This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-852R
entitled 'Defense Logistics: Department of Defense Has Enhanced
Prepositioned Stock Management but Should Provide More Detailed Status
Reports' which was released on September 30, 2011.
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.
GAO-11-852R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington DC 20548:
September 30, 2011:
Congressional Committees:
Subject: Defense Logistics: Department of Defense Has Enhanced
Prepositioned Stock Management but Should Provide More Detailed Status
Reports:
The Department of Defense (DOD) positions equipment and supplies at
strategic locations around the world to enable it to field combat-
ready forces in days rather than the weeks it would take if equipment
had to be moved from the United States to the location of a military
conflict. In addition, DOD uses prepositioned stocks to support a
variety of needs including security cooperation activities,
multilateral training exercises abroad, humanitarian assistance, and
disaster relief. Fiscal challenges require DOD to carefully balance
the investment in prepositioned stocks to achieve both national
military objectives and other DOD priorities. Prepositioned materiel
and equipment have played an important role in supporting ongoing
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, sustained operations have
taken a toll on the condition and readiness of military equipment.
Over the last few years, we have identified a number of ongoing and
long-term challenges regarding DOD's prepositioned stocks. The
services have estimated the cost and time frame to replenish their
stocks in DOD's annual report to Congress,[Footnote 1] and they review
their prepositioning programs to address new requirements to meet
future needs. DOD has reported to Congress that the services are
committed to reconstituting prepositioned materiel but must balance
these efforts with the department's other priorities, such as
restructuring capabilities within its prepositioned stocks and changes
in its overseas military presence. In 2011, we reported that DOD has
limited departmentwide guidance that would help ensure that its
prepositioning programs accurately reflect national military
objectives and recommended that DOD develop overarching guidance
related to prepositioned stocks.[Footnote 2]
DOD currently is developing a plan examining its prepositioning
programs called the Comprehensive Materiel Response Plan. This effort
is examining how to effectively and efficiently preposition stocks to
enhance preparedness for a range of activities--such as major combat
operations, security assistance, and humanitarian relief. DOD
officials expect this review to be completed in the fall of 2011 and
to provide additional guidance on its prepositioning programs.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 amended
Title 10 of the United States Code to require DOD to submit annual
reports to the congressional defense committees on the status of
prepositioned materiel and equipment at the end of each fiscal year.
[Footnote 3] DOD's reports are required to address the following six
elements:
1. the level of fill for major end items[Footnote 4] of equipment and
spare parts in each prepositioned set at the end of the fiscal year
covered by the report;
2. the material condition of equipment in the prepositioned stocks at
the end of such fiscal year, grouped by category or major end item;
3. a list of major end items of equipment drawn from prepositioned
stocks that fiscal year and a description of how the equipment was
used and whether it was returned to the stocks after its use;
4. a time line for completely reconstituting any shortfall in the
prepositioned stocks;
5. an estimate of the funding required to completely reconstitute any
shortfall in the prepositioned stocks and a description of the
Secretary's plan for carrying out the reconstitution; and:
6. a list of any operation plans affected by a shortfall in the
prepositioned stocks and a description of the action taken to mitigate
any risk created by that shortfall.
In March 2011, DOD issued its fiscal year 2010 report on the status of
its prepositioned materiel and equipment from October 2009 to
September 2010.[Footnote 5] DOD's report includes an unclassified
section to address reporting elements one through five and a
classified annex to address reporting element six. The law also
includes a reporting requirement that directs us to review the DOD
report and submit to the congressional defense committees any
additional information that will further inform the committees on the
status of the materiel in prepositioned stocks.[Footnote 6] For this
report, our objectives were to assess the extent to which DOD has (1)
addressed the six reporting requirements in the fiscal year 2010
report to Congress on its prepositioned stocks, and whether additional
information would be useful; and (2) implemented recommendations that
we have made since 2005 regarding prepositioning efforts.
To evaluate the extent to which DOD's annual report addressed the six
reporting requirements set out at 10 U.S.C. §2229a, regarding
prepositioned stocks, we analyzed DOD's March 2011 status report that
described the status of materiel in the prepositioned stocks. The
analysis involved comparing the prepositioned stock information in
DOD's annual report with the six reporting requirements and discussing
the results with service officials. We also reviewed related service
policies and guidance to understand the variations of information
reported by the services on the status of prepositioned materiel,
compared DOD's current and prior year reports on the status of major
end items and equipment, and met with DOD and service officials
responsible for reporting on the prepositioning program to discuss the
methodology used for collecting and reporting the status of materiel.
To determine the extent to which DOD implemented our related
recommendations since 2005, we interviewed DOD and service officials,
and reviewed DOD records and our previous reports.[Footnote 7] We
confirmed DOD's action, if any, regarding our past recommendations on
prepositioned programs and stocks by examining the status of those
recommendations in our internal tracking systems and discussing DOD
actions concerning the recommendations. We did not independently
assess the data DOD provided to Congress, but we discussed with
service officials the reliability of the systems used to develop the
report data and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable to
meet the objectives of this engagement. A more detailed discussion of
our scope and methodology is included in enclosure II.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2011 to September 2011 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 our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
DOD's report addressed the six required reporting elements, but
decision makers would benefit from additional information in future
reports to Congress. The report provides the required information from
the current fiscal year, but it does not include sufficient
information for decision makers to identify changes in the program
from year to year. For example, the report does not allow comparison
of quantities of major end items or spare parts on hand in the current
year with those on hand last year, a comparison that allows decision
makers to identify developing trends and risks. Further, the report
does not explain significant changes from one annual report to
another, such as the reasons for the addition of new items, changes to
the authorized level of items, or decreases in the percentage of items
on hand. Federal internal control standards state that decision makers
need information to manage risks and achieve internal control goals of
efficient and effective operations. During our review of the DOD
report, we identified information such as the number of items on hand
in the prior year and significant changes to the required items, that,
in accordance with federal internal control standards, could further
inform decision makers if included in next year's report. Without this
information, decision makers may be unaware of developing trends and
risks needed to make funding decisions, efficiently mitigate risk, and
effectively manage the program. To provide Congress with the
visibility to better assess the condition of DOD's prepositioned
materiel and equipment, we are making two recommendations to enhance
the information that DOD provides in its future reports. Decision
makers would benefit from information on the addition of new items or
spare parts to the prepositioned stocks, the authorized levels,
percentage levels of fill, and serviceability rates from the prior
year to use as a basis for comparison. In addition, decision makers
would benefit from explanations for some significant differences from
the prior year's report.
Of the 17 recommendations that we have made to improve DOD
prepositioning programs and reporting since 2005, DOD has implemented
9, has actions in progress to implement 5, and has not implemented 3
recommendations. Specifically, DOD has taken steps to implement our
recommendations to improve program oversight, risk assessment,
inventory management, maintenance, and requirements determination for
its prepositioning programs and we have closed these recommendations
as implemented. In May 2011, we made 5 recommendations to improve
strategic guidance, joint oversight, and reporting on DOD's
prepositioning programs. DOD concurred with these recommendations and
has taken steps to begin implementation. However, until DOD completes
these actions, the department may continue to face challenges in
ensuring that these programs accurately reflect national military
objectives, and in identifying potential efficiencies across its
prepositioning programs. For the remaining open recommendations, DOD
officials stated that the department is considering actions to
implement 2 of the recommendations related to the Army synchronizing
its prepositioning strategy with a DOD-wide prepositioning strategy.
However, until DOD finalizes its strategy, the department may not be
able to ensure that future investments made for the Army's
prepositioning program align with departmentwide prepositioning
strategy. The remaining open recommendation concerns the inclusion of
information on the services' progress in replenishing their individual
prepositioned sets in DOD's annual prepositioning report. This
recommendation remains open because DOD did not include progress
information for each of the services as recommended. Specifically,
three services included information that conforms to our
recommendation in the fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010 reports.
Until DOD includes this information for each service in its annual
report, the report may not provide decision makers with complete
information on DOD's prepositioned materiel and equipment. We continue
to believe that implementing these eight open recommendations will
strengthen DOD's prepositioning program, improve congressional
visibility over departmentwide prepositioning efforts, and facilitate
decision making about future program funding.
We provided a draft of this report to DOD. In commenting on the draft,
the department concurred with our recommendations to provide
additional information in future reports to further inform Congress.
DOD stated that the scope of the DOD report changes annually and
recommended that the report be standardized after incorporation of the
GAO recommended data. As part of our mandate, GAO is required to
review DOD's report and submit to the congressional defense committees
any additional information that will further inform the committees on
the status of the materiel in prepositioned stocks. Because DOD's
report may vary from year to year in scope and completeness, GAO's
findings and related recommendations concerning the format and content
of the report may also change from year to year. The department's
comments and our evaluation of those comments are discussed in detail
in a later section of this report. DOD's comments are reprinted in
their entirety in enclosure III.
Background:
Through their individual programs, each of the military services
maintains preconfigured groups of combat and logistics equipment on
ships and ashore at locations around the world. These preconfigured
groups of equipment--or sets--are intended to speed the response times
of U.S. forces to operating locations and reduce the strain on airlift
and sealift assets. The Army stores sets of combat brigade equipment,
supporting supplies, and other stocks at land sites in several
countries and aboard ships in the Pacific and Indian oceans. The
Marine Corps stores equipment and supplies for its forces aboard ships
stationed around the world and at land sites in Norway. The Air Force
stores ammunition at land sites and aboard stationary ships, and
prepositions equipment, vehicles, and supporting supplies at several
land sites. Additionally, the Navy stores equipment and supplies at
similar locations to support the offloading of ships, deployable
hospitals, and construction projects.
DOD's prepositioned stocks are intended to support national military
objectives, which are described in strategic and operational
documents, including the National Defense Strategy, the National
Military Strategy, and the geographic combatant commanders' plans. DOD
apportions prepositioned materiel among the combatant commands
according to joint guidance. Combatant commanders periodically review
plans, assess risk, and report the results to the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. By providing needed prepositioned materiel, the
military services can reduce the risk associated with a plan. There is
no departmentwide strategy concerning prepositioned stocks, but some
services have developed strategies to guide their efforts.
Since 2005 we have issued five reports addressing DOD's management and
reporting on its prepositioning programs, and made 17 recommendations,
which are discussed in more detail below, along with their
implementation status. These reports have included recommendations to
improve program oversight, risk assessment, inventory management,
maintenance, and requirements determination for DOD's prepositioning
programs. In addition, we have examined program oversight,
duplication, and fragmentation in DOD's prepositioning programs. In
March 2011, we reported that some prepositioning activities are
fragmented among the services, a situation that creates the potential
for unnecessary duplication.[Footnote 8]
DOD's Fiscal Year 2010 Report Addressed the Six Required Reporting
Elements, but Decision Makers Would Benefit from Additional
Information:
DOD addressed the six required reporting elements in its fiscal year
2010 report, but DOD's future reports to Congress on the status of its
prepositioned materiel and equipment would benefit from additional
information, including: identification of new items or spare parts to
the prepositioned stocks; the objective levels of fill,[Footnote 9]
percentage levels of fill; serviceability rates[Footnote 10] from the
prior year to use as a basis for comparison; and explanations for some
significant differences from the prior year.
DOD's Fiscal Year 2010 Report Addressed the Six Required Reporting
Elements:
DOD's report to Congress addressed each of the required reporting
elements, as shown in table 1. In responding to the first reporting
element, each service provided the required information on the
objective (authorized) level of fill of major end items. In reporting
on the second reporting element, the material condition of equipment
in prepositioned stocks, all of the services provided the required
information on the material condition of equipment on hand. For the
third element, the services reported information on equipment drawn
from and returned to prepositioned stocks that supported ongoing
operations or training exercises during the reporting period of
October 1, 2009, to September 30, 2010. For the fourth reporting
element, the services provided their time lines to completely
reconstitute shortfalls in their stocks, and they expect to completely
replenish their stocks from fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2016. The
Navy did not provide a timeline or funding estimates for completely
reconstituting shortfalls because they did not have any shortfall in
prepositioned materiel. For the fifth element, the report includes
each service's estimate of the cost to replenish prepositioned stocks.
A classified annex addressed the sixth reporting element, which
included a list of operation plans affected by any shortfall in the
prepositioned stocks and subsequent mitigation strategies.
Table 1: Extent to Which DOD's Fiscal Year 2010 Report Addressed the
Six Required Elements:
Required element: (1) The level of fill for major end items[A] of
equipment and spare parts in each prepositioned set at the end of the
fiscal year covered by the report;
Our assessment: Addressed.
Required element: (2) The material condition of equipment in the
prepositioned stocks at the end of such fiscal year, grouped by
category or major end item;
Our assessment: Addressed.
Required element: (3) A list of major end items of equipment drawn
from prepositioned stocks that fiscal year and a description of how
the equipment was used and whether it was returned to the stocks after
its use;
Our assessment: Addressed.
Required element: (4) A time line for completely reconstituting any
shortfall in the prepositioned stocks;
Our assessment: Addressed.
Required element: (5) An estimate of the funding required to
completely reconstitute any shortfall in the prepositioned stocks and
a description of the Secretary's plan for carrying out the
reconstitution;
Our assessment: Addressed.
Required element: (6) A list of any operation plans affected by a
shortfall in the prepositioned stocks and a description of the action
taken to mitigate any risk created by that shortfall;
Our assessment: Addressed.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] A major end item is a final combination of end products that is
ready for its intended use, according to the DOD Supply Chain Materiel
Management Regulation, DOD 4140.1-R, AP1.1.11.7 (May 23, 2003).
[End of table]
Decision Makers Would Benefit from Additional Information in DOD's
Report:
DOD and the services addressed the reporting elements set out in the
law, but the report does not contain information that would provide
context to enable decision makers to determine whether there have been
significant changes from the prior year and the reasons for
significant changes. For example, DOD's report includes information on
the end items or spare parts reported, the objective level, the level
on hand for the current year, the percent level of fill for the
current year, the quantity change from the previous year,[Footnote 11]
and the serviceability of items on hand, as shown in figure 1.
However, the report does not have information on the prior year's end
items or spare parts, the objective levels, percent fill, or percent
of items that were serviceable to use as a basis for comparison, nor
does it explain the reasons for some significant differences from the
prior year. Federal internal control standards state that decision
makers need information to manage risks and achieve the internal
control goals of efficient and effective use of resources.
Figure 1: DOD's Current Format for Reporting Level of Fill and
Material Condition of Major End Items and an Example of an Alternative
Reporting Format:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Example of DOD's current reporting format:
End item[A]: Howitzer;
Objective Level[B]: 7;
Level on-hand[C]: 9;
% Level of fill[D]: 86%;
Change from previous FY[E]: 1;
Serviceability[F]: 100%.
End item[A]: Tactical vehicle;
Objective Level[B]: 9;
Level on-hand[C]: 6;
% Level of fill[D]: 67%;
Change from previous FY[E]: -3;
Serviceability[F]: 100%.
Example of an alternative reporting format:
End item: Tank[A];
Objective Level (FY09): --;
Objective Level (FY10): 9;
Level on-hand (FY09): --;
Level on-hand (FY10): 8;
% Level of fill (FY09): --;
% Level of fill (FY10): 89%;
Change from previous: --;
Serviceability (FY09): --;
Serviceability (FY10): 75%.
End item: Howitzer;
Objective Level (FY09): 8;
Objective Level (FY10): 7;
Level on-hand (FY09): 5;
Level on-hand (FY10): 6;
% Level of fill (FY09): 63%;
% Level of fill (FY10): 86%;
Change from previous: 1;
Serviceability (FY09): 80%;
Serviceability (FY10): 100%.
End item: Tactical vehicle;
Objective Level (FY09): 10;
Objective Level (FY10): 9;
Level on-hand (FY09): 9;
Level on-hand (FY10): 6;
% Level of fill (FY09): 90%;
% Level of fill (FY10): 67%;
Change from previous: -3;
Serviceability (FY09): 89%;
Serviceability (FY10): 100%.
New end item:
Explanations of significant difference from prior year:
Source: (for current reporting format) GAO analysis of DOD's Report on
Status of Department of Defense Programs for Prepositioning of
Materiel and Equipment (March 1, 2011); (for alternative reporting
format) GAO analysis.
Note: Data in the table are for illustrative purposes only. Actual
data are sensitive but unclassified.
[A] End item: A final combination of products, component parts, and
materiel ready for its intended use, e.g., a ship, tank, mobile
machine shop, or aircraft.
[B] Objective level: The desired quantity of an item the service
determines necessary in its current prepositioning program.
[C] Level on hand: The quantity of items the service holds in its
inventory within its prepositioning program.
[D] Percent level of fill: Level on hand divided by the objective
level.
[E] Change from previous fiscal year: indicates an increase or
decrease or no change from the last submitted report.
[F] The serviceability rate is the percentage of each end item on hand
that is capable of performing its combat mission.
[End of figure]
In an example of the importance of providing more context, we compared
data in the 2010 and 2009 reports and we calculated that the
authorized number of tactical vehicles increased by more than 9
percent from 2009 to 2010. However, the 2010 report did not include
information on the prior year's objective levels, percent fill, or
serviceability rates to provide a basis for comparison or explain the
reasons for the increase in tactical vehicles. According to officials,
changes can be caused by several factors including changes in budget
authorization, force structure, and the threat environment. Also
according to officials, identifying whether new items or spares have
been added to the prepositioned stocks or changes in the objective
level, percent fill, or serviceability rates requires comparing
separate annual reports. In addition, the report does not provide
explanations for some significant changes from one year to the next.
In another example of the importance of context, DOD officials told us
that the items in their prepositioning programs may change from year
to year. According to the officials, these changes may represent items
added to prepositioned stocks, modifications to existing items, or
changes in how items are identified in DOD's prepositioning report.
However, such changes are not noted in DOD's prepositioning report.
Without multiple year information about prepositioned stocks and the
reasons for significant changes, decision makers lack information that
would be useful in identifying developing trends and risks to the
program that would inform funding decisions and efforts to mitigate
risk and manage the program.
DOD Has Implemented Most GAO Recommendations on Prepositioned Stocks:
Of the 17 recommendations that we have made to improve DOD
prepositioning programs and reporting since 2005, DOD has implemented
9, has actions in progress to implement 5, and has not implemented 3
recommendations. Table 2 summarizes the implementation status of the
17 recommendations that we have made to DOD since 2005 on its
prepositioning programs. Enclosure I contains more detailed
information on DOD's status in implementing these recommendations.
Table 2: Status of GAO Recommendations on Prepositioned Stocks, by
Report:
Product date: September 2005;
Product title and number: Defense Logistics: Better Management and
Oversight of Prepositioning Programs Needed to Reduce Risk and Improve
Future Programs (GAO-05-427);
Number of recommendations:
Open: 0;
Closed-implemented: 5;
Closed-not implemented: 0.
Product date: February 2007;
Product title and number: Defense Logistics: Improved Oversight and
Increased Coordination Needed to Ensure Viability of the Army's
Prepositioning Strategy (GAO-07-144);
Number of recommendations:
Open: 2;
Closed-implemented: 0;
Closed-not implemented: 0.
Product date: December 2008;
Product title and number: Defense Logistics: Department of Defense's
Annual Report on the Status of Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment
Can Be Enhanced to Better Inform Congress (GAO-09-147R);
Number of recommendations:
Open: 0;
Closed-implemented: 2;
Closed-not implemented: 0.
Product date: November 2009;
Product title and number: Defense Logistics: Department of Defense's
Annual Report on the Status of Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment
Can Be Further Enhanced to Better Inform Congress (GAO-10-172R);
Number of recommendations:
Open: 1;
Closed-implemented: 2;
Closed-not implemented: 0.
Product date: May 2011;
Product title and number: Warfighter Support: Improved Joint Oversight
and Reporting on DOD's Prepositioning Programs May Increase
Efficiencies (GAO-11-647);
Number of recommendations:
Open: 5;
Closed-implemented: 0;
Closed-not implemented: 0.
Total;
Number of recommendations:
Open: 8;
Closed-implemented: 9;
Closed-not implemented: 0.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
DOD has taken steps to implement nine of our recommendations to
improve program oversight, risk assessment, inventory management,
maintenance, and to determine requirements for its prepositioning
programs; we have closed these recommendations as implemented. Our
September 2005 report made five recommendations, all of which have
been implemented by DOD. For example, DOD published a departmentwide
plan and doctrine to better coordinate the services' prepositioning
programs as we recommended. DOD also implemented two recommendations
from our December 2008 report regarding the department providing
additional information to Congress on funding requirements, and the
risk associated with prepositioned stock shortfalls. Further, DOD
implemented a recommendation we made in our November 2009 report that
DOD report to Congress the amount of spare parts the Army maintains in
its prepositioned stocks.
Of the open recommendations, DOD has taken steps to begin
implementation of five recommendations that we made in our May 2011
report. However, until DOD completes these actions, the department may
continue to face challenges in ensuring that these programs accurately
reflect national military objectives, and in identifying potential
efficiencies across its prepositioning programs. These recommendations
were intended to improve strategic guidance, joint oversight, and
reporting on DOD's prepositioning programs. For example, we
recommended that DOD provide more comprehensive data on the military
services' prepositioning programs, including information on
serviceability and other sources of program funding. We also
recommended that DOD take action to strengthen the effectiveness of a
key DOD oversight group for the prepositioning program. According to a
DOD official, the department has efforts under way to implement these
recommendations. For example, DOD officials stated that DOD plans to
include in its next annual report to Congress the additional
information that we recommended about the military services'
prepositioning programs. In addition, DOD officials stated that its
departmentwide review to be finalized in the fall of 2011--the
Comprehensive Materiel Response Plan--will be responsive to our
recommendations to enhance joint oversight, increase program
efficiencies, and expand guidance to link prepositioning programs with
national military objectives. This review was undertaken to determine
how to effectively and efficiently preposition stocks to enhance
preparedness for a range of activities--such as major combat
operations, security engagement, and humanitarian assistance. DOD
officials said that this review may also lead to revisions in the
department's prepositioning strategy. Until DOD finalizes its review,
we cannot assess the extent to which it addresses our recommendations.
Of the three remaining open recommendations, with which DOD agreed,
DOD officials stated that they are considering actions to implement
two of the recommendations and have not implemented the third
recommendation. Specifically, officials stated that the department is
considering two recommendations related to the Army synchronizing its
prepositioning strategy with a DOD-wide prepositioning strategy.
[Footnote 12] However, until DOD finalizes the departmentwide
strategy, these recommendations will remain open and the department
may not be able to ensure that future investments in the Army's
prepositioning program align with departmentwide prepositioning
strategy. As we stated in our prior report, we believe that
implementing these recommendations would be an important step in
better coordinating DOD's future investments. Further, we believe that
these actions would improve management and oversight of the Army's
prepositioned stocks program. The remaining open recommendation
concerns the inclusion in the annual prepositioning report of
additional information on the services' progress in replenishing their
prepositioned sets.[Footnote 13] DOD took some action to implement
this recommendation, but this recommendation remains open because DOD
did not include progress information for each of the services as
recommended. Specifically, three services included information that
conforms to our recommendation in the fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year
2010 reports. Until DOD includes all of this information for each
service in its annual report, the report may not provide decision
makers with complete information on DOD's prepositioned materiel and
equipment.
Conclusions:
Prepositioned materiel and equipment have been vital to ongoing
operations in Iraq and:
Afghanistan. Shortages in prepositioned stocks may pose risk to
national security and excess stocks can divert funding from higher
priorities. DOD has made progress in improving the management of its
prepositioning programs by implementing many of our prior
recommendations. Also, DOD has an opportunity to provide needed
strategic direction through its ongoing initiatives to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of the program, such as the effort to
develop the Comprehensive Materiel Response Plan. Moreover, DOD has
addressed reporting requirements regarding the status of its
prepositioning program, but it could report additional, clear
information to Congress to support effective decision making and
provide Congress a more transparent and comprehensive picture of the
services' funding needs. Further, without the additional context of
previous year data to allow comparisons with current year data,
decision makers do not have complete information to identify changes
to the program, assess any risk they may pose, and make funding
decisions. Also, decision makers would benefit from explanations about
significant changes in quantities and percentages for reported end
items.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To provide Congress with the visibility to better assess the status
and condition of DOD's prepositioned materiel and equipment, we
recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Joint Staff and the
Secretaries of the military services to take two actions to provide in
the next annual report, in addition to the six elements currently
required, the following information:
* comparisons of all major end items or spare parts, the objective
levels, percentage levels of fill, and serviceability rates for the
current and previous fiscal year; and:
* an explanation of significant changes from the previous report such
as the reasons for the addition of new items or changes to the
objective level, level of fill, or serviceability rates.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our
recommendations that (1) future reports include comparison data from
the current and previous fiscal years and (2) DOD provide explanations
of any significant changes from the previous report. The department
also commented that the scope of its report expands annually due to
additional reporting requirements. In its comments, DOD recommended
that the DOD report be standardized after incorporation of the GAO-
recommended data. As part of our mandate, GAO is required to review
DOD's report and submit to the congressional defense committees any
additional information that will further inform the committees on the
status of the materiel in prepositioned stocks. Because DOD's report
may vary from year to year in scope and completeness, GAO's findings
and related recommendations concerning the format and content of the
report may also change from year to year.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff; the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force;
and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. In addition, this report will
be available at no charge on GAO's website at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your staff members have any questions
regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8365 or
solisw@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report. GAO staff members that made major contributions to this report
are listed in enclosure IV.
Signed by:
William M. Solis, Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
Enclosures - 4:
List of Committees:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Daniel Inouye:
Chairman:
The Honorable Thad Cochran:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Howard P. McKeon:
Chairman:
The Honorable Adam Smith:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable C.W. "Bill" Young:
Chairman:
The Honorable Norman D. Dicks:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Enclosure I:
GAO Recommendations Related to DOD Prepositioning Programs:
Summary of Recommendations for Executive Action from GAO-05-427
(Defense Logistics: Better Management and Oversight of Prepositioning
Programs Needed to Reduce Risk and Improve Future Programs):
In our report issued in September 2005, we found that the military
services were developing prepositioning plans without a clear
understanding of how the separate service plans would fit together to
meet overall defense strategy. We made five recommendations and the
Department of Defense (DOD) agreed to implement part or all of each
recommendation. We recommended that DOD publish a departmentwide plan
and doctrine to better coordinate services' prepositioning programs.
We also recommended that DOD assess the near-term risks associated
with shortfalls in prepositioned stocks. DOD implemented these
recommendations and we have closed all five recommendations.
Recommendation: To address the risks and management challenges facing
the department's prepositioning programs and improve oversight, we
recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Chairman, Joint
Chiefs of Staff, to assess the near-term operational risks associated
with current inventory shortfalls and equipment in poor condition
should a conflict arise;
Recommendation status: DOD has implemented this recommendation and we
have closed it.
Recommendation: To address the risks and management challenges facing
the department's prepositioning programs and improve oversight, we
recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide
oversight over the department's prepositioning programs by fully
implementing the department's directive on war reserve materiel and,
if necessary, revise the directive to clarify the lines of
accountability for this oversight;
Recommendation status: DOD has implemented this recommendation and we
have closed it.
Recommendation: To address the risks and management challenges facing
the department's prepositioning programs and improve oversight, we
recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the
Army to improve the processes used to determine requirements and
direct the Secretary of the Army and Air Force to improve the
processes used to determine the reliability of inventory data so that
the readiness of their prepositioning programs can be reliably
assessed and proper oversight over the programs can be accomplished;
Recommendation status: DOD has implemented this recommendation and we
have closed it.
Recommendation: To address the risks and management challenges facing
the department's prepositioning programs and improve oversight, we
recommend that the Secretary of Defense develop a coordinated
departmentwide plan and joint doctrine for the department's
prepositioning programs that identifies the role of prepositioning in
the transformed military and ensures these programs will operate
jointly, support the needs of the war fighter, and are affordable;
Recommendation status: DOD has implemented this recommendation and we
have closed it.
Recommendation: To address the risks and management challenges facing
the department's prepositioning programs and improve oversight, we
recommend that the Secretary of Defense report to Congress, possibly
as part of the mandated October 2005 report, how the department plans
to manage the near-term operational risks created by inventory
shortfalls and management and oversight issues described in this
report;
Recommendation status: DOD has implemented this recommendation and we
have closed it.
[End of table]
Summary of Recommendations for Executive Action from GAO-07-144
(Defense Logistics: Improved Oversight and Increased Coordination
Needed to Ensure Viability of the Army's Prepositioning Strategy):
In our report issued in February 2007, we found that the Army faced
major strategic and management challenges as it revised its
prepositioning program and worked to implement those changes. We made
two recommendations and DOD agreed to implement part or all of each
recommendation. We recommended that the Army take steps to synchronize
its prepositioning strategy with a DOD-wide prepositioning strategy.
We also recommended that the Army develop an implementation plan for
the synchronized strategy. However, DOD has not yet published a
departmentwide prepositioning strategy. As a result, we have not
closed the two recommendations.
Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary
of the Army to take steps to synchronize the Army's prepositioning
strategy with the DOD-wide strategy to ensure that future investments
made for the Army's prepositioning program align with the anticipated
DOD-wide prepositioning strategy;
Recommendation status: This recommendation is open because DOD has not
yet implemented it. At the time of our report, we noted that until DOD
finalizes its strategy, the department may not be able to ensure that
future investments in the Army's prepositioning program align with
departmentwide prepositioning strategy.
Recommendation: Once the strategic direction is aligned with the DOD
strategy, we recommend that the Secretary of the Army develop an
implementation plan that: (1) completes ongoing re-evaluation of the
secondary item and operational project stock requirements as well as
establishes systematic readiness measurement and reporting of
secondary items and operational project stock programs, (2) identifies
the optimal mix of storage and maintenance facilities at each location
to support the emerging strategy, and (3) prescribes oversight
requirements for the maintenance of prepositioned equipment to ensure
that equipment is ready for combat;
Recommendation status: This recommendation is open because DOD has not
yet implemented it. At the time of our report, we noted that until DOD
finalizes its strategy, the department may not be able to ensure that
future investments in the Army's prepositioning program align with
departmentwide prepositioning strategy.
[End of table]
Summary of Recommendations for Executive Action from GAO-09-147R
(Defense Logistics: Department of Defense's Annual Report on the
Status of Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment Can Be Enhanced to
Better Inform Congress):
In our report issued in December 2008, we identified opportunities for
DOD to enhance the information in its annual prepositioning report to
Congress, and provide the opportunity for additional oversight. For
example, we recommended that DOD provide more comprehensive
information on its funding requirements for prepositioned stocks. DOD
implemented these recommendations and we closed both of our
recommendations.
Recommendation: To provide Congress with the visibility to better
assess the status and condition of DOD's prepositioned materiel and
equipment, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Joint
Staff and the Secretaries of the military services to provide, in
addition to the six elements currently required in the annual report,
a more comprehensive picture of the services' funding requirements for
prepositioned stocks by providing funding requirements by year and
appropriation accounts similar to the level of detail provided in the
annual budget request presentation;
Recommendation status: DOD has implemented this recommendation and we
have closed it.
Recommendation: To provide Congress with the visibility to better
assess the status and condition of DOD's prepositioned materiel and
equipment, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Joint
Staff and the Secretaries of the military services to provide, in
addition to the six elements currently required in the annual report,
information on the effect of prepositioned equipment shortfalls on
current operations and concept plans, including risks and mitigation
strategies to provide better visibility over possible risks;
Recommendation status: DOD has implemented this recommendation and we
have closed it.
[End of table]
Summary of Recommendations for Executive Action from GAO-10-172R
(Defense Logistics: Department of Defense's Annual Report on the
Status of Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment Can Be Further Enhanced
to Better Inform Congress):
In our report issued in November 2009, we identified additional
opportunities for DOD to enhance the information in its annual
prepositioning report to Congress, and provide the opportunity for
additional oversight. We made three recommendations and DOD agreed to
implement them. For example, we recommended that DOD report the amount
of spare parts the Army maintains in its prepositioned stocks. DOD
implemented two of these recommendations and the third remains open.
Recommendation: To provide Congress with the visibility to better
assess the condition of DOD prepositioned materiel and equipment, the
Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to
include in DOD's future reports to Congress more detailed information
on the level of fill of its prepositioned sets that include spare
parts;
Recommendation status: DOD has implemented this recommendation and we
have closed it.
Recommendation: To provide Congress with the visibility to better
assess the condition of DOD prepositioned materiel and equipment, the
Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to
include in DOD's future reports to Congress information on the
material condition of its sets; DOD has implemented this
recommendation and we have closed it.
To provide Congress with a more comprehensive picture of the services'
prepositioned sets, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Joint
Staff and the secretaries of the military services to include in DOD
future reports to Congress, information on the services' progress to
replenish their individual prepositioned sets, such as level of fill
and readiness rates, and changes in those sets from the previous year;
Recommendation status: This recommendation is open because DOD has not
yet implemented it. At the time of our report, we noted that including
this information would provide Congress with a more comprehensive
picture of the services' prepositioned materiel and equipment.
[End of table]
Summary of Recommendations for Executive Action from GAO-11-647
(Warfighter Support: Improved Joint Oversight and Reporting on DOD's
Prepositioning Programs May Increase Efficiencies):
In our report issued in May 2011, we found that DOD's prepositioning
efforts may be hindered by limited departmentwide guidance linking
programs with national military objectives and by other organizational
challenges. Further, we identified additional opportunities for DOD to
enhance the information in its annual prepositioning report to
Congress, and provide the opportunity for additional oversight. We
made five recommendations and DOD agreed to implement them. For
example, we recommended that DOD provide more comprehensive data on
the military services' prepositioning programs, including information
on serviceability and other sources of program funding. According to a
DOD official, the department has efforts under way to implement these
five recommendations. As a result, these recommendations remain open.
Recommendation: To help ensure that DOD more fully informs the
congressional defense committees on the status of prepositioned
equipment and materiel through its annual report to Congress and to
enhance joint oversight, the Secretary of Defense should direct the
Joint Staff and the Secretaries of the military services to provide,
in addition to the six elements currently required in the annual
report, a more comprehensive picture of the full scope of the
services' prepositioning programs, to include (1) a representative
summary description including the dollar value and, as appropriate,
level of fill and information on serviceability, of (a) Army
Operational Projects and Army War Reserve Sustainment Stocks, (b) Air
Force munitions, medical stocks, rations, and fuel elements of its War
Reserve Materiel program, and (c) Marine Corps materiel prepositioned
to support an entire deployed Marine Corps force, such as its
capability sets; and (2) all sources of funding for the services'
prepositioned equipment and materiel, including working capital funds;
Recommendation status: This recommendation is open. DOD has undertaken
actions to implement this recommendation, but those actions have not
yet been completed. At the time of our report, we noted that including
this information would facilitate congressional decision making about
future program funding by improving visibility over departmentwide
prepositioning efforts.
Recommendation: To help ensure that DOD more fully informs the
congressional defense committees on the status of prepositioned
equipment and materiel through its annual report to Congress and to
enhance joint oversight, the Secretary of Defense should direct the
Joint Staff operations and plans directorates to provide in DOD's
annual report to Congress, in addition to the information DOD already
includes related to Integrated Priority Lists and capability gap
assessments, information it reports as part of the Joint Force
Readiness Review, including (1) a summary of all DOD's plans the
services have determined include requirements for prepositioned
stocks, (2) a description of the extent to which the combatant
commands assess that shortfalls in prepositioned stocks contribute to
any specific execution risk in these plans, (3) the full range of
measures in place to mitigate the risks of shortfalls in prepositioned
stocks, and (4) an assessment of the extent to which the mitigation
measures identified by the services reduce risk;
Recommendation status: This recommendation is open. DOD has undertaken
actions to implement this recommendation, but those actions have not
yet been completed. At the time of our report, we noted that including
this information would facilitate congressional decision making about
future program funding by improving visibility over departmentwide
prepositioning efforts.
Recommendation: To help ensure that DOD more fully informs the
congressional defense committees on the status of prepositioned
equipment and materiel through its annual report to Congress and to
enhance joint oversight, the Secretary of Defense should direct the
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics,
in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to (1)
assess the continued relevance of the Global Prepositioned Materiel
Capabilities Working Group's assigned tasks and membership as stated
in DOD Instruction 3110.06 and the group's charter and make any
necessary adjustments to ensure that the working group's objectives
align with its activities. These would include making the Office of
the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy a core member, and clarifying
lines of authority and reporting between the working group and other
components within DOD, such as the Global Posture Executive Council,
so as to instill accountability through appropriate oversight and
management review;
Recommendation status: This recommendation is open. DOD has undertaken
actions to implement this recommendation, but those actions have not
yet been completed. At the time of our report, we noted that until DOD
completes these actions, the department may continue to face
challenges in ensuring that these programs accurately reflect national
military objectives, and in identifying potential efficiencies across
its prepositioning programs.
Recommendation: To help ensure that DOD more fully informs the
congressional defense committees on the status of prepositioned
equipment and materiel through its annual report to Congress and to
enhance joint oversight, the Secretary of Defense, upon clarifying
DOD's joint oversight structure for prepositioned stocks, should
direct the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy to
leverage the expertise of the Global Prepositioned Materiel
Capabilities Working Group members, the offices they represent, and
the results of the multiple recent or ongoing prepositioning studies
to develop appropriately detailed authoritative strategic guidance,
such as Guidance for Development of the Force. The guidance would
include planning and resource priorities linking the department's
current and future needs for prepositioned stocks, including desired
responsiveness, to evolving national defense objectives;
Recommendation status: This recommendation is open. DOD has undertaken
actions to implement this recommendation, but those actions have not
yet been completed. At the time of our report, we noted that until DOD
completes these actions, the department may continue to face
challenges in ensuring that these programs accurately reflect national
military objectives, and in identifying potential efficiencies across
its prepositioning programs.
Recommendation: To help ensure that DOD more fully informs the
congressional defense committees on the status of prepositioned
equipment and materiel through its annual report to Congress and to
enhance joint oversight, the Secretary of Defense should direct the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretaries of the
military services to implement DOD's authoritative strategic guidance
on prepositioned stocks in such a way so as to integrate and
synchronize at a DOD-wide level, as appropriate, the services'
prepositioning programs so that they include updated requirements and
maximize efficiency in managing prepositioned assets across the
department to reduce unnecessary duplication;
Recommendation status: This recommendation is open. DOD has undertaken
actions to implement this recommendation, but those actions have not
yet been completed. At the time of our report, we noted that until DOD
completes these actions, the department may continue to face
challenges in ensuring that these programs accurately reflect national
military objectives, and in identifying potential efficiencies across
its prepositioning programs.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Enclosure II:
Scope and Methodology:
To evaluate the extent to which the Department of Defense's (DOD)
annual report addressed the six reporting requirements related to the
status of its prepositioned stocks, we obtained and analyzed the
Report on Status of Department of Defense Programs for Prepositioning
of Materiel and Equipment: A Report to Congress as required by Section
352 of Public Law 110-181 (March 1, 2011), which described the status
of materiel in the prepositioned stocks. Two analysts independently
compared the prepositioned stock information in DOD's annual report
with the six reporting requirements and agreed that the DOD report
addressed all of the requirements. Additionally, the results of this
analysis were discussed with the respective service officials. We
reviewed service policies and guidance that guide the prepositioned
stock programs to understand the variations of information reported by
the services on the status of prepositioned materiel. After analyzing
the data, we met with appropriate DOD and service officials to discuss
the methodology used to collect and report the status of materiel and
the reliability of data from their reporting systems. Further, to
determine whether additional information on the status of
prepositioned materiel could be useful to Congress, we reviewed our
prior reports, assessments of the services' prepositioned stock
programs, relevant DOD and service guidance, and met with DOD and
service officials. We reviewed prior DOD reports to Congress to
determine if the information provided a transparent and comprehensive
picture of the services' progress over time to reconstitute their
prepositioned stock. We did not independently assess the data DOD
provided to Congress, but we discussed with service officials the
reliability of the systems used to develop the report data and
determined that the data are sufficiently reliable to meet the
objectives of this engagement. In support of this objective, we met
with officials from the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Supply Chain Integration; U.S. Army, Headquarters,
Operations and Logistics Readiness Directorate; U.S. Air Force,
Headquarters, Logistics, Expeditionary Equipment Division; U.S. Navy,
Chief of Naval Operations, Medical Readiness Platforms; Marine Corps
Prepositioned Programs Office; U.S. Transportation Command; and the
Defense Logistics Agency.
To address our second objective on the extent to which DOD implemented
our related recommendations since 2005 which were accepted by DOD
officials, we interviewed DOD and service officials, and reviewed DOD
records and our previous reports. We confirmed the status of our past
recommendations on prepositioned programs and stocks by examining the
status of those recommendations in our internal tracking systems and
discussing DOD actions concerning recommendations. In support of this
objective, we met with officials from the Office of the Undersecretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Supply Chain Integration; U.S.
Army, Headquarters, Operations and Logistics Readiness Directorate;
U.S. Air Force, Headquarters, Logistics, Expeditionary Equipment
Division; U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, Medical Readiness
Platforms; Marine Corps Prepositioned Programs Office; U.S.
Transportation Command; and the Defense Logistics Agency.
In regard to data reliability of the DOD report submitted to Congress,
we discussed with service officials the methodologies and systems used
in each service to evaluate the reliability of the self-reported data.
We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable to meet the
objectives of this engagement.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2011 through September
2011 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 our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[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:
September 19, 2011:
Mr. William Solis:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Solis:
This is the Department of Defense (DOD) response to the GAO draft
report GAO-11-852R, "Defense Logistics: Department of Defense Has
Enhanced Prepositioned Stock Management But Should Provide More
Detailed Status Reports," dated August 12, 2011 (Code 351618).
Although we concur with the recommendations, we do so with caution as
the scope of this report expands annually with additional reporting
requirements being requested. Recommend the report be standardized
after incorporation of the recommended data.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Nandy L. Spruill:
Director:
Acquisition Resources & Analysis:
Enclosure: As stated.
[End of letter]
GAO Draft Report Dated August 12, 2011:
GAO-11-852R (GAO Code 351618):
"Defense Logistics: Department Of Defense Has Enhanced Prepositi0ned
Stock Management But Should Provide More Detailed Status Reports"
Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Joint Staff and the Secretaries of the military services to
provide in the next annual report, in addition to the six elements
currently required, comparisons of all major end items or spare parts,
the objective levels, percentage levels of fill, and serviceability
rates for the current and previous fiscal year.
DOD Response: Concur.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretory of Defense
direct the Joint Staff and the Secretaries of the military services to
provide in the next annual report, in addition to the six elements
currently required, an explanation of significant changes from the
previous report such as the reasons for the addition of new items or
changes to the objective level, level of fill, or serviceability rates.
DOD Response: Concur.
[End of section]
Enclosure IV:
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Contact: William M. Solis, (202) 512-8365 or solisw@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments: In addition to the contact named above, David A.
Schmitt and Suzanne Wren, Assistant Directors; John Dell'Osso, Richard
Powelson, Michael Silver, Amie Steele, Joseph J. Watkins, and Stephen
Woods made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Warfighter Support: Improved Joint Oversight and Reporting on DOD's
Prepositioning Programs May Increase Efficiencies. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-647]. Washington, D.C.: May 16,
2011.
Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs,
Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP]. Washington, D.C.: March 1,
2011.
Defense Logistics: Department of Defense's Annual Report on the Status
of Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment Can Be Further Enhanced to
Better Inform Congress. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-172R]. Washington, D.C.: November
4, 2009.
Defense Logistics: Department of Defense's Annual Report on the Status
of Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment Can Be Enhanced to Better
Inform Congress. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-147R].
Washington, D.C.: December 15, 2008.
Defense Logistics: Improved Oversight and Increased Coordination
Needed to Ensure Viability of the Army's Prepositioning Strategy.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-144]. Washington, D.C.:
February 15, 2007.
Defense Logistics: Better Management and Oversight of Prepositioning
Programs Needed to Reduce Risk and Improve Future Programs.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-427]. Washington, D.C.:
September 6, 2005.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] DOD, Report on Status of Department of Defense Programs for
Prepositioning of Materiel and Equipment: A Report to Congress as
required by Section 352 of Public Law 110-181 (March 1, 2011).
[2] GAO, Warfighter Support: Improved Joint Oversight and Reporting on
DOD's Prepositioning Programs May Increase Efficiencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-647] (Washington, D.C.: May 16,
2011).
[3] Pub. L. No. 110-181, §352 (2008), codified at 10 U.S.C. §2229a.
[4] A major end item is a final combination of end products that is
ready for its intended use, according to the DOD Supply Chain Materiel
Management Regulation, DOD 4140.1-R, AP1.1.11.7 (May 23, 2003).
[5] DOD, Report on Status of Department of Defense Programs for
Prepositioning of Materiel and Equipment: A Report to Congress as
required by Section 352 of Public Law 110-181 (March 1, 2011).
[6] Section 2229a of Title 10 of the U.S. Code requires GAO to review
the report and, as the Comptroller General determines appropriate, to
submit to the congressional defense committees any additional
information that the Comptroller General determines will further
inform such committees on issues relating to the status of the
materiel in the prepositioned stocks. To determine if additional
information would inform decision makers, we used GAO Standards for
Internal Control in the Federal Government, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] (Washington, D.C.:
November 1999).
[7] See related GAO products listed at the end of this report.
[8] GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government
Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] (Washington, D.C.: March 1,
2011).
[9] Objective level of fill is the authorized level or the desired
quantity of an item that the service determines necessary in its
current prepositioning program.
[10] The serviceability rate is the percentage of each end item on
hand that is capable of performing its combat mission.
[11] The DOD report includes changes from the previous fiscal year in
the quantities of major items in prepositioned stocks. DOD added this
information in the past to clarify the report so that decision makers
can identify the change in quantity of a particular item that is on
hand.
[12] GAO, Defense Logistics: Improved Oversight and Increased
Coordination Needed to Ensure Viability of the Army's Prepositioning
Strategy, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-144]
(Washington, D.C.: February 15, 2007).
[13] GAO, Defense Logistics: Department of Defense's Annual Report on
the Status of Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment Can Be Further
Enhanced to Better Inform Congress, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-172R] (Washington, D.C.: November
4, 2009).
[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: