59 Matching Results

This system will be unavailable from 7pm CST Friday, December 13th until 7am CST Monday, December 16th.

Search Results

Advanced search parameters have been applied.

Questions for the Record Related to Military Compensation

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "GAO testified before a Congressional subcommittee on April 28, 2010, to discuss current issues related to military compensation. This letter responds questions for the record from the hearing. (1) Is the ECI an appropriate index to use to adjust military basic pay rates annually? If not, is there a benchmark that is more appropriate? (2) Please explain what the impact on the Defense budget would be if Congress directed an increase in the pay raise by one percent, or half a percent without offsets. (3) Is there a better metric than the ECI to gauge what an annual pay raise should be? (4) Does the current pay table need adjustment? (5) What do you think the effect of reducing the requirement for entitlement to retired pay below 20 years would be on the ability to retain the personnel we need in leadership positions in the Armed Forces? (6) Last year, the Navy Exchange Service Command generated more than $45 million in dividends. These figures seem to indicate that commissary and exchange benefits are not especially costly to DOD and that service members place a high value on these benefits. How can these figures inform the Department in maintaining a competitive cash and non-cash compensation package for service members and providing it in such a way that is affordable to the Department?"
Date: June 3, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Military Base Realignments and Closures: DOD Is Taking Steps to Mitigate Challenges but Is Not Fully Reporting Some Additional Costs

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round is the fifth such round undertaken by DOD since 1988 and is the biggest, most complex, and costliest BRAC round ever. With this BRAC round, the Department of Defense (DOD) plans to execute hundreds of BRAC actions affecting over 800 defense locations, relocate over 123,000 personnel, and spend over $35 billion--an unprecedented amount, given that DOD has spent nearly $26 billion to implement the four previous BRAC rounds combined when all relevant BRAC actions have been completed. As with prior BRAC rounds, DOD is required to implement the BRAC Commission's 2005 recommendations within 6 years of their approval by the President and transmittal to Congress. Unlike with prior BRAC rounds, DOD is implementing the BRAC 2005 round during a time of conflict and significant increases to the defense budget to support ongoing contingency operations. Compounding this challenge, DOD is also implementing other extensive worldwide transformation initiatives such as the permanent relocation of about 70,000 military personnel to the United States from overseas; transformation of the Army's force structure from an organization based on divisions to more rapidly deployable, combat brigade-based units; an increase in the active-duty end strength of the Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 members; and the drawdown of combat forces from Iraq while simultaneously increasing the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. All of these initiatives are exerting an unusually high demand on DOD's domestic facility infrastructure to accommodate new forces and existing forces being deployed or redeployed. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) at the outset of BRAC 2005 indicated its intent to reshape DOD's installations and realign DOD forces to meet defense needs for the next 20 years. Moreover, both DOD and the BRAC ...
Date: July 21, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Defense Acquisitions: Observations on the Department of Defense Service Contract Inventories for Fiscal Year 2008

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The Department of Defense (DOD) is the federal government's largest purchaser of contractor-provided services and relies on contractors to support its varied missions. DOD's contractors provide a range of services, such as consulting and administrative support, information technology services, and weapon system and base operations support. However, DOD contract management has been on our high-risk list since 1992, and our recent work continues to identify weaknesses in DOD's management and oversight of services contracts. In particular, we have reported on the need for reliable data on how service acquisition dollars are spent to make informed contract management decisions and achieve positive acquisition outcomes. Congress has enacted legislation in recent years to increase the availability of information on services acquisitions to improve DOD's ability to manage these purchases. As part of those efforts, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 amended 10 U.S.C. 2330a to require DOD to submit an annual inventory of the activities performed pursuant to contracts for services for or on behalf of DOD during the preceding fiscal year. These inventories are to contain a number of different elements for the service contracts listed, including information on the functions and missions performed by the contractor, the funding source for the contract, and the number of contractor full-time equivalents (FTE) working under the contract. Once compiled, the inventories are to be reviewed by senior DOD officials and used to inform a variety of acquisition and workforce decisions."
Date: January 29, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS: Additional Guidance Needed to Improve Visibility into the Structure and Management of Major Weapon System Subcontracts

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "According to some Department of Defense (DOD) and industry experts, consolidation of the defense industry along with a shift in prime-contractor business models has resulted in prime contractors subcontracting more work on the production of weapon systems and concentrating instead on systems integration. Based on some estimates, 60 to 70 percent of work on defense contracts is now done by subcontractors, with certain industries aiming to outsource up to 80 percent of the work. At the same time, there is evidence that subcontractor performance may contribute to cost and schedule delays on weapon system programs. Congress has raised questions about the extent to which primes are awarding subcontracts competitively and about the government's insight into the process prime contractors use for determining what work to make in-house and what work should be bought from subcontractors (make-or-buy decisions). In the 2009 Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA), Congress directed DOD, as part of efforts to improve competition throughout the life cycle of major defense programs, to ensure that contractors' make-or-buy decisions are fair and objective. Specifically, the Secretary of Defense was directed to require prime contractors to give full and fair consideration to qualified sources other than the prime contractor for the development or construction of major subsystems and components of major weapon systems. These actions were to be taken by November 22, 2009. Congress also directed DOD to revise its acquisition regulation regarding organizational conflicts of interest (OCI). In response to both of these requirements, DOD has drafted revisions to its acquisition regulation that are pending final approval. The 2010 National Defense Authorization Act required us to study the structure and management of major subcontracts under contracts for the acquisition of selected major weapon systems. In response to ...
Date: October 28, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Depot Maintenance: Sustainment Strategy for Harrier Aircraft Could Be Enhanced with Additional Metrics

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "This report formally transmits the attached briefing in response to section 343(a) of The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-84). The Act requires the Comptroller General to provide a report on the sustainment strategy for the AV-8B Harrier aircraft and provide the results to the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after the enactment of the Act. On April 26, 2010, we provided the briefing to your offices to satisfy the mandate."
Date: April 26, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Warfighter Support: A Cost Comparison of Using State Department Employees versus Contractors for Security Services in Iraq

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The U.S. government's reliance on contractors, including the State Department's and Department of Defense's (DOD) use of private security contractors in Iraq, has been well documented. We and others have examined many of the challenges the government faces using contractors in Iraq, including issues related to the scope of private security contractors' activities, the challenges in providing sufficient oversight, the appropriate accountability processes, and difficulties in conducting background screenings of foreign national contractor employees. What has not been so well examined is the comparative cost of using civilian employees or military members versus the cost of using contractors, particularly private security contractors, during contingency operations such as Operation Iraqi Freedom. Generally, when costs have been discussed, the focus has been on the daily rate paid to contractor employees, rather than on the total costs of using State Department or DOD personnel. However, in October 2005, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a study that compared the cost of using military personnel, federal civilians, or contractors to provide logistic support for overseas operations. The study concluded that over a 20-year period, using Army military units would cost roughly 90 percent more than using the contractor. Also, in an August 2008 report on contractor support in Iraq, the Congressional Budget Office conducted a comparison of one contractor's costs to provide private security services in Iraq versus estimated military costs. The report concluded that for the 1-year period beginning June 11, 2004, the costs of the private contractor did not differ greatly from the costs of having a comparable military unit performing similar functions. Because of the broad level of interest by Congress in issues dealing with Iraq, the Comptroller General performed this review under his authority to conduct evaluations on ...
Date: March 4, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Defense Infrastructure: Observations on the Department of the Navy's Depot Capital Investment Program

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "This letter formally transmits briefing slides in response to your request. We were asked to determine to what extent the Department of the Navy complied with the requirement in Section 2476 of Title 10 of the United States Code to invest a total amount equal to not less than 6 percent of the average total combined workload funded at all the depots of the Department of the Navy for the preceding 3 fiscal years in the capital budgets of covered depots listed in the law. We presented this briefing to your staff on May 5, 2010, in which we concluded that the Department of the Navy complied with the minimum required depot capital investment. In addition, we have a related ongoing review of the condition of the public Naval shipyards, which are included under the Navy depots that receive capital investment funding."
Date: June 14, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Defense Management: Observations on the Department of Defense's Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request for Corrosion Prevention and Control

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "This report formally transmits the briefing in response to section 2228(e) of title 10 of the United States Code. The statute requires the Comptroller General to provide an analysis of the Department of Defense's budget submission for corrosion prevention and control, as well as an analysis of the corrosion report accompanying defense budget materials, and provide the results to the congressional defense committees within 60 days after submission of the Department of Defense budget."
Date: April 15, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Defense Management: DOD Needs to Assess Effectiveness and Determine Future Direction for Its High Performing Organizations Initiative

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The Department of Defense (DOD) has sought improved efficiencies and cost reductions in its delivery of services that could be provided by the private sector, using both competitions with private companies and processes to create high performing organizations (HPO). The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Circular A-76 establishes federal policy for the competition of commercial activities. According to the circular, the longstanding policy of the federal government has been to rely on the private sector for needed commercial services. To ensure that the American people receive maximum value for their tax dollars, it is the federal government's policy that commercial activities should be subject to the forces of competition. As the largest federal agency, DOD has conducted more A-76 competitions than any other federal agency. However, the A-76 process has drawn criticism from both the public and private sectors. These criticisms largely center on the costs and length of time required to conduct competitions and the manner in which long-term savings are calculated. In light of these concerns, a panel of public and private sector experts convened in 2001 to identify ways in which the federal government could improve the A-76 process and included an option that focused on improving efficiencies in-house through the creation of HPOs rather than seeking improved efficiencies through public-private competitions. Although the A-76 process has been DOD's preferred method for ensuring the most efficient operation of a function, it is currently subject to a number of recently enacted statutory limitations. Given these relatively new developments and the potential for HPOs to serve as an alternative to the A-76 process, you asked us to examine the extent to which the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (OSD) ...
Date: May 27, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Military Personnel: Observations on the Use and Effects of the National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act of 2008

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "In section 3 of the National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act of 2008 (Pub. L. No 110-438 (2008)), Congress mandated that we provide information on the use and the effects of the provisions of law amended (and as amended) by the act. Specifically, the act amended the existing bankruptcy code to exempt qualifying members of the National Guard and Reserve Components from the means test process when they file a petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief. We are fulfilling the act's requirement by transmitting the this briefing to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives."
Date: September 30, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

DOD Assessments of Supplier-Base Availability for Future Defense Needs

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The Department of Defense (DOD) relies on thousands of suppliers to ensure it has the weapons and supporting equipment needed to meet U.S. national security objectives. Congress has provided DOD with a variety of authorities to allow it to maintain information on its suppliers and to take actions to ensure that its suppliers can deliver needed items. In October 2008, we reported on our assessment of DOD's efforts to monitor the health of its supplier base and identify and address gaps and recommended that DOD develop a departmentwide framework and consistent approach, which DOD has begun to implement. In light of increased globalization in the defense industry and consolidation of the defense supplier base into a few prime contractors, Congress requested that we review DOD's efforts to assess supplier-base availability for future defense needs."
Date: January 27, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

DOD Components Are Not Sending Required Information on Contract Awards to the Office of Public Affairs

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "During the course of a recent engagement reviewing noncompetitive contracting, we found that departments and agencies in the Department of Defense (DOD) are not submitting complete information, as required, to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs (OASD[PA]), which then posts the information on its Web site as a public announcement. President Obama has emphasized transparency and openness in how the government spends taxpayer dollars. We are bringing this issue to the attention of the Defense Department's Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy due to its responsibility for acquisition and procurement policy matters in DOD. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires contracting officers to make information on a contract action over a certain dollar amount publicly available on the same day the contract is awarded. The Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) further specifies that for contract actions over $5.5 million, departments and agencies are to submit certain information to the OASD(PA) by the close of business the day before the date of the proposed award, including, "as a minimum" (1) contract data, for example, contract number, face value of the action and total cumulative face value of the contract, description of what is being bought, and contract type; (2) competition information, including number of solicitations mailed and number of bids received; (3) contractor data, such as name and place of performance; (4) funding data which include type of appropriation, fiscal year of the funds, and whether the contract is multiyear; and (5) miscellaneous data, such as the identification of the contracting office. According to officials at the OASD(PA), their practice is to post on their Web site the information they receive from the departments and agencies, making only minor editorial changes for style. They ...
Date: November 30, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Status of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Efforts to Implement GAO's 2007 Recommendations Regarding Its Section 214 Authority

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "When cities, counties, or other nonfederal public entities propose public works projects that could degrade or damage federally regulated waters and wetlands, such as road construction and sewer line construction or maintenance, they must obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) before proceeding. Under authorities delegated to the Corps from Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the agency is responsible for regulating activities that may impact wetlands, streams, and other waters throughout much of the United States and it decides whether to allow such activities to occur. To obtain the Corps' approval, the nonfederal public entity, like any other property owner, must submit a permit application that contains a description of the proposed project, including its purpose and location, and other information the Corps needs to evaluate how the project will affect wetlands and other federally regulated waters. Once the Corps receives all of the required information from the applicant, the permit review process begins. Some policymakers and others have expressed concerns that the Corps' permit process takes too long and has significantly delayed some public works projects. In 2000, the Congress included a provision in the Water Resources and Development Act (WRDA) to expedite permit processing for nonfederal public entities. Specifically, section 214 of the act authorizes the Secretary of the Army, after providing public notice, to accept and expend funds from nonfederal public entities--known as funding entities--to expedite the evaluation of permit applications that fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army. As GAO reported in May 2007, these funds primarily go toward supporting the salaries of Corps program managers who will dedicate their efforts to reviewing the permit applications from funding entities. The act also requires the Secretary ...
Date: February 19, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Military Personnel: Status of Implementation of GAO's 2006 Recommendations on DOD's Domestic Violence Program

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "National estimates indicate that approximately 1.5 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted or raped by intimate partners in the United States annually. Congress, in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, required the Department of Defense (DOD) to (1) establish a central database of information on domestic violence incidents involving members of the armed forces and (2) establish the Department of Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence. The law charged the task force with establishing a strategic plan that would allow DOD to more effectively address domestic violence matters within the military. In fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003, the task force issued three reports containing almost 200 recommendations to improve the safety of victims, accountability of offenders, coordination among support-service providers, and recording of data on cases of domestic violence. To coordinate implementation of these recommendations, in January 2003, DOD established a Family Violence Policy Office to ensure that DOD and the services took appropriate actions in this area. This office was located in the Military Community and Family Policy Office, which is in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. DOD's Family Advocacy Program office, responsible for providing treatment for domestic violence victims and rehabilitation for offenders, is also located in the Military Community and Family Policy Office. In 2003, members of Congress requested that we assess DOD's progress in implementing the recommendations made by the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence, and we subsequently issued a report in 2006 stating, among other things, that DOD had taken action on a majority of the task force recommendations but that DOD had not captured data from all law enforcement and clinical records involving domestic abuse cases and that ...
Date: April 26, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Defense Management: Observations on Department of Defense and Military Service Fiscal Year 2011 Requirements for Corrosion Prevention and Control

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "This report formally transmits the briefing in response to the Senate Appropriations Committee Report accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2010 (S. Rep. No. 111-74, pp. 155-156). The Committee Report requires the Government Accountability Office to provide information on the differences between Department of Defense and Military Service requirements for corrosion prevention and control projects for fiscal year 2011 and provide the results to the Senate Appropriations Committee within 60 days after submission of the Department of Defense budget."
Date: April 15, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Defense Budget: Fourth Quarter Obligation Rates and Contract Obligations for Fiscal Years 2006-09

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "This letter formally transmits the briefing in response to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-84), which requires GAO to review Department of Defense (DOD) policies related to year-end spending and the rate of obligations incurred by DOD in the fourth quarter of fiscal years 2006 through 2009, as compared with the obligations incurred in the first three quarters of those fiscal years for both 1-year and multi-year appropriations. GAO is required to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives by March 31, 2010."
Date: March 31, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Defense Infrastructure: Department of Defense's Energy Supplemental Report

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "This letter formally transmits our response to section 332 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2010. Section 332 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010 expanded the Department of Defense's (DOD) annual reporting requirements under 10 U.S.C. 2925(a), regarding DOD's energy efficiency programs. Additionally, section 332(b) states that the first report submitted by the Secretary of Defense under 10 U.S.C. 2925(a) after the date of enactment of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010 shall include information on eight specific issues, in addition to the matters required under the revised 10 U.S.C. 2925(a). Section 332(c) requires the Comptroller General to review that supplemental report."
Date: September 29, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

The Strategic Framework for U.S. Efforts in Afghanistan

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The United States and its international partners from over 40 nations have been engaged in efforts to secure, stabilize, and rebuild Afghanistan since 2001. In an effort to establish clear and specific U.S. strategic goals, the President of the United States, in March 2009, outlined the U.S. Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. This strategy emphasizes a strategic goal to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and prevent their return. The strategy was followed by the completion, in August 2009, of a Civilian-Military Campaign Plan for Afghanistan. In December 2009, the President reaffirmed the U.S. strategic goal and underscored the importance of U.S. efforts to secure and stabilize Afghanistan to help ensure the safety of the United States and the American people. To assist the Congress in its oversight of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, this publication (1) identifes and describe key U.S. and international strategies and plans that collectively guide U.S. efforts in Afghanistan; (2) provides examples and information about key efforts to assist Afghanistan; and (3) identifies oversight issues that Congress may wish to consider in its work."
Date: June 15, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Military Personnel: Military and Civilian Pay Comparisons Present Challenges and Are One of Many Tools in Assessing Compensation

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The Department of Defense's (DOD) military compensation package, which is a myriad of pays and benefits, is an important tool to attract and retain the number and quality of active duty servicemembers it needs to fulfill its mission. Compensation can be appropriate and adequate to attract and retain servicemembers when it is competitive with civilian compensation. However, comparisons between military and civilian compensation present both limitations and challenges. As we noted in 1986, exact compensation comparisons are not possible because no data exist which would allow an exact comparison of military and civilian personnel with the same levels of work experience. Also, nonmonetary considerations complicate military and civilian pay comparisons because their value cannot be quantified. Specifically, military service is unique in that the working conditions for active duty service carry the risk of death and injury during wartime and the potential for frequent, long deployments unlike most civilian jobs. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 required that we conduct a study comparing pay and benefits provided by law to members of the Armed Forces with that of comparably situated private-sector employees to assess how the differences in pay and benefits affect recruiting and retention of members of the Armed Forces. Specifically, our objectives were to (1) assess total military compensation for active duty officers and for enlisted personnel; (2) compare private-sector pay and benefits for civilians of similar age, education, and experience with similar job responsibilities and working conditions of officers and enlisted personnel of the Armed Forces; and (3) assess the 10th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC) recommendation to include regular military compensation and select benefits when comparing military and civilian compensation to ascertain if it is appropriate. The focus of this ...
Date: April 1, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Opportunities to Improve Controls over Department of Defense's Overseas Contingency Operations Cost Reporting

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "From September 2001 through January 2010, Congress provided about $1.023 trillion in supplemental and annual appropriations in response to Department of Defense (DOD) requests for funding to support overseas contingency operations (OCO). In March 2010, DOD reported obligations of about $825 billion attributed to OCO for the period September 2001 through January 2010. DOD uses available cost-related information, along with other financial information, to evaluate OCO trends, formulate OCO funding requests, and monitor the costs of overseas operations. In addition, Congress considers this information in its deliberations on DOD requests for additional OCO funding. Our prior reviews have found the financial information in DOD's monthly OCO reports to be of questionable reliability. For example, we identified problems in DOD's processes for recording and reporting obligations, such as not including all OCO costs and the lack of a systematic process for ensuring that data are correctly entered into those systems. Consequently, we concluded DOD's reported OCO costs should be considered approximations. Based on our prior work, we made a number of recommendations to improve the reliability of OCO reported costs, with which DOD generally concurred. Consistent with our recommendations, DOD has taken steps intended to improve OCO cost reliability, such as clarifying cost category definitions and requiring military services (Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps) and other DOD components to analyze variances in reported OCO costs. Further, in fiscal year 2009, DOD initiated the Contingency Operations Reporting and Analysis Service (CORAS), an automated system and database through which DOD intended to provide more transparent, accurate, and timely reporting on costs attributed to OCO. Prior to the CORAS initiative, DOD had relied on manual procedures for accumulating data and reporting on costs attributed to OCO from the military services. ...
Date: May 27, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Quadrennial Defense Review: 2010 Report Addressed Many but Not All Required Items

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The Department of Defense (DOD) is facing the complex challenge of simultaneously supporting continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and preparing its military forces to meet emerging threats of the new security environment. Congress appropriated $626 billion for DOD's fiscal year 2010 budget and to support current operations. As we have emphasized in previous reports, the federal government is facing serious long-term fiscal challenges, and DOD may confront increased competition over the next decade for federal discretionary funds. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the fourth since 1997 and the second since the start of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, articulates DOD's strategic plan to rebalance capabilities in order to prevail in current operations and develop capabilities to meet future threats. The QDR acknowledged that the country faces fiscal challenges and that DOD must make difficult trade-offs where warranted. Also, the QDR results are intended to guide the services in making resource allocation decisions when developing future budgets. This letter provides our assessment of the degree to which DOD addressed each of these items in its 2010 report on the QDR and the supplemental information provided to the defense committees."
Date: April 30, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Actions Needed to Track Budget Execution for Counterproliferation Programs and Better Align Resources with Combating WMD Strategy

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Combating weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their means of delivery is one of the greatest challenges the United States faces. Traditionally, the use of WMD--which include chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons--has been constrained by the logic of deterrence and of diplomacy, but these constraints may be of less utility in preventing the use of WMD by rogue states or terrorist groups. The Department of Defense (DOD) assigns top priority to dissuading, deterring, and defeating those who seek to harm the United States directly, especially extremist enemies with WMD. In 1994, Congress established an interagency committee, now known as the Counterproliferation Program Review Committee (CPRC), with a variety of duties related to coordinating the activities and programs of federal agencies that address improvements in the U.S. government's efforts to combat WMD. The Secretary of Defense, as chairman of the CPRC, is required to report its findings biennially. The Departments of Energy, State, and Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence are also members of the CPRC, and must provide it with access to information on all pertinent programs, projects, and activities. The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs, as chairman of the CPRC Standing Committee, compiles the report of the CPRC and submits it to Congress biennially. GAO has reported extensively in recent years on nonproliferation and consequence management - two of the three pillars of combating WMD. Our most recent report on the third pillar, counterproliferation, was issued in 2000. DOD defines counterproliferation as "those actions taken to defeat the threat and/or use of WMD against the United States, our military forces, friends, and allies." House Armed Services Committee Report 111-166 accompanying the National ...
Date: September 28, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Military Training: DOD Continues to Improve Its Report on the Sustainability of Training Ranges

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Recent operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations around the world have highlighted the need for U.S. forces to train as they intend to fight. Military training ranges provide the primary means to accomplish this goal. The Department of Defense's (DOD) training ranges vary in size from a few acres, for small arms training, to over a million acres for large maneuver exercises and weapons testing, and include broad open ocean areas for offshore training and testing. New advances in military technology to combat emerging threats in ongoing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations around the world generate the need to continually update and maintain DOD's training ranges. Senior DOD and military service officials have reported for some time that they face increasing difficulties in carrying out realistic training at military installations due to outside influences. DOD has defined a number of factors--including air pollution, noise pollution, endangered species, critical habitats and other protected resources, and urban growth around installations--that it says encroach upon its training ranges and capabilities. Because the military faces obstacles in acquiring new training lands, the preservation and sustainment of its current lands are a priority. Sustainable training range management focuses on practices that allow the military to manage its ranges in a way that ensures their usefulness well into the future. As required by section 366(a) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (as amended), DOD was to submit a comprehensive plan for using existing authorities available to the department to address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of worldwide military lands, marine areas, and airspace to Congress in fiscal year 2004 with annual progress reports beginning in fiscal year 2005 and extending through 2013. ...
Date: September 14, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Joint Strike Fighter: Assessment of DOD's Funding Projection for the F136 Alternate Engine

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program began in 1996 with an acquisition strategy that called for a competitive engine acquisition program. The program planned to first develop and procure the F135 primary engine and, with a few years lag time, develop the F136 second (or alternate) engine to compete with the F135 engine for future procurements and life-cycle support activities. The Department of Defense (DOD) requested funding for both engines annually as the JSF program progressed until the fiscal year 2007 budget submission, at which point the DOD stopped requesting funding for the F136 alternate engine. Defense officials believe that the operational risks of relying on a single engine supplier are low and do not justify the extra costs to maintain a second engine source. DOD further states that there is no guarantee that having an engine competition will create enough long-term savings to outweigh the up-front costs and now intends to acquire only the F135 primary engine. However, Congress has continued to fund the alternate engine development program annually through fiscal year 2010. According to the Secretary of Defense, DOD would need an additional $2.9 billion in funding over the next 6 years to support an alternate engine program up to the point where it believes it could begin competition in 2017. This amount includes the additional funding DOD says is needed with respect to the alternate engine to finish system development and demonstration, allow sufficient time for the contractor to gain production experience before DOD begins the competition, and create a logistics support system for the engine. DOD has stated that it has higher priority needs for this funding and has not included any funding in its fiscal year 2011 budget request for the alternate engine."
Date: September 15, 2010
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department