Storage/maintenance of Industrial Plant Equipment
Author : United States. Defense Logistics Agency
Publisher :
Page : 80 pages
File Size : 30,95 MB
Release : 1989
Category : United States
ISBN :
Author : United States. Defense Logistics Agency
Publisher :
Page : 80 pages
File Size : 30,95 MB
Release : 1989
Category : United States
ISBN :
Author : United States. Defense Logistics Agency
Publisher :
Page : 108 pages
File Size : 25,71 MB
Release : 1977
Category : Engineering inspection
ISBN :
Author : United States. Defense Logistics Agency
Publisher :
Page : pages
File Size : 34,36 MB
Release : 1978
Category : United States
ISBN :
Author : United States. Defense Logistics Agency
Publisher :
Page : pages
File Size : 34,51 MB
Release : 1978
Category : United States
ISBN :
Author :
Publisher :
Page : 59 pages
File Size : 11,17 MB
Release : 1967
Category : United States
ISBN :
Author : United States. Defense Logistics Agency
Publisher :
Page : 0 pages
File Size : 10,88 MB
Release : 1977
Category : Engineering inspection
ISBN :
Author : United States. Defense Supply Agency
Publisher :
Page : pages
File Size : 31,64 MB
Release : 1976
Category : Industrial equipment
ISBN :
Author :
Publisher :
Page : 140 pages
File Size : 19,22 MB
Release : 1992
Category : Industrial equipment
ISBN :
Author : U S Government Accountability Office (G
Publisher : BiblioGov
Page : 28 pages
File Size : 17,62 MB
Release : 2013-07
Category :
ISBN : 9781289254872
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of Defense's (DOD) plans to remove the industrial plant equipment maintenance and special weapons storage missions from the Seneca Army Depot in New York. GAO found that: (1) DOD decided to transfer Seneca's industrial plant equipment maintenance and rebuild work load to the Defense Logistics Agency's (DLA) Defense Industrial Plant Equipment Center (DIPEC) facility as part of its depot consolidation effort; (2) the DOD cost comparison was incomplete and inaccurate and rebuild costs at both facilities were close; (3) the DIPEC facility had greater rebuild capability and excess plant capacity to absorb the Seneca plant's work load; (4) the need for both facilities was questionable, since DOD expected the work load for rebuilding industrial plant equipment to decline; and (5) DOD could save up to $1.9 million annually by consolidating the work load at one facility.
Author :
Publisher :
Page : 52 pages
File Size : 17,84 MB
Release : 1994
Category : Biomedical materials
ISBN :