United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Space and 

Aeronautics, Committee on Science and 

Technology, House of Representatives

JOINT PLANNING AND 

DEVELOPMENT OFFICE 

Progress and Key Issues in 

Planning the Transition to 

the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System 

Statement of Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Thursday, March 29, 2007

 

GAO-07-693T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

March 29, 2007

JOINT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 

OFFICE

Progress and Key Issues in Planning the 

Transition to the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System 

Highlights of GAO-07-693T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Space and 

Aeronautics, Committee on Science and 

Technology, House of Representatives 

The skies over America are 

becoming more crowded every day. 

The consensus of opinion is that 

the current system cannot be 

expanded to meet projected 

growth. In 2003, recognizing the 

need for system transformation,

Congress authorized the creation of 

the Joint Planning and 

Development Office (JPDO), 

housed within the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), to lead a 

collaborative effort of federal and 

nonfederal aviation stakeholders to

conceptualize and plan the Next

Generation Air Transportation 

System (NextGen)—a fundamental

redesign and modernization of the 

national airspace system. JPDO

operates in conjunction with its

partner agencies, which include

FAA; the Departments of 

Transportation, Commerce,

Defense, and Homeland Security;

the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA); and the 

White House Office of Science and

Technology Policy. 

GAO’s testimony focuses on the 

progress that JPDO has made in 

planning the NextGen initiative and 

some key issues and challenges

that JPDO continues to face. This

statement is based on GAO’s 

November 2006 report to this

subcommittee as well as ongoing

work. In our November 2006 

report, we recommended that 

JPDO take actions to

institutionalize its collaboration 

and determine if it had the 

involvement of all key 

stakeholders. JPDO said it would 

consider our recommendations. 

JPDO has made progress in several areas in its planning of the NextGen 

initiative, but continues to face a number of challenges. JPDO’s 

organizational structure incorporates some of the practices that we have

found to be effective for federal interagency collaborations, and includes an 

institute that facilitates the participation of nonfederal stakeholders. JPDO 

has faced some organizational challenges, however. Leadership turnover at 

JPDO and the Institute have raised concerns about the stability of JPDO and 

the impact of the turnovers on its progress. Additionally, we and JPDO 

officials have heard concerns from stakeholders about the productivity of 

some integrated product teams and the pace of the planning effort. In 

response, JPDO officials are currently proposing several changes to JPDO’s 

organizational structure aimed at improving the organization’s effectiveness. 

 

JPDO has also made progress toward releasing several key planning 

documents, including a Concept of Operations, an Enterprise Architecture,

and an Integrated Work Plan, although in some cases on a revised and 

extended timeline. JPDO is focusing on the right types of key documents for 

the foundation of NextGen planning, although the current draft Concept of 

Operations still lacks important details. In our November 2006 report, we 

noted that JPDO is fundamentally a planning and coordinating body that 

lacks authority over the key human and technological resources of its 

partner agencies. Consequently, institutionalizing the collaborative process 

with its partner agencies will be critical to JPDO’s ability to facilitate the 

implementation of NextGen. JPDO has identified several tasks including 

aligning the enterprise architectures of its partner agencies, working with 

OMB to establish a cross-agency mechanism for NextGen funding decisions, 

and working with FAA to revamp a key planning document to focus on the 

NextGen effort. 

JPDO has made progress in developing cost estimates for NextGen, recently 

reporting that it estimates the total federal cost for NextGen infrastructure 

through 2025 will range between $15 billion and $22 billion. Questions 

remain, however, over which entities will fund and conduct some of the 

necessary research, development, and demonstration projects that in the 

past were often conducted by NASA, and which will be key to achieving

certain NextGen capabilities. For example, JPDO’s investment simulation 

capability, which relies heavily on a NASA modeling platform, may be 

constrained unless the JPDO or another partner agency can assume the 

modeling work. JPDO also faces a challenge in addressing questions 

concerning how human factors issues, such as the changing roles of air 

traffic controllers in a more automated NextGen environment, will be 

researched and addressed. Finally, JPDO has a continuing challenge in 

ensuring the involvement of all key stakeholders, including controllers and 

technicians. Similarly, issues have arisen over whether conflict of interest 

issues could chill the participation of industry stakeholders. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-693T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Gerald L. 

Dillingham, Ph.D., at (202) 512-2834 or 

dillinghamg@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today to discuss the 

progress of the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) in 

conceptualizing, planning, and facilitating a transformation of the current 

national airspace system to the Next Generation Air Transportation 

System (NextGen). Our nation’s current airspace system is under growing 

strain as the demand for air travel is steadily increasing, from over 740 

million passengers flying in fiscal year 2006 to an estimated 1 billion 

passengers by 2015, according to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

estimates. The system is also expected to absorb a growing variety of 

aircraft, from the jumbo A380 which can hold more than 500 passengers to 

very light jets which will transport six or fewer passengers per flight. The 

consensus is that the current system cannot be expanded to meet this 

projected growth. Without a timely transition to NextGen capabilities, 

JPDO officials estimate a future gap between the demand for air 

transportation and available capacity that could cost the U.S. economy 

billions of dollars annually. 

In 2003, recognizing the need for system transformation, Congress 

authorized the creation of JPDO,1

 housed within FAA, to lead a 

collaborative effort of federal and nonfederal aviation stakeholders to 

conceptualize and plan the NextGen system. NextGen is envisioned as a 

major redesign of the air transportation system that will move from largely 

ground-based radars to precision satellite-based navigation and includes 

digital, networked communications; an integrated weather system; 

layered, adaptive security; and more. In addition to FAA, JPDO operates in 

conjunction with multiple federal partner agencies, including the 

Departments of Transportation, Commerce, Defense, and Homeland 

Security; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); and 

the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. 

My testimony today focuses on the following question: What is the status 

of JPDO’s planning and facilitation of NextGen with respect to its 

organizational structure, technical planning, and initial research and 

development? My statement is based on our November 2006 report to this 

 1

JPDO was authorized by the Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Pub. L.

No. 108-176). The office began operating in early 2004. 

Page 1 GAO-07-693T 
subcommittee2

 as well as on-going work. We conducted this work in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

In summary: 

JPDO has made progress in several areas in its planning of the NextGen 

initiative, but continues to face a number of challenges. JPDO’s 

organizational structure incorporates some of the practices that we have

found to be effective for federal interagency collaborations, and includes 

an institute that facilitates the participation of nonfederal stakeholders. 

JPDO has faced some organizational challenges, however. Leadership 

turnover at JPDO and the Institute have raised concerns about the stability 

of JPDO and the NextGen initiative. Additionally, we and JPDO officials 

have heard concerns from stakeholders about the productivity of some 

integrated product teams (IPTs) and the pace of the planning effort at 

JPDO. In response, JPDO officials are currently proposing several changes 

to JPDO’s organizational structure aimed at improving the effectiveness of 

the organization. We believe that these changes could help address 

stakeholder concerns, but the effectiveness of these changes will have to 

be evaluated.

JPDO has also made progress toward releasing several key planning 

documents, including a Concept of Operations, an Enterprise Architecture, 

and an Integrated Work Plan, although in some cases on a revised and 

extended timeline. JPDO is focusing on the right types of key documents

for the foundation of NextGen planning, although the current draft 

Concept of Operations still lacks important details. In our November 2006 

report, we noted that JPDO is fundamentally a planning and coordinating 

body that lacks authority over the key human and technological resources 

of its partner agencies. Consequently, institutionalizing the collaborative 

process with its partner agencies will be critical to JPDO’s ability to 

facilitate the implementation of NextGen. JPDO has identified several 

tasks that will help institutionalize collaboration, including aligning the 

enterprise architectures of its partner agencies, working with OMB to 

establish a cross-agency mechanism for NextGen funding decisions, and 

working with FAA to revamp a key planning document to focus on the 

NextGen effort. 

 2

GAO, Next Generation Air Transportation System: Progress and Challenges Associated

with the Transformation of the National Airspace System, GAO-07-25 (Washington, D.C.: 

Nov. 13, 2006). 

Page 2 GAO-07-693T 
JPDO has made progress in developing cost estimates for NextGen, 

recently reporting that it estimates the total federal cost for NextGen 

infrastructure through 2025 will range between $15 billion and $22 billion. 

Questions remain, however, over which organizations will fund and 

conduct some of the necessary research, development, and demonstration 

projects that in the past were often conducted by NASA, and which will be 

key to achieving certain NextGen capabilities. For example, JPDO’s 

investment simulation capability relies heavily on a NASA modeling 

platform that NASA does not plan to upgrade for 2 years. As a result, 

JPDO’s investment simulation capability might be constrained. JPDO also 

faces a challenge in addressing questions concerning how human factors 

issues, such as the changing roles of air traffic controllers in a more 

automated NextGen environment, will be researched and addressed. 

Finally, JPDO has a continuing challenge in ensuring the involvement of all 

key stakeholders. For example, active air traffic controllers and 

technicians are not currently involved in NextGen planning. Similarly, 

issues have arisen over whether conflict of interest issues could chill the 

participation of industry stakeholders. 

In November 2006, we recommended that the Secretary of Transportation 

direct JPDO to take actions to institutionalize the partner agencies’ 

collaboration in supporting NextGen, including action on a Memorandum 

of Understanding among the partner agencies, actions to finalize 

procedures to leverage partner agency resources, and actions to develop

procedures for dispute resolution. We also recommended that the 

Secretary direct JPDO to determine whether key stakeholders and 

expertise are not currently represented in JPDO planning efforts. JPDO 

officials neither agreed nor disagree with our recommendations, but said 

they would consider them. 

JPDO has continued to make progress in facilitating the collaboration that 

is central to its mission and in furthering its key planning documents. 

However, JPDO faces a number of challenges involving its organizational 

structure, institutionalization of its efforts, research and development 

activities, and stakeholder participation. 

JPDO Has Made 

Progress in Planning 

NextGen, but 

Continues to Face a 

Number of Challenges 

Page 3 GAO-07-693T 
Vision 100 includes requirements for JPDO to coordinate and consult with 

its partner agencies, private sector experts, and the public. JPDO’s 

approach has been to establish an organizational structure that involves 

federal and nonfederal stakeholders throughout the organization. This 

structure includes a federal interagency senior policy committee, a board

of directors, and an institute to facilitate the participation of nonfederal 

stakeholders. JPDO’s structure also includes eight integrated product 

teams (IPT), which is where the federal and nonfederal experts come 

together to plan for and coordinate the development of technologies for 

NextGen. The eight IPTs are linked to eight key strategies that JPDO 

developed early on for guiding its NextGen planning work (see table 1). 

JPDO’s Organizational 

Structure Facilitates 

Collaboration, but 

Continues to Evolve 

Table 1: JPDO’s Strategies and Related IPT Lead Agencies 

Strategy Related IPT Lead Agency 

Develop airport infrastructure to meet future 

demand 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Establish an effective security system 

without limiting mobility or civil liberties 

Department of Homeland Security 

Establish an agile air traffic system that 

quickly responds to shifts in demand 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administrationa

 

Establish shared situational awareness—

where all users share the same information 

Department of Defense 

Establish a comprehensive and proactive 

approach to safety 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Develop environmental protection that allows

sustained aviation growth 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Develop a systemwide capability to reduce 

weather impacts

Department of Commerce 

Harmonize equipage and operations globally Federal Aviation Administration 

Sources: GAO and JPDO. 

a

NASA leads this IPT because it has primary responsibility for conducting the necessary research; 

implementation of the agile air traffic system is the responsibility of FAA. 

JPDO’s senior policy committee is headed by the Secretary of

Transportation (as required in Vision 100) and includes senior-level 

officials from JPDO’s partner agencies. The Next Generation Air 

Transportation System Institute (the Institute) was created by an 

agreement between the National Center for Advanced Technologies3

 and 

 3

The National Center for Advanced Technologies is a nonprofit unit within the Aerospace 

Industries Association. 

Page 4 GAO-07-693T 
FAA to incorporate the expertise and views of stakeholders from private 

industry, state and local governments, and academia. The Institute 

Management Council (IMC), composed of top officials and representatives 

from the aviation community, oversees the policy, recommendations, and 

products of the Institute and provides a means for advancing consensus 

positions on critical NextGen issues. The IPTs are headed by 

representatives of JPDO’s partner agencies and include more than 200 

nonfederal stakeholders from over 100 organizations, whose participation 

was arranged through the Institute. Figure 1 illustrates JPDO’s position 

within FAA and the JPDO structures that bring together federal and 

nonfederal stakeholders, including the Institute and the IPTs. To meet 

Vision 100’s requirement that JPDO coordinate and consult with the 

public, the Institute held its first public meeting in March 2006 and plans to 

hold another public meeting in May 2007. 

Page 5 GAO-07-693T 
Figure 1: Organization of JPDO 

Senior Policy Committee

FAA 

Administrator

Executive 

Committee,

Research, 

Engineering and 

Development 

Advisory 

Committee

NGATS

Institute Policy

● Studies

● IPT expert 

participation

● Agile Air Traffic

System 

 (NASA)

● Airport 

 Infrastructure 

 (FAA)

● Aviation

Security

 (DHS)

● Environmental

 Protection 

 (FAA)

● Global 

 Harmonization

 (FAA)

● Shared

Situational

 Awareness

 (DOD)

● Weather

 (DOC)

● Safety

 Management

 (FAA)

● Enterprise 

Architecture 

and 

Engineering

● Portfolio

 Management

● Evaluation and

 Analysis

Chief Engineer NGATS Institute

Executive Director

Partnership 

Management

Business

Management

Interagency 

IPT leads Technical

Division leads

Master IPT

JPDO Board NGATS Institute 

Management Council

JPDO Director

Deputy Director

Source: JPDO.

Air Traffic 

Organization

Department of Transportation (chair)

Department of Homeland Security

Department of Defense

Department of Commerce

The White House Office of 

Science and Technology Policy

NASA

Federal Aviation Administration

Page 6 GAO-07-693T 
In November 2006, we reported that JPDO’s organizational structure 

incorporated some of the practices that we have found to be effective for 

federal interagency collaborations—an important point given how critical

such collaboration is to the success of JPDO’s mission. For example, the 

JPDO partner agencies have worked together to develop key strategies for 

NextGen and JPDO has leveraged its partner agency resources by staffing 

various levels of its organization with partner agency employees. Also, our 

work has shown that involving stakeholders can, among other things, 

increase their support for a collaborative effort, and the Institute provides

a method for involving nonfederal stakeholders in planning NextGen. 

Recently, JPDO officials told us they have proposed to FAA management 

and the IMC executive board a change in the IPT structure and operation 

to improve the efficiency of the organization. JPDO has proposed 

converting each IPT into a “work group” with the same participants as the 

current IPT, but with each work group led by a joint government and 

industry steering committee. The steering committee would oversee the 

creation of small, ad hoc subgroups that would be tasked with short-term 

projects exploring specific issues and delivering discrete work products. 

Under this arrangement, work group members would be free of 

obligations to the group when not engaged in a specific project. According 

to JPDO officials, if these changes are approved, the work groups would 

be more efficient and output- or product-focused than the current IPTs. 

JPDO officials also noted that they are proposing to create a ninth work 

group to address avionics issues. 

We believe that these changes could help address concerns that we have

heard from some stakeholders about the productivity of some IPTs and 

the pace of the planning effort at JPDO. Nonetheless, the effectiveness of 

these changes will have to be evaluated over time. Also, JPDO’s director 

has pointed out the need for the office to begin transitioning from planning 

NextGen to facilitating the implementation of NextGen. We believe that 

these changes are potentially useful in supporting such a transition. 

However, it will be important to monitor these changes to ensure that the 

participation of stakeholders is neither decreased nor adversely affected. 

Maintaining communications within and among work groups could 

increase in importance if, as work group members focus on specific 

projects, they become less involved in the overall collaborative planning

effort. 

Finally, while the organizational structure of JPDO and the Institute have 

been in place and largely unchanged for several years now, both of these 

entities have suffered from a lack of stable leadership. As JPDO begins its 

Page 7 GAO-07-693T 
fourth year in operation, it is on its third director and operated during 

most of 2006 under the stewardship of an acting director. The Institute 

pointed out in its recent annual report that JPDO’s leadership turnover had 

made it a challenge for JPDO to move out more aggressively on many 

goals and objectives, as the office waited on a full-time director. The 

Institute also stated that JPDO’s leadership turnover had limited the ability 

of the IMC executive committee to forge a stronger relationship with 

JPDO leadership and work jointly on strategic issues and challenges. 

However, the Institute has also had issues with turnover and is currently 

functioning under an acting director due to the recent departure of its 

second director, who had been in the position less than two years. The 

leadership turnovers at both JPDO and the Institute raise concerns about 

the stability of JPDO and about the impact of these turnovers on the 

progress of the NextGen initiative. 

JPDO Has Made Progress 

Toward Releasing Key 

Planning Documents, 

although Further Work 

Remains 

JPDO’s authorizing legislation requires the office to create a multi-agency

research and development plan for the transition to NextGen. To comply, 

JPDO is developing several key documents that together form the 

foundation of NextGen planning. These documents include a NextGen 

Concept of Operations, a NextGen Enterprise Architecture, and an 

Integrated Work Plan. 

The Concept of Operations is the most fundamental of JPDO’s key 

planning documents, as the other key documents flow from it. Although an 

earlier version was delayed so that stakeholder comments could be 

addressed, Version 1.2 of the Concept of Operations is currently posted on

JPDO’s Website for review and comment by the aviation community. This 

226-page document provides written descriptions of how the NextGen 

system is envisioned to operate in 2025 and beyond, including highlighting 

key research and policy issues that will need to be addressed.4

 For 

example, some key policy issues are associated with automating the air 

traffic control system, including the need for a backup plan in case 

automation fails, the responsibilities and liabilities of different 

stakeholders during an automation failure, and the level of monitoring 

needed by pilots when automation is ensuring safe separation between 

 4

Following an introductory section, the Concept of Operations has eight sections covering

air traffic management operations, airport operations and infrastructure services, netcentric infrastructure services, shared situational awareness services, security services, 

environmental management framework, safety management services, and performance

management services. 

Page 8 GAO-07-693T 
aircraft. Over the next few months, JPDO plans to address the public 

comments it receives and issue a revised version of the Concept of 

Operations. 

In addition to the Concept of Operations, JPDO is working on an 

Enterprise Architecture for NextGen—that is, a technical description of 

the NextGen system, akin to blueprints for a building. The Enterprise 

Architecture is meant to provide a common tool for planning and 

understanding the complex, interrelated systems that will make up 

NextGen. According to JPDO officials, the Enterprise Architecture will 

provide the means for coordinating among the partner agencies and 

private sector manufacturers, aligning relevant research and development 

activities, and integrating equipment. JPDO plans to issue an early version 

of its Enterprise Architecture next month, although it was originally 

scheduled for release in September 2006. 

Finally, JPDO is developing an Integrated Work Plan that will describe the 

capabilities needed to transition to NextGen from the current system and 

provide the research, policy and regulation, and schedules necessary to 

achieve NextGen by 2025. The Integrated Work Plan is akin to a project 

plan and will be critical for fiscal year 2009 partner agency budget and

program planning. According to a JPDO official, the office intends to issue 

its initial draft of the Integrated Work Plan in July 2007. 

Page 9 GAO-07-693T 
Figure 2: Key NextGen Planning Documents 

We have discussed JPDO’s planning documents with JPDO officials and 

examined both an earlier version of JPDO’s Concept of Operations5

 and 

the current version that is out for public comment.6

 Based on our analysis, 

JPDO is focusing on the right types of key documents for the foundation of 

NextGen planning. As for the Concept of Operations, the current version is

much improved from the prior version, with additional details added. 

Nonetheless, we believe that it still does not include key elements such as 

scenarios illustrating NextGen operations, a summary of NextGen’s 

operational impact on users and other stakeholders, and an analysis of the 

benefits, alternatives, and trade-offs that were considered for NextGen. In 

addition, it lacks an overall description that ties together the eight key 

areas that the document covers. As noted, JPDO does plan to release 

another version of the Concept of Operations later this year.

In fact, JPDO plans further versions of all of its key planning documents. 

We see the development of all three of JPDO’s key documents as part of an

iterative and evolutionary process. Thus, it is unlikely that any of these 

 5

Concept of Operations for the Next Generation Air Transportation System, version 0.2, 

July 24, 2006. 

6

Our senior level technologist reviewed JPDO’s current Concept of Operations for the Next

Generation Air Transportation System, version 1.2, dated February 28, 2007, by comparing

it with the IEEE Standard 1362-1998 for concept of operations documents.

Page 10 GAO-07-693T 
documents will ever be truly “finalized,” but rather will continue to evolve 

throughout the implementation of NextGen to reflect, for example, the 

development of new technologies or problems uncovered during research 

and development of planned technologies. 

Finally, while each of the three key documents has a specific purpose, the 

scope and technical sophistication of these documents makes it difficult 

for some stakeholders to understand the basics of the NextGen planning 

effort. To address this issue, JPDO is currently drafting what the office 

refers to as a “blueprint” for NextGen, meant to be a short, high-level, nontechnical presentation of NextGen goals and capabilities. We believe that

such a document could help some stakeholders develop a better 

understanding of NextGen and the planning effort to date. 

Institutionalizing the 

Collaborative Process 

Poses a Continuing 

Challenge for JPDO 

In our November 2006 report, we noted that JPDO is fundamentally a 

planning and coordinating body that lacks authority over the key human 

and technological resources of its partner agencies. Consequently, 

institutionalizing the collaborative process with its partner agencies will 

be critical to JPDO’s ability to facilitate the implementation of NextGen. 

As we reported in November, JPDO has not established some practices 

significant to institutionalizing its collaborative process. For example, one 

method for establishing collaboration at a fundamental level would be for 

JPDO to have formal, long-term agreements among its partner agencies on 

their roles and responsibilities in creating NextGen. Currently, there is no 

mechanism that assures the partner agencies’ commitment continuing 

over the 20-year timeframe of NextGen or their accountability to JPDO. 

According to JPDO officials, they are working to establish a memorandum 

of understanding (MOU), signed by the Secretary or other high-ranking 

official from each partner agency, which will broadly define the partner 

agencies’ roles and responsibilities. JPDO first informed us of the 

development of this MOU in August 2005; in November 2006 we 

recommended that JPDO finalize the MOU and present it to the senior 

policy committee for its consideration and action. However, as of March 

28, 2007, the MOU remained unsigned by some of the partner agencies. 

Another key method for institutionalizing the collaborative effort is 

incorporating NextGen goals and activities into the partner agencies’ key 

planning documents. For example, we noted in November 2006 that NASA 

and FAA had incorporated NextGen goals into their strategic plans. These

types of efforts will be critical to JPDO’s ability to leverage its partner 

agency resources for continued JPDO planning efforts. Even more 

importantly, these efforts will be critical to helping ensure that partner 

Page 11 GAO-07-693T 
agencies—given competing missions and resource demands—dedicate the 

resources necessary to support the implementation of NextGen research 

efforts or system acquisitions. 

Recognizing that JPDO does not have authority over partner agency

resources, FAA and JPDO have initiated several efforts to institutionalize 

NextGen. For example, JPDO is working with FAA to refocus one of FAA’s 

key planning documents on the implementation of NextGen—an effort 

that also appears to be improving the collaboration and coordination 

between JPDO and FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO), which has 

primary responsibility for modernization of the air traffic control system. 

FAA has expanded and revamped its Operational Evolution Plan (OEP)—

renamed the Operational Evolution Partnership—to become FAA’s 

implementation plan for NextGen.7

 The OEP is being expanded to apply to

all of FAA and is intended to become a comprehensive description of how 

the agency will implement NextGen, including the required technologies, 

procedures, and resources. (Figure 3 shows the OEP framework.) An ATO 

official told us that the new OEP is to be consistent with JPDO’s key 

planning documents and its budget guidance to the partner agencies. 

According to FAA, the new OEP will allow it to demonstrate appropriate 

budget control and linkage to NextGen plans and will force FAA’s research 

and development to be relevant to NextGen’s requirements. According to 

FAA documents, the agency plans to publish a new OEP in June 2007. 

 7

Prior to expansion of the OEP, the document centered around plans for increasing 

capacity and efficiency at 35 major airports. 

Page 12 GAO-07-693T 
Figure 3: New OEP Framework 

Aircraft &

Operator

Requirements

Air 

Traffic

Operations

Airport

Development

Source: JPDO.

NextGen Strategic Initiatives

Safety, Policy & Certification

Technical Development

NextGen

Note: The concentric rings indicate the nature of initiative development from the outer ring (NextGen 

strategic initiatives), in which new programs and concepts are analyzed and demonstrated; to the 

second ring, where decisions are made regarding safety, operating policy, performance standards, 

and certification requirements; to the third ring (technical development), where concepts are 

prototyped and investment analysis decisions are made. The progression through the rings is not 

necessarily linear, and a program may be in more than one ring at a time. Data communications, for 

example, is in the technical development ring and also in the middle ring as policy and rulemaking is

considered. The core is divided into three sections, which indicate the FAA offices that implement the 

final NextGen program. 

Page 13 GAO-07-693T 
In addition, to further align FAA’s efforts with JPDO’s plans for NextGen, 

FAA is creating a NextGen Review Board to oversee the OEP. This Review

Board will be co-chaired by JPDO’s Director and ATO’s Vice President of 

Operations Planning Services. Initiatives, such as concept demonstrations 

or research, proposed for inclusion in the OEP will now need to go 

through the Review Board for approval. Initiatives are to be assessed for 

their relation to NextGen requirements, concept maturity, and risk. An 

ATO official told us that the new OEP process should also help identify 

some smaller programs that might be inconsistent with NextGen and 

which could be discontinued. Additionally, as a further step towards 

integrating ATO and JPDO, the administration’s reauthorization proposal 

calls for the JPDO director to be a voting member of FAA’s Joint 

Resources Council and ATO’s Executive Council.

While progress is being made in incorporating NextGen initiatives into 

FAA’s strategic and planning documents, more remains to be done with 

FAA and the other JPDO partner agencies. For example, one critical 

activity that remains in this area will be synchronizing the NextGen 

enterprise architecture, once JPDO releases and further refines it, with the 

partner agencies’ enterprise architectures. Doing so should help align 

agencies’ current work with NextGen while simultaneously identifying 

gaps between agency plans and NextGen plans. Also, while FAA is making 

significant progress toward creating an implementation plan for NextGen, 

the other partner agencies are less far along or have not begun such 

efforts. JPDO’s lack of authority over partner agency resources will be 

minimized as a challenge if the partner agencies commit to NextGen goals 

and initiatives at a structural level. By further incorporation of NextGen 

efforts into strategic planning documents, the partner agencies will better 

institutionalize their commitments to JPDO and the NextGen initiative. 

Finally, another important method for institutionalizing the collaborative 

effort will be for JPDO to establish mechanisms for leveraging partner 

agency resources. JPDO has made progress in this area, although further 

work remains. As we noted in our November report, JPDO is working 

with OMB to develop a process that would allow OMB to identify 

NextGen-related projects across the partner agencies and consider 

NextGen as a unified, cross-agency program. We recently met with OMB 

officials who said that they felt there has been significant progress with 

JPDO over the last year. JPDO is now working on an OMB Exhibit 300

Page 14 GAO-07-693T 
form for NextGen.8

 This will allow JPDO to present OMB a joint business 

case for the NextGen-related efforts within the partner agencies and will 

be used as input to funding decisions for NextGen research and 

acquisitions across the agencies. This Exhibit 300 will be due to OMB in 

September 2007 to inform decisions about the partner agencies’ 2009 

budget submissions. 

Ultimately, the success of JPDO will have to be measured in the efforts of

its partner agencies to implement policies and procedures and acquire

systems that support NextGen. To date, JPDO can point to its success in 

collaborating with FAA to fund and speed its rollout of two systems 

considered cornerstone technologies for NextGen: Automatic Dependent

Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) and System Wide Information 

Management (SWIM). ADS-B is a new air traffic surveillance system that 

will replace many existing radars with less costly ground-based 

transceivers. SWIM will provide an initial network centric capability to all 

the users of the air transportation system. This means that the FAA and 

the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense will eventually share a 

common, real-time, secure picture of aviation operations across the 

airspace system. Identifying such NextGen programs across the partner 

agencies and establishing implementation plans for them in JPDO’s 

Integrated Work Plan will be critical going forward to creating 

performance metrics for JPDO. 

Although we recommended in our November report that JPDO develop

written procedures that formalize agreements with OMB regarding the 

leveraging of partner agency resources, this is still a work in progress. For 

example, OMB officials said they had not reviewed JPDO’s 2008 partner 

agency budget guidance prior to its release to the partner agencies, which

highlights the need for JPDO to further develop its procedures for working 

with OMB. Going forward, it will be important for Congress and other 

stakeholders to evaluate the success of the 2009 budgets in supporting 

NextGen initiatives, especially as 2009 is expected to be a critical year in

the transition from planning NextGen to implementing NextGen. 

 8

 Section 300 of OMB Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the

Budget (Nov. 2, 2005), sets forth requirements for federal agencies for planning, budgeting, 

acquiring, and managing information technology capital assets. 

Page 15 GAO-07-693T 
In our November report, we noted that JPDO had not yet developed a 

comprehensive estimate of the costs of NextGen. Since then, in its 

recently released 2006 Progress Report,9

 JPDO reported some estimated 

costs for NextGen, including specifics on some early NextGen programs. 

JPDO believes the total federal cost for NextGen infrastructure through 

2025 will range between $15 billion and $22 billion. JPDO also reported 

that a preliminary estimate of the corresponding cost to system users, who 

will have to equip with the advanced avionics that are necessary to realize 

the full benefits of some NextGen technologies, produced a range of $14 

billion to $20 billion. JPDO noted that this range for avionics costs reflects 

uncertainty about equipage costs for individual aircraft, the number of 

very light jets that will operate in high-performance airspace, and the 

amount of out-of-service time required for installation. 

FAA and JPDO Have 

Begun to Release Early 

Cost Estimates for 

NextGen, but Questions 

Remain Over Who Will 

Conduct Necessary 

Research and 

Development 

FAA, in its capital investment plan for fiscal years 2008-2012, includes 

estimated expenditures for 11 line items that are considered NextGen 

capital programs.10 The total 5-year estimated expenditures for these 

programs is $4.3 billion. In fiscal year 2008, only 6 of the line items are 

funded for a total of roughly $174 million; funding for the remaining 5 

programs would begin with the fiscal year 2009 budget. According to FAA, 

in addition to capital spending for NextGen, the agency will spend an 

estimated $300 million on NextGen-related research and development 

from fiscal years 2008 through 2012. The administration’s budget for fiscal

year 2008 for FAA includes a total of $17.8 million to support the activities 

of JPDO. 

While FAA and JPDO have begun to release estimates for FAA’s NextGen 

investment portfolio, questions remain over which entities will fund and 

conduct some of the necessary research, development, and demonstration 

projects that will be key to achieving certain NextGen capabilities. In the 

past, a significant portion of aeronautics research and development, 

 9

JPDO, Making the NextGen Vision a Reality: 2006 Progress Report to the Next 

Generation Air Transportation System Integrated Plan (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2007).

10FAA has six capital investment programs that it considers transformational NextGen

programs slated to receive funding in fiscal year 2008: ADS-B nationwide implementation, 

System Wide Information Management (SWIM), NextGen Data Communications, NextGen 

Network Enabled Weather, National Airspace System Voice Switch, and NextGen 

Technology Demonstration. In addition, five other programs are slated to begin funding in

2009: NextGen System Development, NextGen High Altitude Trajectory Based Operations, 

NextGen High Density Airports, NextGen Networked Facilities, and NextGen Cross-Cutting 

Infrastructure. 

Page 16 GAO-07-693T 
including intermediate technology development, has been performed by 

NASA. However, NASA’s aeronautics research budget and proposed 

funding shows a 30-percent decline, in constant 2005 dollars, from fiscal 

year 2005 to fiscal year 2011. To its credit, NASA plans to focus its 

research on the needs of NextGen. However, NASA is also moving toward 

a focus on fundamental research and away from developmental work and 

demonstration projects, which could negatively impact NextGen if these 

efforts are not assumed by others. According to its 2006 Progress Report, 

JPDO is building a research and development plan that will document 

NextGen’s research needs and the organizations that will perform the 

work. 

For example, JPDO’s investment simulation capability relies heavily on 

NASA’s NAS-wide modeling platform, the Airspace Concepts Evaluation 

System (ACES).11 This investment simulation capability permits JPDO to, 

among other things, evaluate alternative research ideas and assess the 

performance of competing vendors. According to a JPDO official, this 

capability, which is critical to NextGen research, is eroding as JPDO’s 

investment simulation requirements are expanding. As part of its 

fundamental research mission, NASA intends to upgrade to ACES-X (a 

more sophisticated representation of the national airspace system), but 

not for another two years. Until then, JPDO investment modeling 

capability will be constrained unless the office or another partner agency 

can assume the modeling work. While one option would be to contract 

with private sector vendors to do this type of modeling on a per simulation 

basis, this solution could be expensive for the government. Moreover, 

JPDO might not be able to continue facilitating participation by both small 

and large companies, thus giving both an equal opportunity to demonstrate 

their ideas, because small companies would have to pay for access to this 

proprietary modeling capability. This is an issue that needs to be 

addressed in the short-term. 

JPDO faces the challenge of determining the nature and scope of the 

research and technology development necessary to begin the transition to 

NextGen, as well as identifying the entities that can conduct that research 

and development. According to officials at FAA and JPDO, they are 

 11ACES provides a detailed flight simulation environment and an open framework to

integrate the results of other simulations. This allows JPDO to test concepts well before

they have to be demonstrated with real hardware and people. This platform provides a 

basis for evaluating the timing of many agencies’ current budget requests and is a method

for comparing competitive ideas. 

Page 17 GAO-07-693T 
currently studying these issues and trying to assess how much research 

and development FAA can assume. An FAA official recently testified that

the agency proposes to increase its research and development funding by 

$280 million over the next 5 years. However, a draft report by an advisory 

committee to FAA stated that FAA would need at least $100 million 

annually in increased funding to assume NASA’s research and 

development work, and establishing the necessary infrastructure within 

FAA could delay the implementation of NextGen by 5 years.12 More work 

remains to completely assess the research and development needs of 

NextGen and the ability of FAA and the other JPDO partner agencies to 

budget for and conduct the necessary initiatives. This information is 

critical as the timely completion of research and testing of proposed 

NextGen systems is necessary to keeping the NextGen initiative on 

schedule. 

Some Fundamental 

NextGen Capabilities Will 

Require Human Factors 

Research 

Addressing questions about how human factors issues will affect the move 

to some key NextGen capabilities is another challenge for JPDO. For 

example, the NextGen Concept of Operations envisions an increased 

reliance on automation, which raises questions about the role of the air 

traffic controllers in such an automated environment. Similarly, the 

Concept of Operations envisions that pilots will take on a greater share of 

the responsibility for maintaining safe separation and other tasks currently 

performed by controllers. This raises human factors questions about 

whether pilots can safely perform these additional duties. 

Although JPDO has begun to model how shifts in air traffic controllers’ 

workloads would affect their performance, it has not yet begun to model 

the effect of how this shift in workload to pilots would affect pilot 

performance. According to a JPDO official, modeling the effect of changes 

in pilot workload has not yet begun because JPDO has not yet identified a

suitable model for incorporation into its suite of modeling tools. According 

to a JPDO official, the evolving roles of pilots and controllers is the 

NextGen initiative’s most important human factors issue, but will be 

difficult to research because data on pilot behavior are not readily 

available for use in creating models. In addition to the study of changing

roles, JPDO has not yet studied the training implications of various 

 12Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee, Draft Report on 

Financing the Next Generation Air Transportation System (Washington, D.C.: April 

2006). 

Page 18 GAO-07-693T 
systems or solutions proposed for NextGen. For example, JPDO officials 

said they will need to study the extent to which new air traffic controllers 

will have to be trained to operate both the old and the new equipment as 

the Concept of Operations and enterprise architecture mature. 

Some stakeholders, such as current air traffic controllers and technicians, 

will play critical roles in NextGen, and their involvement in planning for 

and deploying the new technology will be important to the success of 

NextGen. In November 2006, we reported that active air traffic controllers 

were not involved in the NextGen planning effort and recommended that

JPDO determine whether any key stakeholders and expertise were not 

represented on its IPTs, divisions, or elsewhere within the office. Since 

then, the head of the controllers’ union has taken a seat on the Institute 

Management Council. However, no active controllers are yet participating 

at the IPT planning level. Also, aviation technicians do not participate in 

NextGen efforts. Input from current air traffic controllers who have recent 

experience controlling aircraft and current technicians who will maintain 

NextGen equipment is important when considering human factors and 

safety issues. Our work on past air traffic control modernization projects 

has shown that a lack of stakeholder or expert involvement early and 

throughout a project can lead to costly increases and delays.

In addition, we found that some private sector stakeholders have 

expressed concerns that participation in the Institute might either 

preclude bidding on future NextGen acquisitions or pose organizational 

conflicts of interest. FAA’s acquisition process, generally, precludes bids 

from organizations that have participated in, materially influenced, or had 

prior knowledge of the requirements for an acquisition. The Institute was 

aware of this concern and attempted to address it through an amendment 

to its governing document that strengthened the language protecting 

participants from organizational conflicts of interest for participation in 

the NextGen initiative. However, while the amendment language currently 

operates to protect stakeholders, the language has never been tested or 

challenged. Thus, it is unclear at this time whether any stakeholder 

participation is being chilled by conflict of interest concerns. 

JPDO Faces A Continuing 

Challenge in Ensuring the 

Involvement of All Key 

Stakeholders 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond 

to any questions from you or other Members of the Subcommittee. 

Page 19 GAO-07-693T 
For further information on this testimony, please contact Dr. Gerald L. 

Dillingham at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Individuals making 

key contributions to this statement include Kevin Egan, Colin Fallon, Rick 

Jorgenson, Faye Morrison, and Richard Scott. 

Page 20 GAO-07-693T 

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgements 

(540147) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER