COAST GUARD

Clarifying the 

Application of 

Guidance for Common 

Operational Picture 

Development Would 

Strengthen Program

Report to Congressional Requesters

April 2013

GAO-13-321

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-321, a report to 

congressional requesters 

April 2013 

COAST GUARD 

Clarifying the Application of Guidance for Common 

Operational Picture Development Would Strengthen 

Program 

Why GAO Did This Study

To facilitate its mission effectiveness 

and share maritime situational 

awareness, the Coast Guard 

developed its COP—a map-based 

information system shared among its 

commands. The COP displays vessels, 

information about those vessels, and 

the environment surrounding them on 

interactive digital maps. COP 

information is shared via computer 

networks throughout the Coast Guard 

to assist with operational decisions. 

GAO was requested to evaluate the 

Coast Guard’s development of COPrelated systems. GAO assessed the 

extent to which the Coast Guard (1)

has made progress in making 

information included in the COP 

available to users and any challenges 

it has encountered in implementing

COP-related systems, and (2) followed

its approved information technology 

development guidance when 

developing new technology. 

GAO conducted site visits to six Coast 

Guard sector commands and five 

district command centers, based on 

geography to engage a broad range of 

COP users, analyzed Coast Guard 

policies and documents, and 

interviewed Coast Guard headquarters 

officials managing the COP’s 

development and implementation. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Coast 

Guard clarify the application of the 

SDLC for the development of future 

technology projects. DHS concurred 

with our recommendation.

What GAO Found

The U.S. Coast Guard, a component of the Department of Homeland Security, 

has made progress in developing its Common Operational Picture (COP) by 

increasing the information in the COP and increasing user access to this 

information, but the Coast Guard has also faced challenges in developing COPrelated systems. The Coast Guard has made progress by adding internal and 

external data sources that allow for better maritime domain awareness—the 

effective understanding of anything associated with the global maritime domain 

that could affect the United States. In addition, the COP has made information 

from these sources available to more COP users and decision makers 

throughout the Coast Guard. However, the Coast Guard has also experienced 

challenges in meeting the COP’s goals and implementing systems to display and 

share COP information. For example, it experienced challenges when it deployed 

its Enterprise Geographic Information System (EGIS), a tool that did not meet 

user needs. The challenges Coast Guard personnel experienced with EGIS 

included system slowness and displays of inaccurate information. Our prior work 

found similar challenges with other Coast Guard COP-related systems not 

meeting intended objectives. For example, in February 2012, GAO reported that 

the intended information-sharing capabilities of the Coast Guard’s WatchKeeper

software, a major part of the $74 million Interagency Operations Center project,

did not meet port partners’ needs, in part, because the agency failed to 

determine these needs. 

The Coast Guard has not followed its own information technology development 

guidance when developing new technology. A recent example occurred in 2012

when the agency did not follow its System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) 

guidance during its initial development of Coast Guard One View (CG1V), its new 

planned COP viewer. The SDLC requires documents to be completed during 

specific phases of product development. The Coast Guard, however, did not 

follow this process during the early development of CG1V. Specifically, we found 

in February 2013, 9 months after CG1V had entered into the SDLC that the 

Coast Guard either had not created certain required documents or had created 

them outside of the sequence prescribed by the SDLC. For example, the SDLCrequired tailoring plan is to provide a clear and concise listing of SDLC process 

requirements throughout the entire system lifecycle, and facilitates the 

documentation of calculated deviations from standard SDLC activities, products, 

roles, and responsibilities from the outset of the project. Though the SDLC clearly 

states that the tailoring plan is a key first step in the SDLC, for CG1V it was not 

written until after documents required in the second phase were completed. 

Coast Guard officials stated that this late completion of the tailoring plan occurred 

because the Coast Guard’s Chief Information Officer had allowed the project to 

start in the second phase of the SDLC because they believed it was a proven 

concept. Without key phase one documents, the Coast Guard may have 

dedicated resources without knowing project costs. In October 2012, Coast 

Guard officials acknowledged the importance of following the SDLC process and 

stated their intent to complete the SDLC-required documents. Clarifying the 

application of the SDLC to new technology development would better position the 

Coast Guard to maximize the usefulness of the COP.

View GAO-13-321. For more information, 

contact Stephen L.Caldwell at (202) 512-9610 

or caldwells@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-13-321 Maritime Security 

Letter 1 

Background 6

The Coast Guard Has Made Some Progress in Increasing the 

Availability of COP Information to Users, but Has Experienced 

Challenges in Implementing COP-Related Systems 17

The Coast Guard Has Not Adhered to its Information Technology 

Development Guidance for Most Recent COP Technology 23

Conclusions 28

Recommendation for Executive Action 29

Agency Comments 29

Appendix I User Identified Systems and Applications Used to Access 

Common Operational Picture Information 31

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 32

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 33

Figures

Figure 1: Coast Guard’s Vision of the Common Operational Picture 7

Figure 2: Vessel and Aircraft Tracks Displayed on the Common 

Operational Picture 9

Figure 3: Coast Guard Vision of Coast Guard One View 12

Figure 4: Illustration of the Seven System Development Life Cycle 

Phases 13

Figure 5: Examples of Data Sources Added to the Common 

Operational Picture since 2003 19

Figure 6: Coast Guard System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) 

Documentation for Coast Guard One View as of February 

2013 27

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-321 Maritime Security 

Abbreviations

AIS Automatic Identification System

C2PC Command and Control Personal Computer

C4ISR Command, Control, Communications, Computers,

 Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance

CG1V Coast Guard One View

COP Common Operational Picture

DHS Department of Homeland Security

EGIS Enterprise Geographic Information System

GCCS Global Command and Control System

GIS Geographic Information System

IT Information Technology

MDA maritime domain awareness

MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement

SDLC System Development Life Cycle

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-13-321 Coast Guard 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

April 25, 2013

The Honorable Bill Shuster

Chairman 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable Duncan Hunter

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable Don Young

House of Representatives

In 2011, the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) interdicted over 100 tons of 

narcotics, intercepted over 2,400 alien migrants, detained over 190 

suspected smugglers, boarded over 100 foreign vessels to suppress 

illegal fishing, and rescued over 3,800 persons. According to the Coast 

Guard, these accomplishments required the agency to have maritime 

domain awareness (MDA)—the effective understanding of anything in the 

maritime environment that could impact the security, safety, economy or 

environment of the United States. In a 2009 testimony before the 

Subcommittee on Coast Guard & Maritime Transportation of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of 

Representatives, Coast Guard Admiral Brian Salerno stated that 

awareness is essential to everything the Coast Guard does. In his words, 

“We cannot hold polluters accountable unless we can match them to their 

spills; we cannot keep vessels from colliding if we don’t know where they 

are; we can’t rescue survivors unless we find them; and we cannot 

intercept those who would do us harm if they are able to blend in with the 

millions of recreational boaters who lawfully enjoy our ports and coastal 

waters.”1

 

1

Hearing before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard & Maritime Transportation, Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, 111th Congress (2009) 

(statement of Rear Admiral Brian M. Salerno, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, 

Security and Stewardship, U.S. Coast Guard).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

To enhance its situational awareness, the Coast Guard operates within a 

complex information sharing network with its maritime partners. As the 

lead agency in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for 

maintaining and improving MDA efforts, the Coast Guard works with its 

maritime partners to facilitate the sharing and dissemination of a wide 

array of information and intelligence to secure the nation’s maritime 

transportation system against potential threats. The level of information 

sharing is largely dependent on the information source and classification 

level. For example, the Coast Guard works directly with the Navy as a 

major part of its defense readiness mission. However, since the Navy’s 

command and control system operates at the classified level, the Coast 

Guard must have the means to share information at the classified level as 

well. Similarly, because many of its mission-related interagency activities 

are with other federal, state, and local government agencies, and the 

private sector, the Coast Guard must also be able to communicate and 

share information at the unclassified level. As a result, the Coast Guard 

operates in both the classified and unclassified environment.

To facilitate this information sharing for mission effectiveness and 

situational awareness with all of its partners, in 1998 the Coast Guard 

began developing its Common Operational Picture (COP)—a map-based 

information system that can be shared among Coast Guard commands—

that displays vessels, information about those vessels and the 

environment surrounding them. According to the Coast Guard, the COP 

became operational in 2003 and has continued to evolve as more 

information has been added to it. More fully, the COP is “common” 

because the same information is shared across computer networks and is

available for display in all Coast Guard command centers and on many 

mobile assets. It is “operational” because the information displayed is 

relevant to Coast Guard operations and is used to facilitate command and 

control and decision making. 2 The COP is a “picture” because the 

information is presented on an interactive digital map. The COP can be a 

standalone presentation or part of mission-oriented Geographic 

Information System (GIS) displays that are linked to information sources.3

 

2

Command and control is the exercise of authority and direction by a commander over 

assigned and attached forces to accomplish a mission.

3

Specifically, a GIS is an integrated collection of computer software and data used to view 

and manage information about geographic places, analyze spatial relationships, and 

model spatial processes, in order to share information related to the people, vessels, and 

facilities in a mapped display. 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

While the Department of Defense-managed classified COP provides 

important information for Coast Guard maritime operations, over the last 

10 years, the Coast Guard has been building its unclassified COP for its 

personnel, other federal agencies, and non-federal partners. Our focus in 

this report is on the unclassified COP.

You expressed an interest in the impact on mission effectiveness of the 

Coast Guard’s efforts to integrate various data collection technologies into 

systems displaying the COP. You also expressed interest in the overall 

management of the Coast Guard’s COP technology implementation. This 

report addresses the following:

• To what extent has the Coast Guard made progress in making 

information included in the COP available to users and what 

challenges, if any, has the agency encountered in implementing COPrelated systems?

• To what extent is the Coast Guard following its approved information 

technology development guidance when developing new COP 

technology?

To address the first objective, we analyzed pertinent provisions of the 

Coast Guard’s Common Operational Picture Concept of Operations and 

the unsigned Operational Requirements Document for the COP. 4 We 

also reviewed a Coast Guard-wide message regarding the Coast Guard 

Enterprise Geographic Information System (EGIS), and memos and emails written from 2008 through 2013 by Coast Guard information 

technology (IT) systems development leadership about the COP, EGIS, 

and Coast Guard One View (CG1V), the Coast Guard’s ongoing GIS 

viewer development effort.5

 

4

Although the Operational Requirements Document is unsigned we reviewed the 

document to better understand the Coast Guard’s early vision for the COP.

Additionally, because the COP is dependent 

upon underlying systems being developed and deployed by the Coast 

5

EGIS is a Coast Guard geographic information system used to view and manage 

information about geographic places, analyze spatial relationships, and model spatial 

processes. Much of the unclassified information contained in the COP is available through 

EGIS. EGIS can display this information on multiple viewers. CG1V is a viewer under 

development that can be used to display information contained within the COP. It can 

also be used to receive, correlate, and analyze a variety of information from multiple 

sources to provide situational awareness. Specifically, these viewers interface with the 

COP and other systems to visually display data, on a map, to decision makers.
 

Page 4 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

Guard, we analyzed pertinent sections of prior GAO reports6 on the 

Deepwater acquisition program7 to determine the original information 

sharing expectations for the Deepwater Command, Control, 

Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance (C4ISR) system and the system’s actual capabilities.8

Similarly, we reviewed our previously published report9 on Interagency 

Operations Centers (IOC)10 to determine the planned information sharing 

capabilities for the WatchKeeper software toolset, the capabilities of the 

system as deployed, and the extent to which maritime security 

stakeholders outside the Coast Guard were using the system.11

We obtained information on user experiences with the Coast Guard COP 

and GIS systems by interviewing Coast Guard personnel at 6 of the 35 

 

6

GAO, Coast Guard: Action Needed as Approved Deepwater Program Remains 

Unachievable, GAO-11-743 (Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2011).

GAO, Observations on the Coast Guard’s and the Department of Homeland Security’s 

Fleet Studies, GAO-12-751R (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2012).

7

The Coast Guard’s Deepwater acquisition program (known as Deepwater) was an 

integrated effort to replace or modernize the agency’s aging vessels and aircraft assets 

that are used for missions beyond 50 miles from shore.

8

C4ISR is the systems, procedures, and techniques used to collect and disseminate 

information. This includes intelligence collection and dissemination networks, command 

and control networks, and systems that provide the common operational/tactical picture. 

C4ISR also includes information assurance products and services, as well as 

communications standards that support the secure exchange of information by C4ISR 

systems (digital, voice, and video data to appropriate levels of command).

9

GAO, Maritime Security: Coast Guard Needs to Improve Use and Management of 

Interagency Operations Centers, GAO-12-202 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 13, 2012).

10IOCs are facilities and systems designed to help port agencies collaborate in the 

conduct of operations; collaborate and jointly plan operations; share targeting, intelligence 

and scheduling information; develop real-time awareness, evaluate threats, and deploy 

resources; and minimize the economic impact from any disruption.

11WatchKeeper software was designed to gather data from sensors and port partner 

sources to provide situational awareness to certain Coast Guard field personnel and to 

Coast Guard partners in state and local law enforcement and port operations, among 

others. WatchKeeper was also designed to provide Coast Guard personnel and port 

partners with access to the same unclassified GIS data; thereby improving collaboration 

between them.
 

Page 5 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

Coast Guard Sector12 command centers13 (Boston, Massachusetts; 

Hampton Roads, Virginia; Key West and Miami, Florida; Puget Sound, 

Washington; and San Francisco, California), five of the nine Coast Guard 

district command centers (Boston, Massachusetts; Portsmouth, Virginia; 

Miami, Florida; Alameda, California; and Seattle, Washington), and the 

two Coast Guard area command centers (Portsmouth, Virginia and 

Alameda, California). We also met with system users at Coast Guard air 

stations in Elizabeth City, North Carolina; Miami, Florida; and 

Sacramento, California; on board various Coast Guard Cutters including 

Bear, Bernard C. Webber, Midgett, and Waesche; and at Maritime 

Intelligence Fusion Centers Atlantic and Pacific.14

 

12Coast Guard sectors run all Coast Guard missions at the local and port level, such as 

search and rescue, port security, environmental protection, and law enforcement in ports 

and surrounding waters, and oversee a number of smaller Coast Guard units, including 

small cutters, small boat stations, and Aids to Navigation teams.

We also interviewed 

Coast Guard headquarters personnel representing the offices responsible 

for developing requirements for the COP and GIS, and for developing the 

IT systems expected to fulfill those requirements. Each location was 

selected to provide access to a broad range of COP users from different 

shore-based units, vessels, and aircraft within a concentrated geographic 

area. While information we obtained at these locations may not be 

generalized across all Coast Guard units, because we selected these 

locations based on the diversity of their geographic locations and the 

various uses of the COP by personnel in these locations, the units we 

visited provided us with an overview and users’ perspectives on the 

general progress and challenges of implementing the COP. To determine 

the nature and prevalence of user identified challenges with COP-related 

systems, we reviewed EGIS system test results and trouble tickets sent 

by system users seeking assistance in troubleshooting EGIS problems, or 

in determining the capabilities and usability of EGIS.

13Command Centers perform three primary functions: command and control, situational 

awareness, and information management for their area of responsibility. They coordinate 

activities between operational commanders and assets performing the missions. The 

specific differences among command centers depend on the primary missions performed 

by their command.

14The Coast Guard’s two Maritime Intelligence Fusion Centers serve as the central hub for 

fusion, analysis, and dissemination of maritime intelligence and information at the 

operational and tactical level. They provide tactical intelligence support to the District and 

Sector Intelligence Staffs, and to Command Intelligence Officers in their area.
 

Page 6 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

To address the second objective we reviewed pertinent sections of the 

Coast Guard’s System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) Practice Manual 

to assess the Coast Guard approach for developing IT systems against 

its own requirements.15

We conducted this performance audit from April 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 the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

We then compared the SDLC manual to industry 

standard guidance for IT development to ensure it met industry 

standards. To determine the extent to which the SDLC requirements were 

met, we reviewed a Coast Guard-wide message regarding EGIS, and 

memos written from 2009 through 2012 from Coast Guard IT systems 

development leadership related to the COP, EGIS, and CG1V. We also 

met with representatives from the Coast Guard CIO’s staff and current 

and former representatives of the Office of C4 & Sensors Capabilities 

under the Assistant Commandant for Capability to discuss the process 

used, and the extent to which it followed Coast Guard guidance in the 

development of COP systems.

In general, the Coast Guard’s COP can be described as an information 

display that provides the position and additional information on vessel and 

aircraft contacts (called tracks) to the Coast Guard and other decision 

makers. The Coast Guard’s concept for the COP includes a complex 

interplay of data, assets, technology, and multiple organizations at 

multiple security levels helping to populate and share information within 

the COP. As shown in figure 1, entities outside of the Coast Guard are 

also integral parts of the COP.

 

15According to the Coast Guard’s SDLC manual, the SDLC is a comprehensive lifecycle 

management framework that applies to all C4&IT systems. A C4&IT system is any 

combination of related people, methods or processes, hardware, software, data, and 

telecommunications components utilized to accomplish mission or business needs.

Background
 

Page 7 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

Figure 1: Coast Guard’s Vision of the Common Operational Picture

According to the Coast Guard, the COP comprises four elements: (1) 

track data feeds, (2) information data sources, (3) command and control 

systems, and (4) COP management procedures.

• Track data feeds. The primary information included in the Coast 

Guard’s COP is vessel and aircraft position information—or tracks—

and descriptive information about the vessels, their cargo, and crew. 

Track information may be obtained from a variety of sources 

depending on the type of track. For example, the COP includes 

Elements of the Coast 

Guard’s COP 
 

Page 8 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

automatic identification system (AIS) tracks,16 as well as fishing 

vessel tracks from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s17 Vessel Monitoring System.18 The COP also 

includes track information or position reports of Coast Guard and port

partner vessels. The Coast Guard receives aircraft location 

information from Customs and Border Protection’s Air and Marine 

Operations Center.19

 

16The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 mandates that most large commercial 

vessels operate an AIS while in U.S. waters. 46 U.S.C. § 70114. On board vessels, AIS 

equipment transmits information such as the name of the vessel, its position, speed, 

course, and destination to receivers within range of its broadcast, allowing these vessels 

to be tracked when they are operating in coastal areas, on inland waterways, and in ports. 

Receivers may be installed on other vessels, land stations, or other locations. Coast 

Guard personnel monitor screens transmitting information on the tracked vessels.

In addition to vessel-related information, the 

COP also includes information and data that can be geographically 

referenced, such as the boundary lines of Coast Guard units’ areas of 

responsibility or U.S. territorial waters, and weather information, 

among other things. See figure 2 for an example of vessel tracks on a 

COP display.

17The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is an agency within the 

Department of Commerce whose missions include management of U.S. marine fisheries. 

18The Coast Guard defines the Vessel Monitoring System as a tracking system to monitor 

commercial fishing boats to ensure they are operating only in authorized areas during 

specified fishing seasons.

19The Air and Marine Operations Center is Customs and Boarder Protection’s Office of Air 

and Marine’s 24-hour operations center. It provides domain awareness through multiple 

data feeds and detects, sorts, and monitors suspect air and marine traffic.
 

Page 9 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

Figure 2: Vessel and Aircraft Tracks Displayed on the Common Operational Picture

• Information data sources. The information data sources provide 

supplementary information on the vessel tracks to help COP users 

and operational commanders determine why a track might be 

important. The COP includes data from multiple information sources 

that originate from the Coast Guard as well as from other government 

agencies and civilian sources. Internal sources include intelligence 

inputs and Coast Guard databases such as the Marine Information for 

Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE)20 and the Ship Arrival 

Notification System,21

 

20MISLE collects, stores, and disseminates data on vessels, cargo facilities, waterways, 

and parties (both individuals and organizations), as well as Coast Guard activities 

involving all of these entities. MISLE activities include law enforcement boardings, vessel 

sightings, marine inspections, marine safety investigations, response actions, search and 

rescue operations, operational controls, and enforcement actions.

among others. External information sources 

21The Ship Arrival Notification System is a Coast Guard database populated with Notice of 

Arrival information required to be provided by vessels 96 hours prior to entering U.S. 

territorial waters. Coast Guard command centers can access this database to gather 

vessel, crew, cargo, and company information concerning ships entering their area of 

responsibility. 
 

Page 10 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

include the Department of Defense, Joint Interagency Task Force 

South, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.22

All of these information sources are fused with, or overlaid on, the 

track information to provide more complete information to COP users 

about the nature of the identified tracks.

• Command and control systems. These are the systems used to 

collect, fuse, disseminate, and store information for the COP. Since 

the COP became operational in 2003, the Coast Guard has provided 

COP users with various systems that have allowed them to view, 

manipulate and enhance their use of the COP. Among these systems 

have been the Global Command and Control System (GCCS), 

Command and Control Personal Computer (C2PC), and Hawkeye. 

See appendix I for additional information on the various systems and 

applications that COP users identified as providing access to COP 

information.

In addition to the technology needed to view the COP, the Coast 

Guard has also developed technology to further enhance the 

information within the COP and its use to improve mission 

effectiveness. This has occurred in part through its former Deepwater 

Program C4ISR system improvements. This technology acquisition 

was intended to create an interoperable network of sensors, computer 

systems, and hardware to improve MDA. Specifically, C4ISR was 

designed to allow the Coast Guard’s new vessels and aircraft, 

acquired under the Deepwater program, to both add information to the 

COP using their own sensors as well as view information contained 

within the COP, thereby allowing these assets to become both 

producers and consumers of COP information. In July 2011, we 

reported that the Coast Guard was developing C4ISR infrastructure 

that it expected to collect, correlate, and present information into a 

single COP to facilitate mission execution.23

 

22Joint Interagency Task Force South is a joint military service and civilian agency task 

force whose mission is to detect and interdict illegal trafficking.

Similarly, as we reported 

in February 2012, the WatchKeeper software that was developed as 

part of the DHS Interagency Operations Center program was intended 

to increase the information available to the COP by having port 

partners add information from their data bases while increasing the 

port partners’ access to Coast Guard information. Coast Guard 

23GAO-11-743. 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

Sectors were expected to give their port partners access to the 

software, which was to act as a two way conduit for information 

sharing. At that time we reported that the Coast Guard had been 

installing the software in all 35 of its Sector locations.24

• COP management procedures. These procedures address the 

development and the use of the COP. This would include, for 

example, the Concept of Operations document, which identifies the 

basic components, use, and exchange of information that are included 

in the COP. It would also include the requirements document, which 

identifies the essential capabilities and associated requirements 

needed to make the COP function. It also includes other documents 

such as standard operating procedures on how the Coast Guard uses 

the COP, agreements with others using the Coast Guard COP on how 

information is to be shared or exchanged, and the rules for how data 

are correlated and also how vessels are flagged as threats or 

friends.25

The Coast Guard relies on GIS, which is an integrated collection of 

computer software and data used to view and manage information about 

geographic places, analyze spatial relationships, and model spatial 

processes, in order to share information related to the people, vessels, 

and facilities in a mapped display. GIS allows Coast Guard personnel the 

ability to easily see the different aspects of ongoing events on a map, 

and, if necessary, deploy Coast Guard assets to address the issue. As a 

result, Coast Guard-wide GIS is an important capability for enabling 

Coast Guard personnel to view and analyze COP information. The Coast 

Guard’s first agency-wide GIS vehicle was to add a GIS viewer to the 

existing MISLE database. This later evolved into what the Coast Guard 

refers to as Enterprise GIS, or EGIS. These GIS-based applications with 

their incorporated viewers are not limited to viewing the COP, but can 

 

24GAO-12-202. 

25Coast Guard vessels are expected to report their locations to the COP. Positions of 

other U.S. military and civilian governmental agency vessels are received through 

information feeds from their home services and agencies and are included in the COP. 

These vessels are identified in blue on COP displays. Information feeds from Coast Guard 

Intelligence, and other intelligence sources supply location information on vessels 

considered as threats. These vessels are identified in red. The locations of neutral 

vessels, typically maritime traffic, are gathered through systems such as the AIS, and 

these vessels are identified in white.

Advances in Coast Guard 

COP Technology
 

Page 12 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

also be used to receive, correlate, and analyze a variety of information 

from multiple sources to provide situational awareness. For example, 

CG1V is being developed to allow Coast Guard personnel to have a 

single viewer to interface with COP information and other Coast Guard 

GIS databases, as seen in figure 3.

Figure 3: Coast Guard Vision of Coast Guard One View
 

Page 13 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

In 2004, the Coast Guard implemented the SDLC process for non-major 

IT acquisitions—those with less than $300 million dollars in life cycle 

costs26—to help ensure IT projects are managed effectively and meet 

user needs. The Coast Guard’s SDLC process is documented in the U.S. 

Coast Guard SDLC Practice Manual. According to the Practice Manual, 

the SDLC process provides consistent framework for IT project 

management and risk evaluation to help ensure systems are developed 

and maintained on time and within budget, and that they deliver the 

capabilities necessary to meet user requirements. In addition, the SDLC 

process provides guidance describing the actions necessary, including 

event sequences, to ensure compliance with Coast Guard-wide polices, 

the Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-130, Management 

of Federal Information Resources,27 and DHS Acquisition Directive 102-

01 (AD 102-01).28 The SDLC has seven major phases, beginning with the 

Conceptual Planning phase and ending with the Disposition phase, as 

seen in figure 4.

Figure 4: Illustration of the Seven System Development Life Cycle Phases

 

26For major IT acquisitions, those with a life cycle cost of $300 million and above, Coast 

Guard developed the Major Systems Acquisition Manual to establish policies and 

procedures, and provide guidance for the implementation of an acquisition management 

and review process as defined by DHS Acquisition Directive 102-01. 

27Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-130.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a130_a130trans4

28Department of Homeland Security, DHS Directives System, Acquisition Management 

Directive, Directive Number 102-01 Revision Number 01 (Washington, DC: Jan. 26, 

2010).

Information Technology 

Acquisition Process
 

Page 14 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

Figure 4 summarizes the activities that must be completed within each 

phase. According to the SDLC manual, to proceed from one SDLC phase 

to the subsequent phase, activities and products from each phase must 

be completed, reviewed, and approved by the designated authority. Each 

project is managed by an Integrated Project Team that includes 

representatives from the CIO’s office and representatives of the Coast 

Guard headquarters directorate responsible for the mission. The project 

team works with customers, users, and stakeholders to deliver successful 

and supportable IT systems. The CIO is responsible for designating 

projects into the SDLC and the Asset Manager within the CIO’s office is 

tasked with guiding, overseeing, and monitoring the execution of SDLC 

for the assigned system to ensure alignment and compliance with the 

SDLC process. Another role under the SDLC is the sponsor, who defines 

and validates functional requirements and accepts capability needed to 

support Coast Guard mission or business performance.

We have previously reported on challenges the Coast Guard has 

experienced in meeting goals of COP-related systems, such as C4ISR 

and WatchKeeper. Some of the shortcomings with these technology 

systems have included the inability to share information as intended.

In July 2011, we reported that the Coast Guard had not met its goal of 

building a single C4ISR system—intended to enable the sharing of COP 

and other data among its offshore vessels and aircraft.29

 

29

Specifically, we 

noted that the Coast Guard repeatedly changed its strategy for achieving 

the goal of its $2.5 billion C4ISR project, which was to build a single fully 

interoperable command, control, intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance system across the Coast Guard’s Deepwater vessels and 

aircraft. We found that not all aircraft and vessels were operating the 

same C4ISR system, or even at the same classification level and hence 

could not directly exchange data with each other. For example, sharing 

information gathered by an aircraft operating with a classified system was 

difficult during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill incident. In addition, we 

reported that the Coast Guard may shift away from a full data-sharing 

capability, and instead, use a system where shore-based command 

centers could be a conduit between assets while also entering data from 

assets into the COP. This could increase the time it takes for COP 

GAO-11-743. 

Our Prior Work on COPRelated Systems

The C4ISR Project
 

Page 15 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

information gathered by a vessel operating with a classified system to be 

shared with an aircraft operating with an unclassified system. Because 

aircraft and vessels are important contributors to and users of COP 

information, a limited capability to quickly and fully share COP data may 

affect their mission effectiveness. We concluded that given these 

uncertainties, the Coast Guard did not have a clear vision of the C4ISR 

required to meet its missions.

We also reported in July 2011 that the Coast Guard was managing the 

C4ISR program without key acquisition documents. At that time, the 

Coast Guard lacked the following key documents: an acquisition program 

baseline that reflected the planned program, a credible life-cycle cost 

estimate, and an operational requirements document for the entire C4ISR 

acquisition project. According to Coast Guard information technology 

officials, the abundance of software baselines could increase the overall 

instability of the C4ISR system and complexity of the data sharing 

between assets. We recommended, and the Coast Guard concurred, that 

it should determine whether the system-of-systems concept for C4ISR is 

still the planned vision for the program, and if not, ensure that the new 

vision is comprehensively detailed in the project documentation.30

One mechanism expected to increase access to COP information was the 

DHS Interagency Operations Center program, which was delegated to the 

Coast Guard for development. This program began providing COP 

information to Coast Guard agency partners in 2010. Using WatchKeeper 

software, IOCs were originally designed to gather data from sensors and 

port partner sources to provide situational awareness to Coast Guard 

sector personnel and to Coast Guard partners in state and local law 

enforcement and port operations, among others. WatchKeeper was 

designed to provide Coast Guard personnel and port partners with access 

to the same unclassified GIS data, thereby improving collaboration 

between them. Making this information available to port partners has also 

In 

response to our recommendation, the Coast Guard reported in 2012 that 

it was still supporting the system-of-systems approach and was 

developing needed documentation. The agency also reported that it 

planned to install a communication system on air and vessel assets to 

provide for interoperability and direct communication.

 

30A system-of-systems is a set or arrangement of assets that results when independent 

assets are integrated into a larger system that delivers unique capabilities.

Coast Guard Development of 

WatchKeeper 
 

Page 16 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

allowed the Coast Guard to leverage the capabilities of its partners in 

responding to cases. For example, in responding to a distress call, if both 

the Coast Guard unit and its local port partners know the location of all 

possible response vessels, they can allocate resources and develop 

search patterns that make the best use of each responding vessel.

In February 2012, we reported that the Coast Guard had increased 

access to its WatchKeeper software by allowing access to the system for 

Coast Guard port partners; however, the Coast Guard had limited 

success in improving information sharing between the Coast Guard and 

local port partners.31 We found that the Coast Guard did not follow 

established guidance during the development of WatchKeeper—a major 

component of the $74 million Interagency Operations Center acquisition 

project—by, in part, failing to determine the needs of its users, define 

acquisition requirements, or determine cost and schedule information. 

Prior to the initial deployment of WatchKeeper, the Coast Guard made 

only limited efforts to determine port partner needs for the system. We 

found that Coast Guard officials had some high level discussions, 

primarily with other DHS partners. Port partner involvement in the 

development of WatchKeeper requirements was primarily limited to 

Customs and Border Protection because WatchKeeper grew out of a 

system designed for screening commercial vessel arrivals—a Customs 

and Border Protection mission. However, according to the Interagency 

Operations Process Report: Mapping Process to Requirements for 

Interagency Operations Centers, the Coast Guard identified many port 

partners as critical to IOCs, including other federal agencies (e.g., the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation) and state and local agencies.32

We also determined that because few port partners’ needs were met with 

WatchKeeper, use of the system by port partners was limited. 

Specifically, of the 233 port partners who had access to WatchKeeper for 

any part of September 2011 (the most recent month for which data were 

available at the time of our report), about 18 percent had ever logged onto 

the system and about 3 percent had logged on more than five times. 

Additionally, we reported that without implementing a documented 

process to obtain and incorporate port partner feedback into the 

development of future WatchKeeper requirements, the Coast Guard was 

 

31GAO-12-202. 

32This document is not available to the public.
 

Page 17 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

at risk of deploying a system that lacked needed capabilities, and that 

would continue to limit the ability of port partners to share information and 

coordinate in the maritime environment. We concluded, in part, that the 

weak management of the $74 million IOC acquisition project increased 

the program’s exposure to risk. In particular, fundamental requirementsdevelopment and management practices had not been employed; costs 

were unclear; and the project’s schedule, which was to guide program 

execution and promote accountability, had not been reliably derived. 

Moreover, we reported that with stronger program management, the 

Coast Guard could reduce the risk that it would have a system that did 

not meet Coast Guard and port-partner user needs and expectations. As 

a result, we recommended, and the Coast Guard concurred, that it should 

collect data to determine the extent to which (1) sectors are providing port 

partners with WatchKeeper access and (2) port partners are using 

WatchKeeper; then develop, document, and implement a process to 

obtain and incorporate port-partner input into the development of future 

WatchKeeper requirements, and define, document, and prioritize 

WatchKeeper requirements. As of April 2013, we have not received any 

reports of progress on these recommendations from the Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard has made some progress in increasing the amount and 

type of information included in the COP, and has increased the number of 

users with access to that information. However, it has faced challenges in 

implementing some COP-related systems.

The Coast Guard Has 

Made Some Progress 

in Increasing the 

Availability of COP 

Information to Users, 

but Has Experienced 

Challenges in 

Implementing COPRelated Systems
 

Page 18 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

Since the COP became operational in 2003, the Coast Guard has made 

progress in adding useful data sources and in increasing the number of 

users with access to the COP. In general, the COP has added multiple 

sources and types of vessel-tracking information that enhance COP 

users’ knowledge of the maritime domain. While vessel tracking 

information had been available previously to Coast Guard field units 

located in ports with a Vessel Tracking Service, adding it to the COP 

provided a broader base of situational awareness for Coast Guard 

operational commanders.33

According to Coast Guard personnel, after AIS data were added to the 

COP in 2003, any Coast Guard unit could access such information to 

improve strategic and tactical decision making. In 2006, the ability to track 

the location of Coast Guard assets, including small boats and cutters, 

was also added to the COP. This capability—also known as blue force 

tracking—allows COP users to locate Coast Guard vessels in real time 

and establish which vessels are in the best position to respond to mission 

needs. Similarly, blue force tracking allows the Coast Guard to 

differentiate its own vessels from commercial or unfriendly vessels. Figure 

5 shows examples of data sources added to the COP since 2003.

For example, before AIS vessel-tracking 

information was added to the COP, only Coast Guard units specifically 

responsible for vessel-tracking, were able to easily track large commercial 

vessels’ positions, speeds, courses, and destinations.

34

 

33Vessel Tracking Services provide active monitoring and navigational advice for vessels 

in confined and busy waterways to help facilitate maritime safety.

34According to Coast Guard officials, since the foundation of the COP is based on GCCS, 

the COP Web Services System is used to translate data sources such as AIS, Vessel 

Monitoring System, and Long Range Identification and Tracking—a system for tracking 

vessels at sea—into a format the GCCS can read in order to populate the COP.

The Coast Guard Has 

Made Progress in Adding 

Information to the COP 

and Making That 

Information Available to 

More Users
 

Page 19 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

Figure 5: Examples of Data Sources Added to the Common Operational Picture since 2003

Another enhancement to the information available in the COP was 

provided through the updating of certain equipment on Coast Guard 

assets to enable them to collect and transmit data. Specifically, the Coast 

Guard made some data collection and sharing improvements, including 

the installation of commercial satellite communications equipment and 

AIS receivers, onboard its older cutters. This added capability made the 

COP information more robust by allowing Coast Guard vessels at sea to 

receive, through AIS receivers, position reports from large commercial 

vessels and then transmit this information to land units where it would be 

entered into the COP. This equipment upgrade on older Coast Guard 

cutters added information into the COP that is generally not available 

through other means.

According to Coast Guard officials, in addition to adding information to the 

COP, the Coast Guard has also made the information contained in the 

COP available on more computers and on more systems, which, in turn, 

has increased the number of users with access to the COP both within 

and outside the agency. One of the key steps toward increasing the 

number of users with COP access occurred in 2004 with the 

implementation of C2PC, which made both the classified and unclassified 

COP available to additional Coast Guard personnel. According to Coast 

Guard officials, the advent of C2PC allowed access to the COP from any 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

Coast Guard computer connected to the Coast Guard data network. Prior 

to C2PC, Coast Guard personnel had access to the COP through Coast 

Guard GCCS workstations.

The Coast Guard has experienced multiple challenges in meeting its 

goals for multiple COP-related systems. Some of these challenges were 

identified by users and some were identified by Coast Guard IT 

management. The challenges related to such things as poor usability, 

degradation of computer performance, and the inability to share 

information as intended, and they have affected the Coast Guard’s 

deployment of recent technology acquisitions.

Coast Guard personnel we interviewed who use EGIS stated they 

experienced numerous challenges with EGIS—an important component 

with its associated viewer for accessing COP information—after it was 

implemented in 2009. Our site visits to area, district, and sector command 

centers in six Coast Guard field locations, and discussions with 

headquarters personnel identified numerous examples of user concerns 

about EGIS. Specifically, the Coast Guard EGIS users we interviewed 

stated that EGIS was slow, did not always display accurate and timely 

information, or degraded the performance of their computer 

workstations—making EGIS’s performance generally unsatisfactory for 

them. For example, personnel from one district we visited reported losing 

critical time when attempting to determine a boater’s position on a map 

display because of EGIS’s slow performance. Similarly, personnel at 

three of the five districts we visited described how EGIS sometimes 

displayed inaccurate or delayed vessel location information, including, for 

example, displaying a vessel track indicating a 25-foot Coast Guard boat 

was located off the coast of Greenland—a location where no such vessel 

had ever been. Personnel we met with in two districts did not use EGIS at 

all to display COP information because doing so caused other 

applications to crash. The problems that we witnessed firsthand or that 

were described to us by Coast Guard personnel were validated by data 

from the Coast Guard’s EGIS-related help desk tickets which summarize 

problems with EGIS, among other things, for Coast Guard IT staff.35

 

35Help desk tickets are created when Coast Guard personnel contact the Command, 

Control, and Communications Engineering Center representatives for technical assistance 

with any Coast Guard information system. As a result of the call, a ticket is prepared by a 

representative that includes the issue problem, user name, user location, and issue 

disposition. 

For 

The Coast Guard has 

Encountered Challenges in 

Meeting its Goals for 

Multiple COP-Related 

Systems

Coast Guard User Identified 

Challenges 
 

Page 21 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

example, our examination of the fiscal year 2011 help desk tickets 

indicated that users reported several types of problems with EGIS 

including problems related to performance, loss of capabilities, and data 

error notification, among other issues. In one District, limitations users 

encountered with EGIS caused that District to request permission from 

Coast Guard headquarters to use an alternative system because EGIS’s 

poor performance affected the ability of district personnel to monitor blue 

force tracking. However, personnel responsible for managing EGIS 

development at Coast Guard headquarters told us that EGIS was never 

intended to be able to display blue force tracking—which is likely why 

users were experiencing difficulty using it for this purpose. They also 

recognized that the lack of user training on EGIS’s capabilities likely 

contributed to this misunderstanding about its capabilities.

Coast Guard IT officials told us they experienced challenges largely 

related to insufficient computational power on some Coast Guard work 

stations, a lack of training for users and system installers, and inadequate 

testing of EGIS software before installation. According to Coast Guard IT 

officials, Coast Guard computers are replaced on a regular schedule, but 

not all at once and EGIS’s viewer places a high demand on the graphics 

capabilities of computers. They added that this demand was beyond the 

capability of the older Coast Guard computers used in some locations. 

Moreover, Coast Guard IT management made EGIS available to all 

potential users without performing the tests needed to determine if 

capability challenges would ensue. When EGIS was installed on these 

older computers performance suffered. In regard to training, Coast Guard 

officials told us that they had developed on-line internal training for EGIS 

and classroom training was also available from the software supplier. 

Coast Guard IT officials said, however, that they did not inform users that 

this training was available. This left the users with learning how to use 

EGIS on the job. Similarly, the installers of EGIS software were not 

trained properly and many cases of incomplete installation were later 

discovered. These incomplete installations significantly degraded the 

capabilities of EGIS. Finally, the Coast Guard did not test the demands of 

EGIS on Coast Guard systems in real world conditions, according to 

Coast Guard officials. Only later, after users commented on their 

problems using EGIS, did the Coast Guard perform the tests that 

demonstrated the limitations of the Coast Guard network in handling 

EGIS. According to Coast Guard officials, some of these challenges may 

have been avoided if they had followed the SDLC process for IT 

development. Specifically, they said that if they had completed three 

required planning documents—an implementation plan, a training plan, 

and a Test and Evaluation Master Plan, and conducted the associated 

Coast Guard Management 

Identified Challenges 
 

Page 22 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

activities outlined by these types of planning documents—the agency 

could have avoided these management challenges that it experienced 

after EGIS’s deployment.36

Poor communication by, and among, Coast Guard IT officials led to 

additional management challenges during efforts to implement a 

simplified EGIS technology called EGIS Silverlight. According to Coast 

Guard officials, the Coast Guard implemented EGIS Silverlight to give 

users access to EGIS data without the analysis tools that had been tied to 

technical challenges with the existing EGIS software. Coast Guard CIO 

office personnel stated that EGIS Silverlight was available to users in 

2010; however, none of the Coast Guard personnel we spoke with at the 

field units we visited mentioned awareness of or use of this alternative 

EGIS option when asked about what systems they used to access the 

COP. According to Coast Guard CIO office personnel, it was the 

responsibility of the sponsor’s office to notify users about the availability 

of EGIS Silverlight. However, personnel from the sponsor’s office stated 

that they were unaware that EGIS Silverlight had been deployed and thus 

had not taken steps to notify field personnel of this new application that 

could have helped to address EGIS performance problems. These Coast 

Guard officials were unable to explain how this communication 

breakdown had occurred.

If these problems had been averted, users 

may have had greater satisfaction and the system may have been better 

utilized for Coast Guard mission needs.

 

36The implementation plan describes how the system will be deployed in the operational 

environment. The training plan includes a training curriculum, schedule, outline, 

descriptions, training materials, resources and facility requirements, and identification of 

the target audience for the system. The Test and Evaluation Master Plan includes the 

tasks and activities performed to ensure that the system has been adequately tested to 

assure successful implementation.
 

Page 23 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

Although the SDLC process has been in place since 2004, the Coast 

Guard has not adhered to this guidance for the development of more 

recent COP-related technology—Coast Guard One View, or CG1V.

The Coast Guard reported that it began development of a new GIS 

viewer—CG1V—in April 2010 to provide users with a single interface for 

viewing GIS information, including the COP, and to align the Coast 

Guard’s viewer with DHS’s new GIS viewer. However, the Coast Guard 

diverged from the SDLC process at the outset when in April 2012 the 

Coast Guard CIO placed CG1V into the second, rather than first, phase of 

the SDLC through a designation letter—the action that places an IT 

acquisition into the Coast Guard’s technology development process.37

Coast Guard officials from the program sponsor’s office stated that they 

had skipped the initial phase of the SDLC process because the CIO had 

allowed them to do so. They stated that this approval was based on the 

CIO’s office agreeing with the program sponsor that CG1V was a proven 

and validated concept, and that there was value in developing a platform 

that was compatible with both the DHS and Department of Defense’s IT 

systems. Thus, CG1V program officials stated that they believed that they 

could enter the SDLC process at planning and requirements rather than 

at conceptual planning—the phase that is used to determine the need for 

a system, assess its costs and risks, and define project planning 

approaches. However, the SDLC manual only allows for “legacy 

systems”—rather than new systems, such as CG1V—to be placed into 

the SDLC out of sequence.

The designation letter states that CG1V shall enter the SDLC in its 

second phase, planning and requirements, rather than its first phase, 

conceptual planning—without any explanation as to why the system was 

being placed into the second rather than first phase. As a result, the 

Coast Guard began developing requirements for CG1V before it had 

defined how it planned to manage the development of CG1V or had 

defined the deliverables for each phase of the project.

38

 

37Coast Guard officials stated that CG1V development began in 2010 but was delayed for 

2 years due to the Coast Guard’s response to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and other 

unforeseen events that diverted Coast Guard resources. 

In addition, the manual explicitly states that 

the SDLC begins with the conceptual planning phase and as such, 

38 “Legacy Systems” are systems that have already been developed or reached a stage of 

maturity but have not completed the necessary products for the SDLC or were developed 

prior to implementation of the SDLC.

The Coast Guard Has 

Not Adhered to its 

Information 

Technology 

Development 

Guidance for Most 

Recent COP 

Technology
 

Page 24 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

CG1V’s designation into the planning and requirements phase did not, 

from the outset, follow the process outlined in the SDLC guidance.

Although officials stated in October 2012 that efforts were underway to 

complete phase one documents for CG1V, as of February 2013, almost a 

year after CG1V’s April 2012 designation into the second phase of the 

SDLC, the Coast Guard has not completed two of the five key documents 

needed to exit the first phase. For example, the business case—an 

SDLC-required document that presents the problem to be solved, the 

solution being proposed, and the expected value of the project—has not 

been completed by the Coast Guard. This document is also used by 

management to determine if staff or other resources are to be devoted to 

defining and evaluating alternative ways to respond to the identified need 

or opportunity. In addition to not having the business case completed, the 

acquisition strategy had also not been completed as of February 2013. 

The acquisition strategy lays out the funding source for the project and 

the anticipated costs of completing the planning and requirements phase. 

It also includes a review of the business case to ensure the efficient 

utilization of Coast Guard resources. As we have previously reported, 

when managing the C4ISR program, the Coast Guard had inadequate or 

incomplete acquisition documentation. Specifically, we reported in July 

2011, that the Coast Guard’s C4ISR project lacked the technical planning 

documents necessary to both articulate the vision of a common C4ISR 

baseline—a key goal of the C4ISR project—and to guide the 

development of the C4ISR system in such a way that the system on each 

asset remains true to the vision.39

In addition to not completing two key phase one documents, the Coast 

Guard has also developed other SDLC documents for CG1V out of 

sequence. Specifically, the SDLC manual states that the tailoring plan is 

to be developed in conceptual planning before other documents, such as 

With respect to our ongoing review of 

CG1V, by not completing the business case and acquisition strategy, the 

Coast Guard may have prematurely selected CG1V as a solution without 

reviewing other viable alternatives to meets its vision, and may also have 

dedicated resources to CG1V without knowing the project costs.

 

39GAO-11-743. 
 

Page 25 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

the Functional Requirements Document, are created.40 The tailoring plan 

is to provide a clear and concise listing of SDLC process requirements 

throughout the entire system lifecycle, and facilitates the documentation 

of calculated deviations from standard SDLC activities, products, roles, 

and responsibilities from the outset of the project.

41

In December 2012, another key phase one action occurred out of 

sequence with the review of CG1V by the Coast Guard’s Enterprise 

Architecture Board.

Though the SDLC 

manual clearly states that the tailoring plan is a key first step in the SDLC, 

CG1V’s tailoring plan was not approved until February 2013, almost a 

year after CG1V was designated into the SDLC. Coast Guard officials 

stated that they were completing some documents retroactively because 

projects cannot exit any phase of the SDLC process without completing 

the documents required in each of the preceding phases. For example, to 

exit the conceptual planning phase and enter into the planning and 

requirements phase, projects must complete all of the exit criteria—which 

includes several key documents—from the conceptual planning phase. 

Similarly, the Functional Requirements Document—a phase two 

document—was also drafted out of sequence in March 2012, but in this 

case it was drafted early—a full month before CG1V was even 

designated into the SDLC. By completing these documents out of 

sequence, the Coast Guard did not follow the disciplined activities and 

product outputs of the SDLC to ensure that appropriate information is 

gathered and monitored to support investment decisions.

42

 

40According to the SDLC manual, the Functional Requirements Document defines the 

functions and requirements of the system being developed or implemented. To define 

these requirements, the sponsor is required to coordinate with all user, stakeholder, and 

customer groups during the development of requirements. The different perspectives, 

inputs, outputs, and services provided by or required for each representative group help 

strengthen the identification of requirements, necessary functionality, and required 

integration of the developing system with other systems and the environment in which it 

will be operating.

The Enterprise Architecture Board, met to 

determine, among other things, if CG1V aligned with the Coast Guard’s 

41A key feature of the SDLC is the tailoring plan. The SDCL tailoring plan allows for 

flexibility in the SDLC process. Documented in the tailoring plan, the SDLC requirements 

may be modified to fit unique project characteristics.

42The Enterprise Architecture Board provides guidance through reviews of Coast Guard 

information technology investments. The Enterprise Architecture Board is required to 

review all Coast Guard C4&IT acquisitions to make sure the project is aligned with its 

enterprise architecture.
 

Page 26 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

enterprise architecture and whether an equivalent capability already 

existed in the enterprise architecture.43

 

43According to Coast Guard’s Enterprise Architecture Handbook, the Coast Guard’s 

enterprise architecture is the blueprint for modernizing and transforming legacy systems to 

meet future mission capabilities and requirements. Enterprise Architecture brings together 

key business and technical information across the organization to support better decision 

making for C4&IT systems. This is done by capturing, organizing, and communicating 

information about Coast Guard performance measures, business processes, information 

requirements, applications, systems, and technologies through the Enterprise Architecture 

Board. 

Although its review was 

conducted later in the process than might be expected under the SDLC, 

according to Coast Guard officials, the Enterprise Architecture Board 

confirmed that CG1V was in alignment with the Coast Guard’s enterprise 

architecture. However, the Enterprise Architecture Board also placed 

conditions on CG1V’s development—including a requirement that CG1V 

program officials continue working to complete SDLC requirements for 

this program. As figure 6 shows, most SDLC documents for phase one 

have either been completed out of sequence or have not been completed 

at all. If the Coast Guard does not adhere to the SDLC as prescribed, the 

agency runs the risk of missing early opportunities to identify and address 

problems if CG1V’s development falls behind schedule, runs over its 

budget, or does not meet user needs when it is deployed. 
 

Page 27 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

Figure 6: Coast Guard System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) Documentation for Coast Guard One View as of February 2013

a

Since CG1V has not exited out of the planning and requirements phase of the SDLC, it is not 

required to have met the exit criteria. However, the FRD, an exit requirement, has been completed. 

Officials from the CIO’s office stated the importance of the phase one 

documentation to the integrity of the SDLC and stated that they intended 

to have the required documents from phase one completed and 

approved. They also stated that in following the SDLC for CG1V they 

would be encouraging other Coast Guard program offices to follow the 
 

Page 28 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

SDLC for their projects. Moreover, a key official from the CIO’s office 

stated in January 2013 that while the SDLC has been around for almost 9 

years, the process was slow to ramp up in the Coast Guard and there still 

remains a lack of awareness around the process. For example, he said 

that sometimes SDLC-required documents get drafted but the project 

sponsors do not see them as important and thus do not review them in a 

timely manner. He also noted that sometimes officials do not follow the 

process because they are working to meet a deadline. He added, 

however, that following the SDLC is important because it can help the 

Coast Guard achieve more successful implementation of new systems.

The Coast Guard has increased the amount of information included in the 

COP and the number of users with access to COP information. However, 

the Coast Guard has encountered and continues to encounter many 

challenges in implementing its COP goals. These challenges are 

exemplified by the difficulty the Coast Guard has had with implementing 

C4ISR systems and COP tools such as WatchKeeper. We have 

documented these challenges individually in several prior reports but 

recognize here the broader impact of the challenges with these systems 

on the Coast Guard’s COP. For example, in 2011, we reported that the 

Coast Guard’s C4ISR project had not met its intended goals, and we see 

now in 2013 that its benefit to the COP has been more limited than 

originally planned. In 2012, we reported that the Coast Guard’s effort to 

implement WatchKeeper as a COP tool had made some progress, but the 

lack of port partners utilizing WatchKeeper and its inability to add 

information from local sensors jeopardized its purpose of improving 

information sharing and enhancing MDA across federal, state, and local 

port partners. These limitations have had another impact as well—as they 

have also affected the robustness and utility of information contained in 

the COP. In this review we again found IT implementation challenges—in 

this case related to the Coast Guard’s implementation of EGIS. These 

challenges, which Coast Guard officials acknowledged, resulted in 

numerous technical shortcomings and unsatisfied users. Coast Guard 

officials stated that some of EGIS’s implementation challenges could 

have been avoided if they had followed the SDLC process when 

developing EGIS.

The Coast Guard is now developing a new COP-related technology, 

CG1V, and early efforts—such as not completing certain documentation 

and completing other documentation out of sequence—demonstrate that 

the Coast Guard was again not adhering to its own guidance. Although 

the Coast Guard has subsequently completed one of the documents 

Conclusions
 

Page 29 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

required in the conceptual design phase and IT officials have expressed 

the intent to adhere to the SDLC process during the course of our review, 

there appears to still be some lack of awareness surrounding the SDLC 

process. Given the current budget environment and the resourceintensive nature of developing IT systems, the Coast Guard must be 

especially prudent in expending resources that help it accomplish its 

missions. Clarifying the applicability of the SDLC process mitigates risks 

of implementation challenges and maximizes the potential contribution of 

future technology development for the COP.

To better ensure that the Coast Guard follows the SDLC as required, we 

recommend that the Commandant of the Coast Guard direct the Coast 

Guard Chief Information Officer to issue guidance clarifying the 

application of the SDLC for the development of future projects.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Homeland Security 

for comment. In its written comments, reprinted in appendix II, DHS 

concurred with our recommendation. In addition, DHS provided technical 

comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

With regard to our recommendation, that the Coast Guard issue guidance 

clarifying the application of the SDLC for the development of future 

projects, DHS stated that the Coast Guard will review, clarify, and issue 

guidance related to the applicability of the SDLC process to mitigate risks 

of implementation challenges and maximize the potential contribution of 

future technology development for the COP.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan on no further distribution of this report until 30 days after 

its issue date. At that time we will send copies of this report to the 

Secretary of Homeland Security, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, 

and interested congressional committees as appropriate. In addition, the 

report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

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

me at (202) 512-9610 or caldwells@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments
 

Page 30 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

the last page of this report. Staff who made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix III.

Stephen L. Caldwell Director, 

Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Appendix I: User Identified Systems and 

Applications Used to Access Common 

Operational Picture Information 

Page 31 GAO-13-321 Coast Guard 

System Name Year Implemented System Description

Global Command and Control 

System (GCCS)

2003 A system that provides commanders a single, integrated, scalable command 

and control system that fuses, correlates, filters, maintains and displays 

location and attribute information on friendly, hostile and neutral forces. It 

integrates this data with available intelligence and environmental information 

in support of command decision making.

Marine Information for Safety 

and Law Enforcement 

Geographic Information System 

(MISLE GIS)

2004 An application that displays base maps and charts, Coast Guard-specific 

information on facilities and waterways, as well as dynamic data relating to 

Coast Guard cases and activities. 

Command and Control Personal 

Computer (C2PC)

2004 A Microsoft Windows-based system that displays the COP from a GCCSbased server that allows users to view near real-time situational awareness. 

C2PC enables users to view and edit the COP, apply overlays, display 

imagery, as well as send and receive tactical messages. 

Search and Rescue Optimal 

Planning System

2004 A software system the Coast Guard uses for maritime search and rescue 

planning. It has the ability, among other things, to:

• handle multiple rescue scenarios,

• model pre-distress motion and hazards,

• account for the effects of previous searches,

• make requests and receive real-time data from an environmental data 

server, 

• manually input wind and current information via a sketch tool using 

objective analysis techniques, and

• use the latest drift algorithms to project the drift of the survivors and 

craft. 

Hawkeyea 2005 A system that monitors and tracks commercial vessels on the coast and in 

port areas using radar, cameras, and Automatic Identification System (AIS) 

sensors. 

WebCOP 2008 WebCOP is an Internet browser-based viewer of the COP that features 

vessel profiling and access to unclassified databases including MISLE and 

the Ship Arrival Notification System. It also includes access to real-time 

video feeds, voice communications, and collaborative tools (chat).

Enterprise Geographic 

Information System (EGIS)

2010 The Coast Guard’s geographic information system used to view and 

manage information about geographic places, analyze spatial relationships, 

and model spatial processes. EGIS can display this information on multiple 

viewers. 

WatchKeeper 2010 As part of the Interagency Operations Center acquisition project, 

WatchKeeper is a Coast Guard system originally designed to gather data 

from sensors and port partner sources to provide situational awareness to 

Coast Guard personnel and port partners. Through WatchKeeper, Coast 

Guard personnel and port partners have access to the same data. 

Source: GAO analysis of Coast Guard and Navy information.

a

The Coast Guard is currently in the process of disposing of the Hawkeye system. 

Appendix I: User Identified Systems and 

Applications Used to Access Common 

Operational Picture Information
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 32 GAO-13-321 Maritime Security 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 33 GAO-13-321 Maritime Security 

Stephen L. Caldwell, (202) 512-9610 or caldwells@gao.gov.

In addition to the contact named above, Dawn Hoff, Assistant Director; 

Jonathan Bachman; Bintou Njie; and Julian King made significant 

contributions to this report. In addition, William Carrigg and Karl Seifert 

provided technical assistance with information-technology issues; Michele 

Fejfar assisted with design and methodology; Tracey King provided legal 

support; Jessica Orr and Anthony Pordes provided assistance in report 

preparation; and Eric Hauswirth developed the report’s graphics.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(441075)
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.