Summary
Because of the importance of the Department of Defense's (DOD) adherence to disciplined information technology (IT) acquisition processes in successfully modernizing its business systems, GAO was asked to determine whether the Transportation Coordinators' Automated Information for Movements System II (TC-AIMS II) program is being managed according to important aspects of DOD's acquisition policies and guidance, as well as other relevant acquisition management best practices. TC-AIMS II was initiated in 1995 as a joint services system to help manage force and equipment movements within the United States and abroad. The U.S. Department of the Army has the lead responsibility for managing the system's acquisition and estimates its life-cycle cost to be $1.7 billion over 25 years.
The Army has managed the TC-AIMS II program in accordance with some, but not all, key aspects of DOD's system acquisition management policies and related guidance. These policies and guidance are intended to reasonably ensure that investment in a given IT system represents the right solution to fill a mission need--and, if it does, that acquisition and deployment of the system are handled in a manner that maximizes the chances of delivering defined system capabilities on time and within budget. The Army has not managed the program in accordance with those DOD policies and related guidance, including related federal and other best practice guidance, that are intended to reasonably ensure that a proposed system is the right solution to meet mission needs. Specifically, the Army has not economically justified its investment in TC-AIMS II on the basis of reliable estimates of costs and benefits. For example, the most recent economic justification included cost and benefit estimates predicated on all four military services using the system. However, two services (U.S. Department of the Air Force and U.S. Marine Corps) have stated that they do not intend to use it. The Army has not invested in TC-AIMS II within the context of a well-defined enterprise architecture, which is an institutional blueprint to control program investment decisions in a way that promotes interoperability and reduces redundancy among systems. The Army has instead focused on aligning TC-AIMS II with its logistics architecture; this means that even though TC-AIMS II is intended to be a DOD-wide program, it has been based on a service-specific architecture rather than a DOD-wide architecture. As a result, it may not properly fit within departmentwide plans. To its credit, the Army has largely managed the program in accordance with key policies and related guidance that are intended to reasonably ensure that the acquisition and deployment of a given system are handled in a manner that maximizes the chances of delivering defined capabilities on time and within budget. However, some aspects of this policy and guidance have not been followed. For example, the Army has not fully implemented risk management and has not adhered to a key feature of performance-based contracting. Reasons the Army cited for not following policies and guidance ranged from management inattention to lack of training. As a result, the Army, among other things, does not know whether the system is the right solution. Until this uncertainty and the previously discussed problems are addressed, it will remain unclear whether further planned investment in TC-AIMS II is warranted, and certain aspects of the program's management will be limited.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change
from "In process" to "Implemented" or "Not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:
Team:
Phone:
Randolph C. Hite
Government Accountability Office: Information Technology
(202) 512-6256
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to determine if continued investment in TC-AIMS II as planned represents a prudent use of the department's limited resources. To accomplish this, the Secretary of the Army should collaborate with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration/Chief Information Officer, the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation, and the Army Cost Analysis Division to prepare a reliable economic analysis.
Agency Affected: Department of Defense
Status: In process
Comments: In September 2007, Army officials from the Program Executive Office, Enterprise Information Systems, which has overall responsibility for the TC AIMS II program, told us that the program had significantly changed since our December 2005 report. In particular, DOD decided in July 2006 to (1) limit the scope of the program to completing the third block (phase) of development, which was underway during our review, and (2) cancel investment in the planned fourth and fifth blocks with the goal of delivering this capability via alternative solutions. The Army officials also stated that the program office is developing a new economic analysis to reflect these program changes and the program's overall transition to an operations and maintenance state. The program office plans to complete the analysis in November 2007.
Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to determine if continued investment in TC-AIMS II as planned represents a prudent use of the department's limited resources. To accomplish this, the Secretary of the Army should ensure that development of this economic analysis (1) complies with cost-estimating best practices and relevant Office of Management and Budget cost benefit guidance, (2) incorporates available data on whether deployed TC-AIMS II capabilities are actually producing benefits, and (3) addresses that the Air Force and Marines are not planning to use the system.
Agency Affected: Department of Defense
Status: In process
Comments: In September 2007, Army officials from the Program Executive Office, Enterprise Information Systems, which has overall responsibility for the TC AIMS II program, told us that the program had significantly changed since our December 2005 report. In particular, DOD decided in July 2006 to (1) limit the scope of the program to completing the third block (phase) of development, which was underway during our review, and (2) cancel investment in the planned fourth and fifth blocks with the goal of delivering this capability via alternative solutions. In addition, the Army officials stated that the program office is developing a new economic analysis to reflect these program changes and the program's overall transition to an operations and maintenance state. They also stated that the analysis, which is scheduled to be completed in November 2007, is to, among other things, comply with federal guidance and related best practices and address that the Air Force and Marines are not planning to use the system.
Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to determine if continued investment in TC-AIMS II as planned represents a prudent use of the department's limited resources. To accomplish this, the Secretary of the Army should collaborate with the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to ensure that TC-AIMS II is adequately aligned with the evolving DOD business enterprise architecture.
Agency Affected: Department of Defense
Status: In process
Comments: In September 2007, Army officials from the Program Executive Office, Enterprise Information Systems, which has overall responsibility for the TC AIMS II program, told us that the program had significantly changed since our December 2005 report. In particular, DOD decided in July 2006 to (1) limit the scope of the program to completing the third block (phase) of development, which was underway during our review, and (2) cancel investment in the planned fourth and fifth blocks with the goal of delivering this capability via alternative solutions. In addition, the Army officials stated that the program office is developing a new economic analysis to reflect these program changes and the program's overall transition to an operations and maintenance state. They also stated that the analysis, which is scheduled to be completed in November 2007, is to include support showing that the system is adequately aligned with DOD's business enterprise architecture.
Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to present the results of these analyses to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or his designee, and seek a departmental decision on how best to proceed with the program. Until this is done, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to limit future investment in already deployed applications to essential operation and maintenance activities and only developmental activities deemed essential to national security needs.
Agency Affected: Department of Defense
Status: Implemented
Comments: Consistent with our recommendation, DOD evaluated the investment in July 2006 as part of a major milestone review and decided to cancel investment in the last two phases (referred to as blocks by DOD), stating that this capability would be satisfied by alternate solutions.
Recommendation: If--on the basis of reliable data--a decision is made to further develop TC-AIMS II, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to ensure that the program implements effective program management activities related to risk management and performance-based contracting.
Agency Affected: Department of Defense
Status: In process
Comments: In September 2007, Army officials from the Program Executive Office, Enterprise Information Systems, which has overall responsibility for the TC AIMS II program, told us that the program had significantly changed since our December 2005 report. In particular, DOD decided in July 2006 to (1) limit the scope of the program to completing the third block (phase) of development, which was underway during our review, and (2) cancel investment in the planned fourth and fifth blocks with the goal of delivering this capability via alternative solutions. The Army officials stated that the program office is developing a new economic analysis to reflect these program changes and the program's overall transition to an operations and maintenance state. The program office plans to complete the analysis in November 2007. These officials also stated that the program office was implementing effective program management activities. For example, with regard to performance-based contracting, the officials said the program office had reassessed performance of the systems integration contractor and based on its performance to date, decided not to renew the contractor's remaining option year. Army officials are in the process of providing documentation to support the steps it reports it is taking to implement effective program management activities.
