Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][graphic][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

REMARKS

TURNOVER RATE

A rate of turnover has been computed quarterly for analysis in the following manner.

The sum of tonnage disposed has been divided into the average of tonnage on hand at the close of each month. This quarterly turnover rate has been multiplied by 4 to provide an interpolated annual rate for the quarter.

The actual turnover rate for fiscal year 1953 is 3.55.

In this chart, tons received and manhours are shown as these two factors represent new business and the capacity to care for it.

The box comparison below reveals a trend almost identical to that in the chart.

First
Second
Third Fourth

First quarter, 1953 quarter, 1953 quarter, 1953 quarter, 1953 quarter, 1954

[blocks in formation]

The significant element here is that although efficiency has been increased up to 0.80 tons per man-hour, the turnover rate has slumped in the first quarter fiscal year 1954.

This reduction is attributable to insufficient staffing to handle the increasingly heavier workload.

Request has been submitted to Headquarters, 6th Army, for 20 more personnel spaces.

SHARPE GENERAL DEPOT EXHIBIT No. 2C

SHARPE GENERAL DEPOT

US ARMY
SALVAGE BRANCH

MANHOURS VS TONS HANDLED

TONS (Received, Shipped, a Rowarehousad) per MANHOUR

[blocks in formation]

3.82 80

[merged small][merged small][graphic][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

REMARKS

MAN-HOURS VERSUS TONS HANDLED A relatively uniform ratio existed between man-hours expended and tons handled in the first three quarters of fiscal year 1953.

The past two quarters have witnessed a sudden increase of tonnage handled. Tons handled per man-hour have been increased from 0.30 to 0.80 with a high of 0.82 being reached in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1953.

As the peak in man-hour efficiency has evidently been reached, manpower assigned will have to be proportionately increased to keep pace with the workload.

Tons

Man-bours

Fiscal year 1963:

1st quarter 2d quarter. 3d quarter.

4th quarter. Fiscal year 1954:

Ist quarter

2, 297 2, 842 3,022 7,842 9, 181

7,723 7, 110 7, 947 9,613 11, 418

Captain DEGARMO. This chart indicates only the tonnage on hand at the end of any given period. This is in thousand tons, indicating that at the end of October we had almost 6,000 tons of property-a decided increase in the amount of property turned over for disposal. There is an increase of tonnage on hand.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. What is the outlook on this increased tonnage ?

Captain DEGARMO. That depends on the amount of personnel we are allowed.

Mr. Balwan. How many personnel do you have at the present time!

Captain DEGARMO. Twenty-three, including myself—for receiving, storage, handling, laborers, contracting, and so forth.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Is your keeping up with this function a problem of more than just personnel? Can it be a problem of merchandising technique ? Could we have an auction and in 2 days get rid of more than by the present sealed-bid-sale method ?

Captain DEGARMO. We could get rid of more if Army would give authority for more sales and we could hire additional personnel.

Mr. BALWAN. What are the principal difficulties imposed !

Colonel CLEARWATER. We have two problems: One is getting authority to sell. This property is not surplus until cleared from all Government agencies.

Mr. BALWAN. How long does it take them now from the time such property is declared excess until it is cleared for sale as surplus ! You are speaking for all technical services as depot commanding officer. What do you feel are the difficulties General Services Administration interposes in your system?

Colonel MURNAN. Before the material can be sold or otherwise disposed of as surplus, it has to be declared surplus to governmental agencies. The longest time we waited for disposition authority was 2 years and 8 months. In some instances it would take approximately 60 days.

Colonel CLEARWATER. You can better tell by figuring how long it takes to coordinate between half a dozen agencies. I think, gentlemen, you have the answer there.

Mr. Balwan. There are people who will say that General Services Administration is the cause of our problems in surplus disposal. What is your recommendation?

Colonel MURNAN. There was one case in which gas cylinders were held up over 2 years,

The usual procedure is to prepare a form 120, and in 15 days the technical service is required to screen and send the form 120 to the Surplus Materials Division for screening of all military services. That normally takes 75 days. Then it is directed to General Services Administration, and it depends upon the type of item as to when clearance can be obtained.

The cylinder case is an isolated case due to some safety requirements. These cylinders were shipped last week and will be cut up in the near future since the company that will dispose of them is being paid on performance of service.

Normally, we send General Services Administration a list of form 120's that are over 6 months old on a monthly basis. Since we started that in July, we have been getting more rapid action.

Mr. Balwan. What do you mean by rapid action?

Colonel MURNAN. After the 6-month report, we get action usually within 60 days.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Mr. Hull (General Services Administration), do you have anything to say on this particular thing?

Mr. HULL. We have nothing that is over 90 days according to our records. I don't understand where we came into this case at all.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Since this is an isolated case, it should not be used to condemn General Services Administration. It would be in order for Mr. Hull to convey back to his organization our desire to have a report on record of clearances showing how they have processed these requests for clearance and information as to how far behind they are at this time. Just a general picture so we can see if there is some function of General Services Administration that should be improved.

SHARPE GENERAL DEPOT EXHIBIT NO. 3

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, NEVADA, AND TERRITORY OF HAWAII, REGION 9,

San Francisco, Calif., November 19, 1959. Hon. R. WALTER RIEHLMAN,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN RIEHLMAN: Reference is made to the hearings of your committee at Sharpe General Depot, Stockton, Calif., on November 9, at which time you asked that the General Services Administration, region 9, furnish by letter direct to the committee a tabulation of excess property declarations from Sharpe General Depot covering a representative 6 to 8 months' period. This list was to include the dollar value of declarations, the date such declaration was received by General Services Administration for disposal action, and the date that GSA released such declaration to the holding agency for disposal.

Attached is a list of excess property declarations of $50,000 and over, acquisi. tion cost, received from Sharpe General Depot covering the 9 months' period February 1, 1953, to October 31, 1953. This period is somewhat longer than was indicated to be covered by request, but is, we feel, a more representative period. The list has been confined to declarations of $50,000 and over, since it was felt that declarations of that amount would be more meaningful and more truly representative. Declarations of smaller amount are normally processed by GSA in a shorter period of time than is normally required for the larger dollar value declarations.

It will be noted that the time required by GSA to process these declarations, from the date the declaration was received at this headquarters to the date released for disposal, was in the very large majority of cases well within the 90-day goal, and that many in fact were approximately 60 days. It will be understood, of course, that partial disposal actions took place on the majority, if not all, of these cases more or less continuously from the date of receipt, and

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »