Comparing Working-Capital Funding and Mission Funding for Naval Shipyards

The Navy owns and operates four shipyards: the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, Virginia; Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine; Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington; and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. These shipyards maintain, repair, overhaul, and up...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Hauptverfasser: Frisk, Daniel, Trunkey, R D
Format: Report
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title
container_volume
creator Frisk, Daniel
Trunkey, R D
description The Navy owns and operates four shipyards: the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, Virginia; Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine; Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington; and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. These shipyards maintain, repair, overhaul, and upgrade surface ships and submarines -- a range of services that costs the Navy over $3 billion annually. In recent years, the Navy has changed the mechanism it uses to fund each of the shipyards, shifting from the Navy Working Capital Fund (NWCF) to direct appropriations. Previously, under the NWCF's revolving-fund approach, the shipyards set prices for maintenance and repair services that were intended to cover their full operating costs, and the Navy's Atlantic and Pacific Fleets as well as its other customers paid for those services out of their appropriated funds. Now, under the direct appropriations approach, the Navy uses a portion of the money appropriated to it by the Congress to fund the shipyards directly, a financing mechanism known as mission funding. The Navy believes that the shift to mission funding gives it more flexibility in allocating its resources across regions and types of maintenance. But the change has generated some concern, both within the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Congress and among outside observers and organizations. Naval shipyards had been operating successfully under some form of revolving-fund financial system since the 1950s; as a result, some analysts have questioned the Navy's rationale for the change. This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) paper -- which was prepared at the request of the Readiness Subcommittee of the House Committee on Armed Services -- outlines the advantages and disadvantages of working-capital funding versus mission funding for financing naval shipyards' operations. It also provides an overview of naval ship maintenance and describes the shipyards' transition from working-capital to mission funding. The original document contains color images.
format Report
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>dtic_1RU</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_dtic_stinet_ADA466175</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>ADA466175</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-dtic_stinet_ADA4661753</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNrjZPB0zs8tSCzKzEtXCM8vygbSus6JBZkliTkKbqV5KSDxxLwUBd_M4uLM_Dy4WFp-kYJfYhlQVXBGZkFlYlFKMQ8Da1piTnEqL5TmZpBxcw1x9tBNKclMji8uycxLLYl3dHE0MTMzNDc1JiANAKa_MW0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>report</recordtype></control><display><type>report</type><title>Comparing Working-Capital Funding and Mission Funding for Naval Shipyards</title><source>DTIC Technical Reports</source><creator>Frisk, Daniel ; Trunkey, R D</creator><creatorcontrib>Frisk, Daniel ; Trunkey, R D ; CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE (U S CONGRESS) WASHINGTON DC</creatorcontrib><description>The Navy owns and operates four shipyards: the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, Virginia; Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine; Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington; and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. These shipyards maintain, repair, overhaul, and upgrade surface ships and submarines -- a range of services that costs the Navy over $3 billion annually. In recent years, the Navy has changed the mechanism it uses to fund each of the shipyards, shifting from the Navy Working Capital Fund (NWCF) to direct appropriations. Previously, under the NWCF's revolving-fund approach, the shipyards set prices for maintenance and repair services that were intended to cover their full operating costs, and the Navy's Atlantic and Pacific Fleets as well as its other customers paid for those services out of their appropriated funds. Now, under the direct appropriations approach, the Navy uses a portion of the money appropriated to it by the Congress to fund the shipyards directly, a financing mechanism known as mission funding. The Navy believes that the shift to mission funding gives it more flexibility in allocating its resources across regions and types of maintenance. But the change has generated some concern, both within the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Congress and among outside observers and organizations. Naval shipyards had been operating successfully under some form of revolving-fund financial system since the 1950s; as a result, some analysts have questioned the Navy's rationale for the change. This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) paper -- which was prepared at the request of the Readiness Subcommittee of the House Committee on Armed Services -- outlines the advantages and disadvantages of working-capital funding versus mission funding for financing naval shipyards' operations. It also provides an overview of naval ship maintenance and describes the shipyards' transition from working-capital to mission funding. The original document contains color images.</description><language>eng</language><subject>Administration and Management ; CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ; CAPITAL REPLENISHMENT ; COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ; CONGRESS ; COST VISIBILITY ; COSTS ; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ; Economics and Cost Analysis ; EFFICIENCY ; FINANCE ; HAWAII ; INCENTIVES ; LABOR ; Logistics, Military Facilities and Supplies ; MAINE ; MAINTENANCE ; Marine Engineering ; MISSION FUNDING ; NAVAL BUDGETS ; NAVAL SHIP MAINTENANCE ; NAVAL SHORE FACILITIES ; NAVAL VESSELS ; NAVY ; NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD ; OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY ; OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE ; PEARL HARBOR ; PEARL HARBOR NAVAL SHIPYARD ; PERFORMANCE METRICS ; PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD ; PUGET SOUND ; PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD ; QUALITY ; REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ; SHIPYARDS ; TRANSITIONS ; VIRGINIA ; WASHINGTON(STATE) ; WORKING-CAPITAL FUNDING ; WORKLOAD</subject><creationdate>2007</creationdate><rights>Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,780,885,27567,27568</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA466175$$EView_record_in_DTIC$$FView_record_in_$$GDTIC$$Hfree_for_read</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Frisk, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trunkey, R D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE (U S CONGRESS) WASHINGTON DC</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing Working-Capital Funding and Mission Funding for Naval Shipyards</title><description>The Navy owns and operates four shipyards: the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, Virginia; Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine; Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington; and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. These shipyards maintain, repair, overhaul, and upgrade surface ships and submarines -- a range of services that costs the Navy over $3 billion annually. In recent years, the Navy has changed the mechanism it uses to fund each of the shipyards, shifting from the Navy Working Capital Fund (NWCF) to direct appropriations. Previously, under the NWCF's revolving-fund approach, the shipyards set prices for maintenance and repair services that were intended to cover their full operating costs, and the Navy's Atlantic and Pacific Fleets as well as its other customers paid for those services out of their appropriated funds. Now, under the direct appropriations approach, the Navy uses a portion of the money appropriated to it by the Congress to fund the shipyards directly, a financing mechanism known as mission funding. The Navy believes that the shift to mission funding gives it more flexibility in allocating its resources across regions and types of maintenance. But the change has generated some concern, both within the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Congress and among outside observers and organizations. Naval shipyards had been operating successfully under some form of revolving-fund financial system since the 1950s; as a result, some analysts have questioned the Navy's rationale for the change. This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) paper -- which was prepared at the request of the Readiness Subcommittee of the House Committee on Armed Services -- outlines the advantages and disadvantages of working-capital funding versus mission funding for financing naval shipyards' operations. It also provides an overview of naval ship maintenance and describes the shipyards' transition from working-capital to mission funding. The original document contains color images.</description><subject>Administration and Management</subject><subject>CAPITAL EXPENDITURES</subject><subject>CAPITAL REPLENISHMENT</subject><subject>COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS</subject><subject>CONGRESS</subject><subject>COST VISIBILITY</subject><subject>COSTS</subject><subject>DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE</subject><subject>Economics and Cost Analysis</subject><subject>EFFICIENCY</subject><subject>FINANCE</subject><subject>HAWAII</subject><subject>INCENTIVES</subject><subject>LABOR</subject><subject>Logistics, Military Facilities and Supplies</subject><subject>MAINE</subject><subject>MAINTENANCE</subject><subject>Marine Engineering</subject><subject>MISSION FUNDING</subject><subject>NAVAL BUDGETS</subject><subject>NAVAL SHIP MAINTENANCE</subject><subject>NAVAL SHORE FACILITIES</subject><subject>NAVAL VESSELS</subject><subject>NAVY</subject><subject>NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD</subject><subject>OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY</subject><subject>OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE</subject><subject>PEARL HARBOR</subject><subject>PEARL HARBOR NAVAL SHIPYARD</subject><subject>PERFORMANCE METRICS</subject><subject>PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD</subject><subject>PUGET SOUND</subject><subject>PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD</subject><subject>QUALITY</subject><subject>REPORTING REQUIREMENTS</subject><subject>SHIPYARDS</subject><subject>TRANSITIONS</subject><subject>VIRGINIA</subject><subject>WASHINGTON(STATE)</subject><subject>WORKING-CAPITAL FUNDING</subject><subject>WORKLOAD</subject><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>report</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>report</recordtype><sourceid>1RU</sourceid><recordid>eNrjZPB0zs8tSCzKzEtXCM8vygbSus6JBZkliTkKbqV5KSDxxLwUBd_M4uLM_Dy4WFp-kYJfYhlQVXBGZkFlYlFKMQ8Da1piTnEqL5TmZpBxcw1x9tBNKclMji8uycxLLYl3dHE0MTMzNDc1JiANAKa_MW0</recordid><startdate>200704</startdate><enddate>200704</enddate><creator>Frisk, Daniel</creator><creator>Trunkey, R D</creator><scope>1RU</scope><scope>BHM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200704</creationdate><title>Comparing Working-Capital Funding and Mission Funding for Naval Shipyards</title><author>Frisk, Daniel ; Trunkey, R D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-dtic_stinet_ADA4661753</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>reports</rsrctype><prefilter>reports</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Administration and Management</topic><topic>CAPITAL EXPENDITURES</topic><topic>CAPITAL REPLENISHMENT</topic><topic>COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS</topic><topic>CONGRESS</topic><topic>COST VISIBILITY</topic><topic>COSTS</topic><topic>DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE</topic><topic>Economics and Cost Analysis</topic><topic>EFFICIENCY</topic><topic>FINANCE</topic><topic>HAWAII</topic><topic>INCENTIVES</topic><topic>LABOR</topic><topic>Logistics, Military Facilities and Supplies</topic><topic>MAINE</topic><topic>MAINTENANCE</topic><topic>Marine Engineering</topic><topic>MISSION FUNDING</topic><topic>NAVAL BUDGETS</topic><topic>NAVAL SHIP MAINTENANCE</topic><topic>NAVAL SHORE FACILITIES</topic><topic>NAVAL VESSELS</topic><topic>NAVY</topic><topic>NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD</topic><topic>OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY</topic><topic>OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE</topic><topic>PEARL HARBOR</topic><topic>PEARL HARBOR NAVAL SHIPYARD</topic><topic>PERFORMANCE METRICS</topic><topic>PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD</topic><topic>PUGET SOUND</topic><topic>PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD</topic><topic>QUALITY</topic><topic>REPORTING REQUIREMENTS</topic><topic>SHIPYARDS</topic><topic>TRANSITIONS</topic><topic>VIRGINIA</topic><topic>WASHINGTON(STATE)</topic><topic>WORKING-CAPITAL FUNDING</topic><topic>WORKLOAD</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Frisk, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trunkey, R D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE (U S CONGRESS) WASHINGTON DC</creatorcontrib><collection>DTIC Technical Reports</collection><collection>DTIC STINET</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Frisk, Daniel</au><au>Trunkey, R D</au><aucorp>CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE (U S CONGRESS) WASHINGTON DC</aucorp><format>book</format><genre>unknown</genre><ristype>RPRT</ristype><btitle>Comparing Working-Capital Funding and Mission Funding for Naval Shipyards</btitle><date>2007-04</date><risdate>2007</risdate><abstract>The Navy owns and operates four shipyards: the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, Virginia; Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine; Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington; and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. These shipyards maintain, repair, overhaul, and upgrade surface ships and submarines -- a range of services that costs the Navy over $3 billion annually. In recent years, the Navy has changed the mechanism it uses to fund each of the shipyards, shifting from the Navy Working Capital Fund (NWCF) to direct appropriations. Previously, under the NWCF's revolving-fund approach, the shipyards set prices for maintenance and repair services that were intended to cover their full operating costs, and the Navy's Atlantic and Pacific Fleets as well as its other customers paid for those services out of their appropriated funds. Now, under the direct appropriations approach, the Navy uses a portion of the money appropriated to it by the Congress to fund the shipyards directly, a financing mechanism known as mission funding. The Navy believes that the shift to mission funding gives it more flexibility in allocating its resources across regions and types of maintenance. But the change has generated some concern, both within the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Congress and among outside observers and organizations. Naval shipyards had been operating successfully under some form of revolving-fund financial system since the 1950s; as a result, some analysts have questioned the Navy's rationale for the change. This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) paper -- which was prepared at the request of the Readiness Subcommittee of the House Committee on Armed Services -- outlines the advantages and disadvantages of working-capital funding versus mission funding for financing naval shipyards' operations. It also provides an overview of naval ship maintenance and describes the shipyards' transition from working-capital to mission funding. The original document contains color images.</abstract><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier
ispartof
issn
language eng
recordid cdi_dtic_stinet_ADA466175
source DTIC Technical Reports
subjects Administration and Management
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
CAPITAL REPLENISHMENT
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
CONGRESS
COST VISIBILITY
COSTS
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Economics and Cost Analysis
EFFICIENCY
FINANCE
HAWAII
INCENTIVES
LABOR
Logistics, Military Facilities and Supplies
MAINE
MAINTENANCE
Marine Engineering
MISSION FUNDING
NAVAL BUDGETS
NAVAL SHIP MAINTENANCE
NAVAL SHORE FACILITIES
NAVAL VESSELS
NAVY
NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD
OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY
OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE
PEARL HARBOR
PEARL HARBOR NAVAL SHIPYARD
PERFORMANCE METRICS
PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD
PUGET SOUND
PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD
QUALITY
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
SHIPYARDS
TRANSITIONS
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON(STATE)
WORKING-CAPITAL FUNDING
WORKLOAD
title Comparing Working-Capital Funding and Mission Funding for Naval Shipyards
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T12%3A13%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-dtic_1RU&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Comparing%20Working-Capital%20Funding%20and%20Mission%20Funding%20for%20Naval%20Shipyards&rft.au=Frisk,%20Daniel&rft.aucorp=CONGRESSIONAL%20BUDGET%20OFFICE%20(U%20S%20CONGRESS)%20WASHINGTON%20DC&rft.date=2007-04&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cdtic_1RU%3EADA466175%3C/dtic_1RU%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true