19 Matching Results

Search Results

Advanced search parameters have been applied.

Defense Budget: Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 Contingency Operations Costs and Funding

Description: Correspondence issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the costs and funding of contingency operations in the Balkans and Southwest Asia during fiscal year (FY) 1999 and 2000."
Date: February 28, 2000
Creator: United States. General Accounting Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Defense Budget: Independent Review Is Needed to Ensure DOD's Use of Cost Estimating Tool for Contingency Operations Follows Best Practices

Description: A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Since the September 2001 terrorist attacks, Congress has provided about $800 billion as of July 2008 to the Department of Defense (DOD) for military operations in support of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). GWOT budget requests have grown in scope and the amount requested has increased every year. DOD uses various processes and the Contingency Operations Support Tool (COST) to estimate costs for these operations and to develop budget requests. GAO assessed (1) how DOD uses COST and other processes to develop GWOT budget requests and (2) what actions DOD has taken to ensure COST adheres to best practices for cost estimation. GAO interviewed DOD officials and others to determine how the services develop GWOT budget requests using COST and other processes. GAO also used its Cost Assessment Guide as criteria for best practices for cost estimation."
Date: September 15, 2008
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Defense Budget: Review of DOD's Report on Budgeting for Fuel Cost Fluctuations

Description: Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) establishes for the Department of Defense (DOD) the price DOD will use for pricing crude oil when constructing its budget for upcoming fiscal years. DOD in turn uses OMB's price in establishing the standard price to be used for a barrel of fuel for budgeting purposes by DOD fuel customers such as the military services. Because of the volatility of world petroleum prices, the standard price for a barrel of fuel included in the President's annual budget request for DOD may be lower or higher than the actual price established by the world market at any point in time after DOD's budget request is submitted to the Congress. During the fiscal year, DOD pays for fuel at the actual market rate, which typically varies from the budgeted rate. As a result, if the actual price of crude oil increases above the price DOD charges its customers, more dollars are needed to pay for fuel than originally budgeted. If the actual price is lower than what DOD charges its customers, DOD has more dollars than needed. Additionally, if DOD responds to increases in the world market crude oil prices by increasing the price it charges its customers above what they initially budgeted, the customers will have additional funding needs to pay their fuel bills. Concerned as to whether DOD's method for setting fuel prices has produced realistic budget estimates, last year the Congress required DOD to consider alternative methods. Specifically, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the fuel rate and cost projection used in the annual DOD budget presentation. The act required that DOD identify alternative approaches, ...
Date: April 26, 2007
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Defense Budget: Trends in Operation and Maintenance Costs and Support Services Contracting

Description: A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The Department of Defense (DOD) spent about 40 percent of the total defense budget to operate and maintain the nation's military forces in fiscal year 2005. Operation and maintenance (O&M) funding is considered one of the major components of funding for readiness. O&M appropriations fund the training, supply, and equipment maintenance of military units as well as the infrastructure of military bases. Over the past several years, DOD has increasingly used contractors, rather than uniformed or DOD civilian personnel, to provide O&M services in areas such as logistics, base operations support, information technology services, and administrative support. The House Appropriations Committee directed GAO to examine growing O&M costs and support services contracting. This GAO report (1) identifies the trends in O&M costs and services contracts and the reasons for the trends, (2) discusses whether increased services contracting has exacerbated the growth of O&M costs, and (3) provides perspectives on the benefits and concerns associated with increased contracting for support services. GAO analyzed DOD's O&M appropriations, budgets, and services contract costs over a 10-year period and developed case studies of outsourced O&M-related work at three installations. GAO is not making any recommendations. DOD made only technical comments on a draft of this report."
Date: May 18, 2007
Creator: United States. Government Accountability Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Defense Budget: Army National Guard Operation and Maintenance Budget

Description: Correspondence issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO identified the reasons for the Army National Guard's unfinanced Operation and Maintenance (O&M) requirements, focusing on the: (1) way the Guard prepares its O&M budget; (2) five Army models the Guard uses to generate most of its O&M requirements; and (3) improvements the Army and the Guard are making to correct problems in their use of the models."
Date: January 11, 2000
Creator: United States. General Accounting 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 Budget: Funding for Southeastern Europe Defense Ministerial Initiatives

Description: Correspondence issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the Department of Defense's (DOD) funding for activities sponsored by the Southeastern Europe Defense Ministerial during fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and the sources of this funding."
Date: March 16, 2000
Creator: United States. General Accounting Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Defense Budget: Visibility and Accountability of O&M Fund Movements

Description: A statement of record issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed the Department of Defense's (DOD) fiscal year (FY) 2001 budget as it relates to readiness needs, focusing on: (1) identifying the aggregated differences between the amounts Congress initially designated for the operation and maintenance (O&M) subactivities and those DOD reported as obligated for the same subactivities; (2) identifying those O&M subactivities where DOD obligated funds differently than congressionally initially designated in each year of the 5-year period GAO examined (1994 through 1998); and (3) assessing information available to Congress to track DOD's movement of funds among O&M subactivities."
Date: February 29, 2000
Creator: United States. General Accounting Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Defense Budget: Need to Strengthen Guidance and Oversight of Contingency Operation Costs

Description: A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "The incremental costs for overseas military contingency operations, which include the enforcement of no-fly zones, humanitarian assistance, and peace enforcement, totaled more than $29 billion since 1991. Most of these costs were incurred in the Balkans and Southwest Asia. The Department of Defense (DOD) defines incremental costs as those above and beyond baseline training, operations, and personnel costs. Although most contingency operations expenditures GAO reviewed were appropriate, as much as $101 million was spent on questionable items, including cappuccino machines, golf memberships, and decorator furniture. Limited guidance and oversight, combined with a lack of cost consciousness, contributed to the questionable expenditures."
Date: May 21, 2002
Creator: United States. General Accounting Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Defense Budget: Contingency Operations in the Balkans May Need Less Funding in Fiscal Year 2003

Description: A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "From the end of the Persian Gulf War in February 1991 through May 2002, the Department of Defense (DOD) reported over $43.9 billion in incremental costs for its overseas contingency operations. These operations include the enforcement of no-fly zones, humanitarian assistance, and peace enforcement operations, as well as combating terrorism beginning in fiscal year 2001. The majority of these costs were incurred in the Balkans and Southeast Asia. In fiscal year 2002, U.S. military forces are continuing to participate in a number of contingency operations, primarily in the Balkans, Southwest Asia, and a number of locations that involve combating terrorism. The military services received a combination of funding provided in the DOD appropriations act for fiscal year 2002 and money remaining in previously funded contingency fund accounts. The services also took steps to reduce costs in order to keep them in line with available funding. Both the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and DOD plan to reduce troop levels in the Balkans during fiscal year 2003, which may reduce funding needs during the year. In Europe, the Army anticipates an overall reduction of 1,160 troops during fiscal year 2003. Although a decline in troop strength does not necessarily correspond to an equal reduction in costs, given the large anticipated reduction in troop levels, there should be a decrease in estimated costs for fiscal year 2003. Since the fiscal year 2003 budget request was developed from an already reduced fiscal year 2002 appropriation level, any further reduction in fiscal year 2003 level would pose a funding challenge."
Date: September 27, 2002
Creator: United States. General Accounting Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Defense Budget: Improved Reviews Needed to Ensure Better Management of Obligated Funds

Description: A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "As of September 30, 2001, the Navy's operating appropriations had $2.1 billion in unliquidated--or unpaid--funds that were obligated during fiscal years 1997-99. Unliquidated obligations that are no longer needed to pay for goods and services tie up funds that could be used for other permissible purposes. In addition, inaccurate obligation data result in misstatement of budgetary information. Because of the large dollar value, we examined the Navy's management of unliquidated obligations. Specifically, we reviewed a statistically representative sample of the Navy's $1.4 billion in unliquidated operating obligations valued at $50,000 or more for fiscal years 1997-99 to determine whether these obligations were (1) properly accounted for and (2) reviewed in accordance with DOD regulations."
Date: January 30, 2003
Creator: United States. General Accounting Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Defense Budget: Analysis of Real Property Maintenance and Base Operations Fund Movements

Description: A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD) has moved funds that directly affect readiness to pay for real property maintenance and base operations, focusing on: (1) the net differences between the initial congressional designations of operation and maintenance (O&M) funding for real property maintenance and base operations and the amounts the services reported as obligated; (2) the net differences between the initial congressional designations of O&M funding for unit training and the amounts the services reported as obligated; and (3) determining from available DOD reports whether O&M funds were moved from unit training to pay for real property maintenance and base operations."
Date: February 29, 2000
Creator: United States. General Accounting Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Defense Budget: Need for Continued Visibility Over Use of Contingency Funds

Description: A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "Since the end of the Persian Gulf War in February 1991, the Department of Defense (DOD) has reported over $25 billion in incremental costs for its overseas contingency operations. These operations include the enforcement of no-fly zones, humanitarian assistance, and peace enforcement operations. The majority of these costs ($22 billion) have been incurred in the Balkans (Bosnia and Kosovo) and Southwest Asia. In fiscal year 2001, U.S. military forces are continuing to participate in a number of contingency operations, primarily in the Balkans and Southwest Asia. In this report, GAO reviews (1) the adequacy of DOD's incremental contingency operations funding for all ongoing contingency operations in fiscal year 2001, (2) DOD's estimated contingency operations costs for fiscal year 2002, and (3) the ramifications of DOD's plan to change the method for funding its operations in Southwest Asia. GAO found that (1) existing funds are sufficient to cover DOD's estimated costs for ongoing contingency operations for fiscal year 2001, (2) in June 2001, the administration submitted a revised fiscal year 2002 budget for DOD, which included $4 billion for ongoing operations in the Balkans and Southwest Asia, and (3) the positive ramification is that appropriating funds directly to the services' appropriations accounts could provide an added incentive to better control costs. The negative ramifications are the possible loss of visibility for Southwest Asia funds because of the substantial movement of funds within the services' operation and maintenance accounts as has occurred over a period of two years, and the possible discontinuance of cost reporting for operations in Southwest Asia."
Date: July 6, 2001
Creator: United States. General Accounting Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Defense Budget: DOD Should Further Improve Visibility and Accountability of O&M Fund Movements

Description: A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO evaluated the military services' and the Department of Defense's (DOD) fiscal year (FY) 1994-1998 operation and maintenance (O&M) budget requests, focusing on: (1) identifying the differences between the amounts Congress initially designated for O&M subactivities, and those DOD reported as obligated for the same subactivities; (2) identifying those O&M subactivities where DOD obligated funds differently than recommended by Congress in each year of the 5-year period GAO examined; and (3) assessing information available to Congress to track DOD's movement of funds among O&M subactivities."
Date: February 9, 2000
Creator: United States. General Accounting Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Defense Budget: Need to Better Inform Congress on Funding for Army Division Training

Description: A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "Congress has expressed concern about the extent to which the Department of Defense has moved funds that directly affect military readiness, such as those that finance training, to pay for other subactivities within its operation and maintenance (O&M) account, such as real property maintenance and base operations. This report reviews the (1) Army's obligation of O&M division training funds and (2) readiness of the Army's divisions. GAO found that the Army continued to use division training funds for purposes other than training during fiscal year 2000. However, the reduced funding did not interfere with the Army's planned training events or exercises. The Army's tank units also reported that, despite the reduced funding and their failure to meet their tank mileage performance goal, their readiness remained high. Specifically, many tank units reported that they could be fully trained for their wartime mission within a short time period. Units that reported that they would need more time to become fully trained generally cited personnel issues rather than the lack of training funds as the reason. Even so, starting in fiscal year 2001, the Army has taken action to restrict moving training funds by exempting unit training funds from any Army headquarters' adjustments and requiring prior approval before Army commands move any training funds."
Date: July 5, 2001
Creator: United States. General Accounting Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Defense Budget: Tracking of Emergency Response Funds for the War on Terrorism

Description: A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "As of January 2003, Congress had provided a total of $38 billion to the Department of Defense (DOD) to cover emergency response costs related to the war on terrorism. Appropriated in different ways in fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003, these funds are meant to pay for expenses that DOD would not normally incur, such as contingency military operations and Pentagon building repairs. Because our prior work raised questions about DOD's oversight of contingency fund spending, GAO was asked to review DOD's management of emergency response funds, specifically: (1) DOD's adherence to OMB guidance in managing funds and the sufficiency of DOD's guidance on the use of these funds, and (2) DOD's ability to track the use of emergency response funds in general. We limited our review of DOD's guidance to the initial funds placed in the Defense Emergency Response Fund. We did not verify the accuracy of the data contained in DOD's obligation reports or the appropriateness of individual expenditures."
Date: April 30, 2003
Creator: United States. General Accounting Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Defense Budget: Observations on the Air Force Flying Hour Program

Description: A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Air Force's budget formulation process for its flying hour program for fiscal years (FY) 1997 through 1999, focusing on: (1) the extent to which the Air Force has flown the hours requested in its budget; (2) the process that the Air Force uses to determine flying hour requirements; (3) how the requirements and specific cost factors are used to develop the budget estimate for the flying hour program; and (4) program funding and obligations incurred in FY 1997 and FY 1998 and the reasons for the differences."
Date: July 8, 1999
Creator: United States. General Accounting Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Defense Budget: Fiscal Year 2000 Contingency Operations Costs and Funding

Description: A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on Department of Defense's (DOD) contingency operations costs and funding for fiscal year (FY) 2000, focusing on: (1) how DOD components identify incremental costs in support of contingency operations; and (2) the need for, and average cost of, mission rehearsal exercises conducted by the Army in preparation for contingency deployments."
Date: June 6, 2000
Creator: United States. General Accounting Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Defense Budget: Real Property Maintenance and Base Operations Fund Movements

Description: Testimony issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed the Department of Defense's (DOD) real property maintenance and base operations fund movements, focusing on the: (1) movement of funds to and from real property maintenance and base operations during fiscal years 1994 through 1999; (2) movement of unit training funds during the same period of time; and (3) evidence indicating that unit training funds have been moved to pay for base operations and real property maintenance."
Date: March 1, 2000
Creator: United States. General Accounting Office.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department