Equipment predominantly used for units’ 2-week annual training is located at Mobilization and Training Equipment Sites (MATES). However, it would be feasible for these units, as well as other units that use the same training site, to pool and share equipment. More than enough equipment is already located at these MATES to create a pool of equipment to meet unit training needs. The equipment not needed for the pool could be put in preserved storage. Because units train at different times during the summer, this equipment could be made available to other units for use during their 2-week training period or put in preserved storage. In fact, more equipment than the Guard’s 25-percent goal can be preserved. Maintenance Costs Can Be Avoided by Pooling and Sharing Training Equipment

The Guard’s training equipment is costly to maintain. Our analysis of the nine equipment items showed that the Guard could avoid up to $10.3 million annually in maintenance costs if it preserved 25 percent of this equipment in a controlled humidity environment. Our analysis also showed that the Guard could avoid an additional $4.4 million to $9.7 million each year in maintenance costs if it required the three units that train at the Fort Stewart MATES and the two units that train at the Camp Shelby MATES to pool and share equipment. The cost avoidance we identified is the minimum that the Guard can achieve because many equipment items other than the ones used in our analysis could be pooled and shared. Also, our analysis included only eight Guard units, and additional maintenance costs could be avoided if other state and territorial Guard military commands pooled and shared training equipment. According to our analysis of nine equipment items and eight Guard units, we determined that the Guard could reduce scheduled annual maintenance cost by an additional $23.1 million to $39.2 million annually if as few as three units changed their annual training location and share equipment. These figures are $5.3 million to $18 million more than the Guard’s current program could achieve. Recommendations

To optimize the avoidance of annual equipment maintenance costs and achieve the resulting benefits of having a more effective maintenance workforce and increased equipment availability for mobilization, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Director of the Army National Guard Bureau to develop and implement a strategy, along with the modernization of Guard units, to provide controlled humidity facilities at the training sites that will achieve the greatest cost avoidance benefit; incorporate the concept of equipment sharing as the way of doing business in the Guard; and change the annual training locations of Guard units where feasible to achieve maximum cost avoidance benefits through greater equipment sharing while achieving training objectives. Scenarios for Equipment Sharing at Annual Training Sites

According to our analysis, Army National Guard units can preserve more than 25 percent of their equipment in controlled humidity environments if units at the same annual training site pool and share equipment. These items have high annual costs for scheduled maintenance.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO determined the: (1) feasibility of Army National Guard units that annually train at the same site to pool and share equipment; (2) maintenance costs that the Guard would avoid by pooling and sharing equipment; and (3) ways the Guard can maximize equipment sharing at annual training sites.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) according to GAO's analysis of nine equipment items with high annual scheduled maintenance costs and eight Guard units, it is feasible for units that annually train at the same site to pool and share equipment; (2) for the eight units GAO reviewed, more than enough equipment is already located at Mobilization and Training Equipment Sites to create a pool of equipment for unit training needs; (3) the equipment not needed for the pool could be preserved in a controlled humidity environment; (4) more equipment than the Guard's 25-percent goal can be preserved; (5) other than during the 2-week annual training period, the unit equipment located at some training sites is used little; (6) because units train at different times during the summer, this equipment could be made available to other units for use during their 2-week training period or put in preserved storage; (7) GAO's analysis showed that the Guard could avoid up to $10.3 million annually in maintenance costs if it preserved 25 percent of these items in a controlled humidity environment; (8) the Guard could avoid up to $20 million annually in maintenance costs if three units at one training site and two units at another training site pooled and shared their equipment and preserved their unused equipment; (9) the cost avoidance GAO identified is the minimum that the Guard can achieve because many equipment items other than the ones used in the GAO analysis could be pooled and shared; (10) additional maintenance costs could be avoided if other state and territorial Guard military commands pooled and shared training equipment; (11) changing the annual training site of as few as three units will maximize equipment sharing, cause more equipment to be available for preservation, and allow the Guard to more efficiently use scarce maintenance resources; (12) under this scenario, Guard units could place as much as 49 percent of their equipment in preserved storage and reduce maintenance costs by $38.1 million in the first year and $39.2 million each year thereafter, which is $18 million more than the $21.2 million cost avoidance using the Guard's 25-percent goal; and (13) although the Guard would incur additional facility costs to preserve more than 25 percent of its equipment, the benefits of avoiding annual maintenance costs for this equipment would more than offset the facility costs.