Defense Additive Manufacturing: DOD Needs to Systematically Track Department-wide 3D Printing Efforts
Published: 2015-10-14T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Additive manufacturing—building products layer-by-layer in a process often referred to as three-dimensional (3D) printing—has the potential to improve aspects of DOD's mission and operations. DOD and other organizations, such as America Makes, are determining how to address challenges to adopt this technology throughout the department.
Senate Report 113-44 directed DOD to submit a briefing or report on additive manufacturing to the Senate Armed Services Committee that describes three elements. Senate Report 113-176 included a provision that GAO review DOD's use of additive manufacturing. This report addresses the extent to which (1) DOD's briefing to the Committee addresses the directed elements; (2) DOD has taken steps to implement additive manufacturing to improve performance, improve combat capability, and achieve cost savings; and (3) DOD uses mechanisms to coordinate and systematically track additive manufacturing efforts across the department. GAO reviewed and analyzed relevant DOD documents and interviewed DOD and academia officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO determined that the Department of Defense's (DOD) May 2014 additive manufacturing briefing for the Senate Armed Services Committee addressed the three directed elements—namely, potential benefits and constraints; potential contributions to DOD mission; and transition of the technologies of the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute (“America Makes,” a public-private partnership established to accelerate additive manufacturing) for DOD use.
DOD has taken steps to implement additive manufacturing to improve performance and combat capability, and to achieve cost savings. GAO obtained information on multiple efforts being conducted across DOD components. DOD uses additive manufacturing for design and prototyping and for some production, such as parts for medical applications; and it is conducting research to determine how to use the technology for new applications. For example, according to a senior Air Force official, the Air Force is researching potential performance improvements that may be achieved by embedding devices such as antennas within helmets through additive manufacturing that could enable improved communications; and the Army used additive manufacturing to prototype aspects of a Joint Service Aircrew Mask to test a design change, and reported thousands of dollars thereby saved in design development (see figure).
DOD uses various mechanisms to coordinate on additive manufacturing efforts, but it does not systematically track components' efforts department-wide. DOD components share information regarding additive manufacturing via mechanisms such as working groups and conferences that, according to DOD officials, provide opportunities to discuss challenges experienced in implementing additive manufacturing—for example, qualifying materials and certifying parts. However, DOD does not systematically track additive manufacturing efforts, to include (1) all activities performed and resources expended by DOD; and (2) results of these activities, including actual and potential performance and combat capability improvements, cost savings, and lessons learned. DOD has not designated a lead or focal point at a senior level to systematically track and disseminate the results of these efforts, including activities and lessons learned, department-wide. Without designating a lead to track information on additive manufacturing efforts, which is consistent with federal internal control standards, DOD officials may not obtain the information they need to leverage ongoing efforts.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DOD designate an Office of the Secretary of Defense lead to be responsible for developing and implementing an approach for systematically tracking department-wide activities and resources, and results of these activities; and for disseminating these results to facilitate adoption of the technology across the department. DOD concurred with the recommendation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) is determining how additive  manufacturing, often referred to as three-dimensional (3D) printing,  might improve aspects of the department’s mission and operations, such  as supply chain management. The term “additive manufacturing” refers  to a layer-by-layer approach for producing 3D objects from a digital model  using materials such as metal powders, plastic, and foundry sand. Since  its inception in the 1980s, additive manufacturing has been used by  private industry as a tool for design and prototyping—that is, building an  early sample or model in order to test a concept or process to be  replicated or learned from. Today, private industry is using additive  manufacturing to produce finished end-parts. DOD uses additive  manufacturing primarily for designing and prototyping, as well as for  producing parts for some medical applications. Further, DOD is  researching how the technology may be used to produce, among other  things, such items as flight critical parts for aircraft.
The federal government, private industry, and universities have been  involved in efforts to address challenges related to advancing DOD’s use  of additive manufacturing, such as those related to qualifying the  materials and processes used to make parts (that is, ensuring that  manufacturers can repeatedly make the same part and meet exactness  and consistent performance standards on the same machine or on  different machines), and certifying that they meet DOD’s standards, as  noted by participants of the October 2014 Comptroller General forum on  additive manufacturing. In August 2012, as a part of a presidential  initiative focused on advanced manufacturing, the National Additive  Manufacturing Innovation Institute (generally referred to as “America  Makes”) was established as a public-private partnership to accelerate  the research, development, and demonstration of additive manufacturing  technology and to transition it to the U.S. manufacturing sector. As a  participating member of America Makes, DOD is one of multiple federal  agencies that collaborate with this institute’s private industry and  university members to discuss advances and successes in material  development, technology development, and part production, according to  Army officials, and to address challenges related to additive  manufacturing.
Senate Report 113-44, accompanying a bill for the National Defense  Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014, directed DOD to submit a briefing  or report to the Senate Armed Services Committee addressing specific  elements related to additive manufacturing. In response, DOD provided  a briefing in May 2014 on DOD’s use of additive manufacturing.
Senate Report 113-176, accompanying a bill for the Carl Levin National  Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015, included a provision for  GAO to review DOD’s May 2014 briefing and its efforts and processes to  use additive manufacturing. This report discusses the extent to which (1)  DOD’s briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee (henceforth  referred to as “the Committee”) on additive manufacturing addresses the  three directed elements; (2) DOD has taken steps to implement additive  manufacturing to improve performance, improve combat capability, and  achieve cost savings; and (3) DOD uses mechanisms to coordinate and  systematically track additive manufacturing efforts across the department.
DOD provided its briefing document on additive manufacturing to GAO on  July 30, 2014.To determine the extent to which the briefing document  addresses the three directed elements, two GAO analysts concurrently  assessed DOD’s May 2014 briefing document to determine whether it  included the following elements: (1) potential benefits and constraints of  additive manufacturing, (2) how the additive manufacturing process could  or could not contribute to DOD missions, and (3) what technologies being  developed at America Makes are being transitioned for DOD use. The  analysts were consistent in their respective assessments of whether the  briefing included the directed elements, and therefore it was not  necessary for a third analyst to resolve any differences. We assessed the  briefing document, with the recognition that it was not meant to be a  stand-alone document but rather accompanied an oral briefing. We met  with officials from the Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy,  America Makes, and the military services to determine the extent to which  they were involved in creating the briefing document and to obtain  additional information about additive manufacturing. We also shared with  the DOD officials, including Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base  Policy officials, our preliminary assessment of DOD’s briefing document  to obtain their comments.
To determine the extent to which DOD has taken steps to implement  additive manufacturing to improve performance, improve combat  capability, and achieve cost savings, we reviewed DOD documents, such  as the December 2014 DOD Manufacturing Technology Program report  and briefing reports documenting the status of DOD’s additive  manufacturing efforts, as well as examples of any actual or potential  performance and combat capability improvements, and examples of  actual or potential cost savings. We also interviewed officials within the  military services, Defense Logistics Agency, and Walter Reed National  Military Medical Center to further discuss any current or potential  applications of additive manufacturing, and any improvements and cost  savings associated with using the technology.
To determine the extent to which DOD uses mechanisms to coordinate  and systematically track additive manufacturing efforts across the  department, we reviewed DOD coordination-related documents, such as  charters and briefing slides, summarizing the goals and results of any  current DOD efforts related to advancing the department’s use of additive  manufacturing—that is, efforts by the Office of the Secretary of Defense  (OSD), Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Advanced Research Projects  Agency, and the military services. We also reviewed GAO’s key  considerations for implementing interagency collaborative coordination  mechanisms, and we reviewed the Standards for Internal Control in the  Federal Government. We identified examples of coordination groups  that meet to discuss ongoing additive manufacturing efforts. Additionally,  we discussed with OSD, Army, Navy, Air Force, Defense Logistics  Agency, and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency officials any  actions that have been taken for coordinating additive manufacturing  efforts across the department and the extent to which DOD systematically  tracks additive manufacturing efforts.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2014 to October 2015 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. We provide additional  information about our scope and methodology in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Additive Manufacturing
paragraphs: Unlike conventional, or subtractive, manufacturing processes—such as  drilling or milling—that create a part or product by cutting away material  from a larger piece, additive manufacturing builds a finished piece in  successive layers, generally without the use of molds, casts, or patterns.  Additive manufacturing can potentially lead to less waste material in the  manufacturing process, as shown in figure 1.
ASTM International, an international standards development organization,  has identified seven categories of additive manufacturing processes to  group the different types of technologies used, as shown in table 1.  According to DOD officials, the first six of the categories described are the  ones of greatest use to DOD.
section_title: America Makes (National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute)
paragraphs: In August 2012, as part of a presidential initiative focused on advanced  manufacturing, America Makes—the National Additive Manufacturing  Innovation Institute—was established as a public-private partnership  between federal government agencies (including DOD), private industry,  and universities to collaboratively address additive manufacturing  challenges; accelerate the research, development, and demonstration of  additive manufacturing; and transition that technology to the U.S.  manufacturing sector. According to the government program manager  of America Makes, funding to establish America Makes consisted of a  federal government investment of $55 million (fiscal years 2012 through  2017), and it is managed by the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory.
The official also stated that America Makes receives additional funding  through publicly and privately funded projects.
section_title: DOD Components Involved in Additive Manufacturing Efforts
paragraphs: Multiple DOD components—at the OSD, military department (Army,  Navy, and Air Force), Defense Logistics Agency, and Defense Advanced  Research Projects Agency levels—are involved in additive manufacturing  efforts. At the OSD-level, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense  for Research and Engineering develops policy and provides guidance for  all DOD activities on the strategic direction for defense research,  development, and engineering priorities and coordinates with the Office of  the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and  Industrial Base Policy to leverage independent research and development  activities, such as additive manufacturing research activities. The  Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Defense Sciences Office  and the military departments—through the U.S. Army Research,  Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM); the Office of Naval  Research; and the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory—have  laboratories to conduct additive manufacturing research activities.  According to Navy officials, the military depots use additive manufacturing  for a variety of applications using various material types. These efforts  largely include polymer, metal, and ceramic-based additive manufacturing  processes for rapid prototyping, tooling, repair, and development of non- critical parts. The DOD components lead and conduct activities related to  several types of technology research and development and  advancements. Additive manufacturing is one of these activities, and the  components are involved to the extent that some of the broader activities  include additive manufacturing. See appendix II for a more detailed  description of the key DOD components involved with additive  manufacturing.
section_title: Comptroller General’s Forum on Additive Manufacturing
paragraphs: In October 2014, with the assistance of the National Academies, we  convened a forum of officials from federal government agencies, including  DOD; private-sector organizations; academia; and non-governmental  organizations to discuss the use of additive manufacturing for producing  functional parts, including opportunities, key challenges, and key  considerations for any policy actions that could affect the future use of  additive manufacturing for producing such parts. In June  2015 we issued a report summarizing the results of that forum. During  the forum, participants noted that the use of additive manufacturing has  produced benefits such as reduced time to design and produce functional  parts; the ability to produce complex parts that cannot be made with  conventional manufacturing processes; the ability to use alternative  materials with better performance characteristics; and the ability to create  highly customized, low-volume parts. Furthermore, forum participants  identified as a key challenge the need to ensure the quality of functional  parts—for example, ensuring that manufacturers can repeatedly make the  same part and meet precision and consistency performance standards on  both the same machine and different machines. During the forum,  participants also indicated that before a product can be certified,  manufacturers must qualify the materials and processes used to make  the part, which involves manufacturers conducting tests and collecting  data under very controlled conditions. For example, DOD requires that  parts it purchases, such as aircraft engine parts, meet specific standards  or performance criteria. Manufacturers might need to have these parts  certified to meet DOD’s standards. According to participants in the forum,  the National Institute of Standards and Technology is funding research to  provide greater assurance with regard to the quality of parts produced  using additive manufacturing. It is also leading efforts on additive  manufacturing standards through ASTM International’s committee on  additive manufacturing, which was formed in 2009. Participants also  identified some future applications for additive manufacturing, including  the construction of tooling for conventional manufacturing lines, for  enhancing education, and for enhancing supply chain management.
section_title: DOD’s Briefing on Additive Manufacturing Addressed the Elements Directed by the Committee
paragraphs: DOD in its May 2014 briefing document on additive manufacturing  addressed the three directed elements: that is, (1) potential benefits and  constraints of additive manufacturing; (2) how the additive manufacturing  process could or could not contribute to DOD missions; and (3) what  technologies being developed at America Makes are being transitioned  for DOD use. In summary, we found the following:
First, the briefing document noted potential benefits and constraints.
For example, DOD noted a potential benefit to be derived in some  cases from additive manufacturing yielding lighter parts for use in  aircraft, for instance; thereby potentially lowering fuel costs. DOD also  noted a potential constraint reflected in the fact that DOD has yet to  establish qualification and certification protocols for additively  manufactured parts.
Second, the briefing document noted potential contributions to DOD’s  mission. For example, DOD noted that additive manufacturing may be  capable of producing equivalent replacements for obsolete parts.
Third, the briefing document identified America Makes projects that  DOD anticipated would be transitioned for DOD use. For example,  DOD noted a collaborative effort involving Pennsylvania State  University’s Applied Research Lab, Pratt & Whitney, Lockheed Martin,  and General Electric Aviation on thermal imaging for process  monitoring and control of additive manufacturing. DOD noted that this  project would help enable DOD to ensure process and part  repeatability, and would reduce the costs and time for post-process  inspection.
As shown in table 2, the DOD briefing document noted additional  examples of potential benefits and constraints; potential contributions to  DOD’s mission; and some other America Makes projects that DOD  anticipates will be transitioned for its own use.
section_title: DOD Has Taken Steps to Implement Additive Manufacturing to Improve Performance, Improve Combat Capability, and Achieve Cost Savings
paragraphs: DOD has taken steps to implement additive manufacturing to improve  performance and combat capability, as well as achieve associated cost  savings. We obtained information on multiple efforts being conducted  across DOD components. For example, the Army used additive  manufacturing, instead of conventional manufacturing, to prototype  aspects of a Joint Service Aircrew Mask to test a design change, and it  reported thousands of dollars saved in design development and potential  combat capability improvements. According to a senior Navy official, to  improve performance, the Navy additively manufactured circuit card clips  for servers on submarines, as needed, because the original equipment  manufacturer no longer produced these items. This official also stated  that the Navy is researching ways to produce a flight critical part by 2017.  According to a senior Air Force official, the Air Force is researching  potential performance improvements that may be achieved by embedding  devices such as antennas within helmets through additive manufacturing  that could enable improved communications.  According to Defense  Logistics Agency officials, they have taken steps to implement the  technology by additively manufacturing the casting cores for blades and  vanes used on gas turbine engines. According to a senior Walter Reed  National Military Medical Center official, the Center has used additive  manufacturing to produce cranial implants for patients. See additional  information on DOD’s additive manufacturing efforts below, listed by  component. DOD uses additive manufacturing for design and prototyping  and for some production—for example, parts for medical applications— and it is conducting research to determine how to use the technology for  new applications, such as printing electronic components for circuitry and  antennas. DOD is also considering ways in which it can use additive  manufacturing in supply chain management, including for repair of  equipment and production of parts in the field so as to reduce the need to  store parts; for production of discontinued or temporary parts as needed  for use until a permanent part can be obtained; and for quickly building  parts to meet mission requirements. According to DOD officials, such  usage will enable personnel in the field to repair equipment, reduce  equipment down-time, and execute their missions more quickly.
subsections: section_title: Army Efforts
paragraphs: The U.S. Army RDECOM Armament Research, Development and  Engineering Center, according to Army officials, plans to achieve  performance improvements by developing an additively manufactured  material solution for high demand items such as nuts and bolts,  providing the engineering analysis and qualification data required to  make these parts by means of additive manufacturing capability at the  point of need in theater. These officials stated that this solution could  potentially reduce the logistics burden on a unit and improve its  mission readiness, thus enabling enhanced performance. The U.S.  Army RDECOM Armament Research, Development and Engineering  Center, in conjunction with the Defense Logistics Agency, evaluated  high-demand parts in the Afghanistan Theater of Operations and  determined that nuts and bolts were high demand parts that were  often unavailable due to the logistical challenges of shipping parts.  According to Army officials, additive manufacturing offers customers  the opportunity to enhance value when the lead time needed to  manufacture and acquire a part can be reduced. According to these  officials, in military logistics operations in theater, the manufacture of  parts to reduce the lead time to acquire a part is of paramount  importance. As of August 2015 the Center had additively  manufactured several nuts and bolts to demonstrate that they can be  used in equipment (see figure 2), and it plans to fabricate more of  these components for functional testing and qualification. The officials  also stated that this testing will verify that the additively manufactured  components can withstand the rigors of their intended applications.
The U.S. Army RDECOM Edgewood Chemical Biological Center  prototyped aspects or parts of a Joint Service Aircrew Mask ( as  shown in figure 3) via additive manufacturing to test a design change,  which officials stated has resulted in thousands of dollars saved and  potential combat capability improvements. A new mask ensemble  was built using these parts and was worn by pilots to evaluate comfort  and range of vision. Once confirmed, the parts were produced using  conventional manufacturing. Since this example was one in a  prototyping phase, only low quantities were needed for developmental  testing, and additive manufacturing combined with vacuum  silicone/urethane casting allowed the Army to obtain a quantity of  parts that was near production level. According to Army officials, if  conventional production level tools (also called injection molds) had  been developed and used in this prototyping phase, costs might have  ranged from $30,000-$50,000, with a 3- to 6-month turnaround. These  officials stated that additive manufacturing and urethane casting  comprised a fraction of the cost—approximately $7,000–$10,000— with a 2- to 3-week turnaround. Had the Army alternatively developed  a production tool at this proof-of-concept phase, time and financial  investment might have been wasted if the concept had to be changed  or started over from the beginning of the design phase, according to  the officials.
The U.S. Army RDECOM Edgewood Chemical Biological Center  achieved combat capability improvements by designing holders (as  shown in figure 4), through additive manufacturing, to carry pieces of  sensor equipment in the field, according to Army officials. The Center  coordinated with the U.S. Army Research Laboratory to develop the  holder to carry a heavy hand-held improvised explosive device  detection sensor. According to Army officials, the lab wanted a holder  that would cradle the handle so as to distribute more weight to the  soldier’s vest and back rather than confining it to the soldier’s forearm.  Officials at the Center stated that they had additively manufactured  many prototypes that were tested by soldiers at various locations  around the country within 1 to 2 weeks. According to Army officials,  after achieving positive testing results the Center used additive  manufacturing to produce the molds that otherwise would have added  weeks or months to the process via conventional manufacturing. The  final products—10,000 plastic holders—were then produced at the  Center through conventional manufacturing.
The Army Rapid Equipping Force achieved combat capability  improvements by using additive manufacturing, as part of its  expeditionary lab capability, to design valve stem covers for a  military vehicle, according to Army officials. An Army unit had  experienced frequent failures due to tire pressure issues on its Mine- Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles caused by exposed valve  stems; for example, during missions, the tires would deflate when the  valve stem was damaged by rocks or fixed objects. The additive  manufacturing interim solution was developed in just over 2 weeks,  because the additive manufacturing process allowed them to  prototype a solution more quickly, according to Army Rapid Equipping  Force officials. As shown in figure 5, the Army additively  manufactured prototypes for versions 1 through 4 of the covers before  a final part was produced in version 5 through conventional  manufacturing processes.
The Army Rapid Equipping Force also achieved combat capability  improvements, through its expeditionary lab, by producing prototypes  of mounting brackets using additive manufacturing, according to Army  officials. Army soldiers using mine detection equipment required  illumination around the sensor sweep area during low visibility  conditions in order to avoid impact with unseen objects resulting in  damage to the sensor. Using additive manufacturing, a mounting  bracket was prototyped for attaching flashlights to mine detectors in  several versions, as shown in figure 6. According to Army officials,  due to requests exceeding the expeditionary lab’s production  capability, the Army coordinated with a U.S. manufacturer to additively  manufacture 100 mounting brackets at one-fourth the normal cost.
Tobyhanna Army Depot achieved performance improvement by using  additive manufacturing to produce dust caps for radios, according to  Army officials, as shown in figure 7. These officials stated that a  shortage of these caps had been delaying the delivery of radios to  customers. Getting the part from a vendor would have taken several  weeks, but the depot additively manufactured 600 dust caps in 16  hours. According to the depot officials, the dollar savings achieved  were of less importance than the fact that they were able to meet their  schedule.
The Navy is increasingly focused on leveraging additive manufacturing for the production of replacement parts to improve performance, according to Navy officials. When the original equipment manufacturer was no longer producing these parts, the Navy used additive manufacturing to create a supply of replacement parts to keep the fleet ready. This was the case for the Naval Undersea Warfare Center-Keyport, which used additive manufacturing to replace a legacy circuit card clip for servers installed on submarines, as needed (see figure 8).
The Navy installed a 3D printer aboard the USS Essex to demonstrate  the ability to additively develop and produce shipboard items such as  oil reservoir caps, drain covers, training aids, and tools to achieve  performance improvements, according to a senior Navy official (see  figure 9). According to Navy officials, additive manufacturing is an  emerging technology and shipboard humidity, vibration, and motion  may create variances in the prints. Navy officials also stated that while  there is not a structured plan to install printers on all ships, it is a  desired result and vision to have the capability on the fleet. These  officials stated that the Navy plans to install 3D printers on two  additional ships.
The U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, according to a senior Air  Force official, is researching potential performance improvements that  may be achieved by (1) additive manufacturing of antennas and  electronic components; and (2) embedding devices (such as  antennas) within helmets and other structures through additive  manufacturing, as shown in figure 10, thereby potentially enabling  improved communication. The laboratory has a six-axis printing  system that has demonstrated the printing of antennas on helmets  and other curved surfaces, according to the official. The official also  stated that the laboratory conducts research and development in  materials and manufacturing in order to advance additive  manufacturing technology such that it can be used affordably and  confidently for Air Force and DOD systems. Additionally, according to  Air Force officials, the Air Force sustainment organizations use  additive manufacturing for tooling and prototyping.
According to the December 2014 DOD Manufacturing Technology  document, the Defense Logistics Agency projected cost savings of  33-50 percent for additively manufacturing casting core tooling, as  shown in figure 11. The Defense Logistics Agency—working with  industry, including Honeywell, and leveraging the work of military  research labs—helped refine a process to additively manufacture the  casting cores for engine airfoils (blades and vanes) used on gas  turbine engines, according to Defense Logistics Agency officials.  According to these officials, printing these casting cores will help  reduce the cost and production lead times of engine airfoils, especially  when tooling has been lost or scrapped or when there are low quantity  orders for legacy weapon systems.
The Walter Reed National Military Medical Center achieved  performance improvements by additively manufacturing items that  include customized cranial plate implants and medical tooling and  surgical guides, according a senior official within the Center.  According to the official, additive manufacturing offers a more flexible  and applicable solution to aid surgeons and provide benefits to  patients. Since 2003, according to the official, the Walter Reed  National Military Medical Center has additively manufactured more  than 7,000 medical models, more than 300 cranial plates, and more  than 50 custom prosthetic and rehabilitation devices and attachments,  as well as simulation and training models. The official stated that  using additive manufacturing enables each part to be made  specifically for the individual patient’s anatomy, which results in a  better fit and an implant that is more structurally sound for a longer  period of time, which, in turn, leads to better medical outcomes with  fewer side effects. Furthermore, the official stated that additive  manufacturing has been used for producing patient-specific parts,  such as cranial implants, in 1 to 5 days, and these parts are being  used in patients. See figure 12.
section_title: DOD Uses Various Mechanisms to Coordinate on Additive Manufacturing Efforts but Does Not Systematically Track Additive Manufacturing Efforts Department-wide
paragraphs: DOD uses various mechanisms to coordinate on additive manufacturing  efforts, but it does not systematically track components’ efforts  department-wide. DOD components share information regarding additive  manufacturing through mechanisms such as working groups and  conferences that, according to DOD officials, provide opportunities to  discuss challenges experienced in implementing additive  manufacturing—for example, qualifying materials and certifying parts.  However, DOD does not systematically track additive manufacturing  efforts, to include (1) all projects, henceforth referred to as activities,  performed and resources expended by DOD; and (2) results of their  activities, including actual and potential performance and combat  capability improvements, cost savings, and lessons learned. DOD has not  designated a lead or focal point at the OSD level to systematically track  and disseminate the results of these efforts, including activities and  lessons learned, department-wide. Without designating a lead to track  information on additive manufacturing efforts, which is consistent with  federal internal control standards, DOD officials may not obtain the  information they need to leverage ongoing efforts.
subsections: section_title: DOD Components Use Various Mechanisms to Coordinate Information on Successes,Challenges, and Other Aspects of Additive Manufacturing
paragraphs: DOD components use various mechanisms to coordinate information on  successes and challenges of additive manufacturing along with other  aspects of additive manufacturing. These mechanisms include  coordination groups, DOD collaboration websites (such as milSuite),  conferences, and informal meetings to coordinate on additive  manufacturing-related efforts. Some of these groups or meetings focus on  broad issues, such as manufacturing technologies in general (in which  additive manufacturing may be included), and others focus solely on  additive manufacturing. Participants in these groups have included  officials from OSD, the military departments, other governmental  agencies, private industry, and universities that support the research and  development and operational use of additive manufacturing. DOD officials  explained that these groups and conferences provide opportunities to  discuss challenges experienced by the components in implementing  additive manufacturing, such as the challenges of qualifying materials and  certifying parts, and to discuss the efforts they are making to address  these challenges, as well as other aspects of additive manufacturing.
See table 3 for examples of eight coordination groups we identified that  meet to discuss ongoing additive manufacturing efforts, including ways to  address technical challenges.
Furthermore, DOD components participate in defense manufacturing  conferences and defense additive manufacturing symposiums; informal  meetings; and America Makes discussions, known as program  management reviews. We observed the September 2014 America Makes  program management review, during which representatives from the  government, private industry, and academia discussed the status of the  America Makes research projects and their additive manufacturing efforts.  We also observed an additive manufacturing meeting that included  participants from OSD, the Army, the Navy, and the Defense Logistics  Agency to discuss the status of their ongoing additive manufacturing  efforts and collaboration opportunities. For example, the Navy and the  Defense Logistics Agency discussed their efforts to survey existing parts  that would be candidates for additive manufacturing. The officials stated  that they are willing to share information but are focusing on their service- specific efforts. Additionally, DOD participates in the Government  Organization for Additive Manufacturing (GO Additive), which is an  informal, government-wide voluntary-participation group. The purpose of  the group is, among other things, to facilitate collaboration among  individuals from federal government organizations, such as DOD, that  have an interest in additive manufacturing. According to Air Force  officials, the group may develop a list of qualified materials and certified  parts.
section_title: DOD Does Not Systematically Track Components’ Additive Manufacturing Efforts Department-wide
paragraphs: Although DOD components use various mechanisms to coordinate  information on additive manufacturing, DOD does not systematically track  the components’ additive manufacturing efforts department-wide.  Specifically, DOD does not systematically track additive manufacturing  efforts, to include (1) all activities performed and resources expended by  DOD, including equipment and funding amounts; and (2) results of their  activities, including actual and potential performance and combat  capability improvements, cost savings, and lessons learned.
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that it is  important for organizations to have complete, accurate, and consistent  data to inform policy, document performance, and support decision  making. The standards also call for management to track major agency  achievements, and to communicate the results of this information. In  addition, our past work has identified practices for enhancing and  sustaining agency coordination efforts that include, among other things,  designating leadership, which is a necessary element for a collaborative  working relationship.
However, DOD officials whom we interviewed could not identify a specific  DOD entity that systematically tracked all activities or resources across  the department, including equipment and funding amounts, related to  additive manufacturing. Further, while Army, Navy, and Air Force  Manufacturing Technology program officials provided us a list of their  respective additive manufacturing activities and some funding  information, variances in the types of information provided caused it not to  be comparable across the services. Since no one DOD entity, such as  OSD, systematically tracks all aspects of additive manufacturing, DOD  officials could not readily tell us the activities underway or the amount of  funding being used for DOD’s additive manufacturing efforts. According to  an OSD official within the Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base  Policy, the department does not identify investments of additive  manufacturing in the budget exhibits to this level of detail. The official  stated that the department identifies overall manufacturing technology  investments, but it does not specifically break out additive manufacturing.  In addition to the research and development efforts, the official stated that  DOD has ongoing additive manufacturing activities within the operational  communities, such as military depots and arsenals, and it does not  systematically track these communities either.
Additionally, while DOD components share information on the additive  manufacturing equipment they own, DOD does not systematically track  these machines to ensure that the components are aware of each other’s  additive manufacturing equipment. DOD has additive manufacturing  machines whose costs range from a few thousand dollars to millions of  dollars. In a constrained budget environment, it is also important to  leverage these resources. According to officials within the U.S. Army  RDECOM, through coordination groups, such as that command’s  community of practice, officials share and understand each other’s  equipment and capabilities. In addition, according to these officials, the  Navy and Air Force have provided information to the Army regarding their  respective departments’ equipment. According to Army and Navy officials,  the Army and Navy also have equipment lists posted on a DOD  collaboration website called milSuite. According to an official at the U.S.  Air Force Research Laboratory, the Air Force does not have an official  inventory listing of additive manufacturing equipment. However, the  official added that a team has accomplished a recent tasking and visits to  the Air Logistics complexes to determine the equipment and capabilities  available and in use.
Furthermore, DOD does not systematically track actual or potential  performance and combat capability improvements, cost savings, or  lessons learned. DOD component officials we interviewed have shared— within their respective components and to a lesser degree with other  components—information on their individual performance and combat  capability improvements, as well as on some cost savings attributable to  additive manufacturing. For example, according to Army Rapid Equipping  Force officials, they participate in a community of practice to share their  lessons learned so that others can be informed about the needs of end  users when developing their research priorities. The various DOD  components are at different stages of research and implementation.  However, DOD does not have a systematic process to obtain and  disseminate the results and lessons learned across the components.  Without this information, the department may not be able to leverage the  components’ respective experiences.
U.S. Army RDECOM officials agreed that it is important to improve cross- communication among the services and agencies, to avoid having to re- invent advances while they continue to expand the implementation of  these technologies and capabilities. The officials added that the Materials  and Manufacturing Processes Community of Interest already reports to  the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and  Engineering and to the DOD Science and Technology executives on the  science and technology funding associated with materials and  manufacturing. Therefore, the Army believes that DOD already has  oversight and awareness. According to its chairperson, the Materials and  Manufacturing Processes Community of Interest (a group that comprises  eight technical teams) performs some level of activity in additive  manufacturing, but it does not have a team that focuses solely on additive  manufacturing. The chairperson added that this community of interest  does not systematically track all aspects of additive manufacturing, such  as medical, and that the information that is tracked and communicated to  OSD is rolled up to a high level and submitted to the Office of the  Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. An official  within that office agreed that additional coordination of additive  manufacturing efforts across the department would be helpful. The official  stated that the office does not track all aspects of additive manufacturing.
DOD does not systematically track all department-wide additive  manufacturing efforts because the department has not designated a lead  or focal point at a senior level, such as OSD, to oversee the development  and implementation of an approach to department-wide coordination.  Specifically, the department has not established a lead to develop and  implement an approach for systematically (1) tracking department-wide  activities and resources, including funding and an inventory of additive  manufacturing equipment; and results of these activities, such as additive  manufacturing performance and combat capability improvements and  cost savings, along with lessons learned; and (2) disseminating the  results of these activities, and an inventory of additive manufacturing  equipment. A senior official within the Office of Manufacturing and  Industrial Base Policy was aware of the various coordination groups. The  official also saw value in collecting certain types of additive manufacturing  information. We recognize that while additive manufacturing has been in  existence since the 1980s, it is still in its early stages as compared with  the techniques of conventional manufacturing, especially with respect to  producing critical parts such as those for aircraft. As the technology  evolves, it is important for OSD to systematically track and disseminate  the results of these additive manufacturing efforts department-wide.  Without designating a lead or focal point responsible for developing an  approach for systematically (1) tracking department-wide activities and  resources, and results of these activities; and (2) disseminating,  department-wide, the results of these activities and an inventory of  additive manufacturing equipment, DOD officials may not obtain the  information they need to leverage resources and ongoing experiences of  the various components.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Additive manufacturing has been in existence since the 1980s, and DOD  has begun looking toward utilizing it to make existing product supply  chains more efficient by enabling on-demand production, which could  reduce the need to maintain large product inventories and spare parts;  and enabling the production of parts and products closer to the location of  their consumers, thereby helping DOD to achieve its missions. The  technology is in its relative infancy, and it may be years or decades  before it can achieve levels of confidence comparable to those available  from conventional manufacturing processes. Across the department the  various DOD components are engaged in activities and are expending  resources in their respective efforts to determine how to use additive  manufacturing to produce critical products. However, DOD does not  systematically track and disseminate the results of additive manufacturing  efforts department-wide, nor has it designated a lead to coordinate these  efforts. As a result, DOD may not have the information it needs to  leverage resources and lessons learned from additive manufacturing  efforts and thereby facilitate the adoption of the technology across the  department.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help ensure that DOD systematically tracks and disseminates the  results of additive manufacturing efforts department-wide, we recommend  that the Secretary of Defense direct the following action:
Designate a lead or focal point, at the OSD level, responsible for developing and facilitating the implementation of an approach for systematically tracking and disseminating information. The lead or focal point should, among other things, track department-wide activities and resources, including funding and an inventory of additive manufacturing equipment; and results of these activities, such as additive manufacturing performance and combat capability improvements and cost savings, along with lessons learned; and disseminate the results of these activities, and an inventory of additive manufacturing equipment.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment; the  department provided technical comments that we considered and  incorporated as appropriate. DOD also provided written comments on our  recommendation, which are reprinted in appendix III.
In commenting on this draft, DOD concurred with our recommendation  that DOD designate an OSD lead or focal point to be responsible for  developing and implementing an approach for systematically tracking  department-wide activities and resources, and results of these activities;  and disseminating these results, and an inventory of additive  manufacturing equipment, to facilitate adoption of the technology across  the department. In response to this recommendation, DOD stated that  within 90 days the department will make a determination and designation  of the appropriate lead or focal point within OSD to be responsible for  developing and facilitating the implementation of an approach for  systematically tracking and disseminating information on additive  manufacturing within the department.
We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, Navy,  and Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps; the directors of  Defense Logistics Agency and Defense Advanced Research Projects  Agency; the Assistant Secretaries of Defense for Research and  Engineering, and Health Affairs; Deputy Assistant Secretaries of Defense  for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy, and Maintenance Policy and  Programs; and other interested parties. 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 (202) 512-5257 or merrittz@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made contributions to this report are  listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) provided its briefing document to  GAO on July 30, 2014. To determine the extent to which the briefing  document to the Senate Armed Services Committee (henceforth referred  to as “the Committee”) addresses the three directed elements, two GAO  analysts concurrently assessed DOD’s May 2014 briefing document to  determine whether it included the following Committee-directed elements:  (1) potential benefits and constraints of additive manufacturing, (2) how  the additive manufacturing process could or could not contribute to DOD  missions, and (3) what technologies being developed at America Makes  are being transitioned for DOD use. The analysts were consistent in their  respective assessments of whether the briefing included the elements  and therefore it was not necessary for a third analyst to resolve any  differences. We assessed the briefing document, with the recognition that  it was not meant to be a stand-alone document, but rather accompanied  an oral briefing. We met with officials from the Office of Manufacturing  and Industrial Base Policy, America Makes, and the military services to  determine the extent to which they were involved in creating the briefing  document and to obtain additional information about additive  manufacturing. We also shared with the DOD officials, including Office of  Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy officials, our preliminary  assessment of DOD’s briefing document to obtain their comments.
To determine the extent to which DOD has taken steps to implement  additive manufacturing to improve performance, improve combat  capability, and achieve cost savings, we reviewed DOD planning  documents, such as the December 2014 DOD Manufacturing Technology  Program report and briefing reports documenting the status of DOD’s  additive manufacturing efforts, as well as examples of any actual or  potential performance and combat capability improvements, and  examples of actual or potential cost savings. We also interviewed officials  within the military services, Defense Logistics Agency, and Walter Reed  National Military Medical Center to further discuss any current and  potential applications of additive manufacturing, and any improvements  and cost savings associated with using the technology. We did not review  efforts related to additive manufacturing conducted by contractors for  DOD.
To determine the extent to which DOD uses mechanisms to coordinate  and systematically track additive manufacturing efforts across the  department, we reviewed DOD coordination-related documents, such as  charters and briefing slides, summarizing the purpose and results of any  current DOD efforts related to advancing the department’s use of additive  manufacturing—that is, efforts by the Office of the Secretary of Defense  (OSD), Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Advanced Research Projects  Agency, and the services. We reviewed GAO’s key considerations for  implementing interagency collaborative mechanisms, such as  designating leadership, which is a necessary element for a collaborative  working relationship. We identified examples of coordination groups that  DOD participates in to discuss ongoing additive manufacturing efforts.  While we did not assess these groups to determine whether there were  any coordination deficiencies, we made some observations based on  GAO’s reported collaborative mechanisms and practices for enhancing  and sustaining these efforts. We also reviewed the Standards for Internal  Control in the Federal Government, which emphasizes the importance of  top-level management tracking the various components’ achievements, to  assess the extent to which DOD systematically tracks additive  manufacturing efforts department-wide. Additionally, we discussed with  OSD, Army, Navy, Air Force, Defense Logistics Agency, and Defense  Advanced Research Projects Agency officials (1) any actions that have  been taken for coordinating additive manufacturing efforts across the  department, and (2) the extent to which DOD systematically tracks  additive manufacturing efforts.
Tables 4 and 5 present the DOD and non-DOD organizations we met with  during our review.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2014 to October 2015 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: Key DOD Components Involved in Additive Manufacturing Efforts
paragraphs: The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics,  reporting to the Secretary of Defense, is responsible for all matters  relating to departmental acquisition systems, as well as research and  development, advanced technology, and developmental test and  evaluation, among other things.
The OSD Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for  Research and Engineering, reporting to the Under Secretary of  Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, is responsible for  providing science and engineering integrity leadership throughout  DOD and facilitating the sharing of best practices to promote the  integrity of DOD scientific and engineering activities. According to  DOD senior officials, the Materials and Manufacturing Processes  community of interest is one of 17 department-wide coordination  groups organized by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense  for Research and Engineering to provide broad oversight of the DOD  components’ efforts in the Science and Technology areas for which  the department has responsibilities. The senior officials added that  this community of interest does not track all aspects of additive  manufacturing and that the information that is tracked and  communicated to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for  Research and Engineering is rolled up to a high level.
The OSD Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for  Maintenance Policy and Programs provides the functional expertise  for centralized maintenance policy and management oversight for all  weapon systems and military equipment maintenance programs and  related resources within DOD.
The OSD Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for  Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy, reporting to the Under  Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics,  develops DOD policy and provides guidance, oversight, and technical  assistance on assessing or investing in defense industrial capabilities,  and has oversight responsibility for the Manufacturing Technology  program, among other programs, which develops technologies and  processes that ensure the affordable and timely production and  sustainment of defense systems, including additive manufacturing. In  addition, OSD manages the Defense-wide Manufacturing Science and  Technology program, which seeks to address cross-cutting initiatives  that are beyond the scope of any one military service or defense  agency. The Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Defense Logistics  Agency each have their own manufacturing technology programs,  which select and execute activities, such as additive manufacturing  research activities.
The Army, the Navy, and the Air Force have research and development laboratories—that is, U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command; Office of Naval Research; and U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory—for projects on the use of new materials, processes, and applications for additive manufacturing.
Army, Navy, and Air Force depots and arsenals use additive manufacturing to produce plastic parts and prototypes for tooling and repairs, such as dust caps for radios, to reduce costs and turnaround time.
The Army Rapid Equipping Force will be reporting to the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command in October 2015, according to Army officials. It uses additive manufacturing to produce prototypes for repairs, such as tooling and fixtures, to reduce costs and turnaround time.
Navy components, including the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Navy Business Office; the Naval Air Systems Command; and Naval Sea Systems Command, plan to use additive manufacturing to enable a dominant, adaptive, and innovative Naval force that is ready, able, and sustainable. According to Navy officials, in November 2013, the Chief of Naval Operations directed the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Fleet Readiness and Logistics to develop, de-conflict, and manage additive manufacturing efforts across the Navy. That office has since developed Navy’s 20-year additive manufacturing vision, according to Navy officials.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Defense Sciences Office identifies and pursues high-risk, high-payoff fundamental research initiatives across a broad spectrum of science and engineering disciplines, and transforms these initiatives into radically new, game-changing technologies for U.S. national security. According to a senior Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency official, the agency has initiated the Open Manufacturing program,  which allows officials to capture and understand the additive  concepts, so that they can rapidly predict with high confidence how  the finished part will perform. The program has two facilities—one at  Pennsylvania State University and the other at the U.S. Army  Research Laboratory—establishing permanent reference repositories  and serving as testing centers to demonstrate applications of the  technology being developed and as a catalyst to accelerate adoption  of the technology.
The Defense Logistics Agency procures parts for the military  services and is developing a framework to determine how to use  additive manufacturing, according to Defense Logistics Agency  officials.
The Walter Reed National Military Medical Center 3D Medical  Applications Center is a military treatment facility that provides,  among other things, computer-aided design and computer-aided  manufacturing for producing medical models and custom implants  through additive manufacturing. The Walter Reed National Military  Medical Center falls within the National Capital Region Medical  Directorate and is controlled by the Defense Health Agency, which in  turn reports to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Marilyn Wasleski, Assistant  Director; Dawn Godfrey; Richard Hung; Carol Petersen; Andrew Stavisky;  Amie Steele; Sabrina Streagle; Sarah Veale; Angela Watson; Cheryl  Weissman; and Alexander Welsh made key contributions to this report.