United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on

National Security, House of

Representatives

June 1998 DEFENSE ACQUISITION

ORGANIZATIONS

Status of Workforce

Reductions

GAO/NSIAD-98-161

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-279586 

June 29, 1998

The Honorable Floyd D. Spence

Chairman, Committee on National Security

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

You asked us to (1) review the Department of Defense’s (DOD) progress in

reducing its workforce in acquisition organizations by 25 percent,

(2) examine the potential savings associated with these personnel

reductions, (3) determine the status of DOD efforts to redefine its

acquisition workforce, and (4) examine DOD’s efforts to consolidate and

restructure acquisition organizations. In an interim product,1

 we reported

that DOD will likely meet its acquisition workforce reductions target. We

also reported on DOD’s initial efforts to redefine its acquisition workforce.

This report updates information on acquisition workforce reductions. As

discussed with your office, we have included a study of one Air Force

restructuring initiative to illustrate some of the issues surrounding DOD

efforts to consolidate and restructure acquisition organizations.

Background DOD has some 20 acquisition organizations as well as a diverse,

multilayered workforce. In recent years, Congress has enacted legislation

that requires DOD to reduce its acquisition workforce significantly and to

identify opportunities to streamline and consolidate acquisition

organizations and functions. These legislative efforts, aimed primarily at

reducing the acquisition workforce consistent with decreasing budgets

and acquisition reform initiatives, allow the Secretary of Defense wide

latitude in implementing the reductions. DOD has long sought to focus on

infrastructure reductions in an effort to fund weapons modernization.

Section 906(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1996 (P. L. 104-106) required a plan that, if implemented, would

reduce the acquisition workforce by 25 percent over the 5-year period

beginning October 1, 1995. Section 906(d) further required a reduction of

15,000 persons in fiscal year 1996.2

 Appendix I contains a complete list of

1

Defense Acquisition Organizations: Reductions in Civilian and Military Workforce

(GAO/NSIAD-98-36R, Oct. 23, 1997).

2

Military and civilian personnel subject to the act were those employed in organizations defined by

DOD Instruction 5000.58 (Jan. 14, 1992), excluding certain depot trade-skill personnel.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-98-161 Defense Acquisition Organizations
B-279586 

these acquisition organizations. Section 277 of the same act required DOD

to develop a 5-year plan to consolidate and restructure its laboratories and

test and evaluation centers.

Section 902 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997

(P. L. 104-201) amended section 906 to require a total reduction of 30,000

personnel in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 combined.

Section 912 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998

(P. L. 105-85) required a reduction of 25,000 personnel in fiscal year 1998.

The act gave the Secretary of Defense the authority to reduce that number

to as few as 10,000 if he determined and certified to Congress that further

reductions would be inconsistent with the cost-effective management of

defense acquisition systems and would adversely affect military readiness.

On June 1, 1998, the Secretary notified Congress that the reductions in

fiscal year 1998 would be 20,096. Section 912(b) required DOD to report on

recent reductions, define the term defense acquisition workforce, and

apply the term uniformly throughout DOD. Section 912 (c) required DOD to

submit an implementation plan, by April 1, 1998, designed to streamline

and consolidate acquisition organizations. DOD has submitted its plan.

Results in Brief DOD has been reducing its acquisition workforce at a faster rate than its

overall workforce and is on schedule to accomplish a 25-percent reduction

by the end of fiscal year 2000. However, potential savings from these

reductions cannot be precisely tracked in DOD’s budget. In addition, some

of the potential savings from acquisition workforce reductions may be

offset by other anticipated costs. Such costs include those for contracting

with private entities for some services previously performed by

government personnel (i.e., substituting one workforce for another).

DOD developed a new definition for the acquisition workforce and is using

it to identify individuals who perform acquisition functions throughout the

Department. DOD is also exploring a process by which it can, for the first

time, link management of the acquisition workforce to its overall

manpower and budget processes. Although far from assured, success in

this arena could allow better planning and budgeting for workforce

training and tracking changes in the workforce.

We recently reported that DOD’s efforts to streamline and consolidate the

research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) segment of its

acquisition organizations have not resulted in significant infrastructure

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-98-161 Defense Acquisition Organizations
B-279586 

reductions.3 Our further analysis of the results of one Air Force effort

confirmed our earlier conclusions that such initiatives have been unable to

overcome numerous obstacles, which often impede them.4

DOD’s Acquisition

Workforce Is Smaller,

but Potential Savings

Are Difficult to Track

and May Be Offset

Our analysis of data obtained from the Defense Manpower Data Center

(DMDC) indicates that DOD is still on schedule to achieve acquisition

workforce reductions of 25 percent by the end of fiscal year 2000. DOD

reduced its acquisition workforce 15.8 percent (or 59,974) during fiscal

years 1996 and 1997. This reduction is nearly two-thirds of the reduction of

95,153 personnel that DOD must achieve to meet its 25 percent, 5-year

target. Despite these reductions, potential savings cannot be directly

tracked in DOD budget accounts. In addition, some of the potential savings

DOD anticipates it will achieve through these reductions may be offset by

other costs.

DOD Is Still on Schedule to

Achieve Planned

Reductions

Our analysis of data obtained from DMDC indicates that during fiscal 

years 1996 and 1997, DOD reduced its acquisition workforce at a

significantly higher rate than it reduced its overall workforce. At the end of

fiscal year 1995, DOD employed 380,615 persons in its acquisition

organizations. At the end of fiscal year 1997, the total number of personnel

employed dropped to 320,641—a reduction of 59,974 (or 15.8 percent).

Since the 25-percent planned reduction by the end of fiscal year 2000 is

95,153, DOD achieved nearly two-thirds of the target during the 2-year

period. Table 1 provides an analysis of workforce reductions that have

already taken place in each of the acquisition organizations.

By contrast, at the end of fiscal years 1995 and 1997, respectively, DOD

employed 2,319,401 and 2,158,927 persons overall. This overall reduction

of 160,474 (or 6.9 percent) during the same period was less than one-half

of that achieved in DOD’s acquisition workforce.

3

DOD generally defines infrastructure as “all fixed and permanent installations, fabrications, or

facilities for the support and control of military forces.” It consists of mission supporting property,

plant, equipment, and personnel, including contractor manpower. DOD excludes the equipment and

personnel necessary to perform directly critical technical and acquisition functions.

4

See Best Practices: Elements Critical to Successfully Reducing Unneeded RDT&E Infrastructure

(GAO/NSIAD/RCED-98-23, Jan. 8, 1998).

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-98-161 Defense Acquisition Organizations
B-279586 

Table 1: Workforce Reductions in DOD’s Acquisition Organizations (fiscal years 1995-97)

Fiscal year

Organization 1995 1996 1997

Change fiscal

year 1995-97

Percent of

change fiscal

year 1995-97

Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition) 541 601 553 12 –2.2

Army

Army Information Systems Command 17,085 16,261 478 –16,607 –97.2

Army Materiel Command 66,065 61,201 58,552 –7,513 –11.4

Army Strategic Defense Command 1,031 1,024 997 –34 –3.3

Army Acquisition Executive 2,693 2,744 2,755 62 2.3

Subtotal 86,874 81,230 62,782 –24,092 –27.7

Navy

Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research,

Development, & Acquisition)

121 118 116 –5 –4.1

Naval Sea Systems Command 61,909 53,699 49,814 –12,095 –19.5

Naval Air Systems Command 32,882 30,061 26,053 –6,829 –20.8

Naval Supply Systems Command 14,539 14,031 11,417 –3,122 –21.5

Naval Facilities Engineering Command 22,441 21,854 19,419 –3,022 –13.5

Office of the Chief of Naval Research 4,274 4,182 4,021 –253 –5.9

Space and Naval Warfare Systems

Command

6,960 6,714 6,529 –431 –6.2

Navy Program Executive Officers/Direct

Reporting Program Management Officers

2,777 2,909 2,813 36 –1.3

Marine Corps Systems Command 736 738 730 –6 –0.8

Subtotal 146,639 134,306 120,912 –25,727 –17.5

Air Force

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force

(Acquisition)

485 434 428 –57 –11.8

Air Force Material Command 95,064 92,441 89,612 –5,452 5.7

Air Force Program Executive Organization 52 52 51 –1 2.0

Subtotal 95,601 92,927 90,091 –5,510 –5.8

Ballistic Missile Defense Organization 231 262 275 44 19.1

Defense Logistics Agency 50,643 47,400 45,948 –4,695 –9.3

Special Operations Command Acquisition

Center

86 87 80 –6 –7.0

Total 380,615 356,813 320,641 –59,974 –15.8

Source: DOD.

While most of the reductions in the acquisition workforce have been

achieved directly through personnel reductions, a significant portion was

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-98-161 Defense Acquisition Organizations
B-279586 

also attained by disestablishing the Army Information Systems Command

and distributing the majority of its personnel into a nonacquisition

organization (i.e., an organization outside the purview of DOD Instruction

5000.58).

Potential Savings From

Personnel Reductions

Cannot Be Precisely

Tracked in DOD’s Budget

DOD’s civilian acquisition workforce comprises nearly 40 percent of DOD’s

overall civilian workforce and is paid primarily through operations and

maintenance (O&M) and RDT&E funding.5

 The Congressional Budget Office

estimates that the average annual salary and benefits of an acquisition

worker is about $53,000. Using this average, the personnel reduction in

acquisition organizations during fiscal years 1996 and 1997 represents a

potential savings of approximately $3.2 billion.

However, DOD’s accounting systems are unable to directly track workforce

reductions in acquisition organizations to DOD budget accounts. For

example, although, since 1995, the civilian payroll portion of DOD’s O&M

budget has been reduced by approximately $3.6 billion (roughly

9 percent),6

 it is unclear how much of that decline is accounted for by

acquisition workforce reductions.

During the same period, the RDT&E account actually increased

approximately $826 million (more than 2 percent). It is also unclear how

much of that increase is accounted for by acquisition workforce changes

because DOD’s RDT&E account does not break out civilian payroll.

Potential Savings From

Personnel Reductions May

Be Offset

In addition to DOD’s inability to accurately track savings from personnel

reductions in acquisition organizations, such savings have not been and

may not be fully realized due to other offsetting costs. For example,

potential savings from acquisition workforce reductions may be offset in

part by contracting with private entities for some services previously

performed by government personnel (i.e., substituting one workforce for

another). According to a DOD official, other mission-specific costs that may

offset savings from workforce reductions include (1) investment costs,

such as early buyouts and (2) undocumented costs, such as overtime and

workforce inefficiencies introduced by personnel shortages or

inexperienced workers.

5

See Defense Budget: Analysis of Operations and Maintenance Accounts for 1985-2001

(GAO/NSIAD-97-73, Feb. 28, 1997), for additional information regarding the relationship between

payroll costs and the O&M budget account.

6

Monetary values are presented in constant 1998 dollars.

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-98-161 Defense Acquisition Organizations
B-279586 

Our analysis shows that while DOD’s acquisition workforce has declined,

defensewide contract awards for support services have increased over the

past 5 years.7

 As shown in figure 1, DOD’s spending on support services, as

a percentage of overall DOD spending on contracts, is increasing. For

example, the dollar value of DOD’s support service contracts in fiscal

year 1997 was $47.8 billion (roughly 40 percent), compared to $45.5 billion

(about 33 percent) in fiscal year 1993.8

 Although we cannot directly

correlate the increase in support service contracting to specific reductions

in the acquisition workforce, we found that support service contracts

generally increased for certain occupational fields that experienced the

largest personnel reductions, including management analyst, contracting,

administrative, and computer specialist. DOD officials stated that they have

not studied the direct correlation of outsourced activities as they relate to

mandated reductions. DOD is in the process of trying to determine cost

savings associated with outsourcing activities.

7

For the purposes of this report, the term “support services” contracts refers to contracts valued over

$25,000 identified in DOD’s Procurement Coding Manual as “other services and construction.” This

type of contract consists of 23 major categories, including technical representative services, architect

and engineering services, and professional, administrative, and management support services.

8

See also Defense Advisory and Assistance Services (GAO/NSIAD-97-166R, June 13, 1997) and

DOD Consulting Services: Erroneous Accounting and Reporting of Costs (GAO/NSIAD-98-136,

May 18, 1998).

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-98-161 Defense Acquisition Organizations
B-279586 

Figure 1: DOD Support Service Contracts as a Percentage of Total Contract Dollars (fiscal years 1993-97) 

 

93 94 95 96 97

0

20

40

60

80

Fiscal year

Percent

Service contracts

All other contracts

Source: DOD Form 350, Individual Contract Action Report.

Acquisition Workforce

Redefinition Has

Potential to Enhance

Personnel

Management

Numerous definitions have been applied to DOD’s acquisition workforce.

These definitions can greatly affect how this workforce is counted and

thus the number of personnel included. In response to congressional

direction, DOD has developed a new way to define its acquisition workforce

that it believes (1) more accurately reflects the numbers of personnel

performing acquisition functions throughout the agency and (2) has the

potential to directly link the management of acquisition personnel to DOD’s

overall manpower and budgeting systems and processes.

Acquisition Workforce

Definitions

While DOD’s acquisition workforce has been defined in numerous ways

over the years, generally one of three approaches has been used. The first

is to identify organizations with missions that fit the concept of acquisition

and to include all the people in those organizations as the acquisition

workforce. Under this approach, various segments of that workforce have

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-98-161 Defense Acquisition Organizations
B-279586 

been exempted. The first three examples in table 2 (1 through 1.b) show

the number of acquisition workforce personnel as defined by this

approach.

Table 2: DOD Acquisition Workforce

Under Various Definitions (fiscal year

1997)

Criteria Workforce

1. DOD Instruction 5000.58 (includes all civilian and military

personnel employed in covered organizations)

355,299

1.a. Section 906 National Defense Authorization Act for

FY 1996 (DOD Instruction 5000.58; exempts blue collar

depot workers)

320,641

1.b. Section 912 National Defense Authorization Act for

FY 1998 (DOD Instruction 5000.58; exempts all civilian

depot workers)

269,603

2. DAWIAa 105,000

3. DOD’s Acquisition Identification Working Group

definition (as of Dec. 18, 1997)

189,158

aDefense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act.

Source: DOD.

A second approach has been to focus on the senior professional members

of the acquisition workforce having to meet the certification requirements

of DAWIA. The act, (10 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) enacted November 5, 1990, aims

to professionalize DOD’s acquisition workforce. It requires the Secretary of

Defense to establish an acquisition workforce with specific experience,

education, and training qualifications. Specific provisions of the act

require the Secretary of Defense to (1) establish a management structure

along with policies and regulations for implementing the act’s provisions,

(2) establish qualification requirements, (3) provide training and education

to meet these requirements, and (4) enhance civilian opportunities to

progress to senior acquisition positions.

A third approach provides the basis for DOD’s new definition; that is, to

identify acquisition functions and related occupations and then identify

the people performing those functions regardless of their assigned

organization. DOD officials contend that the first approach overstates the

number of personnel involved in acquisition and excludes others

performing acquisition functions in other DOD organizations. For example,

if all individuals that are employed in the organizations included in DOD

Instruction 5000.58 (see app. I for a complete list) are identified as

acquisition personnel, such occupations as doctors and security guards

would be included. Conversely, the Defense Information Systems Agency,

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-98-161 Defense Acquisition Organizations
B-279586 

which, according to a DOD official, is the primary purchasing agent for

DOD’s information systems technology, is not listed in 5000.58 as an

acquisition organization and would not be included as part of the

acquisition workforce.

Status of DOD’s

Redefinition of Its

Acquisition Workforce

In response to the requirement contained in section 912(b) of the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, the Secretary of Defense

informed Congress that beginning October 1, 1998, members of the

acquisition workforce will be uniformly identified using an updated

version of an approach developed by the 1986 Packard Commission.9

 This

method, developed by DOD’s Acquisition Workforce Identification Working

Group in cooperation with an outside consultant, identifies the workforce

by considering occupations across DOD and occupations in certain

organizations. The workforce will be a combination of (1) certain

occupations regardless of the organizational designation, (2) certain

occupations only if employed in certain organizations, and (3) other

selected functions throughout DOD. These three categories, for the first

time, create a DOD-wide framework around which each of the military

services and defense agencies can seek consensus. The Working Group

has subsequently engaged the services and agencies in identifying the

personnel that would constitute a newly defined acquisition workforce.

The Working Group is also seeking ways to incorporate the acquisition

workforce into DOD’s manpower management and budgeting systems. One

of the Group’s primary objectives is to tie DOD-wide acquisition functions

directly to corresponding budgetary program element codes, thus linking

the acquisition workforce to DOD’s budget process for the first time. This

approach, according to the Working Group, would allow DOD to address

some specific shortfalls in its traditional approach. For example, it could

(1) improve significantly, DOD’s ability to effectively manage the

acquisition workforce in budgeting and planning for training and (2) allow

DOD to more directly identify and track the impacts of changes in the

acquisition workforce, such as reductions and potential savings.

9

See Final Report to the President by the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense

Management, June 1986.

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-98-161 Defense Acquisition Organizations
B-279586 

Air Force Laboratory

Streamlining and

Consolidation Effort

Has Limited Impact

on Size of

Infrastructure

Significant cuts in DOD’s acquisition workforce might be expected to result

in reductions in associated infrastructure. In a review of a major Air Force

laboratory reorganization, however, we found that DOD’s efforts focused

more on management efficiencies than actual infrastructure reductions.

We believe the results of DOD’s laboratory consolidation efforts are

instructive in attempting to understand the lack of change in the

infrastructure related to the acquisition workforce.

In 1996, Congress required DOD to develop a 5-year plan for restructuring

and consolidating its laboratories and test and evaluation centers. DOD’s

response was Vision 21, a plan based on the reduction, restructuring, and

revitalization of its RDT&E infrastructure.

In our report on best practices associated with restructuring the federal

RDT&E infrastructure, we pointed out that a variety of critical elements

need to be in place to ensure that any restructuring effort is successful,

and we concluded that DOD’s Vision 21 plan incorporated many of these

elements. These elements include (1) a crisis or catalyst that served to

spark action; (2) an independent authority to overcome parochialism and

political pressure that impede decision-making; (3) core missions focused

to support the organization’s overall goals and strategies; (4) clear

definitions that fully delineate the existing infrastructure; and (5) accurate,

reliable, and comparable data that capture total infrastructure costs and

utilization rates for each affected activity.

To position itself for DOD’s implementation of the Vision 21 plan, the Air

Force restructured its research laboratories. The Air Force Research

Laboratory, created in October 1997, was a consolidation of four

independent laboratories and is responsible for research and technology

development in support of the Air Force’s future and existing aircraft and

weapon systems. The specific objectives of creating a single laboratory

were to (1) streamline the laboratory organizational structure, with

emphasis on reducing the cost of operating the infrastructure;

(2) consolidate full resource ownership and accountability (dollars and

people) under a single commander; (3) reduce fragmentation of similar

technologies currently distributed among multiple technology

directorates; and (4) create a more robust, focused laboratory enterprise

postured for the future.

Under this consolidation, the independent laboratories were all

functionally consolidated as a single organization. The number of

directorates was reduced from 22 to 9, and the number of planning staffs

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-98-161 Defense Acquisition Organizations
B-279586 

was reduced from 5 to 1. Laboratory officials told us that they are now in

the process of identifying and collecting actual total operating costs, such

as civilian and military labor, base operating support, depreciation,

contract support, and equipment. These officials expect to eventually

reduce the laboratory’s management overhead by 450 positions. Although

78 percent of the Laboratory’s budget is outsourced to industry and

academia, Laboratory officials estimate that its support costs are 24 cents

per dollar of revenue, or about $591 million. The goal is to maintain the

laboratory’s support cost at 24 cents per dollar for the period 2000-2005, a

move that would save an estimated $50 million a year.

Laboratory officials told us that there were two basic reasons the closure

of major facilities was not considered as part of their consolidation efforts.

First, they believed that Congress would be unwilling to approve any

unilateral restructuring of its research facilities unless a base realignment

and closure (BRAC) process is undertaken. Second, they did not want to

preempt any action that might take place under Vision 21, which calls for a

comprehensive review of all DOD laboratories and test centers. But Vision

21 was subsequently subsumed by the Quadrennial Defense Review, which

called for two additional BRAC rounds for fiscal years 1999 and 2001. DOD

decided not to submit its legislative package for Vision 21 and instead

opted to include its RDT&E infrastructure in any future BRAC rounds.

Congress has rejected the recommendation for additional BRAC rounds.

In response to section 912(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 1998, the Secretary of Defense called for further study of

DOD’s RDT&E base.

Conclusions DOD has reduced its acquisition workforce and associated costs. Further,

DOD is on schedule to meets its 25-percent personnel reduction target.

However, the potential savings from these reductions cannot be precisely

tracked in DOD’s O&M and RDT&E budget accounts. In any case, these

anticipated savings may be offset by other costs. Furthermore, DOD has not

reduced its acquisition infrastructure to the extent that it reduced its

acquisition personnel. Further attention may be needed to achieve cuts in

the infrastructure associated with the personnel reductions.

DOD’s redefinition of its acquisition workforce appears to be based on a

solid analytical framework of identifying and linking acquisition personnel

and acquisition functions. Tying the acquisition workforce to the budget

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-98-161 Defense Acquisition Organizations
B-279586 

process, if successful, could increase the quality and timeliness of

information critical to decisionmakers.

Agency Comments We provided DOD officials with a draft of this report. DOD provided oral

comments and concurred fully with the information contained in it.

Scope and

Methodology

To determine the extent of reductions in DOD’s overall workforce and in its

acquisition workforce, we obtained employment levels, as measured by

end strength, through the end of fiscal year 1997 from DMDC located in

Monterey, California (West Division), and Washington, D.C. (East

Division). We performed analyses on various aspects of the data,

stratifying it by organization, occupational/job series, and so forth. We also

interviewed and obtained defense manpower data from officials in the

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), the

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition & Technology), and

other selected DOD components.

To examine trends in DOD O&M budget accounts, we obtained the Future

Years Defense Program’s Total Obligational Authority figures for fiscal

years 1996-99. We stratified the budget data by pay for civilian personnel

versus all other obligational authority.

To examine trends in contract awards for services, supplies, and

equipment, we retrieved contract data from DOD’s Individual Contract

Action Report for fiscal years 1993-97, stratified by year. We converted

budget, payroll, and contract data to constant 1998 dollars.

In reviewing the Air Force Research Laboratory consolidation, we

interviewed cognizant Air Force officials, to obtain their justifications and

rationale for initiating the restructuring effort. To ascertain the

Laboratory’s pre- and post-consolidation parameters, we obtained specific

data regarding the size and composition of the workforce, the number of

laboratories and sites, overlap of primary areas of research, and so forth.

We discussed various consolidation and restructuring cases with officials

in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense and other DOD components.

In determining appropriate case studies for this report, we also applied an

analytical framework developed in earlier work.

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-98-161 Defense Acquisition Organizations
B-279586 

We did not independently review the reliability of DOD’s management

information systems or databases. However, we interviewed DMDC officials

regarding their quality control procedures for minimizing sources and

chances for error. Further, we independently obtained the data and

compared the results of our analyses to those of other users of the same

database. Checking and matching of this independently derived

information gave us assurance that the data were consistent. Lastly, we

ascertained the extent to which DOD assessed the reliability of the Data

Center’s products.

We performed our work from January through May 1998 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to the Ranking Minority Member of

the House National Security Committee, the Secretary of Defense, and the

Director of the Office of Management and Budget. We will make copies

available to others upon request.

If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at

(202) 512-4841. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II.

Sincerely yours,

Katherine V. Schinasi

Associate Director,

Defense Acquisitions Issues

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-98-161 Defense Acquisition Organizations
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Defense Acquisition

Organizations

16

Appendix II 

Major Contributors to

This Report

17

Related GAO Products 20

Tables Table 1: Workforce Reductions in DOD’s Acquisition

Organizations

4

Table 2: DOD Acquisition Workforce Under Various Definitions 8

Figure Figure 1: DOD Support Service Contracts as a Percentage of

Total Contract Dollars

7

Abbreviations

BRAC base realignment and closure

DAWIA Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act

DMDC Defense Manpower Data Center

DOD Department of Defense

O&M operations and maintenance

RDT&E research, development, test, and evaluation

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-98-161 Defense Acquisition Organizations
Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-98-161 Defense Acquisition Organizations
Appendix I 

Defense Acquisition Organizations

The Department of Defense (DOD) Instruction 5000.58 states that the

mission of an acquisition organization, with its subordinate elements,

includes planning, managing, and/or executing acquisition programs that

are governed by DOD Directive 5000.1 (reference (n)), DOD Instruction

5000.2 (reference (o)), and related issuances. Specifically, these

organizations (and any successor organization of these commands) are as

follows:

• Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology)

• Army Information Systems Command1

• Army Materiel Command

• Army Strategic Defense Command (now the Army Space and Strategic

Defense Command)

• Army Acquisition Executive

• Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and

Acquisition)

• Naval Sea Systems Command

• Naval Air Systems Command

• Naval Supply Systems Command

• Naval Facilities Engineering Command

• Office of the Chief of Naval Research

• Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command

• Navy Strategic Systems Program Office

• Navy Program Executive Officers/Direct Reporting Program Manager

Organization

• Marine Corps Systems Command

• Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition)

• Air Force Systems/Air Force Logistics Commands (now the Air Force

Material Command)

• Air Force Program Executive Organization

• Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (now the Ballistic Missile

Defense Organization)

• Defense Logistics Agency

• Special Operations Command (now the Special Operations Command

Acquisition Center)

1

Disestablished as of October 1, 1996, and realigned as a major subordinate command under the Army

Forces Command, a nonacquisition organization.

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-98-161 Defense Acquisition Organizations
Appendix II 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Clifton E. Spruill, Assistant Director

James L. Morrison, Evaluator-in-Charge

Arnett Sanders, Senior Evaluator

Ray Denmark, Evaluator

Julia Kennan, Computer Specialist

Chicago Field Office Richard L. Strittmatter, Senior Evaluator

Arthur L. Cobb, Evaluator

Johnetta C. Gatlinbrown, Evaluator

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-98-161 Defense Acquisition Organizations
Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-98-161 Defense Acquisition Organizations
Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-98-161 Defense Acquisition Organizations
Related GAO Products

Best Practices: Elements Critical to Successfully Reducing Unneeded

RDT&E Infrastructure (GAO/NSIAD/RCED-98-23, Jan. 8, 1998).

Defense Acquisition Organizations: Reductions in Civilian and Military

Workforce (GAO/NSIAD-98-36R, Oct. 23, 1997).

Defense Acquisition Organizations: Changes in Cost and Size of Civilian

Workforce (GAO/NSIAD-96-46, Nov. 13, 1995).

Defense Acquisition Infrastructure: Changes in RDT&E Laboratories and

Centers (GAO/NSIAD-96-221BR, Sept. 13, 1996).

(707316) Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-98-161 Defense Acquisition Organizations
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100