DOD MAJOR 

AUTOMATED 

INFORMATION 

SYSTEMS

Improvements Can Be 

Made in Applying 

Leading Practices for 

Managing Risk and 

Testing

Report to Congressional Committees

March 2017

GAO-17-322

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-322, a report to 

congressional committees

March 2017

DOD MAJOR AUTOMATED INFORMATION 

SYSTEMS

Improvements Can Be Made in Applying Leading 

Practices for Managing Risk and Testing

What GAO Found

Most of the 18 selected Department of Defense (DOD) major automated 

information system (MAIS) programs that GAO reviewed had experienced 

changes in their planned cost and schedule estimates and half of the programs 

had met their technical performance targets. Specifically, 16 programs 

experienced changes in their cost estimates ranging from a 39 percent decrease 

($1.47 billion) to a 469 percent increase ($1.63 billion). The average cost 

increase was $457.2 million among the 11 programs reporting an increase. 

Fourteen programs experienced schedule delays, which ranged from 2 months 

to over 13 years. Finally, half of the MAIS programs fully met all of their technical 

performance targets. Of the remaining nine programs, 4 four had partially met 

their target because each was still conducting tests. The other five programs 

were in the early stages of system development and had not begun testing. 

In addition, for the five MAIS programs GAO selected for in-depth review, all had 

either fully or partially applied leading practices for managing requirements, risks, 

and for conducting systems testing and integration.

• Managing requirements. Three of the five programs had fully implemented 

the practices for managing requirements, while the other two had partially 

implemented some practices. Leading practices in this area include 

establishing requirements and ensuring traceability between requirements

and work products. 

• Managing risks. Three of the five programs had fully implemented the risk 

management practices, while two had partially implemented some practices. 

An effective risk management process identifies potential problems before 

they occur. For example, one Army program did not have standard operating 

procedures for defining thresholds or bounds to manage risk. Unless such 

procedures are defined, the program will not have the tools needed to define 

risk management activities, including whether and how certain risks are 

prioritized. Further, programs should include practices to identify potential 

problems so that risk-handling activities may be planned and invoked across 

the project to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts. However, one Air 

Force program did not develop an overall risk mitigation plan to guide the 

implementation of individual risk mitigation activities. Without an overall risk 

plan to guide individual development efforts, those efforts cannot be 

managed cohesively.

• Testing and integration. Four of the five programs had fully implemented 

practices for systems testing and integration. Programs should, among other 

activities, establish roles and responsibilities to manage testing and 

integration activities, including a chief developmental tester to oversee 

testing activities. However, one Air Force program reported difficulty in hiring 

a qualified individual to perform these duties. Until this position is filled, the 

program may not effectively manage risks and verify compliance with system 

acquisition and operational requirements.

View GAO-17-322. For more information, 

contact Carol C. Harris at (202) 512-4456 or 

harrisc@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

DOD’s MAIS programs include 

systems that are intended to help the 

department sustain its key operations. 

The National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2012 includes a 

provision for GAO to select, assess, 

and report on the department’s MAIS

programs annually through March 

2018. This is GAO’s fifth report and (1) 

describes the extent to which selected 

MAIS programs have changed their 

planned cost and schedule estimates 

and met technical performance targets 

and (2) assesses the extent to which 

selected MAIS programs have used 

leading IT acquisition practices, 

including risk management.

GAO selected and reviewed cost, 

schedule, and performance data for 18

of DOD’s MAIS programs that were 

non-classified and had an acquisition 

performance baseline. In addition, 

GAO performed an in-depth review of 

5 of the programs, comparing selected 

IT management practices used by

them to leading practices for 

requirements and risk management 

and systems testing and integration.

The five selected programs were from 

at least two military services and had 

not been assessed by GAO in the past 

year. GAO also interviewed relevant 

program officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD improve 

the management of specific MAIS 

programs, including establishing 

procedures for defining risk thresholds, 

developing an overall risk mitigation 

plan, and filling a key test management 

position. DOD concurred with all of the

recommendations.
Page i GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Letter 1

Background 4

Most Selected MAIS Programs Had Changes in Their Planned 

Cost or Schedule Estimates, and Half Met Their Technical 

Performance Targets 9

All Five Selected MAIS Programs Had Fully or Partially 

Implemented Leading Practices for Managing Risk, 

Requirements, and Systems Testing and Integration 14

Conclusions 24

Recommendations for Executive Action 25

Comments from the Department of Defense 25

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 29

Appendix II Profiles of Selected MAIS Programs 33

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Defense 69

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 72

Tables

Table 1: MAIS Programs Assessed Against Leading Practices 3

Table 2: Summary of Changes in Cost and Schedule Estimates 

and the Status of Technical Performance Targets for the 

18 Selected Major Automated Information System 

Programs (from the first acquisition baseline estimate) 9

Table 3: Extent to Which Selected Major Automated Information 

Systems Programs Applied Leading Practices for 

Requirements and Risk Management and Systems 

Testing and Integration 15

Table 4: Air and Space Operations Center-Weapon System 

Increment 10.2 Program costs 34

Table 5: Base Information Transport Infrastructure Wired Program 

costs 36

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Table 6: Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services 

Program costs 38

Table 7: Common Aviation Command and Control System 

Increment 1 Program costs 40

Table 8: Defense Logistics Agency—Defense Agencies Initiative 

Increment 2 Program costs 42

Table 9: Department of Defense Healthcare Management System 

Modernization Program costs 44

Table 10: Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management 

System-Increment 1 Program costs 45

Table 11: Global Combat Support System—Army Increment 1 

Program costs 47

Table 12: Global Combat Support System-Marine Corps Logistics 

Chain Management Increment 1 Program costs 49

Table 13: Integrated Electronic Health Record Increment 1 

Program costs 51

Table 14: Integrated Personnel and Pay System—Army Increment 

1 Program costs 53

Table 15: Integrated Personnel and Pay System—Army Increment 

2 Program costs 55

Table 16: Integrated Strategic Planning and Analysis Network 

Increment 4 Program costs 57

Table 17: Joint Space Operations Center, Mission System 

Increment 2 Program costs 59

Table 18: Logistics Modernization Program Increment 2 Program 

costs 61

Table 19: Teleport Generation 3 Program costs 63

Table 20: Tactical Mission Command Program costs 65

Table 21: Theater Medical Information Program—Joint Increment 

2 Program costs 67

Figures

Figure 1: Simplified DOD Organizational Structure 5

Figure 2: Generic Model from the Defense Acquisition System 

Framework 6
Page iii GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Abbreviations

AOC-WS Inc 10.2 Air and Space Operations Center–Weapon System 

Increment 10.2

BITI Wired Base Information Transport Infrastructure Wired

DOD Department of Defense

GCSS-A Inc 1 Global Combat Support System-Army Increment 1

IPPS-A Inc 2 Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Army 

Increment 2

JMS Inc 2 Joint Space Operations Center, Mission System 

Increment 2

IT information technology

MAIS major automated information system

USD (AT&L) Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics

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

United States. The published product 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.
Letter

Page 1 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

March 30, 2017

Congressional Committees

The Department of Defense (DOD) is one of the largest and most 

complex organizations in the world. To meet its mission to protect the 

security of our nation and to deter war, it relies heavily on the use of 

information technology (IT) to support our warfighters. In this regard, 

according to DOD’s IT investment portfolio for fiscal year 2016, the 

department spent approximately $31 billion for such investments.1 Of this 

amount, approximately $2.5 billion was spent on major automated 

information system (MAIS) programs, which include systems that help the 

department sustain its key operations in communications, business, and 

command and control, and provide the department with access to 

information to organize, plan, direct, and monitor mission operations.

A DOD IT acquisition investment that exceeds one of the following cost 

thresholds is designated as a MAIS program: (1) program costs in any 

single year exceed $40 million, (2) total program acquisition costs exceed 

$165 million, or (3) total life-cycle costs exceed $520 million in fiscal year 

2014 constant dollars. The Secretary of Defense can also use discretion 

to designate a program as a MAIS if it does not meet these cost 

thresholds.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 includes a 

provision that we select, assess, and report on DOD MAIS programs 

annually through March 2018.2 This report is the fifth in a series of annual 

assessments.3 Our objectives for this review were to (1) describe the 

 1

DOD’s IT investment portfolio identifies all of its IT investments and associated costs 

within the department and its components.

2

Effective September 30, 2017, the statutory major automated information system 

provisions are repealed. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Pub. L. 

No. 114-328, § 846 (Dec. 23, 2016).

3

GAO, DOD Major Automated Information Systems: Improvements Can Be Made in 

Reporting Critical Changes and Clarifying Leadership Responsibility, GAO-16-336 

(Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2016) ; Defense Major Automated Information Systems: 

Cost and Schedule Commitments Need to Be Established Earlier, GAO-15-282 

(Washington, D.C.: February 26, 2015) ; Major Automated Information Systems: Selected 

Defense Programs Need to Implement Key Acquisition Practices, GAO-14-309 

(Washington, D.C.: March 27, 2014) ; Major Automated Information Systems: Selected 

Defense Programs Need to Implement Key Acquisition Practices, GAO-13-311 

(Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2013).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

extent to which selected MAIS programs had changed their planned cost 

and schedule estimates, and met technical performance targets and (2) 

assess the extent to which selected MAIS programs have used leading IT 

acquisition practices, including requirements and risk management, and 

systems testing and integration.

To address the first objective, we used DOD’s official list of 35 MAIS 

programs, as of May 1, 2016, to establish a basis for selecting programs.

We selected 18 of 35 MAIS programs based on our criteria that programs 

must be unclassified and have a first acquisition program baseline that 

could be used as a reference point for evaluating cost, schedule, and 

technical performance characteristics.

We then compared each program’s cost (in then-year dollars) and 

schedule estimates established in the first acquisition baseline to the 

latest total life-cycle cost and schedule estimates.4 In addition, to 

determine whether technical performance targets5 were met, we reviewed 

each program’s initial and the most recent baseline targets. We 

summarized the results of our analyses for each individual MAIS 

program.

To address the second objective, we selected 5 programs for a more indepth review from among those used by at least two military services and 

that had not been included in a GAO assessment in the past year to focus 

on programs that have not been recently evaluated. Using these criteria, 

we selected the 5 programs listed in table 1.

 4

Then-year dollars are those dollars that include the effects of inflation or escalation 

and/or reflect the price levels expected to prevail during the year at issue. The first 

acquisition program baseline is established after the program has assessed the viability of 

various technologies and refined user requirements to identify the most appropriate 

technology solution that demonstrates that it can meet users’ needs. The Defense 

Acquisition Guidebook (which complements and further explains DOD’s acquisition 

policies and process) refers to a program’s best cost and schedule estimates as objective 

estimates.

5

MAIS annual reports include information on the status of each technical performance 

target, among other information. Information about each target includes a description of 

the performance characteristics, the objective and threshold value for each target and, 

importantly, whether the target has demonstrated the expected performance.
Page 3 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Table 1: MAIS Programs Assessed Against Leading Practices

Program name

Army

Global Combat Supply System Increment 1 (GCSS-A Inc 1)

Integrated Personnel and Pay System Increment 2 (IPPS-A Inc 2)

Air Force

Air and Space Operations Center–Weapon System Increment 10.2 (AOC-WS Inc 10.2)

Base Information Transport Infrastructure Wired (BITI Wired)

Joint Space Operations Center, Mission System Increment 2 (JMS Inc 2)

Source: DOD data | GAO-17-322

To evaluate DOD’s approach in managing the acquisition of MAIS 

systems, we identified risk management and requirements management 

practices from the Software Engineering Institute’s Capability Maturity 

Model® Integration for Acquisition (CMMI-ACQ), and assessed each of 

the programs against these leading practices.6 With regard to risk 

management, we analyzed each program’s key documents, such as risk 

management plans, risk charts, and other artifacts, and compared them 

to the leading practices. For requirements management, we compared 

requirements documents, such as the requirements management plan, 

traceability matrix, and procedural tools to the leading practices.7

We also identified key systems testing and integration practices from the 

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Incorporated (IEEE),8

 6

Software Engineering Institute, Capability Maturity Model® Integration for Acquisition

(CMMI-ACQ), Version 1.3 (Pittsburgh, Pa.: November 2010).

7

CMMI-ACQ; and GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for 

Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs, GAO-09-3SP (Washington, D.C.: 

March 2009); Information Technology: DHS Needs to Improve Its Independent Acquisition 

Reviews, GAO-11-581 (Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2011); Information Technology: Critical 

Factors Underlying Successful Major Acquisitions, GAO-12-7 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 

2011); and Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules, 

GAO-16-89G (Washington, D.C.: December 2015).

8

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE International Standard for 

Software and Systems Engineering, IEEE Standard 29119-1-2013TM (New York, NY: 

Sept. 1, 2013). All rights reserved.
Page 4 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

and DOD’s policy and guidance9 (DODI 5000.02, Defense Acquisition 

Guidebook, and Test & Evaluation Management Guide) and assessed 

each of the five programs against these practices. For example, we 

evaluated the test manager roles and responsibilities, test plans, and test 

reports to determine the extent to which these practices were applied. We 

interviewed program officials to obtain additional information on each 

program’s risk and requirements management processes, and systems 

testing and integration practices.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2016 to March 2017 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. See appendix I for a more 

detailed discussion of our objectives, scope, and methodology.

DOD’s organizational structure includes the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military services, numerous 

defense agencies and field activities, and various unified combatant 

commands that contribute to the oversight of DOD’s MAIS programs. 

Figure 1 provides a simplified depiction of DOD’s organizational structure.

 9

Department of Defense, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, DODI 5000.02 

(January 7, 2015); Department of Defense, Defense Acquisition Guidebook; Department 

of Defense, Test and Evaluation Management Guide 6th Edition (Washington, D.C.: 

December 2012).

Background
Page 5 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Figure 1: Simplified DOD Organizational Structure

The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics (USD (AT&L)) serves as the Defense Acquisition Executive and 

is the official responsible for supervising the acquisition and oversight of 

MAIS programs.10 This official is the principal acquisition official of the 

department and is the acquisition advisor to the Secretary of Defense. 

The USD (AT&L) has policy and procedural authority for the defense 

acquisition system, which establishes the steps that DOD programs 

generally take as the department plans, designs, acquires, deploys, 

operates, and maintains its IT systems (discussed in more detail following 

this section). The USD (AT&L)’s authority also includes directing the 

military services and defense agencies on acquisition matters and—

unless the authority is delegated to the service or agency—making 

milestone decisions for MAIS programs.

 10Effective February 1, 2018, the position of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics will be eliminated and the newly created positions of Under 

Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition and Sustainment will incorporate duties from the eliminated position. This 

change is per the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Pub. L. No. 

114-328, § 901 (Dec. 23, 2016).
Page 6 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

The Department of Defense Instruction 5000.0211 is the policy that 

establishes guidelines for the management of all acquisition programs. 

The department’s policy guidance includes six defense acquisition 

models based on the type of product being acquired (e.g., softwareintensive programs and hardware-intensive programs). A generic 

acquisition model that shows all of the program life-cycle phases and key 

decision points is shown in figure 2 and described below.

Figure 2: Generic Model from the Defense Acquisition System Framework

Materiel solution analysis: Refine the initial system solution (concept) 

and create a strategy for acquiring the solution. A decision—referred to as 

Milestone A, the risk reduction decision point—is made at the end of this 

phase to authorize entry into the technology maturation and risk reduction 

phase.

Technology maturation and risk reduction: Determine the preferred 

technology solution and validate that it is affordable, satisfies program 

requirements, and has acceptable technical risk. A decision—referred to 

as Milestone B, the program initiation decision point—is made at the end 

of this phase to authorize entry of the program into the engineering and 

manufacturing development phase and award development contracts. An 

 11DOD Instruction 5000.02, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, (Washington, 

D.C.: Jan. 7, 2015).

DOD’s Acquisition 

Guidance and Framework 

for Managing MAIS 

Acquisitions
Page 7 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

acquisition program baseline12 is first established at the Milestone B 

decision point. A program’s first acquisition program baseline contains the 

original life-cycle cost estimate (acquisition and operations and 

maintenance costs), the schedule estimate (major milestones and 

decision points), and performance parameters that were approved for that 

program by the Milestone Decision Authority.13 The first acquisition 

program baseline is established after the program has refined user 

requirements and identified the most appropriate technology solution that 

demonstrates that it can meet users’ needs.

Engineering and manufacturing development: Develop a system and 

demonstrate through testing that the system meets all program 

requirements. A decision—referred to as Milestone C, the deployment

decision point—is made during this phase to authorize entry of the 

system into the production and deployment phase or into limited 

deployment in support of operational testing.

Production and deployment: Achieve an operational capability that 

meets program requirements, as verified through independent operational 

tests and evaluation, and implement the system at all applicable 

locations.

Operations and support: Operationally sustain the system in the most 

cost-effective manner over its life cycle.

 12The acquisition program baseline is developed by the program manager and approved 

by the Milestone Decision Authority (the official responsible for deciding whether a 

program meets the milestone criteria and proceeds to the next phase of the acquisition 

process) before the formal initiation of all acquisition programs and describes the 

parameters against which program performance will be measured and tracked. The 

acquisition program baseline states the threshold and objective values for the cost, 

schedule, and performance requirements for a program. An acquisition program baseline 

is required for each increment and block for a Major Defense Acquisition Program. Any 

deviations from an approved acquisition program baseline must be documented. 

13Depending on the program, the Milestone Decision Authority can be the Under 

Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, & Logistics), the head of the relevant 

Department of Defense component, or the component acquisition executive.
Page 8 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Entities such as the Project Management Institute, the Software 

Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, IEEE, and GAO have 

developed and identified leading practices to help guide organizations to 

effectively plan and manage the acquisition of major IT systems, such as 

the MAIS programs. Our work has shown that proper implementation of 

such practices can significantly increase the likelihood of delivering 

promised system capabilities on time and within budget. These practices 

include, but are not limited to,

• Risk management: A process for anticipating problems and taking 

appropriate steps to mitigate risks and minimize their impact on 

program commitments. It involves identifying and documenting risks, 

categorizing them based on their estimated impact, prioritizing them, 

developing risk mitigation strategies, and tracking progress in 

executing the strategies.

• Requirements management: Requirements establish what the 

system is to do, how well it is to do it, and how it is to interact with 

other systems. Appropriate requirements development involves 

eliciting and developing customer and stakeholder requirements, and 

analyzing them to ensure that they will meet users’ needs and 

expectations. It also consists of validating requirements as the system 

is being developed to ensure that the final systems to be deployed will 

perform as intended in an operational environment.

• Systems testing and integration management: A rigorous and 

efficient test and evaluation program provides early knowledge of 

developmental and operational issues. Correcting these issues early 

can mitigate risks of cost overruns and schedule slippages, and can 

ultimately contribute to delivery of effective and suitable systems in a 

timely manner. System integration ensures that all the “pieces” of the 

system can work together to realize the program’s goals. It involves 

the collaborative planning and execution of test phases and events to 

provide shared data in support of independent analysis, evaluation, 

and reporting by all stakeholders.

Leading Practices for 

Managing an IT 

Acquisition Program
Page 9 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

The majority of the 18 selected MAIS programs that we reviewed had 

experienced changes in their planned cost estimates and in their planned 

schedule estimates when comparing the first acquisition program 

baseline to the most recent acquisition program baseline estimate.14

These cost estimate changes ranged from a decrease of $1,466.2 million 

(-39 percent) to an increase of $1,625.7 million (469 percent), and 

schedule estimate changes ranged from a slippage of 13 years and 9 

months to no change. Further, nine of the programs had met all of their 

technical performance targets, while four of the programs had partially 

met the performance targets. The remaining five programs had not yet 

conducted testing activities. As a result, it is too early to report on the 

status of technical performance targets. Table 2 shows the extent of 

changes in planned cost and schedule estimates for each of the selected 

MAIS programs we reviewed since the first program baseline estimate 

and the number of technical performance targets met. See appendix II for 

the detailed profiles of each program.

Table 2: Summary of Changes in Cost and Schedule Estimates and the Status of Technical Performance Targets for the 18 

Selected Major Automated Information System Programs (from the first acquisition baseline estimate)

Program name

Change in 

cost estimate

(dollars in 

millions)

Change in 

schedule estimate 

(delay)

Number of 

performance 

targets met

Army

• Tactical Mission Command (TMC) $1,421.7 (159%) 3 months 3 of 3

• Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Army Increment 1 

(IPPS-A Inc 1)

$10.5 (3%) 6 months 3 of 3

• Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Army Increment 2 

(IPPS-A Inc 2)

$330.9 (19%) No change Tests not yet 

conducted

• Logistics Modernization Program Increment 2 (LMP Inc 2) $6.9 (1 percent) 5 months 7 of 7

• Global Combat Support System-Army (GCSS-A Inc 1) -$58.5 (-1.5%) 10 months 2 of 2

Air Force

• Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System 

Increment 1 (DEAMS Inc 1)

$124.9 (9%) 1 year 6 of 9

 14The acquisition program baseline is developed by the program manager before the 

initiation of a program for all acquisition programs and depicts the current condition of a 

program. The plan (which must be approved by the Milestone Decision Authority) states 

the threshold and objective values for the cost, schedule, and performance requirements 

for a program. An acquisition program baseline is required for each increment and block 

for a MAIS or Major Defense Acquisition Program. Any deviations from an approved 

acquisition program baseline must be documented.

Most Selected MAIS 

Programs Had 

Changes in Their 

Planned Cost or 

Schedule Estimates, 

and Half Met Their 

Technical 

Performance Targets
Page 10 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program name

Change in 

cost estimate

(dollars in 

millions)

Change in 

schedule estimate 

(delay)

Number of 

performance 

targets met

• Integrated Strategic Planning and Analysis Network 

Increment 4 (ISPAN Inc 4)

No change No change Tests not yet 

conducted

• Air and Space Operations Center-Weapon System Inc 10.2 

(AOC-WS Inc 10.2)

$56.8 (1%) 3 years Tests not yet 

conducted

• Joint Space Operations Center Mission System Increment 2 

(JMS Inc 2)

-$134.6 (-12%) 2 years 10 months Tests not yet 

conducted

• Base Information Transport Infrastructure Wired (BITI Wired) -$1,466.2 (-39%) 2 months 0 of 4a

Navy

• Common Aviation Command and Control System Increment 

1 (CAC2S Inc 1)

$1,625.7 (469%) 13 years 9 months 2 of 2

• Global Combat Support System-Marine Corps Logistics 

Chain Management Increment 1 (GCSS-MC LCM Inc 1)

$1,360.3 (295%) 5 years 7 months 2 of 2

• Consolidated Afloat Network Enterprise Services (CANES) -$830.3 (-7%) 2 years 8 of 9

Defense Information Systems Agency

• Teleport Generation 3 (Teleport Gen 3) $11.6 (2%) 3 years 2 months 1 of 3

Defense Health Agency

• Department of Defense Healthcare Management System 

(DHMSM)

No change No change Tests not yet 

conducted

• integrated Electronic Health Record Increment 1 

(iEHR Inc 1)

-$718.3 (-70%) 11 months 3 of 3

Defense Logistics Agency

• Defense Agencies Initiative Increment 2 (DAI Inc 2) $2.6 (1%) No change 5 of 5

Department of Defense

• Theater Medical Information Program-Joint Increment 2 

(TMIP-J Inc 2)

$374.9 (161%) 5 years 6 months 10 of 10

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by DOD officials | GAO-17-322

a

We categorized BITI Wired as partial because it has met 4 of 4 targets at 167 of 178 total sites.

Of the 18 MAIS programs we reviewed, 16 had experienced changes in 

their planned cost estimates. Specifically, five of the 16 programs had 

cost decreases that ranged from $58.5 million (-1.5 percent) for the 

Army’s Global Combat Support System, Increment 1 (GCSS-A Inc 1) 

program to $1,466.2 million (-39 percent) for the Air Force’s Base 

Information Transport Infrastructure Wired (BITI Wired) program.

Officials reported various reasons for the decreases in planned cost 

estimates. For example, the Defense Health Agency’s integrated 

Electronic Health Record Increment 1 (iEHR Inc 1) program reported that 

the 70 percent cost decrease was due to a reduction in the program’s 

Sixteen of Eighteen 

Selected MAIS Programs 

Had Changes in Their 

Planned Cost Estimates
Page 11 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

scope. Officials for the Air Force’s BITI Wired program reported that the 

39 percent cost decrease was due to early assumptions about risks not 

materializing. For example, when the program had solicited bids for the 

contract, they included risk factors that never materialized.

In addition, 11 of the 16 programs had experienced cost increases. These 

increases ranged from $2.6 million (1 percent) for the Defense Logistics 

Agency’s Defense Agencies Initiative Increment 2 (DAI Inc 2) program to 

$1,625.7 million (469 percent) for the Navy’s Common Aviation Command 

and Control System Increment 1 (CAC2S Inc 1) program. Among the 11 

programs that reported an increase, the average increase was $457.2 

million.

Program officials reported a variety of reasons for the increases in 

planned cost estimates. For example, officials for the Army’s Tactical 

Mission Command (TMC) program attributed its 159 percent increase to, 

in part, higher than expected costs for research and development testing. 

In addition, officials for the Air Force’s Defense Enterprise Accounting and 

Management System Increment 1 (DEAMS Inc 1) program attributed a 9 

percent cost increase to the program’s growth in scope and the addition 

of software upgrade enhancements. Further, officials for the Navy’s 

CAC2S system attributed cost increases of 469 percent to the program’s 

early developmental challenges, which included program scope growth 

and restructuring.

Two programs had not experienced any changes in their cost estimates: 

These include the Defense Health Agency’s Department of Defense 

Healthcare Management System (DHMSM) program and the Air Force’s 

Integrated Strategic Planning and Analysis Network Increment 4 (ISPAN 

Inc 4) program.

Of the 18 selected MAIS programs we reviewed, 14 programs had 

experienced changes in their planned schedule estimates. These 

changes consisted of schedule slippages that ranged from 2 months for 

the Air Force’s BITI Wired program to 13 years and 9 months for the 

Navy’s CAC2S program.

Program officials reported various reasons for the changes in their 

planned schedule estimates. For example, officials for the Navy’s CAC2S 

program attributed the schedule slippages to the addition of new 

requirements and program restructuring. Officials for the Air Force’s AOCWS Inc 10.2 program reported that the 3 years of schedule slippages 

Fourteen of Eighteen 

Selected MAIS Programs 

Had Changes in Their 

Planned Schedule 

Estimate
Page 12 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

were due to a combination of test problems and system maturity issues. 

In addition, officials for the Air Force’s JMS Inc 2 system cited a larger 

than expected number of discrepancies in testing that had caused 

schedule delays totaling 2 years and 10 months. In turn, the program 

delayed completion of its Milestone C and Full Deployment Decision by 

more than 1 year beyond the original estimate.

Four MAIS programs experienced no change to their planned schedule 

estimates—the DAI Inc 2, DHMSM, IPPS-A Inc 2, and the ISPAN Inc 4 

programs.

Among other information, DOD uses key performance parameters as a 

metric to report on each program’s progress toward meeting the system 

technical performance targets. This information includes a description of 

the performance characteristics, the objective and threshold value for 

each target and, importantly, whether the target has been met in 

demonstrating performance. For example, one program identified 

“network readiness and exchange of information” as a technical 

performance target. The program also established an objective value for 

this target as successfully processing 98 percent of the information into 

the system, and established an threshold value for this target as 

successfully processing 95 percent of the information into the system.

Among the 18 selected MAIS programs we reviewed that had established 

technical performance targets, nine had met all of their defined targets. 

As an example of technical performance targets that had been met, the 

Army’s GCSS Inc 1 program reported in the 2016 Major Automated 

Information System Annual Report that both of its technical performance 

targets had been met. These targets related to the readiness of the 

system to fully support operational activities and information exchanges in 

the architecture (referred to as Net Ready) and compliance with the 

operational activities that represent the system’s mission critical functions 

(referred to as Mission Critical Functions).

As another example, the Defense Health Agency’s iEHR Inc 1 program 

reported that all 3 performance targets had been met. These targets 

related to ensuring that end user devices display the same information, 

context, and display of the patient, expediting user access to the 

applications, and ability of users to move from one device to another.

Further, of the 18 MAIS programs, four programs—the Air Force’s BITIWired and DEAMS Inc 1 programs, Navy’s CANES and Defense 

Nine Selected MAIS 

Programs Had Met 

Technical Performance 

Targets, while Others 

Were at Various Stages 

of Progress
Page 13 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Information Systems Agency’s Teleport Gen 3 programs—had partially 

met their technical performance targets. For example, BITI-Wired had 

partially implemented all 4 of its performance targets—related to 

readiness of the network, availability of redundant features such as dual 

power supplies and spares, reliability of systems, and the installation of 

support equipment at all 178 sites. According to program officials, support 

equipment had been installed at 167 of the 178 total sites and the 

program expects all 4 performance targets to be met in September 2017, 

the planned full deployment date. As another example, the Air Force’s 

DEAMS Inc 1 program officials reported that 6 of 9 targets had been met. 

For the 3 performance targets that had not been met, officials reported 

that processing issues had prevented them from meeting these targets, 

which included establishing accurate fund balances, reporting in a timely 

manner, and ensuring readiness of the network. As of June 2016, 

program officials reported they were working to address these issues.

Finally, five programs—IPPS-A Inc 2, AOC-WS Inc 10.2, ISPAN Inc 4, 

JMS Inc 2, and DHMSM—were in the early stages of the system 

development and had not begun testing. As a result, it is too early to 

determine the status of performance targets because information on the 

status of technical performance is not yet available.
Page 14 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

According to the Software Engineering Institute’s Capability Maturity 

Model® Integration for Acquisition (CMMI- ACQ),15 leading practices for 

managing an IT program include risk management, and requirements 

management. Effective requirements management includes establishing 

an agreed-upon set of requirements and ensuring traceability between 

requirements and work products. Further, changes to requirements 

should be managed in collaboration with stakeholders for the acquisition 

of systems within their established cost, schedule, and delivery of the 

expected product. Likewise, an effective risk management process 

includes identifying problems before they occur, so that risk-handling 

activities may be planned and invoked, as needed, across the life of the 

project in order to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts. Further, 

regarding systems testing and integration, other leading practices from

the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Incorporated (IEEE) 

and DOD policy guidance16 (DOD Instruction 5000.02, Defense 

Acquisition Guidebook, and Test & Evaluation Management Guide) state 

that roles and responsibilities should be established and test-related 

plans, schedules, and reports should be developed to better manage test 

and integration activities.

All five MAIS programs that we selected for an in-depth review had fully 

or partially implemented leading practices for managing risk, 

requirements, and systems testing and integration. Table 3 shows the 

extent to which these programs had implemented the practices for 

requirements management, risk management, and systems testing and 

integration management. We assessed one program as “not applicable”

because it was initiated after a limited production decision point (postMilestone C) and, therefore, had not implemented certain practices.

 15Software Engineering Institute, Capability Maturity Model® Integration for Acquisition 

(CMMI-ACQ), Version 1.3 (Pittsburgh, Pa.: November 2010; November 2010). 

16Department of Defense, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, DODI 5000.02 

(January 7, 2015); Department of Defense, Defense Acquisition Guidebook; Department 

of Defense, Test and Evaluation Management Guide 6th Edition (December 2012).

All Five Selected 

MAIS Programs Had 

Fully or Partially 

Implemented Leading 

Practices for 

Managing Risk, 

Requirements, and 

Systems Testing and 

Integration
Page 15 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Table 3: Extent to Which Selected Major Automated Information Systems Programs Applied Leading Practices for 

Requirements and Risk Management and Systems Testing and Integration

Leading Practice

Air Force AOCWS Inc 10.2Air Force BITI 

Wired

Air Force JMS 

Inc 2

Army GCSS-A 

Inc 1

Army IPPS-A 

Inc 2

Requirements management 

1. Develop an understanding with the 

requirements providers on the 

meaning of the requirements

● ● ● ◑ ●

2. Obtain commitment to 

requirements from project 

participants

● N/A ● ◑ ●

3. Manage changes to requirements 

as they evolve during the project

◑ ● ● ◑ ●

4. Maintain bidirectional traceability 

among requirements and work 

products

● N/A ● ◑ ●

5. Ensure that project plans and work 

products remain aligned with 

requirements

● N/A ● ◑ ●

Risk management

1. Determine risk sources and 

categories used to examine and 

oversee changes that impact the 

project.

● ● ● ● ●

2. Define parameters used to analyze 

and categorize risks and to control 

the risk management effort.

● ● ● ◑ ●

3. Establish and maintain the 

strategy to be used for risk 

management.

◑ ● ● ● ●

4. Identify and document risks that 

could negatively affect work 

efforts.

◑ ● ● ● ●

5. Evaluate and categorize each 

identified risk using defined risk 

categories and parameters, and 

determine its relative priority.

● ● ● ● ●

6. Develop a risk mitigation plan in 

accordance with the risk 

management strategy.

◑ ● ● ● ●

7. Monitor the status of each risk 

periodically and implement the risk 

mitigation plan as appropriate.

● ● ● ◑ ●

Systems Testing & Integration 
Page 16 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Leading Practice

Air Force AOCWS Inc 10.2Air Force BITI 

Wired

Air Force JMS 

Inc 2

Army GCSS-A 

Inc 1

Army IPPS-A 

Inc 2

1. Establish roles and responsibilities 

to manage testing/integration 

activities.

● ● ◑ ● ●

2. Formulate test related plans, 

schedules, and reports.

● ● ● ● ●

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by DOD officials | GAO-17-322

Legend: AOC-WS Inc 10.2 = Air and Space Operations Center-Weapon System Increment 10.2; BITI 

Wired = Base Information Transport Infrastructure Wired; JMS Inc 2 = Joint Space Operations 

Center, Mission System Increment 2; GCSS-A Inc 1 = Global Combat Support System-Army 

Increment 1; IPPS-A Inc 2 = Integrated Personnel and Pay System—Army Increment 2.

● –Fully implemented indicates that the agency provided evidence that it had addressed all of the sub 

practices in a category

◑ - Partially implemented indicates that the agency provided evidence that it had addressed at least 

one, but not all, of the sub practices in a category

N/A – Not applicable indicates that the agency did not complete this practice because the program 

was initiated post-Milestone C.

Leading requirements management practices include establishing an 

agreed-upon set of requirements, ensuring traceability between 

requirements and work products, and managing any changes to the 

requirements in collaboration with stakeholders. Such leading practices 

help organizations to better manage the design, development, and 

delivery of systems within established cost and schedule time frames. 

These practices include

• developing an understanding with the requirements providers on the 

meaning of the requirements,

• obtaining commitment to requirements from project participants,

• managing changes to requirements as they evolve during the project,

• maintaining bidirectional traceability among requirements and work, 

and

• ensuring that project plans and work products remain aligned with 

requirements.

Three of the five programs had fully implemented the requirements 

management practices, while the other two had partially implemented 

some practices.

Two of the Five MAIS 

Programs Had Not Fully 

Implemented All Practices 

for Managing 

Requirements
Page 17 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Air Force— Air and Space Operations Center-Weapon System 

Increment 10.2 (AOC-WS Inc 10.2)

The Air Force had fully implemented four, and partially implemented one, 

of the five requirements management practices for the AOC WS Inc 10.2 

program. For example, the program developed an understanding with 

requirements providers on the meaning of the requirements and 

established a requirements working group that oversees the development 

and management of program requirements. In addition, the AOC-WS Inc 

10.2 program obtained commitment to requirements from project 

participants through the DOD configuration control board process, in 

which requirements were reviewed and, upon acceptance, approved, 

documented, and tracked. The program also managed changes to 

requirements as they evolved during the project; however, although 

changes to requirements were documented and maintained, the program 

did not provide evidence of its rationale for the changes. The AOC-WS 

Inc 10.2 program has since completed its acquisition phase and, 

therefore, providing a rationale for changes made during the requirements 

development phase would not impact the program moving forward.

Air Force— Base Information Transport Infrastructure Wired (BITI 

Wired)

The Air Force had fully implemented the two applicable requirements 

management practices for the BITI Wired program. Specifically, the 

program had developed an understanding with requirements providers on 

the meaning of the requirements and had managed changes to 

requirements as they evolved during the project. The BITI Wired 

requirements management plan established the criteria for the evaluation 

and acceptance of the requirements.

On the other hand, three of the five requirements—obtain commitment to 

requirements from project participants; maintain bidirectional traceability 

among requirements and work products; and ensure that project plans 

and work products remain aligned with requirements—were not 

applicable for the BITI Wired Program. This was due to the Air Force 

beginning the program after Milestone C.

Air Force— Joint Space Operations Center, Mission System 

Increment 2 (JMS Inc 2)

The Air Force had fully implemented the five requirements management 

practices for the JMS Inc 2 program. Specifically, the program had 
Page 18 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

developed an understanding with requirements providers on the meaning 

of the requirements. For example, the program’s Requirements 

Engineering and Management Plan established criteria for distinguishing 

appropriate requirements and for evaluating and accepting requirements. 

In addition, changes to requirements were managed as they evolved 

during the project. For example, requirements change requests had been 

sent through the Lead Command, which validated them and sent them to 

the Program Management Office for approval. Lastly, the program 

maintained requirements traceability from source requirements to lowerlevel requirements to ensure that all source requirements had been 

completely addressed. Specifically, the program had established 

processes for managing the program’s Requirements Traceability Matrix 

database, which included activities to enter approved requirements, 

sequence traceability changes, update development, test status, and 

report data.

Army— Global Combat Support System-Army Increment 1 (GCSS-A 

Inc 1)

The Army had partially implemented all five requirements management 

practices for the GCSS-A Inc 1 program. Officials reported that, although 

the program had progressed to the sustainment phase, and its 

requirements activities had been completed since 2014, the Configuration 

Steering Board review process had been used to manage, oversee, and 

approve requirements as they evolved during the project. The program 

had developed a Software Development Overview Schedule that 

provided a general overview of their software development life cycle 

process.

Nevertheless, an approved and signed Requirements Management Plan

at program initiation had not been implemented. Such a plan would have 

been important to ensuring an understanding with the requirements 

providers of the meaning of the requirements. Further, the program’s 

Release Management Plan included a section on the requirements 

process and references to a central information repository in the 

Requirements Traceability database. However, the requirements 

traceability matrix provided did not contain all relevant information such 

as “priority.” These important management tools could have provided the 

program with the discipline, structure, and oversight typically associated 

with successful organizations that apply this practice. However, since the 

GCSS-A Inc 1 program has completed its acquisition phase, fully 

implementing these practices now would not impact the program moving 

forward.
Page 19 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Army—Integrated Personnel and Pay System—Army Increment 2 

(IPPS-A Inc 2)

The Army had fully implemented the five requirements management 

practices for the IPPS-A Inc 2 program. Specifically, the program had 

developed an understanding with requirements providers on the meaning 

of the requirements and had managed changes to requirements as they 

evolved during the project. For example, the program’s Requirements 

Management Plan described the criteria and process through which 

requirements are evaluated and accepted. In addition, the IPPS-A 

Requirements/Configuration Control Board Charter requires that all 

changes be vetted through senior governance boards, such as the 

Council of Colonels and General Officer’s Steering Committee. Further, 

the program maintained bidirectional traceability of requirements. 

Specifically, a history for all requirements changes was maintained within 

a repository for requirements that were managed by the Application 

Lifecycle Management Tool.

According to leading practices, an effective risk management process 

identifies potential problems before they occur, so that risk-handling 

activities may be planned and invoked, as needed, across the life of the 

project in order to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts. These 

practices include

• determining risk sources and categories;

• defining parameters used to analyze and categorize risks and to 

control the risk management effort;

• establishing and maintaining the strategy to be used for risk 

management;

• identifying and documenting risks;

• evaluating and categorizing each identified risk using defined risk 

categories and parameters, and determining its relative priority;

• developing a risk mitigation plan in accordance with the risk 

management strategy; and

• monitoring the status of each risk periodically and implementing the 

risk mitigation plan as appropriate.

Three of the five programs had fully implemented the risk management 

practices, while two had partially implemented some practices.

Two of the Five MAIS 

Programs Had Not Fully 

Implemented All Practices 

for Managing Risk
Page 20 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Air Force—AOC-WS Inc 10.2

The Air Force had fully implemented four, and partially implemented 

three, of the seven risk management practices for the AOC WS Inc 10.2 

program. For example, the program had determined risk sources and 

categories used to examine and oversee changes that impact the project, 

as described in the program’s Risk Management Plan. The program also 

had defined parameters used to analyze and categorize risks and to 

control the risk management effort. Specifically, the Risk Management 

Plan evaluated and assigned values to each risk by calculating the 

probability and consequence of a risk, as well as its likelihood.

The AOC-WS Inc 10.2 program had partially implemented the key 

management practice to identify risks that could negatively affect work 

efforts. For example, although the program identified risk in specific risk

categories, it did not identify risks that were outside the normal scope of 

the project.

In addition, while the program had developed criteria for evaluating and 

qualifying risk likelihood and severity levels, it did not develop an overall 

risk mitigation plan in accordance with the risk management strategy. 

This occurred because the program underwent a critical change and, 

according to program officials, this critical change altered the 

management of the program due to its complexity. Until an overall risk 

mitigation plan is developed, the program will not be able to effectively 

manage risk mitigation and contingency planning activities.

Air Force—BITI Wired

The Air Force had fully implemented all seven of the risk management 

practices for the BITI Wired program. Specifically, the program had 

defined parameters used to analyze and categorize risks and to control 

the risk management effort. For example, the program evaluated and 

assigned values to each risk by calculating the probability and 

consequence of a risk as well as its likelihood and consequence. The 

program had also identified and documented risks that could negatively 

affect work efforts. For example, the Risk Management Plan established 

risk conditions, thresholds, and probabilities of occurrence. In addition, 

the BITI Wired program monitored the status of each risk periodically and 

implemented risk mitigation plans as appropriate through the use of a risk 

management tool and risk board.
Page 21 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Air Force—JMS Inc 2

The Air Force had fully implemented all seven of the risk management 

practices for the JMS Inc 2 program. Specifically, the program had 

defined parameters used to analyze and categorize risks and to control 

the risk management effort. For example, as detailed in the program’s 

Risk and Opportunity Management Plan, risk ratings, including likelihood 

and consequence of occurrence, were established through the risk 

matrix; this provided a consistent, standardized method for risk analysis. 

In addition, defined thresholds were used to prioritize risks and trigger 

management action. Further, the program had developed risk 

management plans establishing a strategy used for risk management. 

Specifically, risks were monitored and risk status was reviewed in the 

issue database as well as through meetings used to report on 

programmatic metrics. Standard operating procedures had also been 

developed to manage risk, including one to manage risk identification, 

analysis, mitigation, and tracking.

Army—GCSS-A Inc 1

The Army had fully implemented five, and partially implemented two, of 

the risk management practices for the GCSS-A Inc 1 program. 

Specifically, the program had a Risk and Opportunity Management Plan

that identified risk sources and categories. Further, in order to control the 

risk management effort, risks were categorized and grouped according to 

defined risk categories in the program’s Risk Management Plan. Further, 

identified risks were evaluated using defined risk parameters. For 

example, the Risk Register identified risk consequence and probability.

On the other hand, the program did not define thresholds or bounds for 

mitigation or management action. According to leading practices, the risk 

management effort can be prioritized, controlled, and managed better by 

defining thresholds and categorizing risks for mitigation/management 

action. Although program officials stated that they were in the process of 

continuing to optimize their risk management efforts, and were updating 

their standard operating procedures, this key leading practice has not yet 

been implemented. Until the program has, and is guided by, updated 
Page 22 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

procedures, it will not be positioned to ensure that risks can be effectively 

prioritized, controlled, and managed.17

Army—IPPS-A Inc 2

The Army had fully implemented all seven of the risk management 

practices for the IPPS-A Inc 2 program. Specifically, the program’s Risk 

Management Plan provided guidelines that determined risk sources and 

categories. These risks were categorized in the Risk Management Tool 

based on the “Risk Taxonomy” found in the Risk Management Plan. 

Specifically, the risks were assigned to three main categories—technical, 

programmatic, and external risks. The program also ensured potential 

risks were identified and documented. For example, the Defense 

Information Systems Agency, which hosts the two IPPS-A Defense 

Enterprise Computing Centers (in St. Louis, MO, and Ogden, UT), 

conducted assessments to ensure the sites were in compliance with 

environmental controls. Further, the program developed risk mitigation 

plans that identified the person or group responsible for addressing each 

risk through the Risk Register.

According to leading practices for managing systems testing and 

integration activities, roles and responsibilities should be established and 

test-related plans, schedules, and reports should be developed. Doing so 

provides a baseline by which to measure progress so that appropriate 

corrective actions can be taken when the program’s performance 

deviates from the plans. These practices include

• establishing roles and responsibilities to manage testing and 

integration activities and

• developing test-related plans, schedules, and reporting.

Four of the five programs had fully implemented practices for systems 

testing and integration.

 17Subsequent to sending a draft of this report to DOD for comment in February 2015, the 

Army’s GCSS-A Inc 1 program manager amended their Risk Management Plan for Project 

Manager Army Enterprise Systems Integration Program on March 1, 2017. This 

acquisition decision brought the program back into compliance with this leading practice.

Four of the Five MAIS 

Programs Had Fully 

Implemented All Practices 

for Managing Systems 

Testing and Integration
Page 23 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Air Force—AOC-WS Inc 10.2

The Air Force had fully implemented both systems testing and integration 

practices for the AOC-WS Inc 10.2 program. The program established 

roles and responsibilities to manage testing/integration activities and 

formulated test related plans, schedules, and reports. Specifically, the 

program’s Integrated Test Team Charter and the Test and Evaluation 

Master Plan (TEMP) established organizational and individual roles and 

responsibilities for testing and integration. Further, the program 

developed a test plan that included a test and evaluation strategy and 

schedule.

Air Force—BITI Wired

The Air Force had fully implemented both systems testing and integration 

practices for the BITI Wired program. In this regard, the program had 

established testing roles and responsibilities. The program also 

formulated all applicable test related plans, schedules, and reports. For 

example, the BITI Wired Program developed testing plans and schedules 

for each base installation site.

Air Force—JMS Inc 2

The Air Force had fully implemented one, and partially implemented one, 

of the systems testing and integration practices for the JMS Inc 2 

program. For example, the program had developed a Test and Evaluation 

Master Plan that provided the framework and strategy for planning and 

executing its testing and evaluation activities. Although the program had 

established roles and responsibilities to manage testing and integration 

activities, a chief developmental tester to oversee testing activities had 

not been identified. Program officials stated that it had been difficult to fill 

this position due to the lack of qualified personnel. Until this position is 

filled, it may be difficult to manage and mitigate risks during development, 

verify that products are compliant with operational requirements, and 

inform decision makers throughout the program’s life cycle.

Army—GCSS-A Inc 1

The Army had fully implemented both systems testing and integration 

practices for the GCSS-A Inc 1 program. In this regard, the program had 

established and documented roles and responsibilities for all testing and 

evaluation activities, including identifying a chief developmental tester. In 

addition, a GCSS-A Inc 1 Test and Evaluation Master Plan had been 
Page 24 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

developed, which described the total testing and evaluation planning from 

component development through operational testing and evaluation. The 

program also had developed test plans, such as the Capstone Test Plan 

and Systems Engineering Plan, which further detailed the program’s 

testing and evaluation strategy.

Army—IPPS-A Inc 2

The Army had fully implemented both systems testing and integration 

practices for the IPPS-A Inc 2 program. In this regard, the program had 

established testing roles and responsibilities and formulated test plans, 

schedules, and reports, where applicable. Specifically, the Increment II 

Test and Evaluation Working Integrated Product Team Charter was 

established to provide guidance in overseeing testing activities. In 

addition, a chief developmental tester had been appointed to serve as the 

focal point for all testing and evaluation efforts. Further, the IPPS-A Inc 2 

program developed a Test and Evaluation Master Plan, which described 

the overall testing and evaluation plans from system development through 

operational testing and evaluation for all releases.

MAIS programs are important for sustaining DOD’s key operations in 

communications, business, and command and control, and provide the 

department with access to information to organize, plan, direct, and 

monitor mission operations. Therefore, it is vital that these programs 

follow leading practices to ensure success. While a number of leading 

practices for risk, requirements, and systems testing and integration had 

been fully or partially implemented by five programs that we reviewed indepth—the Air Force’s AOC WS Inc 10.2, BITI Wired and JMS Inc 2 

programs; and the Army’s GCSS-A Inc 1 and IPPS-A Inc 2 programs—

three programs lacked practices to better manage the development of 

systems. The program office for GCSS-A Inc 1 did not have standard 

operating procedures for defining thresholds or bounds to manage risks, 

thus putting at risk the program’s ability to effectively prioritize, control, 

and manage for mitigation and management actions. In addition, the 

program office for AOC-WS Inc 10.2 did not have an overall Risk 

Mitigation Plan to guide the implementation of individual risk mitigation 

and contingency planning activities. An overall risk plan is necessary to 

help ensure that individual efforts are managed in a cohesive and 

repeatable way. Further, the program office for JMS Inc 2 had not 

assigned a chief developmental tester, an important role to ensure that 

risks are managed and mitigated effectively throughout testing and 

integration. Unless this position is filled, it will be difficult for the program 

Conclusions
Page 25 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

to effectively manage risks and verify compliance with certain operational 

requirements throughout the acquisition.

To help improve the management of DOD’s MAIS programs, we are 

recommending that the Secretary of Defense take the following three 

actions:

• direct the Secretary of the Army to direct the program manager for 

GCSS-A Inc 1 to establish standard operating procedures for 

managing risks that include guidance for establishing thresholds and 

bounds for key risk areas.

• direct the Secretary of the Air Force to direct the program manager for 

AOC-WS Inc 10.2 to develop an overall risk mitigation plan to guide 

the implementation of individual risk mitigation and contingency plan 

activities.

• direct the Secretary of the Air Force to direct the program manager for 

JMS to appoint a chief developmental tester to oversee systems 

testing and integration activities.

DOD provided written comments on a draft of this report, which are 

reproduced in appendix III. In its comments, the department agreed with 

all three of our recommendations. Further, the department provided 

evidence that it had fully addressed one of the recommendations and it 

described plans and actions for addressing the remaining two 

recommendations.

Regarding our recommendation that the GCSS-A Inc 1 program establish 

standard operating procedures for managing risks, DOD provided 

evidence that the Army had updated its risk management plan. 

Specifically, the Army’s GCSS-A Inc 1 program manager amended the 

Risk Management Plan for Project Manager Army Enterprise Systems 

Integration Program on March 1, 2017. The plan now describes how risk 

prioritization occurs; it requires that risk owners work with the risk 

management officer to define appropriate trigger conditions in order to 

ensure a mitigation plan can be initiated at the appropriate point. By 

taking these actions to implement this recommendation, the program 

should be in a better position to more effectively manage risks.

DOD also concurred with our recommendation to develop an overall risk 

mitigation plan to guide the implementation of individual risk mitigation 

and contingency planning activities on the AOC WS Inc 10.2 program. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Comments from the 

Department of 

Defense
Page 26 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Toward this end, the Air Force reported that it plans to restore the 

program’s risk management practices to include weekly meetings to 

review program risks and publish a risk management plan in April 2017. 

Once implemented, these actions should help the Air Force to better 

ensure that individual risk mitigation and contingency plan activities are 

conducted in a consistent and repeatable way.

Further, DOD concurred with our recommendation that JMS appoint a 

chief developmental tester to oversee systems testing and integration 

activities. In this regard, the Air Force reported that it had identified a 

qualified candidate to fill the Chief Developmental Tester position. 

According to the Air Force, the program expects the new test chief to be 

in place in July 2017. Once the position is filled, the program should be 

better able to oversee important systems testing and integration activities.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of the Army; the 

Secretary of the Air Force; and other interested parties. This report also is 

available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

Should you or your staffs have any questions on information discussed in 

this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4456 or harrisc@gao.gov. 

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made 

major contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Carol C. Harris

Director

Information Technology Acquisition Management Issues
Page 27 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

List of Committees

The Honorable John McCain

Chairman

The Honorable Jack Reed

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Ron Johnson

Chairman

The Honorable Claire McCaskill

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Chairman

The Honorable Richard Durbin

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Mac Thornberry

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives
Page 28 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

The Honorable Jason Chaffetz

Chairman

The Honorable Elijah Cummings

Ranking Member

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable Kay Granger

Chairwoman

The Honorable Pete Visclosky

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 29 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 mandated 

that we select, assess, and report on Department of Defense’s (DOD) 

major automated information system (MAIS) programs annually through 

March 2018.1 This report is the fifth in our series of annual assessments. 

Our objectives were to: (1) describe the extent to which selected MAIS 

programs have changed their planned cost and schedule estimates and 

met technical performance targets and (2) assess the extent to which 

selected MAIS programs have used leading IT acquisition practices, 

including requirements and risk management, and systems testing and 

integration.

To address the first objective, we used DOD’s official list of 35 MAIS 

programs as of May 1, 2016, to establish a basis for selecting programs.

We selected 18 of 35 MAIS programs based on our criteria that programs 

must be unclassified and have a first acquisition program baseline that 

could be used as a reference point for evaluating cost, schedule, and 

technical performance characteristics.

For each selected program, we asked relevant DOD officials to complete 

a data collection instrument with questions on estimated cost, schedule, 

and technical performance goals, including the latest program status in 

meeting those estimated goals. Using the responses from the data 

collection instrument, we then compared each program’s first acquisition 

program baseline cost estimate to the latest estimate to determine the 

extent to which planned program costs had changed. Similarly, to 

determine the extent to which these programs had changed their planned 

schedule estimates, we compared each program’s first acquisition 

program baseline schedule estimate to the latest schedule.

To determine whether the selected programs met their performance 

targets, we reviewed the most recent program management reports and 

examined each program’s self-identified system performance targets and 

the status of their progress. We also reviewed additional information on 

each program’s cost, schedule, and performance, including program 

documentation, such as DOD’s MAIS annual and quarterly reports, 

acquisition program baselines, system test reports, and our prior reports. 

We then aggregated and summarized the results of these analyses 

across the programs, and developed individual profiles for each program.

 1

Pub. L. No. 112-81 § 1078 (Dec. 31, 2011).

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 30 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

To address the second objective, we started with the list of 18 MAIS 

programs that were selected specifically for the first objective. From this 

list, we identified programs for a more in-depth review based on two 

criteria: the programs selected must represent at least two military 

services, and the programs must have not been evaluated by us within 

the last year.2 Using this criteria, we identified 5 programs from two 

military services: the Army’s Global Combat Supply System Increment 1 

(GCSS-A Inc 1) and Integrated Personnel and Pay System Increment 2 

(IPPS-A Inc 2); and the Air Force’s Air and Space Operations Center–

Weapon System Increment 10.2 (AOC-WS Inc 10.2), Base Information 

Transport Infrastructure Wired (BITI Wired), and Joint Space Operations 

Center, Mission System Increment 2 (JMS Inc 2).

Based on prior work evaluating MAIS programs, we identified three 

management practice areas—requirements management, risk 

management, and systems testing and integration that are applicable to 

these programs. For evaluating how the selected five programs applied 

practices in the risk and requirements management areas, we identified 

key practices related to these areas from the Software Engineering 

Institute’s Capability Maturity Model® Integration for Acquisition (CMMIACQ).3

Specifically, for requirements management, we evaluated each of the five 

programs against the following 5 practices:

• develop an understanding with the requirements providers of the 

meaning of the requirements,

• obtain commitment to requirements from project participants,

• manage changes to requirements as they evolve during the project,

• maintain bidirectional traceability among requirements and work, and

• ensure project plans and work products remain aligned with 

requirements.

In doing so, we analyzed program requirements documentation against 

the practices. This documentation included requirements management 

plans, traceability matrices, requirements change forms, technical 

 2

GAO-16-336

3

Software Engineering Institute, Capability Maturity Model® Integration for Acquisition 

(CMMI-ACQ), Version 1.3 (Pittsburgh, Pa.: November 2010).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

performance assessments, and requirements board meeting minutes. We 

also interviewed program officials to obtain additional information about 

their requirements management practices.

For the risk management area, we evaluated each of the five programs 

against the following 7 practices:

• determine risk sources and categories;

• define parameters used to analyze and categorize risks and to control 

the risk management effort;

• establish and maintain the strategy to be used for risk management;

• identify and document risks;

• evaluate and categorize each identified risk using defined risk 

categories and parameters, and determine its relative priority;

• develop a risk mitigation plan in accordance with the risk management 

strategy; and

• monitor the status of each risk periodically and implement the risk 

mitigation plan as appropriate.

In doing so, we analyzed each program’s key documents, such as risk 

management plans, risk charts, and other artifacts, to determine the 

extent to which these practices had been applied. We also interviewed 

program officials to obtain additional information about their risk 

management practices.

For the systems testing and integration area, we evaluated each of the 

five programs against the following 2 practices:

• establish roles and responsibilities to manage testing and integration 

activities and

• develop test-related plans, schedules, and reporting.

In this regard, we evaluated the test manager’s roles and responsibilities, 

as well as test plans, schedules, and test reports to determine the extent 

that these practices had been applied. We also conducted interviews with 

program officials to obtain additional information about their systems test 

and integration practices.

Further, in determining the extent to which each of the five MAIS 

programs had implemented the three practice areas—requirements 

management, risk management, and systems testing and integration—we 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

rated a practice as “fully implemented” when all of the practices for the 

area had been implemented. Similarly, when a program had implemented 

at least one of the practices within the area, we rated the practice as 

“partially implemented” to indicate the practice had been partially 

implemented. For a MAIS program that did not conduct activities for any 

of the practices because the program had been initiated after a limited 

production decision point (post-Milestone C), we assessed the practice as 

“not applicable” because such programs do not apply practices to 

develop, manage requirements, or test the systems.

To assess the reliability of the data that we used to support the findings in 

this report, we corroborated program office responses with relevant 

program documentation and interviews with agency officials. We found no 

data reliability issues and determined that the data used in this report 

were sufficiently reliable for our reporting purposes. We have also made 

appropriate attribution indicating the sources of the data.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2016 to March 2017 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 33 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

This section contains profiles of the 18 selected MAIS programs that we 

analyzed to determine whether they had changed their planned cost and 

schedule estimates and met performance measures. Each profile 

presents data on the program’s purpose and status, its latest cost and 

schedule estimates compared to the first acquisition program baseline 

and system performance data. The first page of each two-page profile 

provides (1) a description of the program’s purpose, (2) essential details, 

such as the responsible DOD component, program owner, prime 

contractor, the total number of active contractors supporting the program;

and (3) program costs (in then-year dollars),1 comparing the program’s 

latest life-cycle cost estimate (separated into acquisition and operations 

and maintenance costs) to its first acquisition program baseline 

(subsequent acquisition program baselines that may have been 

established are not identified).

The profile also provides information on the program’s status, costs, 

schedule, and performance.

• In the program status section, we discuss recent milestones achieved 

and acquisition events.

• In the cost section, we identify the extent to which the program’s lifecycle cost estimate has changed from its first acquisition program 

baseline, as well as any notable causes for any changes.

• In the schedule section, we discuss the extent to which the program’s 

schedule has changed from its first acquisition program baseline and 

causes for significant changes.

In the performance section, we identify the extent to which each program 

has met its established measures. These performance ratings represent 

point-in-time assessments as reported by the program. System 

performance targets are rated as “met” when the program fully met all of 

its key performance parameters. System performance was rated as “did 

not fully meet” when a program did not pass system testing. System 

performance was rated as “not yet applicable” when the system had not 

yet been tested because the program was not yet at the appropriate 

acquisition phase.

 1

Then-year dollars are those dollars that include the effects of inflation or escalation 

and/or reflect the price levels expected to prevail during the year at issue.

Appendix II: Profiles of Selected MAIS 

Programs
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 34 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program description

The AOC-WS Inc 10.2 program is expected to provide system hardware, 

software, technical documents, and technology refresh to ensure it 

remains a viable weapons system. The program will enable personnel at 

selected air and space operations centers to better plan, execute, and 

assess theater-wide air and space operations. It will replace the currently 

fielded AOC 10.1 system and provide additional capabilities, such as 

dynamic planning and execution; data management; information 

assurance; predictive battlespace awareness; and airspace management.

Program essentials (as of October 2016)

DOD component: Air Force

Program owner: Air Combat Command 

Prime contractor: Northrop Grumman, Mission Systems

Total number of contractors (as of May 2016): 10

Table 4: Air and Space Operations Center-Weapon System Increment 10.2 Program 

costs

(then-year dollars in millions)

First acquisition 

program baseline

October 2013

Latest 

estimate

June 2016

Acquisition cost estimate

Research, development, test, and 

evaluation

$374.7 $604.2

Procurement 88.0 101.8

Total acquisition cost 462.7 706.0

Life-cycle cost estimate

Operations and support 5,122.5 4,936.0

Total life-cycle cost estimate $5,585.2 $5,642.0

Source: DOD data | GAO-17-322

Air Force—Air and Space 

Operations CenterWeapon System 

Increment 10.2 (AOC-WS 

Inc 10.2)
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 35 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program status

As of June 2016, the AOC-WS Inc 10.2 program was in the engineering 

and manufacturing development phase of acquisition in the Defense 

Acquisition Management System. In March 2016, the program declared a 

critical change because of significant cost and schedule growth due to 

schedule and technical difficulties in reaching Milestone C, which is the 

key juncture for approval to move into limited production. According to the 

program office, major factors contributing to the cost and schedule delays 

were the prime contractor (1) underestimating the software development 

effort; (2) insufficiently allocating manpower; and (3) underestimating the 

end-to-end testing capability.

Exceeded planned cost estimate

As of June 2016, the AOC-WS Inc 10.2 program’s total life-cycle cost was 

$5,642.0, an increase of $56.8 million (1 percent) from the original 

estimate of $5,585.2. The estimated total acquisition cost is $706.0 

million, an increase of $243.3 million (53 percent) from the original 

estimate of $462.7 million.

Exceeded planned schedule estimate

The AOC-WS Inc 10.2 program experienced significant schedule delays 

since establishing the original schedule in 2007. Specifically, Milestone C 

was estimated to be completed on July 2015, but, as of September 2016, 

the program had not reached the milestone. According to program 

officials, the program was undergoing a critical change that will result in a 

3-year schedule delay.

Not yet applicable

The AOC-WS Inc 10.2 program was still early in development and system 

performance data was not available at the time of our review.
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 36 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program description

The BITI Wired program is to upgrade the enterprise network and provide 

the core cyber infrastructure. The upgrade includes wired and wireless 

systems, and network cables and servers for more than 150 active duty, 

Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard bases. The program is 

expected to update the fixed local area network and all necessary 

information transport infrastructure to support current and future 

communications needs of the Air Force and Joint Command warfighter. 

This includes enabling base level data, voice, video, imagery, sensor, and 

telemetry requirements.

Program essentials (as of October 2016)

DOD component: Air Force

Program owner: Air Force Space Command (AFSPC)

Prime contractors: General Dynamics, Harris Corp, Lockheed Martin, 

Telos Corp, Three Wire Systems, and Red River for the procurement 

contracts and Affigent and ThunderCat for the operations and support 

contracts

Total number of contractors (as of May 2016): 8

Table 5: Base Information Transport Infrastructure Wired Program costs 

(then-year dollars in millions)

First acquisition 

program baseline

June 2010

Latest 

estimate

July 2016

Acquisition cost estimate

Research, development, test, and 

evaluation

$0.0 $0.0

Procurement 1,417.7 1,177.2

Total acquisition cost 1,417.7 $1,177.2

Life-cycle cost estimate

Operations and support 2,372.2 1,146.5

Total life-cycle cost estimate $3,789.9 $2,323.7

Source: DOD data | GAO-17-322

Air Force—Base 

Information Transport 

Infrastructure Wired 

(BITI Wired)
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 37 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program status

The BITI-Wired program achieved a full deployment decision on February 

18, 2014, and expects to reach full deployment in September 2017. The 

program completed 167 out of 178 turnkey network upgrades and 

expects to remain within the cost, schedule, and performance thresholds.

Decreased cost estimate

As of July 2016, the BITI Wired program’s total life-cycle cost estimate 

was $2,323.7 million, a decrease of $1,466.2 million (-39 percent) from 

the original estimate of $3,789.9 million. The decrease was due to more 

accurate cost estimates being provided by vendors. Specifically, initial 

estimates included large risk factors because, at the time, the government 

could not provide vendors a definitive list of items. As a result, vendors’

earlier estimates reflected the potential for risks in their estimates. The 

new list of refined equipment resulted in reduced costs. In addition, while 

officials cited insufficient human resources as a potential risk to cost as 

the program moves forward, they fully expect to stay within the cost 

estimates.

Met planned schedule estimate

The BITI Wired program’s full deployment decision was 2 months’ behind 

schedule. However, program officials report they are on track to meet full 

deployment in September 2017.

Did not fully meet all of the system performance targets

The BITI-Wired program had partially implemented all 4 of performance 

targets—net ready, availability, support, and reliability. According to 

program officials, installation of equipment had been installed at 167 of 

the 178 sites. The program expects to report all 4 performance targets as 

fully met in September 2017, the full deployment date, when the 

equipment has been installed at all sites.
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 38 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program description

The CANES program is expected to consolidate and standardize the 

Navy’s existing network infrastructures and services by reducing and 

eliminating existing standalone afloat (i.e., surface ships and submarines)

networks, providing a technology platform that can rapidly adjust to 

changing warfighting requirements, and reducing the hardware footprint 

on 259 afloat and maritime operations center platforms.

Program essentials (as of October 2016)

DOD component: Navy

Program owner: C4I

Prime contractors: Northrop Grumman, Serco, BAE Systems, DRS Laurel 

Technologies, General Dynamics, CGI Federal, Global Technical 

Systems

Total number of contractors (as of May 2016): 82

Table 6: Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services Program costs 

(then-year dollars in millions)

First acquisition 

program baseline

January 2011

Latest 

estimate

July 2016

Acquisition cost estimate

Research, development, test, and evaluation $501.1 $631.3

Procurement 3,476.1 3,746.7

Total acquisition cost $3,977.2 $4,378.0

Life-cycle cost estimate

Operations and support 8,763.7 7,532.6

Total life-cycle cost estimate $12,740.9 $11,910.6

Source: DOD data | GAO-17-322

Navy—Consolidated Afloat 

Networks and Enterprise 

Services (CANES)
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 39 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program status

The CANES program had moved past the full deployment milestone. The 

program is expected to have all systems fully fielded by September 2024. 

According to program officials, risks remain that could result in delaying 

the fielding of CANES, thereby increasing risk to the program’s ability to 

achieve full deployment on schedule.

Decreased planned cost estimate

As of July 2016, the CANES program’s total life-cycle cost estimate was 

$11,910.6 million, a decrease of $830.3 million (-7 percent) from the 

original estimate of $12,740.9 million. In February 2016, in response to a 

full deployment decision, the life-cycle cost estimate was updated to 

reflect reductions in procurement costs, the program’s technology refresh 

schedule, and manpower costs.

Exceeded planned schedule estimate

The CANES program experienced a significant delay in reaching a full 

deployment decision. In June 2014, the program slipped the objective 

date for full deployment decision 2 years, from December 2013 to 

December 2015. A full deployment decision was achieved in October 

2015, and full deployment is estimated for September 2024. According to 

program officials, an unstable funding environment is the largest risk to 

achieving full deployment.

Did not fully meet all of the system performance targets

The CANES program had not met all 9 of the performance targets. 

Specifically, of the 9 performance targets, 8 have been met, while 1 

performance target was partially met—the net ready performance target. 

According to the program office, this performance target was only partially 

met because testing for afloat core services has been deferred.
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 40 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program description

The CAC2S Inc 1 program is expected to provide an integrated and 

coordinated modernization effort for the equipment of the Marine Air 

Command and Control System. The system is expected to provide 

enhanced capability for three air defense centers to support aviation 

employment in joint, combined, and coalition operations. It will provide 

tactical situational display, information management, sensor and data link 

interface, and operational facilities for planning and execution of Marine 

Aviation missions.

Program essentials (as of October 2016)

DOD component: Navy

Program owner: USMC, Program Executive Officer, Land Systems

Prime contractors: General Dynamics, C4 Systems, Inc.

Total number of contractors (as of May 2016): 5

Table 7: Common Aviation Command and Control System Increment 1 Program 

costs 

(then-year dollars in millions)

First acquisition 

program baseline

August 2000

Latest 

estimate

March 2016

Acquisition cost estimate

Research, development, test, and 

evaluation

$559.3

Procurement 322.8

Operations and maintenance

Total acquisition cost $173.4 $882.1

Life-cycle cost estimate

Operations and support 173.6 1,090.6

Total life-cycle cost estimate $347.0 $1,972.7

Source: DOD data | GAO-17-322

Navy—Common Aviation 

Command and Control 

System Increment 1 

(CAC2S Inc 1)
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 41 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program status

As of March 2016, Phase 1 of the CAC2S Inc 1 program was in the 

operations and sustainment acquisition phase and Phase 2 was in the 

production and deployment phase. The program has been rebaselined 

once following a critical change that occurred in 2009 due to the 

program’s inability to meet the initial operational capability date.

Exceeded planned cost estimate

As of March 2016, the CAC2S Inc 1 program’s total estimated life-cycle 

estimate was $1,972.7 million, an increase of $1,625.7 million (469 

percent) from the original life-cycle estimate of $347 million. Similarly, the 

program’s current total acquisition estimate is $882 million, an increase of 

$708.7 million (409 percent) from the original total acquisition estimate of 

$173.4 million. As we reported in March 2016,2 factors that contributed to 

the cost increase were early challenges in estimating costs due to 

program scope growth and need for restructuring. Program officials noted 

funding instability as a potential area of risk in meeting cost estimates.

Exceeded planned schedule estimate

As of October 2015, the CAC2S Inc 1 program had a 13-year, 9-month 

slippage in their full deployment date due to a major change in project 

scope and restructuring of the project.

Met all of the system performance targets

CAC2S Inc. 1 had met both of the technical performance targets which 

were (1) net ready, and (2) data fusion.

 2

GAO-16-336
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 42 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program description

The DAI Inc 2 program’s mission is expected to deliver auditable, 

accurate, timely, authoritative financial data to support DOD’s goal of 

standardizing financial management practices, improving financial 

decision support, and supporting audit readiness. Defense agencies use 

more than ten different non-compliant financial management systems 

supporting diverse operational functions and the warfighter in decision 

making and financial reporting.

Program essentials (as of October 2016)

DOD component: Defense Logistics Agency

Program owner: OSD (C) 

Prime contractor: Credence Management Solutions, LLC; TeraThink 

Corp; IBM; CACI, Inc; Northrop Grumman Systems Corp; CACI ISS, Inc; 

Amyx, Inc

Total number of contractors (as of May 2016): 25

Table 8: Defense Logistics Agency—Defense Agencies Initiative Increment 2 

Program costs 

(then-year dollars in millions)

First acquisition 

program baseline

July 2014

Latest 

estimate

March 2016

Acquisition cost estimate

Research, development, test, and 

evaluation

$155.3 $157.9

Operation and maintenance 27.0 27.0

Total acquisition cost $182.3 $184.9

Life-cycle cost estimate

Operations and support 683.9 683.9

Total life-cycle cost estimate $866.2 $868.8

Source: DOD data | GAO-17-322

Defense Logistics 

Agency—Defense 

Agencies Initiative 

Increment 2 (DAI Inc 2)
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 43 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program status

As of March 2016, the DAI Inc 2 program was in the limited deployment 

phase of the business capability life cycle. According to a 2016 MAIS 

annual report, the program was on track to remain within the schedule, 

cost, and performance thresholds identified in the original estimate. 

According to program officials, the program was rebaselined to adjust 

release 2 objective and threshold dates for limited fielding to 

accommodate the time frame for resolving a bid protest. Notwithstanding 

this additional time for the bid protest, the program achieved the original 

acquisition program baseline objective date for this event.

Exceeded planned cost estimate

As of March 2016, the DAI Inc 2 program’s total life-cycle estimate was 

$868.8 million, an increase of $2.6 million (<1 percent) from the original 

life-cycle cost estimate of $866.2 million. Similarly, the program’s current 

total acquisition estimate was $184.9 million, an increase of $2.6 million 

(1 percent) from the original acquisition estimate of $182.3 million. 

However, these cost increases were within the planned cost objective 

estimates. Officials cited funding instability as a potential risk to cost as 

the program moves forward.

Met planned schedule estimate

The DAI Inc 2 program had met the first acquisition program baseline 

objective schedule estimate for limited fielding in September 2015. 

Officials noted they were on schedule to stay within the threshold date of 

April 2017 for a full deployment decision.

Did not fully meet all of the system performance targets

According to the 2016 MAIS annual report, the DAI Inc 2 program had not 

met any of the five of the technical performance targets which are (1) 

financial system performance, (2) business enterprise architecture 

compliance, (3) support net centric DOD military operations, (4) managed 

in network, and (5) effectively exchange information.
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 44 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program description

The DHMSM Program is expected to provide a configurable and scalable 

modernized electronic Health Record System. It will replace DOD’s 

legacy healthcare systems including the Armed Force’s Health 

Longitudinal Technology Application, Composite Health Care System 

(inpatient), and most components of the Theater Medical Information 

Program-Joint program, with a commercial Off-The-Shelf electronic health 

record system. It is expected to address the current state of the Military 

Health System, where multiple legacy systems and data stores, 

developed over decades, are in need of modernization.

Program essentials (as of October 2016)

DOD component: Defense Health Agency

Program owner: PEO Defense Healthcare Management Systems

Prime contractor: Leidos

Total number of contractors (as of May 2016): 35

Table 9: Department of Defense Healthcare Management System Modernization 

Program costs 

(then-year dollars in millions)

First acquisition 

program baseline

May 2016

Latest 

estimate

N/A

Acquisition cost estimate

Research, development, test, and 

evaluation

$881.9 N/A

Procurement 2372.7 N/A

Operations and maintenance 480.5 N/A

Total acquisition cost $3,735.1 N/A

Life-cycle cost estimate

Operations and support 4,929.5 N/A

Total life-cycle cost estimate $8,664.6 N/A

Source: DOD data | GAO-17-322

Cost, schedule, and performance summary

Not applicable: The program obtained its first baseline on May 3, 2016. 

Due to the recent establishment of the program’s first baseline, a history 

of cost, schedule, and technical performance has not been established. 

Therefore, the cost, schedule, and technical performance is not 

discussed.

Department of Defense—

Healthcare Management 

System Modernization 

(DHMSM)
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 45 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program description

The DEAMS Inc 1 program is expected to provide the Air Force with an 

entire spectrum of financial management capabilities, including 

collections; commitments and obligations; cost accounting; general 

ledger; funds control; receipts and acceptance; accounts payable and 

disbursement; billing; and financial reporting. The DEAMS program is 

also intended to be a key component of DOD’s solution for achieving 

fully-auditable financial statements by September 30, 2017, as required 

by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.

Program essentials (as of October 2016)

DOD component: Air Force

Program owner: Air Force Financial Management

Prime contractors: Accenture and Kearney

Total number of contractors (as of May 2016): 29

Table 10: Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System-Increment 1 

Program costs 

(then-year dollars in millions)

First acquisition 

program baseline

February 2012

Latest 

estimate

July 2016

Acquisition cost estimate

Research, development, test, and 

evaluation

$591.1 $560.7

Procurement 50.0 31.4

Total acquisition cost estimate $641.1 $592.1

Life-cycle cost estimate

Operations and support $640.6 $813.7

Other 152.6 157.9

Total life-cycle cost estimate $1,434.3 $1,563.7

Source: DOD data | GAO-17-322

Air Force—Defense 

Enterprise Accounting 

and Management 

System-Increment 1 

(DEAMS Inc 1)
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 46 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program status

As of June 2016, the DEAMS Inc 1 program was in the limited 

deployment phase. In March 2016, the program was approved for limited 

deployments at smaller major commands. Since then, the program has 

undergone a Critical Change due to schedule slippage of the threshold 

full deployment date of more than a year. However, the Critical Change 

report was not completed at the time of our review. Specifically, the 

DEAMS Inc 1 program was not demonstrating enough progress towards 

operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability to reach the full 

deployment date within one year of the milestone objective. In addition, 

the program office identified requirements management and technical 

risks as areas that pose risks to successfully meeting schedule 

milestones.

Exceeded planned cost estimate

As of July 2016, the DEAMS Inc 1 program’s total life-cycle estimate was 

$1,563.7, an increase of $124.9 million (9 percent) from the original lifecycle estimate of $1,434.3 million. In addition, the program’s cost 

estimate decreased by $49.0 million (-8 percent) when compared to the 

original total acquisition estimate of $641.1.

Exceeded planned schedule estimate

The DEAMS Inc 1 program was undergoing a critical change due to 

schedule slippages. The full deployment date has been exceeded by 

more than a year. However, a Critical Change report had not yet been 

issued at the time of our review.

Did not fully meet all of the system performance targets

The DEAMS Inc 1 program had partially met the system performance 

targets. Specifically, 6 of the 9 performance targets have been met, while 

3 have not.
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 47 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program description

The GCSS-A Inc 1 program is a commercial off-the-shelf enterprise 

resources planning system that is expected to provide users with supply, 

maintenance, property, integrated materiel management, and 

management functionality and support. It uses non-developmental items 

made up of software and server hardware and has two components: 

GCSS-Army, which provides logistics and financial operations, and the 

Army Enterprise System Integration Program, which is expected to 

provide enterprise hub services, master data management, and business 

intelligence.

Program essentials (as of October 2016)

DOD component: Army

Program owner: Assistant Secretary of the Army, Acquisition, Logistics 

and Technology

Prime contractor: Northrop Grumman

Total number of contractors (as of May 2016): Northrop Grumman

Table 11: Global Combat Support System—Army Increment 1 Program costs 

(then-year dollars in millions)

First acquisition 

program baseline

April 2013

Latest 

estimate

May 2016

Acquisition cost estimate

Research, development, test, and 

evaluation

$997.4 $1,059.7

Procurement 834.5 873.0

Total acquisition cost $1,831.9 $1,932.7

Life-cycle cost estimate

Operations and support 2,137.0 1,977.7

Total life-cycle cost estimate $3,968.9 $3,910.4

Source: DOD data | GAO-17-322

Global Combat Support 

System—Army Increment 

1 (GCSS-A Inc 1)
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 48 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program status

As of March 2016, the GCSS-A Inc 1 program was in the production and 

deployment phase of the Defense Acquisition Management System. 

According to the 2016 Annual Report, the program was on track to remain 

within schedule, cost, and performance thresholds. However, the GCSSA Inc 1 program realized a decrease of $16 million in funding that could 

potentially cause, in part, a six-month slip in fielding with a completion 

date of March 2018.

Decreased planned cost estimate

As of May 2016, the GCSS-A Inc 1 program’s total life-cycle estimate was 

$3,910.4 million, a decrease of $58.5 million (-1.5 percent) from the 

original life-cycle estimate of $3,968.9 million. The current total acquisition 

estimate was $1,932.7 million, an increase of $100.8 million (5.5 percent) 

from the original total acquisition estimate of $1,831.9 million.

Exceeded planned schedule estimate

The GCSS-A Inc 1 program reached the full deployment decision in 

December 2012, 10 months after the objective date of February 2012, 

and 4 months after the threshold date of August 2012. This represents a 

significant change from the original estimate of February 2012. The 

program office cited the potential for a 6-month slip in schedule to meet 

the full deployment date of September 2017. According to a MAIS 

summary report, the program conducted a trade-off analysis to minimize 

a 6-month slip in fielding, as a result of a $16 million decrement in 2016 

funding. Other challenges in meeting schedule include requirements 

management, insufficient human resources, and the possibility for Army 

schedule changes. However, the program reports they are on schedule 

for full deployment prior to the threshold schedule date of March 2018.

Met all of the system performance targets

The GCSS-A Inc 1 program had met both of the systems performance 

targets which were (1) net ready, and (2) mission critical functions.
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 49 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program description

The GCSS-MC LCM Inc 1 program is a portfolio of systems that is 

expected to support logistics elements of command and control, joint 

logistics interoperability, and secure access to and visibility of logistics 

data. As a program within GCSS-MC, Increment 1 is based on the 

implementation of Oracle e-Business Suite 11i as the core software 

package. It is expected to provide the foundation for all future Marine 

Corps logistics systems modernization.

Program essentials (as of October 2016)

DOD components: Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps

Program owner: Deputy Commandant Installations and Logistics 

Headquarters Marine Corp

Prime contractor: N/A, managed by the federal government

Total number of contractors (as of May 2016): Not applicable

Table 12: Global Combat Support System-Marine Corps Logistics Chain 

Management Increment 1 Program costs 

(then-year dollars in millions)

First acquisition 

program baseline

June 2007

Latest 

estimate

March 2016

Acquisition cost estimate

Research, development, test, and 

evaluation

$102.3 $307.9

Procurement 52.5 88.3

Operations and maintenance 39.6 160.5 

Total acquisition cost $194.4 $556.7

Life-cycle cost estimate

Operations and support 306.6 1,265.0

Total life-cycle cost estimate $461.4 $1,821.7

Source: DOD data | GAO-17-322

Marine Corps—Global 

Combat Support SystemMarine Corps Logistics 

Chain Management 

Increment 1 (GCSS-MC 

LCM Inc 1)
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 50 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program status

As of March 2016, the GCSS-MC LCM Inc 1 program had been fully 

implemented and reported as a closed acquisition program.

Exceeded planned cost estimate

As of March 2016, the GCSS-MC LCM Inc 1 program’s total life cycle 

cost estimate was $1,821.70 million, an increase of $1,360.3 million (295 

percent) from the original total life cycle cost estimate of $461.4 million. 

The GCSS-MC LCM Inc 1 program’s current total acquisition cost 

estimate was $556.7 million, an increase of $362.3 million (186 percent) 

from the original estimate of $194.4 million.

Exceeded planned schedule estimate

The GCSS-MC LCM Inc 1 program had a significant change in reaching 

full deployment. The program reached the full deployment date in 

December 2015. When compared to the original date of May 2010 for full 

operational capability (equivalent is full deployment), this resulted in a 5 

year and 7 month delay. The program is fully implemented.

Met all of the system performance targets

As of March 2016, the GCSS-MC Inc 1 program had met both of the 

performance targets which were (1) Net ready, and (2) Visibility
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 51 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program description

The iEHR Inc 1 program is expected to deliver two user capabilities—a 

medical single sign on that streamlines the login process to allow users to 

sign in once and leverage securely stored credentials to automatically 

access the other available applications, and a context management 

capability that will automatically present a patient’s data within all 

applications. Other deliverables include enhanced infrastructure services, 

a development test center/environment configuration, and clinical data 

repository upgrades.

Program essentials (as of October 2016)

DOD component: Defense Health Agency

Program owner: PEO DHMS

Prime contractor: General Dynamics Information Technology 

Total number of contractors (as of May 2016): Not applicable

Table 13: Integrated Electronic Health Record Increment 1 Program costs 

(then-year dollars in millions)

First acquisition 

program baseline

Feb 2013

Latest 

estimate

March 2015

Acquisition cost estimate

Research, development, test, and 

evaluation

$69.8 $46.7

Procurement 122.8 71.2

Acquisition operations and maintenance 173.7 131.4

Total acquisition cost $366.3 $249.3

Life-cycle cost estimate

Operations and support 659.6 58.3

Total life-cycle cost estimate $1,025.9 $307.6

Source: DOD data | GAO-17-322

Defense Health Agency—

Integrated Electronic 

Health Record Increment 

1 (iEHR Inc 1)
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 52 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program status

As of March 2016, the iEHR Inc 1 program was in the sustainment phase 

and, according to a 2016 MAIS Annual Report, the program is closed out 

as an acquisition program.

Decreased planned cost estimate

The iEHR Inc 1 program’s March 2015 estimate for total life-cycle cost 

was $307.6 million, a decrease of $718.3 million (-70 percent) from the 

original total life-cycle estimate of $1,025.9 million. Likewise, the 

program’s total estimated acquisition cost was $249.3 million, a decrease 

of $117 million (-32 percent) from the original total acquisition cost 

estimate of $366.3 million. The reduction in estimated cost was primarily 

because of reductions in the program’s scope.

Exceeded planned schedule estimate

The iEHR Inc 1 program’s original objective schedule estimate for full 

deployment decision was December 2013. When compared to the actual 

full deployment decision date of November 2014 with the original date, 

the program’s schedule slipped 11 months. The program achieved full 

deployment in April 2015, 1 month ahead of schedule.

Met all of the system performance targets

The iEHR Inc 1 program had met all three of the performance targets 

which were (1) essential business function 1–context management, (2) 

single sign on, and (3) roaming
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 53 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program description

The IPPS-A Inc 1 program is expected to provide a 24-hour, web-based, 

integrated human resources system to soldiers, human resource 

professionals, combatant commanders, personnel and pay managers, 

and other authorized users. Specifically, the system is expected to 

provide a single, multi-component, trusted database with a single record 

for all Army soldiers, and serve as a trusted data source for personnel 

and human resources data for the entire Army. Soldiers will have webbased access to their personnel data, enabling them to better manage 

their careers and ensure accuracy of information. The system will allow 

for interface communications and new multi-component reports that 

include a Soldier Record Brief for all Army components (Active, National 

Guard and Reserve).

Program essentials (as of October 2016)

DOD component: Department of the Army

Program owner: Department of the Army, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1

Prime contractors: EDC Consulting, LLC - System Integration, Booz Allen 

Hamilton-Support Services

Total number of contractors (as of May 2016): N/A: Program is in 

sustainment

Table 14: Integrated Personnel and Pay System—Army Increment 1 Program costs 

(then-year dollars in millions)

First acquisition 

program baseline

March 2012

Latest 

estimate

January 2015

Acquisition cost estimate

Research, development, test, and 

evaluation

$154.8 $190.9

Procurement 2.2 .5

Total acquisition cost $157.0 $191.4

Life-cycle cost estimate

Operations and support 201.4 177.5

Total life-cycle cost estimate $358.4 $368.9

Source: DOD data | GAO-17-322

Army—Integrated 

Personnel and Pay 

System—Army Increment 

1 (IPPS-A Inc 1)
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 54 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program status

As of March 2016, the IPPS-A Inc 1 program had achieved full 

deployment and was in the sustainment phase. The program was rebaselined after implementing strategic recommendations by an 

independent review team established in June 2013 that determined the 

system design was sufficient to meet Increment I requirements. The rebaselined acquisition program baseline was signed by the Milestone 

Decision Authority in February 2015.

Exceeded planned cost estimate

As of January 2015, the IPPS-A Inc 1 program’s total estimated life-cycle 

cost was $368.9 million, an increase of $10.5 million (3 percent) from the 

original total estimated life-cycle cost of $358.4 million. The total 

estimated acquisition cost was $191.4 million (as of February 2015), an 

increase of $34.4 million (22 percent) from the original total acquisition 

cost of $157 million. According to program officials, the increase in cost 

was a direct result of deferring continuity of operations requirements and 

capturing the testing environment requirement under Increment 2.

Exceeded planned schedule estimate

The IPPS-A Inc 1 program achieved Milestone C and Full Deployment 

Decision about 6 months after the original threshold dates in August 2013 

and October 2013, respectively. During the acquisition, the delay 

associated with the slip for a Milestone C decision triggered a significant 

change to the program’s schedule. The program has achieved full

deployment and is now in the sustainment phase.

Met all of the system performance targets

The IPPS-A Inc 1 program had met all three of the performance targets 

which were (1) net ready, (2) interoperability, and (3) availability
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 55 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program description

The IPPS-A Inc 2 program is expected to provide a 24-hour, web-based, 

integrated Human Resources system for Army personnel. It is to deliver 

an integrated personnel and pay services for all Army components 

(Active, National Guard, and Reserve), building on a trusted database 

delivered by the IPPS-A Inc 1 program. The IPPS-A Inc 2 program is 

planned to improve the Army’s financial management processes in 

support of military personnel and payroll by linking the personnel and 

payroll functions for all Army personnel, eliminating duplicate data entry, 

reducing complex system maintenance, and minimizing pay 

discrepancies. The IPPS-A Inc 2 program is expected to account for 

status changes between Active, Reserve, and National Guard 

components to ensure accurate service time, minimize impact on 

individual pay, credit for service, and other benefits.

Program essentials (as of October 2016)

DOD component: Department of the Army

Program owner: Department of the Army, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1

Prime contractor: CACI-System Integration, Booz Allen Hamilton-Support 

Services

Total number of contractors (as of May 2016): 38

Table 15: Integrated Personnel and Pay System—Army Increment 2 Program costs 

(then-year dollars in millions)

First acquisition 

program baseline

March 2015

Latest 

estimate

March, 2016

Acquisition cost estimate

Research, development, test, and 

evaluation

$644.3 $709.7

Procurement 81.5 110.5

Total acquisition cost $725.8 $820.2

Life-cycle cost estimate

Operations and support 1,025.8 1,261.7

Total life-cycle cost estimate $1,751.0 $2,081.9

Source: DOD data | GAO-17-322

Army—Integrated 

Personnel and Pay 

System—Army Increment 

2 (IPPS-A Inc 2)
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 56 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program status

As of March 2016, the IPPS-A Inc 2 program is in the development and 

deployment phase of the defense acquisition life cycle. A Milestone B 

decision was achieved in December 2014. In fiscal year 2016, the 

program completed several reviews—system requirements, system 

functional, and integrated baseline. The program indicated requirements 

growth as an area of potential risk.

Exceeded planned cost estimate

As of March 2016, the IPPS-A Inc 2 program’s total life-cycle cost 

estimate was $2,081.9 million, an increase of $330.9 million (19 percent) 

from the original estimated life-cycle cost of $1,751.0 million. The current 

total estimated acquisition cost estimate was $820.2 million, an increase 

of $94.3 million (13 percent) from the original estimated acquisition cost of 

$725.8 million.

Met planned schedule estimate

The IPPS-A Inc 2 program achieved Milestone B on 19 December 2014, 

within the planned threshold schedule.

Not yet applicable

The IPPS-A Inc 2 program was still early in development and system 

performance data was not available.
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 57 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program description

The ISPAN Inc 4 program is expected to be a system-of-systems that 

spans multiple security enclaves for strategic and operational level 

planning and leadership decision making. The system is composed of two 

primary components: (1) a global adaptive planning collaborative 

information environment that manages strategy-to-execution planning 

across all United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) mission 

areas and (2) a mission planning and analysis system that supports 

developing nuclear and conventional force application plans. Both 

components establish a framework to support the USSTRATCOM’s 

effects-based planning and analysis activities.

Program essentials (as of October 2016)

DOD component: Air Force

Program owner: USSTRATCOM

Prime contractors: BAE, Leidos, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop 

Grumman

Total number of contractors (as of May 2016): 19

Table 16: Integrated Strategic Planning and Analysis Network Increment 4 Program 

costs 

(then-year dollars in millions)

First acquisition 

program baseline

August 2014

Latest 

estimate

June 2016

Acquisition cost estimate

Research, development, test, and 

evaluation

$149.3 $149.3

Acquisition O&M $13.2 $13.2

Total Acquisition Cost $162.5 $162.5

Life cycle cost estimate

Operations and support $24.7 $24.7

Total life cycle cost estimate $187.2 $187.2

Source: DOD data | GAO-17-322

Air Force—Integrated 

Strategic Planning and 

Analysis Network 

Increment 4 (ISPAN Inc 4)
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 58 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program status

As of June 2016, the ISPAN Inc 4 program was in the engineering and 

manufacturing development phase of the Defense Acquisition 

Management System. According to officials, the program was on track to 

remain within the schedule, cost, and performance thresholds identified in 

the original estimate, with no major risks. The program has not been 

rebaselined.

Met planned cost estimate

The ISPAN Inc 4 program’s current cost estimates have not changed 

since their first estimate.

Met planned schedule estimate

The ISPAN Inc 4 program’s current schedule estimates have not changed 

since their first estimate

Not yet applicable

The ISPAN Inc 4 program was still early in development and system 

performance data was not yet available.
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 59 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program description

The JMS Inc 2 Program is expected to replace the legacy Space Defense 

Operations Center hardware and services with extensible and sustainable 

infrastructure. The effort is planned to integrate components of the Space 

Situational Awareness mission applications and Command and Control 

capabilities into the Joint Space Operations Center to create timely, 

actionable knowledge necessary for maintaining space superiority and 

exercising command and control capabilities of space forces.

Program essentials (as of October 2016)

DOD component: Air Force

Program owner: Air Force Space Command

Prime contractor: N/A, managed by federal government 

Total number of contractors (as of May 2016): 7

Table 17: Joint Space Operations Center, Mission System Increment 2 Program 

costs 

(then-year dollars in millions)

First acquisition 

program baseline

June 2013

Latest 

estimate

March 2016

Acquisition cost estimate

Research, development, test, and 

evaluation

$312.7 $462.8

Total acquisition cost $312.7 $462.8

Life-cycle cost estimate

Operations and sustainment 787.8 503.1

Total life-cycle cost estimate $1,100.5 $965.9

Source: DOD data | GAO-17-322

Air Force—Joint Space 

Operations Center, 

Mission System Increment 

2 (JMS Inc 2)
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 60 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program status

As of March 2016, the JMS Inc 2 program was in the engineering and 

manufacturing development acquisition phase. Due to issues associated 

with schedule delays of more than 12 months and acquisition 

development costs increasing more than 25 percent, the program 

underwent a critical change. A critical change report was delivered to 

Congress in September 2016 due to the delayed completion of the 

program’s Milestone C and full deployment decision by more than 12 

months. According to the report, three factors that caused a critical 

change were (1) the program’s original schedule was aggressive and 

contained a significant level of concurrency, (2) funding and manpower 

issues, and (3) contracting issues.

Decreased planned cost estimate

As of March 2016, the JMS Inc 2 program’s total life-cycle cost estimate 

was $965.9 million, a decrease of $134.6 million (-12 percent) from the 

original total estimate of $1,100.5 million. The latest estimate for total 

estimated acquisition cost was $462.8 million, an increase of $150.1

million (48 percent) from the original acquisition cost estimate of $312.7 

million. The decrease for the total life-cycle cost estimate was because 

the original estimate for operations and sustainment costs was 20 years 

after fielding while the new estimate is for 10 years after fielding.

Exceeded planned schedule estimate

Due to significant delays in the JMS Inc 2 program’s aggressive schedule, 

the program underwent a rebaseline effort and issued a critical change 

report in September 2016. The new estimate for a full deployment 

decision is May 2019. With an original schedule date of July 2016, this 

represents a 2-year, 10-month slippage.

Not yet applicable

The JMS Inc 2 program was still early in development and system 

performance data was not yet available.
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 61 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program description

The LMP Inc 2 program is expected to deliver an enterprise solution that 

builds, sustains, and generates warfighting capabilities using a fullyintegrated supply chain and maintenance, repair, and overhaul system. 

The LMP Inc 2 program’s support is critical to the Army’s ability to 

achieve an integrated system that enables materiel readiness and asset 

management and accountability, architecture, and acquisition compliancy. 

When deployed, it is expected to deliver capabilities that address critical 

Army Materiel Command requirements for automation of the industrial 

base shop floor operations, standardization of ammunition automatic 

identification technology, non-Army managed items management, Army 

prepositioned stock planning, national maintenance program, and the 

expansion and refinement of the integration between Army enterprise 

resource planning systems.

Program essentials (as of October 2016)

DOD component: Army

Program owner: PEO EIS

Prime contractor: CSRA, LLC

Total number of contractors (as of May 2016): 188

Table 18: Logistics Modernization Program Increment 2 Program costs 

(then-year dollars in millions)

First acquisition 

program baseline

Aug 2013

Latest 

estimate

July 2016

Acquisition cost estimate

Army working capital funds-capital 

investment program

$344.7 $370.8

Army working capital funds-operations 60.4 48.4

Total acquisition cost $405.1 $419.2

Life-cycle cost estimate

Operations and support $324.8 $317.6

Total life-cycle cost estimate $729.9 $736.8

Source: DOD data | GAO-17-322

Army—Logistics 

Modernization Program 

Increment 2 (LMP Inc 2)
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 62 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program status

As of June 2016, the LMP Inc 2 program was in the operation and 

support phase of the acquisition life cycle. The program went to full 

deployment in September 2016. The program will continue to provide 

national level logistics and financial operations to Army arsenals and 

depots.

Exceeded planned cost estimate

As of July 2016, the LMP Inc 2 program’s total estimated life-cycle cost 

estimate was $736 million, an increase of $6.9 million (1 percent) from the 

original total life-cycle cost estimate of $729.9 million. Likewise, the total 

current estimated acquisition cost estimate was $419.2 million, an 

increase of $14.1 million (3 percent) from the original estimate of $405.1 

million. However, these increases were within the threshold estimate 

established for the program.

Exceeded planned schedule estimate

The LMP Inc 2 program had a schedule slip of 5 months when comparing 

the original objective full deployment decision date of October 2015 to the 

current estimate of July 2016. However, the schedule slip was within the 

established threshold date of April 2016.

Met all of the system performance targets

The LMP Inc 2 program had met all seven of the system performance 

targets which were (1) support net-centric military operations, (2) enter 

and be managed in the network, (3) net readiness exchange information, 

(4) survivability system information assurance, (5) survivability information 

assurance system disaster recovery, (6) sustainment operational 

availability, and (7) training proficiency level.
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 63 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program description

The Teleport Gen 3 program is expected to be a satellite communications 

gateway that will enable the transportation of voice, video, and data 

information to deployed forces, and links the deployed warfighter to the 

sustaining base. The system is expected to provide expanded system 

capacity, throughput, and functional capabilities to greatly enhance 

support to tactical and deployed warfighters worldwide.

Program essentials (as of October 2016)

DOD component: Defense Information Systems Agency

Program owner: DISA Component Acquisition Executive

Prime contractors: Booz Allen Hamilton, Femme Comp Inc., and Itility

Total number of contractors (as of May 2016): 5

Table 19: Teleport Generation 3 Program costs 

(then-year dollars in millions)

First acquisition 

program baseline

September 2010

Latest 

estimate

July 2016

Acquisition cost estimate

Research, development, test, and 

evaluation

$19.20 $18.30

Procurement 243.30 229.60

Total acquisition cost $262.50 $260.30

Life-cycle cost estimate

Operations and support 301.20 315.00

Total life-cycle cost estimate $563.70 $575.30

Source: DOD data | GAO-17-322

Defense Information 

Systems Agency—

Teleport Generation 3 

(Teleport Gen 3)
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 64 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program status

As of July 2016, the Teleport Gen 3 program was in the production and 

deployment acquisition phase.

Exceeded planned cost estimate

As of July 2016, the Teleport Gen 3 program’s current total life-cycle cost 

estimate was $575.3 million, an increase of $11.6 million (2 percent) from 

the original estimate of $563.7 million. 

Exceeded planned schedule estimate

The Teleport Gen 3 program had a schedule slip of 3 years and 2 

months, from January 2013 to March 2016 when comparing the original 

baseline Milestone C (Gen 3, Phase 3) objective schedule estimate.

Did not fully meet all of the system performance targets

The Teleport Gen 3 program’s Phase 1 performance target had been 

met. However, performance targets for Phases 2 and 3 had not been met. 

According to the program office, all developmental and operational testing 

had been completed for Teleport Gen 3 Phases 1 and 2. Additional 

testing is planned for Phase 3.
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 65 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program description

The TMC program is a suite of systems that is expected to provide 

mission command computing capabilities to Army commanders and their 

staffs, consisting of a user-customizable common operating picture

enabled with real-time collaboration. These capabilities, together with 

voice-over-internet-protocol, will provide real-time situational awareness 

and decision support across the formation (battalion thru Army Service 

Component Command). A component of the mission command capability 

is the ability to layer information from multiple functions on the same map 

display and share among command posts, allowing all parties to have a 

common view.3

Program essentials (as of October 2016)

DOD component: Army

Program owner: Mission Command

Prime contractor: General Dynamics (previous); currently a government 

led effort by Army Research and Development Engineering Center 

Total number of contractors (as of May 2016): N/A. Army is the lead

Table 20: Tactical Mission Command Program costs 

(then-year dollars in millions)

First acquisition 

program baseline

July 2005

Latest 

estimate

March 2016

Acquisition cost estimate

Research, development, test, and 

evaluation

$319.5 $439.3

Procurement 500.9 1,752.8

Total acquisition cost $820.4 $2,192.1

Life-cycle cost estimate

Operations and support 73.4 123.4

Total life-cycle cost estimate $893.8 $2,315.5

Source: DOD data | GAO-17-322

 3

While these capabilities are currently provided by Command Post of the Future, the 

Tactical Mission Command system is transitioning to the web-based Command Post 

Computing Environment. 

Army—Tactical Mission 

Command (TMC)
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 66 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program status

As of March 2016, the TMC program is currently post Milestone C. The 

program has been rebaselined two times. A critical change report was 

issued in response to a cost breach caused by a growth in the program’s 

scope growth that was considered a “fact of life” change. As of March 

2016, program officials reported they are on track to remain within the 

schedule, cost, and performance thresholds identified in the original 

estimate.

Exceeded planned cost estimate

As of March 2016, the TMC program’s total life cycle cost estimate was 

$2,315.50 million, an increase of $1,421.7 million (159 percent) from the 

original total life cycle cost estimate of $893.80 million. The TMC 

program’s latest total acquisition cost estimate was $2,192.1 million, an 

increase of $1,371.7 million (167 percent) from the original acquisition 

estimate of $820.40 million in March 2016.4 We reported in March 2016 

that the Army’s TMC program estimated program development costs had 

increased by 45 percent over the original estimate due to program scope 

changes derived from the realignment of Command Post of the Future as 

a foundation for Mission Command Collapse, the integration of 

Personalized Assistant that Learns, and the incorporation of future force 

requirements. According to a 2016 MAIS Annual Report, the program was 

on track to remain within the schedule, cost, and performance thresholds 

identified in the original estimate.

Met planned schedule estimate

As we reported in our March 2016 report, the TMC program experienced 

a slight slippage in schedule (3 months), however, it was within the 

established threshold date. Program officials report they are still on track 

to reach full deployment by December 2018.

Met all of the system performance targets

As of March 2016, the TMC program had met all three of the performance 

targets which were (1) net ready, (2) display the common operational 

picture, and (3) disseminate (create and exchange) orders.

 4

GAO-16-336.
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 67 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program description

The TMIP-J Inc 2 program is expected to integrate components of the 

Military Health System sustaining base systems and the Services ́ 

medical information systems to ensure timely interoperable medical 

support for mobilization, deployment, and sustainment of all theater and 

deployed forces. The system is expected to enhance clinical care and 

information capture at all levels of care in theater, transmits critical 

information to the theater commander; the evacuation chain for combat 

and non-combat casualties; and forges the theater links of the health 

record to the sustaining base and the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

The TMIP-J program is the medical component of the Global Combat 

Support System.

Program essentials (as of October 2016)

DOD components: DOD, Joint Participants: U.S. Army; U.S. Navy and 

Marine Corps; U.S. Air Force

Program owner: PEO Defense Healthcare Management Systems 

Prime contractor: KRATOS Inc.

Total number of contractors (as of April 2016): 6

Table 21: Theater Medical Information Program—Joint Increment 2 Program costs 

(then-year dollars in millions)

First acquisition 

program baseline

December 2007

Latest 

estimate

July 2016

Acquisition cost estimate

Research, development, test, and 

evaluation

$124.2 $323.7

Procurement 8.6 16.7

Operations and maintenance 100.5 267.8

Total acquisition cost $233.3 $608.2

Life-cycle cost estimate

Operations and support 442.8 448.2

Total life-cycle cost estimate $676.1 $1,056.4

Source: DOD data | GAO-17-322

DOD—Theater Medical 

Information Program—

Joint Increment 2 

(TMIP-J Inc 2)
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 68 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Program status

As of July 2016, the TMIP-J Inc 2 program was reported as fully deployed 

and was in the sustainment phase. The system consists of two 

increments—Increment 1 was fielded in 2003, and development of 

Increment 2 was being done in three releases. Release 1 was fielded in 

2009 and Release 2 was fielded in 2013. Release 3, is the last major 

release. In February 2016, the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics declared that the TMIP-J Inc 2 

program had met its full deployment decision action items. He delegated 

Milestone Decision Authority to the Program Executive Officer, Defense 

Healthcare Management Systems, and authorized the Services to declare 

full deployment in accordance with their Service acquisition strategies.

Exceeded planned cost estimate

As of July 2016, the TMIP-J Inc 2 program’s total life cycle cost estimate 

was $1,056.4 million, an increase of $380.3 million (56 percent) from the 

original estimate of $676.1 million. The total acquisition cost estimate was 

$608.2 million, an increase of $374.9 million (161 percent) from the 

original estimate of $233.3 million. 

Exceeded planned schedule estimate

The TMIP-J Inc 2 program had a 5-year, 6-month change to the full 

deployment decision date when a breach occurred. Program officials 

stated the schedule change was due to a mandate to increase the scope 

of the program. In turn, a revised acquisition program baseline was 

approved in January 2012. The objective date for full deployment 

changed from June 2008 to December 2013, and a threshold date 

changed from December 2008 to June 2014. The TMIP-J Inc 2 program 

reached full deployment in May 2016 and has transitioned into the 

sustainment phase.

Met all of the system performance targets

The TMIP-J Inc 2 program had met all ten of the performance targets 

which were (1) net ready, (2) data transfer data availability, (3) data 

availability, currency, and responsiveness—medical logistics visibility, (4)

data availability, currency and responsiveness—patient visibility, (5) data 

availability, currency and responsiveness—medical infrastructure 

readiness, (6) data availability, currency and responsiveness—individual 

medical readiness, (7) data availability, currency and responsiveness—

illness and injury rates, (8) data availability, currency and 

responsiveness—reportable medical events, (9) standards compliance, 

and (10) system operational availability and responsiveness.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 69 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Defense
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 70 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 71 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected 

MAIS Programs

Page 72 GAO-17-322 DOD Major Automated Information Systems

Carol C. Harris at (202) 512-4456 or harrisc@gao.gov

In addition to the contact name above, the following staff also made key 

contributions to this report: Eric Winter (Assistant Director), John Ortiz 

(Analyst in Charge), Neha Bhatt, Nancy Glover, Kate Nielsen, and Teresa 

Smith.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100780)
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 website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

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

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.