COAST GUARD

Observations on Progress 

Made and Challenges Faced 

in Developing and 

Implementing a Common 

Operational Picture

Statement of Stephen L. Caldwell, Director 

Homeland Security and Justice Issues

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard 

and Maritime Transportation, 

Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10 a.m. EDT

July 31, 2013

GAO-13-784T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-784T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and 

Maritime Transportation, Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 

Representatives

July 31, 2013

COAST GUARD

Observations on Progress Made and Challenges 

Faced in Developing and Implementing a Common 

Operational Picture 

Why GAO Did This Study

To facilitate its mission effectiveness 

through greater 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. 

COP-related systems include systems

that can be used to access, or provide 

information to, the COP.

This statement summarizes GAO’s 

work on (1) the Coast Guard’s 

progress in increasing the availability 

of data sources and COP information 

to users and (2) the challenges the 

Coast Guard has experienced in 

developing and implementing COPrelated systems. This statement is 

based on GAO’s prior work issued 

from July 2011 through April 2013 on 

various Coast Guard acquisition and 

implementation efforts related to the 

COP, along with selected updates 

conducted in July 2013. To conduct the 

selected updates, GAO obtained 

documentation on the Coast Guard’s 

reported status in developing COPrelated acquisition planning 

documents.

What GAO Recommends

GAO has made recommendations in 

prior work to enhance the Coast 

Guard’s development and 

implementation of its COP-related 

systems. DHS generally concurred 

with the recommendations and has 

reported actions under way to address 

them. 

What GAO Found

The Coast Guard, a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 

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

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

information. The Coast Guard has made progress by adding internal and external 

data sources that allow for better understanding of anything associated with the 

global maritime domain that could affect the United States. The COP has made 

information from these sources available to more COP users and decision 

makers throughout the Coast Guard. For example, in 2006, the ability to track the 

location of Coast Guard assets, including small boats and cutters, was 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. 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.

The Coast Guard has also experienced challenges in developing and 

implementing COP-related systems and meeting the COP’s goals for

implementing systems to display and share COP information. These challenges 

have affected the Coast Guard’s deployment of recent COP technology 

acquisitions and are related to such things as the inability to share information as 

intended and systems not meeting intended objectives. For example, in July 

2011, GAO reported that the Coast Guard had not met its goal of building a 

single, fully interoperable Command, Control, Communications, Computers, 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance program (C4ISR) system—a 

$2.5 billion project intended to enable the sharing of COP and other data among 

its new offshore vessels and aircraft. Specifically, GAO noted that the Coast 

Guard: (1) repeatedly changed its strategy for achieving the goal of the C4ISR 

system and (2) that not all vessels and aircraft were operating the same C4ISR 

system, or even at the same classification level and hence could not directly 

exchange data with one another as intended. GAO 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 designed to gather data to help 

port partner agencies collaborate in the conduct of operations and share 

information, among other things—met few port agency partner needs, in part

because the agency failed to determine these needs when developing the 

system. Further, in April 2013, GAO reported that, among other things, the Coast 

Guard experienced challenges when it deployed its Enterprise Geographic 

Information System (EGIS), a tool for viewing COP information that did not meet 

user needs. The challenges Coast Guard personnel experienced with EGIS 

included system slowness and displays of inaccurate information. 

View GAO-13-784T. For more information, 

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

or caldwells@gao.gov.
 

Page 1 GAO-13-784T 

Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Garamendi, and Members of the 

Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the status of the Coast Guard’s 

progress in developing a Common Operational Picture (COP), and the 

challenges the agency has faced in managing this effort. As you know, 

maritime domain awareness (MDA)—which involves the effective 

understanding of anything in the maritime environment that could impact 

the security, safety, economy or environment of the United States—is 

critical to the Coast Guard’s mission efforts. According to the Coast 

Guard, MDA played a key role in 2011 as it 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.

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

complex information-sharing network with its maritime partners. 

Specifically, as the lead agency in the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) for maintaining and improving MDA efforts, the Coast Guard works 

with its 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 among these partners 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 also be able to share information at 

the classified level. Similarly, because many of its mission-related 

interagency activities are with other federal, state, and local government 

agencies, as well as 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.1

To facilitate this information sharing for mission effectiveness and 

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

 

1 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 nonfederal partners. 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-784T 

began developing its COP—an interactive map-based information system 

that can be shared among Coast Guard commands—that displays 

vessels and information about those vessels and the environment 

surrounding them. 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. The COP can be a stand-alone 

presentation or part of mission-oriented Geographic Information System 

(GIS) displays that are linked to information sources.2 COP-related 

systems include systems that can be used to access, or provide 

information, to the COP.

My statement today is based on our prior work issued from July 2011 

through April 2013 on the Coast Guard’s implementation of COP-related 

systems, and the challenges the Coast Guard has encountered in 

acquiring and implementing these systems, including selected updates 

conducted in July 2013 related to the Coast Guard’s acquisition strategy 

of COP-related systems. This statement discusses (1) the Coast Guard’s 

progress in increasing data sources and the availability of COP 

information to users and (2) the challenges the Coast Guard has

experienced in developing and implementing COP-related systems. For 

our previous reports we analyzed Coast Guard documentation, such as 

pertinent provisions of the Coast Guard’s Common Operational Picture 

Concept of Operations, and interviewed Coast Guard officials, including 

headquarters officials responsible for managing the COP’s development 

and requirements and field personnel who use the COP. More detailed 

information on our scope and methodology appears in our published 

work. 3 For the selected updates, we obtained documentation on the 

 

2 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. 

3 See GAO, Coast Guard: Clarifying the Application of Guidance for Common Operational 

Picture Development Would Strengthen Program. GAO-13-321 (Washington, D.C.: April 

25, 2013); GAO, Maritime Security: Coast Guard Needs to Improve Use and Management 

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

and GAO, Coast Guard: Action Needed As Approved Deepwater Program Remains 

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

Page 3 GAO-13-784T 

Coast Guard’s reported status in developing acquisition planning and 

technical documents for COP-related systems. All of our work was 

conducted 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.

According to the Coast Guard, the COP became operational in 2003 and 

is comprised of four elements:

• 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 track 

information or position reports of Coast Guard and port partner 

vessels. 

• 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.4

 

4 Internal sources include intelligence inputs and Coast Guard databases such as the 

Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) and the Ship Arrival 

Notification System (SANS), among others. MISLE 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. The SANS is a Coast Guard database populated with Notice of 

Arrival information that vessels are required to submit 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. External sources include the Department of Defense and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Background 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-784T 

• Command and control systems: These systems 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. These systems have 

included the Global Command and Control System (GCCS), 

Command and Control Personal Computer (C2PC), and Hawkeye.5 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 Deepwater6 Command, Control, 

Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance (C4ISR) program system improvements.7

• 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 included in the 

COP and the requirements document, which identifies the essential 

capabilities and associated requirements needed to make the COP 

 

5 C2PC is a Microsoft Windows-based system implemented in 2004 that displays the COP 

from a GCCS-based server that allows users to view near real-time situational awareness. 

Hawkeye is a system implemented in 2005 that monitors and tracks commercial vessels 

on the coast and in port areas using radar, cameras, and Automatic Identification System 

(AIS) sensors. 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. GCCS is a system developed in 2003 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. 

6 The Coast Guard’s acquisition program aimed at recapitalizing its surface, air, and, 

information technology capacity (formerly known as Deepwater) is 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. 

7 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). This technology 

acquisition was intended to create an interoperable network of sensors, computer 

systems, and hardware to improve MDA.
 

Page 5 GAO-13-784T 

function. These procedures also include other documents such as 

standard operating procedures on how the Coast Guard uses the 

COP, agreements with others using the COP on how information is to 

be shared or exchanged, and rules for how data are correlated and 

how vessels are flagged as threats or friends.

Figure 1 depicts the Coast Guard’s vision of the COP with Coast Guard 

internal and external users.

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

a

The Coast Guard’s two Maritime Intelligence Fusion Centers serve as the central hubs for fusion, 

analysis, and dissemination of maritime intelligence and information at the operational and tactical 

level.
 

Page 6 GAO-13-784T 

In April 2013, we reported that 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.8 In 

general, the COP has added internal and external data sources and types 

of vessel-tracking information that enhance COP users’ knowledge of the 

maritime domain. Vessel tracking information had been available 

previously to Coast Guard field units located in ports through a Vessel 

Tracking Service—that is, a service that provides active monitoring and 

navigational advice for vessels in confined and busy waterways to help 

facilitate maritime safety.9 However, adding it to the COP provided a 

broader base of situational awareness for Coast Guard operational 

commanders. For example, before automatic identification system (AIS)10

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. 

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.

Another enhancement to the information available in the COP was 

provided through the updating of certain equipment on Coast Guard 

assets that enabled them to collect and transmit data. Specifically, the 

Coast Guard made some data collection and sharing improvements, 

including the installation of commercial satellite communications 

 

8 GAO-13-321. 

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

in confined and busy waterways to help facilitate maritime safety. 

10 The 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. 

The Coast Guard Has 

Made Progress in 

Adding Data Sources 

and the Availability of 

COP Information to 

Users 
 

Page 7 GAO-13-784T 

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. 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 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.

We previously reported that the Coast Guard has experienced challenges 

with COP-related technology acquisitions that resulted from the Coast 

Guard not following its own information technology acquisition guidance 

and processes. These challenges included poor usability and the inability 

to share information as intended, and ultimately resulted in the Coast 

Guard not meeting its goals for multiple COP-related systems. For 

example, four COP-related systems have been affected by the Coast 

Guard not closely following its acquisition processes.

C4ISR project. The C4ISR project was designed to allow the Coast 

Guard’s newly acquired offshore vessels and aircraft 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.11 However, 

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

 

11 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. See GAO-11-743. 

The Coast Guard Has 

Experienced 

Challenges in 

Developing and 

Implementing COPrelated Systems
 

Page 8 GAO-13-784T 

building the $2.5 billion C4ISR system.12 Specifically, we reported that the 

Coast Guard had repeatedly changed its strategy for achieving C4ISR’s 

goal of building a single fully interoperable command, control, intelligence, 

surveillance, and reconnaissance system across the Coast Guard’s new

vessels and aircraft. Further, 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, an aircraft operating with a classified system had 

difficulty sharing information with others operating on unclassified 

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

reported at that time that the Coast Guard may shift away from a full datasharing capability and instead use a system where shore-based 

command centers serve as conduits between assets while also entering 

data from assets into the COP. This approach could increase the time it 

takes for COP information, for example, 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 could 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 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 among assets. We 

recommended, and the Coast Guard concurred, that it should determine 

whether the system-of-systems concept13 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. 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 

 

12 GAO-11-743. 

13 A 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. 
 

Page 9 GAO-13-784T 

documentation. We will continue to assess the C4ISR program through 

our ongoing work on Coast Guard recapitalization efforts.

Development of WatchKeeper. Another mechanism that was expected 

to increase access to COP information was the DHS Interagency 

Operations Center (IOC) program, which was delegated to the Coast 

Guard for development.

14 This $74 million program began providing COP 

information to Coast Guard agency partners in 2010 using WatchKeeper 

software. The IOCs were originally designed to gather data from sensors 

and port partner sources to provide situational awareness to Coast Guard 

sector15 personnel and to Coast Guard partners in state and local law 

enforcement and port operations, among others. Specifically, 

WatchKeeper was designed to provide Coast Guard personnel and port 

partners with access to the same unclassified GIS data, thereby 

improving collaboration between them and leveraging their respective 

capabilities in responding to cases. For example, in responding to a

distress call, access to WatchKeeper information would allow both the 

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

possible response vessels, so they could allocate resources and develop 

search patterns that made 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.16 However, the Coast Guard had limited 

success in improving information sharing between the Coast Guard and 

 

14 IOCs 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; developing real-time awareness, evaluate threats, and deploy 

resources; and minimize the economic impact from any disruption. In July 2007, the DHS 

Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs reported to Congress that the Coast Guard’s 

acquisition project Command 21—later named the Interagency Operations Centers (IOC) 

project—would meet the Safety and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port 

Act) provision that requires the establishment of IOCs. The SAFE Port Act requires IOCs 

to be incorporated in the implementation and administration of, among other things, 

maritime intelligence activities, information sharing, and short and long-range vessel 

tracking. Pub. L. No. 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884, 1892-93 (2006). 

15 Coast 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. 

16 GAO-12-202.
 

Page 10 GAO-13-784T 

local port partners and did not follow its established guidance during the 

development of WatchKeeper—a major component of the $74 million 

Interagency Operations Center acquisition project. By not following its 

guidance, the Coast Guard failed to determine the needs of its users, 

define acquisition requirements, or determine cost and schedule 

information. Specifically, prior to the initial deployment of WatchKeeper, 

the Coast Guard had made limited efforts to determine port partner needs 

for the system. For example, we found that Coast Guard officials had 

some high level discussions, primarily with other DHS partners, but that 

port partner involvement in the development of WatchKeeper 

requirements was primarily limited to Customs and Border Protection 

because WatchKeeper had grown 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.

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 

at risk of deploying a system that lacked needed capabilities, which 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 IOC acquisition project increased the program’s 

exposure to risk. In particular, fundamental requirements-development 

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 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 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-784T 

port-partner input into the development of future WatchKeeper 

requirements; and define, document, and prioritize WatchKeeper 

requirements. As of April 2013, we had not received any reports of 

progress on these recommendations from the Coast Guard.

Coast Guard Enterprise Geographic Information System (EGIS). In 

April 2013, we also reported that Coast Guard personnel we interviewed 

who use EGIS--an important component, along with its associated viewer, 

for accessing COP information—stated that they had experienced 

numerous challenges with the system after it was implemented in 2009.

17

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.18

Specifically, the Coast Guard personnel we interviewed who used EGIS 

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

information, or degraded the performance of their computer 

workstations—making EGIS’s performance generally unsatisfactory to 

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.

In addition to user-identified challenges, we reported in April 2013 that 

Coast Guard information technology (IT) officials told us they had 

experienced challenges largely related to insufficient computational power 

 

17 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. See GAO-13-321. 

18 Command 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. 
 

Page 12 GAO-13-784T 

on some Coast Guard work stations, a lack of training for users and 

system installers, and inadequate testing of EGIS software before 

installation. For example, 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. In regard to training, Coast Guard officials told us that they had 

developed online internal training for EGIS, and classroom training was 

also available from the software supplier. However, Coast Guard IT 

officials stated 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 pre-test the demands of EGIS on Coast 

Guard systems in real world conditions, according to Coast Guard 

officials. Tests conducted later, after users commented on their problems 

using EGIS, 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 established 

acquisition processes for IT development. 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.

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 

personnel from the Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) 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 

CIO personnel, it was the responsibility of the system 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 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-784T 

performance problems. These Coast Guard officials were unable to 

explain how this communication breakdown had occurred.

Coast Guard One View (CG1V). In April 2013, we reported that the 

Coast Guard had not followed its own information technology 

development guidance when developing its new COP viewer, known as 

Coast Guard One View, or CG1V.19 The Coast Guard reported that it 

began development of 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.20 However, in 2012, 

during its initial development of CG1V, the agency did not follow its 

System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) guidance which requires 

documents to be completed during specific phases of product 

development.21 Specifically, 9 months after CG1V had entered into the 

SDLC 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 SDLC-required tailoring plan is supposed to provide a 

clear and concise listing of SDLC process requirements throughout the 

entire system lifecycle, and facilitate 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 CG1V was a proven concept. However, without 

 

19 GAO-13-321. 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. 

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

2 years because of the Coast Guard’s response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and 

other unforeseen events that diverted Coast Guard resources. 

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

acquisitions—those with less than $300 million dollars in life cycle costs—to help ensure 

IT projects are managed effectively and meet user needs. The SDLC process has seven 

major phases: (1) conceptual planning, (2) planning and requirements, (3) design, (4) 

development and testing, (5) implementation, (6) operations and maintenance activities, 

and (7) disposition. 
 

Page 14 GAO-13-784T 

key phase one documents, the Coast Guard may have prematurely 

selected CG1V as a solution without reviewing other viable alternatives to 

meet its vision, and may have dedicated resources to CG1V 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. In our 

April 2013 report, we recommended 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. The Coast Guard concurred with the recommendation and 

reported that it planned to mitigate the risks of potential implementation 

challenges of future technology developments for the COP by issuing 

proper guidance and clarifying procedures regarding the applicability of 

the SDLC. The Coast Guard estimated that it would implement this 

recommendation by the end of fiscal year 2013.

Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Garamendi, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy 

to respond to any questions.

For questions about this statement, please contact Stephen L. Caldwell at 

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

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this statement 

include Dawn Hoff (Assistant Director), Jonathan Bachman, Jason 

Berman, Laurier Fish, Bintou Njie, Jessica Orr, Lerone Reid, and 

Katherine Trimble. 

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(441172)
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.
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.