Joint Planning and Development Office: Progress and Key Issues in
Planning the Transition to the Next Generation Air Transportation
System (29-MAR-07, GAO-07-693T).				 
                                                                 
The skies over America are becoming more crowded every day. The  
consensus of opinion is that the current system cannot be	 
expanded to meet projected growth. In 2003, recognizing the need 
for system transformation, Congress authorized the creation of	 
the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO), housed within  
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), to lead a		 
collaborative effort of federal and nonfederal aviation 	 
stakeholders to conceptualize and plan the Next Generation Air	 
Transportation System (NextGen)--a fundamental redesign and	 
modernization of the national airspace system. JPDO operates in  
conjunction with its partner agencies, which include FAA; the	 
Departments of Transportation, Commerce, Defense, and Homeland	 
Security; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration	 
(NASA); and the White House Office of Science and Technology	 
Policy. GAO's testimony focuses on the progress that JPDO has	 
made in planning the NextGen initiative and some key issues and  
challenges that JPDO continues to face. This statement is based  
on GAO's November 2006 report to this subcommittee as well as	 
ongoing work. In our November 2006 report, we recommended that	 
JPDO take actions to institutionalize its collaboration and	 
determine if it had the involvement of all key stakeholders. JPDO
said it would consider our recommendations.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-693T					        
    ACCNO:   A67445						        
  TITLE:     Joint Planning and Development Office: Progress and Key  
Issues in Planning the Transition to the Next Generation Air	 
Transportation System						 
     DATE:   03/29/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Air traffic control systems			 
	     Air transportation 				 
	     Commercial aviation				 
	     Concept of operations				 
	     Enterprise architecture				 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Research and development				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Systems conversions				 
	     Transportation planning				 
	     Policies and procedures				 
	     Program implementation				 
	     Next Generation Air Transportation 		 
	     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-07-693T

   

     * [1]JPDO Has Made Progress in Planning NextGen, but Continues to

          * [2]JPDO's Organizational Structure Facilitates Collaboration, b
          * [3]JPDO Has Made Progress Toward Releasing Key Planning Documen
          * [4]Institutionalizing the Collaborative Process Poses a Continu
          * [5]FAA and JPDO Have Begun to Release Early Cost Estimates for
          * [6]Some Fundamental NextGen Capabilities Will Require Human Fac
          * [7]JPDO Faces A Continuing Challenge in Ensuring the Involvemen

     * [8]GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements
     * [9]GAO's Mission
     * [10]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

          * [11]Order by Mail or Phone

     * [12]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * [13]Congressional Relations
     * [14]Public Affairs

Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and
Technology, House of Representatives

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT
Thursday, March 29, 2007

JOINT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE

Progress and Key Issues in Planning the Transition to the Next Generation
Air Transportation System

Statement of Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

GAO-07-693T

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today to discuss the
progress of the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) in
conceptualizing, planning, and facilitating a transformation of the
current national airspace system to the Next Generation Air Transportation
System (NextGen). Our nation's current airspace system is under growing
strain as the demand for air travel is steadily increasing, from over 740
million passengers flying in fiscal year 2006 to an estimated 1 billion
passengers by 2015, according to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
estimates. The system is also expected to absorb a growing variety of
aircraft, from the jumbo A380 which can hold more than 500 passengers to
very light jets which will transport six or fewer passengers per flight.
The consensus is that the current system cannot be expanded to meet this
projected growth. Without a timely transition to NextGen capabilities,
JPDO officials estimate a future gap between the demand for air
transportation and available capacity that could cost the U.S. economy
billions of dollars annually.

In 2003, recognizing the need for system transformation, Congress
authorized the creation of JPDO,^1 housed within FAA, to lead a
collaborative effort of federal and nonfederal aviation stakeholders to
conceptualize and plan the NextGen system. NextGen is envisioned as a
major redesign of the air transportation system that will move from
largely ground-based radars to precision satellite-based navigation and
includes digital, networked communications; an integrated weather system;
layered, adaptive security; and more. In addition to FAA, JPDO operates in
conjunction with multiple federal partner agencies, including the
Departments of Transportation, Commerce, Defense, and Homeland Security;
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); and the White
House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

My testimony today focuses on the following question: What is the status
of JPDO's planning and facilitation of NextGen with respect to its
organizational structure, technical planning, and initial research and
development? My statement is based on our November 2006 report to this
subcommittee^2 as well as on-going work. We conducted this work in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

^1JPDO was authorized by the Vision 100--Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. No. 108-176). The office began operating in
early 2004.

In summary:

JPDO has made progress in several areas in its planning of the NextGen
initiative, but continues to face a number of challenges. JPDO's
organizational structure incorporates some of the practices that we have
found to be effective for federal interagency collaborations, and includes
an institute that facilitates the participation of nonfederal
stakeholders. JPDO has faced some organizational challenges, however.
Leadership turnover at JPDO and the Institute have raised concerns about
the stability of JPDO and the NextGen initiative. Additionally, we and
JPDO officials have heard concerns from stakeholders about the
productivity of some integrated product teams (IPTs) and the pace of the
planning effort at JPDO. In response, JPDO officials are currently
proposing several changes to JPDO's organizational structure aimed at
improving the effectiveness of the organization. We believe that these
changes could help address stakeholder concerns, but the effectiveness of
these changes will have to be evaluated.

JPDO has also made progress toward releasing several key planning
documents, including a Concept of Operations, an Enterprise Architecture,
and an Integrated Work Plan, although in some cases on a revised and
extended timeline. JPDO is focusing on the right types of key documents
for the foundation of NextGen planning, although the current draft Concept
of Operations still lacks important details. In our November 2006 report,
we noted that JPDO is fundamentally a planning and coordinating body that
lacks authority over the key human and technological resources of its
partner agencies. Consequently, institutionalizing the collaborative
process with its partner agencies will be critical to JPDO's ability to
facilitate the implementation of NextGen. JPDO has identified several
tasks that will help institutionalize collaboration, including aligning
the enterprise architectures of its partner agencies, working with OMB to
establish a cross-agency mechanism for NextGen funding decisions, and
working with FAA to revamp a key planning document to focus on the NextGen
effort.

^2GAO, Next Generation Air Transportation System: Progress and Challenges
Associated with the Transformation of the National Airspace System,
[15]GAO-07-25 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13, 2006).

JPDO has made progress in developing cost estimates for NextGen, recently
reporting that it estimates the total federal cost for NextGen
infrastructure through 2025 will range between $15 billion and $22
billion. Questions remain, however, over which organizations will fund and
conduct some of the necessary research, development, and demonstration
projects that in the past were often conducted by NASA, and which will be
key to achieving certain NextGen capabilities. For example, JPDO's
investment simulation capability relies heavily on a NASA modeling
platform that NASA does not plan to upgrade for 2 years. As a result,
JPDO's investment simulation capability might be constrained. JPDO also
faces a challenge in addressing questions concerning how human factors
issues, such as the changing roles of air traffic controllers in a more
automated NextGen environment, will be researched and addressed. Finally,
JPDO has a continuing challenge in ensuring the involvement of all key
stakeholders. For example, active air traffic controllers and technicians
are not currently involved in NextGen planning. Similarly, issues have
arisen over whether conflict of interest issues could chill the
participation of industry stakeholders.

In November 2006, we recommended that the Secretary of Transportation
direct JPDO to take actions to institutionalize the partner agencies'
collaboration in supporting NextGen, including action on a Memorandum of
Understanding among the partner agencies, actions to finalize procedures
to leverage partner agency resources, and actions to develop procedures
for dispute resolution. We also recommended that the Secretary direct JPDO
to determine whether key stakeholders and expertise are not currently
represented in JPDO planning efforts. JPDO officials neither agreed nor
disagree with our recommendations, but said they would consider them.

JPDO Has Made Progress in Planning NextGen, but Continues to Face a Number of
Challenges

JPDO has continued to make progress in facilitating the collaboration that
is central to its mission and in furthering its key planning documents.
However, JPDO faces a number of challenges involving its organizational
structure, institutionalization of its efforts, research and development
activities, and stakeholder participation.

JPDO's Organizational Structure Facilitates Collaboration, but Continues to
Evolve

Vision 100 includes requirements for JPDO to coordinate and consult with
its partner agencies, private sector experts, and the public. JPDO's
approach has been to establish an organizational structure that involves
federal and nonfederal stakeholders throughout the organization. This
structure includes a federal interagency senior policy committee, a board
of directors, and an institute to facilitate the participation of
nonfederal stakeholders. JPDO's structure also includes eight integrated
product teams (IPT), which is where the federal and nonfederal experts
come together to plan for and coordinate the development of technologies
for NextGen. The eight IPTs are linked to eight key strategies that JPDO
developed early on for guiding its NextGen planning work (see table 1).

Table 1: JPDO's Strategies and Related IPT Lead Agencies

Strategy                                   Related IPT Lead Agency         
Develop airport infrastructure to meet     Federal Aviation Administration 
future demand                                                              
Establish an effective security system     Department of Homeland Security 
without limiting mobility or civil                                         
liberties                                                                  
Establish an agile air traffic system that National Aeronautics and Space  
quickly responds to shifts in demand       Administration^a                
Establish shared situational               Department of Defense           
awareness--where all users share the same                                  
information                                                                
Establish a comprehensive and proactive    Federal Aviation Administration 
approach to safety                                                         
Develop environmental protection that      Federal Aviation Administration 
allows sustained aviation growth                                           
Develop a systemwide capability to reduce  Department of Commerce          
weather impacts                                                            
Harmonize equipage and operations globally Federal Aviation Administration 

Sources: GAO and JPDO.

^aNASA leads this IPT because it has primary responsibility for conducting
the necessary research; implementation of the agile air traffic system is
the responsibility of FAA.

JPDO's senior policy committee is headed by the Secretary of
Transportation (as required in Vision 100) and includes senior-level
officials from JPDO's partner agencies. The Next Generation Air
Transportation System Institute (the Institute) was created by an
agreement between the National Center for Advanced Technologies^3 and FAA
to incorporate the expertise and views of stakeholders from private
industry, state and local governments, and academia. The Institute
Management Council (IMC), composed of top officials and representatives
from the aviation community, oversees the policy, recommendations, and
products of the Institute and provides a means for advancing consensus
positions on critical NextGen issues. The IPTs are headed by
representatives of JPDO's partner agencies and include more than 200
nonfederal stakeholders from over 100 organizations, whose participation
was arranged through the Institute. Figure 1 illustrates JPDO's position
within FAA and the JPDO structures that bring together federal and
nonfederal stakeholders, including the Institute and the IPTs. To meet
Vision 100's requirement that JPDO coordinate and consult with the public,
the Institute held its first public meeting in March 2006 and plans to
hold another public meeting in May 2007.

^3The National Center for Advanced Technologies is a nonprofit unit within
the Aerospace Industries Association.

Figure 1: Organization of JPDO

In November 2006, we reported that JPDO's organizational structure
incorporated some of the practices that we have found to be effective for
federal interagency collaborations--an important point given how critical
such collaboration is to the success of JPDO's mission. For example, the
JPDO partner agencies have worked together to develop key strategies for
NextGen and JPDO has leveraged its partner agency resources by staffing
various levels of its organization with partner agency employees. Also,
our work has shown that involving stakeholders can, among other things,
increase their support for a collaborative effort, and the Institute
provides a method for involving nonfederal stakeholders in planning
NextGen.

Recently, JPDO officials told us they have proposed to FAA management and
the IMC executive board a change in the IPT structure and operation to
improve the efficiency of the organization. JPDO has proposed converting
each IPT into a "work group" with the same participants as the current
IPT, but with each work group led by a joint government and industry
steering committee. The steering committee would oversee the creation of
small, ad hoc subgroups that would be tasked with short-term projects
exploring specific issues and delivering discrete work products. Under
this arrangement, work group members would be free of obligations to the
group when not engaged in a specific project. According to JPDO officials,
if these changes are approved, the work groups would be more efficient and
output- or product-focused than the current IPTs. JPDO officials also
noted that they are proposing to create a ninth work group to address
avionics issues.

We believe that these changes could help address concerns that we have
heard from some stakeholders about the productivity of some IPTs and the
pace of the planning effort at JPDO. Nonetheless, the effectiveness of
these changes will have to be evaluated over time. Also, JPDO's director
has pointed out the need for the office to begin transitioning from
planning NextGen to facilitating the implementation of NextGen. We believe
that these changes are potentially useful in supporting such a transition.
However, it will be important to monitor these changes to ensure that the
participation of stakeholders is neither decreased nor adversely affected.
Maintaining communications within and among work groups could increase in
importance if, as work group members focus on specific projects, they
become less involved in the overall collaborative planning effort.

Finally, while the organizational structure of JPDO and the Institute have
been in place and largely unchanged for several years now, both of these
entities have suffered from a lack of stable leadership. As JPDO begins
its fourth year in operation, it is on its third director and operated
during most of 2006 under the stewardship of an acting director. The
Institute pointed out in its recent annual report that JPDO's leadership
turnover had made it a challenge for JPDO to move out more aggressively on
many goals and objectives, as the office waited on a full-time director.
The Institute also stated that JPDO's leadership turnover had limited the
ability of the IMC executive committee to forge a stronger relationship
with JPDO leadership and work jointly on strategic issues and challenges.
However, the Institute has also had issues with turnover and is currently
functioning under an acting director due to the recent departure of its
second director, who had been in the position less than two years. The
leadership turnovers at both JPDO and the Institute raise concerns about
the stability of JPDO and about the impact of these turnovers on the
progress of the NextGen initiative.

JPDO Has Made Progress Toward Releasing Key Planning Documents, although Further
Work Remains

JPDO's authorizing legislation requires the office to create a
multi-agency research and development plan for the transition to NextGen.
To comply, JPDO is developing several key documents that together form the
foundation of NextGen planning. These documents include a NextGen Concept
of Operations, a NextGen Enterprise Architecture, and an Integrated Work
Plan.

The Concept of Operations is the most fundamental of JPDO's key planning
documents, as the other key documents flow from it. Although an earlier
version was delayed so that stakeholder comments could be addressed,
Version 1.2 of the Concept of Operations is currently posted on JPDO's
Website for review and comment by the aviation community. This 226-page
document provides written descriptions of how the NextGen system is
envisioned to operate in 2025 and beyond, including highlighting key
research and policy issues that will need to be addressed.^4 For example,
some key policy issues are associated with automating the air traffic
control system, including the need for a backup plan in case automation
fails, the responsibilities and liabilities of different stakeholders
during an automation failure, and the level of monitoring needed by pilots
when automation is ensuring safe separation between aircraft. Over the
next few months, JPDO plans to address the public comments it receives and
issue a revised version of the Concept of Operations.

^4Following an introductory section, the Concept of Operations has eight
sections covering air traffic management operations, airport operations
and infrastructure services, net-centric infrastructure services, shared
situational awareness services, security services, environmental
management framework, safety management services, and performance
management services.

In addition to the Concept of Operations, JPDO is working on an Enterprise
Architecture for NextGen--that is, a technical description of the NextGen
system, akin to blueprints for a building. The Enterprise Architecture is
meant to provide a common tool for planning and understanding the complex,
interrelated systems that will make up NextGen. According to JPDO
officials, the Enterprise Architecture will provide the means for
coordinating among the partner agencies and private sector manufacturers,
aligning relevant research and development activities, and integrating
equipment. JPDO plans to issue an early version of its Enterprise
Architecture next month, although it was originally scheduled for release
in September 2006.

Finally, JPDO is developing an Integrated Work Plan that will describe the
capabilities needed to transition to NextGen from the current system and
provide the research, policy and regulation, and schedules necessary to
achieve NextGen by 2025. The Integrated Work Plan is akin to a project
plan and will be critical for fiscal year 2009 partner agency budget and
program planning. According to a JPDO official, the office intends to
issue its initial draft of the Integrated Work Plan in July 2007.

Figure 2: Key NextGen Planning Documents

We have discussed JPDO's planning documents with JPDO officials and
examined both an earlier version of JPDO's Concept of Operations^5 and the
current version that is out for public comment.^6 Based on our analysis,
JPDO is focusing on the right types of key documents for the foundation of
NextGen planning. As for the Concept of Operations, the current version is
much improved from the prior version, with additional details added.
Nonetheless, we believe that it still does not include key elements such
as scenarios illustrating NextGen operations, a summary of NextGen's
operational impact on users and other stakeholders, and an analysis of the
benefits, alternatives, and trade-offs that were considered for NextGen.
In addition, it lacks an overall description that ties together the eight
key areas that the document covers. As noted, JPDO does plan to release
another version of the Concept of Operations later this year.

In fact, JPDO plans further versions of all of its key planning documents.
We see the development of all three of JPDO's key documents as part of an
iterative and evolutionary process. Thus, it is unlikely that any of these
documents will ever be truly "finalized," but rather will continue to
evolve throughout the implementation of NextGen to reflect, for example,
the development of new technologies or problems uncovered during research
and development of planned technologies.

^5Concept of Operations for the Next Generation Air Transportation System,
version 0.2, July 24, 2006.

^6Our senior level technologist reviewed JPDO's current Concept of
Operations for the Next Generation Air Transportation System, version 1.2,
dated February 28, 2007, by comparing it with the IEEE Standard 1362-1998
for concept of operations documents.

Finally, while each of the three key documents has a specific purpose, the
scope and technical sophistication of these documents makes it difficult
for some stakeholders to understand the basics of the NextGen planning
effort. To address this issue, JPDO is currently drafting what the office
refers to as a "blueprint" for NextGen, meant to be a short, high-level,
non-technical presentation of NextGen goals and capabilities. We believe
that such a document could help some stakeholders develop a better
understanding of NextGen and the planning effort to date.

Institutionalizing the Collaborative Process Poses a Continuing Challenge for
JPDO

In our November 2006 report, we noted that JPDO is fundamentally a
planning and coordinating body that lacks authority over the key human and
technological resources of its partner agencies. Consequently,
institutionalizing the collaborative process with its partner agencies
will be critical to JPDO's ability to facilitate the implementation of
NextGen. As we reported in November, JPDO has not established some
practices significant to institutionalizing its collaborative process. For
example, one method for establishing collaboration at a fundamental level
would be for JPDO to have formal, long-term agreements among its partner
agencies on their roles and responsibilities in creating NextGen.
Currently, there is no mechanism that assures the partner agencies'
commitment continuing over the 20-year timeframe of NextGen or their
accountability to JPDO. According to JPDO officials, they are working to
establish a memorandum of understanding (MOU), signed by the Secretary or
other high-ranking official from each partner agency, which will broadly
define the partner agencies' roles and responsibilities. JPDO first
informed us of the development of this MOU in August 2005; in November
2006 we recommended that JPDO finalize the MOU and present it to the
senior policy committee for its consideration and action. However, as of
March 28, 2007, the MOU remained unsigned by some of the partner agencies.

Another key method for institutionalizing the collaborative effort is
incorporating NextGen goals and activities into the partner agencies' key
planning documents. For example, we noted in November 2006 that NASA and
FAA had incorporated NextGen goals into their strategic plans. These types
of efforts will be critical to JPDO's ability to leverage its partner
agency resources for continued JPDO planning efforts. Even more
importantly, these efforts will be critical to helping ensure that partner
agencies--given competing missions and resource demands--dedicate the
resources necessary to support the implementation of NextGen research
efforts or system acquisitions.

Recognizing that JPDO does not have authority over partner agency
resources, FAA and JPDO have initiated several efforts to institutionalize
NextGen. For example, JPDO is working with FAA to refocus one of FAA's key
planning documents on the implementation of NextGen--an effort that also
appears to be improving the collaboration and coordination between JPDO
and FAA's Air Traffic Organization (ATO), which has primary responsibility
for modernization of the air traffic control system. FAA has expanded and
revamped its Operational Evolution Plan (OEP)--renamed the Operational
Evolution Partnership--to become FAA's implementation plan for NextGen.^7
The OEP is being expanded to apply to all of FAA and is intended to become
a comprehensive description of how the agency will implement NextGen,
including the required technologies, procedures, and resources. (Figure 3
shows the OEP framework.) An ATO official told us that the new OEP is to
be consistent with JPDO's key planning documents and its budget guidance
to the partner agencies. According to FAA, the new OEP will allow it to
demonstrate appropriate budget control and linkage to NextGen plans and
will force FAA's research and development to be relevant to NextGen's
requirements. According to FAA documents, the agency plans to publish a
new OEP in June 2007.

^7Prior to expansion of the OEP, the document centered around plans for
increasing capacity and efficiency at 35 major airports.

Figure 3: New OEP Framework

Note: The concentric rings indicate the nature of initiative development
from the outer ring (NextGen strategic initiatives), in which new programs
and concepts are analyzed and demonstrated; to the second ring, where
decisions are made regarding safety, operating policy, performance
standards, and certification requirements; to the third ring (technical
development), where concepts are prototyped and investment analysis
decisions are made. The progression through the rings is not necessarily
linear, and a program may be in more than one ring at a time. Data
communications, for example, is in the technical development ring and also
in the middle ring as policy and rulemaking is considered. The core is
divided into three sections, which indicate the FAA offices that implement
the final NextGen program.

In addition, to further align FAA's efforts with JPDO's plans for NextGen,
FAA is creating a NextGen Review Board to oversee the OEP. This Review
Board will be co-chaired by JPDO's Director and ATO's Vice President of
Operations Planning Services. Initiatives, such as concept demonstrations
or research, proposed for inclusion in the OEP will now need to go through
the Review Board for approval. Initiatives are to be assessed for their
relation to NextGen requirements, concept maturity, and risk. An ATO
official told us that the new OEP process should also help identify some
smaller programs that might be inconsistent with NextGen and which could
be discontinued. Additionally, as a further step towards integrating ATO
and JPDO, the administration's reauthorization proposal calls for the JPDO
director to be a voting member of FAA's Joint Resources Council and ATO's
Executive Council.

While progress is being made in incorporating NextGen initiatives into
FAA's strategic and planning documents, more remains to be done with FAA
and the other JPDO partner agencies. For example, one critical activity
that remains in this area will be synchronizing the NextGen enterprise
architecture, once JPDO releases and further refines it, with the partner
agencies' enterprise architectures. Doing so should help align agencies'
current work with NextGen while simultaneously identifying gaps between
agency plans and NextGen plans. Also, while FAA is making significant
progress toward creating an implementation plan for NextGen, the other
partner agencies are less far along or have not begun such efforts. JPDO's
lack of authority over partner agency resources will be minimized as a
challenge if the partner agencies commit to NextGen goals and initiatives
at a structural level. By further incorporation of NextGen efforts into
strategic planning documents, the partner agencies will better
institutionalize their commitments to JPDO and the NextGen initiative.

Finally, another important method for institutionalizing the collaborative
effort will be for JPDO to establish mechanisms for leveraging partner
agency resources. JPDO has made progress in this area, although further
work remains. As we noted in our November report, JPDO is working with OMB
to develop a process that would allow OMB to identify NextGen-related
projects across the partner agencies and consider NextGen as a unified,
cross-agency program. We recently met with OMB officials who said that
they felt there has been significant progress with JPDO over the last
year. JPDO is now working on an OMB Exhibit 300 form for NextGen.^8 This
will allow JPDO to present OMB a joint business case for the
NextGen-related efforts within the partner agencies and will be used as
input to funding decisions for NextGen research and acquisitions across
the agencies. This Exhibit 300 will be due to OMB in September 2007 to
inform decisions about the partner agencies' 2009 budget submissions.

Ultimately, the success of JPDO will have to be measured in the efforts of
its partner agencies to implement policies and procedures and acquire
systems that support NextGen. To date, JPDO can point to its success in
collaborating with FAA to fund and speed its rollout of two systems
considered cornerstone technologies for NextGen: Automatic Dependent
Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) and System Wide Information Management
(SWIM). ADS-B is a new air traffic surveillance system that will replace
many existing radars with less costly ground-based transceivers. SWIM will
provide an initial network centric capability to all the users of the air
transportation system. This means that the FAA and the Departments of
Homeland Security and Defense will eventually share a common, real-time,
secure picture of aviation operations across the airspace system.
Identifying such NextGen programs across the partner agencies and
establishing implementation plans for them in JPDO's Integrated Work Plan
will be critical going forward to creating performance metrics for JPDO.

Although we recommended in our November report that JPDO develop written
procedures that formalize agreements with OMB regarding the leveraging of
partner agency resources, this is still a work in progress. For example,
OMB officials said they had not reviewed JPDO's 2008 partner agency budget
guidance prior to its release to the partner agencies, which highlights
the need for JPDO to further develop its procedures for working with OMB.
Going forward, it will be important for Congress and other stakeholders to
evaluate the success of the 2009 budgets in supporting NextGen
initiatives, especially as 2009 is expected to be a critical year in the
transition from planning NextGen to implementing NextGen.

^8 Section 300 of OMB Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and
Execution of the Budget (Nov. 2, 2005), sets forth requirements for
federal agencies for planning, budgeting, acquiring, and managing
information technology capital assets.

FAA and JPDO Have Begun to Release Early Cost Estimates for NextGen, but
Questions Remain Over Who Will Conduct Necessary Research and Development

In our November report, we noted that JPDO had not yet developed a
comprehensive estimate of the costs of NextGen. Since then, in its
recently released 2006 Progress Report,^9 JPDO reported some estimated
costs for NextGen, including specifics on some early NextGen programs.
JPDO believes the total federal cost for NextGen infrastructure through
2025 will range between $15 billion and $22 billion. JPDO also reported
that a preliminary estimate of the corresponding cost to system users, who
will have to equip with the advanced avionics that are necessary to
realize the full benefits of some NextGen technologies, produced a range
of $14 billion to $20 billion. JPDO noted that this range for avionics
costs reflects uncertainty about equipage costs for individual aircraft,
the number of very light jets that will operate in high-performance
airspace, and the amount of out-of-service time required for installation.

FAA, in its capital investment plan for fiscal years 2008-2012, includes
estimated expenditures for 11 line items that are considered NextGen
capital programs.^10 The total 5-year estimated expenditures for these
programs is $4.3 billion. In fiscal year 2008, only 6 of the line items
are funded for a total of roughly $174 million; funding for the remaining
5 programs would begin with the fiscal year 2009 budget. According to FAA,
in addition to capital spending for NextGen, the agency will spend an
estimated $300 million on NextGen-related research and development from
fiscal years 2008 through 2012. The administration's budget for fiscal
year 2008 for FAA includes a total of $17.8 million to support the
activities of JPDO.

While FAA and JPDO have begun to release estimates for FAA's NextGen
investment portfolio, questions remain over which entities will fund and
conduct some of the necessary research, development, and demonstration
projects that will be key to achieving certain NextGen capabilities. In
the past, a significant portion of aeronautics research and development,
including intermediate technology development, has been performed by NASA.
However, NASA's aeronautics research budget and proposed funding shows a
30-percent decline, in constant 2005 dollars, from fiscal year 2005 to
fiscal year 2011. To its credit, NASA plans to focus its research on the
needs of NextGen. However, NASA is also moving toward a focus on
fundamental research and away from developmental work and demonstration
projects, which could negatively impact NextGen if these efforts are not
assumed by others. According to its 2006 Progress Report, JPDO is building
a research and development plan that will document NextGen's research
needs and the organizations that will perform the work.

^9JPDO, Making the NextGen Vision a Reality: 2006 Progress Report to the
Next Generation Air Transportation System Integrated Plan (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 14, 2007).

^10FAA has six capital investment programs that it considers
transformational NextGen programs slated to receive funding in fiscal year
2008: ADS-B nationwide implementation, System Wide Information Management
(SWIM), NextGen Data Communications, NextGen Network Enabled Weather,
National Airspace System Voice Switch, and NextGen Technology
Demonstration. In addition, five other programs are slated to begin
funding in 2009: NextGen System Development, NextGen High Altitude
Trajectory Based Operations, NextGen High Density Airports, NextGen
Networked Facilities, and NextGen Cross-Cutting Infrastructure.

For example, JPDO's investment simulation capability relies heavily on
NASA's NAS-wide modeling platform, the Airspace Concepts Evaluation System
(ACES).^11 This investment simulation capability permits JPDO to, among
other things, evaluate alternative research ideas and assess the
performance of competing vendors. According to a JPDO official, this
capability, which is critical to NextGen research, is eroding as JPDO's
investment simulation requirements are expanding. As part of its
fundamental research mission, NASA intends to upgrade to ACES-X (a more
sophisticated representation of the national airspace system), but not for
another two years. Until then, JPDO investment modeling capability will be
constrained unless the office or another partner agency can assume the
modeling work. While one option would be to contract with private sector
vendors to do this type of modeling on a per simulation basis, this
solution could be expensive for the government. Moreover, JPDO might not
be able to continue facilitating participation by both small and large
companies, thus giving both an equal opportunity to demonstrate their
ideas, because small companies would have to pay for access to this
proprietary modeling capability. This is an issue that needs to be
addressed in the short-term.

JPDO faces the challenge of determining the nature and scope of the
research and technology development necessary to begin the transition to
NextGen, as well as identifying the entities that can conduct that
research and development. According to officials at FAA and JPDO, they are
currently studying these issues and trying to assess how much research and
development FAA can assume. An FAA official recently testified that the
agency proposes to increase its research and development funding by $280
million over the next 5 years. However, a draft report by an advisory
committee to FAA stated that FAA would need at least $100 million annually
in increased funding to assume NASA's research and development work, and
establishing the necessary infrastructure within FAA could delay the
implementation of NextGen by 5 years.^12 More work remains to completely
assess the research and development needs of NextGen and the ability of
FAA and the other JPDO partner agencies to budget for and conduct the
necessary initiatives. This information is critical as the timely
completion of research and testing of proposed NextGen systems is
necessary to keeping the NextGen initiative on schedule.

^11ACES provides a detailed flight simulation environment and an open
framework to integrate the results of other simulations. This allows JPDO
to test concepts well before they have to be demonstrated with real
hardware and people. This platform provides a basis for evaluating the
timing of many agencies' current budget requests and is a method for
comparing competitive ideas.

Some Fundamental NextGen Capabilities Will Require Human Factors Research

Addressing questions about how human factors issues will affect the move
to some key NextGen capabilities is another challenge for JPDO. For
example, the NextGen Concept of Operations envisions an increased reliance
on automation, which raises questions about the role of the air traffic
controllers in such an automated environment. Similarly, the Concept of
Operations envisions that pilots will take on a greater share of the
responsibility for maintaining safe separation and other tasks currently
performed by controllers. This raises human factors questions about
whether pilots can safely perform these additional duties.

Although JPDO has begun to model how shifts in air traffic controllers'
workloads would affect their performance, it has not yet begun to model
the effect of how this shift in workload to pilots would affect pilot
performance. According to a JPDO official, modeling the effect of changes
in pilot workload has not yet begun because JPDO has not yet identified a
suitable model for incorporation into its suite of modeling tools.
According to a JPDO official, the evolving roles of pilots and controllers
is the NextGen initiative's most important human factors issue, but will
be difficult to research because data on pilot behavior are not readily
available for use in creating models. In addition to the study of changing
roles, JPDO has not yet studied the training implications of various
systems or solutions proposed for NextGen. For example, JPDO officials
said they will need to study the extent to which new air traffic
controllers will have to be trained to operate both the old and the new
equipment as the Concept of Operations and enterprise architecture mature.

^12Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee, Draft Report
on Financing the Next Generation Air Transportation System (Washington,
D.C.: April 2006).

JPDO Faces A Continuing Challenge in Ensuring the Involvement of All Key
Stakeholders

Some stakeholders, such as current air traffic controllers and
technicians, will play critical roles in NextGen, and their involvement in
planning for and deploying the new technology will be important to the
success of NextGen. In November 2006, we reported that active air traffic
controllers were not involved in the NextGen planning effort and
recommended that JPDO determine whether any key stakeholders and expertise
were not represented on its IPTs, divisions, or elsewhere within the
office. Since then, the head of the controllers' union has taken a seat on
the Institute Management Council. However, no active controllers are yet
participating at the IPT planning level. Also, aviation technicians do not
participate in NextGen efforts. Input from current air traffic controllers
who have recent experience controlling aircraft and current technicians
who will maintain NextGen equipment is important when considering human
factors and safety issues. Our work on past air traffic control
modernization projects has shown that a lack of stakeholder or expert
involvement early and throughout a project can lead to costly increases
and delays.

In addition, we found that some private sector stakeholders have expressed
concerns that participation in the Institute might either preclude bidding
on future NextGen acquisitions or pose organizational conflicts of
interest. FAA's acquisition process, generally, precludes bids from
organizations that have participated in, materially influenced, or had
prior knowledge of the requirements for an acquisition. The Institute was
aware of this concern and attempted to address it through an amendment to
its governing document that strengthened the language protecting
participants from organizational conflicts of interest for participation
in the NextGen initiative. However, while the amendment language currently
operates to protect stakeholders, the language has never been tested or
challenged. Thus, it is unclear at this time whether any stakeholder
participation is being chilled by conflict of interest concerns.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond
to any questions from you or other Members of the Subcommittee.

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements

For further information on this testimony, please contact Dr. Gerald L.
Dillingham at (202) 512-2834 or [email protected]. Individuals making
key contributions to this statement include Kevin Egan, Colin Fallon, Rick
Jorgenson, Faye Morrison, and Richard Scott.

(540147)

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone

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. Government Accountability 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

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
[email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-693T .

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., at (202)
512-2834 or [email protected].

Highlights of [23]GAO-07-693T , a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and Technology, House of
Representatives

March 29, 2007

JOINT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE

Progress and Key Issues in Planning the Transition to the Next Generation
Air Transportation System

The skies over America are becoming more crowded every day. The consensus
of opinion is that the current system cannot be expanded to meet projected
growth. In 2003, recognizing the need for system transformation, Congress
authorized the creation of the Joint Planning and Development Office
(JPDO), housed within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), to lead a
collaborative effort of federal and nonfederal aviation stakeholders to
conceptualize and plan the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen)--a fundamental redesign and modernization of the national
airspace system. JPDO operates in conjunction with its partner agencies,
which include FAA; the Departments of Transportation, Commerce, Defense,
and Homeland Security; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA); and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

GAO's testimony focuses on the progress that JPDO has made in planning the
NextGen initiative and some key issues and challenges that JPDO continues
to face. This statement is based on GAO's November 2006 report to this
subcommittee as well as ongoing work. In our November 2006 report, we
recommended that JPDO take actions to institutionalize its collaboration
and determine if it had the involvement of all key stakeholders. JPDO said
it would consider our recommendations.

JPDO has made progress in several areas in its planning of the NextGen
initiative, but continues to face a number of challenges. JPDO's
organizational structure incorporates some of the practices that we have
found to be effective for federal interagency collaborations, and includes
an institute that facilitates the participation of nonfederal
stakeholders. JPDO has faced some organizational challenges, however.
Leadership turnover at JPDO and the Institute have raised concerns about
the stability of JPDO and the impact of the turnovers on its progress.
Additionally, we and JPDO officials have heard concerns from stakeholders
about the productivity of some integrated product teams and the pace of
the planning effort. In response, JPDO officials are currently proposing
several changes to JPDO's organizational structure aimed at improving the
organization's effectiveness.

JPDO has also made progress toward releasing several key planning
documents, including a Concept of Operations, an Enterprise Architecture,
and an Integrated Work Plan, although in some cases on a revised and
extended timeline. JPDO is focusing on the right types of key documents
for the foundation of NextGen planning, although the current draft Concept
of Operations still lacks important details. In our November 2006 report,
we noted that JPDO is fundamentally a planning and coordinating body that
lacks authority over the key human and technological resources of its
partner agencies. Consequently, institutionalizing the collaborative
process with its partner agencies will be critical to JPDO's ability to
facilitate the implementation of NextGen. JPDO has identified several
tasks including aligning the enterprise architectures of its partner
agencies, working with OMB to establish a cross-agency mechanism for
NextGen funding decisions, and working with FAA to revamp a key planning
document to focus on the NextGen effort.

JPDO has made progress in developing cost estimates for NextGen, recently
reporting that it estimates the total federal cost for NextGen
infrastructure through 2025 will range between $15 billion and $22
billion. Questions remain, however, over which entities will fund and
conduct some of the necessary research, development, and demonstration
projects that in the past were often conducted by NASA, and which will be
key to achieving certain NextGen capabilities. For example, JPDO's
investment simulation capability, which relies heavily on a NASA modeling
platform, may be constrained unless the JPDO or another partner agency can
assume the modeling work. JPDO also faces a challenge in addressing
questions concerning how human factors issues, such as the changing roles
of air traffic controllers in a more automated NextGen environment, will
be researched and addressed. Finally, JPDO has a continuing challenge in
ensuring the involvement of all key stakeholders, including controllers
and technicians. Similarly, issues have arisen over whether conflict of
interest issues could chill the participation of industry stakeholders.

References

Visible links
  15. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-25
  23. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-693T
*** End of document. ***