Contract Management
DOD Developed Draft Guidance for Operational Contract Support but Has Not Met All Legislative Requirements
Gao ID: GAO-09-114R November 20, 2008
The U.S. military has long used contractors to provide supplies and services to deployed U.S. forces as well as for post-conflict support. The Department of Defense's (DOD) use of contractors has grown significantly to the extent that the force in Iraq is composed of approximately 143,000 military personnel and 149,000 DOD contractor personnel. Congress,GAO, and others have frequently reported on or expressed concerns about the long-standing challenges that DOD faces when managing operational contract support. These challenges include a failure to adequately plan for the use of contractors, poorly defined or changing requirements, a lack of deployable contracting personnel with contingency contracting experience, and difficulties in coordinating contracts and contractor management across military services in joint contingency environments. Furthermore, as we have previously reported, DOD has not provided a sufficient number of trained contract oversight and management personnel in contingency operations, and visibility of contracting activities and contractors has been limited. As we have testified, problems associated with DOD's inability to overcome these challenges have resulted in higher costs, schedule delays, unmet goals, and negative operational impacts. To respond to these concerns, Congress enacted an amendment to title 10 of the U.S. Code adding section 2333, which directed the Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop joint policies by April 2008 for requirements definition, contingency program management, and contingency contracting during combat and post-conflict operations. In January 2008, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, hereafter referred to as the NDAA FY08, amended section 2333 to add a new subparagraph directing that these joint policies provide for training of military personnel outside the acquisition workforce who are expected to have acquisition responsibilities including oversight of contracts or contractors during combat operations, post-conflict operations and contingency operations. Additionally, NDAA FY08 directed GAO to review DOD's joint policies and determine the extent to which those policies and the implementation of such policies comply with the requirements of section 2333 of title 10 of the U.S. Code. This report responds to congressional direction included in section 849 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (NDAA FY08). Our objectives were to determine the extent to which (1) DOD has complied with section 2333 of title 10 of the U.S. Code to develop joint policies for (a) requirements definition, (b) contingency program management, (c) contingency contracting, and (d) training for personnel outside the acquisition workforce; and (2) DOD has implemented these joint policies.
DOD is revising and developing new joint policies in each of four areas required-- requirements definition, contingency program management, contingency contracting, and training for personnel outside the acquisition workforce; however, these policies were not finalized by April 2008 as required by the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. As of October 1, 2008, the draft policies were not in full compliance with every subparagraph of section 2333 of title 10 and the extent to which the policies comply varies. For example, the law directs DOD to develop joint policies that provide for "a preplanned organizational approach to program management" during combat operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency operations. As of October 1, 2008, none of DOD's draft policies provided guidance on the use of a preplanned organizational approach to program management. According to DOD officials, it is envisioned that the combatant commanders will identify the preplanned organizational approach they intend to use in their planning documents; however, policy will have to be revised to reflect guidance for combatant commanders to include this in their plans. Furthermore, the law directs DOD to assign a senior commissioned officer to act as head of contingency contracting and report to the relevant combatant commander. However, DOD's draft Joint Publication 4-10 does not provide for the assignment of a single head of contracting activity to oversee contracting during all contingencies. Furthermore, DOD has begun to implement aspects of the draft policies in all four required areas. For example, DOD has implemented draft policy that directs the services, military departments, and combatant commands to provide for the integration of contractors and operational acquisition in mission readiness exercises. However, DOD has not fully implemented another training policy that requires the services to provide training to personnel outside the acquisition workforce. Specifically, the Army has developed training, but neither the Air Force nor the Department of the Navy has identified plans or initiatives to develop and provide training for personnel outside the acquisition workforce.
GAO-09-114R, Contract Management: DOD Developed Draft Guidance for Operational Contract Support but Has Not Met All Legislative Reguirements
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-114R
entitled 'Contract Management: DOD Developed Draft Guidance for
Operational Contract Support but Has Not Met All Legislative
Requirements' which was released on November 20, 2008.
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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
November 20, 2008:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Chairman:
The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Contract Management: DOD Developed Draft Guidance for
Operational Contract Support but Has Not Met All Legislative
Requirements:
The U.S. military has long used contractors to provide supplies and
services to deployed U.S. forces as well as for post-conflict support.
[Footnote 1] The Department of Defense's (DOD) use of contractors has
grown significantly to the extent that the force in Iraq is composed of
approximately 143,000 military personnel and 149,000 DOD contractor
personnel. Congress, GAO, and others have frequently reported on or
expressed concerns about the long-standing challenges that DOD faces
when managing operational contract support.[Footnote 2] These
challenges include a failure to adequately plan for the use of
contractors, poorly defined or changing requirements, a lack of
deployable contracting personnel with contingency contracting
experience, and difficulties in coordinating contracts and contractor
management across military services in joint contingency environments.
Furthermore, as we have previously reported, DOD has not provided a
sufficient number of trained contract oversight and management
personnel in contingency operations, and visibility of contracting
activities and contractors has been limited.[Footnote 3] As we have
testified, problems associated with DOD's inability to overcome these
challenges have resulted in higher costs, schedule delays, unmet goals,
and negative operational impacts.[Footnote 4]
To respond to these concerns, Congress enacted an amendment to title 10
of the U.S. Code adding section 2333, which directed the Secretary of
Defense in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
to develop joint policies by April 2008 for requirements definition,
contingency program management, and contingency contracting during
combat and post-conflict operations.[Footnote 5] In January 2008, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, hereafter
referred to as the NDAA FY08, amended section 2333 to add a new
subparagraph directing that these joint policies provide for training
of military personnel outside the acquisition workforce who are
expected to have acquisition responsibilities including oversight of
contracts or contractors during combat operations, post-conflict
operations and contingency operations.[Footnote 6] Additionally, NDAA
FY08 directed GAO to review DOD's joint policies and determine the
extent to which those policies and the implementation of such policies
comply with the requirements of section 2333 of title 10 of the U.S.
Code.
This report responds to congressional direction included in section 849
of NDAA FY08. Our objectives were to determine the extent to which (1)
DOD has complied with section 2333 of title 10 of the U.S. Code to
develop joint policies for (a) requirements definition, (b) contingency
program management, (c) contingency contracting, and (d) training for
personnel outside the acquisition workforce; and (2) DOD has
implemented these joint policies.
To determine the extent to which DOD has complied with the requirement
to develop policy discussed in section 2333 of title 10, we obtained
and reviewed copies of the following draft policies, which were
identified by the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Program
Support) as being developed or revised to meet the statutory
requirements: (1) DOD Directive 3020.qq, "Orchestrating, Synchronizing,
and Integrating Program Management of Contingency Acquisition Planning
and Its Operational Execution"; (2) DOD Directive 5134.12, "Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness"; (3)
DOD Instruction 3020.41, "Program Management for the Preparation and
Execution of Acquisitions for Contingency Operations"; (4)
Expeditionary Contracting Policy; and (5) Joint Publication 4-10,
"Operational Contract Support."[Footnote 7] In addition, we met with
representatives of the Joint Staff, the Office of the Assistant Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense (Program Support) (ADUSD(PS)) and the Office
of the Director of Defense Procurement, Acquisition Policy, and
Strategic Sourcing because these offices play key roles in developing
and implementing the joint policies.
To determine the extent to which the policies have been implemented, we
met with representatives of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, as well as
representatives of the Joint Staff and U.S. Central Command, U.S.
Pacific Command, U.S. European Command, and U.S. Southern Command. In
addition, we met with representatives of the Defense Acquisition
University, which is responsible for developing training for
acquisition personnel and contracting officer representatives, to
obtain information on the training available to contingency contracting
personnel, program management personnel, and oversight personnel. We
also interviewed officials from the Department of State who coordinate
with DOD in interagency planning and operations. Finally, we met with
the presumptive director of the Joint Contingency Acquisition Support
Office to determine the office's role and responsibilities in
contingency contracting, program management, requirements definition,
and training. We also obtained and reviewed documents prepared by the
Defense Acquisition University and others to assist us in determining
the status of implementation. Enclosure I contains a more detailed
presentation of our scope and methodology.
Our assessment of the actions DOD has taken to meet the provisions of
section 2333 of title 10 does not address the effectiveness of policies
that were in place prior to the mandate. Moreover, we did not evaluate
whether these draft policies will be effective because many are under
development and subject to change.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2008 to November 2008 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on audit objectives. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our assessment based
on our audit objectives.
Summary:
DOD is revising and developing new joint policies in each of four areas
required--requirements definition, contingency program management,
contingency contracting, and training for personnel outside the
acquisition workforce; however, these policies were not finalized by
April 2008 as required by the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. As of October 1, 2008, the
draft policies were not in full compliance with every subparagraph of
section 2333 of title 10 and the extent to which the policies comply
varies. For example, the law directs DOD to develop joint policies that
provide for "a preplanned organizational approach to program
management" during combat operations, post-conflict operations, and
contingency operations.[Footnote 8] As of October 1, 2008, none of
DOD's draft policies provided guidance on the use of a preplanned
organizational approach to program management. According to DOD
officials, it is envisioned that the combatant commanders will identify
the preplanned organizational approach they intend to use in their
planning documents; however, policy will have to be revised to reflect
guidance for combatant commanders to include this in their plans.
Furthermore, the law directs DOD to assign a senior commissioned
officer to act as head of contingency contracting and report to the
relevant combatant commander.[Footnote 9] However, DOD's draft Joint
Publication 4-10 does not provide for the assignment of a single head
of contracting activity to oversee contracting during all
contingencies.
Enclosure II provides more details of our assessment of the extent to
which DOD draft policies address the requirements in section 2333 of
title 10, including a number of observations that could be useful as
DOD finalizes its draft policies. While a draft of this report was at
the agency for comment, DOD finalized Joint Publication 4-10,
"Operational Contract Support," which was signed on October 17, 2008.
The remaining joint policies have yet to be finalized.
Furthermore, DOD has begun to implement aspects of the draft policies
in all four required areas. For example, DOD has implemented draft
policy[Footnote 10] that directs the services, military departments,
and combatant commands to provide for the integration of contractors
and operational acquisition in mission readiness exercises.[Footnote
11] However, DOD has not fully implemented another training policy that
requires the services to provide training to personnel outside the
acquisition workforce. Specifically, the Army has developed training,
but neither the Air Force nor the Department of the Navy has identified
plans or initiatives to develop and provide training for personnel
outside the acquisition workforce. Enclosure II contains more detail on
our assessment of the extent to which DOD has implemented its draft
policies.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluations:
We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. In
their written comments, DOD stated that it believes our report
prematurely speculates on the results of pending draft DOD directives,
publications, and instructions. We disagree with DOD's assessment. We
were required by section 849 of the NDAA 08 to conduct our review no
later than 180 days after the Secretary of Defense's April report on
the implementation of joint policies developed under section 2333 of
title 10 of the U.S. Code. Furthermore, our report notes that our
assessment provides the status, as of October 1, 2008, of DOD's
compliance and implementation of the provisions of section 2333,
including a number of observations on DOD's progress in developing DOD
directives, publications, and instructions as well as observations that
could be useful as DOD finalizes its draft policies. DOD also provided
us with technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as
appropriate. DOD's response is attached as enclosure III.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional
committees and the Secretary of Defense. In addition, this report will
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
Should you or your staff have any questions on the matters covered in
this report, please contact Linda Kohn at (202) 512-7114 or
kohnl@gao.gov or John Hutton at (202) 512-4841 or huttonj@gao.gov.
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who
made key contributions to this report are listed in enclosure IV.
Signed by:
Linda Kohn, Acting Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
Signed by:
John Hutton, Director:
Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
[End of section]
Enclosure I: Scope and Methodology:
After Congress amended section 2333 of title 10 of the U.S. Code, it
directed GAO to determine the extent to which (1) the Department of
Defense (DOD) has complied with section 2333 of title 10 to develop
joint policies for (a) requirements definition, (b) contingency program
management, (c) contingency contracting, and (d) training for personnel
outside the acquisition workforce; and (2) DOD has implemented joint
policies in these four areas of the law. Our assessment of the actions
DOD has taken to meet the provisions of section 2333 of title 10 does
not address the effectiveness of policies that were in place prior to
the mandate. Furthermore, we did not evaluate whether these draft
policies will be effective because many are under development and
subject to change.
To determine how DOD was addressing and complying with section 2333 of
title 10, we obtained and reviewed copies of the following draft
policies identified by the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Program Support) (ADUSD(PS)) as being developed or revised to meet
section 2333:
* DOD Instruction 3020.41, "Program Management for the Preparation and
Execution of Acquisitions for Contingency Operations";
* DOD's revision to Directive 5134.12, "Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness";
* DOD Directive 3020.qq, "Orchestrating, Synchronizing, and Integrating
Program Management of Contingency Acquisition Planning and Its
Operational Execution";
* Expeditionary Contracting Policy; and:
* Joint Publication 4-10, "Operational Contract Support."[Footnote 12]
To determine the extent to which DOD's joint policies have been
implemented, we obtained and reviewed a number of key documents and
interviewed a number of officials. First, we reviewed DOD's reports to
Congress addressing DOD's implementation of the requirements of section
854 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal
Year 2007, including the interim report to Congress, issued October
2007, and the final report to Congress, issued in April 2008. We also
reviewed the 2008 report, entitled Department of Defense Task Force on
Contracting and Contractor Management in Expeditionary Operations,
submitted to Congress in response to section 849 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Additionally, we
reviewed several DOD documents that were in draft at the time of our
engagement, including the Operational Contract Support Concept of
Operations, the Operational Contract Support Roadmap, and the Joint
Contingency Acquisition Support Office Concept of Operations. These
documents explain how DOD intends to implement the policies it is
developing. We also reviewed DOD's Report on Improving Interagency
Support for United States 21ST Century National Security Missions and
Interagency Operations in Support of Stability, Security, Transition,
and Reconstruction Operations (section 1035 report) to determine the
expectations it established for DOD with respect to interagency
cooperation in planning for, exercising, and executing reconstruction
and stability operations.
To evaluate steps taken by DOD to provide and ensure contingency
contracting training, we examined the Defense Acquisition Workforce
Improvement Act to understand training requirements for personnel in
the contracting career field and to determine if existing
certifications awarded for meeting these requirements would identify
personnel who have completed contingency contracting training.[Footnote
13] We reviewed Contingency Contracting: A Joint Handbook and other
provided instructional materials for the Defense Acquisition
University's basic contracting courses and contingency contracting
course, CON 234, to ensure that the available training contained the
legally required elements. We also reviewed joint and service training
documents, and the Defense Acquisition University's contracting
officer's representative training class materials, to assess whether
the training of officers and subordinates in the field in contingency
program management and contingency contracting matters-
-both acquisition and non-acquisition personnel--meets the intent of
section 2333 of title 10.
In addition to our document review, we interviewed officials including
representatives of the Office of the ADUSD(PS), Joint Staff, and the
Office of the Director of Defense Procurement, Acquisition Policy, and
Strategic Sourcing to discuss, among other things, the status of the
development or revision of joint policies, intended deadlines for
finalizing joint policies, and challenges faced. We interviewed these
officials to determine the extent to which DOD had implemented the
policies it is developing. We also interviewed officials from the Joint
Contracting Command --Iraq/Afghanistan to discuss contingency
contracting, and interviewed Department of State officials to assess
the extent to which DOD has undertaken interagency planning and
operations, as required in section 2333 of title 10.
We conducted interviews with service offices dedicated to planning,
doctrine, and training functions, including the Army's Acquisition,
Logistics and Technology Integration Office, and the following
combatant commands:
* U.S. Joint Forces Command,
* U.S. Central Command,
* U.S. Pacific Command,
* U.S. European Command, and:
* U.S. Southern Command.
At these service and joint offices, we interviewed military officers
and planners responsible for the revision of the geographic combatant
commanders' operation plans and concept plans, to determine whether
these plans incorporated DOD's draft policies on the four areas
discussed in section 2333 of title 10.
Additionally, we met with U.S. Joint Forces Command representatives, as
well as Army, Navy, and Air Force representatives to discuss training
initiatives and the extent to which contractors have been incorporated
into mission readiness exercises. We met with representatives of the
Defense Acquisition University to obtain information on the training
available to contingency contracting personnel, program management
personnel, and oversight personnel, including non-acquisition members
of the officer corps.
Finally, to help us assess DOD's implementation of some of the joint
policies we met with the presumptive director of the Joint Contingency
Acquisition Support Office. In our interview with the presumptive
director, we sought to gain an understanding of his office's role in
contingency program management and contingency contracting as well as
who would make up the proposed deployable cadre of experts and what
their roles and responsibilities would entail.
We visited or contacted the following offices during our review.
Department of Defense:
* Office of the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Program
Support) (ADUSD(PS)), Washington, D.C.
* Joint Contracting Command --Iraq/Afghanistan, Baghdad, Iraq:
* Office of Defense Procurement, Acquisition Policy, and Strategic
Sourcing, Washington, D.C.
* U.S. Joint Forces Command, Suffolk, Virginia:
* Joint Warfighting Center, Suffolk, Virginia:
* Joint Staff J4 (Logistics) Directorate, Washington, D.C.
* U.S. Central Command, Tampa, Florida:
* U.S. European Command, Stuttgart, Germany:
* U.S. Pacific Command, Honolulu, Hawaii:
* U.S. Southern Command, Miami, Florida:
* Defense Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir, Virginia:
* Joint Contingency Acquisition Support Office (provisionally located
at the Defense Depot), Norfolk, Virginia:
Department of the Navy:
* Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Acquisition and
Logistics Management, Arlington, Virginia:
Department of the Army:
* Acquisition, Logistics and Technology Integration Office, Fort Lee,
Virginia:
* Army Expeditionary Contracting Command, Fort Belvoir, Virginia:
Department of the Air Force:
* Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Contracting,
Arlington, Virginia:
Other government agencies:
* U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2008 to November 2008 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Our
assessment of the extent to which DOD's draft policies met the
requirements of section 2333 of title 10 is based on our review of the
draft policies and guidance as they were written on October 1, 2008.
Similarly our assessment of the extent to which the policies have been
implemented was based on the work we undertook from June 2008 through
October 1, 2008. Generally accepted government auditing standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for this assessment based on our
audit objectives.
[End of section]
Enclosure II: GAO's Assessment of DOD's Compliance With and
Implementation of the Provisions of Section 2333 of Title 10 of the
U.S. Code to Develop Joint Policies:
The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2007,[Footnote 14] hereafter referred to as NDAA FY 07, amended title
10 of the U.S. Code to add section 2333, requiring the Secretary of
Defense in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
to develop joint policies for requirements definition, contingency
program management, and contingency contracting during combat
operations and post-conflict operations by April 2008.[Footnote 15] In
January 2008, the National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2008
further amended section 2333 of title 10 directing that these joint
policies provide for training of military personnel outside the
acquisition workforce who are expected to have acquisition
responsibilities during combat operations, post-conflict operations,
and contingency operations.[Footnote 16] This amendment also included a
requirement for GAO to review the joint policies and the implementation
of those policies and submit to Congress a report on the extent to
which such policies comply with the requirements of section 2333 of
title 10 no later than 180 days after the Secretary of Defense's April
report on the implementation of joint policies developed under section
2333 of title 10.[Footnote 17]
Table 1 is our assessment of the actions DOD has taken to meet the
requirements of section 2333 of title 10 and includes a number of
observations that could be useful as DOD finalizes its draft policies.
DOD's joint policies were not finalized by April 2008, as required by
the NDAA FY07. DOD is currently revising and developing new joint
policies on each of the four matters required under section 2333 of
title 10; however, as of October 1, 2008, these draft policies were not
in full compliance with all the subparagraphs of section 2333.
Furthermore, DOD has begun to implement some of the draft policies on
each of the four matters; however, the extent of implementation varies.
While a draft of this report was at the agency for comment, DOD
finalized Joint Publication 4-10, "Operational Contract Support," which
was signed on October 17, 2008. The remaining joint policies have yet
to be finalized.
Our assessment of the extent to which DOD's draft policies met the
requirements of section 2333 of title 10 is based on our review of the
draft policies and guidance as they were written on October 1, 2008.
Similarly, our assessment of the extent to which the policies have been
implemented was based on the work we undertook from June 2008 through
October 1, 2008. Furthermore, our assessment of the actions DOD has
taken to meet the provisions of section 2333 of title 10 does not
address the effectiveness of policies that were in place prior to the
mandate. Moreover, we did not evaluate whether these draft policies
will be effective because many are under development and subject to
change.
Table 1: GAO's Assessment of DOD's Compliance and Implementation of the
Provisions of Section 2333 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code to Develop
Joint Policies:
Section 2333 (a) Joint Policy requirement: The Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, shall
develop joint policies for requirements definition, contingency program
management, and contingency contracting during combat operations and
post-conflict operations;
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008: DOD's joint policies, which were to be issued by April
2008,[A] are still in development. According to the Office of the
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Program Support)
(ADUSD(PS)), who was designated to implement section 854 of the John
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007, the five draft
joint policies discussed below were identified as the policies being
developed to meet the requirements of section 2333 of title 10 of the
U.S. Code.
DOD is developing Department of Defense Directive 3020.qq,
"Orchestrating, Synchronizing, and Integrating Program Management of
Contingency Acquisition Planning and Its Operational Execution." The
purpose of this draft directive is to establish policy and assign
responsibilities for program management for the preparation and
execution of acquisitions for contingency operations, in accordance
with section 2333 of title 10 of the U.S. Code. The draft directive
states that it is DOD policy that appropriate program management for
the preparation and execution of acquisitions for contingency
operations is implemented to abide by applicable laws and policies, and
to fully consider, plan for, integrate, and execute contractor support
into contingency operations. The draft directive also states that the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness
(DUSD(L&MR)) is to manage the Joint Logistics Portfolio containing the
operational contract support capability area to ensure effective
management of contracts and contractors through the development of
joint policies on requirements definition, contingency program
management, and contingency contracting. Additionally, the ADUSD(PS),
under the DUSD(L&MR) is to (1) oversee and manage the orchestration,
integration, and synchronization of the preparation and execution of
acquisitions for contingency operations; (2) lead, in conjunction with
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the development of joint
policies for requirements definition, contingency program management,
and contingency contracting; and (3) undertake interagency
coordination, as appropriate.[B] Finally, the draft directive states
that the Defense Acquisition University (DAU), under the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense, Acquisition and Technology, is to develop and
execute training of the acquisition workforce.
DOD is revising Department of Defense Directive 5134.12, entitled
"Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Material
Readiness," to provide the current responsibilities, functions,
relationships, and authorities of the (DUSD(L&MR). For example, the
draft directive states that program management will be delegated to the
ADUSD (PS) for joint policies for requirements definition and
contingency program management, including (1) establishing a framework
and the policies for a Joint Contingency Acquisition Support Office
(JCASO) to support contingency operations in accordance with
congressional mandates; (2) establishing policies for
institutionalizing the requirement for joint operational contract
support planners in each of the combatant commands; (3) providing for
the accountability and visibility of DOD contractors supporting
contingency operations through a DOD-approved common database; and (4)
providing policy and guidance for DOD contractors and contractor
personnel in support of contingency, disaster relief, and humanitarian
assistance operations.
Section 2333 (a) Joint Policy requirement:
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008:
Section 2333 (a) Joint Policy requirement: The Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, shall
develop joint policies for requirements definition, contingency program
management, and contingency contracting during combat operations and
post-conflict operations.
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008: DOD is revising existing DOD Instruction (DODI)
3020.41, "Program Management for the Preparation and Execution of
Acquisitions for Contingency Operations."[C] This document strengthens
the department's joint policies and guidance on requirements
definition; program management, including the oversight of contractor
personnel supporting a contingency operation; and training. The draft
instruction states that it is DOD policy to fully consider, plan for,
integrate, and execute contractor support into contingency operations.
The draft instruction further contains instructions to combatant
commanders and service component commanders to conduct planning to
identify military capabilities shortfalls that require acquisition
solutions in commanders' operational plans. The draft also provides
joint policy on some aspects of program management, such as the
management of contractors supporting a contingency operation. For
example, the draft policy notes that DOD has designated a joint Web-
based database for combatant commander's to use in maintaining
accountability and visibility over DOD-funded contracts and contractors
in their areas of responsibility. The draft document also directs that
adequate trained military or DOD civilian personnel resources necessary
to execute contract oversight are identified and addressed in the
operational plans. In addition, the draft also directs the combatant
commanders to integrate requirements identification, contractor
management, contractor integration, and any identified operational
acquisition requirements into training simulations, mission rehearsals,
and exercises.
DOD is developing an Expeditionary Contracting Policy, which will
supplement the Federal Acquisition Regulation and Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement and is intended to establish uniform
policies and procedures for DOD contingency contracting officers. DOD
intends for the draft policy to also provide practical advice as well
as reminders of contract policies that affect buying in long-and short-
term contingency operations. The draft policy also provides the
foundation for the Joint Contingency Contracting Handbook. According to
DOD, the handbook and enclosed DVD provide tools, templates, and
training that enable a contingency contracting officer to be effective
in any contracting environment. The handbook also contains resources
for contracting officers to promote uniform contracting practices,
including standardized contract forms and language for terms and
conditions. While the handbook was available in December 2007, DOD
officials do not expect the draft policy to be finalized until Joint
Publication 4-10 is finalized so that they may ensure that policy and
doctrine are aligned.
DOD's draft Joint Publication 4-10,[D] "Operational Contract Support,"
is intended to establish DOD's doctrine for planning, conducting, and
assessing operational contract support integration and contract
management functions in support of joint operations. The draft joint
publication provides standardized guidance and information related to
integrating operational contract support and contractor management. The
draft doctrine contains guidance on the requirements development
process. The draft doctrine also briefly addresses contingency program
management by identifying a future organizational option, called the
JCASO, which will provide program management for joint contingency
acquisition across the combatant commands and interagency, during
combat operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency
operations. Additionally, the draft joint publication contains guidance
on contractor management principles, which are mainly focused on the
integration of contractor personnel once the commander makes the
decision to use contracted versus military sources of support. The
draft includes specific guidance on DOD's responsibility to contractor
employees to provide things such as life support, force protection, and
medical support as well as a basic discussion on contracting command
and control organizational options. The draft doctrine also provides
commanders with options for how to organize the command and control
over supporting contracting organizations, which includes a joint
approach with consolidated contracting authority. However, because this
publication is doctrine, it does not require a joint approach even when
multiple services are involved.[E].
Section 2333 (b); Requirements Definition Matters: (1); The assignment
of a senior commissioned officer or civilian member of the senior
executive service, with appropriate experience and qualifications
related to the definition of requirements to be satisfied through
acquisition contracts (such as for delivery of products or services,
performance of work, or accomplishment of a project), to act as head of
requirements definition and coordination during combat operations, post-
conflict operations, and contingency operations, if required, including
leading a requirements review board involving all organizations
concerned;
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008:
In the current forms, neither the draft DOD Directive 3020.qq, draft
DOD Directive 5134.12, nor draft Joint Publication 4-10 provide for the
assignment of a single senior commissioned officer or civilian member
of the senior executive service, with appropriate experience and
qualifications related to the definition of requirements to be
satisfied through acquisition contracts (such as for delivery of
products or services, performance of work, or accomplishment of a
project), to act as head of requirements definition and coordination
during combat operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency
operations, if required, including leading a requirements review board
involving all organizations concerned.
A senior representative from the Office of the ADUSD(PS) stated that
the ADUSD(PS) is viewed within the department as fulfilling this
subparagraph of the law. DOD Directive 3020.qq and DOD Instruction
5134.12 outline certain policy-making responsibilities of the
ADUSD(PS). However, these documents do not identify the ADUSD(PS) as
the person responsible for acting as the head of requirements
definition and coordination during combat operations, post-conflict
operations, and contingency operations and leading a requirements
review board if one is required. Instead, draft Joint Publication 4-10
designates the requiring activity, which is a military or other
designated supported organization, as the appropriate organization to
determine contractor-supported requirements during military operations.
Furthermore, according to draft Joint Publication 4-10, an in-theater
requirements review board, known as the Joint Acquisition Review Board
(JARB) is used to coordinate and control the requirements generation
and prioritization of joint common user logistics supplies and services
that are needed in support of the operational mission, and is normally
chaired by the subordinate joint forces commander or deputy commander,
Joint Staff, Logistics (J4). In addition, decisions made by the JARB
may be forwarded to the Joint Contracting Support Board (JCSB) which
makes recommendations on which specific contracting
organizations/contract venues are best suited to fulfill the
requirements. The goal of the JCSB is to maximize the contracting
capabilities of the joint operations area while minimizing the
competition for limited vendor capabilities.
Section 2333 (b); Requirements Definition Matters: (2); An
organizational approach to requirements definition and coordination
during combat operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency
operations that is designed to ensure that requirements are defined in
a way that effectively implements United States Government and
Department of Defense objectives, policies, and decisions regarding the
allocation of resources, coordination of interagency efforts in the
theater of operations, and alignment of requirements with the proper
use of funds;
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008: DOD's draft joint policies do not provide for an
organizational approach to requirements definition and coordination
during combat operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency
operations that is designed to ensure that requirements are defined in
a way that effectively implements U.S. government and DOD objectives,
policies, and decisions regarding the allocation of resources,
coordination of interagency efforts in the theater of operations, and
alignment of requirements with the proper use of funds. According to
DOD, the organizational approach to requirements definition and
coordination is a two-step approach that remains under development.
First, the draft DOD Instruction 3020.41 calls for military planners to
develop detailed and synchronized contractor support and contractor
integration plans and include them in their operational plans. With a
stated objective of fulfilling the requirements of section 2333 of
title 10, DOD issued a task order for contracting planning for
combatant commanders' program support. The task order statement of work
places two joint operational contract support planners (who are
currently contractors) at each geographic combatant command as well as
at U.S. Joint Forces Command. These planners are tasked with
identifying military capability shortfalls and the contract
capabilities necessary to meet these shortfalls, and with defining
these requirements in the combatant commanders' operational plans
(OPLANs) and concept plans (CONPLANs). However, DOD, the Joint Staff,
and some combatant commands are unclear on who should be identifying
and defining requirements for contractor support and what level of
detail should be included in the combatant commander's plans. Based on
analysis of information obtained from the combatant commands we
contacted, including U.S. Central Command, U.S. European Command, U.S.
Pacific Command, and U.S. Southern Command, few plans include
contractor support requirements. According to DOD officials, to resolve
this confusion, the Joint Staff has taken the lead on revising existing
guidance contained in the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual
3122.03C (17 Aug 2007) on how to develop a contractor support annex
(also referred to as annex W), which is included in the combatant
commander's operational plans. This revision is expected to be
completed in late 2008.
Second, DOD has established the JCASO, which will be responsible for
reviewing the combatant commanders' OPLANs and CONPLANs continually to
ensure early identification of and inclusion of contract requirements.
According to the DOD report to Congress on section 854, in order to
comply with section 2333 of title 10, DOD established the JCASO to lead
the integration and synchronization of contract support in OPLANs and
CONPLANs across combatant commands and U.S. government agencies. While
the JCASO is briefly identified in Joint Publication 4-10 as a future
organizational option, the joint publication does not provide guidance
or policy on using the JCASO as an organizational approach to
requirements definition and coordination during combat operations, post-
conflict operations, and contingency operations. According to DOD
officials, the JCASO has not been fully staffed, and the details of the
review process have yet to be worked out.
Section 2333 (c); Contingency Program Management Matters: (1); The
assignment of a senior commissioned officer or civilian member of the
senior executive service, with appropriate program management
experience and qualifications, to act as head of program management
during combat operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency
operations, including stabilization and reconstruction operations
involving multiple United States Government agencies and international
organizations, if required.
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008: Draft DOD policy does not provide for the assignment
of a senior commissioned officer or civilian member of the senior
executive service, with appropriate program management experience and
qualifications, to act as head of program management during combat
operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency operations,
including stabilization and reconstruction operations involving
multiple U.S. Government agencies and international organizations, if
required.
However, a senior representative from the Office of the ADUSD(PS)
stated that the ADUSD(PS) is viewed within the department as fulfilling
this subparagraph of the law. While DOD Directive 3020.qq and DOD
Instruction 5134.12 outline certain policy-making responsibilities of
the ADUSD(PS), the responsibility of acting as a head of program
management, specifically in a theater of operation during combat
operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency operations, is
not provided therein. Additionally, although the JCASO is briefly
identified in Joint Publication 4-10 as a future organizational option
to provide program management for joint contingency acquisition across
the combatant commands and U.S. interagency, during combat operations,
post-conflict operations, and contingency operations, the joint
publication does not provide any guidance or policy on who would have
the responsibility to act as head of program management, and it does
not discuss who would act as head of program management if the JCASO
organizational option is not exercised. However, according to DOD
officials, current guidance contained in the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Instruction 5120.02 (30 November 2004) states that only
capabilities in current use are incorporated into joint doctrine.
Therefore, DOD officials stated that as soon as the JCASO is fully
developed and operating, immediate steps will be taken to incorporate
it into the next revision of the joint publication.
Section 2333 (c); Contingency Program Management Matters: (2); A
preplanned organizational approach to program management during combat
operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency operations that
is designed to ensure that the Department of Defense is prepared to
conduct such program management;
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008: DOD's draft joint policies do not provide for a
preplanned organizational approach to program management during combat
operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency operations that
is designed to ensure that DOD is prepared to conduct such program
management.
Although the JCASO is briefly identified in Joint Publication 4-10 as a
future organizational option to provide program management for joint
contingency acquisition across the combatant commands and US
interagency, during combat operations, post-conflict operations, and
contingency operations, the joint publication does not provide any
guidance or policy on using the JCASO. As previously noted, DOD
officials stated that as soon as the JCASO is fully developed and
operating, immediate steps will be taken to incorporate it into the
next revision of the joint publication.
The intent of the JCASO, according to DOD's draft JCASO Concept of
Operations, is to forward deploy a single joint program management
capability that will act as head of program management, among other
responsibilities, during combat operations and contingency operations
and have a direct reporting relationship to the Joint Task Force
Commander. When the JCASO is transitioned into a joint contracting
center, during post-conflict operations and contingency operations,
including stabilization and reconstruction operations, it will serve as
program manager, reporting directly to the joint forces commander. On
July 10, 2008, DOD designated the JCASO's provisional location in the
Defense Logistics Agency.
However, decisions on how and when to use the JCASO have yet to be
finalized. Specifically, whether the JCASO will be deployed in all
contingency circumstances is unclear. According to DOD officials, it is
envisioned that commanders' OPLANs should identify what their
preplanned organizational approaches to program management would be;
however, policy and doctrine would have to be developed or revised to
address this.
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008:
Section 2333 (c); Contingency Program Management Matters: (3);
Identification of a deployable cadre of experts, with the appropriate
tools and authority, and trained in processes under paragraph (6).[F];
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008: In the introduction to its JCASO Concept of
Operations, which is currently in draft, DOD identifies that the JCASO
includes the deployable cadre specified in section 854 of the NDAA
FY07. Currently, the JCASO's roles and responsibilities for contingency
operations have not been integrated into the draft Operational Contract
Support Joint Publication 4-10, which is DOD's overall operational
contract support doctrine. DOD officials who developed the draft
doctrine explained that it is inappropriate to include the JCASO into
the doctrine until it is mature and functional.
According to the draft concept of operations, the JCASO will be
composed of 27 full-time members, who have not been selected. According
to DOD, 16 of these members will be the deployable cadre of experts
with appropriate tools and authorities to oversee program management
during contingency operations. DOD expects that JCASO personnel will be
experts in planning, contingency contracting, contingency financing,
contingency law, and civil engineering but does not identify how these
personnel will be trained in the processes under paragraph (5).
According to DOD, the deployable personnel would include contracting
officers, quality assurance representatives, and a representative with
experience in combatant command-level planning, operations, and
contracting that would provide visibility of contracts and contractors
in the joint area of operations and be the joint forces commander's
single point of contact for all contracting/contractor personnel issues
therein.
Section 2333 (c); Contingency Program Management Matters: (4);
Utilization of the hiring and appointment authorities necessary for the
rapid deployment of personnel to ensure the availability of key
personnel for sufficient lengths of time to provide for continuing
program and project management;
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008: According to DOD, it is currently in the process of
revising DOD Directive 1404.10, "Building and Sustaining an
Expeditionary Capability in the DOD Civilian Workforce," to address the
authorities needed to appoint and hire members of DOD's civilian
workforce to be rapidly deployable and serve in a variety of positions,
including those related to program management, during global
operations. The draft directive states that it is DOD policy to ensure
that individual deployments will generally not exceed 1 year, which
according to officials is sufficient to support program management
functions during expeditionary operations. DOD expects to finish
drafting this policy sometime in 2009.
According to the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Civilian Personnel Policy, DOD has approximately 9,800 civilian
positions that are designated as deployable to provide support during
combat operations. This official explained that while DOD has used some
civilians in these positions to support operations in Iraq, all of
these positions are not presently filled or utilized for expeditionary
operations. In September 2008, DOD posted job announcements to fill
some of these positions. Furthermore, DOD is assessing what key
personnel are needed to support expeditionary operations, and plans to
use its existing authorities under titles 5 and 10 to convert existing
positions to deployable positions that would support both combat and
noncombat expeditionary operations.
Section 2333 (c); Contingency Program Management Matters: (5); A
requirement to provide training (including training under a program to
be created by the Defense Acquisition University) to program management
personnel in: (A) the use of laws, regulations, policies, and
directives related to program management in combat or contingency
environments; (B) the integration of cost, schedule, and performance
objectives into practical acquisition strategies aligned with available
resources and subject to effective oversight; and; (C) procedures of
the Department of Defense related to funding mechanisms and contingency
contract management;
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008: DOD's draft policies do not include a provision to
provide training (including training under a program to be created by
the DAU) to program management personnel in: (A) the use of laws,
regulations, policies, and directives related to program management in
combat or contingency environments; (B) the integration of cost,
schedule, and performance objectives into practical acquisition
strategies aligned with available resources and subject to effective
oversight; and; (C) procedures of the Department of Defense related to
funding mechanisms and contingency contract management.
While DOD's draft policies do not include the specific program
management training provisions discussed above, DAU officials stated
that the current program management curriculum provides for training on
program management in regard to cost, schedule, and performance
objectives as well as departmental procedures related to funding
mechanisms, but acknowledged that DAU has not established a separate
program in order to address the use of laws, regulations, policies, and
directives in combat or contingency environments. Furthermore, DAU
officials do not believe that the university is solely responsible for
developing all of the required training. To address the use of laws,
regulations, policies, and directives related to program management in
combat or contingency environments, Office of the Secretary of Defense
officials stated that an online course being developed by U.S. Joint
Forces Command will provide such training. The course under development
will be for servicemembers preparing for deployment to theater and will
consist of information necessary to operate effectively on contingency
contracting matters and with contractors on the battlefield.
Additionally, the online course will address the concepts discussed in
Joint Publication 4-10. DOD officials expect the online course to be
available in March 2009.
Section 2333 (c); Contingency Program Management Matters: (6);
Appropriate steps to ensure that training is maintained for such
personnel even when they are not deployed in a contingency operation;
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008: DOD's draft policies do not provide appropriate steps
to ensure that training is maintained for such personnel even when they
are not deployed in a contingency operation.
While DOD officials stated that acquisition personnel must complete a
mandatory number of training hours for their career field per year,
there is no requirement that acquisition personnel train on issues
related to program management.
Section 2333 (c); Contingency Program Management Matters: (7); Such
steps as may be needed to ensure jointness and cross-service
coordination in the area of program management during contingency
operations;
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008: DOD draft policy does not specifically provide such
steps as may be needed to ensure jointness and cross-service
coordination in the area of program management during contingency
operations.
However, draft Joint Publication 4-10 states that the Joint Staff J4's
responsibilities include facilitating communication of operational
contract-related matters through routine meetings and communications
with the joint community of interest.
According to DOD, a community of interest and a community of practice
for operational contract support have been established. First, the
Operational Contract Support community of interest, which consists of
representatives of U.S. Joint Forces Command, the services, the Defense
Contract Management Agency, the Defense Logistics Agency, and the
Directorate, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, is called upon
to provide input, information, and data to the ADUSD(PS). Second, a
community of practice was established as a smaller body than the
community of interest, comprising subject matter experts from the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and the services,
that may be called upon to work on a specific task or project.
Additionally, the department has established a Council of Colonels,
which serves as a "gatekeeper" for initiatives, issues, or concepts, as
well as a Joint Policy Development General Officer Steering Committee,
which includes senior commissioned officers or civilians designated by
the services. The committee's objective is to guide the development of
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, and service policy,
doctrine, and procedures to adequately reflect situational and
legislative changes as they occur within Operational Contract Support.
Section 2333 (d) (1); Contingency Contracting Matters: (A); The
designation of a senior commissioned officer or civilian member of the
senior executive service in each military department with the
responsibility for administering the policy;
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008:
Each military department has a senior procurement executive who has
broad contracting authorities and is responsible for administering
contracting and related policies. According to the draft Expeditionary
Contracting Policy, these senior procurement executives are responsible
for administering the policy, and no additional action was needed to
implement the requirement in this subparagraph.
The senior procurement executive for each service is as follows:
1. Army - Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics
and Technology.
2. Navy - Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research,
Development, and Acquisition.
3. Air Force - Deputy Assistant Secretary of Contracting.
Section 2333 (d) (1); Contingency Contracting Matters: (B); The
assignment of a senior commissioned officer with appropriate
acquisition experience and qualifications to act as head of contingency
contracting during combat operations, post-conflict operations, and
contingency operations, who shall report directly to the commander of
the combatant command in whose area of responsibility the operations
occur.
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008:
In their current forms, neither the draft Joint Publication 4-10 nor
the draft Expeditionary Contracting Policy will provide for a single
head of contracting activity be appointed to oversee all theater
support contracting organizations and report to the area's combatant
commander across the range of military operations. According to DOD
officials, upon declaration of a contingency, the assignment of an
officer to act as head of contingency contracting is based on one of
the three organizational approaches used to manage supporting
contracting organizations, as identified in the draft doctrine.
(1) According to the draft doctrine and draft Expeditionary Contracting
Policy, when service components provide support to their own forces,
the combatant commander would allow the service components to retain
control of their own contracting authority. Thus, there will be
multiple heads of contracting, depending on the number of services and
contracting organizations supporting the operation, requiring
commanders to coordinate with multiple individuals on contracting
issues.
(2) According to the draft doctrine and Expeditionary Contracting
Policy, when a lead service approach is used, DOD will assign an
executive agent which will identify an officer, typically a colonel, to
serve as head of contracting and report to the area's commander on
contracting issues.
(3) Finally, according to the draft doctrine and draft Expeditionary
Contracting Policy, when a joint theater support contracting command
approach is used, a flag officer[ G] will be designated to be the head
of contracting and also charged with leading this joint functional
command.
Section 2333 (d) (1); Contingency Contracting Matters: (C); A sourcing
approach to contingency contracting that is designed to ensure that
each military department is prepared to conduct contingency contracting
during combat operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency
operations, including stabilization and reconstruction operations
involving interagency organizations, if required.
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008: The draft Joint Publication 4-10 doctrine notes that
each service has a unique approach to developing, training, and
deploying contracting personnel based on its individual mission and
organization, and theater support and contracting support capabilities
differ among military services. For example, the draft doctrine
explains that the Marine Corps has a limited number of contingency
contracting officers, but they do not contract for construction nor do
they have the skills to support major reconstruction efforts. In
contrast, the draft doctrine notes that the Air Force's contracting
officers have construction contracting capability as its contracting
workforce is larger and experienced in a wide range of contracting
activities. DOD recognizes these differences and has a process for
matching staffing needs with available personnel, identified in its
individual augmentation policy (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Instruction 1301.01C) for providing DOD personnel during contingencies.
However, DOD has identified that this process has not always fulfilled
personnel requests in a timely manner and that the military services
face a shortfall in the availability of contracting personnel. DOD is
in the process of assessing the size and capabilities of its
contracting workforce to identify gaps it might have in meeting
contracting workforce requirements. DOD officials explained that the
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics strategic workforce plan, to be
issued in February 2009, will address how DOD plans to fill those
workforce gaps.
Section 2333 (d) (1); Contingency Contracting Matters: (D); A
requirement to provide training (including training under a program to
be created by the Defense Acquisition University) to contingency
contracting personnel in:
(i) the use of law, regulations, policies, and directives related to
contingency contracting operations;
(ii) the appropriate use of rapid acquisition methods, including the
use of exceptions to competition requirements under section 2304 of
this title, sealed bidding, letter contracts, indefinite delivery
indefinite quantity task orders, set asides under section 8(a) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)), undefinitized contract actions,
and other tools available to expedite the delivery of goods and
services during combat operations or post-conflict operations;
(iii) the appropriate use of rapid acquisition authority, commanders'
emergency response program funds, and other tools unique to contingency
contracting; and;
(iv) instruction on the necessity for the prompt transition from the
use of rapid acquisition authority to the use of full and open
competition and other methods of contracting that maximize transparency
in the acquisition process.
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008: To provide training for contingency contracting
personnel, DAU has revised and updated its contingency contracting
training course, CON 234, which has been provided to over 200
contracting personnel since February 2008. According to DOD officials,
this training is based, in part, on DOD's draft Expeditionary
Contracting Policy, the Joint Contingency Contracting Handbook, and the
draft Joint Publication 4-10. The provided course material,
specifically, the Joint Contingency Contracting Handbook, for the
revised CON 234 course contains information on:
(i) the use of law, regulations, policies, and directives related to
contingency contracting operations;
(ii) the appropriate use of rapid acquisition methods, including the
use of exceptions to competition requirements under section 2304 of
this title, letter contracts, indefinite delivery indefinite quantity
task orders, undefinitized contract actions, and other tools available
to expedite the delivery of goods and services during combat operations
or post-conflict operations; and;
(iii) the appropriate use of rapid acquisition authority, commanders'
emergency response program funds, and other tools unique to contingency
contracting; and;
(iv) the necessity for transition from the use of rapid acquisition
authority to full and open competition and other methods of
contracting.
However, the Joint Contingency Contracting Handbook does not contain
information on sealed bidding or set asides under section 8(a) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)), though this information is
discussed in other basic acquisition courses. DAU officials explained
that the topics incorporated into CON 234 are those specific to
operating in a contingency or expeditionary environment and contracting
tools such as sealed bidding and 8(a) set asides are not typically
used. Additionally, while the handbook does discuss the necessity for
transitioning from the predominant use of rapid acquisition authorities
during the sustainment phase, the handbook does not discuss how a
contracting officer would determine when it is appropriate to
transition from the use of these authorities. DAU officials explained
that CON 234 instructors use scenario-based case studies to promote
discussions on how to make such determinations, but we could not
independently verify this without participating in the course.
DAU is also developing a new advanced contingency contracting course
targeted toward senior-level contracting personnel and anticipates its
completion in fiscal year 2009. According to DAU officials, the
advanced course is targeted toward contracting officers in leadership
and supervisory positions and will encourage familiarity among
contracting officers from different military services.
Section 2333 (d) (1); Contingency Contracting Matters: (E); Appropriate
steps to ensure that training is maintained for such personnel even
when they are not deployed in a contingency operation.
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008: The draft Joint Publication 4-10 and Expeditionary
Contracting Policy do not provide for specific training that must be
maintained for contingency contracting personnel even when they are not
deployed in a contingency operation. DAU officials, in coordination
with representatives from the military services, identified a number of
courses that, if taken, would qualify as training for contingency
contracting personnel, but training requirements vary across the
services and thus not all contracting officers may receive this
training.
While the military services certify completion of minimum training
requirements for contracting personnel as specified by the Defense
Acquisition Workforce Implementation Act, the certification levels do
not identify specific training related to contingency contracting;
therefore the certifications do not capture whether contingency
contracting training has been maintained.
DOD has developed a Joint Contingency Contracting Handbook to
consolidate contingency contracting information for contingency
contracting personnel. According to DOD, the handbook can be used for
training at the home station and while deployed. Additionally, the
Director of Defense Procurement, Acquisition Policy, and Strategic
Sourcing (DPAP) has instructed the military departments to incorporate
the joint contingency contracting handbook into unit-level training.
Section 2333 (d) (1); Contingency Contracting Matters: (F); Such steps
as may be needed to ensure jointness and cross-service coordination in
the area of contingency contracting.
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008: DOD formed the Joint Contracting and Contractor
Management Team and the Joint Contingency Contracting Working Group--
both composed of members of each military department, DPAP, Joint
Staff, and J4, among others--to develop the draft Joint Publication 4-
10 and Joint Contingency Contracting Handbook, respectively. These
documents are intended to standardize guidance and information related
to integrating and conducting contracting in a joint environment.
The draft Joint Publication 4-10 establishes doctrine for planning,
conducting, and assessing operational contract support integration and
contractor management functions in support of joint operations. It
provides guidance and information related to integrating operational
contract support and contractor management. The draft Joint Publication
4-10 provides an option for commanders to implement a joint approach to
the management of contracting organizations during joint operations.
However, because it is doctrine, commanders are not required to
implement a joint approach even when multiple services are involved.
Section 2333 (d) (2); Contingency Contracting Matters: To the extent
practicable, the joint policy for contingency contracting required by
subsection (a) should be taken into account in the development of
interagency plans for stabilization and reconstruction operations,
consistent with the report submitted by the President under section
1035 of this Act on interagency operating procedures for the planning
and conduct of stabilization and reconstruction operations.
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008: According to draft Joint Publication 4-10, combatant
commanders and their subordinate commands must ensure that interagency
support requirements are properly addressed in the commanders'
operational plans, including the relationships between DOD and non-DOD
contracting entities.
Commanders' operational plans should describe contract support
requirements, including to civilian agencies; however, DOD, the Joint
Staff, and some combatant commands are unclear on who should be
identifying and defining requirements for contractor support and what
level of detail should be included in the combatant commanders' plans.
Based on our analysis of information obtained from the combatant
commands we contacted, including U.S. Central Command, U.S. European
Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and U.S. Southern Command, few plans
include contractor support requirements. According to DOD officials, to
resolve this confusion, the Joint Staff has taken the lead on revising
existing guidance contained in the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff Manual 3122.03C (17 Aug 2007) on how to develop a contractor
support annex (also referred to as annex W), including the development
of a Contractor Support Plan (CMP) and a Contractor Support Integration
Plan (CSIP), which is included in the combatant commanders' operational
plans. This revision is expected to be completed late 2008.
Additionally, DOD officials characterize interagency planning as
lacking.
Moreover, DOD officials we spoke with at two combatant commands, who
are responsible for revising commanders' operational plans, were
unaware of the Section 1035 Report for Improving Interagency Support
for United States 21st Century National Security Missions and
Interagency Operations in Support of Stability, Security, Transition,
and Reconstruction Operations, issued in June 2007. In contrast, U.S.
Southern Command has conducted several mission rehearsal exercises
involving components of the Interagency Management System, a plan for
interagency cooperation in reconstruction and stabilization operations,
which is outlined in the section 1035 report.
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008.
Section 2333 (e) Training For Personnel Outside Acquisition Workforce:
(1)*; (1) The joint policy for requirements definition, contingency
program management, and contingency contracting required by subsection
(a) shall provide for training of military personnel outside the
acquisition workforce (including operational field commanders and
officers performing key staff functions for operational field
commanders) who are expected to have acquisition responsibility,
including oversight duties associated with contracts or contractors,
during combat operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency
operations; [* As amended];
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008: DOD is currently revising DOD Instruction 3020.41,
"Program Management for the Preparation and Execution of Acquisitions
for Contingency Operations," which establishes policy and assigns
responsibilities for program management for the preparation and
execution of acquisitions for contingency operations and integration of
DOD contractor personnel into military contingency operations outside
the United States.
The draft instruction states that the secretaries of the military
departments and the directors of the defense agencies and field
activities will be responsible for incorporating the instruction into
applicable policy, doctrine, programming, and training. Similarly, the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will be responsible for
incorporating the instruction into relevant joint doctrine and
training.
The draft Joint Publication 4-10 states that the military department
secretaries and services are responsible for ensuring that military
personnel outside the acquisition workforce, who are expected to have
acquisition responsibility (including oversight duties associated with
contracts or contractors, during combat operations, post-conflict
operations, and contingency operations) are properly trained.
Additionally, draft Joint Publication 4-10 states that the military
department secretaries and services are responsible for integrating
identified contract requirements into training simulations, mission
rehearsals, and exercises. Moreover, service component commands
assigned to a combatant or joint forces commander are responsible for
executing operational specific collective and individual contract
support integration and contract management training requirements.
Furthermore, in August 2008, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a
policy memorandum directing the appointment of trained contracting
officer's representatives (COR) prior to the award of contracts.
According to DOD, CORs provide contract oversight and are generally
members of the requiring activities. According to a recent report of
DOD's Panel on Contracting Integrity, most contracting officers'
representatives assigned to services contracts are not members of the
acquisition workforce and serve as CORs as a collateral duty.
Section 2333 (e) Training For Personnel Outside Acquisition Workforce:
(2)*; Training under paragraph (1) shall be sufficient to ensure that
the military personnel referred to in that paragraph understand the
scope and scale of contractor support they will experience in
contingency operations and are prepared for their roles and
responsibilities with regard to requirements definition, program
management (including contractor oversight), and contingency
contracting.
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008: While draft DOD policies provide for training of
military personnel outside the acquisition workforce who are expected
to have acquisition responsibility, including oversight duties
associated with contracts or contractors, during combat operations,
post-conflict operations, and contingency operations, the policies do
not ensure that the military personnel understand the scope and scale
of contractor support they will experience in contingency operations
and are prepared for their roles and responsibilities with regard to
requirements definition, program management (including contractor
oversight), and contingency contracting.
U.S. Joint Forces Command[H] is developing two training programs for
non-acquisition personnel. The first training program will be an online
course for servicemembers preparing for deployment to theater and will
consist of information necessary to operate effectively on contingency
contracting matters and work with contractors on the battlefield. U.S.
Joint Forces Command will develop course content based on contracting
and contract management concepts discussed in Joint Publication 4-10.
Furthermore, U.S. Joint Forces Command will collaborate with the
services to ensure that the training incorporates examples of real-
world operational conditions. DOD officials expect the online course to
be available in March 2009. The second training program being developed
is intended for the intermediate-and senior-level service schools.
According to DOD officials, this training should be available in 2010.
Because these courses are still under development, we were unable to
determine if the course content will ensure that military personnel
understand the scope and scale of contractor support and are prepared
for their roles and responsibilities.
Within the services, only the Army has a number of training programs
available that provide information to the operational field commanders
and their staffs about their roles and responsibilities in contract and
contractor management as well as their roles in the contracting
process. In addition, the Army is providing training to units as they
prepare to deploy. The remaining services did not identify plans or
initiatives to develop and provide training for non-acquisition
personnel. The services did indicate that they are anticipating
utilizing the U.S. Joint Forces Command course to train their non-
acquisition personnel.
Specific COR training is available online and in the classroom from
DAU. Furthermore, according to DOD officials, the department is
considering a certification program for CORs to ensure that they are
qualified to provide oversight for the contracts to which they are
assigned.
Section 2333 (e) Training For Personnel Outside Acquisition Workforce:
(3)*; The joint policy shall also provide for the incorporation of
contractors and contract operations in mission readiness exercises for
operations that will include contracting and contractor support."
GAO's Assessment of Joint Policy Development and Implementation, as of
October 1, 2008: Draft DOD policies direct the incorporation of
contractors and contract operations in mission readiness exercises for
operations that will include contracting and contractor support.
DOD is currently revising DOD Instruction 3020.41. This draft document
directs the combatant commanders to integrate requirements
identification, contractor management, contractor integration, and any
identified operational acquisition requirements into training
simulations, mission rehearsals, and exercises. Furthermore, the
instruction states that combatant commanders shall designate and
identify the organization responsible for managing and prescribing
processes to provide for the integration of contractors and operational
acquisition in mission readiness exercises for operations that will
include operational acquisitions and contractor support.
Additionally, draft Joint Publication 4-10 states that the services are
responsible for integrating identified contract requirements into
training simulations, mission rehearsals, and exercises. Furthermore,
U.S. Joint Forces Command is responsible for ensuring that key joint
operational contract support challenges are incorporated into joint
training venues as deemed appropriate.
DOD, the Army, and the Marine Corps have begun to incorporate
contractors and contract operations in mission readiness exercises for
operations that will include contracting and contractor support. For
example, U.S. Joint Forces Command has been incorporating contingency
contracting concepts as well as hiring contractors to play their role
in mission rehearsal exercises. Specifically, a private security
contracting firm was hired to replicate storylines regarding
battlefield coordination as well as security, medical, and misconduct
issues. Additionally, the Army has a program to incorporate scenarios
involving private security contractors into its Battle Command Training
Program, which trains corps, division and brigade staff. The Army and
the Marine Corps also incorporated scenarios on the rules of engagement
and escalation of force involving private security contractors into
unit predeployment training.
Source: GAO.
[A] The John Warner Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007,
section 854 (b).
[B] Several provisions of section 2333 of title 10 refer to interagency
coordination. DOD defines interagency coordination as the coordination
that occurs between elements of DOD and engaged U.S. government
agencies for the purpose of achieving an objective. Interagency
coordination would include the coordination efforts of DOD and the
Department of Homeland Security to plan a response to a natural
disaster or terrorist attack, for example.
[C] DOD Instruction 3020.41, formerly entitled "Contractor Personnel
Authorized to Accompany the U.S. Armed Forces," was first issued on
October 3, 2005.
[D] While a draft of this report was at the agency for comment, DOD
finalized Joint Publication 4-10, "Operational Contract Support", which
was signed on October 17, 2008.
[E] JP 4-10 establishes doctrine. According to a joint instruction,
joint doctrine does not establish policy. Rather, joint doctrine is
authoritative guidance and will be followed except when, in the
judgment of the commander, exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 5120.02A, "Joint
Doctrine Development System," Mar. 31, 2007 (current as of Apr. 3,
2008).
[F] DOD interprets this reference to subparagraph (6) as a
typographical error. To avoid an unreasonable result, they have
interpreted the intended reference to be to subparagraph (5).
[G] A flag officer refers to an officer holding the rank of general,
lieutenant general, major general, or brigadier general in the U.S.
Army, Air Force or Marine Corps or admiral, vice admiral, or rear
admiral in the U.S. Navy. According to the draft Joint Publication 4-10
an officer leading this command would normally be a brigadier general,
major general, or rear admiral.
[H] U.S. Joint Forces Command trains and provides forces from all
services to commanders around the world to work together as a joint
team.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Enclosure III: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
Acquisition, Technology And Logistics:
3000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20301-3000:
November 17, 2008:
Mr. John Hutton:
Director, Acquisition an Sourcing Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Hutton:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO Draft
Report, GAO-09-114R, "Contract Management: DoD Developed Draft Guidance
for Operational Contract Support, but Has Not Met All Legislative
Requirements," dated October 17, 2008 (GAO Code 351226).
The Department twice responded directly to Congress on this subject. In
accordance with the FY 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, Sec
854, paragraph (e)c(2), our first report entitled "Report on DoD
Program for Planning, Managing, and Accounting for Contractor Services
and Contract Personnel During Contingency Operations," dated October
2007, laid out a comprehensive framework for planning, managing, and
accounting for contractor services and contractor personnel during
contingency operations. The final report, "DoD Program for Planning,
Managing, and Accounting for Contractor Services and Contract Personnel
During Contingency Operations," dated April 2008, identified specific
achievements to date and established a roadmap for fully implementing
those requirements.
The Department believes this report prematurely speculates on the
results of pending draft DoD directives, publications and instructions.
We remain confident that when these documents are published in their
final form, they will comply with applicable statutory requirements.
Our technical comments were sent forward under a separate cover.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on
your findings. A similar letter is being sent to Ms Linda Kohn, Acting
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Gary J. Motsek:
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Program Support):
[End of section]
Enclosure IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Linda Kohn at (202) 512-7114 or kohnl@gao.gov or:
John Hutton at (202) 512-4841 or huttonj@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contacts named above Penny Berrier Augustine,
Assistant Director; Laura Czohara; Keya Chateauneuf; Grace Coleman;
Robert Grace; Justin Jaynes; Eli Lewine; Ricardo Marquez; Karen
Thornton; and Matthew Voit made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Military Operations: DOD Needs to Address Contract Oversight and
Quality Assurance Issues for Contracts Used to Support Contingency
Operations. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1087].
Washington, D.C.: September 26, 2008.
Rebuilding Iraq: DOD and State Department Have Improved Oversight and
Coordination of Private Security Contractors in Iraq, but Further
Actions Are Needed to Sustain Improvements. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-966]. Washington, D.C.: July
31, 2008.
Defense Contracting: Army Case Study Delineates Concerns with Use of
Contractors as Contract Specialists. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-08-360]. Washington, D.C.: March 26, 2008.
Defense Management: DOD Needs to Reexamine Its Extensive Reliance on
Contractors and Continue to Improve Management and Oversight.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-572T]. Washington,
D.C.: March 11, 2008.
Military Operations: Implementation of Existing Guidance and Other
Actions Needed to Improve DOD's Oversight and Management of Contractors
in Future Operations. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-
08-436T]. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2008.
Defense Acquisitions: DOD's Increased Reliance on Service Contractors
Exacerbates Long-standing Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-621T]. Washington, D.C.:
January 23, 2008.
Defense Logistics: The Army Needs to Implement an Effective Management
and Oversight Plan for the Equipment Maintenance Contract in Kuwait.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-316R]. Washington,
D.C.: January 22, 2008.
Defense Contract Management: DOD's Lack of Adherence to Key Contracting
Principles on Iraq Oil Contract Put Government Interests at Risk.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-839]. Washington,
D.C.: July 31, 2007.
Defense Acquisitions: Improved Management and Oversight Needed to
Better Control DOD's Acquisition of Services. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-832T]. Washington, D.C.: May
10, 2007.
Military Operations: High-Level DOD Action Needed to Address Long-
standing Problems with Management and Oversight of Contractors
Supporting Deployed Forces. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-07-145]. Washington, D.C.: December 18, 2006.
Rebuilding Iraq: Continued Progress Requires Overcoming Contract
Management Challenges. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1130T]. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2006.
Iraq Contract Costs: DOD Consideration of Defense Contract Audit
Agency's Findings. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-
1132]. Washington, D.C.: September 25, 2006.
Military Operations: Background Screenings of Contractor Employees
Supporting Deployed Forces May Lack Critical Information, but U.S.
Forces Take Steps to Mitigate the Risk Contractors May Pose.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-999R]. Washington,
D.C.: September 22, 2006.
Rebuilding Iraq: Actions Still Needed to Improve the Use of Private
Security Providers. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-
06-865T]. Washington, D.C.: June 13, 2006.
DOD Acquisition Outcomes: A Case for Change. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-257T]. Washington, D.C.:
November 15, 2005.
Rebuilding Iraq: Actions Needed to Improve Use of Private Security
Providers. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-737].
Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2005.
Interagency Contracting: Problems with DOD's and Interior's Orders to
Support Military Operations. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-05-201]. Washington, D.C.: April 29, 2005.
Defense Logistics: High-Level DOD Coordination Is Needed to Further
Improve the Management of the Army's LOGCAP Contract. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-328]. Washington, D.C.: March
21, 2005.
Contract Management: Opportunities to Improve Surveillance on
Department of Defense Service Contracts. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-274]. Washington, D.C.: March
17, 2005.
Military Operations: DOD's Extensive Use of Logistics Support Contracts
Requires Strengthened Oversight. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-04-854]. Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2004.
Military Operations: Contractors Provide Vital Services to Deployed
Forces but Are not Adequately Addressed in DOD Plans. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-695]. Washington, D.C.: June
24, 2003.
Rebuilding Iraq: Fiscal Year 2003 Contract Award Procedures and
Management Challenges. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-04-605]. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004.
Contingency Operations: Army Should Do More to Control Contract Cost in
the Balkans. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/NSIAD-00-
225]. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2000.
Contingency Operations: Opportunities to Improve the Logistics Civil
Augmentation Program. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO/NSIAD-97-63]. Washington, D.C.: February 11, 1997.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Contractors supporting deployed forces refer to Department of
Defense contractor personnel who are authorized to accompany U.S.
military forces in contingency operations or other military operations
or exercises designated by the geographic combatant commander.
[2] DOD defines operational contract support as the process of planning
for and obtaining supplies, services, and construction from commercial
sources in support of joint operations along with the associated
contractor management functions. In the past, DOD has used the term
contractors accompanying the force to encompass the process the
department now refers to as operational contract support. The following
report discusses long-standing challenges DOD faces with regard to
contractor management and oversight: GAO, Military Operations: High-
Level DOD Action Needed to Address Long-standing Problems with
Management and Oversight of Contractors Supporting Deployed Forces,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-145] (Washington,
D.C.: Dec. 18, 2006). A list of selected GAO reports related to this
topic is included in this report.
[3] GAO, Military Operations: DOD Needs to Address Contract Oversight
and Quality Assurance Issues for Contracts Used to Support Contingency
Operations, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1087]
(Washington, D.C. Sept. 26, 2008), and [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-145].
[4] GAO, Rebuilding Iraq: Reconstruction Progress Hindered by
Contracting, Security, and Capacity Challenges, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-426T] (Washington, D.C.: Feb.
15, 2007).
[5] The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2007 (Pub. L. No. 109-364, §854(d)), hereafter referred to as NDAA
FY07, defined "requirements definition" to mean the process of
translating policy objectives and mission needs into specific
requirements, the description of which will be the basis for awarding
acquisition contracts for projects to be accomplished, work to be
performed, or products to be delivered. NDAA FY07 defined "contingency
program management" as the process of planning, organizing, staffing,
controlling, and leading the combined efforts of participating civilian
and military personnel and organizations for the management of a
specific defense acquisition program or programs during combat
operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency operations.
Further, NDAA FY07 defined "contingency contracting" as all stages of
the process of acquiring property or services by the Department of
Defense during a contingency operation.
[6] Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 849(a).
[7] JP 4-10 establishes doctrine. According to a joint instruction,
joint doctrine does not establish policy. Rather, joint doctrine is
authoritative guidance and will be followed except when, in the
judgment of the commander, exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 5120.02A, "Joint
Doctrine Development System," Mar. 31, 2007 (current as of Apr. 3,
2008).
[8] 10 U.S.C. § 2333 (c)(2) (2007).
[9] 10 U.S.C. § 2333 (d)(1)(B) (2007).
[10] 10 U.S.C. § 2333 (d)(1) (2007).
[11] [0] Department of Defense Instruction 3020.41
[12] 10 U.S.C. § 2333 (e)(3) (2008).
[13] JP 4-10 establishes doctrine. According to a joint instruction,
joint doctrine does not establish policy. Rather, joint doctrine is
authoritative guidance and will be followed except when, in the
judgment of the commander, exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 5120.02A, "Joint
Doctrine Development System," Mar. 31, 2007 (current as of Apr. 3,
2008).
[14] 10 U.S.C. 1701-1764 (2008).
[15] Pub. L. No. 109-364, § 854 (a)(1).
[16] NDAA FY07 defined "requirements definition" to mean the process of
translating policy objectives and mission needs into specific
requirements, the description of which will be the basis for awarding
acquisition contracts for projects to be accomplished, work to be
performed, or products to be delivered. NDAA FY07 defined "contingency
program management" as the process of planning, organizing, staffing,
controlling, and leading the combined efforts of participating civilian
and military personnel and organizations for the management of a
specific defense acquisition program or programs during combat
operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency operations.
Further, NDAA FY07 defined "contingency contracting" as all stages of
the process of acquiring property or services by the Department of
Defense during a contingency operation.
[17] Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 849 (a).
[18] Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 849 (c).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: