Why Communications Gaps Keep Appearing in After-Action Reports

After-action reports tell the same story across agencies, jurisdictions, and disaster types. When communications degrade during a real-world activation, the operational impact is immediate and far-reaching.

Yet communications capability gaps remain one of the most frequently identified and least frequently resolved findings in emergency management AARs nationwide.

The Pattern in After-Action Reports

Review enough AARs from federally declared disasters, large-scale exercises, and multi-agency activations and a consistent pattern emerges. Agencies identify communications degradation as a root cause or contributing factor in failures across multiple ESF lanes - not just ESF-2.

Common findings include:

• Loss of access to cloud-hosted coordination platforms during extended outages
• Inability to maintain situational awareness when WebEOC or equivalent systems become unreachable
• Cellular network congestion preventing reliable field-to-EOC communication
• Backup internet solutions failing due to shared infrastructure dependencies
• Delayed resource requesting caused by degraded connectivity at staging areas or PODs
• GIS and mapping platforms becoming unavailable during critical operational periods
• Interagency coordination gaps when partner agencies lose connectivity simultaneously

These findings are documented. They appear in corrective action plans. Improvement plans are drafted. And in many cases, the gap persists into the next activation because the corrective action was never fully resourced or procured.

Why Communications Gaps Persist

Communications resilience often falls into a procurement gray area. It touches IT, emergency management, facilities, and sometimes public safety, but may not sit cleanly within any single department's budget authority or procurement lane.

That creates several obstacles:

• No single stakeholder owns the corrective action
• IT departments may view it as an EM responsibility
• EM divisions may lack the technical specifications to write an effective solicitation
• Budget cycles delay procurement even when the capability gap is well-documented
• Competing priorities push communications resilience below life-safety equipment on capital improvement lists

The result is that agencies continue operating with known vulnerabilities that have already been identified in their own corrective action tracking systems.

From Finding to Capability

Closing a communications capability gap requires moving from AAR documentation to actual procurement. That means aligning the identified gap with an available solution, developing a defensible cost justification, and moving through the acquisition process.

For deployable communications specifically, procurement officers and emergency managers should be evaluating solutions against several criteria:

• Transport independence - Does the system rely on a single carrier or backhaul path, or does it provide true multi-source redundancy?
• Deployment speed - Can the system be activated by operational staff without dedicated IT support during the first operational period?
• Network segmentation - Does the system support separate priority and public access networks to preserve operational bandwidth?
• Power resilience - Does the system include integrated battery backup for operation during power disruptions?
• Portability - Can the system deploy to field locations, alternate EOCs, shelters, PODs, or staging areas?
• Total cost of ownership - What are the lifecycle costs including hardware, connectivity services, maintenance, and refresh?
• Service model flexibility, Is the solution available as a capital purchase, managed service, or both?

Aligning With Existing Frameworks

Communications resilience procurement aligns with several existing planning and preparedness frameworks that agencies are already using:

• THIRA/SPR - Deployable communications directly supports capability targets for operational communications and situational assessment
• COOP/COG planning - Portable connectivity supports continuity operations at alternate facilities when primary infrastructure is compromised
• NIMS/ICS, Reliable communications is a foundational requirement for incident management operations at every level
• Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) - Communications interoperability and resilience are eligible investment areas under SHSP and UASI
• BRIC and HMGP, Pre-disaster mitigation and post-disaster hazard mitigation grants may support communications infrastructure hardening

Agencies that connect their AAR findings to these frameworks strengthen their procurement justification and create clearer pathways to funding.

What NetCrate Provides

NetCrate was designed around the specific capability gaps that appear repeatedly in emergency management after-action reports.

The system provides multi-carrier cellular connectivity through T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T alongside Starlink satellite support, with automatic failover between available connections. Dual-network WiFi segmentation separates priority operational traffic from public or guest access. Integrated battery backup supports operation during power disruptions. The entire system deploys in a portable ruggedized case designed for field activation by operational staff.

NetCrate is available as an unmanaged hardware purchase starting at $3,500 or as a managed service package with Nexaer-administered connectivity and lifecycle support.

For procurement officers evaluating deployable communications solutions, specifications, pricing, and quote requests are available at nexaer.tech.

Closing the Gap

Every unresolved communications finding in an AAR represents a known vulnerability that will likely resurface during the next activation. The agencies that treat those findings as procurement priorities - rather than deferred corrective actions - are the ones that maintain operational capability when infrastructure becomes unreliable.

The gap has been identified. The corrective action is closing it.

Request a quote →