DOD’s Report Included Information on Each Required Element but Only Partially Addressed Some Elements

DOD provided some information on the each of the 12 reporting elements  enumerated in section 2229a in its fiscal year 2012 annual report on  prepositioned stocks. Specifically, we assessed that DOD addressed nine  of the elements because the information provided in the report was  responsive to the reporting requirements. We assessed three of the elements as being partially addressed because  DOD’s report did not provide all of the required information:
Element seven requires DOD to provide a list of non-standard items  slated for inclusion in the prepositioned stocks as well as a plan for  funding the inclusion and sustainment of those items. Inconsistent Information Among the Military Services Limits Usefulness of DOD’s Report

Inconsistencies in some of the information provided by the military  services limit the usefulness of the data presented in DOD’s report. Federal internal control standards state that decision makers need  complete and relevant information to manage risks and achieve efficiency  and effectiveness goals. This  tasking document to the services also included a copy of the 12 reporting  elements. While officials from each of the services and the Joint Staff stated that  they employed their own internal controls to review their respective  reporting for quality assurance, the inaccuracies and omissions we found  in the services’ reporting indicate weaknesses in DOD’s overall quality  assurance procedures for its annual prepositioning report. Until DOD provides complete, consistent, and accurate information on its  prepositioned stocks, its report will be of limited use to Congress’s ability  to oversee and make informed decisions about DOD’s use of its  equipment and resources in this constrained fiscal environment. DOD Has Not Developed Strategic Guidance or a Coordinated Joint- Service Approach for Managing Prepositioning Programs

Since we last reported on this issue in September 2012, DOD has not  made progress in addressing our prior recommendations to develop  department-wide strategic guidance and implement a coordinated joint- service approach for managing its prepositioning programs, nor has it set  a timeline for doing so. DOD Has Not Made Progress in Developing Overarching Strategic Guidance for Prepositioning Programs

In response to recommendations we have made in reports on DOD’s  annual prepositioning programs, DOD has stated that it planned to  develop department-wide strategic guidance for its prepositioning  programs; however, DOD has made no progress in developing such  guidance, nor has it set a timeline for doing so. As far back as 2005, we have reported that each of the military services  and the Defense Logistics Agency were planning the future of their  prepositioning programs without the benefit of an overall plan or joint  doctrine to coordinate their efforts, which made it difficult to determine  how the services’ different programs would fit together to meet the  evolving defense strategy. Also, in January 2013, DOD issued a Comprehensive Materiel Response  Plan, which provides guidance for directing, coordinating, and prioritizing  DOD-wide development plans, initiatives, and activities for the period  2013-2020 in order to achieve the Comprehensive Materiel Response  Strategy end state. In conducting our current review, we found that DOD had still not made  progress in developing an overarching strategy for its prepositioning  programs. Hence, the services’ individual prepositioning programs are still  not linked to overarching strategic guidance, which could lead to  inconsistencies and potential overlap and duplication among the services’  prepositioning strategies and between the service strategies and the new  national defense strategy. DOD Has Not Improved Joint Oversight of its Prepositioning Programs

DOD has also not improved its joint oversight of its prepositioning  programs because a working group that was expected to provide joint  oversight has not been functioning as intended and other joint activities  do not specifically address prepositioned stocks. Further, an increased emphasis on joint  program management and oversight of prepositioned materiel and  equipment would serve to unify DOD’s prepositioning efforts in support of  defense priorities, identify and reduce any unnecessary overlap or  duplication, and achieve cost savings and efficiencies. Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve DOD’s annual prepositioning report and more fully inform the  congressional defense committees on the status of prepositioned materiel  and equipment, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the  Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in  coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to  1.  develop guidance that clearly articulates the type and format of  information the services should provide for the report to ensure  consistency across DOD’s prepositioning programs, and  2.  identify and correct weaknesses in DOD’s quality assurance  procedures to minimize inaccuracies and omissions in the report. §  2229a, regarding prepositioned stocks, we analyzed DOD’s report on the  status of prepositioned materiel and equipment for fiscal year 2012.
Why GAO Did This Study

DOD prepositions stocks such as combat vehicles and repair parts worth billions of dollars at strategic locations around the world. These assets are used to prepare forces quickly for conflicts when needed. Over the years, GAO has made recommendations for DOD to develop overarching strategic guidance and improve joint oversight of the military services' prepositioning programs. Section 2229a of Title10 requires DOD to report annually on the status of its prepositioned stocks and for DOD's report to include 12 specific elements--for example, the material condition of the equipment. The law also mandates that GAO review DOD's report and provide any additional information to Congress that would be informative on issues relating to the status of prepositioned stocks. This is GAO's sixth report, and it assessed the extent to which (1) DOD's fiscal year 2012 prepositioning report addressed the 12 statutory reporting elements and (2) DOD has made progress in addressing GAO's prior recommendations on department-wide strategic guidance and a coordinated joint-military service approach for managing prepositioning. To conduct this work, GAO analyzed DOD's prepositioning report, reviewed DOD's guidance, and interviewed officials.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) provided information on all 12 required reporting elements in its fiscal year 2012 prepositioning report; however, 3 of these elements were only partially addressed. For example, DOD provided a list of non-standard items slated for inclusion in its prepositioned stocks but did not include a specific plan for funding those items as required by the law. Federal internal control standards state that decision makers need complete and relevant information to manage risks and achieve efficiency and effectiveness goals. However, GAO found that DOD's report contained some inconsistencies in information across the services as well as several inaccuracies and omissions. For example, DOD's report included funding information for 6 or 7 fiscal years for most of the services but only 2 fiscal years for the Navy's stocks. Service information was also presented in different formats in the report, which makes it difficult to compare data. Because the Joint Staff did not provide specific guidance to the services to ensure consistency when requesting data, the services adopted separate approaches to reporting information to the Joint Staff for compilation in the report. In addition, although an agency should monitor the quality of information provided to Congress, GAO found several inaccuracies in the report, such as incorrect calculations and information that had been inadvertently omitted. While officials from the Joint Staff and each of the services stated that they have their own review processes, the errors found in the report indicate weaknesses in DOD's quality assurance procedures. Until DOD addresses these issues and provides complete, consistent, and accurate information on its prepositioned stocks, its report will be of limited use to Congress in making informed decisions about DOD's prepositioning programs.
DOD has not made progress in addressing GAO's prior recommendations to develop department-wide strategic guidance and implement a coordinated joint-service approach for managing its prepositioning programs, nor has it set a timeline for doing so. As far back as 2005, GAO has reported that each of the military services was planning the future of its prepositioning programs without the benefit of an overall plan or joint doctrine to coordinate their efforts, which made it difficult to determine how the services' different programs would fit together to meet the evolving defense strategy. Recently, DOD issued a strategy for materiel response to support the full range of military activities and an implementation plan for directing, coordinating, and prioritizing DOD-wide development plans, initiatives, and activities for the period 2013-2020 to achieve the strategy. However, neither provides guidance for DOD's prepositioning programs, and the plan specifically excludes prepositioning. Hence, the services' individual prepositioning programs are still not linked to overarching strategic guidance. DOD has also not improved joint oversight of its prepositioning programs because a working group that was expected to provide such oversight has not been functioning as intended, and other joint activities do not specifically address prepositioned stocks. An increased emphasis on joint oversight would help unify DOD's prepositioning efforts in support of defense priorities, reduce potential unnecessary duplication, and achieve cost savings and efficiencies. Congress is currently considering legislation that would direct DOD to develop an overarching strategy for its prepositioning programs and establish joint oversight.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD develop guidance to ensure that it reports consistent information across the services and strengthens quality assurance procedures for its report. GAO also suggests that Congress require DOD to develop strategic guidance, including joint oversight, for its prepositioning programs. DOD concurred with the recommendations.