a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

September 2005 DEFENSE LOGISTICS

Better Strategic 

Planning Can Help 

Ensure DOD’s 

Successful 

Implementation of 

Passive Radio 

Frequency 

Identification

GAO-05-345
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-345.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact William M. Solis 

at (202) 512-8365 or solisw@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-345, a report to 

congressional committees 

September 2005

DEFENSE LOGISTICS 

Better Strategic Planning Can Help 

Ensure DOD’s Successful Implementation 

of Passive Radio Frequency Identification 

Since 2003, DOD and the components have taken actions to begin using a 

potentially promising technology, known as passive RFID, throughout their 

supply chain operations (see figure below). These actions include 

development of policy and guidance and the use of pilot projects and initial 

implementation to test the technology’s application to their business 

processes. In addition, infrastructure and funding have been provided, but 

this has been minimal because implementation did not officially begin until 

January 2005. Future funding requirements are expected to increase sharply 

as full implementation proceeds—from $6.6 million as of January 2005 to 

about $472 million projected from fiscal years 2006 through 2011. This $472 

million projection does not include the cost of system interoperability, which

officials believe will be the most expensive element of implementation. Full 

implementation of passive RFID in supply operations is not anticipated until 

2016 or beyond. 

While DOD has taken a number of actions to direct the implementation of 

passive RFID, it has not yet developed a comprehensive strategic 

management approach that incorporates sound management principles. The 

planning by DOD and its components lacks or only partially incorporates 

several key management principles needed to effectively guide, monitor, and 

assess implementation. The development of a comprehensive strategic 

management approach that fully incorporates these principles could provide 

decision makers with a framework to guide RFID implementation efforts 

and the means to determine whether these efforts are achieving the desired 

results. This affects both DOD and its components because the components 

are developing implementation plans to support DOD’s RFID policy. 

DOD has identified several challenges that will need to be resolved before 

passive RFID can be fully implemented, but it has not yet developed a 

mitigation plan to address these challenges. Some challenges relate to the 

fact that passive RFID is a new and evolving technology, while other 

challenges derive from operational issues and obtaining adequate funding. 

Furthermore, certain regulatory and administrative obstacles remain. Until 

DOD and the components identify actions to mitigate these implementation 

challenges, their progress in resolving these challenges may be impeded. 

Projected Supply Chain Distribution Process 

Manufacturers/

suppliers

Transportation/supply/

theater depots

Ports of embarkation/

ports of debarkation

Distribution

centers/depots Customers

PASSIVE ACTIVE PASSIVE

Enables

shipping points 

Enables

receiving points

Total Asset/In-transit Visibility System

enables supply chain transportation

Source: U.S. Army.

The Department of Defense (DOD) 

has had problems with tracking 

and identifying inventory for many 

years, most recently in Operation 

Iraqi Freedom. One of several tools 

DOD is using to address these 

inventory problems is radio 

frequency identification (RFID). 

RFID technology consists of 

passive or active tags that are 

attached to equipment and supplies 

that are shipped from one location 

to another. Although DOD did not 

begin official implementation of 

passive RFID technology until 

January 1, 2005, DOD has been 

using active RFID technology since 

the early 1990s and began 

developing policy and pilot testing 

passive RFID in 2003. As of 

January 1, 2007, all commodities, 

excluding bulk commodities, are to 

have passive RFID tags. Full 

implementation of passive RFID is 

estimated to cost hundreds of 

millions of dollars. This report (1) 

provides information on the status 

of passive RFID implementation, 

(2) addresses the extent to which 

DOD has developed a strategic 

approach for implementing passive 

RFID, and (3) highlights challenges 

DOD recognizes it faces in 

implementing passive RFID and 

any plans developed by DOD to 

mitigate these challenges. 

What GAO Recommends

To ensure that passive RFID is 

effectively implemented, GAO is 

making three recommendations. 

DOD concurred with one and did 

not concur with two of our 

recommendations. 
Page i GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 7 

DOD and Its Military Components Have Taken Actions to 

Implement Passive RFID Technology 10 

DOD’s Implementation of Passive RFID Technology Lacks a 

Comprehensive Strategic Management Approach 20 

DOD Has Identified Several Challenges for Passive RFID 24 

Conclusions 33 

Recommendations for Executive Action 34 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 35 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 45 

Appendix II Examples of Passive and Active RFID Equipment 47 

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Defense 49 

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 54 

Tables 

Table 1: Examples of DOD’s Ongoing, Completed, and Terminated 

Passive RFID Pilot Projects and Initial Implementations as 

of January 2005 15 

Table 2: Quantities of Passive RFID Infrastructure Items Reported 

by Major Department of Defense Component as of January 

2005 17 

Table 3: Reported Passive RFID Expenditures by Major DOD 

Component as of January 2005 17 

Table 4: Passive RFID Projected Costs by Major DOD Component 

and Year for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 19 

Table 5: Comparison of Key Management Principles to DOD’s and 

Its Military Components’ Passive RFID Policies and 

Implementation Plans 20 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

Figures 

Figure 1: Passive and Active RFID Tags 9 

Figure 2: Projected Supply Chain Distribution Process 10 

Figure 3: Timeline of Major DOD Actions to Implement Passive 

RFID 12 

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. 
Page 1 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

September 12, 2005 

Congressional Committees 

The Department of Defense (DOD) has had problems with tracking and 

identifying inventory for many years. Since at least 1990, we have 

considered DOD’s inventory management to be a high-risk area because 

inventory management systems and procedures are ineffective. Continued 

lack of visibility over inventory and equipment shipments increases 

vulnerability to undetected loss or theft and substantially heightens the 

risk that millions of dollars will be spent unnecessarily. Furthermore, it 

potentially compromises cargo security and the readiness of the 

warfighters. DOD has been using active radio frequency identification 

(RFID) technology for over a decade as a tool to help resolve this problem. 

More recently, DOD has also begun to use passive RFID technology. Both 

passive and active RFID technologies are part of a family of automatic 

information technologies used to enable hands-off identification of cargo 

and inventory. RFID technology consists of active or passive electronic 

tags that are attached to equipment and supplies that are shipped from one 

location to another. Full implementation of RFID technology into DOD’s 

supply chain will require an investment estimated to cost hundreds of 

millions of dollars. 

DOD’s use of active and passive RFID technology is evolving.1

 DOD began 

using active RFID in the early 1990s as a tool to help resolve visibility 

problems experienced during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. 

Active RFID technology is intended to provide nearly real-time, in-transit 

visibility of shipments. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, active technology 

was used to track parts and supplies shipped to and within theater, 

although not entirely successfully because some of the same visibility 

problems that occurred during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm 

 1

 Additional information regarding governmentwide implementation of RFID technology is 

discussed in GAO, Information Security: Radio Frequency Identification Technology in 

the Federal Government, GAO-05-551 (Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005). 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

were repeated, as we have previously reported and other DOD and 

military service after-action studies have documented.2

DOD has just begun implementing passive RFID, envisioned to ultimately 

work in conjunction with active RFID, to better enable inventory 

management and accountability. Passive RFID, which appears to be 

promising, is an emerging technology for both commercial and defense 

applications, and DOD logistics leadership views it as a key factor in 

transforming DOD logistics. Passive RFID is intended to facilitate 

accurate, efficient, hands-free data capture of shipping contents to 

improve item-level visibility. In October 2003, DOD developed initial RFID 

policy establishing business rules and requirements for implementing 

passive RFID technology in an integrated DOD supply chain enterprise. 

DOD’s final RFID policy, dated July 30, 2004, directs the implementation of 

passive RFID technology for solicitations issued on or after October 1, 

2004, for delivery of materiel on or after January 1, 2005. As part of this 

implementation process, DOD stipulated that its vendors and two of its 

distribution depots be required to use passive RFID technology as of 

January 1, 2005. DOD met the January 1, 2005, date through its initial 

implementation of passive RFID at the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) 

San Joaquin, California, and Susquehanna, Pennsylvania distribution 

depots. 

This report addresses the status of DOD’s passive RFID implementation 

and was prepared under the authority of the Comptroller General and is 

being addressed to the committees of jurisdiction. We focused on passive 

RFID because of its newness and potential high costs, and because it is 

just beginning to be implemented throughout DOD. We are providing you 

with this report because of your oversight responsibilities for defense 

issues. It addresses three key objectives: (1) to provide information on the 

 2

 Department of Defense, Conduct of the Persian Gulf War: Final Report to the Congress 

(Washington, D.C.: April 1992); GAO, Operation Desert Storm: Lack of Accountability 

Over Materiel During Redeployment, GAO/NSIAD-92-258 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 

1992); U.S. Army Materiel Command (USAMC), Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Lessons 

Learned Conference (Redstone Arsenal, Ala.: Sept. 10–11, 2003); GAO, Defense Logistics: 

Preliminary Observations on the Effectiveness of Logistics Activities during Operation 

Iraqi Freedom, GAO-04-305R (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 18, 2003); Department of Defense, 

Objective Assessment of Logistics in Iraq: DUSD (L&MR) and Joint Staff (JSJ4) 

Sponsored Assessment to Review the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Selected Aspects of 

Logistics Operations During Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) (Washington, D.C.: March 

2004); GAO, Defense Inventory: Actions Needed to Improve the Availability of Critical 

Items During Current and Future Operations, GAO-05-275 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8, 

2005). 
Page 3 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

status of passive RFID implementation in DOD, (2) to identify the extent 

to which DOD has developed a strategic approach for implementing 

passive RFID technology, and (3) to highlight a broad spectrum of 

challenges that DOD recognizes it faces with the ongoing implementation 

of passive RFID technology and any plans developed by DOD to mitigate 

these challenges. 

For this report, we obtained and analyzed DOD’s and various DOD military 

components’ RFID guidance; readily available literature that describes the 

technology; funding, expenditures, and future projections data and 

requirements; and infrastructure being used and required for implementing 

the technology throughout DOD. We also reviewed studies initiated by 

DOD or its various military components. We interviewed knowledgeable 

officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the four military 

services, DLA, the U.S. Transportation Command, the Joint Forces 

Command, and members of Joint Staff directorates. Additionally, we 

observed passive RFID technology being used at DLA’s distribution depot 

in Susquehanna, Pennsylvania and at the Navy Ocean Terminal in Norfolk, 

Virginia. Because DOD is just beginning to implement passive RFID 

technology, we did not verify the data provided and considered the data 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this review. We conducted our 

work from July 2004 through August 2005 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. Our scope and methodology are 

discussed in further detail in appendix I. 

Since 2003, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics), the military services, DLA, and U.S. 

Transportation Command have taken actions to implement a potentially 

promising technology, known as passive RFID, into their operations. 

These actions include the development of overall policy and operational 

guidance, the use of pilot projects and initial implementation at several 

receiving and conveyor locations, and providing infrastructure and 

funding. The Under Secretary of Defense developed interim and final 

policy and operational guidance establishing requirements effective 

January 1, 2005, for the implementation of passive RFID technology in the 

DOD supply chain. This policy and guidance establishes requirements for 

tagging cases and pallets, contract requirements, technical specifications, 

architecture and integration, security, and funding. The military services, 

DLA, and U.S. Transportation Command have also developed respective 

operational plans to guide their implementation of DOD’s overall policy. In 

addition, DOD has conducted several pilot projects to test the technology’s 

application to their business processes and has implemented some passive 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

RFID capability at two DLA distribution depots and at one Navy ocean 

terminal. Additional passive RFID capability will be added to these 

locations as requirements are determined. Reports regarding the results of 

some of the completed pilot projects cite lessons learned that focus largely 

on the technical aspects of implementing the passive technology. 

Furthermore, minimal infrastructure and funding exists because passive 

RFID is an emerging technology and existing infrastructure and funding 

has primarily been in connection with the pilot projects and initial 

implementation. A sharp increase in expenditures—including costs for 

purchasing passive RFID equipment such as tags, readers, and writers, and 

costs associated with installation and maintenance—is expected as full 

implementation proceeds as directed by DOD’s RFID policy and guidance. 

However, the cost projections made by DOD’s military components, which 

reflect large increases in funding requirements, are probably lower than 

actual requirements will be because the services have had difficulty in 

determining cost estimates due to the evolving nature of the technology. 

Additionally, these cost projections do not include the cost of systems 

interoperability, which officials believe will be the most expensive element 

of implementation. 

While DOD has taken a number of actions to guide and direct the 

implementation of passive RFID, it has not yet developed a comprehensive 

strategic management approach that incorporates sound management 

principles and could ensure that passive RFID is efficiently and effectively 

implemented. Existing passive RFID implementation policy and 

operational guidance for both DOD and its military components lack or 

only partially incorporate several key management principles, such as 

those used by leading organizations and embodied in the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 19933

 (GPRA), that are needed to 

effectively guide, monitor, and assess implementation. Among the key 

management principles that are missing or are only partially present are 

(1) general and long-term goals and objectives, (2) a description of specific 

actions to support goals and objectives, (3) performance measures to 

evaluate specific actions, (4) schedules and milestones for meeting 

deadlines, (5) identification of total resources needed and annual cost 

estimates for passive RFID implementation into the supply chain, and (6) 

evaluation of the overall program with specific processes to allow for 

adjustments and changes. Inclusion of these elements in planning and 

guidance could better guide implementation efforts and provide DOD 

 3

 Pub. L. No. 103-62 (1993). 
Page 5 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

decision makers with a means for determining whether their efforts 

achieve the desired results in implementing passive RFID into the DOD 

logistics supply chain. For example, detailed identification of resources 

needed could enable DOD and its military components to determine 

whether they are making the right investments, targeted to their needs, 

resulting in a sound return on investment. This affects both DOD and its 

military components, because the military components are developing 

implementation plans to support DOD’s RFID policy. Without an improved 

strategic management approach that would incorporate these 

management principles, DOD and its military components cannot ensure 

that their implementation of passive technology into the DOD supply chain 

will be successful. 

DOD has identified several challenges that will need to be resolved before 

passive RFID technology can be fully implemented in its supply chain 

processes, but the department has not yet developed a mitigation plan to 

resolve them. Some challenges relate to the fact that passive RFID is a new 

and evolving technology. For example, the electronic product code 

standards that identify specific information about items are being revised 

to provide increased capabilities, development of newer generation tags is 

creating uncertainty about upgrading and replacing equipment, concerns 

exist about the industrial base’s ability to meet the demand for tags and 

equipment for both the private and public sectors, and training must be 

provided. Other challenges derive from operational issues associated with 

performance capabilities. For example, because the performance 

capabilities of passive RFID technology are still being determined, 

concerns exist about systems integration, which enables interoperability 

of automatic information systems among the military components to 

facilitate active and passive system interaction, and about the need for 

improvement in the accuracy of tag read rates. In addition, concerns exist 

about the availability of and permissions process for military use of 

authorized spectrum frequencies in foreign countries. Another challenge is 

obtaining adequate funding. Without the data needed to create business 

case analyses that demonstrate appropriate return rates on investment, the 

military services have been reluctant to provide funding for 

implementation. In addition to these challenges, certain regulatory and 

administrative obstacles remain, including the final approval of a proposed 

acquisition rule that will require vendors to contractually apply tags to 

products the government purchases, along with the approval of 

multivendor contracts for DOD-wide purchases of passive RFID 

equipment. Until the multivendor contracts are awarded, the DOD military 

components may be unable to leverage the purchasing power of the 

department to realize economy and efficiency benefits. Based on our 
Page 6 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

discussions with DOD officials, the underlying cause of these various 

challenges is the newness and evolving nature of the technology. However, 

officials noted that the current challenges they face will be resolved over 

time and are to be expected with the integration of any new technology. 

Without identifying the challenges that adversely impact passive RFID 

implementation and identifying the actions necessary to mitigate them, 

progress in resolving such challenges may be impeded. 

We are recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under 

Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) to develop a 

DOD-wide comprehensive strategic management approach that will 

ensure that passive RFID technology is efficiently and effectively 

implemented throughout the supply chain processes and will include an 

integrated strategy for fully implementing passive RFID, performance 

measures or metrics of progress, and a corrective action plan. We are also 

recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the secretaries of each 

of the military services and other DOD military components to develop 

comprehensive strategic management approaches that support this DOD 

approach to fully implement passive RFID. As DOD and the military 

components develop these comprehensive strategic management 

approaches, we recommend that these approaches identify the specific 

challenges impeding passive RFID implementation and the actions needed 

to mitigate these challenges. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD 

did not concur with our recommendation to expand its RFID planning 

efforts to include a comprehensive management approach that embodies 

key management principles used by leading organizations. The department 

asserted that it has already set forth the goals, objectives, performance 

measures, and milestones in its July 2004 RFID policy sufficient to guide 

the planning activities of the military services and other components. We 

disagree with the department’s position because DOD’s existing RFID 

policy lacks a number of key management principles necessary for good 

program management, and the lack of a comprehensive approach to guide 

the planning activities of the services and other components may impair 

DOD’s ability to efficiently and effectively implement passive RFID 

technology. The department concurred with our recommendation for each 

of the military services and administrators of other DOD military 

components to develop individual comprehensive management 

approaches for implementing RFID. We believe that this approach will 

satisfy the intent of our recommendation if, prior to the military 

components developing their plans, the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) takes additional actions to 

develop a DOD-wide comprehensive strategic management approach that 

would then be supported by the plans developed by the military 
Page 7 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

components. The department did not concur with our recommendation to 

develop a plan to identify challenges impeding passive RFID 

implementation and actions needed to mitigate those challenges. In 

essence, the department stated that the passive RFID challenges described 

in the draft report have basically been resolved. We do not believe this to 

be the case. We recognize that passive RFID is an evolving technology and 

that the department is continuing to address the challenges associated 

with implementing passive RFID technology. However, we believe that the 

challenges identified in the report continue to exist and that it is necessary 

for the department to identify specific challenges impeding passive RFID 

implementation and to develop a mitigation plan to address these 

challenges as RFID implementation proceeds. DOD’s comments and our 

evaluation are discussed in detail at the end of this report. 

RFID technology is one type of automatic identification technology. 

Automatic identification technology is a suite of commercial 

technologies—including bar codes, smart cards, magnetic stripes, and 

radio frequency identification—that provides a range of capabilities that 

enable the automatic capture of source data and enhance the ability to 

identify, track, document, and control deploying and redeploying forces, 

equipment, personnel, and sustainment cargo. Anticipated potential 

benefits of RFID include providing (1) near real-time, in-transit visibility 

for all classes of supplies and materiel; (2) “in the box” content-level detail 

for all classes of supplies and materiel; (3) quality, nonintrusive (handsoff) identification and data collection that enables enhanced inventory 

management; and (4) better item-level visibility. RFID tagging of DOD 

materiel is applicable to all items except bulk commodities such as bulk 

liquids, sand, and gravel. 

At the most basic level, RFID is a data input system that consists of (1) a 

transponder, generally referred to as a tag; (2) a tag reader, also known as 

an interrogator, that reads the tag using a radio signal; (3) centralized data 

processing equipment; and (4) a method of communication between the 

reader and the computer. The reader sends a signal to the tag, which 

prompts the tag to respond with information about the container or item 

to which it is attached. The information is forwarded to central data 

processing equipment, which can then be used to get detailed information 

about the container or item, such as the shipping date or the date received. 

The information contained in the central data processing equipment can 

provide visibility over inventory items throughout the supply chain. DOD’s 

final RFID policy, issued on July 30, 2004, includes business rules for 

implementing two types of RFID tags—active and passive. 

Background 
Page 8 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

Active RFID technology, which is more mature than passive technology, is 

used on containers or pieces of equipment for tracking shipments and 

their contents while in transit. Active RFID tags, which generally use a 

battery, have transmitters that transmit information when interrogated 

through radio signals that are read electronically. Active tags are more 

expensive than passive tags and are used for tracking major items and 

containers over long distances. 

Passive RFID is the newer technology and its use in DOD is evolving. 

Ultimately, this technology, which appears to be promising, will be used to 

enable better inventory management and accountability. Passive RFID 

tags are applied to cases, pallets, and item packaging. Passive tags do not 

have batteries and store only a limited amount of information. To be 

activated, these tags require strong radio frequency signals from reader 

devices to enable the tags to send back the information stored on them. 

Once the radio signal is received, a small amount of the reader’s signal 

power is temporarily stored and then used to generate the tag response. 

However, because of the tags’ limited energy, the radio frequency signal 

strength emitted by them is at a low level, thus limiting the distance—

generally 3 to 10 feet—from which the tags can be read. We reported in 

our May 2005 report that, under perfect conditions, the tags can be read 

from a range up to about 20 feet. Passive tags are much lighter and less 

expensive than active tags, ranging from about $0.20 to several dollars 

each, in comparison with about $100 each for active tags. DOD is testing 

the passive technology through pilot projects and initial implementation to 

assess its application to existing business processes. DOD’s RFID policy, 

issued on July 30, 2004, requires (1) the department and its various military 

components to begin to implement passive RFID and immediately expand 

active RFID technology and capability within the DOD supply chain, and 

(2) suppliers to affix passive RFID tags on certain commodities for 

solicitations issued on or after October 1, 2004, for materiel delivered on 

or after January 1, 2005. 

Passive and active RFID tags physically differ from one another, as figure 

1 shows. Even though passive and active RFID technologies require 

similar types of equipment and function in a similar manner, the 

equipment is not interchangeable between the two technologies because 

they serve different purposes and use different radio frequencies. For 

more detail about the equipment necessary for passive and active RFID 

technology, see appendix II. 
Page 9 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

Figure 1: Passive and Active RFID Tags 

Although passive RFID is an emerging technology for both commercial 

and defense applications, DOD logistics leadership views it as a key factor 

in transforming DOD logistics. DOD envisions using passive RFID 

technology to facilitate accurate, hands-off data capture in support of its 

logistics business processes in an integrated DOD supply chain enterprise. 

DOD anticipates that the application of passive RFID technology will 

provide efficient and accurate item/content visibility for better inventory 

management. DOD’s goal for passive RFID is to provide nonintrusive 

identification of shipping contents to improve item-level visibility, and its 

goal for active RFID is to provide nearly real-time, in-transit visibility for 

most classes of supplies and materiel. Figure 2 depicts how DOD could 

use both passive and active RFID as items are physically moved from the 

manufacturers and suppliers to the warfighter. 
Page 10 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

Figure 2: Projected Supply Chain Distribution Process 

As the defense logistics executive responsible for RFID implementation, 

the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) 

issued DOD’s final RFID policy on July 30, 2004. Certain other DOD 

military components also have specific responsibilities in the RFID 

implementation process. The DOD Logistics Automatic Identification 

Technology Office, for example, is the DOD focal point for coordinating 

overarching guidance for the use of automatic identification technology 

within the department. The Army Program Executive Office, Enterprise 

Information Systems, Product Manager Joint–Automatic Identification 

Technology Office is the DOD procurement activity for automatic 

identification technology equipment—including equipment and 

infrastructure—and it maintains a standing contract for equipment 

integration, installation, and maintenance. This office is also responsible 

for maintaining contracts for the purchase of passive RFID tags. DLA is 

the procurement activity and single manager for active RFID tags. Finally, 

the U.S. Transportation Command, as the distribution process owner, is 

responsible for directing and supervising execution of the strategic 

distribution system for moving and distributing supplies. 

DOD and its military components have developed RFID policy, and DOD 

has provided guidance to suppliers and military components for 

implementing passive RFID technology. DOD also is using pilot projects 

and has begun initial implementation at several receiving and conveyor 

locations to better understand this technology and test its application to 

their business processes. Although the military components have begun 

acquiring and funding the infrastructure needed for passive RFID 

implementation, existing infrastructure is minimal because 

implementation did not begin until January 1, 2005. Consequently, DOD is 

DOD and Its Military 

Components Have 

Taken Actions to 

Implement Passive 

RFID Technology 

Manufacturers/

suppliers

Transportation/supply/

theater depots

Ports of embarkation/

ports of debarkation

Distribution

centers/depots Customers

PASSIVE ACTIVE PASSIVE

Enables

shipping points 

Enables

receiving points

Total Asset/In-transit Visibility System

enables supply chain transportation

Source: U.S. Army.
Page 11 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

just beginning to purchase equipment for passive RFID technology 

implementation, and it projects a sharp increase in expenditures as full 

implementation proceeds. 

Since 2003, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics) has developed policy and guidance to 

implement a potentially promising technology, known as passive RFID 

into their supply chain operations. The military services, DLA, and U.S. 

Transportation Command also have developed or are developing plans and 

guidance to support passive RFID implementation. DOD’s RFID policy and 

the military components’ implementation plans are evolving, and the 

department has taken several actions to provide additional guidance to 

suppliers and military components for implementing passive RFID. Figure 

3 identifies the dates of several major policy and guidance actions that 

DOD has taken or plans to take to implement passive RFID into its supply 

chain processes. Although DOD plans to begin implementing the use of 

passive RFID to all classes of all commodities, excluding bulk 

commodities, shipped to all locations by January 1, 2007, it will be fiscal 

year 2016—and beyond for the Army—before passive RFID will be fully 

implemented into supply chain operations, according to Navy and Army 

funding projections. 

DOD Has Developed 

Policy and Guidance and 

the Military Components 

Are Developing Plans to 

Implement Passive RFID 

Technology 
Page 12 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

Figure 3: Timeline of Major DOD Actions to Implement Passive RFID 

The initial RFID policy, issued by the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), required suppliers to put passive 

RFID tags on pieces, parts, cases, or pallets by January 2005. A DOD news 

release officially announced the RFID policy in late October 2003. In early 

2004, the initial RFID policy was updated. The updated policy provided an 

initial set of business rules for the implementation of passive RFID and 

laid out the requirement to plan for a January 1, 2005, implementation of 

the passive RFID business rules. 

In late July 2004, the Under Secretary issued the final RFID policy. This 

policy finalized the business rules for the implementation of passive RFID 

and prescribed the implementation approach for DOD suppliers and 

vendors to use to apply passive RFID tags. The final policy establishes a 

mandatory requirement on solicitations issued on or after October 1, 2004, 

for suppliers to use passive RFID tags for deliveries that take place on or 

after January 1, 2005. This requirement applies to shipments of materiel in 

four supply classes that are delivered to two of DOD’s distribution 

depots—San Joaquin, California, and Susquehanna, Pennsylvania—in 

accordance with the supplier implementation plan of the policy. In late 

August 2004, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, 
Page 13 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

and Logistics) issued a Logistics Decision Memorandum approving initial 

implementation of passive RFID at strategic distribution depots, strategic 

aerial ports, and maintenance depots. Starting January 1, 2006, the final 

RFID policy expands the requirement for suppliers to tag six additional 

supply classes and 32 additional shipping locations. Commencing January 

1, 2007, all classes of all commodities, excluding bulk commodities, 

shipped to all locations are to be affixed with passive RFID tags. 

According to the final policy, the Defense Logistics Board is to review the 

internal implementation plan, benefits, compliance requirements, and 

requisite budget requirements annually, based on an assessment of the 

implementation to date. As part of this review process, in late August 2004 

the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) 

met with the Defense Logistics Board to discuss DOD’s strategy for RFID 

implementation and to obtain the board’s agreement on future funding for 

both active and passive RFID. Additionally, a defense logistics executive 

decision memorandum issued in March 2005 stated that Defense Logistics 

Board members agreed that implementation of RFID across the 

department had the potential to greatly enhance visibility of the supply 

chain. The memorandum further stated that the business case analysis 

developed by DLA was compelling, and directed the secretaries of the 

military departments to move forward with passive and active RFID 

implementation. While we reviewed the contents of DOD’s business case 

analysis, we did not assess its methodology and validity. 

The final RFID policy also states that the Army’s Program Executive Office 

Enterprise Information Systems continue development of a multivendor 

contract to support the purchase of passive RFID technology and to 

leverage the purchasing power of the department. Additionally, DOD’s 

policy requires military components to prepare passive RFID 

implementation plans to support the DOD vision. 

To meet the requirements of the final DOD RFID policy, in September 2004 

DOD developed a departmentwide RFID Concept of Operations as an 

outline for the military services and other military components to follow in 

implementing RFID technology into DOD logistics and to articulate the 

specific uses of passive RFID throughout the DOD supply chain. The 

document outlines the scope, objectives and goals, assumptions and 

constraints, and project framework for DOD’s implementation of RFID. 

DOD has taken other actions to provide guidance and policy to DOD 

military components and external partners. For example, DOD has 

established Web sites such as www.dodait.com and www.dodrfid.org for 
Page 14 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

suppliers, DOD military components, and others to use to access RFID 

information, specifications, and updates to policy and guidance. DOD has 

also established Integrated Process Team Working Groups to discuss 

issues involving RFID and the implications of RFID for current business 

processes, new technology concerns, and strategic planning and 

implementation. DOD has hosted several conferences on RFID 

implementation instructions and training for suppliers and DOD military 

components. 

In response to DOD’s policy and concept of operations guidance, the 

military components are developing implementation plans to support 

DOD’s policy and vision for passive RFID technology. As of January 2005, 

the Navy and DLA have completed passive RFID implementation plans. 

While the U.S. Transportation Command does not have a formal passive 

RFID implementation plan, its business process plan contains elements of 

DOD passive RFID guidance and requirements. The Army and Marine 

Corps have draft implementation plans, and the Air Force had just begun 

development of its plan at the time of this review. 

DOD is using several pilot projects and has begun initial implementation at 

several receiving and distribution facilities to better understand passive 

RFID technology and test its application to their business processes. 

Examples of these pilot projects and initial implementations are listed in 

table 1 below. These pilot projects involve DLA and each military service 

and are small in scope, and generally have involved selected supply items, 

such as meals-ready-to-eat or individual protective clothing. One of these 

pilot projects, the Navy’s ocean terminal project, which began in 

November 2003, successfully transitioned into an initial passive RFID 

implementation by May 2004. Since that time, the Navy’s Fleet Industrial 

Supply Center, Ocean Terminal Division, has abandoned its legacy handheld scanning processes in favor of the passive RFID documentation 

procedures, which document shipments by scanning RFID tags as they 

pass through reader devices. Furthermore, DOD’s operational guidance 

required DLA to initially implement passive RFID by January 1, 2005, by 

enabling two of its distribution depots to receive selected passive RFID 

tagged items. As of late December 2004, DLA had completed this initial 

implementation at three receiving locations and one conveyor location in 

the Susquehanna, Pennsylvania depot and at three receiving and two 

conveyor locations in the San Joaquin, California depot. As of June 2005, a 

DLA official told us that surveys are being conducted to determine the 

number and location of future passive RFID infrastructure requirements. 

Reports regarding the results of some of the completed pilot projects cite 

DOD Is Using Pilot 

Projects and Initial 

Implementations to Test 

the Application of Passive 

RFID Technology 
Page 15 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

lessons learned that focus largely on the technical aspects of implementing 

the passive technology. For example, a meals-ready-to-eat pilot project, 

conducted in May 2004, was designed to simulate the process as products 

moved from vendor to depot to the delivery of the product to the unit 

level. This demonstration illustrated ways in which passive RFID could be 

implemented in the DLA supply chain. According to the reported results 

for this pilot, the most important benefit from the demonstration was the 

experience gained from the physical implementation of an RFID system 

within a DOD environment. Lessons learned centered on the technology’s 

systems integration, application software, frequency coordination, and the 

immaturity of the passive RFID technology. Regarding the technology’s 

immaturity, the report stated that the passive RFID hardware and software 

were currently too immature for many production operations. 

Phase I of the protective equipment project tracked pallets and cases of 

Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology (JSLIST) suits using 

passive RFID tags. The project evaluated the passive technology’s 

implementation at three locations representing different functional areas 

of the JSLIST supply chain: vendor (shipping), DLA Distribution Center 

(receiving and shipping), and Army customer (receiving). The Phase I 

report stated that in March 2004 the first shipment of 29 pallets of RFID 

tagged suits was successfully distributed among the functional areas using 

a RFID-enabled receiving process. Lessons learned from the protective 

equipment project also indicated that passive RFID tag and reader 

technology is immature and that the receiving processes, data elements, 

and data entry procedures are not well known or documented at DLA 

distribution centers. We did not evaluate the results of these reports. 

Table 1: Examples of DOD’s Ongoing, Completed, and Terminated Passive RFID Pilot Projects and Initial Implementations as 

of January 2005 

Pilot project/initial 

implementation Component Location Description 

Pilot: DLA/Army MRE 

Shipments-ongoing 

DLA/Army Army National Training 

Center (interim test at Fort 

Lee) 

Applying passive RFID tags to shipments of 

MREs from suppliers 

Pilot: Individual Protective 

Equipment (IPE) completed 

11/2004 

DLA/Army San Joaquin, CA 

Blue Grass Depot, KY 

Fort Hood, TX 

Receiving shipments of IPEs from San 

Joaquin to Blue Grass Army Depot tagged 

with passive RFID technology 

Pilot: Military Shipping Label 

completed 12/2004 

Air Force Spangdahlem AB, GE Using passive RFID to replace active RFID 

tags for shipments to Spangdahlem AB, GE 
Page 16 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

Pilot project/initial 

implementation Component Location Description 

Pilot: Seabee RFID Pilotterminateda

 11/2004 

Navy Fort Hunter-Liggett, CA The integration of passive RFID into the 

Common Logistics Command and Control 

System - Joint Expeditionary Warfighter 

Logistics System 

Initial implementation: 

Strategic distribution centersongoing 

DLA San Joaquin, CA 

Susquehanna, PA 

Centers capable of reading passive RFID 

tags attached to shipments received from 

suppliers and applying passive RFID tags on 

shipments to DOD activities and units 

Initial Implementation: 

Norfolk/Lejeune Shipmentsongoing 

Navy/Marine Corps Norfolk Ocean 

Terminal/Camp Lejeune 

Receiving shipments from DLA 

(Susquehanna, PA) tagged with passive 

RFID technology 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

a

This project was terminated because DLA was dissatisfied with the status and direction of the 

project, and its lack of DLA relevance. 

As of January 2005, the DOD military components owned and operated 

very little passive RFID infrastructure. DOD is just beginning to test and 

implement passive RFID technology for managing its inventory because 

passive RFID implementation did not officially begin until January 1, 2005. 

Passive RFID expenditures to date have largely been in connection with 

pilot projects, so DOD military components have spent a minimal amount 

of money on passive RFID technology. The passive RFID infrastructure 

owned by major DOD military components is shown in table 2. Future cost 

projections of implementing passive RFID in DOD’s supply chain 

operations are estimated to be significantly higher than current 

expenditures as full passive RFID implementation proceeds. Additionally, 

the projected cost for passive RFID implementation—about $437 million 

from fiscal years 2006 through 2011—includes costs for purchasing 

passive RFID equipment such as tags, readers, and writers, and costs 

associated with installation and maintenance, but does not include the 

cost of system interoperability, which officials estimate to be the most 

expensive element of implementation. 

Existing Passive RFID 

Infrastructure Is Minimal, 

and Expenditures Are 

Projected to Increase 

Sharply as Full 

Implementation Proceeds 
Page 17 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

Table 2: Quantities of Passive RFID Infrastructure Items Reported by Major 

Department of Defense Component as of January 2005 

DOD component Tags Readers Handheld readers

Writers/

printers

DLA 5,000 11 0 5

U.S. Transportation Command 0 0 0 0

Army 0 0 0 0

Navy 8,867 16 10 1

Air Force Yesa 40 2 8

Marine Corps 0 4 0 0

Total Unknown 71 12 14

Source: GAO analysis of data from the DLA, U.S. Transportation Command, Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. 

a

The Air Force did not provide the quantity of passive tags owned. 

DOD military components have spent a minimal amount of money on 

passive RFID technology because passive RFID technology is new and 

DOD is just beginning to implement this technology in its supply chain 

processes. Current expenditures have largely been in connection with 

pilot projects. As of January 2005, DOD and its military components had 

spent about $7.4 million on passive RFID technology. As shown in table 3, 

the Army and the Marine Corps had not spent any money on pilot testing 

passive RFID as of January 2005. The Marine Corps does possess some 

passive RFID infrastructure; however, according to Marine Corps officials, 

that infrastructure was acquired and paid for by the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense (OSD). As of January 2005, DLA had spent the most on passive 

RFID infrastructure in its pilot testing and initial implementation at two of 

its distribution depots, in San Joaquin, California, and Susquehanna, 

Pennsylvania. 

Table 3: Reported Passive RFID Expenditures by Major DOD Component as of 

January 2005 

DOD component Expenditures

OSD $1,650,000a

DLA $3,545,000b

U.S. Transportation Command $503,000c

Army $0d

Navy $1,458,523e

Air Force $276,761f
Page 18 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

DOD component Expenditures

Marine Corps $0g

Total $7,433,284 

Source: GAO analysis of reported expenditure data from OSD, DLA, U.S. Transportation Command, Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine

Corps. 

a

 OSD estimate consists of funding for consulting services, tags, readers, software, etc. to support 

initial implementations. 

b

 The DLA estimate consists of funding for six passive RFID pilot projects and initial implementation at 

two distribution depots—Susquehanna, PA, and San Joaquin, CA. 

c

 The U.S. Transportation Command estimate consists of funding for one passive RFID pilot project. 

d

 The Army has not spent any money on passive RFID. 

e

 The Navy estimate consists of funding for five passive RFID pilot projects. 

f

 The Air Force estimate consists of funding for one passive RFID pilot project. 

g

 The Marine Corps does possess some passive RFID infrastructure; however, it was purchased by 

OSD. 

Future cost projections of implementing passive RFID in DOD’s supply 

chain operations are estimated to be significantly higher than current 

expenditures. In response to OSD’s final RFID implementation policy, 

major DOD military components have projected significant increases in 

passive RFID funding for fiscal years 2006 through 2011. Although passive 

RFID testing and implementation in the DOD supply chain had cost $7.4 

million as of January 2005, from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 the DOD 

military components project costs of about $437 million on passive RFID 

implementation, as shown in table 4. The figures provided by DLA 

represent actual budgeted amounts, while other component officials 

emphasized that the projections they provided were estimates and did not 

represent actual figures in the budget. The Marine Corps and Air Force did 

not provide any cost projections for passive RFID. 
Page 19 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

Table 4: Passive RFID Projected Costs by Major DOD Component and Year for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 

Dollars in thousands 

DOD component 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total

DLAa $25,706 $23,191 $20,747 $18,516 $18,553 $18,098 $124,811

U.S. Transportation Commandb $580 $1,047 $743 $780 $495 $535 $4,180

Armyb $5,600 $8,030 $12,040 $17,713 $26,110 $39,660 $109,153

Navyb $3,000 $16,400 $38,700 $43,000 $48,300 $49,900 $199,300

Marine Corpsc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Air Forcec 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total $34,886 $48,668 $72,230 $80,009 $93,458 $108,193 $437,444

Source: GAO analysis of data from DLA, U.S. Transportation Command, Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. 

a

 The DLA figures are actual budgeted amounts. 

b

 The U.S. Transportation Command, Army, and Navy figures are based on overall maintenance and 

procurement projections. 

c

 The Marine Corps and Air Force did not provide us with any passive RFID cost projections. 

Although the total projected cost for passive RFID implementation is 

estimated at about $437 million over fiscal years 2006 through 2011, this 

total does not include the cost of system interoperability. Officials 

estimate system interoperability to be the most expensive element of 

implementation because of the various systems that will need to be 

integrated to exchange automated shipping and receiving data from the 

use of passive RFID technology. According to DOD, system 

interoperability entails the ability of systems, units, or forces to provide 

data, information, materiel, and services and to accept the same from 

other systems, units, or forces and to use the data, information, materiel, 

and services so exchanged to enable them to operate effectively together. 

Interoperability includes both the technical exchange of information and 

the end-to-end operational effectiveness of that exchange of information 

as required for mission accomplishment. DOD envisions a seamless 

integration between passive and active RFID technology; however, such a 

seamless integration cannot take place unless the information captured by 

the RFID technology can flow though interoperable logistics information 

systems. According to Navy and Army projections, it will be fiscal year 

2016—and beyond for the Army—before passive RFID will be fully 

implemented into supply chain operations. The Marine Corps and Air 

Force did not know their funding needs for implementing passive RFID. 

As of January 2005, there was no estimate as to how much full 

interoperability will cost. System interoperability is just one of many 
Page 20 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

challenges DOD must overcome before full implementation can occur 

throughout DOD’s supply chain process. 

While DOD has taken a number of actions to guide and direct the 

implementation of passive RFID into the supply chain process, passive 

RFID could be more efficiently and effectively implemented if DOD 

developed a comprehensive strategic management approach to ensure that 

implementation efforts are guided by sound management principles. 

Sound management principles, such as those used by leading 

organizations and embodied in GPRA, include identification of general and 

long-term goals and objectives, a description of specific actions, 

performance measures to evaluate actions, recognition of key external 

factors, comprehensive schedules and milestones, identification of 

resources and annual cost estimates, accountability for implementation, 

and evaluation of the overall program with specific processes to allow for 

adjustments and changes. Combined with effective leadership, these 

principles provide decision makers with a framework to guide program 

efforts and the means to determine if these efforts are achieving the 

desired results. We compared the contents of DOD’s and available military 

components’ implementation plans with these key management principles. 

Table 5 shows the results of the analysis for passive RFID. 

Table 5: Comparison of Key Management Principles to DOD’s and Its Military Components’ Passive RFID Policies and 

Implementation Plans

Key management principles 

Component 

General and longterm goals and 

objectives 

Description 

of specific 

actions 

Performance 

measures 

Key 

external 

factors 

Schedules 

and 

milestones

Resources 

and annual 

cost 

estimates Accountability Evaluation

OSD Partially Partially No No Partially Partially Yes Partially

DLA Partially Partially No Yes Partially Partially Yes No 

U.S. 

Transportation 

Command 

No Partially No No No Partially Partially No 

Armya Partially Partially Partially Yes Partially No Yes No 

Navy Partially Partially Partially Yes Yes Yes Yes Partially 

Air Forceb No No No No No No No No 

Marine Corpsc Partially Partially No Yes No Partially Yes No 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

a

 The Army’s RFID plan was a draft document at the time of this analysis. 

b

 The Air Force had not developed a plan at the time of this analysis. 

DOD’s 

Implementation of 

Passive RFID 

Technology Lacks a 

Comprehensive 

Strategic Management 

Approach 
Page 21 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

c

 The Marine Corps’ plan for automatic identification technologies (including RFID) was a draft 

document at the time of this analysis. 

As table 5 shows, many of these key management principles are missing or 

are only partially incorporated into existing passive RFID implementation 

policy and operational guidance for both DOD and its military 

components. While DOD has incorporated some of these key management 

principles—for example, by establishing business rules for passive RFID 

to explain how RFID will affect supply chain operations and processes—

DOD has not fully incorporated all of these principles into a 

comprehensive strategic management approach to manage the 

implementation of passive RFID into the DOD logistics supply chain. In 

turn, the DOD military components are also unable to develop 

comprehensive plans to support DOD-wide passive RFID implementation 

due to the lack of an overarching DOD comprehensive strategic 

management plan. Among the key management elements that are missing 

or only partially present are (1) general and long-term goals and 

objectives, (2) a description of specific actions to support goals and 

objectives, (3) performance measures to evaluate specific actions, (4) 

schedules and milestones for meeting deadlines, (5) identification of total 

resources needed and annual cost estimates for passive RFID 

implementation into the supply chain, and (6) evaluation of the overall 

program with specific processes to allow for adjustments and changes. 

The following discussion focuses on the key principles that are missing or 

only partially present in DOD’s and its military components’ planning and 

operational guidance for passive RFID.4

• General and long-term goals and objectives. Key management 

principles include having clearly defined general and long-term program 

goals and objectives with specific expected results and annual goals that 

relate back to the overall goals and objectives to guide implementation. 

OSD has identified general passive RFID broad and descriptive goals and 

objectives, such as to (1) implement knowledge-enabled logistics through 

fully automated visibility and management of assets in support of the 

warfighter; (2) ensure readiness for the forces and sustainability of the 

operations; (3) increase warfighter/customer confidence in the reliability 

of the DOD supply chain; (4) improve process efficiency of sourcing and 

delivery by improving shipping and receiving subprocesses; (5) improve 

 4

 We did not perform a GPRA comparison for the Air Force because the Air Force had not 

developed its RFID implementation plan at the time of this analysis. 
Page 22 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

product lifecycle management (i.e., warranties/configuration 

management); (6) employ mature and emerging supply chain technologies 

to optimize effective in-transit and asset visibility within the DOD supply 

chain; (7) enable an adaptive supply chain with sense and respond 

capabilities; and (8) use RFID to facilitate accurate, hands-off data capture 

in support of business processes in an integrated DOD supply chain 

enterprise as an integral part of a comprehensive suite of automatic 

identification technology. The Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and DLA goals 

and objectives, included in their respective RFID implementation plans, 

are also general and descriptive in nature. The OSD and component 

general and descriptive goals and objectives do not define specific 

expected results, such as integration of automatic information systems, 

and no annual goals are identified, as suggested by the principle. A 

hierarchical relationship among and between OSD’s and the military 

components’ goals and objectives is also lacking. The U.S. Transportation 

Command’s implementation plan for passive RFID did not contain any 

goals or objectives. 

• Description of specific actions to support goals and objectives. 

Good management practices call for a description of specific actions to 

support goals and objectives. OSD has described, in some detail, specific 

actions related to operational processes where passive RFID technology is 

expected or mandated to be used. OSD’s planning also includes an 

expectation for the automated information systems that support logistics 

activities to be RFID compatible. However, the following specific actions 

are not consistently present throughout OSD’s policy or the military 

components’ implementation plans: obtaining necessary workforce skills, 

considering human resource issues, identifying major capital resources 

(for example, RFID-specific equipment such as read stations and write 

stations), identifying major technological resources, and obtaining needed 

information resources. The presence of such specific actions is important 

for evaluating the achievement of organizational visions, missions, goals, 

and objectives, and could provide the basis for monitoring corrective 

actions that may be needed. Inclusion of such actions could assist DOD 

and the military components to better develop a strategic focus for passive 

RFID implementation and to ensure goals and objectives are achieved. 

• Performance measures to evaluate specific actions. Successful 

organizations develop performance measures to evaluate specific actions 

for programs. OSD policy does not include performance measures to 

assess specific actions developed for passive RFID implementation. The 

Army and Navy implementation plans contain a basic set of measures 

designed to determine what progress the Army and Navy are making in 

achieving OSD’s and their overall goal of improved logistics. For example, 

measures the Army identified include quantitative improvement for intransit visibility, the read rate (accuracy) of tags, and the amount of 
Page 23 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

inventory reduced by the RFID technology. While these performance 

measures evaluate specific actions and support OSD goals and objectives, 

the planning does not include interim steps or specific details of how the 

measures will be taken or further identification of what targets the Army 

and Navy must achieve in order to be successful. Neither DLA, the U.S. 

Transportation Command, nor the Marine Corps included any 

performance measures in their respective passive RFID implementation 

plans. 

• Comprehensive schedules and milestones for meeting deadlines. 

Leading organizations incorporate comprehensive schedules and 

milestones for meeting deadlines to monitor the progress of a program. 

For passive RFID, the Army, Navy, OSD, and DLA had short-term 

schedules, but these plans were only 2-year schedules based on supporting 

OSD guidance. Key management principles recommend that these 

schedules and milestones span a 5-year period. The Marine Corps and U.S. 

Transportation Command had no schedules and milestones listed for 

passive RFID in their implementation plans. 

• Identification of total resources needed and annual cost estimates. 

Good management practices call for the identification of total resources 

needed and annual cost estimates. For passive RFID, OSD and its military 

components have established a framework for resource and annual cost 

estimation. For example, OSD states that the cost of implementing RFID 

into the DOD supply chain would be funded with Operations and 

Maintenance Fund or Working Capital Fund processes. The Navy’s plan 

identifies annual and total resources needed; however, total resources 

needed—including annual cost estimates—are not present in OSD’s plan 

or in the plans of the other military components. Without detailed 

resource planning, DOD and its military components cannot be certain 

that the passive RFID investments they are making are the right 

investments to meet their needs, and that implementing passive RFID 

would result in a sound return on their investments. 

• Evaluation of an overall program with specific processes to allow 

for adjustments and changes. Successful organizations implement the 

evaluation of an overall program with specific processes to allow for 

adjustments and changes. For passive RFID, OSD identified evaluation 

methods to monitor progress toward achieving the general goals and 

objectives of DOD-wide RFID implementation. For example, OSD’s final 

RFID policy states that the Defense Logistics Board is to review internal 

implementation plans, benefits, compliance requirements, and requisite 

budget requirements annually based on an assessment of the 

implementation to date. This review is to include an updated analysis of 

implementation success as well as to provide guidance for the expansion 

of RFID capabilities into additional applications and supply chain 

functional processes. Although OSD identified evaluation methods to 
Page 24 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

monitor progress towards achieving general goals and objectives, no 

specific process is in place to reexamine and revise the general goals and 

objectives themselves. The Navy also acknowledged the need for 

evaluation, but it did not explain how this evaluation would occur. DLA, 

the U.S. Transportation Command, the Army, and the Marine Corps did 

not include any evaluation methods in their passive RFID implementation 

plans. The U.S. Transportation Command’s participation in passive RFID 

pilot programs is mentioned, but no process for evaluating RFID 

implementation is stated. 

While DOD and its military components have made strides in developing 

policy and guidance to implement passive RFID, their early planning does 

not go far enough to protect the government’s interest as investment in the 

technology continues. Because the military components are developing 

implementation plans to support DOD’s RFID policy, the development of a 

comprehensive strategic management approach that fully incorporates 

these key management principles could provide decision makers in both 

DOD and the military components with a framework to guide RFID 

implementation efforts and the means to determine whether these efforts 

are achieving the desired results. 

DOD officials have identified a broad spectrum of challenges concerning 

passive RFID that remain to be resolved before passive RFID technology 

can be fully implemented into DOD operations, but their RFID 

implementation planning does not include any actions to mitigate these 

challenges. Among the challenges facing DOD as it implements passive 

RFID are those in four distinct categories. First, passive RFID technology 

is a new technology that is evolving. Consequently, electronic product 

code (EPC) standards—which identify specific information about items—

are being revised, development of newer generation tags is creating 

uncertainty about upgrades and replacement of equipment, concerns have 

been raised about the industrial base’s ability to meet the demand for tags 

and equipment, and training must be provided. Second, the performance 

capabilities of the technology are still being determined, creating 

operational issues concerning systems integration, the fragility of tags, the 

percentage of accurate read rates, and spectrum frequency. Third, the 

return on investment from passive RFID has been difficult to determine 

and without the data needed to create a business case analysis, the 

military services have been reluctant to provide funding for 

implementation. Fourth, certain regulatory and administrative 

requirements remain, including the implementation of a Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement rule (acquisition rule) and the 

DOD Has Identified 

Several Challenges for 

Passive RFID 
Page 25 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

approval of a multivendor contract for passive RFID purchases. In 

addition, although DOD and its military components have identified these 

passive RFID implementation challenges, they have not yet identified 

actions to mitigate these challenges. 

The EPC standards for passive RFID tags were being revised at the time of 

our review to provide increased capabilities,5

 and as of August 2005 these 

revised standards had been published and were awaiting approval from 

the International Standards Organization.6 These new standards, 

designated EPC UHF GEN 2 (Generation 2), call for a radio frequency 

range of Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) 860-960 MHz, with a minimum read 

range of 3 meters—about 10 feet. The Generation 2 specifications were 

published in December 2004, but equipment and tags using these 

specifications were not available as of May 2005. DOD’s RFID policy for 

placing tags on cases, pallets, and item packaging of shipped goods calls 

for the phasing out, over an anticipated 2-year period, of the tags currently 

in use once equipment operating under the new tag specifications is 

available. The current policy requiring the use of existing passive tags on 

items shipped after January 2005 has caused component officials to 

question the rationale for making an investment in tags and equipment, 

such as readers and printers, that will have to be replaced or upgraded in a 

short period of time to comply with the Generation 2 standards and tag 

format. 

In our May 2005 report concerning governmentwide use of RFID 

technology, we identified a potential concern about whether the demand 

for passive RFID tags and equipment may eventually exceed the industrial 

base’s ability to supply them.7

 Specifically, we stated that the increasing 

demand for passive RFID tags may eventually outstrip the supply and that 

the 30 percent damage rate during production will likely contribute to 

 5

 The EPC standards provide a uniform format for encoding passive RFID tags to carry a 

sequence of digits that identifies the manufacturer, product, and version, followed by 

another sequence that is a serial number, which identifies each item uniquely. 

6

 EPCglobal, Inc., is working with DOD to administer and develop the EPC standards. 

EPCglobal was formed in November 2003 as a joint venture between EAN Inc. and the 

Uniform Code Council. It is “a not-for-profit organization ... to establish and support the 

Electronic Product Code (EPC) Network as the global standard for immediate, automatic, 

and accurate identification of any item in the supply chain of any company, in any industry, 

anywhere in the world.” 

7 GAO-05-551. 

Technology Is Evolving 
Page 26 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

future shortages. Army representatives expressed similar concerns about 

the industrial base’s ability to supply passive tags and equipment in 

sufficient quantities to meet the implementation demand anticipated by 

both the military and commercial sectors. Thus, the infrastructure, such as 

RFID readers and write-stations, which are needed to support passive 

RFID technology, could be unavailable as implementation progresses. For 

example, DOD’s and Wal-Mart’s schedules for implementing passive RFID 

technology are similar, which could drive the near-term demand for tags 

and other equipment to exceed supply levels. Wal-Mart, the largest U.S. 

retailer, is requiring all of its suppliers to adopt RFID technology standards 

as of January 2006. As of January 18, 2005, according to Wal-Mart officials, 

57 of the 100 suppliers scheduled to implement RFID in January 2005 were 

shipping tagged cases and pallets and that some of the 200 suppliers 

scheduled to begin shipping tagged cases and pallets in 2006 were already 

doing so. Army representatives also pointed out, however, that once 

Generation 2 standards are finalized, additional industrial base sources are 

expected to emerge to meet and surpass the public- and private-sector 

market demand. 

Additionally, training is an ongoing challenge to passive RFID 

implementation. As in any new technology or operating system, the end 

users must be trained both to recognize RFID and to use it. Such training 

is especially important when dealing with inventory assets for DOD 

personnel operating in a combat setting. While the services have 

acknowledged this lack of training and are working to correct it, concerns 

remain about passive RFID training, as the following examples illustrate. 

• The Air Force has provided passive RFID training to personnel in selected 

areas, associated with their pilot projects, but it has not institutionalized 

this training in its training curriculum. 

• The Army has updated its training curriculum to include active RFID 

training into its business processes. In addition, its reserve forces get the 

same training as the active forces, and several reserve classes have already 

received training in active RFID technology. However, the Army is 

presently considering how to incorporate passive RFID training into its 

curriculum. At the time of our review, no official passive RFID training 

was in place. 

• The Navy provides passive RFID technology training through contractor 

support in conjunction with its active RFID training on Early Entry 

Deployment System Kits; these kits provide the capabilities of 

writing/reading/uploading tags, access to regional servers, and printing 

labels. 
Page 27 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

• The Marine Corps anticipates using contractor support for passive RFID 

training in conjunction with its active RFID training on Early Entry 

Deployment System Kits, as well as including this training into its training 

center curriculum. 

• U.S. Transportation Command officials pointed out that they are 

attempting to train all shippers, transportation consignees, and supply 

receivers to correctly use the single RFID format and data standard that 

DOD adopts. The requirements and standards for this are being developed 

and mandated by OSD/Joint Chiefs of Staff offices. As the distribution 

process owner, the U.S. Transportation Command is responsible for 

improving the overall efficiency and interoperability of distribution-related 

activities. 

Overall, DOD and its military components acknowledged that passive 

RFID implementation will require significant training to ensure proper use 

throughout the military supply chain. 

Three performance capability issues also lead to challenges for DOD in 

implementing passive RFID technology. The first is that of systems 

integration, which enables interoperability of automatic information 

systems among the military components so these systems can work 

together and facilitate active and passive system interaction. Furthermore, 

common systems and standards for interoperability need to be 

established. For example, an Air Force official explained that because 

DLA and each of the services are developing their own plans to 

incorporate passive RFID into existing business processes, there is a 

possibility that implementation in each service could be different, leading 

to limited interoperability among the services. If passive RFID 

implementation is not interoperable among the services, this could lead to 

inefficiencies that could be avoided if interoperability had been built into 

the services’ passive RFID implementation plans as these plans developed. 

A second performance capability issue concerns the accuracy of passive 

RFID tag read rates. Army officials told us that within DOD and private 

industry there is a concern about the level of accuracy for reading tags. 

For example, results of some read-rate experiences within DOD and 

commercial industry have been reported at approximately 90 percent 

accuracy for passive RFID tags placed on individual cases and pallets. This 

is “not yet good enough” for Army-wide implementation, according to 

officials in the Army Program Executive Office, Enterprise Information 

Systems, Product Manager Joint–Automatic Identification Technology 

Office. The 10 percent tag misread rate could be attributed to the 

Performance Capabilities 

of Passive RFID 

Technology Are Still Being 

Determined 
Page 28 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

placement of the tags on an item or to the quality of the tags. For instance, 

Navy tests have shown that inaccurate tag readings can occur when 

metals, packages containing liquids, or extremely dense material are 

tagged. In addition to the problems in reading individual tags, the 

technology is not yet sufficiently sophisticated to read all tagged items on 

fully loaded pallets within acceptable accuracy rates. For example, Navy 

officials found problems reading tags on items in the middle of a pallet 

versus those on the periphery. According to a Navy official, testing in 

October 2004 regarding the Navy ocean terminal pilot project identified an 

85 percent accuracy read rate for tagged items on fully loaded pallets. The 

Air Force has experienced considerably lower accuracy read rates, 

ranging from 32 to 65 percent, according to a briefing presented by an Air 

Force official on February 10, 2005. Private industry has experienced this 

problem as well. According to Wal-Mart officials, as of January 18, 2005, 

the accuracy of its read rate for tagged items on fully loaded pallets was 66 

percent and stated that reading all cases on a fully loaded pallet remains 

the biggest challenge. Our May 2005 report corroborates reliability 

problems with reading tags—and an inability to read tags in some 

instances—associated with conditions such as close proximity of multiple 

tagged items, environmental conditions, and reading tags at high speeds.8

Furthermore, some tags have been found to be fragile, which could be a 

result of manufacturing and production techniques, according to an Army 

official. The fragility of passive RFID tags is further corroborated by a 

research group’s survey of RFID tag vendors. We reported in May 2005 

that this survey found that up to 30 percent of chips for passive RFID tags 

are damaged during production when they are attached to their antenna, 

and an additional 10 to 15 percent are damaged during the printing 

process. 

A third area of performance capability involves spectrum frequency. 

Obtaining radio frequency spectrum permissions outside the continental 

United States is an implementation issue. Foreign governments can 

impose requirements on the type of RFID reader technology to be used, 

and must grant permission for use of spectrum frequencies in their 

countries. Army officials told us that the military does not use RFID 

technology in countries that do not grant frequency permission. Currently 

there is no worldwide frequency standard for passive RFID tags. For 

example, the allowed UHF frequency spectrum in the United States, 

Europe, and Japan ranges from 860 to 960. However, the International 

 8 GAO-05-551. 
Page 29 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

Organization for Standardization is considering possible worldwide 

frequency standards for passive RFID tags because of the impact an 

absence of standards could have on the commercial application of RFID 

tags. Furthermore, an Army official told us that Germany’s frequency 

spectrum for active RFID will change in 2006. Consequently, radiofrequency-dependent equipment may have to be upgraded or replaced. 

Army officials are considering the use of region- or country-specific RFID 

readers operating with locally approved frequencies to address this issue. 

The military services have expressed concern about the unknown return 

on investment for passive RFID, which has led to reluctance to provide 

funding for passive RFID. Studies have been conducted to determine a 

return on investment, although these studies have had mixed results. 

Without data to determine a business case analysis that would 

demonstrate a return on investment from using passive RFID technology, 

the military services have been reluctant to provide funding to support it. 

For example, in commenting on DOD’s draft RFID policy, Air Force 

officials stated that DOD directed investment in passive RFID 

infrastructure without first building a business case to document the 

savings. Without seeing documented savings, the Air Force considered 

that it would face tremendous challenges in supporting the initial 

investment. 

Navy officials commented similarly that without a compelling business 

case it is unable to proceed with investments and implementation as it 

needs to do. DOD’s operational guidance states that the military 

components will plan for a January 1, 2005, implementation of passive 

RFID, although DOD’s RFID policy does not require implementation by the 

military components to begin until January 1, 2006. Navy officials 

expressed their concern that this 2005 goal was not supportable because 

the Navy had not planned or budgeted for enabling passive RFID at its key 

supply system locations. Navy officials stated that a compelling business 

case was needed to help balance their total resource requirements against 

passive RFID’s projected benefits. They also explained that ultimately they 

need a better understanding of the savings that investment in passive RFID 

can provide. 

Furthermore, in commenting on DOD’s draft RFID policy, the Office of the 

Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics pointed out several concerns 

impacting the Army’s implementation of passive RFID technology. First, 

funding for passive RFID technology would be challenging because DOD’s 

RFID policy was issued in the middle of a budget cycle and the schedule 

Concerns Exist about the 

Unknown Return on 

Investment for Passive 

RFID 
Page 30 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

for implementing RFID was not synchronized with the budget cycle 

process. Second, in order to justify funding necessary to implement 

passive RFID, the Army needed to conduct business process analyses, 

pilot projects, and site surveys, as well as to procure equipment and 

develop and conduct training to support RFID. Third, while DOD’s RFID 

policy states that the cost of implementing and operating RFID technology 

is to be considered a normal cost of transportation and logistics, and it 

should be funded through routine operation and maintenance, working 

capital funds, or capital investment processes, such use of working capital 

funds would increase operating costs and surcharges until the potential 

RFID benefits offset them. Those costs would, in turn, be passed on to 

customers through higher prices that would have to be paid from 

appropriated funds. Finally, the Army is transitioning from its legacy 

Standard Automated Management Information System to a replacement 

system, the Single Army Logistics Enterprises System. Army officials have 

not determined if adopting passive RFID in its legacy systems is a sound 

investment strategy. They elaborated that because the Army is fielding its 

new Single Army Logistics Enterprises System, expensive and timeconsuming changes to its legacy system may not be cost effective. 

Regarding costs and benefits of implementing passive RFID, we reported 

in May 2005 that organizations need to determine whether the increased 

visibility provided by RFID technology will outweigh the costs associated 

with its implementation.9

 The military components and OSD have 

conducted some studies to develop a business case for use of RFID, 

although these studies have had mixed results. For example, the Center of 

Naval Analysis published a cost and benefits study in June 2004, but 

concluded that the option preferable to current full investment would be 

to wait until passive RFID technology is more mature because they had no 

hard data to use to estimate benefits.10 However, according to a January 

25, 2005, DLA briefing, the bottom-line results of a DOD business case 

analysis found that “there is a reasonable to good expectation that 

implementation of Passive RFID across DOD will provide an economic 

return on investment in the near term and an excellent expectation of 

economic returns in the long term.” This DOD business case analysis was 

issued in April 2005 and was conducted pursuant to an August 30, 2004, 

logistics decision memorandum directing DLA to work with the Deputy 

 9 GAO-05-551. 

10 Center of Naval Analysis, An Examination of Costs and Benefits of Navy RFID 

Adoption, CRM D0010265.A2/Final (June 2004). 
Page 31 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

Under Secretary of Defense (Logistics and Materiel Readiness) to 

document the investment and cost benefits of implementing passive RFID. 

DOD recognized that this business case analysis is an initial and 

abbreviated analysis due to time constraints. The DOD business case 

analysis presented two results, which it characterized as optimistic and 

pessimistic. The optimistic result estimated savings of $1.781 billion, while 

the pessimistic result estimated savings of $70 million. In a March 10, 2005, 

Logistics Decision Memorandum, the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) stated that this business case was 

compelling and directed the Secretaries of the military departments to 

move forward with passive and active RFID implementation as justified by 

the DOD business case. While we did not assess DOD’s business case for 

implementing passive RFID because it was released after we completed 

our field work, we believe that it represents a step in the right direction. 

Lastly, Army officials informed us that the Army’s Logistics 

Transformation Agency is conducting a business case analysis involving 

passive RFID, but this analysis was still being conducted as of May 2005. 

DOD faces two additional challenges in implementing passive RFID as a 

result of regulatory and administrative processes. The regulatory challenge 

faced by DOD is one of ensuring consistency in the contractual 

requirements its vendors must follow in affixing or applying passive RFID 

tags on the products DOD purchases. DOD’s July 30, 2004, RFID policy 

includes a requirement that passive RFID will be mandatory in 

solicitations issued on or after October 1, 2004, for delivery of materiel on 

or after January 1, 2005. To implement this action, DOD has proposed a 

rule to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS)11 for passive RFID. This proposed rule was published in the 

Federal Register on April 21, 2005, for a 60-day comment period.12 The 

proposed rule is limited in scope, specifying that passive RFID tagging will 

be required on only four supply classes,13 excluding bulk commodities, and 

 11 DFARS are published regulations DOD uses to establish and manage procurement 

business rules, policy, and guidance. The Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition 

Policy is responsible for these regulations. 

12 70 Fed. Reg. 20726 (Apr. 21, 2005). After further consideration following the 60-day 

comment period, DOD will determine if and when to finalize a proposed rule. 

13 These four classes are Subclass of Class I, packaged operational rations; Class II, 

clothing, individual equipment, tentage, organizational tool kits, hand tools, and 

administrative and housekeeping supplies and equipment; Class VI, personal demand items; 

and Class IX, repair parts and military components. 

Regulatory and 

Administrative 

Requirements Need to Be 

Approved 
Page 32 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

only applies to shipments of those classes of items that are delivered to 

two specific defense distribution depots—Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, and 

San Joaquin, California. As DOD continues implementation, it will need 

similar DFARS amendments that apply to its remaining supply classes and 

shipping locations. For example, DOD’s RFID policy expands the 

requirement for passive RFID tagging as of January 1, 2006, to six 

additional supply classes and 32 additional shipping locations, and as of 

January 1, 2007, to all supply classes (except bulk commodities) shipped 

to all locations. Consequently, DFARS may need to be further amended to 

accommodate implementation of DOD’s expanded policy requirements. 

Until additional DFARS amendments are in place, the contract language 

regarding vendors’ placement of passive RFID tags on all products 

purchased by and shipped to DOD may not be standardized. Without 

additional DFARS rules, supply contracts could be subjected to individual 

contract clauses regarding passive RFID, which could result in 

inconsistencies among contracts across DOD and its military components. 

The administrative challenge concerns establishing agreements with 

vendors to provide EPC-compliant technology through multivendor 

contract mechanisms, which can include the use of blanket purchase 

agreements, to leverage the purchasing power of the department for 

passive RFID infrastructure purchases. DOD designated the Army 

Program Executive Office, Enterprise Information Systems, Product 

Manager–Automatic Identification Technology Office as the DOD 

procurement agent for automatic identification technology equipment, 

including RFID equipment and infrastructure. As such, the office is to 

establish and maintain a multivendor contract for equipment, equipment 

integration, installation, and maintenance. While DOD policy requires that 

passive RFID implementation begin on January 1, 2005, the absence of a 

multivendor contract obligated the services and DLA to individually 

purchase passive RFID equipment in order to conduct the services’ pilot 

projects and meet DLA’s commitment to enable two of its depots—

Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, and San Joaquin, California—to receive and 

process passive RFID-tagged shipments from vendors. In addition, 

according to an official in the Army Program Executive Office, a total of 

five blanket purchase agreements are to be established for passive RFID. 

As of April 12, 2005, the Automatic Identification Technology Office had 

established one blanket purchase agreement for passive RFID tags. It is 

still in the process of establishing the remaining four blanket purchase 

agreements for acquiring passive RFID equipment. According to Army 

officials, the delay in establishing the multivendor contract can be 

attributed to the fact that Army and DOD officials were working to define 

requirements and develop an Independent Government Cost Estimate, a 
Page 33 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

process that they consider to be part of the normal contracting process. 

Until other multivendor contracts are established, the DOD military 

components may be unable to leverage the purchasing power of the 

department to realize economy and efficiency benefits. In response to 

DOD’s comments on a draft of this report, we were informed that as of 

August 11, 2005, three blanket purchase agreements have now been 

awarded, and only two agreements remain to be established and are 

expected to be established in the near future. 

Although the Marine Corps and Army draft passive RFID plans and the 

Navy and DLA passive RFID plans identify challenges and external factors 

affecting implementation, which is a key element of GPRA, most of these 

plans do not identify any actions for mitigating passive RFID 

implementation challenges. The OSD and U.S. Transportation Command 

plans do not identify passive RFID implementation challenges. Based on 

our discussions with DOD officials, the underlying cause of these various 

challenges is the newness and evolving nature of the technology. However, 

officials noted that the current challenges they face will be resolved in 

time and are to be expected with the integration of any new technology. 

We recognize that the identification of such challenges is a positive and 

essential step, but identification does not go far enough to ensure their 

resolution in an efficient and effective manner. Until DOD and the military 

components identify actions to mitigate these implementation challenges, 

their progress in resolving these challenges will be impeded. 

Although much more needs to be done, incorporating passive RFID 

technology into the DOD supply chain offers the promise of a technology 

that may begin to help address the long-standing problems of inadequate 

asset visibility throughout DOD and the military services. While DOD and 

its military components have made strides in developing policy and 

guidance to implement passive RFID, their early planning does not go far 

enough to ensure that Congress is sufficiently informed of the investments 

that will be required and that the department can achieve its goals with 

this technology. In particular, neither the department nor its military 

components have developed comprehensive strategic management 

approaches to ensure that implementation efforts fully incorporate key 

management principles, such as those used by leading organizations and 

contained in the Government Performance and Results Act. These 

principles can provide decision makers with a framework to guide 

program efforts and the means to determine if these efforts are achieving 

the desired results. Although DOD and its military components have 

DOD and Its Military 

Components Have Not Yet 

Identified Actions to 

Mitigate Passive RFID 

Implementation 

Challenges 

Conclusions 
Page 34 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

incorporated some of these key management principles in their RFID 

policy and guidance, many of these principles are missing or are only 

partially present. Without an improved management approach, DOD and 

its military components may, in the long term, continue to invest heavily in 

passive RFID without knowledge of which and how much infrastructure, 

and at what cost, will be needed to meet overall goals, objectives, and 

strategies. In addition, some key challenges slowing progress toward full 

implementation of RFID include (1) the newness and unproven state of 

passive RFID technology, (2) difficulty with demonstrating a sound 

business case and return on investment for passive RFID technology, and 

(3) lack of a DOD-wide needs assessment that identifies, by location, the 

infrastructure, maintenance support, and funding resources needed to 

fully implement passive RFID technology in the DOD supply chain 

processes. As the department and the military components continue to 

implement passive RFID without a comprehensive strategic management 

approach that identifies the challenges impeding implementation and ways 

to overcome those challenges, DOD and its military components will not 

have a means of measuring the progress of implementation and developing 

defensible budget requests, or of taking corrective actions as necessary in 

competitive budget environments. 

We recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following three 

actions: 

• Direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics) to expand its current RFID planning efforts to include a DODwide comprehensive strategic management approach that will ensure that 

RFID technology is efficiently and effectively implemented throughout the 

department. This strategic management approach should incorporate the 

following key management principles: 

• an integrated strategy with goals, objectives, and results for fully 

implementing RFID in the DOD supply chain process, to include the 

interoperability of automatic information systems; 

• a description of specific actions needed to meet goals and objectives; 

• performance measures or metrics to evaluate progress toward 

achieving the goals; 

• schedules and milestones for meeting deadlines; 

• identification of total RFID resources needed to achieve full 

implementation; and 

• an evaluation and corrective action plan. 

• Direct the secretaries of each military service and administrators of other 

DOD military components to develop individual comprehensive strategic 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 
Page 35 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

management approaches that support the DOD-wide approach for fully 

implementing RFID into the supply chain processes. 

• Direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics), the secretaries of each military service, and administrators of 

other military components to develop a plan that identifies the specific 

challenges impeding passive RFID implementation and the actions needed 

to mitigate these challenges. Such a plan could be included in the strategic 

management approach that we recommend they develop. 

DOD provided written comments on a draft of this report. The department 

concurred with our recommendation for each of the military services and 

administrators of other DOD military components to develop individual 

comprehensive management approaches for implementing RFID, but did 

not concur with our other two recommendations. 

DOD did not concur with our recommendation to expand its RFID 

planning efforts to include a comprehensive management approach to 

ensure efficient and effective implementation. The department commented 

that RFID is a critical transformational technology that will be 

implemented across the department over the next several years. The 

department stated that its approach is to build the rollout for passive RFID 

from the bottom up. The department asserted that it has already set forth 

the goals, objectives, performance measures, and milestones sufficient to 

guide the planning activities of the military services, DLA, and the U.S. 

Transportation Command, and that these activities have plans in 

development. The department stated that it will work with these activities 

to ensure that RFID is efficiently and effectively implemented throughout 

the department, to ensure implementation is funded, and to evaluate the 

benefits being achieved and report progress as part of the department’s 

supply chain management improvement plan. We disagree. DOD’s July 

2004 RFID policy does not represent a sound strategic approach because it 

lacks a number of key management principles necessary for good program 

management. Specifically, we found that the policy (1) contains only 

general and descriptive goals and objectives that do not define specific 

expected results, and no annual goals are identified, as suggested by the 

principle; (2) describes specific actions related to operational processes 

but does not provide specific actions related to things such as obtaining 

necessary workforce skills, considering human resource issues, identifying 

major capital resources, identifying major technological resources, and 

obtaining needed information resources, which could provide the basis for 

monitoring corrective actions that may be needed; (3) does not include 

performance measures to assess the progress of implementation actions 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 36 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

for passive RFID; and (4) contains only short-term schedules rather than 

comprehensive schedules and milestones for meeting deadlines. Despite 

DOD’s assertion in its comments that it already has sufficient guidance to 

ensure that RFID is efficiently and effectively implemented throughout the 

department, implementation of the technology is adequately funded, 

benefits are being achieved, and progress is being reported as part of the 

department’s supply chain management improvement plan, we continue to 

believe that the incomplete incorporation of these key management 

principles in DOD’s RFID policy may impede DOD’s ability to achieve 

these things. The lack of clear, comprehensive, and integrated 

performance goals and measures has handicapped DOD efforts for several 

undertakings, including business management transformation,14 critical 

spare parts shortages,15 installation preparedness,16 and depot 

maintenance.17 We continue to believe that DOD needs to develop a more 

comprehensive strategic management approach to guide the 

implementation of RFID technology throughout the department. 

The department concurred with our recommendation for each of the 

military services and other DOD military components to develop 

individual comprehensive management approaches for implementing 

RFID. In its comments, the department said that the services, DLA, and 

U.S. Transportation Command have RFID implementation plans in varying 

stages of development. The department stated that OSD will direct that 

these plans be completed by September 30, 2005, and that these plans will 

incorporate the key management principles cited in our report and will 

correct deficiencies cited in our report. The department noted that it 

would be premature to expect detailed implementation plans until RFID 

funding is solidified. We believe that this approach will satisfy the intent of 

our recommendation if, prior to the military components developing their 

 14 GAO, Defense Management: Key Elements Needed to Successfully Transform DOD 

Business Operations, GAO-05-629T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28, 2005). 

15 GAO, Defense Inventory: The Department Needs a Focused Effort to Overcome Critical 

Spare Part Shortages, GAO-03-707 (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2003). 

16 GAO, Combating Terrorism: DOD Efforts to Improve Installation Preparedness Can Be 

Enhanced with Clarified Responsibilities and Comprehensive Planning, GAO-04-855

(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 12, 2004); and Combating Terrorism: Actions Needed to Guide 

Services’ Antiterrorism Efforts at Installations, GAO-03-14 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 

2002). 

17 GAO, Depot Maintenance: Key Unresolved Issues Affect the Army Depot System’s 

Viability, GAO-03-682 (Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2003). 
Page 37 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

plans, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics) takes additional actions to develop a DOD-wide comprehensive 

strategic management approach that would then be supported by the plans 

developed by the military components. 

The department did not concur with our recommendation to develop a 

plan to identify challenges impeding passive RFID implementation and 

actions needed to mitigate those challenges. The department stated that 

the challenges outlined in our report have either already been mitigated or 

represented a misunderstanding on our part. In essence, the department’s 

comments suggest that the passive RFID challenges identified in our draft 

report have been basically resolved. We do not believe this to be the case. 

We recognize that passive RFID is an evolving technology and that the 

department is continuing to address the challenges associated with 

implementing passive RFID technology. However, we continue to believe 

that the challenges identified in the report remain, and that the department 

needs to develop a mitigation plan to address these challenges. 

Specifically, our responses to DOD’s comments about the individual 

challenges identified in the draft report are as follows. 

• DOD stated that the audit incorrectly states that new standards are 

currently being developed to “meet DOD’s RFID policy requirements.” The 

department commented that the specification for the Electronic Product 

Code RFID tags being required by DOD is already published and products 

compliant to this specification are available on the market today. DOD 

also stated that the audit incorrectly states that the new standard will 

“define the DOD approved format for EPCs.” The department said that the 

approved format for DOD was published in May 2005 and that the new 

Generation 2 standard, although already developed, is still awaiting 

International Standards Organization (ISO) approval. DOD stated that any 

concerns expressed in the audit to the contrary appear unfounded. We 

disagree with DOD’s assertion that the concerns expressed in the report 

are unfounded. Nonetheless, we have clarified the language in the report 

to respond to DOD’s technical concerns about our description of the 

development status of the new Generation 2 EPC standard. As discussed 

in the report, we found that the military components are reluctant to 

purchase passive RFID infrastructure knowing that the standard is going 

to change and that they might need to modify existing equipment or 

purchase new equipment to be compliant with the new EPC standard. 

Because the new Generation 2 EPC standard has not yet been approved 

and equipment and tags using the new standard were not available as of 

May 2005, we continue to believe that the military components’ concern is 

valid and that it may not be the best use of scarce resources to fund 
Page 38 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

purchases of equipment necessary for implementing passive RFID until 

equipment operating under the new tag specifications is available. 

• The department stated that the audit conjectures that the industrial base 

will not have the capacity to supply sufficient quantities of tags and 

equipment to meet requirements. The department stated that it had not 

found this to be the case. DOD further stated that the audit appeared to 

base this concern on some anecdotal comments made during some 

interviews. DOD also commented that it recognized that the department 

needed to consider lead times as new products come to the market. We 

concur that lead times are necessary for evolving technologies such as 

passive RFID, and we acknowledge in our report that these challenges will 

be resolved over time and are to be expected with the integration of any 

new technology. Nonetheless, we continue to believe that this is a valid 

concern that is not solely based on anecdotal comments made during 

some interviews. While this concern was expressed during some 

interviews conducted in the course of this audit, it was further 

corroborated in our May 2005 report,18 in which we reported that the 

increasing demand for passive RFID tags may eventually outstrip the 

supply and that the 30 percent damage rate during production will likely 

contribute to future shortages. 

• The department stated that the report identifies training as a challenge, 

and that DOD already has plans to address that challenge. DOD stated that 

the RFID implementation plans developed by the services, DLA, and U.S. 

Transportation Command will address training; that the Defense 

Acquisition University is developing computer-based training for internal 

stakeholders; and that training is being provided to DOD’s Procurement 

Technical Assistance Centers. DOD commented that its training strategy 

will be refined and intensified as implementation continues. In our report, 

we recognize the planned efforts to provide training by the military 

components. We also believe that these actions cited by DOD recognize 

the necessity for passive RFID training throughout the department. 

However, until such training is formalized into the various training 

curriculums and personnel become proficient in the use of RFID 

technology and its capabilities, training remains a concern for passive 

RFID implementation. As recognized by DOD in identifying the need to 

refine and intensify its training strategy, we believe training will be a 

continuing challenge as DOD addresses the need to train new personnel 

and to refresh training of experienced personnel. 

• The department states that systems interoperability is already being 

facilitated because the military components share a common approach, 

 18 GAO-05-551. 
Page 39 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

the Advance Shipment Notice (ASN), for passing RFID information. We 

continue to believe that interoperability is a challenge. An ASN is a 

notification issued by a supplier prior to shipment that provides the 

recipient with advance notice describing in detail what is being shipped. 

While the ASN provides helpful information, we do not believe that the 

ASN effectively addresses the interoperability concern. As we stated in our 

draft report, DOD identifies system interoperability as the ability of 

systems, units, or forces to provide data, information, materiel, and 

services and to accept the same from other systems, units, or forces and to 

use the data, information, materiel, and services so exchanged to enable 

them to operate effectively together. We also stated in our draft report that 

interoperability includes both the technical exchange of information and 

the end-to-end operational effectiveness of that exchange of information 

as required for mission accomplishment. DOD envisions a seamless 

integration between passive and active RFID technology; however, such a 

seamless integration cannot take place unless the information captured by 

the RFID technology can flow through interoperable logistics information 

systems. Effective implementation of passive RFID requires 

interoperability of automatic information systems among the military 

components so these systems can work together and facilitate active and 

passive system interaction. Common systems and standards for 

interoperability need to be established. If passive RFID implementation is 

not interoperable among the military components, this could lead to 

inefficiencies that could be avoided if interoperability had been built into 

the military components’ passive RFID implementation plans as these 

plans developed. 

• The department stated that the low read rates cited in our audit were 

based on older pilot projects reading all cases on a pallet. The comments 

noted that pallet and case tags on a conveyor are consistently read at 100 

percent and stated that the audit does not mention this fact. The 

department stated that the draft report implied that the read rates were 

too low for implementation and responded that this simply was not true. 

The department stated that the use of the ASNs mitigated low read rates 

because the ASN contains the nested relationship of all cases on the pallet 

and that the reading of just one tag enables determining all other tags on 

the shipment. We continue to believe that for DOD to use passive RFID 

technology as intended, the accuracy of passive RFID read rates is critical 

to expeditiously verify that individual items were actually received. While 

read rates of tags on individual pallets and cases may be 100 percent, as 

stated by the department, our report focused on the technology not yet 

being sufficiently sophisticated to read all tagged items on fully loaded 

pallets with acceptable accuracy rates. As stated in our report, our audit 

found problems reading tags on items in the middle of a pallet versus 

those on the periphery as follows: the Navy experienced an 85 percent 
Page 40 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

accuracy read rate for tagged items on fully loaded pallets in its terminal 

pilot project, reported in October 2004; the Air Force has experienced 32 

to 65 percent accuracy read rates for fully loaded pallets, reported on 

February 10, 2005; and even Wal-Mart reported that as of January 18, 2005, 

it has experienced only 66 percent accuracy of its read rate for tagged 

items on fully loaded pallets and stated that reading all cases on a fully 

loaded pallet remains the biggest challenge. These read rate figures were 

the most recent figures that were available to us at the time of our audit, 

and we believe that the dates of these data are sufficiently recent to 

demonstrate that this concern will continue for some time. Furthermore, 

while the ASN provides details pertaining to individual shipments—

including a list of the contents of a shipment of goods as well as additional 

information relating to the shipment such as product description, physical 

characteristics, type of packaging, and configuration of goods within the 

transportation equipment—the ASN basically serves as a verification 

control mechanism to validate the contents of shipments received. The 

ASN is not a new type of control mechanism. In April 2005, the existing 

Material Inspection Receiving Report—which basically served the function 

of a packing slip—was expanded to contain RFID tag data. We believe that 

the ASN should continue to be used as a control to ensure that shipments 

sent by suppliers are actually received, but we believe that the ASN does 

not mitigate nor should it serve as a replacement for the need to read the 

passive RFID tags on all of the items received to ensure that what the ASN 

says was sent is what was actually received. 

• DOD stated that one worldwide frequency standard is not required as 

recommended in the audit and will not occur. DOD stated that passive 

RFID technology as adopted can operate anywhere along the UHF band 

and a foreign country only needs to open up a portion of that band for 

RFID technology to be able to operate. The department also stated that 

readers are designed to operate at the country-approved spectrum. 

However, as discussed in our draft report, we did not advocate a 

worldwide standard. In our draft report, we noted that there was no 

worldwide frequency standard, and stated that a worldwide standard was 

being considered by the International Organization for Standardization, 

but we did not recommend that such a worldwide standard be developed. 

The concerns identified in the report were that the United States would 

need to obtain frequency spectrum permissions from foreign governments 

to be able to use RFID reader technology in their countries, and that 

foreign governments can impose requirements on the type of readers that 

can be used. We continue to believe that these are implementation issues 

because DOD will need to ensure that its procedures in place for 

requesting frequency spectrum permissions are followed, track any special 

requirements imposed by foreign governments, and identify and respond 

to changes in a country’s spectrum. For example, in our draft report, we 
Page 41 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

pointed out that Germany’s spectrum for active RFID will be changing in 

2006, so radio frequency-dependent equipment operating under the old 

spectrum may need to be upgraded or replaced. 

• The department stated that the concerns raised in the audit about 

unknown return on investment were dated because the DOD business case 

analysis has now been completed. DOD also stated that the Navy business 

case has been superseded by a more recent business case analysis that did 

find a return on investment. We believe that DOD’s new business case 

analysis, issued in April 2005, is a step in the right direction, and we 

referred to the findings of this new business case analysis in our report. 

We continue to believe, however, that return on investment remains a 

strong concern among the military components and the DOD business 

case still needs to be adapted into the development of individual business 

case analyses by the military components that they can use to integrate the 

technology into their respective business processes. Our initial review of 

the department’s business case analysis leads to reservations regarding the 

potential benefits it portrays because of the wide disparity between the 

optimistic and pessimistic results. As stated in our report, the DOD 

business case analysis presented two results, which it characterized as 

optimistic and pessimistic. The optimistic result estimated savings of 

$1.781 billion, while the pessimistic result estimated savings of $70 million. 

Although DOD recognized that this business case is an initial and 

abbreviated analysis due to time constraints, DOD stated that this business 

case was compelling and directed the secretaries of the military 

departments to move forward with passive and active RFID 

implementation as justified by the business case. In addition, DOD’s 

business case is a departmentwide analysis and was developed to 

determine a gross benefit to the department. Until a return on investment 

can be demonstrated by the military components, the military components 

may continue to be reluctant to provide funds necessary for successful 

implementation. As stated in our report, we did not assess the 

methodology and validity of the DOD business case analysis, primarily 

because it was released after we concluded our field work. 

• The department stated that the DFARS clause is nearing completion and 

will be followed by subsequent DFARS clauses as DOD phases in 

implementation. DOD also stated that the concern raised in the audit 

about “inconsistencies among contracts across DOD” is not an issue 

because very few contracts have been let in the interim. DOD explained 

that the purpose of the proposed DFARS clause was to standardize 

contract clauses across the department. We continue to believe that the 

development and approval of DFARS clauses remain a valid concern. As 

described in our draft report, the existing proposed rule is limited in 

scope, applying only to four supply classes delivered to two distribution 

depots. We stated in our draft report our concern that as DOD continues 
Page 42 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

passive RFID implementation, it will need additional DFARS amendments 

as RFID tagging requirements expand to DOD’s remaining six supply 

classes and 32 additional shipping locations as of January 1, 2006, and to 

all supply classes (except bulk commodities) shipped to all locations as of 

January 1, 2007. DOD’s comments acknowledge that they will need 

subsequent DFARS clauses as DOD phases in implementation. We concur 

with DOD that the purpose of the DFARS clause is to standardize contract 

clauses across the department; however, until additional DFARS 

amendments are in place, the contract language regarding vendors’ 

placement of passive RFID tags on all products purchased by and shipped 

to DOD may not be standardized. Until DFARS clauses are approved for all 

supply classes and shipping locations, supply contracts could be subjected 

to individual contract clauses, which could result in inconsistencies 

among contracts across DOD and its military components. Just because 

few contracts have been awarded to date, as DOD stated in its comments, 

does not, in our opinion, mean that there will continue to be few contracts 

awarded until such time as additional DFARS amendments to cover the 

remaining supply classes and shipping locations are approved. The fact 

that the proposed DFARS clause covering only a portion of supply classes 

and locations still has not been completed but was anticipated to have 

been completed in October 2004 is indicative that the DFARS concern is 

likely to continue for some time. 

• The department stated that the discussion of multivendor contracts was 

dated because since the audit, awards have been made for tag, reader, 

printer, and integration software/services. DOD also commented that 

blanket purchase agreements are not mandatory and are just one tool for 

procurement of RFID equipment, which can be and has been purchased 

without the use of such agreements. As stated in our draft report, the 

administrative challenge concerns establishing agreements with vendors 

to provide EPC-compliant technology to leverage the purchasing power of 

the department for passive RFID infrastructure purchases. As of August 

11, 2005, we were informed by officials in the Army Program Executive 

Office, Enterprise Information Systems, Product Manager–Automatic 

Identification Technology Office that three of five blanket purchase 

agreements had been established. These agreements are for tags, fixed and 

transportable readers, and technical engineering services. The remaining 

two blanket purchase agreements, for printers and multiprotocol handheld 

readers, are anticipated to be established soon. However, until the 

remaining multivendor contracts are awarded, we continue to believe that 

the establishment and award of contract mechanisms such as blanket 

purchase agreements are administrative challenges and the DOD military 

components may be unable to leverage the purchasing power of the 

department to realize economy and efficiency benefits. 
Page 43 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

DOD’s comments are printed in appendix III. DOD also provided technical 

comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, Air 

Force, and the Navy; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; the 

Commander, U.S. Transportation Command; and the Director, Defense 

Logistics Agency. We will also make copies available to others upon 

request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Please contact me on (202) 512-8365 or solisw@gao.gov if you or your staff 

have any questions concerning this report. 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 major contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix IV. 

William M. Solis, Director 

Defense Capabilities and Management 
Page 44 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

List of Congressional Committees 

The Honorable John Warner 

Chairman 

The Honorable Carl Levin 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Ted Stevens 

Chairman 

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter 

Chairman 

The Honorable Ike Skelton 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable C.W. Bill Young 

Chairman 

The Honorable John P. Murtha 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 45 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

To determine the status of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) 

implementation of passive Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) 

technology, we relied on information gathered through our visits and 

interviews with key personnel within the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense; the Defense Logistics Agency; the U.S. Transportation Command; 

the Joint Forces Command; the Logistics and Command, Control, 

Communications and Computer Systems Directorates within the Office of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Army Program Executive Office, Enterprise 

Information Systems, Product Manager–Automatic Identification 

Technology Office; and pertinent logistics offices within the Departments 

of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. We reviewed DOD’s overall 

RFID implementation policy, its concept of operations guidance for DOD 

military components and suppliers and pertinent articles, and we obtained 

briefing documents to understand DOD’s strategy for implementing RFID 

technology into its supply chain processes. We also obtained and reviewed 

historical RFID infrastructure and cost data and obtained, to the extent 

available, DOD military components’ future infrastructure and funding 

requirements to fully implement the technology into the DOD supply chain 

operations. Because DOD is just beginning to implement passive RFID 

technology, we did not verify the data provided and considered the data 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this review. Additionally, we 

visited and observed the use of RFID technology at the Defense Logistics 

Agency’s Defense Distribution Depot in Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, and 

the Norfolk Ocean Terminal pilot initiative at the Navy’s Fleet and 

Industrial Supply Center in Norfolk, Virginia. 

To identify the extent to which DOD has developed a strategic approach 

for implementing passive RFID technology, we obtained and analyzed 

DOD’s and various DOD military components’ passive RFID guidance. We 

assessed this guidance by comparing its content to key management 

principles, such as those used by leading organizations and contained in 

the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, to determine 

whether DOD’s planning contained key management attributes that are 

necessary to guide and monitor implementation of the technology. 

To determine the broad spectrum of challenges DOD faces with 

implementation of RFID technology, we relied on analysis of data gathered 

through visits and interviews with and briefings provided by key personnel 

from the DOD organizations identified above. We also conducted a 

literature search to understand the RFID technology and the applications 

of it for commercial and defense purposes. We obtained and reviewed 

RFID technology studies initiated by DOD or its military components. We 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 46 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

also obtained and analyzed DOD military components’ comments 

regarding DOD’s overall RFID policy and concept of operations guidance. 

We conducted our work from July 2004 through August 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Appendix II: Examples of Passive and Active 

RFID Equipment 

Page 47 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

Appendix II: Examples of Passive and Active 

RFID Equipment 
Appendix II: Examples of Passive and Active 

RFID Equipment 

Page 48 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 49 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Defense 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 50 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 51 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 52 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 53 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 54 GAO-05-345 Defense Logistics 

William M. Solis (202) 512-8365 

In addition to those named above, Renee S. Brown, James A. Driggins, K. 

Nicole Harms, Jeffrey R. Hubbard, Shvetal Khanna, Louis V. Modliszewski, 

Kenneth E. Patton, Charles W. Perdue, Keith A. Rhodes, Dudley C. Roache, 

Jr., David A. Schmitt, Yong Song, and Cheryl A. Weissman also made 

significant contributions to this report. 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

(350561) 
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