Defense Management: DOD Needs to Improve Its Oversight of Executive Agents
Published: 2017-09-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: DOD maintains military forces with unparalleled capabilities. However, the department continues to confront weaknesses in the management of its business functions that support these forces. DOD uses Executive Agents, which are intended to facilitate collaboration, to achieve critical department objectives.
Senate Report 114-255, accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, included a provision that GAO review DOD Executive Agents. This report (1) describes the number and focus of DOD Executive Agents; and evaluates the extent to which DOD (2) tracks its Executive Agents and (3) conducts periodic assessments of its Executive Agents. GAO reviewed relevant DOD directives and the list of Executive Agents; developed and implemented a questionnaire to DOD's Executive Agents; and interviewed relevant DOD officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Based on GAO's analysis, the Department of Defense (DOD) has 81 Executive Agents—management arrangements where the head of a DOD component is designated specific roles and responsibilities to accomplish objectives when more than one component is involved. These Executive Agents are assigned to 12 DOD components and support a range of activities, including managing technology and developing training programs. The Secretary of the Army is designated as the Executive Agent for almost half of them (38 of 81). DOD's Executive Agent directive requires that the Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer (ODCMO) maintain a list of Executive Agent designations and oversee their assessments, among other things. Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Principal Staff Assistants are required to assess their respective Executive Agents every 3 years to determine their continued need, currency, efficiency, and effectiveness.
GAO found weaknesses in DOD's approach to tracking its Executive Agents, resulting in inaccuracies regarding 10 Executive Agents. For example, DOD's list of Executive Agents included several that are not currently active. While ODCMO is required to maintain a list of Executive Agents, ODCMO officials rely on self-reported information from DOD Executive Agents and OSD Principal Staff Assistants. Without taking steps to accurately track DOD Executive Agents, DOD's list will continue to be out dated and ODCMO cannot effectively oversee DOD Executive Agents.
Principal Staff Assistants had not periodically assessed more than half (37 of 70) of DOD Executive Agents that responded to GAO's questionnaire (see figure). ODCMO is responsible for overseeing the implementation of DOD's Executive Agents directive, which requires that Principal Staff Assistants conduct assessments; however, ODCMO officials told GAO they do not ensure that Principal Staff Assistants have conducted these assessments. GAO also found that Principal Staff Assistants are not required to document these assessments. Without verifying the completion of these assessments and issuing guidance requiring their documentation, DOD does not have reasonable assurance that DOD Executive Agents are accomplishing department objectives.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that ODCMO strengthen its approach to track DOD Executive Agents; verify assessments are conducted; and issue implementing guidance for documenting assessments. DOD concurred with the recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) maintains military forces with  unparalleled capabilities. However, DOD continues to confront  weaknesses in its organization and the management of its business  functions that support these forces. We have reported in our high-risk  work that DOD faces challenges in efficiently managing its finances,  information systems, contracts, and weapon systems, among other  areas. More recently, Congress has called for DOD to develop an  organizational strategy to improve collaboration and integration across its  components in achieving critical departmental objectives. Further, in a  February 2017 memorandum, Defense Secretary Mattis expressed his  intent to identify how the department can conduct business operations  more effectively and efficiently, such as by identifying business services  and tasks that no longer merit individual military department approaches.
DOD has used a set of management arrangements to facilitate  collaboration in achieving mission requirements when the efforts of more  than one DOD component are required and need to be coordinated.  These include DOD Executive Agents, Chairman of the Joint Chief of  Staff Controlled Activities, DOD Lead Agents, and Joint Program Offices.  These arrangements vary in how they are designated, the level of  collaboration between components, and associated funding requirements.  These arrangements also vary in the scope of the responsibilities DOD  provides to them.
According to DOD Directive 5101.1, DOD Executive Agent, DOD  Executive Agent designations are conferred when no existing means to  accomplish department objectives exists, DOD resources need to be  focused on a specific area or areas of responsibility in order to minimize  duplication or redundancy, or such designation is required by law,  executive order, or government-wide regulation. Further, within the scope  of assigned responsibilities and functions, the authority of the DOD  Executive Agent takes precedence over the authority of other DOD  component officials performing related or collateral joint or  multicomponent support responsibilities and functions.
We previously reported in 2013 that DOD could improve the use of its  DOD Executive Agent in the area of foreign language support. DOD  utilizes language professionals and regional experts within its ranks of  military personnel to provide foreign language support, such as foreign  language skills, needed to execute missions, as well as contracted  interpreters and translators who provide this support. We found that DOD  components outside the management of the DOD Executive Agent had  acquired foreign language support services and products, such as foreign  language-enabled role players. We recommended that DOD analyze spending for services and products acquired outside the management of  the DOD Executive Agent, and use this analysis to determine whether  adjustments were needed to the scope of the DOD Executive Agent. In  implementing the recommendation, the department analyzed this  spending in 2014 and found opportunities to centralize additional  contracting activities through the DOD Executive Agent.
Senate Report 114-255, accompanying a bill for the National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, included a provision that we  review DOD Executive Agents. This report (1) describes the number and  focus of DOD Executive Agents; and evaluates the extent to which DOD  (2) tracks its DOD Executive Agents and (3) conducts periodic  assessments of its DOD Executive Agents.
To describe the number and focus of DOD Executive Agents, we  reviewed DOD Directive 5101.1 to determine the roles and  responsibilities of the various DOD components involved with DOD’s  Executive Agents. We also obtained a list of DOD Executive Agents and  associated documentation about each DOD Executive Agent from the  Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer (ODCMO). Directive  5101.1 requires ODCMO to maintain such a list. The list included  information about the number of DOD Executive Agents, the DOD  component and Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Principal Staff  Assistant to which they were assigned, contact information for officials at  the DOD Executive Agent and the OSD Principal Staff Assistant offices,  and the date of assignment. To describe the number of DOD Executive  Agents, we analyzed DOD’s list and contacted each official from the list.  ODCMO’s original list contained 84 DOD Executive Agent designations;  however, we did not include 3 designations because they had been  previously cancelled and should not have been included on the list.  Between August 2016 and May 2017, four designations were cancelled,  three designations were newly established, and we discovered one DOD Executive Agent designation that had been previously established but  was missing from ODCMO’s original list. As of May 2017, we determined  that DOD has 81 DOD Executive Agents, as discussed in this report. We  also reviewed each Executive Agent’s respective DOD issuance and  conducted interviews with officials from seven DOD Executive Agents and  focal points within individual components responsible for managing the  DOD Executive Agent program within their component. In addition, we  sent a questionnaire to officials representing each of the DOD Executive  Agents we identified to determine the reason each DOD Executive Agent  was designated, the DOD issuances that described the responsibilities of  the DOD Executive Agent, the contact information for the OSD Principal  Staff Assistant, if known, who are required to assess DOD Executive  Agents at least once every 3 years according to DOD policy, and the  number of assessments the OSD Principal Staff Assistants conducted,  among other things. We included a question about the contact information  for the OSD Principal Staff Assistant because the information we received  from ODCMO was incomplete, and officials from ODCMO informed us  that the best way to collect this information was to contact officials from  each DOD Executive Agent.
To inform the design of our questionnaire, we conducted pretests with  officials from four DOD Executive Agents, including one from the Army,  Air Force, Navy, and the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, who had  work experience performing the responsibilities and functions of the DOD  Executive Agent. We explained the intent and design of the questionnaire  to ensure that, in general, the intended questionnaire recipients would  have the knowledge and resources to respond to our questionnaire and  that questions collected reliable information, and to obtain any  suggestions for clarification. Furthermore, the questionnaire was  designed with the assistance of a GAO survey specialist and was  reviewed by another GAO survey specialist. To identify questionnaire  respondents, we contacted each official from the list of DOD Executive  Agents in early December 2016 to confirm that they were the appropriate  officials to respond to our questionnaire. At that time, we had determined  there were 78 DOD Executive Agents. Through our efforts, as of January  2017, we were able to confirm contact information for 75 of 78 DOD  Executive Agents. To distribute the questionnaire, we sent an e-mail to  each of those 75 DOD Executive Agents with the questionnaire attached  on January 24, 2017. We sent a reminder to officials who had not yet  completed the questionnaire on February 8, 2017, and a DOD official sent  reminder e-mails in mid-February 2017. We granted requests for  extensions from officials associated with several DOD Executive Agents  and we accepted completed questionnaires until March 17, 2017.  Because we attempted to contact all DOD Executive Agents for whom we  had contact information, rather than a sample, there was no sampling  error. However, we did not try to generalize results of our questionnaire  and the results do not represent experiences of DOD Executive Agents  who were not contacted or who did not return a questionnaire. In total, we  distributed 75 questionnaires. Out of the 75 questionnaires sent, we  received 70 completed questionnaires from DOD Executive Agents, for a  response rate of 93 percent. One official for a DOD Executive Agent  stated that he did not believe the program was considered a DOD  Executive Agent and informed us that he could not complete the  questionnaire. To minimize data-entry errors, we used an automated  program to import questionnaire responses into a single computer file. To  further reduce the potential for data-entry errors, we compared selected  questionnaire responses to the imported data in the computer file. To  analyze those responses, the GAO team used two analysts to  independently verify the responses.
To evaluate the extent to which DOD tracks its Executive Agents, we  reviewed DOD Directive 5101.1 and interviewed ODCMO officials to  determine DOD’s approach to maintaining information about DOD  Executive Agents, and the roles and responsibilities of ODCMO to track  DOD Executive Agents. To determine the extent to which ODCMO has  maintained a current list of DOD Executive Agent designations as  required by DOD Directive 5101.1, we analyzed ODCMO’s list of DOD  Executive Agents and compared the data in the list to DOD issuances  associated with the DOD Executive Agents identified by ODCMO. We  also contacted the identified point of contact from each DOD Executive  Agent to check whether each was the appropriate contact for our review  and that the ODCMO-listed contact information was accurate. If the  contact information was not correct, we took steps to obtain the  appropriate contact information from the identified official or from officials  within the same component or ODCMO. We interviewed ODCMO officials  to determine what guidance was provided to DOD to implement DOD  Directive 5101.1, specifically any guidance related to maintaining the list  of DOD Executive Agents, to include adding new and removing cancelled  DOD Executive Agent designations from the list. We compared DOD’s  approach to tracking DOD Executive Agent designations to the stated  requirements in DOD Directive 5101.1. We also compared DOD’s  approach to the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government, including requirements for using high-quality information to  achieve the entity’s objectives.
To evaluate the extent to which DOD conducts periodic assessments of  its DOD Executive Agents, we analyzed responses to our questionnaire  regarding the number and type of assessments that the OSD Principal  Staff Assistant had conducted. We reviewed any documentation  submitted with the responses to determine the extent to which the  assessments met the criteria in DOD Directive 5101.1, specifically the  requirement that the relevant OSD Principal Staff Assistant itself conduct  the assessment and do so at least once every 3 years. We conducted  this analysis by having two GAO analysts independently review the  submitted documentation and determine whether the documentation  fulfilled those requirements. Any initial differences in the coding were  discussed and reconciled by the analysts. To better understand the views  of OSD Principal Staff Assistants regarding their responsibility to assess  the DOD Executive Agents, we selected a nongeneralizable sample of  DOD Executive Agents and conducted nine follow-up interviews with the  OSD Principal Staff Assistants for those DOD Executive Agents. While  not generalizable, the sample we selected was designed to represent a  variety of DOD Executive Agents where (1) DOD Executive Agents  indicated they were assessed or indicated they were not, (2) different  DOD components were designated as DOD Executive Agents, and (3)  different DOD organizations were designated as OSD Principal Staff  Assistants. We also interviewed ODCMO officials to understand its role  as it relates to conducting the assessments. We compared DOD’s  approach to assess DOD Executive Agent designations to the stated  requirements in DOD Directive 5101.1. We also compared DOD’s  approach to the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government, including requirements for documenting internal control  activities.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2016 to September 2017,  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 provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: DOD codified its DOD Executive Agent program in 2002 and issued a  directive, DOD Directive 5101.1, that defines a DOD Executive Agent and  establishes the roles and responsibilities governing the DOD Executive  Agent assignments and arrangements. DOD officials told us that the  department issued a directive for its DOD Executive Agent program in  part because the term DOD Executive Agent had been used to describe a  variety of management arrangements, and DOD Directive 5101.1 was  intended to clarify the term. For example, in 1998, DOD identified  approximately 401 Executive Agents within the military departments.  However, after the directive was issued in 2002, ODCMO officials stated  they worked with identified Executive Agents to determine which were to  remain DOD Executive Agents under the directive. As a result, the  number of activities and programs with the title of DOD Executive Agent  was significantly reduced. For example, the Joint Interagency Task Force  West was referred to as U.S. Pacific Command’s Executive Agent to  support law enforcement for counterdrug efforts in the Asia-Pacific region.
However, according to ODCMO officials, this task force was not  considered to be an official DOD Executive Agent per DOD Directive  5101.1, and ODCMO officials removed its DOD Executive Agent  designation. For issuances published before March 25, 2012, DOD policy  is that directives are to be updated or cancelled after 10 years. ODCMO  officials told us that they are in the process of updating DOD Directive  5101.1, certified current in 2003, but did not have a firm deadline for when  the directive will be updated.
DOD Executive Agent designations are conferred when 1) the efforts of  more than one DOD component needs to be coordinated and no existing  means to accomplish DOD objectives exists, 2) DOD resources need to  be focused on a specific area or areas of responsibility in order to  minimize duplication or redundancy, or 3) such designation is required by  law, executive order, or government-wide regulation. Further, within the  scope of its assigned responsibilities and functions, the authority of the  DOD Executive Agent takes precedence over the authority of other DOD  component officials performing related or collateral joint or  multicomponent support responsibilities and functions.
A DOD Executive Agent is the head of a DOD component. The DOD  Executive Agent may delegate the authority to act to a subordinate  designee within that official’s component. For example, the Secretary of  the Army is the designated DOD Executive Agent for DOD Biometrics,  and has delegated that responsibility to the Army’s Provost Marshall.  DOD Directive 5101.1 assigns ODCMO the overall program management  of the DOD Executive Agent program. Specifically, ODCMO oversees the  implementation of the DOD Executive Agent directive, develops policy on  DOD Executive Agent designations, and issues guidelines as appropriate  to further define responsibilities contained in DOD Directive 5101.1.
An OSD Principal Staff Assistant oversees the activities of DOD  Executive Agents in their functional areas of responsibility. In addition,  DOD Directive 5101.1 states that the OSD Principal Staff Assistant  should assess the DOD Executive Agents in their functional areas  periodically, but not less than once every 3 years, to determine the DOD  Executive Agent’s continued need, currency, and effectiveness and  efficiency in satisfying end-user requirements. According to ODCMO  officials, these OSD Principal Staff Assistants are the Under Secretaries  of Defense, the Deputy Chief Management Officer, the General Counsel  of DOD, the Inspector General of DOD, and those Assistant Secretaries  of Defense, Assistants to the Secretary of Defense, and OSD Directors,  and equivalents, who report directly to the Secretary or Deputy Secretary  of Defense. Typically, the OSD Principal Staff Assistants assess DOD  Executive Agents within their functional areas. For example, the Under  Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics would  assess DOD Executive Agents involved in acquisition and logistics  related areas, such as the DOD Executive Agents for Medical Material,  Subsistence, Construction and Barrier Material, and Bulk Petroleum that  are tasked with managing the logistics of supplying these products across  the department.
Only the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary of Defense may  designate a DOD Executive Agent, and the designation remains in effect  until the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary of Defense  revokes or supersedes it. According to ODCMO officials, the Secretary or  Deputy Secretary of Defense designates a DOD Executive Agent after an  evaluation of existing organizational and management arrangements and  a determination that a DOD Executive Agent would most effectively,  economically, or efficiently carry out a function or task. However,  according to ODCMO officials, the head of a DOD component may  volunteer as a DOD Executive Agent and may formally request the  Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Defense make the assignment, or an  OSD Principal Staff Assistant may propose that the Secretary or Deputy  Secretary of Defense assign a DOD component as a DOD Executive  Agent. ODCMO officials stated this typically happens when a military  department, defense agency, or a combatant command has substantial  responsibility or expertise to execute a task on behalf of DOD, or the  function is particularly sensitive or complex as differentiated from its  overall organic mission. ODCMO officials also stated that DOD Executive  Agent designations are typically formalized in a Secretary or Deputy  Secretary of Defense memorandum, with direction to establish a DOD  issuance to codify the specifics of the DOD Executive Agent arrangement  at a later date. ODCMO officials stated that the issuance is important, as  the designation of the title of DOD Executive Agent by itself confers no  specific responsibilities. The nature and scope of the authority delegated  must be stated in the memorandum or DOD issuance designating the  DOD Executive Agent.
According to ODCMO officials, funding of specific DOD Executive Agent  activities is not determined at the time of assignment. Rather, the  designated DOD Executive Agent seeks resources through DOD’s  planning and budgeting process. Further, according to ODCMO officials,  the DOD Executive Agent often bears the major share of the cost to  execute the assigned responsibilities. However, ODCMO officials  explained that, as necessary, funding determinations between the DOD  Executive Agent and other DOD stakeholders are negotiated through  memorandums of agreement or understanding and DOD’s annual  program and budget review process.
section_title: DOD Has 81 DOD Executive Agents Focused on a Variety of Topics and Designated to Various Components across the Department
paragraphs: We determined that DOD had 81 DOD Executive Agents focused on a  variety of topics and designated to 12 different DOD components, as of  May 2017. Almost half (38 of 81) or 47 percent of the DOD Executive  Agents are designated to the Secretary of the Army and 68 of 81, or 84  percent, were designated to the Secretaries of the Army, Air Force, or  Navy or the Commandant of the Marine Corps. In contrast, six DOD  components had one DOD Executive Agent designation each.  Additionally, 11 different OSD Principal Staff Assistants oversee 81 DOD  Executive Agents. This information is based on our analysis of ODCMO’s  list of DOD Executive Agents. Figure 1 shows the DOD Executive Agent  designations by DOD component and by OSD Principal Staff Assistant.
According to ODCMO officials, a DOD Executive Agent designation is  typically assigned to the DOD component that is already involved in the  work related to the DOD Executive Agent. Below are several types of  activities DOD Executive Agents perform and an example of a DOD  Executive Agent that performs the activity:
Administrative Support—The Secretary of the Army, as the  designated DOD Executive Agent for the U.S. Military Entrance  Processing Command, is responsible for programming, budgeting,  and funding all Military Entrance Processing Command operations.
Developing Standards—The Director of the Defense Information  Systems Agency, as the DOD Executive Agent for Information  Technology Standards, is responsible for developing and maintaining  information-technology standards.
Developing Training Programs—The Secretary of the Air Force, as  the DOD Executive Agent for Military Working Dogs, is responsible for  developing required training programs and curricula for military  working-dog instructors, kennel masters, and handlers.
Technology Management—The Secretary of the Navy, as the DOD  Executive Agent for Printed Circuit Board and Interconnect  Technology, is responsible for developing and maintaining a  technology roadmap to ensure that DOD has access to manufacturing  capabilities and technical expertise necessary to meet future military  requirements regarding this technology.
Acquisition Support—The Commandant of the Marine Corps, as the  DOD Executive Agent for Non-Lethal Weapons, is responsible for  coordinating nonlethal weapon requirements across doctrine,  organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel,  and facilities.
Department-wide Visibility—The Secretary of the Army, as the DOD  Executive Agent for the Unexploded Ordnance Center of Excellence,  chairs the center and executes management oversight and funding  responsibilities for the center.
As part of our questionnaire for DOD Executive Agents, we asked about  the reasons why DOD conferred the designation. In response, 51  percent (36 of 70) of DOD Executive Agents responding to our  questionnaire reported that their designation was conferred to minimize  the duplication or redundancy of DOD resources. Thirty-six percent (25 of  70) of DOD Executive Agents responding to our questionnaire reported  that their designation was conferred because no other means existed for  the department to accomplish its objective. Finally, 26 percent (18 of 70)  of DOD Executive Agents responding to our questionnaire reported that  their designation was conferred because it was required by law, executive  order, or government-wide regulation.
A majority of the DOD Executive Agents have OSD Principal Staff  Assistants from one of three Under Secretaries of Defense. About half (35  of 81), or 43 percent, of the OSD Principal Staff Assistants for DOD  Executive Agents are assigned to the Under Secretary of Defense for  Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, while another 40 percent (32 of  81) of OSD Principal Staff Assistants are assigned to the Under Secretary  of Defense for Personnel and Readiness or the Under Secretary of  Defense for Policy. According to DOD Directive 5101.1, an OSD Principal  Staff Assistant is to oversee the activities of DOD Executive Agents in  their functional areas of responsibility. In addition, the OSD Principal Staff  Assistant is also assigned to assess each DOD Executive Agent to  determine the DOD Executive Agent’s continued need, currency, and  effectiveness and efficiency in satisfying end-user requirements.  Typically, the OSD Principal Staff Assistant is to assess DOD Executive  Agents within their functional areas. For example:
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and  Logistics oversees 35 DOD Executive Agents and typically assesses  those involved in acquisition and logistics-related areas, such as the  Director of the Defense Logistics Agency, serving as the DOD  Executive Agent for Medical Materiel, Subsistence, Construction and  Barrier Materiel, and Bulk Petroleum and is tasked with managing the  logistics of supplying these products across the department. In  addition, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology  and Logistics also oversees two designations related to chemical and  biological weapons and two designations related to the safety and  security of biological toxins and hazards.
The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness’s  portfolio includes readiness; health affairs; training; and personnel  requirements and management, including equal opportunity, morale,  welfare, recreation, and quality-of-life matters. The Under Secretary of  Defense for Personnel and Readiness oversees 20 DOD Executive  Agents, including three designations related to language training or  foreign language contracts; two designations related to recruitment  and entrance processing; and the Armed Services Entertainment  program.
The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy’s portfolio includes all  matters pertaining to the formulation of national security and defense  policy. The office oversees 12 DOD Executive Agents, including two  designations related to security cooperation activities and two  designations related to multinational organizations.
section_title: Weaknesses Exist in DOD’s Approach to Tracking Its DOD Executive Agents
paragraphs: We found that DOD has weaknesses in its approach to tracking its DOD  Executive Agents, resulting in ODCMO not having an accurate  accounting of the number of DOD Executive Agents. According to DOD  Directive 5101.1, ODCMO is responsible for developing, maintaining,  monitoring, revising, and making available the list of DOD Executive  Agent designations. However, we found that ODCMO did not maintain a  list of DOD Executive Agents that was current or complete. For example,  we found 10 designations on DOD’s list of DOD Executive Agents that  were not accurate, including the following:
Disestablished DOD Executive Agents: Three DOD Executive Agent  designations that were on ODCMO’s list had been disestablished;  however, they had not been removed from the list. For example, in  October 2015, a Deputy Secretary of Defense memorandum  disestablished the DOD Executive Agent for Space by redesignating it  as the Principal DOD Space Advisor. ODCMO officials stated that  they were aware that it had been disestablished, but had not removed  it from the list until a directive, issued in June 2017, cancelled the  designation for the DOD Executive Agent for Space. In another  example, the DOD Executive Agent for Global Command and Control  Systems should have been removed from ODCMO’s list in 2013.
Inactive DOD Executive Agents: Two DOD Executive Agent  designations were no longer considered active, meaning that while  the designations have not been cancelled, the DOD Executive Agents  are no longer performing the responsibilities of the DOD Executive  Agents. DOD Directive 5101.1 states that the designations are to  remain in effect until the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy  Secretary of Defense revokes or supersedes them. However, the  Secretary of Defense or Deputy Secretary of Defense has not issued  any documentation to disestablish the DOD Executive Agents.  Specifically, some Army officials from the Chemical Demilitarization  Program stated that the responsibilities of the DOD Executive Agent  had been completed in 2012 and thus the designation was no longer  active. In the other example, officials from the DOD Executive Agent  for DOD Civilian Police Officers and Security Guards Physical Fitness  Standards Program stated that the directive for this program was  updated in 2012 and reference to the DOD Executive Agent  designation had been removed because the designation was no  longer necessary. Officials stated that they intended to pursue the  cancellation of the designation at a later date.
Unclear DOD Executive Agent designations: Three DOD Executive  Agent designations were unclear, such that they were not considered  actual DOD Executive Agents, or officials in the relevant component  had no knowledge of the designation. For example, Navy officials  stated that they could not find any organization currently carrying out  any responsibility related to the DOD Executive Agent for High School  News Service or for the Force Protection of Military Sealift Assets.  ODCMO officials told us that these may have been considered DOD  Executive Agents at one time, but the arrangements were never  documented. In the other example, the status of the DOD Executive  Agent for the Global Positioning System is unclear since Air Force  officials at the program stated that they do not use the term DOD  Executive Agent to refer to the program and were unaware that the  program was considered to be a DOD Executive Agent. ODCMO  officials stated that a determination was likely made at some point to  consider this organization a DOD Executive Agent, and therefore the  organization was included on ODCMO’s list, but no official  documentation was issued. Air Force Officials who track the Air  Force’s DOD Executive Agents stated that the Global Positioning  System program may have been considered a DOD Executive Agent  at one time.
Missing DOD Executive Agent Designation: One DOD Executive  Agent designation was missing from ODCMO’s list. ODCMO’s list  included an DOD Executive Agent for Weapons of Mass Destruction  and Delivery Vehicle Elimination Operations in Libya, and the Defense  Threat Reduction Agency was the designated DOD Executive Agent.  However, Defense Threat Reduction Agency officials stated that there  are actually two separate designations, one for such operations in  Libya and one in Iraq. Both ODCMO and the Defense Threat  Reduction Agency lost track of the designation for Iraq and it was not  included in ODCMO’s list of DOD Executive Agents.
Not an DOD Executive Agent: One DOD Executive Agent designation  was on ODCMO’s list that ODCMO and Army officials agree should  not have been considered as a DOD Executive Agent. According to  ODCMO officials, the DOD Executive Agent for the Joint Center for  International Security Force Assistance was inappropriately applied to  the organization. Officials explained that the center is actually a  Chairman’s Controlled Activity, which is another type of management  arrangement the department uses. Per DOD policy, only the  Secretary of Defense or Deputy Secretary of Defense may cancel a  designation. Thus, Army officials stated that until official action is  taken to document that the center is not an DOD Executive Agent, it  will remain on ODCMO’s list and the Army will consider it a valid DOD  Executive Agent.
We also identified seven other designations that ODCMO may need to  revisit. ODCMO officials stated that our review highlighted several  designations that may no longer be considered active and require  resolution. Specifically:
Army officials with whom we spoke told us that 5 of the Army’s 38  designations may no longer be necessary and could be  disestablished.
Officials from the DOD Executive Agent for Weapons of Mass  Destruction Elimination Operations and Delivery Vehicle Elimination  Operations in Libya stated in their response to our questionnaire that  the DOD Executive Agent’s 2004 designation is no longer needed, as  considerable time has passed and the nature of U.S. government  engagement and policies toward Libya have changed significantly.
Officials from both the DOD Executive Agent and the OSD Principal  Staff Assistant for the DOD Executive Agent for the Regional Centers  for Security Studies stated that the designation may no longer be  necessary, as the functions and responsibilities of this DOD Executive  Agent are operating in a routine manner. According to ODCMO  officials, a number of different circumstances may prompt the  cancellation of a DOD Executive Agent designation, to include  circumstances when the responsibilities of a DOD Executive Agent  have become institutionalized as part of an office or agency.
ODCMO controls its updates to the DOD Executive Agent list to ensure  any changes are vetted through the appropriate offices. However,  according to ODCMO officials, to maintain the list they rely on  representatives from DOD Executive Agents to self-report any  modifications to the DOD Executive Agent or contact information for  relevant officials, which has resulted in some of the discrepancies  described above. Aside from DOD Executive Agents self-reporting any  changes, ODCMO officials stated that there is no process to ensure that  all information on the list is current or complete. Furthermore, ODCMO  officials stated that they have not issued guidance instructing DOD  Executive Agent officials under what circumstances they should self- report changes.
Moreover, we found that ODCMO does not have a process for being  notified when a new DOD Executive Agent is established or when one is  cancelled. ODCMO officials stated that they provide consultation upon  request to other DOD components that are considering establishing a  new DOD Executive Agent. However, officials stated they are not always  consulted and may not become aware of the new DOD Executive Agent  designation until after its establishment. For example, ODCMO officials  stated that were not involved in the issuance of the January 2017 Deputy  Secretary of Defense memorandum that announced the designation of  the Secretary of the Army as the DOD Executive Agent for the DOD  Biological Select Agent and Toxin Biosecurity Program. ODCMO officials  told us they have, on at least one occasion, learned about interest in  establishing a DOD Executive Agent for a function that another DOD  Executive Agent was already addressing, and advised against its  establishment.
Furthermore, ODCMO officials said that a DOD Executive Agent  designation can be removed from the list of DOD Executive Agents by  cancelling or updating the DOD issuance that established the DOD  Executive Agent. Even though ODCMO coordinates all issuances for the  department, ODCMO officials stated that they are not informed of all  changes in issuances related to DOD Executive Agent designations, such  as when a designation is updated or cancelled. For example, as noted  earlier, officials from the DOD Executive Agent for DOD Civilian Police  Officers and Security Guards Physical Fitness Standards Program stated  that reference to the DOD Executive Agent designation was removed as  part of the 2012 update to the DOD directive for the DOD Executive  Agent. However, ODCMO officials were not aware that the updated  directive no longer included a reference to the DOD Executive Agent  designation, and therefore ODCMO still had this DOD Executive Agent on  its list. DOD Executive Agent officials stated that they intended to pursue  the cancellation of the designation at a later date. When consulted on  DOD issuances related to the establishment, disestablishment, or  modification of a DOD Executive Agent–related issuance, ODCMO  officials stated they advise the OSD Principal Staff Assistants, among  others, to discretely identify the actions related to the DOD Executive  Agent designation to facilitate their tracking.
According to DOD Directive 5101.1, ODCMO is to issue guidelines, as  appropriate, to define further the policies, responsibilities and functions,  and authorities contained in the directive. This could include the process  for notifying ODCMO when a change is made to a DOD Executive Agent,  such as when one is established, removed, or modified. Standards for  Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management  should use high-quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives.  Specifically, management obtains relevant data from reliable internal and  external sources in a timely manner based on the identified information  requirements. ODCMO officials agreed that they need to improve their  tracking of DOD Executive Agents; however, they have not developed an  approach for this. Without taking steps to ensure that it is accurately  tracking its Executive Agents, ODCMO will not be able to effectively  oversee the DOD Executive Agent program. An accurate list is an  important tool to help ODCMO manage its DOD Executive Agent  program, including ensuring that there is no overlap in efforts across the  DOD Executive Agent designations. As a result, DOD’s list of Executive  Agents will continue to be out dated and incomplete.
section_title: About Half of the DOD Executive Agents Who Responded to Our Questionnaire Were Not Assessed
paragraphs: According to the 70 DOD Executive Agents responding to our  questionnaire, OSD Principal Staff Assistants responsible for assessing  DOD Executive Agents have not conducted assessments of about half  (37 of 70) of the DOD Executive Agents in the past 3 years, as required  by DOD guidance. Of the remaining 33 DOD Executive Agents, 28  responded that their OSD Principal Staff Assistant assessed them.  Moreover, of those 28 DOD Executive Agents, almost half (13 of 28) said  their assessment was not documented or that they did not know whether  documentation existed. Finally, 3 DOD Executive Agents responded  that they did not know whether OSD Principal Staff Assistants had  assessed them. (See fig. 2.)
Among the DOD Executive Agents that indicated they were assessed and  provided documentation of the assessment, we found that many did not  meet all of the requirements for assessments as prescribed in DOD  Directive 5101.1. Specifically, the OSD Principal Staff Assistants did not  conduct the assessment at all or did not conduct it within the past 3  years. Of the 15 respondents who indicated that the assessment was  documented, 12 either provided documentation, the text of the document  in their response but not the document itself, or a citation to a DOD  issuance related to the DOD Executive Agent that we were able to find  independently. The documentation provided included, for example,  minutes of annual meetings reviewing DOD Executive Agent programs,  assessments the DOD Executive Agent directed independent consultants  to conduct, or delegations of authority from the head of the component  designated to be the DOD Executive Agent to other officials. Our review  of these documents found that for half (6 of 12) of the DOD Executive  Agents that provided documentation, the OSD Principal Staff Assistant  did not conduct the assessment, and 3 of the 6 did not conduct it within  the past 3 years, as shown in table 1 below. For example, the OSD  Principal Staff Assistant did not conduct the assessments of the four DOD  Executive Agents assigned to the Defense Logistics Agency  (Subsistence, Bulk Petroleum, Construction/Barrier Material, and Medical  Material). According to an official from the OSD Principal Staff Assistant’s  office, the OSD Principal Staff Assistant delegated the responsibility to  conduct the assessment directly to the DOD Executive Agent in one case,  and in the other three cases the OSD Principal Staff Assistant approved  the DOD Executive Agent’s decision to direct an independent consultant  to conduct the assessments.
In addition, according to Army officials, 2 of the 12 documented  assessments should not be considered assessments. Specifically, Army  officials from the Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of  the Army, the office that manages the Army’s DOD Executive Agents, did  not agree that the documentation submitted by two Army DOD Executive  Agents should be considered an assessment. Specifically, the DOD  Executive Agents for Chemical and Biological Defense Program and the  DOD Executive Agent for the Contract Linguist Program submitted Army  memorandums stating that the Secretary of the Army was delegating the  responsibilities of the DOD Executive Agent to other offices within the  Army. According to Army officials who prepared the memorandums, the  Army did not conduct any review or assessment of the DOD Executive  Agent while generating these memorandums.
DOD Directive 5101.1 states that the OSD Principal Staff Assistant shall  assess DOD Executive Agent assignments and arrangements associated  with such assignments under their cognizance, as noted previously. The  directive further states the assessments shall occur periodically, but not  less than once every 3 years, to determine the DOD Executive Agent’s  continued need, currency, and effectiveness and efficiency in satisfying  end-user requirements. In addition, Standards for Internal Control in the  Federal Government state that documentation is a necessary part of an  effective internal control system, and is required for the effective design,  implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity’s internal control  system. The directive also assigns ODCMO the responsibility for  overseeing the implementation of the directive.
ODCMO officials told us that they did not know whether the assessments  were occurring, and neither requested nor received assessments. The  officials stated that they have not ensured the completion of DOD  Executive Agents assessments because they narrowly interpreted their  responsibility to oversee the implementation of DOD Directive 5101.1.  Specifically, ODCMO officials stated that their responsibilities were limited  to providing advice to other DOD components that expressed interest in  using the DOD Executive Agent designation and maintaining a list of  DOD Executive Agent designations.
Further, we found that when the assessments were completed, according  to the officials, the assessments were not always documented. While  DOD Directive 5101.1 does not require the assessments to be  documented, in the absence of such documentation, the OSD Principal  Staff Assistant cannot demonstrate it has conducted an assessment in  the past 3 years or that the assessment reviewed the DOD Executive  Agent’s continued need, currency, effectiveness, and efficiency in  satisfying end-user requirements. According to DOD Directive 5101.1,  ODCMO shall issue implementing guidance, which may include clarifying  the responsibility of OSD Principal Staff Assistants in conducting  assessments of DOD Executive Agents. ODCMO officials told us that  they have not issued implementing guidance because they do not want to  be prescriptive in how OSD Principal Staff Assistants should assess DOD  Executive Agents, as each DOD Executive Agent designation is unique.  Therefore, ODCMO wants to provide flexibility in how those OSD  Principal Staff Assistants conduct the assessments, including how they  define the terms continued need, currency, and effectiveness and  efficiency in satisfying end-user requirements. However, ODCMO could  issue implementing guidance that ensures that the assessments are  completed and documented. Several OSD Principal Staff Assistants with  whom we spoke also told us that additional ODCMO guidance could help  clarify the assessment requirement.
Without verifying that the OSD Principal Staff Assistants for all DOD  Executive Agents have completed required assessments and providing  implementing guidance requiring the documentation of the assessments,  the department does not have reasonable assurance that OSD Principal  Staff Assistants are assessing DOD Executive Agents or that DOD  Executive Agents—as a management arrangement—are accomplishing  department objectives. According to DOD officials, conducting these  periodic assessments would assist the department in reviewing DOD  Executive Agent designations to ensure that the department is managing  its resources efficiently and effectively.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: DOD Executive Agents can help the department further achieve its range  of objectives more efficiently and effectively when additional coordination  is needed to focus DOD resources and minimize duplication or  redundancy of activities, among other things. However, ODCMO faces  challenges in overseeing DOD Executive Agents. For example, ODCMO  has weaknesses in its approach to tracking its DOD Executive Agents,  making it difficult to determine how effectively the office is carrying out its  responsibilities. Further, ODCMO does not ensure that OSD Principal  Staff Assistants are conducting required assessments or that these  assessments are documented in a manner that supports that DOD  Executive Agents were assessed for continued need, currency, and  effectiveness and efficiency in meeting end-user needs. Given its  oversight responsibility for the DOD Executive Agent program, ODCMO  should to take action to ensure that requirements in DOD Directive  5101.1 are being met and that the program is being effectively  implemented. Without this action, DOD does not know whether its  Executive Agents are effective in meeting their intended purpose and may  be missing opportunities to better manage its resources and activities  department-wide.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that DOD’s Deputy Chief Management Officer take the  following three actions:  strengthen its approach to track DOD Executive Agents to ensure that  its list and contact information are current and complete;  verify that the OSD Principal Staff Assistants for all DOD Executive  Agents have completed their required assessments every 3 years;  and  issue implementing guidance that OSD Principal Staff Assistants  should document the assessments of DOD Executive Agents,  including documenting how the assessments address the DOD  Executive Agents’ continued need, currency, and effectiveness and  efficiency in meeting end-user needs.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. In  written comments, which are summarized below and reprinted in  appendix II, DOD concurred with our recommendations. In addition, DOD  provided technical comments, which we have incorporated into the report  as appropriate.
In its written comments, DOD stated that it plans to take several actions  to implement the recommendations by the end of the first quarter of fiscal  year 2018. Specifically, DOD stated that it will task the OSD Principal  Staff Assistants to review the DOD Executive Agents under their  cognizance, validate existing information, identify inaccuracies, and  provide updated points of contact. In addition, DOD plans to issue  guidance to the OSD Principal Staff Assistants to provide documentation  of assessments completed in the last three years, and direct the OSD  Principal Staff Assistants to initiate an assessment if one has not been  completed in the last three years. Furthermore, this guidance will task  OSD Principal Staff Assistants to conduct, document, and provide copies  of these assessments for each DOD Executive Agent. Finally, DOD  stated that the Deputy Chief Management Officer, once informed by the  completed assessments of DOD Executive Agents, will take the  necessary actions to enhance DOD Executive Agent oversight.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Defense, and the Deputy Chief  Management Officer. In addition, the report is 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 (213) 830-1011 or vonaha@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 who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: List of Department of Defense (DOD) Executive Agents
paragraphs: The Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer (ODCMO) maintains  a list of DOD Executive Agents. The list includes information about each  DOD Executive Agent, such as the title of the DOD Executive Agent  assignment, the office assigned as the Office of the Secretary of Defense  (OSD) Principal Staff Assistant, the department official who designated  the DOD Executive Agent, and the date of the DOD Executive Agent  assignment. To describe the number of DOD Executive Agents, we  analyzed DOD’s list and DOD issuances designating the DOD Executive  Agent assignment, and contacted department officials of each DOD  Executive Agent. Below are four tables listing the DOD Executive Agent  responsibilities assigned to the Secretary of the Army (see table 2), the  Secretary of the Air Force (see table 3), the Secretary of the Navy,  including the Marine Corps (see table 4), and the heads of other DOD  components (see table 5).
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: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, key contributors to this report  were Tina Won Sherman (Assistant Director), Angeline Bickner, Саroŀynn   Саvаnuagh, Tim DiNapoli, Mae Frances Jones, Lori Kmetz, Kirsten  Lauber, Shari Nikoo, Daniel Ramsey, Michael Silver, and Matthew  Ullengren.