Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Naval Sea Systems Command fully analyzes the use of overtime among shipyard production shops, and updates workforce requirements to avoid the consistent use of overtime to meet planned maintenance requirements. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Naval Sea Systems Command identify a timeframe for completing the development of metrics for its Shipyard Performance to Plan initiative and complete the development of metrics to address the main factors contributing to maintenance delays and improve the timely completion of ship maintenance at Navy shipyards. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Naval Sea Systems Command develop and implements goals, action plans, milestones, and a monitoring process for its Shipyard Performance to Plan initiative to address the main factors contributing to maintenance delays and improving the timely completion of ship maintenance at Navy shipyards. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should establish an analysis plan for the evaluation of OPN-funded pilot program availabilities, based on the leading practices for pilot programs. This analysis plan should identify opportunities to evaluate schedule outcomes of pilot program availabilities as compared to non-pilot program availabilities and document a process for evaluating lessons learned from the pilot program (Recommendation 1).

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

Comments: The Department of the Navy concurred with our recommendation in May 2020, stating that it would establish an analysis plan for evaluating Other Procurement, Navy-funded pilot program availabilities. In July 2020, the Director, Maintenance & Modernization, within the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Ship Programs, stated that the Navy has drafted this analysis plan, which is now undergoing required Department of Defense (DOD) reviews. The Director stated that he expects this review process to be completed sometime in late summer 2020. Once complete, he stated that his office will provide the analysis plan to GAO for review to confirm that it satisfies our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should change its definition for setting operational availability for ships in its Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System policy by adding information that defines the operational availability requirement by mission area in addition to the ship level and includes all equipment failures that affect the ability of a ship to perform primary missions. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation stating that it would work with the Navy and Joint Staff to revisit requirements definitions for shipbuilding programs to better ensure that they are traceable to a ship's mission and can be used across ship development and fielding. As of June 2020, DOD officials told us that there are two upcoming opportunities to make changes to DOD Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System policy and that these recommendations will receive consideration during this process.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should change its definition for setting materiel availability for ships in its Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System requirements policy to include all factors that could result in a ship being unavailable for operations, such as unplanned maintenance, unplanned losses, and training. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation stating that it will work with the Navy and the Joint Staff to revisit requirements definitions for shipbuilding programs to better ensure materiel availability requirements include all factors that could preclude a ship from operating. As of June 2020, DOD officials told us that there are two upcoming opportunities to make changes to DOD Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System policy and that these recommendations will receive consideration during this process.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) and the CNO, once DOD requirements setting policy is revised, to update existing operational availability requirements for ongoing shipbuilding programs. When revising these requirements, the Navy should set operational availability requirements that: (1) are based on failures that affect the ability of a ship to perform primary missions and (2) are set at the mission level instead of ship level. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation stating that changes to the requirements setting policy will apply only to new shipbuilding programs. As of June 2020, DOD officials told us that there are two upcoming opportunities to make changes to DOD Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System policy and that these recommendations will receive consideration during this process. While important steps towards improving the requirements setting process, DOD officials did not state whether any policy changes would apply to current shipbuilding programs. As we discussed in our report, at least four ship classes have plans for a new flight, block, and/or major modification. DOD and the Navy may miss key opportunities to improve the Navy's sustainment requirements if it excludes existing programs that have established requirements but have yet to start design or construction.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) and the CNO, once DOD requirements setting policy is revised, to update the materiel availability requirements for ongoing shipbuilding programs. When developing or revising these requirements, the Navy should set materiel availability requirements that fully capture all factors that could preclude a ship from being ready when needed. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation stating that changes to the requirements setting policy will apply to new shipbuilding programs. As of June 2020, DOD officials told us that there are two upcoming opportunities to make changes to DOD Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System policy and that these recommendations will receive consideration during this process.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) and the CNO, once the Navy revises its sustainment requirements, to ensure that shipbuilding programs report operational availability and materiel availability requirements in Selected Acquisition Reports, and alternatives to the Selected Acquisition Reports, for Congress. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and will report operational and materiel availability in the Selected Acquisition Reports based on new definitions in DOD guidance. Therefore, we plan to close this recommendation once DOD updates its definitions and reports numbers in the SAR based on these new definitions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the Commander of Naval Sea Systems Command to ensure that cost estimators follow current guidance and GAO-identified best practices and conduct sensitivity analyses and other analyses to improve their assessment of cost risk in the O&S costs in shipbuilding programs' life-cycle cost estimates. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation stating that it agrees that the use of sensitivity, uncertainty, and risk analyses is a best practice to ensure credible, defensible life cycle cost estimates. However, the Navy has yet to issue any policy updates or provide any evidence that it is conducting sensitivity analyses and other analyses to improve their assessment of cost risk in the O&S costs in shipbuilding programs' life-cycle cost estimates.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) to ensure all shipbuilding programs develop and update LCSPs, in accordance with DOD policy, that demonstrate how a ship class can be affordably operated and maintained while meeting sustainment requirements, including associated business case analyses and identifying sustainment risk. (Recommendation 7)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that it will ensure that all shipbuilding program develop and maintain accurate and complete life cycle sustainment plans. However, as we state in our report, the Navy did not have any accurate and completed life cycle sustainment plans and, as July 2020, has not updated any of these plans.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the Commander of Naval Sea Systems Command to evaluate and implement changes to the ILA in order to position the ILA to effectively identify key sustainment risks and make recommendations for risk mitigation, which may include existing Navy proposals to change the ILA process. (Recommendation 8)

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

Comments: The department concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Navy will undertake a review and will approve any updated Independent Logistics Assessment (ILA) policy that emphasizes risk identification and mitigation in the ILA review. In July 2020, Navy officials stated that the Naval Sea Systems Command and the Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment co-chaired a system-level ILA Working Group in 2020 to rewrite the Navy ILA Handbook to address key deficiencies in the current ILA process and to emphasize the use of a readiness at cost model. ILA Handbook and associated Secretary of Navy Instructions is currently in comment adjudication. In addition, Naval Sea Systems Command is developing an ILA database that provides stakeholders with visibility and insight into their respective programs' ILA-identified sustainment risks to closure. Once completed, Navy officials state that these items should implement the needed improvements to ILAs.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) and the CNO to ensure sustainment-related briefing topics prescribed by the Navy's acquisition policy are consistently discussed at Gate reviews. (Recommendation 9)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that it has updated its Gate 6 sustainment sufficiency process and is executing a new Gate 7 sustainment review. In July 2020, Navy officials reported to us that the Chief of Naval Operations and the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Acquisition will collaborate to ensure sustainment focus areas are properly emphasized at all Gate reviews. As our report states, focusing on sustainment at Gate 7 is likely insufficient to address many of the problems we found in the report. However, as of July 2020, the Navy has yet to provide us with evidence that demonstrate an increase in focus on sustainment during gate briefings or any of the new Gate 7 briefings.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) and the CNO to implement the sustainment program baseline initiative for shipbuilding programs and, in so doing, develop a mechanism that ensures that sustainment outcomes are a factor in shipbuilding programs' decision-making during the acquisition process. (Recommendation 10)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and Navy acquisition leadership officials stated that they will review the results of the demonstration programs for the Sustainment Program Baseline initiative and implement guidance for shipbuilding and all programs in subsequent guidance and policy concerning Sustainment Program Baselines. In updating its response to our recommendations in July 2020, the Navy is planning to implement the Sustainment Program Baseline as a pilot program for ships and submarines in fiscal year 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should revise SECNAVINST 5000.2 and other associated guidance to ensure PSMs are assigned to shipbuilding program offices in time to inform early acquisition decisions, including development of the program's sustainment requirements and LCSPs. (Recommendation 11)

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

Comments: the Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that they will ensure that Product Support Managers (PSM) are assigned to acquisition programs ahead of Milestone A in compliance with existing DoD PSM policies. However, as of July 2020, the Navy did not state that it is planning to revise SECNAVINST 5000.2.

Recommendation: Congress should consider developing an oversight mechanism for evaluating shipbuilding programs' sustainment cost estimate growth during the acquisition process, with requirements for the Navy to: (1) report sustainment cost estimate growth information to Congress and (2) reassess shipbuilding programs that are experiencing a high level of sustainment cost estimate growth.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, there are several draft bills that would address this matter.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should assign responsibility to an entity to conduct a single, comprehensive systematic analysis of overseas surface ship maintenance delays. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure the designated entity conducts a comprehensive, systematic analysis to identify the underlying, interrelated causes of overseas surface ship maintenance delays. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should use the results of the analysis to develop a plan to address surface ship maintenance delays overseas. Such a plan should incorporate results-oriented elements, including analytically based goals, identification of risks to achieving those goals, identification of required resources and stakeholders, metrics to measure progress, and regular reporting on progress. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that Naval Sea Systems Command assesses and mitigates risks posed by any challenges, such as persistent delays and capacity limitations, to successful implementation of its new maintenance approach in Japan. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that Naval Sea Systems Command conducts analysis to include overseas maintenance requirements as part of its long-term maintenance plan to support the planned growth and readiness of the fleet. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the shipyard optimization program office (PMS 555) include all costs—such as costs for program office activities, utilities, roads, environmental remediation, historical preservation, and alternative workspace—when developing its second, more detailed, cost estimate. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the shipyard optimization program office (PMS 555) use cost estimating best practices—as outlined in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide—in developing its second cost estimate, including a program baseline, work breakdown structure, a description of the methodology and key assumptions, inflation, fully addressing risk and uncertainty, and a sensitivity analysis. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the shipyard optimization program office (PMS 555) obtain an independent cost estimate of the Naval Shipyards program prior to the start of its project prioritization effort. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the shipyard optimization program office (PMS 555), in coordination with relevant stakeholders, establish clear roles and responsibilities for the shipyards involved in the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of the Navy ensure that the Commander, Naval Surface Forces, in coordination with Surface Warfare Officers School Command, develop a method to regularly collect feedback from SWOs across the fleet, such as in a survey, regarding the quality of their classroom, simulator, and at-sea training on Division Officer performance; and evaluates trends in the feedback received for the purpose of improving SWO training. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with our recommendation. In March 2020, the Navy provided an estimated implementation date of March 2023, noting that it was considering a fleet-wide survey, timed for a later date when more Surface Warfare Officers have completed new training courses and implemented their training. In addition, the Navy listed other means it employs to collect feedback, such as student surveys at the end of training courses, leadership visits and conferences, and Commanding Officer updates. Our emphasis on collection of fleet-wide feedback from all Surface Warfare Officers and trend analysis remains critical to help the Navy understand the value of its training programs at various career stages and in the diverse operating environments across the fleet.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of the Navy ensure that the Commander, Naval Surface Forces, routinely conduct regular Officer of the Deck competency assessments using samples of sufficient size and using selection methods to gauge the level of fleet-wide ship-driving proficiency trends following the implementation of the planned ship-driving training programs. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with our recommendation. In March 2020, the Navy provided an estimated implementation date of March 2023, noting that it was conducting the planned fleet-wide Officer of the Deck competency checks in 2020, and that it intends to use a system of ten career milestone assessments for future performance measurement. The Navy stated that it may or may not hold subsequent rounds of the Officer of the Deck competency assessments depending on performance indicated in other career milestone assessments. In our report we identified the importance of continuing the current Officer of the Deck competency assessments through at least 2024 because that is when new officers that complete the full set of new initial ship-driving training courses will be eligible for assessment. The Navy used the Officer of the Deck competency assessments in 2018 to establish a performance baseline, and we believe that the Navy should apply the same standard to measure performance changes for Surface Warfare Officers that complete new training courses moving forward.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of the Navy ensure that the Commander, Naval Surface Forces, in coordination with Surface Warfare Officers School Command, provide Commanding Officers with standard criteria to inform their evaluation of candidates for their Officer of the Deck qualification and incorporates these criteria into surface fleet guidance. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with our recommendation. In March 2020, the Navy provided an estimated implementation date of March 2023. However, in its official comments on the report and in subsequent correspondence, the Navy indicated that its existing policies already meet the intent of the recommendation. Specifically, the Navy stated that its Officer of the Deck Underway Personnel Qualification Standards provide standard evaluation criteria for Officer of the Deck qualification. In our report, we noted that while the Personnel Qualification Standards provide a common list of required experiences, they do not provide a common understanding of proficiency in completing these experiences. Instead, proficiency determination is left to the discretion of the ship's Commanding Officer, which has led to wide variation in ship-driving proficiency across the fleet. Therefore, we continue to believe that the Navy should provide Commanding Officers with standard criteria to inform their evaluation of candidates for their Officer of the Deck qualification and incorporate these criteria into surface fleet guidance.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of the Navy ensure that the Commander, Naval Surface Forces, in coordination with Surface Warfare Officers School Command, develop a plan to analyze and use Mariner Skills Logbook information to inform decision-making. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with our recommendation. In March 2020, the Navy provided an estimated implementation date of March 2023. In official comments on the report and in subsequent correspondence the Navy stated that its Surface Warfare Career Manual establishes guidance for the implementation and use of the Mariner Skills Logbook, and that the logbook will contribute information to allow proficiency trend analysis over time. However, while the Surface Warfare Career Manual identifies the offices responsible for logbook activities, it does not include a specific plan for the use of logbook data to analyze proficiency trends over time or to benefit individual officers. Our emphasis that the Navy develop a plan to analyze and use Surface Warfare Mariner Skills Logbook data to aid decision-making remains valid, and when implemented should assist the Navy in determining the relationship between SWO experience and ship-driving proficiency.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard, in collaboration with the Secretary of the Navy, should direct the polar icebreaker program and NAVSEA 05C to update the HPIB cost estimate in accordance with best practices for cost estimation, including (1) developing risk bounds for all phases of the program lifecycle, and on the basis of these risk bounds, conduct risk and uncertainty analysis, as well as sensitivity analysis, on all phases of the program lifecycle, and (2) reconciling the results with an updated independent cost estimate based on the same technical baseline before the option for construction of the lead ship is awarded. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: In providing comments on this report, the Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2020, Coast Guard officials stated that they are updating the polar icebreaker program's life cycle cost estimate to reflect information provided by the shipbuilder and anticipate completing the update in the fall 2020. We will review the updated life cycle cost estimate at that time and determine if the actions taken meet the intent of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should direct the polar icebreaker program office to develop a program schedule in accordance with best practices for project schedules, including determining realistic durations of all shipbuilding activities and identifying and including a reasonable amount of margin in the schedule, to set realistic schedule goals for all three ships before the option for construction of the lead ship is awarded. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: In providing comments on this report, the Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2020, Coast Guard officials stated that they updated the polar icebreaker program's schedule for the lead ship and are in the process of developing schedules for the follow-on ships. We will review the updated schedules once the Coast Guard provides them and determine if the actions taken meet the intent of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The DHS Under Secretary for Management should require the Coast Guard to update the HPIB acquisition program baselines prior to authorizing lead ship construction, after completion of the preliminary design review, and after it has gained the requisite knowledge on its technologies, cost, and schedule, as recommended above. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In providing comments on this report, DHS concurred with our recommendation and stated that it will require the Coast Guard to update the HPIB program's acquisition program baselines prior to authorizing lead ship construction. As of August 2020, Coast Guard officials anticipate updating the acquisition program baselines by no later than February 2021. We will review the updated HPIB acquisition program baselines at that time and determine if the actions taken meet the intent of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Navy provides additional information in the annual President's budget exhibits associated with CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal to facilitate improved transparency and accountability. Additions should, at a minimum, include the CVN 65 funding estimate across the Future Years Defense Program, activities planned or performed for applicable fiscal years, tracking of total cost and high level changes in cost and schedule from the prior year with explanations for changes, and if applicable, contract type, awardee, award value, and award and completion date estimates. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation, stating that the Navy would develop and submit additional cost, schedule, and contract information to supplement existing budget exhibits and continue this reporting through completion of the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. Congress subsequently addressed our recommendation to the department as part of the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act enacted on August 13, 2018. Specifically, the act requires the Secretary of the Navy to include information on each dismantlement and disposal of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier occurring or planned to occur during the period of the future years defense program submitted to Congress with that budget. For each ship, this includes (1) a summary of activities and significant developments in connection with the dismantlement and disposal; (2) a detailed description of cost and schedule performance against the baseline for the dismantlement and disposal, including a description of and explanation for any variance from such baseline; and (3) a description of the funding amounts requested, or expected to be requested, for the dismantlement and disposal for prior, current, and future fiscal years. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also confirmed that the Navy anticipates developing a schedule of work and requesting funding for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal plans in 2023 if the commercial dismantlement option is selected. If the Navy elects to have the dismantlement performed by the government, these activities will occur at a later date. We will continue to monitor the Navy's activities in order to document any action taken to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should require the Navy to obtain an independent cost estimate, performed by DOD's Office of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation or the Naval Center for Cost Analysis, for both the naval shipyard and full commercial options before choosing a dismantlement and disposal approach for CVN 65. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Navy would obtain independent cost estimates through the Office of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE) for both the naval shipyard and full commercial CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal options before a final decision is made on which option the Navy will pursue. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also said the Navy is working directly with the Center for Naval Analyses, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, and CAPE to gather and review independent cost estimates for commercial dismantlement and updated naval shipyard cost estimates. The commercial and naval shipyard estimates will be reviewed and assessed by CAPE prior to the Navy making a decision on which option to pursue. CAPE's written report assessing the commercial and naval shipyard estimates is expected to combine with the ongoing EIS to directly inform the Navy's decision for CVN 65. We will continue to monitor the status of independent cost estimate activities for CVN 65 until the estimates have been completed.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should require the Navy to complete a risk management plan prior to beginning the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Navy would prepare a risk management plan for the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal before the award of a contract or the provision of funds. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also confirmed that if the Navy selects the commercial dismantlement option for CVN 65, the Navy anticipates identifying potential risks and mitigations in February 2021 for CVN 65 dismantling to support independent cost estimate development, with risk management plan approval to follow in July 2022. If the Navy elects to have the dismantlement performed by the government, these activities will occur at a later date. We will continue to monitor the Navy's efforts to complete a risk management plan as the department works toward a decision for the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should require the Navy to approve a cost and schedule baseline prior to beginning the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Navy would prepare and approve a cost and schedule baseline for the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal before the award of any contract or the provision of funds for the effort. Congress subsequently addressed our recommendation to the department on August 13, 2018, as part of the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. Specifically, the act requires the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the congressional defense committees that provides a cost and schedule baseline for the dismantlement and disposal of nuclear powered aircraft carriers approved by Navy leadership. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also confirmed that the Navy anticipates developing a cost and schedule baseline for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal in 2022 if the commercial dismantlement option is selected. If the Navy elects to have the dismantlement performed by the government, these activities will occur at a later date. We will continue to monitor the Navy's activities in order to document any action taken to implement this recommendation.

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: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to revise the Navy's ship delivery policy to clarify what types of deficiencies need to be corrected and what mission capability (including the levels of quality and capability) must be achieved at (1) delivery and (2) when the ship is provided to the fleet (at the obligation work limiting date (OWLD)). In doing so, the Navy should clearly define what constitutes a complete ship and when that should be achieved.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD disagreed with our recommendation to clarify the Navy's ship delivery policy and stated that other existing policies help ensure the completion and capability of ships at delivery. However, as of August 2020, Navy officials stated that they are working on a new response based on ongoing discussions with GAO and they expect to develop a new proposal for responding to this recommendation by December 2020. We maintain that the Navy's ship delivery policy is a key instruction for ensuring that complete, mission-capable ships are provided to the fleet and should be revised in line with our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to reconcile policy with practice to support INSURV's role in making a recommendation for fleet introduction. Accomplishing this may require a study of the current timing of ship trials, and the costs and benefits associated with adding an INSURV assessment prior to providing ships to the fleet.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD and the Navy did not concur with this recommendation, noting that the current timing of Navy Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) trials provides the Navy with an opportunity to ensure contractual obligations have been met and identify construction deficiencies for correction during the post-delivery period. DOD and the Navy also stated that adding another INSURV trial at the end of the post-delivery period would not be cost-effective and could delay ship deployment schedules. However, we found that most of the significant construction deficiencies identified prior to delivery were not corrected until the post-delivery period and, therefore, INSURV generally did not have an opportunity to inspect these corrections before ships were provided to the fleet. Given this, we maintain that the Navy should re-assess the timing of its post-delivery trials in support of INSURV's responsibility to make recommendations for fleet introduction. As of August 2020, DOD officials stated that they are working on a proposal to address this recommendation based on ongoing discussions with GAO and they expect to complete this proposal by December 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to reflect additional ship milestones in Selected Acquisition Reports to Congress, including OWLD and readiness to deploy.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. DOD and the Navy agreed to report obligation work limiting dates (OWLD) in its Selected Acquisition Reports to Congress, and, as of December 2018, has implemented this portion of the recommendation. The department added the OWLDs for all ships that have yet to achieve this milestone to its Selected Acquisition Reports and plans to continue reporting this information in all subsequent Selected Acquisition Reports. However, DOD did not agree to report ready-to-deploy dates in the Selected Acquisition Reports to Congress, noting that operational factors outside of acquisition concerns can affect the timing of this milestone. While we agree that readiness to deploy is a fleet determination, we continue to believe that this date is important for Congressional oversight, as it remains the best milestone for determining when a ship has achieved a sufficient level of completeness to operate, under the Navy's current framework for ship delivery. As of August 2020, DOD and Navy officials stated that they are working on a new proposal for addressing the recommendation based on ongoing discussions with GAO and they expect to complete this proposal by December 2020.

Recommendation: To improve insight into cost changes for individual ships in the Ford Class, the program office should prepare cost summary and funding summary sections for each individual ship in the class as part of the SAR for the overall Ford-Class program.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In its comments on our draft report DOD disagreed with our recommendation, stating that it currently provides progress reports to Congress on costs for CVN 78 and CVN 79. In July 2020, Navy officials stated that the department continues to disagree with this recommendation. We continue to maintain that Selected Acquisition Reports represent the primary statutorily required means for DOD to report on program status. Grouping average unit costs for all Ford-class ships obscures individual ship cost growth and does not provide Congress with an adequate level of insight to monitor this over $55 billion program. Our recommendation would ensure that Congress receives insight into the costs of each existing and planned Ford-class ship. To fully implement this recommendation, the report should include cost information on individual ships.

Recommendation: To help ensure the Navy thoroughly considers the relative benefits of using FPI contracts for shipbuilding versus other contract types, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to conduct a portfolio-wide assessment of the Navy's use of additional incentives on FPI contracts across its shipbuilding programs. This assessment should include a mechanism to share proven incentive strategies for achieving intended cost, schedule, and quality outcomes among contracting and program office officials.

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

Comments: In providing comments on this report, the agency concurred with this recommendation. As of July 2020, the Navy had commissioned a study of its use of additional incentives on fixed-price incentive contracts across its shipbuilding programs. The Navy plans to socialize this report with the shipbuilding program executive offices so that they can share lessons learned across the shipbuilding enterprise. The estimated completion date for this effort is the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2020. Following completion of that effort, in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021, the Navy plans to provide recommendations regarding the use of additional incentives on fixed-price incentive contracts across its shipbuilding programs.