TOPICS

GAO criticizes Defense combat supply operations

Despite years of efforts to establish an efficient multiservice logistics system, the U.S. military still lacks a comprehensive strategy for joint supply operations in combat, cannot account for more than 54,000 shipping containers sent to Iraq and Afghanistan and is hindered by multiple computer systems that cannot exchange data.

And although capable of moving massive amounts of material and troops over long distances to prepare for combat, the armed services still have problems keeping track of supplies and spare parts, resulting at times in shortages for troops in the field or wasteful overstocking of material.

Those were some of the findings of two Government Accountability Office reports presented to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Government Management Subcommittee Tuesday.


RELATED STORIES

The hearing was the subcommittee's fourth attempt since 2005 to force greater efficiency in the military's supply chain management system, which has been on GAO's "high-risk management" list for 17 straight years. That was "far too long," Government Management Subcommittee Chairman Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, and ranking member George Voinovich, R-Ohio, both declared.

The hearings into the supply management problems were started when the leadership positions of Akaka and Voinovich were reversed and they both stated their determination to get the system off the black list.

"Supply chain management is critical to our security. It affects the safety of men and women in uniform" currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, Akaka said.

Voinovich said he was concerned about the issue because of the potential for waste in a system that consumes $162 billion a year and because an ineffective supply chain "can have a direct and negative impact on the warfighter."

The two senators and William Solis, GAO director of defense capabilities management, noted substantial improvements in the military's management of its supply system into the Central Command area since the beginning of the conflicts there. But Solis said the promised comprehensive strategy for integrating the multifaceted supply system was not expected until next summer and the military still lacked metrics to measure progress toward a better system.

But Akaka expressed concern over more basic problems, such as the inability to account for the 54,000 large steel shipping containers, which forced the military to pay extra for failing to return them on time and to spend $203 million to buy more than 25,000 from the owners.

He also questioned why the military was having so much trouble using the radio frequency identification technology that firms like Wal-Mart use to track their goods.

Jack Bell, deputy undersecretary of Defense for logistics and material readiness, however, cited improvements the system has made, including cutting the time between a deployed unit's request for material and its delivery from 24 days to 15 and creation of several organizations to provide integrated management of the supply system.

Air Force Gen. Norton Schwartz, commander U.S. transportation command, said many of the containers that were not returned had been used for storage, shelter or protective barriers during the early days in the combat zone. And he pointed out that the military has different supply problems than commercial entities because "Wal-Mart's stores don't move, but our units do."

COMMENTS

  • A solution to RFID not reading through MIL-B-131 foil packages, which would otherwise allow more tracking of parts and consumables is to switch to a better anticorrosive / ESD protective packaging system that does allow RFID signal penetration. Intercept Technology packaging has been proven by TACOM/ARDEC to protect against corrosion better, longer, and at less cost, than -131 foil AND TRW with USAF funding showed the same material better at ESD protection than all other tested ESD barrier clean room materials. Texas Instruments proved Intercept allows RFID signal penetration. Why the holdup on integration? Because there is no MIL-PRF written around new technologies that protect metals and elastomerics in a different way than chemicals or low humidity.
  • Why are 40 ft. containers being "lost", if they don't go beyond the port of delivery? If WalMart, and dozens of grocery store chains can keep track of goods goind through regional warehoses, to individual stores, why can't the US military?
  • The Customer Service Repersentatives of the DLA in theater in IRAQ know what the major problems are with the distribution system in Iraq and the visibility limitations of in country units to only the SSA in their immediate area. Only SSAs at Balad can see the materiel at the excess warehouse for the entire Iraqi theater which is at Balad. Another major problem is at the point of arrival by sea in Kuwait. When the shipboard 40 ft. containers are broken down into two 20 ft. containers the paperwork is not 'married up' with the contents and many times all the paperwork from the 40 ft. container goes into ONE of the TWO 20 ft. containers. The result is that 50% of the material winds up in the frustrated cargo yard and eventually winds up at the excess warehouse in either Balad or Camp Arifjan. When you only have one shot at doing the job right - you need to do the job right. DLA gets blamed by the units for not getting their supplies from DLA when DLA is only responsible for procuring and receiving the material. DLA turns the material over to TRANSCOM to deliver the goods. The Director of DLA is a 3 star position. The Director of TRANSCOPM is a 4 star position. How does the DLA LT.Gen. hold accountable the TRANSCOM FULL Gen.? No one wants to tell the Emperor he has no clothes on. You know the old saying: the toes you step on today may be attached to the ___ you may have to kiss tomorrow. Who pays the price... the troop in the field that is not getting supplied and the taxpayer. This is a leadership problem. Unfortunately, today's officer corps across the military services have become managers who want to place BLAME somewhere instead of focusing on correcting the PROBLEM and taking care of the troops under their command. Managers demand respect. Leaders Command respect.