As of December 31, 2016, DOD had obligated about $2.2 billion  of the $2.3 billion Congress appropriated for ITEF in fiscal years 2015 and  2016 and had disbursed about $2 billion. ITEF Equipping Process and Responsibilities of DOD Components

The process for providing ITEF-funded equipment to Iraq’s security forces  generally falls into three phases: (1) acquisition and shipment, (2) staging  in Kuwait and Iraq, and (3) transfer to the government of Iraq or the  Kurdistan Regional Government (see fig. DOD Maintains Limited Visibility and Accountability of ITEF-funded Equipment Using SCIP

DOD components do not ensure that SCIP consistently captures key  transportation dates of equipment funded by ITEF during each of the  three phases of the ITEF equipping process. According to the DSCA  SAMM, DOD components should use SCIP to identify the status and  track the transportation of all building partner capacity materiel, such as  ITEF. DOD officials said  that SCMS is not capturing such dates because of potential  interoperability and data reporting issues in SCIP and other DOD data  systems. DOD  also could not fully account for ITEF-funded equipment transferred to the  government of Iraq or the Kurdistan Regional Government because of  missing or incomplete transfer documentation. First, SCMS may not be importing data correctly from  other DOD data systems used by DOD components to track ITEF-funded  equipment in phase 1. For example, according to USASAC officials, USASAC does  not report any ITEF-funded transportation dates in EFTS or SCMS  because they rely on other DOD data systems for this information which  officials said should be captured in SCIP. DOD Is Not Capturing in SCIP Arrival Dates of ITEF-Funded Equipment to Kuwait and Iraq in Phase 2 of the ITEF Equipping Process

Our analysis of 566 completed ITEF-funded requisitions recorded in  SCIP’s SCMS as of February 10, 2017 found that DOD components are  not following the SAMM to capture the arrival dates of ITEF-funded  equipment to Kuwait or Iraq in phase 2 of the ITEF equipping process in  SCIP. DOD Is Not Consistently Capturing in SCIP ITEF- Funded Equipment Transfer Dates to the Government of Iraq or the Kurdistan Regional Government in Phase 3 of the ITEF Equipping Process

Our analysis of 566 completed ITEF-funded requisitions recorded in  SCIP’s SCMS as of February 10, 2017 found that DOD components had  not consistently followed the SAMM or a USCENTCOM order to capture  the transfer dates of ITEF-funded equipment to the government of Iraq or  the Kurdistan Regional Government in phase 3 of the ITEF equipping  process in SCIP. Furthermore, DSCA officials said that SCIP users may need additional  guidance for reporting all key transportation dates in SCIP. Without timely and accurate transit  information on the status of ITEF-funded equipment, DOD cannot ensure  that the equipment has reached its intended destination, nor can DOD  program managers conduct effective oversight of the ITEF program. Identify the root causes, such as potential interoperability and data  reporting issues within SCIP and other DOD data systems, for why  DOD components are not ensuring that ITEF-funded equipment  transportation dates are captured in SCIP. DOD concurred with our first two recommendations, to  identify why DOD components are not ensuring that ITEF-funded  equipment transportation dates are captured in SCIP and to develop an  action plan for addressing these issues. To examine the extent to which DOD maintains visibility and  accountability of ITEF-funded equipment, we reviewed DOD guidance in  the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA)’s Security Assistance  Management Manual (SAMM), including a requirement to report the  transfer dates of building partner capacity materiel in the Enhanced  Freight Tracking System (EFTS) within the Security Cooperation  Information Portal (SCIP) or to DSCA. However, we did determine  that the 566 requisitions marked as complete for supply and services  were lacking key information, which we reported. Related GAO Products

Iraq: Status of DOD Efforts to Train and Equip Iraq’s Security Forces.
Why GAO Did This Study

In 2014, Congress authorized the creation of ITEF to provide equipment and other assistance to Iraq's security forces, including the Kurdistan Regional Government forces, to counter the expansion of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. As of December 2016, DOD had disbursed about $2 billion of the $2.3 billion Congress appropriated for ITEF in fiscal years 2015 and 2016 to purchase, for example, personal protective equipment, weapons, and vehicles for these forces. DOD's web-based SCIP provides U.S. government personnel and others transportation information on DOD equipment imported from other DOD data systems or reported by SCIP users.
GAO was asked to review DOD's accountability of ITEF-funded equipment. This report assesses the extent to which DOD maintains visibility and accountability of ITEF-funded equipment from acquisition through transfer to the government of Iraq or the Kurdistan Regional Government. GAO analyzed DOD guidance, procedures, SCIP data, and transfer documentation and interviewed officials from DOD agencies with a role in the ITEF equipping process in the United States, Kuwait, and Iraq.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) maintains limited visibility and accountability over equipment funded by the Iraq Train and Equip Fund (ITEF). Specifically, DOD is not ensuring that the Security Cooperation Information Portal (SCIP) is consistently capturing key transportation dates of ITEF-funded equipment. DOD guidance states that DOD components should use SCIP to identify the status and track the transportation of all building partner capacity materiel, such as ITEF. DOD also issued an order in October 2016 requiring DOD components to ensure that equipment transfer dates are recorded in SCIP. The process for providing the equipment to Iraq's security forces generally falls into three phases: (1) acquisition and shipment, (2) staging in Kuwait and Iraq, and (3) transfer to the government of Iraq or the Kurdistan Regional Government. However, for the 566 ITEF-funded requisitions marked as complete in SCIP's management reporting system as of February 2017, GAO found that the system captured one of two key transportation dates for 256 of the requisitions in phase 1, and none of the transportation dates for these requisitions in phase 2 or phase 3 (see figure).
DOD officials attributed the lack of key transportation dates in SCIP's management reporting system to potential interoperability and data reporting issues in all three equipping phases.
Interoperability issues. DOD officials said that SCIP's management reporting system may not be importing transportation data correctly from other DOD data systems or from another shipment tracking system feature in SCIP.
Data reporting issues. DOD officials said they are not reporting the arrival dates of equipment to Kuwait or Iraq because they rely on other DOD data systems and are not required to do so. DOD officials said they have had difficulty ensuring that SCIP has captured equipment transfer dates.
In addition, DOD cannot fully account for ITEF-funded equipment transfers because of missing or incomplete transfer documentation. Without timely and accurate transit information, DOD cannot ensure that the equipment has reached its intended destination, nor can program managers conduct effective oversight of ITEF-funded equipment.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making four recommendations that include identifying the root causes for addressing why DOD is not capturing ITEF-funded equipment transportation dates in SCIP and developing an action plan to address these issues. DOD generally concurred with GAO's recommendations and stated that it would develop a plan.