However, the  department faces three key management challenges—lack of clear  guidance, life-cycle cost estimates, and a fully integrated schedule—that  may result in inefficient planning and execution, increased cost and  performance risks, and limited oversight of EPAA. Finally, the EPAA phase schedule is not  fully integrated with acquisition, infrastructure, and personnel activities. DOD and the State Department Have Taken Multiple Steps to Implement EPAA

Since the September 2009 announcement of EPAA, stakeholders  throughout DOD—including U.S. European Command (EUCOM), MDA,  and the military services—as well as the State Department, have taken  steps to implement this policy, including considering options for the  deployment of assets, requesting forces, preparing for testing, analyzing  infrastructure needs, and gaining NATO support for BMD in Europe. U.S. DOD’s Guidance for EPAA Is Not Yet Complete

DOD has initiated many efforts to implement EPAA, but the department  has not yet established clear guidance to help direct and align its efforts. According to DOD, effective planning requires clear guidance on desired  end states. Further, key BMD stakeholders, including those from the  Joint Staff, combatant commands, and military services believe that  additional guidance is needed for EPAA. DOD Has Not Established EPAA Life-Cycle Cost Estimates

DOD has not established life-cycle cost estimates for EPAA and therefore  is missing an important management tool for preparing budgets,  monitoring progress and assessing long-term affordability of its revised  approach to BMD in Europe. Further, according to the GAO cost estimating guide, a  credible cost estimate is required in order to assess a program’s  affordability and cost-effectiveness and to serve as a basis for a budget. Furthermore, the EPAA phase schedule is not yet integrated with key  infrastructure activities and therefore is also exposed to risk of schedule  slips, decreased performance, and increased cost. Although Combatant Commands’ Involvement in BMD Testing Has Increased, Limited Visibility of BMD Operational Capabilities and Limitations Creates Challenges in Integrating BMD into Operational Plans

DOD has not yet established key performance metrics that would provide  the combatant commands with needed visibility into the operational  capabilities and limitations of the BMD system they intend to employ,  creating potential challenges for EUCOM as it integrates BMD into its  operational plans. The  combatant commands recognize this issue and are currently attempting to  establish these metrics; however, they have yet to be finalized and  implemented. As such, this metric is designed to allow assessment of  BMD system effectiveness against multiple ballistic missile threats. Finally, without  incorporating operationally quantifiable metrics—such as how long the  system can defend (durability) and how well the system can defend  (effectiveness)—into its test program, DOD will not be able to fully  understand the capabilities and limitations of the BMD system and  EUCOM will not have the most relevant performance data it needs to  thoroughly assess the extent to which BMD capabilities support its  mission objectives and judge how to best plan for and employ BMD assets. Direct the Missile Defense Executive Board to oversee and coordinate the  life-cycle cost estimates that would provide for the management and  oversight of EPAA and allow the department to assess whether its  plans for EPAA are affordable and determine if corrective actions are  needed, and    an integrated EPAA schedule to include acquisition, infrastructure, and  personnel activities that would help identify EPAA implementation  risks that need to be considered. DOD partially concurred with our recommendation to provide guidance on  EPAA that describes desired end states in response to concerns raised by  key stakeholders. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

During our review of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) plans for  implementing the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA), we  reviewed relevant documentation and met with representatives from  numerous agencies and offices. Related GAO Products

Missile Defense: European Phased Adaptive Approach Acquisitions Face  Synchronization, Transparency, and Accountability Challenges. Ballistic Missile Defense: Actions Needed to Improve the Process for  Identifying and Addressing Combatant Command Priorities.
Why GAO Did This Study

In September 2009, the President announced a revised approach for ballistic missile defense (BMD) in Europe. The European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) is designed to defend against existing and near-term ballistic missile threats and build up defenses over four phases as threats mature and new BMD technologies become available. Although the approach will include capabilities such as radars and landand sea-based BMD assets, the Department of Defense (DOD) has not yet established EPAA life-cycle costs. EPAA is DOD's first implementation of its new, regional approach to BMD. GAO was asked to evaluate DOD's plans for implementing EPAA. GAO reviewed the extent to which: (1) DOD has developed guidance and addressed management of cost and schedule for EPAA, and (2) DOD planning for EPAA is informed by operational performance data. GAO reviewed key legislation, policy and guidance, and initial plans for implementation and asset allocation.

What GAO Found

DOD has initiated multiple simultaneous efforts to implement EPAA but faces three key management challenges--the lack of clear guidance, life-cycle cost estimates, and a fully integrated schedule--which may result in inefficient planning and execution, limited oversight, and increased cost and performance risks. Since the September 2009 announcement of EPAA, stakeholders throughout DOD--including U.S. European Command, the Missile Defense Agency, and the military services--as well as the State Department, have taken steps to implement this policy, including considering options for the deployment of assets, requesting forces, preparing for testing, and analyzing infrastructure needs. However, effective planning requires clear guidance regarding desired end states and key BMD stakeholders, including the combatant commands and military services, believe that such guidance is not yet in place for EPAA. Further, key principles for preparing cost estimates state that complete and credible estimates are important to support preparation of budget submissions over the short-term as well as to assess long-term affordability. DOD has not developed EPAA life-cycle cost estimates because it considers EPAA an adaptive approach that will change over time. However, best practices for cost estimating include methods for developing valid cost estimates even with such uncertainties. These estimates could serve as a basis for DOD to assess its goal of fielding affordable and cost-effective ballistic missile defenses as well as determine if corrective actions are needed. Finally, the EPAA phase schedule is not fully integrated with acquisition, infrastructure, and personnel activities that will need to be synchronized. As a result, DOD is at risk of incurring schedule slips, decreased performance, and increased cost as it implements the phases of EPAA. DOD also faces planning challenges for EPAA because DOD has not yet established key operational performance metrics that would provide the combatant commands with needed visibility into the operational capabilities and limitations of the BMD system they intend to employ. DOD is incorporating some combatant commands' requirements into BMD testing, in part, by having U.S. European Command participate in the test design process. However, the system's desired performance is not yet defined using operationally relevant quantifiable metrics, such as how long and how well it can defend. The combatant commands are attempting to define operational performance metrics to enable credible assessment of operational performance gaps. However, these metrics have yet to be finalized and implemented. Without a more complete understanding of BMD operational capabilities and limitations, the combatant commands face potential risk in EPAA operational planning.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD provide guidance on EPAA end states; develop EPAA life-cycle cost estimates; and integrate its phase schedule with acquisition, infrastructure, and personnel activities. GAO also recommends that DOD adopt operational performance metrics and include them in the BMD test program. DOD generally concurred with GAO's recommendations.