PACOM Does Not Fully Account for Contractor Personnel in a Steady-State Environment and Does Not Have a Process to Vet Foreign Vendors

PACOM does not fully account for contractor personnel in a steady-state  environment, and does not have a process to vet foreign vendors. DOD  guidance requires accountability for certain contractor personnel during  contingency operations, but contractor accountability guidance in steady- state environments is unclear. Additionally,  PACOM does not have a process in place to vet foreign vendors in  contingency operations due to a lack of DOD guidance that clarifies what  foreign-vendor vetting steps or process should be established at each  combatant command. PACOM Uses Multiple Mechanisms to Account for Contractor Personnel, Which Has Resulted in Inconsistent Reporting

PACOM and some of its components use multiple mechanisms to  account for contractor personnel in a steady-state environment. However, the number of contractor personnel accounted for by U.S. U.S. While the establishment of a foreign-vendor vetting cell may not be  appropriate for all operations or circumstances, published DOD guidance  specifying under what circumstances and how a vetting cell should be  established would better position PACOM and other combatant  commands to avoid contracting with the enemy in high-threat areas. PACOM Established an Interim Organizational Structure to Manage and Oversee OCS, but the Future Organizational Structure Is Focused in the Logistics Directorate

In June 2014, PACOM established an interim organizational structure to  oversee and manage OCS in its area of responsibility. The intent of the OCS Mission Integrator Demonstration is to establish  OCS as an enduring capability to provide the combatant command,  subordinate unified commands, and service components a central entity  to integrate OCS across joint functions—in effect, to operationalize OCS  within PACOM—in steady-state and contingency environments. DOD, Joint Staff, and PACOM guidance indicate the important role  directorates beyond logistics should play as stakeholders in OCS. Moreover, as we reported in 2013, DOD has faced challenges integrating  OCS in functional areas beyond logistics. PACOM Has Integrated OCS Annexes into Operational and Concept Plans, but the Information Lacks Details on Contractor Management and Support Estimates

PACOM has integrated OCS into 6 of its 11 operational, concept, and  campaign plans for potential contingencies by developing OCS  annexes—known as Annex Ws— that are required by DOD guidance for  certain plans, but the annexes lack details on contractor management  and support estimates in required appendixes. PACOM officials stated that they face several challenges with regard to  including this detail in appendixes. Without  guidance that clarifies roles and responsibilities as well as the process for  requirements development to inform the development of Annex Ws and  their appendixes, the annexes will continue to lack important details that  are needed to determine OCS requirements and adequately plan for  future operations. PACOM also has not established a foreign-vendor vetting process to  preemptively identify vendors that support criminal, terrorist, or other  sanctioned organizations due in part to a lack of DOD guidance  specifying under what conditions a vendor vetting process or cell should  be established. To enable OCS to be fully embedded in the command structure at the  command and continue to build upon the progress of integrating OCS into  the command, we recommend that as PACOM updates OCS guidance,  the Secretary of Defense direct the PACOM Commander to consider  ways to ensure all joint staff functions beyond the logistics area are fully  integrated into its OCS organizational structure and OCS Integration Cell. Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD and PACOM concurred  with two recommendations and partially concurred with four  recommendations. Without updated guidance to clarify what types of  contractor personnel are to be accounted for in Phase 0 operations, as  well as the identification of a system of record for contractor personnel  accountability information, PACOM may not have a comprehensive and  consistent accounting of contractor personnel in its area of responsibility,  which could potentially limit PACOM’s visibility over contractor personnel  for whom it may be responsible in the event of a contingency operation or  an emergency. In addition, PACOM service component  officials told us that the OCS Mission Integrator Demonstration might  have been more effective if it integrated individuals from all joint staff  functions, including other directorates beyond logistics. However, as  discussed in the report, PACOM officials also stated that some key details  are not included in the completed Annex W appendixes, which the  command expects requirements generators within the service  components to provide. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of our review were to determine the extent to which U.S.  Pacific Command (PACOM) has: (1) accounted for contractor personnel  and has a process to vet foreign vendors in its area of responsibility; (2)  an organizational structure to manage and oversee operational contract  support (OCS); and (3) integrated OCS into key planning documents.
Why GAO Did This Study

A key element of DOD military strategy since 2012 has been a rebalance of U.S. presence and capabilities toward the Asia-Pacific region, PACOM's area of responsibility. U.S. military personnel in this region rely on contracted services to provide support to military operations. PACOM's humanitarian and disaster-relief efforts in response to a May 2015 earthquake in Nepal highlighted the importance of OCS in the Asia-Pacific region.
GAO was asked to assess PACOM's processes to plan for, manage, and oversee contractors that support military operations in the Asia-Pacific region. This report assesses the extent to which PACOM (1) has accounted for contractor personnel and has a process to vet foreign vendors; (2) has established an organizational structure to manage and oversee OCS; and (3) has integrated OCS into key planning documents. GAO reviewed documents and data, interviewed relevant officials involved in OCS activities in the region, and analyzed OCS annexes to certain plans.

What GAO Found

U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) does not fully account for contractor personnel in a steady-state, or peacetime, environment and lacks a process to vet foreign vendors. Department of Defense (DOD) guidance requires the accounting of certain contractor personnel during contingency operations, but is unclear for steady-state environments. PACOM issued limited guidance in November 2016 to address accountability processes in contingency and steady-state environments, and PACOM and some of its components use multiple mechanisms to account for contractor personnel, resulting in inconsistencies in the numbers of contractor personnel accounted for, which could present difficulties in an emergency or contingency operation. Additionally, PACOM lacks a foreign vendor vetting process due to a lack of DOD guidance identifying what vendor vetting processes should be established at combatant commands. PACOM has taken some action on vendor vetting, such as including vetting in exercises and screening some contractor personnel, but it lacks a process that includes details, such as under what circumstances a vetting cell should be established. DOD guidance specifying under what circumstances a vetting cell should be established would better position PACOM to avoid contracting with the enemy in high-threat areas.
PACOM established an interim operational contract support (OCS) organizational structure through a pilot program that ends in June 2017. PACOM officials stated that, upon completion of the pilot, they intend to establish the structure as an enduring OCS capability within the command's logistics directorate. The intent is to provide the combatant command, subordinate unified commands, and service components a central entity to integrate OCS across joint functions, such as directorates dealing with personnel or intelligence. However, service component officials stated that PACOM's OCS organizational structure might have been more effective if it engaged all joint staff functions, including directorates beyond logistics. DOD, Joint Staff, and PACOM guidance identify the important role that directorates beyond logistics should play as stakeholders in OCS. Similarly, GAO has previously reported on the challenges DOD has faced integrating OCS in functional areas beyond logistics. By considering ways to expand its OCS organizational structure beyond the logistics directorate and better integrate the equities of other directorates, PACOM could be better positioned to build on the progress made during the pilot program.
PACOM has integrated OCS into key planning documents, as required by guidance, by developing OCS annexes for 6 of its 11 operational, concept, and campaign plans. Officials added that they will continue to update the remaining plans as planning cycles and resources allow. However, the annex appendixes generally lack key details, such as contractor management and support estimates. PACOM officials told GAO that such details are determined through requirements development at the service component commands, but challenges exist related to these issues due to unclear guidance. Without guidance that clarifies the requirements-development process for OCS annexes, PACOM will continue to lack important details that are needed to determine OCS requirements for operations.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making six recommendations, including that DOD and PACOM develop or update guidance related to contractor personnel accountability, vendor vetting, and OCS organizational structure; and that PACOM develop guidance that clarifies requirements development for plans. DOD concurred with two recommendations and partially concurred with four. GAO continues to believe the recommendations are valid, as discussed in the report.