United States Government Accountability Office
GAO Report to Congressional Committees
March 2012
NAVY SMALL BOATS
Maintenance Report
Addressed Most
Directed Elements,
but Additional
Information Needed
GAO-12-421
March 2012
NAVY SMALL BOATS
Maintenance Report Addressed Most Directed
Elements, but Additional Information Needed
Highlights of GAO-12-421, a report to
congressional committees
Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found
The Navy has noted that successful The Navy report addressed four of the five elements specified in House Report
execution of its maritime strategy 112-78, while partially addressing one of the five elements. The Navy report
requires the acquisition of not only addressed the potential for reducing maintenance and repair costs for the Navy’s
surface combatants, but also small small boat fleet by using advanced boat lifts, and it addressed recommendations
boats. The Navy reported that it regarding the potential establishment of improved boat corrosion control and
received about $135 million in fiscal prevention as key performance parameters. The Navy report partially addressed
year 2010-2012 base procurement the committee’s direction to include an evaluation and business case analysis of
funding for small boats. These small the impact of advanced boat lifts for potential improvements to small boat
boats vary widely in the missions they acquisition costs and life-cycle sustainment. The report’s business case analysis
perform, their sizes, and the evaluated potential improvements to life-cycle sustainment, focusing on potential
approaches for their maintenance. The maintenance cost savings associated with boat lifts. However, this business case
House Armed Services Committee analysis did not evaluate the impact of the use of advanced boat lifts on potential
directed the Navy in House Report improvements to small boat acquisition costs. Navy officials told GAO that the
112-78 to conduct a study on
use of advanced boat lifts would not significantly contribute to extending the
strategies to reduce maintenance and
service life of the boats or produce any other additional benefits that would lead
repair costs associated with small boat
storage and harboring and to submit a
to reduced small boat acquisition costs. This is primarily because a critical
report to the House and Senate Armed feature of current procurement strategies is to select, specify, or design boats
Services Committees on its findings by that are made from corrosion-resistant materials and use components that are
October 31, 2011. The committee corrosion resistant. Nonetheless, the Navy did not include this justification in the
directed GAO to assess the Navy’s report or analyze the potential effects of the use of boat lifts on small boat
report for completeness, including the acquisition costs in the report’s business case analysis.
methodology used in the Navy’s
analysis. For this report, GAO
evaluated the extent to which (1) the While the Navy completed a business case analysis of the impact of reduced
Navy's report addressed the maintenance and repair costs for the Navy’s small boat fleet through the use of
committee’s direction and (2) the advanced boat lifts, GAO found several areas in which more complete
findings in the Navy's study are information could have been included to better support the findings of the Navy
supported by the data and information study. The April 2011 DOD Product Support Business Case Analysis Guidebook
examined. GAO analyzed study provides standards for the DOD business case analysis process used to conduct
documents and the business case analyses of costs, benefits, and risks. GAO identified several areas in which
analysis, obtained and analyzed key more comprehensive information, consistent with the DOD guidebook, could
documents, and interviewed cognizant
have been included in the Navy’s business case analysis. For example, the Navy
officials.
did not include (1) actual lift installation and maintenance cost data or
What GAO Recommends (2) qualitative data on other potential costs and benefits associated with the use
of boat lifts, particularly location- and mission-specific benefits, from Navy
GAO recommends that the Navy installations that are using 72 recently acquired boat lifts. The DOD guidebook
collect and include more complete indicates that authoritative data sources—those used to conduct the financial and
information when evaluating future nonfinancial analysis for a business case analysis—should be comprehensive
investment decisions at individual
and accurate. Navy officials recognized that more comprehensive information
locations. DOD concurred with the
would have been useful, but noted that they were unable to systematically survey
recommendation.
all current boat lift users within the few months they had to complete their
business case analysis. The Navy noted in its report that a significant number of
boat lifts have recently entered service in the fleet and that the Navy will monitor
service experience, data that may provide a basis for future decisions regarding
the use of boat lifts. Without more complete information, the Navy may not be
View GAO-12-421 or key components. fully informed when it considers making future investments in boat lifts or other
For more information, contact Zina Merritt at
(202) 512-5257 or merrittz@gao.gov.
storage and harboring techniques at individual locations.
United States Government Accountability Office
Contents
Letter 1
Background 3
Navy Report Addressed Four of the Five Elements Specified in the
House Report 6
Navy Would Benefit from More Comprehensive Information in
Future Analyses 9
Conclusions 11
Recommendation for Executive Action 12
Agency Comments 12
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 14
Appendix II Photographs of Selected Navy Small Boats 16
Appendix III Comments from the Department of Defense 18
Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 19
Table
Table 1: Overview of Navy Small Boat Inventory as of November
2011 4
Figures
Figure 1: Small Boat Storage and Harboring Techniques 6
Figure 2: GAO Assessment of the Extent to Which the Navy Small
Boat Report Addressed the House Report-Directed
Elements 7
Figure 3: Riverine Command Boat 16
Figure 4: Rigid Inflatable Boat 16
Figure 5: Harbor Security Boat 17
Page i GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats
Abbreviation
DOD Department of Defense
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, 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.
Page ii GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
March 13, 2012
The Honorable Carl Levin
Chairman
The Honorable John McCain
Ranking Member
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate
The Honorable Howard P. McKeon
Chairman
The Honorable Adam Smith
Ranking Member
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives
The Navy has noted that successful execution of its maritime strategy
requires the acquisition of not only surface combatants, such as cruisers
and destroyers, but also numerous high-performance small boats. To that
end, the Navy is investing millions of dollars to acquire small boats to
meet emerging fleet, antiterrorism, and force protection needs and to
support ongoing operations. The Navy reported that it received about
$135 million in fiscal year 2010-2012 base procurement funding for small
boats. These small boats vary widely in the missions they perform, their
sizes, the materials of which they are composed, their locations, and the
approaches for their maintenance—including corrosion prevention
measures. In the current constrained fiscal environment, the Department
of Defense (DOD) must maximize its investment in small boats and
reduce maintenance and repair costs where appropriate.
In House Report 112-78, accompanying the House bill for the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (H.R. 1540), the House
Armed Services Committee directed the Navy to conduct a study on
strategies to reduce maintenance and repair costs associated with small
boat storage and harboring and to submit a report to the House and
Senate Armed Services Committees on its findings by October 31, 2011. 1
The study was to include an evaluation and business case analysis of the
1
See H.R. Rep. No. 112-78, at 105-06 (2011).
Page 1 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats
impact that certain strategies, such as the use of advanced boat lifts,
would have on potential improvements to small boat acquisition costs and
life-cycle sustainment. The Navy’s report was to include
recommendations on the potential establishment of improved boat
corrosion control and prevention through various means. 2 In the House
report, the committee also directed GAO to assess the Navy’s report for
completeness, including the methodology used in the Navy’s analysis.
For this report, we evaluated the extent to which (1) the Navy’s report
addressed the committee’s direction and (2) the findings in the Navy’s
study are supported by the data and information examined.
To determine the extent to which the Navy’s report addressed the
committee’s direction, we analyzed House Report 112-78 to identify each
element of the committee’s direction for the Navy report. We developed
an evaluation tool based on House Report 112-78 to assess the extent to
which the Navy’s report addressed these elements. Using scorecard
methodologies, two GAO analysts independently evaluated the Navy
report against the elements specified in the House report. After the two
analysts had completed their independent analyses, they compared the
two sets of observations and discussed and reconciled any differences.
We also interviewed Navy subject matter experts to obtain additional
information and corroborate the statements made in the Navy report, and
we obtained the officials’ opinions of our assessments.
To determine the extent to which the findings in the Navy’s study are
supported by the data and information examined, we reviewed the study
and obtained information on the objectives, scope, and methodology
officials used to conduct it. We evaluated the Navy study’s business case
analysis using criteria found in the DOD Product Support Business Case
Analysis Guidebook, which provides standards for the DOD business
case analysis process as well as generally acceptable economic
methodologies. 3 We reviewed the Navy’s study to determine the extent to
which the Navy incorporated elements of the DOD guidebook into the
planning, design, and execution of the study. We also obtained and
analyzed key data sources, such as maintenance cost savings inputs and
2
The Navy delivered Naval Sea Systems Command, Report to Congress: Study on Small
Boat Maintenance Costs (October 2011), to Congress on October 31, 2011.
3
Department of Defense, DOD Product Support Business Case Analysis Guidebook (April
2011).
Page 2 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats
boat lift cost data, for information included in the study. We interviewed
officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Ships, Naval Sea Systems Command, and the Naval Surface Warfare
Center to obtain their views on key aspects of the study, findings and
conclusions, and any limitations that may have affected the study’s
findings. 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 purpose of evaluating the planning,
design, and execution of the Navy’s business case analysis.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2011 to March
2012 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. We discuss our scope
and methodology in more detail in appendix I.
Background
Small Boat Inventory and Navy boats are self-propelled craft, suitable primarily to be carried on
Responsibilities board ships and to operate in and around naval activities. 4 As of
November 2011, there were 2,872 small boats in the Navy’s inventory
and 58 different types of small boats, varying in length from 16 feet to
over 200 feet, with expected service lives ranging from 7 to 12 years.
Small boat types include rigid inflatable boats, riverine command boats,
riverine assault boats, force protection boats, fleet harbor security boats,
and unmanned craft. 5 These small boats vary widely in the missions they
4
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 4780.6E, Policy for Administering
Service Craft and Boats in the U.S. Navy (Jan. 25, 2006).
5
The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, Joint
Publication 1-02 (Nov. 8, 2010; amended Jan. 15, 2012), defines riverine as an inland or
coastal area comprising both land and water characterized by limited land lines of
communication. The boats are used in operations conducted by forces organized to cope
with and exploit the unique characteristics of a riverine area to locate and destroy hostile
forces, achieve control of the area, or both.
Page 3 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats
perform, which include maritime interdiction, antiterrorism, force
protection, and oil spill response operations, as well as riverine operations
in Iraq. Table 1 provides the inventory and mission descriptions for
various types of Navy small boats. Appendix II contains photographs of
selected Navy small boats.
Table 1: Overview of Navy Small Boat Inventory as of November 2011
Number in
Boat type inventory Description
Amphibious landing boats Landing craft to bring troops, tanks, trucks, supplies, and equipment to
79 and across the beach
Dive boats 117 Used for tethered diving operations and scuba operations
Oil spill response boats Oil skimmers, platform boats, and utility boats for the oil spill response
366 program
Rigid inflatable boats Standard ship’s boats and others used for various missions, including
966 search and rescue and visit/boarding/search
Security boats Used for fleet protection, maritime interdiction, law enforcement
588 operations, special operations, and others (riverine boats are included)
Ship’s boats Personnel and utility boats with some configured as gigs and barges
(gigs are boats assigned to commanding officers and used for visiting
114 ships or hosting dignitaries in an afloat setting)
Utility boats 271 Shore-based utility boats
Work boats Tugboats and multipurpose work boats with a variety of applications,
171 including cargo carrying and harbor cleaning
Other boats 200 Includes ferry boats, unmanned craft, training craft, and others
Total 2,872
Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.
Navy small boats are military equipment and are centrally procured,
managed, and tracked by Naval Sea Systems Command (Program
Executive Office, Ships, Support Ships, Boats and Craft Program Office). 6
Naval Surface Warfare Center (Carderock Division, Detachment Norfolk,
Combatant Craft Division) is responsible for boat inventory management
and other activities, including boat allocation changes for certain
activities. 7 A small boat may be assigned to and carried aboard a ship as
6
See Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Ships’ Technical Manual, ch. 583, vol. 1 (Apr.
1, 2010).
7
See id.
Page 4 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats
a ship’s boat. Also, small boats may be assigned to an expeditionary
command, shore station, or fleet operating unit. Navy officials reported
that currently the Navy has assigned small boats to over 320 separate
commands and activities (e.g., Navy Expeditionary Combat Command).
According to Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 4780.6E, these
commands and activities are responsible for proper maintenance of their
small boats and for establishing a boat maintenance program for them. 8
Small Boat Storage and The Navy utilizes several techniques to store and harbor small boats,
Harboring including trailers and lifts. The Navy may use trailers, which can be
purchased as an accessory to the boat and may allow for the boat to be
kept out of the water and then launched back into the water via a boat
ramp. According to the Navy, the use of trailers can also facilitate timely
logistical movement. The Navy has over 1,800 boat trailers in stock.
Another technique is to use boat lifts, which are designed to raise a boat
out of the water to reduce the effects of the saltwater environment on the
hull, appendages, and exposed machinery components. The Navy has 72
boat lifts in stock located at Navy installations around the world (e.g.,
Norfolk, Virginia; Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; and Bahrain). These lifts were
acquired from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2010 at a cost of about $7
million. Small boats can also be stored in the water or on a ship. Figure 1
displays various techniques the Navy uses to store and harbor small
boats.
8
See Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 4780.6E, Policy for Administering
Service Craft and Boats in the U.S. Navy, § 5(b)(6) (Jan. 25, 2006).
Page 5 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats
Figure 1: Small Boat Storage and Harboring Techniques
The Navy report addressed four of the five elements specified in the
Navy Report House report, while partially addressing one of the five elements. Figure 2
Addressed Four of the identifies the five elements the House report directed the Navy to address
and our assessment of the degree to which the Navy report addressed
Five Elements each of them.
Specified in the House
Report
Page 6 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats
Figure 2: GAO Assessment of the Extent to Which the Navy Small Boat Report
Addressed the House Report-Directed Elements
The Navy report addressed the following elements:
• Investigate the potential for reduced maintenance and repair costs for
the Navy’s small boat fleet by using advanced boat lifts: The report
discussed potential benefits associated with using boat lifts to remove
boats from water during periods of nonuse. These potential benefits
included reducing some types of corrosion and lowering maintenance
costs by eliminating the need to remove the boat from the water for
inspection.
• Include a recommendation regarding the potential establishment of
improved boat corrosion control and prevention as a key performance
parameter for the selection of boat maintenance and storage
equipment: The report did not recommend improved boat corrosion
control and prevention as a key performance parameter for the
Page 7 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats
selection of boat maintenance and storage equipment. 9 It noted that
boat maintenance and storage equipment should be selected based
on its potential benefit to corrosion control and prevention on boats
and craft, but added that improved corrosion control and prevention
will be hard to clearly define and measure, making them inappropriate
for key performance parameters.
• Include a recommendation regarding the potential establishment of
improved boat corrosion control and prevention as a key performance
parameter for sustainment: The report did not recommend improved
boat corrosion control and prevention as a key performance
parameter for sustainment. It stated that boat corrosion control and
prevention is certainly an important aspect of sustainment; however, it
is not sufficiently definable to be used as a key performance
parameter. Specifically, the report noted that the boat corrosion and
control prevention aspect of sustainment is not a stand-alone testable
quantity; therefore it fails to meet an important criterion for a key
performance parameter.
• Include a recommendation regarding the potential establishment of
improved boat corrosion control and prevention as a requirement for
Naval Sea Systems Command to incorporate into its acquisition
strategies: The report stated that corrosion control and prevention are
already a well-established part of the requirements used by Naval Sea
Systems Command in its acquisition strategies for procurement
contracts for small boats. It noted that corrosion control and planning
are addressed through performance requirements, design
requirements, and contractual requirements to the extent possible. A
review of current fleet repair and maintenance procedures and
records does not reflect a need for additional requirements, according
to the Navy report.
The Navy report partially addressed the following element:
• Include an evaluation and business case analysis of the impact of
advanced boat lifts for potential improvements to small boat
acquisition costs and life-cycle sustainment: The report’s business
case analysis evaluated potential improvements to life-cycle
9
The Navy report defined key performance parameters as those attributes or
characteristics of a system that are considered critical or essential to the development of
an effective military capability and those attributes that make a significant contribution to
the characteristics of the future joint force, as defined in the Capstone Concept for Joint
Operations. Naval Sea Systems Command, Report to Congress: Study on Small Boat
Maintenance Costs at 16 (October 2011).
Page 8 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats
sustainment, focusing on potential maintenance cost savings
associated with boat lifts. However, this business case analysis did
not evaluate the impact of the use of advanced boat lifts on potential
improvements to small boat acquisition costs. Navy officials told us
that the use of advanced boat lifts would not significantly contribute to
extending the service life of the boats or produce any other additional
benefits that would lead to reduced small boat acquisition costs. This
is primarily because a critical feature of current procurement
strategies is to select, specify, or design boats that are made from
corrosion-resistant materials and use components that are corrosion
resistant. Nonetheless, the Navy did not include this justification in the
report or analyze the potential effects of the use of boat lifts on small
boat acquisition costs in the report’s business case analysis.
While the Navy completed a business case analysis of the impact of
Navy Would Benefit reduced maintenance and repair costs for the Navy’s small boat fleet
from More through the use of advanced boat lifts, we found several areas in which
more complete information could have been included to better support the
Comprehensive findings of the Navy study. Navy officials told us that they broadly used
Information in Future service experience and general guidance from the Naval Center for Cost
Analysis to structure and execute the business case analysis. The Navy
Analyses collected data from the existing boat inventory; maintenance procedures
and practices, such as inspections; and maintenance actions to
determine potential maintenance cost savings associated with boat lifts
and compared them with data collected on lift installation and lift
maintenance costs to determine the payback on a boat lift investment.
The Navy assigned risk ranges to each data input and ran them through a
software program that used Monte Carlo simulation techniques and ran
5,000 simulations. 10 Based on this analysis, the Navy concluded that it
was unlikely that implementing boat lifts would provide a positive return
on investment.
10
To address the uncertainties inherent in the analysis, the Navy used a commercially
available risk analysis software program called Crystal Ball to incorporate uncertainties
associated with the data. The program allowed the Navy to explore a wide range of
possible values for all the input costs and assumptions it used to build its model. The
Crystal Ball program uses a Monte Carlo simulation process, which repeatedly and
randomly selects values for each input to the model from a distribution specified by the
user. Using the selected values for cells in the spreadsheet, Crystal Ball then calculates
the total cost of the scenario. By repeating the process in thousands of trials, Crystal Ball
produces a range of estimated total costs for each scenario and the likelihood associated
with any specific value in the range.
Page 9 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats
The April 2011 DOD Product Support Business Case Analysis Guidebook
presents a uniform methodology for developing accurate, consistent, and
effective support of value-based decision making while better aligning the
acquisition and life-cycle product support processes. 11 The guidebook
provides standards for the DOD business case analysis process used to
conduct analyses of costs, benefits, and risks. We identified several areas
in which more comprehensive information, consistent with the DOD
guidebook, could have been included in the business case analysis. For
example:
• The Navy did not utilize discounting in the business case analysis and
did not document its reasons for not doing so within the report or in
additional documentation provided to us. The DOD guidebook
indicates that as a general rule, discounting should be done unless
there is a documented rationale not to discount. Discounting future
benefits and costs using an appropriate discount rate illustrates the
time value of money, as benefits and costs are worth more if they are
experienced sooner. Discounting benefits and costs transforms gains
and losses occurring in different time periods to a common unit of
measurement. 12
• The Navy did not include comprehensive data from Navy installations
that are using 72 recently acquired boat lifts on (1) actual lift
installation and maintenance cost data or (2) qualitative data on other
potential costs and benefits associated with the use of boat lifts. Navy
officials reported that they contacted one primary boat lift user
command to gather a significant amount of data for the study and
relied on boat lift vendors’ estimates for lift cost and maintenance
data. The DOD guidebook indicates that authoritative data sources—
those used to conduct the financial and nonfinancial analysis for a
business case analysis—should be comprehensive and accurate.
Navy officials explained that because the way boat lifts are used and
any benefits associated with their use are location and mission
specific, qualitative data would be particularly valuable. For example,
Navy officials told us that boat lifts may improve the operational
availability of small boats at installations that have limited access to
boat ramps that allow boat trailers to launch boats in the water.
11
Department of Defense, DOD Product Support Business Case Analysis Guidebook.
12
Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for
Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs at 4 (Oct. 29, 1992).
Page 10 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats
Navy officials responsible for conducting the business case analysis were
unaware of the DOD Product Support Business Case Analysis
Guidebook, but acknowledged its applicability to their analysis. Navy
officials recognized that more comprehensive information would have
been useful, but noted that they were unable to systematically survey all
current boat lift users within the few months they had to complete their
business case analysis. Navy officials reported that including this
information would likely not have changed the study’s conclusions, as the
analysis showed that the opportunity for a positive return on investment
from implementing boat lifts for storage and harboring was so low. 13 Navy
officials also noted that the business case analysis did not address other
potential costs associated with the use of boat lifts, such as the cost of
adding new pier space to accommodate boat lifts. Although a more
comprehensive analysis may not reverse this study’s conclusions,
decision makers would benefit from collecting and including more
complete information in future analyses, particularly when evaluating
investment decisions at individual locations, such as using discounting
and conducting comprehensive surveys of boat lift users to obtain all
potential costs and benefits associated with implementing boat lifts. The
Navy noted in its report that a significant number of boat lifts have
recently entered service in the fleet and that the Navy will monitor service
experience, data that may provide a basis for future decisions regarding
the use of boat lifts. Without more complete information, the Navy may
not be fully informed when it considers making future investments in boat
lifts or other storage and harboring techniques at individual locations.
The Navy continues to rely on small boats to meet emerging fleet,
Conclusions antiterrorism, and force protection needs and support ongoing operations.
While these boats vary widely in the missions they perform and the
approaches for maintaining them, fiscal challenges require DOD to
maximize its investment in small boats by reducing maintenance and
repair costs where appropriate. Making informed decisions on effective
and efficient small boat storage and harboring options will play a key role
in doing so. While the Navy report addressed nearly all of the elements
specified in House Report 112-78, additional information would better
13
For example, since usually the benefits of acquiring a boat lift are spread over a number
of future years while the lift costs are primarily realized in year one, incorporating
discounting into the business case analysis would reduce future benefits more while
leaving cost essentially the same; thus it would not likely affect the study’s conclusions.
Page 11 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats
inform Navy decision makers. In particular, collecting and including more
complete information—such as using discounting and conducting
comprehensive surveys of boat lift users to obtain all potential costs and
benefits associated with implementing boat lifts—would better inform the
Navy when it considers making future investments in boat lifts or other
storage and harboring techniques at individual locations.
To enable the Navy to make informed decisions when it considers making
Recommendation for future investments in boat lifts or other storage and harboring techniques,
Executive Action we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the
Navy to collect and include more complete information when evaluating
investment decisions at individual locations, for example, by using
discounting and conducting comprehensive surveys of boat lift users to
obtain all potential costs and benefits associated with implementing boat
lifts.
We provided a draft of this report to DOD for comment. DOD concurred
Agency Comments with our recommendation to have the Secretary of Defense direct the
Secretary of the Navy to collect and include more complete information
when evaluating investment decisions at individual locations (DOD’s
comments are reprinted in app. III). DOD provided technical comments
during the course of the engagement, and these were incorporated as
appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of the Navy, and appropriate congressional committees. In
addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at
http://www.gao.gov.
Page 12 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-5257 or merrittz@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 are listed in appendix
IV.
Zina Merritt
Director
Defense Capabilities and Management
Page 13 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
To determine the extent to which the Navy’s report addressed the House
Armed Services Committee’s direction, we analyzed House Report 112-
78 to identify each element of the committee’s direction for the Navy
report. We developed an evaluation tool based on House Report 112-78
to assess the extent to which the Navy’s report addressed these
elements. Using scorecard methodologies, two GAO analysts
independently evaluated the Navy report against the elements specified
in the House report. The analysts rated compliance for each element as
“addressed,” “partially addressed,” or “not addressed.” We considered the
element to be addressed in the report when the Navy explicitly addressed
all parts set forth in the element. We considered the element partially
addressed in the report when the Navy addressed at least one or more
parts of the element, but not all parts of the element. We considered the
element not addressed by the Navy when the report did not explicitly
address any part of the element. After the two analysts had completed
their independent analyses, they compared the two sets of observations
and discussed and reconciled any differences. The final assessment
reflected our consensus. We also interviewed Navy subject matter
experts to obtain additional information and corroborate the statements
made in the Navy report, and we obtained the officials’ opinions of our
assessments. We interviewed officials from the Office of the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Ships, Naval Sea Systems Command,
and the Naval Surface Warfare Center.
To determine the extent to which the findings in the Navy’s study are
supported by the data and information examined, we reviewed the study
and obtained information on the objectives, scope, and methodology
officials used to conduct it. We evaluated the Navy study’s business case
analysis using criteria found in the DOD Product Support Business Case
Analysis Guidebook, which provides standards for the Department of
Defense’s (DOD) business case analysis process as well as generally
acceptable economic methodologies. 1 We reviewed the Navy’s study to
determine the extent to which the Navy incorporated elements of the
DOD guidebook into the planning, design, and execution of the study. We
also obtained and analyzed key data sources, such as maintenance cost
savings inputs and boat lift cost data, for information included in the
study. We interviewed Navy officials to obtain their views on key aspects
1
Department of Defense, DOD Product Support Business Case Analysis Guidebook (April
2011).
Page 14 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats
of the study, findings and conclusions, and any limitations that may have
affected the study’s findings. We also interviewed officials responsible for
procuring and maintaining Navy small boats, to determine the extent to
which the Navy factored appropriate costs and benefits into the study’s
key assumptions and related findings. 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 purpose of
evaluating the planning, design, and execution of the Navy’s business
case analysis.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2011 to March
2012 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.
Page 15 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats
Appendix II: Photographs of Selected Navy
Small Boats
Figures 3 through 5 contain photographs of different types of Navy small
boats in use.
Figure 3: Riverine Command Boat
Figure 4: Rigid Inflatable Boat
Page 16 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats
Figure 5: Harbor Security Boat
Page 17 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats
Appendix III: Comments from the
Appendix III: Comments from the Department
of Defense
Department of Defense
Page 18 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments
Zina Merritt, (202) 512-5257 or merrittz@gao.gov
GAO Contact
In addition to the contact named above, Carleen Bennett, Assistant
Staff Director; Tarik Carter; Joanne Landesman; Mehrzad Nadji; Terry
Acknowledgments Richardson; Mike Shaughnessy; Amie Steele; and Chris Watson made
key contributions to the report.
(351689)
Page 19 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats
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.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
Obtaining Copies of cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon,
GAO Reports and GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products,
Testimony go to 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 website,
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.
Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Connect with GAO Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.
Contact:
To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-
Congressional 4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
Relations 7125, Washington, DC 20548
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548
Please Print on Recycled Paper.
Navy Small Boats: Maintenance Report Addressed Most Directed Elements, but Additional Information Needed
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 2012-03-13.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)