Speaking from experience as a former U.S.A.F. Civil Servant performing duties as a WG-9 Jet Engine Technician, then as a GS 5-10 Material Inventory Control Specialist, and as a Division Leader of the U.S.A.F. QP 4 Program - that the current methods of defining related costs of maintaning Weapon Systems is inaccurate and outdated.
Example: The recycling of used parts into the rebuilding process includes the purchase price of said part as if it is new. An Aluminum/Steel alloy fuel tube on a sub-assembly of a specific system has a high longetivity record and is commonly reused each time a unit from the field is rebuilt. Maintenance, Scheduling, and Planning offices show the rebuilt sub-assembly at a certain cost. They include "Man Hours" and other costs including the price of each used part which have already been paid for.
This in turn drives up the overall cost of the "End Item" returning to the field. Which is all paid for by Tax Dollars in the DOD Defense Budget.
What is needed? An honest change in "Parts Procurement" and Defense Contracting methodology which are the primary drivers of an inaccurate system. Secondly - the "I.G." needs to revamp their inventory diagnostic analysis for a clear and accurate accounting at the end of each fiscal year. Third - Planning, Engineering, Scheduling, and Maintenance "Process Evaluations" from "The Floor Up" need to reassess their formulae for System Rebuild Cost Projections.
Comments (11)
I would love to see this improved through more transparency. Do you have any specific proposals or just a review?
To: Mr Rosander, Sir, With the correct security clearance I can take you through the overall process involved with a weapon system. Indicate where there is lost dollars due to what I call "Variable Personnel/Management Default". This is when all the efforts involved in maintaning a weapon system has exceeded any one or small group of people comprised of both management and labor capability to grasp its entirety. It is inconcieveable for any one person to intimately understand a system as complex as an aircraft. Which is why the aircraft - on paper - is disassembled and delegated. However there exists a "Communication Drift" which occurs over time - whereby review of their operation becomes non-existent. Thus errors in procuring parts, materials, and man hours begin compounding. Which drives the baseline maintenance costs up. It causes alternative methods of operation to be added to the current process thus creating a more complex and expensive end item.
If you can get past "Beuracratic Resistance" at Floor and Section Levels to where the "Meat meets the Metal" it can be done. With the right person who has the right experience - you could form a team that if supported ( and "IF" becomes a big word here ) with adequate computer programing and other resources - these processes can not only be streamlined but overhauled in certain sectors whereby communications are kept clear, concise, and honest. Once in place - this type of corrective measure can be duplicated and applied to many of these assets "Across the Board".
Instead of applying these measures years ago - the option for a "Drawdown of Resources" was implemented by the B.R.A.C. shifting a great deal of the workload to Civilian Counterparts. One example of how this decision proved to be Deadly Wrong are the U.S.Army Hummers without adequate armor plating and bullet proof glass. The purest form of comparison between the use of a Civilian Counterpart and Civil Service has always been in the First Rate Quality of the End Item produced by the Civil Servants. Civil Servants are not in the business of Turning a Profit and finding ways and means to improve their "Bottom Line". Many Civil Servants are former Military who have had field experience with the Weapon System. You can keep Federal Maintenance costs down and Quality of the Weapon System up - it can be done. I know because at the Micro-Management Level we did it.
My team saved the U.S.A.F. $17 Million Dollars in six (6) months - No Brag - Just Fact. Then Management broke us up.
To Mr Rosander, I do have specific proposals.
Randy Mock
From what I have seen, most of the problems come from the Government requiring customization to their technology. In most cases, the technology is customized from the beginning of the project. This creates management problems and over complication.
If they bought their products on the market like the rest of us, they would be much more efficient.
Ron Paul's ideas of reorganizing the military would be even better.
To Mr. Rosander: Sir, Yes -- there are times when certain parts require customization - however - most of this "customization" is created by the initial manufacturer for a variety of reasons - such as: 1) Patent/Copy Write protection, 2) The customization is a result of an internal appendage which is a "classified" part that gives us an "Edge" over other nations, or the result of FAA Mandates. Civilian counterparts have always been resistant to the Civil Service/ Military Maintenance systems. This due in a large part that the "Field Rebuild" has always been a higher quality product for less dollars. Personal experience has shown time after time that Aviation Civilian Maitnenance of Military aircraft is based primarily on a "Remove & Replace" program whereby they prefer to swap out the entire sub-assembly rather than repair "On Site" the sub-assembly by replacing the "Widget(s)" that failed.
The "Driving Force" that creates this disparate difference in methodology between the Civilian Companies and the Military is "Man Hours". It is faster for the Civilian Contractor to do the "R & R" and send the sub-assembly back to the shop for tear down and overhaul - thus for them cheaper because of lower amounts of man hours paid for hourly. The Military pays our soldiers a salaried paycheck and does not have to pay "Time & a Half" for Overtime, Holidays, etc... Civil Service Maintenance in the Blue Collar are paid hourly BUT not nearly as much as their Corporate Civilian Counterparts.
Special Tooling is another Civilian Corporate invention requiring the military to only be able to use their tool(s) for maintaning the asset. I personally equate the "Special Tool Program" these manufacturers force the military to buy -- to "Capital Gains". :>?)
Initial customizing originates with the Civilian Engineers and Designers of companies like Fairchild, Garret, etc...
If you seriously want to lower the overall costs of Production and Maintenance of Weapon Systems limit and/or isolate patenting laws and procedures. The Second most effective method of lowering costs can be readily identified as I previously stated in my original posting.
Third - Mr Ron Paul's idea would denegrate the quality assurance our soldiers deserve in the field. I am not prepared to risk one soldiers life or limb to save $0.10 cents. On the other side of this equation however are several ways that overall costs can be cut without this risk. One of the biggest drivers of undue higher costs has to do with the regulations that "Blanket Govern" the Procurement Process with little to no flexibility. For example; The same regulations governing the purchase of ink pens and pencils as an Abrams Tank.
The application of common sense in Procurement is over ruled by mandated regulations that are not current with today's marketplace and technologies.
President Obama has said many times that if there are laws on the books that are outdated and are keeping us from being more productive or cost effective then he is willing to examine them and if found to be accurate - to remove those restrictions. I sincerely hope he or a member of his staff read our discussion and explore what proposals could prove to be more cost effectibe by virtue of their increasing the level of transparency in these recommended areas of concern.
Thank You for your consideration and input.
I would be all for the Government removing patent and copyright law. That would be another proposal though.
Giving purchasers more freedom in their choices would be good too. Most of the rules you mentioned should be lessons learned or guidelines rather than blanket requirements.
This gets my support though.
To Mr Rosander: Please allow me to clarify my point regarding the Patent/Copy Write portion. When DOD awards a contract on a weapon system it should own all rights to it. Instead the "Awarded Corporation" not only maintanes possession of the patents/copy write it keeps their "Hands in the Till" with their Special Tools. The DOD Special Tool Program is an expensive and unnecessary one. If Policy and Procedures were changed whereby the DOD - who funded all or a portion of the "R & D" of these weapon systems became sole owner of all Proprietary Rights within a shorter pre-agreed upon time frame - you would see immediate lower costs.
One of the most expensive policies that is a Budgetary Monster Maker is the infamous "Use or Lose" approach when preparing the next Fiscal Budget. For those who do not understand the "Use or Lose" aspect - it works like this: If you want the same or higher amount of money to fund your operation and/or mission requirements you need to spend as much or more money than the previous year.
Some of my proposals would require updating Procurement Policies and Procedures. They would call for a realignment of specific Infra-Structure offices where the "Support Personnel" work hand in hand with the Maintenance Shops they are supporting. Granted that some support sections require an autonomy from their "customers" they are not the "Status Quo". They should approach these and other changes that are identified by increasing the depth of transparency from both the Micro & Macro POV. Too many times the approaches used to improve DOD ignored the aspects from the "Floor Up" and created more problems and higher costs. This is primarily due to a lack of clear communications and an understanding of preset goals.
Let me be clear on one very important point: All the "Transparency" used in problematic resolutions will be wasted efforts unless the program itself is vigorously supported and monitored from the top down. This "Open Government Dialogue" is an excellent method in finding answers to problems and/or creating a path by which new ideas can be formed and implemented. However - if a method of showing appreciation or rewarding those who have come forward with workable adopted ideas - then this program is destined to fail.
Personally - I've been "Round the Farm" enough and have seen other people take credit for my ideas. Which is why I have not clarified and stipulated any specific proposals to date.
I greatly appreciate your's and the other participant's support on this and other submissions of mine. Hopefully - someone managing this program will take enough interest and elevate these ideas to the next level.
This is really bad. I'm used to the software side, where it is much easier to avoid the proprietary tools and contents problems.
To Mr Rosander: Sir, To what are you referring to?
Most of the software tools are standardized, such as compilers and languages. The government is given everything they need to switch contractors, at least on the custom jobs.
To Mr Rosander: You are semi-correct that the government has software tools etc... However the Protocol requirements for allocating a new SOS (Source of Supply) are outdated and require review and/or rewrite. Regardless if it is a Custom job or not the military is permitted to perform "Local Manufacture" of a needed item to preclude a work stoppage on a Mission Essential item. However most Supply Side Personnel will not initiate that corrective action.
The reliance on Item Management to foresee a problem of this nature is limited by their protocol as well. Too often they fall back on the old adage of "I raised the priority as high as I can".
If the "IMs" had more transparency in actual Maintenance Requirements and actual Shop Visibility they would be able to maintane an adequate inventory.
This is why I submit that the Procurement Process and Defense Contracting System badly needs this program of Transparency in Government.
Thank you for your thoughts on this.
Randy Mock