Ballistic Missile Defense: Actions Needed to Improve Process for Identifying and Addressing Combatant Command Priorities

We are closing this recommendation based on Missile Defense Agency (MDA) action to issue guidance regarding its roles and responsibilities in the Warfighter Involvement Process (WIP). In 2005, U.S. Strategic Command and MDA created the WIP as a mechanism for U.S. Strategic Command to carry out its responsibilities for missile defense advocacy on behalf of the combatant commands. In report GAO-08-740, we found that U.S. Strategic Command and MDA had not put into place approved and complete guidance needed to implement the WIP, leaving the combatant commands without an agreed-upon mechanism for influencing MDA investments. We recommended that both U.S. Strategic Command and MDA complete and publish the guidance needed to define their roles and responsibilities for implementing the WIP and to update that guidance, as needed. On October 2, 2009, MDA issued MDA Directive 5010.17, MDA Roles and Responsibilities in the Warfighter Involvement Process. The purpose of this directive is to document MDA's roles and responsibilities for participation in the Warfighter Improvement Process.

In our report GAO-08-740, we found that U.S. Strategic Command and the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) had not developed effective methodologies for identifying, prioritizing, and addressing the combatant commands needs for ballistic missile defense capabilities. Consequently, we determined that the combatant commands had not communicated their priorities in an understandable and useful way to MDA, and that MDA was at risk of not developing the capabilities needed by the combatant commands. DOD concurred with our recommendation that U.S. Strategic Command, in conjunction with MDA, develop effective methodologies for identifying, prioritizing, and addressing the combatant commands needs for ballistic missile defenses. In December 2009 U.S. Strategic Command indicated that our report was influential in shaping its methodology for updating a prioritized list of the combatant commands needs. For example, in response to the shortcomings identified in the GAO report, the new methodology allowed the combatant commands to take into account both near-term requirements as well as longer term needs when setting their priorities. The updated methodology also gave the combatant commands? greater flexibility to identify their specific needs based on their mission, and required differentiation among their priorities by disallowing tie scores. In March 2010 U.S. Strategic Command published its update to the prioritized capabilities list. Following U.S. Strategic Command?s publication, MDA published in October 2010 a formal response that indicated the agency?s approach for investing in the ballistic missile defense capabilities to meet the warfighters? needs from 2011 through 2020. MDA?s methodology effectively reflected key themes that were developed in U.S. Strategic Command?s list, including an analysis of the agency?s ability to provide both near-term and far-term capabilities. As a result of these actions, we believe that U.S. Strategic Command and MDA have implemented our recommendation to develop more effective methodologies. However, we are keeping this recommendation open until we determine whether adjustments to MDA's investment program can be monetized.

We are closing this recommendation based on DOD action to provide the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) with the combatant command assessment of MDA's funding plans compared to combatant command priorities. In report GAO-08-740, we recommended that U.S. Strategic Command, in conjunction with the other combatant commands, prepare an assessment of MDA's funding plans compared to the commands' priorities, and provided the assessment to MDA. DOD concurred with this recommendation and, in its comments to the report, DOD stated that U.S. Strategic Command was preparing a Capabilities Assessment Report to fulfill the recommendation. U.S. Strategic Command completed the Capabilities Assessment Report in conjunction with U.S. Central Command, U.S. European Command, Joint Forces Command, U.S. Northern Command, and U.S. Pacific Command. The Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, General Chilton, transmitted the final report to MDA on April 8, 2009.

Since our report was issued, DOD has taken action to conduct a DOD-wide review and prioritization of the combatant commands' varied ballistic missile defense capability needs, which is consistent with the intent of our recommendation. In September 2008, the Deputy Secretary of Defense established the BMDS Life Cycle Management Process, and directed the Missile Defense Executive Board to use the process to oversee the annual preparation of a required capabilities portfolio and develop a program plan to meet the requirements. DOD began to use this process during the development of the fiscal year 2010 budget request. According to U.S. Strategic Command, DOD's actions in preparing the fiscal year 2010 request provided the department-wide review of combatant command priorities in a manner consistent with our recommendation. We therefore conclude that the intent of our recommendation has been met through the institutionalization of the DOD-wide review in the BMDS Life Cycle Process.

Since our report was issued, DOD has taken action to conduct a DOD-wide review and prioritization of the combatant commands' varied ballistic missile defense capability needs, which is consistent with the intent of our recommendation. In September 2008, the Deputy Secretary of Defense established the BMDS Life Cycle Management Process, and directed the Missile Defense Executive Board to use the process to oversee the annual preparation of a required capabilities portfolio and develop a program plan to meet the requirements. DOD began to use this process during the development of the fiscal year 2010 budget request. According to U.S. Strategic Command, DOD's actions in preparing the fiscal year 2010 request provided the department-wide review of combatant command priorities in a manner consistent with our recommendation. We therefore conclude that the intent of our recommendation has been met through the institutionalization of the DOD-wide review in the BMDS Life Cycle Process.