WEAPON SYSTEMS 

MANAGEMENT

DOD Has Taken 

Steps to Implement 

Product Support 

Managers but Needs 

to Evaluate Their 

Effects

Report to the Committee on Armed 

Services, House of Representatives

April 2014

GAO-14-326

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-326, a report to the 

Committee on Armed Services, House of 

Representatives

April 2014

WEAPON SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT

DOD Has Taken Steps to Implement Product Support 

Managers but Needs to Evaluate Their Effects

Why GAO Did This Study

DOD spends billions of dollars annually 

to sustain weapon systems. With the 

prospect of tighter defense budgets, 

DOD has placed more attention on 

controlling total life-cycle costs with 

initiatives aimed at ensuring that 

weapon systems are more affordable 

over the long term. Section 2337 of 

Title 10, U.S. Code, requires that each 

major weapon system be supported by 

a PSM and lays out the responsibilities 

of the PSM, including developing and 

implementing a comprehensive 

product support strategy for the 

system. GAO was asked to review 

DOD’s progress in implementing PSMs 

for major weapon systems. 

This report examines (1) the steps, if 

any, that DOD and the military services 

have taken to implement PSMs for 

major weapon systems and (2) the 

extent to which DOD has evaluated the 

effects, if any, that PSMs are having on 

life-cycle sustainment decisions for 

their assigned systems. To conduct 

this review, GAO obtained information 

and interviewed product support 

personnel assigned to 12 of 332 major 

weapon systems that reflected varying 

characteristics—such as military 

service and system costs—and 

analyzed documentation from DOD 

and the military services.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD and the 

services develop a plan to 

institutionalize a career path for PSMs; 

issue clear, comprehensive, and 

centralized PSM implementation 

guidance; evaluate the effects PSMs 

have on sustainment decisions; and 

improve Army PSMs’ visibility over 

sustainment funding. DOD generally 

agreed with the recommendations.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) and the military services have taken steps to 

implement Product Support Managers (PSM) for major weapon systems, but 

certain aspects of the implementation process remain incomplete. The services 

have assigned PSMs to almost all of their major weapon systems. For example, 

as of February 2014, 325 of 332 PSM position requirements across DOD for 

major weapon systems—approximately 98 percent—were filled. While DOD and 

all of the services have taken some steps to develop a comprehensive career 

path and associated guidance to develop, train, and support future PSMs, DOD, 

in coordination with the military services, has not developed a plan—to include 

objectives, milestones, and resources—to implement and institutionalize a 

comprehensive PSM career path. Until DOD develops such a plan, it may not be 

able to ensure that the services can fill PSM positions with qualified personnel in 

the future. Moreover, DOD’s PSM implementation guidance is not centralized 

and future product support personnel may be hindered in their ability to easily 

access and implement such guidance. Also, because the latest DOD guidance 

lacks detail and contains a potentially unclear provision, personnel may confuse 

the responsibilities of Program Managers and PSMs. Without clear, 

comprehensive, and centralized implementation guidance, DOD may be 

hindered in its ability to institutionalize the implementation of PSMs for its major 

weapon systems going forward. Additionally, the Army has been working for a

year to clarify the roles and responsibilities of certain product support personnel, 

who support PSMs, for the sustainment portion of the life cycle for major weapon 

systems. According to officials from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, major weapon systems program 

offices have raised the issue of the lack of clear roles and responsibilities of 

these personnel, which has prompted senior-level Army meetings to attempt to 

resolve the issue. However, the Army has not yet finalized guidance that clarifies 

roles and responsibilities, which may hinder PSMs in their ability to effectively 

manage and conduct their daily product support responsibilities.

DOD does not fully know how or to what extent PSMs are affecting life-cycle 

sustainment decisions because it has not systematically collected and evaluated 

information on the effects PSMs are having on their assigned weapon systems. 

Program evaluation guidance states that evaluations can play a key role in 

program planning, management, and oversight by providing feedback to 

managers on programs. Evaluations can show whether PSMs are conducting 

good practices that could be shared across the department as well as whether 

changes are needed to guidance or other areas to enhance the contributions of 

PSMs. In the absence of DOD information on the effects PSMs are having on 

life-cycle sustainment decisions, weapon system program offices identified 

several good practices and challenges associated with PSMs. For example, 

several PSMs told us that they had initiated analyses focused on reducing lifecycle sustainment costs for their assigned weapon systems. One challenge that 

Army headquarters officials noted was that PSMs do not have knowledge of how 

much sustainment funding their systems will receive prior to the year of execution

of funds. Without greater visibility over the allocation of sustainment funding for 

their assigned weapon systems, these PSMs may be hindered in their ability to 

proactively manage and influence their system’s life-cycle sustainment decisions.

View GAO-14-326. For more information, 

contact Cary Russell at (202) 512-5431 or 

russellc@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

Letter 1 

Background 5

DOD and the Services Have Taken Steps to Implement PSMs for 

Major Weapon Systems, but Certain Aspects of the 

Implementation Process Remain Incomplete 11

DOD Has Not Systematically Collected or Evaluated Information 

on the Effects PSMs Are Having on Life-Cycle Sustainment 

Decisions 23

Conclusions 29

Recommendations for Executive Action 30

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 32

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 35

Appendix II Defense Acquisition System Framework 39

Appendix III Descriptions of Selected Department of Defense (DOD) Major 

Weapon Systems 42

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Defense 46

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 49

Related GAO Products 50

Table

Table 1: Number and Characteristics of Product Support 

Managers (PSM) Assigned to Major Weapon Systems by 

Service as of February 2014 13

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

Figures

Figure 1: Product Support Organizational Structure 8

Figure 2: Overview of Relationship between Assistant Secretary of 

the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology 

(ASA[ALT]) and Army Materiel Command (AMC) for 

Product Support Activities 21

Figure 3: Overview of the Defense Acquisition System Framework 39

Abbreviations

ACAT Acquisition Category

AMC Army Materiel Command

ASA(ALT) Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

 Acquisition, Logistics and Technology 

DOD Department of Defense

O&S operating and support

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PSM Product Support Manager

USD(AT&L) Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology 

 and Logistics 

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.
Page 1 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

April 29, 2014

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Department of Defense (DOD) spends billions of dollars each year to 

sustain its weapon systems. We have previously noted that the 

acquisition of a weapon system today involves a significant financial 

commitment to that system over its entire life cycle, a period that may last 

several decades—from the system’s development to the time it is 

removed from DOD’s inventory.1

 

1

GAO, Defense Logistics: Improvements Needed to Enhance Oversight of Estimated 

Long-Term Costs for Operating and Supporting Major Weapon Systems, 

With the nation facing fiscal challenges 

and the potential for tighter defense budgets, DOD has placed more 

attention on controlling dollars spent on the total life-cycle costs of 

weapon systems by instituting various initiatives aimed at ensuring that 

systems are more affordable over the long term. Congress has passed 

legislation that may have similar effects. For example, the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 required that Product 

Support Managers (PSM) be assigned to all major weapon systems and 

outlined the roles and responsibilities that PSMs must perform, including 

developing and implementing a comprehensive product support strategy 

GAO-12-340 

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2, 2012).
 

Page 2 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

for the system.2 PSMs are to report to Program Managers, who are 

responsible for the management of a program over its life cycle. A 

provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

subsequently codified the roles and responsibilities of the PSM at section 

2337 of Title 10, U.S. Code, which was later amended by the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.3

1. develop and implement a comprehensive product support strategy for 

the weapon system;

As amended, these 

responsibilities are to

2. use appropriate predictive analysis and modeling tools that can 

improve material availability and reliability, increase operational 

availability rates, and reduce operation and sustainment costs;

3. conduct appropriate cost analyses to validate the product support 

strategy, including cost-benefit analyses as outlined in Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A-94;

4. ensure achievement of desired product support outcomes through 

development and implementation of appropriate product support 

arrangements;

 

2

See Pub. L. No. 111-84, § 805 (2009).The statute mandated that the Secretary of 

Defense require that each major weapon system be supported by a PSM; DOD interprets 

this provision as requiring that a PSM be appointed for each Acquisition Category (ACAT) 

I and ACAT II system. ACAT I programs are Major Defense Acquisition Programs. A Major 

Defense Acquisition Program is a program that is not a highly sensitive classified program 

and that is designated by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 

Logistics (USD[AT&L]) as a Major Defense Acquisition Program or that is estimated to 

require eventual total expenditure for research, development, test, and evaluation of more 

than $480 million (fiscal year 2014 constant dollars) or for procurement of more than $2.79 

billion (fiscal year 2014 constant dollars). ACAT II programs are defined as those 

acquisition programs that do not meet the criteria for an ACAT I program but do meet the 

criteria for a major system. A major system is defined as a program estimated by the DOD 

component head to require eventual total expenditure for research, development, test, and 

evaluation of more than $185 million in fiscal year 2014 constant dollars or for 

procurement of more than $835 million in fiscal year 2014 constant dollars—or those 

designated by the DOD component head to be ACAT II.

3

See Pub. L. No. 112-239, § 823(a)(1) (2013) (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2337). Section 823 

also repealed section 805 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

as superseded. See § 823(b). The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2014 amended section 2337 by adding an additional responsibility for PSMs. See Pub. L. 

No. 113-66, § 823 (2013). 
 

Page 3 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

5. adjust performance requirements and resource allocations across 

Product Support Integrators and Product Support Providers as 

necessary to optimize implementation of the product support strategy;

6. periodically review product support arrangements between the 

Product Support Integrators and Product Support Providers to ensure 

the arrangements are consistent with the overall product support 

strategy;

7. prior to each change in the product support strategy or every 5 years, 

whichever occurs first, revalidate any business-case analysis 

performed in support of the product support strategy;

8. ensure that the product support strategy maximizes small-business 

participation at the appropriate tiers; and

9. ensure that product support arrangements for the weapon system 

describe how such arrangements will ensure efficient procurement, 

management, and allocation of government-owned parts inventories 

in order to prevent unnecessary procurements of such parts.

PSMs are assigned to each major weapon system to help DOD ensure 

that it has effective product support strategies and processes to support 

the goals of maintaining its weapon systems readiness and controlling 

costs throughout the life cycle of a system.

Although this is our first report focused on PSMs, we have conducted 

prior work on operating and support (O&S) issues, including costs4

related to weapon systems, and made recommendations to improve 

management of these issues. For example, we noted that DOD lacks key 

information needed to effectively manage and reduce O&S costs for most 

of the weapon systems GAO reviewed—including life-cycle O&S cost 

estimates and complete historical data on actual O&S costs. Moreover, 

we also reported that DOD needed to enhance oversight of estimated 

long-term costs for operating and supporting major weapon systems.5

 

4

DOD describes O&S costs as all direct and indirect costs of goods and services incurred 

from initial deployment and fielding of an acquisition item or program through the end of 

the acquisition item’s or program’s operational and support activities. These operational 

and support activities are not bound to a life-cycle phase or appropriation category. O&S 

costs include, among other things, costs for repair parts, maintenance, and personnel. 

5

GAO, Defense Logistics: Improvements Needed to Enhance Oversight of Estimated 

Long-Term Costs for Operating and Supporting Major Weapon Systems, GAO-12-340 

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2, 2012). 
 

Page 4 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

The Related GAO Products section at the end of this report lists our prior 

work.

For this report, you asked us to examine DOD’s progress in establishing 

and institutionalizing PSMs for major weapon systems. Specifically, our 

objectives were to determine (1) what steps, if any, DOD and the military 

services have taken to implement PSMs for major weapon systems and 

(2) the extent to which DOD has evaluated the effects, if any, that PSMs 

are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions for the systems to which 

they are assigned. To satisfy these objectives, we interviewed Office of 

the Secretary of Defense (OSD), military department headquarters, and 

military service command officials. We also obtained pertinent 

documents, including DOD directives and instructions, military 

department regulations and instructions, memorandums, other guidance, 

and lists of assigned PSMs. Additionally, we collected and analyzed DOD 

and service data on PSMs assigned to 12 of 332 major weapon systems, 

and selected and interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of PSMs, 

program management, and other product support personnel. In identifying 

this nonprobability sample, we selected major weapon systems that 

reflected varied characteristics, such as military service, Acquisition 

Category (ACAT) level, acquisition phase, type of system (e.g., aviation, 

ground, naval), and total estimated system cost. From these interviews, 

we obtained more-in-depth information to identify good practices that 

some PSMs have found helpful in enabling them to make or affect lifecycle sustainment decisions for major weapon systems, as well as any 

challenges that may have prevented PSMs from making or influencing 

such decisions. To obtain information on the overall size and cost of

DOD’s ACAT I systems, we also analyzed data from DOD’s Selected 

Acquisition Reports and other information in the Defense Acquisition 

Management Information Retrieval Purview system.6

 

6

The Defense Acquisition Management Information Retrieval Purview system is an 

executive information system operated by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics / Acquisition Resources and Analysis. 

We obtained similar 

data for ACAT II systems, where available, that the services maintained 

on their respective systems. We assessed the reliability of the PSMrelated data we obtained from DOD and the services, along with the 

information we obtained from the Defense Acquisition Management 

Information Retrieval Purview system, through questionnaires and 

interviews with knowledgeable officials and determined that these data 

were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of assessing the implementation 
 

Page 5 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

of PSMs for major weapon systems and discussing the findings in this 

report. A more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology is 

included in appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2013 through April 2014 

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.

Product support refers to the support functions required to field and 

maintain the readiness and operational capability of major weapon 

systems, subsystems, and components, including all functions related to 

a weapon system’s readiness. O&S costs historically account for 

approximately 70 percent of a weapon system’s total life-cycle cost and 

include costs for repair parts, maintenance, contract services, engineering 

support, and personnel, among other things.7

 

7

According to DOD officials, O&S costs generally range from 60 to 80 percent of a 

weapon system’s total costs, depending on the weapon system type. DOD previously 

estimated that weapon-system product support costs in fiscal year 2008 were at least 

$132 billion. According to DOD, product support includes materiel management, 

distribution, technical-data management, maintenance, training, cataloging, configuration 

management, engineering support, repair-parts management, failure reporting and 

analysis, reliability-growth tracking, and the logistics elements (e.g., support equipment, 

spares) related to weapon systems readiness. Under this definition, product support does 

not include all the costs categorized as O&S costs. 

Weapon systems are costly 

to sustain in part because they often incorporate a technologically 

complex array of subsystems and components and need expensive spare 

parts and logistics support to meet required readiness levels. In addition, 

military operations in such locations as Afghanistan have increased the 

wear and tear on many weapon systems and escalated their O&S costs 

well beyond peacetime levels. Many of the key decisions affecting a 

weapon system’s O&S costs are made while the system is still in the 

acquisition process. For example, acquisition-based decisions about the 

design, materials, and technology for a system affect the logistics support 

Background

DOD Product Support
 

Page 6 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

that is eventually needed to keep that system available and ready after it 

is fielded. Controlling O&S costs is critical to ensure future affordability of 

defense budgets. In short, the acquisition of a weapon system today 

involves a significant financial commitment to that system over its entire 

life cycle, a period that may last several decades from the system’s 

development to the time it is removed from DOD’s inventory. For 

example, DOD estimated in 2012 that life-cycle O&S costs for the F-35 

Joint Strike Fighter—being acquired for the Air Force, Navy, and 

Marines—would be about $1.1 trillion, in addition to an estimated $391.1 

billion in total acquisition costs.8

Recognizing the importance of operations and sustainment costs, DOD 

has been engaged in a number of efforts to improve product support 

management. Recent acquisition reforms, such as those in response to 

the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, the recent issuance 

of Interim DOD Instruction 5000.02, and the Department’s “Better Buying 

Power” initiative9 may encourage greater efficiency and cost savings in 

acquisition-based and product support–related decisions and activities for 

major defense acquisition programs. In December 2012, we reported on 

DOD’s implementation of the act and noted that DOD had taken steps to 

implement fundamental provisions of the act and was taking additional 

steps to further strengthen its acquisition policies and acquisition 

capabilities. We also reported, however, that DOD still faced 

organizational, guidance, and cultural challenges to implementing 

acquisition reform.10 Appendix II contains a more-detailed discussion on 

the defense acquisition system framework.

 

8

These costs are expressed in then-year dollars. 

9

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, “Better Buying 

Power: Mandate for Restoring Affordability and Productivity in Defense Spending,” 

memorandum (June 28, 2010); “Better Buying Power: Guidance for Obtaining Greater 

Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending,” memorandum (Sept. 14, 2010); 

“Implementation Directive for Better Buying Power—Obtaining Greater Efficiency and 

Productivity in Defense Spending,” memorandum (Nov. 3, 2010); “Better Buying Power 

2.0: Continuing the Pursuit for Greater Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending,” 

memorandum (Nov. 13, 2012).

10GAO, Weapons Acquisition Reform: Reform Act Is Helping DOD Acquisition Programs 

Reduce Risk, but Implementation Challenges Remain, GAO-13-103 (Washington, D.C.: 

Dec. 14, 2012). 
 

Page 7 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

Consistent with section 2337 and DOD guidance, PSMs are assigned to 

major weapon systems to provide oversight and management and to 

serve as advisors to Program Managers on matters related to product 

support, such as weapon system sustainment. According to DOD’s PSM 

Guidebook,11 DOD must continue to improve product support, with a 

specific focus on increasing readiness and enabling better cost control. 

DOD guidance describes a PSM as the individual who provides weapon 

systems product support subject-matter expertise to the Program 

Manager for the execution of his or her total life-cycle management 

responsibilities.12

 

11Department of Defense, Product Support Manager Guidebook (April 2011). 

As described by the PSM guidebook, a Program 

Manager is assigned life-cycle management responsibility and is 

accountable for the implementation, management, and oversight of all 

activities associated with the development, production, sustainment, and 

disposal of a weapon system across its life cycle. The Program 

Manager’s responsibilities for oversight and management of the product 

support function are typically delegated to a PSM, who leads the 

development, implementation, and top-level integration and management 

of all sources of support to meet warfighter sustainment and readiness 

requirements. This organization is displayed in figure 1.

12See Department of Defense, Defense Acquisition Guidebook, para. 5.1.3.2. DOD’s 

Directive-Type Memorandum 10-015, cancelled by the issuance of Interim DOD 

Instruction 5000.02 on November 26, 2013, noted that the following positions are 

considered synonymous with PSMs: Director of Logistics, Assistant Program Manager for 

Logistics, Deputy Program Manager for Logistics, Program Lead Logistician, and System 

Support Manager. See Department of Defense, Requirements for Life Cycle Management 

and Product Support, Directive-Type Memorandum 10-015, attachment 5, para. 1.d (Oct. 

7, 2010) (version incorporating change Jan. 16, 2013). 

Role of the PSM within the 

Product Support 

Organizational Structure
 

Page 8 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

Figure 1: Product Support Organizational Structure

The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 

Logistics (USD[AT&L]) serves as the Defense Acquisition Executive and 

is the individual responsible for supervising the defense acquisition 

system. The USD(AT&L) has policy and procedural authority for the 

defense acquisition system, is the principal acquisition official of the 

department, and is the acquisition advisor to the Secretary of Defense. 

For acquisition matters, the USD(AT&L) generally takes precedence in 

DOD, including over the secretaries of the military departments, after the 

Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense. The 

USD(AT&L)’s authority includes directing the services and defense 

agencies on acquisition matters and making milestone decisions for major 

defense acquisition programs.13

 

13The USD(AT&L) may delegate authority to act as the Milestone Decision Authority to the 

head of a DOD component, who may further delegate authority to the Component 

Acquisition Executive. 

Under the USD(AT&L), and subject to 

the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of the relevant 

military department, each of the military services has officials designated 

as Component or Service Acquisition Executives who are responsible for 

acquisition functions within their services. A Program Executive Officer—

DOD Responsibilities for 

Life-Cycle Management
 

Page 9 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

a military or civilian official who has responsibility for directing assigned 

programs—reports to and receives guidance and direction from the 

Service Acquisition Executive.14

Under the PSM, there may be a need for Product Support Integrators, 

who are assigned within the scope, direction, and oversight of the PSM, 

and who may be either a government or commercial entity. Product 

Support Integrators are tasked with integrating sources of support, and 

may use Product Support Providers to accomplish this role. Product 

Support Providers are tasked with providing specific product support 

functions.

The Program Executive Officer 

supervises a Program Manager, who is the individual responsible for 

accomplishing a program’s objectives for development, production, and 

sustainment to meet the user’s operational needs. The PSM reports to 

the Program Manager.

15

While their structures vary, each of the military services has organizations 

responsible for providing life-cycle support for weapon systems.

Thus, generally, a product support arrangement is 

established wherein the PSM (acting on behalf of the Program Manager) 

may effectively delegate some levels of responsibility for product support 

implementation and oversight to Product Support Integrators. The 

Product Support Integrators, in turn, ensure that the performance 

requirements to meet their arrangements are accomplished by the 

Product Support Providers, who perform product support activities on 

major weapon systems. However, as noted by the PSM guidebook, in all 

cases the PSM is accountable to the Program Manager for the support 

outcome.

• Army. Within the Army, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASA[ALT]) oversees 

the research, development, testing, and evaluation of the acquisition 

of materiel systems. Among other responsibilities, ASA(ALT) 

establishes policy, oversees the development and execution of 

program management, and oversees the acquisition and life-cycle 

 

14In some instances, a Program Manager may report directly to the Service Acquisition 

Executive. 

15The PSM guidebook includes depots and original equipment manufacturers among the 

most likely candidates for both the Product Support Integrator and Product Support 

Provider roles. 
 

Page 10 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

logistics management function.16

• Navy and Marine Corps. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 

Research, Development, and Acquisition serves as the Component 

Acquisition Executive and is responsible for all research, 

development, and acquisition within the Department of the Navy. In 

order to address a diverse set of needs, the Department of the Navy

comprises components known as Systems Commands. These include 

Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Air Systems Command, and 

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, among others. Marine 

Corps Systems Command serves as the Department of the Navy 

enterprise acquisition and life-cycle systems manager for the Marine 

Corps. Marine Corps Systems Command provides competency 

resources to the program executive officer, including financial 

management, engineering, contracting, logistics, and program 

management. These Systems Commands oversee various acquisition 

programs, such as for ships and aircraft, and these programs are 

responsible for the management of their respective systems’ life-cycle 

support.

The Army’s principal materiel 

command, the Army Materiel Command (AMC), works closely with 

program executive offices, the Army acquisition executive, industry, 

academia, and other related agencies to develop, acquire, and 

sustain materiel for the Army. AMC’s maintenance depots and 

arsenals overhaul, modernize, and upgrade major weapon systems.

• Air Force. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 

Acquisition is responsible for the integrated life-cycle management of 

systems from the time the system enters into the defense acquisition 

management system until system retirement and disposal.17 Individual 

program executive officers beneath this office are then responsible for 

the total life-cycle management of an assigned portfolio of programs. 

Air Force Materiel Command and Air Force Space Command support 

these efforts by providing technical assistance, infrastructure, 

manpower, test capabilities, laboratory support, professional 

education, training and development, and management tools.

 

16See Department of the Army, Logistics: Integrated Logistics Support, Regulation 700-

127 (July 17, 2008) (rapid action revision Mar. 26. 2012).

17See, e.g., Air Force Instruction 63-101/20-101, Integrated Life Cycle Management (Mar. 

7, 2013). 
 

Page 11 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

DOD and the services have taken steps to implement PSMs for major 

weapon systems and have described them as a valuable resource in 

managing product support, but certain aspects of the implementation 

process remain incomplete.

DOD has assigned PSMs to almost all of its major weapon systems and 

has developed PSM training courses, but DOD, in coordination with the 

military services, has not developed a plan—to include objectives, 

milestones, and resources—to implement and institutionalize a 

comprehensive PSM career path.

The services have identified and assigned PSMs to almost all of their 

major weapon systems. As of the most-current data available from the 

military services, 325 of 332 PSM position requirements across DOD for 

major weapon systems—approximately 98 percent—were filled.18 In 

addition, DOD has designated the PSM position as a key leadership 

position19

 

18According to Army and Navy officials, PSM requirements have vacancies arise when 

new requirements open and when former PSMs retire or move on to assume a new 

position. Officials used the term requirement to refer to a weapon system to which a PSM 

would need to be assigned. 

for ACAT I level systems. In accordance with statute and DOD 

policy, the PSM position for major defense acquisition programs is to be 

filled by a properly qualified military servicemember or full-time DOD 

19Key leadership positions are positions that require a significant level of authority 

commensurate with the responsibility and accountability for acquisition program success. 

DOD and the 

Services Have Taken 

Steps to Implement 

PSMs for Major 

Weapon Systems, but 

Certain Aspects of the 

Implementation 

Process Remain 

Incomplete

Almost All Systems Have 

PSMs Assigned, but DOD 

and the Services Do Not 

Have a Plan to 

Institutionalize a 

Comprehensive Career 

Path for PSMs

Assigning PSMs
 

Page 12 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

employee.20 Most of the PSMs are senior-level civilian personnel; the 

remaining positions are filled by military personnel. However, according to 

Navy and Air Force officials, in a few instances, the services have had to 

issue waivers to individuals to allow them to take PSM positions, because 

they did not have the necessary education, experience, or training to fill 

the position.21

OSD, military department headquarters, and PSM officials told us that 

PSMs are carrying out the duties identified in law. Moreover, PSMs we 

spoke with told us that they are performing many of the same duties that 

they performed in their previous positions as senior logisticians or in 

related fields. In addition to those duties, however, DOD officials told us 

that one of the changes to these officials’ prior responsibilities is the idea 

that support concepts should be evaluated periodically over a system’s 

life cycle; to this end, section 2337 requires that PSMs develop and 

implement a comprehensive product support strategy, and revalidate any 

business-case analysis performed in support of the strategy prior to each 

change or every 5 years.22 This requirement is met in part via the 

development of a document called a life-cycle sustainment plan. To help 

improve life-cycle product support, the Office of the USD(AT&L) has 

issued guidance that discusses how to develop a life-cycle sustainment 

plan and works with program offices to review these plans. Table 1 shows 

the number and characteristics of PSMs assigned to major weapon 

systems by service.

 

20See 10 U.S.C. § 1706(a)(7); Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and 

Logistics), Key Leadership Positions and Qualification Criteria, memorandum (Nov. 8, 

2013); and Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Logistics and Materiel 

Readiness), Product Support Manager Yearly Reporting Requirement (July 11, 2013). 

21See table 1 for the number of PSMs functioning under a waiver.

22See 10 U.S.C. § 2337(b)(2)(A), (G). 
 

Page 13 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

Table 1: Number and Characteristics of Product Support Managers (PSM) Assigned to Major Weapon Systems by Service as 

of February 2014

Military 

service

Number of PSM 

requirements

Number of PSM 

requirements filled a Number of PSM requirements vacant

PSMs’ 

grade/rank

Number of PSMs 

functioning 

under a waiver

Army 95 92 3 NH-IVb (equivalent to 7

GS-14 and GS-15)

Navy and 

Marine Corps

c

76 73 3 NH-IVb (equivalent to 2

GS-14 and GS-15)

Air Force

d

161 160 1 GS-12, GS-13, GS-14, 

GS-15, and Lieutenant 

Colonel

29

Total

e

332 325 7 Not applicable 38

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) data.

a

According to military service officials, some PSMs are assigned to multiple weapon systems, thus 

fulfilling multiple PSM requirements. As previously mentioned, officials used the term requirement to 

refer to a weapon system to which a PSM would need to be assigned.

b

NH is a designation within DOD’s pay classification system that refers to a business and technical 

management professional.

c

According to an Army official and Army data, these waivers were issued due to the PSMs lacking the 

highest level of life-cycle logistics certification.

d

According to a Navy official and Navy data, both of these waivers were issued due to the PSMs 

lacking the highest level of life-cycle logistics certification.

e

OSD and the Defense Acquisition University have developed courses for 

PSMs on life-cycle product support and logistics management; however, 

DOD, in coordination with the military services, has not developed a 

plan—to include objectives, milestones, and resources—to implement a 

comprehensive PSM career path. For example, in 2011 DOD began 

offering a new course on life-cycle product support, among other courses, 

and the Defense Acquisition University is currently developing a new 

executive-level PSM course, which is expected to focus on PSMs’ 

lessons learned and on enhancing PSMs’ success in fielding and 

sustaining systems. Further, recognizing the importance of placing 

qualified individuals in PSM positions, in November 2013 the Office of the 

USD(AT&L) noted that it would establish a new set of qualification 

boards, whose task will be to prescreen personnel to qualify a pool of 

candidates to fill key leadership positions, including PSM positions.

According to Air Force data, these waivers were issued due to the PSMs lacking the highest level of 

life-cycle logistics certification, or the required grade, among other reasons.

23

 

23See Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), Key 

Leadership Positions and Qualification Criteria, memorandum (Nov. 8, 2013).

Training, Career Paths, and 

Succession Planning
 

Page 14 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

These boards are expected to identify individuals who are prepared to fill 

key leadership positions based on their training, education, and 

experience. This process will allow DOD and service leadership to create 

a pool of qualified personnel who are ready to fill these positions and 

assist in workforce talent management and succession planning. In 

addition, the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Materiel Readiness has also developed a PSM notional career path. 

Moreover, at the service level, the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air 

Force have each taken some steps to create notional career paths for 

PSMs, as well as issuing guidance identifying training, experience, and 

other requirements.

• Army. The Army’s 2012 Product Support Manager Concept of 

Operations, calls for a defined career path for PSMs that targets 

progressive leadership growth, with focused education and 

experience requirements to shape and develop PSMs into future 

senior leaders and executives.24

• Navy and Marine Corps. The Navy has also provided a draft 

“notional development career ladder” for life-cycle logistics to each of 

its various Systems Commands as a starting point for developing a 

PSM career path. Officials from one of the Navy’s Systems 

Commands told us that they are concerned about the future of, and 

succession planning for, PSM positions and that, to address this 

concern, the command is implementing the draft career ladder and 

using it to develop a draft talent-management document. According to 

a senior official within the Department of the Navy, the Systems 

Commands need to implement a fundamental career structure for 

PSMs, with specific learning objectives laid out. Additionally, 

It also outlines a “notional career 

roadmap” for the newly created PSM position. However, the Army 

notes in its Product Support Manager Concept of Operations that this 

roadmap is still in its infancy and states that there is currently no 

defined comprehensive career path in place to develop, train, and 

support future PSMs. Furthermore, an Army official told us that, as of 

March 2014, the Army does not have a plan with actions, milestones, 

objectives, or resources dedicated to implementing a PSM career 

path. Yet, according to this official, the Army is actively working to 

address long-term PSM development and management planning 

issues by meeting to discuss these items.

 

24U.S. Army, U.S. Army Product Support Manager Concept of Operations (Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 30, 2012).
 

Page 15 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

according to Department of the Navy officials, while the Systems 

Commands have indicated that efforts are ongoing, a completion date 

for these efforts has not been determined. Moreover, according to 

these officials, the Department of the Navy does not currently have a 

plan with actions, milestones, objectives, or resources dedicated to 

implementing a PSM career path.

• Air Force. The Air Force noted in October 2013, as part of a review of 

its life-cycle logisticians, that there was no clear “career progression 

path” or competency model to develop life-cycle logisticians. 

Recognizing these challenges, the Air Force embarked on a 2–3 year 

effort aimed at developing life-cycle logistics professionals. As one of 

the initial short-term activities within this effort, the Air Force issued in 

October of 2013 an Air Force Life Cycle Logistics (LCL) Workforce 

Guidebook, which includes a “notional career roadmap” for life-cycle 

logistics professionals.25

Thus, DOD and all of the military services, in coordination with the 

Defense Acquisition University, have taken some initial steps in 

establishing a defined career path and the associated guidance or plans 

to develop, train, and support future PSMs. However, DOD, in 

coordination with the military services, has not developed a plan—to 

include objectives, milestones, and resources—to implement and 

institutionalize a comprehensive PSM career path. As noted above, each 

of the services has identified additional steps that remain to be taken to 

implement and institutionalize a comprehensive career path to develop, 

train, and support its future PSMs. Standard practices for project 

management call for agencies to conceptualize, define, and document 

specific goals and objectives in the planning process, along with the 

The Air Force also recently engaged in an 

effort to recode positions to increase the number of personnel 

available to fill life-cycle logistics positions. According to Air Force 

officials, however, there are not always enough personnel within the 

life-cycle logistics workforce to meet the Air Force’s needs. Further, 

while the Air Force has taken steps to address some of the initial 

challenges it identified and has developed an implementation plan 

with associated objectives, milestones, and resources, it has stated 

that it needs to do additional work to develop a clear understanding of 

the life-cycle logistics skills a PSM would require across a program’s 

life cycle and to design a new training curriculum to include logistics, 

engineering, finance, contracting, and acquisition.

 

25U.S. Air Force, Air Force Life Cycle Logistics (LCL) Workforce Guidebook (Oct. 23, 

2013).
 

Page 16 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

appropriate steps, milestones, time frames, and resources needed to 

achieve those results.26 In addition, the John Warner National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 established the goal for DOD and 

the military departments of ensuring that certain development- and 

acquisition-related positions for each major defense acquisition program 

be performed by a properly qualified member of the armed forces or fulltime employee of DOD within 5 years from enactment, and required the 

Secretary of Defense to develop and begin implementation of a plan of 

action for recruiting, training, and ensuring appropriate career 

development of personnel to achieve this objective.27 The National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 added PSMs to that list of 

positions.28 A similar provision was subsequently codified at section 1706 

of Title 10, U.S. Code.29 DOD policy similarly directs that the PSM 

position for ACAT I and II systems be filled by a properly qualified and 

certified military servicemember or full-time DOD employee.30

 

26GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

Further, 

DOD Instruction 5000.66 requires the DOD components to provide 

education, training, and experience opportunities with the objective of 

developing a professional, agile, motivated workforce, and ensuring that 

individuals are qualified to perform the activities required of them in their 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999), and Project Management Institute, A Guide to the 

Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), 5th ed. (Newtown Square, 

PA: 2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge provides standards for 

project managers. We have used A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge

to provide criteria in previous reports, including GAO, Overstay Enforcement: Additional 

Actions Needed to Assess DHS’s Data and Improve Planning for a Biometric Air Exit 

Program, GAO-13-683 (Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2013); Bureau of Prisons: Timelier 

Reviews, Plan for Evaluations, and Updated Policies Could Improve Inmate Mental Health 

Services Oversight, GAO-13-1 (Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2013); and Nonproliferation 

and Disarmament Fund: State Should Better Assure the Effective Use of Program 

Authorities, GAO-13-83 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2012).

27See Pub. L. No. 109-364, § 820(a), (b) (2006) (superseded and repealed by Pub. L. No. 

112-239, § 824(b)). 

28See Pub. L. No. 111-84, § 805(c) (2009).

29See 10 U.S.C. § 1706(a)(7), added by Pub. L. No. 112-239, § 824(a)(1) (2013). As 

codified, the list includes the program lead PSM.

30See Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Logistics and Materiel Readiness), 

Product Support Manager Yearly Reporting Requirement, memorandum (July 11, 2013).
 

Page 17 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

positions.31 While the planned qualification boards may assist in ensuring 

that individuals selected for PSM positions are qualified, each of the 

military services has identified additional steps that are necessary to 

implement a defined, comprehensive career path to develop, train, and 

support future PSMs. While there are individuals serving in the PSM role 

today for most major weapon systems, until a defined career path is 

finalized and institutionalized within DOD, including within each of the 

services, the department may not be well positioned to ensure that the 

services will be able to fill PSM positions with properly qualified personnel 

in the future.

DOD has issued guidance for implementing PSMs; however, a recent 

update to DOD’s guidance omits certain information, contains a 

potentially confusing description of responsibilities, and—according to 

service officials—is not sufficiently clear. Standards for Internal Control in 

the Federal Government states that federal agencies should, among 

other things, design and document internal control activities, such as 

policies and procedures, to help ensure compliance with applicable laws 

and regulations.32 In October 2010, DOD issued Directive-Type 

Memorandum (DTM) 10-015, which established the department’s policy 

to implement and institutionalize the requirement that PSMs be assigned 

to support each of its major weapon systems.33 Among other things, this 

document outlined the PSM’s duties and required that PSMs be certified 

in the life-cycle logistics career field, which includes fulfilling general 

educational, training, and experience requirements. The memorandum 

indicates that it was intended to be a provisional policy that would 

eventually be incorporated into the next update of its defense acquisition 

system guidance—DOD Instruction 5000.02—which describes the 

operation of the defense acquisition system, including product support.34

 

31See Department of Defense, Operation of the Defense Acquisition, Technology and 

Logistics Workforce Education, Training, and Career Development Program, Instruction 

5000.66, encl. 2, para. E2.2.4.2 (Dec. 21, 2005).

32GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

33See Department of Defense, Directive Type Memorandum 10-015.

34See Department of Defense, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, Interim 

Instruction 5000.02 (Nov. 25, 2013).

Department Guidance on 

Implementing PSMs Lacks 

Detail
 

Page 18 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

In November 2013, DOD issued an interim update to its defense 

acquisition system guidance that canceled and, according to the update, 

incorporated a number of memorandums, including the PSM-related DTM 

10-015.35 However, the newly issued acquisition system instruction does 

not include all of the information from DTM 10-015. For example, the 

instruction does not list all of the responsibilities of a PSM. Although the 

instruction identifies PSMs among the key leadership positions for major 

defense acquisition programs, it does not include a statement that it is 

DOD policy for PSMs to be assigned to all major weapon systems. OSD 

officials told us that interim DOD Instruction 5000.02 does not contain this 

information because instructions are meant to offer clarification of issues, 

not to recite what is already in statute. OSD officials also told us that the 

policy to assign PSMs to each major weapon system was now included in 

a separate memorandum issued on July 11, 2013,36

The interim instruction also contains a potentially confusing provision and 

omits certain information that is important to the implementation of the 

which is not cited 

within Interim DOD Instruction 5000.02. They said that there are no 

differences between the information on PSM assignment, roles, and 

responsibilities covered previously in DTM 10-015 and what is now 

covered in Interim DOD Instruction 5000.02, memorandums from July 

and November 2013, and the Defense Acquisition Guidebook. However, 

each of the military department headquarters offices responsible for 

implementing PSMs told us that the current guidance is not sufficiently 

clear when addressing product support and the implementation of PSMs. 

They stated that the interim guidance does not discuss PSMs at the same 

level of detail as the DTM 10-015. Specifically, as previously mentioned, 

the responsibilities of PSMs are not listed in the new guidance. The 

instruction discusses the roles and responsibilities of the Program 

Manager at length, but only alludes to the responsibilities of PSMs, citing 

section 2337 of Title 10, U.S. Code and discussing the requirement to 

revalidate business-case analyses.

 

35See Department of Defense, Interim Instruction 5000.02, para. 1.c. In a memorandum 

issued with the Interim DOD Instruction, the Deputy Secretary of Defense called for 

various DOD entities to jointly prepare a revised DOD Instruction 5000.02 to replace the 

interim policy within 180 days. See Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum, Defense 

Acquisition (Nov. 26, 2013).

36Officials referenced the July 11, 2013, memorandum from the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense (Logistics and Materiel Readiness) titled Product Support Manager 

Yearly Reporting Requirement.
 

Page 19 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

PSM position. For example, it states that the Program Manager will 

develop and implement an affordable and effective performance-based 

product support strategy. Although the Program Manager is ultimately 

responsible for accomplishing program objectives, including for the 

sustainment phase, and for developing and implementing performancebased logistics strategies in the context of sustainment planning, the 

responsibilities of the PSM in section 2337 include developing and 

implementing a comprehensive product support strategy for the weapon 

system. While DTM 10-015 specifically identified the responsibilities of 

the PSM, the interim instruction does not, which could result in confusion 

regarding the role of the PSM and the nature of the support provided to 

the Program Manager.

Each of the military department headquarters offices responsible for 

implementing PSMs told us that they found the language from the 

canceled DTM 10-015 to be very useful as the services developed their 

own service-level policies and guidance to implement PSMs for their 

assigned major weapon systems. Service officials said that they believed 

there was value in having all of the PSM-related guidance in one 

document, so that current and future product support personnel would not 

have to refer to multiple documents. Officials from one of the military 

services added that a life-cycle logistician would now have to look up 

PSM-related policy and information in law, in Interim DOD Instruction 

5000.02, and in the July 2013 memorandum instead of just referring to 

DTM-015—which clearly laid out that information in one document. In 

addition, these officials expressed concern that it was no longer clear who 

should assign PSMs. They also noted that DTM 10-015 identified the 

Component Acquisition Executive as the individual responsible for 

identifying and assigning a PSM for every major weapon system. 

However, the officials noted that the interim instruction does not specify 

which individual or office is responsible for identifying and assigning a 

PSM. Moreover, these officials expressed particular concern about 

institutionalizing the implementation of PSMs, noting that, unlike DOD 

instructions, memorandums like the July 2013 memorandum are not 

stored in a central repository. These officials told us that the institutional 

knowledge behind the evolving PSM-related guidance and policy would 

be lost, and they questioned whether new personnel would know where 

to find all of the PSM-related guidance.

In the absence of clear and comprehensive guidance, DOD and military 

service officials may not understand which office or individual is 

responsible for identifying and assigning PSMs, and there may be an 

increased risk of DOD personnel confusing the responsibilities of 
 

Page 20 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

Program Managers and PSMs. Further, without centralized guidance that 

serves to institutionalize the implementation of PSMs, DOD may be 

hindered in its ability to implement future PSMs for its major weapon 

systems. 

Each of the military departments has issued its own guidance for 

implementing PSMs, but the Army’s guidance on PSM implementation is 

currently unclear regarding responsibilities and reporting relationships for 

certain support personnel involved in the sustainment of weapon 

systems. For example, the Navy issued a memorandum, entitled Product 

Support Manager (PSM) Implementation, in May 2011 to discuss the 

requirement that major weapon systems be supported by the PSM who 

would provide weapon systems product support subject-matter expertise 

to the Program Manager. Similarly, in March 2013, the Air Force issued 

Air Force Instruction 63-101/20-101, Integrated Life Cycle Management, 

which incorporates various PSM requirements and responsibilities. 

Moreover, the Air Force issued a guidebook on life-cycle logistics in 

October 2013, which discusses the implementation and responsibilities of 

the PSM position within the Air Force. Government standards for internal 

control state that a good internal control environment requires that the 

agency’s organizational structure clearly define key areas of authority and 

responsibility and establish appropriate lines of reporting.37 The Army 

issued a memorandum to help implement its PSMs38 and also developed 

a PSM Concept of Operations,39 which identifies PSM responsibilities and 

establishes the Army’s framework for integrating the new PSM position 

into its organizational structure. This Concept of Operations gives 

PSMs—who reside organizationally under ASA(ALT)40

 

37

—responsibility for 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

38Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology), Product 

Support Manager (PSM) Implementation) (Nov. 5, 2010).

39U.S. Army, U.S. Army Product Support Manager Concept of Operations. 

40Upon direction of the Secretary of the Army, the ASA(ALT) serves as the Army 

Acquisition Executive, the Senior Procurement Executive, the Science Advisor to the 

Secretary of the Army, and the senior research and development official for Department of 

the Army. ASA(ALT) also has the principal responsibility for all Department of the Army 

matters and policy related to acquisition, logistics, technology, procurement, the industrial 

base, and security cooperation (that is, security assistance and armaments cooperation). 

See Department of the Army, Army Acquisition Policy, Regulation 70-1, para. 2-6.a (July 

22, 2011).

The Army Has Not 

Clarified the Roles and 

Responsibilities of Some 

Support Personnel 

Involved in Sustainment of 

Major Weapon Systems
 

Page 21 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

total life-cycle product support of their assigned systems, including 

sustainment, in support of the Program Manager.41 However, Army 

Regulation 10-8742

Figure 2: Overview of Relationship between Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASA[ALT]) and Army Materiel Command 

(AMC) for Product Support Activities

—which predates the implementation of PSMs—notes

AMC roles and responsibilities for sustainment and for integrated materiel 

life-cycle management in partnership with program executive offices and 

Program Managers. AMC continues to have a significant role in providing 

assistance to the Program Manager and PSM and in executing the 

sustainment support for major weapon systems. Figure 2 shows the 

relationship between ASA(ALT) and AMC for product support activities.

Note: For some programs, the Program Manager may report directly to the ASA(ALT), rather than 

through a Program Executive Office.

AMC provides sustainment support in the form of personnel—consisting 

of AMC contractors or government logistics managers—who are 

sometimes assigned to ASA(ALT) programs to provide sustainment 

support to PSMs. While these personnel are “matrixed” to the program 

office, they are AMC personnel and, according to officials, therefore 

remain under AMC’s chain of command. Thus, the PSM provides input 

 

41PSMs provide product support expertise to Program Managers in execution of the 

Program Manager’s duties as the total life-cycle system manager. The PSM guidebook 

describes life-cycle management as the implementation, management, and oversight: by 

the designated Program Manager, of all activities associated with the acquisition, 

development, production, fielding, sustainment, and disposal of a DOD weapon system 

across its life cycle.

42Department of the Army, Organization and Functions: Army Commands, Army Service 

Component Commands, and Direct Reporting Units, Regulation 10-87 (Sept. 4, 2007). 
 

Page 22 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

into their annual performance ratings but does not officially rate them and, 

according to Army officials, does not have direct authority over them. This 

lack of authority may make it difficult for PSMs to achieve some of their 

goals. ASA(ALT) officials stated that major weapon systems program 

offices have raised the issue of the lack of clear roles and responsibilities

of these personnel and, according to a senior AMC official, AMC 

discussed this issue with their personnel in an attempt to address this 

issue. However, in one specific example, an Army PSM we spoke with 

noted that while he has responsibilities as a PSM, he has no authority 

over the matrixed personnel from AMC who are assigned to support him 

and his assigned programs. He therefore faces the risk of these 

individuals not complying with his direction, which could hinder his ability 

to conduct his job as PSM. Specifically, according to this PSM, in 2012 

the Joint Logistics Board (a senior-level governance body) provided 

guidance that maintenance work for one of his programs was to be 

conducted at a particular location, and he directed his AMC support 

personnel to stop pursuing and promoting their own depot with his 

program office’s resources. However, the life cycle management 

command and the AMC-matrixed personnel continued to pursue the work 

at their own depot.43

According to senior Army officials, ASA(ALT) and AMC are working to 

resolve this issue and have held meetings to determine the best approach 

to enable PSMs to effectively perform their duties while simultaneously 

enabling AMC to perform its mission of providing sustainment support to 

the Army’s weapon systems’ life cycles. However, the Army has not yet 

issued guidance clarifying the roles and responsibilities of ASA(ALT) and 

AMC in light of the new requirement for PSMs to be assigned to major 

weapon systems—particularly for AMC personnel assigned to support 

ASA(ALT) program offices and for PSMs. The Army is currently drafting a 

revision to Army Regulation 700-127 and developing a new Department 

of the Army Pamphlet 700-127-1. According to Army officials, these 

publications will further define the Army policy and guidance on PSM 

It took this Army PSM a year’s worth of effort going 

through the appropriate chain of command to ensure that the AMC 

personnel followed the Joint Logistics Board’s guidance for the 

designated location. As a result of these unclear reporting relationships, 

this PSM was unable to effectively plan or proactively manage his 

assigned weapon systems’ life-cycle sustainment decisions.

 

43Life-cycle management commands are among the AMC major subordinate commands. 
 

Page 23 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

responsibilities, relationships with AMC, and career-path development, 

among other items. According to an Army official, this regulation and 

pamphlet are planned to be published in June 2014. Yet, the Army has 

been working on this effort since March 2013 and has not finalized these 

documents over the last year due to delays, in part as a result of multiple 

reviews. Until the Army finalizes this guidance, which is expected to 

clarify the roles and responsibilities of ASA(ALT) and AMC with respect to 

matrixed personnel, Army PSMs and the AMC personnel who support 

them may lack clear reporting lines. Without clear guidance detailing 

responsibilities and reporting relationships for AMC support personnel 

involved in the sustainment of weapon systems, PSMs may be hindered 

in their ability to effectively manage and conduct their daily product 

support responsibilities.

DOD is not fully aware of how or to what extent PSMs are affecting lifecycle sustainment decisions for major weapon systems because it has 

not systematically collected or evaluated information on the effects of 

PSMs. In the absence of department- and service-wide information on the 

effects PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions, we 

interviewed product support personnel at 12 program offices, and 

program officials identified several good practices and challenges 

associated with the effects, if any, that PSMs are having on life-cycle 

sustainment decisions. For example, one challenge we found was that 

some Army PSMs may not be able to fulfill their daily product support 

responsibilities because they do not have greater visibility into how much 

sustainment funding their weapon systems will receive, including prior to 

the year of execution of funds, to the extent possible.

DOD does not fully know how or to what extent PSMs are affecting lifecycle sustainment decisions because it is not systematically collecting or 

evaluating information on the implementation or effect of PSMs. Officials 

from OSD and each of the military department headquarters responsible 

for implementing PSMs told us that the PSM designation garners more 

respect than other similar product support positions have in the past and 

that it has elevated the importance of sustainment planning within 

weapon systems’ program offices. This was also the widespread 

consensus among product support personnel we spoke to—including all 

12 PSMs and the 5 Program and Deputy Program Managers whom we 

interviewed. Over the years, OSD has engaged in several activities aimed 

at providing oversight, collecting some information on the effects that 

PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions, and recognizing the 

DOD Has Not 

Systematically 

Collected or 

Evaluated Information 

on the Effects PSMs 

Are Having on LifeCycle Sustainment 

Decisions

DOD Does Not Have 

Sufficient Information to 

Determine the Effects of 

PSMs
 

Page 24 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

achievements of PSMs. For example, OSD officials stated that they 

review life-cycle sustainment plans created by PSMs to ensure that their 

assigned weapon system demonstrates continued reliability and 

performance, so as not to adversely affect the system’s readiness or O&S 

costs. In addition, these officials told us that the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness leads a 

quarterly logistics workforce meeting,44 comprising service 

representatives and other officials from DOD’s acquisition community, to 

discuss PSM-related life-cycle logistics initiatives and challenges. Since 

2013, the USD(AT&L) has issued an annual award to highlight 

outstanding individual PSM performance across the services. This award 

recognizes PSMs’ contributions to controlling increases in weapon 

system cost, addressing long-term affordability, and promoting industry 

competition and innovation. It also recognizes outstanding achievements 

in the development, implementation, and execution of affordable and 

effective product support strategies for weapon systems. According to 

guidance from the USD(AT&L), award recipients are selected from a 

small pool of candidate submissions based on the following criteria, 

among others: reducing life-cycle cost; significantly increasing current or 

future operational suitability; and developing, implementing, or executing 

effective and affordable product support arrangements for their assigned 

weapon systems.45

Officials from one of the military services told us that they have been 

asked by their senior leadership to develop objective measures to 

evaluate the effectiveness of current initiatives—including sustainment 

efforts for major weapon systems—in which PSMs play a key role. These 

officials mentioned that there may be various mechanisms with which to 

evaluate the effects that PSMs are having on their assigned major 

weapon systems’ life-cycle sustainment decisions. For instance, they 

stated that they currently review and evaluate the quality of life-cycle 

sustainment plans and business-case analyses, among other logistics 

assessments, and that continuing to conduct these types of reviews and 

evaluations—including evaluations on the effects of these efforts—may 

 

44We refer to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel 

Readiness’ Life Cycle Logistics Functional Integrated Product Team as a quarterly 

logistics workforce meeting throughout this report. 

45See Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), First Annual 

Secretary of Defense Product Support Manager Award, memorandum (Mar. 18, 2013). 
 

Page 25 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

help them to better understand the extent to which PSMs are carrying out 

their responsibilities or are affecting life-cycle sustainment decisions for 

their assigned systems.

Program evaluation guidance states that evaluations can play a key role 

in program planning, management, and oversight by providing 

feedback—on both program design and execution—to Program 

Managers, Congress, executive-branch policy officials, and the public.46

Additionally, this guidance indicates that outcome and impact evaluations 

are helpful in assessing (1) the extent to which a program achieves its 

outcome-oriented objectives and (2) the net effect of a program, by 

comparing the program’s outcomes with an estimate of what would have 

happened in the absence of the program.47 Such evaluations can also be 

useful for identifying various trends—such as good practices and 

challenges related to the effects PSMs are having on life-cycle 

sustainment decisions—to help enhance future product support efforts 

across the department. Although OSD and the military services have 

various product support efforts under way—including those cited above—

in the years since the PSM legislation was enacted, DOD has not 

systematically collected and evaluated information on the effects, if any, 

that PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions for major 

weapon systems. Department and military service officials stated that 

DOD is still in the early stages of implementation, and it is therefore too 

early to conduct such an evaluation of the PSM program. These officials 

also stated that isolating the effects of a PSM is challenging because 

different factors may influence a PSM’s effects; the PSM position is one 

position of many that can affect decisions regarding life-cycle sustainment 

for a major weapon system, and a PSM reports directly to the Program 

Manager, who makes final decisions related to the PSM’s assigned 

system. However, based on good practices we have identified in our 

previous work, we believe that it is important to start an evaluation 

program as early as possible to collect baseline information against which 

future effectiveness could be measured.48

 

46GAO, Program Evaluation: Strategies to Facilitate Agencies’ Use of Evaluation in 

Program Management and Policy Making, 

Moreover, OSD already 

GAO-13-570 (Washington, D.C.: June 26, 

2013).

47GAO, Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships, 

GAO-11-646SP (Washington, D.C.: May 2011). 

48GAO, Agency Performance Plans: Examples of Practices That Can Improve Usefulness 

to Decisionmakers, GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 1999). 
 

Page 26 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

collects some information on the effects of PSMs through the annual PSM 

award submissions and the documentation of some information regarding 

PSM initiatives at its quarterly logistics workforce meeting. Therefore, with 

PSMs now in place for most major weapon systems and with the 

existence of various PSM-led efforts, conducting evaluations of the 

effects PSMs are having on programmatic decision making at this stage 

of the implementation could help inform whether the PSM position—as it 

is currently being implemented—will help to improve product support, and 

whether changes are needed to guidance or other areas to enhance 

PSMs’ contributions.

In the absence of department- or service-wide information systematically 

documenting the effects PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment 

decisions, we conducted interviews with product support personnel 

assigned to 12 major weapon systems, and program offices identified 

several good practices being employed as well as several challenges that 

PSMs face. For example, in fiscal year 2011, a Virginia-class submarine 

PSM led an effort to conduct an analysis focused on reducing life-cycle 

sustainment costs by minimizing the time the system spends in depot 

maintenance, in order to maximize its availability for missions. As a result 

of this effort, the Virginia-class submarine program office has adopted this 

practice and now conducts similar analyses on a recurring basis. 

Additionally, the PSM assigned to the Abrams Tank is currently 

conducting several analyses on components that affect the sustainment 

of the Abrams Tank. Specifically, the Abrams Tank PSM is analyzing 

staffing information on both Abrams Tank variants—the first already in 

sustainment and the second approaching sustainment—to determine 

future staffing levels for the systems. This PSM is also examining 

warfighters’ total ownership costs to sustain the Abrams Tank, and the 

reliability of the system’s engine, to help reduce O&S costs. Army officials 

stated that once these efforts are completed, the Abrams Tank PSM will 

be able to conduct business-case analyses to determine if there is a more 

cost-effective approach to sustaining both variants. Similar predictive 

analysis and modeling tools are currently being developed by the PSM for 

the KC-46A Tanker aircraft. For instance, the PSM is developing a model 

to prioritize component overhaul processes based on the frequency, 

uniqueness, and cost of a repair. This PSM is also developing the 

analytical components of an internal analysis system that is aimed at 

correcting deficiencies in the performance and effectiveness of the KC46A’s scheduled and unscheduled maintenance programs. According to 

the PSM, this tool will also be used to gather and assess various 

Although DOD Has Not 

Systematically Collected 

Data on the Effects PSMs 

Are Having on Life-Cycle 

Sustainment Decisions, 

Program Offices Identified 

PSM-Related Good 

Practices and Challenges
 

Page 27 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

engineering, logistics, and cost factors to make timely adjustments to the 

KC-46A’s sustainment operations. 

In conducting interviews with product support personnel, program officials 

also identified challenges that may have prevented PSMs from making or 

influencing life-cycle sustainment decisions for their assigned weapon 

systems. For example, 4 of 12 PSMs we spoke with from 3 of the military 

services stated that they did not have sufficient sustainment funding to 

effectively conduct their daily product support responsibilities and manage 

sustainment decisions for their assigned major weapon systems. This has

affected their ability to anticipate sustainment issues and manage 

potential risks regarding the reliability, availability, and readiness of their 

systems. Additionally, product support personnel we interviewed from the 

Army and Air Force told us that their respective services do not have 

enough product support personnel to fully support all major weapon 

systems and that, consequently, they conducted not only their own PSM 

duties and responsibilities but those of other logistics-related positions, 

such as senior logisticians, directors of logistics, and assistant product 

managers for logistics. Moreover, the shortage of funding and personnel 

led one of the services to assign multiple major weapon systems to two of 

their PSMs in order to ensure that each major weapon system is 

supported by a PSM. According to these two PSMs, they were collectively 

assigned to support 17 major weapon systems and, as a result of not 

having enough product support personnel, they faced increased risks—

such as low system availability and readiness rates—of not being able to 

effectively influence sustainment costs and prevent undesirable 

performance outcomes for their assigned systems.

According to internal Army documentation, the Office of the ASA(ALT) 

has recognized that while program offices have the responsibility to 

sustain the systems they manage, they have little influence on how 

resources are allocated or executed. The Defense Acquisition Guidebook 

and the Army’s PSM Concept of Operations both note the ultimate 

responsibility of the Program Manager for accomplishing program 

objectives over the life cycle of a system, including sustainment, and 

discuss the assistance provided by the PSM through product support 

expertise and oversight of product support activities. Army regulations 

note the involvement of AMC in sustainment planning and execution, 

including a role in the development of funding requirements. For example, 

according to Army Regulation 10-87, AMC provides integrated materiel 
 

Page 28 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

life-cycle management of systems and equipment in partnership with 

program executive offices and Program Managers, and serves as the 

maintenance process owner for national-level sustainment.49 Army 

Regulation 70-1 discusses AMC support for program executive offices 

and Program Managers through oversight of AMC life-cycle management 

command development and submission of sustainment funding 

requirements.50

According to ASA(ALT) officials, the PSM provides input into funding 

requests that are developed in support of the system and these funding 

requests are then vetted internally and submitted through the appropriate 

Army life-cycle management command for review and prioritization. Once 

the life-cycle management command completes its review and 

prioritization of the requested funds, AMC then conducts its review and 

prioritization to make the final command-level decision on the distribution 

of sustainment funding for the Army’s major weapon systems. However, 

some Army officials we spoke with said that AMC does not consistently 

communicate with program offices about how it prioritizes competing 

funding requests and distributes sustainment funds. For example, some 

Army PSMs told us that they are often surprised when they receive less 

sustainment funding then they had anticipated in the year of execution of 

funds and must quickly shift sustainment funding provided for other efforts 

within their program to cover the shortage of sustainment funding for their 

According to officials, AMC assists in life-cycle logistics 

planning and executes the product support activities planned by the 

Program Manager and PSM. Although funding requests are generated in 

collaboration, distribution of approved funding for execution is handled by 

AMC. Moreover, ASA(ALT) and Army officials from two of six program 

offices expressed concern that Army PSMs may not be able to positively 

affect their assigned system’s life-cycle sustainment decisions because 

PSMs lack information on sustainment funding decisions. Army PSMs 

from these offices stated that they have very little input into funding 

decisions related to the sustainment of their systems and said that it is a 

challenge for them to manage their assigned systems without greater 

visibility—specifically, knowledge prior to the year of execution of the 

funds, to the extent possible—into how much sustainment funding their 

programs will receive, because the Army’s processes for requesting and 

distributing sustainment funds is not transparent.

 

49See Department of the Army, Regulation 10-87.

50See Department of the Army, Regulation 70-1.
 

Page 29 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

assigned systems. According to AMC officials, because their organization 

is responsible for sustaining all Army weapon systems, they can provide 

the strategic overview necessary to prioritize competing funding requests. 

These officials also told us that AMC is responsible for balancing the 

distribution of funding across all systems under sustainment based on the 

level of Headquarters Department of the Army funding provided to AMC. 

They noted that some of their life-cycle management commands have 

formed councils where they regularly discuss sustainment funding issues 

with program offices. However, these officials also acknowledged that 

some PSMs are not receiving complete information on the status of 

sustainment funding decisions in the year of execution of funds. In this 

regard, in fiscal year 2014 the Army began a pilot on one major weapon 

system with the goal of more-closely tracking sustainment funding in an 

effort to help identify ways to provide more clarity and visibility on the 

resources distributed to the system. According to AMC officials, this 

should improve the transparency of resources for the PSMs to better 

manage their assigned major weapon systems. As previously stated, 

ASA(ALT) and AMC are continuing to work to clarify roles and 

responsibilities and have held high-level departmental meetings to 

determine the best approach to enable PSMs to effectively perform their 

duties while simultaneously enabling AMC to perform its mission of 

providing sustainment support to the Army’s weapon systems. 

Furthermore, ASA(ALT) officials told us that the current process and 

supporting policies for prioritizing and managing sustainment funding 

should be updated to reflect PSM responsibilities. We discussed this 

issue with service officials and PSMs from the Navy, Marine Corps, and 

Air Force, and each said that this problem does not exist for them in their 

service. They are aware in advance of the amount of sustainment funding 

they will receive for their programs and are able to plan accordingly. 

However, until the Army reviews the current process for requesting and 

distributing sustainment funding for major weapon systems and makes 

the adjustments necessary to ensure that PSMs have greater visibility 

over the allocation of sustainment funding their assigned weapon systems 

will receive—including prior to the year of execution of funds, to the extent 

possible—some PSMs in the Army may not be able to plan, proactively 

manage, or affect life-cycle sustainment decisions for their assigned 

systems. 

Since fiscal year 2010, DOD has made progress in implementing PSMs 

for its major weapon systems, and department officials and product 

support personnel have stated that the PSM designation garners more 

respect than other similar product support positions have in the past. 

Conclusions
 

Page 30 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

While DOD and all of the services have taken some steps to develop a 

comprehensive career path and associated guidance to develop, train, 

and support future PSMs, DOD, in coordination with the military services, 

has not developed a plan—to include objectives, milestones, and 

resources—to implement and institutionalize a comprehensive PSM 

career path. Until DOD develops such a plan, the department may not be 

able to ensure that the services can fill PSM positions with properly 

qualified personnel in the future. Moreover, DOD guidance for 

implementing PSMs is not sufficiently clear to ensure effective 

implementation of PSMs across the services going forward. Without clear, 

comprehensive, and centralized implementation guidance, DOD may be 

hindered in its ability to implement future PSMs for its major weapon 

systems. Likewise, until the Army clarifies roles and responsibilities in its 

guidance for the sustainment portion of the life cycle for major weapon 

systems, PSMs may be hindered in their ability to effectively manage and 

conduct their daily product support responsibilities.

Although the PSM program is relatively new, there is anecdotal evidence 

of the effects PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions for 

major weapon systems. While program officials we spoke with were able 

to identify several good practices and challenges facing PSMs, DOD is 

not well positioned to make changes or enhancements to the PSM 

program because it has yet to systematically collect or evaluate 

information on the effects, if any, that PSMs are having on their assigned 

systems’ sustainment decisions. One such change that DOD could have 

identified if it had been collecting evaluative information would be to 

examine the current process for making sustainment funding decisions in 

the Army to ensure that Army PSMs have greater visibility into the funding 

decisions affecting the sustainment of their systems, to the extent 

possible, including prior to the year of execution of funds. With PSMs now 

in place for almost all major weapon systems, information on the effects 

PSMs are having on life-cycle management and sustainment decisions 

could help inform DOD, the services, and Congress on the extent to 

which the PSM position is helping to improve product support efforts or 

whether changes are needed to guidance or to roles and responsibilities 

to enhance the contributions of PSMs.

To help DOD improve the implementation of Product Support Managers 

(PSM), we recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following 

five actions.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 31 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

To ensure the development of a sufficient cadre of qualified, trained 

personnel to meet future requirements for Product Support Managers 

(PSM), we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics 

(USD[AT&L])—in coordination with the Defense Acquisition University 

and the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force—to develop and 

implement a plan with objectives, milestones, and resources to implement 

and institutionalize a comprehensive career path and associated 

guidance to develop, train, and support future PSMs.

To better enable the military services to implement and institutionalize the 

roles and responsibilities of Product Support Managers (PSM), we 

recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD[AT&L])—in 

coordination with the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force—to 

issue clear, comprehensive, centralized guidance regarding the roles and 

responsibilities of PSMs and the officials that assign them.

To better enable Army Product Support Managers (PSM) to fulfill their 

product support responsibilities, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Defense direct the Secretary of the Army—in coordination with the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology 

(ASA[ALT]) and the Commander of Army Materiel Command (AMC)—to 

clearly define Army-wide roles and responsibilities for the sustainment 

portion of the life cycle of major weapon systems, to include the reporting 

relationships of AMC support personnel assigned to Army weapon 

system program offices, by issuing new, or revising existing, Army 

guidance.

To help inform departmental and congressional oversight of the status of 

Product Support Manager (PSM) implementation and the influence, if 

any, that PSMs have in life-cycle sustainment decisions for major weapon 

systems, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics 

(USD[AT&L])—in conjunction with the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and 

Air Force—to systematically collect and evaluate information on the 

effects, if any, that PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions 

for their assigned major weapon systems.

To better enable Army Product Support Managers (PSM) to fulfill their 

daily product support responsibilities, including planning and proactively 

managing sustainment efforts for their assigned weapon systems, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the 
 

Page 32 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

Army—in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASA[ALT]) and the Commander of 

Army Materiel Command (AMC)—to review the current process for 

requesting and distributing sustainment funding for major weapon 

systems and to take necessary actions to ensure that PSMs have greater 

visibility of the amount of sustainment funds their weapon systems will 

receive including prior to the year of execution of funds, to the extent 

possible.

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with four of 

our recommendations and partially concurred with one recommendation. 

DOD’s comments are reprinted in appendix IV. DOD also provided 

technical comments, which we have incorporated into our report where 

appropriate.

DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense 

direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 

Logistics—in coordination with the Defense Acquisition University and the 

Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force—to develop and implement 

a plan with objectives, milestones, and resources to implement and 

institutionalize a comprehensive career path and associated guidance to 

develop, train, and support future PSMs. DOD stated that the Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics will 

work over the next year with the staffs of the Secretaries of the Army, 

Navy, and Air Force, along with the Defense Acquisition University and 

the Human Capital Initiatives Directorate via the Life Cycle Logistics 

Functional Integrated Product Team to define a methodology and plan for 

institutionalizing a comprehensive career path and associated guidance 

for developing, training, and supporting future PSMs. We agree that, if 

fully implemented, this action should address our recommendation.

DOD also agreed with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense 

direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 

Logistics—in coordination with the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air 

Force—to issue clear, comprehensive, centralized guidance regarding the 

roles and responsibilities of PSMs and the officials that assign them. DOD 

stated that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics will work over the next year with the staffs of 

the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to develop clear, 

comprehensive, centralized guidance regarding the roles and 

responsibilities of PSMs and the officials that assign them. While DOD did 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 33 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

not provide details on how it will develop such guidance, we agree that, if 

fully implemented, this action should address our recommendation.

DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of 

Defense direct the Secretary of the Army—in coordination with the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology 

and the Commander of Army Materiel Command—to clearly define Armywide roles and responsibilities for the sustainment portion of the life cycle 

of major weapon systems, to include the reporting relationships of Army 

Materiel Command support personnel assigned to Army weapon system 

program offices, by issuing new, or revising existing, Army guidance. 

DOD stated that the Army sees no ambiguity in the Army-wide roles and 

responsibilities for the sustainment portion of the life cycle of major 

weapon systems, including the reporting requirements of Army Materiel 

Command personnel providing matrix support to the Program Managers. 

DOD further noted that the Army leadership has been coordinating the 

role of the PSM and is finalizing its capstone policy to solidify required 

changes as part of the statutory implementation. While our report 

acknowledges the Army is currently drafting a revision to Army Regulation 

700-127 and developing a new Department of the Army Pamphlet 700-

127-1, which Army officials told us will further define the Army policy and 

guidance on PSM responsibilities, relationships with Army Materiel 

Command, and career-path development, among other items, these 

documents have not yet been finalized. We also acknowledge in our 

report that the Army has been working on this guidance since March 

2013, but note that it has not finalized these documents over the last year 

due to delays. We continue to believe that until the Army finalizes 

guidance that clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the program offices 

and Army Materiel Command with respect to matrixed personnel, Army 

PSMs and the Army Materiel Command personnel who support them may 

lack clear reporting lines. 

DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense 

direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 

Logistics—in conjunction with the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air 

Force—to systematically collect and evaluate information on the effects, if 

any, that PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions for their 

assigned major weapon systems. DOD stated that the Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics will work 

over the next year with the staffs of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, 

and Air Force to define a methodology and plan for systematically 

collecting and evaluating information on the effects, if any, that PSMs are 

having on the life-cycle sustainment decisions for their assigned major 
 

Page 34 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

weapon systems. We agree that, if fully implemented, this action should 

address our recommendation.

Finally, DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of 

Defense direct the Secretary of the Army—in coordination with the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology 

and the Commander of Army Materiel Command—to review the current 

process for requesting and distributing sustainment funding for major 

weapon systems and to take necessary actions to ensure that PSMs 

have greater visibility of the amount of sustainment funds their weapon 

systems will receive including prior to the year of execution of funds, to 

the extent possible. DOD stated that Army Staff, in coordination with the 

Commander of Army Materiel Command, will work over the next year to 

review the current process for requesting and distributing sustainment 

funding for major weapon systems and take necessary actions to ensure 

that PSMs and all other stakeholders have greater visibility of the amount 

of sustainment funds their weapon systems will receive. We agree that, if 

fully implemented, this action should address our recommendation.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, 

and Air Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. The report also 

is available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-5431 or russellc@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

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

page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.

Cary Russell

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 35 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

To determine what steps, if any, the Department of Defense (DOD) and 

the military services have taken to implement Product Support Managers 

(PSM) for major weapon systems, we collected and analyzed DOD and 

service data on the PSMs assigned to these systems. We also 

interviewed and obtained pertinent documents from acquisition, program 

management, and logistics officials—including PSMs—to understand how 

the PSM position has been implemented to-date. These documents 

included DOD directives and instructions, Army regulations, 

memorandums, other guidance, and lists of assigned PSMs. To 

determine the extent to which DOD has evaluated the effects, if any, that 

PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions for major weapon 

systems, we spoke with Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), military 

department headquarters, and military service command officials. 

Additionally, we selected and interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of 

PSMs, program management, and other product support personnel 

assigned to a total of 12 major weapon systems to identify good practices 

that some PSMs have found helpful in enabling them to make or affect 

life-cycle sustainment decisions for major weapon systems as well as 

challenges that may have prevented PSMs from making or affecting such 

decisions. In identifying a nonprobability sample of PSMs (and related 

program staff) to interview, we selected PSMs who were assigned to 

systems that reflected varied characteristics, such as military service, 

Acquisition Category (ACAT) level, acquisition phase, type of system 

(e.g., aviation, ground, naval), and total estimated system cost. The 12 

systems we chose were: (1) the Army’s Abrams Tank; (2) the Army’s 

Thermal Weapon Sight, AN/PAS-13; (3) the Army’s Distributed Common 

Ground System; (4) the Army’s Long Range Advanced Scout 

Surveillance System; (5) the Army’s Counter Radio Controlled-Improvised 

Explosive Device Electronic Warfare Duke; (6) the Army’s Prophet 

Enhanced Spiral 1; (7) the Navy’s Virginia-class submarine; (8) the 

Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship; (9) the Marine Corps’ CH-53K Helicopter; 

(10) the Army and Marine Corps’ Joint Light Tactical Vehicle; (11) the Air 

Force’s KC-46A Tanker; and (12) the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps’ 

F-35 Program. From these interviews, we obtained more-in-depth 

information on the effects, if any, that PSMs have on life-cycle 

sustainment decisions. For more information on these systems, please 

see appendix III. The results from this nonprobability sample cannot be 

used to make inferences about all PSMs or the respective major weapon 

systems to which they were assigned, because a nonprobability sample 

may not reflect all characteristics of a population. However, this

information provided a broad representation of PSMs’ perspectives on 

their position’s implementation status and their effects on life-cycle 

sustainment decisions. To obtain information on the overall size and cost 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 36 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

of DOD’s ACAT I systems, we also analyzed data from DOD’s Selected 

Acquisition Reports and other information in the Defense Acquisition 

Management Information Retrieval Purview system. We obtained similar 

data for ACAT II systems, where available, that the services maintained 

on their respective systems. We assessed the reliability of the PSMrelated data we obtained from DOD and the services, along with the 

information we obtained from the Defense Acquisition Management 

Information Retrieval Purview system, through questionnaires and 

interviews with knowledgeable officials and determined that these data 

were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of assessing the implementation 

of PSMs for major weapon systems and discussing the findings in this 

report.

To address our reporting objectives, we visited or contacted 

knowledgeable officials and reviewed relevant documents from the 

following organizations:

Department of Defense

• Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology 

and Logistics

• Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Logistics and 

Materiel Readiness)

• Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Systems 

Engineering)

• Defense Acquisition University

Department of the Army

• Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics 

and Technology

• U.S. Army Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition 

Policy and Logistics

• Army Materiel Command

• U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command

• TACOM Life Cycle Management Command

• Army Program Management Office for Soldier, Sensors, and Lasers

• Army Program Executive Office Soldier

• Army Program Executive Office Intelligence, Electronic Warfare & 

Sensors

• Night Vision/Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target 

Acquisition Program Office

• Long Range Advance Scout Surveillance System Program 

Office
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 37 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

• Counter Radio Controlled-Improvised Explosive Device 

Electronic Warfare Duke Program Office

• Distributed Common Ground System-Army Program Office

• Prophet Enhanced/Spiral 1 Program Office

• Army Program Executive Office Ground Combat Systems

• Abrams Tank Program Office

Department of the Navy

• Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy—Expeditionary 

Programs and Logistics Management

• Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy—Financial Management 

and Comptroller

• Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy—Management and Budget

• Assistant Secretary of the Navy Research Development and 

Acquisition

• The Department of the Navy Director, Acquisition Career 

Management

• U.S. Naval Air Systems Command

• CH-53K Helicopter Program Office

• U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command

• NAVSEA 21

• Virginia-Class Submarines Program Office

• Program Executive Office Littoral Combat Ship

• Littoral Combat Ship Program Office

• Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command

U.S. Marine Corps

• U.S. Marine Corps Systems Command

• U.S. Marine Corps Acquisition Logistics and Product Support

Department of the Air Force

• U.S. Air Force Headquarters

• Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Installations, 

Environment, and Logistics

• Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Acquisition

• U.S. Air Force KC-46A Tanker Program Office

Joint Program Offices

• Department of the Army and U.S. Marine Corps

• Joint Light Tactical Vehicle Program Office

• Department of the Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and Department of the 

Air Force

• F-35 Joint Program Office
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 38 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

We conducted this performance audit from April 2013 through April 2014 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions, based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions, based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Defense Acquisition System 

Framework

Page 39 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

The defense acquisition system framework establishes the steps that 

Department of Defense (DOD) programs generally take as DOD plans, 

designs, acquires, deploys, operates, and maintains its weapon systems. 

It consists of five program life-cycle phases and multiple related decision 

points (three of which are referred to as milestones), which are generally 

shown in figure 3 and described following the figure.1 The milestone 

decision authority for programs under this framework is either the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics 

(USD[AT&L]); the DOD component head; a Component Acquisition 

Executive; or, when authorized, a designee. DOD issued an interim 

update to the instruction guiding operation of the defense acquisition 

system in November 2013;2

Figure 3: Overview of the Defense Acquisition System Framework

the following discussion reflects the updated 

guidance.

Note: This figure is meant to provide an overview of the defense acquisition system framework and 

does not identify all decision points or activities.

The five program life-cycle phases are as follows:

• Materiel solution analysis: The purpose of this phase is to conduct 

the analysis and other activities needed to choose the concept for the 

product that will be acquired, to begin translating validated capability 

gaps into system-specific requirements, and to conduct planning to 

support a decision on the acquisition strategy for the product. A 

decision is made at the end of this phase to continue into the next 

 

1

DOD guidance notes that milestone decision authorities have full latitude to tailor 

programs in the most effective and efficient structure possible, to include eliminating 

phases and combining or eliminating milestones and decision points, unless constrained 

by statute. See Department of Defense, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, 

Interim Instruction 5000.02, para. 5.c(2)(b)(5) (Nov. 25, 2013). 

2

Department of Defense, Interim Instruction 5000.02.

Appendix II: Defense Acquisition System 

Framework
Appendix II: Defense Acquisition System 

Framework

Page 40 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

phase of acquisition for the program—this decision is referred to as 

Milestone A.3

• Technology maturation and risk reduction (formerly technology 

development): The purpose of this phase is to reduce technology, 

engineering, integration, and life-cycle cost risk to the point that a 

decision to contract for engineering and manufacturing development 

can be made with confidence in successful program execution for 

development, production, and sustainment. In this phase, DOD 

determines the set of technologies to be integrated into the system 

solution and refines user requirements. A decision is made at the end 

of this phase to authorize further product development—this decision 

is referred to as Milestone B. PSM objectives during this phase 

include ensuring that the overall design specifications incorporate 

supportability design features.

According to DOD, product support considerations (the 

primary responsibility of PSMs) should begin prior to Milestone A, with 

early requirements determination, and continue through system 

design, development, operational use, retirement, and disposal. 

Program Managers are responsible for developing and maintaining a 

life-cycle sustainment plan consistent with the product support 

strategy, beginning at Milestone A.

• Engineering and manufacturing development: The purpose of this 

phase is to develop, build, and test a product to verify that 

requirements have been met and to support production or deployment 

decisions. A decision is made at the end of this phase to authorize 

entry of the system into the production and deployment phase or for 

limited deployment in support of operational testing—this decision is 

referred to as Milestone C. As part of this development phase, 

according to a briefing from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, one of the basic 

objectives of a PSM is to ensure that a weapon system is designed, 

maintained, and modified to continuously reduce the demand for 

logistics.

• Production and deployment: In this phase, DOD seeks to achieve 

an operational capability that satisfies mission needs, as verified 

through operational test and evaluation, and to implement the system 

at all applicable locations.

• Operations and support: In this final phase, DOD seeks to 

operationally sustain the system over its life cycle. The phase includes 

 

3

Some programs may instead proceed to later phases of the acquisition cycle, depending 

on actions needed to mature the product being acquired.
Appendix II: Defense Acquisition System 

Framework

Page 41 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

execution of the product support strategy and is based on an 

approved life-cycle support plan. PSMs are to revalidate businesscase analyses used to develop the product support strategy based on 

changes to the assumptions, constraints, and operating environment, 

or every 5 years, whichever occurs first.

In addition to the three milestone decision points included in this 

framework (Milestones A, B, and C), the framework also includes several 

other decision points, such as: (1) materiel development decision, which 

directs officials to conduct analyses to assess the potential solutions that 

can satisfy the program’s requirements, and (2) full rate production or full 

deployment decision, which authorizes the system to be deployed to all 

remaining locations beyond the limited fielding locations.4

 

4

Limited fielding involves the deployment of a capability to a limited number of users to 

test the capability in an operational environment.
Appendix III: Descriptions of Selected 

Department of Defense (DOD) Major Weapon 

Systems

Page 42 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

We selected and interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of Product 

Support Managers (PSM), program management, and other product 

support personnel assigned to a total of 12 major weapon systems to 

identify good practices and challenges that may have helped or prevented 

PSMs in making or affecting life-cycle sustainment decisions for their 

assigned systems. This appendix contains descriptions of the 12 major 

weapon systems we selected. Each description contains information on 

the military service or services to which these systems belong, their 

respective Acquisition Category (ACAT) levels, the status of the system, 

and a brief description of the system.

Appendix III: Descriptions of Selected 

Department of Defense (DOD) Major 

Weapon Systems
Appendix III: Descriptions of Selected 

Department of Defense (DOD) Major Weapon 

Systems

Page 43 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management
Appendix III: Descriptions of Selected 

Department of Defense (DOD) Major Weapon 

Systems

Page 44 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management
Appendix III: Descriptions of Selected 

Department of Defense (DOD) Major Weapon 

Systems

Page 45 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 46 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Defense
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 47 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 48 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 49 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

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

In addition to the contact named above, the following staff members 

made key contributions to this report: Alissa H. Czyz, Assistant Director; 

Jerome A. Brown; Yecenia C. Camarillo; Joanne Landesman; Michael C. 

Shaughnessy; Michael D. Silver; Amie M. Steele; Tristan T. To; and 

Matthew R. Young.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 50 GAO-14-326 Weapon Systems Management

Defense Acquisitions: Where Should Reform Aim Next? GAO-14-145T. 

Washington, D.C.: October 29, 2013.

Defense Acquisitions: Goals and Associated Metrics Needed to Assess 

Progress in Improving Service Acquisition. GAO-13-634. Washington, 

D.C.: June 27, 2013.

Program Evaluation: Strategies to Facilitate Agencies’ Use of Evaluation 

in Program Management and Policy Making. GAO-13-570. Washington, 

D.C.: June 26, 2013.

Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs.

GAO-13-294SP. Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2013.

Weapons Acquisition Reform: Reform Act Is Helping DOD Acquisition 

Programs Reduce Risk, but Implementation Challenges Remain.

GAO-13-103. Washington, D.C.: December 14, 2012.

Defense Logistics: Improvements Needed to Enhance Oversight of 

Estimated Long-Term Costs for Operating and Supporting Major Weapon 

Systems. GAO-12-340. Washington, D.C.: February 2, 2012.

Defense Management: DOD Needs Better Information and Guidance to 

More Effectively Manage and Reduce Operating and Support Costs of 

Major Weapon Systems. GAO-10-717. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2010.

Defense Acquisitions: Fundamental Changes Are Needed to Improve 

Weapon Program Outcomes. GAO-08-1159T. Washington, D.C.: 

September 25, 2008.

Defense Logistics: Opportunities to Improve the Army’s and the Navy’s 

Decision-making Process for Weapons System Support. GAO-02-306. 

Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2002.

Related GAO Products

(351815)
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 (http://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 http://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: http://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.