
process that was newly implemented in July 2007. Based upon our
preliminary analysis and discussions with DTMO, PMO-DTS, and the prime
contractor for the development and implementation of DTS, we found that
while DTS's requirements management and testing process has improved,
problems still persist. The problems were generally related to missing
documentation, the limited scope of requirements testing performed, or
both. For example, one requirement indicated that DTS should not allow
a traveler to select flight departure or arrival dates that were
outside the established itinerary trip dates. Our review of DOD's test
of this requirement showed that only 3 of the 6 boundary conditions
needed to fully test this requirement had been tested. Neither DOD nor
its contractor could provide documentation supporting testing for the
day after the traveler's departure date, the day before the arrival
date, and the day after the arrival date. Based on our analysis, this
requirement was not adequately tested.
Another requirement indicated that if the contract carrier for the
specified General Services Administration (GSA) city pair[Footnote 17]
is Southwest, then DTS shall identify the available flights based on
Southwest's published Y-class fares for the specified city pair.
[Footnote 18] Our analysis found that the test documentation associated
with this requirement only displayed the flights for GSA limited
availability fares, which did not include the Southwest Y-class fares
called for by the requirement. Therefore, this requirement was not
adequately tested.
Our review of the 119 requirements included in DOD's new testing
process disclosed that the process does not fully address the problems
related to weak requirements management and system testing that we
identified in our prior DTS reports. For example, we found that
requirements were not adequately tested. The three recommendations we
made in the area remain open. The department has provided additional
documentation and we are in the process of analyzing the documentation
to determine the extent to which the revised requirement management and
testing processes have improved.
DTS underutilization. Our January 2006 and September 2006 reports
[Footnote 19] noted the challenge facing the department in attaining
planned DTS utilization. More specifically, as discussed in our
September 2006 report, we found that while the military services have
issued various memorandums that mandate the use of DTS to the fullest
extent possible at those sites where DTS has been deployed, sites were
still using legacy travel systems to process TDY travel. Additionally,
we found that the department did not have reasonable quantitative
metrics to measure and reliably report on the extent to which DTS was
actually being used. As of the issuance of our September 2006 report,
DTS utilization rates reported by DOD were based on the DTS Voucher
Analysis Model[Footnote 20] developed in calendar year 2003 using
military service data, which were not verified or validated.
Furthermore, PMO-DTS officials acknowledged that the model had not been
updated with actual data over the years. As a result, estimated DTS
utilization reported to DOD management and the Congress was
questionable. In our September 2006 report,[Footnote 21] we recommended
that (1) the department develop a process by which the military
services would use validated quantitative data from DTS and their
individual legacy systems to identify the total universe of DTS-
eligible transactions on a monthly basis and (2) these data be used to
update the DTS Voucher Analysis Model to report actual DTS utilization
rates.
Our preliminary observations show that while the department has taken
some action to implement this recommendation, DOD still does not have
reasonable quantitative metrics to measure the extent of DTS
utilization as its metrics continue to be based, at least in part, on
estimates. DTMO officials stated that DOD no longer uses the DTS
Voucher Analysis Model to report DTS utilization. Instead, in March
2007, DTMO began consolidating travel voucher processing data provided
by the military services and publishing this information in the Defense
Travel Enterprise Quarterly Metrics Reports. These reports include
metrics for DTS fielding, DTS voucher processing, and DTS reservation
module usage performance.[Footnote 22] These reports are provided to
DOD management and the military services and include military service
data for legacy systems and data available from DTS. The Defense Travel
Enterprise Quarterly Metrics Report states that the number of TDY
vouchers processed in legacy systems is an estimate because of
limitations in DTMO's ability to collect these data from the legacy
systems of the military services and defense agencies. Military service
officials stated that they are unable to determine the number of legacy
system vouchers that should have been processed by DTS (total universe
of travel vouchers). As of September 30, 2008, DTS's reported voucher
processing utilization rates were 73 percent for the Army, 64 percent
for the Navy, and 49 percent for the Air Force.
Because the department is unable to identify the total universe of
travel vouchers, the estimated utilization rates may be over-or
understated and the three recommendations in this area remain open. In
our September 2006 report,[Footnote 23] we reported that the DTS
utilization rate should be calculated by comparing actual vouchers
processed in DTS to the total universe of vouchers that should be
processed in DTS. The universe would exclude those travel vouchers that
could not be processed through DTS, such as those related to permanent
change of station or deployment travel.
DOD Lacks Complete and Accurate Information About Legacy Travel
Systems:
A key component of DOD's efforts to transform its travel process is the
elimination of the department's legacy travel systems. As highlighted
in the 1995 DOD Travel Reengineering Report, continued use of legacy
travel systems not only diminishes the efficiency of the department's
travel operations, it also results in additional costs. Our preliminary
work found that the department has not yet identified and validated the
number of legacy travel systems still used by the military services and
the cost of operating them. Information provided by DTMO indicates that
the military services are still using 23 legacy travel systems.
However, information provided by the military services identified only
12 legacy travel systems--10 of which were included on the DTMO list.
[Footnote 24] Regarding potential savings, other than budget
information provided by the military services for four legacy travel
systems, cost information for the other legacy travel systems was not
provided.
We reviewed the department's fiscal year 2009 information technology
budget in an attempt to identify the universe of legacy travel systems
and their associated operating and maintenance costs. However, 20 of
the 23 systems on DTMO's list were not identified in the budget.
Without a valid inventory of legacy travel systems, it is unlikely that
DOD management or the Congress--in particular, this subcommittee--will
receive reliable reports regarding when these systems are likely to be
eliminated and the continuing annual cost to operate and maintain them.
Furthermore, without accurate information about legacy travel systems,
DOD is at risk of not fully achieving its goal of eliminating
stovepiped legacy travel systems.
Some legacy travel systems will be used for the foreseeable future even
after DTS is deployed to all its intended locations during fiscal year
2009. For example, the Air Force has indicated that it will continue to
operate and maintain the Reserve Travel System to process permanent
duty travel by civilians. Similarly, the Army will continue to operate
and maintain its Windows Integrated Automated Travel System for the
same purpose. This functionality is not in DTS and the department does
not currently have a time frame for including this functionality.
Electronic Processing of Travel Vouchers Is More Cost Effective:
Continued operation of legacy travel systems, particularly where DTS
has been deployed, diminishes savings available through electronic
processing of travel vouchers and related travel information. At
present, it is not possible to measure the lost savings because DOD has
not identified the total universe of travel vouchers that it ideally
should be processing electronically, nor does DOD have accurate
information about legacy travel systems currently in use.
As long as the military services continue to use legacy travel systems,
they will continue to rely on manual versus electronic voucher
processing even at locations where DTS has been deployed. As a result,
these DOD components pay DFAS higher fees to process travel vouchers.
Given that the Army is DFAS's largest customer of manually processed
travel vouchers, DFAS officials stated that the Army will benefit the
most from the electronic voucher processing capabilities that DTS
provides. DFAS provides only limited manual travel voucher processing
for the Navy and the Air Force. As new functionality is added to DTS,
the use of legacy travel systems should decrease, resulting in a
reduction of the aggregate DFAS cost to process manual vouchers. For
example, the department reported that in fiscal year 2008, the Army
processed more than 1.5 million vouchers, and about 1.1 million of
those vouchers were processed through DTS. However, as discussed above,
both DFAS and Army officials acknowledged that they are unable to
determine how many of the remaining 400,000 legacy system travel
vouchers should have been processed by DTS (the total universe of
travel vouchers).
In addition, our preliminary work to review the reasonableness of the
rates DFAS charges for electronic and manual travel voucher processing
identified some calculation errors. For fiscal year 2009, DFAS
estimates it will charge DOD components an average of $2.47 for travel
vouchers processed electronically and $36.52 for travel vouchers
processed manually. However, in reviewing the price computation, we
found that DFAS allocated too much general and administrative cost to
its travel voucher processing activities. DFAS personnel were unaware
of the error until our review, but indicated that it was most likely a
misinterpretation of the guidance.
Concluding Remarks:
Overhauling DOD's financial management and business operations
represents a daunting challenge. DTS implementation is an example of
the difficulties the department faces in achieving transformation of
its travel operations through implementation of best practices and a
standardized travel system. With over 3.3 million military and civilian
personnel as potential travel system users, at approximately 9,800
locations around the world, the sheer size and complexity of the
undertaking overshadows any such project in the private sector. As we
have previously reported, because each DOD component receives its own
funding for the operation, maintenance, and modernization of its own
systems, nonintegrated, local business systems have proliferated
throughout the department. The elimination of stovepiped legacy systems
and use of less expensive electronic processing, which could be
achieved with the successful implementation of DTS, are critical to
realizing the anticipated savings.
In closing, we also would like to reiterate that following this
testimony, we plan to issue a report on the status of DOD's actions on
GAO's previous recommendations, which will include any further
recommendations needed to improve the department's implementation of
DTS and ensure its success in the future.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. We would be happy
to answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee
may have at this time.
Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For further information about this testimony, please contact Asif A.
Khan at (202) 512-9095 or khana@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this testimony. In addition to the above contacts, the
following individuals made key contributions to this testimony: Darby
Smith, Assistant Director; Evelyn Logue, Assistant Director; J.
Christopher Martin, Senior-Level Technologist; F. Abe Dymond, Assistant
General Counsel; Jehan Abdel-Gawad; Beatrice Alff; Margaret Mills; and
John Vicari.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine the status of our 14 recommendations[Footnote 25] to
improve the Department of Defense's (DOD) travel processes and Defense
Travel System (DTS) implementation, we met with representatives of the
Defense Travel Management Office (DTMO) and the Program Management
Office-Defense Travel System (PMO-DTS) to obtain an understanding of
actions taken, under way, or planned by the department in response to
our recommendations. We obtained and analyzed documentation, such as
policies, procedures, and testing documentation, that supported the
actions DOD has taken. More specifically, to determine the specific
actions taken related to our previous recommendations on requirements
management and system testing, in November 2008, we analyzed 90
requirements and reviewed relevant documentation to determine if the
requirements had been tested and the result of the tests. The
requirements selected for review related primarily to the display of
flight information--since that was an area of concern in our prior
work. Subsequently, in January 2009, we analyzed another 119
requirements because the program's requirements management and testing
practices changed in July 2007, and we wanted to verify whether the
changes had been effectively implemented. We discussed the results of
our requirements management and system testing analysis with
representatives of the DTMO, the PMO-DTS, and the prime contractor. For
some recommendations, such as the one related to premium-class travel,
we obtained a demonstration of the new procedures that had been
implemented and reviewed reports produced by DTS when premium-class
travel was taken. Furthermore, to obtain an understanding of the
actions taken to address the concerns we had reported regarding DTS
utilization, we met with officials in the DTMO, PMO-DTS, and travel
management representatives of the military services.
To assess DOD's plans regarding the use of legacy travel systems after
the DTS is fully implemented, we obtained legacy travel system
inventory data from the DTMO and compared them with data obtained from
military service personnel responsible for travel for their respective
components to determine if there were any differences. We also obtained
from the military services a listing of the legacy travel systems that
will continue to operate once the DTS is deployed to all intended
locations and the rationale for the continued operation of these
systems. To determine the cost to operate and maintain the legacy
travel systems, we requested information from the DTMO and the military
services. In addition, we reviewed the department's fiscal year 2009
information technology budget request to identify the universe of
legacy travel systems and their associated operating and maintenance
costs.
To assess the reasonableness of DOD's cost estimates for processing
travel vouchers electronically versus manually, we met with Defense
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)-Indianapolis officials to obtain
an understanding of the methodology used to determine the price charged
a customer to process a travel voucher. More specifically, we (1)
obtained and analyzed documentation supporting the methodology used by
the DFAS to compute the cost estimates for electronically and manually
processing a travel voucher and (2) used our cost assessment guide
[Footnote 26] as a reference to determine whether the DFAS considered
all appropriate and reasonable cost elements in developing its
computation of costs for processing manual and electronic travel
vouchers.
We conducted fieldwork from July 2008 through March 2009 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for the preliminary findings and
conclusions presented in this testimony based upon the audit
objectives. We discussed the preliminary findings included in our
testimony with DOD officials. After completing additional work, we plan
to issue a report on the status of DOD's actions on GAO's previous
recommendations, which will include any further recommendations needed
to improve the department's implementation of DTS and ensure its
success in the future.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, DOD Business Transformation: Defense Travel System Continues
to Face Implementation Challenges, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-18] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 18,
2006) and Defense Travel System: Reported Savings Questionable and
Implementation Challenges Remain, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-980] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 26,
2006).
[2] DOD expects DTS to perform all functions related to travel or
ensure that other systems are provided with adequate information to
provide this functionality. For example, obligating funds associated
with travel is a necessary function, and DTS is expected to (1) make
sure that adequate funds are available before authorizing travel either
through information contained in its system or by obtaining the
necessary information from another system, (2) obligate funds through
issuance of approved travel orders or other appropriate documentation,
and (3) provide DOD's financial management systems with the necessary
information so that those other systems can record the obligation.
Since DTS is required to ensure that all travel-related functionality
is properly performed, DOD commonly refers to DTS as an end-to-end
travel system.
[3] Department of Defense, Report of the Department of Defense Task
Force to Reengineer Travel (Arlington, Va., January 1995).
[4] The National Performance Review was an interagency task force
established on March 3, 1993, to reform the way the federal government
operated.
[5] The task force was called the DOD Task Force to Reengineer Travel.
[6] Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Department
of Defense Travel Reengineering Pilot Report to Congress (Arlington,
Va., June 1997).
[7] Pub. L. No. 109-364, §943, 120 Stat. 2083, 2365 (Oct. 17, 2006).
[8] Institute for Defense Analyses, Assessment of the Potential to
Improve the Cost-Effectiveness of the Defense Travel System
(Alexandria, Va., March 2007). DOD refers to this report as the IDA
study.
[9] DTS financial infrastructure includes voucher processing,
accounting, disbursing, debt collection, management accountability, and
archival functions.
[10] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-18].
[11] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-980].
[12] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-18].
[13] Federal travel regulations define premium-class travel as any
class of accommodation above coach-class, that is, first or business
class. General Services Administration and DOD regulations state that
travelers must use coach-class accommodations for official business air
travel--both domestic and international--except when a traveler is
specifically authorized to use premium-class. These regulations
restrict premium-class travel to limited circumstances.
[14] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-18].
[15] GAO, DOD Travel Cards: Control Weaknesses Led to Millions of
Dollars Wasted on Unused Airline Tickets, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-398] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31,
2004).
[16] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-18] and [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-980].
[17] GSA awards contracts to airlines to provide flight services
between pairs of cities. This is commonly referred to as the GSA city
pair program. Under this program (1) no advance ticket purchases are
required, (2) no minimum or maximum length of stay is required, (3)
tickets are fully refundable and no charges are assessed for
cancellations or changes, (4) seating is not capacity controlled (i.e.,
as long as there is a coach-class seat on the plane, the traveler may
purchase it), (5) no blackout dates apply, (6) fare savings average 70
percent over regular walk-up fares, and (7) fares are priced on one-way
routes permitting agencies to plan for multiple destinations.
[18] Airlines distinguish levels of flight services, for example, first
class or coach, and restrictions associated with a fare by what is
referred to as a fare class. Fare class Y refers to a full fare
unrestricted economy coach fare.
[19] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-18] and [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-980].
[20] DOD developed a model in calendar year 2003 that compares the
expected usage against the actual usage. The expected usage was
obtained by using historical data, such as ticket counts, to determine
the expected number of vouchers processed by a given location. For
example, if a location had 1,000 vouchers as its expected number of
vouchers per the model, but processed 750 actual vouchers through DTS,
then the PMO-DTS model considered that that location had achieved a 75
percent utilization rate. The model then took the individual
computations for each DTS location and "rolled them up" to determine
the total utilization for individual service performance on a monthly
basis.
[21] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-980].
[22] DTS fielding metrics are intended to quantify the number of
locations at which DTS has been implemented (or fielded), the number of
locations where implementation is in progress, and the number of
locations where DTS implementation is planned but not yet started. The
DTS usage for vouchers processed measures the percentage of TDY
vouchers processed in DTS. This metric is calculated by dividing the
number of approved vouchers processed in DTS (numerator) by the sum of
DTS and legacy system (non-DTS) vouchers processed (denominator).
[23] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-980.
[24] The Army, the Navy, and the Air Force indicated that they operate
and maintain five, five, and two legacy travel systems, respectively.
[25] GAO, DOD Business Transformation: Defense Travel System Continues
to Face Implementation Challenges, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-18] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 18,
2006), and Defense Travel System: Reported Savings Questionable and
Implementation Challenges Remain, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-980] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 26,
2006).
[26] GAO, Cost Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Estimating and
Managing Program Costs (Exposure Draft), [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1134SP] (Washington, D.C.: July
2007).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
