GAO-12-916R Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

September 20, 2012 

Congressional Committees 

Subject: Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment: DOD Would Benefit from Developing 

Strategic Guidance and Improving Joint Oversight 

The Department of Defense (DOD) positions materiel and equipment1

 at strategic locations 

around the world to enable it to field combat-ready forces in days rather than the weeks it 

would take if equipment had to be moved from the United States to the location of a military 

conflict. In addition, DOD uses prepositioned materiel and equipment to support a variety of 

needs including security cooperation activities, multilateral training exercises abroad, 

humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief. Fiscal challenges require DOD to carefully 

balance the investment in prepositioned materiel and equipment to achieve both national 

military objectives and other DOD priorities. Prepositioned materiel and equipment played 

an important role in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, sustained operations have 

taken a toll on the condition and readiness of military materiel and equipment. DOD has 

reported to Congress that the military services are committed to reconstituting prepositioned 

materiel and equipment but must balance these efforts with the department’s other priorities, 

such as restructuring capabilities within its prepositioned materiel and equipment and 

changes in its overseas military presence. For example, DOD issued a new defense 

strategy in January 20122

 that discusses the impending drawdown in Afghanistan and a 

future emphasis on the Asia Pacific region, which are likely to have implications for 

prepositioned materiel and equipment. 

Section 2229a of Title 10 of the United States Code requires DOD to report annually to the 

congressional defense committees on the status of prepositioned stocks as of the end of the 

fiscal year that precedes the fiscal year during which the report is submitted.3

 Reports are to 

be submitted no later than the date of the submission of the President’s budget request for a 

given fiscal year. The reporting requirement was established by section 352 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, and was amended by section 341 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, which created additional 

reporting requirements. Prior to the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

2012, DOD’s reports were required to address the following six elements: 

 

1

DOD uses the terms, “prepositioned materiel and equipment” and “prepositioned stocks” interchangeably in its 

report for 10 U.S.C. §2229a. Thus, at times in this report, we refer to “prepositioned materiel and equipment” as 

“prepositioned stocks.” 

2

DOD, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense, January 2012, The White House. 

(Washington, D.C.: January 3, 2012). 

3

10 U.S.C. §2229a, as established by Pub. L. No. 110-181, §352 (2008) and amended by Pub. L. No. 112-81, 

§341 (2011). 
Page 2 GAO-12-916R Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment 

1. The level of fill for major end items4 of equipment and spare parts in each 

prepositioned set at the end of the fiscal year covered by the report. 

2. The material condition of equipment in the prepositioned stocks at the end of such 

fiscal year, grouped by category or major end item. 

3. A list of major end items of equipment drawn from prepositioned stocks that fiscal 

year and a description of how the equipment was used and whether it was returned 

to the stocks after its use. 

4. A timeline for completely reconstituting any shortfall in the prepositioned stocks. 

5. An estimate of the funding required to completely reconstitute any shortfall in the 

prepositioned stocks and a description of the Secretary’s plan for carrying out such 

complete reconstitution. 

6. A list of any operations plan affected by any shortfall in the prepositioned stocks and 

a description of the action taken to mitigate any risk that such a shortfall may create. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, enacted in December 2011, 

added a requirement for the report to address six additional elements: 

7. A list of any non-standard items slated for inclusion in the prepositioned stocks and a 

plan for funding the inclusion and sustainment of such items. 

8. A list of any equipment used in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New 

Dawn, or Operation Enduring Freedom slated for retrograde and subsequent 

inclusion in the prepositioned stocks. 

9. An efficiency strategy for limited shelf-life medical stock replacement. 

10. The status of efforts to develop a joint strategy, integrate service requirements, and 

eliminate redundancies. 

11. The operational planning assumptions used in the formulation of prepositioned stock 

levels and composition. 

12. A list of any strategic plans affected by changes to the levels, composition, or 

locations of the prepositioned stocks and a description of any action taken to mitigate 

any risk that such changes may create. 

Section §2229a of Title 10 of the United States Code requires us to review DOD’s report 

and, as appropriate, to submit to the congressional defense committees any additional 

information that will further inform the committees on issues relating to the status of the 

 

4

A major end item is a final combination of end products that is ready for its intended use, according to the DOD 

Supply Chain Materiel Management Regulation, DOD 4140.1-R, AP1.1.11.7 (May 23, 2003). 
Page 3 GAO-12-916R Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment 

materiel in the prepositioned stocks.5 In response, we have issued several reports since 

2005 addressing DOD’s reporting and management of its prepositioned materiel and 

equipment. In our earlier reports we identified a number of long-standing issues and made 

recommendations regarding the need for a DOD-wide strategy and enhanced joint 

oversight. For example, in September 2005 and again in May 2011,6

 we recommended that 

DOD develop a department-wide strategy on prepositioned materiel and equipment to 

integrate and synchronize at a DOD-wide level the services’ prepositioning programs for 

maximizing efficiency in managing prepositioned materiel and equipment across the 

department to reduce unnecessary duplication. In our May 2011 report, we also found that 

DOD did not discuss all types of prepositioned materiel and equipment in its report. Also, it 

did not list any operation plans affected by shortfalls in prepositioned stocks, as required. 

Furthermore, DOD had limited department-wide guidance that would help ensure that its 

prepositioning programs accurately reflected national military objectives, and DOD faced 

organizational challenges that may hinder its efforts to gain efficiencies in managing 

prepositioned materiel and equipment across the department. We have recommended, 

among other things, that DOD (1) provide a more comprehensive picture of the full scope of 

the services’ prepositioning programs, (2) provide a summary of plans the services have 

determined include requirements for prepositioned stocks as well as a description of 

shortfalls, risk mitigation measures, and an assessment of reduced risk, (3) clarify DOD’s 

joint oversight structure for prepositioned stocks and leverage expertise to develop and 

implement authoritative strategic guidance, linking the department’s current and future 

needs for prepositioned stocks to evolving national defense initiatives. Specifically, we 

recommended in May 2011 that DOD assess the continued relevance of the Global 

Prepositioned Materiel Capabilities Working Group’s assigned tasks and membership as 

well as the group’s charter, and make any necessary adjustments to ensure that the working 

group’s objectives align with its activities.7

 In addition, we included the need to strengthen 

joint oversight and synchronize at a department-wide level DOD’s prepositioning efforts in 

our March 2011 first annual report to Congress on potential duplication, overlap, and 

fragmentation in the federal government.8

 In February 2012 follow-up work on our 

duplication report, we noted that DOD had taken some actions, but had not fully addressed 

our recommendations.9

 

5

To determine if additional information would inform decision makers, we used GAO Standards for Internal 

Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

6

GAO, Defense Logistics: Better Management and Oversight of Prepositioning Programs Needed to Reduce 

Risk and Improve Future Program, GAO-05-427 (Washington, D.C.: September 6, 2005); GAO, Warfighter 

Support: Improved Joint Oversight and Reporting on DOD’s Prepositioning Programs May Increase Efficiencies, 

GAO-11-647 (Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2011). 

7

DOD has established a Global Prepositioned Materiel Capabilities Working Group comprised of officials from 

the services, joint organizations, and entities within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The working group 

was expected to provide a DOD response on a GAO recommendation in February 2007 regarding the need for a 

department-wide prepositioning strategy and provide an overall view of DOD’s prepositioning programs to ensure 

that the services’ programs were synchronized. 

8

GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance 

Revenue, GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011). 

9

GAO, Follow-up on 2011 Report: Status of Actions Taken to Reduce Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation, 

Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-453SP (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012). 
Page 4 GAO-12-916R Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment 

On March 30, 2012, DOD submitted its fiscal year 2011 report on the status of its 

prepositioned materiel and equipment from October 2010 through September 2011.10 For 

our review of DOD’s fiscal year 2011 report, we determined (1) the extent to which DOD 

addressed the 12 reporting requirements, and what additional information, if any, could 

more fully inform the congressional defense committees on DOD’s prepositioned materiel 

and equipment; and (2) the progress DOD has made on implementing DOD-wide strategic 

guidance and joint oversight of its prepositioned materiel and equipment. 

To evaluate the extent to which DOD’s annual report addressed the 12 reporting 

requirements set out in 10 U.S.C. §2229a, regarding prepositioned materiel and equipment, 

we analyzed DOD’s report on the status of prepositioned materiel and equipment for fiscal 

year 2011. We conducted a content analysis by having two analysts independently compare 

the prepositioned materiel and equipment information in DOD’s fiscal year 2011 report with 

the 12 reporting requirements in 10 U.S.C. §2229a. After analyzing these data and resolving 

any differences, we discussed the results of our analyses with DOD and military service 

officials to determine the full scope of the services’ prepositioning programs, including an 

understanding of the elements included in DOD’s annual report. We also reviewed DOD’s 

current (fiscal year 2011) and prior year’s (fiscal year 2010) annual prepositioning reports to 

Congress and met with service officials responsible for reporting on the prepositioning 

programs to discuss the methodology used for collecting and reporting on its materiel and 

equipment. To determine the extent to which DOD has made progress in developing 

overarching strategic guidance and joint oversight of its prepositioning programs, we 

reviewed DOD guidance, the Comprehensive Materiel Response Strategy and a draft of its 

forthcoming plan, and service guidance. We conducted meetings with DOD officials in the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all four of the military services, 

and the Defense Logistics Agency to discuss the extent to which department-wide guidance 

on prepositioned materiel and equipment has been developed and the status of joint efforts, 

including those conducted by DOD’s Global Prepositioned Materiel Capabilities Working 

Group. We discussed the actual activities the working group had performed with service and 

joint officials, including those who had participated in this working group, so that we could 

compare this information with the required responsibilities in DOD’s guidance. We did not 

independently assess the data DOD provided to Congress, but we discussed with service 

officials the reliability of the systems used to develop the report data. We determined that 

the data were sufficiently reliable to meet the objectives of this engagement. A more detailed 

discussion of our scope and methodology is included in enclosure I. We conducted this 

performance audit from March 2012 through September 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. 

 

10DOD, Report on Status of Department of Defense Programs for Prepositioning of Materiel and Equipment: A 

Report to Congress as required by Section 352 of Public Law 110-181 (March 17, 2012). 
Page 5 GAO-12-916R Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment 

Summary 

DOD’s fiscal year 2011 report partly addressed the required reporting elements11 and 

omitted some additional information that, while not required by law, would be useful for 

congressional oversight and decision making. Specifically, DOD’s report addressed the first 

five required elements. However, information on the sixth element was incomplete because, 

while DOD highlighted concerns relative to the commands’ theater objectives and strategies 

and prepositioned materiel and equipment, DOD’s report did not provide a list of operation 

plans affected by a shortfall in prepositioned stocks and a description of actions taken to 

mitigate risk. In addition, DOD’s report did not address the six elements added by the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. DOD officials said that those 

elements were not addressed in DOD’s fiscal year 2011 report because the report was 

already drafted when the requirements were enacted last December, and they plan to 

address these elements in their next annual report. DOD’s report also did not contain some 

additional information on prepositioned materiel and equipment, which we recommended in 

our May 2011 report because it would provide a fuller scope of DOD’s prepositioning 

programs. For example, the services place fuel distribution equipment and medical materiel 

and equipment and other capability sets—including water, habitability equipment such as 

tents, electrical power and distribution equipment, munitions and rations, among other 

items—that were not addressed in DOD’s report. Without full information on all 12 reporting 

requirements and complete information on the services’ prepositioned materiel and 

equipment, congressional decision makers do not have a complete picture of DOD’s 

prepositioned materiel and equipment, which would enable them to provide oversight and 

would inform decisions in a constrained fiscal environment. 

DOD has not made progress in implementing DOD-wide strategic guidance and joint efforts 

to enhance oversight of its prepositioning programs since we last reported on this issue in 

2011. Our prior work emphasizes the need for strategic planning as an important element in 

results-oriented management and that strategic planning can help clarify priorities and unify 

an agency in pursuit of shared goals. Moreover, setting timelines for implementation can 

build momentum and show progress. However, DOD has not set a timeline for developing or 

implementing strategic guidance on its prepositioned programs. In fall 2011, a DOD official 

stated that DOD had plans to provide such guidance that would enhance oversight, increase 

program efficiencies, and expand guidance to link prepositioning programs with national 

military objectives; however by spring 2012, officials said that DOD had changed its plans 

due to other departmental priorities. According to a DOD official, it is now unclear when 

DOD plans to issue department-wide strategic guidance on its prepositioning programs. 

However, without establishing a timeline for developing and implementing such guidance, 

DOD cannot be assured that its prepositioning programs accurately reflect national military 

strategies or new departmental priorities, such as the strategic shift in attention to the Asia 

Pacific region. In addition, DOD’s efforts to improve joint oversight of its prepositioning 

programs have been limited. We have previously reported that an increased emphasis on 

joint program management and oversight is needed to reduce unnecessary duplication and 

achieve cost efficiencies. DOD has established a working group made up of officials 

representing various services and offices within the department, which was expected to 

provide joint oversight and ensure the services’ prepositioning programs, were 

synchronized. However, the working group has not carried out all of its assigned 

 

1110 U.S.C. §2229a. 
Page 6 GAO-12-916R Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment 

responsibilities and without strategic guidance that emphasizes the importance of joint 

oversight and delineates clear lines of authority, the working group may not make changes 

to the way it has been operating. As a result, DOD may not be able to fully recognize 

potential efficiencies that could be gained by aligning the services’ prepositioning programs 

with each other and new departmental priorities. 

We recommend that DOD set a timeline for implementing department-wide strategic 

guidance and ensure the guidance aligns prepositioning programs with national defense 

strategies and new departmental priorities. The guidance should also emphasize joint 

oversight to maximize efficiencies in prepositioned materiel and equipment across the 

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

recommendation. DOD’s comments are reprinted in enclosure II. 

Background 

Through their individual programs, each of the military services maintains preconfigured 

groups of combat and logistics materiel and equipment on ships and ashore at locations 

around the world. These preconfigured groups of materiel and equipment—or sets—are 

intended to speed the response times of U.S. forces to operating locations and reduce the 

strain on airlift and sealift assets. The Army stores sets of combat brigade materiel and 

equipment, supporting supplies, and other materiel and equipment at land sites in several 

countries and aboard ships in the Pacific and Indian oceans. The Marine Corps stores 

materiel and equipment for its forces aboard ships stationed around the world and at land 

sites in Norway. The Air Force stores ammunition at land sites and aboard stationary ships, 

and prepositions materiel and equipment, vehicles, and supporting supplies at several land 

sites. Additionally, the Navy stores materiel and equipment and supplies at similar locations 

to support the offloading of ships, deployable hospitals, and construction projects. 

DOD’s prepositioned materiel and equipment is intended to support national military 

objectives which are described in strategic and operational documents, including the 

National Defense Strategy, the National Military Strategy, and the geographic combatant 

commanders’ plans. The Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics and the Joint Staff Logistics Directorate provide implementation 

governance and oversight of DOD’s materiel and equipment, including prepositioned 

materiel and equipment. DOD apportions prepositioned materiel and equipment among the 

combatant commands according to joint strategic guidance planning. Combatant 

commanders periodically review plans, assess risk, and report the results to the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff. By providing needed prepositioned materiel and equipment, the 

military services can reduce the risk associated with a plan. 

DOD’s Fiscal Year 2011 Report Partially Addressed Required Elements and 

Omitted Some Additional Information that Would Provide a More Complete 

Picture of Its Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment 

DOD’s fiscal year 2011 report on prepositioned materiel and equipment, submitted in 

response to section §2229a, addressed five of the reporting requirements, partially 

addressed the sixth requirement, and did not address the six additional reporting elements 

recently added by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Also, DOD 

improved some aspects of its reporting on prepositioned materiel and equipment compared 

to its previous fiscal year’s report, but its fiscal year 2011 report omitted certain information 
Page 7 GAO-12-916R Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment 

which, while not required by law, would be useful to decision makers in obtaining a more 

complete understanding of DOD’s prepositioning programs. 

DOD’s Report Addressed Five Reporting Elements, Partially Addressed One, and 

Did Not Address the Remaining Six Elements

DOD provided information on the first six reporting elements, enumerated in section §2229a, 

in its fiscal year 2011 annual report on prepositioning, but the sixth element was only 

partially addressed. In addition, DOD did not provide information on the remaining six 

elements required by the statute. Our assessment is summarized in the following table. 

Table: Summary of the DOD Fiscal Year 2011 Report’s Response to the 12 Reporting Elements set out in 

10 U.S.C. §2229a 

Reporting elements 

Our assessment of 

DOD’s report 

(1) The level of fill for major end items of equipment and spare parts in each 

prepositioned set at the end of the fiscal year covered by the report. 

Addressed 

(2) The material condition of equipment in the prepositioned stocks at the end of such 

fiscal year, grouped by category or major end item. 

Addressed 

(3) A list of major end items of equipment drawn from prepositioned stocks during such 

fiscal year and a description of how that equipment was used and whether it was 

returned to the stocks after being used. 

Addressed 

(4) A time line for completely reconstituting any shortfall in the prepositioned stocks. Addressed 

(5) An estimate of the amount of funds required to completely reconstitute any shortfall 

in the prepositioned stocks and a description of the Secretary’s plan for carrying out 

such complete reconstitution. 

Addressed 

(6) A list of any operations plan affected by any shortfall in the prepositioned stocks and 

a description of any action taken to mitigate any risk that such a shortfall may create. 

Partially addressed 

(7) A list of any non-standard items slated for inclusion in the prepositioned stocks and a 

plan for funding the inclusion and sustainment of such items. 

Not addressed 

(8) A list of any equipment used in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New 

Dawn, or Operation Enduring Freedom slated for retrograde and subsequent inclusion in 

the prepositioned materiel and equipment. 

Not addressed 

(9) An efficiency strategy for limited shelf-life medical stock replacement. Not addressed 

(10) The status of efforts to develop a joint strategy, integrate service requirements, and 

eliminate redundancies. 

Not addressed 

(11) The operational planning assumptions used in the formulation of prepositioned 

stock levels and composition. 

Not addressed 

(12) A list of any strategic plans affected by changes to the levels, composition, or 

locations of the prepositioned stocks and a description of any action taken to mitigate 

any risk that such changes may create. 

Not addressed 

Source: GAO analysis. 

We assessed five of the elements as being addressed because the information provided in 

the report was responsive to the reporting requirements set out in section §2229a. We 

assessed the sixth element as being partially addressed because the report did not provide 

all the required information. Element six requires DOD to list any operation plan affected by 

a shortfall in prepositioned stocks and a description of the action taken to mitigate any risk 

such a shortfall may create. In the report, DOD stated that it did not directly relate 

prepositioning shortfalls to any operation plan execution risk. Instead, the report highlighted 

capability gaps relative to the combatant commands’ theater objectives and strategies. For 

example, it identified needed investments in overseas infrastructure and prepositioned 
Page 8 GAO-12-916R Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment 

support capabilities to meet future challenges and a variety of operational demands. 

However, without the information required in element six, Congress may lack information 

about risk as it applies specifically to operation plans affected by shortfalls in prepositioned 

stocks and the extent to which DOD has mitigation measures to reduce these risks. We 

recommended in our May 2011 report that DOD’s report provide this information, together 

with readiness information DOD already collects and reports, which would enable DOD to 

provide Congress with fuller information about how prepositioning materiel and equipment 

shortfalls specifically affect the operational readiness of the force. DOD concurred with our 

recommendation and said it would include relevant information pertaining to prepositioned 

materiel and equipment that does not conflict with other risk or assessment reporting 

mechanisms. However, in its comments, DOD stated that the department already provides a 

comprehensive and more holistic approach to risk and mitigation strategies each year and 

that reporting additional risks and mitigation strategies for specific execution of concept 

plans using only prepositioning program shortfalls could result in sub-optimized decision 

making. We continue to believe that without clearly articulating the extent to which shortfalls 

in prepositioned stocks, relative to other factors, contribute to the risks, Congress may be 

less able to determine the extent to which funding directed towards reconstituting DOD’s 

prepositioned stocks will reduce risk relative to funding directed towards other programs. 

DOD’s fiscal year 2011 report also did not address the six new reporting elements added by 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, but DOD plans to address 

them in the next annual report for fiscal year 2012. According to DOD officials, they did not 

address the added six elements because they did not have sufficient time to compile the 

additional information for the fiscal year 2011 report—explaining that at the time the 

requirement for the six additional elements was enacted in December 2011, DOD’s fiscal 

year 2011 report had already been drafted. Joint Staff officials said they will need to provide 

considerable lead time for the services to assemble the information needed to respond to 

the new elements. 

DOD’s Fiscal Year 2011 Report Improved Reporting of Some Information but 

Omitted Other Useful Data on Prepositioned Programs

DOD has improved the reporting of some information, but its fiscal year 2011 report did not 

include other information on prepositioned materiel and equipment which, while not required 

by law, would provide decision makers with a more complete picture of DOD’s 

prepositioning programs. DOD made some positive changes in its reporting on 

prepositioned materiel and equipment since its fiscal year 2010 report. In September 2011,12

we reported that DOD’s annual report would provide Congress with the visibility to better 

assess the status and condition of prepositioned materiel and equipment if information was 

provided on (1) comparisons of all major end items or spare parts, the objective levels, 

percentage levels of fill, and serviceability rates for the current and previous fiscal year; and 

(2) an explanation of significant changes from the previous report such as the reasons for 

the addition of new items or changes to the objective level, level of fill, or serviceability 

 

12GAO-11-852R. 
Page 9 GAO-12-916R Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment 

rates.13 DOD concurred with our recommendations and included this information in its fiscal 

year 2011 report, resulting in a more informative report for Congress. 

However, DOD’s fiscal year 2011 report did not include information on the full range of 

DOD’s prepositioning programs, which would provide Congress more comprehensive 

information when weighing the scope of options available to meet national military objectives 

within these programs. This could be especially helpful in finding potential efficiencies to be 

gained in today’s increasingly fiscally constrained environment. Accordingly, we have 

recommended in the past that DOD provide a fuller scope of the services’ prepositioning 

programs, to include (1) a representative summary description including the dollar value 

and, as appropriate, level of fill and information on serviceability, of (a) Army operational 

projects14 and Army war reserve sustainment stocks,15 (b) Air Force munitions, medical 

stocks, rations, and fuel elements of its War Reserve Materiel program, and (c) Marine 

Corps materiel prepositioned to support an entire deployed Marine Corps force, such as its 

capability sets; and (2) all sources of funding for the services prepositioned materiel and 

equipment, including working capital funds. DOD concurred with our recommendation and 

stated it would determine elements in the services’ programs that are appropriate to include 

in future reports, but generally did not include this information in its fiscal year 2011 report. 

Specifically, in DOD’s fiscal year 2011 report, we determined that the following information 

was not included: 

 Army: DOD’s report included Army operational projects and war reserve sustainment 

stocks stored at land sites and aboard prepositioning ships that were not in the fiscal 

year 2010 report. However, the fiscal year 2011 report did not include other Army-owned 

items that are managed by the Defense Logistics Agency, such as rations. Army officials 

said that it is not their responsibility to report this information because they do not 

manage it, while Defense Logistics Agency officials told us that the Army should report it 

because they own the items. Including this information in DOD’s report would result in 

more complete information for decision makers on the Army’s prepositioning program. 

 Air Force: DOD’s report did not include Air Force munitions, auxiliary fuel tanks, missile 

launchers, pylons, ejector racks, and adapters, medical stocks, fuel, and Defense 

Logistics Agency-managed items such as rations. DOD’s fiscal year 2010 report 

provided a more complete picture of the Air Force prepositioned materiel and equipment 

in accordance with what we had recommended, in that it included munitions, rations, and 

fuel in that report. Air Force officials told us that similar data were submitted for inclusion 

 

13The objective level of fill denotes the desired quantity of an item the service determines is necessary in its 

current prepositioning program, the level of fill shows the percent relationship of on-hand to objective quantities, 

and serviceability rates show the percentage of end items that are mission capable among those that are onhand in prepositioned materiel and equipment. 

14Army operational projects stock is authorized material above unit authorizations designed to support Army 

operations or contingencies stocks stored at land sites and aboard prepositioning ships. It includes equipment 

and supplies for special operations forces, bare base sets, petroleum and water distribution, mortuary 

operations, and prisoner-of-war operations. 

15War reserve sustainment stock is replacement equipment for losses in early stages of operations or until 

resupply is established and is stored at land sites and aboard prepositioning ships. It includes major end items 

such as tracked vehicles, and secondary items such as meals, clothing, petroleum supplies, construction 

materials, ammunition, medical materials, and repair parts. 
Page 10 GAO-12-916R Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment 

in the fiscal year 2011 report. However, the information was omitted from DOD’s final 

report to Congress for reasons that officials could not recall. 

 Marine Corps: The Marine Corps prepositions fuel distribution equipment and medical 

stocks to support an entire deploying brigade or force, and other capability sets including 

water, habitability equipment such as tents, electrical power and distribution equipment, 

and rations. However, these items were not included in DOD’s report 

 Navy: DOD’s report did not include details about the Navy’s prepositioned materiel and 

equipment. For example, it did not include equipment categories, consisting of rolling 

stock such as vehicles and generators and non-rolling stock, such as tents and 

communications gear. 

Continued Lack of Overarching Strategic Guidance and Limited Joint Service 

Efforts Hinder Oversight, and Could Result in Overlap, Duplication, and 

Inefficiencies among the Services’ Prepositioning Programs 

DOD has not made progress in implementing overarching DOD-wide strategic guidance and 

joint efforts to enhance oversight of its prepositioned programs since we last reported on 

these issues in 2011. In the absence of clearly stated departmental needs and priorities for 

prepositioned materiel and equipment, the services may not be able to shape their 

prepositioning programs to most effectively and efficiently meet changing departmental 

priorities. Furthermore, without department-wide guidance and joint oversight, DOD may not 

be able to fully recognize potential efficiencies that could be gained by synchronizing the 

services’ prepositioning programs with each other and with the new defense strategy that 

includes reducing troops in Afghanistan and shifting focus to the Asia Pacific region. 

DOD Lacks Overarching Strategic Guidance for Its Prepositioned Programs

DOD had planned to develop department-wide strategic guidance for its prepositioning 

programs, but these efforts have not materialized because of other departmental priorities. 

Our prior work emphasizes that strategic planning is an important element in results-oriented 

management and that it can help clarify priorities and unify an agency in pursuit of shared 

goals.16 Moreover, setting timelines for implementation can build momentum and show 

progress.17 In June 2008, DOD issued an instruction directing the Undersecretary of 

Defense for Policy to develop and coordinate Guidance for Development of the Force for 

approval by the Secretary of Defense that identifies an overall prepositioned materiel and 

equipment strategy to achieve desired capabilities and responsiveness in support of the 

National Defense Strategy.18 DOD’s guidance for prepositioning materiel and equipment 

would provide the services with information on the medium- and long-term department-wide 

priorities they need to effectively determine the resources needed to meet future 

contingencies, thus linking DOD’s prepositioning programs with the overall national defense 

strategies. 

 

16GAO, Agencies’ Strategic Plans under the Government Performance and Results Act: Key Questions to 

Facilitate Congressional Review, GAO/GGD-10.1.16 (Washington, D.C.: May 1997). 

17GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and Organizational Transformations,

GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003). 

18Department of Defense Instruction 3110.06, War Reserve Materiel (WRM) Policy (June 23, 2008). 
Page 11 GAO-12-916R Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment 

We reported in May 2011 that DOD had limited department-wide guidance that would help 

ensure that its prepositioning programs accurately reflect national military objectives such as 

those included in the National Defense Strategy and the National Military Strategy.19 We 

noted that DOD had developed department-wide guidance at the time, referred to as 

Guidance for Development of the Force, but that it did not contain any information related to 

prepositioned materiel and equipment even though DOD’s 2008 instruction on prepositioned 

materiel and equipment specifically directed the development of such guidance. We 

recommended that DOD develop appropriately detailed authoritative strategic guidance, and 

that the guidance include planning and resource priorities linking the department’s current 

and future needs for prepositioned materiel and equipment to evolving national defense 

objectives. In response, DOD stated that it would develop strategic direction concerning 

prepositioned materiel and equipment. In the fall of 2011, a DOD official stated that an 

ongoing department-wide review—which would result in the Comprehensive Materiel 

Response Plan—would enhance joint oversight, increase program efficiencies, expand 

guidance to link prepositioning programs with national military objectives, and might lead to 

revisions in the department’s prepositioning strategy. 

However, DOD’s Comprehensive Materiel Response Strategy, issued in May 2012, and its 

forthcoming plan, scheduled for issuance in September 2012, do not provide guidance for its 

prepositioning programs. DOD officials said that is because, in spring 2012, they received 

new direction for this effort, and the strategy and forthcoming plan now focus on integrating 

and synchronizing materiel response to support the full range of military activities, which is 

much broader than prepositioned materiel and equipment. According to DOD officials, the 

Comprehensive Materiel Response Plan is currently in draft, involves three overlapping 

phases, and is not scheduled to be fully implemented until fiscal year 2020. An official 

further stated that it is unclear when DOD plans to issue department-wide strategic guidance 

on its prepositioning programs. Moreover, with this shift in focus, DOD does not currently 

have a set timeline for developing and implementing strategic guidance that focuses 

specifically on prepositioned materiel and equipment. 

While no department-wide strategy exists that specifically addresses prepositioned materiel 

and equipment, some services have developed strategies to guide their efforts. For 

example, the Army and the Marine Corps have developed individual strategies for their 

prepositioning of materiel and equipment, which officials said were coordinated within DOD 

before issuance. However, without overarching department-wide guidance, there is no 

assurance that these strategies are linked to the department’s objectives or to each other. 

As far back as 2005, we reported that each of the military services and the Defense 

Logistics Agency were planning the future of their prepositioning programs without the 

benefit of an overall plan or joint doctrine to coordinate their efforts. Thus, it was unclear to 

us how the programs would fit together to meet the evolving defense strategy. DOD officials 

representing the Joint Staff and the services agreed with our assessment and shared our 

concerns. Seven years later, little progress has been made. Individual prepositioning 

programs not linked to overarching strategic guidance could lead to inconsistencies and 

overlap and duplication between the services’ prepositioning strategies and the new defense 

strategy within the department. Without a set timeline for the development and 

implementation of department-wide strategic guidance that aligns DOD’s prepositioning 

programs with national defense strategies and new departmental priorities, DOD could face 

 

19GAO-11-647. 
Page 12 GAO-12-916R Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment 

difficulties in effectively planning and implementing its prepositioning programs and risks the 

potential for duplicative or unaligned efforts among the services. 

DOD Has Made Limited Efforts to Enhance Joint Oversight of Its Prepositioning 

Programs

DOD’s efforts to improve joint oversight of its prepositioning programs have been limited in 

part because the Global Prepositioned Materiel Capabilities Working Group was expected to 

provide joint oversight but has not been functioning as intended. We have previously 

reported that an increased emphasis on joint program management and oversight of 

prepositioned materiel and equipment is needed to reduce unnecessary duplication and 

achieve cost savings and efficiencies. Although DOD has developed and initiated some joint 

efforts, many of these initiatives do not specifically address prepositioning materiel and 

equipment, but rather focus broadly on supporting the full range of military activities. 

DOD Instruction 3110.06, War Reserve Materiel (WRM) Policy, directed the establishment 

of the Global Prepositioned Materiel Capabilities Working Group comprised of officials from 

the services, joint organizations, and entities within the Office of the Secretary of Defense.20

In particular, according to DOD officials involved with the group since its inception, the intent 

of the working group was to provide an overall view of DOD’s prepositioning programs and 

ensure that the services’ programs were synchronized. Based on its charter, the working 

group’s joint prepositioning activities include, among other things, providing oversight of 

DOD’s prepositioning program, addressing joint issues concerning requirements and 

positioning of prepositioned materiel and equipment, and making recommendations that 

balance limited resources against operational risk for use during budget and program 

reviews. However, the group has not carried out all of the responsibilities specified in the 

instruction or in its own charter related to prepositioned materiel and equipment. Rather, 

officials said that the main responsibility of the working group has been to consolidate the 

services’ individual submissions on their prepositioning programs into DOD’s annual report 

for Congress. According to DOD officials, the working group has met only sporadically and 

has not yet addressed many of the duties specified in its charter. Without strategic guidance 

that emphasizes the importance of joint oversight of prepositioned materiel and equipment, 

the working group may continue to operate as it has been with little change to enhance 

jointness across the services. 

We identified the need to strengthen joint oversight and synchronize prepositioning 

programs at a department-wide level in our first annual report to Congress on potential 

duplication, overlap, and fragmentation in the federal government.21 Although DOD has 

developed some joint activities, many of these efforts are either in very early stages or do 

not specifically address prepositioned materiel and equipment but focus instead on more 

broadly supporting the full range of military activities. For example, DOD has an initiative 

entitled the Global Campaign Plan for Distribution that focuses on the global distribution of 

DOD assets, and its forthcoming Comprehensive Materiel Response Plan calls for the 

integration and synchronization of DOD assets across the services. However, neither of 

these plans contains details on where to position or how to manage prepositioned materiel 

and equipment. 

 

20Department of Defense Instruction 3110.06, War Reserve Materiel (WRM) Policy (June 23, 2008). 

21GAO-11-318SP. 
Page 13 GAO-12-916R Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment 

Our May 2011 report noted that DOD and service officials believed that better 

synchronization and integration among the services’ prepositioning programs and other 

components within DOD may result in efficiencies or cost savings. We stated, in particular, 

that efficiencies or cost savings may be gained by an increased emphasis on joint program 

management, as appropriate, and by leveraging components in DOD, such as the Defense 

Logistics Agency. In March 2011, the Office of Secretary of Defense’s Cost Assessment and 

Program Evaluation office briefed senior DOD officials on a study that resulted in 

reassessing DOD’s prepositioned materiel and equipment. This Global Prepositioned 

Materiel Capabilities Study reviewed prepositioned materiel and equipment capabilities and 

usage in selected operations during a 20-year period. According to officials who worked on 

the study, the study assessed the services’ prepositioning programs from DOD-wide and 

joint service perspectives and raised issues about prepositioned capability requirements. 

The study supported changes that DOD subsequently made in Army and Marine Corps 

prepositioned materiel and equipment sets. However, according to DOD officials, the study 

was conducted on a one-time basis and DOD does not have any plans to assess 

prepositioned materiel and equipment on a routine or scheduled basis. Without sustained 

joint oversight and an emphasis on prepositioning programs, DOD may not be able to fully 

recognize potential efficiencies that could be gained by synchronizing the services’ 

prepositioning programs with each other and overarching departmental objectives and 

priorities. 

Conclusions 

DOD’s prepositioned materiel and equipment have been critical to forces in support of 

recent operations. As DOD plans to reduce troops in Afghanistan and shift its strategic 

emphasis to the Asia Pacific region, prepositioned materiel and equipment will likely 

continue to play a vital role in shaping U.S. defense strategy and achieving success in future 

operations. DOD’s fiscal year 2011 report to Congress on its prepositioned materiel and 

equipment made some notable improvements compared with the department’s previous 

reports. By including information on comparisons of all major end items or spare parts, 

objective levels, percentage levels of fill, and serviceability rates for the current and previous 

fiscal year, as well as explanations of significant changes from the previous year, decision 

makers now have a better understanding of changes in the department’s prepositioned 

materiel and equipment from year to year. However, until DOD fully addresses all 12 

reporting elements, including the sixth element of section §2229a, and includes more 

complete information on the services’ prepositioned programs, the report may continue to 

hinder a complete understanding of DOD’s prepositioned materiel and equipment. 

Furthermore, because DOD did not address recently enacted reporting elements 7 through 

12 of §2229a, Congress does not have the benefit of considering information related to 

those elements while making decisions that weigh competing departmental priorities. 

Because we have previously recommended that DOD fully address reporting element six, 

we are not making the same recommendation in this correspondence. However, we 

continue to believe that providing a list of operation plans affected by a shortfall and the 

action taken to mitigate any risks created by that shortfall would result in a more complete 

picture of DOD’s prepositioned materiel and equipment. 
Page 14 GAO-12-916R Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment 

Changing national and defense strategies and the ongoing evolution in the types of 

contingencies that may require DOD involvement create challenges for the department in 

determining future demand for prepositioned materiel and equipment. These challenges 

underscore the importance and urgency of developing department-wide strategic guidance 

that clearly articulates departmental needs and priorities for prepositioned materiel and 

equipment and aids the services in shaping their programs to most effectively and efficiently 

meet those needs and priorities. Since 2005, we have identified the need to establish an 

overarching strategy for the services’ prepositioning programs and while DOD has 

concurred with our recommendation in this area, its planned efforts have not materialized, 

and it has not provided department-wide direction for managing prepositioned materiel and 

equipment. Furthermore, as DOD—and the nation—face fiscal constraints in the coming 

years, setting a timeline for developing overarching strategic guidance that emphasizes joint 

oversight of DOD’s prepositioning programs is essential to reduce any unnecessary overlap, 

duplication, and inefficiencies among the services and to maximize cost savings while 

minimizing risks. 

Recommendation for Executive Action 

To more effectively plan and implement its prepositioned materiel and equipment programs, 

improve oversight, and reduce potential for duplicative efforts, the Secretary of Defense 

should direct the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in 

coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to set a timeline for implementing 

our prior recommendation to develop overarching strategic guidance on DOD’s 

prepositioning programs. The strategic guidance should ensure that DOD’s prepositioning 

programs align with national defense strategies and new departmental priorities. It also 

should emphasize joint oversight to maximize efficiencies in prepositioned materiel and 

equipment across the department. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

We provided a draft of this report to DOD for comment. In written comments, DOD 

concurred with our recommendation. DOD’s comments are reprinted in their entirety in 

enclosure II. 

DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense direct the 

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with 

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to set a timeline for implementing our prior 

recommendation to develop overarching strategic guidance on DOD’s prepositioning 

programs. DOD said it is in the process of developing its Comprehensive Materiel Response 

Plan with the intent of combining supply chain activities associated with the most often used, 

common items required by the warfighter to support the range of military activities. DOD also 

said its intent is to improve accessibility to its prepositioned capability sets by expanding its 

application beyond combat operations to include security, engagement, and relief and 

reconstruction activities. According to DOD, the Comprehensive Materiel Response Plan, 

once published, will reach full operational capability by 2020. 

DOD comments indicate that it intends to move forward with its broader approach to 

integrate and synchronize materiel response to support the full range of military activities—a 

plan that would take another 8 years to fully implement—but do not address the need to 

provide overarching guidance specifically on its prepositioned programs and thus do not 
Page 15 GAO-12-916R Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment 

establish a timeline for doing so. As we discuss in our report, the Comprehensive Materiel 

Response Strategy, issued in May 2012, and its forthcoming plan are focused broadly on 

integrating and synchronizing materiel response to support the full range of military activities 

and do not provide guidance for prepositioned programs. While we recognize the 

importance of broad strategic planning, developing and implementing overarching guidance 

specifically on prepositioned programs would help set priorities and make it clear that DOD’s 

prepositioned programs accurately reflect national military strategies or new departmental 

priorities, such as the strategic shift in attention to the Asia Pacific region. In addition, DOD 

commented that in the interim, it will continue to focus on ensuring that combatant 

commander equipment requirements identified in operational and contingency plans are 

satisfied by the services and aggressively explore improvements to the current 

prepositioned equipment strategy including pursuing opportunities for increased jointness 

across service programs. However, we are concerned that DOD did not identify any specific 

actions that it plans to undertake to improve joint oversight or reduce potential inefficiencies 

among the services’ prepositioning programs. We have identified the need to establish an 

overarching strategy for prepositioning programs since 2005, and we continue to emphasize 

the need for setting a timeline for developing and implementing such guidance, with 

particular emphasis on joint oversight to reduce unnecessary duplication and overlap among 

the services and to maximize cost savings while minimizing risks. Furthermore, with DOD’s 

impending drawdown from Afghanistan and new emphasis on the Asia Pacific region, it is 

imperative that DOD make establishing strategic guidance on its prepositioned programs a 

priority to help ensure that it can effectively and most efficiently respond to future threats. 

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

Secretary of Defense; the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics; the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Secretaries of the 

Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. In addition, 

this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or 

your staff members have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-5431 or russellc@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff 

members that made major contributions to this report are listed in enclosure III. 

Cary Russell 

Acting Director 

Defense Capabilities and Management Team 

Enclosures - 3
Page 16 GAO-12-916R Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment 

List of Committees 

The Honorable Carl Levin 

Chairman 

The Honorable John McCain 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Daniel Inouye 

Chairman 

The Honorable Thad Cochran 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Howard P. 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 Representatives 
Page 17 GAO-12-916R Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment 

Enclosure I: Scope and Methodology 

To evaluate the extent to which DOD’s annual report addressed the 12 reporting 

requirements set out in 10 U.S.C. §2229a, regarding prepositioned materiel and equipment, 

we analyzed DOD’s report on the status of prepositioned materiel and equipment for fiscal 

year 2011. We performed a content analysis by having two analysts independently compare 

the prepositioned materiel and equipment information in DOD’s fiscal year 2011 report with 

the 12 reporting requirements in 10 U.S.C. §2229a. Each analyst independently coded each 

response into one of the categories for reporting requirements and any discrepancies in the 

coding of the responses were discussed and resolved by the analysts. After analyzing these 

data, we discussed the results of our analyses with DOD and military service officials to 

determine the full scope of the services’ prepositioning programs, including an 

understanding of the elements included in DOD’s annual report. We reviewed DOD’s current 

(fiscal year 2011) and prior year’s (fiscal year 2010) annual reports to Congress on 

prepositioned materiel and equipment and met with DOD officials to understand the 

methodology used to collect and report on the status of prepositioned materiel and 

equipment. We reviewed DOD policies and service guidance that guide the prepositioned 

materiel and equipment programs to understand the variations of information reported by 

the services on the status of prepositioned materiel and equipment. We met with DOD and 

service officials to discuss the methodology used to collect and report the status of materiel 

and the reliability of data from their reporting systems. We did not independently assess the 

data DOD provided to Congress, but we discussed with these officials the reliability of the 

systems used to develop the data and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable to 

meet the objectives of this engagement. Further, to determine whether additional 

information on the status of prepositioned materiel and equipment could be useful to 

Congress, we reviewed our prior reports and relevant DOD and service guidance. In 

addition, we discussed information that was omitted from DOD’s current report with DOD 

and service officials including those at the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Supply 

Chain Integration; U.S. Joint Staff, U.S. Army, Headquarters, Operations and Logistics 

Readiness Directorate; U.S. Air Force, Headquarters, Logistics, Expeditionary Equipment 

Division; U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, Medical Readiness Platforms; and the 

Marine Corps Prepositioned Programs Office. 

To determine the extent to which DOD has made progress in developing overarching 

strategic guidance and joint oversight of its prepositioning programs, we reviewed prior GAO 

reports, DOD guidance, the Comprehensive Materiel Response Strategy and a draft of its 

forthcoming plan, and service guidance. We discussed the extent to which department-wide 

guidance specific to prepositioned materiel and equipment and joint oversight has been 

developed with officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 

all four of the military services, and the Defense Logistics Agency. We reviewed prior GAO 

reports and supporting evidence to understand the history of DOD’s efforts to oversee its 

prepositioning programs at a joint level. We also examined DOD guidance on the Global 

Prepositioned Materiel Capabilities Working Group’s responsibilities, including the DOD 

Instruction 3110.06, War Reserve Materiel (WRM) Policy (2008), and the working group’s 

charter. Further, we discussed the actual activities the working group had performed with 

service and joint officials, including those who had participated in this working group, so that 

we could compare this information with the required responsibilities in DOD’s guidance. 
Page 18 GAO-12-916R Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment 

We conducted this performance audit from March 2012 through September 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 19 GAO-12-916R Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment 

Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of Defense 

 
Page 20 GAO-12-916R Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment 
Page 21 GAO-12-916R Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment 

Enclosure III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact: Cary B. Russell, (202) 512-5431 or russellc@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, individuals who made key contributions to this 

report include: Alissa H. Czyz, Assistant Director; Tracy W. Burney; Grace A. Coleman; 

Lionel C. Cooper; K. Nicole Willems; and Michael D. Silver. 
Page 22 GAO-12-916R Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment 

Related GAO Products 

Defense Logistics: Department of Defense Has Enhanced Prepositioned Stock 

Management but Should Provide More Detailed Status Reports, GAO-11-852R 

(Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2011). 

Warfighter Support: Improved Joint Oversight and Reporting on DOD’s Prepositioning 

Programs May Increase Efficiencies. GAO-11-647. (Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2011). 

Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, 

and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-318SP. (Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2011). 

Defense Logistics: Department of Defense’s Annual Report on the Status of Prepositioned 

Materiel and Equipment Can Be Further Enhanced to Better Inform Congress. 

GAO-10-172R. (Washington, D.C.: November 4, 2009). 

Defense Logistics: Department of Defense’s Annual Report on the Status of Prepositioned 

Materiel and Equipment Can Be Enhanced to Better Inform Congress. GAO-09-147R. 

(Washington, D.C.: December 15, 2008). 

Defense Logistics: Improved Oversight and Increased Coordination Needed to Ensure 

Viability of the Army’s Prepositioning Strategy. GAO-07-144. (Washington, D.C.: February 

15, 2007). 

Defense Logistics: Better Management and Oversight of Prepositioning Programs Needed 

to Reduce Risk and Improve Future Programs. GAO-05-427. (Washington, D.C.: 

September 6, 2005). 

(351721) 
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.