Strategic Plans Lack Elements Needed to Position the Depots to Meet Future Maintenance Requirements

While the depot maintenance strategic plans developed by the Army and  the Marine Corps identify key issues affecting the depots, they do not fully  address all of the elements required to achieve a results-oriented  management framework, and they are not fully responsive to OSD’s  direction to the services for developing their plans. In addition, the plans are not  fully responsive to OSD’s direction to the services for developing these  plans. While the  services’ strategic plans address key issues affecting the depots and  contain mission statements, along with long-term goals and objectives,  they do not fully address all the elements needed for sound strategic  planning. The Army’s and Marine Corps’ depot maintenance strategic plans partially  address logistics transformation, core logistics capability assurance,  workforce revitalization, and capital investment—the four issues that OSD  directed each service, at a minimum, to include in their plans. Army and Marine Corps officials involved with the development of the  service strategic plans acknowledged that their plans do not fully address  the OSD criteria, but they stated that the plans nevertheless address issues  they believe are critical to maintaining effective, long-term depot  maintenance capabilities. Strategic Plans Do Not Address Uncertainties in Workload That Affect the Depots’ Ability to Plan for Meeting Future Maintenance Requirements

The Army’s and Marine Corps’ depot maintenance strategic plans do not  provide strategies for mitigating and reducing uncertainties in future  workloads that affect the depots’ ability to plan for meeting future  maintenance requirements. These uncertainties stem primarily from a lack  of information from the depots’ major commands on workload that will  replace current work on legacy systems, which is expected to decline, as  well as workload associated with new systems that are in the acquisition  pipeline (which is discussed further in the next section of this report). Although the services have guidance, systems, and processes for workload  planning, depot officials told us that the workload forecasts they receive  from their major commands are unreliable beyond the current fiscal year. Officials cited various factors that contribute to workload uncertainties,  such as the volatility in workload requirements; changing wartime  environment; budget instability, including the timing of and heavy reliance  on supplemental funding; and unanticipated changes in customer orders. The Plans Do Not Address Whether and How the Depots Will Have a Role in Planning for the Sustainment of New and Modified Weapon Systems

Neither the Army’s nor the Marine Corps’ strategic plans address whether  and how the depots will be integrated into the sustainment portion of the  life cycle management planning process for new and modified weapon  systems. According to depot officials,  they are not involved in the program managers’ planning because no clear  process exists that would enable them to have input. Conclusions

The Army and Marine Corps face some challenges to ensure that their  maintenance depots will remain operationally effective, efficient, and  capable of meeting future maintenance requirements. Recommendations for Executive Action

To provide greater assurance that the military depots will be postured and  resourced to meet future maintenance requirements, we recommend that  the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the Army and the  Commandant of the Marine Corps to take the following three actions to  update the depot maintenance strategic plans:    Fully address all elements needed for a comprehensive results-oriented  management framework, including those elements partially addressed in  the current plans-—such as the approaches for accomplishing goals and  objectives, stakeholder involvement, external factors that may affect how  goals and objectives will be accomplished, performance goals that are  objective, quantifiable, and measurable, resources needed to meet  performance goals, performance indicators used to measure outcomes and  gauge progress, and an evaluation plan that monitors goals and objectives.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Army and Marine Corps maintenance depots provide critical support to ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and are heavily involved in efforts to reset the force. The Department of Defense (DOD) has an interest in ensuring that the depots remain operationally effective, efficient, and capable of meeting future maintenance requirements. In 2008, in response to direction by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Army and the Marine Corps each submitted a depot maintenance strategic plan. Our objective was to evaluate the extent to which these plans provide comprehensive strategies for meeting future depot maintenance requirements. GAO determined whether the plans were consistent with the criteria for developing a results-oriented management framework and fully addressed OSD's criteria.

What GAO Found

The depot maintenance strategic plans developed by the Army and Marine Corps identify key issues affecting the depots, but do not provide assurance that the depots will be postured and resourced to meet future maintenance requirements because they do not fully address all of the elements required for a comprehensive, results-oriented management framework. Nor are they fully responsive to OSD's direction for developing the plans. While the services' strategic plans contain mission statements, along with long-term goals and objectives, they do not fully address all the elements needed for sound strategic planning, such as external factors that may affect how goals and objectives will be accomplished, performance indicators or metrics that measure outcomes and gauge progress, and resources required to meet the goals and objectives. Also, the plans partially address four issues that OSD directed the services, at a minimum, to include in their plans, such as logistics transformation, core logistics capability assurance, workforce revitalization, and capital investment. Army and Marine Corps officials involved with the development of the service strategic plans acknowledged that their plans do not fully address the OSD criteria, but they stated that the plans nevertheless address issues they believe are critical to maintaining effective, long-term depot maintenance capabilities. The Army's and Marine Corps' plans also are not comprehensive because they do not provide strategies for mitigating and reducing uncertainties in future workloads that affect the depots' ability to plan for meeting future maintenance requirements. Such uncertainties stem primarily from a lack of information on (1) workload that will replace current work on existing systems, which is expected to decline, and (2) workload associated with new systems that are in the acquisition pipeline. According to depot officials, to effectively plan for future maintenance requirements, the depots need timely and reliable information from their major commands on both the amounts and types of workloads they should expect to receive in future years. Depot officials told us that the information they receive from their major commands on their future workloads are uncertain beyond the current fiscal year. Officials cited various factors that contribute to these uncertainties, such as volatility in workload requirements, changing wartime environment, budget instability, and unanticipated changes in customer orders. In addition, depot officials said that they are not involved in the sustainment portion of the life cycle management planning process for new and modified systems. No clear process exists that would enable them to have input into weapon system program managers' decisions on how and where new and modified systems will be supported and maintained in the future. Unless they are integrated in this planning process, these officials said, the depots will continue to have uncertainties about what capabilities they will need to plan for future workloads and what other resources they will need to support new and modified weapon systems.