The Aviation Supply Office Continues To Have Problems With the Accuracy of Its Requirements Determinations

Gao ID: PLRD-82-26 December 22, 1981

GAO completed a review of Navy requirements determinations for aeronautical repair and spare parts at the Naval Aviation Supply Office. GAO also reviewed the Navy's techniques for forecasting leadtimes and demands.

The Navy has used some innovative techniques to identify data trends and to forecast leadtime and demands which could be adaptable to other Department of Defense requirements determination systems. However, the Aviation Supply Office continues to have major problems with the accuracy of its requirements determinations. Its automated requirements system contains vast amounts of invalid data which have caused requirements to be significantly overstated. As a result, extensive manual adjustments are needed before data can be used for determining what items and how many to buy. GAO did not find significant discrepancies in the adjustments made by inventory managers, but it did identify the primary reasons for the poor quality of system-generated data. The invalid system data resulted because: (1) available assets were not reported to the Aviation Supply Office in a timely manner; (2) the database for certain items was fragmented; (3) access to files for inputting requirements data was not controlled; (4) inventory managers' data changes were not reviewed; (5) coordination among various Aviation Supply Office divisions was lacking; (6) the updating of due-in files was not timely; and (7) inventory managers did not review recommended procurement actions in a timely manner. Because of the amount of inaccurate data in the requirements system, GAO questioned the validity of the budget which is based on these data. GAO planned to monitor the Navy's efforts to improve the credibility of its requirements determination system.



The Justia Government Accountability Office site republishes public reports retrieved from the U.S. GAO These reports should not be considered official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Justia.