This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-14-326 
entitled 'Weapon Systems Management: DOD Has Taken Steps to Implement 
Product Support Managers but Needs to Evaluate Their Effects' which 
was released on April 29, 2014. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives: 

April 2014: 

Weapon Systems Management: 

DOD Has Taken Steps to Implement Product Support Managers but Needs to 
Evaluate Their Effects: 

GAO-14-326: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-14-326, a report to the Committee on Armed Services, 
House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

DOD spends billions of dollars annually to sustain weapon systems. 
With the prospect of tighter defense budgets, DOD has placed more 
attention on controlling total life-cycle cost with initiatives aimed 
at ensuring that weapon systems are more affordable over the long 
term. Section 2337 of Title 10, U.S. Code, requires that each major 
weapon system be supported by a PSM and lays out the responsibilities 
of the PSM, including developing and implementing a comprehensive 
product support strategy for the system. GAO was asked to review DOD's 
progress in implementing PSMs for major weapon systems. 

This report examines (1) the steps, if any, that DOD and the military 
services have taken to implement PSMs for major weapon systems and (2) 
the extent to which DOD has evaluated the effects, if any, that PSMs 
are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions for their assigned 
systems. To conduct this review, GAO obtained information and 
interviewed product support personnel assigned to 12 of 332 major 
weapon systems that reflected varying characteristics--such as 
military service and system cost--and analyzed documentation from DOD 
and the military services. 

What GAO Found: 

The Department of Defense (DOD) and the military services have taken 
steps to implement Product Support Managers (PSM) for major weapon 
systems, but certain aspects of the implementation process remain 
incomplete. The services have assigned PSMs to almost all of their 
major weapon systems. For example, as of February 2014, 325 of 332 PSM 
position requirements across DOD for major weapon systems—-
approximately 98 percent—-were filled. While DOD and all of the 
services have taken some steps to develop a comprehensive career path 
and associated guidance to develop, train, and support future PSMs, 
DOD, in coordination with the military services, has not developed a 
plan—-to include objectives, milestones, and resources—-to implement 
and institutionalize a comprehensive PSM career path. Until DOD 
develops such a plan, it may not be able to ensure that the services 
can fill PSM positions with qualified personnel in the future. 
Moreover, DOD's PSM implementation guidance is not centralized and 
future product support personnel may be hindered in their ability to 
easily access and implement such guidance. Also, because the latest 
DOD guidance lacks detail and contains a potentially unclear 
provision, personnel may confuse the responsibilities of Program 
Managers and PSMs. Without clear, comprehensive, and centralized 
implementation guidance, DOD may be hindered in its ability to 
institutionalize the implementation of PSMs for its major weapon 
systems going forward. Additionally, the Army has been working for a 
year to clarify the roles and responsibilities of certain product 
support personnel, who support PSMs, for the sustainment portion of 
the life cycle for major weapon systems. According to officials from 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, 
Logistics and Technology, major weapon systems program offices have 
raised the issue of the lack of clear roles and responsibilities of 
these personnel, which has prompted senior-level Army meetings to 
attempt to resolve the issue. However, the Army has not yet finalized 
guidance that clarifies roles and responsibilities, which may hinder 
PSMs in their ability to effectively manage and conduct their daily 
product support responsibilities. 

DOD does not fully know how or to what extent PSMs are affecting life-
cycle sustainment decisions because it has not systematically 
collected and evaluated information on the effects PSMs are having on 
their assigned weapon systems. Program evaluation guidance states that 
evaluations can play a key role in program planning, management, and 
oversight by providing feedback to managers on programs. Evaluations 
can show whether PSMs are conducting good practices that could be 
shared across the department as well as whether changes are needed to 
guidance or other areas to enhance the contributions of PSMs. In the 
absence of DOD information on the effects PSMs are having on life-
cycle sustainment decisions, weapon system program offices identified 
several good practices and challenges associated with PSMs. For 
example, several PSMs told us that they had initiated analyses focused 
on reducing life-cycle sustainment costs for their assigned weapon 
systems. One challenge that Army headquarters officials noted was that 
PSMs do not have knowledge of how much sustainment funding their 
systems will receive prior to the year of execution of funds. Without 
greater visibility over the allocation of sustainment funding for 
their assigned weapon systems, these PSMs may be hindered in their 
ability to proactively manage and influence their system's life-cycle 
sustainment decisions. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that DOD and the services develop a plan to 
institutionalize a career path for PSMs; issue clear, comprehensive, 
and centralized PSM implementation guidance; evaluate effects PSMs 
have on sustainment decisions; and improve Army PSMs' visibility over 
sustainment funding. DOD generally agreed with the recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-326]. For more 
information, contact Cary Russell at (202) 512-5431 or 
russellc@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

DOD and the Services Have Taken Steps to Implement PSMs for Major 
Weapon Systems, but Certain Aspects of the Implementation Process 
Remain Incomplete: 

DOD Has Not Systematically Collected or Evaluated Information on the 
Effects PSMs Are Having on Life-Cycle Sustainment Decisions: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Defense Acquisition System Framework: 

Appendix III: Descriptions of Selected Department of Defense (DOD) 
Major Weapon Systems: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Table: 

Table 1: Number and Characteristics of Product Support Managers (PSM) 
Assigned to Major Weapon Systems by Service as of February 2014: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Product Support Organizational Structure: 

Figure 2: Overview of Relationship between Assistant Secretary of the 
Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASA[ALT]) and Army 
Materiel Command (AMC) for Product Support Activities: 

Figure 3: Overview of the Defense Acquisition System Framework: 

Abbreviations: 

ACAT: Acquisition Category: 

AMC: Army Materiel Command: 

ASA(ALT): Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics 
and Technology: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

O&S: operating and support: 

OSD: Office of the Secretary of Defense: 

PSM: Product Support Manager: 

USD(AT&L): Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

April 29, 2014: 

The Honorable Howard P. "Buck" McKeon: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Adam Smith: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
House of Representatives: 

The Department of Defense (DOD) spends billions of dollars each year 
to sustain its weapon systems. We have previously noted that the 
acquisition of a weapon system today involves a significant financial 
commitment to that system over its entire life cycle, a period that 
may last several decades--from the system's development to the time it 
is removed from DOD's inventory.[Footnote 1] With the nation facing 
fiscal challenges and the potential for tighter defense budgets, DOD 
has placed more attention on controlling dollars spent on the total 
life-cycle costs of weapon systems by instituting various initiatives 
aimed at ensuring that systems are more affordable over the long term. 
Congress has passed legislation that may have similar effects. For 
example, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
required that Product Support Managers (PSM) be assigned to all major 
weapon systems and outlined the roles and responsibilities that PSMs 
must perform, including developing and implementing a comprehensive 
product support strategy for the system.[Footnote 2] PSMs are to 
report to Program Managers, who are responsible for the management of 
a program over its life cycle. A provision in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 subsequently codified the roles 
and responsibilities of the PSM at section 2337 of Title 10, U.S. 
Code, which was later amended by the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2014.[Footnote 3] As amended, these 
responsibilities are to: 

1. develop and implement a comprehensive product support strategy for 
the weapon system; 

2. use appropriate predictive analysis and modeling tools that can 
improve material availability and reliability, increase operational 
availability rates, and reduce operation and sustainment costs; 

3. conduct appropriate cost analyses to validate the product support 
strategy, including cost-benefit analyses as outlined in Office of 
Management and Budget Circular A-94; 

4. ensure achievement of desired product support outcomes through 
development and implementation of appropriate product support 
arrangements; 

5. adjust performance requirements and resource allocations across 
Product Support Integrators and Product Support Providers as necessary 
to optimize implementation of the product support strategy; 

6. periodically review product support arrangements between the 
Product Support Integrators and Product Support Providers to ensure 
the arrangements are consistent with the overall product support 
strategy; 

7. prior to each change in the product support strategy or every 5 
years, whichever occurs first, revalidate any business-case analysis 
performed in support of the product support strategy; 

8. ensure that the product support strategy maximizes small-business 
participation at the appropriate tiers; and: 

9. ensure that product support arrangements for the weapon system 
describe how such arrangements will ensure efficient procurement, 
management, and allocation of government-owned parts inventories in 
order to prevent unnecessary procurements of such parts. 

PSMs are assigned to each major weapon system to help DOD ensure that 
it has effective product support strategies and processes to support 
the goals of maintaining its weapon systems readiness and controlling 
costs throughout the life cycle of a system. 

Although this is our first report focused on PSMs, we have conducted 
prior work on operating and support (O&S) issues, including costs 
[Footnote 4] related to weapon systems, and made recommendations to 
improve management of these issues. For example, we noted that DOD 
lacks key information needed to effectively manage and reduce O&S 
costs for most of the weapon systems GAO reviewed--including life-
cycle O&S cost estimates and complete historical data on actual O&S 
costs. Moreover, we also reported that DOD needed to enhance oversight 
of estimated long-term costs for operating and supporting major weapon 
systems.[Footnote 5] The Related GAO Products section at the end of 
this report lists our prior work. 

For this report, you asked us to examine DOD's progress in 
establishing and institutionalizing PSMs for major weapon systems. 
Specifically, our objectives were to determine (1) what steps, if any, 
DOD and the military services have taken to implement PSMs for major 
weapon systems and (2) the extent to which DOD has evaluated the 
effects, if any, that PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment 
decisions for the systems to which they are assigned. To satisfy these 
objectives, we interviewed Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), 
military department headquarters, and military service command 
officials. We also obtained pertinent documents, including DOD 
directives and instructions, military department regulations and 
instructions, memorandums, other guidance, and lists of assigned PSMs. 
Additionally, we collected and analyzed DOD and service data on PSMs 
assigned to 12 of 332 major weapon systems, and selected and 
interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of PSMs, program management, and 
other product support personnel. In identifying this nonprobability 
sample, we selected major weapon systems that reflected varied 
characteristics, such as military service, Acquisition Category (ACAT) 
level, acquisition phase, type of system (e.g., aviation, ground, 
naval), and total estimated system cost. From these interviews, we 
obtained more-in-depth information to identify good practices that 
some PSMs have found helpful in enabling them to make or affect life-
cycle sustainment decisions for major weapon systems, as well as any 
challenges that may have prevented PSMs from making or influencing 
such decisions. To obtain information on the overall size and cost of 
DOD's ACAT I systems, we also analyzed data from DOD's Selected 
Acquisition Reports and other information in the Defense Acquisition 
Management Information Retrieval Purview system.[Footnote 6] We 
obtained similar data for ACAT II systems, where available, that the 
services maintained on their respective systems. We assessed the 
reliability of the PSM-related data we obtained from DOD and the 
services, along with the information we obtained from the Defense 
Acquisition Management Information Retrieval Purview system, through 
questionnaires and interviews with knowledgeable officials and 
determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes 
of assessing the implementation of PSMs for major weapon systems and 
discussing the findings in this report. A more detailed discussion of 
our scope and methodology is included in appendix I. 

We conducted this performance audit from April 2013 through April 2014 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions, based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions, based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

DOD Product Support: 

Product support refers to the support functions required to field and 
maintain the readiness and operational capability of major weapon 
systems, subsystems, and components, including all functions related 
to a weapon system's readiness. O&S costs historically account for 
approximately 70 percent of a weapon system's total life-cycle cost 
and include costs for repair parts, maintenance, contract services, 
engineering support, and personnel, among other things.[Footnote 7] 
Weapon systems are costly to sustain in part because they often 
incorporate a technologically complex array of subsystems and 
components and need expensive spare parts and logistics support to 
meet required readiness levels. In addition, military operations in 
such locations as Afghanistan have increased the wear and tear on many 
weapon systems and escalated their O&S costs well beyond peacetime 
levels. Many of the key decisions affecting a weapon system's O&S 
costs are made while the system is still in the acquisition process. 
For example, acquisition-based decisions about the design, materials, 
and technology for a system affect the logistics support that is 
eventually needed to keep that system available and ready after it is 
fielded. Controlling O&S costs is critical to ensure future 
affordability of defense budgets. In short, the acquisition of a 
weapon system today involves a significant financial commitment to 
that system over its entire life cycle, a period that may last several 
decades from the system's development to the time it is removed from 
DOD's inventory. For example, DOD estimated in 2012 that life-cycle 
O&S costs for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter--being acquired for the 
Air Force, Navy, and Marines--would be about $1.1 trillion, in 
addition to an estimated $391.1 billion in total acquisition costs. 
[Footnote 8] 

Recognizing the importance of operations and sustainment costs, DOD 
has been engaged in a number of efforts to improve product support 
management. Recent acquisition reforms, such as those in response to 
the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, the recent issuance 
of Interim DOD Instruction 5000.02, and the Department's "Better 
Buying Power" initiative[Footnote 9] may encourage greater efficiency 
and cost savings in acquisition-based and product support-related 
decisions and activities for major defense acquisition programs. In 
December 2012, we reported on DOD's implementation of the act and 
noted that DOD had taken steps to implement fundamental provisions of 
the act and was taking additional steps to further strengthen its 
acquisition policies and acquisition capabilities. We also reported, 
however, that DOD still faced organizational, guidance, and cultural 
challenges to implementing acquisition reform.[Footnote 10] Appendix 
II contains a more-detailed discussion on the defense acquisition 
system framework. 

Role of the PSM within the Product Support Organizational Structure: 

Consistent with section 2337 and DOD guidance, PSMs are assigned to 
major weapon systems to provide oversight and management and to serve 
as advisors to Program Managers on matters related to product support, 
such as weapon system sustainment. According to DOD's PSM Guidebook, 
[Footnote 11] DOD must continue to improve product support, with a 
specific focus on increasing readiness and enabling better cost 
control. DOD guidance describes a PSM as the individual who provides 
weapon systems product support subject-matter expertise to the Program 
Manager for the execution of his or her total life-cycle management 
responsibilities.[Footnote 12] As described by the PSM guidebook, a 
Program Manager is assigned life-cycle management responsibility and 
is accountable for the implementation, management, and oversight of 
all activities associated with the development, production, 
sustainment, and disposal of a weapon system across its life cycle. 
The Program Manager's responsibilities for oversight and management of 
the product support function are typically delegated to a PSM, who 
leads the development, implementation, and top-level integration and 
management of all sources of support to meet warfighter sustainment 
and readiness requirements. This organization is displayed in figure 1. 

Figure 1: Product Support Organizational Structure: 

[Refer to PDF for image: Organizational Structure] 

Top level: 
Defense Acquisition Executive. 

Second level: 
Service Acquisition Executives. 

Third level: 
Program Executive Officers. 

Fourth level: 
Program Managers. 

Fifth level: 
Product Support Managers (PSM): 
* Product Support Integrators: 
- Product Support Providers. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) information. 

[End of figure] 

DOD Responsibilities for Life-Cycle Management: 

The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics (USD[AT&L]) serves as the Defense Acquisition Executive and 
is the individual responsible for supervising the defense acquisition 
system. The USD(AT&L) has policy and procedural authority for the 
defense acquisition system, is the principal acquisition official of 
the department, and is the acquisition advisor to the Secretary of 
Defense. For acquisition matters, the USD(AT&L) generally takes 
precedence in DOD, including over the secretaries of the military 
departments, after the Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of 
Defense. The USD(AT&L)'s authority includes directing the services and 
defense agencies on acquisition matters and making milestone decisions 
for major defense acquisition programs.[Footnote 13] Under the 
USD(AT&L), and subject to the authority, direction, and control of the 
Secretary of the relevant military department, each of the military 
services has officials designated as Component or Service Acquisition 
Executives who are responsible for acquisition functions within their 
services. A Program Executive Officer--a military or civilian official 
who has responsibility for directing assigned programs--reports to and 
receives guidance and direction from the Service Acquisition 
Executive.[Footnote 14] The Program Executive Officer supervises a 
Program Manager, who is the individual responsible for accomplishing a 
program's objectives for development, production, and sustainment to 
meet the user's operational needs. The PSM reports to the Program 
Manager. 

Under the PSM, there may be a need for Product Support Integrators, 
who are assigned within the scope, direction, and oversight of the 
PSM, and who may be either a government or commercial entity. Product 
Support Integrators are tasked with integrating sources of support, 
and may use Product Support Providers to accomplish this role. Product 
Support Providers are tasked with providing specific product support 
functions.[Footnote 15] Thus, generally, a product support arrangement 
is established wherein the PSM (acting on behalf of the Program 
Manager) may effectively delegate some levels of responsibility for 
product support implementation and oversight to Product Support 
Integrators. The Product Support Integrators, in turn, ensure that the 
performance requirements to meet their arrangements are accomplished 
by the Product Support Providers, who perform product support 
activities on major weapon systems. However, as noted by the PSM 
guidebook, in all cases the PSM is accountable to the Program Manager 
for the support outcome. 

While their structures vary, each of the military services has 
organizations responsible for providing life-cycle support for weapon 
systems. 

* Army. Within the Army, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASA[ALT]) oversees the 
research, development, testing, and evaluation of the acquisition of 
materiel systems. Among other responsibilities, ASA(ALT) establishes 
policy, oversees the development and execution of program management, 
and oversees the acquisition and life-cycle logistics management 
function.[Footnote 16] The Army's principal materiel command, the Army 
Materiel Command (AMC), works closely with program executive offices, 
the Army acquisition executive, industry, academia, and other related 
agencies to develop, acquire, and sustain materiel for the Army. AMC's 
maintenance depots and arsenals overhaul, modernize, and upgrade major 
weapon systems. 

* Navy and Marine Corps. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 
Research, Development, and Acquisition serves as the Component 
Acquisition Executive and is responsible for all research, 
development, and acquisition within the Department of the Navy. In 
order to address a diverse set of needs, the Department of the Navy 
comprises components known as Systems Commands. These include Naval 
Sea Systems Command, Naval Air Systems Command, and Space and Naval 
Warfare Systems Command, among others. Marine Corps Systems Command 
serves as the Department of the Navy enterprise acquisition and life-
cycle systems manager for the Marine Corps. Marine Corps Systems 
Command provides competency resources to the program executive 
officer, including financial management, engineering, contracting, 
logistics, and program management. These Systems Commands oversee 
various acquisition programs, such as for ships and aircraft, and 
these programs are responsible for the management of their respective 
systems' life-cycle support. 

* Air Force. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 
for Acquisition is responsible for the integrated life-cycle 
management of systems from the time the system enters into the defense 
acquisition management system until system retirement and disposal. 
[Footnote 17] Individual program executive officers beneath this 
office are then responsible for the total life-cycle management of an 
assigned portfolio of programs. Air Force Materiel Command and Air 
Force Space Command support these efforts by providing technical 
assistance, infrastructure, manpower, test capabilities, laboratory 
support, professional education, training and development, and 
management tools. 

DOD and the Services Have Taken Steps to Implement PSMs for Major 
Weapon Systems, but Certain Aspects of the Implementation Process 
Remain Incomplete: 

DOD and the services have taken steps to implement PSMs for major 
weapon systems and have described them as a valuable resource in 
managing product support, but certain aspects of the implementation 
process remain incomplete. 

Almost All Systems Have PSMs Assigned, but DOD and the Services Do Not 
Have a Plan to Institutionalize a Comprehensive Career Path for PSMs: 

DOD has assigned PSMs to almost all of its major weapon systems and 
has developed PSM training courses, but DOD, in coordination with the 
military services, has not developed a plan--to include objectives, 
milestones, and resources--to implement and institutionalize a 
comprehensive PSM career path. 

Assigning PSMs: 

The services have identified and assigned PSMs to almost all of their 
major weapon systems. As of the most-current data available from the 
military services, 325 of 332 PSM position requirements across DOD for 
major weapon systems--approximately 98 percent--were filled.[Footnote 
18] In addition, DOD has designated the PSM position as a key 
leadership position[Footnote 19] for ACAT I level systems. In 
accordance with statute and DOD policy, the PSM position for major 
defense acquisition programs is to be filled by a properly qualified 
military servicemember or full-time DOD employee.[Footnote 20] Most of 
the PSMs are senior-level civilian personnel; the remaining positions 
are filled by military personnel. However, according to Navy and Air 
Force officials, in a few instances, the services have had to issue 
waivers to individuals to allow them to take PSM positions, because 
they did not have the necessary education, experience, or training to 
fill the position.[Footnote 21] 

OSD, military department headquarters, and PSM officials told us that 
PSMs are carrying out the duties identified in law. Moreover, PSMs we 
spoke with told us that they are performing many of the same duties 
that they performed in their previous positions as senior logisticians 
or in related fields. In addition to those duties, however, DOD 
officials told us that one of the changes to these officials' prior 
responsibilities is the idea that support concepts should be evaluated 
periodically over a system's life cycle; to this end, section 2337 
requires that PSMs develop and implement a comprehensive product 
support strategy, and revalidate any business-case analysis performed 
in support of the strategy prior to each change or every 5 years. 
[Footnote 22] This requirement is met in part via the development 
of a document called a life-cycle sustainment plan. To help improve 
life-cycle product support, the Office of the USD(AT&L) has issued 
guidance that discusses how to develop a life-cycle sustainment 
plan and works with program offices to review these plans. Table 1 
shows the number and characteristics of PSMs assigned to major 
weapon systems by service. 

Table 1: Number and Characteristics of Product Support Managers (PSM) 
Assigned to Major Weapon Systems by Service as of February 2014: 

Military service: Army; 
Number of PSM requirements[A]: 95; 
Number of PSM requirements filled: 92; 
Number of PSM requirements vacant: 3; 
PSMs' grade/rank: NH-IV[B] (equivalent to GS-14 and GS-15); 
Number of PSMs functioning under a waiver: 7[C]. 

Military service: Navy and Marine Corps; 
Number of PSM requirements[A]: 76; 
Number of PSM requirements filled: 73; 
Number of PSM requirements vacant: 3; 
PSMs' grade/rank: NH-IV[B] (equivalent to GS-14 and GS-15); 
Number of PSMs functioning under a waiver: 2[D]. 

Military service: Air Force; 
Number of PSM requirements[A]: 161; 
Number of PSM requirements filled: 160; 
Number of PSM requirements vacant: 1; 
PSMs' grade/rank: GS-12, GS-13, GS-14, GS-15, and Lieutenant Colonel; 
Number of PSMs functioning under a waiver: 29[E]. 

Military service: Total; 
Number of PSM requirements[A]: 332; 
Number of PSM requirements filled: 325; 
Number of PSM requirements vacant: 7; 
PSMs' grade/rank: Not applicable; 
Number of PSMs functioning under a waiver: 38. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) data. 

[A] According to military service officials, some PSMs are assigned to 
multiple weapon systems, thus fulfilling multiple PSM requirements. As 
previously mentioned, officials used the term requirement to refer to 
a weapon system to which a PSM would need to be assigned. 

[B] NH is a designation within DOD's pay classification system that 
refers to a business and technical management professional. 

[C] According to an Army official and Army data, these waivers were 
issued due to the PSMs lacking the highest level of life-cycle 
logistics certification. 

[D] According to a Navy official and Navy data, both of these waivers 
were issued due to the PSMs lacking the highest level of life-cycle 
logistics certification. 

[E] According to Air Force data, these waivers were issued due to the 
PSMs lacking the highest level of life-cycle logistics certification, 
or the required grade, among other reasons. 

[End of table] 

Training, Career Paths, and Succession Planning: 

OSD and the Defense Acquisition University have developed courses for 
PSMs on life-cycle product support and logistics management; however, 
DOD, in coordination with the military services, has not developed a 
plan--to include objectives, milestones, and resources--to implement a 
comprehensive PSM career path. For example, in 2011 DOD began offering 
a new course on life-cycle product support, among other courses, and 
the Defense Acquisition University is currently developing a new 
executive-level PSM course, which is expected to focus on PSMs' 
lessons learned and on enhancing PSMs' success in fielding and 
sustaining systems. Further, recognizing the importance of placing 
qualified individuals in PSM positions, in November 2013 the Office of 
the USD(AT&L) noted that it would establish a new set of qualification 
boards, whose task will be to prescreen personnel to qualify a pool of 
candidates to fill key leadership positions, including PSM positions. 
[Footnote 23] These boards are expected to identify individuals who 
are prepared to fill key leadership positions based on their training, 
education, and experience. This process will allow DOD and service 
leadership to create a pool of qualified personnel who are ready to 
fill these positions and assist in workforce talent management and 
succession planning. In addition, the Office of the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Materiel Readiness has also developed a PSM 
notional career path. Moreover, at the service level, the Army, Navy, 
Marine Corps, and Air Force have each taken some steps to create 
notional career paths for PSMs, as well as issuing guidance 
identifying training, experience, and other requirements. 

* Army. The Army's 2012 Product Support Manager Concept of Operations, 
calls for a defined career path for PSMs that targets progressive 
leadership growth, with focused education and experience requirements 
to shape and develop PSMs into future senior leaders and executives. 
[Footnote 24] It also outlines a "notional career roadmap" for the 
newly created PSM position. However, the Army notes in its Product 
Support Manager Concept of Operations that this roadmap is still in 
its infancy and states that there is currently no defined 
comprehensive career path in place to develop, train, and support 
future PSMs. Furthermore, an Army official told us that, as of March 
2014, the Army does not have a plan with actions, milestones, 
objectives, or resources dedicated to implementing a PSM career path. 
Yet, according to this official, the Army is actively working to 
address long-term PSM development and management planning issues by 
meeting to discuss these items. 

* Navy and Marine Corps. The Navy has also provided a draft "notional 
development career ladder" for life-cycle logistics to each of its 
various Systems Commands as a starting point for developing a PSM 
career path. Officials from one of the Navy's Systems Commands told us 
that they are concerned about the future of, and succession planning 
for, PSM positions and that, to address this concern, the command is 
implementing the draft career ladder and using it to develop a draft 
talent-management document. According to a senior official within the 
Department of the Navy, the Systems Commands need to implement a 
fundamental career structure for PSMs, with specific learning 
objectives laid out. Additionally, according to Department of the Navy 
officials, while the Systems Commands have indicated that efforts are 
ongoing, a completion date for these efforts has not been determined. 
Moreover, according to these officials, the Department of the Navy 
does not currently have a plan with actions, milestones, objectives, 
or resources dedicated to implementing a PSM career path. 

* Air Force. The Air Force noted in October 2013, as part of a review 
of its life-cycle logisticians, that there was no clear "career 
progression path" or competency model to develop life-cycle 
logisticians. Recognizing these challenges, the Air Force embarked on 
a 2-3 year effort aimed at developing life-cycle logistics 
professionals. As one of the initial short-term activities within this 
effort, the Air Force issued in October of 2013 an Air Force Life 
Cycle Logistics (LCL) Workforce Guidebook, which includes a "notional 
career roadmap" for life-cycle logistics professionals.[Footnote 25] 
The Air Force also recently engaged in an effort to recode positions 
to increase the number of personnel available to fill life-cycle 
logistics positions. According to Air Force officials, however, there 
are not always enough personnel within the life-cycle logistics 
workforce to meet the Air Force's needs. Further, while the Air Force 
has taken steps to address some of the initial challenges it 
identified and has developed an implementation plan with associated 
objectives, milestones, and resources, it has stated that it needs to 
do additional work to develop a clear understanding of the life-cycle 
logistics skills a PSM would require across a program's life cycle and 
to design a new training curriculum to include logistics, engineering, 
finance, contracting, and acquisition. 

Thus, DOD and all of the military services, in coordination with the 
Defense Acquisition University, have taken some initial steps in 
establishing a defined career path and the associated guidance or 
plans to develop, train, and support future PSMs. However, DOD, in 
coordination with the military services, has not developed a plan--to 
include objectives, milestones, and resources--to implement and 
institutionalize a comprehensive PSM career path. As noted above, each 
of the services has identified additional steps that remain to be 
taken to implement and institutionalize a comprehensive career path to 
develop, train, and support its future PSMs. Standard practices for 
project management call for agencies to conceptualize, define, and 
document specific goals and objectives in the planning process, along 
with the appropriate steps, milestones, time frames, and resources 
needed to achieve those results.[Footnote 26] In addition, the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
established the goal for DOD and the military departments of ensuring 
that certain development-and acquisition-related positions for each 
major defense acquisition program be performed by a properly qualified 
member of the armed forces or full-time employee of DOD within 5 years 
from enactment, and required the Secretary of Defense to develop and 
begin implementation of a plan of action for recruiting, training, and 
ensuring appropriate career development of personnel to achieve this 
objective.[Footnote 27] The National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 added PSMs to that list of positions.[Footnote 28] A 
similar provision was subsequently codified at section 1706 of Title 
10, U.S. Code.[Footnote 29] DOD policy similarly directs that the PSM 
position for ACAT I and II systems be filled by a properly qualified 
and certified military servicemember or full-time DOD employee. 
[Footnote 30] Further, DOD Instruction 5000.66 requires the DOD 
components to provide education, training, and experience 
opportunities with the objective of developing a professional, agile, 
motivated workforce, and ensuring that individuals are qualified to 
perform the activities required of them in their positions.[Footnote 
31] While the planned qualification boards may assist in ensuring that 
individuals selected for PSM positions are qualified, each of the 
military services has identified additional steps that are necessary 
to implement a defined, comprehensive career path to develop, train, 
and support future PSMs. While there are individuals serving in the 
PSM role today for most major weapon systems, until a defined career 
path is finalized and institutionalized within DOD, including within 
each of the services, the department may not be well positioned to 
ensure that the services will be able to fill PSM positions with 
properly qualified personnel in the future. 

Department Guidance on Implementing PSMs Lacks Detail: 

DOD has issued guidance for implementing PSMs; however, a recent 
update to DOD's guidance omits certain information, contains a 
potentially confusing description of responsibilities, and--according 
to service officials--is not sufficiently clear. Standards for 
Internal Control in the Federal Government states that federal 
agencies should, among other things, design and document internal 
control activities, such as policies and procedures, to help ensure 
compliance with applicable laws and regulations.[Footnote 32] In 
October 2010, DOD issued Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 10-015, which 
established the department's policy to implement and institutionalize 
the requirement that PSMs be assigned to support each of its major 
weapon systems.[Footnote 33] Among other things, this document 
outlined the PSM's duties and required that PSMs be certified in the 
life-cycle logistics career field, which includes fulfilling general 
educational, training, and experience requirements. The memorandum 
indicates that it was intended to be a provisional policy that would 
eventually be incorporated into the next update of its defense 
acquisition system guidance--DOD Instruction 5000.02--which describes 
the operation of the defense acquisition system, including product 
support.[Footnote 34] 

In November 2013, DOD issued an interim update to its defense 
acquisition system guidance that canceled and, according to the 
update, incorporated a number of memorandums, including the PSM-
related DTM 10-015.[Footnote 35] However, the newly issued acquisition 
system instruction does not include all of the information from DTM 10-
015. For example, the instruction does not list all of the 
responsibilities of a PSM. Although the instruction identifies PSMs 
among the key leadership positions for major defense acquisition 
programs, it does not include a statement that it is DOD policy for 
PSMs to be assigned to all major weapon systems. OSD officials told us 
that interim DOD Instruction 5000.02 does not contain this information 
because instructions are meant to offer clarification of issues, not 
to recite what is already in statute. OSD officials also told us that 
the policy to assign PSMs to each major weapon system was now included 
in a separate memorandum issued on July 11, 2013,[Footnote 36] which 
is not cited within Interim DOD Instruction 5000.02. They said that 
there are no differences between the information on PSM assignment, 
roles, and responsibilities covered previously in DTM 10-015 and what 
is now covered in Interim DOD Instruction 5000.02, memorandums from 
July and November 2013, and the Defense Acquisition Guidebook. 
However, each of the military department headquarters offices 
responsible for implementing PSMs told us that the current guidance is 
not sufficiently clear when addressing product support and the 
implementation of PSMs. They stated that the interim guidance does not 
discuss PSMs at the same level of detail as the DTM 10-015. 
Specifically, as previously mentioned, the responsibilities of PSMs 
are not listed in the new guidance. The instruction discusses the 
roles and responsibilities of the Program Manager at length, but only 
alludes to the responsibilities of PSMs, citing section 2337 of Title 
10, U.S. Code and discussing the requirement to revalidate business-
case analyses. 

The interim instruction also contains a potentially confusing 
provision and omits certain information that is important to the 
implementation of the PSM position. For example, it states that the 
Program Manager will develop and implement an affordable and effective 
performance-based product support strategy. Although the Program 
Manager is ultimately responsible for accomplishing program 
objectives, including for the sustainment phase, and for developing 
and implementing performance-based logistics strategies in the context 
of sustainment planning, the responsibilities of the PSM in section 
2337 include developing and implementing a comprehensive product 
support strategy for the weapon system. While DTM 10-015 specifically 
identified the responsibilities of the PSM, the interim instruction 
does not, which could result in confusion regarding the role of the 
PSM and the nature of the support provided to the Program Manager. 

Each of the military department headquarters offices responsible for 
implementing PSMs told us that they found the language from the 
canceled DTM 10-015 to be very useful as the services developed their 
own service-level policies and guidance to implement PSMs for their 
assigned major weapon systems. Service officials said that they 
believed there was value in having all of the PSM-related guidance in 
one document, so that current and future product support personnel 
would not have to refer to multiple documents. Officials from one of 
the military services added that a life-cycle logistician would now 
have to look up PSM-related policy and information in law, in Interim 
DOD Instruction 5000.02, and in the July 2013 memorandum instead of 
just referring to DTM-015--which clearly laid out that information in 
one document. In addition, these officials expressed concern that it 
was no longer clear who should assign PSMs. They also noted that DTM 
10-015 identified the Component Acquisition Executive as the 
individual responsible for identifying and assigning a PSM for every 
major weapon system. However, the officials noted that the interim 
instruction does not specify which individual or office is responsible 
for identifying and assigning a PSM. Moreover, these officials 
expressed particular concern about institutionalizing the 
implementation of PSMs, noting that, unlike DOD instructions, 
memorandums like the July 2013 memorandum are not stored in a central 
repository. These officials told us that the institutional knowledge 
behind the evolving PSM-related guidance and policy would be lost, and 
they questioned whether new personnel would know where to find all of 
the PSM-related guidance. 

In the absence of clear and comprehensive guidance, DOD and military 
service officials may not understand which office or individual is 
responsible for identifying and assigning PSMs, and there may be an 
increased risk of DOD personnel confusing the responsibilities of 
Program Managers and PSMs. Further, without centralized guidance that 
serves to institutionalize the implementation of PSMs, DOD may be 
hindered in its ability to implement future PSMs for its major weapon 
systems. 

The Army Has Not Clarified the Roles and Responsibilities of Some 
Support Personnel Involved in Sustainment of Major Weapon Systems: 

Each of the military departments has issued its own guidance for 
implementing PSMs, but the Army's guidance on PSM implementation is 
currently unclear regarding responsibilities and reporting 
relationships for certain support personnel involved in the 
sustainment of weapon systems. For example, the Navy issued a 
memorandum, entitled Product Support Manager (PSM) Implementation, in 
May 2011 to discuss the requirement that major weapon systems be 
supported by the PSM who would provide weapon systems product support 
subject-matter expertise to the Program Manager. Similarly, in March 
2013, the Air Force issued Air Force Instruction 63-101/20-101, 
Integrated Life Cycle Management, which incorporates various PSM 
requirements and responsibilities. Moreover, the Air Force issued a 
guidebook on life-cycle logistics in October 2013, which discusses the 
implementation and responsibilities of the PSM position within the Air 
Force. Government standards for internal control state that a good 
internal control environment requires that the agency's organizational 
structure clearly define key areas of authority and responsibility and 
establish appropriate lines of reporting.[Footnote 37] The Army issued 
a memorandum to help implement its PSMs[Footnote 38] and also 
developed a PSM Concept of Operations,[Footnote 39] which identifies 
PSM responsibilities and establishes the Army's framework for 
integrating the new PSM position into its organizational structure. 
This Concept of Operations gives PSMs--who reside organizationally 
under ASA(ALT)[Footnote 40]--responsibility for total life-cycle 
product support of their assigned systems, including sustainment, in 
support of the Program Manager.[Footnote 41] However, Army Regulation 
10-87[Footnote 42]--which predates the implementation of PSMs--notes 
AMC roles and responsibilities for sustainment and for integrated 
materiel life-cycle management in partnership with program executive 
offices and Program Managers. AMC continues to have a significant role 
in providing assistance to the Program Manager and PSM and in 
executing the sustainment support for major weapon systems. Figure 2 
shows the relationship between ASA(ALT) and AMC for product support 
activities. 

Figure 2: Overview of Relationship between Assistant Secretary of the 
Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASA[ALT]) and Army 
Materiel Command (AMC) for Product Support Activities: 

[Refer to PDF for image: organizational structure] 

Top level: 
Secretary of the Army. 

Second level: 
Chief of Staff of the Army: 
* AMC (AMC matrixed support staff to Army Program Offices); 
ASA(ALT): 
* Program Executive Offices: 
- Army Program Offices/Program Managers. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) information. 

Note: For some programs, the Program Manager may report directly to the 
ASA(ALT), rather than through a Program Executive Office. 

[End of figure] 

AMC provides sustainment support in the form of personnel--consisting 
of AMC contractors or government logistics managers--who are sometimes 
assigned to ASA(ALT) programs to provide sustainment support to PSMs. 
While these personnel are "matrixed" to the program office, they are 
AMC personnel and, according to officials, therefore remain under 
AMC's chain of command. Thus, the PSM provides input into their annual 
performance ratings but does not officially rate them and, according 
to Army officials, does not have direct authority over them. This lack 
of authority may make it difficult for PSMs to achieve some of their 
goals. ASA(ALT) officials stated that major weapon systems program 
offices have raised the issue of the lack of clear roles and 
responsibilities of these personnel and, according to a senior AMC 
official, AMC discussed this issue with their personnel in an attempt 
to address this issue. However, in one specific example, an Army PSM 
we spoke with noted that while he has responsibilities as a PSM, he 
has no authority over the matrixed personnel from AMC who are assigned 
to support him and his assigned programs. He therefore faces the risk 
of these individuals not complying with his direction, which could 
hinder his ability to conduct his job as PSM. Specifically, according 
to this PSM, in 2012 the Joint Logistics Board (a senior-level 
governance body) provided guidance that maintenance work for one of 
his programs was to be conducted at a particular location, and he 
directed his AMC support personnel to stop pursuing and promoting 
their own depot with his program office's resources. However, the life 
cycle management command and the AMC-matrixed personnel continued to 
pursue the work at their own depot.[Footnote 43] It took this Army PSM 
a year's worth of effort going through the appropriate chain of 
command to ensure that the AMC personnel followed the Joint Logistics 
Board's guidance for the designated location. As a result of these 
unclear reporting relationships, this PSM was unable to effectively 
plan or proactively manage his assigned weapon systems' life-cycle 
sustainment decisions. 

According to senior Army officials, ASA(ALT) and AMC are working to 
resolve this issue and have held meetings to determine the best 
approach to enable PSMs to effectively perform their duties while 
simultaneously enabling AMC to perform its mission of providing 
sustainment support to the Army's weapon systems' life cycles. 
However, the Army has not yet issued guidance clarifying the roles and 
responsibilities of ASA(ALT) and AMC in light of the new requirement 
for PSMs to be assigned to major weapon systems--particularly for AMC 
personnel assigned to support ASA(ALT) program offices and for PSMs. 
The Army is currently drafting a revision to Army Regulation 700-127 
and developing a new Department of the Army Pamphlet 700-127-1. 
According to Army officials, these publications will further define 
the Army policy and guidance on PSM responsibilities, relationships 
with AMC, and career-path development, among other items. According to 
an Army official, this regulation and pamphlet are planned to be 
published in June 2014. Yet, the Army has been working on this effort 
since March 2013 and has not finalized these documents over the last 
year due to delays, in part as a result of multiple reviews. Until the 
Army finalizes this guidance, which is expected to clarify the roles 
and responsibilities of ASA(ALT) and AMC with respect to matrixed 
personnel, Army PSMs and the AMC personnel who support them may lack 
clear reporting lines. Without clear guidance detailing 
responsibilities and reporting relationships for AMC support personnel 
involved in the sustainment of weapon systems, PSMs may be hindered in 
their ability to effectively manage and conduct their daily product 
support responsibilities. 

DOD Has Not Systematically Collected or Evaluated Information on the 
Effects PSMs Are Having on Life-Cycle Sustainment Decisions: 

DOD is not fully aware of how or to what extent PSMs are affecting 
life-cycle sustainment decisions for major weapon systems because it 
has not systematically collected or evaluated information on the 
effects of PSMs. In the absence of department-and service-wide 
information on the effects PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment 
decisions, we interviewed product support personnel at 12 program 
offices, and program officials identified several good practices and 
challenges associated with the effects, if any, that PSMs are having 
on life-cycle sustainment decisions. For example, one challenge we 
found was that some Army PSMs may not be able to fulfill their daily 
product support responsibilities because they do not have greater 
visibility into how much sustainment funding their weapon systems will 
receive, including prior to the year of execution of funds, to the 
extent possible. 

DOD Does Not Have Sufficient Information to Determine the Effects of 
PSMs: 

DOD does not fully know how or to what extent PSMs are affecting life-
cycle sustainment decisions because it is not systematically 
collecting or evaluating information on the implementation or effect 
of PSMs. Officials from OSD and each of the military department 
headquarters responsible for implementing PSMs told us that the PSM 
designation garners more respect than other similar product support 
positions have in the past and that it has elevated the importance of 
sustainment planning within weapon systems' program offices. This was 
also the widespread consensus among product support personnel we spoke 
to--including all 12 PSMs and the 5 Program and Deputy Program 
Managers whom we interviewed. Over the years, OSD has engaged in 
several activities aimed at providing oversight, collecting some 
information on the effects that PSMs are having on life-cycle 
sustainment decisions, and recognizing the achievements of PSMs. For 
example, OSD officials stated that they review life-cycle sustainment 
plans created by PSMs to ensure that their assigned weapon system 
demonstrates continued reliability and performance, so as not to 
adversely affect the system's readiness or O&S costs. In addition, 
these officials told us that the Office of the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness leads a quarterly 
logistics workforce meeting,[Footnote 44] comprising service 
representatives and other officials from DOD's acquisition community, 
to discuss PSM-related life-cycle logistics initiatives and 
challenges. Since 2013, the USD(AT&L) has issued an annual award to 
highlight outstanding individual PSM performance across the services. 
This award recognizes PSMs' contributions to controlling increases in 
weapon system cost, addressing long-term affordability, and promoting 
industry competition and innovation. It also recognizes outstanding 
achievements in the development, implementation, and execution of 
affordable and effective product support strategies for weapon 
systems. According to guidance from the USD(AT&L), award recipients 
are selected from a small pool of candidate submissions based on the 
following criteria, among others: reducing life-cycle cost; 
significantly increasing current or future operational suitability; 
and developing, implementing, or executing effective and affordable 
product support arrangements for their assigned weapon systems. 
[Footnote 45] 

Officials from one of the military services told us that they have 
been asked by their senior leadership to develop objective measures to 
evaluate the effectiveness of current initiatives--including 
sustainment efforts for major weapon systems--in which PSMs play a key 
role. These officials mentioned that there may be various mechanisms 
with which to evaluate the effects that PSMs are having on their 
assigned major weapon systems' life-cycle sustainment decisions. For 
instance, they stated that they currently review and evaluate the 
quality of life-cycle sustainment plans and business-case analyses, 
among other logistics assessments, and that continuing to conduct 
these types of reviews and evaluations--including evaluations on the 
effects of these efforts--may help them to better understand the 
extent to which PSMs are carrying out their responsibilities or are 
affecting life-cycle sustainment decisions for their assigned systems. 

Program evaluation guidance states that evaluations can play a key 
role in program planning, management, and oversight by providing 
feedback--on both program design and execution--to Program Managers, 
Congress, executive-branch policy officials, and the public.[Footnote 
46] Additionally, this guidance indicates that outcome and impact 
evaluations are helpful in assessing (1) the extent to which a program 
achieves its outcome-oriented objectives and (2) the net effect of a 
program, by comparing the program's outcomes with an estimate of what 
would have happened in the absence of the program.[Footnote 47] Such 
evaluations can also be useful for identifying various trends--such as 
good practices and challenges related to the effects PSMs are having 
on life-cycle sustainment decisions--to help enhance future product 
support efforts across the department. Although OSD and the military 
services have various product support efforts under way--including 
those cited above--in the years since the PSM legislation was enacted, 
DOD has not systematically collected and evaluated information on the 
effects, if any, that PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment 
decisions for major weapon systems. Department and military service 
officials stated that DOD is still in the early stages of 
implementation, and it is therefore too early to conduct such an 
evaluation of the PSM program. These officials also stated that 
isolating the effects of a PSM is challenging because different 
factors may influence a PSM's effects; the PSM position is one 
position of many that can affect decisions regarding life-cycle 
sustainment for a major weapon system, and a PSM reports directly to 
the Program Manager, who makes final decisions related to the PSM's 
assigned system. However, based on good practices we have identified 
in our previous work, we believe that it is important to start an 
evaluation program as early as possible to collect baseline 
information against which future effectiveness could be 
measured.[Footnote 48] Moreover, OSD already collects some information 
on the effects of PSMs through the annual PSM award submissions and 
the documentation of some information regarding PSM initiatives at its 
quarterly logistics workforce meeting. Therefore, with PSMs now in 
place for most major weapon systems and with the existence of various 
PSM-led efforts, conducting evaluations of the effects PSMs are having 
on programmatic decision making at this stage of the implementation 
could help inform whether the PSM position--as it is currently being 
implemented--will help to improve product support, and whether changes 
are needed to guidance or other areas to enhance PSMs' contributions. 

Although DOD Has Not Systematically Collected Data on the Effects PSMs 
Are Having on Life-Cycle Sustainment Decisions, Program Offices 
Identified PSM-Related Good Practices and Challenges: 

In the absence of department-or service-wide information 
systematically documenting the effects PSMs are having on life-cycle 
sustainment decisions, we conducted interviews with product support 
personnel assigned to 12 major weapon systems, and program offices 
identified several good practices being employed as well as several 
challenges that PSMs face. For example, in fiscal year 2011, a 
Virginia-class submarine PSM led an effort to conduct an analysis 
focused on reducing life-cycle sustainment costs by minimizing the 
time the system spends in depot maintenance, in order to maximize its 
availability for missions. As a result of this effort, the Virginia-
class submarine program office has adopted this practice and now 
conducts similar analyses on a recurring basis. Additionally, the PSM 
assigned to the Abrams Tank is currently conducting several analyses 
on components that affect the sustainment of the Abrams Tank. 
Specifically, the Abrams Tank PSM is analyzing staffing information on 
both Abrams Tank variants--the first already in sustainment and the 
second approaching sustainment--to determine future staffing levels 
for the systems. This PSM is also examining warfighters' total 
ownership costs to sustain the Abrams Tank, and the reliability of the 
system's engine, to help reduce O&S costs. Army officials stated that 
once these efforts are completed, the Abrams Tank PSM will be able to 
conduct business-case analyses to determine if there is a more cost-
effective approach to sustaining both variants. Similar predictive 
analysis and modeling tools are currently being developed by the PSM 
for the KC-46A Tanker aircraft. For instance, the PSM is developing a 
model to prioritize component overhaul processes based on the 
frequency, uniqueness, and cost of a repair. This PSM is also 
developing the analytical components of an internal analysis system 
that is aimed at correcting deficiencies in the performance and 
effectiveness of the KC-46A's scheduled and unscheduled maintenance 
programs. According to the PSM, this tool will also be used to gather 
and assess various engineering, logistics, and cost factors to make 
timely adjustments to the KC-46A's sustainment operations. 

In conducting interviews with product support personnel, program 
officials also identified challenges that may have prevented PSMs from 
making or influencing life-cycle sustainment decisions for their 
assigned weapon systems. For example, 4 of 12 PSMs we spoke with from 
3 of the military services stated that they did not have sufficient 
sustainment funding to effectively conduct their daily product support 
responsibilities and manage sustainment decisions for their assigned 
major weapon systems. This has affected their ability to anticipate 
sustainment issues and manage potential risks regarding the 
reliability, availability, and readiness of their systems. 
Additionally, product support personnel we interviewed from the Army 
and Air Force told us that their respective services do not have 
enough product support personnel to fully support all major weapon 
systems and that, consequently, they conducted not only their own PSM 
duties and responsibilities but those of other logistics-related 
positions, such as senior logisticians, directors of logistics, and 
assistant product managers for logistics. Moreover, the shortage of 
funding and personnel led one of the services to assign multiple major 
weapon systems to two of their PSMs in order to ensure that each major 
weapon system is supported by a PSM. According to these two PSMs, they 
were collectively assigned to support 17 major weapon systems and, as 
a result of not having enough product support personnel, they faced 
increased risks--such as low system availability and readiness rates--
of not being able to effectively influence sustainment costs and 
prevent undesirable performance outcomes for their assigned systems. 

According to internal Army documentation, the Office of the ASA(ALT) 
has recognized that while program offices have the responsibility to 
sustain the systems they manage, they have little influence on how 
resources are allocated or executed. The Defense Acquisition Guidebook 
and the Army's PSM Concept of Operations both note the ultimate 
responsibility of the Program Manager for accomplishing program 
objectives over the life cycle of a system, including sustainment, and 
discuss the assistance provided by the PSM through product support 
expertise and oversight of product support activities. Army 
regulations note the involvement of AMC in sustainment planning and 
execution, including a role in the development of funding 
requirements. For example, according to Army Regulation 10-87, AMC 
provides integrated materiel life-cycle management of systems and 
equipment in partnership with program executive offices and Program 
Managers, and serves as the maintenance process owner for national-
level sustainment.[Footnote 49] Army Regulation 70-1 discusses AMC 
support for program executive offices and Program Managers through 
oversight of AMC life-cycle management command development and 
submission of sustainment funding requirements.[Footnote 50] According 
to officials, AMC assists in life-cycle logistics planning and 
executes the product support activities planned by the Program Manager 
and PSM. Although funding requests are generated in collaboration, 
distribution of approved funding for execution is handled by AMC. 
Moreover, ASA(ALT) and Army officials from two of six program offices 
expressed concern that Army PSMs may not be able to positively affect 
their assigned system's life-cycle sustainment decisions because PSMs 
lack information on sustainment funding decisions. Army PSMs from 
these offices stated that they have very little input into funding 
decisions related to the sustainment of their systems and said that it 
is a challenge for them to manage their assigned systems without 
greater visibility--specifically, knowledge prior to the year of 
execution of the funds, to the extent possible--into how much 
sustainment funding their programs will receive, because the Army's 
processes for requesting and distributing sustainment funds is not 
transparent. 

According to ASA(ALT) officials, the PSM provides input into funding 
requests that are developed in support of the system and these funding 
requests are then vetted internally and submitted through the 
appropriate Army life-cycle management command for review and 
prioritization. Once the life-cycle management command completes its 
review and prioritization of the requested funds, AMC then conducts 
its review and prioritization to make the final command-level decision 
on the distribution of sustainment funding for the Army's major weapon 
systems. However, some Army officials we spoke with said that AMC does 
not consistently communicate with program offices about how it 
prioritizes competing funding requests and distributes sustainment 
funds. For example, some Army PSMs told us that they are often 
surprised when they receive less sustainment funding then they had 
anticipated in the year of execution of funds and must quickly shift 
sustainment funding provided for other efforts within their program to 
cover the shortage of sustainment funding for their assigned systems. 
According to AMC officials, because their organization is responsible 
for sustaining all Army weapon systems, they can provide the strategic 
overview necessary to prioritize competing funding requests. These 
officials also told us that AMC is responsible for balancing the 
distribution of funding across all systems under sustainment based on 
the level of Headquarters Department of the Army funding provided to 
AMC. They noted that some of their life-cycle management commands have 
formed councils where they regularly discuss sustainment funding 
issues with program offices. However, these officials also 
acknowledged that some PSMs are not receiving complete information on 
the status of sustainment funding decisions in the year of execution 
of funds. In this regard, in fiscal year 2014 the Army began a pilot 
on one major weapon system with the goal of more-closely tracking 
sustainment funding in an effort to help identify ways to provide more 
clarity and visibility on the resources distributed to the system. 
According to AMC officials, this should improve the transparency of 
resources for the PSMs to better manage their assigned major weapon 
systems. As previously stated, ASA(ALT) and AMC are continuing to work 
to clarify roles and responsibilities and have held high-level 
departmental meetings to determine the best approach to enable PSMs to 
effectively perform their duties while simultaneously enabling AMC to 
perform its mission of providing sustainment support to the Army's 
weapon systems. Furthermore, ASA(ALT) officials told us that the 
current process and supporting policies for prioritizing and managing 
sustainment funding should be updated to reflect PSM responsibilities. 
We discussed this issue with service officials and PSMs from the Navy, 
Marine Corps, and Air Force, and each said that this problem does not 
exist for them in their service. They are aware in advance of the 
amount of sustainment funding they will receive for their programs and 
are able to plan accordingly. However, until the Army reviews the 
current process for requesting and distributing sustainment funding 
for major weapon systems and makes the adjustments necessary to ensure 
that PSMs have greater visibility over the allocation of sustainment 
funding their assigned weapon systems will receive--including prior to 
the year of execution of funds, to the extent possible--some PSMs in 
the Army may not be able to plan, proactively manage, or affect life-
cycle sustainment decisions for their assigned systems. 

Conclusions: 

Since fiscal year 2010, DOD has made progress in implementing PSMs for 
its major weapon systems, and department officials and product support 
personnel have stated that the PSM designation garners more respect 
than other similar product support positions have in the past. While 
DOD and all of the services have taken some steps to develop a 
comprehensive career path and associated guidance to develop, train, 
and support future PSMs, DOD, in coordination with the military 
services, has not developed a plan--to include objectives, milestones, 
and resources--to implement and institutionalize a comprehensive PSM 
career path. Until DOD develops such a plan, the department may not be 
able to ensure that the services can fill PSM positions with properly 
qualified personnel in the future. Moreover, DOD guidance for 
implementing PSMs is not sufficiently clear to ensure effective 
implementation of PSMs across the services going forward. Without 
clear, comprehensive, and centralized implementation guidance, DOD may 
be hindered in its ability to implement future PSMs for its major 
weapon systems. Likewise, until the Army clarifies roles and 
responsibilities in its guidance for the sustainment portion of the 
life cycle for major weapon systems, PSMs may be hindered in their 
ability to effectively manage and conduct their daily product support 
responsibilities. 

Although the PSM program is relatively new, there is anecdotal 
evidence of the effects PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment 
decisions for major weapon systems. While program officials we spoke 
with were able to identify several good practices and challenges 
facing PSMs, DOD is not well positioned to make changes or 
enhancements to the PSM program because it has yet to systematically 
collect or evaluate information on the effects, if any, that PSMs are 
having on their assigned systems' sustainment decisions. One such 
change that DOD could have identified if it had been collecting 
evaluative information would be to examine the current process for 
making sustainment funding decisions in the Army to ensure that Army 
PSMs have greater visibility into the funding decisions affecting the 
sustainment of their systems, to the extent possible, including prior 
to the year of execution of funds. With PSMs now in place for almost 
all major weapon systems, information on the effects PSMs are having 
on life-cycle management and sustainment decisions could help inform 
DOD, the services, and Congress on the extent to which the PSM 
position is helping to improve product support efforts or whether 
changes are needed to guidance or to roles and responsibilities to 
enhance the contributions of PSMs. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To help DOD improve the implementation of Product Support Managers 
(PSM), we recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following 
five actions. 

To ensure the development of a sufficient cadre of qualified, trained 
personnel to meet future requirements for Product Support Managers 
(PSM), we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics 
(USD[AT&L])--in coordination with the Defense Acquisition University 
and the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force--to develop and 
implement a plan with objectives, milestones, and resources to 
implement and institutionalize a comprehensive career path and 
associated guidance to develop, train, and support future PSMs. 

To better enable the military services to implement and 
institutionalize the roles and responsibilities of Product Support 
Managers (PSM), we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics 
(USD[AT&L])--in coordination with the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, 
and Air Force--to issue clear, comprehensive, centralized guidance 
regarding the roles and responsibilities of PSMs and the officials 
that assign them. 

To better enable Army Product Support Managers (PSM) to fulfill their 
product support responsibilities, we recommend that the Secretary of 
Defense direct the Secretary of the Army--in coordination with the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and 
Technology (ASA[ALT]) and the Commander of Army Materiel Command 
(AMC)--to clearly define Army-wide roles and responsibilities for the 
sustainment portion of the life cycle of major weapon systems, to 
include the reporting relationships of AMC support personnel assigned 
to Army weapon system program offices, by issuing new, or revising 
existing, Army guidance. 

To help inform departmental and congressional oversight of the status 
of Product Support Manager (PSM) implementation and the influence, if 
any, that PSMs have in life-cycle sustainment decisions for major 
weapon systems, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics 
(USD[AT&L])--in conjunction with the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, 
and Air Force--to systematically collect and evaluate information on 
the effects, if any, that PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment 
decisions for their assigned major weapon systems. 

To better enable Army Product Support Managers (PSM) to fulfill their 
daily product support responsibilities, including planning and 
proactively managing sustainment efforts for their assigned weapon 
systems, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the 
Secretary of the Army--in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of 
the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASA[ALT]) and the 
Commander of Army Materiel Command (AMC)--to review the current 
process for requesting and distributing sustainment funding for major 
weapon systems and to take necessary actions to ensure that PSMs have 
greater visibility of the amount of sustainment funds their weapon 
systems will receive including prior to the year of execution of 
funds, to the extent possible. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with four 
of our recommendations and partially concurred with one 
recommendation. DOD's comments are reprinted in appendix IV. DOD also 
provided technical comments, which we have incorporated into our 
report where appropriate. 

DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics--in coordination with the Defense Acquisition University and 
the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force--to develop and 
implement a plan with objectives, milestones, and resources to 
implement and institutionalize a comprehensive career path and 
associated guidance to develop, train, and support future PSMs. DOD 
stated that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics will work over the next year 
with the staffs of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, 
along with the Defense Acquisition University and the Human Capital 
Initiatives Directorate via the Life Cycle Logistics Functional 
Integrated Product Team to define a methodology and plan for 
institutionalizing a comprehensive career path and associated guidance 
for developing, training, and supporting future PSMs. We agree that, 
if fully implemented, this action should address our recommendation. 

DOD also agreed with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics--in coordination with the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and 
Air Force--to issue clear, comprehensive, centralized guidance 
regarding the roles and responsibilities of PSMs and the officials 
that assign them. DOD stated that the Office of the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics will work over the 
next year with the staffs of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and 
Air Force to develop clear, comprehensive, centralized guidance 
regarding the roles and responsibilities of PSMs and the officials 
that assign them. While DOD did not provide details on how it will 
develop such guidance, we agree that, if fully implemented, this 
action should address our recommendation. 

DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of 
Defense direct the Secretary of the Army--in coordination with the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and 
Technology and the Commander of Army Materiel Command--to clearly 
define Army-wide roles and responsibilities for the sustainment 
portion of the life cycle of major weapon systems, to include the 
reporting relationships of Army Materiel Command support personnel 
assigned to Army weapon system program offices, by issuing new, or 
revising existing, Army guidance. DOD stated that the Army sees no 
ambiguity in the Army-wide roles and responsibilities for the 
sustainment portion of the life cycle of major weapon systems, 
including the reporting requirements of Army Materiel Command 
personnel providing matrix support to the Program Managers. DOD 
further noted that the Army leadership has been coordinating the role 
of the PSM and is finalizing its capstone policy to solidify required 
changes as part of the statutory implementation. While our report 
acknowledges the Army is currently drafting a revision to Army 
Regulation 700-127 and developing a new Department of the Army 
Pamphlet 700-127-1, which Army officials told us will further define 
the Army policy and guidance on PSM responsibilities, relationships 
with Army Materiel Command, and career-path development, among other 
items, these documents have not yet been finalized. We also 
acknowledge in our report that the Army has been working on this 
guidance since March 2013, but note that it has not finalized these 
documents over the last year due to delays. We continue to believe 
that until the Army finalizes guidance that clarifies the roles and 
responsibilities of the program offices and Army Materiel Command with 
respect to matrixed personnel, Army PSMs and the Army Materiel Command 
personnel who support them may lack clear reporting lines. 

DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics--in conjunction with the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and 
Air Force--to systematically collect and evaluate information on the 
effects, if any, that PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment 
decisions for their assigned major weapon systems. DOD stated that the 
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology 
and Logistics will work over the next year with the staffs of the 
Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to define a methodology 
and plan for systematically collecting and evaluating information on 
the effects, if any, that PSMs are having on the life-cycle 
sustainment decisions for their assigned major weapon systems. We 
agree that, if fully implemented, this action should address our 
recommendation. 

Finally, DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of 
Defense direct the Secretary of the Army--in coordination with the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and 
Technology and the Commander of Army Materiel Command--to review the 
current process for requesting and distributing sustainment funding 
for major weapon systems and to take necessary actions to ensure that 
PSMs have greater visibility of the amount of sustainment funds their 
weapon systems will receive including prior to the year of execution 
of funds, to the extent possible. DOD stated that Army Staff, in 
coordination with the Commander of Army Materiel Command, will work 
over the next year to review the current process for requesting and 
distributing sustainment funding for major weapon systems and take 
necessary actions to ensure that PSMs and all other stakeholders have 
greater visibility of the amount of sustainment funds their weapon 
systems will receive. We agree that, if fully implemented, this action 
should address our recommendation. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, 
Navy, and Air Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. The 
report also is available at no charge on GAO's website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-5431 or russellc@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are 
listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

Cary Russell: 
Director: 
Defense Capabilities and Management: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To determine what steps, if any, the Department of Defense (DOD) and 
the military services have taken to implement Product Support Managers 
(PSM) for major weapon systems, we collected and analyzed DOD and 
service data on the PSMs assigned to these systems. We also 
interviewed and obtained pertinent documents from acquisition, program 
management, and logistics officials--including PSMs--to understand how 
the PSM position has been implemented to-date. These documents 
included DOD directives and instructions, Army regulations, 
memorandums, other guidance, and lists of assigned PSMs. To determine 
the extent to which DOD has evaluated the effects, if any, that PSMs 
are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions for major weapon 
systems, we spoke with Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), 
military department headquarters, and military service command 
officials. Additionally, we selected and interviewed a 
nongeneralizable sample of PSMs, program management, and other product 
support personnel assigned to a total of 12 major weapon systems to 
identify good practices that some PSMs have found helpful in enabling 
them to make or affect life-cycle sustainment decisions for major 
weapon systems as well as challenges that may have prevented PSMs from 
making or affecting such decisions. In identifying a nonprobability 
sample of PSMs (and related program staff) to interview, we selected 
PSMs who were assigned to systems that reflected varied 
characteristics, such as military service, Acquisition Category (ACAT) 
level, acquisition phase, type of system (e.g., aviation, ground, 
naval), and total estimated system cost. The 12 systems we chose were: 
(1) the Army's Abrams Tank; (2) the Army's Thermal Weapon Sight, 
AN/PAS-13; (3) the Army's Distributed Common Ground System; (4) the 
Army's Long Range Advanced Scout Surveillance System; (5) the Army's 
Counter Radio Controlled-Improvised Explosive Device Electronic 
Warfare Duke; (6) the Army's Prophet Enhanced Spiral 1; (7) the Navy's 
Virginia-class submarine; (8) the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship; (9) the 
Marine Corps' CH-53K Helicopter; (10) the Army and Marine Corps' Joint 
Light Tactical Vehicle; (11) the Air Force's KC-46A Tanker; and (12) 
the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps' F-35 Program. From these 
interviews, we obtained more-in-depth information on the effects, if 
any, that PSMs have on life-cycle sustainment decisions. For more 
information on these systems, please see appendix III. The results 
from this nonprobability sample cannot be used to make inferences 
about all PSMs or the respective major weapon systems to which they 
were assigned, because a nonprobability sample may not reflect all 
characteristics of a population. However, this information provided a 
broad representation of PSMs' perspectives on their position's 
implementation status and their effects on life-cycle sustainment 
decisions. To obtain information on the overall size and cost of DOD's 
ACAT I systems, we also analyzed data from DOD's Selected Acquisition 
Reports and other information in the Defense Acquisition Management 
Information Retrieval Purview system. We obtained similar data for 
ACAT II systems, where available, that the services maintained on 
their respective systems. We assessed the reliability of the PSM-
related data we obtained from DOD and the services, along with the 
information we obtained from the Defense Acquisition Management 
Information Retrieval Purview system, through questionnaires and 
interviews with knowledgeable officials and determined that these data 
were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of assessing the 
implementation of PSMs for major weapon systems and discussing the 
findings in this report. 

To address our reporting objectives, we visited or contacted 
knowledgeable officials and reviewed relevant documents from the 
following organizations: 

Department of Defense: 

* Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology 
and Logistics: 

- Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Logistics and Materiel 
Readiness): 

- Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Systems 
Engineering): 

- Defense Acquisition University: 

Department of the Army: 

* Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, 
Logistics and Technology: 

- U.S. Army Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition 
Policy and Logistics: 

* Army Materiel Command: 

- U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command: 

- TACOM Life Cycle Management Command: 

* Army Program Management Office for Soldier, Sensors, and Lasers: 

- Army Program Executive Office Soldier: 

- Army Program Executive Office Intelligence, Electronic Warfare & 
Sensors: 

-- Night Vision/Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition 
Program Office: 

-- Long Range Advance Scout Surveillance System Program Office: 

-- Counter Radio Controlled-Improvised Explosive Device Electronic 
Warfare Duke Program Office: 

-- Distributed Common Ground System-Army Program Office: 

-- Prophet Enhanced/Spiral 1 Program Office: 

* Army Program Executive Office Ground Combat Systems: 

- Abrams Tank Program Office: 

Department of the Navy: 

* Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy--Expeditionary 
Programs and Logistics Management: 

* Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy--Financial Management 
and Comptroller: 

* Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy--Management and Budget: 

* Assistant Secretary of the Navy Research Development and Acquisition: 

* The Department of the Navy Director, Acquisition Career Management: 

* U.S. Naval Air Systems Command: 

- CH-53K Helicopter Program Office: 

* U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command: 

- NAVSEA 21: 

- Virginia-Class Submarines Program Office: 

- Program Executive Office Littoral Combat Ship: 

-- Littoral Combat Ship Program Office: 

* Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command: 

U.S. Marine Corps: 

* U.S. Marine Corps Systems Command: 

* U.S. Marine Corps Acquisition Logistics and Product Support: 

Department of the Air Force: 

* U.S. Air Force Headquarters: 

* Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Installations, 
Environment, and Logistics: 

* Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Acquisition: 

* U.S. Air Force KC-46A Tanker Program Office: 

Joint Program Offices: 

* Department of the Army and U.S. Marine Corps: 

- Joint Light Tactical Vehicle Program Office: 

* Department of the Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and Department of the Air 
Force: 

- F-35 Joint Program Office: 

We conducted this performance audit from April 2013 through April 2014 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions, based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions, based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Defense Acquisition System Framework: 

The defense acquisition system framework establishes the steps that 
Department of Defense (DOD) programs generally take as DOD plans, 
designs, acquires, deploys, operates, and maintains its weapon 
systems. It consists of five program life-cycle phases and multiple 
related decision points (three of which are referred to as 
milestones), which are generally shown in figure 3 and described 
following the figure.[Footnote 51] The milestone decision authority 
for programs under this framework is either the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD[AT&L]); the DOD 
component head; a Component Acquisition Executive; or, when 
authorized, a designee. DOD issued an interim update to the 
instruction guiding operation of the defense acquisition system in 
November 2013;[Footnote 52] the following discussion reflects the 
updated guidance. 

Figure 3: Overview of the Defense Acquisition System Framework: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Product Support Manager (PSM) involved throughout all five program 
life-cycle phases: 

Materiel development decision: 
Materiel solution analysis: 
Milestone A. 

Technology maturation and risk reduction: 
Milestone B. 

Engineering and manufacturing development: 
Milestone C. 

Production and deployment: 
Full rate production or full deployment decision. 

Operations and support. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) information. 

Note: This figure is meant to provide an overview of the defense 
acquisition system framework and does not identify all decision points 
or activities. 

[End of figure] 

The five program life-cycle phases are as follows: 

* Materiel solution analysis: The purpose of this phase is to conduct 
the analysis and other activities needed to choose the concept for the 
product that will be acquired, to begin translating validated 
capability gaps into system-specific requirements, and to conduct 
planning to support a decision on the acquisition strategy for the 
product. A decision is made at the end of this phase to continue into 
the next phase of acquisition for the program--this decision is 
referred to as Milestone A.[Footnote 53] According to DOD, product 
support considerations (the primary responsibility of PSMs) should 
begin prior to Milestone A, with early requirements determination, and 
continue through system design, development, operational use, 
retirement, and disposal. Program Managers are responsible for 
developing and maintaining a life-cycle sustainment plan consistent 
with the product support strategy, beginning at Milestone A. 

* Technology maturation and risk reduction (formerly technology 
development): The purpose of this phase is to reduce technology, 
engineering, integration, and life-cycle cost risk to the point that a 
decision to contract for engineering and manufacturing development can 
be made with confidence in successful program execution for 
development, production, and sustainment. In this phase, DOD 
determines the set of technologies to be integrated into the system 
solution and refines user requirements. A decision is made at the end 
of this phase to authorize further product development--this decision 
is referred to as Milestone B. PSM objectives during this phase 
include ensuring that the overall design specifications incorporate 
supportability design features. 

* Engineering and manufacturing development: The purpose of this phase 
is to develop, build, and test a product to verify that requirements 
have been met and to support production or deployment decisions. A 
decision is made at the end of this phase to authorize entry of the 
system into the production and deployment phase or for limited 
deployment in support of operational testing--this decision is 
referred to as Milestone C. As part of this development phase, 
according to a briefing from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, one of the basic 
objectives of a PSM is to ensure that a weapon system is designed, 
maintained, and modified to continuously reduce the demand for 
logistics. 

* Production and deployment: In this phase, DOD seeks to achieve an 
operational capability that satisfies mission needs, as verified 
through operational test and evaluation, and to implement the system 
at all applicable locations. 

* Operations and support: In this final phase, DOD seeks to 
operationally sustain the system over its life cycle. The phase 
includes execution of the product support strategy and is based on an 
approved life-cycle support plan. PSMs are to revalidate business-case 
analyses used to develop the product support strategy based on changes 
to the assumptions, constraints, and operating environment, or every 5 
years, whichever occurs first. 

In addition to the three milestone decision points included in this 
framework (Milestones A, B, and C), the framework also includes 
several other decision points, such as: (1) materiel development 
decision, which directs officials to conduct analyses to assess the 
potential solutions that can satisfy the program's requirements, and 
(2) full rate production or full deployment decision, which authorizes 
the system to be deployed to all remaining locations beyond the 
limited fielding locations.[Footnote 54] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Descriptions of Selected Department of Defense (DOD) 
Major Weapon Systems: 

We selected and interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of Product 
Support Managers (PSM), program management, and other product support 
personnel assigned to a total of 12 major weapon systems to identify 
good practices and challenges that may have helped or prevented PSMs 
in making or affecting life-cycle sustainment decisions for their 
assigned systems. This appendix contains descriptions of the 12 major 
weapon systems we selected. Each description contains information on 
the military service or services to which these systems belong, their 
respective Acquisition Category (ACAT) levels, the status of the 
system, and a brief description of the system. 

1. Abrams Tank [photograph]: 
Service: Army; 
ACAT Level: ACAT I; 
Status of System: Sustainment for M1A1 Variant; 
System Description: The Army's Abrams Tank provides heavy armor 
superiority on the battlefield and destroys enemy forces using 
mobility, firepower, and shock effect. Variants of the tank include 
increased armor protection, position navigation equipment, and 
improved fire control systems. 

Source: Department of the Army. 

2. Thermal Weapon Sight, AN/PAS-13 [photograph]: 
Service: Army; 
ACAT Level: ACAT I; 
Status of System: Sustainment (Procurement Ended July 2012); 
System Description: The Army's Thermal Weapon Sight provides soldiers 
with the capability to see deep into the battlefield, increase 
surveillance and target acquisition range, and penetrate obscurants, 
day or night. The Thermal Weapon Sight systems use uncooled, forward-
looking infrared technology and provide a standard video output for 
training, image transfer, or remote viewing. Thermal Weapon Sights are 
lightweight systems that are mountable onto a weapon rail and operate 
to the maximum effective range of the weapon. 

Source: Department of the Army. 

3. Distributed Common Ground System–Army [photograph]: 
Service: Army; 
ACAT Level: ACAT I; 
Status of System: Completed Full Deployment Decision in December 2012; 
System Description: The Distributed Common Ground System–Army is the 
Army's intelligence component, which functions as the Army's primary 
system for processing and disseminating multisensor intelligence and 
weather information to the warfighter. This system is a global 
enterprise of capabilities and is designed to gather information from 
various sources to support the Army's worldwide intelligence 
operations. 

Source: Department of the Army. 

4. Long Range Advanced Scout Surveillance System [photograph]: 
Service: Army; 
ACAT Level: ACAT II; 
Status of System: Sustainment; 
System Description: The Army's Long Range Advanced Scout Surveillance 
System provides U.S. Army armor and infantry scout platoons with a 
long-range reconnaissance and surveillance sensor system. The system's 
line-of-sight, multisensor suite provides real-time target detection, 
recognition, and identification capability, with 24-hour and adverse-
weather operation. The system also determines far-target location 
coordinates and can operate in both mounted and dismounted 
configurations. 

Source: Department of the Army. 

5. Counter Radio Controlled-Improvised Explosive Device Electronic 
Warfare Duke [photograph]: 
Service: Army; 
ACAT Level: ACAT II; 
Status of System: Post–Full Operational Capability; 
System Description: The Army's Counter Radio Controlled-Improvised 
Explosive Device Electronic Warfare Duke is a field-deployable, single-
unit system designed to have minimal size, weight, and power 
requirements while providing simple operation and optimal performance 
in order to provide force protection against radio controlled-
improvised explosive devices. 

Source: Department of the Army. 

6. Prophet Enhanced/Spiral 1 [photograph]: 
Service: Army; 
ACAT Level: ACAT II; 
Status of System: Post–Full Operational Capability; 
System Description: The Army's Prophet Enhanced/Spiral 1 is a ground-
based tactical signals intelligence and electronic warfare sensor that 
creates a near-real-time electronic picture of the Brigade Combat 
Team, Stryker Brigade Combat Team, Armored Cavalry Regiment, and 
Battlefield Surveillance Brigade battlespace. This system provides 
intelligence support by reporting the location, tracking, and identity 
of threat emitters, and it can also conduct Electronic Attack against 
enemy emitters. 

Source: Department of the Army. 

7. Virginia–Class Submarine [photograph]: 
Service: Navy; 
ACAT Level: ACAT I; 
Status of System: Procurement, Production, Sustainment; Achieved 
Initial Operational Capability March 2007; Achieved Full Rate 
Production September 2010; Reached Depot Shipyard Support in June 2013 
System Description: The Navy's Virginia class of attack submarines is 
designed for a broad spectrum of open-ocean and littoral missions 
around the world. These submarines have a fly-by-wire (computer 
assisted) ship control system that provides improved shallow-water 
ship handling. The class has special features to support special 
operations forces including a reconfigurable torpedo room that can 
accommodate a large number of special operations forces and all their 
equipment for prolonged deployments and future off-board payloads. The 
class also has a large lock-in/lock-out chamber for divers. 

Source: @ 2013 Huntington Ingalls Industries-Newport News Shipbuilding. 

8. Littoral Combat Ship [2 photographs]: 
Service: Navy; 
ACAT Level: ACAT I; 
Status of System: Procurement; Approaching Initial Operational 
Capability in July 2014; 
System Description: The Navy's Littoral Combat Ship is intended to be 
reconfigurable to perform three different primary missions: mine 
countermeasures, surface warfare, and antisubmarine warfare. This ship 
consists of two distinct parts—the ship itself and the interchangeable 
package of sensors and weapons that it carries and deploys, called a 
mission package. The mission package provides the majority of the ship'
s combat capability. Mission packages are composed of one or more 
mission modules and an aviation capability. 

Source: Defense Video and Imagery Distribution System. 

9. CH-53K Helicopter [photograph]: 
Service: Marine Corps; 
ACAT Level: ACAT I; 
Status of System: Development; Scheduled for Milestone C in February 
2016; 
System Description: The Marine Corps' CH-53K Heavy Lift Replacement 
Helicopter is intended to transport armored vehicles, equipment, and 
personnel to support operations deep inland from a sea-based center of 
operations. The CH-53K is expected to replace the legacy CH-53E 
Helicopter and provide increased range and payload, survivability and 
force protection, reliability and maintainability, and coordination 
with other assets. 

Source: Sikorsky. 

10. Joint Light Tactical Vehicle [photograph]: 
Service: Army and Marine Corps (Joint Program); 
ACAT Level: ACAT I; 
Status of System: Engineering and Manufacturing Development; Completed 
Milestone B in August 2012; 
System Description: The Army and Marine Corps' Joint Light Tactical 
Vehicle program is a family of vehicles being developed to replace the 
High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle for some missions. This 
vehicle is expected to provide better protection for passengers 
against current and future battlefield threats, increased payload 
capacity, and improved automotive performance over the up-armored High 
Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle. 

Source: Lockheed Martin. 

11. KC-46A Tanker [photograph]: 
Service: Air Force; 
ACAT Level: ACAT I; 
Status of System: Scheduled for Milestone C in August 2015; Completed 
Milestone B in February 2011; 
System Description: The Air Force's KC-46A aerial refueling tanker is 
designed with more refueling capacity, improved efficiency, and 
increased cargo and aeromedical evacuation capabilities than its 
predecessor. This tanker is expected to be able to refuel in a variety 
of nighttime and covert mission settings and will have countermeasures 
to protect it against infrared missile threats. It is also intended to 
refuel Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and allied aircraft. 

Source: Boeing. 

12. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter [photograph]: 
Service: Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps (Joint Program); 
ACAT Level: ACAT I; 
Status of System: Low Rate Initial Production; Completed Milestone B 
in March 2012; 
System Description: The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is 
developing a family of stealthy, strike fighter aircraft for the Air 
Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and U.S. allies. Each variant of the F-35 
will be customized for the capabilities desired by the military 
services, such as the carrier-suitable variant for the Navy, the air-
to-ground attack variant for the Air Force, and the short take-off and 
vertical landing variant for the Marine Corps. 

Source: 2010 Lockheed Martin. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) information. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Assistant Secretary of Defense: 
Logistics and Materiel Readiness: 
3500 Defense Pentagon: 
Washington, DC 20301-3500: 

March 28, 2014: 

Mr. Cary Russell: 
Director: 
Defense Capabilities and Management: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Russell: 

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) Draft Report, GAO-14-326, "Weapon Systems 
Management: DoD Has Taken Steps to Implement Product Support Managers 
but Needs to Evaluate Their Effects," dated April, 2014 (GAO code 
351815). Detailed comments on the report recommendations are enclosed. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Paul D. Peters: 
Acting: 

Enclosure: As stated. 

GAO Draft Report Dated MARCH 6, 2014: 
GAO-14-326 (GAO CODE 351815): 

“Weapon Systems Management: DOD Has Taken Steps To Implement Product 
Support Managers But Needs To Evaluate Their Effects” 

Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics – in coordination with the Defense Acquisition University 
and the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy – to develop and 
implement a plan with objectives, milestones, and resources to 
implement and institutionalize a comprehensive career path and 
associated guidance to develop, train, and support future PSMs. 

DoD Response: The Department concurs with GAO's recommendation. 
OUSD(AT&L) will work over the next year with the staffs of the 
Secretaries of the Army, Air Force, and Navy, along with DAU and HCI 
via the Life Cycle Logistics Functional Integrated Product Team to
define a methodology and plan for institutionalizing a comprehensive 
career path and associated guidance for developing, training, and 
supporting future PSMs. 

Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics – in coordination with the Secretaries of the Air Force, 
Army, and Navy – to issue clear, comprehensive, centralized guidance 
regarding the roles and responsibilities of product support managers 
and the officials that assign them. 

DoD Response: The Department concurs with GAO's recommendation. 
OUSD(AT&L) will work over the next year with the staffs of the 
Secretaries of the Army, Air Force, and Navy to develop clear, 
comprehensive, centralized guidance regarding the roles and 
responsibilities of PSMs and the officials that assign them. 

Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretary of the Army – in coordination with the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology and 
the Commander of Army Materiel Command – to clearly define Army-wide 
roles and responsibilities for the sustainment portion of the life cycle
of major weapon systems, to include the reporting relationships of 
Army Materiel Command support personnel assigned to Army weapon system 
program offices, by issuing new, or revising existing Army Guidance. 

DoD Response: The Department partially concurs with the GAO's 
recommendation. The Army sees no ambiguity in the Army-wide roles and 
responsibilities for the sustainment portion of the life cycle of 
major weapon systems including the reporting requirements of AMC
personnel providing matrix support to the program managers. The Army 
leadership has been coordinating the role of the product support 
manager and is finalizing its capstone policy to solidify required 
changes as part of the statutory implementation. 

Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics – in coordination with the Secretaries of the Army, Air 
Force, and Navy – to systematically collect and evaluate information 
on the effects, if any, that PSMs are having on the life-cycle 
sustainment decisions for their assigned major weapon systems. 

DoD Response: The Department concurs with GAO's recommendation. 
OUSD(AT&L) will work over the next year with the staffs of the 
Secretaries of the Army, Air Force, and Navy to define a methodology 
and plan for systematically collecting and evaluating information on the
effects, if any, that PSMs are having on the life-cycle sustainment 
decisions for their assigned major weapon systems. 

Recommendation 5: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretary of the Army – in coordination with the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology and 
the Commander of Army Materiel Command – to review the current process 
for requesting and distributing sustainment funding for major weapon
systems and to take necessary actions to ensure that PSMs have greater 
visibility of the amount of sustainment funds their weapon systems 
will receive including prior to the year of execution, to the extent 
possible. 

DoD Response: The Department concurs with the GAO's recommendation. 
The Army Staff in coordination with the Commander of Army Materiel 
Command will work over the next year to review the current process for 
requesting and distributing sustainment funding for major weapon 
systems and take necessary actions to ensure that PSMs and all other 
stakeholders have greater visibility of the amount of sustainment 
funds their weapon systems will receive. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Cary B. Russell, 202-512-5431 or russellc@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, the following staff members 
made key contributions to this report: Alissa H. Czyz, Assistant 
Director; Jerome A. Brown; Yecenia C. Camarillo; Joanne Landesman; 
Michael C. Shaughnessy; Michael D. Silver; Amie M. Steele; Tristan T. 
To; and Matthew R. Young. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Defense Acquisitions: Where Should Reform Aim Next? [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-145T]. Washington, D.C.: October 
29, 2013. 

Defense Acquisitions: Goals and Associated Metrics Needed to Assess 
Progress in Improving Service Acquisition. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-634]. Washington, D.C.: June 27, 
2013. 

Program Evaluation: Strategies to Facilitate Agencies' Use of 
Evaluation in Program Management and Policy Making. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-570]. Washington, D.C.: June 26, 
2013. 

Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-294SP]. Washington, 
D.C.: March 28, 2013. 

Weapons Acquisition Reform: Reform Act Is Helping DOD Acquisition 
Programs Reduce Risk, but Implementation Challenges Remain. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-103]. Washington, D.C.: 
December 14, 2012. 

Defense Logistics: Improvements Needed to Enhance Oversight of 
Estimated Long-Term Costs for Operating and Supporting Major Weapon 
Systems. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-340]. 
Washington, D.C.: February 2, 2012. 

Defense Management: DOD Needs Better Information and Guidance to More 
Effectively Manage and Reduce Operating and Support Costs of Major 
Weapon Systems. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-717]. 
Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2010. 

Defense Acquisitions: Fundamental Changes Are Needed to Improve Weapon 
Program Outcomes. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1159T]. Washington, D.C.: September 
25, 2008. 

Defense Logistics: Opportunities to Improve the Army's and the Navy's 
Decision-making Process for Weapons System Support. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-306]. Washington, D.C.: February 
28, 2002. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, Defense Logistics: Improvements Needed to Enhance Oversight 
of Estimated Long-Term Costs for Operating and Supporting Major Weapon 
Systems, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-340] 
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2, 2012). 

[2] See Pub. L. No. 111-84, § 805 (2009).The statute mandated that the 
Secretary of Defense require that each major weapon system be 
supported by a PSM; DOD interprets this provision as requiring that a 
PSM be appointed for each Acquisition Category (ACAT) I and ACAT II 
system. ACAT I programs are Major Defense Acquisition Programs. A 
Major Defense Acquisition Program is a program that is not a highly 
sensitive classified program and that is designated by the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics 
(USD[AT&L]) as a Major Defense Acquisition Program or that is 
estimated to require eventual total expenditure for research, 
development, test, and evaluation of more than $480 million (fiscal 
year 2014 constant dollars) or for procurement of more than $2.79 
billion (fiscal year 2014 constant dollars). ACAT II programs are 
defined as those acquisition programs that do not meet the criteria 
for an ACAT I program but do meet the criteria for a major system. A 
major system is defined as a program estimated by the DOD component 
head to require eventual total expenditure for research, development, 
test, and evaluation of more than $185 million in fiscal year 2014 
constant dollars or for procurement of more than $835 million in 
fiscal year 2014 constant dollars--or those designated by the DOD 
component head to be ACAT II. 

[3] See Pub. L. No. 112-239, § 823(a)(1) (2013) (codified at 10 U.S.C. 
§ 2337). Section 823 also repealed section 805 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 as superseded. See § 823(b). 
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 amended 
section 2337 by adding an additional responsibility for PSMs. See Pub. 
L. No. 113-66, § 823 (2013). 

[4] DOD describes O&S costs as all direct and indirect costs of goods 
and services incurred from initial deployment and fielding of an 
acquisition item or program through the end of the acquisition item's 
or program's operational and support activities. These operational and 
support activities are not bound to a life-cycle phase or 
appropriation category. O&S costs include, among other things, costs 
for repair parts, maintenance, and personnel. 

[5] GAO, Defense Logistics: Improvements Needed to Enhance Oversight 
of Estimated Long-Term Costs for Operating and Supporting Major Weapon 
Systems, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-340] 
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2, 2012). 

[6] The Defense Acquisition Management Information Retrieval Purview 
system is an executive information system operated by the Office of 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics/Acquisition Resources and Analysis. 

[7] According to DOD officials, O&S costs generally range from 60 to 
80 percent of a weapon system's total costs, depending on the weapon 
system type. DOD previously estimated that weapon-system product 
support costs in fiscal year 2008 were at least $132 billion. 
According to DOD, product support includes materiel management, 
distribution, technical-data management, maintenance, training, 
cataloging, configuration management, engineering support, repair-
parts management, failure reporting and analysis, reliability-growth 
tracking, and the logistics elements (e.g., support equipment, spares) 
related to weapon systems readiness. Under this definition, product 
support does not include all the costs categorized as O&S costs. 

[8] These costs are expressed in then-year dollars. 

[9] Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics, "Better Buying Power: Mandate for Restoring Affordability 
and Productivity in Defense Spending," memorandum (June 28, 2010); 
"Better Buying Power: Guidance for Obtaining Greater Efficiency and 
Productivity in Defense Spending," memorandum (Sept. 14, 2010); 
"Implementation Directive for Better Buying Power--Obtaining Greater 
Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending," memorandum (Nov. 3, 
2010); "Better Buying Power 2.0: Continuing the Pursuit for Greater 
Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending," memorandum (Nov. 13, 
2012). 

[10] GAO, Weapons Acquisition Reform: Reform Act Is Helping DOD 
Acquisition Programs Reduce Risk, but Implementation Challenges 
Remain, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-103] 
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 14, 2012). 

[11] Department of Defense, Product Support Manager Guidebook (April 
2011). 

[12] See Department of Defense, Defense Acquisition Guidebook, para. 
5.1.3.2. DOD's Directive-Type Memorandum 10-015, canceled by the 
issuance of Interim DOD Instruction 5000.02 on November 26, 2013, 
noted that the following positions are considered synonymous with 
PSMs: Director of Logistics, Assistant Program Manager for Logistics, 
Deputy Program Manager for Logistics, Program Lead Logistician, and 
System Support Manager. See Department of Defense, Requirements for 
Life Cycle Management and Product Support, Directive-Type Memorandum 
10-015, attachment 5, para. 1.d (Oct. 7, 2010) (version incorporating 
change Jan. 16, 2013). 

[13] The USD(AT&L) may delegate authority to act as the Milestone 
Decision Authority to the head of a DOD component, who may further 
delegate authority to the Component Acquisition Executive. 

[14] In some instances, a Program Manager may report directly to the 
Service Acquisition Executive. 

[15] The PSM guidebook includes depots and original equipment 
manufacturers among the most likely candidates for both the Product 
Support Integrator and Product Support Provider roles. 

[16] See Department of the Army, Logistics: Integrated Logistics 
Support, Regulation 700-127 (July 17, 2008) (rapid action revision 
Mar. 26. 2012). 

[17] See, e.g., Air Force Instruction 63-101/20-101, Integrated Life 
Cycle Management (Mar. 7, 2013). 

[18] According to Army and Navy officials, PSM requirements have 
vacancies arise when new requirements open and when former PSMs retire 
or move on to assume a new position. Officials used the term 
requirement to refer to a weapon system to which a PSM would need to 
be assigned. 

[19] Key leadership positions are positions that require a significant 
level of authority commensurate with the responsibility and 
accountability for acquisition program success. 

[20] See 10 U.S.C. § 1706(a)(7); Under Secretary of Defense 
(Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), Key Leadership Positions and 
Qualification Criteria, memorandum (Nov. 8, 2013); and Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Logistics and Materiel Readiness), 
Product Support Manager Yearly Reporting Requirement (July 11, 2013). 

[21] See table 1 for the number of PSMs functioning under a waiver. 

[22] See 10 U.S.C. § 2337(b)(2)(A), (G). 

[23] See Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics), Key Leadership Positions and Qualification Criteria, 
memorandum (Nov. 8, 2013). 

[24] U.S. Army, U.S. Army Product Support Manager Concept of 
Operations (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2012). 

[25] U.S. Air Force, Air Force Life Cycle Logistics (LCL) Workforce 
Guidebook (Oct. 23, 2013). 

[26] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] 
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999), and Project Management Institute, A 
Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), 5th 
ed. (Newtown Square, PA: 2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body 
of Knowledge provides standards for project managers. We have used A 
Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge to provide criteria 
in previous reports, including GAO, Overstay Enforcement: Additional 
Actions Needed to Assess DHS's Data and Improve Planning for a 
Biometric Air Exit Program, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-683] (Washington, D.C.: July 30, 
2013); Bureau of Prisons: Timelier Reviews, Plan for Evaluations, and 
Updated Policies Could Improve Inmate Mental Health Services 
Oversight, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-1] 
(Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2013); and Nonproliferation and 
Disarmament Fund: State Should Better Assure the Effective Use of 
Program Authorities, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-83] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 
2012). 

[27] See Pub. L. No. 109-364, § 820(a), (b) (2006) (superseded and 
repealed by Pub. L. No. 112-239, § 824(b)). 

[28] See Pub. L. No. 111-84, § 805(c) (2009). 

[29] See 10 U.S.C. § 1706(a)(7), added by Pub. L. No. 112-239, § 
824(a)(1) (2013). As codified, the list includes the program lead PSM. 

[30] See Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Logistics and 
Materiel Readiness), Product Support Manager Yearly Reporting 
Requirement, memorandum (July 11, 2013). 

[31] See Department of Defense, Operation of the Defense Acquisition, 
Technology and Logistics Workforce Education, Training, and Career 
Development Program, Instruction 5000.66, encl. 2, para. E2.2.4.2 
(Dec. 21, 2005). 

[32] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[33] See Department of Defense, Directive Type Memorandum 10-015. 

[34] See Department of Defense, Operation of the Defense Acquisition 
System, Interim Instruction 5000.02 (Nov. 25, 2013). 

[35] See Department of Defense, Interim Instruction 5000.02, para. 
1.c. In a memorandum issued with the Interim DOD Instruction, the 
Deputy Secretary of Defense called for various DOD entities to jointly 
prepare a revised DOD Instruction 5000.02 to replace the interim 
policy within 180 days. See Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum, 
Defense Acquisition (Nov. 26, 2013). 

[36] Officials referenced the July 11, 2013, memorandum from the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Logistics and Materiel 
Readiness) titled Product Support Manager Yearly Reporting Requirement. 

[37] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[38] Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and 
Technology), Product Support Manager (PSM) Implementation) (Nov. 5, 
2010). 

[39] U.S. Army, U.S. Army Product Support Manager Concept of 
Operations. 

[40] Upon direction of the Secretary of the Army, the ASA(ALT) serves 
as the Army Acquisition Executive, the Senior Procurement Executive, 
the Science Advisor to the Secretary of the Army, and the senior 
research and development official for Department of the Army. ASA(ALT) 
also has the principal responsibility for all Department of the Army 
matters and policy related to acquisition, logistics, technology, 
procurement, the industrial base, and security cooperation (that is, 
security assistance and armaments cooperation). See Department of the 
Army, Army Acquisition Policy, Regulation 70-1, para. 2-6.a (July 22, 
2011). 

[41] PSMs provide product support expertise to Program Managers in 
execution of the Program Manager's duties as the total life-cycle 
system manager. The PSM guidebook describes life-cycle management as 
the implementation, management, and oversight: by the designated 
Program Manager, of all activities associated with the acquisition, 
development, production, fielding, sustainment, and disposal of a DOD 
weapon system across its life cycle. 

[42] Department of the Army, Organization and Functions: Army 
Commands, Army Service Component Commands, and Direct Reporting Units, 
Regulation 10-87 (Sept. 4, 2007). 

[43] Life-cycle management commands are among the AMC major 
subordinate commands. 

[44] We refer to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Logistics and Materiel Readiness' Life Cycle Logistics Functional 
Integrated Product Team as a quarterly logistics workforce meeting 
throughout this report. 

[45] See Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics), First Annual Secretary of Defense Product Support Manager 
Award, memorandum (Mar. 18, 2013). 

[46] GAO, Program Evaluation: Strategies to Facilitate Agencies' Use 
of Evaluation in Program Management and Policy Making, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-570] (Washington, D.C.: June 26, 
2013). 

[47] GAO, Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and 
Relationships, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-646SP] 
(Washington, D.C.: May 2011). 

[48] GAO, Agency Performance Plans: Examples of Practices That Can 
Improve Usefulness to Decisionmakers, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69] (Washington, D.C.: 
Feb. 26, 1999). 

[49] See Department of the Army, Regulation 10-87. 

[50] See Department of the Army, Regulation 70-1. 

[51] DOD guidance notes that milestone decision authorities have full 
latitude to tailor programs in the most effective and efficient 
structure possible, to include eliminating phases and combining or 
eliminating milestones and decision points, unless constrained by 
statute. See Department of Defense, Operation of the Defense 
Acquisition System, Interim Instruction 5000.02, para. 5.c(2)(b)(5) 
(Nov. 25, 2013). 

[52] Department of Defense, Interim Instruction 5000.02. 

[53] Some programs may instead proceed to later phases of the 
acquisition cycle, depending on actions needed to mature the product 
being acquired. 

[54] Limited fielding involves the deployment of a capability to a 
limited number of users to test the capability in an operational 
environment. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
"E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]