Defense Research and Engineering: Action Needed to Improve Management and Oversight of Technology Investments

Key Chapter Title List

1. Background
2. OUSD(R&E) Is Generally Implementing Plans and Processes Consistent with Its Authorities to Manage and Oversee Technology Investments
3. OUSD(R&E) Faces Challenges in Managing and Overseeing Service Technology Efforts
4. Conclusions
5. Matters for Congressional Consideration
6. Recommendations for Executive Action
7. Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
8. Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense
9. Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Document Introduction

This report was prepared by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in response to provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024. It aims to assess the functions and effectiveness of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD(R&E)) in managing and overseeing the Department of Defense's innovation investments. Facing increasingly severe threats from the capabilities of adversaries such as China and Russia, the Department of Defense seeks to outpace these adversaries by rapidly adopting innovative technologies. OUSD(R&E) is responsible for managing, overseeing, and improving technology research and development efforts across the Department of Defense to help achieve this goal. In the President's budget request for Fiscal Year 2026, the Department of Defense requested nearly $180 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation activities, including over $20 billion for science and technology activities and over $40 billion for advanced component development and prototyping efforts. OUSD(R&E) is responsible for providing management and oversight for these funds.

The report first assesses the extent to which OUSD(R&E) has implemented its statutory and policy-granted authorities to manage, oversee, and improve the Department of Defense's innovation-related investments, including joint programs. The analysis indicates that OUSD(R&E) is generally implementing plans and processes consistent with its authorities. For example, the office developed the Department of Defense Science and Technology Strategy based on the 2022 National Defense Strategy. The military services have also developed their own service-focused strategies, but the frequency of updates to these strategies and their alignment with the Department-wide strategy vary. This inconsistency may lead to service departments pursuing technology directions that do not match the Department of Defense's overall vision.

The report further assesses the extent to which these authorities enable OUSD(R&E) to effectively manage these investments. The study found that OUSD(R&E) faces multiple challenges in ensuring that the military services can rapidly deliver technologies to warfighters. Key challenges include: OUSD(R&E) has not yet issued guidance for developing Critical Technology Area Roadmaps, including which stakeholders should be involved or what the roadmaps should contain; it has not determined how the services should balance investments in critical technologies between joint force priorities and service priorities, because it has not provided guidance to the services on the level of investment needed for each critical technology area to ensure maximum feasible alignment with the corresponding roadmap; furthermore, OUSD(R&E)'s ability to influence service budgets through the annual budget process to ensure alignment with Department-wide priorities is limited, as it lacks the statutory authority to certify service budgets.

Based on the above findings, the report presents one matter for Congressional consideration: to consider granting OUSD(R&E) budget certification authority. Simultaneously, the report makes three recommendations to the Department of Defense: direct the military services to develop science and technology strategies that align, to the maximum extent feasible, with OUSD(R&E)'s Department-wide science and technology strategy; issue guidance for developing Critical Technology Area Roadmaps; and provide guidance to the military services on the level of investment needed for each critical technology area to ensure maximum feasible alignment with the corresponding roadmaps. The Department of Defense agreed with GAO's recommendations. The analysis in this report is based on a review of Department of Defense documents and data, an assessment of selected legal provisions, and interviews with officials from OUSD(R&E) and the military services.