Force Structure
Actions Needed to Improve DOD's Ability to Manage, Assess, and Report on Global Defense Posture Initiatives Gao ID: GAO-09-706R July 2, 2009In its ongoing global realignment of U.S. forces and installations, the Department of Defense (DOD) plans to reduce the number of troops permanently stationed overseas, consolidate overseas bases, and establish a network of smaller forward locations with limited personnel. Realigning the U.S. overseas posture involves closing obsolete and redundant bases, constructing new facilities costing billions of dollars, and ensuring that other needed infrastructure is in place to support realigned forces and missions. These significant changes to force structure both in the United States and overseas are being implemented to enhance operational efficiencies and ensure access during future contingency operations. DOD requests for overseas military construction projects extend around the world including Europe, the Pacific, Southwest Asia, and Central America. For fiscal year 2010, DOD requested approximately $1.5 billion, or 7 percent, of the regular military construction request for overseas military construction. The Congress has supported the DOD's efforts to reassess and realign its overseas posture to better respond to emerging security challenges, but the Senate Appropriations Committee has expressed concerns about the department's ability to effectively manage and accomplish such an ambitious program as well as the fidelity of the global basing plan given the rapidly changing global security environment.
The Department of Defense has taken positive steps toward establishing an integrated process to assess and adjust global defense posture; however, we identified two shortcomings in the department's approach. First, DOD has not reported on global posture matters in a comprehensive manner. DOD strategic planning guidance defines global defense posture in terms of three elements: host nation relationships, DOD's facilities and military presence in country, and DOD activities overseas. Stakeholders we contacted described global defense posture in terms of their primary functions, such as U.S. Southern Command's reference to conducting military operations in coordination with interagency partners or the U.S. Navy's depiction of posture in terms of where its maritime platforms and assets are stationed around the world. However, OSD Policy officials acknowledged DOD's global posture reports have emphasized only initiatives that have a direct impact on facility requirements, because the congressional direction to produce the report emphasized military construction costs. As a result, Congress may not have the full context in which to consider DOD's global posture requirements. Second, geographic combatant commands have not established a consistent approach to monitor initiative implementation, assess progress, and periodically report on results because DOD has not yet developed global posture implementation guidance. DOD strategic planning guidance issued in 2008 requires each geographic combatant command to produce a theater campaign plan and specific posture requirements for its given area of responsibility. These plans and posture requirements are to be updated annually, and posture requirements will continue to be modified based on these plans. Because of the potentially significant operating and support costs that future locations may entail, the services resist assuming management and funding responsibilities for them. DOD has not fully defined or reported total costs for DOD's global posture strategy. DOD's 2008 Report to Congress estimates the total cost for all global defense posture initiatives at $9 to $12 billion, which is essentially unchanged from the amount reported in 2004. DOD's cost estimate for the 2008 Report to Congress was based on the data used to develop the DOD fiscal year 2009 budget request. Approximately $3.4 billion of DOD's estimate covers funding from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2013. The remainder of the $9 to $12 billion cost estimate is allocated to an unspecified period beyond 2013. However, the DOD's cost estimate likely understates the total costs associated with restructuring DOD's global posture, because it does not report the total cost of each initiative, assumptions about host nation support, the full share of U.S. obligations, or sustainment costs.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-09-706R, Force Structure: Actions Needed to Improve DOD's Ability to Manage, Assess, and Report on Global Defense Posture Initiatives
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-706R
entitled 'Force Structure: Actions Needed to Improve DOD's Ability to
Manage, Assess, and Report on Global Defense Posture Initiatives' which
was released on July 6, 2009.
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.
GAO-09-706R:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 2, 2009:
The Honorable Tim Johnson:
Chairman:
The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans' Affairs, and Related
Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Chet Edwards:
Chairman:
The Honorable Zach Wamp:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans' Affairs, and Related
Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Force Structure: Actions Needed to Improve DOD's Ability to
Manage, Assess, and Report on Global Defense Posture Initiatives:
In its ongoing global realignment of U.S. forces and installations, the
Department of Defense (DOD) plans to reduce the number of troops
permanently stationed overseas, consolidate overseas bases, and
establish a network of smaller forward locations with limited
personnel. Realigning the U.S. overseas posture involves closing
obsolete and redundant bases, constructing new facilities costing
billions of dollars, and ensuring that other needed infrastructure is
in place to support realigned forces and missions. These significant
changes to force structure both in the United States and overseas are
being implemented to enhance operational efficiencies and ensure access
during future contingency operations. DOD requests for overseas
military construction projects extend around the world including
Europe, the Pacific, Southwest Asia, and Central America. For fiscal
year 2010, DOD requested approximately $1.5 billion, or 7 percent, of
the regular military construction request for overseas military
construction. The Congress has supported the DOD's efforts to reassess
and realign its overseas posture to better respond to emerging security
challenges, but the Senate Appropriations Committee has expressed
concerns about the department's ability to effectively manage and
accomplish such an ambitious program as well as the fidelity of the
global basing plan given the rapidly changing global security
environment.
The Senate reports accompanying the fiscal year 2008 and 2009 military
construction appropriation bills directed DOD to prepare updated
reports on the Global Defense Posture initiative to accompany the
department's budget submission through fiscal year 2014.[Footnote 1] In
October 2008, DOD transmitted a report to Congress entitled
Strengthening U.S. Global Defense Posture responding to the Senate
report requirement. The Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 2008
military construction appropriation bill also directed GAO to assess
the department's updated 2008 Report to Congress and the department's
progress in implementing the strategy, with an emphasis on certain
specific matters from which GAO derived the following three objectives:
(1) determine whether the department has an integrated process for
reassessing and adjusting its overseas presence and basing strategy;
(2) identify the extent of DOD progress in establishing its proposed
network of future Forward Operating Sites (FOS) and Cooperative
Security Locations (CSL); and (3) compare how DOD's projected costs for
implementing its overseas presence and basing strategy compare with
initial estimates. On May 28, 2009, we provided your office with a
briefing on the above matters (see enclosure I). This letter summarizes
the results of that briefing, which has been modified to reflect
discussions with DOD officials during our exit conference on June 4,
2009. Our scope and methodology are also discussed in the attached
briefing slides.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2008 through July
2009 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 our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Summary of Results:
DOD Process for Adjusting Global Posture:
The Department of Defense has taken positive steps toward establishing
an integrated process to assess and adjust global defense posture;
however, we identified two shortcomings in the department's approach.
In February 2008, DOD established the Global Posture Executive Council
to be the first formal governance body responsible for facilitating
posture decisions and overseeing the assessment and implementation of
posture plans. The Executive Council and the supporting Global Posture
Integration Team include senior and staff-level representatives,
respectively, from OSD offices and Joint Staff directorates, the
combatant commands, the services, and the State Department. In the past
year, the Executive Council has contributed to DOD decisions on
significant posture-related matters, such as the location of the U.S.
Africa Command headquarters and global mobility infrastructure.
Stakeholder organizations we communicated with have consistently
characterized the Executive Council's establishment as an improvement
over the previously informal approach. Despite these positive steps, we
identified two weaknesses in DOD's approach. First, DOD has not
reported on global posture matters in a comprehensive manner. DOD
strategic planning guidance defines global defense posture in terms of
three elements: host nation relationships, DOD's facilities and
military presence in country, and DOD activities overseas. Stakeholders
we contacted described global defense posture in terms of their primary
functions, such as U.S. Southern Command's reference to conducting
military operations in coordination with interagency partners or the
U.S. Navy's depiction of posture in terms of where its maritime
platforms and assets are stationed around the world. However, OSD
Policy officials acknowledged DOD's global posture reports have
emphasized only initiatives that have a direct impact on facility
requirements, because the congressional direction to produce the report
emphasized military construction costs. As a result, Congress may not
have the full context in which to consider DOD's global posture
requirements. Second, geographic combatant commands have not
established a consistent approach to monitor initiative implementation,
assess progress, and periodically report on results because DOD has not
yet developed global posture implementation guidance. When the
Executive Council was established, the Deputy Secretary of Defense
required OSD Policy to develop an implementing instruction that would
address in more detail the global defense posture process and
components' roles. OSD Policy officials stated this guidance has not
yet been developed because their initial focus was on establishing the
Executive Council and the Integration Team, supporting significant DOD
decisions on posture-related matters, and preparing the 2008 Global
Defense Posture Report to Congress. OSD Policy officials indicated they
plan on developing such guidance after the conclusion of the
Quadrennial Defense Review, but did not specify by what date.
Therefore, as combatant commands implement complex and interrelated
initiatives, they lack guidance from OSD regarding the management of
stakeholder concerns, the identification of potential challenges, or
the status of mitigation strategies.
Progress in Establishing Operating Locations:
In the 2008 Report to Congress, the department reiterated its intent to
establish a network of Forward Operating Sites and Cooperative Security
Locations and summarized diplomatic efforts to date, but did not
provide a full listing of the current number of planned locations.
According to DOD officials who prepared the report, they focused the
report on updating the status of initiatives contained in DOD's
original 2004 Report to Congress, omitting new and emerging
requirements. DOD strategic planning guidance issued in 2008 requires
each geographic combatant command to produce a theater campaign plan
and specific posture requirements for its given area of responsibility.
[Footnote 2] These plans and posture requirements are to be updated
annually, and posture requirements will continue to be modified based
on these plans. Because of the potentially significant operating and
support costs that future locations may entail, the services resist
assuming management and funding responsibilities for them. We have
previously reported that DOD lacks specific criteria or a process for
assigning lead responsibility at future locations, and DOD has yet to
resolve this issue.[Footnote 3] Without criteria or a process to assign
responsibilities, management and funding for future locations may
continue to be a contentious issue as the services face increasing
demands for the resources they are provided.
Global Posture Costs:
DOD has not fully defined or reported total costs for DOD's global
posture strategy. DOD's 2008 Report to Congress estimates the total
cost for all global defense posture initiatives at $9 to $12 billion,
which is essentially unchanged from the amount reported in 2004. DOD's
cost estimate for the 2008 Report to Congress was based on the data
used to develop the DOD fiscal year 2009 budget request. Approximately
$3.4 billion of DOD's estimate covers funding from fiscal year 2007
through fiscal year 2013. The remainder of the $9 to $12 billion cost
estimate is allocated to an unspecified period beyond 2013. However,
the DOD's cost estimate likely understates the total costs associated
with restructuring DOD's global posture, because it does not report the
total cost of each initiative, assumptions about host nation support,
the full share of U.S. obligations, or sustainment costs. For example,
regarding the relocation of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa to Guam,
which is part of a larger effort to realign U.S. military forces in
Japan, data supporting the 2008 Global Defense Posture Report to
Congress identifies $2.3 billion programmed for this initiative, but
costs could be much higher.[Footnote 4] An agreement signed in February
2009 between the U.S. and Japan for the relocation of Marine Corps
forces from Okinawa to Guam reaffirmed a previous estimate of the U.S.
share of costs as over $4 billion.[Footnote 5] However, as we testified
in May 2008, the U.S. costs are estimated to be at least $7.5 billion,
and this estimate does not include other related costs, such as the
costs to move and accommodate Marine Corps units from locations other
than Okinawa to Guam, the costs associated with the development of
training ranges and facilities on nearby islands, or the approximately
$6.1 billion the Governor of Guam has recently testified is necessary
for fiscal year 2010 to help fund Guam's needs in support of the
military buildup.[Footnote 6],[Footnote 7] The Office of Management and
Budget and professional cost analysis organizations have identified key
characteristics of a high-quality, reliable cost estimate, which GAO
recently summarized in a cost estimating and assessment guide.[Footnote
8] A high-quality, reliable cost estimate should be well documented,
comprehensive, accurate, and credible. The 2008 Report to Congress does
not reflect these characteristics because DOD lacks a reliable process
for developing credible global defense posture cost estimates. OSD
initiated the cost estimate by issuing data calls to approximately 40
service components, whereby the lack of a common definition for posture
permitted each component to decide subjectively which elements to
include. Furthermore, OSD did not provide specific guidance on how to
treat assumptions regarding host nation contributions. Moreover,
according to the officials, the congressional direction to produce the
2008 Report to Congress required DOD to provide only the cost to date
of implementing the military construction elements of the strategy.
Conclusions:
Insufficient information exists to fully evaluate DOD's progress in
implementing the Global Posture Strategy, and Congress has not received
a comprehensive view of the department's efforts or related total costs
to realign its global defense posture. Additionally, global defense
posture realignment efforts will continue to evolve as department
objectives, priorities, and combatant command plans adapt to a dynamic
international security environment. While the department has taken some
positive steps to establish an approach to manage this effort, the
weaknesses we have identified may limit its effectiveness and the
information the department provides to Congress.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To build on the steps taken by DOD toward establishing an integrated
process to assess and adjust global defense posture and more fully
report on progress and costs, we are recommending that the Secretary of
Defense take the following five actions:
* Direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to:
- issue guidance establishing a definition and common terms of
reference for global defense posture;
- develop guidance, in conjunction with the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, requiring the geographic combatant commands to
establish an approach to monitor initiative implementation, assess
progress, and report on results;
- establish criteria and a process for selecting and assigning lead
service responsibilities for future locations; and:
- modify the annual DOD Global Defense Posture Report to Congress to
include the following elements:
a definition of global defense posture and how this is applied in
identifying initiatives in the report;
a comprehensive list of all locations that fall under the definition;
the identification of lead service responsibilities to manage and fund
each location; and,
a total cost estimate to complete each initiative, including expected
U.S. government funding and anticipated host nation contributions.
* Direct the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller to develop a
requirement and appropriate guidance for constructing an estimate of
total global defense posture costs, which reflects the basic
characteristics of a credible cost estimate as discussed in GAO's Cost
Estimating Guide.
Agency Comments:
In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD agreed with our five
recommendations, and indicated specific steps will be taken to address
them. The department stated the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) is
developing a definition and framework for the global defense posture in
the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. A working definition will be
published in the 2009 DOD Global Defense Posture Report to Congress and
finalized with the completion of the Quadrennial Defense Review. The
department also stated guidance will be developed to establish an
integrated approach to monitor initiative implementation, assess
progress, and report results. Furthermore, DOD commented that the
Secretary of Defense will direct the Undersecretary of Defense (Policy)
to establish a criteria and process for selecting and assigning lead
service responsibilities, which will leverage existing business rules
that govern the financial management arrangements between combatant
command support agents and combatant commands. The department also
agreed the DOD Global Defense Posture Report should be modified to
provide a definition, a list of posture locations, and an
identification of lead service responsibilities. However, the
department was not clear on how it would modify the report to reflect
the total costs to complete each initiative. Reporting these costs is
an important component of our recommendation. The department did,
however, agree with our fifth recommendation to develop a requirement
and appropriate guidance for developing an estimate of global defense
posture costs which reflects the basic characteristics of a credible
cost estimate. The department agreed that understanding the costs
associated with ongoing global defense posture initiatives/
realignments or new global defense posture initiatives is an important
piece of the decision-making process, and stated the department's
guidance for upcoming submission of Theater Posture Plans includes a
requirement for combatant commands to provide credible cost estimates
for global defense posture initiatives. If future DOD Global Defense
Posture Reports include credible cost estimates developed through this
process, and the department takes the other steps outlined in its
comments, we believe these actions will address the intent of our
recommendations. DOD's comments are reprinted in their entirety in
enclosure II.
We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional
committees, the Secretary of Defense, and appropriate DOD
organizations. In addition, this report will be available at no charge
on our Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your
staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (404)
679-1816 or pendletonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO
staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in
enclosure III.
Signed by:
John Pendleton, Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
Enclosures - 3:
[End of section]
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides:
Review of the Department of Defense 2008 Global Defense Posture:
Report to Congress:
Force Structure: Actions Needed to Improve DOD‘s Ability To Manage,
Assess, and Report on Global Defense Posture Initiatives:
Review of DOD Global Posture Report:
Agenda:
* Introduction;
* Reporting Objectives;
* Overall Assessment;
* Background;
* Summary of Results;
* Conclusions;
* Recommendations;
* Scope and Methodology.
Introduction:
FY2008 Military Construction and Veterans‘ Affairs and Related Agencies
Appropriation Bill; Senate Report 110-85:
* DOD request for $1.2 billion in FY2008 for overseas military
construction represented approximately 10 percent of total military
construction request;
* Concerns about:
- ability of DOD to efficiently manage ambitious and overlapping global
realignment and construction program;
- fidelity of DOD‘s basing plan given current fluidity of the global
security environment'
* As reported by GAO, DOD has not established a comprehensive and
routine process to inform Congress on status of strategy implementation
(GAO-06-852, Sept. 2006)
FY2009 Military Construction and Veterans‘ Affairs and Related Agencies
Appropriation Bill; Senate Report 110-428:
* DOD is required to submit annually updated reports with the
administration's budget submissions each year through fiscal year 2014.
Reporting Objectives:
The Committee directed the Government Accountability Office to assess
the department's October 2008 Report to Congress and the department‘s
progress in implementing the strategy with an emphasis on certain
specific matters from which GAO has derived the following three key
objectives:
1) an analysis of whether the department has an integrated process for
reassessing and adjusting its overseas presence and basing strategy;
2) an update on DOD's progress in establishing its network of future
Forward Operating Sites (FOS) and Cooperative Security Locations (CSL);
and;
3) a comparison of how DOD's projected costs for implementing its
overseas presence and basing strategy compare with initial estimates.
Overall Assessment:
Although DOD‘s report responds to the reporting requirements set forth
by the Senate Report language, it does not provide a comprehensive view
of DOD‘s global posture strategy or implementation status. We identified
challenges in each of the areas we were asked to address:
* DOD has begun to establish an integrated process to assess and adjust
the posture strategy, but global posture is not consistently defined,
and combatant command mechanisms for monitoring, assessing, and
reporting on implementation are not yet in place.
* Operating locations are not fully identified and management and
funding responsibilities are unclear.
* Costs are not fully defined or reported.
Background:
Global Defense Posture Requirement Development Process:
* Strategic DOD guidance, the Guidance on Employment of the Force and
the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan, sets priorities for combatant
command activities.
* The Guidance on Employment of the Force is used mainly by the
combatant commanders to guide the development of campaign and
contingency plans.
* The Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan specifically tasks combatant
commanders to develop campaign, contingency, and posture plans
consistent with the Guidance on Employment of the Force.
* Per this guidance:
- Each of the geographic combatant commanders is required to produce a
Theater Campaign Plan, which translates strategic objectives into
operational and contingency plans and integrates them with normal
routine peacetime and security cooperation activities.
- Each geographic combatant commander (except U.S. Northern Command) is
also required to develop Theater Posture Plans as annexes to the
theater campaign plan.
- Theater posture plans provide an overview of posture requirements,
identify major ongoing and new posture initiatives, and itemize
information on each specific location or installation, including
current and planned military construction requirements and the status
of relevant host nation arrangements.
Objective 1: Process to Assess and Adjust Posture:
Positive Steps Taken To Date:
* Global Posture Executive Council (GPEC) and the Global Posture
Integration Team (GPIT) established on February 28, 2008;
- GPEC -- senior leadership body to facilitate global defense posture
decision making and recommend courses of action; includes OSD, the
Joint Staff, Services, Combatant Commands and Department of State;
- GPIT -- staff-level team drawn from GPEC member organizations to
manage day-to-day posture activities; overlap with Quadrennial Defense
Review issue team on posture.
* GPEC meets on a quarterly basis; recent matters addressed include:
- Location of U.S. Africa Command Headquarters;
- Global en route and mobility infrastructure;
- Overall posture of U.S. Special Operations Command.
Shortcomings Identified:
* DOD has not reported on global defense posture matters in a
comprehensive manner:
- A definition in the 2004 Report to Congress states that global
defense posture consists of five elements: relationships, activities,
facilities, legal arrangements, and global sourcing and surge.
- A definition in current DOD strategic planning guidance consists of
three elements: host nation relationships, DOD‘s facilities and
military presence in country, and DOD activities overseas.
- Stakeholders we contacted held differing perspectives as to what
constitutes global defense posture; for example:
U.S. Southern Command – includes coordination with interagency
partners;
U.S. Navy – afloat platforms and assets;
* OSD Policy officials acknowledged DOD‘s global posture reports have
emphasized only initiatives that have a direct impact on facility
requirements, because the congressional direction to produce the report
emphasized military construction costs.
* As a result, Congress may not have the full context in which to
consider DOD‘s global posture requirements.
* Combatant commands have different approaches to monitoring and
assessing initiative implementation and identifying needed adjustments.
- U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Central Command have no formal
structures.
- Officials at U.S. Southern Command indicated the command has
established corresponding bodies to bring together key stakeholders at
the theater level.
- No requirement to establish an approach to monitor initiative
implementation, assess progress, and periodically report on results
currently exists.
Contributing Factors:
* DOD has not yet developed guidance that defines global posture or the
mechanisms needed to monitor and assess initiative implementation,
identify adjustments that are needed, and report progress.
- The Deputy Secretary of Defense directed OSD Policy to develop an
implementing instruction that would address in more detail the global
defense posture process and components' roles when GPEC was
established.
* According to OSD officials, they are developing a more comprehensive
definition of global defense posture as part of the QDR, which will
then be incorporated into DOD guidance, but they did not specify by
what date.
* According to OSD Policy officials, establishing the GPEC and GPIT,
supporting significant DOD decisions on posture-related matters, and
completing the 2008 Report to Congress were the first priorities.
Objective 2: Progress in Establishing Future Locations:
DOD provided limited information on the status of efforts to establish a
network of Forward Operating Sites and Cooperative Security Locations:
* 2008 Report to Congress did not provide a complete list of Forward
Operating Sites (FOS) and Cooperative Security Locations (CSL).
* The 2008 Report to Congress summarized the status of host nation
consultations and negotiations, but did not provide details for each
affected location.
* Services resist assuming responsibilities for future locations and
enhancements to legacy locations because of the potentially significant
operating and support costs they may entail.
* Additional uncertainties remain regarding the establishment of the
FOS and CSL network:
- Theater security cooperation planning continues to evolve and will
drive future posture requirements.
- Geographic combatant command theater campaign plans provide the basis
for posture requirements; however, the Secretary of Defense has only
approved the U.S. Pacific Command‘s submission.
- One service‘s implementation plan identified details for a number of
FOS and CSL locations under its responsibility as ’to be determined“.
Contributing Factors:
* DOD has not established the criteria and a process for selecting and
assigning lead service responsibilities for future locations.
- Prior recommendation in GAO-06-852 to establish a process to
prioritize, assign management responsibility for, and fund the network
of operating locations has not been addressed.
- DOD agreed with our recommendation and stated their intent to
establish a process to prioritize, assign management responsibility
for, and fund the network of operating locations that DOD is planning.
- However, corrective actions taken since then did not address the
recommendation.
- Future budget constraints may make reaching agreement with the
services more difficult.
Objective 3: Cost of Global Posture Initiatives:
The costs included in the 2008 Report to Congress are essentially
unchanged from 2004:
* Estimate for total global defense posture cost $9 to $12 billion, but
the time period is unspecified.
* About $3.4 billion covers funding from Fiscal Year 2007 through
Fiscal Year 2013, with the remainder allocated to an unspecified period
beyond 2013.
* Almost 90 percent of the estimate reflects planned military
construction costs.
* The 2008 Report to Congress identified 2 initiatives that may
increase these costs:
- Realignment in Europe;
- Transformation in Korea.
[Text box: Office of Management and Budget and professional cost
analysis organizations identify the following characteristics of a high
quality cost estimate:
* Well documented;
* Comprehensive;
* Accurate;
* Credible. End of text box]
2008 Report to Congress Likely Underestimates Total Costs:
* For example, regarding the relocation of Marine Corps forces from
Okinawa to Guam, which is part of a larger effort to realign U.S.
military forces in Japan, data supporting the 2008 Report to Congress
identifies $2.3 billion programmed for this initiative, but costs could
be much higher.
* An agreement signed in February 2009 between the U.S. and Japan for
the relocation of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa to Guam reaffirmed a
previous estimate of the U.S. share of costs as over $4 billion.
* In May 2008, GAO testified the Marine Corps buildup is estimated to
cost $7.5 billion[A], not including:
- costs to move and accommodate units from locations other than Okinawa
to Guam;
- costs associated with the development of training ranges and
facilities on nearby islands;
- costs of all other defense organizations that will be needed to
support the additional military personnel and dependents on Guam;
- the Governor of Guam has testified approximately $6.1 billion would
be requested for fiscal year 2010 to help fund Guam‘s needs.
[A] GAO, Defense Infrastructure: Planning Efforts for the Proposed
Military Buildup on Guam Are in Their Initial Stages, with Many
Challenges Yet to Be Addressed, GAO-08-722T (Washington, D.C.: May 1,
2008).
Figure: Estimated Cost To United States To Implement The Relocation Of
Marine Corps Forces From Okinawa To Guam ($B):
[REfer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Data supporting the 2008 report: $2.3 billion;
2009 U.S.-Japan agreement: $4.2 billion;
2008 GAO testimony: $7.5 billion.
Sources: OSD PA&E; OSD policy and GAO.
[End of figure]
Uncertainties over host nation contributions could increase total U.S.
costs:
* The 2008 Report to Congress does not identify host nation
contribution assumptions or how they are incorporated into the
estimate.
* Host nation contributions can be bounded by bilateral agreements; any
cost escalations may become U.S. responsibility.
* Service component officials in one geographic combatant command area
of responsibility expressed skepticism about realizing over one billion
dollars in host nation contributions for new projects through FY2015.
* If host nation contributions are not realized or costs escalate, U.S.
Government could become responsible for these requirements or the
posture requirement would have to be modified, deferred, or eliminated
with the potential risk to military capabilities.
Contributing Factors:
* DOD methodology focused on military construction costs in developing
the 2008 Report to Congress estimate, which was consistent with the
congressional direction to produce this report (Senate Report 110-85).
* However, some of the proposed posture initiatives could include other
costs, such as operations and maintenance or personnel, that are not
fully captured in DOD‘s cost estimate, and should be considered as
global defense posture decisions are made.
* Moreover, DOD lacks a reliable process for developing credible global
defense posture cost estimates:
- OSD initiated the cost estimate by issuing data calls to
approximately 40 service components, whereby the lack of a common
definition for posture permitted each component to make ’judgment
calls“ on which elements to include.
- OSD did not provide specific guidance on how to treat assumptions
regarding host nation contributions.
Conclusions:
* Insufficient information exists to fully evaluate DOD‘s progress in
implementing the Global Posture Strategy and Congress has not received
a comprehensive view of the department‘s efforts or related total costs
to realign its global defense posture.
* Global defense posture realignment efforts will continue to evolve as
department objectives, priorities, and combatant command plans adapt to
a dynamic international security environment.
* While the department has taken some positive steps to establish an
approach to manage this effort, the weaknesses we have identified may
limit its effectiveness and the information the department provides to
Congress.
Recommendations:
To build on the steps taken by DOD toward establishing an integrated
process to assess and adjust global defense posture and more fully
report on progress and costs, we are recommending that the Secretary of
Defense take the following five actions:
Direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to:
* issue guidance establishing a definition and common terms of
reference for global defense posture;
* develop guidance, in conjunction with the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, requiring the geographic combatant commands to
establish an approach to monitor initiative implementation, assess
progress, and report on results;
* establish criteria and a process for selecting and assigning lead
service responsibilities for future locations; and;
* modify the annual DOD Global Defense Posture Report to Congress to
include the following elements:
- a definition of global defense posture and how this is applied in
identifying initiatives in the report;
- a comprehensive list of all locations that fall under the definition;
- the identification of lead service responsibilities to manage and
fund each location; and,
- a total cost estimate to complete each initiative, including expected
U.S. government funding and anticipated host nation contributions;
* Direct the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller to develop a
requirement and appropriate guidance for constructing an estimate of
total global defense posture costs, which reflects the basic
characteristics of a credible cost estimate as discussed in GAO‘s Cost
Estimating Guide.
Scope and Methodology:
To assess the Department's updated 2008 Report to Congress, the
department‘s progress in implementing the strategy, and to address each
of the three objectives, we interviewed and obtained documentation from
officials in the:
* Office of the Secretary of Defense;
* Joint Staff;
* Departments of the Army, Air Force, and Navy;
* U.S. Central Command, Army and Air Force Component Commands;
* U.S. Pacific Command and all component commands;
* U.S. Southern Command;
* U.S. Special Operations Command;
* U.S. Transportation Command;
* Department of State, Bureau of Political Military Affairs.
To determine whether the Department has an integrated process for
reassessing and adjusting overseas posture, we examined relevant
policies and procedures concerning management of global defense posture
matters; interviewed officials about posture management issues at DOD,
the aforementioned combatant commands, and the services; reviewed the
minutes of GPEC quarterly meetings; and, obtained information on
combatant command posture management approaches at U.S. Central Command,
U.S. Pacific Command, and U.S. Southern Command.
To identify the extent to which DOD has achieved progress in
establishing its proposed network of future Forward Operating Sites
(FOS) and Cooperative Security Locations (CSL), we examined and
analyzed the 2004 and 2008 DOD Global Defense Posture Reports to
Congress, relevant DOD guidance to the combatant commands, combatant
command posture requirements, DOD guidance on executive agency and
combatant command relationships, and previous GAO reporting on the
matter.
To compare how DOD's 2008 estimates compared with initial estimates, we
analyzed and assessed the cost estimate data included in the 2004 and
2008 DOD Global Defense Posture Reports to Congress; DOD, service and
combatant command data on the cost estimates for posture initiatives;
DOD guidance on developing cost data for posture initiatives; DOD‘s
cost estimating methodology for the 2008 DOD Global Defense Posture
Report to Congress; and GAO guidance on estimating cost and the basic
characteristics of credible cost estimates. We reviewed cost estimates
associated with the U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative, but we
did not evaluate the estimates for validity.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2008 through July
2009 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 our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Under Secretary Of Defense:
Policy:
2000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20301-2000:
June 29, 2009:
Mr. John Pendleton:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Pendleton:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft
report, GAO-09-706R, "Force Structure: Actions Needed to Improve DoD's
Ability to Manage, Assess, and Report on Global Defense Posture
Initiatives," dated June 10, 2009 (GAO Code 351295). DoD concurs with
all five of the recommendations in the report. Our response is
attached.
Our point of contact for this action is Robert Presler, Office of the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans and Forces, (703)
697-5401 or Robert.Presler@osd.mil.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Michele A. Flournoy:
Attachment: As stated:
[End of letter]
GAO Draft Report - Dated June 10, 2009
GAO Code 351295 /GAO-09-706R:
"Force Structure: Actions Needed to Improve DOD's Ability to Manage,
Assess, and Report on Global Defense Posture Initiatives"
Department Of Defense Comments To The Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) to issue guidance
establishing a definition and common terms of reference for global
defense posture.
DOD Response: Concur. A common definition of global defense posture
will facilitate strong interdepartmental cooperation and improve
coordination and implementation, The Under Secretary of Defense
(Policy) is developing a definition and framework for global defense
posture in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. A working definition
will be published in the 2009 DoD Global Defense Posture Report to
Congress and finalized with the completion of the Quadrennial Defense
Review.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) to develop guidance, in
conjunction with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, requiring
the geographic combatant commands to establish an approach to monitor
initiative implementation, assess progress, and report on results.
DOD Response: Concur, The Secretary of Defense will direct the Under
Secretary of Defense (Policy) to develop guidance, in conjunction with
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to establish an integrated
approach to monitor initiative implementation, assess progress, and
report on results. This approach will ensure that the geographic
combatant commands and the Services have an understanding of and
provide input to initiative status, progress, and responsibilities.
Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) to establish criteria
and a process for selecting and assigning lead service responsibilities
for future locations.
DOD Response: Concur. The Secretary of Defense will direct the Under
Secretary of Defense (Policy) to establish criteria and a process for
selecting and assigning lead Service responsibilities for future
posture locations. This process will leverage existing Financial
Management Regulations (FMR) business rules that govern the financial
management arrangements between Combatant Command Support Agents
(CCSAs) and combatant commands.
Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) to modify the annual DoD
Global Defense Posture Report to Congress to include the following
elements:
* a definition of global defense posture and how this is applied in
identifying initiatives in the report;
* a comprehensive list of all locations that fall under the definition;
* the identification of lead service responsibilities to manage and
fund each location; and,
* a total cost estimate to complete each initiative, including expected
US government funding and anticipated host nation contributions.
DOD Response: Concur. The Department agrees that the DoD Global Defense
Posture Report to Congress should be modified to provide a definition,
a list of posture locations, and an identification of lead Service
responsibilities. The report already includes identification of the
cost to date of implementing the military construction elements of the
strategy and updated estimates of the cost to complete the construction
program for global posture initiatives.
Recommendation 5: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller to develop a
requirement and appropriate guidance for constructing an estimate of
total global defense posture costs, which reflects the basic
characteristics of a credible cost estimate as discussed in GAO's Cost
Estimating Guide.
DOD Response: Concur. The Department agrees that understanding the
costs associated with on-going global defense posture initiatives/
realignments or new global defense posture initiatives is an important
piece of the decision making process. The Department's guidance for the
upcoming submission of the Theater Posture Plans already includes a
requirement for the combatant commands to provide credible cost
estimates for global defense posture initiatives, including host nation
contributions, personnel costs, and infrastructure estimates associated
with initiatives in their respective areas of responsibilities.
[End of section]
Enclosure III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements:
GAO Contact:
John Pendleton, (404) 679-1816 or pendletonj@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the person named above, Robert L. Repasky, Assistant
Director; Shirley Min; Joanne Landesman; Greg Marchand; Terry
Richardson and Ricardo Marquez made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] S. Rep. No. 110-85, at 13-14 (2007). S. Rep. No. 110-428, at 10
(2008).
[2] According to the Guidance on Employment of the Force and the Joint
Strategic Capabilities Plan for FY 2008, CJCSI 3110.01G (Mar. 1, 2008),
each of the geographic combatant commanders is now required to produce
a Theater Campaign Plan. Furthermore, each geographic combatant
commander (except U.S. Northern Command) is also required to develop
Theater Posture Plans as annexes to the Theater Campaign Plan. The
theater posture plans would provide an overview of posture
requirements, identify major ongoing and new posture initiatives, the
general status of efforts to develop and execute requirements, identify
existing or emerging risks, elaborate on costs, and itemize information
on each specific location or installation, including current and
planned military construction requirements and the status of relevant
host nation arrangements. Beginning in 2008, the geographic combatant
commands would annually submit their theater posture plans to OSD
Policy, OSD Acquisition, Technology & Logistics, and the Joint Staff
for review.
[3] GAO, Defense Management: Comprehensive Strategy and Annual
Reporting Are Needed to Measure Progress and Costs of DOD's Global
Posture Restructuring, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-852] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 13,
2006).
[4] The $2.3 billion estimated by DOD in the 2008 Report covers funding
from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2013.
[5] Agreement Between the Government of the United States and the
Government of Japan Concerning the Implementation of the Relocation of
III Marine Expeditionary Force Personnel and Their Dependents from
Okinawa to Guam, Feb. 17, 2009.
[6] Felix P. Camacho, Governor of Guam, Military Buildup on Guam:
Hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Statement of Felix P. Camacho, Governor of Guam, 110th Congress, 2nd
Session (2008).
[7] GAO, Defense Infrastructure: Planning Efforts for the Proposed
Military Buildup on Guam Are in Their Initial Stages, with Many
Challenges Yet to Be Addressed, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-722T] (Washington, D.C.: May 1,
2008).
[8] GAO, Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for
Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-3SP] (Washington, D.C.: March 2009).
[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:
