Coast Guard: Actions Underway to Develop Acquisition Plans that Reflect New Assets and Improve the Asset Allocation Process
Released: 2016-06-14T00:00:00

Letter

Background

The Coast Guard’s Missions and Assets

The Coast Guard is responsible for 11 statutory missions that are divided into non-homeland security and homeland security missions, as shown in table 1. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 requires that the authorities, functions, and capabilities of the Coast Guard to perform all of its missions be maintained intact and without significant reduction, except as specified in subsequent acts. It also prohibits the Secretary of Homeland Security from reducing “substantially or significantly…the missions of the Coast Guard or the Coast Guard’s capability to perform those missions.”

The Coast Guard utilizes aircraft and vessels to conduct its 11 missions. The Coast Guard operates two types of aircraft—fixed-wing (airplanes) and rotary-wing (helicopters), including its new C-27J aircraft–and two types of vessels–cutters and boats. A cutter is any vessel 65 feet in length or greater, having adequate accommodations for crew to live on board. Larger cutters (major cutters), over 179 feet in length, include the National Security Cutter and the High and Medium Endurance Cutters. Cutters from 65 to 175 feet in length include Patrol Cutters such as the Fast Response Cutter and the 110-foot Patrol Boat, among others. In contrast, all vessels less than 65 feet in length are classified as boats and usually operate closer to shore and on inland waterways. As of the end of fiscal year 2015, Coast Guard assets included 61 fixed-wing aircraft, 142 rotary-wing aircraft, 40 major cutters, 205 cutters, and 1,750 boats. Figure 1 shows three of the Coast Guard’s newest assets.

The Coast Guard’s Recapitalization Program, Mission Needs Determination, and Asset Allocation Process

Coast Guard Recapitalization Program and Mission Needs Determination

The Coast Guard began a 30-year recapitalization effort in the late 1990s to modernize its aircraft and vessel fleets by rebuilding or replacing assets. Figure 2 provides a timeline of key events and related acquisition studies and reports in this recapitalization program, which was formerly known as the Deepwater Program.

As part of its recapitalization effort, in 1998, the Coast Guard created the Deepwater Program baseline to reflect asset performance levels at that time and to serve as a basis for developing performance goals for the acquisition of new assets that were to replace certain legacy assets. However, a performance gap analysis conducted in 2002 determined the revised asset mix, as designed by the recapitalization program, would have significant capability gaps in meeting emerging mission requirements following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. As a result, the Coast Guard completed a Mission Needs Statement in 2005 to incorporate the additional capabilities and subsequently updated the annual resource hours needed to meet its increased mission demands.

In 2007, based on the 2005 Mission Needs Statement, DHS approved a program of record for all of the Coast Guard’s major acquisition programs at an estimated cost of $24.2 billion. This program of record delineated the specific number of aircraft and vessels the Coast Guard planned to acquire to meet the annual resource hours outlined by the 2005 Mission Needs Statement baseline. Further, as part of its recapitalization efforts, the Coast Guard submits an annual 5-year Capital Investment Plan Report to Congress that includes, among other things, projected funding for capital assets in such areas as acquisition, construction, and improvements.

In 2016, the Coast Guard again revised its Mission Needs Statement in response to statutory requirements and committee report language, but, this revision states it was not intended to provide details on the specific assets the Coast Guard needs to meet its mission requirements. Further, according to the Coast Guard, the 2016 update to the Mission Needs Statement is to provide a foundation for long-term investment planning that is to culminate with detailed modeling scenarios to evaluate the effectiveness of various fleet mixes, and inform the Coast Guard’s Capital Investment Plan. Since the 2016 revision does not identify specific assets or resource hours necessary to meet the Coast Guard’s mission requirements, the 2005 Mission Needs Statement remains the baseline document outlining the Coast Guard’s mission needs and the resource hours per asset necessary to achieve them.

The Coast Guard’s Process for Allocating Assets to Meet Mission Responsibilities

Since fiscal year 2008, the Coast Guard has used the Standard Operational Planning Process for annually developing and communicating strategic commitments and allocating resource hours, by asset type (i.e., aircraft, cutters, and boats), throughout its chain of command for meeting mission responsibilities. As part of the Standard Operational Planning Process, Coast Guard headquarters annually issues a Strategic Planning Direction, which is to be the primary mechanism for allocating asset resource hours and providing strategic direction to field commands. Resource hours are subsequently allocated by asset type at the Area, District, and Sector levels for meeting strategic commitments and executing the 11 statutory missions.

After assets are deployed, field unit personnel are to record resource hours used by Coast Guard assets to accomplish missions, such as domestic ice breaking or marine environmental protection operations. These asset resource hours are input into one of two operational reporting databases–the Asset Logistics Maintenance Information System (ALMIS) or the Abstract of Operations System (AOPS). After the data have been entered, the Coast Guard Business Intelligence system is used to extract and combine asset resource hour and performance data each quarter to create Operational Performance Assessment Reports. The historical and current-year data on asset operational hours used, by mission, from these reports, as well as Planning Assessments, are to be communicated back to Coast Guard headquarters and incorporated into the Standard Operational Planning Process to inform asset hour allocations in the Strategic Planning Direction for the following year.

The Coast Guard’s Acquisition Plans Do Not Reflect Its New Assets and Current Funding Levels

The 2005 Mission Needs Statement Baseline Does Not Reflect the Coast Guard’s Planned Assets and Capacities

Since the Coast Guard developed acquisition plans for its Deepwater recapitalization program, many of the assumptions that initially informed these plans, including the 2005 Mission Needs Statement baseline for those assets, have changed and are no longer accurate, as we reported in June 2014 and May 2015. While the Coast Guard is continuing to acquire and deploy new assets each year, the Coast Guard operated assets in fiscal year 2015 below the baseline level of resource hours outlined for these assets in the 2005 Mission Needs Statement. For example, in fiscal year 2015, a mix of new and legacy Patrol Cutters, including new Fast Response Cutters, used 82,233 resource hours of the 174,000 resource hours specified in the 2005 baseline—a 52 percent difference. The asset resource hours used in fiscal year 2015 were below the 2005 baseline level, in part, because not all of the new assets planned as part of the 2005 baseline were deployed and fully operational by fiscal year 2015. In addition, as we have previously reported, the Coast Guard continues to operate many of its legacy assets, which do not always achieve their expected operational capacities. Specifically, some legacy cutters are up to 50 years old and are expected to be in operation for several more years until the replacement cutters can be deployed. We have also reported that the Coast Guard has experienced delays in acquiring some of its planned assets and some of the Coast Guard’s new assets that have been deployed have faced operational challenges. Nevertheless, because of changes in the assumptions underlying the 2005 Mission Needs Statement baseline, it may not accurately reflect the Coast Guard’s current needs, specifically (1) the planned fleet mix of aircraft and vessels has changed, and (2) the planned operational capacities of these new assets have, in some cases, been revised downward. See Appendix I for more information on the Coast Guard asset baselines and actual resource hours used in fiscal year 2015, as well as changes to its planned fleet mix and operational capacities over time.

Changes in the Coast Guard’s Planned Fleet Mix

The Coast Guard’s planned aircraft and vessel fleet mix has changed since the 2005 Mission Needs Statement baseline was developed. For example, in 2005, the Coast Guard planned for the acquisition of HC-144 and HC-130 aircraft for its fixed-wing aircraft fleet. However, we reported in March 2015 that the unexpected transfer of C-27J aircraft from the Department of Defense in December 2013 represented a significant change to this aircraft fleet mix. As a result of this change, the Coast Guard decreased its planned acquisition of HC-144 aircraft. In another example, with regard to its aircraft fleet, the Coast Guard initially planned for fixed-wing Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Vertical Take-Off and Landing Unmanned Air Vehicles in the 2005 baseline, but, as of May 2016, Coast Guard officials stated these unmanned assets have not yet been acquired. For the major cutter fleet, the Coast Guard had planned for 8 National Security Cutters and 25 Offshore Patrol Cutters to replace the legacy fleet of High and Medium Endurance Cutters in its 2005 Mission Needs Statement baseline. However, Congress recently provided the Coast Guard with funding for a ninth National Security Cutter as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, representing an unanticipated addition to its planned major cutter fleet.

Reductions in New Assets’ Planned Operational Capacities

The expected operational capacities planned for assets in the 2005 Mission Needs Statement baseline have, in several cases, been subsequently revised downward to reflect more realistic and achievable operational targets. For example, regarding fixed-wing aircraft, the Coast Guard originally planned for each HC-144 aircraft to operate 1,200 flight hours per year. However, we reported in March 2015 that the Coast Guard had decided to reduce the HC-144 flight hours from 1,200 hours to 1,000 hours per year due primarily to the high cost of maintaining the aircraft at the 1,200-hour per year pace. For patrol cutters, the 2005 Mission Needs Statement baseline planned for each Fast Response Cutter to operate for 3,000 hours per year. However, the Coast Guard’s April 2016 report to Congress on its capital investments states that the planned resource hours for each Fast Response Cutter is 2,500 hours per year—a reduction of 500 hours per cutter from the 2005 baseline. Further, for major cutters, the Coast Guard’s 2005 baseline planned for each National Security Cutter and Offshore Patrol Cutter to operate at 4,140 resource hours per year—equivalent to 230 days away from home port—using a crew rotation concept. However, in March 2015, we reported that because of certain risk factors, uncertainty exists regarding the Coast Guard’s ability to achieve this operational capacity. We recommended that the Coast Guard specify mitigation actions to effectively address risk factors identified in the report, such as when and how National Security Cutter maintenance requirements could be completed within the 135 days allocated under the crew rotational concept. DHS concurred with the recommendation and, in March 2016, it stated that the Coast Guard was developing various testing plans and would submit a final crew rotation concept plan to Congress by December 2017, in response to requirements in the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012. Moreover, we noted in our March 2015 report that these same risk factors may also affect the planned operational capacity of the Offshore Patrol Cutters, which are still under development.

The Coast Guard Continues to Recapitalize Assets without a Solid Business Case that Matches Its Needs and Resources

In its simplest form, a business case requires a balance between the concept selected to satisfy mission needs and the resources needed to transform the concept into a set of products, in this case aircraft and vessels. For the past 6 years, we have consistently found that there is a significant difference between the funding the Coast Guard estimates it needs to carry out its program of record for its major acquisitions and what it has traditionally requested and received through annual appropriations. To date, the Coast Guard’s attempts to address this difference by establishing its future fleet’s mission needs within reasonable budget constraints have been unsuccessful. For example, in September 2012, we reported that the Coast Guard had completed two efforts (Fleet Mix Phases One and Two) to reassess the mix of assets that comprised its former Deepwater program, but both efforts used its 2005 Mission Needs Statement and 2007 program of record as the basis of the analysis and did not consider realistic fiscal constraints. In particular, the Coast Guard began Fleet Mix Phase One in 2008 that considered the 2007 program of record to be the “floor” for asset capabilities and quantities and did not impose cost constraints. Consequently, the results were not used as a basis for trade-off decisions. In the second effort, Fleet Mix Phase Two, the Coast Guard analyzed how long it would take to buy the program of record under two different funding constraints: (1) an upper bound of $1.64 billion per year and (2) a lower bound of $1.2 billion per year. However, both scenarios are greater than the Coast Guard’s last four budget requests, indicating the upper bound funding level is unrealistic and the lower bound is optimistic. Further, the analyses did not assess options lower than the current program of record. Therefore, neither of these analyses prepared the Coast Guard to make the trade-offs required to develop a solid business case that matched its needed capabilities with anticipated resources.

Instead of developing a solid business case, we reported in June 2014 that the Coast Guard is shaping its asset capabilities through the budget process. As the Coast Guard has faced fiscal constraints in recent years, this has led to asset capability gaps. As a result, the Coast Guard does not have a long-term plan that demonstrates how it will maintain today’s service level and meet identified needs. For example, the Coast Guard has already experienced a gap in heavy icebreaking capability and is falling short of meeting current and future major cutter operational hours. While some of these operational capability gaps are being filled through Congressional appropriations that exceed Coast Guard budget requests and transfers of assets from other agencies, the Coast Guard is likely to continue to face similar shortfalls and gaps while the Offshore Patrol Cutter fleet, estimated to absorb about two-thirds of the Coast Guard’s acquisition funding from 2018 until 2034, is being built. During this time, the Coast Guard faces other recapitalization needs—such as rebuilding the 87-foot patrol boat fleet, the MH-60 and MH-65 helicopter fleets, and possibly extending the service lives of the 270-foot Medium Endurance Cutters, among many other projects—that it may not be able to fund with its remaining budget. Office of Management and Budget, Department of Homeland Security, and Coast Guard efforts are underway to address these funding gaps, but to date, these efforts have not led to the difficult trade-off decisions needed to create a solid business case and improve the affordability of the Coast Guard’s proposed fleet mix. We recommended in June 2014, that the Coast Guard develop a 20-year fleet modernization plan that identifies all acquisitions needed to maintain the current level of service—aircraft and vessels—and the fiscal resources needed to buy the identified assets. We further recommended that the plan should consider trade-offs if the fiscal resources needed to execute the plan are not consistent with annual budgets. The Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation, but its response did not fully address our concerns or set forth an estimated date for completion. As of June 2016, the Coast Guard has yet to complete this plan. Without such a plan, it will remain difficult for the Coast Guard to fully understand the extent to which future needs match the current level of resources and its expected performance levels—and capability gaps—if funding levels remain constant.

Past GAO Recommendations

In addition to the 20-year fleet modernization plan, we have made several recommendations in recent years for the Coast Guard to improve its recapitalization business case by, among other things, identifying the cost, capabilities, and quantity and mix of assets needed; as well as the trade-offs necessary to meet fiscal constraints. Specific recommendations include the following: In March 2015, we recommended that the Coast Guard inform Congress of the time frames and key milestones for publishing revised annual flight hour needs for fixed-wing aircraft, as well as the corresponding changes to the composition of its fixed-wing fleet to meet these needs.

In September 2012, we recommended that the Commandant of the Coast Guard conduct a comprehensive portfolio review to develop revised baselines that reflect acquisition priorities and realistic funding scenarios.

In July 2011, we recommended that the Secretary of Homeland Security develop a working group that includes participation from DHS and the Coast Guard’s capabilities, resources, and acquisition directorates to review the results of multiple studies—including Fleet Mix Phases One and Two and DHS’s cutter study—to identify cost, capability, and quantity trade-offs that would produce a program that fits within expected budget parameters.

The Coast Guard concurred with these recommendations, but is still in the process of addressing all recommendations, except the 2011 recommendation that they chose not to implement. For example, the Coast Guard is currently conducting a fleet-wide analysis—including aircraft, vessels, and information technology—intended to be a fundamental reassessment of the capabilities and mix of assets the Coast Guard needs to fulfill its missions. The Coast Guard is undertaking this effort consistent with direction from Congress and expects to have it completed to inform the fiscal year 2019 President’s Budget.

Legislative Requirements and Congressional Mandates

Coast Guard officials stated that their efforts will help them to respond to a number of recent legislative mandates, which include the following:

Fixed-Wing Aircraft Fleet Mix Analysis: This is to include a revised fleet analysis of the Coast Guard’s fixed-wing aircraft and is due in September 2016.

Rotary-wing Contingency Plan: This plan is to address the planned or unplanned losses of rotary wing airframes; to reallocate resources as necessary to ensure the safety of the maritime public nationwide; and to ensure the operational posture of Coast Guard units. This plan is due in February 2017.

Long-Term Acquisition Plan: This plan is to be a 20-year Capital Investment Plan that describes for the upcoming fiscal year and for each of the 20 fiscal years thereafter, such information as the numbers and types of legacy aircraft and vessels to be decommissioned; the numbers and types of aircraft and vessels to be acquired; and the estimated level of funding in each fiscal year required to acquire the cutters and aircraft, as well as related command, control, communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems and any changes to shoreside infrastructure. These plans are to be produced every other year to provide an update on the status of all major acquisitions.

Mission Needs Statement: On the date on which the President submits to Congress a budget for fiscal year 2019 and every 4 years thereafter, the Commandant is to submit an integrated major acquisition need statement which, among other things, is to identify current and projected gaps in Coast Guard capabilities using specific mission hour targets and explain how each major acquisition program addresses gaps identified in Capital Investment Plan reports to be provided to Congress.

Concept of Operations: This document is to be used in conjunction with the Mission Needs Statement as a planning document for the Coast Guard’s recapitalization needs. It is to determine the most cost- effective method of executing mission needs by addressing (1) gaps identified in the Mission Need Statement, (2) the funding requirements proposed in the 5-year Capital Investment Plan, and (3) options for reasonable combinations of alternative capabilities of aircraft and vessels, to include icebreaking resources and fleet mix. This document is due in September 2016.

Use of Asset Capacities Limit the Strategic Effectiveness of the Asset Allocation Process, but the Coast Guard Is Taking Steps to Improve the Process

Coast Guard Headquarters’ Strategic Planning Directions Reflect Asset Maximum Capacities Rather Than Achievable Goals

In May 2016, we reported that Coast Guard headquarters does not provide field units with realistic goals for allocating assets, by mission. Rather, headquarters’ allocations of assets in the annual Strategic Planning Directions that we reviewed for fiscal years 2010 through 2016 were based on assets’ maximum performance capacities. For example, the Strategic Planning Directions allocated each Hercules fixed-wing aircraft 800 hours per year, each Jayhawk helicopter 700 hours per year, and each 210-foot or 270-foot Medium Endurance Cutter 3,330 hours per year, irrespective of the condition, age, or availability of these assets. As a result, we found that, as shown in figure 3, the asset resource hours allocated in the Strategic Planning Directions have consistently exceeded the asset resource hours actually used by Coast Guard field units during fiscal years 2010 through 2015. For example, in fiscal year 2015, the Strategic Planning Direction allocated a total of 1,075,015 resource hours for field unit assets whereas the actual asset resource hours used was 804,048 hours, or about 75 percent of the allocated hours for that year.

Coast Guard field unit officials we spoke with, and Coast Guard planning documents we reviewed for our May 2016 report, indicated that the Coast Guard is not able to achieve the resource hour allocation capacities set by the headquarters’ Strategic Planning Directions for several reasons, including the declining condition of legacy assets and unscheduled maintenance. Further, we also reported that our review of Coast Guard planning documents and discussions with field unit officials showed that Operational Planning Directions developed by field unit commands can differ from headquarters’ Strategic Planning Directions. For example, officials from one district told us on the basis of their analyses, they determined that their district could realistically use only about two-thirds of the performance capacity hours allocated by the Strategic Planning Direction for boats for one mission.

In response to our findings, we recommended that the Coast Guard more systematically incorporate field unit input to inform more realistic asset allocation decisions—in addition to asset maximum capacities currently used—in the annual Strategic Planning Directions to more effectively communicate strategic intent to field units. The Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation and stated that it was taking actions to better incorporate field unit input for fiscal year 2017. If implemented as planned, this would meet the intent of this recommendation.

The Coast Guard Does Not Document the Extent to Which Risk Assessments Affect Asset Allocation Decisions

In May 2016, we also reported that the Coast Guard does not maintain documentation on the extent to which risk factors have affected the allocation of asset resource hours to missions through its Strategic Planning Directions. For example, Coast Guard officials told us that the Coast Guard conducts a National Maritime Security Risk Assessment every 2 years to inform its asset allocations; however, the Coast Guard does not document how these risk assessments have affected asset allocation decisions across its missions. Coast Guard officials stated that changes made to Strategic Planning Directions’ asset allocations, by mission, are discussed in verbal briefings but it is not their practice to maintain documentation on the extent to which risk factors affect asset allocation decisions. Without documenting this, the Coast Guard lacks a record to help ensure that its decisions are transparent and the most effective ones for fulfilling its missions given existing risks. We recommended that the Coast Guard document how risk assessments conducted are used to inform and support annual asset allocation decisions. The Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation and stated that it will begin to document these decisions in its fiscal year 2017 Strategic Planning Direction. If implemented as planned, this would meet the intent of this recommendation.

The Coast Guard is Taking Steps to Improve Its Asset Allocation Process

In May 2016, we reported that the Coast Guard is taking steps to improve its asset allocation process. The actions include the following: Improving data quality for resource hours assigned to each mission: Coast Guard guidance states that its field units should report at least one primary employment category, such as one of the 11 statutory missions, for the time an asset is deployed. Coast Guard officials told us that data on resource hours, by mission, for all assets may not be accurate because the Coast Guard does not have a systematic way for field units to (1) record time spent on more than one mission during an asset’s deployment or (2) consistently account for time assets spend in transit to designated operational areas. For example, officials from six of the nine Coast Guard districts we interviewed told us that they generally record one mission per asset deployment, even though each asset’s crew may have performed two or more missions during a deployment. Officials from the remaining three districts told us that if their assets’ crews perform more than one mission per deployment, the crews generally apportion the number of hours spent on each mission performed. Coast Guard officials stated that the resource hour data were accurate enough for operational planning purposes, and that they were in the process of determining how best to account for time spent by assets on multiple missions and in transit in order to obtain more accurate and complete data on the time assets spend conducting each of its missions. For example, in April 2014, the Coast Guard issued instructions to its field units to provide definitions, policies, and processes for reporting their operational activities and also established a council to coordinate changes among the various operational reporting systems used by different field units.

Tracking how increased strategic commitments affect resource hours available: According to Coast Guard officials, the Strategic Planning Directions’ allocations of certain asset hours in support of strategic commitments have grown from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2016. Headquarters and field unit officials we met with told us that it has become increasingly difficult to fulfill these growing strategic commitments when asset performance levels have generally remained the same or declined in recent years. Further, in February 2015, the Coast Guard Commandant testified before a congressional subcommittee that the Coast Guard’s mission demands continue to grow and evolve and that given the age and condition of some of its legacy assets, the success of future missions relies on the continued recapitalization of Coast Guard aircraft, cutters, boats, and infrastructure. To meet these challenges, the Coast Guard is taking steps to provide more transparency regarding asset resource hours needed to support strategic commitments and the remaining resource hours available to field unit commanders. For example, starting in fiscal year 2015, the Coast Guard began using a new data field to track the time assets spent supporting its Arctic strategy.

In conclusion, given that many of the assumptions underlying the Coast Guard’s acquisition plans have changed since 2005 and are no longer accurate, and the importance of ensuring that limited acquisition resources are invested as efficiently and effectively as possible, the Coast Guard should continue to follow through with our recommendations to identify the cost, capability, and quantity of its fleet mix, as well as the trade-offs that would need to be made given fiscal constraints. Furthermore, to ensure that assets are deployed consistent with Coast Guard mission priorities, the Coast Guard should follow through with implementing our prior recommendations to improve its annual resource allocation process.

Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Garamendi, and Members of the Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please contact Jennifer Grover at (202) 512-7141 or groverj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony are Christopher Conrad (Assistant Director), Nancy Kawahara (Analyst-in-Charge), Bryan Bourgault, John Crawford, Tracey Cross, Dominick Dale, Michele Fejfar, Laurier Fish, Eric Hauswirth, Tracey King, Michele Mackin, and Katherine Trimble. Key contributors for the previous work that this testimony is based on are listed in each product.

Appendix I: Planned Operational Capacities and Fiscal Year 2015 Actual Asset Resource Hour Utilization

The following figures detail the (1) actual number of asset resource hours utilized in fiscal year 2015 and (2) the expected, planned operational capacity baseline in varying years by each major asset category (fixed- wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft, major cutters, and patrol cutters). The 2005 baseline was updated from the 1998 baseline to reflect the changes in the Coast Guard’s mission as a result of the additional homeland security missions it was tasked with after 9/11.

The actual number of asset resource hours utilized is generally lower than the baselines for a variety of reasons; including, among other things, the fact that not all assets were planned to be acquired and operational by fiscal year 2015.