Product support refers to the support functions required to field and maintain the readiness and operational capability of major weapon systems, subsystems, and components, including all functions related to a weapon system’s readiness. O&S costs historically account for approximately 70 percent of a weapon system’s total life-cycle cost and include costs for repair parts, maintenance, contract services, engineering Weapon systems are costly support, and personnel, among other things.to sustain in part because they often incorporate a technologically complex array of subsystems and components and need expensive spare parts and logistics support to meet required readiness levels. In addition, military operations in such locations as Afghanistan have increased the wear and tear on many weapon systems and escalated their O&S costs well beyond peacetime levels. Many of the key decisions affecting a weapon system’s O&S costs are made while the system is still in the acquisition process. For example, acquisition-based decisions about the design, materials, and technology for a system affect the logistics support that is eventually needed to keep that system available and ready after it is fielded. Controlling O&S costs is critical to ensure future affordability of defense budgets. In short, the acquisition of a weapon system today involves a significant financial commitment to that system over its entire life cycle, a period that may last several decades from the system’s development to the time it is removed from DOD’s inventory. For example, DOD estimated in 2012 that life-cycle O&S costs for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter—being acquired for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines—would be about $1.1 trillion, in addition to an estimated $391.1 billion in total acquisition costs. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, “Better Buying Power: Mandate for Restoring Affordability and Productivity in Defense Spending,” memorandum (June 28, 2010); “Better Buying Power: Guidance for Obtaining Greater Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending,” memorandum (Sept. 14, 2010); “Implementation Directive for Better Buying Power—Obtaining Greater Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending,” memorandum (Nov. 3, 2010); “Better Buying Power 2.0: Continuing the Pursuit for Greater Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending,” memorandum (Nov. 13, 2012). Consistent with section 2337 and DOD guidance, PSMs are assigned to major weapon systems to provide oversight and management and to serve as advisors to Program Managers on matters related to product support, such as weapon system sustainment. According to DOD’s PSM Guidebook, DOD must continue to improve product support, with a specific focus on increasing readiness and enabling better cost control. DOD guidance describes a PSM as the individual who provides weapon systems product support subject-matter expertise to the Program Manager for the execution of his or her total life-cycle management responsibilities.Manager is assigned life-cycle management responsibility and is accountable for the implementation, management, and oversight of all activities associated with the development, production, sustainment, and disposal of a weapon system across its life cycle. The Program Manager’s responsibilities for oversight and management of the product support function are typically delegated to a PSM, who leads the development, implementation, and top-level integration and management of all sources of support to meet warfighter sustainment and readiness requirements. This organization is displayed in figure 1. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD) serves as the Defense Acquisition Executive and is the individual responsible for supervising the defense acquisition system. The USD(AT&L) has policy and procedural authority for the defense acquisition system, is the principal acquisition official of the department, and is the acquisition advisor to the Secretary of Defense. For acquisition matters, the USD(AT&L) generally takes precedence in DOD, including over the secretaries of the military departments, after the Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense. The USD(AT&L)’s authority includes directing the services and defense agencies on acquisition matters and making milestone decisions for major defense acquisition programs. Under the USD(AT&L), and subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of the relevant military department, each of the military services has officials designated as Component or Service Acquisition Executives who are responsible for acquisition functions within their services. A Program Executive Officer— a military or civilian official who has responsibility for directing assigned programs—reports to and receives guidance and direction from the Service Acquisition Executive. The Program Executive Officer supervises a Program Manager, who is the individual responsible for accomplishing a program’s objectives for development, production, and sustainment to meet the user’s operational needs. The PSM reports to the Program Manager. Under the PSM, there may be a need for Product Support Integrators, who are assigned within the scope, direction, and oversight of the PSM, and who may be either a government or commercial entity. Product Support Integrators are tasked with integrating sources of support, and may use Product Support Providers to accomplish this role. Product Support Providers are tasked with providing specific product support functions. established wherein the PSM (acting on behalf of the Program Manager) may effectively delegate some levels of responsibility for product support implementation and oversight to Product Support Integrators. The Product Support Integrators, in turn, ensure that the performance requirements to meet their arrangements are accomplished by the Product Support Providers, who perform product support activities on major weapon systems. However, as noted by the PSM guidebook, in all cases the PSM is accountable to the Program Manager for the support outcome. The PSM guidebook includes depots and original equipment manufacturers among the most likely candidates for both the Product Support Integrator and Product Support Provider roles. logistics management function.command, the Army Materiel Command (AMC), works closely with program executive offices, the Army acquisition executive, industry, academia, and other related agencies to develop, acquire, and sustain materiel for the Army. AMC’s maintenance depots and arsenals overhaul, modernize, and upgrade major weapon systems. The Army’s principal materiel Navy and Marine Corps. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition serves as the Component Acquisition Executive and is responsible for all research, development, and acquisition within the Department of the Navy. In order to address a diverse set of needs, the Department of the Navy comprises components known as Systems Commands. These include Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Air Systems Command, and Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, among others. Marine Corps Systems Command serves as the Department of the Navy enterprise acquisition and life-cycle systems manager for the Marine Corps. Marine Corps Systems Command provides competency resources to the program executive officer, including financial management, engineering, contracting, logistics, and program management. These Systems Commands oversee various acquisition programs, such as for ships and aircraft, and these programs are responsible for the management of their respective systems’ life-cycle support. Air Force. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition is responsible for the integrated life-cycle management of systems from the time the system enters into the defense acquisition management system until system retirement and disposal. Individual program executive officers beneath this office are then responsible for the total life-cycle management of an assigned portfolio of programs. Air Force Materiel Command and Air Force Space Command support these efforts by providing technical assistance, infrastructure, manpower, test capabilities, laboratory support, professional education, training and development, and management tools. DOD and the services have taken steps to implement PSMs for major weapon systems and have described them as a valuable resource in managing product support, but certain aspects of the implementation process remain incomplete. DOD has assigned PSMs to almost all of its major weapon systems and has developed PSM training courses, but DOD, in coordination with the military services, has not developed a plan—to include objectives, milestones, and resources—to implement and institutionalize a comprehensive PSM career path. The services have identified and assigned PSMs to almost all of their major weapon systems. As of the most-current data available from the military services, 325 of 332 PSM position requirements across DOD for major weapon systems—approximately 98 percent—were filled. In addition, DOD has designated the PSM position as a key leadership positionpolicy, the PSM position for major defense acquisition programs is to be filled by a properly qualified military servicemember or full-time DOD for ACAT I level systems. In accordance with statute and DOD employee. Most of the PSMs are senior-level civilian personnel; the remaining positions are filled by military personnel. However, according to Navy and Air Force officials, in a few instances, the services have had to issue waivers to individuals to allow them to take PSM positions, because they did not have the necessary education, experience, or training to fill the position. OSD, military department headquarters, and PSM officials told us that PSMs are carrying out the duties identified in law. Moreover, PSMs we spoke with told us that they are performing many of the same duties that they performed in their previous positions as senior logisticians or in related fields. In addition to those duties, however, DOD officials told us that one of the changes to these officials’ prior responsibilities is the idea that support concepts should be evaluated periodically over a system’s life cycle; to this end, section 2337 requires that PSMs develop and implement a comprehensive product support strategy, and revalidate any business-case analysis performed in support of the strategy prior to each change or every 5 years. This requirement is met in part via the development of a document called a life-cycle sustainment plan.