Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should assess the risks to accomplishing both of the GRF's uses: that is, its use as an augmentation capability available as needed to individual geographic combatant commands; and its use as a tailorable joint force available for rapid response to a specific threat. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, DOD has not implemented this recommendation and stated that DOD is developing its Dynamic Force Employment (DFE) concept, which will have a direct impact on the mission, construct, command relationships, and training of the Department's Global Response Force. DOD has not specified when the implementation of the DFE will be complete.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should, as appropriate following the assessment of risk, design responses, such as further defining and prioritizing the GRF's intended uses and missions, to mitigate any identified risks. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, DOD has not implemented this recommendation and stated that DOD is developing its Dynamic Force Employment concept, which will have a direct impact on the mission, construct, command relationships, and training of the Department's Global Response Force. DOD has not specified when the implementation of the DFE will be complete.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should designate an authority to establish and enforce integrated joint training for GRF-assigned units, as appropriate. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, DOD has not implemented this recommendation and stated that DOD is developing its Dynamic Force Employment concept, which will have a direct impact on the mission, construct, command relationships, and training of the Department's Global Response Force. DOD has not specified when the implementation of the DFE will be complete.

Recommendation: To enable the department to enhance its visibility over contractor personnel for whom it may become responsible in the event of contingency and other applicable operations, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, update accountability guidance clarifying the types of contractor personnel that are to be accounted for in a steady-state environment.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation, but as of September 2020, has not yet taken steps to implement it. DOD stated that DOD Instruction 3020.41, Operational Contract Support, is being updated, and will include guidance on the types of contractor personnel that are to be accounted for. The department also stated it would update Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual 3150.13C, Joint Personnel Reporting Structure-Personnel Manual, to clarify the types of contractor personnel that are to be accounted for. As of September 2020, neither of these guidance documents had been updated. This recommendation will remain open.

Recommendation: To ensure that combatant commands are not contracting with entities that may be connected to or supporting prohibited organizations, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, develop and issue guidance that clarifies the foreign-vendor vetting steps or process that should be established at each combatant command, including the operational conditions under which a foreign-vendor vetting cell should be established.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation but as of September 2020, has not implemented it. In its response to our report, DOD agreed that the development and issuance of overarching guidance and partially concurs with the development and issuance of guidance that clarifies the foreign vendor vetting steps or process that should be established at each combatant command, including operational conditions under which a foreign vendor vetting cell should be established. In April 2018, DOD issued Directive-Type Memorandum 18-002, Prohibition on Providing Funds to the Enemy and Authorization of Additional Access to Records. In August 2020, DOD officials said that they had drafted department-wide vendor vetting guidance (now known as vendor threat mitigation), but had not yet issued it. Since the guidance has not been issued, the recommendation will remain open at this time.

Recommendation: To ensure that PACOM is not contracting with entities that may be connected to or supporting prohibited organizations, while awaiting DOD guidance on vendor vetting, the Secretary of Defense should direct the PACOM commander to consider developing vendor vetting guidance as other combatant commands have done, to prepare for the event that PACOM becomes actively engaged in hostilities.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation, but as of September 2019, has not yet taken the steps necessary to implement it.. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To provide additional information for congressional decision makers regarding DOD's budget, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in consultation with the OMB, to reevaluate and revise the criteria for determining what can be included in DOD's OCO budget requests to reflect current OCO-related activities and relevant budget policy directing in which budget requests OCO funds may be included.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In DOD's response to a draft of our report, DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated it planned to propose updated criteria to OMB to reflect current and evolving threats and reflect any changes in OCO policy under the new Administration. In October 2017, a DOD official stated that the department has discussed possible modifications to the criteria with the military departments and combatant commands, but had not made any formal recommendations to the OMB to revise the criteria. In May 2020, DOD officials stated they had re-evaluated the criteria, and were considering modifications that would take into account mission, instead of location, but OMB did not accept the modifications. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision requiring DOD and OMB to update their OCO criteria by September 2018. As of May 2020, neither DOD nor OMB has issued updated criteria, and DOD had not made any updates to Volume 12, Chapter 23 of its Financial Management Regulation that governs contingency operations to reflect updated criteria.

Recommendation: To fully assess the size and composition of the medical force, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to conduct a new analysis of the required number of active-duty and civilian medical personnel that mitigates known limitations.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2020, DOD has not addressed this recommendation. In response to a provision in Senate Report 115-125, we assessed DOD's interim and final draft responses to a requirement in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 to assess the required number of wartime medical and dental personnel. In our ensuing February 2019 report, we found that DOD had not determined the required size and composition of its operational medical and dental personnel who support the wartime mission or submitted a complete report to Congress. Specifically, leaders from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) disagreed with the military departments' initial estimates of required personnel that were developed to report to Congress. OSD officials cited concerns that the departments had not applied assumptions for operating jointly in a deployed environment and for leveraging efficiencies among personnel and units. We found that the military departments applied different planning assumptions in estimating required personnel, such as the definition of "operational" requirements. Further, although not required by the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD's assessment did not include civilian medical personnel. Until DOD completes such an analysis, it cannot be assured that its medical force is appropriately sized.

Recommendation: To strengthen ongoing efforts to analyze the costs of medical force readiness and establish clinical currency standards, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to take steps to identify and mitigate limitations regarding the standard for maintaining providers' clinical skills, including improving the accuracy of information concerning providers' workload and conducting an analytically rigorous calculation of active-duty providers' time devoted to military-specific responsibilities.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2020, DOD has taken steps to address this recommendation, but has not completed all necessary actions. In February 2019, we reported that DOD had begun work on a metric to assess the clinical readiness of providers, but noted that the department's methodology was limited. In particular, the methodology did not provide complete, accurate, and consistent data or fully demonstrate results. Further, although DOD provided documentation in February 2020 outlining the medical specialties to which its clinical readiness metric would apply, it has not fully budgeted for the cost of implementing the metric. DOD's July 2018 report in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 notes steps taken to assess the accuracy of information concerning providers' workload, but does not address the time active-duty providers devote to military-specific responsibilities. Until DOD addresses these issues, its efforts to analyze the costs of medical force readiness and establish clinical currency standards will remain limited.

Recommendation: To help achieve DOD's goals for transferring health care into its own facilities and increasing the productivity of active-duty medical providers, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to develop a strategy for achieving these goals that reflects the leading practices of effective federal strategic planning.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD has not yet addressed this recommendation.

Recommendation: To strengthen ongoing efforts within DOD to address the Study's recommendations to use the provider model outputs to inform execution of health care delivery and to refine the model for future use, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to modify DOD's model to reflect the military service of the physicians and military treatment facilities included in the model.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020 DOD has not implemented this recommendation. In its July 2018 report in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD stated in response to this recommendation that facilities in several large Military Health System (MHS) markets are staffed in a multi-service manner. While this is an important point, it remains true that, as the report notes, DOD's model "assumed uniformed providers were interchangeable," and that such an approach does not reflect the single-service nature of most medical treatment facilities within the MHS. Until DOD's model reflects this, the results of its approach will continue to be limited.

Recommendation: To strengthen any future assessments of additional changes to DOD's network of military treatment facilities, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to describe steps taken to assess the reliability of data supporting the assessment, including, at a minimum, the sources of data, data limitations, and efforts to test data reliability.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD has taken steps to address this recommendation, but has not completed all necessary actions. In its July 2018 report in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD included the sources of its data and some data limitations, but not efforts to test data reliability. Until DOD fully incorporates assessments of data reliability into its analysis of future changes to the Military Health System, such as its implementation plan Section 703, it will continue to lack assurance that its approach is fully supported by reliable information.

Recommendation: To strengthen any future assessments of additional changes to DOD's network of military treatment facilities, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to include in any accompanying cost estimates an appropriate level of detail, all significant costs, and an assessment of the reliability of the data supporting the cost estimate.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD has not addressed this recommendation. As we reported in May 2020, DOD's plan to restructure MTFs in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD concluded that civilian health care was more cost-effective than care in its MTFs without considering other assumptions that could affect its conclusions. For example, DOD applied assumptions about the cost of military personnel salaries, MTF workloads, and reimbursement rates for TRICARE that likely underestimated the cost-effectiveness of MTFs. Until DOD's approach to assessing changes to its network of MTFs is accompanied by cost estimates with an appropriate level of detail, all significant costs, and an assessment of the reliability of the data supporting the cost estimate, its approach will remain limited.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to improve DOD's awareness of how much O&M funding the department uses for construction projects to support contingency operations, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the military departments, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to track the universe and cost of ongoing and future contingency construction projects that are funded from O&M appropriations under section 2805 of Title 10, U.S. Code (unspecified minor military construction authority).

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD non concurred with this recommendation and, as of August 2020, has not altered its position or taken action to address the recommendation. According to DOD officials, the department does not have the data systems that can track and report projects executed using O&M appropriations and that doing so is not cost effective and would not improve decision making. However, we continue to believe DOD could adapt an existing system or mechanism for recording and capturing these data in an automated form. For example, as we noted in our report, we believe through appropriate modifications, the cost of contingency construction projects could be readily available in the Army's existing accounting and finance system. Further, we continue to believe that knowing the universe and cost of all O&M-funded construction projects supporting contingency operations is important for decision making.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to improve DOD's ability to quickly fund contingency construction projects that are not ideally suited to the current standard Military Construction and Operation and Maintenance processes and time frames and reduce reliance on funding approaches that pose risks regarding the appropriate use of funding, negative operational impacts, and unnecessary duplication, DOD should evaluate and improve the use of existing processes and authorities to the extent possible; determine whether additional authorities are needed to support urgent construction needs; and revise existing departmental processes or seek additional authorities, as appropriate.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, DOD stated that it continues to review current processes and authorities annually and submits legislative proposals and changes policies when appropriate. For example, DOD is working to revise authorities and designations for construction agents in Joint Operational Areas executing contingency construction to improve flexibility and responsiveness. According to the department, this change will be effective once DOD Directive 4270.5, Military Construction is completed in the second quarter of fiscal year 2012. As DOD's process is continuous, there will be no end date for completion of all actions associated with this recommendation, according to a DOD official.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to help ensure that DOD limits demands on available resources to those necessary to meet contingency construction project requirements and communicates those requirements effectively, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Secretary of the Army, direct the Army Corps of Engineers to develop a control activity for documenting level-of-construction determinations before the Army Corps of Engineers designs the projects and estimates their costs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation stating that the appropriate level of construction is a function of required service life and mission requirements, both of which are determined by the facility user rather than the construction agent. The Department agreed that these parameters must be defined and documented during the facility planning process by the Component responsible for developing facility requirements, and then communicated to the appropriate construction agent (i.e. the Army Corps of Engineers, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, or the Air Force Civil Engineer Center). In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, a DOD official stated that the department is revising DOD guidance to clarify that level-of-construction determinations are to be documented by construction agents once received from facility user. The revision will be included in an update of DOD Directive 4270.5, Military Construction, which is to be completed in the second quarter of fiscal year 2012. Once completed, this should address the intent and close out GAO's recommendation as implemented.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to ensure that DOD avoids constructing facilities that may be unneeded to support U.S. forces and to comprehensively document the results of its reviews of ongoing construction projects when changes in mission requirements occur, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, direct the Secretaries of the military departments and the Commander of CENTCOM to develop implementing guidance for the review and verification of ongoing contingency construction projects when mission changes occur.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, a DOD official stated that the Department believes all combatant commanders involved in contingency operations should conduct periodic reviews of new or ongoing construction projects to ensure they still meet operational needs. As a result, the Secretary of Defense plans to, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, direct the Secretaries of the military departments and the Combatant Commanders to develop guidance for the review and verification of ongoing contingency construction projects when mission changes occur. According to the DOD official, the Secretary of Defense plans to provide this direction in the pending update of DOD Directive 4270.5, Military Construction for application in Joint Operational Areas and contingency operations. The expected completion of this action is during the second quarter of fiscal year 2012, at which point the intent of GAO's recommendation will have been addressed.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to improve the awareness of the combatant and service component commands' responsibilities to record and share lessons learned and to ensure that important contingency-construction-related lessons are recorded, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, direct the Commander of CENTCOM to revise Central Command Regulation 415-1 or issue other guidance as appropriate to specifically detail the role of the combatant command and service component commands in recording contingency construction lessons learned from the CENTCOM area of responsibility in the Joint Lessons Learned Information System.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, DOD stated that CENTCOM Regulation 525-4 chapter 10-3 establishes comprehensive reporting requirements for the Joint Lessons Learned program that encompass the contingency construction function. Further, while this information does not need to be repeated in CENTCOM regulation 415-1, DOD stated that the application of 525-4 to contingency construction would be reinforced by referencing it in 415-1. Accordingly, in February 2020, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense-Facilities Management DOD issued a memo directing the Commander, USCENTCOM, to revise CENTCOM Regulation 415-1 accordingly. We will continue to monitor to evaluate whether the Commander, USCENTCOM completes this tasking and whether the resulting guidance addresses our recommendation.

Recommendation: In light of potential concerns regarding the appropriate use of funding raised by several of the examples identified in this report, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force to review these and, as appropriate, other construction projects in the contingency environment presenting similar circumstances to ensure that funds were properly used.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation. At the time of our report, the department stated that the recommendation is redundant of current practice and referenced department processes to conduct periodic reviews to ensure compliance, among other processes, guidance, and training. In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, DOD's position on the recommendation has not changed, However, as we noted in our report, our recommendation is not that DOD create new processes but instead that DOD use the periodic review processes it referenced to evaluate the examples in our report and ensure that funds were appropriately used. The examples in our report present instances where the department had developed multiple construction projects, each below the O&M maximum for unspecified minor military construction, to meet what may have been an overarching construction requirement. We noted a similar instance where the department had used its review process and found that an Antidefiency Act violation had occurred. In light of the concerns raised by the examples in our report, we continue to believe that DOD should use its existing processes to review the facts and circumstances presented by these examples and determine whether funds were appropriately used.

Recommendation: To ensure that Congress will have more complete information on DOD's full funding needs for its O&M base budget and to conduct oversight of DOD's use of OCO funds to support base programs and activities, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller to revise its guidance on preparing budget justification materials and execution reports for Congress to require the addition of O&M obligations used for base programs and activities at the level of information presented for each account.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD non-concurred with our recommendation. DOD stated in its initial response to our recommendation that there is no legal or administrative subdivision of the O&M appropriation for base and OCO; however, we continue to believe that the recommendation is valid and will follow up annually on the status of the recommendation. As of May 2019, DOD reaffirmed its initial response and has not taken any action to implement our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to establish a strategic policy that incorporates key elements of leading practices for sound strategic management planning, such as a mission statement and long-term goals, to inform the military services' plans for retrograde and reset to support overseas contingency operations and to improve DOD's response to section 324 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2014.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation in GAO-16-414. Although in its comments to that report DOD agreed that it should establish a strategic policy that incorporates key elements of leading practices for sound strategic management planning to inform the military services' plans for retrograde and reset to support overseas contingency operations, DOD did not agree with identifying the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics as the lead for this recommendation. In our August 2018 update (GAO-18-621R) we found that DOD had not yet developed a strategic policy, had not yet determined which DOD organization would lead that effort, and that there was no consensus among officials we spoke with regarding which organization should lead that effort. In is comments to this update, DOD generally concurred with these findings and stated that it had established standardized terms and definitions for the services to use to assess the cost of contingency operations and that the Air Force had recommended OSD form a working group to develop a unified strategic implementation plan and standard terminology, to include a common operating picture. We agree that these are steps in the right direction, but until the department establishes a strategic policy for the retrograde and reset of equipment that incorporates key elements of leading practices for sound strategic management as we recommended in May 2016, it will not be positioned to effectively manage the retrograde and reset of equipment. As of September 2020, DOD has not taken any action to address this recommendation; DOD is in the process of determining who the appropriate PAO should be.

Recommendation: To enhance the accuracy of budget reporting to Congress, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in coordination with the DOD Comptroller, to develop and require the use of consistent information and descriptions of key terms regarding retrograde and reset in relevant policy and other guidance.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation in GAO-16-414. In December 2017, DOD updated the relevant chapter of the its Financial Management Regulation (DOD 7000.14-R) to include definitions of "reset" and "retrograde." However, in our August 2018 update (GAO-18-621R) we found that despite this action, the terms retrograde and reset were not being used or defined consistently by the department and the military services. Specifically, while some services were using the term reset as defined in the regulation, others were not. In commenting on our 2018 update, DOD noted that the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller had established standardized terms and definitions for the services to use to assess the cost of contingency operations, which allows for a common budget framework, while retaining service flexibility to fulfill their Title 10 responsibilities to man, train, and equip. DOD further stated that the Air Force recommended the Office of the Secretary of Defense form a working group to develop a unified strategic implementation plan and standard terminology, to include a common operating picture. We believe that these actions would be a step in the right direction, but to fully meet the intent of our May 2016 recommendation, DOD needs to take action to ensure that these terms are uniformly defined and consistently used throughout the services. As of September 2020, DOD has not taken any action to address this recommendation; DOD is in the process of determining who the appropriate PAO should be.

Recommendation: To improve Army, Navy, and Air Force planning, budgeting, and execution for retrograde and reset efforts, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to develop service-specific implementation plans for retrograde and reset that incorporate elements of leading practices for sound strategic management planning, such as strategies that include how a goal will be achieved, how an organization will carry out its mission, and the resources required to meet goals.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In its response to our recommendation in GAO-16-414, DOD partially concurred, stating that the department would determine the appropriate Principal Staff Assistant to lead the development and application of service-related implementation plans. However, in our August 2018 update (GAO-18-621R) we found that DOD had not yet identified a lead for this effort, and that the Army, Navy, and Air Force had not yet developed implementation plans for the retrograde and reset of their equipment. Navy and Air Force officials further cited the need for a DOD-wide policy before they can establish service-specific plans for resetting equipment for contingency operations while Army officials told us that the Army relies on multiple guidance documents for the reset of equipment and does not currently have plans to develop a unified reset implementation plan. In its response to GAO-18-621R, DOD notes that detailed guidelines and processes for the rotation of personnel in contingency and non-contingency operations are in place, and that if a strategic policy is developed for the retrograde and reset of equipment, consideration should be given to the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment) as the lead. We continue to believe that our recommendation remains valid and that DOD also needs to establish a strategic policy consistent with leading practices on sound strategic management planning to guide and inform the services' plans, as we also recommended in 2016. As of September 2020, DOD has not taken any action to address this recommendation; DOD is in the process of determining who the appropriate PAO should be.

Recommendation: To ensure that senior leadership within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military departments are better positioned to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should revise their programming guidance to collect information on how contracted services will be used to meet requirements beyond the budget year.

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. In its response, the Department did not identify what action, if any, it planned to take to implement this recommendation, and noted the difficulties in accurately quantifying service contract requirements beyond the budget year. We maintain that collecting this information will assist the department in gaining insights into contracted service requirements and making more strategic decisions about the services it plans to acquire. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD annually reviews requirements for services during program budget reviews and services requirements review boards. These officials noted, however, that the volatility of future program and budget cycles constrains the department's ability to accurately quantify contract service requirements beyond the budget year. We agree that the reviews identified by DOD have merit, but they do not provide senior leadership the visibility necessary to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program. In August 2020, DOD officials stated the department is working to identify actions to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor this recommendation and will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To ensure that senior leadership within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military departments are better positioned to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should revise their programming guidance to collect information on how contracted services will be used to meet requirements beyond the budget year.

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. In its response, the Department did not identify what action, if any, it planned to take to implement this recommendation, and noted the difficulties in accurately quantifying service contract requirements beyond the budget year. We maintain that collecting this information will assist the department in gaining insights into contracted service requirements and making more strategic decisions about the services it plans to acquire. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD annually reviews requirements for services during program budget reviews and services requirements review boards. These officials noted, however, that the volatility of future program and budget cycles constrains the department's ability to accurately quantify contract service requirements beyond the budget year. We agree that the reviews identified by DOD have merit, but they do not provide senior leadership the visibility necessary to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program. In August 2020, DOD officials stated the department is working to identify actions to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor this recommendation and will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To ensure the military departments' efforts to integrate services into the programming process and senior service managers efforts to develop forecasts on service contract spending provide the department with consistent data, the Secretary of Defense should establish a mechanism, such as a working group of key stakeholders--which could include officials from the programming, budgeting and requirements communities as well as the senior services managers--to coordinate these efforts.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. In its response, DOD did not indicate any actions it planned to take to implement this recommendation, and instead noted a number of efforts intended to aid in the management and oversight of services acquisitions. We maintain that a coordinated approach is needed to ensure that collected data is consistent to inform DOD leadership on future contract spending. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD annually reviews requirements for services during program budget reviews and services requirements review boards. These officials noted, however, that the volatility of future program and budget cycles constrains the department's ability to accurately quantify contract service requirements beyond the budget year. We agree that the reviews identified by DOD have merit, but they do not provide senior leadership the visibility necessary to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program. In August 2020, DOD officials stated the department is working to identify actions to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor this recommendation and will provide updated information.