GAO-05-545R 

May 18, 2005 

The Honorable Terry Everett 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Silvestre Reyes 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

Subject: Department of Defense Initiatives on High Energy Lasers Have 

Been Responsive to Congressional Direction 

Congress directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to prepare a master 

plan to develop laser technologies for potential weapons applications in 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.1

 In response 

to this legislation, the High Energy Laser (HEL) Executive Review Panel 

was formed and issued the HEL Master Plan on March 24, 2000. This plan 

recommended that DOD implement a new management structure for HEL 

technologies and increase the funding allocated to HELs to achieve a 

better balance between large demonstration programs and the enabling 

science and technology projects. Subsequently, in the Floyd D. Spence 

National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2001, Congress directed 

the Secretary of Defense to implement the management and organizational 

structure specified in the Master Plan.2

You asked us to review the extent to which DOD has implemented the 

recommendations of the HEL Master Plan, by assessing (1) whether DOD 

has achieved more balance between large demonstration projects and the 

 1

Pub. L. No. 106-65, sec. 251. 

2

Pub. L. No. 106-398, sec. 242. 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
2 GAO-05-545R 

enabling science and technology base projects; 3(2) whether the DOD 

funding process focuses on the most critical HEL issues; and (3) what 

impact the new management structure has had on the coordination and 

redundancy of HEL technology efforts DOD-wide. We briefed your staff on 

October 20, 2004, on the interim results of our work, and, at that time, we 

agreed to provide a briefing on the results of our work with a letter 

summarizing our findings to follow. We provided the final briefing on 

March 30, 2005. This letter summarizes and transmits the final briefing 

itself (see encl. I). 

In addition, the conference report that accompanied the Ronald W. Reagan 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 directed the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress on the 

implementation of the fiscal year 2001 legislation.4

 The conferees required 

the Secretary to provide this report by January 15, 2005, and also asked us 

to review the report and provide our assessment of it to the congressional 

defense committees by March 15, 2005. As of March 30, 2005, the Secretary 

had not issued this report, and we were unable to review the report in time 

to include our assessment in this correspondence. We will provide this 

assessment to your staff and to the other defense committees in a separate 

letter within 60 days after the Secretary issues the report. 

The HEL Joint Technology Office (JTO) was formed in June 2000 as the 

principal organization to implement the recommendations of DOD’s HEL 

Master Plan. It functions as the advocate for DOD’s HEL technology 

development and funds high priority science and technology efforts that 

are expected to have significant impact on long-term laser weapon 

requirements of the military services. In addition to the HEL projects 

sponsored by the JTO, each of the military services, the Missile Defense 

Agency, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency sponsor 

HEL science and technology efforts. The Army,5

 the Missile Defense 

Agency, and the Special Operations Command are also working on large-

 3

The large demonstration programs are system-specific programs, such as the Airborne 

Laser or the Advanced Tactical Laser, while the enabling science and technology base 

projects are somewhat independent of a specific application. 

4

H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-767 at p. 520. 

5

The Army did not request funding for its HEL weapon program, the Mobile Tactical High 

Energy Laser in its fiscal year 2006 budget request. According to an Army official, the 

program’s priority was insufficient to compete favorably with other Army programs. 

Background 
3 GAO-05-545R 

scale HEL demonstration programs with the goal of fielding laser weapon 

systems. 

The HEL Master Plan recommended that the funding for HEL science and 

technology be increased to achieve a better balance between large 

demonstration programs and the enabling science and technology 

projects. In discussing the imbalance between these projects, the plan 

stated that, while the demonstration programs are desirable to 

demonstrate that the HEL weapons can be fielded, there must be a 

corresponding level of science and technology base funding to ensure the 

future growth of these programs and the continuing exploration of other 

types of HEL technologies. Currently, all DOD HEL activity, including the 

demonstration programs, is funded within the science and technology 

budget category, which includes basic research, applied research, and 

advanced technology development. 

The Master Plan also recommended that DOD establish a new 

management structure for HEL technologies. Therefore, the HEL 

Technology Council was established, with the Deputy Undersecretary of 

Defense for Science and Technology designated chairman of the council 

and senior civilian official for HEL projects. In addition, senior level 

executives of the services and agencies were designated as the members 

of the Technology Council. The HEL Technology Council provides 

oversight and approval authority over JTO funding, while Technology 

Council executives represent their individual service and agency needs 

and bring guidance to their respective service based on the council’s 

deliberations. The JTO consists of a director and full- and part-time 

representatives of each service or agency, with additional support 

provided by technical area working groups, which provide 

recommendations and expert advice to the JTO on their projects. 

We found that the Department of Defense has, in large part, implemented 

the recommendations of the High Energy Laser Master Plan and has made 

the following changes to increase the focus on critical high energy laser 

issues: 

• Since the High Energy Laser Master Plan and the 2001 Defense 

Authorization Act, the overall investment in high energy laser efforts has 

increased and the science and technology base has grown as a proportion 

of total investment. 

Results in Brief 
4 GAO-05-545R 

• The Joint Technology Office has a process for establishing priorities that is 

clearly defined, objective, and based on input from experts in the high 

energy laser field. The services and agencies fund their high energy laser 

projects according to their mission requirements. 

• By implementing the management structure and recommendations of the 

Master Plan, the Department of Defense has increased collaboration 

within the high energy laser community and provided more opportunities 

for coordination of high energy laser efforts. 

The DOD had no comments on a draft of this report. 

From a resource standpoint, DOD has achieved more balance between its 

spending for large-scale HEL demonstration programs and the enabling 

science and technology base projects. Since the HEL Master Plan was 

written and the subsequent legislation implemented, the overall 

investment in HEL efforts has increased and the science and technology 

base has grown as a proportion of the total investment. In 1998, the HEL 

technology base accounted for 17 percent of the total HEL spending ($66 

million out of $398 million, with the demonstration programs receiving 

$332 million). In 2004, it increased to 27 percent of total HEL spending 

($263 million of $983 million, with the demonstration programs receiving 

$720 million). This 27-percent increase includes about $58 million to fund 

the JTO and its projects as well as an increase in service and agency 

funding for HEL science and technology base projects, from about $66 

million in 1998 to about $205 million in 2004. We did not attempt to 

determine what constitutes the ideal spending balance between 

demonstration programs and science and technology base projects, nor 

did we attempt to analyze the projects for technical balance. 

For the new money that the JTO has infused into enabling HEL science 

and technology projects—ranging from about 20 to 40 percent of the 

total—the funding process does track with identified HEL priorities. While 

the individual services participate in this process, they fund their own 

science and technology projects based on their specific needs. The JTO 

has a process to evaluate projects that includes criteria for establishing 

funding priorities for the most critical technical issues. These criteria are 

clearly defined, objective, and based on input from a wide range of experts 

in the HEL field. In deciding on which projects to fund, the JTO uses the 

priorities established through this process. The JTO initiated the process 

in 2000 and continues to follow it when allocating funding for its laser 

projects. The JTO used four criteria to prioritize technology projects 

critical to future HEL applications: the overall potential impact on HEL 

Efforts to Implement 

Congressional 

Directives 
5 GAO-05-545R 

missions; whether the technology is sufficiently mature to benefit from 

increased funding; whether the funding needed for the research matches 

the expected JTO funds; and whether there are benefits to multiple 

applications or multiple services. The HEL technology projects were then 

evaluated by a wide-range of experts in the HEL field, prioritized and 

grouped into seven technology thrust areas: beam control, solid-state 

lasers, chemical lasers, free-electron lasers, advanced laser technology, 

lethality science, and modeling and simulations. The JTO allocates its 

funding, which has been between $50 million and $60 million each year 

since fiscal year 2002, exclusively to projects in these seven thrust areas. 

The priorities and the investment strategy are updated annually. The 

services and agencies prioritize and fund their technology investments 

according to their individual mission needs. However, they do so with the 

knowledge of what the JTO and other organizations have underway. 

By implementing the management structure and recommendations of the 

2000 HEL Master Plan, DOD provides opportunities via the Technology 

Council and the JTO’s Technical Area Working Groups for more 

collaboration among the HEL community as well as opportunities for key 

HEL experts from all of the services to discuss goals and objectives and 

share project information. The Technology Council provides specific 

direction to the JTO and some direction to the services and agencies on 

their HEL-related activities. The senior level executives on the Technology 

Council represent their services’ or agencies’ HEL needs and issues to the 

council and take the results of the Technology Council discussions and 

guidance back to their own services. Finally, based on our review of 

selected projects, we found no apparent duplication of HEL technology 

projects within the JTO projects or among the JTO projects and service 

and agency projects. Even within the same thrust area, the projects 

explore different aspects of the various technologies. According to JTO 

officials, the office makes a conscious attempt to avoid duplication with 

service or agency projects and instead tries to address technology gaps 

and issues not being covered by the services and agencies. 

The Department of Defense reviewed a draft of this report, but had no 

comments on the content. Their response is included as Enclosure II. Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
6 GAO-05-545R 

We reviewed the HEL Master Plan and the subsequent legislation as well 

as other documentation concerning the implementation of the 

recommendations in the Master Plan. We interviewed officials within the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense to assess DOD’s implementation of the 

plan’s recommendations. We interviewed HEL JTO officials and reviewed 

documents to determine their role in implementing the Master Plan’s 

recommendations and to assess their criteria for prioritizing and funding 

HEL technologies. We also interviewed Army, Navy, Air Force, Missile 

Defense Agency, and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

officials involved in HEL projects and reviewed pertinent documentation 

to determine how the officials set their priorities and funding for HEL 

projects and to solicit their views on the effectiveness of the JTO as the 

focal point for HEL-related activities. We reviewed the active projects the 

JTO was sponsoring for possible duplication with those from the services 

and other agencies. For those projects that seemed similar to other 

projects, we then did a more in-depth analysis of the project and its focus. 

We conducted our review from August 2004 to April 2005 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Paul L. Francis, Director 

Acquisition and Sourcing Management 

Enclosures - II 

Scope and 

Methodology 
Enclosure I 

7 GAO-05-545R 

Enclosure I 

DOD Initiatives on High Energy 

Lasers Have Been Responsive 

to Congressional Direction

Briefing to Congressional Staff
Enclosure I 

8 GAO-05-545R 

2

Background

• National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (sec. 251) 

directed DOD to prepare a master plan to develop laser

technologies for potential weapons applications

• In response to this legislation, the High Energy Laser (HEL) 

Executive Review Panel was formed and issued the HEL Master 

Plan on 3/24/2000, which recommended that DOD:

• Increase funding allocated to HEL Science & Technology (S&T) 

to achieve a better balance between large demonstration 

programs and enabling S&T projects

• Implement a new management structure for HEL Technologies
Enclosure I 

9 GAO-05-545R 

3

Background

• Subsequently, in the Floyd D. Spence National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001(sec. 242),

Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to 

implement the management and organizational 

structure specified in the High Energy Laser Master 

Plan

• HEL Joint Technology Office (JTO) was formed in June 

2000, as principal organization to implement the Master 

Plan’s recommendations
Enclosure I 

10 GAO-05-545R 

4

Background: Management Structure for High 

Energy Laser Programs

Technology Council

DUSD (S&T) Chair

Director, JTO

Air Force 

Representative

Navy 

Representative

Army 

Representative

Part-time 

representatives 

from agencies

Technology Area Working Groups

S&T Executives: Army, 

Navy, Air Force, Missile 

Defense Agency and 

Defense Advanced 

Research Projects 

Agency
Enclosure I 

11 GAO-05-545R 

5

Background: DOD’s New Management 

Structure for HEL-Related S&T

• The Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Science and 

Technology (DUSD, S&T) was designated senior civilian 

official for High Energy Laser programs 

• Chairs the Technology Council

• Senior S&T executives from services, Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency, Missile 

Defense Agency, and the Defense Threat Reduction 

Agency serve on the Technology Council
Enclosure I 

12 GAO-05-545R 

6

Background: DOD’s New Management 

Structure for HEL-Related S&T 

• The HEL JTO was formed in June 2000 

• Consists of the Director, full-time representatives 

from the services and part-time representatives 

from agencies

• Technology Area Working Groups, comprised of 

members of services, along with industry 

representatives, provide technical advice and 

support to the JTO
Enclosure I 

13 GAO-05-545R 

7

Three Objectives of GAO’s Review

• Has DOD achieved a better balance between large 

demonstration programs and enabling S&T projects?

• Does the DOD funding process focus science and technology 

efforts within the HEL community on the most critical 

technical issues?

• What impact have the HEL Technology Council and JTO had 

on the coordination and redundancy of the HEL technology 

development efforts DOD-wide?
Enclosure I 

14 GAO-05-545R 

8

Results in Brief

• Since the HEL Master Plan and the 2001 Defense Authorization 

Act, the overall investment in HEL efforts has increased and the 

science and technology base has grown as a proportion of total 

investment.

• The JTO has a process for establishing priorities that is clearly 

defined, objective, and based on input from experts in the HEL 

field. The services and agencies fund their HEL S&T projects 

according to their mission requirements.

• By implementing the management structure and 

recommendations of the Master Plan, DOD has increased 

collaboration among the HEL community and provided more 

opportunities for coordination of HEL efforts.
Enclosure I 

15 GAO-05-545R 

9

Objective 1: Has DOD Achieved a Better Balance 

Between Large Demonstration Programs and Enabling 

S&T Projects?

• The HEL JTO funds service and agency projects and also 

projects carried out by industry and academia

• Each of the services, the Missile Defense Agency and the 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency have separate 

HEL S&T projects exploring the technological challenges of 

HEL weapons

• The Army, the Missile Defense Agency, and the Special 

Operations Command are also developing large-scale 

demonstration programs to provide HEL weapon system 

capability to the warfighter

The large demonstration programs are system-specific programs, while the enabling 

S&T projects are independent of a specific application.
Enclosure I 

16 GAO-05-545R 

10

Objective 1: Funding for Service and Agency 

HEL S&T Technology Base Has Increased

0

5 0

100

150

200

250

D o lla r s in 

M illio n s

F Y98 FY99 F Y0 0 FY01 F Y02 FY03 F Y04

F iscal Ye ar

MDA

DARPA

N avy

A rm y

A ir F o rc e

Expenditures less than $1.0 million do not show on the graph above. In FYs 1998/99, the Navy expended 

funds for HEL S&T, but the total each year was less than $1.0 million; likewise for the Army in FY 2001. 
Enclosure I 

17 GAO-05-545R 

11

Objective 1: Funding for JTO & Service/Agency S&T 

Technology Base vs. Large-Scale Demonstrations

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Dollars in Millions

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Fiscal Year

JTO

Services & Agencies

Demonstrations
Enclosure I 

18 GAO-05-545R 

12

Objective 1: Definition of DOD S&T Budget 

Activities

• Definitions of Science and Technology categories

• Basic research (budget activity 6.1): Research that increases 

fundamental knowledge in a scientific or technology area 

without application to a specific product

• Applied research (budget activity 6.2): Studies, 

investigations and non-system-specific technology efforts that 

are directed toward general military needs in order to evaluate 

the feasibility and practicality of proposed solutions

• Advanced Technology Development (budget activity 6.3):

Development of subsystems and components for field 

experiments and efforts to integrate them into system 

prototypes for field experiments and/or tests in a simulated 

environment; includes the HEL demonstration programs
Enclosure I 

19 GAO-05-545R 

13

Objective 1: JTO HEL-Related Funding 

FY 2001-2004 by Funding Type

6%

71%

23%

Basic Research (6.1)

Applied Research (6.2)

Advanced Technology Development

(6.3)

Total funding for fiscal years 2001-2004 approximately $204 million.
Enclosure I 

20 GAO-05-545R 

14

Objective 1: Service/Agency HEL Technology 

Base Funding FY 1998-2004 by Funding Type

0%

40%

60%

Basic Research (6.1)

Applied Research (6.2)

Advanced Technology

Development (6.3)

Total funding for fiscal years 1998-2004 about $691 million. Does not include funding for large demo programs.
Enclosure I 

21 GAO-05-545R 

15

Objective 1: Observations

• All services and agencies have significantly increased their 

HEL technology base funding since the 2001 Defense 

Authorization Act

• Since the HEL Master Plan of 2000 recommended the DOD 

remedy the imbalance between demonstration programs and 

enabling science and technology base projects, the 

imbalance has decreased, for example, in:

• 1998: Service/Agency technology base HEL funding was about 17 percent of the total, or $66.4 million, while the 

demonstration programs received $331.8 million. 

• 2004: Service/Agency technology base and JTO HEL funding was about 27 percent of the total, or $262.9 

million while the demonstration programs received $720.1 

million
Enclosure I 

22 GAO-05-545R 

16

Objective 2: Does the DOD Funding Process 

Focus on the Most Critical HEL Issues?

• Since the HEL Master Plan and subsequent legislation, DOD 

has increased its funding of critical HEL-related technology

• DOD’s JTO has a process for focusing its funding on 

what it determines are the most critical HEL issues

• The services and the Missile Defense Agency HEL S&T 

funding focuses on developing and incorporating 

technologies related to their intended platform use

• The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency funds 

basic research into HEL-related high risk, high payoff 

technologies
Enclosure I 

23 GAO-05-545R 

17

Objective 2: JTO Prioritized the HEL-related 

Technologies

• The JTO used four criteria to prioritize technologies 

critical to future HEL applications 

• Overall impact on HEL missions: potential for significant effect

• Ripeness: appropriate level of maturity

• Cost appropriateness: work matches expected funds

• Breadth of area: multiple applications or multiple services

• Using these criteria, technologies were evaluated by a 

wide range of experts in HEL field, including the military 

and industry
Enclosure I 

24 GAO-05-545R 

18

Objective 2: JTO Identified the Most Critical 

Technical Issues 

• The JTO rated the HEL technologies according to this 

process and then grouped the technologies into technology 

thrust areas: 

• beam-control,

• solid-state laser,

• chemical lasers,

• free-electron lasers,

• advanced lasers,

• lethality science, and

• modeling and simulations
Enclosure I 

25 GAO-05-545R 

19

Objective 2: JTO Funds Its Projects According 

to the Priorities Set

• The JTO has used these priorities to fund its projects since 

2001

• Funding for each thrust area is based on:

• Relative importance of the area and amounts needed to 

make progress

• The need to either complement service HEL efforts or to 

fill in gaps in service coverage

• The JTO, services, and Technology Area Working Groups 

meet annually to review their investments in each thrust area 

and determine way forward
Enclosure I 

26 GAO-05-545R 

20

Objective 2: JTO Funds the Technologies 

They Identified as Most Critical

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Dollars in Millions

2001 2002 2003 2004

Fiscal Year

Modeling & Simulation

Lethality

Advanced Lasers

Free Electron Lasers

Chemical Lasers

Solid State Lasers

Beam Control
Enclosure I 

27 GAO-05-545R 

21

Objective 2: Services and Missile Defense Agency 

Fund HEL-Related Technologies Based on Their 

Intended Use

• Services and the Missile Defense Agency fund HEL S&T 

based on their mission requirements 

• Service and agency HEL-related S&T does not follow the 

priorities established by the JTO
Enclosure I 

28 GAO-05-545R 

22

Objective 2: Services and Missile Defense Agency 

HEL-Related Activities Are Focused on Their Intended 

Platforms

Support next generation Airborne Airborne laser

laser

Missile 

Defense

Space and airborne 

lasers

Develop and incorporate laser 

technologies for space and airborne 

platforms

Air Force

Free-electron lasers, 

solid state lasers and 

beam control for 

naval environment 

Develop and incorporate 

technologies based on use on 

electric ships, submarines, or aircraft

Navy

Develop laser technologies that can Solid state lasers

be incorporated into Army weapon 

system

Army

Service Requirements S&T Focus
Enclosure I 

29 GAO-05-545R 

23

Objective 2: Observations

• The JTO’s process for establishing priorities is clearly 

defined, objective, and based on input from a wide range of 

experts 

• The JTO follows these priorities when allocating their funding

• The JTO does not direct services’ and agencies’ HEL S&T 

projects or funding

• The services and agencies fund HEL S&T projects which 

focus on their mission needs
Enclosure I 

30 GAO-05-545R 

24

Objective 3: What Impact Have the HEL Technology Council and 

JTO Had on the Coordination of HEL Technology Development 

Efforts DOD-Wide?

• In implementing Section 242 of the 2001 Defense Authorization Act, 

DOD has provided more opportunity for coordination of HEL efforts, 

both at the service and agency S&T executive level and the working 

level:

• The DOD Technology Council has oversight and approval 

authority over the JTO funding, while its members direct the 

HEL activities of their respective service or agency

• The JTO acts as a focal point within the DOD for HEL 

coordination and advocacy:

• Membership of the JTO includes full-time service 

representatives and part-time agency representatives

• Membership in the Technology Area Working Groups 

include JTO, service, agency and industry representatives
Enclosure I 

31 GAO-05-545R 

25

Objective 3: Technology Council Coordinates 

HEL Efforts

HEL Technology 

Council

•DUSD, S&T

•Senior Level S&T 

executives from 

services/agencies

Council provides 

oversight and approval 

authority over JTO

S&T Executives 

oversee their respective 

services’ and agencies’ 

S&T HEL activities

Council 

coordinates JTO 

activities and 

service/agency 

HEL development 

needs and plans

Council executives 

represent individual 

service/agency HEL 

needs and bring 

guidance back from 

the council 

deliberations

Roles Coordination
Enclosure I 

32 GAO-05-545R 

26

Objective 3: JTO Provides a Focal Point for 

HEL Efforts

Joint Technology Office

•JTO Director

•Members: Army, Navy, Air 

Force

•Part-time members: Missile 

Defense Agency, Defense 

Advanced Research Projects 

Agency, Defense Threat 

Reduction Agency, Marine 

Corps

•Technology Area Working 

Groups with service/agency 

and industry representatives

Focal Point within 

DOD for HEL 

advocacy

Provides input to HEL 

Technology Council 

on technologies to 

pursue and funding 

levels

Sponsors 

symposiums and 

other meetings to 

share information

Coordinates JTO 

and 

service/agency 

efforts at the 

working level

Roles Coordination
Enclosure I 

33 GAO-05-545R 

27

Objective 3: HEL Technology Council 

Provides Oversight and Guidance 

• Concerning the Joint High Powered Solid State Laser project, the HEL Technology Council directed the JTO to continue 

current effort before proceeding to the next phase in order to:

• Give contractors additional time to deliver best product

• Ensure the services understand how the current level fits 

their needs

• Allow other technologies opportunity to enter into the decision

• Directed greater cooperation between services and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency on fiber lasers effort and 

High Energy Liquid Lasers Area Defense System

• Action requested by the Council Chair to explore opportunities for basic research
Enclosure I 

34 GAO-05-545R 

28

Objective 3: No Redundancy in HEL-Related 

Activities

• No apparent examples of redundant projects in JTO funding 

• Some projects explore same technology, but different 

solutions or applications 

• For example, the JTO sponsored 4 beam control 

component projects with similar titles but different 

applications 

• Air Force and Navy also have beam control 

component projects, which focus on mission-related 

applications, while the JTO pursues more generic 

technology
Enclosure I 

35 GAO-05-545R 

29

Objective 3: Examples of JTO and Service 

Beam Control Projects

Navy

Air Force

JTO

Navy sponsor

JTO

Navy sponsor

JTO

Army sponsor

JTO 

Air Force sponsor 

Service

Develop optical coatings that can withstand 

high power

High reflective coating

Airborne laser beam Refine beam control for airborne platforms

control

Investigate effects of aerosols, water vapor, 

and air turbulence on laser beam in 

maritime environment

Beam control

Fabrication of large tactical conformal 

windows

Tactical conformal 

window development

Alternate HEL Evaluate a type of window material

windows

Optical component Athermal subscale window

technology

Project Title Description
Enclosure I 

36 GAO-05-545R 

30

Objective 3: Observations

• The Technology Council coordinates and oversees the activities of the JTO and provide some direction to 

services on the direction of their HEL-related activities

• The Technology Council’s individual members direct the HEL S&T efforts of their respective service or agency 

• Through Technology Area Working Groups and symposia, the JTO brings the DOD HEL community 

together providing:

• Increased awareness of ongoing activities

• Insight into technical challenges common to all HEL 

projects

• The JTO avoids duplicating service efforts and does not fund redundant projects
Enclosure I 

37 GAO-05-545R 

31

Scope and Methodology

• Reviewed the HEL Master Plan and the subsequent legislation and interviewed officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense to assess 

DOD’s implementation of the plan’s recommendations

• Interviewed HEL JTO officials and reviewed documents to assess their 

implementation of the HEL Master Plan recommendations and their criteria 

for prioritizing and funding HEL technologies 

• Interviewed Army, Navy, Air Force, Missile Defense Agency, and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency officials involved in HEL efforts and 

reviewed pertinent documentation to assess how they determine their 

priorities and funding for HEL programs and projects

• Reviewed funding documentation for all service and agency HEL projects from 1998 to 2004 and JTO funding from 2001 to 2004

• Reviewed active projects the JTO sponsored for possible duplication with service/agency projects and, for projects that seemed similar to each other, 

performed a more in-depth analysis of the projects 

• We obtained oral comments from DOD on a draft of this presentation

• We conducted our review from August 2004 to April 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards
Enclosure II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

38 GAO-05-545R 

Enclosure II: Comments from the 

Department of Defense 

(120369) 
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. However, 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. 
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. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (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 www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER