DEFENSE DIVISION B-171896 llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll LM095710 The Honorable The Secretary of Defense Attention: Assistant Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Dear Mr. Secretary: We have made aGeview of the management of the Defense Retail Interservice Logistics Support ram at selected Department of Defense (DOD) installations d States and in 3urope.I"4 Our review concerned the effectiveness of management techniques and established procedures of the DRILS program designed to attain full participation by the various military services. The enclosure lists the organizations and installations visited during our review. We wish to bring the following observations to your attention. DRILS PROGRAMHAS NOT R?XXED ITS POTENTIAL We believe that the DRILS program as presently administered has I been less than fully effective because the Defense Supply Agency, which lo' manages the program, does not have the authority necessary to direct and control the program to accomplish DXLS objectives. 'The present DRILS program does not make it incumbent upon the military services to vigorously pursue opportunities'for interservice support that would I result in greater economy and efficiency nor does it furnish any strong 2 incentive for eliminating overlapping or duplicate functions, activities, and services. We also found that information on the magnitude of the pro- gram shown in some of the reports being submitted to the Defense Supply Agency was inflated because of duplications and other errors. Instead of being centrally controlled and coordinated at the departmental level, DRILS is a decentralized program in which reliance is placed upon the initiative of installation commanders to request needed support from other nearby military activities, or to provide support when requested if they consider such support to be within the capabilities of their local resources. Even where of,Picials reg$rd 50TH ANNIVERSARY 1921- 1971 this program with the best of intentions, this approach has limited effectiveness because installation commanders are restricted in the amount of available resources they can divert to provide support to another military activity. Background The basic policies and principles fox interservice logistic support are set forth in DOD Directive 4000.19, originally issued March 26, 1963, and revised August 5, 1967. The directive requires the military services to request and/or provide support to one anot'ner, and to other Government agencies, when capabilities exist, and it is to the overall advantage of the DOD. In 1965, the Defense Supply Agency (DSA) was authorized to administer the DRILS program in conjunction with the military services and other DDD agencies. The publication of the Defense Supply Agency Manual 4140.4 in January 1965 implemented the DRILS program and provided formal guidance to lower commands. The stated program objective is to afford installation commanders a means of improving overall effectiveness and economy in theif operations by utilizing logistical support (with some exceptions) available from activities of other military services or DOD agencies. Area Coordination Groups and Subgroups have been set up within the DRILS program, There are six Area Coordination Groups in the United States. It is the responsibility of these groups to promote the use of DRILS procedures when appropriate to increase overall effectiveness and economly of operations in military organizations. The groups and their subgroups are the principal means for coordinating retail interservice support between major commands of the military services on a regional basis in the continental United States. In Europe, functions of the Area Coordination Groups are performed by the major command headquarters of the military services. At least two subgroups are organized within each of the six areas of the United States. The subgroups are informal working groups expected to meet at least twice a year to exchange information, explore opportuni- ties for retail interservice support, and arrange such support where beneficial. They are composed of representatives of .DQD activities within stipulated geographica, limits, The representatives are individuals normally responsible for providing or arranging logistic support for the activities. Major military commands and other DOD agencies arc responsible for exercising supervision over subordinate activities, for promoting inter- service support, and for appoint&g representatives to Arca Coordination Groups. . . . . Quarterly, each installation or organization providing support to other organizations submits a report to the Defense Logistics Services Center, Battle Creek, Michigan, which shows the dollar value of support provided. Inadequate efforts of local officials The Coordination Groups are responsible for conducting surveys to Identify and develop opportunities for use of interservice logistics support among the installations in their areas. Thefr subgroups are informal organ$zations to establish a close, working relationship to discover and develop local DRILS opportunities. However, neither the Area Coordination Groups nor the subgroups have the authority to direct the establishment of interservice arrangements between installations. This authority is vested only in the individual installation commander. The denial of direct authority over DRILS actions results in the inability of subgroups to do much more than encourage the adoption of a support possib$lity. ;, In our review of two of the six Area Coordination Groups in the continent+. United States, we were told that no surveys had been made to determine -or develop opportunities for effective interservice support, as required by the DSA manual on DRILS. In only one of the two groups had an inventory of the functions and needs of each tilitary activity under its jurisdiction been developed. At this Area Coordination Group, we found that 17 such activities were not participating in the D&RIM program. The military commands' responsibilities in the program, as set forth in the DRILS manual include (1) exercising supervision over support opera- tions of subordinate activities, and (2) providing representation on Area Coordination Groups. We found, however, that tilitary commands were placing only slight emphasis on participation in the DRILS program. For example, our discussions with officials of the Sixth U.S. Army / and of the Military Airlift Commandrevealed that command supervision over retail interservice logistics support operations of subordinate activities consisted of little more than appointment of a coordinator and review" of minutes of meetings and interservice support agreements. Subordinate commands were not required to develop specific objectives for identifying functions and services for increased interservice support. Commandswe reviewed in the Washington, D.C.,barea told us that their participation in the DRILS program did not include establishing guidance for subordinate activities. Further, we found, in one case, that command representatives had decided not to attend future subgroup meetings because they found them to be valueless. -3- Officials of t$ro of the major commands near Norfolk, Virginia, stated they did not become actively engaged in this program until November 1968, although the DRILS program was fmplemcnt+d in Januar:: 1965 by DSA. Examples of potential areas of interservice support In the geographical areas covered in our rcvie~, wz found a number of situations in which DOD organizations located near one another were engaged in similar functions and/or services. Some or these W.TY common- place, and yet, despite the DRILS program, apparen-tly no consideration had been given to whether any could be eliminated through consolidation. Some examples ;"ollow. Procurem::nt acti-vitics We found three military procurement activities ;Yith simila.~ functions, within a radius of ten mills of Kaisorslautcrn, German:;. P:locurcment officers told us that they knew of no plan for obt&ning potential benefits from consolidation under the DRILS program. a 1444 The mission of the Procurement Division of the Army's Rheinland-Pfalz Support District, Kaiserslautern, Germany, is to procure repairs and utilities services (up to $50,900 per transaction) and other scrviccs and materials (up to $5,000 per transaction) for a number of Army activities and installations located within a radius of about 35 miles from Kaisers-. lautern. The staff of 29 people processed about 40,030 procurement actions valued at about $9.7 million during fiscal year 1969. Two Air Force installations, located within t:n miles of Kaisers- lautern, also have procurcmcnt offices. Tl-12 staff of 19 employees at Ramstein Air Base had processed about 3,XYJ procurement actions durin: the first 11 months of fiscal year 1.969. 'Th: total local procurement programmed for the fiscal year was $3.6 million. At n,?srby Sembach fir Base, tha procurement office had 13 employc~s. Data I,-:lich ;~e obtained indicated Sembach's workload was considerably l:ss than that of Ramstein Air Base. The procurement function o.C the above thrcz activities was quite similar. Contracts or purchases includ,cd repairs and mafnt?nanc~ to buildings, transportation OLDhousehold f:E'fctcts, office machin maintc- ' nance, and (general supplies. He were told that a limited amount of interservice support was provided under blanket purc'hasc authorizations or indefinite quantity contracts, whereby onc? scrvic? would issue delivery orders against the contracts 0" the other s~2rr!'ce. The procurement officer at Rheinland-Pfalz Suppo-rt District told us that he knew of no instances where consideration had been given to consolidating procurement functions. He stated that he could see no reason why a consolidated procurement activity would not ef%ect$vely serve the needs of both the Army and the Air Force in this geographic area. Photographic laboratories Germany Our review revealed that there were four photographic laboratory operations at military installations within a ten mile radius of ,K&%serslautern, Germany. Two of these laboratories wer.e at Army installations and two were at Air Force installations. The operators of two of the four laboratories told us that they could take on addi- tional work with the equipment on hand. Representatives of the labo- ratories with whom we discussed the potential for using these facilities . under the DRILS program stated that to their knowledge no consideration had been given to availability of these resources for interservice support. Again, the missions of these laboratories and the work performed 3 24+3 were similar. The largest of the four facilities was the Army's 69th’ Signal Company laboratory. Officials of this laboratory told us that its mission was to support Headquarters, United States Army, $wope, and the Seventh Army in all photographic services. They told us that this facility had the equipment, although not the personnel, to do all the Air Force work. Representatives of each of th e two Army laboratories told us that they saw no reason :rhy consolidation and inters,.?rvice support trould not be feasible. Seattle, IEJashin;$on, area Seven DOD activities visitrtd in th? Puget Sound area had their own photographic facilities; six of them within a forty-mile radius of Seattle. Of the six activities examined, none reported having any formal inter- service agreements with other DOD activities in the Puget Sound area. Review of minutes of meetings of the Area Coordination Subgroup indicated that the possibility of exchangin g support of this type had not been discussed. Norfolk, Virginia, area . There are ten photographic labor:%ttories in the Norfolk area ranging in size and complexity from a small Army laboratory at Yort Story, engaged -5 - in processing photographs fo- 7 identification purposes, to the second largest laboratory in the Navy at the Norfolk Naval Air Station. The Navy facility, capable of producing all types of photographic work, has rather elaborate equipment and an authorized complement of 38 people. At the time of our review, the laboratory was upgrading its motion picture facility to produce sound motion pictures in color. We found that there were no interservice agreements in effect at any of the photographic laboratories in the Norfolk arca. However , some support was being provided to others either informally or through intra- service agreements. Additional opportunities identified by the Department of Defense - In addition to the above information developed during our review, certain studies recently completed by the Department of Defense have indicated opportunities for greater interservice support. The studies, performed by so-called Local Area Interdepartmental Repair and Maintenance Cormnittees a-t 25 locations where there were concentrations of military installations, were concerned mainly with functions related to real.property maintenance activities. @on com- pletion of their work, the various study groups made recommendations for improvements and greater economies in the area of real property maintenance. Many of thes? recommendations suggested expansion of interservice agreements in existence or establishment of new agreements, We have started a review of some of the studies and the actions taken pursuant to the recommendations. Although we have not verified the validity of' any of the recommendations, it is apparent that savings can be achieved through increased use 0:" interservice support agreements for real property maintenance. Reporting of program performance -B wQ The reporting system provided for in the TULS program requires ,." 'submission of a report to the Defens- 3 Logisti.cs Services Center (DLSCI at the end of each quarter by every installation providing support to organizations of other military departments. This report lists the total dollar value of reimbursable and non- reimbursable support provided to ' each of the other military departments during the quarter, as well as the number of agreements, and their location. It is the sole reference used for measuring tih.2 accomplishments of the DRILS program. -6- * . , + We found that these quarterly reports have greatly overstated the accomplishments of the DRILS program in Europe because of the inclusion of amounts for wholesale support and duplications in the amounts reported. For example, of the $110.2 million reported by the Army as DRILS for a period covering seven quarters, ending March 31, 1969, $109.6 million consisted of wholesale support and duplication: about $53.5 million constituted wholesale support to the other military services and about $56.1 million were duplications of amounts previously reported. There- fore, the valid DRILS total should not have been more than $0.6 million. During our discussions with representatives from the United States Army, Europe, they told us that they- knew the amounts of interservice support reported were incorrect and included subsistence support rendered on a wholesale basis. However, they had no procedures whereby they could verir"y the accuracy or propriety o f the amouMs reported as retail inter- service logistics support. In addition to the above, the DREGS reporting system as it is presently functioning is not providing accurate data on the total number of agreements entered into since the program began. We noted that many of the accomplishments reported under the program were in existence before it started, or resulted from circumstances unrelated to it. For example, we found that military installations around &get Sound had on file 56 interservice agreements amounting to a%out $773,000 in estimated reim- bursements which would be reported under the DRILS program. Yighteen of these agreements, involving an estimated $&T&,830, or about 62 percent of the present total estimated value, were in 'existence prior to the DRILS program. CONCLUSIONS We believe that the DRILS program has not been effective in e nating duplication or overlapping oi" services. Ihe ineffectivenss bs traced to the manner in w??ich the program has been organized an concomitant, lack of vigorous pursuit of _nrog?am goals. Defense Supply Agency is responsible for managin;; the DRIT3 progra has not b?en given sufficient autho-rS.ty Lo accomplish _nrogram objet Participating organizations arc s&do2 r5ikhusiastic about v to eliminate a function, activity, or zervi.cc for which they hav received authorization, and wbic'h Shcy consider import~a~it to th?.: of their assi.gnetl mlssion3. As 'was pointed out t?e:f'or~), the pyes program does not require nlilitar3 dcpertmrnts to vigorously purs 'tunities for interservic~ supper t that would r7su3.t in greater e and efficiency. !irea Coordination Grnu?s and their subordinate . \ . * which are jointly staffed by -2he services, do not 'have zuthorlty to dizect establishment of intzrse rvice arrangements b&Teen installations. Becauscz direct authority over 3RILS implementation is denied, th,zsz groups cannot do much more than encourag e adoption of a support possibility. :%en In this limited capacily, the groups hav.2 not effectivcl;r developed and ore- ' m.oted interservice suppor-t agreements. We recommend that the D&!Tznse Supply Agency be given the necessary authority to direct this program and to develop a uniform and systematic approach to identirfy, evaluate and, where feasibk, eliminate unnecessary fu.nct+-!s and services that overlap. We would appreciate your comments on the matters disclosed in this report. Copies of this repor-t are beins sent to the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and to the Director, Yefens= Supply Agency, for their information. Sincerely yours, ?&ector Enclosure ENCLOSURE Page 1 List of Organizations and Installations Visited During Our Review UNIFIED COMMANDS U. S. European Command, Patch Barracks, Stuttgart, Germany. MAJOR COMMANDS U. S. Army, Europe, Heidelberg, Germany. First U. S, Army Headquarters, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland. U. S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground9 Maryland. U. S. Continental Army Command,, Fort Monroe, Virginia. U. S. Army Recruiting Command, Hampton, Virginia. Sixth U. S. Army Headquarters Presido, San Francisco, California. United States Navy U. S. Naval Forces, Europe, London, England. U, S. Naval Supply Systems Command, Washington, D. C. Cormnander in Chief, U. S, Atlantic Fleet, Norfolk, Virginia. Headquarters, Fifth Naval District, Norfolk, Virginia. United States Air Force U, S. Air Forces in Europe, Wiesbaden, Germany- U. S. Air Force Headquarters Command, Boiling Air Force Base, Washington, D. C. Tactical Air Command, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. Military Airlift Command, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois. INTERMEDIATE AND SUBORDINATE ACTIVITIES AND INSTALLATIONS United States Army Army Engineer Command, Europe Frankfurt, Germany Army Engineer District, Palatinate Kaiserslautern, Germany Theater Army Support Command, Europe Worms, Germany ENCLOSURE Page 2 INkEBMEDUTE AND SUBOJ3DINATEACTIVXTIES AND INSTALLATIONS (Continued) Army Materiel Command, Europe Zweibrucken, Germany Forces Support District, Rheinland-Pfalz Kaiserslautern, Germany Pirmasens Army Depot Pirmasens, Gemany Fort George G. Meade, Maryland Fort Belvoir, Virginia U, S, Army Transportation Center, Virginia Fort Eustis, Virginia Fort Story, Virginia Beach, Virginia Fort Lewis, Washington United States Navy U. S. Naval Support Activity, Naples, Italy Naval Air Facilities, Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D, C. Naval Photographic Center, Washington, D, C, U, S, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, Virginia Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia Naval Supply Center, Norfolk, Virginia Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia Naval Amphibious Base, Norfolk, Virginia Thirteenth Naval District Headquarters, Seattle, Washington ENCLOSURE Page 3 . (Continued) Pug& Sound Naval Shipyard, kkshington Naval Supply Center, Puget Sound, Washington Naval Ammunition Depot, Bangor9 Washington Polaris Missile Facility, Pacific, Washington Naval Torpedo Station, Keyport, Washington Naval Air Station, Seattle, Washington Naval Air Station, Wbidbey Island, Washingkon Naval Communications Station, Puget Sound, Washington United States Air Force Wiesbaden Air Base Wiwbaden, Germany Rawtein Air BEG@ Ramstein, Germany Sembach Air Base Sembach, Germany 1100th Air Base Wing, BoLling Air Force Base, Washington, D. C, 1OOlst Composite Wing,Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland (Effective JuJq 1, 1969 changed to 1st Composite Wing) Langley Air Force Base, Hampton, Virginia McChord Air Force Base, Washington Other activities U. S, Dependents School, European Area Karlsruhe, Germany
Review of the Management of the Defense Retail Interservice Logistics Support Program at Selected Department of Defense Installations in the United States and in Europe
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-02-23.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)