The Packard Commission, tasked by President Reagan to review defense management and organization, made a number of recommendations to improve the way DOD acquires weapon systems, including the need to establish “unambiguous authority for overall acquisition policy, clear accountability for acquisition execution, and plain lines of command for those with program management responsibilities.” Following the commission’s recommendations, the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 was enacted.the Act created the position of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, now known as Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)); established the military departments as the force providers to the combatant commanders; and mandated responsibility for acquisition to each respective military department. In addition, the Goldwater-Nichols Act directed each Among other things, secretary to establish or designate a single office or other entity within each department to conduct the acquisition function. Prior to the act, the military departments often had offices in both the secretariat and the service chief organizations that had responsibilities for the management of the acquisition function. As we previously found, the act sought to eliminate parallel or duplicate organizations that might have existed, and strengthen civilian control by placing the single acquisition office in the secretariats. Also, the President issued a directive that directed implementation of another Packard Commission recommendation, to establish a more streamlined acquisition chain of command in DOD. The reporting chain, which remains in place today, runs upward from a program manager, through a program executive officer (PEO), to the service acquisition executive (SAE), and to the defense acquisition executive (DAE), which is USD (AT&L). Figure 1 provides an overview of the current acquisition chain of command in DOD and the military departments. Within DOD, three key acquisition decision-support processes influence the planning and execution of weapon system programs—requirements determination, resource allocation, and the acquisition management system. Each process is managed and overseen by different organizations and leaders within DOD and the military departments. At the DOD level, USD(AT&L) is responsible for the acquisition function and is the milestone decision authority (MDA) for major defense acquisition programs,implementing the requirements process, and the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) is responsible for the resource process. Within the military departments, where programs are largely planned and executed, the service acquisition executive is responsible for the acquisition process, while the service chief offices have primary responsibility for the requirements and resourcing processes. whereas the Joint Chiefs of Staff are responsible for Interim DOD Instruction 5000.02—the department’s primary acquisition policy instruction that guides the acquisition process—states that the acquisition, requirements, and resource processes are closely related and “must operate simultaneously with full cooperation and in close Further, this instruction states that adjustments may have coordination.” to be made to keep these three processes aligned throughout the course of a program lifecycle. Similarly, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3170.01H, the department’s primary policy guiding capability requirements development, emphasizes that the three processes “must work in concert to ensure consistent decisionmaking while delivering In recent timely and cost effective capability solutions to the warfighters.”years, Congress and DOD have taken steps to strengthen the integration of the acquisition and requirements processes. For example, the department has added new decision points and reviews for weapon programs as they progress through the acquisition process. Additionally, USD (AT&L) now serves as an advisor to the council that reviews requirements for major weapon programs. Five of the six studies we reviewed recommended an expanded role for the service chiefs in acquisitions, often citing this as a means to improve the integration of the acquisition, requirements, and resourcing processes, as well as improve authority and accountability for DOD acquisition programs. Three of the studies noted that increased involvement of the service chiefs would help facilitate cost, schedule, and requirements trade-off decisions during program planning, and may result in more affordable and executable acquisition programs. Also, three of the studies expressed concerns that the service chiefs are not sufficiently involved because the services had gone too far in their implementation of the Goldwater-Nichols Act and removed the service chiefs from the acquisition decision process. Although the Goldwater-Nichols Act directed each military department secretary to establish a single office within their department, now known as the service acquisition executive, to conduct the acquisition function, the act did not preclude the service chiefs from actively participating in acquisitions. The same three studies stated that implementation of the act may have contributed to fragmentation among the requirements, resources, and acquisition processes. GAO has previously found that these processes are fragmented, making it difficult for the department to achieve a balanced mix of weapon systems that are affordable and feasible and provide the best military value to the warfighter. Furthermore, we found that because the processes are led by different organizations, it is difficult to hold any one person or organization accountable for saying “no” to a proposed program or for ensuring that the department’s portfolio of programs is balanced. The following table summarizes the findings and recommendations of the studies included in our review that are related to acquisition management and oversight. The studies we reviewed agree that chain of command adjustments are needed, but their views on the specific role for the service chiefs varied. For example, one study identified the need for more service chief involvement throughout the Navy’s acquisition process, but it did not specify how this should occur. When we talked to the authors of this study, they stated that the current framework for the acquisition chain of command does not need to be changed but that the service chief’s involvement and authority should be enhanced throughout. One way they suggested doing this was to make the service chief a co-chair with the service acquisition executive during major program reviews. Similarly, another study recommended that service chiefs be more engaged and accountable within the current acquisition process through the strengthening of partnerships between requirements, acquisition, and resource leaders. Another study recommended the need for more authority in an unbroken chain of line management, but provided no indication as to how the service chief would fit into the new line management. The other three studies called for changing the current chain of command structure by making adjustments such as inserting the service chief over program managers and program executive officers. Furthermore, GAO assessed a number of acquisition reform proposals several years ago, including one to modify the service chief’s role in acquisitions, and found in interviewing multiple experts that there was no consensus on whether the service chiefs should be added into the direct line of command for acquisitions. While studies have advocated for a stronger role for the service chiefs in the acquisition chain of command, they provide little evidence or support that this would in fact improve program outcomes. Study authors we interviewed were unsure of the effects on the acquisition process of more involvement from the service chiefs. Authors pointed out that the service chiefs had significant influence on certain programs in the past, but their involvement did not always result in successful cost, schedule, or performance outcomes. For example, authors noted significant involvement of service chiefs in programs such as the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship and the Army’s Future Combat System, but these programs suffered poor outcomes. In both cases, the service chiefs of these services viewed the programs as vital to their operational capabilities and needed to be fielded quickly. These programs pursued aggressive acquisition strategies that pushed the programs through development with ill-defined requirements and unstable designs, which contributed to significant cost and schedule increases and, in the case of the Future Combat System, a cancellation. Further, the authors of one study believed that including the service chief in the acquisition process may actually exacerbate current acquisition challenges by creating a break in the chain of command. Instead, they believe that authority of the current chain of command needs to be reinforced through appointing knowledgeable, strong leaders into management positions and limiting the number of people who can directly influence program managers. Lastly, although some studies point to acquisition problems resulting from a lack of service chief involvement following the implementation of the Goldwater-Nichols Act in the 1980s, DOD experienced acquisition delays and cost overruns for many years prior to the Goldwater-Nichols Act. We have reported on poor acquisition outcomes as far back as 1970. Authors we interviewed all agreed that despite uncertainty about the effects of an expanded service chief role in management of acquisitions, strong leadership is key to ensuring programs achieve positive outcomes. One study identified the F-15 program as an example where leadership helped bring about positive outcomes. In this case, there was heavy involvement from senior leadership, including the Secretary of Defense, which resulted in delivering the aircraft to the warfighter on time and under cost. Leadership directed an incremental approach for the development of the aircraft based on reasonable requirements and using relatively mature technologies versus a revolutionary approach using unrealistic requirements and immature technologies. GAO previously found that strong leadership is key to stable and successful acquisition programs. GAO found that stable programs, such as the Air Force’s Small Diameter Bomb and Navy’s P-8A Poseidon Multi-Maritime Aircraft, were supported by strong, disciplined leaders who helped foster the planning and execution of a solid business case for these programs. Finally, all six of the studies we reviewed suggested that changes to the chain of command alone will not be sufficient to address all of the challenges faced by major acquisitions. All of the studies presented additional recommendations to improve acquisition policy and processes at the program level to include ensuring: (1) a well trained and experienced acquisition workforce; (2) sufficient tenure in program management assignments to allow for continuity in the oversight of acquisitions; and (3) incentives for attracting and retaining knowledgeable individuals, including systems engineers. Other studies discussed the need to fix unrealistic and changing requirements, optimistic cost and schedule estimates, and issues with the current budgeting process. GAO has also made similar conclusions and recommendations in all of these same areas. Together, these issues and others contribute to poor acquisition outcomes.