Skip to main content

Coast Guard: As Deepwater Systems Integrator, Coast Guard Is Reassessing Costs and Capabilities but Lags in Applying Its Disciplined Acquisition Approach

GAO-09-682 Published: Jul 14, 2009. Publicly Released: Jul 14, 2009.
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights


The Deepwater Program includes efforts to build or modernize ships and aircraft and to procure other capabilities. In 2002, the Coast Guard contracted with Integrated Coast Guard Systems (ICGS) to manage the acquisition as systems integrator. After a series of project failures, the Coast Guard announced in April 2007 that it would take over the lead role, with future work on individual assets bid competitively, and a program baseline of $24.2 billion was set. In June 2008, GAO reported on the Coast Guard's progress and made several recommendations, which the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have addressed. In response to a Senate report accompanying the DHS Appropriations Bill, 2009, GAO addressed (1) efforts to manage Deepwater, (2) changes in cost and schedule of the assets, and (3) efforts to build an acquisition workforce. GAO reviewed Coast Guard and DHS documents and interviewed officials.


Recommendations for Executive Action

Agency Affected Recommendation Status
United States Coast Guard The Commandant of the Coast Guard should not exercise further options under the Fast Response Cutter contract and under the task order for the second increment of C4ISR until these projects are brought into full compliance with the MSAM and DHS acquisition directives.
Closed – Implemented
In their comments on this report the agency concurred with our recommendation. On June 2, 2010, the Coast Guard submitted an update of the actions taken to close the recommendation. The Coast Guard stated that the Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) and Fast Response Cutter (FRC) projects had completed the required acquisition documentation for their current phases in the acquisition life cycle framework and therefore were in compliance with both the Coast Guard's Major Systems Acquisition Manual (MSAM) and Department of Homeland Security (DH) acquisition directives. Prior to the award of the task order for the second increment of C4ISR, referred to as the Discrete Segment 2 option, the C4ISR project either completed all required documents or provided completed documents for DH review or approval. DH reviewed the C4ISR project status and concurred with execution of the contract option. At the same time, DH committed to work together with the Coast Guard to resolve weaknesses identified in key project documents. Prior to the award of the first FRC low rate initial production (LRIP) option, the FRC project either completed all required documents or provided completed documents for DH review or approval. DH reviewed FRC project status at Acquisition Decision Event-2B (LRIP) on December 4, 2009 and approved the LRIP contract award. On February 26, 2010, DH issued the ADE-2B Acquisition Decision Memo documenting this approval, which delegated approval authority for the remaining LRIP options to the Under Secretary for Management and established exit criteria for the Full Rate Production/Deployment decision (ADE-3).
United States Coast Guard The Commandant of the Coast Guard should consult with the DHS Office of Test & Evaluation and Standards to determine whether the MSAM conflicts with DHS's directive regarding the entity named as the independent operational test authority and, if so, take steps to reconcile the inconsistency.
Closed – Implemented
In their comments on this report the agency concurred with the recommendation to coordinate with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on which organization should act as operational test authority. In November 2010 the Coast Guard released an updated version of their Major Systems Acquisition Manual that aligns Coast Guard policies on the operational test authority with that of the Department and ensures the independence of the operational test authority.
United States Coast Guard As the Coast Guard prepares future budget submissions for Deepwater, the Commandant of the Coast Guard should include the total acquisition costs for the assets and total quantities planned.
Closed – Implemented
In comments on the report, the agency indicated that it would take this recommendation under advisement as the Coast Guard was in compliance with the DHS policy that governs the budget submission format. In their fiscal year 2013 budget submission the Coast Guard did provide a table that included total acquisition costs for a number of its assets, but did not consistently include the total quantities planned. In addition to the budget submission, DHS provided to the Congress a report entitled "Capital Investment Plan: FYs 2013-2017." This document provides the total acquisition costs and quantities for the majority of the systems that made up the Deepwater program but was released only to the House and Senate appropriation committees overseeing DHS and was also marked "For Official Use Only" limiting its distribution, and therefore its utility, to decision makers. Presentation of information on the full costs and quantities of the systems that made up the Deepwater program in the Coast Guard's budget submission can provide the information to a wider audience and better assist Congress in providing funding and conducting oversight. For its fiscal year 2014 budget submission, the Coast Guard provided a table that included both total acquisition costs and total quantities planned for a number of its assets. In addition, DHS provided a link to its "Capital Investment Plan: FYs 2014-2018" through its website, thus making it publicly available. Through these actions the Coast Guard has implemented the recommendation.

Full Report

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs


AircraftAssetsCoast Guard personnelContract costsContractorsCost analysisEmployee retentionFederal procurementFuture budget projectionsHomeland securityHuman capital planningOperational testingProcurement planningProgram evaluationProgram managementRisk managementSchedule slippagesShipsStaff utilizationStrategic planningSystems integrationCost estimatesCost growthPolicies and proceduresProgram costs