DOD Weapon Systems Acquisition

What We Found | What Needs to Be Done | Key Reports

Why It's High Risk

Weapons Acquisition

Congress and the Department of Defense (DOD) have long explored ways to improve the acquisition of major weapon systems, yet poor program outcomes persist. Over the next five years, DOD expects to invest almost $343 billion (fiscal year 2011 dollars) on the development and procurement of major defense acquisition programs. With the prospect of slowly growing or flat defense budgets for years to come, DOD must get better returns on its weapon system investments and find ways to deliver more capability to the warfighter for less than it has in the past.

^ Back to topWhat We Found

While the performance of individual programs can vary greatly, GAO’s work has revealed significant aggregate cost and schedule growth in DOD’s portfolio of major defense acquisition programs. GAO reported that the total cost growth on DOD’s fiscal year 2008 portfolio of 96 major defense acquisition programs was over $303 billion (fiscal year 2011 dollars) and the average delay in delivering initial capability was 22 months.

DOD has demonstrated a strong commitment to address the management of its weapon system acquisitions by taking several actions:

DOD has started to reprioritize and rebalance its weapon system investments. In 2009 and 2010, the Secretary of Defense proposed canceling or significantly curtailing weapon programs, such as the Army’s Future Combat System Manned Ground Vehicles and the Navy's DDG-1000 Destroyer—which he characterized as too costly or no longer relevant for current operations.
In 2008, DOD revised its policy for major defense acquisition programs to place more emphasis on acquiring knowledge about requirements, technology, and design before programs start.
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics has embraced an Army initiative to eliminate redundant programs within capability portfolios and make affordability a key requirement for weapon programs.

These actions are consistent with past GAO findings and recommendations. However, if these initiatives are going to have a lasting, positive effect, they need to be translated into better day-to-day management and decision making. For example, GAO has recommended that DOD:

empower its capability portfolio managers at the departmentwide level to prioritize needs, make decisions about solutions, and allocate resources; and
develop criteria to assess the affordability and capabilities provided by new programs in the context of overall defense spending.

At the program level, GAO’s recent observations present a mixed picture of DOD’s adherence to a knowledge-based acquisition approach, which is key for improving acquisition outcomes. For 42 programs GAO assessed in depth and reported on in 2010, there was continued improvement in the technology, design, and manufacturing knowledge the programs had at key points in the acquisition process. However, most programs were still proceeding with less knowledge than best practices suggest, putting them at higher risk for cost growth and schedule delays.

DOD has begun to implement a revised acquisition policy and congressional reforms that address these and other common acquisition risks. In addition, to help promote accountability for compliance with acquisition policies and address the factors that keep weapon acquisitions on the High-Risk list, DOD has worked with GAO and the Office of Management and Budget to develop a comprehensive set of process and outcome metrics to provide consistent criteria for measuring progress.

^ Back to topWhat Needs to Be Done

Due to actions by Congress, such as the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, and DOD, DOD’s policy for major defense acquisition programs now reflects the basic elements of a knowledge-based acquisition approach and its weapon system investments are being rebalanced. However, to improve outcomes over the long-term, DOD should:

develop an analytical approach to better prioritize capability needs;
empower portfolio managers to prioritize needs, make decisions about solutions, and allocate resources; and
enable well-planned programs by providing them the resources they need, while holding itself and its programs accountable for policy implementation via milestone and funding decisions and reporting on performance metrics.