Defense Inventory: Navy Needs to Improve the Management Over Government-Furnished Material Shipped to Its Repair Contractors
Published: 2004-07-23T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: GAO has reported in a number of products that the lack of control over inventory shipments increases vulnerability to undetected loss or theft and substantially increases the risk that million of dollars can be spent unnecessarily. This report evaluates the Navy's and its repair contractors' adherence to Department of Defense (DOD) and Navy inventory management control procedures for government-furnished material shipped to Navy repair contractors. Government-furnished material includes assemblies, parts, and other items that are provided to contractors to support repairs, alterations, and modifications. Generally, this material is incorporated into or attached onto deliverable end items, such as aircraft, or consumed or expended in performing a contract.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Naval Inventory Control Point and its repair contractors have not followed DOD and Navy inventory management control procedures intended to provide accountability for and visibility of shipped government-furnished material to Navy repair contractors. As a result, Navy inventory worth millions of dollars is vulnerable to fraud, waste, or abuse. First, Navy repair contractors are not acknowledging receipt of government-furnished material from the Navy's supply system. Although a DOD procedure states that contractors will notify the military services' inventory control points once material is received, Naval Inventory Control Point officials are not requiring its repair contractors to do so. Consequently, the Naval Inventory Control Point is not adhering to another DOD procedure that requires the military services to follow up with repair contractors within 45 days when the receipts for items are not confirmed. Naval Inventory Control Point officials stated that receipting for government-furnished material, which is earmarked for immediate consumption in the repair of another item, might overstate the inventory levels in their inventory management system. Without material receipt notification, the Naval Inventory Control Point cannot be assured that its repair contractors have received the material. For fiscal year 2002, the most recent and complete data available at the time of GAO's review, the Naval Inventory Control Point reported that 4,229 government-furnished material shipments (representing 4,301 items value at approximately $115 million) had been shipped to its repair contractors. GAO randomly selected and examined 308 government-furnished material shipments, representing 344 items that were shipped to the Navy's repair contractors. Based on this random sample, GAO estimated that 50 unclassified items may be unaccounted for, with a value of about $729,000 in aircraft-related government-furnished material. Additionally, the Naval Inventory Control Point does not send quarterly reports on the status of government-furnished material shipped to its repair contractors to the Defense Contract Management Agency. DOD and Navy procedures require that the Naval Inventory Control Point generate and distribute quarterly reports on government-furnished material shipped to repair contractors, including information on total shipments and their dollar value, number of shipments for which receipts are unknown, and rejected requisitions to the Defense Contract Management Agency. Although there are a number of DOD and Navy procedures that outline this reporting requirement, the Naval Inventory Control Point officials responsible for implementing this procedure were unaware of the requirement. The Naval Inventory Control Point lacks procedures to ensure that these reports are generated and distributed to the Defense Contract Management Agency. Without the reports, the Defense Contract Management Agency may be unable to independently verify that the Navy repair contractors have accounted for all government-furnished material shipped to them.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: As we have reported in a number of our products, the lack of control over  inventory shipments increases vulnerability to undetected loss or theft and  substantially increases the risk that millions of dollars will be spent  unnecessarily. Since at least 1990, we have considered Department of  Defense (DOD) inventory management to be a high-risk area because  inventory management systems and procedures are ineffective. (A list of  related GAO products appears at the end of this report.)
In July 2002, we reported on the Air Force’s noncompliance with inventory  management control procedures that led to inventory worth billions of  dollars being vulnerable to fraud, waste, or abuse. In response to your  request for us to review the Navy and Army inventory management  procedures for controlling inventory shipped to repair contractors, we  evaluated the Navy’s and its repair contractors’ adherence to DOD and  Navy inventory management control procedures for government-furnished  material shipped to Navy repair contractors. As agreed with your offices,  we plan to initiate a review of the Army’s and its repair contractors’  adherence to DOD and Army inventory management control procedures  for shipped government-furnished material, as well as items for repair that  are provided to Army repair contractors.
The Navy contracts with private companies (i.e., repair and production  contractors) to produce, maintain, and repair its equipment. In some  cases, the Navy furnishes the material necessary to perform the repairs at  the contractors’ locations. Responsibility for controlling this material is  shared among the Naval Supply Command, the Naval Inventory Control  Point, the Defense Logistics Agency, repair contractors, and the Defense  Contract Management Agency. The Naval Supply Command administers  the Navy’s supply system and provides inventory management policies and  procedures. The Naval Inventory Control Point procures, manages, and  supplies inventory for naval aircraft, submarines, and ships worldwide.  The Defense Contract Management Agency assesses the accuracy of repair  contractor records and accounts for all government property furnished to  a contractor.
Our objective was to determine whether the Naval Inventory Control Point  and its repair contractors adhere to DOD and Navy inventory management  control procedures governing the accountability for and visibility of  shipped government-furnished material. We did not review the Navy  inventory management control procedures for items needing repair that  are provided to Navy contractors because of a recent June 2003 DOD  Office of the Inspector General report. While the Inspector General’s  report indicated that the Navy had taken actions to improve its procedures  and controls to account for these items at commercial repair facilities, it  found that additional improvements were needed to improve the  monitoring and oversight of shipped inventory.
To assess the Naval Inventory Control Point’s and its repair contractors’  adherence to DOD and Navy inventory management control procedures  related to government-furnished material shipped to repair contractors,  we randomly selected and examined 308 government-furnished material  shipments. These shipments represented 344 items that were shipped to  Navy repair contractors in fiscal year 2002, the most recent and complete  data available at the time of our review. We sent surveys to 29 Navy repair  contractors requesting data on these unclassified, classified, and sensitive  shipments valued at about $11.9 million. We received survey responses  from 20 of the 29 contractors, representing 207 government-furnished  material shipments (corresponding to 243 items). Our review focused on  the Naval Inventory Control Point facility located in Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania, which manages aircraft-related inventory. We assessed the  reliability of the data used in this report and determined that the data were  sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
We conducted our review from March 2003 through April 2004 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  More details about our scope and methodology appear in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Naval Inventory Control Point authorizes movement of its inventory  from the Defense Logistic Agency, Navy-managed shipping and receiving  activities, and Navy repair contractors. With prior approval from Naval  Inventory Control Point item managers, Navy repair contractors can also  use material located at their facilities. DOD procedures and Federal  Acquisition Regulation procedures generally require that repair  contractors establish and maintain an internal property control system for  the control, use, maintenance, repair, protection, and preservation of  government property in their possession.
The Navy currently has 359 repair contractors using its Web-based  inventory management system, known as the DOD Commercial Asset  Visibility System. This system provides the Navy with asset reporting  coverage for more than 95 percent of its commercial repair business.
For fiscal year 2002, the most recent and complete data available at the  time of our review, the Naval Inventory Control Point reported that 4,229  government-furnished material shipments (representing 4,301 items valued  at approximately $115 million) had been shipped to its repair contractors.  Table 1 shows the derivation of the sample size of our survey, including  the number and value of shipments for which we received survey  responses.
DOD requires the Navy to use a number of procedures to monitor items  shipped to and received by repair contractors. First, the recipient of the  material is responsible for notifying the Naval Inventory Control Point  once an item has been received. If the Naval Inventory Control Point has  not been provided a receipt within 45 days of shipment, it is required to  follow up with the intended recipient. The rationale behind these  requirements is that until receipt is confirmed, the exact status of the  shipment is uncertain and therefore vulnerable to fraud, waste, or abuse.  The Naval Inventory Control Point is also required by DOD and Navy  procedures to submit quarterly reports to the Defense Contract  Management Agency identifying all government-furnished material that  has been provided to a contractor. These reports allow the Defense  Contract Management Agency to independently verify that Navy repair  contractors have accounted for all government-furnished material shipped  to them. As a result, the Defense Contract Management Agency does not  have to rely strictly on records provided by Navy repair contractors.
In addition to these DOD and Navy procedures, the Navy, as a  representative of the federal government, is also obligated to establish and  maintain effective internal control systems. The Federal Managers’  Financial Integrity Act of 1982 requires the General Accounting Office to  issue standards for internal control in government. According to these  standards, internal control is defined as an integral component of an  organization’s management that provides reasonable assurance that the  following objectives are being achieved: (1) effectiveness and efficiency of  operations, (2) reliability of financial reporting, and (3) compliance with  applicable laws and regulations. A subset of these objectives is the  safeguarding of assets. Internal control should be designed to provide  reasonable assurance regarding prevention of or prompt detection of  unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of an agency’s assets.  Effective and efficient internal control activities help ensure that an  agency’s control objectives are accomplished. The control activities are  the policies, procedures, techniques, and mechanisms that enforce  management’s directives, such as the process of adhering to DOD  requirements for receipt of government-furnished material and issuance of  quarterly government-furnished material status reports.
DOD annually ships inventory valued at billions of dollars to various  locations around the world. For years, DOD has had difficulty tracking this  inventory from origin to destination. The accountability problem with  shipped inventory is part of a more global issue. Since at least 1990, we  have considered DOD’s inventory management to be a high-risk area  because DOD’s inventory management procedures are ineffective. The  lack of adequate controls over shipped inventory and the resulting  vulnerability to undetected loss or theft have been major areas of concern.  In March 1999, we reported that significant weaknesses existed at all  levels of the Navy’s shipped inventory management structure, leading to  potential theft or undetected losses of items and demonstrating inefficient  and ineffective logistics management practices. We concluded that these  weaknesses and the problems they created were primarily a result of the  Navy not following its own procedures regarding controls over shipped  inventory. In following up with the Navy, we found that the Navy had  implemented many of our recommendations that have improved the  accountability over its shipped inventory. According to Naval Inventory  Control Point officials, at least 75 percent of their shipped inventory  discrepancies have been resolved. Also, according to a June 2003 DOD  Office of the Inspector General report, the Navy had taken actions to  improve its procedures and controls to account for items repaired at  commercial repair facilities. However, the DOD Office of the Inspector  General found that additional improvements were needed to improve the  monitoring and oversight of shipped inventory.
section_title: Inventory Management Control Procedures Are Not Being Followed
paragraphs: The Naval Inventory Control Point and its repair contractors are not  following DOD inventory management control procedures governing the  accountability for and visibility of government-furnished material shipped  to its repair contractors. As a result, this inventory is vulnerable to loss or  theft. First, the Naval Inventory Control Point is not following a DOD  procedure that requires repair contractors to acknowledge receipt of  government-furnished material that has been shipped to them from the  Navy’s supply system. Consequently, the Naval Inventory Control Point is  not following another DOD procedure that requires it to follow up with its  repair contractors that have not confirmed receipt of shipped material.  Additionally, the Naval Inventory Control Point is not following DOD and  Navy procedures that require quarterly reports on the status of  government-furnished material shipped to Navy repair contractors be  provided to the Defense Contract Management Agency.
subsections: section_title: Navy Is Not Requiring Its Repair Contractors to Acknowledge Receipt of Government-Furnished Material
paragraphs: Navy repair contractors are not routinely acknowledging receipt of  government-furnished material that has been shipped to them from the  Navy’s supply system. According to a DOD procedure, repair contractors  must enter shipments into their inventory records and notify the inventory  control point when material has been received. This material receipt  acknowledgment is designed to maintain accountability for all shipped  items, including government-furnished material that has been shipped to  Navy repair contractors in usable condition from the Navy’s supply  system. Additionally, the Navy must adhere to internal control standards  outlined by the General Accounting Office, such as providing assurance  that assets are safeguarded against unauthorized acquisition, use, or  disposition.
Navy repair contractors are not routinely adhering to the DOD procedure  to acknowledge receipt of government-furnished material shipped to them  because Naval Inventory Control Point officials are not requiring them to  do so. By not requiring repair contractors to receipt, the Naval Inventory  Control Point does not follow up with its repair contractors within  45 days—as required by DOD procedure—when these repair contractors  fail to confirm receipt of government-furnished material shipped to them.  Naval Inventory Control Point officials acknowledged that they only  become aware that a contractor has not received an item if the contractor  inquires about the shipment.
Naval Inventory Control Point personnel provided several reasons why  Navy repair contractors are not being required to notify the Naval  Inventory Control Point of material receipt. They indicated that the Naval  Inventory Control Point does not require its repair contractors to  acknowledge receipt of government-furnished material because such  material is provided with the expectation that it will immediately be  consumed in the repair of other items. Naval Inventory Control Point  officials also stated that submitting notification of receipt for this material  might overstate the inventory levels in the DOD Commercial Asset  Visibility System—the Navy’s inventory management system—because the  system would show this material as on-hand at its repair contractors’  facilities when the material is actually earmarked for immediate use in the  repair of another item.
We have noted the Naval Inventory Control Point officials’ concerns about  the potential for notification of receipt of government-furnished material  to overstate inventory levels. However, one of the Navy repair contractors  in our review currently uses the DOD Commercial Asset Visibility System  to enter receipt of government-furnished material, without overstating the  inventory levels maintained within the system. Specifically, the Navy  repair contractor is using a standard module of the DOD Commercial  Asset Visibility System to enter receipt of material received in usable  condition from the Navy’s supply system. Upon entering a receipt of  material in the system, the contractor then issues the item to itself for  immediate use in the repair of another item. This process eliminates the  possibility of adverse impacts to inventory levels. However, the Naval  Inventory Control Point is not using this module of the DOD Commercial  Asset Visibility System for the receipt of material received in usable  condition. Additionally, in our previous Air Force report on shipments to  repair contractors, we found that in contrast to the Navy, the Air Force  requires repair contractors to issue a notification of receipt for material  that they have received.
For fiscal year 2002, the most recent and complete data available at the  time of our review, the Naval Inventory Control Point reported that  4,229 government-furnished material shipments (representing 4,301 items  valued at approximately $115 million) had been shipped to its repair  contractors. We randomly selected and examined 308 government- furnished material shipments, representing 344 items that were shipped to  Navy repair contractors. We surveyed 29 Navy repair contractors to  determine if they had recorded receipts for these shipments in their  property records. The repair contractors had recorded receipts for all  classified shipments. However, they could not document the receipt of 4  unclassified shipments (representing 4 items). Because our sample was  randomly selected, the results can be projected to the entire universe of  government-furnished material managed by the Naval Inventory Control  Point. We estimate that 50 unclassified items may be unaccounted for,  with a value of about $729,000 in inventory of aircraft-related government- furnished material for fiscal year 2002.
Lack of contractor notification has impeded the Naval Inventory Control  Point’s visibility of government-furnished material. Without such  notification, the Naval Inventory Control Point cannot be assured that its  repair contractors have received all shipped material. Finally, because the  Naval Inventory Control Point does not have data on unconfirmed  government-furnished material shipments, it lacks the ability to  independently know when corrective actions, such as resolving inventory  discrepancies, are needed. As a result, the Navy’s inventory continues to  be at risk of fraud or loss.
subsections: section_title: Navy Is Not Submitting Required Quarterly Reports
paragraphs: The Naval Inventory Control Point is also not following DOD and Navy  procedures that require Naval Inventory Control Point officials to provide  the Defense Contract Management Agency with quarterly status reports  showing all shipments of government-furnished material that have been  provided to its repair contractors. According to the procedures, these  reports should include information about total shipments and their dollar  value, number of shipments for which receipts are unknown, and rejected  requisitions. The purpose of the reports is to assist the Defense Contract  Management Agency in independently verifying contractor records of  government-furnished material.
A Navy procedure designates individuals within the inventory control  point to serve as the management control activity to, among other things,  generate and distribute the required quarterly government-furnished  material status reports. According to Naval Inventory Control Point and  Defense Contract Management Agency officials, the inventory control  point has not provided the Defense Contract Management Agency with the  required quarterly reports. The inventory control point officials stated that  they were unaware of the requirement to provide quarterly reports to the  Defense Contract Management Agency. Although a number of standard  DOD and Navy inventory management control procedures stipulate the  requirement to generate and distribute the quarterly reports, inventory  control point officials lack recognition of this reporting requirement. The  Naval Inventory Control Point currently lacks procedures to ensure that  these quarterly reports are generated and distributed to the Defense  Contract Management Agency as required by DOD and Navy procedures.
Proper distribution of the quarterly status reports is vital to the  management of government-furnished material. A 1995 DOD Inspector  General audit report of management access to DOD’s supply system  asserted that the Defense Contract Management Agency serves as the last  line of defense in protecting material resources and needs an independent  record of the government-furnished material shipped to repair contractors.  These quarterly reports serve as such a record and prevent the Defense  Contract Management Agency from having to rely solely on the repair  contractors’ records of government-furnished material.
section_title: Conclusion
paragraphs: Inventory worth millions of dollars is vulnerable to fraud, waste, or abuse  because the Naval Inventory Control Point is not adhering to DOD  inventory management control procedures for government-furnished  material shipped to its repair contractors. Because the Naval Inventory  Control Point has not required its repair contractors to acknowledge  receipt of government-furnished material, it will continue to lack  assurance that its repair contractors have received shipped material. In  addition, without requiring receipts, the Naval Inventory Control Point will  be unable to follow up on unconfirmed material receipts within the  required 45 days. As a result, the Naval Inventory Control Point will  continue to lose the ability to understand inventory management  weaknesses and take necessary corrective action. Furthermore, without  the Naval Inventory Control Point implementing procedures to ensure that  quarterly reports for all shipments of government-furnished material to its  repair contractors are generated and distributed to the Defense Contract  Management Agency, the Defense Contract Management Agency might be  impaired in its ability to serve as the last line of defense in protecting  government-furnished material.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve the control of government-furnished material shipped to Navy  repair contractors, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the  Secretary of the Navy to instruct the Commander, Naval Inventory Control  Point, to implement the following three actions:    Require Navy repair contractors to acknowledge receipt of material that is  received from the Navy’s supply system as prescribed by DOD procedure.
Follow up on unconfirmed material receipts within the 45 days as  prescribed in the DOD internal control procedures to ensure that the  Naval Inventory Control Point can reconcile material shipped to and  received by its repair contractors.
Implement procedures to ensure that quarterly reports of all shipments of  government-furnished material to Navy repair contractors are generated  and distributed to the Defense Contract Management Agency.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our  recommendations and provided estimated timelines for implementation of  each of the recommendations. DOD’s written comments on this report are  reprinted in their entirety in appendix II.
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its  issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  appropriate congressional committees; the Secretary of Defense; the  Secretary of the Navy; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and  the Director, Defense Logistics Agency. We will also make copies available  to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no  charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: For the purposes of this review, government-furnished material is defined  as either (1) usable items (commonly referred to as “A” condition items  that the Naval Inventory Control Point directs to be shipped from Navy  wholesale warehouses to its repair contractors or (2) items that the Navy  repair contractors have repaired to usable condition and issued to  themselves to use in completing the repair of another item. According to  Naval Inventory Control Point officials, their use of government-furnished  material occurs in three different circumstances where an item is needed  to complete the repair of another item because the item in question is  (1) missing when the other item is inducted for repair, (2) beyond repair or  beyond economical repair, or (3) needed to complete the expeditious  repair of another item.
To assess the Naval Inventory Control Point’s and its repair contractors’  adherence to procedures for controlling government-furnished material,  we took the following steps:    To identify criteria for controlling shipped inventory, we reviewed  Department of Defense (DOD) and Navy procedures, obtained other  relevant documentation related to shipped inventory, and discussed  inventory management procedures with officials from the following  locations: Headquarters, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C.; the  Naval Inventory Control Point; Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania; the Naval  Inventory Control Point, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and the Defense  Contract Management Agency, Alexandria, Virginia.
Because of long-standing problems with the accuracy of data in DOD’s  inventory management systems, we took a number of measures to assess  the reliability of the Naval Inventory Control Point’s data. To assess the  data, we performed electronic testing for obvious errors in accuracy and  completeness in the data on government-furnished material shipped to  Navy repair contractors. When we found discrepancies in the data, such as  missing data elements and data entry errors, we brought them to the Naval  Inventory Control Point officials’ attention and worked closely with them  to correct the discrepancies before conducting our analysis. In addition,  we statistically selected a random sample of the Navy’s data for review.  This sampling methodology enabled us to independently verify the overall  accuracy of the Navy’s data on government-furnished material shipped to  Navy repair contractors.
To identify the number, value, and classification of the government- furnished material shipments, we obtained computerized supply records  from the Navy’s transaction history file of all shipments between  October 2001 and September 2002 from the Naval Inventory Control  Point’s two office locations—Philadelphia and Mechanicsburg,  Pennsylvania. The records contained descriptive information about each  shipment, including document number, national stock number, quantity  shipped, classification, and source of supply. After some preliminary data  analysis, we excluded all records from the Mechanicsburg office due to  the data set mistakenly capturing nongovernment-furnished material as  government-furnished material.
To select Navy repair contractors and items shipped to them, we used  computerized shipment data obtained from the Naval Inventory Control  Point’s transaction history file, including data such as national stock  number, quantity, source of supply, and transaction dates. We randomly  selected 302 unclassified or sensitive shipments (representing 338 items)  and selected the total population of 6 classified shipments (representing  6 items) that were issued to Navy repair contractors in fiscal year 2002 as  government-furnished material. We randomly selected and sent surveys to  29 Navy repair contractors (associated with 83 unique repair contracts) for  our review. We received survey responses from 20 of the 29 Navy repair  contractors, representing 207 government-furnished material shipments  (corresponding to 243 items). Four of these Navy repair contractors  received the 6 shipments of classified shipments. Because the number of  Navy repair contractors and government-furnished material shipments  were randomly selected, the results of our analysis can be projected to all  Navy repair contractors and shipments.
To determine how Navy repair contractors are granted access to  government-furnished material (i.e., federal supply class or stock number),  we conducted a modified statistical sample of the various contractual  agreements between the Navy and its repair contractors. We initially  planned to manually review a subset of 40 contracts associated with our  sample shipments to determine how the government-furnished material  was identified in the contract. However, we revised our approach when we  discovered that the Navy’s inventory management system had the  functionality to match each of our items by stock number to the associated  Navy repair contracts and contractors that are repairing the items. As a  result, we reviewed all of the contracts associated with our sample  shipments. We found each of our sample shipments was listed by national  item identification number in the contractual repair agreement and based  on certain circumstances (such as items are missing on induction, broken  beyond economical repair, or are needed for the expeditious repair of  another higher assembly item), these items were furnished to the  contractor as government-furnished material.
To determine whether Navy repair contractors had received and  accounted for our selected shipments, we surveyed each randomly  selected contractor to assess whether government-furnished material  shipments delineated in the Naval Inventory Supply Control Point’s supply  records had been received and entered into the contractor’s property  control records.
To determine what happened to sample shipments that had reportedly not  been received by the Navy repair contractors, we provided a listing to the  Naval Inventory Control Point in Philadelphia for further review. To learn  whether issues associated with unaccounted for shipments were  adequately resolved, we reviewed Department of Defense, Navy, and Naval  Inventory Control Point implementing guidance. Such information  provided the basis for conclusions regarding the adherence to procedures  for controlling shipped inventory.
The Navy repair contractors that responded to our survey were BAE Flight  Systems, Nashua, New Hampshire; Boeing, Jacksonville, Florida;  Lockheed Martin, Marietta, Georgia; Lockheed Martin, Oswego, New York;  Lockheed Martin, Syracuse, New York; Northrop Grumman, Bethpage,  New York; Northrop Grumman, Woodland Hills, California (two  locations); Systems and Electronics, Inc., Sanford, Florida; Raytheon,  Indianapolis, Indiana; Raytheon, Goleta, California; Raytheon, McKinney,  Texas; Raytheon Technical Services Corp., Indianapolis, Indiana; General  Dynamics, Bloomington, Minnesota; Global Technical Systems, Virginia  Beach, Virginia; Sikorsky Aircraft, Shelton, Connecticut; Rockwell Collins,  Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Beaver Aerospace, Livonia, Michigan; L3  Communications, Alpharetta, Georgia; and Parker Hannifin, Irvine,  California.
Our work was performed from March 2003 through April 2004 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact listed above, Lawson Gist, Jr., Jacqueline S.  McColl, Corrie J. Dodd, Anthony C. Fernandez, Arthur L. James, Jr.,  Stanley J. Kostyla, David A. Mayfield, and Robert K. Wild made key  contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Defense Inventory: Air Force Needs to Improve Control of Shipments to  Repair Contractors. GAO-02-617. Washington, D.C.: July 1, 2002.
Performance and Accountability Series: Major Management Challenges  and Program Risks—Department of Defense. GAO-01-244. Washington,  D.C.: January 1, 2001.
High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-01-263. Washington, D.C.: January 1,  2001.
Defense Inventory: Plan to Improve Management of Shipped Inventory  Should Be Strengthened. GAO/NSIAD-00-39. Washington, D.C.:   February 22, 2000.
Department of the Navy: Breakdown of In-Transit Inventory Process  Leaves It Vulnerable to Fraud. GAO/OSI/NSIAD-00-61. Washington, D.C.:  February 2, 2000.
Defense Inventory: Property Being Shipped to Disposal Is Not Properly  Controlled. GAO/NSIAD-99-84. Washington, D.C.: July 1, 1999.
DOD Financial Management: More Reliable Information Key to  Assuring Accountability and Managing Defense Operations More  Efficiently. GAO/T-AIMD/NSIAD-99-145. Washington, D.C.: April 14, 1999.
Defense Inventory: DOD Could Improve Total Asset Visibility Initiative  With Results Act Framework. GAO/NSIAD-99-40. Washington, D.C.:   April 12, 1999.
Defense Inventory: Navy Procedures for Controlling In-Transit Items  Are Not Being Followed. GAO/NSIAD-99-61. Washington, D.C.: March 31,  1999.
Performance and Accountability Series: Major Management Challenges  and Program Risks—Department of Defense. GAO/OCG-99-4.  Washington, D.C.: January 1, 1999.
High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO/HR-99-1. Washington, D.C.: January 1,  1999.
Department of Defense: Financial Audits Highlight Continuing  Challenges to Correct Serious Financial Management Problems.   GAO/T-AIMD/NSIAD-98-158. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 1998.
Department of Defense: In-Transit Inventory. GAO/NSIAD-98-80R.  Washington, D.C.: February 27, 1998.
Inventory Management: Vulnerability of Sensitive Defense Material to  Theft. GAO/NSIAD-97-175. Washington, D.C.: September 19, 1997.
Defense Inventory Management: Problems, Progress, and Additional  Actions Needed. GAO/T-NSIAD-97-109. Washington, D.C.: March 20, 1997.
High-Risk Series: Defense Inventory Management. GAO/HR-97-5.  Washington, D.C.: February 1, 1997.
High-Risk Series: Defense Financial Management. GAO/HR-97-3.  Washington, D.C.: February 1, 1997.
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and  investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its  constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and  accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO  examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;  and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help  Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s  commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of  accountability, integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost  is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts  newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To  have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to  www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Congressional Relations
section_title: Public Affairs