As evidenced by evolving threats in Iraq and Afghanistan, enemy forces have exploited capability gaps in the technology, systems, and equipment used by U.S. forces. Such tactics made it evident that U.S. warfighters were not always equipped to deal with the fast-changing tactics, techniques, and procedures of the enemy. For example, one of the most publicized of these adversarial capabilities was the use of IEDs. While U.S. forces responded initially by changing tactics and techniques by purchasing equipment locally, the department then determined it needed to more quickly develop and deploy new capabilities. Some of DOD’s efforts to rapidly address counter-IED and other significant capability gaps include the following: Counter-IED Solutions—Congress provides funding for joint urgent needs related to countering IEDs through the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), an organization that reports directly to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Congress has appropriated nearly $16 billion through fiscal year 2009 to JIEDDO. JIEDDO has funded many counter- IED solutions to support the warfighter, including electronic jammers to block radio-frequency signals that detonate IEDs. However, in our prior work, we found that JIEDDO lacked full visibility over all counter-IED initiatives throughout DOD, faced difficulties with transitioning its counter-IED initiatives to the military services, and lacked criteria for selecting which counter-IED training initiatives it will fund, which affect its training investment decisions. We recommended that DOD improve its visibility over all of DOD’s counter-IED efforts, work with the military services to develop a complete transition plan for initiatives, and define criteria for funding training initiatives. DOD agreed with these recommendations and identified several actions it had taken or planned to take to address them. Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Technology—DOD’s ISR systems—including manned and unmanned airborne, space-borne, maritime, and terrestrial systems—play critical roles in supporting military operations and national security missions. Effective ISR data can provide early warning of enemy threats as well as enable U.S. military forces to increase effectiveness, coordination, and lethality, and demand has increased for ISR capabilities to support ongoing military operations. To meet this growing demand, DOD is making sizeable investments in ISR systems and related ISR capabilities. We have reported since 2005 that DOD’s ISR activities are not always well integrated and efficient, effectiveness may be compromised by lack of visibility into operational use of ISR assets, and agencies could better collaborate in the acquisition of new capabilities. In January 2010, we recommended that DOD develop overarching guidance for sharing intelligence information and that the military services develop plans with timelines that prioritize and identify the types of ISR data they will share. DOD agreed with these recommendations and noted actions it planned to take to address them. Command and Control Equipment—Urgently needed assets may include, but are not limited to, satellite communication equipment for military personnel who require a method for communicating with each other in remote areas without established infrastructure, or distributed tactical communication systems for warfighters in Afghanistan because current handset devices do not operate adequately in the mountainous terrain. To meet this demand, solutions are being sought from various sources that include commercial off-the-shelf technology, other types of technology, and other sources. We have reported on the challenges associated with availability of such technology, including lengthy delays in the approval and order processes. To address these and other urgent needs–related challenges, we made several recommendations to improve DOD’s ability to assess how well its processes are meeting critical warfighter needs, address challenges with training, make decisions about when to use its rapid acquisition authority, and make reprogramming decisions to expedite fielding of solutions. DOD generally concurred with our recommendations and agreed to take several actions to address them. Over the past two decades, the fulfillment of urgent needs has evolved as a set of complex processes—within the Joint Staff, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), each of the military services, as well as the combatant commands—to rapidly develop, equip, and field solutions and critical capabilities to the warfighter. DOD’s experience in Iraq and Afghanistan led to the expanded use of existing urgent needs processes, the creation of new policies, and the establishment of new organizations intended to be more responsive to urgent warfighter requests. As shown in table 1 below, significant events in the expansion of DOD’s efforts to respond to and fulfill urgent operational needs began in the late 1980s but increased rapidly after the onset of the Global War on Terrorism in late 2001. As table 1 indicates, many of these newly established entities and processes were created, in part, because the department had not anticipated the accelerated pace of change in enemy tactics and techniques that ultimately heightened the need for a rapid response to new threats in Afghanistan and Iraq. According to the Defense Science Board, while DOD, the military services, and combatant commands took actions to respond more quickly to demands to fulfill urgent needs, it became apparent that within the last half decade the department, as well as the acquisition community it depends on, has struggled in their ability to field new capabilities in a disciplined, efficient, and effective way. While many entities started as ad hoc organizations, several have been permanently established. Although each of the services’ and Joint Staff’s urgent needs processes is distinct, we identified six broad activities involved after the submission of an urgent need statement. These activities are shown in table 2 below. Over the past 5 years, there have been several reviews of the department’s ability to rapidly respond and field urgently needed capabilities in the 21st century security environment. Some of these studies were initiated at the direction of Congress. In fiscal year 2009, the House Armed Services Committee approved the department’s designation of a process improvement officer who was tasked with applying Lean Six Sigma process improvement techniques to the business practices of the department. The committee recommended that the process improvement officer examine the processes for rapid acquisition activities that have been established since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began and determine whether there were lessons learned that might be integrated into the department’s main acquisition process. The department conducted the study and found (1) significant variability in response time at the beginning of the process, indicating unnecessary delays; (2) senior leadership involvement in the process enables rapid decision making; (3) shorter decision processes and focused organizations enable quicker response than under normal requirements; and (4) reprogramming authority is cumbersome and adds time to the urgent needs process. Furthermore, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2009 included a provision that would require best practices and process improvements to ensure that urgent operational needs statements and joint urgent operational needs statements are presented to appropriate authorities for review and validation not later than 60 days after the documents are submitted. Specifically, the committee report noted that over the last several years, operational commanders in Iraq had identified urgent operational needs for MRAP vehicles, nonlethal laser dazzlers, and other critical equipment. Further, the committee stated it was aware of allegations that requests for some of these items not only went unmet, but were not even presented for more than a year to the senior officials responsible for validating the requests. In 2009, Congress required the Secretary of Defense to commission a study by an independent commission or a federally funded research and development center to assess and report on the effectiveness of the processes used by DOD for the generation of urgent operational need requirements, and the acquisition processes used to fulfill such requirements. In response to this requirement, the Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, asked the Defense Science Board to establish a task force to conduct a study on the effectiveness of the processes used by the department for the generation of urgent operational needs requirements and the acquisition processes used to fulfill such requirements. In July 2009, the Defense Science Board released its report with recommendations on potential consolidations necessary to rapidly field new capabilities for the warfighter in a systematic and effective manner. Moreover, Section 803 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (the FY 2011 NDAA) amended the existing rapid acquisition authority. Previously, the authority could be used to eliminate deficiencies that resulted in combat fatalities. The amended section now permits the use of the authority to acquire and deploy certain supplies to eliminate deficiencies that result in combat casualties, rather than just combat fatalities. The amendment also increased from $100 million to $200 million the amount that can be used annually to acquire the supplies necessary to address such deficiencies. Additionally, Section 804 of the FY 2011 NDAA, among other things, requires the Secretary of Defense to review the processes for the fielding of capabilities in response to urgent operational needs, consider improvements to those processes, and report to the congressional defense committees in January 2012. The fulfillment of urgent needs involves numerous joint, OSD and military service entities, which have increased over time. We identified areas where some overlap exists among urgent needs entities, such as the submission, validation, and processing of urgent needs requirements. In addition, our analysis identified multiple entities with a role in responding to similar types of urgently needed capabilities, such as ISR and counter- IED, resulting in the potential for duplication of efforts. The department has many entities that respond to the large number of urgent needs requests submitted by the combatant commands and military services. As previously reported by us and DOD, a complex set of processes has evolved over time, involving numerous joint, OSD, and military service entities over the past decade as the department seeks to fulfill the capability gaps identified by warfighters. On the basis of DOD’s and our analysis, we have identified at least 31 entities that play a significant role in the various urgent needs processes. Table 3 below shows the 31 entities we identified and when they were established.