Defense Computers: SSG Needs to Sustain Year 2000 Progress

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1997-08-19.

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

 G o~
  t     ~United States
GAO      General Accounting Office
         Washington, D.C. 20548

         Accounting and Information
         Management Division


         August 19, 1997

         Mr. Robert Frye, Executive Director
         Standard Systems Group
         Maxwell Air Force Base, Gunter Annex, AL

          Subject:   Defense Computers: SSG Needs to Sustain Year 2000 Progress

          Dear Mr. Frye:

          On July 1, 1997, we discussed with members of your staff the results of our
          review of the Standard Systems Group's (SSG) efforts to address the Year 2000
          computer problem. The problem results from the inability of computer
          programs at the year 2000 to interpret the correct century from a recorded or
          calculated date having only two digits indicating the year. Unless corrected,
          this problem could cause the standard systems that SSG supports to
          malfunction or produce incorrect information when the year 2000 is
          encountered during automated data processing. Since SSG is the Air Force's
          largest automated information systems manager with responsibility for all
          standardized computer programs supporting base requirements in more than a
          dozen functional areas, the impact of these failures would be widespread,
          costly, and potentially debilitating to important Air Force missions.

          These discussions were based on work we performed as part of our review of
          the Department of Defense's (DOD) Year 2000 computer systems effort for the
          Chairman, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; the Chairman and
          Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Government Management,
          Information and Technology, House Committee on Government Reform and
          Oversight; and the Honorable Thomas M. Davis, III, House of Representatives.
          During our review, we concentrated on determining (1) the status of SSG's
          efforts to correct the Year 2000 problems in the Air Force's standard systems
          and (2) whether SSG can ensure that standard systems under its responsibility
          are compliant in time to process year 2000 data.


          SSG managers have recognized the importance of solving the Year 2000 problem
          and that failure to implement successful solutions could seriously impact the

                                      GAO/AIMD-97 20R Air Force SSG Year 2000 Effort

Air Force's support mission. To its credit, SSG convened the Year 2000
Working Group in September 1995 to examine the Year 2000 problem and to
develop a plan for managing it. From that effort, SSG set forth a strategy that
is compatible with the Air Force's five-phased methodology, which has been
adopted by DOD. The steps included in this methodology are also consistent
with GAO's structured approach for planning, managing, and evaluating Year
2000 programs. In addition, SSG established its Year 2000 Project Office in
February 1996, developed a management-level Year 2000 strategy, and
completed the Year 2000 Project Management Plan to guide the effort.

SSG has demonstrated that it is capable of realistically planning and managing
large information systems conversions, such as the Year 2000 resolution,
through its successful implementation of an effective methodology for
developing, maintaining:, and supporting standard systems. While SSG has
progressed considerably toward addressing the Year 2000 problem, we
determined that it must further emphasize management and oversight of system
interfaces to ensure successful implementation of Year 2000 compliant systems
throughout its user community. Also, a number of SSG systems must use
standard interface message formats to exchange data that are defined by
external entities not under SSG control. Some of these message formats had
not been finalized by the organizations responsible for their definition.
Recently, SSG Year 2000 Project Office officials began addressing the interface
issue. If effectively implemented by the project office, this effort should be a
positive step toward preventing loss of operational capabilities between SSG's
internal and external systems' interface message formats at the year 2000.


During our review, we compared SSG's ongoing Year 2000 activities to the tasks
described in our Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment Guide,' DOD's
Year 2000 Management Plan,2 and the Air Force's Year 2000 methodology to
assess the adequacy of SSG's efforts to correct the year 2000 problem in those
standard systems used throughout the Air Force. We obtained documentation
related to certification and testing policies and procedures, technical assessment
guidelines, and database management practices. We used this information to
assess efforts related to the multiple phases of managing the year 2000 solution
implementation. To verify the extent of the work required to effectively address
the Year 2000 problem, we also reviewed the systems inventory database

'Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment Guide (Exposure Draft)
(GAO/AIMD-10.1.14, February 1997).
2 Department   of Defense Year 2000 Management Plan (Version 1.0, April 1997).

2                            GAO/AIMD-97-120R Air Force SSG Year 2000 Effort
information that the SSG Year 2000 Project Office provided. We reviewed the
Project Office's integrated systems schedule to determine the reasonableness of
the schedules and time frames associated with the appropriate phases of its
Year 2000 plan. We used this information to determine whether SSG could
deliver the affected software to its users prior to Year 2000 impact.

At SSG headquarters, we met with the Technical Director of Information
Systems and with officials from the Year 2000 Project Office responsible for the
management of the Year 2000 systems projects to obtain an understanding of
SSG's requirements for managing Year 2000 systems problems. We interviewed
system managers and team members and reviewed the project plans and
schedules for four specific systems which were in the renovation phase-the
Standard Base Supply System, the Cargo Movement Operations System, the
Core Automated Maintenance System, and the Precision Measurement
Equipment Laboratory Automated System. We selected these standard systems
after considering various characteristics, such as differing computer hardware
platforms, the number and types of interfaces, and the systems' life cycle
phases. We reviewed and evaluated the systems certification criteria and
process established by the Year 2000 Certification and Accreditation Working
Group which includes members from SSG's Year 2000 Project Office and
Quality Assurance Division. We also reviewed the Project Office's requirements
for systems risk analyses and contingency planning. To obtain information on
the progress toward the testing, conversion, and operation of executive and
application systems, we met with the Defense megacenter manager who is
responsible for supporting SSG's Year 2000 systems maintenance and validation
efforts. We used this information to assess SSG's efforts for completing each of
the five phases in accordance with suggested tasks contained in our Assessment
Guide, the Air Force's methodology, and the DOD Year 2000 Management Plan.

Our review did not include nonstandard computer systems applications which
are developed outside the purview of SSG, such as systems which may be
developed locally by Air Force base-level personnel. Also, we did not assess
the adequacy of the activities and efforts by members of the SSG-supported
functional communities to prepare for implementation of the converted systems.
Neither did we review the actions that SSG is taking to ensure that components
of its internal infrastructure, such as security and telephone systems, are Year
2000 compliant. While we used information provided by SSG to assess the
adequacy of its efforts to address the year 2000 systems problem, we did not
verify this information. We conducted our work from August 1996 through May
 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

The Department of the Air Force provided written comments on a draft of this
report. These comments are discussed in the "Agency Comments and Our
Evaluation" section and are reprinted in enclosure I.

3                           GAO/AIMD-97-120R Air Force SSG Year 2000 Effort


SSG is a component of the Air Force Electronic Systems Center3 and is the
central design activity for 137 standard computer programs. SSG manages
standard information technology, software, hardware, and contracts used at all
active and reserve Air Force bases and at many DOD agencies. SSG supports
base requirements in over 12 different functional areas, including aircraft cargo
loading and handling, air traffic control, munitions, accounting and finance,
fuels, and maintenance. SSG also manages the information technology aspects
of other programs such as security police operations, medical care,
communications, supply, logistics, SSG office computers, civil engineering, and
the commissary service. Included in the 137 standard computer programs under
SSG control are 90 Air Force standard base-level computer systems 4 which are
at risk of failure due to the Year 2000 systems problems. These standard
systems are made up of 21 million lines of code. The largest mainframe
systems run on a Unisys platform and utilize a Unisys operating system that has
been certified as Year 2000 compliant.

The Year 2000 problem is rooted in the way dates are recorded and computed
in automated information systems. For the past several decades, systems have
typically used two digits to represent the year, such as "97" representing 1997, in
order to conserve electronic data storage and reduce operating costs. However,
with this two-digit format, the year 2000 is indistinguishable from 1900, as is
2001 indistinguishable from 1901. As a result of this ambiguity, system or
application programs that use dates to perform calculations, comparisons, or
sorting may generate incorrect results when working with years after 1999.

Should SSG's computer systems fail because of the Year 2000 problem, many
Air Force standard operations could be impacted by incorrect data processing.
For example, some of 'SSG's logistics support systems process aircraft history,
scheduling, and inspection data for the management of weapon systems
worldwide. If these systems cannot correctly process date-sensitive data as the
year 2000 approaches, the Air Force's ability to ensure wartime readiness and

3 The Electronic Systems Center (ESC) is located at Hanscom Air Force Base,
Massachusetts. Both SSG and ESC report to the Air Force Materiel Command
located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
4Standardized  systems are those which are developed, maintained, and
supported by SSG and are used by multiple MAJCOMs or operating locations.
Modifications to these systems cannot be made at any location other than SSG
because SSG does not release the source code needed for making changes to
these systems.

4                           GAO/AIMD-97-120R Air Force SSG Year 2000 Effort

operational support of its aircraft, communications, missile maintenance, and
support equipment could be significantly impaired. Further, in addressing the
Year 2000 problem, SSG also must consider the hundreds of computer systems
that interface with, or connect to, its own systems. These systems belong to
the military services, Defense components, and other federal agencies with
whom SSG does business. Collectively, these systems are critical to carrying
out the Air Force's mission.

In February 1997, we published the Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An
Assessment Guide that addresses common issues affecting most federal
agencies and presents a structured approach and a checklist to aid them in
planning, managing, and evaluating their Year 2000 programs. The guide
describes five phases-supported by program and project management
activities-with each phase representing a major Year 2000 program activity or
segment. The guidance draws heavily on the work of the Best Practices
Subcommittee of the Interagency Year 2000 Committee and incorporates
guidance and practices identified by leading organizations in the information
technology industry. The five phases are consistent with those prescribed by
DOD in its Year 2000 Management Plan. The phases and a description of what
each entails follow:

-   Awareness-Define the Year 2000 problem and gain executive-level support
    and sponsorship. Establish a year 2000 program team and develop an
    overall strategy. Ensure that everyone in the organization is fully aware of
    the issue.

-   Assessment--Assess the Year 2000 effect on the enterprise. Identify core
    business areas and processes; inventory and analyze systems supporting the
    core business areas; and prioritize their conversion or replacement.
    Consider contingency plans to handle data exchange issues, lack of data, and
    bad data. Identify and secure the necessary resources.

-   Renovation-Convert, replace, or eliminate selected platforms, applications,
    databases, and utilities. Modify interfaces.

-   Validation-Test, verify, and validate converted or replaced platforms,
    applications, databases, and utilities. Test the performance, functionality,
    and integration of converted or replaced platforms, applications, databases,
    utilities, and interfaces in an operational environment.

-   Implementation-Implement converted or replaced platforms, applications,
    databases, utilities, and interfaces. Implement data exchange contingency
    plans, if necessary.

5                            GAO/AIMD-97-120R Air Force SSG Year 2000 Effort

In addition to following the five phases described, the Year 2000 program
should also be planned and managed as a single large information system
development effort. Agencies should promulgate and enforce good
management practices at the program and project levels.


To its credit, SSG convened the Year 2000 Working Group and began initial Year
2000 resolution efforts as part of normal systems maintenance during 1995. In
response to DOD's guidance calling for individual components to implement
their own Year 2000 programs, SSG also created a Year 2000 Project Office in
February 1996. The Project Office is responsible for managing and overseeing
the progress of efforts to correct problems associated with processing date-
sensitive data in standard systems when the year 2000 is encountered.

By May 1997, SSG had completed an overall assessment of the Year 2000 impact
on the standard base-level systems which it supports. Of the 90 standard
systems which SSG officials determined to be impacted by the Year 2000
problem, they reported that 12 systems were in the assessment phase, 48
systems were in the renovation phase, 8 systems were in the validation phase,
and 2 systems were certified as being Year 2000 compliant by the SSG's Year
2000 Project Office and Quality Assurance Division. Of the remaining 20
systems, 9 were being decommissioned and 11 were to be replaced prior to the
year 2000. SSG's systems by Year 2000 phase are shown in figure 1.

6                          GAO/AIMD-97-120R Air Force SSG Year 2000 Effort

Figure 1: SSG-Supported Systems by Phase

                                (48 systems or 53.3 %)

                                                                   (9systems or 10 %)
    (12 systems or 13.3%)
                      Validation                         (11 systems or 12.2 %)
                  (8systems or 8.9 %)      Certification
                                        (2systems or 2.2 %)

Note: Percents do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: SSG. We did not independently verify this information.

The SSG Project Office developed and is implementing a management-level year
2000 strategy based upon the Air Force's five-phased methodology,5 which is
consistent with DOD's Year 2000 Management Plan, and has provided both
business-related and technical guidelines to the system managers to help with
decision-making processes. A Year 2000 Project Management Plan was
completed by the Project Office in August 1996. Additional actions taken by the
Year 2000 Project Office include:

-     Developing an integrated master schedule and plan for the systems'

5 TheAir Force's five-phase approach includes the awareness, assessment,
renovation, validation, and implementation phases.

7                                 GAO/AIMD-97-120R Air Force SSG Year 2000 Effort
-   Providing assistance to system managers in identifying areas of
    noncompliance and risks, including conflicts between interfacing business

-   Resolving issues related to hardware and resource availability for system

-   Completing pilot conversion projects under four different scenarios. SSG is
    using the "lessons learned" from these pilots to help provide technical advice
    about implementing Year 2000 system solutions to the system managers.

-   Completing a study of hardware platforms for Year 2000 problems in
    January 1996.

SSG operates as a fee-for-service central design activity under the Air Force
Working Capital Fund. 6 As such, its customers fund most systems development
and maintenance through service-level agreements (SLAs). 7 SLAs for fiscal
years 1997 and .1998 between SSG and the Air Force logistics community
include provisions for correcting Year 2000 problems. Other communities that
SSG serves (the engineering and base support communities, for example) have
also included Year 2000 resolutions in their upcoming SLAs for fiscal year 1998.
Because this established funding mechanism is being used to address Year 2000
changes, SSG is relying on their customers to provide sufficient funding to
successfully address the necessary Year 2000 changes.

SSG follows software engineering principles and methodologies, tailored to fit
the needs of each system it supports, as prescribed in SSG's established
software development methodology, the Systems Engineering Process (SEP).
This software development methodology includes guidelines which must be
followed for predevelopment, development, and postdevelopment activities.

6 The Air Force Working Capital Fund, one of four working capital funds
resulting from the reorganization of the Defense Business Operations Fund
(DBOF), is a revolving fund that was created by the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) on December 11, 1996. Under this funding concept, service
providers are expected to have and use the visibility over costs incurred to
deliver a product or perform a service at the least cost, and operating forces are
expected to choose and pay for the level of service and support required.
7Service-level agreements are components of the fee-for-service billing
arrangement. SLAs represent contracts between SSG (or any other
development organization) and their customers. The number of hours spent on
a task are tracked and the customer is billed at a standard rate per hour.

8                            GAO/AIMD-97-120R Air Force SSG Year 2000 Effort

SSG's Year 2000 Project Plan incorporates the requirements of the SEP as part
of the approach to managing the Year 2000 problem. The plan recognizes the,
configuration management and test and evaluation requirements of the SEP as
effective processes for controlling and documenting system changes and for
validating the systems' accuracy and completeness.

Also, SSG has developed a technical guide which establishes the relationship
between SEP and the Year 2000 five-phased methodology. The guide includes
year 2000 criteria-such as validation of SSG's Year 2000 business rules-and
provides detailed checklists to be used as aids to ensure that the activities
required to meet the Year 2000 management requirements are carried out within
the SEP guidelines. For example, SEP needs analysis, project planning, and
requirements and design activities are part of the Year 2000 assessment phase;
software design, coding, informal test, and function and system test activities
are part of the renovation phase; product assurance is accomplished in the
validation phase; and customer support is included in the implementation phase
of the Year 2000 methodology. Consequently, SSG managers responsible for
system conversions are able to integrate the unique requirements for managing
Year 2000 problem resolutions into SSG's standard procedures for systems
development management. SSG has also been assessed by an independent
external entity as a Capability Maturity Model (CMM) level 3 development
organization,8 indicating that it has the capability to realistically plan and
manage software development and maintenance projects across the
organization, such as the Year 2000 resolution.


Throughout the computing environment which SSG supports, many systems
interface with multiple internal and external entities, including the Air Force
and other DOD components. Compatibility of data which are exchanged
between these systems is crucial to ensuring their operational capabilities.
Conflicting interface message formats could introduce and propagate errors
from one system to another. It is critically important in the Year 2000 effort
that agencies protect against this potential problem by ensuring that interfacing

8The  Capability Maturity Model is a process maturity framework developed by
the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University with assistance
from the Mitre Corporation. Its purpose is to help organizations identify areas
of their software process which need improvement. There are five maturity
levels in the framework. We have recommended that federal agency
information technology organizations be at least a CMM level 2. SSG achieved
CMM level 3 in May 1997.
9                           GAO/AIMD-97-120R Air Force SSG Year 2000 Effort

systems have the ability to exchange data throughout the transition to the year
2000. This potential problem may be mitigated through formal agreements
between interface partners that describe the interface message formats and
assign responsibility for accommodating the exchange of data.- DOD's Year 2000
Management Plan places responsibility on component heads or their designated
Year 2000 points of contact to document and obtain system interface
agreements in the form of Memorandums of Agreement (MOA) or the

Many of the systems which SSG supports exchange data with other DOD
components and with external partners. The system managers who are
responsible for maintaining and supporting SSG's standard systems establish
and control system interface messages with internal and external interfacing
partners by means of MOAs. However, there are other interface message
formats which are dictated by entities that are outside of SSG's and the Air
Force's control. This factor could hamper SSG's progress towards completing
programming tasks since the date formats are not controlled by SSG or its
interface partners.

SSG Had Not Initially
Addressed System Interfaces

Prior to our review, the SSG Year 2000 Project Office had not been identifying
and monitoring the status of the individual systems' interfaces. As the
management and resolution of interface issues is the responsibility of the
system managers, the Project Office did not track the status of the individual
interfaces apart from the status of the systems which send and receive the
interfaces' messages. At the time of our visit, system managers for three of the
four systems we reviewed had not completed identification of all interfaces or
gained documented concurrence with interface partners regarding interface
message formats. The remaining system-the Precision Measurement Equipment
Laboratory Automated System-did not interface with any other systems.

More recently, the Year 2000 project manager identified problems and noted
disagreements between some interface partners as to whether or not interface
agreements had been completed or even existed. Also, in recognizing the
importance of the interface situation, the SSG technical director implemented a
requirement that all interface file names and transactions be identified. As a
result of these events, the Year 2000 Project Office initiated measures directed
toward more careful oversight of the individual interfaces.

10                          GAO/AIMD-97-120R Air Force SSG Year 2000 Effort
Some Interface Formats Are
Beyond SSG's Ability to Control
While SSG has begun dealing with interface issues, there are other issues
associated with interface standards that are beyond its control. For example,
some SSG systems must accommodate military standards 9 for exchanging data,
and some systems process electronic commerce/electronic data interchange
transactions (EC/EDI). The Year 2000 date format standards for the EC/EDI
transactions and the format for some Military Standard Transportation and
Movement Procedures (MILSTAMP)' 0 transactions had not been finalized at the
time of our review. These situations are beyond SSG's control since EC/EDI
standards are defined by a large external community" and since the MILSTAMP
formats are defined DOD-wide. Thus, these situations introduce the risk that
SSG may not be able to complete programming changes for some systems as
quickly as it could if these issues were under its direct control or if date format
decisions had already been made. These issues also increase the risk that
system interface programs will require modification at a later date. The
presence of these uncontrollable risks contribute to the necessity for proactive
central oversight of the progress of interface conversions. Time must be
available to allow for contingencies to mitigate these risks and to resolve
conflicts between interfacing partners. Centralized oversight of these risks is
necessary to ensure that contingency plans are established and agreed to if
these message format requirements are not finalized in time to validate and
implement compliant versions of the affected systems.

9 Military
         standards are engineering and technical requirements for processes,
procedures, practices, and methods that have been adopted as standard. They
are created to serve the needs of designers and to control and minimize variety.
'0MILSTAMP transaction formats are defined according to military standards.
"EC/EDI formats are determined by a committee which is accredited by the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI). This committee is called the
Accredited Standards Committee (ASC) X12, and has responsibility for ANSI
standards for electronic data interchange. It is composed of representatives
from private industry, finance, and governmental entities, etc. Various
subcommittees develop new standards that become recommendations to the full
ASC X12 membership. The approximately 1,000 members, according to a
formal procedure, vote on changes to established data formats.

11                           GAO/AIMD-97-120R Air Force SSG Year 2000 Effort

SSG Officials Have Begun
Addressing Interface Issues

During our review, SSG Year 2000 Project Office officials indicated that they
have placed added emphasis on overseeing interface issues by assigning staff
with experience in quality and performance measures to monitor the progress
of the Year 2000 systems interface resolutions. The staff is specifically
responsible for establishing reporting requirements and measurable performance
indicators as part of SSG's interface management and oversight plans. Project
Office staff are also to become involved with interface negotiations if system
managers are unable to contact external entities or if they are unable to reach
agreement with interface partners. These efforts should help to ensure that
interface message formats are established and documented.

We are encouraged by SSG Year 2000 Project Office officials' recent efforts to
address the systems interface issue. If effectively implemented by the Project
Office, these efforts should help prevent the loss of operational capabilities
between SSG's internal and external systems' interface message formats at the
year 2000. SSG has an established, disciplined process in place for effectively
developing, maintaining, and supporting the Air Force's standardized systems
and has established an approach to handling Year 2000-specific problems.
Therefore, SSG should be better able to deal with the systems-related problems
associated with the transition to the year 2000. However, the remaining
phases-the validation and implementation phases-of the Year 2000 transition
period will introduce new risks and challenges to the effective management of
this problem. SSG officials will need to (1) maintain the same level of effort
and discipline that they are currently directing towards managing the Year 2000
problem and (2) continue to improve their management approach as new or
unanticipated issues arise.


In written comments on a draft of this report, the Air Force concurred with our
findings. The full text of the Air Force's comments are provided in enclosure I.

We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to our audit team by SSG
officials and staff. We are providing copies of this letter to the Chairman and
Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs;
the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the Subcommittee on Oversight
of Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia, Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Subcommittee on Government

12                            GAO/AIMD-97-120R Air Force SSG Year 2000 Effort

Management, Information and Technology, House Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight; the Honorable Thomas M. Davis, IIIm, House of
Representatives; the Deputy Secretary of Defense; the Acting Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller); the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control,
Communications and Intelligence); the Secretary of the Air Force; the
Commander, Air Force Materiel Command; the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget; and other interested parties. Copies will be made
available to others upon request.

If you have any questions about this letter, please contact me at (202) 512-6240,
or John Stephenson, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-6225. Major contributors to
this report are listed in enclosure II.

Sincerely yours,

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


13                          GAO/AIMD-97-120R Air Force SSG Year 2000 Effort
ENCLOSURE I                                                                                             ENCLOSURE I

                                          DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE                                     u.s.   R
                                          HEAJDQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
                                                     WASHINGTON, DOC

                                                                                          0 5 AUG1997

                             FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
                             GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
              FROM: HQ USAF/SC
                    1250 Air Force Pentagon
                    Washington DC 20330-1250
              SUBJECT:      GAO Draft Report, DEFENSE COMPUTERS: SSG Needs to Sustain Year 2000
                            Progress (GAO Code 511620)
                      Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft assessment of Year 2000 (Y2K)
              efforts at the Standard Systems Group (SSG). We concur with your findings as written.
                      Some of your findings verify similar findings identified by the Air Force Audit Agency
              (AFAA) in their report, Inventory Status for the Year 2000 Program Project 97066018. Like
              you, AFAA auditors highlighted the need for Air Force organizations to not only assess and fix
              internal systems interfaces, but also to coordinate with other organizations to ensure external
              interfaces are addressed. Fixing the Y2K problem is the Air Force's top software sustainment
              issue-fix it before we fix anything else. Our objective is to fix Y2K problems by 1 Jan 99, so we
              have a year to wring out the interfaces with other systems and work last minute issues.
                     My point of contact for this draft report is Ms. Cynthia Crutchfield, CIO Support Office,
              (703) 695-1667. E-mail: ccrutch(af.pentagon.mil.


                                     Golden Legacy. Bouwdess Fure.. Youa NMaion's Air Force

14                                             GAO/AIMD-97-120R Air Force SSG Year 2000 Effort
ENCLOSURE II                                                            ENCLOSURE II



Ronald B. Bageant, Assistant Director
Carl M. Urie, Technical Advisor
Brenda A. James, Senior Information Systems Analyst
Cristina T. Chaplain, Communications Analyst


Teresa F. Tucker, Evaluator-in-Charge
Christopher T. Brannon, Evaluator


15                                      GAO/AIMD-97-120R Air Force SSG Year 2000 Effort