Weapon System Sustainment: DOD Needs to Better Capture and Report Software Sustainment Costs
Fast Facts
Like anyone who owns a computer or smartphone, the Department of Defense has to continually update the software that keeps its weapon systems running smoothly. Sustaining that software for systems including aircraft, ships, submarines, and missiles, is essential for national defense.
The cost of sustaining DOD's weapon system software is estimated to be at least $15 billion over the next 5 years, but DOD may not know the full costs. Some of DOD's systems have incomplete cost data, which could make it harder to ensure that DOD has the necessary resources available.
We made 5 recommendations to help DOD address cost and data challenges.
A U.S. Military Servicemember Using a Computer on a Reconnaissance Vehicle
Photograph of a man in a military uniform using a computer that is mounted on the wall of a small space.
Highlights
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.
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.
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.
Recommendations
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.
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Department of the Navy | We recommend that the Secretary of the Navy categorize and report the Navy's software sustainment costs, in accordance with DOD policy on the Depot Maintenance Core Capabilities Determination Process. [Recommendation 1] |
DOD concurred with our recommendation. In DOD's latest Biennial Core Report dated December 2022, the Navy reported its core requirement and projected public sector depot maintenance workload (in direct labor hours, as well as its estimated cost of workloads to sustain the core capability requirement. This information was reported both for software weapon systems and software support equipment. We believe that inclusion of this information in the published core report, which is in accordance with DOD guidance, satisfies the intent of our recommendation.
|
| Department of Defense | We recommend that the Secretary of Defense ensure that the Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation complete its evaluation and select the most effective system to obtain cost and software data from DOD software centers, and develop an implementation plan that includes time frames for key milestones to execute and monitor the centers' submission of required data. [Recommendation 2] |
DOD's Office of the Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation issued Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) (DOD Manual 5000.04) on May 7, 2021. This Manual provides processes and procedures for implementing DOD Instruction 5000.73, Cost Analysis Guidance and Procedures, and as such, it serves as the department's implementation plan. This Manual, like the DOD Instruction, applies to DOD software centers, which it refers to as government-performed efforts. As of January 2022, DOD has identified its Cost Assessment Data Enterprise (CADE) as its data repository. The Manual establishes timelines for preparation and review of required reports. For example, "within 30 days of receipt, reviewers identified in CADE's established routing sequence must finalize their review, provide validation results of the submitted CSDRs, and determine whether to accept or reject the reports." Given the publication and contents of the Manual, we think that DOD has met the intent of our recommendation.
|
| Department of Defense | We recommend that the Secretary of Defense ensure that the Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation takes steps to prioritize the respective military departments' obtaining and reporting of complete operating and support costs for software sustainment through its Visibility and Management of Operating and Support Costs systems. [Recommendation 3] |
The PAO reported contacting the office of the Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation and provided a template for reporting progress implementing this recommendation with a suspense of 31 July 2020. Since we made this recommendation, the Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) has been developing an enterprise-wide version of its Visibility and Management of Operating and Support Costs system which is known as EVAMOSC. As of September 2024, CAPE has included operating and support costs for software sustainment into EVAMOSC, according to documentation we reviewed. For example, according to CAPE, EVAMOSC has detailed records on the quantity of fielded weapon systems over time, which can be used to allocate/map the total software project costs to the applicable weapon system in the fiscal year and period (i.e., month) costs were expended. The data is marked as being part of the Cost Estimating Structure (CES) "5.2 - Software Maintenance" (per CAPE's O&S Cost Estimating Guide). We believe that this development meets the intent of our recommendation, and we are closing it as implemented.
|
| Department of Defense | We recommend that the Secretary of Defense develop an implementation plan with time frames for key milestones for establishing a cadre of intellectual property experts. [Recommendation 4] |
DOD issued Instruction 5010.44,, "Intellectual Property (IP) Acquisition and Licensing," on October 16, 2019. Among other provisions, the instruction established an intellectual property cadre as of the date of the instruction. This action satisfies our recommendation.
|
| Department of Defense | We recommend that the Secretary of Defense submit a report, as required by law, to Congress about the study on access to intellectual property for weapon system sustainment conducted by the Institute for Defense Analyses, along with a description of any actions that the Secretary proposes, or may take, to revise or clarify regulations related to intellectual property rights. [Recommendation 5] |
The Secretary of Defense submitted a report to Congress on February 3, 2019. This report stated that DOD generally agreed with the recommendations of the study on access to intellectual property for weapon system sustainment (the "875 report." conducted by the Institute for Defense Analyses, and described several steps that it planned to take to implement the study's key recommendations. Submission of this report to Congress -- while the draft of GAO-19-173 was at DOD for comment -- satisfies the intent of our recommendation.
|