United States General Accounting Office National Security and Washington, D.C. 20548 International Affairs Division B-282836 July 20, 1999 The Honorable Dick Armey Majority Leader House of Representatives The Honorable Dan Burton Chairman, Committee on Government Reform House of Representatives The Honorable Fred Thompson Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate Subject: Observations on the Department of Defense’s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan As you requested, we have reviewed and evaluated the fiscal year 2000 performance plans for the 24 Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act agencies that were submitted to Congress as required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Results Act). Enclosure I to this letter provides our observations on the fiscal year 2000 performance plan for the Department of Defense (DOD). Enclosure II lists management challenges we and DOD’s Inspector General identified that the agency faces and the applicable goals and measures in the fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan. Our objectives were to (1) assess the usefulness of the department’s plan for decisionmaking and (2) identify the degree of improvement the department’s fiscal year 2000 performance plan represents over the fiscal year 1999 plan. Our observations were generally based on the requirements of the Results Act, guidance to agencies from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for developing the plan (OMB Circular A-11, Part 2), our previous reports and knowledge of DOD’s operations and programs, and our observations on DOD’s fiscal year 1999 performance plan. Our summary report on the CFO Act agencies’ fiscal year 2000 plans 1 contains a complete discussion of our objectives, scope, and methodology. 1 Managing for Results: Opportunities for Continued Improvements in Agencies’ Performance Plans (GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215, July 20, 1999). Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-99-178R DOD’s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan B-282836 As agreed, unless you announce the contents of this letter earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the date of this letter. The major contributors to this report are listed in enclosure III. Please call me on (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any questions. David R. Warren, Director Defense Management Issues Enclosures - 3 Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-99-178R DOD’s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan Enclosure I Observations on the Department of Defense's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 DOD’s fiscal year 2000 annual performance provides a limited picture of intended performance across the Department, a general discussion of strategies and resources that will be used to achieve performance goals, and limited confidence that performance information 1 will be credible. For example, while the plan clearly states DOD’s performance goals, it does not clearly explain how key output measures such as having ten active Army Divisions will be used along with other information to assess the outcomes that result from using DOD’s resources. The plan does not explain the limitations of DOD’s performance measure on infrastructure spending. As another example, the plan states that there are no known deficiencies in data to be used for some performance measures such as the disposal of unneeded property held by contractors, although DOD recently reported systemic problems in maintaining adequate control and management accountability over this property. DOD’s corporate-level (strategic) goals are to (1) shape the international environment and respond to crises and (2) prepare now for an uncertain future. The following figure highlights the plan’s major strengths and key weaknesses. Figure 1: Major Strengths and Key Weaknesses of DOD’s Fiscal Year 2000 Annual Performance Plan Major Strengths • Includes a clear discussion of corporate-level and annual performance goals • Includes a general discussion of strategies and resources • Includes output-oriented measures and indicators related to most major management challenges Key Weaknesses • Does not include information on how DOD will qualitatively assess results • Does not explain coordinatoin for crosscutting efforts • Does not relate budget program activities to performance goals • Does not provide confidence that performance information will be credible This year’s plan represents a moderate improvement over the fiscal year 1999 plan. Specifically, some degree of progress was made in addressing the weaknesses we and others identified in last year’s plan, which partially depicted intended performance across the Department, partially discussed how strategies and resources would help achieve goals, and did not provide sufficient confidence that performance information would be credible. Last year’s plan also lacked a 1 DOD’s performance plan is included as appendix J of the Secretary of Defense’s Annual Report to the President and the Congress. DOD officials stated that the fiscal year 2000 performance plan was designed to be a stand-alone document but that it was deliberately included in the Secretary’s annual report because the annual report supports and elaborates on the performance plan. Therefore, we considered information throughout the Secretary’s annual report in assessing DOD’s plan. Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-99-178R DOD’s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan Enclosure I Observations on the Department of Defense's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 discussion of coordination efforts for most crosscutting activities with other agencies, such as combating terrorism. Additionally, the plan was not presented in a single document. As a consequence, last year, the reader was required to refer to a number of other documents, such as the Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation, to obtain relevant information. Among improvements in this year’s plan are (1) inclusion of baseline data for 39 of 43 unclassified performance measures and indicators;2 (2) identification of some known deficiencies such as financial and accounting system problems; and (3) inclusion of performance goals, measures, and indicators related to six of nine major management challenges identified by us and/or the DOD Inspector General (see attached table). 3 Also, this year’s plan is set forth in a single document with references to key support information. DOD’s Performance Plan Provides a Limited Picture of Intended Performance Across the Agency The plan provides only a limited picture of intended performance across the agency, principally because it does not discuss how information from performance measures and indicators will be used in conjunction with qualitative evaluations to assess outcomes. The plan has been improved by including more clearly stated annual performance goals and additional specific performance measures and indicators along with DOD’s corporate-level goals. It also includes baseline data for comparing anticipated future performance. DOD’s corporate-level goals are to (1) shape the international environment and respond to the full spectrum of crises by providing appropriately sized, positioned, and mobile forces and (2) prepare now for an uncertain future by pursuing a focused modernization effort that maintains U.S. qualitative superiority in key war-fighting capabilities, transform the force by exploiting the Revolution in Military Affairs, and reengineer the Department to achieve a 21st century infrastructure. While clearly stating goals and measures, the plan lacks information on how DOD will use performance information to assess mission outcomes. For example, key output measures related to force structure, overseas presence, and acquisition expenditures, only reflect whether forces are available to perform assigned missions or levels of spending. The measures do not reflect the results achieved from DOD’s use of the resources. Assessment of performance will require 2 In addition, DOD plans to include eight classified readiness performance measures and indicators, along with classified goals for each and information on how the credibility of performance data will be ensured, in a classified document—the January- March 1999 Quarterly Readiness Report to the Congress. 3 The Senate Committee on Appropriation’s report on DOD’s fiscal year 1999 appropriation bill (S. Report 105-200) contains suggestions for improving the fiscal year 1999 performance plan. DOD’s fiscal year 2000 plan responded to these suggestions. Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-99-178R DOD’s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan Enclosure I Observations on the Department of Defense's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 complex considerations about such things as (1) assigned missions and how well they were accomplished and (2) whether weapon systems expenditures provide desired capabilities. In addition, the plan does not fully explain the limitations of some measures and indicators. For example, the plan includes the percentage of the budget spent on infrastructure as a performance indicator to support the goal of streamlining infrastructure. However, if other areas of the budget were to substantially increase, infrastructure as a percentage of spending could decrease, even if actual infrastructure spending were increasing. To make such instances evident, the plan could include measures for both the actual and constant dollars spent on infrastructure to provide additional information. Also, the plan does not sufficiently explain coordination with other agencies that conduct related activities. For example, it does not discuss how DOD coordinates with State and other agencies that cooperate in a number of programs and activities aimed at helping to shape the international environment. This year’s plan is moderately improved over last year’s in that it demonstrates some degree of progress in addressing the weaknesses identified in last year’s plan as it relates to describing intended performance across the agency. Specifically, last year’s plan could have been improved by including (1) baseline data for comparative purposes; (2) goals and performance measures for both dollars spent on infrastructure and infrastructure costs as a percentage of spending; (3) performance goals and measures related to major management problems; and (4) more information on coordination efforts for activities that crosscut with other agencies’ activities. The fiscal year 2000 plan addressed some of these weaknesses and additional weaknesses identified by others. For example, it included performance measures or indicators for six of nine major management challenges. However, it did not address other weaknesses such as by including goals and performance measures for actual and constant dollars spent on infrastructure. DOD’s Performance Plan Provides a General Discussion of the Strategies and Resources the Agency Will Use to Achieve Its Goals The plan generally clearly presents the broad strategies and resources DOD will use to achieve performance goals. For example, the plan cites the importance of forces being continually ready to respond in order to provide the flexibility needed to shape the global environment, deter potential foes, and, when required, rapidly respond to a broad spectrum of threats. It also presents a broad strategy to maintain ready forces. Among others, the plan includes goals to maintain specified levels of (1) forces; (2) flying hours, tank miles, and steaming days; and (3) unit readiness. The plan also identifies performance measures and indicators related to changes in program approaches that are being made to help achieve performance goals. For example, in support of the performance goal to streamline infrastructure, the plan discusses a basic strategy of redesigning Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-99-178R DOD’s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan Enclosure I Observations on the Department of Defense's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 the support structure and pursuing business practice reforms. Additionally, the plan discusses performance measures or indicators related to the strategy such as (1) increasing the efficiency of logistics operations by improving the ability to track items in the supply system and (2) increasing public-private sector competition for functions that are not inherently governmental. The plan also contains some discussion of how proposed capital assets and mission-critical management systems support the achievement of performance goals and discussion of efforts to build, maintain, and marshal human capital. For example, the plan recognizes the tremendous importance of DOD’s 1.4 million active duty military personnel, approximately 880,000 military reservists, and over 700,000 civilian personnel to achieving DOD’s goals. Specifically, the plan includes considerable discussion of various aspects of human capital management strategies such as recruiting, training, and military retention. It also includes performance measures and goals for aspects of human capital management such as recruiting and retention. However, like last year, linkages are not established between performance goals and the program activities in the President’s budget request for DOD. The plan does not show how requested budgetary resources relate to performance goals. This year’s performance plan is moderately improved over last year’s in that it demonstrates some degree of progress from last year as it relates to specifically discussing strategies and resources DOD will use to achieve goals. Last year’s plan could have been improved by (1) clearly identifying strategies for achieving performance goals; (2) discussing factors that might help mitigate known risks to implementing a strategy for achieving a performance goal, particularly in relation to recruiting and retaining well qualified personnel; (3) discussing strategies for mitigating any external factors that could negatively influence achievement of a performance goal, particularly in relation to contingency operations being funded from budget accounts intended to support the readiness of U.S. forces; and (4) identifying the specific resources DOD plans to use to achieve specific performance goals. This year’s plan addressed several of these weaknesses and additional weaknesses identified by others. For example, the plan discusses actions DOD has taken and is planning to take to mitigate challenges faced in recruiting and retaining well qualified personnel. These actions include doubling recruitment advertising from 1995 to 1998 and increasing enlistment bonuses and funds for college. As another example, the plan discusses actions that have been taken to mitigate funding contingency operations from budget accounts that support readiness. DOD’s Performance Plan Provides Limited Confidence That Agency Performance Information Will Be Credible We continue to have concerns about the credibility of data from DOD’s financial, accounting, and other information systems. While DOD’s performance plan discusses data verification and validation for some performance measures and indicators, and it acknowledges that data for Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-99-178R DOD’s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan Enclosure I Observations on the Department of Defense's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 certain measures and indicators come from financial and accounting systems that have experienced problems, it provides only limited confidence that the performance information will be credible. To remedy accounting systems shortcomings, DOD has developed a financial management improvement plan. However, as we reported, the improvement plan has several critical omissions which, unless they are effectively addressed in the near term, will impair the implementation of a sound foundation for fundamentally reforming DOD’s financial management operations. DOD Inspector General and service audit organizations have reported that DOD’s financial systems are not in compliance with federal systems requirements and applicable federal accounting standards. These problems limit the reliability and timeliness of currently available financial information needed to effectively manage operations. Moreover, the audit organizations have repeatedly found systems to be inadequate for measuring the cost of operations and programs. This deficiency, which the Secretary acknowledged in his 1999 annual report, has hampered the Department’s ability to manage weapon systems’ life-cycle cost. The lack of adequate cost information impairs the development of reliable cost-based performance measures and indicators across virtually the entire spectrum of DOD’s program operations. While we agree that DOD’s performance measures should center on mission performance, most programs have associated cost consequences that can be directly or indirectly measured as a factor in judging program results. Consequently, it is essential that DOD continue working to develop reliable cost information and, where appropriate, cost-based performance measures. Additionally, although the plan states that there are no known data deficiencies for some performance measures and indicators audits continue to identify significant problems with the data integrity of DOD financial systems and supporting cost, logistical, and operations information systems. For example, the plan states that there are no known deficiencies in the data collection process related to the performance measure for the disposal of unneeded government property held by contractors. That measure supports the annual performance goal to meet combat forces’ needs “smarter and faster”. However, accurately accounting for and controlling contractor- held assets has been a long-standing issue at DOD. A 1997 report by the DOD Inspector General recommended that DOD develop short- and long-term solutions to the financial accountability and reporting problems regarding government property in the possession of contractors. In response the Department has set out an action plan with action steps for this area scheduled to be completed by October 1999. This year’s plan is moderately improved over last year’s in that it demonstrates some degree of progress in addressing credibility of performance information weaknesses we and others identified in last year’s plan. Specifically, last year’s plan did not address known data and systems deficiencies, the degree to which these deficiencies affect specific performance information, or planned actions to address these deficiencies. Furthermore, the plan did not identify the extent to Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-99-178R DOD’s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan Enclosure I Observations on the Department of Defense's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 which external evaluations such as audits would be used in the performance information validation process. Improvements in this year’s plan in this area include discussions on (1) verifying and validating data such as that generated by the components’ automated inventory data collection systems; (2) known data and systems limitations for performance metrics, such as using Selected Acquisition Reports data as an absolute measure of research and development and procurement cost performance; and (3) planned actions to address data or systems deficiencies such as enhancing the interface among the military services and defense agencies to overcome data systems interoperability problems related to the location of inventory. However, this year’s plan does not address how external evaluations will be used. Other Observations on DOD’s Implementation of Performance- Based Management DOD is starting to implement performance-based management. Secretary-level guidance emphasizes this effort by requiring that subordinate-level strategic plans show a clear linkage to the Department’s mission, vision statement, and corporate-level goals. The services are including linkages to performance-based management in their budget and planning documents. We have not made an overall assessment of performance-based management implementation. However, our work has shown that some difficulties are being experienced in DOD’s Total Asset Visibility initiative, and at the U.S. Atlantic Command. In each instance, the performance measures that were developed were not helpful for measuring mission or program goal accomplishment. Defense officials stated that steps are being taken to improve the measures. Agency Comments and Our Evaluation In oral comments on a draft of our observations, DOD did not agree with our overall assessment of the performance plan and asked that we include their view on two issues. First, DOD officials stated the principal output and outcome of DOD’s annual budget is a specified military force ready to go to war, and the fiscal year 2000 performance plan defines performance goals relevant to that objective. The performance goals establish a measurable path to achievement of the corporate goals articulated in the Department’s strategic plan. Second, officials stated that our characterization of the plan as being of limited use to decisionmakers does not fully reflect their views. They noted that this year’s plan contains more information and is more useful to internal departmental decisionmakers than last year’s plan. However, they recognized that the plan could be made more useful to external decisionmakers by including additional information such as more outcome-oriented measures for business operations such as logistics, which accounts for over half of the Department’s budget. Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-99-178R DOD’s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan Enclosure I Observations on the Department of Defense's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 We agree that ready forces are a key output of DOD’s efforts. However, we continue to believe that better results information will require a qualitative assessment of the conduct of military missions, as well as an assessment of investments in technology to improve weapons capabilities. Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-99-178R DOD’s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan Enclosure II Management Challenges The following table shows major management challenges confronting DOD and the goals and measures in its performance plan related to those challenges. Table II.1: Management Challenges Confronting DOD and Applicable Goals and Measures Management challenge Applicable goals and measures in DOD’S fiscal year 2000 performance plan Financial Management None. However, in late October 1998, DOD issued its first Biennial Financial Management Improvement Plan, We reported that DOD is struggling to overcome the which established DOD’s strategy for managing problems brought about by decades of neglect and to financial management operations. According to the fully institute sound financial management practices. Secretary, the plan sets out DOD’s first ever attempt to The problems range from being unable to properly describe the overall concept for its future financial account for billions of dollars in assets to being management operations. Additionally, Chapter 14 in unable to produce reliable and timely information DOD’s 1999 Annual Report to the President and the needed to make sound resource decisions. Congress discusses financial management reform efforts. The DOD Inspector General reported that DOD remains unable to comply with laws requiring Also, various sections of the performance plan discuss auditable financial statements for its major funds and procedures for verifying and validating data, along with for the Department as a whole. the performance measures and indicators that the data support. Many of the metrics refer back to DOD financial and accounting systems that have experienced problems in accurately capturing costs and tracking disbursements. DOD has undertaken management reforms to remedy system shortcomings. Information Management and Technology None. However, the plan notes that DOD works with other federal agencies to ensure the security of the We reported that information management and increasingly interconnected and vulnerable U.S. technology issues are key DOD management infrastructures against physical or cyber attack. challenges. A primary short-term concern centers on the implementation of the year 2000 conversions of Additionally, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 requires date-sensitive information on computer systems. DOD to establish goals for improving the efficiency and Also, information security for computer systems effectiveness of its operations through the use of poses concerns, because malicious attacks on these information technology. It also requires DOD to include systems are an increasing threat to our nation’s an annual report with the submission of its budget to security. the Congress on its progress in achieving the goals. The current report is Appendix K in DOD’s 1999 Annual The DOD IG also reported that DOD, which has Report to the President and the Congress. The goals about 28,000 computer systems, roughly 3,000 of are to (1) become a mission partner; (2) provide which are considered mission critical, faces a services that satisfy customer needs; (3) reform monumental challenge in converting the systems for information technology management processes to year 2000 compliance and faces major problems in increase efficiency and mission contribution; and (4) providing information security for both old and new ensure vital information resources are secure and computer systems. The IG further reported that DOD protected. Appendix K discusses progress toward faces a formidable challenge in managing the achieving these goals and efforts to meet the technical acquisition, migration, or modification of a large challenges related to year 2000 compliance. number of computer systems projects. Such projects have tended to cost more and take longer than anticipated, fail to meet data standardization and interoperability requirements, and shortchange user needs. Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-99-178R DOD’s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan Enclosure II Management Challenges Management challenge Applicable goals and measures in DOD’S fiscal year 2000 performance plan Weapon Systems Acquisition The Performance Plan includes a performance goal to “meet combat forces’ needs smarter and faster, with We reported that effectively managing the weapon products and services that work better and cost less, by systems acquisition process continues to be a improving the efficiency of acquisition processes.” The concern. Although DOD has increased its plan includes two related performance measures. They procurement budget, it consistently pays more and are: takes longer than planned to develop systems that do not perform as anticipated. • Major Defense Acquisition Program cost growth; and • Successful completion of weapon system operational The DOD IG also reported a compelling need to test and evaluation events. accelerate the weapon systems acquisition cycle and reduce per unit costs. The IG further reported that a The plan also includes a related performance significant gap exists between weapon systems indicator—Major Defense Acquisition Program cycle modernization requirements and planned funding. time. DOD has a goal to further increase procurement spending but the goal relies on shifting about $10 billion of spending a year from other areas. The IG doubts that planned actions will free up that amount of funds. Contracting The Performance Plan includes a performance goal to “meet combat forces’ needs smarter and faster, with We reported that DOD spends over $100 billion a products and services that work better and cost less, by year contracting for goods and services. Over the improving the efficiency of acquisition processes.” last few years, several broad-based changes have Three performance indicators for this goal relate to been made to acquisition and contracting processes some aspects of contracting. They are: to improve DOD-contractor relationships and rules. But we and the DOD IG continue to identify risks in • The percentage of purchases made by purchase card; contracting, including erroneous, fraudulent, and • The percentage of paperless transactions; and improper payments to contractors; payment of higher • The percentage of paperless acquisition transactions. prices for commercial spare parts than necessary; and the award and administration of health care contracts. The DOD IG, which continues, as we do, to identify risks in DOD’s contracting activity, also reported that the sheer volume and great variety of the contracting activity makes it a high-risk area. The IG also reported a lack of good cost information and significant levels of fraud, mostly by providers, in the Defense Health Program. Defense Infrastructure The Performance Plan includes a performance goal to “streamline the infrastructure by redesigning the We reported that although DOD has substantially Department’s support structure and pursuing business downsized its force structure over the past 7 to 10 practice reforms.” Key related performance measures years, it has not reduced operations and support include: costs--the costs for its supporting infrastructure-- commensurately. A key reason is that the services • the number of positions subject to A-76 competition are reluctant to consolidate activities that span studies; service lines and reduce capacity as necessary. • logistics response time; • the dollar amount of National Defense Stockpile The DOD IG reported that key infrastructure areas • disposals and reductions in the supply inventory; and such as transportation, maintenance, facilities, and • disposals of excess real property. Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-99-178R DOD’s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan Enclosure II Management Challenges Management challenge Applicable goals and measures in DOD’S fiscal year 2000 performance plan supply offer opportunities to reduce costs. The IG noted, however, that many logical measures are Key related performance indicators include: highly controversial and that the Congress and DOD disagree over additional base closures and the • the percentage of budget spent on infrastructure; distribution of workload between DOD and private • the percentage of materiel assets that are visible and sector maintenance facilities. accessible to its Integrated Materiel Managers; and • the net operating results of working capital funds. Inventory Management The Performance Plan includes two performance measures related to inventory management. They are: We reported that DOD’s inventory management practices continue to be ineffective and inefficient and • logistics response time; and are not well-suited to meet new missions and war- • the dollar amount of National Defense Stockpile fighting strategies. As a result, DOD spends more disposals and reductions in the supply inventory. than necessary to procure inventory, yet items are not available when needed. The plan also includes two related performance indicators. They are: The DOD IG also reported shortages of spare parts and that war reserves are overstocked in some • the percentage of materiel assets that are visible and locations but short of critical items in others. The IG accessible to its Integrated Materiel Managers; and additionally reported problems with fraud and • the dollar amount of unfunded depot maintenance inappropriate practices in the disposal process. requirements. Military Personnel The Performance Plan includes a performance goal to “recruit, retain, and develop personnel to maintain a We reported that DOD’s personnel programs to highly skilled and motivated force capable of meeting recruit, train, and retain a high-quality active-duty tomorrow’s challenges.” The plan includes three enlisted workforce have not received the related performance measures. They are: management attention needed to ensure their successful operation. The military services recruit • the number of enlisted recruits inducted into the tens of thousands of new enlistees each year who fail Active Force and into the Selected Reserve; to complete their contracts. • the Active Force components enlisted retention rates; and • the Selected Reserves’ enlisted attrition rates. The plan also includes a related performance indicator. It is the percentage of enlisted recruits that meet quality benchmarks (high school diplomas, etc.) for such recruits. Military Readiness The Performance Plan includes a performance goal to “maintain ready forces and ensure they have the The DOD IG reported that DOD has difficulties in training necessary to provide the United States with the maintaining sufficient military readiness. The IG ability to shape the international environment and reported a concern about the accuracy of reporting respond to the full range of crises.” The plan includes for unit-level readiness; weaknesses in chemical and classified measures for the readiness of each service’s biological defense preparedness and in forces. communications capability; impact of changes in the threat environment; and impact of currently approved The plan also includes several related performance budget levels. indicators, including: • the amount of time military personnel are deployed; • number of flying hours per month, by service; • number of tank miles per year; • number of steaming days per quarter; and Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-99-178R DOD’s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan Enclosure II Management Challenges Management challenge Applicable goals and measures in DOD’S fiscal year 2000 performance plan • classified indicators for the percentage of billets filled in each service. Turbulence From Change None. However, the plan and the Secretary’s annual report discuss human capital management issues such The DOD IG reported that all functional areas within as recruiting, training, operating tempo, and military DOD are engaged in fundamental reform and retention. The Secretary’s annual report also includes process reengineering efforts at the same time, chapters on initiatives such as acquisition reform, causing turbulence. The turbulence brings with it financial management reform, and infrastructure. several additional difficult challenges such as conflicting priorities, downsizing, outsourcing, dependence on new and unproven systems or processes, and deemphasis on management controls and oversight, all of which are putting considerable strain on DOD. The IG noted that DOD confronts a huge task in coordinating and integrating its hundreds of reform initiatives so that they do not work at cross purposes with each other. Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-99-178R DOD’s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan Enclosure III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contacts David R. Warren, (202) 512-8412 Charles I. Patton, Jr., (202) 512-4412 Acknowledgments In addition to those named above, Kenneth R. Knouse, Jr., F. Earl Morrison, Elizabeth G. Mead, Geoffrey B. Frank, Laura E. Castro and Alan S. Goldberg made key contributions to this product. (709426) Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-99-178R DOD’s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan
Observations on the Department of Defense's Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1999-07-20.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)