First, such assignments are required to perform work at locations where no local public or private sector shipyards have the required ship repair capabilities. Second, the Navy believes that using temporarily excess shipyard workers on temporary duty assignments is cost-effective, even when there is a local private sector capability. The Navy performs work at locations without a naval shipyard to comply with its homeporting policy and when it is not practical to perform the work at public or private shipyards. For example, because San Diego does not have nuclear repair capability, all nuclear submarine repair work is performed by naval shipyard workers at San Diego. Navy’s Homeporting Policy Impacts TDY Assignments

The Navy’s policy to perform all ship repair work of 6 months or less at the ship’s homeport substantially increased the amount of TDY ship repair work performed in locations without a naval shipyard. In those cases where there is a local private sector capability, the cost-effectiveness rationale for TDY assignments is valid to the extent that naval shipyard personnel are temporarily excess. The Navy believes that it needs to retain its current shipyard capacity and associated personnel levels to meet anticipated future requirements. However, for TDY assignments to homeports without required ship repair capabilities, other practical alternatives may warrant consideration, such as making greater use of the private sector. Factors Affecting the Future Use of TDY Assignments

A reduction in the number of planned labor-intensive refuelings of nuclear attack submarines and the homeporting of up to three nuclear aircraft carriers in San Diego could substantially increase future TDY assignments. Other factors that could affect the extent of future TDY assignments include potential reductions in the number of Navy ships, the regionalization of the Navy’s ship maintenance, and another round of base closures. Since fiscal year 1993, the Navy has reduced planned submarine refuelings. Further reductions in the number of planned refuelings would substantially decrease the on-site workloads planned for three naval shipyards, especially Portsmouth. Conclusions

The Navy’s rationale for using temporarily excess naval shipyard personnel is generally sound from a cost and operational standpoint. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

As required by section 366 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, we reviewed the Department of the Navy’s practice of using temporary duty (TDY) assignments of naval shipyard personnel to perform ship maintenance and repair work at homeports not having naval shipyards. Specifically, the act required us to review (1) the rationale supporting the Navy’s practice, (2) the cost-effectiveness of these assignments, and (3) the factors affecting future requirements for the practice.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the Navy's practice of using temporary duty assignments of naval personnel to perform ship maintenance and repair work at homeports without nearby naval shipyard capability, focusing on the: (1) rationale supporting the Navy's practice; (2) cost-effectiveness of these assignments; and (3) factors affecting future requirements for the practice.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) the Navy's rationale for temporary duty assignments is twofold; (2) such assignments are required to perform work at locations where no local public or private shipyards have the required depot-level maintenance capability; (3) most temporary duty assignments are for this reason; (4) the Navy performs work at such locations to comply with its policy to perform ship repairs of six months or less at the ship's homeport and when it is not practical to bring ships to the shipyard; (5) the Navy believes that using temporarily excess naval shipyard workers on temporary duty assignment is cost-effective, even when there is local private-sector capability because these workers will be needed in the future to perform ship repair work; (6) the Navy's rationale for sending temporarily excess naval shipyard personnel on temporary duty assignments appears reasonable from a cost and operational standpoint; (7) however, in some cases, other approaches may be more cost-effective; (8) the Navy is currently retaining some temporarily excess shipyard personnel to ensure that it can handle the planned refuelings of nuclear attack submarines for fiscal year (FY) 1999 and beyond; (9) retaining the personnel for these purposes appears reasonable, since the Navy has a need for the personnel; (10) it is following the same practice to perform nuclear ship repair work at San Diego because local private shipyards do not have nuclear capability; (11) however, other approaches, such as making greater use of the private sector, may warrant consideration; (12) possible changes to future ship repair workloads could affect the requirement for future temporary duty assignments and retention of current naval shipyard personnel levels; (13) for example, the Navy has cancelled 17 planned nuclear attack submarine refuelings since FY 1993; (14) further reductions in the number of planned refuelings would substantially decrease the on-site workloads planned for three naval shipyards, especially Portsmouth; (15) a proposal to homeport three nuclear aircraft carriers in San Diego, California, which does not have a local naval shipyard, could substantially increase temporary duty assignments; and (16) other factors that could affect the amount of future temporary duty assignments include: (a) further reductions in the number of Navy ships; (b) full implementation of the Navy's Regional Maintenance Program; and (c) a new round of base closures.