oversight

Defense Computers: Technical Support Is Key to Naval Supply Year 2000 Success

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1997-10-21.

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

United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20648

Accounting and Information
Management Division



B-278 104


October 21, 1997

Rear Admiral Donald E. Hickman, Commander
Naval Supply Systems Command
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055

Subject:    Defense Comnuters: Technical Sunnort Is Kev to Naval Sunnlv Year 2000
            Success

Dear Rear Admiral Hickman:

On September 24, 1997, we discussed with members of your staff the results of our
review to date of the Naval Supply Systems Command’s (NAVSUP)’ efforts to
address the Year 2000 computer problem. NAVSUP is using the services of its
primary central design activity (CDA)-the Navy Fleet Material Support Office
(F’MSO)-as a major component of its efforts to develop and implement Year 2000
systems solutions. The Year 2000 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 to indicate the year. Unless corrected, this
problem could cause those systems under NAVSUP’s responsibility to malfunction
or produce incorrect information when the year 2000 is encountered during
automated data processing. The impact of these failures would be widespread,
costly, and potentially debilitating to important Navy supply missions, including
NAVSUP’s management and control over repair parts, components, and assemblies
that are required to maintain the operations of ships, aircraft, and weapons for the
entire Navy.

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


‘NAVSUP is located in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. NAVSUP’s mission is to
provide supply support to the U.S. Navy forces worldwide. F’MSO, which is a major
field activity of NAVSUP and also located at Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, provides
information systems support for the functional areas under NAVSUP’s
responsibility.

                              GAO/AlMD-98-7R Navy NAVSUP/FMSO Year 2000
B-278104                                                                               ‘,

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 FMSO’s efforts to correct the Year
2000 problems in NAVSUP’s standard systems and (2) whether FMSO can
reasonably ensure that standard systems under its responsibility are compliant in
time to process Year 2000 data.

RESULTS IN BRIEF

NAVSUP managers have recognized the importance of solving the Year 2000
problem and understand that failure to implement successful solutions could
seriously impact the Navy’s support mission. To ensure that the Year 2000 problem
is resolved, NAVSUP is using the services of FMSO to aid in developing and
implementing Year 2000 systems solutions and to supplement the Year 2000
management and oversight responsibilities of NAVSUP headquarters. FMSO has
been assessed as a Capability Maturity Model (CMM) level 3 development
organization,’ which indicates that it can realistically plan and manage software
development and maintenance projects, such as the Year 2000 project, across the
organization.

At the time of our review, NAVSUP and FMSO both had made considerable
progress towards addressing the Year 2000 problem in NAVSUP’s corporate
systems, including (1) developing a Year 2000 strategy, (2) assigning responsibility
to Year 2000 project managers at both NAVSUP and FMSO, and (3) staffing a Year
2000 Project Office. FiVlSOhas also developed and is applying a six-phased
methodology to manage efforts to resolve Year 2000 computing problems. This
approach is based on the generally accepted government five-phased methodology,
which has been adopted by DOD. The steps included in this methodology are also
consistent with our structured approach for planning, managing, and evaluating
Year 2000 programs.

During our review, however, we determined that NAVSUP had not allocated \
sufficient resources to the FMSO Year 2000 Project Office to ensure that all systems
interfaces were identified and adequately monitored for progress. Also, NAVSUP
had not directed that risk assessments be performed or that contingency plans be


“CMM 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 that
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.

 2                             GAO/AlMD-98-7R Navy NAVSUP/FMSO Year 2000
B-278104
prepared at the system and functional levels. As a result of the concerns we raised,
NAVSUP and FMSO officials have begun addressing system interface issues by
assigning full-time staff to identify date-related data elements in interface files and
ensure that date formats are compatible. These actions, together with NAVSUP’s
plans for requiring systems managers to perform risk assessments and develop
contingency plans for critical systems, should help mitigate against the loss of
operational capability at the year 2000. As NAVSUP progresses to the renovation,
validation (testing), and implementation phases of the Year 2000 program, continued
attention to these issues will be necessary to better ensure that the Year 2000
challenge is met.

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

During our review, we compared ongoing Year 2000 activities that were being
conducted by NAVSUP and FMSO to the suggested tasks described in our Year 2000
Assessment Guide3 and DOD’s Year 2000 Management Plan” to assess the adequacy
of efforts to correct the Year 2000 problem. To perform this assessment, we met
with the NAVSUP and FMSO Year 2000 project managers to obtain an
understanding of their requirements for managing Year 2000 problems. We
reviewed FMSO’s Year 2000 certification and testing policies and procedures,
technical assessment guidelines, and database management practices. We also
reviewed the Year 2000 Project Manager’s Plan of Action and Milestones for the
NAVSUP standard systems that FMSO supports to determine the reasonableness of
the schedule and time frames associated with the appropriate phases of their Year
2000 plan.

In evaluating the process for correcting the Year 2000 problem, we reviewed
FMSO’s project plans and obtained detailed information about the strategy and
plans for renovating, testing, and implementing NAVSUP’s corporate systems. We
also reviewed and evaluated the systems’century compliance and testing criteria
established by the FMSO Year 2000 Project Office and reviewed the documented
requirements for risk assessments and contingency planning. We discussed the
Mechanicsburg Defense megacenter’s5role in supporting Year 2000 systems


“Year 2000 Commuting Crisis: An Assessment Guide (Exposure Draft) (GAO/AlMD-
10.1.14,February 1997).
‘Department of Defense Year 2000 Management Plan (Version 1.0, April 1997).

“Defense megacenters are large computing facilities owned and operated by the
Defense Information Systems Agency. FMSO relies on the megacenter at
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, to provide mainframe computing facilities and to
support its mainframe operational and systems requirements.

3                              GAO/ALMD-98-7R Navy NAVSUP/FMSO Year 2000
B-278104
maintenance and validation efforts to obtain information related to the progress
being made towards the integrated and operational compliance of mainframe
application systems. We used this information to determine whether FMSO could
reasonably deliver the affected software to NAVSUP’s user community prior to Year
2000 impact.

Our review did not include an evaluation of the actions that NAVSUP and FMSO are
taking to ensure that components of NAVSUP’s internal infrastructure, such as
security and telephone systems, are Year 2000 compliant. We also did not review
nonstandard computer systems applications, which are developed outside the
purview of NAVSUP or FMSO, such as systems that may be developed locally by
Navy base-level personnel or systems that FMSO supports for functional areas other
than NAVSUP. We conducted our work between August 1996 and May 1997 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of Defense or
his designee. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and
Technology) provided written comments, which are discussed in the “Agency
Comments” section and are reprinted in enclosure I.

BACKGROUND

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 on electronic data storage and reduce operating costs. With this
two-digit format, however, the year 2000 is indistinguishable from 1900, or 2001
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. Accordingly, since NAVSUP computers
use dates to perform a variety of complex operations, such as scheduling material
deliveries, paying invoices, and processing stock orders, it is essential that dates are
correct.

NAVSUP is the headquarters for 19 field activities responsible for the Navy’s supply-
related logistics and manages the Naval Inventory Control Point (ICP),” the eight




‘ICP is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and consists of two sites
located in Mechanicsburg and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. ICP controls over
400,000 line items of repair parts, components, and assemblies that are required to
maintain the operations of ships, aircraft, and weapons.

 4                              GAO/AIMD-98-7R Navy NAVSUP/FMSO Year 2000
B-278104

Fleet and Industrial Supply Centers (FISCS),~and FMSO. NAVSUP provides
information systems support for the ICPs and FISCs through I+lSO, which has
responsibility for the design, development, and maintenance of NAVSUP’s core
computing infrastructure of 18 major corporate information systems supporting
numerous activities in the functional areas of logistics, transportation, finance and
accounting, and inventory math modeling. FMSO has responsibility for resolving
the Year 2000 problems associated with those systems, which are used by U.S. Navy
forces worldwide.

Should the NAVSUP computer systems that are supported by FMSO fail because of
the Year 2000 problem, many Naval supply operations could be impacted by
incorrect data processing. For example, FMSO provides systems support for ICPs
that have responsibility for providing repair parts, components, and assemblies that
keep ships, aircraft, and weapons operating. Further, in addressing the Year 2000
problem, PESO 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 which NAVSUP and FMSO do
business. Collectively, these systems are critical to carrying out the Navy’s mission.

FMSO operates as a fee-for-service CDA under the Navy Working Capital l3md.8 As
such, its functional owners fund most systems’development and maintenance
through service-level agreements (SLAs).g FMSO officials told us that its fiscal year
1997 SLAs contained provisions for correcting Year 2000 problems. By ensuring
that future SLAs are negotiated to contain similar provisions, FMSO should be in a
better position to successfully address necessary Year 2000 changes.




%XSCsprovide a variety of logistics support services and products to the Navy and
other military customers.

me Navy Working Capital F’und, 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.
‘SLAs are components of the fee-for-service billing arrangement. SLAs represent
contracts between F’MSO (or any other development organization) and its
customers. The number of hours spent on a task are tracked and the customer is
billed at a standard rate per hour.

5                             GAO/AIMD-98-7R Navy NAVSUP/FMSO Year 2000
B-278 104

In February 1997, we published the Year 2000 Commuting Crisis: An Assessment
Guide, which 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 follows.

-       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 impact on the enterprise. Identify core
        business areas and processes, inventory and analyze systems supporting the
        core business areas, and rank 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.

    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 on the
    program and project levels.

    CURRENT STATUS OF
    NAVSUP YEAR 2000 EFFORTS

    NAVSUP has taken several steps to address the Year 2000 problem affecting
    systems that support the Navy’s mission. In response to DOD’s guidance calling for

    6                                GAO/AIMD-98-7R Navy NAVSUP/FMSO Year 2000
B-278104
individual components to implement their own Year 2000 programs, in April 1996,
NAVSUP appointed a Year 2000 Project Manager with responsibility for setting
overall policy, strategy, and priorities. NAVSUP’s Year 2000 Project Manager is also
to address funding issues, monitor progress, and respond to all external data calls
and reporting requirements.

In January 1996, NAVSUP also engaged the services of its primary CDA-the Navy
FMSO-as a major component of its efforts to develop and implement Year 2000
systems solutions. FMSO has been assessed by an independent external entity as a
Capability Maturity Model (CMM) level 3 development organization indicating that it
h.as the capability to realistically plan and manage software development and
maintenance projects across the organization, such as resolution of the Year 2000
problem.

F’MSO began its Year 2000 program formally” by appointing a Year 2000 Project
Manager in April 1996 and staffing a Year 2000 Project Office in January 1997. The
Project Office is responsible for managing and overseeing the progress of efforts to
correct problems associated with processing date-sensitive data when the year 2000
is encountered, including ensuring that performance metrics are developed and
monitored. The PESO Year 2000 Project Manager is responsible for the majority of
FMSO’s Year 2000 effort and has day-to-day responsibility for Year 2000 initiatives,
including the conversion, testing, and implementation of the renovated systems
along with providing technical support to the field sites.

As of May 1997, F’MSO had completed an overall assessment of the Year 2000
impact on the 18 major corporate systems that it supports for NAVSUP. The
assessment disclosed that 16 of the 18 systems would be impacted by the Year 2000
problem. Of the 16 systems, FMSO reported that 8 were in the assessment phase, 2
were in the renovation phase, 2 were in the validation phase, and 4 were being
rehosted” or decommissioned. The remaining two systems were reported as Year
2000 compliant. NAVSUP has estimated that it will cost approximately $12 million


“NAVSUP officials began addressing Year 2000 changes several years ago as it
became evident that NAVSUP systems would need to process supply requisition and
delivery dates that extended beyond the year 1999. These changes had been
handled as part of F’MSO’sregular systems maintenance activities.

“Rehosting systems involves the movement of systems from one platform to
another. Modifications are made to upgrade the rehosted systems to new
technology-i.e., from mainframe to client/server environments, to new database
structures, etc. The systems themselves are not modified for reasons other than
compatibility with the new environment, and the functionality of the systems is not
changed.

                              GAO/AIMD-98-7R Navy NAVSUP/FMSO Year 2000
B-278104
to convert the 16 systems, which consist of approximately 16 million lines of code,
to meet Year 2000 requirements.

The FMSO Project Office developed and is implementing for NAVSUP a
management-level Year 2000 strategy that is consistent with the five-phased
government methodology, the DOD Year 2000 Management Plan, and our Year 2000
Assessment Guide. While FMSO’s strategy includes the generally accepted five
phases (awareness, assessment, renovation, validation, and implementation), it also
provides a sixth system-level analysis and strategy development phase to be
completed between the assessment and renovation phases. The system-level
analysis completed during this phase is to result in a list of all the impacted date-
related data elements for the systems along with the actions that must be taken to
ensure that data elements will maintain their functional and operational integrity
with Year 2000 dates. The FMSO Year 2000 Project Office staff included this phase
to provide time to compile and study the information collected during the
assessment phase. This information will be used during the systems’conversion
phases.

At the time of our review, the FMSO Year 2000 Project Manager had begun visiting
field sites in order to survey the computing environment and to educate field
personnel about the impact of the year 2000 on their systems. As part of this effort,
FMSO hoped to identify problems with hardware, commercial off-the-shelf software,
locally- or contractor-developed programs, system software, and the facilities
themselves. According to NAVSUP’s Year 2000 strategy, assistance teams are to
visit all field sites at least twice before the year 2000.

SYSTEM INTERFACES ARE A MAJOR
FMSO YEAR 2000 PROJECT OFFICE ISSUE

Throughout the computing environment that FMSO supports, many Navy systems,
including NAVSUP’s, exchange data with both internal and external entities,
including other DOD components. It is crucial that these data be compatible with
both the sending and receiving systems to ensure the systems’operational
capabilities. Conflicting interface message formats could potentially introduce and
propagate errors from one system to another. Therefore, it is critical that, during
the Year 2000 effort, agencies protect against this potential to ensure that
interfacing 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 method of interface and assign
responsibility for accommodating the data exchange. 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 (MOAs) or the equivalent.


 8                             GAO/AIMD-98-7R Navy NAVSUP/FMSO Year 2000
B-278104
We found, however, that FMSO initially had not been identifying and monitoring the
interfaces between the systems that exchange such data. Moreover, there are other
interface message formats that are dictated by entities outside of FMSO’s and the
Navy’s control. This factor could potentially hamper FMSO’s progress towards
completing programming tasks since the date formats are not controlled by FMSO
or its interface partners. Recently, F’MSO has increased its oversight of the
interface issue, including directing the completion of MOAs for all systems affected
by the year 2000, and has taken positive steps toward reducing the risk that
interfaces will cause operational problems.

Prior to our review, the FMSO Year 2000 Project Office was not monitoring the
status of individual systems interfaces and had not determined whether all
interfaces had been identified. FMSO did not have a baseline inventory of system
interfaces, and system managers had not identified or contacted their interface
partners as part of their system assessments. Also, there are other issues
associated with interface standards that are beyond FMSO’s control. For example,
some FMSO systems must accommodate military standards” for exchanging data.
This situation is beyond FMSO’s control since the military standards are defined
DOD-wide. As such, the possible introduction of new military standards would
result in devastating effects on the progress being made towards the Year 2000
problem resolution at NAVSUP and F’MSO. The presence of this uncontrollable
factor contributes to the necessity for proactive central oversight of interface
conversion progress. 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 change without
time to validate and implement compliant versions of the affected systems.

During our review, FMSO officials indicated that they had placed added emphasis
on overseeing interface issues and directed the completion of MOAs with interface
partners for all affected systems. The FMSO Year 2000 Project Office had begun to
implement practices to help identify conflicts between interfacing systems and was
planning to develop procedures to monitor progress towards successful resolutions.
For example, FMSO is assigning responsibility over each affected system to full-
time staff for identifying related interface files and the date-related data elements in
those files. Once the assessment phase is completed and the system-level analysis
and strategy development phase is begun for each system, FMSO staff plan to issue
letters to the interfacing activities proposing a format that is compatible with the
systems’internal processes. These actions, together with NAVSUP’s plans for


‘“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 variety.
                               GAO/AIMD-98-7R Navy NAVSUPIFMSO Year 2000
B-278104
requiring risk assessments and contingency plans, which is discussed in the
following section, should help mitigate the risk introduced by the concern that
military standards could change before the year 2000.

NAVSUP HAS AGREED TO PERFORM RISK
ASSESSMENTSAND PREPARE CONTINGENCY PLANS

During our review, we raised concerns that NAVSUP officials did not plan to
require the performance of Year 2000 risk assessments or the preparation of
contingency plans. NAVSUP officials contended that it would not be necessary to
develop contingency plans since their critical systems had to be operational by the
year 2000. While risk analyses are performed on a detailed data element level as
part of FMSO’s software development process, they were not being required at an
infrastructure level or of the field sites, which use the FMSO-supported systems.
The NAVSUP and FMSO Year 2000 project managers had begun to consider
operational and technical alternatives for their systems and organizations in the
event that the systems were not compliant by the year 2000, but they had not yet
organized and documented these plans.

U. S. Navy forces worldwide depend upon NAVSUP to support logistics services,
including supply operations and information systems that control prompt delivery of
stock and supply orders. Without documented risk assessments and contingency
plans to mitigate risks at every phase of the Year 2000 transition period, the Navy
logistics community remains vulnerable to the loss of operational capability due to
Year 2000 system errors. DOD’s Year 2000 Management Plan and our Year 2000
Assessment Guide call on agencies to develop risk management and contingency
strategies as part of their Year 2000 management plans. Contingency plans are
necessary to ensure the continuity of core business processes and are important
because they identify the manual and contract procedures to be employed should
some critical systems miss their Year 2000 deadlines. Likewise, risk management
policies are necessary to minimize the risk associated with time and resource
insufficiencies during the transition period-i.e., the risk that system changes may
not be completed on time. Agencies must also manage the risk that system failures
may increase as the year 2000 approaches. These plans should be documented,
distributed, and updated throughout the Year 2000 transition.

As a result of the concerns we raised, NAVSUP officials have agreed to require
system managers to perform risk assessments and to prepare contingency plans for
critical systems. NAVSUP officials solicited an internal management cadre for
assistance with developing organizational- and systems-level Year 2000 contingency
plans. They indicated that contingency plans will be prepared at the functional,
systems (including interfaces), and management levels to help ensure that
operational capability is not compromised due to problems associated with
processing date-sensitive data. NAVSUP has also developed a Year 2000 risk

 10                            GAO/AIMD-98-7R Navy NAVSUP/FMSO Year 2000
B-278104
management plan that includes requirements for risk analyses to address several
areas of concern, including corporate strategy, human resources, project
management, and systems implementation. The risk management plan recognizes
the risks associated with interfacing with third parties that are not Year 2000-
compliant and with supplier-provided software that may not be Year 2000-
compliant. If NAVSUP successfully manages the risks inherent in the Year 2000
problem resolution and implements its requirements that both functional- and
system-level contingency plans are developed, the likelihood that operational
capability will be lost due to problems created by Year 2000-related system errors
should be minimal.

CONCLUSIONS

We are encouraged by the NAVSUP and F’MSO Project Office officials’ efforts to
address the systems interface, risk assessment, and contingency planning issues. If
effectively implemented by the project offices, these efforts should be positive steps
toward preventing the loss of operational capabilities at the year 2000. FMSO has
an established, disciplined software process in place for effectively developing and
maintaining NAVSUP’s standard supply systems and has established an approach to
handling Year 2000-specific problems. Therefore, F’MSO should be better able to
deal with the system-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. NAVSUP and F’MSOYear 2000 officials
need to maintain the level of effort and discipline that they are currently directing
toward managing the Year 2000 problem and to continue to improve their
management approach as new or unanticipated issues arise.

AGENCY COMMENTS

The Department of Defense concurred with a draft of this report.



We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to our audit team by
NAVSUP and F’MSO officials and staff. We are providing copies of this letter to the
Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs; the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
Restructuring and the District of Columbia, Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs; and the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and
Technology, House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. We are also
sending copies to the Honorable Thomas M. Davis, III, House of Representatives;
the Secretary of Defense; the Deputy Secretary of Defense; the Acting Under
Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology); the Acting Under Secretary of         .

11                             GAO/AIMD-98-7R Navy NAVSUPFMSO Year 2000
B-278104

Defense (Comptroller); the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command,
Control, Communications and Intelligence); the Secretary of the Navy; the
Commander, Fleet Material Support Office; 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 on matters discussed in this letter, please call me or
John B. Stephenson, Assistant Director at (202) 512-6240. Major contributors to this
report are listed in enclosure II.

Sincerely yours,




Director, Defense Information and
   Financial Management Systems




 12                            GAO/AIMD-98-7R Navy NAVSUPFMSO Year 2000
ENCLOSURE I                                                                                            ENCLOSURE I
                COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE




                             OFFICE    OF THE UNDER        SECRETARY       OF DEFENSE
                                              3oGa DEFENSE   PENTAGON
                                             WASHINGTON    DC 20301-3000




              Mr. Gene L. Dodaro
              Assistant Comptroller General
              Accounting and Information Management Division
              U. S. General Accounting Office
              Washington, DC 20548

              Dear Mr. Dodaro:

                   This is the Department of Defense (DOD) responseto the General Accounting Oftice
              (GAO) draft report. “DEFENSE COMPUTERS: Technical Support is Key to Naval Supply Year
              2000 Success.”dated September26, 1997 (GAO Code 5 11625/OSDCase 1471).

                    DOD has reviewed the GAO report on the Naval Supply Systems Command’s (NAVSUP)
              efforts to addressthe Year 2Mx) computer problem. DOD concurs with the report.

                   DOD appreciatesyour interest in helping to assessthe Department’s Year 2000 problems.
              The DOD primary action officer for this case is Dr. Elizabeth Rodriguez-Johnsonat (703) 68 I-
              4.541.

                                                          Sincerely,




                                                          Phtricia Sanders
                                                          Director, Test, Systems
                                                          Engineering and Evaluation




13                                                  GAO/AIMD-987R Navy NAVSUP/FMSO Year 2000
ENCLOSURE II                                                     ENCLOSURE II

                      MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT


ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT DMSION. WASHINGTON. D.C.

Ronald B. Bageant, Assistant Director
Carl M. Urie, Technical Advisor
Cristina T. Chaplain, Communications Analyst

ATLANTA REGIONAL OFFICE

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




 (511625)




 14                                     GAO/AlMD-9%7R Navy NAVSUP/FMSO Year 2000
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 37050
Washington, DC 20013

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 (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

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
United States
General Accounting Of&e
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business
Penalty for Private   Use $300

Address Correction    Requested