Defense Inventory: Opportunities Exist to Improve Spare Parts Support Aboard Deployed Navy Ships

03/07/05 In our report entitled: DEFENSE INVENTORY: Opportunities Exist to Improve Spare Parts Support Aboard Deployed Navy Ships (GAO-03-887, August 29, 2003), one of GAO's recommendations was that the Navy develop plans to conduct periodic ship configuration audits and to ensure that configuration records are updated and maintained in order that accurate inventory data can be developed for deployed ships. The Navy concurred with the recommendation and agreed that it needed to be more aggressive in following up on configuration changes to ensure the configuration files on board the ship match those on file in the main configuration database. A working group was established to perform a comprehensive review of the current inventory strategy and allowance processes, including configuration management. As follow-up to the status of action on this recommendation, in March 2005 the Navy reported to DODIG that it had been engaged in improving the process to ensure that the actual files on ships are updated with the latest configuration and allowancing information. It said that since GAO's 2003 report, the Navy has deployed additional tools to assist the TYPE commands in this effort. Specifically, it said that modifications have been made to provide an audit record that is embedded in every allowance file produced and sent to the ship. Also, modifications to on-board ships programs respond to this audit record automatically and send it back. It said that these updates have been implemented in all shipboard systems ensuring that the information concerning how closely aligned the shipboard system is with the shore files and is accurately reported. In addition, it said that reports have been developed that provide current information on the processing status of every ship to the appropriate TYPE command which owns the ship and other interested parties. This audit process is automatic and requires no sailor interaction beyond processing the file. It said that NAVSEA also monitors the status of ships processing on a monthly/weekly basis as well. These actions are responsive to GAO's recommendation.

11/14/03 DOD agreed that good demand reporting is essential, but identified other reasons why demand data was inaccurate and 38% of the unfilled requisitions were not in stock, including designated repair capability; results of the readiness optimization calculation used in the sparing model; and the forecasted demand falling below the sparing threshold. 03/09/05 Since the 2003 report, additional tools have been deployed to assist the TYCOMs ensure files are processed in a timely manner. Modifications have been made to on-board ADP programs and these updates have been implemented in all shipboard systems ensuring shipboard and shore files are closely aligned. In addition, reports have been implemented that provide current information on the processing status of every ship to the appropriate TYCOM that owns the ship and other interested parties.

08/28/07 The Navy agreed that a more comprehensive effort is needed to identify and purge excess assets and the initial effort was to be on spare parts for de-installed equipment. It reported that initiatives are underway to reduce shipboard spares inventory using existing and new tools that will trigger the identification and removal of parts not needed as a result of configuration changes. It reported that the Navy is working to align shipboard records with authorized allowances and identify excesses/offload candidates.

GAO report identified a discrepancy between Navy guidance on high priority maintenance work orders and causality reports issued for maintenance jobs on ships. The Navy discussed our report and this finding and, in June 2004, revised its Maintenance and Material Management (3-M) Manual instruction to include a flowchart that aids in determining the correct priority code to assign on maintenance work orders. The priority code is also used as input in a formula developed for computing a Maintenance Figure of Merit, which are new business rules instituted to calculate and prioritize jobs to be completed or deferred. Benefits accrue in the more effective use of maintenance resources.