Within this vast network, DOD, the Department of Energy (DOE), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) receive about three-quarters of the R&D funding and own most of the research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) infrastructure. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

At the request of the former and current Chairmen of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, we reviewed a number of issues related to the federal RDT&E infrastructure. To do so, we have (1) examined the condition of existing infrastructure, (2) analyzed the approaches used by organizations outside the federal government to realign RDT&E infrastructure, (3) and compared those approaches to federal agency efforts. Although budgetary constraints forced NASA to look for savings, NASA has not consolidated or closed any of its 10 major centers. While this action is laudable, once complete, DOD still will have about 35-percent excess capacity in its laboratory infrastructure and about 52-percent excess capacity in the air vehicles, electronic combat, and armaments/weapons arenas of its T&E infrastructure, according to DOD’s own estimates. Although individual agencies have taken limited actions to reduce their own RDT&E infrastructures, they have had little success in consolidating infrastructure across agency boundaries. As a result, their efforts achieved minimal infrastructure reduction to date. In recent years, several organizations that faced declining resources and a globally competitive business environment have restructured successfully their RDT&E operations, reducing both the size and cost of their RDT&E infrastructures. The full scope of supporting infrastructure clearly delineated. What research areas are the organizations involved in? Federal Agencies’ Approaches to Reducing RDT&E Infrastructure Lacked Critical Elements

When the Boeing Company Defense & Space Group and the Defence Research Agency applied elements critical to their restructuring efforts, they achieved cost savings and operational efficiencies. When the last round has been implemented fully by 2001, DOD will have closed 62 RDT&E sites and activities at host sites, but significant excess capacity will remain in DOD’s RDT&E infrastructure. A Catalyst to Spark Action. Many government officials responsible for directing federal RDT&E activities, as well as academic and industry representatives, have said that significant barriers impede successful infrastructure reduction efforts. First, we encourage the federal departments and independent agencies to continue their individual efforts to achieve management efficiencies in their respective RDT&E infrastructure restructuring efforts, but with an increased focus on interagency approaches. DOE also commented that (1) the end of the Cold War has had a major direct effect on its mission and the mission of its laboratories, (2) DOE’s Offices of Defense Programs, Nuclear Energy, and Energy Research will declare excess an estimated 1,000 facilities over the 5-year period from 1996 to 2000, (3) DOE laboratories have unique facilities and capabilities that also serve other federal agencies, and (4) the agency’s Laboratory Operations Board has developed a “Strategic Laboratories Mission Plan.” We have reported that much of DOE’s “evolved mission” is not unique, but is shared, at a minimum, with the NSF and the Department of Commerce.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed a number of issues related to the federal government's research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) infrastructure, focusing on: (1) the condition of the existing infrastructure; (2) the approaches used by organizations outside of the federal government to realign RDT&E infrastructure; and (3) a comparison of those approaches to federal agency efforts.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have attempted to reduce their excess laboratory capacity and associated costs, but could achieve even further reductions in their RDT&E infrastructure; (2) even though DOD will have closed 62 RDT&E sites and activities at host sites after implementing fully all four base realignment and closure rounds, a 1995 DOD estimate indicates the department still will have an estimated 35 percent excess capacity in its laboratories and an estimated 52 percent excess capacity in its test and evaluation centers in the air vehicles, electronic combat, and armaments/weapons areas; (3) while NASA closed a number of individual sites and facilities in recent years, it has yet to consolidate or close any of its major laboratory facilities; (4) all of the individual agency actions were taken independent of one another and have resulted in limited infrastructure reductions and cost savings; (5) little success has been achieved in attempts to consolidate federal RDT&E infrastructure across agency boundaries; (6) in recent years, corporate and foreign government organizations have restructured successfully their laboratory operations to achieve cost-saving efficiencies; (7) GAO examined restructuring efforts by two organizations, both of which reduced substantially their laboratories' infrastructure and costs; (8) officials responsible for those successful efforts identified five critical elements that were key to their success; (9) many of the elements that made the Boeing Company Defense & Space Group's and the British Defence Research Agency's laboratory consolidations a success generally are lacking in U.S. federal agencies' efforts; (10) in general, budgetary concerns have not, to date, created a catalyst to focus and redefine missions and then reduce the supporting RDT&E infrastructure within DOE, DOD, and NASA; (11) agencies are not collecting the information they need to assess the full scope and cost of their RDT&E infrastructure; (12) according to U.S. officials that direct federal RDT&E activities, in some cases resistance to inter- and intra-agency restructuring of RDT&E activities has stymied the thrust of recent streamlining efforts; and (13) balancing the federal RDT&E infrastructure with current and future missions is a complex problem that has proven intractable largely because of the limited scope of past efforts.