Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Defense Has Made Progress, But Additional Management Controls Are Needed

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1999-03-02.

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

                          United States General Accounting Office

GAO                       Testimony
                          Before the Subcommittee on Government Management,
                          Information and Technology, Committee on Government
                          Reform, and the Subcommittee on Technology, Committee
                          on Science, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at               YEAR 2000 COMPUTING
10 a.m.


March 2, 1999

                          Defense Has Made
                          Progress, But Additional
                          Management Controls Are
                          Statement of Jack L. Brock, Jr.
                          Director, Governmentwide and Defense Information
                          Accounting and Information Management Division

Mr. Chaiman, Ms. Chairwoman, and Members of the Subcommittees:

Thank you for inviting me to participate in today’s hearing on the
Department of Defense’s (DOD) efforts to confront the Year 2000 problem.
This dilemma is particularly daunting for Defense for two reasons. First,
Defense’s size and scope of operations, criticality of mission, and heavy
reliance on a diverse portfolio of information technology is unparalleled in
either the public or private sector. Second, despite considerable progress
in the last 3 months, Defense is still well behind schedule. This is largely
because Defense did not have the necessary oversight and management
framework for handling large-scale departmentwide information
technology projects.

Defense has recently taken steps to strengthen management of its Year
2000 program by providing the controls and guidance needed to fix and test
systems; it also has appropriately shifted its focus to core business
readiness and operational risks through (1) planning for the performance
of end-to-end tests of key functional area business processes, (2) executing
a series of simulated Year 2000 operational exercises, and (3) conducting
system integration tests at the military service level. Additionally, the
Deputy Secretary has become actively engaged in directing and monitoring
Year 2000 efforts.

We support these actions, but the key to their success rests in putting in
place effective controls for Defense to have the timely and reliable
information to know what is going right and what is going wrong so that
corrective action can be swift and effective. These controls, which our
Year 2000 guides define, require Year 2000 program management to define
the appropriate performance and progress measures and reporting
requirements and to ensure that these requirements are met. For Defense
to minimize risks in the 305 days remaining before the Year 2000 deadline,
it must act quickly and decisively to implement and enforce these controls.

Our testimony today is based on our ongoing review of Defense’s efforts to
solve the Year 2000 computer systems problem, which has spanned DOD
headquarters; the Army, Navy, and Air Force; major components, including
the Defense Logistics Agency, the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service; the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), the Joint Chiefs
of Staff; and central design activities. We also witnessed operational tests
recently conducted at the North American Aerospace Defense Command
(NORAD). Over the past 2 years, we have reviewed Defense’s Year 2000
plans, guidance, and directives; discussed Defense’s efforts with the

Page 1                                                       GAO/T-AIMD-99-101
             Deputy Secretary, many DOD executives, and members of the Defense
             Science Board; and attended DOD Year 2000 Steering Committee meetings.
             We have compared DOD’s efforts to criteria detailed in our Year 2000
                               1                                                   2
             Assessment Guide, Business Continuity and Contingency Planning Guide ,
             and Testing Guide. This guidance offers a structured and disciplined
             approach to developing a Year 2000 program and managing the risk of
             potential Year 2000-induced disruptions to operations. To date, we have
             issued 11 products and provided numerous briefings to Department
             officials and the Congress on this important issue.

             Likewise, auditors for the Department of Defense have been assessing Year
             2000 progress at the military services, Defense agencies, and other DOD
             organizations. Some 142 products have been issued by the Inspector
             General and other DOD auditors. Recently, in December 1998, the
             Inspector General released a report summarizing the results of combined
             Year 2000 audit and inspection coverage of the Department.

Background   Our Year 2000 guidance defines structures and processes for effectively
             managing a Year 2000 program, including (1) establishing central
             accountability and authority for Year 2000 efforts, (2) addressing system
             conversion in the context of core business missions, (3) developing
             institutional plans and guidance governing conversion, testing, and
             contingency planning, and (4) defining requirements for progress reporting.
             These controls are needed because the risk of Year 2000 failure extends
             well beyond an organization’s internal information systems. For example,
             Defense depends on information and data provided by thousands of
             business partners—including other federal agencies, international
             organizations, allies, and private sector contractors. Moreover, it depends
             on services provided by the public infrastructure—including power, water,

              Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment Guide (GAO/AIMD-10.1.14). Published as an exposure
             draft in February 1997 and finalized in September 1997.

               Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Business Continuity and Contingency Planning      (GAO/AIMD-10.1.19).
             Published as an exposure draft in March 1998 and finalized in August 1998.

               Year 2000 Computing Crisis: A Testing Guide (GAO/AIMD-10.1.21). Published as an exposure draft in
             June 1998 and finalized in November 1998.

                 See attachment for a list of GAO products on Defense’s Year 2000 program.

               Summary of DOD Year 2000 Conversion—Audit and Inspection Results (Report No. 99-059,
             December 24, 1998), Office of the Inspector General, Department of Defense.

             Page 2                                                                            GAO/T-AIMD-99-101
transportation, and voice and data telecommunications. Defense also
owns hundreds of thousands of potentially vulnerable infrastructure
devices that may fall outside of the control of an individual unit. These
include, for example, building and base security systems, street lights at
military installations, elevators, and medical equipment.

Last April, we reported that Defense operations were threatened by slow
progress in fixing its mission-critical systems and mitigating Year 2000 risk.
We also reported that Defense did not establish strong management
mechanisms, such as a Year 2000 Program Office and a full-time Year 2000
executive and processes for validating information on component
progress. In addition, it was not addressing conversion efforts within the
context of business areas. Furthermore, Defense did not initially develop a
detailed Year 2000 plan or guidance on developing interface agreements,
testing systems, and reporting on progress. Instead, Defense delegated
responsibility for addressing the problem to its components. Our reviews
of individual component Year 2000 efforts showed that, in turn, the
components delegated this responsibility to subcomponents and likewise
neglected to implement strong management controls.

Our recommendations to Defense focused on supporting remediation
efforts with adequate centralized program management and oversight. For
example, we recommended that DOD establish a strong department-level
program office, led by an executive whose full-time job was to effectively
manage and oversee Year 2000 efforts. This office should, as a minimum,
have sufficient authority to enforce good management practices, direct
resources to specific problem areas, and ensure the validity of data being
reported by components on such things as progress, contingency planning,
and testing.

In view of the Department’s status, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) designated Defense as a “Tier One” agency in May 1998, indicating
that it was making insufficient progress in remediating its systems.
Defense itself designated the Year 2000 effort as one of its most significant
internal management control problems for fiscal year 1998.

The lack of progress in effectively dealing with the Year 2000 problem was
largely rooted in the fundamental weaknesses in managing information

 Defense Computers: Year 2000 Computer Problems Threaten DOD Operations (GAO/AIMD-98-72,
April 30, 1998).

Page 3                                                                 GAO/T-AIMD-99-101
                      technology that have plagued Defense for years. Since 1995, when we first
                      designated Defense’s management of information technology as a high-risk
                      federal program, we have continually reported that Defense did not have
                      controls and processes for (1) ensuring that the costs and risks of
                      multimillion dollar projects are justified, (2) monitoring progress and
                      performance, and (3) stopping projects shown to be cost ineffective or
                      technically flawed. Perhaps the biggest impediment to successful IT
                      projects has been Defense’s organizational environment, which has
                      resisted departmentwide efforts to standardize business processes and
                      information systems and to increase oversight and visibility over
                      information resources.

Actions Taken to      Since our April 1998 report, Defense has implemented our
                      recommendations and taken additional actions to address the Year 2000
Address Weaknesses    dilemma. Moreover, it has engaged top managers in the initiative. For
Have Enhanced DOD’s   example, Defense:

Year 2000 Progress    •      Established a department-level Year 2000 Program Office headed by a
                             full-time executive with a current staff of more than 50.
                      •      Improved its information systems inventory to better track components’
                      •      Increased the frequency of Year 2000 Steering Committee meetings.
                             This committee, headed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, who is an
                             active participant, is charged with reviewing the progress of Defense
                             components, providing guidance, and making decisions on Year 2000
                             issues that have not been resolved at lower levels. When we reported on
                             DOD’s Year 2000 effort in April 1998, the committee was not meeting

                          High-Risk Series: An Overview (GAO/HR-95-1, February 1995).

                        For example, in 1996 we reported that one functional area began, and later abandoned, a substantially
                      flawed effort to develop a standard suite of information systems for materiel management after
                      spending over $700 million without strong oversight. Our reports also found that some functional areas
                      did not account for various categories of significant costs when making their systems decisions or
                      adequately consider alternatives to developing systems in-house. See, Defense IRM: Poor
                      Implementation of Management Controls Has Put Migration Strategy at Risk (GAO/AIMD-98-5,
                      October 20, 1997); DOD Accounting Systems: Efforts to Improve System for Navy Need Overall
                      Structure (GAO/AMD-96-99, September 30, 1996); Defense IRM: Critical Risks Facing New Materiel
                      Management Strategy (GAO/AIMD-96-109, September 6, 1996); Defense Transportation: Migration
                      Systems Selected Without Adequate Analysis (GAO/AIMD-96-81, August 29, 1996); and Defense
                      Management: Selection of Depot Maintenance Standard System Not Based on Sufficient Analyses
                      (GAO/AIMD-95-110, July 13, 1995).

                      Page 4                                                                            GAO/T-AIMD-99-101
•   Required that fiscal year 1999 information technology funding be
    contingent on components (1) ensuring the accuracy of the Year 2000
    database, (2) completing interface agreements, (3) specifying Year 2000
    requirements in contracts, and (4) developing test agreements with
    Defense computer centers. This was done through a series of
    memoranda issued by the Secretary of Defense; the Deputy Secretary of
    Defense; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control,
    Communications, and Intelligence; and the Comptroller in August and
    September 1998.
•   Increased its outreach efforts with state and local governments, as well
    as the international security sector.

While still behind in meeting governmentwide target deadlines, Defense
reports that it is now making much better progress in fixing and testing its
systems. In its February Year 2000 quarterly status report to OMB, Defense
reported that of its 2,387 mission-critical systems

•   1,670 systems, or 70 percent, were compliant,
•   225 systems were going to be replaced or retired,
•   8 systems were being assessed,
•   96 systems were being fixed,
•   226 systems were being tested, and
•   162 systems were being implemented.

Although Defense reports that the number of compliant systems has risen
from about 50 percent to 70 percent since its November 1998 quarterly
status report to OMB, its remediation efforts are still at significant risk.
The number of systems that have fallen behind schedule, for example,
doubled from 65 to 172, and the number not expected to meet OMB’s target
March 31, 1999, completion date almost tripled from 54 to 156.

Furthermore, Defense is behind in terms of renovating its facilities and
installations. Defense’s February 1999 quarterly status report to OMB
showed that only 269 of 638, or 42 percent, of Defense’s installations had
completed necessary Year 2000 corrections. While an additional 317
facilities are to be completed by March 31, 1999, 47 more are not expected
to be done until June 30, 1999, and 5 not until September 30, 1999.
According to Defense, there are another 600-plus buildings used by
Defense, but controlled by the General Services Administration, that are
considered at risk because the lessor has not provided Year 2000 status
information. In addition, Defense does not yet have good data on the

Page 5                                                         GAO/T-AIMD-99-101
                         readiness of its overseas installations, which are dependent on other
                         nations for power, fuel, water, and other important services.

Defense’s Focus Is       While the focus of most agencies has been directed at remediating systems,
                         the real level of Year 2000 assurance needs to be centered on business
Appropriately Shifting   functions. That is, agencies must be able to continue to provide key
to Core Business Areas   services and meet agency mission objectives at an acceptable level of
                         performance. To this end, agencies should now be focusing on end-to-end
                         testing of business processes and developing business continuity plans for
                         those processes. Each of our Year 2000 guides define practices and
                         controls that are founded on first identifying core business processes,
                         mapping mission-critical systems to these processes, and then performing
                         assessment, renovation, testing, and contingency planning within the
                         context of these core business areas.

                         Defense has appropriately shifted its focus toward ensuring the continuity
                         of core business processes and military operations.

                         •   First, in an August 7, 1998, memorandum, the Secretary of Defense
                             directed the Commanders in Chief (CINC) to plan and execute a series
                             of simulated Year 2000 operational exercises. These exercises, which
                             were required by Defense appropriation and authorization legislation,
                             are to assess whether Defense can still perform critical military tasks
                             with system clocks rolled forward to the year 2000, such as ensuring
                             that Defense can continue to perform a strategic early warning mission,
                             deploy and maneuver forces, and employ firepower. Thirty-one such
                             evaluations are scheduled through September 1999.
                         •   Second, Defense is requiring its principal staff assistants (PSAs) to
                             ensure the continuity of key functional area business processes. In
                             response, the PSAs are planning to conduct end-to-end tests to ensure
                             that systems that collectively support core business areas can
                             interoperate as intended in a Year 2000 environment. In an August 24,
                             1998, memorandum, the Deputy Secretary of Defense provided overall

                           The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-262) and the Strom Thurmond
                         National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law No. 105-261) both required
                         Defense to submit a plan to the Congress by December 15, 1998, for the execution of simulated Year
                         2000 exercises. Specifically, Defense is to conduct at least 25 simulation exercises, ensure that each of
                         the Commanders in Chief conducts at least two of these exercises; and ensure that all mission-critical
                         systems that are expected to be used in a major theater of war are tested in at least two exercises.
                         Defense has not yet submitted the required plan to the Congress.

                         Page 6                                                                              GAO/T-AIMD-99-101
    planning requirements and the expectation that all functional plans
    would be completed by November 1, 1999, for five functional areas:
    communications, health/medical, intelligence, logistics, and personnel.
    The Department has since added weapons and finance to those
    functional areas.
•   Third, the military services are conducting integration testing of their
    systems. The testing is intended to build upon completed system’s
    renovation, testing, and certification, and ultimately, to reduce risk and
    ensure the ability to execute critical combat missions in a Year 2000
•   Fourth, Defense directed installation commanders to ensure that all
    installations will be fully functional at the year 2000. These installations
    are, of course, critical to housing both the military and civilian
    workforce as well as the weaponry and supporting activities necessary
    for national defense.
•   Fifth, the Department has initiated regular “synchronization”
    meetings—chaired by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense and
    the Joint Chiefs of Staff Year 2000 Task Force Leader--to improve and
    facilitate coordination of the many activities that cut across
    organizational boundaries.

Because of the need for close integration between the operational and
functional evaluations, we are now reviewing the interaction among the
various tests and evaluating the adequacy of relevant management
controls. While we have not yet finished our comprehensive evaluation of
these tests and controls, we can make several preliminary observations.

•   The initial operational evaluations have been successful. We found the
    guidance provided by the Joint Chiefs of Staff for conducting the
    operations to be well-developed and consistent with our own published
    guidance. Exercises have already been conducted at the North
    American Aerospace Defense (NORAD) Command and the Strategic
    Command. We had the opportunity to observe the planning and
    execution phases of NORAD’s missile warning operational evaluation.
    According to NORAD officials, the purpose of this evaluation was to
    confirm the correct processing of responses to airborne threats systems
    and not to validate every possible threat that could occur. Based on our
    observations, the operational evaluation was well-planned and
    executed. The Year 2000 date rollovers worked properly, and NORAD
    officials were able to recover and continue the mission when testing
    problems occurred. For example, a tape drive failed at one of the sensor
    sites, and fallout from one of the test missiles was incorrectly coded as a

Page 7                                                         GAO/T-AIMD-99-101
                             missile launch. These anomalies, however, were immediately detected
                             and resolved by NORAD officials at the time of the test.
                        •    Since many systems and processes are outside the CINCs’ control, many
                             of the planned evaluations will require extensive support from the
                             functional areas, such as communications and logistics. For example,
                             the Strategic Command’s five phase operational evaluation program will
                             require extensive support from DISA to plan, schedule, and provide on-
                             site technical support for more than 10 DISA-owned systems that make
                             up its communications backbone. One phase of this plan has already
                             been delayed 2 months to await DISA’s installation of Year 2000
                             compatible components. Defense is beginning to work on these kinds of
                             dependencies through the synchronization meetings with the PSAs and
                        •    Our initial reviews of the functional area readiness plans have showed
                             mixed results. For example, while each of the functional plans
                             discusses business functions, supporting systems, and testing
                             requirements, the plans frequently lack important details such as test
                             schedules, completion dates for contingency plans, or detailed mapping
                             of systems and support activities to business functions.

DOD Management          DOD has correctly shifted much of its emphasis on continuity of business
                        processes rather than the status of individual systems. The Year 2000
Needs Better Controls   Steering Committee, chaired by the Deputy Secretary and comprised of top
and Information on      management representatives from each of the services and component

Business Operations     agencies, has been instrumental in overcoming cultural impediments that
                        have historically limited the Department’s ability to respond to information
Readiness               management issues.

                        However, to effectively manage and oversee Year 2000 programs, managers
                        and executive decisionmakers need reliable information about the nature
                        and status of Year 2000 conversion efforts from a core business
                        perspective. This is not available in DOD. Our Year 2000 guides recognize
                        the importance of such information. Accordingly, the guides provide for
                        establishing formal reporting mechanisms early in the Year 2000 program
                        life cycle and using the information reported to oversee and control
                        program efforts. Additionally, the guides describe the need to specify the
                        content and format of the reports and the reporting frequency and to

                          Defense Information Management: Continuing Implementation Challenges Highlight the Need for
                        Improvement (GAO/T-AIMD-99-93, February 25, 1999).

                        Page 8                                                                      GAO/T-AIMD-99-101
establish management controls (e.g., the use of quality assurance and
independent verification and validation groups) to ensure that the
information being reported is reliable.

The Department’s controls and reporting mechanisms are primarily still
centered around individual systems. Although the functional areas and
commands have been instructed to develop testing and contingency plans
based on business functions, the DOD Year 2000 management plan and its
supporting guidance have not been updated to reflect reporting and control
mechanisms that should be in place to reinforce this evolutionary shift in

It is conceivable that each component, each command, and each function is
developing appropriate plans with an appropriate level of control to ensure
that the right thing is being done at the right time. But there is simply no
mechanism in place right now to provide this assurance, and our initial
reviews of the functional plans suggest uneven levels of planning and
execution across the Department.

The Department clearly needs greater visibility into the status of core
business processes throughout the agency. Specifically, within the context
of each core business area the Department should determine the

•   status of each supporting information system critical to that process,
    including its schedule for remediation and testing;
•   source and Year 2000 status of any suppliers or vendors critical to that
•   outside dependencies (such as electrical power) that affect readiness;
•   interfaces with other processes and outside organizations;
•   scope and schedule of end-to-end testing for the process; and
•   scope and schedule for business continuity planning for that process.

For any of these elements that are behind schedule, Defense needs to know
what steps will be taken to get back on schedule or what steps will be
taken to minimize the risks associated with their delay.

Once these assessments are complete, top management can develop an
overall perspective of readiness, identify gaps or unnecessary overlaps
among individual components, reallocate resources, and develop
comprehensive business continuity plans that cut across organizational

Page 9                                                       GAO/T-AIMD-99-101
                       Additionally, the Department needs greater assurance that the information
                       being provided is consistent both in terms of content and accuracy. To this
                       end the Department should

                       •    provide standard expectations for both content and reporting
                            requirements and performance metrics for all the above elements and
                       •    establish control mechanisms to provide assurance that reported
                            information is complete and accurate.

Defense Has Good       The immediate focus for Defense over the next 305 days should be on
                       ensuring implementing and enforcing controls that focus on ensuring the
Opportunity to Apply   continuity of operations into 2000. However, in the long term, Defense has
Year 2000 Lessons      a unique opportunity to capitalize on the valuable lessons it has learned in

Learned to Future      its Year 2000 effort and apply them to its overall management of
                       information technology. Doing so can enable the Department to acquire
Information            and deploy high performing, cost-effective systems and to avoid repeating
Technology             costly mistakes. For example:

Investments            •    Defense has learned that Year 2000 efforts cannot succeed without the
                            involvement of top-level managers, including the Deputy Secretary,
                            senior information management officials, the Comptroller, PSAs, and
                            decisionmakers at Defense components. Best practices      have shown
                            that top executives need to be similarly engaged in periodic assessments
                            of major information technology investments in order to prioritize
                            projects and make sound funding decisions. Such involvement is also
                            critical to breaking down cultural and organizational impediments that
                            hamper Defense-wide IT efforts.
                       •    Defense has realized that having a complete and accurate
                            enterprisewide information systems inventory can facilitate
                            remediation, testing, and validation efforts. Maintaining a reliable, up-
                            to-date system inventory is also fundamental to well-managed
                            information technology programs since it can provide senior managers
                            with timely and accurate information on system costs, schedule, and
                       •    Defense has spent 3 years identifying system interfaces and
                            implementing controls at the system level to prevent proliferation of

                         Executive Guide: Improving Mission Performance Through Strategic Information Management and
                       Technology (GAO/AIMD-94-115, May 1994) and Assessing Risks and Returns: A Guide for Evaluating
                       Federal Agencies’ IT Investment Decision-making (GAO/AIMD-10.1.13, February 1997).

                       Page 10                                                                    GAO/T-AIMD-99-101
                          Year 2000 problems between systems. This effort should help Defense
                          to prevent future data exchange problems in its systems and resolve
                          conflicts between interface partners.
                      •   Defense has made some progress in identifying and prioritizing its
                          mission-critical systems and is expected to further prioritize as
                          operational and functional evaluations highlight the systems that are
                          truly critical to Defense operations. Once the Year 2000 effort is
                          completed, Defense can use this information to further identify and
                          retire duplicative or unproductive systems.

Conclusions           The Year 2000 program has been demanding on Defense because of the size
                      and scope of its operations and its heavy reliance on information
                      technology, but also because it began the effort with weak and
                      undisciplined information technology management processes. Defense has
                      since made strides in meeting this challenge under the leadership of the
                      Deputy Secretary, garnering the involvement of DOD-wide managers, PSAs,
                      CINCs, and component executives; putting controls and mechanisms in
                      place to facilitate system renovations; and undertaking the formidable task
                      of conducting operational exercises and end-to-end tests on functional

                      However, DOD still faces two significant challenges and a fast approaching
                      deadline. First, the Department must still “catch up” and complete
                      remediation and testing of mission-critical systems. Second, it must have a
                      reasonable level of assurance that key processes (functional areas) will
                      continue to work on a day-to-day basis and key operational missions
                      necessary for national defense can be successfully accomplished. Such
                      assurance can only be provided if the Department takes steps to improve
                      its visibility over the status of key business processes. This information is
                      critical to identify those areas where it faces the greatest risk of failure and
                      critical to providing the necessary data for preparing overall business
                      continuity plans.

                      Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any
                      questions you or Members of the Subcommittee may have.

              Leter   Page 11                                                        GAO/T-AIMD-99-101

List of GAO Products That Address DOD's
Year 2000 Problem                                                                               AppeIx

                     Defense Computers: DOD’s Plan for Execution of Simulated Year 2000
                     Exercises (GAO/AIMD-99-52R, January 29, 1999).

                     Defense Computers: Year 2000 Computer Problems Put Navy Operations at
                     Risk (GAO/AIMD-98-150, June 30, 1998).

                     Defense Computers: Army Needs to Greatly Strengthen Its Year 2000
                     Program (GAO/AIMD-98-53, May 29, 1998).

                     Defense Computers: Year 2000 Computer Problems Threaten DOD
                     Operations (GAO/AIMD-98-72, April 30, 1998).

                     Defense Computers: Air Force Needs to Strengthen Year 2000 Oversight
                     (GAO/AIMD-98-35, January 16, 1998).

                     Defense Computers: Technical Support Is Key to Naval Supply Year 2000
                     Success (GAO/AIMD-98-7R, October 21, 1997).

                     Defense Computers: LSSC Needs to Confront Significant Year 2000 Issues
                     (GAO/AIMD-97-149, September 26, 1997).

                     Defense Computers: SSG Needs to Sustain Year 2000 Progress (GAO/
                     AIMD-97-120R, August 19, 1997).

                     Defense Computers: Improvements to DOD Systems Inventory Needed for
                     Year 2000 Effort (GAO/AIMD-97-112, August 13, 1997).

                     Defense Computers: Issues Confronting DLA in Addressing Year 2000
                     Problems (GAO/AIMD-97-106, August 12, 1997).

                     Defense Computers: DFAS Faces Challenges in Solving the Year 2000
                     Problem (GAO/AIMD-97-117, August 11, 1997).

(511657)     L
             ertet   Page 12                                                GAO/T-AIMD-99-101
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:
or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:
United States                       Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office      Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001           GAO
                                 Permit No. GI00
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested