Home
Solutions
Products
Pricing
Resources
Request Demo
Start Free
Menu Search Account

LegiStorm

Get LegiStorm App Visit Product Demo Website
» Get LegiStorm App
» Get LegiStorm Pro Free Demo
StateStorm

Weekly Updates

LegiStorm is constantly adding new information on the people, places and reports in our database. In the past week, LegiStorm added:

  • 1315 new people
  • 107 new organizations
  • 1149 new photos
  • 1999 job history records for people in our database
  • 713 education records for people in our database
  • 3184 contact addresses, emails and URLs (LinkedIn, Facebook, etc.)
  • 1 new person through the revolving door
  • 132 new policy reports
  • 15 new trips to our privately funded travel database
  • 356 new personal financial disclosures
  • 9208 new press releases
  • 5 new town halls
  • 37 new hearings

Caught Our Eye Rss

» More from Caught Our Eye
» More from our DevBlog

Army Inventory: Army Annually Spends Millions to Keep Retention-Level Stocks

  Premium   Download PDF Now (35 pages)
Report Type Reports and Testimonies
Report Date Sept. 11, 1990
Report No. NSIAD-90-236
Subject
Summary:

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information about the Army's retention of inventory in excess of its current operating and war reserve needs.

GAO found that: (1) the Army Aviation Systems Command, one of six national inventory control points (ICP), had retention-level inventory valued at about $1 billion, and retained many times the amount of inventory that was reasonably required to support end items; (2) 50 percent of the retention-level inventory was at least twice as large as needed; (3) item managers did not document the reasons for retaining contingency and numeric inventories, but instead accepted the retention levels determined by a computer program; (4) the large retention-level inventories were costly to store and manage, and reduced supply efficiency; (5) the Army has taken actions to reduce its retention-level inventory; (6) the lack of system documentation contributes to difficulty in fixing systemic problems; and (7) the database that item managers relied upon to make retention decisions included inaccurate data and lacked some necessary data.

« Return to search Government Accountability Office reports

HomeAbout Us Contact UsPrivacy PolicyTerms of UseJoin Us
© LegiStorm
LegiStorm
2101 L St. NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 360-4172 / congress@legistorm.com