Defense Logistics: Actions Needed to Improve Department-Wide Management of Conventional Ammunition Inventory
Published: 2014-03-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: DOD manages nearly $70 billion of conventional ammunition—which includes many types of items other than nuclear and special weapons—at eight Army depots. The military services use automated information systems to manage their inventory. They also compile annual reports that compare ammunition inventory levels against stated requirements. GAO was asked to evaluate DOD's management of conventional ammunition. This report addresses the extent to which (1) the services' information systems facilitate efficient management of the conventional ammunition inventory and (2) the services collect and share inventory data to help them meet their stated requirements. GAO reviewed DOD guidance on materiel management and logistics systems, reviewed the services' annual inventory reports for fiscal years 2009 to 2013, and discussed inventory management and related issues with service officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The military services use automated information systems to manage and maintain accountability for the Department of Defense (DOD) ammunition inventory, but the systems have some limitations that affect their ability to facilitate efficient management of conventional ammunition.
The systems cannot directly exchange ammunition data because they use different data exchange formats. Only the Army's Logistics Modernization Program (LMP) system uses the standard DOD format. The other services have not adopted this format, although Air Force officials have said that they plan to by 2017. Without a common format for data exchange, the services will continue to devote extra time and resources to ensure efficient data exchange between their systems and LMP.
LMP has some limitations in its ammunition-related functionality that can affect the accuracy and completeness of data for items stored at Army depots and require extra time and resources to confirm data or correct errors. The Army acknowledges there are limitations in LMP; however, it has not yet developed a comprehensive plan, with time frames and costs, for addressing the limitations. Such a plan could provide DOD reasonable assurance that its efforts to upgrade ammunition-related functionality in LMP are making progress.
The Army developed the National Level Ammunition Capability (NLAC) as a DOD-wide repository of ammunition data, but NLAC has some limitations in providing ammunition visibility—that is, having complete and accurate information on items wherever they are in the supply system. The Army does not have reasonable assurance that NLAC collects complete and accurate data from service systems because it does not have checks and controls that federal internal control standards recommend to ensure source data is reliable. Without steps to ensure the quality of the data that flows into NLAC, DOD officials risk making decisions based on inaccurate and incomplete inventory information, or ammunition offices may have to devote extra staff and time to obtain accurate data of DOD-wide inventory.
To identify inventory owned by one service that may be available to meet the requirements of another service, the military services have a process for collecting and sharing ammunition data. Through a stratification and redistribution process, the services assess whether inventory can meet stated requirements and then may transfer available inventory, including inventory in excess of one service's requirement, to another service. This redistribution offsets procurements of ammunition items. To facilitate this process, each service develops and shares ammunition inventory data in annual reports. The Army's annual report, however, does not include information on certain missiles. Also, the Army's report does not include information on all available, usable ammunition that in a prior year was unclaimed by another service and placed in storage for disposal; DOD guidance does not require that such inventory be included in the reports. Without incorporating these items in the Army's report, DOD may lack full transparency about all available items and may miss opportunities to avoid procurement costs for certain usable items that may already be available in the Army's stockpile.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is making seven recommendations to improve the efficiency of the services' systems for managing DOD's conventional ammunition inventory and to improve data sharing among the services, including implementing data exchange standards, developing a plan for improving the accuracy and timeliness of ammunition data in the Army's LMP, enhancing DOD's ability to provide total asset visibility over conventional ammunition, and incorporating additional items as part of the services' current stratification and redistribution process. DOD concurred with all of these recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) manages a stockpile of conventional  ammunition valued at nearly $70 billion. Conventional ammunition  includes items ranging from small arms cartridges to rockets, mortars,  and artillery to tactical missiles. DOD policy calls for the highest possible  degree of efficiency and effectiveness in ammunition acquisition and  logistics, and managing this inventory involves extensive coordination  among the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. For example, many  ammunition items entering DOD’s supply system are delivered to eight  Army-managed ammunition depots and are stored there until the items  are requisitioned and transferred to an Army or another service’s unit,  supply point, or other location. The depots have about 30.5 million square  feet of storage space and, as of August 2013, housed about 1.7 million  tons of conventional ammunition belonging to all of the military services.
The military services have several automated information systems for  managing the conventional ammunition inventory. The services each  have their own systems that provide accountability over items and that  maintain various item-specific data such as location, condition, and  quantity. To promote efficient transfers of data among the systems, DOD  has directed that logistics systems migrate toward a standard data  exchange format. For example, the service systems routinely exchange  data with the Army’s Logistics Modernization Program (LMP), an  information system that is used to manage operations at ammunition  depots and other Army industrial activities. The military services rely on  Army data in LMP to help them maintain accountability of items, including  ammunition, they own that are stored and managed at the Army’s depots.  In addition to the services’ systems, the Army has a data repository called  the National Level Ammunition Capability (NLAC). NLAC collects  ammunition data from across the department and provides these data to  DOD decision-support systems, such as those used for readiness  assessments and joint operational planning. NLAC is an outgrowth of  prior efforts by DOD to achieve total asset visibility of conventional  ammunition inventory.
As part of their ammunition inventory management, the services also are  required by DOD guidance to generate “stratification” reports that show  the status of the inventory at a point in time. The reports are to list, or stratify, the inventory by category, including item quantities that are  needed to meet specific requirements, such as for training or war  reserves, and the quantities being retained for possible future use or for  economic reasons,these purposes. The services are to prepare these reports prior to an  annual conference where service representatives may agree to transfer  items that are excess to one service’s needs to another service having a  requirement for those same items.   as well as the quantities that are not needed for  You requested that GAO evaluate DOD’s management of conventional  ammunition. This report assesses the extent to which (1) the military  services’ information systems facilitate efficient management of the  conventional ammunition inventory and (2) the military services collect  and share inventory data to help them meet their stated requirements.
To determine the extent to which the military services’ information  systems facilitate efficient management of the conventional ammunition  inventory, we reviewed DOD guidance on conventional ammunition,  supply chain, and logistics systems management. We reviewed key  documents from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,  Technology, and Logistics; technical guidance from the Defense Logistics  Agency Management Standards Office; and documentation of services’  responses to a common set of questions related to their systems. We  obtained access to NLAC, and conducted tests to compare data with the  services’ source data. We also interviewed officials in each of the  services’ ammunition system program offices, the Army’s Joint Munitions  Command, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and other relevant  offices.
To determine the extent to which the military services collect and share  inventory data to help them meet their stated requirements, we reviewed  policies, procedures, and other guidance, as well as reports responding to  conventional ammunition reporting requirements for the services. These  reports list items in the current inventory (as of the date of the report) and  display how much meets or exceeds service requirements. We reviewed  the reports (hereafter referred to as annual reports) that each service  produced and shared with other services in fiscal years 2009 through  2013. We selected this period of time to observe how inventory reporting  changed from year to year. We attended an annual conference where  service participants discussed inter-service transfers of items. We  interviewed officials knowledgeable about the annual ammunition report  process and determined that the information included in those reports  was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. Appendix I  provides further information on our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2012 to March  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.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Organization for Management and Oversight of Conventional Ammunition
paragraphs: DOD has an extensive organizational structure for managing and  overseeing conventional ammunition, with the Army having a prominent  role. Since 1975, the Secretary of the Army has served as DOD’s Single  Manager for Conventional Ammunition (hereafter referred to as the Single  Manager). Under DOD guidance, the Single Manager’s mission  encompasses all aspects of the life cycle of conventional ammunition,  from research and development through acquisition, inventory  management, and eventual disposal. The Single Manager, the military  services, and U.S. Special Operations Command all have responsibilities  pertaining to assigned conventional ammunition items, including logistics  management, stock control, and reporting on the status of inventory. In  addition, DOD organizations involved in ammunition management have  developed joint policies and procedures to guide certain activities.
The Secretary of the Army, in executing the Single Manager role, has  delegated and designated related functions to a number of Army entities.  For example, responsibility for issuing policy and providing oversight of  the Single Manager mission is delegated to the Assistant Secretary of the  Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology. The Deputy  Commanding General of Army Materiel Command serves as the  Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition, responsible for  monitoring and assessing the overall Single Manager mission and for  overseeing the Single Manager’s execution of its mission for joint service  activities. Joint Munitions Command, a subordinate command of Army  Materiel Command, is assigned as the field operating activity for the  Single Manager, responsible for providing logistics and sustainment  support, storing and managing wholesale ammunition for all of the military  services, and providing information to the military services on ammunition  stored at Army depots. In this role, the Joint Munitions Command  maintains items, performs physical inventory checks, and reports on the  status of assets that are stored at its eight depots across the United  States. Aviation and Missile Command provides similar functions for  tactical missiles that are stored at these sites.
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and  Logistics has responsibility to provide policy and guidance for the Single  Manager’s mission and, in collaboration with other DOD component  heads, appraise the overall performance of the Single Manager in  accomplishing the mission objectives outlined in guidance and facilitate  improvements.offices.
section_title: Military Services’ Systems for Managing Ammunition Inventory
paragraphs: All of the military services have automated information systems for  managing and maintaining accountability for ammunition inventory. The  Air Force has developed the Combat Ammunition System, which contains  comprehensive information on ammunition at all levels—depot,  ammunition supply points in theaters of operations, and individual units.  The Navy uses its Ordnance Information System, which is divided into  two sub-systems for wholesale and retail stocks. The Marine Corps has  developed the Ordnance Information System–Marine Corps, which  shares a common system architecture with the Navy’s system.
The Army has LMP as well as other systems—such as the Worldwide  Ammunition Reporting System–New Technology—which contain  comprehensive information about wholesale and Army retail ammunition  stocks. LMP, among other functions, stores information on wholesale  inventory in all classes of supply, including ammunition. LMP contains  information on all ammunition inventory stored at Army depots, including  inventory that the Army manages for other services. The Army completed  final deployment of initial LMP capabilities, referred to as Increment 1, in  2010. In December 2011, the Army began to develop additional  capabilities for LMP—referred to as LMP Increment 2. The Army plans to  deploy Increment 2 in multiple stages between December 2013 and  September 2016.
section_title: DOD’s Efforts toward a Single Database for Ammunition Inventory
paragraphs: DOD has worked for decades to achieve department-wide visibility of  ammunition stocks in a single database. Drawing upon lessons learned  from the Gulf War in 1990-91, it sought to develop a Joint Total Asset  Visibility system to provide logistics information on all classes of supply.  For ammunition, it aimed to integrate multiple service databases to  provide a department-wide ammunition capability. DOD also initiated a  program to develop a Joint Ammunition Management Standard System.  When that program was terminated because it did not provide a single,  viable department-wide source of ammunition data, the Army then agreed  to support the sustainment of the ammunition portion of the joint asset  visibility database, known as the National Level Ammunition Capability, or  NLAC. In fiscal year 2012, NLAC’s budget was about $2.4 million. NLAC  receives data from a variety of sources, serving as a DOD-wide data  repository, and in turn provides data to DOD decision support systems  (see fig. 1).
As shown in the figure, NLAC receives data from the services’  ammunition systems and other sources. It provides data to two DOD  decision support systems—the Defense Readiness Reporting System  and the Global Combat Support System-Joint, both of which are used by  operational planners. Testing is underway with interfaces between  NLAC and the Joint Operation Planning and Execution System and the  Global Command and Control System-Joint. In its guidance, DOD has  indicated a need for systems to provide logistics information visibility to  support the joint warfighter.
section_title: DOD’s Inventory Reports and Its Annual Redistribution Process
paragraphs: DOD guidance directs the military services to stratify their conventional  munitions inventory into several categories and prepare annual  ammunition reports. The stratification separates the inventory into  several categories to assess the ability of the inventory to meet stated  requirements, ensure that inventories above requirements are kept only if  warranted, and optimize the department’s ammunition inventory. The  categories are  requirement-related munitions stock, including items needed for war  reserve, training, and testing;  contingency retention munitions stock, which includes items that  support requirements other than those already considered in the war  reserve requirement and the training and testing requirements; economic retention munitions stock, a category that refers to inventory  that is more expensive to dispose of and reacquire in the future than  to retain to meet future requirements; and potential reutilization and disposal stocks, meaning inventory that  exceeds the total of the other categories.
In fiscal year 2013, the Army listed about 3.8 billion ammunition items on  its annual report; the Marine Corps listed about 1.5 billion, and the Air  Force listed about 730 million. The services prepare their annual  stratification reports prior to an annual conference called the Quad  Services Cross-Leveling Review. The purpose of the conference is to  identify ammunition that is excess to one service’s needs (i.e., stock  identified for potential reutilization or disposal) and can be transferred to  another service that has identified a requirement for that same item.Defense Security Cooperation Agency screens any inventory that is not  redistributed at this annual meeting for suitability for foreign military sales.  According to a 2010 Army Audit Agency report, the Army had significantly  underestimated the funding requirements needed to perform its  conventional ammunition demilitarization mission and, as a result, the   The  stockpile has grown to over 557,000 tons, representing a $1 billion  liability.
section_title: GAO’s Prior Work on Ammunition Inventory
paragraphs: GAO last reported on DOD’s conventional ammunition management in  1999.conventional ammunition program continued to be fragmented despite  internal recognition of the problem and efforts to identify alternative  solutions. We recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct the  Secretary of the Army to establish a timeframe for implementing an Army- wide reorganization to integrate the management of conventional  ammunition. DOD concurred, commenting that although the Army was  working to resolve the inefficiencies we noted and to make the necessary  organizational changes, the conventional ammunition program continued  to be fragmented. DOD agreed that the three commands then dealing  with various aspects of conventional ammunition needed to implement an  Army-wide organizational restructuring to integrate the management of  conventional ammunition. DOD subsequently took actions to implement  GAO’s recommendation.
section_title: Military Services’ Systems Have Some Limitations That Affect Their Ability to Facilitate Efficient Management of Conventional Ammunition
subsections: section_title: Military Services’ Ammunition Information Systems Use Different Formats and Cannot Directly Exchange Data
paragraphs: The military services’ ammunition systems cannot directly exchange data  because they use different data exchange formats. Only the Army’s LMP  system uses the standard DOD format; the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air  Force systems operate with formats that are obsolete and not compatible  with the format used by LMP.
In December 2003, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,  Technology, and Logistics issued a memo to the military services and  other components establishing policy for migration of logistics systems to  the Defense Logistics Management Standards (DLMS) and elimination  of the use of the Military Standard Systems (MILS). MILS is based on  standards and computer technology developed more than 50 years ago.  According to DOD, MILS is functionally constraining, technologically  obsolete, and unable to support the tracking of an item throughout its life  cycle and across the entire supply chain using unique identifier codes.
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and  Logistics reaffirmed this direction in 2013, calling for compliance by  2019. In addition, DOD guidance indicates that DLMS, rather than  MILS, shall be the basis for new, replacement, and major modifications to  logistics business processes or systems.
LMP uses DLMS for data exchange; however, the other services’  ammunition systems continue to exchange data using MILS.  Consequently, LMP cannot exchange data directly with the other  services’ ammunition systems. Rather, data must pass through a  translation process at Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Transaction  Services. DLA’s process translates data from one format to another  format, enabling otherwise incompatible systems to exchange data. With  respect to the services’ ammunition systems, the translation process  occurs for the exchange of ammunition data between LMP and Navy’s  and the Marine Corps’ ammunition systems; however, according to Air  Force Combat Ammunition System officials, the translation of data  between LMP and the Air Force’s system is not complete. Air Force  Combat Ammunition System officials we interviewed stated that the  ammunition data the Air Force system receives from LMP that DLA  Transaction Services translates does not include lot and serial number  information. Figure 2 provides a high-level overview of how data flow  between service ammunition systems using the translation process.
The DLA Logistics Management Standards Office has recommended the  services and other DOD components make DLMS implementation a top  priority in order to achieve efficiencies consistent with the direction from  the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and  Logistics. According to DLA officials, any system operating under MILS is  limiting its capabilities for being able to send and receive data from more  advanced systems. MILS is restrictive in that it does not allow for more  detailed information to be included when conducting specific transactions.  As a result of the use of different data exchange formats, the services rely  on e-mail for certain business transactions related to ammunition. For  example, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force personnel have to type e- mails to submit requisitions for certain ammunition items to an Army Joint  Munitions Command item manager for processing through LMP. These  requisitions include items managed by the Single Manager that include  specific instructions, as well as items the services are transferring to a  different account for reutilization. For items that are not managed by the  Single Manager and include specific instructions, Navy, Marine Corps,  and Air Force personnel have to type e-mails for such requisitions directly  to the depots for processing. Figure 3 provides an overview of the  requisition processes that the services currently use when requesting  ammunition items, whether or not managed by the Single Manager, that  include specific instructions.
According to Air Force Global Ammunition Control Point officials, using  the e-mail procedure for requisitioning ammunition increases processing  time by as much as a week and lacks visibility because there is no  confirmation either that the requisition was received or that it was  completed. In addition, because different data exchange standards are  used, an Army Joint Munitions Command official we interviewed stated  that instructions had to be issued for standardizing processes with the  other services for requisitions that cannot be completed through the  services’ systems and LMP.
Although an Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and  Logistics Business Strategy calls for transition to DLMS by 2019, Marine  Corps officials stated that they have no plans at present to update their  ammunition system to DLMS, and Naval Supply Systems Command  officials told us that the Navy’s plan to update its ammunition system to  DLMS has not been funded. According to Air Force officials, the Air Force  plans to update its ammunition system to the DLMS standard by 2017.  The services have lagged in transitioning to DLMS for different reasons,  one of them being that funding for this upgrade has not been a priority.  According to Naval Supply Systems Command officials we interviewed,  they submitted funding requests annually from 2010 through 2013 to  update the Navy’s ammunition system to DLMS; these requests were  denied. Marine Corps officials stated they are waiting to update the  Marine Corps ammunition system until after the Navy completes its DLMS  update. However, the Navy and the Marine Corps made significant  changes to their respective ammunition systems in 2004 and 2008  without updating to DLMS. According to Naval Supply Systems  Command officials, the Navy incorporated wholesale ammunition  operations to the current system in 2004. Similarly, Marine Corps officials  we interviewed stated that the Marine Corps replaced its legacy system  with the current system, Ordnance Information System–Marine Corps, in  October 2008. Without upgrades of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air  Force systems to DLMS, the services will continue to devote extra time  and resources to ensure the efficient transfer of ammunition data between  these systems and LMP.
section_title: LMP Has Some Limitations That Can Affect the Accuracy and Completeness of Data on Ammunition Items Stored at Depots
paragraphs: LMP was not specifically designed to track ammunition and has some  limitations in its ammunition-related functionality that can affect the  accuracy and completeness of data for items stored at Army depots. If  ammunition-related functionality in LMP is not corrected, any data  problems that exist may be replicated because LMP provides information  to other services’ ammunition systems. To address ongoing data quality  concerns, the Army and the other services have had to use manual  processes to check and, when necessary, make corrections to  ammunition data.
DOD guidance on supply chain materiel management requires  components to implement data administration policies and procedures  aggressively in ways that provide clear, concise, consistent,  unambiguous, accurate, up-to-date, and easily accessible data DOD- wide, thereby minimizing the cost and time required to transform,  translate, or research different-appearing, but otherwise identical data.  Further, guidance jointly developed by DOD components involved in  ammunition management indicates that the Single Manager Field  Operating Activity will provide accurate and timely information to the  military services on ammunition stored at Single Manager sites,the Army depots where conventional ammunition is stored.
LMP, however, has some limitations in its ammunition-related  functionality that can affect the quality of data that it maintains and  provides to the other services. For example, we found the following:
LMP does not accurately calculate ammunition storage capacity at  Army ammunition depots. Depot personnel need accurate information  on the storage capacity that is available in buildings in order to plan  for storing the ammunition that arrives at the depot. According to  officials at Tooele Army Depot and Letterkenny Munitions Center,  LMP overestimates the amount of space available for storage, and  depot personnel must calculate storage capacity manually. Tooele  officials said this process can often take up to a day and, in the end, is  still only an approximation of available space. Joint Munitions  Command assessments that were conducted in fiscal years 2012 or  2013 found that all the ammunition depots had problems with  calculating storage capacity using LMP. The assessments we  reviewed do not quantify the extent that the depots must expend  resources to calculate storage capacity manually. However, seven of  the eight assessments stated that LMP’s limitation in calculating  ammunition storage capacity could have a negative impact on mission  performance; and six of eight assessments indicated that the issue  could result in unnecessary costs. Army officials at the Joint Munitions  Command told us they expect to improve this functionality in 2014.
LMP may not fully account for ammunition items that are shipped from  Army depots to other locations. DOD guidance requires that the  Single Manager is accountable for inventory items until the destination  receives them. However, as documented in an assessment of the  ammunition process by the Army that concluded in November 2012,  LMP lacks receipt confirmation for shipped ammunition items. LMP  drops the item from record once the item ships from the depot, but  there is no confirmation of receipt back to LMP from the receiving  location. Without receipts for shipped items, there is a gap in  accountability and visibility of ammunition items.
LMP does not have a capability for generating certain performance  information used for ammunition stockpile management. According to  the fiscal year 2012 annual report by the Executive Director for  Conventional Ammunition, LMP was unable to provide inventory  accuracy rates, which is a key performance metric used to measure  the Single Manager’s ability to perform stockpile management.   According to a briefing slide provided by Army Joint Munitions  Command, inventory accuracy is the comparison between the  physical inventory and the accountable record. Similarly, the Marine  Corps noted in its response to a fiscal year 2012 Army survey that  inventory accuracy had neither been verified through physical  inventory nor reconciled within LMP. According to a Joint Munitions  Command official, the Command has been sending LMP-generated  inventory accuracy data to the ammunition depots for them to confirm  and correct if necessary. As a result, officials expect the data will be  used as the basis for the next Executive Director for Conventional  Ammunition annual report on the Single Manager. Because the  Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition has not released its  report for fiscal year 2013, we were unable to determine whether  inventory accuracy has been adequately addressed.
Officials at the other military services also have cited various concerns  about the reliability of LMP data. According to responses provided by  Marine Corps officials, data that the Marine Corps receive from LMP  sometimes fail to differentiate information about the ammunition’s  intended purpose and ownership details. we interviewed stated that LMP assigned a new lot number to an  ammunition item that had undergone maintenance, but it still kept the old  lot number on record—causing double counting. That problem, according  to Air Force officials, required personnel to spend time determining which  data were accurate. Further, ammunition officials with the Navy, Marine  Corps, and Air Force stated that they spend time verifying the information  sent from LMP to their respective systems. According to an Army  planning document, there are several processes for manual review and  corrections between LMP and the other services’ ammunition systems.
Ownership codes are numeric codes used to identify which military service owns the  item. Purpose codes are alphabetic codes used to identify the purpose for which the item  is being held.
GAO, Defense Logistics: Additional Oversight and Reporting for the Army Logistics  Modernization Program Are Needed, GAO-11-139 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 18, 2010). system commonly referred to as SmartChainaddress specific functionality to ship, receive, inventory, and perform  stock movements for ammunition items for the Army’s Joint Munitions and  Lethality Command. However, the Army has recognized other limitations  associated with ammunition-related data in LMP that also affect the other  services’ ammunition systems.
Although the Army had planned several upgrades to LMP’s ammunition- related functionality in Increment 2, the Army has decided not to include a  number of these upgrades. Increment 2 is a major enhancement to LMP  and is scheduled for deployment in phases through fiscal year 2016. Of  five ammunition-related upgrades that had been planned for Increment 2,  only one is now included (see table 1). LMP Product Management Office  officials said that the cost and schedule for implementing Increment 2 had  affected their ability to include all the planned ammunition-related  upgrades.
As shown in table 1, one of the upgrades that the Army is no longer  including in Increment 2 is an upgrade to improve LMP’s capability to  provide accurate asset posture reporting and transaction reporting and  reconciliation between LMP and services’ ammunition systems. The  upgrade, according to the Army, would eliminate many of the manual  processes currently in place. Joint Munitions Command officials said  some requirements originally associated with this upgrade have been or   The Army, however, has not  will be addressed outside of Increment 2.yet developed a comprehensive plan, with timeframes and costs, for  addressing the limitations that exist in LMP ammunition-related  functionality, including those that were to be addressed by the planned  upgrades in Increment 2. Such a plan could provide DOD reasonable  assurance that its efforts to upgrade ammunition-related functionality in  LMP are making progress. Further, without addressing these limitations,  the Army and the services will continue to rely on manual processes to  check and correct LMP ammunition-related data.
section_title: NLAC Has Some Limitations in Providing Visibility of Conventional Ammunition
paragraphs: The Army’s NLAC is a DOD-wide repository of ammunition data;  however, it has some limitations in providing visibility of conventional  ammunition and is not widely used outside of the Army. The Army does  not have reasonable assurance that NLAC collects complete and  accurate data from service ammunition systems. In addition to the  challenges with LMP data discussed earlier in this report, NLAC also  does not have certain checks and controls that could help ensure that  data are accurately being transferred from source systems to NLAC.  Another limitation to NLAC’s ability to provide visibility of assets is that  DOD has not determined whether NLAC should be designated as an  authoritative source of ammunition data.
As noted previously, DOD guidance on supply chain materiel  management requires components to implement data administration  policies and procedures aggressively in ways that provide clear, concise,  consistent, unambiguous, accurate, up-to-date, and easily accessible  data DOD-wide, to help minimize the cost and time required to transform,  translate, or research different-appearing, but otherwise identical data.  In addition, federal internal control standards state that information  systems should have effective internal controls that include application  controls, which are designed to help ensure completeness, accuracy,  authorization, and validity of all transactions during application  processing. Our prior work has shown that controls should be installed at  an application’s interfaces with other systems to ensure that all inputs are  received and are valid and outputs are correct and properly distributed.  An example of the recommended controls is computerized edit checks  built into the system to review the format, existence, and reasonableness  of data.
NLAC was designed to be a repository for all services’ ammunition data  by aggregating and distributing information throughout DOD. NLAC  collects data at both the wholesale and retail levels, including inventory  information such as quantity, location, requirements, and production.  Several times a day, the repository receives updated data that are  maintained in a web-based application for users across DOD—including  headquarters, combatant commands, and ammunition supply points.  NLAC data are available for use by service and joint component officials  and, as noted earlier, feeds into the Defense Readiness and Reporting  System and the Global Combat Support System-Joint.
Although NLAC contains ammunition data from across DOD, NLAC is not  widely used outside the Army. Information on NLAC provided by the Army  shows that most users are from within that service. For example, NLAC is  used as the data source for the Army’s semiannual Total Army   and the  Ammunition Authorization and Allocation ConferenceCentralized Ammunition and Missile Management system.depicts NLAC’s user base.
In our discussions about NLAC, ammunition officials who we interviewed  from the Joint Staff, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Navy regarded data  from other ammunition systems to be more accurate and complete than  the data in NLAC. Non-Army officials who used NLAC said they confirm  information with other service systems or by contacting knowledgeable  officials. For example, Joint Staff and Marine Corps ammunition officials  stated that, rather than relying solely on NLAC, they preferred to take the  extra step of phoning or e-mailing their counterparts in the other services  to obtain information on specific items.
NLAC does not have checks and controls that federal internal controls  recommend to ensure that data from source systems are reliable. As a  result, errors in the originating data also will appear in NLAC. In addition  to being subject to inaccuracies from source systems, NLAC may not  receive complete data transmissions from source systems into NLAC. For  example, NLAC is not receiving all serial numbers for serialized items,  even where these exist in LMP. Joint Munitions Command officials have  submitted a request to NLAC for assistance to determine why the  transmission from LMP to NLAC is not taking place, but the issue has not  yet been addressed and officials have not received a timetable for  resolution. Also, data available in NLAC on the services’ ammunition data  may differ from data found in the services’ accountable records because  of different business processes among the military services. For example,  the Air Force—unlike the Army—accounts for ammunition items that have  been shipped to another location by retaining the amount to be delivered  at the originating location until receipt has been confirmed at the  destination. As a result, one Air Force official observed that the Air  Force’s Combat Ammunition System will show higher quantities of  ammunition items that have amounts designated for shipment than are  shown in NLAC.
NLAC program personnel have taken some steps to improve accuracy  and to address errors and inconsistencies in data received from the  services’ systems. For example, according to program officials, they have  monitored incoming data to ensure that updates occurred, such as  whether the repository received the expected volume of information.  Furthermore, they receive some data elements, such as the weight of the  explosive component of the ammunition, directly from other sources even  if these exist in LMP, because of known issues with LMP accuracy. They  also conduct logic checks of incoming data; for example, they can detect  and correct if a data field is supposed to contain an alphabetic character  but the incoming file actually has a numeric character. However, they do  not check whether the correct alphabetic characters appear. NLAC  officials told us that users are their best source for detecting errors,  particularly Army officials, as that service accounts for the preponderance  of total users.
NLAC is also limited in its ability to provide visibility of conventional  ammunition because DOD has not determined whether NLAC should be  designated as an authoritative source of ammunition data. According to  DOD guidance, an authoritative data source is a recognized or official  source of data that could have a designated mission statement to publish  reliable and accurate data.visibility module of the Joint Ammunition Materiel Management System,  but when that program was terminated, the Army took over the effort from  its joint predecessor. Although NLAC is an outgrowth of a DOD effort,  DOD has not designated an authoritative data source for providing asset  visibility of the conventional ammunition inventory DOD-wide. By  designating NLAC as an authoritative data source, DOD might be better  able to provide visibility of conventional ammunition department-wide.
The Global Combat Support System—Joint is the capstone joint logistics mission  application enabling the Global Combat Support System strategy of providing unimpeded  access to information regardless of source and fusing information from disparate sources  into a cohesive and common operational picture.
section_title: Services Have a Process for Collecting and Sharing Data on Conventional Ammunition, but the Army Does Not Report Information about All Available and Usable Items
paragraphs: The military services have a process for collecting and sharing data in  annual reports on conventional ammunition levels and use these reports  to identify inventory owned by one service that may be available to meet  the requirements of another service. However, the Army’s command that  manages certain missiles has not contributed to these annual reports for  the missile inventory, including any items that exceed the service’s  requirement-related munitions stock. Officials stated that they do not  contribute to the annual report because the missile stockpile rarely has  items to offer for redistribution. Also, the Army’s annual report does not  provide information about all available, usable ammunition items.  Specifically, the Army’s report does not include information from prior  years about usable ammunition that was unclaimed by another service  and stored for potential foreign military sales or slated for potential  disposal.
subsections: section_title: Services Have a Process for Collecting and Sharing Data in Annual Reports about Inventory of Conventional Ammunition
paragraphs: The military services have a process for collecting and sharing data on  conventional ammunition information through the stratification reports that  they prepare annually. They use these reports to identify inventory owned  by one service that may be available to meet the requirements of another  service. DOD Regulation 4140.1-R directs the military services to assess  the ability of the ammunition inventory to meet stated requirements by  stratifying their inventories into various categories and requires them to  prepare an annual internal report that lists the current inventory level of all   The annual internal report divides the inventory into the  ammunition.categories of requirement-related munitions stock, economic retention  munitions stock, contingency retention munitions stock, and potential  reutilization and disposal stock. The regulation also directs the services to  develop an external report identifying inventory in the long-supply  categories of economic retention munitions stock, contingency retention  munitions stock, and potential reutilization and disposal stock. The  services are to use this report to identify potential opportunities for  redistributing potential reutilization and disposal munitions stock,  inventory that exceeds the requirements of an individual military service,  but may not exceed the requirements of DOD. The regulation also directs  the services to consider the economic retention and contingency retention  stock as potentially available inventory for redistribution if another service  has a shortage.
In their reports on fiscal year 2012 inventory, the Army, the Marine Corps,  and the Air Force reported approximately 6 billion ammunition items in the  inventory, of which approximately 224 million items (3.7 percent) were  excess to the requirements of one service, categorized as potential  reutilization and disposal stock. ammunition inventory fluctuated from 5.2 percent to 28.4 percent of total  inventory. Prior to the Quad Services Cross-Leveling Review, different  organizations within each service may review drafts of the annual reports  to verify that information from each ammunition system is accurate. The  reports are then distributed to the other services. In addition, the Office of  the Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition, which facilitates this  process, compares the data in the inventory reports with data on planned  procurements of ammunition. After the services share their annual reports  on ammunition inventory, including which ammunition could be reutilized,  service officials meet to discuss how they will redistribute ammunition that  is available for any service’s requirements.
As noted previously, specific information pertaining to the active Navy inventory is  classified and is not included in this GAO report. Information on ammunition items that  were available for redistribution is not classified. approximately 44 million items, of which approximately 32 million were  small-caliber items such as ammunition for machine guns or pistols, 11  million were demolition materials such as detonation cords, fuses and  pyrotechnic initiators, 1 million were ground defense items such as  grenades used for riot control, and the remaining 2 million were a mixture  of other various types of ammunition.
section_title: Army’s Aviation and Missile Command Does Not Contribute to Required Annual Report
paragraphs: The Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force share information on the  availability of missiles and missile support material that exceed their  requirement-related munitions stock, but the Army’s Aviation and Missile  Command does not report annually about the same information. DOD  Regulation 4140.1-R requires that the services include all conventional  ammunition, including tactical missiles, in their annual report. The  Logistics Center under the Army Aviation and Missile Command manages  the inventory of certain missile items—including Stinger, Javelin, and  Hellfire missiles—and the Joint Munitions Command manages all other  ammunition items, including small rockets such as shoulder-launched  ammunition. The Army’s annual report does not include reference to the  tactical missile inventory that is managed by the Aviation and Missile  Command. According to Army officials, the Aviation and Missile  Command does not contribute to the annual report on inventory because  the missile stockpile rarely has items to offer for redistribution. The Navy,  the Marine Corps, and the Air Force all include information in their annual  reports on the various types of missiles that they manage. Some of the  missiles that are included in their reports are the same kind of missiles  that are managed by the Aviation and Missile Command’s Logistics  Center. According to Army officials, the Aviation and Missile Command  does not contribute to the annual reporting or redistribution process, but  the Army has engaged in an internal process that annually reviews the  missile inventory separately from the annual ammunition reporting  process. In the course of our review, an Army headquarters official  indicated that the Army was planning to take steps to include information  from the Aviation and Missile Command for future annual ammunition  reports. However, the Army had not yet articulated a plan of action for  making this change. If the Army and its missile command do not annually  report any missiles, including missiles excess to the service’s  requirements, it risks other services spending additional funds to procure  missiles that already are unused and usable in the Army’s stockpile. Also,  without such annual reporting, the information DOD obtains lacks full  transparency about missiles that could be used to support some of the  other services’ requirements. Therefore, it will be important for the Army  to ensure that the Aviation and Missile Command implement its direction  in fiscal year 2014 and beyond.
section_title: Army’s Annual Reports Do Not Include Information on All Usable Ammunition
paragraphs: The Army’s annual stratification report includes current ammunition  inventory levels and does not include information from prior years about  usable ammunition that was unclaimed by another service and stored for  potential foreign military sales or slated for potential disposal. DOD  Regulation 4140.1-R directs the military services to assess the ability of  the ammunition inventory to meet stated requirements by stratifying  inventory into categories. It also directs the preparation of annual  reports that list the current inventory levels for ammunition items. The  annual internal report divides the inventory into requirement-related,  retention, and potential reutilization and disposal stocks. The regulation  also directs the services to use the annual reporting process to identify  potential opportunities for redistributing potential reutilization and disposal  stocks, inventory that exceeded—was greater than—the requirements of  an individual military service, but may not exceed the requirements of  DOD.
As the Single Manager, the Secretary of the Army is disposing of  serviceable or unserviceable conventional ammunition that is obsolete— inventory that is no longer needed due to changes in technology, laws,  customs, or operations—or in excess to requirements of the  department—inventory that has completed reutilization screening within  DOD and is not required for the needs of any DOD activity. According to  an Army financial statement in June 2013, the Army had about 39 percent  of its total inventory (valued at about $16 billion) in a storage category for  ammunition items that were excess to all the services’ requirements in a  prior year and could be disassembled or destroyed in the future.  However, a service may decide in a subsequent year that it needs  additional ammunition of some type and check with the Army for  availability before starting a procurement or to meet an emergent need.  Officials told us that since October 2012 the Army has reclaimed at least  44 missiles from the disposal stockpile to meet its needs—such as  fulfilling a testing requirement. Also, in 2012, the Marine Corps reclaimed  ammunition storage components to meet a service need. In another  example, Navy officials told us that a functional ammunition component,  called sonobuoys, was reclaimed from the disposal stockpile when a  need arose for the ammunition component.
The Army is not sharing information on all usable ammunition that  previously was unclaimed by another service and stored as part of the  disposal stockpile. This information is not routinely shared with all  services in the annual reports on ammunition inventory because DOD  guidance does not require reporting this type of inventory as part of the  stratification process. Officials told us that prior to the annual  redistribution meeting, the Office of the Executive Director for  Conventional Ammunition reviews the stockpile of usable ammunition that  was previously unclaimed by any other service and stored as part of the  disposal stockpile. However, this information is not included in the annual  reports and shared with the services as part of the redistribution process.  Without guidance to require that the Army’s annual reports or another  report used as part of the redistribution process include all information  about available and usable inventory—comprehensive information from  multiple years—there is risk that the services may budget for funds to  procure new supplies of conventional ammunition to meet a requirement  when the ammunition items already are available in the DOD inventory  but categorized for demilitarization or disposal.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: DOD policy requires the highest possible degree of efficiency and  effectiveness in wholesale conventional ammunition logistics functions for  the inventory, but DOD’s systems have some limitations that hamper the  department’s ability to manage this inventory efficiently. The use of  outdated data exchange standards by Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force  ammunition systems makes it difficult for them to efficiently share data  with LMP, the only system using the updated standards. In addition, while  the Army has made progress in improving LMP data overall, ammunition- related functionality continues to have challenges that affect the accuracy  and completeness of LMP ammunition data used by the services for  ammunition management. The Army is aware of these challenges but has  not developed a plan to address them. A comprehensive plan, with time  frames and costs, for resolving limitations in LMP ammunition-related  functionality could provide DOD reasonable assurance that its efforts to  upgrade this functionality in LMP are making progress. Further, efforts to  achieve DOD-wide visibility of ammunition assets are hampered because  the existing data repository, NLAC, lacks some checks and controls that  could improve the reliability of data from source systems. Moreover, DOD  has not designated an authoritative source of data on conventional  ammunition DOD-wide, whether NLAC or through some other means. By  designating an authoritative source, DOD could have a means to provide  better visibility of conventional ammunition department-wide.
The services use the stratification and redistribution process to better  optimize the department’s ammunition inventory by collecting and sharing  information on available inventory that could meet the requirement of  another service. However, the Army does not provide information on  missiles in the annual reports that it prepares as part of this process.  Also, the Army does not share information on usable inventory in a  storage category for ammunition items that were excess to all the  services’ requirements in a prior year and placed into storage in  preparation for disassembly or disposal. Without such annual reporting,  the information DOD obtains may lack full transparency about all  available items and may miss opportunities to avoid procurement costs  for certain usable items that may already be available in the Army’s  stockpile.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We are making seven recommendations to improve the efficiency of  DOD’s systems for managing its conventional ammunition inventory and  to improve data sharing among the services.
To improve the efficiency of data exchanges between LMP and other  service ammunition systems, we recommend that the Secretary of  Defense, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for  Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, take the following two actions:
Direct the Secretary of the Navy to (1) take steps to incorporate DLMS  into the Ordnance Information System and (2) direct the Commandant  of the Marine Corps to take similar steps with regard to the Ordnance  Information System–Marine Corps.
Direct the Secretary of the Air Force to assess the feasibility of  accelerating the 2017 target date for incorporating DLMS into the  Combat Ammunition System and, if determined to be feasible, take  appropriate implementation actions.
To provide greater assurance that LMP is capable of maintaining  accurate, timely, and more complete ammunition data in accordance with  DOD supply chain materiel management and ammunition guidance, we  recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the  Army to establish a plan, with timeframes and costs, for incorporating  ammunition-related functionality into LMP, including functionality that is  no longer being included in the planned ammunition-related upgrades for  Increment 2.
To improve DOD’s ability to provide total asset visibility over conventional  ammunition, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the  Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in  conjunction with the Secretaries of the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy,  to take the following two actions:  Identify and implement internal controls, consistent with federal  internal control standards, that will provide reasonable assurance that  NLAC collects comprehensive, accurate data from other service  ammunition systems.
Designate an authoritative source of data on conventional ammunition  DOD-wide—whether NLAC or through some other means—and issue  guidance to implement this decision.
To enable the military services to make maximum use of ammunition in  the inventory, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the  following two actions:
Direct the Secretary of the Army to ensure that annual stratification  reports on conventional ammunition include missiles managed by the  Army Aviation and Missile Command.
Direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,  and Logistics to revise guidance to require the Secretary of the Army  to include in its annual reports, or another report, as appropriate,  information on all available ammunition for use during the  redistribution process—including ammunition that in a previous year  was unclaimed by another service and categorized for disposal.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our  seven recommendations and provided additional comments describing  actions underway or planned to address them. DOD also provided  technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The full text  of DOD’s comments is reprinted in appendix III.
With regard to the first recommendation, that the Navy and Marine Corps  take steps to incorporate DLMS into their ammunition systems to improve  the efficiency of data exchanges with the Army’s LMP, DOD concurred  and cited several examples of DOD guidance that underscore the  importance of DLMS and use of the standard for logistics systems and  data exchanges. Further, DOD stated that recent guidance related to  materiel management directs DOD components to use standard logistics  data exchanges. Taking actions to implement this guidance, as we  recommended, would better position the Navy and Marine Corps  ammunition systems to efficiently exchange data with LMP.
With regard to the second recommendation, that the Air Force assess the  feasibility of accelerating the 2017 target date for incorporating DLMS into  the Combat Ammunition System, DOD concurred and stated that  incorporation of DLMS is tied to overall development efforts planned for  the system. While DOD noted that the DLMS capability cannot be  incorporated into the Air Force’s existing ammunition system  independently, DOD stated that the Air Force expected to be able to  incorporate DLMS by fiscal year 2017 with the possibility of earlier  implementation based on contract performance. If fully implemented as  planned, this action should help address the intent of the  recommendation to ensure that the Air Force incorporates DLMS into the  Combat Ammunition System on or before its target fiscal year 2017  timeframe.
With regard to the third recommendation, that the Army take steps to  establish a plan, with timeframes and costs, for incorporating ammunition- related functionality into LMP, including functionality no longer included in  the planned ammunition-related upgrades for Increment 2, DOD  concurred and noted that the Army has taken a phased approach to LMP  implementation. DOD stated that some additional ammunition-related  functionality is scheduled for deployment as part of Increment 2 in fiscal  year 2016, and additional functionality will be evaluated for potential  inclusion in follow-on increments of LMP. Given the schedule delays in  incorporating needed ammunition-related functionality in LMP, as  discussed in the report, we continue to believe that the Army should  establish a plan with timeframes and costs for incorporating this  functionality. Such a plan could provide DOD with reasonable assurance  that the Army's efforts to upgrade ammunition-related functionality in LMP  are making progress and, moreover, provide greater assurance that LMP  is capable of maintaining accurate, timely, and more complete  ammunition data in accordance with DOD supply chain materiel  management and ammunition management guidance.
With regard to the fourth recommendation, that DOD identify and  implement internal controls, consistent with federal internal control  standards, that will provide reasonable assurance that NLAC collects  comprehensive, accurate data from other service ammunition systems,  DOD concurred and stated that the Army updated the performance work  statement for NLAC to include analyzing new data sources to identify  improved system interfacing that will improve data accuracy,  completeness, quality assurance, and auditability. If implemented as  planned, this action should help to address the intent of the  recommendation.
With regard to the fifth recommendation, that DOD designate an  authoritative source of data on conventional ammunition DOD-wide and  issue guidance to implement this decision, DOD concurred and stated  that it would assess the alternatives and designate the appropriate  solution by the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015.  We are encouraged that  DOD will seek to identify an authoritative source of data and reiterate that,  at that time, DOD should also issue implementing guidance.
With regard to the sixth recommendation, that annual stratification reports  on conventional ammunition include missiles managed by the Army  Aviation and Missile Command, DOD concurred and stated that it would  clarify direction in its recently issued guidance to ensure that this  happens.  DOD added that the Army had already begun to provide  missile information during the 2014 stratification meeting. We are  encouraged by this step and believe that DOD will benefit by ensuring  that the Army continues to provide this information.
With regard to the seventh recommendation, that the Under Secretary of  Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics revise guidance to  require the Secretary of the Army to include information on all available  ammunition for use during the redistribution process, including  ammunition that in a previous year was unclaimed by another service and  categorized for disposal, DOD concurred and noted that the Under  Secretary would clarify direction in recently issued guidance that the  military departments will use information on all available ammunition  categorized for disposal. This is a positive step, but DOD does not state  in its response how such information will be reported for use in the  redistribution process.  Requiring the Army to include this information as  part of the redistribution process, as we recommended, would increase  transparency about all available items and potentially help DOD avoid  procurement costs for certain usable items that may already be available  in the Army’s stockpile.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, the  Navy, and the Air Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. In  addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-5257 or merrittz@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff members who made key contributions to  this report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To determine the extent to which Department of Defense (DOD) systems  facilitate efficient management of the conventional ammunition inventory,  we reviewed DOD guidance on exchanging data, developing data  systems, and maintaining department-wide ammunition visibility. We  reviewed relevant documents, including memos from the Under Secretary  of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and Defense  Logistics Agency; technical guidance from the Defense Logistics Agency  Management Standards Office (particularly Defense Logistics Manual  4000.25, Defense Logistics Management System); and discussed with Air  Force officials their plans for updating their ammunition system. At the  service level, we identified the services’ systems, particularly the Logistics  Modernization Program (LMP), which is the Army’s system of record for  Army wholesale inventory and wholesale ammunition belonging to all of  the services; we reviewed documents pertaining to capabilities and  limitations of these systems. In the case of LMP, these documents  included: change requests indicating systems adjustments to improve  ammunition management capabilities; requirements, business case, and  cost estimate for the update known as Increment 2; and records of  inspections at each of the eight depots at which the Army’s Joint  Munitions Command stores ammunition for the Army and the other  services. At the DOD-wide level, we reviewed minutes of Joint Ordnance  Commanders’ Group (JOCG) meetings. The JOCG is an inter-service  forum, among whose goals is to identify, implement or recommend for  implementation joint opportunities to reduce cost, increase effectiveness  and ensure interoperability and/or interchangeability of munitions  systems.
Also, we interviewed DOD officials responsible for inventory records at  each of the services’ ammunition system program offices to discuss the  capabilities and limitations of each of the services’ ammunition inventory  systems of record. These included officials from the Army, Navy, and Air  Force headquarters logistics staffs–Army Deputy Chief of Staff for  Logistics (G-4); Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Material Readiness  and Logistics (N-4); and Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air Force for  Logistics, Installations, and Mission Support (A-4/7). For the Army, we  interviewed officials from the Army Materiel Command and two of its  subordinate commands (Joint Munitions Command and Aviation and  Missile Command) that have responsibilities for ammunition  management. We also interviewed officials from the services’ ammunition  systems program offices, including the Army’s LMP Product Management  Office; the Naval Supply Systems Command and Ordnance Information  System program office in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania; the Marine  Corps Systems Command, Program Manager - Ammunition in Stafford,  Virginia; the Air Force Global Ammunition Control Point at Hill Air Force  Base, Utah; and the Air Force Combat Ammunition System program  office. In order to better understand inventory management challenges at  the depot level, we met with logistics specialists at two depots: Tooele  Army Depot, Utah; and Letterkenny Ammunition Center, Pennsylvania.  We selected these depots primarily based on their proximity to other  ammunition management locations.
We reviewed National Level Ammunition Capability (NLAC) documents,  including performance work statements and requirements documents,  usage statistics, and interface testing results; and reviewed  memorandums of agreement and interface documents to assess how the  services and NLAC exchange data. We obtained access to NLAC, and  developed and executed queries to compare whether its data were  consistent with Army and Air Force source data. Because this report  focused on wholesale ammunition stocks, we did not gather information  about all systems that provide information to NLAC. For example, we did  not attempt to study the extent to which systems containing information  about retail or in-transit ammunition stocks are complete and accurate.  We conducted telephone interviews with NLAC program management  officials at Army Materiel Command headquarters in Huntsville, Alabama  and Joint Munitions Command headquarters in Rock Island, Illinois, and  met with NLAC contractor personnel in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. To  learn more about the interface between NLAC and the Global Combat  Support System-Joint, we also reviewed the memorandum of agreement  between the Program Management Offices for those systems and  interviewed an official from the Defense Information Systems Agency,  which oversees that system.
To determine the extent to which the military services collect and share  inventory data to help them meet their stated requirements, we reviewed  policies, procedures, and other guidance, as well as reports related to  conventional ammunition reporting requirements for the services,  including DOD Regulation 4140.1-R and the Joint Conventional  Ammunition Policies and Procedures. We examined DOD Regulation  4140.1-R to gain an understanding of the responsibility of the services to  report inventory levels for items in long-supply retention categories to the  other services. We examined the Joint Conventional Ammunition Policies  and Procedures to gain an understanding of the responsibility of the  Office of the Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition and its role  in the annual redistribution process.
Also, we obtained annual stratification reports—DOD’s term for each  service’s list of items in the current inventory—from the Army, Navy,  Marine Corps, and Air Force. These reports list items in the current  inventory (as of the date of the report) and display how much meets or  exceeds service requirements. We reviewed these reports to gain an  understanding of the size and scale of the inventory and to determine the  percentage of items in each category for fiscal years 2009 through 2013.
We interviewed officials knowledgeable about the annual ammunition  report process and determined that the information included in those  reports was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. Also, we  attended the March 2013 annual meeting at Picatinny Arsenal, New  Jersey, at which service representatives met to discuss these reports and  redistribute ammunition excess to service needs to help other services to  meet their requirements. We obtained and reviewed the records of results  from the redistribution meeting for fiscal years 2009 through 2013. We  discussed the process for collecting, reviewing and categorizing the  inventory data with officials responsible for compiling these reports. We  also met with officials from Army Materiel Command’s Office of the  Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition to understand its  processes for preparing for the redistribution meeting and for reporting on  the results of the meeting.
We circulated a standard set of questions to each of the services and  analyzed the results, and determined that the information was sufficiently  reliable for the purposes for which we used it. That is, we determined that  the services have established processes for collecting and reporting data  into their own systems and for receiving information about stocks that are  stored at Army depots. We did not attempt to verify figures about  quantities, locations, or other attributes of the data. The standard set of  questions we circulated to the services asks detailed and technical  questions about the systems. For example, for system architecture we  asked how and in what format does the Army’s LMP send data to the  other services’ ammunition systems. Similarly, we asked how and in what  format do the services’ systems send ammunition data to NLAC. We also  asked about data quality controls and limitations and the services’  perception of LMP and NLAC’s data quality and limitations. We collected  responses from each of the services regarding their ammunition systems  and conducted interviews to gain further clarification on their responses.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2012 to March  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.
section_title: Appendix II: Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition Organization
paragraphs: Appendix II: Single Manager for Conventional  Ammunition Organization This chart depicts the roles of various entities with respect to conventional ammunition. The  connecting lines do not necessarily represent the complete administrative, operational, or reporting  relationships for all purposes and functions.  The Deputy Commanding General of AMC receives support for the role of Executive Director for  Conventional Ammunition by a joint-staffed office of senior service military and civilian ammunition  management specialists assigned to PEO Ammunition who report directly to the Executive Director.  Although the Joint Ordnance Commanders Group Charter identifies the Commander of the Joint  Munitions Command as chair, the Joint Ordnance Commanders Group’s Annual Report for 2012 was  signed by Joint Munitions Command and PEO Ammunition as cochairmen.  The Joint Munitions and Lethality Life-Cycle Management Command brings together the resources  and expertise of three organizations: PEO Ammunition, Joint Munitions Command, and the  Armament Research, Development, and Engineering Center.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, the following individuals made  contributions to this report: Thomas W. Gosling, Assistant Director;  Darreisha M. Bates; Richard D. Brown; Rebecca Guerrero; Sally  Newman; Richard Powelson; Michael Shaughnessy; Michael Silver; and  Amie Steele.