You have to fight with the fleet you have now. There is no other option; it is a necessity. Our Goal is to do that better and to lay the groundwork for the future fleet by focusing upon availability of assets. We have identified two principal Questions. First, how do we get our availability rates higher? Second, how do we get ships to the fight more effectively and more often? The essential assets required to fight and win are not going to make much difference sitting in Job Site Drydocks. We can provide for enhanced deterrence through enhanced availability. They are not going deter anybody if they are not available and capable of deploying successfully.

We have put a major effort in getting much greater availability from many of our ships, and the ways we have done so will shape our approach, our expectations and our template for the operation of the new ship classes. We have seen a dramatic improvement in our upgrade and maintenance programmes. For example, out maintenance engineering planning programme is already doing a better job of predicting the maintenance needs of specific ship hulls and should continue getting more accurate over the next few years.

We put as much effort into infrastructure design as we did into combat readiness, which is about numbers today. We want to shape infrastructure that is all about availability of assets required for mission success, and not just readiness determined with metrics with low design quality. Getting the right infrastructure to generate fleet innovation on a sustained basis is what is crucial for mission success. We are strongly promoting continuous build processes.

We have established technical foundation instructions that look at each class of ship and, based on where a hull is in its service life and what type of maintenance availability it is approaching, outlines what type of work the ship is likely to need. Instructions for each individual hull and monitors of deferred maintenance are active, in addition to other things engineering teams need to know about that particular ship.

The job sites at the Yards have created learning centers to help new hires become proficient at their trades faster so cases of schedule delays and cost increases due to workforce challenges will be less of a budgeting problem going forward. We want the trainers there, as well, so that when we’re maintaining one part of the system, it’s the same people in the same building maintaining those things that will allow us to make future decisions about outdated operations and training requirements. We want these teams sitting next to each other and learning together.

Once all the ships have been through a docking availability, where they are more thoroughly taken apart and inspected, we will have a very clear idea of the state of each ship and what to expect for future maintenance periods. We anticipate the problem of work package growth will be reduced in the future but it will probably never completely go away. There is always something that will surprise us when you take a pump off of a foundation that you couldn’t see before and then that foundation is in full decline.

The good news is that we anticipate work growth when drafting plans for future years out, and they generally can stay within that margin. Where we see growth today is still on ships that have not gone through that process, that docking process, and really getting into the tanks and understanding what those conditions are. It is a constantly improving process with the goal to know exactly what the condition of the ship is so we can properly plan for it, order the materiel and be able to do the work on schedule and on time.

We have initiated periodic meetings with each shipyard commander to get an update on progress of the ships and to find ways to empower the yards to do what it takes to deliver the ships on-time or early. It’s important to get quick updates on where they are, where they’re having challenges, and then where can headquarters can provide help in terms of, is our input required in getting materiel, is our assistance necessary to clear some technical issues that need to be adjudicated before testing is resumed.. So that’s all begun to contribute to success of operations.

There are things we can do up at headquarters to advance quality of operations, if it’s a technical issue we can give them additional technical resources. We can provide some focused effort from the headquarters; if our chief engineer sitting there with the shipyard commander when an issue is brought up, it cuts through the normal layers that these things have to get through. It has fostered key ingredients for the future fleet, most importantly that time matters, and there must always be a sense of urgency since ships need to get back to the fight as soon as possible.

We cannot overstate enough the importance of periodic reviews because we aren’t about to claim we are the reason these things have gotten better, but review do in fact provide the shipyard commanders with an additional level of a sense of urgency, that we have established a mechanism to get headquarters’ attention; that headquarters is there to support each worker at the yard; that if they’ve come up against a roadblock that they’re having a problem getting solved, then we can muster some resources to get the issue solved probably more quickly than they can get the problem fixed in the normal way. We want to create better supervisors at the Deckplate, and initiatives are being put in place to train new hires more quickly so it is possible to start contributing to the workload even before they’re qualified to work on the ship.

Many availabilities experiencing problems, on the other hand, are much more complex. The biggest factor is that many availabilities take much longer than anticipated, not due to unexpected maintenance work but rather because modernisation work suddenly started driving schedules. Modernisation, in the past, has generally not been a driver for schedule in availabilities – they mostly have been specific to particular parts of the ship, or particular machinery, or some capability like that.

We’re now getting into modernisation that really takes the ship apart completely. The scope and duration of some systems installation are now understood to some degree, but often times we will not know until between that budget process and the beginning of the year. We have shifted some of the money over to help address all those challenges – though ultimately the shortfall is about the same size now as it was at the beginning of the fiscal year.

The fact that the deficit hasn’t shrunk much over the last period isn’t for lack of trying, though. We had begun awarding firm fixed-priced contracts for surface ships instead of the old multi-ship/multi-option setup. Preliminary observations shows costs are coming down, freeing up money to spend on other emerging ship maintenance work. But sometimes we find ourselves facing a big unplanned bill in the fiscal year when ships return from a deployment that was not only extended for a significant period but was also essentially the second in a back-to-back deployment with only bare-bones maintenance work in between.

We have been warning Congress for years that extended deployments have led to more severe maintenance problems when ships can finally go into an availability. Insufficient time and funding have led to partial completions of the work in some cases, which then creates bigger problems down the road – for example, tank inspections get skipped and then we have to deal with major corrosion issues later on.

What we’re seeing now with the actual testing of equipment prior to the availability, the additional work the ships are tasked with over the course of deployment, we’re seeing a lot more work now coming into that package. The consequences are manifested in an availability that will be much bigger than we anticipated.

So as we grow the size of the workforce and we go look at all the ship work we have on the plate, We’re trying to get out in front far enough in advance so we can go to the fleet commanders, telling them don’t have the capacity at the naval shipyards, and then we can go talk to outside vendors earlier than we’ve typically done before. If you look at the list of ships out there, there are several cases where looking into the future we may have to go to outside vendors earlier than we’ve done today.

In some years, Pentagon-level reprogramming can take money from other Service acquisition programmes, but most of the time we cannot get money from the other services for the year to cover shortfalls. Due to funding shortfalls, we have reduced contract support levels, intermediate level repairs, and ability to provide after-hours support in specific areas. Although extensive efforts have been expended to limit adverse impact to the ships undergoing maintenance, fiscal realities have forced us into these actions.

Specifically, we are forced to stop engineering support to include tank and void inspections, infrared surveys, underway vibration analysis and surface ship availability work certifications. Reduction in parts procurement means a stop to all major diesel work, surface ship torpedo tube repairs and refurbishment, air compressor overhauls, communication receiver and transmitter repairs, and repairs to electronic warfare and anti-ship missile decoy systems. When supplies of on hand materiel run out, repairs to additional systems will be impacted.

Delaying maintenance periods, pressing them into the next fiscal year with the budget currently under consideration not being optimal, affects even the smallest number of ships, impacting the final decision on how to deal with the operations and maintenance shortfall. We do not want to embark on a path that partially accomplishes all availabilities across the entire fleet. That is a dangerous practice that rapidly builds maintenance and capability backlogs that are difficult to recover. Indeed, we are still digging out from that sort of policy implemented more than a decade ago that is difficult to recover from

The fleet takes on operational risk when it has less than full operations and maintenance funding, meaning acceptance of less readiness across the whole of the Fleet, less capacity to surge in crisis, or perhaps living with reduced readiness in our ships that would keep them from reaching the end of their service lives. In any case, recovering from these situations will cost us more in time and money in the future, limiting utility of the Force.

Question #1:

How do you fight with the fleet you have and prepare at the same time for tomorrow’s fleet, especially when you have several new programmes in the pipeline?

Question #2:

How do you execute initial steps to a successful maintenance availability like proper planning, determining what people and materiel will be needed at each step along the way?

Question #3:

By learning how to ramp up availability with today’s fleet, are you preparing solid templates for future operations?

Question #4:

Several months before the availability starts, do you commit to having a resource plan --in other words, these are the people you need, when you’re going to need them, so you can finish on time?

Question #5:

Isn’t one broad aspect of changes you are responsible for clearly setting out solid goals for build/upgrade the Fleet of the 21st Century?

Question #6:

Isn’t it important for you to have periodic calls with each shipyard commanders to get updates on progress and find ways to empower the yards to do what it takes to deliver on-time?

Question #7:

How important in your view is building a new shipyard training infrastructure to support a 21st century combat force?

Question #8:

If you have work backlog, how do you plan to move availabilities around so you have workers with the capacity to do work?

Question #9:

Overtime is one of must important factors to adjust, but isn’t it difficult for you to fine-tune how many man-days of work get accomplished without taking major workforce shortages into account?

Question #10:

So it is apparent your focus is on advanced planning, the growth in the workforce, worker-efficiency initiatives and more—how do you plan to achieve success in these areas?

Marine Corps upgrade/repair tasks performed by Troops in field preserve operational conditions/reliability of equipment, comprise most critical of all building blocks in product support  systems. Upgrade/repair teams will achieve success when organisation sustains mission critical equipment with operational readiness rates at required levels while achieving Maintenance Standards for assigned/attached equipment.

Equipment  maintenance standards are determined by using equipment preventive maintenance inspection/service found in product support instructions. Nonstandard equipment maintenance standards are determined by using equipment visual checks to make sure equipment can perform what it was designed to do.
Site Visit Executive emphasis and commitment strengthens probability of success of any task, mission, or course of action. Maintenance tasks require effective leadership to get the job done in accordance with policy and in best manner possible. Here we provide checklist designed with the purpose of adding organisational  maintenance structure to Troops leadership skill sets.

Site Visit Executive must be able to answer yes to the following questions to ensure field maintenance
operations achieve mission requirements. Positive answers to these questions will serve as benchmarks/metrics for product support success.

1.       Are Troops aware of  mission tasks are required to achieve Maintenance Standards for assigned and attached equipment?

2.       Do Troops provide feedback on how well mission is being accomplished?

3.       Do Troops have appropriate training/resourcing to execute assigned missions/tasks?

4.       Have Troops integrated administrative Logistics activities to provide maintenance/supply assistance as required?

5.       Do Troops use maintenance enablers & automated information systems assist operations to report maintenance actions?

6.       Do Troops promptly return unserviceable reparable items via retrograde channels or to designated source of repair?

7.       Does Site Visit Executive have technical resources to supervise Troops and inspect equipment? If not, what is required corrective action?

8.       Have Troops given Site Visit Executive access to motor pool or equipment storage area inquired about maintenance operations?

9.       Is there positive ownership relationship between Troops and their equipment include test, measurement, & diagnostic equipment monitoring training?

10.    Do Troops completely understand maintenance system within organisation and comply with requirements to accomplish tasks & objectives?

Top 10 Guidebook Dispatch Authorities & Principles Sustain Assigned Equipment Upgrade/Repair Foundation

1.        Introduce overview of  equipment upgrade/repair standard, mission objectives, benchmarks, performance metrics test Site Visit Executive dispatch assistance

2.       Define key dispatch duties & describe equipment upgrade/repair organisation function

3.       Discuss upgrade/repair operations dispatch structure so achieve rapid return of equipment to the user.

4.       Outline upgrade/repair Procedures to  guide dispatch execution of work processes & provide access to technical references

5.       Describe importance of preventive maintenance checks/services include listing  provide dispatch procedures

6.        Identify dispatch enablers and programmes most critical to the success of upgrade/repair operations focus on field-level maintenance.

7.        Establish equipment reset subset dispatch process for field and sustainment maintenance within  force pool readiness strategies

8.       Format pre-deployment dispatch training equipment pre-position at selected installations to support replicate units required to accomplish mission.

9.       Promote dispatch facilitation of maintenance/sustainment for  technical non-standard equipment define performance requirements

10.    Create dispatch procedures/checklists for maintenance programme not prohibit or replace equipment evaluation/inspection conducted at discretion of Site Visit Executive

Top 10 Long Term Equipment Upgrade/Repair Work Order Planning Recommendations

Navy weapons system programme recommendations depend on long term projections of fleet size and composition, projected Navy work order infrastructure appropriations requiring more and/or different types of Fleet Components, and any other changes that will change either the number or configuration of mobile equipment.

These work order issues are best addressed with creation of long term strategic Job Site plan to include such steps as:

1. Forecast future fleet size/mix and service level work order requirements

2. Compare existing parts stock supply capacities to projected future work orders

3. Estimate work order dependence on future space requirements based on Job Site Layout standards

4. Create future utilisation goals for Service conditions to accurate identify current work order problems

5. Predict Job Site personnel organisational work order requirements

6. Estimate gaps between existing fiscal resources and projected work order requirements

7. Implement Plans to serve as base upon future work order objectives can be built

8. Construct alternative work order implement of physical/operational plans to meet future requirements

9. Conduct economic service life assessment to rank each work order alternative

10. After considering external factors, identify best work order alternative course of action

Top 10 Site Visit Executive recommendations for Updated Dispatch of Equipment Supply Systems

1. Clearly define roles and responsibilities of Site Visit Executive to include oversight, enforcement & accountability of equipment supply programme

2. Design equipment track status update authority measures for each dispatch unit

3. Provide training to equipment supply dispatchers to reflect updated logistics systems operating procedures and business rules

4. Perform reconciliation of logistics systems, identify errors and inconsistencies

5. Establish plan of action and milestones for supply line corrections at specified dispatch intervals

6. Require Site Visit Executive to provide refresher training about update supply functions for dispatcher assignments

7. Determine effectiveness and feasibility of establishing dispatcher billet to provide stability and assist Logistics System performance

8. Assign Site Visit Executive oversight authority to ensure updated supply actions become established directives/instructions

9. Establish plan of action and milestones for accomplishing Supply Logistics actions recommended by Site Visit Executive

10. Make sure Logistics Systems provide for dispatch unit equipment asset visibility in supply lines

Top 10 Steps Make Service Level Deal With Fleet Services Customers

1. Obtain general guidance from Site Visit Executive

2. Meet with customer obtain detailed requirements

3. Identify services to be provided, assess protocols/priorities

4. Identify performance metrics to be measured

5. Identify responsibilities of customer

6. Issue preliminary agreement for customer review

7. Evaluate impact on existing fleet services operations

8. Create goals for meeting new operational requirements

9. Refine/finalise objectives for service level agreement

10. Implement plan to deliver customer service.

Modernised applications designed to facilitate success of Spare parts supply systems play an important role in achieving desired availability of fleet equipment components for meeting work orders at optimum cost to mission. Installations should shoot for fiscally sound, deployment-oriented & integrated technology. Dispatchers have recognised non-availability of spare parts supply at installations when required for repairs, contributing to much of total downtime.

Cost effective and timely provision of high quality repair parts and supplies to upgrade/repair workers is a key element in the overall provision of fleet maintenance services. The organisation and staffing of the parts supply function, the procurement of parts, parts stock utilisation/control each have a large effect on the overall success of field-level missions, and a corresponding effect on the efficiency and cost effectiveness of fleet maintenance services.

Unique work order problems faced by installations in controlling spare parts integration are characterised by elements of supply uncertainty as to when a part is required & also the quantity of upgrade/repair requirements b/c failure of a fleet equipment component due to overuse cannot be predicted accurately. Spare parts are not readily available from many suppliers since they are not fast moving items. Original suppliers deploy spares in most cases.

Individual purchase orders typically are used to procure parts that are not carried in inventory or available from a local supplier under contract purchase agreement. While they offer maximum flexibility in sourcing parts, utilisation usually is limited to the purchase of infrequent used specialty parts due to administrative effort, cost and time delays involved in their issuance and the inability to capture volume discounts through piecemeal buying.

Well-designed contracts & purchase agreements enable organisation to reduce administrative effort and time delays associated with procuring parts; to monitor and control parts purchases; to simplify fiscal appropriation for such purchases; and to secure discounts associated with buying from particular suppliers in volume. In short, they can reduce both the direct and indirect costs of buying parts and other fleet maintenance-related commodities.

Each installation must proceed systematically & establish an effective spare parts information integration system. Supplier connection codification policy helps to minimise duplication of spare parts stocking & aids in establishment of solid work order process to facilitate integration of spare parts control systems.

Optimal organisation and staffing of the parts supply function varies considerably with the size and complexity of the maintenance operation, and decisions regarding procurement and stock investment. Adequate staffing in terms of tasks assigned is critical success factor, as is designing a parts organisation that is suitable in scope of responsibility to the scope of the maintenance operation as a whole.

Dispatchers have introduced new supplier connection models to incorporate auto system design integration, phasing out stove-piped information desks in order to integrate work orders, and spares for outdated transmission models are not readily available. These factors are significant in cases of sourced fleet components since equipment design changes move at different speeds at multiple installations.

The identification of the types of parts required to support maintenance and repair activities involves assessing key attributes and indicators of parts requirements, including types, quantities, and timing of parts usage; parts and parts supplier performance; and parts accessibility and waiting tolerances.

Auto system integration must be carried out on the basis of different characteristics of spare parts techniques to establish good work order policy such as monitor of consumption value period, mission criticality, supplier lead time, unit cost & schedule frequency of use. Installations must direct ambition efforts on integration & establishment of suitable policies for selective supplier control, focusing efforts on real-world mobile operation problem areas.

Cost of spare parts is significant portion of the total impact of upgrade/repair activity at installations. Upgrade/repair systems face non-availability of spare parts supply to meet deployment requirements w/ fiscal costs of fleet equipment components being classified as locked up capital, signifies vital importance of automated spare parts system integration for installation work orders.

For sourcing expensive spare parts, it is essential to recognise useful life for equipment is extended by appropriate applications of reconditioning & upgrade/repair techniques. Installation work order efforts must be made to integrate spare parts in view of difficult sourcing processes. Installation establishment of spare parts supplier register banks goes very long way in reducing the total cost of holding expensive spare parts in stock.

Parts Stock control involves the tracking and physical control of parts from the point of receipt through consumption. This process is important for controlling stock levels of items, with direct effect on the cost of carrying parts stocks. Control of physical access, and methods employed to replenish and disperse these items ensure that parts consumption is accounted for properly.

Quantity & variety of spare parts to be integrated into new supplier connection models are often times too large, making close auto system control more & more tedious. Also, there exist tendencies for work order transitions from sourcing stages of fleet equipment components to spare parts use stages. As such, requisitions for spare parts at increased number than actually required results in accumulation at installations.

Good auto system controls will help to integrate supplier policies involved in sourcing procedures & achieve optimum levels of spare part cache control for work orders. In addition, installations must optimise replacement policies for selected spare parts with increased down time costs. Installations must identify required spare parts and carry out supplier connection exercises for integrating optimum replacement policies.

Procedures for establishing, monitoring, renewing, and circumventing contracts must be designed to maximise vendor performance, minimise administrative effort, and facilitate maintenance organisations flexibility to procure a part by other means when contract suppliers cannot satisfactorily meet its needs.

For different installations, it is imperative to establish spare parts supplier register banks & suitable integrated information system for spare part supply exchange. Automated applications for processing of spare parts information & operation of effective spare parts control systems will assist installations with scheduling of upgrade/repair job work orders.

Determining proper parts stock size/composition requires applied attention to several interrelated factors, including cost trade-offs between volume and individual purchases of specific commodities; trade-offs between inventory carrying and parts delivery costs; and trade-offs between parts availability and delivery times and waiting tolerances of particular fleet users and equipment types.

Objectives of spare parts system integration include ensuring spare parts are readily available from suppliers for upgrade/repair of fleet components as & when required at optimum cost. Also, there exist absolute work order requirements for spare parts to be of high quality in order to meet the requirements of subsequent deployment to meet mission requirements.

Finally, work order reviews have established results indicating spare parts consumption rates for some installations are very high, while other installations experience lower consumption & varied deployment patterns, highlighting the utility of building systematic spare parts integration with supplier connection models.

Effective parts supply processes allow mechanics to focus directly on maintaining and repairing fleet, by putting parts in their hands with a minimum of disruption to maintenance activities, reducing repair turn-around time/costs and creating advances in mechanic productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness.

Multiple actions following from establishment of supplier connection episodes are required to ensure that spare parts system integration is effective to meet mission requirements of installations. Mandates for systematic actions in building integrated spare parts systems are as follows:

1. Use assessment technique of stock items to segregate low moving parts so true inventory turnover rate can be identified.

2. Begin kitting parts for preventive maintenance and other scheduled work where it is feasible.

3. Review existing stocks to ensure that the correct parts and quantities are being stocked, to increase the turns per period and reduce total inventory on hand.

4. Identify parts required for predictive maintenance and establish timeline for adding items to stock.

5. Start planning preventative maintenance and other definable work in advance and utilise schedule for part kitting.

6. Collect metrics for performance measures such as parts accuracy/variance rate and stock out rate.

7. Identify parts for stock at the time of new equipment delivery to include items immediately needed, and items for predictive maintenance in the future.

8. Make help screens available while in the system to improve understanding of parts issues/procedures.

9. Clarify duties and reporting structure for parts control personnel

10 Conduct study to determine parts quantity/type on hand may be possible to cost-effectively reduce inventory to level provide for immediate use and reliance on supplier stocks

It is impossible for Site Visit Executive to be all places at all times to assess degree of Marine Corps equipment maintenance activity/performance only on basis of subjective judgment, first-hand observation, and second-hand information.

All Marine Corps equipment requires maintenance and repair during service life. Since primary mission is to maximise availability equipment so troops can productively do their jobs, the focus of organisation maintenance must be administration of best practises to minimise unscheduled incidents of repair and return equipment requiring repair to service in as little time as possible.

Performance of any equipment maintenance programme is also affected by personnel levels actions to deliver services and must reflect reasonable spans of control and channels of communication consistent with formally defined authority and responsibilities. Staffing levels should be consistent with the amount of effort required to produce desired services in a productive, efficient, and effective manner.

Work orders should be used to track all maintenance and repair services along with procedures required to monitor progress and, where necessary, to expedite completion of work. These include protocols for passing work from one shift to the next, from one technician or shop to another, and from an in-house job sites to vendor.

Procedures also are needed for following up on repairs whose completion by a mechanic or vendor is too slow and on parts whose delivery is overdue. Dispatchers opening a work order should estimate the time and services required to complete a work order, by reference to appropriate flat-rate manuals or in-house time and task standards to estimate the cost of the repair.

Work authorisation procedures must ensure appropriate controls are in place over the services and costs provided by vendors. Such controls are particularly important as equipment approaches planned replacement dates.

In order to ensure cost-effective utilisation of in-house maintenance resources and to minimise maintenance and repair turn-around time and downtime, processes should be in place for scheduling work to take place at Job Site in advance and for performing minor repairs while the troops wait to carry out mission.

Service hours and scheduling processes should be flexible enough to accommodate troop mission schedules, but also should seek to maintain a steady flow of work to mechanics and avoid peaks and valleys associated with unplanned service demands.

Procedures must be in place to distribute work to mechanics to promote high levels of mechanic productivity, efficiency, effectiveness, minimise repair turn-around time; and to assign work to specific mechanic based on an assessment of availability/skills. Additionally, priority systems are often used to identify equipment to be moved ahead in the repair queue based on importance to organisation.

Vendors may be relied upon to perform equipment maintenance and repair services for variety of reasons, including administration of in-house work backlogs; avoiding costly investments in Job Site construction, tooling, training, and staffing; to meet low volumes of service demand in remote areas or for specialty repairs; and to achieve a degree of flexibility in terms of locations, hours of service, etc. not possible with existing service system constraints and sizable investments in fixed equipment maintenance infrastructure.

Cost-effective use of vendors requires, however, that procedures be followed for 1) determining comparative cost effectiveness of performing service in house or using a vendor; 2) controlling vendor performance relative to individual service orders and ongoing service levels in the case of contract providers of services; and 3) capturing all relevant information on vendor-performed services to track equipment maintenance history/costs and provide for timely user billing via a charge-back system.

Repair quality assurance procedures are used to ensure requested services are performed properly. When repairs are not completed correctly, equipment is often returned resulting in “comeback” repairs. When they occur, comebacks are costly, time consuming and difficult, so must be tracked and followed up on.

It is important comebacks be identified and handled properly since comeback may have occurred because the initial defect report failed to clearly describe the problem. If this situation presents itself, reviews of original service request with the service operator may be in order. The mechanic may have improperly diagnosed and/or performed the repair and therefore, some retraining may be needed or parts used may have been defective and some follow-up with the supplier may be needed.

On of the best strategies in dealing with comebacks is avoiding them all together. This usually involves some form of post-repair review process. Quality checks can range from simple field-level tests, to quality checklists, and to complete observation of the repair. No matter what procedure is used, good quality programmes are integral to ensuring field-level satisfaction.

1. New, Repaired or Reconditioned Materiel fit for service issue to all field-level units without limitation or restriction

2. Serviceable and fit for issue for intended purpose but restricted to issue for training use only

3. Serviceable materiel requires or designated for test, alteration, modification, conversion or disassembly not to include items require inspection or testing prior to use

4. Materiel involves only limited expense or effort to restore to serviceable condition accomplished at its location

5. Economically reparable materiel requires rework, repair, overhaul or reconditioning

6. Materiel requires additional parts or components to complete end item prior to issue

7. Materiel determined to be not serviceable and uneconomical to repair

8. Materiel in stock suspended from issue pending condition classification where true condition is not known

9. Materiel returned from field-level use and awaiting condition classification

10. Materiel identified on inventory control record but turned over to repair job site or contractor for procurement