GovernmentExecutive.com

The Navy is recommending closing the nation's oldest shipyard because it has fewer submarines to overhaul, and the service can save more than $1 billion by consolidating the work at its three remaining shipyards, senior Navy officials said.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vern Clark told the Base Realignment and Closure Commission on Tuesday that the Navy has too much capacity in its four shipyards. He says the service decided to recommend closing its Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, because its nuclear submarine fleet has fallen from about a hundred a decade ago to about 50 today.

The Portsmouth shipyard primarily repairs nuclear attack submarines.

Last week, the Pentagon recommended closing 33 major bases and realigning scores of others in its first attempt in a decade to downsize and reposition military installations across the United States. The recommendations are being reviewed by an independent nine-member BRAC panel that must deliver a final list to the president by Sept. 8. If the president approves those suggestions, Congress has 45 days to accept or reject them in their entirety.

About 84,000 civilian jobs would move if the Pentagon's recommendations are approved. The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, on an island opposite Portsmouth, N.H., would stand to lose the most civilian jobs of any single installation--4,032, though some of them may be shifted to other shipyards. The work would be shared among the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in Hawaii, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Washington state, and the Norfolk, Va., Naval Shipyard.

Navy officials told the BRAC commission that an alternative they had considered was to close the Pearl Harbor facility, but that proved far more expensive than shutting down Portsmouth. The Navy expects it will save $1.26 billion over the next 20 years, after first investing $448 million to shut down the yard and move work elsewhere.

Navy Secretary Gordon England said at the hearing that the Navy examined moving more work to keep it open, but that would have forced other shipyards to operate less efficiently and create breaks in work schedules. England stressed that the decision had nothing to do with the quality of the shipyard's work, which he called "excellent."

COMMENTS

• taxpayer, I have no issue with temporary moves to wherever needed to pursue needed renovations. Once completed, all those moved should have been returned to the renovated facilities. As to "fairness to the employees" moving you back into the Pentagon or another military facility should make your "low cost lunches and reduced parking costs" return. "All government workers" don't have a need to be on bases, only those working for DoD. It has nothing to do with a particular, currently hated, politician in power. It has to do with common sense. If I worked for GM, I would expect to work at a GM facility. As to safety, it does make sense. The pentagon is largely unprotected, the bases aren't. From what I've seen in the media (granted, somewhat biased against the military) most terrorists tend to attack undefended locations and people, not ones that can fight back. If the current enemy was a legitimate military, your point would be valid. Neither of which is the case today. Name a U.S. base that has been attacked recently, other than the Pentagon. I'll name you dozens of office buildings that have. Overall, it just sounds like you're upset and need to lash out at anything that is behind the change. (I've been there and understand that.) But please use facts when making your case. While I don't often agree with your position, at least you have used facts in the past. The only one I noted in your post was that you were upset you were going to lose your $100 a month subsidy from DoD. If you aren't a retiree, you don't get to use the commissary or exchange but you can still shop at any other store on your way to or from work the same as you do today. (Again I ask how much shopping you're doing during the workday now?) As to distance of commute? Compare those that have to commute a bit farther to those that are losing their jobs totally unless they move to a new location? Skeptical Posted June 1, 2005 10:06 AM
• Skeptical, Moved to rented space from Pentagon by our incompetent managers. This was so Pentagon could be renovated. Thank God because my office was right where the plane entered and I would have been there. The love of rented office space is not the reason for resisting the proposed move. The reasoning is fairness to the employees. When we moved to the rented office space we lost low cost lunches at the Pentagon and the reduced parking costs but we did not gain any added benefits. Now they want us to move to a military base! Why? Shouldn't we move all government workers to military bases if Rummy's reasoning is correct? There is no reason to move DoD civilians to military bases other than they will be totally under the control of the military that command the bases. There is no civilian control of a military base! Safety is a bunk issue. Terrorists are much more likely to attack a military base than the rented space as seen by the attack on the pentagon (a military base that offered no security). Moving civilians to military bases in the DC area will remove their ability to take mass transit and receive the $100 a month subsidy from DoD, will reduce their ability to shop (they are not allowed to use the commissary or exchange because they are not military), and will cause many to move much further from their homes for commute purposes. This is just a very bad idea by Rummy to take attention away from "real" base closings. DoD can never do what it plans because of incompetent managers and political appointees. Why isn't anyone questioning the entire DoD budget process that was to provide a military that could fight two wars simultaneously. We cannot even fight the war in Iraq! DoD planning and budgeting should be questioned totally! taxpayer Posted May 23, 2005 7:22 AM
• Professional, Your lack of compassion will gain you no friends here. You should know that an entry into Civil Service is seen by many as a guarantee of employment in choice of location for life. It is an entitlement, not a job. The only thing you have to do for the guarantee is to put up with never, ever, ever, having a competent manager in order to have this guarantee. Isn't that right, Shameful? taxpayer? Art? Seriously, the impact on lives is tough. The unions are useless - they're currently only concenred with their own continued existence because of the NSPS conversion so conspiracy theorists are all abuzz with the timing of the two announcements. Others are all bent out of shape because they may have to perform their DoD jobs on DoD installations rather than in the rented office spaces they prefer. Savings claims are over-stated by most estimates. Relocation costs are understated IF the entire workforce decides it will be willing to take them. But life will continue, in spite of current events. Personally, I'm looking for that "cushy" private sector job. When I find it, I'm likely to be history. But then again, maybe not. I'll see if/when it presents itself. Skeptical Posted May 19, 2005 8:53 AM