GAO-12-532R Force Structure

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

May 31, 2012

Congressional Committees

Subject: Force Structure: Army and Marine Corps Efforts to Review Nonstandard 

Equipment for Future Usefulness

This letter formally transmits the enclosed briefing in response to the House Armed 

Services Committee report accompanying a bill for the Fiscal Year 2012 National 

Defense Authorization Act that directed us to examine the Army and Marine Corps 

tables of equipment and submit a report to the congressional defense committees.1

Over the course of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army and the Marine 

Corps have quickly acquired and fielded new equipment to meet evolving threats. 

Largely supported with overseas contingency operations funds rather than through 

the Army’s and the Marine Corps’ regular budgets, this “nonstandard” (rapidly 

fielded) equipment is not listed on units’ equipment authorization documents.2

However, with the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, their planned drawdown from 

Afghanistan, and the likely reductions in overseas contingency operations funding, 

the military services face decisions about which rapidly fielded equipment should be 

retained for future use, funded through regular budget processes, and incorporated 

into unit equipment authorization documents.

We assessed (1) the status of Army and Marine Corps efforts to decide whether 

nonstandard equipment should be kept for the future and (2) the steps these 

services must take before adding nonstandard equipment to unit authorization 

documents and possible areas for improving the efficiency of these steps. In March 

2012 we briefed congressional committees on these issues. Since that time we have 

received additional information and have updated the March 2012 briefing slides. 

The updated briefing is attached in enclosure I. To address these issues, we 

examined relevant documentation, interviewed Army and Marine Corps officials, and 

reviewed available Army and Marine Corps data on the status of decisions made on 

nonstandard equipment and the Army data on the length of the process to review 

and approve plans for adding new equipment to unit authorization documents. We 

determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

 

1

See H.R. Rep. No. 112-78 at 111 (2011). Tables of equipment—referred to as “modified tables of 

organization and equipment” in the Army and “tables of equipment” in the Marine Corps—list the type 

and amount of equipment that units are authorized to have for their assigned missions. 

2

The Army typically uses the term “nonstandard equipment” and the Marine Corps uses the term 

“interim solutions” to refer to equipment that was rapidly fielded to address wartime capability gaps. In 

this report, we will refer to both Army and Marine Corps rapidly fielded equipment as nonstandard 

equipment.
Page 2 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

We conducted this performance audit from July 2011 to May 2012 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.Those standards require 

that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to 

provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

In summary, the Army and the Marine Corps have taken steps to determine the 

future usefulness of nonstandard equipment but have not finalized all of the 

decisions on whether to add such equipment to unit authorization documents. As of 

November 2011, the Army had reviewed 409 equipment systems through its 

Capabilities Development for Rapid Transition process, determining that about 11 

percent of that equipment is useful for the future and about 37 percent is not needed 

and should be terminated. The Army has not made a final decision on the future 

need for the remaining 52 percent of the equipment, which it continues to sustain for 

current operations primarily through the use of overseas contingency operations 

funds. The Army has also taken some additional actions to review nonstandard 

equipment through other forums and reviews which have led to recommendations 

for some items to be retained for the future. Since 2008, the Marine Corps has 

reviewed 144 different requests for capabilities to fill gaps identified by 

commanders.3 Of these, the Marine Corps has determined that about 63 percent will 

continue to be needed in the future to meet enduring requirements and should be 

incorporated into the Marine Corps force structure and about 17 percent will not be 

needed. An additional 21 percent are in initial development or are still being 

evaluated for future usefulness. In addition to service-provided equipment, some 

nonstandard equipment, such as Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles 

(MRAP), was fielded by DOD and managed as a joint program. According to the 

Army and the Marine Corps, both services are now transitioning the management of 

MRAPs from a joint office to service offices, and are in the process of determining 

how many MRAPs they want to retain for the future and add to their respective 

authorization documents. 

Once decisions are made to retain nonstandard equipment for the future, multiple 

steps have to be taken before equipment can become standard and authorized for 

all like units, and delays in the Army process for reviewing and approving plans to 

add equipment to unit authorization documents may have hampered the 

authorization of some equipment items. As part of the process for adding equipment 

to unit authorization documents, the services develop detailed plans that describe 

how equipment will be made available across the force, including how it will be 

sustained and which existing equipment it will replace. Delays in the completion of 

some of the Army’s plans, known as “basis of issue plans,” may affect when 

equipment can be authorized. While many factors can contribute to delays in the 

approval of these plans, such as changes to military strategy and the corresponding 

equipment requirements, Army documentation showed that delays in completing 

many of the plans were due to the originators’ failure to include essential data 

 

3 Marine Corps officials explained that some of the urgent needs requests involved the same 

capabilities and that they excluded these duplicates in the numbers provided to us. 
Page 3 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

elements when plans were initially submitted for consideration. Army officials noted 

that current guidance is not as helpful as it might be in specifying which elements 

should be included in the plans to facilitate approval. Without comprehensive 

procedural guidance on developing basis of issue plans, initial plans may continue to 

be incomplete and rework may contribute to delays in issuance of documentation

and new capabilities. To improve the efficiency of procedures for reviewing and 

approving equipment to be added to Army authorization documents, we are

recommending that the Secretary of the Army supplement the Army’s basis of issue 

plan guidance with additional instructions that specify the essential data elements 

that are required for basis of issue plans to be approved.

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

stating that the Army will review and revise its basis of issue plan guidance to ensure 

that it has the information necessary to efficiently complete basis of issue plans. 

DOD’s comments are reprinted in their entirety in enclosure II. DOD also provided a 

technical comment, which we incorporated. 

_____________

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees. 

We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, 

and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. This report will also be available on our 

website at http://www.gao.gov. 

Should you or your staff have any questions concerning this product, please contact 

me at (404) 679-1816 or pendletonj@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 were Margaret G. Morgan, Assistant Director; 

Natalya Barden; Jerome Brown; Mae Jones; Joanne Landesman; Jean McSween; 

Amie Steele; K. Nicole Willems; and Matthew Young.

John H. Pendleton

Director, Defense Capabilities and Management

Enclosures-2 
Page 4 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

List of Committees

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

The Honorable John McCain

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye

Chairman

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable C.W. “Bill” Young

Chairman

The Honorable Norman D. Dicks

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representative 
Page 5 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

Enclosure I

Briefing for Congressional Committees

Army and Marine Corps Efforts to Review 

Nonstandard Equipment for Future Usefulness

March 2012

Updated May 2012

Page 1
Page 6 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Overview

• Introduction

• Objectives

• Scope and Methodology

• Summary of Observations

• Background

• Objective 1

• Objective 2

• Conclusions

• Recommendation for Executive Action

• Agency Comments

• Related GAO Products

Page 2
Page 7 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Introduction

• Evolving threats in Iraq and Afghanistan have required the Army and the Marine Corps 

to quickly acquire and field new equipment. 

• With the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, the continued drawdown of U.S. forces 

from Afghanistan, and likely reductions in funding for overseas contingency operations, 

the services face decisions about which equipment should be retained for the future. 

• Equipment authorization documents in the Army and the Marine Corps are 

developed based on the requirements for units to perform their assigned missions.

• However, during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the adversaries’ changing 

tactics and techniques presented units with new threats, necessitating different 

equipment to effectively respond to them.1

• For example, the services acquired Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles 

(MRAP) to counter the threat of improvised explosive devices. Such equipment, 

often called “nonstandard equipment,” is not listed on unit authorization documents 

and was generally acquired and maintained by the services with overseas 

contingency operations funds. 

Page 3 1To meet units’ equipment needs for specific missions, deployed Army units receive equipment based on “mission-essential equipment lists,” and 

deployed Marine Corps units receive equipment based on “equipment density lists.” 
Page 8 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Introduction, cont.

• We reported in 2011 that the Army did not have full visibility over all of its nonstandard 

equipment and recommended that the Army assign responsibility for overseeing the 

disposition of nonstandard equipment.2 We have not previously reported on the Marine 

Corps’ nonstandard equipment.

• If the services decide that nonstandard equipment has future usefulness, they must 

complete other processes before adding that equipment to unit authorization 

documents. 

• As shown in figure 1, these processes consider factors such as future missions, force 

structure, sustainability, and budget issues, before items are added to authorization 

documents for the entire force.

Page 4 2GAO, Warfighter Support: Improved Cost Analysis and Better Oversight Needed over Army Nonstandard Equipment, GAO-11-766 (Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 29, 2011).
Page 9 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Introduction, cont.

Figure 1: Incorporation of Nonstandard Equipment into the Services’ Authorization Documents

Notes: According to officials, these steps do not always occur in sequential order. 

The Marine Corps indicated that in certain cases, it may modify its force structure to accommodate equipment that provides a high-priority capability. The 

Marine Corps further indicated that as part of its decision-making process, it also determines if an already existing program can sufficiently provide the 

capability. 

Page 5
Page 10 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Objectives

• The House Armed Services Committee Report accompanying a bill for the Fiscal Year 

2012 National Defense Authorization Act directed GAO to examine the Army and the 

Marine Corps’ tables of equipment and submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees. 

• Accordingly, for the Army and the Marine Corps we assessed

• the status of efforts to decide whether nonstandard equipment, including MRAPs, 

should be kept for the future; and

• the steps the respective services must take before they add nonstandard 

equipment to unit authorization documents, and possible areas for improving the 

efficiency of these steps. 

Page 6
Page 11 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Scope and Methodology

To conduct our work, we

• reviewed Army and Marine Corps documentation, including guidance, regulations, and 

orders related to developing and updating equipment authorization documents;

• reviewed relevant policies and procedures related to nonstandard equipment, including 

documentation of any decisions on the future use of that equipment; and 

• interviewed officials at relevant organizations:

• Army: G-3/5/7; G-4; G-8; Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Acquisition, Logistics and Technology; U.S. Army Force Management Support 

Agency; Army Capabilities Integration Center; Army Materiel Command; Army 

Sustainment Command; and 

• Marine Corps: Deputy Commandant, Combat Development and Integration; Marine 

Corps Systems Command; Marine Corps Logistics Command. 

Page 7
Page 12 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Scope and Methodology, cont. 

• We assessed the reliability of Army and Marine Corps data on the status of decisions 

made on nonstandard equipment by interviewing Army and Marine Corps officials 

knowledgeable about the data. We also assessed the reliability of the Army data on the 

length of the process to review and approve plans for adding new equipment to unit 

authorization documents. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of this report.

• We conducted this performance audit from July 2011 to May 2012 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we 

plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Page 8
Page 13 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Summary of Observations

Objective 1: Regarding the Army’s and the Marine Corps’ efforts to decide which 

equipment should be added to authorization documents:

• As of November 2011, the Army had reviewed 409 equipment systems through its 

Capabilities Development for Rapid Transition (CDRT) process.3 About half of these 

systems were neither terminated nor recommended for long-term use, and the Army has 

begun to review this equipment to make retention or disposition decisions. The Army 

has also undertaken some additional efforts to review equipment that has not been 

nominated. 

• Since 2008, the earliest date for which data were available, the Marine Corps has 

reviewed 144 requests for different capabilities to fill urgent needs identified by 

commanders and rapidly provided equipment to address these capability gaps. Of 

these, the Marine Corps has determined that 90 capabilities will meet future needs and 

should be incorporated into its force structure and that 24 capabilities will not be needed. 

An additional 30 capabilities are in initial development or are still being evaluated for 

future usefulness. According to Marine Corps officials, consideration of capabilities for 

usefulness in addressing current or future capability gaps is an ongoing process that 

focuses on filling capability gaps rather than assessing the utility of specific pieces of 

equipment. 

Page 9 3The data provided to GAO in November 2011 reflected the results of the first 12 CDRT reviews, held between December 2004 and June 2011. 

Additional systems were considered in fall 2011, but officials said that the Army leadership has not yet approved the resulting recommendations.
Page 14 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Summary of Observations, cont.

• The Army and the Marine Corps are developing plans to add MRAPs to their respective 

authorization documents.

• The Army is considering incorporating approximately 18,000 MRAPs into its force 

structure, and the Marine Corps is considering incorporating anywhere between 

737 and 2,652. 

• However, the Army and the Marine Corps have not made final decisions on how 

many MRAPs will be incorporated into their force structures or on how they will 

support the program in the future out of their base budgets, pending the results of 

force structure reviews and budget deliberations.

• The services are transitioning management of MRAPs from a joint office to servicemanaged programs.

• Both services requested overseas contingency operations funds for fiscal year 

2013 to support their MRAP programs.

Page 10
Page 15 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Summary of Observations, cont.

Objective 2: Regarding steps that the Army and the Marine Corps take to add nonstandard 

equipment to unit authorization documents: 

• After the Army and Marine Corps have decided which nonstandard equipment they want 

to retain for the future, multiple steps have to be taken before equipment can be added 

to unit authorization documents and become standard for all like units. These steps may 

include tests for equipment safety and its suitability with current systems, development 

of sustainment and maintenance capabilities, and identification of funding. 

• As part of the process to add equipment to unit authorization documents, the services 

also develop plans that describe how the equipment will be made available and 

sustained across the force.

• For the Army, delays in the completion of these plans—known as basis of issue plans— have hampered the authorization of some items. These delays, according to Army 

officials, are caused at least in part by the lack of procedural guidance on the essential 

data elements that must be included in these plans. Until the Army issues clear 

guidance on what data elements should be included, the Army’s process for developing 

and approving these plans may continue to be inefficient. 

• The Marine Corps develops fielding plans that consolidate multiple functional plans, 

such as training and sustainment, that describe how it will incorporate equipment into its 

force structure, including how it will maintain and store it. 

Page 11
Page 16 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Background—Authorization Documents

• Army and Marine Corps authorization documents—modified tables of organization and 

equipment (MTOE) in the Army and tables of equipment (T/E) in the Marine Corps—list 

the type and amount of equipment that units are authorized to have for their assigned 

missions. 

• Army and Marine Corps authorization documents are developed to equip units for full 

spectrum operations and are not designed to be tailored to each unique mission that a 

unit may be asked to perform. 

• The initial steps in the development of authorization documents include the 

identification, validation, and approval of requirements and capability gaps. This involves 

various stakeholders in both services, and is led by the Army Training and Doctrine 

Command in the Army and the Deputy Commandant, Combat Development and 

Integration in the Marine Corps. The requirements drive the process of identifying 

specific equipping solutions that, once approved, are documented and may be 

authorized to the units through MTOEs that are prepared by the U.S. Army Force 

Management Support Agency in the Army and T/Es that are prepared by the Deputy 

Commandant, Combat Development and Integration in the Marine Corps. Figure 2 

provides an overview of these processes in the Army and the Marine Corps. 

Page 12
Page 17 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Background—Authorization Documents

As figure 2 shows, the authorization documents are developed based on the capabilities 

needed to meet missions and include considerations of what is affordable within 

expected budgets. 

Figure 2: Development of Authorization Documents in the Army and the Marine Corps

Page 13

Service regulations require the Army and the Marine Corps to regularly review 

authorization documents to determine the need to add or remove equipment.4

Authorization documents are subject to review and update annually in the Army and once 

every 4 years in the Marine Corps. In addition, the services allow out-of-cycle updates, 

such as when a new capability need is identified or a unit size changes. 

4Army Regulation 71-32, Force Development and Documentation—Consolidated Policies (Mar. 3, 1997); Marine Corps Order 5311.1D, Total 

Force Structure Process (TFSP) (Feb. 2009). 
Page 18 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Background—Nonstandard Equipment

• Nonstandard equipment is equipment that typically has not gone through the standard 

acquisition process and is not listed on unit MTOEs and T/Es.5

• Nonstandard equipment covers a wide range of items, including warfighting (tactical) 

equipment such as gunshot detection and surveillance systems, and nonwarfighting 

(nontactical) equipment such as flat-screen televisions. 

• Both the Army and the Marine Corps have established processes to field nonstandard 

equipment to their units to meet wartime capabilities gaps, such as the Army’s 

Operational Needs Statements and the Marine Corps’ Urgent Needs Process.

• The Department of Defense (DOD) fielded MRAPs to the Army and Marine Corps as a 

joint program. DOD fielded over 27,000 MRAPs between 2006 and 2011. 

• Both services face decisions about whether to add MRAPs to authorization documents.

Page 14 5The Army typically uses the term “nonstandard equipment” and the Marine Corps uses the term “interim solutions” for equipment that was rapidly 

fielded to address wartime capability gaps. In this report, we refer to both Army and Marine Corps rapidly fielded equipment as nonstandard equipment. 
Page 19 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Background—Processes for Identifying Future 

Usefulness of Nonstandard Equipment

• We have previously reported (GAO-11-766), that the Army established the CDRT 

process in 2004 to identify tactical nonstandard equipment items that should be 

incorporated into the force structure, sustained for ongoing operations only, or 

terminated.

• CDRT reviews of equipment nominated by users are held quarterly.

• The nonstandard equipment that CDRT recommends for incorporation into the 

force structure must compete for funding through the Army’s regular budget 

processes.

• The Marine Corps has generally funded nonstandard equipment provided through its 

Urgent Needs Process for 2 years. After the initial 2-year period, the Marine Corps 

makes annual determinations on whether to extend funding for another year. 

Page 15
Page 20 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Background—Adding Nonstandard Equipment 

to Authorization Documents

• If equipment is determined to have future usefulness, the services’ regulations require 

that plans be developed to describe in detail how it will fit into the existing force 

structure, including how the equipment will be sustained, before it can be added to unit 

authorization documents. 

• The Army’s basis of issue plan describes how new equipment will be incorporated 

into the force structure, including which units will receive it, how it will be sustained, 

what associated equipment items would be needed for its operation, and what 

other items the new equipment will replace. 

• The Marine Corps has a series of plans that describe how the new equipment will 

be incorporated into the force structure. 

• These plans are used to assess the feasibility and affordability of adding new equipment 

to authorization documents before service headquarters approve any changes. 

• Nonstandard equipment determined to be useful for the future must compete with other 

capabilities in the services’ regular budget process. 

• Equipment that successfully competes for funding can be authorized. 

Page 16
Page 21 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Background—Disposition of Equipment

• Nonstandard equipment that the services do not identify as having future usefulness or 

that is not funded is generally subject to the services’ disposition procedures. 

• Disposition of nonstandard equipment is accomplished in various ways, including by 

transferring it to other government agencies within and outside of DOD, selling or 

donating it to allies or partner nations, and physically disposing of it (e.g., crushing or 

burning it).

Page 17
Page 22 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Objective 1: Status of Army Efforts

• The Army has ongoing efforts to review whether tactical nonstandard equipment should 

be incorporated into authorization documents. 

• The Army’s primary process for reviewing tactical nonstandard equipment is CDRT, 

through which equipment is nominated for consideration and reviewed on a quarterly 

basis. 

• In addition, the Army has other initiatives to review selected equipment not nominated 

for CDRT.

Page 18
Page 23 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Objective 1: Status of Army Efforts

• The Army holds quarterly reviews of 

tactical nonstandard equipment through 

the CDRT process.

• As of November 2011, the Army had 

reviewed a total of 409 equipment 

systems through CDRT. As figure 3 

shows, about half of the systems were 

placed in the “sustain” category and 

generally continue to be supported 

with overseas contingency operations 

funds.

• In 2011, the Army conducted an 

internal review of some equipment 

in the “sustain” category, recommending 

that 130 capabilities (64 percent) of the 

203 selected capabilities in the “sustain” 

category be terminated because they 

have no future usefulness, and that 27 

capabilities (13 percent) be retained for 

the future.6 

Page 19

Figure 3: Army Decisions Based on Recommendations Made 

by CDRT Reviews 1-12 (December 2004-June 2011)

6The remaining 46 capabilities (23 percent) were removed from consideration because the Army already had programs to provide those capabilities.

Notes:

Recommendations made by CDRT reviews must be approved by the Army 

Requirements Oversight Council (AROC), comprised of senior Army officials. 

The numbers presented only include materiel solutions reviewed by CDRT. In 

addition to materiel solutions, CDRT also considers nonmateriel solutions such 

as various training programs. Systems considered in multiple CDRT reviews 

were counted only once for the purposes of this analysis. 
Page 24 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Objective 1: Status of Army Efforts

• According to an August 2010 memo promulgating interim policy, the Secretary of the 

Army stated that when overseas contingency operations funds are no longer available to 

support its nonstandard equipment, equipment in the “sustain” category will either no 

longer be part of the Army force structure or it will have to be evaluated for future 

usefulness. 

• Army officials said that they expect the Army will no longer fund the equipment in the 

“sustain” category once contingency operations end, and they acknowledged the need 

to make final decisions on such equipment.

• The Army has reviewed recommendations made by the internal review of “sustain” 

equipment conducted in 2011. However, these recommendations have not been 

officially approved yet by the Army headquarters. 

• According to Army officials, the Army continues to add equipment to the “sustain” 

category through CDRT, and the officials said that they will continue to evaluate 

equipment in the “sustain” category for termination or long-term usefulness. However, 

Army officials said that the Army does not have a timeline for finalizing decisions on all 

“sustain” items. Officials also stated that decisions may need to be revisited in light of 

any force structure changes. 

Page 20
Page 25 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Objective 1: Status of Army Efforts

• The CDRT process is based on nominations by stakeholders familiar with the 

equipment, such as unit commanders. Army officials do not have an estimate for how 

much of the Army’s nonstandard equipment is not reviewed by CDRT. 

• According to Army officials, the Army has undertaken several initiatives to review some 

equipment not nominated for CDRT. These include the following:

• Reviews of high-cost, specialized items that were not widely available for units’ 

use.

• Property book reviews to determine disposition of equipment used in Iraq.

• Capability portfolio reviews looking at specific categories of equipment fielded to 

units in Iraq and Afghanistan, such as intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance equipment. 

• Final checks of equipment prior to disposition to identify any items with potential 

future usefulness that may not have been previously recognized. 

Page 21
Page 26 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

• Since 2001, the Marine Corps received about 700 requests through its Urgent Needs 

Process for capabilities to address gaps in theater.

• In accordance with a Marine Corps order,7 capabilities reviewed through the urgent 

needs processes are also considered for future usefulness by individual offices 

responsible for specific equipment categories.

• Marine Corps assessments of the long-term usefulness of equipment fielded through the 

Urgent Needs Process focus on capability needs rather than specific types of 

equipment, according to Marine Corps officials. Officials further noted that once a 

capability addressed through the Urgent Needs process is identified as needed in the 

future, it may replace the specific equipment item fielded to address that capability gap 

with more capable and/or more cost-effective item or items. 

• Capabilities needed in the future may be funded as an element of an existing equipment 

program or through initiation of a new equipment program. Officials explained that it is 

difficult to track the status of items that were rapidly fielded to address an initial 

capability because initial solutions may be replaced by more effective items or grouped 

with other items to provide the needed capability for the future. 

7Marine Corps Order 3900.17,The Marine Corps Urgent Needs Process (UNP) and the Urgent Universal Need Statement (Urgent UNS) 

(Oct. 17, 2008). Page 22

Objective 1: Status of Marine Corps Efforts
Page 27 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

• The Marine Corps completed a review of its force structure in March 2011, which 

resulted in decisions about the posture and the capabilities the Marine Corps would 

require in the future. The force envisioned based on the review informs the Marine 

Corps assessment of the future usefulness of nonstandard equipment, according to 

Marine Corps officials. 

• Since 2008,8 the Marine Corps has reviewed 144 unique capabilities to fill gaps 

identified by commanders. Of these, the Marine Corps has determined that 90 

capabilities (63 percent) will continue to be needed in the future to meet enduring 

requirements and are expected to be transitioned into a program of record within the 

Marine Corps. An additional 30 capabilities (21 percent) are in initial development or are 

still being evaluated for future usefulness. The remaining 24 capabilities (17 percent) 

capabilities) were not accepted as enduring requirements. (Note: percentages do not 

add to 100 due to rounding). 

• According to Marine Corps officials, consideration of capabilities for usefulness in 

addressing current or future capability gaps is an ongoing process. 

. Page 23

Objective 1: Status of Marine Corps Efforts

8In 2008, the Marine Corps implemented Marine Corps Order 3900.17 that clarified its urgent needs process. Marine Corps officials indicated that these 

changes resulted in a more consistent implementation of the process. Earlier data on urgent needs requests were not readily available for our review.
Page 28 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Objective 1: Status of Army and Marine Corps 

Plans for MRAPs 

• Given the scale and cost of MRAP acquisitions, the Army and the Marine Corps are 

specifically focusing on how to incorporate MRAPs into their force structures. 

• Both services are developing plans to transition the management of MRAPs from a joint 

office to each of the services, including developing cost estimates for repairing, storing, 

and sustaining the vehicles that each service plans to keep.

• Army Capabilities Integration Center recommended adding 18,259 vehicles to the 

Army’s force structure, distributed among individual units, Army prepositioned 

stocks, and Army War Reserve Sustainment and Contingency Replenishment 

Stocks, among others. According to Army officials, these numbers are preliminary 

and subject to change. Further, Army officials indicated that the full sustainment cost 

for MRAPs will not be known until the Army determines the exact number of 

vehicles it wants to keep. 

• The Marine Corps is considering different options for incorporating MRAPs into its 

force structure. It estimated that the potential costs of the options for fiscal years 

2014 through 2018 range from $124 million for 737 vehicles to about $162 million 

for 2,652 vehicles. According to Marine Corps officials, the final number and the 

timeline for incorporating them into the force structure will depend on factors such 

as the status of the planned drawdown from Afghanistan. The Marine Corps has 

included funding of $144.4 million for MRAPs between 2014 and 2018 in its budget 

plans. 

Page 24
Page 29 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Objective 1: Status of Army and Marine Corps 

Plans for MRAPs 

• Neither service, however, has made final decisions on the number of MRAPs to add to 

authorization documents, pending the results of any force structure changes. On 

January 26, 2012, the Secretary of Defense announced reductions to the overall size of 

the Army and the Marine Corps, as well as other budget decisions likely to affect the 

services’ force structure.

• DOD reprogrammed some fiscal year 2012 funds from the joint MRAP vehicle fund to 

the services.

• The Army and the Marine Corps requested overseas contingency operations funds to 

support their MRAP programs in fiscal year 2013. 

• The Army requested about $1.3 billion for maintenance of various categories of 

equipment, including nonstandard equipment maintenance. However, the request 

did not identify the portion of this amount that is specifically intended for 

sustainment of MRAPs. 

• The Marine Corps requested about $481 million to support sustainment of MRAPs. 

Page 25
Page 30 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

• The Army and the Marine Corps generally take multiple steps before nonstandard 

equipment can be added to the existing force structure. These include the following: 

• Assigning identification codes to manage the item as a standard item in the service.

• Testing to ensure that the item meets safety, suitability, and supportability 

requirements. 

• Identifying funding in the service’s base budget, including funding for the repair of 

items returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, facilities for their storage, and their longterm sustainment.

• Planning for sustainment and maintenance9 (often for equipment that had been 

previously maintained by contractors) and for how new capabilities fit into the 

current force structure, among other issues.

Page 26

Objective 2: Steps to Add Equipment to 

Authorization Documents

9We have previously reported that the services experience difficulties in obtaining technical data needed to project sustainment costs. Service 

officials reiterated these challenges during our review.
Page 31 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Objective 2: Steps to Add Equipment to 

Authorization Documents

• The development and approval of the Army plans that specify how new equipment will fit 

into the force structure and be sustained, known as basis of issue plans, have not 

always met the Army’s timeliness goals of about 9 months.10

• These plans must be approved before equipment can be added to authorization 

documents. 

• Army data on the 85 basis of issue plans that were under consideration as of 

November 2011 showed that 55 (65 percent) of the plans had remained in that 

status for more than the Army's timeliness goal. Moreover, 43 (51 percent) have 

remained under consideration for more than a year, some for more than 5 years. 

• In a 2011 study, the Army found that the initial plan submissions were often 

incomplete and had to be returned to their originators for additional information. For 

example, the Army’s review of the 220 plans submitted in fiscal years 2010 and 

2011 found that 90 (41 percent) of the plans were initially rejected, with 54 (25 

percent) of the plans rejected due to incomplete or invalid data, such as 

maintenance data.11

• There are many factors that could be responsible for delays in the approval of these 

plans, such as changes to strategy and equipment requirements that may require 

substantive review and may extend timelines. However, the Army found that delays in 

many plans are due to the lack of essential data elements when they are submitted. 

10According to Army regulation 71-32, the development and approval of these plans should take between 232 and 271 days. 11We did not independently review the Army’s methodology for this study. Page 27
Page 32 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

• The Army has recognized delays in approval and issuance of basis of issue plans and is 

conducting a study to determine how to reduce the rejection rate of these plans.

• An Army official responsible for the study said that the Army has made some changes in 

response to the study’s initial findings. For example, this official explained that a 

representative from the office responsible for approving basis of issue plans now 

participates in meetings prior to the plan’s submission for approval to enable the 

resolution of problems and to catch errors prior to the plans’ submission for approval.

• One cause of delays and rework, according to Army officials, is that the Army does not 

have clear guidance on the required elements that the plans should include. 

• Army guidance sets forth the basic requirements for the plans, but our review of the 

guidance found that it does not specify the essential plan elements needed for approval. 

For example, the guidance generally mentions that the plans should include operation 

and training data, but does not provide detailed information on what specific elements 

pertaining to operation and training are required.

• Without comprehensive procedural guidance on developing basis of issue plans, initial 

plans may continue to be incomplete and rework may contribute to delays in issuance of 

documentation and new capabilities.

Page 28

Objective 2: Steps to Add Equipment to 

Authorization Documents
Page 33 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Objective 2: Steps to Add Equipment to 

Authorization Documents

• The Marine Corps uses several plans to describe how equipment will be added to 

authorization documents and fielded to the units.12

• The fielding plan consolidates information from various other plans, such as information 

on facilities requirements, training, and projected costs for operation and maintenance of 

equipment for 5 years. Some of the plans on which the fielding plan is based include

• the manpower and training plan that identifies personnel to operate and maintain 

the equipment; and

• the maintenance plan that describes tasks required to maintain the equipment.

• The Marine Corps requires that fielding plans are in place before equipment can be 

added to unit authorization documents. 

Page 29 12 Marine Corps officials indicated that this process does not apply to equipment rapidly fielded through the Marine Corps Urgent Needs Process that 

explicitly focuses on speed of delivering solutions to forces in theater to close capability gaps and accepts risk with respect to other considerations. 
Page 34 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Conclusions

• The Army and the Marine Corps are taking steps to assess the future usefulness of the 

nonstandard equipment acquired during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is 

unclear when the decisions on all of the nonstandard equipment will be made and when 

the authorization documents will be amended to reflect these decisions.

• According to officials, both the Army and the Marine Corps will likely need to revisit and 

update their plans for new equipment pending decisions on their force structures.

• The Marine Corps continuously reviews capabilities fielded through urgent needs 

processes for future usefulness. Given the focus on larger capability needs rather than 

specific equipment items in the course of these reviews, there is no direct link between 

equipment fielded to meet an urgent need and equipment eventually incorporated into 

the force structure. 

• The Army has several separate initiatives to review and recommend the disposition of its 

tactical nonstandard equipment, including quarterly reviews through CDRT and 

occasional reviews of equipment not nominated for CDRT.

• Various factors may contribute to delays in the approval of the Army’s basis of issue 

plans needed for adding nonstandard equipment to MTOEs. One of them is the Army’s 

lack of comprehensive guidance on the process for developing these plans. Without 

such guidance, the Army’s process for these plans may continue to be inefficient.

Page 30
Page 35 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Recommendation for Executive Action

To improve the efficiency of procedures for reviewing and approving equipment to be 

added to Army authorization documents, we recommend that the Secretary of the Army 

supplement the Army’s basis of issue plan guidance with additional instructions that 

specify the essential data elements that are required for basis of issue plans to be 

approved.

Page 31
Page 36 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Agency Comments

In commenting on a draft of this briefing, DOD agreed with our recommendation and 

stated that the Army will review its basis of issue plan guidance and revise the 

instructions for completing basis of issue plans. DOD’s comments are reprinted in their 

entirety in enclosure II.

Page 32
Page 37 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

 

Related GAO Products

• Warfighter Support: Improved Cost Analysis and Better Oversight Needed over Army 

Nonstandard Equipment. GAO-11-766. Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2011.

• Warfighter Support: DOD’s Urgent Needs Processes Need a More Comprehensive 

Approach and Evaluation for Potential Consolidation. GAO-11-273. Washington, D.C.: 

March 1, 2011.

Page 33
Page 38 GAO-12-532R Force Structure

Enclosure II

Comments from the Department of Defense
Page 39 GAO-12-532R Force Structure
Page 40 GAO

-12-532R Force Structure

(351637)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

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

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

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

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

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

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

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

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

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.