Navy Ship Maintenance: Allocation of Ship Maintenance Work in the Norfolk, Virginia, Area (Letter Report, 02/24/99, GAO/NSIAD-99-54)
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Navy's declining
ship maintenance workload, focusing on: (1) the Navy's policies and
procedures for allocating ship maintenance work to public and private
facilities in the Norfolk area; (2) ship maintenance and modernization
funding obligated to the Norfolk Naval Shipyard and private ship repair
companies during the fiscal years (FY) 1994 through 1998; and (3) the
extent to which the Atlantic Fleet's ship maintenance program has been
affected by the movement of funds out of the ship depot maintenance
program since FY 1994.
GAO noted that: (1) the Navy's allocation of ship maintenance workload
in the Norfolk, Virginia area, is guided by legislative requirements and
established policy objectives, such as retaining a certain level of
public sector capability, allowing sailors to remain at their home ports
when shorter repairs are being done, and achieving economic and
efficient public depot maintenance operations; (2) during FY 1994
through FY 1998, private shipyards and repair companies in the Norfolk,
Virginia, area received proportionately more funding for ship
maintenance work than the Navy's Norfolk Naval Shipyard; (3) among the
private sector activities, Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company
has received the largest portion of ship maintenance funding in the
Norfolk area; (4) funding obligated to other smaller shipyards and
repair companies has fluctuated from year to year, with the greatest
change occurring in FY 1998 when these companies received
proportionately much less of the annual ship maintenance funding than in
other years and also received less than initially scheduled by the Navy;
(5) this was largely because: (a) the conventional workload that
traditionally goes to these companies is declining; (b) scheduled
maintenance and operational requirements changed during FY 1998; and (c)
four conventional maintenance projects originally scheduled to go to the
private sector were reassigned to the Norfolk Naval Shipyard to
stabilize and achieve more economical and efficient operations at that
public shipyard; (6) the Navy did move appropriated funds from its ship
depot maintenance account during FY 1994 through FY 1998; (7) however,
the Atlantic Fleet received a slight increase over the amount budgeted
for its ship depot maintenance program during this period; and (8)
consequently, the movement of ship depot maintenance funds did not
reduce the amount of funds provided to the public and private sectors in
the Norfolk, Virginia, area.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: NSIAD-99-54
TITLE: Navy Ship Maintenance: Allocation of Ship Maintenance Work
in the Norfolk, Virginia, Area
DATE: 02/24/99
SUBJECT: Shipyards
Equipment maintenance
Military vessels
Privatization
Naval facilities
Naval procurement
IDENTIFIER: Norfolk (VA)
Navy Working Capital Fund
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** <info@www.gao.gov> **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Honorable
Owen B. Pickett
House of Representatives
February 1999
NAVY SHIP MAINTENANCE - ALLOCATION
OF SHIP MAINTENANCE WORK IN THE
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, AREA
GAO/NSIAD-99-54
Navy Ship Maintenance
(709355)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
CNO - Chief of Naval Operations
DOD - Department of Defense
MSC - Military Sealift Command
NAVSEA - Naval Sea Systems Command
SUPSHIP - Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-280524
February 24, 1999
The Honorable Owen B. Pickett
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Pickett:
Officials of private shipyards and ship repair companies in the
Norfolk, Virginia, area have expressed concern about the Department
of the Navy's declining ship maintenance workload in recent years.
As you requested, we are providing information on the Navy's policies
and procedures for allocating ship maintenance work to the Norfolk
Naval Shipyard and private ship repair companies in the Norfolk,
Virginia, area and data regarding funding obligated to the public and
private sectors.\1
Specifically, this report discusses (1) the Navy's policies and
procedures for allocating ship maintenance work to public and private
facilities in the Norfolk area, (2) ship maintenance and
modernization funding obligated to the Norfolk Naval Shipyard and
private ship repair companies during fiscal years 1994 through 1998,
and (3) the extent the Atlantic Fleet's ship maintenance program has
been affected by the movement of funds out of the ship depot
maintenance program since fiscal year 1994. Maintenance on
nuclear-powered ships is referred to as nuclear ship maintenance,
while maintenance on non-nuclear powered ships is referred to as
conventional ship maintenance. Our scope and methodology are
described in
appendix I.
--------------------
\1 The Norfolk Naval Shipyard is a Navy facility that provides repair
and modernization to the entire range of naval ships. The Newport
News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company is the largest privately owned
shipyard in the United States. It is the only one that can build,
refuel, and maintain Nimitz-class aircraft carriers and one of two
that can build and maintain nuclear-powered submarines. Six other
private shipyards in the area do repair work on conventional ships
and about 30 other private companies do limited ship repair work at
the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, other private shipyards, and their own
facilities. Newport News and several of these private shipyards
frequently perform ship maintenance work outside the Norfolk,
Virginia, area.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
The Navy's allocation of ship maintenance workload in the Norfolk,
Virginia, area is guided by legislative requirements and established
policy objectives, such as retaining a certain level of public sector
capability, allowing sailors to remain at their home ports when
shorter repairs are being done, and achieving economic and efficient
public depot maintenance operations. During fiscal years 1994
through 1998, private shipyards and repair companies in the Norfolk,
Virginia, area received proportionately more funding for ship
maintenance work than the Navy's Norfolk Naval Shipyard.\2 Among the
private sector activities, Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock
Company has received the largest portion of ship maintenance funding
in the Norfolk area.\3 Funding obligated to other smaller shipyards
and repair companies has fluctuated from year to year, with the
greatest change occurring in fiscal year 1998 when these companies
received proportionately much less of the annual ship maintenance
funding than in other years and also received less than initially
scheduled by the Navy. This was largely because (1) the conventional
workload that traditionally goes to these companies is declining, (2)
scheduled maintenance and operational requirements changed during
fiscal year 1998, and (3) four conventional maintenance projects
originally scheduled to go to the private sector were reassigned to
the Norfolk Naval Shipyard to stabilize and achieve more economical
and efficient operations at that public shipyard.\4
The Navy did move appropriated funds from its ship depot maintenance
account during fiscal years 1994 through 1998. However, the Atlantic
Fleet received a slight increase over the amount budgeted for its
ship depot maintenance program during this period. Consequently, the
movement of ship depot maintenance funds did not reduce the amount of
funds provided to the public and private sectors in the Norfolk,
Virginia, area.
--------------------
\2 Measured by funds obligated each fiscal year. Department of
Defense (DOD) regulations define obligations as amounts of orders
placed, contracts awarded, services received, and similar
transactions during an accounting period that will require payment.
\3 To provide a more meaningful analysis of workload allocation
within the private sector, we separated smaller private shipyards and
ship repair companies from Newport News because Newport News,
specializing in major overhauls and nuclear ship maintenance
projects, performs larger and different types of maintenance projects
than the other smaller ship repair companies in the Norfolk area. We
could not readily separate conventional ship work from nuclear ship
work.
\4 The Navy issued a planning report, Private Sector Depot Level
Planning Report for Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998, Naval Sea Systems
Command Notice 4710 (Sept. 23, 1996), containing Chief of Naval
Operations (CNO) conventional maintenance projects that were not yet
funded but were tentatively planned for allocation to the private
sector in the Norfolk area. This report was not a commitment to
provide particular workload to industry but was meant more as a
benchmark or informal planning tool for industry to gauge upcoming
ship maintenance requirements that might be available for
contracting.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
The objective of the Navy's ship maintenance program is to perform
all necessary maintenance consistent with available funding and
provide reasonable assurance that ships will be available for
required operations. Ship maintenance, conducted during periods the
Navy calls availabilities, includes three types of requirements:
time-directed, condition-based, and modernization. Time-directed
requirements include those that are periodic in nature and are based
on elapsed time or recurrent operations. Condition-based
requirements, which are based on the physical condition of the ship,
are usually identified by the ship's crew or inspection teams.
Lastly, modernization requirements include changes that either add
new capability or improve reliability and maintainability of existing
systems.
Officials of the Shipbuilders Council of America, the South Tidewater
Association of Ship Repairers, private shipyards, and ship repair
companies in the Norfolk area have expressed concern that the Navy's
implementation of its policies and procedures favored the Norfolk
Naval Shipyard, contributing to the private sectors' declining ship
maintenance workload in the Norfolk area during fiscal year 1998.
NAVY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
FOR ALLOCATING SHIP MAINTENANCE
WORK IN THE NORFOLK AREA
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
The Navy's allocation of ship maintenance workload in the Norfolk,
Virginia, area is guided by legislative requirements and established
Navy policy objectives, such as (1) retaining a certain level of
public sector capability, (2) allowing sailors to remain at their
home ports when shorter repairs are being done, and (3) achieving
economic and efficient public depot maintenance operations.
Historically, large ship dry-dockings and nuclear ship maintenance
projects in the Norfolk, Virginia, area are usually allocated to
either Newport News or the Norfolk Naval Shipyard and maintenance
projects for conventional surface ships are usually contracted with
private ship repair companies or allocated to Norfolk Naval
Shipyard.\5
In addition, Newport News performs some medium to small conventional
ship maintenance work for the Navy. Further, in making workload
allocation decisions, Navy officials stated they also consider:
-- The statutory requirement of 10 U.S.C. 2466, more commonly
called the 50-50 rule, wherein the Department of the Navy is
required to contract not more than 50 percent of funds made
available for depot-level maintenance with the private sector.\6
This requirement is for the whole Navy and applies to all types
of depot maintenance at all locations. The 50-50 requirement
excludes funds obligated for the (1) procurement of major
modifications or upgrades of weapon systems that are designed to
improve performance or (2) nuclear refueling of an aircraft
carrier. To more fully identify all sources of funding for ship
maintenance and repair work in the Norfolk area, we included
obligated funds for these activities in our analysis for this
report.
-- The Navy's home port policy is to, where possible, do ship
repair and maintenance work of 6 months or less at the ship's
home port, thus improving the ship crew's quality of life by
reducing time away from home. If the estimated project is to
take 6 months or less, the Navy solicits proposals for
maintenance contracts from private shipyards and ship repair
companies located near the ship's home port. If the estimate is
more than 6 months, the Navy expands the solicitation to include
additional ship repair companies operating on the coast--the
Atlantic coast for the Atlantic Fleet.
-- Core work requirements, where the Navy tries to maintain the
required capabilities within organic Navy shipyards to meet
readiness and sustainability requirements of the weapon systems
that support the wartime and contingency scenarios. According
to Navy documents, core capabilities consist of the minimum
facilities, equipment, and skilled personnel necessary to meet
these readiness and sustainability requirements.
-- The Navy's guaranteed manday policy, where Navy officials try to
match the workload to Norfolk Naval Shipyard workforce because
the shipyard's workforce and related costs have already been
committed in the Navy's budget.\7
--------------------
\5 Nuclear attack submarines may also be assigned to the Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard at Kittery, Maine, and Electric Boat Company, at
Groton, Connecticut.
\6 Until fiscal year 1998, the Navy was prohibited by statute (10
U.S.C. 2466) from placing more than 40 percent of its depot-level
maintenance work in the private sector. In the 1998 Defense
Authorization Act, this was amended to 50 percent.
\7 The Norfolk Naval Shipyard's workload targets are established
under the Navy's guaranteed manday policy, where work days budgeted
for Norfolk Naval Shipyard are guaranteed by its customers (fleet and
system commanders) during the budget execution year. During the
budget process, Norfolk Naval Shipyard's workload and workforce are
established and locked in the budget. Consequently, during the
budget execution year, the Navy's guaranteed manday policy is to
ensure the agreed to workload (or eqyuvalent) is provided to Norfolk
Naval Shipyard's workforce because the workforce figures and related
costs have already been committed in the budget. For several
reasons, primarily operationl commitments, ship schedules may change.
Thus, when a ship maintenance project is moved out of the public
shipyard, it may be necessary to provide the public shipyard with an
equivalent workload.
OBLIGATIONS FOR SHIP
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR WORK IN
THE NORFOLK AREA
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
In terms of reported obligations for ship maintenance work in the
Norfolk area during fiscal years 1994 through 1998, the largest
amount of ship maintenance funding went to the private shipyards and
repair companies.\8 Among the private sector activities, Newport News
received the largest portion of the obligated funds. Reported
obligations for the smaller private shipyards and repair companies
fluctuated from year to year but, for a variety of reasons, were
proportionately much less in fiscal year 1998 than in other recent
years and were also less than the Navy initially scheduled for fiscal
year 1998.
--------------------
\8 Our audit of the federal government's fiscal year 1997
consolidated financial statements identified billions of dollars in
DOD unreconciled cash disbursements. As a result of these accounting
problems, DOD has not recorded all obligations and expenditures to
specific budgetary accounts. See Financial Audit: 1997 Consolidated
Financial Statements of the United States Government
(GAO/AIMD-98-127, Mar. 31, 1998).
AMOUNT OF FUNDS OBLIGATED
BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE SECTORS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
During fiscal years 1994 through 1998, the Navy reported obligating
nearly $6.9 billion for the ship maintenance work in the Norfolk
area. It provided Norfolk Naval Shipyard with about 31.1 percent of
this work and private shipyards and repair companies were allocated
68.9 percent. (See table 1.)
Table 1
Reported Obligations for Ship
Maintenance Work Provided to Norfolk
Naval Shipyard and Private Shipyards and
Repair Companies in the Norfolk Area
During Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1998
(Then-year dollars in millions)
Obligations for work
Obligations for work provided to the private
provided to Norfolk Naval shipyards and repair
Shipyard\a companies
-------------------------- --------------------------
Percent of Percent of
Fiscal year Amount total Amount total Total
------------ ---------- -------------- ---------- -------------- ==========
1994 $417.5 30.7 $942.7 69.3 $1,360.2
1995 428.8 30.4 980.7 69.6 1,409.5
1996 419.3 47.6 462.2 52.4 881.5
1997 373.3 31.6 809.9 68.5 1,183.2
1998 508.4 24.6 1,554.8 75.4 2,063.2
================================================================================
Percent of 31.1 68.9
total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Obligations are for maintenance, modernization, materials, and
nuclear refueling work provided to the Norfolk Naval Shipyard,
Newport News, and other smaller ship repair companies. Dollar
amounts do not include obligations for ship maintenance work
performed outside the Norfolk, Virginia, area.
\a Dollar amounts do not include work (approximately $63.7 million)
the Norfolk Naval Shipyard contracted out to private ship repair
companies. These amounts are included in the obligations for work
provided to private shipyards and repair companies.
Source: Our analysis of obligation data provided by the Navy
Comptroller, CNO, the Atlantic Fleet, and Military Sealift Command
(MSC).
Table 1 also shows that reported obligations for fiscal year 1998
were much higher than previous years, with the largest percentage
obligated to private shipyards and repair companies. Most of the
1998 obligations went to Newport News to fund a complex overhaul and
nuclear refueling of the U.S.S. Nimitz. In the years in which
Newport News has such a large workload, major funding spikes occur.
In contrast, there was no similar workload assigned to Newport News
in fiscal year 1996. Navy officials told us that funding to Newport
News was smaller in 1996 because (1) there was less nuclear ship
maintenance work--work historically allocated to either Newport News
or Norfolk Naval Shipyard and (2) Newport News was already operating
near full capacity.
DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTED
OBLIGATIONS AMONG PRIVATE
SHIPYARDS AND REPAIR
COMPANIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
Newport News is a large nuclear-capable yard and is capable of doing
ship repair work that other smaller shipyards and repair companies in
the Norfolk area are not. Smaller private shipyards and repair
companies in the area do repair work on conventional ships and are
not qualified to do nuclear-related work. Therefore, to make our
private sector analysis more meaningful, we separated the Navy's
reported obligations according to whether they were provided to
Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Newport News, or other smaller shipyards and
repair companies. As shown in table 2, Newport News received the
largest obligations in all but 1 year between fiscal year 1994 and
1998.
Table 2
Reported Obligations for Ship
Maintenance Work Provided to Norfolk
Naval Shipyard, Newport News, and
Smaller Private Shipyards and Repair
Companies in the Norfolk Area During
Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1998
(Then-year dollars in millions)
Obligations for work provided to the private
sector
----------------------------------------------
Obligations for work
provided to the
Norfolk Naval Smaller ship repair
Shipyard\a Newport News companies\b
---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
Fiscal Percent of Percent of Percent of
year Amount total Amount total Amount total
-------- -------- ------------ -------- ------------ -------- ------------
1994 $417.5 30.7 $681.6 50.1 $261.1 19.2
1995 428.8 30.4 552.1 39.2 428.6 30.4
1996 419.3 47.6 230.8 26.2 231.4 26.3
1997 373.3 31.6 546.6 46.2 263.3 22.3
1998 508.4 24.6 1,345.1 65.2 209.7 10.2
================================================================================
Percent 31.1 48.7 20.2
of
total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Obligations are for maintenance, modernization, materials, and
nuclear refueling work provided to the Norfolk Naval Shipyard,
Newport News, and other smaller private ship repair companies.
Dollar amounts do not include obligations for ship maintenance work
performed outside the Norfolk, Virginia, area.
\a Dollar amounts do not include work (approximately $63.7 million)
the Norfolk Naval Shipyard contracted out to private ship repair
companies. These amounts are included in the obligations for work
provided to private shipyards and repair companies.
\b Smaller private shipyards and repair companies do repair work on
conventional ships and are not qualified to do nuclear-related work.
Source: Our analysis of obligation data provided by the Navy
Comptroller, CNO, the Atlantic Fleet, and MSC.
Table 2 also shows that the smaller private shipyards and repair
companies received a much lower percentage of the total obligations
in fiscal year 1998 than in other years. There was less conventional
ship maintenance work--work historically allocated to smaller
shipyards and repair companies or to the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. For
example, the Navy reported that the total number of ships in the
Atlantic Fleet decreased from 191 in fiscal year 1994 to 165 in
fiscal year 1998. Similarly, the reported number of conventional
steam-powered ships, maintenance-intensive ships that smaller ship
repair companies have historically worked on, decreased in the
Atlantic Fleet from 38 to 26 between fiscal year 1994 and 1997, and
was projected to decrease to
23 ships during fiscal year 1998. According to Navy officials,
conventional steam-powered ships require more maintenance than other
ships because they are older and contain more mechanical parts than
newer ships, which have more reliable component systems that are
easier to remove, replace with new component systems, and repair
elsewhere.
PRIVATE SHIPYARDS AND REPAIR
COMPANIES RECEIVED LESS CNO
MAINTENANCE WORK THAN
INITIALLY SCHEDULED IN
FISCAL YEAR 1998
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3
During fiscal year 1998, the Navy provided the smaller private
shipyards and repair companies in the Norfolk area less conventional
maintenance work than initially scheduled in its private sector
planning report dated September 23, 1996.\9 This change occurred
largely for operational reasons and requirement changes and because
four conventional maintenance projects originally scheduled to go to
the private sector were reassigned to the Norfolk Naval Shipyard to
meet workload targets established for the public shipyard under the
Navy's guaranteed manday policy. Appendix III details the final
distribution of the CNO projects scheduled for fiscal year 1998.
In September 1996, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) issued the
Navy's private sector depot-level planning report for fiscal years
1997 and 1998.\10 The report contained CNO conventional maintenance
projects that were not yet funded but were tentatively planned for
allocation to the private shipyards and repair companies in the
Norfolk area in fiscal
years 1997 and 1998. Navy officials told us that the unfunded
schedule was recognized as being subject to change and changes did
subsequently occur. Nonetheless, some private shipyards and repair
companies expected to receive larger amounts of work than they
ultimately obtained because of the information in the report.
In fiscal year 1998, the Navy reduced the size of the maintenance
package for seven CNO maintenance projects and deferred one CNO
project to fiscal year 1999 because several ships scheduled for
maintenance needed less maintenance than expected and other Atlantic
Fleet ships needed more maintenance than scheduled, requiring the
Navy to transfer additional ship maintenance funds to those projects.
In addition, the Navy canceled three scheduled projects: the U.S.S.
Roberts project was canceled because the ship needed less maintenance
than expected, the U.S.S. Radford project was canceled because the
ship had operational commitments, and the U.S.S. Guam project was
canceled because the ship was decommissioned in August 1998.\11
During fiscal year 1998, the Navy also assigned the Norfolk Naval
Shipyard four CNO maintenance projects, initially scheduled for
competition in the private sector. This was done to meet workload
targets established for Norfolk Naval Shipyard under the Navy's
guaranteed manday policy. The objective of the Navy's guaranteed
manday policy is to match the workload to Norfolk Naval Shipyard's
workforce during the budget execution year since the shipyard's
workforce figures and related costs have already been committed in
the Navy's budget and workload reductions would result in losses.\12
Based on previous work, we believe that the guaranteed manday policy
is generally sound from a cost and operational standpoint because,
without it, the Norfolk Naval Shipyard would lose money as a result
of having work below the level required to support its budgeted
workforce.\13
Prior to fiscal year 1995, the Navy's shipyards reported significant
operating losses.\14 These losses were partly due to (1) fleet and
system commanders' operational and administrative decisions that
resulted in less work being assigned to the public shipyards than was
projected and budgeted for and (2) the Navy's lack of flexibility to
quickly deviate from the budgeted workforce because of Federal Civil
Service requirements that require workers be notified before they can
be separated. To minimize future departures from the budgeted
workload, the Navy implemented the guaranteed manday program. When
it is determined that the number of mandays originally budgeted for
the Norfolk Naval Shipyard will not be utilized, officials of CNO,
NAVSEA, the Atlantic Fleet, and Norfolk Naval Shipyard work together
to identify alternatives for realigning the maintenance workload to
better utilize the Norfolk Naval Shipyard budgeted workforce. These
alternatives include adjusting the scope of work for selected
maintenance projects, shifting funding from other Navy programs to
ship maintenance, and moving planned workload from private shipyards
and repair companies to Norfolk Naval Shipyard. We believe these
initiatives are consistent with Navy policies and without them the
Norfolk Naval Shipyard would lose money as a result of having work
below the level required to support its budgeted workforce.
--------------------
\9 Historically, the Navy has issued such a planning report
projecting its requirements for the upcoming 2 fiscal years in the
spring prior to initial year, thus providing the ship repair
companies more than
15 months to plan for the later fiscal year. The Navy eliminated the
report in 1997 because it was misinterpreted by the private sector as
representing the Navy's approved and funded CNO ship maintenance
schedule. Instead, the Navy now issues a 1-year CNO ship maintenance
and emergent mandays schedule that has been approved and funded, and
posts the schedule on the Navy's web site at the beginning of each
fiscal year. Officials of ship repair companies told us that the
schedule is posted too late under the Navy's current process to be
used in their planning cycle.
\10 Private Sector Depot Level Planning Report for Fiscal Years 1997
and 1998, NAVSEA Notice 4710 (Sept. 23, 1996).
\11 In addition to the Norfolk area, other geographic regions
experience descoped, deferred, and canceled CNO maintenance projects.
\12 Guidance for the Execution of Program Funds at Naval Shipyards,
CNO Instruction 7130.8
(Apr. 5, 1996).
\13 Navy Ship Maintenance: Temporary Duty Assignments of Temporarily
Excess Shipyard Personnel Are Reasonable (GAO/NSIAD-98-93, Apr. 21,
1998).
\14 Repair activities at public shipyards are financed through the
Navy's Working Capital Fund. Under the working capital fund concept,
activities sustain their operations by charging their customers for
goods and services based on predetermined rates designed to recover
the costs of operations. These rates are often established up to 18
months in advance of their use for a given year as part of an
agency's budget planning process. Working capital fund activities
are not expected to incur profits or losses, but to break even.
MOVEMENT OF FUNDS HAD
RELATIVELY LITTLE EFFECT ON THE
ATLANTIC FLEET'S SHIP DEPOT
MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
During fiscal years 1994 through 1998, the Navy transferred or
reprogrammed appropriated funds into and out of its ship depot
maintenance program.\15 However, the amounts transferred or
reprogrammed out of the Navy-wide ship depot maintenance program
generally did not adversely affect the Atlantic Fleet's ship depot
maintenance program, where more funds were transferred or
reprogrammed into the program than were moved out.
During fiscal years 1994 through 1998, the Navy transferred or
reprogrammed about $1.2 billion (about 10 percent of the total)
appropriated for its ship depot maintenance program to other Navy
programs. The majority of the transfers or reprogrammings were due
to one-time adjustments--changes that reflected the Navy's decisions
to move funds to and from various Navy accounts based on emerging or
unforeseen requirements. The Navy made these adjustments because of
(1) force structure reductions, (2) operations tempo increases, (3)
increased recruiting goals, and (4) administrative support needs.\16
Although there was a Navy-wide reduction in appropriated ship depot
maintenance funds due to program transfers or reprogrammings, the
reverse occurred in the Atlantic Fleet. During fiscal years 1994
through 1998, these transfers produced a net increase in the Atlantic
Fleet's ship maintenance funding. An analysis of the Fleet's data by
fiscal year shows only 1 year where a net decrease to the program
occurred--during fiscal year 1998 when the Navy moved $7.1 million
(less than 1 percent) of the Atlantic Fleet's ship maintenance funds
to other programs. (See table 3.)
Table 3
Status of Annual Appropriations
Allocated for Ship Depot Maintenance in
the Atlantic Fleet for Fiscal Years 1994
Through 1998
(Then-year dollars in millions)
Obligation
authority Final
Appropriations transferred to obligation
allocated for and from authority for
Atlantic Fleet Atlantic Fleet Atlantic Fleet
ship depot ship depot ship depot
Fiscal year maintenance\a maintenance\b maintenance
---------------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
1994 $930.6 +$20.1 $950.7
1995 1,237.3 +89.3 1,326.6
1996 971.0 +27.1 998.1
1997 997.4 +15.0 1,012.4
1998 913.7 -7.1 906.6
======================================================================
Total $5,050.0 +$158.6 $5,194.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Appropriated amount is the dollar amount appropriated, adjusted by
congressional actions in the applicable appropriation laws.
\b The "+" indicates a transfer into the Atlantic Fleet's ship depot
maintenance program; "-" indicates a transfer out of the Atlantic
Fleet's ship depot maintenance program.
Source: Our analysis of Navy's justification of budget estimates for
fiscal years 1994 through 1999 and funding data provided by the Navy
Comptroller's Office, CNO, and the Atlantic Fleet.
--------------------
\15 Transfers are when funds are moved from one budget account to
another and reprogrammings are when funds are switched from one
activity to another within the same account.
\16 Operations tempo increases included the costs of increasing fuel
requirements and deploying four additional aircraft carriers to the
Arabian Gulf. Increased recruiting goals included costs to support
increased infrastructure for accession, retention, and training
goals.
CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
The allocation of ship maintenance workload in the Norfolk, Virginia,
area is guided by legislative requirements and established Navy
policy objectives. During fiscal years 1994 through 1998, the
majority of ship maintenance funding allocated in the Norfolk area
went to the private sector. While Newport News received the largest
portion of that private funding, obligations to other smaller
shipyards and repair companies have fluctuated from year to year.
The greatest change occurred in fiscal
year 1998, when these smaller companies received less than in other
years and less than the Navy initially scheduled. This was largely
because the conventional workload that traditionally goes to these
companies is declining, scheduled maintenance and operational
requirements changed during fiscal year 1998, and four conventional
maintenance projects originally scheduled to go to the private sector
were reassigned to the Norfolk Naval Shipyard to stabilize and
achieve more efficient operations at the public shipyard. Lastly,
while the Navy did reprogram ship depot maintenance funds to meet
other priorities, the Atlantic Fleet's ship depot maintenance program
was not adversely affected because it received a slight increase over
the amount budgeted during fiscal years 1994 through 1998.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of
Defense. On January 21, 1999, DOD and NAVSEA officials said that
they concurred with the report. Additionally, on February 1, 1999,
Atlantic Fleet officials stated that the Fleet concurred with the
report.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1
We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking
Members, Senate Committees on Armed Services and on Appropriations,
and the House Committees on National Security and on Appropriations;
the Secretaries of Defense and the Navy; and Director, Office of
Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to others
upon request.
Please contact me on (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any
questions concerning the report. Major contributors to this report
are listed in appendix IV.
Sincerely yours,
David R. Warren, Director
Defense Management Issues
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I
During our review, we interviewed and obtained data from Department
of Navy officials, including from the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition;
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Navy for Financial Management
and Comptroller; Office of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for
Logistics; the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA); the Supervisor of
Shipbuilding (SUPSHIP) Portsmouth; SUPSHIP-Newport News; the Atlantic
Fleet; the Military Sealift Command (MSC); and the Norfolk Naval
Shipyard. We also obtained data from the Department of Defense (DOD)
Inspector General. In the private shipbuilding and repair industry,
we interviewed industry officials of the Shipbuilders Council of
America; the South Tidewater Association of Ship Repairers; Master
Ship Repair Agreement (Master Ship Repair) shipyards;\1 and Agreement
for Boat Repair (Boat Repair) companies\2 in the Norfolk area. Table
I.1 lists the master ship repair and boat repair companies we
visited.
Table I.1
Listing of Master Ship Repair and Boat
Repair Companies We Visited
Master Ship Repair companies Boat Repair companies
---------------------------------- ----------------------------------
Colonna's Shipyard, Inc. Associated Naval Architect
Earl Industries, Inc. Atlantic Ordnance and Gyro, Inc.
Marine Hydraulics International, Davis Boat Works, Inc.
Inc.
Metro Machine Holmes Brothers Enterprises, Inc.
Moon Engineering Lyon Shipyard, Inc.
Newport News Shipbuilding and Pure Water Technologies, Inc.
Drydock Company (Newport News)
Norfolk Shipbuilding and Drydock Technico Corporation
Corporation
Xenotechnix Corporation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We identified and reviewed DOD and Navy policies and instructions
that influence the allocation of ship maintenance work to public and
private ship repair facilities. Additionally, we interviewed Navy
officials to identify how the Navy actually implemented its policies
and procedures in the Norfolk area during fiscal years 1997 and 1998.
We interviewed also Navy and industry officials to determine the
reason for any variances, and concerns that may exist with the Navy's
current policies and procedures.
To identify the level of ship maintenance work allocated to the
Norfolk Naval Shipyard and the private sector during fiscal years
1994 through 1998, we focused on identifying all sources of funding
for ship maintenance work in the Norfolk area, including CNO
maintenance projects, emergent and miscellaneous availabilities,
modernization projects, and MSC projects. To identify obligations
for these funding sources, we used funding data from Navy budget
documents, program plans, and ship maintenance schedules.
Using reported obligations to measure completed ship maintenance
work, we performed two data analyses to provide a more effective
comparison of the maintenance work done by Norfolk Naval Shipyard and
private ship repair companies. First, we determined and analyzed
reported obligations for ship maintenance work allocated to Norfolk
Naval Shipyard and the private sector during fiscal years 1994
through 1998. Second, we separated reported obligations for Newport
News from the other smaller shipyards and repair companies in the
Norfolk area because Newport News, specializing in nuclear refueling
and major overhauls, performs larger and different types of
maintenance projects than the other shipyards and repair companies.
For the purposes of this review, this separation provided a more
meaningful comparison of maintenance workloads allocated to Norfolk
Naval Shipyard, Newport News, and other smaller private shipyards and
repair companies during fiscal years 1994 through 1998. We could not
readily separate conventional ship work from nuclear ship work. We
did not verify the validity of the Navy's ship maintenance and repair
requirements in the Norfolk area.
To contrast the level of scheduled and actual ship maintenance work
completed by private shipyards and repair companies in the Norfolk
area during fiscal year 1998, we focused on comparing the Navy's
schedule of CNO maintenance projects with actual projects provided to
the private sector. We examined Navy planning documents, including
the Navy's schedule of CNO maintenance projects and the NAVSEA Notice
4710, entitled Private Sector Depot Level Planning Report for Fiscal
Years 1997 and 1998. The 4710 notice contained the CNO
availabilities scheduled for the private sector and specified
solicitation area, contract type, solicitation method, and milestones
for 1998 maintenance projects. We examined NAVSEA and Atlantic Fleet
data that identified completed CNO maintenance projects during fiscal
year 1998 and where the work was performed. We compared and analyzed
the Navy's schedules of CNO maintenance projects with actual projects
completed by the private shipyards and repair companies in the
Norfolk area during this year to identify variances. We discussed
variances with NAVSEA and Atlantic Fleet officials to determine the
reasons some of these scheduled maintenance projects were descoped,
canceled, or transferred.
To identify the extent to which ship maintenance workloads in the
Norfolk area were affected by the migration of funding from the ship
depot maintenance program since fiscal year 1994, we examined a
variety of Navy budget documents. We examined and analyzed the
budget request, appropriated, current estimate, and actual obligated
funding levels during fiscal years 1994 through 1998, for Navy-wide
and Atlantic Fleet ship depot maintenance programs. We identified
and analyzed the differences between the annual appropriated, current
estimate, and actual obligated funding levels for ship depot
maintenance. We interviewed Navy officials and examined Navy
documents to determine the reasons for differences and their impact
on the ship depot maintenance program in the Norfolk area.
In performing this review, we used the same budget and accounting
systems, reports, and statistics DOD and the Navy use to manage and
monitor their ship depot maintenance program. Dollars amounts shown
in the report are the Navy's reported obligations to ship repair and
maintenance facilities in the Norfolk area and do not reflect actual
distribution of funds. We did not independently determine the
reliability of the reported obligation information. However, our
recent audit of the federal government's financial statements,
including DOD's and the Navy's statements, questioned the reliability
of reported obligation information because not all obligations and
expenditures are recorded to specific budgetary accounts.
We conducted our review from June 1998 to January 1999 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
--------------------
\1 Master Ship Repair companies perform complex ship repair and
overhaul work similar to the type of work performed by Norfolk Naval
Shipyard, usually at their own facilities.
\2 Boat Repair companies perform boat and craft repair work and
noncomplex work on Navy ships, usually at Norfolk Naval Shipyard
rather than their own facilities.
REPORTED OBLIGATIONS FOR SHIP
MAINTENANCE WORK PROVIDED TO
NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD, NEWPORT
NEWS, AND OTHER SMALLER PRIVATE
SHIPYARDS AND REPAIR COMPANIES
========================================================== Appendix II
Reported obligations for ship maintenance work provided to the
Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Newport News, and other smaller private
shipyards and repair facilities during fiscal year 1994 and 1998 are
presented in the following tables.
Table II.1
Reported Obligations for Ship
Maintenance Work Provided to the Norfolk
Naval Shipyard for Fiscal Years 1994
Through 1998
(Dollars in millions)
Less Norfolk
Naval Shipyard
Fi work
sc contracted to
al CNO Fleet Other Navy private ship
ye maintenance maintenance maintenance repair Total
ar work work work companies\a obligations
-- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ============
19 $194.3 $59.0 $168.7 ($4.5) $417.5
94
19 208.3 96.7 131.5 (7.7) 428.8
95
19 244.7 111.8 73.0 (10.2) 419.3
96
19 183.3 122.7 78.6 (11.4) 373.3
97
19 267.9 119.1 151.3 (29.9) 508.4
98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Obligations are for maintenance, modernization, materials, and
nuclear refueling work provided to the Norfolk Naval Shipyard.
\a Total funding for Norfolk Naval Shipyard work contracted to
Newport News and other smaller private ship repair companies.
Source: Our analysis of obligation data provided by the Navy
Comptroller, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), the Atlantic Fleet,
and MSC.
Table II.2
Reported Obligations for Ship
Maintenance Work Provided to Newport
News for Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1998
(Dollars in millions)
Fi Norfolk
sc Naval
al CNO Fleet MSC Shipyard Other Navy Total
ye maintenance maintenance maintenance maintenance maintenance obligati
ar work work work work work ons
-- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ --------
19 $55.0 $26.4 $570.0 $1.4 $28.8 $681.6
94
19 495.1 8.5 0 0.8 47.7 552.1
95
19 27.9 28.4 0 0.1 174.4 230.8
9
6
\
a
19 247.6 3.8 0 0.1 295.1 546.6
97
19 7.0 47.3 0 1.8 1,289.0 1,345.1
9
8
\
b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Obligations are for maintenance, modernization, materials, and
nuclear refueling work provided to Newport News. Dollar amounts do
not include obligations for ship maintenance work performed outside
the Norfolk, Virginia, area.
\a According to Navy officials, the Navy obligated Newport News less
of the ship maintenance program in fiscal year 1996 than any other
year during this period because there was less nuclear ship
maintenance work, historically allocated to Newport News or Norfolk
Naval Shipyard.
\b Most of the reported obligations for ship maintenance work
provided to Newport News in fiscal year 1998, nearly $1.3 billion,
was for a complex overhaul and nuclear refueling of the U.S.S.
Nimitz.
Source: Our analysis of obligation data provided by the Navy
Comptroller, CNO, the Atlantic Fleet, and MSC.
Table II.3
Reported Obligations for Ship
Maintenance Work Provided to Smaller
Private Shipyards and Repair Companies,
Excluding Newport News, for Fiscal Years
1994 Through 1998
(Dollars in millions)
Fi Norfolk
sc Naval
al CNO Fleet MSC Shipyard Other Navy Total
ye maintenance maintenance maintenance maintenance maintenance obligati
ar work work work work work ons
-- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ========
19 $73.1 $50.0 $75.1 $3.1 $59.8 $261.1
94
19 132.1 72.5 116.0 6.9 101.1 428.6
95
19 101.5 36.7 35.8 10.1 47.3 231.4
96
19 74.3 55.9 70.9 11.3 50.9 263.3
97
19 44.5 86.5 33.8 28.1 16.8 209.7
98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: Obligations are for maintenance, modernization, and
materials work provided to the smaller private ship repair companies
in the Norfolk area. Dollar amounts do not include obligations for
ship maintenance work performed outside the Norfolk, Virginia, area.
Note 2: Smaller private shipyards and repair companies do repair
work on conventional ships and are not qualified to do
nuclear-related work.
Source: Our analysis of obligation data provided by the Navy
Comptroller, CNO, the Atlantic Fleet, and MSC.
In discussing the previous data with Navy officials, we were told
that:
-- CNO maintenance projects declined significantly after peaking in
fiscal
year 1995.\1
According to Navy officials, obligations for CNO maintenance projects
provided to smaller ship repair companies declined significantly.
They said that the decline in requirements since 1995 was due
primarily to the decreasing numbers of ships in the Atlantic Fleet,
including steam-powered ships, which have historically been allocated
to smaller ship repair companies. The Navy also reduced the size of
19 CNO maintenance projects scheduled for private shipyards and
repair companies in fiscal years 1997 and 1998. Further, during
fiscal year 1998, the Navy deferred one and canceled three scheduled
CNO projects due to changing maintenance requirements and priorities
and transferred four projects to Norfolk Naval Shipyard to meet
workload targets established under its guaranteed manday policy.
-- According to Navy officials, obligations for ship maintenance
projects fluctuated during the period because their requirements
historically vary from year-to-year.\2 Additionally, reported
obligations for Fleet maintenance projects peaked in fiscal year
1998 because the Navy reduced the size of the maintenance
package for several CNO projects that were reclassified as Fleet
maintenance projects, thus increasing the number of Fleet
projects and related obligations.
-- Historically, maintenance workload requirements for MSC ships
fluctuate from year-to-year and the variances between 1994 and
1998 were typical.
-- Norfolk Naval Shipyard work contracted to ship repair companies
increased steadily during fiscal years 1994 through 1998.
Likewise, during this period, the Norfolk Naval Shipyard
gradually increased its use of temporary contract workers to
complete ship maintenance projects. According to Navy
officials, in selected cases it is cost-effective for Norfolk
Naval Shipyard to contract with private shipyards and repair
companies for skilled workers during periods of need rather than
employing them full-time as Norfolk Naval Shipyard employees.
Additionally, decreased personnel ceilings in the Navy have
limited the naval shipyards' workforce.
-- Obligations for other ship maintenance work, which includes ship
modernization projects, fluctuated during the period because the
Navy contracted with smaller private shipyards and repair
companies for installation of vertical launch systems in fiscal
years 1994 and 1995 and pollution abatement systems in fiscal
year 1997. Further, Navy officials said that funding
requirements for the Navy's modernization program have gradually
declined as older ships were decommissioned and newer ships
deployed.
--------------------
\1 CNO maintenance projects include depot-level maintenance that
require skills or facilities beyond those of the Navy's
organizational and intermediate maintenance levels and is performed
by public and private shipyards and repair activities.
\2 Fleet maintenance projects include emergent, restricted,
technical, and miscellaneous maintenance projects to complete
specific items of work during a short, labor-intensive time frame.
DISTRIBUTION OF CNO MAINTENANCE
PROJECTS SCHEDULED FOR THE PRIVATE
SECTOR IN FISCAL YEAR 1998
========================================================= Appendix III
Provided to the private ship
repair companies
----------------------------
No significant Diverted to
change in the Norfolk
Ship scope Descoped Deferred Canceled Naval Shipyard
------ -------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ --------------
U.S.S. Yes
Thorn
U.S.S. Yes
Nicho
las
U.S.S. Yes
Shrev
eport
U.S.S. Yes
Ponce
U.S.S. Yes
Whidb
ey
Islan
d
U.S.S. Yes
Grasp
U.S.S. Yes
Ashla
nd\a
U.S.S. Yes
Halyb
urton
U.S.S. Yes
Oak
Hill
U.S.S. Yes
Carter
Hill
U.S.S. Yes
Arctic
U.S.S. Yes
Vella
Gulf
U.S.S. Yes
Barry
U.S.S. Yes
Stout
U.S.S. Yes
Lamou
re
City\
b
U.S.S. Yes
Rober
ts
U.S.S. Yes
Radfo
rd
U.S.S. Yes
Guam
U.S.S. Yes
Anzio
\c
U.S.S. Yes
Cape
St
Georg
e\c
U.S.S. Yes
Nicho
lson
U.S.S. Yes
Elrod
================================================================================
Total 7 7 1 3 4
count
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: In addition to the Norfolk area, other geographic regions
experience descoped, deferred, and canceled CNO maintenance projects.
\a Newport News won the maintenance contract for the U.S.S. Ashland.
\b Rescheduled for fiscal year 1999.
\c Maintenance projects for these ships were descoped before the
Atlantic Fleet sent them to Norfolk Naval Shipyard.
Source: Our analysis of the Navy's Private Sector Depot Level
Planning Report for Fiscal
Year 1997 and 1998, NAVSEA Notice 4710 (Sept. 23, 1996) and
execution data provided by CNO, NAVSEA, and the Atlantic Fleet.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix IV
NATIONAL SECURITY AND
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Barry W. Holman, Associate Director
Julia C. Denman, Assistant Director
Mark A. Little, Evaluator-in-Charge
Claudia J. Dickey, Senior Evaluator
Raymond C. Cooksey, Senior Evaluator
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL
John G. Brosnan, Assistant General Council
Stephanie J. May, Senior Attorney
NORFOLK FIELD OFFICE
Tracy M. Whitaker, Evaluator
RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
============================================================ Chapter 0
Defense Depot Maintenance: Public and Private Sector Workload
Distribution Reporting Can Be Further Improved (GAO/NSIAD-98-175,
July 23, 1998).
Defense Depot Maintenance: Contracting Approaches Should Address
Workload Characteristics (GAO/NSIAD-98-130, June 15, 1998).
Defense Depot Maintenance: Use of Public-Private Partnership
Arrangements (GAO/NSIAD-98-91, May 7, 1998).
Navy Ship Maintenance: Temporary Duty Assignments of Temporarily
Excess Shipyard Personnel Are Reasonable (GAO/NSIAD-98-93, Apr. 21,
1998).
Public-Private Competitions: DOD's Additional Support for Combining
Depot Workloads Contains Weaknesses (GAO/NSIAD-98-143, Apr. 17,
1998).
Defense Depot Maintenance: DOD Shifting More Workload for New Weapon
Systems to the Private Sector (GAO/NSIAD-98-8, Mar. 31, 1998).
Public-Private Competitions: DOD's Determination to Combine Depot
Workloads Is Not Adequately Supported (GAO/NSIAD-98-76, Jan. 20,
1998).
Defense Depot Maintenance: Information on Public and Private Sector
Workload Allocations (GAO/NSIAD-98-41, Jan. 20, 1998).
Navy Regional Maintenance: Substantial Opportunities Exist to Build
on Infrastructure Streamlining Progress (GAO/NSIAD-98-4, Nov. 13,
1997).
Navy Depot Maintenance: Privatizing Louisville Operations in Place
Is Not Cost-Effective (GAO/NSIAD-97-52, July 31, 1997).
Defense Depot Maintenance: Challenges Facing DOD in Managing Working
Capital Funds (GAO/T-NSIAD/AIMD-97-152, May 7, 1997).
Depot Maintenance: Uncertainties and Challenges DOD Faces in
Restructuring Its Depot Maintenance Program (GAO/T-NSIAD-97-112, May
1, 1997) and (GAO/T-NSIAD-97-111, Mar. 18, 1997).
Navy Depot Maintenance: Cost and Savings Issues Related to
Privatizing-in-Place at the Louisville, Kentucky, Depot
(GAO/NSIAD-96-202, Sept. 18, 1996).
Defense Depot Maintenance: More Comprehensive and Consistent
Workload Data Needed for Decisionmakers (GAO/NSIAD-96-166, May 21,
1996).
Defense Depot Maintenance: Privatization and the Debate Over the
Public-Private Mix (GAO/T-NSIAD-96-148, Apr. 17, 1996) and
(GAO/T-NSIAD-96-146, Apr. 16, 1996).
Depot Maintenance: Opportunities to Privatize Repair of Military
Engines (GAO/NSIAD-96-33, Mar. 5, 1996).
Closing Maintenance Depots: Savings, Personnel, and Workload,
Redistribution Issues (GAO/NSIAD-96-29, Mar. 4, 1996).
Navy Maintenance: Assessment of the Public and Private Shipyard
Competition Program (GAO/NSIAD-94-184, May 25, 1994).
Depot Maintenance: Issues in Allocating Workload Between the Public
and Private Sectors (GAO/T-NSIAD-94-161, Apr. 12, 1994).
*** End of document. ***
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
