Utah officials say a 1993 study by the Peat Marwick accounting firm found that Defense Depot Ogden was the most cost-effective of all Defense Logistics Agency depots.
But the DLA disagrees - and did not consider that data when it proposed Ogden for closure, Maj. Gen. Lawrence P. Farrell, deputy DLA director, told the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission on Tuesday.Farrell's testimony also disclosed that the depot's death may help save Hill Air Force Base; Ogden is ranked higher than some depots that will survive; and that arguments Utahns used two years ago in an unsuccessful attempt to save Tooele Army Depot are now working to help save the Ogden depot's competitors.
In short, if Defense Depot Ogden didn't have bad luck, it'd have no luck at all.
Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Utah, submitted a question asked by the commission that contended the Peat Marwick study clearly showed "that Ogden is the single most cost-effective depot in the DLA system," and asked if that data were considered.
"We did not try to take into account efficiencies at individual depots. We simply did not think we could calculate it," Farrell told the commission.
Farrell said the Peat Marwick study was intended to help ensure uniformity in accounting procedures by depots, not to figure which one was most cost-effective.
He added that it did not take into consideration differences between types of material handled by different depots.
For example, he said Ogden handles a high volume of small items that can be placed in bins and quickly shipped, while some other depots handle "big ugly stuff: props on ships, drive shafts, huge anchor chains."
Farrell said, "If you've got somebody who's processing the big, ugly stuff, you're not going to be as efficient because it takes more people and more money to process each issue."
He added, "You can make a depot efficient simply by having `binnables.' So we don't think it is an issue."
But that didn't satisfy Steve Petersen, legislative director for Hansen.
"Does it make sense to move them (binnables) anywhere else? We don't think so and will fight it," he said. "The Peat Marwick study clearly shows Ogden operates at the lowest cost."
Farrell also testified that one reason the DLA is able to close depots without worry is that Air Force plans to keep open all five of its air logistics centers - including at Hill Air Force Base - and make available surplus storage areas there to the DLA.
Petersen said that shows the proposed death of Ogden would help keep Hill alive by possibly utilizing unused space for DLA activities.
Farrell also said one reason the DLA chose to close depots at Ogden and Memphis instead of one at Richmond, Va., is that Richmond has the most modern and best maintained facilities.
Petersen noted that two years ago, Utahns argued unsuccessfully that Tooele Army Depot's North Area should be spared because it had brand-new facilities - while those at competing sites were more than 40 years old.
"Where's the justice?" Petersen asked.
Farrell also released rankings of the depots - which show exactly how close they were.
Ogden was tied for third among DLA's six "stand-alone" depots with 505 points out of a possible 1,000 - and ahead of two depots that are surviving. Ogden and Memphis (also proposed to close) had 505 points each, while the depot at Richmond had 481 and one at Columbus, Ohio, had 468.
Farrell said Columbus was chosen for survival because it is part of a large federal facility with high military value - and would not bring the savings of closing an entire depot, such as at Ogden and Richmond.
He said Richmond was chosen to remain open because it is also part of a larger federal facility, has facilities that are in the best shape of any depot and because it serves as a backup to Navy depots at Norfolk, Va.