<mods xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" version="3.3" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-3.xsd" ID="P0b002ee180395179">
<name type="corporate">
 <namePart>United States Government Publishing Office</namePart>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">publisher</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">pbl</roleTerm>
</role>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">distributor</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">dst</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="corporate">
 <namePart>United States</namePart>
 <namePart>Government Accountability Office</namePart>
 <namePart>National Security and International Affairs Division</namePart>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">aut</roleTerm>
</role>
 <description>Government Organization</description>
</name>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<genre authority="marcgt">government publication</genre>
<language>
 <languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
</language>
<extension>
 <collectionCode>GAOREPORTS</collectionCode>
 <category>Legislative Agency Publications</category>
 <waisDatabaseName>gao</waisDatabaseName>
 <branch>legislative</branch>
 <dateIngested>2010-08-12</dateIngested>
</extension>
<originInfo>
 <publisher>U.S. Government Printing Office</publisher>
 <dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1999-09-10</dateIssued>
 <issuance>monographic</issuance>
</originInfo>
<physicalDescription>
 <note type="source content type">deposited</note>
 <digitalOrigin>born digital</digitalOrigin>
 <extent>48 p.</extent>
</physicalDescription>
<classification authority="sudocs">GA 1.13:NSIAD-99-199</classification>
<identifier type="uri">https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-199</identifier>
<identifier type="local">P0b002ee180395179</identifier>
<identifier type="former package identifier">f:ns99199</identifier>
<recordInfo>
 <recordContentSource authority="marcorg">DGPO</recordContentSource>
 <recordCreationDate encoding="w3cdtf">2010-08-12</recordCreationDate>
 <recordChangeDate encoding="w3cdtf">2011-03-24</recordChangeDate>
 <recordIdentifier source="DGPO">GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-199</recordIdentifier>
 <recordOrigin>machine generated</recordOrigin>
 <languageOfCataloging>
  <languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
</languageOfCataloging>
</recordInfo>
<accessCondition type="GPO scope determination">fdlp</accessCondition>
<extension>
 <docClass>REPORT</docClass>
 <accessId>GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-199</accessId>
 <reportNumber>NSIAD-99-199</reportNumber>
 <subject>Human resources utilization</subject>
 <subject>Cost effectiveness analysis</subject>
 <subject>Military downsizing</subject>
 <subject>Performance measures</subject>
 <subject>Federal agency reorganization</subject>
 <subject>Military vessels</subject>
 <subject>Equipment maintenance</subject>
 <subject>Naval facilities</subject>
 <identifier>Navy Regional Maintenance Program</identifier>
 <identifier>Navy Working Capital Fund</identifier>
 <identifier>Pearl Harbor (HI)</identifier>
 <identifier>Navy Pearl Harbor Pilot Project</identifier>
 <type>Letter Report</type>
 <seriesAbbrev>NSIAD</seriesAbbrev>
 <congReport congress="105" number="265" type="H"></congReport>
</extension>
<titleInfo>
 <title>Depot Maintenance: Status of the Navy&apos;s Pearl Harbor Pilot</title>
</titleInfo>
<abstract>Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the Navy&apos;s progress in
implementing the Pearl Harbor Pilot project, focusing on: (1) the
preliminary results of the Pearl Harbor Pilot on improving performance
of maintenance activities; (2) the usefulness of the pilot as a model
for future consolidations; and (3) issues related to financial and
organizational structures for such consolidations.&lt;p/&gt;GAO noted that: (1) although the Pearl Harbor Pilot is not complete,
preliminary results have been mixed, showing either improvements, no
improvements, or insufficient data to determine results; (2) where data
are available, overall indications are that the pilot has the potential
to improve maintenance activities in Hawaii; (3) while the Navy&apos;s pilot
test plan calls for evaluating performance using nine metrics, data has
been gathered for only five to compare performance under the
consolidated operation with performance under the preconsolidation
organizations; (4) preliminary results for two metrics indicate
improvements that meet or exceed the Navy&apos;s expectations, and two others
indicate improvements that fall slightly short of the Navy&apos;s
expectations, while one metric indicates no improvement; (5) other
positive results include increasing workforce flexibility by integrating
nearly 4,000 workers from two centers into a single workforce; (6)
consequently, the number of workers assigned daily to the excess labor
shop has dropped from about 200 to below 10; (7) the Navy has reduced
the maintenance infrastructure by 11 buildings (114,131 square feet) and
plans to eliminate another 6 buildings (24,907 square feet); (8) the
Pearl Harbor Pilot is likely to serve only as a general model for future
consolidation efforts because of unique aspects of ship maintenance
activities in Hawaii, such as the close proximity of facilities and the
large portions of fleet-funded work than in other locations; (9)
likewise, because of this uniqueness, the pilot provides only a general
indication that future consolidations elsewhere will result in similar
efficiencies; (10) nevertheless, it does provide general information on
such issues as combining workforces from separate activities and
consolidating equipment and facilities; (11) the Pearl Harbor Pilot has
sharpened the debate over the most appropriate financial and
organizational structures for such consolidated activities; (12)
conflicting views continue to exist within the Department of Defense and
the Navy over whether these consolidated activities should operate under
direct appropriations, the Navy Working Capital Fund (NWCF), or a
combination of the two financial structures, particularly in terms of
maintaining visibility over total operational costs; and (13) similarly,
little progress has been made toward resolving the departments&apos;
differences over the most appropriate organizational structure to manage
these types of activities.</abstract>
<location>
 <url displayLabel="HTML rendition" access="raw object">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-199/html/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-199.htm</url>
 <url displayLabel="PDF rendition" access="raw object">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-199/pdf/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-199.pdf</url>
</location>
<identifier type="preferred citation">GAO/NSIAD-99-199</identifier>
<location>
 <url displayLabel="Content Detail" access="object in context">https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-199</url>
</location>
<note>Letter Report</note>
<extension>
 <searchTitle>GAO/NSIAD-99-199; Depot Maintenance: Status of the Navy&apos;s Pearl Harbor Pilot;
            </searchTitle>
</extension>
<subject>
 <topic>Human resources utilization</topic>
 <topic>Cost effectiveness analysis</topic>
 <topic>Military downsizing</topic>
 <topic>Performance measures</topic>
 <topic>Federal agency reorganization</topic>
 <topic>Military vessels</topic>
 <topic>Equipment maintenance</topic>
 <topic>Naval facilities</topic>
 <topic>Navy Regional Maintenance Program</topic>
 <topic>Navy Working Capital Fund</topic>
 <topic>Pearl Harbor (HI)</topic>
 <topic>Navy Pearl Harbor Pilot Project</topic>
</subject>
<relatedItem type="isReferencedBy">
 <titleInfo>
  <title>United States House Report 265 (105th Congress)</title>
</titleInfo>
 <identifier type="congressional report citation">H. Rept. 105-265</identifier>
</relatedItem>
</mods>