Defense Acquisitions: Further Management and Oversight Changes Needed for Efforts to Modernize Cheyenne Mountain Attack Warning Systems

In a March 20, 2007, report to Congress, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration (ASD/NII) states that the September 1, 2006, ASD/NII Oversight List designated the Combatant Commanders' Integrated Command and Control System (CCIC2S) program as a major automated information system acquisition.

In July 2007, the Air Force Cost Analysis Improvement Group (AFCAIG) issued a report titled "Combatant Commanders' Integrated Command and Control (CCIC2) Recommended Independent Life Cycle Cost Estimate and Affordability Assessment". According to the cover memo dated July 3, 2007, from the Department of the Air Force Deputy Assistant Secretary Richard Hartley, the report summarizes the affordability assessment in response to the July 2006 GAO review (GAO-06-666) of DOD's efforts to modernize the Cheyenne Mountain attack warning systems.

On May 31, 2007, the Air Force Materiel Command's Electronic Systems Center issued a report titled "Combatant Commanders Integrated Command and Control System (CCIC2S) Block 1 Economic Analysis". In the preface, the report states that this document is required to comply with the recommendations in the July 2006 GAO review (GAO-06-666) of DOD's efforts to modernize the Cheyenne Mountain attack warning systems.

In July 2007, the Air Force Cost Analysis Improvement Group (AFCAIG) issued a report title"Combatant Commanders' Integrated Command and Control (CCIC2) Recommended Independent Life Cycle Cost Estimate and Affordability Assessment". According to the cover memo dated July 3, 2007, from the Department of the Air Force Deputy Assistant Secretary Richard Hartley, the report summarizes the independent life cycle cost estimate in response to the July 2006 GAO review (GAO-06-666) of DOD's efforts to modernize the Cheyenne Mountain attack warning systems.

In a March 20, 2007, report to Congress, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration (ASD/NII)states that the Combatant Commanders' Integrated Command and Control System (CCIC2S) program was designated as a major automated information system acquisition with oversight by ASD/NII on September 1, 2006. The report states that due to the late stage of the development of Block 1--with most of the developmental work on Block 1 completed and funding expended--ASD/NII delegated oversight of the remaining portions of Block 1 to the Air Force Component Acquisition Executive. The report states that ASD/NII will retain oversight of all future CCIC2S efforts. The report further states that ASD/NII will continue to review the program status via avenues such as the quarterly Defense Acquisition Executive Summary and action officer-level discussions. Additionally, it states that ASD/NII asked the program office to provide the Overarching Integrated Product Team with its intended plan of action regarding deferred CCIC2S capabilities.

In a March 20, 2007, report to Congress, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration (ASD/NII) states that over the past 18 months the Combatant Commanders' Integrated Command and Control System (CCIC2S) program office has developed and implemented the necessary controls and processes for a well-defined, structured approach. The report states that all new and emerging requirements and changes to requirements are to be carefully evaluated for impact to the acquisition program baseline (APB) and that any change that affects the APB will be submitted to the milestone decision authority prior to implementation. The report states that process improvement began in August 2004 with the establishment of a Joint Requirements Integrated Product Team (JRIPT)--chaired by Air Force Space Command and including participation by U.S. Strategic Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command--to review and prioritize changes to program requirements by assessing warfighter needs against funding and schedule constraints. Requirements changes approved by the JRIPT are then assessed with respect to cost, schedule, and risk by the CCIC2S program office through a Configuration Control Board (CCB)--led by the CCIC2S program manager and consisting of key program office members. The report states that the roles, responsibilities, and procedures of the CCB are defined in an operating instruction and that the CCB process is part of an overall effort to manage change through comprehensive systems engineering, requirements tracking, and risk management processes though all life-cycle phases. The report states that management control of requirements on contract is also improved. For example, for changes to the contract baseline, the contractor, under government oversight, conducts system-level technical reviews including a formal System Requirements Review. It states that these reviews are supported by a contractor-generated System Requirements Document or a Technical Requirements Document. Additionally, the contractor has implemented an internal engineering review board process to evaluate any proposed change to the contract baseline in terms of consistency with validated requirements and architectures as well as its impact to program cost and schedule estimates. Candidate changes suggested from the engineering review board that would impact the contractor's baseline are submitted to the government CCB for consideration. Furthermore, the report states that the integrated master schedule is now a team effort between the government and contractor and is used to manage the program to track and report progress and deconflict resource contention. As an added measure, the report states that the master schedule has been reviewed by an independent government team and the contractor/program office team has incorporated their recommendations. The report also states that the master schedule is assessed periodically by the Defense Contract Management Agency. Finally, the report states that the JRIPT/CCB process will continue to apply as the CCIC2S program transforms into other programs to satisfy space, air, and missile deferred requirements.

In a March 20, 2007, report to Congress, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration (ASD/NII) states that over the past 18 months the Combatant Commanders' Integrated Command and Control System (CCIC2S) program office has developed and implemented the necessary controls and processes for a well-defined, structured approach. The report states that all new and emerging requirements and changes to requirements are to be carefully evaluated for impact to the acquisition program baseline (APB) and that any change that affects the APB will be submitted to the milestone decision authority prior to implementation. The report states that process improvement began in August 2004 with the establishment of a Joint Requirements Integrated Product Team (JRIPT)--chaired by Air Force Space Command and including participation by U.S. Strategic Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command--to review and prioritize changes to program requirements by assessing warfighter needs against funding and schedule constraints. Requirements changes approved by the JRIPT are then assessed with respect to cost, schedule, and risk by the CCIC2S program office through a Configuration Control Board (CCB)--led by the CCIC2S program manager and consisting of key program office members. The report states that the roles, responsibilities, and procedures of the CCB are defined in an operating instruction and that the CCB process is part of an overall effort to manage change through comprehensive systems engineering, requirements tracking, and risk management processes though all life-cycle phases. The report states that management control of requirements on contract is also improved. For example, for changes to the contract baseline, the contractor, under government oversight, conducts system-level technical reviews including a formal System Requirements Review. It states that these reviews are supported by a contractor-generated System Requirements Document or a Technical Requirements Document. Additionally, the contractor has implemented an internal engineering review board process to evaluate any proposed change to the contract baseline in terms of consistency with validated requirements and architectures as well as its impact to program cost and schedule estimates. Candidate changes suggested from the engineering review board that would impact the contractor's baseline are submitted to the government CCB for consideration. Furthermore, the report states that the integrated master schedule is now a team effort between the government and contractor and is used to manage the program to track and report progress and deconflict resource contention. As an added measure, the report states that the master schedule has been reviewed by an independent government team and the contractor/program office team has incorporated their recommendations. The report also states that the master schedule is assessed periodically by the Defense Contract Management Agency. Finally, the report states that the JRIPT/CCB process will continue to apply as the CCIC2S program transforms into other programs to satisfy space, air, and missile deferred requirements.

In a March 20, 2007, report to Congress, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration (ASD/NII) states that the Combatant Commanders' Integrated Command and Control System (CCIC2S) contractor's work breakdown structure now enables the development team to better associate costs with individual products and that further reliability of cost data has been improved by implementing an automated and highly-structured earned value management system. The report states that the Defense Contract Management Agency conducts regular joint reviews with the program office and the contractor to evaluate the contractor's earned value management system's policies and processes. Additionally, it states that an integrated baseline review is conducted whenever new work is added to the contract or the baseline is changed to identify cost, schedule, and technical risks to ensure more reliable cost and performance data.