United States Government Publishing Office publisher pbl distributor dst United States Government Accountability Office author aut Government Organization text government publication eng GAOREPORTS Legislative Agency Publications gao legislative 2010-08-12 U.S. Government Printing Office 2007-07-25 monographic deposited born digital 10 p. GA 1.13:GAO-07-1139R https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-GAO-07-1139R P0b002ee180377c84 f:d071139r DGPO 2010-08-12 2011-03-28 GAOREPORTS-GAO-07-1139R machine generated eng fdlp REPORT GAOREPORTS-GAO-07-1139R GAO-07-1139R Comparative analysis Cost analysis Enterprise architecture Military forces Naval procurement Payroll systems Program evaluation Systems conversions Correspondence A73488 In June 2006, the Navy completed a feasibility assessment of both the Marine Corps Total Force System (MCTFS)--the Marine Corps' integrated personnel and payroll system--and the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System DIMHRS. Based on the results of this assessment, the Navy expressed a preference to deploy MCTFS instead of DIMHRS. In August 2006, the Defense Business Systems Management Committee (DBSMC) made a business decision to accept the Navy's plan to proceed with the development and implementation of MCTFS. However, the Department of Defense (DOD) had already committed to deploy DIMHRS to provide a joint, integrated, standardized military personnel and pay system across all military components. According to the department, as of September 2006, it had spent over $668 million on the program. The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Pub. L. No. 109-364, 324 (2006) directed the Secretary of the Navy to prepare a report about MCTFS, including (1) an analysis of alternatives to MCTFS, including a comparison between the costs of deploying and operating MCTFS within the Navy and the cost of including the Navy in DIMHRS; (2) a business case analysis of the costs and benefits to both the Navy and DOD of the alternatives to MCTFS considered in the first objective; and (3) an analysis of the compatibility of MCTFS with the department's business enterprise architecture. The Navy concluded in its report--which we received on April 25, 2007--that (1) either MCTFS or DIMHRS could provide basic personnel and pay capability for the Navy uniformed force at approximately equivalent cost; (2) the DIMHRS alternative has substantially higher risks on cost, schedule, and function because MCTFS is already operational; and (3) MCTFS is fully compatible and compliant with the department's business enterprise architecture. The Act directs the DBSMC to determine--not sooner than 120 days after April 25, 2007--whether the deployment of MCTFS by the Navy is in the best interest of DOD. The Act directed us to review the Navy's report and provide a written assessment to the congressional defense committees and the Chairman of the DBSMC within 90 days of our receipt of the Navy's report. Specifically, we determined whether the Navy in its congressionally mandated report has justified its decision to invest in MCTFS. As part of our review, we also determined whether the department's business enterprise architecture was sufficient to guide and constrain the acquisition of MCTFS. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-07-1139R/html/GAOREPORTS-GAO-07-1139R.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-07-1139R/pdf/GAOREPORTS-GAO-07-1139R.pdf GAO-07-1139R https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-GAO-07-1139R Correspondence GAO-07-1139R; Military Personnel: The Navy Has Not Provided Adequate Justification For Its Decision to Invest in MCTFS; Comparative analysis Cost analysis Enterprise architecture Military forces Naval procurement Payroll systems Program evaluation Systems conversions Public Law 109-364