Every 4 years, DOD is required to conduct and report on a comprehensive assessment—the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review—of the roles and missions of the armed services and the core competencies and capabilities of DOD to perform and support such roles and missions. Specifically, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is to conduct an independent military assessment of the roles and missions of the armed forces, assignment of functions among the armed services, and any recommendations regarding issues that need to be addressed. The Secretary of Defense is then to identify the core mission areas of the armed services; the core competencies and capabilities associated with these mission areas; the DOD component responsible for providing the identified core competency or capability; any gaps in the ability of the component to provide the competency or any unnecessary duplication of competencies or capabilities between a plan for addressing any gaps or unnecessary duplication. The Secretary is then to submit a report on this Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review following the review and not later than the submission of the President’s budget for the next fiscal year; however, the statutory reporting requirement does not explicitly require that all required elements of the assessment be reported. The Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review that resulted in the July 2012 submission occurred amid a series of strategy and policy reviews that DOD has undertaken over the past 5 years. Some of these reviews resulted in specific strategy documents, such as the National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, National Military Strategy, and National Security Space Strategy. DOD is also required to conduct two reviews on a regular basis that relate to the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review: the Quadrennial Defense Review and the Biennial Review of DOD Agencies and Field Activities. The timing requirements for the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review and the Quadrennial Defense Review result in each Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review occurring 2 years before and 2 years after a Quadrennial Defense Review. In December 2010, DOD also reissued its internal DOD Directive 5100.01, which establishes the functions of DOD and its major components, and, in September 2011, released an update of the Unified Command Plan, which allocates responsibilities among the combatant commands. In addition to these recurring strategy reviews, comprehensive assessments, and updates to DOD guidance, DOD has recently completed two other reviews: the Defense Strategic Guidance, which identified the strategic interests of the United States, and the Strategic Choices Management Review, initiated by the Secretary of Defense in 2013 to inform DOD’s planning for declining future budgets. The Defense Strategic Guidance, released in January 2012, was directed by the President to identify the strategic interests of the United States. The document states that it was an assessment of the defense strategy prompted by the changing geopolitical environment and fiscal pressures. The Defense Strategic Guidance was developed by senior officials from DOD—including the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the armed services, and the combatant commands—and the White House. The document outlines security challenges the United States faces and is intended to guide the development of the Joint Force through 2020 and during a period of anticipated fiscal constraints. The Defense Strategic Guidance identified 10 primary missions of the armed forces, as well as several principles to guide the force and program development necessary to achieve these missions. For more information about the Defense Strategic Guidance and other selected strategy and planning documents, see appendix I. In July 2012, DOD submitted the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review report, together with the Defense Strategic Guidance, to Congress to meet the statutory reporting requirement; however, DOD’s submission did not provide sufficiently detailed information about most of the statutorily required elements of the assessment. Although the statute does not require DOD to report on all elements of the roles and missions assessment, a key principle for information quality indicates that information presented to Congress should be clear and sufficiently detailed.armed services and some information about core capabilities, but did not, Specifically, we found that DOD provided the missions of the for any of the 10 missions, clearly identify the components within the department responsible for providing the core competencies and capabilities, or identify any plans to address any capability gaps or unnecessary duplication. The Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review report identifies missions of the armed services and provides information about capabilities and previously identified areas of duplication. The report restates the 10 missions of the armed forces identified in the Defense Strategic Guidance, and identifies some protected capabilities and investments needed to carry out each of the missions. For example, the report restates DOD’s mission to project power despite anti-access / area denial challenges. It then lists five key enhancements and protected capabilities associated with this mission: enhance electronic warfare, develop a new penetrating bomber, protect the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, sustain undersea dominance and enhance capabilities, and develop and enhance preferred munitions capabilities. Additionally, the report also mentioned some previously identified areas of duplication and actions that were subsequently taken, such as eliminating redundancy in intelligence organizations, or proceeding with previous plans to eliminate organizations that performed duplicative functions or outlived their original purpose: the report notes the consolidation of specialized intelligence offices across DOD into two Defense Intelligence Agency task forces focused on counterterrorism and terrorism finance. Finally, the report also provides specific information about Information Operations as well as detention and interrogation, both of which were required to be included in Prior to the submission to this Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review.Congress, senior DOD leadership—including the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Development, the DOD General Counsel, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, Director of the Joint Staff, Under Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of the Army, and Secretary of the Air Force—internally concurred that the submission met the statutory requirement according to a tracking sheet used by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. While the submission identifies core missions for the armed services and provides some information about capabilities and competencies needed for those missions, it does not provide sufficiently detailed information about other statutorily required elements of the roles and missions assessment. In our review of the report, we found that DOD did not, for any of the 10 missions, clearly identify the components within the department responsible for providing the core competencies and capabilities, or identify any plans to address any capability gaps or unnecessary duplication. For example: The submission does not provide clear and sufficiently detailed information on which component or components are responsible for enhancing electronic warfare capabilities, which is identified by DOD as one of the key capabilities needed to project power despite anti- access / area denial challenges. In our prior work, we have found that DOD needed to strengthen its management and oversight of electronic warfare programs and activities, reduce overlap, and improve its return on its multibillion-dollar acquisition investments. DOD has acknowledged that it faces ongoing challenges in determining whether the current level of investment is optimally matched with the existing capability gaps.does not provide sufficiently detailed information of its approach to assign responsibilities, close potential gaps, or eliminate unnecessary duplication. The submission also does not provide clear and sufficiently detailed information on which components are responsible for enhancing airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities, which are required for counterterrorism and irregular warfare missions. In our prior work, we have found that ineffective acquisition practices and collaboration efforts in the DOD unmanned aircraft systems portfolio creates overlap and the potential for duplication among a number of current programs and systems. Similarly, we have noted that opportunities exist to avoid unnecessary redundancies and maximize the efficient use of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. However, DOD’s submission does not clarify responsibilities among the Air Force, Army, or Navy for developing these capabilities. This is the second time that DOD did not provide sufficiently detailed information to Congress following its roles and missions assessment. In the first Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review Report submitted to Congress in 2009, DOD identified the core missions of the department and identified the DOD Joint Capabilities Areas as the core competencies for the department. However, the report did not provide details for all elements required of the assessment. For example, the report did not provide core competencies and capabilities—including identifying responsible organizations—for each of the missions; instead the report provided some capability information for only specific focus areas within some of these missions. Despite the limited information contained in the 2009 Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review Report, the department used that first review to inform changes later made in DOD Directive 5100.01, which establishes functions of the department and its major components. However, as a result of not providing clear, sufficiently detailed, and relevant information in the most recent submission, DOD did not provide Congress comprehensive information about roles, responsibilities, and needed capabilities and competencies that Congress was seeking. DOD did not conduct a comprehensive process for the roles and missions assessment. Instead DOD limited its approach to leveraging the results of another review, conducted in 2011, that resulted in the January 2012 release of the Defense Strategic Guidance. However, this earlier review was not intended to assess all elements the statute required of the roles and missions review and, as a result, by relying on it DOD does not have the assurance that its resulting assessment was comprehensive. We recognize that there were some benefits to this approach, as the Defense Strategic Guidance did identify primary missions of the armed services, which were then provided as the core missions required for the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review. In addition, the Defense Strategic Guidance provided several principles to guide the force and program development necessary to achieve these missions. The Defense Strategic Guidance also became the basis for completing the most recent Quadrennial Defense Review. However, neither DOD’s review for preparing the Defense Strategic Guidance nor the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review itself clearly identified the components within the department that are responsible for providing the core competencies and capabilities needed to address each of the primary missions, or plans for addressing any capability gaps or unnecessary duplication. Further, by using such an approach for preparing the roles and missions assessment, DOD did not document and follow key principles for conducting an effective and comprehensive assessment.principles include (1) developing and documenting a planned approach, including the principles or assumptions that will inform the assessment, which addresses all statutory requirements; (2) involving key internal stakeholders; (3) identifying and seeking input from appropriate external stakeholders; and (4) establishing time frames with milestones for conducting the assessment and completing the report. Planned approach: DOD did not develop and document its planned approach, including the principles or assumptions used to inform and address all statutory requirements of the assessment. Specifically, it did not document in its approach how it was going to address the statutory requirements related to the identification of components responsible for providing the core competencies and capabilities, any gaps, or any unnecessary duplication. A documented, planned approach provides a framework for understanding the strategic direction and the assumptions used to identify, analyze, assess, and address the statutory requirements of the assessment. Internal stakeholder involvement: The involvement of key internal stakeholders was limited. As part of a comprehensive process, the involvement of key internal stakeholders helps ensure that the information obtained during the review is complete. According to officials from the armed services, the Joint Staff, and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, officials from those offices had a limited role in the development and review of the roles and missions assessment. For example, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not conduct an independent assessment of the roles and missions assessment prior to the broader, department-wide assessment. According to officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Joint Staff, this decision was made because the Joint Chiefs of Staff had provided substantial input to, and had endorsed, the recently completed Defense Strategic Guidance. According to Joint Staff officials, the Chairman had agreed with the approach proposed by the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to rely on the review that resulted in the Defense Strategic Guidance as the primary basis for the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review. The Joint Staff reviewed the submission prepared by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Chairman then cosigned the submission with the Secretary of Defense. The armed services had limited responsibility for participating in the preparation of the roles and missions submission, and were given a limited opportunity to review and provide comment on DOD’s draft submission before it was submitted to Congress. In addition, officials from the Office of the Director of Administration and Management—responsible for the biennial review of DOD agencies and field activities where additional efficiencies may be identified—told us they sought an opportunity to participate in the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review process, but were not included in the review. According to an official from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, internal stakeholder involvement was incorporated from the prior, senior-level review that resulted in the Defense Strategic Guidance. However, the Office of the Director of Administration and Management was not involved in that prior review. By not considering ways to build more opportunity for stakeholder input, DOD was not well-positioned to obtain and incorporate input from across the armed services, agencies, offices, and commands within the department. Identification and involvement of appropriate external stakeholders: DOD had limited input from appropriate external stakeholders, such as Congress and federal agencies, with related national security goals. Input from Congress could have provided more specific guidance and direction for what it expected of the roles and missions assessment. According to DOD officials, they briefly discussed the assessment with some congressional staff early in the process. In addition, the 2012 Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review report did provide specific information about Information Operations as well as detention and interrogation, as requested by Congress. This information was collected in addition to information leveraged from the review for the Defense Strategic Guidance. However, DOD officials told us that they would benefit from additional clarification of Congress’s expectations when performing subsequent roles and missions assessments. For example, these officials noted that it would be helpful if Congress highlighted which specific roles and responsibilities areas were of concern so that more detailed information might be provided about these areas in the next report. According to a DOD official, the White House was involved with the review for the Defense Strategic Guidance, but consultation with interagency partners was limited and occurred late in the process. While other federal agency partners were not involved with the latest Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review assessment, the involvement of other federal agency partners—such as the Department of State, Department of Homeland Security, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence—provides an opportunity to enlist their ideas, expertise, and assistance related to strategic objectives that are not solely the responsibility of DOD—such as homeland security and homeland defense. In assessing the capabilities and competencies, but not obtaining input from appropriate external stakeholders, DOD did not have additional support and input for the assessment of its roles and missions, or input as to what these stakeholders expected as an outcome of the assessment. Time frames: DOD did not develop a schedule to gauge progress for conducting the assessment and completing the report. Developing a schedule with time frames is useful to keep the overall review on track to meet deadlines and to produce a final product. However, aside from tracking the final review of the report in tracking sheets used by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Joint Staff, DOD did not have planning documents that outlined specific time frames with milestones associated with conducting the assessment— including time allotted for conducting the assessment itself, soliciting input from internal and external stakeholders, and drafting the report prior to circulation for final review. The lack of such a schedule may have been a contributing factor to the delay in DOD’s submission. The report was required to be submitted to the congressional defense committees no later than the date in which the President’s budget request for the next fiscal year was provided to Congress, which was February 13, 2012; however, the report was submitted on July 20, 2012. DOD’s approach for the latest Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review also differed from the department’s approach for preparing the 2009 Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review. For the 2009 effort, DOD developed and documented guidance in a “terms of reference” that included, among other things, a methodological approach, time frames with deliverables, and a list of offices within DOD responsible for conducting portions of the assessment. However, no similar document was developed for the 2012 roles and missions assessment. According to officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the 2009 Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review occurred before DOD had to address the challenges of the current fiscal climate, and as a result there might have been more interest in conducting the review. In contrast, in preparing the 2012 roles and missions review, the officials told us that senior DOD leadership had recently considered these difficult issues in preparing the Defense Strategic Guidance, and so preferred to rely on those recent discussions rather than conduct a separate review. According to DOD officials, the primary reason that they did not perform a separate effort to examine roles and missions is that the statutory assessment and reporting requirements of the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review are largely duplicative of the review conducted for the Defense Strategic Guidance, as well as other reviews and processes. DOD officials stated that identifying core missions as well as core competencies and capabilities is also mirrored in the requirements for the Quadrennial Defense Review. Additionally, according to DOD officials, the annual budget process is designed to identify and assign capabilities within each service’s budget request, eliminate capability and capacity gaps, and eliminate unnecessary duplication among DOD components. However, by not conducting a specific, comprehensive roles and missions assessment, DOD missed an opportunity to examine these issues through a broad, department-wide approach, rather than through processes established for other purposes. Strategic assessments of the roles, missions, and needed competencies and capabilities within DOD—whether conducted through the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review or some other strategic-level, department-wide assessment—can be used to inform the department and strengthen congressional oversight. Given the complex security challenges and increased fiscal pressures that the department faces, such assessments are important to help the department prioritize human capital and other investment needs across the many components within the department. Without a comprehensive roles and missions assessment, documented in a sufficiently detailed report, DOD missed an opportunity to lay the groundwork for the Quadrennial Defense Review and other department-wide reviews, allocate responsibilities among the many components within DOD, prioritize key capabilities and competencies, inform the department’s investments and budget requests, identify any unnecessary duplication resulting in cost savings through increased efficiency and effectiveness, and aid congressional oversight. A comprehensive process that outlined a planned approach for addressing all statutory requirements of the roles and missions assessment; involved key internal stakeholders; offered an opportunity for key external stakeholders, such as Congress, to provide input regarding the department’s approach; and set clear time frames to gauge progress for the assessment, would have helped provide DOD with reasonable assurance that its resulting assessment of roles and missions was comprehensive and that DOD was positioned to provide such a sufficiently detailed report to Congress. To assist DOD in conducting any future comprehensive assessments of roles and missions that reflect appropriate statutory requirements, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense develop a comprehensive process that includes a planned approach, including the principles or assumptions used to inform the assessment, that addresses all statutory requirements; the involvement of key DOD stakeholders, such as the armed services, Joint Staff, and other officials within the department; an opportunity to identify and involve appropriate external stakeholders, to provide input to inform the assessment; and time frames with milestones for conducting the assessment and for reporting on its results. In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD partially concurred with the report’s recommendation to develop a comprehensive process to assist in conducting future assessments of roles and missions. DOD’s comments are summarized below and reprinted in appendix II. In its comments, DOD agreed that it is important to make strategy-driven decisions regarding its missions and associated competencies and capabilities, and to assign and clarify to its components their roles and responsibilities. DOD noted that, in the context of dynamic strategic and budgetary circumstances and increasing fiscal uncertainty, the department leveraged its strategic planning and annual budget processes, which resulted in the release of the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance and associated mission, capability, and force structure priorities to inform and address the 2012 Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review. Specifically, DOD commented on the four recommended principles of a comprehensive process: Regarding a planned approach, the department stated that it determined that using other, ongoing strategic planning efforts to complete the roles and missions assessment met the review’s statutory requirement. As noted in the report, there were some benefits to DOD’s taking advantage of other processes. However, DOD did not document its approach for identifying the components within the department responsible for providing the core competencies and capabilities, or identify any capability gaps or unnecessary duplication. A documented, planned approach provides a framework for understanding the strategic direction and the assumptions used to identify, analyze, assess, and address the statutory requirements of the assessment. Regarding DOD stakeholders, the department stated that the processes it used did include the involvement of key DOD stakeholders, but acknowledged that formally documenting the process for obtaining stakeholder input would have clarified the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Documenting the decision regarding the Chairman’s role would have provided some clarification; however, as noted in the report, it is also important to obtain and document input from all key internal stakeholders—including the armed services, agencies, offices, and commands within the department. Regarding external stakeholders, the department stated that it did seek limited additional clarification from Congress prior to conducting the roles and missions assessment, but did not seek formal input to the assessment from other federal agencies because it relied on the external stakeholder input obtained during the development of the Defense Strategic Guidance. However, during the course of our review, a DOD official told us there was limited involvement from other federal agency partners during the review for the Defense Strategic Guidance. As noted in the report, not obtaining input from appropriate external stakeholders—such as the Department of State, Department of Homeland Security, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence—when assessing the capabilities and competencies hindered DOD from having the additional support for the assessment of its roles and missions. Regarding time frames and milestones, the department stated that the development of time frames just for the roles and missions assessment would have been largely duplicative of existing time frames for other efforts, including the development of the Defense Strategic Guidance and the annual budget process. However, developing a schedule with time frames would have been useful to keep the roles and missions assessment on track and aid the department in submitting its report by the statutory deadline. Developing a comprehensive process for its roles and missions assessment—a process that outlined the department’s planned approach for addressing all statutory requirements, involved key internal stakeholders, offered an opportunity for Congress and other key external stakeholders to provide input, and set clear time frames to gauge progress for the assessment—would have helped provide DOD with reasonable assurance that its resulting assessment was comprehensive. The department’s approach resulted in a report that was insufficiently detailed, therefore, we continue to believe the recommendation is valid to guide future roles and missions reviews. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Secretaries of the Army, of the Navy, and of the Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; DOD’s Director of Administration and Management; and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, this 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) 512-3489 or PendletonJ@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix III. The Department of Defense (DOD) is required to regularly assess and report on its roles and missions in the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review. The most recently completed Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review occurred amid a series of strategy and policy reviews that DOD has undertaken over the past 6 years, including the first Quadrennial Figure 1 provides a Roles and Missions Review conducted in 2009.timeline of the issuance of select DOD strategic-level reports and other documents that contain roles and missions-related information. The National Defense Strategy provides the foundation and strategic framework for much of the department’s strategic guidance. Specifically, it addresses how the military services plan to fight and win America’s wars and describes how DOD plans to support the objectives outlined in the President’s National Security Strategy. It also provides a framework for other DOD strategic guidance related to deliberate planning, force development, and intelligence. Further, the National Defense Strategy informs the National Military Strategy and describes plans to support the objectives outlined in the President’s National Security Strategy. By law, DOD is required to conduct the Quadrennial Defense Review every 4 years to determine and express the nation’s defense strategy and establish a defense program for the next 20 years. The review is to comprise a comprehensive examination of the national defense strategy, force structure, force modernization plans, infrastructure, budget planning, and other elements of the defense program and policies of the United States. The Quadrennial Defense Review also includes an evaluation by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military’s ability to successfully execute its missions. The latest Quadrennial Defense Review was issued in March 2014.addition to these strategic reviews conducted at DOD, both the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State released strategic reviews that provide a strategic framework to guide the activities In to secure the homeland and to provide a blueprint for diplomatic and development efforts. The Ballistic Missile Defense Review, released in February 2010, is a review conducted pursuant to guidance from the President and the Secretary of Defense, while also addressing the statutory requirement to assess U.S. ballistic missile defense policy and strategy. This review evaluated the threats posed by ballistic missiles and developed a missile defense posture to address current and future challenges. Specifically, this review sought to align U.S. missile defense posture with near-term regional missile threats and sustain the ability to defend the homeland against limited long-range missile attack. The Nuclear Posture Review is a statutorily mandated review that establishes U.S. nuclear policy, strategy, capabilities and force posture for the next 5 to 10 years.April 2010 and provided a roadmap for implementing the President’s policy for reducing nuclear risks to the United States and the international community. Specifically, the 2010 report identified long-term modernization goals and requirements, including sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal through the life extension of existing nuclear weapons; increasing investments to rebuild and modernize the nation’s nuclear infrastructure; and strengthening the science, technology, and engineering base. The latest review was released by DOD in The National Security Strategy describes and discusses the worldwide interests, goals, and objectives of the United States that are vital to its national security and calls for a range of actions to implement the strategy.President in May 2010, addressed, among other things, how the United States would strengthen its global leadership position; disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda; and achieve economic recovery at home and abroad. This strategy also emphasized the need for a whole-of- government approach with interagency engagement to ensure the security of the American people and the protection of American interests. The National Security Strategy is to be used to inform the National Defense Strategy and the National Military Strategy. The most recent National Security Strategy, released by the DOD Directive 5100.01 established the functions of the department and its major components. DOD reissued the directive in 2010 after the first Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review included what DOD describes as a thorough review of the directive. DOD updated the prior directive to incorporate emerging responsibilities in areas such as special operations and cyberspace operations and reflect other changes in the department’s organization over the preceding decade. The Space Posture Review is a statutorily mandated review of U.S. national security space policy and objectives, conducted jointly by the Through Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence.coordination with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, DOD released the National Security Space Strategy in January 2011. The strategy is derived from principles and goals found in the National Space Policy and builds on the strategic approach laid out in the National Security Strategy. Specifically, the strategy’s stated objectives for national space security include strengthening safety, stability, and security in space; maintaining and enhancing the strategic national security advantages afforded to the United States by space; and engaging the space industrial base that supports U.S. national security. National Military Strategy and the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan The National Military Strategy and the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan, along with other strategic documents, provide DOD with guidance and instruction on military policy, strategy, plans, forces and resource requirements and allocations essential to successful execution of the National Security Strategy and other Presidential Directives. Specifically, the National Military Strategy, last issued in 2011, provides focus for military activities by defining a set of interrelated military objectives from which the service chiefs and combatant commanders identify desired capabilities and against which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff assesses risk. This strategy defines the national military objectives, describes how to accomplish these objectives, and addresses the military capabilities required to execute the strategy. The Secretary of Defense’s National Defense Strategy informs the National Military Strategy, which is developed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In addition, the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan is to provide guidance to the combatant commanders, the chiefs of the military services, and other DOD agencies to accomplish tasks and missions based on current capabilities. It also is to serve as the link between other strategic guidance and the joint operation planning activities. Biennial Review of DOD Agencies and Field Activities By law, DOD is required to conduct a review every 2 years of the services and supplies that each DOD agency and field activity provides.Office of the Director of Administration and Management in the Office of the Secretary of Defense has led this biennial review. The goals are to determine whether DOD needs each of these agencies and activities, or whether it is more effective, economical, or efficient for the armed services to assume the responsibilities. However, unlike the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review, which assesses the roles of all DOD components, the biennial review focuses on DOD agencies and field activities. The Secretary of Defense recently directed that the biennial review should also include an assessment of the offices within the Office The of the Secretary of Defense. DOD issued the latest report on this biennial review in April 2013. The Unified Command Plan provides guidance to combatant commanders and establishes their missions, responsibilities, force structure, geographic area of responsibility, and other attributes. Section 161 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code tasks the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to conduct a review of the plan not less often than every 2 years and submit recommended changes to the President through the Secretary of Defense. The Unified Command Plan was last updated in 2011. Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense The Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense report (also referred to as the Defense Strategic Guidance), released in January 2012, was directed by the President to identify the strategic interests of the United States. The document states that it was an assessment of the defense strategy prompted by the changing geopolitical environment and fiscal pressures. The Defense Strategic Guidance was developed by senior officials from DOD—including the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the armed services, and the combatant commands—and the White House. The document outlines security challenges the United States faces and is intended to guide the development of the Joint Force through 2020 and during a period of anticipated fiscal constraints. The Defense Strategic Guidance identified 10 primary missions of the armed forces: counter terrorism and irregular warfare; deter and defeat aggression; project power despite anti-access / area denial challenges;counter weapons of mass destruction; operate effectively in cyberspace and space; maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent; defend the Homeland and provide support to civil authorities; provide a stabilizing presence; conduct stability and counterinsurgency operations; and conduct humanitarian, disaster relief, and other operations. It also identified several principles to guide the force and program development necessary to achieve these missions. For example, it noted the need for the department to continue to reduce costs through reducing the rate of growth of manpower costs, and the identification of additional efficiencies. In March 2013, the Secretary of Defense directed the completion of a Strategic Choices Management Review. The Strategic Choices Management Review was to examine the potential effect of additional, anticipated budget reductions on the department and develop options for performing the missions in the Defense Strategic Guidance. Specifically, the review was to inform how the department would allocate resources when executing its fiscal year 2014 budget and preparing its fiscal year 2015 through fiscal year 2019 budget plans. According to the Secretary of Defense, the purpose of the Strategic Choices Management Review was to understand the effect of further budget reductions on the department and develop options to deal with these additional reductions. The Secretary of Defense further emphasized that producing a detailed budget blueprint was not the purpose of this review. In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report were Margaret Morgan and Kevin L. O’Neill, Assistant Directors; Tracy Abdo; Darreisha M. Bates; Elizabeth Curda; Leia Dickerson; Gina Flacco; Brent Helt; Mae Jones; Amie Lesser; Travis Masters; Judy McCloskey; Terry Richardson; and Sabrina Streagle.

Summary: DOD is one of the largest organizations in the world, with its budget representing over half of the U.S. federal government's discretionary spending. According to DOD, the global security environment presents an increasingly complex set of challenges. Congress requires DOD to assess and report on its roles and missions every 4 years. In July 2012, DOD submitted its most recent Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review report. In June 2013, GAO was mandated to review DOD's process for conducting the latest Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review. GAO evaluated the extent to which DOD developed a sufficiently detailed report and conducted a comprehensive process for assessing roles and missions. GAO compared DOD's July 2012 report with the statutory requirements for the assessment, and compared DOD's assessment process with key principles derived from a broad selection of principles GAO and other federal agencies have identified. The Department of Defense's (DOD) July 2012 submission to Congress following its most recent Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review did not provide sufficiently detailed information about most of the statutorily required elements of the assessment. Specifically, DOD's July 2012 submission included the results of a 2011 review that led to the January 2012 release of a new strategic guidance document (hereinafter referred to as the Defense Strategic Guidance) as well as the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review report. Although DOD is not statutorily required to report on all elements of the assessment, the submission that it provided to Congress was lacking key information. A key principle for information quality indicates that information presented to Congress should be clear and sufficiently detailed; however, neither the Defense Strategic Guidance nor the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review included sufficiently detailed information about certain key elements of the roles and missions assessment. For example, while the submitted documents identify the core missions of the armed services and provide some information on capabilities associated with these missions, neither document provides other information required by the roles and missions assessment—including identifying the DOD components responsible for providing the identified core competencies and capabilities and identifying plans for addressing any unnecessary duplication or capability gaps. DOD's process for assessing roles and missions missed key principles associated with effective and comprehensive assessments. Specifically, DOD limited its process to leveraging the prior review that resulted in the Defense Strategic Guidance; by doing so its process did not include the following: A planned approach : DOD did not develop or document a planned approach that included the principles or assumptions used to inform the assessment. Internal stakeholder involvement: DOD included limited internal stakeholder involvement. For example, DOD gave the armed services a limited opportunity to review the draft prior to its release. Identification and involvement of external stakeholders : DOD obtained limited input from relevant external stakeholders, such as Congress, on the specific guidance and direction they expected of the roles and missions assessment. Time frames : DOD did not develop a schedule to gauge progress for conducting the assessment and completing the report, which may have contributed to the report being provided to Congress over 5 months late. DOD officials stated that the primary reason that they did not perform a separate roles and missions review is that the statutory requirements were duplicative of other reviews and processes, such as the Defense Strategic Guidance. However, by not conducting a comprehensive assessment, DOD missed an opportunity to conduct a department-wide examination of roles and missions. Instead, by relying on processes established for other purposes, DOD has limited assurance that it has fully identified all possible cost savings that can be achieved through the elimination of unnecessary duplication and that it has positioned itself to report clear and sufficient information about the statutorily required assessment to Congress. GAO recommends that, in conducting future assessments of roles and missions, DOD develop a comprehensive process that includes a planned approach, involvement of key internal and external stakeholder involvement, and time frames. DOD partially concurred, stating that it had leveraged other processes. GAO maintains that the roles and missions report was insufficiently detailed and continues to believe the recommendation is valid, as discussed in the report.