DFAS Telecommunications: DFAS Has the Opportunity To Reduce Its
Telecommunication Line Capacity (Letter Report, 08/01/97,
GAO/AIMD-97-100).

GAO reviewed the use of the 50 data communication lines that the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) leases from the Defense
Information Systems Agency (DISA) to connect its operating locations
(OPLOC) and finance centers and the DISA megacenters through one of
DISA's common user data networks, the N-level
(Unclassified-but-Sensitive) Internet Protocol Router Network, focusing
on whether these data communication lines are effectively managed.

GAO noted that: (1) GAO's analysis of the usage data for the 50 leased
data communication lines indicates that 29 lines may not be utilized in
the most efficient, effective, and economical manner; (2) this situation
is due primarily to DFAS not performing a thorough analysis of its
telecommunication requirements; (3) to meet the tight time frames
prescribed for the consolidation effort, DFAS did not consider critical
factors such as frequency of use, peak usage periods, and the volume of
information to be transmitted and received; (4) rather, the DFAS Deputy
Director for Information Management decided that a start-up line of 512
kilobits per second would provide sufficient capacity for the workload
requirements of each OPLOC; (5) as the finance and accounting workload
was transferred from the defense accounting offices (DAO) to the OPLOCs,
operational problems, such as increased downtime and slow response
times, began to surface; (6) to resolve these problems, across-the-board
line and equipment upgrades were made without knowing what specific
changes were needed to remedy the problem at each location; (7) with the
transfer of the DAOs to the OPLOCs virtually complete, DFAS can now
thoroughly reassess and revalidate its existing telecommunication lines
to determine if they are effectively utilized; (8) doing so would also
enable DFAS to identify opportunities for reducing its lease cost; and
(9) such reassessments are important because they enable an agency to
determine, based on empirical data, whether its telecommunication lines
are properly sized, meet mission requirements, and are cost-effective.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  AIMD-97-100
     TITLE:  DFAS Telecommunications: DFAS Has the Opportunity To Reduce 
             Its Telecommunication Line Capacity
      DATE:  08/01/97
   SUBJECT:  Telecommunication equipment
             Electronic data interchange
             Computer networks
             Information resources management
             Federal agency accounting systems
             Cost effectiveness analysis
             Data transmission
             Systems management
IDENTIFIER:  DISA Internet Protocol Router Network
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Acting Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)

August 1997

DFAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS - DFAS HAS
THE OPPORTUNITY TO REDUCE ITS
TELECOMMUNICATION LINE CAPACITY

GAO/AIMD-97-100

DFAS Telecommunications

(511358)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  CFO - Chief Financial Officer
  DAO - Defense Accounting Office
  DFAS - Defense Finance and Accounting Service
  DISA - Defense Information Systems Agency
  DOD - Department of Defense
  kbs - kilobits per second
  NIPRNET - N-level (Unclassified-but-Sensitive) Internet Protocol
     Router Network
  OPLOC - Operating Location

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-275892

August 1, 1997

Ms.  Alice C.  Maroni
Acting Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)

Dear Ms.  Maroni: 

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) was established in
January 1991 to streamline and standardize the Department of
Defense's (DOD) finance and accounting policies, procedures, and
systems.  In May 1994, the Deputy Secretary of Defense announced
plans to consolidate over 300 defense accounting offices (DAOs) into
5 large existing finance centers\1 and 21 new sites\2

called operating locations (OPLOCs).  The success of this effort is
dependent, in large part, on the OPLOCs' ability to obtain and
process finance and accounting data from DOD's numerous and
geographically dispersed military installations.  DFAS is relying on
the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to provide the
telecommunication services needed to transmit this critical
information. 

Due to the important role that telecommunication services have in
DFAS' day-to-day accounting operations, as well as congressional
interest in using information technology to maximize the efficiency
and effectiveness of governmental operations, we reviewed the use of
the 50 data communication lines that DFAS leases from DISA to connect
its OPLOCs and finance centers and the DISA megacenters through one
of DISA's common user data networks--the N-level
(Unclassified-but-Sensitive) Internet Protocol Router Network
(NIPRNET).  Our primary objective was to determine whether these data
communication lines are effectively managed. 


--------------------
\1 DOD'S five large centers are located in Cleveland, Ohio; Columbus,
Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Indianapolis, Indiana; and Kansas City,
Missouri. 

\2 As of May 1997, four sites had not yet been opened. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Our analysis of the usage data for the 50 leased data communication
lines indicates that 29 lines may not be utilized in the most
efficient, effective, and economical manner.  This situation is due
primarily to DFAS not performing a thorough analysis of its
telecommunication requirements.  To meet the tight time frames
prescribed for the consolidation effort, DFAS did not consider
critical factors such as frequency of use, peak usage periods, and
the volume of information to be transmitted and received.  Rather,
the DFAS Deputy Director for Information Management decided that a
start-up line of 512 kilobits (kbs) per second\3 would provide
sufficient capacity for the workload requirements of each OPLOC.  As
the finance and accounting workload was transferred from the DAOs to
the OPLOCs, operational problems, such as increased downtime and slow
response times, began to surface.  To resolve these problems,
across-the-board line and equipment upgrades were made without
knowing what specific changes were needed to remedy the problem at
each location. 

With the transfer of the DAOs to the OPLOCs virtually complete, DFAS
can now thoroughly reassess and revalidate its existing
telecommunication lines to determine if they are effectively
utilized.  Doing so would also enable DFAS to identify opportunities
for reducing its lease cost.  Such reassessments are important
because they enable an agency to determine, based on empirical data,
whether its telecommunication lines are properly sized, meet mission
requirements, and are cost-effective. 


--------------------
\3 One kilobit is one thousand bits; therefore, a 512 kilobit per
second line can transmit 512,000 bits per second. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

As part of DOD's efforts to streamline and standardize finance and
accounting activities, DFAS was given management control of the DOD's
5 large finance centers and many of the functions carried out at the
332 installation finance and accounting offices.  In May 1994, the
Deputy Secretary of Defense announced plans to consolidate DOD's
finance and accounting operations into the 5 large finance centers
and 21 OPLOCs.  In previous work, we have questioned the overall need
for DOD having 21 operating locations.\4

While this is a massive effort in itself, it is also complicated by
the scope of DOD's finance and accounting operations.  For example,
in fiscal year 1996, DOD disbursed $266 billion related to 17 million
invoices, 6 million payroll accounts, and 2 million travel vouchers,
it also collected $238 million from 116,000 debtors.  As DOD's
accounting agency, DFAS records these transactions in the
Department's accounting records.  DFAS also prepares reports for DOD
managers and the DOD-wide and service-specific financial statements
required by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act and the Office of
Management and Budget implementing directives. 

Both DFAS and DISA have major responsibilities for ensuring the
efficient and effective transmission of DOD's finance and accounting
data.  DFAS is responsible for identifying its requirements by
analyzing expected workloads and telecommunication performance
parameters, such as transmission frequency, availability, and speed. 
As DOD's central manager for information technology and technical
support, DISA is responsible for acquiring, operating, and
maintaining the data communication lines needed to satisfy DFAS'
day-to-day activities, as well as providing data processing services
through its various megacenters.  DFAS is leasing 50 data
communication lines from DISA to transmit the finance and accounting
data between its various accounting locations and DISA's megacenters
through the NIPRNET.  Figure 1 illustrates this connectivity and the
transmission of the data.  Our review focused on the use of the
communication lines used to connect DFAS' finance centers, OPLOCs,
and DISA megacenters through DISA's NIPRNET. 

   Figure 1:  Flow of Finance and
   Accounting Data Between DFAS'
   OPLOCs and Finance Centers and
   DISA's Megacenters Through
   NIPRNET

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\4 DOD Infrastructure:  DOD Is Opening Unneeded Finance and
Accounting Offices (GAO/NSIAD-96-113, April 24, 1996) and DOD
Infrastructure:  DOD's Planned Finance and Accounting Structure Is
Not Well Justified (GAO/NSIAD-95-127, September 18, 1995). 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

To determine whether DFAS is effectively managing the
telecommunication lines it is leasing from DISA to support the
consolidation of DOD's accounting and finance operations, we reviewed
DOD directives and instructions to determine the specific roles and
responsibilities of DFAS and DISA in the procurement and management
of data communication services.  We met with DFAS and DISA officials
involved in the consolidation effort to obtain an understanding of
the importance of data communications to the success of consolidated
DOD accounting and finance operations and identify specific criteria
used to select communication lines connecting DFAS' OPLOCs and
finance centers, and DISA's megacenters with the NIPRNET. 

We extracted and analyzed data from two DISA computerized databases
and reconciled any inconsistencies found to identify and assess DFAS'
use of its leased telecommunication lines for the 4 months ending
January 31, 1997.  Our analyses of the Defense Information Services
Database and the World-Wide On-Line System identified 50 data
communication lines used by DFAS to transmit finance and accounting
data between the OPLOCs, finance centers, and megacenters through the
NIPRNET.  Further, we compared data from the two DISA databases with
service request documentation used to initiate the telecommunication
services to cross-check data accuracy and completeness.  We evaluated
line use data sampled every hour by DISA's regional control centers
detailing the daily use of the 50 DFAS lines from October 1, 1996,
through January 31, 1997.  We determined the maximum usage level by
adding the highest individual levels of utilization in receiving and
sending data experienced during the 4-month period.  We compared our
calculated rate of utilization with the line currently in place.  We
discussed our approach with DISA and DFAS officials responsible for
ensuring efficient use of DOD telecommunication resources. 

We performed our work at DFAS and DISA headquarters offices,
Washington, D.C.; DFAS Center, Denver, Colorado; DFAS Center and
Financial Service Organization, Indianapolis, Indiana; DFAS OPLOCs in
Limestone, Maine; Oakland, California; and Seaside, California; DISA
Regional Control Center, Columbus, Ohio; DISA Defense Information
Technology Contracting Organization and the Defense Information
System Network Service Center, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois; and
the Defense Megacenter, Denver, Colorado.  We also contacted and
obtained information from the DISA Regional Control Center in Oahu,
Hawaii.  Our work was performed from July 1996 through May 1997 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

We requested written comments on a draft of the report from the
Secretary of Defense or his designee.  The Deputy Chief Financial
Officer provided written comments, which are discussed in the "Agency
Comments and Our Evaluation" section and reprinted in appendix II. 


   DETERMINING REQUIREMENTS IS KEY
   TO PROPERLY SIZING
   TELECOMMUNICATION LINES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

DFAS did not adequately identify its telecommunication requirements
before the OPLOCs began operations.  As a result, many of DFAS'
telecommunication lines may have excess capacity.  Our analysis of
utilization data, which is one element that should be considered in
properly sizing lines, disclosed that 29 lines may have larger
capacity than required.  Leasing more capacity than is needed to meet
day-to-day operational requirements could result in DFAS incurring
unnecessary lease cost. 

Defining and validating requirements through analysis of expected
workload and performance parameters is an essential first step in the
telecommunication selection and acquisition process.\5 Such
definitions form the basis for identifying and evaluating alternative
approaches and selecting and acquiring an appropriate technical
solution based on those alternatives.  Defining requirements
necessitates the collection and identification of such elements as
(1) the location, type, and number of users, (2) the nature of the
interfacing computer applications and equipment, (3) the frequency of
use and the transmission speed, (4) peak usage periods, and (5) the
volume of data to be transmitted and received.  The next step
involves identifying and evaluating viable technical alternatives for
meeting those requirements.  Critical factors evaluated within this
step include such elements as the compatibility with existing
networks and equipment, technical feasibility, maintainability, cost,
and the ability to meet the defined requirements.\6

DFAS did not perform a thorough analysis of its site specific
requirements before the OPLOCs began operations because of the tight
time frames prescribed for bringing the OPLOCs on-line and
transferring the accounting responsibility and workload from the
consolidated DAOs.  In response to DFAS' request, DISA developed a
project implementation plan\7 dated February 1995 that addressed the
connectivity requirements for consolidating the 332 DAOs into the 21
OPLOCs.  The plan identified various alternatives for addressing DFAS
connectivity requirements.  The plan cautioned that the
implementation requirements might need to be revised based on
analyses of actual site workload demands and results as the
consolidation progressed.  Based on a decision by the DFAS Deputy
Director for Information Management, all alternatives assumed the use
of 512 kbs lines for the initial network configuration. 

As the finance and accounting functions were transferred from the
DAOs to the OPLOCs, the data traffic was greater than anticipated,
and transmission of the finance and accounting data was unexpectedly
slow.  This problem was compounded by the shared use of military
owned communication equipment at four DISA megacenters.  Together,
these two problems caused major breakdowns in DFAS' day-to-day
operations.  For example, DFAS experienced periods each month when
the OPLOCs and finance centers could not receive or send data.  When
data could be transmitted, the system responses to user inquiries
were often very slow. 

To resolve these problems, DFAS and DISA implemented several
corrective actions.  DFAS upgraded its telecommunication lines
between the OPLOCs and the NIPRNET.  DISA also upgraded the lines
between its megacenters and procured dedicated communication
equipment for DFAS.  These actions, which addressed serious problems,
were taken across the board without determining the specific line
capacity required at each site. 

Since DFAS had not developed site-specific requirements, we used
utilization data to identify lines that may be potentially
underutilized.  Our analysis of the usage data for the 50 lines,
which we have provided to and discussed with DFAS, disclosed that 29
lines may not be utilized in the most economical manner, resulting in
DFAS incurring unnecessary lease cost.  For each line we were
conservative in establishing a maximum possible peak usage by
combining the sum of the highest peak sent and highest peak
received.\8 Figure 2 shows the 29 DFAS lines that may be
underutilized. 

   Figure 2:  Utilization Rate for
   29 DFAS Lines

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a The utilization on this line was four kilobits. 

\b The amount used represents the sum of the highest peak sent and
the highest peak received. 

Additional utilization detail is provided in appendix I.  While usage
data alone is not sufficient to determine required line capacity, it
is a significant consideration that DFAS should include in its review
and revalidation effort, as discussed in the following section. 


--------------------
\5 Defense Communications:  Management Problems Jeopardize DISN
Implementation (GAO/AIMD-95-136, July 13, 1995). 

\6 These requirement definitions and critical factors were developed
by the Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation, Systems
Auditability and Control, December 1991, Module 8,
"Telecommunications."

\7 DFAS/DAO Consolidation Information Management Service, Project
Implementation Plan, February 1995. 

\8 The maximum possible peak was determined by adding the highest
peak received and the highest peak sent.  These levels of utilization
could have occurred on different days and at different hours during
the 4-month measured period. 


   REASSESSMENT OF DFAS'
   TELECOMMUNICATION REQUIREMENTS
   IS NEEDED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

DOD requires\9 that agencies biennially review and revalidate their
requirements for telecommunication equipment and services to ensure
that they acquire and use such services in the most efficient and
economical manner.  Such reassessments are important because they
enable an agency to determine, based on empirical data, whether its
telecommunication lines are properly sized, meet mission
requirements, and are cost-effective. 

As of March 1997, this type of thorough reassessment had not been
performed on the 50 data communication lines.  DFAS officials
informed us that they had not reassessed the lines because they were
managed by DISA during fiscal year 1996.  Although DISA performed an
assessment in early 1996, this effort was somewhat limited.  For
example, DISA did not obtain utilization data or reassess the
validity of the users' prescribed performance parameters, such as
transmission speed. 

With the transfer of the finance and accounting operations for 307 of
the 332 DAOs to be completed by the end of this fiscal year, DFAS'
operations have been largely stabilized, thus affording DFAS an
opportunity to reassess its data communication requirements.  Such a
reassessment would enable DFAS to refine its requirements and
establish what needs to be done to reduce the cost of operations
without hindering operational effectiveness.  Since DFAS has not yet
performed any detailed analyses, it would be prudent to conduct a
full-scale assessment, which would include tasks similar to those
normally performed when a requirement is originally defined and
validated, as discussed previously.  If performed properly, this
assessment would enable DFAS to ensure that its data communication
lines satisfy mission requirements cost-effectively. 


--------------------
\9 Defense Directive 4640.13, Management of Base and Long-Haul
Telecommunications Equipment and Services, December 5, 1991, and
Defense Instruction 4640.14, Base and Long-Haul Telecommunication
Equipment and Services, December 6, 1991. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

In the absence of a thorough analysis of DFAS' requirements, our
evaluation of utilization data indicates that many of its
telecommunication lines may have excess capacity.  Until DFAS
completes such an analysis, it runs the risk of paying for excess
capacity. 


   RECOMMENDATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

To ensure that the long-term telecommunication needs of DFAS are
properly defined and cost-effective, we recommend that the Director
of DFAS follow existing DOD policy and reassess DFAS'
telecommunication requirements, at a minimum considering such factors
as workload capacity, utilization statistics of its telecommunication
assets, response time, and cost-benefit analyses supporting the use
of the telecommunication resources. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD's Deputy CFO
agreed with our recommendation that DFAS reassess its
telecommunication requirements, stating that DFAS will perform such a
reassessment in September and October 1997. 

However, DOD did not concur with our findings and conclusions.  The
Deputy CFO stated that our analysis did not take into consideration
DFAS' mission and future requirements and, therefore, should not be
used as a basis to downsize DFAS' telecommunication lines.  Our
report does not identify specific telecommunication lines that should
be downsized.  Rather, it points out that utilization data is one
factor that needs to be considered in determining if
telecommunication lines are being utilized in the most efficient,
effective, and economical manner.  As discussed in the report, our
analysis of the utilization data disclosed that 29 lines may have
larger capacity than required.  Therefore, based on our analysis, and
the fact that DFAS has not determined site specific requirements, we
recommended that DFAS reassess its telecommunication requirements
which, as noted above, the Department agreed with. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking
Minority Members of the Senate and House Committees on
Appropriations, the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs, the House Committee on National
Security, and the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight;
the Secretary of Defense; the Director, Defense Information Systems
Agency; the Acting Director, the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service; and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. 
Copies will be made available to others on request. 

Within 60 days of the date of this report, we would appreciate
receiving a written statement on actions taken to address our
recommendation. 

If you have any questions about the report, please call me at (202)
512-6240.  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
III. 

Sincerely yours,

Jack L.  Brock, Jr.
Director, Defense Information
and Financial Management Systems


DETAILED USAGE DATA FOR DFAS' 50
TELECOMMUNICATION LINES
=========================================================== Appendix I

The following table shows the DFAS OPLOCs' and centers' peak use for
receiving and sending information from October 1, 1996, through
January 31, 1997, over leased telecommunication lines connected to
the NIPRNET.  The maximum peak method sums the highest peak sent and
highest peak received experienced during the measurement period. 

Li
ne                                   Current  Peak use  Peak use  Max peak      Used
nu                                      line  received      sent       use      line
mb  From                                size  (Percent  (Percent  (Percent  capacity
er  location      To location          (kbs)         )         )         )     (kbs)
--  ------------  ----------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
71  Dayton        Wright-               1544      15.7      16.4      32.1       496
SK                Patterson

71  Ft. Sill      Tinker AFB             512      17.4      22.0      39.4       202
QR

71  Rock Island   Rock Island           1544      28.8      13.2      42.0       649
SH

71  Dayton        Dayton                 512       4.7      38.5      43.2       222
LF

71  Pensacola     Jacksonville          1544      19.1      10.0      29.1       450
ST

71  San           North Island          1544       5.7       9.6      15.3       237
SP  Bernardino

71  Norfolk       Hampton Roads         1544      10.2       2.0      12.2       189
SJ

71  San Antonio   Tinker AFB             512      10.0      20.6      30.6       157
8Y

7L  Charleston    Charleston             512      10.1      10.1      20.2       104
KR

7L  Norfolk       Hampton Roads          512      12.2      38.3      50.5       259
LA

7L  Offutt AFB    Tinker AFB             512      21.6      24.7      46.3       238
KY

7L  Rock Island   Chicago 0'Hare         512       0.0       8.8       8.8        46
KZ

7L  Oakland       Oakland                512       2.4      15.9      18.3        94
KU

71  Oakland       Oakland                512       1.1      18.7      19.8       102
QY

71  St. Louis     St. Louis              512       6.2      15.1      21.3       110
QX

71  Offutt AFB    Denver                1544       6.2      13.7      19.9       308
SG

7L  Limestone     Boston                 512      11.5      40.0      51.5       264
PT

71  Limestone     Mechanicsburg         1544       6.8      15.4      22.2       343
SN

71  Kansas City   Kansas City           1544       0.1       0.1       0.2         4
39

71  Kansas City   St. Louis             1544       8.3      24.0      32.3       499
36

71  Charleston    Charleston            1544      10.9      15.4      26.3       407
SR

71  Orlando       Jacksonville          1544      16.1      18.6      34.7       536
SQ

71  Oakland       Oakland               1544       7.2      17.0      24.2       374
SM

71  Griffiss      Mechanicsburg         1544      11.8      22.7      34.5       533
SL

71  Pensacola     Pensacola              512       2.9      11.6      14.5        75
K6

71  Seaside       McClellan AFB         1544       4.6       8.1      12.7       197
81

71  San Antonio   Kelly AFB             1544      17.6       8.5      26.1       403
8X

71  St. Louis     St. Louis             1544       2.5       4.1       6.6       102
5H

71  San Diego     North Island          1544      12.5      28.0      40.5       626
SF

71  San           North Island           512      25.8      56.4      82.2       421
K7  Bernardino

71  Pensacola     Jacksonville           512       1.4      27.0      28.4       146
QQ

7L  San Diego     North Island           512       4.2      10.6      14.6        76
KX

7L  Griffiss      Mechanicsburg          512      31.0      30.9      61.9       317
LB

71  Columbus      Wright-               1544      16.5      37.7      54.2       837
5N                Patterson

71  Columbus      Columbus              1544      32.3      45.7      78.0      1205
5M

71  Ft. Ben       Columbus              1544      41.8      55.9      97.7      1509
SS  Harrison

71  Ft. Ben       Ft. Ben Harrison       512      74.0       5.9      79.9       410
QZ  Harrison

72  Cleveland     Columbus              1544      35.0      26.5      61.5       950
E8

71  Arlington     Richmond              1544      10.0      12.4      22.4       346
RT

71  Bratenahl     Columbus              1544       7.8      63.8      71.6      1106
91

71  Bratenahl     Wright-               1544      45.9      21.3      67.2      1038
90                Patterson

71  Denver        Denver               10000       4.9       6.6      11.5      1150
5L

71  Denver        Ft. Huachuca          1544       0.2       1.3       1.5        24
5K

7L  Orlando       Pensacola              512      14.2      24.0      38.2       196
MH

7M  Cleveland     Cleveland            10000      14.4      14.8      29.2      2920
LU

7W  Lowry         Lowry                10000      13.1       5.9      19.0      1900
YC

71  San Diego     San Diego               19      42.4      89.4     131.8        26
WV

71  Saufley       Pensacola              512      68.4      19.0      87.4       448
9Z  Field

XD  Hickam        Ford Island\a         1344      26.1      18.6      44.7       601
6K

XD  Ft. Shafter   Ford Island\a         1544      14.9      10.7      25.6       396
7U
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend
kbs=Kilobits per second. 

\a Usage data for telecommunication lines of XD6K and XD7U covered
October 1, 1996, through December 31, 1996, and January 20, 1997,
through January 31, 1997. 

Source:  Defense Information Services Database and the World-Wide
On-Line System




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE
=========================================================== Appendix I



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III

ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

John S.  Reifsnyder, Project Director (703) 695-7510
Darby W.  Smith, Assistant Director
William D.  Hadesty, Technical Advisor
Madhav S.  Panwar, Technical Advisor
Cristina Chaplain, Communications Analyst

CHICAGO/DAYTON FIELD OFFICE

Phillip E.  Rutar, Project Manager
Sanford F.  Reigle, Senior Information Systems Analyst

DENVER REGIONAL OFFICE

Peggy A.  Hegg, Senior Information Systems Analyst


*** End of document. ***