This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-114R 
entitled 'Contract Management: DOD Developed Draft Guidance for 
Operational Contract Support but Has Not Met All Legislative 
Requirements' which was released on November 20, 2008.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

November 20, 2008: 

The Honorable Carl Levin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable John McCain: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Ike Skelton: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
House of Representatives: 

Subject: Contract Management: DOD Developed Draft Guidance for 
Operational Contract Support but Has Not Met All Legislative 
Requirements: 

The U.S. military has long used contractors to provide supplies and 
services to deployed U.S. forces as well as for post-conflict support. 
[Footnote 1] The Department of Defense's (DOD) use of contractors has 
grown significantly to the extent that the force in Iraq is composed of 
approximately 143,000 military personnel and 149,000 DOD contractor 
personnel. Congress, GAO, and others have frequently reported on or 
expressed concerns about the long-standing challenges that DOD faces 
when managing operational contract support.[Footnote 2] These 
challenges include a failure to adequately plan for the use of 
contractors, poorly defined or changing requirements, a lack of 
deployable contracting personnel with contingency contracting 
experience, and difficulties in coordinating contracts and contractor 
management across military services in joint contingency environments. 
Furthermore, as we have previously reported, DOD has not provided a 
sufficient number of trained contract oversight and management 
personnel in contingency operations, and visibility of contracting 
activities and contractors has been limited.[Footnote 3] As we have 
testified, problems associated with DOD's inability to overcome these 
challenges have resulted in higher costs, schedule delays, unmet goals, 
and negative operational impacts.[Footnote 4] 

To respond to these concerns, Congress enacted an amendment to title 10 
of the U.S. Code adding section 2333, which directed the Secretary of 
Defense in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
to develop joint policies by April 2008 for requirements definition, 
contingency program management, and contingency contracting during 
combat and post-conflict operations.[Footnote 5] In January 2008, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, hereafter 
referred to as the NDAA FY08, amended section 2333 to add a new 
subparagraph directing that these joint policies provide for training 
of military personnel outside the acquisition workforce who are 
expected to have acquisition responsibilities including oversight of 
contracts or contractors during combat operations, post-conflict 
operations and contingency operations.[Footnote 6] Additionally, NDAA 
FY08 directed GAO to review DOD's joint policies and determine the 
extent to which those policies and the implementation of such policies 
comply with the requirements of section 2333 of title 10 of the U.S. 
Code. 

This report responds to congressional direction included in section 849 
of NDAA FY08. Our objectives were to determine the extent to which (1) 
DOD has complied with section 2333 of title 10 of the U.S. Code to 
develop joint policies for (a) requirements definition, (b) contingency 
program management, (c) contingency contracting, and (d) training for 
personnel outside the acquisition workforce; and (2) DOD has 
implemented these joint policies. 

To determine the extent to which DOD has complied with the requirement 
to develop policy discussed in section 2333 of title 10, we obtained 
and reviewed copies of the following draft policies, which were 
identified by the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Program 
Support) as being developed or revised to meet the statutory 
requirements: (1) DOD Directive 3020.qq, "Orchestrating, Synchronizing, 
and Integrating Program Management of Contingency Acquisition Planning 
and Its Operational Execution"; (2) DOD Directive 5134.12, "Deputy 
Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness"; (3) 
DOD Instruction 3020.41, "Program Management for the Preparation and 
Execution of Acquisitions for Contingency Operations"; (4) 
Expeditionary Contracting Policy; and (5) Joint Publication 4-10, 
"Operational Contract Support."[Footnote 7] In addition, we met with 
representatives of the Joint Staff, the Office of the Assistant Deputy 
Under Secretary of Defense (Program Support) (ADUSD(PS)) and the Office 
of the Director of Defense Procurement, Acquisition Policy, and 
Strategic Sourcing because these offices play key roles in developing 
and implementing the joint policies. 

To determine the extent to which the policies have been implemented, we 
met with representatives of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, as well as 
representatives of the Joint Staff and U.S. Central Command, U.S. 
Pacific Command, U.S. European Command, and U.S. Southern Command. In 
addition, we met with representatives of the Defense Acquisition 
University, which is responsible for developing training for 
acquisition personnel and contracting officer representatives, to 
obtain information on the training available to contingency contracting 
personnel, program management personnel, and oversight personnel. We 
also interviewed officials from the Department of State who coordinate 
with DOD in interagency planning and operations. Finally, we met with 
the presumptive director of the Joint Contingency Acquisition Support 
Office to determine the office's role and responsibilities in 
contingency contracting, program management, requirements definition, 
and training. We also obtained and reviewed documents prepared by the 
Defense Acquisition University and others to assist us in determining 
the status of implementation. Enclosure I contains a more detailed 
presentation of our scope and methodology. 

Our assessment of the actions DOD has taken to meet the provisions of 
section 2333 of title 10 does not address the effectiveness of policies 
that were in place prior to the mandate. Moreover, we did not evaluate 
whether these draft policies will be effective because many are under 
development and subject to change. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2008 to November 2008 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on audit objectives. We believe that the 
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our assessment based 
on our audit objectives. 

Summary: 

DOD is revising and developing new joint policies in each of four areas 
required--requirements definition, contingency program management, 
contingency contracting, and training for personnel outside the 
acquisition workforce; however, these policies were not finalized by 
April 2008 as required by the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. As of October 1, 2008, the 
draft policies were not in full compliance with every subparagraph of 
section 2333 of title 10 and the extent to which the policies comply 
varies. For example, the law directs DOD to develop joint policies that 
provide for "a preplanned organizational approach to program 
management" during combat operations, post-conflict operations, and 
contingency operations.[Footnote 8] As of October 1, 2008, none of 
DOD's draft policies provided guidance on the use of a preplanned 
organizational approach to program management. According to DOD 
officials, it is envisioned that the combatant commanders will identify 
the preplanned organizational approach they intend to use in their 
planning documents; however, policy will have to be revised to reflect 
guidance for combatant commanders to include this in their plans. 
Furthermore, the law directs DOD to assign a senior commissioned 
officer to act as head of contingency contracting and report to the 
relevant combatant commander.[Footnote 9] However, DOD's draft Joint 
Publication 4-10 does not provide for the assignment of a single head 
of contracting activity to oversee contracting during all 
contingencies. 

Enclosure II provides more details of our assessment of the extent to 
which DOD draft policies address the requirements in section 2333 of 
title 10, including a number of observations that could be useful as 
DOD finalizes its draft policies. While a draft of this report was at 
the agency for comment, DOD finalized Joint Publication 4-10, 
"Operational Contract Support," which was signed on October 17, 2008. 
The remaining joint policies have yet to be finalized. 

Furthermore, DOD has begun to implement aspects of the draft policies 
in all four required areas. For example, DOD has implemented draft 
policy[Footnote 10] that directs the services, military departments, 
and combatant commands to provide for the integration of contractors 
and operational acquisition in mission readiness exercises.[Footnote 
11] However, DOD has not fully implemented another training policy that 
requires the services to provide training to personnel outside the 
acquisition workforce. Specifically, the Army has developed training, 
but neither the Air Force nor the Department of the Navy has identified 
plans or initiatives to develop and provide training for personnel 
outside the acquisition workforce. Enclosure II contains more detail on 
our assessment of the extent to which DOD has implemented its draft 
policies. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluations: 

We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. In 
their written comments, DOD stated that it believes our report 
prematurely speculates on the results of pending draft DOD directives, 
publications, and instructions. We disagree with DOD's assessment. We 
were required by section 849 of the NDAA 08 to conduct our review no 
later than 180 days after the Secretary of Defense's April report on 
the implementation of joint policies developed under section 2333 of 
title 10 of the U.S. Code. Furthermore, our report notes that our 
assessment provides the status, as of October 1, 2008, of DOD's 
compliance and implementation of the provisions of section 2333, 
including a number of observations on DOD's progress in developing DOD 
directives, publications, and instructions as well as observations that 
could be useful as DOD finalizes its draft policies. DOD also provided 
us with technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as 
appropriate. DOD's response is attached as enclosure III. 

We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional 
committees and the Secretary of Defense. In addition, this report will 
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

Should you or your staff have any questions on the matters covered in 
this report, please contact Linda Kohn at (202) 512-7114 or 
kohnl@gao.gov or John Hutton at (202) 512-4841 or huttonj@gao.gov. 
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who 
made key contributions to this report are listed in enclosure IV. 

Signed by: 

Linda Kohn, Acting Director: 
Defense Capabilities and Management: 

Signed by: 

John Hutton, Director: 
Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 

[End of section] 

Enclosure I: Scope and Methodology: 

After Congress amended section 2333 of title 10 of the U.S. Code, it 
directed GAO to determine the extent to which (1) the Department of 
Defense (DOD) has complied with section 2333 of title 10 to develop 
joint policies for (a) requirements definition, (b) contingency program 
management, (c) contingency contracting, and (d) training for personnel 
outside the acquisition workforce; and (2) DOD has implemented joint 
policies in these four areas of the law. Our assessment of the actions 
DOD has taken to meet the provisions of section 2333 of title 10 does 
not address the effectiveness of policies that were in place prior to 
the mandate. Furthermore, we did not evaluate whether these draft 
policies will be effective because many are under development and 
subject to change. 

To determine how DOD was addressing and complying with section 2333 of 
title 10, we obtained and reviewed copies of the following draft 
policies identified by the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 
(Program Support) (ADUSD(PS)) as being developed or revised to meet 
section 2333: 

* DOD Instruction 3020.41, "Program Management for the Preparation and 
Execution of Acquisitions for Contingency Operations"; 

* DOD's revision to Directive 5134.12, "Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness"; 

* DOD Directive 3020.qq, "Orchestrating, Synchronizing, and Integrating 
Program Management of Contingency Acquisition Planning and Its 
Operational Execution"; 

* Expeditionary Contracting Policy; and: 

* Joint Publication 4-10, "Operational Contract Support."[Footnote 12] 

To determine the extent to which DOD's joint policies have been 
implemented, we obtained and reviewed a number of key documents and 
interviewed a number of officials. First, we reviewed DOD's reports to 
Congress addressing DOD's implementation of the requirements of section 
854 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal 
Year 2007, including the interim report to Congress, issued October 
2007, and the final report to Congress, issued in April 2008. We also 
reviewed the 2008 report, entitled Department of Defense Task Force on 
Contracting and Contractor Management in Expeditionary Operations, 
submitted to Congress in response to section 849 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Additionally, we 
reviewed several DOD documents that were in draft at the time of our 
engagement, including the Operational Contract Support Concept of 
Operations, the Operational Contract Support Roadmap, and the Joint 
Contingency Acquisition Support Office Concept of Operations. These 
documents explain how DOD intends to implement the policies it is 
developing. We also reviewed DOD's Report on Improving Interagency 
Support for United States 21ST Century National Security Missions and 
Interagency Operations in Support of Stability, Security, Transition, 
and Reconstruction Operations (section 1035 report) to determine the 
expectations it established for DOD with respect to interagency 
cooperation in planning for, exercising, and executing reconstruction 
and stability operations. 

To evaluate steps taken by DOD to provide and ensure contingency 
contracting training, we examined the Defense Acquisition Workforce 
Improvement Act to understand training requirements for personnel in 
the contracting career field and to determine if existing 
certifications awarded for meeting these requirements would identify 
personnel who have completed contingency contracting training.[Footnote 
13] We reviewed Contingency Contracting: A Joint Handbook and other 
provided instructional materials for the Defense Acquisition 
University's basic contracting courses and contingency contracting 
course, CON 234, to ensure that the available training contained the 
legally required elements. We also reviewed joint and service training 
documents, and the Defense Acquisition University's contracting 
officer's representative training class materials, to assess whether 
the training of officers and subordinates in the field in contingency 
program management and contingency contracting matters-
-both acquisition and non-acquisition personnel--meets the intent of 
section 2333 of title 10. 

In addition to our document review, we interviewed officials including 
representatives of the Office of the ADUSD(PS), Joint Staff, and the 
Office of the Director of Defense Procurement, Acquisition Policy, and 
Strategic Sourcing to discuss, among other things, the status of the 
development or revision of joint policies, intended deadlines for 
finalizing joint policies, and challenges faced. We interviewed these 
officials to determine the extent to which DOD had implemented the 
policies it is developing. We also interviewed officials from the Joint 
Contracting Command --Iraq/Afghanistan to discuss contingency 
contracting, and interviewed Department of State officials to assess 
the extent to which DOD has undertaken interagency planning and 
operations, as required in section 2333 of title 10. 

We conducted interviews with service offices dedicated to planning, 
doctrine, and training functions, including the Army's Acquisition, 
Logistics and Technology Integration Office, and the following 
combatant commands: 

* U.S. Joint Forces Command, 

* U.S. Central Command, 

* U.S. Pacific Command, 

* U.S. European Command, and: 

* U.S. Southern Command. 

At these service and joint offices, we interviewed military officers 
and planners responsible for the revision of the geographic combatant 
commanders' operation plans and concept plans, to determine whether 
these plans incorporated DOD's draft policies on the four areas 
discussed in section 2333 of title 10. 

Additionally, we met with U.S. Joint Forces Command representatives, as 
well as Army, Navy, and Air Force representatives to discuss training 
initiatives and the extent to which contractors have been incorporated 
into mission readiness exercises. We met with representatives of the 
Defense Acquisition University to obtain information on the training 
available to contingency contracting personnel, program management 
personnel, and oversight personnel, including non-acquisition members 
of the officer corps. 

Finally, to help us assess DOD's implementation of some of the joint 
policies we met with the presumptive director of the Joint Contingency 
Acquisition Support Office. In our interview with the presumptive 
director, we sought to gain an understanding of his office's role in 
contingency program management and contingency contracting as well as 
who would make up the proposed deployable cadre of experts and what 
their roles and responsibilities would entail. 

We visited or contacted the following offices during our review. 

Department of Defense: 

* Office of the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Program 
Support) (ADUSD(PS)), Washington, D.C. 

* Joint Contracting Command --Iraq/Afghanistan, Baghdad, Iraq: 

* Office of Defense Procurement, Acquisition Policy, and Strategic 
Sourcing, Washington, D.C. 

* U.S. Joint Forces Command, Suffolk, Virginia: 

* Joint Warfighting Center, Suffolk, Virginia: 

* Joint Staff J4 (Logistics) Directorate, Washington, D.C. 

* U.S. Central Command, Tampa, Florida: 

* U.S. European Command, Stuttgart, Germany: 

* U.S. Pacific Command, Honolulu, Hawaii: 

* U.S. Southern Command, Miami, Florida: 

* Defense Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir, Virginia: 

* Joint Contingency Acquisition Support Office (provisionally located 
at the Defense Depot), Norfolk, Virginia: 

Department of the Navy: 

* Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Acquisition and 
Logistics Management, Arlington, Virginia: 

Department of the Army: 

* Acquisition, Logistics and Technology Integration Office, Fort Lee, 
Virginia: 

* Army Expeditionary Contracting Command, Fort Belvoir, Virginia: 

Department of the Air Force: 

* Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Contracting, 
Arlington, Virginia: 

Other government agencies: 

* U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2008 to November 2008 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Our 
assessment of the extent to which DOD's draft policies met the 
requirements of section 2333 of title 10 is based on our review of the 
draft policies and guidance as they were written on October 1, 2008. 
Similarly our assessment of the extent to which the policies have been 
implemented was based on the work we undertook from June 2008 through 
October 1, 2008. Generally accepted government auditing standards 
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 
obtained provides a reasonable basis for this assessment based on our 
audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Enclosure II: GAO's Assessment of DOD's Compliance With and 
Implementation of the Provisions of Section 2333 of Title 10 of the 
U.S. Code to Develop Joint Policies: 

The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2007,[Footnote 14] hereafter referred to as NDAA FY 07, amended title 
10 of the U.S. Code to add section 2333, requiring the Secretary of 
Defense in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
to develop joint policies for requirements definition, contingency 
program management, and contingency contracting during combat 
operations and post-conflict operations by April 2008.[Footnote 15] In 
January 2008, the National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2008 
further amended section 2333 of title 10 directing that these joint 
policies provide for training of military personnel outside the 
acquisition workforce who are expected to have acquisition 
responsibilities during combat operations, post-conflict operations, 
and contingency operations.[Footnote 16] This amendment also included a 
requirement for GAO to review the joint policies and the implementation 
of those policies and submit to Congress a report on the extent to 
which such policies comply with the requirements of section 2333 of 
title 10 no later than 180 days after the Secretary of Defense's April 
report on the implementation of joint policies developed under section 
2333 of title 10.[Footnote 17] 

Table 1 is our assessment of the actions DOD has taken to meet the 
requirements of section 2333 of title 10 and includes a number of 
observations that could be useful as DOD finalizes its draft policies. 
DOD's joint policies were not finalized by April 2008, as required by 
the NDAA FY07. DOD is currently revising and developing new joint 
policies on each of the four matters required under section 2333 of 
title 10; however, as of October 1, 2008, these draft policies were not 
in full compliance with all the subparagraphs of section 2333. 
Furthermore, DOD has begun to implement some of the draft policies on 
each of the four matters; however, the extent of implementation varies. 
While a draft of this report was at the agency for comment, DOD 
finalized Joint Publication 4-10, "Operational Contract Support," which 
was signed on October 17, 2008. The remaining joint policies have yet 
to be finalized. 

Our assessment of the extent to which DOD's draft policies met the 
requirements of section 2333 of title 10 is based on our review of the 
draft policies and guidance as they were written on October 1, 2008. 
Similarly, our assessment of the extent to which the policies have been 
implemented was based on the work we undertook from June 2008 through 
October 1, 2008. Furthermore, our assessment of the actions DOD has 
taken to meet the provisions of section 2333 of title 10 does not 
address the effectiveness of policies that were in place prior to the 
mandate. Moreover, we did not evaluate whether these draft policies 
will be effective because many are under development and subject to 
change. 

Table 1: GAO's Assessment of DOD's Compliance and Implementation of the 
Provisions of Section 2333 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code to Develop 
Joint Policies: 

Section 2333 (a) Joint Policy requirement: The Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, shall 
develop joint policies for requirements definition, contingency program 
management, and contingency contracting during combat operations and 
post-conflict operations; 
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008: DOD's joint policies, which were to be issued by April 
2008,[A] are still in development. According to the Office of the 
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Program Support) 
(ADUSD(PS)), who was designated to implement section 854 of the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007, the five draft 
joint policies discussed below were identified as the policies being 
developed to meet the requirements of section 2333 of title 10 of the 
U.S. Code. 
DOD is developing Department of Defense Directive 3020.qq, 
"Orchestrating, Synchronizing, and Integrating Program Management of 
Contingency Acquisition Planning and Its Operational Execution." The 
purpose of this draft directive is to establish policy and assign 
responsibilities for program management for the preparation and 
execution of acquisitions for contingency operations, in accordance 
with section 2333 of title 10 of the U.S. Code. The draft directive 
states that it is DOD policy that appropriate program management for 
the preparation and execution of acquisitions for contingency 
operations is implemented to abide by applicable laws and policies, and 
to fully consider, plan for, integrate, and execute contractor support 
into contingency operations. The draft directive also states that the 
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness 
(DUSD(L&MR)) is to manage the Joint Logistics Portfolio containing the 
operational contract support capability area to ensure effective 
management of contracts and contractors through the development of 
joint policies on requirements definition, contingency program 
management, and contingency contracting. Additionally, the ADUSD(PS), 
under the DUSD(L&MR) is to (1) oversee and manage the orchestration, 
integration, and synchronization of the preparation and execution of 
acquisitions for contingency operations; (2) lead, in conjunction with 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the development of joint 
policies for requirements definition, contingency program management, 
and contingency contracting; and (3) undertake interagency 
coordination, as appropriate.[B] Finally, the draft directive states 
that the Defense Acquisition University (DAU), under the Deputy Under 
Secretary of Defense, Acquisition and Technology, is to develop and 
execute training of the acquisition workforce. 
DOD is revising Department of Defense Directive 5134.12, entitled 
"Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Material 
Readiness," to provide the current responsibilities, functions, 
relationships, and authorities of the (DUSD(L&MR). For example, the 
draft directive states that program management will be delegated to the 
ADUSD (PS) for joint policies for requirements definition and 
contingency program management, including (1) establishing a framework 
and the policies for a Joint Contingency Acquisition Support Office 
(JCASO) to support contingency operations in accordance with 
congressional mandates; (2) establishing policies for 
institutionalizing the requirement for joint operational contract 
support planners in each of the combatant commands; (3) providing for 
the accountability and visibility of DOD contractors supporting 
contingency operations through a DOD-approved common database; and (4) 
providing policy and guidance for DOD contractors and contractor 
personnel in support of contingency, disaster relief, and humanitarian 
assistance operations. 

Section 2333 (a) Joint Policy requirement: 
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008: 

Section 2333 (a) Joint Policy requirement: The Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, shall 
develop joint policies for requirements definition, contingency program 
management, and contingency contracting during combat operations and 
post-conflict operations.
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008: DOD is revising existing DOD Instruction (DODI) 
3020.41, "Program Management for the Preparation and Execution of 
Acquisitions for Contingency Operations."[C] This document strengthens 
the department's joint policies and guidance on requirements 
definition; program management, including the oversight of contractor 
personnel supporting a contingency operation; and training. The draft 
instruction states that it is DOD policy to fully consider, plan for, 
integrate, and execute contractor support into contingency operations. 
The draft instruction further contains instructions to combatant 
commanders and service component commanders to conduct planning to 
identify military capabilities shortfalls that require acquisition 
solutions in commanders' operational plans. The draft also provides 
joint policy on some aspects of program management, such as the 
management of contractors supporting a contingency operation. For 
example, the draft policy notes that DOD has designated a joint Web-
based database for combatant commander's to use in maintaining 
accountability and visibility over DOD-funded contracts and contractors 
in their areas of responsibility. The draft document also directs that 
adequate trained military or DOD civilian personnel resources necessary 
to execute contract oversight are identified and addressed in the 
operational plans. In addition, the draft also directs the combatant 
commanders to integrate requirements identification, contractor 
management, contractor integration, and any identified operational 
acquisition requirements into training simulations, mission rehearsals, 
and exercises. 
DOD is developing an Expeditionary Contracting Policy, which will 
supplement the Federal Acquisition Regulation and Defense Federal 
Acquisition Regulation Supplement and is intended to establish uniform 
policies and procedures for DOD contingency contracting officers. DOD 
intends for the draft policy to also provide practical advice as well 
as reminders of contract policies that affect buying in long-and short-
term contingency operations. The draft policy also provides the 
foundation for the Joint Contingency Contracting Handbook. According to 
DOD, the handbook and enclosed DVD provide tools, templates, and 
training that enable a contingency contracting officer to be effective 
in any contracting environment. The handbook also contains resources 
for contracting officers to promote uniform contracting practices, 
including standardized contract forms and language for terms and 
conditions. While the handbook was available in December 2007, DOD 
officials do not expect the draft policy to be finalized until Joint 
Publication 4-10 is finalized so that they may ensure that policy and 
doctrine are aligned.
DOD's draft Joint Publication 4-10,[D] "Operational Contract Support," 
is intended to establish DOD's doctrine for planning, conducting, and 
assessing operational contract support integration and contract 
management functions in support of joint operations. The draft joint 
publication provides standardized guidance and information related to 
integrating operational contract support and contractor management. The 
draft doctrine contains guidance on the requirements development 
process. The draft doctrine also briefly addresses contingency program 
management by identifying a future organizational option, called the 
JCASO, which will provide program management for joint contingency 
acquisition across the combatant commands and interagency, during 
combat operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency 
operations. Additionally, the draft joint publication contains guidance 
on contractor management principles, which are mainly focused on the 
integration of contractor personnel once the commander makes the 
decision to use contracted versus military sources of support. The 
draft includes specific guidance on DOD's responsibility to contractor 
employees to provide things such as life support, force protection, and 
medical support as well as a basic discussion on contracting command 
and control organizational options. The draft doctrine also provides 
commanders with options for how to organize the command and control 
over supporting contracting organizations, which includes a joint 
approach with consolidated contracting authority. However, because this 
publication is doctrine, it does not require a joint approach even when 
multiple services are involved.[E]. 

Section 2333 (b); Requirements Definition Matters: (1); The assignment 
of a senior commissioned officer or civilian member of the senior 
executive service, with appropriate experience and qualifications 
related to the definition of requirements to be satisfied through 
acquisition contracts (such as for delivery of products or services, 
performance of work, or accomplishment of a project), to act as head of 
requirements definition and coordination during combat operations, post-
conflict operations, and contingency operations, if required, including 
leading a requirements review board involving all organizations 
concerned; 
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008: 
In the current forms, neither the draft DOD Directive 3020.qq, draft 
DOD Directive 5134.12, nor draft Joint Publication 4-10 provide for the 
assignment of a single senior commissioned officer or civilian member 
of the senior executive service, with appropriate experience and 
qualifications related to the definition of requirements to be 
satisfied through acquisition contracts (such as for delivery of 
products or services, performance of work, or accomplishment of a 
project), to act as head of requirements definition and coordination 
during combat operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency 
operations, if required, including leading a requirements review board 
involving all organizations concerned.
A senior representative from the Office of the ADUSD(PS) stated that 
the ADUSD(PS) is viewed within the department as fulfilling this 
subparagraph of the law. DOD Directive 3020.qq and DOD Instruction 
5134.12 outline certain policy-making responsibilities of the 
ADUSD(PS). However, these documents do not identify the ADUSD(PS) as 
the person responsible for acting as the head of requirements 
definition and coordination during combat operations, post-conflict 
operations, and contingency operations and leading a requirements 
review board if one is required. Instead, draft Joint Publication 4-10 
designates the requiring activity, which is a military or other 
designated supported organization, as the appropriate organization to 
determine contractor-supported requirements during military operations. 
Furthermore, according to draft Joint Publication 4-10, an in-theater 
requirements review board, known as the Joint Acquisition Review Board 
(JARB) is used to coordinate and control the requirements generation 
and prioritization of joint common user logistics supplies and services 
that are needed in support of the operational mission, and is normally 
chaired by the subordinate joint forces commander or deputy commander, 
Joint Staff, Logistics (J4). In addition, decisions made by the JARB 
may be forwarded to the Joint Contracting Support Board (JCSB) which 
makes recommendations on which specific contracting 
organizations/contract venues are best suited to fulfill the 
requirements. The goal of the JCSB is to maximize the contracting 
capabilities of the joint operations area while minimizing the 
competition for limited vendor capabilities. 

Section 2333 (b); Requirements Definition Matters: (2); An 
organizational approach to requirements definition and coordination 
during combat operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency 
operations that is designed to ensure that requirements are defined in 
a way that effectively implements United States Government and 
Department of Defense objectives, policies, and decisions regarding the 
allocation of resources, coordination of interagency efforts in the 
theater of operations, and alignment of requirements with the proper 
use of funds; 
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008: DOD's draft joint policies do not provide for an 
organizational approach to requirements definition and coordination 
during combat operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency 
operations that is designed to ensure that requirements are defined in 
a way that effectively implements U.S. government and DOD objectives, 
policies, and decisions regarding the allocation of resources, 
coordination of interagency efforts in the theater of operations, and 
alignment of requirements with the proper use of funds. According to 
DOD, the organizational approach to requirements definition and 
coordination is a two-step approach that remains under development. 
First, the draft DOD Instruction 3020.41 calls for military planners to 
develop detailed and synchronized contractor support and contractor 
integration plans and include them in their operational plans. With a 
stated objective of fulfilling the requirements of section 2333 of 
title 10, DOD issued a task order for contracting planning for 
combatant commanders' program support. The task order statement of work 
places two joint operational contract support planners (who are 
currently contractors) at each geographic combatant command as well as 
at U.S. Joint Forces Command. These planners are tasked with 
identifying military capability shortfalls and the contract 
capabilities necessary to meet these shortfalls, and with defining 
these requirements in the combatant commanders' operational plans 
(OPLANs) and concept plans (CONPLANs). However, DOD, the Joint Staff, 
and some combatant commands are unclear on who should be identifying 
and defining requirements for contractor support and what level of 
detail should be included in the combatant commander's plans. Based on 
analysis of information obtained from the combatant commands we 
contacted, including U.S. Central Command, U.S. European Command, U.S. 
Pacific Command, and U.S. Southern Command, few plans include 
contractor support requirements. According to DOD officials, to resolve 
this confusion, the Joint Staff has taken the lead on revising existing 
guidance contained in the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual 
3122.03C (17 Aug 2007) on how to develop a contractor support annex 
(also referred to as annex W), which is included in the combatant 
commander's operational plans. This revision is expected to be 
completed in late 2008. 
Second, DOD has established the JCASO, which will be responsible for 
reviewing the combatant commanders' OPLANs and CONPLANs continually to 
ensure early identification of and inclusion of contract requirements. 
According to the DOD report to Congress on section 854, in order to 
comply with section 2333 of title 10, DOD established the JCASO to lead 
the integration and synchronization of contract support in OPLANs and 
CONPLANs across combatant commands and U.S. government agencies. While 
the JCASO is briefly identified in Joint Publication 4-10 as a future 
organizational option, the joint publication does not provide guidance 
or policy on using the JCASO as an organizational approach to 
requirements definition and coordination during combat operations, post-
conflict operations, and contingency operations. According to DOD 
officials, the JCASO has not been fully staffed, and the details of the 
review process have yet to be worked out. 

Section 2333 (c); Contingency Program Management Matters: (1); The 
assignment of a senior commissioned officer or civilian member of the 
senior executive service, with appropriate program management 
experience and qualifications, to act as head of program management 
during combat operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency 
operations, including stabilization and reconstruction operations 
involving multiple United States Government agencies and international 
organizations, if required. 
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008: Draft DOD policy does not provide for the assignment 
of a senior commissioned officer or civilian member of the senior 
executive service, with appropriate program management experience and 
qualifications, to act as head of program management during combat 
operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency operations, 
including stabilization and reconstruction operations involving 
multiple U.S. Government agencies and international organizations, if 
required. 
However, a senior representative from the Office of the ADUSD(PS) 
stated that the ADUSD(PS) is viewed within the department as fulfilling 
this subparagraph of the law. While DOD Directive 3020.qq and DOD 
Instruction 5134.12 outline certain policy-making responsibilities of 
the ADUSD(PS), the responsibility of acting as a head of program 
management, specifically in a theater of operation during combat 
operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency operations, is 
not provided therein. Additionally, although the JCASO is briefly 
identified in Joint Publication 4-10 as a future organizational option 
to provide program management for joint contingency acquisition across 
the combatant commands and U.S. interagency, during combat operations, 
post-conflict operations, and contingency operations, the joint 
publication does not provide any guidance or policy on who would have 
the responsibility to act as head of program management, and it does 
not discuss who would act as head of program management if the JCASO 
organizational option is not exercised. However, according to DOD 
officials, current guidance contained in the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff Instruction 5120.02 (30 November 2004) states that only 
capabilities in current use are incorporated into joint doctrine. 
Therefore, DOD officials stated that as soon as the JCASO is fully 
developed and operating, immediate steps will be taken to incorporate 
it into the next revision of the joint publication. 

Section 2333 (c); Contingency Program Management Matters: (2); A 
preplanned organizational approach to program management during combat 
operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency operations that 
is designed to ensure that the Department of Defense is prepared to 
conduct such program management; 
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008: DOD's draft joint policies do not provide for a 
preplanned organizational approach to program management during combat 
operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency operations that 
is designed to ensure that DOD is prepared to conduct such program 
management. 
Although the JCASO is briefly identified in Joint Publication 4-10 as a 
future organizational option to provide program management for joint 
contingency acquisition across the combatant commands and US 
interagency, during combat operations, post-conflict operations, and 
contingency operations, the joint publication does not provide any 
guidance or policy on using the JCASO. As previously noted, DOD 
officials stated that as soon as the JCASO is fully developed and 
operating, immediate steps will be taken to incorporate it into the 
next revision of the joint publication. 
The intent of the JCASO, according to DOD's draft JCASO Concept of 
Operations, is to forward deploy a single joint program management 
capability that will act as head of program management, among other 
responsibilities, during combat operations and contingency operations 
and have a direct reporting relationship to the Joint Task Force 
Commander. When the JCASO is transitioned into a joint contracting 
center, during post-conflict operations and contingency operations, 
including stabilization and reconstruction operations, it will serve as 
program manager, reporting directly to the joint forces commander. On 
July 10, 2008, DOD designated the JCASO's provisional location in the 
Defense Logistics Agency. 
However, decisions on how and when to use the JCASO have yet to be 
finalized. Specifically, whether the JCASO will be deployed in all 
contingency circumstances is unclear. According to DOD officials, it is 
envisioned that commanders' OPLANs should identify what their 
preplanned organizational approaches to program management would be; 
however, policy and doctrine would have to be developed or revised to 
address this. 

GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008: 

Section 2333 (c); Contingency Program Management Matters: (3); 
Identification of a deployable cadre of experts, with the appropriate 
tools and authority, and trained in processes under paragraph (6).[F]; 
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008: In the introduction to its JCASO Concept of 
Operations, which is currently in draft, DOD identifies that the JCASO 
includes the deployable cadre specified in section 854 of the NDAA 
FY07. Currently, the JCASO's roles and responsibilities for contingency 
operations have not been integrated into the draft Operational Contract 
Support Joint Publication 4-10, which is DOD's overall operational 
contract support doctrine. DOD officials who developed the draft 
doctrine explained that it is inappropriate to include the JCASO into 
the doctrine until it is mature and functional. 
According to the draft concept of operations, the JCASO will be 
composed of 27 full-time members, who have not been selected. According 
to DOD, 16 of these members will be the deployable cadre of experts 
with appropriate tools and authorities to oversee program management 
during contingency operations. DOD expects that JCASO personnel will be 
experts in planning, contingency contracting, contingency financing, 
contingency law, and civil engineering but does not identify how these 
personnel will be trained in the processes under paragraph (5). 
According to DOD, the deployable personnel would include contracting 
officers, quality assurance representatives, and a representative with 
experience in combatant command-level planning, operations, and 
contracting that would provide visibility of contracts and contractors 
in the joint area of operations and be the joint forces commander's 
single point of contact for all contracting/contractor personnel issues 
therein. 

Section 2333 (c); Contingency Program Management Matters: (4); 
Utilization of the hiring and appointment authorities necessary for the 
rapid deployment of personnel to ensure the availability of key 
personnel for sufficient lengths of time to provide for continuing 
program and project management; 
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008: According to DOD, it is currently in the process of 
revising DOD Directive 1404.10, "Building and Sustaining an 
Expeditionary Capability in the DOD Civilian Workforce," to address the 
authorities needed to appoint and hire members of DOD's civilian 
workforce to be rapidly deployable and serve in a variety of positions, 
including those related to program management, during global 
operations. The draft directive states that it is DOD policy to ensure 
that individual deployments will generally not exceed 1 year, which 
according to officials is sufficient to support program management 
functions during expeditionary operations. DOD expects to finish 
drafting this policy sometime in 2009. 
According to the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 
Civilian Personnel Policy, DOD has approximately 9,800 civilian 
positions that are designated as deployable to provide support during 
combat operations. This official explained that while DOD has used some 
civilians in these positions to support operations in Iraq, all of 
these positions are not presently filled or utilized for expeditionary 
operations. In September 2008, DOD posted job announcements to fill 
some of these positions. Furthermore, DOD is assessing what key 
personnel are needed to support expeditionary operations, and plans to 
use its existing authorities under titles 5 and 10 to convert existing 
positions to deployable positions that would support both combat and 
noncombat expeditionary operations. 

Section 2333 (c); Contingency Program Management Matters: (5); A 
requirement to provide training (including training under a program to 
be created by the Defense Acquisition University) to program management 
personnel in: (A) the use of laws, regulations, policies, and 
directives related to program management in combat or contingency 
environments; (B) the integration of cost, schedule, and performance 
objectives into practical acquisition strategies aligned with available 
resources and subject to effective oversight; and; (C) procedures of 
the Department of Defense related to funding mechanisms and contingency 
contract management; 
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008: DOD's draft policies do not include a provision to 
provide training (including training under a program to be created by 
the DAU) to program management personnel in: (A) the use of laws, 
regulations, policies, and directives related to program management in 
combat or contingency environments; (B) the integration of cost, 
schedule, and performance objectives into practical acquisition 
strategies aligned with available resources and subject to effective 
oversight; and; (C) procedures of the Department of Defense related to 
funding mechanisms and contingency contract management. 
While DOD's draft policies do not include the specific program 
management training provisions discussed above, DAU officials stated 
that the current program management curriculum provides for training on 
program management in regard to cost, schedule, and performance 
objectives as well as departmental procedures related to funding 
mechanisms, but acknowledged that DAU has not established a separate 
program in order to address the use of laws, regulations, policies, and 
directives in combat or contingency environments. Furthermore, DAU 
officials do not believe that the university is solely responsible for 
developing all of the required training. To address the use of laws, 
regulations, policies, and directives related to program management in 
combat or contingency environments, Office of the Secretary of Defense 
officials stated that an online course being developed by U.S. Joint 
Forces Command will provide such training. The course under development 
will be for servicemembers preparing for deployment to theater and will 
consist of information necessary to operate effectively on contingency 
contracting matters and with contractors on the battlefield. 
Additionally, the online course will address the concepts discussed in 
Joint Publication 4-10. DOD officials expect the online course to be 
available in March 2009. 

Section 2333 (c); Contingency Program Management Matters: (6); 
Appropriate steps to ensure that training is maintained for such 
personnel even when they are not deployed in a contingency operation; 
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008: DOD's draft policies do not provide appropriate steps 
to ensure that training is maintained for such personnel even when they 
are not deployed in a contingency operation. 
While DOD officials stated that acquisition personnel must complete a 
mandatory number of training hours for their career field per year, 
there is no requirement that acquisition personnel train on issues 
related to program management. 

Section 2333 (c); Contingency Program Management Matters: (7); Such 
steps as may be needed to ensure jointness and cross-service 
coordination in the area of program management during contingency 
operations; 
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008: DOD draft policy does not specifically provide such 
steps as may be needed to ensure jointness and cross-service 
coordination in the area of program management during contingency 
operations. 
However, draft Joint Publication 4-10 states that the Joint Staff J4's 
responsibilities include facilitating communication of operational 
contract-related matters through routine meetings and communications 
with the joint community of interest. 
According to DOD, a community of interest and a community of practice 
for operational contract support have been established. First, the 
Operational Contract Support community of interest, which consists of 
representatives of U.S. Joint Forces Command, the services, the Defense 
Contract Management Agency, the Defense Logistics Agency, and the 
Directorate, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, is called upon 
to provide input, information, and data to the ADUSD(PS). Second, a 
community of practice was established as a smaller body than the 
community of interest, comprising subject matter experts from the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and the services, 
that may be called upon to work on a specific task or project. 
Additionally, the department has established a Council of Colonels, 
which serves as a "gatekeeper" for initiatives, issues, or concepts, as 
well as a Joint Policy Development General Officer Steering Committee, 
which includes senior commissioned officers or civilians designated by 
the services. The committee's objective is to guide the development of 
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, and service policy, 
doctrine, and procedures to adequately reflect situational and 
legislative changes as they occur within Operational Contract Support. 

Section 2333 (d) (1); Contingency Contracting Matters: (A); The 
designation of a senior commissioned officer or civilian member of the 
senior executive service in each military department with the 
responsibility for administering the policy; 
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008: 
Each military department has a senior procurement executive who has 
broad contracting authorities and is responsible for administering 
contracting and related policies. According to the draft Expeditionary 
Contracting Policy, these senior procurement executives are responsible 
for administering the policy, and no additional action was needed to 
implement the requirement in this subparagraph.
The senior procurement executive for each service is as follows: 
1. Army - Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics 
and Technology. 
2. Navy - Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, 
Development, and Acquisition. 
3. Air Force - Deputy Assistant Secretary of Contracting. 

Section 2333 (d) (1); Contingency Contracting Matters: (B); The 
assignment of a senior commissioned officer with appropriate 
acquisition experience and qualifications to act as head of contingency 
contracting during combat operations, post-conflict operations, and 
contingency operations, who shall report directly to the commander of 
the combatant command in whose area of responsibility the operations 
occur. 
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008: 
In their current forms, neither the draft Joint Publication 4-10 nor 
the draft Expeditionary Contracting Policy will provide for a single 
head of contracting activity be appointed to oversee all theater 
support contracting organizations and report to the area's combatant 
commander across the range of military operations. According to DOD 
officials, upon declaration of a contingency, the assignment of an 
officer to act as head of contingency contracting is based on one of 
the three organizational approaches used to manage supporting 
contracting organizations, as identified in the draft doctrine. 
(1) According to the draft doctrine and draft Expeditionary Contracting 
Policy, when service components provide support to their own forces, 
the combatant commander would allow the service components to retain 
control of their own contracting authority. Thus, there will be 
multiple heads of contracting, depending on the number of services and 
contracting organizations supporting the operation, requiring 
commanders to coordinate with multiple individuals on contracting 
issues. 
(2) According to the draft doctrine and Expeditionary Contracting 
Policy, when a lead service approach is used, DOD will assign an 
executive agent which will identify an officer, typically a colonel, to 
serve as head of contracting and report to the area's commander on 
contracting issues. 
(3) Finally, according to the draft doctrine and draft Expeditionary 
Contracting Policy, when a joint theater support contracting command 
approach is used, a flag officer[ G] will be designated to be the head 
of contracting and also charged with leading this joint functional 
command. 

Section 2333 (d) (1); Contingency Contracting Matters: (C); A sourcing 
approach to contingency contracting that is designed to ensure that 
each military department is prepared to conduct contingency contracting 
during combat operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency 
operations, including stabilization and reconstruction operations 
involving interagency organizations, if required. 
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008: The draft Joint Publication 4-10 doctrine notes that 
each service has a unique approach to developing, training, and 
deploying contracting personnel based on its individual mission and 
organization, and theater support and contracting support capabilities 
differ among military services. For example, the draft doctrine 
explains that the Marine Corps has a limited number of contingency 
contracting officers, but they do not contract for construction nor do 
they have the skills to support major reconstruction efforts. In 
contrast, the draft doctrine notes that the Air Force's contracting 
officers have construction contracting capability as its contracting 
workforce is larger and experienced in a wide range of contracting 
activities. DOD recognizes these differences and has a process for 
matching staffing needs with available personnel, identified in its 
individual augmentation policy (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
Instruction 1301.01C) for providing DOD personnel during contingencies. 
However, DOD has identified that this process has not always fulfilled 
personnel requests in a timely manner and that the military services 
face a shortfall in the availability of contracting personnel. DOD is 
in the process of assessing the size and capabilities of its 
contracting workforce to identify gaps it might have in meeting 
contracting workforce requirements. DOD officials explained that the 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics strategic workforce plan, to be 
issued in February 2009, will address how DOD plans to fill those 
workforce gaps. 

Section 2333 (d) (1); Contingency Contracting Matters: (D); A 
requirement to provide training (including training under a program to 
be created by the Defense Acquisition University) to contingency 
contracting personnel in: 
(i) the use of law, regulations, policies, and directives related to 
contingency contracting operations; 
(ii) the appropriate use of rapid acquisition methods, including the 
use of exceptions to competition requirements under section 2304 of 
this title, sealed bidding, letter contracts, indefinite delivery 
indefinite quantity task orders, set asides under section 8(a) of the 
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)), undefinitized contract actions, 
and other tools available to expedite the delivery of goods and 
services during combat operations or post-conflict operations; 
(iii) the appropriate use of rapid acquisition authority, commanders' 
emergency response program funds, and other tools unique to contingency 
contracting; and; 
(iv) instruction on the necessity for the prompt transition from the 
use of rapid acquisition authority to the use of full and open 
competition and other methods of contracting that maximize transparency 
in the acquisition process. 
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008: To provide training for contingency contracting 
personnel, DAU has revised and updated its contingency contracting 
training course, CON 234, which has been provided to over 200 
contracting personnel since February 2008. According to DOD officials, 
this training is based, in part, on DOD's draft Expeditionary 
Contracting Policy, the Joint Contingency Contracting Handbook, and the 
draft Joint Publication 4-10. The provided course material, 
specifically, the Joint Contingency Contracting Handbook, for the 
revised CON 234 course contains information on: 
(i) the use of law, regulations, policies, and directives related to 
contingency contracting operations; 
(ii) the appropriate use of rapid acquisition methods, including the 
use of exceptions to competition requirements under section 2304 of 
this title, letter contracts, indefinite delivery indefinite quantity 
task orders, undefinitized contract actions, and other tools available 
to expedite the delivery of goods and services during combat operations 
or post-conflict operations; and; 
(iii) the appropriate use of rapid acquisition authority, commanders' 
emergency response program funds, and other tools unique to contingency 
contracting; and; 
(iv) the necessity for transition from the use of rapid acquisition 
authority to full and open competition and other methods of 
contracting. 
However, the Joint Contingency Contracting Handbook does not contain 
information on sealed bidding or set asides under section 8(a) of the 
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)), though this information is 
discussed in other basic acquisition courses. DAU officials explained 
that the topics incorporated into CON 234 are those specific to 
operating in a contingency or expeditionary environment and contracting 
tools such as sealed bidding and 8(a) set asides are not typically 
used. Additionally, while the handbook does discuss the necessity for 
transitioning from the predominant use of rapid acquisition authorities 
during the sustainment phase, the handbook does not discuss how a 
contracting officer would determine when it is appropriate to 
transition from the use of these authorities. DAU officials explained 
that CON 234 instructors use scenario-based case studies to promote 
discussions on how to make such determinations, but we could not 
independently verify this without participating in the course. 
DAU is also developing a new advanced contingency contracting course 
targeted toward senior-level contracting personnel and anticipates its 
completion in fiscal year 2009. According to DAU officials, the 
advanced course is targeted toward contracting officers in leadership 
and supervisory positions and will encourage familiarity among 
contracting officers from different military services. 

Section 2333 (d) (1); Contingency Contracting Matters: (E); Appropriate 
steps to ensure that training is maintained for such personnel even 
when they are not deployed in a contingency operation. 
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008: The draft Joint Publication 4-10 and Expeditionary 
Contracting Policy do not provide for specific training that must be 
maintained for contingency contracting personnel even when they are not 
deployed in a contingency operation. DAU officials, in coordination 
with representatives from the military services, identified a number of 
courses that, if taken, would qualify as training for contingency 
contracting personnel, but training requirements vary across the 
services and thus not all contracting officers may receive this 
training. 
While the military services certify completion of minimum training 
requirements for contracting personnel as specified by the Defense 
Acquisition Workforce Implementation Act, the certification levels do 
not identify specific training related to contingency contracting; 
therefore the certifications do not capture whether contingency 
contracting training has been maintained. 
DOD has developed a Joint Contingency Contracting Handbook to 
consolidate contingency contracting information for contingency 
contracting personnel. According to DOD, the handbook can be used for 
training at the home station and while deployed. Additionally, the 
Director of Defense Procurement, Acquisition Policy, and Strategic 
Sourcing (DPAP) has instructed the military departments to incorporate 
the joint contingency contracting handbook into unit-level training. 

Section 2333 (d) (1); Contingency Contracting Matters: (F); Such steps 
as may be needed to ensure jointness and cross-service coordination in 
the area of contingency contracting. 
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008: DOD formed the Joint Contracting and Contractor 
Management Team and the Joint Contingency Contracting Working Group--
both composed of members of each military department, DPAP, Joint 
Staff, and J4, among others--to develop the draft Joint Publication 4-
10 and Joint Contingency Contracting Handbook, respectively. These 
documents are intended to standardize guidance and information related 
to integrating and conducting contracting in a joint environment. 
The draft Joint Publication 4-10 establishes doctrine for planning, 
conducting, and assessing operational contract support integration and 
contractor management functions in support of joint operations. It 
provides guidance and information related to integrating operational 
contract support and contractor management. The draft Joint Publication 
4-10 provides an option for commanders to implement a joint approach to 
the management of contracting organizations during joint operations. 
However, because it is doctrine, commanders are not required to 
implement a joint approach even when multiple services are involved. 

Section 2333 (d) (2); Contingency Contracting Matters: To the extent 
practicable, the joint policy for contingency contracting required by 
subsection (a) should be taken into account in the development of 
interagency plans for stabilization and reconstruction operations, 
consistent with the report submitted by the President under section 
1035 of this Act on interagency operating procedures for the planning 
and conduct of stabilization and reconstruction operations. 
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008: According to draft Joint Publication 4-10, combatant 
commanders and their subordinate commands must ensure that interagency 
support requirements are properly addressed in the commanders' 
operational plans, including the relationships between DOD and non-DOD 
contracting entities. 
Commanders' operational plans should describe contract support 
requirements, including to civilian agencies; however, DOD, the Joint 
Staff, and some combatant commands are unclear on who should be 
identifying and defining requirements for contractor support and what 
level of detail should be included in the combatant commanders' plans. 
Based on our analysis of information obtained from the combatant 
commands we contacted, including U.S. Central Command, U.S. European 
Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and U.S. Southern Command, few plans 
include contractor support requirements. According to DOD officials, to 
resolve this confusion, the Joint Staff has taken the lead on revising 
existing guidance contained in the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff Manual 3122.03C (17 Aug 2007) on how to develop a contractor 
support annex (also referred to as annex W), including the development 
of a Contractor Support Plan (CMP) and a Contractor Support Integration 
Plan (CSIP), which is included in the combatant commanders' operational 
plans. This revision is expected to be completed late 2008. 
Additionally, DOD officials characterize interagency planning as 
lacking. 
Moreover, DOD officials we spoke with at two combatant commands, who 
are responsible for revising commanders' operational plans, were 
unaware of the Section 1035 Report for Improving Interagency Support 
for United States 21st Century National Security Missions and 
Interagency Operations in Support of Stability, Security, Transition, 
and Reconstruction Operations, issued in June 2007. In contrast, U.S. 
Southern Command has conducted several mission rehearsal exercises 
involving components of the Interagency Management System, a plan for 
interagency cooperation in reconstruction and stabilization operations, 
which is outlined in the section 1035 report. 

GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008. 

Section 2333 (e) Training For Personnel Outside Acquisition Workforce: 
(1)*; (1) The joint policy for requirements definition, contingency 
program management, and contingency contracting required by subsection 
(a) shall provide for training of military personnel outside the 
acquisition workforce (including operational field commanders and 
officers performing key staff functions for operational field 
commanders) who are expected to have acquisition responsibility, 
including oversight duties associated with contracts or contractors, 
during combat operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency 
operations; [* As amended]; 
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008: DOD is currently revising DOD Instruction 3020.41, 
"Program Management for the Preparation and Execution of Acquisitions 
for Contingency Operations," which establishes policy and assigns 
responsibilities for program management for the preparation and 
execution of acquisitions for contingency operations and integration of 
DOD contractor personnel into military contingency operations outside 
the United States. 
The draft instruction states that the secretaries of the military 
departments and the directors of the defense agencies and field 
activities will be responsible for incorporating the instruction into 
applicable policy, doctrine, programming, and training. Similarly, the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will be responsible for 
incorporating the instruction into relevant joint doctrine and 
training. 
The draft Joint Publication 4-10 states that the military department 
secretaries and services are responsible for ensuring that military 
personnel outside the acquisition workforce, who are expected to have 
acquisition responsibility (including oversight duties associated with 
contracts or contractors, during combat operations, post-conflict 
operations, and contingency operations) are properly trained. 
Additionally, draft Joint Publication 4-10 states that the military 
department secretaries and services are responsible for integrating 
identified contract requirements into training simulations, mission 
rehearsals, and exercises. Moreover, service component commands 
assigned to a combatant or joint forces commander are responsible for 
executing operational specific collective and individual contract 
support integration and contract management training requirements. 
Furthermore, in August 2008, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a 
policy memorandum directing the appointment of trained contracting 
officer's representatives (COR) prior to the award of contracts. 
According to DOD, CORs provide contract oversight and are generally 
members of the requiring activities. According to a recent report of 
DOD's Panel on Contracting Integrity, most contracting officers' 
representatives assigned to services contracts are not members of the 
acquisition workforce and serve as CORs as a collateral duty. 

Section 2333 (e) Training For Personnel Outside Acquisition Workforce: 
(2)*; Training under paragraph (1) shall be sufficient to ensure that 
the military personnel referred to in that paragraph understand the 
scope and scale of contractor support they will experience in 
contingency operations and are prepared for their roles and 
responsibilities with regard to requirements definition, program 
management (including contractor oversight), and contingency 
contracting. 
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008: While draft DOD policies provide for training of 
military personnel outside the acquisition workforce who are expected 
to have acquisition responsibility, including oversight duties 
associated with contracts or contractors, during combat operations, 
post-conflict operations, and contingency operations, the policies do 
not ensure that the military personnel understand the scope and scale 
of contractor support they will experience in contingency operations 
and are prepared for their roles and responsibilities with regard to 
requirements definition, program management (including contractor 
oversight), and contingency contracting. 
U.S. Joint Forces Command[H] is developing two training programs for 
non-acquisition personnel. The first training program will be an online 
course for servicemembers preparing for deployment to theater and will 
consist of information necessary to operate effectively on contingency 
contracting matters and work with contractors on the battlefield. U.S. 
Joint Forces Command will develop course content based on contracting 
and contract management concepts discussed in Joint Publication 4-10. 
Furthermore, U.S. Joint Forces Command will collaborate with the 
services to ensure that the training incorporates examples of real-
world operational conditions. DOD officials expect the online course to 
be available in March 2009. The second training program being developed 
is intended for the intermediate-and senior-level service schools. 
According to DOD officials, this training should be available in 2010. 
Because these courses are still under development, we were unable to 
determine if the course content will ensure that military personnel 
understand the scope and scale of contractor support and are prepared 
for their roles and responsibilities. 
Within the services, only the Army has a number of training programs 
available that provide information to the operational field commanders 
and their staffs about their roles and responsibilities in contract and 
contractor management as well as their roles in the contracting 
process. In addition, the Army is providing training to units as they 
prepare to deploy. The remaining services did not identify plans or 
initiatives to develop and provide training for non-acquisition 
personnel. The services did indicate that they are anticipating 
utilizing the U.S. Joint Forces Command course to train their non-
acquisition personnel. 
Specific COR training is available online and in the classroom from 
DAU. Furthermore, according to DOD officials, the department is 
considering a certification program for CORs to ensure that they are 
qualified to provide oversight for the contracts to which they are 
assigned. 

Section 2333 (e) Training For Personnel Outside Acquisition Workforce: 
(3)*; The joint policy shall also provide for the incorporation of 
contractors and contract operations in mission readiness exercises for 
operations that will include contracting and contractor support." 
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of 
October 1, 2008: Draft DOD policies direct the incorporation of 
contractors and contract operations in mission readiness exercises for 
operations that will include contracting and contractor support. 
DOD is currently revising DOD Instruction 3020.41. This draft document 
directs the combatant commanders to integrate requirements 
identification, contractor management, contractor integration, and any 
identified operational acquisition requirements into training 
simulations, mission rehearsals, and exercises. Furthermore, the 
instruction states that combatant commanders shall designate and 
identify the organization responsible for managing and prescribing 
processes to provide for the integration of contractors and operational 
acquisition in mission readiness exercises for operations that will 
include operational acquisitions and contractor support. 
Additionally, draft Joint Publication 4-10 states that the services are 
responsible for integrating identified contract requirements into 
training simulations, mission rehearsals, and exercises. Furthermore, 
U.S. Joint Forces Command is responsible for ensuring that key joint 
operational contract support challenges are incorporated into joint 
training venues as deemed appropriate. 
DOD, the Army, and the Marine Corps have begun to incorporate 
contractors and contract operations in mission readiness exercises for 
operations that will include contracting and contractor support. For 
example, U.S. Joint Forces Command has been incorporating contingency 
contracting concepts as well as hiring contractors to play their role 
in mission rehearsal exercises. Specifically, a private security 
contracting firm was hired to replicate storylines regarding 
battlefield coordination as well as security, medical, and misconduct 
issues. Additionally, the Army has a program to incorporate scenarios 
involving private security contractors into its Battle Command Training 
Program, which trains corps, division and brigade staff. The Army and 
the Marine Corps also incorporated scenarios on the rules of engagement 
and escalation of force involving private security contractors into 
unit predeployment training. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] The John Warner Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, 
section 854 (b). 

[B] Several provisions of section 2333 of title 10 refer to interagency 
coordination. DOD defines interagency coordination as the coordination 
that occurs between elements of DOD and engaged U.S. government 
agencies for the purpose of achieving an objective. Interagency 
coordination would include the coordination efforts of DOD and the 
Department of Homeland Security to plan a response to a natural 
disaster or terrorist attack, for example. 

[C] DOD Instruction 3020.41, formerly entitled "Contractor Personnel 
Authorized to Accompany the U.S. Armed Forces," was first issued on 
October 3, 2005. 

[D] While a draft of this report was at the agency for comment, DOD 
finalized Joint Publication 4-10, "Operational Contract Support", which 
was signed on October 17, 2008. 

[E] JP 4-10 establishes doctrine. According to a joint instruction, 
joint doctrine does not establish policy. Rather, joint doctrine is 
authoritative guidance and will be followed except when, in the 
judgment of the commander, exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise. 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 5120.02A, "Joint 
Doctrine Development System," Mar. 31, 2007 (current as of Apr. 3, 
2008). 

[F] DOD interprets this reference to subparagraph (6) as a 
typographical error. To avoid an unreasonable result, they have 
interpreted the intended reference to be to subparagraph (5). 

[G] A flag officer refers to an officer holding the rank of general, 
lieutenant general, major general, or brigadier general in the U.S. 
Army, Air Force or Marine Corps or admiral, vice admiral, or rear 
admiral in the U.S. Navy. According to the draft Joint Publication 4-10 
an officer leading this command would normally be a brigadier general, 
major general, or rear admiral. 

[H] U.S. Joint Forces Command trains and provides forces from all 
services to commanders around the world to work together as a joint 
team. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Enclosure III: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense: 
Acquisition, Technology And Logistics: 
3000 Defense Pentagon: 
Washington, DC 20301-3000: 

November 17, 2008: 

Mr. John Hutton: 
Director, Acquisition an Sourcing Management: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Hutton: 

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO Draft 
Report, GAO-09-114R, "Contract Management: DoD Developed Draft Guidance 
for Operational Contract Support, but Has Not Met All Legislative 
Requirements," dated October 17, 2008 (GAO Code 351226). 

The Department twice responded directly to Congress on this subject. In 
accordance with the FY 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, Sec 
854, paragraph (e)c(2), our first report entitled "Report on DoD 
Program for Planning, Managing, and Accounting for Contractor Services 
and Contract Personnel During Contingency Operations," dated October 
2007, laid out a comprehensive framework for planning, managing, and 
accounting for contractor services and contractor personnel during 
contingency operations. The final report, "DoD Program for Planning, 
Managing, and Accounting for Contractor Services and Contract Personnel 
During Contingency Operations," dated April 2008, identified specific 
achievements to date and established a roadmap for fully implementing 
those requirements. 

The Department believes this report prematurely speculates on the 
results of pending draft DoD directives, publications and instructions. 
We remain confident that when these documents are published in their 
final form, they will comply with applicable statutory requirements. 
Our technical comments were sent forward under a separate cover.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on 
your findings. A similar letter is being sent to Ms Linda Kohn, Acting 
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Gary J. Motsek:
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Program Support): 

[End of section] 

Enclosure IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Linda Kohn at (202) 512-7114 or kohnl@gao.gov or: 

John Hutton at (202) 512-4841 or huttonj@gao.gov: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contacts named above Penny Berrier Augustine, 
Assistant Director; Laura Czohara; Keya Chateauneuf; Grace Coleman; 
Robert Grace; Justin Jaynes; Eli Lewine; Ricardo Marquez; Karen 
Thornton; and Matthew Voit made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Military Operations: DOD Needs to Address Contract Oversight and 
Quality Assurance Issues for Contracts Used to Support Contingency 
Operations. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1087]. 
Washington, D.C.: September 26, 2008. 

Rebuilding Iraq: DOD and State Department Have Improved Oversight and 
Coordination of Private Security Contractors in Iraq, but Further 
Actions Are Needed to Sustain Improvements. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-966]. Washington, D.C.: July 
31, 2008. 

Defense Contracting: Army Case Study Delineates Concerns with Use of 
Contractors as Contract Specialists. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-08-360]. Washington, D.C.: March 26, 2008. 

Defense Management: DOD Needs to Reexamine Its Extensive Reliance on 
Contractors and Continue to Improve Management and Oversight. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-572T]. Washington, 
D.C.: March 11, 2008. 

Military Operations: Implementation of Existing Guidance and Other 
Actions Needed to Improve DOD's Oversight and Management of Contractors 
in Future Operations. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-
08-436T]. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2008. 

Defense Acquisitions: DOD's Increased Reliance on Service Contractors 
Exacerbates Long-standing Challenges. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-621T]. Washington, D.C.: 
January 23, 2008. 

Defense Logistics: The Army Needs to Implement an Effective Management 
and Oversight Plan for the Equipment Maintenance Contract in Kuwait. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-316R]. Washington, 
D.C.: January 22, 2008. 

Defense Contract Management: DOD's Lack of Adherence to Key Contracting 
Principles on Iraq Oil Contract Put Government Interests at Risk. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-839]. Washington, 
D.C.: July 31, 2007. 

Defense Acquisitions: Improved Management and Oversight Needed to 
Better Control DOD's Acquisition of Services. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-832T]. Washington, D.C.: May 
10, 2007. 

Military Operations: High-Level DOD Action Needed to Address Long- 
standing Problems with Management and Oversight of Contractors 
Supporting Deployed Forces. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-07-145]. Washington, D.C.: December 18, 2006. 

Rebuilding Iraq: Continued Progress Requires Overcoming Contract 
Management Challenges. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1130T]. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2006. 

Iraq Contract Costs: DOD Consideration of Defense Contract Audit 
Agency's Findings. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-
1132]. Washington, D.C.: September 25, 2006. 

Military Operations: Background Screenings of Contractor Employees 
Supporting Deployed Forces May Lack Critical Information, but U.S. 
Forces Take Steps to Mitigate the Risk Contractors May Pose. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-999R]. Washington, 
D.C.: September 22, 2006. 

Rebuilding Iraq: Actions Still Needed to Improve the Use of Private 
Security Providers. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-
06-865T]. Washington, D.C.: June 13, 2006. 

DOD Acquisition Outcomes: A Case for Change. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-257T]. Washington, D.C.: 
November 15, 2005. 

Rebuilding Iraq: Actions Needed to Improve Use of Private Security 
Providers. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-737]. 
Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2005. 

Interagency Contracting: Problems with DOD's and Interior's Orders to 
Support Military Operations. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-05-201]. Washington, D.C.: April 29, 2005. 

Defense Logistics: High-Level DOD Coordination Is Needed to Further 
Improve the Management of the Army's LOGCAP Contract. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-328]. Washington, D.C.: March 
21, 2005. 

Contract Management: Opportunities to Improve Surveillance on 
Department of Defense Service Contracts. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-274]. Washington, D.C.: March 
17, 2005. 

Military Operations: DOD's Extensive Use of Logistics Support Contracts 
Requires Strengthened Oversight. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-04-854]. Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2004. 

Military Operations: Contractors Provide Vital Services to Deployed 
Forces but Are not Adequately Addressed in DOD Plans. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-695]. Washington, D.C.: June 
24, 2003. 

Rebuilding Iraq: Fiscal Year 2003 Contract Award Procedures and 
Management Challenges. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-04-605]. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004. 

Contingency Operations: Army Should Do More to Control Contract Cost in 
the Balkans. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/NSIAD-00-
225]. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2000. 

Contingency Operations: Opportunities to Improve the Logistics Civil 
Augmentation Program. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO/NSIAD-97-63]. Washington, D.C.: February 11, 1997. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Contractors supporting deployed forces refer to Department of 
Defense contractor personnel who are authorized to accompany U.S. 
military forces in contingency operations or other military operations 
or exercises designated by the geographic combatant commander. 

[2] DOD defines operational contract support as the process of planning 
for and obtaining supplies, services, and construction from commercial 
sources in support of joint operations along with the associated 
contractor management functions. In the past, DOD has used the term 
contractors accompanying the force to encompass the process the 
department now refers to as operational contract support. The following 
report discusses long-standing challenges DOD faces with regard to 
contractor management and oversight: GAO, Military Operations: High- 
Level DOD Action Needed to Address Long-standing Problems with 
Management and Oversight of Contractors Supporting Deployed Forces, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-145] (Washington, 
D.C.: Dec. 18, 2006). A list of selected GAO reports related to this 
topic is included in this report. 

[3] GAO, Military Operations: DOD Needs to Address Contract Oversight 
and Quality Assurance Issues for Contracts Used to Support Contingency 
Operations, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1087] 
(Washington, D.C. Sept. 26, 2008), and [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-145]. 

[4] GAO, Rebuilding Iraq: Reconstruction Progress Hindered by 
Contracting, Security, and Capacity Challenges, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-426T] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 
15, 2007). 

[5] The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2007 (Pub. L. No. 109-364, §854(d)), hereafter referred to as NDAA 
FY07, defined "requirements definition" to mean the process of 
translating policy objectives and mission needs into specific 
requirements, the description of which will be the basis for awarding 
acquisition contracts for projects to be accomplished, work to be 
performed, or products to be delivered. NDAA FY07 defined "contingency 
program management" as the process of planning, organizing, staffing, 
controlling, and leading the combined efforts of participating civilian 
and military personnel and organizations for the management of a 
specific defense acquisition program or programs during combat 
operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency operations. 
Further, NDAA FY07 defined "contingency contracting" as all stages of 
the process of acquiring property or services by the Department of 
Defense during a contingency operation. 

[6] Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 849(a). 

[7] JP 4-10 establishes doctrine. According to a joint instruction, 
joint doctrine does not establish policy. Rather, joint doctrine is 
authoritative guidance and will be followed except when, in the 
judgment of the commander, exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise. 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 5120.02A, "Joint 
Doctrine Development System," Mar. 31, 2007 (current as of Apr. 3, 
2008). 

[8] 10 U.S.C. § 2333 (c)(2) (2007). 

[9] 10 U.S.C. § 2333 (d)(1)(B) (2007). 

[10] 10 U.S.C. § 2333 (d)(1) (2007). 

[11] [0] Department of Defense Instruction 3020.41 

[12] 10 U.S.C. § 2333 (e)(3) (2008). 

[13] JP 4-10 establishes doctrine. According to a joint instruction, 
joint doctrine does not establish policy. Rather, joint doctrine is 
authoritative guidance and will be followed except when, in the 
judgment of the commander, exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise. 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 5120.02A, "Joint 
Doctrine Development System," Mar. 31, 2007 (current as of Apr. 3, 
2008). 

[14] 10 U.S.C. 1701-1764 (2008). 

[15] Pub. L. No. 109-364, § 854 (a)(1). 

[16] NDAA FY07 defined "requirements definition" to mean the process of 
translating policy objectives and mission needs into specific 
requirements, the description of which will be the basis for awarding 
acquisition contracts for projects to be accomplished, work to be 
performed, or products to be delivered. NDAA FY07 defined "contingency 
program management" as the process of planning, organizing, staffing, 
controlling, and leading the combined efforts of participating civilian 
and military personnel and organizations for the management of a 
specific defense acquisition program or programs during combat 
operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency operations. 
Further, NDAA FY07 defined "contingency contracting" as all stages of 
the process of acquiring property or services by the Department of 
Defense during a contingency operation. 

[17] Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 849 (a). 

[18] Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 849 (c). 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: