Weapon Systems Management: DOD Has Taken Steps to Implement Product Support Managers but Needs to Evaluate Their Effects
Published: 2014-04-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: DOD spends billions of dollars annually to sustain weapon systems. With the prospect of tighter defense budgets, DOD has placed more attention on controlling total life-cycle costs with initiatives aimed at ensuring that weapon systems are more affordable over the long term. Section 2337 of Title 10, U.S. Code, requires that each major weapon system be supported by a PSM and lays out the responsibilities of the PSM, including developing and implementing a comprehensive product support strategy for the system. GAO was asked to review DOD's progress in implementing PSMs for major weapon systems.
This report examines (1) the steps, if any, that DOD and the military services have taken to implement PSMs for major weapon systems and (2) the extent to which DOD has evaluated the effects, if any, that PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions for their assigned systems. To conduct this review, GAO obtained information and interviewed product support personnel assigned to 12 of 332 major weapon systems that reflected varying characteristics—such as military service and system costs—and analyzed documentation from DOD and the military services.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) and the military services have taken steps to implement Product Support Managers (PSM) for major weapon systems, but certain aspects of the implementation process remain incomplete. The services have assigned PSMs to almost all of their major weapon systems. For example, as of February 2014, 325 of 332 PSM position requirements across DOD for major weapon systems—approximately 98 percent—were filled. While DOD and all of the services have taken some steps to develop a comprehensive career path and associated guidance to develop, train, and support future PSMs, DOD, in coordination with the military services, has not developed a plan—to include objectives, milestones, and resources—to implement and institutionalize a comprehensive PSM career path. Until DOD develops such a plan, it may not be able to ensure that the services can fill PSM positions with qualified personnel in the future. Moreover, DOD's PSM implementation guidance is not centralized and future product support personnel may be hindered in their ability to easily access and implement such guidance. Also, because the latest DOD guidance lacks detail and contains a potentially unclear provision, personnel may confuse the responsibilities of Program Managers and PSMs. Without clear, comprehensive, and centralized implementation guidance, DOD may be hindered in its ability to institutionalize the implementation of PSMs for its major weapon systems going forward. Additionally, the Army has been working for a year to clarify the roles and responsibilities of certain product support personnel, who support PSMs, for the sustainment portion of the life cycle for major weapon systems. According to officials from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, major weapon systems program offices have raised the issue of the lack of clear roles and responsibilities of these personnel, which has prompted senior-level Army meetings to attempt to resolve the issue. However, the Army has not yet finalized guidance that clarifies roles and responsibilities, which may hinder PSMs in their ability to effectively manage and conduct their daily product support responsibilities.
DOD does not fully know how or to what extent PSMs are affecting life-cycle sustainment decisions because it has not systematically collected and evaluated information on the effects PSMs are having on their assigned weapon systems. Program evaluation guidance states that evaluations can play a key role in program planning, management, and oversight by providing feedback to managers on programs. Evaluations can show whether PSMs are conducting good practices that could be shared across the department as well as whether changes are needed to guidance or other areas to enhance the contributions of PSMs. In the absence of DOD information on the effects PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions, weapon system program offices identified several good practices and challenges associated with PSMs. For example, several PSMs told us that they had initiated analyses focused on reducing life-cycle sustainment costs for their assigned weapon systems. One challenge that Army headquarters officials noted was that PSMs do not have knowledge of how much sustainment funding their systems will receive prior to the year of execution of funds. Without greater visibility over the allocation of sustainment funding for their assigned weapon systems, these PSMs may be hindered in their ability to proactively manage and influence their system's life-cycle sustainment decisions.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DOD and the services develop a plan to institutionalize a career path for PSMs; issue clear, comprehensive, and centralized PSM implementation guidance; evaluate the effects PSMs have on sustainment decisions; and improve Army PSMs' visibility over sustainment funding. DOD generally agreed with the recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) spends billions of dollars each year to  sustain its weapon systems. We have previously noted that the  acquisition of a weapon system today involves a significant financial  commitment to that system over its entire life cycle, a period that may last  several decades—from the system’s development to the time it is  removed from DOD’s inventory. With the nation facing fiscal challenges  and the potential for tighter defense budgets, DOD has placed more  attention on controlling dollars spent on the total life-cycle costs of  weapon systems by instituting various initiatives aimed at ensuring that  systems are more affordable over the long term. Congress has passed  legislation that may have similar effects. For example, the National  Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 required that Product  Support Managers (PSM) be assigned to all major weapon systems and  outlined the roles and responsibilities that PSMs must perform, including  developing and implementing a comprehensive product support strategy  for the system. PSMs are to report to Program Managers, who are  responsible for the management of a program over its life cycle. A  provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013  subsequently codified the roles and responsibilities of the PSM at section  2337 of Title 10, U.S. Code, which was later amended by the National  Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.responsibilities are to  1.  develop and implement a comprehensive product support strategy for  2.  use appropriate predictive analysis and modeling tools that can  improve material availability and reliability, increase operational  availability rates, and reduce operation and sustainment costs;  3.  conduct appropriate cost analyses to validate the product support  strategy, including cost-benefit analyses as outlined in Office of  Management and Budget Circular A-94;  4.  ensure achievement of desired product support outcomes through  development and implementation of appropriate product support  arrangements;  5.  adjust performance requirements and resource allocations across  Product Support Integrators and Product Support Providers as  necessary to optimize implementation of the product support strategy;  6.  periodically review product support arrangements between the  Product Support Integrators and Product Support Providers to ensure  the arrangements are consistent with the overall product support  strategy;  7.  prior to each change in the product support strategy or every 5 years,  whichever occurs first, revalidate any business-case analysis  performed in support of the product support strategy;  8.  ensure that the product support strategy maximizes small-business  participation at the appropriate tiers; and  9.  ensure that product support arrangements for the weapon system  describe how such arrangements will ensure efficient procurement,  management, and allocation of government-owned parts inventories  in order to prevent unnecessary procurements of such parts.
PSMs are assigned to each major weapon system to help DOD ensure  that it has effective product support strategies and processes to support  the goals of maintaining its weapon systems readiness and controlling  costs throughout the life cycle of a system.
Although this is our first report focused on PSMs, we have conducted  prior work on operating and support (O&S) issues, including costs  related to weapon systems, and made recommendations to improve  management of these issues. For example, we noted that DOD lacks key  information needed to effectively manage and reduce O&S costs for most  of the weapon systems GAO reviewed—including life-cycle O&S cost  estimates and complete historical data on actual O&S costs. Moreover,  we also reported that DOD needed to enhance oversight of estimated long-term costs for operating and supporting major weapon systems.
The Related GAO Products section at the end of this report lists our prior  work.
For this report, you asked us to examine DOD’s progress in establishing  and institutionalizing PSMs for major weapon systems. Specifically, our  objectives were to determine (1) what steps, if any, DOD and the military  services have taken to implement PSMs for major weapon systems and  (2) the extent to which DOD has evaluated the effects, if any, that PSMs  are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions for the systems to which  they are assigned. To satisfy these objectives, we interviewed Office of  the Secretary of Defense (OSD), military department headquarters, and  military service command officials. We also obtained pertinent  documents, including DOD directives and instructions, military  department regulations and instructions, memorandums, other guidance,  and lists of assigned PSMs. Additionally, we collected and analyzed DOD  and service data on PSMs assigned to 12 of 332 major weapon systems,  and selected and interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of PSMs,  program management, and other product support personnel. In identifying  this nonprobability sample, we selected major weapon systems that  reflected varied characteristics, such as military service, Acquisition  Category (ACAT) level, acquisition phase, type of system (e.g., aviation,  ground, naval), and total estimated system cost. From these interviews,  we obtained more-in-depth information to identify good practices that  some PSMs have found helpful in enabling them to make or affect life- cycle sustainment decisions for major weapon systems, as well as any  challenges that may have prevented PSMs from making or influencing  such decisions. To obtain information on the overall size and cost of  DOD’s ACAT I systems, we also analyzed data from DOD’s Selected  Acquisition Reports and other information in the Defense Acquisition  Management Information Retrieval Purview system. We obtained similar  data for ACAT II systems, where available, that the services maintained  on their respective systems. We assessed the reliability of the PSM- related data we obtained from DOD and the services, along with the  information we obtained from the Defense Acquisition Management  Information Retrieval Purview system, through questionnaires and  interviews with knowledgeable officials and determined that these data  were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of assessing the implementation  of PSMs for major weapon systems and discussing the findings in this  report. A more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology is  included in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2013 through April 2014  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions, based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions, based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: DOD Product Support
paragraphs: Product support refers to the support functions required to field and  maintain the readiness and operational capability of major weapon  systems, subsystems, and components, including all functions related to  a weapon system’s readiness. O&S costs historically account for  approximately 70 percent of a weapon system’s total life-cycle cost and  include costs for repair parts, maintenance, contract services, engineering   Weapon systems are costly  support, and personnel, among other things.to sustain in part because they often incorporate a technologically  complex array of subsystems and components and need expensive spare  parts and logistics support to meet required readiness levels. In addition,  military operations in such locations as Afghanistan have increased the  wear and tear on many weapon systems and escalated their O&S costs  well beyond peacetime levels. Many of the key decisions affecting a  weapon system’s O&S costs are made while the system is still in the  acquisition process. For example, acquisition-based decisions about the  design, materials, and technology for a system affect the logistics support  that is eventually needed to keep that system available and ready after it  is fielded. Controlling O&S costs is critical to ensure future affordability of  defense budgets. In short, the acquisition of a weapon system today  involves a significant financial commitment to that system over its entire  life cycle, a period that may last several decades from the system’s  development to the time it is removed from DOD’s inventory. For  example, DOD estimated in 2012 that life-cycle O&S costs for the F-35  Joint Strike Fighter—being acquired for the Air Force, Navy, and  Marines—would be about $1.1 trillion, in addition to an estimated $391.1  billion in total acquisition costs.
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, “Better Buying  Power: Mandate for Restoring Affordability and Productivity in Defense Spending,”  memorandum (June 28, 2010); “Better Buying Power: Guidance for Obtaining Greater  Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending,” memorandum (Sept. 14, 2010);  “Implementation Directive for Better Buying Power—Obtaining Greater Efficiency and  Productivity in Defense Spending,” memorandum (Nov. 3, 2010); “Better Buying Power  2.0: Continuing the Pursuit for Greater Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending,”  memorandum (Nov. 13, 2012).
section_title: Role of the PSM within the Product Support Organizational Structure
paragraphs: Consistent with section 2337 and DOD guidance, PSMs are assigned to  major weapon systems to provide oversight and management and to  serve as advisors to Program Managers on matters related to product  support, such as weapon system sustainment. According to DOD’s PSM  Guidebook, DOD must continue to improve product support, with a  specific focus on increasing readiness and enabling better cost control.  DOD guidance describes a PSM as the individual who provides weapon  systems product support subject-matter expertise to the Program  Manager for the execution of his or her total life-cycle management  responsibilities.Manager is assigned life-cycle management responsibility and is  accountable for the implementation, management, and oversight of all  activities associated with the development, production, sustainment, and  disposal of a weapon system across its life cycle. The Program  Manager’s responsibilities for oversight and management of the product  support function are typically delegated to a PSM, who leads the  development, implementation, and top-level integration and management  of all sources of support to meet warfighter sustainment and readiness  requirements. This organization is displayed in figure 1.
section_title: DOD Responsibilities for Life-Cycle Management
paragraphs: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and  Logistics (USD) serves as the Defense Acquisition Executive and  is the individual responsible for supervising the defense acquisition  system. The USD(AT&L) has policy and procedural authority for the  defense acquisition system, is the principal acquisition official of the  department, and is the acquisition advisor to the Secretary of Defense.  For acquisition matters, the USD(AT&L) generally takes precedence in  DOD, including over the secretaries of the military departments, after the  Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense. The  USD(AT&L)’s authority includes directing the services and defense  agencies on acquisition matters and making milestone decisions for major  defense acquisition programs. Under the USD(AT&L), and subject to  the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of the relevant  military department, each of the military services has officials designated  as Component or Service Acquisition Executives who are responsible for  acquisition functions within their services. A Program Executive Officer— a military or civilian official who has responsibility for directing assigned  programs—reports to and receives guidance and direction from the  Service Acquisition Executive. The Program Executive Officer  supervises a Program Manager, who is the individual responsible for  accomplishing a program’s objectives for development, production, and  sustainment to meet the user’s operational needs. The PSM reports to  the Program Manager.
Under the PSM, there may be a need for Product Support Integrators,  who are assigned within the scope, direction, and oversight of the PSM,  and who may be either a government or commercial entity. Product  Support Integrators are tasked with integrating sources of support, and  may use Product Support Providers to accomplish this role. Product  Support Providers are tasked with providing specific product support  functions. established wherein the PSM (acting on behalf of the Program Manager)  may effectively delegate some levels of responsibility for product support  implementation and oversight to Product Support Integrators. The  Product Support Integrators, in turn, ensure that the performance  requirements to meet their arrangements are accomplished by the  Product Support Providers, who perform product support activities on  major weapon systems. However, as noted by the PSM guidebook, in all  cases the PSM is accountable to the Program Manager for the support  outcome.
The PSM guidebook includes depots and original equipment manufacturers among the  most likely candidates for both the Product Support Integrator and Product Support  Provider roles. logistics management function.command, the Army Materiel Command (AMC), works closely with  program executive offices, the Army acquisition executive, industry,  academia, and other related agencies to develop, acquire, and  sustain materiel for the Army. AMC’s maintenance depots and  arsenals overhaul, modernize, and upgrade major weapon systems.
The Army’s principal materiel
Navy and Marine Corps. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for  Research, Development, and Acquisition serves as the Component  Acquisition Executive and is responsible for all research,  development, and acquisition within the Department of the Navy. In  order to address a diverse set of needs, the Department of the Navy  comprises components known as Systems Commands. These include  Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Air Systems Command, and  Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, among others. Marine  Corps Systems Command serves as the Department of the Navy  enterprise acquisition and life-cycle systems manager for the Marine  Corps. Marine Corps Systems Command provides competency  resources to the program executive officer, including financial  management, engineering, contracting, logistics, and program  management. These Systems Commands oversee various acquisition  programs, such as for ships and aircraft, and these programs are  responsible for the management of their respective systems’ life-cycle  support.
Air Force. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for  Acquisition is responsible for the integrated life-cycle management of  systems from the time the system enters into the defense acquisition  management system until system retirement and disposal. Individual  program executive officers beneath this office are then responsible for  the total life-cycle management of an assigned portfolio of programs.  Air Force Materiel Command and Air Force Space Command support  these efforts by providing technical assistance, infrastructure,  manpower, test capabilities, laboratory support, professional  education, training and development, and management tools.
section_title: DOD and the Services Have Taken Steps to Implement PSMs for Major Weapon Systems, but Certain Aspects of the Implementation Process Remain Incomplete
paragraphs: DOD and the services have taken steps to implement PSMs for major  weapon systems and have described them as a valuable resource in  managing product support, but certain aspects of the implementation  process remain incomplete.
subsections: section_title: Almost All Systems Have PSMs Assigned, but DOD and the Services Do Not Have a Plan to Institutionalize a Comprehensive Career Path for PSMs
paragraphs: DOD has assigned PSMs to almost all of its major weapon systems and  has developed PSM training courses, but DOD, in coordination with the  military services, has not developed a plan—to include objectives,  milestones, and resources—to implement and institutionalize a  comprehensive PSM career path.
subsections: section_title: Assigning PSMs
paragraphs: The services have identified and assigned PSMs to almost all of their  major weapon systems. As of the most-current data available from the  military services, 325 of 332 PSM position requirements across DOD for  major weapon systems—approximately 98 percent—were filled. In  addition, DOD has designated the PSM position as a key leadership  positionpolicy, the PSM position for major defense acquisition programs is to be  filled by a properly qualified military servicemember or full-time DOD   for ACAT I level systems. In accordance with statute and DOD  employee. Most of the PSMs are senior-level civilian personnel; the  remaining positions are filled by military personnel. However, according to  Navy and Air Force officials, in a few instances, the services have had to  issue waivers to individuals to allow them to take PSM positions, because  they did not have the necessary education, experience, or training to fill  the position.
OSD, military department headquarters, and PSM officials told us that  PSMs are carrying out the duties identified in law. Moreover, PSMs we  spoke with told us that they are performing many of the same duties that  they performed in their previous positions as senior logisticians or in  related fields. In addition to those duties, however, DOD officials told us  that one of the changes to these officials’ prior responsibilities is the idea  that support concepts should be evaluated periodically over a system’s  life cycle; to this end, section 2337 requires that PSMs develop and  implement a comprehensive product support strategy, and revalidate any  business-case analysis performed in support of the strategy prior to each  change or every 5 years. This requirement is met in part via the development of a document called a life-cycle sustainment plan. To help  improve life-cycle product support, the Office of the USD(AT&L) has  issued guidance that discusses how to develop a life-cycle sustainment  plan and works with program offices to review these plans. Table 1 shows  the number and characteristics of PSMs assigned to major weapon  systems by service.
OSD and the Defense Acquisition University have developed courses for  PSMs on life-cycle product support and logistics management; however,  DOD, in coordination with the military services, has not developed a  plan—to include objectives, milestones, and resources—to implement a  comprehensive PSM career path. For example, in 2011 DOD began  offering a new course on life-cycle product support, among other courses,  and the Defense Acquisition University is currently developing a new  executive-level PSM course, which is expected to focus on PSMs’  lessons learned and on enhancing PSMs’ success in fielding and  sustaining systems. Further, recognizing the importance of placing  qualified individuals in PSM positions, in November 2013 the Office of the  USD(AT&L) noted that it would establish a new set of qualification  boards, whose task will be to prescreen personnel to qualify a pool of  candidates to fill key leadership positions, including PSM positions.
These boards are expected to identify individuals who are prepared to fill  key leadership positions based on their training, education, and  experience. This process will allow DOD and service leadership to create  a pool of qualified personnel who are ready to fill these positions and  assist in workforce talent management and succession planning. In  addition, the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for  Materiel Readiness has also developed a PSM notional career path.  Moreover, at the service level, the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air  Force have each taken some steps to create notional career paths for  PSMs, as well as issuing guidance identifying training, experience, and  other requirements.
Army. The Army’s 2012 Product Support Manager Concept of  Operations, calls for a defined career path for PSMs that targets  progressive leadership growth, with focused education and  experience requirements to shape and develop PSMs into future   It also outlines a “notional career  senior leaders and executives.roadmap” for the newly created PSM position. However, the Army  notes in its Product Support Manager Concept of Operations that this  roadmap is still in its infancy and states that there is currently no  defined comprehensive career path in place to develop, train, and  support future PSMs. Furthermore, an Army official told us that, as of  March 2014, the Army does not have a plan with actions, milestones,  objectives, or resources dedicated to implementing a PSM career  path. Yet, according to this official, the Army is actively working to  address long-term PSM development and management planning  issues by meeting to discuss these items.
Navy and Marine Corps. The Navy has also provided a draft  “notional development career ladder” for life-cycle logistics to each of  its various Systems Commands as a starting point for developing a  PSM career path. Officials from one of the Navy’s Systems  Commands told us that they are concerned about the future of, and  succession planning for, PSM positions and that, to address this  concern, the command is implementing the draft career ladder and  using it to develop a draft talent-management document. According to  a senior official within the Department of the Navy, the Systems  Commands need to implement a fundamental career structure for  PSMs, with specific learning objectives laid out. Additionally,  according to Department of the Navy officials, while the Systems  Commands have indicated that efforts are ongoing, a completion date  for these efforts has not been determined. Moreover, according to  these officials, the Department of the Navy does not currently have a  plan with actions, milestones, objectives, or resources dedicated to  implementing a PSM career path.
Air Force. The Air Force noted in October 2013, as part of a review of  its life-cycle logisticians, that there was no clear “career progression  path” or competency model to develop life-cycle logisticians.  Recognizing these challenges, the Air Force embarked on a 2–3 year  effort aimed at developing life-cycle logistics professionals. As one of  the initial short-term activities within this effort, the Air Force issued in  October of 2013 an Air Force Life Cycle Logistics (LCL) Workforce  Guidebook, which includes a “notional career roadmap” for life-cycle  logistics professionals. The Air Force also recently engaged in an  effort to recode positions to increase the number of personnel  available to fill life-cycle logistics positions. According to Air Force  officials, however, there are not always enough personnel within the  life-cycle logistics workforce to meet the Air Force’s needs. Further,  while the Air Force has taken steps to address some of the initial  challenges it identified and has developed an implementation plan  with associated objectives, milestones, and resources, it has stated  that it needs to do additional work to develop a clear understanding of  the life-cycle logistics skills a PSM would require across a program’s  life cycle and to design a new training curriculum to include logistics,  engineering, finance, contracting, and acquisition.
Thus, DOD and all of the military services, in coordination with the  Defense Acquisition University, have taken some initial steps in  establishing a defined career path and the associated guidance or plans  to develop, train, and support future PSMs. However, DOD, in  coordination with the military services, has not developed a plan—to  include objectives, milestones, and resources—to implement and  institutionalize a comprehensive PSM career path. As noted above, each  of the services has identified additional steps that remain to be taken to  implement and institutionalize a comprehensive career path to develop,  train, and support its future PSMs. Standard practices for project  management call for agencies to conceptualize, define, and document  specific goals and objectives in the planning process, along with the  appropriate steps, milestones, time frames, and resources needed to  achieve those results. In addition, the John Warner National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 established the goal for DOD and  the military departments of ensuring that certain development- and  acquisition-related positions for each major defense acquisition program  be performed by a properly qualified member of the armed forces or full- time employee of DOD within 5 years from enactment, and required the  Secretary of Defense to develop and begin implementation of a plan of  action for recruiting, training, and ensuring appropriate career  development of personnel to achieve this objective. The National  Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 added PSMs to that list of  positions. A similar provision was subsequently codified at section 1706  of Title 10, U.S. Code. DOD policy similarly directs that the PSM  position for ACAT I and II systems be filled by a properly qualified and  certified military servicemember or full-time DOD employee. Further,  DOD Instruction 5000.66 requires the DOD components to provide  education, training, and experience opportunities with the objective of  developing a professional, agile, motivated workforce, and ensuring that  individuals are qualified to perform the activities required of them in their  positions.that individuals selected for PSM positions are qualified, each of the  military services has identified additional steps that are necessary to  implement a defined, comprehensive career path to develop, train, and  support future PSMs. While there are individuals serving in the PSM role  today for most major weapon systems, until a defined career path is  finalized and institutionalized within DOD, including within each of the  services, the department may not be well positioned to ensure that the  services will be able to fill PSM positions with properly qualified personnel  in the future.
section_title: Department Guidance on Implementing PSMs Lacks Detail
paragraphs: DOD has issued guidance for implementing PSMs; however, a recent  update to DOD’s guidance omits certain information, contains a  potentially confusing description of responsibilities, and—according to  service officials—is not sufficiently clear. Standards for Internal Control in  the Federal Government states that federal agencies should, among  other things, design and document internal control activities, such as  policies and procedures, to help ensure compliance with applicable laws  and regulations. In October 2010, DOD issued Directive-Type  Memorandum (DTM) 10-015, which established the department’s policy  to implement and institutionalize the requirement that PSMs be assigned  to support each of its major weapon systems. Among other things, this  document outlined the PSM’s duties and required that PSMs be certified  in the life-cycle logistics career field, which includes fulfilling general  educational, training, and experience requirements. The memorandum  indicates that it was intended to be a provisional policy that would  eventually be incorporated into the next update of its defense acquisition  system guidance—DOD Instruction 5000.02—which describes the  operation of the defense acquisition system, including product support.
In November 2013, DOD issued an interim update to its defense  acquisition system guidance that canceled and, according to the update,  incorporated a number of memorandums, including the PSM-related DTM  10-015. However, the newly issued acquisition system instruction does  not include all of the information from DTM 10-015. For example, the  instruction does not list all of the responsibilities of a PSM. Although the  instruction identifies PSMs among the key leadership positions for major  defense acquisition programs, it does not include a statement that it is  DOD policy for PSMs to be assigned to all major weapon systems. OSD  officials told us that interim DOD Instruction 5000.02 does not contain this  information because instructions are meant to offer clarification of issues,  not to recite what is already in statute. OSD officials also told us that the  policy to assign PSMs to each major weapon system was now included in  a separate memorandum issued on July 11, 2013, which is not cited  within Interim DOD Instruction 5000.02. They said that there are no  differences between the information on PSM assignment, roles, and  responsibilities covered previously in DTM 10-015 and what is now  covered in Interim DOD Instruction 5000.02, memorandums from July  and November 2013, and the Defense Acquisition Guidebook. However,  each of the military department headquarters offices responsible for  implementing PSMs told us that the current guidance is not sufficiently  clear when addressing product support and the implementation of PSMs.  They stated that the interim guidance does not discuss PSMs at the same  level of detail as the DTM 10-015. Specifically, as previously mentioned,  the responsibilities of PSMs are not listed in the new guidance. The  instruction discusses the roles and responsibilities of the Program  Manager at length, but only alludes to the responsibilities of PSMs, citing  section 2337 of Title 10, U.S. Code and discussing the requirement to  revalidate business-case analyses.
The interim instruction also contains a potentially confusing provision and  omits certain information that is important to the implementation of the  PSM position. For example, it states that the Program Manager will  develop and implement an affordable and effective performance-based  product support strategy. Although the Program Manager is ultimately  responsible for accomplishing program objectives, including for the  sustainment phase, and for developing and implementing performance- based logistics strategies in the context of sustainment planning, the  responsibilities of the PSM in section 2337 include developing and  implementing a comprehensive product support strategy for the weapon  system. While DTM 10-015 specifically identified the responsibilities of  the PSM, the interim instruction does not, which could result in confusion  regarding the role of the PSM and the nature of the support provided to  the Program Manager.
Each of the military department headquarters offices responsible for  implementing PSMs told us that they found the language from the  canceled DTM 10-015 to be very useful as the services developed their  own service-level policies and guidance to implement PSMs for their  assigned major weapon systems. Service officials said that they believed  there was value in having all of the PSM-related guidance in one  document, so that current and future product support personnel would not  have to refer to multiple documents. Officials from one of the military  services added that a life-cycle logistician would now have to look up  PSM-related policy and information in law, in Interim DOD Instruction  5000.02, and in the July 2013 memorandum instead of just referring to  DTM-015—which clearly laid out that information in one document. In  addition, these officials expressed concern that it was no longer clear who  should assign PSMs. They also noted that DTM 10-015 identified the  Component Acquisition Executive as the individual responsible for  identifying and assigning a PSM for every major weapon system.  However, the officials noted that the interim instruction does not specify  which individual or office is responsible for identifying and assigning a  PSM. Moreover, these officials expressed particular concern about  institutionalizing the implementation of PSMs, noting that, unlike DOD  instructions, memorandums like the July 2013 memorandum are not  stored in a central repository. These officials told us that the institutional  knowledge behind the evolving PSM-related guidance and policy would  be lost, and they questioned whether new personnel would know where  to find all of the PSM-related guidance.
In the absence of clear and comprehensive guidance, DOD and military  service officials may not understand which office or individual is  responsible for identifying and assigning PSMs, and there may be an  increased risk of DOD personnel confusing the responsibilities of  Program Managers and PSMs. Further, without centralized guidance that  serves to institutionalize the implementation of PSMs, DOD may be  hindered in its ability to implement future PSMs for its major weapon  systems.
section_title: The Army Has Not Clarified the Roles and Responsibilities of Some Support Personnel Involved in Sustainment of Major Weapon Systems
paragraphs: Each of the military departments has issued its own guidance for  implementing PSMs, but the Army’s guidance on PSM implementation is  currently unclear regarding responsibilities and reporting relationships for  certain support personnel involved in the sustainment of weapon  systems. For example, the Navy issued a memorandum, entitled Product  Support Manager (PSM) Implementation, in May 2011 to discuss the  requirement that major weapon systems be supported by the PSM who  would provide weapon systems product support subject-matter expertise  to the Program Manager. Similarly, in March 2013, the Air Force issued  Air Force Instruction 63-101/20-101, Integrated Life Cycle Management,  which incorporates various PSM requirements and responsibilities.  Moreover, the Air Force issued a guidebook on life-cycle logistics in  October 2013, which discusses the implementation and responsibilities of  the PSM position within the Air Force. Government standards for internal  control state that a good internal control environment requires that the  agency’s organizational structure clearly define key areas of authority and  responsibility and establish appropriate lines of reporting. The Army  issued a memorandum to help implement its PSMs and also developed  a PSM Concept of Operations, which identifies PSM responsibilities and  establishes the Army’s framework for integrating the new PSM position  into its organizational structure. This Concept of Operations gives  PSMs—who reside organizationally under ASA(ALT)—responsibility for  total life-cycle product support of their assigned systems, including  sustainment, in support of the Program Manager. However, Army  Regulation 10-87—which predates the implementation of PSMs—notes  AMC roles and responsibilities for sustainment and for integrated materiel  life-cycle management in partnership with program executive offices and  Program Managers. AMC continues to have a significant role in providing  assistance to the Program Manager and PSM and in executing the  sustainment support for major weapon systems. Figure 2 shows the  relationship between ASA(ALT) and AMC for product support activities.
AMC provides sustainment support in the form of personnel—consisting  of AMC contractors or government logistics managers—who are  sometimes assigned to ASA(ALT) programs to provide sustainment  support to PSMs. While these personnel are “matrixed” to the program  office, they are AMC personnel and, according to officials, therefore  remain under AMC’s chain of command. Thus, the PSM provides input  into their annual performance ratings but does not officially rate them and,  according to Army officials, does not have direct authority over them. This  lack of authority may make it difficult for PSMs to achieve some of their  goals. ASA(ALT) officials stated that major weapon systems program  offices have raised the issue of the lack of clear roles and responsibilities  of these personnel and, according to a senior AMC official, AMC  discussed this issue with their personnel in an attempt to address this  issue. However, in one specific example, an Army PSM we spoke with  noted that while he has responsibilities as a PSM, he has no authority  over the matrixed personnel from AMC who are assigned to support him  and his assigned programs. He therefore faces the risk of these  individuals not complying with his direction, which could hinder his ability  to conduct his job as PSM. Specifically, according to this PSM, in 2012  the Joint Logistics Board (a senior-level governance body) provided  guidance that maintenance work for one of his programs was to be  conducted at a particular location, and he directed his AMC support  personnel to stop pursuing and promoting their own depot with his  program office’s resources. However, the life cycle management  command and the AMC-matrixed personnel continued to pursue the work  at their own depot. It took this Army PSM a year’s worth of effort going  through the appropriate chain of command to ensure that the AMC  personnel followed the Joint Logistics Board’s guidance for the  designated location. As a result of these unclear reporting relationships,  this PSM was unable to effectively plan or proactively manage his  assigned weapon systems’ life-cycle sustainment decisions.
According to senior Army officials, ASA(ALT) and AMC are working to  resolve this issue and have held meetings to determine the best approach  to enable PSMs to effectively perform their duties while simultaneously  enabling AMC to perform its mission of providing sustainment support to  the Army’s weapon systems’ life cycles. However, the Army has not yet  issued guidance clarifying the roles and responsibilities of ASA(ALT) and  AMC in light of the new requirement for PSMs to be assigned to major  weapon systems—particularly for AMC personnel assigned to support  ASA(ALT) program offices and for PSMs. The Army is currently drafting a  revision to Army Regulation 700-127 and developing a new Department  of the Army Pamphlet 700-127-1. According to Army officials, these  publications will further define the Army policy and guidance on PSM  responsibilities, relationships with AMC, and career-path development,  among other items. According to an Army official, this regulation and  pamphlet are planned to be published in June 2014. Yet, the Army has  been working on this effort since March 2013 and has not finalized these  documents over the last year due to delays, in part as a result of multiple  reviews. Until the Army finalizes this guidance, which is expected to  clarify the roles and responsibilities of ASA(ALT) and AMC with respect to  matrixed personnel, Army PSMs and the AMC personnel who support  them may lack clear reporting lines. Without clear guidance detailing  responsibilities and reporting relationships for AMC support personnel  involved in the sustainment of weapon systems, PSMs may be hindered  in their ability to effectively manage and conduct their daily product  support responsibilities.
section_title: DOD Has Not Systematically Collected or Evaluated Information on the Effects PSMs Are Having on Life- Cycle Sustainment Decisions
paragraphs: DOD is not fully aware of how or to what extent PSMs are affecting life- cycle sustainment decisions for major weapon systems because it has  not systematically collected or evaluated information on the effects of  PSMs. In the absence of department- and service-wide information on the  effects PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions, we  interviewed product support personnel at 12 program offices, and  program officials identified several good practices and challenges  associated with the effects, if any, that PSMs are having on life-cycle  sustainment decisions. For example, one challenge we found was that  some Army PSMs may not be able to fulfill their daily product support  responsibilities because they do not have greater visibility into how much  sustainment funding their weapon systems will receive, including prior to  the year of execution of funds, to the extent possible.
subsections: section_title: DOD Does Not Have Sufficient Information to Determine the Effects of PSMs
paragraphs: DOD does not fully know how or to what extent PSMs are affecting life- cycle sustainment decisions because it is not systematically collecting or  evaluating information on the implementation or effect of PSMs. Officials  from OSD and each of the military department headquarters responsible  for implementing PSMs told us that the PSM designation garners more  respect than other similar product support positions have in the past and  that it has elevated the importance of sustainment planning within  weapon systems’ program offices. This was also the widespread  consensus among product support personnel we spoke to—including all  12 PSMs and the 5 Program and Deputy Program Managers whom we  interviewed. Over the years, OSD has engaged in several activities aimed  at providing oversight, collecting some information on the effects that  PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions, and recognizing the  achievements of PSMs. For example, OSD officials stated that they  review life-cycle sustainment plans created by PSMs to ensure that their  assigned weapon system demonstrates continued reliability and  performance, so as not to adversely affect the system’s readiness or O&S  costs. In addition, these officials told us that the Office of the Assistant  Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness leads a  quarterly logistics workforce meeting, comprising service  representatives and other officials from DOD’s acquisition community, to  discuss PSM-related life-cycle logistics initiatives and challenges. Since  2013, the USD(AT&L) has issued an annual award to highlight  outstanding individual PSM performance across the services. This award  recognizes PSMs’ contributions to controlling increases in weapon  system cost, addressing long-term affordability, and promoting industry  competition and innovation. It also recognizes outstanding achievements  in the development, implementation, and execution of affordable and  effective product support strategies for weapon systems. According to  guidance from the USD(AT&L), award recipients are selected from a  small pool of candidate submissions based on the following criteria,  among others: reducing life-cycle cost; significantly increasing current or  future operational suitability; and developing, implementing, or executing  effective and affordable product support arrangements for their assigned  weapon systems.
Officials from one of the military services told us that they have been  asked by their senior leadership to develop objective measures to  evaluate the effectiveness of current initiatives—including sustainment  efforts for major weapon systems—in which PSMs play a key role. These  officials mentioned that there may be various mechanisms with which to  evaluate the effects that PSMs are having on their assigned major  weapon systems’ life-cycle sustainment decisions. For instance, they  stated that they currently review and evaluate the quality of life-cycle  sustainment plans and business-case analyses, among other logistics  assessments, and that continuing to conduct these types of reviews and  evaluations—including evaluations on the effects of these efforts—may  help them to better understand the extent to which PSMs are carrying out  their responsibilities or are affecting life-cycle sustainment decisions for  their assigned systems.
Program evaluation guidance states that evaluations can play a key role  in program planning, management, and oversight by providing  feedback—on both program design and execution—to Program  Managers, Congress, executive-branch policy officials, and the public.  Additionally, this guidance indicates that outcome and impact evaluations  are helpful in assessing (1) the extent to which a program achieves its  outcome-oriented objectives and (2) the net effect of a program, by  comparing the program’s outcomes with an estimate of what would have  happened in the absence of the program. Such evaluations can also be  useful for identifying various trends—such as good practices and  challenges related to the effects PSMs are having on life-cycle  sustainment decisions—to help enhance future product support efforts  across the department. Although OSD and the military services have  various product support efforts under way—including those cited above— in the years since the PSM legislation was enacted, DOD has not  systematically collected and evaluated information on the effects, if any,  that PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions for major  weapon systems. Department and military service officials stated that  DOD is still in the early stages of implementation, and it is therefore too  early to conduct such an evaluation of the PSM program. These officials  also stated that isolating the effects of a PSM is challenging because  different factors may influence a PSM’s effects; the PSM position is one  position of many that can affect decisions regarding life-cycle sustainment  for a major weapon system, and a PSM reports directly to the Program  Manager, who makes final decisions related to the PSM’s assigned  system. However, based on good practices we have identified in our  previous work, we believe that it is important to start an evaluation  program as early as possible to collect baseline information against which  future effectiveness could be measured. Moreover, OSD already  collects some information on the effects of PSMs through the annual PSM  award submissions and the documentation of some information regarding  PSM initiatives at its quarterly logistics workforce meeting. Therefore, with  PSMs now in place for most major weapon systems and with the  existence of various PSM-led efforts, conducting evaluations of the  effects PSMs are having on programmatic decision making at this stage  of the implementation could help inform whether the PSM position—as it  is currently being implemented—will help to improve product support, and  whether changes are needed to guidance or other areas to enhance  PSMs’ contributions.
section_title: Although DOD Has Not Systematically Collected Data on the Effects PSMs Are Having on Life-Cycle Sustainment Decisions, Program Offices Identified PSM-Related Good Practices and Challenges
paragraphs: In the absence of department- or service-wide information systematically  documenting the effects PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment  decisions, we conducted interviews with product support personnel  assigned to 12 major weapon systems, and program offices identified  several good practices being employed as well as several challenges that  PSMs face. For example, in fiscal year 2011, a Virginia-class submarine  PSM led an effort to conduct an analysis focused on reducing life-cycle  sustainment costs by minimizing the time the system spends in depot  maintenance, in order to maximize its availability for missions. As a result  of this effort, the Virginia-class submarine program office has adopted this  practice and now conducts similar analyses on a recurring basis.  Additionally, the PSM assigned to the Abrams Tank is currently  conducting several analyses on components that affect the sustainment  of the Abrams Tank. Specifically, the Abrams Tank PSM is analyzing  staffing information on both Abrams Tank variants—the first already in  sustainment and the second approaching sustainment—to determine  future staffing levels for the systems. This PSM is also examining  warfighters’ total ownership costs to sustain the Abrams Tank, and the  reliability of the system’s engine, to help reduce O&S costs. Army officials  stated that once these efforts are completed, the Abrams Tank PSM will  be able to conduct business-case analyses to determine if there is a more  cost-effective approach to sustaining both variants. Similar predictive  analysis and modeling tools are currently being developed by the PSM for  the KC-46A Tanker aircraft. For instance, the PSM is developing a model  to prioritize component overhaul processes based on the frequency,  uniqueness, and cost of a repair. This PSM is also developing the  analytical components of an internal analysis system that is aimed at  correcting deficiencies in the performance and effectiveness of the KC- 46A’s scheduled and unscheduled maintenance programs. According to  the PSM, this tool will also be used to gather and assess various  engineering, logistics, and cost factors to make timely adjustments to the  KC-46A’s sustainment operations.
In conducting interviews with product support personnel, program officials  also identified challenges that may have prevented PSMs from making or  influencing life-cycle sustainment decisions for their assigned weapon  systems. For example, 4 of 12 PSMs we spoke with from 3 of the military  services stated that they did not have sufficient sustainment funding to  effectively conduct their daily product support responsibilities and manage  sustainment decisions for their assigned major weapon systems. This has  affected their ability to anticipate sustainment issues and manage  potential risks regarding the reliability, availability, and readiness of their  systems. Additionally, product support personnel we interviewed from the  Army and Air Force told us that their respective services do not have  enough product support personnel to fully support all major weapon  systems and that, consequently, they conducted not only their own PSM  duties and responsibilities but those of other logistics-related positions,  such as senior logisticians, directors of logistics, and assistant product  managers for logistics. Moreover, the shortage of funding and personnel  led one of the services to assign multiple major weapon systems to two of  their PSMs in order to ensure that each major weapon system is  supported by a PSM. According to these two PSMs, they were collectively  assigned to support 17 major weapon systems and, as a result of not  having enough product support personnel, they faced increased risks— such as low system availability and readiness rates—of not being able to  effectively influence sustainment costs and prevent undesirable  performance outcomes for their assigned systems.
According to internal Army documentation, the Office of the ASA(ALT)  has recognized that while program offices have the responsibility to  sustain the systems they manage, they have little influence on how  resources are allocated or executed. The Defense Acquisition Guidebook  and the Army’s PSM Concept of Operations both note the ultimate  responsibility of the Program Manager for accomplishing program  objectives over the life cycle of a system, including sustainment, and  discuss the assistance provided by the PSM through product support  expertise and oversight of product support activities. Army regulations  note the involvement of AMC in sustainment planning and execution,  including a role in the development of funding requirements. For example,  according to Army Regulation 10-87, AMC provides integrated materiel  life-cycle management of systems and equipment in partnership with  program executive offices and Program Managers, and serves as the  maintenance process owner for national-level sustainment. Army  Regulation 70-1 discusses AMC support for program executive offices  and Program Managers through oversight of AMC life-cycle management  command development and submission of sustainment funding  requirements. According to officials, AMC assists in life-cycle logistics  planning and executes the product support activities planned by the  Program Manager and PSM. Although funding requests are generated in  collaboration, distribution of approved funding for execution is handled by  AMC. Moreover, ASA(ALT) and Army officials from two of six program  offices expressed concern that Army PSMs may not be able to positively  affect their assigned system’s life-cycle sustainment decisions because  PSMs lack information on sustainment funding decisions. Army PSMs  from these offices stated that they have very little input into funding  decisions related to the sustainment of their systems and said that it is a  challenge for them to manage their assigned systems without greater  visibility—specifically, knowledge prior to the year of execution of the  funds, to the extent possible—into how much sustainment funding their  programs will receive, because the Army’s processes for requesting and  distributing sustainment funds is not transparent.
According to ASA(ALT) officials, the PSM provides input into funding  requests that are developed in support of the system and these funding  requests are then vetted internally and submitted through the appropriate  Army life-cycle management command for review and prioritization. Once  the life-cycle management command completes its review and  prioritization of the requested funds, AMC then conducts its review and  prioritization to make the final command-level decision on the distribution  of sustainment funding for the Army’s major weapon systems. However,  some Army officials we spoke with said that AMC does not consistently  communicate with program offices about how it prioritizes competing  funding requests and distributes sustainment funds. For example, some  Army PSMs told us that they are often surprised when they receive less  sustainment funding then they had anticipated in the year of execution of  funds and must quickly shift sustainment funding provided for other efforts  within their program to cover the shortage of sustainment funding for their  assigned systems. According to AMC officials, because their organization  is responsible for sustaining all Army weapon systems, they can provide  the strategic overview necessary to prioritize competing funding requests.  These officials also told us that AMC is responsible for balancing the  distribution of funding across all systems under sustainment based on the  level of Headquarters Department of the Army funding provided to AMC.  They noted that some of their life-cycle management commands have  formed councils where they regularly discuss sustainment funding issues  with program offices. However, these officials also acknowledged that  some PSMs are not receiving complete information on the status of  sustainment funding decisions in the year of execution of funds. In this  regard, in fiscal year 2014 the Army began a pilot on one major weapon  system with the goal of more-closely tracking sustainment funding in an  effort to help identify ways to provide more clarity and visibility on the  resources distributed to the system. According to AMC officials, this  should improve the transparency of resources for the PSMs to better  manage their assigned major weapon systems. As previously stated,  ASA(ALT) and AMC are continuing to work to clarify roles and  responsibilities and have held high-level departmental meetings to  determine the best approach to enable PSMs to effectively perform their  duties while simultaneously enabling AMC to perform its mission of  providing sustainment support to the Army’s weapon systems.  Furthermore, ASA(ALT) officials told us that the current process and  supporting policies for prioritizing and managing sustainment funding  should be updated to reflect PSM responsibilities. We discussed this  issue with service officials and PSMs from the Navy, Marine Corps, and  Air Force, and each said that this problem does not exist for them in their  service. They are aware in advance of the amount of sustainment funding  they will receive for their programs and are able to plan accordingly.  However, until the Army reviews the current process for requesting and  distributing sustainment funding for major weapon systems and makes  the adjustments necessary to ensure that PSMs have greater visibility  over the allocation of sustainment funding their assigned weapon systems  will receive—including prior to the year of execution of funds, to the extent  possible—some PSMs in the Army may not be able to plan, proactively  manage, or affect life-cycle sustainment decisions for their assigned  systems.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Since fiscal year 2010, DOD has made progress in implementing PSMs  for its major weapon systems, and department officials and product  support personnel have stated that the PSM designation garners more  respect than other similar product support positions have in the past.
While DOD and all of the services have taken some steps to develop a  comprehensive career path and associated guidance to develop, train,  and support future PSMs, DOD, in coordination with the military services,  has not developed a plan—to include objectives, milestones, and  resources—to implement and institutionalize a comprehensive PSM  career path. Until DOD develops such a plan, the department may not be  able to ensure that the services can fill PSM positions with properly  qualified personnel in the future. Moreover, DOD guidance for  implementing PSMs is not sufficiently clear to ensure effective  implementation of PSMs across the services going forward. Without clear,  comprehensive, and centralized implementation guidance, DOD may be  hindered in its ability to implement future PSMs for its major weapon  systems. Likewise, until the Army clarifies roles and responsibilities in its  guidance for the sustainment portion of the life cycle for major weapon  systems, PSMs may be hindered in their ability to effectively manage and  conduct their daily product support responsibilities.
Although the PSM program is relatively new, there is anecdotal evidence  of the effects PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions for  major weapon systems. While program officials we spoke with were able  to identify several good practices and challenges facing PSMs, DOD is  not well positioned to make changes or enhancements to the PSM  program because it has yet to systematically collect or evaluate  information on the effects, if any, that PSMs are having on their assigned  systems’ sustainment decisions. One such change that DOD could have  identified if it had been collecting evaluative information would be to  examine the current process for making sustainment funding decisions in  the Army to ensure that Army PSMs have greater visibility into the funding  decisions affecting the sustainment of their systems, to the extent  possible, including prior to the year of execution of funds. With PSMs now  in place for almost all major weapon systems, information on the effects  PSMs are having on life-cycle management and sustainment decisions  could help inform DOD, the services, and Congress on the extent to  which the PSM position is helping to improve product support efforts or  whether changes are needed to guidance or to roles and responsibilities  to enhance the contributions of PSMs.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help DOD improve the implementation of Product Support Managers  (PSM), we recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following  five actions.
To ensure the development of a sufficient cadre of qualified, trained  personnel to meet future requirements for Product Support Managers  (PSM), we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under  Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics  (USD)—in coordination with the Defense Acquisition University  and the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force—to develop and  implement a plan with objectives, milestones, and resources to implement  and institutionalize a comprehensive career path and associated  guidance to develop, train, and support future PSMs.
To better enable the military services to implement and institutionalize the  roles and responsibilities of Product Support Managers (PSM), we  recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of  Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD)—in  coordination with the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force—to  issue clear, comprehensive, centralized guidance regarding the roles and  responsibilities of PSMs and the officials that assign them.
To better enable Army Product Support Managers (PSM) to fulfill their  product support responsibilities, we recommend that the Secretary of  Defense direct the Secretary of the Army—in coordination with the  Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology  (ASA) and the Commander of Army Materiel Command (AMC)—to  clearly define Army-wide roles and responsibilities for the sustainment  portion of the life cycle of major weapon systems, to include the reporting  relationships of AMC support personnel assigned to Army weapon  system program offices, by issuing new, or revising existing, Army  guidance.
To help inform departmental and congressional oversight of the status of  Product Support Manager (PSM) implementation and the influence, if  any, that PSMs have in life-cycle sustainment decisions for major weapon  systems, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under  Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics  (USD)—in conjunction with the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and  Air Force—to systematically collect and evaluate information on the  effects, if any, that PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions  for their assigned major weapon systems.
To better enable Army Product Support Managers (PSM) to fulfill their  daily product support responsibilities, including planning and proactively  managing sustainment efforts for their assigned weapon systems, we  recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the  Army—in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for  Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASA) and the Commander of  Army Materiel Command (AMC)—to review the current process for  requesting and distributing sustainment funding for major weapon  systems and to take necessary actions to ensure that PSMs have greater  visibility of the amount of sustainment funds their weapon systems will  receive including prior to the year of execution of funds, to the extent  possible.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with four of  our recommendations and partially concurred with one recommendation.  DOD’s comments are reprinted in appendix IV. DOD also provided  technical comments, which we have incorporated into our report where  appropriate.
DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense  direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and  Logistics—in coordination with the Defense Acquisition University and the  Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force—to develop and implement  a plan with objectives, milestones, and resources to implement and  institutionalize a comprehensive career path and associated guidance to  develop, train, and support future PSMs. DOD stated that the Office of the  Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics will  work over the next year with the staffs of the Secretaries of the Army,  Navy, and Air Force, along with the Defense Acquisition University and  the Human Capital Initiatives Directorate via the Life Cycle Logistics  Functional Integrated Product Team to define a methodology and plan for  institutionalizing a comprehensive career path and associated guidance  for developing, training, and supporting future PSMs. We agree that, if  fully implemented, this action should address our recommendation.
DOD also agreed with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense  direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and  Logistics—in coordination with the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air  Force—to issue clear, comprehensive, centralized guidance regarding the  roles and responsibilities of PSMs and the officials that assign them. DOD  stated that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,  Technology and Logistics will work over the next year with the staffs of  the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to develop clear,  comprehensive, centralized guidance regarding the roles and  responsibilities of PSMs and the officials that assign them. While DOD did  not provide details on how it will develop such guidance, we agree that, if  fully implemented, this action should address our recommendation.
DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of  Defense direct the Secretary of the Army—in coordination with the  Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology  and the Commander of Army Materiel Command—to clearly define Army- wide roles and responsibilities for the sustainment portion of the life cycle  of major weapon systems, to include the reporting relationships of Army  Materiel Command support personnel assigned to Army weapon system  program offices, by issuing new, or revising existing, Army guidance.  DOD stated that the Army sees no ambiguity in the Army-wide roles and  responsibilities for the sustainment portion of the life cycle of major  weapon systems, including the reporting requirements of Army Materiel  Command personnel providing matrix support to the Program Managers.  DOD further noted that the Army leadership has been coordinating the  role of the PSM and is finalizing its capstone policy to solidify required  changes as part of the statutory implementation. While our report  acknowledges the Army is currently drafting a revision to Army Regulation  700-127 and developing a new Department of the Army Pamphlet 700- 127-1, which Army officials told us will further define the Army policy and  guidance on PSM responsibilities, relationships with Army Materiel  Command, and career-path development, among other items, these  documents have not yet been finalized. We also acknowledge in our  report that the Army has been working on this guidance since March  2013, but note that it has not finalized these documents over the last year  due to delays. We continue to believe that until the Army finalizes  guidance that clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the program offices  and Army Materiel Command with respect to matrixed personnel, Army  PSMs and the Army Materiel Command personnel who support them may  lack clear reporting lines.
DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense  direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and  Logistics—in conjunction with the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air  Force—to systematically collect and evaluate information on the effects, if  any, that PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions for their  assigned major weapon systems. DOD stated that the Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics will work  over the next year with the staffs of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy,  and Air Force to define a methodology and plan for systematically  collecting and evaluating information on the effects, if any, that PSMs are  having on the life-cycle sustainment decisions for their assigned major  weapon systems. We agree that, if fully implemented, this action should  address our recommendation.
Finally, DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of  Defense direct the Secretary of the Army—in coordination with the  Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology  and the Commander of Army Materiel Command—to review the current  process for requesting and distributing sustainment funding for major  weapon systems and to take necessary actions to ensure that PSMs  have greater visibility of the amount of sustainment funds their weapon  systems will receive including prior to the year of execution of funds, to  the extent possible. DOD stated that Army Staff, in coordination with the  Commander of Army Materiel Command, will work over the next year to  review the current process for requesting and distributing sustainment  funding for major weapon systems and take necessary actions to ensure  that PSMs and all other stakeholders have greater visibility of the amount  of sustainment funds their weapon systems will receive. We agree that, if  fully implemented, this action should address our recommendation.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, Navy,  and Air Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. The report also  is available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-5431 or russellc@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To determine what steps, if any, the Department of Defense (DOD) and  the military services have taken to implement Product Support Managers  (PSM) for major weapon systems, we collected and analyzed DOD and  service data on the PSMs assigned to these systems. We also  interviewed and obtained pertinent documents from acquisition, program  management, and logistics officials—including PSMs—to understand how  the PSM position has been implemented to-date. These documents  included DOD directives and instructions, Army regulations,  memorandums, other guidance, and lists of assigned PSMs. To  determine the extent to which DOD has evaluated the effects, if any, that  PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions for major weapon  systems, we spoke with Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), military  department headquarters, and military service command officials.  Additionally, we selected and interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of  PSMs, program management, and other product support personnel  assigned to a total of 12 major weapon systems to identify good practices  that some PSMs have found helpful in enabling them to make or affect  life-cycle sustainment decisions for major weapon systems as well as  challenges that may have prevented PSMs from making or affecting such  decisions. In identifying a nonprobability sample of PSMs (and related  program staff) to interview, we selected PSMs who were assigned to  systems that reflected varied characteristics, such as military service,  Acquisition Category (ACAT) level, acquisition phase, type of system  (e.g., aviation, ground, naval), and total estimated system cost. The 12  systems we chose were: (1) the Army’s Abrams Tank; (2) the Army’s  Thermal Weapon Sight, AN/PAS-13; (3) the Army’s Distributed Common  Ground System; (4) the Army’s Long Range Advanced Scout  Surveillance System; (5) the Army’s Counter Radio Controlled-Improvised  Explosive Device Electronic Warfare Duke; (6) the Army’s Prophet  Enhanced Spiral 1; (7) the Navy’s Virginia-class submarine; (8) the  Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship; (9) the Marine Corps’ CH-53K Helicopter;  (10) the Army and Marine Corps’ Joint Light Tactical Vehicle; (11) the Air  Force’s KC-46A Tanker; and (12) the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps’  F-35 Program. From these interviews, we obtained more-in-depth  information on the effects, if any, that PSMs have on life-cycle  sustainment decisions. For more information on these systems, please  see appendix III. The results from this nonprobability sample cannot be  used to make inferences about all PSMs or the respective major weapon  systems to which they were assigned, because a nonprobability sample  may not reflect all characteristics of a population. However, this  information provided a broad representation of PSMs’ perspectives on  their position’s implementation status and their effects on life-cycle  sustainment decisions. To obtain information on the overall size and cost  of DOD’s ACAT I systems, we also analyzed data from DOD’s Selected  Acquisition Reports and other information in the Defense Acquisition  Management Information Retrieval Purview system. We obtained similar  data for ACAT II systems, where available, that the services maintained  on their respective systems. We assessed the reliability of the PSM- related data we obtained from DOD and the services, along with the  information we obtained from the Defense Acquisition Management  Information Retrieval Purview system, through questionnaires and  interviews with knowledgeable officials and determined that these data  were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of assessing the implementation  of PSMs for major weapon systems and discussing the findings in this  report.
To address our reporting objectives, we visited or contacted  knowledgeable officials and reviewed relevant documents from the  following organizations:  Department of Defense
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology  and Logistics
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Logistics and  Materiel Readiness)
Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Systems  Engineering)
Department of the Army
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics  and Technology
U.S. Army Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition
U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command
TACOM Life Cycle Management Command
Army Program Management Office for Soldier, Sensors, and Lasers
Army Program Executive Office Soldier
Army Program Executive Office Intelligence, Electronic Warfare &
Night Vision/Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target
Long Range Advance Scout Surveillance System Program  Office
Counter Radio Controlled-Improvised Explosive Device  Electronic Warfare Duke Program Office
Distributed Common Ground System-Army Program Office
Prophet Enhanced/Spiral 1 Program Office
Army Program Executive Office Ground Combat Systems
Abrams Tank Program Office  Department of the Navy
Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy—Expeditionary
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy—Financial Management
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy—Management and Budget
Assistant Secretary of the Navy Research Development and
The Department of the Navy Director, Acquisition Career
U.S. Naval Air Systems Command
CH-53K Helicopter Program Office
U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command
NAVSEA 21
Virginia-Class Submarines Program Office
Program Executive Office Littoral Combat Ship
Littoral Combat Ship Program Office
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command U.S. Marine Corps
U.S. Marine Corps Systems Command
U.S. Marine Corps Acquisition Logistics and Product Support  Department of the Air Force
U.S. Air Force Headquarters
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Installations,
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Acquisition
U.S. Air Force KC-46A Tanker Program Office Joint Program Offices
Department of the Army and U.S. Marine Corps  Joint Light Tactical Vehicle Program Office
Department of the Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and Department of the  Air Force
F-35 Joint Program Office  We conducted this performance audit from April 2013 through April 2014  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions, based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions, based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Defense Acquisition System Framework
section_title: Appendix III: Descriptions of Selected Department of Defense (DOD) Major Weapon Systems
paragraphs: We selected and interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of Product  Support Managers (PSM), program management, and other product  support personnel assigned to a total of 12 major weapon systems to  identify good practices and challenges that may have helped or prevented  PSMs in making or affecting life-cycle sustainment decisions for their  assigned systems. This appendix contains descriptions of the 12 major  weapon systems we selected. Each description contains information on  the military service or services to which these systems belong, their  respective Acquisition Category (ACAT) levels, the status of the system,  and a brief description of the system.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, the following staff members  made key contributions to this report: Alissa H. Czyz, Assistant Director;  Jerome A. Brown; Yecenia C. Camarillo; Joanne Landesman; Michael C.  Shaughnessy; Michael D. Silver; Amie M. Steele; Tristan T. To; and  Matthew R. Young.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Defense Acquisitions: Where Should Reform Aim Next? GAO-14-145T.  Washington, D.C.: October 29, 2013.
Defense Acquisitions: Goals and Associated Metrics Needed to Assess  Progress in Improving Service Acquisition. GAO-13-634. Washington,  D.C.: June 27, 2013.
Program Evaluation: Strategies to Facilitate Agencies’ Use of Evaluation  in Program Management and Policy Making. GAO-13-570. Washington,  D.C.: June 26, 2013.
Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs.  GAO-13-294SP. Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2013.
Weapons Acquisition Reform: Reform Act Is Helping DOD Acquisition  Programs Reduce Risk, but Implementation Challenges Remain.  GAO-13-103. Washington, D.C.: December 14, 2012.
Defense Logistics: Improvements Needed to Enhance Oversight of  Estimated Long-Term Costs for Operating and Supporting Major Weapon  Systems. GAO-12-340. Washington, D.C.: February 2, 2012.
Defense Management: DOD Needs Better Information and Guidance to  More Effectively Manage and Reduce Operating and Support Costs of  Major Weapon Systems. GAO-10-717. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2010.
Defense Acquisitions: Fundamental Changes Are Needed to Improve  Weapon Program Outcomes. GAO-08-1159T. Washington, D.C.:  September 25, 2008.
Defense Logistics: Opportunities to Improve the Army’s and the Navy’s  Decision-making Process for Weapons System Support. GAO-02-306.  Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2002.