Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the Army Futures Command, in collaboration with the Army Contracting Command and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, to regularly analyze information on the use of prototype other transactions for Army modernization. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
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 Army should direct the Army Futures Command, in collaboration with the Army Contracting Command, to regularly analyze information on the use of grants, cooperative agreements, research other transactions, technology investment agreements, partnership intermediary agreements, and cooperative research and development agreements for Army modernization. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
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 Army should ensure the Commanding General of the Army Contracting Command establishes consistent practices for its headquarters to collect, archive, and share lessons learned for research and prototype other transactions, grants, cooperative agreements, technology investment agreements, and partnership intermediary agreements. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
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 Army should ensure the Commanding General of the Army Contracting Command has the command's contracting centers work with its headquarters to establish consistent, coordinated practices for the contracting centers to collect, analyze, validate, archive, and share lessons learned for research and prototype other transactions, grants, cooperative agreements, technology investment agreements, and partnership intermediary agreements. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
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 Army should ensure the Commanding General of the Combat Capabilities Development Command establishes consistent, coordinated practices for the command to collect, analyze, validate, archive, and share lessons learned for cooperative research and development agreements. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
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 Army should ensure an archive is established to store and share lessons learned information related to the Army's alternative approaches for engaging industry and academia. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
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 categorize and report the Navy's software sustainment costs, in accordance with DOD policy on the Depot Maintenance Core Capabilities Determination Process. [Recommendation 1]

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

Comments: The PAO reported that OSD has established a cross-Service team to develop a framework for accounting and reporting core requirements and capabilities specific to weapon system software that recognizes Service-unique attributes, and is applicable across all of DoD. When developed, the framework will clarify how to identify software sustainment costs, and data sources in accordance with DOD policy. When we confirm what additional actions DOD has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of Defense ensure that the Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation complete its evaluation and select the most effective system to obtain cost and software data from DOD software centers, and develop an implementation plan that includes time frames for key milestones to execute and monitor the centers' submission of required data. [Recommendation 2]

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: PAO reported contacting the office of the Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation and provided a template for reporting progress implementing recommendations 2 and 4 with a suspense of 31 July 2020. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of Defense ensure that the Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation takes steps to prioritize the respective military departments' obtaining and reporting of complete operating and support costs for software sustainment through its Visibility and Management of Operating and Support Costs systems. [Recommendation 3]

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: PAO reported contacting the office of the Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation and provided a template for reporting progress implementing this recommendation with a suspense of 31 July 2020. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in conjunction with the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and the military departments, should assess whether risk mitigation actions have been identified in the event of a loss of each task critical assets (TCA) facility in the defense industrial base and, based on this assessment, develop risk mitigation actions with associated implementation plans and time lines, and provide this information to congressional and DOD decision makers. (Recommendation 1)

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 concurred with this recommendation. In June 2019, DOD provided follow up information and identified key corrective actions for recommendations from this report. The key corrective actions identified for this recommendation include the issuance of the mission assurance instruction in August 2018 that guides the identification, prioritization, and assessment of defense critical infrastructure. Further, Executive Order 13806 required that DOD perform a whole-of-government assessment of the manufacturing and the defense industrial base, assess risk, identify impacts, and propose mitigation strategies. DOD issued the resulting report in October 2018, which includes a focus on numerous single source and sole supply risks. Lastly, DOD officials stated that DOD senior leadership and Congress were briefed in May 2019 on investments planned to reduce risks and updates will be included in an annual Industrial Capabilities Report to Congress. DOD placed considerable focus on defense industrial base issues in the past year, we will review the next annual report to ensure this focus is continued and that detailed information on DOD's industrial base risks and task critical assets is provided to DOD and Congressional decision makers.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in conjunction with DCMA and the military departments, should provide congressional and DOD decision makers with information on potential effects on defense capabilities in the event of a loss of each TCA facility in the defense industrial base. (Recommendation 2)

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 concurred with this recommendation. In June 2019, DOD provided follow up information and identified key corrective actions for recommendations from this report. The key corrective actions identified for this recommendation include a description of the mission assurance process and the annual report on the industrial capabilities that were already in place at the time of issuance of this report, therefore do not represent a change or response to this recommendation. Another key corrective action identified is the issuance of the report in response to the Executive Order 13806 in October 2018, which provides a whole of government assessment of the defense industrial base risks and impacts and associated Hill briefing. DOD placed considerable focus on defense industrial base issues in the past year as a result of the Executive Order, we will review the next annual report to ensure this focus is continued and that detailed information on DOD's industrial base risks and task critical assets is provided to DOD and Congressional decision makers.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in conjunction with DCMA and the military departments, should provide congressional and DOD decision makers with information on DOD organic facilities that have been identified as TCAs, similar to the information provided previously on commercial facilities. This information also should include (1) the potential effects on defense capabilities in the event of a loss of the facility and (2) risk mitigation actions and associated implementation plans with time lines. (Recommendation 3)

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 concurred with this recommendation. In June 2019, DOD provided follow up information and identified key corrective actions for recommendations from this report. The key corrective actions identified for this recommendation include the mission assurance process that was already in place at the time of the issuance of this report, which does not reflect a change in response to this recommendation. However, other key corrective actions identified include the identification of several DOD-owned assets in the report DOD issued in response to Executive Order 13806 in October 2018. Further, DOD states that it will provide yearly updates to Congress in its Industrial Capabilities report. Lastly, the corrective actions state that DOD will continue to execute risk mitigation identified in its October 2018 report. DOD placed considerable focus on defense industrial base issues in the past year as a result of the Executive Order, we will review the next annual report to ensure this focus is continued and that detailed information on DOD's industrial base risks and task critical assets is provided to DOD and Congressional decision makers.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in conjunction with DCMA and the military departments, should take steps to share information on risks identified through the annual Critical Asset Identification Process with relevant program managers or other designated service or program officials. At a minimum, relevant officials should receive information on the most critical facilities (such as TCAs) that produce parts supporting their programs. This information-sharing could occur through service-specific channels of communication or another method of internal communication deemed appropriate by DOD. (Recommendation 4)

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 concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2018, DOD officials stated that they are in the process of developing proactive steps to share information on risks identified through the annual CAIP with relevant program managers, or other designated service or program officials as necessary. However, in June 2019, DOD shared the key corrective actions identified for this recommendation, which include a description of the mission assurance process that was already in place at the time of issuance of this report, therefore do not represent a change or response to this recommendation. It further states that the Critical Asset Identification Process is addressed in semi-annual Joint Industrial Base Working Group meetings, which are attended by all service and agency industrial base representatives. As of November 2019, DOD officials did not respond to a request for more detail, we will continue to assess DOD's actions.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in conjunction with the military departments, should develop a mechanism to ensure that program offices obtain information from contractors on single source of supply risks. (Recommendation 5)

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 concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2018, DOD officials stated that assessing the health of the defense industrial base and associated supply chains was the focus of an Executive Order issued in July 2017 and that the resulting inter-agency report will be released within the next year. DOD officials stated that the issuance of this report will provide significant information towards addressing this recommendation. However, in June 2019, DOD provided key corrective actions for this recommendation, which stated that multiple services and agencies began in 2018 to incorporate contracting language to require prime contractors to track and provide sub-tier data and that this effort will expand to cover more programs. Further, it states that in the Industrial Base Integrated Data System, suppliers are indicated as either single or sole source suppliers and that the services and agencies have access to this list. As of November 2019, DOD officials did not respond to a request for more detail, we will continue to assess DOD's actions.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in conjunction with the military departments, should issue department-wide DMSMS policy, such as an instruction, that clearly defines requirements of DMSMS management and details responsibilities and procedures to be followed by program offices to implement the policy. (Recommendation 6)

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 concurred with this recommendation. The DOD official that is the lead for the Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) program stated that as of July 2019, the department has completed the draft DMSMS instruction and accompanying manual that details program requirements, responsibilities, and procedures to be followed. The draft instruction is undergoing legal review and the official expects the instruction and manual to be issued by December 2019. As of November 2019, this recommendation will remain open and we will review the instruction once issued.

Recommendation: To ensure that senior leadership within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military departments are better positioned to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should revise their programming guidance to collect information on how contracted services will be used to meet requirements beyond the budget year.

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. In its response, the Department did not identify what action, if any, it planned to take to implement this recommendation, and noted the difficulties in accurately quantifying service contract requirements beyond the budget year. We maintain that collecting this information will assist the department in gaining insights into contracted service requirements and making more strategic decisions about the services it plans to acquire. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD annually reviews requirements for services during program budget reviews and services requirements review boards. These officials noted, however, that the volatility of future program and budget cycles constrains the department's ability to accurately quantify contract service requirements beyond the budget year. We agree that the reviews identified by DOD have merit, but they do not provide senior leadership the visibility necessary to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program. In August 2020, DOD officials stated the department is working to identify actions to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor this recommendation and will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To ensure that senior leadership within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military departments are better positioned to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should revise their programming guidance to collect information on how contracted services will be used to meet requirements beyond the budget year.

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

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. In its response, the Department did not identify what action, if any, it planned to take to implement this recommendation, and noted the difficulties in accurately quantifying service contract requirements beyond the budget year. We maintain that collecting this information will assist the department in gaining insights into contracted service requirements and making more strategic decisions about the services it plans to acquire. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD annually reviews requirements for services during program budget reviews and services requirements review boards. These officials noted, however, that the volatility of future program and budget cycles constrains the department's ability to accurately quantify contract service requirements beyond the budget year. We agree that the reviews identified by DOD have merit, but they do not provide senior leadership the visibility necessary to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program. In August 2020, DOD officials stated the department is working to identify actions to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor this recommendation and will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To ensure the military departments' efforts to integrate services into the programming process and senior service managers efforts to develop forecasts on service contract spending provide the department with consistent data, the Secretary of Defense should establish a mechanism, such as a working group of key stakeholders--which could include officials from the programming, budgeting and requirements communities as well as the senior services managers--to coordinate these efforts.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. In its response, DOD did not indicate any actions it planned to take to implement this recommendation, and instead noted a number of efforts intended to aid in the management and oversight of services acquisitions. We maintain that a coordinated approach is needed to ensure that collected data is consistent to inform DOD leadership on future contract spending. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD annually reviews requirements for services during program budget reviews and services requirements review boards. These officials noted, however, that the volatility of future program and budget cycles constrains the department's ability to accurately quantify contract service requirements beyond the budget year. We agree that the reviews identified by DOD have merit, but they do not provide senior leadership the visibility necessary to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program. In August 2020, DOD officials stated the department is working to identify actions to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor this recommendation and will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's use of portfolio management for its weapon system investments and ensure that its investment plans are affordable, strategy-driven, balance near- and long-term needs, and leverage efforts across the military services, as well as to provide a solid foundation for future portfolio management efforts at the enterprise-level, the Secretary of Defense should revise DOD Directive 7045.2 on Capability Portfolio Management in accordance with best practices and promote the development of better tools to enable more integrated portfolio reviews and analyses of weapon system investments. Key elements of this recommendation would include (1) designating the Deputy Secretary of Defense or some appropriate delegate responsibility for implementing the policy and overseeing portfolio management in DOD; (2) requiring annual enterprise-level portfolio reviews that incorporate key portfolio review elements, including information from the requirements, acquisition, and budget processes; (3) directing the Joint Staff, AT&L, and CAPE to collaborate on their data needs and develop a formal implementation plan for meeting those needs either by building on the database the Joint Staff is developing for its analysis or investing in new analytical tools; and (4) incorporating lessons learned from military service portfolio reviews and portfolio management activities, such as using multiple risk and funding scenarios to assess needs and re-evaluate priorities.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. DOD agreed with the need to further develop portfolio management tools, ensure access to authoritative data, and incorporate lessons learned by others performing portfolio management. However, DOD stated that other aspects of our recommendation were redundant to, and would conflict with other processes and activities in place to perform portfolio management. As of January 2020, DOD has taken steps to implement parts of this recommendation. In January 2019, responsibility for DOD Directive 7045.20 was transferred to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, which sponsored the directive when it was issued. This office began revising DOD Directive 7045.2 in summer 2019, and plans to update the directive by the end of fiscal year 2020. In addition, in October 2016 and September 2017, the Joint Staff informed GAO that they had been updating two of their databases on military capabilities and capability requirements to provide DOD with better analytical tools to support portfolio management. They also reported that they completed a crosscutting study in collaboration with the acquisition community to improve the information sharing and analytical tools for their capability requirements database. In July 2020, the Joint Staff completed an update one of these databases. Joint Staff officials said they anticipated the database update would increase speed and provide a better search engine to help the Joint Staff more effectively conduct portfolio reviews, assess potential redundancy, and collect and analyze the information needed prioritize capabilities across DOD. However, a Joint Staff official stated that it is too soon to tell if the Joint Staff has experienced any improvements with regard to portfolio management as a result of the update. DOD has not taken action on the other aspects of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's use of portfolio management for its weapon system investments and ensure that its investment plans are affordable, strategy-driven, balance near- and long-term needs, and leverage efforts across the military services, and to help ensure the military services' portfolio reviews are conducted regularly and effectively integrate information from the requirements, acquisition, and budget communities, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to update or develop policies that require them to conduct annual portfolio reviews that incorporate key portfolio review elements, including information from the requirements, acquisition, and budget processes.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. However, DOD did not indicate that it would take any action to address it. Instead, DOD responded that the services' budget processes and Office of the Secretary of Defense's review of the services' budgets meet the intent of our recommendation. Our report findings showed otherwise. As of July 2020, DOD has not taken any actions to implement this recommendation, but an ongoing update of the department's portfolio management guidance (DOD Directive 7045.20) could lead to further actions on this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to collect and maintain reliable data on its acquisitions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in consultation with DOD components, to establish guidelines on what constitutes a "current" ACAT II or III program for reporting purposes; the types of programs, if any, that do not require ACAT designations; and whether the rules for identifying current MDAPs would be appropriate for ACAT II and III programs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to review existing policy to see if revisions were needed. Since that time, DOD has taken some steps to implement this recommendation, but has not established department-wide guidelines as we recommended. Starting in September 2018, DOD began providing the military departments with a capability to identify ACAT II and III programs using the Defense Acquisition Visibility Environment (DAVE) system. The DAVE system is now considered to be a trusted source for ACAT II and III program data. DOD, in consultation with the military departments, established standard data elements for collection across ACAT II and III programs for inclusion in DAVE, but the military departments determine individually what constitutes a "current" program and the types of programs that do not require ACAT designations. As of August 2019, the Army and Navy have established guidance regarding what constitutes an active ACAT II or III program for reporting purposes. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to collect and maintain reliable data on its acquisitions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in consultation with DOD components, to determine what metrics should be used and what data should be collected on ACAT II and III programs to measure cost and schedule performance; and whether the use of DAMIR and the MDAP selected acquisition report format may be appropriate for collecting data on ACAT II and III programs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to review existing policy to see if revisions were needed. DOD has taken steps to implement this recommendation, but has yet to determine at the department level what metrics should be collected on ACAT II and III cost and schedule performance as we recommended. DOD determined that the use of the Defense Acquisition Visibility Environment (DAVE) system, which is closely related to DAMIR, was appropriate to collect information on ACAT II and III programs and has made that system available to the military departments. Specifically, DOD provided the military departments with the capability to identify ACAT II and III programs in DAVE/DAMIR in September 2018 and made the DAVE/DAMIR Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) workflow tool for cost and schedule data collection available for components' use in April 2019. However, according to officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the military departments are responsible for individually determining what cost and schedule metrics to collect and monitor for ACAT II and III programs. According to December 2018 Army guidance, the Army will require all ACAT II and III programs use DOD's APB tool by the end of fiscal year 2019 to capture baseline cost, schedule, and performance parameters for ACAT II and III programs. According to Navy officials, the Navy is developing an APB tool in its for a future update of its acquisition information system that will collect APB cost and schedule information for ACAT II and III programs. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to collect and maintain reliable data on its acquisitions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy and the Commander of SOCOM to assess the reliability of data collected on ACAT II and III programs and work with PEOs to develop a strategy to improve procedures for the entry and maintenance of data.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would direct DOD components to evaluate data on ACAT II and III programs and report back on the reliability of the data and plans to improve it. In September 2015, the Assistant Secretary of Defense directed the military departments and DOD components to assess the reliability of ACAT II and III data, but in July 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment confirmed that based on the results of the assessments reported by the components, it does not plan to take any additional action to implement this recommendation. Since that time, as of September 2018, DOD began providing standard data elements and definitions of those elements that it collects for ACAT II and III program identification in order to improve the consistency of data. However, officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment stated that it is still up to the military departments to ensure the accuracy of data entered. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to collect and maintain reliable data on its acquisitions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy and the Commander of SOCOM to develop implementation plans to coordinate and execute component initiatives to improve data on ACAT II and III programs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would direct DOD components to evaluate data on ACAT II and III programs and report back plans to improve it. In September 2015, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition requested that DOD components provide an update on their plans to improve the availability and quality of ACAT II and III data. In July 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment confirmed that based on an assessment of the information reported by the components, it does not plan to take any additional action to implement this recommendation. Officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment reiterated in August 2019 that while DOD now provides a department-wide system to be used for collecting basic program data for ACAT II and III programs, it remains the responsibility of the military departments to enter complete and accurate data. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure compliance with relevant provisions of DOD acquisition policy with the purpose of improving DOD's ability to provide oversight for ACAT II and III programs, including those programs that may become MDAPs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force and Commander of SOCOM to establish a mechanism to ensure compliance with APB requirements in DOD policy.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics would issue guidance to DOD components related to APB requirements for ACAT II and III programs. DOD has taken some steps related to this recommendation. In September 2015, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition requested that DOD components review their mechanisms for establishing and enforcing the APB requirements for all ACAT II and III programs. In July 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment confirmed that, based on the results of these reviews, it does not plans to take any action to implement this recommendation. However, in 2019, DOD made its DAVE/DAMIR APB workflow tool available for military department use, and the Air Force elected to use the tool to create and track APBs for ACAT II and III programs. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure compliance with relevant provisions of DOD acquisition policy with the purpose of improving DOD's ability to provide oversight for ACAT II and III programs, including those programs that may become MDAPs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy to improve component procedures for notifying the Defense Acquisition Executive of programs with a cost estimate within 10 percent of ACAT I cost thresholds.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics would issue guidance to DOD components related to notification requirements for programs approaching ACAT I cost thresholds. The Army and Navy have reiterated existing guidance and the Air Force is evaluating additional actions it might take to improve its notification procedures. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment confirmed in July 2018 that it does not plan to take additional actions to implement this recommendation, and as of August 2019, that office has not directed DOD components to improve their processes as we recommended .We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help improve DOD's milestone decision process, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics in collaboration with the military service acquisition executives, program executive officers, and program managers to, as a longer-term effort, select several current or new major defense acquisition programs to pilot, on a broader scale, different approaches for streamlining the entire milestone decision process, with the results evaluated and reported for potential wider use. The pilot programs should consider the following: (1) Defining the appropriate information needed to support milestone decisions while still ensuring program accountability and oversight. The information should be based on the business case principles needed for well-informed milestone decisions including well defined requirements, reasonable life-cycle cost estimates, and a knowledge-based acquisition plan. (2) Developing an efficient process for providing this information to the milestone decision authority by (a) minimizing any reviews between the program office and the different functional staff offices within each chain of command level and (b) establishing frequent, regular interaction between the program office and milestone decision makers, in lieu of documentation reviews, to help expedite the process.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, and as of February 2020 the Services each identified one pilot program for implementation of streamlined acquisition processes. The Army chose the Improved Turbine Engine Program; the Navy chose the MQ-25 Stingray Unmanned Carrier Aviation Program; and the Air Force chose the MH-139 Grey Wolf Program. In July 2020, DOD indicated that specific streamlining initiatives for these programs will be developed in the near future after Executive Review at the Service level and after the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment) has been informed.

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy to assess their respective service-level and program office capabilities relating to an open systems approach and work with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering to develop short-term and long-term strategies to address any capability gaps identified. Strategies could include the Navy's cross-cutting approach where a team of a few technical experts within the Naval Air Systems Command could be available to work with program offices, as necessary, to help develop open systems plans.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. A DOD official noted that the department's understanding of an open systems approach has evolved since our recommendation was made and each military service has established working groups and communities of practice related to the implementation of a modular open systems approach. In addition, the official noted that Defense Acquisition University (DAU) curriculum addresses both open systems approaches and intellectual property, and that its course on open systems approaches was updated in 2018. DOD Human Capital Initiatives officials also indicated that DOD would be conducting a competency assessment of the the engineering workforce across the department, which would provide an indication of the open system capabilities at the service and program office level. However, as of August 2020, that assessment has yet to be conducted and therefore it remains unclear the extent to which capability gaps exist.

Recommendation: In order to strengthen investment decisions, place the chosen investments on a sound acquisition footing, provide a better means of tracking investment progress, and improve the management and transparency of the U.S. missile defense approach in Europe, the Secretary of Defense should direct MDA's new Director to include in its resource baseline cost estimates all life cycle costs, specifically the operations and support costs, from the military services in order to provide decision makers with the full costs of ballistic missile defense systems.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our 2013 recommendation that decisionmakers should have insight into the full lifecycle costs of MDA's weapon systems outlined in the Ballistic Missile Defense System Accountability Report (BAR), including the military services' operations and sustainment (O&S) costs. This is especially important, as after more than a decade MDA has yet to transfer weapon systems in production and sustainment to the military services, as originally intended. Consequently, MDA is becoming responsible for an increasing amount of the costs associated with these weapon systems. DOD and Congress have expressed concerns over this situation and are exploring a path forward; however, in the mean time, determining the O&S costs can help decisionmakers fully understand the financial responsibility for these weapon systems, be it with the military services or MDA. MDA cited beginning to report aspects of this information in the BAR and also establishing joint cost estimates (JCE) for O&S with the military services for some weapon systems, both of which could potentially serve as a means of providing decisionmakers with insight into the full lifecycle costs. We have an ongoing assessment that will evaluate both of MDA's cited efforts and the extent to which these are providing decisionmakers with a comprehensive understanding of the depth and breadth of each weapon system's full lifecycle costs.

Recommendation: In order to strengthen investment decisions, place the chosen investments on a sound acquisition footing, provide a better means of tracking investment progress, and improve the management and transparency of the U.S. missile defense approach in Europe, the Secretary of Defense should direct MDA's new Director to stabilize the acquisition baselines, so that meaningful comparisons can be made over time that support oversight of those acquisitions.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with our 2013 recommendation regarding the need for MDA to stabilize its acquisition baselines, but also noted MDA's need to adjust its baselines to remain responsive to evolving requirements and threats; both of which are beyond MDA's control. Further, DOD highlighted the MDA Director's authority to make adjustments to the agency's programmatic baselines, within departmental guidelines. Our recommendation, however, is not designed to limit the Director's authority to adjust baselines or to prevent adjusting the baselines, as appropriate. Rather, our recommendation is designed to address traceability issues we have found with MDA's baselines, which are within its control. Specifically, for MDA to be able to effectively report longer-term progress of its acquisitions and provide the necessary transparency to Congress, it is critical that the agency stabilize its baselines so that once set, any revisions can be tracked over time. We have an ongoing assessment to update MDA's progress.

Recommendation: To ensure sufficient follow-up to DOD's corrosion study, the Secretary of Defense should direct the USD (AT&L) to document program-specific recommendations flowing from the corrosion study with regard to the other weapon systems identified--specifically, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, CH-53K helicopter, Joint High Speed Vessel, Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System, and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle--and establish a process for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of the CPC programs for these systems.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2015, DOD had not documented program-specific recommendations from the corrosion study for the other weapon systems identified in its report. However, DOD updated its Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning Guidebook in 2014 and, according to officials, is working to update DOD Instruction 5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure. These actions may improve the corrosion prevention and control planning for the weapon systems identified in DOD's study. DOD partially concurred with this recommendation at the time of our report but as of March 2019, has since decided to take action to implement it. According to Corrosion Office officials, they interacted with two of five weapon-systems programs on corrosion-related matters. One of these weapon-system programs, per Corrosion Office officials, was eventually canceled. In addition to updating the Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning Guidebook for Military Systems and Equipment in 2014, officials stated that they are planning to further update DOD Instruction 5000.67 (Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure). Also, according to Corrosion Office officials, procedures for evaluating acquisition programs will be included in the new DOD manual on corrosion. The Corrosion Office's goal of completing this instruction update and creating the new manual is by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure sufficient follow-up to DOD's corrosion study, the Secretary of Defense should direct the USD (AT&L) to document Air Force-and Navy-specific recommendations flowing from the corrosion study and establish a process for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of these services' corrective actions.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2015, DOD had not documented Air Force- and Navy-specific recommendations flowing from the corrosion study. However, DOD updated its Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning Guidebook in 2014 and, according to officials, is working to update DOD Instruction 5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure. Further, the Air Force and the Navy have both taken actions to address the DOD-wide recommendations from the corrosion study. These actions may improve corrosion prevention and control planning for Air Force and Navy programs. As of March 2019, Corrosion Office officials stated that they are planning to further update DOD Instruction 5000.67 (Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure) or other appropriate guidance related to the process or procedures for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of Corrosion Prevention Control planning for weapon systems, particularly related to how the military services will accomplish this within their increased weapon system oversight role. In addition, per Corrosion Office officials, this information will be addressed in the new DOD manual on corrosion. The Corrosion Office's goal to complete this instruction update and create the new manual by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.

Recommendation: To allow Congress to better oversee management of the nuclear security enterprise and to improve NNSA's management information with respect to the base capabilities necessary to ensure nuclear weapons are safe, secure, and reliable, the Administrator of NNSA should, once the Stockpile Services work breakdown structure reflects a product or capability basis, use this work breakdown structure to develop product/capability cost estimates that adequately justify the congressional budget request for Stockpile Services.

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA has significantly improved its work breakdown structure for Stockpile Services. The work breakdown structure now reflects a product or capability basis to a much greater extent than it did previously. NNSA restructured its budget starting with its fiscal year 2021 budget justification materials. GAO, through ongoing work, is continuing to monitor NNSA's development of cost estimates for Stockpile Services products and capabilities that inform future years' budget requests and justifications.