Defense Inventory
Air Force Item Manager Views of Repair Parts Issues Consistent With Issues Reported in the Past Gao ID: GAO-03-684R May 21, 2003Since 1990 we have consistently identified the Department of Defense's (DOD) management of secondary inventory (spare and repair parts, medical supplies, and other items to support the operating forces) as a high-risk area because inventory levels were too high and management systems and procedures were ineffective. In addition, DOD has attributed readiness problems to parts shortages. Previously, we reported on the wide variety of reasons for inventory of spare parts being above or below the levels needed to satisfy current inventory requirements. This is one in a series of reports addressing defense inventory vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, and abuse. Congress asked that we specifically obtain the views about defense inventory imbalances from item managers, i.e., those who are responsible for maintaining the right amount of inventory.
We found that the reasons and operational impacts item managers cited for our sample items being either above or below the levels needed to satisfy current inventory requirements were similar to the reasons and impacts cited in our prior reports. For shortages, item managers often cited the lack of component parts and repair shop capacity/process problems. In our 1999 report, we discuss the Air Force's effectiveness in providing inventory items to its customers, and identified component parts shortages as the most frequent cause of aircraft repair work not being done on time. For causes of excess items, the managers often cited a buildup of inventory to support a new program, or for an aircraft retrofit, modification, upgrade, or replacement. In 1997, we reported that a similar reason for inventory items being in excess--purchases made to support a system before it was activated--was common. The operational impacts cited by item managers were also similar to those given in our past work. As in the past, shortages were often cited as a contributing factor to reduced mission capability of aircraft or delays in planned maintenance. In addition, excesses were often cited as contributing to the consumption of warehouse space and related storage costs.
GAO-03-684R, Defense Inventory: Air Force Item Manager Views of Repair Parts Issues Consistent With Issues Reported in the Past
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-684R
entitled 'Defense Inventory: Air Force Item Manager Views of Repair
Parts Issues Consistent With Issues Reported in the Past' which was
released on May 21, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
[End of section]
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 21, 2003:
The Honorable C.W. Bill Young
Chairman
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Jerry Lewis
Chairman
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives:
Subject: Defense Inventory: Air Force Item Manager Views of Repair
Parts Issues Consistent With Issues Reported in the Past:
Since 1990 we have consistently identified the Department of Defense's
(DOD) management of secondary inventory (spare and repair parts,
medical supplies, and other items to support the operating forces) as a
high-risk area because inventory levels were too high and management
systems and procedures were ineffective. In addition, DOD has
attributed readiness problems to parts shortages. Previously, we
reported on the wide variety of reasons for inventory of spare parts
being above or below the levels needed to satisfy current inventory
requirements.[Footnote 1] This is one in a series of reports addressing
defense inventory vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, and abuse. You asked
that we specifically obtain the views about defense inventory
imbalances from item managers, i.e., those who are responsible for
maintaining the right amount of inventory.[Footnote 2] This report
responds to your request, and other work is being done for you under
separate reports that address related issues. Our objective was to
obtain from Air Force item managers their views on the reasons for and
operational impacts of having repaired parts either above or below the
levels needed to satisfy current inventory requirements, and compare
them with the reasons and impacts found in our previous reports.
We chose the Air Force for this review because of the large dollar
value of repair parts in that service. To respond to your request, we
conducted a survey of item managers overseeing 150 sample items--75
items we found to be below requirements (shortage) and 75 items we
found to be above requirements (excess)--at the Air Force's three air
logistics centers (ALC) in Ogden, Utah; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and
Warner Robins, Georgia. We then compared our results with those in our
previous reports to determine whether there were any consistencies
between the results regarding the reasons for imbalances and their
operational impacts. The scope and methodology for our review is
discussed at the end of this report.
Summary:
We found that the reasons and operational impacts item managers cited
for our sample items being either above or below the levels needed to
satisfy current inventory requirements were similar to the reasons and
impacts cited in our prior reports. For shortages, item managers often
cited the lack of component parts and repair shop capacity/process
problems. In our 1999 report, we discuss the Air Force's effectiveness
in providing inventory items to its customers, and identified component
parts shortages as the most frequent cause of aircraft repair work not
being done on time.[Footnote 3] For causes of excess items, the
managers often cited a buildup of inventory to support a new program,
or for an aircraft retrofit, modification, upgrade, or replacement. In
1997, we reported that a similar reason for inventory items being in
excess--purchases made to support a system before it was activated--was
common.[Footnote 4] The operational impacts cited by item managers were
also similar to those given in our past work. As in the past, shortages
were often cited as a contributing factor to reduced mission capability
of aircraft or delays in planned maintenance. In addition, excesses
were often cited as contributing to the consumption of warehouse space
and related storage costs.
Background:
Maintenance and repair services for military aircraft are provided by
the Air Force's three ALCs in Ogden, Utah; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and
Warner Robins, Georgia. These centers manage the supply of certain
repair parts as well as provide the primary source of repair for broken
items that can be repaired and returned to service. As supply managers,
the three ALCs manage almost 25,000 different reparable items. Repairs
are performed either by the center managing the item, by or with
another center, by a contractor, or by another military service. From
those 25,000 reparable items, we identified nearly 9,500 items where
the same center was both the supply manager and the primary source of
repair for an item, and formed the basis for our sample items mentioned
above.
Reasons for and Impacts of Spare Parts Imbalances Cited by Item
Managers Similar to Previously Reported Problems:
Item managers responding to our survey provided multiple reasons and
operational impacts for our sample items being either above or below
the levels needed to satisfy current inventory requirements that were
similar to the reasons and impacts cited in our prior reports. Item
managers' reasons for spare parts shortages were similar to past
problems, and in roughly the same order of magnitude as previously
reported. The reasons for spare parts excesses, and the operational
impacts of spare parts imbalances, were also similar to those
identified in our previous reports.
Item Managers' Reasons for Spare Parts Shortages Reflect Similar
Problems of the Past:
Item managers provided similar reasons for shortages among our sample
items in about the same order of magnitude as we have previously
reported. Table 1 lists categories of the most frequently cited reasons
provided by item managers for inventory shortages among our sample
items. Many of the reasons shown in the table may be caused by
unanticipated demands for parts, which is one of the primary reasons
for parts shortages cited in our 2001 report on the reasons for and
impacts of spare parts shortages on three selected Air Force
systems.[Footnote 5]
Table 1: Item Manager Reasons for Reparable Parts Shortages:
Reason: Lack of component parts to complete the repairs; Number of
responses[A]: 42.
Reason: Repair shop process and/or capacity problems; Number of
responses[A]: 41.
Reason: Higher than expected condemnation rates of the part; Number of
responses[A]: 9.
Reason: Broken items in the field not turned in to depot for repairs;
Number of responses[A]: 7.
Reason: Rarely used item; Number of responses[A]: 4.
Reason: Funding constraints; Number of responses[A]: 4.
Source: GAO survey of Air Force item managers.
[A] The response total exceeds the 75 shortage sample item total due to
multiple reasons received from item managers.
[End of table]
Lack of Component Parts:
Air Force item managers, along with our prior work, indicate that the
most frequent reason for repair parts shortages is the lack of
component parts. These are the individual parts used to fix other spare
parts. For example, item managers cited a shortage of rotors and
backing plates needed to fix the brakes for the KC-135 and C-130
aircraft. Similarly, in our 1999 report discussing the Air Force's
effectiveness in providing inventory items to its customers, we found
that component parts shortages were the major cause of aircraft repair
work not being done on time.[Footnote 6] We noted in that report that
there was a lack of several component parts, sometimes for more than a
year, for two radio band transmitters used in the B-1B aircraft. Also,
our 2001 report indicated that unanticipated demands for a machine bolt
on an aircraft engine caused a lack of component parts.
Repair Shop Process and/or Capacity Problems:
Parts shortages due to various shop process and/or shop capacity
problems were noted by both the item managers in our current review as
well as being an issue in prior reports. Shop process problems include
broken machines, a lack of personnel or experienced personnel, or the
process repaired the part the wrong way. For example, an inoperable
machine held up the repair of a high-pressure turbine rotor used in
aircraft engines. In another example, the existing repair process
presented safety issues and a new process was being developed to
replace it. Shop capacity problems are generally related to space
constraints--such as for the lack of space needed to repair an F-15
aircraft wing assembly--or for competing demands for the same equipment
or space. Furthermore, item managers indicated that 13 of our selected
75 sample items had both shop process and shop capacity problems. For
example, the repair of an F-15 countermeasure receiver was delayed due
to a lack of testing equipment (shop capacity) as well as a lengthy
repair process that was being reviewed to cut down on the repair time
(shop process). Similar issues, such as the lack of testing equipment
and limited repair facility capacity, were reported in our 2001 report.
As mentioned above, the most frequently cited reason for repair parts
shortages in the 2001 report was unanticipated demands, such as the
sudden demand for a part after no demands for 7 years. Two of the
sample items that item managers identified from our current sample as
having shop process and capacity issues had these problems due to
unanticipated demands. For example, an electronic countermeasure
control device for the B-52 and C-130 aircraft experienced a surge in
demands after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The repair
facility did not have the floor space to keep up with demand for this
part.
Higher Than Expected Condemnation Rates:
Both the current review and prior reports contained instances of either
higher than expected condemnation rates or component reliability
problems that created parts shortages. Repair parts can only be
repaired so many times before they can no longer be repaired, and then
they are "condemned" as beyond repair. Anticipated condemnation rates
are formed from either engineering estimates or repair records.
In our review, item managers said that shortages of a C-130 aircraft
ballscrew assembly stemmed from very high condemnations for the last
3 years. Sometimes the higher condemnation rate was for a component
part of our sample item, and not the sample item itself. For example,
item managers said that a piston in a retractable landing gear
experienced a high condemnation rate, and, in another example, a roll
pin encountering high condemnations created a shortage for a C-5
aircraft landing gear strut. Although our 2001 report did not indicate
higher than expected condemnation rates that led to parts shortages, it
did report that the life of some parts was shorter than the Air Force
predicted. For example, a skid detector for the C-5 aircraft failed
faster than expected, experiencing a 50-percent increase in failures
that exhausted the parts in stock before they could be
replaced.[Footnote 7]
Other Reasons for Shortages:
The remaining three reasons in the above table represent more of the
variety of reasons contributing to parts shortages. In some cases, item
managers indicated that units in the field would keep broken items to
be used as spare parts to fix other broken parts. These broken items
not turned in to the repair facility for repair involve different
items, such as a circuit card assembly for a jammer in the F-15
aircraft, a turbine nozzle for aircraft engines, and a B-1B aircraft
rudder. Rarely used items are those experiencing little or no demand,
as in the case cited by an item manager of no demand in 2 years for a
test system's circuit card assembly. Funding constraints represented
another reason for parts shortages. For example, the lack of funds to
increase the repair rate of an aircraft engine's compression rotors
created a shortage of this item.
Our prior reports in 1999 and 2001 contained examples of unanticipated
demands (for example, no demands since 1993) causing parts shortages,
or repairs not being done when needed due to the lack of broken parts
returned from units in the field. One issue reported to some degree by
both our 1999 and 2001 reports that did not surface as an issue in our
current review was the transfer of repair work to current Air Force
repair facilities due to the closure of some Air Force repair
facilities. Some operational, personnel, and productivity problems
experienced during that closure were not specifically cited by item
managers during our current review as a factor influencing parts
shortages.
Reasons for Excess Parts also Identified in Previous GAO reports:
Item managers provided a variety of reasons for repair parts excesses
among our sample items that were similar to those identified in our
previous reports. Table 2 lists categories of the most frequently cited
reasons for inventory excesses.
Table 2: Item Manager Reasons for Reparable Parts Excesses:
Reason: Buildup of repair parts to support a new program or for a
retrofit, modification, upgrade or replacement; Number of responses[A]:
23.
Reason: Foreign Military Sales program requirements; Number of
responses[A]: 8.
Reason: Low or decreasing demand for a part; Number of responses[A]: 6.
Reason: Retirement or phasing out of an aircraft; Number of
responses[A]: 5.
Reason: Other; Number of responses[A]: 18.
Source: GAO survey of Air Force item managers.
[A] The number of reasons is lower than our 75 excess sample items
because a number of item managers responded that there were some items
that were not in an excess condition.
[End of table]
The predominant reason for excesses cited by item managers was the
inventory buildup of repair parts to anticipate the future support for
a new program or for major changes in an existing program. This is
similar to our 1997 report where we reported that a common reason for
inventory items being in excess was purchases made to support a system
before it was activated.[Footnote 8]
Foreign Military Sales program requirements or potential requirements
are cited as a contributing factor for excesses eight times. Item
managers told us that the Air Force stocks and services some reparable
items that are used to support systems sold to or anticipated to be
sold to other countries. These items include various radio items such
as receivers and transmitters for the F-111, and disk brakes for the F-
16. Our 1997 report indicated unneeded quantities in inventory for the
wiring harness of an airborne radio communication system. Although
demand for this harness decreased as modifications to the radio system
were made, quantities were being retained to support the military
services, the Coast Guard, and foreign military sales and to
reconfigure other radios.
The most common reason cited in 1997--demands for an item decreased or
did not materialize--echoes our third most commonly cited reason, low
or decreasing demand for a part. Aircraft or system retirement was
cited as the third most common reason for excesses in 1997 and is
fourth in our current analysis.
Other reasons affecting only one or two of our sample items include a
repair made that was not required, program changes, or an item becoming
a throwaway item instead of one that would typically be repaired.
Impacts Cited by Item Managers Similar to Our Past Work:
Item managers cited operational impacts from the inventory
imbalances that were similar to impacts cited in our past reports.
Sometimes there was more than a single impact for some individual
items. Of the 75 shortage sample items, 38 had more than one impact
cited by item managers and there was no impact cited for 16 items. Of
the 75 excess sample items, item managers cited no impact for 40 items.
One of the most frequently cited (41 cases) operational impacts of
repair parts shortages provided by item managers was some form of
mission impairment at one time or another that kept a weapon system
from performing its mission. For example, the previously mentioned
shortage of rotors and backing plates needed to fix the brakes for the
KC-135 and C-130 aircraft due to a lack of component parts caused both
aircraft to be unavailable for flying. Although in our 2001 report we
selected all sample items from three Air Force systems because each
item caused mission capability problems, the causes of many of these
problems--such as unanticipated demands, parts production problems, or
component reliability--were similar.[Footnote 9]
Item managers cited 14 parts shortages that led to delays in planned
maintenance. For example, one ALC was always behind in providing C-5
aircraft retractable landing gears for the scheduled maintenance lines.
In our 1999 report, repairs not being done when needed were cited as an
impact of component parts shortages.[Footnote 10] In 54 cases, item
managers cited unfilled or empty stock levels resulting from parts
shortages, thus contributing to the ALC's inability to meet the
stocking requirements for the aircraft or system it serviced. For
example, one center had no shelf supply of a retractable landing gear
for the B-52 bomber.
Air Force item managers did not cite nearly as many impacts of parts
excesses. However, in 28 cases item managers cited the consumption of
warehouse space for parts that were in excess of inventory
requirements. While some item managers cited space problems, others
cited the related costs associated with storing excess items. Among a
number of items in these categories are engine blades and shafts,
landing gear pistons, C-141 aircraft rear access doors, and B-52 bomber
electronic warfare circuit cards. What is not clear from item manager
survey responses, however, is how these warehousing space and cost
issues would be any different if the quantities of the item had not
exceeded repair requirements.
Eight other items contained miscellaneous impacts, such as two items
needing fewer repairs than expected, namely the ignition component of
an aircraft engine and the F-16 aircraft's radar signal processor.
Agency Comments:
In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD stated that it
generally concurred with the draft report. DOD's comments can be found
in enclosure I.
Scope and Methodology:
To identify reasons repaired parts are in a short or excess condition
(by comparing available worldwide assets to worldwide requirements at
one point in time), we selected 25 items of each type from those repair
parts both supplied and repaired at each of the following ALCs: Ogden,
Ogden, Utah; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and Warner Robins,
Warner Robins, Georgia. For each group of 25 items, we selected 20
items from among the highest dollar value of shortages or excesses. The
other five items in each group were selected randomly. Using a
structured questionnaire, we held on-site discussions for this 150-item
sample with 86 item managers to identify reasons for and operational
impacts of the excesses and shortages, among other points. We looked at
collaborating data obtained via the questionnaire to assure ourselves
that other factors, such as production data and procurement history,
did not conflict with the reason and impact data. We did not
independently verify the responses we received from item managers. We
also reviewed our past work to determine if similar reasons were
previously identified for shortages and excesses.
We also met with officials of the Air Force Materiel Command,
Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio.
We performed our work from November 2001 through February 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Donald Rumsfeld,
Secretary of Defense, and interested congressional committees. The
report will also be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http:/
/www.gao.gov.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of assistance. If you or your staff
have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (202)
512-8365 or Lawson "Rick" Gist, Jr., Assistant Director, at (202) 512-
4478. Other key contributors to this review were Gerald Thompson, Jay
Willer, and R.K. Wild.
William M. Solis, Director
Defense Capabilities and Management:
Signed by William M. Solis:
[End of section]
Enclosure I: Comments from the Department of Defense:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative
arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
:
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products" under the GAO Reports heading.
:
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000
TDD: (202) 512-2537
Fax: (202) 512-6061
:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
FOOTNOTES
[1] U.S. General Accounting Office: Air Force Inventory: Parts
Shortages Are Impacting Operations and Maintenance Effectiveness, GAO-
01-587 (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2001); Army Inventory: Parts
Shortages Are Impacting Operations and Maintenance Effectiveness, GAO-
01-772 (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2001); Navy Inventory: Parts
Shortages Are Impacting Operations and Maintenance Effectiveness, GAO-
01-771 (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2001); Defense Logistics: Much of
the Inventory Exceeds Current Needs, GAO/NSIAD-97-71 (Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 28, 1997); and Air Force Supply: Management Actions Create Spare
Parts Shortages and Operational Problems, GAO/NSIAD/AIMD-99-77
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 1999).
[2] Item managers perform materiel management functions such as
worldwide item distribution and redistribution, materiel requirements
determinations, budget estimates, cataloging, repair programs, and
other related functions.
[3] GAO/NSIAD/AIMD-99-77.
[4] GAO/NSIAD-97-71.
[5] GAO-01-587.
[6] GAO/NSIAD/AIMD-99-77.
[7] GAO-01-587.
[8] GAO/NSIAD-97-71.
[9] GAO-01-587.
[10] GAO/NSIAD/AIMD-99-77.
