Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the F-35 program office to resolve all critical deficiencies before making a full-rate production decision. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that critical deficiencies would be resolved before full-rate production, due in December 2019. In May 2020, we reported that DOD delayed its full-rate production decision from December 2019 to between September 2020 and March 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the F-35 program office to identify what steps are needed to ensure the F-35 meets reliability and maintainability requirements before each variant reaches maturity and update the Reliability and Maintainability Improvement Program with these steps. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. According to a DOD official, as of July 2020, the F-35 program office is in the process of revising its plan for improving the F-35's reliability and maintainability.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Defense and of Transportation should address ADS-B Out security concerns by approving one or more solutions that address ADS-B Out -related security risks or incorporating mitigations for security risks into the existing draft memorandum of agreement. These approved solutions should address operations, physical, cyber-attack, and electronic warfare security risks; and risks associated with divesting secondary-surveillance radars. The solution or mitigations should be approved as soon as possible in order to allow sufficient time for implementation.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2018, DOD and the FAA signed a memorandum of agreement that that establishes a framework for DOD and FAA to jointly address the provision to allow certain aircraft not to broadcast and airspace monitoring and defense security issues related to ADS-B, and identifies a path to fully address the recommendations in our report. The memorandum of agreement was a first step to address the security issues we highlighted in the report; however, FAA still needs to publish a National Procedural Guidance for accommodation of DOD needs for mixed-equipment operations and operational security concerns (expected December 2018).

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Defense and of Transportation should address ADS-B Out security concerns by approving one or more solutions that address ADS-B Out -related security risks or incorporating mitigations for security risks into the existing draft memorandum of agreement. These approved solutions should address operations, physical, cyber-attack, and electronic warfare security risks; and risks associated with divesting secondary-surveillance radars. The solution or mitigations should be approved as soon as possible in order to allow sufficient time for implementation.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: DOT concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2018, DOD and the FAA signed a memorandum of agreement that that establishes a framework for DOD and FAA to jointly address the provision to allow certain aircraft not to broadcast and airspace monitoring and defense security issues related to ADS-B, and identifies a path to fully address the recommendations in our report.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct DOD components to implement key tasks that would facilitate consistent, long-term planning and implementation of NextGen--such as those tasks that the Deputy Secretary of Defense originally directed in 2007, or any tasks that the Secretary deems appropriate based on a current assessment of the original tasks.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2018, DOD has not taken action regarding the eight tasks GAO identified in the 2007 Deputy Secretary of Defense memorandum on ADS-B implementation.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the F-35 Program Executive Officer, should re-examine the metrics that it will use to hold the contractor accountable under the fixed-price, performance-based contracts to ensure that such metrics are objectively measurable, are fully reflective of processes over which the contractor has control, and drive desired behaviors by all stakeholders. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2019, documentation provided by DOD stated that it had established a joint working group to assess the feasibility of and examine options for DOD's planned 5-year performance-based logistics contract. A DOD official said that this group is also working to identify appropriate metrics to hold the contractor accountable under a potential long-term performance-based contract. DOD has not provided us with a timeline of when the working group's assessment will be complete. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to re-examine metrics to ensure that they are objectively measureable, fully reflective of processes over which the contractor has control, and drive desired behaviors by all stakeholders.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the F-35 Program Executive Officer, should, prior to entering into multi-year, fixed-price, performance-based contracts, ensure that DOD has sufficient knowledge of the actual costs of sustainment and technical characteristics of the aircraft after baseline development is complete and the system reaches maturity. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2019, documentation provided by DOD stated that it had established a joint working group to assess the feasibility of and examine options for DOD's planned 5-year performance-based logistics (PBL) contract. As a product of this assessment, DOD expects that the department will be able to outline what level of knowledge is required of the actual costs of sustainment and technical characteristics of the aircraft in order to enter into a PBL sustainment construct. DOD has not provided us with a timeline of when the working group's assessment will be complete. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts in this area.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should develop a comprehensive plan for shipyard capital investment that establishes (1) the desired goal for the shipyards' condition and capabilities; (2) an estimate of the full costs to implement the plan, addressing all relevant requirements, external risk factors, and associated planning costs; and (3) metrics for assessing progress toward meeting the goal that include measuring the effectiveness of capital investments. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to develop and implement a comprehensive plan. Naval Sea Systems Command produced a Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan in February 2018 to guide the overhaul and improvement of the naval shipyards. This plan includes some of the recommended elements but not others. (1) The plan includes some goals for the desired shipyard condition and capabilities including to: recover almost 70 maintenance periods over the next 20 years, modernize capital equipment to industry standards, optimize facilities, and reduce travel time and movement for personnel and materiel during the maintenance process. Navy officials stated the program office is in the process of creating digital maps of the yards to use in modeling facility layouts to identify the optimal layout. The Navy states that the optimal layout will recover 328,000 man days per year, a 65 percent reduction of travel and movement. (2) The report includes a preliminary cost estimate, but work is underway to determine the full costs to address all relevant requirements, risk factors, and planning costs. The plan identifies risks that could increase costs, but does not identify solutions to address those risks. Program officials said they will develop plans to address the risks in subsequent phases of the planning effort. The risks Navy officials identified included historical preservation, environmental regulations, and the need for extra capacity. (3) The plan did not include metrics for assessing progress toward meeting each of the goals. Navy officials stated that they intend to develop metrics to meet this element during a second phase that will be complete in fiscal year 2020.To fully implement this recommendation, the Navy should complete its optimization plan, develop a reliable cost estimate addressing all relevant requirements, risks, and planning costs, and develop metrics to help it assess progress towards meeting its goal that include measuring the effectiveness of capital investments.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should conduct regular management reviews that include all relevant stakeholders to oversee implementation of the plan, review metrics, assess the progress made toward the goal, and make adjustments, as necessary, to ensure that the goal is attained. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to conduct regular management reviews. To address this recommendation, the Navy issued NAVSEA Notice 5450 in June 2018. This notice established a new program management office responsible for planning, developing, scheduling, budgeting, and sustaining the replacement of shipyard facilities and equipment. By creating this office, the Navy has taken a first step toward establishing a result-oriented management approach and toward implementing our recommendation to conduct regular management reviews. In addition, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, in September 2018, required this new program office to provide regular updates to an Executive Oversight Council. These updates could serve as a foundation to address this recommendation. However, as noted in GAO-20-64, the Navy has faced challenges involving all the relevant stakeholders in the plan's implementation, namely the shipyards. In the absence of clear direction, the shipyards have worked with the program office to develop several informal collaboration mechanisms. For example, the program office and the shipyards have begun several shipyard-specific working groups and hold regular telephone calls. However, until the shipyards are formally involved in the implementation and assessment of the plan, the Navy will be unable to fully meet the direction of this recommendation to involve "all relevant stakeholders."

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should provide regular reporting to key decision makers and Congress on the progress the shipyards are making to meet the goal of the comprehensive plan, along with any challenges that hinder that progress, such as cost. This may include reporting on progress to reduce their facilities restoration and modernization backlogs, improve the condition and configuration of the shipyards, and recapitalize capital equipment. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to provide regular reporting to key decision makers and Congress. DOD officials stated in October 2018 that the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan, along with the creation of the Readiness Reform Oversight Council, address this recommendation. While the Readiness Reform Oversight Council does appear to involve some of the key stakeholders who should be receiving the regular reporting, the Navy has already made clear that it sees the shipyard optimization process as a 20-year-long effort. Given that, regular reporting on progress cannot be achieved with a single disclosure at the beginning of the effort. Both Congress and DOD decision makers need to receive regular updates on the implementation of the shipyard optimization plan, and while it is possible that the newly created Shipyard Program Management Office will be able to provide such reporting, that organization is still being developed and, as of August 2019, no progress reporting has yet begun.

Recommendation: To strengthen compliance with the Leahy laws and implementation of State's human rights vetting process and to help ensure that U.S. funded assistance is not provided to Egyptian security forces that have committed gross violations of human rights, as State works to implement a revised version of the International Vetting and Security Tracking system (INVEST) system that is expected to help facilitate equipment vetting, the Secretary of State should develop time frames for establishing corresponding policies and procedures to implement a vetting process to help enable the U.S. government to provide a more reasonable level of assurance that equipment is not transferred to foreign security forces, including those in Egypt, when there is credible information that a unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: State agreed with this recommendation. State acknowledged challenges identifying recipients of equipment across the range of assistance activities, but noted that it would continue to update its systems and procedures to facilitate human rights vetting for recipients of equipment. In April 2017, State reported that it had provided finalized guidance on vetting Egyptian recipients of Foreign Military Financing-funded equipment to Embassy Cairo and that these procedures had been incorporated into a revised version of Embassy Cairo's guide for conducting human rights vetting. At the time, State noted that Embassy Cairo had begun to implement these procedures. However, State subsequently reported that implementation of these procedures lapsed in 2018 due to staff turnover at Embassy Cairo. As of January 2020, State said that it intends to have new standard operating procedures in place for equipment vetting in Egypt later in 2020. In addition, State has not adopted procedures, similar to those in development for Egypt, to be used more broadly in other countries that also receive equipment through the Foreign Military Financing account or through other U.S. assistance programs. As of June 2017, State had added new features to INVEST, its human rights vetting system, to help facilitate vetting of equipment recipients, and published new vetting guidance requiring screening of equipment transfers. However, State has not established global requirements for posts to use the new equipment vetting system features to screen equipment transfers. As of February 2020, State reported that it had developed draft standard operating procedures for conducting equipment vetting globally; however, these procedures are being reviewed internally within the Department and are expected to be finalized later in 2020. We will continue to monitor agency efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help DOD address key risks to F-35 affordability and operational readiness, and to improve the reliability of its O&S cost estimates for the life cycle of the program, the Secretary of Defense should direct the F-35 Program Executive Officer, to enable DOD to better identify, address, and mitigate performance issues with the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) that could have an effect on affordability, as well as readiness, to establish a performance-measurement process for ALIS that includes, but is not limited to, performance metrics and targets that (1) are based on intended behavior of the system in actual operations and (2) tie system performance to user requirements.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. According to DOD officials, as of July 2018, plans are emerging between the services and the Joint Program Office on a path forward for ALIS, focusing on both the current iteration of ALIS and the future state. Going forward, the services and the Joint Program Office are developing plans for the necessary re-architecture of ALIS. Once these current improvements and future requirements are finalized, appropriate performance metrics, tying system performance in operations environments to user requirements, will be incorporated. As of January 2020, DOD officials stated that there was no update to this status. Although DOD has a way ahead as it relates to developing performance metrics for ALIS, DOD has yet to develop any metrics that are based on intended behavior of the system and tie system performance to user requirements. Until DOD takes this action, our recommendation will remain open.

Recommendation: To help DOD address key risks to F-35 affordability and operational readiness, and to improve the reliability of its O&S cost estimates for the life cycle of the program, the Secretary of Defense should direct the F-35 Program Executive Officer, to develop a high level of confidence that the aircraft will achieve its R+M goals, to develop a software reliability and maintainability (R+M) assessment process, with metrics, by which the program can monitor and determine the effect that software issues may have on overall F-35 R+M issues.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. According to DOD officials, as of July 2018, the department and the Joint Program Office, as part of their focus on agile software development, are working to incorporate software reliability and maintainability metrics into future software development and sustainment contracts. Some of the proposed metrics under consideration include: change failure rate; number of errors in developmental/user/operational testing; time to fix on critical errors; and mean time to restore. As of September 2019, DOD officials stated that there was no update to this status. Although attention is being paid to software Reliability & Maintainability, until DOD develops a process focused on software and its effects on overall Reliability & Maintainability issues, this recommendation will remain open.

Recommendation: To help DOD address key risks to F-35 affordability and operational readiness, and to improve the reliability of its O&S cost estimates for the life cycle of the program, the Secretary of Defense should direct the F-35 Program Executive Officer, to promote competition, address affordability, and inform its overarching sustainment strategy, to develop a long-term Intellectual Property (IP) Strategy to include, but not be limited to, the identification of (1) current levels of technical data rights ownership by the federal government and (2) all critical technical data needs and their associated costs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. According to DOD officials, as of January 2020, in the updated F-35 Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) issued in January 2019, "Secure Use of Appropriate Technical Data" was one of the identified elements of success necessary to improve F-35 readiness and reduce sustainment costs. As part of the ongoing Plans of Action & Milestones (POAM) implementation process for the LCSP success elements, the F-35 Joint Program Office is working with the OEMs to determine the data rights the government already has, and to determine the specific technical data the government needs, and what it needs that data to accomplish. Significant progress has been made on both fronts with the prime contractor. We acknowledge that progress surrounding technical data rights is being made; however, until an Intellectual Property strategy is developed and released, this recommendation will remain open.