Two months ago I commented on a report by the General Accounting Office that the Air Force spent $2,000 to repair a station wagon that could have been replaced for $1,800. I have received many interesting comments on the subject, but one in particular stands out. Because it raises some interesting points, I would like to comment on it even though the author asked that it not be published. (For this reason his name is being withheld.) It read:

"This is not a letter-to-the editor; it is a personal communication and not to be published. It is intended to serve no other purpose than to set forth some of the difficulties that an efficient small fleet administrator (and, believe it or not, the services do have some very efficient ones) might encounter in replacing a vehicle that should be disposed of because it is no longer economically repairable. Getting rid of a worn-out vehicle is no problem; getting a new one to replace it is often a problem.

When the Army, Navy or Air Force or other government agency wants to buy new autos, these cars must be included ahead of time in the budget for the next fiscal year. What's more, this request for cars (as a part of, say, the Air Force budget) must survive 'review' by (1) the Air Force high brass itself, (2) the Department of Defense reviewing authorities, (3) the President's budget reviewing authorities, (4) various Armed Services Committees of the Congress and (5) Congress itself.

"Of course, there are a lot of other reviewing authorities (all of which have the authority to disapprove) through which this request probably would have had to pass. This includes the commanding officer of the unit which desired the replacement vehicle, the post commander, the area commander, etc. In conclusion, it isn't the "Air Force officer responsible for the vehicle" who has the authority to say whether or not it will be replaced when it is no longer economically repairable; he can only recommend', cross his fingers and know that the GAO will not help him get a new vehicle."

While I sympathize with the problems of government fleet administrators in obtaining new vehicles, I think that the main point of my comments two months ago was overlooked. It is the job-indeed the duty-of every fleet administrator to plan ahead, to know when it is most economical to replace vehicles. Fleet administrators in private industry face the same problems that confront government fleet administrators in obtaining new vehicles-getting approval from any number of corporate committees. The only way to combat this red tape is to have documentation to prove that it is more economical to replace rather than repair a vehicle. This can only be accomplished through accurate record keeping.

Fortunately, the fleet administrator in private industry is becoming a highly respected member of the corporate management team. His judgement on vehicle replacement carries the same weight as does the judgement of a research manager on new product development. Unfortunately the government fleet administrator has not yet gained the same status as his civilian counterpart or the Air Force wouldn't be spending $2,000 to repair a vehicle that could be replaced for $1,800. AUTOMOTIVE FLEET is going to work hard to improve the stature of the government fleet administrator-not only because we are dedicated to good fleet management, but also because as taxpayers we hate to see waste of the taxpayer's money. One way to accomplish this is to point out examples of waste-which in many cases the government fleet administrator cannot prevent without more authority.

Along these lines, the General Accounting Office recently reported that the Air Force had overstated its requirements for spark plugs fiscal 1963 by $4,600,000. The GAO said that the minimum desired service life of spark plugs was not being obtained and that relatively new spark plugs-some still in sealed factory cartons-were being scrapped. A spark plug is a small thing but vital to the operation of a gasoline engine. A dollar is a small thing but vital to the operation of our economy. It is senseless to throw either one of them away unused.