Air Force Electronic Systems Center: Reorganization Resulted in Workforce Reassignments at Hanscom Air Force Base, but Other Possible Effects Are Not Yet Known
Published: 2013-04-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Electronic command and control systems, which rely on technologies such as radar, satellite, and electronic surveillance, play a critical role in modern-day defense strategy. ESC at Hanscom Air Force Base supported the Air Force's ability to develop and acquire these capabilities. It was inactivated in July 2012 as part of an effort to respond to an initiative by the Office of the Secretary of Defense to reduce civilian positions to fiscal year 2010 levels. The reorganization consolidated ESC into AFLCMC at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, which manages weapon systems from inception to retirement. Congress directed GAO to assess the effect of the reorganization on Hanscom's mission. This report examines (1) how the reorganization affected reporting chains of command, workforce composition, and the acquisition mission at Hanscom Air Force Base, (2) opportunities and concerns resulting from the reorganization at Hanscom, and (3) what is known about the effects of the reorganization and what metrics have been developed to assess how the new organization is meeting customers' needs. GAO evaluated relevant documentation; reviewed data on eliminated positions; and interviewed Air Force officials, selected contractors based on size and proximity to Hanscom Air Force Base, and Hanscom's primary customers. Results from these interviews cannot be generalized but offer stakeholders' perspectives on the reorganization.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The reorganization of the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) affected reporting chains of command and workforce composition for some offices at Hanscom Air Force Base, but did not change how former components of the Electronic Systems Center (ESC) at Hanscom carry out their acquisition mission. Personnel in functional offices who provide technical services previously reported to the locally-based ESC leadership; they now report directly to senior functional managers at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, who oversee functional offices across all locations of the new Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) established by the reorganization. In addition, the reorganization eliminated 131 functional office positions (about 10 percent of Hanscom's civilian positions), which AFMC determined were not directly involved with development, delivery, or sustainment of weapon systems. GAO's analysis of Hanscom's data showed that the eliminated positions included 13 which were unfilled; of personnel in the remaining 118 positions, 15 accepted voluntary-separation agreements, 102 were reassigned at Hanscom Air Force Base, and 1 was removed. The reorganization did not change the mission of directorates that deliver electronic capabilities to customers.
Various opportunities and concerns at Hanscom Air Force Base resulted from the reorganization. According to officials at Hanscom and Wright-Patterson Air Force Bases, customers, and contractors, the opportunities include increased focus on life-cycle management of electronic systems, increased collaboration within the command, and greater standardization of processes. Hanscom Air Force Base officials and contractors identified some concerns related to increased workload for functional office personnel due to position eliminations, process delays, the lack of full understanding of Hanscom's programs by AFLCMC officials, and whether Hanscom Air Force Base will continue as the center of electronic systems for the Air Force. However, AFMC and AFLCMC senior officials generally did not see these concerns as significant problems. For example, they stated that AFLCMC's senior functional managers do not require in-depth technical knowledge of Hanscom's programs because the functions, such as financial management, apply across programs. AFLCMC's steps to facilitate the reorganization include establishing a governance structure and communicating with stakeholders.
The effects of the reorganization on Hanscom's core mission of delivering electronic systems to customers are not yet fully known, but AFLCMC has developed metrics to measure how well it is meeting customer needs. Officials stated the changes went into effect only recently and multiple factors unrelated to the reorganization, such as budget changes, may affect the mission. However, AFLCMC developed organizational objectives and associated metrics in areas such as delivering cost-effective acquisition solutions and providing affordable and effective product support. The metrics, while not designed to measure the effects of the reorganization, are intended to measure how AFLCMC is meeting customers' needs. The data for the metrics will be collected by individual offices and aggregated monthly at the AFLCMC level, according to its senior officials.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is not making recommendations in this report. DOD provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Electronic command and control systems, which rely on technologies  such as radar, satellite, and electronic surveillance, play a critical role in  modern-day defense strategy because they enable commanders to make  informed decisions and quickly pass those decisions to troops in the field.  The Electronic Systems Center (ESC) at Hanscom Air Force Base,  Massachusetts, supported the Air Force’s ability to develop and acquire  these critical capabilities in support of the warfighter. ESC was an Air  Force product center located within the Air Force Materiel Command  (AFMC), and was inactivated in July 2012 as part of the larger effort by  AFMC to respond to an initiative in 2011 by the Office of the Secretary of  Defense that required Air Force civilian positions to be reduced to fiscal  year 2010 levels. In response, AFMC reorganized its 12 geographically- based centers, including ESC, into 5 mission-based centers, thereby  eliminating 1,051 of its approximately 24,000 civilian operations and  maintenance positions. As part of the reorganization, ESC was  consolidated into the newly created Air Force Life Cycle Management  Center (AFLCMC), headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,  Ohio, which manages weapon systems, including electronic command- and-control systems, from their inception to retirement. The new  organization reached initial operating capability on October 1, 2012, and  is expected to reach full operational capability by October 1, 2013.
The Senate Armed Services Committee’s report Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year  2013 directed GAO to assess the effect of the reorganization of ESC on a  number of areas, including the acquisition and fielding of integrated  capabilities, and the management and integration of administrative  functions under the new structure. This report examines (1) how the  reorganization changed the reporting chains of command, workforce  composition, and acquisition mission at Hanscom Air Force Base,   (2) opportunities and concerns at Hanscom Air Force Base resulting from  the reorganization and steps the Air Force has taken to facilitate the  reorganization, and (3) what is known about the effects of the  reorganization and what metrics the Air Force has developed for  assessing how AFLCMC is meeting the needs of its customers.
S. Rep. No. 112-173, at 248 (2012). these data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. In  addition, to assess the opportunities and concerns of the reorganization  at Hanscom Air Force Base, as well as the steps taken to facilitate its  implementation, we reviewed relevant documentation highlighting  opportunities and concerns, as well as reviewed documentation of  initiatives used to implement the reorganization and to communicate  information about it throughout the command. We used our prior work on  organizational transformations to assess the Air Force’s involvement of  relevant stakeholders in the reorganization process and the development  of mechanisms to communicate reorganization-related information to  them. Also, to analyze the Air Force’s development of metrics to  measure how well AFLCMC is meeting the needs of its customers, we  reviewed documentation of its objectives and metrics. We also reviewed  DOD’s guidance directing the development of results-oriented  performance metrics to assess the efforts of AFMC and AFLCMC.
To address all three objectives, we conducted site visits to both Wright- Patterson Air Force Base and Hanscom Air Force Base and interviewed  cognizant officials across AFMC and AFLCMC. We included officials in  mission implementation directorates who conduct the acquisition of  electronic systems at Hanscom Air Force Base, such as the two program  executive officers (PEO) and five system program managers, as well as  officials who support them in the functional offices, such as acquisition,  contracting, engineering, financial management, and personnel. We  selected a nongeneralizable sample of seven contractors, based on their  size and proximity to Hanscom Air Force Base, to discuss the effects of  the reorganization on their relationship with Hanscom Air Force Base and  on their ability to implement the mission in support of the former ESC  directorates. Additionally, we requested the names of Hanscom’s primary  customers, and contacted a nongeneralizeable sample of six primary  customers that receive products from both directorates at Hanscom Air  Force Base to discuss the effects of the reorganization on cycle-time  drivers and fielding timelines. Although views expressed by contractors  and customers we interviewed cannot be generalized to the entire  population of contractors and customers working with Hanscom Air Force  Base, they provide perspectives on how these key stakeholders view the  reorganization. Further, we interviewed other officials with knowledge of  the reorganization and its effects on Hanscom Air Force Base, including  the former ESC senior leadership team, officials from the Office of the  Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition), and officials from  RAND Project Air Force who conducted an assessment of the AFMC  reorganization as a whole. The full list of organizations that we contacted  appears in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to April 2013, in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: AFMC, headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, was  created in 1992. It conducts research, development, test and evaluation,  as well as provides acquisition-management services and logistics  support necessary to ensure the readiness of Air Force weapon systems.  AFMC has traditionally fulfilled its mission of equipping the Air Force  through: the Air Force Research Laboratory; product centers that develop  and acquire the weapon systems; test centers that offer the testing of the  systems; and air logistics centers that service, upgrade, and repair the  systems over their lifetimes. In addition, AFMC’s various specialized  centers are designed to perform other functions, including foreign military  sales and delivery of nuclear capabilities.
In light of the budget pressures that the Department of Defense (DOD)  and, in turn, AFMC faced in recent years, the Office of the Secretary of  Defense’s Resource Management Decision 703A2 directed that civilian  staffing levels for all services be returned to fiscal year 2010 levels.
In  response, AFMC announced a plan for reorganization in November 2011,  which was designed to achieve position cuts and produce efficiencies  throughout the command. As such, the reorganization eliminated   1,051 civilian positions and combined the functions of its 12 centers into  5 centers with each center assuming responsibility for one of AFMC’s   5 mission areas: (1) science and technology, (2) life-cycle management,  (3) test and evaluation, (4) sustainment, and (5) nuclear weapon support.  The geographic location where the functions of the former 12 centers  were performed generally did not change as a result of the reorganization  to the 5 current centers. Figure 1 shows the structure of AFMC before  and after the reorganization.
ESC was one of AFMC’s 12 former centers, headquartered at Hanscom  Air Force Base, Massachusetts. ESC served as the Air Force’s center for  the development and acquisition of electronic command-and-control  systems. Under the reorganization, ESC’s functions were consolidated  with other centers to become AFLCMC, a center at Wright-Patterson Air  Force Base established in July 2012 with responsibility for total life-cycle  management of all aircraft, engines, munitions, and electronic systems.
Life-cycle management involves the refinement of product requirements  to address existing needs, technology development, system  development, production and fielding, and ongoing sustainment of the  product.
Hanscom Air Force Base has two directorates that are responsible for the  life-cycle management of electronic systems: (1) Battle Management and  (2) Command, Control, Communications, Intelligence and Networks. The  directorates are led by PEOs who are ultimately responsible for  acquisition of the systems in their portfolio and their timely delivery to the  customer. To achieve their mission of acquisition and product support,  PEOs are supported by system program managers, each of whom has  responsibility for the development and design of support systems for a  particular electronic system. PEOs are also supported by functional  offices, which provide technical services such as acquisition, engineering,  financial management, and contracting.
section_title: Reorganization Affected Reporting Chains and Workforce Composition, but Did Not Change Acquisition Mission at Hanscom Air Force Base
paragraphs: The reorganization affected the reporting chains of command and the  workforce composition for some offices, but did not change the  acquisition mission at Hanscom Air Force Base.
subsections: section_title: Reorganization Affected Reporting Chains of Command and Workforce Composition at Hanscom Air Force Base
paragraphs: The reorganization affected the reporting chains of command and the  composition of the workforce for some offices at Hanscom Air Force  Base. Specifically, the reorganization affected the reporting chains of  command within PEO directorates by inactivating ESC, removing its   3-star Commander, and integrating the former ESC into AFLCMC, a  newly established organization led by a 3-star commander at Wright- Patterson Air Force Base. Although Hanscom’s two PEOs continue to  report to the Air Force’s service acquisition executive at the Pentagon in  performing their mission related to acquisition of weapon systems and  product support, under the reorganization they also support the  AFLCMC Commander in organizing, training, and equipping the PEO  directorates (see fig. 2).
The reorganization also affected the reporting chains of command for  system program managers, who support PEOs. Prior to the  reorganization, system program managers reported to the PEOs for initial  system development, system procurement, manufacturing, and testing of  weapon systems. Once the weapon systems matured, the functions of  the system program manager transferred to an air logistics center where  the system program manager reported to the designated acquisition  officials for product sustainment responsibilities. The reorganization  eliminated the position of designated acquisition officials and, as a result,  system program managers report to PEOs at all stages of the product life  cycle, including product sustainment. This change affected the functions  of PEOs, who under the reorganization have oversight responsibility not  just for the acquisition of the weapon systems, as they did under the old  structure, but also for the sustainment and product support of these  systems.
Further, the reorganization affected the reporting chains of command for  personnel in Hanscom’s functional offices. Specifically, functional office  personnel at Hanscom Air Force Base—who provide technical services  such as acquisition, engineering, financial management, and  contracting—previously were managed by locally-based ESC leadership.  Under the reorganization, they report directly to senior functional  managers at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. As a result of this  change, senior functional managers oversee the flow of funding and task  assignments that were formerly managed at individual locations,  according to Hanscom’s functional office personnel. For example,  Hanscom officials said that prior to the reorganization, officials at  Hanscom Air Force Base could determine what positions required a   top-secret security clearance, whereas since the reorganization senior  functional managers at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base make these  determinations.
In addition to its effects on the reporting chains of command, the  reorganization also affected the composition of Hanscom’s workforce by  eliminating about 10 percent of its civilian authorizations.the reorganization eliminated 131 of Hanscom’s 1,258 civilian  authorizations that were comprised exclusively of government positions  and did not include contractor positions, according to a Hanscom  contracting official. All of these positions were identified by AFMC as  overhead. AFMC officials said they targeted overhead positions for  elimination, rather than first eliminating vacant positions or making  uniform cuts across all centers, in an effort to implement the cuts in a  strategic manner. After deciding to focus the cuts on positions identified  as overhead, AFMC officials stated that they consulted with all of their  product centers to come to an agreement on positions that qualified as  overhead.
VERA/VSIP are programs that allow agencies to incentivize surplus or displaced  employees to separate by early retirement, voluntary retirement, or resignation. The  Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, §1313(b), authorized these  programs under regulations issued by the Office of Personnel Management. The Office of  Personnel Management has issued guidance to the agencies stating that these programs  may be used when the buyout averts an involuntary separation of the person taking the  buyout or another individual who can fill the position that was vacated by the person taking  the buyout. either already were vacant or became vacant as the result of other  employees agreeing to leave through VERA/VSIP, and 1 person was  removed while in a probationary period (see fig. 3).
The reorganization did not change the mission of Hanscom’s directorates  that are responsible for the acquisition of electronic systems. Our analysis  of documentation from Hanscom and Wright-Patterson Air Force Bases  showed that the PEOs responsible for carrying out Hanscom’s acquisition  mission have remained at Hanscom Air Force Base and no positions  were eliminated within Hanscom’s directorates that are directly involved  with the implementation of its acquisition mission. Moreover, both of the  PEOs at Hanscom Air Force Base who directly manage the acquisition of  weapon systems, as well as system program managers who work for  them, told us the reorganization did not change the processes for carrying  out their mission, or change acquisition and fielding processes and  timeframes. While the Air Force recently expanded the portfolios of the  two PEOs at Hanscom Air Force Base, Air Force officials attributed this  change to an unrelated initiative by the Air Force’s service acquisition  executive. In addition, none of the six customers we interviewed identified  any changes in how Hanscom Air Force Base components carry out their  acquisition functions, including how they interact with and deliver products  to the customer.
section_title: Officials Identified Opportunities and Concerns Resulting from the Reorganization at Hanscom Air Force Base
paragraphs: The reorganization resulted in opportunities and some concerns at  Hanscom Air Force Base, and AFLCMC has taken steps to facilitate its  implementation.
subsections: section_title: Opportunities at Hanscom Air Force Base from the Reorganization
paragraphs: Officials at Hanscom Air Force Base and Wright-Patterson Air Force  Base, as well as Hanscom customers and contractors, stated that the  reorganization resulted in opportunities to help strengthen the delivery of  products to customers. These opportunities include increased focus on  life-cycle management of weapon systems by PEOs, an increase in  collaboration of personnel within the restructured AFLCMC, and greater  standardization of processes.
Increased focus on life-cycle management. According to officials at  Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and Hanscom Air Force Base, one of  the benefits of the reorganization is the focus on life-cycle  management achieved by giving PEOs responsibilities over all phases  of the weapon system’s life cycle. By assuming oversight over all  phases of the life cycle, PEOs can more efficiently manage the  systems in their portfolio, according to Hanscom’s PEOs and system  program managers whom we interviewed. For example, one PEO told  us that overseeing the system through its entire life cycle has allowed  him to be more aware of sustainment-related costs during a system’s  development, thus bringing the potential for more long-term value to  the customer. Further, three of the six customers we interviewed  stated that an increased focus on life-cycle management could result  in greater efficiencies and value to the customer in the long term.
Increased collaboration within the command. Wright-Patterson Air  Force Base and Hanscom Air Force Base officials cited increased  opportunities for collaboration as a result of bringing several centers  and all of AFMC’s PEOs under the command of AFLCMC. For  example, the Commander of AFLCMC and both of Hanscom’s PEOs  stated that the reorganization provided PEOs and their staff with  increased opportunities to exchange key information related to  products. According to one of the PEOs, the sharing of information is  especially important when different PEOs are responsible for products  that complement each other, such as products that comprise a single  weapon system. Further, senior functional managers at Wright- Patterson Air Force Base said the establishment of AFLCMC enables  functional office personnel from different AFLCMC locations to share  technical expertise related to weapon systems under their purview,  and an engineering official at Hanscom Air Force Base said that she  and her counterparts at other AFLCMC locations have become more  aware of each others’ needs in carrying out duties such as recruiting  and hiring personnel.
Greater standardization of processes. AFMC and AFLCMC  headquarters officials at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base stated that  the reorganization allowed them to standardize processes and avoid  duplication associated with each location-based product center  maintaining its own set of processes. For example, personnel officials  at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base cited the benefits of having a  standard process of approving waivers from certain training  requirements across AFLCMC. Standardization of processes is one of  AFLCMC’s six strategic objectives, and the organization has taken  steps to promote standardization, including establishing a Process  and Standards Board, which led the effort to identify key processes  best suited to standardization, such as processes for developing cost  estimates by financial management personnel, awarding contracts by  contracting personnel, and conducting analysis of information  technology systems by engineering personnel. However, a former  ESC command staff member expressed concerns about the  appropriateness of standardizing certain processes given the  specialized needs of each of the former product centers subsumed  under AFLCMC. For example, he said the engineering expertise  required to support the development of aeronautical systems at  Wright-Patterson Air Force Base is different than the engineering  expertise and processes required to support the development of  electronic systems at Hanscom Air Force Base.
section_title: Concerns at Hanscom Air Force Base from the Reorganization
paragraphs: Current and former Hanscom officials and six contractors we interviewed  also raised some concerns associated with the reorganization. These  concerns related to: increased workload for functional office personnel at  Hanscom Air Force Base due to position eliminations there, process  delays resulting from centralization of various administrative processes  and actions at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, officials at Wright- Patterson Air Force Base not having a full understanding of Hanscom’s  programs, and possible future diminished importance of Hanscom Air  Force Base as the center of electronic systems for the Air Force. AFMC  and AFLCMC officials said they do not share these concerns and do not  agree that these issues reflect significant problems.
Specifically, current and former personnel and contractors we interviewed  stated the following concerns.
Increased workload. Functional office personnel at Hanscom Air  Force Base said they experienced an increase in their workload due  to the reorganization. They said they have had to assume  responsibility for the tasks previously performed by personnel whose  positions were eliminated. For example, an official providing functional  support to one of Hanscom’s directorates said her colleague had to  review immunization records for personnel within the directorate, a  task previously performed by other functional office personnel within  ESC. This official said her concern was that such tasks could take  time away from her office’s primary responsibility of supporting the  directorate’s acquisition mission. Moreover, functional office personnel  said due to ESC inactivation and the subsequent elimination of  positions providing ESC-wide functional support, they no longer have  the capability to maintain some of the projects previously performed at  the ESC level. For example, Hanscom’s functional office officials  stated they discontinued projects, such as a mentoring program for  financial management personnel and a knowledge-sharing online  resource for engineering personnel. In response, the AFLCMC  Commander said Hanscom Air Force Base retained key functional   expertise on site because it has remained an operating location for  functional office personnel under the new structure.
Process delays. In interviews, functional office personnel at  Hanscom Air Force Base, system program managers, and two  contractors stated that some processes have become more time  consuming with senior functional managers at Wright-Patterson Air  Force Base approving actions previously approved by ESC leadership  at Hanscom Air Force Base. For example, a financial management  official at Hanscom Air Force Base said due to the reorganization her  office experienced delays in the flow of funds from headquarters at  Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, which created concerns about  meeting fielding timelines. Similarly, contracting and personnel  officials at Hanscom Air Force Base said some processes, such as  obtaining waivers from certain standard requirements or filling  positions, take longer since they have to wait for approval by  AFLCMC headquarters at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. In the  past, officials said these actions could be expeditiously approved by  the ESC leadership at Hanscom Air Force Base. A former ESC  command staff member stated that these process delays could lead to  program decision delays, which could affect the PEOs’ acquisition  mission. With regard to centralization of approval authority, AFMC and  AFLCMC officials said any delays in approval authority have not  adversely affected the customers. Moreover, they said standardizing  processes will help reduce duplication and is expected to generate  greater efficiencies for the customer in the long term.
Lack of full understanding of Hanscom’s programs. In interviews,  functional office personnel at Hanscom Air Force Base, members of  the former ESC leadership team, and two of the seven contractors  expressed concerns that AFLCMC personnel at Wright-Patterson Air  Force Base, who provide support to all AFLCMC locations, may not  have a full understanding of Hanscom’s programs. For example, a  former ESC command staff member and an engineering official at  Hanscom Air Force Base stated that the type of engineering support  required for electronic systems is different from the type of support  required for other systems that fall under AFLCMC. The engineering  official said information technology requirements for airplanes differ  from those for electronic systems, and personnel at Wright-Patterson  Air Force Base may not have a full understanding of the technical  requirements needed to support Hanscom’s programs. Similarly, a  financial management official at Hanscom Air Force Base said the  process of estimating the cost of software applicable to Hanscom’s  electronic systems is different than the cost-estimating procedures for  other types of products such as aircraft engines. While ESC’s former  Commander credited AFLCMC’s leadership with trying to increase the  capacity of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base personnel to support  Hanscom’s electronic systems, a former ESC command staff member  stated it may be more difficult to locate the needed engineering and  information technology expertise at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,  which may not have as strong of a relationship with academia in the  Dayton, Ohio, area as Hanscom Air Force Base does in the Boston,  Massachusetts, region. In addressing the limited understanding of  Hanscom’s electronic systems programs by Wright-Patterson Air  Force Base personnel, AFMC and AFLCMC officials stated senior  functional managers at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base do not  require specific expertise in electronic systems because the  processes, such as personnel and financial management, apply  across systems and programs.
Possibility of diminished importance of Hanscom Air Force Base  in the future. Hanscom officials and the majority of the contractors  we interviewed expressed concerns about the extent of Hanscom’s  continued importance to the Air Force. They said the inactivation of  ESC as a stand-alone center and the removal of a 3-star commander  from the base raised questions among Hanscom personnel and  contractors whether the base might be susceptible to closure in the  future. Additionally, contractors cited concerns about the loss of an  on-site leader who can serve as an advocate for Hanscom’s unique  role in the acquisition of electronic systems and as a link between  Hanscom and the contracting community that supports these  programs. Regarding Hanscom’s future, the AFLCMC Commander  told us that AFLCMC fully recognizes the importance of Hanscom’s  mission for national defense and plans to retain its core mission  implementation functions.
section_title: AFLCMC Has Taken Steps to Facilitate the Implementation of the Reorganization
paragraphs: AFLCMC has taken steps to facilitate the implementation of the  reorganization across all affected locations, including Hanscom Air Force  Base. To help manage the reorganization process, AFLCMC established  a governance structure that includes the following entities: the 100-Day  Taskforce, which addresses administrative issues that may arise in the  course of the reorganization; the AFLCMC Council, which meets monthly  to track performance against the established metrics; and the Standards  and Process Board, which convenes as needed to identify ways to  standardize processes across AFLCMC. Further, AFLCMC has taken  steps to communicate reorganization goals, plans, and progress to  stakeholders across the command such as periodic newsletters,  teleconferences, and web-based discussion forums. For example,  AFLCMC’s senior officials said that they hold weekly teleconferences with  PEOs at each of AFLCMC’s locations, including Hanscom Air Force  Base, to better understand the concerns they may be having. AFLCMC  also publishes a monthly newsletter that offers a forum for keeping  stakeholders informed of issues affecting the new organization, such as  the development of new organizational objectives and performance  metrics. Other communication mechanisms that AFLCMC officials  mentioned include regular visits by the AFLCMC Commander to  Hanscom Air Force Base, conferences of personnel across AFLCMC,  and encouraging AFLCMC personnel to submit ideas for improvements in  the processes of the new organization. In addition, all 10 senior functional  managers at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base whom we interviewed  stated that they use various mechanisms to regularly communicate with  the functional office personnel in different geographic locations, such as  video teleconferences, computer cameras, and secure video chats.
Hanscom’s functional office personnel whom we interviewed had different  perceptions regarding the sufficiency of AFLCMC’s efforts. Some  functional office personnel at Hanscom Air Force Base stated that  AFLCMC leadership has been effective in reaching out to them and  hearing their concerns. For example, officials from contracting and  acquisition offices credited the AFLCMC Commander for making regular  visits to the base to discuss the reorganization with the stakeholders and  obtain their input. By contrast, other functional office personnel stated  existing efforts to address their concerns were insufficient. For example,  two functional office personnel told us they have raised concerns with  AFLCMC headquarters about the reorganization and its effects at  Hanscom Air Force Base—such as hiring rules set by Wright-Patterson  Air Force Base that do not reflect the realities of Hanscom’s more  competitive labor market in the Boston region—and, in their opinion, the  leadership did not address them. AFLCMC senior officials said that the  various communication mechanisms that they have put in place allow  them to obtain and address concerns from stakeholders across each  location affected by the reorganization.
section_title: Effects of the Reorganization Are Not Yet Known, and AFLCMC Has Developed Metrics to Measure How It Is Meeting Customers’ Needs
paragraphs: The effects of the reorganization on Hanscom’s core mission of delivering  electronic systems to customers are not yet fully known, and AFLCMC  has developed metrics to measure how it is meeting customers’ needs.
subsections: section_title: Effects of the Reorganization Are Not Yet Known
paragraphs: The effects of the reorganization on Hanscom’s core mission of delivering  electronic systems to customers are not yet known, as it is too early to  assess changes resulting from the reorganization; also multiple factors  unrelated to the reorganization may affect mission implementation. Given  that the reorganization went into effect on October 1, 2012, AFLCMC’s  Vice Commander, system program managers, and various functional  office personnel at Hanscom Air Force Base stated it is too early to know  the reorganization’s effects on Hanscom’s ability to meet customer needs.  One customer told us it could take several years for his office to discern  the effects, if any, from the reorganization, such as changes in  Hanscom’s ability to deliver on schedule. Five contractor representatives  also stated they have not experienced changes in their relationships with  Hanscom Air Force Base as the result of the reorganization, and four of  them noted it is too early to know the effect of the reorganization on the  contractor community.
AFMC and AFLCMC officials also stated that it is difficult to attribute to  the reorganization any changes in how Hanscom Air Force Base is  meeting its customers’ needs because of multiple external factors that  can affect mission, such as budget changes and decisions made at the  Air Force’s headquarters and at DOD levels. In addition, when these  factors occur nearly simultaneously, it may be difficult to attribute the  effects to any particular factor. They said the reorganization at Hanscom  Air Force Base coincided with a number of other initiatives affecting the  base, all of which could potentially affect Hanscom’s ability to meet the  needs of its customers. For example, the Air Force restructured the  portfolios of PEOs and placed two rather than three PEOs at Hanscom  Air Force Base effective July 2012, a decision that two customers told us  could affect PEOs’ responsiveness to the customer. The change in PEOs’  portfolios was during the time that ESC was inactivated as part of the  reorganization. Another change involved the reduction in the level of  contractor support at Hanscom Air Force Base, which was driven by  multiple initiatives, unrelated to AFMC’s reorganization, such as the Office  of the Secretary of Defense Comptroller’s Resource Management  Decision 802. For example, two of the seven contractors we interviewed  reported cuts in their number of contracts with Hanscom Air Force Base,  but AFMC and AFLCMC officials stated that such cuts were not related to  the reorganization and were driven by other factors, such as the  budgetary pressures faced by the Air Force and DOD.
section_title: AFLCMC Developed Metrics to Measure How AFLCMC is Meeting Customers’ Needs
paragraphs: AFLCMC established objectives and associated metrics to assess how it  is organizing, training, and equipping program offices to fulfill their core  mission of delivering electronic systems to the customer. These metrics  are designed to measure how AFLCMC is meeting customer needs,  rather than the effects of the reorganization itself. However, officials said  that by assessing acquisition processes and outcomes, the metrics will  provide information on how well the reorganization is working. AFLCMC  relied on the expertise of its acquisition and product support leaders in  developing the metrics. Specifically, AFLCMC assigned each of its six  objectives to a team of senior officials, giving each team the responsibility  for developing the metrics for an assigned objective and for tracking the  metrics to assess attainment of the objective. Senior AFLCMC leaders  said that the teams will report on their progress during monthly meetings  of the AFLCMC Council, discussing initiatives in support of their assigned  objective and the need for any adjustments to the metrics.
As of  February 2013, the metrics had been approved by AFMC. Table 1 shows  the objectives and what the related metrics are intended to measure. A  detailed list of AFLCMC’s metrics is provided in appendix II.
According to AFLCMC officials, these metrics generally are based on the  data that have long been collected at the program or directorate levels;  they will be aggregated for all programs within AFLCMC to show how well  the new organization is meeting its objectives. AFLCMC senior officials  said such aggregated measures will allow them to examine trends across  the organization, as well as identify specific areas within the organization  where improvement may be needed in organizing, training, or equipping  AFLCMC components to better meet customer needs. For example,  although program offices have always looked at schedule achievement,  the new schedule achievement metric will aggregate this information  across all program offices, identify which area of the organization may be  lagging behind, and serve as an indicator of whether AFLCMC is fulfilling  its responsibilities of assisting program offices with setting realistic  acquisition schedules.
Hanscom’s stakeholders generally agreed that metrics focused on  acquisition outcomes—rather than on the reorganization—are adequate  measures of how well Hanscom Air Force Base is fulfilling its mission of  meeting the needs of its customers. For example, Hanscom’s system  program managers, as well as five of its customers, said the key metric of  the reorganization’s success is the continuous ability of Hanscom Air  Force Base to deliver capabilities to the customer on time, on cost, and  within existing regulations and specifications—all of which the new  metrics are designed to capture.
AFLCMC senior officials said AFLCMC began data collection for the new  metrics in February 2013, with measures to be continuously tracked by  individual offices and aggregated monthly at the AFLCMC level. AFLCMC  intends to rely on existing data systems to minimize the data collection  burden, and they have undertaken a number of initiatives, such as  enhancing existing information technology tools, to allow data to be  aggregated at the AFLCMC level.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We requested comments on the draft of this report from DOD. The  department provided technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of  Staff; the Secretary of the Air Force; the Commander, Air Force Materiel  Command; and the Commander, Air Force Life Cycle Management  Center. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s  Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-6912 or by e-mail at gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact  points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may  be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key  contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Organizations Contacted
paragraphs: To conduct our review of the reorganization of the Air Force’s Electronic  Systems Center (ESC) at Hanscom Air Force Base, we visited or  contacted the organizations shown in table 2.
section_title: Appendix II: AFLCMC’s Objectives and Associated Metrics
paragraphs: In examining the extent to which the Air Force Life Cycle Management  Center (AFLCMC) developed metrics to measure how well it is meeting  the needs of the customer, we obtained the objectives and the associated  metrics developed by AFLCMC. Table 3 presents a summary of  AFLCMC’s six objectives and the associated metrics to measure  performance against each of these objectives.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, GAO staff who made key  contributions to this report include Mark A. Pross, Assistant Director;  Natalya Barden; Jennifer Cheung; Rajiv D’Cruz; Greg Marchand; Travis  Masters; Richard Powelson; Amie Steele; Sabrina Streagle; and  Elizabeth Wood.