Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
6Activity

Table Of Contents

0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
d08467sp

d08467sp

Ratings: (0)|Views: 520|Likes:
Published by DoxCak3

More info:

Published by: DoxCak3 on Jan 02, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/04/2013

pdf

text

original

 
a
GAO
United States Government Accountability Office
Report to Congressional Committees
March 2008
DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS Assessments of Selected WeaponPrograms
 
What GAO Found
United States Government Accountability Office
Why GAO Did This Study
H
ighlights
Accountability Integrity Reliability
 
March 2008
 
DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS
A
ss
e
ss
ment
s
of
S
elected Weapon Pro
g
ram
s
 
Highlights ofGAO-08-467SP, a report tocongressional committees
This report is GAO’s sixth annualassessment of selected weapon programs. Since 2000, theDepartment of Defense (DOD) hasroughly doubled its plannedinvestment in new systems from$790 billion to $1.6 trillion in 2007,but acquisition outcomes in termsof cost and schedule have notimproved. Total acquisition costsfor major defense programs in thefiscal year 2007 portfolio haveincreased 26 percent from firstestimates, compared with 6 percentin 2000. Programs have also oftenfailed to deliver capabilities when promised. DOD’s acquisitionoutcomes appear increasinglysuboptimal, a condition that needsto be corrected given the pressuresfaced by the department from othermilitary and majornondiscretionary governmentdemands.This report provides congressionaland DOD decision makers with anindependent, knowledge-basedassessment of defense programs,identifying potential risks when a program’s projected attainment of knowledge diverges from best practices. The programsassessed—most of which areconsidered major acquisitions byDOD—were selected using severalfactors: high dollar value,acquisition stage, andcongressional interest. This reportalso highlights overall trends inDOD acquisition outcomes andissues raised by the cumulativeexperience of individual programs.GAO updates this report annuallyunder the Comptroller General’sauthority to conduct evaluations onhis own initiative.
Of the 72 programs GAO assessed this year, none of them had proceededthrough system development meeting the best practices standards for maturetechnologies, stable design, or mature production processes by critical junctures of the program, each of which are essential for achieving plannedcost, schedule, and performance outcomes. The absence of wide-spreadadoption of knowledge-based acquisition processes by DOD continues to be amajor contributor to this lack of maturity. Aside from these knowledge-basedissues, GAO this year gathered data on four additional factors that have the potential to influence DOD’s ability to manage programs and improveoutcomes—performance requirements changes, program manager tenure,reliance on nongovernmental personnel to help perform program office roles,and software management. GAO found that 63 percent of the programs hadchanged requirements once system development began, and also experiencedsignificant program cost increases. Average tenure to date for programmanagers has been less than half of that called for by DOD policy. About 48 percent of DOD program office staff for programs GAO collected data from iscomposed of personnel outside of the government. Finally, roughly half the programs that provided GAO data experienced more than a 25 percentincrease in the expected lines of software code since starting their respectivesystem development programs.In response to previous GAO recommendations and congressional direction,DOD has recently taken actions that could help move the department towardmore sound, knowledge-based acquisition processes. For example, a newconcept decision review initiative, guidance for determining acquisitionapproaches based on capability need dates, and the establishment of reviewboards to monitor weapon system configuration changes could enabledepartment officials to make more informed decisions in the early stages of a program and better match program requirements and resources, a key firststep. Improvements to individual program acquisition outcomes will likelyhinge on the success of initiatives like these, paired with knowledge-basedstrategies.
 
Analy
s
i
s
of DOD Major Defen
s
e Acqui
s
ition Pro
g
ram Portfolio
s
(fi
s
cal year [FY] 2008 dollar
s
)FY 2000PortfolioFY 2005PortfolioFY 2007PortfolioPortfolio
s
ize
Number of programs 75 9195Total planned commitments $790 Billion $1.5 Trillion$1.6 TrillionCommitments outstanding $380 Billion $887 Billion$858 Billion
Portfolio performance
Change to total RDT&E costs from first estimate 27 percent 33 percent40 percentChange in total acquisition cost from first estimate 6 percent 18 percent26 percentEstimated total acquisition cost growth $42 Billion $202 Billion$295 BillionShare of programs with 25 percent or more increase inprogram acquisition unit cost 37 percent 44 percent44 percentAverage schedule delay in delivering initial capabilities 16 months 17 months21 months
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
To view the full product, including the scopeand methodology, click onGAO-08-467SP.For more information, contact MichaelSullivan at (202) 512-4841 orSullivanM@gao.gov.

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Ken Miller liked this
Pooja Sharma liked this
Brent Smith liked this
Brandon Andrews liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->