ACPVs differ from traditional DOD military armored vehicles in various  ways. The  guidance and regulation associated with major defense acquisition  programs is generally not applicable to ACPVs. The Departments of Defense and State Have Similar Guidance for ACPV Procurement

DOD and its components—Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and  Defense Intelligence Agency, the largest buyer of ACPVs in DOD—are  subject to a plethora of guidance related to the procurement of ACPVs,  much of which is similar—and, in most cases, identical—to that used by  State. For DOD, that guidance exists at the overall federal level, the  department level, and the individual component level. For both agencies, the guidance covers key aspects of ACPV  acquisitions, including procurement methods, protection levels, vendor  clearances, inspection and acceptance, warranties, and fleet oversight. Agency officials at State and DOD components cited the FAR as the  capstone guidance for their procurement activities. Further, we found evidence of in-progress inspections of DOD’s ACPVs,  although the Army conducted such inspections for only a single contract  action. According to DIA officials,  implementing a process for oversight may be challenging for their agency. The Army Did Not Consistently Conduct In- Progress Inspections

State and all selected DOD components, with the exception of the Army,  provided evidence of in-progress inspections for each contract action  used to procure ACPVs between 2011 and 2015. All contract actions  reviewed included provisions for inspections and acceptance, including  in-progress inspections. Army Utilizes a Decentralized Approach for ACPV Management

With the exception of the Army, all the DOD components we reviewed  have a central point of contact and mechanisms for managing and  organizing their ACPV information. This  decentralized approach for ACPV management leaves the Army with an  incomplete picture of various ACPV-related matters, including  consistency of procurement and inspection methods. Federal standards for internal control call for mechanisms that allow for  oversight intended to help an organization, such as the Army, meet  objectives and manage risks for activities such as ACPV procurement. Recommendations for Executive Action

To help ensure that ACPV armoring and quality standards are met, that  evolving department and component policies are consistent, and that they  are consistently applied, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense:
Until the department approves and implements the updated armoring  and inspection standards, direct the Secretary of the Army to conduct  in-progress inspections at the armoring vendor’s facility for each  procurement; and
Direct the Secretary of the Army to designate a central point of  contact for collecting and reporting ACPV information to facilitate  DIA’s oversight of armoring and inspection standards in these  contracts. The objectives are to  determine (1) DOD’s guidance and procedures for acquiring ACPVs and  how they compare with those at State; and (2) the extent to which  selected DOD components adhere to guidance, policy, and procedures  for ensuring the safety and quality of ACPVs. To determine the extent to which selected DOD components—namely the  Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and DIA, the largest procurer of these  vehicles for use overseas—adhered to guidance, policy, and procedures  for ensuring the safety and quality of armored commercial passenger- carrying vehicles, we worked with DOD and State officials to identify  contract actions that were used to acquire ACPVs that DOD components  received between 2011 and 2015.
Why GAO Did This Study

DOD uses armored military vehicles for combat and operational support, but it also uses armored commercial vehicles to transport military and civilian personnel in areas that pose a threat to their safety. These vehicles differ in many ways, including mission and appearance.
The House Armed Services Committee report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 contained a provision for GAO to assess multiple aspects of DOD's procurement practices for ACPVs. This report assesses (1) DOD's guidance and procedures for acquiring ACPVs and how they compare with those at the Department of State; and (2) the extent to which selected DOD components adhere to guidance and procedures for ensuring the safety and quality of ACPVs.
To conduct this work, GAO analyzed policies, procedures, and regulations that govern aspects of acquiring, armoring, inspecting, and managing ACPVs; interviewed DOD and State Department officials; and compared armoring standards DOD components—Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Defense Intelligence Agency—use for ACPVs against minimally acceptable protection standards. GAO reviewed contract actions for selected DOD components between 2011 and 2015.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) and the defense components in GAO's review—Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Defense Intelligence Agency, the largest buyer of armored commercial passenger-carrying vehicles (ACPV) in DOD—have a plethora of guidance related to ACPV procurement. This guidance is similar to that used by the Department of State, which also procures a large number of these vehicles (see figure). DOD officials GAO spoke with cited the Federal Acquisition Regulation as the capstone guidance for procurement activities. For DOD, guidance also exists department-wide and at the individual component levels. Guidance covers numerous aspects of ACPV acquisitions, including procurement methods, protection levels, inspection and acceptance, warranties, and oversight.
ACPV-related contract actions for the selected DOD components generally complied with guidance, policies, and procedures for ensuring the safety and quality of ACPVs and included contract language that met minimum armoring standards. However, opportunities exist for the Army to improve its processes for in-progress inspections—inspections that occur as the vehicle is being armored—as the Army instead depended primarily on the vendors' quality control processes. GAO's review of contract actions used to procure ACPVs for selected DOD components between 2011 and 2015 showed that in-progress inspections were conducted, with the exception of the Army, which conducted such inspections for only a single contract action. Without in-progress inspections, the Army is accepting risk in the safety of its vehicles. Further, with the exception of the Army, all the DOD components have a central office and mechanisms for reporting ACPV information. This decentralized approach leaves the Army with an incomplete picture of various ACPV-related matters, including procurement and inspection methods. Federal standards for internal control call for mechanisms that allow for oversight intended to help an organization, such as the Army, ensure compliance with armoring and inspection standards. Without a designated central point of contact, the Army may face challenges for reporting ACPV information to DOD officials responsible for overseeing the implementation of armoring and inspection standards department-wide.

What GAO Recommends

The Secretary of Defense should require the Army to conduct in-progress inspections and designate a central point of contact for ACPV information. DOD concurred with the recommendations.