Page 1 GAO-13-105R Defense Management

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

December 4, 2012

Congressional Committees

Subject: Defense Management: Opportunities Exist to Improve Information Used in Monitoring

Status of Efficiency Initiatives

In May 2010,1 the Secretary of Defense publicly announced that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) was to undertake a department-wide initiative to assess how the department is staffed, 

organized, and operated with the goal of reducing excess overhead costs and reinvesting

those savings in sustaining DOD’s current force structure2 and modernizing its weapons 

portfolio. The Secretary’s initiative targeted both short- and long-term improvements and set 

specific goals and targets for achieving cost savings and efficiencies, which are expected to be 

achieved between fiscal years 2012 and 2016. As part of this effort, the Secretary of Defense 

tasked the military departments and other components, including U.S. Special Operations 

Command (SOCOM), to find savings of about $100 billion in overhead costs over the specified 

time period. On January 6, 2011, the Secretary of Defense publicly stated that while about 

one-third of these savings would be used to fund higher-than-expected operating costs, the 

remaining two-thirds—over $70 billion—would be reinvested in high-priority military capabilities 

over five years. Of this amount, around $11 billion was projected to be achieved in fiscal year 

2012 and available for reinvestment.

Information accompanying DOD’s fiscal year 2012 budget request outlined specific efficiency 

initiatives identified by the military departments and SOCOM. Prior to the beginning of fiscal 

year 2012, DOD’s Comptroller and Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO) began 

developing an approach for entities, including the military departments and SOCOM, to track 

and report on their efforts to implement efficiency initiatives and realize savings. In information 

accompanying its fiscal year 2013 budget request, DOD identified additional efficiency 

initiatives expected to generate $60 billion in savings for the period of fiscal years 2013 to 

2017. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 required GAO to assess the 

extent to which DOD has tracked and realized the savings proposed pursuant to the initiative 

to identify at least $100 billion in efficiencies during fiscal years 2012 through 2016.3

 

1 Remarks as delivered by former Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Abilene, Kansas, May 8, 

2010.

This 

report addresses (1) the extent to which the military departments and SOCOM have taken 

steps to internally track the implementation of their efficiency initiatives, and (2) DOD’s 

2 Force structure is the number, size, and composition of units that comprise U.S. defense forces (e.g., 

divisions, brigades, ships, air wings, and squadrons).

3 Pub. L. No. 112-81, § 1054 (2011). Under this section, GAO is required to conduct this assessment 

and submit a report yearly for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2016. See id. We provided a draft of 

this report to your offices on October 30, 2012, to satisfy the requirement for fiscal year 2012.
Page 2 GAO-13-105R Defense Management

progress in developing an approach for reporting on the status of efficiency initiatives on a 

department-wide basis.

To determine the extent to which the military departments and SOCOM have internally tracked

the implementation of their efficiency initiatives, we reviewed programmatic and financial data, 

such as progress reports and budgetary documents, that included information on the status of 

the efficiency initiatives. To determine DOD’s progress in developing an approach for reporting 

on the status of efficiency initiatives on a department-wide basis, we identified DOD guidance 

and mechanisms established to capture data on the efficiency initiatives. We also analyzed 

financial and program information contained in existing databases, progress reports, and 

briefing documents compiled for senior DOD decisionmakers. We assessed DOD’s approach 

for reporting information using prior GAO reports on best practices for reporting information 

internally and also relied on other GAO reports that focused on specific efficiency initiatives at 

DOD and other agencies. For both of our objectives, we interviewed officials within the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense, including the offices of the Comptroller and DCMO, the military 

departments, and SOCOM.

To gain a better understanding of how the military departments and SOCOM internally tracked 

implementation of their respective initiatives, we selected a nongeneralizable sample of seven 

individual efficiency initiatives, including two each from the Army, Air Force, and Navy, and 

one from SOCOM. We designed the case study sample to ensure that a range of efficiency 

initiatives were represented in terms of the type of programs and chose initiatives that had 

estimated savings in fiscal year 2012. For the initiatives selected, we reviewed program and 

financial data and the processes used within the military departments and SOCOM to track, 

monitor, and report on the status of these initiatives. We also interviewed officials who 

implemented the programmatic actions associated with the efficiency initiatives and monitored 

the progress of implementation. We discuss our scope and methodology in more detail in 

enclosure I.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 to December 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. 

Summary

The military departments and SOCOM have taken various steps to track the implementation of 

their efficiency initiatives. For example, prior to or during fiscal year 2012, they identified 

necessary programmatic actions to implement initiatives and began to carry out these actions, 

such as reassigning personnel from organizations being consolidated and terminating weapon 

system programs. They also set up approaches for senior officials to review progress, 

including using existing governance structures as a means for officials to review relevant 

financial and programmatic information, such as expected completion dates for actions related 

to implementing the initiatives and progress in meeting estimated savings targets. To track 

savings related to the initiatives, the military departments and SOCOM identified the 

appropriation accounts and areas within these accounts from which they expected to achieve 

savings, the specific dollar amounts, and areas where savings were to be reinvested. They 

also took actions intended to prevent reinvestments in the areas from which savings were 
Page 3 GAO-13-105R Defense Management

taken, such as issuing guidance that required internal justification or approval before changes 

to efficiencies could occur.

DOD has developed an approach for the military departments and SOCOM to follow in 

reporting information on the status of efficiency initiatives; however, DOD’s approach has

some limitations that result in incomplete reporting, which may limit the visibility of senior 

leaders in monitoring progress in achieving programmatic and financial goals. Specifically, in 

emails, briefings, and training, the offices of the DCMO and Comptroller directed the military

departments and SOCOM to compile information on their efficiency initiatives, such as risk, 

implementation status, and realized savings, enter this data into a database, and also prepare 

briefings for senior leadership using some of the same types of information entered into the 

database. DCMO and Comptroller officials stated that they are primarily interested in 

maintaining visibility for senior leaders over high- and medium-risk initiatives, but gave the 

military departments and SOCOM flexibility to report on the efficiency initiatives that they felt 

were important. In practice, the Army, Air Force, and SOCOM have reported on all of their 

efficiency initiatives, while the Navy has reported on only a subset of its initiatives based on 

what it deems to be at medium or high risk of experiencing implementation issues or adversely 

affecting the Navy’s ability to carry out its mission.

With respect to reporting on realized savings, Comptroller officials stated that reported data on 

realized savings was expected to reflect net savings. However, the general directions did not 

specify whether the military departments and SOCOM should include all of the costs 

associated with implementing their efficiency initiatives, including costs not initially identified. 

For the case studies we reviewed, the military departments and SOCOM reported they were 

on track to realize estimated savings, but we found some instances where certain costs were 

not considered. For example, for its initiative to reduce fleet shore command personnel from 

U.S. Pacific Fleet and U.S. Fleet Forces Command, the Navy did not account for potential 

increases in relocation costs for moving fleet shore command personnel from U.S. Pacific 

Fleet and U.S. Fleet Forces Command to other areas within the Navy.

We have previously reported that a process with written guidance for monitoring achieved 

savings from efficiency initiatives can help organizations measure actual performance against 

planned results.4 In addition, a key part of ensuring that the information being measured is 

reportable in a consistent fashion is using standardized definitions and methodologies.5

Without guidance that clearly outlines the information to be provided, DOD cannot be assured 

that senior leaders are getting complete information needed to enhance their visibility over the 

status of efficiency initiatives. GAO is recommending that DOD develop guidance with 

standardized definitions and methodologies for the military departments and SOCOM to use in 

reporting their efficiency initiatives and savings. In commenting on a draft of our report, DOD 

generally concurred with our recommendation and stated that prior to the next round of 

briefings in the February 2013 timeframe, it plans to issue additional formal guidance. Our 

comments on DOD’s letter are on page 12 and DOD’s comments are reprinted in enclosure III. 

The department also provided technical comments on our draft report, which we incorporated 

as appropriate.

 

4 GAO, VA Health Care: Methodology for Estimating and Process for Tracking Savings Need 

Improvement, GAO-12-305 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 2012).

5 GAO, Defense Inventory: Actions Underway to Implement Improvement Plan, but Steps Needed to 

Enhance Efforts, GAO-12-493 (Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2012).
Page 4 GAO-13-105R Defense Management

Background

As part of its fiscal year 2012 budget request, DOD outlined savings of about $178 billion to be 

realized over a 5-year time period beginning in fiscal year 2012. According to DOD, these 

savings included about $154 billion of savings from the Secretary’s initiative and $24 billion 

from other sources. The savings are as follows.

• The military departments and SOCOM identified a total of $100 billion in savings as a 

result of their efforts to support the Secretary’s initiative. A majority of the projected 

savings identified by the military departments and SOCOM (approximately $70 billion, 

or 70 percent) is planned to be reinvested in high-priority military needs—such as 

enhancing weapon systems—while the remainder is planned to be used to address 

operating costs resulting from areas such as health care and training.

• In addition to the $100 billion in savings from the military departments and SOCOM, 

the department proposed a $78 billion reduction in its overall budget plan over a 5-year 

time period, covering fiscal years 2012 through 2016, which reflects a 2.6 percent 

reduction from DOD’s fiscal year 2011 budget submission over the same time period. 

Of this amount, $54 billion reflected projected savings identified from a health care 

policy assessment, governmentwide civilian pay freeze, and other specific areas 

identified by the Secretary where immediate action could be taken department-wide. 

The remaining $24 billion reflected revised economic assumptions, projected savings 

from restructuring the Joint Strike Fighter weapon program, and projected savings from 

reducing the size of the Army and Marine Corps.

Information accompanying the budget request catalogued the $100 billion in savings from the 

military departments and SOCOM under the following four categories:

• reorganizations, such as restructuring headquarters management and eliminating 

unneeded task forces;

• better business practices, such as reducing energy consumption; 

• program reductions and terminations, such as terminating weapon system programs; 

and 

• reductions in lower priority programs, such as shifting funding requests from military 

construction projects to base operations.

Table 1 shows the specific amounts of projected cost savings reported for each category and 

organization.

Table 1: Projected Savings Identified by the Military Departments and SOCOM Under the Secretary of 

Defense’s Efficiency Initiative (Fiscal Years 2012 through 2016)

Dollars in billions Fiscal years 2012-2016

Category of reduction Army Navy Air Force SOCOM Total for 

fiscal years 

2012-2016

Reorganizations 5.4 15.4 4.2 0 25.0

Better business practices 10.3 14.1 20.6 .4 45.4

Program reductions/terminations 11.0 5.5 3.7 1.3 21.5

Reductions in lower priority programs 2.8 0 4.8 .6 8.2

Total 29.5 35 33.3 2.3 100.1

Source: DOD
Page 5 GAO-13-105R Defense Management

Officials stated that after DOD submitted its fiscal year 2012 budget request, the DCMO and 

the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer were assigned as the coleads for developing an approach to track and report the implementation of the efficiency 

initiatives, including the initiatives identified by the military departments and SOCOM.6

Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2012, the Secretary of Defense was required to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the $100 billion in savings that 

derived from the efficiency initiatives identified by the military departments.7

• the budget account from which each savings identified will be derived;

Among other 

things, the Act required the Secretary to report on the following:

• the number of military personnel and full-time civilian employees of the Federal 

Government affected by such savings;

• the estimated reductions in the number and funding of contractor personnel caused by 

such savings; 

• a specific description of activities or services that will be affected by such savings, 

including the locations of such activities or services; and

• certain information regarding each reinvestment planned to be funded with efficiency 

initiative savings.8

In June 2012, DOD submitted its report to the defense committees and provided at least some 

information on the categories above. Among other things, DOD reported that, at that point in 

time, it was on track to meet estimated savings targets for all of its initiatives. However, the 

report did not include a comprehensive analysis of reinvestments because, according to 

DOD’s report, many areas in which reinvestments had occurred due to the efficiency initiatives

included in the fiscal year 2012 President's Budget request had been offset by major force 

structure changes and other reductions in its fiscal year 2013 budget request. 

We have previously reported on opportunities for federal agencies to improve reporting on cost 

savings and efficiencies. For example, in March 2008, we reported that it is important to 

update and track base realignments and closures savings over time in order to judge the 

financial performance of the realignment and closure recommendations and make adjustments 

as necessary to achieve savings goals.9

 

6 In a statement submitted for a March 2011 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 

Subcommittee on Readiness, the DOD Comptroller/Chief Financial Officer stated that within the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and DCMO would work 

together to monitor compliance and report successes and problems to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, 

DOD’s Chief Management Officer. Notably, DOD Directive 5118.03, Under Secretary of Defense 

(Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, Department of Defense (USD(C)/CFO) (Apr. 20, 2012), assigns 

broad responsibility to the Comptroller and DCMO to conduct analyses aimed at increasing the 

efficiency of defense spending. 

In September 2011, we reported that federal 

7 See Pub. L. No. 112-74, § 8123 (2011). Although the provisions do not discuss SOCOM, DOD’s report 

included similar information for the command.

8 See § 8123(1), (2). 9 GAO, Military Base Realignments and Closures: Higher Costs and Lower Savings Projected for 

Implementing Two Key Supply-Related BRAC Recommendations, GAO-08-315 (Washington, D.C.: 

Mar. 5, 2008).
Page 6 GAO-13-105R Defense Management

agencies can benefit from having top-level attention placed on tracking the progress of their 

efficiency efforts.

10 In a February 2012 report on the Department of Veterans Affairs efficiency 

initiatives, we recommended that the department develop a detailed process with written 

guidance for tracking achieved savings from its efficiency initiatives.11 We also found in March 

2012 that, as part of the Secretary’s efficiency initiative, DOD has taken some steps to 

examine its headquarters resources for efficiencies, but an underlying challenge facing DOD is 

that it does not have complete and reliable headquarters information available for making 

efficiency assessments and decisions.12 In July 2012, we reported that, as part of the 

Secretary’s efficiency initiative, the Air Force estimated it could save about $1.7 billion in its 

training program by reducing live flying hours and taking other steps, such as increasing the 

use of virtual training, but it lacks a methodology for determining the costs of virtual training 

and therefore did not consider these costs in its estimate.

13

The Military Departments and SOCOM Have Taken Steps to Internally Track Their 

Efficiency Initiatives 

The military departments and SOCOM have taken various steps to internally track the 

implementation of their efficiency initiatives. For example, prior to or during fiscal year 2012,

they identified programmatic actions needed to implement initiatives and began to carry out 

those actions; developed approaches to review the progress of the efficiency initiatives using 

existing governance structures; and tracked the savings associated with the efficiency 

initiatives. We analyzed seven specific case studies to determine how the military departments 

and SOCOM applied these steps. Table 2 shows the seven case studies with their realized 

savings for fiscal year 2012 as reported by DOD and projected savings for fiscal years 2012 

through 2016. 

Table 2: Case Study Efficiency Initiatives with Reported Fiscal Year 2012 Savings Amounts and Projected 

Savings Amounts through Fiscal Year 2016

Component Title of Initiative Reported Fiscal Year 

2012 Savings

Projected Savings 

Through Fiscal Year 

2016

Army Termination of Non-Line of Sight 

Launch System

$605 million $3.2 billion

Reduction of recruiting and retention 

incentives

$796 million $5.9 billion

Navy Reduction of fleet shore command 

personnel at U.S. Pacific Fleet and U.S. 

Fleet Forces Command

$88.3 million $858.1 million

Merger of U.S. Fleet Forces Command 

and U.S. Second Fleet staff

$10.5 million $100.8 million

Air Force Consolidation of air and space 

operations centers and inactivation of

numbered air forces

$0.1 million $96.3 million

Reduction in training costs $268 million $1.7 billion

SOCOM Development of new framework for its 

information technology contracts

$67 million $368 million

Source: DOD

 

10 GAO, Streamlining Government: Key Practices from Select Efficiency Initiatives Should Be Shared 

Governmentwide, GAO-11-908 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2011). 11 GAO-12-305. 12 GAO, Defense Headquarters: Further Efforts to Examine Resource Needs and Improve Data Could 

Provide Additional Opportunities for Cost Savings, GAO-12-345 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 21, 2012). 13 GAO, Air Force Training: Actions Needed to Better Manage and Determine Costs of Virtual Training 

Efforts, GAO-12-727 (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2012).
Page 7 GAO-13-105R Defense Management

Enclosure II includes further details on the steps taken by the military departments and 

SOCOM to track their implementation of the efficiency initiatives we reviewed for our case 

study. The following paragraphs summarize these steps and highlight some examples.

For the case studies we reviewed, the military departments and SOCOM have identified and

begun implementing the programmatic actions necessary to achieve the efficiency initiatives. 

For example, in one of our case study initiatives—the Navy’s initiative to reduce fleet shore 

command personnel at U.S. Pacific Fleet and U.S. Fleet Forces Command—U.S. Pacific Fleet 

and U.S. Fleet Forces Command selected the positions to reduce. According to officials, the 

Navy’s Office of Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Education then removed these positions 

from the Navy’s manpower database, and the Navy Personnel Command reassigned the 

personnel from these positions to other areas within the Navy. The Navy’s Office of 

Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Education calculated the savings associated with this 

efficiency initiative by reviewing the rank and salary data for these positions and removed 

these savings from the appropriate program elements in their budget. 

In addition, the military departments and SOCOM have developed approaches to periodically

review the progress of the efficiency initiatives—such as expected completion dates for actions 

related to implementing the initiatives and progress in achieving planned savings—through 

their existing internal governance organizations. For example, the Army’s Planning, 

Programming, and Budgeting Council of Colonels reviews the implementation of the Army’s 

efficiency initiatives on a monthly basis and the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial 

Management and Comptroller) and Army DCMO receive quarterly updates on selected 

initiatives. As another example, officials in the Office of the Air Force DCMO review monthly 

updates on the Air Force’s efficiency initiatives, which they use to update other Air Force 

entities and senior officials, such as the Under Secretary of the Air Force and the Vice Chief of 

Staff of the Air Force. 

Finally, the military departments and SOCOM have also tracked the savings associated with 

the efficiency initiatives. Specifically, they have identified the appropriation accounts and 

budget categories within these accounts—referred to as sub-activity groups—from which they 

expected to achieve savings, the dollar amount of those savings, and the areas where those

savings were to be reinvested. For example, the Air Force reinvested $381 million of its 

savings from the efficiency initiatives from various sub-activity groups into its air operations 

training sub-activity group. The military departments and SOCOM have also taken action 

intended to prevent reinvestment in the areas reduced as a result of the efficiency initiatives. 

Specifically, according to officials and documentation, the military departments and SOCOM 

require that reinvesting in an area reduced as a result of the efficiency initiatives must receive 

internal justification or approval. For example, Army budget guidance indicates that any 

changes to the efficiencies must be approved by Army’s Planning Program Budget Committee.

DOD Has Taken Steps to Collect Information Department-wide on the Status of 

Initiatives but Its Approach Does Not Ensure That Decision Makers Are Receiving 

Complete Information 

DOD has developed an approach for the military departments and SOCOM to follow in 

reporting information on the status of efficiency initiatives; however, DOD’s approach has

some limitations that result in incomplete reporting, which may limit the visibility of senior 

leaders in monitoring progress in achieving programmatic and financial goals. As 

communicated by emails, briefings, and training, the offices of the DCMO and Comptroller 
Page 8 GAO-13-105R Defense Management

require the military departments and SOCOM to develop and present briefings to senior DOD 

leaders on the status of their initiatives and also to enter various types of information into a 

database. Due to a lack of guidance that clearly outlines the scope of information to be 

reported, the military departments and SOCOM may not be reporting all costs associated with 

implementing the initiatives. 

DOD Has Developed an Approach for Military Departments and SOCOM to Follow in 

Reporting on Efficiency Initiatives

In 2011, the offices of the DCMO and Comptroller, when developing an approach for entities 

within the department to track and report on efforts to implement efficiency initiatives and 

realize savings, identified various ways for the military departments and SOCOM to report 

information on the status of their efficiency initiatives. For example, according to officials and 

briefing documents, based on direction from the DCMO and Comptroller, the military 

departments and SOCOM develop and present briefings on a semiannual basis to senior DOD 

leaders, which include the following types of information: 

• program risk—risk to program(s), mission(s), and resources affected by the efficiency 

initiative—characterized as low, medium, or high risk;

• milestone risk—implementation status of the efficiency—characterized as on track, off 

track but able to meet major milestones, or off track; 

• calculation of savings realized to date; and

• description of the mechanisms used by the military departments and SOCOM to track and 

oversee the efficiency initiatives, such as specific procedures and governance structures. 

According to Comptroller officials, they view the briefings as a way to facilitate senior DOD 

leaders’ visibility over the efficiency initiatives. For example, in the semiannual briefings, the 

military departments and SOCOM have an opportunity to present progress in implementing 

their initiatives, highlight any potential problems, and seek assistance as needed from senior 

leaders to find solutions. As of October 2012, the military departments and SOCOM had 

briefed the Deputy Secretary of Defense’s Advisory Working Group in July 2011 and 

subsequently briefed the DCMO and Comptroller in January 2012 and August 2012. In 

addition to these briefings, the DCMO and Comptroller have also prepared briefing information 

on the status of efficiency initiatives and presented it to senior DOD leaders. For example, in 

March 2012, they presented such a briefing to the Deputy’s Management Advisory Group. In 

their briefings, the military departments and SOCOM have generally reported their efficiency 

initiatives were on track and that they expected to achieve the savings targets outlined in 

DOD’s fiscal year 2012 budget request. DOD also indicated in its June 2012 report to the 

congressional defense committees that the military departments and SOCOM were on track to 

achieve all of their expected savings—specifically, total amounts for “current” and “original” 

savings were identical.

In addition to requiring the military departments and SOCOM to prepare briefings, the offices 

of the DCMO and Comptroller directed them in a May 2011 briefing to enter information on 

their efficiency initiatives into the DOD Enterprise Performance Management System 

(DEPMS), an existing database designed to capture performance management data. Similar 

to the types of data collected in the briefings, information to be entered into DEPMS was to 
Page 9 GAO-13-105R Defense Management

include implementation status, risk, and current savings. According to officials, this information 

was to be updated on a semiannual basis. Officials initially intended to draw information from 

DEPMS for purposes of developing the semiannual briefings for senior leaders but were not 

able to do so because, in practice, sometimes the briefings were created prior to information 

being updated in DEPMS. Comptroller officials told us they intended to use the data in DEPMS 

to maintain a consolidated view of metrics on the efficiency initiatives and to allow tracking of 

the efficiency initiatives department-wide. They also said they review the database for such 

things as ensuring that data has been input for all required categories. They told us that they 

do not view their role as requiring them to independently verify the data reported by the military 

departments and SOCOM in the database, and that they do not have the resources to do so.

In addition to their review of the database, officials stated that as part of their routine reviews 

of the military departments’ and SOCOM’s budget execution data, they also review 

expenditures related to areas affected by the efficiency initiatives to determine whether funding 

has increased in those areas. 

DCMO and Comptroller officials initially chose to adapt DEPMS to collect information on the 

efficiency initiatives in lieu of developing a new database to track them. In August 2012, they 

discontinued the use of DEPMS for this purpose. According to officials, using DEPMS was too 

resource intensive. For example, it required a significant amount of training to teach users how 

to input and maintain data in DEPMS. Comptroller officials identified a different database for 

the military departments and SOCOM to use. They began reporting data in this database in 

August 2012. Officials explained that the database captures the same metrics that were in 

DEPMS that are pertinent to tracking the implementation and savings of the initiatives, such as 

current and planned savings.

Military Departments and SOCOM Reporting Differs As to Whether They Include Information 

on All or a Subset of their Efficiency Initiatives and They May Not Be Reporting All Costs 

In practice, the three military departments and SOCOM report the same types of information 

on the status of their efficiency initiatives in response to general direction from the DCMO and 

Comptroller, but they differ in whether they report this information for all or a subset of their 

initiatives, and they may not be reporting all costs. To guide reporting, the offices of the DCMO 

and Comptroller provided general direction in a series of emails, training sessions, and 

briefings. According to DCMO and Comptroller officials, they collaborated with the military 

departments and SOCOM to determine which efficiency initiatives would be reported in the 

semiannual briefings and the DEPMS database. Further, Comptroller officials stated that the 

military departments and SOCOM had flexibility to only report on those efficiencies that they 

felt required senior-level visibility. Specifically, Comptroller officials stated that at a minimum 

they wanted to maintain visibility of efficiencies that were at medium and high risk of not being 

implemented but that it was up to the military departments and SOCOM to decide on whether 

to also report on low-risk initiatives. The Navy requested to report on a subset of its efficiency 

initiatives that included medium- and high-risk initiatives. According to Comptroller officials, 

they gave the Navy permission prior to the July 2011 briefing to senior DOD leaders to not 

report on low-risk efficiency initiatives. Officials also told us that the Army, Air Force, and 

SOCOM reported on all of their efficiency initiatives because they track all their initiatives 

internally and did not ask for permission to only report to the DCMO and Comptroller on a 

subset. Therefore, in the July 2011 and January 2012 briefings, the Army, Air Force, and 

SOCOM reported the milestone and program risk for all of their efficiency initiatives, while the 

Navy reported the same information for only a subset of its efficiency initiatives. This subset 

reflected around $10 billion in savings of the $35 billion in total expected savings the Navy 
Page 10 GAO-13-105R Defense Management

reported it will generate through fiscal year 2016 in information accompanying its fiscal year 

2012 budget request. 

While the military departments and SOCOM periodically report information on their efficiency 

initiatives, they are not reporting all costs related to implementation of their efficiency initiatives 

in either the database or briefings. Specifically, Comptroller officials told us that they intended 

the military departments and SOCOM to report net savings that take into account 

implementation costs for the efficiency initiatives. However, during our review, we found 

instances where some costs were not tracked and reported that could affect the validity of the

reported savings. For example, for its initiative to reduce fleet shore command personnel from 

U.S. Pacific Fleet and U.S. Fleet Forces Command, the Navy reduced 1,785 positions at 

ashore headquarters offices and increased at-sea positions that support operations more 

directly. The savings the Navy reported for this efficiency initiative included the salaries 

associated with the reduced headquarters positions. However, the Navy did not report

relocation costs for moving those personnel whose positions were reduced from U.S. Pacific 

Fleet and U.S. Fleet Forces Command to other areas within the Navy. According to Navy 

officials, because they did not expect these costs to be significant enough to affect their 

realized savings, they did not track them separately. Navy officials stated that they tried to 

minimize these costs by moving personnel who were already scheduled to rotate to new 

assignments or relocating personnel to available positions at nearby locations, but 

acknowledged that any costs incurred could affect realized savings. Additionally, we have 

previously reported that the Air Force did not consider certain costs in its estimate of savings 

for its efficiency initiative related to aircrew training. Specifically, as part of the Secretary’s 

efficiency initiative, the Air Force estimated it could save about $1.7 billion in its training 

program by reducing live flying hours and taking other steps, such as increasing the use of 

virtual training. However, the Air Force has not estimated additional expenses such as those 

incurred for aircrew to travel to simulators, contractor personnel to schedule and operate 

simulators, and purchase of additional simulators. The Air Force did not consider the potential 

costs associated with the increase in virtual training in its initial estimate of cost savings 

because it had not developed a methodology to collect and track information on the cost of its 

virtual training program. We recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary 

of the Air Force to develop a methodology for collecting and tracking cost data for virtual 

training. In response, DOD agreed and stated that the Air Force is developing a standard 

methodology of accounting and tracking the programming and execution of program funds 

through improved visibility into cost categories.

14

The military departments and SOCOM may not be reporting complete cost information 

because they have not received written guidance with standardized definitions and 

methodologies. Specifically, the offices of the DCMO and Comptroller provided general 

direction in emails, briefings, and training for what information to include in DEPMS and the

follow-on database and to present in the semiannual briefings, but no detailed written 

guidance was provided on whether implementation costs were to be considered in net savings 

estimates. Officials acknowledged that the military departments and SOCOM may not be 

including all implementation costs and agreed that additional guidance could be beneficial. We

have previously reported that a process with written guidance for monitoring achieved savings 

from efficiency initiatives can help organizations measure actual performance against planned 

results. In addition, a key part of ensuring that the information being measured is reportable in 

a consistent fashion is using standardized definitions and methodologies. In the absence of 

standardized definitions and methodologies for reporting, the military departments and 

 

14 GAO-12-727.
Page 11 GAO-13-105R Defense Management

SOCOM have been reporting incomplete cost data related to implementation of the efficiency 

initiatives. Consequently, DOD may not have a complete picture of net savings for all 

efficiency initiatives for monitoring purposes. 

Conclusions

With the efficiency initiatives set in motion by the Secretary, the department has the 

opportunity to target high-priority areas for further investment while cutting or reducing lowpriority programs. In order to enhance its ability to monitor progress of the military departments 

and SOCOM in achieving savings, DOD needs access to complete information from these 

components. Providing written guidance to the military departments and SOCOM that clearly

specifies the types of information needed for senior leaders to exercise effective and efficient

oversight of the efficiency initiatives would further ensure that the information they receive is 

complete, not only in regard to the department’s current initiatives, but also for any future 

initiatives it may pursue. 

Recommendation for Executive Action

To ensure more complete and consistent reporting on the status of efficiency initiatives, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) 

and the Deputy Chief Management Officer to take the following action aimed at improving their 

ability to monitor the efficiency initiatives of the military departments and SOCOM:

• develop guidance with standardized definitions and methodologies for the military 

departments and SOCOM to use in reporting their efficiency initiatives and savings. 

This guidance should define reporting requirements for such things as the specific 

types of costs associated with implementing the initiatives, including implementation

costs that were not initially identified in calculations of net savings. 
Page 12 GAO-13-105R Defense Management

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

In written comments on a draft of this report (reprinted in enclosure III), DOD stated that it 

agreed with the spirit and intent of our recommendation. DOD noted that detailed instructions 

were provided to the military services, defense agencies, and U.S. Special Operations 

Command in various forms (emails, meetings, training sessions, etc.). DOD also stated that 

prior to the next round of briefings in the February 2013 timeframe, it plans to issue additional 

formal guidance. DOD also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated where 

appropriate.

As described in our report, we recognize that DOD provided general direction in emails, 

briefings, and training for what information to include in the semiannual briefings and 

database, but it had not provided detailed written guidance with standardized definitions and 

methodologies for the military departments and SOCOM to use in reporting their efficiency 

initiatives and savings. We are encouraged that the department plans to issue formal guidance 

and continue to believe the guidance should define reporting requirements for such things as 

the specific types of costs associated with implementing the initiatives, including 

implementation costs that were not initially identified in calculations of net savings.

- - - - - 

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

of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer; and the Deputy Chief Management Officer. In addition, 

this report will be available at no charge on our website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9619 

or pickups@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 made major contributions 

to this report are listed in enclosure IV.

Sharon L. Pickup 

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management

Enclosures – 4 
Page 13 GAO-13-105R Defense Management

List of Committees

The Honorable Carl Levin 

Chairman

The Honorable John McCain

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye

Chairman

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. 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
Enclosure I

Page 14 GAO-13-105R Defense Management

Scope and Methodology

We conducted this work in response to a statutory mandate in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that requires GAO to assess the extent to which the 

Department of Defense (DOD) has tracked and realized the savings proposed pursuant to the 

initiative to identify at least $100 billion in efficiencies during fiscal years 2012 through 2016.15

The mandate requires GAO to conduct this assessment and submit a report yearly for each of 

fiscal years 2012 through 2016.16 This report addresses (1) the extent to which the military 

departments and SOCOM have taken steps to internally track the implementation of their 

efficiency initiatives, and (2) DOD’s progress in developing an approach for reporting on the 

status of efficiency initiatives on a department-wide basis.

For both of our objectives, we selected and assessed a sample of DOD efficiency initiatives 

included within the $100 billion of efficiency initiatives identified by the military departments 

and U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM). We used the Department of Defense 

Efficiency Initiatives Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Estimates justification book to select a sample of 

seven efficiency initiatives to use as case studies—two initiatives each from the Army, Navy, 

and Air Force and one initiative from SOCOM. For all seven initiatives, we selected: 1) 

efficiency initiatives that had realized savings in fiscal year 2012, indicating that they were fully 

or partially implemented when we conducted our review; 2) efficiency initiatives that had been 

reviewed in previous GAO engagements; and 3) efficiency initiatives that represented a range 

of efficiency types (i.e., reorganizations, better business practices, program reductions or 

terminations, reduced lower priority programs). The results from this nonprobability sample 

cannot be used to make inferences about all of the efficiency initiatives because the sample 

may not reflect all characteristics of the population.

To determine the extent to which the military departments and SOCOM have internally tracked 

the implementation of their efficiency initiatives, we interviewed officials and reviewed progress 

reports and budgetary documents to identify the processes the military departments and 

SOCOM had in place and the steps they had taken to track the implementation of their 

efficiency initiatives and resulting savings. We also interviewed officials who implemented the 

programmatic actions associated with the efficiency initiatives and reviewed documentation 

from those offices to determine whether actions had been taken to implement the efficiency 

initiatives in our case study. We reviewed budgetary documents to determine whether funding 

had been removed from accounts associated with the efficiency initiatives. In addition, we also 

met with and collected data from offices in the military departments and SOCOM that had 

responsibilities related to the efficiency initiatives, including the military departments’ deputy 

chief management offices, financial management and budget offices, and comptroller offices. 

To determine DOD’s progress in developing an approach for reporting on the status of 

efficiency initiatives on a department-wide basis, we reviewed data maintained in the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense’s DOD Enterprise Performance Management System (DEPMS) and 

in electronic spreadsheets on all of the efficiency initiatives, as well as status briefings on the 

efficiency initiatives given to the Offices of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and 

the DOD Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO). We assessed information in DEPMS, 

electronic spreadsheets, and the briefings using prior GAO reports with best practices for 

reporting information internally as well as reports on DOD and other agencies’ efficiency 

initiatives. In addition, we interviewed appropriate officials in the military departments and 

 

15 See Pub. L. No. 112-81, § 1054 (2011).

16 See id.
Enclosure I

Page 15 GAO-13-105R Defense Management

SOCOM about what information they provide to the DCMO and Comptroller. We focused our 

questions on efficiency initiatives that were part of our case study analysis. We also reviewed 

emails and briefings issued by the Comptroller and DCMO that guided the military 

departments and SOCOM in the types of information they reported to the Comptroller and 

DCMO. We interviewed Comptroller and DCMO officials about their monitoring of the 

efficiency initiatives, including the roles they play and their usage of the data and briefings they 

received. We assessed DOD’s approach for reporting information using prior GAO reports that 

focused on specific efficiency initiatives at DOD and other agencies.

We interviewed officials and, where appropriate, obtained documentation from the 

organizations listed below:

Office of the Secretary of Defense

• Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer

• Office of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation

• Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer

SOCOM

• Office of Special Operations Financial Management

• Information Technology Management Division

Department of the Army

• Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army/Army Deputy Chief Management Officer

• Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller)

o Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, Assistant Secretary of the 

Army (Financial Management and Comptroller)

o Office of the Director, Army Budget

o Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, Assistant Secretary of the 

Army (Financial Management and Comptroller)—Cost and Economics

• Director of Business Operations, Office of Business Transformation

• Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation

Department of the Navy

• Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of the Navy/Navy Deputy Chief Management 

Officer

• Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Manpower and Reserve Affairs

• Office of Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Education

• U.S. Fleet Forces Command

• U.S. Pacific Fleet

Department of the Air Force

• Office of the Air Force Deputy Chief Management Officer

• Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management and 

Comptroller)

• Office of Manpower, Organization, and Resources

• Office of Operations

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 to December 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 
Enclosure I

Page 16 GAO-13-105R Defense Management

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.
Enclosure II

Page 17 GAO-13-105R Defense Management

Description of the Military Departments’ and U.S. Special Operations Command’s

Tracking of Efficiency Initiatives Included in Our Case Study

The military departments and U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) have taken

various steps to internally track the implementation of their efficiency initiatives. For example, 

prior to or during fiscal year 2012, they identified programmatic actions needed to implement 

initiatives and began to carry out those actions; developed approaches to review the progress 

of the efficiency initiatives using existing governance structures; and tracked the savings 

associated with the efficiency initiatives. The following sections describe how the military 

departments and SOCOM tracked their efficiency initiatives, including for the case studies we 

reviewed. 

Army

The Army took steps to internally track the implementation of its efficiency initiatives, including 

the case studies we reviewed—the termination of the Non-Line of Sight Launch System and 

the reduction of recruiting and retention incentives. Under the initiative to terminate the NonLine of Sight Launch System, the Army determined the program was not necessary after 

conducting a comprehensive review of support capabilities relative to current and projected 

threats. Under the initiative to reduce recruiting and retention incentives, the Army reduced the 

enlistment bonuses offered to new recruits, reduced the number of enlistment bonuses 

offered, and reduced the anniversary bonuses given to current personnel, according to 

documentation and Army officials. The Army officials stated that the Army could reduce these 

incentives while still maintaining its force structure given the current and projected economic 

environments.

• As part of its general process, the Army identified and began carrying out the actions 

needed to implement its initiatives.

• Under the Non-Line of Sight Launch System initiative, the Army Budget Office 

removed the funding for the system from its fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 

2016 program objective memorandum, which totaled $3.2 billion in savings 

through fiscal year 2016. The Army closed its operations related to the program 

and reassigned or terminated the personnel involved in the program, 

completing these actions in June 2011. 

• Under the initiative to reduce recruiting and retention incentives, the Army 

Budget Office removed funding from the fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 

2016 program objective memorandum to achieve the efficiency: $5.9 billion 

through fiscal year 2016. According to documentation and Army officials, the 

Army took other actions to implement the initiative—including reducing 

enlistment bonuses to new recruits and offering enlistment bonuses to fewer 

recruits—and tracked its expenditures specific to recruitment and retention 

efforts to ensure those expenditures did not exceed the amount of funds 

allocated in the budget for those purposes. 

• The Army also reviewed the progress of its efficiency initiatives using its internal 

governance structure.
Enclosure II

Page 18 GAO-13-105R Defense Management

• The Army completed the Non-Line of Sight Launch System initiative in 2011 by 

cancelling the program and therefore did not need to use internal governance 

structures to track it.

• Under its initiative to reduce recruiting and retention incentives, the manning 

program evaluation group reports progress on this initiative to the Army Budget 

Office on a monthly basis, and the Secretary of the Army receives updates on 

this initiative on a quarterly basis, according to Army officials. 

• Finally, the Army has taken steps to track the savings associated with its initiatives.

• For all of its initiatives, including our two case studies, the Army identified subactivity groups where it reinvested the resulting savings. The Army Budget 

Office also reviewed its fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2017 program 

objective memorandum and its fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2018 

program objective memorandum to ensure the Army did not reinvest in the 

areas reduced as a result of the efficiency initiatives, according to Army 

officials. In addition, the Army specifically cited its initiatives in fiscal year 2014 

through fiscal year 2018 program objective memorandum guidance, which also 

indicates that any changes to the efficiencies must be approved by the Army’s 

Planning Program Budget Committee. 

Navy

The Navy took steps to track the implementation of its efficiency initiatives, including the case 

studies we reviewed—the reduction of fleet shore command personnel by five percent at U.S. 

Pacific Fleet and U.S. Fleet Forces Command and the merger of U.S. Fleet Forces Command 

and U.S. Second Fleet staff. For the reduction of fleet shore command personnel, more 

effective training has decreased shore manpower needs, freeing up manpower for operational 

ships at sea. For the merger of U.S. Fleet Forces Command and U.S. Second Fleet staff, the 

Navy found that the missions of the two organizations had converged over time and decided 

that an integrated staff could better adapt to changing missions than two separate staffs and 

the merger could eliminate redundant personnel. 

• As part of its general process, the Navy identified and began carrying out the actions 

necessary to implement its initiatives.

• Under its initiative to reduce fleet shore command personnel, U.S. Pacific Fleet 

and U.S. Fleet Forces Command selected the positions to reduce—606 officers 

and 1,127 enlisted active military positions and 10 reserve officer and 42 

enlisted reserve positions—which the office of the Chief of Naval Operations 

approved, according to Navy officials. Officials stated that the Navy’s Office of 

Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Education removed these positions from 

the Navy’s manpower database and the Navy Personnel Command reassigned 

the personnel to other areas within the Navy. The Navy’s Office of Manpower, 

Personnel, Training, and Education calculated the savings associated with this 

efficiency initiative, which totaled $858 million through fiscal year 2016, by 

reviewing the rank and salary data for these positions. 

• Under its initiative to merge U.S. Fleet Forces Command and U.S. Second 

Fleet staff, the Navy’s Office of Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Education

removed the positions from U.S. Second Fleet—57 officers and 104 enlisted 
Enclosure II

Page 19 GAO-13-105R Defense Management

active military positions and 117 reserve officer and 67 enlisted reserve 

positions—and the Navy Personnel Command reassigned the personnel within 

U.S. Fleet Forces Command. The Office of Manpower, Personnel, Training, 

and Education calculated the savings associated with this efficiency, which 

totaled $100.8 million through fiscal year 2016, by reviewing the rank and salary 

data for these positions. 

• The Navy also reviewed the progress of its efficiency initiatives using its internal 

governance structure, according to Navy officials. 

• For all of its initiatives, including the two case studies here, the Office of the 

Navy Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO) coordinated with the

appropriate Navy offices to ensure they implemented the efficiency initiatives as 

planned. Officials stated that medium- and high-risk initiatives are elevated for 

discussion at pre-existing forums, which include the DCMO and Assistant 

Secretaries of the Navy.

• Finally, the Navy has taken steps to track the savings associated with its initiatives.

• For all of its initiatives, including the two case studies here, the Navy identified

the sub-activity groups where it reinvested the savings resulting from both of 

these initiatives. Navy officials stated that any changes to its efficiencies would 

require internal approval.

Air Force

The Air Force took steps to track the implementation of its efficiency initiatives, including the

case studies we reviewed—the initiative to consolidate air and space operations centers and 

inactivate three numbered air forces and the initiative to decrease training costs by reducing 

the Air Force’s live flying hour program for its legacy fighter and bomber aircraft by 5 percent 

and its Air Force Reserve Command F-16 flying hour program by 10 percent. For its initiative 

to consolidate air and space operations centers and inactivate three numbered air forces, the 

Air Force consolidated the 617th Air and Space Operations Center, which supports U.S. Africa 

Command, with the 603rd Air and Space Operations Center, which supports U.S. European 

Command and inactivated the 13th (Air Forces Pacific), the 17th (Air Forces Africa) and 19th 

Air Force, which supports Air Education and Training Command. For its initiative to decrease 

training costs by reducing the Air Force’s live flying hour program for its legacy fighter and 

bomber aircraft by 5 percent and its Air Force Reserve Command F-16 flying hour program by 

10 percent, the Air Force stated that it expected to offset any effect on readiness caused by a 

reduction in live flying hours by increasing its use of simulators.

• As part of its general process, the Air Force identified and began carrying out the 

actions necessary to implement its initiatives. 

• Under its initiative to consolidate air and space operations centers and 

inactivate three numbered air forces, the Air Force eliminated 212 civilian 

positions and reassigned 162 military positions, which resulted in $96.3 million 

in savings through fiscal year 2016. The Air Force’s major commands moved 

these reassigned positions to other areas within the Air Force.
Enclosure II

Page 20 GAO-13-105R Defense Management

• Under its training reduction initiative, the Air Force removed $1.7 billion through 

fiscal year 2016 from its budget, which it derived by multiplying the cost of live 

training for its legacy fighter and bomber aircraft by the number of hours of live 

training reduced by the initiative. 

• The Air Force also reviews the progress of its initiatives using internal governance 

structures.

• For all of its initiatives, including our two case studies, the priority owners—

officials assigned responsibility for the initiatives—update the progress of these 

initiatives on a monthly basis in the Air Force’s Integrated Master Schedule, 

which lists the date the initiatives began, the expected completion date of the 

initiatives, and the percentage of each initiative that has been completed. Air 

Force Comptroller officials review the Integrated Master Schedule to ensure the 

initiatives are on track. Air Force DCMO officials also review this information; 

they use the data in the Integrated Master Schedule to update other Air Force 

entities and senior officials, such as the Under Secretary of the Air Force and 

the Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force. 

• Finally, the Air Force has taken steps to track the savings associated with its initiatives.

• For all of its initiatives, including our two case studies, the Air Force identified

the sub-activity groups where it reinvested the savings resulting from its 

initiatives. In addition, Air Force budget officials tracked its expenditures specific 

to the programs reduced as a result of the initiatives to ensure those 

expenditures did not exceed the amount of funds allocated in the budget for 

those purposes. According to Air Force officials, the Air Force Chief 

Management Officer must approve any reinvestments in the areas reduced as 

a result of the efficiency initiatives.

SOCOM

SOCOM took steps to track its efficiency initiatives, including the case study initiative we 

reviewed—the initiative to establish a new contract framework for its information technology 

services. According to officials, SOCOM’s Information Technology Management Division 

established a new contract framework for its information technology services that reduces 

SOCOM’s costs by awarding funds directly to the organizations that provide the services on a 

competitive basis rather than through an intermediary that selects the organizations that 

provide the information technology services and by adopting other best practices for 

procurement, such as providing performance-based incentives.

• As part of its general process, SOCOM identified and began carrying out the actions 

necessary to implement its initiatives. 

• According to officials, under SOCOM’s initiative to restructure its information 

technology contract framework, SOCOM established this new framework and 

removed $368 million through fiscal year 2016 from its budget for these 

purposes. 
Enclosure II

Page 21 GAO-13-105R Defense Management

• SOCOM also reviewed the progress of its initiatives using its internal governance 

structure.

• Under its information technology initiative, the Information Technology 

Management Division has briefed Special Operations Financial Management 

twice on the implementation of this initiative and reports quarterly on the 

progress of the initiative to SOCOM’s Joint Resources Management Board, 

which is co-chaired by the Director of Special Operations Financial 

Management and the Chief Financial Officer.

• Finally, SOCOM has taken steps to track the savings associated with its initiatives.

• For all of its initiatives, including our case study initiative, SOCOM identified the 

sub-activity groups where it reinvested the savings resulting from its initiatives. 

SOCOM highlighted the programs affected by its efficiency initiatives in its 

budgetary system and issued internal guidance for the preparation of the fiscal 

year 2014 to fiscal year 2018 program objective memorandum stating that any 

programmatic changes affecting the efficiencies programs would have to be 

justified.
Enclosure III

Page 22 GAO-13-105R Defense Management

Comments from the Department of Defense
Enclosure III

Page 23 GAO-13-105R Defense Management
Enclosure IV

Page 24 GAO-13-105R Defense Management

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Sharon L. Pickup, (202) 512-9619 or pickups@gao.gov

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Patricia Lentini, Assistant Director; Usman Ahmad; 

Susannah Hawthorne; Charles Perdue; Michael Shaughnessy; Michael Silver; Erik WilkinsMcKee; and Sam Wilson made key contributions to this report.

(351700)
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.