oversight

Army National Guard: Sharing Unit Training Equipment Would Help Avoid Maintenance Costs

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1997-09-29.

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

                   United States General Accounting Office

GAO                Report to the Secretary of Defense




September 1997
                   ARMY NATIONAL
                   GUARD
                   Sharing Unit Training
                   Equipment Would Help
                   Avoid Maintenance
                   Costs




GAO/NSIAD-97-206
             United States
GAO          General Accounting Office
             Washington, D.C. 20548

             National Security and
             International Affairs Division

             B-274607

             September 29, 1997

             The Honorable William S. Cohen
             The Secretary of Defense

             Dear Mr. Secretary:

             We initiated this review to identify opportunities for Army National Guard
             units to share training equipment and store unused equipment in
             preserved environments, which would help avoid some maintenance costs
             and reduce the existing maintenance backlog. Specifically, we determined
             the (1) feasibility of Guard units that annually train at the same site to pool
             and share equipment, (2) maintenance costs that the Guard would avoid
             by pooling and sharing equipment, and (3) ways the Guard can maximize
             equipment sharing at annual training sites.


             The Army National Guard has approximately $38 billion worth of
Background   equipment assigned to its 54 separate state and territorial military
             commands. The equipment is mostly used during peacetime to train units
             in the event that they are needed to reinforce or replace active force
             components during wartime. Equipment predominantly used for units’
             2-week annual training is located at Mobilization and Training Equipment
             Sites (MATES). There are 24 MATES located throughout the United States,
             and almost half of them will have equipment that belongs to more than one
             unit.

             During the last several years, the Guard has spent over $756 million
             annually to maintain its equipment. However, this amount has not been
             enough to fund required scheduled maintenance and repairs on equipment
             that has deteriorated. As a result, the Guard had a maintenance backlog of
             2.3 million labor hours as of September 1996. To help reduce this backlog,
             the Guard developed the Controlled Humidity Preservation Program. The
             goal of the program is to preserve up to 25 percent of the Guard’s
             combat-ready ground equipment, including tanks, Bradley Fighting
             Vehicles, self-propelled howitzers, and recovery vehicles, in a controlled
             humidity environment for up to 5 years. The program will eliminate the
             need to perform scheduled and unscheduled maintenance on the
             preserved equipment, which will permit the Guard to concentrate its
             limited maintenance resources on the remaining equipment and gradually
             reduce the maintenance backlog.




             Page 1                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                   B-274607




                   The Guard has selected 890 equipment items for preservation under the
                   Controlled Humidity Preservation Program. Equipment preserved under
                   the program will meet all technical and mission capability requirements
                   and will be available when needed for mobilization or training rotation
                   purposes. The Guard is testing program techniques at several locations
                   throughout the United States and is focusing on equipment that has high
                   maintenance costs and humidity-sensitive electronic components, such as
                   the M1A1 tank. Preliminary test results have been positive. Even though
                   final results are not anticipated until January 1998, the Guard is moving
                   forward with implementation. Currently, 17 states have taken actions to
                   implement controlled humidity techniques, and 16 more states plan to do
                   so before the end of fiscal year 1997. Appendix I contains a more detailed
                   discussion of the Controlled Humidity Preservation Program.


                   According to our analysis of nine equipment items with high annual
Results in Brief   scheduled maintenance costs1 and eight Army National Guard units, it is
                   feasible for units that annually train at the same site to pool and share
                   equipment. For the eight units we reviewed, more than enough equipment
                   is already located at Mobilization and Training Equipment Sites to create a
                   pool of equipment for unit training needs. The equipment not needed for
                   the pool could be preserved in a controlled humidity environment. In fact,
                   more equipment than the Guard’s 25-percent goal can be preserved.
                   Further, other than during the 2-week annual training period, the unit
                   equipment located at some training sites is used little. Because units train
                   at different times during the summer, this equipment could be made
                   available to other units for use during their 2-week training period or put
                   in preserved storage.

                   Our analysis of the nine equipment items also showed that the Guard
                   could avoid up to $10.3 million annually in maintenance costs if it
                   preserved 25 percent of these items in a controlled humidity environment.
                   Further, our analysis indicated that the Guard could avoid up to
                   $20 million annually in maintenance costs if three units at one training site
                   and two units at another training site pooled and shared their equipment
                   and preserved their unused equipment. The cost avoidance we identified is
                   the minimum that the Guard can achieve because many equipment items



                   1
                   The nine items selected for review were the Abrams Combat Tank, Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle,
                   Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle, Self-Propelled Howitzer, Recovery Vehicle, Armored Vehicle Launch
                   Bridge, Armored Fire Support Personnel Carrier, Armored Personnel Carrier, and Command Post
                   Carrier.



                   Page 2                                                 GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                      B-274607




                      other than the ones used in our analysis, could be pooled and shared.2
                      Also, our analysis included only eight Guard units, and additional
                      maintenance costs could be avoided if other state and territorial Guard
                      military commands pooled and shared training equipment.

                      Changing the annual training site of as few as three units will maximize
                      equipment sharing, cause more equipment to be available for preservation,
                      and allow the Guard to more efficiently use scarce maintenance resources.
                      Under this scenario, Guard units could place as much as 49 percent3 of
                      their equipment in preserved storage and reduce maintenance costs by
                      $38.1 million in the first year4 and $39.2 million each year thereafter, which
                      is $18 million more than the $21.2 million cost avoidance using the Guard’s
                      25-percent goal. Although the Guard would incur additional facility costs
                      to preserve more than 25 percent of its equipment, the benefits of avoiding
                      annual maintenance costs for this equipment would more than offset the
                      facility costs.


                      Guard units generally do not share their equipment and would only use
Pooling and Sharing   equipment from another unit when they do not have sufficient quantities
Training Equipment    of their own to meet training needs. Our analysis of equipment usage at the
Are Feasible          Fort Stewart, Georgia, and Camp Shelby, Mississippi, MATES confirmed that
                      the five units that train at these locations share very little equipment.
                      However, it would be feasible for these units, as well as other units that
                      use the same training site, to pool and share equipment. More than enough
                      equipment is already located at these MATES to create a pool of equipment
                      to meet unit training needs. The equipment not needed for the pool could
                      be put in preserved storage. Further, the unit equipment located at the
                      Fort Stewart and Camp Shelby MATES is predominately used during the
                      units’ 2-week annual training period.5 Because units train at different times
                      during the summer, this equipment could be made available to other units
                      for use during their 2-week training period or put in preserved storage. In
                      fact, more equipment than the Guard’s 25-percent goal can be preserved.


                      2
                       Cost avoidance, as used in this report, includes costs associated with repair parts; depot-level
                      repairable equipment; petroleum, oil, and lubricants; and personnel time and effort to maintain
                      equipment.
                      3
                       This percentage was calculated based on the collective percent of the nine equipment items that can
                      be preserved at the three MATES. The quantities of individual equipment items that may be preserved
                      differ; therefore, this percentage cannot be applied to individual equipment items throughout the
                      Guard.
                      4
                       First-year net savings is the amount realized after deducting equipment relocation expenses.
                      5
                       This equipment is also used during the year for weekend training.



                      Page 3                                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                            B-274607




Units Do Not Currently      National Guard Regulation 750-2 (Oct. 1, 1996) requires that units draw
Share Equipment at          and train with their own equipment, if possible, during their annual 2-week
Training Sites              training period. Units generally do not share their equipment with another
                            unit and only use equipment from another unit when they do not have
                            sufficient quantities of their own to meet training needs. Concerns about
                            equipment sharing have been expressed because all units do not have the
                            same types of equipment and personnel believe they need to train with
                            their own equipment.

                            Guard units train about 39 days each year, but the equipment located at
                            MATES is used mostly during the 2-week annual training period, which is
                            normally conducted during the summer months. For the remaining
                            50 weeks, the equipment is used little and generally sits outside exposed to
                            the weather elements. The Guard requires units to place 50 percent of
                            selected equipment items, such as M1A1 Abrams tanks and Bradley
                            Fighting Vehicles, at MATES, since such equipment is generally needed and
                            used only when units conduct their 2-week annual training.

                            Our analysis of equipment usage at the Fort Stewart and Camp Shelby
                            MATES showed that the five units that train at these locations share very
                            little equipment. For example, in 1996 the three brigades from Fort
                            Stewart withdrew equipment 31 times, but in only 6 instances (19 percent)
                            did any of the equipment belong to another brigade. At the Camp Shelby
                            MATES, officials stated that units use only their own equipment during their
                            annual 2-week training period and do not share equipment with other
                            units.

                            In addition, the tanks stored at the Fort Stewart, Camp Shelby, and Fort
                            Hood, Texas, MATES are used very little. We analyzed the engine hour usage
                            data for 246 M1A1 and M1IP tanks and found that engines were running an
                            average of about 52 hours, or 6-1/2 days, per year (assuming an 8-hour
                            training day).6


Sharing Will Allow More     Establishing equipment pools and requiring units that train at the same site
Equipment to Be Preserved   to share the minimum quantities of equipment needed for training would
                            enable the Guard to preserve more equipment in controlled environments.
                            Although concerns about equipment sharing have been expressed, Guard
                            officials at the Army National Guard Bureau, state, MATES, and unit levels
                            believe that units can share equipment and use the controlled humidity

                            6
                             Engine hours include actual training time as well as time used in performing maintenance during the
                            2-week annual training period and weekend training.



                            Page 4                                                  GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
B-274607




concept for preserving equipment. Generally, the officials agreed that units
do not have to use their own equipment in training, equipment can be
shared to a greater extent, and a paradigm change is necessary. According
to officials, equipment ownership and sharing are leadership issues that
can be managed. Further, according to the Guard’s modernization plans,
high-priority units will generally have the same equipment by the end of
1999.

Several factors have a significant impact on determining the size of
equipment pools. These factors include a unit’s assigned personnel,
number of unit personnel that actually attend annual training with their
unit, the quantities of equipment items drawn from a MATES and the
quantities actually needed to accomplish training tasks, and annual
training scheduling intervals. The number of individual equipment items
required in a pool will vary by type and size of units training at a particular
location.

MATES officials stated that the size of the equipment pool would also need
to reflect their ability to repair nonmission-capable (NMC) equipment after
units complete training.7 Equipment turnaround time and the amount of
time a MATES has to fix NMC equipment between unit training periods are
key to determining the equipment pool size and the quantity of equipment
that can be placed in long-term preservation. With the exception of major
problems, such as a blown engine for a M1A1 tank or equipment awaiting
parts availability, most equipment items can be fixed and returned to the
pool within 2 weeks, the officials said. Scheduling annual training with the
greatest interval between unit training periods would allow MATES
personnel more time to repair equipment for reissuance and thus allow
greater equipment quantities to be preserved. Appendix II contains
information on how we determined the size of the pools used in our
analysis.

Several MATES officials stated that unit commanders draw more equipment
than they need for annual training. More equipment could be preserved if
unit commanders would draw only the equipment quantities needed to
accomplish training tasks. For example, officials at one MATES said unit
commanders generally draw one M1A1 tank and one Bradley Fighting
Vehicle for each of the tank and Bradley crews that show up for an annual
training event. The officials said that the commanders wanted to have each
crew experience some driving time and therefore had extra tanks and


7
 Equipment is considered NMC if it cannot perform one or more of its combat missions.



Page 5                                                 GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                      B-274607




                      Bradleys available so that training would not be delayed or interrupted
                      because of maintenance.

                      MATES officials understood this rationale but pointed out that a unit
                      generally has only two training ranges available at any one time and that
                      only two crews can train on a range. Therefore, a typical M1A1 tank or a
                      Bradley unit trying to qualify in gunnery operations can train only four
                      crews at the same time. The officials believe that these units can achieve
                      their training tasks with about one-half of the tank and Bradley vehicles
                      drawn from MATES and still have enough extra equipment in case of
                      maintenance losses. A Bradley Fighting Vehicle battalion commander
                      stated that his battalion could achieve training goals with about one-half
                      the Bradleys drawn for annual training. The commander also stated that
                      other commanders could achieve their training goals with the same
                      amount of equipment but that this method of operating would require a
                      change in the way training is currently done.

                      MATES officials had other suggestions to reduce the amount of equipment
                      needed to accomplish training goals and increase preservation of
                      equipment. These suggestions include (1) minimizing home station assets,
                      (2) improving maintenance operations in units by making maintenance a
                      priority, (3) splitting annual training by having half of the brigade rotate in
                      and out of annual training, and (4) scheduling training over a longer period
                      of time to better utilize equipment availability at MATES.


                      The Guard’s training equipment is costly to maintain. In fact, the Guard
Maintenance Costs     spent over $756 million during fiscal years 1995 and 1996 to maintain
Can Be Avoided by     equipment, but this amount was insufficient to perform all required
Pooling and Sharing   maintenance. Our analysis of the nine equipment items showed that the
                      Guard could avoid up to $10.3 million annually in maintenance costs if it
Training Equipment    preserved 25 percent of this equipment in a controlled humidity
                      environment. Our analysis also showed that the Guard could avoid an
                      additional $4.4 million to $9.7 million each year in maintenance costs if it
                      required the three units that train at the Fort Stewart MATES and the two
                      units that train at the Camp Shelby MATES to pool and share equipment.
                      The portion of each unit’s training equipment that is not pooled could then
                      be preserved.

                      The cost avoidance we identified is the minimum that the Guard can
                      achieve because many equipment items other than the ones used in our
                      analysis could be pooled and shared. Also, our analysis included only eight



                      Page 6                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                         B-274607




                         Guard units, and additional maintenance costs could be avoided if other
                         state and territorial Guard military commands pooled and shared training
                         equipment. In fact, in May 1997, the U.S. Army Cost and Economic
                         Analysis Center endorsed the Guard’s Controlled Humidity Preservation
                         Economic Analysis and stated that similar benefits were likely in the Army
                         Reserves, active component, and other services.


Equipment Is Costly to   According to the economic analysis of the Controlled Humidity
Maintain                 Preservation Program, the required scheduled maintenance for the 890
                         ground equipment items in the program would cost the Guard about
                         $1.1 billion annually. Much of this required maintenance, however, is not
                         funded, which has forced trade-off decisions. During fiscal years 1995 and
                         1996, the Guard spent over $756 million to maintain equipment. This
                         amount was focused on maintaining priority equipment items rather than
                         performing other required maintenance.

                         Scheduled periodic maintenance accounts for much of the annual
                         maintenance expense.8 For example, annual scheduled maintenance for
                         one M1A1 Abrams tank costs $61,555 and takes 995 hours to complete. For
                         the Guard’s 472 M1A1 tanks, these figures translate to an annual expense
                         of over $29 million and about 470,000 labor hours. The annual scheduled
                         maintenance cost for the Guard’s tracked vehicles alone is $363 million.


More Costs Could Be      The Guard anticipates that annual scheduled maintenance costs of
Avoided Than Currently   $277 million could be deferred by placing 25 percent of the 890 equipment
Anticipated              items in long-term preservation. However, more maintenance costs can be
                         deferred than the Guard anticipates because additional equipment can be
                         preserved. For example, if the Guard preserved 25 percent of the
                         equipment used in our analysis, it could avoid up to $10.3 million annually
                         in maintenance costs. However, if the Guard established equipment pools
                         and required units training at the same site to share this equipment, it
                         could avoid $4.4 million to $9.7 million more each year. As a result, the
                         Guard could preserve more equipment in controlled environments and
                         avoid spending up to $20 million annually. More details on how we
                         estimated the potential cost avoidance by pooling and sharing equipment
                         is in appendix II.




                         8
                          The annual cost of scheduled maintenance, as used in this report, includes the Guard’s compilation of
                         the costs for labor, parts, petroleum, oils, and lubricants.



                         Page 7                                                   GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                                              B-274607




                                              The additional cost avoidance would occur if the 48th and 218th Infantry
                                              Brigades and the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment were to share the
                                              equipment they have located at the Fort Stewart MATES and the 155th
                                              Armor and 31st Armored Brigades were to share the equipment at the
                                              Camp Shelby MATES. The additional cost avoidance is attainable because
                                              the five units that conduct annual training at the Fort Stewart and Camp
                                              Shelby MATES train at different times during the summer. Therefore, a
                                              portion of each unit’s training equipment could be pooled and designated
                                              as common use equipment, and the remaining equipment could be
                                              preserved in a controlled humidity environment.

                                              Units reporting for training would draw the necessary equipment to
                                              complete their 2-week training cycle from the pool of common use
                                              equipment. The equipment would then be returned to the pool and be
                                              made ready for the next unit. Equipment could be rotated in and out of the
                                              pool to equalize use so that the equipment in the pool is not subjected to
                                              overuse. Table 1 shows the incremental maintenance cost avoidance if the
                                              three units at the Fort Stewart MATES and the two units at the Camp Shelby
                                              MATES were to share the nine equipment items for training purposes and
                                              place their remaining equipment in long-term preservation. More details
                                              concerning NMC rates and training intervals are on page 31 in appendix II.


Table 1: Cost Avoidance Possible If Equipment Were Shared at the Fort Stewart and Camp Shelby Mobilization and
Training Equipment Sites
Dollars in millions
                                    Guard 25% goal for equipment Additional equipment that can   Total equipment that can
Selected NMC rates and                      preservation                 be preserved                  be preserved
training intervals                    Quantity    Cost avoidance    Quantity    Cost avoidance   Quantity    Cost avoidance
30% NMC rate with no interval              345             $10.2         209              $4.4        554              $14.6
between training periods
15% NMC rate with no interval              350             $10.3         302              $7.3        652              $17.6
between training periods
30% NMC rate with a 2-week                 350             $10.3         330              $7.9        680              $18.2
interval between training periods
15% NMC rate with a 2-week                 350             $10.3         386              $9.7        736              $20.0
interval between training periods

                                              Additional maintenance costs could be avoided if unit commanders used
                                              only the minimum quantities of equipment needed for annual training.
                                              According to MATES officials, unit commanders draw whatever equipment
                                              quantities they deem necessary to accomplish annual training because
                                              they are not responsible for the maintenance costs of this equipment. If



                                              Page 8                                     GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                       B-274607




                       unit commanders used the minimum equipment required, the potential size
                       of an equipment pool could be smaller, enabling more equipment to be
                       preserved.


                       Changing the annual training sites of some units to allow multiple units
Changes in Annual      with like or comparable equipment to train at the same site would
Training Sites Would   facilitate greater equipment sharing. If sharing were optimized, maximum
Maximize Equipment     maintenance cost avoidance could be achieved. Various scenarios exist to
                       achieve optimum equipment sharing and training goals. Additional travel
Sharing and Cost       time, costs to transport equipment to another training site, and the impact
Avoidance              of equipment density reductions on maintenance personnel requirements
                       are concerns associated with changing annual training sites.

                       We developed three scenarios to demonstrate how equipment sharing
                       could result in an avoidance of greater maintenance costs. The scenarios
                       we present may not necessarily reflect the optimum combinations of units
                       and annual training sites to achieve the greatest benefits to the Guard.
                       However, all three scenarios reflect greater potential benefits to the Guard
                       than those that are presently being achieved or anticipated through the
                       implementation of the Guard’s Controlled Humidity Preservation Program.

                       According to our analysis of nine equipment items and eight Guard units,
                       we determined that the Guard could reduce scheduled annual
                       maintenance cost by an additional $23.1 million to $39.2 million annually if
                       as few as three units changed their annual training location and share
                       equipment. These figures are $5.3 million to $18 million more than the
                       Guard’s current program could achieve. Our scenarios for changing annual
                       training sites are detailed in figure 1.




                       Page 9                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                                                     B-274607




Figure 1: Distances to Units’ Training Sites




                                                                                                                              Fort Bragg
                                                                                                                                                30th Infantry
                                                                                          278th Armored
                                                                                                                                                  Brigade
                                                                                         Cavalry Regiment




                                                                                     Camp Shelby              Fort Stewart
                                                               Fort Polk


                         Fort Hood




                                                                256th Infantry Brigade




                                                Current training site                                            Alternative training site
      Unit                           Location             Distance from home unit                  Location                  Distance from home unit

      278th Armored                  Fort Stewart,        390 miles                                Fort Hood, Tex.           960 miles
      Cavalry Regiment               Ga.
      30th Infantry Brigade          Fort Bragg, N.C.     30 miles                                 Fort Stewart, Ga.         230 miles

      256th Infantry Brigade         Fort Polk, La.       120 miles                                Camp Shelby,              197 or 400 miles
                                                                                                   Miss. or Fort
                                                                                                   Hood, Tex.




                                                     We recognize that the scenarios presented will require units to travel
                                                     farther to train and therefore incur more transportation costs. Also, there
                                                     would be one-time equipment relocation costs in each scenario. However,




                                                     Page 10                                                           GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
             B-274607




             the annual maintenance cost avoidance to be achieved through sharing
             and preserving equipment is greater than these additional costs. For
             example, under scenario 2, transportation to annual training would cost
             approximately $4.2 million and equipment relocation would cost $888,000,
             for a total of $5.1 million. The minimum cost avoidance the Guard could
             achieve by pooling and sharing equipment under this scenario would be
             $25.6 million, as shown in table 3. Even though maintenance personnel
             requirements are based on the quantities of equipment located at MATES,
             changes in equipment quantities would be offset from one annual training
             site to another. We recognize the economic impact such changes would
             have, but the maintenance cost avoidance to be realized would be greater
             to the Guard as a whole.


Scenario 1   This scenario involves seven Guard units and maximizes equipment
             sharing among the 48th and 218th Infantry Brigades and the 278th
             Armored Cavalry Regiment, which train at Fort Stewart, and the 155th
             Armor Brigade and 31st Armored Brigade, which train at Camp Shelby.
             The annual training site of the 256th Infantry Brigade is changed from Fort
             Polk to Fort Hood to maximize equipment sharing with the 49th Armored
             Division, which is located there. The 256th Infantry Brigade stores much of
             its equipment at the Fort Polk MATES, and units accomplish their weekend
             training at Fort Polk. Fort Hood is the infantry brigade’s mobilization
             training site, and the 49th Armored Division provides the opposing forces
             for the brigade’s annual training.

             This scenario allows the Guard to preserve up to an additional 488 pieces
             of equipment over its current goal. Even though an estimated one-time
             cost of about $269,000 would be incurred to move equipment, an
             additional $5.3 million to $11.3 million in costs would be avoided annually,
             as shown in table 2. According to III Corps officials at Fort Hood, from a
             training and logistical support standpoint, Fort Hood can accommodate an
             additional brigade for annual training. Also, according to Fort Hood MATES
             officials, facilities are adequate to accommodate and maintain the
             equipment of another brigade-size unit.




             Page 11                                   GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                                              B-274607




Table 2: Cost Avoidance Possible If Equipment Were Shared at the Forts Stewart and Hood and Camp Shelby Mobilization
and Training Equipment Sites (Scenario 1)
Dollars in millions
                                    Guard 25% goal for equipment Additional equipment that can   Total equipment that can
Selected NMC rates and                      preservation                 be preserved                  be preserved
training intervals                    Quantity    Cost avoidance    Quantity    Cost avoidance   Quantity    Cost avoidance
30% NMC rate with no interval              626             $17.8         270              $5.3        896              $23.1
between training periods
15% NMC rate with no interval              660             $18.9         378              $8.4      1,038              $27.3
between training periods
30% NMC rate with a 2-week                 653             $18.5         392              $7.7      1,045              $26.2
interval between training periods
15% NMC rate with a 2-week                 675             $19.6         488             $11.3      1,163              $30.9
interval between training periods

                                              Louisiana State Area Command and 256th Infantry Brigade officials were
                                              not in favor of having the brigade change annual training sites. The
                                              concerns expressed by these officials primarily focused on the additional
                                              transportation and equipment movement costs and potential loss of
                                              training time associated with changing the brigade’s annual training site to
                                              Fort Hood. Brigade officials were also concerned with their units’ inability
                                              to conduct weekend training, especially gunnery, at Fort Polk if 50 percent
                                              of their tanks and Bradleys were moved to Fort Hood and the Fort Polk
                                              MATES were to lose maintenance personnel. However, the officials
                                              recognized the benefits of pooling and sharing equipment.


Scenario 2                                    This scenario involves seven Guard units and changes the annual training
                                              site of the 30th Infantry Brigade from Fort Bragg to Fort Stewart and the
                                              278th Armored Cavalry Regiment’s training site from Fort Stewart to Fort
                                              Hood. These changes allow for optimum equipment sharing among the
                                              48th, 218th, and 30th Infantry Brigades at Fort Stewart; the 49th Armored
                                              Division and the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment at Fort Hood; and the
                                              155th Armor and 31st Armored Brigades at Camp Shelby.

                                              This scenario allows the Guard to preserve up to an additional 572 pieces
                                              of equipment over its current goal. Even though the Guard would incur a
                                              one-time transportation cost estimated at $888,000 to relocate equipment,
                                              the changes enhance sharing and preservation of equipment and achieve
                                              an annual maintenance cost avoidance ranging from $7.4 million to
                                              $15 million more than currently anticipated, as shown in table 3. In
                                              addition, this scenario provides the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment with



                                              Page 12                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                                              B-274607




                                              larger range facilities for its tanks, and the 30th Infantry Brigade would
                                              join two other infantry brigades at Fort Stewart that train with the same
                                              equipment.


Table 3: Cost Avoidance Possible If Equipment Were Shared at the Forts Stewart and Hood and Camp Shelby Mobilization
and Training Equipment Sites (Scenario 2)
Dollars in millions
                                    Guard 25% goal for equipment Additional equipment that can   Total equipment that can
Selected NMC rates and                      preservation                 be preserved                  be preserved
training intervals                    Quantity    Cost avoidance    Quantity    Cost avoidance   Quantity    Cost avoidance
30% NMC rate with no interval              627             $18.2         317              $7.4        944              $25.6
between training periods
15% NMC rate with no interval              644             $18.7         458             $11.6      1,102              $30.3
between training periods
30% NMC rate with a 2-week                 649             $18.8         487             $12.1      1,136              $30.9
interval between training periods
15% NMC rate with a 2-week                 649             $18.8         572             $15.0      1,221              $33.8
interval between training periods

                                              Officials from the North Carolina State Area Command, 30th Infantry
                                              Brigade, and Fort Stewart MATES indicated that changing the infantry
                                              brigade’s annual training site from Fort Bragg to Fort Stewart would be
                                              feasible. The infantry brigade has previously trained at Fort Stewart and is
                                              scheduled to conduct annual training there in 1998. Although both
                                              locations have similar maneuver areas, Fort Stewart has better gunnery
                                              ranges than Fort Bragg. According to the officials, Fort Bragg does not
                                              have the gunnery ranges to qualify tank and Bradley crews to the required
                                              proficiency level (gunnery table VIII). Fort Stewart MATES officials stated
                                              that it would be easier to support three infantry brigades than the current
                                              two infantry brigades and one armored cavalry regiment because the three
                                              brigades have the same types and quantities of equipment.

                                              Concerns were expressed over the increased annual training travel costs
                                              to Fort Stewart and the initial costs to move 50 percent of certain
                                              equipment from Fort Bragg to Fort Stewart. The Commander of the
                                              30th Infantry Brigade said that all of the brigade’s equipment was needed
                                              at Fort Bragg for weekend training requirements. The Commander thought
                                              that, without the equipment, the unit would not be able to train to
                                              standards and, as a result, unit readiness would suffer. Further, the
                                              Commander believed that retention would also suffer because personnel
                                              like to use the equipment currently available. In addition, the Fort Bragg
                                              MATES General Foreman was concerned about losing maintenance




                                              Page 13                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
             B-274607




             personnel if the equipment were moved to Fort Stewart because less
             equipment would be at Fort Bragg. The official suggested, as an
             alternative, preserving 50 percent of the equipment at Fort Bragg, which
             would save the movement costs and provide equipment needed for
             weekend training. The 30th Infantry Brigade could then use the equipment
             already located at Fort Stewart for annual training needs.

             Officials from Fort Hood, the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment, and the
             Tennessee State Area Command stated that changing the regiment’s
             annual training site to Fort Hood would be feasible. III Corps officials at
             Fort Hood stated that, from a training and logistics support standpoint,
             Fort Hood could accommodate the regiment for annual training. The
             Commander of the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment pointed out that Fort
             Hood has excellent training ranges and MATES facilities. Officials raised
             concerns about the additional travel time to Fort Hood; however, the 278th
             Armored Cavalry Regiment has trained at Fort Hood in the past and would
             be amenable to training there in the future. The Commander also
             recognized that the regiment would have to move a portion of its
             equipment to Fort Hood to receive priority for range use.


Scenario 3   This scenario involves eight Guard units and changes the annual training
             site of three units. The 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment would train with
             the 49th Armored Division at Fort Hood, and the 256th Infantry Brigade
             would train with the 155th Armor and 31st Armored Brigades at Camp
             Shelby. As in scenario 2, the 30th Infantry Brigade would train at
             Fort Stewart with the 48th and 218th Infantry Brigades.

             The one-time transportation cost to relocate equipment under this
             scenario is estimated at $1,134,000. However, this scenario is the most
             beneficial in avoiding maintenance cost. The three annual training site
             changes would enhance sharing and preservation of equipment and result
             in an annual maintenance cost avoidance ranging from $11 million to
             $18 million more than currently anticipated, as shown in table 4. This
             scenario also shows the added benefits of having as many as three units
             training and sharing equipment at the same annual training site.




             Page 14                                  GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                                              B-274607




Table 4: Cost Avoidance Possible If Equipment Were Shared at the Forts Stewart and Hood and Camp Shelby Mobilization
and Training Equipment Sites (Scenario 3)
Dollars in millions
                                    Guard 25% goal for equipment Additional equipment that can   Total equipment that can
Selected NMC rates and                      preservation                 be preserved                  be preserved
training intervals                    Quantity    Cost avoidance    Quantity    Cost avoidance   Quantity    Cost avoidance
30% NMC rate with no interval              697             $19.6         446             $11.0      1,143              $30.6
between training periods
15% NMC rate with no interval              725             $20.6         590             $14.9      1,315              $35.5
between training periods
30% NMC rate with a 2-week                 728             $20.7         627             $15.8      1,355              $36.5
interval between training periods
15% NMC rate with a 2-week                 739             $21.2         706             $18.0      1,445              $39.2
interval between training periods

                                              Officials from the 256th and 30th Infantry Brigades were concerned about
                                              the reduction in maintenance personnel that would be required at their
                                              respective MATES because of the changes in training locations. About
                                              50 percent of each brigade’s tracked equipment would be moved to the
                                              new training locations. An official from the Guard’s Personnel Directorate
                                              confirmed that the amount of equipment determines maintenance
                                              personnel requirements and authorizations. However, the official also said
                                              that a loss in equipment at a MATES would not necessarily result in a loss of
                                              assigned personnel.

                                              The Guard develops personnel requirements to accomplish all of the work
                                              that Guard members in a particular state are required to do and prioritizes
                                              authorizations against those requirements. These requirements and
                                              authorizations, along with funds to support the authorizations, are allotted
                                              to the state. However, according to one Personnel Directorate official, the
                                              Army National Guard Bureau does not provide the adjutants general
                                              sufficient funds or authorizations to meet all the requirements, and as a
                                              result, they have flexibility within certain limits to use the authorizations
                                              and funds for those activities that are most needed to accomplish the
                                              state’s mission.

                                              Because maintenance personnel requirements at MATES are based on the
                                              amount of equipment, the Fort Polk and Fort Bragg MATES would lose
                                              personnel authorizations, but the adjutants general would ultimately
                                              decide whether the MATES would actually lose people. A Personnel
                                              Directorate official said that the Guard would probably offer affected
                                              personnel any unfilled positions elsewhere in those states or that it would



                                              Page 15                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                      B-274607




                      allow attrition to occur to preclude personnel from losing their jobs. The
                      requirements and authorizations would not be lost because the Guard
                      redistributes requirements and authorizations every year. The
                      authorizations lost by one state are gained by another. The Guard’s
                      personnel system is expected to adjust to the movement of equipment
                      with minimal confusion and turbulence. According to the personnel
                      official, the Guard already makes such adjustments when a force structure
                      change occurs.


                      The Army National Guard’s Controlled Humidity Preservation Program
Conclusions           can result in a more effective maintenance workforce, and the Guard
                      should be commended for its work thus far. However, the Guard could
                      avoid even greater maintenance costs and achieve greater workforce
                      efficiencies if it developed a strategy to pool and share more equipment
                      than the current 25-percent goal and changed the training sites of some
                      units. The cost avoidance amounts presented in this report are substantial;
                      however, they reflect the minimum amounts the Guard can avoid because
                      many more equipment items can be pooled and shared and many other
                      state and territorial Guard commands can pool and share equipment.


                      To optimize the avoidance of annual equipment maintenance costs and
Recommendations       achieve the resulting benefits of having a more effective maintenance
                      workforce and increased equipment availability for mobilization, we
                      recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Director of the Army
                      National Guard Bureau to

                  •   develop and implement a strategy, along with the modernization of Guard
                      units, to provide controlled humidity facilities at the training sites that will
                      achieve the greatest cost avoidance benefit;
                  •   incorporate the concept of equipment sharing as the way of doing business
                      in the Guard; and
                  •   change the annual training locations of Guard units where feasible to
                      achieve maximum cost avoidance benefits through greater equipment
                      sharing while achieving training objectives.


                      In written comments on a draft of this report, the Department of Defense
Agency Comments       concurred with our recommendation. The Department said that, based on
                      the results of the Army National Guard’s study (due in January 1998), and




                      Page 16                                     GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
              B-274607




              our recommendations, the Army National Guard will develop and present
              its strategy and an implementation plan to meet the recommendations.


              To determine the feasibility for sharing equipment and changing the
Scope and     annual training sites for some units, we interviewed cognizant officials and
Methodology   obtained and analyzed documents from the Army National Guard in
              Washington, D.C.; U.S. Army Forces Command, Fort McPherson, Georgia;
              and state area commands in Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
              Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Tennessee. The units included in our
              review were the 48th Infantry Brigade, Georgia; 218th Infantry Brigade,
              South Carolina; 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Tennessee; 155th Armor
              Brigade, Mississippi; 256th Infantry Brigade, Louisiana; 30th Infantry
              Brigade, North Carolina; 49th Armored Division, Texas; and 31st Armored
              Brigade, Alabama.

              To determine the extent of equipment sharing and the likelihood that an
              additional unit could train at a MATES, we visited the MATES at Fort Stewart,
              Georgia; Fort Hood, Texas; and Camp Shelby, Mississippi. We chose these
              MATES because they store and maintain equipment and host annual training
              for multiple units. Camp Shelby is also a test site for the Controlled
              Humidity Preservation Program, and we observed equipment stored under
              controlled humidity conditions and discussed the status of the program
              with MATES officials.

              To show the impact of NMC equipment turned in to a MATES after annual
              training, we used 30- and 15-percent NMC rates that assume no intervals
              and 2-week intervals between annual training periods. In determining
              quantities of equipment available for annual training, our analysis assumed
              that 90 percent of unit authorized personnel were assigned and that
              70 percent of assigned personnel actually attended annual training with
              their units. We did not determine whether commanders could actually
              accomplish annual training tasks with less equipment than they requested.

              To determine the maintenance cost avoidance achieved through
              equipment sharing and preservation, we conducted an analysis of nine
              equipment items that have high annual scheduled maintenance costs.
              These items are the Abrams Combat Tank, Bradley Infantry Fighting
              Vehicle, Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle, Self-Propelled Howitzer,
              Recovery Vehicle, Armored Vehicle Launch Bridge, Armored Fire Support
              Personnel Carrier, Armored Personnel Carrier, and Command Post
              Carrier. We accepted the types and quantities of equipment that are



              Page 17                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
B-274607




authorized for the units included in our review as being needed to carry
out the units’ mission. Further, we did not set up our three scenarios in a
way that would adversely impact the units’ annual training objectives.

To determine the cost to move equipment from one annual training site to
another for those units in our analysis that could change annual training
sites, we visited the Military Traffic Management Command, Arlington,
Virginia, and obtained the transportation costs to move the equipment. We
did not analyze the impacts that changing annual training sites would have
on morale, the added travel time and transportation cost to another
training site, or the actual maintenance personnel impacts associated with
changing the amount of equipment at affected MATES.

We conducted our review from May 1996 to September 1997 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.


We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen of the Senate and
House Committees on Armed Services and the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, the Secretary of the Army, and the Director of the Office
of Management and the Budget. Copies will also be made available to
other interested parties on request.

As you know, 31 U.S.C. 720 requires the head of a federal agency to submit
a written statement on actions taken on our recommendations to the
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on
Government Operations not later than 60 days after the date of the report.
A written statement must also be submitted to the Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations with an agency’s first request for
appropriations made more than 60 days after the date of the report.

Please contact me at (202) 512-5140 if you or your staff have any questions
concerning this report. Major contributors to this report were Reginald L.
Furr, Jr.; Dudley C. Roache, Jr.; Bradley D. Simpson; and Karen S. Blum.

Sincerely yours,




Mark E. Gebicke
Director, Military Operations
  and Capabilities Issues

Page 18                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
Page 19   GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
Contents



Letter                                                                                            1


Appendix I                                                                                       24
                        Humidity Degrades Equipment and Increases Maintenance                    24
The Controlled            Requirements
Humidity Preservation   CHP Program Controls Humidity and Reduces Maintenance                    25
                        The Guard Is Verifying the Benefits of the CHP Program                   26
Program                 States Endorse the CHP Program                                           27

Appendix II                                                                                      29
                        Selected Units and Equipment Items                                       29
Scenarios for           Scenarios Developed                                                      30
Equipment Sharing at    Computation of the Equipment Pool at Annual Training Sites               31
                        Analysis of Scenarios                                                    32
Annual Training Sites
Appendix III                                                                                     42

Comments From the
Department of
Defense
Tables                  Table 1: Cost Avoidance Possible If Equipment Were Shared at              8
                          the Fort Stewart and Camp Shelby Mobilization and Training
                          Equipment Sites
                        Table 2: Cost Avoidance Possible If Equipment Were Shared at             12
                          the Forts Stewart and Hood and Camp Shelby Mobilization and
                          Training Equipment Sites (Scenario 1)
                        Table 3: Cost Avoidance Possible If Equipment Were Shared at             13
                          the Forts Stewart and Hood and Camp Shelby Mobilization and
                          Training Equipment Sites (Scenario 2)
                        Table 4: Cost Avoidance Possible If Equipment Were Shared at             15
                          the Forts Stewart and Hood and Camp Shelby Mobilization and
                          Training Equipment Sites (Scenario 3)
                        Table II.1: Units in Our Analysis and Their Current Mobilization         29
                          and Training Equipment Sites
                        Table II.2: Equipment Items Selected for Analysis                        30
                        Table II.3: Scenarios for Sharing Equipment and Changing Annual          30
                          Training Sites




                        Page 20                                 GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
Contents




Table II.4: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term                   33
  Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and No
  Break Between Training Periods
Table II.5: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term                   33
  Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and No
  Break Between Training Periods
Table II.6: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term                   34
  Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and 2
  Weeks Between Training Periods
Table II.7: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term                   34
  Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and 2
  Weeks Between Training Periods
Table II.8: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term                   35
  Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and No
  Break Between Training Periods
Table II.9: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term                   35
  Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and No
  Break Between Training Periods
Table II.10: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term                  36
  Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and 2
  Weeks Between Training Periods
Table II.11: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term                  36
  Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and 2
  Weeks Between Training Periods
Table II.12: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term                  37
  Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and No
  Break Between Training Periods
Table II.13: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term                  38
  Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and No
  Break Between Training Periods
Table II.14: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term                  38
  Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and 2
  Weeks Between Training Periods
Table II.15: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term                  39
  Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and 2
  Weeks Between Training Periods
Table II.16: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term                  40
  Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and No
  Break Between Training Periods




Page 21                               GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
         Contents




         Table II.17: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term                       40
           Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and No
           Break Between Training Periods
         Table II.18: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term                       41
           Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and 2
           Weeks Between Training Periods
         Table II.19: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term                       41
           Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and 2
           Weeks Between Training Periods


Figure   Figure 1: Distances to Units’ Training Sites                                10




         Abbreviations

         CHP          Controlled Humidity Preservation
         DOD          Department of Defense
         MATES        Mobilization and Training Equipment Sites
         NMC          nonmission-capable
         OPTEMPO      operating tempo


         Page 22                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
Page 23   GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
Appendix I

The Controlled Humidity Preservation
Program

                    In fiscal year 1994, the Army National Guard began the Controlled
                    Humidity Preservation (CHP) Program. The purpose of the CHP Program is
                    to avoid the annual scheduled maintenance cost of 25 percent of 890
                    selected equipment items and reduce the maintenance backlog throughout
                    the Guard. Solutions under study include placing a portion of the Guard’s
                    vehicle fleet in either enclosed long-term preservation or dehumidified
                    operational preservation. These techniques are projected to lengthen the
                    service life of vehicle components. The program’s objectives are to
                    (1) reduce the number of labor hours used to maintain equipment,
                    (2) reduce the quantity of repair parts used, (3) decrease the quantity of
                    consumables used for periodic servicing of equipment, and (4) decrease
                    Guard-wide operating tempo (OPTEMPO) costs. The program is not intended
                    to eliminate the maintenance backlog.

                    The concept of dehumidified preservation is not new. The use of this
                    technique dates to the 1930s. According to a Logistics Management
                    Institute study,1 dehumidified preservation of operational weapon systems
                    has been used effectively abroad as a maintenance technology but has not
                    been broadly implemented in the Department of Defense (DOD).


                    Relative humidity is an expression of the moisture content of the air as a
Humidity Degrades   percentage of what it can hold when saturated. The main problems caused
Equipment and       by humidity are corrosion, mold, moisture regain, and condensation. Most
Increases           materials absorb moisture in proportion to the relative humidity of the
                    surrounding air. Therefore, the greater the moisture in the air, the greater
Maintenance         the absorption rate of materials. Moisture has particularly hazardous
Requirements        effects on military electronic, optical, communication, and fire control
                    equipment. Moisture in optics and fire control components clouds the
                    vision of the crew and damages electronics. Communication and computer
                    systems are especially sensitive to moisture, and machine surfaces, such
                    as the main gun recoil system, are susceptible to corrosion. Corrosion
                    generally remains a significant problem unless relative humidity is reduced
                    to less than 45 percent.

                    The Logistics Management Institute study stated that moisture degradation
                    of DOD weapon systems and equipment represents an important cost issue.
                    Current costs are estimated to range between $3 billion and $12 billion
                    annually. There are also numerous nonfinancial impacts, the most
                    important being the reduced readiness and sustainability of DOD weapon

                    1
                    Using Dehumidified Preservation as a Maintenance Technology for DOD Weapons Systems and
                    Equipment, Logistics Management Institute, June 1996.



                    Page 24                                             GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                    Appendix I
                    The Controlled Humidity Preservation
                    Program




                    systems and equipment. An approach to mitigating moisture damage is to
                    control the relative humidity in the air. By extracting moisture from the
                    air, the relative humidity can be reduced to a level at which damaging
                    moisture cannot form.


                    The CHP Program consists of three parts. The first part, long-term
CHP Program         preservation, is the process of storing selected equipment in an enclosure
Controls Humidity   and maintaining the internal environment’s relative humidity at the
and Reduces         optimal range of 30 to 40 percent. If the relative humidity is controlled, the
                    optimal humidity range can be reached, and corrosion will cease. With the
Maintenance         use of this process, the Guard can defer all scheduled maintenance for up
                    to 5 years. This process has been extensively evaluated and is now widely
                    applied by many nations as a maintenance technology for operational
                    weapon systems.

                    The Logistics Management Institute study stated that weapon systems and
                    components can be dehumidified by utilizing a mechanical dehumidifier to
                    process moisture-laden air into properly dehumidified air with a desired
                    level of relative humidity. This processed air is recirculated into and
                    around the equipment or system being preserved.

                    A highly efficient data acquisition and control system provides continuous
                    monitoring and control of the long-term preservation program to evaluate
                    and maintain the environment stabilization system, characterize the
                    relative severity of the site environment, and confirm site compatibility
                    with seasonal atmospheric changes. The system is designed to ensure that
                    a stable, corrosion-free, low-humidity environment is sustained within
                    each enclosure.

                    The second part of the CHP Program, modified long-term preservation, is
                    similar to long-term preservation except that equipment may be taken out
                    of the CHP environment and used as required. Maintenance may be
                    deferred while equipment is within the CHP environment but maintenance
                    requirements will accrue for that period of time the equipment is removed.

                    The third part of the program is operational preservation. Equipment is
                    attached to central dehumidifiers and can be parked outside or within an
                    enclosure. Dehumidified air is provided to the internal spaces of the
                    equipment. No maintenance is deferred by this method; however, the
                    dehumidification process reduces moisture-induced corrosion to the point
                    at which a substantial reduction in electronic, optic, and fire control



                    Page 25                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                         Appendix I
                         The Controlled Humidity Preservation
                         Program




                         systems faults is achieved. The equipment remains available for frequent
                         training events but is connected to a dehumidification system during the
                         intervening periods to dry the engine and crew compartments.

                         Equipment items put into long-term preservation are preserved at
                         Technical Manual-10/-20 standards, thereby enhancing the combat
                         readiness of Guard forces. The goal of the Guard is to put 25 percent of
                         selected equipment into long-term preservation over a 5-year fielding
                         schedule. The equipment will be placed in preservation for a minimum of
                         3 years and a maximum of 5 years. After this period, the equipment is to be
                         put back into operation and replaced with similar equipment. In addition,
                         the Guard anticipates that operational preservation will reduce faults in
                         selected equipment by 30 percent, resulting in a significant reduction in
                         unscheduled maintenance.


                         The Guard is testing the various preservation treatments to validate the
The Guard Is Verifying   Guard’s CHP concept and evaluate the physical benefits of different
the Benefits of the      alternatives that control humidity on equipment that is sensitive to
CHP Program              moisture. The test will measure the average maintenance labor hours and
                         repair parts cost for selected equipment located in six different sites
                         within six different treatment conditions. Three of the conditions
                         (long-term, modified long-term, and operational preservation) use
                         preservation treatments, and the other three do not. The test period is
                         planned to last 1 year, and test results are expected in early 1998.

                         According to the test plan, Camp Ripley, Minnesota, and Camp Shelby,
                         Mississippi, are testing sites for long-term preservation. Modified
                         long-term preservation is being tested at these sites and at the Western
                         Kentucky Training Site and the Unit Training and Equipment Site in
                         Oregon. Camp Ripley, Camp Shelby, Western Kentucky, and Fort Stewart,
                         Georgia, are test sites for operational preservation.

                         CALIBRE Systems, Incorporated, under contract to the Guard, performed
                         an economic analysis of the test to validate the benefits of the CHP
                         Program. The analysis compared CHP strategies to identify the strategy that
                         provides the greatest overall benefit to the Guard. CALIBRE examined the
                         following alternatives: (1) status quo, (2) long-term preservation,
                         (3) operational preservation, and (4) a combination of long-term and
                         operational preservation. Status quo, which is storing equipment in an
                         ambient environment with minimum corrosive protection, is the method
                         currently used by Mobilization and Training Equipment Sites (MATES).



                         Page 26                                  GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                     Appendix I
                     The Controlled Humidity Preservation
                     Program




                     Long-term preservation encloses equipment inside a regulated humidity
                     environment with relative humidity between 30 and 40 percent.
                     Operational preservation achieves the same results as long-term
                     preservation but on a more limited scale. When not in use, equipment is
                     externally attached to a central dehumidification system but remains
                     parked without external protection from the environment. The
                     combination of long-term and operational preservation places a defined
                     quantity of equipment in both environments. Operational preservation
                     reduces corrosive faults while the vehicles remain available for training;
                     vehicles not required on a frequent or recurring basis for training are
                     placed in long-term preservation.

                     The analysis assumed that the usage of equipment not placed into
                     long-term preservation would increase by no more than 10 percent. Guard
                     CHP Program officials told us that this estimate was based on their visits to
                     states and discussions with Guard personnel about training activities. The
                     officials found that an average of about 65 percent of personnel attended
                     annual training. Therefore, the 10-percent figure is overestimated because
                     much of the equipment is not currently being used for training. Officials
                     agreed that, if 25 percent of the equipment were placed in CHP, usage of the
                     remaining equipment would not increase, and the 10-percent estimate
                     would be adequate even if 40 percent of the equipment were placed in CHP.
                     In fact, studies show that increased equipment usage actually decreased
                     the need for repairs because the equipment was used and did not sit idle.

                     The analysis concluded that all three preservation alternatives would
                     provide benefits to offset implementation costs. The benefit-to-investment
                     ratios for alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are 9, 7.6, and 8.9, respectively. All three
                     alternatives have a break-even point of 1 year. The analysis recommended
                     that the Guard implement alternative 4, the combination long-term and
                     operational preservation. The alternative of long-term preservation by
                     itself provided a slightly larger benefit-to-investment ratio; however, that
                     alternative would not provide the Guard with the greater flexibility of
                     placing equipment into either long-term or operational preservation.


                     Many states believe that the CHP Program will be beneficial in terms of
States Endorse the   avoided maintenance costs and increased equipment availability and
CHP Program          readiness. Therefore, states are moving forward to implement the
                     program, even though testing has not been completed. Kentucky and New
                     York are 2 of 17 states with long-term preservation or operational
                     preservation systems. Kentucky has 180,000 square feet of CHP space and



                     Page 27                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
Appendix I
The Controlled Humidity Preservation
Program




about 84 tanks in operational preservation. New York has 96,000 square
feet for long-term preservation and 120 vehicles in operational
preservation. In fiscal year 1997, 16 more states will add CHP systems.

Officials in each of the states we visited recognize the benefits of storing
equipment using the CHP concept. They believe that CHP will avoid
maintenance costs and improve equipment availability and readiness.
Officials from Georgia and Tennessee stated that about one-third of the
equipment at the Fort Stewart MATES could be put into CHP; Fort Stewart
MATES officials agreed because the equipment is not needed for training.
South Carolina officials also said that equipment not needed for training
could be stored in CHP. Officials from North Carolina and Texas noted that
with decreasing OPTEMPO funds, the Guard will be using equipment less,
and CHP is a good technique for storing equipment not used for training.
Officials at the Camp Shelby MATES, which is one of the CHP test sites,
stated that they have seen a 30- to 40-percent reduction in electronic
components needing repair because preservation has prevented corrosion
on them.




Page 28                                   GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
Appendix II

Scenarios for Equipment Sharing at Annual
Training Sites

                                        According to our analysis, Army National Guard units can preserve more
                                        than 25 percent of their equipment in controlled humidity environments if
                                        units at the same annual training site pool and share equipment. Further,
                                        changing the location where some units are annually trained could
                                        maximize the amount of equipment that can be preserved.


                                        For our analysis, we identified units (1) at the same training location that
Selected Units and                      could pool and share equipment and (2) that could change their annual
Equipment Items                         training sites to maximize the amount of equipment that could be stored in
                                        controlled environments. Those units in our analysis included 6 of the 15
                                        Separate Brigades,1 the 49th Armored Division, and the 31st Armored
                                        Brigade. The units and their current MATES are shown in table II.1.

Table II.1: Units in Our Analysis and
Their Current Mobilization and          Unit                                             State                 MATES location
Training Equipment Sites                48th Infantry Brigade (Mechanized)               Georgia               Fort Stewart, Ga.
                                        218th Infantry Brigade (Mechanized)              South Carolina        Fort Stewart, Ga.
                                        278th Armored Cavalry Regiment                   Tennessee             Fort Stewart, Ga.
                                        30th Infantry Brigade (Mechanized)               North Carolina        Fort Bragg, N.C.
                                        155th Armor Brigade                              Mississippi           Camp Shelby, Miss.
                                        256th Infantry Brigade (Mechanized)              Louisiana             Fort Polk, La.
                                        49th Armored Division                            Texas                 Fort Hood, Tex.
                                        31st Armored Brigade                             Alabama               Camp Shelby, Miss.

                                        The nine tracked equipment items selected for our analysis are shown in
                                        table II.2. These items have high annual costs for scheduled maintenance.
                                        Except for the Armored Vehicle Launch Bridge, Guard units are required
                                        to put 50 percent of these items at a MATES that facilitates mobilization and
                                        use by units training at the MATES location. For these nine tracked
                                        equipment items, we determined the types and quantities of authorized
                                        equipment that the eight units in our analysis are scheduled to have on
                                        hand in fiscal year 1999 or funded through 2008. By 2008, all of the eight
                                        units are to have similar equipment, which will facilitate sharing among
                                        the units. Several of these units currently have these equipment items on
                                        hand, and pooling and sharing can begin after CHP facilities are in place.




                                        1
                                         The Separate Brigades—formerly Enhanced Brigades—are organized and resourced so that they can
                                        be quickly mobilized, trained, and deployed to fast-evolving major regional conflicts.



                                        Page 29                                              GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                                          Appendix II
                                          Scenarios for Equipment Sharing at Annual
                                          Training Sites




Table II.2: Equipment Items Selected
for Analysis                              Item number                 Description
                                          1                           M981 Armored Fire Support Personnel Carrier
                                          2                           M113 Armored Personnel Carrier
                                          3                           M577 Command Post Carrier
                                          4                           M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle
                                          5                           M3 Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle
                                          6                           M109 Self-Propelled Howitzer
                                          7                           M60/M48 Armored Vehicle Launch Bridge
                                          8                           M88 Recovery Vehicle
                                          9                           M1A1 Abrams Combat Tank
                                          Note: The item numbers correspond with those included in tables II.4 through II.19.




                                          We developed four scenarios that offer the opportunity to maximize
Scenarios Developed                       equipment sharing and preservation. These four scenarios have eight units
                                          that train annually at either Fort Stewart, Georgia; Fort Hood, Texas; or
                                          Camp Shelby, Mississippi. As shown in table II. 3, the current scenario
                                          does not require any of the units to change annual training sites, but
                                          scenarios 1 through 3 require that up to three of the units change training
                                          sites.


Table II.3: Scenarios for Sharing Equipment and Changing Annual Training Sites
                                                 Annual training site                                            Number of           Number of
Scenario            Fort Stewart               Fort Hood                       Camp Shelby                           units              moves
Current             48th and 218th Infantry  None                              155th Armor and 31st                         5               0
                    Brigades and 278th                                         Armored Brigades
                    Armored Cavalry Regiment
1                   48th and 218th Infantry  49th Armored Division and 155th Armor and 31st                                 7               1
                    Brigades and 278th       256th Infantry Brigadea   Armored Brigades
                    Armored Cavalry Regiment
2                   48th and 218th Infantry    49th Armored Division and 155th Armor and 31st                               7               2
                    Brigades and 30th Infantry 278th Armored Cavalry     Armored Brigades
                    Brigadea                   Regimenta
3                   48th and 218th Infantry    49th Armored Division and 155th Armor and 31st                               8               3
                    Brigades and 30th Infantry 278th Armored Cavalry     Armored Brigades and
                    Brigadea                   Regimenta                 256th Infantry Brigadea
                                          a
                                           These units are the ones that, under our scenarios, would change annual training sites.




                                          Page 30                                                 GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                            Appendix II
                            Scenarios for Equipment Sharing at Annual
                            Training Sites




                            On the basis of the units’ authorized equipment, we determined the
Computation of the          amount of equipment for each of the nine items that would be needed if
Equipment Pool at           the units training at the same location pooled and shared their equipment.
Annual Training Sites       We assumed that

                        •   the entire unit (i.e., brigade or division) went to annual training during a
                            2-week period;
                        •   90 percent of a unit’s authorized personnel would be assigned;
                        •   70 percent of assigned personnel would actually attend annual training
                            with the unit; and
                        •   the unit would need an additional quantity of 5 percent to allow for
                            equipment replacement in case some equipment broke down during the
                            2-week annual training period.

                            We used the 90-percent figure for the amount of authorized personnel
                            assigned based on discussions with Guard officials, statistics on assigned
                            strength, and the fact that Guard units normally do not have 100 percent of
                            their authorized strength. The 70-percent figure for annual training
                            attendance is based on actual attendance statistics, a RAND study, and
                            discussions with Guard officials. The 5-percent additional quantity is
                            based on discussions with Guard maintenance officials.

                            Because some unit-shared equipment would be turned in to MATES in a
                            nonmission-capable (NMC) status at the end of the 2-week annual training
                            period, we determined the amount of extra equipment that would be
                            needed to have sufficient quantities of equipment on hand for the next unit
                            to use for training. Because of the Guard’s lack of historical information
                            on the quantity of NMC equipment that is turned in to MATES, we asked
                            MATES officials to provide us with an estimate. The average estimate for
                            several equipment items from two MATES ranged from 12 to 16 percent. The
                            average estimate from four MATES ranged from 21 to 36 percent. On the
                            basis of these estimates, we chose to use rates of 15 and 30 percent. We
                            also considered the capability of MATES personnel to repair this equipment
                            in time for the next unit to use it for annual training. Lacking information
                            on the capability of MATES to repair equipment, we assumed for each of the
                            nine items used in our analysis that the MATES could repair no more than 10
                            of the items in a 2-week period. We did not consider the impact of MATES
                            maintenance personnel having to spend time issuing and receiving
                            equipment from units that were training at the MATES rather than spending
                            this time repairing equipment. In addition, we analyzed the effect on the
                            maintenance quantity of units having consecutive training and a 2-week
                            period between training.



                            Page 31                                     GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                            Appendix II
                            Scenarios for Equipment Sharing at Annual
                            Training Sites




                            For each scenario, we calculated the quantities of the nine equipment
                            items that would be placed in long-term preservation at each of the MATES
                            in our analysis based on (1) the quantities currently located there and
                            (2) 50 percent of the units’ authorized equipment, which is required by
                            Guard regulation to be located at MATES. We used the greater of these two
                            quantities in our analysis as the quantity located at the MATES. The total
                            quantity of equipment needed for training and the additional quantity
                            needed to compensate for equipment undergoing maintenance determines
                            the pool size needed at each of the three annual training sites. The
                            difference in quantities between the equipment that is located at the MATES
                            and the amount needed for the pool becomes available for CHP long-term
                            preservation. Of that equipment, we allocated 25 percent to meet the
                            Guard’s 25-percent goal. The remaining quantity represents additional
                            equipment that can be put into preservation based on sharing equipment
                            and changing annual training sites.


                            Analysis of each of the four scenarios shows that the Guard can place
Analysis of Scenarios       more than 25 percent of its equipment in long-term preservation by sharing
                            unit equipment at annual training sites and changing some units’ training
                            sites. For each scenario, we determined the total quantity of the nine
                            equipment items that can be placed into long-term preservation at the
                            three training sites and the resulting maintenance cost avoidance. The
                            quantities and cost avoidance are divided to show the results of the cost
                            avoidance of the Guard’s 25-percent goal and the additional cost
                            avoidance resulting from increased sharing among units. The results for
                            each scenario are based on units turning in

                        •   30 percent of the 9 equipment items in an NMC condition with no break
                            between units coming to annual training,
                        •   15 percent of the 9 equipment items in an NMC condition with no break
                            between units coming to annual training,
                        •   30 percent of the 9 equipment items in an NMC condition with a 2-week
                            break between units coming to annual training, and
                        •   15 percent of the 9 equipment items in an NMC condition with a 2-week
                            break between units coming to annual training.


Current Scenario            We analyzed the five units that train annually at Fort Stewart and Camp
                            Shelby. This scenario does not require any of the units to change their
                            annual training site; therefore, the additional equipment and cost




                            Page 32                                     GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                                         Appendix II
                                         Scenarios for Equipment Sharing at Annual
                                         Training Sites




                                         avoidance over the Guard’s 25-percent goal that could be put into
                                         long-term preservation would result from greater sharing among the units.

                                         Tables II.4 through II.7 show the quantity of equipment that could be
                                         placed in long-term preservation using different assumptions and the
                                         resulting benefits. The total cost avoidance ranges from $14.6 million to
                                         $20 million, of which $4.4 million to $9.7 million is based on the benefits of
                                         having units pool and share equipment at annual training.


Table II.4: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and No Break
Between Training Periods
                                Guard 25% goal for equipment Additional equipment that can    Total equipment that can
                                          preservation                be preserved                   be preserved
Item                             Quantity    Cost avoidance      Quantity     Cost avoidance      Quantity    Cost avoidance
1                                      16            $307,504           13            $249,847          29           $557,351
2                                      87             884,181           82             833,366         169          1,717,547
3                                      39             601,848           30             462,960          69          1,064,808
4                                      62            1,931,734          16             498,512          78          2,430,246
5                                      13             450,229            3             103,899          16            554,128
6                                      16             405,088           16             405,088          32            810,176
7                                      11             291,159           11             291,159          22            582,318
8                                      25             628,250           21             527,730          46          1,155,980
9                                      76            4,678,180          17            1,046,435         93          5,724,615
Total                                345           $10,178,173        209            $4,418,996        554        $14,597,169



Table II.5: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and No Break
Between Training Periods
                                Guard 25% goal for equipment Additional equipment that can    Total equipment that can
                                          preservation                be preserved                   be preserved
Item                             Quantity    Cost avoidance      Quantity     Cost avoidance      Quantity    Cost avoidance
1                                      16            $307,504           17            $326,723          33           $634,227
2                                      87             884,181         107             1,087,441        194          1,971,622
3                                      42             648,144           37             570,984          79          1,219,128
4                                      62            1,931,734          35            1,090,495         97          3,022,229
5                                      15             519,495            5             173,165          20            692,660
6                                      16             405,088           20             506,360          36            911,448
7                                      11             291,159           13             344,097          24            635,256
8                                      25             628,250           27             678,510          52          1,306,760
9                                      76            4,678,180          41            2,523,755        117          7,201,935
Total                                350           $10,293,735        302            $7,301,530        652        $17,595,265




                                         Page 33                                          GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                                         Appendix II
                                         Scenarios for Equipment Sharing at Annual
                                         Training Sites




Table II.6: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and 2 Weeks
Between Training Periods
                                Guard 25% goal for equipment Additional equipment that can     Total equipment that can
                                          preservation                be preserved                   be preserved
Item                             Quantity    Cost avoidance      Quantity     Cost avoidance      Quantity    Cost avoidance
1                                      16            $307,504           21            $403,599          37           $711,103
2                                      87             884,181         107             1,087,441        194          1,971,622
3                                      42             648,144           47             725,304          89          1,373,448
4                                      62            1,931,734          36            1,121,652         98          3,053,386
5                                      15             519,495            6             207,798          21            727,293
6                                      16             405,088           24             607,632          40          1,012,720
7                                      11             291,159           15             397,035          26            688,194
8                                      25             628,250           33             829,290          58          1,457,540
9                                      76            4,678,180          41            2,523,755        117          7,201,935
Total                                 350          $10,293,735        330            $7,903,506        680        $18,197,241



Table II.7: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and 2 Weeks
Between Training Periods
                                Guard 25% goal for equipment Additional equipment that can    Total equipment that can
                                          preservation                be preserved                   be preserved
Item                             Quantity    Cost avoidance      Quantity     Cost avoidance      Quantity    Cost avoidance
1                                      16            $307,504           21            $403,599          37           $711,103
2                                      87             884,181         127             1,290,701        214          2,174,882
3                                      42             648,144           49             756,168          91          1,404,312
4                                      62            1,931,734          52            1,620,164        114          3,551,898
5                                      15             519,495            6             207,798          21            727,293
6                                      16             405,088           24             607,632          40          1,012,720
7                                      11             291,159           15             397,035          26            688,194
8                                      25             628,250           34             854,420          59          1,482,670
9                                      76            4,678,180          58            3,570,190        134          8,248,370
Total                                 350          $10,293,735        386            $9,707,707        736        $20,001,442



Scenario 1                               For this scenario, we analyzed seven units training at Fort Stewart, Fort
                                         Hood, and Camp Shelby. The 256th Infantry Brigade changes its annual
                                         training site to Fort Hood and shares equipment with the 49th Armored
                                         Division. Therefore, the additional equipment that could be put into
                                         long-term preservation would be a result of more units sharing equipment
                                         because of a change in training sites.




                                         Page 34                                          GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                                         Appendix II
                                         Scenarios for Equipment Sharing at Annual
                                         Training Sites




                                         Tables II.8 through II.11 show the equipment that could be placed in
                                         long-term preservation under different assumptions and the resulting
                                         benefits. The total cost avoidance ranges from $23.1 million to
                                         $30.9 million, of which $5.3 million to $11.3 million is based on the benefits
                                         of having units pool and share equipment at annual training and changing
                                         the 256th Infantry Brigade’s annual training site to Fort Hood.


Table II.8: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and No Break
Between Training Periods
                                Guard 25% goal for equipment Additional equipment that can    Total equipment that can
                                          preservation                be preserved                   be preserved
Item                             Quantity    Cost avoidance      Quantity     Cost avoidance      Quantity    Cost avoidance
1                                      32            $615,008           21            $403,599          53         $1,018,607
2                                    179             1,819,177        129             1,311,027        308          3,130,204
3                                      75            1,157,400          30             462,960         105          1,620,360
4                                    105             3,271,485          16             498,512         121          3,769,997
5                                      25             865,825            9             311,697          34          1,177,522
6                                      25             632,950           16             405,088          41          1,038,038
7                                      11             291,159           11             291,159          22            582,318
8                                      42            1,055,460          21             527,730          63          1,583,190
9                                    132             8,125,260          17            1,046,435        149          9,171,695
Total                                626           $17,833,724        270            $5,258,207        896        $23,091,931



Table II.9: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and No Break
Between Training Periods
                                Guard 25% goal for equipment Additional equipment that can    Total equipment that can
                                          preservation                be preserved                   be preserved
Item                             Quantity    Cost avoidance      Quantity     Cost avoidance      Quantity    Cost avoidance
1                                      32            $615,008           27            $518,913          59         $1,133,921
2                                    179             1,819,177        164             1,666,732        343          3,485,909
3                                      83            1,280,856          37             570,984         120          1,851,840
4                                    118             3,676,526          35            1,090,495        153          4,767,021
5                                      27             935,091           13             450,229          40          1,385,320
6                                      27             683,586           20             506,360          47          1,189,946
7                                      11             291,159           13             344,097          24            635,256
8                                      44            1,105,720          28             703,640          72          1,809,360
9                                    139             8,556,145          41            2,523,755        180         11,079,900
Total                                660           $18,963,268        378            $8,375,205      1,038        $27,338,473




                                         Page 35                                          GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                                         Appendix II
                                         Scenarios for Equipment Sharing at Annual
                                         Training Sites




Table II.10: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and 2 Weeks
Between Training Periods
                                Guard 25% goal for equipment Additional equipment that can    Total equipment that can
                                         preservation                  be preserved                  be preserved
Item                             Quantity    Cost avoidance      Quantity     Cost avoidance       Quantity    Cost avoidance
1                                      32            $615,008           33             $634,227          65         $1,249,235
2                                    179             1,819,177        164              1,666,732        343          3,485,909
3                                      84            1,296,288          51              787,032         135          2,083,320
4                                    115             3,583,055          36             1,121,652        151          4,704,707
5                                      27             935,091           15              519,495          42          1,454,586
6                                      29             734,222           24              607,632          53          1,341,854
7                                      11             291,159           15              397,035          26            688,194
8                                      44            1,105,720          37              929,810          81          2,035,530
9                                    132             8,125,260          17             1,046,435        149          9,171,695
Total                                653           $18,504,980        392             $7,710,050      1,045        $26,215,030



Table II.11: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and 2 Weeks
Between Training Periods
                                Guard 25% goal for equipment Additional equipment that can    Total equipment that can
                                         preservation                  be preserved                  be preserved
Item                             Quantity    Cost avoidance      Quantity     Cost avoidance       Quantity    Cost avoidance
1                                      32            $615,008           33             $634,227          65         $1,249,235
2                                    179             1,819,177        194              1,971,622        373          3,790,799
3                                      84            1,296,288          54              833,328         138          2,129,616
4                                    123             3,832,311          57             1,775,949        180          5,608,260
5                                      27             935,091           15              519,495          42          1,454,586
6                                      29             734,222           24              607,632          53          1,341,854
7                                      11             291,159           15              397,035          26            688,194
8                                      44            1,105,720          38              954,940          82          2,060,660
9                                    146             8,987,030          58             3,570,190        204         12,557,220
Total                                675           $19,616,006        488            $11,264,418      1,163        $30,880,424



Scenario 2                               For this scenario, we analyzed seven units training at Fort Stewart, Fort
                                         Hood, and Camp Shelby. The 30th Infantry Brigade changes its training
                                         site to Fort Stewart and shares equipment with the 48th and the 218th
                                         Infantry Brigades. Thus, three infantry brigades will have the same types
                                         and quantities of equipment at Fort Stewart. The 278th Armored Cavalry
                                         Regiment also changes its training site from Fort Stewart to Fort Hood and




                                         Page 36                                           GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                                         Appendix II
                                         Scenarios for Equipment Sharing at Annual
                                         Training Sites




                                         shares equipment with the 49th Armored Division. Therefore, the
                                         additional equipment that could be put into long-term preservation would
                                         be a result of similar units sharing equipment because of a change in
                                         training sites.

                                         Tables II.12 through II.15 show the equipment that could be placed in
                                         long-term preservation under different assumptions and the resulting
                                         benefits. The total cost avoidance ranges from $25.6 million to
                                         $33.8 million, of which $7.4 million to $15 million is based on the benefits
                                         of having units pool and share equipment at annual training and changing
                                         the 30th Infantry Brigade’s and 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment’s annual
                                         training sites to Fort Stewart and Fort Hood, respectively.


Table II.12: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and No
Break Between Training Periods
                                Guard 25% goal for equipment Additional equipment that can    Total equipment that can
                                         preservation                  be preserved                  be preserved
Item                             Quantity    Cost avoidance      Quantity     Cost avoidance      Quantity    Cost avoidance
1                                      32            $615,008           23            $442,037          55         $1,057,045
2                                    179             1,819,177        124             1,260,212        303          3,079,389
3                                      74            1,141,968          26             401,232         100          1,543,200
4                                      84            2,617,188          45            1,402,065        129          4,019,253
5                                      38            1,316,054          16             554,128          54          1,870,182
6                                      25             632,950           16             405,088          41          1,038,038
7                                      11             291,159           10             264,690          21            555,849
8                                      43            1,080,590          22             552,860          65          1,633,450
9                                    141             8,679,255          35            2,154,425        176         10,833,680
Total                                627           $18,193,349        317            $7,436,737        944        $25,630,086




                                         Page 37                                          GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                                         Appendix II
                                         Scenarios for Equipment Sharing at Annual
                                         Training Sites




Table II.13: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and No
Break Between Training Periods
                                Guard 25% goal for equipment Additional equipment that can    Total equipment that can
                                         preservation                  be preserved                  be preserved
Item                             Quantity    Cost avoidance      Quantity     Cost avoidance       Quantity    Cost avoidance
1                                      32            $615,008           28             $538,132          60         $1,153,140
2                                    179             1,819,177        165              1,676,895        344          3,496,072
3                                      82            1,265,424          39              601,848         121          1,867,272
4                                      85            2,648,345          77             2,399,089        162          5,047,434
5                                      38            1,316,054          19              658,027          57          1,974,081
6                                      27             683,586           20              506,360          47          1,189,946
7                                      11             291,159           13              344,097          24            635,256
8                                      44            1,105,720          30              753,900          74          1,859,620
9                                    146             8,987,030          67             4,124,185        213         13,111,215
Total                                644           $18,731,503        458            $11,602,533      1,102        $30,334,036



Table II.14: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and 2 Weeks
Between Training Periods
                                Guard 25% goal for equipment Additional equipment that can    Total equipment that can
                                         preservation                  be preserved                  be preserved
Item                             Quantity    Cost avoidance      Quantity     Cost avoidance       Quantity    Cost avoidance
1                                      32            $615,008           33             $634,227          65         $1,249,235
2                                    179             1,819,177        164              1,666,732        343          3,485,909
3                                      84            1,296,288          51              787,032         135          2,083,320
4                                      86            2,679,502          75             2,336,775        161          5,016,277
5                                      38            1,316,054          22              761,926          60          2,077,980
6                                      29             734,222           24              607,632          53          1,341,854
7                                      11             291,159           15              397,035          26            688,194
8                                      44            1,105,720          39              980,070          83          2,085,790
9                                    146             8,987,030          64             3,939,520        210         12,926,550
Total                                649           $18,844,160        487            $12,110,949      1,136        $30,955,109




                                         Page 38                                           GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                                         Appendix II
                                         Scenarios for Equipment Sharing at Annual
                                         Training Sites




Table II.15: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and 2 Weeks
Between Training Periods
                                Guard 25% goal for equipment Additional equipment that can    Total equipment that can
                                         preservation                  be preserved                  be preserved
Item                             Quantity    Cost avoidance      Quantity     Cost avoidance       Quantity    Cost avoidance
1                                      32            $615,008           33             $634,227          65         $1,249,235
2                                    179             1,819,177        194              1,971,622        373          3,790,799
3                                      84            1,296,288          54              833,328         138          2,129,616
4                                      86            2,679,502          97             3,022,229        183          5,701,731
5                                      38            1,316,054          22              761,926          60          2,077,980
6                                      29             734,222           24              607,632          53          1,341,854
7                                      11             291,159           15              397,035          26            688,194
8                                      44            1,105,720          39              980,070          83          2,085,790
9                                    146             8,987,030          94             5,786,170        240         14,773,200
Total                                649           $18,844,160        572            $14,994,239      1,221        $33,838,399



Scenario 3                               For this scenario, we analyzed eight units training at Fort Stewart, Fort
                                         Hood, and Camp Shelby. The 30th Infantry Brigade changes its training
                                         site to Fort Stewart and shares equipment with the 48th and the 218th
                                         Infantry Brigades. Thus, as in the last scenario, three infantry brigades
                                         would have the same types and quantities of equipment at Fort Stewart.
                                         The 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment changes its training site from Fort
                                         Stewart to Fort Hood and shares equipment with the 49th Armored
                                         Division. The 256th Infantry Brigade also changes its annual training site to
                                         Camp Shelby and shares equipment with the 155th Armor Brigade and the
                                         31st Armored Brigade. Therefore, the additional equipment that could be
                                         put into long-term preservation would be a result of similar units sharing
                                         equipment because of a change in training sites.

                                         Tables II.16 through II.19 show the equipment that could be placed in
                                         long-term preservation under different assumptions and the resulting
                                         benefits. The total cost avoidance ranges from $30.6 million to
                                         $39.2 million, of which $11 million to $18 million is based on the benefits
                                         of having units pool and share equipment at annual training and changing
                                         annual training sites for the 30th Infantry Brigade, 278th Armored Cavalry
                                         Regiment, and 256th Infantry Brigade to Fort Stewart, Fort Hood, and
                                         Camp Shelby, respectively.




                                         Page 39                                           GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                                         Appendix II
                                         Scenarios for Equipment Sharing at Annual
                                         Training Sites




Table II.16: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and No
Break Between Training Periods
                                Guard 25% goal for equipment Additional equipment that can    Total equipment that can
                                         preservation                  be preserved                  be preserved
Item                             Quantity    Cost avoidance      Quantity     Cost avoidance       Quantity    Cost avoidance
1                                      35            $672,665           29             $557,351          64         $1,230,016
2                                    193             1,961,459        165              1,676,895        358          3,638,354
3                                      86            1,327,152          43              663,576         129          1,990,728
4                                    137             4,268,509          49             1,526,693        186          5,795,202
5                                      27             935,091           27              935,091          54          1,870,182
6                                      27             683,586           23              582,314          50          1,265,900
7                                      12             317,628           14              370,566          26            688,194
8                                      46            1,155,980          33              829,290          79          1,985,270
9                                    134             8,248,370          63             3,877,965        197         12,126,335
Total                                697           $19,570,440        446            $11,019,741      1,143        $30,590,181



Table II.17: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and No
Break Between Training Periods
                                Guard 25% goal for equipment Additional equipment that can    Total equipment that can
                                         preservation                  be preserved                  be preserved
Item                             Quantity    Cost avoidance      Quantity     Cost avoidance       Quantity    Cost avoidance
1                                      35            $672,665           35             $672,665          70         $1,345,330
2                                    193             1,961,459        206              2,093,578        399          4,055,037
3                                      91            1,404,312          61              941,352         152          2,345,664
4                                    150             4,673,550          85             2,648,345        235          7,321,895
5                                      27             935,091           31             1,073,623         58          2,008,714
6                                      29             734,222           27              683,586          56          1,417,808
7                                      12             317,628           18              476,442          30            794,070
8                                      47            1,181,110          41             1,030,330         88          2,211,440
9                                    141             8,679,255          86             5,293,730        227         13,972,985
Total                                725           $20,559,292        590            $14,913,651      1,315        $35,472,943




                                         Page 40                                           GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                                         Appendix II
                                         Scenarios for Equipment Sharing at Annual
                                         Training Sites




Table II.18: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term Preservation Assuming a 30-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and 2 Weeks
Between Training Periods
                                Guard 25% goal for equipment Additional equipment that can    Total equipment that can
                                         preservation                  be preserved                  be preserved
Item                             Quantity    Cost avoidance      Quantity     Cost avoidance       Quantity    Cost avoidance
1                                      35            $672,665           41             $787,979          76         $1,460,644
2                                    193             1,961,459        205              2,083,415        398          4,044,874
3                                      92            1,419,744          74             1,141,968        166          2,561,712
4                                    147             4,580,079          83             2,586,031        230          7,166,110
5                                      27             935,091           36             1,246,788         63          2,181,879
6                                      31             784,858           31              784,858          62          1,569,716
7                                      12             317,628           20              529,380          32            847,008
8                                      47            1,181,110          50             1,256,500         97          2,437,610
9                                    144             8,863,920          87             5,355,285        231         14,219,205
Total                                728           $20,716,554        627            $15,772,204      1,355        $36,488,758



Table II.19: Equipment Quantities Stored in Long-Term Preservation Assuming a 15-Percent NMC Turn-in Rate and 2 Weeks
Between Training Periods
                                Guard 25% goal for equipment Additional equipment that can    Total equipment that can
                                         preservation                  be preserved                  be preserved
Item                             Quantity    Cost avoidance      Quantity     Cost avoidance       Quantity    Cost avoidance
1                                      35            $672,665           41             $787,979          76         $1,460,644
2                                    193             1,961,459        236              2,398,468        429          4,359,927
3                                      92            1,419,744          78             1,203,696        170          2,623,440
4                                    154             4,798,178        111              3,458,427        265          8,256,605
5                                      27             935,091           36             1,246,788         63          2,181,879
6                                      31             784,858           31              784,858          62          1,569,716
7                                      12             317,628           20              529,380          32            847,008
8                                      47            1,181,110          50             1,256,500         97          2,437,610
9                                    148             9,110,140        103              6,340,165        251         15,450,305
Total                                739           $21,180,873        706            $18,006,261      1,445        $39,187,134




                                         Page 41                                           GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
Appendix III

Comments From the Department of Defense




               Page 42      GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
                Appendix III
                Comments From the Department of Defense




Now on p. 16,




(703155)        Page 43                                   GAO/NSIAD-97-206 Army National Guard
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order
made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address
are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000
or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on
how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,
send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov




PRINTED ON    RECYCLED PAPER
United States                       Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office      Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001           GAO
                                 Permit No. G100
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested