type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' August 16, 2004\n\n\n\n\nAcquisition\nImplementation of the\nDoD Management Control Program\nfor Air Force Acquisition\nCategory II and III Programs\n(D-2004-108)\n\n\n\n\n Department of Defense\n Office of the Inspector General\nQuality Integrity Accountability\n\x0c Additional Copies\n\n To obtain additional copies of this report, visit the Web site of the Inspector\n General of the Department of Defense at http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports or\n contact the Secondary Reports Distribution Unit, Audit Followup and Technical\n Support at (703) 604-8937 (DSN 664-8937) or fax (703) 604-8932.\n\n Suggestions for Future Audits\n\n To suggest ideas for or to request future audits, contact Audit Followup and\n Technical Support at (703) 604-8940 (DSN 664-8940) or fax (703) 604-8932.\n Ideas and requests can also be mailed to:\n\n ODIG-AUD (ATTN: AFTS Audit Suggestions)\n Inspector General of the Department of Defense\n 400 Army Navy Drive (Room 801)\n Arlington, VA 22202-4704\n\n\n\n\nAcronyms\n\nAPB Acquisition Program Baseline\nC4I Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence\nMDA Milestone Decision Authority\nOMB Office of Management and Budget\nORD Operational Requirements Document\nPESHE Programmatic Environmental, Safety, and Health Evaluation\nTEMP Test and Evaluation Master Plan\n\x0c\x0c Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense\nReport No. D2004-108 August 16, 2004\n (Project No. D2004AE-0025)\n\n Implementation of the DoD Management Control Program for\n Air Force Acquisition Category II and III Programs\n\n Executive Summary\n\nWho Should Read This Report and Why? Civil service and uniformed officers who\nare involved in the Air Force acquisition decision making process should read this report\nbecause it provides an assessment of how the Air Force can improve its management\ncontrol program for oversight of Air Force weapon system programs.\n\nBackground. This audit is the second in a series of audits to evaluate the effectiveness\nof the Military Departments\xe2\x80\x99 management control programs in timely identifying\ndeviations in cost, schedule, and performance requirements in acquisition program\nbaselines for Acquisition Category II and III programs to the milestone decision authority\nand in identifying whether program managers are reporting their status on preparing and\nobtaining approval of required program documentation to milestone decision authorities\nbefore milestone decision reviews.\n\nThe first report, Inspector General, DoD Report No. D-2004-47, \xe2\x80\x9cImplementation of the\nDoD Management Control Program for Army Acquisition Category II and III Programs,\xe2\x80\x9d\nJanuary 23, 2004, assessed the Army Management Control Program for oversight of\nAcquisition Category II and III programs. The third report, Report No. D-2004-109,\n\xe2\x80\x9cImplementation of the DoD Management Control Program for Navy Acquisition\nCategory II and III Programs,\xe2\x80\x9d August 17, 2004, assessed the Navy Management Control\nProgram for oversight of Acquisition Category II and III programs.\n\nResults. The Air Force did not effectively integrate the requirements of the DoD\nManagement Control Program into its management assessment and reporting process for\neight Acquisition Category II and III programs that had an estimated life-cycle cost of\n$1.9 billion. As a result, the program managers did not have documented and updated\ninformation needed to more effectively manage their programs. The program managers\nfurther contributed to this condition by not reporting program deviations and not\nrequesting revisions to acquisition program baselines when cost, schedule, and\nperformance breaches occurred. Program managers did not provide milestone decision\nauthorities with timely and documented information so they could assist program\nmanagers who were experiencing cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance\nproblems. Further, milestone decision authorities made important program decisions at\nmilestone decision points with incomplete information on the readiness of the systems for\nthe next phase of the acquisition process. To ensure that Air Force milestone decision\n\x0cauthorities make fully informed investment decisions, the Air Force needs to modify its\nexisting reporting requirements for program managers of Acquisition Category II and III\nprograms to report, at least quarterly, their progress toward satisfying cost, schedule, and\nperformance requirements in acquisition program baselines and obtaining, preparing and\nupdating, and issuing approved program documentation before and at planned milestone\ndecision reviews. Implementation of this reporting requirement will enable Air Force\nmilestone decision authorities to ensure that program managers are on schedule toward\nsatisfying program requirements, submitting program deviation reports when required,\nand reporting deviations from acquisition program baselines as management control\nweaknesses. (See the Finding section for details.)\n\nManagement Comments. The Air Force did not respond to the July 1, 2004, draft\nreport. Therefore, we request that the Air Force Acquisition Executive provide\ncomments on this final report by September 17, 2004.\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\x0cTable of Contents\n\nExecutive Summary i\n\nBackground 1\n\nObjectives 3\n\nFinding\n Air Force Management Controls for Acquisition Category II and III\n Programs 4\n\nAppendixes\n A. Scope and Methodology 12\n Management Control Program Review 13\n Prior Coverage 14\n B. Management Control Objectives and Techniques 15\n C. Program Documentation Status 17\n D. Report Distribution 23\n\x0cBackground\n\n This audit is the second in a series of audits that will evaluate the effectiveness of\n the Military Departments\xe2\x80\x99 management control programs in timely identifying\n deviations in cost, schedule and performance requirements in acquisition program\n baselines (APB) for Acquisition Category II and III programs1 to the milestone\n decision authority (MDA) and in identifying whether program managers are\n preparing and obtaining required program documentation before milestone\n decision reviews. DoD Instruction 5000.2, \xe2\x80\x9cOperation of the Defense Acquisition\n System,\xe2\x80\x9d May 12, 2003, defines Acquisition Category II programs as major\n systems with an estimated total expenditure for research, development, test and\n evaluation of less than $365 million but more than $140 million, or for\n procurement, of less than $2.19 billion but more than $660 million in FY 2000\n constant dollars. DoD Instruction 5000.2 defines an Acquisition Category III\n program as any program that does not meet the minimum requirements of an\n Acquisition Category II program. The first report, Inspector General, DoD\n Report No. D-2004-47, \xe2\x80\x9cImplementation of the DoD Management Control\n Program for Army Acquisition Category II and III Programs,\xe2\x80\x9d January 23, 2004,\n assessed the Army Management Control Program for oversight of Acquisition\n Category II and III programs. The third report, Inspector General, DoD Report\n No. D-2004-109, \xe2\x80\x9cImplementation of the DoD Management Control Program for\n Navy Acquisition Category II and III Programs,\xe2\x80\x9d August 17, 2004, assessed the\n Navy Management Control Program for oversight of Acquisition Category II and\n III programs.\n\n Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Emphasizes Management Control\n Process. The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management and\n Comptroller) stressed the importance of management controls in a February 25,\n 2001, memorandum on stewardship and the Air Force management control\n process. The Assistant Secretary emphasized that strong management controls\n should help to ensure that resources are used efficiently and effectively to achieve\n the intended program results. The Assistant Secretary stated that management\n controls are not an isolated tool but development strategies for reengineering Air\n Force programs in the years ahead. The Assistant Secretary went on to say that\n management controls are an integral part of the entire planning, budgeting,\n management, accounting and reporting cycle.\n\n Management Control Policy. Office of Management and Budget (OMB)\n Circular A-123, \xe2\x80\x9cManagement Accountability and Control,\xe2\x80\x9d June 21, 1995,\n\n1\n An acquisition category determines an acquisition program\xe2\x80\x99s level of review, decision authority, and\n applicable procedures. The acquisition categories consist of I, major Defense acquisition programs; IA,\n major automated information systems; II, major systems; and III, programs not meeting the criteria for\n acquisition categories I, IA, or II.\n\n\n\n 1\n\x0cdefines management controls as the organization, policies, and procedures that\nagencies use to ensure that programs achieve their intended results; resources are\nused consistent with an organization\xe2\x80\x99s mission; programs and resources are\nprotected from fraud, waste, and mismanagement; laws and regulations are\nfollowed; and reliable data are obtained, maintained, reported, and used for\nprogram decision making. Further, the DoD and the Air Force have issued\nguidance to implement the requirements of OMB Circular A-123.\n\n Federal Policy. OMB Circular A-123 requires DoD to provide an overall\nannual statement to the President and Congress explaining the state of DoD\nmanagement controls, any control weaknesses, and noncompliant accounting\nsystems. The Secretary of Defense is required to state whether DoD management\ncontrols provide reasonable assurance that resources are being protected from\nfraud, waste, and mismanagement. Circular A-123 provides guidance for\nestablishing, evaluating, improving, and reporting on management controls in\nprograms and administrative organizations. Further, it directs that executive\norganizations establish cost-effective management control systems to provide\nreasonable assurance that resources are protected against fraud, waste, and\nmismanagement and that program activities be effectively and efficiently\nmanaged to achieve the goals of the organization. Circular A-123 also states that\nFederal managers must carefully consider the appropriate balance of controls in\ntheir programs and operations. Appropriate management controls should be\nestablished and integrated into each system to direct and guide operations.\nHowever, Circular A-123 notes that a separate management control process need\nnot be instituted, particularly if its sole purpose is to satisfy management control\nreporting requirements.\n\n DoD Policy. To satisfy the OMB requirement, DoD Directive 5010.38,\n\xe2\x80\x9cManagement Control (MC) Program,\xe2\x80\x9d August 26, 1996, requires that the\nMilitary Departments, the Defense agencies, and the major joint commands\nsubmit annual statements on their management controls to the Secretary of\nDefense. There are no exemptions for acquisition programs. DoD\nDirective 5010.38 also provides policy, prescribes procedures, and assigns\nresponsibilities for management control systems. DoD Directive 5000.1, \xe2\x80\x9cThe\nDefense Acquisition System,\xe2\x80\x9d May 12, 2003, requires program managers to\nestablish program goals for cost, schedule, and performance parameters that\ndescribe the program over its life cycle. Directive 5000.1 further states that\napproved program baseline parameters will serve as control objectives, and that\nthe program manager is required to identify deviations from approved program\nbaseline parameters and exit criteria. Further, the, \xe2\x80\x9cDoD Interim Defense\nAcquisition Guidebook,\xe2\x80\x9d October 30, 2002, states that the program manager\nshould identify deviations from the approved parameters and exit criteria as\nmaterial weaknesses.\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c Air Force Policy. Air Force Policy 65-201, \xe2\x80\x9cManagement Control,\xe2\x80\x9d\n May 1, 1997, implements public law and OMB and DoD guidance for a\n management control process, and requires Air Force commanders and managers\n to maintain an effective control process that identifies, reports, and corrects\n material weaknesses.\n\n Scope of Air Force Programs Reviewed. To perform the audit, we coordinated\n with seven Air Force Program Executive Offices to identify Acquisition\n Category II and III programs for our review that were beyond the concept and\n technology development phase, but that had not received approval for full-rate\n production. The Acquisition Category II systems identified included the\n Integrated Broadcast Service, the Family of Advanced Beyond-Line-of-Sight\n Terminals, and the Miniature Air Launch Decoy. The Acquisition Category III\n systems identified included the Command and Control System-Consolidated, Air\n Force Terminal Instrument Procedures-Replacement, Common Low Observable\n Verification System, Universal Munitions Trailer, and F-15E Advance Display\n Core Processor.\n\n\nObjectives\n\n The overall audit objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of the management\n control program that the Air Force Acquisition Executive, or his designees, used\n for Air Force Acquisition Category II and III weapon systems. We also assessed\n the process for recognizing and correcting material management control\n weaknesses. See Appendix A for a discussion of the scope and methodology and\n the review of the management control program. See Appendix A for prior\n coverage related to the objectives. Appendix B defines management control\n objectives and techniques. Appendix C summarizes the status of certain program\n documentation prepared for the eight programs reviewed.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c Air Force Management Controls for\n Acquisition Category II and III Programs\n The Air Force did not effectively integrate the requirements of the DoD\n Management Control Program into its management assessment and\n reporting process for eight Acquisition Category II and III programs that\n had an estimated life-cycle cost of $1.9 billion. This condition occurred\n because the existing reporting mechanism in the Air Force did not require\n program managers to inform MDAs, at least quarterly, of their progress\n toward:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 satisfying cost, schedule, and performance requirements in APBs;\n and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 obtaining, preparing, updating, and issuing approved program\n documentation before and at planned milestone decision reviews.\n\n As a result, the program managers did not have documented and updated\n information needed to more effectively manage their programs. The\n program managers further contributed to this condition by not reporting\n program deviations and not requesting revisions to APBs when cost,\n schedule, and performance breaches occurred. As a result, program\n managers did not provide MDAs with timely and documented information\n so they could assist program managers who were experiencing cost\n overruns, schedule delays, and performance problems. Further, MDAs\n made important program decisions at milestone decision points with\n incomplete information on the readiness of the systems for the next phase\n of the acquisition process.\n\n\nAir Force Management Control Program\n\n On July 23, 2003, the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force restructured the Air\n Force Program Executive Officers reporting process. The Air Force management\n structure intended the process to reduce workload and promote ownership and\n accountability for effective management controls by:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 developing and implementing appropriate, cost effective management\n controls,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 assessing the adequacy of management controls in all programs and\n operations,\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 identifying needed improvements,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 taking corresponding corrective action, and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 reporting annually on management controls.\n\nAir Force Management Control Program Requirements. The Assistant\nSecretary of the Air Force (Financial Management and Comptroller) developed\nthe Air Force\xe2\x80\x99s management control program based on the General Accounting\nOffice\xe2\x80\x99s five standards for internal control: control environment, risk assessment,\ncontrol activities, communication and information, and monitoring. All Air Force\ncommands are required to establish a management control program and\ncontinuously monitor and improve the effectiveness and accountability of\nmanagement controls associated with their programs. Each command is to update\nits written plan annually, and include information that indicates the number of\nscheduled and accomplished management control evaluations, the inventory of\nassessable units, progress toward accomplishment of annual program\nrequirements, the method of monitoring and evaluation, and the completion date\nof the evaluation. Emphasis is placed on maximizing the use of existing\nmanagement evaluation data and minimizing the creation of processes or\nprocedures solely to execute the management control program. It is the\nresponsibility of the Management Control Program Coordinator to prepare the\norganization\xe2\x80\x99s management control plan and annual management control\nstatement.\n\nManagement Controls for Acquisition Programs. Program documentation\nwas a key component in the management control plans provided by the eight\nAcquisition Category II and III program offices. Milestone documentation is\nrelied on as one of the key management controls for acquisition programs, and\nthe milestone decision review process for evaluating controls was in place. The\nAir Force\xe2\x80\x99s process to evaluate management controls for acquisition programs\ndid not, however, keep MDAs informed of the program managers\xe2\x80\x99 progress\ntoward satisfying program requirements before milestone decision reviews.\nAccordingly, the Air Force\xe2\x80\x99s Management Control Program for acquisition\nprograms did not ensure that program managers took the necessary actions to\nsatisfy the program\xe2\x80\x99s cost, schedule, and performance requirements in the APBs\nbefore milestone reviews. The Air Force\xe2\x80\x99s Management Control Program also\ndid not ensure that program managers reported deviations from APB cost,\nschedule, and performance parameters, or that those breaches were reported as\nmanagement control weaknesses to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force\n(Financial Management and Comptroller).\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0cAir Force Reporting Process\n\n The existing reporting mechanism in the Air Force did not require program\n managers for Acquisition Category II and III programs to inform the MDA, at\n least quarterly, of their progress towards satisfying cost, schedule, and\n performance requirements in approved APBs and of exit criteria requirements for\n the next phase of the acquisition process. The Air Force has more than 1,400\n Acquisition Category II and III programs. Without a reporting mechanism in\n place, the Air Force MDAs cannot provide appropriate oversight for those\n programs. Although Acquisition Category II and III programs are valued less\n than Acquisition Category I programs, the sheer number of Acquisition Category\n II and III programs contributes to a large aggregate total. Given funding\n constraints, the Air Force needs to manage wisely its overall investment dollars\n and cannot afford to overlook the oversight of the Acquisition Category II and III\n programs.\n\n The reporting process used by the Program Executive Officers did not require the\n Air Force program managers to report on their efforts to obtain, prepare, and\n update approved program documentation before planned milestone decision\n reviews. The program documentation is to be prepared and approved before\n milestone decision points, kept up-to-date between milestone decision reviews,\n and provide the MDA with the management control information required in DoD\n Directive 5000.1 to timely identify program deviations from approved APB\n parameters and exit criteria. As implemented, the Air Force\xe2\x80\x99s management\n assessment and reporting processes did not provide MDAs with that management\n control information. To be effective, the Air Force\xe2\x80\x99s management control\n program should integrate those management control requirements in its\n management assessment and reporting processes.\n\n Reporting on Cost, Schedule, and Performance Requirements. Program\n managers for major DoD acquisition programs are required to report quarterly on\n their progress towards satisfying cost, schedule, and performance requirements,\n including approved program baseline parameters and exit criteria requirements, in\n the Defense Acquisition Executive Summary. On April 2, 1999, the Principal\n Deputy Assistant Secretary (Acquisition and Management) began requiring all\n Acquisition Category II and III programs encountering programmatic issues to\n submit monthly status reports, and required the remaining programs to submit\n quarterly status reports. On December 11, 2002, the Deputy Assistant Secretary\n (Management Policy and Program Integration) required all program offices to\n implement the system metric and reporting tool. A key feature of the system\n metric and reporting tool is to provide the MDA with information included in a\n monthly acquisition report. Although the memorandum requires program\n managers to submit monthly and quarterly status reports, it does not require\n program managers to inform MDAs, at least quarterly, of their progress toward\n\n\n 6\n\x0csatisfying cost, schedule, and performance requirements in the acquisition\nprogram baseline and exit criteria requirements.\n\n Reporting for Acquisition Category II Programs Reviewed. Program\nmanagers for the three Acquisition Category II programs reviewed prepared\nmonthly acquisition reports, two of the three program managers prepared program\nmanagement reviews, and one of the program managers prepared semi-annual\nportfolio reviews for the Program Executive Office.\n\n Reporting for Acquisition Category III Programs Reviewed. Program\nmanagers for the five Acquisition Category III programs reviewed prepared\nmonthly acquisition reports, four of the program managers prepared for program\nmanagement reviews, and three of the program managers prepared for semi-\nannual portfolio reviews for the Program Executive Office.\n\n Adequacy of Reported Information. The monthly acquisition reports,\nprogram management reviews, and Program Executive Office semi-annual\nreviews that the program offices prepared provided the MDA with up-to-date\nAPB cost, schedule, and performance data, but did not, in most cases, provide the\nAPB threshold values for the MDA to compare the data with. Without listing the\nAPB thresholds with the existing program status, the MDA may not realize that\nthe program is over budget or behind schedule. Additionally, the program office\nreports did not provide the MDA with information on whether the program would\nachieve the exit criteria established at the last milestone decision review. The\ninclusion of the APB threshold values and exit criteria for the next phase of the\nacquisition process in the program managers\xe2\x80\x99 reports would inform the MDAs of\ndeviations from approved APB parameters and exit criteria.\n\nReporting on the Preparation and Completion of Required Program\nDocumentation. DoD and Air Force procedures do not require program\nmanagers to advise MDAs on their progress towards completing and obtaining\nkey program documentation, such as the operational requirements document\n(ORD), the APB, the test and evaluation master plan (TEMP), and the command,\ncontrol, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) support plan before\nprogram initiation, which are usually required when a program enters the system\ndevelopment and demonstration acquisition phase. At program initiation and\nbefore subsequent program milestone reviews, however, DoD and Air Force\npolicy requires program managers to provide those key program documents for\nthe MDA to review.\n\nFor all eight programs reviewed, program managers held milestone reviews with\nMDAs for entry into the system development and demonstration phase of the\nacquisition process before preparing, updating, or obtaining all required\ndocumentation. For example, the Air Force Program Executive Office for\nAircraft Systems approved the F-15E Advanced Display Core Processor to enter\n\n\n 7\n\x0cthe system development and demonstration phase of the acquisition process in\nJune 1999, even though the program manager did not have an approved APB,\nC4I support plan, Programmatic Environmental, Safety, and Health Evaluation\n(PESHE) or TEMP. The ORD identified interoperability as a key performance\nparameter. Because the program manager did not have an approved C4I support\nplan, contract requirements defining all the key system interfaces with other\nsystems may not have been identified and provided to the system contractor.\n\nProgram documentation that was not available to MDAs at milestone reviews\nvaried significantly among the programs reviewed. For instance, program\nmanagers for two programs did not have an approved ORD, program managers\nfor seven programs did not have an approved TEMP, and program managers for\nsix programs did not have an approved C4I support plan available at their\nprevious milestone review. Without an approved ORD that contains validated\nsystem performance requirements, the program manager and contractor cannot be\nsure that the system design will meet warfighter-required capabilities, and the test\ncommunity does not have validated performance parameters for developmental\nand operational testing. An approved TEMP is an essential tool for the program\nmanager and operational testers to identify resources needed to perform necessary\ntests and to test all key performance parameters. The C4I support plan is critical\nnot only for system design, but for the test organizations to identify system\nintegration problems that need to be corrected during testing. Although\nacquisition regulations encourage management to streamline and tailor acquisition\ndocumentation, the ORD, the TEMP, and the C4I support plan must be prepared\nand completed to provide the MDA with information needed to assess how well a\nprogram is progressing toward the next milestone review in the acquisition\nprocess.\n\nUpdating Program Documentation Between Milestone Decision Reviews.\nAdditionally, program managers did not provide MDAs with updated program\ndocumentation between milestone decision reviews when significant changes\naffected their programs because they believed that updating program\ndocumentation added no value to the process when MDAs were made aware of\nthe changes through other means. For example, the Program Manager for the\nFamily of Advanced Beyond-Line-of-Sight Terminals experienced significant\ncost and schedule deviations because of funding cuts. In this case, the program\nmanager did not submit a program deviation report to document the effects on the\nprogram, partly because no APB had been prepared to measure thresholds against.\nInstead, the program manager communicated information on cost and schedule\nbreaches through quarterly program management reviews, monthly activity\nreports, and weekly activity reports to the MDA. It is important for program\nmanagers to document significant changes to program direction in cost, schedule,\nand performance requirements so that all parties affected by the changes,\nincluding the intended user of the system and the test community, can plan and\n\n\n 8\n\x0creact accordingly. Updating formal program documentation is essential to ensure\nthat the program manager evaluates the effect of the changes on all aspects of the\nprogram.\n\nAppendix C describes the completeness of program documentation available at\nmilestone decision reviews for the eight programs reviewed. Without having all\nrequired program documentation, the program manager and the MDA may not be\naware of potential or actual cost, schedule, and performance problems affecting\nthe program at the time of the milestone decision review. For example, the\nFamily of Advanced Beyond-Line-of-Sight Terminals experienced schedule\ndelays and cost overruns after the program entered the system development and\ndemonstration phase because the test community encountered more testing\nrequirements than had been planned. Because the TEMP was not completed and\nfully reviewed within the test community, the program manager\xe2\x80\x99s estimates on\nthe time and resources needed for testing were not realistic.\n\nIf program managers of the eight programs reviewed had formally reported delays\nto the MDAs in the completion or approval process for key program documents,\nsuch as the ORD and the TEMP, the MDAs could have initiated actions to\nprepare, update, and approve the documentation before the milestone decision\nreviews, or to reschedule the milestone decision reviews pending the completion\nof required program documentation. Because program managers were not\nperiodically reporting on their status toward completing or obtaining required\nprogram documentation, MDAs did not have information needed to take\nappropriate actions before the milestone decision reviews for the eight programs\nreviewed. MDAs also were not requesting information concerning the status of\nprogram documentation completion from program managers before program\nmilestone reviews.\n\nProgram Deviation Reporting Requirements. In addition to not routinely\nreporting on program status towards satisfying program cost, schedule, and\nperformance parameters in APBs, program managers for five of the eight\nacquisition programs did not have APBs to compare threshold values with at their\nlast milestone decision review; therefore, they did not prepare program deviation\nreports to show threshold value breaches. Additionally, two program managers\nwith APBs did not prepare program deviation reports for cost breaches.\nReporting program deviations is an essential communication between the program\nmanagers and MDAs because it serves as an early warning of impending program\ncomplications and allows the MDA to help with a program solution. If program\nmanagers do not submit APBs, the program deviations can go unnoticed by the\nMDA while the program manager attempts to bring the program back into\ncontrol.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0c Although program managers were not reporting breaches of APB parameters as\n management control weaknesses as required in DoD Directive 5000.1 and the\n DoD Interim Guidebook, they did request revisions of APB parameters when\n approaching a breach of a parameter. Therefore, program managers did not report\n breaches of an APB parameter as a management control weakness to the Assistant\n Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition) as required. As a result, the Assistant\n Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition) did not consider those APB parameter\n breaches for inclusion as a material management control weakness in the FY 2003\n statement of assurance.\n\n\nEffect of Management Control Techniques on Program\n Documentation\n\n Program documentation is the primary means for providing the MDA, as well as\n other key managers, with information needed for decision making. Without\n accurate and updated program documents, such as the APB, the ORD, the TEMP,\n and the C4I support plan, along with the program manager\xe2\x80\x99s periodic reporting of\n progress made toward satisfying those requirements, the program manager cannot\n provide assurance to the MDA that cost, schedule, and performance thresholds in\n the APB are being achieved and that the program is affordable. Without this\n information, program managers and MDAs did not have documented information\n needed for program management and oversight, and MDAs did not have\n information needed to assist program managers who were experiencing program\n cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance problems. Further, MDAs did\n not have the information they needed at milestone decision points to make\n informed program decisions on the readiness of the systems to continue into the\n next phase of the acquisition process.\n\n\nConclusion\n\n The management control program for Air Force Acquisition Category II and III\n programs varied depending upon the commitment of program management. As a\n result of the Air Force program offices maximizing the use of existing\n management evaluation data to accomplish their management control\n assessments, the assessments did not, in most cases, provide timely management\n control information to MDAs on the program managers\xe2\x80\x99 progress toward\n satisfying cost, schedule, and performance parameters in APBs, which are the\n control objectives for acquisition programs established in DoD Directive 5000.1.\n\n Techniques to achieve control objectives also exist in the preparation and\n presentation of key documents such as the APB agreement, earned value\n\n\n 10\n\x0c management data, and operational test reports. Accordingly, modifying the\n existing Air Force reporting requirements for Acquisition Category II and III\n programs to include APB threshold values, exit criteria, and program performance\n for those requirements would provide Air Force MDAs with management control\n information to implement the requirements in DoD Directive 5000.1 and would\n satisfy the management control reporting requirements in DoD Directive 5010.38.\n\n Because of the conditions identified during the audit, the Air Force Acquisition\n Executive should implement the following recommendations to improve the Air\n Force existing management control reporting requirements for Acquisition\n Category II and III programs.\n\n\nRecommendations\n\n 1. We recommend that the Air Force Acquisition Executive modify its existing\n reporting requirements for program managers of Acquisition Category II and III\n programs to report to the milestone decision authority, at least quarterly, on their\n progress towards satisfying cost, schedule, and performance parameters in\n approved acquisition program baselines, satisfying exit criteria for the next phase\n in the acquisition process, and obtaining and preparing key program\n documentation, such as the operational requirements document; the test and\n evaluation master plan; and the command, control, computers, communications,\n and intelligence support plan between and for milestone decision reviews.\n\n 2. We recommend that Air Force Program Executive Officers:\n\n a. Use information in the program managers\xe2\x80\x99 progress reports discussed\n in Recommendation 1. to require that program managers prepare program\n deviation reports when breaches of acquisition program baseline parameters\n occur.\n\n b. Report breaches of acquisition program baseline parameters and\n unattained program exit criteria to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force\n (Acquisition) for consideration as material management control weaknesses for\n inclusion in the Air Force annual statements of assurance as required in DoD\n Directive 5000.1, \xe2\x80\x9cThe Defense Acquisition System,\xe2\x80\x9d May 12, 2003, and DoD\n Directive 5010.38, \xe2\x80\x9cManagement Control (MC) Program,\xe2\x80\x9d August 26, 1996.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0cAppendix A. Scope and Methodology\n To perform the audit, we coordinated with the Air Force Program Executive\n Offices to select Acquisition Category II and III programs for our review that\n were beyond the concept and technology development phase, but had not entered\n the production and deployment phase of the acquisition process. Accordingly, we\n reviewed the following eight Air Force acquisition programs that the Air Force\n Program Executive Offices identified:\n\n PEO Aircraft Systems\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Common Low Observable Verification Systems1\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 F-15E Advanced Display Core Processor Program1\n\n PEO Command and Control\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Air Force Terminal Instrument Procedures-Replacement1\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Integrated Broadcast Service2\n\n PEO Space\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Command and Control System-Consolidated1\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Family of Advanced Beyond-Line-of-Sight Terminals 2\n\n PEO Weapons\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Miniature Air Launched Decoy2\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Universal Munitions Trailer1\n\n In reviewing the management control process used by the Air Force for\n Acquisition Category II and III programs, we examined FY 2002 and FY 2003\n management control documentation. That documentation included management\n control-related tasking from the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial\n Management and Comptroller), the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force\n (Acquisition), the Air Force Program Executive Offices; Air Force annual\n statements of assurance; and supporting documentation. We reviewed those\n documents to identify whether a standardized procedure was in place to complete\n1\n Acquisition Category III.\n2\n Acquisition Category II.\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c and submit the required documentation and to determine whether the Air Force\n had identified any material management control weaknesses for Air Force\n Acquisition Category II and III programs.\n\n To evaluate the reporting process used by the Air Force to support its\n management control of acquisition programs, we reviewed documentation dated\n from June 1995 through June 2004. The documentation included acquisition\n decision memorandum, APBs, acquisition strategy reports, affordability\n assessments, analyses of alternatives, C4I support plans, PESHEs, ORDs, and\n TEMPs for the eight Air Force programs selected for review. We reviewed those\n documents to ensure that the required program documentation for each program\n was complete, accurate, and up-to-date.\n\n We performed this audit from November 2003 through June 2004 in accordance\n with generally accepted government auditing standards.\n\n Use of Computer-Processed Data. We did not use computer-processed data to\n perform this audit.\n\n General Accounting Office High-Risk Area. The General Accounting Office\n has identified several high-risk areas in DoD. This report provides coverage of\n the DoD Weapons Systems Acquisition high-risk area.\n\n\nManagement Control Program Review\n\n DoD Directive 5010.38, \xe2\x80\x9cManagement Control (MC) Program,\xe2\x80\x9d August 26, 1996,\n and DoD Instruction 5010.40, \xe2\x80\x9cManagement Control (MC) Program Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d\n August 28, 1996, require DoD organizations to implement a comprehensive\n system of management controls that provides reasonable assurance that programs\n are operating as intended and to evaluate the adequacy of the controls.\n\n Scope of the Review of the Management Control Program. In accordance\n with DoD policy, acquisition managers are to use program cost, schedule, and\n performance parameters as control objectives in APBs to implement the\n requirements of DoD Directive 5010.38. Accordingly, we limited our review to\n management controls directly related to program cost, schedule, and performance\n in APBs. We also reviewed the adequacy of management\xe2\x80\x99s self-evaluation of\n those controls.\n\n Adequacy of Management Controls. We identified material management\n control weaknesses for the Air Force, as defined in DoD Instruction 5010.40. The\n Air Force Acquisition Executive and the Program Executive Officers did not\n ensure that controls for obtaining, preparing, updating, and approving program\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0c documentation and preparing program deviation reports were sufficient that\n program managers timely provided MDAs with acquisition program\n documentation needed to effectively oversee a program\xe2\x80\x99s cost, schedule, and\n performance data at and between milestone decision reviews.\n Recommendations 1. and 2., if implemented, will improve the quality and\n timeliness of program information provided to Air Force MDAs so that they can\n make fully informed investment decisions. A copy of the report will be provided\n to the senior official responsible for management controls in the Air Force.\n\n Adequacy of Management\xe2\x80\x99s Self-Evaluation. None of the Program Executive\n Offices or program offices reviewed identified management control weaknesses\n related to preparing and updating required acquisition program documentation\n used for program oversight and decision making. The Program Executive\n Officers and program managers did not report those weaknesses because they did\n not recognize the lack of up-to-date documentation as a management control\n weakness.\n\n\nPrior Coverage\n\n During the last 5 years, the Air Force Audit Agency issued one report that\n addressed management control weaknesses for an acquisition program.\n\nAir Force Audit Agency\n Report No. F2003-0002-FCQ000, \xe2\x80\x9cIntegrated Broadcast Service Electronic\n Systems Center, Hanscom AFB MA,\xe2\x80\x9d May 12, 2003\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0cAppendix B. Management Control Objectives\n and Techniques\n Control Objectives. Control objectives are the specific goals, conditions, or\n levels of control that a manager establishes for an assessable unit to provide\n reasonable assurance that the resources assigned to that organization are\n adequately safeguarded against waste, fraud, and mismanagement.\n\n Control objectives must be identified for each organization and should be logical,\n applicable, reasonably complete, and tailored to an agency\xe2\x80\x99s operations, which\n means that the control objectives should be the positive effects that management\n tries to attain or the negative effects it seeks to avoid through adherence to\n established management controls.\n\n For Air Force acquisition programs, basic control objectives involve the program\n office\xe2\x80\x99s ability to adhere to a weapon system\xe2\x80\x99s cost, schedule, and performance\n baseline parameters that are embodied in APBs. The program manager updates\n and the MDA approves the APB at milestone reviews. As weapon systems\n progress through the acquisition process, baseline parameters are refined and the\n level of detail evolves at succeeding milestone reviews. The program manager\n identifies minimum acceptable requirements for each baseline parameter, known\n as thresholds. Values for APB parameters show the system\xe2\x80\x99s cost and\n performance characteristics as they are expected to be produced and fielded, as\n well as critical acquisition schedule events. If those minimum acceptable levels\n or thresholds are not met, the MDA may require a reevaluation of alternative\n concepts or design approaches.\n\n Program exit criteria are also control objectives for Air Force acquisition\n programs. Exit criteria are the specific minimum requirements that a system must\n satisfactorily demonstrate before the MDA will consider approving the system for\n transitioning to the next acquisition phase.\n\n Control Techniques. Control techniques are mechanisms by which control\n objectives are achieved. A control technique is any form of organization,\n procedure, or document flow that is relied on to accomplish a control objective\n and help safeguard or protect an organization from fraud, waste, and\n mismanagement. Control techniques include, but are not limited to, specific\n policies, procedures, plans of organization (including separation of duties), and\n physical arrangements (such as locks and fire alarms). Management control\n techniques are to continually provide a high degree of assurance that the\n management control objectives are being achieved.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0cFor Air Force acquisition programs, the milestone review documentation\nspecified in DoD Instruction 5000.2, \xe2\x80\x9cOperation of the Defense Acquisition\nSystem,\xe2\x80\x9d May 12, 2003, provides control techniques to achieve the control\nobjectives. The management control techniques in the Instruction include the\ndocuments in the following table.\n\n Management Control Techniques\n\nControl Technique Objective(s) Controlled Prepared By Submitted To\n\nAPB Agreements Cost, schedule, and Program Manager MDA\n performance baselines\nCommand, Control, C4I support requirements to DoD Component MDA\nComputers, satisfy the development,\nCommunications, testing, and operational\nand Intelligence employment of the system\n(C4I) Support Plan\nEarned Value Reports the progress of the Contractor Program Manager\nManagement Data program in meeting cost\n parameters\nOperational Translates mission needs into DoD Component Service\nRequirements detailed performance\nDocument (ORD) capabilities and characteristics\nOperational Test Reports on the progress of the Independent Test Program Manager\nReports program in meeting Agency\n performance parameters\nTest and Evaluation Major elements and objectives Program Manager Director,\nMaster Plan (TEMP) of the test and evaluation Operational Test\n program and Evaluation;*\n MDA; and Air\n Force Operational\n Test and\n Evaluation Center\n\n*The Director, Operational Test, and Evaluation approves the TEMP for all test and evaluation oversight\nprograms in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.\n\n\nDoD Instruction 5010.40, \xe2\x80\x9cManagement Control (MC) Program Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d\nAugust 28, 1996, requires system documentation to be maintained for\nmanagement control programs. System documentation includes the policies and\nprocedures, organizational charts, manuals, flow charts, and related written and\ngraphic materials necessary to describe organizational structure, operating\nprocedures, and administrative practices to communicate responsibility and\nauthority for accomplishing programs and activities. This type of management\ncontrol documentation is specified in DoD Instruction 5010.40.\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0cAppendix C. Program Documentation Status\n DoD Instruction 5000.2 identifies mandatory program documents that program\n managers must provide at program milestone reviews. The DoD Interim Defense\n Acquisition Guidebook explains the importance of the acquisition program\n documents. The following table of five mandatory acquisition program\n documents shows whether the program managers for the eight programs reviewed\n provided the MDA with the completed and approved documents at the acquisition\n program\xe2\x80\x99s last milestone decision review.\n Mandatory Program Documentation Provided\n\n\n\n C4I\n Support\n Program APB Plan ORD PESHE TEMP\n\n AFTERPS-R1 No No No No No\n\n CCS-C2 No No Yes No No\n\n CLOVerS3 Yes N/A Yes No No\n\n FAB-T4 No No Yes No No\n\n F-15E5 No No Yes No No\n\n IBS6 Yes No Yes Yes Yes\n\n MALD7 Yes No Yes No No\n\n UMT8 No N/A No N/A No\n\n\n\n\n1\n Air Force Terminal Instrument Procedures-Replacement.\n2\n Command and Control System-Consolidated.\n3\n Common Low Observable Verification Systems.\n4\n Family of Advanced Beyond-Line-of-Sight Terminals.\n5\n F-15E Advanced Display Core Processor Program.\n6\n Integrated Broadcast Service.\n7\n Miniature Air Launched Decoy.\n8\n Universal Munitions Trailer.\n 17\n\x0cImportance of Milestone Documents\n\n Acquisition Program Baseline. Every acquisition program must have an APB at\n program initiation. The program manager prepares the APB in coordination with\n the user to document the most important cost, schedule, and performance\n parameters (both threshold and objective) for the program. The program manager\n bases the APB on user performance requirements, schedule requirements, and an\n estimate of total program cost. The program manager, in coordination with the\n user, should obtain approval for a revised APB if the program is restructured or if\n there is an unrecoverable program deviation.\n\n C4I Support Plan. DoD Components must develop C4I support plans for all\n programs early in the acquisition process when the Components connect in any\n way to the communication and information infrastructure. Acquisition decision\n makers are required to review the C4I support plan at each program milestone\n decision; at decision reviews, as appropriate; and whenever support requirements\n change. A C4I support plan assists in identifying system integration issues that\n need to be addressed during testing.\n\n Operational Requirements Document. The ORD is a formatted statement\n containing performance parameters for the proposed concept or system that is\n prepared by the user or the user\xe2\x80\x99s representative. An ORD provides the\n developmental and operational testers with the ability to determine whether the\n system meets minimum required system capabilities.\n\n Programmatic Environmental Safety and Health Evaluation. The program\n manager is to initiate the evaluation at the earliest possible time in support of a\n program initiation decision and maintain an updated evaluation throughout the\n life cycle of the program. When program managers perform the analyses for the\n PESHE, they gain information on the potential environmental, safety, and health\n effects of developing, fielding, storing, demilitarizing, and disposing of their\n weapon systems. Information should be obtained before the program enters the\n system development and demonstration phase to prevent program delays and\n added program costs stemming from the violation of environmental, safety, or\n health laws.\n\n Single Acquisition Management Plan. The single acquisition management plan\n is a comprehensive, integrated plan written at the strategic level, which discusses\n all relevant aspects of a program.\n\n Test and Evaluation Master Plan. The TEMP documents the overall structure\n and objectives of the test and evaluation program. It provides a framework within\n which to generate detailed test and evaluation plans and to document schedule\n and resource implications associated with the test and evaluation program. The\n TEMP identifies necessary developmental test and evaluation, operational test\n and evaluation, and live-fire test and evaluation activities. An approved TEMP is\n 18\n\x0c an essential tool for the program manager and operational testers to identify\n resources needed to perform necessary tests and to test all key performance\n parameters and resolve problem areas.\n\n\nProgram Documentation Status\n\n Air Force Terminal Instrument Procedures-Replacement. The System\n Program Director, Global Air Traffic Operations/Mobility Command and Control\n approved the Air Force Terminal Instrument Procedures-Replacement Program to\n enter the production and deployment phase for Release A and the system and\n demonstration phase for Release B on April 2, 2003. At the milestone decision\n review, the program office did not have an approved APB, C4I support plan,\n ORD, PESHE, or TEMP for MDA review. The system program director\n approved the APB on May 12, 2004. The PESHE was approved on May 26,\n 2004. As of June 2004, the program office had not completed or obtained\n approval of the C4I support plan, ORD, and TEMP.\n\n The program office developed a requirements correlation matrix to replace the\n ORD but the requirements correlation matrix is not a stand-alone document. The\n Joint Integration and Test Command concluded that some Air Force Terminal\n Instrument Procedures-Replacement system interfaces need to be tested and\n certified so that the program can meet its DoD regulatory obligations. However,\n the Joint Integration and Test Command will not certify the Air Force Terminal\n Instrument Procedures-Replacement system without a Joint Staff-certified ORD.\n Because the program does not have a certified ORD, the program office\n unilaterally determined that Joint Integration and Test Command certification was\n not required. Accordingly, the system program director requested that the Air\n Force Communications Agency waive the C4I support plan requirement because\n the requirements correlation matrix does not include an interoperability key\n performance parameter. Because the program office did not believe that a TEMP\n was required for an Acquisition Category III program, it developed a test and\n evaluation concept plan dated March 19, 2003.\n\n Command and Control System-Consolidated. The Command and Control\n System-Consolidated Program Office did not have an approved acquisition\n decision memorandum to document the approval to enter the system\n development and demonstration phase of the acquisition process. The Command\n and Control System-Consolidated entered the system development and\n demonstration phase in February 2001. Further, the program office did not have\n an approved APB, C4I support plan, PESHE, or TEMP. As of June 2004, the\n program office had not completed or obtained approval of the APB, C4I support\n plan, PESHE, and TEMP. The ORD identified system interoperability\n requirements in the C4I support plan as a key performance parameter. The\n program office prepared the C4I support plan and the PESHE and should be\n\n 19\n\x0c approved by fall 2004. The TEMP was projected to be completed by June 2004,\n and the APB is in coordination.\n\n Common Low Observable Verification System. The Commander,\n Aeronautical Systems Center approved the Common Low Observable\n Verification System to enter the engineering, manufacturing, and development\n phase of the acquisition process on May 6, 1999. At the milestone decision\n review, the program office did not have an approved PESHE or TEMP for MDA\n review. The PESHE was not approved until January 2003, 3.5 years after the\n milestone decision review. Instead of preparing a TEMP, the program office\n developed a broad, top-level test strategy in the single acquisition management\n plan.\n\n F-15E Advanced Display Core Processor. The F-15E Advanced Display Core\n Processor Program Office did not have an approved acquisition decision\n memorandum to document the approval to enter the system development and\n demonstration phase of the acquisition process. The F-15E Advanced Display\n Core Processor entered the system development and demonstration phase on\n June 8, 1999. At that time, the program office did not have an approved APB,\n C4I support plan, PESHE, or TEMP. As of June 2004, the documents had not\n been completed or approval obtained because, according to the program office,\n the TEMP and the C4I support plan1 were not required for an Acquisition\n Category III program. Additionally, the program office stated that it did not have\n to develop a C4I support plan because the Advanced Display Core Processor did\n not have any external interfaces. Further, the program office considered the\n single acquisition management plan as a substitute for the APB and had no plans\n to develop and obtain approval of an APB.\n\n The program office\xe2\x80\x99s statements that a C4I support plan was not required because\n the F-15E Advanced Display Core Processor was an Acquisition Category III\n program and it did not have any external interfaces is contrary to policy in both\n CJCS Instruction 6212.01B, \xe2\x80\x9cInteroperability and Supportability of National\n Security Systems, and Information Technology Systems,\xe2\x80\x9d May 8, 2000, and its\n revision, CJCS Instruction 6212.01C, \xe2\x80\x9cInteroperability and Supportability of\n Information Technology and National Security Systems,\xe2\x80\x9d November 8, 2003.\n Specifically, CJCS Instruction 6212.01B states that the C4I support plan is\n required for all systems, regardless of acquisition category, to identify\n dependencies and interface requirements between systems. Similarly, CJCS\n Instruction 6212.01C requires the Information Support Plan,1 regardless of\n acquisition category, for all developmental and fielded systems to permit\n evaluation of system interoperability and supportability requirements.\n Additionally, although the Advanced Display Core Processor does not directly\n interface with external systems, it does enhance the overall interoperability of the\n F-15E aircraft. As stated in the ORD, the Advanced Display Core Processor will\n1\n C4I support plan now designated as the Information Support Plan in CJCS Instruction 6212.01C.\n 20\n\x0callow the F-15E to receive and display various types of information, including\ncorrelated airborne and ground tracks, and with other fighter aircraft and sensor\nplatforms (such as the Airborne Warning and Control System).\n\nCJCS Instruction 6212.01B specifically states that hardware and software\nmodifications that affect the interoperability of fielded systems will require Joint\nInteroperability Test Command recertification before the system modifications\nare fielded for initial operational capability. The Joint Interoperability Test\nCommand uses the C4I support plans to support the recertification of modified\nsystems. Similarly, CJCS Instruction 6212.01C requires the Information Support\nPlan to support interoperability certification for modified systems. As of June\n2004, the Joint Interoperability Test Command had not certified that the F-15\nplatform met DoD interoperability requirements because the F-15 program office\nhad not prepared a C4I support plan for the overall F-15 system, which would\ninclude the Advanced Display Core Processor and the F-15 platform.\n\nInstead of preparing a TEMP, the program office addressed the test strategy in the\nsingle acquisition management plan. The F-15 System Program Office prepared\nthe PESHE in January 2003 but, as of June 2004, it still had not been approved.\n\nFamily of Advanced Beyond-Line-Of-Sight Terminals. The Family of\nAdvanced Beyond-Line-Of-Sight Terminals Program Office did not have an\napproved acquisition decision memorandum to document the approval to enter the\nsystem development and demonstration phase of the acquisition process. The\nFamily of Advanced Beyond-Line-Of-Sight Terminals entered the system\ndevelopment and demonstration phase on September 20, 2002. At that time, the\nprogram office did not have an approved APB, C4I support plan, PESHE, or\nTEMP. As of June 2004, the documents had not been completed or approval\nobtained. A new program manager took over in November 2003, at which time a\nreview of all major program documents was conducted and the decision was made\nto update the documents when the program becomes an Acquisition Category I\nprogram sometime during the summer of 2004. According to the deputy program\nmanager, the status of documents was briefed to the MDA and the Program\nExecutive Officer at the November 2003 program management review.\n\nIntegrated Broadcast Service. The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the\nAir Force (Acquisition and Management) approved the Integrated Broadcast\nService to enter the engineering, manufacturing, and development phase of the\nacquisition process on May 2, 2001. At the milestone decision review, the\nprogram office did not have an approved C4I support plan for MDA review. As\nof June 2004, the program office had prepared a C4I support plan but was waiting\nfor review and further guidance from the Air Force Communications Agency.\n\nMiniature Air Launched Decoy. The Commander, Air Armament Center\napproved the Miniature Air Launched Decoy Program to enter the system\ndevelopment and demonstration phase on January 6, 2003. At the milestone\n 21\n\x0cdecision review, the program office did not have an approved TEMP, C4I support\nplan, and PESHE for MDA review. The TEMP was not approved until March 3,\n2003, 2 months after the milestone decision review. The program office provided\na C4I support plan dated April 2003 that had not been approved, but planned to\nhave a completed and approved PESHE by May 2006.\n\nUniversal Munitions Trailer. The Universal Munitions Trailer Program Office\ndid not have an approved acquisition decision memorandum to document the\napproval to enter the system development and demonstration phase of the\nacquisition process. The Universal Munitions Trailer program entered the system\ndevelopment and demonstration phase on September 10, 2002. At that time, the\nprogram office did not have an approved APB, ORD, and TEMP. As of June\n2004, the program office had not completed and obtained approval of a TEMP or\nobtained an approved ORD. The program office developed a requirements\ncorrelation matrix to replace the ORD, but the requirements correlation matrix is\nnot a stand-alone document. Instead of preparing a TEMP, the program office\ndeveloped a draft combined developmental and operational test and evaluation\nplan because the program office believed that a TEMP was not required for an\nAcquisition Category III program.\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\x0cAppendix D. Report Distribution\n\nOffice of the Secretary of Defense\nUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics\nUnder Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer\n Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation\n Deputy Chief Financial Officer\n Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget)\nDirector, Operational Test and Evaluation\n\nDepartment of the Army\nAuditor General, Department of the Army\n\nDepartment of the Navy\nNaval Inspector General\nAuditor General, Department of the Navy\n\nDepartment of the Air Force\nAssistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management and Comptroller)\nAssistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition)\n Program Executive Officer, Aircraft Systems\n Program Manager, Common Low Observable Verification System\n Program Manager, F-15E Advanced Display Core Processor\n Program Executive Officer, Command and Control & Combat Support\n Program Manager, Air Force Terminal Instrument Procedures-Replacement\n Program Manager, Integrated Broadcast Service\n Program Executive Officer, Space\n Program Manager, Command and Control System-Consolidated\n Program Manager, Family of Advanced Beyond-Line-of-Sight Terminals\n Program Executive Officer, Weapons\n Program Manager, Miniature Air Launched Decoy\n Program Manager, Universal Munitions Trailer\nAuditor General, Department of the Air Force\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\x0cCongressional Committees and Subcommittees, Chairman and\n Ranking Minority Member\n\nSenate Committee on Appropriations\nSenate Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations\nSenate Committee on Armed Services\nSenate Committee on Governmental Affairs\nHouse Committee on Appropriations\nHouse Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations\nHouse Committee on Armed Services\nHouse Committee on Government Reform\nHouse Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial Management, Committee\n on Government Reform\nHouse Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International\n Relations, Committee on Government Reform\nHouse Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations,\n and the Census, Committee on Government Reform\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\x0cTeam Members\nThe Office of the Deputy Inspector General for Auditing of the Department of\nDefense, Acquisition Management prepared this report. Personnel of the Office\nof the Inspector General of the Department of Defense who contributed to the\nreport are listed below.\n\nJohn E. Meling\nCelia J. Harrigan\nKevin B. Palmer\nLidet K.Negash\nDeanna Wyatt\nJacqueline N. Pugh\n\x0c'


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 8.9.2014
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 C 303/44
 Žaloba podaná dne 24. června 2014 – Österreichische Post v. Komise
 (Věc T-463/14)
 2014/C 303/52
 Jednací jazyk: němčina
 Účastnice řízení
 Žalobkyně: Österreichische Post AG (Vídeň, Rakousko) (zástupci: H. Schatzmann, J. Bleckmann, advokáti)
 Žalovaná: Evropská komise
 Návrhová žádání
 Žalobkyně navrhuje, aby Tribunál:
 —
 zrušil prováděcí rozhodnutí Komise ve věci C (2014) 2093 v rozsahu, v jakém se má nadále použít směrnice 2004/17/ES při zadávání veřejných zakázek pro poštovní služby, které nejsou uvedeny v článku 1 prováděcího rozhodnutí, o jejichž vynětí žalobkyně požádala podle čl. 30 odst. 6 směrnice 2004/17/ES,
 —
 pokud není podle názoru Tribunálu přípustné nebo možné částečné napadení napadeného rozhodnutí, podpůrně zrušil prováděcí rozhodnutí v plném rozsahu,
 —
 uložil žalované náhradu nákladů řízení.
 Žalobní důvody a hlavní argumenty
 Na podporu své žaloby žalobkyně tvrdí, že napadené rozhodnutí je podle čl. 263 odst. 2 SFEU protiprávní, pokud jde o poštovní služby, na které se nevztahuje článek 1 rozhodnutí, neboť Komise porušila nesprávným použitím a chybným výkladem směrnice 2004/17/ES unijní právo. Přitom žalobkyně v podstatě uvádí, že jí poskytované poštovní služby jsou vystaveny dostatečné bezprostřední hospodářské soutěži, takže existují předpoklady pro jejich vynětí podle čl. 30 odst. 1 směrnice 2004/17. Žalobkyně také uvádí, že Komise nesprávně použila kritéria a metody pro vymezení trhu stanovené unijním právem a judikaturou.
 Krom toho žalobkyně uvádí, že došlo k porušení podstatných formálních náležitostí, neboť Komise nepodala dostatečné odůvodnění svého rozhodnutí.
 Konečně žalobkyně tvrdí, že Komise porušila obecná procesní základní práva, neboť z důvodu neexistence obsahového vypořádání se s tvrzeními žalobkyně a s důkazy, které předložila, porušila právo žalobkyně být vyslechnuta.


type: legislation

text:
 EUROOPA KOMISJON
 Brüssel,20.5.2011
 KOM(2011) 277 lõplik
 2011/0123(NLE)
 Ettepanek:
 NÕUKOGU OTSUS
 metsaõigusnormide täitmise järelevalvet, metsahaldust ja Euroopa Liitu toodava puidu ja puittoodetega kauplemist (FLEGT) käsitleva vabatahtliku partnerluslepingu allakirjutamise kohta Euroopa Liidu ja Kesk-Aafrika Vabariigi vahel
 SELETUSKIRI
 Metsaõigusnormide täitmise järelevalvet, metsahaldust ja puidukaubandust (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade – FLEGT) käsitlevas tegevuskavas,
 1
 mille nõukogu kiitis heaks 2003. aastal,
 2
 soovitatakse hulka meetmeid, millega nähakse ette puitu tootvate riikide toetamine, mitmepoolne koostöö, et takistada ebaseadusliku puiduga kauplemist, erasektori algatuste toetamine ja meetmed, millega vältida investeerimist tegevusse, mis soodustab ebaseaduslikku metsaraiet. Tegevuskava nurgakivi on FLEGT-partnerluslepingute sõlmimine Euroopa Liidu ja puitu tootvate riikide vahel, et peatada ebaseaduslikku metsaraiet. 2005. aastal võttis nõukogu vastu määruse (EÜ) nr 2173/2005,
 3
 millega kehtestatakse litsentsimissüsteem ja Euroopa Liitu imporditava puidu seaduslikkuse kontrollimise kord.
 2005. aasta detsembris volitas nõukogu komisjoni pidama puitu tootvate riikidega läbirääkimisi partnerluslepingute üle, et rakendada metsaõigusnormide täitmise järelevalvet, metsahaldust ja puidukaubandust (FLEGT) käsitlevat ELi tegevuskava ning eelkõige soodustada kontrollitud seadusliku puidu importi Euroopa Liitu sellistest partnerriikidest
 4
 . Leping Kesk-Aafrika Vabariigiga on pärast Ghana, Kongo ja Kameruniga sõlmitud lepingut neljas selline partnerlusleping, mille üle tootjariik ja Euroopa Liit läbirääkimisi peavad.
 Komisjon alustas läbirääkimisi Kesk-Aafrika Vabariigiga 2009. aasta oktoobris. Läbirääkimised kestsid 14 kuud ja sel ajal toimus neli läbirääkimisvooru ning 18 tehnilise töörühma kohtumist. Läbirääkimiste käigus on komisjoni aidanud liikmesriigid. Komisjon on nõukogu läbirääkimiste käiguga kursis hoidnud, esitades aruandeid metsanduse töörühmale ning ELi delegatsiooni juhtidele ja esindajatele Kesk-Aafrika Vabariigis. Pärast iga läbirääkimisvooru korraldasid pooled avalikke koosolekuid, et hoida sidusrühmi kursis läbirääkimiste seisuga. Lisaks on Kesk-Aafrika Vabariik rakendanud osalusel rajanevat lähenemisviisi, kaasates lepingu väljatöötamisse kodanikuühiskonna ja erasektori.
 Lepingus käsitletakse kõiki nõukogu läbirääkimisjuhiste osi. Eelkõige kehtestatakse lepinguga FLEGT-litsentsimissüsteemi raamistik, institutsioonid ja süsteemid. Selles kavandatakse tarneahela kontrollid, õigusnõuete täitmise raamistik ja süsteemi sõltumatu kontrollimise nõuded. Kõnealused punktid on esitatud lepingu lisades ning neis kirjeldatakse üksikasjalikult struktuure, millele tugineb seaduslikkuse tagamine FLEGT-litsentsi väljastamise kaudu. Kesk-Aafrika Vabariik töötas sidusrühmadega peetud ulatuslike nõupidamiste käigus välja kohaldatavate õigusaktide määratluse. See sisaldab raieõiguste andmist ja ettevõtete registreerimist käsitlevaid õigusnorme, metsahaldus-, keskkonna- ja tööõigusakte, maksunõudeid, sotsiaalseid kohustusi, nagu kohalike kogukondade, põlisrahvaste ja kodanikuühiskonna osalemine, ning muid puidu transporti ja turustamist käsitlevas õiguses sätestatud kohustusi ja ekspordinõudeid.
 Lepingu kohaldamisala on laiem kui FLEGTi käsitleva määruse (EÜ) nr 2173/2005 II lisas esitatud toodete loetelu. Leping hõlmab kogu puidu ja puittoodete eksporti. Sellega võtab Kesk-Aafrika Vabariik kohustuse luua süsteem, mis annab Euroopa Liidule kindluse, et kõik Kesk-Aafrika Vabariigist pärit puittooted on seaduslikult toodetud, ja peaks seeläbi kaasa aitama Kesk-Aafrika Vabariigi majanduse säästvale kasvule.
 Lepinguga nähakse ette impordikontroll Euroopa Liidu piiridel vastavalt FLEGTi käsitlevas määruses (EÜ) nr 2173/2005 ja selle rakendusmääruses (EÜ) nr 1024/2008 sätestatule. Lepingus on esitatud Kesk-Aafrika Vabariigi FLEGT-litsentsi kirjeldus, mille aluseks on eespool nimetatud rakendusmääruses ettenähtud vorm.
 Lepinguga luuakse FLEGTi käsitlev Euroopa Liiduga toimuva dialoogi ja koostöö mehhanism, milleks on lepingu rakendamise ühiskomitee. Samuti kehtestatakse sidusrühmade osalemise, sotsiaalse kaitse, läbipaistvuse, rakendamise mõju jälgimise ja aruannete koostamise põhimõtted.
 Lepingus sätestatakse lepingu jõustumise ja litsentsimissüsteemi rakendamise ajakava ja kord. Kuna Kesk-Aafrika Vabariik uuendab ja kujundab ümber oma õigusliku raamistiku ja teabehaldussüsteemi, kehtestab ulatuslikumad tarneahela kontrollid ning õigusnormide täitmise sõltumatu kontrolli, läheb mitu aastat, et töötada välja uued süsteemid ja neid katsetada ning suurendada valitsuse, kodanikuühiskonna ja erasektori suutlikkust kavandatud ülesannete täitmisel. FLEGT-litsentsimissüsteem peaks hakkama täielikult toimima 2014. aastal. Litsentsimissüsteemi hinnatakse lepingus kindlaksmääratud kriteeriumide alusel, enne kui EL hakkab FLEGT-litsentse aktsepteerima.
 2011/0123 (NLE)
 Ettepanek:
 NÕUKOGU OTSUS
 metsaõigusnormide täitmise järelevalvet, metsahaldust ja Euroopa Liitu toodava puidu ja puittoodetega kauplemist (FLEGT) käsitleva vabatahtliku partnerluslepingu allakirjutamise kohta Euroopa Liidu ja Kesk-Aafrika Vabariigi vahel
 EUROOPA LIIDU NÕUKOGU,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Liidu aluslepingut,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingut, eriti selle artikli 207 lõike 3 esimest lõiku koostoimes artikli 218 lõikega 5,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Komisjoni ettepanekut
 ning arvestades järgmist:
 (1)Euroopa Komisjon võttis 2003. aasta mais vastu Euroopa Parlamendile ning nõukogule edastatava teatise „Metsaõigusnormide täitmise järelevalve, metsahaldus ja puidukaubandus (FLEGT): ELi tegevuskava ettepanek”,
 5
 milles kutsuti üles kehtestama meetmeid ebaseadusliku metsaraie vastu puitu tootvate riikidega vabatahtlike partnerluslepingute väljatöötamise kaudu. 2003. aasta oktoobris
 6
 võttis nõukogu kõnealuse tegevuskava kohta vastu järeldused ja 11. juulil 2005 võttis Euroopa Parlament vastu sama küsimust käsitleva resolutsiooni
 7
 .
 (2)5. detsembril 2005 volitas nõukogu komisjoni alustama läbirääkimisi partnerluslepingute üle, et rakendada metsaõigusnormide täitmise järelevalvet, metsahaldust ja puidukaubandust (FLEGT) käsitlevat Euroopa Liidu tegevuskava.
 (3)20. detsembril 2005 võttis nõukogu vastu määruse (EÜ) nr 2173/2005
 8
 FLEGT-litsentsimissüsteemi kehtestamise kohta puidu impordi suhtes Euroopa Liitu riikidest, kellega Euroopa Liit on sõlminud vabatahtliku partnerluslepingu.
 (4)Läbirääkimised Kesk-Aafrika Vabariigiga on lõpule viidud ning 21. detsembril 2010 parafeeriti Euroopa Liidu ja Kesk-Aafrika Vabariigi vaheline vabatahtlik partnerlusleping, milles käsitletakse metsaõigusnormide täitmise järelevalvet, metsahaldust ja Euroopa Liitu toodavate puittoodetega kauplemist (FLEGT) (edaspidi „leping”).
 (5)Lepingule tuleks alla kirjutada, eeldusel et see sõlmitakse,
 ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA OTSUSE:
 Artikkel 1
 Euroopa Liidu ja Kesk-Aafrika Vabariigi vahelise vabatahtliku partnerluslepingu (milles käsitletakse metsaõigusnormide täitmise järelevalvet, metsahaldust ja Euroopa Liitu toodava puidu ja puittoodetega kauplemist (FLEGT)) allakirjutamine kiidetakse liidu nimel heaks, eeldusel et nimetatud leping sõlmitakse
 9
 .
 Artikkel 2
 Nõukogu eesistujal on õigus määrata isik, kes on volitatud liidu nimel lepingule alla kirjutama, eeldusel et see sõlmitakse.
 Artikkel 3
 Käesolev otsus jõustub selle vastuvõtmise kuupäeval.
 Brüssel, [...]
 Nõukogu nimel
 eesistuja
 [...]
 (1)
 KOM(2003) 251.
 (2)
 ELT C 268, 7.11.2003, lk 1.
 (3)
 ELT L 347, 30.12.2005, lk 1.
 (4)
 Nõukogu piiratud kasutusega dokument nr 15102/05.
 (5)
 KOM(2003) 251.
 (6)
 ELT C 268, 7.11.2003, lk 1
 (7)
 ELT C 157E, 6.7.2006, lk 482.
 (8)
 ELT L 347, 30.12.2005, lk 1.
 (9)
 Lepingu tekst avaldatakse koos lepingu sõlmimist käsitleva otsusega.


text:
 EUROPSKA KOMISIJA
 Bruxelles, 18.1.2017.
 COM(2017) 17 final
 2017/0011(NLE)
 Prijedlog
 ODLUKE VIJEĆA
 o primjeni odredaba schengenske pravne stečevine u području Schengenskog informacijskog sustava u Republici Hrvatskoj
 OBRAZLOŽENJE
 1.KONTEKST PRIJEDLOGA
 •Razlozi i ciljevi prijedloga
 U skladu s člankom 4. stavkom 2. Akta o pristupanju Hrvatske Europskoj uniji
 1
 određene se odredbe schengenske pravne stečevine primjenjuju u Hrvatskoj već od dana pristupanja, a određene se odredbe primjenjuju tek na temelju odluke Vijeća, nakon provjere jesu li ispunjeni nužni uvjeti za primjenu svih dijelova pravne stečevine. Ta se provjera obavlja u skladu s relevantnim postupcima schengenske evaluacije.
 Ti postupci schengenske evaluacije predviđeni su Uredbom Vijeća (EU) br. 1053/2013 o uspostavi mehanizma evaluacije i praćenja za provjeru primjene schengenske pravne stečevine
 2
 . U skladu s tom Uredbom Komisija je utvrdila višegodišnji program evaluacije za razdoblje 2014. – 2019.
 3
 i godišnji program evaluacije za 2016. u kojem je predviđena evaluacija Hrvatske.
 Schengenska evaluacija u području Schengenskog informacijskog sustava (SIS) može se provesti tek nakon što SIS počne s radom u Hrvatskoj. Stoga je potrebno da Vijeće donese odluku o primjeni odredaba schengenske pravne stečevine u području sustava SIS u Hrvatskoj.
 Vijeće može donijeti takvu odluku tek nakon što Hrvatska provede potrebne tehničke i pravne pripreme, uključujući one povezane sa zaštitom osobnih podataka, za obradu podataka iz sustava SIS i razmjenu dopunskih informacija. U skladu s tim u veljači 2016. provedena je schengenska evaluacija radi provjere razine zaštite podataka u Hrvatskoj. Nakon pozitivnog mišljenja Schengenskog odbora
 4
 od 6. listopada 2016. Komisija je provedbenom odlukom Komisije
 5
 donijela izvješće o evaluaciji koje potvrđuje zadovoljavajuću razinu zaštite podataka.
 Savjetodavna skupina za SIS II
 6
 , na temelju rezultata iz sažetog izvješća o testovima (2016-093)
 7
 koje je izradila Europska agencija za operativno upravljanje opsežnim informacijskim sustavima u području slobode, sigurnosti i pravde (eu-LISA), potvrdila je 5. rujna 2016. da je s tehničkog gledišta hrvatski nacionalni sustav (N.SIS) spreman za integraciju u SIS te da je „svrsishodan”. Odbor za SIS II
 8
 podržao je to izvješće o testovima 15. rujna 2016., potvrđujući time da je Hrvatska ispunila tehničke uvjete za početak rada sustava SIS.
 Stoga sad Vijeće može odrediti datum od kojeg će se schengenska pravna stečevina u području sustava SIS primjenjivati u Hrvatskoj. Stupanje na snagu ove odluke omogućit će prijenos podataka iz sustava SIS u Hrvatsku. Upotreba tih podataka u Hrvatskoj omogućit će Komisiji da, u skladu sa schengenskim evaluacijskim postupcima, provjeri primjenjuju li se pravilno odredbe koje se odnose na SIS.
 Određena ograničenja upotrebe sustava SIS u Hrvatskoj bit će na snazi dok Vijeće ne odluči o punoj primjeni schengenske pravne stečevine u Hrvatskoj i ukidanju kontrola na unutarnjim granicama. Takva će se odluka donijeti kad se u skladu s člankom 4. stavkom 2. Akta o pristupanju provjeri jesu li u Hrvatskoj ispunjeni nužni uvjeti za primjenu svih dijelova mjerodavne pravne stečevine.
 •Dosljednost s postojećim odredbama politike u određenom području
 Svrha je ovog prijedloga početak primjene postojećih odredaba u području sustava SIS u Hrvatskoj.
 •Dosljednost u odnosu na druge politike Unije
 Ovaj je prijedlog povezan s odredbama schengenske pravne stečevine u području zaštite podataka i policijske suradnje.
 2.PRAVNA OSNOVA, SUPSIDIJARNOST I PROPORCIONALNOST
 •Pravna osnova
 Članak 4. stavak 2. Akta o pristupanju Hrvatske Europskoj uniji.
 •Supsidijarnost (za neisključivu nadležnost)
 Člankom 4. stavkom 2. Akta o pristupanju iz 2012. propisuje se da će se odredbe schengenske pravne stečevine koje nisu navedene u članku 4. stavku 1. tog Akta primjenjivati u Hrvatskoj tek nakon donošenja odluke Vijeća u tu svrhu.
 •Proporcionalnost
 Članak 15. stavak 2. Uredbe Vijeća (EU) br. 1053/2013 odraz je posebnih ovlasti Vijeća u pogledu uzajamne evaluacije provedbe politika Unije u području slobode, sigurnosti i pravde.
 3.REZULTATI EX POST EVALUACIJA, SAVJETOVANJA S DIONICIMA I PROCJENA UČINAKA
 •Ex post evaluacija / provjera primjerenosti postojećeg zakonodavstva
 nije primjenjivo
 •Savjetovanja s dionicima
 U skladu s člankom 14. stavkom 5. i člankom 21. stavkom 2. Uredbe Vijeća (EU) br. 1053/2013 države članice u Schengenskom odboru dale su 6. rujna 2016. pozitivno mišljenje o izvješću o evaluaciji u području zaštite podataka.
 •Prikupljanje i primjena stručnih znanja
 nije primjenjivo
 •Procjena učinka
 nije primjenjivo
 •Primjerenost propisa i pojednostavljivanje
 nije primjenjivo
 •Temeljna prava
 U postupku schengenske evaluacije uzima se u obzir zaštita temeljnih prava pri primjeni schengenske pravne stečevine.
 4.UTJECAJ NA PRORAČUN
 nije primjenjivo
 5.OSTALI DIJELOVI
 nije primjenjivo
 2017/0011 (NLE)
 Prijedlog
 ODLUKE VIJEĆA
 o primjeni odredaba schengenske pravne stečevine u području Schengenskog informacijskog sustava u Republici Hrvatskoj
 VIJEĆE EUROPSKE UNIJE,
 uzimajući u obzir Akt o pristupanju Hrvatske
 9
 , a posebno njegov članak 4. stavak 2.,
 uzimajući u obzir prijedlog Europske komisije,
 uzimajući u obzir mišljenje Europskog parlamenta
 10
 ,
 budući da:
 (1)Člankom 4. stavkom 2. Akta o pristupanju Hrvatske predviđa se da se odredbe schengenske pravne stečevine koje nisu navedene u članku 4. stavku 1. tog akta primjenjuju u Hrvatskoj tek nakon odluke Vijeća u tu svrhu, nakon provjere, u skladu s primjenjivim postupcima schengenske evaluacije, jesu li u Hrvatskoj ispunjeni nužni uvjeti za primjenu svih dijelova mjerodavne stečevine, uključujući djelotvornu primjenu svih schengenskih propisa u skladu sa zajedničkim standardima i temeljnim načelima.
 (2)Primjenjivi postupci schengenske evaluacije utvrđeni su u Uredbi Vijeća (EU) br. 1053/2013
 11
 .
 (3)Schengenska evaluacija u području zaštite podataka provedena je u Hrvatskoj u veljači 2016. Komisija je provedbenom odlukom Komisije
 12
 donijela izvješće o evaluaciji u kojem je potvrđeno da su u Hrvatskoj ispunjeni nužni uvjeti za primjenu schengenske pravne stečevine u području zaštite podataka.
 (4)U skladu s člankom 1. stavkom 1. Provedbene odluke Komisije (EU) 2015/450
 13
 potvrđeno je da je s tehničkog gledišta hrvatski nacionalni sustav (N.SIS) spreman za integraciju u Schengenski informacijski sustav („SIS”).
 (5)Budući da je Hrvatska provela potrebne tehničke i pravne pripreme za obradu podataka iz sustava SIS i razmjenu dopunskih informacija, Vijeće sada može odrediti datum od kojeg se schengenska pravna stečevina u području sustava SIS primjenjuje u Hrvatskoj.
 (6)Stupanje na snagu ove odluke omogućit će prijenos podataka iz sustava SIS u Hrvatsku. Konkretna upotreba tih podataka u Hrvatskoj omogućit će Komisiji da provjeri primjenjuju li se pravilno odredbe schengenske pravne stečevine u području sustava SIS u Hrvatskoj. Kad se provjeri jesu li u Hrvatskoj ispunjeni nužni uvjeti za primjenu svih dijelova schengenske pravne stečevine, Vijeće bi trebalo odlučiti o ukidanju kontrola na unutarnjim granicama.
 (7)Datum ukidanja kontrola na unutarnjim granicama s Hrvatskom trebao bi se utvrditi donošenjem zasebne odluke Vijeća. Do datuma utvrđenog tom odlukom na snazi bi trebala biti određena ograničenja u pogledu upotrebe sustava SIS u Hrvatskoj.
 (8)Kad je riječ o Islandu i Norveškoj, ova Odluka predstavlja razvoj odredaba schengenske pravne stečevine, u smislu Sporazuma između Vijeća Europske unije i Republike Islanda i Kraljevine Norveške o pridruživanju tih država provedbi, primjeni i razvoju schengenske pravne stečevine
 14
 , koje su obuhvaćene područjem iz članka 1. točke G. Odluke Vijeća 1999/437/EZ
 15
 .
 (9)Kad je riječ o Švicarskoj, ova Odluka predstavlja razvoj odredaba schengenske pravne stečevine u smislu Sporazuma sklopljenog između Europske unije, Europske zajednice i Švicarske Konfederacije o pridruživanju Švicarske Konfederacije provedbi, primjeni i razvoju schengenske pravne stečevine
 16
 , koje su obuhvaćene područjem iz članka 1. točke G. Odluke Vijeća 1999/437/EZ u vezi s člankom 3. Odluke Vijeća 2008/146/EZ
 17
 i člankom 3. Odluke Vijeća 2008/149/PUP
 18
 .
 (10)Kad je riječ o Lihtenštajnu, ova Uredba predstavlja razvoj odredaba schengenske pravne stečevine u smislu Protokola između Europske unije, Europske zajednice, Švicarske Konfederacije i Kneževine Lihtenštajna o pridruživanju Kneževine Lihtenštajna Sporazumu između Europske unije, Europske zajednice i Švicarske Konfederacije o pridruživanju Švicarske Konfederacije provedbi, primjeni i razvoju schengenske pravne stečevine
 19
 , koje su obuhvaćene područjem iz članka 1. točke G. Odluke Vijeća 1999/437/EZ u vezi s člankom 3. Odluke Vijeća 2011/349/EU
 20
 i člankom 3. Odluke Vijeća 2011/350/EU
 21
 ,
 DONIJELO JE OVU ODLUKU:
 Članak 1.
 1.Odredbe schengenske pravne stečevine u području Schengenskog informacijskog sustava („SIS”) navedene u Prilogu ovoj Odluci primjenjuju se od [...]* [datum koji unosi Vijeće] u Republici Hrvatskoj u njezinim odnosima s Kraljevinom Belgijom, Republikom Bugarskom, Češkom Republikom, Kraljevinom Danskom, Saveznom Republikom Njemačkom, Republikom Estonijom, Helenskom Republikom, Kraljevinom Španjolskom, Francuskom Republikom, Talijanskom Republikom, Republikom Latvijom, Republikom Litvom, Velikim Vojvodstvom Luksemburgom, Mađarskom, Republikom Maltom, Kraljevinom Nizozemskom, Republikom Austrijom, Republikom Poljskom, Portugalskom Republikom, Rumunjskom, Republikom Slovenijom, Slovačkom Republikom, Republikom Finskom, Kraljevinom Švedskom i Ujedinjenom Kraljevinom, uz uvjete navedene u ovom članku.
 2.Upozorenja definirana člankom 3. stavkom 1. točkom (a) Odluke Vijeća 2007/533/PUP
 22
 i člankom 3. točkom (a) Uredbe (EZ) br. 1987/2006
 23
 te dopunske informacije i dodatni podaci, u smislu članka 3. stavka 1. točaka (b) i (c) Odluke 2007/533/PUP i članka 3. točaka (b) i (c) Uredbe (EZ) br. 1987/2006, povezani s tim upozorenjima, mogu se od [...]* [datum koji unosi Vijeće] staviti na raspolaganje Hrvatskoj u skladu s odredbama te Odluke i te Uredbe.
 3.Od [...]* [datum koji unosi Vijeće] Hrvatska može unositi upozorenja i dodatne podatke u SIS, koristiti se podacima iz sustava SIS te razmjenjivati dopunske informacije, podložno odredbama stavka 4.
 4.Do ukidanja kontrola na unutarnjim granicama s Hrvatskom, Hrvatska:
 (a)ne mora zabraniti ulazak ili boravak na svojem državnom području državljanima trećih zemalja za koje je druga država članica izdala upozorenje u svrhu zabrane ulaska ili boravka u skladu s Uredbom (EZ) br. 1987/2006;
 (b)suzdržava se od unošenja upozorenja i dodatnih podataka u SIS te od razmjene dopunskih informacija o državljanima trećih zemalja u svrhu zabrane ulaska ili boravka u skladu s Uredbom (EZ) br. 1987/2006.
 Članak 2.
 Ova Odluka stupa na snagu sljedećeg dana od dana objave u Službenom listu Europske unije.
 Sastavljeno u Bruxellesu
 Za Vijeće
 Predsjednik
 (1)
 SL L 112, 24.2.2012., str. 21.
 (2)
 SL L 295, 6.11.2013., str. 27.
 (3)
 Provedbena odluka Komisije C(2014) 3683 od 18. lipnja 2014. o uspostavi višegodišnjeg programa evaluacije za razdoblje 2014. – 2019. u skladu s člankom 5. Uredbe Vijeća (EU) br. 1053/2013 od 7. listopada 2013. o uspostavi mehanizma evaluacije i praćenja za provjeru primjene schengenske pravne stečevine, izmijenjena Provedbenom odlukom Komisije C(2015) 4827 od 23. srpnja 2015.
 (4)
 Odbor osnovan na temelju članka 21. Uredbe Vijeća (EU) br. 1053/2013.
 (5)
 C(2016) 6870.
 (6)
 Savjetodavna skupina za SIS II osnovana je kako bi Europskoj agenciji za operativno upravljanje opsežnim informacijskim sustavima u području slobode, sigurnosti i pravde (eu-LISA) pružila stručno znanje u vezi sa središnjim sustavom SIS II. Savjetodavna skupina sastoji se od predstavnika država članica i Komisije. Postupke za rad i suradnju savjetodavnih skupina propisuje Upravni odbor u poslovniku eu-LISA-e.
 (7)
 Ti su testovi provedeni u skladu s člankom 1. stavkom 1. Provedbene odluke Komisije (EU) 2015/450 od 16. ožujka 2015. o utvrđivanju zahtjeva u pogledu testova za države članice koje se uključuju u drugu generaciju Schengenskog informacijskog sustava (SIS II) ili u znatnoj mjeri mijenjaju nacionalne sustave koji su s njime izravno povezani (priopćeno pod brojem dokumenta C(2015) 1612).
 (8)
 Odbor osnovan na temelju članka 67. Odluke Vijeća 2007/533/PUP od 12. lipnja 2007. o osnivanju, radu i korištenju druge generacije Schengenskog informacijskog sustava(SIS II) (SL L 205, 7.8.2007., str. 63.) i članka 51. Uredbe (EZ) br. 1987/2006 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 20. prosinca 2006. o uspostavi, djelovanju i korištenju druge generacije Schengenskog informacijskog sustava (SIS II) (SL L 381, 28.12.2006., str. 4.).
 (9)
 SL L 112, 24.2.2012., str. 21.
 (10)
 SL C , , str. .
 (11)
 Uredba Vijeća (EU) br. 1053/2013 od 7. listopada 2013. o uspostavi mehanizma evaluacije i praćenja za provjeru primjene schengenske pravne stečevine i stavljanju izvan snage Odluke Izvršnog odbora od 16. rujna 1998. o uspostavi Stalnog odbora za ocjenu i provedbu Schengena (SL L 295, 6.11.2013., str. 27.).
 (12)
 C(2016) 6870.
 (13)
 Provedbena odluka Komisije (EU) 2015/450 od 16. ožujka 2015. o utvrđivanju zahtjeva u pogledu testova za države članice koje se uključuju u drugu generaciju Schengenskog informacijskog sustava (SIS II) ili u znatnoj mjeri mijenjaju nacionalne sustave koji su s njime izravno povezani, priopćeno pod brojem dokumenta C(2015) 1612.
 (14)
 SL L 176, 10.7.1999., str. 36.
 (15)
 Odluka Vijeća 1999/437/EZ od 17. svibnja 1999. o određenim aranžmanima za primjenu Sporazuma sklopljenog između Vijeća Europske unije i Republike Islanda i Kraljevine Norveške o pridruživanju tih dviju država provedbi, primjeni i razvoju schengenske pravne stečevine (SL L 176, 10.7.1999., str. 31.).
 (16)
 SL L 53, 27.2.2008., str. 52.
 (17)
 Odluka Vijeća 2008/146/EZ od 28. siječnja 2008. o sklapanju, u ime Europske zajednice, Sporazuma između Europske unije, Europske zajednice i Švicarske Konfederacije o pridruživanju Švicarske Konfederacije provedbi, primjeni i razvoju schengenske pravne stečevine (SL L 53, 27.2.2008., str. 1.).
 (18)
 Odluka Vijeća 2008/149/PUP od 28. siječnja 2008. o sklapanju, u ime Europske unije, Sporazuma između Europske unije, Europske zajednice i Švicarske Konfederacije o pridruživanju Švicarske Konfederacije provedbi, primjeni i razvoju schengenske pravne stečevine (SL L 53, 27.2.2008., str. 50.).
 (19)
 SL L 160, 18.6.2011., str. 21.
 (20)
 Odluka Vijeća 2011/349/EU od 7. ožujka 2011. o sklapanju u ime Europske unije Protokola između Europske unije, Europske zajednice, Švicarske Konfederacije i Kneževine Lihtenštajna o pristupanju Kneževine Lihtenštajna Sporazumu između Europske unije, Europske zajednice i Švicarske Konfederacije o pridruživanju Švicarske Konfederacije provedbi, primjeni i razvoju schengenske pravne stečevine, posebno u odnosu na pravosudnu suradnju u kaznenim stvarima i policijsku suradnju (SL L 160, 18.6.2011., str. 1.).
 (21)
 Odluka Vijeća 2011/350/EU od 7. ožujka 2011. o sklapanju Protokola između Europske unije, Europske zajednice, Švicarske Konfederacije i Kneževine Lihtenštajna o pristupanju Kneževine Lihtenštajna Sporazumu Europske unije, Europske zajednice i Švicarske Konfederacije o pristupanju Švicarske Konfederacije provedbi, primjeni i razvoju schengenske pravne stečevine, u vezi s ukidanjem kontrola na unutarnjim granicama i kretanju osoba, u ime Europske unije (SL L 160, 18.6.2011., str. 19.).
 (22)
 Odluka Vijeća 2007/533/PUP od 12. lipnja 2007. o osnivanju, radu i korištenju druge generacije Schengenskog informacijskog sustava (SIS II) (SL L 205, 7.8.2007., str. 63.).
 (23)
 Uredba (EZ) br. 1987/2006 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 20. prosinca 2006. o uspostavi, djelovanju i korištenju druge generacije Schengenskog informacijskog sustava (SIS II) (SL L 381, 28.12.2006., str. 4.).
 ---documentbreak---
 EUROPSKA KOMISIJA
 Bruxelles, 18.1.2017.
 COM(2017) 17 final
 PRILOG
 Prijedlogu ODLUKE VIJEĆA
 o primjeni odredaba schengenske pravne stečevine u području Schengenskog informacijskog sustava u Republici Hrvatskoj
 PRILOG
 Popis odredaba schengenske pravne stečevine koje se odnose na Schengenski informacijski sustav u skladu s člankom 4. stavkom 2. Akta o pristupanju Hrvatske
 1.Uredba (EZ) br. 1986/2006 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 20. prosinca 2006. o pristupu drugoj generaciji Schengenskog informacijskog sustava (SIS II) od strane službi država članica odgovornih za izdavanje potvrda o registraciji vozila
 1
 ;
 2.Uredba (EZ) br. 1987/2006 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 20. prosinca 2006. o uspostavi, djelovanju i korištenju druge generacije Schengenskog informacijskog sustava (SIS II)
 2
 ;
 3.Odluka Vijeća 2007/533/PUP od 12. lipnja 2007. o osnivanju, radu i korištenju druge generacije Schengenskog informacijskog sustava (SIS II)
 3
 .
 (1)
 SL L 381, 28.12.2006., str. 1.
 (2)
 SL L 381, 28.12.2006., str. 4.
 (3)
 SL L 205, 7.8.2007., str. 63.