Army Logistics: Report on Manpower and Workload System Inadequate
and System Interface Untested (30-OCT-02, GAO-03-21).
At the direction of the House Committee on National Security, the
Army began developing the Army Workload and Performance System
(AWPS) in 1996. This automated system was intended to address a
number of specific weaknesses highlighted in several GAO and Army
studies since 1994 regarding the Army's inability to support its
civilian personnel requirements by using an analytically based
workload forecasting system. Army's May 2002 report on AWPS does
not provide Congress with adequate information to assess the
Army's progress in implementing the system. Specifically, the
2002 plan does not include (1) a detailed summary of all costs
that the Army has incurred, or the expenditures that it
anticipates in the future, to develop and implement the system;
(2) a list of the milestones that the Army has, or has not,
achieved in the previous year and a list of milestones that are
projected for the future; and (3) an evaluation of how well the
system has performed to date in fulfilling its primary
function--that is, of matching manpower needs with depot
workloads. Although the Army has begun developing an interface
between AWPS and the Logistics Modernization Program, it has not
sufficiently tested the interface to ensure that data can be
shared between the two systems and that the capability of the
workload and performance system will not be adversely affected.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-03-21
ACCNO: A05428
TITLE: Army Logistics: Report on Manpower and Workload System
Inadequate and System Interface Untested
DATE: 10/30/2002
SUBJECT: Military systems analysis
Performance measures
Reporting requirements
Systems evaluation
Military personnel
Personnel management
Systems compatibility
Strategic information systems planning
Army Logistics Modernization Program
Army Workload Performance System
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO 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. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-21
United States General Accounting Office
Report to the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services
October 2002
GAO ARMY LOGISTICS Report on Manpower and Workload System Inadequate and
System Interface Untested
GAO- 03- 21
Page i GAO- 03- 21 Army Logistics Letter 1
Results in Brief 2 Background 4 Report Does Not Contain Adequate
Information to Assess Progress 6 Army Has Not Sufficiently Tested the
Interface between AWPS and
the Logistics Modernization Program 14 Conclusions 15 Recommendations for
Executive Action 15 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 16
Appendix I Comments from the Department of Defense 18
Appendix II Task List for 2001 and 2002 21
Appendix III Milestone Schedule 24
Appendix IV Scope and Methodology 26
Tables
Table 1: Logistics Modernization Program: Milestones to First Deployment 5
Table 2: Comparison of Criteria Contained in DOD Regulation
5000.2- R and Army*s 2002 Report 8 Table 3: Presence or Absence of Defense
Criteria in the Army*s
2002 Plan, by Individual Task 9 Table 4: Army Projected Costs for Fiscal
Years 2004- 2006 11
Abbreviations
AWPS Army Workload and Performance System DOD Department of Defense
Contents
Page 1 GAO- 03- 21 Army Logistics
October 30, 2002 The Honorable Carl Levin Chairman The Honorable John
Warner Ranking Minority Member Committee on Armed Services United States
Senate
The Honorable Bob Stump Chairman The Honorable Ike Skelton Ranking
Minority Member Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives
At the direction of the House Committee on National Security, 1 the Army
began developing the Army Workload and Performance System in 1996. This
automated system was intended to address a number of specific weaknesses
highlighted in several of our and Army studies since 1994 regarding the
Army*s inability to support its civilian personnel requirements by using
an analytically based workload forecasting system. The Department of
Defense*s fiscal years 1997 and 1998 Annual Statements of Assurance
highlighted the problems of not being able to relate personnel
requirements to workload and budget as a material weakness in the Army*s
manpower requirements determination system. The Army Workload and
Performance System was designed to address this weakness and to coordinate
workforce requirements with workloads, initially at the Army*s five
maintenance depots and subsequently at other Army maintenance and
industrial activities.
The Army first outlined its strategy for designing and fielding this
system in a master plan in April 1999. We reported in November 1999, 2
however, that this master plan provided limited and incomplete information
on future development plans and insufficient funding information. We
1 Now known as the House Committee on Armed Services. 2 See U. S. General
Accounting Office, Defense Logistics: Army Should Assess Cost and Benefits
of the Workload Performance System Expansion, GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 16
(Washington, D. C.: Nov. 12, 1999).
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO- 03- 21 Army Logistics
recommended that the Army strengthen the management controls and oversight
for the system*s development and prepare a more comprehensive master plan
that contained priorities, costs, benefits, and schedules. In response to
congressional direction, the Army updated its original master plan in May
2001. Section 346 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2002 (P. L. 107- 107) required that the Army provide Congress
annually a progress report on the implementation of the master plan during
the preceding year. In May 2002, the Army submitted to Congress its first
progress report on the implementation of the master plan. The report was
presented in the form of a revised master plan. Section 346 also required
that the General Accounting Office evaluate the Army*s progress report.
Lastly, section 346 encouraged the Army to develop a process to enhance
data sharing between the Army Workload and Performance System and the
Logistics Modernization Program. 3 Beginning in February 2003, the
Logistics Modernization Program will replace many of the old information
systems that currently support the workload and performance system, and
will become the primary data source for this system.
As agreed with your offices, this report addresses whether (1) the May
2002 report provides adequate information for Congress to assess the
Army*s progress in implementing the Army Workload and Performance System,
and (2) the interface the Army is developing between this system and the
Logistics Modernization Program has been sufficiently tested to ensure
that data can be shared between the two systems and that the capability of
the workload and performance system will not be adversely affected.
The May 2002 report on the Army Workload and Performance System does not
provide Congress with adequate information to assess the Army*s progress
in implementing the system. In response to the mandate for a progress
report, as specified in section 346 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2002, the Army submitted an updated version of its May
2001 master plan. This version does not identify the changes that the Army
made to the previous plan, particularly in setting out milestones and
tasks, as was required by section 346. In addition,
3 In July 2002, the Army changed the name of this program from the
Wholesale Logistics Modernization Program to the Logistics Modernization
Program. This is a new information system that is intended to help manage
the Army*s supply, maintenance, and transportation functions. Results in
Brief
Page 3 GAO- 03- 21 Army Logistics
the May 2002 version does not contain detailed information on the system*s
cost, schedule, and performance, which is required by Department of
Defense regulations for reporting on major automated information systems
acquisitions. 4 Specifically, the 2002 plan does not include (1) a
detailed summary of all costs that the Army has incurred, or the
expenditures that it anticipates in the future, to develop and implement
the system; (2) a list of the milestones that the Army has, or has not,
achieved in the previous year and a list of milestones that are projected
for the future; and (3) an evaluation of how well the system has performed
to date in fulfilling its primary function* that is, of matching manpower
needs with depot workloads. Because this data is not included in the
updated plan, it is difficult to determine if the system is meeting its
original budgetary, scheduling, and performance objectives and if the Army
will need additional resources to complete the system*s development and
implementation. Finally, the updated version does not address the
potential duplication and overlap in some functions of the Army Workload
and Performance System and the Army*s Logistics Modernization Program.
Specifically, the module in the Army Workload and Performance System that
allows the user to compare actual resource expenditures against production
plans, scheduled workloads, and related budgets for specific projects is a
capability that also exists within the Logistics Modernization Program. In
addition, because the Logistics Modernization Program is not complete, the
Army cannot be certain what other capabilities may be duplicated. Army
officials are concerned that this potential duplication and overlap may
result in unnecessary costs and other inefficiencies.
While the Army has begun developing an interface between the Army Workload
and Performance System and the Logistics Modernization Program, it has not
sufficiently tested the interface to ensure that data can be shared
between the two systems and that the capability of the workload and
performance system will not be adversely affected. For example, initial
testing of this interface began in August 2002 but will be tested at only
one of the five Army depots by February 2003 when the Logistics
Modernization Program is scheduled to become operational. Additionally,
the Army plans to shut down many of the old information systems
4 Mandatory Procedures for Major Defense Acquisition Programs and Major
Automated Information System Acquisition Programs (Department of Defense
Regulation 5000. 2- R, Apr. 5, 2002). While the Army stated that the
workload and performance system does not meet the minimum threshold to be
considered a major system, we believe that the parameters outlined in this
regulation should be addressed in the Army*s progress reports.
Page 4 GAO- 03- 21 Army Logistics
that provide data for the workload and performance system once the
Logistics Modernization Program comes on line even though there are no
assurances that the data from the Logistics Modernization Program will
allow the workload and performance system to continue to operate. Until
the Army has installed and tested the interface at several sites, it will
be too early to assess whether data sharing can occur and the extent to
which the workload and performance system will be affected.
We are recommending that the Army improve its progress reports to Congress
on the Army Workload and Performance System*s implementation status and
ensure that the interface between this system and the Logistics
Modernization Program is evaluated in such a way that its effectiveness
and functionality are assured. In its written comments on a draft of this
report (see app. I), the Department fully concurred with our
recommendations.
The Army Workload and Performance System (AWPS) is intended to resolve
long- standing systemic problems in the Army*s civilian manpower
requirements determination process. It is an information and reporting
system that draws production and manpower data from other existing
programs, including the Army*s Standard Depot System. Its main purpose is
to provide decision support tools for linking workload demands to manpower
requirements and the budget process. The system was initially installed at
Corpus Christi Army Depot, Texas, in June 1996. Since then, it has been
put into operation at the Army*s four other maintenance depots* Anniston,
Letterkenny, Red River, and Tobyhanna. In 1999, the Assistant Secretary of
the Army certified the system as fully operational for the maintenance
mission at the five maintenance depots.
The Army is moving forward with the installation of AWPS at all of its
logistics and industrial activities. To date the system is being used as a
decision- making tool in other functional areas, including ammunition
logistics, base operations, materials usage, working capital fund budgets,
and reporting of net operating results. The Secretary of the Army has
directed that AWPS be used throughout the Army as the standard Armywide
mechanism for determining manpower requirements for all of its logistics
and industrial activities.
The first AWPS master plan, submitted to Congress in April 1999, described
the Army*s progress and future plans for developing and implementing the
system. In our November 1999 report regarding that master plan, we pointed
out that the information it contained was Background
Page 5 GAO- 03- 21 Army Logistics
limited, and we recommended that the Army develop a more substantial
master plan that incorporated all applications for which the system was to
be implemented, along with their priorities, costs and benefits, and
proposed schedules. We also recommended that the Army make improvements in
the existing management and oversight structures. The House Report to the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 required the Army
to submit a revised master plan, incorporating our recommendations, by
February 2001. Subsequently, section 346 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 required the Army to submit an
annual progress report on its implementation of the revised master plan.
Section 346 also required that these reports specifically address any
changes made to the master plan since the previous report.
In December 1999, the Army contracted with the Computer Sciences
Corporation to create the Logistics Modernization Program, which is a new
information system for managing the Army*s supply, maintenance, and
transportation functions. This system, initially called the Wholesale
Logistics Modernization Program, will replace the existing Standard Depot
System and many other source data systems, several of which provide data
to AWPS. The Logistics Modernization Program is designed to improve
readiness and logistics support to the war fighter by (1) reducing
requisition response times, (2) improving the availability of supplies,
(3) optimizing the use of inventory, and (4) responding more quickly to
changing customer requirements. The milestones to the first deployment of
the Logistics Modernization Program are shown in table 1.
Table 1: Logistics Modernization Program: Milestones to First Deployment
Milestones Dates Status
First deployment and integration phase: Proof of concept Initial services
description document and
implementation plan 9/ 20/ 00- 6/ 30/ 01
6/ 27/ 01- 6/ 28/ 01 6/ 29/ 01
Complete Complete Complete
Second deployment and integration phase: System integration testing
Process trial Final services description document and
implementation plan 7/ 01- 11/ 02
8/ 20/ 02- 11/ 15/ 02 11/ 02/ 02 11/ 15/ 02
In process In process Not complete Not complete
Begin first deployment 02/ 03 Not complete Source: Department of the Army.
Once the Logistics Modernization Program becomes operational at the
maintenance depots, the Army plans to shut down many of the old
Page 6 GAO- 03- 21 Army Logistics
information systems that currently support AWPS and it will become the
primary source for the data that AWPS needs to function. As a result,
section 346 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002
encouraged the Army to set up a process that would permit or enhance data
sharing between the two systems. To ensure that the Army*s AWPS
capabilities remained intact, section 346 also mandated that the Army
retain AWPS as its standard servicewide manpower system, under the
Secretary of the Army*s supervision and management. This mandate was
further underscored in a letter dated August 9, 2001, from several
congressional representatives to the Commander of the U. S. Materiel
Command, which further requested that the Army refrain from incorporating
the new system into the Logistics Modernization Program.
The Army*s May 2002 report on its workload and performance system does not
contain the information that Congress needs to assess the Army*s progress
in implementing the system. In response to the requirement for a progress
report, as specified in section 346 of the Fiscal Year 2002 National
Defense Authorization Act, the Army submitted an updated version of its
May 2001 master plan. This updated version did not identify or explain the
changes that the Army had made to the master plan since the May 2001
version. In addition, the Army*s report did not contain certain cost,
schedule, and performance information that would normally be expected.
Moreover, the Army*s report did not fully discuss the potential
duplication and overlap in functions performed by the Logistics
Modernization Program and the workload and performance system.
Although required by section 346, the Army*s 2002 report did not address
the changes made to the milestones or tasks set out in the May 2001 AWPS
master plan. Appendixes II and III provide tables showing the milestones
and tasks identified in both the 2001 and 2002 reports. In comparing the
two reports, we found that several milestones had been changed, but the
2002 report did not identify these changes nor did it provide a detailed
discussion of the reasons for these changes or their significance. For
example, in its 2001 report the Army had scheduled Corpus Christi Army
Depot as the first site to prototype the Net Operating Result capability,
beginning in August 2001. We found, however, that in the 2002 report this
task was set back by 1 year* to the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2002.
The same task was also scheduled to be prototyped at one of the ammunition
sites by March 2002, but this milestone was later delayed by about 1 year
until sometime between January and March 2003. In each case, the 2002
Report Does Not
Contain Adequate Information to Assess Progress
Report Fails to Address Changes in Milestones and Tasks since May 2001
Page 7 GAO- 03- 21 Army Logistics
report did not provide an analysis or explanation for the scheduling
change.
We also found discrepancies between the two reports related to the phasing
of certain tasks involved in implementing the new system. Some tasks that
were assigned to a specific phase in the 2001 report were moved to a
different phase in the 2002 report, and there was no discussion of why
these changes were made or what their impact on the overall implementation
schedule might be. For example, phase 1 of the 2001 report involved only
the consolidation of ongoing implementation actions, whereas in the 2002
report phase 1 also included non- Army Material Command maintenance
activities. The 2002 report, however, does not clearly address the status
of tasks previously listed under phase 1.
The Army*s 2002 plan does not contain the cost, schedule, and performance
data that might normally be expected. For example, according to the
Department of Defense*s (DOD) Regulation 5000.2- R, progress reports
related to the acquisition of major new automated information systems
should contain detailed information on such key parameters as cost,
schedule, and performance. Army officials stated that the scope and cost
of the AWPS system does not meet the minimum threshold to be considered a
major information system and, thus, the regulation does not apply to it.
While we agree that the AWPS system does not meet the threshold
requirements of the regulation, we believe certain criteria in the
regulation would provide Congress with the necessary information to
properly evaluate the AWPS system and should therefore be addressed in the
Army*s progress reports. Consequently, we have analyzed the AWPS report
using criteria from the regulation. Additionally, the Clinger- Cohen Act
of 1996 requires agencies to have investment management processes and
information to help ensure that information technology projects are being
implemented at an acceptable cost and within a reasonable and expected
time frame. In effect, these requirements and guidance recognize that one
cannot manage what one cannot measure. Finally, in our November 1999
report on the Army*s original master plan for AWPS, we identified several
shortcomings, including the lack of detailed information on costs and
expenditures, milestones, and performance. We recommended in that report
that the Army develop a more substantive master plan that included
priorities, costs and benefits, and schedules.
In our analysis of the Army*s 2002 plan, we found that, while it addresses
some of these elements, it does not provide the detailed or complete data
Report Lacks Cost,
Schedule, and Performance Data
Page 8 GAO- 03- 21 Army Logistics
that is needed to adequately assess the Army*s progress in implementing
the workload and performance system. As table 2 shows, the 2002 plan
contained information on a few parameters identified in DOD*s guidance,
including direct costs; dates for certain events, such as reaching initial
operating capabilities; and objectives for operational requirements.
However, it did not include information on a large number of parameters,
such as total procurement costs, critical schedule dates, and measures of
performance.
Table 2: Comparison of Criteria Contained in DOD Regulation 5000. 2- R and
Army*s 2002 Report
Criteria contained in DOD Regulation 5000.2- R Parameters included in Army
2002 report Cost parameters
Total ownership costs Direct costs X Research and development costs Test
costs Evaluation costs Procurement costs Military construction costs
Operating and support costs Cost of acquisition items Indirect costs
attributable to the system Infrastructure costs not directly attributable
to the system Total quantity costs Average procurement unit costs Program
acquisition unit costs Life cycle costs Other costs
Scheduling parameters
Dates for program initiation X Major decision points X Attainment of
initial operating capability X Milestone decision authorities* approval
Specific/ critical system events Critical schedule dates Other system
events X
Performance parameters
Key performance parameters Objectives in the operational requirements
document X Broadly defined measures of effectiveness
Page 9 GAO- 03- 21 Army Logistics
Criteria contained in DOD Regulation 5000.2- R Parameters included in Army
2002 report
Broadly defined measures of performance Other performance parameters
Source: DOD Regulation 5000.2- R and GAO analysis.
In addition, the 2002 report did not contain necessary cost, scheduling,
and performance data for the individual tasks that the Army has assigned
to each implementation phase. Phase 1, implementation of the workload and
performance system at non- Army Materiel Command maintenance depots; phase
2, expansion of the system into nonmaintenance missions (e. g., base
operations, medical); and phase 3, development of decisionsupport tools
for use at the major command and headquarters levels (e. g., working
capital fund budget, links to depot maintenance operational system, and
cross- organizational activities). As table 3 illustrates, the Army*s
report contained cost, scheduling, and performance information for only a
small number of these tasks. Furthermore, we could only identify specific
costs for one of the tasks and, in most cases, the milestones and
performance measures were too broad and did not include interim measures
and specific performance targets to measure progress.
Table 3: Presence or Absence of Defense Criteria in the Army*s 2002 Plan,
by Individual Task Army Workload and Performance System Tasks included in
the Army*s 2002 Master Plan Cost Milestones Performance measures Phase 1*
Implementation of AWPS at non- Army Materiel Command maintenance depots
Basic components of AWPS Develop strategic plans and forecasts Partially b
Develop performance measures and controls Partially b Schedule resource
and controls Partially b Create decision support system Partially b
Upgrade modules from FoxPro programming language to an Oracle/ Power
Builder/ Silver Stream Yes Implement the Enterprise Resource Planning
System Yes Partially b
Phase 2* Expansion of AWPS into nonmaintenance missions Consolidate
current ongoing implementation Maintenance depots Yes Ammunition logistics
at eight munitions centers Yes Ammunition manufacturing Yes Base
operations at all maintenance depots Yes Partially b Manufacturing
arsenals Yes Partially b Continued upgrade of Web- based executive module
Partially b Expand AWPS to additional maintenance activities Yes
Page 10 GAO- 03- 21 Army Logistics
Army Workload and Performance System Tasks included in the Army*s 2002
Master Plan Cost Milestones Performance measures Expand AWPS to non- Army
materiel command maintenance activities at a General support organizations
at Fort Lewis and Fort Riley Yes Aviation repair facility at Fort Rucker
Yes National Guard tank engine repair facility at Fort Riley Yes National
Guard readiness sustainment maintenance site Yes National Guard aviation
repair facility at Springfield, Mo. Yes Expand AWPS into other
nonmaintenance missions a Army transformation installation management Yes
Medical Yes Conduct review to determine applicability of AWPS in testing,
training, and
research and development activities Phase 3* Development of decision
support system tools Yes Yes Net Operating Result Reporting Capability
Module Yes Partially b Working capital fund budget linkage Material module
Yes Partially b Depot maintenance operations planning system tool
Partially b Production of Operations Planning budget Depot Maintenance
Operations Planning System tool to manage 50/ 50 requirement Linkage
between depot maintenance operations Partially b
Planning System lock points and AWPS study capability Business process re-
engineering tools between maintenance provider- process model Partially b
Model to evaluate new investment vs. repair Mission indirect Yes Partially
b
Source: GAO analysis. a Not included in May 2001 plan.
b Performance measures primarily state objectives. These performance
measures did not include interim measures and performance targets to
measure progress.
While the Army*s May 2002 report provided some estimated funding
requirements for AWPS for fiscal years 2004 through 2006, it did not
contain the detailed information that could be used to assess the costs of
implementing the system thus far and the costs of expanding it into other
functional areas in the future. According to the Army Materiel Command,
the total estimated costs for the AWPS program were about $44.8 million
for fiscal years 1996 through 2002, and the estimated program costs for
fiscal year 2003 are about $8.9 million. The primary source for this
funding has been the Army*s working capital fund. These figures and the
funding sources, however, were not included in the Army*s report. In
addition, the Army*s report did not identify the extent to which actual
expenditures relate to the budgeted amounts. The report also did not
Report Lacks Detailed
Cost Data
Page 11 GAO- 03- 21 Army Logistics
provide any cost estimates for funding the Army*s plan to expand AWPS to
other nonmaintenance activities, such as base operations support.
According to Army officials, these expansion plans will require funding
through the Army*s appropriated operations and maintenance accounts.
In its report, the Army estimated that it would need about $20.1 million
over the next 3 fiscal years (2004 through 2006), to ensure that the
remaining tasks are implemented. Table 4 shows the Army*s projected costs
for fiscal years 2004 through 2006, which were included in its May 2002
report. According to the report, these future year costs are unfunded and
the Army has not yet identified funding sources for them. These officials
stated that, other than the funding that has been provided through the
working capital fund, the department has not adequately funded the AWPS
expansion effort in recent years and that this lack of funding has
hampered their ability to plan and implement further expansions.
Table 4: Army Projected Costs for Fiscal Years 2004- 2006
Dollars in millions
Projected costs for fiscal years Task 2004 2005 2006 Total
Additional Army workload and performance system implementation $3.7 $4.9
$5.5 $14.1
Decision support tools 2. 0 2.5 1. 5 6.0 Total $5.7 $7.4 $7.0 $20.1
Source: Army May 2002 AWPS master plan.
As table 4 indicates, the Army did not provide a detailed cost analysis
regarding the historical and projected costs for AWPS, nor did it provide
a complete summary of the estimated costs to complete the tasks listed for
each phase. Specifically, the table includes cost estimates for additional
system implementation (phase 1) and for the development of decision
support tools (phase 3), but it provides no specific estimates for
expanding the system into other functional areas (phase 2). Additionally,
the Army did not include the associated costs to support the development
of all the specific tasks required to complete each phase.
The Army*s May 2002 report contained only limited information on the
milestones established to implement the new system and no data on whether
earlier milestones had been reached, thereby making it difficult to assess
the progress of the system*s development and implementation. Specifically,
the report lacked schedules that include implementation and Report
Contains Limited
Milestone Data
Page 12 GAO- 03- 21 Army Logistics
completion dates and interim milestones. For example, the Army is updating
the Workload and Performance System applications from the original
programming language to a more up- to- date programming language.
According to the Army, this upgrade has been installed at all five
maintenance depots and will be installed at other installations between
May 2002 and May 2003. However, specific dates for implementing or
completing this upgrade were not included in the May 2002 report. In
another example, the Army indicates that it intends to install AWPS at
other nonmaintenance activities outside the Army Materiel Command, but it
does not provide specific milestones for each location or the specific
tasks associated with the development and installation process. As shown
in appendix III, the Army has established expected completion dates for
some of the AWPS applications, but the completion dates for other longterm
applications have not yet been set.
The Army*s May 2002 report also did not provide milestones for completing
the interface between AWPS and the Logistics Modernization Program.
Instead, it simply stated that between May 2002 and February 2003 the
system has to accept, and operate with, data from the Logistics
Modernization Program. The original date (July 2001) set to operationalize
the interface at the first site, the Tobyhanna Army Depot, had changed by
about 18 months. In addition, the report noted that the Operations Support
Command is scheduled to transition to the Logistics Modernization Program
1 year after the Communications and Electronics Command, which is
approximately January 2004. This date is about 2 years beyond the original
date of October 2000.
The Army*s May 2002 report does not address in detail the extent to which
AWPS is providing the Army with the capability to match manpower
requirements and workload for which it was initially intended. While the
report states that the implementation of AWPS in several mission areas
within the Army Materiel Command has shown that the system can efficiently
draw data from other existing systems and manipulate this information to
link personnel needs with projected workloads, the Army has not
demonstrated that AWPS has improved its ability to support its long- term
forecasting of civilian personnel requirements based on projected
workload. Because the Army did not provide supporting evidence for the
statement in its May 2002 report that the system has led to increased
operational efficiencies, the extent of the improvements is unclear. We
did not independently review the effectiveness of the AWPS system at the
depots we visited. Report Lacks Adequate
Performance Assessments
Page 13 GAO- 03- 21 Army Logistics
The Army*s report also fails to discuss the potential overlap and
duplication that exists between AWPS and the Logistics Modernization
Program. Although these two systems were designed to serve different
functions, Army and contractor officials point out that there is some
potential overlap and redundancy in the systems* capabilities. For
example, the capability of the performance measurement and control module
in the AWPS software also exists in the Logistics Modernization Program
software configuration. This module allows the user to compare actual
resource expenditures against production plans, scheduled workload, and
related budgets for specific projects in order to determine the likelihood
of completing a project within its estimated time frame and budget. In
addition, because the Logistics Modernization Program is not complete, the
Army cannot be certain what other capabilities may be duplicated. Army
officials at the Tobyhanna Army Depot expressed concerns that the need to
operate and maintain both systems could lead to higher costs and
duplication of efforts.
A second module in AWPS, however, the strategic planning and forecasting
module, is unique to AWPS and does not currently exist within the software
configuration for the Logistics Modernization Program. This module
provides the user with the capability to forecast manpower and capacity
requirements based on future projected workload. More specifically, this
module allows the Army the ability to conduct *what if* analyses for
manpower and capacity requirements based on future workload projections at
each of its maintenance activities. Contractor officials stated that
although this capability could be built into the Logistics Modernization
Program, it would have to be modified to be compatible with the current
software configuration. By incorporating this capability into the
Logistics Modernization Program, the Army could eliminate the need to
operate and maintain two separate systems. Computer Sciences Corporation
submitted a formal proposal to the Army in August 2001 to incorporate all
of the capabilities of AWPS into the Logistics Modernization Program for
an estimated contract price increase of about $2 million. Contractor
officials told us in May 2002, however, that because of the amount of work
they have dedicated to building the interface between the two systems,
this cost estimate is no longer valid. Report Does Not Address
Potential Overlap with Logistics Modernization Program
Page 14 GAO- 03- 21 Army Logistics
Although the Army has begun developing an interface between AWPS and the
Logistics Modernization Program, it has not sufficiently tested the
interface to ensure that data can be shared between the two systems and
that the AWPS capability will not be adversely affected. Once the
Logistics Modernization Program is implemented, the Army plans to shut
down several systems, including the Standard Depot System, that currently
provide data for AWPS. However, the Army has not demonstrated that the
Logistics Modernization Program databases will be able to supply AWPS with
the data that it needs to continue to function. Until the Army has placed
the interface in operation at several sites, it will be too early to
assess its effectiveness.
The Army*s contract with the Computer Sciences Corporation to develop and
field the Logistics Modernization Program required that the contractor
would create an interface between the two systems, and this work started
in 1999. In February 2002, Army and contractor officials developed an
interface control document that identified the data elements that AWPS
would need from the Logistics Modernization Program databases to maintain
its current capabilities. Since that time, contractor personnel have been
working to locate the sources within the Logistics Modernization Program
databases for each data element and determine the most expedient way to
move that data into AWPS. According to Army and contractor officials,
about 90 percent of the data elements had been located by May 2002.
While initial testing of the interface began in August 2002, it will be
tested at only one of the five Army depots by February 2003 when the
Logistics Modernization Program is scheduled to come on line.
Specifically, the Army will be testing the interface at Tobyhanna Army
Depot between August 2002 and February 2003, and expects that the
interface will be fully functional by the time the Logistics Modernization
Program is deployed at the depot in February 2003. Subsequently, the Army
plans to install the Logistics Modernization Program and the AWPS
interface at the four remaining Army maintenance depots, along with the
Army*s ammunition maintenance facilities. According to the May 2002
report, the Army expects to shut down the current information systems that
support AWPS at the same time as it turns on the Logistics Modernization
Program. As a result, there will be no transition period during which the
current information systems and the Logistics Modernization Program are in
operation at the same time. Army Has Not
Sufficiently Tested the Interface between AWPS and the Logistics
Modernization Program
Page 15 GAO- 03- 21 Army Logistics
The Army*s May 2002 report to Congress on the development and
implementation of AWPS has a number of significant limitations. The report
does not contain key information regarding the changes to the program
since the submission of the May 2001 master plan, and it does not provide
adequate information on the costs, schedule, and performance of the
system. As a result, the report is of limited use to Congress in
evaluating whether the AWPS project is still in line with its original
cost, schedule, and performance objectives. The Army has not demonstrated
to Congress how well the system has helped it thus far to determine future
civilian workload requirements based on projected workloads. Moreover, the
report does not contain the information that Congress needs to determine
how much funding will be required to complete the initial implementation
of the system and expand it into other functional areas.
AWPS provides the Army with a capability for strategic planning and
forecasting at its maintenance facilities that currently does not exist
within the Logistics Modernization Program. The interface that is being
developed between the two systems is intended to allow the workload and
performance system to maintain its current capabilities, including its
strategic planning and forecasting module. Because each system offers the
Army certain unique capabilities, a rationale for operating both systems
at the same time exists. However, because the two systems may develop some
overlap and redundant capabilities in the future, there is some potential
for increased costs or other inefficiencies.
In order to improve the quality of the Army*s annual progress reports to
Congress on the implementation of AWPS and to enhance the efficiency and
effectiveness of the system, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army to:
submit to Congress annual progress reports on the implementation of AWPS
that contain a complete description of any changes to the master plan
since the submission of the previous report and a detailed explanation of
the status of the AWPS program in relation to the costs, milestones, and
performance data contained in the previous report;
ensure that these progress reports contain detailed cost, schedule, and
performance information to allow Congress to fully assess the status of
the Army*s implementation of the workload and performance system and its
interface with the Logistics Modernization Program, and the extent to
which the system is providing the Army with the capability to match
manpower and workload requirements; Conclusions
Recommendations for Executive Action
Page 16 GAO- 03- 21 Army Logistics
undertake a review of the interface between AWPS and the Logistics
Modernization Program, once it has been successfully installed at the
Army*s five maintenance depots, to ensure that it is the most efficient
and cost- effective use of these two systems; and
ensure that the data- sharing mechanisms between the Logistics
Modernization Program and AWPS are complete and allow for full
functionality of AWPS before turning off the information systems that
currently support AWPS.
The Department of Defense fully concurred with our finding and
recommendations. In response to our recommendation that the Army ensure
that future progress reports contain cost, schedule, and performance
information as specified in relevant Defense regulations and other
congressional guidance, DOD will implement the recommendation in its
February 2003 report. However, DOD noted that the workload and performance
system is not a major automated information system and, therefore, is not
required to strictly adhere to the requirements of Department of Defense
Regulation 5000.2- R. We agree that the workload and performance system
does not meet the minimum threshold to be considered a major system.
However, we believe that the parameters outlined in this regulation
provide an appropriate management framework for the types of information
that should be included in future progress reports.
DOD also informally provided other suggested revisions to address certain
technical and factual information in the text of the draft report. We
reviewed these suggested revisions and made changes where appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees, the Secretaries of Defense and the Army, and the Director,
Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to
others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at http:// www. gao. gov. Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation
Page 17 GAO- 03- 21 Army Logistics
Appendix IV contains our scope and methodology. Please contact me or Julia
Denman at (202) 512- 8412 if you or your staffs have any questions
regarding this report. Key contributors to this report were David Schmitt,
Patricia Albritton, Leslie Harmonson, and Nancy Benco.
David R. Warren Director, Defense Capabilities
and Management
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense Page 18 GAO- 03- 21
Army Logistics
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense Page 19 GAO- 03- 21
Army Logistics
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense Page 20 GAO- 03- 21
Army Logistics
Appendix II: Task List for 2001 and 2002 Page 21 GAO- 03- 21 Army
Logistics
May 2001 Plan May 2002 Plan Comments Short- Term Army Workload and
Performance System modules Workload X Workload and workforce have been
combined as the
strategic planning and forecasting module. Workforce X Performance
measurement and control X Resource scheduling and control X Decision
Support System X Upgrade modules from FoxPro programming language to
an Oracle/ Power Builder/ Silver Stream X Corpus Christi X Remaining
depots X Enterprise Resource Planning System X Long- Term Phase 1*
Consolidate current ongoing implementation This phase is not included in
May 2002 plan. First
phase of the plan is to cover non- Army Materiel Command maintenance
activities. Maintenance depots X Corpus Christi X Red River X Tobyhanna X
Letterkenny X Anniston X Ammunition Logistics at eight munitions centers X
Ammunition manufacturing X Crane Army ammunition activity X McAlester Army
ammunition activity X Base operations at all maintenance depots and
ammunition logistics activities X Base operations at ammunition logistics
activities is not included.
Manufacturing arsenals X Rock Island X Pine Bluff X Watervliet X Continued
upgrade of Web- based executive module X Phase 2* Cover additional
maintenance activities X This is the first phase in May 2002 plan. Second
phase of the plan is expansion into nonmaintenance missions. General
support organizations- Fort Bragg and Fort Hood X Aviation repair facility
at Fort Rucker X Regional support maintenance sites of the National
Guard Not included Depots* forward repair activities Not included Special
repair activities Not included
Appendix II: Task List for 2001 and 2002
Appendix II: Task List for 2001 and 2002 Page 22 GAO- 03- 21 Army
Logistics
May 2001 Plan May 2002 Plan Comments
Phase 3- Develop decision support system tools X This phase is categorized
into three parts.
Part I* Improvements to current AWPS Net Operating Result Reporting
Capability Module X Maintenance depots X Ammunition logistics X Working
capital fund budget linkage X Material module X Corpus Christi- Prototype
site X Remaining maintenance depots X Ammunition logistics Not included
Separate overhead allocation categories Not included Separately identify
the contractor labor component Not included Implementation of the
capability resident Not included Contractor labor hour reporting process
Not included Capability to produce *snap shot* of workload Not included
Linkage between schedule 8 process and existing Army systems Not included
Tracking capability from Workload and Resource Requirements 902 report
through the Workload and Resource Requirements 905 report Not included
Part II* Improve depot maintenance workload requirements Depot maintenance
operations planning system tool X Production of Operations Planning budget
X Depot Maintenance Operations Planning System tool
to manage 50/ 50 requirement X Linkage between the Depot Maintenance
Operations Planning System lock points and AWPS study capability
X Tool to track items from the Enterprise Resource Planning Systems/ AWPS
Locked Budget Plan to induction at depot Not included Module to track
depot output of major items vs. the budget plan Not included
Part III* Improve efficiency depot operations Business process re-
engineering tools X Between maintenance provider- process model X Cost
management tool Not included Model to evaluate new investment vs. repair X
Model to examine the economics of depot vs. private repair for equipment
Not included Mission indirect X Does not include any information on where
mission
indirect will be installed. All maintenance depots Ammunition missions
Appendix II: Task List for 2001 and 2002 Page 23 GAO- 03- 21 Army
Logistics
May 2001 Plan May 2002 Plan Comments
Next generation- AWPS Does not include any information on the status of
the Next generation- AWPS. Corpus Christi Letterkenny Anniston Red River
Tobyhanna Base operations- Next generation Does not include any
information on the status of the
Base operations- Next generation. Anniston . Corpus Christi Letterkenny
Tobyhanna Red River Source: GAO analysis.
Appendix III: Milestone Schedule Page 24 GAO- 03- 21 Army Logistics
Combined tasks included in the May 2001 and May 2002 plans May 2001 plan
May 2002 plan Short- Term Army Workload and Performance System
modules Workload No date provided No date provided Workforce No date
provided No date provided Performance measurement and control No date
provided No date provided Resource scheduling and control Completion late
2001 No date provided Decision Support System No date provided No date
provided Upgrade of modules from FoxPro programming language to an Oracle/
Power Builder/ Silver Stream
Installed at maintenance depots and will be installed at other sites over
the course of the year. Corpus Christi Installed, no date provided
Remaining depots Over the course of the year Enterprise Resource Planning
System No date provided Completion February 2003 at Tobyhanna and
other commodity commands at about 3- month intervals.
Long- Term Phase 1* Consolidate current ongoing implementation Maintenance
depots
Corpus Christi Red River Tobyhanna Letterkenny Anniston
Completion June 1996 Completion March 1999 Completion March 1999
Completion March 1999 Completion March 1999
As of October 2001, AWPS has been operational at all five maintenance
depots, ammunition logistics, ammunition manufacturing (Crane and
McAlester), and base operations at all maintenance depots. Ammunition
logistics at eight munitions centers Completion November 2000 Ammunition
manufacturing Crane Army ammunition activity No date provided McAlester
Army ammunition activity No date provided Base operations at all
maintenance depots
and ammunition logistics activities Completion December 30, 2002 No date
provided for base operations at ammunition logistics.
Manufacturing arsenals Deployment June 2003 Rock Island Completion
February 2003 Pine Bluff Completion January 2004 Watervliet Completion
April 2004 Continued upgrade of Web- based executive
module No date provided No date provided
Phase 2* Cover additional maintenance activities General support
organizations* Fort Bragg
and Fort Hood No date provided Completion FY 2003 Aviation repair facility
at Fort Rucker No date provided Completion FY 2002
Appendix III: Milestone Schedule
Appendix III: Milestone Schedule Page 25 GAO- 03- 21 Army Logistics
Combined tasks included in the May 2001 and May 2002 plans May 2001 plan
May 2002 plan Phase 3* Develop Decision Support System Tools Part I-
Improvements to current AWPS Net operating result reporting capability
module Maintenance depots Prototype August 2001 Prototype- fourth quarter,
FY 2002 Ammunition logistics Prototype March 2002 Prototype- second
quarter, FY 2003 Working capital fund budget linkage No date provided No
date provided Material module Corpus Christi- Prototype site Completion
September 2001 Completion fourth quarter, FY 2002
Remaining maintenance depots Completion August 2002 Completion first
quarter, FY 2003
Part II* Improve depot maintenance workload requirements Depot Maintenance
Operations Planning
System tool No date provided No date provided Production of Operations
Planning budget No date provided No date provided Depot Maintenance
Operations Planning System tool to manage 50/ 50 requirement No date
provided No date provided Linkage between the Depot Maintenance Operations
Planning System lock points and AWPS study capability
No date provided No date provided
Part III* Improve efficiency of operations of the depots Business process
re- engineering tools No date provided No date provided
Between maintenance provider- process model No date provided No date
provided Model to evaluate new investment vs. repair No date provided No
date provided
Mission indirect All maintenance depots Completion August 2002 Completion
by the end of 2004 Ammunition missions Completion June 2003 Source: GAO
analysis.
Appendix IV: Scope and Methodology Page 26 GAO- 03- 21 Army Logistics
To determine whether the Army*s May 2002 master plan contains adequate
information to assess the Army*s progress in implementing AWPS, we
reviewed the Army*s May 2001 and May 2002 master plans. We compared the
contents of these plans to the key requirements set forth in section 346
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. In
addition, we reviewed the May 2002 master plan to determine the extent to
which it addressed the recommendations outlined in our November 1999
report. 1 We also examined the Department of Defense*s regulation 2
outlining the mandatory procedures for the acquisition of major automated
information systems to determine specific criteria required for a progress
report. We compared the contents of the May 2002 master plan to the
criteria outlined in this regulation. Although this regulation does not
specifically apply to the development of the AWPS system, we believe that
sound management practices support the need to address these parameters in
the Army*s progress reports. We also met with officials at the
Headquarters, Department of the Army; Headquarters, Army Material Command;
and the Operations Support Command in Rock Island, Illinois, to discuss
the development and implementation of the AWPS system. In addition, we
discussed the benefits and problems that the depots have experienced with
AWPS with officials at Tobyhanna Army Depot, Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania; and
Corpus Christi Army Depot, Corpus Christi, Texas. We did not, however,
independently review the effectiveness of the AWPS system at the depots we
visited. Lastly, we relied on prior work done in connection with the
implementation of AWPS.
To identify the measures the Army has taken to ensure appropriate
coordination and data sharing between AWPS and the Logistics Modernization
Program, we reviewed the February 2002 Interface Control Document
developed jointly by the Department of the Army and the Computer Sciences
Corporation, and discussed the related interface initiatives with
appropriate Army and contractor officials. We also reviewed the actions
the Army had taken to facilitate the interface and data sharing between
the two systems to identify what additional actions were needed before the
Army could be assured that the AWPS system
1 See U. S. General Accounting Office, Defense Logistics: Army Should
Assess Cost and Benefits of the Workload Performance System Expansion,
GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 16 (Washington, D. C.: Nov. 12, 1999).
2 Mandatory Procedures for Major Defense Acquisition Programs and Major
Automated Information System Acquisition Programs (Department of Defense
Regulation 5000. 2- R, Apr. 5, 2002). Appendix IV: Scope and Methodology
Appendix IV: Scope and Methodology Page 27 GAO- 03- 21 Army Logistics
would remain fully operational during the transition period. Specifically,
we met with officials at the Headquarters, Department of the Army;
Headquarters, Army Materiel Command; the Army*s Operations Support Command
in Rock Island, Illinois; the Logistics Modernization Project Office in
Moorestown, New Jersey; and Tobyhanna Army Depot and Corpus Christi Army
Depot. Because the interface between the two systems is still being
developed and has not been fully tested, we were unable to assess its
effectiveness.
We conducted our review between March 2002 and August 2002 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
(350170)
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists
to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to
help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government
for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and
other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and
funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to good government is reflected in its
core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov
and select *Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products*
under the GAO Reports heading.
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202)
512- 6061
Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
512- 7470
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512- 4800 U.
S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D. C.
20548 GAO*s Mission
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs
Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***