Our objectives were to (1) identify those Defense long-haul telecommunications networks operating outside of the common-user DISN, (2) evaluate the Department of Defense’s progress in implementing its policies for managing telecommunications services, which include: developing a comprehensive inventory of telecommunications equipment and services, reporting on telecommunications services acquired, trends, and costs, mandating the use of common-user networks, and developing a waiver process to grant exceptions from using common-user networks, and (3) evaluate Defense’s progress in developing performance measures for DISN to ensure effective and efficient use of the department’s telecommunications resources. To determine what long-haul telecommunications networks were planned or operating in Defense, we reviewed applicable Defense directives, instructions, and memorandums regarding the use of common-user networks. We met with officials from DISA and OASD/C3I to assess Defense’s progress in developing a comprehensive inventory of telecommunications equipment and services. We met with representatives of the Joint Staff for Command, Control, Communication and Computers (J-6); the Department of Defense’s Office of Inspector General; the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force, the Defense Logistics Agency, and the Defense Commissary Agency to assess component efforts to develop inventories. When we learned that no comprehensive inventories of networks exist at the department or component level, we sent a questionnaire to the four military services requesting that, for every non-DISN long-haul network, they report: the name of the network; functional description; types of telecommunications services supported; estimated annual costs; whether the network was planned or operational, and if planned, its status, life-cycle costs, and whether it was scheduled to be replaced by DISN, and when. We did not independently verify the information provided by the Services. However, we consulted with them to confirm our understanding of their responses and to discuss and ask questions we had about information they provided. Appendix I details the results of our survey. To assess progress in reporting on telecommunications services acquired, trends, and costs, we reviewed applicable Defense directives, instructions, and memorandums and discussed Defense’s implementation of these requirements with officials from ASD/C3I and DISA. We analyzed information on costs maintained by DISA and reviewed a recent contractor evaluation of DISA business processes. To assess Defense’s progress in enforcing its policy mandate that Defense components acquire services from common-user networks, we reviewed applicable Defense directives, instructions, and memorandums and met with officials from ASD/C3I, DISA, and the Defense components. During these interviews we asked for documentation showing that existing policies on telecommunications management and the use of common-user networks were being implemented and enforced. We obtained and analyzed network plans, requirements, and other acquisition documentation to determine if Defense components were complying with telecommunications management policies. To assess Defense’s progress in developing a waiver process to grant exceptions from using common-user networks, we reviewed applicable Defense directives, instructions, and memorandums. We met with officials from ASD/C3I and DISA to discuss their plans to implement an interim waiver process and to develop a strategy detailing how and when independent networks will be replaced by their common-user counterparts. Because the interim process began during our review, we met again with DISA officials in April 1998 to assess the agency’s progress to date in granting waivers. To assess Defense’s progress in developing performance measures for DISN, we met with officials from DISA and reviewed DISA’s draft documentation on the issue, which consisted of draft performance measures for information technology acquisitions. We reviewed the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to determine applicable legislative requirements for developing performance measures. We relied on work we performed in developing our recent guide on performance measurement, Executive Guide: Measuring Performance and Demonstrating Results of Information Technology Investments (GAO/AIMD-98-89, March 1998). In addition, we examined network performance measurements used in the private sector. Our review was conducted from December 1996 through April 1998 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We obtained written comments from Defense on a draft of this report. These comments are discussed in the “Agency Comments and Our Evaluation” section of this letter and are reprinted in appendix II. The military services, Defense agencies, and other Defense components have traditionally acquired and operated many unique telecommunications networks to support a range of mission requirements. As a result, Defense components operate many stovepiped telecommunications systems that are not interoperable and cannot share information across functional and organizational boundaries. For example, between 1988 and 1992 Defense reported several interoperability problems including some arising during the Persian Gulf War. Defense components were unable to use their telecommunications networks and information systems to coordinate the issuance of air tasking orders, the use of air space, and the use of fire support for joint operations. To improve the interoperability of its military communications services as well as to reduce costs associated with operating redundant systems, Defense began in 1991 to plan and implement DISN to serve as the department’s primary worldwide telecommunications and information transfer network. The DISN strategy focuses on replacing older data communications systems, using emerging technologies and cost-effective acquisition strategies that provide secure and interoperable voice, data, video, and imagery communications services. Under the DISN program, the military services and Defense agencies are still responsible for acquiring telecommunications services for their local bases and installations as well as deployed communications networks. DISA is responsible for acquiring the long-haul services that will interconnect these base-level and deployed networks within and between the continental United States, Europe, and the Pacific. Defense issued a number of policies and directives in 1991 aimed at ensuring that the department could identify and replace redundant networks with DISN and manage DISN efficiently and effectively. These policies directed components to develop comprehensive inventories of their telecommunications equipment and services, and DISA to develop a comprehensive Defense-wide inventory; directed DISA to report annually on telecommunications equipment acquisitions, trends, and associated costs; mandated the use of common-user networks; and directed DISA to develop a waiver process to grant exceptions from using common-user networks when these networks could not satisfy Defense components’ requirements. In a previous review of the DISN program, we found that Defense was not doing enough to ensure that the program would be managed efficiently and effectively. Specifically, the department lacked performance measures that would help Defense track whether DISA was meeting its objectives, efficiently allocating resources, and learning from mistakes. In response, Defense agreed to establish measures for the program. In order for the DISN program to work, Defense needs to know how many networks are operating in the department and what functions they support. This is the foundation for identifying redundant and stovepiped networks and ensuring that they are replaced by DISN. However, Defense lacks the basic information necessary to determine how many networks are operating in the department, what functions they support, or what they cost. In order to estimate the number and cost of networks that are operating outside of DISN, we conducted our own survey, which identified 87 such networks operated by the military services alone. DISA initiated a similar data call to the military services and Defense agencies after we began our survey and identified 153 networks planned or operating throughout Defense. The results of our survey are presented in appendix I and summarized in table 1. To manage telecommunications cost effectively, Defense must know what networks are operating in the department. In 1991, Defense directed DISA to establish a central inventory of all long-haul telecommunications equipment and services in Defense, and directed the heads of Defense components to do likewise. However, the central inventory was never established and DISA staff are still discovering new networks as they process new telecommunications service requests from Defense components. Defense components have also failed to develop inventories of their own networks. During our initial meetings, Army, Navy, and Air Force officials stated that they could not readily identify all of their networks or describe what their functions are because they do not centrally manage their telecommunications resources. Our experience with the Navy illustrates the depth of this problem. The Navy’s initial response to our survey only identified three independent long-haul networks. Other Navy networks known to exist, such as the Naval Aviation Systems Team Wide Area Network (NAVWAN), were not reported in the survey. Navy’s headquarters telecommunication staff acknowledged that they were unable to identify all of the Navy’s long-haul networks. Careful analysis is needed to determine whether any of the independent networks identified in our survey can or should be replaced by DISN common user services. However, on the basis of our interviews with the military services and our survey results, we were able to determine that overlaps exist between telecommunications services offered by independent networks and services offered by DISN. For example: NAVWAN offers its users data communications services using Internet Protocol (IP); similar services are provided by DISA on DISN’s Unclassified but Sensitive (N-Level) IP Router Network (NIPRNET). The Army’s Installation Transition Processing (ITP) Network also offers IP router services similar to those provided by DISN’s NIPRNET. The Navy Sea Systems Command’s Enterprisewide Network (NEWNET, now known as Smart Link) relies on asynchronous transfer mode-based data communications services; similar services are now offered by DISA on a limited basis. The Army’s planned Regional Transition Network (ARTNET, now known as the Circuit Bundling Initiative) also relies on asynchronous transfer mode-based data services, similar to services offered by DISA. To ensure that a common-user network is efficiently and effectively managed, it is essential to closely monitor its acquisitions of telecommunications services, costs, and trends in usage, that is, the volumes and types of traffic it carries.