Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should direct the Chief Architect to develop a plan to attain mature technologies when needed for each ABMS development area, which includes an initial list of technologies and an assessment of their maturity that is updated to reflect changes, and update Congress quarterly. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition)
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation but, as of August 2020, has not yet taken any action to implement it. Officials indicated that in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021 the department expects to provide Congress with an initial list of technologies and an assessment of their maturity, and a plan to attain mature technologies for each development area. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should direct the Chief Architect to prepare a cost estimate that is developed in accordance with cost estimating leading practices, to include regularly updating the estimate to reflect ABMS changes and actual costs, and update Congress quarterly. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition)
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation but, as of August 2020, has not yet taken any action to implement it. Officials indicated that in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021 the department expects to provide Congress with a cost estimate of ABMS development activities. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should direct the Chief Architect to prepare an affordability analysis that should be regularly updated, and update Congress quarterly. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition)
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation but, as of August 2020, has not yet taken any action to implement it. Officials indicated that in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2020 the department expects to provide Congress with the affordability analysis for the fiscal year 2021 budget request. In addition, the department plans to provide an affordability analysis as part of the fiscal year 2022 budget request submission to Congress. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should formalize and document acquisition authority and decision-making responsibilities of the Air Force offices involved in the planning and execution of ABMS, to include the Chief Architect. This document should be included as part of the submission to Congress in June 2020 and communicated to the Air Force offices that support ABMS. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition)
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation but, as of August 2020, has not yet taken any action to implement it. Officials indicated that in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2020 the department expects to provide Congress with documentation of decision-making authorities. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations directs the Advanced Exploration Systems division to define and determine a schedule for synchronization reviews, including the role of the proposed Lunar Exploration Control Board, to help ensure that requirements between mission and program levels are reconciled. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Advanced Exploration Systems division will review program life-cycle review plans to ensure enterprise and program requirements are reconciled across the mission. NASA is in the process of determining the organizational structure of the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. Following this completion, NASA officials stated that the appropriate control board and division structures for review and program direction will become active.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations directs the Gateway program to conduct a joint cost and schedule confidence level at the program level for the Artemis III mission. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation and stated it would conduct a joint cost and schedule confidence level analysis or equivalent. The Gateway program is planning to conduct a series of project- and program-level reviews and assessments aligned with key decision point reviews. This includes conducting a joint cost and schedule confidence level analysis or equivalent of the Gateway initial configuration to support a program key decision point planned for fall 2021. NASA has not yet taken action on this recommendation.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations directs the Gateway program to update its overall schedule for 2024 to add a KDP II to occur before system integration. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation, but has not yet taken action on it. NASA stated that it would provide a schedule for future reviews, including whether there will be a Key Decision Point (KDP) II, at the KDP-I review currently scheduled for fall 2021.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations creates a life-cycle cost estimate for the Artemis III mission. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: NASA agreed with the recommendation and stated that the agency will provide a preliminary cost estimate for the Artemis III mission by the end of 2020. Further, NASA stated that it will provide an updated cost estimate for the Artemis III mission after it establishes cost and schedule commitments for some of the projects that compose the lunar mission, currently planned for the Spring of 2021. To fully implement this recommendation, NASA will need to provide a cost estimate.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations directs the Advanced Exploration Systems division to commit to a completion date and finalize a cohesive document outlining the rationale for selecting its current lunar architecture and lunar programs. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation and stated that it is developing a document that will summarize the trades and architectural studies, but the document is not yet complete.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the Office of the Chief Engineer determines under what conditions it is appropriate to complete an analysis of alternatives, particularly when there are multiple pathways—including architectures or programs—that NASA could pursue in the future, and document the justification for not completing an analysis. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation, but has not yet taken any action on it. NASA stated that it will provide additional clarifying guidance for conducting analyses of alternatives for new programs in the next update to NASA Procedural Requirements 7120.5E, "NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements." NASA plans to complete the update of the procedural requirement in September 2021.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment should ensure that the Air Force's finalized Space C2 program's acquisition strategy includes, at a minimum, the following elements:

• acquisition and contracting approach;
• program management structure, including authorities and oversight responsibilities;
• plans for platform and infrastructure development;
• requirements management and development approach, and plans for prioritization;
• risk management plans, including how the program will identify and mitigate risks;
• metrics for measuring quality of software, and how those results will be shared with external stakeholders;
• manpower assessment identifying program workforce needs and state of expertise in Agile methods;
• requirements for reporting program progress to decision makers; and
• yearly funding levels. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation and stated that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment directed the Air Force (this work has now been moved to the Space Force) to provide an Acquisition Strategy for approval in November 2019. DOD noted that a strategy template provided to the Air Force included the elements identified by GAO. As of July 2020, the Acquisition Strategy had been submitted to the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, but officials stated that the strategy is still in review and has not yet been finalized.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment should ensure that the Air Force's Space C2 program conducts periodic independent reviews to assess the program's approach to developing software and provide, as needed, advice to the program and recommendations for improving the program's development and progress. Participants could include, but are not limited to, officials from the Defense Innovation Board, the Defense Digital Service, the office of the Air Force Chief Software Advisor, and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment's Special Assistant for Software Acquisition. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment will assess the need for future periodic and independent reviews of the program. As of July 2020, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment stated that it had planned to direct an independent review of the program to be conducted by a Federally Funded Research and Development Center and to be completed by September 2020. However, lack of funding and restrictions related to COVID-19 impacted planning. The office still plans to direct this review, but details are pending.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) develops an IT enterprise architecture which includes a transition plan that provides a road map for improving the department's IT and computing infrastructure, including for each of its business processes. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2019, the DOD CIO developed a report on the first increment of version 3 of the department's information enterprise architecture (IEA). The report includes high-level descriptions of the current and target architectures, and high-level plans and schedules for transitioning from the current to the target architecture. The report states that because of the incremental approach to developing the architecture, the plans and schedules are notional and depend on several factors over which the DOD CIO has limited or no control, such as funding and changing world events, priorities, and technology. The report also describes plans to integrate the IEA with the department's business enterprise architecture. However, the report did not define a specific time frame for integrating the architectures. According to the report, for the next increment of the architecture, the department plans to develop compliance criteria and plans for developing an ontology, database, and tool suite. The department did not provide a time frame for completing the next increment. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the DOD CIO and Chief Management Officer work together to define a specific time frame for when the department plans to integrate its business and IT architectures and ensure that the architectures are integrated. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2019, the DOD CIO developed a report on the first increment of version 3 of its information enterprise architecture (IEA). The report described planned efforts related to integrating the IEA and the business enterprise architecture. However, the report did not define a specific time frame for when the department plans to integrate the architectures.

Recommendation: To better position the Coast Guard to effectively plan its Arctic operations, the Commandant of the Coast Guard should develop measures, as appropriate, for gauging how the agency's actions have helped to mitigate the Arctic capability gaps.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2016, we reviewed and reported on the U.S. Coast Guard's efforts in the Arctic. We found that the Coast Guard had taken actions to implement its Arctic strategy and conduct Arctic operations, which may help the Coast Guard to better understand and mitigate identified Arctic capability gaps. Further, we found that the Coast Guard was tracking, or had plans to track, its various activities in the Arctic, but that it had not developed measures to systematically assess how its actions have helped to mitigate Arctic capability gaps. We recommended that the Coast Guard develop measures, as appropriate, for gauging how the agency's actions have helped to mitigate the Arctic capability gaps. Since that time, the Coast Guard updated its Arctic strategy in April 2019. In February 2020, Coast Guard officials stated that they are revising the implementation plan for its Arctic Strategy and are working on a framework tool to measure the impacts of its actions in the Arctic. According to Coast Guard officials, they expect the implementation plan to include actionable items that can be measured and the framework tool to include outcome and success measures. In July 2020, officials estimated that the implementation plan would be finalized by the end of fiscal year 2020. Further, the Coast Guard issued a contract in August 2019 to help develop the framework tool by the end of fiscal year 2020. Officials stated that the tool may require revisions before it is finalized and implemented and that throughout fiscal year 2021 they will test, evaluate, and adjust the framework tool, as appropriate. To fully address this recommendation, the Coast Guard will need to finalize the development of its measures to gauge how its actions have helped to mitigate Arctic capability gaps, which we will continue to monitor.

Recommendation: To better position the Coast Guard to effectively plan its Arctic operations, the Commandant of the Coast Guard should design and implement a process to systematically assess the extent to which actions taken agency-wide have helped mitigate the Arctic capability gaps for which it has responsibility.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2016, we reviewed and reported on the U.S. Coast Guard's efforts in the Arctic. We found that the Coast Guard had taken actions to implement its Arctic strategy and conduct Arctic operations, which may help the Coast Guard to better understand and mitigate identified Arctic capability gaps. Further, we found that the Coast Guard was tracking, or had plans to track, its various activities in the Arctic, but that it had not systematically assessed how its actions have helped to mitigate Arctic capability gaps. We recommended that the Coast Guard design and implement a process to systematically assess the extent to which actions taken agency-wide have helped mitigate the Arctic capability gaps for which it has responsibility, so that it will better understand the status of these gaps and be better positioned to effectively plan its Arctic operations. Since that time, the Coast Guard updated its Arctic strategy in April 2019. In February 2020, Coast Guard officials stated that they are revising the implementation plan for its Arctic Strategy and are working on a framework tool to measure the impacts of its actions in the Arctic. Officials estimated that the implementation plan would be finalized by the end of fiscal year 2020. Further, the Coast Guard issued a contract in August 2019 to help develop the framework tool by the end of fiscal year 2020. Officials stated that the tool may require revisions before it is implemented and utilized for assessment of its progress. In July 2020, Coast Guard officials stated that they plan to test, evaluate, and adjust the framework tool, as appropriate, throughout fiscal year 2021. To fully address this recommendation, the Coast Guard will need to assess how its actions have helped to mitigate Arctic capability gaps, and provide documentation that identifies the progress it has made in helping to mitigate Arctic capability gaps and its plans to systematically assess progress, which we will continue to monitor.

Recommendation: As one of only a few major acquisition programs to award a fixed-price incentive (firm target) development contract in recent years, evaluating performance and identifying lessons learned will be very illustrative and important to inform decision-makers and help guide and improve future defense acquisition programs. Therefore, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should closely monitor the cost, schedule, and performance outcomes of the KC-46 program to identify positive or negative lessons learned.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
Status: Open

Comments: DOD compiled lessons learned during the source selection phase of the KC-46 program. As of August 2020, the Department has identified lessons learned during program implementation to evaluate cost, schedule and performance outcomes as we recommended. Program officials provided a copy of the report, which is with SAF/AQ for approval, and will then be distributed across the department.