NAVY SMALL BOATS

Maintenance Report 

Addressed Most 

Directed Elements, 

but Additional 

Information Needed

Report to Congressional Committees

March 2012

GAO-12-421

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-421, a report to 

congressional committees

March 2012

NAVY SMALL BOATS

Maintenance Report Addressed Most Directed 

Elements, but Additional Information Needed

Why GAO Did This Study

The Navy has noted that successful 

execution of its maritime strategy 

requires the acquisition of not only 

surface combatants, but also small 

boats. The Navy reported that it 

received about $135 million in fiscal 

year 2010-2012 base procurement 

funding for small boats. These small 

boats vary widely in the missions they 

perform, their sizes, and the 

approaches for their maintenance. The 

House Armed Services Committee 

directed the Navy in House Report 

112-78 to conduct a study on 

strategies to reduce maintenance and 

repair costs associated with small boat 

storage and harboring and to submit a 

report to the House and Senate Armed 

Services Committees on its findings by 

October 31, 2011. The committee

directed GAO to assess the Navy’s 

report for completeness, including the 

methodology used in the Navy’s 

analysis. For this report, GAO

evaluated the extent to which (1) the 

Navy's report addressed the 

committee’s direction and (2) the 

findings in the Navy's study are 

supported by the data and information 

examined. GAO analyzed study

documents and the business case 

analysis, obtained and analyzed key 

documents, and interviewed cognizant 

officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Navy 

collect and include more complete 

information when evaluating future 

investment decisions at individual 

locations. DOD concurred with the 

recommendation.

What GAO Found

The Navy report addressed four of the five elements specified in House Report

112-78, while partially addressing one of the five elements. The Navy report 

addressed the potential for reducing maintenance and repair costs for the Navy’s 

small boat fleet by using advanced boat lifts, and it addressed recommendations 

regarding the potential establishment of improved boat corrosion control and 

prevention as key performance parameters. The Navy report partially addressed 

the committee’s direction to include an evaluation and business case analysis of 

the impact of advanced boat lifts for potential improvements to small boat

acquisition costs and life-cycle sustainment. The report’s business case analysis 

evaluated potential improvements to life-cycle sustainment, focusing on potential 

maintenance cost savings associated with boat lifts. However, this business case 

analysis did not evaluate the impact of the use of advanced boat lifts on potential 

improvements to small boat acquisition costs. Navy officials told GAO that the 

use of advanced boat lifts would not significantly contribute to extending the 

service life of the boats or produce any other additional benefits that would lead 

to reduced small boat acquisition costs. This is primarily because a critical 

feature of current procurement strategies is to select, specify, or design boats 

that are made from corrosion-resistant materials and use components that are 

corrosion resistant. Nonetheless, the Navy did not include this justification in the 

report or analyze the potential effects of the use of boat lifts on small boat 

acquisition costs in the report’s business case analysis. 

While the Navy completed a business case analysis of the impact of reduced 

maintenance and repair costs for the Navy’s small boat fleet through the use of 

advanced boat lifts, GAO found several areas in which more complete 

information could have been included to better support the findings of the Navy 

study. The April 2011 DOD Product Support Business Case Analysis Guidebook

provides standards for the DOD business case analysis process used to conduct 

analyses of costs, benefits, and risks. GAO identified several areas in which 

more comprehensive information, consistent with the DOD guidebook, could 

have been included in the Navy’s business case analysis. For example, the Navy 

did not include (1) actual lift installation and maintenance cost data or 

(2) qualitative data on other potential costs and benefits associated with the use 

of boat lifts, particularly location- and mission-specific benefits, from Navy 

installations that are using 72 recently acquired boat lifts. The DOD guidebook 

indicates that authoritative data sources—those used to conduct the financial and 

nonfinancial analysis for a business case analysis—should be comprehensive 

and accurate. Navy officials recognized that more comprehensive information 

would have been useful, but noted that they were unable to systematically survey 

all current boat lift users within the few months they had to complete their 

business case analysis. The Navy noted in its report that a significant number of 

boat lifts have recently entered service in the fleet and that the Navy will monitor 

service experience, data that may provide a basis for future decisions regarding 

the use of boat lifts. Without more complete information, the Navy may not be 

fully informed when it considers making future investments in boat lifts or other 

storage and harboring techniques at individual locations.

View GAO-12-421 or key components.

For more information, contact Zina Merritt at 

(202) 512-5257 or merrittz@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats

Letter 1 

Background 3

Navy Report Addressed Four of the Five Elements Specified in the 

House Report 6

Navy Would Benefit from More Comprehensive Information in 

Future Analyses 9

Conclusions 11

Recommendation for Executive Action 12

Agency Comments 12

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 14

Appendix II Photographs of Selected Navy Small Boats 16

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Defense 18

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 19

 

Table

Table 1: Overview of Navy Small Boat Inventory as of November 

2011 4

Figures

Figure 1: Small Boat Storage and Harboring Techniques 6

Figure 2: GAO Assessment of the Extent to Which the Navy Small 

Boat Report Addressed the House Report-Directed 

Elements 7

Figure 3: Riverine Command Boat 16

Figure 4: Rigid Inflatable Boat 16

Figure 5: Harbor Security Boat 17

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats

Abbreviation

DOD Department of Defense

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

March 13, 2012

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

The Honorable John McCain

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. McKeon

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Navy has noted that successful execution of its maritime strategy 

requires the acquisition of not only surface combatants, such as cruisers 

and destroyers, but also numerous high-performance small boats. To that 

end, the Navy is investing millions of dollars to acquire small boats to 

meet emerging fleet, antiterrorism, and force protection needs and to 

support ongoing operations. The Navy reported that it received about 

$135 million in fiscal year 2010-2012 base procurement funding for small 

boats. These small boats vary widely in the missions they perform, their 

sizes, the materials of which they are composed, their locations, and the 

approaches for their maintenance—including corrosion prevention 

measures. In the current constrained fiscal environment, the Department 

of Defense (DOD) must maximize its investment in small boats and 

reduce maintenance and repair costs where appropriate.

In House Report 112-78, accompanying the House bill for the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (H.R. 1540), the House 

Armed Services Committee directed the Navy to conduct a study on 

strategies to reduce maintenance and repair costs associated with small 

boat storage and harboring and to submit a report to the House and 

Senate Armed Services Committees on its findings by October 31, 2011.1

 

1

See H.R. Rep. No. 112-78, at 105-06 (2011).

The study was to include an evaluation and business case analysis of the 

 
Page 2 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats

impact that certain strategies, such as the use of advanced boat lifts, 

would have on potential improvements to small boat acquisition costs and 

life-cycle sustainment. The Navy’s report was to include 

recommendations on the potential establishment of improved boat 

corrosion control and prevention through various means.2

To determine the extent to which the Navy’s report addressed the 

committee’s direction, we analyzed House Report 112-78 to identify each 

element of the committee’s direction for the Navy report. We developed 

an evaluation tool based on House Report 112-78 to assess the extent to 

which the Navy’s report addressed these elements. Using scorecard 

methodologies, two GAO analysts independently evaluated the Navy 

report against the elements specified in the House report. After the two 

analysts had completed their independent analyses, they compared the 

two sets of observations and discussed and reconciled any differences. 

We also interviewed Navy subject matter experts to obtain additional 

information and corroborate the statements made in the Navy report, and 

we obtained the officials’ opinions of our assessments.

In the House 

report, the committee also directed GAO to assess the Navy’s report for 

completeness, including the methodology used in the Navy’s analysis. 

For this report, we evaluated the extent to which (1) the Navy’s report 

addressed the committee’s direction and (2) the findings in the Navy’s 

study are supported by the data and information examined.

To determine the extent to which the findings in the Navy’s study are 

supported by the data and information examined, we reviewed the study 

and obtained information on the objectives, scope, and methodology 

officials used to conduct it. We evaluated the Navy study’s business case 

analysis using criteria found in the DOD Product Support Business Case 

Analysis Guidebook, which provides standards for the DOD business 

case analysis process as well as generally acceptable economic 

methodologies.3

 

2

The Navy delivered Naval Sea Systems Command, Report to Congress: Study on Small 

Boat Maintenance Costs (October 2011), to Congress on October 31, 2011.

We reviewed the Navy’s study to determine the extent to 

which the Navy incorporated elements of the DOD guidebook into the 

planning, design, and execution of the study. We also obtained and 

analyzed key data sources, such as maintenance cost savings inputs and 

3

Department of Defense, DOD Product Support Business Case Analysis Guidebook (April 

2011).
Page 3 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats

boat lift cost data, for information included in the study. We interviewed 

officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 

Ships, Naval Sea Systems Command, and the Naval Surface Warfare 

Center to obtain their views on key aspects of the study, findings and 

conclusions, and any limitations that may have affected the study’s 

findings. We assessed the reliability of the data we analyzed by reviewing 

existing documentation related to the data sources and interviewing 

knowledgeable agency officials about the data that we used. We found 

the data sufficiently reliable for the purpose of evaluating the planning, 

design, and execution of the Navy’s business case analysis.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2011 to March 

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We discuss our scope 

and methodology in more detail in appendix I.

Navy boats are self-propelled craft, suitable primarily to be carried on 

board ships and to operate in and around naval activities.4 As of 

November 2011, there were 2,872 small boats in the Navy’s inventory 

and 58 different types of small boats, varying in length from 16 feet to 

over 200 feet, with expected service lives ranging from 7 to 12 years. 

Small boat types include rigid inflatable boats, riverine command boats, 

riverine assault boats, force protection boats, fleet harbor security boats, 

and unmanned craft.5

 

4

Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 4780.6E, Policy for Administering 

Service Craft and Boats in the U.S. Navy (Jan. 25, 2006).

These small boats vary widely in the missions they 

5

The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, Joint 

Publication 1-02 (Nov. 8, 2010; amended Jan. 15, 2012), defines riverine as an inland or 

coastal area comprising both land and water characterized by limited land lines of 

communication. The boats are used in operations conducted by forces organized to cope 

with and exploit the unique characteristics of a riverine area to locate and destroy hostile 

forces, achieve control of the area, or both. 

Background 

Small Boat Inventory and 

Responsibilities 
Page 4 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats

perform, which include maritime interdiction, antiterrorism, force 

protection, and oil spill response operations, as well as riverine operations 

in Iraq. Table 1 provides the inventory and mission descriptions for 

various types of Navy small boats. Appendix II contains photographs of 

selected Navy small boats.

Table 1: Overview of Navy Small Boat Inventory as of November 2011

Boat type

Number in 

inventory Description

Amphibious landing boats

79

Landing craft to bring troops, tanks, trucks, supplies, and equipment to 

and across the beach

Dive boats 117 Used for tethered diving operations and scuba operations

Oil spill response boats

366

Oil skimmers, platform boats, and utility boats for the oil spill response 

program

Rigid inflatable boats

966

Standard ship’s boats and others used for various missions, including 

search and rescue and visit/boarding/search

Security boats

588

Used for fleet protection, maritime interdiction, law enforcement 

operations, special operations, and others (riverine boats are included)

Ship’s boats

114

Personnel and utility boats with some configured as gigs and barges 

(gigs are boats assigned to commanding officers and used for visiting 

ships or hosting dignitaries in an afloat setting)

Utility boats 271 Shore-based utility boats

Work boats

171

Tugboats and multipurpose work boats with a variety of applications, 

including cargo carrying and harbor cleaning

Other boats 200 Includes ferry boats, unmanned craft, training craft, and others

Total 2,872 

Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.

Navy small boats are military equipment and are centrally procured, 

managed, and tracked by Naval Sea Systems Command (Program 

Executive Office, Ships, Support Ships, Boats and Craft Program Office).6

Naval Surface Warfare Center (Carderock Division, Detachment Norfolk, 

Combatant Craft Division) is responsible for boat inventory management 

and other activities, including boat allocation changes for certain 

activities.7

 

6

See Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Ships’ Technical Manual, ch. 583, vol. 1 (Apr. 

1, 2010). 

A small boat may be assigned to and carried aboard a ship as 

7

See id. 
Page 5 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats

a ship’s boat. Also, small boats may be assigned to an expeditionary 

command, shore station, or fleet operating unit. Navy officials reported 

that currently the Navy has assigned small boats to over 320 separate 

commands and activities (e.g., Navy Expeditionary Combat Command). 

According to Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 4780.6E, these 

commands and activities are responsible for proper maintenance of their 

small boats and for establishing a boat maintenance program for them.8

The Navy utilizes several techniques to store and harbor small boats, 

including trailers and lifts. The Navy may use trailers, which can be 

purchased as an accessory to the boat and may allow for the boat to be 

kept out of the water and then launched back into the water via a boat 

ramp. According to the Navy, the use of trailers can also facilitate timely 

logistical movement. The Navy has over 1,800 boat trailers in stock. 

Another technique is to use boat lifts, which are designed to raise a boat 

out of the water to reduce the effects of the saltwater environment on the 

hull, appendages, and exposed machinery components. The Navy has 72 

boat lifts in stock located at Navy installations around the world (e.g., 

Norfolk, Virginia; Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; and Bahrain). These lifts were 

acquired from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2010 at a cost of about $7 

million. Small boats can also be stored in the water or on a ship. Figure 1 

displays various techniques the Navy uses to store and harbor small 

boats.

 

8

See Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 4780.6E, Policy for Administering 

Service Craft and Boats in the U.S. Navy, § 5(b)(6) (Jan. 25, 2006).

Small Boat Storage and 

Harboring
Page 6 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats

Figure 1: Small Boat Storage and Harboring Techniques

The Navy report addressed four of the five elements specified in the 

House report, while partially addressing one of the five elements. Figure 2 

identifies the five elements the House report directed the Navy to address 

and our assessment of the degree to which the Navy report addressed 

each of them.

Navy Report 

Addressed Four of the 

Five Elements

Specified in the House 

Report 
Page 7 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats

Figure 2: GAO Assessment of the Extent to Which the Navy Small Boat Report 

Addressed the House Report-Directed Elements

The Navy report addressed the following elements:

• Investigate the potential for reduced maintenance and repair costs for 

the Navy’s small boat fleet by using advanced boat lifts: The report 

discussed potential benefits associated with using boat lifts to remove 

boats from water during periods of nonuse. These potential benefits 

included reducing some types of corrosion and lowering maintenance 

costs by eliminating the need to remove the boat from the water for 

inspection.

• Include a recommendation regarding the potential establishment of 

improved boat corrosion control and prevention as a key performance 

parameter for the selection of boat maintenance and storage 

equipment: The report did not recommend improved boat corrosion 

control and prevention as a key performance parameter for the 
Page 8 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats

selection of boat maintenance and storage equipment.9

• Include a recommendation regarding the potential establishment of 

improved boat corrosion control and prevention as a key performance 

parameter for sustainment: The report did not recommend improved 

boat corrosion control and prevention as a key performance 

parameter for sustainment. It stated that boat corrosion control and 

prevention is certainly an important aspect of sustainment; however, it 

is not sufficiently definable to be used as a key performance 

parameter. Specifically, the report noted that the boat corrosion and 

control prevention aspect of sustainment is not a stand-alone testable 

quantity; therefore it fails to meet an important criterion for a key 

performance parameter.

It noted that 

boat maintenance and storage equipment should be selected based 

on its potential benefit to corrosion control and prevention on boats 

and craft, but added that improved corrosion control and prevention 

will be hard to clearly define and measure, making them inappropriate 

for key performance parameters.

• Include a recommendation regarding the potential establishment of 

improved boat corrosion control and prevention as a requirement for 

Naval Sea Systems Command to incorporate into its acquisition 

strategies: The report stated that corrosion control and prevention are 

already a well-established part of the requirements used by Naval Sea 

Systems Command in its acquisition strategies for procurement 

contracts for small boats. It noted that corrosion control and planning 

are addressed through performance requirements, design 

requirements, and contractual requirements to the extent possible. A 

review of current fleet repair and maintenance procedures and 

records does not reflect a need for additional requirements, according 

to the Navy report.

The Navy report partially addressed the following element:

• Include an evaluation and business case analysis of the impact of 

advanced boat lifts for potential improvements to small boat 

acquisition costs and life-cycle sustainment: The report’s business 

case analysis evaluated potential improvements to life-cycle 

 

9

The Navy report defined key performance parameters as those attributes or 

characteristics of a system that are considered critical or essential to the development of 

an effective military capability and those attributes that make a significant contribution to 

the characteristics of the future joint force, as defined in the Capstone Concept for Joint 

Operations. Naval Sea Systems Command, Report to Congress: Study on Small Boat 

Maintenance Costs at 16 (October 2011). 
Page 9 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats

sustainment, focusing on potential maintenance cost savings 

associated with boat lifts. However, this business case analysis did 

not evaluate the impact of the use of advanced boat lifts on potential 

improvements to small boat acquisition costs. Navy officials told us 

that the use of advanced boat lifts would not significantly contribute to 

extending the service life of the boats or produce any other additional 

benefits that would lead to reduced small boat acquisition costs. This 

is primarily because a critical feature of current procurement 

strategies is to select, specify, or design boats that are made from 

corrosion-resistant materials and use components that are corrosion 

resistant. Nonetheless, the Navy did not include this justification in the 

report or analyze the potential effects of the use of boat lifts on small 

boat acquisition costs in the report’s business case analysis.

While the Navy completed a business case analysis of the impact of 

reduced maintenance and repair costs for the Navy’s small boat fleet 

through the use of advanced boat lifts, we found several areas in which 

more complete information could have been included to better support the 

findings of the Navy study. Navy officials told us that they broadly used 

service experience and general guidance from the Naval Center for Cost 

Analysis to structure and execute the business case analysis. The Navy 

collected data from the existing boat inventory; maintenance procedures 

and practices, such as inspections; and maintenance actions to 

determine potential maintenance cost savings associated with boat lifts 

and compared them with data collected on lift installation and lift 

maintenance costs to determine the payback on a boat lift investment. 

The Navy assigned risk ranges to each data input and ran them through a 

software program that used Monte Carlo simulation techniques and ran 

5,000 simulations.10

 

10To address the uncertainties inherent in the analysis, the Navy used a commercially 

available risk analysis software program called Crystal Ball to incorporate uncertainties 

associated with the data. The program allowed the Navy to explore a wide range of 

possible values for all the input costs and assumptions it used to build its model. The 

Crystal Ball program uses a Monte Carlo simulation process, which repeatedly and 

randomly selects values for each input to the model from a distribution specified by the 

user. Using the selected values for cells in the spreadsheet, Crystal Ball then calculates 

the total cost of the scenario. By repeating the process in thousands of trials, Crystal Ball 

produces a range of estimated total costs for each scenario and the likelihood associated 

with any specific value in the range.

Based on this analysis, the Navy concluded that it 

was unlikely that implementing boat lifts would provide a positive return 

on investment.

Navy Would Benefit 

from More 

Comprehensive 

Information in Future

Analyses 
Page 10 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats

The April 2011 DOD Product Support Business Case Analysis Guidebook

presents a uniform methodology for developing accurate, consistent, and 

effective support of value-based decision making while better aligning the 

acquisition and life-cycle product support processes.11

• The Navy did not utilize discounting in the business case analysis and 

did not document its reasons for not doing so within the report or in 

additional documentation provided to us. The DOD guidebook 

indicates that as a general rule, discounting should be done unless 

there is a documented rationale not to discount. Discounting future 

benefits and costs using an appropriate discount rate illustrates the 

time value of money, as benefits and costs are worth more if they are 

experienced sooner. Discounting benefits and costs transforms gains 

and losses occurring in different time periods to a common unit of 

measurement.

The guidebook 

provides standards for the DOD business case analysis process used to 

conduct analyses of costs, benefits, and risks. We identified several areas 

in which more comprehensive information, consistent with the DOD 

guidebook, could have been included in the business case analysis. For 

example:

12

• The Navy did not include comprehensive data from Navy installations 

that are using 72 recently acquired boat lifts on (1) actual lift 

installation and maintenance cost data or (2) qualitative data on other 

potential costs and benefits associated with the use of boat lifts. Navy 

officials reported that they contacted one primary boat lift user 

command to gather a significant amount of data for the study and 

relied on boat lift vendors’ estimates for lift cost and maintenance 

data. The DOD guidebook indicates that authoritative data sources—

those used to conduct the financial and nonfinancial analysis for a 

business case analysis—should be comprehensive and accurate. 

Navy officials explained that because the way boat lifts are used and 

any benefits associated with their use are location and mission 

specific, qualitative data would be particularly valuable. For example, 

Navy officials told us that boat lifts may improve the operational 

availability of small boats at installations that have limited access to 

boat ramps that allow boat trailers to launch boats in the water.

 

11Department of Defense, DOD Product Support Business Case Analysis Guidebook. 

12Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for 

Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs at 4 (Oct. 29, 1992).
Page 11 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats

Navy officials responsible for conducting the business case analysis were 

unaware of the DOD Product Support Business Case Analysis 

Guidebook, but acknowledged its applicability to their analysis. Navy 

officials recognized that more comprehensive information would have 

been useful, but noted that they were unable to systematically survey all 

current boat lift users within the few months they had to complete their 

business case analysis. Navy officials reported that including this 

information would likely not have changed the study’s conclusions, as the 

analysis showed that the opportunity for a positive return on investment 

from implementing boat lifts for storage and harboring was so low.13 Navy 

officials also noted that the business case analysis did not address other 

potential costs associated with the use of boat lifts, such as the cost of 

adding new pier space to accommodate boat lifts. Although a more 

comprehensive analysis may not reverse this study’s conclusions, 

decision makers would benefit from collecting and including more 

complete information in future analyses, particularly when evaluating 

investment decisions at individual locations, such as using discounting 

and conducting comprehensive surveys of boat lift users to obtain all 

potential costs and benefits associated with implementing boat lifts. The 

Navy noted in its report that a significant number of boat lifts have 

recently entered service in the fleet and that the Navy will monitor service 

experience, data that may provide a basis for future decisions regarding 

the use of boat lifts. Without more complete information, the Navy may 

not be fully informed when it considers making future investments in boat 

lifts or other storage and harboring techniques at individual locations.

The Navy continues to rely on small boats to meet emerging fleet, 

antiterrorism, and force protection needs and support ongoing operations. 

While these boats vary widely in the missions they perform and the 

approaches for maintaining them, fiscal challenges require DOD to 

maximize its investment in small boats by reducing maintenance and 

repair costs where appropriate. Making informed decisions on effective 

and efficient small boat storage and harboring options will play a key role 

in doing so. While the Navy report addressed nearly all of the elements 

specified in House Report 112-78, additional information would better 

 

13For example, since usually the benefits of acquiring a boat lift are spread over a number 

of future years while the lift costs are primarily realized in year one, incorporating 

discounting into the business case analysis would reduce future benefits more while 

leaving cost essentially the same; thus it would not likely affect the study’s conclusions.

Conclusions 
Page 12 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats

inform Navy decision makers. In particular, collecting and including more 

complete information—such as using discounting and conducting 

comprehensive surveys of boat lift users to obtain all potential costs and 

benefits associated with implementing boat lifts—would better inform the 

Navy when it considers making future investments in boat lifts or other 

storage and harboring techniques at individual locations.

To enable the Navy to make informed decisions when it considers making 

future investments in boat lifts or other storage and harboring techniques, 

we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the 

Navy to collect and include more complete information when evaluating 

investment decisions at individual locations, for example, by using 

discounting and conducting comprehensive surveys of boat lift users to 

obtain all potential costs and benefits associated with implementing boat 

lifts.

We provided a draft of this report to DOD for comment. DOD concurred 

with our recommendation to have the Secretary of Defense direct the 

Secretary of the Navy to collect and include more complete information 

when evaluating investment decisions at individual locations (DOD’s 

comments are reprinted in app. III). DOD provided technical comments 

during the course of the engagement, and these were incorporated as 

appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the 

Secretary of the Navy, and appropriate congressional committees. In 

addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments
Page 13 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-5257 or merrittz@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix 

IV.

Zina Merritt

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management
Page 14 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats

To determine the extent to which the Navy’s report addressed the House 

Armed Services Committee’s direction, we analyzed House Report 112-

78 to identify each element of the committee’s direction for the Navy 

report. We developed an evaluation tool based on House Report 112-78 

to assess the extent to which the Navy’s report addressed these 

elements. Using scorecard methodologies, two GAO analysts 

independently evaluated the Navy report against the elements specified 

in the House report. The analysts rated compliance for each element as 

“addressed,” “partially addressed,” or “not addressed.” We considered the 

element to be addressed in the report when the Navy explicitly addressed 

all parts set forth in the element. We considered the element partially 

addressed in the report when the Navy addressed at least one or more 

parts of the element, but not all parts of the element. We considered the 

element not addressed by the Navy when the report did not explicitly 

address any part of the element. After the two analysts had completed 

their independent analyses, they compared the two sets of observations 

and discussed and reconciled any differences. The final assessment 

reflected our consensus. We also interviewed Navy subject matter 

experts to obtain additional information and corroborate the statements 

made in the Navy report, and we obtained the officials’ opinions of our 

assessments. We interviewed officials from the Office of the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Ships, Naval Sea Systems Command, 

and the Naval Surface Warfare Center.

To determine the extent to which the findings in the Navy’s study are 

supported by the data and information examined, we reviewed the study 

and obtained information on the objectives, scope, and methodology 

officials used to conduct it. We evaluated the Navy study’s business case 

analysis using criteria found in the DOD Product Support Business Case 

Analysis Guidebook, which provides standards for the Department of 

Defense’s (DOD) business case analysis process as well as generally 

acceptable economic methodologies.1

 

1

Department of Defense, DOD Product Support Business Case Analysis Guidebook (April 

2011).

We reviewed the Navy’s study to 

determine the extent to which the Navy incorporated elements of the 

DOD guidebook into the planning, design, and execution of the study. We 

also obtained and analyzed key data sources, such as maintenance cost 

savings inputs and boat lift cost data, for information included in the 

study. We interviewed Navy officials to obtain their views on key aspects 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Page 15 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats

of the study, findings and conclusions, and any limitations that may have 

affected the study’s findings. We also interviewed officials responsible for 

procuring and maintaining Navy small boats, to determine the extent to 

which the Navy factored appropriate costs and benefits into the study’s 

key assumptions and related findings. We assessed the reliability of the 

data we analyzed by reviewing existing documentation related to the data 

sources and interviewing knowledgeable agency officials about the data 

that we used. We found the data sufficiently reliable for the purpose of 

evaluating the planning, design, and execution of the Navy’s business 

case analysis.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2011 to March 

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Page 16 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats

Figures 3 through 5 contain photographs of different types of Navy small 

boats in use.

Figure 3: Riverine Command Boat

Figure 4: Rigid Inflatable Boat

Appendix II: Photographs of Selected Navy 

Small Boats
Page 17 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats

Figure 5: Harbor Security Boat
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 18 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Defense
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 19 GAO-12-421 Navy Small Boats

Zina Merritt, (202) 512-5257 or merrittz@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Carleen Bennett, Assistant 

Director; Tarik Carter; Joanne Landesman; Mehrzad Nadji; Terry 

Richardson; Mike Shaughnessy; Amie Steele; and Chris Watson made 

key contributions to the report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(351689)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.