United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

April 1998 DEFENSE

OUTSOURCING

Impact on Navy

Sea-Shore Rotations

GAO/NSIAD-98-107

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-279332 

April 27, 1998

The Honorable Steve Buyer

The Honorable Owen Pickett

House of Representatives

This report responds to your request that we determine whether the

Department of Defense’s (DOD) outsourcing (contracting out) of

commercial activities reduces the availability of rotational billets for active

duty military personnel. Based on our initial inquiries, we found that

problems regarding the impact of outsourcing on rotational assignments

were principally occurring within the Navy. As a result of that information

and as agreed with your offices, we focused our review on the Navy. This

report addresses (1) how the Navy’s current outsourcing efforts have

affected rotational billets and (2) whether the Navy has policies and

procedures in place to minimize the impact of outsourcing on rotational

billets in the future.

Background Outsourcing for commercial services is a growing practice within the

government in an attempt to achieve cost savings, management

efficiencies, and operating flexibility. Various studies in recent years have

highlighted the potential for DOD to achieve significant savings from

outsourcing competitions, especially those that involve commercial

activities that are currently being performed by military personnel. Most of

DOD’s outsourcing competitions, like those of other government agencies,

are to be conducted in accordance with policy guidance and

implementation procedures provided in the Office of Management and

Budget’s (OMB) Circular A-76 and its supplemental handbook.

In August 1995, the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed the services to

make outsourcing of support activities a priority. The Navy’s initial

outsourcing plans for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 indicated that it would

conduct A-76 outsourcing competitions involving about 25,500 positions,

including about 3,400 military billets. As of February 1998, however, the

actual number of military billets announced for A-76 competitions in fiscal

years 1997 and 1998 was changed to 2,100. Navy officials told us that when

the Navy announces its intention to begin an A-76 study that includes

military billets, the funding for those billets is eliminated from the military

personnel budget beginning with the year the study is expected to be

completed. The Navy’s rationale for eliminating these billets from the

budget is that it expects the functions to be either outsourced to the

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-98-107 Defense Outsourcing
B-279332 

private sector or retained in-house and performed by government civilians.

Either way, the functions will be funded through the service’s operations

and maintenance budget and not the military personnel budget.

According to OMB’s Circular A-76, certain functions should not be

outsourced to the private sector. These functions include activities that

are closely related to the exercise of national defense and DOD’s

war-fighting capability and must be performed by government personnel.

DOD guidance designates that one such protected area is billets that are

required to support rotational requirements for active duty enlisted

military personnel returning from overseas assignments or sea duty.

Rotational billets are generally defined as those positions that must remain

available to military service members to (1) ensure that those returning

from overseas assignments or sea duty have adequate rotation

opportunities and (2) provide opportunities for the service members to

continue to function within their areas of specialty for purposes of

maintaining readiness, training, and required skills.

The Navy has identified the minimum number of such rotational billets

required for enlisted personnel for each specific skill specialty and grade.

Its sea-shore rotation goal is that sufficient shore billets be available for

each skill specialty and grade level to provide an equal mix of sea duty and

shore duty, that is, 3 years at sea for every 3 years on shore, for its enlisted

personnel in grades E-5 through E-9. Because sea billets exceed shore

billets, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations established a sea-shore rotation

policy in December 1997 directing that the aggregate sea-shore rotation for

enlisted personnel in grades E-5 through E-9 be no more than 4 years at

sea for every 3 years on shore. Actual sea-shore rotations, however,

depending on the skill specialty and grade level, have ranged from 

3 to 5 years at sea for every 3 years on shore. As of February 1998, the total

number of sea billets exceeded shore billets by more than 40,000.

Consequently, with fewer shore billets available for rotation purposes, less

time is being spent ashore than at sea.

For years, the Navy has been unable to attain its sea-shore rotation goal

because of shortages of shore billets for some skills and the difficulty of

duplicating some of the specific skill specialties on shore. Moreover, about

66 percent of the total enlisted billets for specific skill specialties (called

ratings) for grades E-5 through E-9 required at sea aboard ships do not

easily lend themselves to comparable shore duty, according to Navy

officials. These types of billets, called sea ratings, include ratings such as

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-98-107 Defense Outsourcing
B-279332 

electronic technicians, machinist mates, and various aviation-related

specialties.

To overcome the difficulty of providing comparable shore billets for all sea

ratings, the Navy has had to use general duty shore billets for enlisted

personnel that cannot be assigned to their specific rating on shore.

General duty billets include such functions as security positions,

recruiters, and other duties. Navy officials believe that using personnel in

these billets is productive, but such positions should be limited because

they can impact training, skill retention, and morale. According to these

officials, personnel assigned to general duty billets are not receiving

specific training and experience related to their sea-duty rating.

Historically, the Navy has attempted to minimize the number of sailors in

general duty billets. As of January 1998, the Navy had about 12,500 enlisted

personnel working in general duty shore positions.

Results in Brief Several Navy A-76 competitions announced for study in fiscal years 1997

and 1998 have the potential to eliminate military billets in areas where

rotational shortages exist for personnel returning from sea duty. As a

result, the Navy has decided not to begin some of these A-76 studies and

plans to reinstate funding authorization for the military positions

eliminated when the studies were announced. Other studies that will

exacerbate rotational shortages are still scheduled to be implemented.

Until recently, the Navy had not developed specific policies and

coordination procedures to protect rotational billets from outsourcing

considerations. According to Navy officials, such policies and procedures

were not needed prior to fiscal year 1997 because the Navy’s outsourcing

initiatives were limited and not centrally managed. In May 1997, Navy

officials signed a memorandum of agreement specifying a coordination

process between the Navy’s headquarters infrastructure officials and

military personnel representatives to ensure that consideration is given to

rotation requirements when determining potential functions for

outsourcing. This memorandum of agreement was further strengthened in

September 1997 by a more detailed Navy-wide memorandum of agreement

that applied to all major commands, which the Navy refers to as major

claimants, for all infrastructure reductions, including outsourcing.

This coordination policy should prove important since the Navy’s goal is to

have completed A-76 competitions for 80,500 positions by the year 2002,

including about 10,000 military billets. The Navy expects that its

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-98-107 Defense Outsourcing
B-279332 

outsourcing efforts will produce savings and accordingly has programmed

expected savings of $2.5 billion into its future years defense plan for fiscal

years 2000 through 2003. The Navy has not identified the specific activities

and locations that will be studied to achieve projected savings, but has

tasked its major commands with recommending specific activities and

locations for A-76 competitions to meet this savings goal. The Navy

recently began a series of planning conferences involving appropriate

officials from headquarters and major commands focusing on strategies

for attaining its future years’ outsourcing goals. However, given the Navy’s

plans for outsourcing competitions, ongoing coordination and improved

planning between headquarters and major commands is needed to reach

agreement on realistic goals and time frames. Improved planning and

coordination could also identify areas most conducive to outsourcing,

least likely to eliminate needed shore billets, and likely to yield the

greatest savings. In addition, improved planning and coordination could

minimize the elimination of required military shore billets, as well as avoid

prematurely programming savings into future years’ budgets.

Some Navy

Outsourcing Studies

Would Eliminate

Military Billets Where

Rotation Shortages

Exist

As of August 1997, outsourcing studies announced by the Navy in fiscal

years 1997 and 1998 included some military positions for which rotational

shortages1

 existed based on the sea-shore rotation policy effective at that

time. Of the total 740 Navy-wide military billets announced for study in

1998, 306 billets are for tug operations and maintenance functions that

include ratings that have rotational shortages. These included 201 military

billets in Norfolk, Virginia, 51 military billets in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and

54 military billets in Guam for tug operations and maintenance functions.

(See table 1.)

1

The Navy’s sea-shore rotation policy approved by the Vice Chief of Naval Operations in December

1997 designates a specific rating as having a rotational shortage only when the aggregate sea-shore

rotation is more than 4 years at sea for every 3 years on shore. Our use of the term shortages in this

report is intended to reflect what the Navy previously considered as an insufficient number of shore

billets available within a specific rating based on the Navy’s sea-shore rotation analysis prepared in

August 1997. We recognize that under the Navy’s recent policy guidance the shortage is not viewed

negatively by the Navy unless it causes rotations to exceed 5 years at sea for every 3 years on shore.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-98-107 Defense Outsourcing
B-279332 

Table 1: Tug Operations and

Maintenance Functions Announced for

A-76 Competitions That Have

Rotational Shortages

Function Location

Number of

military billets

Affected ratings that have

rotational shortages

Tug operations

and maintenance

Norfolk 201 Boatswain’s mate,a hull

maintenance technician, and

machinery repairman

Tug operations

and maintenance

Pearl Harbor 51 Boatswain’s mate, engineman,

and electrician’s mate

Tug operations

and maintenance

Guam 54 Boatswain’s mate, damage

controlman, electrician’s mate,

engineman, and interior

communications electrician

Total 306

aBoatswain’s mates are responsible for maintaining machinery and equipment on ships’ decks,

handling cargo, operating small boats, and maintaining the exterior surfaces of ships.

We also identified other shore functions that have been announced for

potential outsourcing that some Navy officials expect will create or

contribute to existing shortages of rotational billets. In fiscal year 1997, the

Navy announced plans to study 216 military billets for base operations

support functions in Guam for ratings that have rotational shortages. In

January 1998, the Navy announced plans to perform A-76 studies for

bachelor officer quarters (BOQ) and bachelor enlisted quarters (BEQ)

functions of military billets that have rotational shortages. (See table 2.)

Table 2: Other Navy Functions

Announced for A-76 Studies That Have

Rotational Shortages Function Location

Number of

military billets

Affected ratings that have

rotational shortages

Base operations

support

Guam 216 Aviation ordnance, boatswain’s

mate, builder, damage

controlman, gas turbine system

technician, and mess specialist

BOQ/BEQ Lemoore 10 Mess specialist

Total 226

As of August 1997, data showed that these outsourcing initiatives would

further reduce the rotation base for specific ratings and would add to

existing rotational shortages. Navy officials told us that the decisions to

study these functions for potential outsourcing were made before the Navy

had developed servicewide and regional data needed to identify the impact

on sea-shore rotations and, as a result, they were unaware of the potential

impact. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD added that, even

though the Navy’s decision to study these functions was made before

today’s stringent procedures were in place, the Navy concluded after the

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-98-107 Defense Outsourcing
B-279332 

decision was made that the impact on sea-shore rotation and career

progression would be acceptable.

Navy officials at the affected installations stated that the Navy’s decision

to study these functions for potential outsourcing will seriously affect

sea-shore rotation, resulting in the elimination of military billets and fewer

opportunities available on shore for enlisted personnel grades E-5 through

E-9. Other Navy officials expressed similar concerns and the view that

these outsourcing initiatives could result in less flexibility for the Navy and

impair career progression and morale for its enlisted servicemembers.

Plans for Some Navy

Studies Canceled Due to

the Impact on Sea-Shore

Rotation

In fiscal year 1997, the Commander in Chief, Atlantic Fleet, canceled

outsourcing study plans for about 240 military billets in the BOQ and BEQ

functions because of Navy-wide rotational shortages for mess specialists

and the related impact on sea-shore rotation. Similarly, in fiscal year 1998,

the Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet, canceled plans to begin A-76

studies involving about 63 military billets in these functions for the same

reason. Although the funding for these billets had been deleted from the

1999 budget, both commands are planning to reinstate funding

authorization by reprogramming existing resources. The Navy also

canceled an A-76 study of the BOQ and BEQ functions at the Naval Security

Station, Washington, because Navy officials had determined that

outsourcing these functions would have further degraded sea-shore

rotation.

The Navy does not intend to cancel its plans to begin the A-76 studies

announced for tug operations and maintenance involving 306 military

billets or the base operations support at Guam even though the shore

billets that will be eliminated will further impact the sea-shore rotation

base. According to Navy officials, the decision to study for outsourcing the

tug operations and maintenance function was initially based on the fact

that the Navy’s tug boats were old and costly to maintain and would

eventually have to be replaced if the tug operations and maintenance were

not outsourced. Navy officials stated that several options will be

considered to accommodate the impact on sea-shore rotation, such as

reclassifying the shore billets to a related billet, general duty billet, or

increasing the number of shore billets for those ratings in other locations.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-98-107 Defense Outsourcing
B-279332 

New Outsourcing

Coordination Efforts

Will Be Instrumental

in Making Decisions

on Future Studies

Until May 1997, the Navy did not have procedures in place to ensure that

rotational requirements were adequately considered when it determined

potential functions for outsourcing study. At that time, the Navy adopted

policies and procedures to examine Navy-wide and regional effects of its

outsourcing plans on the sea-shore rotation base. Specifically, a

memorandum of agreement was established specifying the coordination

process between the Navy’s headquarters infrastructure officials and the

military personnel officials regarding the procedures for studying military

functions for potential outsourcing. This memorandum of agreement was

further strengthened in September 1997 by a more detailed Navy-wide

memorandum of agreement that applied to all major commands for all

infrastructure reductions, including outsourcing. Also, in August 1997, the

Navy’s Bureau of Personnel provided major commands and other officials

with Navy-wide and regional manpower data tools specifying the

rotational requirements for each specific rating. Outsourcing officials are

expected to use this information to assess rotational requirements of

specific ratings for grades E-5 through E-9 when identifying potential

candidates for outsourcing. If a rotational shortage is identified, the

specific rating is not recommended for outsourcing to avoid further

degradation of the sea-shore rotation base.

In December 1997, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations approved a set of

business rules to further strengthen the policies and procedures for

protecting military billets with rotational shortages from potential

outsourcing. These business rules require that the overall sea-shore

rotation for sea ratings will not exceed 4 years at sea for every 3 years on

shore and that the sea-shore rotation for individual ratings will not exceed

5 years at sea for every 3 years on shore. The Vice Chief of Naval

Operations directed that these business rules be followed for all

infrastructure reductions, including outsourcing. Moreover, Navy

infrastructure officials and military manpower officials told us that they

are continuing to work closely regarding outsourcing goals and sea-shore

rotation requirements as the Navy moves to identify potential outsourcing

candidates and meet its outsourcing study and savings goals.

Future Outsourcing Goals

Reinforce Need for

Strategic Planning

Between fiscal years 1997 and 2002, the Navy plans to study 80,500 civilian

and military positions for potential outsourcing at an estimated savings of

$2.5 billion. The Navy estimates that about 10,000 of these positions will be

military billets and the remaining 70,500 will be positions currently

occupied by civilians. (See table 3.)

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-98-107 Defense Outsourcing
B-279332 

Table 3: Navy Outsourcing Study

Goals by Fiscal Year (Numbers reflect positions)

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total

Military 1,400 2,000 2,300 2,200 2,100 10,000

Civilian 9,100 13,000 17,700 17,800 12,900 70,500

Total 10,500 15,000 20,000 20,000 15,000 80,500

Because the funding for the Navy’s military billets is eliminated from the

personnel budget when the billets are announced for study, the funding for

all military billets approved for competition will be deleted from the

Navy’s personnel budget by the year 2003. To eliminate the 10,000 military

billets from the military personnel budget by the year 2003, the Navy’s

objective has been to announce about 2,000 military billets for study each

year for 5 years beginning in fiscal year 1997. In fiscal year 1997, the Navy

announced plans to study about 1,400 military billets for potential

outsourcing. It appears likely, however, that the Navy will fall short of its

goal for fiscal year 1998.

As of January 1998, the Navy had announced plans to study 740 military

billets and 6,678 civilian positions for fiscal year 1998. Navy officials told

us in February 1998 they will announce additional A-76 studies in fiscal

year 1998, but did not know the specific activities that would be studied or

the number of billets that would be affected. As of February 1998, the

Navy was attempting to identify potential functions and billets for

outsourcing in subsequent fiscal years, but it had not determined the

specific number of military billets or civilian positions that will be

announced for study in those years. Some Navy officials have expressed

concern over whether they will be able to attain the overall goal of

studying 10,000 military billets by the year 2003. In addition, some Navy

base commanders are concerned that outsourcing decisions affecting their

installations may be made without their input.

Despite these concerns, the Navy has programmed estimated savings of

$2.5 billion from outsourcing into its future years defense plan, increasing

the pressure to identify candidates for outsourcing studies. The Navy has

established an ambitious goal for itself in terms of number of positions it

plans to study for potential outsourcing under A-76. At the same time, the

Navy is relying on its major commands to identify the functions to study to

meet these programmed budget savings. Navy officials stated that they

began a series of planning conferences in September 1997 involving

appropriate officials from Navy headquarters and major commands.

According to these officials, one of the primary objectives of the planning

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-98-107 Defense Outsourcing
B-279332 

conferences is to begin discussing a strategic plan for accomplishing the

outsourcing goals for fiscal years 1999 through 2001. While we believe that

a strategic plan is necessary to achieve the Navy’s outsourcing goals,

ongoing coordination and improved planning between headquarters and

the major commands will be required to reach agreement on realistic goals

and time frames and to identify areas most conducive to outsourcing and

likely to yield the greatest savings. In addition, improved planning and

coordination could minimize the elimination of required military shore

billets, as well as avoid prematurely programming savings into future

years’ budgets. Navy officials stated that, in addition to the recent planning

conferences, it plans to address the larger issue of how the Navy conducts

its business and possible alternatives for meeting Navy-wide personnel

levels and requirements.

Conclusions The Navy established ambitious goals for studying military and civilian

personnel positions for potential outsourcing under A-76 competitions.

Only as it began initiating the plans for some of these studies involving

military personnel positions did it find that outsourcing some of these

positions could affect positions reserved for sea-shore rotational

requirements—a situation that caused the Navy to withdraw some of its

planned outsourcing initiatives. The Navy has recently established policies

and procedures to ensure that sea-shore rotation requirements are

reviewed and considered when identifying potential functions for

outsourcing. While the Navy has recently begun to focus on strategies for

attaining its outsourcing goals for future years, improved planning and

coordination between headquarters and major commands are needed to

reach agreement on realistic goals and time frames. Improved planning

and coordination could also identify areas most conducive to outsourcing,

least likely to eliminate needed shore billets, and likely to yield the

greatest savings. In addition, improved planning and coordination could

minimize the elimination of required military shore billets, as well as avoid

prematurely programming savings into future years’ budgets.

Recommendation To enhance the likelihood that plans for outsourcing are reasonable and

achievable, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense take steps to

ensure that the Secretary of the Navy, as it develops its strategic plan,

involves the major commands to reach agreement on realistic goals and

time frames, and identify areas most conducive to outsourcing. Likewise,

we recommend that the Secretary of Defense periodically reassess

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-98-107 Defense Outsourcing
B-279332 

whether outsourcing savings targets that are used in planning for future

years budgets are achievable in the time frames planned.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our

conclusions and recommendation (see app. II). DOD provided a number of

comments addressing how the Navy has taken significant steps to

implement policies and coordination procedures to protect rotational

billets from outsourcing considerations and to involve the major

commands in the strategic planning process for attaining its future years’

outsourcing goals. DOD noted, and we concur, that a number of studies

included in the Navy’s initial outsourcing announcement were canceled

because a subsequent review revealed that they were not appropriate

competition candidates. Since then, DOD notes that the Navy has made

progress to widen the scope of its outsourcing program and to involve all

claimants (major commands) in the planning process. DOD indicated that

the canceled outsourcing studies cited in our report were not

representative of the Navy’s competitive outsourcing program as it exists

today. The Navy is currently implementing a number of initiatives to

improve strategic planning that should enable them to identify areas most

conducive to outsourcing, without exacerbating shortages of rotational

billets.

DOD also stated that the Navy’s current outsourcing policies and

procedures require that no function employing military personnel will be

announced for potential outsourcing until the Navy’s Manpower Office

determines that outsourcing the function will not have an adverse affect.

DOD stated that these activities demonstrate the Navy’s commitment to

work with its major commands, and therefore, additional direction from

the Secretary of Defense is unnecessary.

We agree that the Navy has begun some important actions toward

developing a strategic plan and including its major commands in that

process. However, the Navy has not completed its plan as of April 1998. At

the same time, our report points out that it appears likely the Navy will fall

short of its goal for new outsourcing studies in fiscal year 1998, and some

Navy officials expressed concern to us over whether they will be able to

attain the optimistic goal of studying 10,000 military billets by the year

2003 and save $2.5 billion from outsourcing in its future years defense

plan. This goal adds pressure on the claimants to emphasize outsourcing,

and accordingly, we believe it will remain critical for the Navy to continue

to work with its major commands to complete the development of its

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-98-107 Defense Outsourcing
B-279332 

plans for accomplishing these objectives. Likewise, we believe it is

important to periodically reassess the extent to which savings goals and

objectives are achievable and whether savings targets established for

out-year budget purposes might need to be revised. In view of this, we

have revised our recommendation to recommend that the Secretary of

Defense ensure that the Secretary of the Navy, as it develops its strategic

plan involves the major commands to reach agreement on realistic goals

and time frames, and identify areas most conducive to outsourcing. We

have also added a recommendation that the Secretary of Defense

periodically reassess whether outsourcing savings targets that are used in

planning for future years budgets are achievable in the time frames

planned.

Our scope and methodology are discussed in appendix I. DOD’s comments

are reprinted in appendix II.

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking

Minority Members of the Senate Committees on Armed Services and on

Appropriations and the House Committees on National Security and on

Appropriations; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and the

Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. Copies will also be

made available to others upon request.

Please contact me on (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any

questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are

listed in appendix III.

David R. Warren, Director

Defense Management Issues

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-98-107 Defense Outsourcing
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Scope and

Methodology

14

Appendix II 

Comments From the

Department of

Defense

16

Appendix II 

Major Contributors to

This Report

20

Tables Table 1: Tug Operations and Maintenance Functions Announced

for A-76 Competitions That Have Rotational Shortages

5

Table 2: Other Navy Functions Announced for A-76 Studies That

Have Rotational Shortages

5

Table 3: Navy Outsourcing Study Goals by Fiscal Year 8

Abbreviations

BEQ bachelor enlisted quarters

BOQ bachelor officers quarters

DOD Department of Defense

OMB Office of Management and Budget

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-98-107 Defense Outsourcing
Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-98-107 Defense Outsourcing
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

Neither the Army nor the Air Force have experienced problems similar to

the Navy in making outsourcing decisions, primarily because of mission

differences. The Army’s and Air Force’s policies for protecting rotational

billets are designed to ensure a proper balance between the numbers and

types of billets located overseas and in the continental United States. The

types of rotational billets that the Army and Air Force need to protect from

outsourcing are generally in highly technical areas that would not

normally be appropriate for outsourcing. Moreover, both services rely, to

varying extent, on contractor personnel to perform base support type

functions. The Navy, on the other hand, operates forward-deployed forces

from its ships and requires military personnel to perform virtually all of its

support services that might be done by civilians were the Navy operating

from land bases. Therefore, the focus of the review was on the Navy.

We met with officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the

Army, the Air Force, and the Navy regarding their policies for considering

rotational and career development requirements in outsourcing decisions.

We obtained policies related to outsourcing and rotational billets,

memorandums of agreements, and procedures for identifying A-76 study

candidates. We also met with officials from the Army Training and

Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Virginia; the Air Force Air Combat

Command at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia; and the Navy Commander

in Chief, Atlantic Fleet in Norfolk, Virginia; to discuss their policies and

procedures for identifying and protecting rotational billets from

outsourcing considerations. We obtained documentation regarding current

and planned A-76 studies, and A-76 study plans that were eliminated

because of the impact on rotational requirements. We obtained

information pertaining to outsourcing and rotational billets from the Navy

Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and met with

various Navy Base commanders in the Norfolk, Virginia, area to obtain

their perspective on contracting out of functions historically performed by

enlisted personnel.

We reviewed the outsourcing initiatives and the impact of these initiatives

on rotational billets in the Army, Air Force, and Navy. However, we

focused the majority of our work on the Navy’s outsourcing initiatives and

the potential impact of those initiatives on sea-shore rotation.

We compared the database of Navy-wide and regional data on the

rotational requirements for each specific rating for grades E-5 through E-9

to the Navy’s outsourcing initiatives. We did not independently validate the

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-98-107 Defense Outsourcing
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

mathematical models the services used to identify rotational requirements

or the criteria they used in building these models.

We conducted our review from September 1997 to April 1998 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-98-107 Defense Outsourcing
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-98-107 Defense Outsourcing
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-98-107 Defense Outsourcing
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Now on pp. 9 and 10.

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-98-107 Defense Outsourcing
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-98-107 Defense Outsourcing
Appendix II 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Barry W. Holman, Associate Director

Nomi R. Taslitt, Assistant Director

Thomas J. Howard, Assistant Director

Norfolk Field Office David A. Schmitt, Evaluator-in-Charge

Sandra D. Epps, Site Senior

Tracy Whitaker Banks, Evaluator

(709291) Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-98-107 Defense Outsourcing
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100