United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,

Committee on Science, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at

10 a.m.

Wednesday,

March 4, 1998

NATIONAL WEATHER

SERVICE

Budget Events and

Continuing Risks of

Systems Modernization

Statement of Joel C. Willemssen

Director, Civil Agencies Information Systems

Accounting and Information Management Division

GAO/T-AIMD-98-97

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

We are pleased to be here today to discuss our work regarding events

surrounding the fiscal year 1997 budget of the National Weather Service

(NWS), a component of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce. Our report on

the matter is being released at this hearing.1

 We will also be reporting on

the status of information first presented to this Subcommittee in 1995 on

the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS), a major

component of the Weather Service’s systems modernization program.2

Finally, we will briefly update another report on the Weather Service

issued last year, dealing with radar and weather service coverage to

northwestern Pennsylvania with the closure of the Erie weather service

office.3

NWS Fiscal Year 1997

Budget “Shortfall”

The Weather Service was able to operate within its appropriated fiscal

year 1997 budget level, but had to do so with fewer funds than in fiscal

year 1996; NWS referred to this difference in available funds as a budget

“shortfall.” The “shortfall” was reported in different amounts at different

points in time, such that some members of Congress experienced

confusion as to the actual amount. Erroneous assumptions and

miscommunication between the Weather Service and NOAA further clouded

the issue.

The differing “shortfall” amounts reported to Congress depended upon

definition as well as time. Congressional staff briefed in February 1997

were told that the “shortfall” amount was $27.5 million; 2 months later, the

figure had risen to $42.2 million. Finally, at a hearing last May, the amount

given was $47.4 million. NOAA and NWS officials explained the discrepancy

by saying that the varying amounts responded to specific questions at

particular points in time, and did not necessarily include all known

elements of the “shortfall.”

Two events associated with the “shortfall” and potential ways to

accommodate it raised concerns among department officials. The first

1

National Weather Service: Events Surrounding Fiscal Year 1997 Budget (GAO/AIMD-98-69, Mar. 4,

1998).

2

Weather Service Modernization: Despite Progress, Significant Problems and Risks Remain

(GAO/T-AIMD-95-87, Feb. 21, 1995).

3

National Weather Service: Modernization Activities Affecting Northwestern Pennsylvania

(GAO/AIMD-97-156, Sept. 26, 1997).

Page 1 GAO/T-AIMD-98-97
centered on a Weather Service request that NOAA reprogram funds—and

NWS’ intention to fill critical field office vacancies before approval of that

request. While NWS counted on such approval and the availability of funds

for these positions, NOAA, however, informed Weather Service officials that

the vacancies could not be filled because the reprogramming request had

not yet been approved.

The second event involved NWS’ attempt to obtain NOAA certification

approval to consolidate, automate, and/or close weather service offices.

Before any NWS office can be closed, the Secretary of Commerce must

certify that the affected geographic areas will not experience a

degradation of weather service. Upon learning that it would not be able to

fill critical field vacancies, NWS recommended to NOAA that selected

certification packages—27 out of 83—be held back because, according to

a Weather Service official, not filling the vacancies would result in

degraded weather services at some locations. NOAA subsequently held back

all certification packages.4

On June 25, 1997—just 5 days after NWS’ Deputy Assistant Administrator

for Modernization recommended holding back the 27 packages certifying

nondegradation of service—NOAA’s Assistant Administrator for Weather

Services was reassigned. This action was taken by NOAA’s Under Secretary,

citing conflicting information from NWS on how it would provide essential

weather services while recognizing the need for government agencies to

reduce costs.

In addition, a special adviser was tasked with reporting to the Secretary of

Commerce on the fiscal requirements to operate a modernized NWS during

fiscal years 1998 and 1999. One result of the report is the department’s

plan to hire a Chief Financial Officer for NWS.

Weather Service

Modernization and the

Advanced Weather

Interactive Processing

System

The mission of the National Weather Service is of critical importance to all

Americans—a fact of which we are reminded whenever hurricanes, floods,

tornadoes, or other severe weather threatens. The service’s modernization

program—vital to improved operations—is one of the largest in the federal

government.5

 Begun in the early 1980s, its goals are to (1) achieve more

uniform weather services nationwide, (2) improve forecasting, (3) provide

more reliable detection and prediction of severe weather and flooding,

4

We recently learned that NWS plans to forward about 80 certification packages this year.

5

See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Weather Service Modernization and NOAA

Corps Issues (GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-97-63, Mar. 13, 1997).

Page 2 GAO/T-AIMD-98-97
(4) permit more cost-effective operations, and (5) achieve higher

productivity.

The Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System—AWIPS—is the

linchpin of the NWS modernization that will integrate—for the first

time—satellite, radar, and other data to support forecaster

decision-making and communications. Along with AWIPS, the

modernization includes three other major programs: the Automated

Surface Observing System, the Next Generation Geostationary Operational

Environmental Satellite (GOES-Next), and the Next Generation Weather

Radar (NEXRAD).

Ongoing problems—both developmental and operational—have, however,

surrounded the modernization. For example, new radars have not always

been up and running when severe weather threatened, and ground-based

sensors have fallen short of performance and user expectations.

Performance problems such as these, along with developmental problems

relating to cost and schedule, have led us to voice continuing

concern—and make specific recommendations—over the past several

years.6

 Many of these concerns remain.

As a result of its continuing problems, Weather Service modernization has

been included—both in 1995 and 1997—on our list of high-risk

government programs.7

 One key element of risk is the lack of an overall

systems architecture—a guiding blueprint to be followed in the

development of a systems modernization to ensure interoperability and

cost-effective maintenance. As of now, an overall modernization

architecture is not expected before September 30 of this year.

Through AWIPS—designed to be the “central nervous system” of a

modernized Weather Service—NWS expects to tap a reservoir of data from

its new observing systems, data that its current, aging system cannot

handle. AWIPS forecaster workstations are being developed incrementally,

6

See Weather Service Modernization: Risks Remain That Full Systems Potential Will Not Be Achieved

(GAO/T-AIMD-97-85, April 24, 1997), Weather Forecasting: Recommendations to Address New Weather

Processing System Development Risks (GAO/AIMD-96-74, May 13, 1996), Weather Forecasting: NWS

Has Not Demonstrated That New Processing System Will Improve Mission Effectiveness

(GAO/AIMD-96-29, Feb. 29, 1996), Weather Forecasting: Improvements Needed in Laboratory Software

Development Processes (GAO/AIMD-95-24, Dec. 14, 1994), and Weather Forecasting: Systems

Architecture Needed for National Weather Service Modernization (GAO/AIMD-94-28, Mar. 11, 1994).

7

High-Risk Series: An Overview (GAO/HR-95-1, February 1995) and High-Risk Series: Information

Management and Technology (GAO/HR-97-9, February 1997).

Page 3 GAO/T-AIMD-98-97
in a series of six modules called “builds.”8

 Operational testing and

evaluation was recently concluded on build 3 and the results showed that

users have generally been pleased with system modules already in use. Yet

full utilization of data from the observing systems has been prevented by

the continuing problems and delays. Therefore, exactly when AWIPS will be

fully deployed and functioning properly, at what cost, and with what level

of capability, remain unknown. Until that time, the Weather Service will

not fully reap the rewards of an investment that has spanned 15 years and

is approaching $4.5 billion.

Although AWIPS is expected to greatly improve NWS’ ability to provide

weather services, serious risks continue to be associated with the system’s

costs, schedule, development, and maintenance. The area of cost, for

example, has been in flux. The cost to develop AWIPS was estimated at

$350 million in 1985.9

 A decade later the figure had risen to $525 million;

however, in testimony and a report issued in 1996, we pointed out the

inaccuracy of this estimate due to the omission of several cost factors,

including known contract increases.10 The Department of Commerce later

committed to a $550 million funding cap. We testified last spring that it

would be extremely difficult for NOAA to develop and deploy AWIPS within

the $550 million cap if it encounters any major problems.11 And given the

size and complexity of the development—and recognizing that even

managed risks can turn into real problems—such problems are likely to

occur.12

The department has since reported its uncertainty over whether AWIPS

could be completed within the $550 million cap. NWS officials attribute this

to increased software development expenses. In accordance with a

recommendation we made in 1996,13 Commerce contracted for an

independent cost estimate. According to this February 2, 1998,

assessment, the likely costs to complete builds 4 through 6 will jump by

8

Incremental systems development entails building and testing software products in a series of

increments with increasing functional capability; that is, the software is partitioned into increments

whose development is phased in over the total development cycle.

9

Weather Forecasting: Cost Growth and Delays in Billion-Dollar Weather Service Modernization

(GAO/IMTEC-92-12FS, Dec. 17, 1991).

10Weather Forecasting: New Processing System Faces Uncertainties and Risks (GAO/T-AIMD-96-47,

Feb. 29, 1996) and GAO/AIMD-96-74, May 13, 1996.

11GAO/T-AIMD-97-85, April 24, 1997.

12National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Follow-up on Weather Service Modernization and

NOAA Corps Issues (GAO/AIMD/GGD-97-75R, April 10, 1997).

13GAO/T-AIMD-96-47, Feb. 29, 1996 and GAO/AIMD-96-74, May 13, 1996.

Page 4 GAO/T-AIMD-98-97
$68 million, to a total of $618 million. The contractor also noted a likely

9-month schedule delay.

In addition, while AWIPS was planned for full deployment through build 6 in

1999—at 152 locations nationwide—that schedule is now in doubt. The

latest schedule calls for build 4—actually build 4.2—to be completed in

March of 1999. Completion dates for builds 5 and 6 are now uncertain

because, we are told, NWS wants to ensure that requirements for those

modules are not extraneous to mission needs, in order to minimize future

cost increases. This reflects a recommendation we made in 1996 for all

AWIPS builds.14 Until this process has been completed and specific mission

requirements identified, the Weather Service will not know what

capabilities builds 5 and 6 will possess, and when they will be available.

The most critical risk factors underlying questions about AWIPS’ future

relate to software development. Software quality is governed largely by the

quality of the processes used to develop it; however, NWS’ efforts to

develop AWIPS software have lacked defined software-development

processes. Such processes are all the more essential because of NWS’

increased use of software code developed internally at NOAA’s Forecast

Systems Laboratory (FSL) in Boulder, Colorado—a research and

development facility that primarily develops prototype systems.15 This

software code has not been developed according to the rigorous processes

commonly used to develop production-quality code.16 Failure to adhere to

these processes may result in unstable software that will continue to cause

cost increases and schedule delays. The cost assessment delivered last

month also found risk inherent in the development of builds 4 through 6

because of the transitioning of FSL-developed software to AWIPS, and the

uncertainty surrounding requirements for these builds.

Another risk area concerns the network control facility, which provides

the ability to monitor and maintain AWIPS sites across the country from a

single location. Through build 3 AWIPS was still experiencing difficulty with

the central location’s ability to detect and respond to problems. We should

14See GAO/AIMD-96-29, Feb. 29, 1996.

15FSL’s prototype system, called Weather Forecast Office (WFO)-Advanced, was being developed in

parallel with AWIPS as a risk-reduction tactic. In both 1995 and 1996, AWIPS program officials decided

to use the WFO-Advanced software to take advantage of FSL’s hydrology and meteorology application

software, hoping that this would enable NWS to deploy AWIPS as quickly as possible.

16See GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-97-63, Mar. 13, 1997, and Weather Forecasting: Improvements Needed in

Laboratory Software Development Processes (GAO/AIMD-95-24, Dec. 14, 1994) for discussion of

software quality assurance and software configuration management principles typical of a production

environment.

Page 5 GAO/T-AIMD-98-97
note, however, that such problems concerned only a limited number of

sites, and that as more sites come on line, problems can be expected to

increase. Weather Service officials acknowledge that the poor

performance of the network control facility to date is a prime concern, and

that neither NWS nor its contractor has experience in developing the

capability for central maintenance. As a result, they told us that they

obtained a contractor to assist them in this area.

The last, huge area of risk, inescapably, is whether the AWIPS builds—and,

indeed, all modernization components—will be what is called Year 2000

compliant.17 On the basis of information received from Weather Service

officials just last week, our concerns have not been allayed. AWIPS to date

is not Year 2000 compliant. Build 4.2—set for completion a year from

now—is supposed to make all AWIPS applications Year 2000 compliant. But

several questions remain, perhaps the most obvious: What if it does not?

As a fail-safe tactic, NWS told us that it has renovated its aging current

system, Automation of Field Operations and Services, in case AWIPS is not

operational by the year 2000.

Yet even if Year 2000 compliance ceases to be an issue with build 4.2, NWS’

companion modernization systems—GOES-Next, and NEXRAD—will need to

be compliant as well because of the amount of data interchanged among

them. Similarly, it will be essential to determine whether all systems that

provide data to individual weather stations are themselves Year 2000

compliant; otherwise, “corrupted” data emanating from an unrenovated

system could infect the entire operation. According to NWS officials, they

are continuing to evaluate their data exchanges. They also acknowledged

the risks to weather services if their systems are not Year 2000 compliant.

To reduce the risk and the potential impact of Year 2000-induced

information system failures on the Weather Service’s core business

processes, it is critical that NWS have contingency plans in place to help

ensure continuity of operations through the turn of the century.

17Computer systems have long used two digits to represent the year, such as simply “98” for 1998, to

conserve electronic data storage and reduce operating costs. In this format, however, 2000 is

indistinguishable from 1900 because both are represented as “00.” As a result, if not modified, systems

or applications that use dates or perform date- or time-sensitive calculations may generate incorrect

results beyond 1999.

Page 6 GAO/T-AIMD-98-97
Erie/Northwestern

Pennsylvania Radar

Coverage

Finally, at the request of the Chairman of the full Committee and

Congressman English, we reported last September on the effects of NWS

modernization activities on radar coverage in the area of Erie and

northwestern Pennsylvania.18 As part of its streamlining efforts, the

Weather Service has identified various weather offices nationwide for

closure, with responsibilities to be taken over by neighboring offices.

Many concerns were voiced, however, that closing the Erie office would

result in a gap in radar coverage of lake-effect snow—a gap that

neighboring NWS offices (in Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and State

College, Pennsylvania) would be unable to fill.

As we reported at the time, several studies presented evidence that a

degradation in weather service had not occurred in northwestern

Pennsylvania; however, the ability to detect and predict lake-effect snow

remained a concern. For example, the preliminary conclusions of an NWS

lake-effect snow study indicated that weather services provided to Erie

were not as good as services provided to other lake communities whose

overall service had improved as a result of the NWS modernization.

Because of this, the Director of NWS’ Office of Meteorology recommended

that a new radar be installed for the Erie area.

In its response at the time, Commerce officials said they were still in the

process of completing the study of lake-effect snow and reviewing the

need for additional radar at Erie. As of last week, however, no decision on

this matter had been made.

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

respond to any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee

may have at this time.

(511447)

18GAO/AIMD-97-156, Sept. 26, 1997.

Page 7 GAO/T-AIMD-98-97
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100