ACV 1.1, 1.2 and 2.0: In 2014, the USMC revised its ACV acquisition  approach, adopting a plan to develop the ACV in three increments:
The first increment of ACV development—ACV 1.1—is planned to be  a wheeled vehicle that would provide improved protected land mobility  and limited amphibious capability. These technology exploration efforts are seeking  design options that may enable high water speed capability without  accruing unacceptable trade-offs in other capabilities, cost or  schedule. According to officials, ACV 2.0 is a conceptual placeholder  for a future decision point when the Marine Corps plans to determine  how to replace the AAV fleet, which is expected to occur in the mid- 2020s. This means that the technologies  needed to meet essential product requirements have been demonstrated  to work in their intended environment. Early ACV Acquisition Activities Demonstrate Best Practices

Our review of the available documents that have been prepared to inform  the November 2015 decision to begin system development of ACV 1.1— including the acquisition strategy and an updated 2014 AOA—found that  most of the ACV program’s acquisition activities to date reflect the use of  best practices. While some  aspects of this acquisition do suggest lower levels of risk, these  deviations could potentially increase program risk. GAO will continue to  monitor this risk as the program moves forward. Technology maturity. According to our prior work, competition is a critical tool for  achieving the best return on the government’s investment. 2014 ACV Analysis of Alternatives Met Best Practices

Our assessment of the 2014 AOA found that overall it met best practices  for AOAs and is, therefore, considered reliable. The program is scheduled to hold its PDR after development  starts, a deviation from best practices. Some factors  may mitigate the risk posed by this acceleration, for example, program  officials have stated that all required testing will take place prior to the  start of production. However, our past work has also shown that  beginning production before demonstrating that a design is mature and  that a system will work as intended increases the risk of discovering  deficiencies during production that could require substantial design  changes and costly modifications to systems already built. ACV 1.1 Expects to Rely on Surface Connector Craft for All Ship to Shore Transportation

While ACV 1.1 is expected to have shore to shore amphibious capability,  which would enable the vehicle to cross rivers and inland waterways, the  vehicle is also expected to rely on Navy surface connector craft for ship to  shore transportation. Future Amphibious Capability to be Determined

The exact nature of the ACV’s future amphibious capability is not yet  known. Based on tests and demonstrations to date, program officials also  expressed confidence that ACV 1.2 will build on the ACV 1.1 capabilities  and have the ability to self-deploy from ships. According to DOD  officials, with the ACV 2.0 decision, the ACV program expects to achieve  high water speed, a long-standing goal and a significant increase from the  current amphibious goals identified for ACV 1.1. This USMC strategy, and  the analysis that supports it, is based on the assumption that ACV 1.2 will  reach a desired level of amphibious capability and that ACV 1.1 vehicles  can be upgraded to that level. We will continue to monitor these  issues along with the program’s performance against best practices as it  progresses toward the Milestone C production decision currently planned  for the second quarter of fiscal year 2018. Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We are not making any recommendations in this report. The comments are reprinted in  appendix V.
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD stated that it believes its  efforts on this program are aligned with our best practices and that our  report appears to underestimate ACV 1.1’s planned technical maturity  and associated risks. As we stated in this report, the program’s plan to hold a PDR  after beginning development does not align with best practices and  combining the PDR and CDR may limit the time available to the program  to address any issues identified and ensure that sufficient knowledge is  attained prior to the program moving forward. Further, as we stated  earlier, while some aspects of this acquisition do suggest lower levels of  risk, these deviations could potentially increase program risk—risks that  we will continue to monitor as the program moves forward. 2. To determine how the increments of ACV are to achieve amphibious  capability, we reviewed program documentation from the ACV acquisition,  including the acquisition strategy and the Concept of Employment, as well  as program documentation for Navy surface connector programs,  including the Ship to Shore Connector Capabilities Development  Document and the Surface Connector Council charter.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Marine Corps' ACV is intended to transport Marines from ship to shore and provide armored protection on land. It is to potentially replace all or a portion of the decades old AAV fleet, and is expected to eventually offer increased amphibious capability and high water speed.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 included a provision that GAO annually review and report on the ACV program until 2018. This report provides an updated discussion of (1) how the ACV program's efforts compare to acquisition best practices and examines (2) how the increments of ACV will achieve amphibious capability.
To conduct this work, GAO reviewed program documentation and other materials for the ACV acquisition and Navy surface connector programs. GAO identified acquisition and analysis of alternatives best practices based on its prior body of work and DOD guidance. GAO also interviewed program and agency officials.

What GAO Found

Most of the current activities of the U.S. Marine Corps' Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) program have demonstrated the use of best practices, but plans for an accelerated acquisition schedule pose potential risks. As the program approaches the start of engineering and manufacturing development, it is seeking to rely on mature technologies that have been demonstrated to work in their intended environment as well as fostering competition—a critical tool for achieving the best return on the government's investment. Further, GAO analyzed the ACV analysis of alternatives that the Marine Corps produced for the initial portion of the ACV development, finding that overall it met best practices by, for example, ensuring that the analysis of alternatives process was impartial. However, the Marine Corps is pursuing an accelerated program schedule that presents some risks, including plans to hold the preliminary design review after the start of development—a deviation from best practices which could postpone the attainment of information about whether the design performs as expected. Moreover, GAO believes that the level of planned concurrency—conducting development testing and production at the same time—could leave the program at greater risk of discovering deficiencies after some systems have already been built, potentially requiring costly modifications. Agency officials stated that mature technologies reduce risk and that, while some concurrency is planned, all required testing will be completed prior to the production decision. While some aspects of this acquisition do suggest lower levels of risk, these deviations could potentially increase program risk. GAO will continue to monitor this risk as the program moves forward.
The ACV program relies heavily on future plans to increase ACV amphibious capability gradually, in three planned increments known as ACV 1.1, 1.2, and 2.0, but exactly how this capability will be attained has not yet been determined.
ACV 1.1 – Although this increment is expected to have some amphibious capability, according to program documents, it is expected to rely on surface connector craft—vessels that enable the transportation of military assets from ship to shore. Marine Corps and U.S. Navy officials regularly coordinate ACV 1.1 plans to operate with the surface connector fleet through coordination mechanisms such as the Surface Connector Council.
ACV 1.2 – This increment is expected to have greater amphibious capability, including the ability to self-deploy from ships. Based on demonstrations from related programs to date, program officials believe it will reach that capability, but indicated that plans for 1.2 are expected to depend on the success of ACV 1.1 development.
ACV 2.0 – This increment represents a future decision point when the Marine Corps plans to determine how to replace the Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV) fleet. The Marine Corps is currently exploring technologies that may enable high water speed—a significant increase from the amphibious goals identified for ACV 1.1. Therefore, how it will achieve the amphibious capability envisioned for ACV 2.0 is undetermined.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making recommendations in this report. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD stated that it believes its efforts are aligned with best practices and that GAO's report appears to underestimate ACV 1.1's planned technical maturity. GAO found that some program plans do not align with best practices and that while some aspects of the acquisition do suggest lower levels of risk, these deviations could potentially increase program risk. GAO will continue to monitor these risks as the program moves forward.