Coast Guard
Opportunities Exist to Further Improve Acquisition Management Capabilities Gao ID: GAO-11-480 April 13, 2011The Coast Guard manages a broad $27 billion major acquisition portfolio intended to modernize its ships, aircraft, command and control systems, and other capabilities. GAO has reported extensively on the Coast Guard's significant acquisition challenges, including project challenges in its Deepwater program. GAO's prior work on the Coast Guard acquisition programs identified problems in costs, management, and oversight, but it also recognized several steps the Coast Guard has taken to improve acquisition management. In response to the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, GAO (1) assessed Coast Guard capabilities to manage its major acquisition programs, and (2) determined the extent to which the Coast Guard leverages Department of Defense (DOD) and other agency contracts or expertise to support its major acquisition programs. GAO reviewed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Coast Guard acquisition documents, GAO and DHS Inspector General reports, and selected DOD contracts; and interviewed Coast Guard, DHS, and DOD officials
The Coast Guard continues to strengthen its acquisition management capabilities by updating acquisitions management policies and reducing acquisition workforce vacancies, but significant challenges remain. In November 2010, the Coast Guard updated its acquisition policy to further incorporate best practices and respond to prior GAO recommendations, such as aligning independent testing requirements with DHS policies and formalizing the Executive Oversight Council to review programs and provide oversight. Additionally, the Coast Guard reduced acquisition workforce vacancies from 20 to 13 percent from April to November 2010, but shortfalls persist in hiring staff for certain key areas such as systems engineers, and some programs continue to be affected by unfilled positions. While the Coast Guard has increased its acquisition management capabilities, most Coast Guard major acquisition programs have ongoing cost, schedule, or program execution risks. Additionally, unrealistic budget planning for the Coast Guard's acquisition portfolio exacerbates these challenges and will likely lead to more program cost and schedule issues. The Coast Guard has several actions under way to further improve acquisition policies and workforce shortfalls, as well as address budget planning issues, but it is too soon to tell whether the actions will be effective. The Coast Guard leveraged DOD contracts to purchase products and services or to gain expertise in support of major acquisition programs. The Coast Guard has entered into approximately 81 memorandums of agreement and other arrangements primarily with DOD, which has experience and technical expertise in purchasing major equipment such as ships and aircraft, to support its major acquisition programs. Examples range from acquiring products and services from established DOD contracts to obtaining engineering and testing expertise from the Navy. According to the Coast Guard, leveraging DOD contracts has led to cost savings for Coast Guard acquisition programs. For instance, the Coast Guard received price discounts for C-130J aircraft by coordinating contracting efforts with the Air Force rather than contracting directly with the aircraft manufacturer. In another example, Coast Guard officials used Navy cost estimators and contracting staff in the November 2010 production contract for the National Security Cutter. At this point, Coast Guard program managers rely on informal contacts to learn about the agreements in place to support program activities, thus potentially limiting staff knowledge of DOD resources available. Coast Guard contracting officials only recently recognized the need to make DOD agreements available to program staff, but due to limited attention to this issue, only about 5 of the 81 agreements are currently accessible to program managers. GAO recommends that the Coast Guard take steps to ensure program staff have access to interagency agreements with DOD. DHS concurred with the recommendation.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: John P. Hutton Team: Government Accountability Office: Acquisition and Sourcing Management Phone: (202) 512-7773GAO-11-480, Coast Guard: Opportunities Exist to Further Improve Acquisition Management Capabilities
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-480
entitled 'Coast Guard: Opportunities Exist to Further Improve
Acquisition Management Capabilities' which was released on April 13,
2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Committees:
April 2011:
Coast Guard:
Opportunities Exist to Further Improve Acquisition Management
Capabilities:
GAO-11-480:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-480, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Coast Guard manages a broad $27 billion major acquisition
portfolio intended to modernize its ships, aircraft, command and
control systems, and other capabilities. GAO has reported extensively
on the Coast Guard‘s significant acquisition challenges, including
project challenges in its Deepwater program. GAO‘s prior work on the
Coast Guard acquisition programs identified problems in costs,
management, and oversight, but it also recognized several steps the
Coast Guard has taken to improve acquisition management.
In response to the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, GAO (1)
assessed Coast Guard capabilities to manage its major acquisition
programs, and (2) determined the extent to which the Coast Guard
leverages Department of Defense (DOD) and other agency contracts or
expertise to support its major acquisition programs.
GAO reviewed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Coast Guard
acquisition documents, GAO and DHS Inspector General reports, and
selected DOD contracts; and interviewed Coast Guard, DHS, and DOD
officials.
What GAO Found:
The Coast Guard continues to strengthen its acquisition management
capabilities by updating acquisitions management policies and reducing
acquisition workforce vacancies, but significant challenges remain. In
November 2010, the Coast Guard updated its acquisition policy to
further incorporate best practices and respond to prior GAO
recommendations, such as aligning independent testing requirements
with DHS policies and formalizing the Executive Oversight Council to
review programs and provide oversight. Additionally, the Coast Guard
reduced acquisition workforce vacancies from 20 to 13 percent from
April to November 2010, but shortfalls persist in hiring staff for
certain key areas such as systems engineers, and some programs
continue to be affected by unfilled positions. While the Coast Guard
has increased its acquisition management capabilities, most Coast
Guard major acquisition programs have ongoing cost, schedule, or
program execution risks. Additionally, unrealistic budget planning for
the Coast Guard‘s acquisition portfolio exacerbates these challenges
and will likely lead to more program cost and schedule issues. The
Coast Guard has several actions under way to further improve
acquisition policies and workforce shortfalls, as well as address
budget planning issues, but it is too soon to tell whether the actions
will be effective.
The Coast Guard leveraged DOD contracts to purchase products and
services or to gain expertise in support of major acquisition
programs. The Coast Guard has entered into approximately 81
memorandums of agreement and other arrangements primarily with DOD,
which has experience and technical expertise in purchasing major
equipment such as ships and aircraft, to support its major acquisition
programs. Examples range from acquiring products and services from
established DOD contracts to obtaining engineering and testing
expertise from the Navy. According to the Coast Guard, leveraging DOD
contracts has led to cost savings for Coast Guard acquisition
programs. For instance, the Coast Guard received price discounts for C-
130J aircraft by coordinating contracting efforts with the Air Force
rather than contracting directly with the aircraft manufacturer. In
another example, Coast Guard officials used Navy cost estimators and
contracting staff in the November 2010 production contract for the
National Security Cutter. At this point, Coast Guard program managers
rely on informal contacts to learn about the agreements in place to
support program activities, thus potentially limiting staff knowledge
of DOD resources available. Coast Guard contracting officials only
recently recognized the need to make DOD agreements available to
program staff, but due to limited attention to this issue, only about
5 of the 81 agreements are currently accessible to program managers.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Coast Guard take steps to ensure program staff
have access to interagency agreements with DOD. DHS concurred with the
recommendation.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-480] or key
components. For more information, contact John Hutton at (202) 512-
4841 or huttonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
The Coast Guard Continues to Improve Its Acquisition Management
Capabilities, but Many Programs Face Challenges:
Coast Guard Leverages DOD Contracts and Expertise to Support Programs,
But Program Staff Could Benefit From Better Insight of Available
Interagency Agreements:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Table:
Table 1: Information on Coast Guard Major Acquisition Programs:
Figures:
Figure 1: Status of the Coast Guard's Acquisition Workforce Vacancies--
April 2010 and November 2010:
Figure 2: Coast Guard Programs with Program Execution, Schedule,
Resource, and Budget Planning Challenges as of December 2010:
Abbreviations:
Blueprint: Blueprint for Continuous Improvement:
C4ISR: Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Suite:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DOD: Department of Defense:
NAVAIR: Naval Air Systems Command:
NAVSEA: Naval Sea Systems Command:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 13, 2011:
The Honorable John D. Rockefeller, IV:
Chairman:
The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:
United States Senate:
The Honorable John L. Mica:
Chairman:
The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
The U.S. Coast Guard manages a broad $27 billion major acquisition
portfolio intended to acquire capabilities to conduct missions that
range from marine safety to defense readiness. We have reported
extensively on the Coast Guard's significant acquisition challenges,
including its Deepwater program, which currently constitutes the
majority of its acquisition portfolio and was created to build and
modernize ships, aircraft, and other capabilities. Our prior work on
the Deepwater acquisition program identified problems in costs,
management, and oversight that have led to delivery delays and other
operational challenges for certain assets, but it also recognized
several steps the Coast Guard has taken to improve Deepwater
management. For example, beginning in 2007, the Coast Guard assumed
the role of lead systems integrator for the Deepwater program. Another
key step was to reorganize its acquisition function and update its
business practices. Nonetheless, the Coast Guard has a well-documented
history of workforce challenges, such as difficulty obtaining critical
skills and defining appropriate staffing levels to achieve its
missions.
Section 402(a) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 directed
GAO to report on Coast Guard acquisition management for major
programs.[Footnote 1] To satisfy the mandate, we (1) assessed Coast
Guard acquisition management capabilities for its major acquisition
programs, and (2) determined the extent to which the Coast Guard
leverages Department of Defense (DOD) and other agency contracts or
expertise to support its major acquisition programs.
We assessed Coast Guard acquisition management capabilities by
evaluating its acquisition policies and practices, changes in its
acquisition workforce, and the status of the Coast Guard's acquisition
programs as measured through their cost, schedule, and performance. To
do so, we reviewed key Coast Guard and DHS documentation such as the
Major Systems Acquisition Manual, the Strategic Plan or Blueprint for
Continuous Improvement, DHS Acquisition Management Directive102-01,
acquisition decision memorandums for Coast Guard programs, Quarterly
Progress Reports, and Quarterly Acquisition Reports to Congress and
analyzed changes issued since our previous report in July 2010.
[Footnote 2] We interviewed Coast Guard acquisition directorate
officials, including program managers and contracting staff about the
cost, schedule, and performance of Coast Guard programs as well as any
instances in which DOD or other agencies provide support. We also
interviewed DHS officials from the Acquisition Program Management
Division concerning Coast Guard management of its acquisition
portfolio. Further, we reviewed contract documents and identified the
agencies Coast Guard most commonly used to support its major
acquisition programs. On the basis of this analysis, we interviewed
Coast Guard officials, as well as DOD, Navy, and Air Force officials
about resources provided to support Coast Guard major acquisition
programs. We also relied in part on our past work, including our July
2010 report on the Deepwater Program, DHS Inspector General reports,
and other assessments of the Coast Guard's major programs. We
conducted this performance audit from January 2011 to April 2011 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I
provides additional details about our scope and methodology. We
believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
The Coast Guard, a maritime military service within DHS, has a variety
of responsibilities including port security and vessel escort, search-
and-rescue, and polar ice operations. To carry out these and other
responsibilities, the Coast Guard operates a number of vessels,
aircraft, and information technology programs. The Coast Guard intends
to further meet these responsibilities through ongoing efforts to
modernize or replace assets through the Deepwater program. The Coast
Guard's current acquisition portfolio, at $27 billion, includes 17
major acquisition programs and projects and is managed by the Coast
Guard Acquisition Directorate, CG-9.
Major acquisitions--level I and level II--have life-cycle cost
estimates equal to or greater than $1 billion (level I) or from $300
million to less than $1 billion (level II). Major acquisition programs
are to receive oversight from DHS's acquisition review board, which is
responsible for reviewing acquisitions for executable business
strategies, resources, management, accountability, and alignment to
strategic initiatives. The board also supports the Acquisition
Decision Authority in determining the appropriate direction for an
acquisition at key acquisition decision events. At each Acquisition
Decision Event, the Acquisition Decision Authority approves
acquisitions to proceed through the acquisition life-cycle phases upon
satisfaction of applicable criteria. Additionally, the Coast Guard and
other DHS components have Component Acquisition Executives responsible
in part for managing and overseeing their respective acquisition
portfolios. DHS has a four-phase acquisition process:
(1) Need phase--Define a problem and identify the need for a new
acquisition;
(2) Analyze/Select phase--Identify alternatives and select the best
option;
(3) Obtain phase--Develop, test, and evaluate the selected option and
determine whether to approve production; and:
(4) Produce/Deploy/Support phase--Produce and deploy the selected
option and support it throughout the operational life cycle.
Table 1 provides further information about the Coast Guard major
acquisition programs.
Table 1: Information on Coast Guard Major Acquisition Programs:
Program: Coast Guard Logistics Information Management System (CG-LIMS);
Description: CG-LIMS will replace or integrate legacy logistics
business processes and their supporting information systems;
Acquisition level: Level II.
Program: Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Suite;
Description: The Coast Guard is incrementally acquiring C4ISR
capabilities, including upgrades to existing cutters and shore
installations, acquisitions of new capabilities, and development of a
common operating picture to provide operationally relevant information
and knowledge across the full range of Coast Guard operations;
Acquisition level: Level I.
Program: Fast Response Cutter (FRC);
Description: The FRC, also referred to as the Sentinel class, is
conceived as a patrol boat with high readiness, speed, adaptability,
and endurance to perform a wide range of missions;
Acquisition level: Level I.
Program: HC-130H Long-Range Surveillance Aircraft;
Description: The HC-130H is the legacy Coast Guard long-range
surveillance aircraft that the Coast Guard intends to update in
multiple segments;
Acquisition level: Level I.
Program: HC-130J Long-Range Surveillance Aircraft;
Description: The HC-130J is a four-engine turbo-prop aircraft that the
Coast Guard has deployed with improved interoperability, C4ISR, and
sensors to enhance surveillance, detection, classification,
identification, and prosecution;
Acquisition level: Level II.
Program: HC-144A Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA);
Description: The MPA is a transport and surveillance, fixed-wing
aircraft intended to be used to perform search-and-rescue missions,
enforce laws and treaties, and transport cargo and personnel;
Acquisition level: Level I.
Program: HH-60 Medium Range Recovery Helicopter;
Description: The HH-60 is a medium-range recovery helicopter designed
to perform search-and-rescue missions offshore in all weather
conditions. The Coast Guard has planned upgrades to the helicopter's
avionics, sensors, radars, and command and control systems in multiple
segments;
Acquisition level: Level I.
Program: HH-65 Multi-mission Cutter Helicopter;
Description: The HH-65 Dolphin is the Coast Guard's short-range
recovery helicopter. It is being upgraded to improve its engines,
sensors, navigation equipment, avionics, ability to land on the
National Security Cutter, and other capabilities in multiple segments;
Acquisition level: Level I.
Program: Interagency Operations Center (IOC);
Description: IOC is intended to improve operational capabilities,
situational awareness, tactical decision making and joint, coordinated
emergency response;
Acquisition level: Level I.
Program: Medium Endurance Cutter (MEC) Sustainment;
Description: The MEC sustainment project is intended to improve the
cutters' operating and cost performance by replacing obsolete,
unsupportable, or maintenance-intensive equipment;
Acquisition level: Level I.
Program: National Security Cutter;
Description: The National Security Cutter is intended to be the
flagship of the Coast Guard's fleet, with an extended on-scene
presence, long transits, and forward deployment. The cutter and its
aircraft and small-boat assets are to operate worldwide;
Acquisition level: Level I.
Program: Nationwide Automatic Identification System (NAIS);
Description: The Nationwide Automatic Identification System is a data
collection, processing, and distribution system that provides
information to enhance safety of navigation and improve maritime
domain awareness;
Acquisition level: Level I.
Program: Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC);
Description: The OPC is intended to conduct patrols for homeland
security functions, law enforcement, and search-and-rescue operations.
It will be designed for long-distance transit, extended on-scene
presence, and operations with multiple aircraft and small boats;
Acquisition level: Level I.
Program: Patrol Boat (PB) Sustainment;
Description: The PB sustainment project is intended to improve the
boats' operating and cost performance by replacing obsolete,
unsupportable, or maintenance-intensive equipment;
Acquisition level: Level II.
Program: Rescue 21;
Description: Rescue 21 is an advanced command, control, and
communications system intended to improve the Coast Guard's Search and
Rescue mission by leveraging direction-finding technology to more
accurately locate the source of distress calls;
Acquisition level: Level I.
Program: Response Boat-Medium (RB-M);
Description: The RB-M is intended to replace the aging 41' utility
boats and other medium nonstandard boats;
Acquisition level: Level I.
Program: Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS);
Description: The Coast Guard is exploring the use of Unmanned Aircraft
Systems to augment the service's cutter-and land-based aviation
capabilities;
Acquisition level: Level I.
Source: GAO analysis of Coast Guard information.
[End of table]
Since 2001, we have reviewed Coast Guard acquisition programs and have
reported to Congress, DHS, and the Coast Guard on the risks and
uncertainties inherent in its acquisitions. In our June 2010 report on
selected DHS major acquisitions, we found that acquisition cost
estimates increased by more than 20 percent in five of the Coast
Guard's six major programs we reviewed.[Footnote 3] For example, the
National Security Cutter's acquisition cost estimate grew from an
initial figure of $3.45 billion to $4.75 billion from 2006 to 2009--a
38 percent increase. Moreover, five of six programs faced challenges
due to unapproved or unstable baseline requirements, and all six
programs experienced schedule delays. The Rescue 21 search-and-rescue
program, for example, had both unapproved or unstable baseline
requirements and schedule delays.
Several of our reports have focused on the Coast Guard's Deepwater
acquisition program. Most recently, in our July 2010 report on the
program, we found that the Coast Guard had generally revised its
acquisition management policies to align with DHS directives, was
taking steps to address acquisition workforce needs, and was
decreasing its dependence on the Integrated Deepwater Systems
contractor by planning for alternate vendors for some assets, and to
award and manage work outside of the Integrated Coast Guard Systems
contract for other assets.[Footnote 4] We also have ongoing work on
the status of the Deepwater program that is related but complementary
to this report and will result in a separate published report later
this year.
The Coast Guard Continues to Improve Its Acquisition Management
Capabilities, but Many Programs Face Challenges:
Coast Guard Updates of Policies and Processes for Major Acquisition
Programs Better Reflect Best Practices and Respond to Prior GAO
Recommendations:
The Coast Guard updated its overarching acquisition policy since we
last reported in July 2010 to better reflect best practices and
respond to our prior recommendations, and to more closely align its
policy with the DHS Acquisition Management Directive Number 102-01.
[Footnote 5] For example, in November 2010, the Coast Guard revised
its Major Systems Acquisition Manual, which establishes policy and
procedures, and provides guidance for major acquisition programs.
[Footnote 6] Revisions included:
* a list of the Executive Oversight Council's roles and
responsibilities;
* aligning roles and responsibilities of independent test authorities
to DHS standards, which satisfied one of our prior recommendations;
[Footnote 7]
* a formal acquisition decision event before a program receives
approval for low-rate initial production, which addresses one of our
prior recommendations;[Footnote 8] and:
* a requirement to present an acquisition strategy at a program's
first formal acquisition decision event.
The Coast Guard's Blueprint for Continuous Improvement (Blueprint) was
created after the Coast Guard began realigning its acquisition
function in 2007 and is designed to provide strategic direction for
acquisition improvements. The Blueprint uses GAO's Framework for
Assessing the Acquisition Function at Federal Agencies and the Office
of Federal Procurement Policy's Guidelines for Assessing the
Acquisition Function as guidance, but also includes quantitative and
qualitative measures important to the acquisitions process. Through
these measures, the Coast Guard plans to gain a clearer picture of its
acquisition organization's health. The Blueprint was revised in
October 2010 to formalize the acquisition directorate's integration
with the Coast Guard's mission support structure and includes plans to
annually evaluate the Blueprint's measures.
The Coast Guard developed the Blueprint as a top-level planning
document to provide acquisition process objectives and strategic
direction as well as to establish action items, but DHS's Inspector
General expressed concern that the agency did not prioritize action
items and consider the effects of delayed completion of action items
on subsequent program outcomes. For example, the 2010 Inspector
General report found that by the end of fiscal year 2009, 23 percent
of assigned action item completion dates slipped without determining
the effect on acquisition improvements.[Footnote 9] In response to the
Inspector General's report, the Coast Guard has taken steps to
prioritize its action items; however, it is too soon to tell the
outcome of these actions.
These policies were updated to align with DHS guidance and reflect
best practices. Coast Guard officials also attribute acquisition
reforms to the Coast Guard's efforts to assume responsibilities for
all major acquisition programs. We previously reported in 2009 that
the Coast Guard acknowledged its need to define systems integrator
functions and assign them to Coast Guard stakeholders as it assumed
the systems integrator role.[Footnote 10] As a result, the Coast Guard
established new relationships among its directorates to assume control
of key systems integrator roles and responsibilities formerly carried
out by the contractor. For example, according to Coast Guard
officials, the Coast Guard formally designated certain directorates as
technical authorities responsible for establishing, monitoring, and
approving technical standards for all assets related to design,
construction, maintenance, logistics, C4ISR, life-cycle staffing, and
training. In addition, the Coast Guard is developing a Commandant's
Instruction to further institutionalize the roles and responsibilities
for Coast Guard's acquisition management.
Beyond updating its major acquisition policies and guidance, the Coast
Guard Acquisition Directorate also increased the involvement of its
Executive Oversight Council to facilitate its acquisition process.
Coast Guard officials stated that the council, initially established
in 2009 with an updated charter in November 2010, provides a
structured way for flag-level and senior executive officials in the
requirements, acquisition, and resources directorates, among others,
to discuss programs and provide oversight on a regular basis. As the
Coast Guard began assuming the system integrator function from the
Deepwater contractor in 2007, it believed it needed a forum to make
trade-offs and other program decisions especially in a constrained
budget environment; according to officials, the council was
established in response to that need. Coast Guard officials noted that
major programs are now required to brief the formalized council
annually, prior to milestones, and on an ad hoc basis when major risks
are identified. According to Coast Guard documentation, from fiscal
year 2010 through the first quarter of fiscal year 2011, the council
met over 40 times to discuss major programs. For example, the council
held more than five meetings to discuss the Offshore Patrol Cutter's
life-cycle costs and system requirements, among other issues. The
discussions are captured at a general level in meeting minutes and
sent to the Coast Guard Acquisition Directorate for approval.
Coast Guard Has Continued Progress in Reducing Its Acquisition
Workforce Vacancies, Although Shortfalls Remain:
The Coast Guard has made progress in reducing its acquisition
workforce vacancies since April 2010. As of November 2010, the
percentage of vacancies dropped from about 20 percent to 13 percent or
from 190 to 119 unfilled billets out of 951 total billets. Acquisition
workforce vacancies have decreased, but program managers have ongoing
concerns about staffing program offices. For example, the HH-65
program office has funded and filled 10 positions out of an identified
need for 33 positions. Although the program has requested funding for
an additional 8 billets for fiscal year 2012, due to the timing of the
request, the funding outcome is unknown as of April 2011. Similarly,
the Interagency Operations Center program is another office affected
by acquisition workforce shortages. According to the Coast Guard, as
of March 2011, the program office has funded and filled 11 positions
out of the 27 needed. For some of these positions, the Interagency
Operations Center program uses staff from the Coast Guard's Command,
Control, and Communications Engineering Center for systems engineering
support; however, workforce shortages remain. Program officials may
face additional challenges in hiring staff depending on the location
of the vacancies within the program's management levels. For example,
a program official stated that vacant supervisory positions must be
filled first before filling remaining positions because lower-level
positions would not have guidance for their activities. Figure 1 shows
the status of the Coast Guard's acquisition workforce vacancies as of
November 2010.
Figure 1: Status of the Coast Guard's Acquisition Workforce Vacancies--
April 2010 and November 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated line graph]
Total billets: 951.
Vacancies:
April 2010: 190 unfilled (20%);
November 2010: 119 unfilled (13%).
Source: GAO analysis of Coast Guard data.
[End of figure]
We reported in January 2010 that the Coast Guard faces difficulty in
identifying critical skills, defining staffing levels, and allocating
staff to accomplish its diverse missions.[Footnote 11] An official
Coast Guard statement from 2009 partially attributed the challenge of
attracting staff for certain positions to hiring competition with
other federal agencies. In February 2010, we reported on the Coast
Guard's long-standing workforce challenges and evaluated the agency's
efforts to address these challenges.[Footnote 12] For example, we
reported that while the Coast Guard developed specific plans to
address its human capital challenges, the plans fell short of
identifying gaps between mission areas and personnel needed.
The Coast Guard has taken steps to outline specific areas of workforce
needs, including developing a human-capital strategic plan and
commissioning a human-capital staffing study published in August 2010,
but program managers continue to state concerns with the Coast Guard's
ability to satisfy certain skill areas. For example, the August 2010
human-capital staffing study stated that program managers reported
concerns with staffing adequacy in program management and technical
areas. To make up for shortfalls in hiring systems engineers and other
acquisition workforce positions for its major programs, the Coast
Guard uses support contractors. As of November 2010, support
contractors constituted 25 percent of the Coast Guard's acquisition
workforce. While we have stated the risks in using support
contractors, we reported in July 2010 that the Coast Guard
acknowledged the risks of using support contractors and had taken
steps to address these risks by training its staff to identify
potential conflicts of interest and by releasing guidance regarding
the role of the government and appropriate oversight of contractors
and the work that they perform.[Footnote 13]
The Coast Guard has also made progress ensuring that program
management staff received training and DHS certifications to manage
major programs. For example, according to Coast Guard officials, in
December 2010, the Coast Guard was 100 percent compliant with DHS
personnel certification requirements for program-management positions.
We have previously reported that having the right people with the
right skills is critical in ensuring that the government achieves the
best value for its spending.[Footnote 14]
Most of the Coast Guard's Major Acquisition Programs Continue to
Experience Challenges Exacerbated in Part by Unrealistic Budget
Planning:
Most of the Coast Guard's major acquisition programs continue to
experience challenges in program execution, schedule, and resources.
For program execution, the Coast Guard reported in December 2010 that
12 of its 17 major programs face moderate to significant risk in one
or more execution metrics such as technical maturity or logistics,
which required management attention.[Footnote 15] Of these, seven
programs have carried these risks for 1 year or more. For example, the
HC-130J program has reported logistics-assessment risks requiring
management attention for 3 years. Regarding schedule challenges, the
Coast Guard reported in December 2010 that 10 of its 12 major programs
with approved acquisition program baselines[Footnote 16] exceeded
schedule objective or threshold parameters.[Footnote 17] For example,
the Maritime Patrol Aircraft HC-144A program exceeded its schedule
because it delayed a production decision in order to complete initial
operational testing and evaluation per a DHS acquisition review board
decision. As this program was already 4 years behind schedule, added
schedule delays may require the Coast Guard to extend a legacy
aircraft's service life, which may incur additional costs to sustain
it. Major Coast Guard programs also face resource risks.[Footnote 18]
As of December 2010, 12 of the Coast Guard's 17 major programs face
moderate to significant risk in project resource metrics such as
budgeting and funding. For 9 of these programs, risks have been
reported for more than 1 year. In addition, four Coast Guard programs,
HC-130H aircraft, Nationwide Automatic Identification System, C4ISR,
and HH-60 helicopter, have notified DHS of acquisition program
baseline breaches.[Footnote 19]
The Coast Guard's unrealistic acquisition budget planning also
exacerbates the challenges Coast Guard acquisition programs face. We
have previously reported that the Coast Guard faced risks from
unrealistic funding levels and that its reliance on sustained high
funding levels in an environment of budget constraints puts program
outcomes at risk if projected funds are not received.[Footnote 20] In
December 2010, the Coast Guard reported that 8 of the 17 major program
offices were updating their acquisition program baselines due in part
to reduced funding in the fiscal year 2011-2015 Capital Investment
Plan.[Footnote 21] According to Coast Guard acquisition officials,
when a Capital Investment Plan has funding levels that are lower than
what a program planned to receive, then the program is more likely to
have schedule breaches and other problems. For example, in November
2010 the HC-130H program reported a schedule breach to DHS due in part
to reduced Capital Investment Plan funding projections for fiscal
years 2011-2015 and had to revise its schedule parameters to reflect
the lower projected funding levels. This also occurred in the
Nationwide Automatic Identification System major acquisition program.
The program had an estimated cost growth of approximately $32 million
due to reduced out-year funding in the fiscal year 2009-2013 plan, and
after further funding reductions in the fiscal year 2011-2015 plan,
the program subsequently deferred efforts to update the program
baseline. According to Coast Guard officials, the Coast Guard is
currently reevaluating the program's system requirements and
associated project cost, schedule, and performance objectives. In
2011, DHS acquisition oversight officials informed the Coast Guard
that future breaches in other programs would be almost inevitable as
funding resources decrease. Figure 2 illustrates Coast Guard major
acquisition programs facing execution, schedule, resource, and budget
planning challenges as of December 2010.
Figure 2: Coast Guard Programs with Program Execution, Schedule,
Resource, and Budget Planning Challenges as of December 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Major programs by asset type:
Aviation:
HC-130H: HC-130H Long-Range Surveillance Aircraft.
HC-130J: HC-130J Long-Range Surveillance Aircraft.
MPA: HC-144A Maritime Patrol Aircraft.
HH-60: HH-60 Medium Range Recovery Helicopter.
HH-65: HH-65 Multi-mission Cutter Helicopter.
UAS: Unmanned Aircraft System.
Surface:
FRC: Fast Response Cutter.
MEC: Medium Endurance Cutter Sustainment.
NSC: National Security Cutter.
OPC: Offshore Patrol Cutter.
PB: Patrol Boat Sustainment.
RB-M: Response Boat-Medium.
Information Technology:
CG-LIMS: Coast Guard Logistics Information Management System.
C4ISR: Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Suite.
IOC: Interagency Operations Center.
NAIS: Nationwide Automatic Identification System.
Rescue 21: Rescue 21.
Program risks:
Resource and Schedule risks:
HH-65;
MEC.
Schedule and Execution risks:
HH-60[A].
Execution risks:
HC-130J.
Resource and Execution risks:
CG-LIMS;
IOC;
NAIS[A];
OPC.
Resource, Schedule, and Execution risks:
PB[A];
C4ISR[A];
HC-130H[A];
HC-144A MPA[A];
NSC;
Rescue 21[A].
[A] Programs experiencing instability due to reduced projected funding
levels.
Source: GAO analysis of Coast Guard data.
[End of figure]
The Coast Guard developed several action items in its October 2010
update to its Blueprint for Continuous Improvement to address budget
planning challenges. According to Coast Guard acquisition officials,
the most important step is for Coast Guard leadership to establish a
priority list for the major programs based on actual acquisition
budgets received in prior years, and then to make trade-offs between
programs to fit within historical budget constraints. The Coast Guard
developed an action item to assess the percentage of program funding
profiles that fit into the Capital Investment Plan. Specifically, the
Blueprint indicates that the Coast Guard will establish and implement
a process to compare and report the extent to which each individual
program's funding fits into the Capital Investment Plan funding
parameters. Further, the Coast Guard plans to analyze and regularly
report gaps in these funding profiles to the Coast Guard's acquisition
leadership. The Coast Guard also identified the need to promote
funding stability in the Capital Investment Plan and intends to
evaluate that effort by establishing a mechanism and baseline to
measure Capital Investment Plan stability by comparing project funding
against previous, current, and future 5-year Capital Investment Plans.
However, while the Coast Guard officials stated their intention to use
these metrics to elevate the priority and funding issues to
leadership, it is too soon to tell the outcome of these steps. In a
separate ongoing review, we are further assessing the Coast Guard's
management of program costs and other budget issues.
Coast Guard Leverages DOD Contracts and Expertise to Support Programs,
But Program Staff Could Benefit From Better Insight of Available
Interagency Agreements:
Coast Guard Major Acquisition Programs Have Benefited from Leveraging
DOD Expertise and Contracts:
According to the Coast Guard, it currently has 81 interagency
agreements, memorandums of agreement, and other arrangements in place
primarily with DOD agencies to support its major acquisition programs.
Each of the 17 major Coast Guard acquisition programs leverages DOD
support, primarily from the Navy. According to Coast Guard officials,
they rely on DOD experience and technical expertise because they both
procure similar major equipment, including ships and aircraft.
Examples range from acquiring products and services from established
DOD contracts to using engineering and testing expertise from the
Navy. Some major programs also receive assistance from other DHS
components or other agencies on a more limited basis. For example, the
Rescue 21 program partnered with the Federal Aviation Administration
at two sites to use its land and towers to install search and rescue
capabilities.
The Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to enter into
agreements with other executive agencies and to transfer funds as
required. This authority has been delegated to the Commandant of the
Coast Guard.[Footnote 22] Interagency agreements include a description
of the general terms and conditions that govern the relationship
between agencies, and specific information on the requesting agencies'
requirement to establish a need and to authorize the transfer of
funds. According to Coast Guard officials, Coast Guard interagency
agreements with DOD typically include a memorandum of agreement or a
memorandum of understanding with a DOD agency. A memorandum of
agreement is a document that defines the responsibilities of, and
actions to be taken by, each of the parties so that their goals will
be accomplished. A memorandum of understanding is a document that
describes broad concepts of mutual understanding, goals, and plans
shared by the parties. Interagency agreements also are typically
funded by military interdepartmental purchasing requests in which the
requiring agency must include a description of the end items purchased
and the funding data for acquiring these supplies or services.
Interagency agreements can be for direct, assisted, or other than
assisted acquisitions. In direct acquisitions, the requesting agency
places orders against another agency's indefinite-delivery contracts,
such as task and delivery order contracts, while assisted acquisitions
use the acquisition services of a servicing agency. Other than
assisted acquisitions utilize the internal expertise of a servicing
agency.
In 2001, the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Coast
Guard agreed to build a national fleet that combines Navy and Coast
Guard forces to maximize effectiveness across all naval and maritime
missions. More than 50 of the Coast Guard's agreements with DOD
leverage support from the Department of the Navy. Moreover, Coast
Guard and Navy officials have noted an increase in Navy involvement to
support the Coast Guard's major acquisition programs since the Coast
Guard assumed the Deepwater lead systems integrator role in 2007.
Examples of updated support agreements in place with Navy entities
include the following:
* A 2011 interagency agreement with the Naval Sea Systems Command
(NAVSEA) to support Coast Guard acquisition programs in program
management, design, technical assistance, cost estimating, and other
support.
* A 2010 memorandum of agreement with the Navy's Commander,
Operational Test and Evaluation Forces, allows the Coast Guard to
request the Navy to serve as the operational test authority for Coast
Guard major acquisition programs.
* Two memorandums of agreement/interagency agreements in 2009 with the
Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), which allow Coast Guard major
acquisition programs to leverage Navy services and aviation program
office assistance including: planning, technical assistance, cost
estimation, warfare modeling and analysis, requirements definition,
risk management, and integrated logistics support.
* A 2009 memorandum of agreement with the Navy's Space and Naval
Warfare Systems Command Pacific that allows Coast Guard programs to
request and obtain technical and other support services for the
research and development, design, engineering, integration,
acquisition, test and evaluation, installation, and life-cycle support
of Coast Guard systems.
Most Coast Guard major acquisition programs leverage Navy expertise,
in some way, to support a range of testing, engineering, and other
program activities. For example, the Fast Response Cutter program used
Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren services to help with topside
design and electromagnetic testing. In another instance, the Coast
Guard used Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock division to test and
evaluate boats and provide technical expertise for the Response Boat-
Medium program. According to Coast Guard officials, the Coast Guard
also collaborated with Navy cost estimators and contracting staff to
prepare for negotiations to award the November 2010 production
contract for the fourth National Security Cutter. In another instance,
the Navy provided engineering and technical support for the Coast
Guard's MH-60 helicopter program. Further, the Navy's Operational Test
and Evaluation Command is currently supporting testing activities for
11 Coast Guard programs.
According to Coast Guard and DOD officials, the Coast Guard has
achieved cost savings from using DOD contracts through quantity
discounts and reduced unit prices when Coast Guard orders are combined
with orders from other DOD departments. Additional benefits include
reductions in contracting administrative costs, and expedited
processing times. According to Coast Guard officials, examples include
the following:
* The Coast Guard's HC-130J program coordinated C-130J contracting
efforts through the Air Force acquisition office's contract rather
than contracting directly with the aircraft manufacturer and benefited
from discounts in ordering along with other DOD agencies. In addition,
by using the standard configuration of the C-130J common among U.S.
government users, the Coast Guard benefited from cost savings in
aircraft sustainment.
* The Coast Guard obtained Navy systems, such as the SPQ-9B Radar, at
a reduced cost for Coast Guard cutter programs.
* The National Security Cutter program used Navy contracts to provide
and install ultra high frequency radios and electronic warfare systems.
* The Rescue 21 program placed search-and-rescue sensors on Army, Air
Force, Navy, and Marine Corps facilities, which reduced recurring
Coast Guard costs.
* The HH-65 program office reduced procurement costs by approximately
12 percent or $25,000 by purchasing a range of subsystems and
components, such as a cockpit display unit, from an Army contract.
The Coast Guard has also identified opportunities to further leverage
DOD resources. In 2009, the Navy and Coast Guard conducted a
commonality study that identified, among other things, 17 commonality
opportunities with near term potential for mutual benefit that
required little or no up-front investment to execute. Typically they
require only the modification of a policy document. Key opportunities
identified included the following:
* Acquisition personnel exchanges with NAVSEA to promote collaboration
and leveraging of cross-service capabilities in the acquisition
community.
* Leveraging existing Navy logistics management systems during the
development of the Coast Guard Logistics Information Management System
to reduce developmental costs.
DOD Resources Available to Support Major Acquisition Programs May Not
Be Transparent to Coast Guard Program Staff:
Coast Guard program managers largely rely on informal contacts to
learn about the agreements in place with DOD to support program
activities. Many Coast Guard program managers we met with indicated
that they became aware of DOD resources that could be leveraged for
their programs through contacts with their DOD counterparts or by
other means. According to Coast Guard officials, program managers also
learn about another agency's expertise or resources through word of
mouth, market research, head of contracting activity discussions,
conferences, or networking channels. While this interaction has led to
Coast Guard programs successfully leveraging DOD resources, Navy
officials told us that in the past Navy leadership was not always
fully aware of support being provided to the Coast Guard, and as such
was unable to ensure that the right Navy entities were conducting the
work and that the results provided to the Coast Guard met Navy
standards. NAVAIR and NAVSEA have each established a liaison assigned
to the Coast Guard to facilitate information and knowledge sharing
about Navy capabilities and contracts available to Coast Guard
programs. For example, NAVAIR and NAVSEA liaisons serve as Coast Guard
on-site experts, engage in dialogue with Coast Guard, and work to
increase Coast Guard awareness of Navy resources. However, without
current knowledge of existing interagency agreements, Coast Guard
program managers may not be aware of the liaisons and their role in
working with the Navy.
Relying on informal contacts may also present missed opportunities for
greater cooperation and leveraging of DOD resources. For example, the
Coast Guard has 50 or more agreements with the Navy, some of which are
broad agreements with major Navy commands such as NAVSEA or NAVAIR,
while others are specific agreements with Navy agencies such as the
Naval Ordnance Safety and Security Office, Naval Surface Warfare
Center Dahlgren Division, and the Naval Supply Systems Command.
Interagency agreements may call for a designated point of contact for
Coast Guard program managers to contact, but program managers do not
have a systematic way to gain insight into the details of the
agreements.
According to Coast Guard contracting officials, the Coast Guard has
recently begun to develop a database of interagency agreements with
DOD and other agencies that Coast Guard programs can leverage to
support acquisition activities. However, due to limited attention
devoted to this issue, Coast Guard officials noted that only 5 of the
approximately 81 interagency agreements are in a data system
accessible to program staff. These officials also noted that a
database is needed to avoid duplicative efforts and to ensure program
staff are aware of existing agreements, including the latest versions
of agreements specifying updated products and services available.
Conclusions:
The Coast Guard has continued to make progress in strengthening its
capabilities to manage its acquisition portfolio by updating
acquisition policies and practices as well as reducing vacancies in
the acquisition workforce. As the Coast Guard improves its acquisition
management capabilities, it may find that adjustments and changes will
be necessary in light of how well its major acquisition programs are
progressing. The Coast Guard has leveraged DOD contracts to help
support its major acquisition programs, but reliance on informal
contacts may also present missed opportunities for greater cooperation
and leveraging of DOD resources to help save scarce resources, manage
programs risks, and support positive acquisition outcomes.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To provide Coast Guard program management staff with greater access to
updated information about agreements in place with DOD to facilitate
leveraging support for major acquisition programs, we recommend that
the Commandant of the Coast Guard take steps to ensure all interagency
agreements are captured in a database or other format and make this
information readily accessible to program staff.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Coast Guard, DHS, and DOD.
DHS provided oral comments stating that it concurred with the
recommendation. The Coast Guard and DOD provided technical comments,
which we incorporated into the report as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of
Defense, and the Commandant of the Coast Guard. This report will also
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 or need
additional information, please contact me at (202) 512-4841 or
huttonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public:
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Staff
acknowledgments are provided in appendix II.
Signed by:
John P. Hutton:
Director: Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of fiscal year 2010, as amended,
specified that "Within 180 days after the date of enactment of the
Coast Guard Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010, the Comptroller
General of the United States shall transmit a report to the
appropriate congressional committees that--(1) contains an assessment
of current Coast Guard acquisition and management capabilities to
manage Level 1 and Level 2 acquisitions; (2) includes recommendations
as to how the Coast Guard can improve its acquisition management,
either through internal reforms or by seeking acquisition expertise
from the Department of Defense (DOD); and (3) addresses specifically
the question of whether the Coast Guard can better leverage Department
of Defense or other agencies' contracts that would meet the needs of
Level 1 or Level 2 acquisitions in order to obtain the best possible
price."
To determine the Coast Guard's current management capabilities for its
major acquisition programs, we evaluated the Coast Guard's acquisition
policies and processes, status of its acquisition workforce, and
execution of its major programs since we last reported on the Coast
Guard's acquisitions and acquisition management in June and July
2010.[Footnote 23] We reviewed Coast Guard acquisition governance,
policy, and process documents such as the Coast Guard's Major Systems
Acquisition Manual and Blueprint for Continuous Improvement that have
been issued, implemented, or updated since July 2010. We also
interviewed Coast Guard and other Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) acquisition officials to analyze and explain the factors behind
the acquisition governance changes as well as how changes have been
implemented to date through review of meeting briefings, minutes, and
subsequent decision memos.
To evaluate the Coast Guard's status of its acquisition workforce, we
reviewed Coast Guard information on government, contractor, and vacant
positions to identify any progress made in reducing acquisition
workforce vacancies and filling critical positions since July 2010 as
well as any positions that continue to be challenging to fill.
Additionally, we obtained and analyzed Coast Guard program staff
information to determine specific programs experiencing staffing
shortfalls and conducted interviews to supplement Coast Guard
information and determine the extent to which staffing shortfalls
affect program execution.
To evaluate the Coast Guard's execution of its major programs we
analyzed information on the status of those programs since July 2010
through reviews of general acquisition status reports (e.g., Quarterly
Acquisition Reports to Congress and Quarterly Performance Reports),
program briefings, and acquisition process documents (e.g.,
Acquisition Program Baselines) to determine how many programs have
cost, schedule, or performance issues based on criteria in the Major
Systems Acquisition Manual. Further, we analyzed additional program
performance, schedule, cost, and funding information from the Capital
Investment Plan, breach memos, and acquisition decision memos to
identify funding stability issues and the extent to which funding
issues were factors leading to breaches in established program
baselines. We also corroborated program information with interviews of
Coast Guard program staff and interviews with external DHS
stakeholders, such as acquisition oversight and cost analysis staff in
the acquisition program management directorate. Moreover, we examined
and identified best practices from prior GAO reporting on Coast Guard
funding stability as a factor in program continuity and successful
outcomes.[Footnote 24]
To determine the extent to which the Coast Guard leverages DOD and
other agency contracts or expertise to support its major acquisition
programs, we examined the Coast Guard's interagency agreements and
identified the agencies the Coast Guard most commonly used to support
major acquisition programs. On the basis of this analysis, we
interviewed Coast Guard officials, as well as DOD, Navy, and Air Force
officials about resources provided to support Coast Guard major
acquisition programs. We also discussed with Coast Guard officials any
current efforts to update the agreements. Using this analysis, we
identified examples of cost savings and other benefits for selected
Coast Guard acquisitions. Further, we reviewed relevant GAO and DHS
Inspector General reports. We corroborated testimonial information
from interviews with Coast Guard acquisition and program staff by
reviewing contracts, agreements, and other documents that show the
amount of resources expended by the Coast Guard for DOD-provided goods
and services and by interviewing DOD officials at the Naval Sea
Systems Command, Naval Air Systems Command, Space and Naval Warfare
Systems Commands, and the Department of the Air Force.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2011 to April 2011 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
John P. Hutton, (202) 512-4841 or huttonj@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Other individuals making key contributions to this report were John
Neumann, Assistant Director; William Russell; Jessica Drucker; Sylvia
Schatz; Kenneth Patton; and Morgan Delaney Ramaker.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Coast Guard: Deepwater Requirements, Quantities, and Cost Require
Revalidation to Reflect Knowledge Gained. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-790]. Washington, D.C.: July 27,
2010.
Department of Homeland Security: Assessments of Selected Complex
Acquisitions. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-588SP].
Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2010.
Coast Guard: Observations on the Requested Fiscal Year 2011 Budget,
Past Performance, and Current Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-411T]. Washington, D.C.: February
25, 2010.
Coast Guard: Better Logistics Planning Needed to Aid Operational
Decisions Related to the Deployment of the National Security Cutter
and Its Support Assets. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-497]. Washington, D.C.: July 17,
2009.
Coast Guard: As Deepwater Systems Integrator, Coast Guard Is
Reassessing Costs and Capabilities but Lags in Applying Its
Disciplined Acquisition Approach. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-682]. Washington, D.C.: July 14,
2009.
Coast Guard: Observations on Changes to Management and Oversight of
the Deepwater Program. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-462T]. Washington, D.C.: March 24,
2009.
Coast Guard: Change in Course Improves Deepwater Management and
Oversight, but Outcome Still Uncertain. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-745]. Washington, D.C.: June 24,
2008.
Coast Guard: Status of Selected Assets of the Coast Guard's Deepwater
Program. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-270R].
Washington, D.C.: March 11, 2008.
Coast Guard: Status of Efforts to Improve Deepwater Program Management
and Address Operational Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-575T]. Washington, D.C.: March 8,
2007.
Coast Guard: Status of Deepwater Fast Response Cutter Design Efforts.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-764]. Washington, D.C.:
June 23, 2006.
Coast Guard: Changes to Deepwater Plan Appear Sound, and Program
Management Has Improved, but Continued Monitoring Is Warranted.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-546]. Washington, D.C.:
April 28, 2006.
Coast Guard: Progress Being Made on Addressing Deepwater Legacy Asset
Condition Issues and Program Management, but Acquisition Challenges
Remain. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-757].
Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2005.
Coast Guard: Preliminary Observations on the Condition of Deepwater
Legacy Assets and Acquisition Management Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-651T]. Washington, D.C.: June 21,
2005.
Coast Guard: Deepwater Program Acquisition Schedule Update Needed.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-695]. Washington, D.C.:
June 14, 2004.
Contract Management: Coast Guard's Deepwater Program Needs Increased
Attention to Management and Contractor Oversight. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-380]. Washington, D.C.: March 9,
2004.
Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Mitigate Deepwater Project Risks.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-659T]. Washington,
D.C.: May 3, 2001.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Section 402(a) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, Pub.
L. No. 111-281, as amended, which added section 566 to title 14 of the
United States Code, directs GAO to "Within 180 days after the date of
enactment of the Coast Guard Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010,
the Comptroller General of the United States shall transmit a report
to the appropriate congressional committees that--(1) contains an
assessment of current Coast Guard acquisition and management
capabilities to manage Level 1 and Level 2 acquisitions; (2) includes
recommendations as to how the Coast Guard can improve its acquisition
management, either through internal reforms or by seeking acquisition
expertise from the Department of Defense; and (3) addresses
specifically the question of whether the Coast Guard can better
leverage Department of Defense or other agencies' contracts that would
meet the needs of Level 1 or Level 2 acquisitions in order to obtain
the best possible price."
[2] See GAO, Coast Guard: Deepwater Requirements, Quantities, and Cost
Require Revalidation to Reflect Knowledge Gained, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-790] (Washington, D.C.: July 27,
2010).
[3] See GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Assessments of Selected
Complex Acquisitions. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-588SP] (Washington, D.C.: Jun. 30,
2010).
[4] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-790].
[5] DHS Acquisition Management Directive no. 102-01, revision no. 1 is
DHS's acquisition management directive, finalized in January 2010 that
provides guidance on planning and executing acquisitions by providing
a number of review points for senior acquisition officials to oversee
investments and by linking DHS requirements, resourcing, and
acquisition processes.
[6] The Major Systems Acquisition Manual is the Coast Guard's manual
by which it articulates its acquisition objectives for planning,
coordinating, and executing its major programs.
[7] See GAO, Coast Guard: As Deepwater Systems Integrator, Coast Guard
Is Reassessing Costs and Capabilities but Lags in Applying Its
Disciplined Acquisition Approach, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-682] (Washington, D.C.: July 14,
2009).
[8] See GAO, Coast Guard: Change in Course Improves Deepwater
Management and Oversight, but Outcome Still Uncertain, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-745] (Washington, D.C.: June 24,
2008).
[9] DHS Office of the Inspector General, Coast Guard's Blueprint for
Acquisition Reform Needs Improved Oversight, OIG-10-84 (Washington,
D.C.: April 2010).
[10] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-682].
[11] See GAO, Coast Guard: Service Has Taken Steps to Address Historic
Personnel Problems, but It Is too Soon to Assess the Impact of These
Efforts, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-268R]
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 29, 2010).
[12] See GAO, Coast Guard: Observations on the Requested Fiscal Year
2011 Budget, Past Performance, and Current Challenges, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-411T] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25,
2010).
[13] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-790].
[14] See GAO, Acquisition Workforce: Agencies Need to Better Define
and Track the Training of Their Employees, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-737] (Washington, D.C.: July 29,
2002).
[15] Program execution is a composite metric that includes the
following factors: earned value management, performance assessment,
logistics assessment, testing status, risk assessment, and technical
maturity.
[16] The acquisition program baseline formally summarizes the
program's critical cost, schedule and performance parameters,
expressed in measurable, quantitative terms that must be met in order
to accomplish the program's goals.
[17] Two of the remaining 5 Coast Guard programs are in the
acquisition need phase and have not reached the point at which an
acquisition performance baseline is required, and three programs are
operating under the 2007 Deepwater baseline.
[18] Project resources is a composite metric that includes several
factors such as budgeting, funding, staffing, and contractor health,
that is contractor personnel and facilities.
[19] An Acquisition Program Baseline breach of cost, schedule, or
performance is an inability to meet the threshold value of the
specific parameter.
[20] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-411T] and
Coast Guard: Progress Being Made on Deepwater Project, but Risks
Remain, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-564]
(Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2001).
[21] The Coast Guard's capital investment plan is a 5-year plan that
includes Acquisition, Construction and Improvements. The Coast Guard
updates the capital investment plan annually, and it represents the
Coast Guard's submission for the President's Budget in any given year.
[22] The Secretary of Homeland Security is specifically authorized by
14 U.S.C.§ 631 to confer or impose upon the Commandant of the Coast
Guard any of the rights, privileges, or duties, in respect to the
administration of the Coast Guard, vested in or imposed upon the
Secretary by law.
[23] See GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Assessments of Selected
Complex Acquisitions, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-588SP] (Washington, D.C.: June 30,
2010), and Coast Guard: Deepwater Requirements, Quantities, and Cost
Require Revalidation to Reflect Knowledge Gained, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-790] (Washington, D.C.: July 27,
2010).
[24] See GAO, Coast Guard: Progress Being Made on Deepwater Project,
but Risks Remain, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-564]
(Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2001), and Coast Guard: Observations on the
Fiscal Year 2009 Budget, Recent Performance, and Related Challenges,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-494T] (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 6, 2008).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
