Depot Maintenance
Sustainment Strategy for Harrier Aircraft Could Be Enhanced with Additional Metrics Gao ID: GAO-10-618R April 26, 2010This report formally transmits the attached briefing in response to section 343 (a) of The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-84). The Act requires the Comptroller General to provide a report on the sustainment strategy for the AV-8B Harrier aircraft and provide the results to the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after the enactment of the Act. On April 26, 2010, we provided the briefing to your offices to satisfy the mandate.
Because the AV-8B Harrier aircraft sustainment strategy does not detail how the Navy will measure the execution of all the responsibilities of the organizations accountable for coordinating AV-8B maintenance events, the Single Process Owners; we are recommending that the Navy develop and implement metrics for evaluating the execution of all the stated Single Process Owners' responsibilities. A draft was sent to the Department of Defense and no comments were provided.
GAO-10-618R, Depot Maintenance: Sustainment Strategy for Harrier Aircraft Could Be Enhanced with Additional Metrics
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-618R
entitled 'Depot Maintenance: Sustainment Strategy for Harrier Aircraft
Could Be Enhanced with Additional Metrics' which was released on April
26, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
GAO-10-618R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 26, 2010:
Congressional Committees:
Subject: Depot Maintenance: Sustainment Strategy for Harrier Aircraft
Could Be Enhanced with Additional Metrics:
This report formally transmits the attached briefing (see enclosure I)
in response to section 343 (a) of The National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-84). The Act requires the
Comptroller General to provide a report on the sustainment strategy
for the AV-8B Harrier aircraft and provide the results to the
congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after the
enactment of the Act. On April 26, 2010, we provided the briefing to
your offices to satisfy the mandate. Because the AV-8B Harrier
aircraft sustainment strategy does not detail how the Navy will
measure the execution of all the responsibilities of the organizations
accountable for coordinating AV-8B maintenance events, the Single
Process Owners; we are recommending that the Navy develop and
implement metrics for evaluating the execution of all the stated
Single Process Owners' responsibilities. A draft was sent to the
Department of Defense and no comments were provided. The Related GAO
Products section at the end of this report lists additional GAO
publications on this issue.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Defense;
the Deputy Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition, Technology and Logistics); the Secretary of the Navy and
the Commandant of the Marine Corps. This report will also be available
at no charge on our Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Should you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-8246 or edwardsj@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this
report were Carleen Bennett, Assistant Director; Yong Song; and
Jessica Drucker.
Signed by:
Jack E. Edwards:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
List of Congressional Committees:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye:
Chairman:
The Honorable Thad Cochran:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Chairman:
The Honorable Howard P. McKeon:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Norm Dicks:
Chairman:
The Honorable C. W. Bill Young:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Enclosure:
Sustainment Strategy for Harrier Aircraft Could Be Enhanced with
Additional Metrics:
Briefing to the Defense Committees:
April 26, 2010:
Contents:
* Introduction;
* Objectives;
* Scope and Methodology;
* Summary of Findings;
* Objective 1: AV-8B Integrated Maintenance Concept;
* Objective 2: Assignment of Non-Core Workload;
* Objective 3: Role and Execution of Single Process Owners'
Responsibilities;
* Conclusion;
* Recommendation for Executive Action;
* Agency Comments;
* Points of Contact;
* Appendix;
* Related GAO Products.
Figure 1: AV-8B Harrier Aircraft:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
[End of figure]
Source: Fleet Readiness Center ” East, Cherry Point, North Carolina.
Introduction: AV-8B Harrier:
The high pace of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased the
utilization of the Marine Corps[Footnote 1] AV-8B aircraft above
planned usage.
* The first of the current model II version of the AV-8B entered
service in 1981.
* AV-8Bs utilize vertical, short takeoff and landing capability.
* AV-8Bs are expected to fly longer than intended because of the
delays in acquiring the replacement aircraft ” the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter.
Scheduled depot-level maintenance is needed to prolong the life of the
AV-8B.
* The AV-8B maintenance acquisition strategy, updated in 1994, did not
include scheduled depot-level maintenance.
* To maintain the AV-8B's operational capability until the transition
to the F-35, the Navy identified the need for scheduled depot-level
maintenance to sustain the AV-8B and began transitioning AV-8Bs to its
Integrated Maintenance Concept in late fiscal year 2003.
Introduction: AV-8B Sustainment Strategy:
Three key elements of the AV-8B sustainment strategy include:
* The Integrated Maintenance Concept,
* Assignment of workload, and
* Single Process Owners.
The AV-8B's Integrated Maintenance Concept consists of:
* Three maintenance levels ” depot, intermediate, and organizational ”
where repair tasks are integrated to maximize the efficiency of work
performed and minimize the time when the aircraft are not operational
[Footnote 2] and;
* A 15-year, scheduled maintenance cycle involving periodic Planned
Operating Intervals and Planned Maintenance Interval (PMI) events.
* The three types of AV-8B PMI events are as follows:
PMI-1 events:
- Are performed by depot personnel and;
- Consist of maintenance tasks that require special depot-level
facilities for major overhaul and/or the complete rebuild of parts.
PMI-2 and PMI-3 events (PMI-213):
- Are performed by depot personnel and private-sector contractors and;
- Consist of maintenance tasks that do not require the special depot-
level facilities necessary for PMI-1 events.
* The AV-8B's maintenance acquisition strategy:
- Outlines how AV-8B maintenance will be conducted using the
Integrated Maintenance Concept,
- Contains guidance on assigning maintenance workload, and,
- States the maintenance readiness[Footnote 3] goals (e.g., turnaround
time[Footnote 4] goals) to be achieved.
Department of Defense (DOD) and Navy documentation define different
types of workload.
* DOD Instruction 4151.20 defines two types of workload: core and non-
core.
- Core workload is workload required to maintain the core logistics
capability (including personnel, equipment, and facilities) as a ready
and controlled source of technical competence and resources at
government-owned, government-operated facilities necessary to ensure
effective and timely response to a mobilization, national defense
contingency situations, and other emergency requirements.
- Non-core workload is workload that is not needed to support core
capability requirements.
- Navy documentation defines a type of non-core workload[Footnote 5]
called above core workload:
- Above core workload is workload that refers to the number of
platforms scheduled for maintenance that are beyond the number
required to sustain the core capability.
Single Process Owners:
* Are the organizations responsible for coordinating AV-8B PMI-213
maintenance events.
* Were created in late fiscal year 2009 because of the challenges
identified through the implementation of the Integrated Maintenance
Concept and the assignment of non-core workload.
* Were established to:
- Reduce maintenance turnaround time to 90 days and costs for PMI-213
events and
- Coordinate all maintenance activities between the depot and private-
sector contractor.
[End of section]
Objectives:
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 mandated
that GAO report on the sustainment strategy for the AV-8B within 180
days of the enactment of that act (October 28, 2009).[Footnote 6]
Specifically, our objectives were as follows:
1. Assess the AV-8B Integrated Maintenance Concept, including the
acquisition strategy developed to conduct planned maintenance interval
events.
2. Evaluate the process and criteria established to determine the
assignment of non-core workload.
3. Examine the role of the Single Process Owner in implementing the
Integrated Maintenance Concept and executing its responsibilities to
reduce planned maintenance interval turnaround time, to reduce cost,
to improve material availability, and to ensure that the necessary
logistics and engineering functions are in place to meet objective
goals.
[End of section]
Scope and Methodology:
To conduct our work, we did the following:
* Reviewed laws, regulations, reports (e.g., DOD's and GAO's reports
on aviation maintenance and determination of core and non-core
workload), AV-8B-specific documents, and other related materials.
* Conducted a site visit to Fleet Readiness Center (FRC)1-East to
observe PMI-1 and PMI-2/3 events and learn about how those PM's vary.
* Interviewed officials and obtained additional documents (e.g., those
addressing the AV-8B's maintenance acquisition strategy, determination
of core and non-core workload, the role of the Single Process Owner,
and the execution of the Single Process Owners' responsibilities). The
officials represented:
- Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR),
- FRC-East,
- Marine Corps Headquarters,
- Naval Aviation Inventory Control Point,
- FRC-Southwest,
- Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, and,
- a private-sector contractor.
* Compared information obtained from DOD officials and other sources
against processes and criteria provided in laws and regulations.
* Met periodically with agency officials to discuss our preliminary
observations.
For each of our objectives, we assessed the reliability of the data we
analyzed by reviewing existing documentation related to the data
sources and interviewing knowledgeable agency officials about the data
that we used. We found the data sufficiently reliable for the purposes
of this briefing.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2009 to April 2010 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Summary of Findings:
Objective 1: The Integrated Maintenance Concept was implemented to
address maintenance issues identified by the Marine Corps that stemmed
primarily from the previous reactive maintenance approach ” the Age
Exploration maintenance program. The Integrated Maintenance Concept
has led to improvements in the AV-8B aircraft's sustainability, but
challenges remain in meeting readiness (e.g., turnaround time goals)
to sustain the AV-8B fleet. The AV-8B maintenance acquisition strategy
outlines the execution of the Integrated Maintenance Concept for PM1-
213 events, assignment of non-core workload, and overall goals for AV-
8B maintenance.
Objective 2: DOD Instruction 4151.20 states that subject to certain
exceptions, non-core workload should be allocated to public- or
private-sector organizations using best value criteria. Navy documents
state that NAVAIR uses a best value determination[Footnote 8] (based
on turnaround time and cost) to assign non-core workload. However,
problems continued in meeting readiness (e.g., turnaround time goals)
through fiscal year 2009. Until late fiscal year 2009, there was no
single organization coordinating the PMI-213 event maintenance.
Objective 3: The Single Process Owners' role is to coordinate the
efforts of multiple organizations performing PMI-2/3 workload to,
among other things, distribute non-core workload, standardize workload
processes, facilitate public-private partnering, implement lessons
learned, and execute contracting authority. Limited performance data
are available to evaluate the FRCs' execution of their Single Process
Owners' responsibilities. However, initial data show improvements in
readiness and aircraft availability. While Navy documentation defines
the Single Process Owners' responsibilities and details performance
goals regarding turnaround time and cost standards, metrics are not in
place for evaluating the execution of all the Single Process Owners'
responsibilities.
Recommendation for Executive Action: The AV-8B Performance Based
Agreement (December 2009) is the formal agreement between the program
manager and the FRCs ”the Single Process Owners ” that outlines
performance goals for the execution of the Single Process Owners'
responsibilities. However, it does not detail how the Navy will
measure the execution of all the Single Process Owners'
responsibilities. Thus we are recommending that the Navy develop and
implement metrics for evaluating the execution of each of the Single
Process Owners' stated responsibilities and incorporate these metrics
into the AV-8B Performance Based Agreement.
[End of section]
Objective 1: Integrated Maintenance Concept--Factors Leading Up to Its
Implementation:
The Integrated Maintenance Concept was implemented to address
maintenance issues identified by the Marine Corps that stemmed
primarily from the previous reactive[Footnote 9] maintenance
approach ” the Age Exploration maintenance program.
The Age Exploration program:
* Was the AV-8B maintenance program until the 2003 transition to the
Integrated Maintenance Concept and;
* Consisted of examining a sample of AV-8Bs to identify maintenance
requirements and monitor the condition of the AV-8B fleet.
In Navy documentation that describes the transition from the Age
Exploration program to the Integrated Maintenance Concept, the number
of AV-8Bs out of operation because of maintenance issues was
attributed to several factors including:
* Not having scheduled depot-level maintenance so aircraft needing
major overhaul would be out of the fleet unexpectedly and for unknown
durations,
* Not having the ability to accurately budget for maintenance because
of the unscheduled nature of major overhaul requirements,
* Aging aircraft[Footnote 10] that were deteriorating in material
condition, and,
* Aging aircraft that were requiring significant modifications and
upgrades to continue operability.
Accountability Integrity Reliability
The Integrated Maintenance Concept has led to improvements in the AV-
8B aircraft's sustainability, but challenges remain in meeting
readiness (e.g., turnaround time goals) to sustain the AV-8B fleet.
The AV-8B maintenance acquisition strategy outlines the execution of
the Integrated Maintenance Concept for PM1-213 events, assignment of
workload, and overall maintenance goals.
Outcomes include:
* Establishing the first scheduled depot-level maintenance program for
AV-8Bs,
* Establishing a plan to budget for maintenance,
* Improving overall aircraft condition, and,
* Improving readiness and aircraft availability by lowering turnaround
time (e.g., for PMI-2/3 events, 212 days in fiscal year 2004 to 170
days in fiscal year 2007).
The Integrated Maintenance Concept has also provided the foundation
for the current maintenance acquisition strategy ” a memorandum laying
out the execution of PMI-2/3 events.
Challenges in meeting AV-8B readiness (e.g., turnaround time) have
continued after the Integrated Maintenance Concept was in place for
several years.
* For example, the Navy's 2008 business case analysis data showed that
from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2007, PMI-2/3 turnaround
time goals of 120 days were not being met. Actual turnaround time
performance averaged over 170 days.
[End of section]
Objective 2: Assignment of Non-Core Workload -Navy Process to Assign
Non-Core Workload:
DOD Instruction 4151.20 states that subject to certain exceptions, non-
core workload should be allocated to public- or private-sector
organizations using best value criteria. Navy documents state that
NAVAIR uses a best value determination (based on turnaround time and
cost) to assign non-core workload.
The AV-8B program manager assigns workloads as follows:
* Core ” to government-owned, government-operated facilities (depot).
* Non-core[Footnote 11] ” to either the depots or private-sector
contractors using a best value determination.
* Above core ” assigned on the same basis as other non-core workload:
to either the depots or private-sector contractors using a best value
determination.
Step 1: In fiscal year 2008, 13 AV-8Bs were scheduled for PMI-2/3
events.
Step 2: NAVAIR determined that depot-level PMI-2/3 event tasks for 7
of the 13 AV-8Bs needed to be completed by government-owned,
government-operated facilities to maintain core capabilities. NAVAIR
identified this workload as core workload (see Examine & evaluate
aircraft, Critical corrective tasks, and Major/minor corrective tasks
in figure 2). The remaining PMI-2/3 event tasks were identified as non-
core workload.
Figure 2: PMI-213 Event Integrated Maintenance Concept ” Workload
Assignment:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
PMI Task: Canopy removal;
Organization performing task: Fleet;
Workload: Non-core workload.
PMI Task: Disassembly;
Organization performing task: Contractor;
Workload: Non-core workload.
PMI Task: Examine & evaluate aircraft;
Organization performing task: FRC;
Workload: Core workload.
PMI Task: Critical corrective tasks;
Organization performing task: FRC;
Workload: Core workload.
PMI Task: Major/minor corrective tasks;
Organization performing task: FRC;
Workload: Core workload.
PMI Task: Minor corrective tasks;
Organization performing task: Contractor;
Workload: Non-core workload.
PMI Task: Concurrent modifications;
Organization performing task: Contractor FRC-Southwest;
Workload: Non-core workload.
PMI Task: Reassembly;
Organization performing task: Contractor;
Workload: Non-core workload.
PMI Task: Canopy reinstall;
Organization performing task: Fleet;
Workload: Non-core workload.
PMI Task: Flight check;
Organization performing task: Fleet;
Workload: Non-core workload.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Legend:
Major corrective task: Action to address a defect that is identifiable
as critical and could result in failure or materially reduce the
usability of the unit.
Minor corrective task:
Action to address a defect that does not, or if not corrected prior to
the next PMI event, will not materially reduce or degrade the 14
usability off the unit or part for its intended purpose or is a
departure from standards.
Concurrent modifications: Modifications (e.g., the 1760 wiring kit
upgrades) performed during a PMI event.
[End of figure]
Step 3: Navy documents state that the program manager then used a best
value determination process in deciding whether to assign the non-core
workload to the depot or to a private-sector contractor. Navy
documents state that the program manager used a best value
determination to award the non-core workload to the private-sector
contractor.
Step 4: NAVAIR referred to the remaining non-core workload (i.e., the
six remaining aircraft scheduled for PMI-2/3 events) as above core
workload. Navy documents state that the program manager used a best
value determination to assign five of the aircraft to the depot and
the remaining one aircraft to the private-sector contractor.
Objective 2: Assignment of Non-Core Workload: Timeline of Major Events:
Figure 3: Timeline of AV-8B Major Events in Workload Assignment:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Each subsequent event increases the contractor involvement in PMI/2-3
events.
2003-2006: Integrated Maintenance Concept begins:
AV-8B inducted; disassembly and assembly are only work outsouced.
2006-2007: Modification work:
Standalone modification work goes to contractor, followed by
additional modification work.
Results: Contractor's performance of modification work leads to more
involvement in PMI-2/3 events.
2007: Business case analysis[A]:
Program manager conducts analysis to compare time and cost for current
modification work for 10 total AV-8Bs assigned to the depot and
contractor.
Results: Contractor performs modifications work more quickly and at
lower cost than the depot.
2008: PMI-2/3 proposals:
Contractor gives unsolicited PMI-2/3 work proposals for three AV-8Bs
to program manager, and program manager requests a proposal from FRC-
East for comparison.
Results:
Contractor estimates for PMI-2/3 work showed lower time and lower cost
than depot estimate.
2008: Beta test:
Program manager directs cost comparison where three AV-8Bs are
assigned to the depot and contractor to verify the results of the PMI-
2/3 proposals.
Results:
FRC-East performs work in shorter turnaround time while contractor
performs work in fewer hours and at lower cost[B].
2009: Single Process Owners:
Program manager selects FRC-East and FRC-Southwest as Single Process
Owners after completion of two AV-8Bs each by the depot and contractor.
Single Process Owners selected.
[a] Navy documentation states NAVAIR conducted this best value
determination in the form of a business case analysis, which is an
analysis that should consider cost and other quantifiable and non-
quantifiable factors associated with any resultant investment decision
(see appendix for additional information on business case analysis).
[B] Cost figures for FRC-East and private-sector contractor are not
directly comparable because FRC-East‘s costs include overhead and the
private-sector contractor‘s costs did not.
[End of figure]
Objective 2: Assignment of Non-Core Workload: Continuing Problems:
Problems continued in meeting readiness (e.g., turnaround time goals)
through fiscal year 2009. Until late fiscal year 2009, there was no
single organization coordinating the PMI-2/3 event maintenance.
* Data on PMI-2/3 maintenance events show that problems continued in
meeting readiness (e.g., turnaround times averaged over 150 days)
prior to the establishment of the Single Process Owner concept in
fiscal year 2009. During this same period, non-core workload was
assigned in increasing amounts to the private-sector contractor.
* Department of the Navy officials attribute the readiness-related
problems to difficulties in coordinating the PMI-2/3 tasks performed
by multiple organizations. These difficulties include those related to:
- Performing tasks sequentially rather than concurrently,
- Material delays, and,
- A lack of communication.
[End of section]
Objective 3: Single Process Owners - Coordinating Role:
The Single Process Owners' role is to coordinate the efforts of
multiple organizations performing PM1-213 workload to, among other
things, distribute non-core workload, standardize workload processes,
facilitate public-private partnering, implement lessons learned, and
execute contracting authority.
* The Single Process Owner role was first established in late fiscal
year 2009.
- The role was first performed by the program manager. However,
criteria for evaluating the execution of the responsibilities of the
Single Process Owner were not established until fiscal year 2010.
* In fiscal year 2010, Navy documentation established the Commanders
of FRC-East and FRC-Southwest as the Single Process Owners and
provided a timeline for implementation and evaluation of the role.
- Fiscal year 2010 ” The FRCs are coordinating PMI-2/3 events with the
program manager retaining contracting authority for non-core workload.
- Fiscal year 2011 ” The FRCs will be given contracting authority and
responsibility for assigning the non-core workload.
- Fiscal year 2012 ” The FRCs' performance as the Single Process
Owners will be formally evaluated.
Objective 3: Single Process Owners - Overarching Responsibilities:
The Single Process Owners are responsible for coordinating the entire
maintenance (or repair) process for PMI-2/3 events (see circled tasks
in figure 4),[Figure 12] as well as other overarching responsibilities
detailed in Navy documentation, including the following:
* Contracting authority for the distribution of non-core workload,
- Distribution of non-core workload,
- Facilitation of public-private partnering, and,
- Execution of contracting authority.
* Identification and implementation of process efficiencies and best
practices,
- Standardization of workload processes, and,
- Implementation of lessons learned.
Figure 4: Single Process Owners' Responsibility:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
PMI Task: Canopy removal;
Organization performing task: Fleet;
Workload: Non-core workload.
PMI Task: Disassembly; [Single Process Owners' Responsibility]
Organization performing task: Contractor;
Workload: Non-core workload.
PMI Task: Examine & evaluate aircraft; [Single Process Owners'
Responsibility]
Organization performing task: FRC;
Workload: Core workload.
PMI Task: Critical corrective tasks; [Single Process Owners'
Responsibility]
Organization performing task: FRC;
Workload: Core workload.
PMI Task: Major/minor corrective tasks; [Single Process Owners'
Responsibility]
Organization performing task: FRC;
Workload: Core workload.
PMI Task: Minor corrective tasks; [Single Process Owners'
Responsibility]
Organization performing task: Contractor;
Workload: Non-core workload.
PMI Task: Concurrent modifications; [Single Process Owners'
Responsibility]
Organization performing task: Contractor FRC-Southwest;
Workload: Non-core workload.
PMI Task: Reassembly; [Single Process Owners' Responsibility]
Organization performing task: Contractor;
Workload: Non-core workload.
PMI Task: Canopy reinstall;
Organization performing task: Fleet;
Workload: Non-core workload.
PMI Task: Flight check;
Organization performing task: Fleet;
Workload: Non-core workload.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[End of figure]
Objective 3: Evaluation of the Single Process Owners' Performance -
Initial Impact:
Limited performance data are available to evaluate the FRCs' execution
of their Single Process Owners' responsibilities. However, initial
data show improvements in readiness and aircraft availability.
* The initial data show a reduction in turnaround time (e.g., from
over 150 days to below the new fiscal year 2010 goal of 90 days) for
the first two AV-8Bs undergoing PMI-2/3 events since the FRCs assumed
the Single Process Owners' responsibilities.
* However, since the FRCs have functioned as the Single Process Owners
for less than five months, the sustained effect remains to be
determined.
* There may be limitations that affect the Single Process Owners'
performance for fiscal year 2010 because FRC-East and FRC-Southwest
are not assigned as the contracting authorities over private-sector
contractors.
* The FRCs will be given contracting authority and responsibility for
assigning the non-core workload in fiscal year 2011.
Objective 3: Evaluation of the Single Process Owners' Performance -
Execution of Responsibilities:
While Navy documentation defines the Single Process Owners'
responsibilities and details performance goals regarding turnaround
time and cost standards, metrics are not in place for evaluating the
execution of all the Single Process Owners' responsibilities.
Navy documentation describes key responsibilities of the Single
Process Owners, including:
* Coordinating the PMI-2/3 process to meet 90-day turnaround time,
* Integrating the workforce (FRCs, private-sector contractors, and the
Fleet),
* Identifying and implementing best practices, and,
* Sharing lessons learned.
The AV-8B Performance Based Agreement (December 2009):
* Is the formal agreement between the program manager and the FRCs ”
the Single Process Owners ” that outlines performance goals for the
execution of the Single Process Owners' responsibilities.
* Includes two goals to evaluate the Single Process Owners'
performance:
- 90-day turnaround time and;
- Specific cost requirements for workload (e.g., hourly labor rates).
* The agreement does not include metrics to assess the Single Process
Owners' performance in the execution of all their stated
responsibilities.
* GAO has previously reported[Footnote 13] that performance plans,
among other considerations, should include metrics for measuring a
program's core functions or responsibilities.
* Without additional metrics for evaluating each of the Single Process
Owners' key responsibilities, the Navy may not be able to properly
evaluate, monitor, and adjust the execution of the Single Process
Owners' responsibilities in coordinating the PMI-213 workload for AV-
8B maintenance.
[End of section]
Conclusion:
Progress has been made with developments in the AV-8B sustainment
strategy to address readiness and aircraft availability, but readiness
challenges (e.g., meeting turnaround time goals) remain. In an effort
to address these remaining readiness challenges, the Navy has begun to
implement the Single Process Owner concept. However, without metrics
for evaluating each of the Single Process Owners' key
responsibilities, the Navy may not be able to properly evaluate,
monitor, and adjust the execution of the Single Process Owners'
responsibilities in coordinating the PMI-2/3 workload for AV-8B
maintenance.
[End of section]
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To properly evaluate the execution of all the Single Process Owners'
stated responsibilities in coordinating the AV-8B PMI-2/3 workload, we
recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the
Navy to take the following action:
* Develop and implement additional metrics for evaluating each of the
Single Process Owners' stated responsibilities and incorporate these
metrics in the AV-8B Performance Based Agreement.
[End of section]
Agency Comments:
We requested comments from the Department of Defense, but none were
provided.
Points of Contact:
For more information, contact Jack Edwards at (202) 512-8246 or
edwardsj@gao.gov, or Carleen Bennett at (757) 552-8208 or
bennettc@gao.gov.
Appendix: Overview of the Business Case Analysis:
The Defense Acquisition Guidebook describes a business case analysis
as a type of best value assessment and states that best value
assessments should consider "not only cost, but also all other
quantifiable and non-quantifiable factors associated with any
resultant investment decision."
Navy documentation states that NAVAIR conducted a business case
analysis in 2008 to determine the best value assignment of AV-8B non-
core workload (e.g., concurrent modifications) after identifying poor
turnaround time performance in PMI-2/3 events. In determining the best
value assignment, NAVAIR used cost and time (e.g., turnaround time)
metrics for 10 AV-8Bs while considering the following four factors:
* Age of aircraft,
* Existing support infrastructure,
* Organic and commercial capabilities, and,
* Legislative and regulatory constraints.
Navy documentation states that NAVAIR's business case analysis also
addressed sensitivities related to future private-public partnerships,
risks (i.e., timeliness to mitigate contract workload), and
contingencies (none identified).
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Depot Maintenance: Actions Needed to Identify and Establish Core
Capability at Military Depots. GAO-09-83. Washington, D.C.: May 14,
2009.
Military Readiness: DOD Needs to Identify and Address Gaps and
Potential Risks in Program Strategies and Funding Priorities for
Selected Equipment. GA0-06-141. Washington, D.C.: October 25, 2005.
[End of enclosure]
Footnotes:
[1] The Marine Corps are the users of the AV-8B aircraft while the
Navy manages the maintenance for the weapon system.
[2] NAVAIR 4790.33A (February 2007) provides overarching guidance for
naval aviation platforms using the Integrated Maintenance Concept.
[3] Navy documentation states that readiness is directly impacted by
meeting turnaround time goals.
[4} Turnaround time is defined as the number of days from the
induction of the aircraft into a scheduled maintenance event to the
return of the aircraft to the Fleet.
[5] As defined in DOD Instruction 4151.20, non-core workload is
workload that is not needed to support core capability requirements.
[6] Pub. L. No. 111-84, § 343 (2009).
[7] FRCs are centers commissioned by the Navy to perform in-depth
overhaul, repair, and modification of aircraft, engines, and
aeronautical components.
[8] The Defense Acquisition Guidebook describes the best value
assessment as an analysis that should consider cost and other
quantifiable and non-quantifiable factors associated with any
resultant investment decision. NAVAIR refers to best value assessments
as best value determinations.
[9] According to Navy officials, under this reactive approach, repairs
were performed after the aircraft had experienced problems rather than
using a preventative approach that maintained the aircraft systems
(Integrated Maintenance Prototype Plan 2003, NAVAIR).
[10] As previously noted, the AV-8B Harrier, model II version, has
been in service for approximately 28 years.
[11] Non-core workload other than above core workload will be assigned
by the FRCS beginning in fiscal year 2011.
[12] The Fleet is responsible for the canopy removal, canopy
reinstall, and functional flight check tasks for the PMI-2/3 event.
[13] GAO, The Results Act: An Evaluator's Guide to Assessing Agency
Annual Performance Plans, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-10.1.20] (Washington, D.C.: April
1998).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability 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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
