[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 115-114]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS HEARING
ON
ARMY AND MARINE CORPS
DEPOT POLICY ISSUES AND
INFRASTRUCTURE CONCERNS
__________
HEARING HELD
JUNE 28, 2018
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
33-387 WASHINGTON : 2019
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman
ROB BISHOP, Utah MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona, Vice Chair ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi RO KHANNA, California
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
Andrew Warren, Professional Staff Member
Brian Garrett, Professional Staff Member
Megan Handal, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate from Guam, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Readiness.............................. 2
Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Readiness...................................... 1
WITNESSES
Piggee, LTG Aundre F., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, U.S. Army 3
Shrader, BGen Joseph F., USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps
Logistics Command, U.S. Marine Corps........................... 4
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z................................... 24
Piggee, LTG Aundre F......................................... 26
Shrader, BGen Joseph F....................................... 35
Wilson, Hon. Joe............................................. 23
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Carbajal................................................. 43
Mr. Rogers................................................... 44
Mr. Scott.................................................... 43
Mr. Wilson................................................... 43
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Rogers................................................... 47
Mr. Wilson................................................... 47
ARMY AND MARINE CORPS DEPOT POLICY ISSUES AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONCERNS
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Readiness,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, Thursday, June 28, 2018.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 8:30 a.m., in
Room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Mr. Wilson. Good morning. I call the House Armed Services
Subcommittee on Readiness to order.
I want to welcome you to this morning's hearing, and would
like to thank our witnesses for being here today to discuss the
defense organic industrial base, and the significant role it
has in maintaining and restoring readiness back to our armed
services.
This hearing will specifically focus on the current state
of the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps
depot policy issues and infrastructure concerns. Our depots,
arsenals, and ammunition production facilities are critical to
this country's ability to project power and to properly train
and equip our warfighters. The sustainment industrial base
provides the backbone for the military to respond to a variety
of contingencies, surge capacity, and provide unique solutions
to requirements. Our readiness recovery is fragile, and to me,
it is important to understand exactly what is in jeopardy.
During this hearing, I would like you to help us answer
this basic question: In terms of risk, what does it mean to our
national security, particularly our sustainment industrial
base, to have failing depot infrastructure, lagging technology
to properly repair and refurbish our equipment, combat vehicles
waiting for depot maintenance, and a workforce that it often
takes in excess of 180 days to recruit and hire?
The depots saw diminished workloads when the major combat
operations ended in Iraq and Afghanistan. This decreased
workload, coupled with unpredictable budgets and continuing
resolutions, forced the services to divest a portion of the
technically skilled workforce and limit reinvestment into depot
facilities.
We know these variables have significant effects on the
people, depot rates, and long-term organic industrial base
viability. We are particularly interested in your proposed
solutions relating--related to the carryover infrastructures,
strategic planning, and civilian hiring. We want to hear what
the issues are from your perspective and how they are impacting
on your mission.
It is our responsibility as members of the subcommittee to
understand the readiness challenges of our armed services and
how the resources and authorities provided impact capabilities
this Nation needs.
Before I introduce the witnesses, I turn to the
distinguished ranking member, Madeleine Bordallo, the very
appreciated gentlelady from Guam, for her opening comments that
she would like to make.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the
Appendix on page 23.]
STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE FROM GUAM,
RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you to our witnesses for being here.
I think that we all agree that when the American public
thinks of the terms ``national defense,'' they envision our
proud service members stationed around the world and the
equipment, the ships, the tanks, and aircraft, that we supply
so they can carry out their missions. But what is not often
thought of are the capabilities needed to maintain these
assets, especially the depots and shipyards of the organic
industrial base that play a critical role in the readiness of
our military forces.
Without properly maintained ships, vehicles, aircraft, and
weapon systems, our forces cannot perform necessary training
required to build readiness or meet the operational
requirements that are placed upon them.
I am concerned that in a year where readiness has been
cited as the Department's [Department of Defense's] top
priority, the Department's budget request falls well short of
meeting the total depot maintenance requirement for the Army
and the Marine Corps. So when questioned about why these
accounts were not funded to 100 percent of the requirement, the
Department stated that the accounts were funded to the maximum
executable rate. Thus far, no analysis has been shared with the
committee on how the maximum executable rate was calculated, or
what the limiting factors are to increasing execution rates.
I have long stated that just as important as it is to
provide our service members with new, modernized equipment, we
must fully maintain the assets that we already have. So I hope
that our witnesses can share their perspectives on this
particular issue today.
Your workforce is the backbone of your depot operations.
This diverse assembly of people possess invaluable skills and
expertise that must be cultivated, taking years of schooling
and experience to acquire. Keeping a workforce of such caliber
requires constant effort to hire, train, and retain. Past NDAA
[National Defense Authorization Act] provisions have granted
additional authorities allowing depots to expedite hiring, so I
look forward to hearing of these provisions, if they are
sufficient or whether additional changes are necessary.
Without our depots, our ability to ensure the safety of our
Nation and pursue our national interests are severely impacted.
So, gentlemen, your depots must accomplish their missions.
If we are going to rebuild readiness, we need to ensure
that the depot maintenance accounts are fully funded to meet
the requirement. If there are policies, authorities, workforce,
infrastructure, or other challenges that are impediments to
increasing the execution rates of the depots, this subcommittee
needs to hear about them.
So I look forward to hearing your testimony on the
challenges that our depots are experiencing in personnel,
operations, and infrastructure management, and how this
subcommittee can help you to address them.
I thank you. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bordallo can be found in the
Appendix on page 24.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ranking Member Madeleine Bordallo.
I am grateful to recognize our witnesses today and I want
to thank them for their service to our Nation. We have
Lieutenant General Aundre Piggee, the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-
4, United States Army; and Brigadier General Joseph F. Shrader,
the Commanding General, Marine Corps Logistics Command.
I would like to welcome Lieutenant General Piggee back to
the Readiness Subcommittee and thank you for your continued
service to the Army and our Nation.
I would also like to congratulate Brigadier General Shrader
for his recent assumption of command at Albany, Georgia, of the
Marine Corps Logistics Command and his first opportunity to
testify before the subcommittee.
Before we begin, I would like to remind the witnesses your
written statement will be submitted for the record and ask you
summarize your comments to 5 minutes or less. And we will
immediately begin with General Piggee.
STATEMENT OF LTG AUNDRE F. PIGGEE, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF,
G-4, U.S. ARMY
General Piggee. Good morning. And, Chairman Wilson, Ranking
Member Bordallo and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
thank you for this opportunity to testify on our organic
industrial base and our ongoing initiatives in support of its
revitalization. On behalf of Secretary Esper and General
Milley, I would like to express our gratitude for your
continued strong support.
We face a security environment more complex and volatile
than any we have experienced in recent history. To maintain
effectiveness we must continue to focus on readiness,
modernization, and reform. A key component of readiness is the
Army's OIB [Organic Industrial Base]. This $14 billion
enterprise consists of 23 ammunition plants, depots, and
manufacturing arsenals that generate readiness and operational
capability throughout Army formations. When the force needs
equipment or parts manufactured, repaired, upgraded, the OIB
delivers.
Although the OIB reliably generates readiness, it has
largely been reactive to emerging threats. The reactive model
does not allow us to modernize efficiently. In order to
improve, we are embracing opportunities for change. We are
implementing new tools and processes for better forecasting
workload, ensuring our work is aligned with our highest
readiness priorities through our sustainment readiness model.
We are collaborating with industry to share our best practices
and to integrate top-tier technology, and we are developing a
long-term plan for infrastructure and equipment modernization.
We won't achieve any of our goals without the highly
skilled workforce comprised of dedicated tradesmen with
critical skills, including mechanics, welders, and engineers.
Fifty percent of our workforce is over the age of 50. We are
developing a succession plan to make sure we retain critical
skill sets as these skilled artisans retire. On average it
takes about 10 years to train an apprentice to be a journeyman.
The math makes it clear we need the flexibility to quickly hire
and retain the right talent.
We have used the recently granted direct and expedited
hiring authority to hire almost 500 new employees. The
increased efficiency that we have gained is essential in our
workforce succession plan. Among the things I will ask for
today is those hiring authorities to be made permanent.
We also are focusing on modernizing our facilities, many of
which are overdue for an upgrade. We plan to increase our
infrastructure investments, strategically allocating those
resources available to modernize the most antiquated,
unreliable, and inefficient machinery and buildings.
Along with short-term investments, we are developing a plan
to access the scope and focus of the long-term modernization
efforts. Improvements like raising the minor MILCON [military
construction] threshold and allowing us to use operation and
maintenance funding to convert our facilities will help us
reach our goals faster. We appreciate any flexibility you can
provide to help us upgrade in the future.
The OIB has been effective at generating readiness for
today's needs. Now, we ensure that it must be adept for
tomorrow's requirements. We must hire and retain a talented
workforce, modernize our facilities, and incorporate emerging
technologies and, above all, have the flexibility to revitalize
the industrial base as efficiently as possible.
I thank each of you for allowing me to testify today. Your
support will enable us to continue to sustain and equip our
best fighting force in the world. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General Piggee can be found in
the Appendix on page 26.]
Mr. Wilson. And thank you very much, General Piggee. And it
was encouraging to hear addressing the hiring issue. Thank you
very much.
General Shrader.
STATEMENT OF BGEN JOSEPH F. SHRADER, USMC, COMMANDING GENERAL,
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS COMMAND, U.S. MARINE CORPS
General Shrader. Good morning. Chairman Wilson, Ranking
Member Bordallo, and distinguished members of the House Armed
Services Committee on Readiness, thank you for the opportunity
to testify on this important topic.
The Marine Corps is advancing toward becoming a 2025 and
beyond capable warfighting force. Technologically advanced
vehicles, weapons, and C-2 [command and control] systems are
being fielded. The information environment is now a warfighting
domain with its own unique equipping and sustainment
challenges. And our adversaries around the globe continue their
efforts to close capability gaps every day.
The Marine Corps must have equally advanced organic depot
capabilities to meet the potential demands of this future
warfighting environment. To meet these demands, we are focused
on advancements in the following areas: First, digital
manufacturing. We are investing in innovative and advanced
manufacturing capabilities, such as 3D [three-dimensional]
printing and laser scanning technologies, in an effort to
augment the repair part supply chain, improve response time,
and drive down costs.
The second area we are pursuing is conditions-based
maintenance processes and practices. The goal of our
conditions-based maintenance effort is to optimize our
equipment and inspect and repair as needed, and annual depot
maintenance cycle processes by improving our ability to predict
depot-level repairs based on data-driven, real-time diagnostics
vice using a standards, time-based scheduled maintenance
process.
The third area is equipment long-term storage and
prepositioning. Readiness of the Marine Corps strategic war
reserves and maritime prepositioning programs rely heavily on
our organic depot storage and maintenance capability. Along
with the advanced manufacturing initiatives that I spoke of, we
are pursuing technologies to fully automate our inventory
control, storage, and supply chain processes from the strategic
level down to the individual Marine at the tactical edge on the
battlefield.
The fourth area is partnering with industry and other
service depots. In my commander's guidance, which I issued last
week when I assumed command, I direct that we must mind other
service depots in our private sector industrial base partner
capabilities which are critical to our readiness and our
ability to provide supplies and surge support. We rely heavily
on their capability and capacity, and will seek every
opportunity to ensure our organic capabilities are
complementary and aligned.
Last but certainly not least is our workforce, specifically
recruiting, hiring, and sustaining a highly capable mission-
ready workforce. I would like to take this opportunity to thank
the Congress for the direct hiring authorities you provided us
in the recent NDAA. Through these special authorities, we are
able to recruit and hire on a timeline which is comparable to
industry, giving us the ability to more efficiently fill our
most critical positions. We very much appreciate these
authorities, and would like to encourage the Congress to make
them permanent.
In closing, I want to thank you again for the opportunity
to testify, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Shrader can be found in
the Appendix on page 35.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, General.
And your reference to digital manufacturing--I thought that
the barcode was revolutionary. You are taking it to another
step.
[Laughter.]
My goodness, what a challenge, but what is being accepted,
and what opportunity you have.
As a reminder to all the members, including me, we will
adhere to the 5-minute rule for questions on the witnesses,
which is monitored ably by our professional staff member,
Andrew Warren.
And we will begin. For each of you, aside from the
meeting--aside from meeting the 6 percent statutory requirement
for capital investments for depots, does the Army and the
Marine Corps have an estimated backlog of the total facility
and utility maintenance, and repair backlog for all of the
depots? If so, how much is it, and what is the plan to resource
the requirement?
And General Piggee, please.
General Piggee. Thank you, sir, and thank you for that
question.
Sir, we have aging, failed, and--failed, and failing
facilities. We have invested more than close to a billion
dollars over the past 10 years to modernize our facilities, as
well as our equipment. We have a plan for the near term to make
almost $400 million investment in the future, as we go forward.
However, we are in the process of a more holistic, long-
term view to ensure that we have the appropriate facilities,
modernization of our machinery and equipment. We--that long-
term view, we look out toward 2030. That assessment is ongoing.
We expect to conclude that assessment sometime after the first
of this calendar year.
As you know, some of our facilities are World War II
vintage. And at those locations--Holston and Radford come to
mind--we have a combination of those World War II facilities,
which are still in operation and being productive, and we have
some of the state-of-the-art, new facilities that we have
recently installed and brought online.
Our goal is to eliminate that old, failed, or failing
infrastructure as we modernize across all of our 23 depots
throughout the OIB. We think we have a sufficient plan in the
near term, and we are consistent--we are conducting an overall
holistic assessment to see where we think we would need for, as
we go forward, to about 2030, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
And General Shrader.
General Shrader. Sir, good morning, and thank you for the
question.
So facilities, in terms of a backlog; so the Marine Corps
has, not necessarily within my portfolio, the Marine Corps
looks at its facilities under the Marine Corps Installations
Command and it's a holistic look, as I understand, across the
Marine Corps.
From the depot perspective, I will tell you that one of the
things that we--I believe we need to get at, from just what I
have seen over the last week and a half or so, is our
facilities in terms of storage, being able to get our equipment
that is both in Albany and out in California out of the
elements.
I think that there is a business case, I believe there is,
intuitively, there is a business case to be made for the money
that we put into maintaining the equipment because of the
effects of the elements. If we had the storage facilities to
get them out of that, we could then take that money and maybe
repurpose it into some other uses concerning maintenance.
Equipment is along the same lines. The backlog, I asked
that question last week in one of my turnover briefs. And the
answers that I am getting right now, sir, is there is not a
backlog, in terms of we are able to execute what is planned for
the fiscal year. Is there equipment out there that, if we were
able to have more time and get it in? I believe there is some
equipment out there that is in condition codes that would
require us to get it into depot-level maintenance.
This is one of the questions that I am going to get after
in the near future here, sir, and if I could maybe take that
one for the record, in terms of specifics, in terms of backlog.
Sir, thank you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 43.]
Mr. Wilson. And--and thank you for your commitment to do
that.
And for each of you, we recognize the uncertain fiscal
environments are one of your significant challenges, when it
comes to executing depot maintenance. Can you elaborate on the
challenge, and how continuing resolutions have affected the
depot production for the Army or Marine Corps?
General Piggee. Yes, sir, I would like to comment on that
perspective.
Sir, late receipt of funds impact our ability to plan and
program. It impacts our second- and third-tier contractors.
Sometimes they are sole-source, small companies; mom-and-pop
with a small workforce. And what they look for with us is
predictability in funding and consistently, so they have the
funds and appropriate personnel. These are skilled personnel
that they need to maintain and retain.
Workload continues to be our prime mission. We execute our
workload based on sustainable readiness model. We develop our
workload based on next to deploy, those units that are
deploying. Those are going to the national training centers,
our combat training centers throughout the Army, and those
major exercises that we execute around the world.
It is very challenging, if we receive funds late, to
execute those missions and to perform tasks within the given
year. And my time is almost up, but I would like to talk about
that a little bit more, but that is how we generally organize
our workload on an annual basis.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you.
General Shrader.
General Shrader. Sir, I would echo everything that the
lieutenant general said. The CRs [continuing resolutions], in
the very beginning--that is one of the assumptions that you use
in going into planning a maintenance cycle for the year. And if
that key assumption is off--how many CRs can we expect, and
when are we expecting the budget to be able to come to us to
execute--if that is off, then it has a ripple effect throughout
the year.
And when you have multiple CRs like that, sir, like we have
seen in the past, it just exemplary--or it just compounds that
ripple effect. And so you find yourself at the end of the year,
6 months, trying to execute 12 months' worth of funding and 12
months' worth of planned work. So, yes, sir.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
We will now proceed to Congresswoman--Ranking Member
Madeleine Bordallo of the beautiful territory of Guam.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You always make my
day.
This question is for both of you. General Piggee, can you
discuss the benefits permanent civilian personnel provide as
part of your workforce at your depots and shipyards, and
suggested strategies for continuing to incentivize and retain
this part of your workforce?
General Piggee. Yes, ma'am, and thank you.
Our permanent employees are absolutely critical to success.
As I talked about in my opening statement, it takes upwards of
10 years sometimes to properly train our artisans from a
journeyman--from an apprentice to a journeyman. We are able to
manage our workload and incentivize those permanent party--
permanent employees by assisting with hiring temp [temporary]
and term employees, and in some cases, contract capability.
We utilize the entire workforce, both permanent, temp, and
term, to manage the workload as it increases throughout the
course of the year, based on specific requirements that we
think are not long term, and the ability to have, in addition
to our permanent employees, our temp and term employees. Those
term employees also have an opportunity as our aging workforce
retire, those are where we select that skilled workforce that
are already trained to replace those artisans that we have in
place in a permanent capacity.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
General Shrader.
General Shrader. Yes, ma'am. Again echoing what the
lieutenant general said, I think what I would say is two
things. One is, we believe if you take care of the people, the
people take care of the mission, and the command, under my
predecessor, he issued a Workforce 21 Plan that has six
overarching goals in it to try to grow that workforce, right
size, right skill sets for the future.
But we look at that workforce, ma'am, as it is the backbone
of our depot maintenance and it is the DNA [deoxyribonucleic
acid] of the organization. So we really have to mind that.
Some recommendation, ma'am, that is kind of outside of our
four walls but acts--absolutely impacts us is STEM [science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics] programs within our
education departments. I think that we ought to really take a
look at trying to foster that. In my previous job at Quantico,
we worked with the local high school there to foster STEM
programs and work with those students in science, technology,
engineering, and math. And those are feeders, so into our
intern programs and all that, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you, General.
My second question is for the both of you two. How does the
Army and Marine Corps assess the maximum executable level of
depot workload when developing the budget request? And what are
the primary factors that limit the ability to increase the
maximum executable, am I saying that right, executable level?
And with you, General, please?
General Piggee. Yes, ma'am, thank you. Performance to
execution; we determine our workload based on next-to-deploy
units, the training that is going to be conducted, and
facilities and workforce available. To date, we have sufficient
capacity and skilled artisans to perform the work that we have
been asked to perform.
Again, we have the flexibility with using our permanent
employees, as well as our temp, term, and contract capability.
So currently we do not have a backlog. However, what I will
tell you when we receive work late in the year, in the year of
execution it changes our priority. And when we have receipt of
funds late it impacts our ability to execute that work in the
course of that year.
I know we will talk a little bit about carryover later, but
we think to a degree carryover is good for us. It allows us to
have predictable work for our workforce, also for our second-
and third-tier contractors where they can have predictability
of managing their workforce and their supply chain.
Ms. Bordallo. And General.
General Shrader. Yes, ma'am. Sort of the same process; we
take a holistic approach. We look at the operating forces and
what they need first to be able to do their mission, fight
tonight, if you will, and what they need to do that.
Then we look at the war reserves. And then we look at what
is in prepositioning from a holistic standpoint. And then we
build the equipment, master schedule, master work schedule;
what is going to come through the depot maintenance program
throughout the year.
Things that impact, and again it goes back to kind of the--
I think the basic fundamental would be funding, enabling what
we do. So when we receive that funding and being able to
execute that and stay up with that schedule that we have set in
place at the beginning of the year is critical. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you Congresswoman Bordallo. We now
proceed to Congressman Austin Scott of Georgia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Chairman.
Gentlemen, you both spoke to the improvements in your
physical infrastructure. Could you speak briefly to
improvements in information technology systems and what changes
you expect there? And then also to the way artificial
intelligence [AI], or machine learning, is going to have the
ability to help make the maintenance cycles more predictable
and precise?
General Piggee. Yes, sir, thank you. Sir, you will often
hear our Secretary and Chief, General Milley, often speak of
taking advantage of AI, taking advantage of robotics, taking
advantage of technology today.
In fact, we have tasked General Perna in the Army Materiel
Command to establish a center of excellence for additive
manufacturing at--at Rock Island, Illinois, where they will
develop techniques, processes, and procedures that they will be
responsible to proliferate throughout the Army, where we can
take advantage of this additive manufacturing and other machine
learning with the intention of reducing workload, becoming more
efficient and taking advantage of today's technology that will
allow us to be more efficient.
We are looking at 3D printing. We have 3D printing
available in 16 of our depots today. We--when we--our supply
chain is not able to provide the next--the necessary repair
parts in a timely manner, we found that we can 3D print parts
which reduces the amount of time we wait for our supply system.
We have also found that we can 3D print special tools in some
cases. Again, allowing us to be more effective and efficient in
production of our supply chain.
We are also looking at the condition-based maintenance
where we put sensors on our equipment, where we can sense
failures before they fail, where we can replace widgets vice
major end items at a much reduced cost. This will require our
depots to take advantage of that techniques today that is
available. They are in the commercial industry and we are
taking advantage of those today in our depots.
General Shrader. Sir, the only thing I would add to that is
inventory control. Inventory control that--the vision that I
would have for inventory control is if you can imagine walking
into a warehouse and you have everything in that warehouse that
is coded with RFID [radio-frequency identification] tags. And
then you have a set of robotics, whether they--whether they fly
or they are ground-mounted robotics. They go through and they
are tied into a Wi-Fi network that is within this warehouse
that can, as it moves, it can just scan.
And it feeds into a C2 system that has everything loaded
into it that would be on our GCSS [Global Combat Support
System] Marine Corps system. It's loaded into it and you know
instantly what you have on the shelves, what condition it is
in, what needs to be ordered, so on and so forth.
So it is from inventory to having control over that
inventory, to being able to order what you need and then
feeding into the supply chain. So it is just this constant
system that I am talking about, that is an IT [information
technology] system, that is from end to end knowing what you
have, inventorying it and knowing what you have, and then being
able to order it and replenish it. So that is--it is kind of a
vision, sir.
Mr. Scott. With regard to one, I am glad that we use as
many small businesses outside of the depots as we can for the
CNC [computer numerical control] machining and other things.
And I hope we will continue to do that.
My question gets to, as we use those small employers that
are out there, what steps are being taken to help them with
cybersecurity to make sure that our technology is not stolen
from? We have to share that information with those small
employers for them to be able to manufacture the parts for us.
What steps is the DOD [Department of Defense] taking, with
regard to cyber, to make sure that our intellectual property is
not stolen from those small employers?
General Piggee. So, that is an issue for our entire
government, and specifically our Army and our depots. In the
past, our logistics systems have probably been the weakest with
respect to cyber and defending against cyber. We are having
dialogues with what our challenges are, sharing with them our
best practices and--and lessons learned, and I would like to
get a little bit additional information to provide you for the
record----
Mr. Scott. That is fine.
General Piggee. Exactly what our techniques are with
sharing with our smaller partners.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 43.]
Mr. Scott. That is fine.
General Shrader. Sir, I would just tell you, my previous
job, that is what you are talking about, is an ATO process,
authority to operate process. So any time we put a system,
build a system, design a system software, put it online, it has
to go through that process, and there are certain security
checks to go into that so that we are assured, and our industry
partners are insured, any kind of information we get from them
and load it into that system, it is protected. So it is kind of
a good faith effort that we have in place, working with a--with
industry. But there is an ATO, authority to operate process
that we go through that looks at that cybersecurity question.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, gentlemen.
General Shrader. Sir.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Congressman Austin Scott.
We now proceed to Congressman Don McEachin of Virginia.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this question is
for both--both of you, please. I know that the Navy has
developed a shipyard recapitalization plan to address some of
the same kinds of challenges that the--that the Army and Marine
Corps depots face. I understand that the Army is moving in a
similar direction. If depots across the service face similar
challenges in terms of age, configuration of these facilities,
and if they share a similar mission, then I assume there must
be some value in sharing information, and perhaps coordinating
the services.
As all the services plan for the future of their respective
depots, is there any effort to do department-wide planning, or
to look for opportunities where a joint approach or joint
efforts could be valuable? And if no such effort is in the
works, is there a project in which either of you sees--is this
a project in which either of you sees a potential value?
General Piggee. And thank you, sir. And this is a--not a
competitive environment with us in the services. We work
together. We have work groups where we share information. As
you probably are aware of, we do work for the other services.
We do M1A1 [Abrams] tanks for the Marines, we do MRAPs [mine
resistant ambushed protected vehicles] for the Marines and the
Navy, and we do HH-60s [Pave Hawk helicopters] at Corpus
Christi for the Air Force. And in our work groups, we determine
the best capability, where it might exist, with the most
economical value for the services.
Are there opportunities for us to refine and do that
better? I would say probably so, but I think we have a system
in place now through our work groups and our various committees
in working with the other services where we do specifically
talk about our workload, and how we can balance that together
from a joint force perspective.
General Shrader. Sir, I will tell you this. As I get my
arms around this job, one--it is acronym overload, and one of
the acronyms that has been thrown at me is DMISA, and what that
is is depot maintenance interservice agreement. So I ask, you
know, what does that mean? And it essentially means, like, the
Army has their 23 depots. The Marine Corps has two depots.
There is Air Force and Navy depots that we, because we are the
smaller, we really have to rely on them for their centers of
excellence that do that equipment, as--the same with us. There
is equipment that we do, as the general said, for them, like
MRAPs for the Air Force, and so on.
But there is a--my understanding is, is there is a, I want
to say, formal process through this DMISA, depot maintenance
interservice agreement, where we look at that to make sure that
it is complementary and aligned; that there is no duplicative
efforts, and if they are duplicate, there is a reason why we
are doing it. So yes, sir.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you for that.
One of my concerns about our military installations is
energy resiliency. Can either of you speak to the resiliency of
your depots, specifically, relative to other kinds of
installation? And would you mind speaking, in particular, to
any potential role for clean energy, as we work towards greater
resiliency?
General Piggee. Sir, as you know, we have a combination of
older World War II-version depots and arsenals, and we have
some more modern facilities, and in some cases, we have World
War II and modern facilities combined together.
As we establish our new modernization plan, we are taking
energy well into consideration, taking advantage of the latest
technologies and capabilities that are out there. We have work
to do. We work with our local partners in the communities that
we reside to take advantage of their capabilities that exist. I
will tell you that there is work to be done in that area, but
we are taking into full consideration, as we modernize our
industrial base, taking advantage of clean energy and green
energy, and working with our partners to learn best practices.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you.
General Shrader. Sir, aboard Albany, we have recently
completed, it is with Georgia Power, a solar-renewable plant
that was--I mean, there is a huge--I don't know how many acres
it covers, it's very large--set of solar panels out there that
we have a direct line that feeds into the depot, so that when
it's charging and producing power, we tap into that. So that is
one, I think, a huge win at Albany.
The second thing is they are also putting in a geo-cooling
and thermal system there aboard Albany that is also helping us
better manage the grid, if you will, down there. And then the
other thing is, you know, we were recently hit with a tornado
that came through, and some of the things that I have read that
occurred there, one of the benefits, or I guess, one of the
wins out of that was they had a backup generator process there
within the base, that when the tornado came through, it was
very minimal time that they were out of power and unable to
perform the mission in facilities that were there.
But in closing, they are really focusing on renewable
energy, being able to, if something were to happen to the
energy grid, the depots are still up and running. So yes, sir.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you for that.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you very much, Congressman Don
McEachin.
We now proceed to Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler of Missouri.
Mrs. Hartzler. All right, thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen.
General Piggee, I was interested in your comments, because
I am very interested and supportive of Lake City Ammunition
Plant, which is just outside of Kansas City, very close to my
district. It employs many people from my district, and your
comments are certainly spot-on, this being a World War II
facility.
When I first visited, I was, frankly, fairly shocked at all
of the--the condition and the number of buildings there that
are just--needed to be razed. They have been over time, but in
total, the government-owned and contracted operated sites, of
which Lake City is one of them--there is--of the four largest
ones of those constructed during World War II that collectively
encompass a total of 33,000 acres, with approximately 2,500
buildings, and, yeah. Many of them contain heavy industrial
equipment requiring maintenance automation. And we have been
maintaining there. The time I was there last year, I saw a big
difference in the modernization and the improvements that are
being made there to modernize.
But, you know, this has been a problem over time, with not
enough funding. I was pleased in fiscal year 2017 that Congress
provided Army with additional funds to address this aging
infrastructure, and then fiscal year 2018, the Army finally
requested a sufficient increase through the unfunded
requirements list, which was approved by Congress. And this
year, I was very pleased to see that the Army requests
significant investments for fiscal year 2019 through the FYDP
[Future Years Defense Program]. So it looks like, you know, we
are getting after this. I was encouraged to hear about the plan
that is going--being developed to look at this modernization,
that will be released at the beginning the year.
I guess some of my questions are, since all of the
ammunition plants are in bad shape, how does the Army
prioritize funding for recapitalization and modernization among
the various locations, since they all have needs?
General Piggee. Yes, ma'am. And thank you for that
question. And I, too, have visited Lake City and it is a
combination of World War II vintage still making munitions the
old-fashioned way. And I was quite surprised to see that to an
extent, although we have made some success and improvement at
that location.
Ma'am, we prioritize our--again, highest priority equipment
based on output that is desired to execute readiness--to
improve readiness. We are--made sufficient, significant
investment over the past 10 years. We have taken advantage of
MILCON; the increase in authority for minor MILCON that
Congress have provided us. We have taken advantage of the
conversion of MILCON to O&M [operations and maintenance]. We
are taking advantage of all the resources that we have
available.
As you indicated, ma'am, we have committed an investment
over the next FYDP to improve our equipment facilities and
machinery in our depots. And we executed a more holistic
assessment. We are looking out for the next decade, where we
will prioritize our facilities. And then come in and ask for
budget execution authority to significantly improve those
facilities after that assessment.
Mrs. Hartzler. Great. How has the Army conducted a cost
analysis of building new facilities versus modernizing the
current ones? I know that was a question I had the last time I
visited. We had a good discussion on that. But how do you
analyze that analysis?
General Piggee. Ma'am, that is part of our holistic
assessment that we are executing currently. When we find
facilities that we can repurpose, that we can execute in a
quicker fashion, we will use the conversion authority that
Congress has given us, to use O&M funds to do that. But that is
part of our holistic assessment that we--that is ongoing at
this time, ma'am.
Mrs. Hartzler. And you said something during your
ceremony--your ceremony-- at your testimony that I tried to
find in the written testimony and I couldn't find. But it
caught my ear. You said something about you would like the
increased authorities to be able to spend money without
congressional authority? Did--is that what you were saying?
We worked on this in the NDAA. I had an amendment for the
NNSA [National Nuclear Security Administration] and their
infrastructure issues last year, where they wanted the ability
to just go ahead and contract under, like, $25 million dollar,
and to raise that threshold from--I can't remember. But did you
say something like that? Are you needing Congress to increase
your authority where you can move around funds without coming
to us, or something?
General Piggee. No, ma'am. I think my intention was to
thank you for the recent authority that you gave us, with
respect to minor MILCON, and the conversion authority from
MILCON to O&M dollars. We think that is appropriate well within
the resources that we need. Not additional to that, but we
really appreciate the authority that you recently gave us.
Mrs. Hartzler. Just want to make sure there wasn't
something new that we could be doing to be helpful. Thank you
very much. I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you very much, Congresswoman Vicky
Hartzler. We now proceed to Congressman Salud Carbajal of
California.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And good morning to
both of you.
My question this morning is on civilian workforce. And it
is addressed to both of you. Last month, the Office of
Personnel Management sent Congress a report to cut annuities,
reduce, then eliminate the Federal Retiree Cost-of-Living
Adjustments and eliminate the Federal Employee Retirement
System annuity supplement for Federal Government civilians.
Are you both familiar with this proposal? And if so, how
would these proposals affect your ability to recruit and retain
a Federal civilian workforce?
General Piggee. Sir, I personally am not aware of that
policy and refer you to our personnel team to--that could more
adequately address that.
Obviously any incentives that we have, we would like to
maintain. Our workforce are critical to success in our
industrial facilities. And retention and retaining those
employees and being able to recruit is extremely important to
us. And incentives are important as well.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
General Shrader. Sir, I am not familiar with the proposed
reductions or cuts, but incentives are important to us. So
anytime that something like that happens, we would have to
assess the impact on our ability to recruit and retain. Yes,
sir.
Mr. Carbajal. Well, Mr. Chairman, I actually inquired about
this issue at the last readiness hearing. And I was given
similar answers, although your answers are little bit better.
We are discussing the future of this Federal civilian
workforce. And I hope in the future that our witnesses here
today understand this, and why the results of this report can
severely impact the future of the Department. I will be
submitting this question for the record, again. And I strongly
urge the witnesses to respond to the committee as soon as
possible.
I had a much longer list of language here to reiterate what
is really in the report. But I won't belabor the issue. But I
do think it is extremely critical and important, especially
when the civilian workforce comprise a significant part of our
readiness, that we have good answers for this and a better
understanding.
Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 43.]
Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Congressman Salud Carbajal. We
now proceed to Chairman Mike Rogers of Alabama.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
your service. Thank you for being here, we appreciate you.
You know, I am a big fan of the depot system. We can't do
our jobs without a strong depot system. But they have been
struggling, and we have been hearing it for years, with
problems with carryover and the limitations that they have.
It is my view that the services are unnecessarily
restricting equipment overhaul, planning, and ordering to gain
the carryover calculations. Meanwhile, the vital work being
done at these depots must be accompanied--accomplished faster
than ever in today's threat-filled environment to support our
readiness. And the bean counting should not stand in the way of
this mission.
To each of the services, General Piggee and General
Shrader, you may be aware that last year's House report
accompanying the NDAA called the Office of the Secretary of
Defense to assist, if necessary modify the carryover
calculations. The response in April of this year provided some
insight into each service that fell short of providing a
solution amenable to all.
Could you discuss the challenges unique to Army and Marine
Corps carryover management programs, and any recommendations
for improvement? General, we will start with you.
General Piggee. Thank you, sir, and great to see you again,
Congressman Rogers.
Sir, we have worked carryover diligently and very hard. It
is a priority in our Army Materiel Command, as you know,
General Perna leads that effort. And he personally reviews the
carryover. And we have reduced carryover by more than 39
percent in the past 3 years. We continue to refine, to ensure
that we are being effective and efficient with our workload.
But receiving funds late in the year, continuing
resolutions, all have an impact on our ability to execute
requirements in the year. World events change. As priorities
change for the Army, we get different priorities. We get
additional work during the year of execution. It makes it
virtually impossible to execute that requirement that we
developed at the beginning of the year when we don't either
have funds or changed priorities in the course of the year.
That causes carryover.
We think a bit of carryover is good. We are working to stay
within the allowable limit. However, we would ask that we are
not penalized for those items that are beyond our span of
control. Late receipt of funds, as an example, will definitely
have and has had an impact on our ability to execute within
that given year.
World requirements that change, and we get a change in
priorities and get additional work in the year of execution,
prevents us from executing all of that work that was originally
programmed. So we would ask just not to be penalized for work
that comes in, and into our depots, and also that is beyond our
span of control.
We are accountable. We understand the importance of
carryover. And we are willing to work with you, with OSD, and
with others to develop a calculation. But the current
calculation, we agree, did not meet our needs.
Mr. Rogers. Well, General Perna did give me some language
that we incorporated into this year's NDAA that came out of the
HASC [House Armed Services Committee] and out of the House.
General Shrader is--have you seen that language that we put
in this year's NDAA?
General Shrader. Sir, not yet. I just took command last
week. So, and this is----
Mr. Rogers. Yes. If you will take a look, I am interested--
--
General Shrader. I will, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. I know it is going to fix the Army's problem
because we got it from Army Materiel Command. But I am not sure
if the other services are going to find it amenable to their
concerns.
I asked your counterparts in the Air Force in a hearing a
couple weeks ago to look at it. So, I would urge you to do the
same, if you would, and let me know back.
General Shrader. I will, sir.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 44.]
Mr. Rogers. Okay, thank you.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, very much, Chairman Mike Rogers.
And at this time, in lieu of a second round, if anyone has
individual questions, and I do, with General Shrader. You cited
the January 2017 tornado, which inflicted such damage at the
Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany and the surrounding
community. How is your recovery coming along? What,
specifically, can we do to facilitate continued tornado
recovery? Anything we can do to back up Congressman Austin
Scott?
General Shrader. Sir, I appreciate the question. And I
think things are going well, in terms of the plan to recover
from the tornado. Specifically, there were some 47,000
principal end items of equipment that were affected. And of the
47,000 we have been able to get through 75 percent or, roughly,
35,500 pieces of that and it is ready for issue back. So, it is
been through.
So, we have got about 25 percent more that either has to
be--go through the limited technical inspection process, which
may feed into the depot maintenance process. So, that is--that
system is on track and going. Facilities, 64 buildings down
there were damaged. Of the 64 that were damaged, 20 repairs
have been complete. And there is ongoing 44 buildings and
facilities that are still in various stages of completion.
Last week I was able to talk to the lieutenant--the Navy
lieutenant commander, Seabee, that is overseeing the whole
project. And I think the biggest things that he was getting
after is there are eight of our--eight of storage facilities,
warehouses, that they are reroofing underway. And they are
working on getting three of them still under contract, to get
after those. So, it is all a process and I think it's going
well, sir.
And in terms of--the last thing I will tell you is, we do
have money that was put in the fiscal year 2018 for a 200,000-
square-foot facility that we are going to break ground on here
pretty soon for warehousing. So it is underway, sir.
Mr. Wilson. Well this is reassuring, and--and we all know
you can count on the Seabees too. So this is terrific. Are
there any other questions?
If not, I would like just to thank all the witnesses for
being here today.
I also would want to wish everyone a very happy Fourth of
July. And if anybody's available, the Gilbert, South Carolina,
Peach Festival is available. Don, you can come on out--come on
down, but we would invite you to come by, but happy Fourth of
July to everyone.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 9:20 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
June 28, 2018
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
June 28, 2018
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
June 28, 2018
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON
General Shrader. The Marine Corps does have a backlog in facility,
utility maintenance and depot repair. In regard to the facility and
utility backlog, as part of our Logistics Infrastructure Planning
Initiative the Marine Corps is holistically identifying the
infrastructure related investments, inclusive of our Capital Investment
Plan, needed to optimize depot operations. Through this plan we will
seek to address the infrastructure capability and capacity challenges
presented by aging facilities. Our plan will incorporate previous
facilities planning and provide prioritization, phasing, and funding
levels required to ensure that facilities investments support future
readiness and sustainment. Our depot maintenance is funded to 80% of
the identified requirement, to meet the Office of the Secretary of
Defense directed threshold of 80%, which creates an unfunded backlog of
depot maintenance. To mitigate risk and shortfalls in execution, we use
a depot maintenance model which optimizes depot workload, ensuring
depot investment maximizes warfighting capability. While resourcing of
depot and field-level maintenance in support of deployed and home
station equipment readiness has kept pace with requirements, fiscal
realities require readiness balancing decisions, inclusive of our
maintenance accounts. For the deferred depot maintenance, four critical
weapon systems (AAV, LAV, Tank [M1A1/M88] and M777 Howitzer] account
for approximately 50% of the Marine Corps depot maintenance budget,
with 70% of our depot maintenance budget invested in just 15 total
weapons systems, all significant Marine Corps' readiness items and
highest depot cost drivers. [See page 7.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT
General Piggee. Protecting Army's intellectual capital is vital to
maintaining technological advantages over our adversaries, therefore
the Army continues to partner with the Department of Defense (DOD) and
industry to implement standards and initiatives to safeguard defense
information and facilitate broader public-private cyber information
sharing. The Army enforces the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation
Supplement (DFARS), 48 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) subpart 204.73,
which requires all defense contractors to provide adequate
cybersecurity as described in National Institute of Standards (NIST)
Special Publication (SP) 800-171, Protecting Controlled Unclassified
Information in Nonfederal Systems and Organizations, for our sensitive
technical information. The Army leverages a combination of DFARS
guidance and Law Enforcement and Counterintelligence partnerships to
help further ensure that cybersecurity contract requirements are
commensurate with the value of our intellectual capital and risks. The
Army also leverages the DOD Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cybersecurity
(CS) Activities established under 32 CFR part 236 which serves as a
voluntary forum for the DOD and member companies of all sizes to share
cybersecurity best practices, DOD and Federal policy challenges, and
threats. [See page 11.]
______
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. CARBAJAL
General Piggee. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) submitted
four recommendations that would affect both current and future retirees
in the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) and Civil Service
Retirement System (CSRS). The recommendations are highlighted below:
1. Elimination of Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS)
Annuity Supplements
This proposal seeks to eliminate the FERS annuity supplement for
new retirees and the supplementary annuity for survivor annuitants.
This annuity supplement is used to cover the gap between retirement and
Social Security eligibility for those federal employees that have to
retire before they become Social Security eligible to receive at age
62, such as law enforcement officers. The OPM legislative proposal
would eliminate supplements for new retirees and for survivor
annuitants. Reductions of this nature would negatively impact the
compensation of former employees and impacted survivors at a crucial
stage of their lives.
2. Increase of CSRS and FERS High Three Average Salary Compensation
to Pay Period to Five Years
This proposal would amend sections of Title 5 to increase the
period of service used to compute an annuitant's average salary under
the CSRS and FERS by averaging an employee's basic pay in effect over
five consecutive years of service rather than three years of service as
is required under current law. Passage of this recommendation would
affect the agency's ability to retain current employees who are
retirement eligible. Additionally, a major exodus of employees with
unique skill sets and historical knowledge, without the opportunity of
mentoring or information sharing to new employees, could adversely
impact our ability to ensure mission accomplishment.
3. Increase Contributions to Federal Employees Retirement System
(FERS)
This proposal seeks to increase the employee deduction rates for
the FERS. This proposal would require FERS employees to fund a greater
portion of their retirement benefit and will negatively impact current
compensation.
4. Reduction or Elimination of Retirement Cost of Living
Adjustments (COLAs)
This proposal seeks to reduce the cost of living adjustments under
the CSRS by one half of one percent and to eliminate cost of living
adjustments under FERS for current and future retirees. This means most
FERS participants would no longer receive annual cost-of-living
adjustments. For CSRS participants, their COLAs would be 0.5 percent
less than what the typical formula currently allows. The amendment
would eliminate the provision requiring a reduction to an annuitant's
FERS disability annuity by the amount of the annuitant's actual Social
Security ``assumed disability insurance benefit'' and would require the
reduction to be based on an annuitant's actual Social Security
disability benefit. A reduction of this nature would adversely impact
recruiting and retention efforts.
The Federal Government may not always be an employer of choice when
it comes to salary, but we are an extremely competitive employer when
considering our total compensation package. These proposed reductions
will significantly impact our ability to recruit and retain talent in
an already competitive market. Reducing benefits under FERS will
significantly impact our ability to recruit and retain a professional
federal civilian workforce and will adversely impact Army readiness.
[See page 15.]
General Shrader. The current federal government civilians'
retirement annuity is one of the most effective recruitment tools
available to attract talented and highly qualified civilians.
Historically, applicants have sought positions within the federal
government based on the security of the benefits package offered,
largely including the retirement annuity. In addition to the threats of
sequestration, furloughs, and limited pay raises, a reduction in
current federal benefits would further weaken our ability to recruit
and retain quality civilians In a highly competitive job market. [See
page 15.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. ROGERS
General Shrader. As stated in the response to QFR #3 [see page 49],
our carryover management challenges are similar to those of the other
Services. Our position is to adopt the Proposed Calculation Process
laid out in the April 2018 Report to Congress on Revising Depot
Maintenance Carryover Calculations HR 115-200, page 97 and move forward
for implementation of the process. Managing carryover may be improved
through standardized methodologies and technologies that facilitate
managing, analyzing, and reporting within and across the Services. Such
capabilities would support comparative analysis and present
opportunities to develop more effective and efficient approaches to
managing depot maintenance capabilities and capacities. Although
standardized and automated tools could improve carry over calculations,
at this time It would not be beneficial to have Service specific
metrics. Carry over calculations should be standard across the
Department of Defense in order to give the Secretary a common tool to
measure all the Services. A disparate reporting format with variable
factors will make it difficult for the OSD to articulate to Congress
the aggregated information. [See page 16.]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
June 28, 2018
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON
Mr. Wilson. What level of funding are your respective services
programming to for FY20, and is that number at or above the BCA cap
level? If the level is below the amount projected for FY20 in this
years budget, then what is not being funded at that lower level?
General Piggee. The administration has not yet decided what level
of funding they will submit to Congress for FY20. At this time we are
anticipating funding similar to the PB19 request. It should be noted
however, that the final decision on funding is not with the
administration but with Congress. The two-year bipartisan budget relief
from BCA funding levels expires at the end of FY19. Therefore in FY20,
BCA funding levels are the law of the land and will be the funding
level unless Congress grants relief again.
Mr. Wilson. What level of funding are your respective services
programming to for FY20, and is that number at or above the BCA cap
level? If the level is below the amount projected for FY20 in this
years budget, then what is not being funded at that lower level?
General Shrader. Our FY20 program is currently funded at the Office
of the Secretary of Defense designated 80% of the mandated target.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ROGERS
Mr. Rogers. I am troubled that carryover as currently interpreted
is a one-size-fits-all calculation. Services are unnecessarily
restricting equipment overhaul planning and ordering to game the
carryover calculation. Meanwhile, the vital work being done at these
depots must be accomplished faster than ever in today's threatfilled
environment to support our readiness-and the bean-counting should not
stand in the way of the mission. To General Shrader, you may be aware
that last year's House report accompanying the NDAA called for the
Office of the Secretary of Defense to assess and, if necessary, modify
the carryover calculation. The response in April of this year provided
some insight into each service but fell short of providing a solution
amenable to all. Could you discuss the challenges unique to the Marine
Corps carryover management programs and any recommendations for
improvement? Also, would carryover calculations and metrics that were
specific to each service be beneficial? [QFR #3, for cross-reference.]
General Shrader. Our carryover management challenges are similar to
those of the other Services. Managing carryover may be improved through
a more standardized methodology and technologies that would enable
management, analysis and reporting within and across the Services. Such
capabilities would support comparative analysis and may present
opportunities to develop more effective and efficient approaches to
managing depot maintenance capabilities and capacities. Although
standardized and automated tools could improve carry-over calculations,
at this time it would not be beneficial to have Service specific
metrics. Carry over calculations should be standard across the
Department of Defense in order to give the Secretary a common ``tool to
measure all the Services. A disparate reporting format with variable
factors will make it difficult for the Office of the Secretary of
Defense to articulate to Congress the aggregated information.
[all]