Document Separator DCN 341SQUARE FOOT REDUCTION SUMMARY Prepared by KRlSTl HOLLEY 411 7/95 Prepared by KRlSTl HOLLEY 411 7/95 Document Separator (SMNVR) PEs -WKLD HRs LOAD CHANGES BY COMMO Commodity Aircraft - Cargo Combat Components Structures Hydraulics Instruments Landing Gear Ordnance Avionics APUs Other - - - - - - - . DlTY (000 H PRE-BRAC POST Projections 241 13 124 488 104 430 (loss-gain offset) 29 180 (cablesltubing) -- - RS) ' BRAC Decreased Volume of Work - Smaller Base to Apply Fixed Costs - Impacts on Schedule - Space Allocation - Maintaining Efficient "Process Flows" - Equipment Utilization Document Separator DISTINGUISHED VISITOR ITINERARY FOR DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT COMMISSION @BCRC) , STAFFERS 19-20 April 1995 Escort Officer: Major General CondonlTom MinerIGene Hathenbruck Visitor Roster: Name Ann Reese G l e ~ Knoepfle David Olsen Grade GM-15 GM-14 Col, USAF Rct Organitation DBCRC Senior Staff Analyst DBCRC Senior StMAnalyst ' DBCRC Senior Staff Analyst Maj Gen, USAF Ret ~residknt, HilVDDO '95 Billetinp Roster: Name HoteDIdg Suiie47oom Phone No. AnrrReese Hobson House Titac Suite 777-6780 Glenn Knoepfle Hobson House Invader Suite 777-4923 David Olsen Hobson House Phantom Suite 777-5513 Date: Wednesday. 19 A ~ r i l 1995 \ Time of Trans Lapse Escort/ D ~ Y Mode Time Locationd3vent Briefer 0823 Delta 1504 35 min 20 min 20 min Amve Salt Lake City Airport - Met by Gene Hathenbruck' Anive Hill AFB, Bldg 891, Defeose Mega Center, LSOC Conference Room - Met by Mr Tom Miner Opening Comments / Mission Video Tom Miner 00-ACC Mission Briefing Gene Hathenbruck Break (Setup Working Lunch Catered By Officer's Club) Date: Wednesday, 19 April 1995 Cont' 8 rlqD 1 h r TRC Realignment 1 Downsizing Briefing ( During Working Lunch ) Mike Williams 1 hr 20min Tactical Missile Repair Briefing Jeannie Hathenbruck 10 min Break 1330-1340 Surrey 10 min Depart LSOC Conf Room, Travel to BIdg 847 G. Hathenbruck - Met by Mike McBride 1340-1400 Golf Cart 20 min Tour Bldg 847 / Missile Launchers / Vehicles J. Hathenbruck Machine Shop . M. McBride Surrey Walk 10 min Travel to Bldg 100, Bay K (Point out Bldg 849, Automated Warehouses, DLA facilities, etc) 20 rnin Tour Bldg 100, Bay K, iiF I Naw I FMS Sidewinder J. Hathenbruck B. Dandoy 5 rnin 20 min Travel to Bldg 5, Bay G Tour Bldg 5, Bay G, Proposed Phoenix Missiles J. Hathenbruck B. Dmdoy 5 rnin 5 min 5 min 5 min 15 min Walk to Bldg 5, Bay E Tour Bldg 5, Bay E, Cable Shop B., Dandoy Break Walk to Bldg 5, Bays C/D Tour Bldg 5, Bays Cm, Maverick and Launcher Future Hellfire 3. Hathenbruck B. Dandoy Walk to Surrey, Bay C/D Drive by Bldg 5, Bay M, Radar & Antenna Range J. Hathenbruck B. Dandoy 1535-IS5 Surrey 10 min Travel to 388th Flightline, Drive Along Fightline J. Eathenbruck Pointing Out ........, Hot Pads, etc (Enter MAMS I Through Gate 106) 1545-1555 Surrey 10 min Tour MAMS I Area, Pointing Out Munitions G. Hathenbruck Processing, X-Ray, Other LMILI Facilities J. Hathenbruck - Met by Col Herb Scherbinske at Bldg 984 1555-1625 30 min Tour Computed Tomography (Bldg 984) Col Scherbinske 1625-1630 Surrey S m i n Travel to Bldg 1424, through MAltZS I Area (Past Bldg 1321, Strategic Alissile Storage) - Met By Barry Howard Date: Wednesday, 19 April 1995 Cont' + - 1630-1700 30 min Tour Bldg 1424, ACM I ALCM & AU-UpRounds J. Hathenbruck - Facility B. Dandoy 1700-1705 Surrey 5 min Travel to Bldg MAMS XI., Bldg 2026 J. Hathenbmdc (Exit Gate 103) (Indicate Points of Interest) 10 min Tour Bldg 2026, AF I Navy I FMS Maverick J. Hathenbruck All-UgRound Facility B. Dandoy 1715-1725 Surrey 10 min Travel to Strategic Missile Integration Complex (SMIC), Bldg 1538 (Point out Bldg 1515) - Met by Mike .McBride 1725-1800 35 min Tour SMIC and Peacekeeper Silo 1800-1805 Surrey 5 min Travel to Hobson House (Billeting) 1830 Courtesy Staff Car 1900 Social - Officers Club Dinner (Mongolian BBQ) - O'Club Senior Staff Senior Staff DAY 2 Date: Thursday, 20 April 1995 .- 0705-0710 S ~ Y 5min Depart Bldg 1102 for Hobson House 0710-0715 Surrey 5min Depart Hobson House G. Hathenbruck ! I 0715-0725 Surrey 10 min Travel to Bldg 830 @ 've Past Bldg 1208, Cable Shop) \, 'M v h t 'f 0725-0735 surrey 10 min 0735-0740 Surrey 5 min - Met by Brent Figgins 0740-0800 20 min A. Andreason 08004805 Surrey 5 min 0805-0825 Lyrtn COY Surrey 5 min Travel to Bldg 214 (Instrument Bldg) - Met By Bill West 30 min Tour Bldg 214 Surrey 5 min . Travel to Bldg 205 (Printed Wiring Boards) - Met By Col Herb Scherbinske \ 45 min Tbur Bldg 205 Surrey 10 min Travel to Bldg 1102, Air Room - Met By Maj Gen Condon 35 min Discussion With Senior Staff - Air Room 10 min Outbrief / Discussion, CC Office 10 min Break DV-Van 35 min Depart Hill AFB for Salt Lake City Airport Amve Salt Lake City Airport Delta 1506 Depart Salt Lake City B. West Dr. My rne Riley Maj Gen Pat Condon-and Tom Miner G. Hathenbruck Welcome to Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah Leading the Way In America 's Military Value of Ogden ALC Strategic Missile Test Analysis and Maintenance Facilities Landing Gear Repair Facility Conventional Munitions Maintenance, Test and Storage Utah Test and Training Range AFMC's Premier Fighter Aircraft Depot Other High Value Capabilities Tenants Military Readiness, Mobilization/Deployment BaselDepot Attributes Interservicing, Condition and Capacity Economic Impact/Community Infrastructure Location/Infrastructure Encroachment Customer Interface Environmental Management A National Resource Prepared at Ogden ALC/FMCB April 18, 1995 Hill Air Force Base Reinvestment in our infrastructure, automated systems, robotics, consolidated functions, and our personnel have continually contriBufed to efficient operations MILITARY VALUE of OGDEN ALC INTRODUCTlON Hill Air Force Base and Ogden Air Logistics Center (ALC) military and civilian personnel share a sense of pride and ownership that establishes our center as one of the most competitive and efficiently operated installations in the Department of Defense (DoD). Our capabilities and performance in modifying and refurbishing silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (SBICBM), conventional munitions, landing gear, aimafi, and commodities have made Ogden ALC a recognized and vital national resource. Our product and service directorates support the Air Force and DoD along with customers from 81 nations around 7 the world. 1 ' ~444 Other military services have their engineering, logistics, and management personnel i,%q2 located outside of their depots. Our single point of logistics management includes the full scope of acquisition, engineering, item management. technical management, logistics support, and depot maintenance collocated at one installation. We also have a full environmental support staffcollocated with our missions. We have continually demonstrated our capability of becoming the single DoD source of repair for aircraft and commodities workloads such as repairing Navy C-130 landing gear and the Navy Maverick Missiles. We successfully completed an interservice workload on theNavy FIA- 1 8 Modification, Corrosion, and Paint Program (MCAPP) awarded through the competitive process. Reinvestment in Peacekeeper launch+ Our our inhastructure, automated systems. robotics, consolidated functions, and personnel has ICBM ensure they continually contributed to efficient operations at Dgden ALC. are operational. Currently, our center is assigned worldwide logistics management. maintenance. and testing support responsibilities for our nation's fleet of silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, landing gear, worldwide conventional munitions, and the F-16 Fighting Falcon which comprises the world's largest fleet of fighter aircraft. We have built a reputation as one ofthe world's leading aimaft, missile, and commodities refurbishment and modification centers. We are ranked in the top three most efficiently managed military depots. we have bUjlt a The loss or reduction of these resources. in the event of closure or significant realignment, as one of the may jeopardize portions of our national defense posture and endanger the requirements and world's leading aircraft, implications of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START I and START II). A major miSSi,e, and cmm~~ti,,, DoD concern is the continued ability to support two major regional conflicts. Closing Ogden refurbishment and ALC would jeopardiz that scenario. Our equipment and facilities must be duplicated, modification centers. tested, and activated before dismantling, or divestment of the original complex can take place. The risk of losing environmental permits for testing and disposal of missiles and munitions must also be considered. Obtaining new permits at other locations has met with severe public criticism and resistance. From fighters to cargo aircraft we can do it all. Our maintenance team performs depot level maintenance on Air Force and Navy C-130 cargo aircraft. Ogden ALC possesses many discriminators and attributes that demonstrate its military value to the nation. FoIlowing me highlights of our capabilities and inhstructure emphasizing the features that make it second to none as a "national treasure." STRATEGIC The Ogden ALC Silo-Based Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (SBICBM) facilities MISSILE TEST, are the only DoD test and maintenance facilities for Minuteman and Peacekeeper ANALYSIS, AND Missiles. Our SBICBM Systems Program Ofice is the "prime contractor" for MAINTENANCE Minuteman and Peacekeeper weapons systems. FACILITIES Ground testing, simulation and integration must be performed in specially built engineering test and integration facilities, for strategic missile systems to perform as designed. Our facilities are specifically constructed and equipped with instrumentation to replicate both alert and flight environments. They are vital to the development, prototyping testing, troubleshooting, technical order validation and verification, nuclear certif~ation, and performance assessment of missile systems. Similarly, the booster and motor maintenance and test infiastructm has been developed to safely and efficiently support the preparation, bu,ildup, tear-down, and test of these assets in one of a kind maintenance and test facilities. Our facilities are in close proximity to storage and shipping facilities minimizing impacts to mission support. These facilities are required for mission support. Our test, industrial operations, and storage facilities have been built andlor modified and equipped to exclusively support SBICBM activities. They are not duplicated anywhere. They are operated and maintained by personnel whose skilIs and Ofice (SPO) to act as the prime system manager, and engineering authority. Our SPO manages a physical plant containing 39 industrial operations facilities, 2 1 test facilities, 146 storage facilities and 20 administrative facilities tomling 1,246,155 square feet on 31,782 acres, and are collocated to optimize processes for both system sustainment and acquisition. The location of the SBICBM infrastructure at Hill AFB is central to both the deployed operational wings and major rocket motor manufacturers. This mitigates the risk of transporting hazardous and toxic elements of the weapons systems and enhances customer support and responsiveness. No single SBICBM contractor has the capability to perform the engineering, integration, and maintenance fictions being performed by our SF0 personnel today, nor is the SPO infrastructure duplicated at any contractor's plant. No single associated contractor has the data or system expertise for more than its portion of the weapon system. All SBICBM contractors and vendors are reliant upon the organic SBICBM infrastructure to perform their sustaining engineering, assessment, and support roles. A Peacekeeper ICBM being launched from Vandenberg AFH. We are strateglcallyand centrally located within the western states to ensure our ICBM fleet remains operational and ready Prior to installation at the operational wings, we test and evaluate performance, service life, extension of the system hardware, and modifications. SBICBM TEST AND ANALYSIS FACILITY The Strategic MissPe Integratiw Center (SMIC) i s the only facility of its kind in DoD that provides a platform for system level test, integration, evaluation, and configuration control for the Air Force's Minuteman 111 and Peacekeeper ICBMs. Without this facility, missile silos at operational wings would have to be taken off alert status and shut down for testing and integration to take place. The center has one Peacekeeper and two Minuteman below ground silos constructed to meet the same nuclear hardness and physical security requirements as Air Force operational SBICBM missile silos. The special features that make the SMlC a valuable military asset are facilities that include exact replicas of operational launch facilities, launch control centers. and operational missiles without warheads. There are sensitive SBICBM guidance system instmments and equipment that are isolated by a large concrete seismic mass. The power and air supply systems, capable of supporting all ICBM equipment are the same as those at operational sites. The surrounding ground is compacted, and access roads are built to meet 32,000 pound axle transportation load requirements. There are also buried antenna systems and literally hundreds of miles of underground communication cables that simulate the large amount of wiring and cable found at operational wings. This ensures all Air Force operational requirements are met. No single SBlCBM contractor has the capability to perform the engineering, integration, and maintenance functions being performed by our SPO personnel today. I Our SVIC complex is in a remote secure location near the Great Salt Lake. It provides safe nuclear weapons effect testinp on critical weaaon svstems I components. > - - The Survivability and Vulnerability Integration Complex (SVIC) is dedicated to the simulation testing of nuclear hardness, survivability, reliability, and electromagnetic compatibility of a variety of defense systems. Located 12 miles west of Ogden, Utah, this complex is the only one of its kind within DoD. The SVIC simulates basically six environments to accommodate testing for weapon system shock testing on one of our Our Linear AccelemtDr safeiy produces gamma specifications such as those required for eight shock vibration tables. rays to simulate nuclear weapons detonation. Minuteman and Peacekeeper ICBMs. These environments are: - Nuclear radiation and gamma ray bombardment - Nuclear airblast overpressure simulation - Shock and vibration simuIation -Direct drive electromagnetic pulse simulation - Free field electromagnetic pulse simulation - Electromagnetic interference (EM]) and compatibility testing Simulation of nuclear blasts is performed by our two Physics International flash x-ray machines. SOLID PROPELLANT DISSECTION AND TESTING Our propellant dissection and analysis facitjtiies allow us to safely cut hrge ICBM and small tacfical missile motors for both i physical and chemical analysis. With this capability we can keep both our ICBM fleet and Tactical Missiles operational and ready. The Propellant Analysis Center is the only depot maintenance site within the Air Force for complete motor dissection, propellant machining, and physical and chemical testing, The center supports aging surveiIlance and failure analysis of both the large Minuteman and Peacekeeper ICBMs and small tactical missile motors and their component parts. The Motor Dissection Facilities are an integral part of propellant analysis. They are the only solid propellant dissection facilities capable of dissecting large ICBM rocket motors as well as small tactical missile motors. These systems are explosives sited and remotely operated for safety. The large ICBM facility, located at Oasis on the Utah Test and Training Range, can dissect motors up to 120 inches in diameter such as the Titan 34D segment. The Small Tactical Rocket Motor Dissection Facility, located at the Little Mountain Complex, is used mainly for tactical missile motors or small missile items with metal cases and diameters up to 30 inches. Both facilities perform dissection on an array ofitems and the end result is propellant blocks weighingapproximately 50 pounds or less. After the motors have been dissected, the Propellant Machine Shop uses a variety of computer controlled lathes, milling machines, band saws, guillotines, and robotics to prepare soIid rocket test specimens for the physical and chemical property test facilities. In addition to test specimens preparation, the machine shop has the capability to disassemble explosive items and modify explosive components for static testing or disposal. The Physical Properties Facility performs tests primarily focused on stress, strain, and shearproperties ofpropellant to simulate flight environment as well as transportation and storage scenarios. The Chemical Properties Facility is responsible for the determination Propellant blocks being of chemical constituents in propellants. Testing capabiIities consist of moisture analysis, Prepared for anmls density, ignitabil ity, bum rate, thermal properties, and quantitative chemical composition. MISSILE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR r The Minuteman and Peacekeeper missile asssrnb& and repair I facilities are the only facilities of their kind in Do D I and the specially designed Peacekeeper trailers. uur iuuron ganrrycrane IS aeslgneamrransrer reacelceeper srages I, 1 1 , andlll to and from railroad cars Our Missile Maintenance and Repair Facilities are one of a kind. specially constructed, configured, and explosives sited for Minuteman and Peacekeeper ICBMs. They are designed and builtto accommodate SBICBMs with a horizontal rail system, explosive safety clear zone {quantity distance) for inhabited buildings and hngible (easily broken) construction for explosive contents. They are collocated with the many functions required to support the repair, modification, and testing of conventional munitions and tactical missiles. Our Missile Support Equipment Repair Facility is designed for the service and repair of Minuteman and Peacekeeper transportation, handling, ground mechanical, and ground electrical equipment supporting operational sites at four wings and Vandenburg AFB, CA. Our state of the art facility ensures that the , operating wings have the most reliable and highly maintained Minuteman and Peacek~per transportation and handling 1 equipment, launch, and launch control facilities ground support equipment. The facility is fully equippedwith the necessary utilities, test equipment, lifting and handling devices and support shops that enable us to provide complete repair and testing capabilities. For example. our transportation and handling hoist proof- load test facility is a mock-up silo equipped I with weight sIugs to simulate the weight of the Minuteman missile. It is used to inspect andtest hoist and wire ropes for Minuteman Tmporter Erectors to ensure they operate properly and safely. Minuteman repair facilities. A Minuteman transporter erector during functional test. MISSILE AND MUNITIONS DISPOSAL AND STATIC FIRING FACILITIES Our Remote Missile and Munitions Disposal and Static Firing Facilities are located at Oasis on Utah Test and Training Range. The Thermal Treatment Unit sits on a 21,000 acre site at the Utah Test and Training Range. It is tfie only site in the US environmentally permitted todispose of Minuteman and Peacekeeper solid rocket motor propellant and large quantities of conventional munitions. It is also capable ofdisposingofobsolete motors fiomotkr services. Our Static Firing Facility provides the capability required to determine shelf life and perform depot maintenance according to refirbishment schedules for the Minuteman and Peacekeeper solid rocket motors. The facilities are environmentally permitted and explosives sited Minuteman test pads with 500,000 pound thrust bIocks. They include a remotely controlled vertical and horizontal static firing facility, with fully instrumented bays and a test recording capability at approximately 200 channels of information. MISSILE AND MUNITIONS STORAGE FACILITIES Our 21,000 acres at Oasis enable the disposal Our Munitions and Missile *sscmb,y, Mainfenanre, of ICBM motors and munitions and static tirings (MAMS) include specialired and far from populated areas. environmentally controlled storage bunkers. They are located within secure areas at Hill AFB, MAMS 1 and 11, and the Utah Test and Training Range. Our MAMS I and I1 areas provide safe storage for both ICBMs and conventional munitions. They are located close to our runway which enhances our capability to handle contingencies with short notice. LANDlNG GEAR REPAIR FACILITY ear In the DoD Inventory. No facility modifications, expansions, or capital 1 equipment investments would be necessary for the Landing Gear Division - to assume all of DoD , -landing gear workload. Our Landing Gear Repair Facility is specifically designed for the overhaul of aircraft wheeb, brakes,landinggear,rmnd relatedcomponents with minimal human intewention. We currently provide overhaul, repair, modification and testing services to 70 percent of DoD aircraft landing gear inventory, and have the capacity to do it all. Our Landing Gear facilities have features and capabiIities not found at any other location within the United States Military infrastructure. No facility modifications, expansions or capital equipment investments would be necessary for the Landing Gear Division to assume all of DoD landing gear workload. Although other centers claim to have landing gear overhaul capabilities, oia facility is the only one designed with an automated material handling system that can safely handle any size of landing gear and I- components. These distinctive facilities are a vital national resource. They provide the scientific process control led capability to overhaul all landing gear from thfederal, state, and local the small T-38 Talon nose gear to the largest most complex such as those used on the B- I B, B-2, C- 141, C-SAIB, ard C-17. Our computer controlled overhead monorail material handling system has275 programmable hoists with up to one ton capacity to safely ttansport and process large components. The hoists. which traverse over 1.5 miles, provide easy movement of the largest aircraft and struts through both our main facility and the plating and grinding shops. Components are efficiently moved from the disassembly area through essential repair processes that include the chemical stripping andcleaningtanks, nondestructive inspection stations, and other required work areas until the landing gear is painted and crated for shipment. Our paintsystem is .. ._ environmental laws and requinmnts. Our computer controlled chemical stripping tanks are sized to handle the largest landing gearcomponents. T#s reduces ernp loyee exposure to the chemical environment of thetankareaand ellminab the physical handling of the parts, thus reducing back injuries and parts damage. Out plating shop houses all the essential processes to perform the plating operations necessary to support any landing gear workload in DoD. Our plating tanks are sized to accommodate the largest landing gear components and can handle a high voIume of production requirements. We have developed a repair process for carbon brake plates whlch enables us to use two worn-out plates to make one serviceable pIate. Our '7w0 for one" repair process involves grinding the worn-out plates to one half of their original thickness and clipping them together to restore the reworked plate to the original thickness. This process provides additional service life to plates normally condemned at a substantial cost savings to our customers. The plating sho? is coupled to the main landing gear facilrty by computer Technician working on C-5 main gear ,-llru,J controlled overhead conveyor. Our equipment and processes are designed to handle the largest landing gear in the Do0 inventory. 3ur carbon brake two-for-one process is emrlronmentalty safe and saves costs. TACTKA L MISSILE REPAIR BRANCH OGDEN ALC, UTAH The AIM 9 is known as the Sidewinder Missile because of it's in-flight charac- teristic which resembles a Sidewinder snake. The Sidewinder is an all weather supersonic short range air to ak htw- cept missile with dog light capability, w h i i usas a hest seeking infrared homing rystsm. The AIM9 (SidwMw) Air to Air M i sidsisapkrtUSNR1SAFPmgm.Itis , utilred by all U W and USN Fighter Air#aR Army and USMC -ten as a defensive weapn. AIM9 infrared homing misW dwskpmsnt man in 9W9, dmigmtd AM9A The W num- ~ d r i r k w k r d ~ k r i l t h u ~ 180,000 with w M &. ~ b y L O R E A L ( f w m s r t y w ) m d R A T H E O N Rocket Elbkrh~.fhsreW#t8mdidiedBotbLatsst Motors,H&andThidrdCorp.fheGuWControrSys- W ~ s . f h b g h ~ u r h t o t a l c s ( 3 . M I Z t y t o ~ t e m ( G C S ) ~ h P ~ ~ f r w n t h e A I M - 9 B b t h s A I M Q M . m y u r l r A l M B I R ~ ~ ~ u n l l s . A l l w r l w w k v d We are pmady mpahg tha AM M a and some AIM 91s for W positions have also h upgded m d n g speed W g n m i l i i . We are a b i r w a l d in (hs AIM 9M plus (AM- #Id reliability. a" 9 M M ) upgrade pgmm. The newty upg- AIM9 - 8/9 Ogden ALC trouble rhoots and repairs a# sections of the - configuration witl indude the i n e n of a naw irnwing i h - GCS, including the midlest sedrsr bearing and the tiny r d guidanm system, which en- Fbljsbm and Diodea an the ekcbonic cirwit cards. We sbles the missile to d*linguish fl utirwad~l000dsanroom totepairttMSsskerandit's betterbehm aetual-and tiny mschanical pam. llm GCS ia repaired and calibrated infrared such i n a d e s ~ 3 0 0 , 0 0 4 , ~ ~ . au hres. AtOgdmALCwhwe re- paffsd tha AIM O IR Guidancs Controlutdtshca 1978.W haw P hiihly w, m, snd U- Located at n* Ogdn A* LogiC. -I rn t,,* (y-p-* (TSK) Utah, we have the e q u m and Wef 20 yews d WMX - in -. Many dour experience In Repairing Laser, Infrared, Imaging kt) psrmnnd ,,- - trsid at red, TV and Radar guided systems. Our innovative- Ford-, onsofthe prime mts, repairs rd modifies all of the -65 Weapons m, and the AIM-9 W m Systems AIMOcmhdom. T b AIM-9 mis- S i h 3 w e s o r i g i n d y ~ b y for the D e w o Defense (DOD) and Fmign Mill- NwmPvJmcan- tary Sales (FMS). Ws a, repair and modity lhdr F d d ' b r , China Lake Q., (NAWC). Test Sets. Ushg rims engineenng we rs sble to mhhLC,thra9hwth- modiQy our kd and field test srb bo provide suistsd in thm ths fvther h t k q quality uagrpdes. i davalopment d the AIM-9. Dur- 01. RplbliDn b dq( to a n b m e r needs and consis- I ing the Dererl Shidd and Dasett tm#y drliva quakty produdr on schedule in a colt i Stwm aisis, wr(TSK)workb dktiw rimer m s h d y of our echievemenh. A. ! Bssiskd by (NAw) bns* la drskwes dtbe future, ve b w 1 were nquired to modify the ruvrsssofgmwh*m*nd I A I M ~ M , G C S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ - ' "Pllsnps. Tha bmchun -tion. Th* - - Hghly --' ---d 1 successful. 1 OOO Gcs's were modifid inadwtpwkd afbkne. In the last 10 years the Ogden ALC (TSK) work force has repaired 8250 GCS's with 284,000 hours of production. The work defect rate (QDRIMDR) during this time has been -01 %. a- - ~ A # n & & F ~ ~ @ , ~ ~ p l & WibmW o f e , t y p a $ d W m n t . <:: < , , - . . < , A , , ? * x#p> . " , , + , ? , A A , , . + * * . .. , ,, , , % 8 P , X A * # 8. ;,, expahmammwtwe9ponssysksms. RWring " 'im I-, Infrared,' optical und War e-. , , , . A - A - A I > ?":;*&%i; - An expmenosd cum ofhighly Winad t&nfci91"i~&~ ::I to ~ ~ o o t and repair down to the component ' : Our Tactical Miss& All-up Round Maintenanm Fadlity Is the only Air F o e fhdlity whem fully loaded tactical mis* with warheads can be re- -- What we've accomplished at Ogden ALC, is the capability to repair an item in the AGM- I 1 65 ~averick weapons system family for l/5 the cost of what private industry charges. By these smart weapons system families remaining in place at Ogden AtC, a broader knowledge has been gained and rep& costs continue to go down. Document Separator Ogden Air Logistics Center - - - % AFSPC AMC AFMC --- ' ,. , ACC AETC I Labs & :3 Product Test Centers Centers , ... >, ,A , . - . e , . ... :.*- ,v-> ;A; L. - . +.. .. - * ,. 1 .,' - .,... . CL*". - - - . '^' ", : ,, ,- *- f?,-,-s ;,- -,, + = ahdma -::; V' ;den warner ~ o b i n s *+ -** San An I Sacramento Ogden Air Logistics Center Base Infrastructure ' Integrating Tomorrow's Technolo~v ... Today - ACC SUPPORTING I ESTb',"s" L r RESEKVE rating Tomorrow's Technoloc~~ Ogden Air Logistics Center .Weapon System Management Engineering Support aIndus trial Repair Oaden Air Loaistics C nte AIRCRAFT )IRECTORATE TECHNOLOGY & INDUSTRIAL SUPPORT DIRECTORATE TI , " ~ : ' - ' a $ , * ., p.::* ":< ' + A r . - , ,, e x A . * * I a tp\ =,+aacp.r-r y*H-+! "T hl i.F.> G < , .;-:"3 < - " . F-4 SOFTWARE PEACEKEEPER AIRMUNITION F-16 DET 35 TECH & ENG MINUTE MAVERICK FMS F/A-18 REPAIR f c :?4 SUPPORT TRAINERS I INDUST PLANT C-130 REPAIR . PHOTONICS F-16 REPAIR MGMT LANDING GEAR -q - $ . *,Ty z A 5& ;$! , - L : ~ : 8 "" INDUSTRIAL %I, - $3 TRAINING SILO-BASED ICBM SYSTEM PROGRAM OFFICE LM 10MMODITIES DIRECTORATE Integrating Tomorrow's Technology ...Tnd ay O g e n Air Lo istics Center "; F-16 Falcon 174 F/A- 18 Hornet 31 C-130 Hercules 34 C-130 N ~ v 10 I LGM-30 Minuteman 132 I M-118 Peacekeeper 3 1 Engines Other Major End Items " I Exchangeables (Component Parts) . Software tm - 1°C- * :: ;" ' ' x+:2 b-; ,.,.:, < ; **;:, , c , . Mi;"-; fl' 'bctdnr['L ?*"; Ogden Air Logistics Center - Number of Systems Managed Weapon Systems ,. , - , T';A4&,; Commodities 9. Number of Items Managed .- I yT x8A+.", .. &" - :&B*&$ 7 < i -?Lmm*3 +3+. ;;- .; ..+"" Fl " + ?+-r + Recoverable %!? 27,802 p@ *? , . . , - > , .: 5 ,><,,L ,&:+, : =*: Expendables , I , . 43,747 < ?: y , , ,:+<+ - +!;5 js -,, , L ,; 7,492 r X I 9 - FX~.%? $ Hammer Award, 29 September 1994, DMBA Corporate Board, LM I - Nominated for Bernard A Shiver Award, PEO Level Major Program, Best Managed Air Force Rogram, 16 November 1994, Major James Myers, LM - Maintenance Effectiveness Award, Best Munitions Squadron in Air Force, March 1994,649 MMTS I Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, 3 August 1994, CLSS ll - Suggestion Program Manager of the Year, 14 March 1994. Janene Gandee - Journalist of the Year, 2nd Place, April 1994, Frances Kosakowsky, PA 1 Secretary of Defense Pollution Prevention Individual Award, May 1994, Allan Dalpias Ogdem Air Logistics Center -. - - 2 1,732 People Report to Work at Hill AFB mOgden ALC Employs 8,141 Civilians and 1,866 Military Members 3 .&pg I w " Other DoD Units Employ an Additional 2,824 Civilians and 2,853 Military 4,550 Employees Work for Contractors - doing Business with the Base I A + 1,498 Individuals are Members of the U.S. Air Force Reserve ..--; Lk 95 ;k*$+.cT$ .= ? 2 , Integrating Tomorrow's Technology . Ogden Air Logistics Center - 1 .Base Area ~ I ' 1 Runway Demographics 6,698 Acres Building 12,828,643 sq ft I ! .Direct Payroll 1 A& .Annual Payroll Impact on Area , $ 8 1 I v Inuary 1 995, Ogden Air Logistics Center (OUALO ired a computed tomography facility to gplemen+ o nondestructive inspetlion topabihy. - .,LC is the leoder in nodestructive inspections for I ..: I.. I:. - -- , * !. &&,, .:;2:, for informotion on Tomography services, please c I Computed Tornograph 106 , (801) 777-608di ;: ' i , (801) 777-6082 %;qgF@:$*ygy: cg.~~.+++,$, .,' ::I:;?: Oui Sky Has NO LIMIT ... h Test a-nd Trr'ning Ran-- : t .\ ' \:>=- I . < \ -"".* THE TEST and TRAINING T - I.. 'ELOP L TES Training Ran I: ' , ,i : ' : , 4 , , . ' ' I . ' , , , , , , + P we- p - / , - b+ 'Air to I Sait Lake fntemati 3 l ' I ' j . W&Z@ %* ?' The UllR tert h i is exceptional, fran testing bua (V-1) used after WWll to being-the primary test medium long range, terrain following cruise in the 9980s and 19% Medium and long , : ' ., range unmanned air vehicles and a variety of . .< ?.';.;t -3 ding smart tmrnbj;$,:,y&;;. :,;-< ?!." . ., .. , . , .L .7c - ' . < ' , - , ' .. ., , . ' ,*, -. ive aircraft test \nrorlc indudes hardware and software upgrades for the -~6 . 5 Army test areas indude g mund glids to wpport : ' $ - , am pli artillery, obscurant and chemicaVbiological research. . . umemus areas a~.used for precision monitored a n b h d a d T . m w i m a n ' -dy fgr Air . F o l r e . m ~ a n d m ~ m d a t wning exe&es -.-- -- - I... . ...+.. Michael AAF at I g Ground marks UTlR as a uniq D resource:Dugway is the Army's ceni 1 of northwestern Utah am the perfect 1 I d o n for a major DoD test and training range. And, while we fully appreciate the potentialities of the U r n land and airspace - we am extremely sensitive to the stewardship we have. We value this trust and work had to protect the natural rwou~es within and surrounding the test range. Current projectr indude supple mental watering for arid area grazing Tw:- animals, such as our herds of antelope and - wild horses, and a successful cooperative 1 effort to stop electrocution of birds of nmll by modifying power line cross trees ti provide safe perches far away from dangerous wires. Our Team is committed to ?E:... . .*d , -1 ensuring that our natural environment is -.-. protected and enhanced, % . % ! * - :-,- :---..-, 7 A : I i Another natural is this land which is home 1 m WlR. The mwntdns and desert valleys r LIFESTYLE I a ~ t a ~ many &I park and h i L ~ u m e n t r m ~ b t h e m a g n i & e n t ~ - ~ceneryand Mnating hktory found I ,Utah k an o d m paradise. h irsldi@ at : I ' ~ f a m w s ~ w n g i n t h e d e a r lakes and dimbing juit en/qring m l a r .:;:,p, ~ ~ * & w i t ) r ~ : ' . ' n Document Separator UTAH TEST The Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) is the largest DOD overland controlled AND TRAINING airspace (17,000 square air miles). The large land and airspace, combined with modern data collection/processing capabilities and test expertise, provide unmatched RANGE support for developmental tests of advanced weapons systems. DoD Restricted DoD R e s t r i i Airspaw 7 , 1 1 . ~ 0 square + air miles ' 92 Nautical Miles ' UTiR is an unrecoverable national asset. .. if the DoD were to lose control of this valuable airspace to the FAA, the Military Operating Areas surrounding the UTTR's restricted airspace would never be regained Hill AFB The UTTR supports over 30,000 training sorties annually and has the I capacity to increase to over 90,000 annually. UTTR is an essential developmental test capability for the Air Force and Department of Defense. Training at UTTR blends modern developmental and operational test capabilities with a realistic environment for training to I produce the finest operational test range in the U.S. We have I capabilities for air-to-ground, air- to-air, ground-to-air, and ground exercises inany combination. Of all the western desert training ranges, UTTR has the lowest surrounding population. UTTR's proximity to Hill AFB increasesthe time ontarget and test time because of minimal fuel bum to arrive at the range. Varied terrain from the 4,300 foot desert floor to 12,000 foot mountains, and four season climate, Minuteman and Peacekeeper solid rocket motor propellantand largequantities of conventional munitions. It is also capable of disposing of obsolete motors from other services provides conditions required for a full scope of training scenarios. This mixture of unmatched physical characteristics and modem equipment makes it ideal for a wide variety of operational test and training activities. Tracking and documentation equipment includes an extensive high accuracy, multiple-object tracking system in addition to radars, cinetheodolites, video-metric systems, and high speed cameras. It is the only range in the US. where all test objectives for the Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) can be conducted. Helicopter pick up of Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) after completion of test. I *:-, I,, ax-: .- ;round launch of Unmanned Air ilehicle (UAV) at UTTR. F-I6 Fighting Falcons in action over UTTR. Three of the four 1994 Gunsmoke top scorers trained at UTTR. The UTTR is an unrecoverable national asset. It is the only range in the U.S. where such operations as overland high altitude strategic bombing can take place using live ordinance. Our Thermal Treatment Unit is the only environmentally permitted propellant disposal site in the United States. It is capable of disposing of Minuteman and Peacekeeper solid rocket motor propellant as well as obsolete motors fiom other services. We have an outstanding working relationship with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Utah Air National Guard's 299th Range Control Squadron or "Clover Control" is responsible for all air traffic and weapons control for the UTTR. The 299th is certified as an Air Traffic Control (ATC) facility by both the Air Force and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Clover Control ensures a smooth flow of military, commercial, and private aircraft into, around and through the UTTR simultaneously providing efficient use of this valuable airspace. If the DoD were to lose control ofthis valuable airspace to the FAA, the Military Operating Areas surrounding the UTTR's restricted airspace would never be regained. AFMC's PREMIER FIGHTER AIRCRAFT DEPOT The on-site presence of engineers greatly reduces the time required for engineering solutions to reach depot maintenance when compared to a non- collocated engineering activity. We have one of the largest fighter repair facilities in the world with 18 buildings and over one million square feet of repair and overhaul space. The specially designed industrial buildings are collocated to enhance integrated avionics workloads, and the facilities are specifically identified and designed to handle the repair of virtually any fighter aircraft or component. Ogden ALC provides worldwide logistics management and depot maintenance for the F-16 Fighting Falcons, the world's largest fleet of fighter aircraft. More than 2 1 countries employ over 3,000 F-16s. They enjoy an outstanding relationship with Ogden ALC. Our depot maintenance facilities enable us to be self supporting, with the ability to repair or manufacture virtually any fighter aircraft componeitT The facilities are equipped to I overhauVrepair an average of 300 fighter aircraft per year and have the capability and capacity to increase the workload to over 400 per year. In our main repair hangars, we have both fighter and cargo aircraft maintenance docks which are fully equipped for aircraft utilities. If the facility were to be reconfigured to accept only fighter aircraft the total dock capacity would increase to 133. Additionally each dock has central avionics air cooling hook-ups, allowing for final hct ional test to be run on all systems. Our aircraft repair facility and experienced staff ensure rapid implementation of programs and changes. Our workforce demonstrated their flexibility in successfully transitioning from the maintenance of fighter aircraft to cargo aircraft. Currently there are 1 1 C- 130 docks with an expansion capacity to 17. This transition has entailed significant depot reconfiguration and substantial retraining and certification for our mechanics, electricians and other artisans. Our people have the proven ability and can-do attitude necessary to tackle any new workload. The FRF-4 SystemProgram Director (SPD) provides worldwide logistical support and technical management of the FRF-4 weapon system. Our support currently includes Air Force and Air National Guard activities and eight foreign countries. This organization is also the System Support Manager for the QF-4 Drone Program. The @D has engineering and configuration management authority for the weapon system and is responsible for ensuring safety and logistics supportability throughout sustainment and final disposition of all FIRF-4 aircraft, components, and 1 equipment. The ISROMS Facility is specifically designed for the manufature and repair of structural sheet metal, composite aircraft components, and engines. The structure contains the latest technology and equipment and is one of the most modern facilities in the world. Autoclave for manufacturing Our depot maintenance facilities are collocated with two premier operational fighter wings, the 388th Fighter Wig and the 419th FW (Reserve), which allows a high degree of integration between the F-16 program management activity and supporting depot repair functions. The F- 16 System Support Manager (SSM) has both engineering and configuration management authority for the F-16 weapon system. As such, any weapon system engineering and configuration questions that arise during the course of maintenance can be resolved on site by resident structural, mechanical, and electronic engineers assigned to the SSM. This is an immense advantage to the worldwide support ofthe largest fighter fleet in the Air Force. Feedback between depot maintenance, product engineering, and the operational units brings aircraft problems to the prompt attention ofresponsible engineers for resolution. Conversely, the on-site presence of engineers greatly reduces the time required for engineering solutions to reach depot maintenance when compared to a non-collocated engineering activity. This translates directly to greatly reduced aircraft downtime, and improved cost and schedule effectiveness for depot support of the F-16 fleet. composites in ISROMS Facility. Our diversified capabilities are demonstrated in the Integrated Structural Repair, Overhaul, and Maintenance Systems (ISROMS) facility. It is a 289,000 square foot building dedicated fo manufacture and repair of structural sheet metal, composite aircraft components, and engines. All processes required for these functions are in-house and under the same roof. This eliminates the need for routing work to other areas, which saves money and greatly reduces flow days. We have three autoclaves which can produce temperatures of up to 650 degrees F at 350 psi. Our Automated Ultrascanning System (AUSS) is used to test composite and metal bonded parts. The Laser Automated Decoating System (LADS) is the only device of its kind, deployed or under development, that strips or removes paint and other coatings from aircraft components. It allows us to efficiently and effectively remove coating from aircraft composite surfaces with no damage to underlying materials. Our process can be successhlly applied to all composites such as thermoplastic, and metallic substrates, etc. Ultrasonic Scanner. Robotic Canopy Polisher. The Robotic Canopy Polisher is the only one of its kind in the world. Its precision contour work is highly efficient and much more consistent when compared to traditional hand polishing methods. le system detects flaws using vision inspection and performs the repair procedure. The F-16 Hydrazine Emergency Power Unit Test Facility is the DoD's only source of repair, overhaul, and test capability for the F-16 Hydrazine Emergency Power Unit (EPU). This facility is designed to duplicate aircraft in-flight emergencies for major systems failures of the EPU. The EPU test firing was built specifically for the Air Force. It requires strict handling procedures to comply with EPA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and Air Force Occupational Safety and Health standards (AFOSH). Hydrazine handling and disposal require chemical laboratory support and unique equipment of which the Air Force is the sole owner. The Compact Range Facility (CRF) is one of a kind in DoD and is the only CRF available for testing the F-16 ANIAPG-66 and ANJAPG-68 Fire Control Radar Antennas and the F-16 Nose Radome. Used for F- 16 models A, B, C, and D and two Nose Radome Electrical Test systems, it tests electrical mapping (including image sidelobe levels), power transmission deficiencies, and beam deflections. The facility is designed and constructed to create an electromagnetic environment to allow pattern testing gain documentation and boresighting. Its design provides significant cost and time savings, improved security, and eliminates surveillance requirements and adverse environmental factors. The facility is environmentally controlledandmountedona spring supported concrete floating foundation to preclude movement. 1 Compact F-16 ndome test range The Robotic Bead Blast, Our Aircraft Robotics Bead Blast is the DoD's only robotics bead blast aircraft paint which was developed at stripping cell in operation. The cell consists of two custom designed nine axis robots that Ogden Improves the strip fighter aircraft using a plastic media blast (PMB) process for paint removal. This environment and improves improves worker environment, and reduces man-hours and flow time for stripping fighter flow time. aircraft. Our facilities are located in close proximity to the runway minimizing towing distances, and has an aircraft engine runup area. The Compass Transmitter and Magnetic Azimuth Detector Test Facility is one of a kind in the DoD. The building, tools, end items, and component parts are non-magneticlnon- ferrous and the facility is aligned directly along the earth's true magnetic north-south meridian. Before construction ofthis facility, an in-depth geographic study was accomplished to determine the most suitable and magnetically stable location at Ogden ALC. The repair and testing of the Compass Transmitter and Magnetic Azimuth Detector (MAD) requires a facility with state-of-the-art technology to ensure the highest reliability and maintainability are achieved in providing DoD support. These extremely sensitive items require an environment as free from magnetic interference as possible to achieve the level of accuracy needed to obtain calibration requirements. Our Compass Transmitter and Magnetic Azimuth Detector Test Facility is one of a kind in DoD. OTHER HIGH VALUE CAPABILITIES Our Computed Tomography facilities provide the only explosives sited nondestructive inspection of large Our Computed Tomography (CT) Facilities have the only DoD explosives sited production capability to provide nondestructive inspection of large and small items, varying from small tactical missile components to Peacekeeper ICBM motors. In addition to the assigned mission, our CT facilities are capable of performing computed tomography testing for any size components. Our two CT inspection facilities provide the largest CT capability in existence. The high energy radiographic facility was specifically designed large enough and with highenoughenergy levels to provide nondestructive surveillance inspection for very large as well as small components. Specifically designed to accommodate the Minuteman and Peacekeeper solid rocket motor requirements, the facility has been sited for 1,000,000 pounds of 1.3 class explosives and 100,000 pounds of 1.1 class explosives. Our AlSF facility is the The Avionics Integration Support Facility (AISF) is a unique/ peculiar testing facility only one that allows both in design and location. It comprises 144,000 square feet and is essentially a secure vault, unobstructed radar view radio fkquency bonded and totally fenced, requiring security code access. This facility was Of incominQ and OutQOinQ specifically designed to provide large scale classified testing, fiom confidential to top secret, aircraft to test OFP development in the radar and operational flight program (OFP) support; including computer, simulator, and test environment. fixture support. Located within the facility are engineering laboratories and office space for the development, test, and integration of software and hardware for the F-4, F-16 and Air Force Mission Support Systems. The facility is positioned to allow unobstructed radar view of all incoming and outgoing aircraft fiom Ogden ALC. It houses the seven-window integrated test stand lab which was built to allow active radar use and acquiring live targets (illuminating aircraft). This capability of tracking actual airborne targets provides a myriad of opportunities to test the development efforts in the OFP radar environment. Latest OFP innovations in the radar software can simply be loaded on existing hot mock-ups and tested within the confines of the ASIF. Advantages to this approach include decreased actual weapon system downtime, economical testing and rapid turnaround time for test results. Ogden ALC's depot maintenance software charter simply couldnot be performed without a facility like the ASIF. SOFTWARE Our software engineers provide ICBM simulation to integrate new operational software and hardware into the ICBM weapon systems. I-. A En, ..., ers loping Operational Flight F ,,;am L,....,,, for the F-16 Weapon ,,,,ern Ogden ALC's software development maintenance function provides engineering design and development of Operational Flight Programs (OFPs) for F-4 Wild Weasel, RF-4s, F-16 production blocks 10 through 40, and the Mission Planning systems software for the F-4 and F-16 weapon systems. All our software programs are designed or maintained under strict process control using Software Engineering Institute (SEI) Capability Maturity Model level 3 criteria. Our software engineers and technicians provide software engineering and maintenance of key ICBM test and simulation systems and are core members of the ICBM Strategic Missile Integrationcomplex team. The team provides ICBM simulation to integrate new operational software and hardware into the ICBM weapon systems as well as trouble shooting ICBM assets which cannot be repaired outside of an integrated simulation environment. Our electronic engineers and technicians provide a complete range of services covering both control and support software for automatic test systems for testing line replaceable units and shop replaceable units fiom aircraft, small missiles, and photographic/reconnaissance systems. We provide technical data packages including test program sets, technical orders, drawings and maintenance manuals. We rehost test programs to new test systems when the original becomes obsolete. We support the F-16, F-4, B-I, and C-141 as well as munitions systems such as is driven by software. the Maverick Missile, the Advanced Cruise Missile, and the GBU-15 Guided Bomb Unit. Software Technology Support Center (STSC) has been designated as the focal point for Air Force and Department of Defense for software technology. The missionofthe STSC is to enable software organizations to identify, evaluate, and adopt technologies that improve the quality of their software products, their efficiency in producing software, and their ability to accurately predict the cost and schedule of software delivery. The prime benefits received include increased awareness and understanding of proven software technologies, intelligent evaluation, selection, and use of software technologies, and increased quality and efficiency in developing and supporting software intensive systems. Ogden develops and maintains software for the F-16 'Electric J b Our four story Photographic Image Quality Test Facility is the only one in DoD The Photographic Image Quality Test Facility (PIQTF) and the Cartographic Camera Calibration Facility (CCCF) are the only ones in DoD. The Photographic Image Quality Test Facility is a four-story facility specifically designed for critical testing of aeriallspace sensors, and determining the operational imagery quality to DoD standards. There is only one other cartographic camera calibration facility in government control in the United States. It is in Reston, Virginia, at the U.S. Geological Service. They only test and perform limited repair of mapping cameras. The customer has to perform their own repairs then send the camera to the U.S. Geological Service for testing. They do not offer the full range of depot overhaul and testing provided by Ogden ALC. The Airborne Reconnaissance Overhaul capability at Hill Air Force Base is the only one of its kind in the Department of Defense providing the full range of maintenance capabilities. As the Air Force Technical Repair Center for depot repair of airborne reconnaissance equipment, both photographic and electro-optical sensors, our maintenance and engineering personnel are uniquely qualified. The Imaging System Overhaul capability at Hill Air Force Base is the only one of its kind in the Department of Defense providing the full range of maintenance capabilities. As the Air Force Technical Repair Center for depot repair of imaging systems, we support a variety of film- based cameras, printers, processors, light tables, stereoscopes, electro-optic sensors, infrared sensors, mapping and hand-held cameras, optical lenses and elements. The Optical Refurbishment Overhaul capability at Hill Air Force Base is the only one of its kind in the Department of Defense having the ability to work lenses up to 30 inches and providing a full range of maintenance capabilities, and single source of repair. We provide complete overhaul and test operations includingthe physical, photonics, electronics, circuit boards, wiring harnesses, and testing operations not found at any other facility. Ogden Air Logistics Center photonics opticians and technicians skillfully refurbish concave, convex, and flat optical elements consisting of metal, glass and plastic materials. The 388th and 419th placed 1st and 3rd respectively in the 1994 Gunsmoke competition. I Tenants Hill AFB hosts the premier 388th Fighter Wing and the 419th Fighter Wing (ReSe~e) under the direction of the Air Combat Command and the Air Force Reserve. These major tenant organizations benefit fiom the geographical location, close proximity to a major commercial airport, the support infrastructure at Hill AFB, adjacent training facilities, and open airspace. The UTTR, and surrounding open airspace provides the full spectrum of possible training scenarios that may be incurred throughout the world from remote desert to rugged mountains and expansive lakes. The high degree of integration between these two fighter wings, the F- 16 program management activity, and supporting depot repair functions is an immense advantage to the worldwide support of the Air Force F-16 fleet. Feedback between the maintenance wings' personnel, F-16 depot maintenance, and F-16 product engineering brings aircraft problems to the prompt attention of responsible engineers for resolution. Defense Information Services Agency, Defense Megacenter Ogden @MC Ogden) - Hill AFB has one of the largest and most extensive computer infrastructures available in DoD. Recently rated asNumber Twoout ofthe sixteen megacenters in the United States, and has the capability to rapidly expand the services and technology of our information systems to meet any organizational requirement. The Hill AFB infrastructure supporting the megacenter is state of the art with a new facility containing 143,000 square feet of floor space. Attributes include: - Secure Compartmentalized Information Facility for processing classified information Redundant fibre optic communications network Multimedia communications Data and voice imaging - Fully reliable electrical backup Processing Center serving 26 Air Force baseslunits in eight western states DMC Ogden is a leader in Electronic Communications/Electronic Data Interchange and High Speed Asynchronous Transmission Mode technology. Our facility is capable of processing over 835 Million instructions Per Second (MIPS), 1555 gigabytes of memory, over 13 terabytes of storage space, and most importantly, has a highly trained work force performing as a full service megacenter. I Our Regional Processing Center was recently rated as number two out of the sixteen Megacenters in the United States, Military Readiness, Mobilization/Deployment Our readiness staging area can handle large or small equipment and keep it ready for worldwide deployment. i Hill AFB's capacity to project, Worldwide deployment: generate, and sustain support for Active duty and Reserve contingencies and mobilization training prepare us to for Reserve, as well as active duty mobilile and deploy units, meets or exceeds military personnel and organizationalrequirements. The equipment to any Installation Mobility Office location in the world. presently supports 4,800 military personnel in our active duty organizations and tenant units, as well as over 1,800 Reserve and National Guard personnel. Our Mobility Processing Unit (MPU) has demonstrated the capacity to process one person per minute, 24 hours per day. For example, during the Desert Shield buildup our MPU processed an unprecedented 1,568 active duty, Reserve, and other Defense Department personnel in one day. BASELDEPOT ATTRIBUTES INTERSERVICING Ogden ALC has the capacity and capability of becoming the single DoD source of CONDITION repair for all Air Force and other services fighter aircraft and related commodities workloads. We have been very successful with our aircraft interservice efforts and are AND prepared to accept new workloads from all services. Historically, we have been a premier fighter depot. Since June of 1993, our depot maintenance team has been performing Standard Depot Level Maintenance (SDLM) on Navy C-130 cargo aircraft, demonstrating our flexibility in depot level maintenance. Currently we have 11 C-130 docks with an expansion capacity to 17. If our facility were to be reconfigured to accept only fighter aircraft, our total dock capacity would increase to 133. Our landing gear team is repairing Navy C-130 landing gear. We contracted for, and successfully performed work on 36 Navy FIA-18 in the Modification, Corrosion, and Paint Program (MCAPP). This was the only major contract ever awarded through publiclprivate competition to a public activity. Other interservice efforts at Ogden ALC are as follows: The SBICBM Directorate has the overall refurbishment and logistic support responsibility for booster motors, support equipment, and aging surveillance testing for the Reentry Systems Launch Program (RSLP). This is an Army program which serves all DoD agencies, using excess DoD assets. Currently, our Rapid Execution and Combat Targeting (REACT) test program is underway using the SMIC facilities. Our close proximity to the Thiokol Solid Propellant Motor Production facility reduces transportation costs and our interservice workloads include some Navy rocket motor activities. C-5 galaxy being loaded near runway at Dugway. Peacekeeper solid rocket motor propellant and to increase activity to handle obsolete motors from other services. Environmental approval is pending for the destruction of the Navy Poseidon C-3 rocket motors. An additional 2 million square feet of Our tactical missile all-up-round maintenance facility repairs and overhauls Space can be made available to Air Force and Navy Maverick Missiles, electro optic, laser, and infi-ared depot maintenance to accomodate guidance control sections. They also repair and overhaul Field Level Analog/ any new work/oads. Digital Missile Test Sets. Our Technology and Industrial Support Directorate regularly provides support to the Army and Navy with our computed tomography and high energy X-ray facilities, Science and Engineering Laboratory, battery shop, and Precision Measurement Equipment Laboratory. With many of these workloads we are the only source of test and repair in the DoD. Facilities at Hill AFB are in excellent condition. A large number of our buildings, such as overhaul and testing facilities, and military dormitories, have been constructed within the last five years. Many other structures such as the base hospital were built within the past 20 years. Nearly all other buildings have been remodeled to one extent or another within the past five years and present a modem quality atmosphere for our personnel. An additional 2 million square feet of space can be made available to the depot maintenance to accommodate any new workloads. Our capacity to provide water, sewage treatment, electrical distribution, and landfill facilities was satisfactory when the base population was 22,000 in the 1980's. Our current population is approximately 16,000 and these systems are functioning with excess capacity available to support any new workloads. Our water storage tank has a two million gallon capacity which is far from being fully utilized. Our sanitary sewer system from the base goes into the North Davis Sewer System. Existing electrical distribution substations on base were originally oversized, and thus still provide adequate capacity to take on any proposed load. Solid waste service for the base is provided at the Davis County Bum Plant located just outside of the base. UTTR hosts many joint service exercises and blends modern developmental test capabilities with a realistic environment. Much of the training for the Desert Shield/ Desert Storm operations was performed at UTTR. Our strong partnership with the Army's Dugway Proving Grounds marks UTTR as a valuable DoD resource. Dugway's Michael Army Airfield, with its 13,100 foot runway, is a major support asset for multi- service developmental and operational tests. The Thermal Treatment Unit at Oasis is the only environmentally permitted large ICBM motors and propellant disposal site in the United States. We have the capacity to dispose of Minuteman and Defense spending in Utah has been falling more rapidly than elsewhere in the nation. Utah's share of national defense spending has fallen from $9,282 per million dollars of national expenditures in 1986 to $5,138 in 1993. Nationally, defense spending has declined IMPACT1 in absolute terms in two of the last eight years. In contrast, defense spending in Utah has COMMUNITY declined in six of the last eight years. This disproportionate share of defense spending I ~ T R U ~ would prolong an economic recovery in the event of closure or significant realignment of workloads fkom Hill AFB or Ogden ALC. TOOELE 1 Economic impact models estimate that Hill supports more than 12,800 secondary jobs in the surrounding communities. Over 15,000 military and civilian personnel earn an annual payroll of approximately $5 10 million. Total new procurement each year amounts to over $1 billion, with nearly $155 million contracted to Utah companies, many of them small or disadvantaged firms. Annual state and federal taxes and deductions paid by Hill AFB's workforce total some $100 million. Annual charitable contributions by base employees have consistently exceeded $500 thousand dollars. Approximately $300 thousand of this money stays in Utah each year. Added to the economic impact of the current workforce are the many military and civilian retirees living nearby. There are approximately 24,000 civilians; 10,000 military retirees; and 6,700 survivors, totaling more than 41,000 in the Hill area. Their annual retirement payments total more than $500 million. I extremely supportive of forces, mission, and personnel. This stems from the fact that so many local residents are either employed by Hill AFB, dependent on supplying Hill AFB and Hill AFB employees, or are active duty or retired military personnel. Facilities, such as hospitals, utilities, etc., are modern and in plentiful supply with excess capacities. Further logistical support comes from Hill AFB being located at a transportation hub for rail, air, and highway transportation. I The 1993 edition of "Places Rated Almanac, a guide to finding the best places to live in North America", ranks the Salt Lake City-Ogden area eighth best out of 343 areas in the United States and Canada. Our close proximity to universities and schools of higher education along the Wasatch Mountain Range and in the Salt Lake Valley is advantageous to personnel desiring to complete or upgrade their education. Universities include the University of Utah, Weber State University, Utah State University, and Brigham Young University. Other schools in the area include Salt Lake Community College, Westminster College of Salt Lake City, Columbia College, University ofphoenix, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (located at Hill AFB), and Park College fromParkville, Missouri (located at Hill AFB). There are also two vocational schools within 10 to 30 minutes driving distance from Hill AFB, the Applied Technology Center in Ogden and the Davis Applied Technology Center located in Kaysville. There has also been tentative approval to build a junior college in Davis County within easy commuting distance from Hill AFB. There are several excellent school districts in Davis, Weber, and Morgan Counties that are only a 10 to 30 minute drive from the base. The school districts serve elementary, junior high, and high school students. Some of the highlights of Utah Public 7 Schools, as stated by the Utah State Board of Education, include ranking second nationally for high school completion, SAT scores that are considerably above the national average, and ranking first in the nation for advanced placement testing. Fint : Nestled between the Great Salt lake and the beautiful Wasatch Mountains is the city of Ogden. Second :The University of Utah campus is situated on the foothills of the Wasatch Mountains in Salt lake City. Third: Cougar stadium on the campus of Brigham Young University; Home of football power BYU Cougars. Boltom: Utah Symphony summer concert on the campus at Weber State University, Ogden. The western states are designated as the homes for the nation's silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and their associated maintenance and logistics workloads. Our strategic and central location in the western desert offers a natural remoteness and security for this workload from the more populated eastern urban areas. We control and manage 7,000 acres on Hill AFB and over 900,000 acres of test and training range. We own 1,438 buildings, including those at remote activities, 239 miles of roadway systems, 3 1 miles of railroad, and 6.4 million square feet of airfield pavement. Our runway is 13,500 feet in length and 200 feet wide, with the primary taxiway at 75 feet wide. With over 7.200 arrivals and departures per month, Hill AFB Flightline. the runway at Hill is one of the busiest in the Air Force for a single runway. We have a total of 4,710 developed acres and real estate resources which have the potential to facilitate future development totaling approximately 10,000 unrestricted acres. Because of our location, We have a large military and civilian personnel population and offer a strong military we have the ability to training environment for both active duty and Reserve personnel. Because of our location, acc0mOdate ~~ntinQenCy, we possess the ability to accommodate contingency, mobility, and future force operations mobility, and future force at virtually any time during the year. Our ability to accommodate contingency and mobility 0pelzlti0n~ at ~ i f t~a l ly any situations was dramatically demonstrated during Desert Storm. Much of the training for this time during theyear. highly successful military operation was conducted at the UTTR, and the logistical and overhaullrepair support provided by Hill AFB was outstanding, often providing needed material and repairs in less than half the time requested. During Desert Storm, our ability to accommodate contingency and mobility sluations was dramatically demonstrated . Park City: Skiing the heart of the Rockies. Eight major ski resorts are within a one hour drive from Hill AFB, which gives the opportunity to ski "the best snow on earth". A multitude of recreation services cater to our military and civilian personnel. Some of ourse~ces include, goling, hunting, tennis, fishing, horseback riding and much more. ENCROACHMENT Tenant units located on Hill AFB benefit by our geographical location, support inhstructure, andadjacenttraining facilities. We host more than 50 tenant organizations, directed by commands other than the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC). A few of the largest tenants are the 388th Fighter Enlisted personnel dormitories are modern facilities with all the latest conveniences and comforts. * . f Wing, 41 9th Fighter Wing (Reserve), the Defense Information Systems Agency (Regional Processing Center), the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron, the 545th Test Group, and the 729th Air Control Squadron. Meeting the numerous needs of Hill AFB organizations and people is the mission of the 75th Air Base Wing. The 75th ABW provides the equivalent of municipal services and is responsible for hiring, pay, security, fire protection, and transportation; as well as morale, welfare, and recreation activities. Ourbase services divisioncontributes to our military readiness and improved productivity through programs supporting fitness, esprit de corps, and quality of life for both our military and civilian people. Hill AFB was rated as the best of the five bases hosting air logistics centers in 1993. It was the only base that was rated "green" indicating "off-base development generally compatible with accident potential zones". Since 1993 the State of Utah has invested $10 million to protect our airspace around the base. This ensures protected, unencroached corridors to the Great Salt Lake and the ranges in the western desert which are virtually uninhabited and controlled by DoD. Local communities have done everything in their power to make development compatible with the activities at the base. The population density in the critical areas surrounding the base has been carefully watched and limited to minimize encroachment. CUSTOMER Our infrastructure is well organized, our facilities are very hct ional and contribute to the INTERFACE effectiveness and efficiency of the mission of all organizations we support. We are flexible and highly capable of relocating activities and organizations, and of readjusting workloads as required in the interest of accommodating new missions and increasing organization performance. Our support organizations provide the equipment and expertise needed. We work in a secure and wholesome environment conducive to satisfying the mission of the DoD while at the same time providing world-class service to o w customers. A WORD FROM OUR CUSTOMERS ... ... '%ully expecting an interruption of my communications service due to recent move to our new facility, I was surprised to find out the move had already taken place. .. " , ... "We appreciate your efforts in beta testing our new network security software which should enhance security procedures tltroughout the Air Force"... Air Force Cryptological Center ... " From the onset of the acceptance inspection, it was apparent that... the overall product was vastly superior to that we have received in recent years from other USAF and contractor operations. Every area we checked showed a degree of expertise, pride and almost artistic craftmanship plainly missing from the efforts and results of other depots "... Commander, 913 CAMS, USAFR Selected as 'Best Environmental Managers" in DoD (1 992) ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Hill's environmental management efforts serve as a model for the Air Force and other federal installations. Our environmental programs are diverse, unique, and aggressive. Our environmental capacity and potential for expansion are superb. Ow outstanding environmental record and the healthy clean environment in which we live and work enables us to conduct our mission while providing adequate room for additional units which will not exceed our environmental limits. There are no threatened or endangered species located on the 6,698 acres that comprise Hill AFB. Hill AFB embodies all the ingredients needed to enhance and protect the environment. We enjoy high levels of command support, environmental awareness at all working levels, and rapport with the local communities andregulatory agencies. Hill AFB practices solid, consistent application of Total Quality Management to meet the objectives and intent of environmental protection laws and regulations. We are proud of our environmental programs which are recognized at the highest levels. We have received national recognition, which is demonstrated by five significant awards presented to Hill AFB in 1992 and 1993. - Secretaty of Defense Environmental Quality Award (Best in Defense Department) 1992 - Gen. Thomas D. White Environmental Quality Award (Best in Air Force) 1991-1992 - Gen. Thomas D. White Pollution Prevention and Recycling Award (Best in Air Force) - President's Council on Management Improvement Award - EPA Stratospheric Ozone Protection Award A National Resource More than just another military installation, Hill AFB and Ogden ALC is a national resource that supports the operational needs of over 50 tenant organizations. We host two of the Air Forces's premier fighter wings, one of the DoD 's computer megacenters, and control the nation's largest overland test and training ranges. Closing Ogden ALC discards the efficiencies, recognized quality, internationally competitive costs, and overall best valueprocesses achievedthrough years of continuous process improvements and wise decision making. Ogden ALCpossesses many features andfacilities of high military value that are truly unique to the United States Air Force and the DoD. Our SBICBM test, maintenance, disposal, and storage facilities are not duplicated anywhere and are operated and maintained by personnel C - x whose skills and experience are unique. The facilities must be duplicated, tested, and made operational prior to relocating them. The cost to relocate them approaches $1 billion. The SBICBMs-ystem program ofice has improvedoperations so eficiently over the past fav years that millions of dollars have been returned as cost savings to its customers. This is a direct savings to the taxpayers. Ogden ALC provides worldwide logistics management and depot maintenance for the F-16 Fighting Falcon, the world's largest fleet of fighter aircraji. More than 21 countries employ over 3,000 F-16s. They enjoy an outstanding relationship with Ogden ALC. We are the leading depot maintenance activity for conventionalmunitions, and small missiles. The Air Force has designated Ogden ALC as the ammunition Control Point for the Air Force. Our maintenance, testing, andstorage capabilities can handle 20,000 munitions shipments anntially and we control an $11 billion inventory of munitions for over 400 bases. The landing gear facility is the world's largest overhaul and repair center for aircraft landing gear, brakes, struts, and wheels. It is modern, automated, and processes are optimized for eficient production. We handle 70percent of the landing gear in the DoD and can handle all of the DoD's repair nee&. Our capacity to project, generate, and sustain support for contingencies and mobilizationfor Reserve, as well as active duty units, meets or exceeds military organizationalrequirements. Ourpet$onnance during the Desert Shield build-up speaks for itseg The Mobility Processing Unit processed an unprecedented 1568 Active Duty, Reserve, and other DoD personnel during a one day period. While we understand the need to downsize and close installations, we believe closing Ogden ALC will be costly to the life cycle of weapon systems we support, and directly impact our armedforce 's ability to meet mission requirements. All estimates indicate that the cost to close Hill AFB and Ogden ALC will approach $2billion. This is an expense that will not be recouped in our lifetime. Top: First stage Minuteman rocket motor being disassembled by ordnance equipment mechanic. Second: night crew helps F-16 pilot get ready for flight. Thirdfinal preparation for propagation test at the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR). Fourth: Repairing a C-5 main gear Bottom:C-130 in repair hangar. Document Separator BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT COMMISSION 4-5 JUNE 1995 MS REESE PROGRAM OF EVENTS FOR THE VISIT BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT COMMllTEE 04 June 1995 Greeted by: Major Jose Aragon, Chief, Commander's Action Group 6/2/95 1 :58 PM h: \ cc \ ccx\linda \ brac \ HALLIN.XLS ' UNIFORM: 1 520 1600 161 0 1720 1 730 1800 1810 2100 21 47 2200 2220 Short Sleeve Shirt/Open Collar 001 0 0200 001 0 0010 0020 0020 - Greeted by: Mr George Falldine, Deputy Director, Comptroller Directorate Meet with George Falldine, Jim Polter and other selected personnel Ms Wasleski is transported via GOV to DLA Headquarters Escort: Mr Pete McKinney, Deputy Director, Defense Logistics A ~ e n c ~ Ms Wasleski tours DLA Facilities Ms Reese is transported via GOV to Billeting Free time in quarters Ms Wasleski is transported via GOV to Billeting Free time in quarters White surrey arrives Billeting, Bldg 557 to transport Ms Reese and Ms Wasleski to Macon Airport Escorted by: Captain Al Garner, Commander's Action Group Commissioners Cornella & Kling arrive Macon Airport Transportation via white surrey to Robins Billeting Free time in quarters 05 June 1995 Please place your luggage in the living room area of your suite and the rental car keys on the desk. Your car will be moved to the Museum ~rior to vour de~arture rl UNIFORM: Short Sleeve Shirtlopen Collar ACTIVITY TIME DURATION 0640 0645 070C 073C 0740 0745 0805 0820 0005 001 5 0030 0010 0005 0020 0015 001 5 - 7 White surrey proceeds to Bldg 552 to pickup visitors White surrey proceeds to Bldg 557 to pickup visitors Continental Breakfast at Conference Center BRAC Briefing Briefer: Mr George Falldine, Deputy Director, Comptroller Directorate Break Transportation via white surrey to F-15 PDM Area, Bldg 125, Dock 2, west end Colonel Rutley briefs enroute (6-2901) Tour F-15 PDM Area to include Crash Damage Host: Mr Don Jarzynka, Director, F-15 Production (6-365 11952- 1537) - F-15 Story Boards - F- 15 Goals - Acft Completions - PDM Trend - PDM Bar Charts - Quality Chart - MSlP Trend - MSlP Bar Chart - Wiring Analyzer - PDMSS - Crash Damage Acft Reposition white surrey to east side, Bldg 125, Dock 4 Driveby tour via white surrey of JSTARS & B-1 Beddown enroute to Combat Talon Hangar, Bldg 91, west side General Hallin, Colonel Duntz & Mr Martin brief enroute - Mobility Processing Center - JSTARS Trainer - Acft on Ramp - Point out new hangars - Point out plan to park B-1 (Christmas Tree) - Tour JSTARS Construction - Finish with B-1 on way back - SOF Mission Tour Combat Talon Hangar Host: Colonel Ben McCarter, Director, C-130 System Program Office (6-23221952-5464) 1 TIME 0835 0840 0900 0905 0920 0925 - ~ustomers/~dmmands - SPM Office Functions/Production Facilities - Current Major Workloads being Performed - PDM - UDLM - Combat Shadow - Center Wing - SOF Center Wing - AC-130 Secondary Liquid Oxygen Install - MC-130H Stand Alone GPS Install - Community Partnership (fuel baffle assy) - BOSS (paint stripping) I DURATION ACTIVITY Tour C-141 Center Wing Box Host: Mr Mike Cronan, Deputy Director, C-141 Management Directorate (6-6491 1952-4467) -CSAF Award - Permanent CWB Display -- . - Story Board - Climb up stand to view acft - Aircraft Capacity Chart (CC briefs) - C 1 30 Missions/Goals 0005 0005 ITransportation via white surrey to DV Lounge, Bldg 1 10, north side Transportation via white surrey to C-141 Center Wing Box, Bldg 83, east side; view Bluesuiter Maintenance enroute Mr Cronan briefs enroute - Bluesuiter Maintenance - C-141 Mission enroute 001 5 Tour Shops in Bldg 140 Host: Mr Clint Lewis, Director, Technology & Industrial Support (6-3703195 1 -2044) - Map of TI facilities - Plating Story Board - MachiningIJSTARS Trainer Support - Sheet Metal Repair/F-15 Wing - Fasteners - C- 130 Props - Sheet Metal Manufacturing - Composites - Capacity Charts Break in DV Lounge 0005 UNIFORM: Short Sleeve Shirt/Open Collar Transportation via white surrey to Technology & Industrial Support, Bldg 140, south side Mr Lewis briefs enroute - TI Mission enroute ' UNIFORM: Short Sleeve Shirtlopen Collar 1 TIME r 0955 1000 101 5 1020 v DURATION 0005 001 5 0005 0035 ACTlVl N Transportation via white surrey to Electronic Warfare, Bldg 226, south end Tour Electronic Warfare Host: Colonel Harry Calcutt, Director, Electronic Warfare (6-3371 ) - EW PGM & EWAISF Overview Brief - Tour ALQ-172 -- 8-52 & C-130 High Band Jammer - Anechoic Chamber, Hot Mockup - Emergency Reprogramming - Tour ALQ-161 Integrated Support Station - B-1 B Defensive Avionics Sytem - Hot Mockup, Threat Simulator -- Cockpit Displays Transportation via white surrey to Avionics Directorate, Bldg 6401645 Colonel Easterly briefs enroute - Point out facility downsizing & construction/modernization enroute - LY mission enroute Tour Avionics Host: Colonel Glenn Easterly, Director, Avionics Directorate (6-33631952-9688) -- - - Graphic of Airborne Electronics Complex - Engineering Support Facilites chart/Graphic - Facility orientation Graphic in east annex - F-15 avionics - Improved roll torquer amplifier hybrid (synergy with hybrid lab) - Avionics Supply Support (DLA connection) - Organic fabrication (hi-bay area) -- Cable fabrication example - Facility orientation graphic by LANTIRN - Process initiatives (2LM. LL) - PLAD (in LANTIRN) - JSTARS area and charts - PWB fabrication - CARA flight line test sets examply - Hazardous material storage & handling with HAZMAT Team - Enter Bldg 645 - Facility orientation graphic - TEWS & PAVE MINT - Traveling wave tube tester w/pod exhibit - Pod exhibit & chart on pod repair ctr - Technology sustainment a 9 ' UNIFORM: Short Sleeve Shirtlopen Collar 1 TIME DURATION ACTIVITY -- 1055 1100 1 100 1 102 1 1 12 1 122 1 125 121 5 1230 TBD 0005 0002 001 0 001 0 0003 0050 001 0 - ARN-6 to ARC.-1 90 example - B-1 facility - Avionics summary -- Facility graphic -- Capacity graphic Reposition surrey to the east side of Bldg 645 Transportation via white surrey to Museum of Aviation, Phase II Peggy Young briefs enroute Arrive Museum to include a brief tour Address Rally (Outside) Tour Museum Host: Mrs Peggy Young, Director (6-4242) Press Conference Proceed to Art Gallery Lunch in Art Gallery MenuIAttendees: TBD -- Commissioners Cornella and Kling depart via white surrey to flightline for departure Commissioners Cornella and Kling depart Rob~ns via mil air Ms Reese and Ms Wasleski depart Robins via rental car for Atlanta Airport ROOM ASSIGNMENTS Commissioner Kling Georgia Ste/Rm 114/Bldg 557 Commissioner Cornella Carl Vinson Ste/Rm 115/Bldg 557 468-7561 468-2100 9121926-7561 9121926-2100 Ann Reese Marilyn Wasleski Lemay Ste/Rm 109/Bldg 557 468-9013 468-2100 9121926-9013 9121926-2100 Cong Sanford Bishop Twining Ste/Rm 149/Bldg 552 9121926-6723 9121926-2100 Cong Saxby Chambliss White Ste/Rm 145/Bldg 552 9121926-3802 912/926-2100 Frank Norton Suite 620516/Bldg 557 9121926-2100 Gail Boyce Suite 6101/2/Bldg 557 9121926-2100 MUSEUM OF AVIATION BRAC LUNCHEON 5 June 1995 1125: Opening remarks -- Introductions 1130: Invocation 1135: Lunch 1210: Closing remarks 1215: Depart for Base Ops Mr G. Israel Mr L. Pugh Mr G. Israel Sen Nunn Sen Coverdell Rep Chambliss Rep Collins Mr Cornella Mr Kling Mr Norton SURREY PASSENGERS TO BASE OPS (Escorted by Maj Gen Hallin) Lt Gen Farrell Lt Col Tate Rep Bishop (TBD) - Commissioners and delegation depart Robins AFB approximately 1230 enroute to Dobbins ARB, Atlanta via C-26 - Lt Gen Farrell and Lt Col Tate depart Robins AFB approximately 1300 enroute to Wright-Patterson AFB via C-21 Document Separator ERVIEW MS. ANN REESE . j z. 1 ,* r 1 'b -?- 1 CROSS SERVICE DOD AI: \LYST 1". ARMY DEPOT La%YEc~oMa CURRENT MAINTENANCE MISSION WORKLOAD TOTAL PROGRAM ILLION MHRS .:. >c - -. - .-.;:.>-;,.: - , -= .?. *,"'l - ,:.,."Tr&-:! . . , . , . 0 .,. - .ILLION MHRS p- ;x: ---: a,-- --FhdI-r-.',- .'A . . . ,. . _... ' ' . . 6, . . ,, , .AL~-4;,.. 1 I SOURCE: DESCOM MFM, OPS-29 AND HISTORICAL FILES ARMY DEPOT a%EEk- PROJECTED MAINTENANCE MISSION WORKLOAD #!h * - - .m7. F" '"" PROJECTED FY95 FYOO -FYC WORKLOAD (MILLION MHRS) < < . - . - 5;3p<. 4 vr , p , , +-: > ,,, ,- x * * * v -: ':, +,;$?J:, ; . . .', 4 , , *$ $ii, ';!: ;;;{;?L;; - <,,$,J!& -,;:.;$ , , ,, 7 , ,.:!p$ ,>:' 8. , , ": ,:,. ; , ;; $., , , ,9.,.,kA : , , '':?h+-. . ,2'q:$ .,;: . , :.,"L~::>::>* 9,;; !.,' - ;$?!<. . it,:. . . . " , ., : : . 1. ,_* . '"8 ".: ; ,: .,;i.;..-.<-, .., a:t,> ,. < , :"SOURCE: , , DESCOM MFM, OPS-29 AND JCSG-DM DATA ARMY DEPOT m%\Em CORE STATISTICS Vm -7- , . , . ;t:-v,*:: .. . - -!-r FY96 -.. - v - ' FYg7 - - Fv98 FY99 - . - 9 _ r 7) , 4 ~ : - - - r - F ~ ~ ~ " ' F .T"- . , -., Fyoo FY( WORKLOAD - .- 2.794 MHRS) - . . . . . -"~w& . . I-,, . - 8 . I . - . I " , ,. - %- L ADJUSTMENTS MADE ' CORE 1 TOTAL WORKLOAD S'1 LTISTICS FY99 -. . . , - . - - . 9 -I* CORE WORKLOAD y!-*m2.794 M MH R . - - *&& I = 75% TOTAL WORKLOAD 3.732 M MHRS MAIFTENANCE CAPACITY STATISTIC". flMILLION MANllOTJRS) ,> l:l,& yj b,*7,, TBD , , - - . kl;.. I . . w-9 TOBY HA: 1- - FFY9s *.* 'FY! 3 , T I . ,-,; Ai-&&*+& ---, ->,' F-Y94 d,, - - a I *yi< c F a ! ARMY -, -: :*:-:r 27 :-. , ., ,.- ,I,, % 1 - ' . , . LL-"L.l .96-'i ,.4,A;i DEPO t u&L - c . ~ - i -.- 4 I A d Y DEPOT AVERAGE LABOR HOUR COST , , - . d WG-1 $13.10 STEP DEPG. FXKLm IELE- ' AVERAGE DEPOT SALl RY *. I , r " i l 1 OCTOBER 94 : I ' .&. ', I,. 1 I LA $ $ O 0 - 0 4 5 ~ AVERAGE ,..*iL+,-=-.- . -.&- d -.L I . , 4 - SALARY - .,A- -,,* < :<: ,;:'<*:,;&$>: =- ;* : :.A,: < -. & &-, , - Al&52R ' ' < Ail I ACTUAL DEPOT HOUR COPT FY-94 RATE INCLUDES: SALARIES I WAGES, MISSION OVERHEAD BASE OPERATIONS,El d C T COST COMPARISONS '8 ; I*' ..\ . , . I . , I : - , , , - , ,.. -.., -. , , , ' ' - : r L . . , , , .<.:., , J , - ' , = 42% '7 , INESS PERFORMANCE LOWERS TOTAL COS - . - , ; .,BUT INCREASES PERCENTAGE! , . . %-. ,, . . < . ++- ; ,, - , ' . . ., m , &h>!@:%, ;, , ' - ., - .:,a\?.. : ,$,:+I '>. , +. . . *. :; , - b , , - . i r - , , , , < , 'j+g& , .i r - ,,rq,; # % . , :p '. 1 I . . . L . , -., Y . ' MAINTENANCE I*.y . ,-- :. MISSION BID RATES ~. , ., - ,:,,, --; ., '- -. --. , >*>:,:- ' - ,;., .. , , ,.-., ->i,'-, <-;.E;:,;,*. .,'- ", ,,:, . ! >- . ' .., ..., ',.? 2: ,- "?S?(, : I I:*,; - ., - :, DEPOT -: - . . FY91 FY92 F Y ~ $ ~ - F Y ~ ~ FY95 FY96 ?v; p.:-, &&NAD k 73.04 93.68 83.02 90.47 108.47 83-90 I : 1 ,, ;,, CCAD 88.25 120:;: 15.48 122.75 I d ----- 10137 r . LEAD . . 67.58 81.43 a;l.or 86.36 . , , , . ,ib 98.32 , , . , $.-. . 88.62 -: :. . - pd.-c &~,;'&:c", - I , . . 7 , , . +; - - - ? ---. .-,- * . , I . ., L c n i . - - +& I I , , - , i T ! f , ' : i .,;<;.. : , i ' , , , ,, -.%, .>f ,F, { ,";-,. rn.2.: +; ., -;; ., . '.' . : ; <,"I 8 , . . .- . . , . - i . 4 . , , . , .. I , , 1 7 : :, . , , , .:;?-i*.:.:. . ,, ; :+~r$qq SURCHARGE j . -.<--''; p*,, ! - , ;:;;~-:::.?,,kd .:- ?.:-' ., : - , : , : - l*;; ,~:~< ,- >: :<, <%,?# - ADJUSTMENTS (It::, -,- ..',!..; (PCU,S OR MINUS) FOR V A R ~ O U ~ . . . .,, , . * -* REASONS i..,;. .. ) . ' , , , , ,? - , C .+:5Fp-$,,j ::h ; " - . i I . , , , , , - , . - ,, : , -%;d*2.L .. : , , " , : .:, : , -,;<;, %,3 f<,": . , , . , , , -! , ,, :;d:,$..-;: v > ! - L , . $>-';;>- , ' *.> " ,"", .>!:?"-.? , , - , ', , .. ., .;'? w4 . . - . . I . , , <:, < , , ,,>:; ; ' , .. .L.:"c .,+;:q .?. .,,.& 18-1 -:<:;:--<; <, . ' , , , , - ' - ,r7: r - -., j . , . . . . . !, , ....!,, I ,p . , , t i ' ? . 6 . : ..., , - 7%*1( .:. ' .. . . .. .< . . . . . ,< - : * - . . . I _ :. .I <. . , ,, , 1; , ; I ,"i , ; , . , ;,- :. , '-" - ' > . , 5 . ', . ' I - - - . - . - , . r - .a - , - -- . I ' ; . , 7 ; , . 111-1.1 - -. . , , < ,. ' - - i . I,,, - <,, ,.I ,, C'-* " , I ,,, ; 5 ! - **, , . -, , , , I . , . *! ,.* :- -* . . . ,. , ! . , ' - : " - , - ,, -.., .,.' -. , .,I -" ':L! , . . ., , - ,, - - . . > - , I .- '. --.. ARMY DEPOT Ex'$fLFmm $$" 3 * >h;,-$F &.v.d . . . . . . . , I i .. ; . . ' d.: . . : . . . , MANAGE - ' ji>,b,';, - ' a , ,, i VIEW -. , , ., , ,* j!Ci"S'Ii ,,,:, . . AREA SURVEYS SET "BLUE COL MATERIAL - VARIES v\IIDELY BY CO MISSION OVERHEAD - VARIES BY INSTALLATION - F L E X ~ B ~ L ~ ~ TO MANAGE&&$ G * ARMY DEPGm' w1 MANAGE-WENT /A /ARIES BY INSTALLATION INFLUENCED BY SIZE AND LAYOUT OF INSTALLATION n FLEXIBILITY TO MANAGE 5OOD INDICATOR FOR COMPA,RISON SYSTEM-WIDE TO RECOUP OVERALL ISSUES 0 - * +'a:! (A (INEFFECTIVE COMPARISON) 5 ;*-> Y :~a:F-4$qp;i27.r) .,.,. :, '%. G . . . * ( , 5 & 4 2 & :, kzi I DEPOT UNIQUE TO ABSORB LOCAL GAINS / LO ?rk;"j A ~ Y Q, I DEPOT UNIQUE MINUS (-) INDICATES EFFICIENT PAST MANAGEMI ARMY DEPOT TkE%w ir' c: L ' HOUR .- ARMY DEPOT us::,- COST PER DIRECT LABOR HOUR I-.-:. . ,L I P ' , , , Depot Maintenance Operations Indicators &:: - - 'Q TW< gw GL, *,.?. < 5 ; - -, 0 r- i:',.. C - 1 oo FY93 FY94 Tobyhanna 59.a3 83.37 Ogden 64.71 76.88 0 klahoma sl SQ 106.20 SM ALC 82-03 83.60 San Antonio 82.00 120.24 Warner Robins 69.39 77.49 )ST PER DIRECT LABOR HOUR LESS M A ~ ~ K Depot Maintenance Operations Indicators : ,.",, '." P . , 1.;; . . - r m r ' , l :m ". ' - , . ! ' I !;;;I;,, l;iQo ,>!,;;I' ' : I . ; , ;: , I , ,4; 4: -: 3 7 b l , l i , , l , ' . . -1, +kk >, I.;' :. -- , I . :' ' I I -: , ,T:<,yi: , . , , !., ' .&. r,ty! ' . , , -*!-,.?& 1, . . :, ' . , > : . r . . ' i , , ,-,;-q- , , E , ,:: - - - - Tobyhanna 1, .- -. Lene rken ny !&;: .JCorpus Christi Y ARMY DEPOT Ex%\?Ek- > .. . .\< > , ->,.> a ST PER DIRECT LABOR HOUR LESS MATERIr Depot Maintenance Operations Indicators :-', Ogden 55.20 62.32 , , Oklahoma m.48 69.42 - . SM ALC 8 8 ~ 5 59.1 1 - 8 6 4 L . b $ San Antonto "HI . s7+a 65.87 5293 69.- ;, , . WT:' . -"; ?, - ' ' * *;;: " ' -:' *;, -. A ..$I -, ,:.:;7 ,$ .. ..- . . i ,> ,?,-,, .; ,,- L- -,.>. - , > T , ,,/ - , -., < ,<: ,!>. . , :-< <,..<.' AmdY DEPG iXaLLEM IN ELECmONFCB ,:-; , , ~ m ~ ~ ; m r m ' n ' n ~ ~ ~ W ' - W ' L , ,,:.2 ! r , I ? , , RATE COMPARISO WITHOUT MATERI $F$??pT ;.: ?.&, .,+- . .*, -. , , . ,>!,>'L,.m j. 7 . ,.-, . . ' I TOAD FY96 BID $49.83 FY95 BID $72.44 FY94 BID $52.46 FY93 BID $42.40 LEAD $70.79 $ - 2 . 3 $70.97 $1- 3.1: ? 3.732M MHrs X $20.96 = $78M Cost Increase ~nnual6 L - -==--=== =z=z= r' - - ---------- ' - - * . - - - - - - ARMY DEPOT '",EY&- COST COMPARISON r . ... . ,L. - *; - . 3 TOBYHANNA SACRAMENTO ALC BID RATE . . SALES RATE , - - . , - 55.0 r . . . , ARMY DEPOT Ex?FkfEy,S .- - .' 1 I - : - I I - " - - , I ; - , ' * : , . - - - .. . . . . TOBYHANNA SACRAMF .- 1 AVERAGE SALARY F + - F y - - = ,& ~ * y G ~ r l ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ , - - . ; 1,632 . .:: , . - 1 ,500--. , 1 YIELD (MHRS) I BID RATE FY95 BID RATE FY96 $93.22 $93.22 (EST) , , ,<, ., "' .*I. a;-,,, ,, ?>, r :, .:;:::;:.ii,. . :: -, ,3:lt.~, AIRBORNE ELECTRONICS TQAD vs SM-ALC TOA D\$4.6 RADIO " , TQAD vs SM-ALP TOAD1$5.0 INTELLIGENCE & ELNC TOAD vs SM-ALC TOA D/$7.4 WARFARE WIRIYDATA COM TQhD vs SM-ALC TOADI$1.4 TMDElRADlAC TOND vs SM-ALC SM-ALC/$1.2 -==tit!== =zss= I--------- * * * ?&-= f rzIw'#r'=g * 7k ARMY DEPOT 7- - . , COSTING INFOR FW<%p$q#g/ , 1."" , -..> n ," , EST HOURLY C,OSi OF MAll TEN. ACE DEPOTS i. * - ' " L: :$id ' . I ,.I,., I + , HIGH MANAGEMENT' PRIORITY TO COST DOWN VALIDATED BY GAO AND AAA w w BEST VALUE- FOR THE TAXPAYER A LOW COST - MINIMAL INVESTMENT - FACILITIES AND TEST EQUIPMENT IN PLACE TRANSPARENT TO THE CUSTOMER - COMSEC - SAAD AVIONICS - INDlCATORS - SAAD IEW - TRAILBLAZER w- - - -_I== ==A= - - I- - I - --- . . I- I - - - - - - s s =*-== =- DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 2 0 IPR 1995 MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE COMMISSION (Mi. Francis A Cirillo, Jr.) FROM: HQ USAFIRT SUBJECT: Request for Information (Verbal Request) This letter responds to the verbal request of Ann Reese of April 11, 1995, requesting manpower figures related to depot installations. Attached please find a binder with four tabs for each depot. The first tab is the manpower authorization by unit for all Air Force units located at the installation. This information was certified input to COBRA. The second tab is a list of non- Air Force tenants. This was also certified and used in COBRA The third tab is a subset of the second tab information, but is limited to those tenants with 100 or more authorizations. The fourth tab is air logisticis center manpower history. This information was not used in the Air Force analysis, and does not readily correspond to the other manpower information. In addition, you asked for DMBA information for each of the ALCs. This listing by FY 9614 authorizations is provided belaw: I trust this information will be helpll. Please address any questions to my point of contact, Lt Col Louise Eckhart, 695-4578. ...... . ,.....,." ..'..'.... ' ,."" """,' ,:.c,x,. ......... ....... '..'.... .... .........,. '.". '. . .. .. . . . ... . ' '... " .."" . .. ....... ... . . ......,... $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g g ~ $ @ ~ ~ $ ~ g & $ & ~ * ~ g @ g ~ ~ & @ @ g ~ ~ . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Special Assistant to the Chief of StaE for Realignment and Transition Officer 20 28 Enlisted 115 42 Civilian 4184 5501 Total 43 19 5571 35 4 1 5695 5771 27 24 466 1 4712 4 1 40 6003 6084 Data Requested at 1 1 Apr 95 meeting with BRAC Staff 1. Break out themon-BRAC portion of the 183M COBRA 2. HQAFMUCE a. Demo and Mothball Building List FY95 to FY 01 by ALC b. Resource Management Plan which addresses Demo and Mothball Building list by ALC c. Demo and Mothball Building List - based lined to DOD BRAC 1 Mar 95 submission (1 706PE reduction) d. Demo and Mothball Building List - based lined to implementation (based on site survey data - 1713 PE reduction) DOD BRAC 1 Mar 95 submission e. Demo and Mothball Building List - based line to proposed change to DoD BRAC recommendation (based on site survey data - 1832 PE reduction) f. Military Construction Program FY 96 to FY 01 by ALC in the following format: YR Title Cost SQFT g. Installation square foot breakout for each ALC, based on FY 97 4th quarter, by the following groups: Group sQFT Tenants DBMA Other Manpower break out for each ALC, based on FY 97 4th quarter, by the following groups Military Civilian Tenants .Provide manpower breakout for each ALC installation based on FY 9714'authorization data. Include DMBA, Non AF Tenants, AF Tenants. Provide military and civilian numbers. TabIe of Contents Tab Description Hill AFB Manpower Data Manpower Authorizations by Unit, FY 9714 Non AF Tenants Without Regard to Population, N 9314 Non AF Tenants with Populations Over 100, FY 9314 Air Logistics Center Manpower History FY 8841 Kelly AF'B Manpower Data Manpower Authorizations by Unit, FY 97/4 Non AF Tenants Without Regard to Population, FY 93/4 Non AF Tenants with Populations Over 100, FY 9314 Air Logistics Center Manpower History N 88-01 McClellan AFB Manpower Data Manpower Authorizations by Unit, FY 97/4 Non AF Tenants Without Rtgard to Population, FY 9314 Non AF Tenants with Populations Over 100, FY 9314 Air Logistics Center Manpower History F Y 88-0 1 Robins AFB Manpower Data Manpower Authorizations by Unit, N 97/4 Non AF Tenants Without Regard to Population, W 9314 Non AF Tenants with Populations Over 100, FY 9314 Air Logistics Center Manpower History FY 88-01 Tinker AFB Manpower Data Manpower Authorizations by Unit, FY 9714 Non AF Tenants Without Regard to Population, FY 93/4 Non AF Tenants with Populations Over 100, FY 9314 Air Logistics Center Manpower History FY 88-01 Page No. 9 12/05/94 MANPOWER AUTHORIZATIONS BY UNIT - FY97/4 as of Aug 94 manpower file CMD ORGANIZATION * * BASE: hill u aag Det 405 af audit agency~fo u acc 34 fighter sq u- acc 388 fighter wg u ace 388 logistics gp u acc 388 logistics support sq - - u acc 388 maintenance sq u acc 388 maintenance tng ft u acc 388 operations gp u acc 388 operations spt sq u acc 4 fighter sq u acc 421 fighter sq u acc 729 air control sq u acc 84 radar evaluation sq u acc 01 ac 612 air operations gp u acc 01 ah 29 training systems sq acc 01 aq 4525 combat appl sq acc 01 k ACC Log Support gp aet 368 Recruiting sq - u aet 368 Recruiting sq u aet 372 Recruiting gp u aet Det 533 371 training sq u afr 2400 res readiness mob sq u afr 405 combat log support sq u afr 419 Civil Engineer sq u afr 419 communications ft u air 419 fighter wg u afr 419 logistics gp u afr 419 logistics support sq u af r 419 maintenance sq u afr 419 medical sq u afr 419 mission support sq u afr 419 operations gp u afr 419 operations spt ft u afr 419 security police sq u air 419 support gp u afr 466 fighter sq u afr 67 aerial port sq u amc Det 8 air combat camera sr u elm 01 alc afelm disa jc u elm 01 hl afelm def fin acct ce u elm afelm deca ag u lct af legal ser ag fo mtc 15 test sq rntc 501 range sq u mtc 514 Flight Test sq u mtc 545 test gp u mtc 649 Civil Engineer sq FY 97 OFF AMN CIV DRILL TOTAL Page No. 12/05/94 CMD MANPOWER AUTHORIZATIONS BY UNIT FY97/4 as of Aug 94 manpower file ORGANIZATION u rntc 649 air base. gp u rntc 649 combat log support sq u rntc 649 comm comp sys gp u. mtc 649 medical gp u rntc 649 medical gp u rntc 649 munitions sq u rntc 649 operations spt sq u mtc 649 security police sq u mtc Det 1 651 munitions sq u mtc 01 ad hq materiel system ce u rntc 01 aj 485 engineering instl gp u rntc 01 ea Warner robins alc ce u rntc 01 ya 615 specialized Msn sq u mtc ogden alc ce u rntc ogden alc ce u rntc ogden alc ce - rntc ogden alc ce rntc ogden alc ce rntc ogden alc ce --- u rntc ogden alc ce u ang 01 t5 299 range control sq u osi Det 113 1 field investigatns dt u paf 01 aa 8 supply sq u tec 01 jj af op tst&eval ctr du * * Subtotal * * FY 97 OFF AMN CIV DRILL TOTAL Non Air Fort$ Inant Units Hill AFB Nan AF Tenant Human Resources 0 0 4 Hill AFB Non AF Tenant Market Publicitv Office 0 0 3 3 1 Numbers are authorized personnel for FY 9314. Consistent with BRAC Questionnaire data 1 i AIR U)CIST1CS CEPFL bn rrLANPOW&R HISrORY E Y d l t E l L a 4 E Y P D E Y 9 1 E Y 9 2 E Y S ; 1 ~ E Y U ~ E Y P l E Y 9 1 1 E Y P P r l t p p E y _ ( u HILL AFB (Ogdcn ALC) Ponign Military Sales (FMS) OFF 9 ' 10 8 8 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 ENL 3 3 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 CIV -11l-Zl.Q 6 2 L X t 9 U U S Z Z 1 6 1 l U 2 1 1 2 U Z U 1 U TOT 725 783 680 608 494 587 171 764 763 763 763 763 763 763 D e p Maintenance (Maint) OFF 45 47 46 45 45 27 27 26 26 26 ENL 356 358 357 355 355 352 353 326 326 326 CIV ~ W ~ Z b l l ~ ~~~ 4 . m - TOT 7.035 6.958 7,099 6,011 5,967 5,806 4,951 4,621 4.557 4,557 Matcricl Management (MM) OFF 126 119 107 108 112 105 109 11 1 111 111 ENL 106 102 102 102 112 94 65 98 98 98 CIV 2 3 4 2 - 2 U U S 3 -U I l I U L a a Z 4 ; 1 9 8 1 6 2 8 4 TOT 2.624 2.371 2,063 1,841 1,807 1.28 1 1,104 1,065 998 998 Ccnlral Contracclng (PK) OFF 16 16 16 IS 11 12 I2 I I I1 I I ENL CIV 4 1 2 1 1 9 4 L P W 3 2 4 2 3 3 1 6 2 1 6 8 lip I I P TOT 453 426 426 395 335 245 174 179 161 161 Managcrncnt Ovcrhead (MGMT) OFF 9 10 10 10 9 8 7 7 7 7 ENL 11 13 13 12 12 I2 12 12 12 I2 CIV 6 2 2 1 2 1 1 4 6 2 1 8 - 4 4 4 4 4 4 TOT 87 9) 100 % 88 78 74 ' 63 63 63 Communicallons & Cornputen (COMM/COMP) OFF 5 5 5 8 11 12 8 8 8 8 ENL 93 99 I34 101 100 95 95 CIV a 2 3 9 9 1 P 2 2 4 1 l 1 4 2 . 3 3 H Z -23 2 1 4 TOT 528 502 477 552 507 504 191 183 182 182 Medical (MED) OFF 72 8 1 89 90 101 98 104 105 105 105 ENL 179 180 190 1% 202 194 197 208 205 205 CIV 8 2 8 1 e z r r a u I z n l 2 a l a 2 l Q 3 -m TOT 338 346 376 404 439 42 1 429 420 413 413 Base Operaling Support (BOS) OFF 73 73 71 79 81 76 74 71 71 7 1 ENL 1,066 1,067 1,062 1,093 1,053 993 948 900 888 888 CI V - 3 , 3 2 8 Z W 1 t 1 1 1 6 2 2 2 8 L 6 2 1 L S X - L 1 4 4 L I l P TOT 4,643 4,518, 4.371 4,358 3,362 2,692 2,598 2,356 2,108 2.108 TOTAL ALC MANPOWER OFF 355 36 1 352 363 37 3 344 347 345 345 345 345 345 345 345 ENL* 1,721 1,723 1.725 1,852 1,837 1,783 1,680 1.648 1,628 1,628 1.628 1,628 1,628 1.628 CIV ,.&m -u ,w ,usla ,maan e s a 2 -8.26s U l X z r z z t u z z u ? z w t u z 1 u TOT 16.433 15.998 15,592 14,265 12.999 11,614 10,292 9.65 1 9.245 9,245 9.245 9.245 9.245 9.245 3f24195 AUTHORIZED MANPOWER AS OF AUG 94 MANPOWER FILE AIR FORCE &fATERUL COMMAND Wll3 SAN ANTONIO Am Locmcs CEN' lm vnm AFUC unlrl(oi0lk AFUC Ol cm o W m dty Jc ee AFUC m c m c m c m c m c m c m c OTHU(AFMcm AFMC O l d 412 logbdcs rum aq AFMC l(m ekcaonlu lnnl q AFhK 3 1 3 N g l 1 t T ~ S q ARrK: hqnumlelryatcma AIR INTELLIGENCE AGENCY UNITS A h hq nia AIA 48 talclll8coee sq AIA 67 bteulgwc #p AIA 67 l a k l l l p x wa AIA 67opcn"o-rprq AIA 6960 clcctmde d t p AIA -v polla *1 A h 6967 mnaadna ft NA 6968 lltmdoa & Id q AIA 93 talclllgmm 4 AIA Dc( 1 67 h w l l l p m w& AIA O l x o D * 1 M r I n c e t A g ~ f o AIA . f q p o apt ccn cs AfA dtn(ow8rfmce AIA d1 inlo vrrlo n NA ~ r & k l y r m m ~ NA dr ialel aya afb q AIh ria ink1 ryrccrm p AIR FORCE INFORMATION SERVICE AFNlIlVS 01 mlr dnewa q lo A i W W S afkodcutlng a MNeWS dncwr 18 b AIR FORCE RFSeRYB UNlT3 MIW 2400mdncaamobq AUTHORIZED MANPOWER AS OF AUC 94 MANPOWER FILE FY 95 3mm bbM 2 0 0 I5 0 0 I5 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 I71 0 0 1 0 0 36 0 0 121 0 0 I S 0 0 0 I2 0 0 4s 0 0 s 0 0 38 0 0 7 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 i s . 0 . 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 6 M 0 5 AFREs ARlES AFRES AFRES MtES ' AFRES m AFRES A m AFRES AFRES AFRES AFRES AFRE3 AFRES A m AFRES mtm mtm AFRES AFRE3 m M(C Dec 1 615 airmobUlry o p r p AMC Dec S 375 acmmcd e v u q AMC Oll6 lS~moblPtyopgp Non Air Forci . nant Units IKellv AFB Non AF Tenant Defense Criminal lnvestiaative Svc 0 0 6 IKellv AFB Non AF Tenant Defense Reutilization and Marketina Ofc 0 0 85 lAll Non Air Force Tenant Organizations Regardless of Size 47 768 21 53 29681 Numbers are authorized personnel for FY 9314. Consistent with BRAC Questionnaire data Non Air Force;. iant Units IKelly AFB Non AF Tenant 93 IS 8 327 32 367 1 el$ AFB Non AF Tenant Defense ~omrniss&y Agency West Svc Ctr 1 0 302 303 Kelly AFB Non AF Tenant Services (NAF) 0 0 400 . 400 All Non Air Force Tenant Oraanlzatlons With Po~ulatlon Over 100 40 687 1936 2663 Numbers are authorized personnel for FY 9314. Consistent with BRAC Questionnaire data t AIR LOClSTlCS CENTER MANPOWER HlglORY E Y 4 d E Y l l P E 1 L 4 9 E Y 4 1 E Y P Z ~ ~ E Y P J E Y S 6 r Y P t E Y 9 1 1 E Y 9 4 E Y P P U L P L KE1,I.Y AFB (San Antonio ALC) Foreign Military Sales (FMS) OFF 17 18 19 17 17 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 IS ENL CIV -162 -2Q4 6 1 6 - 6 8 4 U B 5 8 1 2 2 2 l Q 8 1 9 8 2 a 8 -m 2 a 8 l Q 8 TOT 779 723 635 590 70 1 594 6% 737 723 723 723 723 723 723 Depot Maintenance (Malnt) OFF 43 39 38 38 37 35 35 34 34 34 ENL 146 143 143 143 143 159 159 128 128 128 CIV -m -m 2 4 4 8 d 6 6 n 6 8 Y 1 9 4 8 2 6 6 1 Z S U U l I L LUB TOT 7,789 7,766 7,629 6,841 6,997 7,242 5.855 5,997 5,520 5,!i20 Materiel Management (MM) OFF 150 149 131 127 127 117 107 101 97 97 ENL 352 352 347 320 33 1 347 135 130 130 130 CIV 2 P 4 9 Z l P Z 2 J . U W Z -2.m -2m 2 . m Z M M 2 9 8 9 2,QaQ TOT 3,442 3,298 2.997 2,804 3,261 3.103 2,416 2.23 1 2,307 2,307 Central Contmcting (PK) OFF 17 17 17 16 13 13 13 13 13 13 ENL CIV -6% -3% 1 1 1 6 U B 4 P Z 9 U U 1 - 3 2 8 -332 U 2 TOT 663 615 603 554 505 444 386 34 1 370 370 Management Overhead (MGMT) OFF 7 6 7 7 8 9 9 8 8 8 ENL 12 12 12 11 11 I I 11 11 1 I 11 CIV -2 - M - U U -43 TOT 92 97 104 105 89 76 68 64 64 64 Communications & Computers (COMMICOMP) OFF 4 4 4 7 8 7 5 14 14 14 ENL 152 166 171 I SO 226 218 218 CIV -4.m -392 -324 U 1 - 2 2 8 4 6 2 6 6 2 6 6 2 6 6 TOT 412 396 378 590 532 456 25 1 506 498 498 Medical (MED) OFF 8 9 I1 12 46 42 43 49 49 49 ENL 20 20 19 20 104 105 110 119 119 119 CIV -2 -2 3 Q U 2 4 -23 1 1 6 2 M M TOT 59 60 60 65 224 220 228 235 232 232 Base Operallng Suppan (BOS) OFF 65 67 69 66 64 54 63 80 83 83 ENL 559 568 556 527 474 466 455 652 65 1 65 1 CIV -4.233 9 5 1 2 1 Z P 1 4 3 . m Z S B P t 4 9 1 L 4 I M L 6 Q l W 2 8 L U 8 TOT 4,859 4,706 4,601 4,259 3,427 1,967 1,918 2,333 2,312 2.312 TOTAL ALC MANPOWER OFF 31 1 309 2% 290 320 293 290 314 313 313 313 313 313 313 ENL 1,089 1.095 1,077 1,173 1,229 1,259 1,020 1,266 1 3 7 1,257 1,257 1,257 1.257 1.257 CIV ,L66PI -L(iW -lLIm ,M - i 2 s Q ,U1II1I1 -I(LS64 -lQ& -UL416 -ULU6 -I(L416 -UL416 ,lIL416 TOT 18,095 17,661 17.007 15,808 15.736 14.102 11,818 12.444 12,026 12,026 12,026 12,026 12.026 12.026 3t24A5 Page No. 17 12/05/94 CMD MANPOWER AUTI4ORIZATIONS BY UNIT FY97/4 as of Aug 94 nlanpower file ORGANIZATION * * BASE: mcclellan u aag Det 415 af audit agency fo u acc 01 aw 4525 combat appl sq u aet 364 Recruiting sq u aet 364 Recruiting sq u aet Det 510 373 training sq u aet 01 ac -Det 8 cap usaf ap u afr 2400 res readiness mob sq u afr 314 air refueling sq u air 4 air force af u air 406 combat log support sq u afr 940 Civil Engineer sq u afr 940 air refueling gp u afr 940 logistics gp u air 940 logistics support sq u afr 940 maintenance sq air 940 medical sq afr 940 mission support sq - air 940 operations gp - u afr 940 operations spt it u afr 940 security police sq u air 01 wm 2400 res readiness mob sq u amc 01 d 615 air mobility ops gp u amc 01 w air mobility cos st u elm 01 alc afelm disa jc u elm 01 m Det 7 AFELM Comm Tech el u elm 01 mc afelm def fin acct ce u elm afelm deca ag u e l m a f e l m dla-d depot d l u fsa 01 b hq af flt std ag fo u lct af legal ser ag fo u rntc 1849 electronics instl sq -u rntc 337 Flight Test sq u mtc 652 Civil Engineer sq u mtc 652 air base gp u rntc 652 combat log support sq u rntc 652 comm comp sys gp u rntc 652 medical gp u rntc 652 operations spt sq u rntc 652 security police sq u rntc 01 ad Det 42 sacramento alc ce u rntc 01 ag hq materiel system ce u rntc 01 bb 46 test wg mtc 01 ey oklahoma city alc ce -- -- --- FY 97 OFF AMN CIV DRILL TOTAL u mtc sacramento alc ce 16 2039 0 2098 u mtc sacramento alc ce 20 1003 0 1033 u mtc sacramento alc ce 3 190 0 208 Page No. 18 12/05/94 CMD # MANPOWER AUTHORIZATIONS BY UNIT FY97/4 as of Aug 94 manpower file ORGANIZATION FY 97 OFF AMN CIV DRILL TOTAL u mtc sacramento alc ce 38 81 547 0 666 u mtc sacramento alc ce 33 8 1876 0 1917 u mtc sacramento alc ce 9 13 156 0 17 8 u mtc sacramento alc ce 11 2 1212 0 1225 u osi Det 112 1 field investigatns dt 3 8 5 0 16 u tap tech operations fo 33 241 37 0 311 * * Subtotal * * 437 2139 8546 0 11122 Non Air For(; 'enant Units McClellan AFB Non AF Tenant DECA McClellan AFB Non AF Tenant DFAS McClellan AFB Non AF Tenant Defense Logistics Agency Numbers are authorized personnel for FY 93/4. Consistent with BRAC Questionnaire data i J ; M\ , N AIR LOGISTICS CENTER MANPOWER HISrORY E Y d d r Y d P E Y S P E Y S l ~ E Y U E Y 9 4 E Y U ~ E Y 9 2 ~ ~ E Y M l ~ MCCl.ISLIAN AFD (Smcnmcnlo ALC) Foreign Military Sales (FMS) OFF 13 10 8 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ENL 4 .. CIV 5 2 7 2 2 7 9 2 1 2 2 0 3 1 1 1 1 3 6 1 3 7 1 2 3 3 7 4 3 7 4 TOT 540 411 287 220 207 191 37 1 382 378 378 378 378 378 378 Dcpo~ Maintenance (Malnt) OFF 40 40 40 40 40 40 33 32 32 32 32 32 ENL 32 263 263 262 260 259 252 24 8 183 183 183 183 183 183 CIV d 1 1 2 6 ~ ~ L U I ~ - ~ t 1 1 1 4 L S 9 n L 4 1 1 ( 1 L U U l l U U l 4-dm-L48Q TOT 6,329 6,338 6,347 5.715 5,621 5,646 5,385 5,105 4.695 4,695 4,695 4.695 4.695 Mntcricl Manngcrnent,(MM) OFF 104 105 100 100 112 97 96 81 80 80 80 80 80 ENL 90 91 93 9 1 153 30 29 23 23 23 23 23 23 CIV Z ? S 1 -m 2 1 P Z -m 2 . m 1 g 8 4 w u s 4 M l A 4 M - 1 9 4 1 1 TOT 2,477 2,497 2,490 2,284 2.686 2,011 1,759 1,388 1.543 1,543 1,543 1,543 1,543 Central ConuacUng (PK) OFF 16 16 16 14 1 I 11 I I 10 10 I0 10 10 10 ENL CIV ~ 3 3 3 J 0 4 2 8 0 ~ 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 _ 1 1 2 TOT 342 349 320 294 262 185 132 118 122 122 122 122 122 Management Overhead ( M o m OFF 13 13 13 14 13 10 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 ENL 22 22 22 22 22 12 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 CIV 612'1211M322930303030Jg TOT 96 99 107 107 99 80 59 48 49 49 49 49 49 Communicalions & Computers (COMM/COMP) OFF 3 3 3 I I 1 I 26 35 18 17 17 17 17 17 ENL 22 269 293 292 299 269 255 255 255 255 255 CIV 4173dW?356A1Rll ' I12712712'1127127 TOT 480 461 468 737 660 664 49 1 404 399 399 399 399 399 Medlcal (MED) OFF 38 40 46 54 57 146 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 ENL 110 109 121 127 346 365 320 396 393 393 393 393 393 CIV 84839192 P 9 2 1 6 2 . 1 4 ' 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 TOT 232 232 258 273 ' 497 672 644 700 69 1 69 1 691 69 1 69 1 Base Operating Support (BOS) OFF 62 64 64 61 52 ' 56 54 68 68 68 68 68 68 ENL 97 3 1,015 1,039 1,133 1,097 885 836 698 689 689 689 689 689 CIV 2 9 6 4 l.823 3 3 4 3 . m m L I I l L m u r n -m 1 S P n -m -m TOT 4.999 4,904 4.657 4,495 2,879 2,458 2,272 1,879 1,847 1,847 1,847 1.847 1,847 TOTAL A1-C MANPOWER OFF 289 29 1 290 302 300 390 397 376 374 374 374 374 374 374 ENL 1,458 1,500 1,559 1,902 2,170 1,836 1.746 1,582 1.556 1.556 1356 1,556 1,556 1.556 C N -lXht8 ,U,5QO ,l.uu -ll.!U ,uA.l 9 A . l ~ E.fb6 -l.l!U l.i% -l.Z!& x w . 4 t t n S L i % TOT 15.495 15,291 14,934 14,125 12.91 1 11,907 11,113 10,024 9,724 9,724 9,724 9,724 9.724 9,724 Page No. 19 12/05/94 MANPOWER AUTHORIZATIONS BY UNIT - FY97/4 as of Aug 94 manpower file CMD ORGANIZATION * * BASE: robins u aag Det 425 af audit agency fo u acc 5 combat comm gp u-acc 5 combat comm spt sq u acc 51 combat comm sq u acc 52 combat comm sq u acc 53 combat comm sq u acc 54 combat comm sq u acc 01 av 4525 combat appl sq u acc 01 z ACC Log Support gp u aet 367 Recruiting gp u aet 01 a Det 317 373 training sq u aet 01 f air force rotc cr u aet 01 h college for en pme cl u afr 2400 res readiness mob sq u air 402 Civil Engineer sq afr 402 combat log support sq afr 8600 support gp afr 94 aerial port sq . u afr 01 a 94 aerosp pat stag sq u afr 01 ew 94 mission support sq u afr af reserve sa u afr cmd band af res bd u amc 19 air refueling wg u amc 19 logistics gp u amc 19 logistics support sq u amc 19 maintenance sq u amc 19 operations gp u amc 19 operations spt sq u amc 712 air refueling sq u amc 99 air refueling sq u amc 01 a air mobility cos st u elm 01 alc afelm disa jc u elm 01 fa afelm def fin acct ce u elm afelm deca ag u elm afelm. def fin acct ce u elm afelm dla-d depot dl u lct af legal ser ag fo u rntc 339 Flight Test sq u rntc 653 Civil Engineer sq u rntc 653 air base gp u rntc 653 combat log support sq u rntc 653 comm comp sys gp rntc 653 medical gp rntc 653 operations spt sq u rntc 653 security police sq u rntc Det 1 Elec Sys ce u rntc Det 8 645 materiel sq FY 97 OFF AMN CIV DRILL TOTAL Page No. 20 12/05/94 MANPOWER AUTHORIZATIONS BY U N I T - FY97/4 as of Aug 94 manpower f i l e CMD ORGANIZATION u rntc 01 aa 46 t e s t wg u rntc 01 l r Aero Sys ce u rntc warner robins a l c ce u-mtc warner robins a l c ce u rntc warner robins a l c ce u rntc warner robins a l c ce u rntc warner robins a l c ce u rntc warner robins a l c ce u rntc warner robins a l c ce u mtc warner robins a l c ce u rntc warner robins a l c ce u rntc warner robins a l c ce u rntc warner robins a l c ce u mtc warner robins a l c ce u o s i Det 105 1 f i e l d investigatns d t u paf 01 aa 18 supply sq soc electronic combat f t spc 9 space warning sq -- Subtotal ** FY 97 OFF AMN C I V DRILL TOTAL Non Air Force nant Units I Robins AFB Non AF Tenant Defense Contract Audit Aaencv 0 0 1 1 I I Robins AFB Non AF Tenant Defense Finance & Account Svc. DAO-DE 1 3 6 101 (Robins AFB Non AF Tenant Defense Information Svsterns Aaencv (A) 2 4 174 1801 (Robins AFB Non AF Tenant Defense lnvestiaative Service 0 0 4 I Robins AFB Non AF Tenant Defense Reutilization & Marketina Office 0 0 82 82 1 I Robins AFB Non AF Tenant Federal Aviation Administration . 0 0 38 38 1 1 ~ob ins AFB Non AF Tenant Gift S h o ~ 0 0 2 2 1 IRobins AFB Non AF Tenant Hot Doa Stand 0 0 4 4 1 IRobins AFB Non AF Tenant Ja~anese Uaison Office 1 0 0 1 I Numbers are authorized personnel for FY 9314. Consistent with BRAC Questionnaire data 1 I Non Air Form nant Units 1 Robins AFB Non AF Tenant Svstems Automation Center 0 0 9 I Robins AFB Non AF Tenant Trust Comoanv Bank 0 0 6 Numbers are authorized personnel for FY 9314. Consistent with BRAC Questionnaire data 2 Non Air Forc~j nant Units Numbers are authorized personnel for FY 9314. Consistent with BRAC Questionnaire data 1 Page No. 21 12/05/94 MANPOWER AUTHORIZATIONS BY UNIT -- FY97/4 as of Aug 94 manpower file CMD ORGANIZATION * * BASE: tinker u aag Det 440 af audit agency fo u acc 3 combat comm gp u acc 3 combat comm spt sq u acc 31 combat comm sq u acc 32 combat comm sq u acc 33 combat comm sq u acc 34 combat comm sq u acc 552 air control wg u acc 552 computer systems gp u acc 552 computer systems sq u acc 552 logistics gp u acc 552 logistics support sq u acc 552 maintenance sq u acc 552 operations gp . u acc 552 operations spt sq acc 552 training sq acc 552 training sq --s acc 752 computer systems sq u acc 8 abn cmd control sq u acc 963 air warn ctrl sq u acc 964 air warn ctrl sq u acc 965 air warn ctrl sq u acc 966 air warn ctrl tr sq u acc Det 6 ACC Training Spt sq u acc 01 ad ACC Log Support gp u acc 01 af 29 training systems sq u acc 01 bc 4525 combat appl sq u aet 349 Recruiting sq u aet 349 Recruiting sq u aet Det 413 373 training sq u aet 01 ac Det 6 cap usaf ap u afr 2400 res readiness mob sq u afr 403 combat log support sq u air 465 air refueling sq u afr 507 Civil Engineer sq u afr 507 air refueling gp u afr 507 communications ft u afr 507 logistics gp u afr 507 logistics support sq u afr 507 maintenance sq u afr 507 medical sq u afr 507 mission support sq afr 507 operations gp afr 507 operations spt ft u afr 507 security police sq u afr 507 support gp u afr 72 aerial port sq FY 97 OFF AMN CIV DRILL TOTAL Page No. 22 12/05/94 MANPOWER AUTHORIZATIONS BY UNIT -* FY97/4 as of Aug 94 manpower file CMD ORGANIZATION u aia 01 tt 67 operations spt sq u amc 01 a 22 logistics gp - u amc 01 k 615 air mobility ops gp u. aws Det 7 af global wea ce u elm 01 alc afelm disa jc u elm 01 tk afelm def fin acct ce u elm afelm deca ag u elm afelm dla-d depot dl u lct af legal ser ag fo u rntc 1 0 test sq u rntc 1818 reserve advisor sq u rntc 1845 engineering instl gp u rntc 654 Civil Engineer sq u rntc 654 air base gp u rntc 654 combat log support sq u mtc 654 corn comp sys gp rntc 654 medical gp rntc 654 operations spt sq - mtc 654 security police sq u rntc 01 ac hq materiel system ce u rntc 01 ad Det 2 645 materiel sq u rntc 01 af 412 logistics support sq u mtc 01 de 615 specialized Msn sq u mtc comm sys ce u rntc comm sys ce u rntc oklahoma city alc ce u rntc oklahoma city alc ce , A-u mtc oklahoma city alc ce u rntc oklahoma city alc ce u rntc oklahoma city alc ce u rntc oklahoma city alc ce u rntc oklahoma city alc ce u osi Det 114 1 field investigatns dt u paf 01 a 3 wing wg * * Subtotal * * FY 97 OFF AMN CIV DRILL TOTAL Non Air Forci nant Units inker AFB Non AF Tenant Numbers are authorized personnel for FY 9314. Consistent with BRAC Questionnaire data , Non Air Forcc nant Units Numbers are authorized personnel for FY 9314. Consistent with BRAC Questionnaire data >- ( +, AIR U)(31SIICS CB. MANPOWER KlgLY)RY I e Y d a ~ E l L P P E Y 9 1 E l L t f ~ E l l l l l E Y l r l P Y ) 4 ~ E l l l b e Y 9 ) E Y P P ~ TINKER AFB (Okllhoma City ALC) Foreign Military Sales (Fhi~) OFF 8 4 ENL CIV 4933 TOT 50 1 506 Dcpol Main(enance (Maint) OFF 45 45 ENL 109 108 CIV 2 8 4 4 Z B U TOT 7,998 8,004 Maleriel Management (MU) OFF 9 1 9 1 ENL 18 I8 CN Z f u Z M ? TOT 3.430 3.186 Cenual Contracting (PK) OFF 17 17 ENL CN 561538 TOT 578 555 Management Overhead (MOMT) OFF 7 7 ENL 11 I1 CN 2 8 6 TOT 101 104 Communlcatlons dr Cornputen (COMMlCOMP) OFF 2 2 2 6 ENL I SO CIV 3-24 TOT 540 519 489 663 Medlcd (MED) OFF 106 111 118 123 ENL 253 258 277 272 CIV 3123139152 TOT 476 492 534 547 Bnsc Opcratlng Support (BOS) OFF 69 70 71 ENL 973 1,015 1,039 1,133 176 clv 3 9 6 4 L a 2 s Z l l P Z l P L TOT 5,006 4,910 4,664 4,510 TOTAL ALC MANPOWER OFF 345 347 ' 347 360 370 363 362 357 356 356 356 356 356 356 ENL 1,364 1.410 1,454 1,734 1,669 1,551 1,497 1,490 I ,466 1,466 1,466 1,466 1,466 1,466 CN - - u j l l z ,12228 ,lLlQQ ,lQ,4U -1(U1?P -!uQ -!mQ !u!lfl -s?,!u sL9l. a -s!AII TOT. 18.630 18,276 17,704 15,816 14.317 13,614 12,336 11,876 11,732 11.732 11,732 11,732 11.732 11.732 Number of Personnel Document Separator DEPOT MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS INDICATORS REPORT 1st Quarter FY93 Through 4th Quarter FY94 FOREWORD This report presents joint Service and DLA organic maintenance depot performance data reflected in the Depot Maintenance Operational Indicators System (DMOIS). It is the result of an evolutionary process of developing and enhancing depot performance indicator data. The latest stage in this process began in early 1992, when the Joint Policy Coordinating Group on Depot Maintenance (JPCG-DM) directed the Joint Performance Measurement Group (JPMG) to develop indicators relating to the Theory of Constraints. At that time, there was a view among the Services that the existing Performance Measurement System Report had achieved commonality, but lacked comparability. As a result, the JPCG-DM directed the JPMG to look at other measures. The JPMG reviewed several sources for measurements including Competitive Edges, the Theory of Constraints, and the measures required by the Chief Financial Officers Act. The DMOIS Report is the result of the effort to revise the DMPMS. The JPMG is also developing additional indicators for quality and inventory. The joint effort to identify and report depot performance data was first begun in response 1 a 1990 tasking by the Defense Depot Maintenance Council (DDMC). The DDMC commissioned Performance Measurement Task Force whose report of 26 November 1990 recommended establishment of a Depot Maintenance Performance Measurement System (DMPMS). Subsequently, the JPCG-DM established the Joint Performance Measurement Group (JPMG) to implement and maintain the DMPMS. The DMOIS reports are published semi-annually. The data presented covers two fiscal years by quarter, current fiscal year and past fiscal year. Since the first submission of the fiscal year is a mid-year submission (1st and 2nd quarters), there are six quarters of data displayed. The last submission for the fiscal year (3rd and 4th quarters) will display eight quarters of data. The JPMG will continue to review and enhance the DMOIS to ensure that its indicators provide significant management information. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARMYDEPOTS 5 AnnistonArmy Depot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Corpus Christi Army Depot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LetterkennyArmy Depot 15 Red River Army Depot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 TobyhannaArmy Depot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 NAVAL AVIATION DEPOTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Naval Aviation Depot Cherty Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Naval Aviation Depot Jacksonville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Naval Aviation Depot North Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 NAVAL SHIPYARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Long Beach Naval Shipyard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Norfolk Naval Shipyard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Portsmouth Naval Shipyard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Puget Sound Naval Shipyard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 . . . . . . . . AIR FORCE AIR LOGISTICS CENTERS AND SPECIALIZED CENTERS 63 Aerospace Guidance and Metrology Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Ogden Air Logistics Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Sacramento Air Logistics Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 San Antonio Air Logistics Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Warner-Robins Air Logistics Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 MARINE CORPS DEPOT MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY DEPOTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mechanicsburg 105 iii Page Number APPENDICES A . List of Reporting Service Depots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 8 . SenriceIDLA Points of Contact for DMOiS Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 C . Glossary of Terms and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Description of the Key Areas and Their lndicators The Depot Maintenance Operations lndicators System (DMOIS) Report is comprised of three key areas: Theory of Constraints, Timeliness, and Financial. Each key area has one or more indicators that are described below. The formulas employed by each Service and DLA in computing the indicators are documented in the DMOIS Handbook. 1 .I .1 Theory of Constraints lndicators The Theory of Constraints (TOC) represents a philosophy of global system improvement designed to assist organizations in achieving their goals. The TOC indicators are: a. Throuahput. Throughput is defined as the rate at which the system generates money through sales. The formula used to determine Throughput is revenue minus direct material. Revenue is defined as the realized result from the sale of a product or service. Direct material is defined as the material specifically required for the performance of depot maintenance as specified by a work authorization document. Throughput and Operating Expense are displayed on the same chart. b. Operatina Expense. Operating Expense is defined as all the money the system spends in turning inventory into Throughput. The formula used to determine Operating Expense is total actual cost minus direct material. Total actual cost is defined as amounts determined on the basis of costs incurred as distinguished from forecasted costs. Operating Expense and Throughput are displayed on the same chart. c. Capital lnvestment Effectiveness. Capital lnvestment Effectiveness is the ratio of throughput to long term inventory. Long term inventory is defined as the total depreciated value of all capital assets (equipment, buildings, software), excluding land and fixed assets not in use, owned by the depot maintenance activity. 1.1.2 Timeliness Timeliness lndicators provide information regarding a depot's ability to complete the workload in the agreed upon time. The timeliness indicators are: a. Schedule Indicator. The Schedule lndicator is a ratio of the units completed on time to the units scheduled. Schedule is defined as the most current schedule for completion of planned or programmed work. Completion is defined as the date when a product is physically completed. On time is defined as completing the workload at the time promised. The Schedule Indicator is reported only by NAVAIR, Air Force and DLA. b. Process Days. Process Days is calculated as an average for varying commodities. The formula used to calculate Process Days (except by NAVSEA) is the number of days (date completed minus date inducted) divided by the number of items. The formula used by NAVSEA to compute Process Days is scheduled flow days divided by actual flow days. 1.1.3 Financial Indicators Financial indicators provide information about a depot's ability to manage to its budget. The financial indicators are: a. Net Operatina Results. Net Operating Results are calculated and displayed as two separate indexes, cumulative budgeted and cumulative actual. The cumulative budgeted is a ratio of the cumulative budgeted revenue to the cumulative budgeted cost. The cumulative actual is a ratio of the cumulative actual revenue to the cumulative actual cost. b. Labor Hour Cost. Labor Hour Cost is a ratio of budgeted labor hour cost to actual labor hour cost. Budgeted labor hour cost is calculated as the total budgeted cost divided by the budgeted total direct labor hours. Actual labor hour cost is calculated as the total actual cost divided by the actual total direct labor hours. 2.1 Structure of the Report This report portrays data for each Service, or Service Activity Group, and DLA. The depots are presented alphabetically within each Service and DLA grouping. The report presents the Service and DLA data in the following order: Army Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Shipyards Air Force Marine Corps Defense Logistics Agency. The operations indicators for each depot are in the following order for each reporting depot: Throughput & Operating Expense Capital Investment Effectiveness Schedule Indicator Process Days Net Operating Results Labor Hour Cost 2.2 Data Portrayal For each depot, an introductory page provides supplementary data and an executive summary. The supplementary data includes: depot name, depot location, major workload, personnel levels, and current year budget. The following two pages for each depot reflect a graphic portrayal of all the indicators for that depot with analyses, when appropriate. The fourth page shows the data, the formula for each indicator, and the goal for that indicator. The data presented covers two fiscal years by quarter, current fiscal year and past fiscal year. Since the first submission of the fiscal year is a mid year submission (1st and 2nd quarters), there are six quarters of data displayed. The last submission for the fiscal year (3rd and 4th quarters) will display eight quarters of data. 3.1 Reporting Activities The depot maintenance activities that will report to the DMOIS are noted in Appendix A of this report. Depots that the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission have voted to close are not required to report. 4.1 Points of Contact Any inquiries regarding data presented in this report should be referred to the respective Service or DLA representative to the JPMG. These individuals are identified in Appendix B. 5.1 Glossary A glossary of acronyms used in this report is provided in Appendix C. ARMY DEPOTS ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT ANNISTON, AL MAJOR WORKLOAD ACCOMPLISHED: During FY94, Anniston Army Depot repaired 476 MI RCIRON vehicles, 22 M60lM48 AVLB RCIRON vehicles, 33 M728 RCIRON vehicles, 66 M88A1 RCIRON vehicles, 35 M551lNTC OPFOR vehicles, 15 M551A1 vehicles, 5 M60A1 AVLB overhaul vehicles, 6 M728 overhaul vehicles, and 42 M88A1 overhaul vehicles. ANAD repaired 33 M i engines, 157 M1 forward modules, 343 MI rear modules, 169 engines, 233 6V3T engines, and 15 141 0 transmissions. DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LEVEL: Civilian: 2506 Military: 3 CURRENT YEAR INDUSTRIAL FUND BUDGET ($): M1A2 Upgrade Teaming with General Dynamics - A pilot program at ANAD was completed 30 Sept 94. ANAD has completed 49 vehicles on FY94 program and expects to complete the remainder by the end of December for a total of 86 vehicles. An FY95 program for a quantity of 120 is scheduled for induction at the end of October 1994 with production beginning in December 1994 and continuing through December 1995. Mining Equipment Manufacturing Team Effort with United Defense (BMY)- On 18 April, 1994, ANAD and Steel Products Division of United Defense signed a memorandum of agreement to develop specialized mining equipment in the U.S. ANAD is currently in the process of completing cost estimates for the effort to be performed at the depot. Preliminary estimates should be completed in the mid-November timeframe. M l A1 AIM Teaming with General Dynamics - AIM XXI is a publiclprivate venture between ANAD and General Dynamics Land Systems to provide an integrated program for restoration, enhanced maintenance and information management support for the MIA1 Main Battle Tank (MBT). A $35M FY95 pilot program at the Army's National Training Center will restore 58-60 MIA1 tanks to a standard configuration incorporating performance, safety, and reliability improvements and fielding a "zero time," better than new MBT. The pilot program will also demonstrate the added value of enhanced intermediate level maintenance provided by joint OEMIcivilian field maintenance support teams. Coupling restored M1Als with aggressive field support will reduce life cycle maintenance cost and improve readiness. ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE GOAL.: OE S h o d Increase Slower or Decrease Faster than Throughput, or Decrease when Throughput ir Constant 80 r 1 - p u t Opsr r i nOErpears Throughput has continued to show a positive trend in FY94. Revenue exceeded the plan per direct labor hour due to completion of prior year unliquidated obligations. Operating expenses exceeded the plan due to reimbursements from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service and Defense Logistics Agency which were not in the plan or fixed prices. CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS GOAL.: Index Should Continually Increase 0.7 1 I The positive trend in FY94 was mainly due to an increase in Throughput. SCHEDULE INDICATOR W A L : Index Should E d 1 ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT PROCESS DAYS WAL.: Process Days Should show Continual Reduction 75 1 In FY94 ANAD reduced actual repair cycle time for MI RCIRON vehicles from 67 days to 50 days. This was the result of production process Improvements via TQM efforts throughout the Maintenance Directorate. Intensive management coupled with employee contributions through statistical process control and process assessment teams resulted in increased Throughput along the critical path of the vehicle production process. In FY94, costs are below the plan by nearly $1 5M. This was primarily due to a more intensive management of material cost. Revenue also exceeded the plan by $1.59 per hour which resulted in a favorable NOR. The NOR exceeded the plan by $7.2M. NET OPERATING RESULTS WAL.: Actual NORIBudgeted NOR should equal 1.00 LABOR HOUR COST W A L : The Labor How Cost Index should comistently be at or below 1.00. 1.25 1 a95 0.9 / 1.15 1.1 0 9 0.85 0 8 Labor Hour Cost exceeded the plan by only $.I7 (0.2%). This resulted from the fact that overtime exceeded the plan due to completion of prior year unliquidated obligations and to the completion of year-end production schedules. - - l ! d - ' - 8- - a75 - % 2193 3/93 4193 1/94 YW 3/94 4194 ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT ( Quarter/Fiscal Year 1/93 ( 2/93 1 3/93 1 4/93 1 1194 1 2/94 1 3/94 1 4/94 1 THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE REVEX?JE-DIRECT MATERIAL = THROUGHPUT TOTAL C O S T - D m MATERIAL = OPERATING EWENSE Revenue ($) 62,318,000 75,471,000 1 52,085,000 68,704.000 52,023,000 1 67,851,000 63,880,000 1 81,457,000 Total Cost ($) 67,023,000 97,140,000 1 24,160,000 71,972,000 66,325,000 1 58,082,000 53,633,000 ( 78,461,000 Direct Materials I$) 35,075,000 52,519,000 I14,935,000' 18,546,000 25,131,000 1 21,564,000 17,131,000 1 29,290,000 (Thmuahput ($1 CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS SCHEDULE INDICATOR THROUGHPUTILONCTERM INVENTORY PROCESS DAYS Throughput ($) Lowterm Inventory ($) NET OPERATING RESULTS (CUM ACTUAL RE- ACTUAL COsr)/ LABOR HOUR COST ~ ~ r n T O T A L A ~ A L c O S T ~ T I V E A C N A L m r A L D l l I V 27,243,000 101.890.000 I 22,952,000 102,058,000 0.46 INDEX 67,020,000( 50,158,000 102,774,000 1109,798,000 -[-0.651 1 0 . 2 5 1 0 . 3 8 1 0 . 4 6 3 26,892,000 107,234,403 46,287,000 122,387,304 46,749,000 101,832,440 52,167,000 98,713,933 CORPUS CHRIST1 ARMY DEPOT CORPUS CHRISTI, TX MAJOR WORKLOAD ACCOMPLISHED: The depot repairs, overhauls and maintains Army helicopters, including the UH-1 Huey, the AH-1 S Cobra, the UH-60 Black Hawk and the CH-47 Chinook. In addition, Corpus Christi is DESCOM's Center of Technical Excellence for the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, the UH-60 Black Hawk and the new Light Helicopter (LHX) Program (engine and airframe). DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LEVEL: Civilian: 2786 Military: 7 CURRENT YEAR INDUSTRIAL FUND BUDGET ($): Customer support and expense reduction continue to be a major focus for the business of the depot. Scheduling work based upon executability and capacity is positively influencing the schedule indicator. Continuing emphasis on process improvements is expected to continue to improve the Process Days Indicator. It is relevant to recognize that process days for the Blackhawk encompasses four types of programs, A1 , A2, 10, and BO; and while some predictability of cycle time is appropriate, the condition of the aircraft upon arrival determines the scope of work (time to perform). CORPUS CHRIST1 ARMY DEPOT THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE WAL: OE Should Iwease Slower or Decrease Fasrer r h m T h u g h p u , or Decrease when Throughput is Constaw 9 0 , I ' I h m u p h p n --Erprms Revenue increased while actual costs decreased at a steady rate during FY94. Actual Direct Labor Hour costs decreased 12.3% in 4th Qtr FY94 versus 4th Qtr FY93. CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS WAL.: Index Should Continually Increase 3 I Increasing Throughput and decreasing book value of assets due to depreciation caused the positive acceleration of the Capital Investment Effectiveness Index. SCHEDULE INDICATOR WAL.: Indta Should Equal I CORPUS CHRIST1 ARMY DEPOT PROCESS DAYS W A L : Process Days Should show Continrral Reduction 450 I Process Days remained constant after declining dramatically from 4th Qtr FY93 until the completion of two crashdamaged aircraft, one from FY86 and the other from FY89. Inspect and Repair completed in the 4th Qtr FY94 increased from 136 to 145 days NET OPERATING RESULTS W A L : Actual NORIBudgeted NOR should equal 1 .CO I Renegotiation of several PRONs at year-end IPR was a major reason for actual NOR to exceed budgeted NOR. Actual operating expenses were less than budgeted due to a material return credit of $1 1 M from ATCOM. LABOR HOUR COST GOAL: The Labor How Cost Index should consistently be at or below 1 .&I. 1 3 1.15 - 1 0.95 a9 9 Labor Hour Cost show a favorable consistent trend for FY94. Actual direct labor hours were consistently higher than budgeted, while actual costs were consistenetly lower than planned. The $1 1 M material return credit from ATCOM Influenced these resutts. CORPUS CHRISTI ARMY DEPOT ( QuarterIFiscal Year 1/93 1 2/93 ( 3/93 1 4/93 1 1/94 1 2/94 1 3/94 1 4/94 ] THROUGHPUT 8 OPERATING EXPENSE R E V E N U E - D m MATERIAL =THROUGHPUT CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS TOTAL COST-DIRECT MATERIAL = OPERATING EXPENSE Revenue ($) Total Cost ($) Direct Materials ($) IThmuahwt ($1 1 ~ O W ~ ~ M I ($1 SCHEDULE INDICATOR THROUGHPUThONGTERM INVENTORY PROCESS DAYS Throughput ($) Lomterm Inventory ($) NET OPERATING RESULTS (CUM ACTUAL REVENUUCUM ACTUAL COST)/ 63,042.000 73,167,000 25,051,000 37,991,ooOl 89,816,000( 63,020.000 76,318,000~126,148,000 65,555,000 25,719,000 TOTAL PROCESS DAYSNUMBER OF lTEW = AVERAGE PROCESS DAYS LABOR HOUR COST ~CUMlJIATNE:TOTALACTUALCOST~TIVEACIZTALTWTALDLHI/ 77,884,000 84,495,000 36,384,000 41,500,000] 48.1 11.000 24,261,000 65,555,000 I=-1 ( INDEX -2.55 Blackhawk Process Days I Number of Items AVG PROCESS DAYS I [ y l l m 1 I I I 98,809,000 96,942,000 43,998,000 54 81 1 000 '-1 84,258,000 87,406,000 32,990,000 51,268,000 50.224.000 12,796,000 1 41,500.000 27,831,000 1 47,970,000 4,397 11 399.73 4 8 . 1 1 6 . 0 0 0 1 ~ 1 4 & 95,189,000 81,528,000 28,537,000 66 652 000 51,268,000 34,532,339 54,811,000 1 37,991,000 49,954,000 1 34,685,914 1 0.46 11 0.87 109,097,000 76,725,000 26.683.000 82 414 000 1 1 . 4 8 - 7 1 1 1.10 66,652,000 34,166,524 86 1 6 1 143.50 82,414,000 31,999,721 1.951 2,859 16 11 178.69 1 1,497 11 -1 2.581 5,095 17 299.71 1 I LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT CHAMBERSBURG, PA MAJOR WORKLOAD ACCOMPLISHED: Major workload included the production of 128 MI09 self-propelled howitzers, 31 light recovery vehicles, 14 towed howitzers, 18 Patriot launchers, 6 complete Hawk systems, 8 Hawk shops, 30 Avenger fire units, and approximately 9,900 secondary items . DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LEVEL: Civilian: 1367 Military: 10 CURRENT YEAR INDUSTRIAL FUND BUDGET ($): Transitioning equipment, upgrading maintenance facilities, recruiting, and training all characterize LEAD'S present effort in support of the tactical missile consolidation (e.g., during the 3rd Qtr, the AIM-7 test equipment was validated ahead of schedule). Highspeed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) peculiar equipment is installed and ready for use. As of May 94, LEAD completed first article test on AVENGEWATAS Argon Bottle Refurbishment Certification Test Sets. The first Field Artillery Ammunition Supply Vehicle (FAASV) was sent to Yuma Proving Ground for testing. This was the first of 99 to be converted by LEAD to the M992A2 configuration. The converted vehicle is cornpatable with the M109A6 Paladin self-propelled artillery. FAASVs will be converted on a schedule to match Paladin fielding. LEAD accepted an Air Force program of 30 Sparrow AIM-7M missiles, and a Navy program for 11. Work began in the 4th Qtr. First article test was completed in September for the HELLFIRE launcher. This is the fifth missile to transition. LEAD fielded the second AVENGER system to Europe on schedule and with positive results. The Joint Engineering Data Management Information and Control System (JEDMICS), an automated mass storage system for mechanical data, was installed at LEAD. LEAD is the first depot to receive JEDMICS. Initial FY94 projections showed sufficient workload to execute the budgeted direct labor hours with minimum carryover to FY95. Revisions and decrements cut new orders by 16% and resulted in a carryover of approximately 4.2 months, including exclusions (fabrications1FMS). Available personnel were used in other mission areas, in self-help projects, and in supporting tactical missile. consolidation. LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT THROUGHPUTtkOPERATlNGEXPENSE WAL: OE Should Increme Slower or Decrease Faster than Throughpur, or Decrease when Throughput is Constant 35 '5 Ub3 I 2/93 3193 4/93 1A4 2/94 31% 4A4 --* O p a n t i n g h v Letterkenny Army Depot did not receive all of the workload it could accomplish. Because most depot costs are fixed in the year of execution, any decrease in assigned workload will have a negative impact on all indicators. CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS WAL: Index Should Continually Increase 1s - 1.7 - 1.6 - 15 - 1.4 - 13 - 1.2 - 1.1 - 1 - 0.9 - 0.8 - a 7 r SCHEDULE INDICATOR WAL: Index Should E d 1 LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT PROCESS DAYS W A L : Process Days Should show C o n t i d Reht ion 125 1 NET OPERATING RESULTS GOAL: Actual NORIBudgeted NOR should e@ 1.00 13 LABOR HOUR COST W A L : The Labor How Cost Index should consistently be m or below 1.00. 1.35 13 1.25 la: 1.05 1 0.95 - - I_____,-- - - - - Ub3 21P3 3/93 4193 1/94 U44 3/94 4/94 LElTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT [~uarter/fiscal Year 1 1/93 1 2/93 ( 3/93 1 4/93 1 1/94 1 2/94 I 3/94 ( 4/94 j THROUGHPUT 8 OPERATING EXPENSE REVENIJE-DIREIJT MATERIAL = THROUGHPUT CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS SCHEDULE INDICATOR m C O ~ O N ~ S ~ U L E D THROUGHP~hONGERM INVENTORY PROCESS DAYS Throughput ($) Lowterm lnventorv ($) PNDEX NET OPERATING RESULTS (CUM ACNAL RE- ACIUAL COST)/ 29,068,000 17,845,000 -1.63 TOTAL PR-S DAYSNUMBER OF ITEMS = AVERAGE PROCESS DAYS LABOR HOUR COST (CUMULATIVE TOTAL ACTUAL COSTCUMULATIVE ACTUAL TOTAL DLl-I)/ Paladin Process Days Number of Items AVG PROCESS DAYS 20,110,000 27,586,000 1 0.73 I 25,755,000 1 25,582,000 27,362,0001 23,503,000 1 0 . 9 4 1 1,460 18,896,000 23,664,320 - 7 1 ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ l 1,083 17,770,000 24,289,834 0.73i 15 I I I 1,424 18,846,000 16,009,953 1.181, 12 90.251 23,721,000 26,357,823 0.901 1 2,134 14 101.71 1 1 971 18 118.561 9. 107.89 1 RED RIVER ARMY DEPOT TEXARKANA, TX MAJOR WORKLOAD ACCOMPLISHED: RRAD is the primary depot for overhaul and conversion of the MI 13 Armored Personnel Carrier family of vehicles. In the trend to shift to more advanced weapons systems, RRAD has become the designated maintenance point for the overhaul and conversion of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and Multiple Launch Rocket System. RRAD is also the Army's Theatre Readiness Monitoring Facility for the PATRIOT system. DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LEVEL: Civilian: 1642 Military: 5 CURRENT YEAR INDUSTRIAL FUND BUDGET ($): RRAD is designated the organic source of repair for the M9111M747 Heavy Equipment Transporter System (HETS). For FY94, RRAD produced 358 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, 512 M I 13 Armored Personnel Carriers, and 12 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems. After a turbulent beginning, RRAD finished FY94 with a NOR loss of approximately $2M, a $14M improvement from the planned loss of $1 6M. RED RIVER ARMY DEPOT THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE W A L : OE Should Increase Slower or Decrease Faster than Throughput, or Decrease when Throughput is Constant 70 60 - 50 - 840 -- 330 - 20 - -- -0PntinoExpmra The pattern of actual Operating Expenses exceeding actual revenue (Throughput) reflected directed loss of $16M. RRAD finished FY94 with a $2M loss by decreasing operating costs rather than increasing priceslrevenue. CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS WAL: I n k Should Continually Increase SCHEDULE INDICATOR WAL: I n h Should Equal 1 RED RIVER ARMY DEPOT PROCESS DAYS WAL: Process Days Should show Conrinval Reduction 95 t NET OPERATING RESULTS WAL: Actual NORIBudgeted NOR should equal 1.00 1 3 1 LABOR HOUR COST WAL: The Labor Hour Cost I n a h should consistently be at or below 1 .00. 1 Labor Hour Cost Index was below 1 .OO for both FY93 and FY!34, and the 4th Qtr FY94 actual labor hour cost, $79.32, is 12% below the 4th Qtr FY93 cost of $90.1 4. RED RIVER ARMY DEPOT 1 QuarterIFiscal Year 1 1/93 1 2/93 1 3/93 1 4/93 1 1/94 1 2/94 1 3/94 1 4/94 1 THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE REVENUE-DlECT MATERIAL =THROUGHPUT CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS TQTAL COST-DKECC MATERIAL = OPERATING EXPENSE Revenue ($) Total Cost ($) Direct Materials ($) -Is)4,022,000)59,925,000'1 lo~eratlna Expense ($1 1 SCHEDULE INDICATOR THROUGHF'UThONGIERM INVENTORY PROCESS DAYS Lomterm Inventorv ($) 15,975,000 1 72,660,000 45,407,000 1 52,366,000 NET OPERATING RESULiS (CUM ACNAL R E V ACTUAL COST)/ 11.953,OOO 33,454.000 1 4,022,000 83,668,000 0.05 TDTAL PROCESS DAYS/NUMBER OF =AVERAGE PROCESS DAYS LABOR HOUR COST (CUMULATIVE TOTAL ACTUAL COST/CUMULATIV6 A m A L TOTAL DLH)/ 12,735.000 39,631.000 53,261,000 1 52,637,000 60,584,000 1 73,347,000 Bradleys Process Days Number of Items IAVG PROCESS DAYS 33,867,000 38,732,000 2,350,000 131,637,0001)l) 1 36,382,000 28,412,000 24,849.000 1 32,172,000 1 59,925,000 1 24,849,000 86,415,0001 87,954.000 0.6911 0.281 21 .OOO,OOO 52,347,000 32,192,000 52,420,000 12,990,000 19,202,000 31,637,000 85,014,000 0.37 -I I 3,841 I 2,920 40 I 43,700,000 42,118,000 12,078.000 1 31,622,000 1 /39,430.000130,049,0001 3131 7,000 95,409,007 1 0.33 1 44 55,932,000 34,787,000 6,630,000 49,302.000- 28,157,000~ 4,306 1 2,848 51 I 42 67.81 ~ ~ ~ 1 1 8 7 . 3 0 1 ~ ~ I l 19,202,000 92,857,704 0.21 1 3,965 55 1 72.09 1 31,622,000 92,012,986 0.34 1 49,302,000 95,055.023 0.52 1 TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT TOBYHANNA, PA MAJOR WORKLOAD ACCOMPLISHED: Tobyhanna's major mission responsibilites include the repair, overhaul, modification, conversion, test and new system maintenance planning of both strategic and tactical communications and electronic equipment. DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LEVEL: Civilian: 2235 Military: 27 CURRENT YEAR INDUSTRIAL FUND BUDGET ($): These operating indicators depict a positive, increasing Throughput. Actual revenue was higher than planned due to the receipt of unprogrammed workload which had less material, supply, and equipment expenditures than the original workload it replaced. The reductions in cost resulted in an increased Net Operating Result Index (NOR) and a reduction in actual cost per direct labor hour. TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE GOAL: OE Should Incrme Slower or Decrease Faster than Throughput, or Decrease when Throughput is Constant 55 , I I Ub3 I 2193 3/93 4/93 1IW Yw 3/94 494 - p a - E x p m r e FY94 Throughput shows an overall positive trend compared to FY93 due to an increase in customer workload. Operating expenses remained under control as the direct result of costcutting measures and year-end adjustments of estimated expenses to actual expenses. CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS W A L : In& Should ConikaUy Increase a7 Capital Investment Effectiveness increased in FY94 due to an increase in customer workload. SCHEDULE INDICATOR WAL.: I n h Should E d 1 TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT Process days for the PCM Tele Terminal reflect a continuing postive downward trend. PROCESS DAYS GOAL.: Process Days Should show Continual Reduction 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 Completion of unprogrammed workload such as Rack 41's and workload for Army Reserves and National Guard were the primary reasons for the increase of actual revenue over planned revenue. Decreased costs were primarily the result of decreased material, supply and equipment expenditures. - - - - - - - - - - - NET OPERATING RESULTS WAL.: Actual NORIBudgeted NOR should equal 1.00 LABOR HOUR COST GOAL: The Labor Hour Cost Index should consistently be at or below 1.00. 1.2 1 " lb 2193 3/93 5 0193 1194 W 3B4 4A4 1.2 1.s 1: 1 0.95 0.9 Decrease is attributable to an underacheivernent of direct labor hours due to workload shortfalls in overhaul areas, a snow emergency day, and the non-receipt of funding for numerous programs such as the RTC-524, VRC-12, voice multiplexer avionics, and surveillance radar programs. The direct labor hour shortfall has contributed to the cost decrease because of the slow receipt of workable authorizations. - I\-- - - - ".=.u;n 2193 3/93 4/93 1IW YW 3A4 41P4 TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT I Quarter/Fiscal Year 1 1/93 1 2/93 1 3/93 1 4/93 1 1/94 1 2/94 1 3/94 1 4/94 ] THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE R E V E N U E - D m MATERIAL = THROUGHPUT I Revenue (S\ 1 3s CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS SCHEDULE INDICATOR U N I T S C O M P L I X E D O N ~ S S C H E D U L E D THROUGHPTJTA,ONGIERM INVENTORY PROCESS DAYS NET OPERATING RESULTS (CUM ACI'IJAL RE- ACTUAL COSW 34,337,000 76,764,000 Throughput ($) Lonqterm Inventory ($1 TOTAL PROCESS DAYS- OF ITEMS =AVERAGE PROCESS DAYS LABOR HOUR COST ( ~ W E n r r A L A C T U A L C O S T ~ T I v E A C N A L T O T A L D ~ 46,592,000 89,261.000 44,525,000 79,562.000 (INDEX 1 51,819,000 83,508,000 31,111,000 79,285,000 35,801,000 81,650,000 98 2 0.621 1 T A 5 ] [ 0 . 5 6 '1-] 0.521 34,896,000 81,994,000 1041 99 2 1 2 PCM Tele Terminal Process 0.44 37,792,000 85,214,000 101 2 117 3ays 7 - 1 - 58.50 Number of Items 107 AVG PROCESS DAYS 1 0.43 .[I -I 1 0.44 I I I 50.50 1 2 49.00 1 2 NAVAL AVIATION DEPOTS NADEP CHERRY POINT CHERRY POINT, NC MAJOR WORKLOAD ACCOMPLISHED: AIRCRAFI: AV-8B Harrier II, A-4 Skyhawk, C-130 Hercules, F-4 Phantom II (Drone Conversion, USAF RF-4C, F4-E &F-4G), H-46 Sea Knight and CH-53 Sea Stallion ENGINES: F402, J79, T400, T58, T64 and T76 DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LEVEL: Civilian: 361 4 Military: 74 CURRENT YEAR INDUSTRIAL FUND BUDGET ($): Throughout FY94, NADEP Cherry Point continued to make improvements in its financial and overall process days indicators, while placing a great deal of emphasis on the transition of workload and personnel as a result of BRAC 93 decisions. During FY94, Cherry Point's rolls grew by 725 individuals. NADEP Cherry Point began transitioning the H-1, H-2, H3, H-53, H-60 and A-4 manufacturing workload. The NADEP also established capability for 247 H-53 components. Cherry Point has successfully transitioned the CH-53E aircraft from Pensacola, completing the first aircraft 44 calendar days ahead of schedule. Prototype inductions of the CH-53D, MH-53E and the RH-53D aircraft have been accomplished on schedule. NADEP CHERRY POINT THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE W A L : OE Should Iweare Slower or Decrease Faster than Throughput, or Decrease when Throughput is Constam CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS WAL.: Index Should Contirucally Increase 0.8 r SCHEDULE INDICATOR WAL.: Index Should Equal 1 - - & - A i r c n f t ~ P - L ~ O i n r a The Schedule Indicator for aircraft shows overall improvement although it was slightly down in the 4th Qtr FY94. Experienced depot personnel have been reassigned to aircraft programs that are transitioning to Cherry Point and there is an overall learning curve associated with the new programs. A breakdown by the number of days aircraft missed schedule is: 5 aircraft e 10 days, 4 aircraft c 20 days, and 7 aircraft >20 days. NADEP CHERRY POINT PROCESS DAYS WAL: Process Days Should show Continual Redvction 30 10 - 5 -- 7, 0 1 -5 - 4/94 - - - c J = P = Q U D &gin- The slight rise in aircraft Process Days in the 4th Qtr FY94 was a result of increased emphasis on the product line of a major customer. NET OPERATING RESULTS GOAL: Actual NORIBudgeted NOR should equal 1.00 1.4 LABOR HOUR COST WAL,: The Labor How Cost Index should consistently be at or below 1 .00. 1.15 1.1 NADEP CHERRY POINT [ QuarterlFiscal Year 1/93 1 2/93 1 3/93 1 4/93 1 1194 1 2/94 1 3194 1 4/94 1 THROUGHPUT & OPERATlNG EXPENSE R E V E N I E - D m MATERIAL = THROUGHPUT SCHEDULE INDICATOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS THROUGHPUThONGTERM ENENTORY PROCESS DAYS NET OPERATING RESULTS (CUM AClUAL REVENUWCUM ACTUAL COST) / Lonqterrn Inventory LABOR HOUR COST ( m m TOTAL ACNAL msT,cuMuLATZvE ACTUAL TOTAL DW I 46,852,342 142.1 15.251 0.33 1 53.468.776 141.832.131 0.38 1 1 10,946,067 1 54,160,836 150,663,991 1147,362,957 0.74 11 0.37 47,781.202 152,405,903 0.31 39,031,894 154,971,548 1-1 40,491,421 154,080,793 1 0.26 1 52,228,109 143,292,994 0.36 1 NADEP JACKSONVILLE JACKSONVILLE, FL MAJOR WORKLOAD ACCOMPLISHED: P-3 Orions, A-7E9s, Components, and Engines (J52 and F404), calibration, GSE, engineering and manufacturing. DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LEVEL: Civilian: 31 09 Military: 29 CURRENT YEAR INDUSTRIAL FUND BUDGET ($): $343,130,648 NADEP JAX was awarded the 1994 Florida Governor's Business Leadership Award. The J52 engine contract was begun in second quarter. NADEP JACKSONVILLE THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE W A L : OE Should Increase Slower or Decrease Faster than Throughput, or Decrease when Thrmghput is ConrtMt m , I - p u r o p m t i n s E x p s D I s BRAC-93 funding delays reduced Throughput and year end close-out adjustments caused the apparent reduction in operating expense. CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS W A L : Index Should Continually Increaw 0.9 The BRAC-93 funding delays have disrupted this indicator. SCHEDULE INDICATOR W A L : Index Should Equal 1 Aircraft not completed on schedule either required major repairs or were intentionally delayed to accelerate work on other aircraft to meet mandatory customer completion dates. NADEP JACKSONVILLE PROCESS DAYS GOAL.: Process Days Should show Continual Reduction A L c n f t - ~ p o n = L W - Some aircraft completed in FY94 required major repairs which increased process days. Increase in process days for engines was mostly attributable to material constraints. NET OPERATING RESULTS WAL: Actual NORIBudgeted NOR should equal 1.00 12 , NADEP JAX was the only naval aviation depot to complete FY94 with a positive NOR. LABOR HOUR COST WAL.: The Labor How Cost Index should comistentb be at or below 1.00. 1.15 Delay of the BRAC-93 workload transition due to lack of funding, combined with staffing action to accomplish those transitions have put upward pressure on the labor hour cost. This was offset by year end close-out adjustments. NADEP JACKSONVILLE [~uarterlfiscal Year 1/93 1 2/93 1 3/93 1 4/93 1 1/94 ( 2/94 1 3194 1 4/94 1 THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE R E V E N U E - D m MATERIAL = THROUGHPUT nue IS\ I QR 71n nr CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS SCHEDULE INDICATOR - --- THROUGHPUT/LONCElU INVENTORY PROCESS DAYS Throughput ($) Lonqterm Inventory ($1 NET OPERATING RESULTS (CUM ACTUAL REVENUEKNM ACTUAL a n I LABOR HOUR COST 54,470,000 84,880,000 35,648,000 1 64,695,000 86,300,0001 84,593,000 0.721 0.771 1-1 0.64 110.76) 53,169,000 ( 48,339,000 82,768,0001 82,373,000 0.641-1 61,383,000 80.481,000 0.76 1 61,005.000 79,186.000 59,324,000 82,169,000 NADEP NORTH ISLAND SAN DIEGO, CA MAJOR WORKLOAD ACCOMPLISHED: F/A-18 Hornet, C-2 Greyhound, E-2 Hawkeye, S-3 Viking, F-14 In-Service Repair, F/A-18 Center Barrel Splice, ASO/DMISA/FMS components, LM2500 and T64 engines, manufacturing, mobile (van) manufacturing, F-5K38 adversary support, avionics, support equipment, shipboard repair, calibration, and engineering/software. DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LEVEL: Civilian: 3587 Military: 29 CURRENT YEAR INDUSTRIAL FUND BUDGET ($): Naval Aviation Depot North Island provides a wide range of engineering, calibration, manufacturing, overhaul and repair services performed on aircraft, engines, ships, and components. The Depors Primary Standards Laboratory provides primary calibration standards for Navy and other DoD agencies. In addition to functioning as the Navy's largest bearing repair facility, the Depot dispatches field teams to deployed ships and aviation units world wide. North lsland is also one of the three DoD depots that has large engine overhaul capability. Management of the Depot is committed to Total Quality Leadership involving suppliers, customers and fellow NAVAIR TEAM as an integral part of operational planning. Over a quarter of the Depot's work effort is dedicated to support of the Navy's frontline F/A-18, E-2, C-2, and S-3 carrier aircraft. The Depot's extensive engineering and software specialists provide state of the art cradle to grave support for aircraft and other customer programs. North Island's cost and financial performance is generally improving. In particular, Net Operating Results and Labor Hour Cost are significantly improved, while Capital Investment Effectiveness shows continuing dramatic gains. The F/A-18 Aircraft schedule and process days performance has improved significantly as compared to the first two quarters of FY94. The improvement is due to the completion of all "must meet" scheduled aircraft, which caused priority shifts. The second contributor centered around specific process improvements such as revalidation of the work requirement specification and its resultant process streamlining, material requirements forecasting and disciplined asset management, and schedule accounting at all levels of aircraft process. These elements accounted for 80% of the total performance improvement illustrated. NADEP NORTH ISLAND THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE GOAL: OE Should Increase Slower or Decrease Farter than Throughput, or Decrease when Throughput is Constatu 130 - - p u t -0PantinpErpmrs In 1st and 2nd Qtr FY93, Throughput data exhibited anomalous variations because of a Defense Business Operating Fund accounting policy change. And, a financial programming change (revenue recognition) incorporated in 3rd Qtr FY94 and removed in 4th Qtr FY94 caused revenue to be overstated in 3rd Qtr FY94. The Throughput and Operating Expense index is constant with previous quarters if 3rd Qtr aberrations are ignored. CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS GOAL: In& Should C o n t M l y Increase 1.2 , Long-term inventory has decreased from $143M at the end of FY92 to $65M at the end of FY94. A steady upward trend in this index has been the result. Note: The financial programming change previously explained also impacted this index in 4th Qtr FY94. SCHEDULE INDICATOR WAL: Index Should Equal 1 1.1 , I r s L a f t - - P n g i u a Aircraft schedule performance improvements illustrated above are due to enhanced material management, and the employment of a "standardized" program managementfscheduling tool. NADEP NORTH ISLAND PROCESS DAYS WAL,: Process Days Should show Continual Reduction 60 1 393 3/93 4193 W yg4 31W 4194 -- - C o D l p - - ~ p i n e a Aircraft process days performance has improved due to work requirement specification revalidation, and the resulting process of %iloringn to optimize process operation integration. NET OPERATING RESULTS W A L : Actual NORIBudgeted NOR should equal 1.00 1.7 1 This index is impacted by revenue and exhibits the same type of 3rd Qtr FY94 spike found in the Throughput and Operating Expense index. Normalized data reflects a favorable indexing trend. LABOR HOUR COST W A L : The Lpbor How Cost Index should consistently be at or below 1.00. 1 3 Current performance reflects a concerted effort to reduce indirect costs within the depot. NADEP NORTH ISLAND I Quarter/Fiscal Year 1/93 1 2/93 1 3/93 1 4/93 1 1/94 1 2/94 1 3/94 1 4/94 ] THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE REYENUE-DIRECT MATERIAL =THROUGHPUT CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS lDTAL COST-DIRECT MATERIAL = OPERATING EXPENSE Revenue ($) Total Cost ($) Direct Materials ($) Throuahput Operadm Expense ($1 1 SCHEDULE INDICATOR 142,279,930 58,470,677 1 77,311,100 80,146.1 85 1 67,412,008 77,836,189 100,944,845 60,754,116 82,888,620 86,547,802 1 89,837,567 90,073,560 1 79,374,182 68,901,343 84,824,684 97,464,829 19,251.286 25,001.962 23,047,106 20,666,717 1 17,131,273 22,122,878 20,815.123 16,363,547 -123,028,644 54,2634,263,9941 59,479,468 -55,715,3111 80.1 29.7221 44,390,569 1 63,637,334 THROUGHF'UThONCIERM INVENTORY PROCESS DAYS Throughput ($) Lonsterm Inventow ($) NET OPERATING RESULTS (CUM ACNAL REVENUWCUMACNAL COST) I LABOR HOUR COST ((XMuLAl'lVE TOTAL ACNAL COSTKUMULATIW ACIVAL TOTAL DLH) 1 123,028,6441 33,468,7151 54,263,994 1 12,242.283 1107,441,605 (102,762,506 ( INDEX 59,479,468 102,372.051 ~ ~ I I 0.53 --1 50,280,735 76,208,285 0.75) 55,715,311 74,396,575 1.121 0.68 1 80,129,722 71,824,858 44,390,569 65,099,304 NAVAL SHIPYARDS LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD LONG BEACH, CA MAJOR WORKLOAD ACCOMPLISHED: Surface ship overhaul, alteration and repair. DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LEVEL: Civilian: 2955 Military: 33 CURRENT YEAR INDUSTRIAL FUND BUDGET ($): Long Beach Naval Shipyard completed 5 ships in FY94. Three were completed on time and two were completed late for a total of 15 days late for the PI. The late completions were due to new work and material delays. Operating expenses exceeded Throughput due to an unplanned reduction in workload. The shipyard budgeted for 3,781,044 direct labor manhours of workload and only executed 3,475,343 manhours. This loss of workload caused labor costs to exceed the budgeted rate by about 8% and actual NOR to exceed the budgeted NOR by 7%. Naval shipyard workloads are generally being reduced across the board due to reductions in force structure. LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD THROUGHPUT 81 OPERATING EXPENSE GOAL.: OE Should Increase Slower or Decrease Farter ~han Throughput, or Decrease when Throughput is Constant ZM Shipyard operating expeenses exceeded Throughput slightly due to the unplanned loss in workload for the year. CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS WAL.: Index Should Conrinucrlly Increase SCHEDULE INDICATOR WAL.: I n h Should Equal I 1/93 ZA3 3/93 493 1/94 2/94 3/94 41w NAVSEA does not report on this indicator. LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD PROCESS DAYS The 3rd and 4th Qtr FY94 index is attributable to three ships which were completed slightly late due to new work and material delays. WAL: Process Days Index Should be 1.00 or Above NET OPERATING RESULTS WAL: Actual NOWBudgeted NOR should equal 1.00 1.4s , 1.4 - 1 3 5 - 1 3 - 1.25 - 1 3 - 1.03 1 M 1.01 1 a99 am 0.97 O.% 0.95 0.94 LABOR HOUR COST - - - - - - - - WAL,: The Labor How Cost Index should comistentIy be at or below 1 .&I. 1.15 0.93 Up, m 3/93 4/93 1/94 284 3/94 4/94 NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD PORTSMOUTH, VA MAJOR WORKLOAD ACCOMPLISHED: Overhaul, repair, alteration and inactivation of submarines, surface ships, and aircraft carriers and reactor compartment disposal and hull recycling. DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LEVEL: Civilian: 7563 Military: 108 CURRENT YEAR INDUSTRIAL FUND BUDGET ($): The shipyard completed 1 1 depot maintenance availabilities for the Fleet during FY94. The 3rd Qtr completions were slightly ahead of schedule and the 4th Qtr ships were slightly behind schedule. The two 4th Qtr ships were late by a total of 33 days due to new work directed by the customer. Throughput exceeded operating expenses slightly. The shipyard executed less direct labor manhours of workload than budgeted, causing an increase in the hourly rate for the year. NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD THROUGHPUT 81 OPERATING EXPENSE GOAL: OE S h o d Increase Slower or Decrease Faster than Throughput, or Decrease when Throughput ir Constant 500 1 CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS WAL.: Index Should Continually Increaw I SCHEDULE INDICATOR WAt: Index Should Equal 1 llP3 a93 3m 4193 1,?J4 zAs 3,?J4 4A4 NAVSEA does not report this indicator. NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD PROCESS DAYS GOAL: Process Days Index Should be 1 ..00 or Above 1.1 I 1 The 3rd Qtr FY94 completions have been adjusted for subsequent schedule extensions. The 4th Qtr FY94 index is attributable to new work on two ships. NET OPERATING RESULTS Wa: A c d NORJBudgeted NOR should equal 1.00 13 The actual NOR index exceeded the budgeted NOR index slightly due to the loss of workload. LABOR HOUR COST GOAL: The Labor HOW Cost Index should comistenttly be at or below 1.00. 1 3 - 1.15 - 1.1 - 1 The actual labor costs exceeded the budgeted labor hour costs by 8% due to the unplanned loss of workload and delayed R1F approval during FY94. NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD ( Quarter/Fiscal Year 1/93 ( 2/93 1 3/93 1 4/93 1 1194 1 2/94 1 3/94 1 4/94 1 THROUGHPUT & OPERATlNG EXPENSE REVEWE-DIRECT MATERIAL THROUGHPUT CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS TOTAL COST-DIRECT MATERIAL = OPERATING EXPENSE Revenue($) Total Cost ($) Direct Materials ($1 Throughput ($1 SCHEDULE INDICATOR THROUGHPUTIZONGIERM INYENTORY PROCESS DAYS 215,947,510 177,566,217 16,421,623 11 99,525,887 Lonqterm Inventory ($) ~ , 1 6 1 . 1 4 4 , 5 9 4 N l 3 OPERATING RESULTS (CUM ACNAL REVENUE/CUM A m COST) I 123,623,025 187,707,348 16,898.566 1106,724,459 199,525,887 11 06,724,459 11 31,235,654 201,445,994 11 96.71 4,592 /204,012.000 (0.99#-10.641 SCHEDULED FLOW DAYSIACTUAL FLOW DAYS LABOR HOUR COST (CUMULATIVE TOTAL A W A L COST-TNE A W A L TOTAL DLH) 1 Scheduled Row Days Actual Flow Days ~ l ~ J ~ ~ \ -]\192.885,624 440,007,000 193,935,000 2.27 147,184,465 1455,881,000 1164,183,000 208,834,435 1194,713,000 1181,711,000 11 78,839,000 434 1 454 1 364 1 480 1 624 1 1338 439 1 454 1 364 1 501 I 678 1 1717 147,638,000 190,975,000 1 313 1 240 310 1 273 -INDEX 1-0.991 1 .OO I ~ ~ ~ 1 0.92 1 1 0 . 7 8 ] 1 212,957,000 208,749,000 19,542.000 1193,415,000 146,384,000 156,291,000 8,967,000 16,345,000 1147.838.0001~ 15,948,8111 15.874.000 0.88 1 170,792,000 160,091,000 13,484.000 157,308,000 11 31,235,654 1k40,007.000 193,415,000 191,317,000 1.011 137,417,000 187,65 1,000 0 . 7 7 n - 157,308,000 185,962,000 0.85 1 PEARL HARBOR NAVAL SHIPYARD PEARL HARBOR, HA MAJOR WORKLOAD ACCOMPLISHED: Submarine and surface ship overhaul, alteration and repair. DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LEVEL: Civilian: 4255 Military: 50 CURRENT YEAR INDUSTRIAL FUND BUDGET ($): The shipyard completed 8 ships during FY 94, with the four 4th Qtr ships finishing slightly ahead of schedule. Operating expenses exceeded Throughput by approximately $7M due to a reduction in workload during FY 94. The shipyard budgeted for 4,033,586 direct labor manhours of worklaod and only executed 3,846,825 direct labor hours which adversely impacted both the labor hour cost and net operating results. PEARL HARBOR NAVAL SHIPYARD THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE GOAL: OE Should Increase Slower or Decrease Faster than Throughput, or Decrease when Throughput L Constant CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS GOAL.: Index S h o d Continually Increase f Operating expenses exceeded Throughput by approximately $7M due to a reduction in -94 workload directed by the customers. SCHEDULE INDICATOR GOAL: Index Should Equal 1 I NAVSEA does not report this indicator. PEARL HARBOR NAVAL SHIPYARD PROCESS DAYS GOAL: Process Days I n k Should be 1.00 or Above Actual costs exceeded revenues by 1% due to a loss of workload. NET OPERATING RESULTS WAL.: Actual NORIBudgeted NOR should equal 1.00 1.u LABOR HOUR COST 1.1 1.05 1 a95 W.4.L.: The Labor Hour Cost Index should comistently be at or below 1 .a0. 1.2 - - - - / / Actual labor costs exceeded the budgeted rate by 7% due to the unanticipated loss of workload. PEARL HARBOR NAVAL SHIPYARD I QuarterIFiscal Year 1 1/93 1 2/93 1 3/93 1 4/93 ( 1/94 1 2/94 1 3/94 1 4/94 1 THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE REVENUJl-DDW3 MATERIAL. 1 THROUGHmrr CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS TOTAL COST-DIRECT MATERIAL = OPERATING EXPENSE Revenue($) Total Cost ($) Direct Materials ($1 rrhrounhput ($1 [Owralna Exwnse ($1 SCHEDULE INDICATOR I I I I I I I I THROUGHPUTILONCTBRM m O R Y PROCESS DAYS 63,772,934 89,545,166 6,686,324 157,086,610) 182.858.8421 Throughput ($) Lonqterm lnventorv ($1 llNIJM NET OPERATING RESULTS (CUM ACNAL RE- ACTUAL corn I 57,086,610 93,868,625 f--7s377 SCHEDULED FLOW DAYSIACTUAL FLOW DAYS LABOR HOUR COST OMULATIVE TOTAL ACNAL CDSTKUhWLATIVE ACTUAL. TOTAL DLH) I 95,660,745 67,706,703 5,223,005 90,437,740 82,483,698 Scheduled Flow Days Actual Flow Days [INDEX 176,842,000 101.597,00082.719,000 6,139,000 170,703,000 71,191,321 96,584,131 7,265,671 (63,905.650) 1-1 90,437,740 92,666,174 0.98 61 1 405 ( 697 1 544 6681 91 I 697) 368 85,394,000 4,951.000 -1 95,458,000-=I 63,905,650 91,931.982 1 0.70 I o . W 1 [ 0 . 5 9 ) 1 1.00Il 1 . 4 8 1 1 . 2 5 1 [ 0 . 9 2 ) 1 0 . 8 4 7 334 1 412) 381 267 1 4481 456 98,995,000) 94,776,000(104,921,000 89,508,0001102,643,000I111,916,000 170,703,00080,443,000 102,967,932 1 1038 1013 4,131,000 94,864,000 85,377,000 95,594,000 1 . 6 6 - 0 . 8 4 1 6,516.000 98,405,000 105,400,000 6.096.000 94,864,000 95,548.000 0.99 88,680,000 93,081,000 1 0.95 88,680,000 96,547,000 98,405,000 93.055.000 1 1.061 1 PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD PORTSMOUTH, NH MAJOR WORKLOAD ACCOMPLISHED: Overhaul, repair and alteration of submarines DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LEVEL: Civilian: 4220 Military: 106 CURRENT YEAR INDUSTRIAL FUND BUDGET ($): The shipyard completed a Depot Maintenance Period (DMP) on the USS Pittsburgh (SSN 720) during FY94. The ship completed 5.5 months late due to unplanned growth in the work package. In FY94, the shipyard budgeted for 4,955,240 direct labor manhours of workload and executed only 4,211,204 rnanhours due to workload reductions by the Fleet. This condition adversely impacted both labor costs and net operating results. Portsmouth Naval Shipyard also experienced increased operating expenses due to a delay in RIF approval. PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE WAL.: OE Should Increase Slower or Decrease Faster than Throughput, or Decrease when Throughput is Constant 180 160 - 140 - Operating Expenses exceed Throughput due to unexpected workload reductions. CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS GOAL: Index Should Continually Increase SCHEDULE INDICATOR WAL.: Index Should E d 1 I . 2193 3/93 4193 1/94 21w 3/94 4194 NAVSEA does not report this indicator. PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD PROCESS DAYS GOAL: Process Days Index Should be 1 .a0 or Above 1 , I No ships were scheduled or completed during the 3rd Qtr FY94. The 4th Qtr FY94 index is due to growth and new work on the USS Pittsburgh DMP. NET OPERATING RESULTS WAL.: Achd NORIBudgeted NOR should equal 1 .a0 5 2193 3193 4A3 1194 2194 3/94 4194 FY94 NOR reflects an unplanned workload reduction. LABOR HOUR COST WAL.: The Labor How Cost Index should comhsntly be at or below I .a0. 13 1.2 1.1 The unplanned workload reduction, coupled with a delay in RIF approval adversely impacted shipyard labor costs for FY94. PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD [~uarter~iscal Year 1193 1 2/93 1 3/93 1 4/93 1 1/94 1 2/94 1 3/94 1 4/94 ] THROUGHPLIT h OPERATING EXPENSE R E V E N U E - D m MA- =THROUGHPUT CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS TOTAL COST-DIRECT MAlERIAL =OPERATING EXENSE SCHEDULE INDICATOR m ~ T E D o N ~ S C H E D U L E D I I I I I I I I I I Revenue($) [ 115,299,851 Total Cost (0) 1 91,172,121 PROCESSDAYS SCHEDULED R O W DAYSIACKJAL FLOW DAYS Scheduled Flow Days 764 764 1 91 3 91 3 426 426 1 0 31 6 Actual flow Davs 837 837 1 1180 1180 509 509 1 0 483 7 0.91 1 1 0 . 7 7 1 1 7 . 0 . 8 ; 4 1 0 . 8 4 1 1 , ~ I I I 1 60,277,568 97,309,549 NET OPERATING RESULTS (CUM A ~ A L REVENUESUM ACIVAL cosn I LABOR HOUR COST ((XMUIATIVE MTAL ACIUAL COSTlCUMUUTIVE ACl'UAL TOTAL DLH) I Direct Materials I$) 1 4,378.389 80,946,581 ( 173,093,000 1 63,920,000 1 69,540,000 115,107,3301 94,355,0001 83,844,0001 80,564,000 5.244.520 3I-i-1 1 5 5 , 0 3 3 , 0 4 8 1 Operatina Exmnse ($1 1 1 92,065,029 71,984,000 91,202,000 4,856.091 76.090,490( 1- 91,504,000, 98,991.000 3.755,000 68,229,0001 5.185.000. 86,319,000 1 93.806.0001 3.710.0001 3,313.0001 2.736.000 169,383.W 60.60/,000 1 6 6 , 8 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 9 0 . 6 4 5 , 0 0 0 f 8 0 , 5 3 1 . 0 0 0 1 n , 8 2 8 . 0 0 0 1 ~ j PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD BREMERTON, WA MAJOR WORKLOAD ACCOMPLISHED: Overhaul, alteration, inactivation and repair of submarines, aircraft carriers and surface ships, reactor compartment disposal and hull recycling DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LEVEL: Civilian: 10593 Military: 78 CURRENT YEAR INDUSTRIAL FUND BUDGET ($): Puget Sound Naval Shipyard executed 12,254,515 direct labor manhours to complete 8 major availabilities during FY 94. The shipyard was budgeted for 13,481,544 manhours, which is a 1,227,029 manhours loss in workload for the fiscal year. The shipyard completed virtually all ships on or ahead of schedule with 2 ships completed early, 4 ships completed on time and 2 ships late for a total of 38 days early for the FY. Shipyard Throughput exceeded operating expenses by a comfortable margin of $39M and revenues exceeded cost by 7%. Labor costs exceeded the budgeted rate due to the loss of workload. PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE WAL: OE ShouldIncrease Slower or Decrease Farter than Throughput, or Decrease w k n Throughput i s Collstatu 700 600 - 500 - - 3/94 4A4 CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS WAL: Index Should Continually Increase 23 I SCHEDULE INDICATOR NAVSEA does not report this indicator. PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD PROCESS DAYS W A L : Process Days In& Should be I .CO or Above 1.1 NET OPERATING RESULTS W A L : Actual NORIBudgeted NOR should equal 1 .do 3 LABOR HOUR COST WAL.: The Labor How Cost Index should consistently be at or below 1 .&I. 13 125 Actual labor costs exceeded the budgeted hourly rate due to a 1.2M rnanhour loss of workload. PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD [ QuartertFiscal Year 1/93 1 2/93 ( 3/93 1 4/93 ( 1/94 1 2/94 1 3/94 1 4/94 1 THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE REVENUE-DIRECT MATERIAL =THROUGHPUT CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS TOTAL COST-DIREIT MATERIAL = OPERATING EXPENSE SCHEDULE INDICATOR Revenue($) (168,461,134 11 76,446,064 Total Cost ($) 1189,405,099 (199,642,356 THROUGHPUl'hONGCERM INVENTORY PROCESS DAYS 118,641,802 208,844,667 10,765,525 [107,876.2771649,524.000 Direct Materials ($) T h r ~ u g h ~ t ($1 Throughput ($) Lowterm Inventory ($) I INDEX NET OPERATING RESULTS (CUM ACl'UAL REVENUEDM ACNAL COST) I 665,554,000 )156,112,000 185,565,878 11 70,638,000 16,030,000 1 16,370,000 ((139,742,000 loperatins Expense ($1 1 19,326,355 1 16,036.1 20 149,134,779 369,284.482 . [ T I SCHEDULED FLOW DAYSIACTUAL FLOW DAYS LABOR HOUR COST (CUMULATIVE TOTAL ACTUAL COSTKUMULATIVE ACTUAL MTAL DLH) I -1169,555.8781- 183,606,236 11149,134,779 Scheduled Flow Days 200,121,000 194,240,000 9,338,000 1-1 -160.409.944 160,409,944 184.902.000 1 181 21 2,545,000 189,599,000 16.256.000 196,289,000 107,876,277 1649,524,000 Actual Flow Davs I 181 [INDEX 1 1.00 I 250,114,000- 21 1,100,000~ 17,279,000. 1232,835,000] 173,343,000 1 300,567,629 313,006,049 1335,543,049 315,257,000 1.94 1 0.44 1835 193.821 .OOO] 139,742.000 2121 1 0.87 P 31 2,213,000 1 0 . 6 1 1 1270 190,783,000 1453 1 0.87 302,991.000 0.651 720 301,185,000. 0.771 196,289,000 696 232,835,000, 256 256 n- 1019 1019 1 .OO 1632 1742 1676 1-J 1660 1.05 1 AIR FORCE AIR LOGISTICS CENTERS AND SPECIALIZED CENTERS AEROSPACE GUIDANCE AND METROLOGY CENTER NEWARK AFB, OH MAJOR WORKLOAD ACCOMPLISHED: Minuteman Ill MGS Peacekeeper MGCS B-1 B INU F-15 IMU F-16 INU F-117 IMU KC-135 INU PADS IMU DMlNS IMU TMDE Carousel IMU SPN-GEANS IMU ESGN IMU Displacement Gyro DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LEVEL: Civilian: 828 Military: 5 CURRENT YEAR INDUSTRIAL FUND BUDGET ($): Aerospace Guidance and Metrology Center 3rd and 4th quarter operations indicators were adversely affected by higher than anticipated Reparable Support Division (RSD) material costs and a planned IT94 budgeted loss of $7.5 million. Our Direct Product Labor Hours (DPAH) were also less than budgeted due to decreased customer requirements in the following workloads: LN-39, Carousel, CN1375,7901A, PADS, and software development. These three factors have reduced our revenue, increased total cost, affected our schedule indicator and increased our labor hour costs. AEROSPACE GUIDANCE AND METROLOGY CENTER THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE WAL: OE Should Increase Slower or Decrease Farter than Throughput, or Decrease when Throughput is Constant 3 0 , I - p u f O p s n t i n L E x p c a r e A decrease in 3rd & 4th quarter customer requirements, causing reduced revenue, coupled with increased material and RSD charges has resulted in decreased throughput and an increase in our operating expenses. CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS WM: Indu Should Continually Increase 0.2, I An increase of $20 million in fundedlunfunded equipment has increased our long term inventory value. This increase was driven by the purchase of 11 Automatic Depot Inertial Navigation Test Stations (ADINTS) in support of the B-1 B, F-16, and Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM) workloads. The reduction in throughput and this increase in long term inventory value has resulted in a decrease in our capital investment effectiveness. SCHEDULE INDICATOR GOAL: Index Should Equal 1 0.95 ( I The main driver for our 3rd quarter schedule indicator was a result of a late start of our new Ring Laser Gyro workload. The 4th quarter schedule indicator was caused by the lack of parts used in the repair of our Carousel module workload. AEROSPACE GUIDANCE AND METROLOGY CENTER PROCESS DAYS GOAL.: Process Days Should show Continval Reduction 1 AGMC uses 7 workloads as "pacing items" (3 IMUIINU, 2 Gyro, 1 Velocity Meter and the Minuteman Ill Missile Guidance Set). Two of our pacing workloads, 7901 Gyro and Carousel IMU, had significantly longer turn around times. These two workloads produced units with longer than average time awaiting parts. These units coupled with reduced receipts increased our overall process days indicator. NET OPERATING RESULTS WAL.: Actual NORlBudgcted NOR should equal 1.00 1.m 1.08 I The FY94 2nd quarter actual costs were higher as a result of an erroneous RSD charge of $1.3 million for 20 Fuel Saver computers. This error was corrected in the 3rd quarter, causing our cumulative actual cost to be artificially higher in the 2nd quarter and lower in the 3rd quarter. LABOR HOUR COST Wa: The Labor How Cost Index should consistently be at or below 1.00. 135 13 Reduced customer requirements in the following workloads have caused a decrease in our total direct labor hours: LN-39, Carousel, CN 1375 Gyro, 7901A Gyro, PADS and software development. These 6 workloads account for 107 thousand production hours that were budgeted but did not genetate. AEROSPACE GUIDANCE AND METROLOGY CENTER [Quarter/~iscal Year 1 1193 1 2/93 1 3193 1 4/93 1 1/94 1 2/94 1 3/94 1 4/94 1 THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE REVENUE-DIRE€T MATERIAL = THROUGHPUT CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS SCHEDULE INDICATOR THROUGHPUThONGI'ERM INVENTORY UNlTSCOMPLETEDONTMWMTSSCHEDULED Components Scheduled 3,379 2,941 [ 2.855 2,995 2,985 ( 2,903 2.938 2,680 Components Completed - 3,099 2,688 1 2,545 2.81 2 2,684 1 2,724 2,662 2,431 1 0 . 9 2 1 0.91 (1 0.89 1 0.94 1 0 . 9 0 1 1 0 . 9 4 0.91 1 PThroughput ($) Lowterm lnventorv ($) PROCESS DAYS 16,343,000 153,627.378 NET OPERATING RESULTS (CUM ACNAL REVENUWCUM A ~ A L cosn I DATE INDUCED - DATE COMPLEED = PROCESS DAYS LABOR HOUR COST (CUMULATIVE TOTAL ACNAL COST/CUMUIATIVB ACIIJAL TOTAL DLH) I ( INDEX 15,225,000 152,125,269 Components Process Days Number of Items 1 0 . 1 8 1 1 0.05 1 0 . 1 1 1 26,867,0001 7,515,000 151,005.859 1147,948,833 57,895 1 33,371 1 29,210 907 1 824 1 833 0.10 10.081 11.618,OW 137,182,208 1 AVG PROCESS DAYS 31,109( 51,010 966 1 1,034 0.05 1 I I I I I 163.8311 40.50 (1 35.07 I 32.20 1 1 4 9 . 3 3 ) 7,185,000 133.71 9,085 0.101 48,266 645. 53,913 1.048 0.05l 15,151.000 146.01 4.1 32 74.83 1 54,557 1.004 51.44 1 8,797,000 166,225.597 54.34 1 AEROSPACE MAlNT AND REGENERATION CENTER DAVIS-MONTHAN AFB, AZ MAJOR WORKLOAD ACCOMPLISHED: Prepare A/C for long/short term storage, represerve A/C in storage and maintain A/C in storage. Withdraw A/C from storage and prepare them for flyaway. Remove parts and assemblies from stored aircraft and cover overland deliveries. Deliver A,C to museums and transport of AJC to gunnerylbombing ranges. EPA clean-up on static display A/C and miscellaneous special projects. Also elimination site for B-52's under terms of Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LEVEL: Civilian: 576 Military: CURRENT YEAR INDUSTRIAL FUND BUDGET ($): AMARC is a service organization that provides for storage, regeneration and disposal of aircraft and related aerospace items as well as selected non-aerospace, out-sized and specialized items. Encompassing 2,600 acres, AMARC currently has more than 4,950 aircraft in storage with an acquisition value of nearly $1 5.98. Related aerospace items in storage include production tooling, engines, pylons, pylon load adapters and airframe components. In FY94, AMARC received 735 aircraft valued at $48. In addition, nearly 3,000 line items of tooling were added to the inventory. In FY94, AMARC returned 197 aircraft and 28,612 parts and components valued at $994M. Wlth an operating budget of $49M, this equates to a return of $20 in goods and services for every dollar spent. AMARC eliminated 57% of the 350 8-52 heavy bombers in accordance with the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and manages over 104,000 line items of aircraft production tooling, including equipment from the B-1, C-141 and A-1 0 production lines. Performance of the indicators was affected by a requirement to meet a programmed loss of $7.7M for FY94, a change in the method of depreciation occurring in the 2nd and 3rd Qtr of FY93, the completion of the F-106 Full Scale Aerial Target Program, construction to primary facilities involved in the process-in activity and non-materialization of the jet engine intermediate maintenance (JEIM) workload. AEROSPACE MAlNT AND REGENERATION CENTER GOAL: OE Should Increase Slower or Decrease Fprter than Throughput, or Decrease when Throughput ir Constant 20 O I U93 m 3Fn 4193 1/94 z/W 3/94 m 1 M p l t O p a U i n s ~ p c n r s Headquarters requirement mandating a $7.7M loss for FY94 and a reduction in revenue generated from existing project workloads caused expenses to be greater than throughput. CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS GOAL.: Index Should Continualhr Increase Downward movement resulted from audit finding leading to adjustments in depreciation accounts and inventory build-up In preparation for the F 4 drone program. SCHEDULE INDICATOR WAL.: Index Should Equal 1 1 0.9 - 0.8 - a7 - 0.6 - as - OA - - Roau In - Rocsrr Out - R s l a n u f h OUT: 1st half FY94 downturn due to end of F106 program & increase in parts and manhour requirements from earlier priority demands. 2nd half upturn due to end of F106 program and improvement in workload preplanning activity. OUT: FY94 trend impacted by large number of F16s needing det. cord removal. Small uptum resuft of AIC undergoing minimum preservation in per designated requirements. RECLAMATION: Procedures used to establish delivery date under 29% increase in demand for prioroty removal items led AEROSPACE MAINT AND REGENERATION CENTER PROCESS DAYS WAL: Process Days Should show Continual Reduction NET OPERATING RESULTS WAL: Actual NORIBudgeted NOR should equal 1.00 15 I Experience with prior drone programs contributed to AMARC's ability to more accurately forecast drone program costs. LABOR HOUR COST WAL.: The Labor Hour Cost Index should consistently be at or below 1.00. 15 Donor aircraft were identified to supply parts/components for drone program aircraft. thereby reducing RSD costs to the customer. Better resource utilization among AMARC's processes lowered costs. AEROSPACE MAINT AND REGENERATION CENTER I QuartedFiscal Year 1 1/93 1 2/93 1 3/93 1 4/93 1 1/94 1 2/94 1 3/94 1 4/94 1 THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE REVENUE-DIRECT MATERIAL = THROUGHPUT TOTAL COST-DIRECT MATERIAL = OPERATING EXPENSE Revenue ($) 8,065,290 8,771,277 17,392,903 12,076,475 11,186,659 7,756,327 7,251,886 8,128,640 Total Cost ($) 7,304,171 9,122,414 16,613,840 11,578,115 10,842,390 9,578,398 9,764,927 10,927,247 Direct Materials ($1 2,707,077 2,107,650 2,795,750 2,847.1 66 3,136,783 1,174.951 539,444 1.967.852 [Throuphput ($1 [ ~ I ~ 6 , 6 6 3 , 6 2 7 1 1 1 4 , 5 9 7 , 1 5 3 1 1 9 , 2 2 9 , 3 0 9 1 ~ ~ ( ( 1 ~ 1 1 Operatlna Expense ($1 14,597,0941~7,014,7641113,818,090~8,730,949)17,705,60711~~ CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS THROUGHPUTILONGTERM INVENTORY 5,358,213 1 6,663,627 )14,597,153( 9,229,309 1 8,049,876 1 6,581,376 1 6,712,4421 6,160,788 Lonaerm Inventow ($) 14,069,828 122,428,755 122,235,538 (12.1 14,825 I1 1,879,928 113,511,504 113,989,677 (14,520,569 I ~ l 0 . 3 0 1 1 0 . 6 6 l 0 . 7 6 ~ 0 . 4 9 1 1 0 . 4 8 1 1 0 . 4 2 1 SCHEDULE INDICATOR U N I T S C O M P L E I X D O N ~ S C H E D U L E D Process In Scheduled 103 1 45 1 78 1 208 1 93 1 85 1 95 1 75 Process In Completed 0 1 6 1 68 1 1961 81 1 29 1 36 1 42 I INDEX I o . a o ~ l 0 . 8 7 ~ 0 . 9 4 ) ) ~ ~ l Process Out Scheduled 13 1 20 1 29 ( 221 16 1 16 1 15 1 6 Process Out Completed 10 1 13 I 26 1 20 1 6 1 6 1 7 I 6 :INDEX I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Reclamation Scheduled 903 1 906 1 865 1 758 1 847 1 772 1164 1 577 Reclamation Completed 872 1 897 ( 857 1 752 1 841 1 753 1093 1385 I INDEX 1 0 . 9 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n . 0.941 0.88 1 PROCESSDAYS TOTAL PROCESS DAYSNUMBER OF ITEMS = AVERAGE PROCESS DAYS IIII((III1))II)- 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I J Im NET OPERATING RESULTS (CUM ACNAL REVENUE/CUM ACTUAL COST) I LABOR HOUR COST (CUhlUIATIVE TOTAL ACTUAL COST/CUMlJIATIVE ACTUAL TOTAL DLH) I OGDEN AIR LOGISTICS CENTER HILL AFB, UT MAJOR WORKLOAD ACCOMPLISHED: FlRF-4 Phantom, F-16 Fighting Falcon, LGM-30 Minuteman Missile, LGM-118A Peacekeeper Missile, GBU-15 Laser Guided Bomb, SimulatorsfTraining Devices, AGM-65 Maverick Missile, Cruise Missiles, Landing Gear, Wheels & Brakes, Air Munitions, Explosives, Photonics, Aircraft Instruments, and Aircraft Guns. DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LEVEL: Civilian: 4765 Military: 278 CURRENT YEAR INDUSTRIAL FUND BUDGET ($): There are at least four items of interest that have had a significant impact on the performance of these indicators. During the 1st Qtr FY!33, DMRD 904 became effective, which required the costs of Reparable Support Division (RSD) material be added to the data systems that track production costs and revenue. RSD material is used to repair an item that belongs to an organization other than the depot (such as Air Combat Command). The costs associated with this material are then considered in the profit and loss aspect of depot performance, which makes those costs more accurate when considering the total cost of doing business. When the data systems were reprogrammed to address RSD material, the systems did not consistently recognize the costs in the debit and credit accounting format. Most of these problems have been resolved; there are a few, however, which are being dealt with on a case by case basis. The second item was a change in the accounting procedures called "Revenue Recognition." In the past some of the costs and most of the revenues were counted in the data system once the end product was completed. Under revenue recognition, costs and revenues are counted as the product moves through the WIP phase. This new procedure became effective during the 3rd Qtr FY93, at which time costs and revenues accumulated to date for those items in the WIP were added to the system in a "lmp sum" entry. This caused the costs to be artifically high for the Qtr. Both of these items will have a short term impact on these performance measures. The third item is anticipated workload did not materialize as planned. Fourth, materials for the F/A-18 workload were not available in a timely manner causing the schedule and flowdays indicators for aircraft to show an undesirable trend. OGDEN AIR LOGISTICS CENTER THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE W A L : OE Should Increase Slower or Decrease Faster than Throughput, or Decrease when Throughput ir Constant 170 160 150 A -put O p n t i n O E x p c n r s At the beginning of FY93, data system problems resulted from the implementation of DMRD 904. The data system was prevented from recognizing all of the costs and revenues accumulated during the Qtr. The large increase in total cost and revenue during 3rd Qtr FY93 was due to the change in revenue recognition. T has been lower than OE since 4th Qtr FY93 because workload has not materialized at the anticipated rate. In the 4th Qtr FY94, T was down because fewer hours were sold than in the previous quarter. CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS W A L : Index Should Continually Increase z5 The inception of DMRD 904 resulted in data system problems that caused the system to show costs and sales to be lower than they actually were during 1st Qtr FY93. The accounting procedure change in revenue recognition (costs and sales) has caused throughput to be artificially high in 3rd Qtr FY93. The trend from 4th Qtr FY93 through 4th Qtr FY94 is the result of a Wall to wall" inventory of capital equipment as well as significant adjustments to the GO1 7 System to correct programming problems. SCHEDULE INDICATOR WALL Index Should E q d 1 1.1 ( I A i n n f t C o m p o n m o _ , M i u i l e r Components dropped during 4th Qtr FY93,l st Qtr FY94 and 4th Qtr FY94 due to carryover of workload. Second Qtr FY94 data improved once these assets began to produce. This is an annual cycle due to the manner in which workload is inducted. Aircraft dropped during 3rd and 4th Qtr FY94 due to non-availibility of kit components and other aircraft material specifically related to the FtA-18 workload. F-16 aircraft were on time 100% for all of FY94, and C-130 aircraft were on time 96% for all of FY94. OGDEN AIR LOGISTICS CENTER PROCESS DAYS WAL: Process Days Should show Continual Reduction I20 I I A i r c n f t M i u i L . h p m o The component data represents the average number of process days per item of the 20 unique stock numbered items tracked. Changes to the sample population may be required to make this indicator as meaningful as possible. The increasing trend in aircraft flowdays during 2nd Qtrthrough 4th Qtr FY94 is due to an increase of modification work packages, contract workload, and partslmaterial problems associated with the F/A-18 aircraft. NET OPERATING RESULTS WAL: Actual NORIBudge~ed NOR should equal 1 .00 1.15 r The downward movement in NOR from 1st Qtr FY93 to 2nd Qtr FY94 was due to workload not materializing at the expected level. In 4th Qtr FY94 a loss occured in aircraft due to overhead and G&A costs being spread across a smaller workload base. Production hours in aircraft were 12?h below target. Additional losses occurred in depreciation, RSD material and labor. LABOR HOUR COST WAL: The Labor How Cod Index should consistently be at or below 1.00. 1m , I LHC continues to be above 1.0 for several reasons. Large credits in RSD material were recognized in FY93, but the offsetting debits were recorded in FY94. There was little history when the RSD targets were being developed which hindered our budgeting accuracy. Other reasons for the trend in FY94 were: operational TDY continued to be higher than targeted due to unplanned FMS TDY, increased missile transportation by truck rather than by aircraft, a change in missile storage sites, and excess manpower. OGDEN AIR LOGISTICS CENTER I Quarter/Fiscal Year 1/93 1 2193 1 3/93 ( 4/93 ( 1/94 1 2/94 1 3/94 1 4/94 ] THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE REVENUE-DIRECT MATERIAL = THROUGHPUT I Total Cost ($) CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS SCHEDULE INDICATOR THROUGHPUThONGTERM INVENTORY 'Throughput ($) 88,741,848 91,368,164 11 60,211,181 1 88,442.355 1 69,116,045 71,735,412 83,171,543 80,356,153 PROCESS DAYS Lomtenn lnventorv ($) IINDEX NET OPERATING RESULTS (CUM ACTUAL REVENUE/CUM ACTUAL COST) / LABOR HOUR COST (CLXULATZVE TOTAL ACNAL C O S T ~ T I V E ACTUAL TOTAL DLH) / 96,481,634 -~ 1 ~ / ~ 1 ~ 0 . 8 5 1 ~ 1 82,873,535 1 82,067.497 1103,667,859 11 24,885,068 127,771,046 0.69 1 0.501 1 19,710,432 160.1 12,844 OKLAHOMA CITY AIR LOGISTICS CENTER TINKER AFB, OK MAJOR WORKLOAD ACCOMPLISHED: Bombers (8-52 and &I), tankers (KC-1 35), and other special purpose aircraft, (CIEC-135, E-3, and E-6), missile and aircraft engines, aircraft, engine, and exchangeable components (aircraft structural components, engine accessories, pneudraulics/hydraulics/pneumatics, oxygenlgas generating equipment, engine and flight instruments, unique avionics and software). DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LEVEL: Civilian: 61 74 Military: 62 CURRENT YEAR INDUSTRIAL FUND BUDGET ($): Oklahoma City ALC has successfully delivered ahead of schedule or on-time all aircraft, engines, and exchangeables for third and fourth quarter of FY94. Throughput has increased $36.6M during FY94. The Capital Investment Index continued to improve in FY94 for a total increase of 65% with a reduction in inventory value of $40.5M. The overall trend in Process Days continues in a positive direction with a total decrease of 58 days for aircraft, engines, and exchangeables in the fourth quarter of FY94. Actual Labor Hour Cost has continued to be lower than Budgeted Labor Hour Cost for the past eight quarters by an average of $12.00. Innovations to improve C/KC-135 inspection processes, aggressive parts procurement, and establishment of CIKC-135 work center structural repair team had a positive effect on Throughput, Scheduling, and Process Days indicators. The work center tearn,comprised of highly trained structural repair mechanics; has expedited aircraft structural repair processes. The team is activated when the aircraft has completed the normal repair process and is then moved to the task team area to accomplish identified repairs. Their goal is to meet customer schedules, reduce cost, and improve production flow. OKLAHOMA CITY AIR LOGISTICS CENTER THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE WAL.: OE Should Increase Slower or Decrease Fmter than Throughput, or Decrease when Throughput is Constant 170 160 - 150 - 140 - -put -Opa;lfinp%Q= FY94 Operating Expense exceeds Throughput due to Program Budget Decisions (PBDs) which included the return of FY92 profits. Increased training to develop a multi-skilled work force has resulted in an Operating Expense increase of only 1.2% and will resuit in cost avoidance for the future. CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS GOAL: Index Should Continually Incrave The index continues to improve in FY94 for a total increase of 65% from FY93. Long Term Inventory shows a positive trend with a decrease of $40.5M from FY93 to FY94. SCHEDULE INDICATOR WAL.: Index Should Equal 1 1.0s , I 1 2193 3193 41El 1/94 ZIW 3194 494 A i r m f t w = J - g & b Adt: New inspection processes, speciatty repair teams, and improved parts availability are showing positive results for all aircraft. Eng: lncreased emphasis on "just in time" scheduling of manpower, equipment, and facilities has Improved scheduling function. Exch: Production percentage increase can be attributed to a team effort identifying manpower, capacity, parts, and dollars, earlier in the repair process. OKLAHOMA CITY AIR LOGISTICS CENTER PROCESS DAYS GOAL: Process Days Should show Continual Reduction 250 -Aim& -hginm h c h m g r a b k n Acft: The positive trend during FY93 and FY94 is driven by improved inspection and repair processes. The perturbation in FY94 is resultant of E-3 and GI35 corrosion control and structural repair process changes. Eng: Improved training, management emphasis, and process improvement have resulted in decreased flow days on all engines. Exch: The decrease can be attributed to a process improvement which allows for a "just in time" induction of assets to the overhaul shop. Budgeted Operating results for FY94 reflect a $60.9M loss driven by Program Budget Decisions (PBDs) which directed the return of profits for FY92. Actual loss was reduced to $29.5M by cost reduction initiatives. The cost reduction initiatives resulted in the actual NOR lndex exceeding the budgeted NOR lndex by 1.5%. NET OPERATING RESULTS GOAL: Actual NORIBudgeted NOR should equal 1 .m LABOR HOUR COST GOAL: The Labor How Cost Index should consistently be at or below 1.00. 1 im 1.m 1.03 1.02 0.99 8 097 During the past eight quarters actual labor hour cost averaged $12.00 less than the budgeted labor hour cost The total labor hour cost for 4/93 and 4/94 is $91.99 and $1 06.20, respectively. This includes material, which is much higher at an engine repair center. Without material, the labor hour cost for 4/94 is $59.44. - - - ! - O.% u93 21P3 3/93 4193 1/94 '-w 3/94 4194 OKLAHOMA CITY AIR LOGISTICS CENTER I Quarter/Fiscal Year 1 1/93 1 2/93 1 3/93 1 4/93 1 1/94 1 2/94 1 3/94 1 4/94 1 THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE REVJiNUE-DlREiT MATERIAL = THROUGHPUT CAPmAL I N V m E N T EFFECTIVENESS SCHEDULE INDICATOR THROUGHF'UTWNCTERM INVENTORY PROCESS DAYS Lowterm Inventow I$) NET OPERATING RESULTS (CUM ACIUAL REVENUE/CUM ACNAL msn I LABOR HOUR COST (CUMULATIVE TOTAL ACNAL COSThXMUIATIVE ACIIJAL TOTAL D W I93,606,019 351.988.721 93,115,547 350,285,649 10.271 0.321 158,208,335 365.792.000 1 0 . 4 3 1 1 0.23 0.381 0.27 0 . 2 9 1 1 1 79,348,071 345,470,647 83,303,064 1 90,779,078 290,375,902 1291,461,574 97,713.800 304.710.727 1 16,018,518 304,935,946 SACRAMENTO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER McCLELLAN AFB, CA MAJOR WORKLOAD ACCOMPLISHED: F-1 1 1, F-15, A-1 0 , KC-1 35, Communications-Electronics, Space Systems, Ground Power Generators DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LEVEL: Civilian: 5386 Military: 21 3 CURRENT YEAR INDUSTRIAL FUND BUDGET ($): External factors, of which we have limited control, affecting all centers, influenced Throughput and increased Operating Expense. To compensate for these and other drivers, all Directorates met in March 94 to identify ideas and areas that could reduce targeted losses. Through the targeted $20M to reduce loss was not met, varied efforts resulted in a $5M loss savings. Labor Hour Costs were negatively affected due to workloads not generating. The steady trend of increase in Capital Investment Effectiveness was a result of the turn in of excess and outdated industrial plant equipment. Total inventory was reduced by $30M since October 1993. This trend is expected to continue. The negative trend in Net Operating Results is due to KC-1 35 structural problems and learning curves associated with KC-135 PDM. Process Days Indicator reduction was due to unplanned repair work on the KC-1 35s during the quarters that these aircraft were originally scheduled to produce (3rd Qtr P(93 to 3rd Qtr FY94), and an increase for the quarters that they are adjusted to (4th Qtr W94). The A-1 Os, F-15s. and F-1 1 1s were on or ahead of schedule. The Schedule lndicator downward direction was due to manpower shortages, facility constraints, and outgoing fuel leaks. SACRAMENTO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE U W - ~ E r p r m o Though final operating expenses were greatly reduced through cost cutting initiatives, Throughput was still exceeded. This was due to reduced revenue rates which were established to return past year profitable operating results. WAL: OE Should Increase Slower or Decrease Faster than Throughput, or Decrease when Throughput is Constant CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECVVENESS WAL: Index Should Continually Increase a6 055 - 05 - 0.45 - 0.4 - 0.35 - 03 - 025 - 3193 4/93 1/94 3/94 180 160 140 ]lo 100 80 The capital equipment inventory has decreased by 11 0 line items since 1 Oct 93. This was driven by efforts to tum in excess and outdated industrial plant equipment. The total inventory value was reduced by $30M since 1 Oct 93. Additionally, the Capital Purchases Program allocation has been reduced in FY95, significantly affecting the acquisition of additional capital equipment items. - - - - - SCHEDULE INDICATOR WAL: I n k Should E q d I 12 I li.3 ab'3 383 493 IrW 2/94 3/w 4/94 1.1 1 09 0.8 a7 - - - - - OA 1193 a93 3193 4193 w li94 3/94 4/94 -- -cavQ=U Five KG135s and one A-10 missed their Aircraft and Missile Maintenance, Production Compression Report (AMREP) dates. Manpower shortages, facility constraints and outgoing fuel leaks were primary causes of the downward direction of the indicator in 4th Qtr FY94. Implementation of Programmed Depot Maintenance Standard System (PDMSS), modification of facilities, and fuel process review are being accomplished to reduce these problems. SACRAMENTO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER PROCESS DAYS WAL.: Process Days Should show Continual Reduction 2Ao I Average process days increased in 4th Qtr FY94 due to production of 10 long flow aircraft. 8 F-1 1 1 s exceeded 260 flow days & two KC-135s exceeded 250 flow days. Major unplanned repair work on KG135s (wing attach fitting replacement) caused reduction of Process Days indicator during the Qtrs that these aircraft were first scheduled to produce (3/93 to 3/94), an increase for the Qtrs that they are adjusted to (4194). The KC-135 increases were approved by the SPD. NET OPERATING RESULTS W A L : Actual NORIBudgeted NOR should equal 1.00 135 1.2 There we continued inefficiencies as a result of higher than budgeted indirect costs and lower than projected yields. Higher than the Budgeted Repairable Support Division (RSD) material costs associated with PDM of F-15s and F-111s were contributors. KC-135 structural problems and the learning curve associated with KC-135 PDM were major influences in the loss position. LABOR HOUR COST GOAL,: The Labor How Cost I n a h shouki consistently be at or below I .00. 1.4 1.2 1.15 :': 1.0 1.1 ,- The actual labor cost index exceeds the 1% criteria due strictly to budgeted versus actual total DLH. Total actual DLH was 716K below budget. The 71 6K variance in DLH directly caused the actual labor hour cost rate to be substantially higher than originally projected. Projected total DLH was not met due to workloads not generating, inefficiency, and overly ambitious projection. Total actual versus projected cost variance was only $4.3M or 0.8% below budget. SACRAMENTO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER ( QuarterIFiscal Year 1 1/93 1 2/93 1 3/93 1 4/93 1 1/94 1 2/94 1 3/94 1 4/94 1 THROUGHPUT 81 OPERATING EXPENSE REVENUE-DIRE(JT MATERIAL = THROUGHPUT CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS SCHEDULE INDICATOR THROUGHPUTLONGTERM INVENTORY PROCESS DAYS Throughput ($) Lowterm Inventory ($) NET OPERATING RESULTS (CUM ACNAL R E V ACNAL COSn I 77,141,340 31 1,521,589 TOTAL PROCESS DAYSINUMBER OF ll?iIUS =AVERAGE PROCESS DAYS LABOR HOUR COST ( m m TOTAL ACTUAL COSTCUMULATIVE ACTUAL TOTAL DLH) I Aircraft Process Days Number of Items IAVG PROCESS DAYS 96,940,291 1169,809,369 306,441,546 1304,879,562 1-1 1-1, - 0.25 76,865,343 297,006,083 0.291, 0.351 3,375 27 1 0.3211 0.56 64,067,370 294,640,723 0.41 1 1 0.26 218.00 3,931 24 66,556,855 229,188,312 1 87.001 1 157.00 1 -)I 125.00 I I I 4,055 32 79,789,371 226,867,766 1 163.79 1 5,330 28. 93,162,968 225,770.092 126.72 1 90.361 SAN ANTONIO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER KELLY AFB, TX MAJOR WORKLOAD ACCOMPLISHED: C-5 Cargo Aircraft, TF39 Engine (C-5 Aircraft), F100 Engine (F-15 & F-16 Aircraft), T56 Engine ((3-130 Aircraft) and related exchangeables. Gas turbine engines, secondary power systems, auxiliary power units, starters and related exchangeables. Manual and automatic test equipment exchangeables, fuel accessories and nuclear components. DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LEVEL: Civilian: 6041 Military: 69 CURRENT YEAR INDUSTRIAL FUND BUDGET ($): Both the depot maintenance personnel level and current year industrial fund budget numbers above have increased since the last submission of this report. Both increases are the result of increased workload at this center. SA-ALC has been instrumental in attaining local manufacturing workload from the Navy depot at Pensacola as well as T56 engine workload from Alameda. SA-ALC also acquired T-38 and F-5 gearbox workload from the Navy. All of these efforts are the result of base closures and pursuit of consolidations of like workloads to achieve both economies of scale in production as well as to preclude the cost of establishing another organic repair source. In addition to the above, SA-ALC was instrumental in the early completion of a modification to the large aircraft paint hanger. This early completion allowed SA-ALC to terminate a contract to paint C-5 aircraft at a contractor's facility. This resulted in both dollar and flow day savings to the customer. SAN ANTONIO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE W A L : OE Should Increase Slower or Decrease Farter than Throughput, or Decrease when Throughput is Constant 180 1 I -put -0P-k- A 3rd Qtr FY94 reversal of credit returns accumulated over a period of time and resulted in a higher than normal direct material expense. This caused an inflated reduction to Throughput for that time period. CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS GOAL: Index Should Continually Increase I The fluctuation in the 3rd and 4th Qtr FY94 time period is due to a 3rd Qtr FY94 recapture of improper credit returns coupled with historically higher revenue in the 4th Qtr. SCHEDULE INDICATOR WAL: Index Should Equal 1 I ' 4 i n n f t l b g i n m E x c h m l g a b h The reduction to Schedule Conformance for engines is caused by the early completion of five F100 engines. The engines were produced in 3rd Qtr FY93, but the close-out project directive verifying a schedule change is not available. SAN ANTONIO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER PROCESS DAYS WAL.: Process Days Should show Continual Reduction 350 [ -- e n o i n a E x f h . n a d k The engine reported for this measure has changed. SA-ALC previously reported on the TF39 engine. This engine is no longer produced as a "whole up" engine, but is totally under the two levels of maintenance concept. We have revised the input to reflect F100-PW-220E overhaul. NET OPERATING RESULTS W A L : Actual NORIBudgeted NOR should equal 1 .a0 1.06 , I The relative stability of this indicator is the result of increased management emphasis on maintaining cost to budget tolerances. Increased emphasis on forecasting costs has contributed to the low relative variance in this indicator. LABOR HOUR COST W A L The Lubor How Cost In& should consistentg be at or below 1.00. 1 .mi 0.96 0.94 2 0.9% 5:: ' = = U b 3 2193 3193 4193 1/94 zlW 3/99 4194 SAN ANTONIO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER [~uarter/~iscal Year 1 1/93 1 2/93 3/93 1 4/93 1 1/94 1 2/94 1 3/94 ] 4/94 ] THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE R E V E N U E - D m MATERIAL =THROUGHPUT CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS TOTAL C O S T - D m MATERIAL = OPERATING EXPENSE Revenue($) Total Cost ($) Direct Materials ($1 SCHEDULE INDICATOR THROUGHPUT/LONGERM INVENTORY PROCESS DAYS 114,906,000 1 16,225,000 27,907,000 Throughput ($) Lowterm lnventoty ($) [INDEX NET OPERATING RESULTS (CUM ACIUAL R E V ACTUAL COSn I LABOR HOUR COST (CUMULATIVE TOTAL ACllJAL COSTKX'MUATIVE ACTUAL TOTAL DLH) I (Throughput ($) 1 86,999,000 171.710,OOO 1 0 . 5 1 1 143,451,000 (204,073,000 132,863,000 1219,247,000 86,999,000 27,096,000 44,251.000 99,200,000 172,233,000 78.1 00,000 11 63,227,000 [94,099,000194,830,0001(89,349,0001101,829,0001 188,954,000188,383,000) 155,321,000 193,463,000 66,367,000 50,121,000 1- 1 88.61 2,000 1104.881,0001 144,650,000 11 79,375,000 161,380,000 1205,497,000 66,550,000~116.148.000 144,866,000 150,582,000 56,483,000 1-1 1 99,200.000 1 153,952,000 163,443,000 198,236.000 195,184,000 93,355,000 153,952.000 0.58 88,954,000 161.160.000 1 0.94 -1 0.55 63,227,000~104,881,000 145,897,000 1143.670.000 88,383,000 156,722,000 10.431( 0.73 1 78,100,000 151,086,000 0.52 WARNER ROBINS AIR LOGISTICS CENTER ROBINS AFB, GA MAJOR WORKLOAD ACCOMPLISHED: F-15, GI30 & C-141, various missiles, Electronic Warfare Systems and Avionics Systems, Vehicles & Special Operations Forces (SOF) aircraft. DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LEVEL: Civilian: 61 42 Military: 80 CURRENT YEAR INDUSTRIAL FUND BUDGET ($): In adition to the major workload previously described, the WR-ALC Team manages approximately 190,000 items that range from gunnery equipment to aerospace commlnav equipment, including Global Positioning Systems. WR-ALC is the only organic source for the F-15 Multi-Stage Improvement Program modification which averages approximately 64 process days over and above the typical PDM aircraft. The F-15 production effort here continues to show a reduction in process days. Aircraft process days in the C-141 area showed an increase in 4th Qtr FY94 due to a parts supportability problem for the lower wing panel replacement on one particular aircraft. This as well as inside facility constraints caused delays in the PDM area as well. Decreasing unprogrammed (2-141 aircraft inputs will also help to concentrate resources in critical areas. Additional work package requirements added by our customers caused the (2-130 production area to increase its process days. There are improvement initiatives in C-130 production, like the purchase of a wiring analyzer to check flowdays. The devastating flood which occurred at the beginning of the 4th Qtr provided an opportunity of service to surrounding communities; however, it had an adverse impact on operations. This can be seen in the area of Operating Expense which exceeded Throughput. Wr-ALC would have experienced a higher Throughput for 4th Qtr if not for the flood which brought about a $6.3M loss of revenue. Even so, Throughput has managed to increase slightly for 3rd to 4th Qtr. This resulted in a positive effect on Capital Investment Effectiveness. NOR remains above the index because of end-of-year adjustments to labor material. Despite all turmoil of the flood and the challenge of downsizing, Team Robins is continuing to strive for continuous improvement. WARNER ROBINS AIR LOGISTICS CENTER THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE W A L : OE Should Increase Slower or Decrease Faster than Throughp~, or Decrease when Throughput is Conrtant $13M in unallocated direct material expenses were captured as production overhead in 4th Qtr FY94. This overstated both Throughput and Operating Expenses by this amount. Additionally, $12M in expenses were captured in the last quarter (versus throughout the first 3 quarters), further overstating 4th Qtr FY94 Operating Expenses. Major drivers were labor acceleration factor ($8M), hazardous waste disposal ($1.3M), equipment/maintenance ($.6M), HQ & DFAS costs ($2.2M), and backorder cancellation ($.3M). CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS W A L : In& Should Continually Increase a65 I Long term inventory continues a steady decline due to increased focus on capacity utilization. Throughput has increased over 3rd Qtr FY93 because of accelerated end-of-year sales. SCHEDULE INDICATOR GOAL: Index Should Equal 1 I , - k p o n c n u As with process days, parts supportability problems with the C-141 wing panel replacement have resulted in aircraft not making their scheduled completion dates. Facility constraints are also a major factor particularly when panel replacements are unscheduled. C-130 had one late aircraft in 3rd Qtr FY94. This aircraft was the first to receive a PDM in conjunction with the Special Operations Forces Improvement and Night Vision Imaging System. F-15s were at 93% for 3rd Qtr FY94 and 100% for the 4th Qtr. WARNER ROBINS AIR LOGISTICS CENTER PROCESS DAYS W A L : Process Days Should show Continual Reduction m , I -- --m- C-130 flow days increased due to additional work requirements added to the aircraft by the customer after the aircraft was put in work. C-141 flow days increased in 4th Qtr FY94 due to one aircraft which spent 183 days in storage awaiting parts for lower wing panel replacement. C-141 flow days would be 18 less, excluding this aircraft. F-15 flow days (PDM, PDM/MSIP, ACI) remained constant throughout the year. NET OPERATING RESULTS W A L : Actual NORIBudgeted NOR should equal 1.00 1% , I NOR is above the 1.0 goal due to efforts to reduce overhead costs which were $1 1.5M less than planned for 4th Qtr FY94. This is the result of lowered expenses in utilities ($1.1 M), depreciation ($4.4M), and JLSC ($6.OM). LABOR HOUR COST GOAL: The Lubor How Cost Index should consistently be at or below 1 .00. 1.1 , I Normal trend is for end-of-year cost to be higher due to end-of-year accounting adjustments in labor and material. Adjustments typically include posting actual expenses versus estimated expenses and capturing any unallocated expenses before the end of the year. MARINE CORPS DEPOT MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES MARINE CORPS DEPOT MAlNT ACTIVITY, ALBANY GA ALBANY, GA MAJOR WORKLOAD ACCOMPLISHED: Communications and electronics equipment, combat vehicles, ordnance and weapons, automotive equipment, amphibious vehicles and equipment, construction equipment, general purpose equipment, automatic test support equipment and calibration support. DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LEVEL: Civilian: 1081 Military: 9 CURRENT YEAR INDUSTRIAL FUND BUDGET ($): In FY93, there was a planned loss of accumulated operating results (AOR) directed by the Defense Business Operating Fund (DBOF). This loss was achieved through a negative surcharge applied against our total stable labor rate therefore reducing our revenue. In addition, workload increased significantly to meet priority maritime prepositioned ships (MPS) requirements and Southwest Asia rollback requirements. During this period, additional temporary employees were hired to meet workload requirements which increased costs significantly. In FY94, there was a planned gain of AOR; therefore, Throughput exceeded operating expenses. In addition, total cost was lower than anticipated due to a decrease in direct material purchases which resulted in a lower Labor Hour Cost Index than planned. For these reasons, the indicators as identified in this report may vary from the goal as explained and justified in the narrative for each indicator. MARINE CORPS DEPOT MAlNT ACTIVITY, ALBANY GA THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE GOAL: OE Should Increase Slower or Decrease Faster than Throughput, or Decrease when Throughput is Constant 25 1 1 UP3 I Y93 383 4/93 1/54 W 31W 4194 T h m u p h p l l -'a=w~p~us There was a planned revenue loss of $1 6M in FY93, causing Throughput (T) to be lower than Operating Expense (OE) except 4th Qtr when revenue increased due to increase in production to bring carryover down. A positive surcharge was applied to the stable labor rate in FY94, causing T to exceed OE except for 1 st Qtr. 1 st Qtr FY94 DLH were much lower than planned, causing T to be lower than OE. 2nd Qtr FY94 revenue increased substantially as a result of an increase in DLHs that were not produced in 1 st Qtr. CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS WAL: Index Shodd Continually Increase 0.8 Due to planned loss of Revenue in FY93, Throughput decreased significantly, therefore decreasing investment ratio. In FY94,2nd Qtr effectiveness increased significantly due to increase in production to overcome shottfall in 1st Qtr. In 4th Qtr FY94, long term inventory increased over $4M as a result of a new MILCON project being added to our inventory, thereby decreasing investment ratio. SCHEDULE INDICATOR WAL: Index Shodd EquaA I - C - - The Marine Corps is not required to submit Schedule Indicator Data. MARINE CORPS DEPOT MAlNT ACTIVITY, ALBANY GA PROCESS DAYS WAL: Process Davs Should show Continual Reb t ion At this time, sufficient data is not available in the current system to compute actual process days as calculated in the Depot Maintenance Operations Indicators Handbook. The Maintenance Center is currently implementing a business plan along with a system that will track process days for every item inducted into the depot. NET OPERATING RESULTS GOAL: Actual NORIBudgeted NOR should equal 1 .00 1 In both -93 and FY94, the desired NOR index of 1.0 was acheived by the end of each FY. In each year, NOR increases as the year progresses. This is due to more revenue being eamed later in the year as a result of increased production throughout the year and fixed price gains being realized in the 4th Qtr. In FY93, cost exceeded budget due to an increase in temporary employees and an increase in overtime, both required to meet workload requirements. In FY94, actual unit cost was lower than planned due to a decrease in direct material purchases. LABOR HOUR COST GOAL: The Labor How Cost I& should consistently be at or below 1.00. 1 3 1.U 1.1 1.05 1 0.95 - - - - - MARINE CORPS DEPOT MAlNT ACTIVITY, ALBANY GA I QuarterIFiscal Year 1 1/93 1 2/93 1 3/93 1 4/93 1 1/94 1 2/94 1 3/94 1 4/94 1 THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE RE--DIREa MATERIAL = THROUGHPUT CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS TOTAL COST-DIRECT MATERIAL = OPERATING EXPENSE Revenue ($) Total Cost ($) Direct Materials ($1 ,Throushput ($) 1 Operating Expense ($) THROUGHPUTILONGTERM INVENTORY PROCESS DAYS TOTAL PROCESS DAYSMMBER OF ITEMS = AVERAGE PROCESS DAYS -)I)I-:IIII(I- IIIIIIIIIIIIIII- I I I H I I I I I I I I m - 14.1 88,692 20,949,214 5,331.948 SCHEDULE INDICATOR UNITS COMPLETED ON TIME/UNITS SCHEDULED NET OPERATING RESULTS (CUM ACNAL REVENUE/CUM ACTUAL COST) I I I I LABOR HOUR COST (CUMULATIVE TOTAL ACTUAL COSTKUMUIATIVE ACTUAL TOTAL DLH) / 15,760,664 22,843,917 6,043,467 Throughput ($) Loncrterm Inventory ($1 INDEX 8,856,744 1 9,717,197 1 8,597,513 34,428,132 134,332,652 133,895,261 -10.2811 I I 1119,717,197(r8,597,513=1111-I-. ~5.617,266]116,800,450~5,645,509~5,358,906~ I I I H I I I I I I m m I I I - I I I I I I -D IIIIIIIIIIIIIII- 15,170,737 22,218,733 6,573,224 19,634,670 1 15,493,388 1 17,066,563 32,795,977 22,596,734 20,889,077 5.530.171 1 1,224,356 (22,515,906 32,782,334 132,330,581 0.52.10.34- 17,583,173 21,528,218 6,358,817 18,356,395 31,568.679 0.58 1 19,634,670 35,882,048 0.55 1 29,106,009 23,194,356 6,590,103 24,210,739 22,587,993 5,854,344 24,878,067 20,736,785 5,243,397 MARINE CORPS DEPOT MAlNT ACTIVITY, BARSTOW CA BARSTOW, CA MAJOR WORKLOAD ACCOMPLISHED: Missiles, communications and electronics equipment, combat vehicles, ordnance and weapons, automotive equipment, amphibious vehicles and equipment, construction equipment, and general purpose equipment DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LEVEL: Civilian: 1060 Military: 8 CURRENT YEAR INDUSTRIAL FUND BUDGET ($): During the two year period shown, revenue and operating results were negatively affected by planned losses to compensate for previous years surplus. Increases in interservice workload as well as Marine Coprs non-Master Work Schedule programs were able to offset the decrease in Master Work Schedule funding, thus facilitating revenue generation. Finally, the impact of the Federal Employees Compensation Act on operating expenses and labor costs has been absorbed as previously predicted, and costs are again under control. MARINE CORPS DEPOT MAlNT ACTIVITY, BARSTOW CA THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE W A L : OE Shorrld Increase Slower or Decrease Farter than Throughput, or Decrease when Throughput is Comtant 24 23 - 22 - 21 - 1193 Y93 3/93 4193 1/94 w 3rW 4A4 T h r m o h p n -OpntinpJ3w=w There has been an overall trend towards improvement as indicated by the upward shift of the entire Throughput curve for P193 to FY94, as well as continual decline of the Operating Expense curve. The 2nd Qtr FY94 spike in Throughput was due to full receipt of Master Work Schedule funding and high point of the year in number of direct labor hour employees. In terms of goal, the trend has been positively reversed. CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS W a : Index Should Cor~inually Increase 1s ( I This measure closely parallels the previous graph of Throughput. This is because as Throughput has increased, it has done so at a faster rate than that of long term inventory's slow rise. SCHEDULE INDICATOR WAL.: Index Should Equal I 1/93 283 3/93 4193 1/94 24% 3,94 4,94 -C --C -t Marine Corps is not required to furnish Schedule Indicator data. MARINE CORPS DEPOT MAlNT ACTIVITY, BARSTOW CA PROCESS DAYS NET OPERATING RESULTS WAL: Actual NORIBudgeted NOR should equal 1.00 1.05 , I W A L : Process Days Should show Continual Reduction I 2193 3/93 4193 1IW Z/W 3/94 4194 FY94 reflects a consistent trend towards the goal of the 1.00 index. 190 180 im 160 W 140 130 lm 110 100 90 80 LABOR HOUR COST WM: The Labor Hour Cost Index should consistently be at or below 1.00. 1.2 - - - - - - - - - - - There has been a marked improvement from N93, despite increased labor costs due to higher wage rates. The overall goal of being below 1 .OO was met for the entire year, as shown by the .97 cumulative index for the 4th Qtr of N94. 70 Ub3 2193 3/93 4193 UW 294 3194 4/94 x y - 2 Even with a decrease in the number of items being worked and the associated increase in set up costs, we have been able to show a continual downward trend in average process days. It should again be noted that the Y process time includes a 30-45 day time frame for staging queue. MARINE CORPS DEPOT MAINT ACTIVITY, BARSTOW CA 1 Quarter/Fiscal Year 1 1/93 ( 2/93 1 3/93 1 4/93 1 1/94 1 2/94 1 3/94 1 4/94 1 THROUGHPUT&OPERATINGEXPENSE REVENUE-DIRECT MATERIAL = THROUGHPUT CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS TOTAL COST-DIRECT MATETUAL = OPERATING EXPENSE Revenue ($) Total Cost ($) SCHEDULE INDICATOR UNITS COMPLEED O N . x B w u N m SCHEDULED I IIIIIIIIIII II- I IIIIIil-ilIIliII- I LIIilIIIIiIII- THROUGHPUThoNGTERM INVENTORY PROCESS DAYS 19,037,000 24,035,000 Throughput ($) 11 3,085,000 11 5,369,000 11 2,886,000 Longterm Inventory ($) 11 4,212,000 11 3,851,000 11 3,506,000 7 1 1 0 . 9 2 1 1 1 - NET OPERATING RESULTS (CUM ACTUAL REWENUWCUM ACTUAL COST) / LABOR HOUR COST (CUMULATIVE TOTAL ACNAL COST/CUMULATIVE ACTUAL TOTAL DLH) I 22,705,000 26,065,000 Direct Materials ($1 20,383,000 14,515,000 7,444,000 20,383,000 19,604,000 1.07 %roughput ($1 1(111115,369,0001(1 Operatlna Expense ($) limimimll(118,729,0001tl] 5,952,000 20,163,000 25,844,000 1 12,757,000 122,286,000 118,345,000 16,729,000 11 7,541,000 11 0,734,000 1.4o10.76)1f-1 6,333,000 19,299,000 18,007,000 7,336,000 27,827,000 27,048,000 7.277.000 (12.737,000)122,286,000)118,345,0001( 19,299,000 1 1 ~ ) 1 1 ) 1 7 , 3 0 4 , 0 0 0 17.1 86,000 1 6.71 6,000 19,090,000 23,570,000 5,355,000 1 5,529,000 29,002,000 24,071,000 23,700,000 1 24,828,000 22,659,000 1 22,715,000 DIRECTORATE OF IPE OPS, MECHANICSBURG PA MECHANICSBURG, PA MAJOR WORKLOAD ACCOMPLISHED: Manage the DoD level maintenance program for Industrial Plant Equipment (IPE), including operations of all major DoD IPE repair, rebuild, retro-fit and remanufacturing facilities and provide on-site customer support world-wide. DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LEVEL: Civilian: 128 Military: 0 CURRENT YEAR INDUSTRIAL FUND BUDGET ($): The Industrial Plant equipment Repair Facility provides repair and rebuild service of industrial machinery and supplies the needs of the Armed Forces in tme of national emergency. Field services are provided by the maintenance personnel and the Richmond service support personnel. Field services available include assessments, repairs, inpsections, and installations of machinery and accessories, plant design and layout, relocation and safety guarding. Based on estimated workload from the Services, an average billable hourly rate was established to cover the cost of operations. This rate also recovers the HQ and G&A costs associated with the mission. Workload is projected based on the number of direct workers and available productive hours. During FY94, workload increased greatly during 3rd and 4th Qtrs, resulting in a positive NOR for the FY. DIRECTORATE OF IPE OPS, MECHANICSBURG PA THROUGHPUT 81 OPERATING EXPENSE GOAL: OE Should Increase Slower or Decrease Farter than Throughput, or Decrease when Throughput is cons tan^ 4000 ( I -pm -OponQsExpnro The increase in Throughput is a result of the increased workload generating revenue. CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS WAL: Index Should Continually Increase I . m 3193 4193 w Z1W 3194 w4 DGSC-M is in the process of determining the value of our in-use equipment. SCHEDULE INDICATOR GOAL: Index Should Equal 1 1.1 1 - a9 - 0.8 - 0.7 - 0.6 - 1rb-J ZA3 3/93 4/93 UW 3194 4194 - Rrpair - Rebuild DGSC-M had 28 items scheduled for repair and 28 items completed for the 3rd Qtr FY94,25 items scheduled for repair and 25 items completed repair for 4th Qtr FY94. There were 20 items scheduled for rebuild and 20 items completed for the 3rd Qtr FY94, 13 items scheduled and 13 items completed rebuild for the 4th Qtr -94. DIRECTORATE OF IPE OPS, MECHANICSBURG PA PROCESS DAYS COAL.: Process Days Should show Continuai Reduction 1 - Repair - Rebuild Processing time for DGSC-M repair averaged 133 days. Total processing days were 3,729 for 28 items in the 3rd Qtr P/94 and 3,465 total days for 25 items in the 4th Qtr FY94. Rebuild total process days for the 3rd Qtr FY94 were 4,483 for 20 i tem and 4,541 days for 13 items in the 4th Qtr FY94. NET OPERATING RESULTS COAL: Actual NORIBudgeted NOR should equal 1 .IK) 1.6 15 1.4 / The goal for revenue is to exceed cost and result in a positive NOR. The billable hourly rate is established to recover the cost of operating the maintenance facility as well as HQ indirect and G&A costs. FY94 showed an upward trend of improvement, finishing the year above our NOR goal. LABOR HOUR COST COAL.: The Labor How Cost In& should consistently be at or below I .&I. 1 3 t I The budgeted labor hour cost is computed on the total recoverable budget cost and projected billable hours. This does not include material costs, for purposes of the data conforming to the Annual Operating Budget. As workload increased during the year, the labor hour costs decreased. DIRECTORATE OF IPE OPS, MECHANICSBURG PA I QuarterIFiscal Year 1 1193 1 2/93 ( 3/93 ( 4/93 1 1/94 1 2/94 1 3/94 1 4/94 1 THROUGHPUT & OPERATING EXPENSE REVENUE-DIRECT MATERIAL =THROUGHPUT CAPITAL INVESTMENT EFFECTIVENESS TOTAL COST-DIRECT MATERIAL = OPERATING EXPENSE THROUGHPUlX4lNCXERM INVENTORY Throughput ($1 1,256,000 2,282,000 2,265,000 Lowterm Inventow ($1 0 ( INDEX Revenue($) .Total Cost ($) Direct Materials ($) Throuahwt SCHEDULE INDICATOR PROCESS DAYS 1,716,000 1 2,790,000 3,401,000 1 3,173,000 460,000 1 508,000 1,256,000 11 NET OPERATING RESULTS (CUM ACTUAL REVENUE/CUM ACTUAL COST) / LABOR HOUR COST (CUMULATIVE TOTAL ACTUAL COSTKUMUTATIVE ACI'UAL TOTAL DLH) / O ~ r a t i ~ Expense ($1 1 2,941,000 11 2,665,000 3,108,000 1 3,568,000 ( 1,535,346 4,151.000 1 1,477,000 1 1,628,488 2,269,358 2,078,796 216,623 1,862,173 184,518 11,350,82812,052.73_51 ( 1,443,970 1 843,000 1 950.000 -3,308,000) 3,600,210 2,061,073 741,230 2.858.980 1 2,282,000-( 527,000 4,601,171 2,552,560. 1,040,749 3,560,4221 1-1 2,618,000 1,511,811 1 APPENDIX A DMOlS REPORTING SERVICE DEPOT MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES ARMY Anniston Army Depot Corpus Christi Army Depot Letterkenny Army Depot Red River Army Depot Tobyhanna Army Depot Naval Aviation Depot Cheny Point Naval Aviation Depot Jacksonville Naval Aviation Depot North Island NAVSEA Long Beach Naval Shipyard Norfolk Naval Shipyard Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Puget Sound Naval Shipyard AIR FORCE Aerospace Guidance and Metrology Center Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center Ogden Air Logistics Center Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center Sacramento Air Logistics Center San Antonio Air Logistics Center Warner Robins Air Logistics Center MARINE CORPS Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow APPENDIX A (Cont.) DMOlS REPORTING SERVICE DEPOT MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Directorate of Industrial Plant Equipment Operations Mechanicsburg APPENDIX B SERVICEIDLA POINTS OF CONTACT FOR DEPOT MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS INDICATOR REPORT DATA ARMY Mr Carl Chirico Address: Commander US Army Depot System Command Ann: AMSDS-RM-A (Mr Carl Chirico) Charnbersburg, PA 17201 -41 70 Phone: DSN 570-9034 Commercial (71 7) 267-9034 Ms Carol Gaines Address: Commanding Officer Naval Aviation Depot North Island Ann: Code 521 (Ms Carol Gaines) P.O. Box 357058 San Diego, CA 92135-7058 Phone: DSN 735-3027 Commercial (61 9) 545-3027 NAVSEA Mr Jim Jeter Address: Commander Naval Sea Systems Command Ann: SEA-07221 (Mr Jim Jeter) 2531 Jefferson David Highway Arlington, VA 22242-51 60 Phone: DSN 332-3859 Commercial (703) 602-3859 AIR FORCE Mr Charles Cooke Address: Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command Ann: LGPP (Mr Charles Cooke) 4375 Chidlaw Road Suite 6 Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-5001 Phone: DSN 787-4307 Commercial (513) 257 -4307 APPENDIX 6 (Cont.) SERVICEIDLA POINTS OF CONTACT FOR DEPOT MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM DATA MARINE CORPS Mr Harold Eidson Address: Commander Marine Corps Logistics Bases Code 88-2 (Mr Harold Eidson) 81 4 Radford Blvd Albany, GA 31 704-5000 Phone: DSN 567-6803 Commercial (91 2) 439-6803 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Ms Mary Kay Cyrus Address: Commander Defense General Supply Center Office of Planning and Resource Management DGSC-RR (Ms Mary Kay Cyrus) Richmond, VA 23297-5226 Phone: DSN 695-4522 Commercial (804) 279-4841 A1 A2 AIC ACM ADINTS AFMC AGM AGMC ALC AMARC AMC AMC AMREP ANAD AOR ATCOM AVLB BO BRAC CCAD CECOM CHYPT DBOF DDMC DESCOM DFAS DLA DLH DMBA DMP DMPMS DOD DPAH EPA FAASV APPENDIX C GLOSSARY Overhaul Crash Damage Aircraft Advanced Cruise Missile Automatice Depot lntertial Navigation Test Stations Air Force Materiel Command Air to Ground Missile Aerospace Guidance and Metrology Center Air Logistics Center Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center Army Materiel Command Air Mobility Command Aircraft and Missile Maintenance, Production Compression Report Anniston Army Depot Accumulated Operating Results Aviation & Troop Support Command Armored Vehicle Launched Bridge Progressive Maintenance Base Closure and Realignment Commission Corpus Christi Army Depot US Army Communications Electronics Command Naval Aviation Depot Cheny Point Defense Business Operating Fund Defense Depot Maintenance Council US Army Depot Systems Command Defense Finance & Accounting Service Defense Logistics Agency Direct Labor Hours Depot Maintenance Business Area Depot Maintenance Period Depot Maintenance Performance Measurement System Department of Defense Direct Product Actual Hour Environmental Protection Agency Field Artillery Ammunition Supply Vehicle HARM HETS IMU INU 10 IPE IPR JAX JEDMICS JPCG-DM JPMG LBNSY LEAD LGM MBT MCLBA MCLBB MLRS M PS NADEP NADOC NAVAIR NAVSEA NNSY NOR NORIS OC-ALC OE 00-ALC OSD APPENDIX C (Cont.) GLOSSARY High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile Heavy Equipment Transporter System Inertial Measurement Unit Inertial Navigation Unit Repair Industrial Plant Equipment In Process Review Naval Aviation Depot Jacksonville Joint Engineering Drawing Management Information Control System Joint Policy Coordinating Group on Depot Maintenance Joint Performance Measurement Group Long Beach Naval Shipyard Letterkenny Army Depot Land Based Guided Missile Main Battle Tank Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow Multiple Launch Rocket System Maritime Prepositioned Ships Naval Aviation Depot Naval Aviation Depot Operations Center Naval Air Systems Command Naval Sea Systems Command Norfolk Naval Shipyard Net Operating Results Naval Aviation Depot North Island Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center Operating Expense Ogden Air Logistics Center Off ice of the Secretary of Defense PADS PBD PCM PDM PDMSS PHNSY PNCLA PRON PSNSY PTNSY RCIRON RIF RRAD RSD RTC-524 SA-ALC SM-ALC SOF TEAD TOAD TQM WIP W R-ALC APPENDIX c (Cont.) GLOSSARY Position Azimuth Determining System Program Budget Decision Pulse Code Modulation Prgrammed Depot Maintenance Prgrammed Depot Maintenance Standard System Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard Naval Aviation Depot Pensacola Procurement Request Order Number Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Reliability Centered Inspect and Repair Only as Necessary Reduction In Force Red River Army Depot Reparable Support Division Receiver Transmitter San Antonio Air Logistics Center Sacramento Air Logistics Center Special Operations Forces Tooele Army Depot Tobyhanna Army Depot Total Quality Management Vehicle Radio Communication Work In Process Warner-Robins Air Logistics Center THE DEE'EXSE BASE CLOSLRE ;UVD REALICSMEh'T COkI&lISSTON - E,WCUTIVE CORRESPOhWENCE TRACKING SYSTEM (ECTS) # 5(.3-\2-?+~ TYPE OF ACTION REQUIRED NAVY TEAM LEADER I ! i AIR FORCE EL\: LEADER i :/' I 1 I 1 x 1 ACTION: Offer Comments andlor Suggestions 11 / I r n 1 I/ I , Prepare Reply for Ch;urmants Signature Prepare Reply for Staff Dwector's Signature -, I I CMEF FINAXCWL OFFICER ! I I I IPTF~XL~GENL? 2 ~ 1 . 2 &-IDEP I - I I I I I j I I j ~ r n . m o ~ r ~ o r r SERVI- I / (/A Prepare Rep& for Comrmmoner's Signature 1 DIRECTOR OF TRAYEL 1 I /I CROSS SERYliX ?WLI LEADER : I a? I 1 I i i I I ! f I I I I I ! 1 I I I It I - Prepare Duect Response - . April 17, 1995 Gen James B. Davis Defense Base Realignment Commission 1700 N. Moore Street Arlington, VA 22202 Dear Gen Davis, Thought you might be interested in this piece of work from my company. We have had many requests for the document since it seems to be one-of-a-kind. If you need (or want) anything related to the subject, we will try to get it for you. As you can see, I am right down the street from you in Crystal City. If I can be of assistance please call (703) 553-7526. Sincerely, Senior Vice President SDS International One C ~ s t a ! Pork 201 1 Crystal Drive Suite 1CO Arlingon Virginia 22202-370" (703) 553-7525 Fax (703) 970-7447 SDS International 1995 Depot Handbook A Guide To USAF Air Logistics Centers 3 April 1995 One Crystal Park 201 1 Crystal Drive Suite 100 Arlington, V~rg~nia 22202 INTERNATIONAL SDS International Introduction The Department of Defense's network of supply and maintenance depots remains excessive for the military force structure that exists today. Attempts by senior DoD officials to encourage the Services to pare down surplus depot infrastructure voluntarily -- by promoting workload consolidation, greater interservicing, and the privatization of most "non-Core" depot maintenance functions -- have had only moderate success. Aided by Congressmen representing depot-dominated constituencies, Service logisticians have compiled impressive records of resisting turf encroachment, both from the private sector and other Services. It is in the best interests of national aerospace development for commercial firms to obtain more military depor workload. Since the Services are unlikely to surrender it willingly, a comprehensive, well-thought-out marketing campaign will be nsccssw. The first step in mounting such a campaign is to study the competition. This Depot Handbook meets that need by providing essentid reie17an: information on the capabilirics. capacities, and operating environment of private aerospace industn.'s major competitors: :ix . A i r Force's five Air Logistic Centers. On a closely related issue. the Depot Handbook provides a status update on the current 10C5 base realignment and ciosure process. This document was prepared using unclassified, open-source material. It draws on insights provided during interviews with senior Department of Defense (DoD) personnel, military staff officers, and Congressionai staff members. Questions or comments should be directed to SDS International which alone remains responsible for report contents. n Brian E( Wages Project k SDS International One Crystal Park 20i 1 Crystal Drive Suite 100 Ari~ngton. Vlrgi~ia 22202-3709 (703) 553-7525 Fix (703) 979-7447 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook 1995 Depot Handbook A Guide To USAF Air Logistics ~ e n t e r s ' ( ~ ~ ~ ) Table of Contents Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page1 Sacramento ALC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 McClellan Air Force Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 . 1 Field and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1.2 Major Tenants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1.3 Relationship to Local Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Sacramento ALC Depot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2.1 Specialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2.2 Unique Facili ties/Equipment/Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2.3 Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Ogden ALC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Hill Air Force Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1.1 Field and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1 . 2 Major Tenants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 :.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3 Relationship to Local Community 14 Ogden ALC Depot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.2.1 Specialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.2.2 Unique Facilities/Equipment/Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.2.3 Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Oklahoma City ALC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Tinker Air Force Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.1.1 Field and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.1.2 Major Tenants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.1.3 Relationship to Local Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Oklahoma City ALC Depot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.2.1 Specialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.2.2 Unique Facilities/Equipment/Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4.2.3 Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 SDS International 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook 5.0 San Antonio ALC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Kelly Air Force Base 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 Field and Facilities 28 5.1.2 Major Tenants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.3 Relationship to Locd Community 30 San Antonio ALC Depot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 5 .2.1 Specialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5.2.2 Unique Facilities/Equipment/Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 5.2.3 Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Warner Robins ALC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Robins Air Force Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 6.1.1 Field and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 6.1 . 2 Major Tenants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.3 Relationship to Local Community 38 Warner Robins ALC Depot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 6.2.1 Specialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 6.2.2 Unique Facilities/Equipment/Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 6.2.3 Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 1995 Base Reaiignment and Closure Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 D ~ p o ~ s -- .4 Speci& iqterest Item . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Courses of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Attachment 4: Attachment 5: Attachment 6: Attachment 7: Attachment 8: Attachments Air Force Depot CapacityPlant Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . 52 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Process . . . . . . . . 55 Prior BRAC Actions .. Major Base Closure Summary . . . . 58 BRAC 95 .. Proposed Major Base Closures/Realignments . . 60 DoD BRAC 95 Proposal .. Job Changes By State . . . . . . . . 62 Biographies of BRAC 95 Commissioners . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Explanation of Workload Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Table of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 SDS International 3 April 1995 Tables Table 1-1: Table 2-1: Table 3-1: Table 4-1: Table 5-1: Table 6-1: Table Al-1: Table A3-1: Table A3-2: Table A3-3: Table A4-1: Table A4-2: Table A5-1: DoD Commodity Groups List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sacramento ALC Workload Chart 11 Ogden ALC Workload Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Oklahoma City ALC Workload Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 San Antonio ALC Workload Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Warner Robins ALC Workload Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Depot Capacity/PlantComparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Major Bases Closed (Prior BRACs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 By-Service Base Closure Summary (Prior BRACs) . . . . . . 59 By-State Base Closure Summary (Prior BRACs) . . . . . . . . 59 BRAC 95 .. Major Base Closures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 BRAC 95 .. Major Base Realignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 BRAC 95 .. By-State Job Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Sits International 1995 Depot Handbook I A Guide To USAF Air Logistics Centers 1.0 Overview Title 10 of the United States Code requires DoD activities to "maintain a logistics capability (including personnel, equipment and facilities) to ensure a ready and controlled source of technical competence and resources necessary to ensure effective and timely response to a mobilization, . . . contingency, . . . or other emergency requireclent."' Within the Air Force that task falls primarily under Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC), which is charged with managing the integrated research, development, test, acquisition, and sustainment of Air Force weapon systems. To accomplish these tasks, AFMC operates a number of laboratories, test centers, and logistics depots. This Handbook provides a summary of information on AFMC's five logistics depots, known as Air Logistics Centers (ALC). The five are: Sacramento ALC !SI\I-ALC) at McCleUan Air Force Base (AFB), California; Ogden ALC (00-ALC) at Hill .@By Utah; Oklahoma City ALC (OC-ALC) at Tinker Am. Oklahoma; San Antonio -4LC (SA-ALC) at Kelly AFB, Texas: and Warner Robins ALC (MX-ALC) at Robins AFB, Georgia. Each is discussed in the context of: the base on which it is located; its surrounding community; the depot functions it performs; the facilities, equipment, and special competencies that the individual ALC managers consider make their depot unique; and workload. Much of the information was extracted from"ALC inputs to the DoD Joint Cross-Service Group charged with reviewing all military depots in developing DoD's 1995 base closure and realignment recommendations. Manpower, mission, and workioad changes associated with DoD's BRAC 95 closure/realignment recommendations are not reflected herein except as specifically noted. Information and data are current as of February 1995, and are presented in the following format: Field and Facilities. Provides an indication of an air base's suitability to support additional aircraft and missions, and to conduct test and training activities. 'Title 10, United States Code, Chapter 146, Section 2464. 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook Major Tenants. Lists other key military activities operatins at the base. Relationship to Local Community. Shows an ALC base's economic impact in its immediate area. Specialization. Identifies each ALC's areas of expertise by listing the commodity groups for which it has been designated a Sen~ice Center of Excellence (Technical Repair Center) and its Technology Application Progranz Management (TAPM) assignments.' Unique Facilities/Equipment. Identifies ALC facilities, equipment, and capabilities considered unique or one-of-a-l~ind.~ Lists may not be all-inclusive. Workload. Data tables showing each ALC's potential maximum workload capacity, its existing workload capacity, its actual programmed workload, and that amount of the programmed workload identified as "Core" for fiscal years (FY) 1996 and 1999. Workload figures are shown as thousands of Direct Labor Hours (kDLH) and are aggregated according to the DoD commodity group reference system shown on the following page. (Workload Tables are explained in detail a1 Attachment 7.) 'Military depots assigned primar!. rcsponsibiiity for the maintenance and repair of specific weapon systems. system components. or categories of components are known as Centers of Exct.,!ience ror those systems. components, or categories of components. Technniogy Application Program t21anagement (TAPM) responsibility pertains to advanced technologies and equates to being designated the organization of primary responsibility within DoD for developing a particular technology. disseminating information on it to appropriate companies and agencies, and encouraging both its employment in new military products and -- where possible -- its insertion into older ones. 'This Handbook reports on those facilities. equipment. and capabilities that have been identified by the depots themselves as being unique or of p,uticular importance. It was not within the scope of this study to verify ALC claims as to the uniqueness of such assets or competencies, or to attempt to determine their utiliry (through clarifying the amount of workload they process, frequency of use, future requirement for use in light of the projected retirement of the assets or systems they senrice, or whether or not the facility, equipment. or capability could be modified to service other systems or components). In many cases, it was not possible to determine from the source material whether it was a particular item of maintenance equipment or the facility containing it that was unique, as in the cases of buildings with special TEMPEST shielding, shock mounts, and special insulation. Likewise, in many cases it was not possible to determine whether some facility or capability was independent and separate or was embedded in a larger facility/competency as a sub-component or specialty. In some cases, the capabilities highlighted were not directly associated with depot maintenance activity, as with laboratories collocated with a depot maintenance operation but not actually performing maintenance work. It also was often not possible to determine whether special equipment could be relocated to another depot, or whether a comparable maintenance capability existed in private industry. SDS International 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook Workload and areas of specialization are categorized i n accordance with the DoD-established commodity groups reference system shown below: I DoD Commodity Groups List c. Fixed Wing (1) Transport / Tanker / Bomber (2) Command and Control (3) Light Combat (4) Admin / Training Aircraft Structures Hydraulic/Pneudraulic Instruments Landing Gear Aviation Ordnance Avionics/Electronics APUs Other Manufacture and Fabrication 3. Engines (Gas Turbine) (GTE) II a. Aircraft 4. Missiles and Missile Components a. Strategic b. Tactical / MLRS b. Radio Communications d. Ground Generators 1 2. Software a. Tactical Systems b. Support Equipment 13. Specral Interest Items Equ~pment (TMDE) Table 1-1: Commodity Groups List Note: Shading denotes commodity groups in which the ALCs do not have significant workload. SDS International 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook 2.0 Sacramento ALC (SM-ALC) Sacramento ALC is the Air Force's F- 1 1 1 and A- 10 depot. It provides logistical support (supply and maintenance) for these and other assigned aircraft. for multiple aircraft electrical and pneudraulic systems, and for ground-based communications and electronic equipment. Commensurate with its advanced capabilities in composites, electro-optics, and microelectronics, it also has responsibility withln DoD for the development and fielding of advanced composites, fiber optics and fiber optic connectors, and very high speed integrated circuits (VHSIC). 2.1 McClellan AFB, California McClellan AFI3 is an AFMC-operated installation located approximately nine miles north of downtown Sacramento, California. Sacramento is Northern California's major interior transportation hub. It is located on the main railroad line running into the San Francisco Bay area from the East Coast. and sits at the junction of Interstate 5 , the West Coast's primary north- south aner?; (extending from San G ! ~ _ c o to \-ancouver. British Columbia), and Interstate 80. c pnncipai east-west roadurzv crowng the American Midwest I running from New York to San Franc~sco:. The nearest deer.-u :te; ocem pas is ai Oakland apiaximately 70 miles away. Oaklana can oe accesseG ovenanC or \,is the Sacramento k v e r !through the Sacramento Por, Facili~., . 2 . 1 . 1 Field and Facilities McClellan AFB has one 10,600-foot concrete runway with appropriate aircraft arresting gear and 47 1.550 square yards (approximately 97 acres) of usabie aircraft parking apron. Permanently assigned aircr:ift require over 50 percent of the apron space. Four C-141- equivalent aircraft can be loaded or unloaded at one time for mobility/contingency operations.4 Four C-141-equivalent aircraft can be refueled at one time. The base does not have an operational fuel hydrant system. T h e limiting factor is material handling equipment (MHE). SDS International - 4 - 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook The base does not control or manage any ranges. The nearest suitable special-use airspaces is as shown below: Waming/Restricted/Military Operating Area (MOA) W-260 134 NM Low-altitude MOA: W-260 134 NM Supersonic MOA: W-283 170 NM Scorable gunnery range complex: Fallon B-19 130 NM Electronic Combat range: Fallon TACTS 188 NM Air combat maneuvering instrumentation range: Fallon TACTS 188 NM Travis and Beale AFBs and Mather Field (formerly Mather AFB) all lie within a 50-mile radius of the base. The nearest ground force installation where joint training can be accomplished is Army Fort Hunter Liggett, 160 NM from McClellan. The nearest Navy installation where joint training can be accomplished is Naval Air Station (NAS) Fallon, 130 NM from McClellan 2.1.2 Major Tenants Major associate units on McClellan AFB include: Headquarters 4th Air Force, Air Force Reserve (AFRES); 940th Air Refueling Group (ARG), AFRES: Defense Distribution Depot, McClellan (DDMC), Defense Logistics Agency (DLA): and the Defense Megacenter, Sacramento, (DMCS), Defense Information Services Asency iDIS.4). Headquarters, 4th Air Force. 4th Air Force is one of' the three Numbered Air Fcrces (NAF) comprising the PZFES. It commands five airiift \vin~s (AWj operating C-l?,if, f:- 141, and C-5 transports; one special operations wing (SOW) operating MC- and kc- 1-30 aircraft; one airmobility wing (AMW) operating C-130 transports and KC-10 and KC-135 tankers; and one aeromedical airlift group (AAG) operating C-9 aeromedical airlift transports. The Commander, 4th Air Force, his headquarters element, and one ARG are stationed at McClellan. T h e headquarters employs approximately 400 personnel. 940th ARG. The 940th ARG (AFRES) operates 10 KC-130E tanker aircraft and provides aerial refueling support. for both active-duty and gained forces. Approximately 900 personnel are in the unit. (Note: the 940th was slated to relocate from McClellan to nearby Beale AFB in late 1994. As of 3 April 1995, that moves has yet to be undertaken.) Defense Distribution Depot, McClellan (DDMC). Operated by DLA, DDMC stocks, stores, and issues defense goods. Categorized as a Collocated Depot, the DLA operation interfaces closely with the SM-ALC depot maintenance activity by providing repairable carcasses to the ALC which, in turn, returns the items to serviceable status and 'Military Operating Area (MOA) with a minimum size of 2100 square nautical miles (NM) and an altitude block of at least 20,000 feet within 200 NM. Low-altitude MOA with a minimum size of 2100 square NM and a floor no higher than 2000 feet above ground level (AGL) within 600 NM. Supersonic MOA with a minimum size of 4200 square NM within 300 NM. Scorable gunnery range capable of or having tactical or conventional targets and strafe within 800 NM. SUS International - 5 - 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook re-enters them into the DLA distribution system. It employs approximately 600 personnel. Defense Megacenter, Sacramento (DMCS). Identified in BRAC 93 as the site for one of 16 DoD data processing and telecommunication "megacenters" to be operated under the umbrella of DISA, DMCS is responsible for data processing workloads for the Navy, Air Force, and Air National Guard in a region encompassing Northern California, Oregon, and Washington. DMCS has approximately 150 employees working out of a recently constructed 76,000-square-foot facility that serves regional data processing requirements and houses the only DISA Continental US (CONUS) AUTODIN switching center west of Oklah~ma.~ 2.1.3 Relationship to Local Community McClellan AFB is located in the Sacramento Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Total population (FY 92) is 1,148,000. Total employment (FY 93) is 764,000. Average annual job growth is 14,000 and average annual per capita income is $20,400. Work force population at McClellan: Active duty military 3,000 Reserve military 1,200 Civilian 10.600 Total 14,800 h4cCiellan -4FE3 is the i q z s : industrial employer in Northern Cdifornia. The work force annual payroll (military and civilian) is $5 16 million. This produces a local area economic impact of approximately $2.2 billion. The total value of McClellan's land (3,786 acres), buildings (549 non-residence and 693 residence), and infrastructure is estimated at $2.2 b i l l i ~ n . ~ The estimated impact of base closure would be the loss of 31,000 jobs (13,000 direct, 18,000 indirect), 4.1% of the Sacramento MSA employment total. Combined with other Sacramento MSA job losses from prior BRAC decisions (1,600 jobs), the cumulative impact of McClellan's 'During BRAC 93, the Commissioners identified 43 DISA information processing centers for closure with their workloads to be consolidated at 16 megacenters. 'This is the value figure reflected in documents released recently by the base Public Affairs Office. While no detailed explanation was offered as to how this estimate was reached, it most probably is a more accurate reflection of market value than the figures presenting replacement value shown in the chart at Attachment 1, Air Force Depot Capacity/Plant Comparisons, which were provided in response to the Joint Cross-Service Group data call. SDS International - 6 - 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook closure in BRAC 95 (if closure was directed) would be to increase the total employment loss to 4.3% of the Sacramento h4SA's total. It is estimated that the one-time closure costs associated with shuttering McClellan AFB would amount to $514 million. Return on investment would be achieved in 5 years. 2.2 Sacramento ALC Depot While the F-1 1 1 and A-10 are Sacramento ALC's primary assigned aircraft, the depot also provides a second source of repair for the F- 15 and KC- 135, and has been designated to assume responsibility for the F-22 when that aircraft begins entering service at the turn of the century. The F-117 and F-22 Program Managers are located at the depot. Additionally, Sacramento ALC manages a broad variety of: aircraft-related electronic accessories, hydraulic/pneudraulic components, and flight control instruments; battle tank and man-portable weapon system electronic components and electro-optics (night vision devices); and over 200 ground communications systems, including ground control equipment used to track and control space vehicles. It operates the McClellan Nuclear Radiation Center (MNRC), which has the only industrial nuclear reactor in DoD, and a fighter-sized non-destructive inspection (NDI) facility that reportedly is one of the most comprehensive in the US. DoD's submission to the 1995 Bzse Realiznmer,: L and Closure (BRAC 95) Commission proposed realigning workloads among the Air Force depors to consoiidare selected specialties ar each. The specialty areas recommended for consolidation at Sacramento ALC are: composites and plastics, hydraulics, instruments/displays (with some unique work retained at other ALCs), electricaVmechanical support equipment, and injection molding. 2.2.1 Specialization Sacramento ALC is designated a Service Center of Excellelzce for the following systems: Aircraft Airframes: F-11 I, A-10, T-39, F-22 (planned); Aircraft Battle Damage Repair. Aircraft Components (Hydraulic/Pneudraulic): actuators, servo actuators, accumulators, valves, servo valves, cylinders, motors, manifolds, pumps, control boxes, servo dampers, dash pots, reservoirs, gearboxes, brake assemblies, snubber assemblies, filter assemblies, compensators, fan assemblies, mode selector assemblies, and pitch control ratio assemblies. SDS International 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook Aircraft Components (Instruments): accelerometers, altimeters, transducers, central air data computers, flight data recorders, attitude indicators, horizontal situation indicators, stall warning, position transmitter indicators, cockpit voice recorders, standard flight data recorders, and crash survivable flight data recorders. Aircraft Components (Avionics/Electronics): airborne generators, generator control units, control panels, voltage regulators, inverters, frequency converters, power supplies, battery chargers, motors, aircraft linearlrotary actuators, aircraft screw jacks, winches, gear boxes, miscellaneous electro-mechanical devices, and accessories. Ground Communications and Electronic Equipment (Radar, Radio, Wire): peculiar C31 test equipment; various radio, television, communications, and navigation systems; indicator group; computer group; search radar equipment; electronic countermeasures equipment; meteorological instruments and apparatus; radar training devices; automated data processing equipment; and computer central processing units. Ground Communications and Electronic Equipment (Electro-opticsINight Vision Equipment): common power control units, electronics units, M-1 power control unit, laser rangefinders, driver viewers, M-1 thermal imaging system, tank thermal sight, integrated sight unit, man-portable common thermd night sights, ground laser target designators, ground vehicular laser locatorldesignators, individual and crew-served weapons night sights, night vision goggles, and aviator night vision imaging systems. Ground General Purpose Items (Ground Power Generators): 5-to-200 kilowatt gasoline, diesel, and turbine powered stationary and mobile generator units for ground communications, bare base operations, forward air control use, disaster relief requirements, and any other need for routine or emergency AC electrical power. Ground General Purpose Items (Other): Rigid wali shelters. Sacramento ALC has the following Technology Applicatio~t Program Management assignments: Fiber optics and fiber optic connectors Micro-electronics [Very high speed integrated circuits (VHSIC)] Advanced composites 2 .2 .2 Unique FacilitiesIEquipmentlCapabilities SM-ALC officials have identified the following facilities, equipment, and/or capabilities as unique to the depot: F-111 Cold Proof Facility. This is the only certified F-1 1 1 structural test facility in existence. It is an 8500 square foot (SF) enclosed environmental chamber used for testing F-1 1 1 aircraft in a flight simulation environment. Aircraft airframes are stressed on a wing fixture at sweep angles of 26 and 54 degrees, from -3G to +7G, at temperatures down to -40" (produced by a complex system for vaporizing liquid nitrogen), to detect SDS International - 8 - 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook catastrophic structural failures. The chamber also has an advanced acoustic system capable of detecting secondary failures, such as popped rivets, broken bolts, and cracked panels. McClellan Nuclear Radiation Center (MNRC). The MNRC is the only reactor facility in the Air Force and is the only DoD licensed source for providing Neutron Transmutation Doping for silicon use in the semiconductor industry. It is a 4500 SF facility with heavy radiation shielding for the one megawatt research-type reactor. It is used to perform neutron radiography of aircraft structures for non-destructive inspection (NDI) purposes, to assess the survivability of electro-optic components in nuclear and space environments, and for related general testing purposes. NDI Facility. In conjunction with the MNRC, this reportedly is the most comprehensive fighter-sized NDI facility in the defense industry. It has 8000 SF of heavily shielded production space with state-of-the-art equipment for NDI using x-ray, ultrasound, mag particle, dye penetrant, and eddy current techniques. It includes robotic and conventional applications and can be used to inspect an entire aircraft as well as components. Near-Field Test Range with 1000-meter Tower, Near Field Probe, and Munson Test Track. This complex of related facilities is used for testing the Army's TPQ-36/37 Fire Finder phased array radar. Transferred from the Sacramento Army Depot, it includes a 3900 SF close-tolerance anechoic chamber with precision alignment rails for positioning the radar in the chamber to calibrate near range beam pattern. The tower provides provides target simulation. The test track is a military-specification (mil- spec) designed bumpy road simulating rough terrain which is used to stress the Fire Finder system between bum-in and final calibration. WNle this complex is the only DoD test facility. Hughes is the system prime contractor and rep~rtedly has duplicate or comparable capability. Hydraulics/Pneudraufics Component Repair Complex. Claimed to be the most advanced facility of ~ t s kind in the world, ths complex provides the largest aircraft-related hydraulic and pneudraulic overhaul and repair capabilitv in DoD. It consists of 3 modem buildings with 186,000 SF of production space designed to provide unique power, fluid, and air systems. It has five separate hard-plumbed hydraulic manifold systems with 4000 psi working pressure proofed to 6000 psi, thousands of feet of stainless steel piping, and 70 hydraulic test stands. The facility has controlled temperature/hurnidity and sustains a 300,000 class air particle clean room environment, and includes a 100,000 class metrology lab and 100,000 class laminar flow stations. It has a computer operated mechamzed material handling system, precision lapping equipment, and precision measuring equipment. Its high tolerance Flow Grind capability with specialized grinding equipment is believed to be world-class. Air Force Ground Communications Electronics Overhaul and Repair Complex. The complex consists of 14 separate buildings with some 473,000 SF of production space used to manufacture, overhaul, repair, modify, integrate, and test systems ranging from hand-held radios to computer integrated radar systems. Two of the larger facilities in the complex, with 75,000 SF each, are special reinforced steel structures with filtered power, special security, and TEMPEST shielding. These are used for the insertion of advanced microelectronic technologies into fielded systems. Special skills and equipment are used to perform depot maintenance on several broad categories of systems. Ground Communications systems include LF/HFNHF/UHF radios, troposcatter systems, microwave systems, and ground-based jammers. Air Traffic Control and Navigation systems include ILS, PAR, TACAN, and VOR equipment. Radar systems SDS International - 9 - 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook include phased array and feedhorn types, fixed site and mobile equipment, height-finder, search, three-dimensional, and over-the-horizon backscatter sets. Meteorology systems include storm-trachng radars, satellite trachng systems, and weather forecasting equipment. Miscelianeous systems include microwave, electronic imagery, sensors, copy exploitation, and electronic warfare training devices. The complex also deals with IFF equipment, along with Telephone and Teletype systems. Under these broad categories, the complex works on components ranging from computers and television monitors to antennae and control systems for launching unmanned orbiters. Aircraft Instrument and Electronic Component Facility. This 90,000 SF facility provides for the test and repair of the full range of pressure, temperature, humidity, time measurement, flight control and navigational instruments, and flight data recorders. Special competencies exist for reverse engineering (logistics retrofit engineering, or LRE), repair of unsupportable electronic equipment, large wire harness test automation, specialized test equipment manufacture, test system overhaul process development, and military-stadard technical manual development. Ground Power Generator and Engine Test Facility. This facility has a dynamometer test capability of up to 500 kilowatts to support work on ground power generators for all Air Force aircraft and ground support systems. Laser Test Bed and Outdoor Laser Range. This complex houses the only test and calibration equipment of its kind and provides the capability to align hand-held and tank laser systems and laser-designating equipment. The equipment is readily relocatable. ANIFPS-1171-118 Integrated Logistics Support Facility (ISF). This 3700 SF facility houses a reconfigurable phased array 592-class radar sysrem that is used to tes: multiple separate production versions of the item. Sacramento Injection Molding Facility. This reportedly is the largest facilit:! of :;.i land in DoD and provides a test and development arcfir! fc- ?he resolution of problerr,: relating to composites 2nd plastics. It manufactures pi~"cs uslng up to 20 pounds of material on dies up to 4 feet square. (A similar facility at Ogden ALC is iirmted to 1 f ounces of material on dies no more than 16 inches square.) Additional unique faciiities/czlpabilities include: F-111 Radome Test ISF for Modular Control Equipment (MCE) (TYQ-23) ISF for Communications Nodal Control Element (CNCE) (TSQ-111) Electronic Warfare ISF (806L System) ISF for Ground Wave Emergency Network (GWEN and COMSEC) A-1OIF-111 Avionics Integrated Support Facility Electro-Optics and Night Vision (image intensification, thermal imagery, and lasers) Optical Measurement System (laser mapping of parts) 2 .2 .3 Workload The following table presents a breakout of the Sacramento ALC workload -- by DoD commodity group -- for FY 96 and FY 99. An explanation of the workload table is provided at Attachment 7 SDS International 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook Sacramento ALC Workload Chart (In Thousands of Direct Labor Hours -- kDLH) Relevant Commodity Groups 1 . Aircraft Airframes c. Fixed Wing (1) Tanker / Transport / Bomber , (2) Command and Control (3) Light Combat (4) Admin / Training d. Other h. APUs I. Other j. Manufacture and Fabrication b . Tactical / MLRS I I 1 -- Programmed Total Workload 1,456 162 Potential Maximum Capacity FY96 636 Programmed Core Workload 853 - I I 3. Engines (Gas Turbine) (GTE) 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 I Total / 10,227 1 10,271 / 7,058 / 7,068 1 5,509) 4,871 1 4,249 1 4,231 1 FY96 945 Existing Capacity FY99 570 FY96 441 1,520 164 L. Missiles an.j Missile Cornpz-ien:~ a. Strateg~c I i I I I a. Aircraft i Table 2-1: Sacramento ALC Workload Chart FY99 983 FY96 809 F Y 9 9 441 720 I a. Radar 1,2261 1.235 I 715 I 702 1 481 I 430 b. Rad~o Commun~cat~ons ' 6791 7341 3361 3401 2311 207 SDS International FY99 819 1,442 -- 1 I c. Blades 1 Vanes I I 383 i 430 1771 177 590 129 -- 170 109 105 80 -- c. W~re Commun~cat~ons 230' 233; 202 2141 144 1,460 -- 118 -- 513 -- 190 127 117 94 66 323 264 32 d . Electronic Warfare 101 7 I -- I -- d. Ground Generators / 1111 1131 1001 101 84 1 62 62 1,181 -- e. Nav~qation Aids i 482 f. Electro-optics/Night Vision Equio 1 167 g. Satellite Control/Space Sensors i 184 165) 165 59 289 237 29 460 127 32 e. Other 66 12. Software 1 a. Tactical Systems 1 455 1,056 -- 109 32 501 / 276 / 279 215 / 157 1 180 -- 211 b. Support Equipment 13. Special Interest Items 354 i 186 10. Ground General Purpose Items I I 6 1 401 328 6 1 452 453 c. TMDE 835 -- ' 171 173 1 I I I I I 66 397 _ _ 21 1 a. Bear~ngs Refurb~shment 1 1 907 -- 460 358 1 325 1 184 1 184 354 c. Munitions / Ordnance -- 14. Other 1 371 371 371 37 I I -- I 1 I I I I I I 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handhook 3.0 Ogden ALC (00-ALC) Ogden ALC is DoD's primary depot for the repair and overhaul of aircraft landing gear, brakes, struts, and wheel assemblies, performing some 70 percent of the total DoD workload in this area. It is the Air Force's F- 16 and C-130 depot, and provides the sole current source of repair for Minuteman and Peacekeeper silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (SBICBM). The center also conducts overhaul, modification, testing, and support functions for a wide range of other components, including rocket motors, small missiles, air munitions and guided bombs, photonics imaging and reconnaissance equipment, and simulators and training devices. Additionally, Ogden ALC has responsibility within DoD for developing and fielding new photonics, software, and reliability and maintainability (R&M) practices and standards. 3.1 Hill AFB, Utah Hill AFB is an AFMC-operated installation located approximately eight miles south of Ogden, Utah, on the northern outskirts of Salt Lake City, the state's capital and major metropolitan center. It has ready access to the main railroad line running into San Francisco from the Eaqt Coast, and sits near the junction of Interstate 15. one of the piimx-~. north-south aneries ir, rh? Rocky Mountain region (extending from Calgary, Alberta, to Sm Diego), Interstate 84, a principal roadway linking S d t h Lake Cir!~ with Portland. Oregnrl. and 1nters:ate 80. extendry to the San Francisco Bay area. Portland and Oakland are tine nzarest deep-water ocean pons. Both are approximately 750 miles away and accessible by raii and highways. Hill AFI3 is within 750 air miles of any point along the US Western coastline. - 3 .1 .1 Field and Facilities Hill AJ33 has one 13.500-foot concrete runway with appropriate aircraft arresting gear and over 472,000 square yards (approximately 97 acres) of usable aircraft parking apron. Permanently assigned aircraft require over 87 percent of the apron space. Seven C-141- equivalent aircraft can be loaded or unloaded at one time for mobility/contingency operations.' Twenty C-141- equivalent aircraft can be refueled at one time. The base has an operational fuel hydrant system. 'The limiting factor is material handling equipment (MHE). SDS International - 12 - 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook The base currently controls the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR), which includes both Restricted and MOA air~pace.~ The range begins approximately 4.0 NM west of the base and encompasses over 17,000 square miles of airspace, the largest overland block of controlled airspace in DoD. With 2675 square miles of surface area, it provides full-scale weapons delivery capability for most air-to-surface and surface-to-surface weapons, and some air-to-air weapons. In conjunction with the Army's adjacent Dugway Proving Grounds, it offers almost 4000 square miles of impact area, a four-season climate, and terrain that varies from the 4300 foot desert floor to 12,000 foot mountains, making it ideal for the testing of cruise missiles. The range can accomodate most special weapons and has electronic warfare capability. The nearest suitable special-use airspace1' is as shown below: WarninglRestrictedlMOA: U?TR 90 NM Low Altitude MOA: UTTR 90 NM Supersonic MOA: AustinIGabbs CN 246 NM Scorable gunnery range complex: Eagle/UTTR 50 NM Electronic Combat range: KI ttycat/UlTR 71 NM Air combat maneuvering instrumentation range: UTTR 97 NM Hill AFB is the sole AFE3 within the state of Utah. Mountain Home AFJ3, Idaho, is the next closest one at 205 miles away. The nearest ground force installation where joint training can br accomplished is A m y Camp W. G. Williams, 42 NM from Hill. The nearest Kavy installation where ioini training can be conducted is NAS Fallon, 325 NkI frfrorn Hill. 3 . 1 . 2 Major Tenants Major associate units on Hill AFB include: 545th Test Group, AFMC; 388th Fighter Wing (FW), Air Combat Command (ACC); 419th Fighter Wing FW, AFRES; and Defense Distribution Depot, Ogden (DDHU), DLA. 545th Test Group. Manages operation of the UTTR. This responsibility includes the scheduling of training and test sorties for all military services along with the testing of munitions and rocket propellants. Under DoD's recommendations for BRAC 95, AFMC would transfer management responsibility for operating the LJTI'R to Air Combat Command (ACC). While range availability could be reduced somewhat, the transfer would have little overall impact on Ogden ALC activities. '%OA with a minimum size of 21 00 square nautical miles (NM) and an altitude block of at least 20,000 feet within 200 NM. Low-altitude MOA with a minimum size of 2100 square NM and a floor no higher than 2000 feet above ground level (AGL) within 600 NM. Supersonic MOA with a minimum size of 4200 square NM within 300 NM. Scorable gunnery range capable of or having tactical or conventional targets and strafe within 800 NM. SDS International - 13 - 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook 388th FMr. The 388th FW is part of the 12th Air Force. one of the four NAFs included in ACC. The 388th commands three operational squadrons of Block 50 F-16 fighter aircraft and is one of the Air Force's premier combat deployment units. 419th FW. The 4 19th FW is part of the 10th Air Force, which is one of three NAFs comprising the AFRES. The Wing includes the 466th Fighter Squadron (FS) operating F-16 aircraft at Hill and the 944th Fighter Group (FG) operating F- 16 aircraft at Luke AFB . Defense Distribution Depot, Ogden (DDHU). Operated by the DLA, DOHU receives, stores, and transports defense goods. It works closely with the 00-ALC depot maintenance activity by providing indoor and outdoor storage, packaging, and transportation functions for all non-explosive Minuternan and Peacekeeper missile assets. Approximately $7 billion in goods are stored in over 3 million square feet of covered and open storage space. It employs approximately 1,100 personnel and is one of the 25 DLA depots remaining after 4 were earmarked for closure in BRAC 93. (Note: DDHU is one of four DLA depots DoD has recommended for closure in BRAC 95.' ') 3 . 1 . 3 Relationship to Local Community Hill AFB is located in the Salt Lake City-Ogden MSA. Total population (FY 92) is 1,127,000. Total employment (FY 93) is 659,500. Average annual job ~io\;.th is approximatel). 15,000, and average annual per capi~a income is S 16.900. M70rk force population at K!i: Active duty nliLlta2 4.700 Resenre rn i i i tq ! ,250 Civilian 1 5.300 Total 21.150 Of this total, approximately 10.409 (1,909 military and 8.500 ci~~ilian) work in the 00-ALC depot. Hill AFB is the single largest basic employer in Utah. The work force annual payroll (military and civilian) is $5 10 million. Thls produces an annual local area economic impact of " DoD has recommended that DDHU be disestablished and all DLA activity there cease except for the operation of a 36,000 square foot cantonment for Army Reserve personnel. The decision is supported on the basis of declining storage requirments at the facility and the need to reduce infrastructure within the DLA. The other three Defense Distribution Depots recommended for closure in BRAC 95 include Memphis, Tennessee; Letterkenny, Pennsylvania; and Red River. Texas. DLA depots selected for disestablishment in BRAC 93 included: Charleston, South Carolina; Tooele, Utah; Oakland, California; and Pensacola, Florida. A DoD proposal to close the depot at Letterkenny, Pennsylvania, at that time was rejected by the BRAC Commission. SDS International - 14 - 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook approximately $1.7 billion. The total value of Hill's land (6.698 acres), buildings (1,475 residence and non-residence), and infrastructure is estimated at $8 billion.'' The total estimated impact of base closure would be the loss of approximately 33,500 jobs (14,700 direct, 18,800 indirect), 5.1% of the Salt Lake City-Ogden MSA employment total. Considering other Salt Lake City-Ogden MSA job adjustments from prior BRAC decisions (1,500 jobs added as a result of consolidations in BRAC 93), tjie impact of Hill's closure in BRAC 95 (if closure was directed) would amount to 4.8% of the MSA total. It is estimated that the one-time closure costs associated with shuttering Hill AFB would amount to $1.4 billion. Return on investment would be achieved in 30 years. 3.2 Ogden ALC Depot In addition to Ogden ALC's responsibility for landing gear, wheels, and brakes, the depot provides worldwide engineering and logistics management for the F-16, involving over 3,000 aircraft flown by 21 countries. It also maintains the C-130 and F-4, and provides extensive support for the NavyMarine FIA-18. The center conducts overhaul, modification, testing, and support functions for a wide range of other aircraft compenents, including ejection seats, 20Mh4 guns, ram air turbines, electrical/mechanica1 instruments, 'and missile launchers. Its proximity G. to the UTTR facilitates the depot's execution of its responsibiiities for the US SBICBM fieet. Several of 00-ALC's facilities are located at Oasis on the LrlTR. permitting the test. maintenance, and disposal of ICBM rocket motors1components under isolated conditions. DoD's submission to the BRAC 95 Commission proposed realizning workloads among the Air Force depots to consolidate selected specialties at each. The specialty areas recommended for consolidation at Ogden ALC are: airborne electronic automatic equipment software, sheet metal repair and manufacturing, foundry operations, unique work with instruments/displays, airborne electronics, and plating. 3 .2 .1 Specialization Ogden ALC is designated a Service Center of Excellence for the following systems: "See Attachment 1, Air Force Depot Capacity/Plant Comparisons, Note 9 , on market value versus replacement value. SDS International - 15 - 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook Aircraft Components (Hydraulic/Pneudraulic): ram air turbines, missile control hydraulic actuation systems, LGM-30 (Minuternan) shock isolator. Aircraft Components (Instruments): electrical/mechanica1 instruments, multi- function displays, and pressure/temperature/h~midity/navigational instruments. Aircraft Components (Landing Gear): wheels, brakes, struts, and related components for approximately 70 percent of DoD's landing gear inventory in all aircraft categories, including transportltankerhomber, command and control, light combat, and adminltraining . Aircraft Components (Aviation Ordnance): ejection seats, egress systems, 20- and 30-millimeter guns, missile launch control systems, gun racks, external fuel tanks, bomb racks, adapters, and pylons. Aircraft Components (Other): photographic/reconnaissance/imaging equipment and physiological trainers. Missiles and Missile Components (Strategic): LGM-30 (Minuteman) and LGM- 11 8 (Peacekeeper) launch and launch control facility electronic equipment and flight control units, ground transportation and handling equipment, ground support equipment, rocket motors, cables, and pyrotechnic switches. Missiles and Missile Components (Tactical): Maverick, Sidewinder, Short- Range Attack Missile (SRAhf), Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM), Advanced Cruise Missile, Pave~lny I and 11, GBU-15 Laser Guided Bombs (LGB), missile guidance control units. eiectro-optical, infrared, laser, and TV seelccr control sensors, signal ?recessing unit:.. and missjlr rest sets. - " Qfden !LC his me rc!ic\~ 1::; Tcc!azoiog. ..i-p-~lrcsrio~z PI-cP~;?:~; .i,fz~ragcrrzer:t assignnlents: Photonics Software Support Technology Reliability and Maintzinability Engineering 3 . 2 . 2 Unique Facilities/Equipment/CapabiIities .OO-ALC officials have spotlighted the following facilities, equipment, and/or capabilities as unique to the depot: Strategic Missile Integration Complex. This Sbuilding, 3-silo, 58,000 SF complex is one-of-a-kind within DoD. It is the only DoD facility capable of simulating launch scenarios with 90' vertical below-ground silos constructed to meet Minuteman and Peacekeeper silo hardness and operational requirements. The test site is a replica of an operational site and includes capsule and control equipment and interfaces, buried antenna systems, power and air supplies, and high-stress approach roads. Construction meets TEMPEST classified data processing and physical security requirements. Sensitive ICBM guidance system instruments and equipment are isolated by a large concrete seismic mass. SDS International 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Dcpor Handhook Survivability and Vulnerability Integration Center. This is a 4-building, 8 1,000 SF complex dedicated to the simulation testing of nuclear hardness, survivability, reliability, and electromagnetic compatibility of defense systems. The facilities simulate six environments required to test weapon system specifications such as those required for Minuteman and Peacekeeper. The environments include: nuclear radiation, provided by flash x-ray machines and a linear accelerator; airblast, provided by a blast load generator capable of simulating nuclear overblast pressures in excess of 1000 psi on buried structures; shock and vibration, provided by an eight-shaker triaxial system capable of supporting a 5000 pound test article; in-flight shock anJ vibration profiles, provided by the vibration facility; electromagnetic pulse events, provided by a laser triggered pulser of various waveform and energy capabilities; and electromagnetic interference (EMI) and compatibility testing, provided by EM1 generators and fiber-optic instrumentation equipment in a large anechoic chamber simulating free space. Missile Motor Dissection and Propellant Analysis Facilities. These include various specialized structures, pits, test stands, and buildings at Hill AFB and at Oasis on the UTI'R, and offer DoD's only solid propellant NDI capability for motors associated with both small tactical missiles and large ICBMs. The facilities meet stringent explosive safety clear zone quantity distance requirements, combine heavy explosive shielding with patterned frangibility, and contain remote propellant machming equipment for motor repair. The Computed Tomography Facility provides extensive radiation containment and has a power source capable of generating energy levels from 1 1 to 15 million electronvolts, an output that is 14 to 36 times greater than other DoD computed tomography systems. The High Energy X-Ray Facility reportedly is the only such facility sited for explosives and is rated for 1,000,000 pounds of 1.3 class and 100,000 pounds of 1.1 class. Static Test Pads accommodate vertica! and horizontal static rocket motor firing in environn~entally controlled facilities. Thermal Treatment Unit. This encompasses a 21,00!; SF faciiity on i 21.003 acre remote site and is the only environmentally licensed propeijznr disposal slte capable 0:' disposing of Minutemaz and Peacekeeper solid rocket motor oropeilans. Automated Landing Gear Repair Facility. This 1s a 377,000 SF structure specifically designed to facilitate maximum efficiency in tne overhaul, repair, modification, and testing of all-Service landing gear and Fear components ranging in size from the small T-38 nose gear to the massive main gear trucks of the C-5. It is fully autosated and includes such features as 12 foot minimum clearance jib cranes, outsize dip and plating tanks, an overhead hoist system designed to load components from the largest gear systems onto machinery such as grinders, lathes, and hones. and walk-in continuous flow throughput ovens. Photographic Image Quality Test and Cartographic Camera Calibration Facilities. These are multi-storey facilities for testing aerial photoreconnaissance and space-based sensors. All but the top floor are underground for enhanced vibration isolation and security. The Quality Test facility provides a single source of repair for sensitive imagery systems using multiple off-axis parabolic mirror collimators. The Cartographic Camera Calibration facility uses 12 1 collimators to calibrate cameras used for cartographic purposes. Tactical Missile All-Up-Round Maintenance Facility. This explosive certified structure permits testing and repair of multiple fully loaded and fueled tactical missiles such as the Maverick. SDS International 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook Avionics Integrated Support Facility. With 144,000 SF, this facility is unique in both design and location. The entire facility is essentially a secure vault, radio frequency bonded, fenced, and requiring security code access. It houses a sensitive compartmented infomiation facility (SCIF), radar anechoic chambers, software testing laboratories, storage libraries and workspace, and was designed to allow a full range of testing without transfer of electronic emanations into or out of the building. The facility has engineering laboratories for the development, test, and integration of software and hardware for the F- 4, F-16, Minuteman, Peacekeeper, and the Air Force Mission Support System. Additional unique facilities/capabilities include: Peacekeeper and Minuteman Missile Storage and Repair Facility Missile Support Equipment Repair Facility Compass Transmitter and Magnetic Azimuth Detector Test Facility Underground 20MM Automatic Gun Test Firing Facility F-16 Emergency Power Unit Test Facility Ram Air Turbine Wind Tunnel Maverick/Sidewinder Missile Guidance & Control Section Test/Repair Facilities Advanced Cruise Missile Imaging Radar System Test Facility Hot Site Computer Recovery Facility Cartridge Activated Device and Munitions Surveillance Testing Facilities Cold/Heat Soak for Minuteman Motors Lithium Battery Storage/Disposal Physiological Trainer (Altitude Chamber) Maintenance and Repair Fighter-Size Aircraft Robotics Bead Blast Stripping Fighter-Size Aircraft Laser Automated Decoating System Robotic Canopy Polisher Investment Casting -4irborne Reconnaissance Overhaul Capability (Photo and Electro-Optical Sensors) Optical Refurbishment Overhaul Capability Imaging System Overhaul Traveling Teams Software Technology Support Center Neural Engineering and Self-organizing System 3.2.3 Workload The following table presents a breakout of the Ogden ALC workload -- by DoD colnrnodity group -- for FY 96 and FY 99. The only commodity groups displayed in the table are those for which one or more of the five ALCs has a workload commitment. An explanation of the workload table is provided at Attachment 6. SDS International 3 April 1995 Ogden ALC Workload Chart (In Thousands o; Direct Labor Hours -- kDLH) 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook 3. Engines (Gas Turbine) (GTE) I I I I I 1 1 I i a. Aircraft 101 101 101 - 101 122 146' 0 102 ! c. Blades / Vanes --- - 4. Missiles and Missile Components I a Strat~nir. 746 746 74E 73C 715 674 715 ~ 7 4 1 Potential I Actual Total Relevant Maximum Capacity 1 Workload b . Tactical 1 MLRS - - & KGC 559 clr.. 532 , I C : E' ; 35 i E ' Z C C 7- -7. Ground Comm-Electron~c Eau~z Total Core Workload Projection f . Aviation Ordnance 1 4191 4191 4191 419 a. Radar I b. Radio Communlcatlons I I I c. Wire Communications , I e. Navigation Aids I 1 I I I I f. Electro-optics1Night Vis~on Equ~p / I I I i I g. Satellite ControlISpace Sensors I 1 I I ~ 10. Ground General Purpose Items ' I I I c. Munitions I Ordnance I I I 1 1 j d. Ground Generators I I I I I I I e. Other i 1031 1031 1031 1031 1101 1201 1101 1201 Commodity Groups I Capacity Projection FY96 138 389 27 238 g. Avionics I Electronics h. APUS I. Other 1 12. Software I I 1 I 1 I I 1 FY99 Projection FY96 [ FY99 I , FY96 104 430 29 256 j. Manufacture and Fabrication 8121 8121 511 1 51 1 891 891 891 89 FY99 FY99 1. Aircraft Airframes 76 1,103 1 Total I I I I 1 9.005, 9.005 1 7.6141 7.6141 5.221 / 4.988 1 4.8951 4.895f FY96 138 389 27 162 1,103; 4921 492 63 a. Tactical Systems / 755 755 1 7551 755 I 664 b. Support Equipment i 3131 3131 3131 3131 221 Table 3-1: Ogden ALC Workload Chart 104 430 29 180 76 63 / 74l 741 76 13. Special Interest Items I c. TMDE SDS International 76 653 241 5 653 214 5 I I I 664 22 1 5 a. Bearinas Refurbishment 20 / 20 / 20 i 20 i 5 I 1 14. Other I I i i I 1 I I I 3 April 1995 4.0 Oklahoma ALC (OC-ALC) 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook Oklahoma City ALC is the Air Force's primary center for the repair and maintenance of tanker and bomber aircraft, including the KC-135 and B-52. The depot also administers an inventory of over 17,000 aircraft and missile jet engines, ranging from the Korean War vintage 533 engine used with T-33 trainer aircraft to the advanced F118 used in the B-2 and the F107 and F112 used in cruise missiles. Matching its advanced capabilities in engine commodities and structural components, OC-ALC holds responsibility within DoD for fostering development in the areas of mechanical systems and nuclear hardness and survivability. 4.1 Tinker AFB, Oklahoma Tinker AFB is an AFMC-operated installation located on the southeast edge of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. As well as the state's metropolitan center and regional transportation hub, Oklahoma City is the both state's largest city and seat of government. Tinker AFB is accessible to one of the major rail systems crossing the southern US, and it sits at the intersection of two key interstate highways. Entrances to the base are on Interstate 40, the transcontinental artery extending from Wilmington. North Carolina to the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Nearby is Interstate 35, a central north-south free\+ ;!y linkins Duluth. Minnesota. with Laredo, Texas, a primary North American Free Trade Agreement INAFTAj gateway into Mexico. The base is approximately 460 miles from deepwater ports on the Gulf of Mexico. Strate_rically located 200 miles south of the geographic center of the US, Tinker is within 1200 miles of 134 DoD and 56 PLir Force installations. This location is about a day and a half by truck from most US cities. 4 .1 .1 Field and Facilities Tinker AFB has two active runways. The primary is 1 1,100 feet long and is composed of both asphault and concrete while the secondary is approximately 7,800 feet long. There are 705,652 square yards (approximately 146 acres) of usable aircraft parking apron, and permanently assigned aircraft require nearly 64 percent of the apron space. Six C-141- equivalent aircraft can be loaded or unloaded at one time for mobility/contingency operations.13 Ten C-141- equivalent aircraft can be refueled at one time. The base has an operational fuel hydrant system. I3The limiting factor is material handling equipment (MHE). SDS International - 20 - 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook The base does not control or manage any ranges. The nearest suitable special-use airspaceI4 is as shown below: Waming/Restricted/MOA: None Low-altitude MOA: 0' Neil1 394 NM Supersonic MOA: None Scorable gunnery range complex: Falcon 79 NM Electronic Combat range: Razorback 162 NM Air combat maneuvering instrumentation range: Gulfport MDS 566 NM The nearest Active Duty Air Force units are Vance AFB and Altus AFB, both Air Education and Training Command (AETC) bases located approximately 100 NM from Tinker. The closest ground force installation where joint training can be accomplished is Army Fort Sill, 68 NM from the base. The nearest Naval Unit where joint operational training could be accomplished is NAS Dallas, approximately 200 miles south. At Tinker itself, however, the Navy bases key components of its TACAMO (Take Charge and Move Out) command and control operation, including Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadrons Three and Four of the Navy's Strategic Communications (STRATCOMM) Wing One. 4 . 1 . 2 Major Tenants Major %sociate units on Tinker ,4F;B include: 552nd Air Controi -Wing (ACW), ACC; 507th ARG, -4FRES; Na\?r ST"n4TCOhM Uing One: Defense Distribution Depot Olclahoma Citj. (DDOO), DLA: and Oklahoma Ciry Megacenter (DMCO), DISA. 552nd Air Controi Wing. The 552nd ACW is part of 12th Air Force, one of the four NAFs under ACC. -4s part of the ACC's mobile strike force, the 552nd flies E-3 AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) aircraft with radar and other sensors to provide deep-look surveillance, warning, interception control, and airborne battle management. Tinker AFB contains the operator, source of repair for engine and airframe components, and support manager for the Wing. All USAF AWACS training also is conducted at Tinker. 507th ARG. As Oklahoma's only AFRES flying unit, the 507th commands the 465th Air Refueling Squadron (ARS) operating KC-135 aircraft at Tinker. (The unit formerly operated F-16s.) It is part of the 4th Air Force, one of the three NAFs comprising the AFRES. Oklahoma City ALC is the Wing's primary source of depot mainenance. I4MOA with a minimum size of 2100 square nautical miles (NM) and an altitude block of at least 20,000 feet within 200 NM. Low-altitude MOA with a minimum size of 2100 square NM and a floor no higher than 2000 feet above ground level (AGL) within 600 NM. Supersonic MOA with a minimum size of 4200 square NM within 300 NM. Scorable gunnery range capable of or having tactical or conventional targets and strafe within 800 NM. SDS International - 21 - 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook Navy STRATCOhlRl Wing One. This one-of-a-lund-unit in the Navy operates out of Tinker because of its central location. Fleet Air Reconnaissanec Squadrons Three and Four fly E-6 TACAMO aircraft to provide a secure communications link from the National Command Authorities and Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Nay ' s Ballistic Missile Submarine fleet. Air Force airframe artisans perform depot maintenance on the E-6 airplanes in Navy hangars while sailors perform field level work. Almost 1200 military and civilian personnel are assigned to the organization. Defense Distribution Depot, Oklahoma City (DDOO). Operated by the DLA, DDOO receives, stores, issues, inspects, and ships defense goods, with the exception of munitions, for Tinker Am. This activity includes material quality control, preservation and packaging, inventorq., and transportation functions. It employs approximately 1 100 personnel, nearly all civilian. Defense Megacenter, Oklahoma City (DMOC). Identified in BRAC 93 as the site for one of 16 DoD data processing and telecommunication "megacenters" to be operated under the umbrella of the DISA, DMOC operates computer systems for Tinker and manages data processing workloads of 110 additional bases in 46 states. It employs 245 personnel, all civilian. 4 .1 .3 Relationship to Local Community Tinker AFB is located in the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma MSA. Total population (FY 92) is 98 1.000. Total employment (FY 93) is approximately 583.00C'. Average annual job In.rs is 1.165. and average annual per capita income is S 17.64('. Work force popuiation at Tinker: Active duty militaq. 7.400 Reserve militan. 235 Civilian Total Tinker AFB is Oklahoma's largest single-site employer. The work force annual payroll (military and civilian) is $752 million. This produces a local area economic impact of approximately $2 billion. KO reliable estimate has been provided on the realistic market value of Tinker's land (5,03 1 acres), buildings (763 residence and non-residence), and infrastructure.15 The estimated impact of base closure would be the loss of 48,000 jobs (22,000 direct, 26,000 indirect), 8.2% of the Oklahoma City MSA employment total. If closure was directed as a result of BRAC 95, this would be the first BRAC decision to cause job losses in the MSA. 15See Attachment 1, Air Force Depot Capaci~/Plant Comparisons, Note 9, on market value versus replacement value. EDS International - - 33 - - 3 April 2995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook It is estimated that the one-time closure costs associated with shuttering Tinker AFB would amount to $1.3 billion. Return on investment would be achieved in 42 years. 4.2 Oklahoma City ALC Depot While the B-1, B-2, B-52, C-135, and E-3 are Oklahoma City ALC's primary assigned aircraft, the depot also repairs the VC-25, VC-136, and 25 other Contractor Logistics Support Aircraft. The Commodities Directorate tracks nearly 45,000 exchangeable and commodity items used on defense weapon systems. These multiple parts include radomes, fuel accessories, control valves, turbines, blades, altitude indicators, and oxygen regulators. In terms of software development, Oklahoma ALC is the first DoD organization to be certified by the Software Engineering Institute for Software Process Maturity Level Two. DoD's submission to the BRAC 95 Commission proposed realigning workloads among the five ALCs to concentrate selected specialties at each. The specific areas recommended for consolidation at 0klahom;l ALC are: airborne electronic automatic equipment software, machinin5 manufacturing, airborne electronics, and plaiing. 4 . 2 . 1 Specialization Oklahoma City ALC is des~snarea a Sen:ice Center of Excellence. for the following systems: Aircraft Airframes: E- 12. B-2, B-52, CIKCNCEC,RC/OC/WC-135, and E-3. Aircraft Components: aircraft related exchangeables (radomes, cowlslfairings, structural components), engine instruments and automatic flight controls, oxygen and other gas generating equipment, constant speed driveslintegrated drive generators, air driven accessories, and air valve systems. Engines (Gas Turbine) (Aircraft): 557, TF30, TF33, F10 1, F- 107, FlOS, F110, F112 and F118; engine related exchangeables, including fuel accessories, control valves, filters, starters, turbines, compressors, and blades and vanes. Software (Support Equipment): avionic automatic test equipment and industrial plant equipment software. Oklahoma City has the following Tech~zoiogy Application Program Management assignments: Mechanical Systems Nuclear Hardness and Survivability SDS International - 23 - 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook 4 . 2 . 2 Unique Facilities/Equipment/Capabilities OC-ALC officials have identified the following facilities, equipment, and/or capabilities as unique to the depot: Air Accessories OverhauYTest Facility. This 114,OO SF facility provides single source repair, overhaul, calibration, and testing of any air driven item in the Air Force inventory. It has 22 test cells designed to contain high-speed rotating components (such as air turbine motors) in the event of failure. The building houses equipment required to generate, control, and condition compressed air from ambient temperature to 300 PSIG and 800" F at flow rates of up to 8 pounds per second to simulate inflight operational conditions. One "super cell" is capable of boosting test capability to 800 PSIG, 1400" F, and 3-9 pounds per second. The facility produces over 16,000 items per year and will be able to support C-17 and F-22 components when these weapon systems come fully on line. Cruise Missile Engine Facility. This 104,000 SF facility is reported to be the only DoD self-contained single source maintenance repairltest center specializing in cradle-to- grave overhaul and production testing of air launched cruise missile engines (F107 and F112). Oxygen and Associated Equipment OverhauI Facility. Over 22 different types of life support equipment are overhauled annually in this I <.000 SF facilrry. with over 8000 items being repaired tested. and caliblared.. The buiiding is isolated to presenre i. . . . clean. dq7, oil-free en~~ironnen!. and coctzxs spez:z;zez c n e ~ ~ c ~ i cle :-,;r;r: s:,fsrer.c. overhaul and calibration equipment. and oxygen purgingifiliing systems. The facillr~ I \ 7 the only single souice oxygen overhaul faciliiy in the -L~r rpi.CP Avionics Integrated Support Facility. This is a 96.0i)C SF purpose aesignea fdcility constructed of specially designed brick and mortar with reinforced concrete fioors. walls, and ceiling. It is the only B-lB/E-3A3-52/ALC-M and Rotary Launcher cornplste avionics test facilih in DoD. and provides single source software maintenance and integration of computer programs for these systems. The faciiity enables ground integration and test of avionics system software through the combined use of weapon system specific avionics components and one-of-a-kind hardware/software. Jet Engine Test Facilities. The 61,000 SF of work space in these two special buildings contain a number of medium test cells and 4 single source test cells that are the only ones in DoD rated in the 100.OW pound thrust class. These high-perform~ice cells are capable of handling up to 4000 pounds of air per second, up to 150,000 pounds per hour of fuel, and, for afterburner cooling, up to 5500 gal!ons per minute of water. An eleven foot centerline allows for the testlng of engines wich up to an 11 foot diameter inlet. A monorail system is used to transport engines from the buildup floor into the cell, providing a five-minute engine installation time. All cells are multi-engine capable. Each utilizes the Pacer Comet III Automated/Computerized Engine Test and Data Acquisition testing system. An Automatic Vibration Diagnostic system provides engine signature analysis and trim balance data. The facilities can be used for standard runs, endurance testing, and accelerated mission testing. SDS International 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook B-1B Compact Range Facility. This 9800 SF facility encloses an anechoic chamber mounted on an adjustable 19 x 37 foot isolated pad for protection against seismic vibration in the testing of the B-IB APQ-164 multi-functional radar antenna. It permits the antenna to be tested in both phased array and low observable antenna configurations. Fuel Control and Accessories Consolidated Test Facility (CTF). The CTF is a 63,500 SF, $13.6 million state-of-the-art facility designed to provide environmentally friendly, National Fire Protection Association rated safety controls to meet fuel wetted testing needs for engine controls and accessories. Completed in 1994, it houses an Automated Fuel Accessory Test System and has special charcoal filters and recycling distillation units to preclude the leakage of ozone depleting chemicals. It supports the performance of maintenance and repair on the multiple variants and configurations of F101, F108, F- 1 10, F- 1 18, TF30, and TF-33 engines, and has growth capability to accommodate others. Materials Test Facility. This is a 27,000 SF laboratory configured to conduct crack growth rate and fatigue life testing on such aircraft compnents as wing skin and actuator rods. It also performs material properties determination in such areas as assessing adhesive strength. The facility uses five servo-hydraulic material test systems with programmable digital controllers to replicate in-flight cyclic loading of aircraft components. Multiple Workload Industrial Complex. Shadowing almost 2.4 million SF (61 acres), this is the longest covered repair facility in DoD. It is used for special aircraft periodic depot maintenance (PDM), engine repair, aircraft/engine accessory overhaul, and depot repair for -135 airframe structure. It includes: a 500,000 SF highbay for handling aiicraft ranging in size from -135s to A-7s, the entire area of which is supported by convevers and overhead cranes; a 1,000,000 SF lowbay which has been reconfigured in many combinations (as. dlctated by workload and surge requirements) for maintenance of engines, aircraft structures. and aircraft and engine components: a 40.000 SF chemjcal cleaning facility (which also employs a unique Carbon Dioxide Pellet Blasting System): 50.000 SF of area for engine and component piating and plating preparation; 2 42.000 SF heat treatment facility; 2 1.000 SF of automated-stacker vertical storage space; 12,000 SF of chemical and metallurgical labs; and almost 650.000 SF of administrative space. B-2 Weapon System Support Center. This 124,000 SF facility will perfocm ground integration and test of B-2 systems software. A "B-2 Datalink" hub is located in the crypto vault of this facility providing classified electronic logistics management connectivity between Northrop Grumman, Tinker AFB, Wright-Patterson AFB, Whiteman AFB, Langley AFB, Edwards AFB, and the Pentagon. Paint Hangar. Billed as "the premier aircraft paint facility in DoD," this is a 109,000 SF, two-bay hangar sized to perform corrosion control on any weapon system in the Air Force, including the C-5 md 747-size aircraft. Both docks are designed to allow complete stripping, washlng, chemical treating, and painting. Each has an independent environmental control system. Multi-directional manlifts provide easy access to the upper portions of aircraft. The facility has centralized breathing air and chemical distribution systems for efficiency and ease of operation. The facility operates a prototype Large Aircraft Robotic Paint Strip System using high pressure water for paint removal on large, thin-skinned aircraft. Its Paint Proportioning and Mix System automatically measures, mixes, and delivers on demand only the amount of coating necessary. SDS international 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook Blade and Vanes Repair Center. OC-ALC is the only DoD center certified to repair FlOl and F110 high pressure turbine blades. This 140,000 SF facility houses all of the processes for blade and \*ant inspection, repair, and recoating in a single location. It provides for automated cleaning, manual and automated inspection, welding (including microplasma welding, superalloy welding at elevated temperatures, and automated laser welding), machining, advanced electrophoretic coating, vibratory finishing, air and water flow testing, post-repair NDI, automated and high velocity plasma spray, shot peening, activated diffusion healing, and vane restrike. E-3 Maintenance Hangar. Purpose designed, this facility is notable for facilitating maintenance and repair of the E-3 rotodome. "Texas Tower" platform maintenance workstands permit the servicing and repair of rotodomes in place, while overhead bridge crane systems cari remove the 14,000 pound rotodome easily when required. Additional unique facilities/capabilities include: EngineIAutomatic Flight Control Instruments Repair Electrical Discharge Machining of Nozzles and Blades Avionics Reliability Center for Inertial Navigation, Attitude Heading Reference, and Automatic Flight Control Systems High Force Axial Torsion Test System Centralized Aircraft Support System T i e following table presents a bre&out of'the Ohahoma City ."LC workload -- by DoD commodity group -- lor FY 96 X I ~ FY ?9. The mi:. comrr~odi~\ groups ciispiz!led in the tabi:. are those for which one or more of tne five ALCs has a worlrioaii c.ommitment. An expianation of the workload table is provided aL Attachment 6. SDS International 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Dcpot Handbook Oklahoma City ALC Workload Chart (In Thousands of Direct Labor Hours -- kDLH) Relevant I ! 7. Ground Comm-Electronic Equ~p I I I I I I a. Radar I I I 1 1 I Table 4-1: Oklahoma City ALC Workload Chart SDS International - 27 - b. Radio Communications I I i c. Wire Commun~cat~ons I I I I e. Nav~gat~on Alds 1 I n / I , f. Electro-optics/Night Vision Equip I g. Satell~te Control/Space Sensors / 10. Ground General Purpose Items I i I 1 1 I I I c. Munitions / Ordnance I 1 I I 1 I d. Ground Generators e. Other i 12. Software a. Tactical Systems ' 250, I I I I I 240 I I 2481 238 336 364 339 15 2 b. Support Equipment 13. Special Interest ltems 446 1 455 6,6951 6,658 325 299 11 -- 412 a. Bearings Refurbishment c. TMDE Total / 12,863 1 12,863 1 7,753 446 325 299 15 -- 7.81 1 I 7,058 1 7,122 455 I 101 11 3 ! 2 621 621 12 1 I 4 14. Other I I 4 1 4 I ~ - 3 April 1995 . . . . - .- -- - - 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook 5.0 San Antonio ALC (SA-ALC) San Antonio ALC is the Air Force C-5, C-17, and T-38 depot facility. It is also the Air Force's primary center for the repair and overhaul of selected families of aircraft jet engines, engine- related exchangeables, and gas turbine engines for secondary power systems. It has responsibility for all Air Force nuclear ordnance and for reenhy vehicle components, and manages cryptological equipment. Consistent with SA-ALC's high level of experience in metallurgy and manufacturing, the depot has responsibility within DoD for fostering the development of advanced metals and ceramics, and for pursuing advanced robotics. 5.1 Kelly AFB, Texas Kelly AF'B is an AFMC-operated installation located approximately 5 miles southwest of downtown San Antonio, Texas. San Antonio is the major interior transportation hub for highways and rail lines in south-central Texas. Increased traffic and development from NAFTA has supported the city's continually growing importance in this capacity. Kelly is adjacent to one of the major railroads crossing the southern US and other lines extending south into h4exjco I t ..it< ar the juncrurcs oi':n,c m+ior h ~ g h ~ a y s . inc1ud:ng interstate 10. the nation's southernmost transconunenial arrery linking Jacksonville, Florida, with Los Angeles. and n - Lqtersrate 2 . a cen;rdizea north-south route exrendin? from Dulatn, Minnesota. through many major cltieb in the mdwesr and Texas down to Monterrey In the lu'uevo Leon province of Mexico. The nearest deep-water port is on the Gulf of Mexlco approximately 175 miles east. It can be accessed overland via Interstate 37, which junctures with Lnterstate 10 east of the base. Kelly's location is strategically valuabie for operations in Central and South America, and the Carribbean. 5.1.1 Fieid and Faciiities Kelly AFB has one 1 1,550 foot concrete runway with appropriate aircraft arresting gear and 778,042 square yards (approximately 161 acres) of usable aircraft parking apron. Permanently assigned aircraft require nearly 42 percent of the apron space. Three C-141- equivalent aircraft can be loaded or unloaded at one time for mobility/contingency operation^.'^ Twenty C-141- equivalent aircraft can be refueled at one time. The base has an operational fuel hydrant system. 'The limiting factor in this case is trained load crews. SDS International - 28 - 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook The base controls and manages Yankee Range, a 2,600-acre unscored tactical air-to-surface gunnery range located 68 NM miles south of the base. Although the Range lacks full-scale weapons delivery capability, it can be certified for laser use and has a limited capacity for ground threat simulation. The nearest suitable special-use airspaceI7 is as shown below: Warning/Restricted/MOA: W-228D 187 NM Low-altitude MOA: W-228D 187 NM Supersonic MOA: W-228A,B,C,D 190 NM Scorable gunnery range complex: McMullen 71 NM Electronic Combat range: Claiborne 316 NM Air combat maneuvering instrumentation range: Gulfport MDS 529 NM Randolph AFB, located 18 miles northeast of Kelly, is the nearest Air Force installation with flying operations. Lackland AFB and Wilfred Hall Hospital are adjacent to Kelly, and Brooks Medical Center is approximately 10 miles away.I8 The nearest ground force installation where joint training can be conducted is Army Fort Sam Houston, 29 NM from Kelly. The closest Navy installation where joint training can be accomplished is NAS Dallas, 217 miles north of the base. 5 . 1 . 2 Major Tenants Major associate units on Ke!ly .4F3 include: Headquarters, ,417 intelliger.-,e Agznc! : LIA. . 433rd AW, AFRES; 149th Fighter Group (FG), Air Nationai Guard (ANG); Defense Distribution Depot, San Antonio (DDST), DLA; and Defensc Megacenter, San Antonio (DMSA), DISA. Fieadquarters, Air Intelligence Agency. The AIA provides direct intelligence, security, electronic combat, foreign technology, and treaty-monitoring support to national decision-makers and field air component commanders. It furnishes combat commanders with data enabling them to decide when to exploit, jam, decieve, or destroy hostile militaqr communications. It also presents tailored intelligence assessments in support of Air Force planning and policy formation. The MA works in conjunction with the SA-ALC cryptologic depot maintenance program. "MOA with a minimum size of 2100 square nautical miles (NM) and an altitude block of at least 20,000 feet within 200 NM. Low-altitude MOA with a minimum size of 2100 square NM and a floor no higher than 2000 feet above ground level (AGL) within 600 NM. Supersonic MOA with a minimum size of 4200 square NM within 300 NM. Scorable gunnery range capable of or having tactical or conventional targets and strafe within 800 NM. 'sRimarily a medical research facility. Brooks has been fingered for closure by the Air Force as part of DoD's BRAC 95 hit list. SDS International - 29 - 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook 433rd AW. The 433rd AW is part of the 4th Air Force, one the of three NAFs comprising the AFRES. It commands the 68th Airlift Squadron (AS) which operates C-5 cargo aircraft in support of worldwide DoD military operations. 149th FG. The 149th FG is an ANG unit assigned under the major command of the ACC. It operates F- 16 aircraft in both air-to-ground and air-to-air roles. Defense Distribution Depot, San Antonio (DDST). Operated by the DLA, the depot stocks, stores, issues, and ships defense goods and materials used at Kelly, additional Air Force installations, and units of the other services in the San Antonio region. It works closely with SA-ALC by packaging and shipping repairable items to the depot, which, in turn, returns the goods to serviceable status and re-enters them into the DLA distribution system. It employs approximately 900 personnel, all civilian. Defense Megacenter, San Antonio (DMSA). Identified in BRAC 93 as the site for one of 16 DoD data processing and telecornrnunication "megacenters" to be operated under the umbrella of the DISA, DMSA provides information processing services and products supporting the needs of the San Antonio region. Its functions are divided into four categories: application support, operational support, technical support, and business management support. The Center runs 61 application systems that support the depot maintenance activities of SA-ALC. 5 . 1 . 3 Relationship to Local Community Kelly *L"B is located in the San Antonio, Texas, MSA. Total population (FY 92) is 1,377,000. To::11 en~nlc\.rnen! - F7 :. " C 1.072. Average annual job grawth is 13,750, and average annud per capita income is S17.384. For the past five vears. Sm. -Antonio consistently has been cnc 05 ta.;: :37 tci: cities rr t : ~ TLTS in totd annud net :lob creaticr, (jobs added minus jobs 10s:). Yv'ork force popuiation at Keli!.: Active duty military 4,800 Reserve m i l i t q 3,950 Civilian 14.100 Total 22,850 Kelly AFB is one of the iargest single-site, high technology employers in southern Texas, and over 13,000 of Kelly's workers are affiliated with the ALC. The total work force annual payroll (military and civilian) is $692 million. This produces a local area economic impact of approximately $2 billion. No reliable estimate has been provided on the realistic market value of Kelly's land (3,996 acres), buildings, and infrastr~cture.'~ "See Attachment 1, Air Force Depot Capaci~YPlarlt Comparisons, Note 9, on marker value versus replacement valuc. SDS international - 30 - 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depo~ Handbook The estimated impact of base closure would be the loss of 43,300 jobs (18,100 direct, 25,100 indirect), 5.990 of the San Antonio MSA employment total. Combined with other San Antonio MSA job losses from prior BRAC decisions (59 jobs), the cumulative impact of Kelly's closure in BRAC 95 (if closure was directed) would cause the total eniployment loss to remain at 5.9% of the MSA's total. It is estimated that the one-time closure costs associated with closing Kelly AFB would amount to $653 million. Return on investment would be achieved in 10 years. 5.2 San Antonio ALC Depot While the center is well-known for managing and repairing engine modules and nuclear ordnance, and for manufacturing parts for engines and fuel systems, it conducts several additional operations of significant note. Along with supporting the Air Force's newest transport, the C-17, and the aging C-5 and T-38 fleets, the depot services C-13 1, A-37, OV- 10A, and T-37 aircraft. In all, San Antonio ALC supports 33 types of aircraft, over 19,000 aircraft engines, and more than 50,000 auxiliary enzines, which comprise three-quarters of the Air Force engine inventory. It manages all Air Force nucle:~ ordnance, al! liquid missile propellants used b:. the Air Forcc and NASA (Kaiond -4eronr;u:1:5 and Space Administrntioc :. and the Air Force's fleet of boats and shps. The depot miuntami: some of the physicaliy iargesr " . hangas and maintenance ra:l!itics in the US to accomodare L ie octsize transpon feer i: supports. DoD's submission to the BRAC 05 Commission recommended realigning workloads among the fiveAir Force depots to consolidate selected specialties at each. The specialty areas proposed for consolidation at San Antonio ALC are: foundq operations, industrial plant equipment software, and plating. 5.2.1 Specialization San Antonio ALC is designated a Service Center of Excellence for the following systems: Aircraft Airframes: C-5, C- 17; paint and corrosion control for large-bodied aircraft. Aircraft Components: fuel accessories, automatic test equipment, engine controls and instruments, automatic gearboxes, F-15 and F- 16 secondary power systems, F- 16 engine start system, conventional starters, and organic manufacturing. SDS International 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook Engines (Gas Turbine): 169, J85, TF34, TF39, F100, 560, F117, and T56; engine components and component fabrication; GTCPs 180-5, 180-7,397, 85-56, 85-70A, 85- 7 1, 85-72A, 85-1 06A, 85- 180L, 85- 180(C), 165- 1, 36-50, and Patriot. Missiles and Missile Components (Strategic): components and equipment involved in nuclear weapon handling, test, delivery, launch, firing, and weapon control, including trailers, launchers, racks, and ICBM reentry vehicle (RV) microcircuits. Software (Support Equipment): automatic test equipment software. San Antonio has the following Teclznology Application Program Management assignments: Advanced Metals and Ceramics Robotics and Automation 5 .2 .2 Unique Facilities/Equipment/Capabilities SA-ALC officials have identified the following facilities, equipment, andfor capabilities as unique to the depot: Engine Test Facility. This 65,000 SF facility provides for testing all versions of the Pratt and Whitney FlOO engine used in the F-15 and F-16, the TF-39 used in the C-5, the T56, and the TF39 Engine Build-Up Unit. The facility is capable of testing any turbofan, turboshaft. or turbojet engine in the DoD inventory. The current tesT cell configuration includes four universal turbofan and turbojet multi-engine capable test cells, two T56 turboshaft propeller test cells. and two T56 dynamometer test cells. All utilize the Pacer Comet II Automated/Computzrized Engine Test and Data Acquisition test system. empio~ quick engine connect test adapters, a mechanized material handling system. inlet air turning vanes, ;m Automatic Vibration Diagnostic system, and a noise abatement treatmect system. The facility also employs a Gas Path Analysis system for determining enginetmodule performmcs from thermo-mathematica! relationships. Advanced Fuel Accessories Repair and Test. This is e 50,000 SF facility specially designed to accommodate the configuration of the Advanced Fuel Accessories Test System for testing fuel wetted components. Test stations are fully automated and can evaluate a broad variety of different engine and airframe fuel accessories such as pumps, valves. fuel controls, and atomizers. The system is environmentally friendly and minimizes the explosion/fire hazard previously associated with fuel component repair. Cryogenic Spin Test Facility. This is a 9500 SF building with special systems and shielding to permit cryogenic spin testing to be performed on engine disks in order to identify potential critical flaws. Disks are mounted on a special test assembly, balanced, lowered into an insulated and heavily shielded spin pit which is momentarily flooded with liquid nitrogen to cool the assembly (down to approximately -320" F), spun in the pit at 15,000 rpm for one minute, and then allowed to free spin to a stop some 20 minutes later. The facility contains five spin pits and special associated plumbing for the liquid nitrogen and pit vacuuming. SDS International 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook Gas Turbine Engine Repair and Test. This is a 137,000 SF facility that collocates multiple formerly-separate test systems and assembly shops. Approximately one-third of the production space is a near-clean-room environment with a 300,000 classification. Unified Fuel Control Test Facility. This is a unique, "explosion-proof' 95,000 SF facility dedicated to the inspection, repair, and testing of F-100 engine unified fuel controls. It also possesses the capability to overhaul and test fuel nozzles for the F-100, T56, and TF39, fuel controls for the TF39 and T56, and fuel atomizers for smaller GTE. The building is equipped with special ventilation, fire detection and suppression, and blast-proofing systems. It encompasses 89 test stands that are predominantly computer controlled electro- and hydromechanical systems designed to simulate the conditions and inputs test items will face in use. Aircraft NDI X-Ray Facility. Construction on this 60,000 SF facility began in mid- 1994 and is scheduled for completion in mid-1995. It will enable SA-ALC to perform NDI and substrate evaluation for C-17, C-5, and smaller aircraft. Large-Aircraft Depot Maintenance Hangar. With over one million SF of floorspace, this is the largest permanent bridge construction hangar in DoD and one of the largest in the world. Designed to support work on the C-5, it is capable of completely housing six of the massive aircraft simultaneously. Extra-high hangar doors, three track- mounted bridge cranes, and a 10,000 pound capacity remote controlled hoist for removal of the aircraft's horizontal stabilizer are among the hangar's purpose-designed features. High roofing pockets permit four C-5s to remain jacked at the same time. Aircraft Corrosion ControVDepaint This 88,000 SF facility is the only one of its size in DoD which uses non-carcinogenic Plastlc Media EIzstlnr to remove coatings from airframes. It is the on!? one with the capabilit!. for siripp1r.g C-3 aircraft and can also handie smailer weapori systems. Overhead ' siacker c r z n e ~ ' pro~.ide hands-on three dimensional accessibiil~ :o the entire aircia? Nuclear Weapon Components Repair and Test. 5.4-?.LC possesses a unique se: of facilities for conducting environmental stress screening which permits the repair and testing of ICBM RV components. nuclear related aircraft components, and nuclear munitions handling equipmcni. It is the oniy DoD instaliation with this composite capability. The underground Multi-Use Centrifuge can attain an acceleration rate of 200 Gs with an onset rate of 50 Gs per second. With a capacity of 50,000 G-pounds, it can accommodate a payload of up to 1000 pounds. It is used to simulate G forces and timing intervals required to arm fuses. The High Impulse Transducer Test System is a high performance piezoelectric accelerometer that produces a haversine mechanical shock event of up to 100 kgs to test the impact transducers found on RVs. The Altitude Temperature Test Chamber produces a thermal cyele/dtitude test environment that can simulate altitudes of up to 200,000 feet with temperature ranges of from -10" up to +350° F with indefinite holding time throughout the range. The Shielded Cable Tester assesses a component's ability to perform to mil-spec with an acceptable amount of degradation. The three above-ground Accelerator Rotary Centrifuges can accelerate a 150 pound payload to 150 Gs at a radius of 63 inches. The unit has a capacity of 22,500 G-pounds and can accomplish acceleration/deceleration from 1 G to 150 Gs to 1 G in 15 seconds. A Shock Machine Test System can subject components weighing up to 500 pounds to various levels and types of shock and stress with max acceleration of 600 Gs or 30,000 Gs (with dual mass shock amplifier) and a minimax pulse duration of 2 microseconds minI80 microseconds max. An Isothermal Storage Room holds components in a dust-free and temperaturehumidity controlled environment. The Thermotron Temperature Chamber stresses components with a programmable SDS International - 33 - 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook temperature variance capability of from -100" F up to 300" F at a rate of up to 9" F per minute. The Shielded Microwave Anechoic Test Facility is equipped with unique, frequency-specific absorbent material and is used to evaluate the performance of Minuteman MK- 12 RVs. Additional unique facilitieslcapabilities include: Textile Laboratory Integrated Support Software Engineering Facility Rubber Products Manufacturing Production of X-Ray Quality Aluminum Castings Stereolithography Patternmart Development C-5 Engine Pylon Repair Halon Recovery, Recycling, and Recharging Facility Bicarbonate of Soda Blast Stripping of Jet Engine Components Robotic Shot Peening System Non-Contact Dimensional Inspection Auto-Prompting Inspection System 5.2.3 Workload The following table presents a breakout of the San Antonio ALC workload -- by DoD commodity group -- for FY 96 and FY 99. The only comnlociiiy grotips displayed in the tahic are those for mrhich one or n1oie of the five -4LCs has c wor i i ak 2 >xT;x:meL:. o:p;,nz;I?:: of the workload table is provided at Attachment 6. SDS International 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook San Antonio ALC Workload Chart (In Thousands of Direct Labor IIours -- liDLH) L I t e I Actual Total Core Workload Project ion (4) Admin I Training 795 1 795 1 3881 21 3411 -- d. Other 2. Aircraft Components b. Aircraft Structures c. Hydraulic I Pneumatic Total Workload Project ion FY96 833 d. Instruments e. Landing Gear f . Aviation Ordnance g. Avionics 1 Electronics Relevant Commodity Groups 1 . Aircraft Airframes c. Fixed Wing (1) Tanker I Transport / Bomber (2) Command and Control (3) Light Combat FY96 1,006 FY99 821 -- 162 4 h. APUs I. Other I I I I I I Total / 15,220 ; 15,220 1 8,8971 8.804 i 6,496 1 5,782 1 4,4631 4,463 Capacity Pro ject ion FY99 821 -. 24 15 142 i a. Radar I I I , b. Rad~o Commun~cat~ons I I I I I I c. wire ~ommun~cations I I 1 Table 3-1: San Antonio ALC Workload Chart Capacity FY96 1,542 162 4 559 443 SDS International FY96 3,251 FY99 1,573 24 15 142 j. Manufacture and Fabrication I 1,058 e. Nav~gat~on Alds I I ! :. Electro-opticsIN~qht Vis~on Equip I I I 1 I I ! g . Satellite ControlISpace Sensors I I I 1 FY99 3,251 93 3 559 443 10. Ground General Purpose Items 1 I I 1 1 2 1,058, I I 18 153 400 90 4 14 6 119 292 235 3. Engines (Gas Turblne) (GTE! I I I 1 I a. Aircraft 7,318 7,318 4,948' 5.00: j 3,665 I 14 155 410 8 4 96 12 8 97 298, 3,3961 2,615, 2,626 I 6 1 6 1 2 1 3 1 c. Munitions 1 Ordnance 2 1 3 I 56 3 288 288 c. Blabans l Vanes I - I I 1 4. M~ssiles and Mlss~le Cornponsn~s 1 I i [ a. Stratearc 200 200 107 10s 991 1001 581 57 k . Tactlcal 1 MLRS I i 7 . Ground Comm-Electronic Eawr I I I I 7 5 79 417 / 123 16 177 478 d. Ground Generators I I I e. Other I I I 1 1 12. Software 1 1 57 3 159 302 6 4 33 152 a. Tactical Systems 1 26 17 2 5 4 31 148 340 b. Support Equipment 13. Special Interest Items 261 19; 20 ' 19 19 3 120 24 1 a. Bearings Refurbishment 241 120 112 91 1 1801 2071 165 1 102 93 c. TMDE 978' 978 1 651 1 6851 448 14. Other 1 I I I I I I I 3 April 1995 - - 1995 A I ~ Forcc Depot Handbook 6.0 Warner Robins ALC (WR-ALC) Warner Robins ALC is the Air Force's F-15, C-130, and C-141 depot, providing cradle-to- grave logistics support and depot-level maintenance for these. Additionally, Warner Robins is a primary maintainer of sophisticated aircraft avionics systems and weapons, including the Low- Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN) system, and the AIM- 120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). WR-ALC's proficiencies in arfrarne and avionics support have resulted in the center being assigned responsibility within DoD for promoting technology advancement in a number of related fields, including corrosion control and electronics systems architecture. 6.1 Robins AFB, Georgia Robins AFB is an AFMC-operated installation located approximately 15 miles south-southeast of Macon, Georgia. In the center of the state, Robins is about two hours' travel time from the major transportation hub of Atlanta. It has access to the national railway system and sits within minutes of both Interstate 16 and Interstate 75. Interstate 16 links nearby Macon with Interstate 95, the main highway extending down the entire East Coast wilh access to the major ~+~aterp3r t~ of Savannah, Georgia; Charleston, South Carolina; and Jackons\~ilk, Fiorida. Interstate 75 1s one of the xincipal north-south arteries east of the h'fississi~pi Rive; extending from Saui! Sai-: Marie, Ontario to the Fort h4yers metropolitan area of Floria~i. Ssvmnah 1s the nearesi deep- water ocean port at 136 YhI away, and it can be reached directly overiand \ria Interstate 16. Robins is the only East Coa5t A r Force facilit~r with depot maintenance activity to support military requirements in peace and war. 6 . 1 . 1 Field and Facilities Robins AFB has one 12,000-foot asphault runway with appropriate aircraft arresting gear and 653,344 square yards (approximately 135 acres) of usuable aircraft parking apron. Currently, permanently assigned aircraft require only 10 percent of the apron space. However, Robins is scheduled to become the US main operating base for the E-8 Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (Joint STARS), and beddown of those aircraft assets will reduce surplus ramp space appropriately. Six C- 14 1 - equivalent aircraft can be loaded or unloaded at one time SDS International 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook for mobility/contingency ~~e ra t i ons . ' ~ Eleven C-141-equivalent aircraft can be refueled at one time. The base has an operational fuel hydrant system. The base does not control or manage any ranges. The nearest special-use airspace2' is as shown below: Warning/Restricted/MOA: None Low-Altitude MOA: L\'- 157A 200 NM Supersonic MOA: W- 157A 200 NM Scorable gunnery range complex: Grand Bay 103 NM Electronic Combat range: Townsend 123 NM Air combat maneuvering instrumentation range: Tyndd ACMl 195 NM The nearest Active Duty Air Force unit where active training can be accomplished is Dobbins AFB, 85 miles from Robins. The closest ground force installation where joint training can be accomplished is Army Fort Benning, 73 NM from the base. Beaufort Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), 142 miles from Robins, is the nearest NavallMarine unit where joint training can be accomplished. 6 . 1 . 2 Major Tenants Major associate units currently on Robins AFB include: Headquarters, AFRES; 19th Air Refueling Wing (ARB'), .4ir Mobility Command (Ah4C): 9th Space Warning Squadron (SIX'S ). Air Force Space Command (PJSPC); 5th Combat Communications Group (CCG), ACC; Defense Distribution Depot. Warner Robins (DDWG), DLA; and Defense Megacenter, Warner Robins (DMWR), DISA. (hote: the 116th FM7, ANG, currently based at Dobbins AFB, GA, and equipped with F-15s, is scheduled to relocate to Robins AFB at the beginning of 1986 and convert to the B - 1 B .) Headquarters, AFRES. The Air Force Reserve supports the Active force by performing missions that encompass fighter, bomber, airlift, aerial re-fueling, rescue, and weather reconnaissance operations. It provides disaster relief in the US and supports national counterdrug efforts. The Reserve commands three numbered NAFs with nearly 78.000 reservists operating 400 aircraft ranging from F-16 fighters and B-52 bombers to C-5 transports and KC-135 tankers. '"The limiting factor is load crews. "MOA with a minimum size of 2100 square nautical miles (NM) and an altitude block of at least 20,000 feet within 200 NM. Low-altitude MOA with a minimum size of 2100 square NM and a floor no higher than 2000 feet above ground level (AGL) within 600 NM. Supersonic MOA with a minimum size of 4200 square NM within 300 NM. Scorable gunnery range capable of or having tactical or conventional targets and strafe within 800 NM. SDS International - 37 - 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook 19th ARW. Under AMC. the 19th ARW flies KC-135 aerial refuelers to provide global refueling for bomber, airlift, fighter, air defense, and special mission aircraft. 9th SWS. Under AFSPC, the 9th SWS operates and maintains a solid-state phased array PAVE PAWS detection radar. As part of the worldwide space and missile warning network, the radar provides missile early-warning data to US Space Command; North American Aerospace Defense Command; Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the National Command Authorities. 5th CCG. Comprised of the 51st, 52nd, 53rd, and 54th Combat Communications Squadrons, the 5th CCG provides mobile and transportable command and control communications along air traffic control systems worldwide. Under the ACC, the Group's squadrons deploy in support of joint task force, combatant command, and Air Force flying wing operations and exercises. Defense Distribution Depot, Warner Robins (DDWG). Operated by DLA, the Depot stocks, stores, packages, and transports defense goods for depot-level maintenance activities along with the active and reserve units on the base. DDWG also provides parts and equipment to armed forces located worldwide and foreign military customers. Most items maintained at Warner Robins support maintenance of F- 15, C- 130, and C- 14 1 aircraft, along with navigation and airborne electronic warfare systems. WR-ALC works closely with DDWG by providing lab analysis of fuels and by repairingltesting electronic and structural components before they are re-entered into the DLA distribution system. Defense Megacenter. Warner Robins (DMWR). Designated in BRAC 93 as the site for one of 16 data processing and telecommunication "megacenters" to be operated under the umbrella of the DISA. DMWR operates systems linking battle space applications to the battlefield via DoD and commercial satellites. The center houses mainframes and rnidtier computers running 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. to support over 170 data processing services for WR-.4LC, AMC. AFRES, and -4NG units. 6 . 1 . 3 Relationship to Local Community Robins AFB is located in the Macon, Georgia, MSA. Total population (FY 92) is 296,000. Total employment (F'Y 91) is 157.800. Average annual job growth is 1,850, and average annual per capita income is $17,542. Work force population at Robins: Active duty military Reserve military Civilian Total SDS international 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook Robins AFB is Georgia's largest industrial complex. The work force annual payroll (nlilitary and civilian) is $686 million. This produces a local area econonlic impact of approximately $2 billion. No reliable estimate has been provided on the realistic market value of Robins' land (8,790 acres), buildings, and infrastructure." The estimated impact of base closure would be the loss of 3 1,100 jobs (15,600 direct, 15,500 indirect), 19.7% of the Macon. Georgia, MSA employment total. Combined with other Macon MSA job losses from prior BRAC decisions (9 jobs), the cumulative impact of Robins' closure in BRAC 95 (if closure was directed) would cause the total employment loss to remain at 19.7%. It is estimated that the one-time closure costs associated with closing Robins AFB would amount to $1 billion. Return on investment would be achieved in 1s years. 6.2 Warner Robins ALC Depot While the F- 15, C- 130, and C- 14 1 are Warner Robins ALC7s p r i r n q airframe responsibilities. the center manages over 300.030 items representing the fu!l im,?e or ~vionic functions and technology. These items iXi into ~iir categories of aerospace conununications, navigation . . . equipment. airborne bomb x c l yr:-iirec:ing sJrst:ms. :;?T~cT ~L.;:x;:;:.;IOT, s>.stems. and mosr airborne electronic w ~ r i i r e ~uipmen:. Tine depot supports r t e L:~11<'1"ILV navigation and targeting system. the joini T L Z L ~ C ~ information Distribution Sysre!?; IJTIDS). and the Woriwicie Military Command and Control System (M.%%4CCS!. I! holds rezponsibility for procurement, supply, and maintenance functions for most Air Force bases along the East Coast, as well as for the Atlantic h4issile Test Rar,_re. lu'ewfoundland. Labrador. Greeniand. Iceland. Bermuda, the Azores, and all h r Force and Security Assistance Program activities in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. DoD's submission to the BF.AC 95 Commission recommended realigning the workloads among the Air Force depots to focus selected specialties at each. The specialty areas proposed for consolidation at Warner Robins ALC are: tubing manufacturing, airborne electronic automatic equipment software, sheet metal repair and manufacturing, machning manufacturing, airborne electronics, electronic manufacturing (printed wire boards), and plating. 22 See Attachment 1, Air Force Depot Cupucir?./Plant Comparisons, Note 9. on market value versus replacement value. SDS International - 39 - ? April 1995 1995 Air Force Dcpot Handbook 6 .2 .1 Specialization Warner Robins ALC is designated a Service Center ofExcellence for the following systems: Aircraft Airframes: F- 15, C- 130 transport, C- 130 Special Operations Forces (SOF)/ Special Mission aircraft, and C-141. Aircraft Components: flight data recorders, gyroscopes, fasteners, miniature precision instrument bearings, aging aircraft structures, airborne electronics technology repair, life support, radio frequency analysis measurement, C-130 propellers, electronic warfare systems, flexible computer integrated manufacturing, and special fuels testing. Other: shelf-life extension data (Air Force Executive Agent), Joint Logistics Systems Center, physical sciences, and Depot Maintenance Management Information System. Warner Robins has the following Technologj~ Application Program Management assignments: Power Systems Environment Stress Screening Advanced Electronics Systems Architecture Force Management Corrosion Environmental Technology Needs Product Data Software Engineering Electronic Manufacturing an6 Repair Obsolete Micro-Electronics Aircraft Manufacturing and Repair Aircraft Structures Technology Needs 6 . 2 . 2 Unique Facilities/Equipment/Capabilities WR-ALC officials nave identified the following facilities, equipment, andor capabilities as unique to the depot: Avionics Complex. This avionics complex is the single largest electronics repair activity in DoD housing over 535,000 SF of environmentally controlled avionics design, test, repair, and manufacturing capacity. Its specialized capabilities provide for the full spectrum of workloads, from the latest surface mount technologies found in the LANTIRN and Joint STARS programs to 1930s' vacuum tube technologies found in the ARN-6 radio compass. Antenna Microwave Radiation Pattern and Boresight evaluation capabilities are supported by eight indoor antenna ranges with shielded anechoic chambers to prevent radio frequency noise from infiltrating into the surrounding production facility. Removable exterior walls facilitate the introduction/removal of antennae and test equipment. The F-1 1 1 range has a seismic isolatior! pad. The facility has an extensive capability for Printed Wiring Board Manufacturing in a 17,000 SF SDS ~nternat iona~ - 30 - 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook section dedicated to the design and manufacture of double sided and multi-layered printed wiring boards. Design-to-purpose construction feaures in this area are typical of most parts of the facility and include an extensive industrial waste system, recessed flooring for wet processing areas, special exhaust systems, deionized water, explosion-proof rooms for chemical mixing and disuibution, and floor-to-roof sealed walls to prevent chemical leakage that could contaminate other facility operations. The Hybrid Microelectronics Manufacturing section of the facility consists of 2600 SF of class 10,000 clean room with additional special utilities, including liquid/gaseous nitrogen dispensing and a static dissipative raised floor system to preclude electrostatic discharge. The LANTIRN technology repair center features a 2,000 SF class 10,000 clean room, a 400 SF laser light tight room, and other systems essential for overhaul, repair, and test of the system. The Avionics Complex also features 2 Optic Repair stations with isolated seismic foundations, 16 laser safe firing rooms with interlocked door seals, and a total of over 12,000 SF of Clean Rooms ranging from class 10,000 up to class 300,000. The facility has special security and access control, a unique software production facility, and multiple tooling and manufacturing shops to support its needs. Systems supported by the facility include Joint STARS, E-3, F-15, F-111, CIACIMC-130, MH-53, MH-60, B-52, the Global Positioning System (GPS), Miniature Receive Transmit (MRT), and LANTIRN. Avionics Integrated Support Facility (AISF). This is a 215,000 SF complex containing modular multi-system engineering facilities developed to support specific avionics subsystems. Its general capabilities include real time system integration testing, operational flight program (OFP) software development, testinglreconfiguration, compilation, configuration control. off-line subsystem analysis. data reduction, comprehensive self-diagnostics, and maintenance of soft~x~xe documents for a variety of operations! and suppoz systems. AISF facilities provide data communication and softwxe data transrnl~~ior, 10 operational user units. AISFs resident to WR-ALC include LiLVTIRK, Jolnt Taczcai LTS -.mation and Disuibuuon Sys~em Centralized Software Support Activity (JTIDS CSSiZ), SOF Extendible 1ntegra:ed Support Environment (EISE), and P.4ITE T.&CK. The Electronic M7arfare .r.ISF tEMTAISF) has a 10.000 SF sensitlv:: compmmenizC ir:,~ormation facility (SCIF). four eicctromapnetic screen rooms, ruro microwave anechoic chambers. and emergency powt; ceneration. The overall complex supports most major meapon systems, includlnr ioint STARS, E-3, FIEF-1 11, F-15, CIACIMC-133. ME-52. idE-60, B-52, C-14 i , F-16. GPS, MRT, OA-10, B-IB, C-5, and C-17. Security Assistance Electronic Warfare Support Facility. This is a 21,000 SF facility constructed with Foreign Military Sales (FMS) funds to be used exclusively for FMS purposes. The facility includes labs within security vaults and has many of the same features found in the AISF complex. Included in the systems it supports are FMS versions of the ALR-46/69 electronic countermeasures (ECM) pod, the Royal Saudi Air Force F-15 Tactical Electronic Warning System (TEWS). and the Advanced Radar Warning Receiver/Countermeasures Dispenser (ARWRCMD). Gyro Repair Facility. This is a 69,000 SF facility purpose designed to support organic overhaul and testing of gyroscopes, accelerometers, and indicators. The entire facility is a certified clean room (75 percent to 300,000 class and 25 percent to 100,000 class), temperaturehumidity-controlled, with extensive seismological stable piering. The facility houses 12 general purpose automatic test stations, 3 1 manual test stations, 9 mass spectrometer leak detector systems, 14 dynamic balancers, 2 random drift automated test stations. and a number of other specialized equipments. SDS International 3 April 1995 Additional unique facilitieslcapabilities include: Aerospace Fastener TestingIManufacturing Miniature Precision Rearing Testing Electronic Failure Analysis Automated (Paperless) Depots Corrosion PreventionIControl Bicarbonate of Soda Paint Stripping Computer Integrated Manufacturing Metal Finishing Facility F-111 Crew Escape Module Parachute Packing F-15 Robotic Painting Fluid Cell Press Special Maintenance Hangars/Complexes for F-15, C-141, C/AC/MC-130 Aircraft and Component Refurbishment Electron Beam Welder Automated Aircraft Rework System Metallograph Image Analysis System Rheometrics Spectometric Materials Analysis 6.2.3 Workload The following table presents a breakout of the Warner-Robins P,LC workload -- by DoD commodity group -- for Fk' 96 and FY 99. The only con~rnoiiii~. groups displayed in the table are those for which one or more of the five PLCs h2c a v'nri.r!.\:x! :?~?-nitment. PLI e:;p!xx~cx of the workload table is provided at Attachment 6. SDS International 3 April 1995 Warner Robins ALC Workload Chart (In Thousands of Direct Labor Hours -- kDLH) 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook Total 1 9,913 9.913 1 8.187 8,187 1 7.376 6.763 i 6,941 I 6,7631 17. Ground Comm-Electronic Eauc I a. Radar - ... - I b. Rad~o Communrcations c. W~re Commun~cat~ons e. Navigat~on Alds f . Electro-optics/N~ght V~sron Eaurp 1 1 I g . Satellite ControlISpace Sensors 1 i 10. Ground General Purpose ltems I I I I I c. Munitrons / Ordnance I 1 I ! d . Ground Generators I I I ! e. Other I I I I I I 1 1 Table 6-1: Warner Robins ALC Workload Chart SDS International I I 12. Software I I i a. Tact~cal Systems / 1.35E 1.358 795 705 1 764 j 888 b. Support Equipment 906 906 1 5301 530 / 509 1 592 764) 886 5091 592 13. Special Interest ltems 1 1 I I I I I I I I l a. Bearings Refurbishment , I I i c. TMDE I 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 14. Other I i I I 1 I I I I I I 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depo~ Handbook 7.0 1995 Base Realignment and Closure Process (BRAC 95) 7 . 1 Background BRAC 95 is the last of three rounds of closure activity mandated under current l eg i s l a t i~n .~~ As late as mid-December 1994, defense analysts were anticipating that the list of military installations recommended for closure or realignment under BRAC 95 would be nearly as large as the lists from the three previous closure rounds ~ombined. '~ This expectation had been supported repeatedly by DoD officials who were quick to point out during most of the year that, while military manpower and equipment had been cut by a third since the end of the Cold War, basing infrastructure had been reduced only by some 18 percent. In January 1995, initiating preparations for developing the Pentagon's BRAC 95 closure/realignment proposal, Deputy Secretary of Defense (DEPSECDEF) John Deutch established an "overall 15 percent reduction in plant replacement value" as "a minimum DoD-wide goal."25 It was believed widely that military research facilities, laboratories, and depots would be particularly vulnerable, and that the Air Force, after avoiding heavy hits in these areas pre~~iousi!~. stood to lose perhaps two of its five remaining depots. Shortly before the end of 1994, however. S e c r e t q of Der'ens: I SECDEF) Wiliiam j. Perr! told surprised reporters that he expected the 1995 Iist to be ahour :he same size as the Iist frorz BRAC 93. The rationale for this 'expectation undershoot' \yay ~Jver? by DEPSECDEF Deutck in an interview shortly before the list was made public: "Vie nzec time," Deutch said, "to balance tke base-closing costs and the base-closing savings, and complete the transfer of facilities to productive comrnuniry use."26 With defense funding at its lowest level in nearly half a century, and the recoupment of closure/realignment outlays requiring, on average, approximately seven years -- only after which can closure savings begin to be realized -- the Administration apparently was unwilling to squeeze Pentagon operational and procurement accounts any further. 23The BRAC process and enabling legislation are explained at Attachment 2. For a detailed discussion of prior BRAC actions, see the SDS study Promting/Protecting Contractor-Provided Depot Maintenance, 30 December 1994. 24A summary of major base closures from prior BRAC rounds is at Attachment 3. 25Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum, Subject: 1995 Base Realignments and Closures (BRAC 95), 7 January 1994. 2%eported by Eric Schmitt. "Pentagon To Seek Scaled-Back List Of Base Closings," New I'ork Times, 25 February 1995, p. 1. SDS International 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook The list of bases recommended by DoD for closure and realignment was released officially on 28 February 1995. True to Perry's promise, what originally was supposed to have been the "mother of all BRACs" turned out affecting only 146 military facilities in the US." Of those, only 35 major installations were identified for closure or significant downsizing -- and it seemed a stretch to call some of them major. The manpower adjustments associated with these proposals amounted to a net increase of 4,400 military positions (the result of personnel returning home after the closure of US bases overseas) and a net loss of roughly 34,000 civilian positions.28 Interestingly, none of the Air Force's ALCs were on the closure list although all five were identified for realignment action. Rather than close any ALCs, the Air Force consolidated some workloads and accepted relatively modest manpower cuts at three of the depots. "The net effect of [Air Force] depot realignments," according to the DoD Base Closure and Realignment Report, will be "to transfer approximately 3.5 million direct labor hours and to eliminate 37 product lines across the five depots."29 The formal report continued: Programmed work reductions, downsizing through contracting or transfer to other Service depots, and the consolidation of workloads . . . result in the reduction of real property infrastructure equal to 1.5 depots, and a reduction in manhour capacity equivalent to about two depots. The proposed moves also make available over 25 nlillion cubic feet of space LO ~ n e Defense Logistics Agency for storage and other purposes, plus space to accept part of the Defense Nuclear Agency and other dispiaced Air Force mission^.^" As reported in a recent article in Alliatiorl Week 6- Space Tecitrzology, the Air Force presented "a powerful argument that more money could be saved by reducing the size of all five aircraft maintenance depots than by closing one or two of them."3' SECDEF Perry is quoted as having found the arithmetic "~ompe!ling."~' 7 .2 Depots -- A Special Interest Item Military depots and depot capacity were to have received particularly close scrutiny by DoD in preparing its BRAC 95 closure/realignment list. The 1993 BRAC Commission had identified "The list of major facilities in the US and its territories identified for closurelrealignment is at Attachment 4. "A list of net gainsAosses by state is at Attachment 5. 29 DoD Base Closure and Reaiignnzent Report, p. 5-126. 30~bid. "~ohn D. Morocco, "Air Force To Trim, Not Close, Depots," Aviation Week & Space Technology, 6 March 1995, p. 22. SDS International 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook the need to pare down "the clearly excess capacity within the DoD depot system" as one of several Issues for Furtlzer Consideration in BRAC 95, and had pointed to two areas as offering opportunities to help do :his: greater consolidation and interservicing of common workloads within the military depot suucture, and more extensive exploitation of private-sector depot maintenance capability.33 Noting in its final report that the Pentagon "has been attempting for approximately 20 years without significant success to interservice depot maintenance workload," the 1993 Commission attempted to promote broader interservicing in four specific commodity areas -- wheeled vehicles, rotary-wing aircraft, tactical missiles, and ground communications -- with its closure/ realignment rec~rnrnendations.~"hile some progress was made, the Commission still felt there were both the need and opportunity for more, and urged its successors to focus on the issue: "The efficiencies to be realized from interservicing dictate DoD conduct an exhaustive review and present : s recomrnendations/actions during the 1995 [base closure] round."35 Regarding privatization, the 1993 Commission came to the belief during its deliberations that the domestic sector could provide a potentially cost-effective option to DoD's in-house capability for repairing and maintainins its equipment. Further, the?^ felt that moving work to the private sector could also have "a posi:i\:e impact on maintaining t h ~ r,utior.'s industrial base."36 Accordingly. the Commission "suongiy" recommended that SECDEF "address the private- . .,. . . . . secrcc cajIabrl!:Jr. wrltlun tat contes: of an intezrated nationri iinar!srrial pniiosophy, in his - recornmenaarions for the I9515 round of base closures."' The Administration's DOC leadershp appeared to be paying heed to the advice . . . initially. In preparing for BRAC 95, DEPSECDEF Deutch drected the establishment of five Joint Cross- Service Groups to pinpoint common support functions in designated functional areas, and to "oversee DoD Component cross-service analyses of these common support functions" in identifying candidate bases for closure under BRAC 95. '"~ sixth Joint Cross-Service Group was established to develop guidelines for measuring the economic impact of closure/realignrnent "1993 Repon to the President. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, 1 July 1993, p. 2-1. For a detailed examination of the depot issue, interservicing, and private sector capabilities, see the SDS study Privatizing Depot Maintenance, 1 November 1994. 39993 Report to tile President, p. 2-1. 351bid. 36~bid, p. 2-2. 37~bid. 3%eutch Memorandum, 1995 Base Realignments arzd Closures. SDS International - 46 - 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook recommendations.) The five functional areas were: depot maintenance, test and evaluation, laboratories, military treatment facilities, and undergraduate pilot training. During the same time period in which the Joint Cross-Service Groups were beginning their activity, the privatization issue was being studied extensively by a Defense Science Board Task Force on Depot Maintenance. It its April 1994 report, this Board concluded that commercial firms did in fact offer a cost-effective alternative to publicly accomplished depot maintenance and recommended measures designed to bolster industry's opportunities to acquire depot workload.39 Most of these recommendations were accepted by DoD and codified in a May 1994 memorandum on Depot Maintenance Operations Policy by ~ e u t c h . ~ ' The good intentions for promoting reductions in depot infrastructure through greater interservicing and privatization, however, began to unravel just after mid-year, well before the Services began to get serious about identifying base closure candidates. The push for greater privatization of depot activities was the first thread to be pulled loose. Concerned with the potential adverse impact on their constituents of reduced government workload, Congressmen representing depot-dominated districts responded to the Depot Maintenance Operations Policy memorandum with a strong display of bi-partisan protectionism by inserting "hooks" into the FY 95 Defense .4uthorizatior, and Appropriation Bills tha: cffertixlri\. prohibited DoD from implementing the Deutch-directed efficiency measures. The decisive Demozrxic electloi; upse; in Xovember to s a i x ciegree constituted anoacr tnrcx worktng free. M'hile ir launched a supposedly new breed of po?u!is;. refom-minded Republicans toward Washingtor,. ostensibly mandated to cmle bloat ou: of tine reacrd bureaucracy -- in fact, the very son of allies that Defense base closure advocates had iong been seeking4' -- the strong pro-rniiitaq orientation of the new7 master-designates of the Capitol led the Administration into digging itself into a $25 billion budgetary hole that subsequently left little room for significant base closure outlays. 3yDepot Maintenance Managemer~:. Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force, published by the Ofice of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Br Technology, April 1994. 4i 'Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum, Subject: Depot Mair~tenance Operations Policy, 4 May 1994. 41Republican vows to do away with big government presented the Administration a unique win-win opportunity for proposing major reductions in the defense infrastructure. If a large BRAC list survived the all-or-none Congressional consideration process, the Administration could claim its share of the credit for fiscally responsible action on behalf of long-standing military desires to downsize basing. If the list were rejected by a Republican- dominated Congress, the Administration could accuse the opposing party of self-serving hypocrisy. From a cynical point of view, stacking the list with bases from low-vote, Republican-controlled districts (including, for example, Ogden ALC, Utah, and Oklahoma City ALC, Oklahoma. two Republican strongholds) would have presented the Administration with an opportunity to exact highly focused revenge in the bargain. SDS Internat ional - 47 - 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook Even before they started preparing to swear in their new freshmen and claim committee gavels, Republican incumbents on the Hill intensified their attacks on the Administration's record of military funding. Asserting that the Democrats had managed to slash the defense budget drastically and still create a shortfall of between $40 and $1 50 billion over the Future Years Defense Program, they vowed to set things straight in the coming se~sion.~' The Administration, smarting at Republican charges that military readmess had eroded under its stewardship as a result of the diversion of Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funding to pay for peace-keeping operations ("feel-good foreign policy"), and stung by accusations that the hefty reductions in Defense procurement accounts amounted to forcing the military to eat its seed corn (with implied dire consequence for future military capability), on 1 December 1994 announced a six-year, $25 billion Presidential Defense Funding Initiative. This was derided by the Republicans as mere political smoke and mirrors (and, at any rate, insufficient), but it had the practical consequences of limiting the Adrmnistration's ability to cope with a large base closure pricetag. The $3.8 billion required up front to finance DoD's relatively modest BRAC 95 proposal for BRAC 95 was a tough enough pill to swallow. With the 1996 presidential elections already much on everyone's mind in Washington, budget concerns, plus the potential angry reaction of voters hurt by base closures. appear to have figured prominently in holding the Administration's closure lis! doc~n. Yet another wayward thread was the inabilih of the five funcrianal Join? Cross-Senrice Grou~s to reach agreement on appropriate intersenricing and consolidation in all but a few instances. The full extent of t h s i~capaciy,~ b e c ~ ~ e appxent on!!, v:i:h rhe ~ub!icatio:: of th,e Base Clcsw-c and Realignment Report in March 1995. Discussing the outcome of the Joint Cross-Service Group on Test and Evaluation, which was representative of the outcome in most of the groups, the report observed wryly: Cross-servicing and downsizing . . . proved to be a considerable challenge. In general. the Military Departments concluded that preservation of core test facilities. khich have irreplaceable land, air, and water ranges, precluded closures of major facilities and that cross-servicing of T&E functions would not be cost effective.43 Refemng to the Depot Maintenance Group, the report noted that, while its recommendations had been directly responsible for only limited cross-servicing, the recommendations had been 4' The $40 billion figure was the Congressional Budget Office's estimate; $150 billion, that of the General Accounting Office. 43Base Closure and Realignment Repor?, p. 4-3. SDS International 3 April 1995 1995 Air Forcc Depot Handbook used by the Services to develop "what they believe to be more cost effective in-house solutions. "44 If deciding to keep work "in-house" was one of hvo themes common to Joint Cross-Servicing Group outcomes, the other was putting a positive, upbeat face on feverish unproductivity. This was done primarily by asserting that, even if the groups did not actually maximize cross- servicing, their deliberations "laid the foundation for further cross-servicing downstream, outside the BRAC process."45 And in similar fashion, not unlike a politician requesting he be given just one more term in office to finish tasks not yet complete, SECDEF Perry already has suggested that one or two more closure rounds will be necessary in the future. 7.3 Courses of Action It is reasonable to assume that, if the Administration requests enabling legislation for another round or two of base realignments, the Congress that pushed the line-item veto will grant the request. This presupposes that the current closure round proceeds essentially as laid out by DoD. Action on the do-it-again front, however, is unlikely until the current process has been brought to a successful conclusion. That is not necessarily an assured thing. Of the eight members appointed to the BRAC 95 Commission (four by Republicans and four by Democrats), three have been highlighted so fz.r for potential conflicts of interest (A1 Cornella, Wendi Steele. and retired AF General J. B. ~ a v i s ) . ~ ~ Cornella and Davis have recused themselves from deliberations in which the conflicrs could surface. Steele, a close associate of Senator Don Nickles (R-OK). has declined to do so on the grounds that her principles and objectivity put her above such concerns. The proof will be in the process. That process is now underway but with few solid indications where it is headed. Historically, BRAC commissions have largely accepted DoD-proposed closure lists, tinkering with them primarily at the margins. Whether the same pattern will be repeated this year remains in question. Commission Chairman Alan J. Dixon already has gone on record as stating that DoD's list of bases for closure is too small. "Even more installations will be added to the list of those marked for closing," Dixon has said, footnoting: "We've already made a determination MIbid. 451bid. 4 6 B R ~ C 95 Commission member biographies are included at Attachment 6. SDS International - 49 - 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Dcpot Handbook that we will add some."47 It is too early to judge to what extent the reality will catch up with the rhetoric. 8.0 Conclusions 4 Depots Avoid Comparison With Private Sector. ALCs perform many legitimate "Core" depot maintenance functions but appear also to be engaged extensively in research and maintenancelrepair activity that is not inherently or exclusively military in nature. The extent to which these activities could be accomplished equally well in the private sector at comparable cost -- or more cheaply -- has not been examined thoroughly and systematically. Data provided by the ALCs does not encourage such an examination. d Depots Are Insular and Insulated. Information presented on -- and assessments made of -- depot uniqueness by individual ALCs indicates, to some degree, a lack of awareness on the part of depot managers of the facilities, equipment, and capabilities that exist today in private industry. In spite of sporadic sniping at each other, the individual ALCs do not even appear to be fully aware of the facilities, equipment, and capabilities resident at other ALCs. ' Depots Duplicate Competencies/Wrorkload. Clearly, there is extensive duplication of faciiities, equipment, and workload among the PrLCs. However, there is no information presented justihing t'hat duplication in terms of total end items and weapon systems supported or other objective. quantifiable qualities. It is likely that a review of NavyIMarine and .4,?r1y d e p ~ t s would reveal s~rniiarly repeated capabilities. \I Depot Self-valuation Emphasizes the Subjective. One-of-a-kind facilities, equipment, and capabilities are a source of much justifiable pride at each ALC. Unfortunately, this prevents the actual value ("cost benefit" or "cost utility") of these facilities, equipment, and capabilities from being measured objectively. Many facilities and equipment appear to exist solely or primarily to support small numbers of weapon systems that are in limited use with and/or being retired from the US military. In some cases, the only current user is a foreign military service. In no case is an irtcorne capitalization or similarly objective appraisal technique employed to justify the retention of capability or duplication of capacity. The application of such techniques could provide an objective basis for identifying uneconomic functions for transfer to the private sector. 47 Richard A. Serrano, "Panel Questions Decision to Close Long Beach Yard," Los Angeles Times, 7 March 1995, p. 1 . SDS International SDS International Attachments 1. Air Force Depot CapacitylPlant Comparisons 2. Base Realignment and Closure Process 3. Prior BRAC Actions -- Major Base Closure Summary 4. BRAC 95 -- Proposed Major Base ClosuresIRealignments 5. DoD BRAC 95 Proposal -- Job Changes By State 6. Biographies of BRAC 95 Commissioners 7. Explanation of iVorklosad Tables 8. Table of Acronyms One Crystal Park 201 1 Crystal Drive Suite 100 Arlinaton, Virginia 22202 SDS INTERNATIONAL Air Force Depot CapacitylPlant Comparisons Sacramento Ogden Oklahoma City San Antonio Warner Robins Capacity, Workload, [SM-ALC] [00-ALC] [OC-ALC] [SA-ALC] [WR-ALC] Facilities & and' McClellan AFB, CA t l i l l AFB, UT Tinker AFB, OK Kelly AFB, TX Robins AFB, GA [t.lo!?s an following pages] Baseline (kDLH) Capacity Index ( ~ 1 ) ~ Programmed workload3 Utility Index ( ~ 1 ) ~ ............................................................................................................................ Core (kDLH) Required Core capability5 Req CorelCl Programmed core6 Prgrn CoreICI Prgrn CorelReq Core Prgm CorelPrgrn Workload ............................................................................................................................ Potential (kDLH) Max capacity7 CIIMax Prgrn WorkloadlMax Req CorelMax ....................................................................................................................... Values (m$) ~ork load ' Plant Replacement valueg WorkloadlPlant Value Facilities (kSF) Total (Substandard) lo FY96 FY99 7,058 7,068 5,509 4,871 78% 69% 4,831 4,824 68% 68% 4,249 4,231 60% 60% 88% 88% 77% 87% 10,227 10,271 69% 69% 5 4 O/O 47% 47% 47% $402 $456 $3,100 $3,619 16% 13% .................................................... 3,432 (88) Expansion space1 ......................................................................................................................... Real Estate (acres) 1,168 (1,015) 0wned12 3,786 Developed 3,350 1 436 Available to develop13 --- Notes for Table "Air Force Depot CapacitylPlant Comparisons" [Source: Air Force Data Call Supplements submitted to Joirit Cross Service Group on Depot Maintenance, February 19951 1. Capacity in thousands of Direct Labor tiours (kDLII); Workloarl in kDLH or $ millions (in$); Facilities in thousands of square feet (kSF); Land in acres. 2. "Capacity Index" (CI) is defined as overall depot maintenance production capacity assuming existing facilities and equipment (plus funded, in-process facility and equipment improvements for FY99) and a single-shift, 40-hour work week. 3. Workload currently programmed for FYs shown 4. "Utility Index" (UI) is "Programmed Workload" as a percentage of "Capacity Index" (Prgm WorkloadICI). 5. Capability to be maintained by the ALC to perform depot maintenance work designated as "Core" (including both own-Service and other-Service requirements) in accordance with OUSD(L) Memorandum dated 15 November 1993, subject: Policy for Maintaining Core Depot Maintenance Capability. While the OUSD(L) policy memorandum provides broad guidance, the implementation of that guidance resulting in the designation of "Core" requirements is a Service function and is not wholly standardized between the Military Departments. "Required Core Capability" may include surge requirements as well as peacetime needs. 6. Programmed workload for the FYs shown that is assigned against "Core" maintenance functions. 7. "Maximum Potential Capacity" assuming current projected workload remains as assigned, sufficient production demand to justify maximum hiring with no significant new investment in capital equipment, no MILCON beyond that already approved and funded, and a single-shift, 40-hour work week. 8. Current workload projections for FYs shown expressed in rnillions of dollars. 9. Estimated replacement value (in FY95 dollars) of equipment a r~d facilities (including buildings, pavements, and utilities) associated directly with depot maintenance activity. Note that this does not equate to "market value" as used in the commercial appraisal of real estate (which generally is determined through applying a combination of cost, sales comparison, and income capitalization techniques, and which must account for demand within a more universal market framework) and can be used only for "rough order of magnitude" comparisons between military installations so-valued. This artificiality is reflected in the detailed tabular data breakouts for each installation which reflect a steady appreciation in "value" of both facilities and equipment, irrespective of their diminished utility resulting from accrued depreciation (a function of physical deterioration, functional obsolescence, and external obsolescence). 10. Total area (in thousands of square feet) of buildings and special pads used to perform depot maintenance functions. Does not include general purpose space used by multiple organizations on a base, uncovered storage space, or ramp space. That part of the total that is contained in buildings rated "substandard" or "inadequate" is shown in parentheses. 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Process After hundreds of military installations were shuttered in the 1970s following the end of the Vietnam War, members of Congress enacted Section 2687'of Title 10, United States Code (USC), in order to impede the base closure process and thereby protect their constituencies from the adverse economic consequences of such actions. This required the Department of Defense (DoD) to notify Congress if an installation became a closure or realignment candidate, and imposed expensive and time-consuming environmental evaluations on all prospective closure actions. The law effectively halted base closures. By the mid-1980s, however, Congress began to recognize that base-structure bloat constituted an increasingly unacceptable burden on the military departments and was forcing DoD to direct an ever-greater percentage of diminished operating funds to the maintenance of unneeded facilities. Thus, Congress cooperated closely with the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) in 1988 to develop a mechanism that would permit base structure to be reduced commensurately with force structure reductions while insulating indivrdual legislatorsfrom the political consequences. The result was Public Law 100-526, enacted in October 1988, which created a BRAC Commission under SECDEF to independently study domestic base needs and recommend facilities for closure or redignrnent. The Commission subseque~ltly recommended that 86 facilities be ciosed and 59 others be realigned. ID, .ianua? 1990. thp, SECDEF attempted to implement additiond base closures without prior coorainarion with Congress or the benefit of advice from an independent group (the 1988 BRAC Commission's charter had by then expired). Ln the face of Congressional protests that base selection had been politically influenced, agreement was reached between the executive and legislative branches to reestablish an objective (and, ostensibly, politically neutral) closure/ realignment mechanism. The result this time was Public Law 101-5 10, signed in November of 1990, which established a BRAC process significantly different from that employed in 1988 and provided for BRAC recommendations to be made in 199 1, 1993, and 1995. One of the two main changes between the new process and the one employed in 1988 was that, under the new system, proceedings were to be more open and involve actively soliciting input from the communities affected. The other was that, unlike 1988 when the BRAC Commission worked under SECDEF and itself identified and recommended facilities for closure, the new system cast the BRAC Commission in the role of independently reviewing and analyzing facility changes recommended by the SECDEF, and then reporting its conclusions directly to the President. SDS Internationai Attachment 2 3 April 1995 1995 Air Forcc Depot Handbook In 199 1 the BRAC Commission recommended 34 base closures and 48 realignments. In 1993, the Commission added 73 installations for further consideration as potential closurelrealignment candidates to the 165 facilities originally recommended by the SECDEF, and subsequently recommended 130 closures and 45 realignments. For 1995, the last year that existing legislation provides for BRAC activities, it had been predicted that more facilities would be recommended for closure/realignrnent than the total of all facilities affected during the previous three BRAC rounds. Main Provisions of Public Law 10 1-5 10 Commission Membership. The BRAC'Commission consists of eight members appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Nominations must be submitted by the President to the Senate by not later than 3 January 1995 or the BRAC process for 1995 is terminated. In identifying nominees, the President should consult with the Speaker of the House of Representatives on two, the Senate majority leader on two, and the minority leaders in both houses on one each. For 1995, the only member nominated to and confirmed by the Senate so far is the Commission's chairman-designate, former Senator Alan Dixon (D-IL). Base Selection Criteria. Bases are to be nominated, evaluated, and selected for closure or realignment on the basis of (a) six-year force-structure pims submitted by DoD as part of the FY96 Defense Budget process, and (b) specific selection criteria identified and published by the SECDEF by not later than 15 February 1995 (and not disapproved by a joint resolution of Congress before 15 March 1995). The prioritized criteria shown below were used in BRAC deliberaGons in both 199 1 and 1993. Military 1. Mission requirements and operational readiness impacts. 2. Land, facility, and airspace availability. 3. Ability to accommodate contingency and mobilization requirements. 4. Cost and manpower implications. Investment 5. Extentftiming of potential costs and savings. I m ~ a c t s 6. Economic impact on communities (including, for BRAC 95, cumu1ative.impact in light of prior BR4C actions) 7. Ability of receiving communities' infrastructure to support change. 8. Environmental impact. SDS International Attachment 2 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook Sequence of Events. All BRAC Commission members must be nominated to the Senate by not later than 3 January 1995. (While not covered by the law, it is reported that SECDEF has given all of the Services until 3 January to submit to him their recommendations for base closure and realignment.) The SECDEF must prormlgate the list of military installations within the US being recommended for closure or realignment by not later than 15 March 1995. After holding public hearings and conducting deliberations, but by not later than 1 July, the BRAC Commission transmits its findings and conclusion to the President. The Commission can change any of the SECDEF's recommendations if it determines he deviated substantially from the force-structure plan andlor selection criteria. By 15 July the President must approve or disapprove the Commission's recommendations. If he approves, he transmits his certification to Congress which then has 45 legislative days to enact a joint resolution disapproving the recommendations. If it fails to do so, the indicated closures and realignments go into effect. If the President disapproves the Commission's recommendations, the Commission has until 15 August to submit to the President a revised list of recommendations. The President then has until 1 September to forward a certification of approval of the revised list to Congress, which again has 45 legislative days to enact a joint resolution of disapproval. If the President does not forward his certification of the revised list to Congress by 1 September, or if the Congress enacts a joint resolurion of disappro\.al. the BR,L.C prosess for 1995 is terminated. The Presiden~ and Congress must approve er. disapprove the Con~missior,'> recommendations in theii en:irer~.. The prozesc docs no? zilo\iv individua! bases 0: facilities to be singled oui. SDS International Attachment 2 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook Prior BRAC Actions -- Major Base Closure Summarf8 (US and Territories) BRAC 88 16 Closures Chanute AFB, IL Philadelphia Naval Hospital, PA Jefferson Proving Ground, IN Mather AFB, CA *Naval Station Galveston, TX Lexington Army Depot, KY Pease AFB, NH *Naval Station Lake Charles, LA Army Material Tech Lab, MA George AFB, CA Presidio of San Francisco, CA Fort Douglas, UT Norton AFB, CA Fort Sheridan, IL Cameron Station, VA Naval Station Brooklyn, NY * Denotes facilities that were never opened BRAC 91 26 Closures Fort Benjamin Hanison, IN Fort Devens, MA Fort Ord. CA Sacramento Army Depot, CA Hunters Point Annex, CA Chase Field NAS. T S hlofrett NAS. CP. Na\,al Stat~on Phiiaaeipti:~. IJ.4 Castle AFB. CA Naval Station Long Beach, CA Grissom AFB, IN Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, PA Loring AFB, ME Naval Station Puget Sound, WA Lowry AFB, CO Tustin MCAS, CA Myrtle Beach AFB, SC England AFB, LA Richards-Gebaur ARS, MO Bergstrom AFB. TX Rickenbacker ANGB, OH Caiswell AFB. TX Williams AFB, AZ Eaker AFB, Afi Wurtsmith AFB, MI Naval Electric Systems Engineering Center, San Diego, CA BRAC 93 2.8 Closures Vint Hill Farms, VA Naval Station Mobile, AL MCAS El Toro, CA NAS Alarneda, CA Naval Hospital Oakland. CA Naval Station Treasure Island, CA NAS Cecil Field, FL Naval Aviation Depot Pensacola. EL NAS Agana, Guam NAS Barbers Point, HI Naval Station Charleston. SC Naval Station Staten Island, NY NAS Dallas, TX Homestead AFB. FL Plattsburgh AFB, NY Gentile AFS, OH (DESC) K.I. Sawyer A m , MI Newark AFB, OH Naval Electronic Systems Engineering Center, St. Inigoes, MD Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, CA Naval Aviation Depot Alameda, CA Naval Training Center San Diego, CA Naval Training Center Orlando, FL NAS Glenview, IL Charleston Naval Shipyard, SC O'Hare IAP ARS, IL Naval Aviation Depot Norfolk, VA Defense Personnel Support Center, Philadelphia, PA Table A3-1: Major Bases Closed (Prior) 4RList presents only facilities identified for closure, not those identified for realignment. Closures and realignments are considered "major" when they result in the loss of at least 300 rnilitarylcivilian jobs. SDS International - 58 - Attachment 3 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook Closure Summary By Service Major Domestic Base Closures Basesstart BRAC88 BRAC91 BKAC93 BasesLeft Reduction 109 -7 -4 - 1 97 11% Navy Marine Corps 168 4 -9 -20 135 20% Air Force 206 -5 -13 -5 183 119'0 Defense Agencies 12 0 0 -2 10 17% - - - - - - Totals 495 -16 -26 -28 425 15% Table A3-2: By-Service Base Closure Summary (Prior) Closure Summary By State States With More Than 1 Major Base Closure State BRAC88 BRAC91 BRAC93 Total % of All VA 1 2 3 4 LA 1 1 2 3 MA 1 1 2 3 MI 1 1 2 3 All Others 3 6 4 13 19 - - - - - Totals 16 26 28 70 100 Table A3-3: By-State Base Closure Summary (Prior) SDS International - 59 - Attachment 3 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook 1995 Department of Defense BRAC List of Major Facilities for Closure and Realignmentd9 (US and Territories) . 4 9 ~ a t a extracted from News Release No. 095-95, "Secretary Perry Recommends Closing, Realigning 146 Bases," released by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), 28 February 1995, and from the formal Department ofDefensc Base Closure and Realignment Report published by DoD in March 1995. Closures and realignments supposedly are considered "major" only when they result in the adjustment of at least 300 military/civilian jobs. A review of information included in the two sources cited, however, fails to clarify why bases such as the Air Force's North Highlands Air Guard Station, NY, are reflected as "Major Closures." Similarly, there is no explanation for the omission from the list of DLA's Defense Distribution Depots at Letterkenny, PA, and Red River, TX. They have been included here by the author. 'O Jobs include active, reserve. and student military personnel along with civilian and on-base contractor positions. , SDS International - 60 - Attachment 4 Closures Army Installation f A i Net i Gain/(Loss) f (8,536) Fort McClellan, AL ! Fort Chaffee, 1 (247) AR Fitzsimons (2,903) Amy Medical f Center, CO i Price Support f (225) Center, IL j Savanna . i (450) Army Depot ! Activity, IL j Fort Ritchie, i (2,344) MD Air Force Installation f A ~ o b s : Net i Gain/(Loss) North 0 Highlands Air f Guard Station, NY j Ontario IAP f 0 AGS, CA j Rome f (1,067) Laboratory, i NY Roslyn AGS, f (44) NY Navy lnstallation f A Jobs: f Net i Gain/(Loss) Adak NAF, AK f (678) Long Beach j (4,029) NSY, CA Guam SRF, i (663) GU Indianapolis f (2,841) NAWGAD, IN j Louisville i (1,464) NSWCDET, i KY White Oak f (202) NSWCDET, i m I ULA Installation j A J O ~ S : f Net i Gain/(Loss) Memphis i (1,300) Defense Depot, TN i Ogden (1,113) Defense Depot, UT Red River f (2,901) Defense Depot, TX Letterkenny f (378) Defense Depot, PA Selfridge (609) i (936) Bergstrorn A,: j (585) I :,";k"th i Army I Reserve 1 Garrison. MI i 1 NAS. MA I Base. TX i Bayonne i (1,3673 Meridian IdAS, i (2.58: : Broo)ts ACE. : iZ.759j I MS I Tx Military Ocean I 1 Terminal, NJ ! I I Springfield- ; Beckley MAP AGS, OH Greater i (357) 1 Pittsburgh ; I r IAP ARS. ?/ i Seneca Army (325) Depot, NY i Fort o (521) lndiantown Gap, PA Red River (2,901) Army Depot, ; TX Fort Pickett, i (254) V A Lakehurst ( i ,763) ' Reese AFE, (2,033) 1 NAWCAD. N,! i 1 7 X ! Warminster j (348) NAWC-AD, PA Table A4-1: BRAC 95 -- Major Base Closures 3 April 1995 Realignments 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook Center. PA I LetterKenn!, : :2,;2(! ; Army Depot, i I PA 1 i i 1 F0ri t ('82: I Buchanen. PP i Dugway ( ; . ~ ~ ~ ~ , I Army lnstal~ation A Jobs5': j Net : Gain/(L oss) Fort Greely, j (724) AK Fort Hunter j (478) Liggett, CA j Sierra Army j (592) Depot, CA f Fort Meade i (129) (Hospital), MD I Detf oit i 186 Arsenal, MI i Fort Dix, NJ i (739) Fort Hamilton, (49) NY I Proving 1 Ground. UT I Hii' AFE. UT I d 7 Navy Installation i A jobs: i Net f Gain/(Loss) Key West (20) NAS, FL Guam Naval 1 (2,421) Activities, GU j Corpus Christi i (1 42) NAS, TX Keyport i 64 NUWC,WA i Fort Lee i (205, 1 (Hos~ital). Vk i Air korce ~nsta~~ation A jobs: j Net f Gain/(Loss) McClellan j 379 AFB, CA Onizuka AS, i (1,875) C A Eglin AFB, FL i 71 9 Robins AFB, f (534) G A Malmstrom j (779) AFB. MT Kirtland AFB, j (6,850) NM Grand Forks ; (1,625) AFB, ND Charles E. (121) 1 Kelly Suppori , I Table A4-2: BRAC 95 -- Major Base Realignments Tinker AFB. (704) OK 5' Jobs include active, reserve, and student military personnel along with civilian and on-base contractor positions. SDS International Attachment 4 ? April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook Department of Defense Recommended BRAC 95 Job Changes by States2 I I A JOBS: I Alabama I Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois i inciianz Iowa Kansas I Ken iu~k .~ ! Louisiana Maine Maryland 1 Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri STATE I I A JOBS: I GAINSI(L0SSES) Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carol~na South Dakote Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsir! Wyoming STATE Milita ry53 Civilian54 Table AS-1: BRAC 95 -- By-State Job Losses GAINSI(L0SSES) I '' Includes Guam, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. 53 Includes all active, reserve, and student personnel. 54 Includes all civilian and on-base contracror positions. Military I SDS International - 62 - Civilian NET J O E ADJUSTMENTS 4 , 3 9 7 1 ( 34 ,219 ) 1 Attachment 5 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook 1995 Base Realignment and Closure Commission - - Member Biographies ALAN .I. DIXON. Chairman Alan J. Dixon was confmed by the US Senate October 7,1994, as chairman of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. Dixon, 67, is a senior partner in the corporate and business department of the St. Louis-based law fm of Bryan Cave, which he joined in 1993 after representing Illinois in the US Senate for 12 years. Until his defeat in the Democratic primary election in 1992, Dixon had enjoyed an unbroken string of 29 election victories dating from 1949 when, while attending law school, he was elected police magistrate in his hometown of Belleville, Illinois. In 1988 and again in 1990, Democratic Senators elected him unanimously to serve as chief deputy whip, their number three leadership post. During his Senate career, Dixon held important positions on the committees on Armed Services, Small Business, and Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. On the b e d Services Committee, he chaired the Subcommittee 0x1 Readiness, Preparedness and Sustainability, which oversees 38 percent of the US defense budget. The subcommittee was one of those responsible for making sure US manpower and weapons systems employed in the Persian Gulf War were adequate for the task. In 1990, he co-authored the legislation that created the commission he now chairs and the process under which the federal government operates to close realign military bases in the United States. Dixon began a 20-year career in the Illinois General Assembly with election to the House of Representatives in 1950. As a legislator, he wrote or co-sponsored legislation that produced or nurtured the state's modem cfirninal code, the modern judicial article to the Illinois Constitution, the state's community college system, and its open meetings law. He served as Illinois Treasurer from 1971-77, during which tine his policies earned hundreds of millions of dollars for Illinois taxpayers and he established investment incentives for Illinois banks to encourage them to invest locally. He was elected Illinois Secretary of State a margin of 1.3 million votes in 1976. In 1978, he was re-elected by 1.5 million votes, becoming the first candidate in Illinois history to carry all 102 counties in the state, including all 30 townships in suburban Cook County and all 50 wards in the City of Chicago. He was the first Democratic statewide candidate to disclose the sources and amounts of all campaign contributions, and since 1970, his personal financial assets and liabilities were a matter of public record. Dixon is a graduate of the University of Illinois and holds a law degree from Washington University in St. Louis. He and his wife, Jody, have three children and seven grandchildren. SDS International - 63 - Attachment 6 3 April 1995 AL CORNELLA 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook A1 Cornella is the President of Cornella Refrigeration Inc., a Rapid City, South Dakota, firm specializing in commercial and industrial refrigeration. He is a US Navy Veteran with service in Vietnam and has been active in military issues for over a decade. Cornella has also served on a number of boards and commissions in South Dakota, including the Rapid City Chamber of Commerce. During his tenure with the Chamber, he served as Chairman of the Board of Directcrs from 1991-1992 and as Chairman of the Military Affairs Committee. In 1992, Mr. Cornella was appointed by former South Dakota Governor George Mickelson to serve on the State Commission on Hazardous Waste Disposal. Mr. Cornella currently serves on the boards of the South Dakota Air and Space Foundation and the Rapid City Economic Development Loan Fund. S D S International Attachment 6 3 April 1995 1995 Air Force Depot Handbook REBECCA G. COX Rebecca G. Cox is currently a Vice President of Continental Airlines, Inc. She joined Continental in January, 1989. In 1993, she served as a Member of the Defense Base Closure & Realignment Commission. Before joining Continental. Cox served as Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Public Liaison, President Reagan's primary outreach effort to the private sector. She was also appointed by the President tc serve as Chairman of the Interagency Committee for Women's Business Enterprise. Prior to her 1987 White House appointment, Cox had served as Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs at the Department of Transportation. As Assistant Secretary, she we responsible for coordinating legislative strategies and non-legislative relationships between the Department and Congress, as well as ensuring a continuing Departmental program for effective communication and policy development with other Federal agencies, state and local governments, and national organizations Ms. Cox had previously served at the Department of Transportation as Counselor to Secretary Elizabeth Dole and as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Government Affairs. Before coming to the Department of Transportation, Cox worked in the US Senate first as staff assistant, then legislative assistant and, finally, as Chief of Staff to US Senator Ted Stevens. As Chief of Staff, she was responsible for managing the Senator's Alaska staff, the leadership duties of the Office of the Assistant Majority Leader and the oversight of his Subcommittee assignments including those involving the Commence, Appropriations, and Governmental A f f a r ~ Committees. In 1976. she received a B.A. degree from Depauw University in Greencastle, Indiana and a Juris Doctorate degree from :hi. Columbus School of Law. Catnolic University, Washington, D.C. in 1981. Ms. Cox resides in Newpor, i3each. California with her husband Chris and their two children. SDS International Attachment 6 Enclosure 3 N Enclosure 3 1 w -4 0 .o CI I .I ' 0 4 L e g e n d D e c e m b e r lE Base Army MTL MA Bergstrom AFB. TX Cameron Stallon VA- Castle AFB CA Chanulr AFB IL Chase NAS TX --- . - Dav~sv~lle NCRC Rl Eaker AFB. AH England ATB LA Ft Benlern~rl Harr~son. IN FI Devens MA Ft Ord CA -- Ft Sherldari II Ft W111gat~ AD. NM George AFD. CA Gr~ssorn AFB. IN Jellerson Provlng Grot~nri IN Lex~nglon AD. KY Long Beach NSINH CA Lorlng AFB. ME Lowry ATE. CO Mather AFB CA Mollell NAS CA Myrtle Bpach AFB.SC Norton AFB CA Pease AT B. NH Ph~ladelph~a NSINtiINSY, PA Presld~o l San Franc~sro. CA Puget Sound NS WA R~chards Gebaur ARS. MO R~cken t~ack~ r AGB, OH Sacramento AD. CA Tus l~n MCAS. CA Warm~nster NAWC. PA W~l l~ams AFB. AZ Woodbrtdge ARF, VA Wurtsm~th AFB. MI T o t a l acreage P e r c e n t o f t o ta l FWSIDLM F i s l i a r i d Wiltllif!? r l ; o v i c ~ I [ 3 1 1 1 ~ n 1 1 (11 I : r r l t l f,I;lr~ac~r?r,lent Econ [lev t r ans fe r Eco~io t r i i ( : I ~ P ~ I V ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ I O I I ~ t : I I ~~~- I PLANNTI) I'll( ) I ' t ill'^ Ill' 1 (1':"I - - I or lo t a1 1)OI) I I * l i l --- - 356 ' 00 11 - 380 I 0 24 i 5,59n :(oo ( ( I 1,190 I I) 0011 310 1 3,000 F I 1 , 1 0 0 1,39H 1; ',OO 1 597 I / 1,223 6 O(' > r 115 -. -- 57 130 I 1 ' 0 112 1 3 730 I \or. 550 - 1 I l i1o I I 0 214 300 79 10 - - 100 5 80 - - - -- - - - - - 2 - ---- 26,205 110,400 1 I,, I,-. - - - A l r p r l o Pa~rocrealan Educatan Olher 7 2,860 8 -- 64 n 1,581 18 132 13 1.181 147 62 - - 262 219 1,690 484 300 2.282 ---- 1 1,550 ;o 846 2,605 338 2 ._ 16 103 4 34 -?:is~irc: 225. p ~ t ~ ~ r i a l receiving , . . - ,-- ommc~:t:es' :zrrzstruczur~ z 3 scp~orz fcrcss, nissions, and 6. The environmental impact. KEY STEPS TAKEN BY DOD COMPONENTS IN IDENTIFYING BRAC CANDIDATES -- Categorizing activities. - - Collecting data needed to identify excess capacity and establish military values at individual locations. Enclosure 1 Enclosure 1 -- Identifying realignment and closure candidates and analyzing alternatives/scenarios. -- Performing analyses to gauge potential costs and savings from realignment and closure alternatives/scenarios. -- Determining economic, community, and environmental impacts. -- Recommending candidates for realignment and closure. KEY DATES The 1995 BRAC process is governed by certain key dates. No later than : -- March 1, 1995: The Secretary of Defense reports his recommendations for realignments and closures to the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission. This point marks the first public release of proposed realignments and closures and public availability of DOD BRAC documents. -- April 15, 1995: GAO provides Congress and the Base Closure Commission with "a report containing a detailed analysis of the Secretary's recommendations and selection p- I o ~ e ~ ~ . " -- July 1, 1995: The Base Closure Commission reports to the President on its recommendations for realig~:-n?ents znC closures -- July 15. 1355: The Fresiaen: cransrni~s r n the Conxnissior and r. . . - . - . - . ,ongress 2 rezorz cccz2:n:ng Frs z2prc've.l 2 r z:szp?roval cr cne - . Zonmissio~-- ' s rscsrrmensaz~ons . - - - - Z C L : - - - . - -kuous z - 3 , , 2 - - S ~ ; L L Z Z ~ E ?reslae~z 5:sap?rc-\-e anlr of r s ~ Comii,issioz's rscommenazzions, che Commission musr zransmic a revised l i s ~ to :he Presiuenc. - - Sep~embex-, +,,.- Z O Z . Congress 52s 45 days :r_ v:,,.hich c?o enact a join: resolutioz shocld ir desire to disapprove the en:Frs package of realignment and closure recommendations. Enclosure 2 Enclosure 2 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE DEFINITIONS The following definitions were provided by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to the Department of Defense (DOD) components for use in the 1995 base closure and realignment process. The definitions remain unchanged from the 1993 process. CLOSE All missions of the base will cease or be relocated. All personnel (military, civilian, and contractor) will either be eliminated or relocated. The entire base will be excessed and the property disposed. Note: A caretaker workforce is possible to bridge between closure (missions ceasing or relocating) and property disposal which are separate actions under Public Law 101-510. CLOSE, EXCEPT The vast majority of the missions will cease or be relocated. Over 95 percent of the military, civilian, and contractor personnel will either be eliminated or relocated. All but a small portion of the base will be excessed and the property disposed. The small portion retained will often be facilities in an encla~~e for use by the reserve component. Generally, active component management of the base will cease. Oatlying, umnanned ranges or training areas retained fcr reserve compnecr cse 3: =st cocnt agaicst the "snzll portion rzt~i-ec." - . - - Some ~,iss:cxs 2: ZZE azse e e z s ~ cx 3- r~lozzze5, s . ~ : GL~E:-S - - ~~1 r e . T ~ E zcz~r-e cornponenz w;_, sziLL pe nost of the remaining porcro3 of the base. O r , i \ - E. porxloz of the base will De excessec ~ n c h e properzy sispcsed, v:~, re~l:g~nrnen: crisslon ceasing or relocarinq) azd property E ~ s p o s z l De:nc: separaze acz~oxs under Public Law 101-51G. In cases where the Dase is both g a i n i ~ ~ and losing missions, the base is being realianed if it will experience a net reduction of DOD civilian personnel. In such situations, it is possible that no property will be excessed. RELOCATE The term used to describe the movement of missions, units, or activities from a closing or realigning base to another base. Units do not rezlign from a closing or a realigning base to another base, they relocate. Enclosure 2 Enclosure 2 RECEIVING BASE A base that receives missions, units or activities relocating from a closing or realigning base. In cases where the base is both gaining and losing missions, the base is a receivina base if it will experience a net increase of DOD civilian personnel. MOTHBALL, LAYAWAY Terms used when retention of facilities and real estate at a closing or realigning base are necessary to meet the mobilization or contingency needs of DOD. Bases or portions of bases "mothballed" will not be excessed and disposed. It is possible they could be leased for interim economic uses. INACTIVATE, DISESTABLISH Terms used to describe planned actions that directly affect missions, units, or activities. Fighter wings are inactivated, bases are closed. TI 13 MUNITICm -i I.,-US7. .AL @ ( BASE TASK FCkCE. I i PRECIPITOUS MUNITIONS FUNDING DECLINE Document Separator Report on the Bottom-Up Review October 1993 - pp SECTION VII: DEFENSE FOUNDATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE Infrastructure is the foundation upon which our military strength is built. It includes all DoD activities other than those directly associated with operational forces, intelligence, strategic defense, and applied re- search and development. / For example, in FY 1994, infrastructure activities \will account for $160 billion in appropriated and re- funds, or approximately 59 percent of DoD otal oblisational authority. Lnfrastructure a c t i ~ iries I'ali into hevcn broad cat- egories: Cerztral Logistics - inciudes depot mainte- nance, supply operations, and transportation. This is the largest functional area. Central Medical - includes all DoD medical activities except those directly associated with the readiness mission. CHAMPUS and the military medical treatment facilities make up most of this category. Central Personrtel - includes all permanent change-of-station costs, recruiting and advertising expenditures, dependent support programs, vari- ous public relations functions, and assorted other personnel activities. Central Training - includes only formal train- ing activities, not the larger costs of unit training and exercises. Science and Technology (S&T), DoD Labs, and Acquisition Management - includes prima- rily S&T funding and oversight of DoD labs. I~zstallatiort Support- includes costs driven by the number and size of DoD installations. , Force Malzagernent - includes management headquarters. some defense agencies, and some , aspects of command, control, communications, I and intelligence (C31). I As indicated in Figure 13, logistics represents the I largest share of infrastructure expenditures, claiming ' 40percent of the total, followed by installation support, I with a 17 percent share. i Infrastructure Categories (As percentage of $160 billion in FY 1994 budget) Force Management 13% 6% Training Personnel Medical 8% 7% 9% Figure 13 Section VII: Defense Foundations INFRASTRUCTURE Infrastructure costs fall into two categories: those that are sensitive to changes in the overall force struc- ture and those that are not affected when the size of the force is reduced. Our objective in the Bottom-Up Review was to identify potential savings and to launch a longer-term process of reducing and streamlining DoD's infrastructure without harming re a d' mess. Approximately 40 percent of infrastructure costs are tied directly to force structure. Examples include training, supply, and transportation costs. We will, of course, realize savings in these areas as our forces are reduced. Further opportunities for savings can be de- rived from supporting our operational forces more efficiently. A detailed analysis of cost savings that could be realized as a result of force downsizing alone was conducted as part of the Bottom-Up Review. Since decisions on the final force structure were not available at the time the analysis was performed, a notional force was used. The analysis suggested that DoD should see direct infrastructure savings of between $10 billion and $1 I billion resulting directly from the force draw- down. / here would require extremely difficult and, in some cases, undesirable changes, such as Congressional action to rescind or rewrite U.S. environmental laws. Included in this category are most environmental res- toration efforts (which involve myriad legal, regula- tory, and policy constraints), various legal entitlements of current and former service members, and the obliga- tion to provide medical benefits to dependents of active-duty personnel. There are three general methods of reducing vari- able infrastructure costs. These include increased use of privatization for business operations, additional consolidations and expanded use of executive agents, and better business practices and incentives. There have been many attempts to reduce costs in these areas before, and such efforts must be encouraged and ex- panded. The potential for savings, however, differs significantly across functional categories. Privatization of DoD operations can, in selected cases, provide cost savings. Transferring operations to the private sector could yield savings in such areas as maintenance, base operations. and concession func- tions. There are significant economies of scale that can Thc Bottom-Up l?c~.icu. also cxamined ways to obtain substantial savings in areas of' infrastructure where costs have traditionally been seen as relatively fixed. Savings in these areas will require changing the basic ways in which DoD does business. For example, about 50 percent of infrastructure costs are a product of policy decisions or statutory requirements and can be reduced only through changes in public law or DoD directives. These include elements of funding for military installations, family housing, military base operations, depot maintenance, and schools for DoD dependents, both in the United States and abroad. One such area of potential savings is the realign- ment and closure of additional U.S. military bases and facilities. This is accomplished through the BRAC process. Implementation of BRAC-93 decisions is expected to result in a savings of about $4 billion. Another 10 percent of infrastructure costs are attributable to public law and policy decisions but are virtually impossible to reduce. Cutting expenditures be realized from consolidating certain functions, such as accounting senkes. and appointingexecutiveagen~s for training and depot maintenance. Employing better business practices over a ranse of DoD activities will enable us to reduce infrastructure costs without cutting outputs. The Bottom-Up Review has provided a detailed framework of options for reducing infrastructure costs. Just by reducing force size, savings of around $10 billion to $1 1 billion will be realized in the 40 percent of infrastructure costs that are directly tied to our operational force structure. Another $4 billion in savings will be achieved with the implementation of BRAC-93 decisions. Further cost savings will come from changes in policy directives and, in some cases, public law, as we make adjustments with an eye toward privatization, consolidation of functions, and better business practices. We will pursue the maximum savings possible in each infrastructure category, while maintaining an adequate level and quality of infra- structure to support our forces. Document Separator Document Separator February 23, 1995 MEMORANDUM FOR: Service Team Leaders A r FROM: Dave Henry, R&.4, Economist Subject: Installations in Economic Data Base The economic data base has records fro 1,083 military installations: 144 for Air Force, 195 for Army, 8 for DFAS. 1 for DIS, 59 for DISA. 64 for DLA_ and 612 for Navy. Attached is information on those installations by service. Any questions. please drop by or call me at Commerce at 202-487-2566. BERGSTROM AFB GENERAL ARNOLD AFB MCCONNELL AFB M-CENTIRE AGE - -. - - - - - -- - -- -- - - -- GENERAL -- - - - - - ALTUS AFB MARCH AFB -.- - - - -- GENERAL MALMSTROM AFB GENERAL --- --- - A Installation: FAIRCHILD AFB -. GREATER PITTSBURGH IAP AGS - BARKSDALE AFB MARTIN STATE AGS MATHER AFB -- -- - - - CANNON AFB BEALE AFB CAPE CANAVERAL AFS CASTLE AFB MCCHORD AFB -- -- - - - - - ANDREWS AFB BUCKLEY AGE - - - - . - - - -- - - -. - - BI3OOKS AFB -----p- - - BOLLING AFB - -- -- - -- - -- BOISE AIR TERMINAL AGS - -- - - - -- - - - BIRMINGHAM MAP AGS - - -. - -- -- - - - - - - -- MCGUIRE AFB GENERAL -- - - . -- - - . - - GENERAL RE~EARCHDEVELOPMENT . - . -- - - -- -- - - -- - - GENERAL - -- GENERAL -- - -- -. - - - DEPOT - Primary Function: -_ GENERAL GENERAL -- -- - - GENERAL GENERAL -- -- GENERAL --GENERAL - GENERAL -- -. GENERAL - GENERAL - GENERAL -- - - . GENERAL -- - GENERAL - - - - -. RESEARCHDEVELOPMENT GENERAL - . - - - - - GENERAL - - - - - GENERAL - --- -- - - - - - - - - RAL GENERAL - - --- - GENERAL AUSTIN MANCHESTER LlTCHFlELD PARK -- .- WICHITA - - EASTOVER ALTUS - SUNNYMEAD GREAT FALLS- [MOUNTAIN HOME AFB IGENERAL -- - City: AIRWAY HEIGHTS - - - - CORAOPOLIS E ~ ~ S S I E R CITY -- MIDDLE RIVER RANCHO CORDOVA CLOVlS MARYSVILLE -. - PORT CANAVERAL MERCED TACOMA CAMP SPRINGS AURORA --- -- SAN - ANTONIO WASHINGTON BO~I BIRMINGHAM - - NIAGARA FALLS IAP ARS GENERAL 78743 37389 85309 67221 29044 73523 9251 8 59403 Zip Code: 9901 1 15231 71 110 221 20 95655 881 03 95903 32925 95342 98438 20331 8001 1 78234 20332 83701 35217 Austln-San Marcos, TX MSA-- Coffee County,-TN -- - . - - - ~ h o e n ~ x - ~ e s ~ ~ ~ MSA Wichlta, KS MSA -- -- - Columbia, SC MSA -- -- - -- Jackson County, OK -- - - Riverside-San Bernardino, CA PMSA - . Great ~ a l k , MT M A - -- -. - - - TUCSON IAP AGS -- - - - GENERAL - GENERAL DEPOT - - Region of Influence: Spokane, WA MSA 'Allegheny. Fayette, Washington, & Westmoreland Counties, 'Bossier & Caddo Parishes, LA Baltimore, MD PMSA - Sacramento, CA PMSA 'Curry & Roosevelt Counties, NM Yuba Clty, CA MSA Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay, FL MSA Merced, CA MSA Tacoma, WA MSA Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSA -- - - Denver, CO PMSA - -- - San Antonlo,-SA --- Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSA -- - 'Ada County, ID Blrmlngham, AL MSA --. - NEWARK AFB -- . - - - .- -- GENERAL . -- - -- SCOTT AFB - - SELFRIDGE AGE - - -- SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB - SHAW AFB WRIGHTSTOWN . LIMESTONE EL SEGUNDO TAMPA - FORT WORTH - - SAC~%~MENTO - DENVER - - - - - - MINNEAPOLIS .. - LAS - -- VEGAS MYRTLE BEACH MOUNTAIN HOME - - - - - - - - GENERAL GENERAL -- - - GENERAL -- -- GENERAL -- 8641 ---- 4751 90009 33608 761 27 95652- . 80230 5541 7 89191 29579 83648 -- Ph~ladelphia, . . -- PA-NJ PMSA - Aroostook County, ME -- - - -- -- Los Angeles-Long - Beach, CA PMSA -- - Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, - FL MSA -- Fort Worth-Arl~ngton, - TX PMSA - - Sacramento, CA PMSA Denver, c o PMSA -- Minneapol~s-St. Paul, MN-WI MSA "Clark County, NV -- Myrtle Beach, SC MSA _E~~OE~IU!Y: ID - . - _ _ - __ . R~verside-San Bernardlno, CA PMSA - -- Lowndes County, GA County, ND - "N~agara County, NY Columbus, OH - MSA - - Tucson, AZ MSA -- -- --- Columbus, OH MSA - Macon, GA MSA - -- Salt ~ a k e C i t ~ - ~ g d e n , UT MSA St. Louis, MO-IL MSA ~ e t r o ; , ~ ~ PMSA- - Goldsboro, NC MSA Sumter, SC MSA SAN BERNARDINO- VALDOSTA -- -- - MlNOT - -- NIAGARA FALLS - - - - HEATH -- TUCSON- - LOCKBOURNE - - -. WARNERROBINS - SALT - LAKE - - CITY 92409 - 31699 5 8 U w a r d 14304 43057 - 85706 - 4321 -- 7 - 31098 pp84126 BELLEVILLE MOUNTCLEMENS - G0LDm9fi-- -__ SUMTER 6 2 2 2 5 48045 27531 291 52 OFFUTT AFB - -- - - - - - -- -- -- - . . REESE AFB -- - GENERAL - - GENERAL --- BELLEVUJ . . -- LUBBOCK --- -- - O'HARE IAP ARS -- - -- - - BUFFALO-REDCAP - -- GREAT FALLS AGS -- - - -- NORTH HIGHLANDS AGS .- BUFFALO G R E A ~ F A ~ L S ~ - NORTH H~GHLANDs -ONTARIO -- - ROSLYN SUFFOLK COUNTY DENVER BATTLE CREEK - PITTSBURGH -- -- SUNNYVALE - - -- - -. FOR3 WORTH CHANDLER - - D U G M t j e 8 KLAMATH FALLS 4-- GENERAL - - - - RESEARCHDEVELOPMENT GENERAC -- - - - - GENERAL .- 68113 79489 Omaha, NE-IA MSA -- Lubbock, TX MSA -- 60666 - - 80230 . - - 761 27 ONTARIO AGS - - - - - ROSLYN AGS . - - -- - - SUFFOLK COUNTY AGS ARPC - - 'Cook, DuPage, & McHenry Count~es, IL *Erie Czunty, NY Great Falls, MT MSA Sacramento, CA PMSA Rivers~de-San Bernard~no, CA PMSA Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMSA Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMSA Denver, - CO PMSA -- 'Calhoun County, MI 'Allegheny, Fayette, Washi2s_tonL & Westmoreland Counties, - San Jose, CA PMSA Fort Worth-Arl~ngton, TX PMSA GENERAL -- - - - GENERAL - GENERAL -- - GENERAL BATTLE CREEK FED CT GREATER PITTSBURGH RESERVE BASE MOFFETT FIELD AGS - - - - PLANT 4 -. ARMSTRONG LAB -MESA UTAH TEST AND TRAINING RANGE KLAMATH, OREGONGUARDSTATE 8524O- 84022 GENERAL -- - - GENERAL GENERAL - --- RESEARCHDEVELOPMENT -- -- RESEARCHDEVELOPMENT RE~EARCHDEVELOPMENT - - - - GENERAL -- -- -- Phoen~x-Mesa, AZ MSA - -- Tooele County, UT - Klamath County, OR ~ -- Air Force - 95 Categories Page 1 l ACC /LANGLEY AFB AETC LAUGHLIN AFB ACC LITTLE ROCK AFB ACC LORING AFB V A TX AR - ME AFMC LOS ANGELES AFB C A AETC LOWRY AFB CO AETC LUKE AFB AZ ACC MACDILL AFB FL AMC MALMSTROM AFB MT AFRES lMARCH AFB C A AFBCA MATHER AFB C A AETC MAXWELL AFB AL AMC MCCHORD AFB WA -- - Air Force - 9 5 Categories Page 2 Document Separator GENERAL BACKGROUND 1. Secretary Perry, in January 1994, you put out guidance to the military services that stated: "For BRAC 95, the goal is to hrther reduce the overall DoD domestic base structure by a minimum of 15 percent of DoD-wide plant replacement valuev-- a level of reductions that would be approximately equal to the 1988,1991, and 1993 rounds combined. In December, you stated in an interview concerning the 1995 BRAC process that: "We don't have goals as to what the size should be. ... But I think it's reasonable to expect that the 1995 round is going to be approximately comparable in size to the last one." In January, you noted in a speech to the US Conference of Mayors that your BRAC 95 round of base closings "will not be as large as the last one, not because we don't need to close more bases from the point of view of saving infrastructure, but simply because in the previous three BRACs we have closed all of the bases that were relatively easy to close." Mr. Secretary, can you tell us what caused you to alter your original guidance to the Services regarding the closure of 15% of the plant replacement value and how you determined the size of the BRAC list you are presenting to the Commission this morning? 2. General Shalikashvili, in your view when the 1995 BRAC proposal is combined with the closures and realignments of previous rounds, is there an appropriate balance between the general drawdown of forces and base infrastructure? 3. Secretary Perry, the FY 96 Defense budget proposal includes civilian personnel reductions totaling 38,300 in 1996 and 137,500 through 2001 in accordance with your expressed desire to expand the civilian drawdown to match the percentage of active duty reductions. Mr. Secretary, how have these proposed civilian personnel reductions affected the number and specific type of installations on the closure and realignment list? EXCESS CAPACITY 1. Secretarv Perry, you were quoted in the press last month as saying that even after this year's BRAC process is finished, the nation will have more bases than it needs to support the scaled-down military of tomorrow. If the Commission, the President, and the Congress endorsed the list of closures and realignments that you are presenting today, would there still be excess capacity in the Defense Department's basing structure? Would the Services still have more bases than needed in the hture to support the force levels in your force structure plan? 2 . General Shalikashvili, recognizing that our national military strategy remains in a state of transition, are you satisfied that sufficient capacity has been retained to support the potential need for a more robust force structure in the future? 3. Secretarv Perrv, to your knowledge, were any installations removed from the recommendation by either your office or the Service secretaries for other than military value reasons? Were any removed or changed for economic impact or environmental reasons? 4. Secretary Perry, did the Services provide your staff with their approaches for determining excess capacity, and if so, were these approaches adequately documented and reasonable in your opinion? 5. Secretary Perry, in 1993 the Commission realigned a part of the Defense Information Services Agency (DISA) into 16 information processing megacenters. At that time, everyone involved, including DISA, realized that there would be excess capacity within the megacenters. We have heard that DISA actually needs only 5 megacenters. To realign, DISA the Commission would have to change the 1 993 recommendation. What would your views be regarding such a realignment? 6 . Secretary Perry, DFAS is currently slated to consolidate its 300+ offices at the 5 centers it currently operates (Denver, Columbus, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Cleveland). It also has plans to add 21 new sites, many of which will be on installations slated to close as a result of previous BRAC rounds. Please explain why DoD plans to place most of the 2 1 new DFAS offices on bases which are slated to close rather than on bases remaining open which have existing excess capacity? 7. Secretary Perry, about one-third of the 21 new DFAS sites have yet to open. There is a MILCON requirement for nearly $200 million to make improvements to many the sites, particularly among those not yet open. In light of the ongoing consolidation efforts taking part in other parts of DoD, would it be worthwhile to consider further reductions in the number of DFAS sites. COST TO CLOSE 1. Secretarv Perry, the proposed FY96 budget you presented to Congress last month represents a reduction of almost $6 billion, or 5.3 percent in real terms, from the FY95 level, and it includes $785 million to begin implementing the 1995 closures in FY96. Was the size of the 1995 BRAC list that you are presenting today limited by your ability to budget adequate up-front closing costs to carry out these closures beginning in FY96? 2. Secretary Perry, the FYDP proposed by the Administration last month relies on savings from 95 BRAC closures and realignments to round out the defense budget beginning in the late 1990s. How significant would the budget shortfall be if these savings are not realized? 3. Secretarv Perry, there are reports that the cost to close bases and the time required to recover those costs from previous rounds are significantly greater than anticipated. If this is correct, what steps have you directed to ensure that cost estimates are realistic for the 1995 round? 4. Secretary Perry, your report to us uses the results of COBRA analyses to project the anticipated costs and savings that will result from implementing your recommendations. Recognizing that the figures used in the COBRA analyses are not budget quality, how accurate do you believe the projections are? How closely have the figures in the COBRA analyses prepared in 199 1 and 1993 compared to the actual costs for closures? ECONOMIC ISSUES 1. Secretary Perry, was any installation removed fiom or added to a service list primarily because of economic impact, including cumulative economic impact, on a community? 2. Secretarv Perry, in calculating cumulative economic impact, how did DoD differentiate between economic impacts caused by previously announced force structure changes and those that were due to BRAC decisions? 3. Secretary Perry, for BRAC B OSD established cumulative economic impact thresholds that resulted in the removal of at least one installation from the Service recommendations. Were any similar cumulative economic thresholds set for the 1995 round? 4. Secretary Perry, was DoD reluctant to close major industrial, laboratory, or test & evaluation installations because of economic impact? Was any decision taken to downsize, rather than close, as a result of economic impact considerations? JOINT CROSS-SERVICE ISSUES 1. Secretary Perry, please describe for us the process and methodology used in reaching Joint Cross-Service closure or realignment recommendations. 2. General Shalikashvili, in May 1994 the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Owens, recommended to the Deputy Secretary of Defense that several additional functional areas be studied within the BRAC process for potential Cross-Service opportunities. These areas included training, intelligence, facility management, reserve centers, and legal support. Are you satisfied that the BRAC process adequately addressed these concerns? 3. Secretary Perry, how much of an impact did the work of the Joint Cross- Service groups that you set up last year have on the final recommendations that you are presenting here this morning? 4. Secretary Perry, in May 1994 Admiral Owens recommended to the Deputy Secretary of Defense that the Services be required to incorporate the recommendations of the Joint Cross-Service Teams into their base closure recommendations. The Deputy Secretary elected not to require this of the Services. Mr. Secretary, why wasn't the JCS recommendation accepted? 5 . General Shalikashvili, did the Joint Chiefs, the CINCs and the Joint Staff have any role in developing or critiquing the work of the Joint Cross-Service groups? 6. Secretary Perry, in June of 1993 the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff asked the Commission not to address fixed wing aviation depots separately from other interservicing issues. They asked instead for the opportunity to come forward with comprehensive interservicing recommendations in 1995. Are you satisfied, Mr. Secretary, that your recommendations in the area of fixed wing aviation depots represent a comprehensive approach to the problems of interservicing and excess capacity in this area? 7. Secretary Perry, the Air Force has had five major aviation depots since the Vietnam Era. In the 1993 round, the Air Force recommended the closure of one of these five depots, but that depot was removed from the list by OSD. This year with the same selection criteria and a smaller force structure plan there is once again no Air Force depot on the list. Why did you determine that the Air Force continues to need five major depots? 8. ecretary Perry, in 1993 both the General Accounting Office and the Commission were critical of the Defense Department for not making more progress in consolidating common functions across the Services. Your January 1994 guidance to the Services stated: "It is the DoD policy to make maximum use of common support assets. DoD components should, throughout the BRAC 95 analysis process, look for cross-service or intra-service opportunities to share assets and look for opportunities to rely on a single Military Department for support." Mr. Secretary, in your view, do the recommendations you are presenting today represent a significant step forward in terms of consolidating common functions--such as depot maintenance, research labs, and test and evaluation facilities--across the Services? 9. Secretary Perry, what steps were taken to ensure that "apple to apple" cost comparisons were provided by the Services when evaluating Cross-Service closure or realignment recommendations? 10. Secretary Perry, are you satisfied that your interservicing recommendations to the Commission remove most or all of the excess capacity in each of the five Cross-Service study areas? If there are areas where this is not the case, please explain why not. 11. Secretary Perry, are there any Cross-Service areas where you specifically need the Commission's assistance in eliminating the "too tough" excess capacity? FORCE STRUCTURE 1. General Shalikashvili, would you review for this Commission the force structure that was used in developing this year's base closure and realignment recommendations? 2. Secretary Perry, what consideration, if any, was given for preferentially consolidating and realigning smaller bases or fbnctions to those larger bases which were essentially exempt from closing because of their strategic location? 3. General Shalikashvili, are there any functional areas with excess capacity that you recommended not be considered by OSD or the services because changes in the basing structure might preclude hture force structure or roles and missions changes? Are there any areas that the Commission should avoid? 4. General Shalikashvili, are you and the CINCs satisfied that the basing infrastructure that remains provides sufficient mobility and deployment capabilities to support a two Major Regional Conflict scenario with the force structure that has been programmed in the FY96 budget proposal? 5. General Shalikashvili, will the basing infrastructure that is being proposed today be sufficient to support any probable restationing of forward deployed forces, in terms of available land, usable facilities, and necessary training facilities and ranges? 6. General Shalikashvili, has a region by region force projection analysis, such as an analysis of our ability to respond to contingencies in the Caribbean, revealed any significant loss of responsiveness as a result of the 95 BRAC proposal? 7. General Shalikashvili, on July 8, 1994 Deputy Secretary Duetch issued instructions to the Secretary of the Air Force and to you regarding the operation of the runway at MacDill AFB. In those instructions, the Secretary directed the Air Force to continue operating the runway until September 30, 1995 and for you to prepare a report stating once and for all the operational requirements of the Central Command and the Special Operations Command for an operating runway at MacDill AFB. General, would you please tell us the results of your report to Mr. Duetch to include whether the Joint commands actually require an operational runway at MacDill AFB for their direct mission support, and whether you believe it imperative that the runway be operated by the Air Force as opposed to the Department of Commerce as recommended by the 1993 Commission. General, are you comfortable that the Air Force plans for operation of the MacDill AFB airfield will satisfjr your requirements once and for all? 8. Secretary Perry, during the 1993 Commission proceedings, testimony was received from former Ambassador Rowny, among others, that the ICBM field at Grand Forks AFB must be retained because of its proximity to the sole Anti- Ballistic Missile site in the United States. That testimony, and correspondence to the Commission since, indicated that any dismantling or change in operational status of Grand Forks AFB or its missile field would jeopardize, not only the ABM Treaty itself, but also any ongoing negotiations in this matter. Mr. Secretarv, please comment on the concerns we have heard regarding Grand Forks AFB, and advise us of any Department of Defense or Department of State concerns which would preclude the closing or realigning of Grand Forks AFB. Secretary, in a similar regard please comment on the relationship of the existence of Peacekeeper missiles at Francis E. Warren AFB, Wyoming and any actions taken by the 1995 Commission. In other words Mr. Secretary, does the current stance that the Peacekeeper will be retained until 2003 preclude the closure or realignment of Francis E. Warren AFB? GUIDANCE TO THE SERVICES 2. Secretary Perry, in January you directed the Services that any changes to the recommendations of past Commissions must be necessitated by force structure, organization, or mission changes or by significant changes in cost calculations. Were any other criteria used by the Services or OSD to justify proposing changes to the recommendations of past Commissions? 3. Secretary Perry, does the documentation for such changes support clear consideration of the force structure and final selection criteria? 4. Secretary Perry, what instructions, if any, did DoD provide regarding efforts by each of the Services to identify potential uses that they might have for installations proposed for closing by the other Services? MEDICAL ISSUES 1. Secretary Perry, military medical facilities play an important role in terms of both readiness for war and in supporting the force during peacetime. For families of military members, retirees and their families, and survivors, the local military hospital is often of particular importance. Military medical assets are also important from a Department budget point of view, in their ability to reduce CHAMPUS costs. However, the fate of military hospitals is often tied to larger closure and realignment decisions about the installations on which they are located. Mr. Secretary, what guidance did the Department provide to the Services and to the Joint Cross-Service groups to ensure that decisions that impact military hospitals and military beneficiaries are made in consideration of those impacts? 2. Secretary Perry, in 1993 the Commission made specific recommendations to the Department regarding improvements in health care operations and increased cost effectiveness. Mr. Secretary, did you direct your Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs to examine the consolidation of resources across military departments? What was the outcome of that examination? How is that examination reflected in the Departments new list of recommended closures and realignments? 3. Secretary Perry, in developing the current list, did you direct the Services to consider closing military hospitals that are not cost effective, given their patient load and the cost and availability of medical care in their communities? 4. Secretary Perry, did you direct the Services to move medical assets, including moving them across Service lines, in order to increase the capability and usage of military medical facilities? 5 . Secretary Perry, during the development of the current list, did you direct the Services to review their policy of closing military hospitals when bases served by those hospitals are closed? What was the result of that review? Have you ensured that the most cost effective means of delivering care to all beneficiaries are maintained, irrespective of other base closure actions? ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTIRESTORATION ISSUES 1. Secretary Perry, according to your policy guidance, "environmental restoration costs at closing bases are not to be considered in cost of closure calculations." Your policy further states that "unique contamination problems requiring environmental restoration will be considered as a potential limitation on near-term community reuse." Were any installations notrecommended for closure or realignment to the Commission due to unique contamination problems? If so, please elaborate. 2. Secretary Perry, how many installations recommended for closure in this or prior rounds are expected to have substantial portions of land placed into caretaker status due to unique contamination problems? 3. Secretary Perry, did the overall cost of environmental restoration at closure bases, which is a budget factor in closing bases even though it is not a decision factor, limit the size of the list presented to the Commission? 4. Secretary Perry, were any installations eliminated from closure consideration because of the high cost of environmental cleanup? 5 . Secretary Perry, in the 1993 round, at least one community pointed out that due to expected technological advances in environmental restoration, there can be significant differences in the cost of cleaning up an installation in use as opposed to one directed for closure. Specifically, McClellan AFB 1993 certified data showed the expected cleanup costs as a closure would be between three and ten billion dollars compared to one billion dollars if cleaned up in a routine schedule. Mr. Secretary, do you believe the difference between the routine and BRAC related cleanup costs, if factual, should be considered in cost of closure calculations? 6. Secretary Peny, could you describe any efforts by the Defense Department or EPA to establish variable levels of environmental cleanup that are tied to specific plans for reuse? PREVIOUS AND FUTURE BASE CLOSURES AND REALIGNMENTS 1. Secretary Perry, in October 1994 Business Executives for National Security (BENS) issued a report ,"Uncovering the Shell Game," which criticized the Department's record in actually closing military facilities. "60 Minutes" featured the report later in the year. The essence of the report and the "60 Minutes" characterization was that "of the 67 bases the President, Congress and the Pentagon have agreed to shut down thus far, over one-third never closed or have quietly reopened under a new name or function." Our own analysis of that report is that of the 26 bases noted in the report as being "reopened," 14 were operating reasonably close to the recommendations of the Commission, in that those facilities were shown to retain some remaining cantonment areas. As you know, Mr. Secretary, we plan on offering recommendations to the President concerning reuse and future closure actions. Reports such as the BENS report detract from general support for the closure process. Mr. Secretary, please comment on the validity of the BENS report to include not only the proper characterization and execution of the Commission recommendations, but also the establishment of Defense Finance and Accounting Service Centers at previously closed or realigned military installations. 2. Secretarv Perrv, as you know this is the final round of expedited base closures and realignments authorized under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990. Once this round is completed, the Defense Department will go back to operating under the section of Title 10, United States Code, that required DoD to conduct extensive budgetary, strategic, economic, and environmental studies of a potential closure affecting more than 300 civilians, or a realignment affecting more than 50 percent of an installation's civilian workforce, before proposing such a closure or realignment. I think we can all agree that it is almost impossible to close or realign a military base under this authority. This commission plans to make recommendations on a process for closing or realigning military bases in the future, after this 1995 round is completed. Mr. Secretary, do you have any suggestions in this area for us to consider? JOINT CROSS-SERVICE GROUPS Mr. Perry, I understand that the Department's Joint Cross-Service Groups' alternatives to the Service Secretaries were neither sound nor objective because the groups contained officers who protected their Service's parochial interests. For example, the groups responsible to your office for determining alternatives for closing and relining Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation facilities reported to the Service Secretaries vice your office and used different standards to determine requirements and capacities; even though some of the facilities perform all of the functions. While both groups based their evaluations on functions, the research and development laboratory facilities group used direct labor hours vice the test and evaluation facilities group which used test hours. Moreover, the teams contained service members closely associated with the RDT&E facilities and they unduly influenced the outcome of their evaluations to protect the status quo. As a result, your recommendations to the Commission this morning do not contain those necessary to achieve your minimum goal of a 15 percent reduction in the overall DoD-wide plant based on replacement value. Therefore, the excess facilities, related equipment and capacity costing billions of dollars annually will remain even if all of your recommendations are fully implemented. Why didn't your office provide the oversight necessary to ensure that the Joint Cross- Service Groups provided sound and objective alternatives to the Service Secretaries? Why didn't you require the Services to make the recommendation to you to achieve your 15 percent minimum reduction goal in excess plant? Document Separator Document Separator o f the 9Bnited states of Brnerica AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesduy, the twenty-fifih day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four TO revise and improve the process for disposing of buildings and property at military installations under the base closure laws. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may cited as the "Base Closure Community Redevelop- ment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994". SEC. 2. DISPOSAL OF BUILDINGS AND PROPERTY AT m A R Y XNSTALLATIONS APPROVED FOR CLOSURE. (a) IN G E N E R A L . ~ ~ C ~ ~ O ~ 2905(b) of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) is amended- (1) by redesignating paragraph (7) as aragraph (8); and P (2) by inserting after paragraph (6 ) the ollowing new para- graph (7): ''(7)(A) Determinations of the use to assist the homeless of buildings and property located a t installations approved for closure under this part after the date of the enactment of this paragraph shall be determined under this paragraph rather than paragraph (6). "(B)(i) Not later than the date on which the Secretary of Defense completes the final determinations referred to in paragra h ( 5 ) relatin to the use or transferability of any portion of an inst&ation f covere by this paragraph, the Secretary shall- "(I) identify the buildings and property a t the installation for which the Deyartmsnt of Defense has a use, for which another department or agency of the Federal Government has identified a use, or of which another department or agency will accept a transfer, "(11) take such actions as are necessary to identify any building or property a t the installation not identified under subclause (I) that is excess property or surplus property; "(111) submit to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Devel- opment and to the redevelopment authority for the installation (or the chief executive oficer of the State in which the installa- tion is located if there is no redevelopment authority for the installation a t the completion of the determination described in the stem of this sentence) information on any building or property that is identified under subclause (XI); and u'"3J ublish in the Federal Register and in a newspaper of gener circulation in the communities in the vicinity of the installation information on the buildings and property identified under subclause (11). "(ii) Upon the recognition of a redevelopment authority for an installation covered by this paragraph, the Secrekry of Defense shall publish in the Federal Register and in a newspaper of general . circulation in the communities in the vicinity of the installation information on the redevelo ment authority. . - "(C)(i) State and loc3 governments, re resentatives of the l homeless, and other interested parties locate in the communities in the vicinity of an installation covered by this paragraph shall submit to the redevelopment authority for the installation a notice of the interest, if any, of such governments, representatives, and parties in the buildings or property, or any portion thereof, a t the installation that are identified under sub ara aph (B)(i)(II). A notice of interest under this clause shall cfr escn e the need of the government, representative, or party concerned for the buildings or property covered by the notice. "(ii) The redevelopment authority for an installation shall assist the governments, representatives, and parties referred to in clause (i) in evaluating buildings and property a t the installation for purposes of this subparagraph. "(iii) In providing assistance under clause (ii), a redevelopment authority shall- "(1) consult with representatives of the homeless in the comm-ties in the vicixiity of the installation concerned; and "(11) undertake outreach efforts to provide information on the buildings and property to representatives of the homeless, and to other persons or entities interested in assisting the homeless, in such communities. "(iv) It is the sense of Congress that redevelo ment authorities should begin to conduct outreach efforts under c P ause (iii)(II) with respect to an installation as soon as is practicable after the date of approval of closure of the installation. "(D)(i) State and local governments, representatives of the homeless, and other interested parties shall submit a notice of interest to a redevelopment authority under subparagraph (C) not later than the date specified for such notice by the redevelopment authority. "(ii) The date specified under clause (i) shall be- "(I) in the case of an installation for which a redevelopment authority has been recognized as of the date of the completion of the determinations referred to in paragraph (51, not earlier than 3 months and not later than 6 months after that date: and "(11) in the case of an installation for which a redevelopment authority is not recognized as of such date, not earlier than 3 months and not later than 6 months after the date of the recognition of a redevelopment authority for the installation. "(iii) Upon specifying a date for an installation under this sub aragraph, the redevelopment authority for the installation e sha - "(I) publish the date specified in a newspa er of general R circulation in the communities in the vicinity o f t e installation --concerned; and "(11) notif' the Secretam of Defense of the date. " ( ~ ) ( i ) in sibmitting to a redevelopment authority under subparagraph (C) a notice of interest in the use of buildings or 'w property at an installation to assist the homeless, a representative of the homeless shall submit the following: "(I) A description of the homeless assistance program that the representative proposes to carry out a t the installation. "(11) An assessment of the need for the program. "(111) A description of the extent to which the program is or will be coordinated with other homeless assistance pro- - grams in the communities in the vicinity of the installation. "(n3 A description of the buildings and property at the installation that are necessary in order to carry out the pro- gr-. "(V) A description of the financial plan, the organization, and the organizational capacity of the .representative to cany out the program. "(VI) An assessment of the time required in order to com- mence carrying out the program. "(ii) A redevelo ment authority may not release to the public any information su E mitted to the redevelopment authority under clause (iXV) without the consent of the representative of the home- less concerned unless such release is authorized under Federal law and under the law of the State and communities in which the installation concerned is located. "(F)(i) The redevelopment authority for each installation cov- ered by this paragraph shall prepare a redevelo ment plan for aY the installation. The redevelopment authority sh 1, in preparing i the plan, consider the interests in the use to assist the homeless of the buildings and property at the installation that are expressed w in the notices submitted to the redevelopment authority under subparagraph (C). "(ii)(I) In connection with a redevelopment plan for an installa- tion, a redevelopment authority and representatives of the homeless shall prepare legally binding agreements that provide for the use to assist the homeless of buildings and property, resources, and assistance on or off the installation. The implementation of such agreements shall be contingent upon the approval of the redevelop- ment plan by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under subparagraph (HI or (J). "(11) Agreements under this clause shall provide for the rever- sion to the redevelopment authority concerned, or to such other entity or entities as the agreements shall provide, of buildings and property that are made available under this aragraph for use to assist the homeless in the event that such uildings and property cease being used for that purpose. i "(iii) A redevelopment authority shall provide opportunity for public comment on a redevelo ment plan before submission of the plan to the Secretary of De ? ense and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under subparagraph (GI. "(iv) A redevelopment authority shall corn lete preparation of a redevelopment plan for an installation and su f~ mit the plan under subparagraph (G) not later than 9 months after the date spedied by the redevelopment authority for the installation under subpara- graph (Dl. "(G)(i) Upon completion of a redevelo ment lan under subpara- 1 R E graph (F), a redevelopment authority s all su mit an application containing the plan to the Secretary of Defense and to the Secretary a of Housing and Urban Development. f - ., .- . .- A S. 253- \: m' "(ii) A redevelopment authority shall include in an application under clause (i) the following: "(I) A copy of the redevelopment plan, including a summary of any public comments on the plan received by the redevelop- ment authority under subparagraph (F)(iii). "(11) A copy of each notice of interest of use of buildings and property to assist the homeless that was submitted to the redevelopment authority under subparagraph (C), together with a description of the manner, if any, in which the plan addresses the interest expressed in each such notice and, if the plan does not address such an interest, an explanation why the plan does not address the interest. "(111) A summary of the outreach undertaken by the redevelopment _ authority under subparagraph (C)(iii)(II) in preparing the plan. "(TV) A statement identifying the representatives of the homeless and the homeless assistance plaiLning boards, if any, with which the redevelopment authority consulted in preparing the plan, and the results of such consultations. "(V) An assessment of the manner in which the redevelop- ment plan balances the expressed needs of the homeless and the need of the communities in the vicinity of the installation for economic redevelopment and other development. "(W) Copies of the agreements that the redevelopment authorit proposes to enter into under subparagraph (F)(ii). "(H)(i) &t later than 60 days after receiving a redevelopment Ian under sub aragraph (GI, the Secretary of Housin and Urban R I beveloprnent s all complete a review of the plan. he purpose of the review is to determine whether the plan, with respect to the expressed interest and requests' of representatives of the , homeless- "(I) takes into consideration the size and nature of the , homeless population in the communities in the vicinity of the installation, the availability of existin services in such commu- f nities to meet the needs of the home ess in such communities, and the suitability of the buildings and roperty covered by the plan for the use and needs of the home ess in such commu- nities; P "(11) takes into consideration any economic impact of the homeless assistance under the plan on the communities in the vicini of the installation; "(111) 'i: alances in an appro riate manner the needs of the P communities in the vicinity o the installation for economic redevelopment and other development with the needs of the homeless in such communities; "(N) was developed in consultation with representatives of the homeless and the homeless assistance planning boards, if any, in the communities in the vicinity of the installation; and "0 specifies the manner in which buildings and property, resources, and assistance on or off the installation will be made available for homeless assistance p "(ii) I t is the sense of Congress that the 'Tones e c r e k of Housing and Urban Development shall, in completing the review of a plan under this subparagraph, take into consideration and be receptive to the predominant views on the plan of the communities in the vicinity of the installation covered by the plan. "(iii) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may engage in negotiations and consultations with a redevelopment authority before or during the course of a review under clause (i) with a view toward resolving any preliminary determination of the Secretary that a redevelopment plan does not meet a require- ment set forth in that clause. The redevelopment authority may modify the redevelopment plan as a result of such negotiations - and consultations. "(iv) Upon completion of a review of a redevelopment plan under clause (i), the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall notify the Secretary of Defense and the redevelopment author- ity concerned of the determination of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under that clause.. "(v) If the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development deter- mines as a result of such a renew that a redevelopment plan does not meet the requirements set forth in clause (i), a notice under clause (iv) shall include- "(I) an explanation of that dehrmination; and "(11) a statement of the actions that the redevelopment authority must undertake in order to address that determina- - tion. "(I)(i) Upon receipt of a , notice under subparagraph (H)(iv) of a determination that a redevelo ment plan does not meet a require- shall have the opportunity to- 1 ment set forth in subparagrap (HXi), a redevelopment authority "(I) revise the plan in order to address the determination; and "(11) submit the revised plan to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. "(ii) A redevelopment authority shall submit a revised plan under this subparagraph to the Secretary of Housing and Urban , Development, if a t all, not later than 90 da s after the date on which the redevelopment authority receives t e notice refened to in clause (i). K "(J)(i) Not later than 30 days after receiving a revised redevelop- ment plan under subparagraph (I), the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall review the revised plan and determine if the plan meets the requirements set forth in subparagraph (HXi). "(ii) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall notify the Secretary of Defense and the redevelopment authority concerned of the determination of the Secretary of Housing and use to assist the plan. The Secret of Defense may dis ose of such buildings Y fl or property directly to t e representatives of t e homeless concerned . or to the redevelopment authority concerned. The Secretary of Defense shall dispose of the buildings and property under thie subparagra h without consideration. "(LXi) ff the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development determines under subparagraph (J) that a revised redevelopment plan for an installation does not meet the requirements set forth in subparagraph (H)(i), or if no revised plan is so submitted, that Secret& shall- "(I) review the original redevelopment plan submitted to that Secretary under subparagraph (G), including the notice or notices of representatives of the homeless referred to in clause (iiXII) of that subparagraph; "(11) consult with the representatives referred to in subclause (I), if any, for purposes of evaluating the continuing interest of such representatives in the use of buildings or prop- erty a t the installation to assist the homeless; "(111) request that each such representative submit ta that Secretary the items described in clause (ii); and "(IV) based on the actions of that Secretary under subclauses (I) and (11). and on an information obtained by 2: that Secretary as a result of suc actions, indicate to the Secretary of Defense the buildings and property a t the installa- tion that meet the requirements set forth in subparagraph (H)(i). "(ii) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may request under clause (iHIII) that a representative of the homeless submit to that Secretary the following: "(I) A description of the program of such representative to assist the homeless. "(11) A description of the manner in which the buildings and property that the representative proposes to use for such purpose will assist the homeless. "(111) Such information as that Secretary requires in order to determine the financial capacity of the representative to carry out the program and to ensure that the program will , be carried out in compliance with Federal environmental law and Federal law against discrimination. "(W A certification that police services, fire protectiori services, and water and sewer services available in the commu- nities in the vicinit~ of the installation concerned are adequate for the pro am. - "(iii) The B ecretarv of Housing and Urban Development shall indicate- to the Secrebry of Defense and to the redevelo ment authority concerned the buildings and property a t an insda t ion under clause ( i ) (M to be disposed of not later than 90 days after the date of a receipt of a revised plan for the installation under subparagraph (J). - "(iv) The Secretary of Defense shall dispose of the buildings and property a t an installation referred to in clause (iii) to entities indicated by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development or by transfer to the redevelopment authority concerned for transfer to such entities. Such disposal shall be in accordance with the indications of the Secretary of Housin and Urban Development aif under clause (i)(N). Such disposal sh be without consideration. "(M)(i) In the event of the disposal of buildings and property of an installation pursuant to subpara a h (K), the redevelopment authority for the installation sh 8 %e responsible for the im lementation of and compliance with agreements under the re I evelopment plan described in that subparagraph for the installa- tion. "(ii) If a building or property reverts to a redevelopment author- ity under such an agreement, the redevelopment authority shall take appropriate actions to secure, to the maximum extent prac- ticable, the utilization of the building or property by other homeless representatives to assist the homeless. A redevelopment authority may not be required to utilize the building or property to assist the homeless. "(N) The Secretary of Defense may postpone or extend any peI+,,m.r fok & j i I ; . r * determinations in consultation with the redevelo ment authority l concerned and, in the case of deadlines provide for under this para aph with respect to the Secre of Housing and Urban P Urban Development. Yi! Deve opment, in consultation with the ecretary of Housing and "(0) For pu oses of this paragraph, the term 'communities in the vicinity o I? the installation', in the case of an installation, means the communities that constitute the political jurisdictions (other than the State in which the installation is located) that comprise the redevelo ment authority for the installation.". (b) ~ E F m o N . J e c t i o n 2910 of such Act is amended by adding a t the end the following: "(10) The term 'representative of the homeless' has the meaning given such term in section 501(hX4) of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411(h)(4)).". (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO 1990 BASE CLOSURE ACT.- Section 2905(b)(6)(A) of such Act is amended b adding at the h end the following: "For procedures relating to t e use to assist the homeless of buildings and roperty a t installations closed under !l this part after the date of t e enactment of this sentence, see paragraph (7).*. (d) CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO MCKINNEY A~~.-Sect ion 501 of the Stewart B. McKinnev Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411) is amended- - (1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i); and (2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following new sub- section (h): "(h) APPLICABILITY TO PROPERTY UNDER BASE CLOSURE PROG EsS.---(I) The provisions of this section shall not apply to buildings and pro erty a t military installations that are approved for closure !, under t e Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXlX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) after the date of the enactment of this subsection. "(2) For provisions relating to the use to assist the homeless of buildin s and property located a t certain military installations B approved or closure under such Act, or under title 11 of the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Reali ent Act 'Y (Public Law 100-526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note), before suc date, see section 2(e) of Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Home- less Assistance Act of 1994.". (e) APPLICABILITY TO INSTALLATIONS APPROVED FOR CLOSURE BEFORE ENACTMENT OF ACT.-~~)(A) Notwithstandin any provision T of the 1988 base closure Act or the 1990 base c osure Act, as such provision was in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, and subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), the use to assist the homeless of building and property a t military installations approved for closure under the 1988 base closure Act or the 1990 base closure Act, as the case may be, before such date shall be determined in accordance ui th the provisions of para- graph (7) of section 2905(b) of the 1990 base closure Act, as amended by subsection (a), in lieu of the provisions of the 1988 base closure Act or the 1990 base closure Act that would otherwise apply to the installations. kdp&dw k (B)(i) The provisions of such paragraph (7) shall apply to an up# 1; u r h AM ybacr . instaltion- e reae m m authonty tor tne Installabon subrmts y r than tiu days a t e r the aate ot the enactment ol Lms Act. (u} in the case 3 an installation for which no redevelopment authority exists on the date of the enactment of this Act, the chief executive officer of the State in which the installation is located shall submit the request referred to in clause (i) and act as the redevelopment authority for the installation. (C) The provisions of such para aph (7) shall not apply to taf any buildings or property a t an ins ation referred to in subpara- graph (A) for which the redevelopment authority submits a request referred to in subparagraph (B) within the time specified in such subparagraph (B) if the buildings or property, as the case may be, have been transferred or leased for use to assist the homeless under the 1988 base closure Act or the 1990 base closure Act, as the case may be, before the date of the enactment of this ' Act. (2) For purposes of the application of such paragraph (7) to the buildings and property a t an installation, the date on which the Secretary receives a request with respect to the installation under paragraph (I) shall be treated as the date on which the ' Secretary of Defense completes the f ind determination referred to in subparagraph (B) of such paragraph (7). (3) Upon receipt under paragraph (l)(B) of a timely request with respect to an installation, the Secretary of Defense shall pub- lish in the Federal Register and in a newspaper of general circula- tion in the communities in the vicinity of the installation informa- tion describing the redevelopment authority for the installation. (4)(A) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not, during the 60-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, carry out with respect to any military installation approved for closure under the 1988 base closure Act or the 1990 base closure Act before such date any action required of such Secretaries under the 1988 base closure Act or the 1990 base closure Act, as the case may be, or under section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411). (B)(i) Upon receipt under para aph (MA) of a timely request with respect to an installation, the !? ecretary of Defense shall notify the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the disposal of buildings and property a t the installation shall be determined under such para- graph (7) in accordance with this subsection. (ii) Upon receipt of a notice with respect to an installation under this subparagraph, the requirements, if any, of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to the installation under the provisions of law referred to in subparagraph (A) shall terminate. * - . <. *: S. 2534--9 111 (iii) Upon receipt of a notice with respect to an installation under this subparagraph, the Secretary of Health and Human Serv- ices shall notify each representative of the homeless that submitted to that Secretary an application to use buildings or property a t the installation to assist the homeless under the 1988 base closure , Act or the 1990 base closure Act, as the case may be, that the use of bllildin s and property at the installation to assist the 5 . homeless shall e determined under such paragraph (7) in accord- ance with this subsection. (5)(A) In preparing a redevelopment plan for buildings and property a t an installation covered by such paragraph (7) by reason of this subsection, the redevelopment authority concerned shall- (A) consider and address specifically any applications for use of such buildings and property to assist the homeless that were received by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the 1988 base closure Act or the 1990 base closure Act, as the case may be, before the date of the enactment of this Act and are pending with that Secretary on that date; and (B) in the case of any application by representatives of the homeless that was approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services before the date of enactment of this Act, ensure that the plan adequately addresses the needs of the homeless identified in the application by providing such rep- resentatives of the homeless with- (i) pro erties, on or off the installation, that are substanti a 3 y equivalent to the properties covered by the application; (ii) sufficient funding to secure such substantially ' equivalent properties; (iii) services and activities that meet the needs identi- fied in the application; or (iv) a combination of the properties, funding, and serv- ices and activities described in clause (i), (ii), and (iii). (6) In the case of an installation to which the provisions of such paragra h (7) apply by reason of this subsection, the date specified by tEe redevelopment authority for the installation under subparagraph (D) of such paragraph (7) shall be not less than 1 month and not more than 6 months after the date of the submittal of the request with respect to the installation under paragraph (l)(B). (7) For purposes of this subsection: (A) The term "1988 base closure Actw means title I1 of the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note). (B) The term "1990 base closure Act" means the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note). (0 CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS TO BASE CLOSURE ACTS.---(I) Sec- tion 204(b)(6)(F)(i) of the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure Act and Reali ent Act (Public Law 100-526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) is amen r==' ed by inserting "and buildings and property referred to in subparagraph (B)(ii) which have not been identified as suitable for use to assist the homeless under subpara- graph (0," after "subparagraph (Dl,". (2) Section 2905(b)(6)(F)(i) of the Defense Base Closure and QI Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXM of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) is amended by inserting "and build- ings and property referred to in subparagraph (B)(ii) which have not been identified as suitable for use to assist the homeless under subparagraph (C)," after "subparagraph (D),". Speaker of the House of Representatives. Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate. I l I \APr All1 FORCE TEAM ASSIGMENTS - - . - - - February 2 1, 1995 PescriDtion: The intent of this chart is to display tlle Air Force Tcani nie~ilbers pecific and general assignments. The chart shows the Primary and Secondary Base Categories, Primary and Secondary Specialties, Multi-Tea111 Coortlinating areas, and Current Work ask. Obviously there will be flexibility in assignments as well as shifts at certain stages in the process to include presentation of t l~e I>oll Report and Adds I learing. fc NAME\TASK CIRlLLO ACKERMAN UEYER CANTWELL DlCAMlLLO I1ALL OLSON T'ROSS Primary Category Exclusions Redirects Small A/C Large A/C (B) Large A/C (A,T) Air Reserve Conlp. Missiles Undergraduate P 'r Secondary Category (JI''1. Missiles Air Reserve Comp LabslTgiE Depots Small A/C Primary Specialty E~ivironmental Ilata Base Capacity Analysis COBRA Infrastructure I~conomic Strat Planning I ,inear Prognilg Secondary Specialty Data Base GIs Capacity Analysis Reserve Forces "Dean" Econonlics Multi-Team Coordination I-Team N-Team I-Team A-Team X-Team X-Team N-Team Current Work Task (CWT) 1 Mar SECDEF Qs Read BkJFiles Obtain Data List (AF) R&M Commission Base Fact Sheets (AF) AF Hear Qs AF Hear Qs 1 Mar SECDEF Qs GTBM 1 {ear Qs C W T Suspencc 17~/23F 22 Feb 3 March 27 Feb 22 Feb 24F12M 24 F/2M 17~1231: 15~/22F crtoss SF:RVICE TEAM ASSIGMENTS February 22, 1995 CWT Suspense Multi-Team Coordination Current Work Task (CWT) -- Secondary Category - -- Primary Specialty NAME\TASK O W ~ L ~ \ J f%f-hr~ d i d - f ~ c c c ~ 1 *t/c\C* KcfpN - - -. - - - Sect ,~ ,~! .~ I y Sprci; t l~~ - - Primary Category Document Separator March 2 1 1995 To: Commissioners David Lyles Charlie Smith Madeline Creedon +3?&emm 8 F , RRO;;~,~ From: ironmental Analyst Through: Bob Cook, Interagency Team Leader I~,*'~ 3 /d 1 RE: Air Quality Issues Affecting BRAC 95 Recommendations Attached is a draft point paper on air quality issues which may assist Commission members and staff in considering the air quality consequences of proposed BRAC actions. Please note that the paper is in draft and is distributed for the use of Commission members and staff only. If you need additional information regarding air quality issues, please contact me at extension 164. Attachment DRAFT CLEAN AIR AND THE 1995 BRAC: CONCEPTS AND ISSUES INTRODUCTION Closure, realignment, and redirect actions which the Department of Defense proposes for the 1995 BRAC will affect the air quality of several local communities. The Clean Air Act's 1990 Amendments produced new air regulations and concepts, and BRAC actions must comply with these regulations. Air quality concerns will be most significant for bases located in non-attainment areas which will receive activities as a result of major redirects or realignments. Many such bases will have to perform a conformity determination, and may need to obtain emissions reductions credits in order to demonstrate conformity with the Clean Air Act. This memo defines these and other key air terms and issues, and may assist Commission members and staff in considering the air quality consequences of proposed BRAC actions. POTENTIAL IMPACT ON BRAC Significant time and expense needed to quantify and estimate emissions and write conformity determination. A base's draft conformity determination could be challenged by the community or the local air district. If a conformity determination is litigated, reassignment and move schedules could be delayed. It may not be possible to make a conformity determination for various reasons (air credits might not be available to obtain, it may not be possible to modify the SIP, etc.) If a conformity determination cannot be attained, the military redirect cannot proceed unless the redirect is downsized or the action is legislatively excluded. Potential competition between military and community over air credits in areas where one BRAC installation closes and another one receives activities. AIR QUALITY TERMS Attainment area: A geographic area in which levels of a criteria air pollutant meet the health- based primary standard (national ambient air quality standard, or NAAQs) for the pollutant. An area may have an acceptable level for one criteria air pollutant, but may have unacceptable levels for others. Thus, an area could be both attainment and nonattainrnent at the same time. Attainment areas are defined using the NAAQs set by EPA. Non-Attainment area: A geographic area in which levels of a criteria air pollutant does not meet the health-based primary standard. DRAFT/ page 2 Maintenance area: An area formerly in nonattainment which has met attainment standards, but which needs to maintain these standards for an established number of years to be reclassified as an attainment area. Criteria Air Pollutants: Common air pollutants (such as carbon monoxide, ozone) regulated by EPA on the basis of criteria (information on health andlor environmental effects of pollution). State Implementation Plan (SIP): Each state submits to EPA a plan (SIP) designed to attain and maintain national air quality standards according to an established schedule. A SIP consists of a detailed description of the programs a state will use to carry out its responsibilities under the Clean Air Act and a demonstration (using air quality modeling) that the SIP will provide for attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards by the Clean Air Act attainment date. Conformity: The Clean Air Act prohibits a federal agency from supporting an action unless the responsible federal agency determines that the action conforms to the applicable air quality implementation plan for the area. Examples of actions supported by the federal government might include airport expansion activities, federal construction projects, and review and approval of dredging permits. Conformity to an applicable SIP means that the federal actions: will not cause or contribute to new violations of any federal ambient air quality standards; will not increase the frequency or severity of any existing violations of federal ambient air quality standards; and will not delay the timely attainment of federal ambient air quality standards. A conformity determination is required when the total of direct and indirect emissions caused by a federal action for any given year of a project in a nonattainment or maintenance area exceed specified low-level annual thresholds for the criteria pollutants. Offset: A method used in the Clean Air Act to give companies which own or operate major sources in non-attainment areas flexibility in meeting overall pollution reduction requirements when changing production processes. If the owner or operator of the source wishes to increase release of a criteria air pollutant, an offset (a reduction of a somewhat greater amount of the same pollutant) must be obtained either at the same plant or by purchasing offsets from another company in the same nonattainment area.. Emission Reduction Credit (ERC): A type of offset which enables the military (or other federal agency) to quantify the direct and indirect emissions associated with the proposed federal action as a means of making a conformity determination. Local districts can establish banking programs as part of their State Implementation Plans to store qualified emission reduction credits (ERCs) for later use in offset trades. These reductions must be real, permanent, quantifiable, surplus, and enforceable in order to be banked. Air districts can credit only those reduction that go beyond reductions already required in a rule or regulation. Banking programs usually require that the source apply for the emission reduction credit within a certain time from the date of curtailment or shutdown. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR BASES RECEIVING ACTIVITIES IN BRAC 95: A receiving base is in a non-attainment area and the military needs to demonstrate that new activities can conform to the SIP. How can conformity be demonstrated? The military can show conformity one of five ways: 1) the total of indirect and direct emissions of the action have specifically been identified in the applicable SIP. 2) Complete emission offsets for certain specified pollutants are obtained for all direct and indirect emissions associated with the proposed military redirect. 3) The action meets the areawide or local modeling criteria set forth in the rule for certain pollutants, and modeling demonstrates that the action will not cause additional violations of air quality standards. 4) Where there is no post-1990 EPA-approved SIP for a particular area, the determination is made that the action will not cause a net increase in total emissions compared the appropriate baseline year. 5) The State agrees to revise its SIP to accommodate the action's emissions. The State can agree only if it demonstrates that all other SIP requirements are being implemented, it determines that the military redirect has pursued all reasonable mitigation measures, and the military has completed all the air quality analysis needed for a conformity determination. Thereafter, the State is held accountable to rewrite its SIP for federal approval. Is a conformity determination required to be made for a closing base? A closure decision does not require conformity analysis. Disposal of property on a closing base could require it, however, because the military and reuse groups may each seek offsets or air credits which the closure would make available for new uses. How can a receiving base obtain oflsets or emission reduction credits in order to make a conformity determination? The military has various options for obtaining offsets: 1) Gain offsets from within the base by reducing other emission-generating functions; 2) Obtain offsets or credits from a BRAC 95 closing or realigning base in the same air district; 3) Obtain offsets or credits from prior BRAC realignment or closure in the same air district if it can be determined that these credits are still available; 4) Obtain credits from a market for emissions credits, if such a market exists in the air district. Bear in mind that the receiving base may be openly competing with reuse or community interests for offsets or credits in options 2 and 3. Air Issues Impacting Closing, Realigning, and Receiving Bases: Monetary Constraints: If air credits or planning offsets are not available for installations which will receive activities, the military may need to purchase ERCs in the open market. These credits may not be readily available and may be extremely expensive. Application fees are also part of the transaction costs. The process of applying for air credits can be costly in quantifying emissions, paying application fees, and performing conformity analysis. Prior DoD experience indicates that the cost for a major redirect or realignment ranges from $60,000 to $100,000. Although air credits or offsets from a closing base in a nonattainment areas are valuable, a base commander may be reluctant to spend money from the base's own BRAC cleanup funds to secure air credits which will benefit new activities in the community or other military bases in the area, but won't benefit the base itself. Time Constraints: Completing a conformity determination and the environmental impact statement often required when a base receives new military activities can require a year or more. The determination must be complete before the new military activities commence. Quantifying Emissions: Emissions can be difficult to quantify. A base may not have maintained the necessary data that could be used to quantify emissions. Operations may have slowed down from previous levels so that it is difficult to accurately measure true emission levels, further constraining closing bases from applying for emissions. Air districts may have short timelines for applying for credits (for example, 90 days is the limit in California's South Coast district). Competing demands for credits or planning offsets: Military installations that are remaining open or expanding in their local air basin may need credits or planning offsets for conformity determinations or for new source permits. The military may seek to apply credits or offsets from closing or realigning installations in the same air district to the receiving base, thereby demonstrating conformity for their expanding mission. Meanwhile, reuse groups for the closing installation may be interested in obtaining air credits or planning offsets to win approval from other federal agencies (e.g,, the Federal Aviation Administration) for proposed projects, or as a means of attracting business and revitalizing economic activity at closing bases. Document Separator

1995 BRAC Commission

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNT Digital Library