GAO-21-222, Weapon Systems Annual Assessment: Updated Program Oversight Approach Needed
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees June 2021 Weapon Systems Annual Assessment Updated Program Oversight Approach Needed GAO-21-222 A Report to Congressional Committees June 2021 Weapon Systems Annual Assessment Updated Program Oversight Approach Needed Highlights of GAO-21-222 Why GAO Did This Study GAO’s 19th annual assessment of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) weapon Title 10, section 2229b of the U.S. programs comes at a time of significant internal changes to the department’s Code contains a provision for GAO acquisition process. Specifically, DOD began implementing its new acquisition to review DOD’s weapon programs. framework intended to, among other things, deliver solutions to the end user in a This report assesses the following timely manner. However, GAO found that many programs have planned aspects of DOD’s costliest weapon acquisition approaches that, unless properly managed and overseen, could result programs: their characteristics and in cost and schedule challenges similar to those GAO has reported on for nearly performance, planned or actual the past 2 decades. implementation of knowledge-based acquisition practices, and DOD’s new acquisition framework allows program managers to use one or more implementation of selected software of six acquisition pathways—including the major capability acquisition and and cybersecurity practices. The middle-tier acquisition (MTA) pathways used by the programs GAO reviewed. report also assesses oversight Each pathway is governed by separate policies for milestones, cost and schedule implications of DOD’s changes to its goals, and reporting. Program managers can tailor, combine, and transition foundational acquisition guidance. between pathways based on program goals and risks associated with the weapon system being acquired (see figure). GAO identified programs for review based on cost and acquisition Notional Use of Multiple Efforts and Multiple Pathways status; reviewed relevant legislation, policy, guidance, and DOD reports; collected program office data; and interviewed DOD officials. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends DOD develop a reporting strategy to improve oversight of those weapon systems developed using multiple efforts or pathways. DOD concurred with our recommendation. DOD’s framework also introduces new considerations to program oversight. In particular, DOD has yet to develop an overarching data collection and reporting strategy for programs transitioning between acquisition pathways or conducting multiple efforts using the same pathway to deliver the intended capability. The View GAO-21-222. For more information, lack of a strategy not only limits DOD’s visibility into these programs but also contact Shelby S. Oakley at (202) 512-4841 or hinders the quality of its congressional reporting and makes the full cost and oakleys @gao.gov. schedule of the eventual weapon system more difficult to ascertain. United States Government Accountability Office DOD Plans to Invest Over $1.79 DOD’s reported costs primarily reflect major defense acquisition program Trillion in Its Costliest Weapon (MDAP) investments (see table). However, DOD is increasingly using the MTA Programs, but Not All Costs Are pathway to acquire weapon programs. The totals do not include all expected Reported costs because, among other things, MTA estimates do not reflect any potential investments after the current MTA effort, and cost figures do not include programs that have yet to formally select a pathway or are classified or sensitive. Department of Defense Total Investments in Selected Weapon Programs GAO Reviewed (fiscal year 2021 dollars in billions) Procurement reductions in DOD’s costliest program—the F-35—drove an MDAP portfolio cost decrease since GAO’s last annual report (see figure). Excluding this program, quantity changes and other factors such as schedule delays contributed to one-year portfolio cost growth. Sixteen MDAPs also showed schedule delays since GAO’s 2020 report. Such delays are due, in part, to delivery or test delays and poor system performance. Major Defense Acquisition Program One-Year Cost Change Including and Excluding the F-35 Program (fiscal year 2021 dollars in billions) F-35 reported an overall procurement cost decrease of $23.9 billion in fiscal year 2020, primarily due to lower prime and subcontractor labor rates. As GAO found last year, DOD continues to expand its portfolio of the costliest MTA programs, expecting to spend $30.5 billion on current efforts. Due to inconsistent cost reporting by MTA programs, GAO could not assess cost trends across the MTA portfolio. However, GAO observed examples of cost changes on certain MTA programs compared with last year. Weapon Programs Do Not Most MDAPs continue to forgo opportunities to improve cost and schedule Consistently Plan to Attain outcomes by not adhering to leading practices for weapon system acquisitions. Knowledge That Could Limit Cost Some MTA programs also reported planning to acquire only limited product Growth and Deliver Weapon Systems Faster knowledge during program execution, leading to added risks to planned follow-on efforts. Further, while both MDAPs and MTA programs increasingly reported using modern software approaches and cybersecurity measures, they inconsistently implemented leading practices, such as frequently delivering software to users and conducting certain types of cybersecurity assessments during development. Contents Letter 1 Background 10 Overview Fiscal Year 2021 Department of Defense Weapon Portfolio 24 DOD Weapon Programs Do Not Consistently Plan to Attain Knowledge That Could Limit Cost Growth and Deliver Weapon Systems Faster 33 Weapon Programs Reported Inconsistent Implementation of Recommended Software and Cybersecurity Practices 46 DOD Has Yet to Fully Determine Its Oversight Approach for New Acquisition Guidance 59 Conclusions 68 Recommendation for Executive Action 69 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 69 Appendix I Individual Assessments 71 Assessments of Individual Programs 71 Air Force And Space Force Program Assessments 79 F-15 Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System (F-15 EPAWSS) 81 Global Positioning System III (GPS III) 83 Global Positioning System III Follow-On (GPS IIIF) 85 HH-60W Jolly Green II 87 KC-46 Tanker Modernization Program (KC-46A) 89 Military Global Positioning System (GPS) User Equipment (MGUE) Increment 1 91 MH-139A Grey Wolf Helicopter (MH-139A) 93 Next Generation Operational Control System (OCX) 95 Small Diameter Bomb Increment II (SDB II) 97 T-7A Red Hawk 99 VC-25B Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization (VC-25B) 101 Weather System Follow-On (WSF) 103 Enhanced Polar System – Recapitalization (EPS-R) 105 National Security Space Launch (NSSL) 106 B-52 Radar Modernization Program (B-52 RMP) 107 Air Operations Center Weapon System Modifications (AOC WS Mods) 109 Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) 111 B-52 Commercial Engine Replacement Program (CERP) Rapid Virtual Prototype (RVP) 113 Evolved Strategic SATCOM (ESS) 115 Page i GAO-21-222 Weapon Systems Annual Assessment F-15EX 117 F-22 Capability Pipeline 119 Future Operationally Resilient Ground Evolution (FORGE) 121 Military Global Positioning System (GPS) User Equipment (MGUE) Increment 2 123 Next Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared (Next Gen OPIR) Block 0 125 Protected Tactical Enterprise Service (PTES) 127 Protected Tactical SATCOM (PTS) 129 Army Program Assessments 131 Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) 133 CH-47F Modernized Cargo Helicopter (CH-47F Block II) 135 Handheld, Manpack, and Small Form Fit Radios (HMS) 137 Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) 139 Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) 141 Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) 143 Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 (IFPC Inc 2) 144 Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) 145 Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA) 147 Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS) 149 Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS) 151 Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) 153 Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) 155 Navy And Marine Corps Program Assessments 157 Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER) 159 Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) 161 Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) 163 CH-53K Heavy Replacement Helicopter (CH-53K) 165 CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford Class Nuclear Aircraft Carrier (CVN 78) 167 DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class Destroyer (DDG 1000) 169 Constellation Class Frigate (FFG 62) 171 F/A-18E/F Infrared Search and Track (IRST) 173 Littoral Combat Ship-Mission Modules (LCS Packages) 175 MQ-25 Unmanned Aircraft System (MQ-25 Stingray) 177 MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft System (MQ-4C Triton) 179 Next Generation Jammer Mid-Band (NGJ MB) 181 SSBN 826 Columbia Class Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN 826) 183 Ship to Shore Connector Amphibious Craft (SSC) 185 John Lewis Class Fleet Replenishment Oiler (T-AO 205) 187 Page ii GAO-21-222 Weapon Systems Annual Assessment VH-92A® Presidential Helicopter Replacement Program (VH- 92A) 189 DDG 51 Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer, Flight III 191 LHA(R) Amphibious Assault Ships (LHA 8 and LHA 9) 192 LPD 17 San Antonio Class Amphibious Transport Dock, Flight II (LPD 17 Flight II) 193 P-8A Poseidon, Increment 3 (P-8A Increment 3) 194 SSN 774 Virginia Class Submarine (VCS) Block V 195 Large Unmanned Surface Vessel (LUSV) 196 Next Generation Jammer Low-Band (NGJ LB) 197 Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) 199 Joint DOD Programs Assessment 202 F-35 Lightning II (F-35) 201 Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 203