Detailed Information on the
Defense Communications Infrastructure Assessment

The Department of Defense (DoD) will continue utilizing best business practices to reduce the Defense Information System Network (DISN) unit costs for voice, data and video services. DISN is DoD's consolidated worldwide telecommunications infrastructure that provides end-to-end information transport for DoD operations, providing the warfighters and the Combatant Commanders (COCOMs) with a robust Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (C4I) information long-haul transport infrastructure.The DISN goal remains to seamlessly span the terrestial and space strategic domains, as well as the tactical domain, to provide the interoperable telecommunications connectivitiy and value-added services required to plan, implement, and support any operational missions, anytime, and anywhere pushing DISN services to the "edge" of the communications network. The vision of "power to the edge" is the availability of the "ubiquitous, secure, robust, trusted, protected, and routinely used wide-bandwidth that is populated with the information and information services that our forces need."

The Defense Communication Infrastructure (DCI) will continue transition to a net-centric environment to transform the way DoD shares information by making data continuously available in a trusted environment. A critical aspect is to build and sustain a Global Information Grid (GIG) transport infrastructure that eliminates bandwidth constraints and rapidly surges to meet demands, wherever needed. A significant component to accomplish this will be transitioning circuits to the new core and discontinuing legacy circuits. Additionally, the strategy is to deliver capabilities, based on established requirements, more effectively, economically and efficiently than is done today. Key elements to achieving this are acquisitions capabilities that are delivered within established (e.g., Acquisition Program Baseline (APB)/ APB-like) thresholds and a reduction in unit costs for services delivered.

The Department of Defense (DoD) has developed Outcome Measures to provide Information Technology networks and systems for the transmission/utilization of information to locations around the world for the DoD for both military and business functions. DoD will collect and report data on those activities in preparation of being re-assessed during FY2008. This program will be re-Parted in Fy 2008.

Measure: DoD is preparing long-term performance metrics, to include system capacity, performance, and user satisfaction. (New measure, target under development)

Explanation:

Measure: Percent of time that the Non-Secure Internet Protocol Router Network (NIPRNET) access circuit is available. NIPRNET is the unclassified IT system.

Explanation:

Measure: Number of bases upgraded by the Army Installation Information Infrastructure Modernization Program (I3MP)

Explanation:

Measure: Teleport SATCOM throughput capabilities per site in Mbps per year.

Explanation:

Measure: Number of AORed (Assumption of Responsibility) per year to Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI)

Explanation:

Measure: Availability of computing services - Percent of time the Defense Information Systems Agency's Center for Computing Service provides the requisite services to customers. (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:For the Center for Computing Services within the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), this measure shows the availability (time availability) of each critical application as specified in Service Level Agreement (SLA) requirements. This measure basically shows the overall availability (percent of time available to customers) of the services provided by DISA's Center for Computing Services to its customers. This is a DISA scorecard measure.

Measure: Quality of computer services - Percent of customer requirements met by the Center for Computing Services within the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the communications infrastructure program is to make information available on a network that people depend on and trust. The department is working to achieve a ubiquitous, secure and robust network, without bandwidth, frequency or computing capability limitations. The key to this network is a well developed, dependable communications infrastructure program.

Evidence: Evidence includes directions from the Secretary of Defense, goals of the Assistant Secretary for Command, Control, Computers, and Intelligence, Joint Vision 2020, the DoD Information Management Strategic Plan.

Does the program address a specific interest, problem or need?

Explanation: The communications infrastructure program allows DoD personnel at all levels to share information, prepare and execute military plans, and provide administrative support to the department.

Evidence: All military and business functions require a robust, secure, unconstrained communications infrastructure. Supporting documents include: Joint Vision 2020; DoD Directive 4640.13; Joint Requirements Oversight Council validation of capstone requirements; Quadrennial Defense Review.

Is the program designed to have a significant impact in addressing the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: DoD is the sole agency in the federal government responsible for providing a secure robust reliable communications infrastructure for military and intelligence needs. The federal contribution is $5.4 billion. The increased funding of $500 million in FY 2003 for Bandwidth Expansion will increase bandwidth connections to 90 locations and eliminate current network congestion while increasing reliability.

Evidence: 100% of the program's funding comes from Federal funds. The communications infrastructure program provides communications capabilities at more than 600 defense installations around the world.

Is the program designed to make a unique contribution in addressing the interest, problem or need (i.e., not needlessly redundant of any other Federal, state, local or private efforts)?

Explanation: This is the only federal, state or local program that provides communications infrastructure to the Department of Defense. The PART review covered DoD communications infrastructure programs which provide for transition of voice, data and video information between DoD facilities and within DoD facilities as well. The population served by this program is not served by any other program.

Evidence: There are no other programs designed to provide communications capabilities to support U.S. national security needs. DoD budget exhibits and strategic plans confirm that this is the only DoD program to provide a communications infrastructure.

Is the program optimally designed to address the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: There may be a more efficient manner to implement the program to achieve the desired results.

Evidence: No study has examined all elements of the communications infrastructure program to determine if the current program is, indeed the most cost-effective method to provide this capability. Private sector best practices suggest an department-wide approach for providing communications infrastructure is more effective and efficient than each individual component providing its own communications infrastructure. DoD does not yet manage this program on a department-wide basis, although it is moving in that direction.

Does the program have a limited number of specific, ambitious long-term performance goals that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: DoD has not yet established clear, measurable outcome goals with timelines. The program, however, does have a clear vision: "to provide a ubiquitous, secure, and robust network without bandwidth, frequency or computing capability limitations." While the vision is clear, better metrics are required. DoD has prepared a rough draft of possible long-term goals, but these have not been finalized or approved.

Evidence: There are no goals or performance metrics that measure capabilities of the entire infrastructure. Portions or projects of the communications infrastructure, such as the Defense Information Systems Network, the Bandwidth Expansion effort, and DoD Teleports, do, however, have clear measurable goals. For example the Defense Information Systems Network plans to reduce data transmission costs from $60.36/kb in FY 2002 to $22.04/kb in FY 2007.

Does the program have a limited number of annual performance goals that demonstrate progress toward achieving the long-term goals?

Explanation: DoD is implementing several programs with quantifiable short-term goals to support the long-term vision of providing a ubiquitous, secure, and robust network without bandwidth, frequency or computing capability limitations. These programs include the Bandwidth Expansion program, DoD Teleports, the Defense Information Systems Network, Army Installation Information Infrastructure Modernization Program, and Navy Marine Corps Internet (NMCI).

Evidence: The Bandwidth Expansion program has a clear measurable outcome: to provide optical cable connections to 90 sites in the continental United States in FY 2003 and FY 2004 to increase bandwidth. DoD Teleports will increase bandwidth capabilities for satellite communications by adding additional frequency bands (X, C, Ku) in FY 2002-2004. Navy plans to convert almost its entire existing Information Technology network to the Navy Marine Corps Intranet, a system maintained by a private contractor. The Army plans to upgrade its base level communications infrastructure.

Do all partners (grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, etc.) support program planning efforts by committing to the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The military services and the Defense Information Systems Agency are partners in providing the communications infrastructure. The military services agree on the need for a robust, reliable, assured network and include these goals in their strategic plans. The Defense Information Systems Agency has a performance plan agreement with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Defense Resources Board. Systems that are not part of the DoD Information Technology plan, or in compliance with DoD Information Technology policies are required to seek a waiver. The waiver process forces all programs to eventually become part of the department's communication infrastructure network

Evidence: Evidence includes the Defense Information Systems Agency Performance Plan and Transformation Roadmap, as well as strategic plans from the services, and the DoD Information Technology waiver process. Under the waiver process, DoD directed 22 legacy networks to move to the standard communications infrastructure system between 1999 - 2006. There are plans to move the remaining 10 networks to the standard DoD systems, including 9 Navy networks that will be moved during conversion of the Navy's communications infrastructure to a private contractor.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs that share similar goals and objectives?

Explanation: The department provides communications capabilities used by other agencies, such as the Federal Aviation Administration, and uses other federal communications capabilities, such as Federal Telecommunication Service 2001, managed by the General Services Administration. The National Communication System leads inter-agency committees to provide emergency communications. The department also participates in the interdepartmental radio advisory committee and works with the Federal Communications Commission on communications issues to prevent spectrum interference.

Evidence: The National Communications System, a part of DoD, manages the Government Emergency Telecommunications Service to provide telecommunications capabilities to federal leaders in the event of an emergency. DoD has agreements with the Federal Aviation Administration and uses the federal telecommunications contract managed by the General Services Administration. DoD worked with other agencies in the federal government and the Executive Office of President on proposed spectrum legislation in FY 2002.

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope conducted on a regular basis or as needed to fill gaps in performance information to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness?

Explanation: DoD Program Analyses and Evaluation, the General Accounting Office, and internal DoD evaluators have examined the Defense Information Systems Agency and the Defense Information Systems Network. The Navy Marine Corps Internet has been reviewed multiple times by independent assessors and the Navy CIO.

Evidence: Evidence includes General Accounting Office reports, Program Analysis and Evaluation reports, DoD Inspector General reports, Defense Information Systems Agency reports, and independent reports on the Navy Marine Corps Internet.

Is the program budget aligned with the program goals in such a way that the impact of funding, policy, and legislative changes on performance is readily known?

Explanation: Communications infrastructure budget submissions clearly identify the capabilities provided by a given funding level, and what additional requirements are satisfied by increased funding. The budget submission is tied to the department's goals for information technology and communications infrastructure.

Evidence: The program's goal is to provide a ubiquitous, secure and robust network, without bandwidth, frequency or computing capability limitations. The budget is aligned with this goal, within the overall funding constraints of the department. For example, the Bandwidth Expansion program will improve the communications infrastructure to about 90 locations, thereby reducing or eliminating bandwidth constraints. This effort costs about $500 million in FY 2003, but the results will be clear and directly support the program goal.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: As a result of criticism that too many systems were not integrated with the primary DoD communications infrastructure, DoD implemented a waiver process to force independent systems to become part of the larger communications infrastructure system. DoD has developed draft long term goals, although these have not been reviewed or finalized. The Army is considering implementing Service Level Agreements to measure service quality.

Evidence: Evidence includes establishment of the waiver board, results of waiver process, and the waiver handbook, as well as draft long-term goals, and the Army Information Management Implementation Plan, Phase 1.

Are acquisition program plans adjusted in response to performance data and changing conditions?

Explanation: DoD is seeking increased network capacity in response to network capacity constraints, congestion, and delays.

Evidence: DoD has launched two primary programs, Teleports and Bandwidth Expansion, to increase bandwidth and improve reliability.

Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule and performance goals?

Explanation: Several parts of the communications infrastructure program have conducted recent analysis of alternatives, but these are not comprehensive.

Evidence: Evidence includes analysis of alternatives for the Navy Marine Corps Internet and Teleports, although none of these offers a comprehensive analysis of alternatives for the entire program.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The Defense Information Systems Agency collects program performance measurements. DoD also monitors networks and systems for compliance with the department's Information Technology architecture and use of the Defense Information Systems Network.

Evidence: Evidence includes quarterly performance contract report, performance plan, the waiver process, and Navy Marine Corps Internet Service Level Agreements.

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: There is little evidence program managers are held accountable for program performance. Contracts with private partners are not performance based. The Army and Air Force do not have performance contracts. There has been little consequence for performance shortfalls in the Navy Marine Corps Internet. Only the Defense Information Systems Agency has a performance contract stating performance goals.

Evidence: Evidence includes lack of performance contracts and no accountability for Navy Marine Corps Internet problems. The Defense Information Systems Agency, does, however, have a performance contract.

Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Funds are obligated in a timely manner and spent on the intended purpose

Evidence: Evidence includes DoD financial reports, audits, reviews by DoD Inspectors General, and reviews by the Defense Information Systems Agency.

Does the program have incentives and procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: While parts of the program, such as the Defense Information Systems Network, are measured on cost per unit basis, there is no evidence other parts of the program have such procedures and incentives.

Evidence: There is limited evidence that the services measure or promote efficiency and cost effectiveness. The only example is Defense Information Systems Network, which plans to reduce data transmission costs from $60.36/kb in FY 2002 to $22.04/kb in FY 2007.

Does the agency estimate and budget for the full annual costs of operating the program (including all administrative costs and allocated overhead) so that program performance changes are identified with changes in funding levels?

Explanation: The budget for the communications infrastructure program is developed to meet the program goals within the budget constraints of the department. There is no other source for funding this program, including administrative and overhead costs, other than the DoD budget. DoD conducts an extensive budget review to ensure that all administrative and overhead costs are included in the budget.

Evidence: The annual DoD budget justification books include the full cost of this program, including overhead and other indirect program costs.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: DoD financial systems prevent a clean audit. DoD can not certify that payments are made properly for the intended purpose and erroneous payments are minimized.

Evidence: Evidence includes DoD Inspector General reports, and reports from the General Accounting Office, such as the high risk list.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: DoD implemented the waiver process to review systems that do not comply with DoD policies. DoD has prepared draft long term goals, although these have not yet been approved.

Evidence: Several General Accounting Office reports (GAO-02-50; GAO/AIMD-97-9; GAO/AIMD-98-202) noted problems with networks that did not conform with DoD policies. In response to this criticism, DoD instituted the waiver process to force compliance with DoD policies.

Does the program define the required quality, capability, and performance objectives for deliverables?

Explanation: There are no clear performance parameters and operational requirements for the entire communications infrastructure, although parts, such as the Defense Information Systems Network do have some of these measurements. Only the Navy Marine Corps Internet uses a performance based contract with outside contractors.

Evidence: Use of service contracts is limited, except for the Navy Marine Corps Internet. There is a "capstone requirements" document for the Defense Information Systems Network, but there are no defined capability or performance objectives for the Army and the Air Force, or for the overall communications infrastructure.

Has the program established appropriate, credible, cost and schedule goals?

Explanation: While parts of the program, such as Bandwidth Expansion program and Teleports have established cost and schedule goals, other elements of the program, such as the Navy Marine Corps Internet, do not have credible goals.

Evidence: The Navy Marine Corps Internet has not met goals to move legacy applications to the new network, convert existing users to the new network, or establish an automated network management system. There is no evidence of Air Force goals. The Army has goals for acquisition for its base infrastructure upgrade plan, but not for operations of the communications infrastructure.

Has the program conducted a recent, credible, cost-benefit analysis that shows a net benefit?

Explanation: There is no credible way to conduct a cost-benefit analysis where the benefit is warfighting capabilities.

Evidence: Not applicable.

Does the program have a comprehensive strategy for risk management that appropriately shares risk between the government and contractor?

Explanation: The Defense Information Systems Agency strives to minimize risk by carefully analyzing network systems to eliminate potential points of failure, but the government still bears the risk of contractor failure without potential recourse.

Evidence: Evidence includes the Defense Information Systems Agency contracts and program data from the services. The services do not use Earned Value Management Systems to manage risk.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome goal(s)?

Explanation: While the Defense Information Systems Agency, and to a lesser extent the services, have established long term goals, there are no clear measurable outcome goals for the program in its entirety.

Evidence: DoD has prepared draft performance metrics for communications infrastructure department wide, but these have not been finalized. The Defense Information Systems Agency does have measurable long term goals which it is using to manage. The Navy Marine Corps Internet is another example of a program with established measurable long term goals.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The Defense Information Systems Network goals include measurements of availability and speed. Army installation upgrades are on schedule. The teleports are on schedule. The Navy Marine Corps Internet is behind schedule on conversion of legacy applications. (Bandwidth Expansion will not start until FY 2003)

Evidence: Evidence includes Defense Information Systems Agency Performance Plan, Army and Navy reports.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies and cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The Defense Information Systems Agency reduced its per unit costs in FY 2000 and FY 2001 and plans to further reduce the per unit costs in the FY 2003 through FY 2007 time. There is no evidence the services (except for the Navy Marine Corps Internet) are analyzing costs to improve effectiveness and efficiency.

Evidence: Defense Information Systems Network global data costs fell from $75.60/kb in FY 2000 to $53.12/kb in FY 2001; DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS NETWORK global video costs fell from $2.73/min in FY 2000 to $2.30/min in FY 2001; there was no change in voice costs ($0.12/min).

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: This program compares favorably with other federal telecommunications programs such as the General Services Administration sponsored Federal Telecommunications Service. DoD is also starting to manage its systems on an department-level basis. Department level or enterprise level management of IT networks is a private industry best practice.

Evidence: Evidence includes Defense Information Systems Agency study of DoD communications systems, the telecommunications capabilities offered by the General Services Administration, and comparisons with private industry. The analysis of the Navy Marine Corps Internet highlighted need for department level management of the communications infrastructure.

Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Independent evaluations of the Defense Information Systems Agency and the Defense Information Systems Network indicate the program is effective and achieving results. The Navy Marine Corps Internet recently completed the first full operational assessment.

Evidence: Evidence includes Defense Information Systems Agency and DoD evaluations of the Defense Information Systems Network, Navy Operational Test and Evaluation Force reports on the Navy Marine Corps Internet.

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: "Defense Working Capital fund operations were negative in FY 1999 to FY 2001, which means that costs were greater than collections. Bandwidth Expansion and Teleports are too new to evaluate at this point. "

Evidence: Army programs met cost and schedule goals.