Section 346 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year  2002 encouraged the sharing of data between AWPS and LMP (which  had been in development since 1999) and identified several requirements  related to AWPS. Among other things, the law required: the Army to  continue to use AWPS as a standard Army-wide manpower system under  the supervision and management of the Secretary of the Army; the  Secretary of the Army to submit annual progress reports to Congress on  the implementation of the AWPS master plan until the Secretary certifies  to Congress that AWPS is fully implemented; and GAO to submit  evaluations of each of the Army’s annual reports not later than 60 days  after the Army has issued them to Congress. The Army Has Not Followed Certain Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for Implementing AWPS

		The Army Has Not Submitted Annual Progress Reports to Congress on AWPS Implementation

The Army has not submitted the required annual progress reports to  Congress on the implementation of the AWPS master plan since 2002. The Army has not been submitting annual reports because, according to  Army officials, it does not plan to submit progress reports until the revised  master plan is completed. According to Army regulation,  USAMAA is responsible for reviewing and validating manpower  requirements models. USAMAA officials told us they contacted AMC in late 2011 or early  2012 regarding submitting AWPS for validation. At the time, AMC was not  prepared to move forward with validation. However, officials from the  AWPS program management office told us that in April 2012 they asked  for assistance from USAMAA regarding submitting AWPS for validation,  but that additional assistance had not yet been provided. Because  USAMAA officials involved in these earlier contacts subsequently left  USAMAA, we were unable to corroborate that USAMAA did not respond  to AWPS program management officials’ requests for assistance. As of September 2013, the draft of the updated AWPS master plan states  that the Army plans to submit AWPS to USAMAA for validation in the next  1 to 4 years, and AMC officials also acknowledged the need to have  AWPS validated by USAMAA. Through USAMAA validation of AWPS,  the Army would have greater assurance that reports of these types,  linking workload demand to workforce requirements, are accurate. The Army Has Begun to Assess Unnecessary Overlap between AWPS and LMP, but Progress Has Been Limited

The Army has begun to assess whether unnecessary overlap exists  between AWPS and LMP and has begun its assessment by initiating  data-collection and analysis efforts. However, its overall progress— including the development of a business case analysis—has been limited,  due primarily to the absence of senior-level leadership involvement and  attention and the lack of a fully developed and documented approach for  conducting the assessment, including an established milestone for  completing it. GAO has found that overlap among government programs  or activities can lead to unnecessary duplication and can result in  unnecessary costs and less-efficient and less-effective services. The team has received a demonstration  on the current functionality provided by AWPS and LMP and has  distributed surveys to Army personnel with AWPS accounts to collect  information on how they use the system. The survey also asked whether they used another tool—such as LMP—to  provide similar functionality. Based on our review of the consolidated responses to the project team’s  survey and our previous work, there is potential for some unnecessary  overlap between AWPS and LMP, but further analysis is necessary. Best  practices have shown that sustained leadership attention and involvement  can help organizations make lasting changes and achieve positive  results. Standards for Internal Control call for  proper documentation of evaluation processes. The absence of senior-level AMC leadership  involvement and attention, as well as the lack of a fully developed and  documented approach that includes an established milestone for  completion, increases the risk that the Army will not make sustained  progress in its efforts to identify and eliminate unnecessary overlap  between AWPS and LMP. To provide greater assurance of the accuracy of manpower requirements  reports produced by AWPS for use at Army industrial sites, we  recommend that the Secretary of the Army direct AMC—with assistance  as needed from USAMAA—to submit AWPS to USAMAA for review and  validation as a manpower requirements determination tool, in accordance  with Army regulations. To complete the Army’s assessment of unnecessary overlap between  AWPS and LMP and to ensure that a sound business decision is made  on how to most cost-effectively provide AWPS functionality, we  recommend that the Secretary of the Army direct the Commanding  General, AMC, to take the following two actions:  Identify a specific senior-level AMC manager or committee to provide  increased leadership involvement and attention of the project team’s  efforts, to include ensuring that a strong and stable team exists for  managing change. Establish a fully developed and documented approach for the team’s  assessment, including a milestone for completing it. Agency Comments

We requested comments from the Army, but none were provided.
Why GAO Did This Study

AWPS is an information system that produces management reports intended to link the Army's industrial workload demands to workforce requirements. The Army has spent over $90 million on the system through fiscal year 2013 and plans to spend approximately $35.6 million over the next 5 years. AWPS relies on data from LMP, which was implemented after AWPS, and prior GAO reports have noted the potential overlap between AWPS and LMP. Pub. L. No. 111-139 mandates that GAO identify federal programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives that have duplicative goals or activities. This review evaluates the extent to which the Army has (1) followed certain applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for implementing AWPS and (2) assessed whether there is unnecessary overlap between AWPS and LMP. GAO reviewed laws, regulations, and prior GAO reports; analyzed Army documents related to its assessment of unnecessary overlap between AWPS and LMP; and interviewed Army officials.

What GAO Found

The Army has not followed certain applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for implementing the Army Workload and Performance System (AWPS). The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 requires the Secretary of the Army to submit annual progress reports to Congress on the implementation of the AWPS master plan until the Secretary certifies to Congress that AWPS is fully implemented. Although the Secretary has not yet made this certification, the Army has not been submitting progress reports. According to Army officials, the Army does not plan to submit progress reports until a revised master plan for AWPS is completed. However, for many years the Army has been unable to complete an update to the master plan due to a lack of oversight. Additionally, the Army has not validated AWPS as a manpower requirements determination tool. Army regulation states that the U.S. Army Manpower and Analysis Agency (USAMAA) is responsible for reviewing and validating manpower requirements models like AWPS and that major commands—such as the Army Materiel Command (AMC)—are responsible for submitting their models to USAMAA for validation. AMC directs the activities of Army industrial sites and is the primary user of AWPS. USAMAA and AMC officials have discussed the need for AWPS to be validated, but AWPS has not yet been submitted to USAMAA for validation. USAMAA officials initially contacted AMC regarding submitting AWPS for validation; however, at the time, AMC was not prepared to proceed. Later, when ready to seek validation, AWPS officials told GAO they asked for assistance from USAMAA, but additional assistance had not yet been provided. Because USAMAA officials involved in these earlier contacts subsequently left USAMAA, GAO was unable to corroborate that USAMAA did not respond to AWPS officials' request for assistance. Through USAMAA validation, the Army would have greater assurance that AWPS workforce management reports are accurate.
The Army has begun to assess whether unnecessary overlap exists between AWPS and the Logistics Modernization Program (LMP), but its overall progress has been limited. At the direction of AMC leadership, a project team was established and has begun to assess the extent to which AWPS's software functionality can be replaced with existing or future LMP functionality. The team has distributed surveys to AWPS users to collect information on how they use AWPS, and whether they use other tools—such as LMP—to provide similar functionality. Initial responses to this survey indicate the potential for some overlap between AWPS and LMP. Identifying unnecessary overlap among government programs or activities is important because overlap can lead to unnecessary duplication and can result in unnecessary costs and less-efficient and less-effective services. However, the overall progress of the team's assessment has been limited, due primarily to the absence of senior-level leadership attention and involvement and to the lack of a fully developed and documented approach for the assessment. Best practices have shown that sustained leadership attention and involvement can help organizations achieve positive results, and internal control standards call for proper documentation of evaluation processes. The absence of these elements increases the risk that the Army will not make progress in identifying and eliminating unnecessary overlap between AWPS and LMP.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making four recommendations to the Army to (1) strengthen oversight for completing the update to the AWPS master plan, (2) direct that AWPS be submitted to USAMAA for validation, (3) identify a specific senior-level AMC manager or committee to provide oversight of the project team's efforts, and (4) establish a fully developed and documented approach for the team's assessment that includes a milestone for completing this effort. GAO requested comments from the Army, but none were provided.