Defense Acquisitions
DOD Needs to Develop Performance Criteria to Gauge Impact of Reform Act Changes and Address Workforce Issues Gao ID: GAO-10-774 July 29, 2010In May 2009, Congress passed the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Reform Act). The Reform Act contains a number of systems engineering and developmental testing requirements that are aimed at helping weapon programs establish a solid foundation from the start of development. GAO was asked to examine (1) DOD's progress in implementing the systems engineering and developmental testing requirements, (2) views on the alignment of the offices of the Directors of Systems Engineering and Developmental Test and Evaluation, and (3) challenges in strengthening systems engineering and developmental testing activities. In conducting this work, GAO analyzed implementation status documentation and obtained opinions from current and former DOD systems engineering and testing officials on the placement of the two offices as well as improvement challenges.
DOD has implemented or is implementing the Reform Act requirements related to systems engineering and developmental testing. Several foundational steps have been completed. For example, new offices have been established, directors have been appointed for both offices, and the directors have issued a joint report that assesses their respective workforce capabilities and 42 major defense acquisition programs. Many other requirements that have been implemented will require sustained efforts by the directors' offices, such as approving systems engineering and developmental testing plans, as well as reviewing these efforts on specific weapon programs. DOD is studying the option of allowing the Director, Developmental Test and Evaluation, to serve concurrently as the Director of the Test Resource Management Center. The directors have not yet developed joint guidance for assessing and tracking acquisition program performance of systems engineering and developmental testing activities. It is unclear whether the guidance will include specific performance criteria that address long-standing problems and program risks, such as those related to concurrency of development and production activities and adequacy of program resources. Current and former systems engineering and developmental testing officials offered varying opinions on whether the new directors' offices should have been placed under the Director of Defense Research and Engineering organization--an organization that focuses primarily on developing and transitioning technologies to acquisition programs. The Director of Defense Research and Engineering believes aligning the offices under his organization helps address congressional and DOD desires to increase emphasis on and strengthen activities prior to the start of a new acquisition program. Most of the officials GAO spoke with believe the two offices should report directly to the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics or otherwise be more closely aligned with acquisition programs because most of their activities are related to weapon programs. They also believe cultural barriers and staffing issues may limit the effectiveness of the two offices under the current organizational structure. Currently, DOD is not reporting to Congress on how successfully the directors are effecting program changes, making it difficult to determine if the current placement of the offices makes sense or if the Reform Act is having an impact. The military services face a number of challenges as they try to strengthen systems engineering and developmental testing activities on acquisition programs. Although the services believe they have enough staff to perform both of these activities, they have not been able to clearly identify the number of staff that are actually involved. The Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation does not believe the military services have enough testing personnel and is concerned that DOD does not have the capacity to train the large influx of contractors that are expected to be converted to government employees.
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: Michael J. Sullivan Team: Government Accountability Office: Acquisition and Sourcing Management Phone: (937) 258-7915GAO-10-774, Defense Acquisitions: DOD Needs to Develop Performance Criteria to Gauge Impact of Reform Act Changes and Address Workforce Issues
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-774
entitled 'Defense Acquisitions: DOD Needs to Develop Performance
Criteria to Gauge Impact of Reform Act Changes and Address Workforce
Issues' which was released on July 29, 2010.
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 the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2010:
Defense Acquisitions:
DOD Needs to Develop Performance Criteria to Gauge Impact of Reform
Act Changes and Address Workforce Issues:
GAO-10-774:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-774, a report to the Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
In May 2009, Congress passed the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act
of 2009 (Reform Act). The Reform Act contains a number of systems
engineering and developmental testing requirements that are aimed at
helping weapon programs establish a solid foundation from the start of
development.
GAO was asked to examine (1) DOD‘s progress in implementing the
systems engineering and developmental testing requirements, (2) views
on the alignment of the offices of the Directors of Systems
Engineering and Developmental Test and Evaluation, and (3) challenges
in strengthening systems engineering and developmental testing
activities. In conducting this work, GAO analyzed implementation
status documentation and obtained opinions from current and former DOD
systems engineering and testing officials on the placement of the two
offices as well as improvement challenges.
What GAO Found:
DOD has implemented or is implementing the Reform Act requirements
related to systems engineering and developmental testing. Several
foundational steps have been completed. For example, new offices have
been established, directors have been appointed for both offices, and
the directors have issued a joint report that assesses their
respective workforce capabilities and 42 major defense acquisition
programs. Many other requirements that have been implemented will
require sustained efforts by the directors‘ offices, such as approving
systems engineering and developmental testing plans, as well as
reviewing these efforts on specific weapon programs. DOD is studying
the option of allowing the Director, Developmental Test and
Evaluation, to serve concurrently as the Director of the Test Resource
Management Center. The directors have not yet developed joint guidance
for assessing and tracking acquisition program performance of systems
engineering and developmental testing activities. It is unclear
whether the guidance will include specific performance criteria that
address long-standing problems and program risks, such as those
related to concurrency of development and production activities and
adequacy of program resources.
Current and former systems engineering and developmental testing
officials offered varying opinions on whether the new directors‘
offices should have been placed under the Director of Defense Research
and Engineering organization”an organization that focuses primarily on
developing and transitioning technologies to acquisition programs. The
Director of Defense Research and Engineering believes aligning the
offices under his organization helps address congressional and DOD
desires to increase emphasis on and strengthen activities prior to the
start of a new acquisition program. Most of the officials GAO spoke
with believe the two offices should report directly to the Under
Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics or otherwise be
more closely aligned with acquisition programs because most of their
activities are related to weapon programs. They also believe cultural
barriers and staffing issues may limit the effectiveness of the two
offices under the current organizational structure. Currently, DOD is
not reporting to Congress on how successfully the directors are
effecting program changes, making it difficult to determine if the
current placement of the offices makes sense or if the Reform Act is
having an impact.
The military services face a number of challenges as they try to
strengthen systems engineering and developmental testing activities on
acquisition programs. Although the services believe they have enough
staff to perform both of these activities, they have not been able to
clearly identify the number of staff that are actually involved. The
Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation does not believe the
military services have enough testing personnel and is concerned that
DOD does not have the capacity to train the large influx of
contractors that are expected to be converted to government employees.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that DOD develop performance criteria to assess program
risk; track the extent to which directors‘ recommendations are
implemented; address identified workforce and training needs; and
report to Congress on the status of these efforts. DOD concurred with
the recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-774] or key
components. For more information, contact Michael J. Sullivan at (202)
512-4841 or sullivanm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
DOD Has Made Progress in Implementing Reform Act Requirements, but Has
Not Developed Performance Criteria to Track Success:
Experts Offer Varying Opinions on the Placement of the Systems
Engineering and Developmental Test and Evaluation Offices:
Military Services Face Workforce and Resource Challenges as They
Strive to Strengthen Their Systems Engineering and Developmental
Testing Efforts:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Tables:
Table 1: Implementation Status of Key Reform Act Provisions Related to
Systems Engineering and Developmental Testing:
Table 2: Military Service Systems Planning, Research Development, and
Engineering and Developmental Testing Personnel:
Figures:
Figure 1: Major Changes in Organizational Placement of Systems
Engineering and Developmental Testing Activities within the Office of
the Secretary of Defense:
Figure 2: Options for Placement of Directors' Offices for Systems
Engineering and Developmental Test and Evaluation:
Abbreviations:
DOD: Department of Defense:
AT&L: Acquisition, Technology and Logistics:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 29, 2010:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
For years, GAO has reported on significant cost overruns on the
Department of Defense's (DOD) major weapon system acquisition
programs. Even though DOD has incorporated previous legislative
provisions into its acquisition policies, such as requiring weapon
programs to use mature technologies from the start of development,
programs are still experiencing cost and schedule problems. The Senate
Armed Services Committee reported that since the beginning of 2006,
nearly half of DOD's largest acquisition programs have exceeded Nunn-
McCurdy[Footnote 1] cost-growth standards established by Congress. DOD
is now faced with making tough decisions about the viability of some
of its weapon system programs. In 2009, for example, the Secretary of
Defense proposed canceling or significantly curtailing weapon programs
with a projected cost of at least $126 billion.
Cost and schedule overruns can be attributed to a number of factors
that occur early in an acquisition, including poorly analyzed
requirements, design instability, and inadequate systems engineering
and testing. In May 2009, Congress passed the Weapon Systems
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Reform Act),[Footnote 2] aimed at
improving DOD's organization and procedures for the acquisition of
major weapon systems. This legislation places more emphasis on
activities that should occur early in weapon systems development,
including those related to systems engineering[Footnote 3] and
developmental testing, in order to help establish a solid program
foundation from the start of development. The Senate Armed Services
Committee asked us to examine (1) DOD's progress in implementing
systems engineering and developmental testing requirements called for
in the Reform Act, (2) views on the alignment of the offices of the
Director of Systems Engineering and the Director of Developmental Test
and Evaluation within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and (3)
challenges in strengthening systems engineering and developmental
testing activities.
In conducting our work, we interviewed officials and collected
documents from the offices of the Director of Systems Engineering and
the Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation in order to learn
the status of their efforts to implement the Reform Act legislation
and challenges they are addressing. We also interviewed officials from
various offices within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L); the office of the
Director, Operational Test and Evaluation; each of the military
services; the Defense Science Board; as well as former DOD systems
engineering and developmental testing executives to obtain their
opinions on the alignment of the two offices within the Office of the
Secretary of Defense and potential challenges. We conducted this
performance audit from December 2009 to July 2010 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 our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
Systems engineering and test and evaluation are critical parts of the
weapon system acquisition process and how well these activities are
conducted early in the acquisition cycle can greatly affect program
outcomes. Systems engineering translates customer needs into specific
product requirements for which requisite technological, software,
engineering, and production capabilities can be identified through
requirements analysis, design, and testing. Early systems engineering
provides the knowledge that weapon system requirements are achievable
with available resources such as technologies, time, people, and
money. It allows a product developer to identify and resolve
performance and resource gaps before product development begins by
reducing requirements, deferring them to the future, or increasing the
estimated cost for the weapon system's development. Systems
engineering plays a fundamental role in the establishment of the
business case for a weapon acquisition program by providing
information to DOD officials to make tradeoffs between requirements
and resources. Systems engineering is then applied throughout the
acquisition process to manage the engineering and technical risk in
designing, developing, and producing a weapon system. The systems
engineering processes should be applied prior to the start of a new
weapon acquisition program and then continuously throughout the life-
cycle.
Test and evaluation provides information about the capabilities of a
weapon system and can assist in managing program risk. There are
generally two broad categories of testing: developmental and
operational. Developmental testing is used to verify the status of
technical progress, substantiate achievement of contract technical
performance, and certify readiness for initial operational testing.
Early developmental testing reduces program risks by evaluating
performance at progressively higher component and subsystem levels,
thus allowing program officials to identify problems early in the
acquisition process. Developmental testing officials in the Office of
the Secretary of Defense and the military services provide guidance
and assistance to program managers on how to develop sound test plans.
The amount of developmental testing actually conducted however, is
controlled by the program manager and the testing requirements
explicitly specified in the development contract. In contrast,
operational testing determines if a weapon system provides
operationally useful capability to the warfighter. It involves field
testing a weapon system, under realistic conditions, to determine the
effectiveness and suitability[Footnote 4] of the weapon for use in
combat by military users, and the evaluation of the results of such
tests. DOD's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation conducts
independent assessments of programs and reports the results to the
Secretary of Defense and Congress.
In 2008, the Defense Science Board reported that operational testing
over the previous 10 years showed that there had been a dramatic
increase in the number of weapon systems that did not meet their
suitability requirements. The board found that failure rates were
caused by several factors, notably the lack of a disciplined systems
engineering process early in development and a robust reliability
growth program. The board also found that weaknesses in developmental
testing, acquisition workforce reductions and retirements, limited
government oversight, increased complexity of emerging weapon systems,
and increased reliance on commercial standards (in lieu of military
specifications and standards) all contributed to these failure rates.
For example, over the last 15 years, all service acquisition and test
organizations experienced significant personnel cuts, including the
loss of a large number of the most experienced technical and
management personnel, including subject matter experts, without an
adequate replacement pipeline. The services now rely heavily on
contractors to help support these activities.
Over the past two decades, the prominence of the developmental testing
and systems engineering communities within the Office of the Secretary
of Defense has continuously evolved, as the following examples
illustrate.
* In 1992, a systems engineering directorate did not exist and the
developmental test function was part of the Office of the Director of
Test and Evaluation, which reported directly to the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition. At that time, the director had direct access
to the Under Secretary on an array of issues related to test policy,
test assets, and the workforce.
* In 1994, the Development Test, Systems Engineering and Evaluation
office was formed. This organization effectively expanded the
responsibilities of the former testing organization to formally
include systems engineering. The organization had two deputy
directors: the Deputy Director, Development Test and Evaluation, and
the Deputy Director, Systems Engineering. This organization was
dissolved in 1999.
* From 1999 to 2006, systems engineering and developmental testing
responsibilities were aligned under a variety of offices. The
responsibility for managing test ranges and resources, for example,
was transferred to the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.
This function was later moved to the Test Resource Management Center,
which reports directly to AT&L, where it remains today. In 2004, a
Director of Systems Engineering was re-established and then in 2006
this became the System and Software Engineering Directorate.
Developmental testing activities were part of this directorate's
responsibilities. As a result, systems engineering and developmental
testing issues were reported indirectly to AT&L through the Deputy
Under Secretary for Acquisition and Technology.
Congress passed the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009
(Reform Act)--the latest in a series of congressional actions taken to
strengthen the defense acquisition system. The Reform Act establishes
a Director of Systems Engineering and a Director of Developmental Test
and Evaluation within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and
defines the responsibilities of both offices. The Reform Act requires
the services to develop, implement, and report on their plans for
ensuring that systems engineering and developmental testing functions
are adequately staffed to meet the Reform Act requirements. In
addition, it requires the directors to report to Congress on March 31
of each year on military service and major defense acquisition program
systems engineering and developmental testing activities from the
previous year. For example, the report is to include a discussion of
the extent to which major defense acquisition programs are fulfilling
the objectives of their systems engineering and developmental test and
evaluation master plans, as well as provide an assessment of the
department's organization and capabilities to perform these
activities. Figure 1 shows some of the major reorganizations over the
past two decades, including the most recent change where DOD decided
to place the two new directors' offices under the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering.
Figure 1: Major Changes in Organizational Placement of Systems
Engineering and Developmental Testing Activities within the Office of
the Secretary of Defense:
[Refer to PDF for image: 3 organizational charts]
1992[A]:
Top level:
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition:
Second level, reporting to Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition:
* Director, Test & Evaluation[B] (Developmental Test & Evaluation
Activities);
* Director, Defense Research & Engineering.
2006:
Top level:
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics:
- Test Resource Management Center.
Second level, reporting to Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology & Logistics:
* Director, Defense Research & Engineering;
* Deputy Under Secretary for Acquisition & Technology:
- Director, Systems & Software Engineering (Systems Engineering
Activities);
-- Deputy Director, Developmental Test & Evaluation (Developmental
Test & Evaluation Activities).
2009:
Top level:
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics:
- Test Resource Management Center.
Second level, reporting to Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology & Logistics:
* Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acquisition);
* Director, Defense Research & Engineering:
- Director, Systems Engineering (Systems Engineering Activities);
- Director, Developmental Test & Evaluation (Developmental Test &
Evaluation Activities).
Source: GAO presentation of Defense Science Board and DOD information.
[A] There was no systems engineering office within the Office of the
Secretary of Defense in 1992. DOD established a combined developmental
testing and systems engineering office in 1994.
[B] Director, Test and Evaluation, had oversight responsibilities for
developmental and live-fire testing, weapon system assessments, and
test facilities and resources.
[End of figure]
DOD Has Made Progress in Implementing Reform Act Requirements, but Has
Not Developed Performance Criteria to Track Success:
DOD has made progress in implementing the systems engineering and
developmental test and evaluation provisions of the Reform Act, but
has not yet developed performance criteria that would help assess the
effectiveness of the changes. Some requirements, such as the
establishment of the two new offices, have been fully implemented. The
implementation of other requirements, such as the review and approval
of systems engineering and developmental test and evaluation plans,
has begun but requires sustained efforts. The department has not fully
implemented other requirements. For example, DOD has begun development
of joint guidance that will identify measurable performance criteria
to be included in the systems engineering and developmental testing
plans. DOD initially decided that one discretionary provision of the
act--naming the Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation also as
the Director of the Test Resource Management Center--would not be
implemented. However, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering
is currently examining the implications of this organizational change.
It will be several years before the full impact of the Reform Act
provisions is known.
The offices of the Director of Systems Engineering and Developmental
Test and Evaluation were officially established by the Under Secretary
of Defense for AT&L in June 2009 to be his principal advisors on
systems engineering and developmental testing matters. The directors
took office 3 months and 9 months later, respectively, and are working
on obtaining the funding, workforce, and office space needed to
accomplish their responsibilities. The directors have also completed
evaluations of the military services' organizations and capabilities
for conducting systems engineering and developmental testing, and
identified areas for improvement.[Footnote 5] These evaluations were
based on reports provided by the services that were also required by
the Reform Act.[Footnote 6]
As shown in table 1, many of the requirements that have been
implemented will require ongoing efforts.
Table 1: Implementation Status of Key Reform Act Provisions Related to
Systems Engineering and Developmental Testing:
Reform Act provision: Establish office, appoint director;
Systems engineering: Completed; ongoing efforts to obtain needed
staff, budget, and office space;
Developmental testing: Completed; ongoing efforts to obtain needed
staff, budget, and office space.
Reform Act provision: Act as principal advisor to AT&L and subject to
the supervision of AT&L;
Systems engineering: Ongoing efforts; reports indirectly to AT&L
through the Director, Defense Research and Engineering, on major
defense acquisition programs;
Developmental testing: Ongoing efforts; reports indirectly to AT&L
through the Director, Defense Research and Engineering, on major
defense acquisition programs.
Reform Act provision: Directors should coordinate closely to fully
integrate developmental testing and systems engineering activities in
DOD;
Systems engineering: Ongoing effort;
Developmental testing: Ongoing effort.
Reform Act provision: Develop policies and guidance;
Systems engineering: Ongoing effort. In fiscal year 2009, published
new policy that expands reliability, availability, and maintainability
guidance for acquisition programs and updated the Defense Acquisition
Guidebook chapter on systems engineering. Also, updating systems
engineering plan guidance (to be released in 2010) and the Guide for
Integrating Systems Engineering into DOD Acquisition Contracts (to be
released in fiscal year 2011);
Developmental testing: Ongoing effort; in fiscal year 2009, published
guidance on incorporating test and evaluation requirements into
acquisition contracts. Updated required content in test and evaluation
strategy and master plan documents to include reliability factors.
Reform Act provision: Review, approve acquisition planning documents;
Systems engineering: Ongoing effort;
in fiscal year 2009 reviewed 22 and approved 16 systems engineering
plans;
Developmental testing: Ongoing effort; in fiscal year 2009 reviewed
and approved 25 developmental test and evaluation plans.
Reform Act provision: Monitor, review activities of major acquisition
programs;
Systems engineering: Ongoing effort; in fiscal year 2009, reviewed
systems engineering activities on 35 programs. In 2009, participated
in 20 technical reviews;
Developmental testing: Ongoing effort; in fiscal year 2009 reviewed
developmental testing activities on 17 programs.
Reform Act provision: Provide advocacy, oversight, and guidance for
respective DOD acquisition workforce career fields;
Systems engineering: Ongoing effort; acts as the principal leader in
DOD for over 45,000 people in two engineering career fields.
Assessment of systems engineering competencies is under way;
Developmental testing: Ongoing effort; acts as DOD's principal leader
for over 7,000 people in the test and evaluation acquisition career
field. In fiscal years 2009 and 2010 updated education and training
requirements and validated certification requirements.
Reform Act provision: Review military services organizations and
capabilities; identify needed changes or improvements;
Systems engineering: Ongoing effort; completed evaluation of service
reports and identified weakness in staffing levels and expertise;
Developmental testing: Ongoing effort; completed evaluation of service
reports and identified weakness in staffing levels and expertise.
Reform Act provision: Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation
may serve as Director of the Test Resource Management Center;
Systems engineering: Not applicable;
Developmental testing: Discretionary provision not exercised initially;
however, decision is being reexamined.
Reform Act provision: Prepare joint annual report to Congress;
Systems engineering: Ongoing effort. First report issued on March 31,
2010. Future reports are required by March 31 each year.
Reform Act provision: Issue joint guidance on:
* the development and tracking of performance criteria;
* use of developmental test and evaluation to measure achievement of
performance objectives;
* a system to store and track achievement of performance criteria and
objectives;
Systems engineering: Not yet completed; efforts under way to develop
criteria.
Source: GAO presentation of DOD data.
[End of table]
The directors have the responsibility for reviewing and approving
systems engineering and developmental test and evaluation plans as
well as the ongoing responsibility to monitor the systems engineering
and developmental test and evaluation activities of major defense
acquisition programs. During fiscal year 2009, the Director of Systems
Engineering reviewed 22 systems engineering plans and approved 16,
while the Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation reviewed and
approved 25 developmental test and evaluation plans within the test
and evaluation master plans. Both offices are monitoring and reviewing
activities on a number of major acquisition programs, including the
Virginia Class Submarine, the Stryker Family of Vehicles, and the C-
130 Avionics Modernization Program. Once their offices are fully
staffed, the directors plan to increase efforts in reviewing and
approving applicable planning documents and monitoring the activities
of about 200 major defense acquisition and information system programs.
Evaluations of 42 weapon systems[Footnote 7] were included in the
directors' first annual joint report to Congress. The individual
systems engineering program assessments were consistent in that they
typically included information on 10 areas, including requirements,
critical technologies, technical risks, reliability, integration, and
manufacturing. In some cases, the assessments also included an overall
evaluation of whether the program was low, medium, or high risk; the
reasons why; and a general discussion of recommendations or efforts
the director has made to help program officials reduce any identified
risk. Examples include the following.
* In an operational test readiness assessment of the EA-18G aircraft,
the Director of Systems Engineering found multiple moderate-level
risks related to software, communications, and mission planning and
made recommendations to reduce the risks. The program acted on the
risks and recommendations identified in the assessment and delayed the
start of initial operational testing by 6 weeks to implement the
fixes. It has completed initial operational testing and was found to
be effective and suitable by Navy testers. The Director of Operational
Test and Evaluation rated the system effective but not suitable, and
stated that follow-on testing has been scheduled to verify correction
of noted deficiencies. The program received approval to enter full
rate production and is rated as a low risk in the joint annual report.
* The systems engineering assessment of the Global Hawk program was
high risk pending the determination of actual system capability; it
also stated that there is a high probability that the system will fail
operational testing. The assessment cited numerous issues, including
questions regarding the system's ability to meet mission reliability
requirements, poor system availability, and the impact of simultaneous
weapon system block builds (concurrency). Despite the director's
concerns and efforts to help the program office develop a reliability
growth plan for Global Hawk, no program funding has been allocated to
support reliability improvements.
* The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle assessment did not include an
overall evaluation of risk. The assessment noted that the program was
on track to meet the reliability key performance parameter of 43.5
hours mean time between operational mission failure. Problems related
to meeting this and other reliability requirements were a primary
reason why the program was restructured in 2007. However, the
assessment did not address the high degree of concurrency between
development and production, which will result in a commitment to fund
96 low-rate initial procurement vehicles prior to demonstrating that
the vehicle can meet the reliability threshold value at initial
operational test and evaluation, currently scheduled for completion by
September 2016.[Footnote 8]
Developmental testing assessments covered fewer programs and were not
as structured as those provided by the systems engineering office in
that there were no standard categories of information that were
included in each assessment. Part of the reason is that the Director
of the Developmental Test and Evaluation office was just developing
the necessary expertise to review and provide formal assessments of
programs. For the programs that were reviewed, the assessments
included a status of developmental testing activities on programs and
in some cases an assessment of whether the program was low, medium, or
high risk. For example, the Director of Developmental Test and
Evaluation supported an assessment of operational test readiness for
the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Reengining Program. The assessment
stated that due to incomplete testing and technical issues found in
developmental testing, there is a high risk of failure in operational
testing. The assessment recommended that the program resolve these
issues before beginning operational testing.
The Reform Act also requires that the Director of Systems Engineering
develop policies and guidance on, among other things, the use of
systems engineering principles and best practices and the Director of
Developmental Test and Evaluation develop policies and guidance on,
among other things, the conduct of developmental testing within DOD.
[Footnote 9] The directors have issued some additional policies to
date, such as expanded guidance on addressing reliability and
availability on weapon programs and on incorporating test requirements
in acquisition contracts. The directors plan to update current
guidance and issue additional guidance in the future. According to DOD
officials, there are over 25 existing documents that provide policy
and guidance for systems engineering and developmental testing. The
directors also have an ongoing responsibility to advocate for and
support their respective DOD acquisition workforce career fields, and
have begun examining the training and education needs of these
workforces.
Two provisions, one of which is discretionary, have not been
completed. The Reform Act requires that the directors, in coordination
with the newly established office of the Director for Program
Assessments and Root Cause Analysis, issue joint guidance on the
development of detailed, measurable performance criteria that major
acquisition programs should include in their systems engineering and
testing plans. The performance criteria would be used to track and
measure the achievement of specific performance objectives for these
programs, giving decision makers a clearer understanding each
program's performance and progress. The offices have begun efforts to
develop these policies and guidance, but specific completion dates
have not been identified. At this time, it is unclear whether the
guidance will include specific performance criteria that should be
consistently tracked on programs and any risks associated with these
programs, such as ones related to technology maturity, design
stability, manufacturing readiness, concurrency of development and
production activities, prototyping, and adequacy of program resources.
Finally, the Reform Act gives DOD the option of permitting the
Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation to serve as the Director
of the Test Resource Management Center. DOD initially decided not to
exercise this option. However, the Director of Defense Research and
Engineering recently stated that his organization is examining the
possibility of consolidating the offices. The director stated that it
makes sense to combine the two offices because it would merge test
oversight and test resource responsibilities under one organization,
but the ultimate decision will be based on whether there are any legal
obstacles to combining the two offices.
While most of the Reform Act's requirements focus on activities within
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the military services are
ultimately responsible for ensuring that their weapon systems start
off with strong foundations. To that end, in November 2009, the
services, in reports to the Directors of Systems Engineering and
Developmental Test and Evaluation, identified plans for ensuring that
appropriate resources are available for conducting systems engineering
and developmental testing activities. The individual reports also
highlighted management initiatives undertaken to strengthen early
weapon acquisition activities. For example, the Army is establishing a
center at Aberdeen Proving Ground that will focus on improving
reliability growth guidance, standards, methods, and training for Army
acquisition programs. The Navy has developed criteria, including major
milestone reviews and other gate reviews, to assess the "health" of
testing and evaluation at various points in the acquisition process.
The Air Force has undertaken an initiative to strengthen requirements
setting, systems engineering, and developmental testing activities
prior to the start of a new acquisition program. Air Force officials
believe this particular initiative will meet the development planning
requirements of the Reform Act.
Experts Offer Varying Opinions on the Placement of the Systems
Engineering and Developmental Test and Evaluation Offices:
Experts provided different viewpoints on the proper placement of the
new systems engineering and developmental test and evaluation offices,
with some expressing concern that as currently placed, the offices
will wield little more power or influence than they had prior to the
passage of the Reform Act. According to the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering, the Under Secretary of Defense for AT&L
placed the new offices under his organization because the department
wanted to put additional emphasis on systems engineering and
developmental testing prior to the start of a weapons acquisition
program. The director believes this is already occurring and that both
offices will continue to have a strong relationship with acquisition
programs even though they do not report directly to an organization
with significant involvement with major defense acquisition programs.
However, many current and former DOD systems engineering and
developmental testing officials we spoke with believe the offices
should be closely linked to weapon acquisition programs because most
of their activities are related to those programs. Similarly, the
Defense Science Board recommended that a developmental testing office
be established and report directly to an organization that has
significant involvement with major defense acquisition programs. In
addition, officials we spoke with believe several other significant
challenges, including those related to staffing and the culture of the
Defense Research and Engineering organization, are already negatively
affecting the offices' effectiveness. DOD has not established any
performance criteria that would help gauge the success of the new
directors' offices, making it difficult to determine if the offices
are properly aligned within the department or if the Reform Act is
having an impact on program outcomes.
DOD Aligned New Systems Engineering and Developmental Test and
Evaluation Offices with the Research and Engineering Organization:
After the passage of the Reform Act, DOD considered several options on
where to place the new offices of the Director of Systems Engineering
and Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation. According to an
official who helped evaluate potential alternatives, DOD could have
aligned the offices under AT&L in several different ways (see figure
2). For example, the offices could have reported directly to the Under
Secretary of AT&L or indirectly to the Under Secretary of AT&L either
through the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acquisition)[Footnote 10]
or the Director of Defense Research and Engineering. DOD decided to
place the offices under the Director of Defense Research and
Engineering, an organization that previously primarily focused on
science and technology issues.
Figure 2: Options for Placement of Directors' Offices for Systems
Engineering and Developmental Test and Evaluation:
[Refer to PDF for image: organization chart]
Option 1:
Top level:
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics
(USD AT&L).
Second level:
* Director, Developmental Test & Evaluation (Direct report to USD
AT&L);
* Director, Systems Engineering (Direct report to USD AT&L);
* Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acquisition);
* Director, Defense Research & Engineering.
Option 2:
Top level:
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics
(USD AT&L).
Second level:
* Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acquisition):
- Director, Developmental Test & Evaluation (Indirect report to USD
AT&L);
- Director, Systems Engineering (Indirect report to USD AT&L);
* Director, Defense Research & Engineering.
Option 3:
Top level:
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics
(USD AT&L).
Second level:
* Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acquisition);
* Director, Defense Research & Engineering:
- Director, Developmental Test & Evaluation (Indirect report to USD
AT&L);
- Director, Systems Engineering (Indirect report to USD AT&L).
Source: DOD data; GAO analysis and presentation.
[End of figure]
Director of Defense Research and Engineering Believes Offices Are
Properly Aligned:
The Director of Defense Research and Engineering is aware of the
challenges of placing the offices under an organization whose primary
mission is to develop and transition technologies to acquisition
programs, but believes that the current placement makes sense given
congressional and DOD desires to place more emphasis on activities
prior to the start of a new acquisition program. He stated that the
addition of systems engineering and developmental testing not only
stretches the role and mission of his organization, but also
strengthens the organization's role in acquisitions because it helps
give the organization's research staff another point of view in
thinking about future technologies and systems.
He plans for the offices to perform both assessment and advisory
activities, including:
* providing risk assessments of acquisition programs for the Defense
Acquisition Board,
* continuing to help programs succeed by providing technical insight
and assisting the programs in the development of the systems
engineering plan and the test and evaluation master plan, and:
* educating and assisting researchers to think through new concepts or
technologies using systems engineering to inform fielding and
transition strategies.
According to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, the
offices are already performing some of these functions. For example,
the new directors have provided technical input to the Defense
Acquisition Board on various weapons programs. The director stated the
systems engineering organization is reviewing manufacturing processes
and contractor manufacturing readiness for weapons programs such as
the Joint Strike Fighter. In addition, a developmental testing
official stated they are assisting the Director of Defense Research
and Engineering Research Directorate in conducting technology
readiness assessments and helping programs identify the trade spaces
for testing requirements while reviewing the test and evaluation
master plan. The director believes the value of having the offices
perform both assessment and advisory activities is that they can look
across the acquisition organization and identify programs that are
succeeding from a cost, schedule, and performance perspective and
identify common threads or trends that enable a program to succeed.
Conversely, they could identify common factors that make programs fail.
The Director of Defense Research and Engineering identified three
challenges that he is trying to address in order for systems
engineering and developmental testing to have a more positive
influence on weapon system outcomes. First, the director would like to
improve the technical depth of the systems engineering and
developmental testing offices. Both functions have atrophied over the
years and need to be revitalized. This will require the offices to
find highly qualified people to fill the positions, which will not be
easy. Second, the director wants to improve the way the Defense
Research and Engineering organization engages with other DOD
organizations that are involved in weapon system acquisition. The
director noted that there are a lot of players and processes involved
in weapon acquisition and that the systems engineering office can play
a large role in facilitating greater interaction. Third, the director
would like the Defense Research and Engineering organization to find
better ways to shape, engage with, contract with, and get information
from the defense industrial base.
In addition to the three challenges, it will also be difficult to
determine whether the two new offices are having a positive impact on
weapon system outcomes. The Directors of Systems Engineering and
Developmental Test and Evaluation are not reporting the number of
recommendations implemented by program managers or the impact the
recommendations have had on weapon programs, which would allow senior
leaders to gauge the success of the two offices. This type of
information could help the Under Secretary of AT&L determine if the
offices need to be placed under a different organization, if the
offices need to place more emphasis on advisory or assessment
activities, and if the Reform Act is having an impact on program
outcomes.
Most Experts Believe Offices Would Be Better Aligned under an
Acquisition Organization:
The vast majority of current and former DOD systems engineering and
test officials we spoke with were opposed to the placement of the
offices under the Director of Defense Research and Engineering. Their
chief concern is that the mission of the Director of Defense Research
and Engineering organization is primarily focused on developing new
technologies and transitioning those technologies to acquisition
programs. While they recognize that the systems engineering and
developmental testing offices need to be involved in activities prior
to the official start of a new weapons program, they believe the
offices' expertise should be focused on helping DOD acquisition
programs establish doable requirements given the current state of
technologies, not on the technologies themselves. Therefore, they
believe the offices would be more appropriately placed under the newly
established offices of the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for AT&L or the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, whose
missions are more closely aligned with acquisition programs.
Some officials we spoke with believe that a cultural change involving
the focus and emphasis of the office of the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering will have to take place in order for that
organization to fully support its role in overseeing acquisition
programs and improving the prominence of the two new offices within
the department. However, these same officials believe that this
cultural change is not likely to occur and that the Director of
Defense Research and Engineering will continue to focus primarily on
developing and transitioning new technologies to weapon programs.
Therefore, the offices may not get sufficient support and resources or
have the clout within DOD to effect change. One former systems
engineering official pointed out that the historic association of
systems engineering with the Director of Defense Research and
Engineering does not bode well for the systems engineering office.
Based upon his experience, the Director of Defense Research and
Engineering's focus and priorities resulted in a fundamental change in
philosophy for the systems engineering mission, the virtual
elimination of a comprehensive focus on program oversight or
independent identification of technical risk, and a reduction in
systems engineering resources. In short, he found that the Director of
Defense Research and Engineering consistently focused on science and
technology, in accordance with the organization's charter, with
systems engineering being an afterthought.
Likewise, current and former developmental testing officials are
concerned about the Director of Defense Research and Engineering's
support for developmental testing activities. They identified several
staffing issues that they believe are key indicators of a lack of
support.
* First, they pointed out that it took almost 9 months from the time
the Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation office was
established before a new director was in place compared to 3 months to
place the Director of Systems Engineering. If developmental testing
was a priority, officials believe that the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering should have filled the position earlier.
* Second, test officials believe the Director of Developmental Test
and Evaluation office needs to have about the same number of staff as
the offices of the Director of Systems Engineering and the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation. According to officials, DOD currently
plans to have about 70 people involved with developmental testing
activities, 180 people for systems engineering, and 250 for
operational testing. However, testing officials believe the offices
should be roughly the same size given the fact that developmental
testing will cover the same number of programs as systems engineering
and operational testing and that roughly 80 percent of all testing
activities are related to developmental tests, with the remaining 20
percent being for operational tests.
* Third, even though the Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation
expects the office to grow to about 70 people by the end of fiscal
year 2011, currently there are 30 people on board. The director
believes there are a sufficient number of qualified people seeking
positions and therefore the office could be ramped up more quickly.
* Finally, the Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation stated
that his office has only one senior-level executive currently on staff
who reports to him and that there are no plans to hire more for the 70-
person organization. The director believes it is crucial that the
organization have more senior-level officials because of the clout
they carry in the department. The director believes that the lack of
an adequate number of senior executives in the office weakens its
ability to work effectively with or influence decisions made by other
DOD organizations. Further, officials from other testing
organizations, as well as the systems engineering office, indicated
they have two or more senior executive-level employees.
A May 2008 Defense Science Board report, which was focused on how DOD
could rebuild its developmental testing activities, recommended that
developmental testing be an independent office that reports directly
to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology).
At that time, according to the report, there was no office within the
Office of the Secretary of Defense with comprehensive developmental
testing oversight responsibility, authority, or staff to coordinate
with operational testing. In addition, the existing residual
organizations lacked the clout to provide development test guidance
and developmental testing was not considered to be a key element in
AT&L system acquisition oversight. According to the study director,
placing the developmental testing office under the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering does not adequately position the new office
to perform the oversight of acquisition programs.
Military Services Face Workforce and Resource Challenges as They
Strive to Strengthen Their Systems Engineering and Developmental
Testing Efforts:
The military services, the Directors of Systems Engineering and
Developmental Test and Evaluation, and we have identified a number of
workforce and resource challenges that the military services will need
to address to strengthen their systems engineering and developmental
testing activities. For example, it is unclear whether the services
have enough people to perform both systems engineering and
developmental testing activities. Even though the services reported to
the directors that they have enough people, they do not have accurate
information on the number of people performing these activities. The
Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation disagreed with the
services' assertions, but did not know how many additional people are
needed. Service officials have also expressed concern about the
department's ability to train individuals who do not meet requisite
certification requirements on a timely basis[Footnote 11] and being
able to obtain additional resources to improve test facilities.
The military services were required by the Reform Act to report on
their plans to ensure that they have an adequate number of trained
systems engineering and developmental testing personnel and to
identify additional authorities or resources needed to attract,
develop, train, and reward their staff. In November 2009, the military
services submitted their reports to the respective directors within
the Office of the Secretary of Defense on their findings. In general,
the services concluded that even with some recruiting and retention
challenges, they have an adequate number of personnel to conduct both
systems engineering and developmental testing activities (see table 2
below). According to service officials, this determination was based
on the fact that no program offices identified a need for additional
staffing to complete these activities. The reports also stated the
services generally have sufficient authorities to attract and retain
their workforce. In DOD's first annual joint report to Congress, the
Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation did not agree with the
military services' assertion that they have enough staff to perform
the full range of developmental testing activities. The director does
not know how many more personnel are needed, but indicated that the
office plans to work with the services to identify additional
workforce needs. The Director of Systems Engineering agreed with the
services' reports that they have adequate staffing to support systems
engineering activities required by current policy. According to the
director, this was based on the 35,000 current personnel identified in
the System Planning, Research Development, and Engineering workforce--
a generic workforce category that includes systems engineering
activities--as well as the services' plans to hire over 2,500
additional personnel into this same workforce category over the next
several years.
Table 2: Military Service Systems Planning, Research Development, and
Engineering and Developmental Testing Personnel:
Air Force:
Systems Planning, Research Development, and Engineering[A]:
Civilian: 5,004;
Military: 1,871;
Total: 6,875;
Developmental testing[B]:
Civilian: 1,354;
Military: 1,276;
Total: 2,630.
Army:
Systems Planning, Research Development, and Engineering[A]:
Civilian: 10,107;
Military: 107;
Total: 10,214;
Developmental testing[B]:
Civilian: 2,131;
Military: 11;
Total: 2,142.
Navy:
Systems Planning, Research Development, and Engineering[A]:
Civilian: 17,885;
Military: 201;
Total: 18,086;
Developmental testing[B]:
Civilian: 2,381;
Military: 450;
Total: 2,831.
Total:
Systems Planning, Research Development, and Engineering[A]:
Civilian: 32,996;
Military: 2,179;
Total: 35,175;
Developmental testing[B]:
Civilian: 5,866;
Military: 1,737;
Total: 7,603.
Source: GAO presentation of DOD data.
Note: Developmental testing data for all three services are as of
September 2009. The Air Force, Army, and Navy systems engineering data
are as of June 2009, September 2009, and November 2009, respectively.
[A] The military services identified their systems engineering
personnel as those coded as Program Systems Engineers and Systems
Engineers (a general classification for other types of engineers) in
the Systems Planning, Research Development, and Engineering workforce
classification.
[B] Some personnel conducting work in developmental testing may not be
included because their work is primarily conducted in another area.
[End of table]
Although not clearly articulated in the services' reports, military
service officials acknowledged that the personnel data in their
reports may not be entirely accurate. For example, officials believe
the systems engineering numbers identified in table 2 overstate the
number of people actually performing systems engineering activities
because that particular career field classification is a generic
category that includes all types of engineers. The developmental test
workforce shown in the table does not completely reflect the number of
people who actually perform developmental testing activities because
the information provided by the military services only identifies the
personnel identified in the test and evaluation career field. Service
officials told us that there are many other people performing these
activities who are identified in other career fields. The Director of
Developmental Test and Evaluation believes these other people may not
be properly certified and that in the case of contractors, they do not
possess certifications which are equivalent to the certification
requirements of government personnel. This director plans to request
another report from the services in fiscal year 2010. This report will
address the overall workforce data; it will cover current staffing
assigned to early test and evaluation activities, training, and
certification concerns they have related to in-sourcing staff, rapid
acquisition resource plans, and infrastructure needs for emerging
technologies. The Director of Systems Engineering does not intend to
request another report from the services. Nevertheless, each of the
military services plans to increase its systems engineering workforce
over the next several years. The exact number of personnel is
uncertain because the services' hiring projections relate to a general
engineering personnel classification, not a specific systems
engineering career field.
The directors also identified challenges they believe the services
will face in strengthening systems engineering and developmental
testing activities. The Director of Systems Engineering pointed out
that the services need to put greater emphasis on development planning
activities, as called for by the Reform Act. The services are
currently conducting these activities to some extent, but the director
believes a more robust and consistent approach is needed. The Director
of Developmental Test and Evaluation highlighted two other challenges
facing the military services. First, the director would like to
increase the number of government employees performing test and
evaluation activities. The services experienced significant personnel
cuts in these areas in the mid-1990s and has to rely on contractors to
perform the work. DOD's joint report to Congress noted that the Air
Force in particular relies heavily on prime contractor evaluations and
that this approach could lead to test results that are inaccurate,
misleading, or not qualified, resulting in turn, in premature fielding
decisions since prime contractors would not be giving impartial
evaluations of results. The director believes there are a number of
inherently governmental test and evaluation functions that produce a
more impartial evaluation of results and that a desired end state
would be one where there is an appropriate amount of government and
contractor testing. Second, the director is concerned that DOD does
not have the capacity to train and certify an estimated 800
individuals expected to be converted from contractor to government
employees within the required time frame. While most of the
contractors are expected to have some level of training and experience
performing test activities, they probably will not meet certifications
required of government employees because they have not had the same
access to DOD training.
In addition to those challenges recognized by the directors, we have
identified other challenges we believe the services may face in
implementing more robust systems engineering and developmental
testing, including the following.
* According to the military services, they plan to meet hiring targets
primarily through the conversion of contractors who are already
performing those activities, but do not have plans in place to ensure
that they have the right mixture of staff and expertise both now and
in the future. DOD officials acknowledge that they do not know the
demographics of the contractor workforce. However, they believe many
contractors are often retired military with prior systems engineering
experience. Therefore, while they may be able to meet short-term
needs, there could be a challenge in meeting long-term workforce needs.
* Army test officials indicated that they have experienced a
significant increase in their developmental testing workload since the
terrorist attacks of September 2001, with no corresponding increase in
staffing. As a result, personnel at their test ranges are working
longer hours and extra shifts, which testing officials are concerned
may affect their retention rates. Army officials also indicated that
test ranges are deteriorating more quickly than expected and they may
not have the appropriate funding to upgrade and repair the facilities
and instrumentation. Test personnel are often operating in obsolete
and outdated facilities that cannot meet test requirements, resulting
in safety issues, potential damage to equipment, and degraded quality
of life.
* DOD's increased emphasis on fielding rapid acquisition systems may
require the services to tailor their approach to systems engineering.
According to an Air Force official, efforts that normally take months
to complete for a more traditional acquisition program, have to be
completed in a matter of weeks for rapid acquisition programs.
Conclusions:
DOD efforts to implement Reform Act requirements are progressing, but
it will take some time before the results of these efforts can be
evaluated. Current and former systems engineering and developmental
testing officials offer compelling insights concerning the placement
of the new directors' offices under the Office of the Director of
Defense Research and Engineering, but it is still too soon to judge
how effective the offices will be at influencing outcomes on
acquisition programs. The current placement of the offices may present
several challenges that could hinder their ability to effectively
oversee weapon system acquisition programs and ensure that risks are
identified, discussed, and addressed prior to the start of a new
program or the start of operational testing. Foremost among these
potential challenges is the ability of the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering to change the focus of the organization to
effectively assimilate the roles and missions of the two new offices
and then ensure that the offices are properly staffed and have the
appropriate number of senior leaders. The mission of the office of the
Director of Defense Research and Engineering has been to develop
technology for weapon programs; its focus has not been to manage the
technical aspects of weapon system acquisition programs.
Ultimately, the real proof of whether an organization outside of the
major defense acquisition program arena can influence acquisition
program decisions and outcomes should be based on results. The
directors' offices have started to assess and report on the systems
engineering and developmental testing activities on some of the major
defense acquisition programs. They have also made recommendations and
worked with program officials to help reduce risks on programs such as
the EA-18G, Global Hawk, and the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and
Reengining programs. However, guidance on the development and tracking
of performance criteria that would provide an indication of how much
risk is associated with a particular weapon system--such as those
related to technology maturity, design stability, manufacturing
readiness, concurrency of development and production activities,
prototyping, and adequacy of program resources--has yet to be
developed. Further, the directors are not reporting to Congress on the
extent to which programs are implementing recommendations and the
impact recommendations are having on weapon programs, which would
provide some insight as to the impact the two offices are having on
acquisition programs. Although not required by the Reform Act, this
type of information could be useful for Congress to gauge the
effectiveness of the directors' offices.
The military services, which face increasing demands to develop and
field more reliable weapon systems in shorter time frames, may need
additional resources and training to ensure that adequate
developmental testing and systems engineering activities are taking
place. However, DOD's first joint annual report to Congress, which was
supposed to assess the department's organization and capabilities for
performing systems engineering and developmental testing activities,
did not clearly identify the workforce performing these activities,
future workforce needs, or specific hiring plans. In addition, DOD's
strategy to provide the necessary training within the required time
period to the large number of staff it plans to hire is unclear.
Therefore, workforce and training gaps are unknown.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
In order to determine the effectiveness of the newly established
offices, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the
Directors of Systems Engineering and Developmental Test and Evaluation
to take the following five actions:
* Ensure development and implementation of performance criteria for
systems engineering plans and developmental test and evaluation master
plans, such as those related to technology maturity, design stability,
manufacturing readiness, concurrency of development and production
activities, prototyping, and the adequacy of program resources.
* Track the extent to which program offices are adopting systems
engineering and developmental testing recommendations.
* Work with the services to determine the appropriate number of
government personnel needed to perform the scope of systems
engineering and developmental testing activities.
* Develop plans for addressing the training needs of the new hires and
contractors who are expected to be converted to government personnel.
* Report to Congress on the status of these efforts in future joint
annual reports required by the Reform Act.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
DOD provided us with written comments on a draft of this report. DOD
concurred with each of the recommendations, as revised in response to
agency comments. DOD's comments appear in appendix I.
Based upon a discussion with DOD officials during the agency comment
period, we revised the first recommendation. Specifically, instead of
recommending that the Directors of Systems Engineering and
Developmental Test and Evaluation develop a comprehensive set of
performance criteria that would help assess program risk, as stated in
the draft report, we now recommend that the directors ensure the
development and implementation of performance criteria for systems
engineering plans and developmental test and evaluation master plans.
The wording change clarifies the nature and scope of performance
criteria covered by our recommendation and is consistent with Reform
Act language that requires the directors to develop guidance on the
development of detailed, measurable performance criteria that major
acquisition programs should include in their systems engineering and
developmental testing plans. According to DOD officials, the military
services are then responsible for developing the specific criteria
that would be used on their respective programs.
DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as
appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and interested
congressional committees. We will also make copies available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions about this report or need additional
information, please contact me at (202) 512-4841 or sullivanm@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 were Bruce Thomas, Assistant Director; Cheryl Andrew;
Rae Ann Sapp; Megan Hill; and Kristine Hassinger.
Signed by:
Michael J. Sullivan:
Director:
Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Department of Defense:
Director Of Defense Research And Engineering:
3030 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20301-3030:
July 22, 2010:
Mr. Michael Sullivan:
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
This is the Department of Defense (DOD) response to the GAO draft
report 10-774, "Defense Acquisitions: DoD Needs to Develop Performance
Criteria to Gauge Impact of Reform Act Changes and Address Workforce
Issues," dated June 18, 2010, (GAO Code 120880). Detailed comments on
the report recommendations are enclosed. Detailed comments on factual
information within the body of the report have been forwarded to the
GAO action officer separately.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to respond to your draft
report and looks forward to working with you as we continue to ensure
a strong and capable Defense acquisition capability.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Zachary J. Lemnios:
Enclosure: As stated:
[End of letter]
GAO Draft Report ” Dated June 18, 2010:
GAO Code 120880/GAO-10-774:
"Defense Acquisitions: DoD Needs to Develop Performance Criteria to
Gauge Impact of Reform Act Changes and Address Workforce Issues"
Department Of Defense Comments To The Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Directors of Systems Engineering and Developmental Test and
Evaluation to ensure development and implementation of performance
criteria for systems engineering plans and developmental test and
evaluation master plans, such as those related to technology maturity,
design stability, manufacturing readiness, concurrency of development
and production activities, prototyping, and the adequacy of program
resources.
DOD Response: Concur. The Director, Systems Engineering and the
Director, Developmental Test and Evaluation, consistent with PL 111-
23, will issue guidance on the development of performance criteria for
systems engineering plans and developmental test and evaluation master
plans and will ensure that these criteria are in fact developed and
implemented.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Directors of Systems Engineering and Developmental Test and
Evaluation to track the extent to which program offices are adopting
systems engineering and developmental testing recommendations.
DOD Response: Concur. The Director, Systems Engineering and the
Director, Developmental Test and Evaluation will track the extent to
which program offices adopt systems engineering and developmental test
and evaluation recommendations. However, these will not be reported as
standalone metrics. The Director, Systems Engineering and the
Director, Developmental Test and Evaluation will continue to work with
the Services and programs to understand both their risk management
approach and overall program performance.
Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Directors of Systems Engineering and Developmental Test and
Evaluation to work with the Services to determine the appropriate
number of Government personnel needed to perform the scope of systems
engineering and developmental testing activities.
DOD Response: Concur. The Director, Systems Engineering and the
Director, Developmental Test and Evaluation will work with the
Services to determine the appropriate number of Government personnel
needed to perform the scope of systems engineering and developmental
testing activities.
Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Directors of Systems Engineering and Developmental Test and
Evaluation to develop plans for addressing the training needs of the
new hires and contractors that are expected to be converted to
Government personnel.
DOD Response: Concur. The Director, Systems Engineering and the
Director, Developmental Test and Evaluation, consistent with their
Functional Leader roles, will develop plans for addressing the
training needs of their respective career fields. The Directors will
work collaboratively with the Services and Components who are
ultimately responsible for training and quality of their personnel.
Recommendation 5: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Directors of Systems Engineering and Developmental Test and
Evaluation to report to the Congress on the status of these efforts in
future joint annual reports required by the Reform Act.
DOD Response: Concur. The Director, Systems Engineering and the
Director, Developmental Test & Evaluation will report the status of
these efforts in the joint annual report required by the Reform Act.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] 10 U.S.C. § 2433 establishes the requirement for unit cost
reports. If certain cost thresholds are exceeded (known as unit cost
or Nunn-McCurdy breaches), DOD is required to report to Congress and,
in certain circumstances, certify the program to Congress.
[2] Pub. L. No. 111-23.
[3] Systems engineering efforts also include development planning,
which the department considers to be engineering activities prior to
the start of weapon system development.
[4] Effectiveness refers to the ability of the system to perform its
mission. Suitability refers to the ability to place and sustain the
system in the field. Suitability measures include reliability,
availability, and logistics supportability.
[5] The Reform Act requires that the Director of Developmental Test
and Evaluation and the Director of Systems Engineering issue a joint
annual report not later than March 31 each year, beginning in 2010, to
the congressional defense committees addressing activities undertaken
to meet various requirements of the Reform Act. Pub. L. No. 111-23, §
102(a) (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 139d).
[6] The Reform Act requires that the service acquisition executive of
each military department and each defense agency with responsibility
for a major defense acquisition program submit a report to the
Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation and the Director of
Systems Engineering on the status of the development and
implementation of their plans for ensuring that developmental testing
and system engineering functions are adequately staffed. Pub. L. No.
111-23, § 102(b).
[7] Depending on a weapon system's activity for the year, an
assessment may include a summary of only developmental testing
activity, systems engineering activity, or both.
[8] GAO, Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) Program Faces Cost,
Schedule and Performance Risks, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-758R] (Washington, D.C.: July 2,
2010).
[9] Pub. L. No. 111-23, § 102(a) (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 139d).
[10] The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
realigned the organizational structure of the Office of the Secretary
of Defense. The effect of the realignment is that the position of
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Technology is
replaced by the position of Principal Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics. Also, additional
Assistant Secretaries were added, including the position of Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition. Pub. L. No. 111-84, § 906(a),
(b)(2) (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 137a, 138).
[11] Each acquisition, technology, and logistics (AT&L) position,
meaning positions designated to be acquisition positions in accordance
with the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act, has
certification-level requirements. When an individual is placed in an
AT&L position, the determination that the individual has satisfied
appropriate certification and assignment-specific training
requirements, or a plan for the individual to meet the requirements
within 24 months of placement or other established period, shall be
documented. If an individual does not meet position requirements
within established time frames, a waiver must be obtained according to
applicable procedures for the individual to remain in the position.
Department of Defense Instruction 5000.66, Operation of the Defense
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Workforce Education, Training,
and Career Development Program paragraphs E2.1.3.3 and E2.4.1.2. (Dec.
21, 2005).
[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:
