Report to the Chairman, 

Committee on Small Business, 

House of Representatives 

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

May 2004 JOINT STRIKE 

FIGHTER 

ACQUISITION 

Observations on the 

Supplier Base 

GAO-04-554 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-554.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Katherine V. 

Schinasi at (202) 512-4841 or 

schinasik@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-554, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Small Business, 

House of Representatives 

May 2004

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER ACQUISITION

Observations on the Supplier Base 

The Buy American Act and Preference for Domestic Specialty Metals clause 

implementing Berry Amendment provisions apply to the government’s 

purchase of manufactured end products for the JSF program. Currently, 

only one of the three JSF prime contractors is under contract to deliver 

manufactured end products to the government in this phase of the program. 

The Buy American Act will apply to manufactured end products delivered to 

DOD during subsequent phases, but it will have little impact on the selection 

of suppliers because of DOD’s use of the law’s public interest exception. 

DOD, using this exception, has determined that it would be inconsistent with 

the public interest to apply domestic preference restrictions to countries 

that have signed reciprocal procurement agreements with the department. 

All of the JSF partners have signed such agreements. DOD must also apply 

the Preference for Domestic Specialty Metals clause to articles delivered 

under JSF contracts. All three prime contractors have indicated that they 

will meet these Specialty Metals requirements. 

While the JSF Program Office maintains more information on subcontractors 

than required by acquisition regulations, this information does not provide 

the program with a complete picture of the supplier base. The program 

office collects data on subcontract awards for international suppliers and 

U.S. small businesses. In addition, it maintains lists of the companies 

responsible for developing key or critical technologies. However, the lists do 

not provide visibility into the lower-tier subcontracts that have been issued 

for developing or supplying these technologies. 

JSF Development Phase Subcontract Awards to the United States and Other Partner and 

Nonpartner Countries 

Countries Subcontract awards Percentage

United States $10,361,670,423 73.9

Partner countries: $3,620,103,309 25.8

United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, 

Turkey, Australia, Norway, 

Denmark, Canada 

Nonpartner countries: $44,586,392 0.3

France, Germany, India, Israel, 

Poland, Russia, Spain, Switzerland 

Total subcontract awards $14,026,360,123a 100.0

Sources: JSF prime contractors—Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney, and General Electric—and their self-identified teammates—BAE 

Systems, Northrop Grumman, Rolls Royce plc, Hamilton Sundstrand, and Rolls Royce Corporation (data); GAO (analysis). 

Note: Information is based on subcontracts awarded for the System Development and 

Demonstration phase between October 26, 2001 and December 31, 2003. These awards include 

the first-tier of the JSF supplier base and portions of the second-tier. 

a

Total does not add because of rounding. 

As the Department of Defense’s 

(DOD) most expensive aircraft 

program, and its largest 

international program, the Joint 

Strike Fighter (JSF) has the 

potential to significantly affect the 

worldwide defense industrial base. 

As currently planned, it will cost an 

estimated $245 billion for DOD to 

develop and procure about 2,400 

JSF aircraft and related support 

equipment by 2027. In addition, the 

program expects international 

sales of 2,000 to 3,500 aircraft. If 

the JSF comes to dominate the 

market for tactical aircraft as DOD 

expects, companies that are not 

part of the program could see their 

tactical aircraft business decline. 

Although full rate production of the 

JSF is not projected to start until 

2013, contracts awarded at this 

point in the program will provide 

the basis for future awards. 

GAO was asked to determine the 

limits on and extent of foreign 

involvement in the JSF supplier 

base. To do this, GAO 

(1) determined how the Buy 

American Act and the Preference 

for Domestic Specialty Metals 

clause apply to the JSF 

development phase and the extent 

of foreign subcontracting on the 

program and (2) identified the data 

available to the JSF Program Office 

to manage its supplier base, 

including information on suppliers 

of critical technologies. 

DOD provided technical comments 

on a draft of this report, which 

GAO incorporated as appropriate. 
Page i GAO-04-554 Joint Strike Fighter Supplier Base 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 3

Buy American Act and Specialty Metals Requirements Apply but 

Will Have Little Effect on JSF Subcontracting Decisions 5

JSF Program Office Maintains Subcontract Information on Specific 

Areas of Interest 9

Conclusions 10

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 11

Scope and Methodology 11

Appendix I Joint Strike Fighter Partner Financial 

Contributions and Estimated Aircraft Purchases 13 

Appendix II Joint Strike Fighter System Development and 

Demonstration Subcontract Awards 14 

Tables 

Table 1: Joint Strike Fighter Partner Financial Contributions and 

Estimated Aircraft Purchases 13

Table 2: JSF Development Phase Subcontract Awards to the United 

States, Qualifying Countries, and Nonqualifying Countries 14

Table 3: JSF Development Phase Subcontract Awards to the United 

States and Other Partner and Nonpartner Countries 14

Figure 

Figure 1: Example of Specialty Metals Clause Application 8

Contents 
Page ii GAO-04-554 Joint Strike Fighter Supplier Base 

Abbreviations 

DCMA Defense Contract Management Agency 

DFARS Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

DOD Department of Defense 

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation 

GAO General Accounting Office 

JSF Joint Strike Fighter 

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

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-04-554 Joint Strike Fighter Supplier Base 

May 3, 2004 

The Honorable Donald A. Manzullo 

Chairman 

Committee on Small Business 

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

As the Department of Defense’s (DOD) most expensive aircraft program, 

and its largest international program, the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has the 

potential to significantly affect the worldwide defense industrial base. As 

currently planned, it will cost an estimated $245 billion for DOD to develop 

and procure about 2,400 JSF aircraft and related support equipment by 

2027. In addition, the program expects international sales of 2,000 to 

3,500 aircraft. If the JSF comes to dominate the market for tactical aircraft 

as DOD expects, companies that are not part of the program could see 

their tactical aircraft business decline. Although full-rate production of the 

JSF is not projected to start until 2013, contracts awarded at this point in 

the program will provide the basis for future awards, if companies 

continue to meet cost and schedule goals. 

The JSF program is viewed by many within DOD as a model for 

cooperative development and production between DOD and U.S. allies. 

The eight foreign countries participating in the program are contributing 

over $4.5 billion in the development phase. These countries expect to 

realize a significant return on their investment in the form of JSF contract 

awards to their defense industries. To meet these expectations, the JSF 

program office has encouraged the three JSF prime contractors—

Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney, and General Electric—and their 

suppliers to provide opportunities for companies from partner countries to 

bid on contracts. In our July 2003 report on the JSF international program, 

we recommended that the program office collect and monitor information 

on the prime contractors’ selection and management of suppliers to 

United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-04-554 Joint Strike Fighter Supplier Base 

identify and address any potential conflicts between partner expectations 

and program goals.1

In July 2003 you requested that we review the extent of foreign supplier 

involvement in the JSF program and its effect on the U.S. defense 

industrial base. To do this, we (1) determined how the Buy American Act2

and the Preference for Domestic Specialty Metals clause3

 implementing 

Berry Amendment4

 provisions apply to the development phase of the JSF 

program and the extent of foreign subcontracting on the program; and 

(2) identified the data available to the JSF Program Office to manage its 

supplier base, including information on the suppliers of critical 

technologies. On February 12, 2004, we briefed you and your staff on our 

work.5

 This report summarizes that briefing and provides updated data on 

JSF subcontract awards. We performed our review from August 2003 to 

March 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

The Buy American Act and Preference for Domestic Specialty Metals 

clause implementing Berry Amendment provisions apply to the 

government’s purchase of manufactured end products for the JSF 

program. Currently, only one of three JSF prime contractors is under 

contract to deliver manufactured end products to the government in this 

phase of the program. The Buy American Act will apply to manufactured 

end products delivered to DOD during subsequent phases, but its domestic 

preference restrictions will have little impact on the selection of suppliers 

because of DOD’s use of the law’s public interest exception. DOD, using 

this exception, has determined that it would be inconsistent with the 

public interest to apply domestic preference restrictions to countries that 

 1

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Joint Strike Fighter Acquisition: Cooperative 

Program Needs Greater Oversight to Ensure Goals Are Met, GAO-03-775

(Washington, D.C.: July 21, 2003).

2

 41 U.S.C. sections 10a–10d. 

3

 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.225-7014, Alternate I. 

4

 10 U.S.C. section 2533a. 

5

 The February 12 briefing reported on four questions: (1) How do the Buy American Act 

and Berry Amendment apply to the development phase of the JSF program? (2) How does 

DOD oversee JSF subcontracting? (3) What JSF subcontracts have been awarded? (4) What 

foreign technologies are critical to the JSF program? These four questions have been 

consolidated into two objectives for this report. 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-04-554 Joint Strike Fighter Supplier Base 

have signed reciprocal procurement agreements with the department. All 

of the JSF partners have signed such agreements. DOD must also apply the 

Preference for Domestic Specialty Metals clause to articles delivered 

under JSF contracts. All three prime contractors have indicated that they 

will meet these Specialty Metals requirements. Although the Buy American 

Act will have little impact on the selection of suppliers, the large majority 

of subcontracts (in dollar terms) that we obtained data on have been 

placed with U.S. firms. 

While the JSF program office maintains more information on 

subcontractors than is required by acquisition regulations, this information 

does not provide the program with a complete picture of the supplier base. 

The JSF Program Office collects and maintains data on subcontract 

awards for two specific areas of interest—international suppliers and 

U.S. small businesses. In addition, the program office maintains lists of 

the companies responsible for developing the JSF’s key or critical 

technologies. The program office is required to compile these lists as part 

of its program protection strategy. However, the lists do not provide 

visibility into the lower-tier subcontracts that have been issued for 

developing or supplying these technologies. 

DOD has recognized the need for the JSF Program Office to assume a 

more active role in collecting information on and monitoring the prime 

contractors’ selection of suppliers. The Department concurred with a 

recommendation in our July 2003 JSF report that stated this information 

could help the program office identify and address potential conflicts 

between the international program and other program goals. Increased 

visibility into the supplier base could also aid the program office’s 

management of other areas and provide DOD with the means to monitor 

the effects of the JSF program on the defense industrial base. 

DOD provided only technical comments on a draft of this report, which we 

incorporated as appropriate. 

The JSF program is a joint program between the Air Force, Navy, and 

Marine Corps for developing and producing next-generation fighter 

aircraft to replace aging inventories. The program is currently in year 3 of 

an estimated 11-year development phase. The current estimated cost for 

this phase is about $40.5 billion. In October 2001 Lockheed Martin was 

Background 
Page 4 GAO-04-554 Joint Strike Fighter Supplier Base 

awarded the air system development contract now valued at over 

$19 billion.6

 Lockheed Martin subsequently awarded multi-billion-dollar 

subcontracts to its development teammates—Northrop Grumman and 

BAE Systems—for work on the center and aft fuselage, respectively. 

Lockheed Martin has also subcontracted for the development of major 

subsystems of the aircraft, such as the landing gear system. This is a 

departure from past Lockheed Martin aircraft programs, where the 

company subcontracted for components (tires, brakes, etc.) and 

integrated them into major assemblies and subsystems (the landing 

gear system). 

In addition to the Lockheed Martin contract, DOD has prime contracts 

with both Pratt & Whitney and General Electric to develop two 

interchangeable aircraft engines.7

 Pratt & Whitney’s development contract 

is valued at over $4.8 billion. Rolls Royce plc (located in the United 

Kingdom) and Hamilton Sundstrand are major subcontractors to Pratt & 

Whitney for this effort. General Electric is currently in an early phase of 

development and has a contract valued at $453 million. Rolls Royce 

Corporation (located in Indianapolis, Ind.) is a teammate and 40 percent 

partner for the General Electric engine program. The General 

Electric/Rolls Royce team is expected to receive a follow-on development 

contract in fiscal year 2005 worth an estimated $2.3 billion. 

All the prime contracts include award fee structures that permit the 

JSF Program Office to establish criteria applicable to specific evaluation 

periods. If, during its regular monitoring of contract execution, 

the program office identifies the need for more emphasis in a certain 

area—such as providing opportunities for international suppliers or 

reducing aircraft weight—it can establish related criteria against which the 

contractor will be evaluated to determine the extent of its award fee. 

 6

 Lockheed Martin’s development contract has been modified multiple times since it was 

signed in October 2001. These modifications have increased the value of the base contract 

by hundreds of millions of dollars. 

7

 The F135 (Pratt & Whitney) and F136 (General Electric/Rolls Royce Corporation) 

engines integrate with common propulsion system components to form the complete JSF 

propulsion systems. In addition to the F135 engine, Pratt & Whitney is also responsible for 

developing certain common propulsion system components that will interface with both 

engine cores. These include the lift fan system, roll posts, three bearing swivel duct, 

conventional exhaust duct, and exhaust nozzles, among other components. 
Page 5 GAO-04-554 Joint Strike Fighter Supplier Base 

The Buy American Act and Preference for Domestic Specialty Metals 

clause implementing Berry Amendment provisions apply to the 

government’s purchase of manufactured end products for the JSF 

program. Currently, only one JSF prime contractor—Pratt & Whitney—

will deliver manufactured end products to the government in this phase of 

the program. Under its current contract, Pratt & Whitney is to deliver 

20 flight test engines, 10 sets of common engine hardware, and certain 

other equipment. The other engine prime contractor, General Electric, 

will not deliver manufactured end products under its current contract. 

However, its anticipated follow-on development contract will include the 

delivery of test engines that will be subject to Buy American Act and 

Specialty Metals requirements. Finally, Lockheed Martin will not deliver 

any manufactured end products under its development contract. The 

company is required to deliver plans, studies, designs, and data. Lockheed 

Martin will produce 22 test articles (14 flight test aircraft and 8 ground test 

articles) during this phase of the program, but these are not among the 

items to be delivered.8

Although the Buy American Act will apply to manufactured end products 

delivered to DOD during the JSF program, its restrictions will have little 

impact on the selection of suppliers because of DOD’s use of the law’s 

public interest exception.9

 This exception allows the head of an agency to 

determine that applying the domestic preference restrictions would be 

inconsistent with the public interest. DOD has determined that countries 

that sign reciprocal procurement agreements with the department to 

promote defense cooperation and open up defense markets qualify for this 

exception.10 The eight JSF partners have all signed these agreements and 

are considered “qualifying countries.” Under defense acquisition 

regulations implementing the Buy American Act, over 50 percent of the 

cost of all the components in an end product must be mined, produced, or 

manufactured in the United States or “qualifying countries” for a product 

 8

 According to program officials, the 22 test articles acquired under the Lockheed Martin 

development contract are government-owned assets in possession of the contractor. Under 

a cost-type contract, the government acquires ownership as it pays the contractor. 

9

 41 U.S.C. section 10d. 

10 “Qualifying countries” include Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, 

Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, 

Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. Acquisitions from Austria and 

Finland may also be exempted from the Buy American Act on a case-by-case basis. 

DFARS 225.872-1. 

Buy American Act 

and Specialty Metals 

Requirements Apply 

but Will Have 

Little Effect on 

JSF Subcontracting 

Decisions 
Page 6 GAO-04-554 Joint Strike Fighter Supplier Base 

to qualify as domestic.11 Our analysis of JSF development subcontracts 

awarded by prime contractors and their teammates showed that nearly 

100 percent of contract dollars awarded by the end of 2003 went to 

companies in the United States or qualifying countries. (See appendix II 

for Joint Strike Fighter System Development and Demonstration 

Subcontract Awards to the United States, Qualifying Countries, and 

Nonqualifying Countries). 

The Preference for Domestic Specialty Metals clause applies to articles 

delivered by Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney, and General Electric 

under JSF contracts. Generally, this clause requires U.S. or qualifying 

country sources for any specialty metals,12 such as titanium, that are 

incorporated into articles delivered under the contract. This restriction 

must also be included in any subcontract awarded for the program. To 

meet Specialty Metals requirements, Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney 

have awarded subcontracts to domestic suppliers for titanium; and 

Lockheed Martin has also extended to its subcontractors the right to buy 

titanium from its domestic supplier at the price negotiated for Lockheed 

Martin. General Electric does not exclusively use domestic titanium in its 

defense products. However, in 1996, the company received a class 

deviation from the clause that allows it to use both domestic and foreign 

titanium in its defense products, as long as it buys sufficient domestic 

quantities to meet DOD contract requirements.13 For instance, if 25 percent 

of the General Electric’s business in a given year comes from DOD 

 11 To comply with the Buy American Act, companies must certify in their contract 

proposals that the manufactured end products they are offering to the U.S. government 

qualify as domestic end products. To qualify as a domestic end product, the product must 

meet two criteria. The end product must be manufactured in the United States, and the cost 

of its U.S. and qualifying country components must exceed 50 percent of the cost of all its 

components. DFARS 225.101. 

12 Specialty metals are defined as certain metal alloys, steel alloys, titanium and 

titanium alloys, and zirconium and zirconium base alloys produced in the United States, 

U.S. possessions, or Puerto Rico. U.S. possessions include American Samoa, the 

Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, among 

other areas. 

13 Class deviations are deviations from the Federal Acquisition Regulation or the Defense 

Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement that affect more than one contract action. 

FAR 1.404. 
Page 7 GAO-04-554 Joint Strike Fighter Supplier Base 

contracts, then at least 25 percent of its titanium purchases must be 

procured from domestic sources.14

Similar to the Buy American Act, the Specialty Metals clause contains a 

provision related to “qualifying country” suppliers. It provides that the 

clause does not apply to specialty metals melted in a qualifying country or 

incorporated in products or components manufactured in a qualifying 

country.15 As a result, a qualifying country subcontractor would have 

greater latitude under the clause than a U.S. subcontractor. Specifically, 

the specialty metals incorporated into an article manufactured by a 

qualifying country may be from any source,16 while an article 

manufactured by a U.S. subcontractor must incorporate specialty metals 

from a domestic or qualifying country source. (See fig. 1.) 

 14 According to the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), in granting this class 

deviation, it determined that the DFARS specialty metals clause was more stringent than 

the statute it implements. DCMA granted this class deviation on a “permanent” basis and is 

responsible for monitoring General Electric’s compliance with its terms. 

15 These are the same qualifying countries that are mentioned in reference to the Buy 

American Act. (See footnote 10.) 

16 Potential sources would not include those prohibited under FAR 52.225-13, Restrictions 

on Certain Foreign Purchases. Such prohibited sources would include, for example, Cuba 

and North Korea. 
Page 8 GAO-04-554 Joint Strike Fighter Supplier Base 

Figure 1: Example of Specialty Metals Clause Application 

The data we collected on JSF subcontracts show that by 

December 31, 2003, the prime contractors and their teammates had 

awarded over $14 billion in subcontracts for the development phase 

of the program. These subcontracts were for everything from the 

development of subsystems—such as radar, landing gear, and 

communications systems—to engine hardware, engineering services, 

machine tooling, and raw materials. The recipients of these contracts 

included suppliers in 16 foreign countries and the United States; 

73.9 percent of the subcontracts by dollar value went to U.S. companies 

and 24.2 percent went to companies in the United Kingdom (the largest 

foreign financial contributor to the JSF program). (See appendix I for Joint 

Strike Fighter Partner Financial Contributions and Estimated Aircraft 

Purchases and appendix II for Joint Strike Fighter System Development 
Page 9 GAO-04-554 Joint Strike Fighter Supplier Base 

and Demonstration Subcontract Awards). Finally, 2,597 of 4,488 

subcontracts or purchase orders we obtained information on went to U.S. 

small businesses. Although these businesses received only 2.1 percent of 

the total dollar value of the subcontracts awarded, DOD and contractor 

officials have indicated that all companies in the development phase are in 

good position to receive production contracts, provided that cost and 

schedule goals are met.17

The gathering of these data, which most of the contractors have made 

available to the JSF Program Office and DCMA, has increased the breadth 

of knowledge available to DOD and the program office on the JSF supplier 

base. Neither DOD nor the JSF program office previously collected this 

information because, according to program officials, this information is 

not necessary in order to manage the program. At least one major 

subcontractor, on its own initiative, is now separately tracking JSF 

subcontracts on a monthly basis. 

While the JSF Program Office maintains more information on 

subcontractors than required by acquisition regulations, this information 

does not provide the program with a complete picture of the supplier 

base. The JSF Program Office collects and maintains data on subcontract 

awards for specific areas of interest—international suppliers and 

U.S. small businesses. The program office has used the award fee process 

to incentivize the prime contractors to report on both small business 

awards through the third tier and subcontract opportunities and awards to 

international suppliers.18 In addition, the program office has some visibility 

over certain subcontracts through mechanisms such as monthly supplier 

teleconferences, integrated product teams, informal notifications of 

subcontract awards, and DCMA reports on the performance of major 

 17 The JSF Program Office has requested that the prime contractors strive for 20-30 percent 

small business participation through the third tier of the supplier base for the life of the JSF 

program (including the development phase and production). This small business 

participation percentage is based on “eligible subcontract dollars” and does not include 

certain subcontracts, such as those awarded to or awarded by international suppliers, in its 

calculations. We included all the subcontracts and purchase orders we obtained 

information on in our small business calculations. 

18 This small business reporting includes information on six small business categories and 

subcategories—small disadvantaged businesses, woman-owned small businesses, 

historically underutilized business zones, historically black colleges and 

universities/minority institutions, veteran-owned small businesses, and service-disabled 

veteran-owned small businesses. 

JSF Program 

Office Maintains 

Subcontract 

Information on 

Specific Areas 

of Interest 
Page 10 GAO-04-554 Joint Strike Fighter Supplier Base 

suppliers. Finally, the JSF Program Office maintains limited information 

on the companies responsible for supplying critical technologies. 

The JSF Program Office’s information on the suppliers of key or 

critical technologies is based on lists that the prime contractors compile 

as part of the program protection strategy. These program protection 

requirements—not the supplier base—are the focus of DOD’s and the 

JSF Program Office’s approach toward critical technologies. DOD 

acquisition regulations require program managers to maintain lists of a 

program’s key technologies or capabilities to prevent the unauthorized 

disclosure or inadvertent transfer of leading-edge technologies and 

sensitive data or systems. The lists include the names of key technologies 

and capabilities, the reason the technology is sensitive and requires 

protection, and the location where the technology resides. The lists do not 

provide visibility into the lower-tier subcontracts that have been issued for 

developing or supplying these technologies. Given the limited supplier 

information these lists provide, the JSF Program Office is aware of 

two instances where a foreign company is the developer or supplier of 

an unclassified critical technology for the program.19 In both cases, a 

U.S. company is listed as a codeveloper of the technology. 

The JSF program has the potential to significantly impact the U.S. defense 

industrial base. Suppliers chosen during the JSF development phase will 

likely remain on the program through production, if they meet cost and 

schedule targets, and will reap the benefits of contracts potentially worth 

over $100 billion. Therefore, contracts awarded now will likely affect the 

future shape of the defense industrial base. 

The JSF supplier base information currently maintained by the JSF 

Program Office is focused on specific areas of interest and does not 

provide a broad view of the industrial base serving the program. In our 

July 2003 report, we recommended that the JSF Program Office assume a 

more active role in collecting information on and monitoring the prime 

contractors’ selection of suppliers to address potential conflicts between 

the international program and other program goals. DOD concurred with 

our recommendation, but did not specify how it plans to collect and 

monitor this information. Collecting this information will be an important 

 19 We did not obtain information on classified critical technologies as part of this review. 

Conclusions 
Page 11 GAO-04-554 Joint Strike Fighter Supplier Base 

first step for providing DOD with the knowledge base it needs to assess 

the impact of the program on the industrial base. 

We provided DOD a draft of this report for review. DOD provided only 

technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

To obtain information on the Buy American Act and the Preference for 

Domestic Specialty Metals clause implementing Berry Amendment 

provisions, we reviewed applicable laws and regulations. We interviewed 

DOD officials in the JSF Program Office, the Office of the Deputy Under 

Secretary of Defense (Industrial Policy), the Office of the Director of 

Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, and the Defense Contract 

Management Agency to obtain information on the applicability of the Buy 

American Act and other domestic source restrictions, critical foreign 

technologies, and DOD oversight of subcontracts. We reviewed prime 

contracts for the JSF program and met with JSF prime contractors, 

including Lockheed Martin and the engine contractors, Pratt & Whitney 

and General Electric, to discuss the applicability of the Buy American Act 

and other domestic source restrictions and to collect data on first-tier 

subcontract awards for the System Development and Demonstration 

phase. Furthermore, we collected data on subcontract awards for the JSF 

System Development and Demonstration phase from companies that were 

identified as partners or teammates by Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney, 

and General Electric. These companies included Northrop Grumman, 

BAE Systems, Rolls Royce plc, Hamilton Sundstrand, and Rolls Royce 

Corporation. We did not independently verify subcontract data but, 

instead, relied on DCMA’s reviews of contractors’ reporting systems to 

assure data accuracy and completeness. We performed our review from 

August 2003 to March 2004 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the 

date of this report. We will then send copies of this report to interested 

congressional committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the 

Navy and the Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the 

Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies 

available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be available 

at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Scope and 

Methodology 
Page 12 GAO-04-554 Joint Strike Fighter Supplier Base 

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

contact me at (202) 512-4841; or Thomas J. Denomme, Assistant Director, 

at 202-512-4287. Major contributors to this report were Robert L. Ackley, 

Shelby S. Oakley, Sylvia Schatz, and Ronald E. Schwenn. 

Sincerely yours, 

Katherine V. Schinasi, Managing Director 

Acquisition and Sourcing Management 
Appendix I: Joint Strike Fighter Partner 

Financial Contributions and Estimated 

Aircraft Purchases 

Page 13 GAO-04-554 Joint Strike Fighter Supplier Base 

Table 1: Joint Strike Fighter Partner Financial Contributions and Estimated Aircraft Purchases 

Dollars in millions 

 System development and demonstration Production 

Partner country Partner level 

Financial 

contributionsa

Percentage of

total costs

Projected 

quantitiesb

Percentage of

total quantities

United Kingdom Level I $2,056 5.1 150 4.7

Italy Level II $1,028 2.5 131 4.1

Netherlands Level II $800 2.0 85 2.7

Turkey Level III $175 0.4 100 3.2

Australia Level III $144 0.4 100 3.2

Norway Level III $122 0.3 48 1.5

Denmark Level III $110 0.3 48 1.5

Canada Level III $100 0.2 60 1.9

Total partner $4,535 11.2 722 22.8

United States $35,965 88.8 2,443 77.2

Sources: DOD and JSF Program Office. 

a

Chart values do not reflect nonfinancial contributions from partners. 

b

Partner quantities are preliminary and were developed for U.S. planning purposes. The estimates 

were developed by the United States in collaboration with partner countries, but no specific national 

agreements or arrangements have been established with partner countries for production; therefore, 

these projected production quantities are subject to change. 

Appendix I: Joint Strike Fighter Partner 

Financial Contributions and Estimated 

Aircraft Purchases 
Appendix II: Joint Strike Fighter System 

Development and Demonstration Subcontract 

Awards 

Page 14 GAO-04-554 Joint Strike Fighter Supplier Base 

Table 2: JSF Development Phase Subcontract Awards to the United States, Qualifying Countries, and 

Nonqualifying Countries 

Countries Subcontract awards Percentage

United States $10,361,670,423 73.9

Qualifying countries: $3,664,193,630 26.1

United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Norway, 

Denmark, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Spain, Switzerland 

Nonqualifying countries: $496,071 0

India, Poland, Russia 

Total subcontract awards $14,026,360,123a

 100.0

Sources: JSF prime contractors—Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney, and General Electric—and their self-identified teammates—BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, Rolls Royce plc, Hamilton Sundstrand, 

and Rolls Royce Corporation (data); GAO (analysis). 

Note: Information is based on subcontracts awarded for the System Development and Demonstration 

phase between October 26, 2001 and December 31, 2003. These awards include the first-tier of the 

JSF supplier base and portions of the second-tier. 

a

Total does not add due to rounding. 

Table 3: JSF Development Phase Subcontract Awards to the United States and Other Partner and Nonpartner Countries 

Countries Subcontract awards Percentage

United States $10,361,670,423 73.9

Partner countries: $3,620,103,309 25.8

United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Norway, 

Denmark, Canada 

Nonpartner countries: $44,586,392 0.3

France, Germany, India, Israel, Poland, Russia, Spain, Switzerland 

Total subcontract awards $14,026,360,123a

 100.0

Sources: JSF prime contractors—Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney, and General Electric—and their self-identified teammates—BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, Rolls Royce plc, Hamilton Sundstrand, 

and Rolls Royce Corporation (data); GAO (analysis). 

Note: Information is based on subcontracts awarded for the System Development and Demonstration 

phase between October 26, 2001 and December 31, 2003. These awards include the first-tier of the 

JSF supplier base and portions of the second-tier. 

a

Total does not add due to rounding. 

Appendix II: Joint Strike Fighter System 

Development and Demonstration 

Subcontract Awards 

(120275) 
The General Accounting 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 the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

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. General Accounting 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 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs