Army Maintenance: Savings Possible by Stopping Unnecessary Depot Repairs
NSIAD-92-176
Published: May 05, 1992. Publicly Released: May 05, 1992.
Skip to Highlights
Highlights
GAO reviewed the Army Materiel Command's procedures for performing certain depot-level repairs, focusing on whether depots perform unnecessary repairs on weapons systems, tactical vehicles, or their major components.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
---|---|---|
U.S. Army Materiel Command | The Commanding General, Army Materiel Command, should direct the Commander, Tank-Automotive Command (TACOM), to allow the Red River Army Depot to perform pre-shop analysis on 6V53 engines repaired under the secondary item program to preclude unnecessary overhauls. |
Closed – Not Implemented
DOD stated that before it concurs with the recommendation, a comprehensive analysis of the cost to requalify an engine versus the cost to overhaul it must be done. The Army was directed on October 14, 1992, to do this analysis. However, this issue has become moot because Red River Army Depot (RRAD) is no longer repairing the 6V53 engines under the secondary item overhaul program. As a result of a competitive bid award, the majority of the 6V53 engine workload is now repaired by the private sector manufacturer (Detroit Diesel) rather than within the organic depot system. Although RRAD still repairs engines removed from M113 vehicles submitted to the depot for maintenance, those engines are already subjected to pre-shop analysis and diagnostic testing. This recommendation is no longer valid.
|
U.S. Army Materiel Command | The Commanding General, Army Materiel Command, should require the Commander, Tooele Army Depot, to stop performing overhauls not intended by TACOM or the Depot System Command and to comply with established guidance unless the depot can justify and factually support its assertions that overhauls are more economical to perform than inspecting and repairing items. |
Closed – Not Implemented
Tooele was cited for closure by the 1993 Base Closure and Realignment Commission. It is doubtful whether, in view of this event, the agency can be expected to realistically and vigorously pursue the recommendation. Even though GAO believes that the recommendation has merit, it is not confident that any action will be taken. For these reasons, the recommendation should not remain open.
|
Full Report
Office of Public Affairs
Topics
Army suppliesCost effectiveness analysisEquipment maintenanceEquipment repairsInspectionMilitary cost controlMilitary land vehiclesRepair costsWeapons systemsMilitary forces