Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]
[graphic]

GAO

Results in Brief

United States

General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548

Accounting and Information
Management Division

B-259834

July 13, 1995

The Honorable John Glenn

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Dear Senator Glenn:

The Department of Defense (DOD) initiated the Defense Information System Network (DISN) program in 1991 as a two-phase effort to improve its long-distance telecommunications services and reduce costs. In the near term, Defense envisioned that DISN would achieve these goals by consolidating and integrating about 100 existing communications networks into one network, operated by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). For the far term, DISN would replace older telecommunications systems, such as the Defense Commercial Telecommunications Network (DCTN), and use new technology and improved acquisition strategies to provide a more cost-effective system.

While Defense was planning its far-term DISN initiative, the General
Services Administration (GSA) and the Interagency Management Council
(IMC) in 1993 began planning a replacement for the Federal
Telecommunications System (FTS) 2000 program, which provides the
federal government's long-distance service. The existing FTS 2000 contracts
expire in 1998. Although Defense is currently one of the largest customers
of FTS 2000 services, less than 20 percent of Defense's long-distance
telecommunications traffic is handled by FTS 2000. Defense has been
determining how to use the Post-FTS 2000 program to help meet its DISN
objectives.

This report responds to your request that we review Defense's efforts to implement DISN. Specifically, you asked that we (1) assess DISN's objectives, requirements, management plans, and implementation status, and (2) determine whether Defense has positioned itself to participate effectively in the governmentwide Post-FTS 2000 program.

Defense has not effectively planned and managed its DISN program. Specifically, Defense has spent more than $100 million over the past 3-1/2 years on DISN's planning, implementation, operation, and management. In spite of this expenditure, DISN still lacks (1) validated operational

Background

requirements, (2) approved plans for network implementation, and
(3) guidelines needed to ensure efficient and effective end-to-end
management of this important communications network. As a result,
Defense's near-term DISN implementation is over 2 years behind schedule
and DISN's objectives of improving Defense's communications services and
reducing costs are at risk.

Recognizing the need to identify and document the Department's requirements for DISN, the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff developed a statement outlining Defense's communications service needs in broad terms. Validation of DISN's joint operational requirements is expected by August 1995.

Defense has recently revised its far-term DISN program strategy. Rather than buy services from commercial providers through initiatives such as the Post-FTS 2000 program, Defense currently intends to use Post-FTS 2000 primarily to buy the communications bandwidth it needs to build its own private DISN network.1 Defense has not justified this strategy, however. Without first defining its valid requirements, identifying and evaluating alternatives for meeting those requirements, and presenting a convincing cost/benefit analysis supporting its selected alternative, Defense cannot determine whether a private network is the best solution to meet its needs. By limiting its use of Post-FTS 2000 services, Defense risks spending hundreds of millions of dollars to establish, operate, and maintain redundant communications facilities and services that do not efficiently or effectively respond to its requirements.

The Department of Defense estimates that it spends about $1 billion annually for its long-distance communications systems and services. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence (OASD/C3I) has overall responsibility for communications policy, planning, and budgeting. DISA, which reports to OASD/C3I, is responsible for Defense-wide, long-distance communications service. Military services and other Defense agencies independently procure, operate, and manage their own long-distance communications systems. Defense has long had problems efficiently and effectively managing this fragmented and redundant communications environment. In fact, Defense does not even know how many long-distance communications networks it has. Estimates range from about 100 to more than 200.

'Bandwidth is a measure of the capacity of communications lines.

« PreviousContinue »