Congress passed the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009  (Reform Act)—the latest in a series of congressional actions taken to  strengthen the defense acquisition system. Some requirements, such as the  establishment of the two new offices, have been fully implemented. As shown in table 1, many of the requirements that have been  implemented will require ongoing efforts. The directors have the responsibility for reviewing and approving systems  engineering and developmental test and evaluation plans as well as the  ongoing responsibility to monitor the systems engineering and  developmental test and evaluation activities of major defense acquisition  programs. Two provisions, one of which is discretionary, have not been completed. The Reform Act requires that the directors, in coordination with the newly  established office of the Director for Program Assessments and Root  Cause Analysis, issue joint guidance on the development of detailed,  measurable performance criteria that major acquisition programs should  include in their systems engineering and testing plans. Finally, the Reform Act gives DOD the option of permitting the Director of  Developmental Test and Evaluation to serve as the Director of the Test  Resource Management Center. However, many current and former DOD  systems engineering and developmental testing officials we spoke with  believe the offices should be closely linked to weapon acquisition  programs because most of their activities are related to those programs. DOD has not established any  performance criteria that would help gauge the success of the new  directors’ offices, making it difficult to determine if the offices are  properly aligned within the department or if the Reform Act is having an  impact on program outcomes. 2). Under Secretary of Defense for  Acquisition, Technology & Logistics  (USD AT&L)

		Director of Defense Research and Engineering Believes Offices Are Properly Aligned

The Director of Defense Research and Engineering is aware of the  challenges of placing the offices under an organization whose primary  mission is to develop and transition technologies to acquisition programs,  but believes that the current placement makes sense given congressional  and DOD desires to place more emphasis on activities prior to the start of  a new acquisition program. Military Services Face Workforce and Resource Challenges as They Strive to Strengthen Their Systems Engineering and Developmental Testing Efforts

The military services, the Directors of Systems Engineering and  Developmental Test and Evaluation, and we have identified a number of  workforce and resource challenges that the military services will need to  address to strengthen their systems engineering and developmental testing  activities. For example, it is unclear whether the services have enough  people to perform both systems engineering and developmental testing  activities. Even though the services reported to the directors that they  have enough people, they do not have accurate information on the number  of people performing these activities. Second, the director is concerned that DOD does not have the  capacity to train and certify an estimated 800 individuals expected to be  converted from contractor to government employees within the required  time frame. Current and former systems engineering and developmental testing  officials offer compelling insights concerning the placement of the new  directors’ offices under the Office of the Director of Defense Research and  Engineering, but it is still too soon to judge how effective the offices will  be at influencing outcomes on acquisition programs. Recommendations for Executive Action

In order to determine the effectiveness of the newly established offices,  we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Directors of  Systems Engineering and Developmental Test and Evaluation to take the  following five actions:    Ensure development and implementation of performance criteria for  systems engineering plans and developmental test and evaluation  master plans, such as those related to technology maturity, design  stability, manufacturing readiness, concurrency of development and  production activities, prototyping, and the adequacy of program  resources. Report to Congress on the status of these efforts in future joint annual  reports required by the Reform Act.
Why GAO Did This Study

In May 2009, Congress passed the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Reform Act). The Reform Act contains a number of systems engineering and developmental testing requirements that are aimed at helping weapon programs establish a solid foundation from the start of development. GAO was asked to examine (1) DOD's progress in implementing the systems engineering and developmental testing requirements, (2) views on the alignment of the offices of the Directors of Systems Engineering and Developmental Test and Evaluation, and (3) challenges in strengthening systems engineering and developmental testing activities. In conducting this work, GAO analyzed implementation status documentation and obtained opinions from current and former DOD systems engineering and testing officials on the placement of the two offices as well as improvement challenges.

What GAO Found

DOD has implemented or is implementing the Reform Act requirements related to systems engineering and developmental testing. Several foundational steps have been completed. For example, new offices have been established, directors have been appointed for both offices, and the directors have issued a joint report that assesses their respective workforce capabilities and 42 major defense acquisition programs. Many other requirements that have been implemented will require sustained efforts by the directors' offices, such as approving systems engineering and developmental testing plans, as well as reviewing these efforts on specific weapon programs. DOD is studying the option of allowing the Director, Developmental Test and Evaluation, to serve concurrently as the Director of the Test Resource Management Center. The directors have not yet developed joint guidance for assessing and tracking acquisition program performance of systems engineering and developmental testing activities. It is unclear whether the guidance will include specific performance criteria that address long-standing problems and program risks, such as those related to concurrency of development and production activities and adequacy of program resources. Current and former systems engineering and developmental testing officials offered varying opinions on whether the new directors' offices should have been placed under the Director of Defense Research and Engineering organization--an organization that focuses primarily on developing and transitioning technologies to acquisition programs. The Director of Defense Research and Engineering believes aligning the offices under his organization helps address congressional and DOD desires to increase emphasis on and strengthen activities prior to the start of a new acquisition program. Most of the officials GAO spoke with believe the two offices should report directly to the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics or otherwise be more closely aligned with acquisition programs because most of their activities are related to weapon programs. They also believe cultural barriers and staffing issues may limit the effectiveness of the two offices under the current organizational structure. Currently, DOD is not reporting to Congress on how successfully the directors are effecting program changes, making it difficult to determine if the current placement of the offices makes sense or if the Reform Act is having an impact. The military services face a number of challenges as they try to strengthen systems engineering and developmental testing activities on acquisition programs. Although the services believe they have enough staff to perform both of these activities, they have not been able to clearly identify the number of staff that are actually involved. The Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation does not believe the military services have enough testing personnel and is concerned that DOD does not have the capacity to train the large influx of contractors that are expected to be converted to government employees.