United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Aviation, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, U.S. Senate 

NEXT GENERATION AIR

TRANSPORTATION 

SYSTEM 

Preliminary Analysis of 

Progress and Challenges 

Associated with the 

Transformation of the 

National Airspace System 

Statement of Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., Director 

Physical Infrastructure Issues 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

 

GAO-06-915T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

July 25, 2006

NEXT GENERATION AIR 

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 

Preliminary Analysis of Progress and 

Challenges Associated with the 

Transformation of the National Airspace 

System 

Highlights of GAO-06-915T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Aviation, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, U.S. Senate 

The health of our nation’s air 

transportation system is critical to 

our citizens and economy. 

However, the current approach to 

managing air transportation is 

becoming increasingly inefficient 

and operationally obsolete. In 2003, 

Congress created the Joint 

Planning and Development Office

(JPDO) to plan for and coordinate, 

with federal and nonfederal

stakeholders, a transformation 

from the current air traffic control 

(ATC) system to the “next 

generation air transportation

system” (NGATS). 

Housed within the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), JPDO has 

seven partner agencies that make

up JPDO’s senior policy committee: 

the Departments of Transportation, 

Commerce, Defense, and 

Homeland Security; FAA; the 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA); and the 

White House Office of Science and

Technology Policy. This testimony,

which provides preliminary results 

from GAO’s ongoing work on 

JPDO, provides information on (1) 

the status of JPDO’s efforts to plan 

for NGATS, (2) the key challenges 

facing JPDO as it moves forward 

with its planning efforts, and (3) 

the key challenges facing FAA as it

implements the transformation 

while continuing its current 

operations. The statement is based 

on GAO’s analysis of JPDO

documents, interviews, and the 

views of a panel of experts, as well

as on past GAO work. 

JPDO has developed a framework for planning and coordination with its 

federal partner agencies and nonfederal stakeholders that is consistent with 

the requirements of its authorizing legislation—Vision 100—and with several

practices that our previous work has shown can facilitate federal

interagency collaboration and the development of an enterprise architecture 

(i.e., system blueprint). JPDO’s framework includes an integrated plan that 

provides a vision for NGATS, an organizational structure and processes for 

leveraging the resources and expertise of federal and nonfederal 

stakeholders, and an enterprise architecture that defines the specific 

requirements for NGATS. 

As JPDO moves forward, it will face leadership, leveraging, and commitment 

challenges. Currently, JPDO lacks a permanent director and a permanent 

chairperson of its senior policy committee to provide the leadership needed 

to overcome barriers to interagency coordination. In addition, despite early 

successes, JPDO may have difficulty continuing to leverage its partner 

agencies’ resources and expertise for NGATS because these agencies have

missions and priorities in addition to NGATS and JPDO does not yet have 

signed, long-term agreements with the partner agencies on their respective 

roles and responsibilities. Finally, JPDO faces the challenge of convincing 

nonfederal stakeholders that the government is fully committed to 

implementing NGATS, given that, in some instances, it has discontinued 

work on new technologies for the national airspace system. 

 

FAA faces challenges in institutionalizing recent improvements in its 

management and acquisition processes, as well as in obtaining the expertise 

and resources necessary to implement NGATS. First, institutionalizing FAA’s 

process improvements is critical to successfully implementing NGATS. 

Second, FAA may lack the expertise needed to manage the NGATS effort. 

GAO has identified two potential approaches for FAA to supplement its 

capabilities that FAA is considering. Third, achieving cost savings is critical 

to funding the implementation of NGATS. 

Air Traffic Management 

Sources: GAO; PhotoDisc

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-915T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Gerald L. 

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

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

We appreciate the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing to discuss 

the status of efforts by the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) 

to plan for and coordinate the transformation of the nation’s current air 

traffic control (ATC) system to the “next generation air transportation 

system” (NGATS)—a system intended to safely accommodate an expected

tripling of air traffic by 2025. Authorized in 2003, JPDO is housed within 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), whose Air Traffic Organization 

(ATO) is responsible for modernizing and operating the nation’s current 

ATC system.1

 According to Vision 100,2 the legislation that authorized 

JPDO, the transformation to NGATS will be completed by 2025 with the 

assistance of seven organizations that make up JPDO’s senior policy 

committee: the Departments of Transportation, Commerce, Defense, and 

Homeland Security; FAA; the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA); and the White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy. As JPDO plans the transformation to NGATS and 

coordinates the related efforts of its partner agencies, FAA will be 

responsible for both implementing the transformation and safely operating

the current ATC system 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 

My statement today focuses on three key questions. (1) What is the status 

of JPDO’s efforts to plan for NGATS? (2) What key challenges does JPDO 

face in moving forward with its planning efforts? (3) What key challenges

does FAA face in transitioning from the current ATC system and in 

implementing NGATS? My statement is based on our analysis of 

documents provided by JPDO and its partner agencies; the perspectives of 

agency officials and stakeholders with whom we have spoken; the results 

of a panel of experts that we convened; and our review of relevant 

literature, including JPDO’s December 2004 integrated plan and March 

2006 progress report. The statement also draws on our prior work on 

FAA’s program for modernizing the national airspace system, which we 

have listed as a high-risk program since 1995.3

 To assess JPDO’s 

 1

Although ATO is immediately responsible for modernizing the ATC system, we will refer to

FAA throughout this statement because it encompasses JPDO and is ultimately responsible

for the modernization effort. 

2

Pub. L. No. 108-176, Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, December 12, 

2003. 

3

ATC modernization has remained on our high-risk list since 1995. See GAO, High Risk 

Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.: January 2005). 

Page 1 GAO-06-915T 
framework for facilitating coordination among its partner agencies, 

obtaining the participation of nonfederal stakeholders, and conducting 

technical planning for NGATS, we compared JPDO’s practices with those 

that we have found to be effective in facilitating federal interagency 

collaboration and enterprise architecture4

 development.5 We also reviewed 

the National Research Council’s 2005 report on JPDO, which provided a 

technical assessment of the research, development, and technology 

components of JPDO’s integrated plan. Later this year, we expect to issue 

a report on our assessment of the status of JPDO’s efforts to plan for the 

development of NGATS. We are performing our work in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

The following summarizes our findings to date: 

• JPDO has developed a framework for planning and coordination with its 

partner agencies and nonfederal stakeholders that is consistent with the 

requirements of Vision 100 and with several practices that our previous 

work has shown can facilitate federal interagency collaboration and 

enterprise architecture development. Vision 100 established JPDO as a 

planning and coordinating body and outlined elements for creating NGATS 

and managing the related work. These elements, which make up JPDO’s 

framework, include an integrated plan that provides a vision for NGATS, 

an organizational structure and processes for leveraging the resources and 

expertise of federal and nonfederal stakeholders, and an enterprise 

architecture that defines the specific requirements for NGATS. 

• JPDO faces leadership, leveraging, and commitment challenges as it 

moves forward with planning for NGATS. Currently, two leadership 

positions critical to JPDO’s success are vacant: JPDO has not had a 

permanent director for over 6 months, and since the Secretary of 

Transportation resigned, the senior policy committee has been without a 

permanent chairperson. In addition, despite early successes in leveraging 

 4

An enterprise architecture is a tool, or blueprint, for understanding and planning complex 

systems. The NGATS enterprise architecture will provide the means for coordinating

among the partner agencies and private sector manufacturers, aligning relevant research

and development activities, and integrating equipment. The enterprise architecture will 

describe the current national airspace system, NGATS, and the sequence of steps needed to 

implement the transformation to NGATS. 

5

GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005) and 

GAO, Federal Aviation Administration: Stronger Architecture Program Needed to Guide 

Systems Modernization Efforts, GAO-05-266 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 2005). 

Page 2 GAO-06-915T 
its partner agencies’ resources and expertise for NGATS initiatives, JPDO 

may have difficulty continuing to do so because its partner agencies have a 

variety of missions and priorities in addition to NGATS, and JPDO does 

not yet have formal, signed agreements with the agencies on their 

respective roles and responsibilities. JPDO also faces the challenge of 

convincing nonfederal stakeholders that the government is fully 

committed to NGATS because, in the past, the government has 

discontinued work on new technologies for the national airspace system, 

including one technology in which a nonfederal stakeholder had already 

invested. 

• FAA faces challenges in institutionalizing recent improvements in its 

management and acquisition processes, as well as in obtaining the 

expertise and resources needed to implement NGATS. First, the successful 

implementation of NGATS will depend on FAA’s incorporating the 

improved processes into its organizational structure and culture. Second,

FAA may not have the expertise needed to manage the NGATS 

implementation effort. Our work has identified, and FAA is considering, 

two approaches for addressing this challenge—contracting with a lead

systems integrator and obtaining technical advice from federally funded

research and development corporations. Third, FAA will need resources to 

implement NGATS, some of which may have to come from savings in 

operating and maintaining the current ATC system. 

In late 2003, recognizing that the current approach to managing air 

transportation is becoming increasingly inefficient and operationally 

obsolete, Congress created JPDO to plan NGATS, a system intended to 

accommodate the threefold increase in air traffic demand expected by

2025. JPDO’s scope is broader than that of traditional ATC modernization 

in that it is “airport curb to airport curb,” encompassing such issues as 

security screening and environmental concerns. Additionally, JPDO’s 

approach will require unprecedented collaboration and consensus among 

many stakeholders—federal and nonfederal—about necessary system 

capabilities, equipment, procedures, and regulations. Each of JPDO’s 

partner agencies will play a role in the transformation to NGATS. For 

example, the Department of Defense has deployed “network centric” 

systems,6

 originally developed for the battlefield, that are being considered

as a conceptual framework to provide all users of the national airspace 

Background 

 6

Network-centric systems aim to exploit technical advances in information technology and 

telecommunications to improve situational awareness and the speed of decision making. 

Page 3 GAO-06-915T 
system—FAA and the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security—

with a common view of that system. 

Vision 100 required the Secretary of Transportation to establish JPDO 

within FAA to manage work related to NGATS. The Director of JPDO 

reports to the FAA Administrator and to the Chief Operating Officer within 

ATO. JPDO began operating in early 2004. 

JPDO has developed a framework for planning and coordination with its 

partner agencies and nonfederal stakeholders that is consistent with the 

requirements of Vision 100 and with several practices that our work has 

shown can facilitate federal interagency collaboration and enterprise 

architecture development. This framework includes an integrated plan, an

organizational structure, and an enterprise architecture. 

Vision 100 calls for the development of an integrated plan for NGATS and 

annual updates on the progress of that plan. JPDO’s partner agencies 

developed an integrated plan and submitted it to Congress on December 

12, 2004. The plan includes a vision statement for meeting the predicted

threefold increase in demand for air transportation by 2025 and eight 

strategies that broadly address the goals and objectives for NGATS. In 

March 2006, JPDO published its first report to Congress on the progress 

made in carrying out the integrated plan. 

The integrated plan is consistent with effective collaboration practices we 

have identified. According to our research on federal interagency 

collaborations, agencies must have a clear and compelling rationale for 

working together to overcome significant differences in their missions, 

cultures, and established ways of doing business. In working together to 

develop JPDO’s integrated plan, the partner agencies agreed on a vision 

statement to transform the air transportation system and on broad 

statements of future system goals, performance characteristics, and 

operational concepts. 

Vision 100 includes requirements for JPDO to coordinate and consult with 

its partner agencies, private sector experts, and the public. Accordingly,

JPDO established an organizational structure to involve federal and 

nonfederal stakeholders throughout the organization. This structure 

includes a federal interagency policy committee, an institute for 

nonfederal stakeholders, and integrated product teams (IPT) that bring 

JPDO Has Made 

Progress in Planning 

for NGATS 

As Required by Vision 100, 

JPDO Developed an 

Integrated Plan and 

Reported on the Progress 

of That Plan 

JPDO Developed an 

Organization for Involving 

Federal and Nonfederal 

Stakeholders 

Page 4 GAO-06-915T 
together federal and nonfederal experts to plan for and coordinate the 

development of technologies that will address JPDO’s eight broad 

strategies. 

• JPDO’s senior policy committee was formed and is headed by the 

Secretary of Transportation, as required in Vision 100. The committee 

includes senior-level officials from JPDO’s partner agencies and has met 

three times since its inception. 

• The NGATS Institute (the Institute) was created by an agreement between 

the National Center for Advanced Technologies7

 and FAA to incorporate 

the expertise and views of stakeholders in private industry, state and local 

governments, and academia. The NGATS Institute Management Council, 

composed of top officials and representatives from the aviation 

community, oversees the policy and recommendations of the Institute and 

provides a means for advancing consensus positions on critical NGATS 

issues. In March 2006, the Institute held its first public meeting to solicit 

information from the public and other interested stakeholders who are not 

involved in the council or the IPTs. These types of meetings are designed 

to address the Vision 100 requirement that JPDO coordinate and consult 

with the public. 

• The IPTs are headed by representatives of JPDO’s partner agencies and 

include more than 190 stakeholders from over 70 organizations, whose 

participation was arranged through the Institute.

Figure 1 shows JPDO’s position within FAA and the JPDO structures that 

bring together federal and nonfederal stakeholders, including the Institute 

and the IPTs. 

 7

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

Industries Association. 

Page 5 GAO-06-915T 
Figure 1: Organization of JPDO 

Senior Policy Committee

FAA Administrator

Executive 

Committee,

Research, 

Engineering and 

Development 

Advisiory 

Committee

NGATS Institute Policy

● Studies

● IPT Expert 

Participation ● Agile ATM 

System 

(NASA)

● Airport 

Infrastructure 

(FAA)

● Aviation 

Security (DHS)

● Environmental 

Protection 

(FAA)

● Global 

Harmonization 

(FAA)

● Shared Situational 

Awareness (DoD)

● Weather (DOC)

● Safety 

Management 

(FAA)

● Enterprise 

Engineering and 

Integration

● Portfolio 

Management

● Enterprise 

Architecture

● Evaluation and 

Analysis

Chief Engineer NGATS Institute

Executive Director

Partnership 

Management

Business 

Management

Interagency IPT 

Leads

Technical Division 

Leads

Master IPT

JPDO Board

NGATS Institute 

Management Council

JPDO Director

Deputy Director

Source: JPDO.

Air Traffic 

Organization

Department of Transportation (chair)

Department of Homeland Security

Department of Defense

Department of Commerce

The White House Office of 

Science and Technology Policy

NASA

Federal Aviation Administration

JPDO’s organizational structure incorporates some of the practices we 

have found effective for federal interagency collaborations. For example, 

our work has shown that mutually reinforcing or joint strategies can help

Page 6 GAO-06-915T 
align partner agencies’ activities, core processes, and resources to 

accomplish a common outcome. Each of the eight IPTs is aligned with one 

of the eight strategies outlined in JPDO’s integrated plan, and each is 

headed by a partner agency that has taken the lead on a specific strategy. 

Our research has also found that collaborating agencies should identify 

the resources needed to initiate or sustain their collaborative effort. To 

leverage human resources, JPDO has staffed the various levels of its 

organization—including JPDO’s board, the IPTs, and technical divisions—

with partner agency employees, many of whom work part time for JPDO. 

Finally, our work has shown that involving stakeholders can, among other 

things, increase their support for a collaborative effort. The Institute 

provides for involving nonfederal stakeholders, including the public, in 

planning NGATS. 

JPDO Has Begun to 

Leverage the Resources of 

Its Partner Agencies for 

NGATS 

Vision 100 requires JPDO to coordinate NGATS-related programs across 

the partner agencies. To address this requirement, JPDO conducted an

initial interagency review of its partner agencies’ research and 

development programs during July 2005 to identify work that could 

support NGATS. Through this process, JPDO identified early opportunities 

that could be pursued during fiscal year 2007 to coordinate and minimize

the duplication of research programs across the partner agencies and 

produce tangible results for NGATS. For example, one identified 

opportunity is to align aviation weather research across FAA, NASA, and 

the Departments of Commerce and Defense; develop a common weather 

capability; and harmonize and incorporate into NGATS those agency 

programs designed to seamlessly integrate weather information and 

aircraft weather mitigation systems. In addition, the Automatic Dependent

Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)8

 and System Wide Information System 

(SWIM)9

 programs at FAA were identified as opportunities for accelerated

funding to produce tangible results for NGATS. JPDO is currently working 

 8

ADS-B is a surveillance technology that transmits an aircraft’s identity, position, velocity,

and intent to other aircraft and to ATC systems on the ground, thereby enabling pilots and 

controllers to have a common picture of airspace and traffic. By providing pilots with a 

display that shows the location of nearby aircraft, the system enables pilots to collaborate

in decision making with controllers, safely allowing reduced aircraft separation and 

thereby increasing capacity within the national airspace system. 

9

SWIM is expected to help in the transition to network-centric operations by providing the 

infrastructure and associated policies and standards to enable information sharing among 

all authorized system users, such as the airlines, civilian government agencies, and the

military. 

Page 7 GAO-06-915T 
with the Office of Management and Budget to develop a systematic means 

of reviewing the partner agencies’ budget requests so that the NGATSrelated funding in each request can easily be identified. Such a process 

would help the Office of Management and Budget consider NGATS as a 

unified federal investment, rather than as disparate line items distributed 

across several agencies’ budget requests. 

JPDO’s effort to leverage its partner agencies’ resources for NGATS 

demonstrates another practice important to sustaining collaborations. Our 

work on collaborations has found that collaborating agencies, by assessing 

their relative strengths and limitations, can identify opportunities for 

leveraging each others’ resources and thus obtain benefits that would not 

be available if they were working separately. JPDO’s first interagency

review of its partner agencies’ research and development programs has 

facilitated the leveraging of technological resources for NGATS. The 

budget process under development with OMB provides a further 

opportunity to leverage resources for NGATS. 

Consistent with Vision 100, 

JPDO Is Developing an 

Enterprise Architecture 

Vision 100 requires JPDO to create a multiagency research and 

development roadmap for the transition to NGATS. To comply with Vision 

100, JPDO has been working on an enterprise architecture and expects to

complete an early version of the architecture by September 2006. Many of 

JPDO’s future activities will depend on the robustness and timeliness of 

this architecture development. The enterprise architecture will describe 

FAA’s operation of the current national airspace system, JPDO’s plans for 

NGATS, and the sequence of steps needed for the transformation to 

NGATS. The enterprise architecture will provide the means for 

coordinating among the partner agencies and private sector 

manufacturers, aligning relevant research and development activities, and

integrating equipment. 

JPDO has taken several important steps to develop the enterprise 

architecture—one of the most critical planning documents in the NGATS 

effort. For example, JPDO has drafted a concept of operations—a 

document that describes the operational transformations needed to 

achieve the overall goals of NGATS. JPDO has used this document to 

identify key research and policy issues for NGATS. For example, the 

concept of operations identifies several issues associated with automating 

the ATC system, including the need for a backup plan in case automation 

fails, the responsibilities and liabilities of different stakeholders during an 

automation failure, and the level of monitoring needed by pilots when 

automation is ensuring safe separation between aircraft. As the concept of 

Page 8 GAO-06-915T 
operations matures, it will be important for air traffic controllers and other 

affected stakeholders to provide their perspectives on this effort so that 

needed adjustments can be made in a timely manner. JPDO officials 

recognize the importance of obtaining stakeholders’ comments on the 

concept of operations and are currently incorporating stakeholders’ 

comments into the concept of operations. JPDO expects to release its 

initial concept of operations by the end of July. 

Another step that JPDO has taken to develop the enterprise architecture is

to form an Evaluation and Analysis Division (EAD), composed of FAA and 

NASA employees and contractors. This division is assembling a suite of

models to help JPDO refine its plans for NGATS and iteratively narrow the 

range of potential solutions. For example, EAD has used modeling to begin 

studying how possible changes in the duties of key personnel, such as air

traffic controllers, could affect the workload and performance of others, 

such as airport ground personnel. According to JPDO officials, the change 

in the roles of pilots and controllers is the most important human factors 

issue involved in creating NGATS. JPDO officials noted that the Agile 

Airspace and Safety IPTs include human factors specialists and that 

JPDO’s chief architect has a background in human factors. However, EAD 

has not yet begun to model the effect of the shift in roles on pilots’ 

performance because, according to an EAD official, a suitable model has

not yet been incorporated into the modeling tool suite. According to EAD, 

addressing this issue is necessary, but will be difficult because data on 

pilot behavior are not readily available for use in creating such models. 

Furthermore, EAD has not yet studied the training implications of various 

NGATS-proposed solutions because further definition of the concept of 

operations for these solutions is needed. As the concept of operations and 

enterprise architecture mature, EAD will be able to study the extent to 

which new air traffic controllers will have to be trained to operate both the 

old and the new equipment. 

To develop and refine the enterprise architecture for NGATS, JPDO is 

following an effective technology development practice that we identified 

and applied to enterprise architecture development. This phased, “build a 

little, test a little” approach is similar to a process we have advocated for 

FAA’s major system acquisition programs. This phased approach will also

allow JPDO to incorporate evolving market forces and technologies in its

architecture and thus better manage change. Consequently, additional 

refinements are expected to be made to the enterprise architecture. 

Page 9 GAO-06-915T 
Vision 100 requires JPDO to identify the anticipated expenditures for 

developing and deploying NGATS. To begin estimating these expenditures 

realistically, JPDO is holding a series of investment analysis workshops 

with stakeholders to obtain their input on potential NGATS costs. The first 

workshop, held in April 2006, was for commercial and business aviation, 

equipment manufacturers, and ATC systems developers. The second 

workshop is planned for August for operators of lower-performance 

aircraft used in both commercial and noncommercial operations. The third 

workshop, planned for early September, will focus on airports and other 

local, state, and regional planning bodies. 

As Required by Vision 100, 

JPDO Has Begun Efforts to 

Estimate the Costs of 

NGATS 

Although these workshops will help JPDO develop a range of potential 

costs for NGATS, a mature enterprise architecture is needed to provide the 

foundation for developing NGATS costs. Several unknown factors will 

drive these costs. According to JPDO, one of these drivers is the 

technologies expected to be included in NGATS. Some of these 

technologies are more complex and thus more expensive to implement 

than others. A second driver is the sequence for replacing current 

technologies with NGATS technologies. A third driver is the length of time 

required for the transformation to NGATS, since a longer period would 

impose higher costs. JPDO’s first draft of its enterprise architecture, 

expected in September 2006, could reduce some of these variables, 

thereby allowing improved, albeit still preliminary, estimates of NGATS’ 

costs. 

Although the enterprise architecture for NGATS is not yet complete, both

FAA and its Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

(REDAC) have developed preliminary cost estimates, which officials of 

both organizations have emphasized are not yet endorsed by any agency. 

FAA estimates that the facilities and equipment cost to maintain the ATC 

system and implement the transformation to NGATS will be about $66 

billion, or about $50 billion in constant 2005 dollars. The annual cost 

would average $2.7 billion per year in constant 2005 dollars from fiscal 

year 2007 through fiscal year 2025, or about $200 million more each year 

than FAA’s fiscal year 2006 facilities and equipment appropriation. 

REDAC’s Financing NGATS Working Group has developed a $15 billion 

average annual cost estimate for NGATS that includes costs not only for 

facilities and equipment but also for operations; airport improvement; and 

research, engineering, and development—the remaining three components 

of FAA’s appropriation. As table 1 indicates, the working group began with 

FAA’s facilities and equipment estimate and went on to calculate the 

remaining costs for FAA to maintain the current ATC system and 

Page 10 GAO-06-915T 
implement the transformation to NGATS. REDAC’s estimate for NGATS’s 

total cost averages about $1 billion more annually than FAA’s total 

appropriations for fiscal year 2006. 

Table 1: FAA’s and REDAC’s Cost Estimates for NGATS

Dollars in billions

FAA REDACa

Total

NGATS

cost

Average 

annual 

cost 

Total

NGATS

cost

Average 

annual 

cost

Facilities and equipment $50.5 $2.7 $50.5 $2.7

Operations b b$162.1 $8.5

Airport improvement b b$67.5 $3.6

Research, engineering, and

development 

b b

$12.4 $0.7

Total b b$292.5 $15.5

Source: GAO analysis of FAA and REDAC information. 

a

This is the working group’s estimate under its “base case” scenario, which assumes that FAA’s

operations cost would increase between 2006 and 2010, but then become constant through 2025 as

productivity increases offset the higher cost of increased demand. The working group also calculated 

a lower-cost “best case” scenario and a higher-cost “worst case” scenario using differing assumptions

of productivity gains. 

b

FAA did not estimate these costs. 

Besides being preliminary, these estimates are incomplete—FAA’s more 

than REDAC’s because FAA’s does not include any costs other than those 

for facilities and equipment. An FAA official acknowledged that the agency 

would likely incur additional costs, such as for safety certifications or 

operational changes responding to new NGATS technologies. Additionally, 

FAA’s facilities and equipment cost estimate assumes that the 

intermediate technology development work, performed to date by NASA, 

has been completed. As I will discuss shortly, it is currently unclear who 

will now perform this work, but if FAA assumes responsibility for the 

work, REDAC has estimated additional FAA funding needs of at least $100 

million a year. Furthermore, neither FAA’s nor REDAC’s estimate includes 

the other partner agencies’ costs to implement NGATS, such as those that

the Department of Homeland Security might incur to develop and 

implement new security technologies. Finally, these estimates treat 

NGATS’s development and implementation period as an isolated event. 

Consequently, the costs drop dramatically toward 2025. In reality, officials 

who developed these estimates acknowledge that planning for the 

subsequent “next generation” system will likely be underway as 2025 

Page 11 GAO-06-915T 
approaches and the actual modernization costs could therefore be higher 

in this time frame than these estimates indicate. 

JPDO faces several challenges in planning for NGATS, including 

addressing leadership vacancies, leveraging resources and expertise from 

its partner agencies, and convincing nonfederal stakeholders that the 

government is fully committed to NGATS. 

JPDO Faces 

Leadership, Resource, 

and Commitment 

Challenges as It 

Moves Forward with 

Planning for NGATS 

Two Key JPDO Leadership 

Positions Are Vacant 

JPDO has not had a permanent director since January 2006 and, with the 

recent resignation of the Secretary of Transportation, the senior policy 

committee is without a permanent chairperson. Our work has shown that, 

to overcome barriers to interagency coordination, committed leadership

by individuals at the top of all involved organizations is critical. Leadership 

will also be important to provide a “champion” for JPDO and to sustain the 

partner agencies’ focus on and contributions to the transformation to 

NGATS. Moreover, without a chairperson of the senior policy committee, 

no one within JPDO is responsible for sustaining JPDO’s collaboration and 

overseeing its work. 

These vacancies raise concerns about the continued progress of JPDO and 

NGATS. After ATO was authorized, we reported that without a chief

operating officer, FAA was unable to move forward with the new air traffic 

organization—that is, to bring together the ATC system’s acquisition and 

operating functions, as intended, into a viable performance-based 

organization (PBO).10 This PBO was designed to be part of the solution to 

the chronic schedule delays, cost overruns, and performance shortfalls in 

FAA’s ATC modernization program. We believe that filling the two vacant 

positions is critical to ensure continued progress for JPDO and NGATS. 

 10GAO, National Airspace System: Current Efforts and Proposed Changes to Improve

Performance of FAA’s Air Traffic Control System; GAO-03-542 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 

2003). 

Page 12 GAO-06-915T 
JPDO officials view leveraging the partner agencies’ resources and 

expertise as one of their most significant challenges. According to JPDO 

officials, leveraging efforts have worked well so far, but JPDO’s need for 

resources and expertise will increase with the development of NGATS, 

and for at least two reasons, JPDO may have difficulty meeting this need.

First, JPDO’s partner agencies have a variety of missions and priorities in 

addition to NGATS, and their priorities may change. Recently, for 

example, NASA reduced its aeronautics budget and decided to focus on 

fundamental11 research, in part because the agency believes such research 

is more in keeping with its mission and unique capabilities. These changes 

occurred even though NASA’s current reauthorization act requires the 

agency to align its aviation research projects to directly support NGATS 

goals. In light of the changes, it is unclear what fundamental research 

NASA will perform to support NGATS and who will perform the 

development steps for that research—that is, the validation and 

demonstration that must take place before a new technology can be 

transferred to industry and incorporated into a product. JPDO and FAA 

officials said that not enough is understood about NASA’s plans to assess 

the impact of NASA’s action on NGATS, but many experts told us that 

NASA’s new focus on fundamental research creates a gap in the 

technology development continuum. Some believe that FAA has neither 

the research and development infrastructure nor the funding to do this 

work. As I previously mentioned, REDAC, in a draft report, estimated that 

FAA would need at least $100 million annually in increased funding to 

perform this research and development work. REDAC further estimated 

that establishing the necessary infrastructure within FAA could delay the 

implementation of NGATS by 5 years.

Leveraging Resources and 

Expertise Poses a 

Challenge over Time 

Second, JPDO may have difficulty leveraging its partner agencies’ 

resources and expertise because it does not yet have formal, long-term 

agreements with the agencies on their roles and responsibilities in creating 

NGATS. According to JPDO officials, they are working to establish 

memorandums of understanding (MOU) signed by the heads of the partner 

agencies that will broadly define the partner agencies’ roles and 

responsibilities at a high level. JPDO is also developing more specific 

MOUs with individual partner agencies that lay out expectations for 

 11NASA uses the term fundamental to refer to research that includes continued long-term,

scientific study in core areas such as physics, chemistry, materials, experimental 

techniques, and computational techniques to enable new capabilities and technologies for 

individual and multiple disciplines.

Page 13 GAO-06-915T 
support on NGATS components, such as information sharing through 

network-centric operations. 

Obtaining the specialized expertise of some stakeholders poses an 

additional challenge for JPDO. Air traffic controllers, for example, will 

play a key role in NGATS, but their union is not participating in JPDO. 

Currently, the ATC system relies primarily on air traffic controllers to 

direct pilots to maintain safe separation between aircraft. Under NGATS, 

this premise could change and, accordingly, JPDO has recognized the need 

for human factors research on issues such as how tasks should be 

allocated between humans and automated systems and how the existing 

allocation of responsibilities between pilots and air traffic controllers 

might change. The input of current air traffic controllers who have recent 

experience controlling aircraft is important in considering human factors 

and safety issues because of the controllers’ familiarity with existing 

operating conditions. 

The air traffic controllers’ labor union, the National Air Traffic Controllers 

Association (NATCA), has not participated in NGATS since June 2005, 

when FAA terminated a labor liaison program that assigned air traffic 

controllers to major system acquisition program offices and to JPDO. FAA 

had determined that the benefits of the program were not great enough to

justify its cost. The NGATS Institute Management Council includes a seat 

for the union, but a NATCA official told us that the union’s head had been 

unable to attend the council’s meetings. According to JPDO officials, the 

council has left a seat open in hopes that the controllers will participate in 

NGATS as the new labor-management agreement between NATCA and 

FAA is implemented. 

Convincing Nonfederal 

Stakeholders That the 

Government Is Fully 

Committed to NGATS 

Presents Another 

Challenge 

Convincing nonfederal stakeholders that the government is fully 

committed to NGATS poses a challenge because, in the past, the 

government has stopped some modernization efforts, including one in 

which an airline had already invested in supporting technologies. 

Specifically, FAA developed a datalink communications system that 

transmitted scripted e-mail-like messages between controllers and pilots. 

One airline equipped some of its aircraft with this new technology, but 

because of funding cuts, among other things, FAA canceled the program. 

Page 14 GAO-06-915T 
Moreover, as we have reported,12 some aviation stakeholders have 

expressed concern that FAA may not follow through with its airspace 

redesign efforts and are hesitant to invest in equipment unless they are 

sure that FAA will remain committed to its efforts. One expert suggested 

that the government might mitigate this issue by making an initial 

investment in a specific technology before requesting that airlines or other 

industry stakeholders purchase equipment. 

Stakeholders’ belief that the government is fully committed to NGATS will

be important as efforts to implement NGATS technologies move forward. 

Achieving many of the benefits of NGATS will require users of the 

system—airlines and general aviation—to purchase NGATS-compatible 

technologies, such as ADS-B. This new air traffic surveillance system, 

which JPDO has identified as one of the early core technologies for 

NGATS, requires aircraft to be equipped with components that will be 

implemented in two phases. FAA anticipates significant cost savings from 

the implementation of the first phase, but the airlines do not expect to 

benefit until the second phase is complete. The technology should then 

allow pilots to fly more precise routes at night and in poor visual 

conditions. Another early core technology for NGATS, SWIM, is also 

intended to produce benefits for users, but again, it is not expected to do

so for many years. Nonfederal stakeholders’ support for these and other 

NGATS technologies will be important, and their support will depend, in 

part, on their assurance of the government’s full commitment. 

FAA faces challenges in implementing NGATS, including institutionalizing

recent improvements in its management and acquisition processes, 

acquiring expertise to implement highly complex systems, and achieving 

cost savings to help fund NGATS technologies. 

FAA Faces 

Institutionalization, 

Expertise, and 

Resource Challenges 

as It Transitions to 

NGATS 

 12GAO, National Airspace System: Transformation will Require Cultural Change, 

Balanced Funding Priorities, and Use of All Available Management Tools, GAO-06-154 

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 14, 2005). 

Page 15 GAO-06-915T 
With the establishment of ATO and the appointment of a Chief Operating 

Officer (COO) for it, FAA put a new management structure in place and 

established more businesslike management and acquisition processes to 

address the cost, schedule, and performance shortfalls that have plagued 

ATC modernization over the years. Under the new structure, FAA is a 

flatter organization, with fewer management layers, and managers are in 

closer contact with the services they deliver. FAA has also taken some 

steps to break down the vertical lines of authority, or organizational 

stovepipes, that we found hindered communication and coordination 

across FAA. For example, the COO holds daily meetings with the 

managers of ATO’s departments and holds the managers collectively 

responsible for the success of ATO through the performance management 

system. 

Institutionalizing Recent 

Improvements in 

Management and 

Acquisition Processes Will 

Be Critical to the 

Successful Implementation 

of NGATS 

FAA has revised its management processes to increase accountability. For 

example, it has established a cost accounting system and made the units 

that deliver services within each department responsible for managing 

their own costs. Thus, each unit manager develops an operating budget 

and is held accountable for holding costs within specific targets. Managers 

track the costs of their unit’s operations, facilities and equipment, and 

overhead and use this information to determine the costs of the services 

their unit provides. Managers are evaluated and rewarded according to 

how well they hold their costs within established targets. Our work has 

shown that it is important, when implementing organizational 

transformations, to use a performance management system to assure 

accountability for change.13

Finally, FAA is revising its acquisition processes, as we recommended,14

and taking steps to improve oversight, operational efficiency, and cost 

control. To ensure executive-level oversight of all key decisions, FAA has 

revised its Acquisition Management System to incorporate key decision 

points in a knowledge-based product development process. Moreover, as 

we have reported, an executive council now reviews major acquisitions 

before they are sent to FAA’s Joint Resources Council.15 To better manage 

cost growth, this executive council also reviews breaches of 5 percent or 

 13GAO-03-542. 

14GAO, Air Traffic Control: FAA’s Acquisition Management Has Improved, but Policies

and Oversight Need Strengthening to Help Ensure Results, GAO-05-23 (Washington, D.C.: 

Nov. 12, 2004). 

15GAO-05-23. 

Page 16 GAO-06-915T 
more in a project’s cost, schedule, or performance. FAA has issued 

guidance on how to develop and use pricing, including guidelines for 

disclosing the levels of uncertainty and imprecision that are inherent in 

cost estimates for major ATC systems. Additionally, FAA has begun to 

base funding decisions for system acquisitions on a system’s expected 

contribution to controlling operating costs. Finally, FAA is creating a 

training framework for its acquisition workforce that mirrors effective 

human capital practices that we have identified, and the agency is taking 

steps to measure the effectiveness of its training. 

Since 2004, FAA has met its acquisitions performance goal—to have 80 

percent of its system acquisitions on schedule and within 10 percent of 

budget. To sustain this record, FAA will need to institutionalize its 

reforms—that is, provide for their duration beyond the current 

administration at FAA and ATO by ensuring that the reforms are fully 

integrated into the agency’s structure and processes at all levels and have

become part of its organizational culture. Our work has shown that 

successfully institutionalizing change in large public and private 

organizations can take 5 to 7 years or more.16

Despite Recent Process 

Improvements, FAA Faces 

Challenges in Obtaining 

the Expertise Needed to 

Implement a System as 

Complex as NGATS 

In the past, a lack of expertise contributed to shortfalls in FAA’s 

management of ATC modernization projects. Although the personnel 

flexibilities that Congress authorized in 1995 allowed FAA to establish 

criteria for outstanding performance and match industry pay scales for 

needed expertise, industry experts have questioned whether FAA will have 

the technical expertise needed to implement NGATS—a task of 

unprecedented complexity, according to JPDO, FAA, and other aviation

experts. In 2004, we found that FAA could not ensure that its own best 

practices were consistently used in managing acquisitions and, as a result, 

its major acquisitions were still at risk of cost overruns, schedule 

slippages, or performance shortfalls.17 These findings are consistent with 

concerns about the expertise of acquisition managers governmentwide. 

According to a 2005 study by the Merit Systems Protection Board,18 at least 

 16GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and

Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003). 

17GAO-05-23. 

18U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Contracting Officer Representatives: Managing the 

Government’s Technical Experts to Achieve Positive Contract Outcomes (Washington,

D.C.: Dec. 2005). 

Page 17 GAO-06-915T 
50 percent of the government personnel who currently manage technical 

contracts reported needing training in areas such as contract law, 

developing requirements, requesting bids, developing bid selection criteria

and price determinations, and monitoring contractor performance. 

Recognizing the complexity of the NGATS implementation effort and the 

possibility that FAA may not have the in-house expertise to manage it 

without assistance, we have identified potential approaches for 

supplementing FAA’s capabilities. One of these approaches is for FAA to 

contract with a lead systems integrator (LSI). Generally, an LSI is a prime 

contractor that would help to ensure that the discrete systems used in 

NGATS will operate together and whose responsibilities may include 

designing system solutions, developing requirements, and selecting major

system and subsystem contractors. The government has used LSIs before 

for programs that require the integration of multiple complex systems. Our 

research indicates that although LSIs have certain advantages, such as the 

knowledge, understanding, skills, and ability to integrate functions across 

various systems, their use also entails certain risks. For example, because 

an LSI may have significantly more responsibility than a prime contractor

usually does, careful oversight is necessary to ensure that the

government’s interests are protected and that conflicts of interest are 

avoided. Consequently, selecting, assigning responsibilities to, and 

managing an LSI could pose significant challenges for JPDO and FAA. 

Another approach that we have identified involves obtaining technical 

advice from federally funded research and development corporations to 

help the agency oversee and manage prime contractors. These nonprofit 

corporations are chartered to provide long-term technical advice to 

government agencies in accordance with various statutory and regulatory 

rules to ensure independence and prevent conflicts of interest. 

FAA officials indicated that they are considering at least these two 

approaches to help address any possible gaps the agency may have in its 

technical expertise. Given the complexity of implementing NGATS, we 

believe that FAA’s consideration of these approaches to filling any gaps in

its technical expertise is appropriate. We believe that either of these 

approaches could reduce the risks associated with implementing NGATS. 

FAA Will Require 

Resources to Implement 

NGATS 

The cost of operating and maintaining the current ATC system while 

implementing NGATS will be another important challenge in transitioning 

to NGATS—a system that, as noted, is broader in scope than the current 

ATC system and will require funding for security technologies and 

Page 18 GAO-06-915T 
environmental activities as well as ATC technologies. Although additional 

funding for the current ATC system and for NGATS may come from 

increased congressional appropriations, some industry analysts expect 

that most of the funds for implementing NGATS will have to come from 

savings in operating and maintaining the current ATC system. 

FAA is currently seeking to reduce costs by introducing infrastructure and 

operational efficiencies and expects to use the savings from these efforts 

to help fund the implementation of NGATS. For example, FAA has begun

to decommission ground-based navigational aids, such as compass 

locators, outer markers, and nondirectional radio beacons, as it begins to 

move toward a satellite-based navigation system. In fiscal year 2005, FAA 

decommissioned 177 navigational aids, claiming savings of $2.9 million. 

According to one expert, FAA could additionally generate revenue from 

these sites by leasing them for warehouses or cell phone towers. FAA also 

expects to reduce costs by streamlining its operations. For example, it is 

consolidating its administrative activities, currently decentralized across 

its nine regions, into three regions, and anticipates an annual savings of up

to $460 million over the next 10 years. Our work analyzing international air 

navigation service providers has shown that additional cost savings may 

be possible by further consolidating ATC facilities such as terminal radar 

approach control (TRACON) facilities and ATC centers. According to one 

estimate of potential FAA savings, consolidating the existing 21 air route

traffic control centers into 6 centers could save approximately $600 

million per year. Finally, FAA expects to save costs through outsourcing. 

For example, it outsourced its automated flight service stations to a 

private contractor and expects to achieve savings of $1.7 billion over 10

years. In addition, it expects savings of $0.5 billion from 400 staffing 

reductions that occurred between the time the outsourcing began and the 

time the new contract was actually implemented. The agency expects to 

receive $66 million—the first installment of these cost savings—in fiscal 

year 2007. 

Until FAA has completed its estimates of both NGATS costs and the cost 

savings it will be able to achieve between now and 2025, it will not be able

to determine how far these cost savings will go toward financing NGATS. 

Nonetheless, one analyst has preliminarily estimated that FAA’s expected

savings through infrastructure and operational efficiencies will fall far 

short of the amount needed to finance NGATS.19 While more information is 

 19Aviation Management Associates, Inc., The “No New Money” Scenario for the Next

Generation Air Transportation System, (Alexandria, VA: Oct. 1, 2005). 

Page 19 GAO-06-915T 
needed to estimate the amount of any shortfall with greater confidence,

these preliminary and incomplete estimates signal the extent of the 

resource challenge.

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

answer any questions that you and Members of the Subcommittee may 

have. 

For further information on this testimony, please contact Gerald 

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

key contributions to this statement include Kevin Egan, Elizabeth 

Eisenstadt, David Hooper, Heather Krause, Elizabeth Marchak, Edmond 

Menoche, Faye Morrison, Taylor Reeves, and Richard Scott.

Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 20 GAO-06-915T (540128) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

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

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

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

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

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

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

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

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

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER