AIR FORCE 

ELECTRONIC 

SYSTEMS CENTER

Reorganization 

Resulted in Workforce 

Reassignments at 

Hanscom Air Force 

Base, but Other 

Possible Effects Are 

Not Yet Known

Report to Congressional Committees

April 2013

GAO-13-366

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-366, a report to 

congressional committees

April 2013

AIR FORCE ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS CENTER

Reorganization Resulted in Workforce 

Reassignments at Hanscom Air Force Base, but 

Other Possible Effects Are Not Yet Known

Why GAO Did This Study

Electronic command and control 

systems, which rely on technologies 

such as radar, satellite, and electronic 

surveillance, play a critical role in 

modern-day defense strategy. ESC at 

Hanscom Air Force Base supported 

the Air Force’s ability to develop and 

acquire these capabilities. It was 

inactivated in July 2012 as part of an 

effort to respond to an initiative by the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense to 

reduce civilian positions to fiscal year 

2010 levels. The reorganization

consolidated ESC into AFLCMC at 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 

which manages weapon systems from 

inception to retirement. Congress 

directed GAO to assess the effect of 

the reorganization on Hanscom’s 

mission. This report examines (1) how 

the reorganization affected reporting 

chains of command, workforce 

composition, and the acquisition 

mission at Hanscom Air Force Base, 

(2) opportunities and concerns 

resulting from the reorganization at 

Hanscom, and (3) what is known about 

the effects of the reorganization and 

what metrics have been developed to 

assess how the new organization is 

meeting customers’ needs. GAO 

evaluated relevant documentation; 

reviewed data on eliminated positions; 

and interviewed Air Force officials, 

selected contractors based on size and 

proximity to Hanscom Air Force Base, 

and Hanscom’s primary customers. 

Results from these interviews cannot 

be generalized but offer stakeholders’ 

perspectives on the reorganization. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making recommendations 

in this report. DOD provided technical 

comments, which GAO incorporated as 

appropriate.

What GAO Found

The reorganization of the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) affected 

reporting chains of command and workforce composition for some offices at 

Hanscom Air Force Base, but did not change how former components of the 

Electronic Systems Center (ESC) at Hanscom carry out their acquisition mission. 

Personnel in functional offices who provide technical services previously reported 

to the locally-based ESC leadership; they now report directly to senior functional 

managers at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, who oversee functional offices 

across all locations of the new Air Force Life Cycle Management Center 

(AFLCMC) established by the reorganization. In addition, the reorganization 

eliminated 131 functional office positions (about 10 percent of Hanscom’s civilian 

positions), which AFMC determined were not directly involved with development, 

delivery, or sustainment of weapon systems. GAO’s analysis of Hanscom’s data 

showed that the eliminated positions included 13 which were unfilled; of 

personnel in the remaining 118 positions, 15 accepted voluntary-separation 

agreements, 102 were reassigned at Hanscom Air Force Base, and 1 was 

removed. The reorganization did not change the mission of directorates that 

deliver electronic capabilities to customers.

Various opportunities and concerns at Hanscom Air Force Base resulted from the 

reorganization. According to officials at Hanscom and Wright-Patterson Air Force 

Bases, customers, and contractors, the opportunities include increased focus on 

life-cycle management of electronic systems, increased collaboration within the 

command, and greater standardization of processes. Hanscom Air Force Base

officials and contractors identified some concerns related to increased workload 

for functional office personnel due to position eliminations, process delays, the 

lack of full understanding of Hanscom’s programs by AFLCMC officials, and 

whether Hanscom Air Force Base will continue as the center of electronic 

systems for the Air Force. However, AFMC and AFLCMC senior officials 

generally did not see these concerns as significant problems. For example, they 

stated that AFLCMC’s senior functional managers do not require in-depth 

technical knowledge of Hanscom’s programs because the functions, such as 

financial management, apply across programs. AFLCMC’s steps to facilitate the 

reorganization include establishing a governance structure and communicating 

with stakeholders. 

The effects of the reorganization on Hanscom’s core mission of delivering 

electronic systems to customers are not yet fully known, but AFLCMC has 

developed metrics to measure how well it is meeting customer needs. Officials 

stated the changes went into effect only recently and multiple factors unrelated to 

the reorganization, such as budget changes, may affect the mission. However, 

AFLCMC developed organizational objectives and associated metrics in areas

such as delivering cost-effective acquisition solutions and providing affordable 

and effective product support. The metrics, while not designed to measure the 

effects of the reorganization, are intended to measure how AFLCMC is meeting 

customers’ needs. The data for the metrics will be collected by individual offices 

and aggregated monthly at the AFLCMC level, according to its senior officials. View GAO-13-366. For more information, 

contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-6912 

or gamblerr@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

Letter 1 

Background 4

Reorganization Affected Reporting Chains and Workforce 

Composition, but Did Not Change Acquisition Mission at 

Hanscom Air Force Base 7

Officials Identified Opportunities and Concerns Resulting from the 

Reorganization at Hanscom Air Force Base 12

Effects of the Reorganization Are Not Yet Known, and AFLCMC 

Has Developed Metrics to Measure How It Is Meeting 

Customers’ Needs 18

Agency Comments 21

Appendix I Organizations Contacted 24

Appendix II AFLCMC’s Objectives and Associated Metrics 26

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 28

Tables

Table 1: AFLCMC’s Objectives and What Related Metrics Are 

Intended to Measure 20

Table 2: Organizations Contacted 24

Table 3: AFLCMC’s Objectives, Metrics, and What They Measure 26

Figures

Figure 1: AFMC Structure Before and After the Reorganization 6

Figure 2: PEOs’ Chains of Command Following the Reorganization 8

Figure 3: Outcomes for Personnel in Eliminated Positions at 

Hanscom Air Force Base 11

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

Abbreviations

AFLCMC Air Force Life Cycle Management Center 

AFMC Air Force Materiel Command

DOD Department of Defense

ESC Electronic Systems Center

PEO Program Executive Officer

VERA/VSIP Voluntary Early Retirement Authority/Voluntary 

Separation Incentive Payments

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.
Page 1 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

April 25, 2013

Congressional Committees

Electronic command and control systems, which rely on technologies 

such as radar, satellite, and electronic surveillance, play a critical role in 

modern-day defense strategy because they enable commanders to make 

informed decisions and quickly pass those decisions to troops in the field. 

The Electronic Systems Center (ESC) at Hanscom Air Force Base, 

Massachusetts,1 supported the Air Force’s ability to develop and acquire 

these critical capabilities in support of the warfighter. ESC was an Air 

Force product center2 located within the Air Force Materiel Command 

(AFMC), and was inactivated in July 2012 as part of the larger effort by 

AFMC to respond to an initiative3 in 2011 by the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense that required Air Force civilian positions to be reduced to fiscal 

year 2010 levels. In response, AFMC reorganized its 12 geographicallybased centers, including ESC, into 5 mission-based centers, thereby 

eliminating 1,0514 of its approximately 24,000 civilian operations and 

maintenance positions.5

 

1

The Electronic Systems Center was headquartered at Hanscom Air Force Base and 

included components at other Air Force locations, such as Maxwell Air Force Base, 

Gunter Annex, Alabama; Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma; Wright-Patterson Air Force 

Base, Ohio; and Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, Texas, in addition to other locations.

As part of the reorganization, ESC was 

consolidated into the newly created Air Force Life Cycle Management 

Center (AFLCMC), headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 

Ohio, which manages weapon systems, including electronic commandand-control systems, from their inception to retirement. The new 

2

Air Force product centers are specialized development organizations that design, 

acquire, and field new air and space capabilities to the customer.

3

See Secretary of Defense, Resource Management Decision 703A2, Jan. 25, 2011.

4

The Air Force has implemented several initiatives to achieve reductions specified in 

Resource Management Decision 703A2, and the service has projected the elimination of 

4,216 civilian positions at AFMC from fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2017 as a result 

of these initiatives.

5

Operations and maintenance appropriations support the training, supply, and equipment 

maintenance of military units as well as the administrative and facilities infrastructure of 

military bases. Along with military personnel costs, which are funded with separate military 

personnel appropriations, operations and maintenance funding is considered one of the 

major components of DOD’s funding for readiness.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

organization reached initial operating capability on October 1, 2012, and 

is expected to reach full operational capability by October 1, 2013.6

The Senate Armed Services Committee’s report7 accompanying the 

Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2013 directed GAO to assess the effect of the reorganization of ESC on a 

number of areas, including the acquisition and fielding of integrated 

capabilities, and the management and integration of administrative 

functions under the new structure.8

To determine how the reorganization changed the reporting chains of 

command, workforce composition, and acquisition mission at Hanscom 

Air Force Base, we reviewed relevant documentation, including Air Force 

policy and guidance pertaining to reorganization, reorganization plans, 

strategic planning documents, process manuals, and organizational 

charts. We requested and obtained data from Hanscom’s personnel 

officials on the 131 positions eliminated at Hanscom Air Force Base due 

to the reorganization, and compared these numbers against 

documentation provided by officials overseeing the reorganization at 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. We also obtained information on the 

data sources for these numbers, data-gathering techniques, and data 

quality-control procedures from Hanscom’s personnel officials. We found 

This report examines (1) how the 

reorganization changed the reporting chains of command, workforce 

composition, and acquisition mission at Hanscom Air Force Base, 

(2) opportunities and concerns at Hanscom Air Force Base resulting from 

the reorganization and steps the Air Force has taken to facilitate the 

reorganization, and (3) what is known about the effects of the 

reorganization and what metrics the Air Force has developed for 

assessing how AFLCMC is meeting the needs of its customers.

 

6

Initial operational capability was reached with the activation of the 5-center structure; full 

operational capability will be reached after a transition period that includes the completion 

of the strategic plan and performance metrics for the new organization.

7

S. Rep. No. 112-173, at 248 (2012).

8

Congress also directed the Secretary of the Air Force to have a federally funded research 

and development center provide an independent review of the proposed reorganization, 

which was completed in May 2012 by the RAND Corporation’s Project Air Force. RAND’s 

review pertained to the reorganization across AFMC and did not focus on a specific center 

or location, such as ESC at Hanscom Air Force Base. See RAND Project Air Force, Air 

Force Materiel Command Reorganization Analysis Final Report, (Santa Monica, CA: 

2012).
 

Page 3 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

these data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. In 

addition, to assess the opportunities and concerns of the reorganization 

at Hanscom Air Force Base, as well as the steps taken to facilitate its 

implementation, we reviewed relevant documentation highlighting 

opportunities and concerns, as well as reviewed documentation of 

initiatives used to implement the reorganization and to communicate 

information about it throughout the command. We used our prior work on 

organizational transformations to assess the Air Force’s involvement of 

relevant stakeholders in the reorganization process and the development 

of mechanisms to communicate reorganization-related information to 

them.9 Also, to analyze the Air Force’s development of metrics to 

measure how well AFLCMC is meeting the needs of its customers, we 

reviewed documentation of its objectives and metrics. We also reviewed 

DOD’s guidance directing the development of results-oriented 

performance metrics to assess the efforts of AFMC and AFLCMC.10

To address all three objectives, we conducted site visits to both WrightPatterson Air Force Base and Hanscom Air Force Base and interviewed 

cognizant officials across AFMC and AFLCMC. We included officials in 

mission implementation directorates who conduct the acquisition of 

electronic systems at Hanscom Air Force Base, such as the two program 

executive officers (PEO) and five system program managers, as well as 

officials who support them in the functional offices, such as acquisition, 

contracting, engineering, financial management, and personnel. We 

selected a nongeneralizable sample of seven contractors, based on their 

size and proximity to Hanscom Air Force Base, to discuss the effects of 

the reorganization on their relationship with Hanscom Air Force Base and 

on their ability to implement the mission in support of the former ESC 

directorates. Additionally, we requested the names of Hanscom’s primary 

customers, and contacted a nongeneralizeable sample of six primary 

customers that receive products from both directorates at Hanscom Air 

Force Base to discuss the effects of the reorganization on cycle-time 

drivers and fielding timelines. Although views expressed by contractors 

 

9

See, for example, GAO, Streamlining Government: Questions to Consider When 

Evaluating Proposals to Consolidate Physical Infrastructure and Management Functions, 

GAO-12-542 (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2012) and GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: 

Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and Organizational Transformation, GAO-03-669 

(Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003).

10See, for example, U. S. Department of Defense, Continuous Process Improvement 

Transformation Guidance (May 11, 2006). 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

and customers we interviewed cannot be generalized to the entire 

population of contractors and customers working with Hanscom Air Force 

Base, they provide perspectives on how these key stakeholders view the 

reorganization. Further, we interviewed other officials with knowledge of 

the reorganization and its effects on Hanscom Air Force Base, including 

the former ESC senior leadership team, officials from the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition), and officials from 

RAND Project Air Force who conducted an assessment of the AFMC 

reorganization as a whole. The full list of organizations that we contacted 

appears in appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to April 2013, 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.

AFMC, headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, was 

created in 1992. It conducts research, development, test and evaluation, 

as well as provides acquisition-management services and logistics 

support necessary to ensure the readiness of Air Force weapon systems. 

AFMC has traditionally fulfilled its mission of equipping the Air Force 

through: the Air Force Research Laboratory; product centers that develop 

and acquire the weapon systems; test centers that offer the testing of the 

systems; and air logistics centers that service, upgrade, and repair the 

systems over their lifetimes. In addition, AFMC’s various specialized 

centers are designed to perform other functions, including foreign military 

sales and delivery of nuclear capabilities.

In light of the budget pressures that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

and, in turn, AFMC faced in recent years, the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense’s Resource Management Decision 703A2 directed that civilian 

staffing levels11 for all services be returned to fiscal year 2010 levels.12

 

11In September 2012, AFMC had a total workforce of more than 81,000 personnel with 

civilians making up more than 75 percent of the total.

In 

12Resource Management Decision 703A2 provided for limited exceptions, such as 

approved growth for certain acquisition positions.

Background 
 

Page 5 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

response, AFMC announced a plan for reorganization in November 2011, 

which was designed to achieve position cuts and produce efficiencies 

throughout the command. As such, the reorganization eliminated 

1,051 civilian positions13

 

13AFMC estimated that these reductions would create savings of approximately $109 

million per year. 

and combined the functions of its 12 centers into 

5 centers with each center assuming responsibility for one of AFMC’s 

5 mission areas: (1) science and technology, (2) life-cycle management, 

(3) test and evaluation, (4) sustainment, and (5) nuclear weapon support. 

The geographic location where the functions of the former 12 centers 

were performed generally did not change as a result of the reorganization 

to the 5 current centers. Figure 1 shows the structure of AFMC before 

and after the reorganization.
 

Page 6 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

Figure 1: AFMC Structure Before and After the Reorganization

Note: The number of positions moving into each center varied and is not included in the figure.

ESC was one of AFMC’s 12 former centers, headquartered at Hanscom 

Air Force Base, Massachusetts. ESC served as the Air Force’s center for 

the development and acquisition of electronic command-and-control 

systems. Under the reorganization, ESC’s functions were consolidated 

with other centers to become AFLCMC, a center at Wright-Patterson Air 
 

Page 7 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

Force Base established in July 2012 with responsibility for total life-cycle 

management of all aircraft, engines, munitions, and electronic systems.14

Hanscom Air Force Base has two directorates that are responsible for the 

life-cycle management of electronic systems: (1) Battle Management and 

(2) Command, Control, Communications, Intelligence and Networks. The 

directorates are led by PEOs who are ultimately responsible for 

acquisition of the systems in their portfolio and their timely delivery to the 

customer. To achieve their mission of acquisition and product support, 

PEOs are supported by system program managers, each of whom has 

responsibility for the development and design of support systems for a 

particular electronic system. PEOs are also supported by functional 

offices, which provide technical services such as acquisition, engineering, 

financial management, and contracting.

Life-cycle management involves the refinement of product requirements 

to address existing needs, technology development, system 

development, production and fielding, and ongoing sustainment of the 

product.

The reorganization affected the reporting chains of command and the 

workforce composition for some offices, but did not change the 

acquisition mission at Hanscom Air Force Base.

 

14In addition to ESC, the other product centers that merged into AFLCMC were the 

Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, and the Air 

Armament Center at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Also under AFLCMC are the program 

offices located at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia; Hill Air Force Base, Utah; and Tinker 

Air Force Base, Oklahoma. Other primary AFLCMC locations include Maxwell Air Force 

Base, Gunter Annex, Alabama; Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico; and Joint Base San 

Antonio-Lackland, Texas.

Reorganization 

Affected Reporting 

Chains and Workforce 

Composition, but Did 

Not Change 

Acquisition Mission at 

Hanscom Air Force 

Base 
 

Page 8 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

The reorganization affected the reporting chains of command and the 

composition of the workforce for some offices at Hanscom Air Force 

Base. Specifically, the reorganization affected the reporting chains of 

command within PEO directorates by inactivating ESC, removing its 

3-star Commander, and integrating the former ESC into AFLCMC, a 

newly established organization led by a 3-star commander at WrightPatterson Air Force Base. Although Hanscom’s two PEOs continue to 

report to the Air Force’s service acquisition executive at the Pentagon in 

performing their mission related to acquisition of weapon systems and 

product support,15

Figure 2: PEOs’ Chains of Command Following the Reorganization

under the reorganization they also support the 

AFLCMC Commander in organizing, training, and equipping the PEO 

directorates (see fig. 2).

Note: Although PEOs support AFLCMC in its mission to organize, train, and equip the PEO 

directorates, the AFLCMC Commander does not rate their performance, as indicated by the dotted 

line. PEOs continue to receive their performance ratings from the service acquisition executive in 

recognition of their primary role of acquisition and product support.

 

15Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of the military department 

concerned, the service acquisition executive for each military department shall carry out 

all powers, functions, and duties of the Secretary concerned with respect to the 

department’s acquisition workforce. 10 U.S.C. § 1704. The Air Force’s service acquisition 

official resides at the Pentagon, and is the head of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of 

the Air Force (Acquisition). In this capacity, the service acquisition official is responsible 

for all Air Force research, development, and space and non-space acquisition activities.

Reorganization Affected 

Reporting Chains of 

Command and Workforce 

Composition at Hanscom 

Air Force Base
 

Page 9 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

The reorganization also affected the reporting chains of command for 

system program managers, who support PEOs. Prior to the 

reorganization, system program managers reported to the PEOs for initial 

system development, system procurement, manufacturing, and testing of 

weapon systems. Once the weapon systems matured, the functions of 

the system program manager transferred to an air logistics center where 

the system program manager reported to the designated acquisition 

officials for product sustainment responsibilities. The reorganization 

eliminated the position of designated acquisition officials and, as a result, 

system program managers report to PEOs at all stages of the product life 

cycle, including product sustainment. This change affected the functions 

of PEOs, who under the reorganization have oversight responsibility not 

just for the acquisition of the weapon systems, as they did under the old 

structure, but also for the sustainment and product support of these 

systems. 

Further, the reorganization affected the reporting chains of command for 

personnel in Hanscom’s functional offices. Specifically, functional office 

personnel at Hanscom Air Force Base—who provide technical services 

such as acquisition, engineering, financial management, and 

contracting—previously were managed by locally-based ESC leadership. 

Under the reorganization, they report directly to senior functional 

managers at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.16

In addition to its effects on the reporting chains of command, the 

reorganization also affected the composition of Hanscom’s workforce by 

As a result of this 

change, senior functional managers oversee the flow of funding and task 

assignments that were formerly managed at individual locations, 

according to Hanscom’s functional office personnel. For example, 

Hanscom officials said that prior to the reorganization, officials at 

Hanscom Air Force Base could determine what positions required a 

top-secret security clearance, whereas since the reorganization senior 

functional managers at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base make these 

determinations.

 

16The exception to this reporting chain is the functional personnel at Hanscom Air Force 

Base who primarily worked for a specific PEO. According to AFMC officials, these 

functional personnel were incorporated into a PEO-led directorate, and now report directly 

to their respective PEO heading that directorate.
 

Page 10 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

eliminating about 10 percent of its civilian authorizations.17

To achieve these cuts and to avoid an involuntary reduction in force, 

Hanscom Air Force Base officials used three rounds of the Voluntary 

Early Retirement Authority/Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments 

(VERA/VSIP) program 

Specifically, 

the reorganization eliminated 131 of Hanscom’s 1,258 civilian 

authorizations that were comprised exclusively of government positions 

and did not include contractor positions, according to a Hanscom 

contracting official. All of these positions were identified by AFMC as 

overhead. AFMC officials said they targeted overhead positions for 

elimination, rather than first eliminating vacant positions or making 

uniform cuts across all centers, in an effort to implement the cuts in a 

strategic manner. After deciding to focus the cuts on positions identified 

as overhead, AFMC officials stated that they consulted with all of their 

product centers to come to an agreement on positions that qualified as 

overhead.

18 and the transfer of eligible personnel to other 

positions within the base.19

 

17This is based on 1,258 civilian authorizations at Hanscom Air Force Base as of May 30, 

2011. Authorizations refer to positions, not people who occupy these positions. These 

data were compiled in December 2012.

The incentives under VERA/VSIP were 

offered either to personnel whose positions were targeted for elimination, 

or to those whose use of VERA/VSIP would open a position to someone 

else whose job was targeted for elimination. Of the 131 eliminated 

positions, 118 were filled and 13 were unfilled at the time of the 

reorganization in 2012. Of the 118 personnel in filled positions, 

15 personnel left through VERA/VSIP, 102 personnel were reassigned to 

other positions for which they qualified at Hanscom Air Force Base that 

18VERA/VSIP are programs that allow agencies to incentivize surplus or displaced 

employees to separate by early retirement, voluntary retirement, or resignation. The 

Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, §1313(b), authorized these 

programs under regulations issued by the Office of Personnel Management. The Office of 

Personnel Management has issued guidance to the agencies stating that these programs 

may be used when the buyout averts an involuntary separation of the person taking the 

buyout or another individual who can fill the position that was vacated by the person taking 

the buyout.

19VERA/VSIP was implemented to preclude involuntary separation not just from 

reorganization-specific cuts, but from cuts driven by other initiatives occurring around the 

same time. One example of such an initiative is the Global Base Support initiative, which 

is intended to eliminate redundant capabilities between Air Force bases and the 

communities in which they exist.
 

Page 11 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

either already were vacant or became vacant as the result of other 

employees agreeing to leave through VERA/VSIP, and 1 person was 

removed while in a probationary period (see fig. 3).

Figure 3: Outcomes for Personnel in Eliminated Positions at Hanscom Air Force 

Base

Note: The data on the total positions eliminated, positions filled, and positions vacant were as of June 

30, 2012. The data on the outcomes for individuals affected by position cuts were as of November 11, 

2012.

a

VERA-VSIP refers to Voluntary Early Retirement Authority/Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments.

b

Of the 60 individuals reassigned to unfilled positions at Hanscom Air Force Base, 52 were 

reassigned to positions in the same occupational series; 7 were reassigned to positions in a different, 

but qualified, occupational series; and 1 was reassigned to a lower-grade position due to medical 

reasons.

The reorganization did not change the mission of Hanscom’s directorates 

that are responsible for the acquisition of electronic systems. Our analysis 

of documentation from Hanscom and Wright-Patterson Air Force Bases 

showed that the PEOs responsible for carrying out Hanscom’s acquisition 

mission have remained at Hanscom Air Force Base and no positions 

were eliminated within Hanscom’s directorates that are directly involved 

with the implementation of its acquisition mission. Moreover, both of the 

PEOs at Hanscom Air Force Base who directly manage the acquisition of 

weapon systems, as well as system program managers who work for 

Reorganization Did Not 

Change Acquisition 

Mission at Hanscom Air 

Force Base
 

Page 12 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

them, told us the reorganization did not change the processes for carrying 

out their mission, or change acquisition and fielding processes and 

timeframes. While the Air Force recently expanded the portfolios of the 

two PEOs at Hanscom Air Force Base, Air Force officials attributed this 

change to an unrelated initiative by the Air Force’s service acquisition 

executive. In addition, none of the six customers we interviewed identified 

any changes in how Hanscom Air Force Base components carry out their 

acquisition functions, including how they interact with and deliver products 

to the customer.

The reorganization resulted in opportunities and some concerns at 

Hanscom Air Force Base, and AFLCMC has taken steps to facilitate its 

implementation.

Officials at Hanscom Air Force Base and Wright-Patterson Air Force 

Base, as well as Hanscom customers and contractors, stated that the 

reorganization resulted in opportunities to help strengthen the delivery of 

products to customers. These opportunities include increased focus on 

life-cycle management of weapon systems by PEOs, an increase in 

collaboration of personnel within the restructured AFLCMC, and greater 

standardization of processes.20

• Increased focus on life-cycle management. According to officials at 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and Hanscom Air Force Base, one of 

the benefits of the reorganization is the focus on life-cycle 

management achieved by giving PEOs responsibilities over all phases 

of the weapon system’s life cycle. By assuming oversight over all 

phases of the life cycle, PEOs can more efficiently manage the 

systems in their portfolio, according to Hanscom’s PEOs and system 

 

20Standardization refers to the consistent implementation or application of processes 

across all AFLCMC locations.

Officials Identified 

Opportunities and 

Concerns Resulting 

from the 

Reorganization at 

Hanscom Air Force 

Base 

Opportunities at Hanscom 

Air Force Base from the 

Reorganization 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

program managers whom we interviewed. For example, one PEO told 

us that overseeing the system through its entire life cycle has allowed 

him to be more aware of sustainment-related costs during a system’s 

development, thus bringing the potential for more long-term value to 

the customer. Further, three of the six customers we interviewed 

stated that an increased focus on life-cycle management could result 

in greater efficiencies and value to the customer in the long term.

• Increased collaboration within the command. Wright-Patterson Air 

Force Base and Hanscom Air Force Base officials cited increased 

opportunities for collaboration as a result of bringing several centers 

and all of AFMC’s PEOs under the command of AFLCMC. For 

example, the Commander of AFLCMC and both of Hanscom’s PEOs 

stated that the reorganization provided PEOs and their staff with 

increased opportunities to exchange key information related to 

products. According to one of the PEOs, the sharing of information is 

especially important when different PEOs are responsible for products 

that complement each other, such as products that comprise a single 

weapon system. Further, senior functional managers at WrightPatterson Air Force Base said the establishment of AFLCMC enables 

functional office personnel from different AFLCMC locations to share 

technical expertise related to weapon systems under their purview, 

and an engineering official at Hanscom Air Force Base said that she 

and her counterparts at other AFLCMC locations have become more 

aware of each others’ needs in carrying out duties such as recruiting 

and hiring personnel.

• Greater standardization of processes. AFMC and AFLCMC 

headquarters officials at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base stated that 

the reorganization allowed them to standardize processes and avoid 

duplication associated with each location-based product center 

maintaining its own set of processes. For example, personnel officials 

at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base cited the benefits of having a 

standard process of approving waivers from certain training 

requirements across AFLCMC. Standardization of processes is one of 

AFLCMC’s six strategic objectives, and the organization has taken 

steps to promote standardization, including establishing a Process 

and Standards Board, which led the effort to identify key processes 

best suited to standardization, such as processes for developing cost 

estimates by financial management personnel, awarding contracts by 

contracting personnel, and conducting analysis of information 

technology systems by engineering personnel. However, a former 

ESC command staff member expressed concerns about the 

appropriateness of standardizing certain processes given the 
 

Page 14 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

specialized needs of each of the former product centers subsumed 

under AFLCMC. For example, he said the engineering expertise 

required to support the development of aeronautical systems at 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base is different than the engineering 

expertise and processes required to support the development of 

electronic systems at Hanscom Air Force Base.

Current and former Hanscom officials and six contractors we interviewed 

also raised some concerns associated with the reorganization. These 

concerns related to: increased workload for functional office personnel at 

Hanscom Air Force Base due to position eliminations there, process 

delays resulting from centralization of various administrative processes 

and actions at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, officials at WrightPatterson Air Force Base not having a full understanding of Hanscom’s 

programs, and possible future diminished importance of Hanscom Air 

Force Base as the center of electronic systems for the Air Force. AFMC 

and AFLCMC officials said they do not share these concerns and do not 

agree that these issues reflect significant problems.

Specifically, current and former personnel and contractors we interviewed 

stated the following concerns.

• Increased workload. Functional office personnel at Hanscom Air 

Force Base said they experienced an increase in their workload due 

to the reorganization. They said they have had to assume 

responsibility for the tasks previously performed by personnel whose 

positions were eliminated. For example, an official providing functional 

support to one of Hanscom’s directorates said her colleague had to 

review immunization records for personnel within the directorate, a 

task previously performed by other functional office personnel within 

ESC. This official said her concern was that such tasks could take 

time away from her office’s primary responsibility of supporting the 

directorate’s acquisition mission. Moreover, functional office personnel 

said due to ESC inactivation and the subsequent elimination of 

positions providing ESC-wide functional support, they no longer have 

the capability to maintain some of the projects previously performed at 

the ESC level. For example, Hanscom’s functional office officials 

stated they discontinued projects, such as a mentoring program for 

financial management personnel and a knowledge-sharing online 

resource for engineering personnel. In response, the AFLCMC 

Commander said Hanscom Air Force Base retained key functional 

Concerns at Hanscom Air 

Force Base from the 

Reorganization 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

expertise on site because it has remained an operating location for 

functional office personnel under the new structure.

• Process delays. In interviews, functional office personnel at 

Hanscom Air Force Base, system program managers, and two 

contractors stated that some processes have become more time 

consuming with senior functional managers at Wright-Patterson Air 

Force Base approving actions previously approved by ESC leadership 

at Hanscom Air Force Base. For example, a financial management 

official at Hanscom Air Force Base said due to the reorganization her 

office experienced delays in the flow of funds from headquarters at 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, which created concerns about 

meeting fielding timelines. Similarly, contracting and personnel 

officials at Hanscom Air Force Base said some processes, such as 

obtaining waivers from certain standard requirements or filling 

positions, take longer since they have to wait for approval by 

AFLCMC headquarters at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. In the 

past, officials said these actions could be expeditiously approved by 

the ESC leadership at Hanscom Air Force Base. A former ESC 

command staff member stated that these process delays could lead to 

program decision delays, which could affect the PEOs’ acquisition 

mission. With regard to centralization of approval authority, AFMC and 

AFLCMC officials said any delays in approval authority have not 

adversely affected the customers. Moreover, they said standardizing 

processes will help reduce duplication and is expected to generate 

greater efficiencies for the customer in the long term.

• Lack of full understanding of Hanscom’s programs. In interviews, 

functional office personnel at Hanscom Air Force Base, members of 

the former ESC leadership team, and two of the seven contractors 

expressed concerns that AFLCMC personnel at Wright-Patterson Air 

Force Base, who provide support to all AFLCMC locations, may not 

have a full understanding of Hanscom’s programs. For example, a

former ESC command staff member and an engineering official at 

Hanscom Air Force Base stated that the type of engineering support 

required for electronic systems is different from the type of support 

required for other systems that fall under AFLCMC. The engineering 

official said information technology requirements for airplanes differ 

from those for electronic systems, and personnel at Wright-Patterson 

Air Force Base may not have a full understanding of the technical 

requirements needed to support Hanscom’s programs. Similarly, a 

financial management official at Hanscom Air Force Base said the 

process of estimating the cost of software applicable to Hanscom’s 

electronic systems is different than the cost-estimating procedures for 
 

Page 16 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

other types of products such as aircraft engines. While ESC’s former 

Commander credited AFLCMC’s leadership with trying to increase the 

capacity of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base personnel to support 

Hanscom’s electronic systems, a former ESC command staff member 

stated it may be more difficult to locate the needed engineering and 

information technology expertise at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 

which may not have as strong of a relationship with academia in the 

Dayton, Ohio, area as Hanscom Air Force Base does in the Boston, 

Massachusetts, region. In addressing the limited understanding of 

Hanscom’s electronic systems programs by Wright-Patterson Air 

Force Base personnel, AFMC and AFLCMC officials stated senior 

functional managers at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base do not 

require specific expertise in electronic systems because the 

processes, such as personnel and financial management, apply 

across systems and programs.

• Possibility of diminished importance of Hanscom Air Force Base 

in the future. Hanscom officials and the majority of the contractors 

we interviewed expressed concerns about the extent of Hanscom’s 

continued importance to the Air Force. They said the inactivation of 

ESC as a stand-alone center and the removal of a 3-star commander 

from the base raised questions among Hanscom personnel and 

contractors whether the base might be susceptible to closure in the 

future.21 Additionally, contractors cited concerns about the loss of an 

on-site leader who can serve as an advocate for Hanscom’s unique 

role in the acquisition of electronic systems and as a link between 

Hanscom and the contracting community that supports these 

programs. Regarding Hanscom’s future, the AFLCMC Commander 

told us that AFLCMC fully recognizes the importance of Hanscom’s 

mission for national defense and plans to retain its core mission 

implementation functions.

AFLCMC has taken steps to facilitate the implementation of the 

reorganization across all affected locations, including Hanscom Air Force 

Base. To help manage the reorganization process, AFLCMC established 

a governance structure that includes the following entities: the 100-Day 

Taskforce, which addresses administrative issues that may arise in the 

 

21Any future closure would be subject to the procedures of 10 U.S.C. § 2687, or to 

consideration as part of the Base Realignment and Closure process were Congress to 

authorize a new round of Base Realignment and Closure as DOD has requested. 

AFLCMC Has Taken Steps 

to Facilitate the 

Implementation of the 

Reorganization 
 

Page 17 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

course of the reorganization; the AFLCMC Council, which meets monthly 

to track performance against the established metrics; and the Standards 

and Process Board, which convenes as needed to identify ways to 

standardize processes across AFLCMC. Further, AFLCMC has taken 

steps to communicate reorganization goals, plans, and progress to 

stakeholders across the command such as periodic newsletters, 

teleconferences, and web-based discussion forums. For example, 

AFLCMC’s senior officials said that they hold weekly teleconferences with 

PEOs at each of AFLCMC’s locations, including Hanscom Air Force 

Base, to better understand the concerns they may be having. AFLCMC 

also publishes a monthly newsletter that offers a forum for keeping 

stakeholders informed of issues affecting the new organization, such as 

the development of new organizational objectives and performance 

metrics. Other communication mechanisms that AFLCMC officials 

mentioned include regular visits by the AFLCMC Commander to 

Hanscom Air Force Base, conferences of personnel across AFLCMC, 

and encouraging AFLCMC personnel to submit ideas for improvements in 

the processes of the new organization. In addition, all 10 senior functional 

managers at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base whom we interviewed22

Hanscom’s functional office personnel whom we interviewed had different 

perceptions regarding the sufficiency of AFLCMC’s efforts. Some 

functional office personnel at Hanscom Air Force Base stated that 

AFLCMC leadership has been effective in reaching out to them and 

hearing their concerns. For example, officials from contracting and

acquisition offices credited the AFLCMC Commander for making regular 

visits to the base to discuss the reorganization with the stakeholders and 

obtain their input. By contrast, other functional office personnel stated 

existing efforts to address their concerns were insufficient. For example, 

two functional office personnel told us they have raised concerns with 

AFLCMC headquarters about the reorganization and its effects at 

Hanscom Air Force Base—such as hiring rules set by Wright-Patterson 

Air Force Base that do not reflect the realities of Hanscom’s more 

competitive labor market in the Boston region—and, in their opinion, the 

stated that they use various mechanisms to regularly communicate with 

the functional office personnel in different geographic locations, such as 

video teleconferences, computer cameras, and secure video chats.

 

22These managers represented the following functional areas: acquisition, personnel, 

engineering, logistics, financial management, and contracting. 
 

Page 18 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

leadership did not address them. AFLCMC senior officials said that the 

various communication mechanisms that they have put in place allow 

them to obtain and address concerns from stakeholders across each 

location affected by the reorganization.

The effects of the reorganization on Hanscom’s core mission of delivering 

electronic systems to customers are not yet fully known, and AFLCMC 

has developed metrics to measure how it is meeting customers’ needs.

The effects of the reorganization on Hanscom’s core mission of delivering 

electronic systems to customers are not yet known, as it is too early to 

assess changes resulting from the reorganization; also multiple factors 

unrelated to the reorganization may affect mission implementation. Given 

that the reorganization went into effect on October 1, 2012, AFLCMC’s 

Vice Commander, system program managers, and various functional 

office personnel at Hanscom Air Force Base stated it is too early to know 

the reorganization’s effects on Hanscom’s ability to meet customer needs. 

One customer told us it could take several years for his office to discern 

the effects, if any, from the reorganization, such as changes in 

Hanscom’s ability to deliver on schedule. Five contractor representatives 

also stated they have not experienced changes in their relationships with 

Hanscom Air Force Base as the result of the reorganization, and four of 

them noted it is too early to know the effect of the reorganization on the 

contractor community.

AFMC and AFLCMC officials also stated that it is difficult to attribute to 

the reorganization any changes in how Hanscom Air Force Base is 

meeting its customers’ needs because of multiple external factors that 

can affect mission, such as budget changes and decisions made at the 

Air Force’s headquarters and at DOD levels. In addition, when these 

factors occur nearly simultaneously, it may be difficult to attribute the 

effects to any particular factor. They said the reorganization at Hanscom 

Air Force Base coincided with a number of other initiatives affecting the 

base, all of which could potentially affect Hanscom’s ability to meet the 

Effects of the 

Reorganization Are 

Not Yet Known, and 

AFLCMC Has 

Developed Metrics to 

Measure How It Is 

Meeting Customers’ 

Needs 

Effects of the 

Reorganization Are Not Yet 

Known 
 

Page 19 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

needs of its customers. For example, the Air Force restructured the 

portfolios of PEOs and placed two rather than three PEOs at Hanscom 

Air Force Base effective July 2012, a decision that two customers told us 

could affect PEOs’ responsiveness to the customer. The change in PEOs’ 

portfolios was during the time that ESC was inactivated as part of the 

reorganization. Another change involved the reduction in the level of 

contractor support at Hanscom Air Force Base, which was driven by 

multiple initiatives, unrelated to AFMC’s reorganization, such as the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense Comptroller’s Resource Management 

Decision 802.

23 For example, two of the seven contractors we interviewed 

reported cuts in their number of contracts with Hanscom Air Force Base, 

but AFMC and AFLCMC officials stated that such cuts were not related to 

the reorganization and were driven by other factors, such as the 

budgetary pressures faced by the Air Force and DOD.

AFLCMC established objectives and associated metrics to assess how it 

is organizing, training, and equipping program offices to fulfill their core 

mission of delivering electronic systems to the customer. These metrics 

are designed to measure how AFLCMC is meeting customer needs, 

rather than the effects of the reorganization itself. However, officials said 

that by assessing acquisition processes and outcomes, the metrics will 

provide information on how well the reorganization is working. AFLCMC 

relied on the expertise of its acquisition and product support leaders in 

developing the metrics. Specifically, AFLCMC assigned each of its six 

objectives to a team of senior officials, giving each team the responsibility 

for developing the metrics for an assigned objective and for tracking the 

metrics to assess attainment of the objective.24 Senior AFLCMC leaders 

said that the teams will report on their progress during monthly meetings 

of the AFLCMC Council, discussing initiatives in support of their assigned 

objective and the need for any adjustments to the metrics.25

 

23Secretary of Defense, Resource Management Decision 802, April 8, 2009, decreased 

funding for contract support to reduce government reliance on contractors performing 

functions that could be performed by government personnel. 

As of 

24Five of the six teams are led by a PEO (including one of Hanscom’s two PEOs) and a 

senior functional official, and one team is led by the Commander of the 66th Air Base 

Group at Hanscom Air Force Base and the Commander of the 88th Air Base Wing at 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

25The AFLCMC Council, chaired by the AFLCMC Commander, is made up of the 

organization’s senior leaders and oversees progress toward the six objectives. It will meet 

on a monthly basis, according to AFLCMC officials.

AFLCMC Developed 

Metrics to Measure How 

AFLCMC is Meeting 

Customers’ Needs
 

Page 20 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

February 2013, the metrics had been approved by AFMC. Table 1 shows 

the objectives and what the related metrics are intended to measure. A 

detailed list of AFLCMC’s metrics is provided in appendix II.

Table 1: AFLCMC’s Objectives and What Related Metrics Are Intended to Measure

Objectives What the related metrics are intended to measure

Deliver cost-effective acquisition 

solutions

Metrics designed to measure whether AFLCMC is meeting customer needs with regard to 

cost, schedule, and performance of acquisition programs.

Deliver affordable and effective product 

support

Metrics designed to measure whether delivered weapon systems are available for the use of 

the warfighter today and whether a comprehensive product support strategy is in place to 

ensure long-term availability.

Launch high-confidence, sustainable 

programs

Metrics designed to measure AFLCMC’s ability to plan for and begin new programs with 

confidence that they will meet cost, schedule, performance, and product support criteria 

agreed upon with the customer.

Standardize and continuously improve 

center processes

Metrics designed to measure the level of process standardization across AFLCMC.

Develop and place right person at right 

time

Metrics designed to measure AFLCMC’s ability to organize, train, and equip the directorates 

to implement AFLCMC’s acquisition and product support mission.

Assure a safe, secure, and quality work 

environment

Metrics designed to measure how well the work environment is supporting the 

implementation of the acquisition mission, such as the integrity of computer infrastructure 

and the safety of the work environment.

Source: GAO analysis of information from AFLCMC.

According to AFLCMC officials, these metrics generally are based on the 

data that have long been collected at the program or directorate levels; 

they will be aggregated for all programs within AFLCMC to show how well 

the new organization is meeting its objectives. AFLCMC senior officials 

said such aggregated measures will allow them to examine trends across 

the organization, as well as identify specific areas within the organization 

where improvement may be needed in organizing, training, or equipping 

AFLCMC components to better meet customer needs. For example, 

although program offices have always looked at schedule achievement, 

the new schedule achievement metric will aggregate this information 

across all program offices, identify which area of the organization may be 

lagging behind, and serve as an indicator of whether AFLCMC is fulfilling 

its responsibilities of assisting program offices with setting realistic 

acquisition schedules.

Hanscom’s stakeholders generally agreed that metrics focused on 

acquisition outcomes—rather than on the reorganization—are adequate 

measures of how well Hanscom Air Force Base is fulfilling its mission of 

meeting the needs of its customers. For example, Hanscom’s system 

program managers, as well as five of its customers, said the key metric of 
 

Page 21 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

the reorganization’s success is the continuous ability of Hanscom Air 

Force Base to deliver capabilities to the customer on time, on cost, and 

within existing regulations and specifications—all of which the new 

metrics are designed to capture.26

AFLCMC senior officials said AFLCMC began data collection for the new 

metrics in February 2013, with measures to be continuously tracked by 

individual offices and aggregated monthly at the AFLCMC level. AFLCMC 

intends to rely on existing data systems to minimize the data collection 

burden, and they have undertaken a number of initiatives, such as 

enhancing existing information technology tools, to allow data to be 

aggregated at the AFLCMC level.

We requested comments on the draft of this report from DOD. The 

department provided technical comments, which we incorporated as 

appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 

committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of 

Staff; the Secretary of the Air Force; the Commander, Air Force Materiel 

Command; and the Commander, Air Force Life Cycle Management 

Center. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

 

26A functional official at Hanscom Air Force Base cautioned, however, that these metrics 

cannot be the sole measure of the reorganization’s effects because, given their focus on 

the acquisition processes, they may not be able to capture some of the other effects of the 

reorganization, such as the effect on functional office personnel who are not directly 

involved in the delivery of products to the customer.

Agency Comments 
 

Page 22 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-6912 or by e-mail at gamblerr@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 key 

contributions to this report are listed in appendix III. 

Rebecca Gambler

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management
 

Page 23 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

List of Committees

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

The Honorable James Inhofe

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Dick Durbin

Chairman

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable C.W. “Bill” Young

Chairman

The Honorable Pete Visclosky

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Organizations Contacted

Page 24 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

To conduct our review of the reorganization of the Air Force’s Electronic

Systems Center (ESC) at Hanscom Air Force Base, we visited or 

contacted the organizations shown in table 2.

Table 2: Organizations Contacted

Organization Location

Air Force

• Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 

(Acquisition)

• Former senior leaders of ESC (Commander, Vice 

Commander, and Executive Director)

Arlington, VA

Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC)

• AFMC senior leadership

• AFMC functional areas

• Engineering

• Logistics and Sustainment

Wright-Patterson Air Force 

Base, OH

Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC)

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base

• AFLCMC senior leadership

• AFLCMC functional areas

• Acquisition

• Contracting

• Engineering

• Financial Management

• Personnel

• Plans and Programs

Wright-Patterson Air Force 

Base, OH

Appendix I: Organizations Contacted
Appendix I: Organizations Contacted

Page 25 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

Organization Location

Hanscom Air Force Base

• Battle Management Directorate

• Program Executive Officer (PEO), System 

Program Managers, and functional office personnel 

supporting the directorate

• Command, Control, Communications, Intelligence and 

Networks Directorate

• PEO, System Program Managers, and functional 

office personnel supporting the directorate

• Functional Areas

• Acquisition

• Contracting

• Electronic Systems Development Division

• Engineering

• Financial Management

• Logistics

• Personnel

• 66th Air Base Group

Hanscom Air Force Base, MA

Contractors

• Boeing

• Jacobs Technology

• Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln 

Laboratories

• Oasis Systems

• Quantech Services Inc.

• Raytheon

• The MITRE Corporation

Lexington, MA

Lincoln, MA

Lexington, MA

Lexington, MA

Lexington, MA

Burlington, MA

Bedford, MA

Customers

• Air Combat Command

• Air Education and Training Command

• Air Mobility Command

• Directorate of Security Forces, Air Force Logistics, 

Installations and Mission Support (A7S)

• Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance 

Capabilities Directorate, Air Force Intelligence 

Surveillance and Reconnaissance (A2C)

• Space and Missile Systems Center, Air Force Space 

Command

Langley Air Force Base, VA

Randolph Air Force Base, TX

Scott Air Force Base, IL

Arlington, VA

Arlington, VA

Los Angeles Air Force Base, 

CA 

Others

• The RAND Corporation, Project Air Force

• University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute

Arlington, VA

Hadley, MA

Source: GAO.
Appendix II: AFLCMC’s Objectives and 

Associated Metrics

Page 26 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

In examining the extent to which the Air Force Life Cycle Management 

Center (AFLCMC) developed metrics to measure how well it is meeting 

the needs of the customer, we obtained the objectives and the associated 

metrics developed by AFLCMC. Table 3 presents a summary of 

AFLCMC’s six objectives and the associated metrics to measure 

performance against each of these objectives.

Table 3: AFLCMC’s Objectives, Metrics, and What They Measure

Metric What it measures

Objective 1: Deliver cost-effective acquisition solutions

Cost variance indexed to initial acquisition program 

baseline

Compares the program manager’s current cost estimates with the initial cost 

estimates.

Cost variance indexed to current acquisition 

program baseline

Compares the program manager’s current cost estimates with the most recently 

approved documented cost estimates.

Schedule achievement Percentage of programs that are more than 3 months behind in meeting their 

upcoming acquisition milestone. 

Deliveries Percentage of programs meeting their planned delivery schedules. 

Objective 2: Deliver affordable and effective product support 

System availability Percentage of the total assets within a given weapon system that are available 

for use.

Logistics Health Assessment completion rate Percentage of large programs that completed this web-based tool for assessing 

the status of and plans for 12 product support elements, such as supply and 

support equipment.

Objective 3: Launch high-confidence sustainable programs 

Program Sufficiency Review completion rate The number of Program Sufficiency Reviews completed versus the total 

number planned. This measure is designed to examine factors that are 

common indicators of program success, such as technical and manufacturing 

readiness. 

Development Planning Return on Investment Return on investment, which is computed by dividing the cost avoided by the 

cost of conducting development planninga

Objective 4: Standardize and continuously improve the center’s processes

for the program.

Processes completed versus planned Progress over time toward standardizing AFLCMC processes, as compared to 

AFLCMC plan for process standardization.

Objective 5: Develop and place right person at 

right time

Length of time that key execution positions remain 

vacant

The time to fill positions that program executive officers identify as “key 

execution positions” compared to the time to fill other positions. 

Execution of civilian employment plan The ratio of full-time-equivalent hours used to the full-time-equivalent hours 

planned to accomplish the mission. 

Appendix II: AFLCMC’s Objectives and 

Associated Metrics
Appendix II: AFLCMC’s Objectives and 

Associated Metrics

Page 27 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

Metric What it measures

Objective 6: Assure a safe, secure, and quality work environment 

Number of vulnerabilities per computer Average number of vulnerabilities identified per computer to assess information 

assurance and network availability.

Mishap rate and proactive risk assessment via 

surveys

Rate of workplace accidents across AFLCMC and the prevalence of proactive 

accident reduction strategies. 

Source: GAO analysis of information from AFLCMC.

a

DOD defines development planning to include engineering analysis and technical planning activities 

that provide the foundation for informed investment decisions to effectively and affordably meet 

operational needs.
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 28 GAO-13-366 Electronic Systems Center

Rebecca Gambler, (202) 512-6912 or gamblerr@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, GAO staff who made key 

contributions to this report include Mark A. Pross, Assistant Director; 

Natalya Barden; Jennifer Cheung; Rajiv D’Cruz; Greg Marchand; Travis 

Masters; Richard Powelson; Amie Steele; Sabrina Streagle; and 

Elizabeth Wood.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(351751)
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, 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. 

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

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

Please Print on Recycled Paper.