The Army’s ground-based military operations generally use two kinds of vehicles: combat vehicles designed for a specific fighting function and tactical vehicles designed primarily for multipurpose support functions. Most combat vehicles move on tracks—including the Abrams tank and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle—but some move on wheels, such as the Stryker. Tactical vehicles generally move on wheels, including the HMMWV and the JLTV. Most major defense acquisitions follow a structured acquisition process, which normally consists of three discrete phases: (1) technology development; (2) engineering and manufacturing development; and (3) production and deployment. Programs are expected to meet certain criteria at milestone decision points for entry into each phase. For anticipated major defense acquisition programs, like the GCV and the JLTV, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD/ATL) generally serves as the Milestone Decision Authority. The Milestone Decision Authority is responsible for approving the programs’ entry into the defense acquisition system, approving entry into subsequent phases, and documenting the various approvals through acquisition decision memorandums. The Army’s GCV program is intended to modernize the current ground combat vehicle fleet, replacing a portion of the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles currently in inventory. In February 2010, the Army issued a request for proposals for the technology development phase of the GCV before completing the required analysis of alternatives (AOA), citing schedule urgency. In May 2010, the Army convened a “Red Team” to assess the risk of achieving the GCV schedule. The Red Team issued its report in August 2010, citing major risk areas including schedule, technical maturity, and affordability of the system. The Army rescinded the original request for proposals and issued another in late 2010. The milestone A decision was expected in April 2011, but did not occur until August 2011 (see fig. 1). In August, the Army awarded technology development contracts to two contractor teams. A third contractor team submitted a proposal but did not receive a contract award and has filed a bid protest with GAO that is still being considered. The Army has been defining a strategy to develop, demonstrate, and field a common tactical information network across its forces. Generally, such a network is expected to act as an information superhighway to collect, process, and deliver vast amounts of information such as images and communications while seamlessly linking people and systems. The Army’s current strategy is to better understand current Army networking capabilities, determine capabilities needed, and chart an incremental path forward. The Army plans regular demonstrations as the network grows and its capability improves. The Army and Marine Corps generally define light tactical vehicles as capable of being transported by a rotary wing aircraft and with a cargo capacity of equal to or less than 5,100 pounds. Light tactical vehicles represent about 50 percent of the Army’s tactical wheeled vehicle fleet and currently consist of the HMMWV family of vehicles. The Army’s HMMWV program also provides vehicles to satisfy Marine Corps, Air Force, and other requirements. The JLTV is expected to be the next generation of light tactical vehicles and is being designed to provide the advances in protection, performance, and payload to fill the capability gap remaining between the HMMWV and MRAP family of vehicles. JLTV is being designed to protect its occupants from the effects of mines and improvised explosive devices without sacrificing its payload capability or its automotive performance, which has not been the case with the other tactical wheeled vehicles. The Army’s recent history with its acquisition programs was the subject of a review by a panel chartered by the Secretary of the Army. In its January 2011 report, the panel noted that the Army has increasingly failed to take new development programs into full-rate production. From 1990 to 2010, the Army terminated 22 major defense acquisition programs before completion. While noting many different causes that contribute to a program’s terminations, the panel found that many terminated programs shared several of the same problems, including weak trade studies or analyses of alternatives; unconstrained weapon system requirements; underestimation of risk, particularly technology readiness levels; affordability reprioritization; schedule delays; and requirements and technology creep. The panel made a number of recommendations to help make the Army’s requirements, resourcing, and acquisition processes more effective and efficient. Over the next 2 years during the technology development phase, the Army faces major challenges to identify a feasible, cost-effective, and executable solution that meets the Army’s needs. Among these are making choices on which capabilities to pursue and include in a GCV vehicle design and determining whether the best option is a new vehicle or a modified current vehicle. In our March 2011 testimony, we identified key questions about GCV pertaining to how urgently it is needed, robustness of the analysis of alternatives, plausibility of its 7-year schedule, cost and affordability, and whether mature technologies would be used. Since that time, the Army has moved the CGV program into the technology development phase. DOD and the Army have taken positive steps to increase their oversight of the program; however, the timely resolution of issues surrounding the areas previously identified will be a major challenge.  Urgency of need: The Army’s recent combat vehicle capability portfolio review confirmed the Army’s need for GCV as a Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle replacement and USD/ATL approved the GCV acquisition program. USD/ATL agreed that the Army has a priority need for a GCV but the number of caveats in the approval decision (as discussed below) raises questions about the soundness of the Army’s acquisition plans and time lines.  Analysis of alternatives: After initially bypassing completion of the AOA process, the Army subsequently conducted an AOA but was directed by USD/ATL to conduct more robust analyses, throughout the technology development phase, to include design and capability trades intended to reduce technical risks and GCV production costs. We have reported that a robust AOA can be a key element in ensuring a program has a sound, executable business case prior to program initiation and that programs that conduct a limited AOA tended to experience poorer outcomes—including cost growth. The Army is expected to include sensitivity analyses in the AOA to explore trade-offs between specific capabilities and costs. These analyses will be supported by assessments of existing combat vehicles to determine whether they are adequate alternatives to a new vehicle, or whether some of the designs or capabilities of existing vehicles should be incorporated into a new GCV. Concurrently, the GCV contractor teams will conduct design trades and demonstrate technologies, the results of which will also be fed back into the AOA updates.  Plausibility of 7-year schedule: The Army’s plan to deliver the first production vehicles in 7 years still has significant risk. Since GCV was originally conceived in 2009, the Army has already reduced some requirements and encouraged interested contractors to use mature technologies in their proposals. However, the schedule remains ambitious and USD/ATL has stipulated that the Army will need to demonstrate that the schedule is both feasible and executable. According to an independent Army program evaluator, the next 2 years of technology development will require many capability and requirements trades in order to better define an acceptable solution at the same time that technology risks for that solution are to be identified and mitigated. Concurrent activities can lead to poor results, calling into question whether the 7-year schedule is executable. The independent cost estimate submitted for the milestone A review featured higher GCV development costs with the assumption that the Army would need 9 or 10 years to complete the program, instead of the assumed 7 years.  Cost and affordability: Cost continues to be a challenge, as an independent cost estimate was at least 30 percent higher than the Army’s estimate for GCV procurement. USD/ATL has directed that continued program approval depends on the Army’s ability to meet the $13 million procurement unit cost target. As for affordability, with the expectation that less funding will be available in coming years, the Army has made some trades within the combat vehicle portfolio. According to Army officials, the Army plans to proceed with GCV as currently planned, but several other combat vehicle programs—such as anticipated upgrades for the Bradley, Abrams, and Stryker vehicles—are being reshaped or delayed.  Use of mature technologies: The Army encouraged interested contractor teams to use mature technologies in their GCV proposals. Due to the current bid protest, we do not have insight into what the contractor teams proposed in terms of specific critical technologies or their maturity. A DOD official stated, and we agree, that it will be important that technologies be thoroughly evaluated at the preliminary design review before the decision to proceed to the engineering and manufacturing development phase. The Army has taken a number of steps to put together a more realistic strategy to develop and field an information network for its deployed forces than the network envisioned for the Future Combat System program. However, the Army is proceeding without defining requirements for the network and articulating clearly defined capabilities. As a result, the Army runs the risk of developing a number of stovepipe capabilities that may not work together as a network, thus wasting resources. The Army has moved away from its plan for a single network development program under Future Combat System to an incremental approach with which feasible technologies can be developed, tested, and fielded. This planned approach reflects lessons learned and changes the way the Army develops, acquires, and fields network capabilities. Under this new approach, numerous programs will be developed separately and coordinated centrally, and network increments will be integrated and demonstrated in advance of fielding rather than the previous practice of ad hoc development and integration in the field. A key aspect of the implementation of the new approach will be aligning the schedules of the separate programs with the Army’s planned, semiannual field events, called network integration evaluations, where emerging technologies are put in soldiers’ hands for demonstration and evaluation.