oversight

DFAS Telecommunications: DFAS Has the Opportunity To Reduce Its Telecommunication Line Capacity

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1997-08-01.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                  United States General Accounting Office

GAO               Report to the Acting Under Secretary of
                  Defense (Comptroller)



August 1997
                  DFAS
                  TELECOMMUNICATIONS
                  DFAS Has the
                  Opportunity To Reduce Its
                  Telecommunication Line
                  Capacity




GAO/AIMD-97-100
                   United States
GAO                General Accounting Office
                   Washington, D.C. 20548

                   Accounting and Information
                   Management Division

                   B-275892

                   August 1, 1997

                   Ms. Alice C. Maroni
                   Acting Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)

                   Dear Ms. Maroni:

                   The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) was established in
                   January 1991 to streamline and standardize the Department of Defense’s
                   (DOD) finance and accounting policies, procedures, and systems. In
                   May 1994, the Deputy Secretary of Defense announced plans to
                   consolidate over 300 defense accounting offices (DAOs) into 5 large
                   existing finance centers1 and 21 new sites2 called operating locations
                   (OPLOCs). The success of this effort is dependent, in large part, on the
                   OPLOCs’ ability to obtain and process finance and accounting data from
                   DOD’s numerous and geographically dispersed military installations. DFAS is
                   relying on the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to provide the
                   telecommunication services needed to transmit this critical information.

                   Due to the important role that telecommunication services have in DFAS’
                   day-to-day accounting operations, as well as congressional interest in
                   using information technology to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness
                   of governmental operations, we reviewed the use of the 50 data
                   communication lines that DFAS leases from DISA to connect its OPLOCs and
                   finance centers and the DISA megacenters through one of DISA’s common
                   user data networks—the N-level (Unclassified-but-Sensitive) Internet
                   Protocol Router Network (NIPRNET). Our primary objective was to
                   determine whether these data communication lines are effectively
                   managed.


                   Our analysis of the usage data for the 50 leased data communication lines
Results in Brief   indicates that 29 lines may not be utilized in the most efficient, effective,
                   and economical manner. This situation is due primarily to DFAS not
                   performing a thorough analysis of its telecommunication requirements. To
                   meet the tight time frames prescribed for the consolidation effort, DFAS did
                   not consider critical factors such as frequency of use, peak usage periods,
                   and the volume of information to be transmitted and received. Rather, the
                   DFAS Deputy Director for Information Management decided that a start-up


                   1
                    DOD’s five large centers are located in Cleveland, Ohio; Columbus, Ohio; Denver, Colorado;
                   Indianapolis, Indiana; and Kansas City, Missouri.
                   2
                    As of May 1997, four sites had not yet been opened.



                   Page 1                                                 GAO/AIMD-97-100 DFAS Telecommunications
             B-275892




             line of 512 kilobits (kbs) per second3 would provide sufficient capacity for
             the workload requirements of each OPLOC. As the finance and accounting
             workload was transferred from the DAOs to the OPLOCs, operational
             problems, such as increased downtime and slow response times, began to
             surface. To resolve these problems, across-the-board line and equipment
             upgrades were made without knowing what specific changes were needed
             to remedy the problem at each location.

             With the transfer of the DAOs to the OPLOCs virtually complete, DFAS can
             now thoroughly reassess and revalidate its existing telecommunication
             lines to determine if they are effectively utilized. Doing so would also
             enable DFAS to identify opportunities for reducing its lease cost. Such
             reassessments are important because they enable an agency to determine,
             based on empirical data, whether its telecommunication lines are properly
             sized, meet mission requirements, and are cost-effective.


             As part of DOD’s efforts to streamline and standardize finance and
Background   accounting activities, DFAS was given management control of the DOD’s 5
             large finance centers and many of the functions carried out at the 332
             installation finance and accounting offices. In May 1994, the Deputy
             Secretary of Defense announced plans to consolidate DOD’s finance and
             accounting operations into the 5 large finance centers and 21 OPLOCs. In
             previous work, we have questioned the overall need for DOD having 21
             operating locations.4

             While this is a massive effort in itself, it is also complicated by the scope of
             DOD’s finance and accounting operations. For example, in fiscal year 1996,
             DOD disbursed $266 billion related to 17 million invoices, 6 million payroll
             accounts, and 2 million travel vouchers, it also collected $238 million from
             116,000 debtors. As DOD’s accounting agency, DFAS records these
             transactions in the Department’s accounting records. DFAS also prepares
             reports for DOD managers and the DOD-wide and service-specific financial
             statements required by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act and the
             Office of Management and Budget implementing directives.

             Both DFAS and DISA have major responsibilities for ensuring the efficient
             and effective transmission of DOD’s finance and accounting data. DFAS is

             3
              One kilobit is one thousand bits; therefore, a 512 kilobit per second line can transmit 512,000 bits per
             second.
             4
              DOD Infrastructure: DOD Is Opening Unneeded Finance and Accounting Offices (GAO/NSIAD-96-113,
             April 24, 1996) and DOD Infrastructure: DOD’s Planned Finance and Accounting Structure Is Not Well
             Justified (GAO/NSIAD-95-127, September 18, 1995).



             Page 2                                                GAO/AIMD-97-100 DFAS Telecommunications
B-275892




responsible for identifying its requirements by analyzing expected
workloads and telecommunication performance parameters, such as
transmission frequency, availability, and speed. As DOD’s central manager
for information technology and technical support, DISA is responsible for
acquiring, operating, and maintaining the data communication lines
needed to satisfy DFAS’ day-to-day activities, as well as providing data
processing services through its various megacenters. DFAS is leasing 50
data communication lines from DISA to transmit the finance and accounting
data between its various accounting locations and DISA’s megacenters
through the NIPRNET. Figure 1 illustrates this connectivity and the
transmission of the data. Our review focused on the use of the
communication lines used to connect DFAS’ finance centers, OPLOCs, and
DISA megacenters through DISA’s NIPRNET.




Page 3                               GAO/AIMD-97-100 DFAS Telecommunications
                                       B-275892




Figure 1: Flow of Finance and Accounting Data Between DFAS’ OPLOCs and Finance Centers and DISA’s Megacenters
Through NIPRNET


           DISA Megacenter                                                       DFAS Operation Locations



                                                                                Router
                                                                                                    Workstation
                     Mainframe




                    Mainframe                                                            Network Server

                                                    DISA
                                                  NIPRNET


                                                                                Military Service Installations
                                                                                   Camps and/or Stations
      DFAS Finance Centers


                                                                                Router
                                                                                                    Workstation



                       S
                 REPORT




                                                                                         Network Server



                                       To determine whether DFAS is effectively managing the telecommunication
Scope and                              lines it is leasing from DISA to support the consolidation of DOD’s
Methodology                            accounting and finance operations, we reviewed DOD directives and
                                       instructions to determine the specific roles and responsibilities of DFAS and



                                       Page 4                                  GAO/AIMD-97-100 DFAS Telecommunications
B-275892




DISA in the procurement and management of data communication services.
We met with DFAS and DISA officials involved in the consolidation effort to
obtain an understanding of the importance of data communications to the
success of consolidated DOD accounting and finance operations and
identify specific criteria used to select communication lines connecting
DFAS’ OPLOCs and finance centers, and DISA’s megacenters with the NIPRNET.


We extracted and analyzed data from two DISA computerized databases
and reconciled any inconsistencies found to identify and assess DFAS’ use
of its leased telecommunication lines for the 4 months ending January 31,
1997. Our analyses of the Defense Information Services Database and the
World-Wide On-Line System identified 50 data communication lines used
by DFAS to transmit finance and accounting data between the OPLOCs,
finance centers, and megacenters through the NIPRNET. Further, we
compared data from the two DISA databases with service request
documentation used to initiate the telecommunication services to
cross-check data accuracy and completeness. We evaluated line use data
sampled every hour by DISA’s regional control centers detailing the daily
use of the 50 DFAS lines from October 1, 1996, through January 31, 1997. We
determined the maximum usage level by adding the highest individual
levels of utilization in receiving and sending data experienced during the
4-month period. We compared our calculated rate of utilization with the
line currently in place. We discussed our approach with DISA and DFAS
officials responsible for ensuring efficient use of DOD telecommunication
resources.

We performed our work at DFAS and DISA headquarters offices, Washington,
D.C.; DFAS Center, Denver, Colorado; DFAS Center and Financial Service
Organization, Indianapolis, Indiana; DFAS OPLOCs in Limestone, Maine;
Oakland, California; and Seaside, California; DISA Regional Control Center,
Columbus, Ohio; DISA Defense Information Technology Contracting
Organization and the Defense Information System Network Service
Center, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois; and the Defense Megacenter,
Denver, Colorado. We also contacted and obtained information from the
DISA Regional Control Center in Oahu, Hawaii. Our work was performed
from July 1996 through May 1997 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.

We requested written comments on a draft of the report from the
Secretary of Defense or his designee. The Deputy Chief Financial Officer
provided written comments, which are discussed in the “Agency
Comments and Our Evaluation” section and reprinted in appendix II.



Page 5                                GAO/AIMD-97-100 DFAS Telecommunications
                      B-275892




                      DFAS  did not adequately identify its telecommunication requirements
Determining           before the OPLOCs began operations. As a result, many of DFAS’
Requirements Is Key   telecommunication lines may have excess capacity. Our analysis of
to Properly Sizing    utilization data, which is one element that should be considered in
                      properly sizing lines, disclosed that 29 lines may have larger capacity than
Telecommunication     required. Leasing more capacity than is needed to meet day-to-day
Lines                 operational requirements could result in DFAS incurring unnecessary lease
                      cost.

                      Defining and validating requirements through analysis of expected
                      workload and performance parameters is an essential first step in the
                      telecommunication selection and acquisition process.5 Such definitions
                      form the basis for identifying and evaluating alternative approaches and
                      selecting and acquiring an appropriate technical solution based on those
                      alternatives. Defining requirements necessitates the collection and
                      identification of such elements as (1) the location, type, and number of
                      users, (2) the nature of the interfacing computer applications and
                      equipment, (3) the frequency of use and the transmission speed, (4) peak
                      usage periods, and (5) the volume of data to be transmitted and received.
                      The next step involves identifying and evaluating viable technical
                      alternatives for meeting those requirements. Critical factors evaluated
                      within this step include such elements as the compatibility with existing
                      networks and equipment, technical feasibility, maintainability, cost, and
                      the ability to meet the defined requirements.6

                      DFAS did not perform a thorough analysis of its site specific requirements
                      before the OPLOCs began operations because of the tight time frames
                      prescribed for bringing the OPLOCs on-line and transferring the accounting
                      responsibility and workload from the consolidated DAOs. In response to
                      DFAS’ request, DISA developed a project implementation plan7 dated
                      February 1995 that addressed the connectivity requirements for
                      consolidating the 332 DAOs into the 21 OPLOCs. The plan identified various
                      alternatives for addressing DFAS connectivity requirements. The plan
                      cautioned that the implementation requirements might need to be revised
                      based on analyses of actual site workload demands and results as the


                      5
                       Defense Communications: Management Problems Jeopardize DISN Implementation
                      (GAO/AIMD-95-136, July 13, 1995).
                      6
                       These requirement definitions and critical factors were developed by the Institute of Internal Auditors
                      Research Foundation, Systems Auditability and Control, December 1991, Module 8,
                      “Telecommunications.”
                      7
                        DFAS/DAO Consolidation Information Management Service, Project Implementation Plan,
                      February 1995.



                      Page 6                                               GAO/AIMD-97-100 DFAS Telecommunications
B-275892




consolidation progressed. Based on a decision by the DFAS Deputy Director
for Information Management, all alternatives assumed the use of 512 kbs
lines for the initial network configuration.

As the finance and accounting functions were transferred from the DAOs to
the OPLOCs, the data traffic was greater than anticipated, and transmission
of the finance and accounting data was unexpectedly slow. This problem
was compounded by the shared use of military owned communication
equipment at four DISA megacenters. Together, these two problems caused
major breakdowns in DFAS’ day-to-day operations. For example, DFAS
experienced periods each month when the OPLOCs and finance centers
could not receive or send data. When data could be transmitted, the
system responses to user inquiries were often very slow.

To resolve these problems, DFAS and DISA implemented several corrective
actions. DFAS upgraded its telecommunication lines between the OPLOCs
and the NIPRNET. DISA also upgraded the lines between its megacenters and
procured dedicated communication equipment for DFAS. These actions,
which addressed serious problems, were taken across the board without
determining the specific line capacity required at each site.

Since DFAS had not developed site-specific requirements, we used
utilization data to identify lines that may be potentially underutilized. Our
analysis of the usage data for the 50 lines, which we have provided to and
discussed with DFAS, disclosed that 29 lines may not be utilized in the most
economical manner, resulting in DFAS incurring unnecessary lease cost.
For each line we were conservative in establishing a maximum possible
peak usage by combining the sum of the highest peak sent and highest
peak received.8 Figure 2 shows the 29 DFAS lines that may be underutilized.




8
 The maximum possible peak was determined by adding the highest peak received and the highest
peak sent. These levels of utilization could have occurred on different days and at different hours
during the 4-month measured period.



Page 7                                              GAO/AIMD-97-100 DFAS Telecommunications
                                               B-275892




Figure 2: Utilization Rate for 29 DFAS Lines

               1,750


               1,500                                                              a


               1,250
Line capacity
available and 1,000
utilized
(kilobits per
second)         750


                 500


                 250


                   0


                                                                    b
                                                             used               not used

                                               a
                                               The utilization on this line was four kilobits.
                                               b
                                                   The amount used represents the sum of the highest peak sent and the highest peak received.


                                               Additional utilization detail is provided in appendix I. While usage data
                                               alone is not sufficient to determine required line capacity, it is a significant
                                               consideration that DFAS should include in its review and revalidation effort,
                                               as discussed in the following section.




                                               Page 8                                              GAO/AIMD-97-100 DFAS Telecommunications
                    B-275892




                    DOD  requires9 that agencies biennially review and revalidate their
Reassessment of     requirements for telecommunication equipment and services to ensure
DFAS’               that they acquire and use such services in the most efficient and
Telecommunication   economical manner. Such reassessments are important because they
                    enable an agency to determine, based on empirical data, whether its
Requirements Is     telecommunication lines are properly sized, meet mission requirements,
Needed              and are cost-effective.

                    As of March 1997, this type of thorough reassessment had not been
                    performed on the 50 data communication lines. DFAS officials informed us
                    that they had not reassessed the lines because they were managed by DISA
                    during fiscal year 1996. Although DISA performed an assessment in early
                    1996, this effort was somewhat limited. For example, DISA did not obtain
                    utilization data or reassess the validity of the users’ prescribed
                    performance parameters, such as transmission speed.

                    With the transfer of the finance and accounting operations for 307 of the
                    332 DAOs to be completed by the end of this fiscal year, DFAS’ operations
                    have been largely stabilized, thus affording DFAS an opportunity to reassess
                    its data communication requirements. Such a reassessment would enable
                    DFAS to refine its requirements and establish what needs to be done to
                    reduce the cost of operations without hindering operational effectiveness.
                    Since DFAS has not yet performed any detailed analyses, it would be
                    prudent to conduct a full-scale assessment, which would include tasks
                    similar to those normally performed when a requirement is originally
                    defined and validated, as discussed previously. If performed properly, this
                    assessment would enable DFAS to ensure that its data communication lines
                    satisfy mission requirements cost-effectively.


                    In the absence of a thorough analysis of DFAS’ requirements, our evaluation
Conclusions         of utilization data indicates that many of its telecommunication lines may
                    have excess capacity. Until DFAS completes such an analysis, it runs the
                    risk of paying for excess capacity.


                    To ensure that the long-term telecommunication needs of DFAS are
Recommendation      properly defined and cost-effective, we recommend that the Director of
                    DFAS follow existing DOD policy and reassess DFAS’ telecommunication
                    requirements, at a minimum considering such factors as workload

                    9
                     Defense Directive 4640.13, Management of Base and Long-Haul Telecommunications Equipment and
                    Services, December 5, 1991, and Defense Instruction 4640.14, Base and Long-Haul Telecommunication
                    Equipment and Services, December 6, 1991.



                    Page 9                                           GAO/AIMD-97-100 DFAS Telecommunications
                     B-275892




                     capacity, utilization statistics of its telecommunication assets, response
                     time, and cost-benefit analyses supporting the use of the
                     telecommunication resources.


                     In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD’s Deputy CFO agreed
Agency Comments      with our recommendation that DFAS reassess its telecommunication
and Our Evaluation   requirements, stating that DFAS will perform such a reassessment in
                     September and October 1997.

                     However, DOD did not concur with our findings and conclusions. The
                     Deputy CFO stated that our analysis did not take into consideration DFAS’
                     mission and future requirements and, therefore, should not be used as a
                     basis to downsize DFAS’ telecommunication lines. Our report does not
                     identify specific telecommunication lines that should be downsized.
                     Rather, it points out that utilization data is one factor that needs to be
                     considered in determining if telecommunication lines are being utilized in
                     the most efficient, effective, and economical manner. As discussed in the
                     report, our analysis of the utilization data disclosed that 29 lines may have
                     larger capacity than required. Therefore, based on our analysis, and the
                     fact that DFAS has not determined site specific requirements, we
                     recommended that DFAS reassess its telecommunication requirements
                     which, as noted above, the Department agreed with.


                     We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking
                     Minority Members of the Senate and House Committees on
                     Appropriations, the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the Senate
                     Committee on Governmental Affairs, the House Committee on National
                     Security, and the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight;
                     the Secretary of Defense; the Director, Defense Information Systems
                     Agency; the Acting Director, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service;
                     and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Copies will be
                     made available to others on request.




                     Page 10                                GAO/AIMD-97-100 DFAS Telecommunications
B-275892




Within 60 days of the date of this report, we would appreciate receiving a
written statement on actions taken to address our recommendation.

If you have any questions about the report, please call me at
(202) 512-6240. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.

Sincerely yours,




Jack L. Brock, Jr.
Director, Defense Information
and Financial Management Systems




Page 11                                GAO/AIMD-97-100 DFAS Telecommunications
Contents



Letter                                                                                            1


Appendix I                                                                                       14

Detailed Usage Data
for DFAS’ 50
Telecommunication
Lines
Appendix II                                                                                      16

Comments From the
Department of
Defense
Appendix III                                                                                     19

Major Contributors to
This Report
Figures                 Figure 1: Flow of Finance and Accounting Data Between DFAS’               4
                          OPLOCs and Finance Centers and DISA’s Megacenters Through
                          NIPRNET
                        Figure 2: Utilization Rate for 29 DFAS Lines                              8




                        Abbreviations

                        CFO        Chief Financial Officer
                        DAO        Defense Accounting Office
                        DFAS       Defense Finance and Accounting Service
                        DISA       Defense Information Systems Agency
                        DOD        Department of Defense
                        kbs        kilobits per second
                        NIPRNET    N-level (Unclassified-but-Sensitive) Internet Protocol
                                        Router Network
                        OPLOC      Operating Location


                        Page 12                              GAO/AIMD-97-100 DFAS Telecommunications
Page 13   GAO/AIMD-97-100 DFAS Telecommunications
Appendix I

Detailed Usage Data for DFAS’ 50
Telecommunication Lines

                                          The following table shows the DFAS OPLOCs’ and centers’ peak use for
                                          receiving and sending information from October 1, 1996, through
                                          January 31, 1997, over leased telecommunication lines connected to the
                                          NIPRNET. The maximum peak method sums the highest peak sent and
                                          highest peak received experienced during the measurement period.


                                                                       Peak use        Peak use    Max peak      Used line
                                                        Current line    received            sent        use       capacity
Line number From location     To location                 size (kbs)   (Percent)       (Percent)   (Percent)         (kbs)
71SK         Dayton           Wright-Patterson                 1544        15.7            16.4         32.1           496
71QR         Ft. Sill         Tinker AFB                        512        17.4            22.0         39.4           202
71SH         Rock Island      Rock Island                      1544        28.8            13.2         42.0           649
71LF         Dayton           Dayton                            512          4.7           38.5         43.2           222
71ST         Pensacola        Jacksonville                     1544        19.1            10.0         29.1           450
71SP         San Bernardino   North Island                     1544          5.7             9.6        15.3           237
71SJ         Norfolk          Hampton Roads                    1544        10.2              2.0        12.2           189
718Y         San Antonio      Tinker AFB                        512        10.0            20.6         30.6           157
7LKR         Charleston       Charleston                        512        10.1            10.1         20.2           104
7LLA         Norfolk          Hampton Roads                     512        12.2            38.3         50.5           259
7LKY         Offutt AFB       Tinker AFB                        512        21.6            24.7         46.3           238
7LKZ         Rock Island      Chicago 0’Hare                    512          0.0             8.8          8.8           46
7LKU         Oakland          Oakland                           512          2.4           15.9         18.3            94
71QY         Oakland          Oakland                           512          1.1           18.7         19.8           102
71QX         St. Louis        St. Louis                         512          6.2           15.1         21.3           110
71SG         Offutt AFB       Denver                           1544          6.2           13.7         19.9           308
7LPT         Limestone        Boston                            512        11.5            40.0         51.5           264
71SN         Limestone        Mechanicsburg                    1544          6.8           15.4         22.2           343
7139         Kansas City      Kansas City                      1544          0.1             0.1          0.2            4
7136         Kansas City      St. Louis                        1544          8.3           24.0         32.3           499
71SR         Charleston       Charleston                       1544        10.9            15.4         26.3           407
71SQ         Orlando          Jacksonville                     1544        16.1            18.6         34.7           536
71SM         Oakland          Oakland                          1544          7.2           17.0         24.2           374
71SL         Griffiss         Mechanicsburg                    1544        11.8            22.7         34.5           533
71K6         Pensacola        Pensacola                         512          2.9           11.6         14.5            75
7181         Seaside          McClellan AFB                    1544          4.6             8.1        12.7           197
718X         San Antonio      Kelly AFB                        1544        17.6              8.5        26.1           403
715H         St. Louis        St. Louis                        1544          2.5             4.1          6.6          102
71SF         San Diego        North Island                     1544        12.5            28.0         40.5           626
71K7         San Bernardino   North Island                      512        25.8            56.4         82.2           421
71QQ         Pensacola        Jacksonville                      512          1.4           27.0         28.4           146
                                                                                                                (continued)


                                          Page 14                                  GAO/AIMD-97-100 DFAS Telecommunications
                                           Appendix I
                                           Detailed Usage Data for DFAS’ 50
                                           Telecommunication Lines




                                                                               Peak use         Peak use       Max peak       Used line
                                                             Current line       received             sent           use        capacity
Line number From location      To location                     size (kbs)      (Percent)        (Percent)      (Percent)          (kbs)
7LKX        San Diego          North Island                            512            4.2            10.6            14.6               76
7LLB        Griffiss           Mechanicsburg                           512           31.0            30.9            61.9               317
715N        Columbus           Wright-Patterson                        1544          16.5            37.7            54.2               837
715M        Columbus           Columbus                                1544          32.3            45.7            78.0              1205
71SS        Ft. Ben Harrison   Columbus                                1544          41.8            55.9            97.7              1509
71QZ        Ft. Ben Harrison   Ft. Ben Harrison                        512           74.0             5.9            79.9               410
72E8        Cleveland          Columbus                                1544          35.0            26.5            61.5               950
71RT        Arlington          Richmond                                1544          10.0            12.4            22.4               346
7191        Bratenahl          Columbus                                1544           7.8            63.8            71.6              1106
7190        Bratenahl          Wright-Patterson                        1544          45.9            21.3            67.2              1038
715L        Denver             Denver                                 10000           4.9             6.6            11.5              1150
715K        Denver             Ft. Huachuca                            1544           0.2             1.3             1.5               24
7LMH        Orlando            Pensacola                               512           14.2            24.0            38.2               196
7MLU        Cleveland          Cleveland                              10000          14.4            14.8            29.2              2920
7WYC        Lowry              Lowry                                  10000          13.1             5.9            19.0              1900
71WV        San Diego          San Diego                                19           42.4            89.4          131.8                26
719Z        Saufley Field      Pensacola                               512           68.4            19.0            87.4               448
XD6K        Hickam             Ford Islanda                            1344          26.1            18.6            44.7               601
XD7U        Ft. Shafter        Ford Islanda                            1544          14.9            10.7            25.6               396

                                           Legend
                                           kbs=Kilobits per second.
                                           a
                                            Usage data for telecommunication lines of XD6K and XD7U covered October 1, 1996, through
                                           December 31, 1996, and January 20, 1997, through January 31, 1997.

                                           Source: Defense Information Services Database and the World-Wide On-Line System




                                           Page 15                                          GAO/AIMD-97-100 DFAS Telecommunications
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of Defense




              Page 16      GAO/AIMD-97-100 DFAS Telecommunications
Appendix II
Comments From the Department of Defense




Page 17                                   GAO/AIMD-97-100 DFAS Telecommunications
Appendix II
Comments From the Department of Defense




Page 18                                   GAO/AIMD-97-100 DFAS Telecommunications
Appendix III

Major Contributors to This Report


                       John S. Reifsnyder, Project Director (703) 695-7510
Accounting and         Darby W. Smith, Assistant Director
Information            William D. Hadesty, Technical Advisor
Management Division,   Madhav S. Panwar, Technical Advisor
                       Cristina Chaplain, Communications Analyst
Washington, D.C.
                       Phillip E. Rutar, Project Manager
Chicago/Dayton Field   Sanford F. Reigle, Senior Information Systems Analyst
Office
                       Peggy A. Hegg, Senior Information Systems Analyst
Denver Regional
Office




(511358)               Page 19                               GAO/AIMD-97-100 DFAS Telecommunications
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order
made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address
are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 6015
Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000
or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on
how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,
send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov




PRINTED ON    RECYCLED PAPER
United States                       Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office      Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001           GAO
                                 Permit No. G100
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested