Defense Acquisitions
Better Information Could Improve Visibility over Adjustments to DOD's Research and Development Funds Gao ID: GAO-04-944 September 17, 2004Congress recognizes that the DOD needs some flexibility to adjust research and development program levels. A key mechanism--below threshold reprogramming (BTR)--enables DOD to adjust program funding levels without seeking prior congressional approval as long as a certain dollar amount or percentage threshold is not exceeded. In response to a mandate by the appropriations committees, this report addresses (1) the quality of the information available about DOD's use of BTRs and withheld funds in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 and (2) the amount and volume of BTRs and temporarily withheld funds for those years. The report also addresses recent congressional direction on providing information on funding adjustments. DOD disagreed that its recent reports to Congress provide BTR information of limited quality but noted that the issues GAO raised in this regard can be addressed and that DOD was open to suggestions and will gladly work with committee staff to satisfy their needs. DOD also offered suggestions to clarify language on certain issues and to put its use of BTRs more in context. DOD's willingness to work with Congress is a constructive response that can lead to reporting changes that can meet the needs of both Congress and DOD. GAO has made appropriate clarifications of language and overall BTR context.
DOD's recent reports to Congress provide BTR information of limited quality and do not contain data about funds withheld from DOD's research and development programs in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. DOD delivered its reports to Congress months after the time that Congress began considerations for the new budget, and accessibility was limited because the reports were classified. BTR data in the reports to Congress were derived through subtraction, rather than totaling the actual value of BTR transactions. The reports do not provide a complete picture of how BTRs are implemented on a program-by-program level. DOD has no overall system for maintaining detailed BTR and withhold data across organizations, although such data can be reconstructed from DOD's multiple data collection systems. GAO found that DOD organizations used BTRs frequently to increase or decrease research and development program funding levels. The Air Force, Army, Navy, and Missile Defense Agency (MDA) executed 1,927 BTRs, amounting to about $1 billion in fiscal year 2003. This amounted to about 2 percent of the research and development funds for these organizations. Among the programs affected by BTRs, about half lost funds and more than one-fourth gained funds. While the dollar amounts and frequency differed for fiscal year 2002, the patterns were similar. Although GAO did not observe any instances in which DOD's use of BTRs exceeded the thresholds, GAO's work was not conclusive on this point, as GAO did not design steps to assess compliance with thresholds. DOD withheld about $2.8 billion in funds in fiscal year 2003. Officials cited several reasons for implementing BTRs and withholds, including accommodating unanticipated changes or events, implementing congressional mandates, and, in the case of some withholds, controlling the execution of individual programs. Congress has required DOD to provide better and more timely information on reprogramming and withhold activities.
GAO-04-944, Defense Acquisitions: Better Information Could Improve Visibility over Adjustments to DOD's Research and Development Funds
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-944
entitled 'Defense Acquisitions: Better Information Could Improve
Visibility over Adjustments to DOD's Research and Development Funds'
which was released on September 17, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Subcommittees on Defense, Committees on Appropriations,
U.S. Senate and House of Representatives:
September 2004:
DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS:
Better Information Could Improve Visibility over Adjustments to DOD's
Research and Development Funds:
GAO-04-944:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-944, a report to the Subcommittees on Defense,
Committees on Appropriations, U.S. Senate and House of Representatives:
Why GAO Did This Study:
Congress recognizes that the DOD needs some flexibility to adjust
research and development program levels. A key mechanism”below
threshold reprogramming (BTR)”enables DOD to adjust program funding
levels without seeking prior congressional approval as long as a
certain dollar amount or percentage threshold is not exceeded.
In response to a mandate by the appropriations committees, this report
addresses (1) the quality of the information available about DOD‘s use
of BTRs and withheld funds in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 and (2) the
amount and volume of BTRs and temporarily withheld funds for those
years. The report also addresses recent congressional direction on
providing information on funding adjustments.
DOD disagreed that its recent reports to Congress provide BTR
information of limited quality but noted that the issues GAO raised in
this regard can be addressed and that DOD was open to suggestions and
will gladly work with committee staff to satisfy their needs. DOD also
offered suggestions to clarify language on certain issues and to put
its use of BTRs more in context. DOD‘s willingness to work with
Congress is a constructive response that can lead to reporting changes
that can meet the needs of both Congress and DOD. GAO has made
appropriate clarifications of language and overall BTR context.
What GAO Found:
DOD‘s recent reports to Congress provide BTR information of limited
quality and do not contain data about funds withheld from DOD‘s
research and development programs in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. DOD
delivered its reports to Congress months after the time that Congress
began considerations for the new budget, and accessibility was limited
because the reports were classified. BTR data in the reports to
Congress were derived through subtraction, rather than totaling the
actual value of BTR transactions. The reports do not provide a
complete picture of how BTRs are implemented on a program-by-program
level. DOD has no overall system for maintaining detailed BTR and
withhold data across organizations, although such data can be
reconstructed from DOD‘s multiple data collection systems.
GAO found that DOD organizations used BTRs frequently to increase or
decrease research and development program funding levels. The Air
Force, Army, Navy, and Missile Defense Agency (MDA) executed 1,927
BTRs, amounting to about $1 billion in fiscal year 2003. This amounted
to about 2 percent of the research and development funds for these
organizations. Among the programs affected by BTRs, about half lost
funds and more than one-fourth gained funds. While the dollar amounts
and frequency differed for fiscal year 2002, the patterns were similar.
Although GAO did not observe any instances in which DOD‘s use of BTRs
exceeded the thresholds, GAO‘s work was not conclusive on this point,
as GAO did not design steps to assess compliance with thresholds.
Number and Value of BTRs for Fiscal Year 2003 Research and Development
Programs:
[See PDF for image]
Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA, Office of the Secretary of
Defense (data); GAO (analysis).
[a] Office of the Secretary of Defense data for BTRs were not
available.
[End of table]
DOD withheld about $2.8 billion in funds in fiscal year 2003.
Officials cited several reasons for implementing BTRs and withholds,
including accommodating unanticipated changes or events, implementing
congressional mandates, and, in the case of some withholds,
controlling the execution of individual programs. Congress has
required DOD to provide better and more timely information on
reprogramming and withhold activities.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-944.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Paul L. Francis at (202)
512-4841 or francisp@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
DOD Collects and Provides BTR Information of Limited Quality for
Congress and Does Not Provide Congress with Withhold Data:
BTRs and Withholds Used Frequently to Adjust or Control Programs'
Funding Levels:
Recent Congressional Direction for Better Information:
Conclusions:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix III: Additional Data:
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Summary of Features of Data Collection Systems for Military
Departments and MDA:
Table 2: Number and Value of BTRs for Fiscal Year 2003 Research and
Development Programs:
Table 3: Effect of BTRs on Funding Levels for Two Air Force Programs in
Fiscal Year 2003:
Table 4: Top 5 Dollar-Value Programs: BTR Reductions in Fiscal Year
2003:
Table 5: Top 5 Dollar-Value Programs: BTR Additions in Fiscal Year
2003:
Table 6: Percentage of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year 2003:
Table 7: Number of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year 2003:
Table 8: Dollar Value of Withholds for Fiscal Year 2003 Programs:
Table 9: Appropriations for Research and Development Programs:
Table 10: Top 10 Air Force Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars for
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002:
Table 11: Top 10 Air Force Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars for
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002:
Table 12: Top 10 Army Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars for
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002:
Table 13: Top 10 Army Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars for
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002:
Table 14: Top 10 Navy Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars for
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002:
Table 15: Top 10 Navy Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars for
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002:
Table 16: Top 10 MDA Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars for Fiscal
Years 2003 and 2002:
Table 17: Top 10 MDA Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars for
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002:
Table 18: Joint Strike Fighter (Air Force) Had 11 BTR Reductions, 5 BTR
Additions for Fiscal Year 2003:
Table 19: Joint Strike Fighter (Air Force) Had 10 BTR Reductions, Zero
BTR Additions for Fiscal Year 2002:
Table 20: Joint Strike Fighter (Navy) Had 4 BTR Reductions, Zero BTR
Additions for Fiscal Year 2003:
Table 21: Joint Strike Fighter (Navy) Had 11 BTR Reductions, Zero BTR
Additions for Fiscal Year 2002:
Table 22: Percentage of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year 2002:
Table 23: Number of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year 2002:
Table 24: Top 10 Air Force Programs by Number of BTR Reductions in
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002:
Table 25: Top 10 Air Force Programs by Number of BTR Additions in
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002:
Table 26: Top 10 Army Programs by Number of BTR Reductions in
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002:
Table 27: Top 10 Army Programs by Number of BTR Additions in
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002:
Table 28: Top 10 Navy Programs by Number of BTR Reductions in
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002:
Table 29: Top 10 Navy Programs by Number of BTR Additions in
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002:
Table 30: Top 10 MDA Programs by Number of BTR Reductions in
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002:
Table 31: Top 8 MDA Programs by Number of BTR Additions in
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002:
Table 32: Programs with Highest Combined Number of BTRs in
Fiscal Year 2003:
Table 33: Dollar Value of Withholds for Fiscal Year 2002 Programs:
Figures:
Figure 1: Time Frame from the Start of Budget Development to the Start
of Budget Execution:
Figure 2: Percentage of Programs with BTRs That Resulted in a Net Loss,
Net Gain, or No Change in Funding in Fiscal Year 2003:
Figure 3: Percentage of Programs with Only BTR Reductions, Only BTR
Additions, and Both BTR Reductions and Additions in Fiscal Year 2003:
Figure 4: Percentage of Programs with BTRs That Resulted in a Net Loss,
Net Gain, or No Change in Funding in Fiscal Year 2002:
Figure 5: Percentage of Programs with Only BTR Reductions, Only BTR
Additions, and Both BTR Reductions and Additions in Fiscal Year 2002:
Abbreviations:
BTR: below-threshold reprogramming:
DOD: Department of Defense:
MDA: Missile Defense Agency:
Letter September 17, 2004:
The Honorable Ted Stevens:
Chairman:
The Honorable Daniel Inouye:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Jerry Lewis:
Chairman:
The Honorable John P. Murtha:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
For fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated $59 billion for defense
research and development overall. Most of this amount was appropriated
for research and development accounts for the military departments and
Defense-wide, including the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the Office
of the Secretary of Defense. While such funds are designated for
hundreds of individual programs, Congress recognizes that the
Department of Defense (DOD) needs to have some flexibility to adjust
these funds for unexpected needs or for other valid reasons.[Footnote
1] In fiscal year 2003, DOD adjusted several billion dollars worth of
appropriated research and development funds for the military
departments, MDA, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
DOD uses two key mechanisms to adjust the distribution of research and
development funds--reprogramming and withholding. In this report,
reprogramming refers to the shifting of funds by DOD within individual
research and development accounts for purposes other than those
contemplated when Congress appropriated the funds, such as to
different programs. Congressional defense committees have established
reprogramming guidelines, including setting dollar thresholds, that
direct DOD to seek the prior approval of the committees before
executing the movement of funds. In accordance with these guidelines,
DOD regulations require that when the amount to be reprogrammed falls
below the threshold, referred to as a below-threshold reprogramming
(BTR), DOD generally does not need congressional committee approval.
DOD regulations also provide that reprogrammings above the threshold do
require prior congressional committee approval.[Footnote 2] A
single reprogramming transaction adjusts at least two programs--the
donor and the recipient.[Footnote 3] Often, several programs can be
adjusted. In this report, we treat each adjustment as a BTR. Withheld
funds are those funds appropriated to programs that DOD temporarily
holds back for some period of time during the funds' period of
availability before releasing them to research and development
programs.[Footnote 4] Withheld funds are eventually either released to
the designated programs or reprogrammed for other uses.
The appropriations committees have expressed concern about how DOD is
reprogramming and withholding appropriated funds for research and
development and that DOD has not kept Congress adequately informed
about such actions. The Conference Report accompanying the fiscal year
2004 DOD Appropriations Act (P. L. 108-87) mandated that GAO review
DOD's movement and withholding of research and development
funds.[Footnote 5] In response to the mandate, this report addresses
(1) the quality of the information available about DOD's use of BTRs
and withheld funds in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 and (2) the amount and
volume of BTRs and withheld funds for those years. The report also
addresses recent congressional direction on reprogramming and
withholding defense research and development funds.
We focused our review on the military departments--the Air Force, Army,
and Navy (including the Marine Corps)--as well as MDA and the Office of
the Secretary of Defense. To determine the quality of the information
available about DOD's use of BTRs and withholds, we reviewed the DOD
Financial Management Regulation and congressional reports; DOD internal
reports and reports to Congress; financial reports; data collection
systems; and financial records for all of the research and development
programs from the Army, Air Force, Navy, MDA, and Office of the
Secretary of Defense. In accordance with federal internal control
standards, we have defined quality of information as measured by such
factors as timeliness, accessibility, accuracy, and appropriateness of
content.[Footnote 6] To determine the amount and volume of BTRs and
withheld funds, we obtained available data from the Air Force, Army,
Navy, and MDA's data collection systems on actual BTRs and withholds
and developed a database containing data on each research and
development program. We conducted multiple analyses about BTRs. We
interviewed DOD policymakers and decision makers to gain an
understanding of how various reports are prepared and to obtain
information about BTRs and withholds. To gain insight into program-
level activities, we interviewed program managers and collected data
from at least three selected research and development programs in each
of the three military departments. We selected the programs on the
basis of three criteria: a laboratory, a program with significant net
reduction or addition of funds through BTRs, and a program with a
relatively high number of both reductions and additions of funds
through BTRs. We performed our review from November 2003 to July 2004
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
More details about our methodology are in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, DOD provided to Congress information
about BTRs that had several limitations, which reduced the quality of
the information. For both years, DOD provided reports on these
adjustments several months after Congress began the budgeting process
for the next budget year. The reports were classified, which limited
their distribution and accessibility. In addition, we found a number of
discrepancies between the BTR data in the reports for both years and
the information on actual BTRs in DOD organizations' data collection
systems. For example, the Army, Navy, MDA, and the Office of the
Secretary of Defense's BTR information was not based on actual BTR
transactions; instead, the BTR information was derived by subtraction,
versus totaling the actual value of individual BTRs. In addition, the
Air Force, Army, and Navy's data on actual BTRs did not reconcile with
their BTR information in the annual reports to Congress. Information
about funds withheld from programs for some portion of their
availability period was not reported to Congress. While better and more
detailed information on BTRs and withholds is available within DOD, it
is not readily accessible. DOD has no overall system or database for
maintaining detailed information on BTRs and withhold data. Instead,
the three military departments, MDA, and the Office of the Secretary of
Defense use multiple, independent data collection systems that are not
integrated with one another. These systems range widely in their level
of automation, detail, and accessibility. The data needed to determine
the amount and volume of BTRs for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 were not
readily available from some of the systems and some manual data
collection was necessary.
We found that in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, DOD organizations used
BTRs and withholds frequently to adjust funding for research and
development programs. In fiscal year 2003, the military departments and
MDA used BTRs to reprogram about $1 billion of the $47 billion
appropriated to them by Congress for research and development programs.
This amounted to about 2 percent of their research and development
funds. Of the programs affected, about half lost funds and more than
one-fourth gained funds. On occasion, BTRs substantially altered, or
redirected, a program's designated funding level. For example, the Air
Force used BTRs to nearly double the funding for its KC-10S aircraft
program and to reduce its C-130J aircraft program by
81 percent.[Footnote 7] Of the programs affected, 76 percent had at
least 1 BTR, and 14 percent had 6 or more. Among the most active
examples, the Air Force and Navy executed a total of 20 BTRs on the
Joint Strike Fighter aircraft program. Although we did not observe any
instances in which DOD's use of BTRs exceeded the thresholds, our work
was not conclusive on this point as we did not design steps to assess
compliance with thresholds. In addition to BTRs, DOD withheld about
$2.8 billion in fiscal year 2003. Officials cited several reasons for
implementing BTRs and withholds, including accommodating unanticipated
changes or events, implementing congressional mandates, and, in the
case of some withholds, controlling the execution of individual
programs.
Congress has continued to express concerns over how DOD is adjusting
appropriated funds for research and development programs and over the
adequacy of information from DOD about such actions. In the Conference
Report accompanying the fiscal year 2005 DOD Appropriations Act
(P. L. 108-287), Congress revised the reprogramming guidelines,
including new direction on reprogramming and withholding appropriated
funds for research and development programs.[Footnote 8] Specifically,
Congress directed DOD to report on the adequacy and use of DOD's
current reprogramming and withholding practices, to work with
congressional defense committees on ways to provide timely and accurate
data on reprogrammings and withholds; to increase the reporting of
reprogramming information on a monthly basis, if not more frequently;
and to transmit the data electronically, if feasible, to congressional
defense committees. The direction to DOD to work with the committees
provides an excellent opportunity for DOD to make changes that can
serve mutual needs for information on reprogramming and withholds.
DOD disagreed that its recent reports to Congress provide BTR
information of limited quality but noted that the issues we raised in
this regard can be addressed and that DOD was open to suggestions and
will gladly work with committee staff to satisfy their needs. DOD also
offered suggestions to clarify language on certain issues and to put
its use of BTRs more in context. DOD's willingness to work with
Congress is a constructive response that can lead to reporting changes
that can meet the needs of both Congress and DOD. We have made
appropriate clarifications of language and overall BTR context.
Background:
The funds that DOD managers need for their research and development
programs first must be considered by DOD for inclusion in the
President's Budget. If the President includes the funds in the budget
he transmits to Congress, then Congress considers the request. If
Congress approves the request, it appropriates funds for the programs
in the annual DOD appropriations act that is signed into law by the
President. Three years can lapse from the time a program manager begins
formulating a research and development program budget request to the
time that funds are included in an appropriations act that is signed
into law and designated for the program in the accompanying conference
report. Figure 1 shows a typical scenario for the research and
development program budgeting process.
Figure 1: Time Frame from the Start of Budget Development to the Start
of Budget Execution:
[See PDF for image]
Note: In some years, Congress does not complete budget action by
October 1 for the start of the new fiscal year. In such cases, one or
more continuing resolutions are typically enacted, enabling the
military departments and defense agencies to continue with program
activities.
[End of figure]
The resulting appropriations act typically specifies a lump sum for
several different accounts, including the research, development, test
and evaluation appropriation account of each of the military
departments as well as separately for DOD-wide research and development
activities.
The account for research, development, test, and evaluation (referred
to in this report as research and development) is further broken down
into budget activities, such as basic research and advanced technology
development. Each budget activity is then subdivided into program
elements, which we refer to as programs in this report. The conference
report that accompanies the appropriations act lists the amounts
Congress designated for each activity and program. An individual
program can be further subdivided by DOD into projects or other
activities. Following the annual enactment of the appropriations act,
the Office of Management and Budget apportions the funds and DOD allots
the funds and--except for those being withheld--makes the money
available or releases it to managers for executing programs. Managers
generally have 2 years to obligate research and development funds
before the funds expire.
By the time the budget approval process is complete and the funds are
made available, several things can be said about the appropriated
amounts for the individual program: (1) they represent decisions by
Congress to approve programs as requested, create new programs, and
adjust the requested amounts for others; (2) because of the elapsed
time from the point the program manager began formulating the budget
request until enactment of the appropriations act, situations may have
changed that cause a misalignment between the approved funds and the
actual status of the program; (3) the inherent unknowns in research and
development will result in some programs not being executed as
contemplated by the budget; and (4) unanticipated events will develop
during the execution year that were not anticipated in the budget.
It is for these and other reasons that Congress recognizes that DOD
needs some flexibility to adjust research and development funds after
they are appropriated. A primary vehicle for exercising this
flexibility is reprogramming. DOD can also withhold funds from programs
prior to reprogramming or releasing the funds. The Air Force and MDA
restrict the authority to reprogram or withhold funds to their
headquarters staffs, while the Army and Navy grant their subordinate
commands and program executive offices this authority.
This report defines withheld funds--or a withhold--as appropriated DOD
research and development funds that are not released by DOD to a
designated program for part of the 2-year period of availability of
those funds. Prior to being released for execution, funds may be
withheld by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the headquarters
for the military departments and MDA. DOD withholds funds for a variety
reasons and does not seek prior congressional approval for these
transactions. While funds are withheld, the funds are still designated
for the program but not yet released to that program.
In contrast, reprogramming of appropriated funds is a mechanism for
which DOD has established a formal process for internal review and
approval and, when necessary, congressional notification and
approval.[Footnote 9] For fiscal year 2003, to implement congressional
guidelines, DOD's reprogramming policy required prior written approval
from congressional defense committees for any research and development
reprogramming increase of at least $10 million to an existing program
and for any decrease of at least $10 million or 20 percent of the
program's appropriation, whichever was greater. In fiscal year 2002,
the threshold for increases was $4 million, and, for decreases,
$4 million or 20 percent of the appropriated amount, whichever was
greater. These thresholds are applied at the program level of the
budget. According to DOD's Financial Management Regulation and
congressional guidelines, DOD generally does not have to seek prior
congressional approval for reprogrammings that do not exceed the
threshold; hence, these are BTRs. The threshold applies to both
individual BTRs and the cumulative amount of BTRs in each program
element. Thus, multiple BTRs for the same program must not exceed the
threshold in total. If congressional committees have denied a
reprogramming request above the threshold, DOD policy prohibits the use
of a series of BTRs to achieve the denied request.
DOD submits a number of reports to Congress each year to convey
appropriations-related information for each research and development
program. One of these reports, the DD 1416, is intended to capture all
changes made to the amount designated by Congress for a program,
including BTRs. The DD 1416 is Congress's primary vehicle for
information about BTR changes by DOD to the amount designated for a
program. The annual DD 1416 report for Congress covers the entire
fiscal year ending September 30. A DOD regulation requires that the
annual report for Congress be sent by DOD components to the DOD
Comptroller within 30 working days after September 30 for review prior
to submission to Congress. However, the DOD regulation does not specify
a date by which the report must be sent to Congress.
DOD Collects and Provides BTR Information of Limited Quality for
Congress and Does Not Provide Congress with Withhold Data:
DOD's primary vehicle for reporting BTRs to Congress, the DD 1416
report, has several limitations that reduce the report's quality as a
source of information. DOD provided the DD 1416s for fiscal years 2002
and 2003 to Congress several months after Congress began considering
the new budget. Because the reports contained classified information,
their distribution was limited. We found a number of discrepancies
between the BTR data in the DD 1416s and the information on actual BTRs
in DOD organizations' data collection systems. Further, the reports did
not include detailed information about BTR activity on a program-by-
program level, such as whether programs gained or lost funding, and
provided no withhold data.
Data on actual BTRs in DOD are not centralized but rather are contained
in the individual data collection systems maintained by the military
departments, MDA, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. These
systems range widely in their level of automation, detail, and
accessibility. The data needed to determine the amount and volume of
BTRs for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 were not readily available from
some of the systems and some manual data collection was necessary.
Information on actual BTRs did not always reconcile with the data
contained in the DD 1416 report to Congress.
DOD's Reports to Congress Have Shortfalls:
For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, DOD delivered the DD 1416s to Congress
several months after Congress began deliberations on the new budget
year. Each report was dated in April the year following the end of the
fiscal year, and was not delivered to Congress until May, according to
a DOD official. Thus, the report covering the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2002, was sent to Congress in May 2003, and the report
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, was sent to Congress in
May 2004. It appears that until the reports were received,
congressional committees were less informed about the funds that were
moved from one research and development program to another when
considering program budgets for the following year. In addition, the
reports were classified because of the sensitive nature of some of the
DOD programs. Classification restricts the ease with which reports can
be accessed by and circulated among congressional staff.
The data contained in the DD 1416s to Congress for both years had
several limitations. The reports listed a net amount intended to
represent all BTRs for each program--after all BTR increases and
decreases were calculated--that occurred in the fiscal year. We found
that, except for the Air Force, the net amounts were not based on
actual BTR transactions. Rather, the net amounts in the DD 1416s were
derived by subtracting all adjustments from the balance of programs'
funds, whether the adjustments were BTRs or not. In addition, when we
compared BTR information in the DD 1416s with the BTR data provided to
us by the DOD organizations, we found that, except for MDA, the
information did not match. The military departments were not able to
reconcile the data. In addition, the reports did not contain detailed,
continuous data on BTRs. For example, the DD 1416s did not contain the
total number of BTRs for each program, whether funds were added or
reduced, reasons for BTRs, or the donor or recipient programs. Thus,
the reports could not be used to understand what changes occurred in an
individual program during the year of execution.
Information about funds withheld from programs for some portion of
their availability period was not reported to Congress.
Data Collection Systems and Quality of Source Data Vary Widely:
DOD does not have a single, centralized, integrated data collection
system to record, manage, and report on funds that have been
reprogrammed through BTRs or withheld. Rather, such information is
maintained by the individual organizations with responsibility for
managing the funds appropriated for each program. To satisfy the
requirements of the mandate, we developed a single database that
contains information on research and development funds reprogrammed and
withheld in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 from the three military
departments and MDA.
These organizations employ different systems to track and monitor BTRs.
Most but not all systems are centralized, and some organizations have
separate systems for recording funds withheld from programs. The
quality of BTR and withhold data varied across the three military
departments and MDA. We found several features of data collection
systems that appeared to be important to generating quality
information. These included whether: a centralized record and approval
system was in place to track changes within programs; reasons for
changes were recorded; data on both donors and recipients were
included; details on transactions were easily retrievable; and data
reconciled with amounts reported in the DD 1416 report. Table 1
summarizes these features for the individual data collection systems.
Table 1: Summary of Features of Data Collection Systems for Military
Departments and MDA:
Features: Centralized system for tracking individual BTRs;
Army: Yes;
Navy: No;
Air Force: Yes;
MDA: Yes.
Features: Reasons for BTRs are recorded;
Army: No;
Navy: No;
Air Force: Yes;
MDA: Yes.
Features: Donors and recipients are recorded;
Army: No;
Navy: Yes;
Air Force: Yes;
MDA: Yes.
Features: Detailed data are easily retrievable;
Army: No;
Navy: No;
Air Force: Yes;
MDA: Yes.
Features: Data reconcile with DD 1416;
Army: No;
Navy: No;
Air Force: No;
MDA: Yes.
Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); GAO (analysis).
Note: We did not review the Office of the Secretary of Defense's data
collection system because it was still being implemented.
[End of table]
Details on each of the systems follow.
Army:
The Army uses DOD's computerized Program Budget Accounting System to
record and track BTRs. The accounting system is accessible at Army
headquarters and at all of the subordinate organizations. Although the
system provides the net dollar amount of the BTRs for each program and
project, the system has several limitations. For example, the system
does not show the details of each BTR transaction, such as the donors
and recipients of each transaction or the purpose. To identify the
donors and recipients, the Army must resort to paper records produced
by the system for each transaction. Furthermore, the system does not
have the capability to electronically retrieve information about prior
individual BTRs because the system only shows the cumulative net BTR
balances. Prior individual balances are overwritten after 10 days. Once
10 days have passed, if budget officials do not print a record, the
opportunity to save that data is lost. If paper records were printed,
budget officials can manually assemble and analyze the records about
individual BTR transactions. We found that nearly 41 percent of the
Army's BTR data contained in the DD 1416 for Army programs in fiscal
year 2002 did not match the BTR data contained in the paper records
produced by the Army's data collection system, and nearly 46 percent of
DD 1416 BTR data did not match for fiscal year 2003.[Footnote 10]
With regard to withholds, the data collection system provides some
data on funds withheld from Army programs by the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, Army headquarters, and subordinate organizations,
but the system only shows the cumulative amount of the withheld funds,
not the information for each BTR and withhold. Army Budget Office
officials said a report is produced with this information each month.
Also, a user of the system can, at any time, print a report that shows
cumulative withhold amounts up to the date of printing. However, as
with the individual BTR data, the individual withhold data gets
overwritten after 10 days and cannot be retrieved afterward. Thus, the
Army has to rely on paper-based reports to form an audit trail.
Navy:
The Navy utilizes multiple systems to manage appropriated funds.
Separate systems are used at the headquarters level to record and track
BTRs and withholds. Another is used to allocate statutory obligations.
Multiple subordinate organizations have developed similar systems to
record the BTRs and withholds that they authorize. The Navy required
about 10 weeks to gather information about BTRs and withholds from
subordinate organizations and to consolidate that information with data
maintained by headquarters.
The Navy data collection systems identified all funding level changes,
as well as the programs from which funds were taken and added. The
systems did not identify the reasons for these changes. The Navy had
detailed records identifying the specific programs that were subject to
BTRs and withholds, including the donor or recipient for each BTR
transaction, but the reasons for reprogramming transactions were not
available. While most of the totals provided to us matched those
included in the DD 1416, there were discrepancies for some Navy
programs.
Air Force:
The Air Force uses a single, computer-based, data collection system to
manage adjustments to the funding level for each program. This system
was designed and is maintained by a contractor. The system is used to
record, track, and manage all changes to Air Force research and
development funding levels for headquarters and subordinate
organizations, including system program offices and laboratories. The
system maintains multiple years of information on research and
development funds withheld and reprogrammed. For most reprogrammings,
the system records the purpose of the changes and identifies the
programs from which funds were decreased and increased. The system is
updated about once a month and available principally to those in the
headquarters management unit. The system maintains data for
multiple years, and the data are easily retrievable. The Air Force had
detailed electronic records identifying the specific programs that were
subject to BTRs and withholds, including the donor or recipient for
each BTR transaction and the reasons for most of them. The information
on BTRs and withholds was not available below the program level, such
as for a project within a program. Some of the BTR data did not match
the data contained in the DD 1416s for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Air
Force officials attributed the discrepancies to adjustments that had
been made to BTRs in its management information system and said the
problem has been corrected for fiscal year 2004.
MDA:
MDA utilizes a single, computerized data collection system to record
and manage changes to program funding levels. The system records BTRs
and withholds for all of its programs, including the donors and
recipients for BTRs and the reasons for them. The system operates on a
real-time basis and is available to all participants from the
headquarters unit to the individual program offices. The system
maintains multiple years of data, and the data are electronically
retrievable. MDA's BTR data reconciled with the DD 1416s for fiscal
year 2003.
Office of the Secretary of Defense:
The Office of the Secretary of Defense has data collection systems for
tracking BTRs and withholds for the research and development programs
it manages, but these systems were not available to record BTRs for
fiscal years 2002 and 2003 appropriations. Consequently, the office did
not provide records of individual BTRs. Officials managing these
programs stated that a data collection system to record and manage
appropriated funds would be helpful, and they are working to improve
the system they installed for fiscal year 2004.
BTRs and Withholds Used Frequently to Adjust or Control Programs'
Funding Levels:
We found that the Air Force, Army, Navy, and MDA executed 1,927 BTRs in
fiscal year 2003, totaling about $1 billion. This amounted to about 2
percent of their research and development funds. These transactions
either reduced or added to most research and development programs'
funding. Although we did not observe any instances in which DOD's use
of BTRs exceeded the thresholds, our work was not conclusive on this
point as we did not design steps to assess compliance with thresholds.
Of the programs affected by BTRs, 48 percent experienced a net loss in
funding after accounting for additions and reductions. The effect of
BTRs on some programs was so significant that the programs were
essentially redirected. With regard to withheld funds, the Army, Navy,
and Air Force, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense withheld a
total of about $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2003. The Office of the
Secretary of Defense withheld 56 percent of the funds, while the
military departments withheld the rest. MDA did not report withhold
data except for those funds withheld from MDA by the Office of the
Secretary of Defense. Because DOD organizations have learned to expect
a volume of changes each year--although the specifics are
unpredictable--they have developed strategies to anticipate possible
DOD decisions to reprogram or withhold portions of their funding.
Officials noted that one strategy involves increasing programs' budget
requests to cover anticipated BTRs and withholds so programs can
continue to perform at planned levels. Officials from the military
departments, MDA, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense cited
several reasons for implementing BTRs and withholds, including
accommodating unanticipated changes or events, implementing
congressional mandates, and, in the case of some withholds, controlling
the execution of individual programs.
Wide Use of BTRs and Withholds:
In fiscal year 2003, DOD reprogrammed about $1.7 billion in research
and development funds. About $1 billion of this money--59 percent--was
reprogrammed by the Air Force, Army, Navy, and MDA using BTRs.[Footnote
11] This amounted to about 2 percent of the research and development
funds for these organizations. The number and amount of BTRs executed
in fiscal year 2003 varied by organization, as shown in table 2.
Additional details for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 are contained in the
appendixes.
Table 2: Number and Value of BTRs for Fiscal Year 2003 Research and
Development Programs:
Organization: Air Force;
Number of programs: 174;
Number of BTRs: 286;
Total value of BTRs: $211,236,000.
Organization: Army;
Number of programs: 165;
Number of BTRs: 312;
Total value of BTRs: $105,652,000.
Organization: Navy;
Number of programs: 194;
Number of BTRs: 932;
Total value of BTRs: $330,316,000.
Organization: MDA;
Number of programs: 12;
Number of BTRs: 397;
Total value of BTRs: $335,870,000.
Organization: Office of the Secretary of Defense;
Number of programs: 64;
Number of BTRs: N/A[A];
Total value of BTRs: N/A[A].
Total;
Number of programs: 609;
Number of BTRs: 1,927;
Total value of BTRs: $983,074,000.
Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA, Office of the Secretary of Defense
(data); GAO (analysis).
[A] Data were not available because the Office of the Secretary of
Defense said its system for collecting BTR information for fiscal year
2003 was not yet implemented.
[End of table]
MDA, which has a total of 12 programs (or 2 percent of the total),
accounted for 34 percent of the total dollar value of BTRs and
21 percent of the total number of BTRs. MDA programs generally have
larger research and development budgets than other DOD organizations'
programs. MDA programs in fiscal year 2003 ranged in size from about
$7.5 million to about $3.2 billion, while the smallest program among
the three military departments amounted to $313,000 and the largest was
about $1.7 billion. Additional details are shown in appendix III, table
9.
Of the programs that experienced BTRs in fiscal year 2003, 48 percent
had BTRs that resulted in a net loss of funds, while 28 percent had
BTRs that resulted in a net gain, as figure 2 shows. The percentage of
programs gaining and losing funds through BTRs varied across
organizations. These percentages--and the specific programs involved--
also varied from year to year. (App. III, fig. 5, shows percentages for
fiscal year 2002.):
Figure 2: Percentage of Programs with BTRs That Resulted in a Net Loss,
Net Gain, or No Change in Funding in Fiscal Year 2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Office of the Secretary of Defense data were not available.
[End of figure]
Some programs lost or gained such a substantial portion of their
designated funding that they were essentially redirected. For example,
in fiscal year 2003, the Air Force's KC-10S aircraft program was
increased by 92 percent through four BTRs. In contrast, the Air Force's
C-130J aircraft program was reduced by 81 percent through four BTRs.
More details on these programs are shown in table 3.
Table 3: Effect of BTRs on Funding Levels for Two Air Force Programs in Fiscal Year 2003:
Program: KC-10S;
Original designated funding level: $10,506,000;
BTR amount: $9,999,000;
Number of BTRs: 4;
Other reductions[A]: -$356,000;
Revised funding level: $20,149,000;
Percentage change: 92%.
Program: C-130J Program;
Original designated funding level: 10,000,000;
BTR amount: -$7,611,000;
Number of BTRs: 4;
Other reductions[A]: -$499,000;
Revised funding level: $1,890,000;
Percentage change: -81%.
Sources: Air Force (data); GAO (analysis).
[A] Other reductions include rescissions (or congressionally directed
actions) and above-threshold reprogrammings.
[End of table]
The five programs in each of the three military departments and MDA
with the largest funding reductions and additions through BTRs during
fiscal year 2003 are shown in tables 4 and 5.[Footnote 12] Additional
details are shown in appendix III, tables 10-17. Again, patterns vary
from year to year, as a comparison of these appendix tables shows.
Table 4: Top 5 Dollar-Value Programs: BTR Reductions in Fiscal Year
2003:
Organization: Air Force: Joint Strike Fighter Engineering and
Manufacturing Development;
Reductions: -$24,177,000.
Organization: Air Force: C-130 Airlift Squadrons;
Reductions: -$21,037,000.
Organization: Air Force: Intercontinental Ballistic Missile-Engineering
and Manufacturing Development;
Reductions: -$17,957,000.
Organization: Air Force: B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber;
Reductions: -$17,770,000.
Organization: Air Force: Large Aircraft InfraRed Counter Measures;
Reductions: -$ 10,833,000.
Organization: Army: Logistics and Engineer Equipment-Engineering
Development;
Reductions: -$8,677,000.
Organization: Army: Support of Operational Testing;
Reductions: -$7,822,000.
Organization: Army: End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities;
Reductions: -$6,127,000.
Organization: Army: Combat Feeding, Clothing, and Equipment;
Reductions: -$ 5,420,000.
Organization: Army: Artillery Systems-Demonstration/Validation;
Reductions: -$5,199,000.
Organization: Navy: V-22A;
Reductions: -$21,492,000.
Organization: Navy: Power Projection Advanced Technology;
Reductions: -$ 11,806,000.
Organization: Navy: Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology;
Reductions: -$9,531,000.
Organization: Navy: Guided Missile Submarine Design;
Reductions: -$9,402,000.
Organization: Navy: Radio Frequency Systems Advanced Technology;
Reductions: -$9,175,000.
Organization: MDA: Ballistic Missile Defense System;
Reductions: -$ 121,249,000.
Organization: MDA: Theater High Altitude Area Defense System-Theater
Missile Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing Development;
Reductions: -$ 61,318,000.
Organization: MDA: Midcourse Defense Segment;
Reductions: -$50,273,000.
Organization: MDA: Sensors;
Reductions: -$31,497,000.
Organization: MDA: Boost Defense Segment;
Reductions: -$26,119,000.
Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); GAO (analysis).
Notes: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR
reductions. Both BTR reductions and BTR additions must be taken into
account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. A program's
net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.
[End of table]
Office of the Secretary of Defense data were not available.
Table 5: Top 5 Dollar-Value Programs: BTR Additions in Fiscal Year
2003:
Organization: Air Force: C-5 Airlift Squadrons;
Additions: $11,000,000.
Organization: Air Force: KC-10S;
Additions: $10,220,000.
Organization: Air Force: Initial Operational Test & Evaluation;
Additions: $10,153,000.
Organization: Air Force: Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles;
Additions: $9,898,000.
Organization: Air Force: Advanced Weapons Technology;
Additions: $9,500,000.
Organization: Army: Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology;
Additions: $9,999,000.
Organization: Army: Joint Simulation System Core Program;
Additions: $9,555,000.
Organization: Army: Technical Information Activities;
Additions: $8,919,000.
Organization: Army: Advanced Tank Armament System;
Additions: $6,004,000.
Organization: Army: Army Evaluation Center;
Additions: $5,903,000.
Organization: Navy: Power Projection Advanced Technology;
Additions: $18,018,000.
Organization: Navy: Guided Missile Submarine Design;
Additions: $13,194,000.
Organization: Navy: Special Processes;
Additions: $12,800,000.
Organization: Navy: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation;
Ship and Aircraft Support;
Additions: $10,347,000.
Organization: Navy: Other Helicopter Development;
Additions: $10,199,000.
Organization: MDA: Ballistic Missile Defense System;
Additions: $126,078,000.
Organization: MDA: Midcourse Defense Segment;
Additions: $60,281,000.
Organization: MDA: Theater High Altitude Area Defense System-Theater
Missile Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing Development;
Additions: $60,026,000.
Organization: MDA: Sensors;
Additions: $33,163,000.
Organization: MDA: Boost Defense Segment;
Additions: $18,447,000.
Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data);
GAO (analysis).
Notes: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR
additions. Both BTR reductions and BTR additions must be taken into
account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. A program's
net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.
[End of table]
Office of the Secretary of Defense data were not available.
Funds taken from programs through BTRs may be applied to multiple other
programs. For example, in 2003, the Air Force and the Navy reprogrammed
a combined total of about $29 million from the Joint Strike Fighter to
15 other programs. Additional details are provided in appendix III,
tables 18-21. Similarly, the Army reprogrammed almost $8.7 million
from the Logistics and Engineer Equipment Program to 12 other programs
in fiscal year 2003, and the Navy reprogrammed almost $21.5 million
from the V-22 aircraft program to 8 other programs.
Overall, 76 percent of all research and development programs had at
least 1 BTR, and 54 percent had more than 1, and 14 percent had 6 or
more in fiscal year 2003, as table 6 shows. The Navy and MDA had more
programs with substantial numbers of BTRs than did the Air Force or
the Army. Specifically, 27 percent of Navy programs and 66 percent of
MDA programs had 6 to 35 or more BTRs. Only 3 percent and 6 percent of
Air Force and Army programs, respectively, had this many. Additional
details are shown in table 7 and in appendix III, tables 22 and 23.
Table 6: Percentage of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year 2003:
Organization: Air Force;
0 BTRs: 29%;
1 BTR: 30%;
2-5 BTRs: 38%;
6-15 BTRs: 3%;
16-35 or more: 0%;
Total percentage: 100%.
Organization: Army;
0 BTRs: 28%;
1 BTR: 25%;
2-5 BTRs: 40%;
6-15 BTRs: 6%;
16-35 or more: 0%;
Total percentage: 99%[A].
Organization: Navy;
0 BTRs: 14%;
1 BTR: 14%;
2-5 BTRs: 44%;
6-15 BTRs: 23%;
16-35 or more: 5%;
Total percentage: 100%.
Organization: MDA;
0 BTRs: 17%;
1 BTR: 0%;
2-5 BTRs: 17%;
6-15 BTRs: 17%;
16-35 or more: 50%;
Total percentage: 101%[A].
Total;
0 BTRs: 23%;
1 BTR: 22%;
2-5 BTRs: 40%;
6-15 BTRs: 11%;
16-35 or more: 3%;
Total percentage: 99%[A].
Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); GAO (analysis).
Notes: Office of the Secretary of Defense data were not available.
[A] Total percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.
[End of table]
Table 7: Number of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year 2003:
Organization: Air Force;
0: 51;
1: 52;
2: 27;
3: 24;
4: 10;
5: 5;
6-10: 3;
11-15: 2;
16-20: 0;
21-25: 0;
26-30: 0;
31-35: 0;
35 or more: 0;
Total: 174.
Organization: Army;
0: 47;
1: 42;
2: 29;
3: 23;
4: 7;
5: 7;
6-10: 8;
11-15: 2;
16-20: 0;
21-25: 0;
26-30: 0;
31-35: 0;
35 or more: 0;
Total: 165.
Organization: Navy;
0: 28;
1: 28;
2: 35;
3: 23;
4: 21;
5: 6;
6-10: 29;
11-15: 15;
16-20: 6;
21-25: 1;
26-30: 1;
31-35: 0;
35 or more: 1;
Total: 194.
Organization: MDA;
0: 2;
1: 0;
2: 1;
3: 1;
4: 0;
5: 0;
6-10: 1;
11-15: 1;
16-20: 0;
21-25: 2;
26-30: 1;
31-35: 0;
35 or more: 3;
Total: 12.
Organization: Total;
0: 128;
1: 122;
2: 92;
3: 71;
4: 38;
5: 18;
6-10: 41;
11-15: 20;
16-20: 6;
21-25: 3;
26-30: 2;
31-35: 0;
35 or more: 4;
Total: 545.
Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); GAO (analysis).
Note: Office of the Secretary of Defense data were not available.
[End of table]
As figure 3 shows, 42 percent of programs had both BTR reductions and
additions in fiscal year 2003. The percent of such programs ranged
from 28 percent in the Army to 80 percent in MDA. Additional details
are shown in appendix III, figure 5 and tables 24-32. Patterns vary
from year to year, as those tables show.
Figure 3: Percentage of Programs with Only BTR Reductions, Only BTR
Additions, and Both BTR Reductions and Additions in Fiscal Year 2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Office of the Secretary of Defense data were not available.
[End of figure]
In fiscal year 2003, the DOD organizations we reviewed withheld a total
of about $2.8 billion in appropriated funds. The amounts withheld
varied widely, as table 8 shows. MDA officials said that while MDA
does not always release all appropriated funds immediately to its
programs, MDA does not consider such non-releases to be withholds and
did not provide this data to us. The Office of the Secretary of
Defense, which withheld substantially more than other organizations,
accounted for 56 percent of the total amount withheld. Withholds
amounts for fiscal year 2002 are in appendix III, table 33.
Table 8: Dollar Value of Withholds for Fiscal Year 2003 Programs:
Organization: Air Force;
Value of withholds: $149,342,000.
Organization: Army;
Value of withholds: $475,710,000.
Organization: Navy;
Value of withholds: $626,055,000.
Organization: MDA;
Value of withholds: N/A[A].
Organization: Office of the Secretary of Defense;
Value of withholds: $1,580,443,000.
Organization: Total;
Value of withholds: $2,831,550,000.
Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA, Office of the Secretary of
Defense (data); GAO (analysis).
[A] MDA officials said that they did not withhold funds from MDA
programs.
[End of table]
DOD's Rationale for BTRs and Withholds:
The military departments, MDA, and Office of the Secretary of Defense
officials cited several reasons for implementing BTRs and withholds.
Generally, the reasons involved accommodating unanticipated changes or
events, implementing congressional mandates, and, in the case of some
withholds, controlling the execution of individual programs.
Unanticipated Changes or Events:
Officials from each of the DOD organizations noted that because they
need to estimate research and development program needs and budgets 2
or more years in advance of receiving appropriated funds, by the time
the funds are actually received, factors upon which estimates are based
may have changed and unforeseen events may have occurred. Officials
also noted that current levels of flexibility are too limited given the
adjustments that may be needed to deal with such changes. For example,
testing on a program may have been accelerated or delayed; new
requirements may have arisen; design changes may be required; a
program's costs may have increased; new technologies may have emerged;
priorities may have shifted; and unexpected events, such as operations
in Afghanistan and Iraq, may have occurred. Consequently, funding
changes may be needed after funds are appropriated.
Military department and MDA officials stated that having the
flexibility to adjust funding in such circumstances allows them to make
better use of available funds by fixing a problem promptly, taking
advantage of an opportunity, or responding to an unexpected
contingency. For example, in fiscal year 2003, the Air Force
reprogrammed almost $10 million to the KC-10S program to address
unexpected cost increases in the cockpit modernization program.
According to Air Force officials, obtaining these funds when they were
needed avoided contract and schedule issues that would have been
detrimental to the program. Ultimately in this case, the cockpit
modernization program continued to experience unexpected cost increases
and schedule slippages, and the Air Force later cancelled the program.
In another example, Army officials stated that the presence of
improvised explosive devices in the Iraq conflict has made explosive
disposal robots more important than the budget preparation process
anticipated 3 years ago. They noted that the Army is using some of its
BTR flexibility to address this higher priority need.
Military department officials told us they also withhold funds for
unexpected events or opportunities that may arise during the fiscal
year. These withheld funds are then available for reprogramming as
needed. For example, the Army withheld and subsequently reprogrammed
about 2.3 percent of funds from most programs in fiscal year 2003 to
cover expenses of ongoing operations. Officials said that this is the
only year the Army instituted a general withhold on its programs. The
Navy withheld 2 percent from most research and development programs in
fiscal year 2002 and 1 percent in fiscal year 2003. These funds were
used to address unexpected contingencies and emerging technological
requirements. While Air Force officials stated that they do not
routinely withhold funds from all programs, the Air Force Research
Laboratory withholds about 5 percent from all laboratory programs to
provide for its headquarters unit. The Office of the Secretary of
Defense, Research and Development, withholds and subsequently
reprograms as necessary about 10 percent from the research and
development programs it manages to provide for contingencies and to
cover reductions resulting from statutory requirements.
Implementing Statutory Obligations:
Military department officials also use withholds to fund statutory
obligations. For example, DOD is required by statute to set aside
research and development funds for small business concerns to conduct
research projects that have the potential for commercialization. Two
programs are supported with these funds: the Small Business Innovation
Research Program, which stimulates early-stage research and development
by small business concerns; and the Small Business Technology Transfer
Program, which funds cooperative research and development projects
involving a small business and a research institution. The military
departments and MDA vary in the way they set aside the funds for these
statutory obligations. This variation provides these organizations with
additional flexibility in adjusting appropriated research and
development funds. In 2003, the Army and the Navy exempted some
intelligence programs from the Small Business Innovation Research and
the Small Business Technology Transfer assessments. They then withheld
the funds needed to cover these assessments from the remaining
programs. Air Force officials informed us that they reallocate the
assessments during the fiscal year to adjust funds available to
programs. For example, in fiscal year 2002, the Air Force used a BTR to
restore the Small Business Innovation Research assessment it had
earlier made against the B-2 program, to provide the program with more
money. Other programs were assessed a higher amount to make up the
difference.
In addition, military department officials use withholds to allocate
rescissions and reductions that are included in appropriations acts and
cancel appropriated funding.[Footnote 13] Rescissions or reductions may
apply specifically to some or all research and development accounts or
across-the-board to other appropriations accounts. For example, for
fiscal year 2003, because of a change in projected inflation estimates,
Congress directed a reduction of $1.4 billion across all operations and
maintenance, procurement, and research and development appropriations
accounts, with the reduction to be applied proportionally to each
program within each account.[Footnote 14] To implement this reduction,
the Air Force and Navy used withholds to reduce research and
development programs' appropriations by $105.6 million and
$78.2 million, respectively.
Officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense noted that they
withhold funds from research and development programs to make certain
programs achieve a particular milestone or other event and to assure
that additional funds appropriated by Congress beyond the program's
requested budget reach the intended program and can be used
effectively. For example, the Office of the Secretary of Defense
sometimes withholds a portion of a program's appropriation to assure
the program completes a report, accomplishes a test, or complies in
some other way with headquarters' direction. Often, these withholds are
in response to a congressional directive contained in authorization or
appropriations report language. Funds are usually released once the
program has accomplished the required task. Each year, Congress adds
funds to certain programs' requested budgets. Officials observed that
there is often some uncertainty as to which program Congress intended
these funds to benefit and whether those programs can effectively use
the funds. Consequently, they withhold the funds until they can
determine which programs are to receive the additional funds and to
ensure that those programs can use the money effectively before
releasing the funds. In fiscal year 2002, these types of withholds
represented a large percentage of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense withholds, amounting to nearly $2.7 billion. However, the
Office of the Secretary of Defense has subsequently reduced its
withholds of congressional additions, while some of the departments
have increased theirs.
Managers Have Adopted Strategies for Anticipating BTRs and Withholds:
DOD, military department, MDA, and program officials informed us that
while they can expect with some confidence that reprogramming and
withholds will occur during the budget year, they cannot predict the
timing or amount. In anticipation of these funding adjustments, program
and military department officials noted that program budgets are often
increased during preparation. While this does not appear to be an
unusual practice, we did not assess its extent or magnitude. This
practice allows programs to perform at planned levels if and when these
actions actually occur. Program officials stated that in cases for
which anticipated reductions were underestimated, schedules are
sometimes slowed down in response to BTRs and withholds. For example,
tests or other scheduled events may be delayed until withheld funds are
released or the funds lost through BTRs are paid back. If funds are not
paid back, program schedules may be permanently slowed. For example,
according to Air Force officials, when the Air Force reduced the C-130
avionics modernization program's by $35 million in fiscal year 2003,
the program manager extended the development program and renegotiated
the development contract.
Funds also may be informally held back after they have been released to
programs. That is, program managers may be told not to spend some
portion of the funds that have actually been released to their programs
in order to provide funds for later reprogramming. This differs from
withholds because withholds can only be implemented before funds are
released to programs. The informal holding back of funds occurs after
funds are released, is done verbally, and is not recorded. This
essentially creates a pool of reserved funds that can be used to meet
anticipated but not fully identified requirements. MDA officials
informed us that the Office of the Secretary of Defense requires them
to informally hold millions of dollars each year in anticipation of the
annual omnibus reprogramming. Omnibus reprogramming is a compilation of
several above-threshold reprogrammings sent to Congress late in the
fiscal year. For example, in fiscal year 2003, the Office of the
Secretary of Defense required MDA to informally hold about $23 million
and later used about $6 million of this money for omnibus
reprogramming. The remaining funds were then released to MDA.
Recent Congressional Direction for Better Information:
Congress has continued to express concerns about how DOD is adjusting
funding for research and development programs and about the adequacy of
information from DOD about such actions. Congress recently revised its
guidance to DOD on reprogramming and withholding appropriated funds for
research and development and on keeping Congress adequately informed
about such actions.
For fiscal year 2004, congressional guidelines had tightened the
threshold for decreases to $10 million or 20 percent of the program's
appropriation, whichever was less, rather than the greater provision of
fiscal year 2003.[Footnote 15] For fiscal year 2005, Congress
maintained the tightened thresholds of 2004 and added new direction on
the reprogramming and withholding of appropriated funds for research
and development programs.
Furthermore, Congress directed DOD to provide better information on
reprogrammings and withholds both in the short-and the long-term.
Specifically, Congress directed:
* the Secretary of Defense to provide data by January 31, 2005, on the
adequacy and use of the DOD's current reprogramming and withholding
practices;
* DOD to work with congressional defense committees on a method
providing timely and accurate data on reprogramming activity (both
below and above the threshold) and the application of statutory and
administrative withholds;
* that reprogramming data be available on a least a monthly basis,
potentially in conjunction with DOD's DD 1002 reports; and:
* that DOD should transmit the data electronically, if feasible, to
congressional defense committees.[Footnote 16]
Conclusions:
DOD has a legitimate need for a degree of flexibility to adjust the
funding levels designated for individual research and development
programs. Congress has a legitimate need to maintain oversight over the
funds it has appropriated. Ideally, both sets of needs can be met
through a combination of approval thresholds for adjusting funding
levels and reports on how funds have been adjusted. However, DOD has
not provided information of sufficient quality and detail to Congress
on how it adjusts appropriated research and development funds through
BTRs and withholds. In reaction, Congress has tightened thresholds to a
level of flexibility DOD officials believe is too limited.
In passing the fiscal year 2005 DOD Appropriations Act, Congress has
directed DOD to take several actions to improve the information it
provides to Congress regarding DOD's use of reprogrammings and
withholds. The direction for DOD and the congressional defense
committees to work together provides an excellent opportunity for DOD
to make changes that can serve the needs of both Congress and DOD.
These changes may not be difficult to make, as much of the desired
information already exists within DOD and some of the existing data
collection systems are already automated and contain more detailed
information than currently reported. How DOD responds to this direction
will be critical to realizing this opportunity.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
DOD provided us with written comments on a draft of this report. The
comments appear in appendix II.
DOD commented that our report should note more prominently that we
found no evidence the department violated existing congressionally
approved reprogramming thresholds. DOD expressed concern that Congress
had a misconception that the department had violated existing
threshholds and policies and had used the BTR process to initiate new
start programs. DOD disagreed that its recent reports to Congress
provide BTR information of limited quality and cited other information
it provides to Congress in addition to the DD 1416. It pointed out that
the formats for the information were developed with and approved by
committee staff to satisfy Congress's needs. DOD did note that the
issues we raised on the quality of information it provides can be
addressed, and that DOD was open to suggestions and will gladly work
with the committee staff to satisfy its needs.
DOD offered several suggestions to put the findings of the report more
in context. These included providing the percentage value of BTRs along
with the dollar value, and noting the reasons DOD uses BTRs. DOD also
noted that the issue of withholds is separate from BTRs and that they
are used primarily to temporarily hold funding from execution until
adequate justification is provided that the resources will be executed
efficiently and effectively as intended by Congress. DOD stated that it
was unaware of the practice of increasing of budget requests to cover
anticipated BTRs and withholds and that this was against DOD policy.
DOD's willingness to work with Congress is a constructive response that
can lead to reporting changes that can meet the needs of both Congress
and DOD. While current reporting formats may have been developed with
committee staff to meet its needs, recent congressional direction
suggest these needs have changed. Congress has required DOD to provide
better and more timely information on reprogramming and withhold
activities. We have clarified the language in the report that we did
not observe any instances in which DOD's use of BTRs exceeded
thresholds, but we cannot be conclusive on this point as we did not
design steps to assess compliance with thresholds. The same observation
and qualification applies to whether BTRs were used to start new
programs.
We did analyze the additional information DOD provides to Congress on
BTRs, specifically budget exhibits and monthly accounting reports.
However, in their current format, these reports do not provide detailed
information on individual BTRs or any information on withholds. To
provide additional context for our findings, we have added the
percentage value of BTRs in addition to their total dollar value,
however, we do not believe it is necessary for individual programs.
While the draft report does present the reasons DOD uses BTRs and
withholds, we have added language earlier in the report to highlight
these reasons. We believe the distinction between BTRs and withholds is
adequately clear in the report. We note that while withholds are used
to ensure programs are properly executed, we did find instances in
which withholds were used to make funds available for reprogramming.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the
Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Director,
Missile Defense Agency; and interested congressional committees. We
will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff has any questions concerning this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-4841 or D. Catherine Baltzell at (202) 512-
8001. Other contacts and key contributors are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
Paul L. Francis:
Director:
Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine the quality of the information available about the
Department of Defense's (DOD) use of below-threshold reprogrammings
(BTR) and withholds, we reviewed the DOD Financial Management
Regulation and recent congressional guidelines on reprogramming and
withholds; various DOD internal reports and reports to Congress; and
data from financial management systems recorded for the research and
development programs from the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Missile
Defense Agency (MDA). We reviewed DOD policy and interviewed decision
makers to gain an understanding of how various reports are prepared and
to obtain information about BTRs and withholds. Our interviews included
officials in the research and development and financial management
offices of the Air Force, Army, Navy and MDA; financial management and
acquisition policy decision maker offices including the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); Office of the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering, Director of Plans and Programs; Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition; Office of the Naval
Research Controller; Aeronautical Systems Command Financial Management
office; Air Force Research Labs Headquarters, Propulsion Directorate,
and Sensors Directorate; Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial
Management and Comptroller, Investment Division-Army Budget Office;
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, for Plans, Programs, and
Resources Office; Army Science and Technology Integration Office; and
Army Research Laboratory Headquarters. In accordance with federal
internal control standards, we defined quality of information as
measured by such factors as timeliness, accessibility, accuracy, and
appropriateness of content.
In addition, we interviewed program officials and collected data from
13 research and development programs: Air Force (5), Army (4), and Navy
(4). The programs were selected on the basis of three criteria: a
laboratory, a program with significant net reduction or addition of
funds through BTRs, and a program with a relatively high number of both
reductions and additions of funds through BTRs. We interviewed program
officials for the Air Force's C-130 Airlift and C-130J, and KC-10S; the
Air Force Research Lab's Aerospace Propulsion and Aerospace Sensor's
Labs; the Army's Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, and Line-of-Sight
Anti-Tank Missile program offices; the Army's Research Lab's Weapons
and Materials Research, and Survivability/Lethality Directorates; the
Navy's Ocean Engineering Technology Development, and Consolidated
Training Systems Development Program; the Office of Naval Research
Systems Advanced Technology program; and the Naval Ship and Aircraft
Support program.
To determine the amount and volume of BTRs and withheld funds, we
obtained available data from the Air Force, Army, Navy, and MDA data
collection systems on actual BTRs and withholds and developed an
integrated, electronic database on adjustments to designated funding
levels for each research and development program. In developing our
database, we assessed the reliability of the available data, which
includes recognizing the limitations of the data as we have discussed
in this report. We performed electronic testing of required data
elements, reviewed existing information about the data and the systems
that produced them, and interviewed agency officials knowledgeable
about the data. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable
for the purpose of this report. We conducted multiple analyses of BTR
amounts and volume. We used readily available, off-the-shelf commercial
software to develop and analyze our database. We performed our review
from November 2003 to July 2004 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
3000 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-3000:
ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS:
SEP 03 2004:
Mr. Paul L. Francis:
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Francis:
The Department has reviewed the draft GAO report (04-944) "Defense
Acquisition: Better Information Could Improve Visibility Over
Adjustments to DoD's Research and Development Funds," dated August 10,
2004 (GAO Code 120280/GAO-04-944) and has several comments and
concerns. The report should prominently note that the GAO found no
evidence the Department violated existing Congressionally approved
reprogramming thresholds. The current statement "Although we did not
design steps to assess whether below threshold reprogrammings (BTRs)
exceeded the threshold, we did not observe any instances of this in the
data we did analyze" seems too limited and obscure. It appears that the
Congress was provided information that led them to believe that the
Department had violated existing thresholds and policies, and used the
BTR process to initiate new start programs, therefore it is critical
that GAO correct this misconception.
The Department disagrees that its recent reports to the Congress
provide BTR information of limited quality. The issues raised in the
GAO report, such as timing, classification, and method of calculation
(subtraction vs addition), can be addressed: The Department is open to
suggestions and will gladly work with the committees to provide more
meaningful data, but it should be noted that the formats used were
developed and approved with the committee staff to satisfy their needs.
Further, the total BTRs in FY 2003, which the draft report now notes
are less than $1B, comprise 2% of the R&D funding for Army, Navy, Air
Force and MDA. And if MDA is separated out, the amount of BTRs in the
Military Departments is only 1.6% of their total R&D funding.
Further, the issue of withholds is separate from BTRs and that
difference should be made clearer in the report.
The report states the Department's primary vehicle for reporting BTRs
to the Congress (DD 1416) has limitations that reduce its value as a
source of information. The first paragraph on page 7 of the draft
report states, that "Until the reports (1416s) were received, Congress
was less informed about whether funds were moved from one research and
development program to another when considering program budgets the
following year." The Department submits budget exhibits (R-2s) in
support of the President's Budget Request each year that include tables
for each PE that identify funding adjustments from the preceding year's
program. Furthermore, the Department provides monthly accounting
reports which reflect changing program values. We can run comparison
reports if requested.
The Congress recently increased the amount the Department may reprogram
[i.e., up to $10 million in a RDT&E line item]. If there are specific
projects that are of special interest to the Congress, the Department
designates them as such and provides appropriate attention during
execution.
The Department suggests that the report put the findings more in
context. Examples include the percentages noted above and providing the
total appropriated value of the Joint Strike Fighter when referencing
BTRs equaling $27 million in fiscal year 2003 in order to place the
amount in context (i.e., $3.513 for JSF RDT&E, so $27M is less than 1
%).
Paragraph 2 on page 10 of the report states, that the components may
increase budget requests "to cover anticipated BTRs and withholds so
programs can continue to perform at planned levels." This is against
DoD policy and we are not aware of it as a practice: BTRs and withholds
are employed to permit DoD to be a good steward of its financial
resources. Withholds are used primarily to temporarily hold funding
from execution until the appropriate component can provide adequate
justification that the resources will be executed efficiently and
effectively as intended by the Congress. As such, withholds are
generally not a threat to the program manager's ability to execute the
program at planned levels. BTRs are used to enable the components to
respond to changing program requirements or to accommodate
unanticipated increases in program funding requirements.
In conclusion, the Department would be willing to work with GAO to have
the report discuss how to provide better information to improve
visibility over adjustments to DoD's R&D funds. The report and its
summary should note that DoD uses BTRs to meet unanticipated events and
that the GAO found all actions consistent with both current statutes
and policies. Further, the accounting system currently in place does
provide the Congress the ability to see the net amount of funds that
have moved from one account to another in RDT&E,
although the system does not provide details on every BTR transaction.
We would recommend the report discuss the level of BTR and withhold
activity within the Department in the larger context so that it clearly
reflects the Department's use of this important flexibility provided by
the Congress.
Signed by:
Nancy L. Spruill:
Director, Acquisition Resources and Analysis:
[End of section]
Appendix III: Additional Data:
Table 9: Appropriations for Research and Development Programs:
Fiscal year 2003;
Organization: Air Force;
Appropriation: $18,822,569,000;
Number of programs: 174;
Lowest designated funding level for a program: $313,000;
Highest designated funding level for a program: $1,733,668,000.
Fiscal year 2003;
Organization: Army;
Appropriation: $7,699,656,000;
Number of programs: 165;
Lowest designated funding level for a program: $489,000;
Highest designated funding level for a program: $914,932,000.
Fiscal year 2003;
Organization: Navy;
Appropriation: $13,699,864,000;
Number of programs: 194;
Lowest designated funding level for a program: $422,000;
Highest designated funding level for a program: $1,747,250,000.
Fiscal year 2003;
Organization: MDA;
Appropriation: $6,896,186,000;
Number of programs: 12;
Lowest designated funding level for a program: $7,457,000;
Highest designated funding level for a program: $3,185,504,000.
Fiscal year 2003;
Organization: Office of the Secretary of Defense;
Appropriation: $2,381,413,000;
Number of programs: 64;
Lowest designated funding level for a program: $700,000;
Highest designated funding level for a program: $263,058,000.
Fiscal year 2003;
Organization: Total;
Appropriation: $49,499,688,000;
Number of programs: 609;
Lowest designated funding level for a program: Not applicable;
Highest designated funding level for a program: Not applicable.
Fiscal year 2002;
Organization: Air Force;
Appropriation: $14,699,931,000;
Number of programs: 163;
Lowest designated funding level for a program: $472,000;
Highest designated funding level for a program: $881,556,000.
Fiscal year 2002;
Organization: Army;
Appropriation: $7,106,074,000;
Number of programs: 168;
Lowest designated funding level for a program: $785,000;
Highest designated funding level for a program: $787,866,000.
Fiscal year 2002;
Organization: Navy;
Appropriation: $11,335,350,000;
Number of programs: 198;
Lowest designated funding level for a program: $428,000;
Highest designated funding level for a program: $769,759,000.
Fiscal year 2002;
Organization: MDA;
Appropriation: $7,069,425,000;
Number of programs: 12;
Lowest designated funding level for a program: $6,571,000;
Highest designated funding level for a program: $3,820,534,000.
Fiscal year 2002;
Organization: Office of the Secretary of Defense;
Appropriation: $1,711,504,000;
Number of programs: 58;
Lowest designated funding level for a program: $1,165,000;
Highest designated funding level for a program: $250,877,000.
Fiscal year 2002;
Total;
Appropriation: $41,922,284,000;
Number of programs: 599;
Lowest designated funding level for a program: Not applicable;
Highest designated funding level for a program: Not applicable.
Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA, Office of the Secretary of
Defense (data); GAO (analysis).
[End of table]
Figure 4: Percentage of Programs with BTRs That Resulted in a Net
Loss, Net Gain, or No Change in Funding in Fiscal Year
[See PDF for image]
Note: Office of the Secretary of Defense data not available.
[End of figure]
Table 10: Top 10 Air Force Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars for
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002:
Value of BTR reductions:
2003:
Program name: Joint Strike Fighter Engineering and Manufacturing
Development;
-$24,177,000.
Program name: C-130 Airlift Squadrons;
-$21,037,000.
Program name: Intercontinental Ballistic Missile-Engineering and
Manufacturing Development;
-$17,957,000.
Program name: B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber;
-$17,770,000.
Program name: Large Aircraft InfraRed Counter Measures;
-$10,833,000.
Program name: Fighter Tactical Data Link;
-$8,758,000.
Program name: C-130J Program;
-$7,611,000.
Program name: B-1B;
-$7,270,000.
Program name: Region/Sector Operations Control Center;
-$6,741,000.
Program name: Advanced Extremely High Frequency Military Satellite
Communications (Space);
-$6,499,000;
2002:
Program name: B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber;
-$26,168,000.
Program name: Joint Strike Fighter Engineering and Manufacturing
Development;
-$19,637,000.
Program name: Navigational Satellite Timing and Ranging Global
Positioning System III;
-$10,578,000.
Program name: Intercontinental Ballistic Missile-Engineering and
Manufacturing Development;
-$10,478,000.
Program name: C-130 Airlift Squadrons;
-$8,675,000.
Program name: Satellite Control Network (Space);
-$8,458,000.
Program name: Large Aircraft InfraRed Counter Measures;
-$8,155,000.
Program name: Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles;
-$8,035,000.
Program name: Joint Direct Attack Munition;
-$7,821,000.
Program name: Aerospace Propulsion;
-$5,500,000.
Sources: Air Force (data); GAO (analysis).
Note: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR
reductions. Both BTR reductions and BTR additions must be taken into
account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. A program's
net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.
[End of table]
Table 11: Top 10 Air Force Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars for
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002:
2003:
Program name: C-5 Airlift Squadrons;
$11,000,000.
Program name: KC-10S;
$10,220,000.
Program name: Initial Operational Test & Evaluation;
$10,153,000.
Program name: Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles;
$9,898,000.
Program name: Advanced Weapons Technology;
$9,500,000.
Program name: Large Aircraft InfraRed Counter Measures;
$9,455,000.
Program name: Support Systems Development;
$8,949,000.
Program name: Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System;
$8,830,000.
Program name: Civilian Compensation Program;
$7,132,000.
Program name: Nuclear Detonation Detection System (Space);
$5,600,000;
2002:
Program name: B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber;
$21,541,000.
Program name: C-5 Airlift Squadrons;
$10,190,000.
Program name: Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System;
$8,139,000.
Program name: Military Strategic and Technical Relay Low Data Rate/
Medium Data Rate Satellite Communications (Space);
$7,928,000.
Program name: Navigational Satellite Timing and Ranging Global
Positioning System (Space);
$6,653,000.
Program name: Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment;
$6,530,000.
Program name: Small Diameter Bomb (Demonstration/Validation);
$6,300,000.
Program name: Support Systems Development;
$6,000,000.
Program name: KC-10S;
$5,986,000.
Program name: Global Combat Support System;
$5,887,000.
Sources: Air Force (data); GAO (analysis).
Note: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR
additions. Both BTR reductions and BTR additions must be taken into
account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. A program's
net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.
[End of table]
Table 12: Top 10 Army Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars for
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002:
2003:
Program name: Logistics and Engineer Equipment-Engineering Development;
-$8,677,000.
Program name: Support of Operational Testing;
-$7,822,000.
Program name: End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities;
-$6,127,000.
Program name: Combat Feeding, Clothing, and Equipment;
-$5,420,000.
Program name: Artillery Systems-Demonstration/Validation;
-$5,199,000.
Program name: Night Vision Systems-Engineering Development;
-$4,878,000.
Program name: Major Test & Evaluation Investment;
-$4,090,000.
Program name: Aircraft Avionics;
-$3,570,000.
Program name: Digitization;
-$3,464,000.
Program name: Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank Missile;
-$3,051,000;
2002:
Program name: Other Missile Product Improvement Programs;
-$13,207,000.
Program name: Global Combat Support System;
-$12,258,000.
Program name: Landmine Warfare/Barrier-Engineering Development;
-$12,252,000.
Program name: Brilliant Anti-Armor Submunition;
-$12,072,000.
Program name: Support of Operational Testing;
-$7,428,000.
Program name: Joint Network Management System;
-$4,031,000.
Program name: Management Headquarters (Research & Development);
-$4,008,000.
Program name: Night Vision Systems-Engineering Development;
-$3,717,000.
Program name: Joint Tactical Radio;
-$3,600,000.
Program name: Artillery Systems-Demonstration/Validation;
-$2,619,000.
Sources: Army (data); GAO (analysis).
Note: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR
reductions. Both BTR reductions and BTR additions must be taken into
account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. A program's
net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.
[End of table]
Table 13: Top 10 Army Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars for Fiscal
Years 2003 and 2002:
2003:
Program name: Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology;
$9,999,000.
Program name: Joint Simulation System Core Program;
$9,555,000.
Program name: Technical Information Activities;
$8,919,000.
Program name: Advanced Tank Armament System;
$6,004,000.
Program name: Army Evaluation Center;
$5,903,000.
Program name: Armored Systems Modernization-Engineering Development;
$4,599,000.
Program name: Logistics and Engineer Equipment-Advanced Development;
$3,912,000.
Program name: Artillery Systems-Engineering and Manufacturing
Development;
$3,900,000.
Program name: Joint Service Small Arms Program;
$3,500,000.
Program name: Firefinder;
$3,500,000;
2002:
Program name: Logistics and Engineer Equipment- Engineering
Development;
$6,006,000.
Program name: Technical Information Activities;
$4,596,000.
Program name: Army Test Ranges and Facilities;
$4,003,000.
Program name: Global Surveillance/Air Defense/Precision Strike
Technology Demonstration;
$4,000,000.
Program name: Artillery Systems-Engineering and Manufacturing
Development;
$4,000,000.
Program name: Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank Missile;
$3,999,000.
Program name: Landmine Warfare;
$3,999,000.
Program name: Missile and Rocket Advanced Technology;
$3,999,000.
Program name: Landmine Warfare and Barrier-Advanced Development;
$3,999,000.
Program name: Multiple Launch Rocket System Product Improvement
Program;
$3,999,000.
Sources: Army (data); GAO (analysis).
Note: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR
additions. Both BTR reductions and BTR additions must be taken into
account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. A program's
net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.
[End of table]
Table 14: Top 10 Navy Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars for
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002:
2003:
Program name: V-22A;
-$21,492,000.
Program name: Power Projection Advanced Technology;
-$11,806,000.
Program name: Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology;
-$9,531,000.
Program name: Guided Missile Submarine Design;
-$9,402,000.
Program name: Radio Frequency Systems Advanced Technology;
-$9,175,000.
Program name: Tactical Command System;
-$8,546,000.
Program name: Surface and Shallow Water Mine Countermeasure;
-$7,977,000.
Program name: Consolidated Training Systems Development;
-$6,890,000.
Program name: Common Picture Advanced Technology;
-$6,657,000.
Program name: Force Protection Advanced Technology;
-$6,070,000;
2002:
Program name: V-22A;
-$16,915,000.
Program name: Joint Strike Fighter;
-$13,546,000.
Program name: Radio Frequency Systems Advanced Technology;
-$13,013,000.
Program name: Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft;
-$11,115,000.
Program name: Undersea Warfare Advanced Technology;
-$9,632,000.
Program name: New Design SSN;
-$8,800,000.
Program name: Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology;
-$8,615,000.
Program name: SC-21 Total Ship System Engineering;
-$8,567,000.
Program name: Land Attack Technology;
-$8,053,000.
Program name: Ship Contract Design/Live Fire Test & Evaluation;
-$7,371,000.
Sources: Navy (data); GAO (analysis).
Note: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR
reductions. Both BTR reductions and BTR additions must be taken into
account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. A program's
net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.
[End of table]
Table 15: Top 10 Navy Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars for
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002:
2003:
Program name: Power Projection Advanced Technology;
$18,018,000.
Program name: Guided Missile Submarine Design;
$13,194,000.
Program name: Special Processes;
$12,800,000.
Program name: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation Ship and
Aircraft Support;
$10,347,000.
Program name: Other Helicopter Development;
$10,199,000.
Program name: Electronic Warfare Development;
$10,019,000.
Program name: Ocean Engineering Technology Development;
$10,000,000.
Program name: Force Protection Advanced Technology;
$9,685,000.
Program name: Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology;
$9,188,000.
Program name: Radio Frequency Systems Advanced Technology;
$8,809,000;
2002:
Program name: Radio Frequency Systems Advanced Technology;
$15,911,000.
Program name: Land Attack Technology;
$11,547,000.
Program name: Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology;
$10,287,000.
Program name: Navy Information Technology Development/Modification;
$7,353,000.
Program name: Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration;
$7,110,000.
Program name: Force Protection Advanced Technology;
$7,075,000.
Program name: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation Ship and
Aircraft Support;
$5,679,000.
Program name: V-22A;
$5,375,000.
Program name: Common Picture Advanced Technology;
$5,084,000.
Program name: Navy Warfighting Experiments and Demonstrations;
$4,874,000.
Sources: Navy (data); GAO (analysis).
Note: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR
additions. Both BTR reductions and BTR additions must be taken into
account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. A program's
net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.
[End of table]
Table 16: Top 10 MDA Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars for
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002:
2003:
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense System;
-$121,249,000.
Program name: Theater High Altitude Area Defense System-Theater
Missile Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing Development;
-$61,318,000.
Program name: Midcourse Defense Segment;
-$50,273,000.
Program name: Sensors;
-$31,497,000.
Program name: Boost Defense Segment;
-$26,119,000.
Program name: Terminal Defense Segment;
-$14,785,000.
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense Technology;
-$13,777,000.
Program name: Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater Missile Defense-
Engineering and Manufacturing Development;
-$10,252,000.
Program name: Medium Extended Air Defense System Demonstration/
Validation;
-$6,440,000.
Program name: Management Headquarters-Missile Defense Agency;
-$160,000;
2002:
Program name: Midcourse Defense Segment;
-$123,849.
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense System;
-$61,267.
Program name: Sensors;
-$37,785.
Program name: Theatre High Altitude Area Defense System-Theater
Missile Defense- Engineering and Manufacturing Development;
-$33,343.
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense Boost Defense Segment;
-$30,907.
Program name: Navy Area;
-$16,897.
Program name: Terminal Defense Segment;
-$7,360.
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense Technology;
-$5,303.
Program name: Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater Missile Defense-
Engineering and Manufacturing Development;
-$3,701.
Program name: Pentagon Reservation;
-$2,471.
Sources: MDA (data); GAO (analysis).
Note: Dollar amounts are not net values.
This table only shows BTR reductions. Both BTR reductions and BTR
additions must be taken into account to determine the net value of
BTRs for a program. A program's net value of BTRs may not exceed the
BTR threshold.
[End of table]
Table 17: Top 10 MDA Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars for Fiscal
Years 2003 and 2002:
2003:
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense System;
$126,078,000.
Program name: Midcourse Defense Segment;
$60,281,000.
Program name: Theater High Altitude Area Defense System-Theater
Missile Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing Development;
$60,026,000.
Program name: Sensors;
$33,163,000.
Program name: Defense Boost Defense Segment;
$18,447,000.
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense Technology;
$16,983,000.
Program name: Terminal Defense Segment;
$15,467,000.
Program name: Management Headquarters-Missile Defense Agency;
$10,078,000.
Program name: Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater Missile Defense-
Engineering and Manufacturing Development;
$0.
Program name: Medium Extended Air Defense System Demonstration/
Validation;
$0;
2002:
Program name: Midcourse Defense Segment;
$131,035.
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense System;
$65,145.
Program name: Boost Defense Segment;
$38,411.
Program name: Sensors;
$28,077.
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense Technology;
$12,456.
Program name: Theater High Altitude Area Defense System- Theater
Missile Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing Development;
$10,758.
Program name: Management Headquarters-Missile Defense Agency;
$10,270.
Program name: Terminal Defense Segment;
$6,879.
Program name: Navy Area;
$2,456.
Program name: Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater Missile Defense-
Engineering and Manufacturing Development;
$10.
Note: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR
additions. Both BTR reductions and BTR additions must be taken into
account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. A program's
net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.
[End of table]
Table 18: Joint Strike Fighter (Air Force) Had 11 BTR Reductions, 5
BTR Additions for Fiscal Year 2003:
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Recipient program: F-22 Squadrons;
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Value: -$3,999,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Recipient program: Multi-sensor
Command and Control Constellation;
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: HValue: -$3,999,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Recipient program: F-22 Squadrons;
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Value: -$3,900,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Recipient program: Warfighter Rapid Acquisition Program;
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Value: -$3,999,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Recipient program: F-15E Squadrons;
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Value: -$2,000,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Recipient program: Life Support
Systems;
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Value: -$2,160,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Recipient program: A-10 Squadrons;
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Value: -$1,758,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Recipient program: Joint Direct
Attack Munition;
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Value: -$440,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Recipient program: F-117A Squadron;
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Value: -$450,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Recipient program: Advanced Medium
Range Air-to-Air Missile;
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Value: -$970,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Recipient program: Electronic
Warfare Development;
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Value: -$502,000;
BTR additions: Total $500,000: Donor program: F-16 Squadrons;
BTR additions: Total $500,000: Value: $100,000.
BTR additions: Total $500,000: Donor program: B-52 Squadrons;
BTR additions: Total $500,000: Value: $50,000.
BTR additions: Total $500,000: Donor program: Joint Air-to-Surface
Standoff Missile;
BTR additions: Total $500,000: Value: $250,000.
BTR additions: Total $500,000: Donor program: Combat Training Ranges;
BTR additions: Total $500,000: Value: $50,000.
BTR additions: Total $500,000: Donor program: Hard and Deeply Buried
Target Defeat System;
BTR additions: Total $500,000: Value: $50,000.
Sources: Air Force (data); GAO (analysis).
Note: For fiscal year 2003, BTRs with a net value greater than $10
million were still within the threshold for BTR reductions if the net
value did not exceed 20 percent of the program's designated funding.
[End of table]
Table 19: Joint Strike Fighter (Air Force) Had 10 BTR Reductions, Zero
BTR Additions for Fiscal Year
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Recipient program: Rand Project Air
Force;
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Value: -$3,999,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Recipient program: A-10 Squadrons;
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Value: -$3,922,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Recipient program: Joint Direct
Attack Munition;
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Value: -$683,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Recipient program: Joint Air-to-
Surface Standoff Missile;
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Value: -$3,999,999;
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Recipient program: Joint
Surveillance Target Attack Radar System;
BTR reductions: Total - $19,635,932: Value: -$250,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Recipient program: Distributed
Common Ground Systems;
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Value: -$500,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Recipient program: Joint
Surveillance Target Attack Radar System;
BTR reductions: Total - $19,635,932: Value: -$150,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Recipient program: Joint
Surveillance Target Attack Radar System;
BTR reductions: Total - $19,635,932: Value: -$966,933;
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Recipient program: F-15E
Squadrons;
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Value: -$4,165,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Recipient program: Initial
Operational Test & Evaluation;
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Value: -$1,000,000;
Sources: Air Force (data); GAO (analysis).
Note: For fiscal year 2002, BTRs with a net value greater than $4
million were still within the threshold for BTR reductions if the net
value did not exceed 20 percent of the program's designated funding.
[End of table]
Table 20: Joint Strike Fighter (Navy) Had 4 BTR Reductions, Zero BTR
Additions for Fiscal Year 2003:
BTR reductions: Total -$3,613,000: Recipient program: Anti-Submarine
Warfare & Other Helicopter Development;
BTR reductions: Total - $3,613,000: Value: -$1,700,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$3,613,000: Recipient program: H-1 Upgrades;
BTR reductions: Total -$3,613,000: Value: -$849,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$3,613,000: Recipient program: V-22, and Joint
Direct Attack Munition;
BTR reductions: Total -$3,613,000: Value: -$694,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$3,613,000: Recipient program: Anti-Submarine
Warfare & Other Helicopter Development;
BTR reductions: Total - $3,613,000: Value: -$370,000;
Sources: Navy (data); GAO (analysis).
Note: For fiscal year 2003, BTRs with a net value greater than $10
million were still within the threshold for BTR reductions if the net
value did not exceed 20 percent of the program's designated funding.
[End of table]
Table 21: Joint Strike Fighter (Navy) Had 11 BTR Reductions, Zero BTR
Additions for Fiscal Year
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Recipient program: Electronic
Warfare Development;
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Value: -$2,943,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Recipient program: Joint Precision
Approach and Landing System;
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Value: -$2,860,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Recipient program: AIM-9X;
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Value: -$1,278,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Recipient program: Lapsed
Liability;
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Value: -$128,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Recipient program: Standards
Development;
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Value: -$800,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Recipient program: Active
Electronically Scanned Array;
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Value: -$1,894,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Recipient program: Standards
Development;
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Value: -$1,681,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Recipient program: Aviation
Survivability;
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Value: -$48,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Recipient program: Test and
Evaluation Support;
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Value: -$608,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Recipient program: Carrier Systems
Development;
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Value: -$300,000;
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Recipient program: Carrier Systems
Development;
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Value: -$1,006,000;
Sources: Navy (data); GAO (analysis).
Note: For fiscal year 2002, BTRs with a net value greater than $4
million were still within the threshold for BTR reductions if the net
value did not exceed 20 percent of the program's designated funding.
[End of table]
Table 22: Percentage of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year
Organization: Air Force;
0 BTRs: 28%;
1 BTR: 29%;
2-5 BTRs: 37%;
6- 15 BTRs: 6%;
16-35 or more: 0%;
Total percentage: 100%.
Organization: Army;
0 BTRs: 7%;
1 BTR: 12%;
2-5 BTRs: 47%;
6-15 BTRs: 30%;
16-35 or more: 5%;
Total percentage: 101%[A].
Organization: Navy;
0 BTRs: 9%;
1 BTR: 5%;
2-5 BTRs: 44%;
6-15 BTRs: 28%;
16-35 or more: 15%;
Total percentage: 101%[A].
Organization: MDA;
0 BTRs: 8%;
1 BTR: 0%;
2-5 BTRs: 8%;
6-15 BTRs: 17%;
16- 35 or more: 67%;
Total percentage: 100%.
Organization: Total;
0 BTRs: 14%;
1 BTR: 14%;
2-5 BTRs: 42%;
6-15 BTRs: 22%;
16-35 or more: 8;
Total percentage: 100%.
Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); GAO (analysis).
[A] Total percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.
[End of table]
Table 23: Number of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year
Organization: Air Force;
0: 45;
1: 47;
2: 20;
3: 28;
4: 8;
5: 5;
6-10: 10;
11-15: 0;
16-20: 0;
21-25: 0;
26-30: 0;
31-35: 0;
35 or more: 0;
Total: 163.
Organization: Army;
0: 11;
1: 20;
2: 15;
3: 27;
4: 24;
5: 13;
6-10: 44;
11-15: 6;
16-20: 6;
21-25: 1;
26-30: 0;
31-35: 1;
35 or more: 0;
Total: 168.
Organization: Navy;
0: 17;
1: 9;
2: 32;
3: 18;
4: 27;
5: 11;
6-10: 32;
11-15: 23;
16-20: 23;
21-25: 1;
26-30: 2;
31-35: 2;
35 or more: 1;
Total: 198.
Organization: MDA;
0: 1;
1: 0;
2: 1;
3: 0;
4: 0;
5: 0;
6-10: 2;
11-15: 0;
16-20: 1;
21-25: 2;
26-30: 0;
31-35: 1;
35 or more: 4;
Total: 12.
Organization: Total;
0: 74;
1: 76;
2: 68;
3: 73;
4: 59;
5: 29;
6-10: 88;
11-15: 29;
16-20: 30;
21-25: 4;
26-30: 2;
31-35: 4;
35 or more: 5;
Total: 541.
Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); GAO (analysis).
[End of table]
Figure 5: Percentage of Programs with Only BTR Reductions, Only BTR
Additions, and Both BTR Reductions and Additions in Fiscal Year 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Office of the Secretary of Defense data were not available.
[End of figure]
Table 24: Top 10 Air Force Programs by Number of BTR Reductions in
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002:
2003:
Program name: Joint Strike Fighter Engineering and Manufacturing
Development; 11.
Program name: Joint Tactical Radio Systems; 10.
Program name: C-130 Airlift Squadrons; 6.
Program name: B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber; 6.
Program name: Large Aircraft InfraRed Counter Measures; 6.
Program name: B-52 Squadrons; 5.
Program name: Fighter Tactical Data Link; 5.
Program name: C-130J Program; 4.
Program name: CV-22; 4.
Program name: Intercontinental Ballistic Missile-Engineering and
Manufacturing Development; 4.
Program name: B-1B; 4;
2002:
Program name: Joint Strike Fighter Engineering and Manufacturing
Development; 10.
Program name: Large Aircraft InfraRed Counter Measures; 9.
Program name: Joint Direct Attack Munition; 7.
Program name: Satellite Control Network (Space); 7.
Program name: Navigational Satellite Timing and Ranging Global
Positioning System III; 7.
Program name: Test and Evaluation Support; 6.
Program name: B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber; 5.
Program name: Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles; 5.
Program name: F15E Squadrons; 5.
Program name: KC-10S; 5.
Program name: Intercontinental Ballistic Missile-Engineering and
Manufacturing Development; 5;
Sources: Air Force (data); GAO (analysis).
[End of table]
Table 25: Top 10 Air Force Programs by Number of BTR Additions in
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002:
2003:
Program name: Support Systems Development; 4.
Program name: Global Combat Support System; 4.
Program name: Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles; 3.
Program name: KC-10S; 3.
Program name: Rand Project Air Force; 3.
Program name: E-4B National Airborne Operations Center; 2.
Program name: Life Support Systems; 2.
Program name: Joint Direct Attack Munition; 2.
Program name: Dragon U-2 (Joint Military Intelligence Program); 2.
Program name: U.S. Air Force Modeling and Simulation; 2.
Program name: Distributed Common Ground Systems; 2.
Program name: C-5 Airlift Squadrons; 2.
Program name: C-17 Aircraft; 2.
Program name: KC-135S; 2.
Program name: Intelligence Advanced Development; 2.
Program name: Manned Reconnaissance Systems; 2.
Program name: Theater Battle Management Command, Control,
Communications, Computers and Intelligence; 2.
Program name: Common Low Observable Verification; 2.
Program name: Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System; 2.
Program name: F-15E Squadrons; 2.
Program name: Test and Evaluation Support; 2.
Program name: Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile; 2;
2002:
Program name: Navigational Satellite Timing and Ranging Global
Positioning System (Space); 4.
Program name: Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System; 4.
Program name: KC-10S; 4.
Program name: Support Systems Development; 3.
Program name: Polar Military Satellite Communications (Space); 3.
Program name: Military Strategic and Technical Relay Low Data Rate/
Medium Data Rate Satellite Communications (Space); 3.
Program name: Initial Operational Test & Evaluation; 3.
Program name: Wideband Gapfiller System (Research, Development, Test &
Evaluation) Space; 3.
Program name: Global Combat Support System; 2.
Program name: Electronic Warfare Development; 2.
Program name: Small Diameter Bomb (Demonstration/Validation); 2.
Program name: Armament/Ordnance Development; 2.
Program name: Combat Identification Technology; 2.
Program name: F15E Squadrons; 2.
Program name: U.S. Air Force Modeling and Simulation; 2.
Program name: C-5 Airlift Squadrons; 2.
Program name: Joint Direct Attack Munition; 2.
Program name: Distributed Common Ground Systems; 2.
Program name: Airborne Reconnaissance Systems; 2.
Program name: Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment; 2.
Program name: Advanced Spacecraft Technology; 2.
Program name: Command, Control, Communication and Intelligence
Advanced Development; 2.
Program name: Theater Battle Management Command, Control,
Communications, Computers and Intelligence; 2.
Program name: Test and Evaluation Support; 2.
Sources: Air Force (data); GAO (analysis).
[End of table]
Table 26: Top 10 Army Programs by Number of BTR Reductions in Fiscal
Years 2003 and 2002:
2003:
Program name: Logistics and Engineer Equipment-Engineering Development; 12.
Program name: End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities; 6.
Program name: Warfighter Advanced Technology; 6.
Program name: Medical Technology; 6.
Program name: Defense Research Sciences; 6.
Program name: Military Engineering Technology; 5.
Program name: Combat Feeding, Clothing, and Equipment; 5.
Program name: Support of Operational Testing; 5.
Program name: Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade & Below; 4.
Program name: Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank Missile; 4.
Program name: Night Vision Systems-Engineering Development; 4.
Program name: Sensors and Electronic Survivability; 8.
Program name: Landmine Warfare/Barrier- Engineering Development; 8.
2002:
Program name: Defense Research Sciences; 14.
Program name: End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities; 13.
Program name: Logistics and Engineer Equipment-Engineering Development; 13.
Program name: Global Combat Support System; 11.
Program name: Programwide Activities; 11.
Program name: Support of Operational Testing; 10.
Program name: Environmental Quality Technology Demonstration/
Validation; 9.
Program name: Munitions Standardization, Effectiveness and Safety; 9.
Program name: Landmine Warfare and Barrier Advanced Technology; 9.
Program name: Command, Control, Communications Technology; 8.
Program name: Night Vision Systems-Engineering Development; 8;
Sources: Army (data); GAO (analysis).
[End of table]
Table 27: Top 10 Army Programs by Number of BTR Additions in Fiscal
Years 2003 and 2002:
2003:
Program name: Technical Information Activities; 15.
Program name: Advanced Tank Armament System; 6.
Program name: Closed Account Adjustment; 5.
Program name: Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology; 4.
Program name: Line-of-Sight Technology Demonstration; 4.
Program name: Joint Simulation System Core Program; 4.
Program name: Management Headquarters (Research and Development); 4.
Program name: Programwide Activities; 4.
Program name: Logistics and Engineer Equipment-Advanced Development; 3.
Program name: Electronic Warfare Advanced Technology; 3.
Program name: University and Industry Research Centers; 3.
Program name: Aircraft Modifications/Product Improvement Program; 3.
Program name: Digitization; 3;
2002:
Program name: Army Test Ranges and Facilities; 29.
Program name: Canceled Account Adjustments; 21.
Program name: Army Evaluation Center; 10.
Program name: University and Industry Research Centers; 10.
Program name: Sensors and Electronic Survivability; 9.
Program name: Programwide Activities; 9.
Program name: Technical Information Activities; 8.
Program name: Advanced Concepts and Simulation; 6.
Program name: Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck; 6.
Program name: Information Technology Development; 5.
Program name: Command, Control, Communications Advanced Technology; 5;
Sources: Army (data); GAO (analysis).
[End of table]
Table 28: Top 10 Navy Programs by Number of BTR Reductions in Fiscal
Years 2003 and 2002:
2003:
Program name: Marine Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms Systems; 19.
Program name: Marine Corps Communications Systems; 19.
Program name: Navy Information Technology Development/Modification; 17.
Program name: Radio Frequency Systems Advanced Technology; 15.
Program name: Common Picture Advanced Technology; 13.
Program name: Warfighter Protection Advanced Technology; 12.
Program name: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation Ship and
Aircraft Support; 12.
Program name: Tactical Command System; 11.
Program name: Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support System; 11.
Program name: Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration; 10;
2002:
Program name: Radio Frequency Systems Advanced Technology; 21.
Program name: Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration; 19.
Program name: Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology; 17.
Program name: Marine Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms Systems; 17.
Program name: Marine Corps Communications Systems; 16.
Program name: V-22A; 16.
Program name: Defense Research Sciences; 16.
Program name: Satellite Communications (Space); 15.
Program name: Navy Information Technology Development/Modification; 15.
Program name: Undersea Warfare Advanced Technology;14.
Program name: Carrier Systems Development; 13;
Sources: Navy (data); GAO (analysis).
[End of table]
Table 29: Top 10 Navy Programs by Number of BTR Additions in Fiscal
Years 2003 and 2002:
2003:
Program name: Marine Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms System; 16.
Program name: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation Science and
Technology Management; 12.
Program name: Marine Corps Communications Systems; 10.
Program name: Force Protection Advanced Technology; 9.
Program name: Marine Corps Program Wide Support; 9.
Program name: Marine Corps Information Technology Development/
Modification; 9.
Program name: Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology; 8.
Program name: Navy Warfighting Experiments and Demonstrations; 7.
Program name: Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support System; 7.
Program name: Marine Corps Combat Services Support; 6.
Program name: Undersea Warfare Advanced Technology; 6.
Program name: Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration; 6.
Program name: Undersea Warfare Applied Research; 6.
Program name: Space and Electronic Warfare Architecture/Engineering
Support; 6;
2002:
Program name: Tactical Command System; 9.
Program name: Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology; 19.
Program name: Navy Warfighting Experiments and Demonstrations; 16.
Program name: Marine Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms System; 15.
Program name: Power Projection Advanced Technology; 13.
Program name: Radio Frequency Systems Advanced Technology; 11.
Program name: Marine Corps Communications Systems; 11.
Program name: Force Protection Advanced Technology; 11.
Program name: Marine Corps Program Wide Support; 11.
Program name: Marine Corps Information Technology Development/
Modification; 10.
Program name: Common Picture Advanced Technology; 9.
Program name: Force Protection Applied Research; 9.
Program name: Studies and Analysis Support-Navy; 9.
Program name: Warfighter Sustainment Applied Research; 9.
Program name: Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support System; 9;
Sources: Navy (data); GAO (analysis).
[End of table]
Table 30: Top 10 MDA Programs by Number of BTR Reductions in Fiscal
Years 2003 and 2002:
2003:
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense System; 129.
Program name: Theater High Altitude Area Defense System-Theater Missile
Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 30.
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense Technology; 18.
Program name: Midcourse Defense Segment; 17.
Program name: Sensors; 14.
Program name: Boost Defense Segment; 12.
Program name: Terminal Defense Segment; 8.
Program name: Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater Missile Defense-
Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 3.
Program name: Medium Extended Air Defense System Demonstration/
Validation; 2.
Program name: Management Headquarters-Missile Defense Agency; 1;
2002:
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense System; 170.
Program name: Midcourse Defense Segment; 51.
Program name: Boost Defense Segment; 41.
Program name: Theater High Altitude Area Defense System-Theater Missile
Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 28.
Program name: Sensors; 27.
Program name: Terminal Defense Segment; 19.
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense Technology; 13.
Program name: Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater Missile Defense-
Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 7.
Program name: Navy Area; 5.
Program name: Management Headquarters-Missile Defense Agency; 4.
Sources: MDA (data); GAO (analysis).
[End of table]
Table 31: Top 8 MDA Programs by Number of BTR Additions in Fiscal
Years 2003 and 2002:
2003:
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense System; 64.
Program name: Midcourse Defense Segment; 35.
Program name: Theater High Altitude Area Defense System Theater
Missile Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 24.
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense Technology; 9.
Program name: Boost Defense Segment; 9.
Program name: Sensors; 8.
Program name: Terminal Defense Segment; 7.
Program name: Management Headquarters-Missile Defense Agency; 7;
2002:
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense System; 81.
Program name: Midcourse Defense Segment; 47.
Program name: Boost Defense Segment; 19.
Program name: Sensors; 14.
Program name: Management Headquarters-Missile Defense Agency; 12.
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense Technology; 12.
Program name: Theater High Altitude Area Defense System Theater
Missile Defense- Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 4.
Program name: Terminal Defense Segment; 4.
Program name: Navy Area; 2.
Program name: Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater Missile Defense-
Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 1.
Sources: MDA (data); GAO (analysis).
[End of table]
Table 32: Programs with Highest Combined Number of BTRs in Fiscal Year
2003:
Air Force: Program name: Joint Strike Fighter Engineering and
Manufacturing Development;
BTR reductions: Value: -$24,177,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 11;
BTR additions: Value: $500,000;
BTR additions: Number: 1;
Total: Net value: -$23,677;
Total: Net total: 12;
Air Force: Program name: Joint Tactical Radio Systems;
BTR reductions: Value: -$3,539,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 10;
BTR additions: Value: $284,000;
BTR additions: Number: 1;
Total: Net value: -$3,255,000;
Total: Net total: 11;
Air Force: Program name: C-130 Airlift Squadrons;
BTR reductions: Value: -$21,037,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 6;
BTR additions: Value: $2,805,000;
BTR additions: Number: 1;
Total: Net value: -$18,232,000;
Total: Net total: 7;
Air Force: Program name: Large Aircraft InfraRed Counter Measures;
BTR reductions: Value: -$10,833,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 6;
BTR additions: Value: $9,455,000;
BTR additions: Number: 1;
Total: Net value: -$1,378,000;
Total: Net total: 7;
Air Force: Program name: B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber;
BTR reductions: Value: -$17,770,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 6;
BTR additions: Value: $0;
BTR additions: Number: 0;
Total: Net value: -$17,770,000;
Total: Net total: 6;
Air Force: Program name: B-52 Squadrons;
BTR reductions: Value: -$1,102,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 5;
BTR additions: Value: $0;
BTR additions: Number: 0;
Total: Net value: -$1,102,000;
Total: Net total: 5;
Air Force: Program name: Global Combat Support System;
BTR reductions: Value: -$284,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 1;
BTR additions: Value: $1,989,000;
BTR additions: Number: 4;
Total: Net value: $1,705,000;
Total: Net total: 5;
Air Force: Program name: Fighter Tactical Data Link;
BTR reductions: Value: -$8,758,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 5;
BTR additions: Value: $0;
BTR additions: Number: 0;
Total: Net value: -$8,758,000;
Total: Net total: 5;
Air Force: Program name: Support Systems Development;
BTR reductions: Value: -$974,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 1;
BTR additions: Value: $8,949,000;
BTR additions: Number: 4;
Total: Net value: $7,975,000;
Total: Net total: 5;
Air Force: Program name: C-5 Airlift Squadrons;
BTR reductions: Value: -$3,157,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 3;
BTR additions: Value: $11,000,000;
BTR additions: Number: 2;
Total: Net value: $7,832,000;
Total: Net total: 5.
Army: Program name: Technical Information Activities;
BTR reductions: Value: $0;
BTR reductions: Number: 0;
BTR additions: Value: $8,919,000;
BTR additions: Number: 15;
Total: Net value: $8,919,000;
Total: Net total: 15;
Army: Program name: Logistics and Engineer Equipment-Engineering
Development;
BTR reductions: Value: -$8,677,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 12;
BTR additions: Value: $0;
BTR additions: Number: 0;
Total: Net value: -$8,677,000;
Total: Net total: 12;
Army: Program name: Medical Technology;
BTR reductions: Value: -$1,667,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 6;
BTR additions: Value: $934,000;
BTR additions: Number: 1;
Total: Net value: -$733,000;
Total: Net total: 7;
Army: Program name: End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities;
BTR reductions: Value: -$6,127,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 6;
BTR additions: Value: $260,000;
BTR additions: Number: 1;
Total: Net value: -$5,867,000;
Total: Net total: 7;
Army: Program name: Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced
Technology;
BTR reductions: Value: -$2,585,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 3;
BTR additions: Value: $9,999,000;
BTR additions: Number: 4;
Total: Net value: $7,414,000;
Total: Net total: 7;
Army: Program name: Programwide Activities;
BTR reductions: Value: -$345,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 3;
BTR additions: Value: $2,169,000;
BTR additions: Number: 4;
Total: Net value: $1,824,000;
Total: Net total: 7;
Army: Program name: Defense Research Sciences;
BTR reductions: Value: -$2,593,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 6;
BTR additions: Value: $50,000;
BTR additions: Number: 1;
Total: Net value: -$2,543,000;
Total: Net total: 7;
Army: Program name: Warfighter Advanced Technology;
BTR reductions: Value: -$1,370,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 6;
BTR additions: Value: $0;
BTR additions: Number: 0;
Total: Net value: -$1,370,000;
Total: Net total: 6;
Army: Program name: Advanced Tank Armament System;
BTR reductions: Value: $0;
BTR reductions: Number: 0;
BTR additions: Value: $6,004,000;
BTR additions: Number: 6;
Total: Net value: $6,004,000;
Total: Net total: 6;
Army: Program name: University and Industry Research Centers;
BTR reductions: Value: -$800,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 3;
BTR additions: Value: $1,766,000;
BTR additions: Number: 3;
Total: Net value: $966,000;
Total: Net total: 6.
Navy: Program name: Marine Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms
Systems;
BTR reductions: Value: -$3,674,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 19;
BTR additions: Value: $2,938,000;
BTR additions: Number: 16;
Total: Net value: -$739,000;
Total: Net total: 35;
Navy: Program name: Marine Corps Communications Systems;
BTR reductions: Value: -$5,759,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 19;
BTR additions: Value: $1,963,000;
BTR additions: Number: 10;
Total: Net value: -$3,793,000;
Total: Net total: 29;
Navy: Program name: Navy Information Technology Development/
Modification;
BTR reductions: Value: -$4,075,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 17;
BTR additions: Value: $1,145,000;
BTR additions: Number: 4;
Total: Net value: -$2,930,000;
Total: Net total: 21;
Navy: Program name: Radio Frequency Systems Advanced Technology;
BTR reductions: Value: -$9,175,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 15;
BTR additions: Value: $8,809,000;
BTR additions: Number: 4;
Total: Net value: -$366,000;
Total: Net total: 19;
Navy: Program name: Common Picture Advanced Technology;
BTR reductions: Value: -$6,657,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 13;
BTR additions: Value: $5,321,000;
BTR additions: Number: 5;
Total: Net value: -$1,336,000;
Total: Net total: 18;
Navy: Program name: Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support System;
BTR reductions: Value: -$2,346,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 11;
BTR additions: Value: $3,299,000;
BTR additions: Number: 7;
Total: Net value: $953,000;
Total: Net total: 18;
Navy: Program name: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation Ship and
Aircraft Support;
BTR reductions: Value: -$5,806,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 12;
BTR additions: Value: $10,347,000;
BTR additions: Number: 5;
Total: Net value: $4,541,000;
Total: Net total: 17;
Navy: Program name: Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstrations;
BTR reductions: Value: -$2,440,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 10;
BTR additions: Value: $2,468,000;
BTR additions: Number: 6;
Total: Net value: $28,000;
Total: Net total: 16;
Navy: Program name: Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology;
BTR reductions: Value: -$9,531,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 8;
BTR additions: Value: $9,188,000;
BTR additions: Number: 8;
Total: Net value: -$343,000;
Total: Net total: 16;
Navy: Program name: Force Protection Advanced Technology;
BTR reductions: Value: -$6,070,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 6;
BTR additions: Value: $9,685,000;
BTR additions: Number: 9;
Total: Net value: $3,615,000;
Total: Net total: 15;
Navy: Program name: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation Ship and
Aircraft Support;
BTR reductions: Value: -$5,806,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 11;
BTR additions: Value: $10,347,000;
BTR additions: Number: 5;
Total: Net value: $4,541,000;
Total: Net total: 16.
MDA: Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense System;
BTR reductions: Value: -$121,249,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 129;
BTR additions: Value: $126,078,000;
BTR additions: Number: 64;
Total: Net value: $4,829,000;
Total: Net total: 193;
MDA: Program name: Theater High Altitude Area Defense System Theater
Missile Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing Development;
BTR reductions: Value: -$61,318,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 30;
BTR additions: Value: $60,026,000;
BTR additions: Number: 24;
Total: Net value: -$1,292,000;
Total: Net total: 54;
MDA: Program name: Midcourse Defense Segment;
BTR reductions: Value: -$50,273,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 17;
BTR additions: Value: $60,281,000;
BTR additions: Number: 35;
Total: Net value: $10,008,000;
Total: Net total: 52;
MDA: Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense Technology;
BTR reductions: Value: -$13,777,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 18;
BTR additions: Value: $16,983,000;
BTR additions: Number: 9;
Total: Net value: $3,206,000;
Total: Net total: 27;
MDA: Program name: Sensors;
BTR reductions: Value: -$31,497,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 14;
BTR additions: Value: $33,163,000;
BTR additions: Number: 8;
Total: Net value: $1,666,000;
Total: Net total: 22;
MDA: Program name: Boost Defense Segment;
BTR reductions: Value: -$26,119,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 12;
BTR additions: Value: $18,447,000;
BTR additions: Number: 9;
Total: Net value: -$7,672,000;
Total: Net total: 21;
MDA: Program name: Terminal Defense Segment;
BTR reductions: Value: -$14,785,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 8;
BTR additions: Value: $15,467,000;
BTR additions: Number: 7;
Total: Net value: $682,000;
Total: Net total: 15;
MDA: Program name: Management Headquarters-Missile Defense Agency;
BTR reductions: Value: -$160,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 1;
BTR additions: Value: $10,078,000;
BTR additions: Number: 7;
Total: Net value: $9,918,000;
Total: Net total: 8;
MDA: Program name: Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater Missile
Defense- Engineering and Manufacturing Development;
BTR reductions: Value: -$10,252,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 3;
BTR additions: Value: $0;
BTR additions: Number: 0;
Total: Net value: -$10,252,000;
Total: Net total: 3;
MDA: Program name: Medium Extended Air Defense System Demonstration/
Validation (Program Definition/Validation);
BTR reductions: Value: -$6,440,000;
BTR reductions: Number: 2;
BTR additions: Value: $0;
BTR additions: Number: 0;
Total: Net value: -$6,440,000;
Total: Net total: 2.
Table 33: Dollar Value of Withholds for Fiscal Year 2002 Programs:
Organization: Air Force;
Value of withholds: N/A.
Organization: Army;
Value of withholds: $140,126,000.
Organization: Navy;
Value of withholds: $1,090,670,000.
Organization: MDA;
Value of withholds: N/A[A].
Organization: Office of the Secretary of Defense;
Value of withholds: $2,742,580,000.
Organization: Total;
Value of withholds: $3,973,376,000.
Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA, Office of the Secretary of
Defense (data);
GAO (analysis).
[A] MDA says that while it does not always release all appropriated
funds immediately to its programs, it does not consider these actions
to be withholds and did not provide this data to us.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Paul L. Francis (202) 512-4841 D. Catherine Baltzell (202) 512-8001:
Acknowledgments:
In addition, key contributors to the report include Lily J. Chin,
Christopher A. Deperro, Joseph E. Dewechter, Alan Frazier, Ivy Hubler,
Matthew R. Mongin, Bonita J.P. Oden, Katrina D. Taylor, Bradley L.
Terry, and Adam Vodraska.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Coast Guard: Station Spending Requirements Met, but Better Processes
Needed to Track Designated Funds.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-704]
Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2004.
Military Housing: Opportunities Exist to Better Explain Family Housing
O&M Budget Requests and Increase Visibility Over Reprogramming of
Funds. [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-583]
Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2004.
Future Years Defense Program: Actions Needed to Improve Transparency
of DOD's Projected Resource Needs. [
Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-514]
Washington, D.C.: May 7, 2004.
Budget Issues: Reprogramming of Federal Air Marshal Service Funds in
Fiscal Year 2003.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-577R]
Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2004.
Budget Process: Long-Term Focus Is Critical.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-585T]
Washington, D.C.: March 23, 2004.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Defense.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-98]
Washington, D.C.: January 2003.
Defense Budget: Improved Reviews Needed to Ensure Better Management of
Obligated Funds.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-275]
Washington, D.C.: January 30, 2003.
Performance Budgeting: Opportunities and Challenges.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-1106T]
Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2002.
Congressional Oversight: Challenges for the 21st Century.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-OCG-00-11]
Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2000.
Managing in the New Millennium: Shaping a More Efficient and Effective
Government for the 21st Century.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-OCG-00-9]
Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2000.
Congressional Oversight: Opportunities to Address Risks, Reduce Costs,
and Improve Performance.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-AIMD-00-96]
Washington, D.C.: February 17, 2000.
(120280):
FOOTNOTES
[1] The funds are appropriated in a lump sum for each of the research
and development accounts (Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense-wide) and
the conference report accompanying the annual DOD appropriations act
designates both the individual programs to receive the funds and the
amount each program is to receive.
[2] Above-threshold reprogrammings are not a focus of this report
because they are visible to Congress.
[3] By donor we mean the program(s) from which funds are shifted and by
recipient we mean the receiving program(s).
[4] As used in this report, the term withholding does not refer to
withholdings of budget authority as defined under the Impoundment
Control Act of 1974.
[5] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-283, at 231. The Conference Report used the
term "taxes" or "taxing" to refer to reductions by DOD to the levels of
funding appropriated to a program. To avoid confusion, this report does
not use these terms as they are not used in DOD's Financial Management
Regulation. Instead, we use the terms reprogramming or withholds.
[6] GAO, Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G
(Washington D.C.: August 2001).
[7] The KC-10S program was canceled shortly after this increase in
funding.
[8] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-622, at 68.
[9] DOD's instructions for the congressional notification process for
reprogrammings are contained in the DOD Financial Management
Regulation, vol. 3, chapter 6 (August 2000), as supplemented by the DOD
Comptroller. Reprogramming differs from a transfer, which is the
shifting of funds between appropriations. For example, a military
service receives an appropriation for research and development but
transfers the funds out of research and development to operations and
maintenance. Transfers require specific statutory authority. DOD has
multiple statutory transfer authorities.
[10] At the request of Army budget officials, we also compared the data
contained in the DD 1416 with electronic data from the Program Budget
Accounting System. However, the accounting system's electronic data did
not match the data contained in the DD 1416s. The percentage of
mismatches was 32.5 percent in fiscal year 2003 and 22.9 percent in
fiscal year 2002.
[11] Reprogramming of the remaining 41 percent, or about $700 million,
was above the threshold, required prior congressional approval, and was
visible to Congress.
[12] A program with BTRs may have experienced a net loss, a net gain,
or no change in funds, depending on how the BTRs were applied.
[13] Specifically, rescissions and reductions cancel appropriated
funding by canceling the availability of budget authority provided by
law before the authority would otherwise lapse.
[14] P. L. 107-248, section 8135(a).
[15] Memorandum from DOD Comptroller, Nov. 4, 2003, FY 2004 Below
Threshold Reprogramming (BTR) Authority Policy, implementing direction
of H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-283, at 60.
[16] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-622, at 68.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
