oversight

Navy Maintenance: Improvements Needed in the Aircraft Engine Repair Program

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-06-18.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

  . .__._ _       ~.


GAO

                       ..” ,“.”._...
                                 “.“__
                                     . _.l”._”
                                           -.-...------_-.            --
.Illrlc~ I!)!)0
                                         NAVY
                                         MAINTENANCE
                                         Improvements Needed
                                         in the Aircraft Engine
                                         Repair Program

                                                                           a

                                                                I
                                                             141621
United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, DC. 20648

National Security and
International Affairs Division

B-239616

June 181990

The Honorable Les Aspin
Chairman, Committee on
  Armed Services
House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In response to discussions with your office, we reviewed the Navy’s air-
craft engine repair program. Our specific objectives were to determine
whether (1) charges for engine repairs were supportable and reasonable
and (2) opportunities existed for reducing labor and material costs. This
briefing report summarizes the results of our work, which were pro-
vided to your staff during a meeting earlier this year.


Five Naval Aviation Depots overhaul most of the engines that power the
Navy’s airplanes and helicopters. In fiscal year 1989, the depots per-
formed depot level maintenance on over 2,200 engines. This work gener-
ated revenues of about $243 million, or about 14 percent of the depots’
revenues from all programs.

The depots are industrial fund activities operating under the Naval Air
Systems Command (NAVAIR). Industrial fund activities, established by the
Department of Defense with the approval of the Congress in 1949, use
working capital funds rather than annual appropriations to finance the
cost of goods and services provided to customers. The customers use
annual appropriations to reimburse these activities for work performed.
The financial goal of industrial fund activities is to break even, that is,
to cover costs without experiencing a gain or loss.

The Navy’s operating forces are the depots’ primary customers for the
engine repair program. On the basis of the needs of these forces, NAVAIR
determines engine depot maintenance requirements and administers the
repair program.

Subject to NAVAIR review and approval, the depots develop prices for
each type of engine repair. Prices are to be based on a labor standards
program that indicates how many labor hours each type of repair
should require,. These labor hour estimates are to be multiplied by each
depot’s estimated hourly operating cost to arrive at a labor price. Esti-
mated material costs are to be added to the labor price to determine a


Page 1                                GAO/NSIAD-90-193BR   Aircraft   Engine Repairs
                        B239316




                        total repair price. Ideally, this pricing process should result in the
                        depots’ being reimbursed at a level that approximates the actual cost of
                        the repairs.


                        Our review indicated that the Navy did not provide sufficient manage-
Results in Brief        ment review and controls to ensure that engine repair prices were rea-
                        sonable in view of actual labor hour and material expenditures. As a
                        result, the depots charged their customers $101 million more for labor
                        and material during fiscal years 1987, 1988, and 1989 than was justified
                        by actual expenditures.

                        We found that the Navy had not taken full advantage of opportunities to
                        lower labor costs by examining significant differences in the labor hours
                        charged customers by different depots to perform the same repair tasks
                        on the same type of engine. Further opportunities exist to lower mate-
                        rial costs by requiring all depots to limit material orders to the max-
                        imum quantities of parts required for each engine repair.

                        Navy officials concurred with the results of our review and indicated
                        that the Navy actions planned or already underway reflect a commit-
                        ment toward correcting the problems identified.


                        Rather than breaking even on engine repairs, as intended by the indus-
Excessive Charges for   trial fund concept, the depots charged customers $35.8 million more for
Engine Repairs          labor and $65.6 million more for material than was justified by actual
                        expenditures during fiscal years 1987, 1988, and 1989. The excessive
                        charges were caused by limited management oversight and review and
                        by problems in the process the depots used to develop labor hour and
                        material estimates.

                        For example, the labor hour portion of repair prices often was based on
                        outdated or unsupported labor standards. Further, inaccuracies existed
                        in other factors, such as repair frequency and planned efficiency data,
                        used by the depots to arrive at the final labor hour estimate charged to
                        customers, As a result, the labor hour estimates used for pricing often
                        bore little resemblance to the number of labor hours actually used in the
                        past to perform the work.

                        Similarly, the process used to determine the material portion of the
                        repair prices also resulted in material estimates that did not approxi-
                        mate historical material costs. Since fiscal year 1984, material estimates


                        Page 2                                GAO/NSIAJb90-193BR   Aircraft   Engine Repaira
                        have been developed     by applying a percentage adjustment to the pre-
                        vious year’s material   estimate regardless of any changes in actual mate-
                        rial requirements for   individual engine types. As a result, engine
                        material estimates in   most cases differed significantly from actual mate-
                        rial expenditures.

                        Although responsible for the review and approval of depot labor hour
                        and material estimates, NAVAIR has not performed a detailed review of
                        the proposed estimates for the past 4 years.


                        Significant differences existed in the labor hour estimates developed by
Opportunities for       different depots to perform the same repair tasks on dual-sited engines
Reducing Labor Costs    (engine models repaired by two depots). Such differences can present
for Dual-Sited Engine   opportunities for reducing labor costs if the processes or methods used
                        to accomplish a task by the less costly depot can be adopted by the more
Repairs                 costly depot. Lower labor costs, in turn, can reduce customer charges
                        and ultimately reduce customer appropriations that fund the engine
                        repair program.

                        While recognizing that such opportunities exist, NAVAIR has not taken full
                        advantage of this method of reducing labor costs for engine repairs. In
                        many cases, one depot charged up to twice as many labor hours as
                        another depot to accomplish the same repair tasks such as engine induc-
                        tion, disassembly, reassembly, testing, and preservation and packing.
                        Such differences existed largely because NAVAIR had not (1) ensured that
                        the depots were complying with existing guidance to coordinate when
                        developing labor hour estimates for dual-sited engines, (2) followed up
                        on past depot study recommendations for obtaining greater consistency
                        in the repair of dual-sited engines, and (3) ensured that significant labor
                        variances for common repair tasks were analyzed with a goal of sharing
                        more efficient repair processes whenever possible.


                        Additional opportunities exist for reducing material costs for engine
Opportunities for       repairs. Material initiatives at two depots appeared successful in
Reducing Material       reducing material costs by restricting material orders to no more than
Costs in the Engine     the maximum quantity of parts required for each engine repair. Our
                        tests at the three depots without this initiative showed that from 10 to
Repair Program
            Y           26 percent of the material requisitions reviewed was for material
                        exceeding maximum usage quantities or for material not usable at all on
                        the engine charged for the material. While the benefits from improved



                        Page 3                                 GAO/N&W-90-193BR   Aircraft   Engine Repairs
                             controls over material have been long recognized, NAVMR management
                             has been slow to implement material initiatives at all depots.


                             After we brought the issues identified during our review to their atten-
New Navy Initiatives         tion, NAVAIR officials began taking steps to address the issues. For
Appear to Address            example, to ensure the reasonableness of engine repair prices, greater
Issues                       management emphasis was placed on implementing planned improve-
                             ments to the depots’ labor standards program. Management teams were
                             formed to study ways to improve the process for developing labor hour
                             estimates. In addition, NAVAIR initiated a new review process that
                             requires justification for proposed labor hour estimates that differ sig-
                             nificantly from historical labor hour expenditures. The impact of this
                             new review will be first seen in the labor estimates to be used in the
                             fiscal year 1992 budget submission. NAVAIR also initiated changes in
                             developing material cost estimates so that they will be better matched
                             with historical usage rates.

                             To take advantage of opportunities for reducing labor and material costs
                             for engine repairs, NAVAIR initiated efforts to better coordinate dual-sited
                             engine repairs to ensure that the most efficient processes are used at
                             both depots performing the same engine repairs. In addition, NAVAIR
                             endorsed the material initiative to limit material orders to the maximum
                             quantities required for each engine repair. However, a specific plan to
                             implement the material initiative at all depots had not been developed at
                             the time of our review.


                             We believe that the depots’ engine repair prices should more accurately
Conclusions and              reflect the actual number of labor hours and material costs required to
Recommendations        *Ih   accomplish repairs. We also believe that opportunities exist to reduce
                             labor and material costs in the engine repair program.

                             To ensure that corrective actions are fully implemented, we recommend
                             that the Secretary of the Navy direct the Commander, NAVAIR, to report
                             on the status of these actions periodically until they are fully imple-
                             mented. This report should specifically include, but not be limited to,
                             comments on the status of efforts to

                        l    improve the labor standards program to ensure that labor hour esti-
                             mates for engine repairs are valid;




                             Page 4                                GAO/NSIAI%9@193BR   Aircraft   Engine Repah
 4


                       B-239616




                   . improve the accuracy of factors, such as repair frequency and planned
                     efficiency data, used to arrive at the final labor hour estimate charged
                     customers;
                   . consider historical labor hour expenditures in developing labor hour
                     estimates for future years;
                   l ensure that the depots comply with guidance to coordinate development
                     of labor hour estimates for dual-sited engine repairs so that the most
                     efficient repair processes are used at both depots; and
                   l implement a material initiative at all depots that limits material orders
                     to the maximum quantities of parts required for each engine repair.


                       As requested, we did not obtain official agency comments on this report;
Agency Comments        however, we did discuss the results of our work with Defense and Navy
                       officials. The officials concurred with our conclusions and recommenda-
                       tions. They said that the actions already taken or planned reflected a
                       commitment toward correcting the problems identified.

----_I.   --__--
                       We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen, Senate Committee
                       on Governmental Affairs, House Committee on Government Operations,
                       Senate Committee on Armed Services, and Senate and House Commit-
                       tees on Appropriations; the Director, Office of Management and Budget;
                       and the Secretaries of Defense and the Navy.

                       Appendix I provides further details on the results of our work; appendix
                       II sets forth our objectives, scope, and methodology; and appendix III
                       lists the staff members who made major contributions to this report, If
                       you have any questions about the matters discussed in this briefing
                       report, please call me on (202) 275-6504.

                       Sincerely yours,




                       Martin M Ferber
                       Director, Navy Issues




                       Page 5                               GAO/NSIAD-90-193BR   Aircraft   Engine Repairs
Contents


Letter                                                                                                       1

Appendix I                                                                                                   8
Engine Repair Costs     Excessive Charges for Engine Repairs
                        Opportunities for Reducing Labor Costs
                                                                                                        10
                                                                                                        11
Can Be Reduced          Opportunities for Reducing Material Costs                                       12
                        New Navy Initiatives Appear to Address Issues                                   13

Appendix II                                                                                             14
Objectives, Scope,and
Methodology
Appendix III                                                                                            16
Major Contributors to
This Report
Tables                  Table I. 1: Primary Engine Workload by NADEP                                    10
                        Table 1.2: Excessive Labor and Material Charges, Fiscal                         10
                            Years 1987 to 1989
                        Table 1.3: Examples of Differences in Charges for the                           12
                            Same Engine Repair
                        Table 1.4: Excess Material Orders for Engine Repair Work                        13

Figures                 Figure 1.1: NADEP Workload for Fiscal Year 1989                                  8
                        Figure 1.2: Engine Repair Program Revenues, Fiscal Year                          9
                             1989




                        Abbreviations

                        GAO       General Accounting Office
                        NADEP     Naval Aviation Depot
                        NAVAIR    Naval Air Systems Command


                        Page 6                              GAO/NSIAD-90-193BR   Aircraft   Engine Repairs
Page 7   GAO/NSIADM-193BR   Aircraft   Engine Repairs
Appendix I

EngineRepair CostsCan Be Reduced


                                        The Naval Aviation Depots (NADEPS) are industrial fund activities
                                        operating under NAVAIR. They perform depot-level maintenance on
                                        engines, airframes, aircraft components, and missiles. On the basis of
                                        total revenues, the engine repair program accounted for about 14 per-
                                        cent of the workload in fiscal year 1989. Figure I.1 shows a percentage
                                        breakdown of the NADEP workload by major activity.


Figure 1.1: NADEP Workload for Fircal
Yiar 1989
                                                                                Other Support
                                                                                Engines
                                                                                3%
                                                                                Manufacturing




                                                                                1%
                                                                                Missiles




                                                                                Components




                                                                                Airframes


                                        Five of the six NADEPS participate in the engine repair program. In fiscal
                                        year 1989, engine repairs accounted for revenues of about $243 million
                                        at the five NADEPS. Figure I.2 shows the engine repair revenues for each
                                        NADEP.




                                        Page 8                                GAO/NSIAIHM-193BR   Aircraft   Engine Repairs
                                   Appendix I
                                   Engine Repair Costs Can Be Reduced




Figure 1.2:Engine Repair Program
Revenueo, Flrcsl Year 1989
                                   SO DollsmIn Wllllons



                                   60




                                   40




                                   20




                                    0




                                   Some types of engines are repaired at only one NADEP. Other types are
                                   dual-sited or repaired at two NADEPS. Table I. 1 provides details on the
                                   types and quantities of engines repaired at each NADEP.




                                   Page 9                                GAO/NSIAD4JO-193BR   Aircraft   Engine Repairs
                                         Appendix I
                                         Engine Repair Costs Can Be Reduced




Table 1.1:Primary Engine Workload by
NADEP                                                            Primary       Dual-         Number repaired               Aircraft using
                                         NADEP -.
                                         -.--                    engines       sited       in fiscal year 1989             engine
                                         Alameda
                                         __.-~_______            J-52          Yes                          169            A-4, A-6
                                                                 T-56          Yes                           93            P-3, c-130
                                         _.-- ---                TF-34         Yes                           70            s-3
                                         --                      501       -   No                            30            c-131
                                         .Cherry
                                          __-_.. Point           T-58          Yes                          200            H-3, H-46
                                                                 F-402         No                            58            AV8B
                                         ._--                    J-79          No                            56            F-4
                                         ----                    T-76          No                            91            ov-10
                                                                 T-400         No                            87            H-l
                                         Jacksonville
                                         --.-_.                 --.F-404       Yes                          115            F-18
                                         -..                     J-52          Yes                          290            A-4, A-6
                                                                 TF-34         Yes                           44            s-3
                                                                 TF-41         No                            85            A-7
                                         Norfolk                 T-56          Yes                          104            P-3, C-l 30
                                         _~I_
                                         -.                       TF-30        No                           229            F-14
                                                                               No                            13            F-8
                                         ---~                  -- J-57
                                         North Island
                                         --...                    F-404        Yes                          235            F-18
                                         --.___-                  T-58         Yes                          151            H-3, H-46
                                                                  T-64         No                           129            H-53


                                         The engine repair program generated revenues of about $850 million for
Excessive Charges for                    the NADEPS from fiscal years 1987 to 1989. The revenues were not rea-
Engine Repairs                           sonable in view of actual labor and material expenditures. Instead of
                                         breaking even on engine repairs, as intended by the industrial fund con-
                                         cept, the NADEPS charged customers $101 million more for labor and
                                         material than was actually used for engine repairs. Table I.2 shows the
                                         excessive labor and material charges for each NADEP.

Table 1.2:Excessive Labor and Material
Charges, Fiscal Years 1987 to 1989       Dollars in millions
                                         NADEP                                                 Labor            Material                 Total
                                         Alameda                                                $4.7               $4.9                  $9.6
                                         Cherry Point                                             7.1               12.8                 19.9
                                         Jacksonville                                            17.2               13.9                 31.1
                                         Norfolk                                                  2.8   -           17.0                 19.8
                                         North Island                                             4.0       -       17.0                 21.0
                                         Total                                                 $35.8              $65.6              $101.4




                                         Page 10                                       GAO/NSLAD-90-193BR       Aircraft     Engine Repairs
      .
  9




                       Appendix I
                       Engine Repair Costs Can Be Reduced




                       Excessive charges in the NADEPS' engine repair program have been
                       caused by a lack of management review of NADEP labor hour estimates
                       prior to incorporating the estimates into the budget and by problems in
                       the process used to develop labor hour and material estimates. Problems
                       in the process used by the NADEPS to develop engine repair labor hour
                       estimates included (1) the use of outdated, unsupported labor standards,
                       (2) inaccurate estimates of the frequency of repair operations, and (3)
                       lack of criteria and support for estimates of plant efficiency.

                       The process used to develop material cost estimates has not been based
                       on historical material usage since 1984. Instead of a historical basis, the
                       material estimate has been developed by applying a percentage adjust-
                       ment to the previous year’s material estimate regardless of any changes
                       in actual material requirements for individual engine types. As a result,
                       engine material estimates in most cases differed significantly from
                       actual material expenditures.

                       Although responsible for the review and approval of NADEP labor hour
                       and material estimates used to determine repair prices, NAVAIR has not
                       performed a detailed review of the proposed estimates for the past 4
                       years. For the most part, estimates proposed by the NADEPS were incor-
                       porated directly into the budget. Internal reorganizations and staffing
                       problems were blamed for the lack of management oversight.


                       Significant differences existed in the labor hours charged customers by
Opportunities for      different NADEPS to perform the same repair tasks on the same engine
Reducing Labor Costs   type. Although NAVAIR guidance requires the NADEPS to coordinate their
                       efforts in developing labor hour estimates for dual-sited engine repairs,
                       such coordination generally has not occurred.

                       One notable exception concerned the repair of a T-56 engine module
                       dual-sited at Alameda and Norfolk. In this case, Norfolk reviewed Ala-
                       meda’s more efficient repair process for the T-56 rear bearing support
                       assembly. Although Alameda’s process was not completely adopted,
                       Norfolk made some process changes and it projects the changes will
                       save $108,000 annually in reduced labor costs.

                       Table I.3 shows two examples of differences in the hours charged in
                       fiscal year 1990 for the same repairs on the same type of engine.




                       Page 11                               GAO/NSLAD-90-193BR   Aircraft   Engine Repairs
                                                                                                                        I




                                       Appendix I
                                       Engine Repair Costs Can Be Reduced




Table 1.3:Examples of Differences in
Charges for the Same Engine Repair     Example 1: J-52-P8B Major Repair        Alameda       Jacksonville        Difference
                                       ____.-
                                       Labor hours for core elements                                                       -
                                          Induction process                           44                 30           .-____14
                                       Disassembly
                                       --______                                       19                 49                  30
                                       --_Final assembly -                            42                 89
                                                                                                        -___-__              47
                                          Test                                        52                 44                   8
                                          Preservation and packing
                                       .___~.                                         10                  7        --         3
                                                                                     167                219 .____            52
                                       Labor hours for subassemblies             -   763
                                                                                     930                521
                                                                                                        740---..---~o     242
                                       Total standard labor hours
                                         Planned efficiency                           88%                82%                  6%
                                       Total hours charged to customer             1,056                903                 153
                                       Example 2: T-58-GE10 Repair          Cherry Point     North Island        Difference
                                                                                                                      __...
                                       Labor hours for core elements
                                          Induction process                            5                 25     __--__ 20
                                       .- Disassembly                                  9                   7               2
                                       .- Final assembly                              36                 24 -__           12
                                          Test
                                       -..~.-                                         10                 16
                                                                                                          ---              6
                                          Preservation and packing
                                       .-____..                                       14                   1              13
                                       Labor hours for subassemblies                  74
                                                                                     227                 73
                                                                                                        2go-~~    .--..- 63 1
                                       _I_..
                                       Total standard labor hours                    301               363                  62
                                          Planned efficiency                          87%               88%                  1%
                                       Total hours charged to customer               345               413                  68



                                       Material initiatives at the Norfolk and Alameda NADEPS appear suc-
Opportunities for                      cessful in reducing material costs by restricting material orders to no
Reducing Material                      more than the maximum quantity required for each engine repair. The
costs                                  Norfolk NADEP estimated annual material savings of $3.8 million from its
                                       initiative limiting engine material orders.

                                       Our tests at the three NADEPS without such an initiative showed that
                                       from 10 to 25 percent of the material requisitions reviewed was for
                                       material exceeding maximum usage quantities or for material not usable
                                       at all on the engine charged for the material. Table I.4 summarizes the
                                       results of our tests for material orders exceeding maximum quantities
                                       required for engine repairs done at the five NADEPS.
                   Y




                                       Page 12                               GAO/NSIAD-90-193BR   Aircraft   Engine Repairs
                                           Appendix I
                                           Engine Repair Casta Can Be Reduced




Table 1.4:Excers Material Orders for
Engine Repair Work                                                                  Nurnpd;;         Orders exfy$#maximum
                                                                   Initiative in                                 9
                                           NADEP                           place     reviewed       Number     Percent          Value
                                           Alameda                            ye=           45            3         6.6          $857
                                           Norfolk                            Ye=              45         I         2.2             58
                                           Cherry Point                        no          146           17        11.6         17,783
                                           Jacksonville                        no          125          31         24.8        126,328
                                           North Island                        no          125           13        10.4         24.954



                                           After we briefed NAVAUZofficials on the initial results of our review,
New Navy Initiatives                       NAVAIRundertook an internal review to look at the same areas. This
Appear to Address                          internal review confirmed to NAVAIRthat the issues we identified war-
Issues                                     ranted management attention, In response, NAVAIRhas taken or has
                                           planned the following actions to address the issues.

                                       l Management emphasis has been given to implementing improvements to
                                         the NADEPS' labor standards program and new guidance for the program
                                         should be issued by the end of June.
                                       . Management teams were formed to study ways to improve the process
                                         the NADEPS used to develop labor hour estimates for engine repairs.
                                       9 A new NAVAIRreview process was implemented, which will analyze pro-
                                         posed labor hour estimates in light of historical labor hour expenditures.
                                         This new review process should help ensure that labor hour charges
                                         closely approximate actual labor hour requirements for the repairs. The
                                         impact of this review will be first seen in the labor estimates to be used
                                         in the fiscal year 1992 budget submission.
                                       l In coordination with the Navy Comptroller, NAVAIRchanged the process
                                         used to develop material cost estimates so that the estimates will better
                                         approximate actual material costs.
                                       l New emphasis was being placed on the need to coordinate dual-sited
                                         engine repairs to ensure that the most efficient processes are used at
                                         both NADEPSperforming the same repairs. Labor hour estimates for dual-
                                         sited engines also will be reviewed for consistency during the new NAVAIR
                                         review process.
                                       . NAVAIRhas endorsed the material initiative to limit material orders to the
                                         maximum quantities required. However, a specific plan to implement
                                         the material initiative at all NADEPS had not been developed at the time
                                         of our review.




                                           Page 13                                       GAO/NSIAIMM93BR      Alrcraft   Engine Rep&a
Appendix II

Objectives,Scope,and Methodology


              Our objectives were to determine whether (1) charges for engine repairs
              were supportable and reasonable and (2) opportunities existed for
              reducing labor and material costs, We interviewed officials and reviewed
              relevant documents at NAVAIR headquarters, Washington, D.C.; Naval
              Aviation Depot Operations Center, Patuxent River, Maryland; and the
              five NADEPS in Alameda, California; Cherry Point, North Carolina; Jack-
              sonville, Florida; Norfolk, Virginia; and North Island, California.

              To review the supportability and reasonableness of engine repair
              pricing, we reviewed the two principal determinants of repair prices:
              labor hour estimates and material estimates, Specifically, to determine
              whether the labor and material estimates charged customers approxi-
              mated actual labor and material expenditures, we compared the number
              of labor hours and the amount of material charged customers with the
              number of labor hours and material actually used, according to the
              Navy’s management reports, for fiscal years 1987 through 1989. In
              addition, to test for accuracy and compliance with Navy guidance, we
              analyzed the procedures the NADEPS used to develop labor hour and
              material estimates for engine repairs.

              Throughout the review, we also identified the internal controls used in
              the engine program to ensure reasonable repair prices and to help pro-
              vide management oversight.

              To evaluate opportunities for reducing labor costs, we focused on differ-
              ences in the labor hour estimates for the same repair tasks on dual-sited
              engine repairs. To do this, we selected and reviewed the labor hour esti-
              mates for the repair of three dual-sited engines: the T-56 engine repaired
              by Alameda and Norfolk, the T-58 engine repaired by Cherry Point and
              North Island, and the J-52 engine repaired by Alameda and Jacksonville.
              These engines were selected because they represented a stable and siz-
              able workload at the NADEPS for the past several years.

              For the selected dual-sited engines, we compared the NADEPS' description
              of work for the major repair tasks, analyzed the differences in the labor
              hour estimates made by each NADEP for the same repair tasks, and dis-
              cussed with NADEP managers and engineers possible reasons for signifi-
              cant differences in labor hour estimates for the same tasks. We also
              reviewed the results from past Navy efforts to reduce the cost of dual-
              sited engine repairs.

              To assess opportunities for reducing engine material costs, we reviewed
              the results from recent material initiatives at the Alameda and Norfolk


              Page 14                              GAO/NSIAD-QO-193BR   Aircraft   Engine Repaira
L



    Appendix II
    Objectives, Scope, and Methodology




    NADEPS. Although differing slightly in the procedures used, both initia-
    tives attempted to reduce material costs by limiting material orders to
    the maximum quantities of each part that could be used on a given
    engine. To assess the benefits from these initiatives, we made tests at
    each NADEP visited to determine whether excess material was being
    ordered. We then compared the test results at Norfolk and Alameda
    with the test results at the other NADEPS that did not have the material
    initiative.

    Our review was made in accordance with generally accepted govern-
    ment auditing standards and was performed between June 1989 and
    May 1990.




    Page 15                               GAO/NSUDW1@3BRAircraft   EngineRepairs
Appendix III

Major Contributors to This Report


                        Brad Hathaway, Associate Director,
National Security and     Navy Issues
International Affairs   James Murphy, Assistant Director,
                          Navy Issues
Division, Washington,
D.C.

Norfolk Regional           Representative
Office                  Gary Phillips, Evaluator-in-Charge
                        James Ellis, Site Senior
                        John Beauchamp, Evaluator
                        Allison Pike, Evaluator




(:wrazo)                Page 16                              GA0/NSIAD90493B&   Aircraft Engine Repairs
__ll”---l~---“---l”   .-__.   l.“l._-.~_---._l_-...-.-.-~.----~                                                                              I   I.   “I,-   *.~.   I,“,   _




                                                                  ‘I’t~lt~phorlt~ 202-276-6224 I




                                                                  ‘I’lww is a 25”,, discotinl.     011ortiws   for 100 or more copirs   mailed t,o a
                                                                  singIt& adclrt~ss.