GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

August 1, 2012 

The Honorable Adam Smith 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Roscoe G. Bartlett 

Chairman 

The Honorable Silvestre Reyes 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives

Subject: Counter-Improvised Explosive Devices: Multiple DOD Organizations are 

Developing Numerous Initiatives

Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) are the enemy's weapon of choice (e.g., 16,500 IEDs 

were detonated or discovered being used against U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2011) and, 

according to the Department of Defense (DOD) will probably be a mainstay in any present 

and future conflict given their low cost to develop coupled with their potential for strategic 

impact. Multiple DOD components,1

 including the military services, have been pursuing 

counter-IED (C-IED) efforts leading up to June 2005 when DOD established the Joint IED 

Defeat Task Force followed in 2006 with the establishment of the Joint IED Defeat 

Organization (JIEDDO) to lead and coordinate all DOD actions to defeat IEDs. From fiscal

years 2006 through 2011, JIEDDO has received over $18 billion in funding;2 however, DOD 

has funded other C-IED efforts outside of JIEDDO, including $40 billion for Mine Resistant 

Ambush Protected vehicles.

We reported in February 2012 that DOD does not have full visibility over all of its C-IED 

efforts.3

 

1 Other federal agencies are involved with C-IED efforts, including the Departments of Homeland Security, 

Justice, State, and Agriculture.

DOD relies on various sources and systems for managing its C-IED efforts, but has 

not developed a process that provides DOD with a comprehensive listing of its C-IED 

2 This total represents appropriations and rescissions made to the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 

Fund for JIEDDO. The appropriation provisions often specify that the Secretary of Defense may transfer funds to 

other appropriations categories after notifying the congressional defense committees. See, e.g,, Department of 

Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-10, div. A, tit. IV (2011).

3 GAO, Warfighter Support: DOD Needs Strategic Outcome-Related Goals and Visibility over Its Counter-IED 

Efforts, GAO-12-280 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 22, 2012); GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce 

Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP, 

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012).

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

initiatives and activities. In response to our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense 

direct JIEDDO to develop an implementation plan for the establishment of DOD’s C-IED 

database including a detailed timeline with milestones to help achieve this goal, DOD 

officials said that a revision of DOD's Directive 2000.19E4 will contain a new task requiring 

combatant commands, the military services, and DOD agencies to report C-IED initiatives to 

JIEDDO. This would include programming and funding pursued by a military service, 

combatant command, or other DOD component, in addition to activities funded by JIEDDO. 

In January 2012, DOD estimated it would complete draft revisions to DOD Directive 

2000.19E in early 2012, but as of July 2012, Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) 

officials stated that the revised draft was under review at the OSD level, and therefore, not 

issued. In addition, according to JIEDDO officials, DOD is conducting an ongoing review of 

C-IED capabilities across the Department that may affect JIEDDO and the contents of the 

draft directive. 

This report responds to your request asking us to examine the potential for overlap and 

duplication in DOD's C-IED efforts. Because DOD lacks a comprehensive database of CIED initiatives, we conducted a department-wide survey to determine (1) the number of 

different C-IED initiatives and the organizations developing them from fiscal year 2008

through the closing date of our survey, January 6, 2012, and the extent to which DOD is 

funding these initiatives, and (2) the extent and nature of any overlap that could lead to 

duplication of C-IED efforts. In July 2012, we briefed committee staff on the results of our 

survey and analysis. Enclosure 1 provides briefing slides detailing the results of our work. 

Scope and Methodology

To answer the objectives of this report, we used a two-phased survey approach. We 

administered a preliminary survey to identify potential C-IED initiatives, followed by a more 

detailed survey to obtain more specific information on the identified initiatives. We 

administered the preliminary survey to identify potential C-IED initiatives. We determined 

who should receive this survey by extracting contact information from (1) a DOD database 

of C-IED technologies under development, (2) a DOD-sponsored C-IED conference 

attendee list, and (3) other sources. The preliminary survey also asked survey recipients to 

identify other individuals and organizations outside their own that conduct C-IED initiatives. 

We then followed with a more detailed survey to obtain more specific information on the 

identified C-IED initiatives. We allowed survey recipients to respond from August 2011 to 

January 2012, and during those 5 months, followed up with those who had not responded in 

order to increase the number of surveys returned to the greatest extent possible during the 

survey period. The information that both surveys provided was sufficient for our analyses. 

To determine the number of different C-IED initiatives and the extent different organizations 

used DOD funding for developing C-IED initiatives, we used the preliminary survey and 

 

4 Department of Defense Directive 2000.19E, Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) 

(Feb. 14, 2006).
Page 3 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

JIEDDO financial data to compile a list of potential initiatives managed by organizations 

outside of JIEDDO that, in DOD officials’ opinion, met the definition we developed for C-IED 

initiatives, which follows.5

 

Any operational, materiel, technology, training, information, intelligence, or research and 

development project, program, or other effort funded by any component of the Department of 

Defense that is intended to assist or support efforts to counter, combat, or defeat the use of 

improvised explosive devices and related networks. This includes IED precursors [e.g., raw 

materials], such as chemicals or associated components such as command wires [e.g., 

triggering wire]. 

In addition to the survey, we contacted DOD officials involved in C-IED management to 

further identify the number of C-IED initiatives that DOD funded and conducted and 

organizations involved with developing C-IED initiatives and followed up with associated 

DOD officials to further identify any other organizations the survey may have missed. We 

also aggregated the funding data reported by respondents from the detailed survey for the 

C-IED initiatives we identified to provide a measure of magnitude of resources expended.

To determine the extent and nature of any overlap that could lead to potential duplication of 

C-IED initiatives, our detailed survey contained questions about the type and nature of the 

initiative, technology-focus of the initiative, funding associated with it, the organizational 

placement of the initiative, and degree of communication with JIEDDO and other DOD 

organizations regarding each of the potential initiatives identified in the preliminary survey.6

From the survey results, we divided the total number of potential C-IED initiatives into two 

subsets—those with survey responses and those without survey responses. We also 

separated survey responses that contained classified information from those that did not 

and, after determining that 81 percent of the responses were unclassified, focused our 

analysis on the data from the unclassified survey responses. With those unclassified 

responses, we identified C-IED initiatives concentrated within similar areas of development, 

which resulted in our grouping initiatives into 9 broad categories, such as detection or 

training efforts, and 20 examples of associated subcategories, such as chemical sensors, a 

subcategory under the detect category. The development of these categories and 

subcategories was based on follow-up discussions we had with the DOD officials who 

manage these C-IED initiatives. 

We conducted this performance audit from November 2011 to August 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. Appendix I of the enclosed briefing contains additional details of our 

scope and methodology.

 

5 We developed this definition relying in part on a provision in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2011 that defines a C-IED initiative as “any project, program, or research activity funded by any 

component of the Department of Defense that is intended to assist or support efforts to counter, combat, or 

defeat the use of improvised explosive devices.” See Pub. L. No. 111-383, § 124(c) (2011) (10 U.S.C. § 113

note). We augmented this description based on comments from DOD officials during survey expert review and 

pre testing. 

6 As defined in GAO 12-342SP, “Overlap" occurs when programs have similar goals, devise similar activities and 

strategies to achieve them, or target similar users. "Duplication" occurs when two or more agencies or programs 

are engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to the same beneficiaries.
Page 4 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Summary

We identified 1,340 potential, separate initiatives that DOD funded from fiscal year 2008 

through the first quarter of fiscal year 2012 that, in DOD officials’ opinion, met the above 

definition for C-IED initiatives. We relied on our survey, in part, to determine this number 

because DOD has not determined, and does not have a ready means for determining, the 

universe of C-IED initiatives. Of the 1,340 initiatives, we received detailed survey responses 

confirming that 711 initiatives met our C-IED definition. Of the remaining 629 initiatives for 

which we did not receive survey responses, 481 were JIEDDO initiatives. JIEDDO officials 

attribute their low survey returns for reasons including that C-IED initiatives are currently not 

fully identified, catalogued, and retrievable; however, they expect updates to their 

information technology system will correct this deficiency. Our survey also identified 45 

different organizations that DOD is funding to undertake these 1,340 identified initiatives. 

Some of these organizations receive JIEDDO funding while others receive other DOD 

funding. We documented $4.8 billion of DOD funds expended in fiscal year 2011 in support 

of C-IED initiatives, but this amount is understated because we did not receive survey data 

confirming DOD funding for all initiatives. As an example, at least 94 of the 711 responses 

did not include funding amounts for associated C-IED initiatives. Further, the DOD agency 

with the greatest number of C-IED initiatives identified—JIEDDO—did not return surveys for 

81 percent of its initiatives.

Our survey results showed that multiple C-IED initiatives were concentrated within some 

areas of development, resulting in overlap within DOD for these efforts—i.e., programs 

engaged in similar activities to achieve similar goals or target similar beneficiaries. For 

example, our survey data identified 19 organizations with 107 initiatives being developed to 

combat cell phone-triggered IEDs. While the concentration of initiatives in itself does not 

constitute duplication, this concentration taken together with the high number of different 

DOD organizations that are undertaking these initiatives and JIEDDO’s inability to identify 

and compare C-IED initiatives, demonstrates overlap and the potential for duplication of 

effort. According to JIEDDO officials, the organization has a robust coordinating process in 

place that precludes unintended overlap. However, through our survey and follow-up with 

relevant agency officials, we found examples of overlap in the following areas: (1) IEDrelated intelligence analysis: two organizations were producing and disseminating similar 

IED-related intelligence products to the warfighter, (2) C-IED hardware development: two 

organizations were developing similar robotics for detecting IEDs from a safe distance, and 

(3) IED detection: two organizations had developed C-IED initiatives using chemical sensors 

that were similar in their technologies and capabilities. 

Our survey results showed that a majority of respondents said they communicated with 

JIEDDO regarding their C-IED initiatives; however, JIEDDO does not consistently record 

and track this data. Based on our prior work, JIEDDO does not have a mechanism for 

recording data communicated on C-IED efforts. Therefore, these data are not available for 

analysis by JIEDDO or others in DOD to reduce the risk of duplicating efforts and avoid 

repeating mistakes. 

Concluding Observations

As we previously reported, and as our survey results confirmed, DOD has funded hundreds 

of C-IED initiatives but has not yet developed a comprehensive database of these initiatives 

and the organizations conducting them. DOD plans to provide JIEDDO access to 

department-wide C-IED data to enable the identification and development of a 
Page 5 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

comprehensive C-IED initiatives database, but it had not done so as of July 2012. Further, 

our survey identified high concentrations of initiatives falling under several key C-IED areas 

of development. This condition, coupled with DOD’s lack of knowledge regarding its prior 

and current C-IED investments, demonstrates the potential for overlap and duplication and 

re-emphasizes the findings in our prior work. DOD concurred with our February 2012 

recommendation to develop an implementation plan and timeline for establishing a C-IED 

database.7

 

 Therefore, we are not making additional recommendations in this report.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to DOD. In its written comments reproduced in enclosure 

2, DOD listed the actions it is taking to implement prior GAO recommendations to develop a 

C-IED database. However, DOD disagreed with several details contained in our findings. 

DOD also provided technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate. 

DOD stated that we portrayed JIEDDO as uncooperative in responding to our survey and 

that JIEDDO provided GAO access to its records for all inactive C-IED efforts for the survey 

sample. It was not our intent to imply that JIEDDO was uncooperative; rather it was to fully 

disclose limitations in the data we collected and the reasons for those limitations. However, 

the limitations we cited with regard to JIEDDO’s survey responses underscore our previous 

findings that JIEDDO does not have comprehensive visibility over its own or DOD-wide 

counter-IED efforts. Moreover, DOD’s comments overstate the degree and utility of the 

access it provided. For example, although DOD provided us with access to JIEDDO’s 

enterprise management system, this system was of limited utility because identifying and 

extracting the relevant, reliable information needed from the system files would require the 

expertise of a knowledgeable JIEDDO program manager (as stated in our scope and 

methodology appendix at the end of our briefing slides). The limited utility of its enterprise 

management system for purposes of completing the survey is corroborated by discussions 

with JIEDDO officials regarding their efforts to complete our survey. Officials stated that 

completing the survey for JIEDDO’s inactive initiatives would be too time consuming 

because those staff familiar with these initiatives no longer worked at JIEDDO and therefore 

completing the surveys would require a manual effort to locate and review relevant files for 

the information needed to complete the survey since they could not retrieve the necessary 

information through JIEDDO’s enterprise system. 

DOD stated that our comment that JIEDDO is unable to distinguish expenditures is incorrect 

because JIEDDO uses its financial management database to reliably identify C-IED initiative 

costs, and its financial management data provides the ability to identify all JIEDDO’s 

initiatives and staff and infrastructure costs. However, DOD’s comments do not accurately 

reflect our findings. Specifically, we stated that JIEDDO is unable to comprehensively and 

automatically distinguish individual C-IED initiatives from other expenditures, including 

JIEDDO’s infrastructure and overhead costs such as facilities, contractor services, pay and 

benefits, and travel. Although we agree that JIEDDO can use its financial management 

database to help identify individual initiative costs, JIEDDO’s financial management 

database does not automatically distinguish between costs for C-IED initiatives and those 

for staff and infrastructure costs, which would not be considered counter-IED initiatives. To 

do so would require JIEDDO to review the listing JIEDDO’s financial management database 

produces to manually identify and remove efforts that it does not consider C-IED initiatives 

per either its definition or our definition. 

 

7 GAO-12-280.
Page 6 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

DOD stated that the examples of overlap we cited in our report are overstated, noting that 

the figure [on page 17 of our briefing] showing 60 chemical sensor efforts by 14 

organizations fails to explain that these are different sensors for different chemical 

signatures. However, since DOD has not developed a comprehensive database listing all of 

its C-IED efforts—including those involving chemical sensors—it is not clear to what degree 

the chemical sensors associated with the 60 efforts represented in the figure are different 

from one another or apply to different chemical signatures. Therefore, we continue to 

believe, as noted in the briefing, that the potential for duplication exists.

DOD stated that the chemical sensor example (on page 21 of our briefing) highlights two 

systems that use similar technologies and may appear to overlap but do not because the 

systems were designed for distinctly different threats and targets. Although DIA did not 

develop its system for purposes of countering IEDs or design its system to detect IEDs, 

when DIA deployed its system in theater in 2009, the system proved effective in detecting 

IEDs. DIA then approached JIEDDO to fund further development of DIA’s system because 

of its new found C-IED capability. JIEDDO declined and in 2010 started developing its 

system using similar technology for the purpose of detecting IEDs. Therefore, we continue 

to believe that because both systems use similar technology and provide similar capabilities 

overlap exists, regardless of the intended users.

DOD stated that our example comparing two intelligence analysis entities (on page 18 of our 

briefing) is based on a dated report and that routine collaboration now occurs between the 

two entities with the two entities “deconflicting” requests for support to minimize duplication 

of effort. The report we cite in our slides was dated January 2011, and we updated our 

information by discussing the issue with OSD, Army, and JIEDDO officials as recently as 

March 2012 to corroborate the continued validity of the January 2011 report finding that 

there was overlap between the two entities. Further, we cannot evaluate the effectiveness of 

the specific efforts cited in DOD’s comments because DOD did not provide evidence of their 

implementation or effectiveness. We continue to support our position that DOD improve 

collaboration, identify and address overlapping efforts, and minimize duplication. 

DOD stated that the Senior Integration Group, established by the Secretary of Defense, 

ensures collaboration related to joint urgent needs DOD-wide and will reduce potential 

overlap of C-IED initiatives across DOD. We agree that senior level attention can be 

effective in prioritizing efforts, directing actions and resolving issues associated with joint 

urgent needs; however, the ability of the Senior Integration Group to comprehensively 

review DOD’s counter-IED efforts to identify and address overlap and duplication is limited. 

For example, without a DOD-wide data base of counter-IED efforts, the group would not 

have adequate visibility to comprehensively identify overlapping efforts. Further, the scope 

of the Senior Integration Group is to oversee all joint urgent operational needs, which is 

much broader than counter-IED. As such, with the approximately 1,300 C-IED efforts we 

identified in addition to the universe of efforts that address other joint urgent operational 

needs, the number of efforts that the SIG can address may be limited to only those of the 

highest priority. 

In its comments to our report, DOD also requested that we provide a listing of the efforts and 

associated contacts for C-IED initiatives conducted outside of JIEDDO so that they may be 

reviewed for inclusion in JIEDDO’s forthcoming database. We will cooperate to the extent 

possible as JIEDDO takes this action to establish a database of counter-IED efforts. 
Page 7 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

- - - - - 

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

Secretary of Defense, and the Director of JIEDDO. The report also is available at no charge 

on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. Should you or your staff have any questions on 

the matters discussed in this report, please contact me at (202) 512-5431, or 

russellc@gao.gov. Contact points for our offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who contributed to this report 

are listed in enclosure 3. 

Cary B. Russell 

Acting Director, Defense Capabilities and Management

Enclosures-3 
Enclosure I

Page 8 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Briefing for Congressional Requesters

Counter-Improvised Explosive Devices: 

Multiple DOD Organizations Are Developing 

Numerous Initiatives

Briefing for Congressional Requesters

July 2012

Page 1 GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices
Enclosure I

Page 9 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Background

• Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) are the enemy’s weapon of choice (e.g., 16,500 IEDs were 

detonated or discovered being used against U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2011), and according to the 

Department of Defense (DOD) probably will be a mainstay in any present and future conflict involving 

insurgents, terrorists, or criminal gangs. For example, according to DOD, the widespread availability and 

low cost of IED materials and the potential for strategic impact guarantee that the IED will remain a threat 

and the main casualty-producing weapon for decades to come.

• Multiple DOD components, including the military services, have been pursuing counter-IED (C-IED) efforts 

since June 2005, when DOD established the Joint IED Defeat Task Force for which the Army provided 

primary administrative support. This task force replaced the Army IED Task Force, the Joint IED Task 

Force, and the Under Secretary of Defense, Force Protection Working Group.

• In 2006, DOD issued Directive 2000.19E,1 which designated the Joint Improvised Explosive Device 

Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) as DOD’s lead entity to focus all DOD actions in support of the combatant 

commanders’ and their joint task forces’ efforts to defeat IEDs as weapons of strategic influence. 

• From fiscal years 2006 through 2011, JIEDDO received more than $18 billion in funding; 2 however, DOD 

has funded other C-IED efforts conducted outside of JIEDDO including $40 billion for Mine Resistant 

Ambush Protected vehicles.

Page 2

1 Department of Defense Directive 2000.19E, Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) (Feb. 14, 2006).

2 This total represents appropriations and rescissions made to the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund for JIEDDO. The appropriation 

provisions often specify that the Secretary of Defense may transfer funds to other appropriations categories after notifying the congressional defense 

committees. See, e.g., Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-10, div. A, tit. IV (2011).
Enclosure I

Page 10 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Background, Cont’d.

• We reported in October 2009 that many organizations involved in addressing the IED threat continued to 

develop, maintain, and expand their own IED defeat capabilities after the creation of JIEDDO.3

• DOD does not have a ready means for determining the universe of its C-IED initiatives. We reported in 

February 2012 that DOD does not have full visibility over all of its C-IED efforts. It relies on various 

sources and systems for managing its C-IED efforts, but has not developed a process that provides the 

department with a comprehensive listing of its C-IED initiatives and activities.4

• In response to our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense direct JIEDDO to develop an 

implementation plan for the establishment of DOD’s C-IED database including a detailed timeline with 

milestones to help achieve this goal, DOD officials said that a draft revision of DOD Directive 2000.19E 

will contain a new task requiring combatant commands, the military services, and DOD agencies to report 

C-IED initiatives to JIEDDO to enable JIEDDO to have visibility of all C-IED initiatives, programming, and 

funding pursued individually by a Service, combatant command, or DOD agencies.

• In January 2012, DOD estimated that it would complete draft revisions to DOD Directive 2000.19E in early 

2012, but as of July 2012, Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) officials stated that the revised draft 

was under review at the OSD level and therefore not issued. In addition, according to JIEDDO officials, 

DOD is conducting an ongoing review of C-IED capabilities across the Department, which according to 

JIEDDO, may affect JIEDDO and the contents of the draft directive.

3GAO, Warfighter Support: Actions Needed to Improve Visibility and Coordination of DOD's Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Efforts, GAO 10-95 

(Washington D.C.: Oct. 29, 2009). 

4 GAO, Warfighter Support: DOD Needs Strategic Outcome-Related Goals and Visibility Over Its Counter-IED Efforts, GAO-12-280 (Washington D.C.: February 

17, 2012), and Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue , GAO-12-342SP (Washington 

D.C.: February 28, 2012).

Page 3
Enclosure I

Page 11 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Objectives

This work is based on a request from the House Armed Services Committee--

Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, asking GAO to report on the potential 

for overlap and duplication in DOD’s C-IED efforts. In response, we conducted a 

departmentwide survey to determine

1. the number of different C-IED initiatives and the organizations developing them from 

fiscal year 2008 through January 6, 2012, the closing date of our survey, and the 

extent to which DOD is funding these initiatives, and 

2. the extent and nature of any overlap that could lead to duplication of C-IED efforts.

Page 4
Enclosure I

Page 12 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Scope and Methodology

To answer these objectives, we used a two-phased survey approach. We administered a preliminary survey to 

identify potential C-IED initiatives, followed by a more detailed survey to obtain more specific information on the 

identified initiatives. We sent the preliminary and detailed surveys to representatives of all potential C-IED 

initiatives we could identify. However, because there may be C-IED initiatives that we did not become aware of, 

the results of the surveys cannot be generalized to all DOD-funded C-IED efforts. 

• To determine the number of different C-IED initiatives and the extent different organizations used DOD funding 

for developing these initiatives, we used the preliminary survey and JIEDDO financial data to 

• Identify the number of potential C-IED initiatives that JIEDDO funded and conducted that met the 

following definition we developed for C-IED initiatives: 5

Any operational, materiel, technology, training, information, intelligence, or research and development 

project, program, or other effort funded by any component of the Department of Defense that is intended 

to assist or support efforts to counter, combat, or defeat the use of improvised explosive devices and 

related networks. This includes IED precursors [e.g., raw materials] such as chemicals or associated 

components such as command wires [e.g., triggering wire].

• Compile a list of potential initiatives managed by organizations outside of JIEDDO that, in DOD officials’ 

opinion, met this definition.

• Identify other organizations involved with developing C-IED initiatives and followed up with associated 

DOD officials to further identify any other organizations the survey may have missed.

Page 5

5 We developed this definition relying in part on a provision in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 that 

defines a C-IED initiative as “any project, program, or research activity funded by any component of the Department of Defense that is intended 

to assist or support efforts to counter, combat, or defeat the use of improvised explosive devices.” See Pub. L. No. 111-383, 124(c) (2011) 

(10 U.S.C. 113 note). We augmented this description based on comments from DOD officials during survey expert review and pre testing. 
Enclosure I

Page 13 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Scope and Methodology, Cont’d.

• To provide a measure of magnitude of resources expended, we also aggregated the funding data 

reported by respondents from the detailed survey for the C-IED initiatives we identified.

• To determine the extent and nature of any overlap that could lead to potential duplication of C-IED 

initiatives,6 we

• Sent out a detailed survey with questions about the type and nature of the initiative, technology 

focus of the initiative, funding associated with it, the organizational placement of the initiative, and 

degree of communication with JIEDDO and other DOD organizations regarding each of the 

potential initiatives identified in the preliminary survey. 

• Requested survey recipients respond within a 2-week period. However, we allowed recipients a 

total of 5 months to respond and followed up with recipients who had not responded in order to 

increase the number of surveys returned to the greatest extent possible during the survey period. 

Despite these efforts, some survey recipients did not respond. 

• Divided the total number of potential C-IED initiatives we identified into two subsets—those with 

survey responses and those without survey responses.

Page 6

6As we previously reported in GAO 12-342SP, “Overlap" occurs when programs have similar goals, devise similar activities and 

strategies to achieve them, or target similar users. "Duplication" occurs when two or more agencies or programs are engaged in the 

same activities or provide the same services to the same beneficiaries.
Enclosure I

Page 14 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Scope and Methodology, Cont’d.

• Separated detailed survey responses that contained classified information from those that did not, 

and after determining that 81 percent of the responses were unclassified, we focused our 

analysis and presentation of summary survey data on unclassified survey responses.

• Identified C-IED initiatives concentrated within similar areas of development, which resulted in our 

grouping initiatives into 9 comprehensive categories, such as detection or training efforts, and 20 

examples of associated subcategories, such as chemical sensors, a subcategory under the 

detect category. The development of these categories and subcategories was based on follow-up 

discussions we had with the DOD officials who manage these C-IED initiatives (See appendix 1 

for a more detailed Scope and Methodology).7

Page 7

7Through our data collection and analysis procedures, we attempted to ensure that all initiatives we analyzed were unique. However, 

multiple organizations working on different aspects of the same initiative may use different titles for their portion of an initiative and may 

have submitted survey responses for just their portion of an initiative. Therefore while we believe all survey responses describe unique 

activities, it is possible that the total number of initiatives we report include some of the same activities.
Enclosure I

Page 15 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Objective 1: Summary

• Number of DOD-Funded C-IED Initiatives: We identified 1,340 potential separate initiatives 

that DOD funded from fiscal year 2008 through January 6, 2012, the closing date of our 

survey and that, in DOD officials’ opinion, met the definition for C-IED initiatives. Of the 1,340 

initiatives, we received survey responses confirming 711 initiatives that met the above C-IED 

definition. Of the remaining 629 initiatives for which we did not receive survey responses, 76 

percent were JIEDDO initiatives. 

• Organizations Undertaking DOD-Funded C-IED Initiatives: We also identified 45 different 

organizations that DOD is funding to undertake the initiatives above [see the list of 

organizations on slide 12]. Some of these organizations receive JIEDDO funding while 

others receive other DOD funding.

• DOD Funding for C-IED Initiatives: Funding data for DOD-funded C-IED initiatives are 

limited. We documented $4.8 billion of DOD fiscal year 2011 funding in support of C-IED 

initiatives, but this amount is understated because we did not receive survey data confirming 

DOD funding for all initiatives. As an example, 94 of the 711 responses did not include 

funding amounts for associated C-IED initiatives. Further, the DOD agency with the greatest 

number of C-IED initiatives identified—JIEDDO—did not return surveys for 81 percent of its 

initiatives.

Page 8
Enclosure I

Page 16 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Objective 1: Number of DOD-Funded C-IED Initiatives

• Our survey and database analyses identified 1,340 separate potential initiatives that DOD 

funded from fiscal years 2008 through January 6, 2012, and, in DOD officials’ opinion, met 

the above definition for C-IED initiatives.

• DOD designated JIEDDO as DOD’s joint organization to coordinate its C-IED 

initiatives. However, JIEDDO does not have comprehensive knowledge of all of DOD’s 

C-IED initiatives because it and DOD do not have a ready means for determining the 

universe of C-IED initiatives. Further, according to JIEDDO, its governing directive to 

coordinate the overall C-IED efforts—DOD Directive 2000.19E—does not give it 

sufficient authority to (1) compel the military services to report their C-IED activity or (2) 

direct or limit their C-IED activities. Of the 1,340 potential C-IED initiatives, 

• 596 C-IED initiatives are conducted by JIEDDO. 

• 744 C-IED initiatives are not conducted by JIEDDO. 

• The following figure compares the number of initiatives managed within and outside of 

JIEDDO. It also shows the percentage of survey responses received. 

Page 9
Enclosure I

Page 17 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Objective 1: Number of DOD-Funded C-IED Initiatives, Cont’d. 

Page 10

Of the 1,340 potential C-IED initiatives that we identified, the following figure compares the number of initiatives 

managed within and outside of JIEDDO and a breakdown of responses received.

Figure 1: Comparison of JIEDDO and non-JIEDDO Survey Responses

*Initiatives determined as JIEDDO-conducted were identified through their financial database.
Enclosure I

Page 18 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Objective 1: Number of DOD-Funded C-IED Initiatives, Cont’d. 

• JIEDDO provided survey responses for 19 percent of the potential JIEDDO initiatives we identified, 

which was low compared to all other organizations’ survey responses. 

• The following are reasons JIEDDO gave regarding its low number of survey returns:

• Historic records for C-IED initiatives are not fully identified, catalogued, and retrievable. 

However, according to JIEDDO officials, the organization is updating its information 

technology system and expects that it will provide a capability to rapidly generate 

responses with minimal impact to daily operation. 

• Significant turnover of personnel has resulted in a loss of staff expertise and institutional 

knowledge. 

• JIEDDO’s concern that applying its resources to complete the remaining surveys would

• detract from the time needed to perform its day-to-day mission priority of fielding 

capabilities to minimize and eventually eliminate the IED threat, and 

• require 2,400 personnel man hours which JIEDDO considered too high a cost.

• As stated in our prior reports (listed at the end of this briefing), JIEDDO is unable to 

comprehensively and automatically distinguish individual C-IED initiatives from other 

expenditures, including JIEDDO’s infrastructure and overhead costs such as facilities, 

contractor services, pay and benefits, and travel. 

Page 11
Enclosure I

Page 19 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Objective 1: Number of DOD-Funded C-IED Initiatives, Cont’d. 

Table 1: Organizations Undertaking DOD-funded C-IED Initiatives 

Page 12

• Our survey identified 45 organizations undertaking DOD-funded C-IED initiatives, which we grouped below by major component.8

8Organizations may receive funding from JIEDDO, other DOD sources, or a combination of the two. 
Enclosure I

Page 20 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Objective 1: DOD Funding for C-IED Initiatives

• Table 2 aggregates survey data of any DOD funding expended in FY 2011 reported by the 45 organizations shown in 

table 1–and is summarized by major component in descending order of total funding. However, funding data for 

DOD-funded C-IED initiatives are limited for the following reasons: 

• We did not receive survey data confirming DOD funding for all initiatives. Specifically, 94 of the 711 initiatives, for which we

received responses in the second survey, did not include funding amounts for associated C-IED initiatives. 

• Further, JIEDDO—the DOD agency with the greatest number of C-IED initiatives identified—did not return surveys for 81 percent 

of its initiatives. Consequently, its survey responses may understate funds expended.

9 Through our data collection and analysis procedures, we attempted to ensure that all initiatives we analyzed were unique. However, multiple 

organizations working on different aspects of the same initiative may use different titles for their portion of an initiative and may have submitted 

survey responses for just their portion of an initiative. Therefore while we believe all survey responses describe unique activities, it is possible that 

the total number of initiatives we report include some of the same activities. Therefore, in these cases, the dollar amounts in this table for major 

components other than JIEDDO may include funds provided by JIEDDO. 

Page 13

Table 2: Survey Data-Funds Reported as Expended in FY 2011 on Initiatives Summarized by Major Component

Component Amount (millions) 9 

JIEDDO $1,320.77

Army 1,110.09 

Navy 1,089.52 

DOD or joint military organization other than JIEDDO 1,021.24 

Marine Corps 231.95 

Air Force 22.83 

Combatant Command 30.00 

Non-DOD Organization 0.86 

Total $4,827.26
Enclosure I

Page 21 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Objective 2: Summary 

• Multiple DOD-funded C-IED Initiatives Were Concentrated in Some Areas of Development: Our survey results showed 

that multiple C-IED initiatives were concentrated within some areas of development. These concentrations of initiatives overlap 

as they share the same goal of protecting the warfighter and defeating IEDs through the use of similar technologies or 

capabilities. Further, given that DOD is not fully aware of the number and types of its C-IED initiatives or the organizations 

conducting its C-IED initiatives and that multiple initiatives are concentrated in some areas, there may be duplication of effort in 

C-IED initiatives—i.e., two or more initiatives are providing the same services to the same beneficiaries. The following are 

examples of overlap we identified through our survey and follow-up with relevant agency officials:

• Intelligence Analysis: In the area of IED-related intelligence analysis, we determined that several organizations have 

ongoing C-IED initiatives involving the production and dissemination of IED-related intelligence. Further, we identified an 

example involving potential overlap between JIEDDO and Army C-IED network intelligence analysis. 

• Robotic Devices: In the area of counter-IED hardware development efforts, we determined that at least four 

organizations conduct initiatives developing robotic devices for detection of IEDs from a safe standoff distance for 

soldiers and explosive ordnance disposal specialists. Through follow-up discussions with DOD officials regarding these 

robotic efforts, we identified a specific example in which the Army and Navy separately developed robotic systems 

which illustrates overlap in DOD robotics efforts and confirms a continued risk of duplication in DOD’s C-IED initiatives.

• Sensor Collection Systems: In the area of IED-detection development efforts, we determined that two organizations 

are conducting C-IED initiatives using chemical sensors. In analyzing these initiatives involved in the development of 

sensor collection systems for use in C-IED initiatives, we identified a specific example—two sensor systems developed 

by the Defense Intelligence Agency and JIEDDO that were similar in their technologies and capabilities—confirming 

and illustrating potential overlap in this category of C-IED efforts. 

• JIEDDO Does Not Consistently Collect and Track C-IED Data It Receives from DOD Organizations : While survey results 

showed that a majority of respondents said that they communicated with JIEDDO with respect to their individual C-IED efforts, 

JIEDDO does not consistently collect and track this information. Therefore, these data are not available for analysis to JIEDDO

or others in DOD to reduce the risk of duplicating efforts and avoid repeating mistakes. 

Page 14
Enclosure I

Page 22 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Objective 2: Multiple DOD-funded C-IED Initiatives 

Concentrated in Some Areas of Development 

Our survey data for the 577 initiatives for which we received unclassified survey responses show high 

concentrations of DOD-funded C-IED initiatives in some areas of development. For example, survey data 

identified 19 organizations with 107 initiatives being developed to combat cell phone-triggered IEDs. While the 

concentration of initiatives in itself does not constitute duplication, this concentration taken together with the 

following factors demonstrates overlap and the potential presence of duplication in DOD-funded C-IED initiatives: 

• The high number of different DOD organizations that are undertaking these initiatives. 

• The universe of DOD-funded C-IED initiatives that remain unidentified as of June 2012. 

• As a result—

• DOD, including JIEDDO, does not know the number of C-IED initiatives that different 

organizations have developed using DOD funding, and cannot fully identify concentrations of CIED initiatives that pose the greatest risk of duplication of efforts and inefficient allocation of 

limited resources.

• According to JIEDDO officials, the organization has a robust coordinating process in place that 

precludes unintended overlap and duplication of C-IED efforts within DOD. However, various 

entities expending DOD funding on C-IED initiatives cannot be fully aware of the number and 

types of DOD-funded C-IED initiatives outside their own organizations without reliable, 

comprehensive data identifying the universe of C-IED initiatives at DOD.

Our analysis showing concentrations of C-IED initiatives when broken into categories and subcategories is 

summarized in Table 3.

Page 15
Enclosure I

Page 23 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Objective 2: Multiple DOD-funded C-IED Initiatives 

Concentrated in Some Areas of Development, Cont’d.

Page 16

Table 3: C-IED Categories and Subcategories Showing Concentrations of Initiatives

a An initiative may apply to more than one subcategory(e.g., an initiative may address convoy protection as well as armor needs) thereby exceeding the number of total initiatives for each category 

as a whole as some initiatives may overlap and be counted more than once.

b Since an initiative may apply to more than one subcategory, the organization conducting these initiatives may also apply to more than one subcategory thereby being counted more than once. c This table is not all-inclusive of potential sub categories in our survey data. 
Enclosure I

Page 24 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Page 17

Figure 2: Example Illustrating Organizations and Subcategory Relationship Data from Table 3

--14 Organizations Conducting 60 initiatives Involving Detection of IEDs Using Chemical Sensors

Objective 2: Multiple DOD-funded C-IED Initiatives 

Concentrated in Some Areas of Development, Cont’d.
Enclosure I

Page 25 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Objective 2: Multiple DOD-funded C-IED Initiatives 

Concentrated in Some Areas of Development, Cont’d.

Intelligence Analysis Example

In the area of IED-related intelligence analysis, we determined through survey responses and follow-up 

discussions with DOD officials that several organizations have ongoing C-IED initiatives involving the production 

and dissemination of IED-related intelligence. Further we identified an example among these initiatives that 

illustrates potential overlap in DOD’s intelligence analytical efforts.

• JIEDDO and other DOD entities perform intelligence analysis for the warfighter. For example, JIEDDO and 

the Army’s National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) can both perform C-IED network intelligence analysis 

and provide intelligence reports to the warfighter that identify members, locations, and activities of an IED 

network. However, the extent to which Army and JIEDDO intelligence activities overlap remains unresolved. 

In 2011, the U.S. Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence attempted a comparison of Army and JIEDDO 

intelligence activities,10 but according to Army officials, JIEDDO did not provide the information the Army 

needed to fully complete this effort. 

• JIEDDO has stated that it provides distinct intelligence analysis from other DOD intelligence entities but 

analysis by other DOD intelligence entities have created potential overlap. At the onset of operations in 

Afghanistan, NGIC provided intelligence analysis of warfighters at a strategic level addressing broader 

theater objectives, and as the war progressed, JIEDDO developed a distinct intelligence analytical capability 

to serve the unmet need of warfighters at a tactical level. However, Army intelligence analysis, including 

NGIC, expanded to meet tactical level warfighter intelligence analysis needs. For example, according to 

Army intelligence officials, in 2009, Army leaders instructed intelligence personnel in theater to adjust their 

emphasis to better support tactical level customers. According to these Army officials and other DOD 

intelligence officials, JIEDDO and NGIC compete to provide similar information to both tactical and strategic 

level customers.

10This effort was an attempt to achieve efficiencies directed by Secretary Gates in 2010 that could reduce potential duplication.

Page 18
Enclosure I

Page 26 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Objective 2: Multiple DOD-funded C-IED Initiatives 

Concentrated in Some Areas of Development, Cont’d.

Intelligence Analysis Example, cont’d.

• A January 2011 Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence briefing stated in its findings that there is overlap 

between JIEDDO’s intelligence analysis activity and the Army’s National Ground Intelligence Center. Therefore, 

the briefing recommended that after the war, JIEDDO’s intelligence analytical capabilities transition to the Army’s 

National Ground Intelligence Center. Such a consolidation should eliminate any duplication between JIEDDO and 

the Army’s National Ground Intelligence Center. According to DOD officials, DOD has decided to separately 

maintain these intelligence analytical capabilities until after the war. 

Page 19
Enclosure I

Page 27 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Objective 2: Multiple DOD-funded C-IED Initiatives 

Concentrated in Some Areas of Development, Cont’d.

Robotics Example

In the area of hardware-related C-IED development efforts, we determined through survey responses that at least four 

organizations conduct initiatives developing robotic devices for detection of IEDs from a safe standoff distance for 

soldiers and explosive ordnance disposal specialists. Through follow-up discussions with DOD officials regarding 

these robotic efforts, we identified the following example that confirms and illustrates potential overlap in DOD’s 

robotics efforts.

• Two organizations are developing robotics devices with similar technologies and capabilities. According to 

Army and Navy officials:

• The Army and Navy are each separately developing a family of robotic systems that share the following 

four characteristics: 

• Base platforms which accommodate interchangeable tools, such as cameras, sensors, etc.

• Small, medium, and large versions of these base platforms which address varying portability needs.

• Open designs which allow upgrades, modifications, and new tools to be added as missions evolve. 

• Purchase of technical data to allow competitive procurement during their systems’ life-cycles, as 

needed.

• The purposes of these systems differ in one critical dimension. To satisfy explosive ordnance handling 

needs, the Navy robotic system requires tools to handle or detonate explosive devices, while the Army 

robotic system does not need to have such tools. 

• This requirement may not be sufficient to justify development of two families of robotic systems 

because with adaptable base platforms either system could be used as the base for the tools needed 

by explosive ordnance technicians to handle or detonate explosive devices.

• According to DOD officials, the Joint Ground Robotics Enterprise is an organization that provides oversight of 

consolidation of DOD ground robotic efforts, but it does not have the ability to direct individual services and 

organizations developing robotics within DOD to consolidate overlapping efforts. Also, the President’s fiscal 

year 2013 budget request does not include funds for this organization’s operations for next fiscal year.

Page 20
Enclosure I

Page 28 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Objective 2: Multiple DOD-funded C-IED Initiatives 

Concentrated in Some Areas of Development, Cont’d.

Sensor Collection Systems Example: 

In the area of C-IED efforts involving the detection of IEDs, we determined that multiple organizations are 

conducting initiatives using chemical sensors. In analyzing these initiatives involved in the development of sensor 

collection systems for use in C-IED initiatives, we identified two sensor systems developed by two different 

organizations that are similar in their technologies and capabilities—illustrating potential overlap in this category of 

counter-IED efforts. In 2011, DOD decided to terminate one of these two initiatives.

• In 2007, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) developed a sensor collections system initiative which DOD 

deployed in Afghanistan to detect IEDs in 2009.

• In 2010, JIEDDO began development of its own sensor collection system initiative with similar technology 

and capabilities. 

• In 2011, according to a DOD official, DOD considered these two sensor collection system initiatives in its 

assessment of sensor collection systems to identify the most effective and efficient system for DOD’s 

continued use. 

• Because DOD lacks comprehensive data providing visibility over C-IED initiatives, DOD had to make a 

broad data call across the department to identify and obtain data on all of the specific sensor collection 

system initiatives within the department. The task force determined that there were at least four 

different sensor collection system initiatives with similar technologies and capabilities. 

• Later in 2011 as a result of this assessment, DOD’s Joint Urgent Operational Needs Senior Integration 

Group determined that JIEDDO’s initiative would be the department’s sensor collection system for use in 

theater, and consequently DOD discontinued DIA’s initiative in October 2011. 

• In June 2012, DOD began transitioning JIEDDO’s initiative to the Army and, according to JIEDDO officials, 

it is expected to become a program of record in fiscal year 2014 or fiscal year 2015. 

• Total funding for DIA’s initiative was approximately $240 million from inception until October 2011. As of 

May 2011, JIEDDO funding for its initiative was approximately $181 million. 

Page 21
Enclosure I

Page 29 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Objective 2: JIEDDO Does Not Consistently Collect and Track 

C-IED Data It Receives from DOD Organizations 

In response to the survey question asking respondents if they communicate with JIEDDO about 

their particular effort, survey results showed that a majority of respondents communicated with 

JIEDDO. However, our prior work found that JIEDDO does not have a system that consistently 

records data communicated on C-IED efforts.11 Therefore, these data are not available for analysis 

to JIEDDO or others in DOD to help reduce the risk of duplicating efforts and share best practices.

• Unclassified responses to our survey reported that for 76.6 percent (412 of 538) of initiatives 

outside of JIEDDO, there had been communication with JIEDDO.

• Unclassified responses to our survey reported that for 16.9 percent ( 91 of 538) of initiatives 

conducted outside of JIEDDO, there had been no communication with JIEDDO; for the 

remaining 6.5 percent (35 of 538) of initiatives, responses did not answer whether or not there 

had been communication with JIEDDO. 

• DOD has a diminished ability to use information when all organizations conducting C-IED 

initiatives do not communicate with JIEDDO. 

• This lack of communication with JIEDDO may increase the potential for multiple 

organizations to pursue overlapping efforts

11GAO-12-280

Page 22
Enclosure I

Page 30 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Concluding Observations

As we stated in our prior work, and as our survey results confirmed, DOD has funded 

hundreds of C-IED initiatives but has not developed a comprehensive database of these 

initiatives or the organizations conducting them. While DOD plans to provide JIEDDO 

access to department-wide C-IED data to enable the identification and development of a 

comprehensive C-IED initiatives database, it had not issued new guidance to require 

additional reporting on initiatives as July 2012. Further, our survey identified high 

concentrations of initiatives falling under several key C-IED areas of development. This 

condition, coupled with DOD’s lack of knowledge regarding its prior and current C-IED 

investments, demonstrates the potential for overlap and duplication. Because DOD 

concurred with our February 2012 recommendation to develop an implementation plan 

and timeline for establishing a counter-IED database, we are not making additional 

recommendations. 

Page 23
Enclosure I

Page 31 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

• To answer the objectives of this report, we used a two-phased survey approach. A preliminary survey 

identified potential C-IED initiatives funded by DOD—this survey was sent in December 2010 and completed 

in July 2011 as part of a prior GAO engagement. The engagement resulted in issuance of GAO-12-280 

(related GAO products page 29), however the report did not include preliminary survey data because the 

second phase of the survey was not yet completed. We sent a more detailed survey in July 2011—also as 

part of the same prior GAO engagement —and this survey closed in January 2012. To identify recipients to 

receive the preliminary survey—i.e., persons conducting potential C-IED initiatives—we extracted contact 

information from a DOD database of C-IED technologies under development, DOD-sponsored C-IED 

conference attendee lists, and other sources. The preliminary survey also asked respondents to identify other 

individuals and organizations outside their own that conduct C-IED initiatives.

• To determine the number of different C-IED initiatives and the extent DOD is funding different organizations 

to develop C-IED initiatives, we: 

• Used the preliminary survey to compile an initial list of potential initiatives managed by organizations 

outside of JIEDDO that, in DOD officials’ opinion, met the definition we developed for C-IED initiatives: 

• Any operational, materiel, technology, training, information, intelligence, or research and 

development project, program, or other effort funded by any component of the Department of 

Defense that is intended to assist or support efforts to counter, combat, or defeat the use of 

improvised explosive devices and related networks. This includes IED precursors [e.g., raw 

materials] such as chemicals or associated components such as command wires [e.g., triggering 

wire]. 

• Requested that the knowledgeable official of these identified C-IED initiatives—i.e., the persons we 

identified in our preliminary survey—complete and return a detailed survey (described in the 

methodology section below for our second objective) for the C-IED initiative(s) that met the definition. 

Page 24
Enclosure I

Page 32 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology, Cont’d.

• Determined that all JIEDDO efforts met our definition for C-IED initiatives and consequently identified the 

number of C-IED initiatives that JIEDDO funded and conducted by reviewing its data (1) for all JIEDDO 

activity recorded as of May 1, 2011 in its financial management system and (2) for a June 2011 JIEDDO 

listing that contained additional C-IED efforts begun after May 1, 2011. Based on these data sets, we 

developed a list of potential JIEDDO C-IED initiatives. We submitted the listing to JIEDDO for completion 

of surveys for each individual initiative. We also added these efforts to our list of potential C-IED initiatives 

identified through DOD organizations outside of JIEDDO.

• Identified organizations involved with developing C-IED initiatives funded by DOD and followed up with 

DOD officials of those organizations to further identify any other organizations the survey may have missed.

• Aggregated the funding data reported by respondents from the detailed survey for the C-IED initiatives we 

identified.

• To determine the extent and nature of any overlap that could lead to potential duplication of C-IED initiatives, we

• Confirmed that each C-IED initiative of the total number identified met the definition of a C-IED initiative in 

order to send out a detailed survey to obtain further information about them.

• Developed the detailed survey which included, among other things, requests for a narrative description of 

the initiative along with detailed data on the type, nature, and technology focus of the initiative, the funding 

associated with the initiative, and the organizational placement of the initiative. Most questions could be 

answered by a single check mark or a Yes/No/Don’t Know response, for example, 

“Does this effort develop, operate, or maintain systems that do any of the following detection activities, 

other than for training?”

“Detecting IEDs or IED components such as command wires (Yes/No/Don’t Know)”

“Detecting IED precursors such as stockpiled chemicals before inclusion in IEDs (Yes/No/Don’t Know)” 

Etc. 

Page 25
Enclosure I

Page 33 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology, Cont’d.

• We sent the detailed survey to JIEDDO and to individuals identified through the preliminary survey. 

The survey was developed based on the following:

• Discussions with DOD officials involved in C-IED management including JIEDDO, Joint Rapid 

Acquisition Cell (JRAC), the Military Services, and managers of individual DOD C-IED efforts; 

• Pretests of the survey with C-IED program managers and other directly knowledgeable DOD 

officials and revised it accordingly; and 

• Removal of C-IED initiatives. We removed C-IED initiatives from our list of potential initiatives 

when we (1) determined that an effort was outside of our scope—i.e., C-IED initiatives funded by 

DOD before 2008, (2) concluded that an effort was represented by another survey respondent or 

(3) concluded that the effort did not meet the C-IED initiative definition above that we developed. 

We made these determinations based on the responses we received from the detailed survey or 

from another reliable source, and discussions with knowledgeable DOD officials. 

• Grouped and totaled the C-IED efforts remaining (after removing C-IED initiatives from our potential 

initiatives list based on the preceding reasons) into two subsets —those with survey responses and the 

remaining without survey responses—to separate confirmed C-IED initiatives from remaining potential 

C-IED initiatives, which we were unable to confirm further. 

• Separated confirmed survey responses that contained classified information from those that did not 

and determined that the vast majority of the responses were unclassified. For purposes of reporting on 

this objective, our analyses and presentation of summary survey data were then confined to the data 

from unclassified survey responses. 

Page 26
Enclosure I

Page 34 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology, Cont’d.

• Attempted to extract information from JIEDDO’s enterprise management system, where historic and 

management documentation is filed, to obtain additional information on the C-IED initiatives from 

unclassified responses but concluded that we did not have sufficient familiarity with the files to identify 

and extract the relevant, reliable information needed. We concluded that it would require the expertise 

of a knowledgeable JIEDDO program manager to do so.

• Used the organizational placement data collected from completed detailed surveys to list and 

summarize the organizations involved in C-IED initiatives within our scope of DOD-funded C-IED 

initiatives occurring in 2008 or later. We also analyzed the data to determine the concentration of all 

potential and confirmed C-IED initiatives that fell within and outside JIEDDO. 

• Used the type/nature/technical nature data from completed surveys to identify concentrations in areas 

of development. Using 9 broad categories of C-IED initiatives we developed in the survey based on 

discussions with DOD officials who manage initiatives, we summarized all initiatives for survey data 

collected. We also developed 20 subcategories that demonstrate concentrations of C-IED initiatives at 

a level supporting each of the 9 broad categories. (Note: Through our data collection and analysis 

procedures, we attempted to ensure that all initiatives we analyzed were unique. However, multiple 

organizations working on different aspects of the same initiative may use different titles for their portion 

of an initiative and may have submitted survey responses for just their portion of an initiative. Therefore 

while we believe all survey responses describe unique activities, it is possible that the total number of 

initiatives we report include some of the same activities.)

• Used data on whether respondents communicated (by phone, e-mail, or in person) with other 

organizations regarding their C-IED initiative(s) to determine the degree of communication with 

JIEDDO for C-IED efforts conducted outside of JIEDDO.

Page 27
Enclosure I

Page 35 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology, Cont’d.

• We sent the preliminary and detailed surveys to representatives of all potential C-IED initiatives we could 

identify. However, because there may be C-IED initiatives that we did not become aware of, the results of 

the surveys cannot be generalized to all DOD-funded C-IED efforts. The preliminary and detailed surveys 

were sent to recipients by email as MS Word form documents; recipients then filled in the documents and 

returned the surveys by email. The response rate for surveys sent to recipients other than JIEDDO (prior 

to editing survey responses) was 61.2 percent. The response rate for surveys sent to JIEDDO was 19 

percent. The information that these surveys provided was sufficient for our analyses. 

• We conducted this performance audit from November 2011 through August 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.

Page 28
Enclosure I

Page 36 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Related GAO Products

• Combating Terrorism: State Should Enhance Its Performance Measures for Assessing Efforts in Pakistan to Counter Improvised 

Explosive Devices. GAO-12-614 (Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2012.)

• Urgent Warfighter Needs: Opportunities Exist to Expedite Development and Fielding of Joint Capabilities. GAO-12-385

(Washington, D.C.: Apr 24, 2012).

• 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, 

GAO-12-342SP. (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012).

• Warfighter Support: DOD Needs Strategic Outcome-Related Goals and Visibility Over Its Counter-IED Efforts. GAO-12-280

(Washington, D.C.: February 17, 2012).

• Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-

318SP (Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2011).

• Warfighter Support: DOD’s Urgent Needs Processes Need a More Comprehensive Approach and Evaluation for Potential 

Consolidation.GAO-11-273 (Washington, D.C.: Mar 1, 2011).

• Warfighter Support: Actions Needed to Improve the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization's System of Internal 

Control.GAO 10-660 (Washington, D.C.: Jul.1, 2010).

• Warfighter Support: Improvements to DOD’s Urgent Needs Processes Would Enhance Oversight and Expedite Efforts to Meet 

Critical Warfighter Needs.GAO-10-460 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 2010).

• Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Comprehensive Planning and a Results-Oriented Training Strategy Are Needed to Support Growing 

Inventories. GAO-10-331 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 26, 2010).

• Warfighter Support: Challenges Confronting DOD's Ability to Coordinate and Oversee Its Counter-Improvised Explosive Devices 

Efforts. GAO-10-186T (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 29, 2009).

• Warfighter Support: Actions Needed to Improve Visibility and Coordination of DOD's Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Efforts. 

GAO 10-95 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 29, 2009). 

Page 29
Enclosure II

Page 37 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

Comments from the Department of Defense
Enclosure II

Page 38 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices
Enclosure III

Page 39 Page GAO-12-861R Counter Improvised Explosive Devices

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact: 

Cary Russell, (202) 512-5431 or russellc@gao.gov

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report were Grace Coleman, 

Rajiv D’Cruz, Guy LoFaro, Emily Norman, Michael Shaughnessy, Rebecca Shea, Michael 

Silver, Amie Steele, John David Strong, and Tristan T.To.

(351665)
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.