[House Hearing, 107 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] DOD FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT: FOLLOWING ONE ITEM THROUGH THE MAZE ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, VETERANS AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ JUNE 25, 2002 __________ Serial No. 107-208 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house http://www.house.gov/reform U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2003 86-962 PDF For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania STEPHEN HORN, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland BOB BARR, Georgia DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio DAN MILLER, Florida ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois DOUG OSE, California DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois RON LEWIS, Kentucky JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JIM TURNER, Texas TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine DAVE WELDON, Florida JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DIANE E. WATSON, California C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia ------ JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma (Independent) Kevin Binger, Staff Director Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, Chairman ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine JOHN M. McHUGH, New York TOM LANTOS, California STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts RON LEWIS, Kentucky JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri DAVE WELDON, Florida DIANE E. WATSON, California C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia Ex Officio DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California Lawrence J. Halloran, Staff Director and Counsel J. Vincent Chase, Chief Investigator Jason Chung, Clerk David Rapallo, Minority Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on June 25, 2002.................................... 1 Statement of: Boutell, JoAnn, Director, Commercial Pay Services, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Department of Defense; Douglas Bryce, Program Manager, Joint Service Lightweight Technology Suit, Department of Defense; and Bruce E. Sullivan, Director, Joint Purchase Card Program Management Office, Department of Defense.............................. 93 Coyle, John J., Department of Business Logistics, Pennsylvania State University.............................. 51 Kutz, Gregory, Director, Financial Management and Assurance Team, U.S. General Accounting Office, accompanied by David Warren, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management Team; Darby W. Smith, Assistant Director, Financial Management and Assurance Team; and John Ryan, Office of Special Investigation.............................................. 10 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Boutell, JoAnn, Director, Commercial Pay Services, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Department of Defense, prepared statement of...................................... 95 Bryce, Douglas, Program Manager, Joint Service Lightweight Technology Suit, Department of Defense, prepared statement of......................................................... 101 Coyle, John J., Department of Business Logistics, Pennsylvania State University, prepared statement of....... 54 Kutz, Gregory, Director, Financial Management and Assurance Team, U.S. General Accounting Office, prepared statement of 13 Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut, prepared statement of............ 3 Sullivan, Bruce E., Director, Joint Purchase Card Program Management Office, Department of Defense, prepared statement of............................................... 141 DOD FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT: FOLLOWING ONE ITEM THROUGH THE MAZE ---------- TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 2002 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher Shays (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Shays, Gilman, Lewis, Kucinich, Schakowsky and Tierney. Staff present: Lawrence J. Halloran, staff director and counsel; J. Vincent Chase, chief investigator; Thomas Costa, professional staff member; Jason M. Chung, clerk; David Rapallo, minority counsel; and Earley Green, minority assistant clerk. Mr. Shays. I'd like to call this hearing to order and welcome our witnesses and guests. I always feel ``got'' when we have the military and we don't start promptly on time, but 5 minutes ain't bad, I guess. Two weeks ago the General Accounting Office, GAO, and the Department of Defense, DOD, gave us a high-altitude view of the Pentagon's tangled antiquated web of more than 1,200 financial management systems. Today we journey deep into the microcosm of DOD accounting to take a much closer and more detailed look. Last year after the Comptroller General again declared DOD financial systems posed a high risk of waste and abuse, our subcommittee ranking member, Congressman Kucinich, suggested it might be both instructive and constructive to follow one item from the initial idea all the way through to procurement and operation, so we asked GAO to track the accounting path of a DOD-unique item, the Joint Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology, referred to as JSLIST, chem/bio protective garments; and a second item, one commercial computer item obtained using a DOD purchase card. The case studies GAO will discuss today bring some DOD financial and inventory management deficiencies into painful and, frankly, horribly sharp focus. Purchase of the military's newest individual protective equipment is hobbled by needless, complex, repetitive, largely manual, error-prone systems. Despite pledges to this subcommittee 2 years ago to fix scattered inventory controls, DOD still cannot provide a real- time accounting of the location and condition of critical protective equipment. As a result, some military units have formally declared JSLIST garments surplus, while others cannot get enough suits for training. While DOD is scheduled to procure 2.8 million more JSLIST units for approximately $100 each, GAO found 917 of the 1.2 million already purchased had been auctioned on the Internet for less than $3 each. This form of waste directly affects readiness. When the chemical alarms again sound in the desert, U.S. forces will need those suits. Transformation of DOD's last-century financial management systems into a 21st century enterprise architecture is a critical element of their ability to survive and prevail against tomorrow's threats. Joining us today are representatives of the Department of Defense, the GAO, and an expert in business processes, to discuss and evaluate the flow of information through the various systems used to procure, pay for and deploy the joint lightweight integrated technology suit, and a computer hardware item procured from a local vendor using the government purchase card. We truly thank all of them for being here and for contributing to our continued oversight of DOD financial management and inventory control systems. And let me just say given that it seems so obvious that we have a gigantic challenge, we aren't up here throwing grenades down on our witness table. We understand that everybody wants to get this-- a handle on this issue. We need to make sure it is the highest priority of DOD. That is part of the motivation of why Mr. Kucinich and I want this hearing. We realize there are men and women of good faith who are trying to deal with this issue, but we're going to be brutally honest with each other in terms of what the challenges are and how we deal with it. This just simply can't continue and continue and continue. So at this time I thank my colleague, Mr. Kucinich, for requesting this hearing, and give him the floor. [The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.002 Mr. Kucinich. Hi. I want to thank the Chair for the opportunity to work with you on this and so many other hearings of importance to this country, and I'm appreciative of the Chair's leadership in that regard. The point of GAO's investigation, which you and I requested in a bipartisan manner, was a straightforward one, to track a single procurement item through the maze of different accounting, inventory and financial management systems at the Department of Defense. When we first requested this study, I expected the exercise to illustrate in a very simple yet compelling manner the duplication, waste and inefficiency that has plagued the Pentagon's management systems. As a subcommittee, we've heard many, many times about the horror stories at the Pentagon, the lack of coherent inventory control, the proliferation of stovepipe procurement systems, and the absence of any rational visibility over budgetary functions. We've also heard from experts like David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, and the Pentagon's own Inspector General, both of whom highlighted the billions and billions of dollars that are wasted every year as a result of these broken systems. What I did not expect as a result of our quest was to be surprised again by the severity and the starkness of the Pentagon's inability to be able to understand exactly how their own systems work and to be able to account for the very materiel which the taxpayers of the United States pay for. As you know, the GAO chose one item, a suit worn by service members to protect themselves in the event of a chemical or a biological attack. Obviously in light of the anthrax attacks and our military's deployment to all parts of the world, these suits are extremely sought-after. The department is spending over $1 billion to buy these suits at $200 apiece. The Pentagon plans to buy 4.4 million of these suits, but to date they've issued only about a quarter of these. According to the official in charge of this program, service members have been clamoring for these suits. Now, despite this intense demand, GAO found that the Pentagon was basically giving them away. They were selling them on the Internet for $3 apiece. That is nearly a 99 percent discount from their actual cost to the U.S. taxpayers. Now, I want to read that again so, you know, in case anybody missed it, the department spends $1 billion to buy these suits at $200 apiece, plans to buy 4.4 million of the suits. GAO finds the Pentagon is selling them on the Internet for $3 apiece. Now, the GAO found that some of the military units kept absolutely no records on the number of suits they had. Others used dry-erase boards to maintain their tally. When told of these abuses, the program manager said he had no idea that these resales were occurring. He conceded at this point that he had no visibility over his inventory. These problems would be very different if they were being aired for the first time, but they are not excusable, given that this subcommittee held a hearing 2 years ago on exactly this issue. This is how GAO put it, ``In essence, DOD is faced with the same predicament today as it had in June 2000 when hearings by this subcommittee chronicled DOD's inability to identify the location of these protective suits.'' In our hearing 2 years ago, we were concerned about the Pentagon's control of these suits for a slightly different reason. The suits were defective. They needed to be recalled and removed from the inventory. But to this day, the Pentagon has not been able to locate about 250,000 of these defective suits. The Pentagon doesn't know if they were used, whether they were thrown away, or whether they are still somewhere in the stocks, defective suits waiting to be used by unsuspecting service members. For that matter, the Pentagon doesn't know whether any of these suits were sold over the Internet, either. Of course, we asked the GAO to examine only one relatively inexpensive item, but the dysfunctional systems governing this item are the same systems governing all of the Pentagon's purchases, budgets and inventories. As the GAO concluded in its report, ``these shortcomings are consistent with the long-term problems in the DOD's inventory management that we've identified as a high-risk area due to a variety of problems, including ineffective and wasteful management systems and procedures.'' Mr. Chairman, we're just scratching the surface of a mammoth problem here today. If we're losing millions of dollars on a small procurement item like the protective suits, imagine how many billions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted on procurement problems associated with our expensive jets, bombers, tanks and ships. This subcommittee isn't able to work on everything. Since we have to choose, we should focus on the items that waste the most taxpayers' dollars. This is a good example today. As we heard in our previous hearings on this topic, the department has set out a 10-year plan to address their financial management deficiencies. This time line is much, much too long for American taxpayers to continue sending in their hard-earned money, just to have the Pentagon throw it away. And finally, Mr. Chairman, the thing that becomes compelling here, since this country is contemplating possible military action against a country which is said to have biological and chemical weapons, and since you would think under those circumstances our troops would then be given the kind of materiel which in some cases is considered to be defective, we have a matter here that has to be looked at to protect the men and women who serve this country. I thank the Chair very much for giving me this opportunity. Mr. Shays. I thank the gentleman for requesting this opportunity. We would now call on Ron Lewis. Mr. Lewis. Nothing. Mr. Shays. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Mr. Lewis has been a very active and valued member of this committee. And I'll also call on another very active Member. Ms. Schakowsky, if you have any comments you'd like to make before---- Ms. Schakowsky. Yes, I would. Mr. Shays. Take your time. Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Kucinich, for your vigilance on this issue. The Government Affairs--the Government Efficiency Subcommittee, which is chaired by Steve Horn and on which I am the ranking Democrat, has also been looking into the issue of the Department of Defense and its handling of financial matters. The financial abuses that have occurred at the Pentagon and the DOD's lack of initiative and willingness to change its financial management practices is an ongoing problem. Despite the fact that the Defense Department is responsible for half of the total discretionary spending of the Federal Government, nearly $400 billion, the DOD is slow to implement changes in many areas of its operations to better account for taxpayer money. In 1995 the GAO put the Defense Department's financial management on the high risk list. One of the issues stated by the GAO then was the failure of the department to protect its assets from fraud, waste and abuse. Since then we found that millions of dollars in personal items, trips, and even plastic surgery were charged to government-issued credit cards. In the GAO report on DOD financial management, the GAO tracked the DOD's purchase of joint lightweight integrated suit technology--I guess that is--is it the JSLIST? Is that what you say? Am I right? JSLIST. OK. And a computer hardware item that it purchased from a local vendor with a DOD purchase card. The Pentagon contract for JSLIST, a two-piece lightweight garment, I guess we've got it here, to protect against chemical and biological agents, calls for the production of 4.4 million suits over 14 years, for a total of $1 billion. The GAO found that antiquated systems, manual procurement processes and inventory control and payment is plagued by flaws and weaknesses that cost the DOD millions. GAO found that because of these problems, suits determined to be in excess--we have long since known about the problems with the DOD purchase card system. The DOD still manually enters purchases made with purchase cards instead of electronic transmissions. Inefficient billing procedures and use of nonintegrated data systems result in costly processing. In example after example, purchase cards supplied at taxpayers' expense to workers who use them to, among other things, purchase items such as clothing and Legos. GAO stated that purchase cards will account for nearly $20 billion in purchases in this fiscal year or the next. If there is 5 percent waste in these purchases, that is $1 billion of waste that we have to eliminate. The GAO has provided the Pentagon with the foundation on which to build. DOD must make every effort to improve upon these recommendations so that we can ensure that the American taxpayers' hard-earned money is spent defending our country and not paying for golf memberships. The reasons behind these management problems are--come in several areas, problems with financial and contract management result from inaccurate financial reports and contract overpayment. In fact, for fiscal years 1994 and 1999, over $1.2 billion of overpayments to contractors have been returned to the DOD. We've also found that DOD's management inventory is flawed. DOD continually stores huge amounts of materiel and equipment that has no use. Additionally, the DOD process for tracking acquisitions and purchases is antiquated and seriously flawed. Oftentimes DOD cannot find records of procurement, accounting, control and payment. Actually, Mr. Chairman, what this statement sounds like to my own ears is deja vu all over again. I have basically read this opening statement time after time after time. I've only been here a short time, and yet the improvements or lack of are quite astonishing, and here we go again. Last July we were told that the purchase card issue would be addressed. Instead we got business as usual, fraud, waste and abuse. I do not expect the same today. I hope that the DOD will begin to take the recommendations of the GAO seriously and use the advice to design and implement programs that will improve the DOD's financial management situation. I thank all the witnesses for their work, and I look forward to hearing how our guests from the DOD plan to make use of the information they receive from the GAO at this hearing and how they plan to clean up the Pentagon's financial mess. Thank you. Mr. Shays. Thank you, Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Tierney, welcome. Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to waive my opening statement, because I'd really like to get to the witnesses. I think the hearing is worthwhile, and it will be interesting to pursue the matter. Mr. Shays. We'll get right to it. I'm just going to preface my comments by saying that I go back a little beyond Ms. Schakowsky, and I remember we had this problem in the Reagan administration, the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and now we have it in the Bush administration. And I realize that this has been long-standing, and I think part of the reason why it doesn't happen is that you're not put out of business. We need Defense. So we keep operating. But if we knew that we couldn't function unless we got our act together, I think it would happen more quickly. Mr. Gilman, I'm delighted to recognize you. I want you to relax a second. You just sat down, but if you have an opening statement---- Mr. Gilman. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I welcome that opportunity. Mr. Shays. OK. Take a good breath and then read your statement. Mr. Gilman. OK. I'm breathing deeply. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for convening today's hearing to examine the status of the Department of Defense financial management system, in particular how it relates to a key item that depends with regard--that is with regard to how we defend against biological and chemical agents. The Defense Department has been the recipient of large increases to its procurement and operations budget in the wake of the events of September 11th and the subsequent pursuit of our war on terrorism. Given the nature of the fight that we're finding ourselves in, these increases have been entirely appropriate. However, the existence of an ongoing war against terrorists does not absolve Congress of its oversight responsibilities in matters of defense. Rather, recent events mandate greater oversight responsibility from Congress to make certain that taxpayer funds are going to be expended in a wise and expeditious manner. Given the current military environment in which we find ourselves, it is prudent and appropriate that we work to ensure that the Department of Defense is getting the best value for the money it spends on the new equipment. This subcommittee held a hearing in March of this year that examined charges from the General Accounting Office that DOD's financial management and procurement process were highly vulnerable to waste, to fraud, and to abuse. Historically whenever the government has sharply increased a department's budget within a short period of time, waste and fraudulent practices and inefficiency invariably follow. Stories of widespread problems during the major defense buildup in the early 1980's are familiar to all of us. So I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to the testimony from our witnesses today. We're particularly interested to hear from our GAO witnesses to see if any improvements have been made since their initial findings discussed at our March 2001 hearing. Given the nature of the open-ended conflict in which we now find ourselves involved, it makes sense for Congress to require that the financial management system used by the Pentagon be as streamlined and as efficient as possible. Once again, we thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening today's hearing and for pursuing these issues that are extremely important. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shays. Thank you. Per Mr. Tierney's request, we're going to get to our witnesses but first ask unanimous consent that all members of the subcommittee be permitted to place an opening statement in the record and that the record remain open for 3 days for that purpose. Without objection, so ordered. I ask further unanimous consent that all witnesses be permitted to include their written statement in the record. Without objection, so ordered. I will announce our witnesses. We have Mr. Gregory Kutz, Director, Financial Management and Assurance Team, GAO; accompanied by David Warren, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management Team; Mr. Darby W. Smith, Assistant Director, Financial Management and Assurance Team; and Mr. John Ryan, Office of Special Investigation. All three are with the GAO. We also--we're going to swear in Mr. John Coyle. He's on a plane. He's the Department of Business Logistics, Pennsylvania State University, and probably may have to put him with the second panel. We'll see. And if he gets here on time, maybe I'll swear him in and we'll keep him with the first. So if you gentlemen would stand, I will swear you in. If there's anyone else that might respond to questions, if you'd just allow us to swear you in as well. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Shays. I'll note for the record that all of our witnesses have responded in the affirmative. And so we have one statement by Mr. Kutz and then we'll go to questions if Dr. Coyle isn't here yet. Welcome. STATEMENTS OF GREGORY KUTZ, DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND ASSURANCE TEAM, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID WARREN, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE CAPABILITIES AND MANAGEMENT TEAM; DARBY W. SMITH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND ASSURANCE TEAM; AND JOHN RYAN, OFFICE OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATION Mr. Kutz. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it's a pleasure to be here to discuss the need for business process reform at the Department of Defense. In our June 4th testimony before this subcommittee, we identified seven key elements necessary for a successful reform. Today I will move from a high-level discussion of reform to case studies demonstrating DOD's current management challenges. At your request, we used the following two case studies. First, the inventory process for the JSLIST, chemical and biological protective suits, which I'll refer to as chem/bio suits, and second, the purchase of a computer using the government purchase card. For the two case studies, our objectives were to evaluate the efficiency and the effectiveness of DOD's business processes and to compare certain aspects of DOD's processes to those of two large leading-edge retail companies, Wal-Mart and Sears. The bottom line of my testimony is that both case studies clearly demonstrate that DOD's business processes are both costly and ineffective. Most significantly, we found that DOD was selling needed chem/bio suits to the public while at the same time buying more. For the first case study, we found that the chem/bio suit inventory process was characterized by stovepiped, nonintegrated systems with numerous costly, error-prone, manual processes. Of the 128 processing steps that we identified, 100, or about 78 percent, were manual. These manual processes were used to enter and reenter data into the 13 data systems that supported the chem/bio suits. Manual processes include mailing key data, sending e-mails and faxes, and inputting data from hard copy documents into the systems. As you can imagine, compared to fully automated processes, the cost of manual entry of data and reentry is substantial. One reason for the numerous systems that are unable to communicate with each other is the parochial nature of DOD's system modernization efforts. As you may recall, as of your June 4th hearing, and as you showed earlier from the computer system environment that they have today, DOD has identified 1,127 systems that process financial information. This proliferation of systems has happened because modernization money is spread throughout DOD with everybody, particularly the military services, building their own systems. With respect to effectiveness, we found that the inventory management process resulted in a lack of asset visibility over the chem/bio suits. Asset visibility means the ability to readily identify the location and key information about the suits at all levels of the department. The most severe asset visibility problem relates to the 1.2 million suits that have been sent to units of the military services. For the military units that we visited, the methods used to control and maintain visibility over suits range from automated systems to spreadsheet applications, to pen and paper, to dry-erase boards with handwritten notes, to none. The data maintained at the units also varied. Some units maintain specific data such as the manufactured date and production lot number, while other units contain little or no data in their systems. In essence, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, DOD is faced with the same visibility problems today as it had in June 2000 when hearings by this subcommittee chronicled DOD's inability to identify the location of defective battle dress overgarments which are the JSLIST predecessor. We later reported that as of April 2001, DOD had not found about 250,000 of the defective BDO suits. Today, lack of visibility has contributed to DOD excessing packaged unused JSLIST chem/bio suits and selling them to the public or scrapping them. At the same time, DOD is buying hundreds of thousands of new suits annually. We identified 1,934 chem/bio coats and trousers valued at over $200,000 that were excessed primarily after September 11th by Navy, Army and Air Force units. Of these, 429 were sold and 917 were destroyed. The 429 coats and trousers, which had a reported cost of $107 each, were sold by Internet auction for about $3 each. I have in my hand one of the coats that was excessed and being sold on the Internet in Hawaii. This coat is vacuum sealed and appears to be in good condition. We have another suit here from the same lot that is marked ``training only.'' We found that DOD needs all of the chem/bio suits that were being excessed and sold. Last Wednesday we informed the JSLIST program manager of this situation. He was not aware that the chem/bio suits were being excessed and sold, and agreed to immediately terminate the sale of these suits. The inventory management practices we identified and observed at Wal-Mart and Sears differ sharply from those at DOD. For example, for both companies, we found standardization of data, little or no manual processing, and systems that provide a complete asset visibility. Unlike DOD, Wal-Mart requires all components and subsidiaries to operate within its system framework and does not allow stovepipe systems development. For both Sears and Wal-Mart, data moved through their automated systems from the supplier to the distribution centers, to the retail stores. As shown on the poster board, we found that Wal-Mart and Sears had visibility over inventory at the corporate distribution center and retail store levels. In contrast, as previously discussed, DOD did not have visibility at the DOD military service over unit levels. We found that integrated or interfaced systems and standardized data allowed both Sears and Wal-Mart to specifically identify inventory items. For example, based on our inquiry, Wal-Mart headquarters staff was able to readily identify the number of 6.4 ounce tubes of a brand name toothpaste that were at their Fairfax, Virginia retail store. Other information was also available, such as daily sales volume. With regard to our second case study, we found that the purchase card process was somewhat automated and provided the flexibility to acquire goods and services on the day that they are needed. However, we found for certain transactions processed through DFAS Columbus, monthly credit card statements are received by mail or by fax. For these statements, personnel manually reenter each line of the purchase card statement. This manual entry of data is required, because DFAS does not have the ability to accept the data electronically. As shown on the poster board from the Navy monthly purchase card statement with 228 transactions, as you can see, there was a $17 processing fee per line that is well in excess of several of the items that were purchased on that monthly statement. DFAS charged the Navy over $3,900 to process this monthly credit card bill. In contrast, both Wal-Mart and Sears make extensive use of electronic data transmission within their internal systems and with all of their suppliers. In summary, the chem/bio suit and purchase card case studies clearly demonstrate the high cost of the current DOD business processes. In addition, mission performance is also affected, as shown by DOD's lack of visibility over the chem/ bio suits. These case studies are small examples of the broader financial and inventory management and systems modernization challenges facing DOD. The automated processes used by Wal-Mart and Sears offer a glimpse at the cost savings and improved mission performance that DOD could achieve through successful reform. Unlike DOD, market forces and a strong system of accountability drive Wal-Mart and Sears to operate as efficiently and effectively as possible. We believe that for DOD to succeed in its reform efforts, strong leadership from the Secretary will be necessary to develop a system of accountability and incentives and to cut through the deeply embedded cultural resistance to change. The Secretary has recognized the importance of reform and estimated that DOD could save 5 percent of its budget, or about $15 to $18 billion annually, through successful reform efforts. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. With me are Dave Warren, John Ryan and Darby Smith. We'd be happy to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Kutz follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.032 Mr. Shays. I'm going to call on Mr. Gilman, but before I do, I told Mr. Kucinich I have one question that is just very-- of real interest to the entire committee. Basically because of our investigation and the work you all are doing, we're able to stop the public sale of the JSLIST suits. Do you know who was trying to buy them? Mr. Ryan. Yes, we do. Mr. Shays. Put your mic on, please. Mr. Ryan. Yes, we do. We identified the individuals. We've passed the information on to DLA investigators, and we also sent it to the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Honolulu for further investigation. Mr. Shays. So you believe that these weren't just every-day Americans looking to protect themselves, but you believe that some of these suits may in fact have been attempted purchased by those who have evil designs on our country? Mr. Ryan. I think it's too early to say. At this point I think we have to continue the investigation. We have to gather all the facts, let the Joint Terrorism Task Force do the appropriate followup. We can report back to the committee with the findings. Mr. Shays. Do you have concern that they may be? Mr. Ryan. I always have concerns. I have concerns that any time that we've given protective equipment to our soldiers and then we put it on public auction that someone can get ahold of it. I have concerns about reverse-engineering these suits. But once we looked into it and we found that you could buy them on the Internet through a public auction and not necessarily provide specific information about yourself, yes, I am concerned about that. Mr. Shays. So---- Mr. Kutz. Mr. Chairman, the technology for these suits is used around the world. There are 17 countries that have this type of chem/bio suit. So this is not technology that is unique to the Federal Government of the United States. Mr. Shays. Yes. But bottom line is, there's concern that it may have been bought by the wrong people. Fair enough. Mr. Gilman, you have the floor. Mr. Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I address this to our panelists. Why can't DOD track and account for the JSLIST on a department-wide basis? Mr. Kutz. I think it's a combination--if you look at any of the issues with DOD with financial or inventory management, you've got people, processes and systems, including the information technology. What we've found here was that the lack of the integrated or interfaced systems, it broke down along the way so that the information was not tracked. The information was sent from the warehouses at DLA down to the units. At that point the warehouses no longer track the information. When the information got down to the units, you had inconsistent ways that they were being tracked or, in some cases, they weren't being tracked at all, and when we looked at Wal-Mart and Sears, what we found was from the corporation down to their distribution centers down to the retail stores, you had completely integrated or interfaced systems. So, for example, when I mentioned the toothpaste before, they were always able to go in--that happened in a matter of minutes they were able to go in and identify that there were 25 6.4 ounce tubes of toothpaste at the Fairfax store. So it's integrated systems and processes. Standardized data is the other thing. Back on the military unit level, we found the different units were reporting different information in the systems, and so if everybody doesn't record the same information, it's hard to roll up things like the expiration date or lot number, etc. And, again, that was a common element with Wal-Mart and Sears, that they had standardized data for each one of their inventory items that could roll up and be throughout all their systems. Mr. Gilman. So is this going to be corrected now? Is anyone working on correcting this failure? Mr. Kutz. We have recommended in the past to the department to implement an integrated inventory management system, and certainly that is something that they have attempted to do before and are currently attempting to do now. There are certainly challenges with that. Again, similar to what we talked about with the proliferation of systems, where they need to have an architecture to see how all of these different systems development efforts fit into that so that at the end of the day we know what we're building today is going to fit into the architecture of tomorrow. Mr. Gilman. These suits are a relatively benign item. Does DOD have similar tracking problems with weapons and ammunition? Mr. Warren. Yes, they do. Mr. Gilman. Would you identify---- Mr. Warren. Dave Warren. We've noticed in transit items with disposal items, items going into disposal, items being transferred from one Navy base to another, items being transferred from one Army base to another, and what happens is accountability for those items is lost, and most of those problems as we go in and look why does that happen, it's very similar to what you're seeing here today. It's either recordkeeping problems and/or systems that are not talking effectively to one another and not working in an integrated fashion. So this system, or a particular example we have today is, in essence, a systemic problem in terms of the control of inventory across the Department of Defense, and that is one of the reasons that we have identified inventory management as a high risk area since 1990 within DOD. Mr. Gilman. Well, David, is this all being corrected now? Mr. Warren. The short answer is no. It has not been corrected. There have been a number of initiatives and recognition of this problem over a 10- to 12-year period, I would say. The difficulty has been that there have been many fits and starts, so to speak, to get at this, but there has not been a continuity of effort that---- Mr. Gilman. What is it going to need to get this corrected? Mr. Warren. A continuity of effort, a single focal point with responsibility and accountability for achieving even this broader--you mentioned Mr. Walker's testimony. What he proposed there is that there needs to be an overall business process transformation effort that includes the incorporation of not only financial, procurement, logistic systems that is placed in one central, focal point that understands the entire lay-down and architecture that is going to occur, they are accountable for making that happen, and that can be driven through the department. This committee, for example, then could call that person up and say, this is where we were yesterday, where are we now---- Mr. Gilman. Let me interrupt. Is DOD undertaking such an effort now? Mr. Warren. They have some portions of that. I would let Greg speak to the financial portion which is kind of the centerpiece of that which we---- Mr. Shays. Let me do this. I'm going to have the Members do 5 minutes the first round, and we're going to do 10 the second. I always prefer the 10, but one or two Members may need to get on their way. So I just want to do that. We'll defer that part. Remember to make sure it's---- Mr. Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shays. Mr. Kucinich, and then we'll go the second round 10 minutes. Mr. Kucinich. I want to thank all of the gentlemen who have worked on this, and your staffs as well. Mr. Kutz, I'm going to ask some questions and, you know, try to move along through this. Has there ever been a complete recall of the defective suits that were identified 2 years ago? Mr. Kutz. I believe they attempted to recall them, but I don't believe that they were ultimately successful in identifying all of the suits. Mr. Kucinich. Why? Mr. Kutz. Because of the system we just talked about here. Mr. Kucinich. Let me ask you this now. Could you estimate how many defective suits are out there right now? Mr. Warren. The latest estimate was at 250,000 that were unidentified. Mr. Kucinich. So I want to get this straight. The administration has been talking about an invasion of Iraq, which is known to have biological and chemical weapons, some of which they use against their own people, and we have 250,000 defective suits that would otherwise protect our men and women who we're going to ask to go into battle, and they are not going to know if those suits would provide them protection or not? Isn't it possible that since these suits are defective that any men and women who would be wearing them in a combat situation under biological and chemical weapon attack could be in risk of their lives? Mr. Kutz. If they did get those, they would be. These are the old suits now. So they should not be necessarily used on the battlefield, but it is possible that they are out there and could be used. Mr. Kucinich. You know, I think all of us remember the situation in Vietnam years ago where people were given automatic weapons. Their weapons didn't work, and men and women died in battle. I mean, this is a--this is a very serious matter, because it relates to protecting those we ask to serve this country, and you're saying that even though 2 years ago this was brought up, they haven't straightened it out, that these suits are still out there. And furthermore, we're now finding that other suits, maybe the ones that are not defective, are being sold on the Internet that cost the taxpayers $200 each, and they are being sold on the Internet for $3 each, and we really don't know who is buying them. You say that you referred it to the terror task force. Is that right? Mr. Ryan. Yes, we have. Mr. Kucinich. Whoever it was, you felt that there was enough information, Mr. Ryan, to refer it to the terror task force, because these people may not have had the best intentions? Mr. Ryan. I think at this stage of the game what we decided to do was, based on the information that we were able to determine on the bidder of those items. I might add also that these items were never released to these people, because GAO stepped in, along with the program people, and we stopped the pickup of these items. But based on the bidding information that we saw and the lack of background information, yes, we truly believe that these needed to be referred and they needed to be checked out. Mr. Kucinich. When were these being auctioned? How recently were they being auctioned? Mr. Ryan. Just 2 weeks ago. Mr. Kucinich. Whoa. Is it possible also, in addition to those that might not have the best intentions for the use of this equipment, that people who might represent individuals who want to sell them back to the government at 200 bucks a piece may be buying them? I mean, think about it. Is that possible? Mr. Ryan. We had some concern about that. Preliminarily we looked at that in regards to selling them back. Mr. Kucinich. Would the government buy--let me ask you this. I mean, if the government needed them, would the government buy them back? Anyone? Mr. Warren. I know there have been instances where that has occurred with other types of inventory items. Mr. Kucinich. So that the government--the taxpayers could pay $200 for a suit, it be sold at $3 on the Internet, suddenly they discovered it was needed again and they may pay $200 again for the same suit? That is possible? Mr. Warren. It is possible, yes, sir. Mr. Kucinich. Who sells these suits? You know, once somebody makes a determination they are sold, who is it that actually sells it? Is it a military unit? Is it the Department of Defense? Is there, like, a bureau of auctions in the Department of Defense? Mr. Warren. The defense disposal system handles that, and that's part of the Defense Logistics Agency, and they have a marketing service, in essence, that handles that. In this particular interest--instance, they had contracted the end point of sale out--had been outsourced as a function, but it is DOD's responsibility which was delegated from GSA under this Disposal Act of 1949 to handle the disposal of all items within the Department of Defense. Mr. Kucinich. One other question, and my time is expired on this round. What kind of auction do they have? I mean, is this at Sotheby's? Or where do they auction these protective suits? EBay? You know, hello, whatever. Where do they auction these things? Mr. Ryan. The auction basically takes place over the Internet. You go online, you register. There's a minimum bid. In this particular case the minimum bid was $35 for the lot. And you bid until you win. Mr. Kucinich. How many in a lot? Mr. Ryan. I don't know how many were in this particular lot. We participated, and that was the price. Mr. Kutz. We did attempt to buy one of the lots. Mr. Ryan. We bid on the--when it came up for sale, with the permission of the committee, we attempted to purchase, and we lost out on the bid at the final end. Mr. Kutz. We drove the price up to $3. Mr. Kucinich. You drove the price up? Mr. Ryan. We had an automatic--we were bidding against an automatic system, that every time we bid, they bid higher. Mr. Kutz. Some of the earlier lots had sold for less than $3 apiece. Mr. Kucinich. Well, gee, thank you for saving the government that extra money. Mr. Shays. Let me do this. We have Mr. Coyle. Come on in. Dr. Coyle. I'm sorry. I'm going to have you sit in that chair there. You're probably saying who am I and where am I going. I understand you just got off a plane. And I'm going to ask you to stay standing, because I'm going to ask you to put your books down. I'm going to swear you in. And then we'll proceed from there. If you'd raise your right hand, Mr. Coyle. [Witness sworn.] Mr. Shays. Thank you. Mr. Coyle, please be seated. You're going to get a chance to catch your breath a second. I'm going to go through with Mr. Lewis and Ms. Schakowsky. They're going to ask some questions, so you can get a little oriented. Then I'm going to have you give your statement before GAO leaves and then we'll do 10 minutes of questioning with each. Mr. Lewis, you have the floor. I keep saying Mister. You are a doctor, and you have earned that. I apologize. Dr. Coyle. Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you have any specific recommendations for fixing this problem, and if you do, how quickly could this be put in place to turn this around? Mr. Kutz. From a narrow perspective, we've recommended they implement integrated inventory management systems, and with respect to these specific items, our previous recommendation was to standardize the data. And that was really based on the inability to recall--to do a proper recall, certain information has to be in the system in a standardized basis to locate where it is. And that is one of the things--we talked to Wal-Mart, for example. You may recall the Tylenol recall with Johnson & Johnson back maybe 10 years ago or so. That is one of the important pieces of information that they had in their system. Because of customer service, they believe it's imperative that they're able to go back and immediately recall any defective products from their shelves. Mr. Lewis. So it could be as simple as DOD taking some lessons from Wal-Mart or Sears, then? Mr. Kutz. I wouldn't say it would be simple, but it would be something that is achievable. Certainly supply chain management at the Department of Defense is possible here. Inventory systems that would be either integrated or interfaced should be possible, yes. Mr. Lewis. Thank you. That is all I needed to know. Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Ms. Schakowsky. Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kutz, I'd like to say it's nice to see you again, but it seems like you're always here and I'm always here and we're talking about financial mismanagement that is never ending, it seems, anywhere you look in the Department of Defense. Two years ago the same thing was brought up. What, in your--to your knowledge has been done in the last 2 years, if anything, to address this problem? Mr. Kutz. They have a longer term systems development effort that we're aware of called the BSM, business system modernization, I believe, but that is not scheduled to be completed for several more years. With respect to shorter term initiatives, the Air Force has implemented--if you look at the poster board up there, the Air Force has a system that they use that is standardized across the Air Force that does have all the information, each of the units in it, including manufacture, date lot number, etc. And based on our work we've seen that they have talked about sharing that with the Army and the Navy, so there is some hope for that. But the bigger systems development effort they have is still years away, and by the time all of these new suits are deployed, the system will probably come online at or near the end of that period, which means you'd have to do a complete physical inventory to get them into the new system. Ms. Schakowsky. Are we paying too much to start with? If it's sold at auction for $3 and we're paying 200 to start, is that too much money? Mr. Kutz. For the cost of the actual new suits? We didn't look at that. The old battle dress overgarments, I believe, cost about $80, and this is a new and improved technology. So $200 or $207 for the coat and the trousers, we didn't evaluate whether that was a good price or not, if that is your question. Ms. Schakowsky. That is my question. When you compare it to--you said you boosted the price to $3 a suit on the Internet. It makes me wonder if we weren't suckers to begin with by paying $200 a suit. But as you say, that isn't even part of the inquiry. That is a whole other question, whether we're overpaying. I can't help but stress how this lack of accountability in the Department of Defense, which seems to be sloughed over in every budget cycle, it's so frustrating to me. If it were the Department of Education or Housing and Urban Development, I'm sure we'd have all of these investigations, and we'd practically shut it down and things would be defunded, and yet here we are with a $48 billion increase in the defense budget with these ongoing problems. Let me ask you this. Do any of you have any doubt whatsoever that these two inquiries are only a small example of what is happening on a much wider scale throughout the Department of Defense? Mr. Kutz. What we would believe, and others can add on, that this would be indicative of other broader problems. As was mentioned earlier, the total purchase amount for the JSLIST at the end of the day will be about $1 billion. Right now, according to DOD's records, which, you know, cannot pass the financial audit standards right now, there is about $200 billion of items that are in the various inventories at DOD. So you can see that this is a very, very small example of what is a broader issue. So we would say that this could be indicative of various other things. Mr. Warren has seen a lot of other examples of the inventory---- Ms. Schakowsky. Let me just underscore what you said, that they cannot pass an audit. Mr. Kutz. Right. I think what we're talking about today would give you some idea of why with respect to the financial information that would be necessary to pull this into a set of financial statements just for this one item. Ms. Schakowsky. And let me also get in the record other findings that you have mentioned, that have been mentioned, that $1.2 trillion in transactions cannot be accurately accounted for through the Department of Defense. Is that not true? Mr. Kutz. That's based on an inspector general report, correct. Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Warren, did you want to further comment? Mr. Warren. It is really a business process transformation problem. Again, the systems and the business processes within the Department of Defense largely we developed as it relates into the logistics area in the 1960's and 1970's, and at that time they were quite good systems and based on modern business and practice at that time. However, over time they have evolved and have not modernized. So what you're faced with is what is often referred to as a brute force system. It gets the job done, but in many respects, it's very inefficient. The department is struggling at this point and really has over the last 6 to 7 years to come up with a transformation process to bring their logistics systems into a modern supply chain-oriented logistics process. But the progress has been very slow, and they're not there yet. And so as a consequence, you continue to see many of these inefficiencies, overbuying, in order to ensure that you have what you need when you need it so---- Ms. Schakowsky. I would agree with everything you said except that they get the job done because ultimately when the taxpayer overpays and defective suits are out in the field, as Mr. Kucinich pointed out, this is not really getting the job done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shays. Thank you. Mr. Coyle, before having your testimony, I'm just going to ask a few questions of our witnesses here. Now, we've had a number of hearings over a number of years and we have looked at just the poor inventory control in general, and now we have a very specific kind of case. What's on the record now is that in some cases we had a surplus, in some cases we didn't, as perceived by military personnel in different parts of the world, frankly. And so in some cases, not in some cases, we're purchasing more of these suits but yet we were selling some. That's correct, right? And there is a concern that some of the people who may have been buying them may in fact have bad intentions on the United States to be further looked at. But in other words, there's enough of a concern that the GAO made referrals to proper legal authorities, correct? Mr. Ryan. That's correct. Mr. Shays. Now, then there's also the old suits of which we think 250,000 are defective. Do we use the old suits as well? Tell me the status of old suits. When I say old suits, I don't mean these suits old, right? These are a different suit. Tell me, the defective suits, are they these suits? Mr. Smith. No, the defective suits are what they used to call the battle dress overgarment. It's a completely different suit than the JLIST. So the ones that we're talking about that we could not find, or we reported they couldn't find 250,000 of, were the older suits, not the JLIST. The older suits was the subject of the hearing 2 years ago by this subcommittee. Mr. Shays. Right. No, I remember it because what's so horrific about it is those suits were still being used but they were put into the lot of good suits, so we had a mixture of good and old, bad, and yet we didn't have any way to track them, correct? Mr. Smith. That's correct. The issue we have today is the tracking is the same. They couldn't find the old suits. Today they're not able to track the new suits. So the issue about the tracking---- Mr. Shays. We don't even know where the new suits are, I mean, technically. We can't say they're here, here, here, and here. Mr. Smith. The only ones that they actually could account for would be the ones that are in the DLA warehouse when they come from the manufacturer. Once they are issued out to the individual units, then, as shown on the chart, it becomes very difficult to be able to track and account for those suits down to the military units. Mr. Kutz. And as of September 30, 2001, that was 1.2 million of the new suits that had been distributed out to the units. And we would have the concern that they would have the very same problems with tracking those that they had with the BDL. Again, it's because everybody is doing something different, particularly in the Army and the Navy, where some units that we visited weren't tracking them at all; other ones had, you know, the dry erase board, handwritten notes, some had pen and paper, etc. So if you really had to find out where these things were on a moment's notice, either on a recall on some emergency happened somewhere, these 1.2 million would be very, very hard to find and it would be highly unlikely you would get an accurate count of them at any point in time. Mr. Shays. It's clear a system like this invites extraordinary waste, of course, you've illustrated that. It's wasteful to sell when you're already buying, and it's alarming that you would be selling a suit that could be used for--by our potential enemies. But it also just invites fraud, doesn't it? Mr. Ryan. [nods in the affirmative.] Mr. Shays. A nod of the head is hard to transcribe. Mr. Ryan. Yes, I think it can, because they lose visibility of it at the service units. If there's no accountability at that point, as Mr. Kutz and Mr. Warren have pointed out, you don't know where they're at. Mr. Shays. So someone could literally sell a lot of it-- this is--by the way, we're focused on the suits, but this is to illustrate the whole system. And what--we all bring to the table different experiences, but when I was going--was in the Peace Corps, I spent 3 months in Molokai and a wonderful family invited me for a Christmas dinner, seven-course meal. She was Chinese, he was Hawaiian. And I remarked about the quality of the food, and they opened up one of these chest freezers, and in it was U.S. Government-stamped food, meats. And at the time I just made an assumption that they had bought them. Maybe they bought them. They didn't buy them over the Internet. So I probably shouldn't assume they bought them illegally, and I didn't at the time, but it was clear to me that they shouldn't have it. Mr. Kutz. Mr. Chair, one thing that's happening now is the units out in Hawaii we talked to, there's some confusion about the manufacturer's warranty versus the useful life of the suits. The people that excess these were, it appeared, under the mistaken impression that once 5 years is up with the manufacturer's warranty, that the suits are no longer good. That is not correct. We understand these have been designed to last at least 14 years. So given the first group of these that was manufactured was in 1997, these are starting to reach their 5-year warranty. There is a risk unless the Department gets the word out that other people will have boxes of these in a corner, that aren't in any records, that will look at the manufacturer's warranty and say 5 years are up, it's time to excess these. That appears to be in this part with the Hickam Air Force Base and the Naval Ordnance Disposal Unit in Hawaii that excessed some of the suits that we have here at the table. Mr. Shays. OK, let me do this. Let me call on you, Dr. Coyle, to make your statement, and then we'll go 10-minute rounds and we'll ask Mr. Kucinich to start us off. STATEMENT OF JOHN J. COYLE, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY Mr. Coyle. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shays. Is your mic on? Mr. Coyle. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Mr. Shays. I'm sorry, I was going to just--given that you walked in kind of looking like you didn't know who you were and where you were, I want to set the record here. You are Professor Emeritus and the Business Administration Director of Corporate Relations for the Center for Supply Chain Research, and you have written over 100 publications in the area of transportation and logistics, presented papers on these same topics at professional meetings, including the Council of Logistic Management, the American Marketing Association, and National Academy of Sciences. And you're a coauthor of two best-selling books, the Management of Business Logistics and Transportation, and you edited the Journal of Business Logistics from 1990 to 1996, and you're on the editorial review board of the Journal of Business Logistics of Supply Chain Review and the International Journal of Physical Distribution Logistics. You are highly qualified to come before this committee. It's an honor to have you, and the floor is yours. Mr. Coyle. Thank you very much for that kind introduction. Good morning again to you, Mr. Chairman, and to members of the committee. I apologize for being late this morning. I sat on the tarmac in State College, Pennsylvania this morning for about 2 hours in a ground fog, so we were obviously late. Mr. Shays. We're going to have some votes. You have 5 minutes--let me see we have one vote or two. We have--it's a recess. We're cool. Go for it. I've interrupted you twice. Three times, and I'll give up the chair. Mr. Coyle. No problem. And I also apologize because I did not hear the earlier testimony, and I don't know whether my comments will be somewhat redundant with the other testifiers. So let me just be very brief and then you can ask me questions. As you all well know, the landscape for business organizations changed dramatically during the 1990's. We feel in our Center for Supply Chain Research that was the result of five or six major external forces, including a new and very empowered consumer, more highly educated, better income, but more importantly, much more information at their disposal: Second, a tremendous amount of consolidation at the end of the supply chain in the hands of the retailer. So as you probably know, last year, for example, Wal-Mart became the largest corporation in the United States in terms of sales, exceeding not only Ford and General Motors but also Exon/Mobil. Third, a change in government policy over a decade and a half, with deregulation of major sectors that support business and liberalization of trade. Fourth, a tremendous growth in globalization and global competitive forces impacting businesses. And, finally, technology changed dramatically, really changing the way businesses interacted with each other and also changing the way they could interact theoretically with the consumer. Supply chain management, as my co-testifiers probably said, arose as a strategy, if you will, or an approach, a set of concepts to try to help organizations be more competitive during the 1990's. As we enter into the 21st century that continues to be the case. This concept of supply chain management encompasses product flow, information flow, and financials from a corporate specter, and it's important also to recognize that it covers, you know, extended enterprises. Now, as we look at the supply chain in organizations, we see a couple of key things that are happening. One is really trying to understand demand, and aligning demand and supply are some of the comments here, and it seems like that's one of the problems. Creating value for the end user. Developing a supply chain network strategy, collaborating information sharing and redesigning your processes. There are a lot of examples, and you probably heard of already of successful corporations in this area that have driven costs out of their system, and at the same time become more effective. They are not, however, without their challenges, particularly in the more complex types of organizations. While I don't have the expertise that some of my fellow testifiers have here today with respect to the Department of Defense, we have had the opportunity to work with a number of DOD organizations including DLA, particularly in Columbus, Ohio, the Defense Supply Center, and also have been actively involved with the U.S. Marine Corps for 4 years in a series of educational programs and some other types of research, and also with the Army during the course of the last year and a half. And as I look at those organizations, I have been impressed, I must say, with the people that have I been involved with in their trying to understand what makes business organizations successful, in terms of their ability to implement approaches that will allow them to take cost out of their supply chains and also to make them more effective. So at least at the level I've been dealing with, the personnel are very much interested in achieving the objectives that I'm sure you are. They obviously have a complex organization. It's much more complex than most of the business organizations that I've worked with over the years, and so the complexity is a challenge. They also have, I think, some challenges in terms of the way budgets are written for Department of Defense groups, and then also with some of the regulations that they have, policy they have with respect to procurement. But that's not to say that improvement is not possible, as I'm sure other members have suggested here today with their testimony earlier. It seems to me that, you know, the biggest challenge is for horizontal and vertical exchange of information. Information is power. Information really is the thing that allows corporations to achieve the things that they have. And that exchange across--horizontal exchange with the using unit and with internal organizations and vertical interchange, is challenged, as was suggested here earlier by somebody sitting here at the table with me, by technology that they don't have at their disposal and by, I think, the fact that the processes have not been redesigned. So, while there has been success, I really think there's a lot more that can be done to attain the kind of things you seem to be driving toward. And one of the key objectives of a lot of organizations today is to achieve what they call inventory visibility. The key to success in a company like Dell or Wal- Mart is they do have inventory visibility. They know where the inventory is, up and down their supply chain. While they may from time to time lose track of an individual item, it's really surprising how closely they control that. So let me just stop there and try to answer any questions you have. And again let me apologize, because I may have been redundant. [The prepared statement of Mr. Coyle follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.056 Mr. Shays. Dr. Coyle, I'm going to call on Mr. Kucinich. I'll just make this observation, though, to set the stage here. There is basically no part of the DOD budget that is auditable, to start with. And if it was a private business, it would be not in compliance with the law. Mr. Coyle. Correct. Mr. Shays. And we all know that here. And Ms. Schakowsky has pointed out this is not the first hearing, or the second, or even the third hearing we've had, and others that she's been involved in. We also know that when you have inventory control you prevent waste, you prevent fraud, and also you don't have to have as much inventory because you can move it to different places where you need it, if you know where it is. Mr. Coyle. Correct. Mr. Shays. But if every unit has to have a maximum--and so one of the things I hope you will add to this is, given the extraordinary failure of DOD over many, many, many years, over different administrations, to get this--a handle on this, is it possible? And Mr. Kucinich--and I think the answer is yes, but it just strikes me that you begin to wonder. Mr. Kucinich, you have 10 minutes. I'll go to Mr. Lewis and then, Ms. Schakowsky, you'll have 10 minutes as well. Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kutz, I want to go back to some basic numbers here. These suits and the ones that are vacuum-packed are the ones that are JLIST, is that right? Mr. Kutz. Yes. Mr. Kucinich. OK. These suits sell for $200 each. Mr. Kutz. For a set. A coat and a trousers is a little over $200. That's what they're buying them for. Mr. Kucinich. According to your testimony, by the end of fiscal year 2001, the Department of Defense had procured 1.6 million. Mr. Kutz. That's correct. Mr. Kucinich. Let's do the math; times $200 is $320 million. Mr. Kutz. Correct. Mr. Kucinich. So we're not talking about a small contract here. This is a $320 million contract. Now, of the 1.6 million that have been procured, how many can--how many have been sold? How many of this JLIST lot have been sold? Do we know? On the Internet or anywhere? Mr. Kutz. That we're aware of--and, again, we are only aware of the information we were able to get from the Department--429 have been sold, although as Mr. Ryan said, they have not been released yet. There were 1,934 that had been excessed. Mr. Kucinich. How do you know that? Mr. Kutz. That's based on their records. We actually went out to Hawaii. We sent one of our staff from Los Angeles to Hawaii. They counted the 429. So we're certain of those. The amount that were disposed of, the 917 that were disposed of, that is based on their records. We would not be able to tell you whether that's right or not. We can tell you there were 429 that were sold, and we saw most of those. Mr. Kucinich. Of the 1.6 million that were procured, you've only been able to focus on just a little more than 1,000. Do you know where these are? Can you give me a categorical breakdown on where these suits are? Mr. Kutz. As of September 30, 2001, 400,000 would have been in the three DLA warehouses, and the other 1.2 million would have been distributed to the military services. And I don't recall the data as to which service got how much. There were preallocations of the suits. But the 1.2 million have been distributed to the services. Mr. Kucinich. And it's your testimony, though, that you really don't know where they're located. Mr. Kutz. We don't believe the Department could pull together the visibility information as to where they're all located, yes. Mr. Kucinich. So is it possible that some of those could have been sold? Mr. Kutz. That's plausible. Mr. Kucinich. Is it plausible that thousands of these could have been sold, is that possible? Mr. Kutz. Yes, that's possible. Again, there's 1.2 million out there at the units. Again, when we went through, in some of the examples there was human error here also. In the two locations we visited in Hawaii, the people looked in the warehouse and said, these things have been sitting here for 2 or 3 years, did anybody on the base need them? No, nobody said they needed them, and they got rid of them. So it was just simple human error there as to what these were and what they were to be used for, because they didn't have an inventory system that said--that had anything. It was just some boxes in a corner of a warehouse, and they were trying to clean out that part of the warehouse. Mr. Kucinich. Let's say that there was an immediate need for these suits. How would anyone know how to get them? Mr. Kutz. That would be our biggest concern, is if there was immediate need to know where the--if something happened in some part of the world and they needed to call up and move these from one location to another, it would be very, very difficult for them to do a lot manual intervention, data calls. Mr. Kucinich. How long did you take to find out that you didn't know where they were? Mr. Kutz. I'm not sure I understand the question. Mr. Kucinich. How long did it take you to make a determination that you couldn't trace these? How much time had you put in when you finally arrived at the conclusion we can't find these? Mr. Warren. That we knew pretty quickly. In other words, we knew that the only comprehensive data system was at the DLA warehouse system. Once the items left the DLA warehouse system and went to the services, we knew that there were not existing data systems that would track them on a routine basis. So that was apparent pretty quickly that our---- Mr. Kucinich. OK, so you can't--we're still back to about 1.2 million. Mr. Warren. Yes, sir. Mr. Kucinich. That you can't really say where they are. Mr. Warren. Correct. We knew that pretty quickly, and by that we knew that our initial recommendation had not been implemented in any way. Mr. Kucinich. Are you aware of any system--any of you gentlemen aware of any system which the Department of Defense has that they can, if they needed 1.2 million suits immediately, they could put out a call and say, check your closets or the garages or whatever for these suits? I mean, is there any way that they can---- Mr. Smith. Other than doing a basic data call, there is no automated system that would be able to tell you today where the 1.2 million suits are located at. They would have to do a worldwide data call, the same as they did when they tried to recall defective BDOs. Again, the accuracy of that data call has proven it is not accurate. So the answer basically would be no. They do not know where they're located at. Mr. Kucinich. So we really don't have the ability to--what you've shown in this one case is that you really don't have the ability to track this all the way. You know, this whole hearing was about tracking a single item. You're saying there's a point at which you just can't track it. Mr. Smith. That's true. At the unit level. The other thing I'd like to clarify is that in the hearing 2 years ago, the DOD IG even raised concerns about the DLA system which controls the 400,000. So there's some question raised about that. The DOD IG said that system is chronically inaccurate. So it is questionable even for that system if that information is correct. So, again, throughout the entire chain, as shown on the board, there is no visibility over all these suits. No one can tell you today where the 1.6 million suits are located with any degree of assurance that they would be able to pull them all to a single location and redistribute them. Mr. Kucinich. Let's go back to the beginning. Why were these ordered in the first place? Why would you need this kind of protective gear? Why do soldiers need this? Anybody. Mr. Kutz. To protect them in a contaminated battlefield environment. Mr. Kucinich. Chemical or biological? Mr. Kutz. Either. Mr. Smith. Both. Mr. Kucinich. What kind of protection would this give the men and women? Mr. Smith. It is supposed to be able to protect them today against all known chemical and biological weaponry that could be used upon them. Mr. Kutz. And provide them the flexibility to do their job with minimal--the older suits were more bulky and less flexible and were hot, apparently, in certain environments. These apparently are more comfortable for the soldier to wear. Mr. Kucinich. This is a $320 million contract. Where were these made? Mr. Smith. Actually it's a $1 billion contract. Mr. Kucinich. It's $1 billion contract? Mr. Smith. It's $1 billion, which includes a surcharge that is paid to DLA for the storage and administration of the contracts. So the number you used before, that was just for the suits that had been purchased. But the total contract is $1 billion. Mr. Kucinich. OK, a $1 billion contract; who was it awarded to? Mr. Smith. The suits is being made by five different companies. So it is spread out through those five companies, and there's different pieces of the suits that are also bought; kind of raw materials, the outer shell, the liner, they are bought. So different companies are involved in the process. Mr. Kucinich. Where are the companies located? Mr. Smith. They're all located--the liner company is from Luscher. The rest of the companies are here in the United States. Mr. Kucinich. Where is the liner? Mr. Kutz. Luscher, in Germany. Mr. Kucinich. I looked at the tag in here, and it says National Center for Employment of the Disabled. What is that about? Mr. Smith. That's one of the manufacturers of the suit. Mr. Kucinich. OK. What does that particular manufacturer do? Is that, you know, is that somebody--obviously is that a government agency that--why is it called the National Center for Employment of the Disabled? Mr. Smith. That is one of the manufacturers. It's the way the contract---- Mr. Kucinich. Is that a charitable organization? Mr. Smith. It's not charitable. But there's different procurements that it has to go through, and there's different options that this has to be offered to different organizations through the DOD process. I think that gets back to what Dr. Coyle said about different regulations, different requirements fall upon DOD than you would have in the private sector. Mr. Kucinich. I understand that. I think it's wonderful to hire the disabled, but I'm wondering how the National Center for Employment of the Disabled is part of a $1 billion contract to make these suits that is the subject of these hearings. I'm just wondering, could you tell me a little bit about that? I think it's a wonderful idea to hire the disabled. Is this a U.S. Government operation or is this a private for-profit? Mr. Smith. It's an organization--we went to the one down in Tennessee. That's part of the contract. It's the way it's set up. It is a U.S. entity that is not--it's not U.S. Government, it's a private entity. Mr. Kucinich. Is it a profit, nonprofit? Sounds like a nonprofit, doesn't it? Mr. Smith. That I am not sure of. Mr. Kucinich. The difference is, if it's nonprofit, there's one price. How would--this relates to price, Mr. Chairman. They're charging 200 bucks for these, and Ms. Schakowsky raised a great question because she said, you know, if they're selling them for $3 on the Internet, are they really worth $200 to begin with? If these are being made by people who are disabled, how much are they being paid? These are issues that are real here. Are the disabled people really getting a benefit out of this, or is somebody, you know, hiring people who are disabled and paying them minimum wage and then charging the government as though the wage component was, you know, $120 or $200. I think that's a fair question. Mr. Kutz. We did not get into that. Let me mention one reason why these might have been selling for $3 is there was again some human error. At one of the locations, the individual at the Naval Ordnance Disposal Unit in Hawaii--and the one I held up earlier that was not a training-only, but was a good unit, they actually had marked it when they sent to the DRMO to be excessed as E, because they thought it was in excellent condition. Well, E actually means that the items are damaged. So it may very well be that the purchaser thought that these items were damaged and therefore they may have been bidding less money on these. Mr. Shays. If the record would note, we have requirements on DOD to hire a certain number of disabled, and Native Americans I think are involved in the making of some of these suits as well. I don't know if that's the real focus of this hearing right now. But we do increase the cost to the government sometimes in some of our hiring practices, but we also want these to be made by U.S. citizens, for security reasons as well. So there are a lot of factors involved that I'd love us to address sometime, but I hope we stay on the focus of the inventory, how it's being handled, whether we can improve it. And one of the questions Mr. Kucinich clearly pointed out is, we simply--we don't know if a lot more of these suits weren't sold. Mr. Coyle, as you hear this as well, I would think your mind would be going clickety-click-click, click here--maybe I'll get my chance. But I want us to invite all the witnesses here to respond. And, Mr. Lewis, you've got the floor. Mr. Lewis. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. The Department of Defense, do they have an ongoing inventory process for the different departments and agencies within the Department of Defense? Is there a requirement that they have at least a biannual inventory count? Mr. Warren. They're continually looking at the inventory that they have under their control. There are requirements for physical counts for control and financial accounting purposes. There are also requirements--perhaps this would be helpful to the other questions--there are also requirements as they look at the inventory that they have under their control at the various units, if it is declared excess to their needs, rather than carrying the carrying cost of holding onto those items, they are required to put it into the disposal process which we are talking about today. And that can move through various phases. It can be redistributed to other units, which you would have hoped would have happened here, but did not. It can be distributed to other Federal agencies. And it can be distributed to voluntary agencies. Once it goes through that type of priority regime, then it moves into the sale process which we have discussed this morning. Over time, over history, what happens to items that are then declared what they call surplus--no longer to the need of the Federal Government--typically have sold for 2 cents on the dollar. So it is not unusual that these items sold at this very low price under the typical Department of Defense disposal process. Mr. Lewis. Is there a central data bank that you can look to see where any specific inventory items would be at any given time? Mr. Warren. It varies, obviously, from service to service. The Department of Defense operates a largely decentralized management process for its inventory management processes. Some items, sensitive items for example, are controlled in a much better manner; firearms for example, sensitive missiles, in a much better manner than other items. Clearly this item that we're talking about today is not controlled in that manner. The systems typically do not talk to one other, particularly across services, if there was an opportunity to share assets. And that has particularly been a problem. So when they did the Y2K exercise, for example, to try and correct that issue, the Department identified over 1,000 individual logistics management systems across the Department of Defense. So that gives you again an idea of the proliferation of logistics management systems that exist today. Mr. Kutz. Representative Lewis, one thing I was going to mention, of the 1,934 suits that have been excessed, we did identify that 275 were reutilized, which means they went back to the government system. We did find, for example, that 200 of them went to the Marine's First Tank Battalion. So some of these did get back into the DOD system when they were, I think, put up on the DRMO site that others can go in and look at. So some of these did get back into the system. How the other ones got through without going through that process is not completely clear. Mr. Lewis. Dr. Coyle, how difficult do you think it will be to put in place an efficient supply management system that, you know--that could be as accountable to the inventory as a Wal- Mart or Sears or some of these other large companies? Mr. Coyle. As I tried to suggest in my comments before, it would be very challenging because of the complexity. There are so many different items of inventory, NSNs as the military refer to them. Just to give you an example, we were working with the Defense Supply Center in Columbus. They were handling 1.8 million unique items of inventory, 1.8 million unique items or NSNs. You go to a very large store, Home Depot, for example, the typical location for them would have 70,000. So you've got a tremendous level of complexity. The Defense Supply Center, they had 22,000 customers but 450 of them had accounted for over 80 percent of their sales. So they have some challenges. However, as was suggested here by several other people, it is possible to make, I think, tremendous--or to make significant changes. Information, obviously, is very, very important. But in addition to having reliable information, you have to have timely information. And that requires that the systems interface with each other. The biggest challenge that I saw, as I looked as I did some work with the Marines a couple years ago, is that if you look at their operating architecture, it's like a spaghetti bowl. They have all these different systems that don't interact with each other. Some are archaic, some are obsolete. They have some real challenges in trying to keep track of inventory, get that kind of visibility you want. But it is possible. It's going to be more challenging than any single corporation that I know of to be able to do that. Mr. Lewis. It seems to me like with the technology we have today, that there's no excuse for using pencil and paper and blackboards. You know, there's got to be, and there is, a better way to deal with some of these. Mr. Coyle. There's no question--you can look, you can visit almost any large corporation today, as some of these gentlemen at the table have, I'm sure, and I have myself, and you'll see lots of different ways of companies that are doing that. There are different kinds of technology, but there's a lot of similarity across those organizations as to what they've done. There have been mistakes made--you've read about them in newspapers--with different corporations. But underlying all this, you know, the suggestion about what technology can do-- you really have to make sure that you change the processes. You got to reengineer. Because if you throw technology at the problem, it doesn't solve the problem. Every company I've ever worked with that have tried to throw technology at the problem have ended up costing themselves a lot of money. They got to start basic with the processes. You talk to--somebody mentioned Sears here at this table. Sears Senior Vice President for Supply Chain Management, a 30-year career Army officer, is a 3-star general, retired from the Army after 30 years, and went to Sears. He's revolutionized the way Sears does their logistics and their supply chain. Obviously, he didn't just bring the Army techniques with him, but some of them. He's looked at, you know, what's going on, what's possible, and, you know, has made a lot of changes. There are some bright people in the military services, I think, that given the proper support can make some appropriate changes. Mr. Lewis. Absolutely. I agree. Mr. Shays. Would the gentleman yield for a second on his time? I mean, this is intriguing to me, because you're saying we have--I was wondering if we simply aren't hiring the best and the brightest in the military, and therefore the private sector does it. But there is a reason why he didn't--was he not empowered in Defense to do this? Mr. Coyle. It was interesting, in the Persian Gulf War he was the chief logistics person in the Persian Gulf War. And, you know, given the technology that was at his disposal at the time, and the processes that were in place, you know, a lot of good things happened in preparation for that effort. But there have been some criticisms about the buildup, the so-called bull-whip effect in the inventory that you had before the Persian Gulf War, but I think that was attributable to the lack of information. And you keep referring to inventory visibility. I couldn't agree more. That's a critical ingredient for success. Mr. Shays. What this raises, in my judgment, is something I hadn't thought about until you just made the point. I mean, I basically felt it was people without the expertise or ability, paid a salary that didn't enable them to, you know, get the kind of--that the expertise that they needed--in a system that was bad, just teaching them bad process and reinforcing it. And yet I've known for years that DOD is one of the best educators. They take someone, and value added when they get these young men and women is significant. And what I'm wondering is, is maybe DOD doesn't have the ability to recognize these people, to put them in the forefront where they get to make the decisions. And so, you know, obviously they had them in the Gulf War, but you've got a major company that has benefited tremendously from it. Mr. Coyle. From his experience and what he learned during his educational processes before he joined the Army or went in the Army, and what he learned afterwards, I agree, there are a lot of very bright people there. I think some of them are frustrated by the lack of opportunity for them to make changes they see. It goes back to something I didn't mention in my presentation that probably someone else has already suggested, that performance measurement is a critical ingredient for change. And rewarding, you know, appropriate performance measurement, I'm not sure that the metrics, if you will, the performance measurements that we have in place drive the type of change that you want to achieve. Mr. Shays. Doctor, when I have you for my questions, I'm going to say ``doctor, doctor, doctor, ``because I just called you ``mister, mister, mister,'' a few times here. Mr. Coyle. I can tell you a funny story about that sometime, and I will. Mr. Shays. It would be fun to hear something funny that doesn't cost us so much. But we have had too many hearings, and I almost found myself saying to my staff I don't want another hearing on this. Then I realized I'm guilty of the same thing DOD is. They've ignored this issue for years in not succeeding, and we have to win. And I want to know how we win ultimately. I have a good friend who works in organizations whose strategy is this: difficult, impossible, done. I'd like to think that's part of the military way of getting things to happen. But we have failed miserably for decades in this area. And I'm sorry my time is up--or Mr. Lewis' time is up. Is it Mr. Tierney or Ms. Schakowsky? Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Coyle, you talked about horizontal and vertical coordination, and then you talked about performance--measuring performance. I've concluded that we have to start talking about the culture at the Department of Defense because we clearly have a Department where there are no consequences to sloppiness. It is a culture of sloppiness. That's the only thing that I can conclude. And nothing happens to somebody. OK, so we lost 250,000 possibly defective suits, and we can't track 1.2 million new suits, and we auctioned them for $3. Nothing happens to people. Or, on the purchase cards, we had a whole hearing in the other subcommittee on purchase cards. Little to nothing happens to people who misuse them. So there are absolutely no consequences. DOD keeps failing audits, we keep passing higher and higher budgets. Nothing happens over and over again. Wouldn't you say that there have to be some--there has to be some consequence, somebody has to pay, some accountability, some punishment, something has to happen? Mr. Coyle. Sure. I think you put your finger on a very important aspect of it, and culture is important in any organization. And the culture has to support change, the culture has to support doing things a better way, driving for efficiency. But also underlying that, there have to be appropriate performance measurements in place so that good performance is rewarded and bad performance is penalized. And I think what you're suggesting--and you obviously know more about this than I do--is that bad performance is not penalized. If this happened in the private sector, as you well know, you'd be reading about it tomorrow in the Wall Street Journal, and someone might be even investigated with a civil suit and going to jail, as several people who are being investigated at the present time. So performance measurement I don't think is appropriate to stop some of those things from happening. Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Kutz, you said that you found some units used pen and paper and dry erase boards. So what happens if that information gets erased? Is there any back-up, is there any way to follow that up, or is it just gone? Mr. Kutz. I would think it would be gone. And there were some units that we looked at that had no records of these. They received their shipments and they did not keep track. So, yes, that would be gone. Ms. Schakowsky. So it's like we're living in the middle ages in some of these places that we can't even keep a record of them. I wanted to get back a little bit to what Mr. Kucinich was saying, and just suggest that while we didn't look at in this study the issue of the products themselves and their cost, Mr. Kutz, you had mentioned at one point that you're starting to look into issues of vendor fraud. This isn't particularly related to purchase cards. I'm wondering if that is proceeding and that would be worthwhile, you think, to look at as well? Mr. Kutz. We're looking at that, at the credit card issues. We have not--I don't think we have any current studies underway right now of that Department-wide. But there's a lot of bigger bucks out there than the credit cards. So certainly with respect to contract payment and vendor payment, there's a lot of risk of fraud at the Department of Defense, and there has been a lot of fraud identified over the years. Ms. Schakowsky. Let me finally say that while there don't seem to be any consequences for people at the Department of Defense, regardless of what kind of waste, fraud, and abuse there may be, the consequences--as has been repeatedly pointed out over and over--the consequences are so grave here in terms of it's life and death that we're really talking about here, as well as billions and billions of dollars. And so I just think, and I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, you feel like oh, no, not another hearing. Well, maybe we do need to think of something else besides continuing a hearing. I believe that the American people--if this room were filled with cameras, and there were lots--would be as outraged about this as they get about Enron or anybody else. This is scandalous. And there has to be some way to put a stop to this. I appreciate that you continue to shine the light, and we ought to think about how we can now get some sort of results. Thank you very much. Mr. Shays. Thank you very much. Mr. Tierney. You don't know where to begin, do you? Mr. Tierney. Yeah, I know where to begin. I'm all for rewarding people that do well, but in this situation I'd like to lop a few heads, frankly. Is there a way, Mr. Kutz, that we can get a chart of, besides the Secretary of Defense being responsible, who under them is responsible for this mess, right on down the line to the very bottom and their rank; because I'm willing to bet there's all sorts of stars and badges and stripes on these people who continually mess up, and they continue to get promoted. I disagree with Ms. Schakowsky. What happens is they get promoted. It's not that nothing happens to them; they get promoted by longevity, being in there. In the private industry they get stock options, and in the military they get promotions. So is there a chart that we can have that would show us the responsibility of who under the Secretary, and who under that person, all the way down the line is responsible for this mess so we can put a rank and a name to these people? Mr. Kutz. It is hard to put a finger on who is responsible here. That is one of the issues. Because you've got the services responsible, you've got DLA responsible, you've got the program office responsible. I think when DOD witnesses come up, you can certainly talk to them about who they believe is really responsible. But maybe that is one of issues here, is that no one individual is responsible. Mr. Tierney. Suppose we ask the DOD to give us their idea of who's responsible; can you also give us your idea, having gone through this, of who you think is responsible so we can compare the two? Would you do that for us? Mr. Kutz. Sure. Mr. Tierney. If this was a hearing about lost erasers and pencils in the Education Department, every damn member of the press from around the country would be in here, banging around and putting out stories about it. But because it's the military, they're all napping at home and letting this go on. It's just a disgrace it happens. Let me ask you this. Is there a reasonable timeframe, Dr. Coyle, that we might expect somebody to implement the best possible system to correct this situation? Mr. Coyle. As was suggested here a little bit earlier at the table, I think you're talking about a time horizon of 3 to 4 years to implement something like that. Mr. Tierney. You know, Mr. Chairman, what I think we ought to do is talk about cutting this budget by $18 billion in 3 or 4 years, and the way they can save it is by doing better; and if they don't, then they've got to find some way to make it up. Because the longer there are no consequences and the longer nothing happens, you know--where, Mr. Kutz, would we cut? Where would we take that $18 billion, from what line items? Mr. Kutz. One of the things we talked about--I don't know about cutting--but one of the things we talked about at the last hearing was some sort of way to control the IT money. I mentioned earlier that the IT money is being shelled out all over the place within the Department, and that's how you get the proliferation of systems and everybody building their own systems. One thing that the Congress could do, which has been done at a place like IRS, is to try to centralize that funding and get control over it. Again I mentioned at the last hearing we had that there's $26 billion in the budget for investment technology, which includes weapons system type. Mr. Tierney. Twenty-six. Mr. Kutz. $26 billion, which includes business systems and weapons systems, both of that in there. Mr. Tierney. Can we separate out those amounts? Mr. Kutz. We do not know the actual components. We're looking at that right now. There's a report this big that outlines the pieces, but certainly billions and billions of that are for business system. Mr. Tierney. There wouldn't be any chance you would have that ready by the time we're doing the appropriation process, would it? Mr. Kutz. We can try. Mr. Tierney. The appropriation process might be this week. Mr. Kutz. Yes. I mean, we have the documents and we can try to give you at least a first cut at what we think the pieces are. Mr. Tierney. I don't know what your disposition is on this. It seems to me it would be responsible for to us identify how much of that IT system is, and put a motion to centralize it and begin this process of putting some control on it. I'd like to work with you and Members on that side of the aisle to do that just so we get some sort of control over it. Mr. Shays. Would the gentleman yield? As we were conducting this hearing, I was just writing the e-mail to my staff to see if we could prepare some type of amendment to highlight the failure to be able to audit, but particularly taking this part of it which is the inventory, and seeing if we could come in with an amendment that would kind of wake up our colleagues on that. Mr. Tierney. If I could just reclaim my time, in addition to like concentrate on what Mr. Kutz just said, maybe working with Mr. Kutz, identify that number and the proper language that would allow us to centralize and get control over that IT system, so that going forward here we can start, hopefully. Mr. Kutz. We could certainly share with you the language that's been used for the Internal Revenue Service, the Customs Service, and others where that's been done. Mr. Shays. Let me just say that's an excellent idea. It would be nice to make it a bipartisan amendment. And I think that the sooner you can get it to us, the better; because we are going to deal with both the construction budget and the defense appropriations. Mr. Tierney. I just think that would--we've got to start doing something constructive out of here instead of just complaining about it. It may seem punitive or whatever, but I think we're at the point where we should get a little punitive here. But we've got to find a way that doesn't affect our ability for national security, but at the same time wakes these people up and maybe stops a few stars from being put on people's shoulders, and we can look to who to reward if they're doing a particularly good job, or why they're not finding people with this kind of--let me also ask, would it make sense to Dr. Coyle to have an advisory group, for the Secretary of Defense, of industry and academic people who are really well informed on IT and processes such as this, to work with them on this, identify it? Or do we have that capability within the military now? Mr. Coyle. If you get the right group of people, I think that would be fine. The problem sometimes is that retirees like myself are appointed to those advisory groups, and some of them aren't always up to date on the most modern technology. So getting the right people in place is a challenge. But I just want to emphasize again, the military has some very bright people in at the present time. I've been impressed with the quality of some of those folks and the education they have. I think given an opportunity to work together, they could drive toward some solutions. Mr. Tierney. My thought is those advisory group might help us identify those people and why they're not getting the chance to make the impact they could, and separate them from the chaff who are apparently in the way, and move that forward. We ask people to step up to national emergencies all the time. You know it's a disgrace, with some of the corporate activities we see of going offshore, avoiding taxes and things of that nature. But there are enough good people out there that if we ask them to step forward and dedicate some of their people to a cause like this, I think they'll respond. Mr. Chairman, I don't know that it would be something the President or Secretary would have to do, but perhaps we could make a recommendation to them, or resolution, or something on that basis, identifying the problem and telling them that the Congress, or at least this committee, is behind them; finding those kind of people and empowering them to make those kind of suggestions, so that we don't just keeping banging around inside the same barrel all the time. Maybe there are some things that will come out of this today. So just let me, to recount, Mr. Kutz, you're going to try to work for us who you think is in charge of this thing all the way, top to bottom. Mr. Chairman, I suspect we'll ask DOD when they're in, who they think it is. We'll make some comparisons. You're also going to work with us, Mr. Kutz, on some of the language and focusing on the amount that's IT money out of that, so we can put something together in centralizing that aspect of it there. And you know, Dr. Coyle, if you had any recommendations about the people who are up to date, retired or not, who might serve as sort of an advisory committee, if you would share that list and start down that path at least. Mr. Coyle. I'd be happy to do that. Mr. Tierney. Thank you all very much for your testimony today. I yield back. Mr. Shays. Thank the gentleman. We're going to go to our next panel. I just have a few questions. I want to be clear, Dr. Coyle, what you would do if you had been a Member of Congress for 20 years and you had sat in on a hearing like what we've sat in on, and really there is no change in the story for the last--and there's been a lot of efforts. I'd want to know what you would be doing, both as a Member of Congress, but someone who has the authority to make a difference, what would you be doing? Mr. Coyle. I would try to look at some of the root causes that make these outcomes come about. Are these problems being caused, for example, as was mentioned by one of the members of the panel, by the regulations that you have in place in procurement--that are very strict regulations about that--that in effect preclude some of the types of strategic acquisition practices that are going on in the private sector that allow a company like Dell, for example, to do the kinds of things that they do, or a company like Sears to do the kinds of things that they do. Second---- Mr. Shays. Before you go to the next one, give me some good examples of companies. You say Dell, Sears, give me some others. Mr. Coyle. Wal-Mart is another company. Kraft Foods is another company. Let me just see---- Mr. Shays. Don't just give me all your clients. Mr. Coyle. Johnson & Johnson. I'm sorry I missed that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shays. I was trying to be a little funny, but I---- Mr. Coyle. I missed that. I apologize. Mr. Shays. I said don't give me all your clients. Mr. Coyle. These are not clients of mine. Mr. Shays. Good for you. Mr. Coyle. They're not clients. These are names of companies that are reported by the Supply Chain Council and other groups for their outstanding supply chain. Mr. Shays. So maybe we bring all of them in, you know, and have them testify. Mr. Coyle. Possibly. There's some talented people that you could. Mr. Shays. Which company is the firm that you mentioned that hired the former military? Mr. Coyle. Sears. Mr. Shays. Sears. And that gentleman's name was? Mr. Coyle. Gus Pagonis, P-a-g-o-n-i-s. Mr. Smith. That is one of the gentlemen that we did talk to as part of our study. Mr. Pagonis. He is also part of a group that the Secretary of Defense has brought in from the outside to look at various entities within the Department to try to bring in some private sector expertise to look at DOD's operations to improve them. Now, we can provide for you some of the entities that they're looking at and what they're trying to accomplish. Mr. Shays. Evidently we wanted him to testify, but because he is on the task force he declined. I don't know the logic of that. But then again, maybe we'll get the task force in. Then he could come. So one is the regulations that make it difficult. Another is to look at some of the people. And from that we talked about bringing in some of those good firms. I got sidetracked. Besides regulations that make it difficult, to bring in strategic thinkers. Mr. Coyle. Another one that I would point you to is does your budgeting process--having worked at the university for 40 years and have a year-to-year budget--when the end of the year comes around, if you have anything left in your budget, you're afraid not to spend it for fear you'll get your budget reduced next year. Mr. Shays. The budget process. Mr. Coyle. The third one that I would look at is personnel. I think, for example, in some parts of DOD, particularly in the military, people are rotated pretty quickly, every 2 years, and somebody might start a new program and not have a chance to see it through. There's some challenges there. Mr. Shays. Well, it's interesting, because my staff was just mentioning that the IRS individual, I believe, that was hired to kind of take charge of this, there was an agreement that they would kind of transcend administrations. And we're looking at not just the issue of administrations, we're looking at the policy of rotation that gets you in and out real quick. Mr. Coyle. I would also say, take advantage of some of the good people that are there, because there are some outstanding individuals I think there. Mr. Shays. But besides looking at rotation, we look--we should look at the reward--I don't want to say reward and punishment. Mr. Coyle. Performance measurement. Performance measurement is the term. Mr. Shays. Performance measurement: Are we really identifying the people that can make a difference. You know what--what's fascinating, absolutely fascinating to me in the three things you issued: regulations. Mr. Coyle. That's off the top of my head now. Mr. Shays. This is a compliment, I think. Regulations, budget process, and personnel. You didn't mention technology. You know what? Technology is the first thing that we've always focused on. And so we all have--I mean we, the Department of Defense, when they've spoken to us we said, yes, it's technology, you need new technology. You didn't even mention it. Not that it's not important, but it tells me how important you think these other things are. Mr. Coyle. Basic. Mr. Shays. Yeah, basic. Mr. Coyle. You can't solve a problem on technology unless you change the process. Mr. Shays. OK. Well, this has been interesting. Is there any question that Mr. Kutz, any of your folks, Dr. Coyle, you want to put on the record before we go to the next panel? Mr. Warren. I'd just like to add to that question, one of the fundamental problems is the current organizational structure of the Department of Defense for accomplishing these business processes that have grown up over some 30 years now, and the breaking down of those processes has tremendous impact on all employees across the Department, to include civilians and military personnel, so the actual reengineering of the business processes, as Dr. Coyle was talking about, is not just coming up with better business processes, it then results in major reorganizations to the way activities are performed, which then leads to this huge cultural resistance to change. And that would have to be something that would be addressed in order to achieve what we've been discussing today. And I think that's one of the keys that's at the heart of why change does not work very well. Mr. Shays. Yeah. Mr. Warren. It's almost like base closures. Mr. Shays. I'm almost finding this frustrating in the one sense of because we spend so much time and we focus on testimony, and we've had people tell us why this didn't work because of this technology, and then when get technology it gets outdated by the time it's implemented because of procurement processes. And, you know, technology didn't even show up in this discussion, which is wonderful, but---- Mr. Coyle. Let me add a caveat. I'm not trying to say technology isn't important. If you look at some of these companies, you find they're trying to take advantage of technology to use it to their competitive advantage. Mr. Shays. You need the technology. I mean, we would---- Mr. Coyle. It's a facilitator. Mr. Shays. We wouldn't have people living in cities if we didn't have air-conditioning. I realize we're not going to be able to do the things K-Mart does without the technology, but we have to look at all the other things. Mr. Kutz. We looked at the technology as the symptom of the problem rather than actually the root causes. The root causes we identified when we testified before were the lack of leadership, cultural resistance, etc. The technology and the 1,127 systems you've seen, to us I think would be kind of a symptom of what those root cause problems are. Mr. Shays. I know you did say that. I guess my--when we had the Defense folks up, it was kind of focused on technology. So I'm not saying you guys didn't alert us, but it didn't sink in. I guess you have to tell us more than once. Anything you want put on the record before we get underway? Dr. Coyle, you rushed to get here and your time has ended. But if you had the ability to stay, I would like to suggest that I would call you up, or any of you GAO folks, after DOD speaks to, you know, put something on the record that you may need to. So if you have the time to stay and hear the DOD folks, it would help us. And let me say to you, we've got great people working at DOD. So this is--we just need to know how to help them. I think we're done. Anything else, gentlemen, that you-- thank you. Nothing else to put on the record? You didn't stay up all night preparing for a question we didn't ask that you want to ask yourself? Nothing? OK. So thank you. We're going to go to our next panel. Our next panelist is Ms. Ann Boutelle, Director, Commercial Pay Services, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Department of Defense--these are all Department of Defense; Mr. Douglas Bryce, Program Manager, Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology, JSLIST; and Mr. Bruce Sullivan, Director, Joint Purchase Card Program Management Office, Department of Defense. So we have the Director of the commercial payment and then the two areas that we were looking at. And if I could get you to stay standing, I'd like to swear you in. As you know, only one we've never swore in was Senator Byrd, and that was because I chickened out. Is there anyone else that might want to respond to a question? Any of you folks that would want to stand and be sworn in? I don't want to swear in a person once we start. So are we all set. Nobody else? [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Shays. Thank you. So pretty brutal stuff we're considering. I know you all are--you haven't worked in--I assume you all haven't worked in Department of Defense all your lives, and you're trying to make a difference here. We want to help you, and we're going to start with you, Ms. Boutelle, and then go to Mr. Bryce and then to Mr. Sullivan. OK? Great. And the way the clock works, it's 5 minutes, and we roll it over for another 5 minutes, and you can use part of that 5 minutes. STATEMENTS OF JOANN BOUTELL, DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL PAY SERVICES, DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; DOUGLAS BRYCE, PROGRAM MANAGER, JOINT SERVICE LIGHTWEIGHT TECHNOLOGY SUIT, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; AND BRUCE E. SULLIVAN, DIRECTOR, JOINT PURCHASE CARD PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Ms. Boutelle. I guess it's good afternoon now. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Kucinich and members of the subcommittee. My name is JoAnn Boutelle, and I am the Director of Commercial Pay Services of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DFAS. Within DFAS, our accounting and finance systems provide a full range of services to accommodate the various procurement processes, including those used to make the payments for the two items under discussion today. These are purchase card transactions and procurements administered by the Defense Contract Management Agency, DCMA. I welcome the opportunity to discuss with you the results of the GAO sample for these purchases. As you know, the Department of Defense has many procurement regulations, guidelines and policies. DOD mandates the use of the purchase card as the method of purchase and payment for the less complex acquisitions valued at and below the micropurchase threshold, like the purchase of the computer item GAO identified in their audit. The Purchase Card Joint Program Office issues DOD-wide guidance and policy for the Purchase Card Program, while the individual DOD components are responsible for establishing and implementing their local Purchase Card Program and procedures in accordance with the GSA Smart Pay contract. For purchase card services, DOD is serviced by two banks, US Bank and Citibank. Both banks provide the capability for online purchase validation and invoice certification. The DFAS customers save about 60 percent of the billing charges if they choose to use the online purchase validation and invoice certification. While there are substantial savings to utilize the electronic purchase card interfaces, not all agencies have completed implementation of the program. The GAO audit identified that DFAS Columbus as of yet was not using an automated bank process. This is correct. The initial deployment was targeted for the largest users in the United States, the Department of Army, the Department of Air Force and Department of Navy. These had been substantially implemented, and the defense agencies are scheduled for later this year. The change necessary to enable the accounting system used in DFAS Columbus to accommodate the electronic obligation transaction is in testing and evaluation and will be installed in the very near future. The biochemical suits GAO selected in this review are a complex item requiring a more sophisticated procurement method. The acquisition of these suits by the services requires specific levels of quality assurance testing and financing arrangements. The Defense Contract Management Agency manages these more complex procurement transactions using the Mechanization of Contract Administration Services, MOCAS, system. In addition, DFAS Columbus uses MOCAS to pay financing and deliverable invoices. The MOCAS system is capable of processing electronic transactions for contracts, receiving reports and invoices. Currently DFAS receives about 74 percent of the biochemical suit invoices electronically. The DOD services and agencies could reduce their DFAS bill by processing contracts and receiving reports via electronic means. For instance, the MOCAS manual rate is approximately $20 more per invoice than the electronic rate. To receive the electronic rate, both the contract and invoice must be received electronically. DFAS is an active partner within DOD to improve the end-to- end transactions and to use this technology in order to enhance the electronic processes. We have used conferences, training seminars and presentations to educate our contractors, contracting officers, program managers and financial managers on the end-to-end procurement payment process. These efforts have improved the Department's overall procurement administration and payment functions. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Shays. Thank you, Ms. Boutelle. [The prepared statement of Ms. Boutelle follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.060 Mr. Shays. Mr. Bryce. Mr. Bryce. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Mr. Douglas Bryce, the Program Manager of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defense Systems, Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, VA. I'm pleased to appear before you today to discuss the Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology program, commonly called JSLIST. I would like to move into my opening remarks, right into the inventory issues that have been talked about earlier and make an opening statement about those. The inventory control of JSLIST is accomplished through the efforts of the Program Office, each of the services, and the Defense Logistics Agency. The JSLIST suits held by the Defense Logistics Agency are tracked by national stock number, contract number, lot number and manufacturing date. They have visibility on JSLIST production lots up to the point that they are released to the individual services. Once that happens, accountability becomes a service responsibility. Tracking JSLIST from the manufacturer to the using unit is just not possible today, because we have not provided all of our using units the tools to accomplish this task. We have been aware of this issue and have taken steps to provide total asset visibility in the very near future. We are aware that commercial/private sector firms routinely accomplish similar tasks at wholesale and retail levels. Wal- Mart and Sears, for example, have automated systems in place to track inventory, ordering and shipping at near real time for all locations. We have planned a pilot program for JSLIST that will allow us to use traditional bar code, radio frequency identification tagging, scanners and readers to track the overgarments from stocks in Albany, Georgia, to the receiving unit. We have tagged these 5,000 suits for the pilot effort and arranged for units in the Second Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, to receive them. We will track the movement at several commands to validate near real time visibility. Collaterally, we will attempt to migrate information contained in the bar code to an existing data base, with an ultimate goal of being one system that can be shared and accessed by each of the services. So a successful end state would be one that finds the Defense Logistics Agency, the Program Office and the services able to track JSLIST from the manufacturer, through DLA, to the services and operating units receiving the suits by having near real time total asset visibility. The Defense Logistics Agency and Defense Supply Center Philadelphia have also embarked on a plan to replace the Standard Automated Materiel Management Systems with state-of- the-art systems called Business Systems Modernization. This system is expected to be user-friendly, flexible and fully implemented by fiscal year 2005. This will allow more accurate tracking of the Defense Logistics Agency's inventory. However, the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia has asked that the chemical protective apparel, especially JSLIST, be included in an early release for calendar year 2003 to ensure that the system can in-fact track shelf life items. This, linked with the services' bar coding effort and a servicewide data base, should provide the visibility of all on-hand assets regardless of the suit location. This should also significantly reduce the manual processes used today in tracking JSLIST. One problem that continues and will continue to plague us is tracking JSLIST once it has been issued by the services. We have no control over the actions of end-user units or individuals. In fact, in just the past week, as you are well aware, we have become aware of JSLIST garments that have been disposed of in Hawaii and New Jersey. We are attempting to recover these suits and have tasked--and I have tasked a section within the Program Office to start monitoring the Defense Reutilization Management Office Website for similar occurrences. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I believe that we have addressed and can address the issues of inventory tracking hopefully to your satisfaction. Subject to your questions, those are my opening remarks. Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Bryce. [The prepared statement of Mr. Bryce follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.097 Mr. Shays. Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee---- Mr. Shays. Is your mic on, sir? Mr. Sullivan. I'm sorry. Mr. Shays. Thank you. Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Bruce Sullivan, and I'm the program manager of the Defense Department's Purchase Card Program. The Program Office was established in March 1998 to centralize management of the program within DOD. I am responsible for promoting purchase card use, coordinating DOD card requirements with the General Services Administration, managing delinquencies, developing and deploying the standard DOD-wide card management system, and developing a DOD-wide training program. As program manager, I report directly to the Director of Defense Procurement. Early in this assignment, I recognized substantial challenges to the successful implementation of a standard business process within the DOD. These challenges are the same as those described by the GAO during its testimony on June 4th. Institutional and cultural resistance to change and military service parochialism were my biggest adversaries. At times it appeared that change in how we do business or implementing changes that weren't invented here would be impossible. Additionally, the maze of numerous finance and accounting systems that DOD, as well as its vendors and contractors, have to navigate through to submit, certify and pay invoices presented its own challenges. I am here today to tell you that DOD has implemented more efficient purchase card processes, and they are being used throughout most of the Department. Early in the card program, card officials found that they could buy their items easier and faster, but they were still faced with the same old paper-based bill payment process. The process was slow, time-consuming and required multiple data entries. If purchases were not summarized on the invoices from the card-issuing banks, the payment processing charges levied by the payment office could be as high as if each transaction had a separate invoice. The old process can be depicted in six steps: Cardholder purchases and receives the items from the merchant. The merchant bank processes the card transactions. The card-issuing bank pays the merchant. The card-issuing bank then mails the monthly payment statements to the cardholder and the approving official. The cardholder reconciles the statement, attaches supporting documentation, and submits the reconciled statement to the approving official. The approving official reviews purchases, approves and certifies the invoice, and then mails the certified invoice to the payment office. The payment office electronically pays the card-issuing bank. Under this paper-based and mail-reliant process, the ability to review transactions was limited to the end of the billing cycle when the paper statements were received by the cardholders and approving officials. Any mail delays such as we've recently experienced in the wake of the anthrax threat could add weeks between the time the card-issuing bank sent an invoice and the time it received payment. In 1998, the GAO recompeted the contract for the governmentwide card services. Competition gave DOD the opportunity to require the card issuers to incorporate new card technologies in their contract proposals. It was our intent to leverage commercial Internet-based technologies that were not then being used within the Department to further streamline the bill-paying process. As a result, card officials now have an online capability to set up, revise and cancel card accounts, and to review in real-time credit card transactions as they post to the bank's systems. This second capability allows officials to review and approve or dispute transactions without waiting every 30 days for the paper statements to be received. The online systems also allow cardholders to reconcile their accounts, and billing officials to certify the statements online 1 day after the end of the cycle. Online certification occurs weeks before paper statements would even be received. Upon certification, the bank reformats the invoice, consistent with commercial electronic data interchange standards. The reformatted invoice summarizes or rolls up all the cardholder transactions by lines of accounting. The bank then transmits the certified invoice via secure means to the supporting finance and accounting system where the invoice is electronically entered. DFAS has done an outstanding job of mapping its systems to accommodate these electronic invoices and has lowered its rate it charges its DOD component customers for billing service by as much as 60 percent, a real incentive for the components to use the online process. Currently over 50 percent of the Navy's invoices and about 80 percent of the Army and Air Force invoices are paid with this process. The DOD Government Charge Card Task Force has recommended that the Department accelerate electronic certification and bill-paying systems for purchase cards, requiring the components to use the card-issuing bank systems or obtain a waiver from the component's chief financial officer and acquisition executive. The online process was developed to support the most common use of the card, purchases within the acquisition micropurchase threshold of commercial items and services. It did not address the purchase items requiring a more sophisticated acquisition process, which may require multiple levels of preapprovals in individual line item funding. While some working capital activities have migrated to the banks' systems and confirm the ease of managing financial aspects of their programs, not all have agreed that systems can be used efficiently. Some complain that cardholders must reconcile two systems, the bank's and their component or activity internal system. In certain instances, a component may have or may be developing systems that will offer capabilities equivalent to the banks' systems. These should not--these should be considered as acceptable alternatives to the banks only if they perform the same functions and have the same or better internal controls as those in the banks' systems. We are working with the components to resolve these issues. Mr. Chairman, the online surveillance of cardholder purchases and the process-mandated cardholder reconciliation within this initiative, coupled with initiatives developed by the DOD Charge Card Task Force, strengthen our program of purchase card internal controls. Collectively these initiatives will deter or identify cardholder fraud, waste and abuse. This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have. Mr. Shays. Thank you very much, Mr. Sullivan. [The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6962.103 Mr. Shays. Mr. Kucinich is going to start off. Then he needs to get on his way. I may have my staff ask some questions, and then I'll be asking some questions. Mr. Kucinich. Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. To Mr. Sullivan, maybe you can help me with this testimony that was presented by the previous panel when they were talking about selected line items from purchase card monthly statements and related DFAS processing fees. They have a chart here which lists vendor, the amount of purchase and the processing fee. Staples, the amount of the purchase was---- Mr. Shays. Do we have that on one of the panels that you had? Maybe we could just stick it up there? We don't have that one? Mr. Kucinich. OK. You know, I always feel and just think it's important that we track a signal item in this--in the previous hearing, we focused on the suit through the whole process so we could learn something. I wanted to focus on a few items here to see what we may be able to learn about this--the practices of the DOD. The vendor, Staples; amount of purchase, $4.37; processing fee, $17.13. Vendor, Culligan Water Conditioning; amount of purchase, $5.50; processing fee, $17.13. The vendor, Office Depot; amount of purchase, $8.59; processing fee, $17.13. Can you explain how we're in a system where we have transactions where the processing fee is costing anywhere from two to three times what the item purchased costs? Mr. Sullivan. I believe the processing fee there is what DFAS charges to do the accounting and bill payment for the purchase card. Typically throughout the Department what we require is that cardholders summarize the bill, so that if a cardholder had a bill with those type of purchases on it, there would be one line of accounting to be used for all those purchases. That's what would be sent to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. There would be one charge for all of the individual purchases under that. Mr. Kucinich. Could Ms. Boutelle--would you like to help with that? Ms. Boutelle. Mr. Sullivan is correct. The $17.13 charge is what we charge to--if we have to input the documents to be able to pay. So that is the charge per line of accounting to recover our cost. If it had been sent in electronically, it would have been $6.96 is what we would have charged. If the service would have rolled up their purchases and consolidated them instead of sending a separate line of accounting for the Staples, the water conditioning and the Office Depot, if they had consolidated them, there would have been one line of accounting and one $6.96 charge if they had used the bank's automated process. But that is the charge for us to recover our cost for the manual process. Mr. Kucinich. Anyone else want to comment on that at all? I mean, is this--so if we wanted to save money, you're saying the way you do it is electronically. Ms. Boutelle. Absolutely. Mr. Kucinich. An in this case you'd save about 100--almost 200 percent in terms of cost. Ms. Boutelle. Uh-huh. Mr. Shays. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. Kucinich. Of course. Mr. Shays. Because the question--your answer raises some questions. You said if they had consolidated. Now, what would have told them to consolidate? How do they know that? Ms. Boutelle. That is a service decision at what line-- level that they want to capture their cost. So when you heard GAO mention earlier that we had received an invoice that they looked at where there were 233 different lines of accounting, if the service had decided that they did not need to know the staples and the pencils and whatever else that was on that purchase, that they did not need it down at that detail, they could have rolled it to fewer lines of accounting. Then it would have been a lower charge. It would have been either $17.13 per line if we still had to do it manually, or it would have been $6.96 if they had used the bank's automated system. Mr. Shays. What determines whether it's manual or electronic? I mean, what should Mr. Sullivan have done or his people to make it electronic? Ms. Boutelle. Well, I'll let Mr. Sullivan address that, but I believe he's working very close with the services to get them to implement the automated process. This one happened--the one that they happened to look at in Columbus is a Navy activity, which is kind of an anomaly that it is accounted for at Columbus, and they are free to use the automated process today. Mr. Shays. My time--I'll come back to this, but I need to understand why it is $6, and that is my ignorance, because I don't know. But I guess I don't understand what processing means. It's a transaction cost, but I don't understand why it needs to be $6. And I guess I should have asked the previous panel as to what it would be in the private sector. Mr. Sullivan--I'm sorry. Mr. Kucinich. That's OK, Mr. Chairman. It's a logical sequence of questioning here. Mr. Tierney raised a question, and I wanted to join with him in following up on it. Is it possible to establish--if any of these gentlemen can--the lady can answer this question--a chain of command on procurement? Who is it--who are the individuals responsible at every level so that we can fix responsibility to know exactly who made a decision that resulted in, let's say, the--not being able to locate an item or the amount that a taxpayer is paying and maybe the amount that is wasted? Is this system built in such a way that you can do that? Anyone? Mr. Bryce. I'm not sure that the system is built to where you could in each of the services go to a single individual and point to them, although there are people familiar with those processes, and that could be given to you. Each of the programs work on their logistics, and sometimes they work very independent of one another, and sometimes they are very cooperative with the overarching strategies of the service and/ or the DOD. So we could provide a list of people from the program manager all way up to DOD that you could look at and make a determination. Mr. Kucinich. I think it would be helpful to understand the process and also to be able to begin to fix accountability from the top all the way through the system, and the same would go for IT, that we can find out who makes these decisions. Now, one of the things that I think was remarkable in the previous discussion we had, Mr. Chairman, how a person worked for the Department of Defense in developing these--in this faulty system, left the Department of Defense, and is now helping Sears, from what I understand, if I understood that correctly--helping Sears manage its financial accounting in a way that's supposedly exemplary. Let's suppose when he worked for the Department of Defense, he tried the same techniques. Was he being frustrated at any place and that's what caused him to go to the private sector? Is the system so bad that even-- that good people can't change it? And if it is so bad, what can this Congress do to try to intervene to protect the taxpayers? Mr. Bryce. I believe that the system in the area of logistics has always been a bone of contention in the services, the DOD and the outside. There are good people that work programs and have managed to get things implemented in DOD and in the services that are good quality, logistical products and support applications. Not everyone is able to do that, and that's not necessarily the fault of the system. It may be a fault of the timing or the place of the individual. Mr. Kucinich. You know, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to--I'm going to have to go, but I've been involved in government for quite a while, and I've always approached things believing that people are essentially good, that systems are neutral, and sometimes they don't work. It's not the people that are bad. The systems sometimes need changing. And any of us who have been in government have met individuals who--such as you, who work for our government. We all work for our government. They're good people. They want to do the right thing. There's something wrong with the system. So I think this question that I raised on behalf of myself and Mr. Tierney relate to helping us get a critical analysis of the system so that perhaps we can maybe make some recommendations as to how we might improve the system. I have found throughout my experience in government there's a lot of good people who choose to work for government, and they need support, but sometimes they need the support from the Congress to put pressure on to change the system itself so that we don't get into some of these horror stories that are the subject of this particular hearing. I want to thank the members of the panel for being here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shays. Thank you very much, Mr. Kucinich. Let me just understand, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Bryce, from both of you, and maybe from you as well, Ms. Boutelle, is the system broken right now, Mr. Sullivan? Mr. Sullivan. No, sir. For the purchase card, I don't believe the online certification process that we built over the last few years--we dealt with an existing finance and accounting system or systems. What we did is we looked at how we had to deal with them up front, realizing it was paper- intensive and required a lot of data reentry. We worked with the two banks to develop an electronic system that would automatically interface with the finance and accounting systems. For the most part, we did away with the paper and the hand-jamming of all that data within those systems. I think we've improved it drastically. Not all components are using it 100 percent, however, and we're still working with those. Mr. Shays. Mr. Bryce, is the system broken? Mr. Bryce. I believe that DOD is a very large organization and corporation, and, yes, I do believe that some of the systems are certainly broken. We have service parochialisms. We have stovepipe solutions that are everywhere in DOD, and it does take time to fix those systems. So, yes, I do believe there are some things that are broken. Mr. Shays. Mr. Sullivan, if the system isn't broken, then how would you describe what's happened now? I mean, the system is working well, the system---- Mr. Sullivan. With what the GAO found in their study of the purchase card with the---- Mr. Shays. Right. Mr. Sullivan [continuing]. Computer? What they looked at was--had to do with the Navy statement, working capital fund. The Navy has elected not to use the electronic process. We built it for them. The banks have it. It's capable of being used, and, as Ms. Boutelle said, that they can, if not now, in the very near term, accept the electronic feed if the Navy elects to use it. The Charge Card Task Force has made a recommendation that they use the system, or else if they have another one that can do the same thing, to use that, but the task force also wants them to get off of the paper and the manual reentry. Mr. Shays. Let me understand, Ms. Boutelle; do you think the system is broken, these two issues that we're talking about? Ms. Boutelle. I think the--if you look at the system---- Mr. Shays. Is your mic on? Maybe it's just too far? Ms. Boutelle. I think it is. OK. I'm sorry. I think if you look at DOD and all the many different business processes that are incorporated within DOD, I think that the answer is yes, the system is broken in many places. We do not have integrated processes from end to end, and that is, of course, one of the focuses of the Secretary to try to improve the financial management and to come up with an architecture that will work, look at our business processes, and then figure out what we need to support those processes. So I think it is broken, and I think that there are pieces that are more broken than others. Mr. Shays. In regards to the JSLIST, it takes evidently 128 processing steps to acquire control in inventory and pay for JSLIST. Why is that, Mr. Bryce? Mr. Bryce. I believe that you'll find most of those manual processes down at the using unit where the rubber, so to speak, actually meets the road, and that these individuals are tracking JSLIST and using all manual processes, and that is where I think you'll find the majority of those. Now, as you start to move up that chain and you start to use the procurement process, there are lots of manual systems that each step uses to track themselves, or they build an XL spreadsheet or a Windows spreadsheet or some spreadsheet to track themselves internally, and what that creates is manual processes. So throughout this whole JSLIST, if you followed it all the way from the using unit back through the procurement cycle, you would find several places and organizations that use manual processes. Mr. Shays. Kind of reminds me when I was a State legislator in 1994, I ran on a pledge of having the High Ridge Road, which is about 5 miles from the Parkway to downtown Stanford--that the lights would be synchronized, and I was told they were synchronized. And the lights, any time there was a lightning storm or something, they would go out of sequence. And, you know, 6 years later it still wasn't fixed, and we finally learned that they were buying a mechanical system instead of solid-state technology then--I'm going back a few years, obviously--and the reason was was the person in charge of purchasing lights didn't know how to work on anything that wasn't mechanical. So the entire population was screwed by that. But once we found that reason, you know, the change happened, and the lights actually worked in sequence. It's hard for me, though, to imagine why we have mechanical systems. Tell me, what is the culture that requires that? Is it just one person training another, and it's just what you're familiar with? Mr. Bryce. If I might, I could try to give you an example in the procurement process of the JSLIST. I have identified in my written statement that there are 24 major steps to the process. Of those 24 steps, I have visibility of 5 that I can track through some type of system that I have access to or monitor or input to. That leaves 19 that I do not. Mr. Shays. And who has control over those 19? Mr. Bryce. Those would be all the other various agencies within DOD, which could be DFAS, could be DLA, Department of Defense. There are a number of organizations that are in the chem/bio defense community, the services. Each one of those have processes and do things that I have very little visibility of as the Program Manager. So that's where I believe a lot of the issues stem from in our processes is that there's no integrated architecture. There is no way to run this from the top to bottom. Although we have a lot of people with good intentions, and they want to provide oversight and guidance and help, what it ends up being is another stovepipe solution with somebody else in charge. Mr. Shays. Ms. Boutelle, I'm unclear, and I'm hesitant to go here because I'm exposing my ignorance more than I want to. I don't understand the two different charges, the manual and the electronic, and it strikes me that it's government paying government. I mean, this is a charge that ultimately the government is paying to another government entity. Is that part correct? Ms. Boutelle. Yes, sir. Mr. Shays. OK. But do the two charges represent actual cost, not of that particular transaction, but of the overall, and then you all have broken it down in this way? Ms. Boutelle. Yes, sir. You're right on target. If you take all of the costs for doing the process, and you allocate then how much of the cost is--how many invoices, line items, lines of accounting do I pay where I have to have people key the data into the system, and then how many transactions come through electronically, there is an allocation process that we go through to recover our costs, and to have a person that has to input the transactions, whether it's a contract, receiving report, an invoice, the purchase card certified payment, that adds to the cost that we must recover, and that is basically the difference between the $17.36 that's manual processing and the $6.96 that's electronic. If the transaction comes in for the purchase card via the electronic process, it's hands- untouched and goes through where we have to pay for the system running, the maintenance of the system, the programmers that keep it up, the folks who run the system, and then all of the other processes that just happen at a bill-paying environment. But it's basically $10 cheaper because a human is not involved in the process. Mr. Shays. These are transaction costs, correct? We call them transaction costs? Ms. Boutelle. Right. It is the way that we bill the customers to recover our costs. Mr. Shays. Now, dealing with you, you all are basically a monopoly, I mean, in the sense that they can't go somewhere else to get that service provided? Ms. Boutelle. True. Mr. Shays. How do we ensure that your costs are efficient costs? In other words--and costs, when you charge someone, ultimately--I'm asking more than one question. So we'll figure out which one I want you to answer first, but ultimately costs, and the higher the costs are, change behavior. So you'd think that if you were charging someone $17 as a transaction cost, they would have an incentive to save that money. Do they not get--is that money something they basically can find somewhere else so it's no skin off their back? I mean, there are certain costs, frankly, in Congress that are not part of my costs out of my budget, but we're well aware of what is my budget cost, and if something is too high in some area, and I can make the savings and then use it somewhere else, I know it's better than something that's--you know, I don't pay the heat in the building. I'm not charged for the heat or the air conditioning. So I'm not--I'm not as conscious, except I like to think I'm publicly aware that having my window open in the summer when I have the air conditioning on is a costly thing to do. But you get my gist? Ms. Boutelle. I do. I think you've asked me two questions. The first question you've asked me is what is my incentive to drive down my costs which will eventually be passed on to the rest of the Department. Mr. Shays. And then the other cost is--and Mr. Sullivan maybe--does Mr. Sullivan end up paying this cost, or does Mr. Bryce end up paying this cost? Ms. Boutelle. Mr. Bryce ends up paying it for the invoices that I pay for the JSLIST program. Mr. Shays. So, Mr. Bryce, afterwards if you would respond. I just want to be clear on this, as to whether you consciously are aware that $17 is paid, and does it come out of your budget or somewhere else? OK. Ms. Boutelle. Sorry. Ms. Boutelle. The--what we have done at DFAS is we have reorganized by business lines, and we did this so that we could put the focus more like what corporate America does. So we have three business lines, the accounting, the military and civilian pay and the Commercial Pay Services. So today I have all of the bill-paying operations that report to me for DFAS. Mr. Shays. And let me be clear on this. Do you pay--you make sure the government has made a payment on any bill that is commercial? Ms. Boutelle. I pay for the--you know, there may be-- there's a few outliers out there that are still paying their own bills that we haven't capitalized, but I disburse approximately $156 billion through the Commercial Pay Services to contractors and vendors annually. Mr. Shays. So GE capital--excuse me. GE, the aircraft engines in GE, or Pratt & Whitney is paid through you all? Ms. Boutelle. Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed, all of those. Anything that is a vendor or contractor, we pay that through the Commercial Pay. Mr. Shays. Right. And basically we have two players in this process here. We have one player who is actually just a certain equipment, in this case the suits. Ms. Boutelle. Right. Those are contracts that--for the most part contracts that are administered by the Defense Contract Management Agency. Those have complex payment terms and financing agreements and---- Mr. Shays. So you're paying his bills. Ms. Boutelle. I pay his bills. Mr. Shays. And he gives you the vouchers for them. In some cases he gives you the invoices. Most of them--a good chunk of them are still manual, not electronic? Ms. Boutelle. Actually I'm getting 74 percent of the JSLIST invoices coming in electronically. Mr. Shays. OK. So tell me how you figure your costs. Why would it be basically $7, $6.96, for every transaction? And is that competitive in the private marketplace? Ms. Boutelle. I do not know if it is competitive in the marketplace. It is hard for us to get benchmarking data as to what corporate America--what their costs are. Mr. Shays. Yeah. But---- Ms. Boutelle. We do have other payment requirements than they have, yes. Mr. Shays. I know Congress doesn't make your life easy, but OK. So define to me why you--is the 17.13 an incentive to get them to do it electronically? Ms. Boutelle. $17.13 is what it costs me to recover the costs of having people pay this--pay an invoice manually, and the cost, if they go electronically on a purchase card, is $6.96. So rather than submit to us the paper certified---- Mr. Shays. I understand that. So you have basically figured out both costs as accurately as can be to define actual costs. Ms. Boutelle. Yes, sir. Mr. Shays. And I see nodding of heads of others who were sworn in. Thank you. So it is--now, Mr. Bryce, tell me your incentive. Mr. Bryce. My incentive to reduce the cost? Mr. Shays. Yeah. Mr. Bryce. Or to pay the bill electronically? Mr. Shays. That 17.13 transaction cost, if you pay it, tell me what it does to your budget. Mr. Bryce. I have no visibility of that $17.33. I pay a percentage of money to have the Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Support Center in Philadelphia administer the contracts, which includes the DCMA, or used to include the DCMA folks. That bill was about 6 percent of my budget is what I paid for---- Mr. Shays. But your testimony before our committee is basically, just like me with the air conditioning and the heat, it's someone else that pays the bill. Mr. Bryce. Somebody else pays the bill of which I have very little visibility. Mr. Shays. And it doesn't come out--and they don't then subtract it from your budget? Mr. Bryce. To my knowledge, that $17.33 is not subtracted out of my budget. I pay one organization a flat fee, and how they distribute that money, if it comes out of the defense---- Mr. Shays. So you would pay them a flat fee whether you did it all manually or all electronically? Mr. Bryce. That is correct, sir. Mr. Shays. And it would be the same amount? Mr. Bryce. Same amount, 6 percent. Mr. Shays. OK. Mr. Sullivan, I'm--describe to me your program. I'm sorry to our guests here that I'm going this slowly, but I'm---- Mr. Sullivan. The electronic---- Mr. Shays. Yes. Mr. Sullivan [continuing]. Bill paying? When we first started in this program, we looked at how credit card statements were being paid, and credit card statements look identical to what you get on your personal credit card. It's a statement which lists the merchants and the dollars and the dates. We went out and saw individual's writing a line entry--a line of accounting for every single thing they were buying, and they were writing on their statement, and they were bringing the statements together, and they were mailing them to Defense Finance and Accounting Services for them to pay the bill. And DFAS had to key in all that information. Mr. Shays. And that is you, Ms. Boutelle? Ms. Boutelle. Yes, sir. Mr. Sullivan. What we wanted to do was take advantage of online Internet technologies with the new GSA contract. So we required the contractors who wanted to provide card services to the DOD, we required them to give us a proposal for doing all of the statement invoicing on the Internet. Mr. Shays. So Mr. Bryce could be using the same system? Mr. Sullivan. If they wanted to pay by purchase card, they could. This is strictly just the purchase card process. Mr. Shays. Right. But the point is you're providing a service to other government agencies. Mr. Sullivan. I provide the Internet purchase card service to the Defense Department. Mr. Shays. Right. Anybody--it can be--no. I got it wrong. You want to jump in, Ms. Boutelle? Ms. Boutelle. I think we may be confusing you, sir. The purchase card has a certain dollar threshold. The contracts that are for the JSLIST program are not within the rules. Mr. Shays. These are more like small items that you would-- it would be small inventory that you might need to run your shop, the paper, the other stuff, correct? Mr. Bryce. That's correct. Ms. Boutelle. Right. We charge--actually, we charge a different rate for the invoices that we pay for the JSLIST contracts because of the additional processes that they go through. The rate that we're quoting to you, the $17.13 versus the $6.96, is applicable to purchase cards. Mr. Shays. Right. Is applicable to purchase cards. I'm sorry. I didn't understand that. OK. Mr. Sullivan. What we did with that was we placed the cardholder statements online on a secure Internet site that the cardholders could actually look at their statement as they were purchasing throughout a billing period. So you could look at, you know, your use of the card, or if it's been compromised, you can find out someone else is using your card number before you get a statement by looking at it throughout the month. Not only can the cardholder do that, but his supervisor or the approving official can watch what their cardholders are using or where they're using the cards throughout the month. Not only that, but the program officials performing the oversight can do the same thing. So there's a lot of internal controls that have been strengthened by the use of that Internet technology, but important in this particular process here is that at the end of the month, a day after the cycle ends, rather than waiting for mail to deliver your statement, you could look at your statement on the Web, approve it. Your supervisor could go in the same day, certify that statement, and then upon certification, the bank locks that down, reformats it in an electronic format, and sends it to DFAS, and it's automatically loaded in the finance systems. That's done, and the bank is paid before people even get their statements. Mr. Shays. I'm wondering as we're talking about--I'm thinking of my own budget, how much of it's manual, and I'm feeling a little uncomfortable. Before we go to have my staff ask questions here, Mr. Bryce, I just want to be clear then. I was mixing up costs. You submit three-quarters of yours electronically and one-quarter manually. What are the costs associated with those transactions? Ms. Boutelle. The manual ones are $101.47, and the electronic commerce ones are $84.20 for the ones that go through MOCAS. And I think out of 85 contracts, there's 58 of them, I believe, that are being paid through MOCAS, and then the remaining ones are going through SAMS, which is another system that was mentioned earlier, and the electronic rate on that is $3.96. Mr. Shays. OK. The first one was 101.84? Ms. Boutelle. 101.84. Mr. Shays. And these are big contract items that require a lot of extra work? Ms. Boutelle. Right. They require a lot of contract administration and require financing. Mr. Shays. And so the $84 electronically could be on something that was a $2 million transaction or something? Ms. Boutelle. Yes, and that's a per-invoice cost. So there could be many lines of accounting on that invoice, but it would only be $84.20 if electronic. Mr. Shays. OK. Let me have my staff go. We'll be going a little bit longer here. I'll have some questions after. Just for clarification, Ms. Boutelle, you indicated and GAO found that the Navy chose not to use the electronic process for these purchases or for the recording of these purchases under the Purchase Card Program. GAO also said, however, that the Navy can accept electronic statements from the contractor under the Computerized Accounts Payable System, the CAPS system; is that correct? Ms. Boutelle. The CAPS system can accept the--an electronic purchase card transaction from US Bank. The Navy uses Citi Direct, and we have--we had not mapped the Citi Direct transaction into CAPS. We've gotten a cost on that. It's $5,000. It's going to take about 2 weeks, and I've already told the folks to go ahead and start that. Having a Navy activity, having their accounting done at a CAPS location is truly an anomaly. Until GAO pointed this out, of course, we were not into the implementation yet of the defense agencies. I truly wasn't aware that I had that situation. So they brought it to light, and I pursued having that mapped in. But CAPS can accept the electronic transactions, and then the accounting system sitting at Columbus that accounts for the defense agencies that are handled there at Columbus, the mapping of the obligation transaction is being worked and tested and should be implemented here within the next few weeks. Mr. Shays. Do you know if there are any other potential cases out there where someone out there can accept the--what was it, Citibank? Ms. Boutelle. Well, and based on GAO finding this, I did go back to my systems folks, and I asked them to get with the banks and find out if they had anyone receiving a purchase card statement that showed an accounting system that I would call abnormal. We found a few that we're--and it's truly a handful, that we're investigating to see if that's a problem with them accepting the transaction or not. I mean, this CAPS system today accepts a Citi Direct transaction for the Marine Corps. It just hasn't been mapped for the Navy's line of accounting, and that's what's different as you go through this are the lines of accounting, and these bill-paying systems were primarily set up to handle certain services. Mr. Shays. OK. Mr. Bryce, when the GAO found these JSLIST were scrapped, do you know why they were scrapped? Mr. Bryce. From what I understand, they were scrapped due to excess in that particular unit that they had been assigned to or given to, issued to, whatever you want to--whatever term you would like. When the services get the suits, then they determine the priority and who the suits get delivered to. Once those suits are in the hands of the unit, it is very difficult to track what an individual or the unit does with those suits. And evidently we had a couple of individuals that believe they were doing the right thing by saying these were excess suits and turned them over to the DRMO. We believe that there was a process that may have been missed, which is before you turn an item into DRMO, you would normally go through and check with an item manager within your supply chain management system to find out if they could be redistributed somewhere within your organization. Then if that doesn't happen, then you can move them to DRMO. So this has become an issue that we haven't gotten all of the information. We don't know exactly why they did it, other than they just thought they were excess. Mr. Shays. Do you know how they were scrapped; in other words, what they did with them when they scrapped them? Mr. Bryce. No, I do not have all of that data yet. We are-- I have some people that are working the issue, and we are attempting to make sure that, one, we can monitor the Website for no reoccurrences, and if they do, we get them off immediately. But more importantly, we are trying to find out why this happened and how it happened, and I don't have that yet. Mr. Shays. I understand. When you do find out, could you let the subcommittee know specifically what happened to the suits and how they were scrapped? In other words, I'm curious to know did they wind up in a landfill somewhere, as an example? Mr. Bryce. OK. Mr. Shays. Let me just ask you a few more questions. Let me just continue with the suit issue. We don't know for certain-- you don't know where all the suits are, correct? Mr. Bryce. That is correct, sir. Mr. Shays. Which is pretty astounding, but that was true before you had that job, right? Mr. Bryce. That's correct, sir. Mr. Shays. OK. And you would like to know where all the suits are? Mr. Bryce. Yes, sir, and I--I think we have a way to do that. Mr. Shays. Well, but, see, this is--we were using you as an example of a system, and we thought it was an important product--piece of equipment. We wanted to use that and find out what's going on. I mean, we've had previous hearings where we had masks that simply didn't work, 40 percent of them, and yet we were still issuing them to our military personnel. So we've had an interest in this, and given obviously the September 11th, we have a greater interest. You don't, in fact, know if other places disposed of these suits, sold them, buried them, whatever? That is also a fact. Mr. Bryce. That is a fact. I could not tell you what any unit after it's issued to the unit does with those suits. Mr. Shays. And the reason is because--well, there are a lot of reasons. One is we should still know what happens to it, but this is designated as D mil. B. In other words, a designation of B allows them to dispose of it if it's excess. So one simple thing is to make sure people know that this isn't disposable, right? Mr. Bryce. That's correct, sir. Mr. Shays. How many different places around the world could they possibly be? I mean, do you have a handle on at least the total number, or could they be in a whole host of places? Mr. Bryce. Are you referring to where the suits would be, sir? Mr. Shays. Yeah. Mr. Bryce. There are thousands of units. Mr. Shays. OK. Fair enough. Mr. Bryce. So it's---- Mr. Shays. All around the place. Mr. Bryce. All around the world, thousands of units. Mr. Shays. With you, Mr. Sullivan, what would happen if you said all transactions have to be electronic? Ms. Boutelle, both of you, I mean, if you were in the private sector, wouldn't the private sector say, no manual, case closed; stay up late at night, but solve the problem? Mr. Sullivan. That's true. You can reduce the DFAS charges. Not only that, but if you pay quicker, you get a large bank rebate. So, I mean, there are incentives to do so. There are some, you know, nonappropriated funding activities that still use a checkbook; I mean, small--welfare and recreation activities that will probably continue to do so. But for large customers that process a lot of invoices, they should be paying electronically, no doubt about it. Mr. Shays. Why couldn't you just say that's the way it has to be, Ms. Boutelle? Ms. Boutelle. Well, I think that's part of the task force and what they're looking at that Bruce is working with. Mr. Shays. Well, no. There's a reason other than that. I mean, the reason is we don't have--we condition--we don't have the equipment to do it electronically, we don't have the expertise? Mr. Sullivan. On the user side, all you need is a computer and access to the Internet, and you're set to go, and on the bill-paying side, all they have to do is be able to receive it. And for most systems, they're already mapped to accept it. Ms. Boutelle. I can take all of the Navy's transactions---- Mr. Shays. So the problem is it's the services primarily? I mean, they just simply---- Ms. Boutelle. They have to make that decision. Mr. Shays. I wish we could think of a good incentive for them. Ms. Boutelle. I beg your pardon? Mr. Shays. I wish we could think of a good incentive for them. I mean, Mr. Bryce points out that he has basically transaction costs paid by someone else. But if you had a bit more money--actually, you don't have an incentive to have a bit more---- Ms. Boutelle. They have two incentives. They have the lower processing cost that DFAS charges, and they also have the one that Mr. Sullivan just mentioned: The quicker they pay, the larger the rebate they get from the bank, and that's quite substantial. Mr. Shays. Yeah, but Mr. Bryce gives me the impression in his outfit he doesn't pay the transaction costs. Ms. Boutelle. Again, a difference between purchase card versus nonpurchase card. Mr. Shays. So the nonpurchase card, they don't pay the transaction? Ms. Boutelle. They pay a rate that is a difference between a manual and an electronic rate---- Mr. Shays. I understand that. I'm confusing all of us, I guess. I thought in response to one of my questions Mr. Bryce basically said the transaction cost is paid by someone else other than out of his own budget. Ms. Boutelle. It is who owns the contract, and if it's the service that owns the contract, or if it's DLA that owns the contract--and I'm not real sure who owns those contracts that we pay, but that is who we charge. Mr. Shays. OK. I'm going to just invite the other panel to--we do have votes in 11 minutes. Is there anything that you want to put on the record right now before I just invite the first panel just to come and maybe make a few closing comments? Any comment you want to make, Ms. Boutelle? Ms. Boutelle. I do want one clarification. The Navy general fund, for the most part they are using the purchase card electronic process. It's just the working capital fund portion that has not made that decision, and I didn't want to mislead anyone that the Navy hasn't implemented it in part. It has. So it's about what, Bruce? Mr. Sullivan. Fifty percent. Mr. Shays. Define the working capital fund. You said the working capital fund is---- Ms. Boutelle. Those activities that have to recover their costs, much like what DFAS is, that is a working capital fund. Mr. Shays. And they would be what kinds of entities? All throughout the---- Ms. Boutelle. Well, there's one that's out at--the bill that GAO selected happened to be Navy supply, and they have an organization. Mr. Shays. I thank you for your patience. Is there anything else you all want to put on the record? Mr. Bryce. No, sir. Mr. Sullivan. No, sir. Mr. Shays. OK. I'd like to just invite the first panel just to come. Thank you all very much. Just make some comments, if you would. We don't have a lot of time, so I need to move real quick here. You all are sworn in, and I just want to--we're really discussing more than one issue here. We're discussing inventory control, and we're talking about the purchases and the costs and so on. If you would, Mr. Kutz, would you just walk me through anything that you've heard that you think needs to be clarified since I've displayed my ignorance in fine fashion here? Anything that you would---- Mr. Kutz. Sure. I think they gave you candid answers to the questions you asked. The solving of the purchase card issue would appear to be much more achievable in the short term than the JSLIST issue. I think Mr. Sullivan was accurate in saying that they are moving toward more of the electronic processing of monthly credit card statements. We've seen that in the credit card work we've been doing in the field on all of the services, and I do believe that in the short term they should be able to achieve the goal of having pretty much all electronic processing of the purchase cards. I think that the solutions to--unfortunately the more important issue with respect to the JSLIST, chem/bio suits, I think that the solutions to fixing that problem are much more difficult, and I don't think that there are really any clear answers as to how they're going to get there at the end of the day, but that is a more important issue, and the answers to that are much harder to get to. Mr. Shays. When I have expenses that I submit to the person in my office who handles this, we end up filling out and literally typing in on a yellow sheet, you know, maybe 10--6 to 8 transactions, and then I have to sign each sheet. That is clearly a manual transaction that we're doing in the House of Congress. Now, I've charged on a credit card, and so there are certain--so maybe everything on my credit card was electronically done, one bill, submitted to us, but we then-- when we asked for reimbursement of payment to be made, we're doing it manually. It's kind of interesting. Any other comments you would like to make, Mr.---- Mr. Smith. The only other thing I would like to add is just clarify working capital funds. They would be activities such as the repair facilities in the Navy, the repair aircraft, the ships. They fall in the category of working capital funds. Mr. Shays. And they would be continually reimbursed in the fund; they would put in--the money would come to their fund? Mr. Smith. And that is what the customer would pay them, and that is how they continually keep operating. If an overhaul of an aircraft costs $50,000, then they would--the activity would pay the Navy industrial fund the $50,000. Then it becomes their working capital to keep on operating and keep on repairing the next aircraft that was down the line. Mr. Shays. Any other comments? Mr. Warren. I would just reemphasize the--that the--it seems the overriding issue is the business process and that is really what needs to be addressed as we move forward in this process. I think people talked about having very good systems. There were people trapped in processes that were not working so well, and I think that is what is happening across a lot of the business processes with the Department of Defense, and at this point the primary efforts to address those business processes changes are largely siloed within the Department. And if there was some way to get a dialog started about how you get an integrated approach to addressing that business process change, I think that would be--go a long way toward solving this systemic problem that the JSLIST represents. Mr. Shays. The incentive cost, though, what are the incentive costs for the Department to save money, other than to be ordered? In other words, if you're in charge of a certain budget yourself, and you're putting a lot of manual costs, but it's paid for by others, the transaction costs are paid for by others? Mr. Warren. The working capital funds, as we were talking about, the incentive largely is not there, because the working capital funds are paid largely through O&M expenses, and in general the incentives are not set up within that working capital fund process, even though that was the idea. They were to operate as a businesslike activity, and they would have competitive forces, but the reality is for many of those activities, they have become monopolies in terms of--or a single use. Their people have to go to for those services, and so, therefore, the competitive forces can't operate. Mr. Shays. Let me just say I have 4\1/2\ minutes to go to the floor. That is why I'm shuffling papers as you talk. Is there any last comment before I get on my way? If not, let me thank you. I'm going to be a little rude and just get out of here, but I appreciate everybody's patience with Mr. Horn going--not returning to Congress, it's even more imperative that others of us get caught up. So I appreciate you giving me this opportunity. Thank you very much, and this hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 1:11 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] -