Defense Logistics: Requirement Determinations for Aviation Spare Parts Need Improvement
DIANE Publishing, 1996 - 20 pages
Reviews the Air Force's & the Navy's policies & procedures for determining requirements & budgets for aviation spare parts. Determines whether the Air Force & Navy's requirements & budgets reflect the actual amounts needed.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Air Force Air Force's Air Logistics Center aircraft annual budget computations Antonio Air Logistics assets for depot assets reserved Aviation Supply Office budget requirement computations buy and repair buy computation Center made changes Comments components computed requirements consumable items Defense direct Defense Logistics Agency Department of Defense depot level maintenance depot maintenance needs depot maintenance requirements depot supply level direct the Secretary DoD agrees DODRESPONSE due-out quantities engine ensure that key fiscal year 1995 Force and Navy GAO reported initial buy quantity inventory managers management level review management oversight procedures million Navy budgeted Navy policies Navy's Nonconcur offset computed on-hand and on-order overstated requirements periodic requirement planned program requirements planned requirements policies and procedures procedures and internal procedures related related to reserving requirement and annual requirement and budget reserved for depot reserving on-hand assets result in overstated review and validation San Antonio Air Secretary of Defense supply level assets
Page 1 - Navy budgeted $132 million more than needed for aviation spare parts because of questionable policies concerning the determination of requirements and the accountability for depot maintenance assets. The Air Force, in preparing its fiscal year 1996 budget for aviation parts, did not consider $72 million of on-hand assets.
Page 13 - Navy duplicated depot maintenance requirements in its requirements and budget computations. The depot-level assets were included once as recurring demands, based on past depot maintenance usage, and again in a planned program requirements category that is not based on recurring demands. As a result of these duplications, the Navy's fiscal year 1997 requirements and budget e*hmatrs were overstated by at least $60 million.
Page 13 - Navy has a consumer level of inventory on aircraft carriers, which is a also supported by a wholesale level of inventory. The purpose of the planned requirements and recurring demand are explained separately below to show that both are needed to provide sufficient supply support, but do not result in overstated requirements . The purpose of recurring demands discussed by the GAO is to develop a wholesale level requirement.
Page 2 - Navy overstated budgeted buys and repairs by about $132 million. This overstatement occurred because of questionable Air Force and Navy policies concerning the determination of requirements and the accountability for assets held in reserve to satisfy depot maintenance needs.
Page 2 - Air Force and Navy policies and procedures related to reserving on-hand assets for depot maintenance requirements differ, both agencies' policies and procedures result in overstated requirements.
Page 14 - If these planned requirements were removed from the file, there would be no consumer level inventory to support daily operations . The planned requirements discussed by the GAO are identified with a document identifier code of BPR.
Page 14 - Defense with consideration of wearout and survival for repairable items. If the recurring demands were not registered, the wholesale requirement would be eliminated. This would cause the customer to wait a procurement lead time for replenishment of consumer level requirements.
Page 11 - Those systems base computations on past usage, acquisition lead times, flying hour programs, maintenance replacement factors, and additional special needs . Requirements are then offset by...