You are not connected to the Valley City State University Library network. Access to online content and services may require you to authenticate with your library. Off Campus Login
Getting this item's online copy...
Find a copy in the library
Getting this item's location and availability...
Find it in libraries globally
|Material Type:||Document, Government publication, National government publication, Internet resource|
|Document Type:||Internet Resource, Computer File|
|All Authors / Contributors:||
Cary B Russell; United States. Government Accountability Office.
|Notes:||Title from cover screen (viewed on June 9, 2012).
|Description:||1 online resource (ii, 24 pages) : illustrations, map|
|Details:||System requirements: Adobe Reader.; Mode of access: World Wide Web.|
|Other Titles:||Army has taken steps to improve reset process, but more complete reporting of equipment and future costs is needed|
From 2007 to 2012, the Army received about $42 billion to fund its expenses for the reset of equipment in support of continuing overseas contingency operations in Southwest Asia. Reset is intended to mitigate the effects of combat stress on equipment by repairing, rebuilding, upgrading, or procuring replacement equipment. Reset equipment is used to supply non-deployed units and units preparing for deployment while meeting ongoing operational requirements. In 2007, GAO reported that the Army's reset strategy did not target equipment shortages for units deploying to theater. For this report, GAO (1) examined steps the Army has taken to improve its equipment reset strategy since 2007, and (2) determined the extent to which the Army's reset reports to Congress provide visibility over reset costs and execution. To conduct this review, GAO reviewed and analyzed DOD and Army documentation on equipment reset strategies and monthly Army reports to Congress, and interviewed DOD and Army officials. GAO recommends that the Army revise its monthly congressional reset reports to include its future reset liability and status information on equipment reset according to the initial reset plan by vehicle type. DOD did not concur. DOD stated that the Army would report its reset liability annually instead of monthly. Because DOD did not agree to report its reset status by vehicle type, GAO included a matter for congressional consideration to direct the Army to report this information.
Retrieving notes about this item