United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

November 4, 2009 

Congressional Committees 

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

Materiel and Equipment Can Be Further Enhanced to Better Inform Congress

The Department of Defense (DOD) prepositions equipment at strategic locations around the 

world to enable it to field combat-ready forces in days, rather than the weeks it would take if 

equipment had to be moved from the United States to the locations of conflicts. DOD’s 

prepositioned stock programs1

 support the National Military Strategy and are an important part 

of its overall strategic mobility framework. Through their individual programs, each of the 

military services maintains preconfigured groups of related materiel and equipment, known as 

“sets,” in geographic locations around the world. These prepositioned materiel and equipment 

sets have played an important role in supporting ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

However, sustained operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken a toll on the condition and 

readiness of military equipment. Over the last few years, we have identified a number of ongoing 

and long-term challenges regarding DOD’s prepositioned stocks.2

 In 2008 we testified that some 

of the Army’s prepositioned stocks have been depleted and that it was unclear when those 

critical reserve stocks would be replenished or how much the total cost to do so would be.3

Although the services have estimated the cost and time frame to replenish their stocks in DOD’s 

report to Congress, the services are currently reviewing their prepositioning programs to address 

new requirements to meet future needs. DOD has reported to Congress that the services are 

committed to resetting4

 prepositioned materiel but must balance these resetting efforts with the 

 

1

 While the Army, Marine Corps, and Navy use the term Prepositioned Stock program, the Air Force uses the term 

War Reserve Materiel program. For purposes of this report, we use the term prepositioned stock program or 

prepositioned stocks for all services. 

2

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

and Improve Future Programs, GAO-05-427 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 6, 2005); GAO, Defense Logistics: Improved 

Oversight and Increased Coordination Needed to Ensure Viability of the Army’s Prepositioning Strategy, GAO-07-

144 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2007); GAO, Defense Logistics: Army and Marine Corps Cannot Be Assured That 

Equipment Reset Strategies Will Sustain Equipment Availability While Meeting Ongoing Operational Requirements, 

GAO-07-814 (Washington D.C.: Sept. 19, 2007); GAO, Defense Logistics: Army Has Not Fully Planned or 

Budgeted for the Reconstitution of Its Afloat Prepositioned Stocks, GAO-08-257R (Washington D.C.: Feb. 8, 2008); 

GAO, Military Readiness: Impact of Current Operations and Actions Needed to Rebuild Readiness of U.S. Ground 

Forces, GAO-08-497T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2008); GAO, Force Structure: Restructuring and Rebuilding 

the Army Will Cost Billions of Dollars for Equipment but the Total Cost is Uncertain, GAO-08-669T (Washington, 

D.C.: Apr. 10, 2008); GAO, High Risk Series An Update, GAO-09-271 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2009). 3 GAO-08-497T, GAO-08-669T. 4

 Reset is defined as actions taken to restore units to a desired level of combat capability commensurate with the 

units’ future mission. It includes the repair, replacement, or recapitalization of equipment that was destroyed, 

damaged, stressed, or worn out beyond economic repair due to combat operations. 

Page 1 GAO-10-172R Defense Logistics 
Page 2 GAO-10-172R Defense Logistics 

 

department’s other priorities, such as restructuring capabilities within its prepositioned stocks and 

changes in its overseas military presence.5

In June 2008, DOD issued an instruction to provide guidance on war reserve materiel requirements 

determination and positioning to support the immediate needs of U.S. military forces across a spectrum 

of contingencies.6

 The instruction further required the establishment of a Global Prepositioned Materiel 

Capabilities Working Group. The working group provides the services a place to share information about 

their programs and discuss lessons learned. According to DOD officials, the working group serves as a 

mechanism to inform other groups developing long-term strategies for global posture about issues 

related to prepositioned materiel. In addition, members of the working group are participating in teams 

that are reviewing the role of prepositioned programs in the department’s Quadrennial Defense Review. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 20087

 added an annual reporting requirement to 

Title 10 of the United States Code8

 that directs DOD to submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees on the status of prepositioned materiel and equipment as of the end of each fiscal year, no 

later than the date of the submission of the President's annual budget request. DOD’s report is required 

to address the following six elements: (1) the level of fill for major end items9

 of equipment and spare 

parts, (2) the materiel condition of equipment in the prepositioned stocks, (3) a list of major end items 

drawn from prepositioned stocks that fiscal year and a description of how the equipment was used and 

whether it was returned to the stocks after its use, (4) a time line for completely reconstituting any 

shortfall in the prepositioned stocks, (5) an estimate of the funding required to completely reconstitute 

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

reconstitution, and (6) a list of any operation plans affected by a shortfall in the prepositioned stocks 

and a description of the action taken to mitigate any risk created by that shortfall. In May 2009, DOD 

submitted its report to Congress on the status of its prepositioned materiel and equipment for the time 

period of October 2007 to September 2008. DOD’s report includes an unclassified section to address 

reporting elements one through five and a classified annex to address reporting element six. The annual 

reporting requirement also directs GAO to review DOD’s annual reports and submit to the congressional 

defense committees any additional information that will further inform the committees on issues relating 

to the status of the materiel in prepositioned stocks no later than 120 days after the date on which DOD 

submits its report to Congress. 

For this report, our objective was to determine what additional information in future DOD reports on the 

status of its prepositioned materiel and equipment could further inform congressional defense 

committees on these issues. We examined GAO and DOD reports on the services’ prepositioned stock 

programs, reviewed relevant DOD and service policies, and met with DOD and service officials to 

determine whether additional information could further inform Congress on the status of prepositioned 

materiel and equipment. While we did not independently assess the data DOD provided to Congress, we 

discussed the reliability of the systems used to develop the report data with service officials and 

determined that the data are sufficiently reliable to meet the objective of this engagement. A more 

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

performance audit from May 2009 to November 2009 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 

5

 DOD, Report on Department of Defense Programs for Prepositioning of Materiel and Equipment: Interim Submission: Way 

Ahead to Comprehensive Review and Discussion of Current Service Prepositioning Strategies, (Sept. 19, 2007). 6

 Department of Defense Instruction 3110.06, War Reserve Materiel (WRM) Policy (June 23, 2008). 7

 Pub. L. No. 110-181, §352 (2008). 

8

 10 U.S.C. §2229a. 

9

 According to the Department of Defense, Supply Chain Materiel Management Regulation, DoD 4140.1-R, AP1.1.11.7 

(May 23, 2003), a major end item is a final combination of end products that is ready for its intended use. 
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Summary 

Although DOD addressed the six required reporting elements in its annual report, DOD’s future reports 

to Congress on the status of its prepositioned materiel and equipment would benefit from additional 

information in three areas.10 Specifically, future reports would be enhanced by additional information on 

the amount of spare parts the Army maintains in its prepositioned stocks; the materiel condition of the 

Air Force’s material and equipment needed to establish bases; and information on the services’ progress 

to replenish their individual prepositioned sets, such as level of fill and readiness rates, and changes in 

those sets from the previous year. 

First, while DOD’s report addressed the level of fill for spare parts as required by the mandate, we found 

that the Army had additional data on spare parts that were not included in DOD’s report. Army logistics 

officials have acknowledged that three of the Army’s prepositioned packages include spare parts and 

could be reported to Congress, but these packages are not currently included in DOD’s annual report. 

Army officials told us that, in DOD’s report to Congress, readiness of spare parts is included as part of its 

equipment end item materiel condition. According to an Army regulation on logistics, readiness, and 

sustainability, if Army materiel managers use readiness data from inaccurate reports, their decisions on 

repair, modification, overhaul, or purchase of end items and repair parts will be faulty, causing among 

other things, inefficient and wasteful use of scarce Army resources.11 Without the addition of 

information about the Army’s prepositioned spare parts, Congress may not have all of the information

needs to make informed decisions regarding the Army’s prepositioning pr

 it 

ogram. 

 

Second, with regard to the second reporting element addressing the materiel condition of equipment in 

the prepositioned stocks, the Air Force could provide more information on its materiel and equipment 

needed to establish bases. Including this information in future reports to Congress would provide for a 

more comprehensive account of the material condition of the Air Force’s prepositioned equipment. The 

Air Force indicated in the annual report to Congress that critical equipment shortfalls of items were 

affecting the materiel condition of its Basic Expeditionary Airfield Resources (BEAR) sets,12 but did not 

provide information on the overall materiel condition of its BEAR sets. The Air Force provided us with 

additional information on the materiel condition of its BEAR sets as of July 2009, indicating that some of 

the sets were mission capable, most were partially mission capable, and some were not mission capable. 

Without the addition of information about the materiel condition of the Air Force’s BEAR sets, Congress 

may not have all of the information it needs to make informed decisions regarding the Air Force’s 

prepositioning program. 

Third, DOD’s future reports to Congress on the status of its prepositioned materiel and equipment would 

benefit from information on the services’ progress to replenish their individual prepositioned sets, such 

as level of fill and readiness rates, and changes in those sets from the previous year. We have previously 

reported that transparent and comprehensive information about programs allows decision makers to 

understand the full magnitude of resource requirements and weigh competing priorities.13 While the 

report includes the required information from the services on the amount of equipment on hand and 

materiel condition, it does not indicate the services’ progress to replenish their prepositioned sets. For 

example, the Army reported that of the required 5042 medium tactical vehicles currently in its 

prepositioned stocks, nearly all of the vehicles are available for use. Since the vehicles are assigned to 

10 10 U.S.C. § 2229a. 

11 Army Regulation 700-138, Logistics Army Logistics Readiness and Sustainability (Feb. 26, 2004). 

12 BEAR sets provide basing materiel and equipment and combat support equipment at sites with limited infrastructure and 

support facilities. 

13 GAO-08-354R. 

Page 3 GAO-10-172R Defense Logistics 
multiple prepositioned sets, the information in the report does not indicate the Army’s progress to 

replenish individual sets. Additional information on the services’ prepositioned sets and information 

about changes in those sets from the previous year could provide the congressional defense committees 

with a better means to measure the services’ progress over time to replenish their prepositioned stocks. 

This information would also benefit DOD and congressional decision makers when weighing competing 

funding priorities. 

To provide Congress with the visibility to better assess the condition of DOD’s prepositioned materiel 

and equipment, we are recommending that the Army and Air Force each include more detailed 

information in DOD’s report to Congress, and that the services provide information on their progress to 

replenish their individual prepositioned sets and changes in those sets from the previous year in future 

reports to Congress. In commenting on a draft of this report, the department concurred with each of our 

three recommendations. DOD also provided separately a number of technical comments which we 

considered and incorporated as appropriate. DOD’s written comments are reprinted in enclosure II. 

Background 

Each military service maintains different configurations and types of materiel and equipment to support 

its prepositioned stock program. Table 1 provides details on the configuration of each of the services’ 

prepositioned stocks. 

Page 4 GAO-10-172R Defense Logistics 
Table 1: Description of DOD’s Prepositioned Stocks by Military Service 

Service 

Types of 

stocks Description 

Brigade Combat 

Team (BCT) 

• Stored at land sites and aboard prepositioning ships 

• Sets are designed to support 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers 

• Abrams Tanks, Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled 

Vehicles, support trucks, and vehicles 

• Spare parts and other sustainment stocks to support the early stages of a conflict 

Sustainment 

stocks 

• Stored at land sites and aboard prepositioning ships 

• Replacement equipment for losses in early stages of operations or until resupply is 

established 

• Includes major end-items such as tracked vehicles 

• Secondary items such as meals, clothing, petroleum supplies, construction materials, 

ammunition, medical materiels, and repair parts 

Army 

Prepositioned 

Stocks (APS) 

1-5 

Operational 

project stocks 

• Stored at land sites and aboard prepositioning ships 

• Authorized material above unit authorizations designed to support Army operations or 

contingencies 

• Equipment and supplies for special operations forces, bare base sets, petroleum and 

water distribution, mortuary operations, and prisoner-of-war operations 

Forward 

deployed; 

Maritime 

Prepositioning 

Force (MPF) 

• Consists of 16 prepositioning ships organized into three squadrons 

• Each squadron supports about 16,000 Marines and sailors for up to 30 days 

• Includes combat systems, communications systems, construction equipment, munitions, 

medical supplies, and sustainment stocks 

Marine Corps 

Maritime 

Prepositioning 

Ships Squadron 

(MPSRON)1-3 

Prepositioning 

program—

Norway 

• Six cave sites and two storage facilities/air stations located in central Norway 

• Designed to support a Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) with select types and classes 

of vehicles, equipment, and supplies 

• Includes vehicles, engineering equipment, munitions, rations, and other equipment that 

will be used to support any geographic combatant command 

Navy 

Maritime 

Prepositioning 

Ships Squadron 

(MPSRON) 1-3 

Navy 

prepositioned 

assets 

• Assets are stored aboard maritime prepositioning force ships and at land sites 

• Equipment to offload prepositioning ships, including material handling equipment, ramps 

and barges, landing and amphibious craft, and bulk fuel 

• Construction equipment such as cranes, forklifts, trucks, and tractor trailers 

• Includes approximately 2,400 fleet hospital beds 

Bare base sets • Base operating support equipment and supplies used to house forces at austere bare 

base forward operating locations 

• Supports up to 77,500 personnel and 850 combat/mobility aircraft at up to15 forward 

operating locations worldwide 

• Includes housekeeping sets for personnel life support, industrial operations sets to 

establish expeditionary airbase infrastructure, and flight line (flying) operations sets 

Operational 

stocks 

• Direct and indirect mission support equipment and vehicles for up to 43 forward operating 

locations to support major combat operations and vignettes as specified in DOD’s 

Integrated Security Posture and Strategic Planning Guidance 

• Includes equipment stored at forward operating locations (land bases) worldwide to 

provide direct mission support such as Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) for flying 

operations, Fuels Operational Readiness Capability Equipment (FORCE) for aircraft 

refueling, and general aviation support 

• Includes both general purpose vehicles such as trucks, buses, vans, and special purpose 

vehicles such as material handling equipment, fire trucks, and civil engineering 

construction equipment 

Air Force 

various 

geographic 

locations 

Other aviation 

support 

equipment and 

supplies 

• Includes other war reserve materiel sustainment equipment and supplies such as rations, 

munitions stored at land sites and aboard prepositioning ships, petroleum (aircraft fuel), 

oils, lubricants at multiple locations, and centralized storage locations globally 

Source: DOD and GAO. 

Page 5 GAO-10-172R Defense Logistics 
Page 6 GAO-10-172R Defense Logistics 

 

The Army and Marine Corps maintain sets of materiel and equipment by support unit or brigade 

type using land and ship storage facilities. For example, the Army maintains materiel and 

equipment, such as tanks and armored wheeled vehicles, to support combat operations. Support 

materiel and equipment include secondary items such as clothing, construction, repair parts, and 

medical supplies. The Marine Corps stores combat systems, communications systems, 

construction equipment, munitions, medical supplies, and sustainment stocks on its ships. The 

Marine Corps supports its Marine Expeditionary Brigades14 with vehicles, engineering equipment, 

munitions, rations, and other equipment that will be used to support any geographic combatant 

command. The Navy and Air Force configure their prepositioned materiel and equipment by 

capability on land and ship storage facilities. For example, the Navy maintains expeditionary 

medical facilities, which provide medical and surgical care. The Air Force maintains basing and 

combat support materiel and equipment through BEAR package sets that provide basing assets 

at sites with limited infrastructure and support facilities and Fuels Operational Readiness 

Capability Equipment to provide fueling capabilities in areas without supporting infrastructure. 

In our December 2008 report, which addressed DOD’s August 2008 annual report, we found that 

additional information on the funding requirements for the services’ prepositioned programs and 

on risk to current operations and concept plans could further inform congressional defense 

committees. 15 As a result we recommended that DOD provide additional information to Congress 

on funding requirements for the services’ programs, and in addition to the required elements, 

include in DOD’s report to Congress information about risks to current operations and concept 

plans due to shortfalls and the mitigation strategies to address those risks. DOD agreed with our 

first recommendation and DOD officials stated that they will present funding requirements by 

year and appropriation accounts, similar to DOD’s annual budget request presentation, in the 

fiscal year 2009 report to Congress. This information should provide Congress with a more 

comprehensive detailed estimate of the services’ requirements for prepositioned materiel and 

equipment. DOD disagreed with our second recommendation; however, the Joint Staff developed 

a new methodology to identify risks to operation plans and current operations. The methodology 

compares the services’ materiel and equipment shortfalls with the Combatant Commanders’ 

Integrated Priority List. The Integrated Priority List includes shortfalls in essential materiel and 

equipment requirements affecting operational capabilities to accomplish their assigned mission. 

The list of corresponding shortfalls was provided to the services to obtain a list of actions taken 

by the services to mitigate any risk that may be created by the shortfalls. By including equipment 

shortfalls identified by Combatant Commanders and service mitigation strategies, the 

information provided in the classified annex of DOD’s report provides more transparency. This 

transparency provides DOD and the services greater visibility to better assess the risks and 

subsequent mitigation plans to better inform congressional decision making on the potential 

ramifications associated with specific shortages of prepositioned stocks. 

In addition to replenishing their prepositioned stocks, the services are reviewing their programs 

to address future requirements. According to Army logistics officials, the Army is examining the 

effect of changes in prepositioned materiel and equipment requirements and support to 

Afghanistan on the Army’s ability to meet its Army Prepositioned Stocks Strategy 2015. Army 

officials provided senior leadership with recommendations to address the effect of these changes 

on its prepositioned stock program in August 2009. In addition, the Marine Corps is in the 

process of transforming its Maritime Prepositioning Force by incorporating more flexible 

capabilities to enable a variety of missions, while the Navy is converting its expeditionary 

14 A Marine Expeditionary Brigade includes between 14,000 and 17,000 Marines and can operate independently for 

up to 30 days. 

15 GAO, Defense Logistics: Department of Defense’s Annual Report on the Status of Prepositioned Materiel and 

Equipment Can Be Enhanced to Better Inform Congress, GAO-09-147R (Washington, D.C.: Dec.15, 2008). 
medical facility capability to modular medical units of varying sizes by 2013. Similarly, the Air 

Force is in the process of shifting from its historical emphasis on air deployable assets to new 

deployment configurations that reduce its reliance on airlift by prepositioning materiel on land 

and on ships. 

DOD’s Report Addressed the Six Required Reporting Elements, but Future Reports 

Would Benefit from Additional Information 

Although DOD addressed the six required reporting elements in its annual report,16 DOD’s future 

reports to Congress on the status of its prepositioned materiel and equipment would benefit from 

additional information in three areas. Specifically, future reports would be enhanced by 

additional information on 1) the amount of spare parts the Army maintains in its prepositioned 

stocks, 2) the materiel condition of the Air Force’s material and equipment needed to establish 

bases, and 3) information on the services’ progress to replenish their individual prepositioned 

sets, such as level of fill and readiness rates, and information about changes in those sets from 

the previous year. 

The services provided information on each of the reporting elements in DOD’s report to 

Congress. In responding to the first reporting element, each service provided some information 

on the level of fill—or the amount of equipment or materiel on hand in their prepositioned stocks 

compared to requirements—of major end items.17 In reporting on the second reporting element, 

the materiel condition of equipment in prepositioned stocks, all of the services provided some 

information on the materiel condition of equipment on hand. For the third element, the services 

reported information on equipment drawn from and returned to prepositioned stocks that 

supported ongoing operations or training exercises during the reporting period of October 1, 

2007, to September 30, 2008. For the fourth reporting element, the services provided their time 

lines to completely reconstitute shortfalls in their stocks, indicating that they expect to 

completely replenish their stocks between 2013 and 2015. For the fifth element, the report 

includes the services’ cost estimates to replenish their prepositioned stocks ranging from $4.5 

million for the Navy to $5.3 billion for the Army, and described the Secretary’s plan for carrying 

out the reconstitution. A classified annex addressed the sixth reporting element, which included 

a list of operation plans affected by any shortfall in the prepositioned stocks and subsequent 

mitigation strategies. 

In addition to the information provided in the report to Congress for the first reporting element 

on the level of fill of major end items of equipment and spare parts, the Army could provide more 

information on its spare parts. We found that the Army has more detailed data on spare parts that 

were not included in DOD’s report. Army logistics officials have acknowledged three types of 

prepositioned packages that include spare parts—Authorized Stockage List, Prescribed Load 

List, and Unit Basic Loads that could be reported to Congress, but these packages are not 

currently included in DOD’s annual report.18 Instead, the readiness of Army spare parts is 

 

16 10 U.S.C. §2229a. 17 According to the Department of Defense, Supply Chain Materiel Management Regulation, DoD 4140.1-R, 

AP1.1.11.7 (May 23, 2003), a major end item is a final combination of end products that is ready for its intended 

use. 

18 The three packages support equipment in the Army’s prepositioned brigade combat team. An Authorized 

Stockage List includes items that are combat essential, authorized, and tailored to the support level, geographic area, 

and equipment density level. The Prescribed Load List includes unit maintenance repair parts that are not otherwise 

authorized for stockage at the installation level but are required to ensure operations of major pieces of equipment or 

Page 7 GAO-10-172R Defense Logistics 
included as part of its equipment end item readiness in DOD’s report to Congress. Army officials 

told us that the packages of spare parts are drawn when equipment that the packages support is 

drawn from the prepositioned stocks or modernized. In DOD’s report to Congress, of the major 

end items reported on by the Army, at least 50 percent of the prepositioning equipment has been 

drawn. Army officials told us that the packages with spare parts are not replenished or their 

status reported until the brigade the spare parts support is reset. As we have previously reported, 

greater use of oversight mechanisms, such as the monthly readiness report, should be utilized to 

improve the Army’s ability to make reliable assessments and report on the status of its program.19

According to an Army regulation on logistics, readiness, and sustainability, if Army materiel 

managers use readiness data from inaccurate reports, their decisions on repair, modification, 

overhaul, or purchase of end items and repair parts will be faulty causing, among other things, 

inefficient and wasteful use of scarce Army resources.20 Until the Army provides additional 

information about the status of its prepositioned spare parts in DOD’s report, Congress may not 

have full visibility of the amount of spare parts in the Army’s stocks to support decision making. 

Second, in addressing the reporting element on the materiel condition of equipment in the 

prepositioned stocks, the Air Force could provide more information on the prepositioned 

materiel and equipment it stores to facilitate the establishment of expeditionary bases. Including 

this information in future reports to Congress would provide for a more comprehensive account 

of the material condition of the Air Force’s prepositioned equipment. The Air Force indicated 

that critical shortfalls of items were affecting the materiel condition of its Basic Expeditionary 

Airfield Resources (BEAR) sets, but did not provide information on the overall materiel 

condition of its BEAR sets. In addition, the Air Force included the sets on the unfunded 

requirements list that it provided to the House Armed Services Committee indicating that the Air 

Force does not have funds, estimated to be about $11 million in its fiscal year 2010 budget, to 

replace older versions of the BEAR sets deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom for 

which supplemental funding was not provided. The Air Force provided us with additional 

information on the materiel condition of its BEAR sets as of July 2009. Of the 171 prepositioned 

BEAR sets, some of those sets were mission capable, indicating that they had 100 percent of 

critical items and 75 percent of noncritical items on hand. Most of the BEAR sets were partially 

mission capable, having at least 50 percent of critical items and 50 percent of noncritical items on 

hand, while some were not mission capable, with less than 50 percent of their critical items on 

hand. Without this additional information in future reports, Congress may not have all the 

information it needs to make informed decisions regarding the Air Force’s prepositioning 

programs. 

Third, DOD’s future reports to Congress on the status of its prepositioned materiel and 

equipment would also benefit from information on the services’ progress to replenish their 

individual prepositioned sets,21 such as level of fill and readiness rates, and information about 

changes in those sets from the previous year. We have previously reported that transparent and 

comprehensive information about programs allows decision makers to understand the full 

magnitude of resource requirements and weigh competing priorities.22 In the report to Congress, 

the Army stated that of the required 5042 medium tactical vehicles currently in its prepositioned 

stocks, most of the vehicles are available for use. Since the vehicles are assigned to multiple 

 facilities that are vital to a defense mission. The Unit Basic Loads include supplies for use in combat other than 

ammunition. 

19 GAO-05-427. 20 Army Regulation 700-138, Logistics Army Logistics Readiness and Sustainability (Feb. 26, 2004). 

21 Each of the military services maintains preconfigured groups of related materiel and equipment, known as “sets,” 

in geographic locations around the world. 

22 GAO-08-354R. 

Page 8 GAO-10-172R Defense Logistics 
prepositioned stock sets, the information in the report does not indicate the Army’s progress to 

replenish individual sets. Alternatively, the Marine Corps provided information on its progress to 

replenish its prepositioned sets by providing information on the amount of equipment loaded on 

its ships. For example, its Maritime Prepositioned Squadron 1 loaded 91 percent of its equipment 

required during its last maintenance cycle. This information informs Congress on the availability 

of the Maritime Prepositioned Squadron 1 to provide equipment in response to a contingency. 

Section 2229a of Title 10 of the U.S. Code does not include a reporting requirement to provide a 

comprehensive picture of the services’ prepositioned sets and changes in the condition of those 

sets from the previous year. Information on the services’ progress to replenish their individual 

prepositioned sets, such as level of fill and readiness rates, and information about changes in 

those sets from the previous year could provide both Congress and DOD leadership greater 

visibility over the services’ progress over time to meet their replenishment goals, compared to 

the information the current annual report provides. Moreover, such information would provide 

congressional defense committees with a more thorough understanding of the full magnitude of 

resource requirements when weighing competing funding priorities. 

Conclusions 

Going forward, DOD’s annual report, as well the active interest and involvement of the 

congressional defense committees will continue to be key tools to ensure DOD effectively 

achieves and sustains its goals for replenishing prepositioned stocks. Prepositioned materiel and 

equipment have been vital to ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past several 

years. Assessing potential risks to operations and plans based on shortfalls in prepositioned 

stocks provides DOD better information to assess how prepositioned stocks could support 

current and future operations. Providing additional information on Army spare parts and on the 

materiel condition of the Air Force’s BEAR sets would provide Congress greater visibility of the 

amounts and condition of the services’ prepositioned stocks on hand when making decisions 

about future funding for the services’ programs. Furthermore, without comprehensive 

information on the services’ programs, congressional defense committees may not have adequate 

information to make funding decisions about the services’ prepositioned stock programs when 

weighing competing priorities. In addition, the services’ ongoing reviews of their prepositioning 

programs, the effects of operations overseas, and potential changes to meet new threats in the 

future may impact the funding required to completely replenish their stocks. Additional 

information on the services’ prepositioned sets and information about changes in the condition 

of those sets from year to year would provide Congress a more transparent and comprehensive 

picture of how the services are utilizing their funding to reconstitute their prepositioned stocks 

in a changing security environment. 

Recommendations for Executive Action 

To provide Congress with the visibility to better assess the condition of DOD’s prepositioned 

materiel and equipment, we are recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct 

• the Secretary of the Army to include in DOD’s future reports to Congress more detailed 

information on the level of fill of its prepositioned sets that include spare parts, and 

• the Secretary of the Air Force to include in DOD’s future reports to Congress information 

on the materiel condition of its BEAR sets. 

To provide Congress with a more comprehensive picture of the services’ prepositioned sets, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Joint Staff and the secretaries of the military 

services to include in DOD’s future reports to Congress, information on the services’ progress to 

Page 9 GAO-10-172R Defense Logistics 
replenish their individual prepositioned sets, such as level of fill and readiness rates, and changes 

in those sets from the previous year. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with all three recommendations. In 

response to our first recommendation that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the 

Army to include in DOD’s future reports to Congress the level of fill of its prepositioned sets that 

include spare parts, DOD commented that it will incorporate into future reports to Congress 

information on the Army’s level of fill of its prepositioned sets that include spare parts. In 

response to our second recommendation that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the 

Air Force to include in DOD’s future reports to Congress information on the materiel condition of 

its Basic Expeditionary Airfield Resources sets, DOD also commented that it will include 

information on the materiel condition of the Air Force’s BEAR sets in its future reports. Similarly, 

DOD concurred with our third recommendation and commented that the Joint Staff and the 

military services will include information regarding the progress to replenish their individual 

prepositioned sets and changes in those sets from the previous year to highlight readiness 

concerns as well as major program improvements. 

DOD also provided a number of general and technical comments, which we have considered and 

incorporated as appropriate. A copy of DOD’s written comments is included in enclosure II. 

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

of Defense; the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and 

the Air Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. 

In addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at htpp://www.gao.gov. If 

you or your staff members have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 

512-8365 or solisw@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff members that made major 

contributions to this report are listed in enclosure III. 

William M. Solis, Director 

Defense Capabilities and Management 

Page 10 GAO-10-172R Defense Logistics 
List of Committees 

The Honorable Carl Levin 

Chairman 

The Honorable John McCain 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye 

Chairman 

The Honorable Thad Cochran 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Defense 

United States Senate 

 

The Honorable Ike Skelton 

Chairman 

The Honorable Howard P. McKeon 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable John P. Murtha 

Chairman 

The Honorable C.W. Bill Young 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Defense 

House of Representatives 

Page 11 GAO-10-172R Defense Logistics 
ENCLOSURE I ENCLOSURE I 

Page 12 GAO-10-172R Defense Logistics 

Scope and Methodology 

To evaluate the Department of Defense’s (DOD) report on the status of its prepositioned stocks, 

we obtained and analyzed data from the Joint Staff, Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force 

that described the status of materiel and equipment in the prepositioned stocks. We reviewed 

DOD and service guidance and strategies that guide the prepositioned stock programs to 

understand the variations of information reported by the services on the status of prepositioned 

materiel and equipment. After analyzing the data, we met with appropriate Joint Staff and service 

officials to discuss the methodology used to collect and report materiel status, and the reliability 

of data from systems the services used to report the status of their prepositioned stocks. We also 

examined GAO and DOD reports on the services’ prepositioned stock programs, reviewed 

relevant DOD and service guidance, and met with DOD and service officials to determine 

whether additional information could further inform Congress on the status of prepositioned 

materiel and equipment. We reviewed the current and prior DOD reports to Congress to 

determine if the information provides a transparent and comprehensive picture of the services’ 

progress over time to reconstitute their prepositioned stock. While we did not independently 

assess the data DOD provided to Congress, we discussed the reliability of the systems used to 

develop the report data with service officials and determined that the data are sufficiently 

reliable to meet the objectives of this engagement. During this audit engagement, we met with 

officials from the Office of the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Supply Chain 

Integration; Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Logistics; Army Deputy Chief of Staff, Program 

Analysis & Evaluation Directorate; Army Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations and Plans; Army 

Deputy Chief of Staff, Logistics; U.S. Army Medical Materiel Agency; Army Materiel Command; 

Army Aviation and Missile Command; Army Sustainment Command; Headquarters Marine Corps 

Installations & Logistics; Chief of Naval Operations, Logistics Operations Branch; Naval Facilities 

Naval Expeditionary Program Office; and Headquarters Air Force Plans and Integration; Defense 

Logistics Agency. We conducted this performance audit from May 2009 through November 2009 

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. 
ENCLOSURE II ENCLOSURE II 

Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 13 GAO-10-172R Defense Logistics 
ENCLOSURE II ENCLOSURE II 

Page 14 GAO-10-172R Defense Logistics 
ENCLOSURE III ENCLOSURE III 

Page 15 GAO-10-172R Defense Logistics 

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements 

GAO Contact William M. Solis, (202) 512-8365 or solisw@gao.gov

Acknowledgements In addition to the contact named above, David A. Schmitt, 

Assistant Director; Renee Brown, Susan Ditto, Nicole Harms, 

Elizabeth D. Morris, Katharine Neill, Charles Perdue, Terry 

Richardson, Donna Rogers, Adam Smith, and Chris Watson made 

contributions to this report. 

(351352) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and GAO’s Mission 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 Obtaining Copies of is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

GAO Reports and posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, Testimony go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone 	 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 Web site, 

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. 

Contact: To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Relations Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 Public Affairs U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548