United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

August 12, 2005 

The Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld 

The Secretary of Defense 

Subject: Defense Management: Munit ons Requirements and Combatant 

Commander’s Needs Still Require Linkage 

i

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

In October 2002 we reported1

 that inadequate linkage existed between near-term 

munitions needs of the combatant commanders and the purchases made by the 

military services. The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with our 

recommendations and took steps to address them by rewriting the overarching DOD 

Instruction for determining munitions requirements.2

 Related to our ongoing work on

prepositioned stocks, we assessed whether DOD’s efforts thus far and initiatives 

planned for the future will ensure the required linkage since successful 

implementation of operational war plans is contingent on the availability of the right 

mix and quantity of munitions. To make our assessment, we obtained and analyzed 

information from cognizant organizations within DOD, Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), 

Headquarters and subordinate units of the Military Services, and U.S. Forces Korea 

(USFK). We conducted our analysis of DOD’s munitions requirements process in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief

While the revised DOD Instruction established requirements to create the needed

linkage between the combatant commander’s munitions needs and the military 

services procurement decisions, limited implementation has been achieved. The 

Instruction, which was revised in October 2003, in response to our recommendation, 

identified key timeline dates and requirements for each of the DOD organizations 

involved in the process. The Instruction was modified to create a linkage between the 

combatant commander’s munitions needs and the purchasing decisions of the 

military services. However, this linkage did not occur because there has been little, if 

any, compliance by DOD organizations with the Instruction’s requirements. Our 

recent assessment of prepositioned munitions supporting the operational war plan of

USFK revealed that key timeline dates were missed and required coordination with 

USFK was not accomplished. For instance, threat reports developed by the Defense 

Intelligence Agency that are used to identify key targets were late. As a result, USFK

 i

i

1

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Defense Management: Munitions Requ rements and Combatant

Commanders’ Needs Require L nkage, GAO-03-17 (Washington, D.C.: October15, 2002). 2

 Department of Defense Instruction 3000.4, DOD Munitions Requirements Process, October 23, 2003. 

 GAO-05-765R Defense Management 
 GAO-05-765R Defense Management

 

Page 2 

officials told us they had to identify target lists based on dated information. DOD 

officials stated that the specific timeline and other requirements were not met 

because formal communication links needed to ensure compliance were not 

established. The department recognizes that further changes are needed and is 

revising the Instruction a second time. Our review of the current draft Instruction 

raises two concerns. First, the draft Instruction does not include additional oversight 

and control criteria to ensure compliance by all organizations involved in the 

munitions requirement process. Second, the draft Instruction does not require 

combatant commander participation in risk assessments performed prior to and after 

the Program Objective Memorandum (POM) submission occurs. Combatant 

commanders are in the best position to identify the impact of not having munitions 

needed to support the operational plan. Non-compliance by any of the myriad of 

organizations involved in the munitions requirements process could result in 

procurement decisions that will not support operational war plans and impact the 

war fighter’s ability to execute them. 

Based on our follow-up efforts and analysis, this letter includes recommendations to 

ensure that there is adequate linkage between combatant commanders’ munitions 

needs and the purchases made by the military services. In commenting on a draft of 

the letter, DOD concurred with our recommendations and identified steps that it is 

taking to implement them. 

Background

Our October 2002 report revealed that inadequate linkage existed between near-term 

munitions needs of the combatant commanders and the purchases made by the 

military services based on computations derived from the department’s munitions 

requirements process. This disconnect resulted in the combatant commanders and 

the services identifying different munitions needs and, ultimately, in the combatant 

commanders reporting shortages. The disconnect occurred because DOD’s 

munitions requirements determination process did not fully consider the combatant 

commander’s preferences for munitions and weapon systems to be used against 

targets identified in projected scenarios. We recommended that DOD establish a 

direct link between the munitions needs of the combatant commanders and the 

purchasing decisions made by the military services. In concurring with this report, 

DOD stated that that the lack of linkage between the combatant commander’s needs 

and the requirements established by the military services had been studied and that a 

solution would be documented in the next update of the DOD Instruction 3000.4 in 

Fiscal Year 2003. 

On October 23, 2003, DOD Instruction 3000.4, DOD Munitions Requirements Process 

was reissued. The new Instruction identified specific responsibilities for each 

organization involved in the Munitions Requirements Process and identified multiple 

instances of required coordination with combatant commanders to ensure a linkage 

between the combatant commander’s needs and the munitions purchased by the 

military services. 
Land Warfare & Munitions Division, Defense Systems, Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD (AT&L) officials stated that, in 

November 2004, they convened a conference of the military services, combatant 

commanders, and DOD organizations who participate in the munitions requirements 

process to determine what had to be done to establish linkage between the 

combatant commanders’ needs and the munitions purchased by the military services. 

This conference resulted in a decision to, again, revise DOD Instruction 3000.4 to 

include more specificity as to when and why combatant commanders must be 

involved in the munitions requirements determination process and to more closely 

align munitions requirements to combatant commanders’ operational war plans.

Inadequate Linkage Continues to Exist

Despite the department’s efforts to establish linkage between combatant 

commanders’ needs and purchasing decisions of the military services, inadequate 

linkage continues to exist. During our assessment of prepositioned munitions 

supporting the operational war plan of USFK, we found that specific requirements

and timelines established by DOD Instruction 3000.4, as revised in 2003, were not met 

by DOD organizations. We found that not all organizations complied with the 

Instruction’s requirements in developing the Fiscal Year 2005 munitions budget

submission. For example 

• The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) did not coordinate with combatant

commanders prior to developing threat reports. According to USFK officials, 

updated intelligence information was not included. 

• DIA Threat Reports needed by the combatant commanders to produce Phased 

Threat Distributions3

 (PTD) were late. According to USFK officials, they had

to develop PTD’s on prior year threat reports. 

 

• Only the Air Force coordinated with USFK prior to modeling munitions

requirements, the other services developed their requirements independent of 

USFK involvement. 

• None of the services coordinated with USFK on the results of their individual 

modeling processes prior to development of POM submissions. As a result, 

there were no assurances that combatant commander munitions needs were 

met. 

DOD officials stated that the specific timeline and other requirements were not met 

because formal communication links needed to ensure compliance were not 

established. 

DOD is currently revising the Instruction again. According to DOD officials, a new 

element requires combatant commanders to present and defend operational war plan 

 3

 Phased Threat Distribution allocates targets to each military service and allied forces where political

commitments exist. 

Page 3 GAO-05-765R Defense Management 
 GAO-05-765R Defense Management

 

Page 4 

munitions requirements as part of the Current Year Analytic Agenda Process4. This 

process, separate and apart from the munitions requirements process, results in the 

development of a current year baseline requirement for munitions needed to support 

operational war plans. The current year baseline provides the military services with 

an early look at what they should see in the near year PTDs prepared by the 

combatant commanders as part of the Munitions Requirements Process. It also 

provides a level of coordination between the military services and the combatant 

commanders in determining what is needed to support the operational war plan. 

While this procedure, as well as other refinements to the Instruction should result in 

better linkage between combatant commanders’ munitions needs and the munitions 

purchased by the military services, we identified two main concerns: (1) inadequate 

mechanisms to ensure compliance with requirements and (2) insufficient combatant 

commander participation. 

We determined that the draft Instruction still assigns responsibility for ensuring 

compliance with requirements by all organizations involved in the munitions 

requirement process to USD (AT&L). In our discussions with USD (AT&L) officials, 

we pointed out that no additional oversight and control measures have been added to 

the draft to ensure compliance with the Instruction’s requirements. We believe and 

JCS and USD (AT&L) officials agree that without additional oversight and control at a 

high enough level, compliance by all organizations to meet the Instruction’s 

requirements prior to Program Objective Memorandum submission may not occur. 

The draft Instruction also calls for a risk assessment both prior to and after the 

Program Objective Memorandum submission occurs. According to DOD officials, 

while the military services and JCS representatives participate in these assessments, 

combatant commanders are not required to attend. Both JCS and USD (AT&L) 

officials agreed with our opinion that the combatant commanders need to participate 

in these assessments because they would be in the best position to identify the 

impact of not having the munitions needed to support the operational war plan. In 

addition, their participation in these risk assessments could impact military service 

procurement decisions and reduce the quantities of munitions shortages that 

combatant commanders report through Joint Quarterly Readiness Reports. 

Recommendations for Executive Action

To ensure that there is adequate linkage between combatant commanders’ munitions 

needs and the purchases made by the military services, we recommend that you 

• Direct the incorporation of oversight and control measures into DOD 

Instruction 3000.4 to ensure that all organizations involved in the munitions 

requirement process fully comply with all requirements.

 

4

 The Current Year Analytical Agenda Process begins with the National Military Strategy and 

incorporates the requirements of Contingency Planning Guidance, Strategic Guidance Summary, the 

Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan, Operational Plans, Concept of Operations, and the Current Forces 

Database to arrive at Current Year Baselines for Munitions requirements. 
• Direct combatant commander to participate in pre- and post POM risk 

assessments. 

As you know, 31 U.S.C. 720 requires the head of a federal agency to submit a written 

statement of the action taken on our recommendations to the Senate Committee on 

Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform not later 

than 60 days after the date of this letter. A written statement must also be sent to

House and Senate Committees on appropriations with the agency’s first request for 

appropriations made more than 60 days after the date of this letter. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

In commenting on a written draft of this letter, DOD agreed with our

recommendations and identified steps that it is taking to implement them. DOD’s 

comments are reprinted in the enclosure. 

In commenting on our recommendation to direct the incorporation of oversight and 

control into DOD Instruction 3000.4, DOD stated that incorporation of oversight and 

control measures will help ensure that all Military Services follow strict guidelines for 

munitions requirements determination and validation. Additionally recent changes in 

the revised Instruction, along with newly instituted communications measures and 

organizational taskings, have greatly improved the participation and timeliness of the 

process.

In commenting on our recommendation to direct Combatant Commanders to

participate in pre- and post POM risk assessments, DOD stated that Combatant 

Commander participation in the process is absolutely necessary. The Services have 

already implemented several actions this past Munitions Requirements Process cycle 

to facilitate dialog with Combatant Commanders to improve collaboration and 

engage them in conflict resolution of risk assessment issues. DOD Instruction 3000.4, 

currently under revision, includes additional control measures to ensure appropriate

risk assessments by Combatant Commanders and the Services.

We are sending copies of this letter to the appropriate congressional committees and 

the director, Office of Management and Budget. The letter is also available on GAO’s 

homepage at http://www.gao.gov. If you or any of your staff have any questions on 

the matters discussed in this letter, please contact me at (202) 512-8365. Key 

contributors to this letter were John Pendleton, Jeffrey Kans, Enemencio Sanchez,

and Robyn Trotter. 

William M. Solis, Director 

Defense Capabilities and Management 

Enclosure 

Page 5 GAO-05-765R Defense Management 
Enclosure 

 GAO-05-765R Defense Management

 

Page 6 
Enclosure 

(350593)

Page 7 GAO-05-765R Defense Management 
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
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.