Ihw~lrllr~~1- I!)!)0 MILITARY EQUIPMENT Selected Aspects of the Army’s Program to Reuse Pershing M.issile System Equipment Rllllll Illllll 142871 (;Aq)/NSIAI)-!)l-!)(i National Security and International Affairs Division B-242171 December28,lQQO The Honorable Michael P. W. Stone The Secretary of the Army Dear Mr. Secretary: We have completed an analysis of the Army’s ongoing program to reuse over $1 billion of Pershing missile system equipment. Our review focused on (1) assessingthe program’s effectiveness in filling the requirements of selectedgovernment activities and (2) determining the related budgetary savings; that is, reductions in spending of funds appropriated, requested in the President’s budget, or programmed for future budget requests. The Army’s program for the reuse of Pershing equipment addressesan Results in Brief unusual need-the managementand allocation of relatively modern, high-cost equipment that originally had been procured to meet special- ized requirements. Through mid-September 1990,the Army’s reuse pro- gram had received 416 requests from 62 government activities for Pershing equipment that originally cost $756 million. The Army had approved requests for equipment costing $227 million. Despite the demand for Pershing equipment, overall budgetary savings appear limited. For the 90 requests we examined, the requested equip- ment cost $292.6 million, but our review disclosedthat the estimated savings for the requesting activities amounted to only $12.7 million, or about 4.3 percent of the equipment’s cost. The specializednature of the equipment could be a primary factor limiting savings. However, we believe that savings could also have been limited becausethe Army’s reuse program did not emphasize,collect, and consider budgetary infor- mation in determining the priorities of requests. Army reuse program officials acknowledged that consideration of bud- getary information has the potential for increasing budgetary savings. They agreedto request and consider this information when making allo- cation recommendationsinvolving competing requests. The Pershing is a ground-launched, intermediate-range nuclear missile Background system consisting of a two-stage missile, launcher, and associated ground support equipment. The Pershing is deployed in Europe, but the Page 1 GAO/NSIAJI-91-96 Reuse of Pershing Missile Equipment B-242171 deployment will end on June 1, 1991, to comply with the Intermediate- RangeNuclear Force treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union. The treaty requires that the United States destroy certain Per- shing equipment, but other equipment, which the Army estimates cost over $1 billion, will be available for other needs. To coordinate the allocation of equipment, the Army established the Pershing reuse program. The reuse program office provides information to potential users on equipment capability and availability, receives requests for equipment, and recommendsapproval or disapproval of the requeststo the Deputy Chiefs of Staff for Logistics and Operations. When duplicate requests are submitted for an item, the reuse program office recommendsthe priority for allocating the equipment, but the Deputy Chiefs of Staff make the final determinations. The program pro- vides the equipment free of charge to approved activities as it becomes available. The Army’s reuse program appears to contribute to the disbursal of ReuseProgram potentially excess,relatively new, and complex equipment. The program Coordinates Disbursal provides (1) centralized control over treaty-related activities such as of Equipment readiness,treaty compliance, and reuse; (2) more time than permitted under excess-propertyprocedures to accumulate requests before equip- ment is scrapped; and (3) personnel familiar with the Pershing equip- ment to act as advisers in determining how equipment can be reused. The program will continue until at least the Pershing system’s deactiva- tion. Reuseprogram officials estimated that more than $500 million worth of Pershing equipment will becomeavailable during the last 6 months of the system’s permitted deployment-December 1, 1990, through June 1,lQQl. At the completion of the program, the Army plans to declare the uncommitted equipment excessand processit under excess-propertydisposal procedures. Reuseprogram documents,except in one case,did not include specific Activities Report data on the requesting activities’ expected or actual budgetary benefits Benefits, but from obtaining the Pershing equipment. However, officials from the Budgetary Savings 14 government activities whose 90 requests we evaluated estimated budgetary savings of only $12.7 million, or about 4.3 percent of the Have Been Limited equipment’s $292.6 million cost. Page 2 GAO/NSIAD91-96 Reuse of Pershing Missile Equipment B-242171 Eight activities requested equipment that was expected to result in budgetary savings. The equipment originally cost $95.4 million, and requesting officials estimated budgetary savings of $12.7 million, or 13.3 percent, from obtaining the equipment. Six of the eight activities that identified budgetary savings believed that savings of $10.1 million would result from filling requirements programmed for funding in future years. The other two activities reported that Pershing equipment filled requirements for which $2.6 million had been appropriated or requested.According to requesting officials, one used the funds made available for other requirements, and the other activity planned to cancel procurement actions upon receipt of the equipment and apply the savings to other program needs. In addition, six activities requested $197.2 million in equipment but did not identify budgetary savings. Requestingofficials said that the Per- shing equipment provided additional capability relevant to their mis- sions and useful to their programs, but they said that their programs could not have afforded to buy the equipment. The specialized requirements of the Pershing equipment may partly Specialized Equipment explain the limited budgetary savings when compared to the equip- May Limit Budgetary ment’s cost. For example, one activity requested 32 Pershing platoon Savings control shelters costing $18.1 million, but program officials estimated the budgetary savings to be $770,880-the cost of procuring and modi- fying new shelters to fill their specific requirement. The program offi- cials attributed the limited savings to the Pershing’s specialized requirements, such as the need for the shelters to meet nuclear, biolog- ical, and chemical warfare specifications-a capability not required by the requesting activity. Emphasizing, collecting, and considering budgetary information in Potential Budget making equipment allocation decisionscould reduce budget requests in Reductions Possible future years. At present, program officials give first priority (without obtaining or considering budgetary information) to requesting activities selectedby the President or the Secretary of Defenseto receive special attention. The reuse program decidesbetween competing requests without consid- ering the requesting activities’ funded requirements and the potential to use Pershing equipment to satisfy those requirements. Reuseprogram instructions provide for giving somepreference to activities that will Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-91-96 Reuse of Pershing Missile Equipment lb242171 make the best use of the equipment and will save money as a result of obtaining it. However, the Army obtained budgetary information for only 1 of 416 requests received through mid-September 1990. The pro- gram officials making reuse recommendationsdid not use the budgetary information and did not provide it to the Department of Army level for consideration in making final allocation decisions. The limited information developed during our analysis showed that approving requestswithout considering budgetary information could have limited savings in at least one instance if the Department of Army officials had not intervened. In that case,basedon an activity’s special priority assignedby the President, reuse program program officials rec- ommendedapproving a request for four Pershing test station vans that, according to requesting officials, would yield budgetary savings of $74,000, or $18,600 for each $1.9 million van. At the sametime, reuse officials recommendeddenying a request for one of the vans submitted by another activity that did not have special priority. However, according to that activity’s chief of systems engineering,the additional van would have satisfied a funded requirement of about $500,000- more than 27 times the funding neededto fill the special priority activity’s requirement for one van. In the end, officials from the Offices of the Deputy Chiefs of Staff for Logistics and Operations denied both requests becausethey believed a better use could be made of the van. But, in taking this action, they did not know the relative potential budgetary savings of each request. Reuseprogram officials said that budget savings may not be the only basis for allocating military equipment; however, they agreedthat con- sideration of budgetary information has the potential for increasing budgetary savings. We did not obtain official agency commentson this report. However, we Views of Program discussedthe results of our work with Army reuse program officials. Officials Reusemanagementofficials agreedto (1) request budgetary information from requesting activities, (2) consider this information as a major factor when making allocation recommendationsinvolving competing requests, and (3) notify potential requestors that the remaining Pershing equipment will be available to meet fiscal year 1991 requirements. In view of these planned actions, we are not making any recommendations. Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-91-96 Reuse of Pershing Missile Equipment lb242171 We examined the Pershing ReusePlan, the Pershing inventory listing, Scopeand other reuse program documents and reports, and the requests for Per- Methodology shing equipment. We also reviewed pertinent Department of Defense and Army regulations concerning disposal of excessmateriel. In addi- tion, we interviewed Army officials concerningthe priority processfor competing requests and Department of the Army procedures for approving requests. To examine program benefits, we reviewed 90 requests from 14 govern- ment activities asking for $292.6 million in Pershing equipment. We gen- erally selectedthe activities basedon the value of the Pershing equipment requested and examined all requests from that activity. We acceptedthe activities’ projections of budgetary or other benefits without independent verification. In performing this review, we visited activities located at the U.S. Army Missile Command,the Strategic DefenseCommand,the Ballistics ResearchLaboratory, and the Naval Surface Warfare Center. We conducted our review from May to October 1990 in accordancewith generally acceptedgovernment auditing standards. We are sending copiesof the report to the Director of the Office of Man- agementand Budget and to the Chairmen of the HouseCommittee on Government Operations, SenateCommittee on Governmental Affairs, and House and SenateCommittees on Appropriations and on Armed Ser- vices. Copieswill also be made available to others upon request. Pleasecontact me on (202) 276-4141if you or your staff have questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix I. Sincerely yours, Richard Davis Director, Army Issues Page 5 GAO/NSIADBl-96 Reuse of Pershing Missile Equipment Appendix I Major Contributors to This Report Henry L. Hinton, Associate Director National Security and Raymond Dunham, Assistant Director International Affairs Division, Washington, DC. T. Wayne Gilliam, Regional ManagementRepresentative Atlanta Regional W, Stan I.,ipscomb,Evaluator-in-Charge Office Carol T. Mebane,Evaluator Lisa Warde, Evaluator (i388400) Page 6 GAO/NSIADBl-99 Reuse of Pershing Missile Equipment Orders may also be ptaccd by calling (202) 275-624 1. L
Military Equipment: Selected Aspects of the Army's Program To Reuse Pershing Missile System Equipment
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-12-28.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)