Global War on Terrorism: DOD Needs to More Accurately Capture and Report the Costs of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom
Released: 2009-03-17T00:00:00

Letter

Background

DOD contingency operations, such as those in support of GWOT, can involve a wide variety of activities such as combating insurgents, training the military forces of other nations, and conducting small-scale reconstruction and humanitarian relief projects. Volume 12, chapter 23 of the DOD Financial Management Regulation, 7000.14-R establishes financial policies and procedures for contingency operations and generally guides the DOD components’ spending by defining what constitutes incremental costs and by providing examples of eligible incremental costs. The costs incurred for contingency operations include the pay of mobilized reservists, as well as the special pays and allowances for deployed personnel, such as imminent danger pay and foreign duty pay; the cost of transporting personnel and materiel to the theater of operation and supporting them upon arrival; and the operational cost of equipment such as vehicles and aircraft, among many other costs. Costs that are incurred regardless of whether there is a contingency operation, such as the base pay of active duty military personnel, are not considered incremental and therefore are funded in DOD’s base budget.

DOD reports its GWOT-related costs in terms of obligations, which are incurred through actions such as orders placed, contracts awarded, services received, or similar transactions. When obligations are incurred, the DOD components enter them into their individual accounting systems. An obligation entry may include a number of different identifiers, including information such as funding source and the contingency operation, and the category of cost as determined by the individual component. Volume 12, chapter 23 of the DOD Financial Management Regulation directs components to capture contingency costs within their existing accounting systems and at the lowest possible level of organization. Individual obligation data that are coded as being in support of GWOT are recorded and sent through the component’s chain of command where they are aggregated at successively higher command levels.

In a series of reports, we have identified numerous problems in DOD’s processes for recording and reporting obligations, raising significant concerns about the overall reliability of DOD’s reported obligations. In addition, DOD’s financial management has been on GAO’s list of high-risk areas requiring urgent attention and transformation since 1995. Factors affecting the reliability of DOD’s reported obligations include long- standing deficiencies in hundreds of nonintegrated financial management systems requiring manual entry of some data in multiple systems, and the lack of a systematic process to ensure that data are correctly entered into those systems. On its own initiative and in response to our recommendations, DOD has placed greater management focus on weaknesses in GWOT cost reporting, such as establishing additional procedures for analyzing variances in reported obligations and disclosing underlying reasons for significant changes. In addition, DOD established a Senior Steering Group in February 2007, including representatives from DOD, DFAS, and the military services, in an effort to standardize and improve the GWOT cost-reporting process and to increase management attention to the process. In conjunction with the Senior Steering Group, a GWOT Cost-of-War Project Management Office was established to monitor work performed by auditing agencies and to report possible solutions and improvements to the Senior Steering Group. It is tasked with leading initiatives in improving the credibility, transparency, and timeliness of GWOT cost reporting. DOD’s efforts are ongoing and we have continued to monitor its progress as GWOT cost reporting has evolved.

DOD and the Military Services Continue to Take Steps to Improve Some Aspects of the Accuracy and Reliability of GWOT Cost Reporting

DOD and the military services continue to take steps to improve some aspects of the accuracy and reliability of GWOT cost reporting. Some examples are discussed below. Because efforts to implement some of these initiatives are still in the early stages, their effect on the reliability of GWOT cost reporting is uncertain.

DOD Has Several Ongoing Initiatives to Improve Accuracy and Reliability of GWOT Cost Data

DOD has undertaken several initiatives to improve the accuracy and reliability of its GWOT cost data. First, to promote the goal of continually improving its cost-of-war processes and reports, in February 2008, DOD required its components to statistically sample and validate their fiscal year 2008 GWOT obligation transactions on a quarterly basis beginning with the first quarter of fiscal year 2008. DOD also required its components to review randomly sampled non-GWOT obligations to determine whether the transactions were properly classified as non-GWOT versus GWOT. According to DFAS officials, the new requirement has improved the reliability of reported GWOT obligations because DOD components are taking actions to improve their GWOT cost reporting procedures and are making corrections when errors such as missing or illegible supporting documentation, missing codes, and miscoded transactions are found. DFAS plans to include a requirement to review and validate GWOT obligation data in an update to volume 3, chapter 8 of the DOD Financial Management Regulation.

Second, DOD is initiating a new contingency cost-reporting system in fiscal year 2009 called the Contingency Operations Reporting and Analysis System. DOD’s goals are to automate the collection of GWOT cost data from DOD components and improve the timeliness of cost-of-war reporting. This system pulls elements of GWOT transaction data directly from DOD components’ accounting systems into its data store. Limited features of the system became available for use in October 2008 and it should be fully operational by September 2009. Upon completion of the project, this system should allow DOD and external users to have a consolidated location to view and analyze data for the cost of war, disaster relief, and all other contingencies. Users will have access through a Web browser and should be able to filter data and perform various analyses. Previously, the DOD components individually gathered and manually entered their GWOT cost data monthly into a template provided by DFAS for cost-of-war reporting. According to DFAS officials, the new system is designed to ensure better reliability and eliminate the possibility of manual errors.

Third, DFAS is issuing a redesigned monthly cost-of-war report through the Contingency Operations Reporting and Analysis System, starting in fiscal year 2009, to replace DOD’s monthly Supplemental and Cost of War Execution Report, which was provided to external customers, including Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and GAO. The first new cost-of-war report, commonly referred to as the Contingency Operations Status of Funds Report, was issued in December 2008 and covered costs for October 2008. According to DOD, this redesigned report should improve transparency over GWOT costs by comparing appropriated GWOT supplemental and annual funding to reported obligations and disbursements. The previous cost-of-war report displayed obligations (both monthly and cumulative by fiscal year) by appropriation, contingency operation, and DOD component, but did not compare obligations to appropriated funding.

Military Services Have Taken Actions to Correct Weaknesses in the Reliability of GWOT Cost Data

The military services have also taken actions to correct weaknesses in the reliability of their GWOT cost data. Examples for each of the services are discussed below. Since these actions have only recently been implemented, their effect on the reliability of GWOT cost reporting is uncertain.

Marine Corps

We found that the Marine Corps was not reporting obligations in descriptive cost categories in the DOD Supplemental and Cost of War Execution Report as required in volume 12, chapter 23 of the DOD Financial Management Regulation, which DOD established to provide better transparency over reported costs. Specifically, the Marine Corps was reporting obligations in the miscellaneous category of “other supplies and equipment” rather than the more descriptive cost categories. We brought this issue to the attention of both DFAS and the Marine Corps office responsible for submitting monthly cost data to DFAS. Marine Corps officials acknowledged the absence of the data and indicated that they would attempt to provide further breakdown of the Marine Corps’ reported obligations in future reports. In June 2008, the Marine Corps revised its cost-reporting procedures to provide further breakdown of reported obligations for “other supplies and equipment” in DOD’s cost-of- war reports. In addition, Marine Corps officials told us that in May 2008 they streamlined their cost-of-war reporting by centralizing their GWOT cost data-gathering and reporting procedures. Prior to this time, commands would individually submit their monthly GWOT cost data to Marine Corps headquarters. According to Marine Corps officials, the new procedures have improved the visibility and reliability of reported costs across the service, especially at the command level.

Air Force

We found that the Air Force was reporting some operation and maintenance obligations in the miscellaneous cost categories for “other supplies and equipment” and “other services and miscellaneous contracts” rather than reporting these obligations in the more descriptive cost categories that DOD had established. We brought this issue to the attention of both DFAS and the Air Force office responsible for submitting monthly cost-of-war data to DFAS. In response, the Air Force and DFAS revised the Air Force’s cost-reporting procedures so that costs could only be reported in the more descriptive cost categories.

Army

Our analysis of the fiscal year 2008 Army obligation data showed that the Army was misusing certain accounting codes to capture costs for GWOT contingency operations. Army officials told us that commands were incorrectly using these codes to record costs for activities that were not adequately funded in the base budget such as contracts for security guards and other anti-terrorism force-protection measures for facilities and installations located outside of the continental United States. Consequently, almost $2 billion in obligations for operation and maintenance was included in DOD’s cost-of-war report for costs that may not be directly attributable to GWOT contingency operations. In addition, the Army reported about $220 million in GWOT obligations for operation and maintenance costs associated with its modular restructuring initiative. Army officials told us that the Army modular restructuring initiative is not an incremental cost and therefore should not have been included in the cost-of-war report. The Army has addressed these issues for fiscal year 2009 by revising its cost code structure and eliminating cost codes that commands have misused in the past.

Navy

During the course of our work, we found that the Navy lacked a centralized and documented process for its GWOT cost reporting. For example, Navy headquarters had little visibility over how lower-level commands record and report their GWOT costs. Moreover, the Navy’s cost-reporting process relied on the use of several computer-operated spreadsheets that required manual data input. The Navy also did not have formal guidance for GWOT cost reporting. In addition, our prior work had revealed that the Navy’s Atlantic Fleet and Pacific Fleet used different approaches for allocating a ship’s normal operating costs and GWOT costs. In September 2008, the Navy issued formal guidance for GWOT cost reporting in response to weaknesses in internal controls for contingency cost reporting that were identified as a result of its quarterly validations of GWOT obligation transactions. According to the Navy, the new guidance will increase the visibility of its costs, standardize its cost- reporting process for contingency operations, and increase the ability to audit its financial systems. Further, beginning in fiscal year 2008, the Atlantic Fleet and Pacific Fleet began using the same cost model for calculating how much of a ship’s total operating costs should be allocated to GWOT. This cost model estimates a ship’s GWOT operating costs by the number of days that it is deployed in support of a military operation. According to the Navy, this cost model is part of a broader initiative to improve and coordinate financial management processes at both the Atlantic Fleet and Pacific Fleet.

DOD’s Approach to GWOT Cost Reporting Does Not Reliably Represent the Costs of Each Contingency Operation

Although DOD has taken steps to improve certain aspects of its GWOT cost reporting, its approach to identifying the costs of specific operations has, in some cases, resulted in the overstatement of costs, particularly for Operation Iraqi Freedom, and in other cases, for both contingencies. Since 2001, DOD has reported significant costs in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. However, we found that reported costs for Operation Iraqi Freedom may be overstated due to weaknesses in DOD’s methodology for reporting its GWOT costs by contingency operation. Furthermore, the military services have reported some costs that are not directly attributable to the support of either Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom.

DOD Has Reported Significant Costs for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom

As of September 2008, DOD had reported total obligations of about $654.7 billion for GWOT, including about $508.4 billion, or 78 percent, for Operation Iraqi Freedom, about $118.2 billion, or 18 percent, for Operation Enduring Freedom, and about $28.1 billion, or 4 percent, for Operation Noble Eagle. As figure 1 shows, since fiscal year 2001, Operation Iraqi Freedom has accounted for the largest amount of total reported obligations among these three operations. However, DOD’s reporting of costs for GWOT does not reliably represent the costs of contingency operations, for reasons discussed below.

Weaknesses Exist in DOD’s Methodology for Reporting GWOT Costs by Contingency Operation

We found that reported costs for Operation Iraqi Freedom may be overstated due to weaknesses in DOD’s methodology for reporting its GWOT costs by contingency operation. Volume 12, chapter 23 of the DOD Financial Management Regulation emphasizes the importance of cost reporting and requires DOD components to make every effort possible to capture and accurately report the cost of contingency operations. Furthermore, this regulation states that actual costs should be reported, but when actual costs are not available, DOD components are required to establish and document an auditable methodology for capturing costs. While the Army and Marine Corps are capturing totals for procurement and certain operation and maintenance costs, they do not have a methodology for determining what portion of these GWOT costs is attributable to Operation Iraqi Freedom versus Operation Enduring Freedom. For example, both military services reported their GWOT costs for procurement and certain operation and maintenance activities as costs exclusively attributable to Operation Iraqi Freedom, although a portion of these costs are attributable to Operation Enduring Freedom. In fiscal year 2008: The Army reported about $30.2 billion in GWOT procurement obligations as costs tied to Operation Iraqi Freedom and none as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, even though, according to Army officials, some of these costs were incurred in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. These reported obligations include both non-reset- related and reset-related procurement for items such as aircraft, munitions, vehicles, communication and electronic equipment, combat support, up-armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, and countermeasures for improvised explosive devices.

The Army reported obligations of about $8 billion for operation and maintenance associated with reset for Army prepositioned stocks, depot maintenance, recapitalization, aviation special technical inspection and repair, and field maintenance as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom but none for Operation Enduring Freedom, even though, according to Army officials, some of these costs were incurred in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The Marine Corps reported $3.9 billion in procurement obligations as costs tied to Operation Iraqi Freedom but none as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, even though, according to Marine Corps officials, some of these costs were incurred in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. As in the case of the Army, these reported obligations include non-reset-related and reset-related procurement for various items.

The Marine Corps reported obligations of about $1.1 billion for operation and maintenance for “reconstitution/resetting the force” as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom but none for Operation Enduring Freedom, even though, according to Marine Corps officials, some of these costs were incurred in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The reason military service officials gave for not separating equipment- related costs between the two operations was that it was difficult to do so. Army officials told us that when actual costs cannot be clearly attributed to Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom, they report all of these costs as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom since it is viewed as the larger of the two operations in terms of costs and funding. Marine Corps officials stated that they did not always know where GWOT equipment purchased with procurement appropriations ultimately went. These officials told us that they believed that the vast majority of the equipment was delivered to Iraq since, prior to April 2008, the bulk of Marine Corps forces had been deployed to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. While this assumption could be generally correct, without data on where equipment was delivered it is unclear what costs were incurred to support each operation. We observed that the command responsible for the acquisition and sustainment of war-fighting equipment for the Marine Corps did not have a cost code for Operation Enduring Freedom. As a result, all of the Marine Corps’ reported obligations for procurement and equipment-related operation and maintenance expenses were being coded in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Without a methodology for determining what portion of total GWOT obligations is attributable to Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom, reported costs for Operating Iraqi Freedom may be overstated and cost information for both operations will remain unreliable.

Military Services Have Reported Some Costs That Are Not Directly Attributable to Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom

Marine Corps

The Marine Corps reported about $1.4 billion in obligations for procurement and operation and maintenance in fiscal year 2008 in support of Grow the Force—a long-term force-structure initiative—as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Grow the Force is an initiative that was announced by the President in January 2007 to increase the active duty end-strength of the Army and Marine Corps. According to Marine Corps strategic guidance, this increase in force structure will provide the Marine Corps with additional resources needed to fight what the Marine Corps refers to as the “long war.” The guidance outlines the Marine Corps’ strategic plan for force employment to meet the need for counterinsurgency and building partnership capacity in support of the National Defense Strategy and multinational efforts in the “Global War on Terrorism/Long War.” The Marine Corps established a cost code for capturing Grow the Force costs. A Marine Corps official told us that they reported all obligations in support of Grow the Force as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom because, prior to April 2008, the majority of Marines deployed overseas were stationed in Iraq. Marine Corps officials at commands we visited told us that examples of their commands’ reported obligations for operation and maintenance in support of Grow the Force included civilian labor and infrastructure costs for bases and facilities located inside the United States. These officials further stated that these costs were necessary to accommodate the increased size of the force. Similarly, at one Marine Corps command, we found reported GWOT costs for the repair and renovation of sites and facilities located within the United States for the purpose of improving security against terrorism. Marine Corps officials at this command said that these security initiatives included costs for such items as barbed wired fences, automatic vehicle gates, automobile barricades, and security cameras. These officials further stated that Marine Corps headquarters instructed them to code these costs as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Marine Corps reported about $42.4 million in obligations for operation and maintenance for these security costs in fiscal year 2008.

Air Force

The Air Force established a code for capturing “long war/reconstitution” operation and maintenance costs based on changes in DOD’s funding guidance for GWOT requests in fiscal year 2007. Air Force guidance defines “long war” costs as all incremental costs related to the war on terror beyond costs strictly limited to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. These costs include reconstitution/reset costs for combat losses, accelerated wear and necessary repairs to damaged equipment or replacement to newer models when existing equipment is no longer available or economically feasible, and costs to accelerate specific force capabilities to carry out GWOT. Among the costs included in this code are forward-presence deployments or what the Air Force calls Theater Security Packages, which is a forward-basing concept involving both bombers and select fighter aircraft that is conducted in the Pacific Command area of responsibility. Air Force officials told us that because there is no category to report recurring or longer-term costs separately from established GWOT contingency operations, they report long war costs, including costs related to Theater Security Packages, as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom since it is the largest operation. The Air Force reported about $464 million in long-war costs for fiscal year 2008.

Navy

The Navy reported costs for forward-presence missions as part of GWOT contingency operations even though the Navy routinely deploys its forces around the globe in peacetime as well as wartime. As these GWOT contingency operations have evolved over time, it has become increasingly difficult to determine what costs can be deemed as incremental expenses in support of these operations from costs that would have been incurred whether or not these contingency operations took place, such as ship operating costs for the Navy. For example, the Atlantic and Pacific surface commands, which are responsible for managing the Navy’s surface ships, reported obligations for costs associated with ship operations and port visits for ships deployed on forward-presence missions in the Western Pacific. Navy officials told us that some of these ships are stationed out of Hawaii, Japan, and Guam and operate near Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand. According to Navy officials, these ships are spending more time at sea and visiting more foreign ports in an effort to provide additional presence in support of GWOT. In 2008, Navy officials stated that Navy guidance expanded the definition of incremental costs in support of Operation Enduring Freedom to include those costs associated with forces operating in the Southern Command area of responsibility. We found that the Atlantic and Pacific surface commands reported obligations for ship operating costs and port visit costs for ships deployed on humanitarian missions in Central and South America. Navy officials said that ships deployed on humanitarian missions have visited countries such as El Salvador and Peru. These officials told us that the Navy considers the humanitarian missions to be GWOT-related because they benefit the security of the United States by spreading goodwill and reducing the expansion of terrorism in foreign nations. Costs for these missions are included within the Atlantic and Pacific surface commands’ ship operating costs for GWOT, which according to our analysis represented about 21 percent (about $875 million) of the Atlantic Fleet and Pacific Fleet’s total GWOT reported obligations for operation and maintenance (about $4.2 billion) in fiscal year 2008.

Until DOD reconsiders whether expenses not directly attributable to specific GWOT contingency operations are incremental costs, the military services may continue to include these expenses as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Furthermore, reported costs for both operations may be overstated and costs not directly attributable to either operation may continue to be included in DOD’s GWOT funding requests rather than the base budget.

Conclusions

In light of the nation’s long-term fiscal challenge and the current financial crisis, DOD will need a more disciplined approach to budgeting and evaluating trade-offs as it continues to support ongoing operations and prepares for future threats. As the department prepares additional GWOT funding requests for military operations in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, reliable and transparent cost information will be of critical importance in determining the future funding needs for each operation. However, DOD’s approach to cost reporting does not reliably represent the costs of these contingency operations. Although DOD has reported significant costs for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, the cost for Operation Iraqi Freedom may be overstated, since DOD does not have a methodology to determine what portion of its total reported GWOT obligations for procurement and certain operation and maintenance costs is attributable to each operation. Furthermore, it is difficult to determine whether some expenses not directly attributable to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom are actually incremental costs and incurred to support those operations. Expenses beyond those directly attributable to either operation may be more reflective of the enduring nature of GWOT and the United States’ changed security environment since 9/11 and thus should be part of what DOD would request and account for as part of its base budget. Due to the enduring nature of GWOT, its cost implications should be part of the annual base budget debate, especially in light of the competing priorities for an increasingly strained federal budget.

Recommendations for Executive Action

In order to improve the transparency and reliability of DOD’s reported obligations for GWOT by contingency operation, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to (1) ensure DOD components establish an auditable and documented methodology for determining what portion of GWOT costs is attributable to Operation Iraqi Freedom versus Operation Enduring Freedom when actual costs are not available, and (2) develop a plan and timetable for evaluating whether expenses not directly attributable to specific GWOT contingency operations are incremental costs and should continue to be funded outside of DOD’s base budget.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD agreed with our first recommendation and partially agreed with our second recommendation. The department’s comments are discussed below and are reprinted in appendix II.

DOD agreed with our recommendation that it ensure its components establish an auditable and documented methodology for determining what portion of GWOT costs is attributable to Operation Iraqi Freedom versus Operation Enduring Freedom when actual costs are not available. In its comments, DOD noted that it believes its components, for the most part, have established formal guidance to strengthen internal controls and capture all costs associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom from within their accounting systems. However, DOD noted that the DOD Financial Management Regulation does include guidance for DOD components to develop auditable methodologies, and when actual cost by operation is not available, its components are required to internally document the methodology used to develop a derived estimate of the cost. DOD stated that it intends to strengthen the guidance in its Financial Management Regulation to require an annual review of the methodologies used to allocate these costs. DOD believes this action will help promote reasonable cost allocations and consistent cost-of-war reporting throughout the department.

DOD partially agreed with our second recommendation that it develop a plan and timetable for evaluating whether expenses not directly attributable to specific GWOT contingency operations are incremental costs and should continue to be funded outside of DOD’s base budget. DOD noted that it has been reporting contingency costs for several years and its objective is to include all incremental costs attributable to the war effort. DOD also stated that, as part of its continuing efforts to improve both budgeting and reporting of war costs, it collaborated with the Office of Management and Budget to refine the criteria used for determining where costs will be budgeted, either in the base or contingency budgets, and ultimately reported. DOD noted that it will use the refined criteria to inform the development of portions of the fiscal year 2009 Overseas Contingency Operations Supplemental Request and the full fiscal year 2010 Overseas Contingency Operations Request, which has not yet been submitted to Congress. As a result, we have not yet been able to evaluate DOD’s actions to assess whether they meet the intent of our recommendation, but will review these actions when the budget requests are finalized and submitted to Congress.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. In addition, the report is also available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9619 or pickups@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 major contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To accomplish this review, we obtained and reviewed copies of the October 2007 through September 2008 monthly Department of Defense (DOD) Supplemental and Cost of War Execution Reports from the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) to identify reported Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) obligations by contingency operation and appropriation account for the military services. We focused our review on the obligations reported for military personnel, operation and maintenance, and procurement, for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force, both active and reserve forces, as these data represent the largest amount of GWOT costs.

As we have previously reported, we have found the data in DOD’s Supplemental and Cost of War Execution Reports to be of questionable reliability. Consequently, we are unable to ensure that DOD’s reported obligations for GWOT are complete, reliable, and accurate, and they should therefore be considered approximations. In addition, DOD has acknowledged that systemic weaknesses with its financial management systems and business operations continue to impair its financial information. Despite the uncertainty about DOD’s obligation data, we are using this information because it is the only way to approach an estimate of the costs of the war. Also, despite the uncertainty surrounding the true dollar figure for obligations, these data are used to advise Congress on the cost of the war.

To assess DOD’s progress in improving the accuracy and reliability of its GWOT cost reporting, we analyzed GWOT obligation data in DOD’s monthly Supplemental and Cost of War Execution Reports as well as the military services’ individual accounting systems. These systems included the Army’s Standard Financial System, the Navy’s Standard Accounting and Reporting System, the Marine Corps’ Standard Accounting, Budgeting and Reporting System, and the Air Force’s Commanders Resource Information System. We analyzed GWOT obligation data from these accounting systems to better understand the military services’ GWOT cost- reporting procedures and how they used these data to report costs in DOD’s monthly Supplemental and Cost of War Execution Reports. We then obtained and reviewed guidance issued by DOD and the military services regarding data analysis and methods for reporting obligations for GWOT. We also interviewed key officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force to obtain information about specific processes and procedures DOD and the military services have undertaken to improve the accuracy and reliability of reported GWOT cost information.

To assess DOD’s methodology for reporting GWOT costs by contingency operation, including the types of costs reported for those operations, we analyzed GWOT obligation data in DOD’s monthly Supplemental and Cost of War Execution Reports, including the source data for those reports in the military services’ individual accounting systems. As previously discussed, these systems included the Army’s Standard Financial System, the Navy’s Standard Accounting and Reporting System, the Marine Corps’ Standard Accounting, Budgeting and Reporting System, and the Air Force’s Commanders Resource Information System. We analyzed GWOT obligation data from these accounting systems to determine how the military services captured costs for specific contingency operations, including the types of costs they included as part of these contingency operations. We then obtained and reviewed guidance issued by DOD and the military services for identifying and reporting GWOT obligations by contingency operation. We also interviewed key officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force to determine how they interpreted and implemented this guidance.

Army

Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. U.S. Army Installation Management Command Headquarters, Army Materiel Command, Ft. Belvoir, Virginia Headquarters, U.S. Army Forces Command, Ft. McPherson, Georgia U.S. Army Central Command, Ft. McPherson, Georgia U.S. Army Installation Management Command, Southeast Region, Ft.

Navy

Department of the Navy, Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Commander, Navy Installations Command Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

Marine Corps

Air Force

Office of the Secretary of Defense

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Washington, D.C.

Defense Finance and Accounting Service

Unified Commands

Office of Management and Budget

Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C.

We performed our work from January 2008 through March 2009 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.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Ann Borseth, Assistant Director; Richard Geiger; Susan Ditto; Linda Keefer; Ron La Due Lake; Deanna Laufer; Lonnie McAllister; Eric Petersen; and Joseph Rutecki made key contributions to this report.