Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Deputy Commandant for the Office of Programs and Resources oversee development and implementation of an approach to enable tracking of unit-level training funds through the budget cycle. This approach should include aligning MCPCs across the Marine Corps and ensuring consistent use of SIC codes. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: As of August 2020, the Navy has informed GAO that efforts to address this recommendation are underway. The Marine Corps has in process a Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) reform initiative that it expects to provide visibility and traceability throughout the budget cycle, to include enabling the tracking of unit-level training funds throughout the budget cycle. DOD expects to complete implementation by the end of fiscal year 2025. We will continue to monitor actions taken related to this recommendation and provide updates as appropriate.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps designates a single entity responsible for directing, overseeing, and coordinating efforts to achieve the objective of establishing an enterprise-wide performance management process that links resources to readiness. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: As of August 2020, the Navy has informed GAO that efforts to address this recommendation are underway through its Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) reform initiative. The initiative is expected to result in the addition of an "Assessment" phase to the PPBE process, which will be known as "PPBEA." The new phase is expected to include a system that incorporates campaign planning against traceability of funding, among other factors, and will be documented in a new Marine Corps Order to replace existing PPBE guidance. The Marine Corps expects to complete this process by the end of fiscal year 2025. We will continue to monitor actions taken related to this recommendation and provide updates as appropriate.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps assesses C2RAM to determine the extent to which this system, or elements of this system, should be adapted for use in an enterprise-wide performance management process linking resources to readiness. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: As of August 2020, the Navy has informed GAO that efforts to address this recommendation are underway. The Marine Corps' Programs and Resources Department is supporting the transition of the Cost to Run a MEF (C2RAM) from a stand-alone database to a web-enabled platform within the Marine Corps Training Information Management System (MCTIMS) program. The Marine Corps expects this platform to provide the ability to track ground unit-level training costs as they pertain to readiness goals and provide data to more effectively assess readiness investments for subsequent budget cycles. The Marine Corps expects the platform to attain initial operational capability for data input and data management by the end of fiscal year 2020, and to support analytics reporting and predictive resourcing functions by the end of fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor actions taken related to this recommendation and provide updates as appropriate.

Recommendation: The Chief of Naval Operations should clarify workforce planning policies to identify circumstances in which federal civilian employees and private sector contractors may serve in operational roles and what the benefits and limitations are of using federal civilians and private sector contractors as alternative workforces. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.

Recommendation: The Chief of Naval Operations should, after clarifying workforce planning policies, apply the revised policies to evaluate the use of alternative workforces (including federal civilian employees and private sector contractors) for future unmanned system operators. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Marine Corps should clarify workforce planning policies to identify circumstances in which federal civilian employees and private sector contractors may serve in operational roles and what the benefits and limitations are of using federal civilians and private sector contractors as alternative workforces. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Marine Corps should, after clarifying workforce planning policies, apply the revised policies to evaluate the use of alternative workforces (including federal civilian employees and private sector contractors) for future unmanned system operators. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.

Recommendation: The Commander, Naval Air Systems Command, in coordination with the Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for Combat Development and Integration, should update the Marine Corps personnel requirements associated with the RQ-21 Blackjack UAS based on the most current and enduring concept of operations and utilize the updated requirements in planning for UAS squadron personnel requirements. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.

Recommendation: The Commander, Naval Air Systems Command, should update the life cycle cost estimate for the RQ-21 Blackjack UAS to make adjustments as appropriate after updating the personnel requirements for the system. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.

Recommendation: The Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Systems (N9), in coordination with the Deputy Commandant for Aviation, should prioritize continued efforts to fully evaluate policies for operating and maintaining UAS of different sizes and capabilities, such as group 3 UAS--to include establishing completion time frames, determining whether reductions to personnel requirements could be accomplished, and identifying any associated cost savings and the benefits to the UAS squadrons' ability to complete missions--and update such policies as needed. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should clarify overarching goals for unmanned systems' personnel requirements, including related priority levels for resourcing purposes, and communicate them to requirements planners and budget decision makers. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.

Recommendation: The Chief of Naval Personnel and the Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs should assess civilian supply, demand, and wages in the commercial drone industry and use the results to inform retention approaches, including the use of special and incentive pays for UAS operators. (Recommendation 9)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. DOD has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.

Recommendation: The Deputy Commandant for Aviation and the Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs should examine the use of additional human capital flexibilities that could improve the career satisfaction and retention of experienced UAS operators and maximize their availability to squadrons. Such flexibilities could include authorizing available special and incentive pays; permitting UAS operators to extend their enlistments to serve longer within squadrons; ensuring the availability of career- and promotion-enhancing opportunities for professional military education; considering the use of a potential insignia device for operators; or extending UAS operator contract lengths. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. DOD has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.

Recommendation: To implement DOD guidance requiring the military departments to prepare readiness and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) budget impact assessments during drawdown planning, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the military departments to develop guidance that assigns responsibility for the preparation of impact assessments and includes direction on how such assessments should be conducted as part of drawdown planning.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In commenting on the draft report, DOD concurred with the recommendation. As of August 2018, we are in the process of following up with the department to determine the current status.

Recommendation: To implement DOD guidance requiring the military departments to prepare readiness and O&M budget impact assessments during drawdown planning, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Director, DSCA, to develop an internal control mechanism to determine whether the military departments have completed the required impact assessments before moving forward with drawdown planning and execution.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In commenting on the draft report, DOD concurred with the recommendation. As of August 2018, we are in the process of following up with the department to determine the current status.

Recommendation: To ensure that the department can implement readiness rebuilding efforts, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force to establish comprehensive readiness rebuilding goals to guide readiness rebuilding efforts and a strategy for implementing identified goals, to include resources needed to implement the strategy.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD partially concurred with the recommendation in our draft report. In our draft, we recommended that the Secretary of Defense provide direction to the U.S. Marine Corps, in addition to the Secretary of the Navy; DOD stated that separate guidance to the U.S. Marine Corps was unnecessary because the U.S. Marine Corps is part of the Department of the Navy. We agreed, and revised our recommendation as we finalized our report for publishing. Otherwise, in its comments on this recommendation, DOD noted that the department was currently working to define the "ready for what" for the military services which would provide the target for their readiness recovery goals. Since we reported in 2016, the military services established both readiness rebuilding goals and a strategy for implementing them. Through the department's Readiness Recovery Framework, the military services have identified key readiness issues that their respective forces face and actions to address these issues. These efforts are detailed every other quarter in reports to Congress. Since the establishment of the Readiness Recovery Framework, the military services have been revising their readiness rebuilding goals. GAO will continue to monitor their evolution, as well as the progress of DOD's Readiness Recovery Framework, before it closes this recommendation as implemented.

Recommendation: To improve the quality of the Navy's future decommissioning decisions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to direct the Chief of Naval Operations to document the Navy's early decommissioning in decision memorandums in accordance with the General Policy for the Inactivation, Retirement, and Disposition of U.S. Naval Vessels prior to approving any future recommendations for early decommissioning of Navy ships.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that the Navy should have followed the policy that requires the decision memorandum, but did not do so because of "compressed timelines." DOD added that it would ensure the completion of decision memorandums for any future early decommissioning recommendations. We have been unable to determine whether DOD has implemented this recommendation since our report was issued. Most recently, DOD has not responded to our October 2019 request for an update. Given the significance of this recommendation, we will continue to leave it open until we are satisfied that DOD has or has not implemented it.

Recommendation: To enhance the likelihood that those decisions will be implemented, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to direct the Chief of Naval Operations to update the Navy's General Policy for the Inactivation, Retirement, and Disposition of U.S. Naval Vessels to incorporate key elements of federal standards for internal control, such as communicating with and obtaining information from external stakeholders, comparing actual performance to planned or expected results, evaluating performance measures and indicators, such as risk, and comparing and assessing different sets of data to establish relationships and take appropriate action. In updating the policy, the Chief of Naval Operations should also consider requiring that its early decommissioning decision memorandums specifically address capacity as well as capability gaps.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that although it recognizes the importance of engaging with congressional stakeholders, it did not do so regarding its decommissioning decisions because those decisions were made in the context of budget development. DOD's comments added that until the Secretary of Defense and the President have approved the budget request, all such actions are predecisional and internal, and therefore are not discussed with Congress. DOD also disagreed with the part of our recommendation to require that its early decommissioning decision memorandums specifically address capacity as well as capability gaps, stating that by definition a decommissioning creates a capacity gap. Since our report was issued, we have been unable to determine the extent to which DOD has taken steps to implement this recommendation. Most recently, DOD has not responded to our October 2019 request for an update. Given the significance of this recommendation, we will continue to leave it open until we can determine whether DOD has or has not taken steps to implement it.

Recommendation: To ensure that the geographic combatant commands are properly sized to meet their assigned missions and to improve the transparency of the commands' authorized manpower, assigned personnel, and mission and headquarters-support costs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to revise Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1001.01A to require a comprehensive, periodic evaluation of whether the size and structure of the combatant commands meet assigned missions.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) did not concur with our recommendation, stating that the combatant commands had already been reduced during previous budget and efficiency reviews. The department also noted that any periodic review of the combatant commands' size and structure must include a review of assigned missions, and that a requirement for a mission review was not appropriate for inclusion in the commands' guiding instruction on personnel requirements. However, DOD has taken some actions to better manage the combatant command headquarters activities and personnel as GAO recommended in May 2013. First, DOD has taken actions to control management headquarters authorized positions and funding levels across the department, including those at the combatant commands, through the budget process. For example, in a May 2017 memorandum entitled: Lifting the Hiring Freeze for Civilian Employees, the Deputy Secretary of Defense stated that components must operate within the full-time equivalent authorization and funding limits established in the fiscal year 2017 President's budget, including the Future Years Defense Program. Notably, current baselines, divestiture requirements, and hiring limitations applicable to major headquarters activities remain in effect. Major headquarters activities billet adjustments or growth was not authorized unless approved through the program review and budget process. Additionally, in the conference report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the defense committees by January 1, 2020 that provides a description of the headquarters staff of each geographic combatant command, as well as each sub-unified command and service component command under the geographic combatant command. According to DOD officials, as of March 2020, the Department has not completed the report and they could not provide an estimated timeframe for its completion. As part of this effort, the Secretary of Defense was also directed to submit a report by January 1, 2021 recommending the number of military and civilian personnel required in the headquarters element to execute the missions and functions of each geographic combatant command. Further, in a January 6, 2020 memorandum entitled: Department of Defense Reform Focus in 2020, the Secretary of Defense announced plans to lead a series of reviews with the combatant commands in 2020, to focus on strategic priorities, harvest opportunities to reduce costs, and realign forces and manpower in order to support National Defense Strategy priorities and rebuild readiness. This effort includes establishing a common baseline understanding of all tasks, missions, and overall resources and costs within the commands. According to the memorandum, the goal is to review all the commands in time to inform the fiscal year 2022-2026 program budget review. GAO will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to better manage the combatant command headquarters activities and personnel. Although the department has taken some positive steps, GAO continues to believe that institutionalizing a comprehensive, periodic evaluation of the combatant commands would help to ensure efficient use of resources.

Recommendation: To craft an effective strategy, the Secretary of Defense should direct that the department's strategic plan for corrosion prevention and mitigation include developing clearly defined goals, outcome-oriented objectives, and performance measures that show progress toward achieving objectives (these measures should include such elements as the expected return on investment and realized net savings of prevention projects).

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with all recommendations for Executive Action in the report. DOD stated it "is committed to meeting the requirements of Congress and, to the extent compatible with its core mission, the positive recommendations of the GAO report." In DOD's Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan dated November 2004, DOD stated that the working integrated product team for Metrics, Impact and Sustainment established as one of its objectives initiating studies and surveys to determine the impact of corrosion, pinpoint critical areas for concentration of prevention and mitigation efforts and to develop metrics to measure the effect of corrosion and results of prevention and mitigation efforts. In its 2005 update to the DOD corrosion strategic plan, DOD included a revised list of metrics for cost, readiness and safety and the associated outcomes that would result from the implementation of these metrics. In addition, the strategic plan included details of corrosion projects funded in 2005 and 2006 and the expected results of completing the projects in terms of achieving cost savings, increasing readiness, and enhancing safety. As of March 2019, Corrosion Office officials stated that they plan to include goals, objectives, and performance measures in the update to the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan. The Corrosion Office's goal is to complete this plan update by the end of calendar year 2020 . We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.