What Happened?
Taxpayers are funding a U.S. Navy shipyard rebuilding program projected to cost more than $200 billion over 50 years, and Congress currently has no guaranteed way to track whether it is on time, on budget, or running into serious problems. A report published Sept. 25 by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the federal watchdog that audits government programs, found that the Navy has no standing requirement to give lawmakers consolidated cost, schedule, or risk data for the program.
The program, called the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP), launched in 2018 to fix persistently poor conditions at the Navy's four public shipyards, which maintain and modernize nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines. The GAO previously found that early SIOP cost estimates were understated by billions of dollars, and developing the plans to rebuild the shipyards has taken years longer than originally expected. Without a formal reporting requirement, the GAO found, Congress has no consistent picture of where the money is going or what problems are emerging.
Why Does it Matter to Me?
At more than $200 billion over a timeline stretching more than five decades, the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP) has no standing requirement for the Navy to report consolidated cost, schedule, or risk data to Congress, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report published Sept. 25. Spread across 50 years, that works out to roughly $4 billion a year, about what the federal government spends annually on the Coast Guard.
The Navy's own rationale for launching the program cites shipyard conditions and capability gaps that have already affected fleet readiness, meaning delays or cost overruns could affect the country's ability to maintain its most strategically sensitive warships. Those warships include nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers, vessels that take years to build and cannot simply be replaced on short notice. At Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, for example, seismic risks and environmental issues led to additional projects and more extensive work than planned.
Both Sides, Now
The GAO recommends that Congress consider requiring the Navy to submit annual, standardized SIOP status reports covering total spending to date, original and current cost and schedule estimates, and risk analysis, for the full life of the program. The GAO also recommends the Navy build periodic reviews of program requirements and resources into its oversight structure, and formally document the roles of the organizations managing shipyard projects.
The Navy agreed with the recommendations and outlined steps to carry them out. That agreement puts both agencies on the same page about the need for stronger oversight, even as the formal mechanism to require it does not yet exist.
Still, the GAO notes that unlike major weapons programs, such as those for missiles or aircraft, which must submit detailed annual progress reports to Congress, SIOP faces no comparable reporting requirement today. That gap means lawmakers reviewing the defense budget each year are working without the same standardized data they receive for other programs of similar scale.
What Happens Next?
Congress directed the GAO to produce this report through a provision in the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024, signaling concern about the program's direction. That directive shows at least some lawmakers were already asking questions before the report landed.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommended that Congress consider requiring the Navy to provide annual consolidated status updates on costs, schedule, and risks for the full duration of the program, but no such reporting requirement currently exists. Until that changes, the Navy can continue managing SIOP without submitting the kind of consolidated progress reports the GAO says are needed.
---
AllCiv makes it easy to stay politically informed and involved.
---
Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article