	Background

		Overview of Software Sustainment Activities

DOD defines software maintenance and software sustainment  synonymously, to comprise any activities or actions that change the  software baseline, as well as modifications or upgrades that add  capability or functionality. The four  categories of software sustainment actions are defined in figure 1 below. DOD Has Policies and Organizations within Weapon System Management and Depot Maintenance to Manage Operational System Software Sustainment

DOD has policies and organizations in place within weapon system  management and depot maintenance to manage the sustainment of  operational system software. Several organizations, including the Under  Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and DOD software  centers, play key roles in overseeing and managing software  sustainment. These policies assign responsibilities for estimation  of costs and collection of costs (including operations and support costs). DOD Includes Software Sustainment as Part of Depot Maintenance and the Core Logistics Capabilities Determination Process, but Navy’s Approach Differs

DOD has defined software sustainment and software maintenance  activities synonymously, and it defines these functions as part of depot  maintenance and the core logistics process. We also found that the Department of the Navy does not categorize and  report software sustainment as part of its core logistics requirements, in  accordance with DOD policy. Without the Department of the Navy’s categorizing and reporting of its  software sustainment costs, in accordance with DOD policy on the Depot  Maintenance Core Capabilities Determination Process, DOD and Congress are not fully informed of the magnitude and cost of core  software sustainment capability requirements for the Navy. Limitations in DOD’s and the Military Departments’ Data Reporting Impede DOD’s Tracking of Weapon System Software Sustainment Costs

DOD’s ability to track weapon system software sustainment costs is  impeded by limitations in the collection of software data by both the Office  of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation and the military  departments. Second, CAPE’s CSDR system does not collect any weapon system cost  or software data from DOD software centers. Accordingly, it issued a memorandum to the  military departments directing that cost and software data efforts on major  defense acquisition programs should also be collected and submitted into  the CSDR system by government-performed efforts, which include DOD  software centers. Having a robust implementation plan with time  frames for key milestones will be important to executing and monitoring  CAPE’s actions to improve the reporting of software sustainment costs. However, without CAPE taking steps to prioritize  obtaining complete information on operating and support costs for  software sustainment, it cannot provide reliable life-cycle cost estimates  to DOD acquisition or maintenance officials—or Congress— to assist with  current and future years funding decisions. Conclusions

Software is essential to the capabilities and operations of a vast range of  military systems, including tactical and combat vehicles, aircraft, ships,  submarines, and strategic missiles. As such, DOD is impeded  in its efforts to plan for a ready and controlled source of technical  competence and to budget resources in peacetime while preserving the  surge capabilities necessary to fully support strategic and contingency  needs. Without cost and software data from the DOD  software centers as well as complete information on the military  departments’ operating and support costs for software sustainment,  CAPE is challenged in its ability to accurately compile total program costs  for program managers, cost estimators, and Congress, among other  information recipients. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines the extent to which (1) DOD has policies and  organizations in place to manage the sustainment of operational system  software for weapon systems; (2) DOD and the military departments track  costs to sustain weapon system software; and (3) DOD has addressed  challenges securing necessary data rights to sustain weapon system  software. The officials we interviewed at DOD software centers included a variety of  engineers and others who perform software sustainment activities for  weapon system software on several DOD weapon systems, including air  and sea platforms, targeting systems, and communications systems,  among others.
Why GAO Did This Study

Software is integral to the operation and functionality of DOD equipment, platforms, and weapon systems, including tactical and combat vehicles, aircraft, ships, submarines, and strategic missiles. DOD estimates that software sustainment funding will total at least $15 billion over the next 5 fiscal years. DOD carries out software sustainment at various locations, where DOD uses its maintenance capabilities to maintain, overhaul, and repair its military weapon systems.
GAO was asked to review several issues relating to the sustainment of operational system software for DOD weapon systems. This report examines, among other things, the extent to which (1) DOD has policies and organizations in place to manage the sustainment of operational system software for weapon systems; and (2) DOD and the military departments track costs to sustain weapon system software. GAO reviewed DOD policies and procedures and interviewed cognizant officials from select DOD software centers, among others, who perform weapon system software sustainment activities.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) has policies and organizations to manage the sustainment of operational system software. DOD policy defines software sustainment and software maintenance activities synonymously, to comprise any activities or actions that change the software baseline, as well as modifications or upgrades that add capability or functionality. One example of such an action is the Air Force's modifying the security software on the B-52 bomber to better protect against attempted system penetration. The figure below defines the four categories of software sustainment actions.
DOD policies on life-cycle management of weapon systems address software sustainment, and several DOD organizations—including DOD software centers—play key roles in overseeing and managing software sustainment. DOD policy includes software maintenance as part of core logistics, and it requires the military departments to report biennially to Congress on their estimated workloads to sustain core logistics capabilities, including estimated costs of these workloads. However, while the Army and Air Force categorize and report software sustainment as part of core logistics, the Navy does not. Without the Navy's categorizing and reporting its software sustainment costs, DOD and Congress are not fully informed of the magnitude and cost of core software sustainment capability requirements. This impedes DOD's efforts to plan for a ready and controlled source of technical competence, and to budget resources in peacetime while preserving necessary surge capabilities.
DOD's ability to track weapon system software sustainment costs is impeded by limitations in its collection of software cost data. First, GAO found that the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation's (CAPE) Cost and Software Data Reporting system did not collect weapon system cost data from DOD software centers. Recognizing this, CAPE directed in January 2017 that cost and software data efforts on major acquisition programs should begin to be collected from government organizations, including DOD software centers. However, CAPE acknowledges that it lacks an implementation plan to execute and monitor the requirement for these centers to submit cost and software data. Second, GAO also found that the military departments' operating and support cost systems have incomplete software sustainment cost data. DOD policy requires the military departments to collect and maintain actual operating and support costs, including software sustainment costs. Without CAPE's taking steps to prioritize obtaining complete information on operating and support costs for software sustainment, CAPE is challenged in its ability to accurately compile total program costs or provide reliable life-cycle cost estimates to DOD and Congress.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making five recommendations, including that (1) the Navy categorize and report its software sustainment costs in accordance with DOD policy; and (2) CAPE improve the collection of weapon system software cost data. DOD concurred with GAO's recommendations.