Officials describe risks in Army transformation program

A Pentagon official described as "experimental" the Army's strategy to manage its ambitious Future Combat System, while government auditors have expressed concern over the approach of moving ahead aggressively despite major technology questions.

Kenneth Krieg, the undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, spoke with reporters last week on the use of a lead systems integrator in the Army's transformational combat systems modernization. Such integrators are contractors who do much of the work of developing system architectures and requirements - work that is traditionally kept in-house.

Krieg said there are three or four major Defense programs run by lead systems integrators. The biggest of these is "very, you know, very controversial and interesting, as an experiment, being the Future Combat System," he said. "As a contracting vehicle, I view that as still very experimental in the nature of what it is."

In a report (GAO-07-376) on FCS published Friday, Government Accountability Office auditors warned of a different risk in the Army's acquisition strategy for the system: the approach of moving aggressively forward despite a heavy reliance on unproven technologies. The auditors urged the Pentagon to mitigate that risk by developing backup plans in case technologies prove unavailable.

"The Army has been granted a lot of latitude to carry out a large program like FCS this far into development with relatively little demonstrated knowledge," auditors said. "Tangible progress has been made … but confidence that the program can deliver as promised depends on high levels of demonstrated knowledge, which are yet to come."

Auditors noted that key testing for the system's feasibility, as well as its design and production processes, will not be completed until after the Army decides in early 2009 whether to go ahead with the system. The Army reports that currently about 80 percent of the FCS technologies are mature, auditors said, but the estimate is based on a lower standard than GAO recommends.

For the system to be based on a sound business case, GAO said, all technologies should have been mature before the program began in 2003.

Auditors recommended that Defense officials develop specific criteria on which to base the 2009 decision on whether to implement FCS. "We also recommend that the secretary of Defense analyze alternative courses of action DOD can take to provide the Army with sufficient capabilities, should the FCS be judged as unlikely to deliver needed capabilities in reasonable time frames and within expected funding levels," GAO said.

David Ahern, the Pentagon's director of Portfolio Systems Acquisition, concurred with GAO's recommendations. He said the Army's transformation requires "a disciplined, yet agile acquisition construct," and that FCS is based on a good business case.

GAO is conducting a separate review of the lead systems integrator structure for FCS, auditors said.