Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1554482
label
FY 1978 - DOD Base Closings, Ship Building
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1554482
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
FY 1978 - DOD Base Closings, Ship Building
citationUrl
collections
White House Special Files Unit Files
Budget Review Decision Papers
subjects
Federal budget
Military bases
Warships
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1554482
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-12-31
month
12
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-12-01
month
12
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
60bbbee995afade4
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 11, folder "FY 1978 - DoD Base Closings, Ship
Building" of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential
Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 11 of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SERVICE
WITHDRAWAL SHEET (PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES)
FORM OF
CORRESPONDENTS OR TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
DOCUMENT
1.
memo case, Scowcroft to thr President, ca 12/76
la. memo
Scowcroft to the President, re: shipbuildingetc.
ca. 12/76
A
2 pages
lb. memo
Holcomb to Scowcroft (NSC)
2 pages + 7 page appendix = 9 pages
12/8/76
A
lc. memo
Holcomb to Scowcroft (NSC)
1 page + 3 page appendix = 4 pages
12/8/76
A
1d. paper
F-15/F-16 procurement options
3 pages
ca. 12/76
A
FILE LOCATION
Special Files, Budget Decision Books
FY 1978, DoD etc... (box 11)
plc 4/19/84
RESTRICTION CODES
(A) Closed by Executive Order 12065 governing access to national security information,
(B) Closed by statute or by the agency which originated the document,
(C) Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in the donor's deed of gift,
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
GSA FORM 7122 (REV. 1-81)
MEMORANDUM
Feb 25, 1977
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
To: Presidential Materialsoffice
FROM: WHITE House Central tiles 1900l
RE: Classified documents of the
Ford administration
These items were delivered to
us today by ms Eleanor Peoples
Security Division. (395-4624)
of the OMB officed natronal
GESET FORD DISHARD
GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
This form marks the file location of item number
as listed on the pink form (GSA Form 7122, Withdrawal Sheet)
at the front of the folder.
JOHN B. BRECKINRIDGE
COMMITTEES:
6TH DISTRICT, KENTUCKY
AGRICULTURE
SUBCOMMITTEES:
DISTRICT OFFICES:
TOBACCO
305 COURT SQUARE BUILDING
107 CHEAPSIDE
Congress of the United States
FAMILY FARMS AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT
LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY 40507
DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS,
INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT
(606) 253-1501
house of Representatives
19 FEDERAL BUILDING
SMALL BUSINESS
COVINGTON, KENTUCKY 41011
Clashington, D.C. 20515
SUBCOMMITTEES:
(606) 431-2699
SBA AND SBIC LEGISLATION
SBA OVERSIGHT AND
October 19, 1976
MINORITY ENTERPRISE
The President
MF
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. President:
In further reference to Army's announced phase back by
two-thirds of the Lexington Blue Grass Army Depot (LBAD), we
are enclosing for your information several self-explanatory
documents obtained from the Department of the Army under the
provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
As you will note from the enclosures - following an
April 12 meeting attended by Chairman Melvin Price, House
Armed Services Committee, members of the Kentucky Delegation
and senior staffs, a delegation of depot employees, and Mr.
Edwin Greiner, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Installations
and Logistics - Mr. Greiner, who had indicated to those present
that he was unaware of some of the data presented at the meeting,
queried DARCOM regarding four questions he apparently raised
which grew out of documentation presented at that meeting.
These questions are attached (Tab A), followed by DARCOM's
discussion and answers (Tab B). In the interest of clarifying
these discussions and DARCOM's answers, we wish to bring to
your attention the following:
Mr. Greiner's Question No. 1. Were wage rates for
the three Commel depots stabilized under the same circumstances?
If so, why is Sacramento more than $5.00 per hour higher than
FORD
LBAD?
Please note DARCOM's answer to the effect that wage
LIBRARY
rates for the three Army Electronics Depots were stabilized
under the same guidance, although DARCOM adds that the guidance
"grants each depot the latitude for determining the distribution
of base operations costs to the various programs (P7M, P7S, etc.)
and tenent organizations within the depot. This is why the table
showing a comparison of maintenance rates for fiscal
THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS
2
year 1976 does not show a G&A rate for Sacramento. Sacramento
identifies the G&A costs as they apply to maintenance directly
to shop overhead or shop support overhead.'
We submit that the only difference between the computation
here, between SAAD and LBAD, is that SAAD recoups the overhead
cost using two overhead rates while LBAD uses three overhead
rates. Further, the composite rate is actually that cost which
is passed along to the customer and, in fact, the customer does
pay $5.43 more per direct manhour worked at SAAD than at LBAD.
Further proof of LBAD's lower overhead costs is the fact that the
LBAD supply charge rate is also lower than those of SAAD and TOAD
to which Army proposes to reassign LBAD's workload. CONCISE's
implementation costs, which include such items as the movement
of household goods, TDY for house-hunting trips, etc., should
not properly be included in LBAD's costs since these costs are the
result of personnel reduction due to CONCISE. These costs would
simply not have been incurred were LBAD not being phased down.
It is also a matter of record that SAAD, charging $18.65 per hour,
had an operating loss of $2.4 million for fiscal year 1976. During
this period LBAD, charging $13.22 per hour, lost only $13,000; TOAD,
costing $14.15 per hour, lost $378,000. If SAAD had charged the
proper rate to "break even" on profit and loss, the rate would
have been actually in excess of $20.00 per hour, while LBAD's rate
would remain $13.23.
Mr. Greiner's Question No. 2. There appears to be a
building up in workload from fiscal year 1975 through fiscal
FORD
year 1977. If we originally justify base closure on reduced
workload in the out-years what has happened to realize an in-
crease?
GERALD
Please note Colonel Bunker has verified the validity of
these figures. As a matter of fact, DARCOM, as you will note,
states that the workload figures are too low since they reflect
only Department of the Army Direct Workload. As stated in Mr.
Greiner's query to his staff and, as you will recall, we pointed
out in previous correspondence, Army's contention all along as
"justification" for the phase-back has been its projection of a
drastically reduced workload. DARCOM has now confirmed that the
anticipated reduction did not materialize. It is puzzling that
this statement is followed by the statement: "increased workload
does not justify three electronics maintenance facilities". These
appear to be in conflict and it would seem quite reasonable that
the workload increases alone would fully justify a halt in the
planned phase down of LBAD and the retention of all three depots.
Failing this, consideration should be given to retention of the
most cost effective facilities.
3
Question No. 3. What are the comparative overhead costs
for depot maintenance at the three depots? How do these costs com-
pare with the number of personnel on board during CONCISE planning
projected at the time CONCISE was approved and at present?
There appears to be considerable confusion in this area. The
following table presents an accurate picture of the ratios of over-
head to direct labor:
LBAD =
.69 overhead
1.00 direct
SAAD = 1.02 overhead
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
1.00 direct
TOAD =
.83 overhead
1.00 direct
These ratios reveal that LBAD manages its overhead better than
do the other two depots. Personnel strengths have little or no
effect on the ratios of overhead to direct labor costs. LBAD was
ranked No. 1 in the AMC system for having the best ratio of in-
direct to direct labor for fiscal years 72, 73 and 74.
Question No. 4. How does LBAD compare with other depots
in efficiency and effectiveness? (1974-1975 statistics) ?
As you will note DARCOM's answer states that LBAD was ranked
first and third in the several areas each year. It failed to state,
however, that the composite ranking in both efficiency and effective-
ness had LBAD ranked No. 1 for fiscal years 74, 75, and the first
half of fiscal year 76. Additionally, DARCOM fails to point out
the fact that TOAD ranked fifth and that SAAD ranked eleventh in
the latest rating. We believe it highly significant that this com-
parison be made between LBAD's ranking and those of SAAD and TOAD,
to which the Department of the Army proposes to send the bulk of
LBAD's workload, keeping in mind the judicious expenditure of the
taxpayer's dollars.
It is highly significant, we believe, that DARCOM now admits
that the effectiveness rating system measures depot against depot,
which we have maintained all along, and which was originally brought
to your attention by letter dated May 23, 1975. Army has in the
past maintained that the efficiency/effectiveness measurement
(now efficiency/productivity) system merely measured one depot
against itself and its past performance, and in fact continued
to do SO in information given to the House Armed Services Committee
this summer.
4
During the April 12th meeting, when documentation on the
unique capabilities of LBAD was presented, Mr. Greiner indicated
a desire to see an ECOM message to the three sister depots stating
that due to the injunction imposed on LBAD, the workload at that
depot could not be transshipped for completion of the work at the
other two depots and that the work obtaining at LBAD must be ac-
complished at that installation as long as the injunction was in
force. (Tab c). As you will also note, although DARCOM's dis-
cussion attempts to discredit LBAD's unique mission situation,
it is admitted that "two items requiring peculiar test equipment
are overhauled at LBAD" and further that neither SAAD nor TOAD
has this test equipment for these specific items.
Your attention is directed, additionally, to April 11, 1975
correspondence (Tab D), outlining numerous unique missions as-
signed to LBAD. In addition to these two verified items, there
are many unique missions assigned to LBAD which have world-wide
importance as an integral part of our defense posture and that
of our allied countries.
Your particular attention is directed to enclosure (Tab E)
concerning paragraph 6 of Colonel Viereck's Memorandum for the
Record and Mr. Greiner's request for verification that 23,000
pieces of electronics equipment were not overhauled in Fiscal
Year 1975. As you will note, Army maintains that because of
the LBAD injunction proceedings, 23,000 pieces of electronics
equipment could not be overhauled at LBAD. These items are
FORD
believed to be the HHC/DXW maintenance items of which LBAD
completed 21,429 through 30 June 1976. The small portion of
these items which LBAD lacked test equipment to process was
transferred to SAAD and TOAD. It is significant to note that
LBAD completed 6,636 of the nine items referred to in the
message included in the attached enclosure which is 1,845
more than the total quantity reflected in the message. It
should be noted here that these items, requiring approximately
340,000 man hours of work, comprise about 17% of LBAD's annual
workload.
For these and the many other reasons based upon verified
facts and figures which we have submitted over the past months,
we request your personal review of Army's stated intention and
all relevant data with an eye toward intervention in and tolling
of the phase-back of the most efficient and cost effective depot
within the Army's entire eleven member system.
5
May we hear from you in this matter at your early convenience.
Sincerely, surity.
Walter D. Huddleston, U.S.S.
John B. Breckinridge, M.C.
Andell tord
Wendell H. Ford, U.S.S.
Carl D. Perkins, M.C.
Carrdee Hubbard
Carroll Hubbard, M.C.
Wildiam N. natcher
Puncase William Remairs L. H Mazzoli, Natcher, M.C. M.C.
Tim heelater
Tim Lee Carter, M.C.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
5001
22333
DRCPA
20 April 1976
SUBJECT: Continued Congressional Interest in Lexington-Blue Grass
Mr. Eric A. Orsini
Deputy for Supply, Maintenance
and Transportation
Office of the Assistant Secretary
Washington, DC 20310
1. Reference memo for DCGMR, DARCOM, dated 14 April 1976, subject as
above.
2. Attached is the DARCOM response to the questions as enumerated in
referenced memo.
Incl
EUGENE J. D'AMBROSIO
as
Lieutenant General, USA
Deputy Commanding General
for Materiel Readiness
FORD LIBRARY
X
FOR OFFICIAL OF
ONLY
treat To DECMT-D MFR DTD 21 APE
Ince
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20310
1 is APR 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR DEPUTY COMMANDING GENERAL, MATERIEL
READINESS (DARCOM)
SUBJECT: Continued Congressional Interest in Lexington- Blue Grass
Army Depot
In a meeting on 12 April of interested members of Congress and their
staffs with employees of the Lexington Blue Grass Depot, and
attended by the Deputy ASA(I&L), specific facts were brought out
which should be further reviewed. In a follow-on meeting on 13 April
with members of the DA Staff (MFR at Inclosure 1), the DASA(I&L)
recounted events of the meeting with the Members of Congress and
asked that the questions at Inclosure 2 be reviewed in detail and
answers furnished.
With the concurrence of the DCSLOG representative, the questions
were informally provided to Colonel Fioridori of your staff as advance
notice of this tasking memorandum. Response should be furnished to
OASA (I&L) who will effect coordination with the DCSLOG.
Request you review the questions and provide discussion for each
question in confirmation, explanation or refutation as appropriate
(MFR should be used to determine context). Further, request the
response be provided by 1200, 19 April 1976.
Incl
a/s
Deputy to
and Transportation
FORD LIBRARY & 93
ANIERICAN REVOLUTION
776-1976
14 April 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Continued Congressional Interest in the Closure of the
Maintenance Facility, Lexington Blue Grass Army Depot
A inceting was held on 13 April, the purpose of which was to discuss the
fallout of a meeting on 12 April with Members of Congress and staffs
representing the Lexington, Kentucky area. The 13 April meeting included
Mr. E. Greiner, Colonel Bunker of OCoiSA, Colonel Gustafson, ODCSLOG,
Colonel Harris, CCLL and Colonel Viereck. Mr. Greiner requested that
certain information be developed relating to the statements made during
the briefing presented by four members of the Lexington Blue Grass AD
(LBAD) work force. The briefing was given to MCs Breckinridge,
Huddleston, Carter, their staffs and others.
The Depot team stated that the stabilization wage rate for the three Army
electronics depots, i.e., LBAD, Sacramento AD (SAAD) and Tobyhanna
AD (TOAD) were: $13.22, $18.65 and $14.50, respectively. These
statistics indicate a variance of over S5 per hour between LBAD and SAAD.
Mr. Greiner asked if these wage rates were stabilized and when he was
advised they were stabilized, he asked if it were possible that due to the
personnel reduction anticipated or for some other reason the LBAD rate
had been artificially stabilized at the lower rate. Further, he requested
to learn if there was a difference in the times that the three wage rates
were stabilized. In event that the three wage rates were established based
on the same information and time, why is there a $5 variance between
LBAD and SAAD?
Colonel Viereck explained to Mr. Greiner that in response to the allegation
that LBAD was "the only depot which could perform certain kinds of work"
ECOM sent a message to all three depots which stated to the effect that
because of the injunction imposed on LBAD the assets at that depot could
not be transshipped for completion of the work in the other two depots.
The work on the assets at LBAD must be accomplished at that instailation
25 long as the injunction was in force. Two items requiring
peculiar
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
MAERICAN
BISCHIENNAL
1776-1976
CHARL UGE ONLY
Indl
test equipment are overhauled at LBAD: the MSG-4 Fire Distribution
System and the AUTOSEVOCAL. It had been the Concise plan that the
mission to overhaul these items and their test ^quipment would be
transferred to Tobyhanna. The injunction pre ided the timely move-
ment of the test equipment. Mr. Greiner stated that he would like a
copy of the message.
There appeared to be a question concerning the increase of workloads
from FY 75 through FY 77. The figures shown by, the depot employees
indicated a workload of 535 million for FY 75, $68 million for FY, 76
and $50 million for FY 77. Colonel Bunker verified the probable
validity of these figures stating that the AIF workload for communications
and electronics equipment amounts to 565 million in FY 75, $93.6 million
in FY 76 and $70. 1/1 million in FY 77. Mr. Greiner asked why at this point
in time we are undergoing an increase in workloads when we seemingly
planned facilities reduction based on reduced workload.
Overhead figures for each of the depots were in considerable variance.
It is entirely probable that the overhead costs were different due to the
strengths of direct personnel on board at the time the figures were
developed. The depot team advised that overhead labor cost of 69¢ at LBAD
and $1. 02 and SS at SAAD and TOAD, respectively had been established.
Mr. Greiner stated that it might be appropriate to determine the direct
personnel strengths during the Concise planning period, the planned Concise
numbers, and the current personnel strengths. These should be then
matched with the overhead costs for the same periods in time.
The briefing presented by the depot employees displayed efficiency and
effectiveness ratings for the AMC depots for 74 and 75. While the
efficiency ratings are known to be ratings of the depot with itself at a
prior point in time, the effectiveness ratings are comparisons between
depots. Colonel Viereck suggested that the effectiveness rating system
was relatively new and should not have been available for the 74 time frame.
Mr. Greiner asked that he be provided the effectiveness and efficiency
ratings for the depots for whenever they were available by fiscal year. The
briefer stated that the Army had entered into the record of the injunction
proceedings that 23,000 pieces of equipment were not overhauled in FY 75.
Mr. Greiner asked that this figure be verified.
FORD
2
2
FQE OFFICIAL USE ONLY
GERALD
Finally, Mr. Greiner requested that the GAO communication informing
the Army of the completion of LBAD audit and the case study justifica-
tion folder for LBAD be forwarded officially to the House Armed Services
Committee.
E. A. VIERECK, JR.
Colonel, GS
Assistant for Maintenance
FORD s LIBRARY 038400
3
USE ONLY
DASA(I&L) Questions on LBAD Meeting
A
1. Were wage rates for the three Commel depots stabilized under the
per hour higher than LBAD?
same circumstances? If so, why is Sacramento AD more than $5.00
2. There appears to be a buildup in workload from FY 75 thru FY 77.
If we originally justified base closure on reduced workload in the
out years, what has happened to realize an increase?
3. What are the comparative overhead costs for depot maintenance at
the three depots? How do these costs compare with the number of
personnel on board during CONCISE planning, projected at the time
CONCISE was approved and present?
4. How does LBAD compare with other depots in efficiency and effectiveness?
(1974 - 1975 statistics. )
FORD LIBRARY
Incl2
LEXINGTON-BLUE GRASS ARMY DEPOT
QUESTION NO. 1: Were wage rates for the three Commel depots stabilized
under the same circumstances? If so, why is Sacramento AD more than $5.00
per hour higher than LBAD?
DISCUSSION: The Depot team stated that the stabilization wage rate for the
three Army electronics depots, i.e., LBAD, Sacramento AD (SAAD) and Tobyhanna
AD (TOAD) were: $13.22, $18.65 and $14.50, respectively. These statistics
indicate a variance of over $5 per hour between LBAD and SAAD. Mr. Greiner
asked if these wage rates were stabilized and when he was advised they were
stabilized, he asked if it were possible that due to the personnel reduction
anticipated or for some other reason the LBAD rate had been artificially
stabilized at the lower rate. Further, he requested to learn if there was
a difference in the times that the three wage rates were stabilized. In event
that the three wage rates were established based on the same information and
time, why is there a $5 variance between LBAD and SAAD?
DARCOM ANSWER: 1. Wage rates for the three Army Electronics Depots were stabiliz
under the same guidance and at the same time. The guidance however, grants
each depot the latitude for determining the distribution of Base Operations Costs
to the various programs (P7M, P7S, etc.) and tenant organizations within the
depot. This is why the table below showing a comparison of maintenance rates
for FY 76 does not show a G&A rate for Sacramento. Sacramento identifies their
G&A costs as they apply to maintenance directly to shop overhead or shop support
overhead.
2. The $5.43 per hour variance between LBAD and SAAD is caused
by wage grade pay differences between LBAD and SAAD, the difference in how
overhead costs are distributed by each depot (as mentioned in paragraph 1
above), and in LBAD's method in accounting for CONCISE costs.
a. SAAD's average labor rate is $1.41 per hour greater
than the same rate at LBAD because of wage grade pay differences between the
two depots.
b. Overhead cost distribution at LBAD is based on productive
operations, with CONCISE costs and manhour expenditures being reported
separately. During this fiscal year LBAD experienced manyear reductions from
1,084 to 433, thereby causing overhead costs to go down. LBAD's initial
report (beginning of fiscal year) for stabilized rates stated their composite
rate was $15.45, however, this rate included CONCISE costs.
INCL 2
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
QUESTIONS NO. l (cont) :
Based on LBAD's rate computation the CONCISE cost reduced their total rate
$2.23 and is not included in the current $13.22 per hour rate.
3. A detailed tabulation and comparison of maintenance rates for FY 76:
Avg
Shop
Shop
Total
Comp
Labor
O/H
Support O/H
C&A
O/H
Rate
Lexington
7.82
0.48
3.66
1.26
5.40
13.22
Sacramento
9.23
2.09
7.33
-
9.42
18.65
Diff compared
to Lex
+ 1.41 + 1.61
+ 3.67
- 1.26 + 4.02
+ 5.43
Tobyhanna
7.72
0.96
3.97
1.50
6.43
14.15
Diff compared
to Lex
- 0.10 + 0.48
+ 0.31
-
0.24 + 1.03
+ 0.93
FORD & LIBRARY SERALD
2
LEXINGTON BLUE-GRASS ARMY DEPOT
QUESTION NO. 2: There appears to be a build-up in workload from FY 75 thru
FY 77. If we originally justified base closure on reduced workload in the
out years, what has happened to realize an increase?
DISCUSSION: There appeared to be a question concerning the increase of
workloads from FY 75 through FY 77. The figures shown by the depot
employees indicated a workload of $35 million for FY 75, $68 million for
FY 76 and $50 million for FY 77. COL Bunker verified the probable validity
of these figures stating that the AIF workload for communications and electronic
equipment amounts to $65 million in FY 75, $93.6 million in FY 76 and $70.4
million in FY 77. Mr. Greiner asked why at this point in time we are undergoing
an increase in workloads when we seemingly planned facilities reduction based
on reduced workload.
DARCOM ANSWER: a. Depot Maintenance Workload in the electronics area has
increased for the following reasons:
1
The necessity to extend the useful life of fielded
equipment due to failure of new equipment contractors to deliver.
2 Backlog of unserviceable assets due to unfinanced
requirements in prior years.
3 Force structure changes.
b. Concerning. the workload figures in the above discussion; those
quoted by the depot employees are not accurate and appear to represent only
the direct Army workload. The workload increases in FY 76 and FY 77 were
caused by a need to reduce a backlog of work generated by the factors listed
above.
C. Although there is an increase in workload, it does not justify
retention of three electronic maintenance facilities.
FORD LIBRARY
INCL 3
LEXINGTON-BLUE GRASS ARMY DEPOT
QUESTION NO. 3: What are the comparative overhead costs for depot maintenance
at the three depots? How do these costs compare with the number of personnel
on board during CONCISE planning, projected at the time CONCISE was approved
and present?
DISCUSSION: Overhead figures for each of the depots were in considerable
variance. It is entirely probable that the overhead costs were different due
to the strengths of direct personnel on board at the time the figures were
developed. The depot team advised that overhead labor cost of 69¢ at LBAD
and $1.02 and 85c at SAAD and TOAD, respectively had been established.
Mr. Greiner stated that it might be appropriate to determine the direct
personnel strengths during the CONCISE planning period, the planned CONCISE
numbers, and the current personnel strengths. These should be then matched
with the overhead costs for the same periods in time.
DARCOM ANSWER: a. COMPARISON OVERHEAD COSTS FOR DEPOT MAINTENANCE (ACTUAL)
($ in 000)
ACTUAL 0/H COSTS
LBAD
SAAD
TOAD
FY 74
Mission overhead
8,527
8,128
9,322
GAE
2,719
1,835
2,278
TOTAL
11,246
9,963
11,600
Total Personnel (Manyears)
1,628
1,232
1,685
Direct
1,261
889
1,205
Indirect
367
343
480
FY 75
Mission Overhead
7,831
9,538
10,392
GAE
3,182
1,732
2,146
TOTAL
11,013
11,270
12,548
Total Personnel (Manyears)
1,494
1,222
1,725
Direct
1,130
834
1,227
Indirect
364
388
498
FY 76 (1st half of FY)
Mission Overhead
2,788
6,581
5,241
GAE
1,770
-0-
1,265
TOTAL
4,558
6,581
6,506
FORD
INCL 4
GERALD
LIBRARY
QUESTION NO. 3 (cont):
DEPOTS
ACTUAL O/H COSTS
LBAD
SAAD
TOAD
FY 76 -
Total Personnel (Manyears)
548
595
886
Direct
400
397
644
Indirect
148
198
242
b. Projected number of Maintenance personnel on board during CONCISE
planning compared to present:
DATE
CONCISE PROJECTED
ACTUAL
31 Dec 74
1374
1561
30 Sep 75
1234
1149
31 Dec 75
874
1034
31 Mar 76
500
969
GESALD FORD LIBRARY
2
LEXINGTON BLUE-GRASS ARMY DEPOT
QUESTION 4: How does LBAD compare with other depots in efficiency and
effectiveness? (1974 - 1975 statistics)
DISCUSSION:
The briefing presented by the depot employees displayed
efficiency and effectiveness ratings for the ANC depots for
74 and 75. While the efficiency ratings are known to be
ratings of the depot with itself at a prior point in time, the
effectiveness ratings are comparisons between depots.
Colonel Viereck suggested that the effectiveress rating system
was relatively new and should not have been available for the
74 time frame. Mr. Greiner asked that he be provided the
effectiveness and efficiency ratings for the depots for whenever
they were available by fiscal year.
DARCOM ANSWER: The relative rankings of Lexington-Blue Grass Army Depot (LBAD)
in comparison with ten other general purpose depots for Fiscal
Years 1974 and 1975 are as follows:
a. Performance Effectiveness Area
LBAD Numerical Order of Bank
Among 11 depots:
FY 74
FY 75
Supply
5
2
Maintenance
1
2
Personnel Management (Incl EEO)
8
7
SUMMARY LEVEL (Above factors
weighted)
1
b. Productivity Area
:
GERALA FORD LIGRARY
3
Supply
5
2
Maintenance
3
2
Base Operations
5
2
SUMMARY LEVEL
3
1
"
See Note On Next Page
INCL 5
NOTE: This area formerly was called "efficiency" but was changed
late in FY 75 when comparison of actual performance to DIMES
standards was dropped from the system. It is now a "pure"
productivity trend system which compares productivity at a given
depot in any year with its productivity in the base year of FY 72.
By its nature, a productivity trend system can result in a depot
having a high productivity index in a given year because of its
improvement over a relatively low base year, although in comparison
to other depots its "absolute" productivity level may be lower in
the current year. This statement is not intended to imply that such
is the case at LBAD.
LEXINGTON-BLUE GRASS ARMY DEPOT
REQUIREMENT: Mr. Greiner stated that he would like a copy of ECOM message
referenced in paragraph three of MFR.
DISCUSSION: Para 3 of COL Viereck's MFR as follows: COL Viereck explained
to Mr. Greiner that in response to the allegation that LBAD was
"the only depot which could perform certain kinds of work", ECOM
sent a message to all three depots which stated to the effect
that because of the injunction imposed on LBAD the assets at that
depot could not be transshipped for completion of the work in the
other two depots. The work on the assets at LBAD must be
accomplished at that installation as long as the injunction was
in force. Two items requiring peculiar test equipment are overhaule
at LBAD: the MSG-4 Fire Distribution System and the AUTOSEVOCAL.
It had been the CONCISE plan that the mission to overhaul these
items and their test equipment would be transferred to Tobyhanna..
The injunction precluded the timely movement of the test equipment.
Mr. Greiner stated that he would like a copy of the message.
DARCOM COMMENTS: 1. The ECOM messages to the electronics depots was an
inquiry to obtain the maximum production rates for DXN
items that are in short supply. The items listed on the
message to LBAD were those located at LBAD. Because they
are located at LBAD and cannot be moved because of the
court injunction LBAD was requested by message to provide
production rates. The items listed on the message to
LBAD can also be repaired at SAAD or TOAD.
2. LBAD does not have any unique capability of being the sole
source for the repair of communications/electronics
equipment although LBAD is currently the source for repair
of many items. This is because of the court injunction
which prevents the movement from LBAD to another depot
of workload. and reparable assets with their corresponding
test equipment. If the court injunction is removed all
of the equipment being mepaired at LBAD will be assigned
to SAAD or TOAD for repair. It is not anticipated that any
problems will be encountered in this transfer UI work
assignment. Attached are copies of the ECOM messages.
3 Incls
as
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
INCL 6
02 OF 02
UUUU
7
BOOK
MESSADE HANDLING INSTRUCTIONS
ND
note CDRECOM FT MONNOUTH NJ
TO: CDRSAND SACRAMENTO CA //DRYSA-T//
UNCLAB
Subject HIC/DXW Maintenance Program
1. There is a requirement for increased production capability on
the following HHC/DXW 1tems. Request your monthly production
capability for repair/overlnul if the itoms were provided to your
dopot. in the quantities indicated plus your on-hand HEBETE.
Further indicate the maximum tâme required to achieve maximum.
production capability and indicate production rate by month.
ITEM NO.
RBR
()TY
23
5820-00-497-8554
578
30
5820-00-856-2731
282
38
5820-00-892-3339
7834
FORU
39
5820-00-892-3342
530
1248817
53
3821-00-226-4262
536
5
5
73
6230-00-542-6385
75
&
"
78
6625-00-534-7458
24
C
1
80
6625-00-539-9685
196
D
DISTRICTION
0
TITLE OFFICE AYMBOL NAME use
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
Cocil I. Joyce, Mas, FA, Anot Chief,
Dap Progo Br, DRSBD-194-3-DP, 23747
26 Mar 76
TYPED NAME. TITLE. OFFICE FIVERL AND PHONE
11, TOLSTONOS Whief CBS Div, DRSBI-
Seal SIGNATURE to duch 10'-S,22392
ACCURITY CLASSIFICATION
DATE TIME CROUP
UNCLASSIFIED
DD
FORM
I DEC :
173
RAMLACKS 00 FORM its. 1 JUL 11, WHICH HILL 76 vito.
PASE
DUSTINOR
manual
LIII
CLASS
CIC
FOR MISSAGE PATIONS CENTER DATE
READATED 112
NJ
1-13
DATE - TIME
02 or 02 2615002
BOOK
MESSAGE HANDLING INSTRUCTIONS
TIKE
TO:
83
6625-00-581-2097
40
2. Reply required NLT COR 25 Apr 76,
FORD LIBRARY
7
DISTED
)
CRAFTER TITLE 01 DEL STATIOL. PRINT DATE
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
x
TYPED NAME, TITLE, OFFICE SYMBOL AND PHONE
annancex
r
a
SIGNATURE
SECURITY CLAINIFICATION
DATE THAT GROUP
UNCLASSITED
DD
10%
IDECTO
173
HCPLACES CD FORM 172, 1 JUL ", WHICH WILL KE USED.
INCE
THE
III
DATE - TIME
02 2614483
RR
UUUU
Mar
76
DOOK
HISSADE HANDLING INVIRUCTIONS
NO
FROM CDRECOM FT MONNOUTH NJ //DRSEL-IM-S-DP//
10; CDRIBAD LEXINGTON KY //DRXIX-SU//
VICLAS
Subj: HHC/DXW Maintenance Program
1. There is a requirement for increase production capability on
the following HIC/D>W items. Request your monthly production
capability for repair/overhaul if the items were provided to your
depot in the quantities indicated plus your on-hand essets.
Further indicate the maximum time required to achieve maximum
production capability and Indicate production rate by month.
ITEM NO.
NON
QTY
23
5820-00-497-8554
523
30
5820-00-856-2731
69
38
5820-00-892-3339
3309
39
5820-00-892-3342
487
53
5821-00-226-4262
88
GERALD LIBRARY FORD
or
73
6130-00-542-6385
59
78
6625-00-534-7458
51
80
6625-00-539-9685
164
DiSTRo
D
DRAFTER TYPEDHNR TITLE C1 FREEYWOOL, PROVIT DATE
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
Cecil L. Joyce, Maj, FA, Asst. Chief,
Dep Proga Br, DRSBL-121-S-DP, 23747
26 Mar 76
&
TYPED NAME. TITLE. OFFICE SYMBOL AND PHONE
Al TOISTONOG, Chief crd Div-DRSEL-
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DATE TIME SHOUP
(
Act PIONATURES d. to ORES. 223921
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE
DATE 01
LHF
CLASS
CIC
10° NISSAS CENTER COMMUNICATIONS CENTERICALY
HIDDLE 1145
AD
IND
DATE - TID:
MONTH
18
02 OF 02 2614427.
Mar
7C
BOOK
MESSADE HANDLING INSTRUCTIONS
FROM
TO:
83
6625-00-581-2097
112
2. Reply-required NLT COB 15 Apr 76.
FORD.
b as & 0 1 5 $
DISTRICT
a
CHAR UNIVE TITLE 01 K.C SYNTIOL. MIONE & DATE
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
<
TYPED NAME, IILLI, 011 ICI. SYMBOL AND PHONE
c
(
4.
SIGNATURE
SECURITY CLASIFICATION
DAIL TIME GROUP
5
C
UNCLASSIFIED
10%
1 ore "
173
REPLACES DD FORM 111, 1 JUL as, ANICH HILL DE VIED.
UNCLASSITIED
NADE
DANTH 01
request
LUT
CLASS
CIC
100 MISSAGE CONTER/COMMUNIDATIONS CENTER ONLY
BHAND 110
ACT
IKID
DATE - TIME
MONTH
TA
02 or 02 261515Z
RR
UUUU
Mar
76
FOOK
MESSADE HANDLING INSTRUCTIONS
lio
moth CDRECOM FT MONWOUTH IiJ
TO: CDRIOAD TOBYHANNA Ph //DRXTO-MP//
UNCLAS
Subj: HBIC/DXW Maintenance Program
1. There is a requirement for increased production capability on
the following HHC/DXW items. Request your monthly production
capability for repair/overhaul if the items were provided to your
depot in the quantities indicated plus your on-hand assets.
Further indicate the maximum time required to achieve maximum
production capability and indicate production rate by month.
ITEM in.
NSR
QTY
23
5820-00-497-8554
106
30
5820-00-856-2731
247
38
5820-00-892-3339
4965
39
5820-00-892-3342
45
53
5821-00-226-4262
562
b
5
73
40
FORD is LIBRARY GENALD
6130-00-542-6385
w
a
48
6625-00-534-7458
33
2
1
80
6625-00-539-9685
176
0
DISTRO
D
DRAFTER TYPEDNAC, TITLE OFF PHONE DATE
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
Cecil L. Joyce, MAJ, F4, Asst Chief,
Dep Progo Br, DRSEI-MM-3-DP, 23747
26 Mar 76
TITLE. OF SYMBOL AND PHONE
chief. CES (iv) DREHI
LIGNATURE 3 Sand 124-9 6
SECURITY. CLASSIFICATION
DATE TIME GROUP
UNCLASSIFIED
DD FORM DEFIND 173
MEDLACES DO FORM 111. I JUL 11, KHICH KILL " L UIED.
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE
01
MOMES -:
IHE
CLASS
CIC
FOR MISSADE CENTER ONLY
FUMALE 11K
will
ISID
DATE - TIME
HUNTA IF
02 OF 02 261515Z
11.00
76
DOOK
MESSAGE HANDLING INSTRUCTIONS
ROLL
TO:
83
6625-00-581-2097
1
2. Reply required KLT COB 15 Apr 76.
P 5 = 3 1 0 2
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
DISITA
B
DAFTER TYPEDNAME, TITLE, OFFICE SYPBOL, PHONE DATE
INECIAL INFIRUCTIONS
A
TYPED NAME, TITLE, 01/10/1 01 SYMHOL AND FROME
THOUSAND
t
A
FIGNATURE
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DATE TIME GROUP
&
UNCLASSIFIED
A
DD
FORM
1 DIC 70
173
REPLACE PD , DRW 172. 1 JUL 11, KHICH TILL " USED,
April 11, 1975
The Honorable Howard Callaway
Secretary of the Anny
Washington, D.C.
In Re: LEAD
Dear Secretary Callaway:
Because of our mutual interest in a strong defense posture
for the United States, I point out to yourcertain areas that will
be severely impacted if Project CONCISE is implemented at LEAD.
The missions to which I refer are unique to the Lexington
Blue Grass Army Depot and have world-wide importance as an in-
tegral part of our defense posture and that of our allied countries.
This depot has been designated as the proponent depot for the
design, installation, testing and overhaul support of these mis-
sions. As a result, the engineering and technical service exper-
tise in these missions has been developed solely at LBAD. Permit
me to mention a fewt
2.
Primary Technical Control Facilities
These facilities are located in many foreign countries and constitute
an integral part of the world-wide defense communications network.
The Depot's major effort to date has been in European countries.
LEAD has responsibility for the making of site surveys and engineering
plans, the fabrication and installation of equipment, and preparing
as built drawings for the facilities.
b. / Watercraft Communications
All Army watercraft are presently being upgraded with standardised
communications equipment, LBAD is responsible for this world-wide
modernization program, and the overhaul of electronic equipment
associated with it. The special skills and knowledge involved
in prototyping and installing electronic equipment in watercraft
have been developed by this Depot and are unique to this instal-
lation.
FORD is LIBRARY
2
C. Satellite Comunications Terminals
The Satellite Communications System is an integral part of
our world-wide communication defense network, providing both
voice and teletype capabilities. On-site and depot support
is provided to the satellite terminals by LRAD. As a result
of this mission, LBAD has developed the only special test
facilities, methods and specifications for overhaul of components
and sub-systems associated with the satellite tensinals.
Specially trained personnel are dedicated to the support of this
mission, and are available for dispatch on a 24-hour notice.
d. Defense Communications System Contingency Stations
This is a mobile air transportable communications facility that
provides contingency operation, on a world-wide basis, through
extension of the Global Defense Communication System. The
capability of the station includes both short and long range
radio links to the Defense Communications System, a center that
provides radio and telephone circuits to the contingency joint
task force.
e. Combat Service Support System (CS3)
A mobile computerized materiel accounting system mounted in
this 35-foot semitrailer vans, the system consists of the IEM
360/30 CPU, a card resder/punch, line printer, controller and
multiple magnetic tape drives and disc storage elements and
provides logistical support to each of the Armies tactical
divisions. All prototyping, developing and engineering work
has been performed by Lexington-Blue Grass Army Depot personnel.
Systems are scheduled for completion in FY-80.
f. Automatic Secure Voice Communications Systems
An integrated communications system consisting of specialized
telephone instruments, switching centers and associated equipment
designed to provide touch-tone dialing, and secure voice com-
munications over narrow or wide-band communication channels on
a world-wide basis. Lexington Blue Grass Army Depot has developed
the necessary testing devices and the personnel expertise to
support this mission. No other capability exists in the De-
partment of the Army.
FORD & LIBRARY 938870
3
::
Electronic Switching and Automatic Central Office
Equipment
These facilities, i.e., AN/TTC-25, AN/TTC-38 and AN/FTC-31 are
designed for employment in a hostile environment and will inter-
face with other existing defense communications networks. Special
test equipment and personnel expertise have been developed to
support this unique mission.
h. Missile Monitor System, AN/MSC-4 & AN/TSQ-38
A fire distribution system designed to coordinate the fire of
Nike Hercules and Hawk air defense missile batteries. This system
provides target detection and ranging, display of possible
targets; interrogation and automatic tracking of those targets,
and control of firing batteries. Lexington Blue Grass Army Depot
supports this mission with personnel at the Depot, in Korea and
Germany.
i. Space Reactor Monitor and Radiation Detection Alam
Systems
The Space Rebetor Monitor System was developed by LEAD, speci-
fically for the protection of the President and Vice President
of the United States. Inclosure 1 is a copy of correspondence
relating to the technical requirements, and the extreme sensitivity
of this mission. The Rediation Detection Alarm System, also
developed by this depot, consists of a system designed to detect
thermal radiation, initial gamma radiation, and overpressure
blasts caused by a nuclear weapon explosion. These devices are
also installed in strategic locations to protect the President
and Vice President of the United States. Even though these
missions are not scheduled to be moved under Project CONCISE;
the engineering and fabrication support is being eliminated.
Mr. Secretary, I think we can agree that all of these missions
are of singular importance to the security of the United States.
If Project CONCISE is implemented as now planned, the Army is
going to lose the engineering and technical expertise associated
with these missions. Approximately 217 individuals are presently
utilized in the support of these missions.
I sincerely believe that today's world situation dictates the
retention of these personnel and other maintenance capabilities
intact at the Lexington Blue Grass Army Depot. Our failure to
retain these capabilities could well result in a serious situation
relative to both the defense of our country and our international
relations.
R. FORD LIBRANT
4
Your particular consideration of the importance of the
above missions in arriving at a final decision regarding the
implementation of CONCISE will be greatly appreciated, as will
your staff's attention to BY outstanding correspondence dated
March 11, 14, 18, 19 and 28 as well as April 8 and 9. 11/5/16
Sincerely yours,
John B. Breckinridge
B/CHG/1h
FORD & 074830 LIBRARI
LEXINGTON BLUE-GRASS ARMY DEPOT
of
IREMENT: Per paragraph 6/COL Viereck's MFR, Mr. Greiner requested
verification that 23000 pieces of electronics equipment
were not overhauled in FY 75.
ISSION: At the 12 April 1976 meeting between members of Congress and
four members of the Lexington Blue-Grass Army Depot (LBAD) it
was stated that the Army had entered into the record of the
LBAD injunction proceedingsthat 23,000 pieces of electronics
equipment were not overhauled in FY 76. Mr.. Greiner asked
that this figure be verified.
M ANSWER: The 23,000 pieces of equipment cited are the number of Code
"F" assets located at LBAD that need to be overhauled and
returned to the supply system. They were planned for overhaul
in FY 76. However, the National Inventory Control Point,
Electronics Command has not been able to move these items
because of the LBAD count injunction. They represent
approximately 340,000 M/Hrs of work and an estimated overhaul
cost of $5.7M. Inasmuch as the FY 76 workload assigned to
LBAD is slightly greater than their capability all of these
assets need to be moved to SAAD and/or TOAD.
BERALD R FORD LIBRAN