Accessible Version

DEFENSE LOGISTICS

DOD Has Addressed 

Most Reporting 

Requirements and 

Continues to Refine Its 

Asset Visibility 

Strategy

Report to Congressional Committees

December 2015

GAO-16-88

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-88, a report to 

congressional committees

December 2015

DEFENSE LOGISTICS

DOD Has Addressed Most Reporting Requirements 

and Continues to Refine Its Asset Visibility Strategy

Why GAO Did This Study

DOD’s 2014 Strategy states that to 

achieve a seamless and effective 

supply chain, DOD needs to have endto-end visibility of its assets from 

acquisition to disposal and all points 

between. The Fiscal Year 2014 NDAA 

required DOD to submit to Congress a 

comprehensive strategy and plans for 

improving asset tracking and in-transit 

visibility, including 11 statutory 

elements that were specified in the 

mandate. The NDAA also included a 

provision that GAO assess the extent 

to which DOD’s strategy and 

accompanying implementation plans 

include the 11 statutory elements; 

incorporate industry best practices 

related to automated information and 

data-capture technology; effectively 

execute DOD’s IUID policies; and 

contain initiatives that align with DOD’s 

overarching goals and objectives, and 

that have been implemented. 

This report discusses the extent to 

which DOD’s Strategy, plans and other 

documentation address the items 

specified by the mandate. GAO 

assessed DOD’s 2014 Strategy and 

accompanying implementation plans 

submitted to Congress in response to 

the mandate, interviewed cognizant 

officials, and reviewed DOD’s October 

2015 Strategy.

What GAO Recommends

GAO made recommendations to DOD 

in its prior work to strengthen asset 

visibility. DOD agreed and has taken or 

is planning on taking action to address 

them. Consequently, GAO is not 

making any new recommendations in 

this report. GAO provided a draft of this 

report to DOD for advance review and 

comment. DOD did not provide any 

comments to include in this report.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) 2014 Strategy for Improving DOD Asset 

Visibility (Strategy) and accompanying implementation plans fully address 6 of 

the 11 statutory elements required by the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) and partially address the remaining 5. For example, 

the Strategy fully addressed asset visibility goals and objectives, and roles and 

responsibilities for overseeing its strategy, as required by the mandate. However, 

the Strategy did not fully address elements such as including an estimate of 

costs associated with executing its asset visibility implementation plans. In 

October 2015, DOD published its 2015 Strategy for Improving DOD Asset 

Visibility (2015 Strategy) in which it more fully addressed 4 of the 5 elements that 

were partially addressed in the 2014 Strategy. For example, the 2015 Strategy

fully addresses steps DOD is taking to facilitate collaboration with industry to 

capture best practices, as required by the mandate. However, with the 2015 

Strategy, DOD has not fully addressed the cost estimates element for three of its 

2014 implementation plans as GAO recommended in January 2015. DOD 

officials said that they did not include the cost estimates for three of the 

implementation plans because the funding for these plans was embedded within 

the overall program funding and in these cases components could not isolate 

detailed cost estimates. DOD officials said they plan to amend their guidance 

before the next update to the Strategy, expected in fall 2016, to instruct the 

components on how to explain and document such cases. 

DOD has also taken other actions as GAO recommended in May 2012 that GAO 

was required to assess with respect to asset visibility. For example, DOD’s 2014 

Strategy established milestones for implementing Item Unique Identification 

(IUID) to better track assets. In its 2015 Strategy, DOD updated these 

milestones. However, it is not always clear what progress DOD has made 

against all of the milestones set in its 2014 Strategy. For example, the milestones 

associated with updating automated information systems in the 2015 Strategy do 

not reflect progress made to date for each of the military services. GAO has 

previously reported that milestones provide decision makers with the information 

they need to assess progress and estimate realistic completion dates. If the 

updates to the Strategy do not clarify what progress DOD has made in meeting 

its previous milestones, the utility of these milestones will be limited. Officials 

agreed and commented they plan to take further action in the next update to the 

Strategy to ensure that progress that has been made is more easily understood. 

Finally, DOD’s 2014 Strategy contains 22 implementation plans, which outline 

initiatives intended to improve DOD’s asset visibility. GAO reported in January 

2015 that 6 of those 22 plans had been implemented but that it was not clear 

how the plans linked to the goals and objectives in the Strategy. Since it issued 

the 2014 Strategy, DOD has implemented an additional 10 of its original 22 

implementation plans, and has added information to its 2015 Strategy linking 

each of the ongoing plans to the overarching goals and objectives in the 2015 

Strategy. By creating a clear link between the goals and objectives in the 

Strategy and implementation plans, DOD should be better positioned to monitor 

progress toward the implementation of its initiatives and achievement of its 

overarching goals and objectives for asset visibility.

View GAO-16-88. For more information, 

contact Zina Merritt at 202-512-5257 or 

merrittz@gao.gov.
Letter 1

Page i GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

Background 4

DOD’s 2014 Strategy Fully Addresses Several of the Statutory 

Elements, and DOD’s 2015 Strategy and Implementation Plans 

Fully Address Most of the Remaining Elements 8

Agency Comments 20

Appendix I: DOD’s Implementation Plans to Improve Asset Visibility 23

Appendix II: Scope and Methodology27

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 30

GAO Contact 30

Staff Acknowledgments 30

Related GAO Products 31

Tables

Table 1: GAO’s Assessment of the Extent That the Required Statutory 

Elements Were Addressed in DOD’s 2014 Strategy and 

Accompanying Implementation Plans 10

Table 2: Implementation Plans Included in DOD’s 2014 Strategy That 

Have Been Implemented 23

Table 3: Implementation Plans Included in DOD’s 2014 Strategy That 

Were Halted 25

Table 4: Implementation Plans Included in Both DOD’s 2014 and 2015 

Strategies That Are Being Implemented 25

Table 5: Implementation Plans Included in DOD’s 2015 Strategy 26

Contents
Page ii GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

Abbreviations 

AIT Automatic Identification Technology 

CONOPS Concept of Operations

DLA Defense Logistics Agency 

DOD Department of Defense 

ERP Enterprise Resource Planning 

GCSS-J Global Combat Support System–Joint

IUID Item Unique Identification 

RDT&E Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

RFID Radio Frequency Identification 

SEP Supporting Execution Plan 

Strategy Strategy to Improve Asset Tracking and In-Transit 

Visibility, implementation plans, and report 

U.S. TRANSCOM United States Transportation Command

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product 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-16-88 Defense Logistics

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

December 22, 2015

Congressional Committees

One of the most complex and vital tasks facing the Department of 

Defense (DOD) is managing its supply chain to effectively and efficiently 

provide spare parts, food, fuel, and other critical supplies in support of 

U.S. military forces. DOD’s goal and challenge are to deliver the right 

items in the right quantities to the right place at the right time and at the 

right cost. Supply chain management encompasses the processes and 

systems for accomplishing this goal. Because of long-standing 

weaknesses in DOD’s supply chain management, we have designated it 

as a high-risk area.1In February 2013, we reported that limitations in asset 

visibility—including the visibility of assets in transit—make it difficult to 

obtain timely and accurate information on the assets that are present in 

the theater of operations.2 DOD defines asset visibility as the ability to provide 

timely and accurate information on the location, quantity, condition, 

movement, and status of items in its inventory, including assets in transit. 

One of the tools that DOD plans to use to improve asset visibility is a 

technology called Item Unique Identification (IUID). This technology 

allows DOD to assign a unique number to an individual item and then use 

that unique number to manage that item in a variety of logistics 

processes. In September 2015, the Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics issued DOD’s updated 

Instruction on IUID to establish policy and assign responsibilities for the 

process of uniquely identifying assets to enable asset accountability and 

life-cycle management.3 DOD’s January 2014 Strategy for Improving DOD 

Asset Visibility states that “to achieve a seamless and effective supply 

chain, DOD needs to have end-to-end visibility of its assets from 

 

1GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-15-290 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 2015). In 

1990, we began a program to report on government operations that we identified as “high 

risk.” Every 2 years, we call attention to agencies and program areas that are high risk 

due to their vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, or are most in 

need of transformation.

2GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-13-283 (Washington, D.C.: February 2013). 

3Department of Defense Instruction 8320.04, Item Unique Identification (IUID) Standards for 

Tangible Personal Property (Sept. 3, 2015).

Letter
acquisition to disposal and all points between. Further, maintaining 

visibility of these assets is critical to ensure that DOD meets its stated 

goals and provides support to the warfighter.”

Page 2 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

4

The Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 

required DOD to submit to Congress a comprehensive strategy and 

implementation plans for improving asset tracking and in-transit visibility, 

including 11 elements that were specified in the act.5 For example, the act 

called for DOD to include in its strategy and plans elements such as goals and 

objectives for implementing the strategy and milestones and performance 

measures for gauging results. The NDAA also included a provision that 

GAO assess the extent to which DOD’s strategy and accompanying 

implementation plans: include the 11 statutory elements; incorporate, as 

appropriate, industry best practices related to automated information and 

data-capture technologies for asset tracking and in-transit visibility; 

effectively execute the department’s efforts to implement Item Unique 

Identification (IUID); and contain initiatives that align to DOD’s 

overarching asset tracking and in-transit visibility goals and objectives 

and that have been implemented.6In October 2014, DOD submitted to 

Congress its Report to Congress on the Strategy to Improve Asset Tracking and 

In-Transit Visibility in satisfaction of its mandate.7 DOD’s 2014 report 

incorporated its 2014 Strategy for Improving DOD Asset Visibility and 

accompanying implementation plans, which DOD refers to as Supporting 

Execution Plans (SEP). We refer to the 2014 strategy document, 

implementation plans, and 2014 report collectively as the 2014 Strategy. 

DOD subsequently updated its asset visibility strategy and 

implementation plans in October 2015 (2015 Strategy).

To assess the extent to which DOD satisfied its mandate, we reviewed 

DOD’s 2014 Strategy against each of the 11 statutory elements. We 

determined that DOD’s 2014 Strategy “fully addressed” an element when 

the documents described the entire element and “partially addressed” an 

 

4Department of Defense, Strategy for Improving DOD Asset Visibility (January 2014).

5National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-66, § 326 (Dec. 

26, 2013). 

6DOD uses Automatic Identification Technology (AIT) capabilities such IUID as a tool for 

capturing data about location, quantity, and status of its assets.

7As discussed later in this report, DOD issued in October 2015 an update to its January 2014 

Strategy. 
element when the documents described some, but not all, parts of that 

element. When the documents did not explicitly reflect any part of an 

element, we determined that the element was “not addressed.” As the 

updated strategy was released during our assessment of the 2014 

Strategy, we reviewed the 2015 Strategy to determine changes made 

between 2014 and 2015. This report discusses the extent to which DOD’s 

2014 Strategy and implementation plans address the items specified in 

the mandate. We discussed with officials from the Office of the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Supply Chain Integration the elements 

that we determined were partially addressed in the 2014 Strategy and 

reviewed the 2015 Strategy to understand any ongoing efforts to address 

the elements more fully.

To determine what steps DOD has taken to incorporate industry best 

practices related to automated information and data-capture technologies 

and to implement Item Unique Identification (IUID), we reviewed DOD’s 

2014 Strategy to identify the information DOD included about industry 

best practices and IUID. We also reviewed the 2015 Strategy and 

discussed with DOD officials how the department collaborates with 

industry to identify and incorporate best practices. In September 2015, we 

attended the annual Automatic Identification Technology (AIT)

Page 3 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

8

in DOD 

Symposium, where DOD officials, government leaders, business 

executives, and academics within the AIT industry gathered to discuss 

how industry technology users implement AIT to achieve higher returns 

on investment and how technology is being used to improve asset 

visibility.

Finally, to determine what progress DOD has made in implementing its 

2014 Strategy’s implementation plans and in aligning those plans with its 

overarching goals and objectives for asset tracking and in-transit visibility, 

we reviewed DOD’s 2014 Strategy’s plans and discussed with the 

components the initiatives they had implemented or were implementing to 

improve asset visibility. We also reviewed updates to those plans that the 

 

8DOD defines AIT as a suite of technologies enabling the automatic capture of data, thereby 

enhancing the ability to identify, track, document, and control assets (e.g., materiel) and deploy 

and redeploy forces, equipment, personnel, and sustainment cargo. 
components had provided to the Asset Visibility Working Group.

Page 4 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

9

Additionally, to understand what plans were identified subsequent to the issuance 

of the 2014 Strategy, we reviewed DOD’s 2015 Strategy and discussed with 

officials the current status of all of DOD’s implementation plans. See appendix I 

for a complete list of implementation plans appearing in both the 2014 and 

2015 Strategies along with their implementation status.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2014 to December 

2015 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We provide additional 

information about our scope and methodology in appendix II.

DOD’s supply chain is a global network that provides materiel, services, 

and equipment to the joint force. DOD has had weaknesses in 

maintaining visibility of supplies, such as problems with inadequate radiofrequency identification information to track all cargo movements.

We added this area to the High-Risk List in 1990. Since that time, we 

have reported on various aspects of DOD’s supply chain, including asset 

visibility. Most recently, in our 2015 High Risk update, we reported on 

progress DOD has made in addressing weaknesses in its asset visibility, 

including developing its 2014 Strategy for Improving DOD Asset 

Visibility.

10

In May 2012, we evaluated DOD’s implementation of IUID and found that 

the department had taken some steps to improve its approach to 

implementing IUID technology but had not employed best management 

practices, such as goals and interim milestones, for gauging its progress 

 

9The Asset Visibility Working Group, comprising representatives of each of the military services, 

U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM), Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), and Joint 

Staff, is responsible for monitoring the execution of the initiatives outlined in the 

implementation plans. The components report the status of their initiatives to this group on 

a quarterly basis.

10GAO-15-290. 

Background

DOD’s Implementation of 

IUID
in implementing IUID.

Page 5 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

11 Further, we found that DOD’s ability to track and 

share IUID data across components was hampered because the data were not 

fully integrated into the components’ enterprise information systems. DOD 

had not developed complete, integrated master schedules for integrating 

IUID DOD-wide and within the components’ systems. In 2012, we 

recommended several actions, including that DOD (1) develop 

quantifiable goals and milestones for marking its legacy items that would 

allow it to track progress toward those goals and (2) develop or revise 

master schedules for integrating IUID technology into the components’ 

Enterprise Resource Planning Systems.12 DOD concurred with these 

recommendations and stated that its IUID working group would establish 

interim milestones to track the progress of marking its legacy assets. 

Actions DOD has taken to address this recommendation in its 2014 and 

2015 strategies are discussed later in this report.

In February 2013, we reviewed DOD’s draft strategy for in-transit visibility 

and found that it included some, but not all of the elements GAO had 

previously identified as necessary for a comprehensive strategic plan, 

including a mission statement; a problem definition, scope, and 

methodology; goals and objectives; activities, milestones, and 

performance measures; resources and investments; information about 

organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination; and a description 

of key external factors that could affect the achievement of goals.13 At that 

time, we found that the 2013 draft strategy fully included one of the seven 

elements of a comprehensive strategic plan, partially included four elements, 

and did not include two elements. For example, we found it included 

overarching goals and objectives, but it did not include information on 

DOD’s planned resources and investments to achieve those goals or key 

external factors that could affect the achievement of the goals. We 

recommended that DOD finalize its 2013 draft strategy and ensure that it 

 

11GAO, Defense Logistics: Improvements Needed to Enhance DOD’s Management Approach and 

Implementation of Item Unique Identification Technology, GAO-12-482 (Washington, D.C.: 

May 3, 2012).

12These automated systems consist of multiple, integrated functional modules that perform a variety 

of business-related tasks, such as general-ledger accounting, payroll, and supply chain 

management.

13GAO, Defense Logistics: A Completed Comprehensive Strategy is Needed to Guide 

DOD’s In-Transit Visibility Efforts, GAO-13-201 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2013). 

DOD’s Draft Strategy for 

In-Transit Visibility
contained all the key elements of a comprehensive strategic plan, 

including the elements that were not included in the draft strategy. DOD 

concurred with our recommendation and developed its 2014 Strategy for 

Improving DOD Asset Visibility. We discuss the extent to which DOD 

included many of these elements later in this report.

In January 2014, DOD issued its Strategy for Improving DOD Asset 

Visibility.

Page 6 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

14 The 2014 Strategy included 22 implementation plans developed by 

the components that outlined initiatives intended to improve asset visibility.15 We 

reviewed DOD’s 2014 Strategy and reported in January 2015 that it included 

five of the seven elements of a comprehensive strategic plan but only 

partially included the other two elements.16 For example, 4 of the 22 

implementation plans did not include resources, investments, and key external 

factors.17 As part of our January 2015 report, we recommended that DOD take 

four actions to improve its management of asset visibility including that DOD 

include information in subsequent updates to the Strategy and accompanying 

SEPs about which elements were used in developing cost estimates for 

resources and investments. DOD again concurred with our 

recommendations and stated in written comments included in the January 

2015 report that it planned to address all four of our recommendations in 

its forthcoming 2015 Strategy. We discuss the status of these 

recommendations later in this report.

 

14DOD issued its 2014 Strategy in January 2014, and later, in October 2014, issued its Report to 

Congress, which incorporated its 2014 Strategy.

15We use the term components to refer to all of the organizations involved in delivering logistics 

capabilities to the warfighters, including the Joint Staff, DLA, U.S. Transportation Command 

(TRANSCOM), and each of the military services.

16GAO, Defense Logistics: DOD Has a Strategy and Has Taken Steps to Improve its Asset 

Visibility, But Further Actions are Needed, GAO-15-148 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 27, 2015). 

17Resources and investments are the costs to implement the strategy and the sources and types of 

resources and investments required to meet the goals and objectives in the strategy. Key external 

factors are factors external to the organization and beyond its control that could significantly 

affect the achievement of the long-term goals contained in the strategy. 

DOD’s First Strategy for 

Improving DOD Asset 

Visibility
In February 2015, GAO issued its 2015 High-Risk Series Update, which 

included DOD’s Supply Chain Management.

Page 7 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

18 For DOD asset visibility, we 

reported that DOD had demonstrated leadership commitment and had 

made considerable progress in addressing the remaining four criteria for 

removal from the High-Risk List (capacity, corrective-action plan, 

monitoring, and demonstrated progress) through actions like developing 

its 2014 Strategy. We reported that DOD needed to take a number of 

actions to address the remaining four high-risk criteria that it had partially 

met. Specifically, DOD needed to include information in updates to the 

2014 Strategy on the factors it had used in developing cost estimates for 

resources and investments. We also advised that DOD needed to clearly 

specify the linkage between the goals and objectives in the 2014 Strategy 

and the plans intended to implement it. We reported that DOD should 

assess, and refine as appropriate, existing performance measures to 

ensure that these measures assess implementation of individual plans as 

well as progress toward achieving the overarching goals and objectives 

outlined in the 2014 Strategy. Lastly, we reported that DOD needed to 

continue implementing the plans identified in the 2014 Strategy, refining 

them over time as appropriate, and demonstrating that implementation of 

these plans results in measurable outcomes and progress toward 

realizing the goals and objectives in the 2014 Strategy. DOD concurred, 

and the status is discussed later in this report.

In October 2015, DOD issued its update to the 2014 Strategy. Like its 

predecessor, DOD’s 2015 Strategy states that it is intended to create a 

framework whereby the DOD components can work collaboratively to 

enhance asset visibility in a manner that provides accurate, reliable, and 

timely data to track assets throughout their life cycle.

 

18GAO-15-290. GAO’s high-risk program serves to identify and help resolve serious 

weaknesses in areas that involve substantial resources and provide critical services to the 

public. There are five criteria for removal from the list, including leadership commitment, 

capacity, a corrective-action plan, monitoring, and demonstrated progress. Updates to the 

High-Risk List are made biennially. The most recent update was in February 2015 and it 

included DOD Supply Chain Management, which encompasses inventory management, 

materiel distribution, and asset visibility. 

GAO’s High-Risk List

DOD’s Update to the 2014 

Strategy
DOD’s 2014 Strategy and accompanying implementation plans fully 

address six and partially address five of the statutory elements set forth in 

the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act; and DOD’s 

2015 Strategy and accompanying implementation plans address 

additional information for most of the statutory elements, including fully 

addressing four of the five elements that were partially addressed in the 

2014 Strategy. DOD’s 2014 Strategy and implementation plans contain 

limited information on its collaboration efforts with industry to identify and 

incorporate best practices, but its 2015 Strategy provides more 

information on its efforts to collaborate with industry, including examples 

where that collaboration has resulted in initiatives intended to improve 

asset visibility. Additionally, DOD continues to make progress in 

addressing weaknesses in its implementation of IUID by establishing in its 

2014 Strategy milestones for its implementation of IUID. Finally, in its 

2014 Strategy, DOD identified 22 implementation plans but did not link its 

plans with the Strategy’s overarching goals and objectives. DOD has 

implemented 16 of its original 22 implementation plans and has identified 

in its 2015 Strategy new plans that link to the overarching goals and 

objectives in the 2015 Strategy.

We reviewed DOD’s 2014 Strategy and determined that the documents 

fully addressed 6 of the 11 statutory elements and partially addressed the 

remaining 5 (see table 1). Specifically, DOD’s 2014 Strategy fully 

addressed the following 6 elements: (1) overarching goals and objectives 

desired from implementation of the strategy; (2) a description of steps to 

achieve these goals and objectives, as well as milestones and 

performance measures to gauge results; (3) a description of the roles and 

responsibilities for managing and overseeing and implementing the 

Strategy; (4) a detailed description of asset marking requirements and 

how automated information and data-capture technologies could improve 

readiness, cost effectiveness, and performance; (5) a defined list of all 

categories of items that program managers are required to identify for the 

purposes of asset marking; and (6) a description of steps to improve 

asset tracking and in-transit visibility for classified programs. For example, 

we determined that DOD’s 2014 Strategy and accompanying 

implementation plans fully addressed roles and responsibilities for 

managing and overseeing the Strategy because they discuss the 

management structure established to oversee the execution and track 

progress. The 2014 Strategy also assigns roles and responsibilities and 

discusses several forums or working groups, such as the Asset Visibility 

Working Group, that provide a forum for discussion and input on 

improvements to asset visibility.

Page 8 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

DOD’s 2014 Strategy

Fully Addresses 

Several of the 

Statutory Elements, 

and DOD’s 2015 

Strategy and 

Implementation Plans 

Fully Address Most of 

the Remaining 

Elements

DOD’s 2014 Strategy and 

Accompanying 

Implementation Plans 

Fully Address Six and 

Partially Address Five of 

the Statutory Elements, 

and its 2015 Strategy Fully 

Addresses Four of the 

Five Elements Previously 

Reported as Partially 

Addressed in the 2014 

Strategy
However, not all of the statutory elements were fully addressed. 

Specifically, the following 5 elements were partially addressed in the 2014 

Strategy: (1) an estimate of the costs associated with executing the plan, 

and the sources and types of resources and investments required to meet 

the goals and objectives; (2) a description of key factors external to DOD 

and beyond its control that could significantly affect achievement of the 

long-term goals contained in the strategy; (3) steps to be undertaken to 

facilitate collaboration with industry designed to capture best practices, 

lessons learned, and any relevant technical matters; (4) a description of 

how improved asset tracking and in-transit visibility could enhance audit 

readiness, reduce counterfeit risk, enhance logistical processes, and 

otherwise benefit DOD; and (5) an operational security assessment 

designed to ensure that all DOD assets are appropriately protected during 

the execution of the strategy and implementation plan. For example, we 

determined that an operational security assessment was partially 

addressed, because while the 2014 Strategy provided examples of 

safeguards that are either in place or planned to ensure the security of 

DOD assets, it is not clear whether an operational security assessment 

had been conducted and, if it has, what the results of that assessment 

were.

Table 1 includes our assessment of the extent to which DOD’s 2014 

Strategy addressed the 11 statutory elements. Additionally, since DOD 

issued its 2015 Strategy during our review, we assessed the 2015 

Strategy for changes to the strategy from 2014 through 2015.

Page 9 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics
Table 1: GAO’s Assessment of the Extent That the Required Statutory Elements Were Addressed in DOD’s 2014 Strategy and 

Page 10 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

Accompanying Implementation Plans 

Description of required elements

GAO’s 

assessmenta

Department of Defense (DOD) actions toward 

addressing required elements 

1. The overarching goals and objectives desired 

from implementation of the Strategy.

Fully Addressed The overall purpose, as well as the overarching goals and 

objectives, of the Strategy are explicitly stated.

2. A description of steps to achieve those goals 

and objectives, as well as milestones and 

performance measures to gauge results.

Fully Addressed The Strategy included implementation plans that build on

efforts to-date to improve asset visibility and material 

visibility. These plans describe the approach for 

addressing specific process, data and technical 

improvements, and logistics-related opportunities that 

would measurably improve asset visibility. The plans 

included implementation milestones and performance 

measures. 

3. An estimate of the costs associated with 

executing the plan, and the sources and types 

of resources and investments, including the 

skills, technology, human capital, information, 

and other resources, required to meet the goals 

and objectives.

Partially 

Addressed

The majority of the implementation plans included in the 

2014 Strategy contains cost estimates but does not show 

what elements were included in those estimates. Further, 

three of the 22 plans show that either cost has yet to be 

determined or cost information is missing. 

4. A description of roles and responsibilities for 

managing and overseeing the implementation of 

the strategy, including the role of program 

managers, and the establishment of 

mechanisms for multiple stakeholders to 

coordinate their efforts throughout 

implementation and make necessary 

adjustments to the strategy based on 

performance.

Fully Addressed The 2014 Strategy outlines the management structure 

established to oversee the Strategy’s execution and to 

track progress. The Strategy also assigns roles and 

responsibilities and discusses several working groups, 

such as the Asset Visibility Working Group, that provide a 

management structure for discussion and input on 

improvements to asset visibility. 

5. A description of key factors external to DOD 

and beyond its control that could significantly 

affect achievement of the long-term goals 

contained in the strategy.

Partially 

Addressed

The implementation plans are structured to identify 

internal and external factors that may inhibit the 

achievement of plan objectives, but three of the plans in 

the 2014 Strategy do not address key external factors.

6. A detailed description of asset marking 

requirements and how automated information 

and data-capture technologies could improve 

readiness, cost effectiveness, and performance.

Fully Addressed The 2014 Strategy says that this element is covered by 

multiple sources, including DOD Instruction 8320.04 and 

DOD Manual 4140.01 (vol. 9), DOD Supply Chain Materiel 

Management Procedures: Materiel Programs (Feb. 10, 

2014), and outlines the military standard 130N, DOD 

Standard Practice Identification Marking of U.S. Military 

Property (Nov. 16, 2012), as providing item marking 

criteria and methods of identification for military items. It 

also discusses specific areas where automated 

identification and information systems can help improve 

readiness, cost effectiveness, and performance.

7. A defined list of all categories of items that 

program managers are required to identify for 

the purposes of asset marking.

Fully Addressed The target population of items for Item Unique 

Identification (IUID) marking is included in the 2014 

Strategy. 
Page 11 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

Description of required elements

GAO’s 

assessmenta

Department of Defense (DOD) actions toward 

addressing required elements 

8. A description of steps to improve asset tracking 

and in-transit visibility for classified programs.

Fully Addressed DOD’s 2014 Strategy cites DOD Manual 4140.01 (vol. 

11), DOD Supply Chain Materiel Management 

Procedures: Management of Critical Safety Items, 

Controlled Inventory Items Including Nuclear WeaponsRelated Materiel (Feb. 10, 2014), as providing the 

responsibilities and procedures requiring DOD 

components to apply the highest level of materiel 

accountability, control, visibility, protection, and 

identification to the stewardship of critical safety items and 

controlled inventory items (classified, sensitive, and 

pilferable) commensurate with the risk of materiel release. 

9. Steps to be undertaken to facilitate collaboration 

with industry designed to capture best practices, 

lessons learned, and any relevant technical

matters.

Partially 

Addressed

The 2014 Strategy and plans had some limited 

information on collaboration with industry and few 

examples of where that collaboration has resulted in 

initiatives and improved asset visibility. 

10. A description of how improved asset tracking 

and in-transit visibility could enhance audit 

readiness, reduce counterfeit risk, enhance 

logistical processes, and otherwise benefit 

DOD.

Partially 

Addressed

The 2014 Strategy had some limited information on how 

improved asset visibility could enhance audit readiness, 

reduce counterfeit risk, enhance logistical processes, and 

otherwise benefit DOD. The 2014 Strategy includes a 

description of how condition and location information will 

improve DOD’s management of its supplies. 

11. An operational security assessment designed to 

ensure that all DOD assets are appropriately 

protected during the execution of the strategy 

and implementation plan.

Partially 

Addressed

DOD’s 2014 Strategy provides examples of safeguards 

that are in place or planned to ensure the security of DOD 

assets. However, it is not clear from this information 

whether an operational security assessment has been 

conducted and, if it has, what the results of that 

assessment were. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.| GAO-16-88

aWe determined that the 2014 Strategy, which includes DOD’s October 2014 Report to Congress on 

the Strategy to Improve Asset Tracking and In-Transit Visibility, and its 2014 Strategy for Improving 

DOD Asset Visibility with accompanying implementation plans “fully addressed” an element when 

they described the entire element and “partially addressed” an element when they described some, 

but not all, parts of that element.

In addition to assessing DOD’s 2014 Strategy and accompanying 

implementation plans to determine the extent to which DOD satisfied its 

mandate, we also reviewed DOD’s 2015 Strategy, which was issued in 

October 2015, to determine changes that had been made between 2014 

and 2015. We found that four of the five elements that were partially 

addressed in the 2014 Strategy are fully addressed in the 2015 Strategy. 

Specifically, in its 2015 Strategy, DOD fully addresses

· a description of key factors external to DOD and beyond its control 

that could significantly affect achievement of the long-term goals 

contained in the strategy;
· steps to be undertaken to facilitate collaboration with industry 

designed to capture best practices, lessons learned, and any relevant 

technical matters;

· a description of how improved asset tracking and in-transit visibility 

could enhance audit readiness, reduce counterfeit risk, enhance 

logistical processes, and otherwise benefit DOD; and

· an operational security assessment designed to ensure that DOD 

assets are appropriately protected during the execution of the strategy 

and implementation plan.

For example, DOD has added detailed discussion to its 2015 Strategy

regarding the steps it is taking to collaborate with industry to capture best 

practices, lessons learned, and any relevant technical matters, including 

examples of where that collaboration led it to incorporate commercial 

automated information and data-capture technologies. The 2015 Strategy

discusses DOD’s migration of active Radio Frequency Identification 

(RFID)

Page 12 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

19 from a proprietary communication standard protocol to an international 

standard to increase competition and lower costs and its partnership with a 

satellite tag provider to improve cargo tracking and the security of 

containerized cargo, to enable advanced cargo tracking. Additionally, 

DOD’s 2015 Strategy explains how IUID information will, among other 

things, support “logistics support decisions,” reduce the introduction of 

counterfeit parts into the supply chain, and support the achievement of 

clean audit opinions on DOD’s financial statements. Further, the 2015 

Strategy contains criteria to assist DOD in determining the operational 

risk associated with the loss (damage, pilferage, etc.) of parts and 

equipment, to include determining which DOD assets require a higher 

level of security and management using IUID marking.

One statutory element—an estimate of the costs associated with 

executing the plan, and the sources and types of resources and 

investments, including skills, technology, human capital, information and 

other resources, required to meet goals and objectives—remains partially 

addressed in DOD’s 2015 Strategy. The 2015 Strategy calls for the 

components to consider items such as manpower, materiel, and 

 

19RFID is a family of technologies enabling hands-off processing of materiel deploying through the 

Defense Transportation System. Materiel marked with RFID tags may be remotely identified, 

categorized, and located automatically within relatively short distances. Active RFID tags can 

hold relatively large amounts of data, are continuously powered, and are normally used 

when a longer tag read distance is desired. Passive RFID tags temporarily store a small 

amount of energy received from the tag reader in order to generate a tag response. 

Passive RFID is used at the item, case, or pallet level. 
sustainment costs when documenting cost estimates for the 

implementation plans. However, our review of the 2015 Strategy showed 

that three of the implementation plans do not include cost estimates. We 

recommended in our January 2015 report that DOD include information 

about which elements were used in developing cost estimates in 

subsequent updates to the strategy and accompanying implementation 

plans.

Page 13 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

20 Further, we reported in our February 2015 High Risk report that these 

cost estimates are important to ensure that DOD has the information it 

needs to make well-informed decisions about asset visibility, including 

setting budget priorities.21 Officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Supply Chain Integration told us that the 

components did not include the cost estimates for the three 

implementation plans, pointing out that the funding for these plans is 

embedded within the overall program funding and it is impossible for the 

components to estimate the portion of total program funding associated 

with the plans. For example, two of the three plans that did not contain 

cost estimates are intended to enhance the capability of the Global 

Combat Support System–Joint (GCSS-J) to provide asset visibility and 

are funded by overall program funding for the GCSS-J rather than funding 

for the individual asset visibility implementation plans. Component 

officials argue that it is therefore impossible to isolate the costs 

associated with these implementation plans. We understand that the 

components may fund these initiatives from total program funding; and 

therefore, may not estimate the costs associated with the plan. However, 

without any idea of the cost associated with these plans, the components 

may be unable to determine the return on investment associated with 

them. We continue to believe DOD should follow its direction provided in 

the 2015 Strategy and require the components to estimate the costs 

associated with its implementation plans intended to improve asset 

visibility, as we have previously recommended. In October 2015, officials 

stated that DOD plans to provide direction in the next annual update to 

the Strategy on how to explain and document these cases, although they 

commented that there will be cases where the components may not be 

able to isolate the costs associated with an implementation plan.

 

20GAO-15-148.

21GAO-15-290.
As previously mentioned, DOD’s 2014 Strategy contained limited 

information on DOD’s efforts to collaborate with industry to identify and 

incorporate best practices. The 2014 Strategy includes phrases like 

“capitalization on better business processes,” but provides little 

explanation of how DOD is incorporating or has incorporated business 

best practices and lessons learned into its plans for improving asset 

visibility. DOD’s 2014 Strategy states that this element will be discussed 

in DOD’s 2015 Strategy. The 2014 Strategy further comments that DOD 

has numerous processes to keep abreast of and to evaluate or 

incorporate emerging technologies that show promise for enhancing DOD 

business processes, including participation or membership in the various 

AIT standards bodies, review of trade journals, and participation in trade 

forums. The 2014 Strategy references symposiums, such as DOD’s AIT 

in DOD Summit, where AIT industry leaders and international and DOD 

standards representatives meet to review AIT lessons learned, among 

other things.

Our review of DOD’s 2015 Strategy and implementation plans found that 

DOD has added information on its collaboration with industry to

incorporate best practices, and has provided examples of where this 

collaboration has resulted in improvements to asset visibility. For 

example, DOD discusses the processes it utilizes for identifying and 

evaluating emerging technologies, such as participating in the AIT 

standards bodies and trade forums and DOD’s Research, Development, 

Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) program. Additionally, as discussed in 

DOD’s 2015 Strategy, DOD worked with commercial partners to 

incorporate passive RFID to improve the accuracy of its inventory and 

decrease processing time for new recruits at Lackland Air Force Base.

Page 14 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

22

In some cases, the 2015 Strategy discusses results achieved from this 

collaboration in terms of the performance metrics for the initiatives. For 

example, DOD reported testing the application of passive RFID at 

Lackland Air Force Base, which it found improved its inventory accuracy 

and reduced the time for processing recruits by over 50 percent. DOD 

also reported working with a commercial provider to improve cargo 

tracking and the security of containerized cargo. Specifically, DOD 

reports that by using an industry-proven process where the logistics 

provider—industry—owns the tracking system; DOD is able to track cargo 

 

22Passive RFID is used to improve the initial process for issuing uniforms to recruits at 

DOD’s basic training facilities. 

DOD Provided Limited 

Information in the 2014 

Strategy on Its 

Collaboration with Industry 

but Addressed the Issue 

More Fully in Its 2015 

Strategy
in a more affordable way. Key practices for effective collaboration call for 

agencies to, among other things, develop mechanisms to monitor, 

evaluate, and report on results of their collaborative efforts.

Page 15 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

23 Officials from 

the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Supply Chain 

Integration agreed that they should continue to discuss more in future updates to 

the Strategy improvements achieved for the initiatives resulting from 

collaboration with industry and stated that they are continuing to work with 

the components to assess the results stemming from the initiatives that 

have been implemented.

DOD’s 2014 Strategy demonstrates progress in establishing milestones 

for implementing IUID, and DOD recently updated its instruction for IUID 

marking. In its 2014 Strategy, DOD provides an integrated master 

schedule for IUID implementation with interim milestones for fiscal years 

2013 through 2017. Specifically, DOD provides an integrated master 

schedule showing, at the department level, issues such as marking 

legacy items, training, and system updates and hardware that need to be 

addressed to implement IUID—and the interim milestones associated 

with each of these issues. In addition, DOD provides a schedule for an 

IUID automated information system update and an IUID item marking 

schedule by component. These schedules provide interim milestones for 

each of the components that are intended to illustrate planned timelines 

for integrating IUID information into enterprise planning systems and for 

marking IUID items.

As we found in 2012, DOD faces challenges with the integration of IUID 

data into the components’ enterprise information systems.24 This problem 

is not unique to IUID, as evidenced by our March 2014 report on ammunition 

where we found the automated information systems used by the military 

services to manage and maintain accountability for DOD’s ammunition 

inventory have limitations that affect their ability to facilitate efficient 

management of conventional ammunition, including that the systems 

 

23GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Sustain Collaboration among 

Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). GAO identified these 

practices by reviewing its body of work in this area and interviewing experts in the area of 

collaboration. 

24GAO-12-482.

DOD Has Established 

Milestones for IUID 

Implementation in Its 2014

Strategy, and Has 

Updated Its IUID 

Instruction, but 

Implementation 

Challenges Remain
cannot directly exchange ammunition data with each other.

Page 16 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

25 Specifically, 

we found that several of the systems involved in DOD’s overarching Enterprise 

Resource Planning (ERP) system were not being implemented on schedule and 

on budget.26 DOD officials have said that successful implementation of 

ERP, which has not yet occurred, is key to resolving the long-standing 

weaknesses in the department’s business operations in areas such as 

supply chain management and improving the department’s capability to 

provide DOD management and Congress with accurate and reliable 

information on the results of its operations. Specifically, DOD’s goal is for 

the components to share IUID data across many of their individual IT 

systems, and DOD-wide, between components. In order to accomplish 

enterprise-wide data sharing of this data, DOD officials stated that the 

components intended to use certain IT systems referred to as ERP 

systems. Absent successful integration of ERP, DOD is getting limited 

use from its IUID information, as only a few systems are able to recognize 

and use IUID data.

On September 3, 2015, DOD issued an update to its Instruction 8320.04, 

Item Unique Identification Standards for Tangible Personal Property. We 

reviewed the updated DOD Instruction 8320.04, which includes a decision 

tree that is intended to assist DOD components in determining which 

items should be IUID marked based on criteria such as whether the item 

is susceptible to counterfeiting.27 DOD has reported that the use of IUID could 

improve the accountability and maintenance of its components’ property 

and equipment. For example, by sharing unique item identification data 

across the components’ IT systems, DOD could follow equipment as it 

moves between components. In addition, a component could use these 

data in its IT systems to more quickly identify items that require higher 

amounts of maintenance. DOD’s 2015 Strategy includes updated 

milestones for IUID marking and schedules for updating automated 

information systems by component for fiscal years 2015 through 2019 

(the 2014 Strategy includes schedules for fiscal years 2013 through 

 

25GAO, Defense Logistics: Actions Needed to Improve Department-Wide Management of 

Conventional Ammunition Inventory, GAO-14-182 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2014).

26GAO, DOD Business Transformation: Improved Management Oversight of Business 

System Modernization Efforts Needed, GAO-11-53 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7, 2010). 

27According to DOD Instruction 8320.04, unique IUID identifiers are established to enable 

items to be tracked and traced throughout their life cycle in acquisition and logistics 

business processes and systems, in an integrated approach across DOD.
2017). However, it is not always clear what progress DOD has made 

against the original milestones set in its 2014 Strategy. Specifically, while 

DOD’s milestones for IUID marking in the 2015 Strategy include goals for 

percentages of items marked for all of the components, it is not clear what 

percentage of items have been marked to-date for each of the services. 

For example, while the Navy shows goals for the percentage of items it 

would like to have IUID marked by fiscal year 2018 and beyond, it does 

not show what percentage of items have been marked against that goal. 

Similarly, the milestones for updating automated information systems do 

not show progress made to-date. DOD officials agreed that it is not clear 

what progress has been made in meeting the milestones for fiscal years 

2013 and 2014 for updating the military services’ automated information 

systems and have added legends to the milestone charts and language in 

the Strategy to clarify the progress that has been made. However, in 

comparing the milestones in the 2014 Strategy and those in the 2015 

Strategy, we are still unable to determine which of DOD’s milestones for 

IUID marking and updating automated information systems have been 

achieved.

We have previously concluded that milestones provide decision makers 

with the information they need to assess progress and estimate realistic 

completion dates.

Page 17 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

28 In May 2012, we recommended that DOD establish 

quantifiable interim milestones for IUID marking of legacy items, which would 

allow DOD to track progress toward its goals for IUID marking.29 We also 

recommended that DOD develop or revise integrated master schedules 

for the integration of IUID technology within the components ERP 

systems. While DOD’s establishment of milestones for its IUID 

implementation efforts is a positive step, the utility of those milestones will 

be limited if it is unclear with each update of the Strategy what progress 

DOD has made in achieving its previous milestones and how that is 

affecting timelines in its 2015 Strategy. We discussed the milestones with 

officials to determine whether further updates were planned to make it 

more apparent what progress had been made against its 2014 milestones 

for IUID marking and automated information system updates, and officials 

agreed it was not altogether clear what progress had been made against 

the IUID milestones, particularly those associated with updating 

automated information systems. In an attempt to add clarity, DOD revised 

 

28GAO-12-482.

29GAO-12-482.
its IUID milestones for automated information system updates in the 2015 

Strategy to reflect progress made by the Army and Marine Corps in 

updating their systems to read and share IUID data. The officials stated 

they are committed to further revising the milestones to provide insight on 

the progress that has been made in meeting interim milestones for 

integrating IUID data into DOD’s automated systems. DOD officials 

commented in October 2015 that they will continue to capture IUID 

progress and plan to update the format for the automated information 

systems milestones to ensure that progress that has been made is more 

easily understood.

Since issuing its 2014 Strategy, DOD has implemented 16 of its original 

22 implementation plans included in its 2014 Strategy. However, DOD did 

not link its implementation plans with the 2014 Strategy’s overarching 

goals and objectives. DOD added eight new implementation plans to its 

2015 Strategy and linked each of these plans to the 2015 Strategy’s

overarching goals and objectives. Aligning agency-wide goals and 

objectives with strategies to achieve those goals and objectives is a key 

practice that could increase the effectiveness of DOD’s efforts to improve 

asset visibility.

Page 18 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

30 Further, leading practices to promote successful data-driven 

performance reviews include ensuring alignment between agency goals, program 

activities, and resources.31

DOD identified, in its 2014 Strategy, 22 implementation plans, which 

outline initiatives intended to improve asset visibility. The 2014 Strategy

states that implementation plans detailing new initiatives identified by the 

components will be included in future versions of the Strategy. The 

Strategy also contains overarching goals and objectives for improving 

asset visibility. In January 2015, we found that 6 of the 22 implementation 

plans included in DOD’s 2014 Strategy had been implemented.32 For 

example, in 2014, U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) 

 

30GAO, Managing for Results: Critical Issues for Improving Federal Agencies’ Strategic Plans, 

GAO/GGD-97-180 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 16, 1997). 

31GAO, Managing for Results: Data-Driven Performance Reviews Show Promise But Agencies 

Should Explore How to Involve Other Relevant Agencies, GAO-13-228 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 

27, 2013). 

32GAO-15-148.

DOD Continues to 

Implement Many of the 

Initiatives Identified in Its 

2014 Strategy, and Has 

Identified New Initiatives in 

Its 2015 Strategy While 

Linking Them to Its 

Overarching Goals and 

Objectives
implemented

Page 19 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

33 a plan intended to create an integrated system for asset visibility 

information that is included in transportation and supply data systems and is now 

being used to enhance asset visibility. According to DOD, this new integrated 

system provides users with a single portal for viewing integrated supply 

and transportation data, making it possible to support virtually any 

business process with improved asset visibility.

We reported in January 2015 that the 2014 Strategy calls for components 

to identify at least one metric for assessing the implementation of each of 

its plans that are intended to improve asset visibility. However, the 2014 

Strategy did not require that metrics developed for the plans link back to 

the goals or objectives in the 2014 Strategy, and we found that it was not 

clear whether the metrics link to the goals and objectives. Without 

creating a clear link between the goals and objectives in the 2014 

Strategy and the plans intended to implement the 2014 Strategy, it will be 

difficult for DOD to assess progress toward realizing its goals and 

objectives. Therefore, we recommended that DOD ensure that the linkage 

between the performance measures for the individual plans and the goals 

and objectives outlined in the 2014 Strategy is clear. DOD concurred with 

our recommendation.

Subsequent to issuance of its 2014 Strategy, DOD implemented an 

additional 10 of the 22 original plans. For example, the U.S. Marine 

Corps’ Blount Island Command has implemented long-range passive 

RFID for visibility and accountability of items, resulting in improvements 

including an increased range for “reading” an item—from up to 30 feet to 

up to 240 feet—and reduced inventory cycle times from 12 days to 10 

hours. Additionally, the Joint Staff has implemented its plan to develop intransit visibility capabilities within the Global Combat Support SystemJoint (GCSS-J), a web-based logistics program that was developed to 

provide logisticians with visibility and decision support tools to effectively 

plan and execute joint logistics support for current and future operations. 

According to DOD, GCSS-J has dramatically improved functionality over 

the last several program releases to access and visualize logistics 

information. Also, after the release of the most recent software version, 

 

33For the purposes of the report, we describe the status of an implementation plan as being either 

“implemented” or “halted.” Implementation plans that have been implemented or halted are 

then recommended for closure, which is approved by the Asset Visibility Working Group 

(AVWG). 
users graded GCSS-J as having exceeded their expectations with a 96 

percent customer satisfaction rating.

While the 2014 Strategy introduced 22 implementation plans intended to 

improve asset visibility, the 2015 Strategy introduced additional plans. 

Specifically, DOD has added eight new implementation plans to its 2015 

Strategy. For example, the U.S. Air Force’s Global Enterprise Tracking 

initiative uses real-time location system technology to track aircraft and 

critical assets and is expected to reduce the time required for these 

assets to get through depots. Additionally, the Non-Nodal In-Transit 

Visibility plan is expected to improve combat effectiveness by providing 

near real-time visibility of sustainment cargo and confirmation of delivery 

of the cargo to tactical units. An overview of the initiatives included in 

DOD’s 2014 and 2015 Strategies and implementation plans is included at 

appendix I of this report.

The 2015 Strategy also includes matrices that link each of DOD’s ongoing 

implementation plans

Page 20 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

34 to the Strategy’s overarching goals and objectives. 

Additionally, measures of performance and effectiveness have been identified for 

each plan. For example, the measure of performance for the Navy’s 

passive RFID plan for the Littoral Combat Ship is to conduct a technical 

assessment and one of its measures of effectiveness is to reduce 

inventory workload by 50 percent. By creating a clear link between the 

goals and objectives in the Strategy and the implementation plans 

intended to implement the Strategy, as well as identifying measures of 

performance and effectiveness, DOD should be better positioned to 

monitor progress toward the implementation of its plans and achievement 

of its overarching goals and objectives for asset visibility.

We are not making recommendations in this report. We provided a draft 

of this report to DOD for advance review and comment. DOD did not 

provide any comments to include in this report.

 

34Ongoing implementation plans are those included in the 2014 Strategy that are not yet 

implemented or closed as well as new plans identified in the 2015 Strategy. 

Agency Comments 
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees and the Secretary of Defense. In addition, the report is 

available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-5257 or merrittz@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix 

III.

Zina D. Merritt

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management

Page 21 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics
List of Committees

The Honorable John McCain

Chairman

The Honorable Jack Reed

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Chairman

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Mac Thornberry

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable Rodney Frelinghuysen

Chairman

The Honorable Pete Visclosky

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Page 22 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics
Appendix I: DOD’s Implementation Plans to 

Improve Asset Visibility

This appendix provides an overview of DOD’s implementation plans 

intended to improve asset visibility and progress in implementing those 

plans. These implementation plans are described in detail in both DOD’s 

2014 and 2015 Strategies for Improving DOD Asset Visibility.

The implementation plans in table 2 below were included in DOD’s 2014 

Strategy for Improving DOD Asset Visibility and have been implemented, 

according to DOD.

Page 23 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

1

Table 2: Implementation Plans Included in DOD’s 2014 Strategy That Have Been Implemented

Implementation plansaPurpose of implementation plan

Date 

implemented

Enterprise Automatic Identification 

Technology (AIT)b Services (Air 

Force)

Minimize redundant software design, development, and sustainment costs 

by developing common AIT capabilities for functions, such as base supply 

and equipment management.

June 2014

Enhanced Parachute Tracking System 

(Army)

Provide life-cycle management of parachutes to further enhance safety 

and force protection for airborne training and operations.

April 2015 

Mortuary Affairs Reporting and 

Tracking System (Army)

A web-based tool used to manage receipt, collection, processing, and 

shipping of human remains and personal effects.

July 2014

Army Mobility Asset Tracking System 

(Army)

Track precise location of equipment, using a global positioning system, in 

near real time to improve accountability and oversight of assets.

May 2015

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 

Energy Bulk Fuel Satellite Tracking 

(DLA)

Provide visibility of fuel location and status to increase operational 

efficiencies and decrease fuel transport time and fuel pilferage and loss.

December 

2014

DLA Item Level Passive Radio 

Frequency Identification (RFID)cfor 

Clothing and Textiles (DLA) 

Improve inventory management and accountability and reduce time and 

resources expended by streamlining the uniform issue process.

December 

2014 

Development of In-Transit Visibility 

Capabilities within the Global Combat 

Support System–Joint (GCSS-J)d

(Joint Staff)

Provide centralized visibility and decision support for logistics. April 2015

Afloat/Ashore Implementation of Navy 

Ordnance Information System AIT 

Capability (Navy)

Implement Navy Ordnance Information System AIT within classified 

domains both afloat and ashore and match existing capabilities at 

continental United States and unclassified sites.

April 2015

 

1For the purposes of the report, we describe the status of an implementation plan as being either 

“implemented” or “halted.” Implementation plans that have been implemented or halted are then 

recommended for closure, which is approved by the Asset Visibility Working Group 

(AVWG).

Appendix I: DOD’s Implementation Plans to 

Improve Asset Visibility
Appendix I: DOD’s Implementation Plans to 

Improve Asset Visibility

Page 24 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

Implementation plansaPurpose of implementation plan

Date 

implemented

DOD AIT Concept of Operations 

(CONOPS)efor Supply and 

Distribution Operations Review (U.S. 

Transportation Command 

[TRANSCOM])

Make recommendations for updating the CONOPS. October 2014

Long-Range Passive RFID 

(TRANSCOM)

Improve asset tracking of items, from the time they are delivered, through 

the maintenance cycle (including any intermediate holding areas), to when 

they are loaded on maritime ships.

June 2015

Asset Visibility Migration into 

Integrated Data Environment/Global 

Transportation Network Convergence 

(TRANSCOM)

Create a single source of integrated asset visibility and in-transit visibility 

data to logistics decision-making in support of current and future 

operations.

May 2014

Afghanistan Performance Dashboard 

(TRANSCOM)

Assess the distribution process supporting Operation Enduring Freedom 

by collecting and measuring historical and on-hand performance data.

May 2014

Active RFID Port-to-Port Tag 

Elimination (TRANSCOM)

Proof of Concept to show monetary savings through the reduction of manhours and a significant reduction in the Air Mobility Command’s 

procurement of active RFID tags by eliminating active RFID on “port-toport” pallets.

June 2014

Geographic Combatant CommandfInTransit Visibility Issuance Template 

(TRANSCOM)

Design a template to improve the documentation and execution of both 

enterprise-wide and theater-specific in-transit visibility business processes 

for the geographic combatant commands.

June 2014 

Enterprise Data Collection Layer (Air 

Force)

Standardize AIT architecture, deployment, and management across the 

Air Force enterprise.

June 2014 

Air Mobility Command/Military Surface 

Deployment and Distribution 

Command AIT Implementation 

Business Case Analysis 

(TRANSCOM)

Identify quantifiable financial, manpower, resource benefit, or operational 

enhancements that DOD has realized as a result of using AIT at its ports.

June 2014 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. | GAO-16-88

a

The DOD component, the agency responsible for the development and implementation of the plan, is 

listed after the name of the implementation plan.

bDOD defines AIT as a suite of technologies enabling the automatic capture of data, thereby 

enhancing the ability to identify, track, document, and control assets (e.g., materiel) and to deploy and 

redeploy forces, equipment, personnel, and sustainment cargo.

cRFID is a family of technologies enabling hands-off processing of materiel deploying through the 

Defense Transportation System. Materiel marked with RFID tags may be remotely identified, 

categorized and located automatically within relatively short distances. Active RFID tags can hold 

relatively large amounts of data, are continuously powered, and are normally used when a longer tag 

read distance is desired. Passive RFID tags temporarily store a small amount of energy received from 

the tag reader in order to generate a tag response. Passive RFID is used at the item, case or pallet 

level.

dGlobal Combat Support System–Joint (GCSS-J) is the primary information-technology application to 

provide logisticians with automation support tools to effectively plan and execute joint logistics 

support operations.

e

A concept of operations (CONOPS) is a verbal or graphic statement that clearly and concisely 

expresses what the joint force commander intends to accomplish and how it will be done using 

available resources.

f

To perform its variety of missions around the world, DOD has six geographic combatant commands 

that provide unity of command over all U.S. forces in an assigned geographic region.
Appendix I: DOD’s Implementation Plans to 

Improve Asset Visibility

The implementation plans in table 3 below were included in DOD’s 2014 

Strategy for Improving DOD Asset Visibility but were halted for the 

reasons stated.

Table 3: Implementation Plans Included in DOD’s 2014 Strategy That Were Halted

Page 25 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

Implementation plan Purpose of initiative

Date and reason 

halted

Positive Materiel Transfer (Defense 

Logistics Agency [DLA])

Improve asset tracking with materiel transfer at retail industrial 

activities in the continental United States and identify 

underperforming points in the supply chain.

July 2014

Unable to provide 

meaningful performance 

metrics 

Passive Radio Frequency Identification 

(RFID) Receiving Validation (DLA)

Validate existing process efficiencies and determine next steps 

for implementing the process across all of the Department of 

Defense (DOD).

June 2014

Not meeting 

performance metrics

Next Generation Wireless 

Communication (TRANSCOM)

Complete development of a wireless to provide continuous 

visibility with less work and lower cost than other tagging 

technologies. 

May 2014

Lack of funding 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. | GAO-16-88

As of July 2015, the implementation plans in table 4 below were in the 

process of being implemented and were included in both DOD’s 2014 and 

its 2015 Strategies for Improving DOD Asset Visibility.

Table 4: Implementation Plans Included in Both DOD’s 2014 and 2015 Strategies That Are Being Implemented

Implementation plan Purpose of initiative

Item Unique Identification (IUID)a

Implementation Plans (DOD)

Enhance asset visibility, property accountability, product life-cycle management, 

reduction of counterfeit materiel risk, and financial management. 

Implement Transportation Tracking Number 

per Joint Requirements Oversight Council 

Memorandum 034-09 (TRANSCOM)

Support operational-level command and control by creating unclassified tracking 

numbers that enable linkage and visibility of force packages without compromising 

operational security.

Active Radio Frequency Identification 

(RFID) Migration (TRANSCOM)

Eliminate the risk of having a shortage of active RFID tags or having tags with duplicate 

identification numbers by migrating from a proprietary standard to an open 

communication standard. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. | GAO-16-88

a

Unique item identifiers are used globally as the common data key in property accountability and 

logistics automated information systems to enable asset accountability, valuation, life-cycle 

management, and counterfeit materiel risk reduction. 

The implementation plans in table 5 below were included for the first time 

in DOD’s 2015 Strategy for Improving DOD Asset Visibility.
Appendix I: DOD’s Implementation Plans to 

Improve Asset Visibility

Table 5: Implementation Plans Included in DOD’s 2015 Strategy

Page 26 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

Implementation plan Purpose of initiative 

Non-nodal In-Transit Visibility (U.S. 

Marine Corps)

Improve combat effectiveness by providing near real-time visibility of sustainment cargo at 

the tactical level and provide confirmation of delivery of the cargo to forward bases and 

units. 

Enhanced Yard Management (U.S. 

Marine Corps)

Automate asset identification by enabling inventory control and near real-time asset visibility 

for infrastructure environments from robust to austere.

Theater Logistics Planning 

Requirements for the Global Combat 

Support System – Joint (GCSS-J 

)(Transportation Command 

(TRANSCOM))

Develop support capabilities to facilitate combat, security, engagement, relief, and 

reconstruction activities for the GCSS-J.

Passive Radio Frequency Identification 

(RFID) Phased-Array Project (Air Force)

Conduct a test employing passive RFID technology in the inventory process at aerial port intransit cargo storage facilities and measure results.

Littoral Combat Ship Passive RFID 

Capability (Navy)

Establish an automated information system with automatic identification and data-capture 

capabilities to improve logistics-related and inventory-management accountability.

Develop Condition CodeaVisibility in 

GCSS-J (Joint Staff)

Maximize visibility of condition codes of nonmunitions assets in GCSS-J to support joint 

logistics planning and execution.

Air Force Global Enterprise Tracking 

(Air Force)

Provide a solution for tracking Air Force assets to improve cost, schedule, and quality in 

depot operations.

Active RFID Intrusion Detection 

Transponder Operational Test 

(Transportation Command 

(TRANSCOM))

Test intrusion detection transponder with global positioning system in an operational 

environment, document shortcomings, and provide a way to correct any deficiencies that are 

identified.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. | GAO-16-88

a

There are two different and distinct condition codes under the definition of federal condition codes. 

Supply condition codes are used to classify materiel in terms of readiness for issue and use or to 

identify action under way to change the status of materiel. Disposal condition codes, which describe 

the materiel’s physical condition, are assigned by the Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services 

Field Office based on inspection of materiel at time of receipt.
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology

To assess the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD) satisfied 

its mandate to provide Congress a comprehensive strategy for improving 

asset tracking and in-transit visibility that includes each of the 11 statutory 

elements, we reviewed DOD’s October 2014 Report to Congress on the 

Strategy to Improve Asset Tracking and In-Transit Visibility, which 

incorporated its January 2014 Strategy for Improving DOD Asset Visibility

and accompanying implementation plans. We refer to the 2014 strategy 

document, implementation plans, and 2014 report collectively as the 2014 

Strategy. We performed a content analysis in which two analysts 

independently reviewed DOD’s 2014 Strategy and compared the 

information in these documents with the 11 statutory elements and 

assessed the extent to which DOD had addressed each required 

element. Any initial disagreements in the coding were discussed and 

reconciled by the analysts. The analysts then tallied the responses to 

determine the extent to which the reporting elements were addressed. 

We determined that DOD’s 2014 Strategy “fully addressed” an element 

when the documents described the entire element and “partially 

addressed” an element when the documents described some, but not all, 

parts of that element. When the documents did not explicitly reflect any 

part of an element, we determined that the element was “not addressed.” 

We discussed with officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Supply Chain Integration any elements that we 

determined were partially addressed, to understand any efforts under way 

to address the elements more fully. We also discussed with officials from 

the Joint Staff, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), U.S. Transportation 

Command (TRANSCOM), and each of the military services their roles in 

the development of DOD’s 2014 Strategy.

Page 27 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

1 DOD subsequently updated its 

asset visibility strategy and implementation plans in October 2015 (2015 

Strategy). To understand enhancements made to the 2014 Strategy, including any 

efforts to more fully address those elements that were partially addressed, 

we reviewed DOD’s 2015 Strategy and discussed with officials future 

plans for addressing those items not fully addressed in the 2015 Strategy.

To determine what steps DOD has taken to incorporate industry best 

practices related to automated information and data-capture technologies 

and to implement Item Unique Identification (IUID), we reviewed DOD’s 

2014 Strategy to identify the information DOD included about industry 

 

1We use the term components to refer to all the organizations involved in delivering logistics 

capabilities to warfighters, including the Joint Staff, TRANSCOM, DLA, and each of the 

military services. 

Appendix II: Scope and Methodology
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology

best practices and IUID. We did not identify industry best practices that 

exist relating to automated information and data-capture technologies, but 

rather assessed whether or not DOD’s 2014 Strategy discussed the 

department’s efforts to collaborate with industry and any examples of 

where this collaboration has resulted in industry involvement in the 

department’s plans to improve asset visibility. We also discussed with 

DOD officials how the department collaborates with industry to identify 

best practices and any work DOD has under way to enhance the 

discussion in the 2015 Strategy of its efforts to collaborate with industry.

Further, in September 2015, we attended the annual Automatic 

Identification Technology (AIT) in DOD Symposium, where DOD officials, 

government leaders, business executives, and academics within the AIT 

industry gathered to discuss how industry technology users implement 

AIT to achieve higher returns on investment and how technology is 

working to improve asset visibility. Additionally, we discussed with officials 

efforts under way to update the 2014 Strategy and Instruction 8320.04 to 

address weaknesses we had previously identified and reviewed the 

September 2015 DOD Instruction 8320.04, Item Unique Identification

(IUID) Standards for Tangible Personal Property, to determine what 

updates had been made.

Page 28 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

2 To understand enhancements being made to the 

2014 Strategy, including those related to the discussion of collaboration with 

industry and any results of that collaboration, we reviewed DOD’s 2015 Strategy

and discussed with officials implementation plans resulting from this 

collaboration and ongoing work to assess the effect of the collaboration 

on DOD’s plans. Further, we also reviewed documentation resulting from 

agency efforts to address recommendations in our 2015 high-risk asset 

visibility report.

To determine what progress DOD has made in implementing its 2014 

Strategy’s implementation plans and in aligning the initiatives outlined in 

those plans with its overarching goals and objectives for asset tracking 

and in-transit visibility, we reviewed DOD’s 2014 Strategy’s

implementation plans and discussed with the components the plans they 

had implemented or were implementing to improve asset visibility. We 

also reviewed updates to those implementation plans that the 

 

2Prior to issuance of its updated IUID instruction in September 2015, we reviewed the draft 

instruction and discussed with officials the contents and plans to further refine the instruction 

before final issuance.
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology

components had provided to the Asset Visibility Working Group.

Page 29 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

3

Additionally, to understand what plans were identified subsequent to the issuance 

of the 2014 Strategy, we reviewed DOD’s 2015 Strategy and discussed with 

officials the current status of all of DOD’s implementation plans. See 

appendix I for a complete list of implementation plans appearing in both 

the 2014 and 2015 Strategies along with their implementation status.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2014 to December 

2015 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

3The Asset Visibility Working Group is responsible for monitoring the execution of the 

initiatives outlined in the Supporting Execution Plans (SEP). The components report the 

status of their initiatives to this group on a quarterly basis.
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Zina D. Merritt, (202)512-5257 or merrittz@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Carleen C. Bennett, Assistant 

Director; Elizabeth Curda; Nicole Harris; Joanne Landesman; Amie 

Lesser; Felicia Lopez; Greg Pugnetti; Mike Silver; Sabrina Streagle; 

Susan Tindall; and Jose Watkins made key contributions to this report.

Page 30 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-15-290. Washington, D.C.: February 

11, 2015.

Defense Logistics: DOD Has a Strategy and Has Taken Steps to Improve 

its Asset Visibility, But Further Actions are Needed. GAO-15-148. 

Washington, D.C.: January, 27, 2015.

Defense Logistics: A Completed Comprehensive Strategy is Needed to 

Guide DOD’s In-Transit Visibility Efforts. GAO-13-201. Washington, D.C.: 

February 28, 2013.

High-Risk Series: An Update: GAO-13-283. Washington, D.C.: February 

14, 2013.

Defense Logistics: Improvements Needed to Enhance DOD’s 

Management Approach and Implementation of Item Unique Identification 

Technology. GAO-12-482. Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2012.

Defense Logistics: DOD Needs to Take Additional Actions to Address 

Challenges in Supply Chain Management. GAO-11-569. Washington, 

D.C.: July 28, 2011.

DOD’s High-Risk Areas: Observations on DOD’s Progress and 

Challenges in Strategic Planning for Supply Chain Management.

GAO-10-929T. Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2010.

Defense Logistics: Lack of Key Information May Impede DOD’s Ability to 

Improve Supply Chain Management. GAO-09-150. Washington, D.C.: 

January 12, 2009.

High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-09-271. Washington, D.C.: January 

2009.

Page 31 GAO-16-88 Defense Logistics

Related GAO Products

(351900)
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 website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. 

Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

PleasrintoRecyldPapr.