Homeland Defense: Action Needed to Improve Cost Reporting for DOD's Aerospace Control Alert Mission
Released: 2013-09-09T00:00:00

Letter

DOD Does Not Anticipate Future Budget or Force Structure Changes and 2013 Report to Congress Provides Results of Previous Analyses We Reported on in February 2013

In its April 2013 report to Congress, in response to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 requirement that DOD provide a cost-benefit analysis and a risk-based assessment of the Aerospace Control Alert mission as it relates to expected future changes to the budget and force structure of such mission,report on any new analyses because, according to DOD officials, DOD was not weighing competing Aerospace Control Alert basing location alternatives in response to any future budget or force structure changes. DOD reported on its previous analyses that consisted of (1) three risk assessments DOD conducted to support the 2012 decision that determined which two alert basing locations could be reduced with the least amount of risk and (2) cost savings estimates DOD developed after making the 2012 decision to take two alert basing locations (one in Duluth, Minnesota, and the other in Langley, Virginia) off 24-hour alert status.

DOD did not conduct or In our prior reports on the Aerospace Control Alert mission, we stated that GAO’s risk-based management framework noted that risk assessments should contain three key elements: an analysis of threat, an estimation of vulnerability, and an identification of consequences. Following a decision by DOD that two alert basing locations should be taken off 24- hour alert status, three risk assessments were conducted to support the 2012 decision of which two locations, once removed from 24-hour alert status, would have the least amount of increase in risk to the overall Aerospace Control Alert mission. DOD’s April 2013 report provided a summary of the final results of these three risk assessments. These risk assessments were performed by NORAD, the Office of the Secretary of Defense Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, and the Continental U.S. NORAD Region, which included consideration of threat, vulnerability, and consequence. All three of these assessments came to similar conclusions regarding which of the two alert locations would cause the least increase in risk if taken off of 24-hour alert status.

NORAD’s risk assessment analysis was based on quantitative modeling of fighter basing and, in our February 2013 report, we noted that NORAD had improved its risk analysis by changing some of the assumptions used We also discussed the to address vulnerability and consequence.separate analysis conducted by the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, which similarly relied on modeling to aid its evaluation of risk. Finally, in our February 2013 report, we described the analysis resulting from a panel of subject matter experts convened by Continental U.S. NORAD Region, which reached conclusions consistent with NORAD and the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation modeling. NORAD officials stressed to us that there was an increase in risk that resulted from removing two basing locations from 24-hour alert status, but the risk assessments informed decision making as to which two bases removal would have the least increase in risk. According to DOD officials, no additional risk analysis was conducted following these three studies.

According to DOD officials, DOD does not expect to make future changes to the budget and force structure of the mission beyond the decision already made to remove two sites from 24-hour alert status. In addition, the April 2013 DOD report notes that any further reductions in 24-hour alert sites would affect cross-border operations with Canada as well as mission accomplishment.

Regarding the cost savings estimate, DOD’s April 2013 report states that removing the 24-hour alert status from the Duluth and Langley alert basing locations would result in an estimated savings of over $73 million over the fiscal year 2013-17 time period. The report states that these estimated cost savings are primarily from shifting personnel from full-time to part-time status at the two sites no longer on 24-hour alert status. We reported on these same cost savings estimates in February 2013 and noted that the cost savings were estimated by the Air Force after the decision was made to eliminate alert basing locations at Duluth, Minnesota, and Langley, Virginia, from 24-hour alert status.

DOD Has Not Reported Comprehensive Cost Information for the Aerospace Control Alert Mission

DOD has reported Air Force cost information for the Aerospace Control Alert mission in its budget displays but has not yet reported the comprehensive cost of the mission. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government notes that financial information is needed for periodic external reporting and, on a day-to-day basis, to make operating decisions, monitor performance, and allocate resources. Pertinent cost information should be identified, captured, and distributed in a form and time frame that permits people to perform their duties efficiently. Accurate and timely reporting of operational and financial data can assist program managers in determining whether they are meeting their agencies’ plans and meeting their goals for accountability for effective and efficient use of resources. Without comprehensive cost information, decision-makers may not know what resources are allocated and used in support of the Aerospace Control Alert mission.

Pub. L. No. 110-417, § 354 (2008). weak internal controls limited DOD’s ability to accurately identify Air Sovereignty Alert mission expenditures. In addition, according to Air National Guard officials, not all National Guard Bureau costs are included in total Aerospace Control Alert mission costs. For example, the Air Force calculates the costs for each basing location based on formulas that do not consider the base’s location and the unit’s home station. However, according to Air National Guard officials, the actual costs of each basing location can vary depending on a number of factors, such as whether the personnel at the location are Air National Guard or active duty Air Force personnel or whether the assigned unit is home-based or a detachment unit—temporarily relocated from their usual duty station. The Air Force budget justification displays submitted for fiscal years 2010-14 include personnel costs for Air Force, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve personnel, but do not include costs, such as military personnel costs, that other military services have in conjunction with the Aerospace Control Alert mission.

In addition to the 2009 requirement, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 requires that DOD provide a consolidated budget justification display that fully identifies the Aerospace Control Alert budget for each of the military services and encompasses all programs and activities of the Aerospace Control Alert mission for each of the following: (1) procurement; (2) operations and maintenance; (3) research, development, testing, and evaluation; and (4) military construction. However, the act does not require any additional military personnel cost reporting. DOD has not yet developed a consolidated budget display in response to this new requirement. However, according to DOD officials, such a display is being developed for inclusion with the department’s fiscal year 2015 budget submission to include the four budget categories specifically identified by the act. As a result, DOD’s consolidated budget display for the fiscal year 2015 budget submission may not include military personnel costs associated with the other services, particularly the Army.

The consolidated budget displays required by the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 should help provide Congress and senior DOD decision makers with a more complete picture of Aerospace Control Alert mission costs. However, in addition to Air Force, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve personnel costs, personnel costs from the other DOD components also support the mission—including the Army and the Army National Guard personnel providing ground-based air defense capabilities in support of the mission. Unless this additional information is included in DOD’s revised budget display, DOD decision makers will not have comprehensive cost information to make fully informed resource allocation decisions to support the Aerospace Control Alert mission.

Conclusions

The Aerospace Control Alert mission is critical to defending U.S. airspace. Once completed, the budget justification displays required by the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 should aid in the identification of many program and activity costs for each of the military services associated with the Aerospace Control Alert mission. A comprehensive identification and reporting of all costs associated with the mission, including all military personnel costs, could aid DOD in exercising effective management of this mission and its associated resources. Comprehensive reporting of all costs of the mission would also provide the Congress with a fuller accounting of these costs to aid in its oversight of the mission.

Recommendation for Executive Action

As DOD expands its cost reporting in the consolidated budget justification displays as required by section 354 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and section 352 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and responsible DOD organizations, as appropriate, to ensure that all Aerospace Control Alert program and activity costs for each of the military services are captured, including military personnel costs of the Army and Army National Guard.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our recommendation to ensure that all Aerospace Control Alert program and activity costs for each of the military services are captured, including those of the Army and Army National Guard. DOD stated that the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) will include these costs in its Fiscal Year 2015 budget submission. DOD’s written comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix I.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security; the Commanders of NORAD, U.S. Northern Command, and U.S. Pacific Command; the Secretaries of the Army and of the Air Force; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; the Chief of the National Guard Bureau; and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on our website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@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 II.

Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Brian J. Lepore, (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov.

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report were Mark A. Pross, Assistant Director; Adam Anguiano; Brent Helt; Mae Jones; Jeff Tessin; and Michael Willems.