Weapons Acquisition Reform
Actions Needed to Address Systems Engineering and Developmental Testing Challenges Gao ID: GAO-11-806 September 19, 2011For the past 2 years, the Department of Defense (DOD) has been implementing the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act (Reform Act) requirements for systems engineering and developmental testing. These activities are important to DOD's ability to control acquisition costs, which increased by $135 billion over the past 2 years for 98 major defense acquisition programs. GAO was asked to determine (1) DOD's progress in implementing the Reform Act's requirements and (2) whether there are challenges at the military service level that could affect their systems engineering and developmental testing activities. To do this, GAO analyzed implementation status documents, discussed developmental testing office concerns with current and former DOD officials, and analyzed military service workforce growth plans and test range funding data.
The new offices for systems engineering and developmental test and evaluation are continuing to make progress implementing Reform Act requirements. Since GAO's 2010 report on this topic, the Deputy Assistant Secretaries for Systems Engineering and Developmental Test and Evaluation have issued additional policies and guidance, assisted more weapons acquisition programs in the development of acquisition plans, and provided input to senior leaders at Defense Acquisition Board meetings. DOD also designated the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Developmental Test and Evaluation for concurrent service as the Director of the Test Resource Management Center. This was an optional Reform Act provision, which places oversight of testing resources and acquisition program developmental testing activities under one official. Despite these steps, the developmental test and evaluation office reports having difficulty covering its portfolio of about 250 defense acquisition programs with its current authorized staff of 63 people. Current and former testing officials believe the office needs more influence and resources to be effective, but they said thorough analysis has not been done to determine the appropriate office size. Further, according to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Developmental Test and Evaluation, a statutory provision that designates the Test Resource Management Center as a field activity may limit his ability to achieve management and reporting efficiencies that could be obtained by combining or shifting resources between the two organizations. GAO has a matter for Congressional consideration to allow shifting resources between the Test Resource Management Center and the developmental test and evaluation office. The military services are facing workforce challenges that could curb systems engineering and developmental testing efforts, if not properly addressed. The services planned to increase their systems engineering and test and evaluation career fields by about 5,000 people (14 percent) and about 300 people (4 percent), respectively, between fiscal years 2009 and 2015 through hiring actions and converting contractor positions to government positions. The services have increased the systems engineering career field by about half of its projections and exceeded its planned growth for the test and evaluation career field through the end of fiscal year 2010. However, future growth may be difficult because of budget cuts and a clarification in DOD's insourcing approach, which may make civilian hiring more difficult. For example, the services now plan to hire about 800 fewer systems engineers by 2015 than they originally projected. Further, cuts to development test ranges' fiscal year 2012 budgets of nearly $1.2 billion (17 percent) over the next 5 years could offset some of the workforce gains already achieved. Currently, the services lack metrics that could be used to justify funding levels, effectively allocate funding cuts, make workforce decisions, or make difficult decisions related to mothballing, closing, or consolidating test capabilities, if future budget cuts are necessary. To the extent DOD cannot provide adequate systems engineering and developmental testing support to its weapon systems portfolio, the risks of executing the portfolio within cost and schedule are increased. GAO recommends that DOD assess the resources needed by the developmental test and evaluation office, develop a plan to implement the assessment, develop metrics to aid funding decisions, and report the effect budget cuts are having on the services' ability to meet program office needs. GAO also has a matter for congressional consideration. DOD concurred with two recommendations, and offered clarifying language, which GAO incorporated, on the other two recommendations for which DOD partially concurred.
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-11-806, Weapons Acquisition Reform: Actions Needed to Address Systems Engineering and Developmental Testing Challenges
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-806
entitled 'Weapons Acquisition Reform: Actions Needed to Address
Systems Engineering and Developmental Testing Challenges' which was
released on September 19, 2011.
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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate:
September 2011:
Weapons Acquisition Reform:
Actions Needed to Address Systems Engineering and Developmental
Testing Challenges:
GAO-11-806:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-806, a report to the Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
For the past 2 years, the Department of Defense (DOD) has been
implementing the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act (Reform Act)
requirements for systems engineering and developmental testing. These
activities are important to DOD‘s ability to control acquisition
costs, which increased by $135 billion over the past 2 years for 98
major defense acquisition programs.
GAO was asked to determine (1) DOD‘s progress in implementing the
Reform Act‘s requirements and (2) whether there are challenges at the
military service level that could affect their systems engineering and
developmental testing activities. To do this, GAO analyzed
implementation status documents, discussed developmental testing
office concerns with current and former DOD officials, and analyzed
military service workforce growth plans and test range funding data.
What GAO Found:
The new offices for systems engineering and developmental test and
evaluation are continuing to make progress implementing Reform Act
requirements. Since GAO‘s 2010 report on this topic, the Deputy
Assistant Secretaries for Systems Engineering and Developmental Test
and Evaluation have issued additional policies and guidance, assisted
more weapons acquisition programs in the development of acquisition
plans, and provided input to senior leaders at Defense Acquisition
Board meetings. DOD also designated the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Developmental Test and Evaluation for concurrent service as the
Director of the Test Resource Management Center. This was an optional
Reform Act provision, which places oversight of testing resources and
acquisition program developmental testing activities under one
official. Despite these steps, the developmental test and evaluation
office reports having difficulty covering its portfolio of about 250
defense acquisition programs with its current authorized staff of 63
people. Current and former testing officials believe the office needs
more influence and resources to be effective, but they said thorough
analysis has not been done to determine the appropriate office size.
Further, according to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Developmental
Test and Evaluation, a statutory provision that designates the Test
Resource Management Center as a field activity may limit his ability
to achieve management and reporting efficiencies that could be
obtained by combining or shifting resources between the two
organizations. GAO has a matter for Congressional consideration to
allow shifting resources between the Test Resource Management Center
and the developmental test and evaluation office.
The military services are facing workforce challenges that could curb
systems engineering and developmental testing efforts, if not properly
addressed. The services planned to increase their systems engineering
and test and evaluation career fields by about 5,000 people (14
percent) and about 300 people (4 percent), respectively, between
fiscal years 2009 and 2015 through hiring actions and converting
contractor positions to government positions. The services have
increased the systems engineering career field by about half of its
projections and exceeded its planned growth for the test and
evaluation career field through the end of fiscal year 2010. However,
future growth may be difficult because of budget cuts and a
clarification in DOD‘s insourcing approach, which may make civilian
hiring more difficult. For example, the services now plan to hire
about 800 fewer systems engineers by 2015 than they originally
projected. Further, cuts to development test ranges‘ fiscal year 2012
budgets of nearly $1.2 billion (17 percent) over the next 5 years
could offset some of the workforce gains already achieved. Currently,
the services lack metrics that could be used to justify funding
levels, effectively allocate funding cuts, make workforce decisions,
or make difficult decisions related to mothballing, closing, or
consolidating test capabilities, if future budget cuts are necessary.
To the extent DOD cannot provide adequate systems engineering and
developmental testing support to its weapon systems portfolio, the
risks of executing the portfolio within cost and schedule are
increased.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that DOD assess the resources needed by the
developmental test and evaluation office, develop a plan to implement
the assessment, develop metrics to aid funding decisions, and report
the effect budget cuts are having on the services‘ ability to meet
program office needs. GAO also has a matter for congressional
consideration. DOD concurred with two recommendations, and offered
clarifying language, which GAO incorporated, on the other two
recommendations for which DOD partially concurred.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-806] 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 Is Continuing to Implement Reform Act Requirements, but Challenges
Remain:
Workforce Challenges Could Affect Services' Systems Engineering and
Developmental Testing Efforts:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Offices of the Deputy Assistant Secretaries of Defense for
Systems Engineering and Developmental Test and Evaluation Workforce
Growth:
Table 2: Ongoing Efforts by Deputy Assistant Secretaries of Defense
for Systems Engineering and Developmental Test and Evaluation to
Implement Selected Reform Act Requirements:
Table 3: Actual and Planned Military Service Systems Engineering and
Test and Evaluation Career Field Growth:
Figure:
Figure 1: MRTFB Operation & Support Funding for Fiscal Years 2006-2015:
Abbreviations:
DOD: Department of Defense:
MRTFB: Major Range and Test Facility Base:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 19, 2011:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
For the past 2 years, the Department of Defense (DOD) has been
implementing provisions of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act
of 2009[Footnote 1] (Reform Act) related to systems engineering and
developmental testing. Greater attention to these activities provides
the Office of the Secretary of Defense an opportunity to affect weapon
acquisition plans early and assess technical risks throughout weapon
system development. In addition, it could help control total
acquisition costs, which we recently reported[Footnote 2] had
increased by $135 billion over the past 2 years for DOD's current
portfolio of 98 major defense acquisition programs.[Footnote 3]
Last year, we reported[Footnote 4] on the status of DOD's initial
efforts to implement Reform Act requirements related to systems
engineering and developmental testing. We found that DOD had taken
steps to implement the Reform Act requirements, including establishing
new offices for the Director of Systems Engineering and the Director
of Developmental Test and Evaluation within the Office of the
Secretary of Defense. The offices have since been renamed as the
offices of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems
Engineering and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Developmental Test and Evaluation. We found that there were concerns
about the amount of influence the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Developmental Test and Evaluation could have on weapon acquisition
programs based upon where the office is placed organizationally within
the department. However, we could not determine whether the office had
the appropriate amount of influence because it was not tracking the
extent to which its recommendations were being adopted or impacting
weapon programs. We also identified issues the military services face
as they enhance systems engineering and developmental testing
activities on their weapon acquisition programs, including determining
whether they have enough people to perform these activities, training
the influx of new hires they expect, and addressing test range
resource needs.
Based on our initial work, the Senate Armed Services Committee asked
us to continue to monitor DOD's efforts to implement the Reform Act
provisions, as well as look at the military services' systems
engineering and developmental test and evaluation capabilities. Our
specific objectives were to determine (1) DOD's progress in
implementing the Reform Act's systems engineering and developmental
testing requirements within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and
(2) whether there are challenges at the military service level that
could affect their systems engineering and developmental testing
activities.
In conducting our work, we analyzed information obtained from the
offices of the Deputy Assistant Secretaries of Defense for Systems
Engineering and Developmental Test and Evaluation to determine the
status of their efforts to implement the Reform Act legislation. We
also solicited the views of current and former DOD developmental
testing officials about the effectiveness of the developmental test
and evaluation office. In addition, we interviewed officials and
analyzed pertinent documents related to workforce and test range
issues from 12 DOD test ranges, the Test Resource Management Center,
and cognizant military service systems engineering, developmental
testing, and personnel offices. For purposes of this report, we use
the term systems engineering career field to refer to two Systems
Planning, Research Development, and Engineering career fields--Systems
Engineering and Program Systems Engineering. The test and evaluation
career field is a combination of developmental and operational testing
personnel. Both of these career fields represent a portion of the
total systems engineering and developmental testing workforce. See
appendix I for a more detailed explanation of our scope and
methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2010 to September
2011 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:
DOD significantly downsized its acquisition workforce in the 1990s and
2000s as part of an overall reduction of military and civilian defense
personnel after the end of the Cold War. According to DOD's April 2010
Strategic Human Capital Plan Update, the department decreased its core
acquisition workforce[Footnote 5] from about 146,000 people in fiscal
year 1998 to about 126,000 in fiscal year 2008. Meanwhile, the number
of major defense acquisition programs increased from 76 to 93 and
total estimated costs[Footnote 6] to acquire them increased from
nearly $805 billion to more than $1.6 trillion. The systems
engineering and test and evaluation career fields were affected by the
workforce cuts. For example, in 2008 the Defense Science Board
reported[Footnote 7] that the Army's test and evaluation workforce was
reduced by more than 55 percent from 1991 through 2007. In response to
cuts in these career fields, DOD reduced its emphasis in these areas
and/or relied on prime contractors to analyze and interpret
developmental testing data. The Defense Science Board also found that
many weapon programs were failing initial operational testing due to a
lack of a disciplined systems engineering approach. Additionally, in
2008 the National Academy of Sciences reported[Footnote 8] that there
were no longer enough systems engineers to fill programs' needs. The
Academy observed that DOD cannot outsource its technical and program
management experience and intellect and still expect to acquire new
systems that are both effective and affordable.
Over the past several years, the Congress has called for DOD to
improve its acquisition workforce and increase emphasis on systems
engineering and developmental testing during weapon systems
development. For example, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008[Footnote 9] required the Secretary of Defense to
establish the DOD Acquisition Workforce Fund for the recruitment,
training, and retention of DOD acquisition personnel, which includes
the systems engineering and test and evaluation career fields. In
addition, the Reform Act contains a number of systems engineering and
developmental testing requirements aimed at helping weapon programs
establish a solid foundation prior to the start of development. For
example, the Deputy Assistant Secretaries are expected to review and
approve acquisition planning documents for major defense acquisition
programs, as well as monitor program activities.
In response to the Reform Act legislation, DOD established new offices
within the Office of the Secretary of Defense for systems engineering
and developmental testing to provide assistance to program offices as
they are developing their acquisition strategies prior to the start of
development and then oversee program office efforts to implement the
strategies. The systems engineering office has about 120 programs in
its portfolio and the developmental test and evaluation office has
about 250 programs. In addition, they provide advocacy, oversight and
guidance for their respective workforces throughout DOD. The Secretary
of Defense also announced plans to increase the number of people
performing acquisition activities by almost 20,000 employees through
new hiring actions and by converting contractor positions to
government positions (insourcing) between fiscal years 2009 and 2015.
[Footnote 10] The Strategic Human Capital Plan Update indicates that
22 percent of the almost 20,000 position growth will be for systems
engineering and 1 percent for test and evaluation, which would
increase the size of the career fields by 16 percent and 5 percent,
respectively. The majority of these new positions will be in the
military services at headquarters, program offices, and test range
locations.
The services maintain test ranges for development testing activities.
Currently, 24 ranges are designated as part of the Major Range and
Test Facility Base (MRTFB)[Footnote 11] because they have unique test
capabilities that are used by multiple services. The Test Resource
Management Center is responsible for ensuring that the MRTFB is
adequately funded and maintained while the services oversee the
remaining non-MRTFB ranges and facilities, which perform more service-
specific testing.
DOD Is Continuing to Implement Reform Act Requirements, but Challenges
Remain:
The new offices of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Systems Engineering and Developmental Test and Evaluation have
continued to make progress implementing the Reform Act requirements.
Both offices, which provide assistance to program managers and perform
oversight for decision makers, have issued additional policies and
guidance, and are overseeing and providing information on more weapon
acquisition programs than they did last year. The systems engineering
office will be staffed at 163 people in fiscal year 2012 and the
developmental test and evaluation office will be staffed at 63 people,
which is less than the developmental test and evaluation office
originally projected. Yet, the offices are more reliant on contractor
support than the Deputy Assistant Secretaries would like. In addition,
many current and former testing officials continue to believe the
developmental test and evaluation office does not have the resources
or influence to effectively oversee and affect program decisions.
However, it is unclear how many people are needed.
Efforts to Implement Reform Act Requirements Are Progressing:
DOD established the two offices for systems engineering and
developmental test and evaluation within the Office of the Secretary
of Defense in June 2009. Since then, both offices have increased
staffing, which is enabling them to meet statutory requirements for
assisting and overseeing their portfolios of defense acquisition
programs. The table below shows the actual and planned workforces for
both offices.
Table 1: Offices of the Deputy Assistant Secretaries of Defense for
Systems Engineering and Developmental Test and Evaluation Workforce
Growth:
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Systems Engineering:
Workforce staffing (government and contractor employees): Government;
June 2009 (actual): 17;
Fiscal year 2010 (actual): 20;
Fiscal year 2011 (authorized): 28;
Fiscal year 2012 (planned): 28;
Goal (planned): 28.
Workforce staffing (government and contractor employees): Contractors;
June 2009 (actual): 96;
Fiscal year 2010 (actual): 107;
Fiscal year 2011 (authorized): 114;
Fiscal year 2012 (planned): 135;
Goal (planned): 135.
Workforce staffing (government and contractor employees): Total;
June 2009 (actual): 113;
Fiscal year 2010 (actual): 127;
Fiscal year 2011 (authorized): 142;
Fiscal year 2012 (planned): 163;
Goal (planned): 163.
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Developmental Test and Evaluation:
Workforce staffing (government and contractor employees): Government;
June 2009 (actual): 4;
Fiscal year 2010 (actual): 10;
Fiscal year 2011 (authorized): 9;
Fiscal year 2012 (planned): 9;
Goal (planned): 16.
Workforce staffing (government and contractor employees): Contractors;
June 2009 (actual): 20;
Fiscal year 2010 (actual): 20;
Fiscal year 2011 (authorized): 50;
Fiscal year 2012 (planned): 50;
Goal (planned): 50.
Workforce staffing (government and contractor employees): Total;
June 2009 (actual): 24;
Fiscal year 2010 (actual): 30;
Fiscal year 2011 (authorized): 63[A];
Fiscal year 2012 (planned): 63[A];
Goal (planned): 70[A].
Source: GAO presentation of information from the offices of the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering and the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation.
[A] Includes four detailees from the Test Resources Management Center.
[End of table]
Most of the staffing increases have been through hiring contractor
employees. While both offices have also increased their government
staff, hiring freezes have curbed their ability to hire additional
government employees and for the developmental test and evaluation
office to meet its authorized staffing goal. The systems engineering
office was authorized 28 government employees for fiscal year 2011,
but has not yet been given permission to advertise for all of the
positions because of the hiring freeze. According to the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Developmental Test and Evaluation, the office
was initially authorized to have 70 employees, but will be capped at
63 in fiscal year 2011, 4 of which are detailees from the Test
Resource Management Center.
In their fiscal year 2010 joint annual report to the Congress,
[Footnote 12] the Deputy Assistant Secretaries reported on their
ongoing efforts to implement Reform Act requirements. The table below
includes information that was included in the report or provided to us
on their fiscal years 2009 and 2010 activities. As shown, the offices
have continued or increased their activities.
Table 2: Ongoing Efforts by Deputy Assistant Secretaries of Defense
for Systems Engineering and Developmental Test and Evaluation to
Implement Selected Reform Act Requirements:
Reform Act requirement: Develop policies and guidance;
Systems engineering: Fiscal year 2009: started updating systems
engineering plan guidance and the Guide for Integrating Systems
Engineering into DOD Acquisition Contracts. Published policy that
expands reliability, availability, and maintainability guidance for
acquisition programs and updated the Defense Acquisition Guidebook
chapter on systems engineering. Fiscal year 2010: published Directive-
Type Memoranda on (1) Implementation of the Weapon Systems Acquisition
Reform Act of 2009[A] and (2) Development Planning to Inform Materiel
Development Decision Reviews and Support Analyses of Alternatives[B];
Developmental testing: 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. Fiscal year
2010: published Information Assurance Policy Crosswalk Working Group
Report and drafted DOD Instruction establishing Developmental Test and
Evaluation responsibilities.
Reform Act requirement: Review, approve acquisition planning documents
of major acquisition programs;
Systems engineering: Fiscal year 2009: reviewed 22 and approved 16
systems engineering plans. Fiscal year 2010: reviewed 25 and approved
21 systems engineering plans;
Developmental testing: Fiscal year 2009: reviewed and approved 25
developmental test and evaluation plans. Fiscal year 2010: reviewed
and approved 33 developmental test and evaluation plans and 4 test and
evaluation strategies.
Reform Act requirement: Monitor, review activities of major
acquisition programs;
Systems engineering: Fiscal year 2009: reviewed systems engineering
activities for 35 programs and participated in 20 technical reviews.
Fiscal year 2010: reviewed systems engineering activities for 39
programs and participated in 31 technical reviews;
Developmental testing: Fiscal year 2009: reviewed and assessed
developmental testing activities for 17 programs. Fiscal year 2010:
reviewed and assessed developmental testing activities for 38 programs.
Reform Act requirement: Provide advocacy, oversight, and guidance for
respective DOD acquisition workforce;
Systems engineering: Fiscal year 2009: started assessing systems
engineering competencies. Fiscal year 2010: continued competency
assessment of workforce. Sponsored Defense Acquisition University
course development and continued focus on education and training;
Developmental testing: Fiscal years 2009: updated education and
training requirements and validated certification requirements. Fiscal
year 2010: continued fiscal year 2009 efforts and worked with
components in developing long-term strategies to optimize workforce.
Source: GAO presentation of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Systems Engineering and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Developmental Test and Evaluation information.
[A] DOD Directive-Type Memorandum 09-027, Implementation of the Weapon
Systems Reform Act of 2009 (Dec. 4, 2009, Incorporating Change 1, Oct.
21, 2010).
[B] DOD Directive-Type Memorandum 10-017, Development Planning to
Inform Material Development Decision Reviews and Support Analysis of
Alternatives (Sept. 13, 2010, Incorporating Change 1, May 16, 2011).
[End of table]
In addition to the progress highlighted in the table above, the
offices are also taking actions in areas that they had not acted upon
last year--issuing required guidance on the development and tracking
of performance criteria and exercising a Reform Act option of
designating the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Developmental Test and Evaluation for concurrent service as the
Director of the Test Resource Management Center.
* Developing performance criteria: The Reform Act requires the Deputy
Assistant Secretaries, in coordination with an official designated by
the Secretary of Defense, who was the Director of the Performance
Assessments and Root Cause Analysis, to jointly issue guidance on the
development and tracking of detailed measurable performance criteria
for major defense acquisition programs. In response to this
requirement, the Deputy Assistant Secretaries, in cooperation with the
Director of Performance Assessments and Root Cause Analysis, have
agreed that each office shall develop guidance within their respective
functional areas in coordination with each other and openly share the
data and findings of those performance criteria in conducting their
oversight.
The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Systems Engineering developed a set
of time-based metrics to assess each program's ability to execute its
system engineering plans and address risks the office had identified
in prior reviews. The metrics measure program cost, schedule,
staffing, reliability, availability and maintainability, software,
integration, performance and manufacturing, and are to be incorporated
into each program's systems engineering plan and evaluated at various
points in the development process. Criteria developed by the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Developmental Test and Evaluation focus on
early acquisition lifecycle activities to ensure that sound
developmental testing planning is performed from the beginning of
development. Other criteria measure program results and are meant to
provide an objective foundation to assess a program's subsequent
developmental testing performance as it approaches the production
decision and the assessment of operational test readiness. The office
plans to pilot test the metrics on six programs,[Footnote 13] with a
goal of rolling them out to other programs by the end of 2011.
* Changing leadership of Test Resource Management Center: Effective
April 1, 2011, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics designated the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation for
concurrent service as the Director of the Test Resource Management
Center. DOD had not acted upon this optional Reform Act provision last
year. Both offices will continue to be managed separately and report
to different authorities--developmental test and evaluation office
activities will be reported to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering and Test Resource Management Center
activities will be reported directly to the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.[Footnote 14]
According to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Developmental Test and Evaluation, the Principal Deputy Under
Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics asked him to
complete a study in the near future to identify efficiencies that can
be obtained by merging some of the offices' activities. A study was
started in July 2011. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Developmental
Test and Evaluation indicated that there could be some limitations on
his ability to streamline management and reporting activities or shift
resources between the organizations because the Test Resource
Management Center is designated by statute to be a field activity and
the organizations are funded separately. DOD has not studied the
possible legal ramifications of combining the offices.
In their fiscal year 2010 joint annual report to the Congress, the
Deputy Assistant Secretaries also identified several focus areas for
improvement. For example, the systems engineering office plans to
reestablish the DOD Software Working Group to improve DOD's capability
to address systemic software program issues. Among other things, the
developmental test and evaluation office wants to develop a
responsible test organization model that the services would use to
designate the lead government test organization responsible for
overseeing and/or conducting the developmental test and evaluation for
an acquisition program. In addition, the office wants to issue a
policy requiring programs to prioritize use of government capabilities
and to provide a cost-benefit analysis when they decide to provide
funding to use and/or develop test capabilities at prime contractor
sites.
In a departure from the fiscal year 2009 joint annual report,[Footnote
15] the fiscal year 2010 report did not contain a discussion of the
extent to which weapon acquisition programs are fulfilling their
systems engineering or test and evaluation master plans.[Footnote 16]
Further, the fiscal year 2010 report did not include a discussion of
test and evaluation waivers or deviations that programs have received.
Instead, the report identified the type of reviews or engagements both
of the offices participated in for various programs. The Deputy
Assistant Secretaries stated that they did not provide the information
in the fiscal year 2010 report because they were directed to
streamline the report. In May 2011, the Senate Armed Services
Committee requested DOD to supplement the fiscal year 2010 report with
this information as required by the Reform Act. DOD has not yet
provided the information.
The Deputy Assistant Secretaries believe they have had a positive
influence on weapon acquisition programs over the past 2 years during
milestone reviews with senior department leaders and through
recommendations to program offices. Although the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Research and Engineering represents both systems
engineering and developmental test positions at Defense Acquisition
Board meetings, the Deputy Assistant Secretaries said that either
they, or designees, also attend the meetings. They said that they have
been asked by the Principal Deputy for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics to provide direct input about weapon acquisition programs at
some of these meetings, including discussions on the Gray Eagle
unmanned aircraft system, Ohio Replacement submarine, and the Joint
Strike Fighter aircraft programs. The Deputy Assistant Secretaries
also said that program offices are making changes based on the
recommendations made by their offices during regular program
assessments and technical reviews.
Organizational Challenges Remain:
While the Deputy Assistant Secretaries have made progress implementing
the Reform Act requirements, we identified several organizational
challenges that could limit their effectiveness. A summary of each of
these challenges is presented below.
* Reliance on contractor employees: The Deputy Assistant Secretaries
rely heavily on contractors to help perform office activities. In
fiscal year 2010, for example, nearly 85 percent of the staff in the
systems engineering office and 67 percent of the staff in the
developmental test and evaluation office were contractors. Both Deputy
Assistant Secretaries would like to have a larger proportion of
government employees because they believe it is important to maintain
a core cadre of people with the required institutional knowledge and
skills to support current and future program office needs. However,
they are not optimistic about their chances of getting additional
government employees because of a civilian hiring freeze.
* Developmental Test and Evaluation Office influence: Current and
former DOD test and evaluation officials continue to believe the
developmental test and evaluation office could be more effective in
its oversight role with the proper influence. For example, they
pointed out that the office's primary avenue for voicing concerns
about weapon acquisition programs to senior leaders is at overarching
integrated product team meetings that take place in preparation for
Defense Acquisition Board meetings. The integrated product team leader
[Footnote 17] ultimately decides which organizations will get to
present issues at the Defense Acquisition Board meetings. Current
testing officials told us that in some cases developmental testing
issues do not make the Defense Acquisition Board meeting agendas,
which is a concern to officials who believe the developmental test and
evaluation office should provide independent assessments of weapon
acquisition programs directly to senior leaders. In addition,
officials said that the deputy directors who attend the overarching
meetings are not at the senior executive level like other meeting
attendees, which officials said in some cases has reduced their
relative influence during these meetings. To ensure developmental
testing information, such as the assessment of operational test
readiness, receives appropriate consideration by senior leaders, the
Defense Science Board recommended in 2008 that the office report
developmental testing issues directly to the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology. Currently, the office reports
through an intermediary--the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering.
Even though the systems engineering office reports through the same
reporting channel as the developmental test and evaluation office, the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Systems Engineering believes his office
has the appropriate amount of influence. This is because the systems
engineering office's primary emphasis is on assisting program managers
in the development of their systems engineering plans. In contrast,
the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Developmental Test and Evaluation
believes his office should put about equal effort into assisting and
assessing program office activities.
* Developmental Test and Evaluation Office resources: Information
provided by the developmental test and evaluation office shows the
office can not provide full coverage of its portfolio of about 250
acquisition programs given its current workforce.[Footnote 18] For
example, in fiscal year 2010 when the office had 30 people, 89
programs (36 percent) did not receive any support, including the Air
and Missile Radar program and sub elements of the Early Infantry
Brigade Combat Team program, such as the Small Unmanned Ground
Vehicles and Unmanned Aircraft System.
Although staffing has doubled between fiscal years 2010 and 2011, the
office still has not been able to support all the programs the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Developmental Test and Evaluation believes it
should. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Developmental Test and
Evaluation said the office has had to be selective in using its
resources and he has introduced a "triage" strategy for dealing with
the overload of programs relative to the office's workforce. This
strategy includes dropping virtually all programs below Acquisition
Category I from the developmental testing oversight list and
eliminating oversight of some major automated information systems. For
the most part, the office focuses its efforts on major defense
acquisition programs between milestone B (development start) and
milestone C (the production decision) in order to retain sufficient
depth with programs in development. It is providing minimal coverage
to programs prior to the start of development, which is the most
opportune time to influence a program's acquisition strategy. Based on
the "triage" strategy, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Developmental Test and Evaluation believes only about half of the
current portfolio of about 250 programs would receive the level of
support he believes is needed with a staff of 63 people. On the other
hand, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Systems Engineering believes
his office, which is supposed to have 163 people in fiscal year 2012,
will have enough staff to oversee its portfolio of 120 programs.
While current and former DOD testing officials provided reasons for
increasing the size of the developmental test and evaluation office,
they could not specify the appropriate size for the office, as they
indicated the issue has not been thoroughly analyzed. Officials
familiar with the establishment of the office told us that three
staffing scenarios were considered prior to the office being
established--a high, medium, and low staffing scenario--but they
indicated that no detailed analysis was done to support any of the
scenarios. Under the high staffing scenario, the developmental test
and evaluation office would have had 250 people, which would have
matched the size of the office of the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation. The medium level of staffing, 120-150 people, was based on
the size of a legacy developmental testing organization and the low
level, which called for 90 people, was based on an assumption about
the number of programs each person would be responsible for
overseeing. As shown earlier in table 1, the staffing goal is 70
people, which is fewer than the lowest staffing scenario considered.
Former testing officials believe an opportunity exists to both
increase the developmental testing office's influence and address
resource concerns by merging Test Resource Management Center and
developmental testing office activities. They believe this would give
the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Developmental Test and Evaluation
the most flexibility in how to allocate resources. They also pointed
out that in the early 1990s, oversight of all developmental test and
evaluation activities had been under one organization that reported
directly to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition.[Footnote
19]
Workforce Challenges Could Affect Services' Systems Engineering and
Developmental Testing Efforts:
The military services have been increasing the number of people in
their systems engineering and test and evaluation career fields, but
challenges exist that could impede future workforce growth plans as
well as testing at the ranges, if not properly addressed. The services
planned to increase their systems engineering and test and evaluation
career fields by about 5,000 people (14 percent) and about 300 people
(4 percent), respectively, between fiscal years 2009 and 2015 through
hiring actions and by insourcing contractor positions. These increases
are part of DOD's overall efforts to increase the number of people in
acquisition career fields. The services have increased the systems
engineering career field by about half of their projections and
exceeded their planned growth for the test and evaluation career field
through the end of fiscal year 2010. However, budget cuts and a
clarification in DOD's insourcing approach may make hiring civilians
more challenging in the future. The services' developmental test
ranges are also experiencing declining budgets, as the fiscal year
2012 budget includes cuts of nearly $1.2 billion over the next 5 years
to support accounts that pay for overhead costs. The services plan to
cut range personnel in response to the budget reductions, which could
offset some of the workforce gains they have already achieved. They
have not yet determined how the cuts will be allocated across the
ranges or the impact they will have on meeting program office needs.
Further budget cuts are possible based on the recent debt ceiling
agreement, but details are unknown. Currently, the services lack
common performance metrics that would assist in making funding
decisions.
Services Have Increased Their Systems Engineering and Test and
Evaluation Career Fields:
The services planned to increase their acquisition systems engineering
and test and evaluation career fields by 14 percent and 4 percent,
respectively, between fiscal years 2009 and 2015 through hiring and
insourcing actions. This would increase the overall systems
engineering career field by about 5,000 people from about 35,000 to
40,000 people and the test and evaluation career field by almost 300
people from about 7,400 to 7,700 people. These new positions would be
located at service headquarters, program offices, and test range
locations. It should be noted that insourcing actions alone do not
result in real growth to the collective number of civilians, military,
and contractors performing an activity because it only involves the
transfer of positions from contractors to the government. Hiring
additional civilian employees, on the other hand, would result in
growth, assuming the contractor and military workforces remain stable.
The following table shows the baseline, goal, and current number of
civilian and military personnel performing systems engineering and
test and evaluation activities for each of the services at the end of
fiscal year 2010, as well as the percentage of the growth goal target
achieved.
Table 3: Actual and Planned Military Service Systems Engineering and
Test and Evaluation Career Field Growth:
Systems engineering career field:
Air Force:
Baseline[A]: Systems engineering career field: 6,380;
Growth goal by the end of fiscal year 2015[B]: 7,059;
Current workforce as of September 30, 2010: 7,575;
Percentage of growth goal target achieved as of September 30, 2010:
107%.
Army:
Baseline[A]: Systems engineering career field: 10,615;
Growth goal by the end of fiscal year 2015[B]: 12,076;
Current workforce as of September 30, 2010: 10,938;
Percentage of growth goal target achieved as of September 30, 2010:
91%.
Navy:
Baseline[A]: Systems engineering career field: 17,961;
Growth goal by the end of fiscal year 2015[B]: 20,870;
Current workforce as of September 30, 2010: 19,012;
Percentage of growth goal target achieved as of September 30, 2010:
91%.
Totals:
Baseline[A]: Systems engineering career field: 34,956;
Growth goal by the end of fiscal year 2015[B]: 40,005;
Current workforce as of September 30, 2010: 37,525;
Percentage of growth goal target achieved as of September 30, 2010:
94%.
Test and evaluation career field:
Air Force:
Baseline[A]: Systems engineering career field: 2,622;
Growth goal by the end of fiscal year 2015[B]: 2,566;
Current workforce as of September 30, 2010: 2,840;
Percentage of growth goal target achieved as of September 30, 2010:
111%.
Army:
Baseline[A]: Systems engineering career field: 2,135;
Growth goal by the end of fiscal year 2015[B]: 2,297;
Current workforce as of September 30, 2010: 2,211;
Percentage of growth goal target achieved as of September 30, 2010:
96%.
Navy:
Baseline[A]: Systems engineering career field: 2,652;
Growth goal by the end of fiscal year 2015[B]: 2,829;
Current workforce as of September 30, 2010: 2,977;
Percentage of growth goal target achieved as of September 30, 2010:
105%.
Totals:
Baseline[A]: Systems engineering career field: 7,409;
Growth goal by the end of fiscal year 2015[B]: 7,692;
Current workforce as of September 30, 2010: 8,028;
Percentage of growth goal target achieved as of September 30, 2010:
104%.
Source: Military service workforce numbers presented in DOD's April
2010 Strategic Human Capital Plan Update and military service budget
estimate submissions.
Note: Workforce numbers include civilian and military positions. Navy
systems engineering workforce also includes science and technology
positions, which officials estimate to be less than 2 percent of the
total.
[A] Air Force and Army baseline is the end of fiscal year 2008 and the
Navy baseline is the end of fiscal year 2009.
[B] Air Force and Army projections are based on the fiscal year 2010
budget estimate submission and the Navy projections are based on the
fiscal year 2011 budget estimate submission.
[End of table]
Through the end of fiscal year 2010, the services have made
significant progress towards increasing the two career fields. For
example, the services increased the systems engineering career field
by about 2,600 people, about half of the projected growth.
Collectively, they have achieved 94 percent of the growth goal target
planned for that career field. The services achieved 104 percent of
the growth goal target planned for the test and evaluation career
field by adding over 600 people. Information provided by the Army and
Navy shows about 74 percent of their systems engineering career field
growth was through new hires and the remaining 26 percent was through
insourcing.[Footnote 20] About 86 percent of their test and evaluation
career field growth was through new hires and the remaining 14 percent
was through insourcing.
Budget Cuts and Other Challenges Could Affect Overall Workforce Growth:
Recently proposed budget changes would result in modifications to the
services' workforce growth plans for both acquisition career fields.
[Footnote 21] The services still plan to increase the systems
engineering career field between fiscal years 2011 and 2015, but with
about 800 positions less than originally planned. As a result, career
field growth would be 10 percent instead of 14 percent. On the other
hand, the services plan to hire 400 more people than they originally
planned for the test and evaluation career field, despite the fact
that the overall number of DOD civilians is frozen at fiscal year 2010
levels. This would result in a 6 percent growth to the career field
instead of 4 percent.
Service officials stated that achieving additional career field
growth, however, could be difficult because of a recent clarification
in DOD's insourcing policy. According to a March 2011 memorandum
issued jointly by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics and the Under Secretary of Defense
Comptroller/Chief Financial Officer, a case-by-case approach will be
used for additional insourcing of acquisition functions based on
critical need, whether a function is inherently governmental, and the
benefit demonstrated by a cost-benefit analysis. The memorandum also
states that additional insourcing must be supported by current budget
levels. In cases where added insourcing would breach the existing
civilian ceilings, the proposal and associated justification must be
provided to the Director of Human Capital Initiatives and then the
proposal will be reviewed by the two Under Secretaries of Defense
issuing the memorandum and approved by the Deputy Secretary of
Defense. Of the nearly 2,000 people the Army and Navy now plan to hire
for the systems engineering career field between fiscal years 2011 and
2015, 96 percent is to be achieved through insourcing. And about 40
percent of the over 200 people they plan to hire for the test and
evaluation career field are to be through insourcing.
Although the services have increased their test and evaluation staff,
each of the 12 test ranges we visited experienced a mixture of
recruiting, hiring, training, or retention challenges. For example,
Pacific Missile Range Facility officials stated the range's location
on the island of Kauai, Hawaii, has made it difficult to recruit
personnel due to a lower pay grade structure and higher costs of
living compared to other test ranges. Range officials stated that it
can take months to hire new employees, forcing many qualified
applicants to seek employment opportunities elsewhere. Test ranges
have begun using acquisition workforce expedited hiring authority,
which allows DOD components to streamline the process for making
offers to qualified acquisition personnel. However, ranges have
interpreted this authority differently. Service test and evaluation
executives said they would clarify the policy to the ranges based upon
our observations to ensure the policies are fully understood. Most of
the test range officials we spoke with also had concerns about the
timeliness and quality of the Defense Acquisition University's
training classes.[Footnote 22] The Defense Acquisition University is
coordinating with the services to address the increased demand for
acquisition training. Finally, some test ranges are having difficulty
retaining engineers or some software specialties because the private
sector can pay them a higher salary. Officials at Aberdeen Test
Center, Maryland, are concerned that many of their employees will take
higher paying jobs with organizations that are moving into their area
as the result of a Base Realignment and Closure decision.
Impact of Proposed Budget Cuts on Ranges Has Not Been Determined:
The services' developmental test range budgets are being reduced, but
the full impact of the cuts has yet to be determined. The fiscal year
2012 President's Budget includes cuts of nearly $1.2 billion (17
percent) through fiscal year 2015 to the ranges' institutional funding
accounts that fund operational and overhead expenses such as
personnel, facilities, and equipment costs.[Footnote 23] According to
service officials, the budget cuts are a result of direction they
received late in the fiscal year 2012 budget cycle to keep their
civilian workforce at the same level as they had at the end of fiscal
year 2010. Research, development, test and evaluation accounts that
fund range testing activities absorbed a large portion of the cuts.
As shown in figure 1, the services had already planned to reduce their
MRTFB research, development, test and evaluation funding between
fiscal years 2012 and 2015. Although range budgets reached a peak in
fiscal year 2011, budget estimates for that year projected funding
decreases in subsequent years. According to service officials these
reductions were expected due to expected workload reductions, savings
associated with implementing efficiency initiatives, and a civilian
pay freeze. The fiscal year 2012 budget contains additional, more
significant decreases beyond those forecasted in the previous year's
budget. In total, this budget provides $5.7 billion for the ranges
between fiscal years 2012 and 2015--a 17 percent reduction from the
$6.9 billion forecast in the fiscal year 2011 budget. Most notably,
the Army and Air Force range budgets were each cut over $100 million
in fiscal year 2012 alone.
Figure 1: MRTFB Operation & Support Funding for Fiscal Years 2006-2015:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph]
Fiscal year 2012 Fiscal year 2011
Fiscal year: 2006;
Fiscal year 2012: $1.625 billion;
Fiscal year 2011: $1.625 billion.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Fiscal year 2012: $1.704 billion;
Fiscal year 2011: $1.704 billion.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Fiscal year 2012: $1.691 billion;
Fiscal year 2011: $1.691 billion.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Fiscal year 2012: $1.725 billion;
Fiscal year 2011: $1.715 billion.
Fiscal year: 2010;
Fiscal year 2012: $1.725 billion;
Fiscal year 2011: $1.741 billion.
Fiscal year: 2011;
Fiscal year 2012: $1.780 billion;
Fiscal year 2011: $1.780 billion.
Fiscal year: 2012;
Fiscal year 2012: $1.478 billion;
Fiscal year 2011: $1.723 billion.
Fiscal year: 2013;
Fiscal year 2012: $1.422 billion;
Fiscal year 2011: $1.712 billion.
Fiscal year: 2014;
Fiscal year 2012: $1.435 billion;
Fiscal year 2011: $1.735 billion.
Fiscal year: 2015;
Fiscal year 2012: $1.429 billion;
Fiscal year 2011: $1.765 billion.
Source: GAO presentation of the military information for the fiscal
year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 President's Budget.
[End of figure]
The Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee recently expressed
concern that these proposed reductions threaten to seriously undermine
the implementation of the Reform Act's requirement to rebuild DOD's
systems engineering and developmental testing organizations and
requested that the proposed cuts be reviewed. The Army and Air Force
are in the process of reviewing these cuts and determining where they
will be made. To minimize the impact on these activities, they are
examining potential reductions to their overhead or administrative
staff at headquarters and field locations. According to service
headquarters officials, if DOD's proposed budget cuts between fiscal
years 2012 and 2015 remain intact, they may have to cut some of their
developmental test capabilities as well as personnel who conduct
tests. This could offset some of the test and evaluation career field
gains already achieved over the past 2 years. Test officials said that
reductions in test personnel could limit the amount of testing
performed on weapon acquisition programs, which could increase the
risk associated with those programs and/or result in an extension of a
program's test schedule. Final decisions on where to take the cuts
have not yet been made. Therefore, we could not determine the impact
funding cuts would have on the ranges' ability to meet program office
testing needs.
Range officials indicated that prior to these proposed cuts they had
difficulty maintaining their test capabilities. The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003[Footnote 24] required the
Secretary of Defense by fiscal year 2006 to establish the funding
objective of ensuring that the overhead and institutional costs of the
MRTFB ranges were fully funded through the major test and evaluation
investment accounts and to ensure that DOD customers were charged not
more than the direct costs of testing. The law also required DOD to
establish the Test Resource Management Center and required that the
director of that organization certify whether the services' proposed
budgets for test and evaluation activities are adequate. To comply
with this law, the services increased their range operating budgets by
over 50 percent in fiscal year 2006. Although MRTFB funding was fairly
stable between fiscal years 2006 and 2011,[Footnote 25] range
officials said they have had difficulties maintaining their test
capabilities because the infrastructure is aging and operating costs
for expenses like utilities and fuel have grown at a higher rate than
their overall funding. As a result, officials said they have had to
move money from their range modernization accounts to fund operating
costs, only fix things that are broken or in emergency status, or fund
capability upgrades over several years instead of a shorter period of
time. According to range officials, these challenges are less of a
problem for non-MRTFB ranges like the Redstone Test Center and other
test/laboratory activities funded through working capital fund
accounts, where customers pay direct and overhead costs.[Footnote 26]
Service officials discussed several strategies or a combination of
those strategies that the services could use to lessen the impact of
budget cuts and funding concerns. One strategy is that the ranges may
have to curtail certain testing, mothball or close test facilities, or
consolidate test capabilities. Another option could be to move certain
test capabilities out of the MRTFB management structure, thereby
allowing ranges to charge customers the full cost of testing.
Additionally, on the basis of our range observations, service
officials said more specific guidance for interpreting financial
management regulations on what constitutes direct and overhead charges
for MRTFB operations could be developed to clarify and standardize the
types of costs that can be passed on to customers. Service test and
evaluation executives and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Developmental Test and Evaluation believe the ranges' current policy
interpretation is too restrictive, inconsistent across the MRTFB, and
constrains service options as they strive to sustain MRTFB
capabilities. The Test Resource Management Center recently established
a team to study the issue.
Services Lack Common Range Performance Measures to Aid Decision Making:
The services have not implemented common range performance measures
that would help them justify funding and assist them in making
workforce decisions, how best to allocate funding, or make difficult
decisions about mothballing, closing, or consolidating test
capabilities, if necessary. Although ranges collect performance data
relevant to their operations, these indicators may not be useful in
making higher-level infrastructure decisions that cut across several
ranges. According to service officials, it is very difficult to
develop a common set of performance measures because of the uniqueness
of each range and its variable capacity. We have found that
performance measures can assist managers in making decisions about
future strategies, planning and budgeting, identifying priorities, and
allocating resources.[Footnote 27]
Some efforts are under way to provide decision makers more
information, but they are still in process and are not yet approved or
implemented. The Test Resource Management Center has sponsored an
effort to develop a comprehensive set of range metrics. According to
the services, early efforts were not successful and were not well
received. While the Air Force plans to use metrics resulting from the
Test Resource Management Center's effort, the Army is evaluating the
development of a readiness reporting system and a workload model for
its ranges that could provide a better basis for investment or
divestment decisions. The Navy is also in the process of developing
metrics for its MRTFB test capabilities on the systems' condition,
capacity, competency, and importance. Once developed, these metrics
are expected to assist decision makers in directing future investment
funding and to ensure test capabilities are adequate to support
programs.
Conclusions:
The Reform Act points to the need for DOD to develop more robust
systems engineering and developmental test and evaluation
capabilities. DOD established new organizations and the services
developed resource plans in order to increase emphasis on these
activities. From an organizational standpoint, the offices of the
Deputy Assistant Secretaries for Systems Engineering and Developmental
Test and Evaluation are providing assistance to program managers in
developing acquisition plans and providing oversight of program
efforts for the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology
and Logistics and the Congress. However, the developmental testing
office is not as robust or efficient as it could be in part due to
resource and organizational constraints. In addition, while the
military services have made significant progress to date in increasing
their systems engineering and developmental testing workforce
capabilities, planned workforce reductions could offset these gains.
It is incumbent upon DOD to provide the most effective systems
engineering and developmental testing capability it can afford. It
should have a sound analytical basis for establishing and resourcing
that capability. However, it is not clear that DOD is yet at this
point, especially for developmental testing. DOD has not conducted
analysis on the right size of the developmental test and evaluation
office or captured data that would reinforce range funding and
workforce actions, or suggest needed adjustments. Additionally, the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Developmental Test and Evaluation
believes that there may also be a statutory provision that limits his
ability to achieve efficiencies and address office challenges. To the
extent DOD cannot provide adequate systems engineering and
developmental testing support to its weapons portfolio, the risks of
executing the portfolio within cost and schedule are increased.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following two
actions:
* assess the resources and influence needed by the developmental test
and evaluation office to assist and oversee defense acquisition
programs, including:
- the number of defense acquisition programs that can be supported by
different developmental test and evaluation office staffing levels,
including specifying the total number of personnel, the mix of
government and contractor employees, and the number of senior
executive service personnel needed for each of these staffing levels;
- whether the Test Resource Management Center and the office of the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Developmental Test and Evaluation
should be combined or resources shifted between organizations to more
effectively support the activities of both organizations and if so,
identify for Congress any statutory revisions that would be necessary;
and:
- the proper reporting channel, taking into account the decision on
whether or not to combine the organizations, the statutory oversight
requirements, and the level of influence needed to oversee and assess
program office developmental testing and service budgeting activities.
* develop a plan to implement the results of the assessment.
We also recommend that the Secretary of Defense, with input from the
military services, take the following two actions:
* develop metrics to assess the MRTFB test capabilities (expanding to
DOD non-MRTFB, and non-DOD government test facilities once an approved
set of metrics are in place supporting the MRTFB), justify funding,
and assist in making decisions on the right-sizing of personnel, how
best to allocate funding, or make future decisions on whether to
mothball, shut down, or consolidate test facilities. These efforts
should be coordinated with the Test Resource Management Center.
* report the impact budget cuts reflected in the fiscal year 2012
budget, as well as the insourcing policy clarification, will have on
their (1) total workforce (civilians, military, and contractors) that
support both of these activities and (2) ability to meet program
office systems engineering and developmental test and evaluation needs.
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Contingent upon the results of DOD's assessment, the Congress may want
to consider revising any applicable statutory provisions necessary to
allow for DOD to combine or shift resources between the Test Resource
Management Center and the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Developmental Test and Evaluation.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
DOD provided us with written comments on a draft of this report. DOD
concurred with two recommendations and partially concurred with two
others. DOD offered suggested wording changes to the recommendations
where it partially agreed to offer greater clarity. We agreed with the
suggested changes and reworded our recommendations accordingly. DOD's
comments appear in appendix II. DOD also provided technical comments,
which we incorporated as appropriate in the report.
In its response, DOD noted that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Developmental Test and Evaluation has directed a study to assess the
resources and influence needed by the developmental test and
evaluation office to assist and oversee defense acquisition programs.
The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Development Test and Evaluation
will develop a plan to implement actionable recommendations from the
results of the assessment, with the approval of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. The Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Developmental Test and Evaluation also plans
to establish a working group, with participation from the military
services, to develop metrics to assess MRTFB test capabilities,
justify funding, and assist in making decisions on human capital and
test facilities management. Finally, the Deputy Assistant Secretaries
for Systems Engineering and Developmental Test and Evaluation plan to
identify any impacts to the state of the workforce due to funding
modifications or DOD's workforce policy updates in their joint annual
report to the Congress.
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 are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Michael J. Sullivan:
Director:
Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
This report examines the military services' systems engineering and
developmental testing workforce capabilities and the Department of
Defense's (DOD) efforts to implement Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform
Act of 2009 (Reform Act) requirements.[Footnote 28] Specifically, we
examined (1) the progress DOD has made in implementing the Reform
Act's systems engineering and developmental testing requirements and
(2) whether there are challenges at the military service level that
could affect their systems engineering and developmental testing
activities.
To measure DOD's progress in implementing Reform Act requirements
related to systems engineering and developmental testing, we
interviewed officials and collected pertinent documents from the
offices of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems
Engineering and Developmental Test and Evaluation. Specifically, we
collected information on their efforts to develop additional policy
and guidance; review and approve acquisition planning documents of
major acquisition programs; monitor and review activities of major
acquisition programs; and develop guidance for the development of
performance metrics to use on weapon acquisition programs. We also
reviewed their staffing plans and questioned the Deputy Assistant
Secretaries, as well as former DOD developmental testing experts on
whether each of the offices has the necessary amount of resources and
influence to fulfill their missions.
In order to determine whether there are challenges at the military
service level that could affect future systems engineering and
developmental testing activities, we looked at planned and actual
workforce growth and developmental test range activities, and
specifically at the following.
* We collected and compared the military services' original workforce
growth projections with their current workforce projections for the
systems engineering and test and evaluation career fields. For this
report, when we use the term systems engineering career field, we are
referring to the Systems Planning, Research Development, and
Engineering--Systems Engineering and Program Systems Engineering
career fields. The Air Force and Army's original plans were based on
their fiscal year 2008 budget estimate submissions[Footnote 29] and
the Navy's was based on its fiscal year 2009 budget estimate
submission. Current plans for each of the services were based on their
fiscal year 2012 budget estimate submissions. Workforce data covered
the fiscal years 2009-2015 timeframe for both the original and current
plans. We interviewed officials within the Office of the Secretary of
Defense and military services to determine the underlying causes for
variances between the two plans and to determine how the Secretary of
Defense's cost efficiency measures are affecting new hiring and
insourcing plans.
Navy officials stated that they used fiscal year 2009 as their
baseline because before that time, information from various commands
was not centralized and they could not verify the accuracy of the
numbers. Navy officials stated that they have confidence in the
validity of the numbers that support the fiscal year 2009 baseline
because factors that affect workforce counts, such as recodes,
decodes, reassignments, and attrition, are treated consistently.
* We compared the services' baseline workforce data with end of fiscal
year 2010 workforce numbers to determine how much growth occurred in
the two career fields over the past 2 fiscal years. The Air Force's
and Army's workforce baseline was the end of fiscal year 2008 and the
Navy's was the end of fiscal year 2009. We assessed the reliability of
these data by interviewing knowledgeable officials in the Air Force,
Army, and Navy about the processes they use to ensure both the
integrity and reliability of their manpower workforce databases used
to track acquisition personnel. We determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
* We conducted site visits to 12 ranges and facilities--11 of these
are designated as part of the Major Range and Test Facility Base
(MRTFB) and one is a non-MRTFB range--to determine challenges
affecting DOD's ability to conduct developmental testing. We focused
our discussions on a broad range of topics, including funding,
workforce, range facilities and instrumentation, encroachment,
contractor duplication of DOD test facilities, and test resource
capacity and demand. We selected four ranges per service based on
geographical diversity, level of funding, type of testing, and
recommendations from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the
services. The test ranges we visited were: Aberdeen Test Center,
Maryland; Air Force Flight Test Center, California; Arnold Engineering
Development Center, Tennessee; Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation
Center, Bahamas; 46th Test Group, New Mexico; 46th Test Wing, Florida;
High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility, New Mexico; Naval Air Warfare
Center - Aircraft Division, Maryland; Naval Air Warfare Center -
Weapons Division, California; Pacific Missile Range Facility, Hawaii;
Redstone Test Center, Alabama; and White Sands Missile Range, New
Mexico.
* Finally, we compared developmental test range funding included in
the President's Budget Future Year's Defense Plan for fiscal year 2011
and 2012. We discussed differences between the two plans and how
decreases in the fiscal year 2012 plan would affect developmental
testing activities with officials from the Test Resource Management
Center, the military services, and the office of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation. We also
discussed with these officials the progress DOD and the services have
made in developing metrics that could be used to make workforce and
investment decisions.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2010 to September
2011 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.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Assistant Secretary Of Defense:
Research And Engineering:
3030 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20301-3030:
September 9, 2011:
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 11-806, "Weapons Acquisition Reform: Actions Needed to Address
Systems Engineering and Developmental Testing Challenges," dated
August 5, 2011, (GAO Code 120936). 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 August 5, 2011:
GAO-11-806 (GAO CODE 120936):
"Weapons Acquisition Reform: Actions Needed To Address Systems
Engineering And Developmental Testing Challenges"
Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
assess the resources and influence needed by the developmental test
and evaluation office to assist and oversee defense acquisition
programs, including:
* the number of defense acquisition programs that can be supported by
different developmental test and evaluation office staffing levels,
including specifying the total number of personnel, the mix of
government and contractor employees, and the number of senior
executive service personnel needed for each of these staffing levels;
* whether the Test Resource Management Center and the office of the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Developmental Test and Evaluation
should be combined or resources shifted between organizations to
support developmental testing activities and if so, identify for
Congress any statutory revisions that would be necessary; and;
* the proper reporting channel, taking into account the decision on
whether or not to combine the organizations, the statutory oversight
requirements, and the level of influence needed to oversee and assess
program office developmental testing and service budgeting activities.
DoD Response: Partially Concur. As written, the language is overly
restrictive. The second sub-bullet recommends assessing "whether the
Test Resource Management Center and the office of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Developmental Test and Evaluation should be combined or
resources shifted between organizations to support developmental
testing activities..." DoD recommends amending the language to "...
whether the Test Resource Management Center and the office of the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Developmental Test and Evaluation
should be combined or resources shifted between organizations to more
effectively support the activities of both organizations..."
Rationale: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology
and Logistics tasked the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Developmental Test and Evaluation to review the two organizations to
identify additional efficiencies, develop alternatives and to report
the findings to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics for review and decision.
The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and
Evaluation has directed a study to assess the resources and influence
needed by the developmental test and evaluation office to assist and
oversee defense acquisition programs.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
develop a plan to implement the results of the assessment.
DoD Response: Concur. With the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics approval, the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation, serving
concurrently as the Director of the Test Resource Management Center,
will develop a plan to implement actionable recommendations from the
results of the assessment.
Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense,
with input from the military services, develop metrics to assess
development test capabilities, justify funding, and assist in making
decisions on where to cut personnel, how best to allocate funding, or
make future decisions on whether to mothball, shut down, or
consolidate test facilities. These efforts should be coordinated with
the Test Resource Management Center.
DoD Response: Partially Concur. As written, the scope of the
recommendation is too broad. This recommendation states, "GAO
recommends that the Secretary of Defense, with input from the military
Services, develop metrics to assess development test capabilities,
justify funding ..." DoD recommends amending the language to "...
develop metrics to assess the Major Range and Test Facility Base
(MRTFB) test capabilities (expanding to DoD non-MRTFB, and non-
DoD government test facilities once an approved set of metrics are in
place supporting the MRTFB), justify funding ..."
Rationale: The term "development test capabilities" encompasses a wide
range of DoD MRTFB, DoD non-MRTFB, and non-DoD government test
facilities. The primary focus of the "Impacts of Proposed Budget Cuts
on Ranges" paragraphs on pages 18-22 of the draft GAO report is
clearly the MRTFB.
Also as written, the focus is about reducing instead of "right-sizing"
test capabilities. Recommend change from "... assist in making
decisions on where to cut personnel..." to "assist in making decisions
on the "right-sizing" of personnel."
The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and
Evaluation, serving concurrently as the Director of the Test Resource
Management Center, will establish a working group, with participation
from the military services, to develop metrics to assess MRTFB test
capabilities, justify funding, and assist in making decisions on human
capital and test facilities management.
Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense,
with input from the military services, report the impact budget cuts
reflected in the fiscal year 2012 budget, as well as the insourcing
policy clarification, will have on their (1) total workforce
(civilians, military, and contractors) that support both of these
activities and (2) ability to meet program office systems engineering
and developmental test and evaluation needs.
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. Each year the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Developmental Test & Evaluation (DT&E) and the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering (SE), with
inputs from the military services, submit an assessment of the
organization and capabilities of the Department of Defense for systems
engineering, development planning, and developmental test and
evaluation, to include the workforce, in the DT&E and SE Joint Annual
Report to Congress, as directed by the Weapon Systems Acquisition
Reform Act of 2009. Any impacts to the state of the workforce due to
funding modifications or Department workforce policy updates will be
reflected in this report.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Michael J. Sullivan, (202) 512-4841 or sullivanm@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact name above, Bruce Thomas, Assistant
Director; Cheryl Andrew; Rae Ann Sapp; Keith Hudson; Laura Greifner;
and Marie Ahearn made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 111-23.
[2] GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapons
Programs, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-233SP]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2011).
[3] Research and development costs grew over the two year period by an
estimated $15 billion, while procurement grew by an estimated $121
billion. Of the $135 billion total acquisition cost increase, $70
billion cannot be attributed to quantity changes.
[4] GAO, Defense Acquisitions: DOD Needs to Develop Performance
Criteria to Gauge Impact of Reform Act Changes and Address Workforce
Issues, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-774]
(Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2010).
[5] DOD defines the core acquisition workforce as all personnel whose
responsibilities are predominantly acquisition and assigned to
positions designated as acquisition.
[6] Total estimated costs include research, development, test and
evaluation, procurement, military construction, and acquisition
operations and maintenance funding.
[7] Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Developmental
Test and Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: May 2008).
[8] National Academy of Sciences, Pre-Milestone A and Early-Phase
Systems Engineering: A Retrospective Review and Benefits for Air Force
Future Systems Acquisition (Washington, D.C.: 2008).
[9] Pub. L. No. 110-181 § 852.
[10] DOD officials said the decision to increase the acquisition
workforce was in response to Pub. L. No. 110-181 § 852 and
Presidential Memorandum, "Government Contracting," 74 Fed. Reg. 9,755
(Mar. 6, 2009).
[11] The Major Range and Test Facility Base is a set of test
installations, facilities, and ranges which are regarded as "national
assets." These assets are sized, operated, and maintained primarily
for DOD test and evaluation missions. However, the facilities and
ranges are also available to commercial and other users on a
reimbursable basis. Oversight of the facilities and ranges is
performed by the Test Resource Management Center.
[12] DOD, Developmental Test and Evaluation and Systems Engineering FY
2010 Annual Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 23, 2011).
[13] The pilot test programs are the Integrated Air and Missile
Defense, MQ-4C Unmanned Aircraft System Broad Area Maritime
Surveillance, RQ-4A/B Unmanned Aircraft System Global Hawk, Joint Land
Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System, Patriot
Advanced Capability-3, and the MQ-9 Unmanned Aircraft System Reaper.
[14] The Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2003 provided for the establishment of the Test Resource Management
Center as a field activity that would report directly to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. The
Reform Act established the Director of Developmental Test and
Evaluation within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, but did not
dictate how that official's office should be aligned. The Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics decided
to place the office under the Director of Defense, Research and
Engineering, which has since been renamed the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering.
[15] DOD, Developmental Test and Evaluation and Systems Engineering FY
2009 Annual Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2010).
[16] The Reform Act requires the joint annual report to Congress to
include (1) a discussion of the extent to which the major defense
acquisition programs are fulfilling the objectives of their systems
engineering master plans and developmental test and evaluation plans;
(2) a discussion of the waivers of and deviations from requirements in
test and evaluation master plans, systems engineering plans and other
testing requirements, any concerns raised by such waivers or
deviations, and the actions taken to address such concerns; and (3) an
assessment of the organization and capabilities of DOD for systems
engineering, development planning, and developmental test and
evaluation with respect to such programs.
[17] Depending on the acquisition program, the integrated product team
leader could be the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Strategic and Tactical Systems, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Space and Intelligence, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for C3, Space and Spectrum, or the Overarching Integrated
Product Team Leader for Defense Business Systems (Office of the Deputy
Chief Management Officer).
[18] The portfolio includes a combination of Acquisition Category 1D,
Acquisition Category 1C, Major Automated Information Systems, and
other programs that are specified as special interest by the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics or on
the Deputy Assistant Secretaries' oversight list. Acquisition Category
I programs are major defense acquisition programs estimated by the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
to require eventual expenditure for research, development, test and
evaluation of more than $365 million in fiscal year 2000 constant
dollars or, for procurement, of more than $2.19 billion in fiscal year
2000 constant dollars, or those designated by the Milestone Decision
Authority to be special interest programs. For Acquisition Category ID
programs, the milestone decision authority is the Under Secretary for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. The "D" refers to the Defense
Acquisition Board, which advises the Under Secretary at major decision
points. For Acquisition Category 1C programs, the milestone decision
authority is the DOD component head or, if delegated, the DOD
component acquisition executive. The "C" refers to component.
[19] The office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition is
now the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics.
[20] The Air Force could not provide a breakout of the number of
positions it plans to insource between fiscal years 2010 and 2015. The
Air Force only maintains information on its broad plans to insource,
as they allow their major commands to determine the specific positions
that are insourced.
[21] Under the Budget Control Act of 2011, budgetary resources may be
further reduced, but details about the effect, if any, on workforce
growth plans are unknown at this time. Pub. L. No. 112-25, § 101.
[22] According to DOD, each acquisition, technology, and logistics
position, meaning positions designated to be acquisition positions
based on the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act, has
certification-level requirements. When an individual is placed in one
of these positions, the DOD component is required to either document
the determination that the individual has satisfied appropriate
certification and assignment-specific training requirements, or
establish a plan for the individual to meet the requirements within 24
months of placement or other established period. 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 at E2.4.1.2. (Dec. 21, 2005).
[23] Under the Budget Control Act of 2011, budgetary resources may be
further reduced, but details about the effect, if any, on workforce
growth plans are unknown at this time. Pub. L. No. 112-25, § 101.
[24] Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2003, Pub. L. No.107-314, § 232 (2002).
[25] The Director of the Test Resource Management Center did not
certify the Army's budget twice during this period. As a result, the
Army added additional funding to its major test and evaluation
investment account to address concerns. The Director of the Test
Resource Management Center has not yet certified any of the services'
fiscal year 2012 proposed test and evaluation budgets.
[26] Charging customers for overhead costs does not reduce DOD's
budget needs for overhead activities. Rather, it shifts the burden of
paying for these costs from ranges to customers.
[27] GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance
Information for Management Decision Making, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-927] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9,
2005).
[28] Pub. L. No. 111-23.
[29] The Future Years Defense Program, a DOD centralized report
consisting of thousands of program elements, provides information on
DOD's current and planned outyear budget requests and is one of the
principal tools available to help inform DOD and the Congress about
resource data relating to these challenging trade-offs. The reporting
requirement for it is codified at 10 U.S.C. § 221.
[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:
