a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

November 2005 DEPOT 

MAINTENANCE

Persistent 

Deficiencies Limit 

Accuracy and 

Usefulness of DOD’s 

Funding Allocation 

Data Reported to 

Congress

GAO-06-88
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

November 2005

DEPOT MAINTENANCE

Persistent Deficiencies Limit Accuracy 

and Usefulness of DOD's Funding 

Allocation Data Reported to Congress 

Highlights of GAO-06-88, a report to 

congressional committees 

Under 10 U.S.C.§ 2466, the military 

departments and defense agencies

can use no more than 50 percent of 

annual depot maintenance funding 

for work performed by privatesector contractors. The

Department of Defense (DOD) 

must submit a report to Congress 

annually on the division of depot 

maintenance funding between the

public and private sectors during 

the preceding fiscal year and 

projected distribution for the 

current and ensuing fiscal years. As 

required, GAO reviewed the report

submitted in April 2005 and is, with 

this report, submitting its views to

Congress on whether (1) the 

military departments complied

with the “50-50 requirement” for 

fiscal year 2004 and (2) the

projections for fiscal years 2005 

and 2006 represent reasonable

estimates. Additionally, GAO is

assessing whether the data 

currently provided in DOD’s annual

50-50 report are useful to Congress

in exercising its oversight role. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD 

improve the accuracy, reliability

and usefulness of depot 

maintenance workload allocation

data submitted to Congress. DOD 

partially concurred with the 

recommendations but did not 

indicate specific actions it would 

take. GAO suggests the Congress 

require DOD to enhance its annual

50-50 report as stated in GAO’s 

recommendations. 

As in previous years, systemic weaknesses in DOD’s financial systems and 

persistent deficiencies in 50-50 data reporting processes continue to prevent

GAO from determining whether the military departments complied with the 

50-50 requirement for public- and private-sector depot maintenance funding 

allocations for fiscal year 2004. Persistent deficiencies, such as inadequate 

management attention and review to ensure accurate and complete 

reporting, limited independent review and validation of data by audit 

services or other third parties, and inadequate training for those responsible 

for data gathering and reporting, continue to limit the quality of the 50-50 

data submitted to Congress. GAO’s previous reports over the last 7 years

identified similar problems and recommended corrective actions, but DOD 

and the military services have failed to consistently implement corrective 

actions sufficient to resolve the deficiencies and alleviate data accuracy 

problems. The recurring nature of these problems indicates a management 

control weakness as defined under the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity 

Act. 

Reported projections do not represent reasonable estimates of public- and 

private-sector depot maintenance funding allocations for fiscal years 2005 

through 2006 because some data errors and omissions in DOD’s prior-year 

report are carried into the projected years. It is difficult to project out-year 

data due to factors such as changing depot maintenance requirements, the 

ongoing consolidation of maintenance facilities, and the trend toward more 

contractor logistics support for new and existing weapon systems. 

Although DOD’s current 50-50 report to Congress satisfies the annual 

mandate, it lacks additional detail that might be useful to Congress as it 

exercises its oversight role. The report currently submitted by DOD 

contains data that are aggregated at a high level and provides no analysis of 

changes from the prior years or long-term trends. The report also does not 

identify actual funding and workload distribution variances from year to 

year, nor explain the reasons behind them. Furthermore, it does not contain 

information as to the methodologies used to prepare the current and future 

year projections. 

DOD’s Reported Fiscal Year 2004 50-50 Data and GAO’s Adjustments in Percentages 

Service 

Private work 

reported 

Private work 

adjusted 

Public work

reported 

Public work

adjusted 

Army 45.0 49.2 55.0 50.8

Navy/Marine Corps 46.2 48.5 50.2 47.7

Air Force 45.3 45.3 54.6 54.6

Sources: DOD (data); GAO (analysis). 

Notes: Totals will not equal 100 percent because of rounding and legislatively excluded publicprivate partnerships. Shaded cells indicate percentages within 2 percentage points of the 50 

percent limitation. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-88.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact William M. Solis

at (202) 512-8365 or solisw@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

Management Control Weaknesses Prevent Determination of Military 

Departments’ Compliance with 50-50 Requirement for Fiscal Year 

2004 9

Fiscal Year 2005 and 2006 Projections Do Not Represent Reasonable 

Estimates of Public- and Private-Sector Funding 18

DOD’s Current 50-50 Report Satisfies the Annual Mandate but Could 

Provide More Useful Data and Analysis 19

Conclusions 21

Recommendations for Executive Action 21

Matter for Congressional Consideration 22

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 23

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 27

Appendix II: GAO Adjustments for Inaccuracies Found in the Military 

Departments’ 50-50 Data for Fiscal Year 2004 30

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense 34

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 37

Related GAO Products 38

Tables Table 1: GAO Adjustments to DOD’s Reported Depot Maintenance 

Funding Allocations for Fiscal Year 2004 10

Table 2: Summary of Prior GAO 50-50 Recommendations 14

Table 3: GAO’s Adjustments to the Army’s Fiscal Year 2004 

Reported Depot Maintenance Allocations 31

Table 4: GAO’s Adjustments to the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2004 

Reported Depot Maintenance Allocations 32

Table 5: GAO’s Adjustments to the Air Force’s Fiscal Year 2004 

Reported Depot Maintenance Allocations 33

Figures Figure 1: DOD’s Prior, Current, and Budget Year Public- and 

Private-Sector Allocations for Fiscal Years 2004 through 

2006 8
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

Figure 2: Historical Private-Sector Reported Allocations (Fiscal 

Years 1998-2004) 20

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

GAO Government Accountability Office

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

U.S.C. United States Code

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

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

November 18, 2005 Letr

The Honorable John Warner

Chairman

The Honorable Carl Levin

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter

Chairman

The Honorable Ike Skelton

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

Under 10 U.S.C. § 2466, not more than 50 percent of annual depot 

maintenance funding provided to the military departments and defense 

agencies can be used for work accomplished by private-sector contractors. 

Section 2466 also directs the Department of Defense (DOD) to submit a 

report to Congress by April 1 of each year on the percentage distribution of 

depot-level maintenance and repair funds between the public- and privatesectors for each military department and defense agency during the 

preceding fiscal year and the projected distribution for the current and 

ensuing fiscal years. The Secretary of Defense may waive the 50 percent 

limitation if he determines the waiver is necessary for national security, and 

he submits notification of the waiver along with the reasons for the waiver 

to Congress. For fiscal year 2004, DOD issued the report on April 1, 2005. 

All the services reported that their private sector depot maintenance 

allocation fell below the 50 percent funding limitation for fiscal year 2004 

and will remain below the 50 percent limitation for fiscal years 2005 and 

2006.

Section 2466 also requires us to review DOD’s report to Congress and 

evaluate whether DOD complied with the so-called 50-50 requirement. This 

is the eighth year that we have evaluated and reported on DOD’s annual 50-
Page 2 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

50 report to Congress.1 Specifically, this report discusses whether (1) the 

military departments complied with the 50-50 requirement for public and 

private sector depot maintenance funding allocations in fiscal year 2004 

and (2) the projections for public- and private-sector depot maintenance 

funding allocations in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 represent reasonable 

estimates. Additionally, we are providing our assessment concerning 

whether the data currently provided by DOD in its annual 50-50 report are 

useful to Congress in exercising its oversight role.

To accomplish these objectives, we reviewed DOD and service-specific 

guidance for collecting and reporting 50-50 data, and analyzed the military 

services’ procedures and internal management controls for validating 

depot maintenance information included in the reported data and for 

responding to the section 2466 requirements. We assessed the reliability of 

the reported depot maintenance workload funding allocations for fiscal 

year 2004 for each of the military services. To assess the reliability of 

DOD’s data, we undertook a number of steps, including conducting 

variance analyses and limited testing on reported funding allocations. 

Based on the significance of funding variance from previous years and 

other factors, we selected specific locations and weapons systems for more 

in-depth reviews. We conducted site visits, interviewed service officials 

responsible for data collection, and reviewed the data for accuracy and 

completeness. For example, we verified reported obligations using the 

source documents provided by service officials. We also reviewed the 

results of internal studies conducted by the service audit agencies or other 

third parties, and reconciled areas of concern identified during prior years’ 

audits. As discussed below, we found that the reported private- and publicsector allocation data are not reliable because of long-standing systemic

1

For the two most recent reports, see GAO, Depot Maintenance: DOD Needs Plan to Ensure 

Compliance with Public- and Private-Sector Funding, GAO-04-871 (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 29, 2004), and Depot Maintenance: DOD’s 50-50 Reporting Should Be Streamlined, 

GAO-03-1023 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2003). Other related GAO products are listed at 

the end of this report.
Page 3 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

weaknesses in DOD's financial systems2 and persistent deficiencies in 50-

50 data reporting processes. Our analysis of projected allocations for fiscal 

years 2005 and 2006 was limited because our initial audit efforts identified 

significant recurring problems in these areas. We conducted our review 

from April 2005 through September 2005 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. See appendix I for a more 

detailed description of our scope and methodology.

Results in Brief As in previous years, systemic weaknesses in DOD’s financial systems and 

persistent deficiencies in 50-50 data reporting processes continue to 

prevent us from determining whether the military departments complied 

with the 50-50 requirement for public- and private-sector depot 

maintenance funding allocations for fiscal year 2004. Our analysis of the 

April 2005 report submitted to Congress and the military departments 

supporting data identified errors, omissions, and inconsistencies in DOD 

funding allocation data, which, if adjusted, would increase the Army’s and 

Navy’s percentages of funding allocations going to the private sector, 

causing them to come very close to reaching the 50 percent private-sector 

limit. As a result, the data reported for fiscal year 2004 cannot be relied on 

to provide an accurate measure of the balance of funding between the 

public and private sectors or to determine if the military departments 

complied with the statutory limitation set by Congress for private-sector 

depot-level maintenance funding allocations. Persistent deficiencies, such 

as inadequate management attention and review to ensure accurate and 

complete reporting, limited independent review and validation of 50-50 

data by audit services or other third parties, and inadequate training for 

those responsible for data gathering and reporting, continue to limit the 

accuracy of the 50-50 data submitted to Congress. Our previous reports 

over the last 7 years identified similar problems and recommended 

corrective actions, but DOD and the military services have failed to 

consistently implement corrective actions sufficient to resolve the 

deficiencies and alleviate data accuracy problems. The recurring nature of 

2

GAO has repeatedly reported about long-standing systemic weaknesses in DOD’s financial 

systems. See GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.: January 

2005); DOD Business Systems Modernization: Billions Being Invested without Adequate 

Oversight, GAO-05-381 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 2005); DOD Business Systems 

Modernization: Billions Continue to Be Invested with Inadequate Management Oversight 

and Accountability, GAO-04-615 (Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2004), and Department of 

Defense: Financial and Business Management Transformation Hindered by Longstanding Problems, GAO-04-941T (Washington, D.C.: July 8, 2004).
Page 4 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

these deficiencies in DOD’s 50-50 reporting processes indicates a 

management control weakness significant enough to be reported in DOD’s 

annual performance and accountability report.3

 This weakness has not 

been disclosed in DOD’s annual accountability reports to Congress even 

though the issues have been previously identified in prior audits.

Reported projections do not represent reasonable estimates of public- and 

private-sector depot maintenance funding allocations for fiscal years 2005 

and 2006 because some errors and omissions in DOD’s fiscal year 2004 data 

are carried into the projected years. In addition, it is difficult to project outyear data due to factors such as changing depot maintenance requirements, 

the ongoing consolidation of maintenance facilities, and the trend toward 

more contractor logistics support for new and existing weapon systems. 

These factors limit the usefulness of the reported projections to 

congressional and, DOD decision makers. We have reported these 

shortcomings with the future years projections in the past, and the 

problems continue to occur. The reported projection data show that all of 

the military services are predicting higher percentages of funding for the 

private sector and less for the public sector. Data inaccuracies similar to 

those we identified for fiscal year 2004 could affect this trend, as all of the 

services are moving closer to the threshold for private-sector funding. For 

example, while the Army projects that its funding for fiscal years 2005 and 

2006 for the private sector will be around 46 percent, the magnitude of the 

adjustments we made to the Army’s fiscal year 2004 data, when carried 

forward, could cause the Army to reach the limitation on 50-50. 

Additionally, increasing contractor maintenance support for military 

operations and new weapon systems scheduled to reach initial operational 

capability in fiscal year 2007 and beyond could result in all the military 

departments exceeding the 50 percent threshold. The Air Force has 

integrated 50-50 reporting requirements into its source of repair decisions 

for new weapon systems and major system modifications.

Although DOD’s current 50-50 report to Congress satisfies the annual 

mandate, it lacks additional detail that might be useful to Congress as it 

exercises its oversight role. The report currently submitted by DOD 

3

Title 31, U.S.C. § 3512(c), (d), commonly referred to as the Federal Financial Managers’ 

Financial Integrity Act, requires federal agencies to report on whether the agency 

management controls are adequate and effective and are achieving their intended 

objectives. Guidance on reporting on management controls is contained in Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A-123 (effective through fiscal year 2005) (revised 

June 21, 1995). 
Page 5 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

contains data that are aggregated at a high level and provides no analysis of 

changes from the prior years. For example, the report does not identify 

funding trends and workload distribution variances from the prior year, nor 

does it explain the reasons behind any significant variances. Furthermore, 

it does not contain information on the methodologies used to prepare the 

current and future year projections. Because of the limited data provided 

by the military departments in the 50-50 report, we have developed and 

reported these types of information as part of our mandated work over the 

past 7 years to better meet Congress’s needs in exercising its oversight role.

We are making two recommendations to the Secretary of Defense to 

improve the accuracy and reliability of depot maintenance funding 

allocation data submitted to Congress and to provide congressional 

decision makers with more useful information. In commenting on a draft 

of this report, DOD partially concurred with our recommendations. DOD 

stated it has made and will continue to make improvements in data quality 

and accuracy. However, DOD did not indicate specific actions it would 

take to address the persistent deficiencies we identified or to improve the 

usefulness of the information provided to the Congress. Therefore, we are 

also suggesting that the Congress require the Secretary of Defense to 

enhance the department’s annual 50-50 report submitted to Congress as 

stated in our recommendations. DOD’s comments and our evaluation are 

discussed in detail in a later section of this report.

Background In addition to the 50-50 requirement in 10 U.S.C. § 2466, the following 

provisions directly affect the reporting of workload funding allocations to 

the public and private sectors.

• Section 2460 defines depot maintenance to include material 

maintenance or repair requiring the overhauling, upgrading, or 

rebuilding of parts, assemblies, or subassemblies and the testing and 

reclamation of equipment, regardless of the source of funds or where 

maintenance or repair is performed. Depot maintenance also 

encompasses software maintenance, interim contractor support,4

 and

4

Interim contractor support is an interim support arrangement in which a contractor 

provides depot maintenance (and sometimes other logistics support) as part of the 

acquisition strategy for new systems.
Page 6 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

contractor logistics support5 to the extent that work performed in these 

categories is for depot maintenance. The statute excludes from depot 

maintenance the nuclear refueling of an aircraft carrier; the 

procurement of major modifications or upgrades of weapon systems 

that are designed to improve program performance; and the 

procurement of parts for safety modifications, although the term does 

include the installation of parts for safety modifications. 

• Section 2474 directs DOD to designate public depots as Centers of 

Industrial and Technical Excellence and to improve their operations to

serve as recognized leaders in their core competencies.6

 Section 342 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Pub. L. No. 

107-107, Dec. 28, 2001) amended this statute to exclude qualifying 

public-private partnerships,7

 referred to as private exempt, from the 50 

percent funding limitation on contracting in section 2466. Specifically, 

section 342 provides that the funds expended for the performance of 

depot-level maintenance by nonfederal government personnel located at 

the Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence shall not be counted 

when applying the 50 percent limitation if the personnel are provided 

pursuant to a public-private partnership. This exclusion initially applied 

to depot maintenance funding for fiscal years 2002 through 2005. The 

exclusion later was extended to fiscal year 2006, and recently to fiscal 

year 2009.8

5

Contractor logistics support is a lifetime support concept in which a contractor provides 

most or all elements of logistics support, including depot maintenance.

6

Core competencies are depot-level maintenance capabilities to be retained in public depots 

to meet DOD’s strategic and contingency plans and for which the military departments 

believe DOD should be a recognized leader in the national technology and industrial base. 

7

DOD guidance defines a “public-private partnership” for depot maintenance as an 

agreement between a public-sector depot maintenance activity and one or more private 

industry or other entities to perform work or utilize facilities and equipment. Such an 

arrangement includes the use of public facilities, equipment, and employees to perform 

work for the private sector under certain defined circumstances; private-sector use of 

public-sector equipment and facilities to perform work for the public sector; and worksharing agreements using both public- and private-sector facilities, employees, or both.

8

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Pub. L. No. 107-314, § 334 (2002); 

Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-

375, § 323 (2004).
Page 7 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

Section 2466 allows the Secretary of Defense to waive the 50 percent 

limitation if he determines the waiver is necessary for national security. 

The Secretary submits the notification of waiver together with the reasons 

for the waiver to Congress. Waivers were previously submitted for the Air 

Force for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) issues guidance to the 

military departments for reporting public-private workload funding 

allocations. The guidance is consistent with the definition of “depot-level 

maintenance and repair” in 10 U.S.C. § 2460.9

 The military services have 

also issued internal instructions to manage the data collection and 

reporting process, tailored to their individual organizations and operating 

environments.

Summary of Data in DOD’s 

50-50 Report Submitted in 

April 2005

Figure 1 summarizes DOD’s April 2005 report to Congress on public- and 

private-sector funding allocations for depot maintenance.10 All three 

departments reported that their private-sector depot maintenance 

allocation fell below the 50 percent funding limitation for fiscal year 2004 

and will remain below the 50 percent limitation for fiscal years 2005 and 

2006. The amounts shown are from DOD’s record of actual obligations 

incurred for depot maintenance work in fiscal year 2004 and projected 

obligations for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. The percentages show the 

department’s record of the relative allocations between the public and 

private sectors and the exempted workload funding.

9

Because of the difficulty of segregating installation costs for safety modifications from 

costs for installing other modifications (e.g., for improved performance), OSD’s guidance 

specifies that all modification installation costs be reported when an installation is 

considered to be a depot-level service.

10Although 10 U.S.C. § 2466 specifies the reporting of funds expended in prior years and 

projected to be expended in future years, DOD’s past and current 50-50 reports are based on 

obligation data. In the past, a DOD official explained that obligation data are considered to 

be more appropriate because of the statutory requirement to report funds made available in 

a given fiscal year and because expenditure data may not be completely recognized in the 

accounting records for a year or more following the funds’ obligation.
Page 8 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

Figure 1: DOD’s Prior, Current, and Budget Year Public- and Private-Sector 

Allocations for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2006

Notes: Based on analysis of DOD’s April 1, 2005, reported 50-50 data. The Department of the Navy 

includes the Marine Corps. 

Limitations on Use of 50-50 

Data as Reported by DOD

DOD’s 50-50 data, with our adjustments, only provide a rough 

approximation of the allocation of depot maintenance funding between the 

public and private sectors. Our prior reports on depot maintenance 

workload funding allocations have recognized systemic weaknesses in 

DOD’s financial systems, operations, and internal controls that impede the 

department’s ability to provide useful, reliable, and timely financial 

information for day-to-day management and decision making. In the 

financial management systems area, DOD continues to struggle in its 

efforts to implement systems to support managerial decision making. To 

date, none of the military services have passed the test of an independent 

financial audit. Nonetheless, the data used to develop the 50-50 report are 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

Percentage (dollars in millions)

Fiscal year

Private exempt

Public

Private

Sources: DOD (data); GAO (analysis).

1.2

(.2)

0.0

(0)

3.6

(366.1)

1.8

(180.0)

1.8

(168.0)

0.1

(13.3)

0.1

(9.1)

0.1

(11.6)

0.0

(.3)

54.0

(4114.5)

55.0

(2902.1)

50.2

(5085.2)

53.8

(5323.3)

50.5

(4760.4)

54.6

(5329.2)

53.2

(5285.1)

52.1

(5212.1)

53.8

(2618.7)

Limitation

46.0

(3501.9)

45.0

(2376.3)

46.2

(4675.3)

44.4

(4391.5)

47.7

(4502.1)

45.3

(4417.2)

46.7

(4640.5)

47.8

(4788.7)

46.2

(2250.8)

Army Navy Air Force
Page 9 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

the only data available and are accepted by DOD and used as input to 

Congress for its congressional oversight.

Management Control 

Weaknesses Prevent 

Determination of 

Military Departments’ 

Compliance with 50-50 

Requirement for Fiscal 

Year 2004

As in previous years, management control weaknesses in DOD’s financial 

systems and persistent deficiencies in 50-50 data reporting processes 

continue to prevent us from determining whether the military departments 

complied with the 50-50 requirement for public- and private-sector depot 

maintenance funding allocations for fiscal year 2004. DOD’s April 1, 2005, 

report to Congress contained data errors, omissions, and inconsistencies 

due to persistent deficiencies, such as inadequate management attention 

and review to ensure accurate and complete reporting, limited independent 

review and validation of 50-50 data by audit services or other third parties, 

and inadequate training for those responsible for data gathering and 

reporting. As a result, the data reported for the prior year cannot be relied 

on to provide an accurate measure of the balance of funding between the 

public and private sectors or to determine if the military departments 

complied with the statutory limitation set by Congress for private-sector 

depot-level maintenance funding allocations. The recurring nature of these 

deficiencies indicates a management control weakness in DOD’s 50-50 data 

reporting processes significant enough to be reported in DOD’s annual 

performance and accountability report. This weakness has not been 

disclosed in DOD’s annual accountability reports to Congress, even though 

the issues have been identified in prior audits.

DOD’s April 2005 Report to 

Congress Contained Data 

Errors, Omissions, and 

Inconsistencies

DOD’s April 1, 2005, report to Congress contained errors, omissions, and 

inconsistencies in the depot maintenance funding allocation data for fiscal 

year 2004. The net effects of correcting the data inaccuracies we identified 

would increase the Army’s and Navy’s percentages of funding allocations 

going to the private sector, causing both military departments to come very 

close to the 50 percent private-sector limitation. Although we also found 

inaccuracies in the Air Force data, adjusting for them does not change the 

funding allocation distribution percentages. Table 1 summarizes the 

amounts and effects of our adjustments to DOD’s reported depot funding 

allocation data for fiscal year 2004.
Page 10 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

Table 1: GAO Adjustments to DOD’s Reported Depot Maintenance Funding Allocations for Fiscal Year 2004

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

Notes: Based on analysis of Distribution of DOD Depot Maintenance Workloads, Fiscal Year 2004, 

Office of the Secretary of Defense, April 1, 2005. Shaded cells indicate percentages within 2 

percentage points of the 50 percent limitation.

a

The Department of Navy consists of the Navy and Marine Corps.

Department of the Army Adjusting the Army’s data on the basis of the specific inaccuracies we 

identified would reduce its total depot maintenance funding by 

$347.1 million for fiscal year 2004. The net effect of correcting for these 

inaccuracies would increase the private-sector percentage allocation by 

about 4.2 percentage points for an overall allocation of 49.2 percent. (See 

table 3 in app. II for a detailed breakout of these adjustments.)

The Army’s most significant data inaccuracies generally were due to 

overreported public depot funding and underreported or unreported 

private depot funding. Adjustments to the Army’s reported public work 

amounted to a $397 million decrease. The most significant of the errors in 

public-sector depot maintenance reporting, $399.4 million, was due to a 

transcription error. The Army also overreported an additional $9.6 million 

due to double-counting and $7.8 million for misclassifying private-sector 

workload as public. Additionally, the Army underreported $18.4 million in 

public-sector depot maintenance funding at the Aviation and Missile 

Command and the Communications and Electronics Command and did not 

report nearly $0.9 million in depot maintenance funding for the FOX 

vehicle. Adjustments to the Army’s private sector workload resulted in a 

net increase of $49.6 million mostly due to unreporting or underreporting. 

The Army did not report private depot work for onetime repairs at a 

nondepot aviation location in the amount of $20.7 million. The Army also 

failed to report $2.2 million in private depot work at Anniston Army Depot 

and $6.2 million in private depot work at a National Guard aviation 

Dollars in millions

Army Navya Air Force

Amount Percentage Amount Percentage Amount Percentage

Private 

Reported $ 2,376.3 45.0 $ 4,675.3 46.2 $ 4,417.2 45.3

Adjusted 2,425.9 49.2 4,793.3 48.5 4,416.9 45.3

Public

Reported 2,902.1 55.0 5,085.2 50.2 5,329.2 54.6

Adjusted 2,505.1 50.8 4,705.6 47.7 5,329.2 54.6

Private 

exempt

Reported 0.0 0.0 366.1 3.6 13.3 0.1

Adjusted 0.3 0.0 376.0 3.8 13.3 0.1
Page 11 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

classification and repair depot. It also did not report $6.9 million in private 

depot work for the Stryker vehicle and $5.9 million for the FOX vehicle. 

For fiscal year 2004, the Army included amounts for its National 

Maintenance Program,11 one of the two areas the Army previously 

estimated made up the majority of its unreported depot-level maintenance 

work performed at nondepot facilities; however, $5.7 million was 

underreported because planned funding was reported instead of the 

amounts actually obligated. Finally, the Army underreported $7.8 million 

through a misclassification of private work as public work. 

Department of the Navy Adjusting the Navy’s and Marine Corps’ data on the basis of the specific 

inaccuracies we identified would reduce their total depot maintenance 

funding by $251.7 million for fiscal year 2004, the net effect of correcting 

for these inaccuracies would increase the private-sector percentage 

allocation by 2.4 percentage points for an overall allocation of 48.5 percent. 

(See table 4 in app. II for a detailed breakout of these adjustments.)

The Navy’s most significant data inaccuracies generally were due to 

unreported private depot funding and overreported public depot funding. 

For example, as we reported in past years, the Navy did not report 

$80.3 million in depot maintenance funding for work accomplished during 

the nuclear refueling of aircraft carriers, citing the exclusion of nuclear 

refueling from the 10 U.S.C. § 2460 definition of “depot maintenance.” We 

continue to believe that depot maintenance repairs not directly associated 

with the task of nuclear refueling should be reported because these types 

of repair actions are reported by other organizations and it is possible to 

identify the funding for these tasks in Navy contracts and financial systems. 

The Navy also, as in prior years, inconsistently reported on inactivation 

activities related to the servicing and preservation of systems and 

equipment prior to their placement in storage or on inactive status. 

Specifically, the Navy did not report $14.4 million of private-sector 

allocations for inactivation work on non-nuclear ships, even though it 

reported private-sector funding for the inactivation for nuclear ships. The 

Navy contends that the work for nuclear ship inactivation is complex while 

the work for non-nuclear ships is not. We maintain that all such depot-level 

work should be reported, since the statute and implementing guidance do 

11The National Maintenance Program is the Army’s ongoing action to establish a fully 

integrated national maintenance requirements process that includes all depot-level 

maintenance requirements, regardless of the location of the work, in a field facility or a 

maintenance depot.
Page 12 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

not make a distinction based on complexity. Additionally, the Navy’s 

public-sector depot maintenance allocation was overreported by 

$357.6 million because of errors in reporting obligations for funds available 

to be spent over multiple years. Navy and OSD guidance requires that 

commands only report the funds actually obligated in the fiscal year. We 

found that some Naval Sea Systems Command activities incorrectly 

reported the funds available for obligation for depot maintenance in fiscal 

year 2004 instead of the funds that were actually obligated. As a result, 

some of the amounts included in the Navy’s 50-50 report were not obligated 

during fiscal year 2004. Additionally, multiyear funds from a prior year 

appropriation that were obligated in fiscal year 2004 were not, but should 

have been, included.

Our review of the Marine Corps’ 2004 data found that it underreported the 

public-sector total by about $1.3 million for maintenance work performed 

at other military service depots. In previous years, the Marine Corps’ error 

rate was relatively high compared to that of the other services despite its 

smaller depot maintenance program. Based on our recommendation from 

last year, the Marine Corps addressed a key contributor to its high error 

rate by appointing a 50-50 focal point for the Marine Corps Systems 

Command, the command responsible for acquiring and upgrading weapon 

systems. The focal point is responsible for preparing and submitting a 

consolidated report for the command’s depot maintenance funding 

allocation between the public and private sectors.

Department of the Air Force Adjusting the Air Force’s data on the basis of the specific inaccuracies we 

identified would increase its total depot maintenance funding by 

$0.3 million but would not change the percentage allocation between the 

public and private sectors. (See table 5 in app. II for a detailed breakout of 

these adjustments.)

Additionally, we were unable to verify some of the private depot 

maintenance amounts reported because the Air Force had no supporting 

data. For example, we were unable to verify the total amount in privatesector workload funding allocation for air crew training devices used to 

train active duty air crews. According to the Air Force, all air crew training 

devices are operated and maintained through contractor logistics support 

contracts. The depot maintenance portion for these contracts is computed 

by taking a percentage of the cost incurred against a selected contract line 

item or, in some instances, a percentage of the entire amount obligated for 

the year. DOD’s 50-50 guidance allows algorithms to be used when precise 

determinations cannot be made; however, the line items included and the 
Page 13 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

percentages used are largely determined by the contractor, and the Air 

Force lacks access to the data needed to validate the percentages used.

Additionally, the Air Force incorrectly reported amounts for depot 

maintenance warranties in its fiscal year 2004 50-50 data. The Air Force’s 

guidance states that onetime obligations for warranties over extended 

periods will be prorated for each year over the life of the warranty. 

However, OSD guidance states that although warranty support that occurs 

prior to initial operating capability shall not be reported as depot 

maintenance and repair, warranty support that is contracted for prior to 

initial operating capability but occurs after initial operating capability shall 

be reported. Also, the total warranty costs for depot maintenance and 

repair services are to be reported in the year in which the obligation 

occurs. Therefore, consistent with OSD guidance, the Air Force should 

have reported all amounts obligated for warranties for depot maintenance 

repair that cover periods after initial operating capability in the year the 

obligations were made.

Although we found the aforenoted inaccuracies, overall the Air Force’s 

data had the least problems. Additionally, the Air Force correctly included 

contract administrative and oversight costs in its fiscal year 2004 data. In 

previous years, the Air Force adjusted its reported amounts for contract 

administration and oversight costs, which decreased the amount of funding 

for the private sector and increased funding for the public sector. We 

repeatedly reported that this adjustment was not consistent with 50-50 

guidance, which states that costs should be associated with the end 

product (i.e., the repaired item), and that the costs should be treated as 

contracting expenses.

Persistent Deficiencies 

Continue to Limit Accuracy 

of Reported Data 

Systemic weakness in DOD’s financial systems and persistent deficiencies, 

such as inadequate management attention and review to ensure accurate 

and complete reporting, limited independent review and validation of 50-50 

data by audit agencies or other third parties, and inadequate training for 

those responsible for data collection and reporting continue to limit the 

accuracy of the 50-50 data provided to Congress. For these reasons, the 

reported data cannot be relied on to provide an accurate measure of the 

balance of funding between the public and private sectors or to determine 

whether the military departments complied with the 50 percent statutory 

limitation set by Congress for private-sector depot-level maintenance.
Page 14 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

Moreover, during the past 7 years, we have made 33 recommendations for 

improving the depot maintenance reporting process for 50-50 purposes, 

addressing both DOD and individual service reporting issues and concerns. 

Of these recommendations 19 have been officially closed by GAO. The 14 

recommendations that remain open contain several recurring themes. 

Table 2 summarizes the number of times these themes are mentioned in the 

14 open recommendations as well as the number of times these themes 

have been recommended throughout the course of the past 7 years of 

reviewing DOD’s 50-50 depot maintenance report.

Table 2: Summary of Prior GAO 50-50 Recommendations

Source: GAO.

a

In many cases, the recommendations covered multiple issue areas, and therefore the number of open 

recommendations is not equal to the number of times these issues are mentioned in the open 

recommendations.

b

Recommendations made prior to 2001 have been closed. However, most recommendations made in 

2001 or later have not been implemented or have been partially implemented and therefore remain 

open.

The problems in DOD’s 50-50 data reporting processes have not been 

disclosed in DOD’s annual accountability reports to Congress, even though 

the problems have been previously identified in prior audits, and in our 

view result in more than a remote risk that significant misstatements will 

not be prevented or detected. As a result, managers or oversight officials’ 

decisions based on this reporting—to include workload or funding

Recommendation

Number of open

recommendationsa

Number of times

recommended over 7

years Year(s) recommendedb

Improve management attention, controls, and 

oversight

4 9 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002

(Marine Corps, Army)

Document procedures and retention of records 

to support reported data for future follow-up

2 6 1998,1999, 2000, 2001

Use service audit agencies or third party to 

validate data before sending to OSD/Congress

4 6 1999, 2001 (Army, Navy), 

2002 (Navy), 2003, 2004

Ensure proper and timely training for staff 

involved in 50-50 process

2 2 2003, 2004

Issue, clarify, and/or disseminate guidance 6 14 1998, 1999, 2000, 

2001, 2002, 2003
Page 15 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

allocation decisions—may be adversely affected. Title 31 U.S.C. § 3512(c)12

requires that management controls be in place to reasonably ensure that 

obligations and costs comply with the applicable law; all assets are 

safeguarded against waste, loss, unauthorized use, and misappropriation of 

assets; and revenues and expenditures are properly reported and 

accounted for. Management controls are the organization, policies, and 

procedures that help managers achieve results and safeguard the integrity 

of their programs. Title 31 U.S.C. § 3512(c) also requires agency heads to 

provide an annual statement of assurance on the effectiveness of the 

management controls and to identify and report on material weaknesses. 

As defined in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123, 

Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control, December 21, 2004 

(effective for Fiscal Year 2006), materiality for financial reporting13 is risk 

of error or misstatement that could occur in a financial report that would 

affect management’s or users’ decisions or conclusions based on such 

report. An official from OSD’s Materiel Readiness and Maintenance Policy, 

the office responsible for submitting the 50-50 report to Congress each 

year, told us they had never evaluated whether DOD’s 50-50 reporting 

should be included in DOD’s annual accountability report.

Inadequate Management 

Attention and Review

One of the primary reasons for the recurring inaccuracies in the military 

services’ 50-50 data was inadequate management attention and review to 

ensure accurate and complete reporting. Generally, we found that 

personnel collecting the data at the various reporting centers or program 

offices did not review or verify the data before submitting them up the 

reporting chain to the service representative responsible for compiling and 

forwarding the data to OSD. Additionally, little documentation is provided 

to the military service’s 50-50 data focal points or the reporting commands’ 

focal points to support the data included in the 50-50 report. In prior 

reports we recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct the military 

services to provide more management review at all levels in DOD to ensure 

12Title 31, U.S.C. § 3512(c), (d), commonly referred to as the Federal Financial Managers’ 

Financial Integrity Act, requires federal agencies to report on whether the agency 

management controls are adequate and effective and are achieving their intended 

objectives. Guidance on reporting on management controls is contained in Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A-123 (effective through fiscal year 2005) (revised

June 21, 1995).

13Financial reporting includes annual financial statements of an agency or other significant 

financial reports that could have a material effect on significant spending, budgetary, or 

other financial decisions of the agency or that is used to determine compliance with laws 

and regulations.
Page 16 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

accurate and complete reporting. Despite these recommendations, the 

services have limited policies and procedures for such management review. 

For example, an Army official told us that no one checks the accuracy of 

the data or performs a variance analysis with previously reported data. Our 

variance analysis of the Army’s fiscal year 2004 data compared with the 

fiscal year 2003 data resulted in identifying nearly $400 million in 

overreported public-sector workload funding allocations due to a 

transcription error. The same location reported only about $2.3 million the 

previous fiscal year. This error may have been identified and corrected if 

the Army emphasized reviewing, analyzing, and questioning variances from 

year to year.

As in previous years, we found that the Marine Corps officials responsible 

for compiling and submitting the Marine Corps’ final report to OSD 

performed no review to ensure the completeness or accuracy of the 

reported data. Moreover, during our review of the Navy’s U.S. Pacific Fleet, 

we found the Southwest Regional Maintenance Facility did not maintain 

documentation to support the amounts it reported. It took the facility more 

than a month to recreate a list of the transactions to support the

$339.3 million in workload funding allocation data reported for fiscal year 

2004. Additionally, the Naval Audit Service could not verify the amount of 

public-sector depot maintenance workload funding allocation for the Puget 

Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility. Moreover, 

the Air Force often lacks access to the documentation needed to validate 

the completeness or accuracy of the data associated with its contractor 

logistics support/interim contractor support programs and the algorithms 

used to determine the amount of depot maintenance for each contract.

Independent Review and 

Validation of Data Limited by 

Time and Scope 

Although each of the military departments obtained some level of 

independent review and validation14 of its 50-50 data, the reviews were 

constrained by time and limited in scope. Moreover, not all of the errors 

were corrected prior to submission to Congress. In prior reports we 

repeatedly recommended that to further enhance 50-50 data accuracy, the 

Secretary of Defense require the secretaries of the military departments to 

direct the use of service audit agencies, or an agreed-upon alternate 

method, for third-party review and validation of depot maintenance 

workload funding allocation data and to ensure that auditor-identified 

14Data validation is the process of verifying data by comparing reported data to a source 

document to ensure the data are accurate and complete and then attesting to the accuracy 

of the data. 
Page 17 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

errors in the data are rectified before reports are submitted to Congress. 

DOD guidance for this year’s 50-50 report directed the military departments 

to implement this recommendation.

Concerning fiscal year 2004 depot maintenance allocation data, the Army 

Audit Agency evaluated whether the Army implemented or planned to 

implement selected recommendations made based on prior audits of depotlevel maintenance workload allocation reporting, and whether the Army 

accurately reported the status of implementation to the Office of the Army 

Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics. The Army Audit Agency did not review 

the accuracy of the 50-50 data submitted to Congress. The Army hired a 

consulting firm to review and validate its 50-50 data for fiscal year 2004. 

The firm selected a statistical sample of the reported allocations to review. 

However, due to time constraints, the Army did not correct several of the 

errors identified by the consulting firm prior to submitting the report to 

Congress. Naval Audit Service identified errors in the Navy’s data, which 

were corrected before the 50-50 report went to Congress. However, the 

Naval Audit Service’s review was limited to two activities, which accounted 

for only 6 percent of the Navy’s reported depot maintenance funding for 

fiscal year 2004. Furthermore, although it did not review 100 percent of 

transactions, the results and errors found during the review were 

considered an indicator that similar errors might exist at the other eight 

Navy reporting organizations. Due to time constraints, the Naval Audit 

Service did not attempt to determine the underlying cause for the errors 

identified. Air Force Audit Agency focused its review on contractor 

logistics support/interim contractor support maintenance programs, an 

area where problems in 50-50 reporting had been identified in the past. The 

contracts reviewed by the audit agency represented about three-fourths of 

the contractor logistics support/interim contractor support programs. 

Errors identified by the Air Force Audit Agency were corrected prior to 

submitting the report to Congress. Air Force officials acknowledge that 

even with improvements, errors still occur and accurate reporting remains 

an ongoing concern. However, they do not believe additional errors that 

may be found would threaten compliance with the 50-50 statute.

Inadequate Staff Training Inadequate training for those responsible for collecting, aggregating, and 

reporting 50-50 data continues to be a problem. In two prior reports we 

recommended that the Secretary of Defense require the secretaries of the 

military departments to ensure that the 50-50 guidance is properly 

disseminated and that staff are properly and promptly trained in the 

application of the 50-50 guidance. During our review we found that 

although the reporting activities generally received the 50-50 data call 
Page 18 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

guidance, several reporting activities did not report 50-50 data accurately. 

Additionally, we found that although the Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force 

provide some training, not all staff responsible for 50-50 reporting attended 

this training. According to a Navy official, no formal training on procedural 

requirements or Navy guidance to develop and report the 50-50 data is 

provided to the personnel responsible for compiling the data. Rather, the 

reporting activity coordinators are expected to provide guidance on 

reporting requirements as questions arise from the reporting activities. 

According to an Air Force official, program managers have not had 

sufficient training to prepare and maintain documentation to ensure that 

50-50 data are accurate.

Fiscal Year 2005 and 

2006 Projections Do 

Not Represent 

Reasonable Estimates 

of Public- and PrivateSector Funding

DOD’s reported projections for fiscal years 2005 through 2006 do not 

represent reasonable estimates of public- and private-sector depot 

maintenance funding allocations. The usefulness of the reported 

projections to congressional and DOD decision makers is limited because 

errors, omissions, and inconsistencies in DOD’s reported prior-year data 

are carried into future years and because of the difficulty in projecting outyear data due to factors such as changing depot maintenance requirements, 

consolidating maintenance facilities, and the trend toward more contractor 

logistics support for new and existing weapon systems. We reported these 

shortcomings with the future years’ projections in the past. While 

limitations affect the usefulness of the data reported as a predictor of 

funding allocations, the reported projection data show that all of the 

military services are predicting a greater percentage of funds for the private 

sector and less for the public sector.

Recurring errors, omissions, and inconsistencies similar to those we 

identified for the fiscal year 2004 reported data could affect this trend, as 

all of the services are moving closer to the threshold for private-sector 

funding. For example, while the Army projects that its private-sector depot 

maintenance workload allocation will be around 46 percent, the magnitude 

of the adjustments we made to the Army’s fiscal year 2004 data—increasing 

the private-sector percentage by about 4.2 percentage points—when 

carried forward, could cause the Army to exceed the 50-50 limitation. 

Similarly, the Navy projects that its private-sector depot maintenance 

workload allocation for fiscal year 2006 will be around 48 percent. The 

magnitude of the adjustments we made to the Navy’s fiscal year 2004 

data—increasing the private-sector percentage by about 2.4 percentage 

points—when carried forward, could cause the Navy to exceed the 50-50 

limitation.
Page 19 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

DOD has agreed that 50-50 data within 2 percentage points of exceeding the 

50 percent threshold is a reasonable trigger for additional oversight and 

management to ensure compliance with the 50 percent threshold. Last 

year, we recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct each military 

department’s secretary, within 30 days of reporting 50-50 data indicating 

that past, current, or budget year data are within 2 percentage points of 

exceeding the 50 percent threshold, to submit a plan to OSD that identifies 

actions the military department shall take to ensure continued compliance, 

including the identification of decisions on candidate maintenance 

workload sourcing that could be made to support remaining within the

50 percent threshold. To date, none of the services have provided such 

plans because their reported data did not indicate that such submissions 

were necessary. 

Additionally, increasing contractor maintenance support for military 

operations and increasing the number of new weapon systems scheduled 

to reach initial operational capability in fiscal year 2007 and beyond could 

result in all the military departments exceeding the 50 percent threshold. 

During our review, the Air Force provided evidence that it has integrated 

50-50 reporting requirements into its source of repair decisions for new 

weapon systems and major system modifications.

DOD’s Current 50-50 

Report Satisfies the 

Annual Mandate but 

Could Provide More 

Useful Data and 

Analysis

Although DOD’s current 50-50 report to Congress satisfies the annual 

mandate, it lacks additional detail that might be useful to Congress as it 

exercises its oversight role. For example, the report provides no analysis 

of the data to show how the fiscal year 2004 funding allocations compared 

to prior years’ figures. Furthermore, the reported data are aggregated at 

the service level. The report also does not identify funding allocation 

variances from year to year, nor explain the reasons behind them. 

Additionally, the report does not contain analysis of long-term trends; 

historical trend data must be calculated using previous 50-50 reports. 

Finally, DOD’s 50-50 report to Congress does not contain information about 

the methodologies used to prepare the current and future year projections 

or the reasons for projected funding variances and changes in workload 

distribution. 

Because of the limited data provided in DOD’s 50-50 report, we have 

developed these types of information as part of our mandated work over 

the past 8 years to better meet Congress’s needs in exercising its oversight 

role. Our analysis of trend data shows that although reported depot 

maintenance funding for fiscal year 2004 increased by about $700 million 
Page 20 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

over fiscal year 2003, only the Army’s total funding and private-sector 

workload allocation increased significantly. Compared to the other 

services, the Army reported the largest increase in total funding (almost 

$1.8 billion) and the largest jump in workload funding allocation to the 

private sector. With this increase, the Army’s reported private sector 

allocation is on par with those of the other services. The Navy shows the 

biggest overall decrease in depot workload funding allocation (almost 

$1.3 billion), and the Air Force shows little change. Figure 3 shows a 

historical trend for private-sector reported allocations for fiscal years 1998 

through 2004.

Figure 2: Historical Private-Sector Reported Allocations (Fiscal Years 1998-2004)

Note: Decrease in private-sector percentage starting in fiscal year 2002 was largely due to reporting 

private-exempt allocations separately.

Percentage

Fiscal year

Sources: DOD (data); GAO (analysis).

Army

Air Force

Navy

Limitation

41.7

42.0

45.6

43.0

45.7

46.9

45.0

46.0

51.0

45.2

45.6

51.9

42.6

45.8

46.5

36.9

44.5

47.7

46.2

45.3

45.0

35

40

45

50

55

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Page 21 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

Conclusions Year after year we continue to see the same persistent deficiencies in 

DOD’s 50-50 report to Congress. As a result, the reported 50-50 data cannot 

be relied on to provide an accurate measure of the balance of funding 

between the public and private sectors or to determine if the military 

services exceeded the statutory limitations set by Congress for privatesector depot-level maintenance funding allocations. By disclosing the 

persistent deficiencies in the 50-50 reporting processes as a management 

control weakness, along with planned corrective actions, in future 

accountability reports, DOD will increase the level of management 

attention and help focus improvement efforts so that the data provided to 

Congress are accurate and complete.

The data DOD provides in its annual 50-50 report to Congress satisfy the 

annual mandate but lack additional detail that may well be useful to 

Congress as it exercises its oversight role. Until DOD provides additional 

information and analysis on changes in depot maintenance funding and 

allocations, significant variances from the prior year’s report, and 

methodologies used to estimate workload allocation projections for the 

current and ensuing fiscal years in its annual 50-50 report, Congress will 

continue to be hindered in its ability to exercise effective oversight. 

Additionally, the extent of the percentage adjustments we find each year, 

coupled with the persistent lack of progress by the Army and the Navy 

toward improving their reporting processes and data quality, indicate that 

DOD cannot afford to wait until the services reach the 50 percent limit 

before formulating and providing a plan that identifies actions the military 

departments will take to avoid exceeding the threshold for private-sector 

funding.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To improve the accuracy and reliability of depot maintenance funding 

allocation data submitted to Congress and to provide congressional 

decision makers with better information on funding allocations, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following two actions.

We recommend that the Secretary, in future accountability reports, disclose 

a management control weakness in DOD’s 50-50 data reporting processes 

along with planned corrective actions to improve management control in 

the following areas:

• Management review, attention, and policies sufficient to ensure accurate 

and complete 50-50 reporting.
Page 22 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

• Independent review and validation of 50-50 data by service audit 

agencies or other third parties, with auditor-identified data inaccuracies 

corrected prior to submission of the annual report to Congress.

• Annual training on 50-50 policies and procedures for all individuals 

participating in data gathering and reporting.

We also recommend that the Secretary enhance DOD’s annual 50-50 report 

submitted to Congress. This enhanced reporting should include the 

following types of information:

• Variance analyses that identify significant changes in depot maintenance 

workload allocations from the prior year’s report and the reasons for 

these variances.

• Analysis of historical trends in depot maintenance workload allocations.

• Explanation of the methodologies used to estimate workload allocation 

projections for the current and ensuing fiscal years. 

• The military departments’ plans to ensure continued compliance with 

the 50-50 requirement, including the identification of decisions on new 

weapon systems maintenance workload sourcing that could be made to 

support remaining within the 50 percent threshold.

Matter for 

Congressional 

Consideration

If Congress determines, for oversight purposes, that improvements are 

needed in the reliability and usefulness of DOD’s annual report on depot 

maintenance funding allocations, Congress should require the Secretary of 

Defense to enhance its annual 50-50 report to Congress as stated in our 

recommendations. Specifically, this enhanced reporting should include 

(1) variance analyses of significant changes in depot maintenance 

workload allocations from the prior year’s report and the reasons for these 

variances; (2) analysis of historical workload allocation trends; 

(3) explanation of the methodologies used to estimate workload allocation 

projections; and (4) plans to ensure continued compliance with the 50-50 

requirement, including the identification of decisions on new weapon 

systems maintenance workload sourcing that could be made to support 

remaining within the 50 percent threshold. Additionally, the enhanced 

reporting should address the corrective actions DOD is taking to improve 

the persistent deficiencies we have identified in DOD’s 50-50 data reporting 

processes.
Page 23 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD partially concurred with our 

recommendations but did not indicate specific actions it would take 

address the persistent deficiencies we identified in its 50-50 reporting 

processes or to improve the usefulness of the information provided to 

Congress. DOD agreed there were errors in the 50-50 report and stated that 

it is committed to providing accurate data in its annual report to Congress, 

has made improvements in its reporting over the past several years, and 

will continue to improve.

DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of 

Defense, in future accountability reports, disclose a management control 

weakness in DOD’s 50-50 data reporting processes along with planned 

corrective actions to improve management control. However, DOD did not 

indicate that it would disclose its 50-50 data reporting processes as a 

management control weakness in future accountability reports. Instead, 

DOD stated that it currently reports internal management control 

weaknesses in its annual accountability reports. The currently reported 

weaknesses, however, are not specific to DOD’s 50-50 data reporting 

processes, and we continue to believe that the recurring nature of the 

deficiencies we have found in DOD’s 50-50 reporting processes indicates a 

management control weakness significant enough to be reported 

separately in DOD’s annual accountability reports. Neither DOD nor the 

military services have consistently implemented corrective actions 

sufficient to resolve the deficiencies. As discussed in the report, during the 

past 7 years we have made 33 recommendations for improving 50-50 

reporting. Of these recommendations, 19 have been officially closed by 

GAO. The 14 recommendations that remain open contain several recurring 

themes, which include the need for increased management attention to 

ensure accurate and complete 50-50 reporting, independent review, and 

validation of data and annual training on 50-50 policies and procedures for 

all individuals participating in data gathering and reporting. Nevertheless, 

in its comments DOD stated that systemic changes to the reporting process 

have already been made in response to previous recommendations. DOD 

noted that it instituted third-party review of data by service audit agencies 

and corrected auditor-identified data inaccuracies prior to submission of 

the annual report to Congress. While we agree that DOD has made 

improvements in its reporting processes over the past several years, our 

work nevertheless has identified persistent deficiencies in these processes 

that continue to prevent us from determining whether the military 

departments complied with the 50-50 requirement. For example, as we 

reported, although each of the military services obtained some level of 
Page 24 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

independent review and validation this year, the reviews were constrained 

by time and limited in scope. Moreover, not all of the errors were corrected 

prior to submission to Congress. Disclosing 50-50 reporting processes as a 

management control weakness in future accountability reports could 

increase DOD management emphasis on addressing the persistent 

deficiencies that continue to limit the accuracy and usefulness of the depot 

maintenance funding allocation data reported to Congress.

DOD also partially concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary 

of Defense enhance DOD’s annual 50-50 report submitted to Congress. 

However, DOD stated that producing the types of information suggested in 

our recommendation would require a massive undertaking and may be of 

limited value. We disagree. We have developed these types of information 

as part of our annual mandated review of DOD’s 50-50 report, and the 

information has been valuable in understanding and evaluating DOD’s 

depot maintenance funding allocations. For example, we compared fiscal 

year 2004 reported allocations for specific programs and reporting centers 

with fiscal year 2003 allocations, and followed up with the military services 

to determine the reasons for significant differences. The goal of this 

recommendation is not to place an unnecessary burden on the department 

but to provide additional information on depot maintenance funding that 

would make the annual 50-50 report to Congress more informative and 

useful as an oversight tool. Furthermore, we believe that if DOD would 

provide more detailed and analytical information to Congress, it would 

place additional emphasis on assuring the accuracy of the data provided in 

its annual 50-50 report.

Because it does not appear to us that DOD’s actions will address the 

persistent deficiencies we identified in its 50-50 reporting processes or 

improve the usefulness of the information provided to Congress, we have 

added a matter for congressional consideration suggesting that Congress 

require the Secretary of Defense to enhance the department’s annual 50-50 

report as stated in our recommendations.

DOD also stated in its written comments that its 50-50 data quality has 

improved, as shown by reductions in the Navy’s and the Air Force’s privatesector corrections. DOD further noted that the Army’s one transcription 

error accounted for 99.3 percent of its private sector corrections. Our 

report does not conclude that the department’s data quality has improved. 

On the contrary, we state as in past years that DOD’s 50-50 data, with our 

adjustments, provide only a rough approximation of the allocation of depot 

maintenance funding between the public and private sectors. We reported 
Page 25 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

that DOD’s April 1, 2005, report to Congress contained errors, omissions, 

and inconsistencies that if corrected, would increase the Army’s and Navy’s 

percentages of funding allocations going to the private sector. Additionally, 

we did not conduct a detailed review of all reported 50-50 data; therefore, 

there may be additional errors, omissions, and inconsistencies that were 

not identified during our review. We agree that the Army’s $399.4 million 

transcription error was the single largest correction we identified. 

However, this error involved a public-sector correction rather than a 

private-sector correction as DOD stated. We noted several other errors in 

the Army’s data for both the public and private sectors, as shown in table 3 

of this report. We continue to believe that adequate management attention 

and review of 50-50 data to ensure accurate and complete reporting would 

have helped identify the transcription error and other errors prior to 

submitting the data to DOD and Congress.

DOD believes, based on guidance from the General Counsel’s office in the 

Department of the Navy, that it has properly excluded depot maintenance 

associated with nuclear carrier refueling and inactivation work performed 

on non-nuclear ships. We have disagreed in prior years with DOD’s 

decision to exclude these types of depot maintenance repairs from its 50-50 

reports. As discussed in our report, we continue to believe that depot 

maintenance repairs not directly associated with the task of refueling of 

nuclear aircraft carriers should be included in DOD’s annual report to 

Congress. We also continue to believe that inactivation work performed on 

non-nuclear ships should be included in DOD’s report.

DOD’s written comments are reprinted in appendix III.

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 Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the Director, 

Office of Management and Budget. We will make copies available to others 

upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the 

GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any 

questions on the matters discussed in this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-8365 or solisw@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Page 26 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

William M. Solis

Director, Defense Capabilities and Management
Page 27 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

To determine the accuracy of the military services’ reporting of their depot 

maintenance allocations and whether they met the 50-50 requirement for 

fiscal year 2004, we analyzed each service’s procedures and internal 

management controls for collecting and reporting its depot maintenance 

allocations. Certain programs, reporting centers, and maintenance 

activities were identified for in-depth reviews.1

 In particular, we focused 

on those reporting locations, programs, and issues that Department of 

Defense (DOD) personnel and we identified as problem areas in current 

and past reviews as well as those that had experienced significant funding 

variances over time. We did not conduct a detailed review of all reported 

50-50 data; therefore there may be additional errors, omissions, and 

inconsistencies that were not identified.

As part of these in-depth reviews, we conducted site visits to departmental 

headquarters, major commands, selected maintenance activities, and 

reporting centers; interviewed the service officials involved with the data 

collection; and reviewed the data utilized for accuracy and completeness. 

Our data verification efforts included examining summary records, 

accounting reports, budget submissions, and contract documents. We also 

reviewed DOD, military service, and command-specific guidance for 

collecting and aggregating 50-50 data. We also compared this year’s 

instructions with last year’s to identify any changes and additions and 

reviewed service efforts to identify reporting sources and to distribute 

guidance and tasks to develop and report the 50-50 data.

To determine what actions the services took to improve the quality of 

reported 50-50 data and implementation of GAO’s prior year’s 

recommendations, we reviewed the results of internal studies conducted 

by the service audit agencies or other third parties, and reconciled areas of 

concern identified during prior years’ audits. Additionally, we reviewed 

prior years’ recommendations to determine whether known problem areas 

were being addressed and resolved. We applied this knowledge to identify 

additional areas for improving the reporting process and management 

controls. We examined the process used to compile the reports and the 

data reported to determine that it was consistent and in compliance with 

legislative requirements and to identify any errors, omissions, or 

1

We selected the programs reviewed on the basis of size, location, or any previously 

identified areas of concern. Given the nature of our sample, the results are not projectable 

to the universe of depot maintenance activities. We also did not audit the integrity of the 

Department of Defense’s financial systems and accounting data used to prepare the 50-50 

reports.
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 28 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

inconsistencies in the data reported. We discussed with officials managing 

and coordinating the reporting process their efforts to address known 

problem areas and respond to recommendations by internal audit agencies 

and GAO. 

Our analysis of the data for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 was limited because 

our audit efforts identified significant recurring problems in this area of the 

report. To determine whether DOD’s projected allocations for the current 

fiscal year and ensuing fiscal year were reasonable, we performed certain 

checks and tests, including variance analyses, to judge the consistency of 

this information with data from prior years and with the future years’ 

budgeting and programming data used in DOD’s budget submissions and 

reports to Congress. We found repeated and significant changes, even 

though the estimates were prepared only about 1 year apart.

We used the results of our analysis of fiscal year 2005 and 2006 projections 

to further discuss with officials, and analyze the reasons behind, changes in 

reported data and percentage allocations between the 2004 and 2005 50-50 

reports submitted to Congress. Our current and past work on this issue has 

shown that DOD’s 50-50 data cannot be relied upon as a precise measure of 

the allocation of depot maintenance funds between the public and private 

sectors. However, the mandate in 10 U.S.C. § 2466 requires (1) DOD to 

report the data, which are the only data available and accepted and used 

for DOD decision making and for congressional oversight, and (2) us to 

submit our views on whether DOD has complied with the 50-50 

requirement to Congress. While DOD’s data cannot be relied upon to 

provide a precise measure of the funding between the public and private 

sectors, the data, along with our adjustments, provide a rough 

approximation of the allocations and some trends that may be useful to 

Congress in exercising its oversight role and to DOD officials in managing 

the depot maintenance program. Concerns about the accuracy and 

completeness of the 50-50 data available were considered and incorporated 

into our methodology and approach to reviewing the fiscal year 2004 

report. Along with the limitations on the 50-50 data available from DOD, 

the constrained time frame for our review limited the extent to which our 

analysis could be relied upon to identify all the errors, inconsistencies, and 

omissions in DOD’s data. We recognize that we have not been able to 

comprehensively identify all of the errors and omissions in the 50-50 report 

for fiscal year 2004. However, we were able to conclude that the reported 

depot maintenance workload funding allocations were not sufficiently 

reliable for accurately determining whether the military departments 

complied with the 50-50 requirement for fiscal year 2004. As a result, we 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 29 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

developed recommendations for improving the 50-50 data collection, 

verification, and reporting processes.

We interviewed officials, examined documents, and obtained data at the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense, Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air 

Force headquarters in the Washington, D.C., area; Anniston Army Depot in 

Anniston, Alabama; Army Materiel Command in Alexandria, Virginia; 

National Guard Bureau Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot in 

Gulfport, Mississippi; Tank Automotive Command in Warren, Michigan; 

Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, Maryland; Naval Sea 

Systems Command in Washington, D.C.; Naval Inventory Control Point in 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; U.S. Fleet Forces Command in Norfolk, 

Virginia; Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance 

Facility in Honolulu, Hawaii; U.S. Pacific Fleet Command in Honolulu, 

Hawaii; Air Force Materiel Command in Dayton, Ohio; Ogden Air Logistics 

Center in Ogden, Utah; Marine Corps Logistics Command in Albany, 

Georgia; Marine Corps Logistics Command in Barstow, California; Marine 

Corps Systems Command in Quantico, Virginia; Army, Naval, and Air Force 

Audit Services; several public depots managed by the military departments’ 

materiel commands; and selected operating bases. We conducted our 

review from April 2005 through September 2005 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 30 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

Appendix II

GAO Adjustments for Inaccuracies Found in 

the Military Departments’ 50-50 Data for 

Fiscal Year 2004 ApendxiI

Our review of the data supporting DOD’s 50-50 report identified errors, 

omissions, and inconsistencies that if corrected, would revise the total 

workload funding allocations and increase the private-sector allocations 

for each of the military departments. (See tables 3, 4, and 5.)
Appendix II

GAO Adjustments for Inaccuracies Found in 

the Military Departments’ 50-50 Data for 

Fiscal Year 2004

Page 31 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

Table 3: GAO’s Adjustments to the Army’s Fiscal Year 2004 Reported Depot Maintenance Allocations 

Sources: DOD (data); GAO (analysis). 

Notes: Numbers in parentheses are negative. Percentages subject to rounding.

Dollars in millions

Category Allocation Percentage

Private work reported $2,376.3 45.0%

Private work adjusted 2,425.9 49.2%

Change $49.6 4.2%

Overreported—third party verification analysis at Aviation and Missile 

Command and Communications and Electronics Command

(5.8)

 Underreported—misclassified as public work 7.8

 Underreported—private depot work at National Maintenance Program 

nondepot locations due to reporting planned versus obligated funding

5.7

 Unreported—private depot work at Anniston Army Depot 2.2

 Unreported—private depot work ($3.5 million) and government-furnished 

equipment ($2.7 million) at a National Guard Aviation Classification and 

Repair Depot 

6.2

 Unreported—private depot work for onetime repairs at nondepot aviation 

maintenance location

20.7

 Unreported—private depot work for Stryker vehicle ($6.9 million) and 

FOX vehicle ($5.9 million)

12.8

Public work reported $2,902.1 55.0%

Public work adjusted 2,505.1 50.8%

Change ($397.0) -4.2%

 Overreported—transcription error (399.4)

 Overreported—double-counting (9.6)

 Overreported—misclassified private work (7.8)

 Underreported—reported workload allocation at Aviation and Missile 

Command and Communications and Electronics Command

18.4

 Underreported—National Maintenance Program workload allocation 

reported as amounts planned rather than obligated

0.5

 Unreported—FOX vehicle 0.9

Private work exempt reported 0.0 0.0%

Private work exempt adjusted $0.3 0.0%

Change $0.3 0.0%

 Unreported—two partnerships at Anniston Army Depot that qualified for 

Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence exemption

0.3

Total work reported $5,278.4

Total work adjusted $4,931.3

Change ($347.1)
Appendix II

GAO Adjustments for Inaccuracies Found in 

the Military Departments’ 50-50 Data for 

Fiscal Year 2004

Page 32 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

Table 4: GAO’s Adjustments to the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2004 Reported Depot Maintenance Allocations

Sources: DOD (data); GAO (analysis). 

Notes: Numbers in parentheses are negative. Percentages subject to rounding. The Department of 

Navy consists of the Navy and Marine Corps.

Dollars in millions

Category Allocation Percentage

Private work reported $4,675.3 46.2%

Private work adjusted 4,793.3 48.5%

Change $118.0 2.4%

 Unreported—non-nuclear conventional ship inactivations 14.4

 Unreported—depot maintenance performed while nuclear refueling of 

carriers

80.3

 Underreported—misclassified, private workload allocation incorrectly 

reported as public

23.3

Public work reported $5,085.2 50.2%

Public work adjusted 4,705.6 47.7%

Change ($379.6) -2.6%

 Unreported—United States Marine Corps work performed at other public 

depots

1.3

 Overreported—incorrect reporting of multiyear appropriations (357.6)

 Overreported—misclassified, private workload allocation incorrectly 

reported as public

(23.3)

Private work exempt reported $366.1 3.6%

Private work exempt adjusted 376.0 3.8%

Change $9.9 0.2%

 Underreported—incorrect reporting of multiyear appropriations 9.9

Total work reported $10,126.6

Total work adjusted $9,874.9

Change ($251.7)
Appendix II

GAO Adjustments for Inaccuracies Found in 

the Military Departments’ 50-50 Data for 

Fiscal Year 2004

Page 33 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

Table 5: GAO’s Adjustments to the Air Force’s Fiscal Year 2004 Reported Depot Maintenance Allocations

Sources: DOD (data); GAO (analysis). 

Notes: Numbers in parentheses are negative. Percentages subject to rounding.

Dollars in millions

Category Allocation Percentage

Private work reported $4,417.2 45.3%

Private work adjusted 4,416.9 45.3%

Change ($0.3) 0.0%

 Underreported 2.0

 Overreported (2.3)

Public work reported $5,329.2 54.6%

Public work adjusted 5,329.2 54.6%

Change $0.0 0.0%

Private work exempt reported $13.3 0.1%

Private work exempt adjusted 13.3 0.1%

Change $0.0 0.0%

Total work reported $9,759.7

Total work adjusted $9,759.4

Change ($0.3)
Page 34 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

Appendix III

Comments from the Department of Defense ApendxiI
Appendix III

Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 35 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance
Appendix III

Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 36 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance
Page 37 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

Appendix IV

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiIV

GAO Contact William M. Solis (202) 512-8365

Acknowledgments Key contributors to this report include Thomas Gosling, Assistant Director; 

Claudia Dickey; Frank Smith; Andy Marek; Janine Prybyla; Oscar Mardis; 

Jennifer Jebo; Bathsheba Everett; Michael Zola; Renee McElveen; and 

Renee Brown.
Page 38 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

Related GAO Products

Depot Maintenance: DOD Needs Plan to Ensure Compliance with Publicand Private-Sector Funding Allocation. GAO-04-871. Washington, D.C.: 

September 29, 2004.

Depot Maintenance: Army Needs Plan to Implement Depot Maintenance 

Report’s Recommendations. GAO-04-220. Washington, D.C.: January 8, 

2004.

Depot Maintenance: DOD’s 50-50 Reporting Should Be Streamlined. GAO03-1023. Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2003.

Depot Maintenance: Key Unresolved Issues Affect the Army Depot 

System's Viability. GAO-03-682. Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2003.

Department of Defense: Status of Financial Management Weaknesses and 

Progress Toward Reform. GAO-03-931T. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2003.

Depot Maintenance: Change in Reporting Practices and Requirements 

Could Enhance Congressional Oversight. GAO-03-16. Washington D.C.: 

October 18, 2002.

Depot Maintenance: Management Attention Needed to Further Improve 

Workload Allocation Data. GAO-02-95. Washington, D.C.: November 9, 

2001.

Defense Logistics: Actions Needed to Overcome Capability Gaps in the 

Public Depot System. GAO-02-105. Washington, D.C.: October 12, 2001.

Defense Maintenance: Sustaining Readiness Support Capabilities 

Requires a Comprehensive Plan. GAO-01-533T. Washington, D.C.: 

March 23, 2001.

Depot Maintenance: Key Financial Issues for Consolidations at Pearl 

Harbor and Elsewhere Are Still Unresolved. GAO-01-19. Washington, D.C.: 

January 22, 2001.

Depot Maintenance: Action Needed to Avoid Exceeding Threshold on 

Contract Workloads. GAO/NSIAD-00-193. Washington, D.C.: August 24, 

2000.

Depot Maintenance: Air Force Waiver to 10 U.S.C. 2466. GAO/NSIAD-00-

152R. Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2000.
Related GAO Products

Page 39 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

Depot Maintenance: Air Force Faces Challenges in Managing to 50-50 

Threshold. GAO/T-NSIAD-00-112. Washington, D.C.: March 3, 2000.

Depot Maintenance: Future Year Estimates of Public and Private 

Workloads Are Likely to Change. GAO/NSIAD-00-69. Washington, D.C.: 

March 1, 2000.

Depot Maintenance: Army Report Provides Incomplete Assessment of 

Depot-Type Capabilities. GAO/NSIAD-00-20. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 

1999.

Depot Maintenance: Status of the Navy's Pearl Harbor Project. 

GAO/NSIAD-99-199. Washington, D.C.: September 10, 1999.

Depot Maintenance: Workload Allocation Reporting Improved, but 

Lingering Problems Remain. GAO/NSIAD-99-154. Washington, D.C.:

July 13, 1999.

Navy Ship Maintenance: Allocation of Ship Maintenance Work in the 

Norfolk, Virginia, Area. GAO/NSIAD-99-54. Washington, D.C.: February 24, 

1999.

Defense Depot Maintenance: Public and Private Sector Workload 

Distribution Reporting Can Be Further Improved. GAO/NSIAD-98-175. 

Washington, D.C.: July 23, 1998.

Defense Depot Maintenance: DOD Shifting More Workload for New 

Weapon Systems to the Private Sector. GAO/NSIAD-98-8. Washington, D.C.: 

March 31, 1998.

Defense Depot Maintenance: Information on Public and Private Sector 

Workload Allocations. GAO/NSIAD-98-41. Washington, D.C.: January 20, 

1998.

Defense Depot Maintenance: Uncertainties and Challenges DOD Faces in 

Restructuring Its Depot Maintenance Program. GAO/T-NSIAD-97-112. 

Washington, D.C.: May 1, 1997. Also GAO/T-NSIAD-97-111. Washington, 

D.C.: March 18, 1997.

Defense Depot Maintenance: More Comprehensive and Consistent 

Workload Data Needed for Decisionmakers. GAO/NSIAD-96-166. 

Washington, D.C.: May 21, 1996.
Related GAO Products

Page 40 GAO-06-88 Depot Maintenance

Defense Depot Maintenance: DOD’s Policy Report Leaves Future Role of 

Depot System Uncertain. GAO/NSIAD-96-165. Washington, D.C.: May 21, 

1996.

Defense Depot Maintenance: Privatization and the Debate over the 

Public-Private Mix. GAO/T-NSIAD-96-148. Washington, D.C.: April 17, 

1996. Also GAO/T-NSIAD-96-146. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 1996.

Depot Maintenance: Issues in Allocating Workload Between the Public 

and Private Sectors. GAO/T-NSIAD-94-161. Washington, D.C.: April 12, 

1994.

(350727)
GAO’s Mission 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.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

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

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, D.C. 20548