United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

DEPOT 

MAINTENANCE 

Actions Needed to 

Provide More 

Consistent Funding 

Allocation Data to 

Congress 

November 2006 

 

GAO-07-126 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

November 2006

DEPOT MAINTENANCE

Actions Needed to Provide More 

Consistent Funding Allocation Data to 

Congress 

Highlights of GAO-07-126, a report to 

congressional committees 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 2466, the military 

departments and defense agencies

may use no more than 50 percent 

of annual depot maintenance 

funding for work performed by

private-sector contractors. The 

Department of Defense (DOD) 

must submit a report to Congress 

annually on the allocation of depot 

maintenance funding between the

public and private sectors for the 

preceding fiscal year and projected 

distribution for the current and 

ensuing fiscal years for each of the 

armed forces and defense agencies. 

As required by Section 2466, GAO 

reviewed the report submitted in

April 2006 and is, with this report, 

submitting its view to Congress on 

whether (1) the military

departments and defense agencies

complied with the 50-50

requirement for fiscal 2005 and 

(2) the projections for fiscal years

2006 and 2007 represent reasonable 

estimates. GAO obtained data used 

to develop the April 2006 report, 

conducted site visits, and reviewed 

supporting documentation. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD 

improve the consistency and 

accuracy of depot maintenance 

workload allocation funding data in 

its 50-50 report to Congress. DOD

should ensure that obligations 

rather than expenditures are

reported, and that measures are 

established to ensure proper 

accounting of interservice

workloads between the public and 

private sectors. DOD concurred 

with the recommendations. 

Although DOD reported to Congress that it complied with the 50-50 

requirement for fiscal year 2005, GAO could not validate compliance due to 

weaknesses in DOD’s financial management systems and the processes used 

to collect and report 50-50 data. DOD’s April 2006 report provides an 

approximation of the depot maintenance funding allocation between the 

public and private sectors for fiscal year 2005. GAO identified errors in the 

reported data which, if adjusted, would increase the Army's private-sector 

funding allocation percentage from 49.4 percent to 50 percent. GAO found 

that 50-50 funding allocation data were not being consistently reported 

because some maintenance depots were reporting expenditures rather than 

following Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) guidance and reporting 

obligations. Combining obligations and expenditures produces an 

inaccurate accounting of 50-50 funding allocations. GAO also found 

amounts associated with interservice depot maintenance work may not 

accurately reflect the actual allocation of private- and public-sector funds 

because visibility over the allocation of these funds is limited. OSD guidance 

requires that the military departments establish measures to ensure correct 

accounting of interservice workloads. In prior years’ reports on DOD’s 

compliance with the 50-50 requirement, GAO discussed deficiencies limiting

data accuracy and recommended specific corrective actions. While DOD has 

taken some additional actions to improve the quality of reported data for 

fiscal year 2005, it has not fully addressed the persistent deficiencies that 

have limited 50-50 data accuracy. 

Reported projections do not represent reasonable estimates of public- and 

private-sector depot maintenance funding allocations for fiscal years 2006 

and 2007 due to data inaccuracies. Errors GAO identified for fiscal year 2005

could affect these projections. If the adjustments GAO made to the Army’s 

fiscal year 2005 data—increasing the private-sector percentage by about 0.6 

percentage points—are carried forward, it could move the Army’s projection 

to within 2 percent of the 50 percent limitation for fiscal year 2007. GAO 

also found that the projected numbers often did not include supplemental 

funds, which could change the allocation percentages. These errors and 

omissions affect the reasonableness and accuracy of the reported 

projections. To avoid breaching the 50 percent threshold in future years, the 

Air Force is implementing its plan to ensure compliance with the 50-50 

requirement until fiscal year 2010. The plan involves moving some

maintenance workload, including the F-100 engine, from the private sector 

to the public sector. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-126.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact William M. Solis

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

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

DOD’s Compliance with the 50-50 Requirement for Fiscal Year 2005 

Could Not Be Validated 7 

Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007 Projections Are Not Reasonable Due to 

Data Inaccuracies 14 

Conclusions 15

Recommendations for Executive Action 16 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 16 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 18 

Appendix II GAO Adjustments to Army Fiscal Year 2005 

Reported Data 20 

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Defense 21 

Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 23 

Related GAO Products 24 

Tables 

Table 1: DOD’s Reported Depot Maintenance Funding Allocations 

for Fiscal Year 2005 8 

Table 2: DOD’s Projected Allocations of Depot Maintenance Funds 

for Fiscal Years (FY) 2006 and 2007 14 

Table 3: Adjustments to Army Fiscal Year 2005 Reported Data 20 

Page i GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

November 30, 2006 

The Honorable John Warner 

Chairman 

The Honorable Carl Levin 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter 

Chairman 

The Honorable Ike Skelton 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

Each year the Department of Defense (DOD) spends billions of dollars for 

depot maintenance of its ships, aircraft, tanks, and other weapons 

systems.1

 DOD reported total depot maintenance funding of more than $26 

billion for fiscal year 2005. This maintenance is accomplished by both 

federal government workers in the public sector and contractor personnel 

in the private sector. Under 10 U.S.C. § 2466(a), not more than 50 percent 

of funds made available in a fiscal year to a military department or defense 

agency for depot-level maintenance and repair may be used to contract for 

the performance by nonfederal government personnel of such workload 

for the military departments and defense agencies.2

 Section 2466(b) states

that the Secretary of Defense may waive the 50 percent limitation if he 

determines the waiver is necessary for national security and submits to 

Congress a notice of the waiver and the reasons for the waiver. Section 

2466(d)(1) directs the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report to

Congress identifying, for each of the armed forces and defense agencies, 

the percentage of the funds referred to in Section 2466(a) that was 

 1

 Depot maintenance is the highest level of maintenance within DOD and generally refers to 

major maintenance and repair actions such as the overhauling, upgrading, or rebuilding of

parts, assemblies, or subassemblies. 

2

 This limitation is sometimes referred to as the “50-50” requirement, although the limitation 

applies only to the allocation of funds for work that may be performed by nonfederal 

government personnel. 

Page 1 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
expended during the preceding fiscal year, and are projected to be 

expended during the current fiscal year and the ensuing fiscal year, for 

performance of depot-level maintenance and repair workloads by the 

public and private sectors. In its most recent annual report, dated April 6, 

2006, DOD reported that depot maintenance allocations by the 

Departments of the Army, Navy,3

 and Air Force were below the 50 percent

threshold in fiscal year 2005, and all the departments except for the Air 

Force projected that they will remain below the threshold for fiscal years

2006 and 2007. According to DOD’s report, the Air Force projected that it 

would exceed the 50 percent limit in fiscal year 2007. 

Section 2466(d)(2) also requires us to submit to Congress our views on 

whether DOD complied with Section 2466(a) during the preceding fiscal 

year and whether the expenditure projections for the current and ensuing 

fiscal years are reasonable. This is the ninth year that we have evaluated

and reported on DOD’s annual 50-50 report to Congress.4

 Specifically, our

objectives were to determine whether (1) the military departments 

complied with the 50-50 requirement for fiscal year 2005 and (2) the 

projections for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 represent reasonable estimates. 

To accomplish these objectives, we reviewed guidance for reporting 50-50

workload funding data and analyzed the military services’ procedures and 

internal controls for collecting data and ensuring the accuracy and 

completeness of data included in the report. To determine whether the 

military departments complied with the 50-50 requirement, we obtained 

service data used to develop DOD’s April 2006 report, conducted site visits 

at reporting commands and depots, interviewed officials involved in the 

50-50 process, and reviewed documentation supporting reported funding 

data. Our work covered all four military services, but we placed greater 

emphasis on reviewing Army data because that service was close to the 50

percent threshold for fiscal year 2005. We reviewed a total of $2.7 billion of 

reported depot maintenance funding. We based our sample on previously

identified areas of concern, varying program amounts, and selected 

locations for our site visits. Because we selected a nonprobability sample 

of data for our review, our results cannot be projected. To determine the 

reasonableness of fiscal year 2006 and 2007 projections, we discussed with 

service officials how they developed their projections and whether 

historical funding information and known increases in funding were 

 3

 The Marine Corps is part of the Department of the Navy. 

4

 A list of related GAO products is provided at the end of this report. 

Page 2 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
included in their projections. As discussed below, we have found that 

reported depot maintenance funding allocation data are not reliable 

because of weaknesses in DOD’s financial systems5

 and 50-50 data 

gathering and reporting processes. For the past several years, we have 

reported that DOD’s report on the use of these funds cannot be relied 

upon as an accurate reflection of the distribution of these funds. We 

conducted our review from March 2006 to September 2006 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. See appendix I for 

a more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology. 

Although DOD reported to Congress that it complied with the 50-50 

requirement for fiscal year 2005, we could not validate compliance due to

weaknesses in DOD’s financial management systems and the processes 

used to collect and report 50-50 data. On the basis of our evaluation of 

selected 50-50 data, DOD’s April 2006 report provides an approximation of 

the depot maintenance funding allocation between the public and private 

sectors for fiscal year 2005. However, we identified errors in the reported

data which, if adjusted, would increase the Army’s private-sector funding

allocation percentage from 49.4 percent to 50 percent. During our current 

review, we determined that 50-50 funding allocation data were not being 

consistently reported because some maintenance depots were reporting 

expenditures rather than following Office of the Secretary of Defense 

(OSD) guidance on reporting obligations. Combining obligations and 

expenditures produces an inaccurate accounting of 50-50 funding 

allocations, including accounting for workload that is carried over from 

one fiscal year to the next. For example, an Army depot official estimated 

that almost $1.5 million was expended in fiscal year 2006 on a fiscal year 

2005 contract obligation. The official stated that this obligation would not 

be reported in fiscal year 2005 because it was not yet expended, and it 

would not be reported in fiscal year 2006 because it was expended on a 

fiscal year 2005 obligation. Until reporting organizations consistently 

identify and report depot maintenance funding obligations, rather than a 

combination of expenditures and obligations, inaccurate allocation of 

depot maintenance funding between the public and private sectors will 

Results in Brief 

 5

 DOD has had long-standing weaknesses in its financial management that affect its ability 

to produce auditable financial information as well as provide accurate and timely 

information for management and Congress to use in making informed decisions. We have 

previously reported on these problems and have identified DOD financial management as

one of the federal government’s high-risk programs. See GAO, High-Risk Series: An 

Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.: January 2005). 

Page 3 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
continue to be reported. We also found that amounts associated with 

interservice depot maintenance work may not accurately reflect the actual 

allocation of private- and public-sector funds because visibility over the 

allocation of these funds is limited. For example, we found instances 

where a military service awarded public depot maintenance work to 

another military service, which then contracted out a portion of that 

workload to the private sector. The military service awarding the work 

inaccurately reported this as public workload because it had not inquired 

whether all the awarded work was performed at the public depot. OSD 

guidance requires that the military departments establish measures to 

ensure correct accounting of interservice workloads, but the services have 

not established sufficient measures for complying with this guidance. Until 

the military services accurately account for and report their distribution of 

depot maintenance workload performed under interservice agreements, 

the 50-50 data reported by DOD will continue to be inaccurate. We also 

found several other errors that resulted in inaccuracies in reported 50-50 

data for the Navy and Army. In prior years’ reports on DOD’s compliance 

with the 50-50 requirement, we have discussed deficiencies that have

limited data accuracy and recommended specific corrective actions. While 

we found that DOD has taken some additional actions to improve the 

quality of reported data for fiscal year 2005, it has not fully addressed the 

persistent deficiencies that have limited 50-50 data accuracy.

Reported projections do not represent reasonable estimates of public- and 

private-sector depot maintenance funding allocations for fiscal years 2006 

and 2007 due to data inaccuracies. In the April 2006 report, the Army and 

Navy projected that they would remain below the 50-50 threshold in fiscal 

years 2006 and 2007; while the Air Force projected that it would be below 

the threshold in fiscal year 2006 but would exceed the threshold in fiscal 

year 2007. However, data errors similar to those we identified for fiscal 

year 2005 could affect these projections. For example, some errors in 

DOD’s fiscal year 2005 data are carried into the projected years. If the 

adjustments we made to the Army’s fiscal year 2005 data—increasing the 

private-sector percentage by about 0.6 percentage points—are carried 

forward, it could move the Army’s projection to within 2 percent of the 50 

percent limitation for fiscal year 2007. Under OSD guidance, the 2 percent 

threshold triggers certain planning requirements to avoid breaching the 50

percent limitation. In addition, we found $1.6 million in errors in the 

Army’s 2006 projections, and the projected numbers do not include 

supplemental funds, which can change the allocation percentages. These 

errors and omissions affect the reasonableness and accuracy of the 

reported projections. To avoid breaching the 50 percent threshold in 

future years, the Air Force is implementing its plan to ensure compliance 

Page 4 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
with the 50-50 requirement through fiscal year 2010. The plan involves 

moving some maintenance workload, including the F-100 engine, from the 

private sector to the public sector. 

To improve the consistency and accuracy of depot maintenance funding

allocation data submitted to Congress, we are recommending that the 

components report obligations rather than expenditures, and establish 

measures to properly account for the allocation of interservice workloads. 

In commenting on the draft of this report, DOD concurred with our 

recommendations and cited actions it planned to take to implement them. 

In addition to the 50-50 requirement in 10 U.S.C. § 2466, the following 

provisions directly affect the reporting of workload funding allocations to 

the public and private sectors: 

Background 

• Section 2460(a) of Title 10 defines “depot-level maintenance and repair” as 

material maintenance or repair requiring the overhaul, upgrading, or 

rebuilding of parts, assemblies, or subassemblies and the testing and 

reclamation of equipment as necessary, regardless of the source of funds 

for the maintenance or repair, or the location at which the maintenance or 

repair is performed. This term also includes: (1) all aspects of software 

maintenance classified by DOD as of July 1, 1995 as depot-level 

maintenance and repair; and (2) interim contractor support or contractor 

logistics support (or any similar contractor support) to the extent that 

such support is for the performance of services described in the preceding 

sentence. Section 2460(b)(1) excludes from the definition of depot 

maintenance the nuclear refueling of an aircraft carrier, and the 

procurement of major modifications or upgrades of weapon systems that 

are designed to improve program performance, although a major upgrade 

program covered by this exception could continue to be performed by 

private- or public-sector entities. Section 2460(b)(2) also excludes from 

the definition of depot-level maintenance the procurement of parts for 

safety modifications, although the term does include the installation of 

parts for safety modifications. 

• Depot maintenance funding involving certain public-private partnerships is 

exempt from the 50 percent limitation. Section 2474(f) of Title 10 provides 

that amounts expended for the performance of depot-level maintenance 

and repair by nonfederal government personnel at Centers of Industrial 

Page 5 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
and Technical Excellence6

 under any contract entered into during fiscal 

years 2003 through 2009 shall not be counted when applying the 50 

percent limitation in Section 2466(a) if the personnel are provided by 

entities outside DOD pursuant to a public-private partnership. In its annual 

50-50 report to Congress, DOD identifies this funding as a separate 

category called “exempt.” 

• Section 2466(b) allows the Secretary of Defense to waive the 50 percent 

limitation if he determines the waiver is necessary for national security, 

and he submits the notification of waiver together with the reasons for the 

waiver to Congress. Waivers were previously submitted for the Air Force 

for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. 

OSD issues guidance to the military departments for reporting publicprivate workload funding allocations. The guidance’s definition of “depot

level maintenance and repair” is consistent with the definition of “depotlevel maintenance and repair” in 10 U.S.C. § 2460. The military services 

have also issued internal instructions to manage the data collection and 

reporting process, tailored to their individual organizations and operating

environments. 

 6

 Section 2474(a) states that the Secretary concerned (or the Secretary of Defense in the

case of a defense agency) shall designate depot-level activities of the military departments

and defense agencies (other than facilities approved for closure or major realignment 

under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990) as Centers of Industrial and 

Technical Excellence in their recognized core competencies. The Secretary of Defense was 

also directed to establish a policy to encourage the secretary of each military department 

and the head of each defense agency to reengineer industrial processes and adopt best

business practices at the Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence in connection with 

their core competency requirements so as to serve as recognized leaders in their core 

competencies. 

Page 6 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
Although DOD reported that the military departments complied with the 

50-50 requirement for fiscal year 2005, we could not validate compliance 

because of systemic weaknesses in DOD’s financial management systems7

and persistent deficiencies in the processes used to collect and report 50-

50 data. DOD’s report provides an approximation of the depot

maintenance funding allocation between the public and private sectors but 

contains some inaccuracies. Our current review showed that 50-50 funding 

data were not being consistently reported because some maintenance 

depots were reporting expenditures rather than obligations as directed by 

OSD guidance. We also found that amounts associated with interservice 

depot maintenance work and certain contract agreements between depots 

and private contractors may not accurately reflect the distribution 

reported for private- and public-sector funds because visibility over the 

allocation of these funds is limited. In addition, we found several other 

errors that resulted in inaccuracies in reported 50-50 data for the Navy and 

Army. DOD took some actions this year to improve 50-50 reporting. 

However, our work over the last several years has identified a number of 

persistent deficiencies, such as inadequate management attention and 

review, which have affected the quality of reported 50-50 data. While DOD 

took actions to improve 50-50 reporting this year, DOD has not 

implemented recommendations we made last year to address these 

deficiencies.

In DOD’s April 2006 report to Congress on funding allocations for depot 

maintenance, all three military departments reported that their privatesector depot maintenance allocation was below the 50 percent limitation 

for fiscal year 2005. However, we found that the reported data contained 

inaccuracies. Table 1 shows the reported allocation between the public 

and private sectors and the exempted workload funding. 

DOD’s Compliance 

with the 50-50 

Requirement for 

Fiscal Year 2005 

Could Not Be 

Validated 

DOD Reported 

Compliance with the 50-50 

Requirement in Fiscal Year 

2005, but Reported Data 

Contained Inaccuracies 

 7

 For a recent discussion of weaknesses in DOD financial management, see GAO,

Department of Defense: Sustained Leadership Is Critical to Effective Financial and 

Business Management Transformation, GAO-06-1006T (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 3, 2006).

Page 7 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
Table 1: DOD’s Reported Depot Maintenance Funding Allocations for Fiscal Year 

2005 

Dollars in millions 

Category Army Navy Air Force Total

Private 2,861

(49.4%)

4,709

(43.2%)

4,592

(47.3%)

12,162

(46.1%)

Public 2,908

(50.2%)

5,936

(54.5%)

5,106

(52.6%)

13,950

(52.9%)

Exempt 28

(0.5%)

245

(2.3%)

8

(0.1%)

281

(1.0%)

Total 5,796

(100%)

10,890

(100%)

9,706

(100%)

26,393

(100%)

Sources: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

Notes: Based on data and analysis of DOD’s April 6, 2006, reported 50-50 data. The numbers in the 

table may not add due to rounding. The Department of the Navy includes the Marine Corps. 

On the basis of our evaluation of selected 50-50 data, DOD’s April 2006 

report provides an approximation of depot maintenance funding 

allocations between the public and private sectors for fiscal year 2005. 

However, we identified errors in reported workload funding data. The net 

effects of correcting the data inaccuracies we identified would increase 

the Army’s private-sector funding allocation from 49.4 percent to 50 

percent. Identified errors in the Army’s data resulted in a total decrease in

public-sector funding of $5.9 million and a total increase in private-sector

funding of $68.1 million. Appendix II provides additional information on 

these adjustments. We could not quantify the errors that we identified for

the Air Force regarding direct sales agreements. We continue to identify 

areas that continue to be excluded from the Navy’s 50-50 reporting. While 

we found an error in the Marine Corps data, correcting this inaccuracy 

would not result in changes to the Department of the Navy’s funding 

allocation percentages. We did not conduct a review of all reported 50-50 

data; therefore, there may be additional errors, omissions, and 

inconsistencies that were not identified. 

Depot maintenance funding data for fiscal year 2005 were not being 

consistently reported because some maintenance depots were reporting 

expenditures, rather than obligations as directed by OSD guidance. The 

reporting of expenditures instead of obligations by some depots presents 

an inaccurate picture of depot maintenance allocations since the amounts 

DOD’s 50-50 Report 

Included Both 

Expenditures and 

Obligations 

Page 8 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
may differ. For the most part, the allocation percentages for public funds 

represent obligation amounts obtained from the military department’s 

financial accounting systems. However, in reporting the amount of depot 

maintenance funds allocated to the private sector, some reporting 

organizations used expenditures rather than obligations as required by 

OSD guidance.8

 For example, three depots we visited reported their 

subcontracted depot-level maintenance work as expenditures rather than 

obligations. Reasons given by depot officials for reporting expenditures 

rather than obligations include the following: (1) the workload against 

obligated funds may not have been fully performed during the fiscal year,

and therefore they believed reporting expenditures was a better reflection

of the actual workload; (2) they did not know that obligations were to be 

reported instead of expenditures; and (3) many work orders can be 

associated with a multiyear contract, so they believed that reporting 

expenditures would be a better representation of the costs associated with

multiyear contracts for the fiscal year in question. 

Accurately reporting carryover work is a problem when the services’ data

contain both expenditures and obligations. Carryover is work that a depot 

may “carry over” from one fiscal year to another to ensure a smooth flow 

of work during the transition between fiscal years. This means that while 

the funds are obligated in one fiscal year, a certain portion may not be

expended until the next fiscal year. When expenditures rather than 

obligations are reported, we found that the carryover work that is 

performed in the following year may not be included in either year’s 50-50

report. For example, an Army depot official provided us with an estimate 

of almost $1.5 million that was expended in fiscal year 2006 on a fiscal 

year 2005 contract obligation. The official stated that this portion of the 

obligation was not reported in fiscal year 2005 because it was not yet 

expended, and it would not be reported in fiscal year 2006 because it was 

expended on a fiscal year 2005 obligation. As a result, the private portion 

of the service’s depot maintenance funds was underreported in the year of

the obligation, while the public portion was overreported. Until depot 

maintenance funding obligations are consistently reported, rather than a 

 8

 Although 10 U.S.C. § 2466(d) specifies that the Secretary of Defense report the percentage 

of funds referred to in § 2466(a) that were expended in the preceding fiscal year and 

projected to be expended in the current and ensuing fiscal years, DOD’s past and current

50-50 reports are generally based on obligation data. A DOD official explained that

obligation data are considered to be more appropriate because of the statutory requirement 

to report funds made available in a given fiscal year and because expenditure data may not 

be completely recognized in the accounting records for a year or more following the funds’

obligation. 

Page 9 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
combination of expenditures and obligations, inaccurate reporting of the 

allocation of depot maintenance funding between the public and private 

sectors will continue. 

Because DOD has limited visibility over the allocation of private- and 

public-sector funds in some interservice agreements and direct sales 

agreements, inaccurate reporting of the depot maintenance workload 

allocation may result. Interservice workload agreements refer to work that 

is performed by one component for another. OSD guidance requires that 

the military departments establish measures to ensure correct accounting 

of interservice workloads; however the allocation of these funds may not 

always be accurately reported. We found instances where a military 

service awarded public depot maintenance work to another military 

service, which then contracted out a portion of that workload to the 

private sector. The military service awarding the work, as principal owner 

of the funds, inaccurately reported this as public workload because it had 

not inquired whether all the awarded work was performed at the public 

depot. For example, we identified approximately $172,000 of privatesector work that may have been inaccurately reported as public-sector 

work because the principal owner of the funds did not follow up to 

determine whether all of the work was performed by the public depot. 

While we were unable to fully evaluate the extent of inaccurate reporting 

associated with interservice agreements, until the military departments 

establish sufficient measures to accurately account for and report their 

distribution of depot maintenance workload, the 50-50 data reported by 

DOD may continue to be inaccurate. 

The limited visibility over direct sales agreements is another reason why 

the depot maintenance workload allocation may be inaccurately reported 

to Congress. A direct sales agreement involves private vendors contracting 

back to a DOD maintenance facility for labor to be performed by DOD 

employees. OSD guidance requires that sales of articles and services by 

DOD maintenance depots to entities outside of DOD, when work is 

accomplished by DOD employees, shall be reported as public-sector work. 

However, we found that the reporting of the distribution of private- and 

public-sector workload for direct sales agreements may not be accurate. 

With a direct sales agreement, there is no requirement for the private 

vendor to identify and break out the contract costs, such as materials and 

other factors of production, and allocate them to expenses performed by 

the private vendor or the public depot. We found the use of direct sales 

agreements by the Air Force may have resulted in an overstatement of 

private-sector funds, with a corresponding understatement of publicDepot Maintenance 

Allocations Involving 

Some Interservice and 

Direct Sales Agreements 

May Not Be Properly 

Reported 

Page 10 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
sector funds. In addition, we found similar instances in the Army where 

work performed by the public sector under a direct sales agreement with a 

private vendor may have been misreported as being performed by the 

private sector. Although we were unable to fully evaluate the extent to 

which costs associated with these types of contract agreements were 

misreported, until private vendors break out direct sales agreement costs 

by the private and public sectors, DOD’s reporting of 50-50 funding 

allocation may remain inaccurate. 

We identified several other errors that resulted in inaccurate reported 50-

50 data for the Navy and Army. As we reported in previous years,9

 we 

identified two areas that continue to be excluded from the Navy’s 50-50 

reporting. First, the Navy did not report any depot maintenance work on 

aircraft carriers performed while nuclear refueling. Navy officials cited the

exclusion of nuclear refueling in 10 U.S.C. § 2460(b)(1) and guidance from 

the General Counsel’s office in the Department of the Navy as reasons for 

not including $115 million in depot maintenance work performed on 

aircraft carriers while nuclear refueling. However, we continue to believe 

that depot repairs not directly associated with the task of nuclear refueling 

should be reported. Second, the Navy, as in prior years, continues to 

inconsistently report ship-inactivation activities related to the servicing 

and preservation of systems and equipment before ships are placed in

storage or in an inactive status. The Navy did not report $14.4 million of 

private-sector allocations for inactivation work on nonnuclear ships, even

though it reported inactivation activities on nuclear ships. The Navy 

contends that the work for nuclear ship inactivation is complex while the

work for nonnuclear ships is not. We continue to maintain that all such 

depot-level work should be reported, since the statute and implementing 

guidance do not make a distinction based on complexity. In addition, our 

review of the Marine Corps data found that it underreported the privatesector total and overreported the public-sector total by about $1.5 million. 

This amount was for depot-level maintenance that was performed in a 

public depot by contractor personnel, which was misreported as public 

sector rather than private sector. 

Other Identified Errors 

 9

 For the two most recent reports, see GAO, Depot Maintenance: Persistent Deficiencies

Limit Accuracy and Usefulness of DOD’s Funding Allocation Data Reported to Congress, 

GAO-06-88 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 18, 2005), and Depot Maintenance: DOD Needs Plan to 

Ensure Compliance with Public- and Private-Sector Funding Allocation, GAO-04-871 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2004). 

Page 11 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
We also identified several data inaccuracies in the Army’s 50-50 data. For 

example, one Army depot failed to include approximately $31 million of 

private contract work it had outsourced for depot maintenance in its 50-50 

report. An Army official said that they had not known that this type of 

contract work should be included in 50-50 reporting, but they now plan to 

include it in future submissions. Our review also determined that several 

Army omissions, totaling approximately $53 million, were due to 

misinterpretation of the guidance regarding modifications and 

remanufacturing. The OSD guidance provides information about what to 

include and not to include in reporting depot maintenance with regard to 

upgrades, modifications, and remanufacturing. An Army official 

acknowledged that there has been confusion over what to report for 50-50 

depot maintenance and stated the Army is in the draft stages of updating 

the Army’s Depot Maintenance Workload Distribution Reporting 

Procedures. In addition, the Army’s 50-50 data contained errors totaling 

approximately $4 million due to changes in program costs. Finally, our 

review of the Army’s data found miscellaneous errors, including one 

instance of double counting and the transposition of numbers in some 

entries. 

During our review we noted actions taken by OSD and the military 

services that, while not fully implemented, provided some improvement in 

the 50-50 reporting process. For example, OSD, in its 50-50 guidance,

added a new requirement that the military services include variance 

analyses in their submissions of 50-50 data. The services performed 

variance analyses; however, these were at a very high level and provided 

little detail on how the fiscal year 2005 allocations differed from the prior 

year’s data. OSD guidance also included a new requirement that the 

services maintain records and reports for 50-50 data for at least 2 years, 

although we did find two instances where reporting locations could not 

provide backup documentation for their 50-50 data. In addition, as in 

previous years, OSD instructed the services to use a third-party reviewer, 

such as a service audit agency, to validate their data prior to submission. 

However, due to time constraints, each service audit agency performed 

only a limited review of the service’s data. For example, the Air Force 

directed its audit service to perform a limited review that focused on two 

issues. Additionally, each service headquarters continued to provide some 

form of training for its 50-50 reporting activities, although no service 

required attendance by all individuals involved in 50-50 data gathering and 

reporting. Guidance issued by OSD emphasized, but did not require, 

training for individuals involved in the 50-50 process. In one instance, an

official who was responsible for querying the 50-50 information from the 

DOD Took Actions to 

Improve 50-50 Reporting, 

but Deficiencies Affecting 

Data Accuracy Have 

Persisted 

Page 12 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
service’s data systems was unaware that any training was ever offered for 

50-50 reporting. 

Our work over the last several years has identified a number of persistent 

deficiencies, such as inadequate management attention and review, which 

have affected the quality of reported 50-50 data. DOD has not implemented 

recommendations we made last year to address these deficiencies. In prior 

years’ reports, we have identified problems in 50-50 data accuracy 

attributable to deficiencies in management attention, controls, and 

oversight; documentation of procedures and retention of records; 

independent validation of data; training for staff involved in the 50-50 

process; and guidance. DOD has taken steps over the years to improve 50-

50 reporting in response to our recommendations, but we have found that 

some deficiencies have persisted, including inadequate management 

attention and review, limited review and validation of data by independent 

third parties, and inadequate staff training. In our November 2005 report, 

we concluded that the recurring nature of deficiencies in 50-50 reporting 

indicates a management control weakness that DOD should disclose in its 

annual performance and accountability report to Congress.10 By doing so, 

DOD would increase the level of management attention and help focus 

improvement efforts so that the data provided to Congress are accurate 

and complete. DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating 

that systemic changes to the 50-50 reporting process had already been 

made in response to previous recommendations. DOD did not disclose 50-

50 reporting as a management control weakness in its most recent 

performance and accountability report. An OSD official responsible for 

developing the annual 50-50 report to Congress noted that completion of 

the department’s Enterprise Transition Plan11 would result in more 

accurate 50-50 reporting.

As we have previously reported, DOD’s April 2006 report satisfies the 

annual mandate as required by 10 U.S.C. § 2466(d). In our November 2005 

report, we stated that DOD could enhance the usefulness of its report for 

congressional oversight by providing additional information. For example, 

we recommended that DOD add information such as variance analyses 

 10 For a discussion of this issue, see GAO, Depot Maintenance: Persistent Deficiencies

Limit Accuracy and Usefulness of DOD’s Funding Allocation Data Reported to Congress, 

GAO-06-88 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 18, 2005).

11 In September 2005, DOD issued the Enterprise Transition Plan as part of its program to

modernize business systems.

Page 13 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
that identify significant changes from the prior year’s report and the 

reasons for these variances, longer term trend analyses, an explanation of 

methodologies used to estimate workload allocation projections for the 

current and ensuing fiscal years, and plans to ensure continued 

compliance with the 50-50 requirement, including decisions on new 

weapon systems maintenance workload sourcing that could be made to 

support remaining within the 50 percent threshold. DOD partially 

concurred with this recommendation and stated that producing the types 

of information we suggested would require a massive undertaking and 

may be of limited value. We disagreed and, on the basis of DOD’s 

response, added a matter for congressional consideration suggesting that 

Congress require the Secretary of Defense to enhance the department’s 

annual 50-50 report as stated in our recommendations. In the April 2006 

report, DOD did not make changes consistent with our recommendations, 

nor has Congress acted.

DOD’s reported projections for fiscal years 2006 through 2007 do not 

represent reasonable estimates of public- and private-sector depot 

maintenance funding allocations, in part because some errors in DOD’s 

fiscal year 2005 data are carried into the projected years. As shown in table 

2, the Army and the Navy projected that their private-sector depot 

maintenance allocations will remain below the 50 percent limitation for 

fiscal years 2006 and 2007. The Air Force projected that it will remain 

below the limitation for fiscal year 2006, but will exceed the limitation for 

fiscal year 2007. 

Fiscal Year 2006 and 

2007 Projections Are 

Not Reasonable Due 

to Data Inaccuracies 

Table 2: DOD’s Projected Allocations of Depot Maintenance Funds for Fiscal Years (FY) 2006 and 2007 

Private sector Public sector Exempt

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2006 FY 2007

Army 40.3% 47.5% 59.4% 52.2% 0.3% 0.4%

Navy 45.1% 41.2% 53.1% 58.8% 1.8% 0.0%

Air Force 48.4% 50.2% 51.6% 49.6% 0.1% 0.2%

Source: DOD. 

Notes: Based on data from DOD’s April 6, 2006, reported 50-50 data. The Department of the Navy 

includes the Marine Corps. 

Errors similar to those we identified in fiscal year 2005 reported data 

could affect these projections, as the Air Force is moving closer to the 

threshold for private-sector funding in fiscal year 2006 (48.4 percent) and 

beyond the threshold in fiscal year 2007 (50.2 percent). If the adjustments 

Page 14 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
we made to the Army’s fiscal year 2005 data—increasing the private-sector 

percentage by about 0.6 percentage points—are carried forward into fiscal 

year 2007 projections, it could cause the Army to come within 2 percent of

the 50 percent limitation on contracting for depot-level maintenance and 

repair. When spending projections reflect data within 2 percent of the 50 

percent limitation in a fiscal year, OSD guidance directs the components to

submit a plan that identifies actions to be taken to ensure continued 

compliance. This plan shall include identification of decisions on 

candidate maintenance workload sourcing that could be made to support 

remaining within compliance with the 50 percent limitation. In addition, 

we found an error of approximately $1.6 million in the Army’s fiscal year 

2006 projections, which further limits the accuracy of reported 

projections. Furthermore, DOD’s projected fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 

2007 allocations are based on the President’s budget numbers and often 

did not include supplemental funds, which can change the percentage 

allocations. However, in the case of some Air Force depot projections, 

supplemental funds are included in the projections if the amounts are 

already known. These limitations affect the reasonableness of the data

reported as projections of future funding allocations. 

While the Army and Navy project compliance with the 50-50 requirement 

through fiscal year 2007, the Air Force’s fiscal year 2006 projections are 

within 2 percent of the 50 percent limitation and its fiscal year 2007 

projections exceed the 50 percent limitation by 0.2 percent. To avoid 

breaching the 50 percent threshold, the Air Force is implementing a plan 

to ensure compliance in fiscal years 2007 through 2010. Under this plan, 

the Air Force is identifying and evaluating candidate weapon system 

programs for shifting maintenance workload from the private sector to the 

public sector. The Air Force has committed resources and approved 

shifting some maintenance associated with the F-100 engine beginning in 

fiscal year 2006. The Air Force plan shows that a total workload of $68 

million associated with the F-100 engine could be shifted to the public 

sector, enabling the Air Force to achieve compliance with the 50-50

requirement in fiscal year 2007. The Air Force is also evaluating workload 

associated with the KC-135 aircraft, the C-17 aircraft, the B-2 aircraft, the 

F-119 engine, and the F-117 engine that may be shifted to the public sector. 

The errors we identified in DOD’s April 2006 50-50 report—while not 

extensive—are indicative of the long-standing problems DOD has 

encountered in providing accurate depot maintenance funding allocation 

data to Congress. We have previously observed that the usefulness of the 

annual 50-50 report to Congress is limited because of data reliability 

Conclusions 

Page 15 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
concerns. Our prior reports identified data inaccuracies and recommended 

corrective actions aimed at addressing deficiencies that limited the 

accuracy of 50-50 reporting. In addition, we have recommended actions 

that Congress could take to improve the reliability and usefulness of 

DOD’s annual report. Our current review shows that while DOD has taken 

some additional actions to improve the quality of reported data for fiscal 

year 2005, it has not fully addressed the persistent deficiencies that have

limited 50-50 data accuracy in the past. DOD’s report presented an 

inaccurate measure of the balance of funding between the public and 

private sectors due to inconsistencies in reporting expenditures rather 

than obligations, and inaccurate distribution of reporting of allocations 

from interservice and direct sales agreements. Without consistent 

reporting of depot maintenance funding obligations, rather than a 

combination of expenditures and obligations, inaccurate reporting of the 

funding allocation between the public and private sectors will continue. 

Moreover, without accurate reporting of the allocation of depot 

maintenance workload performed by the private and public sectors under 

interservice and direct sales agreements, the 50-50 data reported by DOD 

will continue to be inaccurate. 

To improve the consistency and accuracy of depot maintenance funding

allocation data in DOD’s annual 50-50 report to Congress, we recommend 

that the Secretary of Defense take the following two actions: 

• Direct the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force and the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps to follow OSD guidance and report 

funding obligations rather than expenditures. 

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

Logistics, in conjunction with the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air 

Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, to establish measures to 

ensure proper accounting of the allocation of interservice workloads 

between the public and private sectors. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our 

recommendations. Regarding our recommendation that the military 

services follow guidance and report funding obligations rather than 

expenditures, DOD stated that it will be specific in its guidance on 50-50 

reporting and require organizations to report obligations rather than 

expenditures. Also, DOD stated that Army guidance and training will 

address our findings. Consistent with our recommendation, we believe 

that the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps also should take appropriate 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 16 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
steps to ensure that obligations are reported. Regarding our 

recommendation that measures be established to ensure proper 

accounting of the allocation of interservice workloads, DOD said that its 

guidance will require component audit agencies to specifically validate 

interservice data prior to submitting the 50-50 report to the department. 

Validation of interservice data would meet the intent of our 

recommendation. 

DOD also stated that it did not agree with our adjustments to the work 

accomplished during the nuclear refueling of aircraft carriers and for 

inactivation work on nonnuclear ships. DOD stated that all costs during 

nuclear aircraft carrier refueling are properly excluded and conventional

ship inactivation workload is not considered depot-level maintenance. We 

have had a long-standing disagreement with DOD on including funding for 

these two areas in its 50-50 report. For the past several years we have 

maintained that DOD should include these funds, while DOD has 

disagreed. Our reasons for including these adjustments are discussed in 

this report. 

DOD’s written comments are reprinted in appendix III. DOD also provided 

technical comments which we have incorporated as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 

committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, 

and Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the Director, 

Office of Management and Budget. We will make copies available to others 

upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the 

GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staffs have any 

questions on the matters discussed in this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-8365 or solisw@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 IV. 

William M. Solis 

Director, Defense Capabilities and Management 

Page 17 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To determine whether the military departments provided accurate data in

reporting depot maintenance funding allocations and whether they met the 

50-50 requirement for fiscal year 2005, we reviewed military services’ 

procedures and internal management controls for collecting and reporting

their depot maintenance allocations. We discussed with key officials the 

process used to identify and report depot maintenance workload 

allocation between the public and private sectors. We selected a 

nonprobability sample of reported 50-50 obligations totaling $2.7 billion of 

the reported $26.4 billion reported in the Department of Defense’s (DOD) 

report to Congress on depot maintenance funding allocation. We based 

our sample on previously identified areas of concern, varying program 

amounts, and selected locations for our site visits. We also contacted 

service audit agencies and third-party officials at service headquarters to 

discuss their verification review of the fiscal year 2005 50-50 obligation 

data. We did not conduct a review of all reported 50-50 data; therefore, 

there may be additional errors, omissions, and inconsistencies that were 

not identified. Because we used a nonprobability sample, our results 

cannot be projected. 

We visited departmental headquarters, major commands, and selected 

maintenance activities. We interviewed service officials responsible for 

data collection, and we reviewed the reported data for accuracy and 

completeness. We compared reported amounts to funding documents, 

contracts, and accounting reports for selected programs for all the military 

services, but we placed greater emphasis on the Army data because the 

Army was close to the 50 percent threshold for fiscal year 2005. 

To determine the actions taken by the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

(OSD) and military departments to improve the quality of the reported 50-

50 data and implementation of GAO’s prior year’s recommendations, we 

reviewed the results of studies conducted by the service audit agencies 

and reconciled areas of concern identified during prior years’ audits. We 

also reviewed prior years’ recommendations to find out whether known 

problem areas were being addressed and resolved. We discussed with 

officials actions they took to improve 50-50 data gathering and reporting 

processes. 

To determine the reasonableness of fiscal year 2006 and 2007 projections, 

we discussed with service officials how they developed their projections 

and whether historical funding information and known increases in 

funding were included in their projections. Our analysis of the data for 

fiscal years 2006 and 2007 was limited because our current and past work 

on this issue has shown that DOD’s 50-50 data cannot be relied upon as a 

Page 18 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

precise measure of allocation of depot maintenance funds between the 

public and private sectors. We discussed with Air Force officials reasons 

for the increase in their fiscal year 2007 projection and their plans to avoid

breaching the 50 percent limitation. 

In accomplishing our objectives, we interviewed officials, examined 

documents, and obtained data at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, 

Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force headquarters in the Washington,

D.C., area; Anniston Army Depot in Anniston, Ala.; Red River Army Depot 

in Texarkana, Tex.; Army Material Command in Alexandria, Va.; Tankautomotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) Life Cycle Management 

Command in Warren, Mi.; Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, 

Md.; U.S. Fleet Forces Command in Norfolk, Va.; Air Force Materiel 

Command in Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Oh.; Marine Corps Logistics 

Command in Albany, Ga.; and Army, Navy, and Air Force Audit Services. 

We conducted our work from March 2006 to September 2006 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Page 19 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
Appendix II: GAO Adjustments to Army Fiscal

Appendix II: GAO Adjustments to Army Year 2005 Reported Data 

Fiscal Year 2005 Reported Data 

Our review of the Army’s data supporting the Department of Defense’s 

(DOD) fiscal year 2005 50-50 report identified the following adjustments. 

Table 3: Adjustments to Army Fiscal Year 2005 Reported Data 

Site Public adjustment (+/-) Private adjustment (+/-) Description

Anniston Army Depot 

$35,779.00 -$35,779.00 Contract amount overreported 

$33,212.93 -$33,212.93 Contract amount overreported 

Red River Army Depot

-$1,482,178.10 $1,482,178.10 Private carryover work misreported 

-$30,823,990.55 $30,823,990.55 Outsourced contract work misreported

$245,011.00 -$245,011.00 Miscellaneous math errors in report 

U.S. Army Tank-automotive and 

Armaments Command (TACOM) 

Life Cycle Management Command 

$742,490.00 Reset work underreported due to 

changes in program costs 

-$5,156,575.00 Reset work overreported due to 

double counting

$11,170,845.00 M9 Armored Combat Earthmover (M9 

ACE) work unreported due to not 

reporting all applicable amounts 

$39,445,735.53 Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical 

Truck (HEMTT) work unreported due 

to guidance misinterpretation

-$127,738.97 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled 

Vehicle (HMMWV) work overreported 

due to changes in program costs 

$1,848,952.51 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled 

Vehicle (HMMWV) work 

underreported due to changes in 

program costs 

$13,953,000.00 Bradley work unreported due to 

guidance misinterpretation 

-$500,580.00 Abrams work overreported due to 

changes in program costs 

$504,278.50 Bradley work underreported due to 

changes in program costs 

$302,546.90 Bradley work underreported due to 

changes in program costs 

 Total Army adjustments -$5,947,324.19 $68,130,278.66

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

Page 20 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
Appendix III: Comments from the Department Appendix III: Comments from the of Defense 

Department of Defense 

Page 21 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 22 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
Appendix IV: 

A

GAO Contacts and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 23 GAO-07-126

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

William M. Solis (202) 512-8365 

Key contributors to this report include Thomas Gosling, Assistant 

Director; Connie W. Sawyer, Jr.; Janine Cantin; Clara Mejstrik; Stephanie 

Moriarty; and Renee Brown. 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

Depot Maintenance
Related GAO Products Related GAO Products 

Depot Maintenance: Persistent Deficiencies Limit Accuracy and 

Usefulness of DOD’s Funding Allocation Data Reported to Congress. 

GAO-06-88. Washington, D.C.: November 18, 2005. 

Depot Maintenance: DOD Needs Plan to Ensure Compliance with Publicand Private-Sector Funding Allocation. GAO-04-871. Washington, D.C.: 

September 29, 2004. 

Depot Maintenance: Army Needs Plan to Implement Depot Maintenance 

Report’s Recommendations. GAO-04-220. Washington, D.C.: January 8, 

2004. 

Depot Maintenance: DOD’s 50-50 Reporting Should Be Streamlined. 

GAO-03-1023. Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2003. 

Department of Defense: Status of Financial Management Weaknesses 

and Progress Toward Reform. GAO-03-931T. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 

2003. 

Depot Maintenance: Change in Reporting Practices and Requirements 

Could Enhance Congressional Oversight. GAO-03-16. Washington D.C.: 

October 18, 2002. 

Depot Maintenance: Management Attention Needed to Further Improve 

Workload Allocation Data. GAO-02-95. Washington, D.C.: November 9, 

2001. 

Depot Maintenance: Action Needed to Avoid Exceeding Threshold on 

Contract Workloads. GAO/NSIAD-00-193. Washington, D.C.: August 24, 

2000. 

Depot Maintenance: Air Force Faces Challenges in Managing to 50-50 

Threshold. GAO/T-NSIAD-00-112. Washington, D.C.: March 3, 2000. 

Depot Maintenance: Future Year Estimates of Public and Private 

Workloads Are Likely to Change. GAO/NSIAD-00-69. Washington, D.C.: 

March 1, 2000. 

Depot Maintenance: Workload Allocation Reporting Improved, but 

Lingering Problems Remain. GAO/NSIAD-99-154. Washington, D.C.: July 

13, 1999. 

Page 24 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
Related GAO Products 

Defense Depot Maintenance: Public and Private Sector Workload 

Distribution Reporting Can Be Further Improved. GAO/NSIAD-98-175. 

Washington, D.C.: July 23, 1998. 

Defense Depot Maintenance: Information on Public and Private Sector 

Workload Allocations. GAO/NSIAD-98-41. Washington, D.C.: January 20, 

1998. 

Defense Depot Maintenance: More Comprehensive and Consistent 

Workload Data Needed for Decisionmakers. GAO/NSIAD-96-166. 

Washington, D.C.: May 21, 1996. 

(350818) Page 25 GAO-07-126 Depot Maintenance
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

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

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

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

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

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER