United States General Accounting Office

Report to the House and Senate

Committees on Armed Services

October 2002

GAO

ARMY LOGISTICS

Report on Manpower

and Workload System

Inadequate and

System Interface

Untested

GAO-03-21
Page i GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

Report Does Not Contain Adequate Information to Assess Progress 6

Army Has Not Sufficiently Tested the Interface between AWPS and

the Logistics Modernization Program 14

Conclusions 15

Recommendations for Executive Action 15

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 16

Appendix I Comments from the Department of Defense 18

Appendix II Task List for 2001 and 2002 21

Appendix III Milestone Schedule 24

Appendix IV Scope and Methodology 26

Tables

Table 1: Logistics Modernization Program: Milestones to First

Deployment 5

Table 2: Comparison of Criteria Contained in DOD Regulation

5000.2-R and Army’s 2002 Report 8

Table 3: Presence or Absence of Defense Criteria in the Army’s

2002 Plan, by Individual Task 9

Table 4: Army Projected Costs for Fiscal Years 2004-2006 11

Abbreviations

AWPS Army Workload and Performance System

DOD Department of Defense

Contents
Page 1 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

October 30, 2002

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

The Honorable John Warner

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Bob Stump

Chairman

The Honorable Ike Skelton

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

At the direction of the House Committee on National Security,1

 the Army

began developing the Army Workload and Performance System in 1996.

This automated system was intended to address a number of specific

weaknesses highlighted in several of our and Army studies since

1994 regarding the Army’s inability to support its civilian personnel

requirements by using an analytically based workload forecasting system.

The Department of Defense’s fiscal years 1997 and 1998 Annual

Statements of Assurance highlighted the problems of not being able to

relate personnel requirements to workload and budget as a material

weakness in the Army’s manpower requirements determination system.

The Army Workload and Performance System was designed to address

this weakness and to coordinate workforce requirements with workloads,

initially at the Army’s five maintenance depots and subsequently at other

Army maintenance and industrial activities.

The Army first outlined its strategy for designing and fielding this system

in a master plan in April 1999. We reported in November 1999,2

 however,

that this master plan provided limited and incomplete information on

future development plans and insufficient funding information. We

 1

 Now known as the House Committee on Armed Services.

2

 See U.S. General Accounting Office, Defense Logistics: Army Should Assess Cost and

Benefits of the Workload Performance System Expansion, GAO/NSIAD-00-16

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 12, 1999).

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

recommended that the Army strengthen the management controls

and oversight for the system’s development and prepare a more

comprehensive master plan that contained priorities, costs, benefits, and

schedules. In response to congressional direction, the Army updated its

original master plan in May 2001. Section 346 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (P.L. 107-107) required that the

Army provide Congress annually a progress report on the implementation

of the master plan during the preceding year. In May 2002, the Army

submitted to Congress its first progress report on the implementation of

the master plan. The report was presented in the form of a revised master

plan. Section 346 also required that the General Accounting Office

evaluate the Army’s progress report. Lastly, section 346 encouraged the

Army to develop a process to enhance data sharing between the Army

Workload and Performance System and the Logistics Modernization

Program.3

 Beginning in February 2003, the Logistics Modernization

Program will replace many of the old information systems that currently

support the workload and performance system, and will become the

primary data source for this system.

As agreed with your offices, this report addresses whether (1) the

May 2002 report provides adequate information for Congress to assess

the Army’s progress in implementing the Army Workload and Performance

System, and (2) the interface the Army is developing between this

system and the Logistics Modernization Program has been sufficiently

tested to ensure that data can be shared between the two systems and that

the capability of the workload and performance system will not be

adversely affected.

The May 2002 report on the Army Workload and Performance System does

not provide Congress with adequate information to assess the Army’s

progress in implementing the system. In response to the mandate for a

progress report, as specified in section 346 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, the Army submitted an updated

version of its May 2001 master plan. This version does not identify the

changes that the Army made to the previous plan, particularly in setting

out milestones and tasks, as was required by section 346. In addition,

 3

 In July 2002, the Army changed the name of this program from the Wholesale Logistics

Modernization Program to the Logistics Modernization Program. This is a new information

system that is intended to help manage the Army’s supply, maintenance, and

transportation functions.

Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

the May 2002 version does not contain detailed information on the

system’s cost, schedule, and performance, which is required by

Department of Defense regulations for reporting on major automated

information systems acquisitions.4

 Specifically, the 2002 plan does not

include (1) a detailed summary of all costs that the Army has incurred, or

the expenditures that it anticipates in the future, to develop and

implement the system; (2) a list of the milestones that the Army has, or has

not, achieved in the previous year and a list of milestones that are

projected for the future; and (3) an evaluation of how well the system has

performed to date in fulfilling its primary function—that is, of matching

manpower needs with depot workloads. Because this data is not included

in the updated plan, it is difficult to determine if the system is meeting its

original budgetary, scheduling, and performance objectives and if the

Army will need additional resources to complete the system’s

development and implementation. Finally, the updated version does not

address the potential duplication and overlap in some functions of the

Army Workload and Performance System and the Army’s Logistics

Modernization Program. Specifically, the module in the Army Workload

and Performance System that allows the user to compare actual resource

expenditures against production plans, scheduled workloads, and related

budgets for specific projects is a capability that also exists within the

Logistics Modernization Program. In addition, because the Logistics

Modernization Program is not complete, the Army cannot be certain what

other capabilities may be duplicated. Army officials are concerned that

this potential duplication and overlap may result in unnecessary costs and

other inefficiencies.

While the Army has begun developing an interface between the Army

Workload and Performance System and the Logistics Modernization

Program, it has not sufficiently tested the interface to ensure that data can

be shared between the two systems and that the capability of the workload

and performance system will not be adversely affected. For example,

initial testing of this interface began in August 2002 but will be tested at

only one of the five Army depots by February 2003 when the Logistics

Modernization Program is scheduled to become operational. Additionally,

the Army plans to shut down many of the old information systems

 4

 Mandatory Procedures for Major Defense Acquisition Programs and Major Automated

Information System Acquisition Programs (Department of Defense Regulation 5000.2-R,

Apr. 5, 2002). While the Army stated that the workload and performance system does not

meet the minimum threshold to be considered a major system, we believe that the

parameters outlined in this regulation should be addressed in the Army’s progress reports.
Page 4 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

that provide data for the workload and performance system once the

Logistics Modernization Program comes on line even though there are no

assurances that the data from the Logistics Modernization Program will

allow the workload and performance system to continue to operate. Until

the Army has installed and tested the interface at several sites, it will be

too early to assess whether data sharing can occur and the extent to which

the workload and performance system will be affected.

We are recommending that the Army improve its progress reports

to Congress on the Army Workload and Performance System’s

implementation status and ensure that the interface between this system

and the Logistics Modernization Program is evaluated in such a way that

its effectiveness and functionality are assured. In its written comments on

a draft of this report (see app. I), the Department fully concurred with our

recommendations.

The Army Workload and Performance System (AWPS) is intended to

resolve long-standing systemic problems in the Army’s civilian manpower

requirements determination process. It is an information and reporting

system that draws production and manpower data from other existing

programs, including the Army’s Standard Depot System. Its main purpose

is to provide decision support tools for linking workload demands to

manpower requirements and the budget process. The system was initially

installed at Corpus Christi Army Depot, Texas, in June 1996. Since then, it

has been put into operation at the Army’s four other maintenance

depots—Anniston, Letterkenny, Red River, and Tobyhanna. In 1999, the

Assistant Secretary of the Army certified the system as fully operational

for the maintenance mission at the five maintenance depots.

The Army is moving forward with the installation of AWPS at all of its

logistics and industrial activities. To date the system is being used as a

decision-making tool in other functional areas, including ammunition

logistics, base operations, materials usage, working capital fund budgets,

and reporting of net operating results. The Secretary of the Army has

directed that AWPS be used throughout the Army as the standard

Armywide mechanism for determining manpower requirements for all

of its logistics and industrial activities.

The first AWPS master plan, submitted to Congress in April 1999,

described the Army’s progress and future plans for developing and

implementing the system. In our November 1999 report regarding that

master plan, we pointed out that the information it contained was

Background
Page 5 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

limited, and we recommended that the Army develop a more substantial

master plan that incorporated all applications for which the system was

to be implemented, along with their priorities, costs and benefits,

and proposed schedules. We also recommended that the Army make

improvements in the existing management and oversight structures.

The House Report to the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2001 required the Army to submit a revised master plan,

incorporating our recommendations, by February 2001. Subsequently,

section 346 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002

required the Army to submit an annual progress report on its

implementation of the revised master plan. Section 346 also required that

these reports specifically address any changes made to the master plan

since the previous report.

In December 1999, the Army contracted with the Computer Sciences

Corporation to create the Logistics Modernization Program, which is a

new information system for managing the Army’s supply, maintenance,

and transportation functions. This system, initially called the Wholesale

Logistics Modernization Program, will replace the existing Standard Depot

System and many other source data systems, several of which provide data

to AWPS. The Logistics Modernization Program is designed to improve

readiness and logistics support to the war fighter by (1) reducing

requisition response times, (2) improving the availability of supplies,

(3) optimizing the use of inventory, and (4) responding more quickly to

changing customer requirements. The milestones to the first deployment

of the Logistics Modernization Program are shown in table 1.

Table 1: Logistics Modernization Program: Milestones to First Deployment

Milestones Dates Status

First deployment and integration phase:

Proof of concept

Initial services description document and

 implementation plan

9/20/00-6/30/01

6/27/01-6/28/01

6/29/01

Complete

Complete

Complete

Second deployment and integration phase:

System integration testing

Process trial

Final services description document and

 implementation plan

7/01-11/02

8/20/02-11/15/02

11/02/02

11/15/02

In process

In process

Not complete

Not complete

Begin first deployment 02/03 Not complete

Source: Department of the Army.

Once the Logistics Modernization Program becomes operational at the

maintenance depots, the Army plans to shut down many of the old
Page 6 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

information systems that currently support AWPS and it will become the

primary source for the data that AWPS needs to function. As a result,

section 346 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002

encouraged the Army to set up a process that would permit or enhance

data sharing between the two systems. To ensure that the Army’s AWPS

capabilities remained intact, section 346 also mandated that the Army

retain AWPS as its standard servicewide manpower system, under the

Secretary of the Army’s supervision and management. This mandate was

further underscored in a letter dated August 9, 2001, from several

congressional representatives to the Commander of the U.S. Materiel

Command, which further requested that the Army refrain from

incorporating the new system into the Logistics Modernization Program.

The Army’s May 2002 report on its workload and performance system does

not contain the information that Congress needs to assess the Army’s

progress in implementing the system. In response to the requirement for a

progress report, as specified in section 346 of the Fiscal Year 2002

National Defense Authorization Act, the Army submitted an updated

version of its May 2001 master plan. This updated version did not identify

or explain the changes that the Army had made to the master plan since

the May 2001 version. In addition, the Army’s report did not contain

certain cost, schedule, and performance information that would normally

be expected. Moreover, the Army’s report did not fully discuss the

potential duplication and overlap in functions performed by the Logistics

Modernization Program and the workload and performance system.

Although required by section 346, the Army’s 2002 report did not address

the changes made to the milestones or tasks set out in the May 2001 AWPS

master plan. Appendixes II and III provide tables showing the milestones

and tasks identified in both the 2001 and 2002 reports. In comparing the

two reports, we found that several milestones had been changed, but the

2002 report did not identify these changes nor did it provide a detailed

discussion of the reasons for these changes or their significance. For

example, in its 2001 report the Army had scheduled Corpus Christi Army

Depot as the first site to prototype the Net Operating Result capability,

beginning in August 2001. We found, however, that in the 2002 report this

task was set back by 1 year—to the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2002. The

same task was also scheduled to be prototyped at one of the ammunition

sites by March 2002, but this milestone was later delayed by about 1 year

until sometime between January and March 2003. In each case, the 2002

Report Does Not

Contain Adequate

Information to Assess

Progress

Report Fails to Address

Changes in Milestones and

Tasks since May 2001
Page 7 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

report did not provide an analysis or explanation for the

scheduling change.

We also found discrepancies between the two reports related to the

phasing of certain tasks involved in implementing the new system. Some

tasks that were assigned to a specific phase in the 2001 report were moved

to a different phase in the 2002 report, and there was no discussion of why

these changes were made or what their impact on the overall

implementation schedule might be. For example, phase 1 of the 2001

report involved only the consolidation of ongoing implementation actions,

whereas in the 2002 report phase 1 also included non-Army Material

Command maintenance activities. The 2002 report, however, does not

clearly address the status of tasks previously listed under phase 1.

The Army’s 2002 plan does not contain the cost, schedule, and

performance data that might normally be expected. For example,

according to the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Regulation 5000.2-R,

progress reports related to the acquisition of major new automated

information systems should contain detailed information on such key

parameters as cost, schedule, and performance. Army officials stated that

the scope and cost of the AWPS system does not meet the minimum

threshold to be considered a major information system and, thus, the

regulation does not apply to it. While we agree that the AWPS system does

not meet the threshold requirements of the regulation, we believe certain

criteria in the regulation would provide Congress with the necessary

information to properly evaluate the AWPS system and should therefore

be addressed in the Army’s progress reports. Consequently, we have

analyzed the AWPS report using criteria from the regulation. Additionally,

the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 requires agencies to have investment

management processes and information to help ensure that information

technology projects are being implemented at an acceptable cost and

within a reasonable and expected time frame. In effect, these requirements

and guidance recognize that one cannot manage what one cannot

measure. Finally, in our November 1999 report on the Army’s original

master plan for AWPS, we identified several shortcomings, including the

lack of detailed information on costs and expenditures, milestones, and

performance. We recommended in that report that the Army develop a

more substantive master plan that included priorities, costs and benefits,

and schedules.

In our analysis of the Army’s 2002 plan, we found that, while it addresses

some of these elements, it does not provide the detailed or complete data

Report Lacks Cost,

Schedule, and

Performance Data
Page 8 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

that is needed to adequately assess the Army’s progress in implementing

the workload and performance system. As table 2 shows, the 2002 plan

contained information on a few parameters identified in DOD’s guidance,

including direct costs; dates for certain events, such as reaching initial

operating capabilities; and objectives for operational requirements.

However, it did not include information on a large number of parameters,

such as total procurement costs, critical schedule dates, and measures

of performance.

Table 2: Comparison of Criteria Contained in DOD Regulation 5000.2-R and Army’s

2002 Report

Criteria contained in DOD Regulation

5000.2-R

Parameters included in Army

2002 report

Cost parameters

Total ownership costs

Direct costs X

Research and development costs

Test costs

Evaluation costs

Procurement costs

Military construction costs

Operating and support costs

Cost of acquisition items

Indirect costs attributable to the system

Infrastructure costs not directly attributable to the

system

Total quantity costs

Average procurement unit costs

Program acquisition unit costs

Life cycle costs

Other costs

Scheduling parameters

Dates for program initiation X

Major decision points X

Attainment of initial operating capability X

Milestone decision authorities’ approval

Specific/critical system events

Critical schedule dates

Other system events X

Performance parameters

Key performance parameters

Objectives in the operational requirements

document

X

Broadly defined measures of effectiveness
Page 9 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

Criteria contained in DOD Regulation

5000.2-R

Parameters included in Army

2002 report

Broadly defined measures of performance

Other performance parameters

Source: DOD Regulation 5000.2-R and GAO analysis.

In addition, the 2002 report did not contain necessary cost, scheduling,

and performance data for the individual tasks that the Army has assigned

to each implementation phase. Phase 1, implementation of the workload

and performance system at non-Army Materiel Command maintenance

depots; phase 2, expansion of the system into nonmaintenance missions

(e.g., base operations, medical); and phase 3, development of decisionsupport tools for use at the major command and headquarters levels

(e.g., working capital fund budget, links to depot maintenance operational

system, and cross-organizational activities). As table 3 illustrates, the

Army’s report contained cost, scheduling, and performance information

for only a small number of these tasks. Furthermore, we could only

identify specific costs for one of the tasks and, in most cases, the

milestones and performance measures were too broad and did not include

interim measures and specific performance targets to measure progress.

Table 3: Presence or Absence of Defense Criteria in the Army’s 2002 Plan, by Individual Task

Army Workload and Performance System Tasks included in the Army’s 2002

Master Plan Cost Milestones Performance measures

Phase 1–Implementation of AWPS at non-Army Materiel Command

maintenance depots 

Basic components of AWPS 

Develop strategic plans and forecasts Partiallyb

Develop performance measures and controls Partiallyb

Schedule resource and controls Partiallyb

Create decision support system Partiallyb

Upgrade modules from FoxPro programming language to an Oracle/Power

Builder/Silver Stream

Yes

Implement the Enterprise Resource Planning System Yes Partiallyb

Phase 2–Expansion of AWPS into nonmaintenance missions 

Consolidate current ongoing implementation 

Maintenance depots Yes 

Ammunition logistics at eight munitions centers Yes 

Ammunition manufacturing Yes 

Base operations at all maintenance depots Yes Partiallyb

Manufacturing arsenals Yes Partiallyb

Continued upgrade of Web-based executive module Partiallyb

Expand AWPS to additional maintenance activities Yes 
Page 10 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

Army Workload and Performance System Tasks included in the Army’s 2002

Master Plan Cost Milestones Performance measures

Expand AWPS to non-Army materiel command maintenance activities ata 

General support organizations at Fort Lewis and Fort Riley Yes 

Aviation repair facility at Fort Rucker Yes 

National Guard tank engine repair facility at Fort Riley Yes 

National Guard readiness sustainment maintenance site Yes 

National Guard aviation repair facility at Springfield, Mo. Yes 

Expand AWPS into other nonmaintenance missionsa 

Army transformation installation management Yes 

Medical Yes 

Conduct review to determine applicability of AWPS in testing, training, and

research and development activities 

Phase 3–Development of decision support system tools Yes Yes 

Net Operating Result Reporting Capability Module Yes Partiallyb

Working capital fund budget linkage 

Material module Yes Partiallyb

Depot maintenance operations planning system tool Partiallyb

Production of Operations Planning budget 

Depot Maintenance Operations Planning System tool to manage 50/50 requirement 

Linkage between depot maintenance operations Partiallyb

Planning System lock points and AWPS study capability 

Business process re-engineering tools between maintenance provider-process

model 

Partiallyb

Model to evaluate new investment vs. repair 

Mission indirect Yes Partiallyb

Source: GAO analysis.

a

Not included in May 2001 plan.

b

Performance measures primarily state objectives. These performance measures did not include

interim measures and performance targets to measure progress.

While the Army’s May 2002 report provided some estimated funding

requirements for AWPS for fiscal years 2004 through 2006, it did not

contain the detailed information that could be used to assess the costs

of implementing the system thus far and the costs of expanding it into

other functional areas in the future. According to the Army Materiel

Command, the total estimated costs for the AWPS program were about

$44.8 million for fiscal years 1996 through 2002, and the estimated program

costs for fiscal year 2003 are about $8.9 million. The primary source for

this funding has been the Army’s working capital fund. These figures and

the funding sources, however, were not included in the Army’s report. In

addition, the Army’s report did not identify the extent to which actual

expenditures relate to the budgeted amounts. The report also did not

Report Lacks Detailed

Cost Data
Page 11 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

provide any cost estimates for funding the Army’s plan to expand AWPS

to other nonmaintenance activities, such as base operations support.

According to Army officials, these expansion plans will require funding

through the Army’s appropriated operations and maintenance accounts.

In its report, the Army estimated that it would need about $20.1 million

over the next 3 fiscal years (2004 through 2006), to ensure that the

remaining tasks are implemented. Table 4 shows the Army’s projected

costs for fiscal years 2004 through 2006, which were included in its May

2002 report. According to the report, these future year costs are unfunded

and the Army has not yet identified funding sources for them. These

officials stated that, other than the funding that has been provided through

the working capital fund, the department has not adequately funded the

AWPS expansion effort in recent years and that this lack of funding has

hampered their ability to plan and implement further expansions.

Table 4: Army Projected Costs for Fiscal Years 2004-2006

Dollars in millions

Projected costs for fiscal years

Task 2004 2005 2006 Total

Additional Army workload and

performance system implementation $3.7 $4.9 $5.5 $14.1

Decision support tools 2.0 2.5 1.5 6.0

Total $5.7 $7.4 $7.0 $20.1

Source: Army May 2002 AWPS master plan.

As table 4 indicates, the Army did not provide a detailed cost analysis

regarding the historical and projected costs for AWPS, nor did it provide a

complete summary of the estimated costs to complete the tasks listed for

each phase. Specifically, the table includes cost estimates for additional

system implementation (phase 1) and for the development of decision

support tools (phase 3), but it provides no specific estimates for

expanding the system into other functional areas (phase 2). Additionally,

the Army did not include the associated costs to support the development

of all the specific tasks required to complete each phase.

The Army’s May 2002 report contained only limited information on the

milestones established to implement the new system and no data on

whether earlier milestones had been reached, thereby making it difficult to

assess the progress of the system’s development and implementation.

Specifically, the report lacked schedules that include implementation and

Report Contains Limited

Milestone Data
Page 12 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

completion dates and interim milestones. For example, the Army is

updating the Workload and Performance System applications from the

original programming language to a more up-to-date programming

language. According to the Army, this upgrade has been installed at all five

maintenance depots and will be installed at other installations between

May 2002 and May 2003. However, specific dates for implementing or

completing this upgrade were not included in the May 2002 report. In

another example, the Army indicates that it intends to install AWPS at

other nonmaintenance activities outside the Army Materiel Command, but

it does not provide specific milestones for each location or the specific

tasks associated with the development and installation process. As shown

in appendix III, the Army has established expected completion dates for

some of the AWPS applications, but the completion dates for other longterm applications have not yet been set.

The Army’s May 2002 report also did not provide milestones for

completing the interface between AWPS and the Logistics Modernization

Program. Instead, it simply stated that between May 2002 and February

2003 the system has to accept, and operate with, data from the Logistics

Modernization Program. The original date (July 2001) set to operationalize

the interface at the first site, the Tobyhanna Army Depot, had changed by

about 18 months. In addition, the report noted that the Operations Support

Command is scheduled to transition to the Logistics Modernization

Program 1 year after the Communications and Electronics Command,

which is approximately January 2004. This date is about 2 years beyond

the original date of October 2000.

The Army’s May 2002 report does not address in detail the extent to which

AWPS is providing the Army with the capability to match manpower

requirements and workload for which it was initially intended. While the

report states that the implementation of AWPS in several mission areas

within the Army Materiel Command has shown that the system can

efficiently draw data from other existing systems and manipulate this

information to link personnel needs with projected workloads, the Army

has not demonstrated that AWPS has improved its ability to support its

long-term forecasting of civilian personnel requirements based on

projected workload. Because the Army did not provide supporting

evidence for the statement in its May 2002 report that the system has led to

increased operational efficiencies, the extent of the improvements is

unclear. We did not independently review the effectiveness of the AWPS

system at the depots we visited.

Report Lacks Adequate

Performance Assessments
Page 13 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

The Army’s report also fails to discuss the potential overlap and

duplication that exists between AWPS and the Logistics Modernization

Program. Although these two systems were designed to serve different

functions, Army and contractor officials point out that there is some

potential overlap and redundancy in the systems’ capabilities. For

example, the capability of the performance measurement and control

module in the AWPS software also exists in the Logistics Modernization

Program software configuration. This module allows the user to compare

actual resource expenditures against production plans, scheduled

workload, and related budgets for specific projects in order to determine

the likelihood of completing a project within its estimated time frame and

budget. In addition, because the Logistics Modernization Program is not

complete, the Army cannot be certain what other capabilities may be

duplicated. Army officials at the Tobyhanna Army Depot expressed

concerns that the need to operate and maintain both systems could lead to

higher costs and duplication of efforts.

A second module in AWPS, however, the strategic planning and

forecasting module, is unique to AWPS and does not currently exist within

the software configuration for the Logistics Modernization Program. This

module provides the user with the capability to forecast manpower and

capacity requirements based on future projected workload. More

specifically, this module allows the Army the ability to conduct “what if”

analyses for manpower and capacity requirements based on future

workload projections at each of its maintenance activities. Contractor

officials stated that although this capability could be built into the

Logistics Modernization Program, it would have to be modified to be

compatible with the current software configuration. By incorporating this

capability into the Logistics Modernization Program, the Army could

eliminate the need to operate and maintain two separate systems.

Computer Sciences Corporation submitted a formal proposal to the Army

in August 2001 to incorporate all of the capabilities of AWPS into the

Logistics Modernization Program for an estimated contract price increase

of about $2 million. Contractor officials told us in May 2002, however, that

because of the amount of work they have dedicated to building the

interface between the two systems, this cost estimate is no longer valid.

Report Does Not Address

Potential Overlap with

Logistics Modernization

Program
Page 14 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

Although the Army has begun developing an interface between AWPS and

the Logistics Modernization Program, it has not sufficiently tested the

interface to ensure that data can be shared between the two systems and

that the AWPS capability will not be adversely affected. Once the Logistics

Modernization Program is implemented, the Army plans to shut down

several systems, including the Standard Depot System, that currently

provide data for AWPS. However, the Army has not demonstrated that the

Logistics Modernization Program databases will be able to supply AWPS

with the data that it needs to continue to function. Until the Army has

placed the interface in operation at several sites, it will be too early to

assess its effectiveness.

The Army’s contract with the Computer Sciences Corporation to develop

and field the Logistics Modernization Program required that the contractor

would create an interface between the two systems, and this work started

in 1999. In February 2002, Army and contractor officials developed an

interface control document that identified the data elements that AWPS

would need from the Logistics Modernization Program databases to

maintain its current capabilities. Since that time, contractor personnel

have been working to locate the sources within the Logistics

Modernization Program databases for each data element and determine

the most expedient way to move that data into AWPS. According to Army

and contractor officials, about 90 percent of the data elements had been

located by May 2002.

While initial testing of the interface began in August 2002, it will be tested

at only one of the five Army depots by February 2003 when the Logistics

Modernization Program is scheduled to come on line. Specifically, the

Army will be testing the interface at Tobyhanna Army Depot between

August 2002 and February 2003, and expects that the interface will be fully

functional by the time the Logistics Modernization Program is deployed at

the depot in February 2003. Subsequently, the Army plans to install the

Logistics Modernization Program and the AWPS interface at the four

remaining Army maintenance depots, along with the Army’s ammunition

maintenance facilities. According to the May 2002 report, the Army

expects to shut down the current information systems that support AWPS

at the same time as it turns on the Logistics Modernization Program. As

a result, there will be no transition period during which the current

information systems and the Logistics Modernization Program are in

operation at the same time.

Army Has Not

Sufficiently Tested

the Interface

between AWPS and

the Logistics

Modernization

Program
Page 15 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

The Army’s May 2002 report to Congress on the development and

implementation of AWPS has a number of significant limitations. The

report does not contain key information regarding the changes to the

program since the submission of the May 2001 master plan, and it does not

provide adequate information on the costs, schedule, and performance of

the system. As a result, the report is of limited use to Congress in

evaluating whether the AWPS project is still in line with its original cost,

schedule, and performance objectives. The Army has not demonstrated to

Congress how well the system has helped it thus far to determine future

civilian workload requirements based on projected workloads. Moreover,

the report does not contain the information that Congress needs to

determine how much funding will be required to complete the initial

implementation of the system and expand it into other functional areas.

AWPS provides the Army with a capability for strategic planning and

forecasting at its maintenance facilities that currently does not exist within

the Logistics Modernization Program. The interface that is being

developed between the two systems is intended to allow the workload and

performance system to maintain its current capabilities, including its

strategic planning and forecasting module. Because each system offers the

Army certain unique capabilities, a rationale for operating both systems at

the same time exists. However, because the two systems may develop

some overlap and redundant capabilities in the future, there is some

potential for increased costs or other inefficiencies.

In order to improve the quality of the Army’s annual progress reports to

Congress on the implementation of AWPS and to enhance the efficiency

and effectiveness of the system, we recommend that the Secretary of

Defense direct the Secretary of the Army to:

• submit to Congress annual progress reports on the implementation of

AWPS that contain a complete description of any changes to the master

plan since the submission of the previous report and a detailed

explanation of the status of the AWPS program in relation to the costs,

milestones, and performance data contained in the previous report;

• ensure that these progress reports contain detailed cost, schedule, and

performance information to allow Congress to fully assess the status of

the Army’s implementation of the workload and performance system and

its interface with the Logistics Modernization Program, and the extent to

which the system is providing the Army with the capability to match

manpower and workload requirements;

Conclusions

Recommendations for

Executive Action
Page 16 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

• undertake a review of the interface between AWPS and the Logistics

Modernization Program, once it has been successfully installed at the

Army’s five maintenance depots, to ensure that it is the most efficient and

cost-effective use of these two systems; and

• ensure that the data-sharing mechanisms between the Logistics

Modernization Program and AWPS are complete and allow for full

functionality of AWPS before turning off the information systems that

currently support AWPS.

The Department of Defense fully concurred with our finding and

recommendations. In response to our recommendation that the Army

ensure that future progress reports contain cost, schedule, and

performance information as specified in relevant Defense regulations and

other congressional guidance, DOD will implement the recommendation in

its February 2003 report. However, DOD noted that the workload and

performance system is not a major automated information system and,

therefore, is not required to strictly adhere to the requirements of

Department of Defense Regulation 5000.2-R. We agree that the workload

and performance system does not meet the minimum threshold to be

considered a major system. However, we believe that the parameters

outlined in this regulation provide an appropriate management framework

for the types of information that should be included in future progress

reports.

DOD also informally provided other suggested revisions to address certain

technical and factual information in the text of the draft report. We

reviewed these suggested revisions and made changes where appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional

committees, the Secretaries of Defense and the Army, and the Director,

Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to

others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge

on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation
Page 17 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

Appendix IV contains our scope and methodology. Please contact me or

Julia Denman at (202) 512-8412 if you or your staffs have any questions

regarding this report. Key contributors to this report were David Schmitt,

Patricia Albritton, Leslie Harmonson, and Nancy Benco.

David R. Warren

Director, Defense Capabilities

 and Management
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 18 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

Appendix I: Comments from the Department

of Defense
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 19 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 20 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics
Appendix II: Task List for 2001 and 2002

Page 21 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

May 2001 Plan May 2002 Plan Comments

Short-Term 

Army Workload and Performance System modules 

Workload X Workload and workforce have been combined as the

strategic planning and forecasting module.

Workforce X

Performance measurement and control X 

Resource scheduling and control X 

Decision Support System X 

Upgrade modules from FoxPro programming language to

an Oracle/Power Builder/Silver Stream

X

Corpus Christi X 

Remaining depots X 

Enterprise Resource Planning System X 

Long-Term 

Phase 1–Consolidate current ongoing implementation This phase is not included in May 2002 plan. First

phase of the plan is to cover non-Army Materiel

Command maintenance activities.

Maintenance depots X 

Corpus Christi X 

Red River X 

Tobyhanna X 

Letterkenny X 

Anniston X 

Ammunition Logistics at eight munitions centers X 

Ammunition manufacturing X 

Crane Army ammunition activity X 

McAlester Army ammunition activity X 

Base operations at all maintenance depots and

ammunition logistics activities

X Base operations at ammunition logistics activities is not

included.

Manufacturing arsenals X 

Rock Island X 

Pine Bluff X 

Watervliet X 

Continued upgrade of Web-based executive module X 

Phase 2–Cover additional maintenance activities X This is the first phase in May 2002 plan. Second phase

of the plan is expansion into nonmaintenance missions.

General support organizations-Fort Bragg and Fort Hood X 

Aviation repair facility at Fort Rucker X 

Regional support maintenance sites of the National

Guard

Not included

Depots’ forward repair activities Not included

Special repair activities Not included

Appendix II: Task List for 2001 and 2002
Appendix II: Task List for 2001 and 2002

Page 22 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

May 2001 Plan May 2002 Plan Comments

Phase 3-Develop decision support system tools X This phase is categorized into three parts.

Part I–Improvements to current AWPS 

Net Operating Result Reporting Capability Module X 

Maintenance depots X 

Ammunition logistics X 

Working capital fund budget linkage X 

Material module X 

Corpus Christi-Prototype site X 

Remaining maintenance depots X 

Ammunition logistics Not included

Separate overhead allocation categories Not included

Separately identify the contractor labor component Not included

Implementation of the capability resident Not included

Contractor labor hour reporting process Not included

Capability to produce “snap shot” of workload Not included

Linkage between schedule 8 process and existing

Army systems 

Not included

Tracking capability from Workload and Resource

Requirements 902 report through the Workload and

Resource Requirements 905 report 

Not included

Part II–Improve depot maintenance workload

requirements 

Depot maintenance operations planning system tool X 

Production of Operations Planning budget X 

Depot Maintenance Operations Planning System tool

to manage 50/50 requirement

X

Linkage between the Depot Maintenance Operations

Planning System lock points and AWPS study

capability

X

Tool to track items from the Enterprise Resource

Planning Systems/AWPS Locked Budget Plan to

induction at depot 

Not included

Module to track depot output of major items vs. the

budget plan 

Not included

Part III–Improve efficiency depot operations 

Business process re-engineering tools X 

Between maintenance provider-process model X 

Cost management tool Not included

Model to evaluate new investment vs. repair X 

Model to examine the economics of depot vs. private

repair for equipment 

Not included

Mission indirect X Does not include any information on where mission

indirect will be installed.

All maintenance depots

Ammunition missions
Appendix II: Task List for 2001 and 2002

Page 23 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

May 2001 Plan May 2002 Plan Comments

Next generation-AWPS Does not include any information on the status of the

Next generation-AWPS.

Corpus Christi 

Letterkenny 

Anniston 

Red River 

Tobyhanna 

Base operations-Next generation Does not include any information on the status of the

Base operations-Next generation.

Anniston .

Corpus Christi 

Letterkenny 

Tobyhanna 

Red River 

Source: GAO analysis.
Appendix III: Milestone Schedule

Page 24 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

Combined tasks included in the May 2001

and May 2002 plans May 2001 plan May 2002 plan

Short-Term 

Army Workload and Performance System

modules 

Workload No date provided No date provided

Workforce No date provided No date provided

Performance measurement and control No date provided No date provided

Resource scheduling and control Completion late 2001 No date provided

Decision Support System No date provided No date provided

Upgrade of modules from FoxPro

programming language to an Oracle/Power

Builder/Silver Stream

Installed at maintenance depots and will be

installed at other sites over the course of the

year.

Corpus Christi Installed, no date provided

Remaining depots Over the course of the year 

Enterprise Resource Planning System No date provided Completion February 2003 at Tobyhanna and

other commodity commands at about 3-month

intervals.

Long-Term 

Phase 1–Consolidate current ongoing

implementation 

Maintenance depots

Corpus Christi

Red River

Tobyhanna

Letterkenny

Anniston

Completion June 1996

Completion March 1999

Completion March 1999

Completion March 1999

Completion March 1999

As of October 2001, AWPS has been

operational at all five maintenance depots,

ammunition logistics, ammunition

manufacturing (Crane and McAlester), and

base operations at all maintenance depots.

Ammunition logistics at eight munitions

centers

Completion November 2000

Ammunition manufacturing 

Crane Army ammunition activity No date provided 

McAlester Army ammunition activity No date provided 

Base operations at all maintenance depots

and ammunition logistics activities

Completion December 30, 2002 No date provided for base operations at

ammunition logistics.

Manufacturing arsenals Deployment June 2003

Rock Island Completion February 2003 

Pine Bluff Completion January 2004 

Watervliet Completion April 2004 

Continued upgrade of Web-based executive

module

No date provided No date provided

Phase 2–Cover additional maintenance

activities 

General support organizations–Fort Bragg

and Fort Hood

No date provided Completion FY 2003

Aviation repair facility at Fort Rucker No date provided Completion FY 2002

Appendix III: Milestone Schedule
Appendix III: Milestone Schedule

Page 25 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

Combined tasks included in the May 2001

and May 2002 plans May 2001 plan May 2002 plan

Phase 3–Develop Decision Support System

Tools 

Part I-Improvements to current AWPS

Net operating result reporting capability

module 

Maintenance depots Prototype August 2001 Prototype-fourth quarter, FY 2002

Ammunition logistics Prototype March 2002 Prototype-second quarter, FY 2003

Working capital fund budget linkage No date provided No date provided

Material module 

Corpus Christi-Prototype site Completion September 2001 Completion fourth quarter, FY 2002

Remaining maintenance depots Completion August 2002 Completion first quarter, FY 2003

Part II–Improve depot maintenance workload

requirements 

Depot Maintenance Operations Planning

System tool

No date provided No date provided

Production of Operations Planning budget No date provided No date provided

Depot Maintenance Operations Planning

System tool to manage 50/50 requirement

No date provided No date provided

Linkage between the Depot Maintenance

Operations Planning System lock points and

AWPS study capability

No date provided No date provided

Part III–Improve efficiency of operations of

the depots 

Business process re-engineering tools No date provided No date provided

Between maintenance provider-process

model No date provided No date provided

Model to evaluate new investment vs. repair No date provided No date provided

Mission indirect 

All maintenance depots Completion August 2002 Completion by the end of 2004

Ammunition missions Completion June 2003 

Source: GAO analysis.
Appendix IV: Scope and Methodology

Page 26 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

To determine whether the Army’s May 2002 master plan contains adequate

information to assess the Army’s progress in implementing AWPS, we

reviewed the Army’s May 2001 and May 2002 master plans. We compared

the contents of these plans to the key requirements set forth in section 346

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. In addition,

we reviewed the May 2002 master plan to determine the extent to which it

addressed the recommendations outlined in our November 1999 report.1

We also examined the Department of Defense’s regulation2 outlining the

mandatory procedures for the acquisition of major automated information

systems to determine specific criteria required for a progress report. We

compared the contents of the May 2002 master plan to the criteria outlined

in this regulation. Although this regulation does not specifically apply to

the development of the AWPS system, we believe that sound management

practices support the need to address these parameters in the Army’s

progress reports. We also met with officials at the Headquarters,

Department of the Army; Headquarters, Army Material Command; and the

Operations Support Command in Rock Island, Illinois, to discuss the

development and implementation of the AWPS system. In addition, we

discussed the benefits and problems that the depots have experienced

with AWPS with officials at Tobyhanna Army Depot, Tobyhanna,

Pennsylvania; and Corpus Christi Army Depot, Corpus Christi, Texas. We

did not, however, independently review the effectiveness of the AWPS

system at the depots we visited. Lastly, we relied on prior work done in

connection with the implementation of AWPS.

To identify the measures the Army has taken to ensure appropriate

coordination and data sharing between AWPS and the Logistics

Modernization Program, we reviewed the February 2002 Interface Control

Document developed jointly by the Department of the Army and the

Computer Sciences Corporation, and discussed the related interface

initiatives with appropriate Army and contractor officials. We also

reviewed the actions the Army had taken to facilitate the interface and

data sharing between the two systems to identify what additional actions

were needed before the Army could be assured that the AWPS system

 1

 See U.S. General Accounting Office, Defense Logistics: Army Should Assess Cost

and Benefits of the Workload Performance System Expansion, GAO/NSIAD-00-16

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 12, 1999).

2

 Mandatory Procedures for Major Defense Acquisition Programs and Major Automated

Information System Acquisition Programs (Department of Defense Regulation 5000.2-R,

Apr. 5, 2002).

Appendix IV: Scope and Methodology
Appendix IV: Scope and Methodology

Page 27 GAO-03-21 Army Logistics

would remain fully operational during the transition period. Specifically,

we met with officials at the Headquarters, Department of the Army;

Headquarters, Army Materiel Command; the Army’s Operations Support

Command in Rock Island, Illinois; the Logistics Modernization Project

Office in Moorestown, New Jersey; and Tobyhanna Army Depot and

Corpus Christi Army Depot. Because the interface between the two

systems is still being developed and has not been fully tested, we were

unable to assess its effectiveness.

We conducted our review between March 2002 and August 2002 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

(350170)
The General Accounting Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily

E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.

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

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

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537

Fax: (202) 512-6061

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs

Public Affairs