Navy’s $319-Million Headache: Mislaid Parts

In the article (Oct. 4), “Navy Mislaid $319 Million in Parts,” Navy officials expressed hope of reducing their inventory problems to less than $75 million.

This comment was made with such glibness that it was the dead giveaway to the major fiscal problem existing in the Navy today, namely the mind-set that they are dealing with “play money,” i.e., taxpayer dollars not their own.

Next the article mentions how an audit showed that the Navy had almost $169 million worth of parts it didn’t know it had while at the same time it had almost $151 million worth of parts it couldn’t find.

Did I read that right? The Navy is telling us it has millions of dollars worth of lost parts and millions of dollars worth of new found parts.

I wonder in how many instances they were talking about the same parts?

I can imagine a scenario where somebody opens a hatch below decks and suddenly there is $10 million worth of jet engine parts. And somebody else a day or two earlier just as suddenly lost those same jet engine parts.

Next Navy Secretary John Lehman provided us with a story about sailors rooting through boxes down below, madly dashing topside with the part, then attempting to straighten up the mess of overturned boxes and hope it was all done correctly.

This is not a supply problem, Secretary Lehman. Any sailor will recognize this as crisis management. And only a commanding officer has the authority to redirect this frenzied form of management into a more productive one. If he doesn’t, no amount of computers or trained personnel will help.

The article ends by mentioning what the Navy says are the root causes of its supply problems, mismanagement, lack of personnel and shipboard life.

So what’s new? These have been the causes of the Navy’s problems for ages. And what’s worse is they will continue unless some radical steps are taken.

The biggest villain here is the budget system the Navy operates under, called the zero-based-budget.

This budget forces departments to expand their allotment before the next quarter begins lest they be penalized by a budget reduction. There is no incentive to spend wisely, just to spend.

The most revolutionary step the Navy could take to reduce its fiscal problems is to tie fiscal management directly into the enlisted and officer performance and fitness reporting system.

This would place the responsibility for departmental expenses exactly where they belong, in the hands of the person in charge.

Middle- and upper-level managers would now be held accountable and there would be incentives to really cut costs and end the quarter below budget.

The Navy will not anytime soon change the budget system and I really don’t expect to see changes in the officer fitness report system.

However, the ironic bottom line to all this is that if the Navy were to implement these or similar changes it may be surprised to find many supply problems disappearing. And who knows, perhaps somewhere in those millions of dollars of lost items there rests some up-to-date computers.

BRUCE G. BAILEY

Anaheim