This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-565R 
entitled 'DOD Financial Management: Reported Status of Department of 
Defense's Enterprise Resource Planning Systems' which was released on 
March 30, 2012. 

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. 

GAO-12-565R: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

March 30, 2012: 

The Honorable Howard P. "Buck" McKeon:
Chairman:
The Honorable Adam Smith:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable K. Michael Conaway:
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Robert Andrews:
House of Representatives: 

Subject: DOD Financial Management: Reported Status of Department of 
Defense's Enterprise Resource Planning Systems[Footnote 1]: 

In October 2010, we reported on the status of the Department of 
Defense's (DOD) enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems.[Footnote 
2] In that report, we noted that several of these systems were not 
being implemented on schedule and within budget, necessitating the 
extended use and funding of existing, duplicative, stove-piped 
systems.DOD considers the successful implementation of these systems 
critical to transforming its business operations and addressing long-
standing weaknesses in areas such as financial and supply chain 
management. DOD officials also stated that these systems are critical 
to ensuring the department meets its mandated September 30, 2017, goal 
to have auditable consolidated financial statements.[Footnote 3] As 
agreed with your staff, our objective was to provide updated 
information on DOD's reported status for each of these ERP systems as 
of December 31, 2011. 

To address the objective, we obtained and reviewed data and supporting 
documentation on the updated status of each ERP provided by DOD for 
completeness and consistency. In certain instances, we compared the 
information to what we previously reported in October 2010[Footnote 4] 
to identify inconsistencies, if any, and contacted DOD officials to 
reconcile any identified discrepancies. We did not validate the data 
provided by the department, nor evaluate the implications of any 
changes in DOD's reported status information on its ability to achieve 
its September 30, 2017, auditability goal. We conducted our work from 
December 2011 through March 2012 in accordance with all sections of 
GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our objectives. 
The framework requires that we plan and perform the engagement to 
obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated 
objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe that 
the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide 
a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions in this product. 

We requested DOD provide an update as of December 31, 2011, on 
specific data elements--such as the current life-cycle cost estimate 
and the number of system users--for each ERP system that DOD 
identified as essential to transforming its business operations 
identified in our October 2010 report.[Footnote 5] A list of the ERPs 
is provided in enclosure I and a list of these data elements is 
included in enclosure II. DOD's reported status of each ERP system is 
provided in enclosure III. 

Agency Comments: 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from DOD. DOD provided 
technical comments related to the information provided on the status 
of each ERP system, which we considered and incorporated as 
appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Defense; 
the Secretary of the Army; the Secretary of the Navy; the Secretary of 
the Air Force; the Deputy Secretary of Defense; Director, Defense 
Logistics Agency; the Deputy Chief Management Officer; the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); the Under Secretary of the Army, 
the Under Secretary of the Navy, and the Under Secretary of the Air 
Force, in their capacity as the Chief Management Officer of their 
respective service; and the program management office for each 
business system that is included in the report. This report also is 
available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-9869 or khana@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 key contributions to 
this report are listed in enclosure IV. 

Signed by: 

Asif A. Khan:
Director, Financial Management and Assurance: 

Enclosures - 4: 

[End of section] 

Enclosure I: 

We obtained DOD's reported status as of December 31, 2011, for the 
following ERPs. 

Army:
General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS);
Global Combat Support System-Army (GCSS-Army);
Logistics Modernization Program (LMP);
Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Army (IPPS-A). 

Navy:
Navy Enterprise Resource Planning System (Navy ERP);
Global Combat Support System-Marine Corps (GCSS-MC);
Integrated Pay and Personnel System-Navy (IPPS-Navy). 

Air Force:
Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System (DEAMS);
Expeditionary Combat Support System (ECSS);
Air Force-Integrated Personnel and Pay System (AF-IPPS). 

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA);
Defense Agencies Initiative (DAI);
Enterprise Business System (EBS)[Footnote 6]. 

[End of section] 

Enclosure II: 

The following is a list of the specific data elements that we 
requested DOD provide an updated status as of December 31, 2011, for 
each of the ERPs. 

* program owner; 

* a description of the functionality that each system is intended to 
provide; 

* the annual dollar value that each system is intended to control and 
for which it is intended to account; 

* the date that each program was initiated; 

* the originally scheduled date for the full deployment of each 
system;[Footnote 7] 

* the actual (or most recently estimated) scheduled date for the full 
deployment of each system and the reasons for any reported schedule 
slippage; 

* the original life-cycle cost estimate for each system;[Footnote 8] 

* the current life-cycle cost estimate for each system and the reasons 
for any reported life-cycle cost increases; 

* the reported amount expended for each system; 

* the reported number of system users for each system as of December 
31, 2011, and the expected number of users for each system when fully 
deployed; 

* the reported number of locations in which each system operates as of 
December 31, 2011, and expected number of locations in which each 
system will operate when fully deployed; 

* the reported number of legacy systems to be replaced by each system; 

* the reported annual cost to operate and maintain the legacy systems 
to be replaced by the ERPs; and: 

* the reported number of system interfaces.[Footnote 9]. 

[End of section] 

Enclosure III: 

General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS): 

Program Owner: 
Assistant Secretary for Financial Management and Comptroller, Army. 

Functionality: 

GFEBS is intended to provide a transaction-driven General Ledger for 
the Army’s general fund;[Footnote 10] prevalidation of obligations 
prior to disbursement; financial management capabilities such as 
online analysis and real-time ad hoc reporting functionality; and an 
automated audit trail to trace all transactions to their sources. 
GFEBS will support all components of the Army—-Active, Reserve, and 
National Guard. 

Annual Dollar Value Intended to Control and Account: 

On an annual basis, GFEBS will be used to manage about $140 billion of 
obligation authority. 

Table: DOD’s Reported Status as of December 31, 2011: 

Program timeline: 
* Initiation date: October 2004[A]; 
* Original scheduled date of full deployment: Fiscal year 2011[A]; 
* Current scheduled date of full deployment: July 2012[A]. 

Program costs: 
* Original life-cycle cost estimate: $1.4 billion[A]; 
* Current life-cycle cost estimate: $1.4 billion; 
* Amount expended: $764 million[C]. 

Program deployment details: 
* Current number of system users: 38,050; 
* Expected number of system users at full deployment: 52,000[D]; 
* Current number of locations using system: 180; 
* Expected number of locations at full deployment: 227; 
* Legacy systems to be replaced: 107; 
* Annual cost of legacy systems: $58 million; 
* Number of system interfaces: 46. 

Source: DOD’s GFEBS Program Management Office and historical data as 
reported in GAO-11-53. 

Note: These data have not been validated. 

[A] As previously reported by DOD and described in GAO-11-53. 

[B] According to program officials, the schedule slippage was due to 
changes in the functional design, Logistics Modernization Program 
delays, natural disasters in Haiti and Japan, and the reorganization 
of several Army Commands and Districts. 

[C] Data as of September 30, 2011. 

[D] According to program officials, upon full deployment of GFEBS, 
there will be approximately 15,000-18,000 additional budget planning 
and execution reporting users. 

[End of table] 

[End of fact sheet] 

Global Combat Support System-Army (GCSS-Army): 

Program Owner: 
Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Army. 

Functionality: 
GCSS-Army is intended to provide the capability to track supplies, 
spare parts, and organizational equipment. It is to be used to track 
unit maintenance, total cost of ownership, and other financial 
transactions related to logistics for all Army units. The system is 
intended to provide asset visibility for accountable items. 

Annual Dollar Value Intended to Control and Account: 
On an annual basis, GCSS-Army is intended to be used to manage $216 
billion in assets. 

Table: DOD’s Reported Status as of December 31, 2011: 

Program timeline: 
* Initiation date: December 2003; 
* Original scheduled date of full deployment: Fourth quarter fiscal 
year 2015; 
* Current scheduled date of full deployment: Fourth quarter fiscal 
year 2017[A]. 

Program costs: 
* Original life-cycle cost estimate: $3.9 billion[B]; 
* Current life-cycle cost estimate: $4.2 billion[A]; 
* Amount expended: $891 million[C]. 

Program deployment details: 
* Current number of system users: 689; 
* Expected number of system users at full deployment: 168,000; 
* Current number of locations using system: 2; 
* Expected number of locations at full deployment: 379; 
* Legacy systems to be replaced: 5; 
* Annual cost of legacy systems: $92 million; 
* Number of system interfaces: 167. 

Source: DOD’s GFEBS Program Management Office and historical data as 
reported in GAO-11-53. 

Note: These data have not been validated. 

[A] According to program officials, the estimated date of full 
deployment was extended to accommodate a change in scope to include 
both tactical and installation units to support the Army’s statutory 
requirement for auditability. The change in scope resulted in a 2-year 
slip in the estimated full deployment date and an approximate $200 
million increase in the life-cycle cost estimate. 

[B] As previously reported by DOD and described in GAO-11-53. 

[C] Data as of September 30, 2011. 

[End of table] 

[End of fact sheet] 

Logistics Modernization Program (LMP): 

Program Owner: 
Program Executive Office, Enterprise Information Systems, Army: 

Functionality: 

LMP is intended to provide a solution that streamlines the 
maintenance, repair, and overhaul; planning; finance; acquisition; and 
supply of weapon systems, spare parts, services, and material for the 
Army’s working capital fund. LMP is to enable worldwide, real-time, 
total asset visibility of inventory, including contractor-managed 
inventories. It is intended to provide an anticipatory logistics 
planning tool that should result in reduced stock levels. 

Annual Dollar Value Intended to Control and Account: 

On an annual basis, LMP is intended to manage $22 billion in inventory. 

Table: DOD’s Reported Status as of December 31, 2011: 

Program timeline: 
* Initiation date: December 1999; 
* Original scheduled date of full deployment: Fiscal year 2005[A]; 
* Current scheduled date of full deployment: December 2011[B]. 

Program costs: 
* Original life-cycle cost estimate: $2.6 billion[A]; 
* Current life-cycle cost estimate: $4.2 billion[C]; 
* Amount expended: $1.6 billion. 

Program deployment details: 
* Current number of system users: 20,135; 
* Expected number of system users at full deployment: 20,235[D]; 
* Current number of locations using system: 50; 
* Expected number of locations at full deployment: 50; 
* Legacy systems to be replaced: 2; 
* Annual cost of legacy systems: $25 million; 
* Number of system interfaces: 70. 

Source: DOD’s GFEBS Program Management Office and historical data as 
reported in GAO-11-53. 

Note: These data have not been validated. 

[A] As previously reported by DOD and described in GAO-11-53. 

[B] Program officials stated that as of October 2010, LMP Increment 1 
was fully deployed and in December 2011, the program was approved to 
transition to sustainment. Program officials also stated that in 
December 2011, the program was approved to proceed with the 
prototyping phase for Increment 2 which is intended to deliver 
expanded logistics capability. Program officials further stated that 
the program’s Increment 1 deployment schedule had been delayed because 
the size, scope, and complexity of the effort were initially 
underestimated. In 2005, the Army directed a strategic pause and, in 
2006, restructured the contract to reflect the current schedule. 

[C] According to program officials, the current life-cycle cost 
estimate covers a 27-year period, whereas the original life-cycle cost 
estimate covered a 10-year period. Program officials added that the 
current life-cycle cost estimate is for Increments 1 and 2. There were 
also increased costs associated with the LMP contract renewal that 
transitioned intellectual property rights, system sustainment, and 
infrastructure support from the contractor to the government. 

[D] According to program officials, the expected number of system 
users at full deployment is for Increment 1 only. 

[End of table] 

[End of fact sheet] 

Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Army (IPPS-A)[Footnote 11]: 

Program Owner: 

Technology and Business Architecture Integration Directorate, Army. 

Functionality: 
IPPS-A is intended to provide a 24-hour, web-based, integrated human 
resources system to soldiers, human resource professionals, combatant 
commanders, personnel and pay managers, and other authorized Army 
users. IPPS-A is designed to serve all components of the Army—Active, 
Reserve, and National Guard. 

Annual Dollar Value Intended to Control and Account: 

On an annual basis, IPPS-A is intended to control and account for 
approximately $60 billion in base pay and $8 billion in overseas 
contingency operations pay. 

Table: DOD’s Reported Status as of December 31, 2011: 

Program timeline: 
* Initiation date: September 2009[A]; 
* Original scheduled date of full deployment: Fourth quarter fiscal 
year 2014; 
* Current scheduled date of full deployment: Fiscal year 2017[B]; 

Program costs: 
* Original life-cycle cost estimate: $344 million[C]; 
* Current life-cycle cost estimate: $344 million[C]; 
* Amount expended: $66 million. 

Program deployment details: 
* Current number of system users: 0; 
* Expected number of system users at full deployment: Over 1 million; 
* Current number of locations using system: 0; 
* Expected number of locations at full deployment: Worldwide 
availability; 
* Legacy systems to be replaced: 56; 
* Annual cost of legacy systems: $39 million; 
* Number of system interfaces: 14[D]. 

Source: DOD’s GFEBS Program Management Office and historical data as 
reported in GAO-11-53. 

Note: These data have not been validated. 

[A] As previously reported by DOD and described in GAO-11-53. 

[B] According to program officials, the current scheduled date of full 
deployment slipped due to a change in the Army’s implementation 
strategy from a “Big Bang” implementation approach to an incremental 
development and implementation approach. IPPS-A is currently being 
developed and implemented in two increments with multiple releases. 

[C] According to program officials, the original and current life-
cycle cost estimates are for the first of two increments. The cost for 
the second increment has not yet been determined. 

[D] According to program officials, this number is for Increment I and 
system analysis is ongoing. 

[End of table] 

[End of fact sheet] 

Navy Enterprise Resource Planning System (Navy ERP): 

Program Owner: 

Assistant Secretary for Research, Development, and Acquisition, Navy. 

Functionality: 

The Navy ERP is intended to standardize the acquisition, financial, 
program management, maintenance, procurement, plant and wholesale 
supply, and workforce management capabilities of the Navy. Specific 
capabilities to be provided by the Navy ERP include: 

* financial accounting and fund management; 

* asset management to provide for the acquisition, custody, tracking, 
depreciation, and disposition of Navy assets; 

* acquisition and program management for project planning, structure, 
execution, monitoring, and control; 

* workforce management to provide a single system for the civilian, 
military, and contractor workforces; 

* procurement automation of commitments and obligations; and; 

* wholesale and retail supply solution with total asset visibility for 
improved forecasting and utilization of materials. 

Annual Dollar Value Intended to Control and Account: 

On an annual basis, the Navy ERP is intended to control and account 
for $82.5 billion of total appropriations; $33.8 billion of total 
inventory; and $1.1 billion of plant, property, and equipment. 

Table: DOD’s Reported Status as of December 31, 2011: 

Program timeline: 
* Initiation date: July 2003[A]; 
* Original scheduled date of full deployment: Fiscal year 2011[B]; 
* Current scheduled date of full deployment: August 2013[C]; 

Program costs: 
* Original life-cycle cost estimate: $1.9 billion[B,D]; 
* Current life-cycle cost estimate: $2.7 billion[E]; 
* Amount expended: $1.3 billion. 

Program deployment details: 
* Current number of system users: Approximately 66,000; 
* Expected number of system users at full deployment: Approximately 
71,000; 
* Current number of locations using system: 79; 
* Expected number of locations at full deployment: 111; 
* Legacy systems to be replaced: 96; 
* Annual cost of legacy systems: $103 million; 
* Number of system interfaces: 48. 

Source: DOD’s GFEBS Program Management Office and historical data as 
reported in GAO-11-53. 

Note: These data have not been validated. 

[A] According to program officials, the Navy ERP initiation date is 
August 2004. Program officials further stated that the July 2003 
initiation date reported in GAO-11-53 represents the date that the 
Navy ERP program received its acquisition category designation. 

[B] As previously reported by DOD and described in GAO-11-53. 

[C] According to program officials, the Navy ERP’s current scheduled 
date of full deployment slipped two years as a result of 2005 Base 
Realignment and Closure recommendations that realigned and merged 
depot and intermediate maintenance activities, causing a 
reorganization of the Navy’s maintenance community in 2006. 

[D] According to program officials, this life-cycle cost estimate was 
later revised in August 2004 to $2.0 billion. 

[E] According to program officials, Navy ERP’s current life-cycle cost 
estimate increased due to (1) the 2 year schedule slippage; (2) an 
increase in demand for on-site support and stabilization activities; 
and (3) the addition of new compliance requirements, such as evolving 
business enterprise architecture requirements. 

[End of table] 

[End of fact sheet] 

Global Combat Support System-Marine Corps (GCSS-MC): 

Program Owner: 

Assistant Secretary for Research, Development, and Acquisition, Navy. 

Functionality: 

GCSS-MC is intended to provide the deployed warfighter with enhanced 
capabilities in the areas of warehousing, distribution, logistical 
planning, depot maintenance, and improved asset visibility. 

Annual Dollar Value Intended to Control and Account: 

Program officials stated that GCSS-MC is not the Marine Corps’ 
official financial system and as such does not control financial 
transactions. 

Table: DOD’s Reported Status as of December 31, 2011: 

Program timeline: 
* Initiation date: September 2003; 
* Original scheduled date of full deployment: November 2009[A]; 
* Current scheduled date of full deployment: Not yet determined[B]; 

Program costs: 
* Original life-cycle cost estimate: $126 million[A,C]; 
* Current life-cycle cost estimate: $1.1 billion[D]; 
* Amount expended: $466 million. 

Program deployment details: 
* Current number of system users: Approximately 18,000; 
* Expected number of system users at full deployment: 33,000; 
* Current number of locations using system: 5; 
* Expected number of locations at full deployment: 6; 
* Legacy systems to be replaced: 4; 
* Annual cost of legacy systems: $4.5 million; 
* Number of system interfaces: 37. 

Source: DOD’s GFEBS Program Management Office and historical data as 
reported in GAO-11-53. 

Note: These data have not been validated. 

[A] As previously reported by DOD and described in GAO-11-53. 

[B] The program manager stated that the current scheduled date of full 
deployment will not be determined until the planned full deployment 
decision—the final decision made by DOD officials to authorize an 
increment of the program to deploy software for operational use—in 
December 2012. 

[C] According to program officials, the original life-cycle cost 
estimate was revised in 2010 and updated to $1.0 billion. 

[D] The program manager stated that the current life-cycle cost 
estimate for GCSS-MC consists of Increment 1 only. The increase in the 
life-cycle cost estimate is primarily attributed to the difficulty of 
developing a technical solution for GCSS-MC use in a deployed 
environment and changes in DOD logistics policies that resulted in 
fielding additional requirements. 

[End of table] 

[End of fact sheet] 

Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Navy (IPPS-Navy)[Footnote 12]: 

Program Owner: 
Chief of Naval Operations, Navy. 

Functionality: 
IPPS-Navy is intended to provide an integrated personnel and pay 
system for the Navy. 

Annual Dollar Value Intended to Control and Account: 

Program officials did not provide the annual dollar value the system 
is intended to control and for which it is intended to account. 

Table: DOD’s Reported Status as of December 31, 2011: 

Program timeline: 
* Initiation date: September 2009[A]; 
* Original scheduled date of full deployment: Fiscal year 2017[A]; 
* Current scheduled date of full deployment: Not yet determined[B]; 

Program costs: 
* Original life-cycle cost estimate: $1.3 billion[A]; 
* Current life-cycle cost estimate: Not yet determined[B]; 
* Amount expended: Not yet determined[B]. 

Program deployment details: 
* Current number of system users: Not yet determined[B]; 
* Expected number of system users at full deployment: Not yet 
determined[B]; 
* Current number of locations using system: Not yet determined[B]; 
* Expected number of locations at full deployment: Not yet 
determined[B]; 
* Legacy systems to be replaced: Not yet determined[B]; 
* Annual cost of legacy systems: Not yet determined[B]; 
* Number of system interfaces: Not yet determined[B]. 

Source: DOD’s GFEBS Program Management Office and historical data as 
reported in GAO-11-53. 

Note: These data have not been validated. 

[A] As previously reported by DOD and described in GAO-11-53. 

[B] According to Navy Deputy Chief Management Office (DCMO) officials, 
this program is still working on refining its initial system solution 
and creating a strategy for acquiring the solution. According to Navy 
DCMO officials, IPPS-Navy is currently conducting business process 
reengineering efforts and has not yet been authorized to proceed with 
the planning and development of the system technology. 

[End of table] 

[End of fact sheet] 

Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System (DEAMS): 

Program Owner: 
Assistant Secretary for Financial Management and Comptroller, Air 
Force. 

Functionality: 
DEAMS is intended to provide the entire spectrum of financial 
management capabilities, including collections, commitments and 
obligations, cost accounting, general ledger, funds control, receipts 
and acceptance, accounts payable and disbursement, billing, and 
financial reporting for the general fund. 

Annual Dollar Value Intended to Control and Account: 
On an annual basis, DEAMS is intended to control and account for $148 
billion in spending. 

Table: DOD’s Reported Status as of December 31, 2011: 

Program timeline: 
* Initiation date: August 2003; 
* Original scheduled date of full deployment: Fiscal year 2014[B]; 
* Current scheduled date of full deployment: Fourth quarter fiscal 
year 2016[B]. 

Program costs: 
* Original life-cycle cost estimate: $1.1 billion[A]; 
* Current life-cycle cost estimate: $1.6 billion[C]; 
* Amount expended: $334 million. 

Program deployment details: 
* Current number of system users: 1,053; 
* Expected number of system users at full deployment: 30,000; 
* Current number of locations using system: 2; 
* Expected number of locations at full deployment: 170; 
* Legacy systems to be replaced: 8; 
* Annual cost of legacy systems: $56 million; 
* Number of system interfaces: 84. 

Source: DOD’s GFEBS Program Management Office and historical data as 
reported in GAO-11-53. 

Note: These data have not been validated. 

[A] As previously reported by DOD and described in GAO-11-53. 

[B] According to program officials, data is for increment 1 only. They 
further stated that schedule delays have resulted from the complexity 
of reengineering business processes; and designing, developing, and 
testing reports, interfaces, conversions, extensions, and workflow 
(RICEW) objects. 

[C] According to program officials, data is for increment 1 only. They 
further stated that the increase in the life-cycle cost estimate was 
primarily due to schedule changes. The estimate also increased due to 
evolving technical requirements. Other factors that affected the cost 
estimate were changes in (1) the methodology used for estimating 
software development of RICEW objects; (2) the approach for design, 
development, and operations and support; and (3) the pricing 
methodology and rates used to determine Defense Information Systems 
Agency related costs. 

[End of table] 

[End of fact sheet] 

Expeditionary Combat Support System (ECSS): 

Program Owner: 
Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Installation, and Mission Support 
Headquarters, Air Force. 

Functionality: 
ECSS is intended to provide capabilities in the areas of product 
support and engineering; supply chain management; expeditionary 
logistics command and control; acquisition and procurement; and 
maintenance, repair, and overhaul. 

Annual Dollar Value Intended to Control and Account: 
On an annual basis, ECSS is intended to control and account for (1) 
$13 billion of working capital fund budgetary authority,[Footnote 13] 
and (2) approximately $33 billion of general fund budgetary authority 
[Footnote 14] for logistics. 

Table: DOD’s Reported Status as of December 31, 2011: 

Program timeline: 
* Initiation date: January 2004; 
* Original scheduled date of full deployment: Fiscal year 2012[A]; 
* Current scheduled date of full deployment: September 2017[B]. 

Program costs: 
* Original life-cycle cost estimate: $3 billion; 
* Current life-cycle cost estimate: $5.2 billion[B]; 
* Amount expended: $899 million. 

Program deployment details: 
* Current number of system users: 225; 
* Expected number of system users at full deployment: 250,000; 
* Current number of locations using system: 6; 
* Expected number of locations at full deployment: 186; 
* Legacy systems to be replaced: 240; 
* Annual cost of legacy systems: $325 million; 
* Number of system interfaces: 564. 

Source: DOD’s GFEBS Program Management Office and historical data as 
reported in GAO-11-53. 

Note: These data have not been validated. 

[A] As previously reported by DOD and described in GAO-11-53. 

[B] According to program officials, schedule delays have resulted from 
program restructuring, changes in leadership, and other factors. 
Further, officials indicated that the increase in the life-cycle cost 
estimate is based on gaining a more detailed understanding of the 
program in areas such as data cleansing, reports, interfaces, 
conversions, extensions, and fielding. 

[End of table] 

[End of fact sheet] 

Air Force - Integrated Personnel and Pay System (AF-IPPS)[Footnote 15]: 

Program Owner: 
Program Executive Office and Service Acquisition Executive, Air Force. 

Functionality: 
The AF-IPPS is intended to provide a comprehensive, web-based solution 
to integrate many existing personnel and pay processes into one self-
service system. It is intended to support the Active, Reserve, and Air 
National Guard components. 

Annual Dollar Value Intended to Control and Account: 

On an annual basis, AF-IPPS is intended to execute, track, and report 
on the disbursement of funds related to compensating Active, Reserve, 
and Air National Guard service members in the following amounts: 
* Active - $29.5 billion; 
* Reserve - $1.7 billion; 
* Air National Guard - $3.1 billion. 

Table: DOD’s Reported Status as of December 31, 2011: 

Program timeline: 
* Initiation date: September 2009; 
* Original scheduled date of full deployment: April 2018[A]; 
* Current scheduled date of full deployment: Fourth quarter fiscal 
year 2016. 

Program costs: 
* Original life-cycle cost estimate: $1.7 billion; 
* Current life-cycle cost estimate: $1.7 billion[B]; 
* Amount expended: $46 million. 

Program deployment details: 
* Current number of system users: 0; 
* Expected number of system users at full deployment: Approximately 
550,000; 
* Current number of locations using system: 0; 
* Expected number of locations at full deployment: 150; 
* Legacy systems to be replaced: 31; 
* Annual cost of legacy systems: $120 million; 
* Number of system interfaces: 148. 

Source: DOD’s GFEBS Program Management Office and historical data as 
reported in GAO-11-53. 

Note: These data have not been validated. 

[A] As previously reported by DOD and described in GAO-11-53. 

[End of table] 

[End of fact sheet] 

Defense Agencies Initiative (DAI): 

Program Owner: 
Defense Logistics Agency. 

Functionality: 
The DAI system is intended to modernize the defense agencies’ 
financial management processes by streamlining financial management 
capabilities and transforming the budget, finance, and accounting 
operations. When DAI is fully implemented, it is expected to have the 
capability to control and account for all appropriated working capital 
and revolving funds at the defense agencies implementing the system. 

Annual Dollar Value Intended to Control and Account: 
Program officials did not provide the dollar value that DAI is 
intended to control and account for on an annual basis. 

Table: DOD’s Reported Status as of December 31, 2011: 

Program timeline: 
* Initiation date: January 2007; 
* Original scheduled date of full deployment: Fiscal year 2012[A]; 
* Current scheduled date of full deployment: September 2016[B]. 

Program costs: 
* Original life-cycle cost estimate: $209 million[A]; 
* Current life-cycle cost estimate: Not yet determined[B]; 
* Amount expended: $193 million. 

Program deployment details: 
* Current number of system users: Approximately 8,000; 
* Expected number of system users at full deployment: 93,980; 
* Current number of locations using system: 10; 
* Expected number of locations at full deployment: 29; 
* Legacy systems to be replaced: 15; 
* Annual cost of legacy systems: $35 million; 
* Number of system interfaces: 36. 

Source: DOD’s GFEBS Program Management Office and historical data as 
reported in GAO-11-53. 

Note: These data have not been validated. 

[A] As previously reported by DOD and described in GAO-11-53. 

[B] DAI program officials did not provide a reason for the slippage in 
full deployment dates. Further, according to program officials, as of 
December 2011, the life-cycle cost estimate for DAI had not been 
finalized. 

[End of table] 

[End of fact sheet] 

[End of Enclosure] 

Enclosure IV: 

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Asif A. Khan, (202) 512-9869 or khana@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Cynthia Jackson, Assistant 
Director; Michael LaForge, Assistant Director; Beatrice Alff; Bruce 
David; LaTasha Freeman; Patrick Frey; and James Kernen made key 
contributions to this report. 

[End of Enclosure] 

Footnotes: 

[1] An ERP system is an automated system using commercial off-the-
shelf software consisting of multiple, integrated functional modules 
that perform a variety of business-related tasks such as general 
ledger accounting, payroll, and supply chain management. 

[2] GAO, DOD Business Transformation: Improved Management Oversight of 
Business System Modernization Efforts Needed, GAO-11-53 (Washington, 
D.C.: Oct. 7, 2010). 

[3] See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Pub. 
L. No. 111-84, div. A, § 1003(a), (b), 123 Stat. 2190, 2439-40 (Oct. 
28, 2009). 

[4] GAO-11-53. 

[5] GAO-11-53. 

[6] We did not include information on the DLA's EBS in this report. 
According to DLA officials, this ERP system was fully deployed to over 
15,000 system users in July 2007 and is in sustainment. 

[7] With respect to the acquisition of a large information system like 
an ERP, full deployment means the fielding of an increment of the 
program in accordance with the terms of a full deployment decision--
the final decision authorizing an increment of the program to deploy 
software for operational use. The National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-84, div. A, § 841, 123 Stat. 
2190, 2418 (Oct. 28, 2009), directed that the terminology be changed 
from full operational capability to full deployment. 

[8] A life-cycle cost estimate provides an accounting of all resources 
and associated cost elements required to develop, produce, deploy, and 
sustain a particular program. The life-cycle cost estimate encompasses 
all past, present, and future costs for every aspect of the program, 
regardless of funding source. 

[9] An interface is a connection between two devices, applications, or 
networks or a boundary across which two systems communicate. 

[10] According to the GFEBS program officials, the Army Corps of 
Engineers will continue to use its existing financial system, the 
Corps of Engineers Financial Management System; but once GFEBS is 
fully operational, the Army will assess the feasibility of GFEBS 
becoming the system of record for the Corps of Engineers. 

[11] Originally, the IPPS-A was a part of the Defense Integrated 
Military Human Resources System (DIMHRS) and was intended to provide a 
joint, integrated, standardized personnel and pay system for all 
military personnel departmentwide. Each military service is now 
responsible for developing its own integrated personnel and pay system. 

[12] Originally, IPPS-Navy was a part of the Defense Integrated 
Military Human Resources System (DIMHRS) and was intended to provide a 
joint, integrated, standardized personnel and pay system for all 
military personnel departmentwide. Each military service is now 
responsible for developing its own integrated personnel and pay system. 

[13] The working capital fund can be defined as an intragovernmental 
revolving fund that operates as a self-supporting entity that conducts 
a regular cycle of business-like activities. These funds function 
entirely from the fees charged for the services they provide 
consistent with their statutory authority. 

[14] The general fund can be defined as the fund into which receipts 
are deposited, except those from specific sources required by law to 
be deposited into other designated funds and from which appropriations 
are made by Congress to carry on the general and ordinary operations 
of the government. 

[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 website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, 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 
website, [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. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [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: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 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, DC 20548.