Coast Guard
Changes to Deepwater Plan Appear Sound, and Program Management Has Improved, but Continued Monitoring Is Warranted Gao ID: GAO-06-546 April 28, 2006The Deepwater program was designed to produce aircraft and vessels that would function in the Coast Guard's traditional at-sea roles. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, however, the Coast Guard began taking on additional homeland security missions, and so it revised the Deepwater implementation plan to provide assets that could better meet these new responsibilities. While many acknowledge that the Coast Guard's aging assets need replacement or renovation, concerns exist about the approach the Coast Guard adopted in launching the Deepwater program. The subsequent changes in the program's asset mix and delivery schedules only increased these concerns. This report (1) compares the revised Deepwater implementation plans with the original plan in terms of the assets to be replaced or modified, and the time frames and costs for doing so; (2) assesses the degree to which the operational effectiveness model and other analytical methods used by the Coast Guard to develop the revised Deepwater asset mix are sound and appropriate for such a purpose; and (3) assesses the progress made in implementing GAO's prior recommendations regarding program management. GAO is not making any new recommendations in this report.
The revised Deepwater implementation plans change the balance between new and legacy assets, alter the delivery schedule for some assets, lengthen the overall acquisition schedule by 5 years, and increase the projected program cost from $17 billion to $24 billion. The higher cost generally relates to upgrading assets to reflect added homeland security mission requirements. Upgrades to vessels account for the single largest area of increase; with upgrades to the command, control, communications and other capabilities being second highest. In contrast, because the revised plans upgrade rather than replace most legacy aircraft and reduce the number of unmanned aircraft, the cost for Deepwater aircraft drops. The revised plans, like the original plan, are heavily dependent on receiving full funding each year. Coast Guard officials state that a shortfall in funding in any year could substantially increase total costs. The Coast Guard's analytical methods were appropriate for determining if the revised asset mix would provide greater mission performance and whether the mix is appropriate for meeting Deepwater missions. GAO and other independent experts found the Coast Guard's methods were reliable for assessing the effects of changing the asset mix and a Department of Defense review board facilitated accreditation of the Coast Guard's approach. Because the model has proved useful for guiding Coast Guard decisions on the proper asset mix for achieving Deepwater performance goals, the Coast Guard is considering ways to expand the model to guide decisions on meeting its Coast Guard-wide performance goals. Actions by the Coast Guard and the system integrator have fully implemented three of the eight GAO recommendations that were not fully addressed during GAO's review in 2005, and three more recommendations appear to be nearly implemented. The remaining two have unresolved concerns, but the Coast Guard is taking steps to resolve them. A program of this size, however, will likely experience other challenges beyond those that have emerged so far, making continued monitoring by the Coast Guard important.
GAO-06-546, Coast Guard: Changes to Deepwater Plan Appear Sound, and Program Management Has Improved, but Continued Monitoring Is Warranted
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-546
entitled 'Coast Guard: Changes to Deepwater Plan Appear Sound, and
Program Management Has Improved, but Continued Monitoring Is Warranted'
which was released on April 28, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Requesters:
April 2006:
Coast Guard:
Changes to Deepwater Plan Appear Sound, and Program Management Has
Improved, but Continued Monitoring Is Warranted:
GAO-06-546:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-546, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Deepwater program was designed to produce aircraft and vessels that
would function in the Coast Guard‘s traditional at-sea roles. After the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, however, the Coast Guard began
taking on additional homeland security missions, and so it revised the
Deepwater implementation plan to provide assets that could better meet
these new responsibilities. While many acknowledge that the Coast
Guard‘s aging assets need replacement or renovation, concerns exist
about the approach the Coast Guard adopted in launching the Deepwater
program. The subsequent changes in the program‘s asset mix and delivery
schedules only increased these concerns. This report (1) compares the
revised Deepwater implementation plans with the original plan in terms
of the assets to be replaced or modified, and the time frames and costs
for doing so; (2) assesses the degree to which the operational
effectiveness model and other analytical methods used by the Coast
Guard to develop the revised Deepwater asset mix are sound and
appropriate for such a purpose; and (3) assesses the progress made in
implementing GAO‘s prior recommendations regarding program management
What GAO Found:
The revised Deepwater implementation plans change the balance between
new and legacy assets, alter the delivery schedule for some assets,
lengthen the overall acquisition schedule by 5 years, and increase the
projected program cost from $17 billion to $24 billion. The higher cost
generally relates to upgrading assets to reflect added homeland
security mission requirements. Upgrades to vessels account for the
single largest area of increase; with upgrades to the command, control,
communications and other capabilities being second highest. In
contrast, because the revised plans upgrade rather than replace most
legacy aircraft and reduce the number of unmanned aircraft, the cost
for Deepwater aircraft drops. The revised plans, like the original
plan, are heavily dependent on receiving full funding each year. Coast
Guard officials state that a shortfall in funding in any year could
substantially increase total costs.
The Coast Guard‘s analytical methods were appropriate for determining
if the revised asset mix would provide greater mission performance and
whether the mix is appropriate for meeting Deepwater missions. GAO and
other independent experts found the Coast Guard‘s methods were reliable
for assessing the effects of changing the asset mix and a Department of
Defense review board facilitated accreditation of the Coast Guard‘s
approach. Because the model has proved useful for guiding Coast Guard
decisions on the proper asset mix for achieving Deepwater performance
goals, the Coast Guard is considering ways to expand the model to guide
decisions on meeting its Coast Guard-wide performance goals.
Actions by the Coast Guard and the system integrator have fully
implemented three of the eight GAO recommendations that were not fully
addressed during GAO‘s review in 2005, and three more recommendations
appear to be nearly implemented. The remaining two have unresolved
concerns, but the Coast Guard is taking steps to resolve them. A
program of this size, however, will likely experience other challenges
beyond those that have emerged so far, making continued monitoring by
the Coast Guard important.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is not making any new recommendations in this report.
[Hyperlink, www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-546].
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Margaret Wrightson at (415) 904-2200 or
wrightsonm@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Model Used to Determine Revised Asset Mix Is Reliable, and the Coast
Guard Hopes to Expand Its Use:
Progress Continues in Making Recommended Improvements:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments:
Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Related Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Key Changes in Asset Capabilities between the Original and
Revised Deepwater Implementation Plans:
Table 2: Number of Deepwater Aircraft and Vessels Currently in
Operation Compared to Those Planned under the Original and Revised
Deepwater Implementation Plans:
Table 3: Summary of Cost Differences between the Original Deepwater
Implementation Plan and the 2005 and 2005 Revised Plans:
Table 4: Projected Performance of the Asset Mix from the Revised
Implementation Plans Compared to the Asset Mix from the Original
Deepwater Plan Based on Latest DMOES Modeling:
Table 5: Deepwater Missions, Performance Metrics, and Assessment
Results from Fiscal Year 2004:
Table 6: Status of GAO Recommendations to the U.S. Coast Guard
Regarding Management of the Deepwater Program:
Figures:
Figure 1: Comparison of the Delivery Schedules for Aircraft under the
Original (2002) and the 2005 and 2006 Revised Deepwater Implementation
Plans:
Figure 2: Comparison of the Delivery Schedules for Vessels under the
Original (2002) and the 2005 and 2006 Revised Deepwater Implementation
Plans:
Abbreviations:
ASI: Acquisitions Solutions, Inc.
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DMOES: Deepwater Maritime Operational Effectiveness Simulation:
DOD: Department of Defense:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act:
IPT: integrated product teams:
MSMP: Modeling and Simulation Master Plan:
PGA: performance gap analysis:
TOC: total ownership cost:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 28, 2006:
The Honorable Olympia J. Snowe:
Chairwoman:
Subcommittee on Fisheries and the Coast Guard:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Maria Cantwell:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Fisheries and the Coast Guard:
United States Senate:
The nation's new homeland security realities have affected plans for
modernizing the Coast Guard's fleet of aircraft and vessels. For about
a decade, the Coast Guard has been developing an Integrated Deepwater
System (or Deepwater) acquisition program, a long-term plan to replace
or modernize this fleet. Many of these legacy assets are at or
approaching the end of their estimated service lives.[Footnote 1] As
originally conceived, Deepwater was designed around producing aircraft
and vessels that would function in the Coast Guard's traditional at-sea
roles, such as interdicting illicit drug shipments or rescuing mariners
from difficulty at sea. After the terrorist attacks on September 11,
2001, however, these aircraft and vessels began taking on additional
missions related to protection of ports, waterways, and coastal areas.
As a result, the Coast Guard began revising the Deepwater
implementation plan to provide replacement assets that could better
address these added responsibilities. To do so, the Coast Guard used an
operational effectiveness model and other methods to help determine
what mix of assets it needed and what their capabilities should
be.[Footnote 2] In August 2005, the Coast Guard issued the revised
Deepwater implementation plan detailing the assets it planned to modify
or acquire, along with the proposed cost and schedule for doing so.
Then, in February 2006, the Coast Guard again updated its Deepwater
plan to align with its fiscal year 2007 budget submissions.
While there is widespread acknowledgment that many of the Coast Guard's
aging assets need replacement or renovation, concerns also exist about
the acquisition approach the Coast Guard adopted in launching the
Deepwater program. From the outset, we have expressed concern about the
risks involved with the Coast Guard's acquisition strategy, which
involves relying on a prime contractor (or system integrator) to
identify the assets needed and then using tiers of subcontractors to
design and build the actual assets. The subsequent changes in the
Deepwater asset mix and delivery schedules only increase these
concerns. In 2004 we reported that well into the contract's second
year, key components needed to manage the program and oversee the
system integrator's performance had not been effectively
implemented.[Footnote 3] Accordingly, we made 11 recommendations to
address three broad areas of concern: improving program management,
strengthening contractor accountability, and promoting cost control
through greater competition among potential subcontractors.
This report, prepared at your request, examines the changes the Coast
Guard has made in the Deepwater program to address its broader scope,
as well as addressing the concerns we raised in 2004. More
specifically, it:
* compares the revised Deepwater implementation plan issued in August
2005 and the February 2006 updated plan with the original (August 2002)
plan in terms of the assets to be replaced or modified, and the time
frames and costs for doing so;
* assesses the degree to which the operational effectiveness model and
other analytical methods used by the Coast Guard to develop the revised
Deepwater asset mix are sound and appropriate for such a purpose; and:
* assesses the progress made in implementing our prior recommendations
regarding Deepwater program management.
Our work included extensive reviews and analyses of (1) the original
and revised Deepwater implementation plans, (2) the Coast Guard's
operational effectiveness models and other analytical tools used for
determining the proposed Deepwater asset mix, and (3) documentation
provided by the Coast Guard on its progress in addressing our
recommendations. We supplemented our document reviews and analyses with
extensive discussions with officials at the Deepwater Program Executive
Office, as well as with interviews of key Coast Guard operations and
maintenance officials, contract monitors, and representatives of the
system integrator. We conducted our work between August 2005 and March
2006 in accordance with generally accepted governmental auditing
standards. Appendix I describes our objectives, scope, and methodology
in greater detail.
Results in Brief:
To reflect added homeland security responsibilities based on the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard's August 2005
revision and February 2006 update to the Deepwater implementation plan
change the balance between new assets to be acquired and legacy assets
to be upgraded and alter the schedule for delivering many of these
assets. Overall, the acquisition schedule has been lengthened by 5
years, with the final assets scheduled for delivery in 2027. Further,
the revised plans increase overall program costs from the original
estimate of $17 billion to $24 billion. The higher costs of the revised
plans relate generally to upgrading the Deepwater assets to reflect
post September 11, 2001 mission requirements and include such things as
improved capabilities to operate in conditions of chemical, biological,
and radiological contamination; greater antiterrorism weaponry;
development of airborne use of force capabilities; improved
communications systems; and enhanced flight decks. Costs for enhancing
and upgrading the capabilities of the planned Deepwater replacement
vessels account for the largest portion of the $7 billion increase.
Specifically, vessels account for $5.5 billion of the increase in the
2005 plan and for $5.9 billion in the 2006 plan. Further, upgrades to
the command, control, communications, computers, intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) and maritime domain awareness
capabilities of the Deepwater assets account for the second largest
portion of the increase, accounting for an increase of $1.1 billion in
the 2005 revised plan and $663 million in the 2006 plan. In contrast,
because the revised plans call for upgrading many of the legacy
aircraft rather than replacing them with new assets, as called for in
the original plan, and acquisitions of unmanned aerial vehicles have
been scaled back, the overall costs for Deepwater aviation assets have
dropped in the revised plans--by about $600 million in the 2005 plan
and by about $400 million in the 2006 plan. Affordability, however,
continues to be a risk for the Deepwater program. Like the original
plan, the revised Deepwater plans are heavily dependent on receiving a
sustained level of funding at planned levels over the life of the
program. Coast Guard officials stated that a shortfall in funding in
any given year--for example, because of competing budget priorities--
could cause costs for the Deepwater program to rise substantially.
The operational effectiveness model and other analytical methods the
Coast Guard used have proved useful for guiding decisions on the
revised Deepwater asset mix. The primary tool the Coast Guard used for
determining the revised asset mix was a computer simulation model that
projected the operational effectiveness of a variety of potential
Deepwater force structures. Using this tool, the Coast Guard determined
that the revised asset mix would provide greater mission performance.
In performing our review of the Coast Guard's model, we reviewed
computer simulation model criteria developed by an authority in the
field of simulation modeling and found that the model successfully
addressed these criteria. Further, a Department of Defense review board
facilitated accreditation of the model and another group with expertise
in this type of modeling has studied the Coast Guard's approach and
concluded that it is reliable. Because the model has proved useful for
guiding Coast Guard decisions on the proper asset mix for enhancing the
mission performance of the Deepwater assets, the Coast Guard is
considering ways to expand the model to guide decisions on meeting
Coast Guard-wide performance goals.
The Coast Guard, in conjunction with its system integrator, has taken
steps to fully implement three of the eight recommendations that were
not sufficiently addressed as of our last review in 2005. These deal
with putting in place a human capital plan to help ensure adequate
staffing for the Deepwater program, improving input from Coast Guard
representatives who assess the system integrator's performance to
Deepwater program managers, and holding the system integrator
accountable for improving the effectiveness of integrated product
teams. Three other recommendations appear close to being fully
implemented in that the actions taken appear to be sufficient, but
results are not yet known or final procedural steps (such as issuing a
policy currently in draft form) have not been completed. The remaining
two recommendations, both of which deal with implementing effective
program management and contractor oversight, remain problematic. For
example, effective management of the Deepwater program depends heavily
on strong collaboration among the Coast Guard, the system integrator,
and the subcontractors. However, despite a number of Coast Guard
actions to facilitate communication to and collaboration with the
system integrator and subcontractors, Coast Guard Deepwater performance
monitors note that collaboration among subcontractors remains
inconsistent. The Coast Guard has initiated the steps needed to address
this issue, but it is too early to tell if these will effectively
eliminate the problems.
We provided a draft copy of this report to the Department of Homeland
Security and the U.S. Coast Guard for review. The U.S. Coast Guard
provided technical comments, which have been incorporated where
appropriate.
Background:
As the lead federal agency for maritime homeland security within the
Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard is responsible for a
variety of missions, including ensuring security in ports and waterways
and along coastlines, conducting search and rescue missions,
interdicting drug shipments and illegal aliens, enforcing fisheries
laws, and responding to reports of pollution. The Deepwater fleet,
which currently consists of 186 aircraft and 88 vessels of various
sizes and capabilities, plays a critical role in all of these missions.
Some Coast Guard Deepwater vessels were built in the 1960s.
Notwithstanding extensive overhauls and other upgrades, a number of the
vessels are nearing the end of their estimated service lives.
Similarly, while a number of the Deepwater legacy aircraft have
received upgrades in engines, operating systems, and sensor equipment
since they were originally built, they too have limitations in their
operating capabilities. The Integrated Deepwater System acquisition
program, which the Coast Guard began developing in 1996, is its major
effort to replace or modernize these aircraft and vessels. This
Deepwater program is designed to replace some assets--such as
deteriorating vessels--with new assets, and to upgrade other assets--
such as some types of helicopters--so they can meet new performance
requirements.
The Deepwater program represents a unique approach to a major
acquisition in that the Coast Guard is using a prime contractor--the
system integrator--to identify and deliver the assets needed to meet a
set of mission requirements the Coast Guard has specified.[Footnote 4]
In 2002, the Coast Guard awarded a contract to Integrated Coast Guard
Systems (ICGS), a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Northrop
Grumman, as the system integrator for the Deepwater program. Lockheed
Martin and Northrop Grumman, as the two main subcontractors, in turn
contract with other subcontractors. Rather than using the traditional
approach of replacing classes of ships or aircraft through a series of
individual acquisitions, the Coast Guard chose to employ a system-of-
systems acquisition strategy that would replace its deteriorating
Deepwater assets with a single, integrated package of new or modernized
assets. This system-of-systems approach is designed to provide an
improved, integrated system of aircraft, vessels, and unmanned aerial
vehicles to be linked effectively through systems that provide command,
control, communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance,
reconnaissance, and supporting logistics. The Deepwater program's three
overarching goals are to maximize operational effectiveness, minimize
total ownership cost,[Footnote 5] and satisfy the customer--the
operational commanders, aircraft pilots, cutter crews, maintenance
personnel, and others who will use the assets.
We have been reviewing the Deepwater program for several years,
pointing out successes as well as difficulties and expressing concern
over a number of facets comprising the program. In 2001, we identified
several areas of risk for Deepwater.[Footnote 6] First, the Coast Guard
faced potential risk in the overall management and day-to-day
administration of the contract. At the time, we reported on the major
challenges in developing and implementing plans for establishing
effective human capital practices, having key management and oversight
processes and procedures in place, and tracking data to measure system
integrator performance. In addition, we expressed concerns about the
potential lack of competition during the program's later years and the
reliance on a single system integrator for procuring the Deepwater
assets. We also reported there was little evidence that the Coast Guard
had analyzed whether the approach carried any inherent risks for
ensuring the best value to the government and if so, what to do about
them.
We reviewed the Deepwater program again in 2004 and found many of the
same concerns.[Footnote 7] Specifically, we reported that key
components needed to manage the program and oversee the system
integrator's performance had not been effectively implemented. The
Coast Guard's primary tool for overseeing the system integrator,
integrated product teams (IPT), were struggling to effectively
collaborate and accomplish their missions because of changing
membership, understaffing, insufficient training, and inadequate
communication among members. Also, the Coast Guard had not adequately
addressed the frequent turnover of personnel in the program and the
transition from existing assets to those assets that will be part of
the Deepwater program moving forward. Further, the Coast Guard's
assessment of the system integrator's performance in the first year of
the contract lacked rigor, and the factors that formed the basis for
the award fee were unsupported by quantifiable measures. This resulted
in the system integrator receiving an award fee of $4.0 million out of
a maximum of $4.6 million despite documented problems in schedule,
performance, cost controls, and contract administration.
At the time of our 2004 report, the Coast Guard had begun to develop
models to measure the extent to which Deepwater was achieving
operational effectiveness and had reduced total ownership cost, but it
had not made a decision as to which specific models would be used.
Further, Coast Guard officials were not able to project a time frame
for when the Coast Guard would be able to hold the contractor
accountable for progress toward the goals of maximizing operational
effectiveness, minimizing total ownership cost, and increasing customer
satisfaction. Additionally, the Coast Guard had not measured the extent
of competition among suppliers of Deepwater assets or held the system
integrator accountable for taking steps to achieve competition. At the
time, the Coast Guard's lack of progress on these issues had
contributed to our concerns about the Coast Guard's ability to rely on
competition as a means to control future programmatic costs. In
response to these concerns, we made a number of recommendations to
improve Deepwater management and oversight of the system integrator. In
2005, we reported that the Coast Guard had fully addressed three of the
recommendations and had actions underway on others.[Footnote 8]
For the past several years, the Coast Guard has been revising its
Deepwater plan to incorporate expanded homeland security requirements
it received after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. On May
31, 2005, the Coast Guard submitted a revised implementation plan to
the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Committee on
Appropriations, which included both a 20-year and a 25-year plan. The
House Appropriations Committee directed the Department of Homeland
Security and the Coast Guard to select a single revised implementation
plan to accompany the Deepwater fiscal year 2006 budget request. In
compliance with the Committee's direction, the Coast Guard Commandant
testified on July 21, 2005 to the 25-year revised Deepwater
implementation plan. Further, in February 2006, the Coast Guard
submitted an updated Deepwater implementation plan to align with its
fiscal year 2007 budget submission. These 2005 and 2006 revised plans
are the ones we are using to compare to the Coast Guard's August 26,
2002, original implementation plan.[Footnote 9]
Inclusion of More Homeland Security Responsibilities Affects Deepwater
Assets to Be Acquired, Acquisition Schedule, and Overall Costs:
To reflect added homeland security responsibilities based on the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the August 2005 revision and
February 2006 update to the Deepwater implementation plan change the
balance of upgraded legacy versus new assets, the delivery schedules,
and program costs from the original 2002 plan. For aircraft, the
revised plans include upgrading many of the legacy aircraft rather than
replacing them with new assets as called for in the original plan. For
vessels, the revised plans maintain the original plan's strategy of
replacing all of the legacy vessels, but include some changes in the
number of small boats being acquired. Overall, the revised plan (1)
increases the program length by 5 years, to a total of 25 years; (2)
changes the delivery schedules for a number of assets; and (3)
increases overall costs to $24 billion, $7 billion more than earlier
estimates. The program's higher costs largely reflect the Coast Guard's
expanded homeland security responsibilities and cover such changes as
greater weaponry, improved communications systems, and greater
operating capabilities. Coast Guard officials caution, however, that
this 25-year program is heavily dependent on receiving the anticipated
budget amount each fiscal year. If full funding is not available in any
given year--for example, because of competing budget priorities--the
shortfall could have cascading effects on overall costs for the
Deepwater program.
Terrorist Attacks Have Led to Increased Emphasis on Homeland Security
and Enhanced Deepwater Asset Capabilities:
The original Deepwater plan, while published in 2002, was developed
before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It reflected an
emphasis on the Coast Guard's traditional Deepwater missions, such as
conducting search and rescue operations at sea, preventing and
mitigating oil spills and other threats to the marine environment,
inspecting foreign vessels, protecting important fishing grounds, and
stemming the flow of illegal drugs and migrants into the United States.
After the events of September 11, 2001, the revised plans took into
account the increased security threats by incorporating a new mission
to provide greater security for ports, waterways, and coastal areas and
enhancing the capabilities of the Deepwater assets to better meet the
increased threats. In particular, the revised plans call for equipping
Deepwater helicopters to provide warning and disabling weapons fire at
sea and in ports, waterways, and coastal areas. Further, while the
original plan called for assets to have Deepwater interoperability--
meaning that all Deepwater aircraft and vessels could communicate with
one another--the revised plans call for Deepwater assets to also have
interoperability with assets from the Departments of Homeland Security
and Defense, as well as with the Coast Guard's Rescue21 (R21)
project.[Footnote 10] According to Coast Guard officials, this
increased interoperability involves such things as adding circuits and
data transmission capability to allow for more reliable and secure
communication. Table 1 provides further information on some of the key
differences between Deepwater asset capabilities in the original and
revised plans.
Table 1: Key Changes in Asset Capabilities between the Original and
Revised Deepwater Implementation Plans:
Deepwater asset: Aircraft;
HC-130 Long-Range Surveillance Aircraft;
Key changes in asset capabilities:
* Interoperability expanded to include DOD, DHS, Rescue-21 assets, and
local first responders[A];
* Equipment installed for detecting chemical, biological, and
radiological dangers; Equipment installed for enhancing maritime patrol
surveillance capabilities;
* Increased ability to provide nationwide strategic airlift
capabilities.
Deepwater asset: Aircraft;
CN-235 Medium-Range Surveillance Aircraft;
Key changes in asset capabilities:
* Interoperability expanded to include DOD, DHS, Rescue-21 assets, and
local first responders;
* Equipment installed for detecting chemical, biological, and
radiological dangers;
* Equipment installed for enhancing maritime patrol surveillance
capabilities.
Deepwater asset: Aircraft;
HH-60 Medium-Range Recovery Helicopter;
Key changes in asset capabilities:
* Interoperability expanded to include DOD, DHS, Rescue-21 assets, and
local first responders;
* Equipment installed for detecting chemical, biological, and
radiological dangers; Equipment installed for enhancing maritime patrol
surveillance capabilities;
* Upgraded to provide airborne use of force and vertical insertion and
delivery capabilities.
Deepwater asset: Aircraft;
HH-65 Multi-Mission Cutter Helicopter;
Key changes in asset capabilities:
* Interoperability expanded to include DOD, DHS, Rescue-21 assets, and
local first responders;
* Equipment installed for detecting chemical, biological, and
radiological dangers;
* Equipment installed for enhancing maritime patrol surveillance
capabilities; Upgraded to provide airborne use of force and vertical
insertion and delivery capabilities.
Deepwater asset: Aircraft;
HV-911 Vertical Takeoff and Landing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle;
Key changes in asset capabilities:
* Equipment installed for detecting chemical, biological, and
radiological dangers.
Deepwater asset: Aircraft;
RQ-4A High-Altitude Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle;
Key changes in asset capabilities:
* No changes from the original plan.
Deepwater asset: Vessels;
National Security Cutter;
Key changes in asset capabilities:
* Interoperability expanded to include DOD, DHS, Rescue-21 assets, and
local first responders;
* Equipment installed for detecting chemical, biological, and
radiological dangers;
* Flight deck increased and enhanced to accommodate DOD and DHS
helicopters;
* Weapon systems upgraded;
* Improved classified communication capabilities;
* Underwater detection capabilities enhanced.
Deepwater asset: Vessels;
Offshore Patrol Cutter;
Key changes in asset capabilities:
* Interoperability expanded to include DOD, DHS, Rescue-21 assets, and
local first responders;
* Equipment installed for detecting chemical, biological, and
radiological dangers;
* Flight deck increased and enhanced to accommodate DOD and DHS
helicopters;
* Weapon systems upgraded;
* Improved classified communication capabilities;
* Cruising speed increased from 22 to 28 knots.
Deepwater asset: Vessels;
Fast Response Cutter;
Key changes in asset capabilities:
* Interoperability expanded to include DOD, DHS, Rescue-21 assets, and
local first responders;
* Equipment installed for detecting chemical, biological, and
radiological dangers;
* Use of 40-year composite hull rather than steel hull;
* Underwater detection capabilities enhanced;
* Increase in transit speed from 28 to 30 knots.
Deepwater asset: Vessels;
Long-Range Interceptor;
Key changes in asset capabilities:
* Interoperability expanded to include DOD, DHS, Rescue-21 assets, and
local first responders.
Deepwater asset: Vessels;
Short-Range Prosecutor;
Key changes in asset capabilities:
* Interoperability expanded to include DOD, DHS, Rescue-21 assets, and
local first responders.
Source: GAO analysis of documentation provided by the U. S. Coast Guard:
[A] Local first responders include police, firefighters, and emergency
medical professionals.
[End of table]
Revised Plans Propose Replacing Fewer Aircraft and Adjusting the Mix of
Vessels to Be Acquired:
The revised plans change the final mix of Deepwater aircraft more
significantly than the mix of vessels. For example, the original plan
called for replacing all 41 HH-60 Medium-Range Recovery Helicopters
with 34 AB-139 helicopters. Under the revised plans, the Coast Guard
will upgrade the HH-60s and not purchase any AB-139 helicopters. Coast
Guard officials said they elected to retain the HH-60s because they
determined that the AB-139 aircraft was unsuitable to meet new
requirements for weaponry and for tactical operations. Retaining and
upgrading HH-60 helicopters cost $500 million less than replacing them.
Another major change in aircraft involved retaining more HC-130s to
meet long-range surveillance, search and rescue, and airlift needs. For
vessels, the revised plans retain the original plan's approach of
replacing all cutters and patrol boats. The only change to the number
of vessels is that the revised plans include nine additional 25-foot
short range boats and nine fewer 35-foot long range boats than were
included in the original plan. Table 2 compares the number and types of
Deepwater assets under the original and revised plans.
Table 2: Number of Deepwater Aircraft and Vessels Currently in
Operation Compared to Those Planned under the Original and Revised
Deepwater Implementation Plans:
Aircraft: HC-130 Long-Range Surveillance Aircraft;
Current[A]: 27;
Under original plan: 6;
Under 2005 and 2006 revised plans: 22.
Aircraft: HU-25 Medium-Range Surveillance Aircraft;
Current[A]: 23;
Under original plan: 0;
Under 2005 and 2006 revised plans: 0.
Aircraft: HH-60 Medium-Range Recovery Helicopter;
Current[A]: 41;
Under original plan: 0;
Under 2005 and 2006 revised plans: 42.
Aircraft: HH-65 Multi-Mission Cutter Helicopter;
Current[A]: 95;
Under original plan: 93;
Under 2005 and 2006 revised plans: 95.
Aircraft: CN-235 Medium-Range Surveillance Aircraft;
Current[A]: 0;
Under original plan: 35;
Under 2005 and 2006 revised plans: 36.
Aircraft: AB-139 Medium-Range Recovery Helicopter;
Current[A]: 0;
Under original plan: 34;
Under 2005 and 2006 revised plans: 0.
Aircraft: HV-911 Vertical Takeoff and Landing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle;
Current[A]: 0;
Under original plan: 69;
Under 2005 and 2006 revised plans: 45.
Aircraft: RQ-4A High-Altitude Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle;
Current[A]: 0;
Under original plan: 7;
Under 2005 and 2006 revised plans: 4.
Aircraft: Aircraft totals;
Current[A]: 186;
Under original plan: 244;
Under 2005 and 2006 revised plans: 244.
Vessels:
Vessels: 378-foot High-Endurance Cutter;
Current[A]: 12;
Under original plan: 0;
Under 2005 and 2006 revised plans: 0.
Vessels: 425-foot National Security Cutter[B];
Current[A]: 0;
Under original plan: 8;
Under 2005 and 2006 revised plans: 8.
Vessels: 270-foot Medium-Endurance Cutter;
Current[A]: 13;
Under original plan: 0;
Under 2005 and 2006 revised plans: 0.
Vessels: 350-foot Offshore Patrol Cutter[B];
Current[A]: 0;
Under original plan: 25;
Under 2005 and 2006 revised plans: 25.
Vessels: 210-foot Medium-Endurance Cutter;
Current[A]: 14;
Under original plan: 0;
Under 2005 and 2006 revised plans: 0.
Vessels: 140-foot Fast Response Cutter[B];
Current[A]: 0;
Under original plan: 58;
Under 2005 and 2006 revised plans: 58.
Vessels: 110-foot and 123-foot Patrol Boats;
Current[A]: 49;
Under original plan: 0;
Under 2005 and 2006 revised plans: 0.
Vessels: 35-foot Long-Range Interceptor[B];
Current[A]: 0;
Under original plan: 42;
Under 2005 and 2006 revised plans: 33.
Vessels: 25-foot Short-Range Prosecutor[B];
Current[A]: 0;
Under original plan: 82;
Under 2005 and 2006 revised plans: 91.
Vessels: Vessel totals;
Current[A]: 88;
Under original plan: 215;
Under 2005 and 2006 revised plans: 215.
Source: Developed by GAO from data provided by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Note: The number of assets did not change between the 2005 and 2006
revised plans.
[A] As of February 2006.
[B] The length of all new vessels Is subject to change based on the
maturity of the design.
[End of table]
Delivery Schedules for Deepwater Assets Have Changed:
Estimated delivery schedules for the Deepwater assets have changed. For
some of the aircraft, deliveries have been projected for later years
than were estimated in the original plan. For example, the Coast Guard
now plans for delivery of its first 3 CN-235 Medium-Range Surveillance
Aircraft during calendar year 2008. Under the original plan, the Coast
Guard had anticipated delivery of the first 12 in 2006, with a total of
18 delivered by the end of 2008. Final deliveries of the CN-235s under
the 2006 revised plan are now scheduled for 2027, as opposed to 2012
under the original plan. According to the Coast Guard, the delivery
schedule for the CN-235 Medium-Range Surveillance Aircraft was delayed
because the Coast Guard did not receive the anticipated level of
funding in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, which required renegotiations.
Figure 1 shows the original and revised delivery schedules for
Deepwater aircraft.
Figure 1: Comparison of the Delivery Schedules for Aircraft under the
Original (2002) and the 2005 and 2006 Revised Deepwater Implementation
Plans:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO(analysis), U.S. Coast Guard(data).
[End of figure]
For vessels, the revised plans generally spread out deliveries of each
class of vessel over a larger number of years, as shown in figure 2.
For example, the original plan called for delivery of 58 of the 140-
foot Fast Response Cutters between 2018 and 2022. The revised plans
call for delivering the first Fast Response Cutter in 2007 or 2008,
with additional cutters being delivered every year from 2009 through
2027--a span of 21 years. The Coast Guard originally planned to convert
its legacy 110-foot patrol boats to 123-foot patrol boats and,
beginning in 2018, replace the 123-foot patrol boats with 140-foot Fast
Response Cutters. However, the patrol boat conversion project was
halted after the first 8 patrol boats because the 123-foot patrol boats
could not meet post September 11, 2001 mission requirements and were
experiencing technical difficulties. Because of this, the Coast Guard
needed to advance the delivery of the Fast Response Cutters.
Figure 2: Comparison of the Delivery Schedules for Vessels under the
Original (2002) and the 2005 and 2006 Revised Deepwater Implementation
Plans:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO(analysis), U.S. Coast Guard(data).
[End of figure]
Estimated Cost of Revised Deepwater Plans is $7 Billion Higher, Largely
Reflecting Increased Homeland Security Mission Requirements:
The total estimated cost of the revised Deepwater plans increased by $7
billion over the original plan--from $17 billion to $24 billion.
According to the Coast Guard, most of the $7 billion increase is due to
enhanced homeland security mission requirements brought about by the
events of September 11, 2001. In particular, data provided by the Coast
Guard show that most of the $7 billion increase is attributable to
costs for enhancing and upgrading the capabilities of the planned
Deepwater replacement vessels. More specifically, as shown in table 3,
upgrades to the Deepwater vessels account for about $5.5 billion of the
increase in the 2005 plan, and $5.9 billion in the 2006 update.
Beyond the increases related solely to vessels, upgrades to the C4ISR
and maritime domain awareness capabilities to improve interoperability
between the Coast Guard and other Department of Homeland Security
components, as well as with the Department of Defense, account for the
second largest category of cost increases--increasing by $1.1 billion
in the 2005 revised plan, and by $663 million in the 2006 plan. In
contrast, because the revised plans include upgrading the HC-130
aircraft and the HH-60 helicopter rather than replacing them as called
for in the original plan and for scaling back on the number of unmanned
aerial vehicles to be acquired, costs for Deepwater aircraft decreased
from the original plan to the revised plan. Overall, costs for
Deepwater aircraft were reduced by about $600 million in the 2005 plan
and by about $400 million in the 2006 plan from the amount included in
the original plan.
Table 9: Summary of Cost Differences between the Original Deepwater
Implementation Plan and the 2005 and 2005 Revised Plans:
Deepwater asset Aircraft: HC-130 Long-Range Surveillance Aircraft;
FY 2002 original plan[A]: 48.1;
FY 2005 revised plan: $392.6;
Change from original plan: $344.5;
FY 2006 revised plan: $380.5;
Change from original plan: $332.4.
Deepwater asset Aircraft: CN-235 Medium-Range Surveillance Aircraft;
FY 2002 original plan[A]: 1,270.4;
FY 2005 revised plan: $1,590.2;
Change from original plan: $319.8;
FY 2006 revised plan: $1,637.7;
Change from original plan: $367.3.
Deepwater asset Aircraft: AB-139 Medium-Range Recovery Helicopter;
FY 2002 original plan[A]: 896.6;
FY 2005 revised plan: [Empty];
Change from original plan: $(896.6);
FY 2006 revised plan: [Empty];
Change from original plan: $(896.6).
Deepwater asset Aircraft: HH-60 Medium-Range Recovery Helicopter;
FY 2002 original plan[A]: 100.1;
FY 2005 revised plan: $446.1;
Change from original plan: $346.0;
FY 2006 revised plan: $454.0;
Change from original plan: $353.9.
Deepwater asset Aircraft: HH-65 Multi-Mission Cutter Helicopter;
FY 2002 original plan[A]: 1,140.3;
FY 2005 revised plan: $575.0;
Change from original plan: $(565.3);
FY 2006 revised plan: $560.6;
Change from original plan: $(579.7).
Deepwater asset Aircraft: HV-911 Vertical Takeoff and Landing Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle;
FY 2002 original plan[A]: 624.8;
FY 2005 revised plan: $503.3;
Change from original plan: $(121.5);
FY 2006 revised plan: $521.0;
Change from original plan: $(103.8).
Deepwater asset Aircraft: Airborne Use of Force (HH-60/HH-65);
FY 2002 original plan[A]: N/A[B];
FY 2005 revised plan: [B];
Change from original plan: $90.2;
FY 2006 revised plan: $90.2;
Change from original plan: N/A.
Deepwater asset Aircraft: Aircraft subtotals;
Change from original plan: ($0.6 billion);
Change from original plan: ($0.4 billion).
Vessels: National Security Cutter;
FY 2002 original plan[A]: $1,838.1;
FY 2005 revised plan: $2,875.1;
Change from original plan: $1,037.0;
FY 2006 revised plan: $2,875.9;
Change from original plan: $1037.8.
Vessels: Offshore Patrol Cutter;
FY 2002 original plan[A]: $4,204.2;
FY 2005 revised plan: $7,055.7;
Change from original plan: $2,851.5;
FY 2006 revised plan: $7,228.0;
Change from original plan: $3,023.8.
Vessels: 110-foot to 123-foot patrol boat conversion;
FY 2002 original plan[A]: $363.3;
FY 2005 revised plan: N/A;
Change from original plan: $(363.3);
FY 2006 revised plan: $178.5;
Change from original plan: $(184.8).
Vessels: Fast Response Cutter;
FY 2002 original plan[A]: $1,496.3;
FY 2005 revised plan: $3,226.3;
Change from original plan: $1,730.0;
FY 2006 revised plan: $3,297.7;
Change from original plan: $1,801.4.
Vessels: Small boats (Long-Range Interceptor and Short-Rang
Prosecutor);
FY 2002 original plan[A]: $130.3;
FY 2005 revised plan: $78.9;
Change from original plan: $(51.4);
FY 2006 revised plan: $80.0;
Change from original plan: $(50.3).
Vessels: Legacy Cutter Sustainment;
FY 2002 original plan[A]: $26.3;
FY 2005 revised plan: $338.0;
Change from original plan: $311.7;
FY 2006 revised plan: $315.2;
Change from original plan: $288.9.
Vessels: Vessels subtotals;
FY 2002 original plan[A]: N/A;
FY 2005 revised plan: N/A;
Change from original plan: $5.5 billion;
FY 2006 revised plan: N/A;
Change from original plan: $5.9 billion.
Other: Technology Obsolescence Prevention;
FY 2002 original plan[A]: $1,106.1;
FY 2005 revised plan: $1,630.6;
Change from original plan: $524.5;
FY 2006 revised plan: $1,642.6;
Change from original plan: $536.5.
Other: C41SR Capability/Maritime Domain Awareness;
FY 2002 original plan[A]: $748.0;
FY 2005 revised plan: $1,847.5;
Change from original plan: $1,099,5;
FY 2006 revised plan: $1,411.4;
Change from original plan: $663.4.
Other: Integrated Logistics System;
FY 2002 original plan[A]: $343.5;
FY 2005 revised plan: $430.7;
Change from original plan: $87.2;
FY 2006 revised plan: $452.0;
Change from original plan: $108.5.
Other: Systems Engineering and Integration;
FY 2002 original plan[A]: $1,209.7;
FY 2005 revised plan: $1,397.6;
Change from original plan: $187.9;
FY 2006 revised plan: $1,069.5;
Change from original plan: $(140.2).
Other: Government Program Management;
FY 2002 original plan[A]: $1,441.4;
FY 2005 revised plan: $1,526.1;
Change from original plan: $84.7;
FY 2006 revised plan: $1,810.1;
Change from original plan: $368.7.
Other: Other subtotals;
FY 2002 original plan[A]: N/A;
FY 2005 revised plan: N/A;
Change from original plan: $2.0 billion;
FY 2006 revised plan: N/A;
Change from original plan: $1.5 billion.
Totals:
FY 2002 original plan[A]: $17.0 billion;
FY 2005 revised plan: $23.9 billion;
Change from original plan: $6.9 billion;
FY 2006 revised plan: $24.0 billion;
Change from original plan: $7.0 billion.
Source: GAO analysis based on documentation provided by the U. S. Coast
Guard.
Notes: All costs are in millions of dollars unless otherwise noted.
The RQ-4A High-Altitude Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle is not
included in this table since this aircraft is not being acquired as a
capital investment; rather the Coast Guard plans to procure the
surveillance data that the aircraft will provide.
[A] The costs for the fiscal year 2002 plan reflected in this table
were updated in fiscal year 2004 dollars to reflect the lack of funding
enacted in fiscal years 2002 and 2003.
[B] The costs shown for Airborne Use of Force ($75.2 million) were
included as part of the total costs for the HH-60 and HH-65 helicopters.
[End of table]
According to the Coast Guard, the primary elements of the enhanced
homeland security mission requirements that contributed to the $7
billion increase include the following:
* Chemical, biological, and radiological detection and defense. For
this element, the additional capabilities included in the revised plans
vary by asset. The most extensive are for the National Security Cutter,
which is to have a sealed section within which crew can operate the
ship in a contaminated environment for limited time periods. In the
event an area is contaminated, such as from a terrorist attack, the
crew can use radar, heat-seeking sensors, and other equipment to
determine what is occurring--such as whether engines are operating,
vessels are being moved, or people are alive. Other Deepwater vessels
and aircraft are to be equipped with exposure suits and storage for
those suits.
* Antiterrorism and force protection. The revised plans call for more
powerful weapons for National Security Cutters, Offshore Patrol
Cutters, and Fast Response Cutters. Manual gun mounts on cutters will
be replaced with selected sensor-integrated, remote-operated, and semi-
automated gun systems. This weaponry is to give the Coast Guard
enhanced capabilities to protect its own cutters and other high value
assets by, for example, providing cutters with the ability to stop
terrorists who have taken control of a ship by disabling that ship's
propulsion with precision fire.
* Airborne use of force and vertical insertion and delivery. The
revised plans call for the Deepwater helicopters to be fitted with
weapons and equipment that will enable armed teams to land on a vessel,
such as in the event a hostile group has taken over the vessel. Crew
members can use machine guns to provide cover while a team travels by
rope from the hovering helicopter to the vessel's deck. Additionally,
for certain terrorist and criminal scenarios, the helicopter can use
disabling fire to stop an illegally operated boat. In the event of a
terrorist attack and the right circumstances, the disabling fire can be
changed to deadly fire if necessary to stop terrorists.
* Interoperability with the Departments of Defense and Homeland
Security, as well as Rescue-21 equipment. All Deepwater vessels and
aircraft are to receive C4ISR enhancements that make them interoperable
with other DHS entities, DOD assets, and local first responders. These
enhancements include added circuits and equipment that provide full
voice communication and limited data communications between these
entities.
* Extended/enhanced flight deck. The flight decks of the National
Security Cutter and Offshore Patrol Cutter are to be enlarged so that
helicopters from other Department of Homeland Security components and
from DOD can land on the cutters.
Deepwater Costs Could Rise if Funding Deviates from Levels Called For
in the Plans:
In May 2001, we reported that affordability was the biggest risk for
the Deepwater program because the Coast Guard's contracting approach
depends on a sustained level of funding each fiscal year over the life
of the program.[Footnote 11] For the 2005 revised implementation plan,
these funding levels average over $1 billion per year and range from
$650 million to over $1.5 billion per year through fiscal year 2026.
According to Coast Guard officials, any significant or sustained
deviation from the planned funding levels would be costly to the Coast
Guard in the short term and set off ripples affecting the acquisition
of Deepwater equipment for years to come. The officials added that
significant shortfalls would likely result in increased costs, late
delivery of equipment, and degradation of Deepwater asset performance.
Model Used to Determine Revised Asset Mix Is Reliable, and the Coast
Guard Hopes to Expand Its Use:
In revising the Deepwater asset mix to meet new mission demands, the
Coast Guard undertook a series of analyses that used a computer
simulation model to project the operational effectiveness of a variety
of potential Deepwater force structures or asset mixes. We found that
this model contains reliable information and is useful for guiding
decisions on the revised Deepwater asset mix. Further, a Department of
Defense review board facilitated accreditation of the model and another
group with expertise in this type of modeling has studied the Coast
Guard's approach and concluded that it is reliable. Through use of this
model, the Coast Guard projects that the Deepwater asset mix in the $24
billion revised implementation plan will provide greater mission
performance than the asset mix in the original plan. Other factors
beyond this model, such as decisions of internal working groups and
projected funding, also contributed to the adoption of the revised
Deepwater asset mix. Because the model has proved useful for guiding
Coast Guard decisions on the proper asset mix for enhancing the mission
performance of the Deepwater assets, the Coast Guard is considering
ways to expand the model to guide decisions on meeting its Coast Guard-
wide Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance
goals.[Footnote 12]
Computer-Based Model Used in Analyzing Capacity Gaps Is Credible:
After the events of September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard undertook a
series of analyses intended to determine what capability and capacity
gaps would exist if the asset mix in the original Deepwater plan were
applied to the revised Deepwater missions. To conduct this analysis,
the Coast Guard projected the performance of a variety of asset mixes
using a computer-based operational effectiveness simulation model known
as the Deepwater Maritime Operational Effectiveness Simulation
(DMOES).[Footnote 13] Using three different capacity models, the Coast
Guard generated three different versions of the asset mix needed to
meet Coast Guard performance targets.[Footnote 14] The resulting force
structures were then modeled in DMOES to project their operational
effectiveness. The results of this assessment led the Coast Guard to
change the asset mix for its revised Deepwater plan.
We found that DMOES, which provided important evidence for Deepwater
operational effectiveness analyses, contains reliable information for
decision making. Specifically, our review of various statistical
aspects of DMOES indicates that the parameters used in the DMOES model-
-the targets, missions, weather events, and probability of target
detection present in the Deepwater environment--appear to be the result
of a thorough and rigorous process that enhanced the model's
credibility. In performing our review of DMOES, we reviewed computer
simulation model criteria developed by an authority in the field of
simulation modeling and found that the DMOES model successfully
addressed these criteria.[Footnote 15] For example, the parameters used
were derived from historical events (e.g., target detection or weather
events), which helped satisfy the criterion that interactions between
the modeled system and the outside environment be considered. To ensure
use of valid and current data for its major updates of DMOES, Coast
Guard gathered updated historical data and compared these data to data
from past events. Further, because the Coast Guard modeled target
detection capabilities for the assets at less than their full
potential, the asset's target detection capabilities do not appear to
be overstated.
In addition, independent authorities, in their reviews of DMOES, have
assessed the model and have accredited it for force structure planning.
For example, the MITRE Corporation, in an independent analysis of the
performance gap analysis process (of which DMOES was a key component),
found that the process and the resulting analytic results were "likely
the most complete and comprehensive campaign-level study conducted by
any uniformed service in recent times."[Footnote 16] Further, the Coast
Guard submitted DMOES to a verification, validation, and
accreditation[Footnote 17] review monitored and facilitated by the
Joint Accreditation Support Activity.[Footnote 18] The DMOES
Accreditation Review Board, consisting of Coast Guard officials and
external experts in the field of military force structure
determinations and capability-based planning, conducted the actual
review and accredited the DMOES model for acquisition support and force
structure planning.
Other Factors Also Affected Revised Deepwater Asset Mix:
While the capability and capacity gaps identified in the performance
gap analysis process were a key input into the decisions leading to the
revised Deepwater asset mix, they were not the only factor. The Coast
Guard also shaped the Deepwater asset mix based on budget
considerations and information developed by an internal working group.
In particular:
* Coast Guard officials stated that affordability was a key factor in
shaping the revised Deepwater asset mix. According to the officials,
Deepwater was never intended to be an unconstrained acquisition
program, and the $24 billion force structure was determined through a
process of modeling performance of anticipated asset mixes, weighed
against expected funding levels over the life of the program, to come
up with an optimal balance of performance and affordability. As a
result, the revised Deepwater asset mix was developed to maximize the
system's capabilities and capacities within this $24 billion budget.
The officials added that while the $24 billion budget may not allow for
all desired capabilities on each asset, capabilities are being designed
for later refit, if applicable.
* Further, in April 2004, the Assistant Commandant for Operations
Capability commissioned an Aviation Legacy Alternatives Working Group
to analyze possible alternatives to the aviation force structure in the
original Deepwater plan.[Footnote 19] This working group provided key
data used to enhance the performance gap analysis process. For example,
as a result of the working group's analyses, the Coast Guard decided to
convert and upgrade two of its four legacy aircraft (HC-130 and HH-60)
and replace only the HU-25. This strategy was deemed by the Coast Guard
to be the most cost-effective solution for meeting Deepwater mission
requirements.
According to the Coast Guard, other alternatives added significant
capacity, but at a greater cost.[Footnote 20]
Model Indicates That the Revised Asset Mix Will Provide Improved
Mission Performance over the Original Plan:
The most recent DMOES runs conducted by the Coast Guard, published in
October 2005, project that the revised Deepwater asset mix will provide
"a significant improvement in traditional Coast Guard mission
performance" compared to the original Deepwater asset mix.[Footnote 21]
This marked the first time that the Coast Guard used DMOES to model the
operational effectiveness of the revised Deepwater asset mix. According
to the Coast Guard, the projected improvement in the overall mission
performance of the revised asset mix is due mainly to increased
maritime surveillance aircraft and, more specifically, to the converted
HC-130, which will be present in greater numbers and with greater
capabilities than the comparable long-range surveillance aircraft from
the original Deepwater plan. Table 4 provides a brief summary of the
results of our analysis of the latest DMOES modeling in terms of how
the revised asset mix is projected to improve performance for the Coast
Guard's various Deepwater missions. Appendix I provides more details on
our analysis of the latest DMOES modeling.
Table 4: Projected Performance of the Asset Mix from the Revised
Implementation Plans Compared to the Asset Mix from the Original
Deepwater Plan Based on Latest DMOES Modeling:
Maritime safety:
Deepwater mission: Maritime safety;
Search and rescue;
GAO assessment of the impact of the revised asset mix on Deepwater
mission performance: Little improvement projected: Increased
availability of fixed-and rotary-wing aircraft to provide event
response.
Deepwater mission: Maritime safety;
International ice patrol;
GAO assessment of the impact of the revised asset mix on Deepwater
mission performance: No improvement projected: International ice patrol
missions were not modeled because the assets did not change between the
original and revised Deepwater plans.
Maritime security:
Deepwater mission: Maritime security;
General law enforcement;
GAO assessment of the impact of the revised asset mix on Deepwater
mission performance: Little to some improvement projected: Increased
availability of fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft to provide event
response, though performance could be decreased in the western United
States because of the relocation of major cutters to other patrol areas
and missions.
Deepwater mission: Maritime security;
Alien migrant interdiction operations;
GAO assessment of the impact of the revised asset mix on Deepwater
mission performance: Some to moderate improvement projected: Increased
availability of fixed-and rotary-wing aircraft to provide tactical
surveillance and increased prosecution capabilities.
Deepwater mission: Maritime security;
Drug interdiction;
GAO assessment of the impact of the revised asset mix on Deepwater
mission performance: Little to some improvement projected: Increased
availability of fixed-and rotary-wing aircraft to provide tactical
surveillance and increased prosecution capabilities.
Deepwater mission: Maritime security;
Living marine resources enforcement-exclusive economic zones;
GAO assessment of the impact of the revised asset mix on Deepwater
mission performance: Moderate to good improvement projected: Increased
availability of fixed-and rotary-wing aircraft to provide tactical
surveillance and to conduct intercepts of identified targets of
interest. Mission performance could be decreased in Alaska, however,
because of a lack of strategic surveillance capability.
Deepwater mission: Maritime security;
Maritime homeland security;
GAO assessment of the impact of the revised asset mix on Deepwater
mission performance: Moderate improvement projected: Increased
availability of fixed-and rotary-wing aircraft to provide tactical
surveillance as well as increased naval operational capabilities, such
as the increased speed, endurance, and improved flight decks of the new
cutters. This mission may have to be performed by non-Deepwater assets
in some locations, however, because of competing priorities for the
Deepwater assets.
Protection of natural resources:
Deepwater mission: Protection of natural resources;
Living marine resources enforcement (domestic);
GAO assessment of the impact of the revised asset mix on Deepwater
mission performance: Little to some improvement projected: Increased
fixed-wing surveillance capacity and increased prosecution
capabilities. This mission may be negatively affected in some western
locations, however, because of the reallocation of major cutter
patrols, as well as the change in type and number of rotary-wing assets
available to cover high-threat areas.
Deepwater mission: Protection of natural resources;
Foreign vessel inspection;
GAO assessment of the impact of the revised asset mix on Deepwater
mission performance: No improvement projected. This mission is largely
served by non-Deepwater assets, so the impact of the Deepwater asset
mix is limited under either plan.
Deepwater mission: Protection of natural resources;
Lightering zone enforcement;
GAO assessment of the impact of the revised asset mix on Deepwater
mission performance: Some improvement projected: Increased rotary-wing
aircraft availability.
Deepwater mission: Protection of natural resources;
Maritime pollution enforcement and response;
GAO assessment of the impact of the revised asset mix on Deepwater
mission performance: No improvement projected. This mission is largely
served by non-Deepwater assets, so the impact of the Deepwater asset
mix is limited under either plan.
National Defense:
Deepwater mission: National defense;
General defense operations Maritime Intercept operations Marine
environmental response operations Port operations security and defense
Coastal sea control operations;
GAO assessment of the impact of the revised asset mix on Deepwater
mission performance: Good improvement projected: Improved naval
operational capabilities, such as increased speed, endurance, and
improved flight decks of the new cutters.
Deepwater mission: National defense;
Theater security cooperation;
GAO assessment of the impact of the revised asset mix on Deepwater
mission performance: Good improvement projected: Improved naval
operational capabilities, such as increased speed, endurance, and
improved flight decks of the new cutters.
Non-Deepwater aviation demand/Maritime domain awareness:
Non-Deepwater aviation demand/Maritime domain awareness;
Non-Deepwater aviation demand;
GAO assessment of the impact of the revised asset mix on Deepwater
mission performance: No improvement projected. The data used to
represent this mission demand in the model was not complete enough to
truly capture all elements of demand; U.S. Coast Guard projects that
more robust data in future model runs will show greater projected
performance under the revised asset mix.
Non-Deepwater aviation demand/Maritime domain awareness;
Maritime domain awareness;
GAO assessment of the impact of the revised asset mix on Deepwater
mission performance: Some improvement projected: Increased availability
of fixed-wing aircraft to provide surveillance.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Notes: The categories of projected improvement of the revised Deepwater
asset mix compared to the original Deepwater asset mix are based on GAO
analysis of U.S. Coast Guard data and are as follows:
* 0% chance of improvement projected = No improvement projected;
* 25% chance of improvement projected = Little improvement projected;
* 50% chance of improvement projected = Some improvement projected;
* 75% chance of improvement projected = Moderate improvement projected;
* 100% chance of improvement projected = Good improvement projected.
"Improvement" in this context indicates performance of the revised
Deepwater asset mix that is one full standard deviation greater than
that of the original Deepwater asset mix, as presented by the U.S.
Coast Guard.
[End of table]
Coast Guard Is Exploring Options for Applying Further Modeling for
Projecting Coast Guard-wide Performance Capabilities:
Though DMOES was an accredited, rigorous simulation model effective in
supporting Deepwater force structure planning, it does not capture the
impact of non-Deepwater asset contributions and, therefore, does not
provide a means for the Coast Guard to estimate the extent to which its
entire fleet of aircraft and vessels will allow it to meet Coast Guard-
wide GPRA performance targets. The Coast Guard is aware of this
limitation and is exploring options for expanding DMOES to encompass
all Coast Guard assets--both Deepwater and non-Deepwater--in an effort
to provide for a true analysis of Coast Guard-wide mission performance
capabilities. While this has not yet occurred, Coast Guard officials
told us they were reasonably confident that the cumulative effect of
merging the revised Deepwater assets with its non-Deepwater assets
would allow the Coast Guard to meet GPRA targets for those missions
involving Deepwater aircraft and vessels. In the interim, the Coast
Guard has taken steps to measure the impact of Deepwater assets on
Deepwater-related metrics. Since 2002, the Coast Guard has annually
reviewed--and plans to continue reviewing--the most recent complete
year's worth of data and estimates the Deepwater-only contribution
toward meeting performance goals for seven particular performance
metrics. These performance metrics and results for the most recent year
available are shown in table 5.
Table 5: Deepwater Missions, Performance Metrics, and Assessment
Results from Fiscal Year 2004:
Search and rescue;
Percentage of lives saved after Coast Guard notification in cases with
Deepwater participation;
Performance goal: 93.0%;
Performance results: 92.6%.
Cocaine seizure rate;
Percentage of cocaine shipped through transit zone that is seized by
Deepwater assets;
Performance goal: 6.5%;
Performance results: Not determined.
Illegal or undocumented migrant interdiction;
Percentage of total migrant flow interdicted with Deepwater assets;
Performance goal: 32.0%;
Performance results: 41.9%.
Foreign fishing vessel interdiction; Percentage of foreign fishing
vessels detected in U.S. Economic Enforcement Zone interdicted with
Deepwater assets;
Performance goal: 6.7%;
Performance results: 4.5%.
Protection of living marine resources;
Percentage of Deepwater living marine resources law enforcement
boardings without significant violations;
Performance goal: 97%;
Performance results: 94.8%.
National defense/military readiness;
Maintain 100 percent combined readiness of high-endurance cutters and
patrol boats to support Department of Defense requirements;
Performance goal: 100.0%;
Performance results: 99.3%.
International ice patrol;
Maintain 95 percent accuracy of all limits of all known ice
broadcasts[A];
Performance goal: 98.0%;
Performance results: 97.8%.
Source: Analysis by GAO based on data provided by the U.S. Coast Guard.
[A] The Coast Guard regularly collects data on ice conditions whenever
icebergs threaten primary shipping routes between Europe and the United
States and Canada. The Coast Guard uses this information to predict the
drift of icebergs along these shipping routes and broadcasts this
information for the benefit of all vessels transiting the North
Atlantic. These messages are referred to as the "limit of all known ice
broadcasts."
[End of table]
Disaggregating performance data to reflect Deepwater-only contributions
provides an estimate of the extent to which the Deepwater fleet is
helping the Coast Guard meet these key targets on an annual basis. For
example, as a result of these efforts, the Coast Guard determined that
Deepwater assets saved 92.6 percent of lives at risk after Coast Guard
notification in fiscal year 2004, which is slightly below the Deepwater
asset target value of 93 percent.
Progress Continues in Making Recommended Improvements:
Our past concerns about the Deepwater program have been in three main
areas--ensuring better program management and contractor oversight,
ensuring greater accountability on the part of the system integrator,
and creating sufficient competition to help act as a control on costs-
-and we made a total of 11 recommendations to address these concerns.
During our 2005 review, we determined that the Coast Guard had
addressed and fully implemented 2 of these 11 recommendations. The
Coast Guard disagreed with and declined to implement a separate
recommendation that pertained to updating its cost baseline to
determine whether the Deepwater acquisition approach is costing more
than a conventional acquisition approach. While we stand behind our
original recommendation, we decided not to pursue it further because
the Coast Guard determined that the cost to implement this
recommendation was excessive. Thus, at the time we began our current
review, 8 of the 11 recommendations were not yet fully implemented. On
the basis of information we gathered for this review, we consider 3 of
these 8 recommendations to be fully implemented. The Coast Guard is in
the process of taking actions to implement 3 more recommendations, but
full implementation is dependent on seeing results or completion of
actions that are not yet in final form. The 2 remaining
recommendations, both relating to overall program management and
oversight, remain problematic. One relates to improving the
effectiveness of integrated product teams, the other to providing field
personnel with guidance and training on transitioning to new Deepwater
assets. In each case, the Coast Guard has taken actions, but our review
of program reports and our discussions with program and field personnel
indicate the problems still remain. In all cases, however, the steps
needed to fully implement these recommendations seem relatively clear.
Table 6 provides an overview of the 11 recommendations. The sections
below discuss the recommendations made in each of the three areas of
concern, describing the initial issue that led to the recommendation,
the steps taken to date to address it, and our rationale for
considering the recommendation as being fully implemented or not. Where
we make a determination that a recommendation has not yet been
implemented, we indicate what actions are needed.
Table 23: Status of GAO Recommendations to the U.S. Coast Guard
Regarding Management of the Deepwater Program:
Areas of concern: Key components of management and oversight are not
effectively implemented;
* Recommendations to the U.S. Coast Guard: Put in place a human capital
plan to ensure adequate staffing of the Deepwater program;
Recommendation status: Implemented;
* Recommendations to the U.S. Coast Guard: Areas of concern: Improve
integrated product teams responsible for managing the program by
providing better training, approving charters, and improving systems
for sharing information between teams;
Recommendation status: Areas of concern: Partially implemented;
* Recommendations to the U.S. Coast Guard: Provide field personnel with
guidance and training on transitioning to new Deepwater assets;
Recommendation status: Partially implemented.
Areas of concern: Procedures for ensuring contractor accountability are
inadequate;
* Recommendations to the U.S. Coast Guard: Develop measurable award fee
criteria consistent with guidance from the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy;
Recommendation status: Implemented[A];
* Recommendations to the U.S. Coast Guard: Provide for better input
from U.S. Coast Guard performance monitors;
Recommendation status: Implemented;
* Recommendations to the U.S. Coast Guard: Hold the system integrator
accountable for improving effectives of the integrated product teams;
Recommendation status: Implemented;
* Recommendations to the U.S. Coast Guard: Establish a baseline for
determining whether the acquisition approach is costing the government
more than the traditional asset replacement approach;
Recommendation status: Will not be implemented.
* Recommendations to the U.S. Coast Guard: Establish a time frame for
putting steps in place to measure contractor's progress toward
improving operational effectiveness;
Recommendation status: Partially implemented.
* Recommendations to the U.S. Coast Guard: Establish criteria to
determine when to adjust the project baseline and document the reasons
for change;
Recommendation status: Partially implemented.
Areas of concern: Control of future costs through competition remains
at risk because of week oversight;
* Recommendations to the U.S. Coast Guard: For subcontracts over $5
million awarded by the system integrator to the two major
subcontractors, require notification to the Coast Guard about decision
to perform the work in-house rather than contracting it out;
Recommendation status: Implemented[A].
* Recommendations to the U.S. Coast Guard: Develop a comprehensive plan
for holding the system integrator accountable for ensuing adequate
competition among suppliers;
Recommendation status: Partially implemented.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] Determined to be implemented during work performed in 2005 for GAO-
05-757.
[End of table]
Coast Guard's Efforts to Improve Oversight and Program Management Show
Mixed Results:
We continue to see mixed results in the Coast Guard's efforts to
improve oversight and management of the Deepwater program. The Coast
Guard has put in place a human capital plan to help ensure adequate
staffing of the Deepwater program and has taken actions to improve the
effectiveness of integrated product teams. However, subcontractor
collaboration and provision of guidance on transitioning to new
Deepwater assets to field personnel, particularly as it pertains to
maintenance and logistics responsibilities, continue to need additional
attention.
Put in Place a Human Capital Plan to Ensure Adequate Staffing of the
Deepwater Program:
Original issue: As early as 2001, we noted that difficult human capital
challenges would need to be addressed, including the need to recruit
and train sufficient staff to manage and oversee the Deepwater
contract.[Footnote 22] Reviewing this matter again in 2004, we found
that the Coast Guard had not funded the number of staff requested by
the Deepwater program and had not adhered to the processes outlined in
its human capital plan for addressing turnover of Deepwater officials,
particularly Coast Guard personnel.[Footnote 23] These staffing
shortfalls contributed to problems in making timely decisions and
keeping pace with the workload.
Steps taken: The Coast Guard took several steps to address this issue.
Its initial steps involved hiring contractors to assist with program
support functions, shifting some positions from being staffed by
military personnel to civilian personnel to mitigate turnover risk, and
identifying the hard-to-fill positions and developing recruitment plans
specifically for them. Subsequent to these changes, the Deepwater
program's executive officer (1) approved a revised human capital plan
in February 2005 emphasizing workforce planning and (2) is developing
ways to leverage institutional knowledge as staff rotate out of the
Deepwater program. The Coast Guard plans to review the human capital
plan annually to ensure continual alignment between human capital
management and actual program performance. The Coast Guard has also
placed added emphasis on staffing when formulating the program's budget
request--for example, in adding contracting officers and specialists.
Finally, the Coast Guard has worked closely with the Department of
Homeland Security and the Defense Acquisition University to provide
training for Deepwater personnel.
Recommendation status: The steps the Coast Guard has taken appear
sufficient to address matters related to adequately staffing the
Deepwater program and mitigating turnover, and therefore we consider
this recommendation to be fully implemented.
Strengthening Integrated Product Teams:
Original issue: Effective management of the Deepwater program depends
heavily on strong collaboration among the Coast Guard, the system
integrator, and the subcontractors. Integrated product teams (IPTs),
the Coast Guard's primary tool for managing the Deepwater program,
overseeing contractor activities, and ensuring collaboration have
experienced difficulty from the outset. IPTs, which are generally
chaired by a subcontractor representative and consist of members
representing the subcontractors and the Coast Guard, are responsible
for overall program planning and management, asset integration, and
overseeing delivery of specific Deepwater assets. In 2004, we reported
these teams were struggling to carry out their missions because of four
major issues: lack of timely charters to provide authority needed for
decision making, inadequate communication among team members, high
turnover, and insufficient training.
Steps taken: In 2005, we found that all IPTs had charters and their
members had received entry-level training. Decision making, however,
continued to be largely compartmented. Since then, the Coast Guard has
established domain management teams to serve as oversight and conflict
resolution entities for the IPTs. According to Coast Guard officials,
these teams are also to enhance collaboration on issues that cut across
several IPTs. Monthly assessments show IPTs have continued to improve
their effectiveness across all performance measures.
Recommendation status: While the Coast Guard has taken some actions, we
do not believe the actions are sufficient to consider the
recommendation to be fully implemented because there are indications
that collaboration among subcontractors remains inconsistent. Last year
we pointed out that ICGS's two major subcontractors, Lockheed Martin
and Northrop Grumman, were operating under their own management systems
and that this approach could lessen the likelihood that a system-of-
systems outcome would be successfully achieved. During our current
review, Coast Guard performance monitors and the program's executive
officer reported that collaboration among the subcontractors continues
to be problematic and that ICGS wields little influence to compel
decisions among them. For example, when dealing with proposed design
changes to assets under construction, ICGS submits the changes as two
separate proposals from both first-tier subcontractors rather than
coordinating the separate proposals into one coherent plan. According
to Coast Guard performance monitors, this approach complicates the
Coast Guard's review of the needed design change because the two
proposals often carry overlapping work items, thereby forcing the Coast
Guard to act as the system integrator in these situations.
The Coast Guard has undertaken efforts to address these problems. Coast
Guard officials said they have improved communication with ICGS in this
area so that requirements are more easily discernable. Further, the
Coast Guard is beginning to take steps to collaborate with the system
integrator and the first-tier subcontractors with greater frequency,
but it is too early to tell if these will effectively eliminate the
problems.
Providing Field Personnel with Guidance and Training on Transitioning
to New Deepwater Assets:
Original issue: In 2004, we found the Coast Guard had not effectively
communicated decisions on (1) how new Deepwater and existing assets are
to be integrated during the transition and (2) whether Coast Guard or
contractor personnel (or a combination of the two) will be responsible
for maintenance of the Deepwater assets. For example, Coast Guard field
personnel, including senior-level operators and naval engineering
support command officials, said they had not received information about
how they would be able to continue accomplishing their missions using
existing assets while also being trained on the new assets.
Steps taken: The Coast Guard has taken some steps to improve the level
of communication between the Deepwater program and field operators and
maintenance personnel. A November 2004 analysis of the Deepwater
program's communication process, conducted in coordination with the
National Graduate School, found that the communication and feedback
process was inadequate. Since then, the Coast Guard has placed more
emphasis on outreach to field personnel, including surveys, face- to-
face meetings, and presentations. More recently, officials from the
Atlantic and Pacific Area Commands, Maintenance and Logistics Commands,
and the Aircraft Repair and Supply Center agreed that Deepwater program
officials have significantly improved the frequency and types of
information flowing from the program office to the field. In addition,
field personnel are members of several IPTs and working groups, and
ICGS has placed liaisons at several field locations.
Recommendation status: While the Coast Guard has taken some actions,
there are indications that the actions are not yet sufficient to
consider the recommendation to be fully implemented. In particular, our
review of relevant documents and our discussions with key personnel
make clear that field operators and maintenance personnel are still
concerned that their view are not adequately acknowledged and
addressed, and have little information about maintenance and logistics
plans for the new Deepwater assets. For example, though the first
National Security Cutter is to be delivered in August 2007, field and
maintenance officials have yet to receive information on plans for crew
training, necessary shore facility modifications, or how maintenance
and logistics responsibilities will be divided between the Coast Guard
and ICGS. According to Coast Guard officials, many of these decisions
need to be made and communicated very soon in order to allow for proper
planning and preparation in advance of the cutter's delivery.
More Time Needed to Determine Adequacy of Steps Taken to Improve System
Integrator Accountability:
Unlike actions on the previous recommendations, Coast Guard actions to
provide better input from Coast Guard performance monitors and to hold
the system integrator more accountable for performance appear to be
largely sufficient. We cannot determine whether the Coast Guard has
implemented several of our recommendations in this area, however, until
more Deepwater assets are delivered and the results of these actions
can be assessed.
Providing Better Input from Coast Guard Performance Monitors:
Original issue: In 2004, we reported that the Coast Guard's award fee
evaluation of the first year of ICGS's performance was based on
unsupported calculations and relied heavily on subjective judgments.
Rating procedures used by Coast Guard performance monitors were
inconsistent, as were procedures for calculating scores, leading to
questions about whether the award fee decision was well supported.
Actions taken: The Coast Guard has provided additional guidance and
training to performance monitors, better allowing them to link their
comments with specific examples within their respective areas of
responsibility. The Coast Guard has also improved the consistency of
the format that performance monitors use to provide input about the
system integrator's performance and revised assessment criteria to more
clearly differentiate between objective measures (that is, developed
using automated tools and compared against defined standards) and
subjective evaluations. Weights have been assigned to each set of
evaluation factors, and the Coast Guard continues to adjust these
factors to achieve an appropriate balance between automated results and
eyewitness observations.
Recommendation status: The Coast Guard's efforts to provide better
guidance and training, improve the consistency of the format for
performance monitors' input, and clarify performance assessment
criteria appear sufficient for addressing the issue, and therefore we
consider this recommendation to be fully implemented.
Holding the System Integrator Accountable for Improving Effectiveness
of the Integrated Product Teams:
Original issue: In 2004, we found that the system integrator, whose
subcontractors chaired the IPT working groups, was not being held
accountable for IPT effectiveness in its performance assessments.
Actions taken: The Coast Guard changed award fee measures to place
additional emphasis on the system integrator's responsibility for
making the IPTs effective. Award fee criteria now incorporate the
administration, management commitment, collaboration, training, and
empowerment of these teams.
Recommendation status: With IPTs' performance now included in the
criteria for measuring the system integrator's performance, we consider
this recommendation to be fully implemented.
Establishing a Time Frame for Putting Steps in Place to Measure
Contractor's Progress toward Improving Operational Effectiveness:
Original issue: In 2001, the Coast Guard set a goal of developing
measures, within 1 year after contract award, to conduct annual
assessments of the system integrator's progress toward achieving the
three overarching goals of the Deepwater program, including increased
operational effectiveness. In 2004, we found that the time frame for
the first review of the contractor's performance against the Deepwater
goals had slipped. The former Deepwater chief contracting officer told
us that he anticipated that the metrics would be in place in the fourth
year of the contract, the same year the Coast Guard would decide
whether or not to extend the contract.
Steps taken: The Coast Guard has since developed modeling capabilities--
namely the DMOES model discussed earlier--to simulate the effect of the
new assets' capabilities on the Coast Guard's ability to meet its
missions. Coast Guard officials told us that they are now beginning to
track the operational effectiveness of the Deepwater program using both
the DMOES model and actual mission performance data. Further, at the
Coast Guard's request, the Center for Naval Analyses developed a tool
to measure the "presence" of Deepwater assets--that is the number of
square miles of ocean in which Deepwater aircraft and vessels can
detect, identify, and prosecute targets. In addition, Coast Guard
officials have also begun using mission performance data from 2004, the
most recent year of complete information, to measure the contribution
provided by Deepwater systems or assets in seven mission areas: search
and rescue, cocaine seizure rate, illegal or undocumented migrant
interdiction, foreign fishing vessel interdiction, protection of living
marine resources, national defense/military readiness, and
international ice patrol. Coast Guard officials acknowledge that this
is difficult, though, because the data on mission results and
accomplishments do not differentiate between Deepwater assets and non-
Deepwater assets. Coast Guard officials said doing so should become
easier as more Deepwater assets come on line and as analytical tools
are refined.
Recommendation status: Although the models have been developed and are
being refined to measure operational effectiveness, there are too few
Deepwater assets currently in operation to effectively measure the
system integrator's actual performance in improving operational
effectiveness. As a result, we do not consider this recommendation to
be fully implemented.
We recognize, though, that as more Deepwater assets and systems come on
line, the amount of data will increase and the analytical tools will be
more refined so that the Coast Guard should be in a better position to
(1) discern the Deepwater program's contribution to operational
effectiveness and (2) fully implement this recommendation.
Establishing Criteria to Determine When to Adjust the Project Baseline
and Document the Reasons for Change:
Original issue: Establishing a solid baseline against which to measure
progress in lowering total ownership cost (TOC) is critical to holding
the system integrator accountable. However, during our 2004 review, we
found that the Coast Guard's Deepwater TOC baseline had been
significantly changed from what had been originally envisioned and that
further changes could be made as a result of variables such as fuel
costs or vessels' operating tempo. At the time, Coast Guard officials
explained that proposed changes to the baseline would be approved by
the program executive officer on a case-by-case basis, though the Coast
Guard had not developed criteria for potential upward or downward
adjustments to the baseline.
Steps taken: In response to our concerns, the Coast Guard began using
criteria from its Major Systems Acquisition Manual as the basis for
adjusting the TOC baseline. These criteria allow the baseline to be
adjusted based on significant changes in mission requirements, schedule
changes, or project funding, or for specific congressional actions.
Coast Guard officials also told us that they have also added criteria
for making changes to the baseline, such as:
* insufficient program funding or inflationary pressure that exceeds
the assumptions and:
* natural disasters or periods of national emergency that require a
deviation from the baseline's cost, schedule, or performance parameters.
Coast Guard officials said that approval of revisions to the program's
overall baseline must come through approved decision memorandums from
the Agency Acquisition Executive, who is the Vice Commandant of the
Coast Guard. The Deepwater Program Executive Officer still has
authority to approve baseline revisions at the asset and domain level.
Depending on their severity, baseline changes now are also subject to
review and approval by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the
Coast Guard's parent agency. The Coast Guard is required to submit
Deepwater program baseline information to DHS on a quarterly basis, and
the project is subject to an annual review by the DHS Investment Review
Board. According to DHS officials, a baseline breach of 8 percent or
more would require that the Coast Guard provide information on the
causal factors and propose corrective actions to rectify the
breach.[Footnote 24] The officials added that, if the baseline breach
is considered significant, the Office of Management and Budget is to be
notified that the program will have to undergo a rebaselining and its
funding profile will need to be altered. Further, as a result of its
latest review of the Deepwater program, the DHS Investment Review Board
has asked that, in addition to overall program baseline information,
the Coast Guard also provide baseline information for each of the
Deepwater assets. This will provide DHS with more insight into the
program's cost, schedule, and performance.
Recommendation status: The Coast Guard's steps, combined with DHS's
oversight requirements, should be sufficient to resolve this issue. At
present, however, DHS's policy directive is only in draft form. We will
consider this recommendation to be fully implemented when the
management directive is finalized.[Footnote 25]
Effects of Steps Taken to Control Future Costs through Competition Will
Take Time to Assess:
The Coast Guard has taken a number of actions to address the remaining
recommendation in this area, which relates to holding the system
integrator accountable for ensuring competition among subcontractors.
However, until the effects of these actions are more apparent, we are
not able to consider the recommendation as being implemented.
Developing a Plan for Holding the System Integrator Accountable for
Ensuring Adequate Competition among Suppliers:
Original issue: Competition is a key component for controlling costs in
the Deepwater program and a guiding principle for DHS's major
acquisitions. In 2004, we found that beyond the initial 5- year
contract period, the Coast Guard had no way to ensure competition was
occurring because it did not have mechanisms in place to measure the
extent of competition or to hold the system integrator accountable for
steps taken to achieve competition. Shortly before, the system
integrator had adopted Lockheed Martin's "open business model" as a
corporate policy to help ensure competition and keep costs under
control.[Footnote 26] However, the open business model is not a formal
policy involving specific decision points to ensure that competition
will be considered. Further, the first-tier subcontractors, Lockheed
Martin and Northrop Grumman, have largely continued to follow their own
procurement procedures and guidance for determining whether competition
will occur and the suppliers who will be invited to compete for
Deepwater assets.
Steps taken: To address our recommendation about ensuring out-year
competition among second-tier suppliers, the Coast Guard contracted
with Acquisitions Solutions, Inc. (ASI), to assess the amount of second-
tier competition conducted by ICGS during 2004. ASI issued a report in
May 2005 that, among other things, found that the open business model
had not been fully embraced by Northrop Grumman despite its being an
ICGS corporate policy.[Footnote 27] The report made nine
recommendations aimed at improving competition throughout the Deepwater
program. According to Deepwater officials, ICGS developed a plan to
adopt all nine recommendations by March 1, 2006, and is providing
training on use of the open business model to Northrop Grumman
personnel working on the Deepwater program. Further, Coast Guard
officials reported that competition will be assessed as a part of the
award fee assessment subjective criteria for the fifth year of the
contract and the Coast Guard will specifically examine the system
integrator's ability to control costs by assessing the degree to which
competition is fostered at the major subcontractor level during the
award term decision process later this year.[Footnote 28]
Recommendation status: While steps already under way appear to be
sufficient to resolve our concerns, we cannot consider this
recommendation as being fully implemented until the Coast Guard has
addressed the ASI recommendations and results of the next award term
assessment are known.
Concluding Observations:
The Coast Guard has done a commendable job of adapting the Deepwater
program to post-September 11 realities. Our analysis shows that Coast
Guard officials used sound analytical methods to assess the revised
needs for aircraft and vessels. Coast Guard officials have also taken
strong efforts to address concerns about program management and
contract performance and have largely implemented or are in the process
of implementing steps that would help mitigate these concerns. We agree
that the Coast Guard would be well served to continue developing ways
to use its computer modeling to establish clear relationships between
its mix of assets--aircraft and vessels--and its Deepwater and agency-
level performance goals. We have pointed out in past reports that the
Coast Guard lacks clear measures of how its resources are linked to
achieving performance goals, so these steps should help resolve this
concern. We realize that this ongoing effort will likely take some time
to complete. While the Coast Guard has made good progress in addressing
our recommendations, there are aspects of the Deepwater program that
will require continued attention. First, the Deepwater program
continues to face a degree of underlying risk, in part because of the
unique approach involving a system-of-systems approach with the
contractor acting as overall integrator, and in part because it so
heavily tied to precise year-to-year funding requirements over the next
two decades. Further, a project of this magnitude will likely continue
to experience other concerns and challenges beyond those that have
emerged so far. It will be important for Coast Guard managers to
continue careful monitoring of contractor performance and to continue
addressing program management concerns as they arise.
Agency Comments:
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Department of
Homeland Security and the U.S. Coast Guard. The U.S. Coast Guard
provided technical comments, which have been incorporated into the
report as appropriate.
We are providing copies of this report to the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, the Commandant of the U.S. Coast
Guard, and interested congressional committees. The report will also be
made available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [Hyperlink,
http//www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me on (415) 904-2200 or wrightsonm@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions
to this report are listed in appendix II.
Signed By:
Margaret T. Wrightson:
Director:
Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
This report, which focuses on the Coast Guard's Deepwater management
challenges, provides details on three issues: (1) a comparison of the
revised Deepwater implementation plan issued in August 2005 with the
original (August 2002) plan in terms of cost, time frames, and the
balance of legacy and replacement assets; (2) an assessment of the
degree to which the operational effectiveness model and other
analytical methods used by the Coast Guard to develop the revised
Deepwater asset mix are sound and appropriate for such a purpose; and
(3) an assessment of the progress made in implementing our prior
recommendations regarding Deepwater program management.
To compare the revised Deepwater implementation plans issued in August
2005 and February 2006 with the original (August 2002) Deepwater
implementation plan in terms of cost, time frames, and the balance of
legacy and replacement assets, we analyzed the original and revised
Deepwater implementation plans and related guidance. We also reviewed
and analyzed relevant Coast Guard documentation on changes in missions,
costs, asset mix, asset capabilities, and asset delivery schedules. We
supplemented the documentation reviews and analyses with discussions
with officials from the Deepwater Program Executive Office. Finally, we
discussed the risks associated with the Deepwater program's reliance on
a sustained level of funding through 2027 and the implications of these
risks.
To assess the degree to which the operational effectiveness models and
other analytical methods used to develop the revised Deepwater asset
mix are sound and appropriate for such a purpose, we reviewed the
capacity and operational effectiveness models used in determining the
current Deepwater asset mix to ensure that the approach was sound and
that appropriate assumptions were made in the models' use. This review
involved assessing Coast Guard documentation on how its models were
developed and executed, determining the views of knowledgeable
independent parties on the Coast Guard's operational effectiveness
model, and interviewing cognizant Coast Guard officials. These
interviews also included discussions of how these models, and other
factors, were used in developing the current Deepwater asset mix, as
well as whether the Coast Guard has developed an approach for
determining the extent to which the Deepwater asset mix will allow it
to meet its performance targets.
In assessing the Coast Guard's modeling and other analytical methods
used for developing the revised Deepwater asset mix, we paid particular
attention to the most recent performance gap analysis (PGA) study (PGA
IV), which compared the projected performance of the revised Deepwater
asset mix to that of the original Deepwater asset mix--so that we could
gain a better understanding of how these results were used in
developing the revised Deepwater asset mix. Specifically, we reviewed
the report's methodology and requested additional clarifying
information to help determine if the analytic work supported the
report's conclusions. As part of our assessment, we developed an
analysis that departs from what the Coast Guard describes in its report
in two important ways. First, and most important, the Coast Guard
assigned a linear scale ranging from 1 to 5 to five statistical
categories describing the distribution of the analysis data. This range
assigned numerical values to the degree to which the revised asset mix
was projected to outperform (or underperform) the original asset mix,
with 1 representing projected performance two or more standard
deviations below that of the original asset mix, up to 5, representing
projected performance two or more standard deviations above that of the
original asset mix. It is our opinion that this type of linear scale is
not appropriate for capturing the variations in projected performance.
Accordingly, we used a weighting scheme for these categories (known as
z-scores) that better reflects the relationship among these categories.
The z-scores take into account the statistical property that being two
standard deviations away from the mean value is almost five times more
difficult than being one standard deviation away from the mean. Second,
we compared our calculated performance measure weights to a standard in
order to assess if our weighting scheme would affect the study's
conclusions. Since the methodology identified three mission
significance categories and four regional mission priority categories,
we compared our recalculated weights based upon the z-score with the
weights we would expect to see if all mission performance measures
across all mission priorities for the four modeled regions had exceed
one standard deviation above the mean in improvement. Despite the
different methodologies used, our results generally aligned with what
the Coast Guard reported in PGA IV.
To determine the status of the Coast Guard's implementation of our
prior recommendations for improving program management, strengthening
contractor accountability, and controlling costs, we reviewed and
analyzed briefings and relevant documentation provided by the Deepwater
Program Executive Office on actions taken to address our concerns. We
reviewed and analyzed documentation on the Coast Guard's assessment of
the contractor's system integration and management performance in the
first period of the fourth year of the contract, including written
comments by the performance monitors. We also reviewed and analyzed
information on Deepwater integrated product teams, including membership
lists and briefings provided by the Coast Guard on measures of
effectiveness for the teams. We analyzed the Coast Guard's plans to
increase communications to field operators, and documentation from
field operators and maintenance personnel regarding these
communications. Further, we analyzed the February 2005 Deepwater
revised Human Capital Plan to identify changes that have been made and
discussed Deepwater Program Office staffing plans with Coast Guard
officials. To supplement our analyses of the relevant documentation, we
held several meetings with the Deepwater Program Executive Officer, the
Deputy Program Executive Officer, and a number of Deepwater staff,
including contracting officials and representatives from the system
integrator. We also held discussions with Coast Guard Deepwater
performance monitors to discuss their written comments to the latest
award fee assessment. We also held discussions with officials from the
Pacific Area Command and Pacific Area Maintenance and Logistics Command
in Alameda, California; the Atlantic Area Command and Atlantic Area
Maintenance and Logistics Command in Norfolk, Virginia; and the
Aircraft Repair and Supply Center in Elizabeth City, North Carolina.
Further, we reviewed acquisition guidance and spoke with officials from
the Department of Homeland Security regarding their oversight of the
Deepwater acquisition program baseline.
We performed our review from August 2005 to March 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Margaret T. Wrightson (415) 904-2200, wrightsonm@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Steven Calvo, Christopher
Conrad, Adam Couvillion, Christine Davis, Art James, Julie Leetch,
Michele Mackin, Stan Stenersen, and Linda Kay Willard made key
contributions to this report.
[End of section]
GAO Related Products:
Coast Guard's Acquisition Management: Deepwater Project's Justification
and Affordability Need to Be Addressed More Thoroughly, GAO/RCED-99-6
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 26, 1998).
Coast Guard: Budget Challenges for 2001 and Beyond, GAO/T-RCED-00-103
(Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2000).
Coast Guard: Progress Being Made on Deepwater Project, but Risk Remain,
GAO-01-564 (Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2001).
Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Mitigate Deepwater Project Risks, GAO-
01-659T (Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2001).
Coast Guard: Strategy Needed for Setting and Monitoring Levels of
Effort for All Missions, GAO-03-155 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 12, 2002).
Coast Guard: Comprehensive Blueprint Needed to Balance and Monitor
Resource Use and Measure Performance for All Missions, GAO-03-544T
(Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2003).
Coast Guard: Challenges during the Transition to the Department of
Homeland Security, GAO-03-594T (Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2003).
Contract Management: Coast Guard's Deepwater Program Needs Increased
Attention to Management and Contractor Oversight, GAO-04-380
(Washington, D.C.: March 9, 2004).
Coast Guard: Replacement of HH-65 Helicopter Engine, GAO-04-595
(Washington, D.C.: March 24, 2004).
Coast Guard: Key Management and Budget Challenges for Fiscal Year 2005
and Beyond, GAO-04-636T (Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2004).
Coast Guard: Deepwater Program Acquisition Schedule Update Needed, GAO-
04-695 (Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2004).
Coast Guard: Observations and Agency Priorities in Fiscal Year 2006
Budget Request, GAO-05-364T (Washington, D.C.: March 17, 2005).
Coast Guard: Preliminary Observations on the Condition of Deepwater
Legacy Assets and Acquisition Management Challenges, GAO-05-307T
(Washington, D.C.: April 20, 2005).
Coast Guard: Preliminary Observations on the Condition of Deepwater
Legacy Assets and Acquisition Management Challenges, GAO-05-651T
(Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005).
Coast Guard: Progress Being Made on Addressing Deepwater Legacy Asset
Condition Issues and Program Management, but Acquisition Challenges
Remain, GAO-05-757 (Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2005).
(440445):
[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 (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 www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director,
AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Simulation is a technology that allows the analysis of complex systems
through statistically valid means. Through a software interface, the
user creates a computerized version of a design or process, otherwise
known as a "model." DMOES is a multi-mission "campaign-plus" level
model. "Campaign" level models are used by the Department of Defense to
tie together all aspects of a battlefield for a defined period of time.
DMOES, as a "campaign-plus" level model, simulates Deepwater operations
for a full year under multiple demand levels and is used to translate
asset and capability contributions into system operational
effectiveness. The model used program targets compiled in the Coast
Guard's Modeling and Simulation Master Plan (MSMP). These targets were
developed specifically for the purpose of judging effectiveness of the
modeled force structures and, ultimately, operational effectiveness of
the Deepwater asset mix acquisition. The MSMP targets are based on, but
not identical to, the Coast Guard's GPRA targets and business plan
goals. The Coast Guard has cited two reasons for setting different
targets in the MSMP: (1) The MSMP targets project 25 to 40 years out
and anticipate some performance growth, whereas the actual targets are
revised year to year; and (2) because DMOES is a Deepwater-specific
model and does not leverage non-Deepwater asset contributions reflected
in Coast Guard-wide GPRA targets, the target values account for
Deepwater asset contribution only.
Jim Ledin, Simulation Engineering, CMP Media (Lawrence, Kansas:
September 2001).
MITRE, Center for Enterprise Modernization, Independent Assessment of
U.S. Coast Guard Deepwater Performance Gap Analysis Process (McLean,
Virginia: March 30, 2004). MITRE is a not-for-profit organization with
expertise in systems engineering, information technology, operational
concepts, and enterprise modernization, chartered to work in the public
interest.
FOOTNOTES
[1] For purposes of this report, we use the term "legacy assets" to
refer to the existing fleet of Deepwater aircraft and vessels. These
legacy assets include the HC-130H and HU-25 fixed-wing aircraft, the HH-
60 and HH-65 rotary-wing aircraft, the 378-foot high-endurance cutters,
the 210-foot and 270-foot medium-endurance cutters, and the 110-foot
and 123-foot patrol boats. In addition, three other vessels are
generally included as part of the Deepwater fleet--the 213-foot
Acushnet, the 230-foot Storis, and the 282-foot Alex Haley.
[2] "Capacity" models produce a force size and mix of assets designed
to meet a specified level of demand based on certain assumptions. The
"operational effectiveness" model used by the Coast Guard simulated
Deepwater operations and projected the extent to which the asset mix
could meet specified program goals.
[3] GAO, Contract Management: Coast Guard's Deepwater Program Needs
Increased Attention to Management and Contractor Oversight, GAO-04-380
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 9, 2004).
[4] The mission requirements include such things as he ability to (1)
respond to 90 percent of all distress incidents within 2 hours; (2)
detect and track targets of any material such that the probability of
detection is at least 90 percent for small targets, such as a person in
the water or a single-engine civil aircraft; and (3) respond to
National Emergency Response Operations with 48 hours.
[5] Total ownership cost is the sum of all costs associated with the
research, development, procurement, personnel, training, operation,
logistical support, and disposal of the entire Deepwater system.
[6] GAO, Coast Guard: Progress Being Made on Deepwater Project, but
Risks Remain, GAO-01-564 (Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2001).
[7] GAO, Coast Guard: Key Management and Budget Challenges for Fiscal
Year 2005 and Beyond, GAO-04-636T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7, 2004); and
GAO-04-380.
[8] GAO, Coast Guard: Progress Being Made on Addressing Deepwater
Legacy Asset Condition Issues and Program Management, but Acquisition
Challenges Remain, GAO-05-757 (Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2005).
[9] For purposes of this report, we will refer to the 2005 revised plan
and the 2006 update of the implementation plan as revised plans.
[10] Rescue-21 is a coastal command and control communication system
designed to improve search and rescue efforts and other missions, such
as interdiction of drugs and migrants. The program includes very high-
frequency-FM radios, communication towers, and communication centers.
[11] GAO, Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Mitigate Deepwater Project
Risks, GAO-01-659T (Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2001).
[12] Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-
62: 107 Stat. 285 (1993).
[13] Simulation is a technology that allows the analysis of complex
systems throughstatistically valid means. Through a software interface,
the user creates a computerizedversion of a design or process,
otherwise known as a ’model.“ DMOES is a multi-mission ’campaign-plus“
level model. ’Campaign“ level models are used by the Department of
Defense to tie together all aspects of a battlefield for a defined
period of time. DMOES, as a’campaign-plus“ level model, simulates
Deepwater operations for a full year under multiple
demand levels and is used to translate asset and capability
contributions into system operational effectiveness. The model used
program targets compiled in the Coast Guard‘s Modeling and Simulation
Master Plan (MSMP). These targets were developed specifically
for the purpose of judging effectiveness of the modeled forcestructures
and, ultimately,operational effectiveness of the Deepwater asset mix
acquisition. The MSMP targets are based on, but not identical to, the
Coast Guard‘s GPRA targets and business plan goals. The Coast Guard has
cited two reasons for setting different targets in the MSMP: (1) The
MSMP targets project 25 to 40 years out and anticipate some performance
growth, whereas the actual targets are revised year to year; and (2)
because DMOES is a Deepwater-specific model and does not leverage non-
Deepwater asset contributions reflected in Coast Guardwide
GPRA targets, the target values account for Deepwater asset
contribution only.
[14] Capacity models produce a force size and mix designed to meet a
specified level of demand, based on certain assumptions. The three
capacity models, each with their own strengths and weaknesses,
incorporated Coast Guard analyses of current and forecast performance
capability and capacity gaps to develop proposed force structures for
three levels of demand, using the capabilities of the asset types in
the original Deepwater implementation plan.
[15] Jim Ledin, Simulation Engineering, CMP Media (Lawrence, Kansas:
September 2001).
[16] MITRE, Center for Enterprise Modernization, Independent Assessment
of U.S. CoastGuard Deepwater Performance Gap Analysis Process (McLean,
Virginia: March 30, 2004). MITRE is a not-for-profit organization with
expertise in systems engineering, information technology, operational
concepts, and enterprise modernization, chartered to work in the
public interest.
[17] The simulation modeling criteria defines "verification and
validation" as confirming that the model has been correctly implemented
and that its behavior matches that of the modeled system to a
reasonable degree.
[18] A Department of Defense resource that provides such services for
modeling and simulation activities.
[19] This work was commissioned because, according to the Coast Guard,
the original plan's asset mix would fall short in meeting the Coast
Guard's minimum mission requirements for organic lift capability,
maritime domain awareness, and search and rescue treaty coverage for
fixed-wing aircraft, and airborne use of force, vertical insertion, and
Federal Aviation Administration icing standards for rotary-wing
aircraft. All alternative solutions considered by the working group
would meet these requirements. GAO did not assess any of the analyses
prepared by the working group.
[20] For example, one alternative reviewed involved aligning the
Deepwater aircraft mix with capacity and capability levels identified
in the performance gap analysis (PGA) process. This alternative would
have contained greater capacity and capability than the selected
alternative but, according to the Coast Guard, was not adopted because
it would be too costly. This is an example of how potential solutions
identified in the PGA process informed, but did not dictate, the Coast
Guard's decision in adopting its asset mix.
[21] MicroSystems Integration, Inc., United States Coast Guard
Integrated Deepwater System Capability and Capacity Performance Gap
Analysis (PGA) IV Part 4 (Pawcatuck, Connecticut: October 17, 2005).
[22] GAO-01-564.
[23] GAO-04-380.
[24] According to DHS officials, a baseline breach occurs when a cost
or schedule threshold is exceeded or when a performance threshold
cannot be met.
[25] According to the Coast Guard, DHS considers this interim document
final; however, because the documentation that supports the policy
directive is still in draft form, we do not consider it to be final.
[26] The open business model is to encourage second-tier suppliers to
remain innovative and competitive by directing the first-tier
subcontractors to (1) generally avoid the use of teaming agreements
with suppliers and prohibit teaming agreements based on guaranteed work
share, (2) defer second-tier supplier decisions as long as practicable
so that changes in the market place can be considered, and (3) actively
solicit market information and new suppliers.
[27] U.S. Coast Guard, Program Executive Office, Integrated Deepwater
System Program, Competition Assessment, as prepared by Acquisitions
Solutions, Inc., May 27, 2005.
[28] During the award term process, the Coast Guard will decide whether
to award the first five-year contract option.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
