扫一扫关注微信
国家哲学社会科学文献中心版权所有
Air Force vehicle fuel consumption reporting - Research Focus
Alan L. LindsayVehicle fuel-consumption reporting is nothing new; requirements to report fuel data are driven by public law. The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 41, requires each federal agency to develop accounting and reporting procedures to ensure accurate reporting of inventory, cost, and operating data for the management and control of motor vehicles. Fuel data make up one portion of the operating data for each vehicle. With the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) and Executive Order (EO) 13149, Greening the Government Through Federal Fleet and Transportation Efficiency, vehicle fuel-consumption reporting has become even more critical and complex. The Executive order requires a 20-percent reduction in vehicle petroleum consumption by fiscal year (FY) 2005, with FY99 data as the baseline. Also, alternative fuel should be used a majority of the time in bi-, flex-, and dual-fueled vehicles. With annual requirements for reporting vehicle fuel consumption data to the Department of Energy (DoE) and the reporting complexitie s alternative fuels bring about, it is perceived that data collection systems are not accurately capturing the required types and amounts of fuel data. The Air Force Director of Logistics Readiness believed too many bulk storage fuel tanks issue unmetered and unreported fuel to Air Force vehicles, the vehicle identification link (VIL) key does not offer the appropriate control over abuses of the system, and General Services Administration (GSA) reports are grossly inadequate in meeting reporting requirements.
The Air Force Logistics Management Agency (AFLMA) was asked to examine the perceived problems and issues and to ascertain if fuel consumption is captured accurately within the data systems used for reporting requirements and decision making. The following areas were of particular concern and provided a format for the research effort:
* The accuracy and adequacy of vehicle fuel-consumption data inputs to the:
* Online Vehicle Interactive Management System (OLVIMS)
* Modernized OLVIMS
* Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) Fuels Automated System (FAS) Enterprise Server (FES), commonly referred to as the Purple Hub
* GSA for leased vehicles
* System upgrades and or new data-reporting models and methodologies for collecting fuels consumption data
Review of vehicle fuel consumption targeted the registered vehicle fleet, which includes both government-owned and leased vehicles Fuel consumption includes traditional petroleum fuel unleaded gasoline, diesel) as well as alternative fuels compressed natural gas, ethanol, biodiesel).
Data for bulk issue of fuel to vehicles (fuel not obtained through an automated system) are not fed to DESC by vehicle registration number; thus, OLVIMS cannot capture that usage. Moreover, according to the OLVIMS manual, data on bulk-issue fuel obtained using a government credit card are fed to accounting and finance, which, in turn, feeds it into an automated system. OLVIMS then retrieves the data through base supply's D22 transmit files. However, data concerning fuel issued with a government credit card are no longer being obtained through he Standard Base Supply System (SB SS) because fuel accounting was transferred to DESC.
Discussion and Analysis
As a first step, regulatory guidance and policy were reviewed to determine fuel-reporting requirements and guidance available to the field for collecting and processing fuel-consumption data. Next existing Command Air Force Vehicle Information Management System (CAFVIMS) data on fuel consumption and vehicle usage were analyzed to see what problems could be addressed during base visits and in an Air Force-wide questionnaire.
A series of base visits to several major commands (MAJCOM) were conducted. During these visits, data collectors (fleet management and maintenance control and analysis personnel) were given the opportunity to provide their perspective and feedback on collecting fuel data and processing it into OLVIMS.
Questionnaires were also sent to all Air Force bases, requesting help in identifying:
* Alternative fuels used and how data are collected for government-owned and leased vehicles. Is there a standard for this data collection, and are the data being fed into automated systems?
* Nonautomated fuels issued. Are the data on fuel issued being fed into automated systems?
* Off-base fuel purchases with bulk-issue government credit cards. How are the data for these purchases being fed back into automated systems?
To understand the flow of fuels data from base fuels to DESC to OLVIMS for government-owned vehicles, the process was thoroughly described and flowcharted to ensure accuracy. Experienced transporters, in the field and at AFLMA, were drawn into the effort.
Quarterly and annual CAFVIMS data on vehicle usage and fuel consumption were continually reviewed to see if it was reasonable and accurate and, if not, if there was a way to estimate the degree of inaccuracy and adjust fuel-consumption data to provide a more accurate baseline for reporting mandated petroleum fuel-consumption reduction.
Policy Requirements for Vehicle Fuel-Consumption Reporting
Throughout the analysis, the questions that always came up during discussions were, "Why do we need to know how much fuel is consumed for each vehicle? Why don't we just track overall fuel usage for vehicles?" From a nontransporter' s view, these are fair questions. However, since these data must be presented and explained for Department of Defense (DoD) and congressional reports, this level of detail is required. The following are public laws and DoD policy that require fuel-consumption reporting:
* Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (42 USC 6201 et seq)
* EPAct of 1992 (Public Law 102-486), United States Code
* EO 13149, 21 April 2000, Greening the Government through Federal Fleet and Transportation Efficiency
* EO Order 13149, October 2000, Greening the Government through Federal Fleet and Transportation Efficiency, Guidance Document for Federal Agencies
* Code of Federal Regulations, Title 41--Public Contracts and Property Management
* DoD 4500.36R--Management, Acquisition & Use of Motor Vehicles
Both vehicles and nonvehicular equipment use fuel, so there is a need to differentiate the specific fuels used. The level of detail required is best explained by the reports required from the policy references previously cited; in particular, the Agency Report of Motor Vehicle Data (Standard Form [SF] 82) and the Federal Automotive Statistical Tool (FAST) worksheet.
SF 82 is used to report agency vehicle inventory, cost, and operating data to GSA (required by DoD 4500.36R). Reportable vehicles include all sedans, station wagons, buses, ambulances, carryalls, trucks, and truck tractors that operate on petroleum-based fuels (gasoline, diesel, gasohol, propane, methane, or a combination of these fuels when these vehicles are integrated into the normal agency fleets). Excluded are semitrailers, trailers and other trailing equipment, trucks with permanently mounted equipment (generators, air compressors), firetrucks, electric and hybrid-powered electric vehicles, motorcycles, and military-designed motor vehicles. The requirements for this report show why accurate fuel data are required for each vehicle. Completion of the form requires vehicle grouping, fuel cost per grouping, and fuel type per grouping (Figures 1 and 2).
The FAST worksheet is driven by the data requirements in EO 13149. As mentioned, one requirement of the Executive order is to reduce consumption of petroleum products by 20 percent by FY05. The following was taken from the guidance document explaining ways to achieve the goal of the Executive order.
The requirement that agencies must use a combination of energy efficiency and alternative-fuel use activities to successfully achieve the goal of this order.
* An agency will need to ensure the use of alternative fuels in alternative-fueled vehicles a majority at' the time that the vehicles are in operation.
* An agency is required to increase fuel efficiency of new light-duty vehicle acquisitions by I mile per gallon by FY02 and 3 miles per gallon by FY05.
The 20-percent reduction in petroleum consumption by FY05 takes into consideration an agency's entire fleet (except fuel consumption in exempt vehicles), including light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles.
Under the EPAct, exempt vehicles include military tactical, law enforcement, emergency, and medium-and heavy-duty vehicles and vehicles geographically located outside a covered metropolitan statistical area. However, under BO 13149, only military vehicles, law enforcement, and emergency vehicles are considered exempt.
FAST is used to gather and prepare data for entry into the webbased FAST Tracking System and requires the same level of detail as the SF 82. As outlined in EO 13149, Guidance Document, paragraph 2-3, Annual Reporting Requirements and the FAST tracking system:
The FAST tracking system provides a convenient format for all federal fleets to use in preparing progress reports toward meeting the goals of the Order while providing the Department of Energy (DoE) with flexibility in analyzing and presenting the data to 0MB, the White House, and Congress in the various reporting formats necessary. In addition, FAST will collect and process data for SF82 reporting, beginning with FY 2000.
Figures 3 and 4 show portions of the data required.
Along with reporting requirements, data are also collected for efficient and effective management of motor vehicle assets. Fuel data make up one portion of the operating data for each vehicle and are used not only for local management requirements but also to help determine replacement criteria for each vehicle type. Each year, the Warner-Robins Air Logistics Center (WR-ALC) feeds all the vehicle data into a vehicle replacement model that "updates vehicle life expectancies in the Vehicle Management Index File and to assist with vehicle procurement decisions" (Vehicle Replacement Model Upgrade, AFLMA project number LT199827600).
The accuracy of data input into any system is, to a great extent, dependent on the motivation of those entering the data. That motivation is usually based on, "What's in it for me'?" or "How does this bean-counting task affect my job?" Thus, knowing what drives the requirements for vehicle fuel data is the first step in ensuring accurate data and helps answer why vehicle-level detail is needed.
Vehicle Fuel Data Flow. Fuel is obtained for government-owned vehicles through base gas stations, organizational bulk-fuel tanks, and commercial service stations. The fuel-consumption data must be fed into the OLVIMS from each of these. The major processes associated with vehicle fuel data reporting start at a refueling point; for example, base gas station or bulk-fuel tank. They continue by flowing through the base fuels management office to the DESC Purple Hub and then on to OLVIMS. Figures 5, 6, and 7 graphically illustrate the various ways fuel may be obtained.
Base Gas Station. The collection of fuel data from the base gas station starts when a vehicle refuels (Figure 5). Two methods for collecting fuel-consumption data are the vehicle identification link or Air Force Form 1252, USAF Vehicle Serv0-Plate. Bases supported by an automated fuel service station use the VIL key. According to Air Force Manual (AFMAN) 23 110, USAF Supply Manual, volume 1, part 3, paragraph 1.78.1, vehicle operations and the unit vehicle control officers are responsible for ensuring information on the vehicle identification link and Serv-O-Plate is correct. The base fuels management office (BFMO) codes VIL keys and embosses Serv-0-Plates according to information provided by vehicle control officers and vehicle operations. For bases not supported by an automated fuels service station, vehicle operations is responsible for embossing the Serv-O-Plates.
The information contained (vehicle registration number, fuel type, DoD activity address code/stock record account number [DoDAAC/SRAN]) on the VIL key and Serv-O-Plate is critical for the fuel-consumption data to flow to OLVIMS. One example of possible errors would be an incorrect registration number or lack thereof; in which case, OLVIMS simply disregards the record. Another is that OLVIMS downloads fuel data from the FAS Enterprise Server for vehicle fuel usage. If the DoDAAC/SRAN is incorrect, the data will not flow to OLVIMS for the proper base. To ensure the data contained are correct, Air Force Instruction (AFI), 24-301, Vehicle Operations, paragraph, 3.1.1 states: Vehicle Operations will provide the BFMO a semiannual, or as required, master list depicting all assigned vehicles and organizations codes. A system will be developed between the BFMO and fleet management to ensure notification of vehicle deletions, assignments, and rotations.
At bases with automated fuels service stations, the BFMO collects fuel-consumption data and uploads them to the DESC FAS Enterprise Server. For bases without automated fuels service stations, the fuel data are manually entered into OLVIMS via an MZ transaction. Air Force Computer System Manual (AFCSM) 24-1, Online Vehicle Interactive Management System, End User Manual, paragraph 5.3.20.5 states: "MC&A [maintenance control and analysis] will prepare this format to input all transient fuel/oil issues, all on-base fuel/oil issues from fuel points not supported by SBSS." Data flow from DESC to OLVIMS is the same for each of the ways to obtain fuel.
Organizational Bulk-Fuel Tank. The second way to obtain fuel is from an organizational bulk-fuel tank (Figure 6). Bulk-issue tanks are used mainly by organizations to refuel equipment items (lawnmowers and other ground equipment). Units refueling vehicles from the bulk-issue tanks must provide vehicle fuel-consumption data to BFMO using Air Force Form 1994, Fuel Issue/Defuel Document (AFI 23-204, paragraph 10). The BFMO then processes defuel (credit) and issue (debit) transactions. This process identifies the quantity and type of fuel and vehicle registration number. These transactions are uploaded, along with other base fuel transactions, to the DESC FAS Enterprise Server. If the fuel-consumption data from the organizational fuel tanks are not provided to the BEMO, then those data are lost.
Commercial Service Stations
Using the DoD Fleet Credit Card at commercial service stations is another way of obtaining fuel (Figure 7). There are two types of credit cards: those with individual embossed registration numbers and generic cards that can be used for any government-owned vehicle. The first one is for organizations with frequent off-base requirements, while the second one is used by vehicle operations to facilitate bulk-fuel issues for occasional, off-base use of government-owned vehicles. DESC is responsible for DoD Fleet Credit Card program management and policy oversight. All fuel-consumption data flow directly from USBank/Voyager (the card issuer) to the DESC FAS Enterprise Server. Fuel-consumption data for specific vehicle registration numbers can be retrieved by OLVIMS without any further action. However, to get fuel-consumption data for generic credit card use, vehicle operations must identify to BFMO, for each separate fueling, the fuel type and quantity, vehicle registration number, and DoDAAC for the card owner and organization that used the vehicle. As with bulk issues, the BFMO processes defuel (credit) transactions for the credit card owner (usually vehicle operations) and issue (debit) transactions (the organization using the card), along with the vehicle registration number. These transactions are required to identify fuel consumption for each vehicle registration number, using the DoD Fleet Credit Card. These transactions are uploaded to DESC, along with other base fuel transactions.
The DoD Fleet Credit Card is not the only way to obtain fuel from commercial service stations. At some overseas locations, fuel coupons are used because the DoD card is not accepted. Vehicle operations purchases the coupons from the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) and issues them to drivers when vehicles are dispatched off base. Fuel-consumption data from the coupons are gathered by vehicle operations and passed to vehicle maintenance for manual input into OLVIMS via an MZ transaction.
DESC FAS Enterprise Server or Purple Hub
On all three flowcharts (Figures 5, 6, and 7), fuel-consumption data flow to DESC, except the data fed directly into OLVIMS. Prior to 1 October 2001, data flowed from SBSS to OLVIMS. The following is an overview of DESC and explains why fuel data now come from this particular system.
* FAS is a vertically integrated, automated information system consisting of base-level components and enterprise-level systems that provide visibility of bulk-fuel assets and transactions to the Services, combatant commanders, vendors, and DESC--meaning the entire fuel process.
* FAS Enterprise Server Purple Hub is where the fuels data reside. The Hub collects, routes, and reports transactions among bases, contractors, DESC, the Defense Finance Accounting Service, and other entities. All management and financial information reside on the hub.
* Purple is a term referring to DoD in general, without reference to any specific Service.
In 1998, the Air Force Directorate of Supply approved a decision to transfer base-level fuels inventories, accounting, and end-user billing to DESC. This decision was in line with the single-button accounting system concept. DESC is the integrated material manager of petroleum products for the DoD and fielded FAS throughout DoD. Within the Air Force, fielding FAS resulted in the removal of the SBSS fuel-transaction processing function.
An interface requirement agreement between FAS and OLVIMS was established on 20 February 2001. Vehicle fuel data for government-owned vehicles transferred from SBSS to the DESC FAS Enterprise Server on 1 October 2001. At the time of this writing, only data on fuel purchased through DESC were populated in the OLVIMS transfer file. DESC tracks all conventional petroleum products and some alternative fuels such as biodiesel and ethanol (E-85). For any type of fuel not purchased through DESC, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), the fuel-consumption data are manually input into OLVIMS.
The OLVIMS query and download capability provides the Air Force visibility of fuels obligation data resident in the FAS Enterprise Server. This capability is provided between the FES Web site and OLVIMS end user. The data are managed, operated, and maintained at the FAS Enterprise Server by DESC or its contractors. The FAS Enterprise Server creates an OLVIMS transfer file, making the information available on the FES Web site in the specific file format as defined in the interface agreement. Before the fuel data are released to OLVIMS, they pass through the Defense Fuels Automated Management System, which bills customers for fuel usage.
To access the Purple Hub, each OLVIMS user must establish a user identification and password by filling out Defense Logistics Agency Form 1811. The Hub is available at https://www.fehub.desc.dla.mil/ (requires Netscape Version 4.76 or higher to view), and procedural guidance is located at http://www.desc.dla.mil.
Each vehicle maintenance facility with an OLVIMS capability logs onto the FAS Enterprise Server to obtain its fuel-consumption data. A permit file is created the first time end users log onto FAS. This file establishes the basic information for downloading vehicle fuels data. DESC flags transactions as OLVIMS users download them, ensuring the records are not downloaded twice. Each download is maintained on the DESC server for retrieval for up to 30 days in case the files are lost or corrupted prior to uploading to OLVIMS. If a base has more than one OLVIMS user account (DoDAAC), the first user to log onto FAS gets all available records for that DoDAAC; other users only get subsequent records. Thus, the OLVIMS account managers must establish procedures for sharing the downloaded data.
The following line represents a DESC fuel transaction downloaded by the OLVIMS user, and Table 1 is a breakdown of the data line:
1 2 3 4 Record position 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234 Date line VIM 01B00119012041324 00000122401BDIGL
OLVIMS
For transportation-specific purposes (base, MAJCOM, and Air Force-wide), fuel-consumption data are captured in OLVIMS. AFCSM 24-1, paragraph 1.2 defines the purpose of OLVIMS:
The purpose of OLVIMS is to provide an online, interactive system of records and files which can be created, accessed, updated, deleted, exercised, and summarized in a real-time manner. OLVIMS will provide online processing with immediate response, which ensures the database is current as of the last update. The user has total control and responsibility for the accuracy of the database, which resides on an authorized microcomputer located within the system users work area. OLVIMS is designed as a base-level management information system that allows upward reporting.
OLVIMS users retrieve fuel-consumption data from DESC via the local area network or Internet and then initiate an upload of the data to OLVIMS. Fuel consumption not processed through FAS (DESC) is manually input into OLVIMS through an MZ transaction. OLVIMS systems are located at installations that have government-owned vehicles. Currently, 360 installations or units operate OLVIMS at 258 geographical locations.
OLVIMS identifies vehicles by their primary fuel types and reports total fuel used; it cannot break out different fuel types and quantities consumed for bi-, flex-, and dual-fueled vehicles (vehicles that can use both petroleum and alternative fuels).
Modernized OLVIMS. Although the next-generation OLVIMS will still be called OLVIMS, it is commonly referred to as modernized OLVIMS and incorporates the following changes:
* Transition to MS Windows environment
* Combination of vehicle operations and maintenance modules to a single database (currently, vehicle maintenance data reside at each installation and are rolled up quarterly to Air Staff)
* Web-based system on the Air Force Global Combat Support Systems (GCSS)
* Modernized programming language
* Additional security features
* Enhanced ad hoc query capabilities
* Compatibility with other tools (Word, Excel)
* Comprehensive online help
The Standard Systems Group (SSG) is working on fielding Increment I to OLVIMS, which encompasses the vehicle operations dispatch module. Increment II is scheduled for release in 2003 and encompasses the fleet management, command fleet management, and vehicle maintenance modules.
The same kind of fuels data captured today will flow to modernized OLVIMS, including alternative fuels (bi-, flex-, and dual-fueled vehicles, such as CNG). OLVIMS will then be able to report the fuel types and quantities for each vehicle. Once Increment II is fielded and testing is completed, SSG and DESC plan to develop an automated, seamless interface of the fuel data from the FAS Enterprise Server to the OLVIMS web database. This will result in more accurate fuel-consumption statistics, without 360 different OLVIMS users pulling data from the FAS Enterprise Server and manually editing and feeding them into OLVIMS. Figure 8 illustrates the current and projected processes.
Constraints will be in place to reduce misuse of the VIL key. OLVIMS will identify fuel amounts that exceed vehicle fuel-tank capacity over a 1-day period, thus identifying vehicle users who abuse the VIL key.
Analysis
An understanding of fuel data collection and flow enables analysis of fuel-consumption data collected in OLVIMS and summation of the data and feedback collected from bases. The objective was to determine if the data were accurate and, if not, how much error was involved. All fuel used by the Air Force in government-owned vehicles should be reported to OLVIMS. The OLVIMS data analyzed were obtained from an Air Force-wide database at AFLMA, which is updated quarterly by files received from WR-ALC. WR-ALC is responsible for collecting the quarterly OLVIMS files. Each quarter, bases forward OLVIMS data files to their MAJCOMs, who in turn consolidate the files and forward them to WR-ALC. WR-ALC then consolidates the MAJCOM files into one data file (CAFVIMS) for input into the Consolidated Analysis and Reporting System.
To verify reporting accuracy, data were reviewed to determine if vehicles were reported with utilization but no fuel consumption or with fuel consumption but no utilization. Three representative vehicle types were then examined to objectively estimate the correct fuel consumption. The results provided a basis for questions to be asked during base visits and for developing a base questionnaire.
OLVIMS Data--Vehicles with Utilization and Zero Fuel Usage. The data analyzed came from FY01 third and fourth quarters and FY02 first quarter. Because base transportation maintains registered vehicles, nonregistered vehicles, and vehicular equipment items, filters were applied to the quarterly data files to extract only the registered vehicle fleet that consumed fuel. Records with the following characteristics were eliminated.
* Registration numbers W or X
* W-nonregistered
* X-equipment items
* Numeric management codes (equipment items)
* Utilization measurement U (unit, no measurement)
* Fuel codes N or V
* N-nonfuel
* V-electric
Table 2 lists the results of applying the filters by quarter and is broken out by the measure of utilization. It lists the mean (average) utilization from records, median utilization (midpoint), and minimum and maximum reported utilization. This showed that reported utilization ranged from none to impracticably high values. Thus, data had to be further filtered and segmented to exclude possibly erroneous records and vehicles that, logically, would not have used fuel.
From records identified in Table 2, all vehicles with greater than zero reported utilization and zero reported fuel usage. The records were then separated by usage category (miles, hours, or kilometers), and levels of reported usage were selected. The results are displayed in Table 3 and are broken out as follows:
Count # 1--Represents records with any reported M/H/K utilization above zero.
Count # 2--Typical utilization eliminated low-usage vehicles that might not have required refueling during the quarter (count 3) and records with excessively high utilization data that might be erroneous (count 4). This represents vehicles with reasonable utilization that required refueling at some point during the quarter.
Count # 3--Low utilization represents vehicles with little utilization that did not have to refuel during the quarter.
Count # 4--Excessive utilization represents highly utilized vehicles with possibly erroneous utilization data.
Figure 9 graphically represents the data in Table 3.
Count #1 in Table 3 indicates approximately 27 percent of the registered fuel-consuming vehicles in the fleet were utilized, but no fuel-consumption data were reported in OLVIMS. It is possible some vehicles did not require refueling during the quarter (war reserve materiel, emergency response, and so forth). They are represented by Count #3, which is about 17 percent of the registered fuel-consuming vehicles. Also, about .4 percent of these reported excessively high utilization, which might be erroneous records. Of concern were the remaining 10 percent with typical utilization, which should have had fuel-consumption data reported in OLVIMS during the quarter. These vehicles were identified for the bases to be visited. The information was forwarded prior to the visits to see if they could help determine why the fuel data did not flow to OLVIMS. Results are shown in the base visits section.
OLVIMS Data--Vehicles with Zero Utilization and Reported Fuel Usage
Records were also found with reported fuel consumption but no reported utilization (M/H/K). This was generally only about 1 percent of the registered fuel-consuming fleet, but it indicated fuel was reported against the wrong vehicle or reported utilization may have been inaccurate. For example, FY01 third quarter data showed 50 records with at least 100 gallons of reported fuel consumption but no reported utilization. The most extreme case reported 852 gallons of fuel pumped during that particular quarter.
The results from these two analyses indicate erroneous fuel-consumption data in OLVIMS; the fuel was either not reported or was reported against a vehicle that was different from the one that actually used the fuel. However, since reported utilization can also be in error, there was no way to judge, from vehicle to vehicle, whether or not the reported fuel consumption was reasonable and accurate. In the next section, several different methods are used to estimate the amount of fuel consumed for an entire fleet. Of course, this approach ultimately depends on the accuracy of the reported utilization.
OLVIMS Data--Objectively Estimate Actual Fuel Consumption. The next step in the analysis was to look at reported fuel consumption to determine objectively what should have been reported based on records with apparently reasonable utilization and fuel consumption. About 10 percent of the vehicle fleet had usage that should have required refueling, even though nothing was reported. We looked at ways of estimating average fuel economy (miles, kilometers, or hours per gallon) for a given vehicle type and then, assuming fairly consistent fuel economy within a vehicle type and reasonable utilization data, used the average fuel economy to estimate how much fuel was actually consumed. Because of differences in fuel economy averages among vehicle types, it was necessary to analyze each type separately, which required both automated and manual analysis. The records analyzed came from FY01 annual OLVIMS data comprised of about 75,500 vehicles, which represented 430 different vehicle types. It was not feasible to analyze each vehicle type separately. Three vehicle types were analyzed for this project: truck 6 passenger pickup 4X2 (6PAX), truck compact pickup 4X2 (CMPT PU), and flight-line aerospace-ground equipment tow tractor (Bobtail). The quantities of each vehicle type are among the largest in the Air Force fleet. The Bobtail was selected because of the assumption that vehicles operating on the flight line refuel from organizational bulk-issue fuel tanks located near or on the flight line. This might be one reason fuel consumption was not always reported to OLVIMS.
Average utilization per gallon was analyzed based on a building-block approach; the first step was to look at the raw data and move to records with credible utilization and fuel consumption. The following explains each step, and Table 5 consolidates the data for comparison.
Raw data--with no filters, the data from OLVIMS were as follows:
6 PAX CMPT PU Bobtail Number of records 2,125 4,240 3,167 Utilization (1) 13,772,142 18,364,502 4,583,660 Fuel consumption (gal) 784,774 785,548 525,885 Average M/HPG 17.55 23.38 8.72 (1)6PAX and CMPT PU utilization is in miles and Bobtail in hours.
Bad records--filters out records where reported miles or hours for FY01 were greater than reported lifetime miles or hours. This eliminated 48 6PAX, 26 CMPT PU, and 244 Bobtail records.
6 PAX CMPT PU Bobtail Number of records 2,077 4,214 2,923 Utilization (1) 12,627,720 17,810,332 1,788,858 Fuel consumption (gal) 742,329 777,616 450,628 Average M/HPG 17.01 22.90 3.97 (1)6PAX and CMPT PU utilization is in miles and Bobtail in hours.
20-80 Percent--additional filters were applied to the above records to eliminate records affecting average miles or hours per gallon. Filtered out were records with zero utilization or zero fuel consumption. This eliminated records with zero utilization with fuel reported and positive utilization with zero fuel consumption. Also, only records with the fuel-use code (indicating either diesel or gasoline) and with usage as miles for the CPMT PU and 6PAX or hours for the Bobtail were retained. After these filters were established, the 20-to-80-percentile filter was applied, eliminating records with a utilization less than 20 percent and more than 80 percent of all reported values. The final records represent vehicles with reasonable utilization and fuel consumption reported in OLVIMS.
6 PAX CMPT PU Bobtail Number of records 1,009 1,757 1,351 Utilization (1) 4,851,405 6,080,291 441,594 Fuel consumption (gal) 360,273 305,825 239,697 Average M/HPG 13.47 19.88 1.84 (1) 6PAX and CMPT PU utilization is in miles and Bobtail in hours.
Using the above records, particularly the CMPT PU, the average miles per gallon were compared to data contained on the DoE fuel-economy guide Web page. The fuel economy estimates (city and highway miles per gallon) are based on results of tests required by the US Environmental Protection Agency. DoE does not perform these tests on the heavier pickup models represented by the 6PAX, so no fuel-economy results were available for comparison to the OLVIMS results. These tests are used to certify that vehicles meet federal emissions and fuel-economy standards. The Air Force inventory of CMPT PU-year models ranges from 1982 to 2001 and is composed of Ford Rangers, Chevrolet S10s, and Dodge Ram 50s. The Air Force procures these vehicles through GSA as standard item number 60, a standard compact pickup truck. They are equipped with four-cylinder engines and automatic transmissions. Fuel-economy data from DoE are presented in Table 4 for model years 1985 through 2001 (no data were available prior to 1985).
Comparing the CMPT PU data to the DoE averages shows the filtered results obtained from the 20-to-SO-percent data were reflective of the DoE city average miles per gallon (usage of the Air Force compact pickups is typical of city driving). DoE average city miles per gallon is 20.6, and the results of the 20-to-80-percent miles per gallon are 19.9.
Estimated--The average miles or hours per gallon from the 20-to-80-percent data are based on an objective look that attempted to eliminate bad records. A subjective approach (authors' view) was also taken, based on the distribution of the M/HPG values for the three vehicle types. A bar graph was created for the individual miles or hours per gallon for records falling within the 20-80 percentiles of the reported M/HPG values and for records from the 20-80 percentile of the utilization values described earlier (Figures 10-12). These percentile ranges were used to eliminate extreme and possibly erroneous values from final consideration. From graphs for each vehicle type, the greatest grouping of miles or hours per gallon decreased and showed an average M/HPG value from that range of values.
Table 5 brings the raw OLVIMS data together with estimated data for comparison. For each vehicle type, the average miles or hours per gallon decreased as expected, based on earlier results where data indicated about 10 percent of the fleet reported utilization but no fuel consumption. The percentage of decrease varied for each vehicle type. From the raw data to the 20-80 percent, miles per gallon for the 6PAX decreased 23 percent, CMPT PU 15 percent, and the hours per gallon for the Bobtail decreased 79 percent. As stated earlier, the Bobtail was selected because it was assumed to be refueling from organizational bulk-fuel tanks and consumption data were not always reported to the BFMO. This assumption was supported by the large decrease in average hours per gallon when potentially erroneous records and zero-reported, fuel-consumption records were eliminated. Note also, for the Bobtail, the effect that erroneous usage data can have on estimated fuel economy (the change in fuel economy when the 244 records wi th annual usage greater than lifetime usage are removed).
In summary, the analysis indicated fuel consumption was most likely under-reported. Table 6 shows this by displaying the utilization and total gallons reported in OLVIMS (using raw data minus the bad records) and what might have been reported using the average M/HPG results from the 20-80 percent. The results in Table 6 are based on the assumption that utilization was reported accurately for the records considered.
The point of contact for the study asked if fuel consumption could be estimated for previous years so the Air Force could establish a baseline value. The baseline value could be used to estimate reductions in consumption of petroleum-based fuels and increases in usage of alternative fuels to meet EP Act and Executive order mandates. While the capability to estimate fuel consumption exits, it is critically dependent on the accuracy of the data reported. Even when using data filters to select the most accurate records for making estimates of fuel economy, the estimate of consumption is still dependent on the accuracy of the reported vehicle usage. In Table 6, consumption was estimated for vehicles that did not have the most obvious utilization error, reporting more annual utilization than lifetime utilization. Obviously, these vehicles used fuel, but what annual mileage (or hours) should be attributed to them to estimate fuel utilization? A second drawback is applying the overall average fuel economy estimate to all vehicles, regardless of age or operating conditions. Thus, while one could spend time making an estimate for each vehicle type (and some have very few records from which to estimate), the result could be easily challenged.
Base Visits. The base visits provided quantifiable data about where in the process the data were lost. Bases visited were Maxwell AFB, Alabama; Tyndall AFB, Eglin AFB, and Hurlburt Field, Florida; Andrews AFB, Maryland; Langley AFB, Virginia; and Peterson AFB, Colorado. The visits focused on three main issues: vehicles with typical miles but no fuel consumption, offbase fuel purchases using the DoD Fleet Credit Card, and suspect fuel data.
Vehicles with Typical Miles and No Fuel Consumption
Vehicles with typical miles but no fuel consumption were identified to the bases prior to visiting them. Transportation personnel coordinated with the vehicle users and BFMO to determine the causes of the incorrect records. Below is one base's response.
From FY01 third and fourth quarter data, the 120 vehicles accumulated typical miles but reflected no fuel consumption because:
86 vehicles were using bulk-fuel tanks, 18 vehicles were using VIL keys from other vehicles, 5 vehicles were using improperly coded VIL keys, and 11 vehicles for miscellaneous reasons (could not determine specific cause).
The following identify why the fuel-consumption data did not flow to OLVIMS:
* VIL Key.
Vehicles were refueled with VIL keys belonging to other vehicles, nonregistered vehicles, or equipment items. One base did a comparison of BFMO VIL key listing with the list of vehicles provided showing utilization and zero fuel consumption. Of the 93 vehicles identified, the BFMO listing showed only 24 having been issued a VIL key. AFI 24301 directs a system be developed to ensure notification of vehicle deletions, assignments, and rotations to BFMO, so VIL keys can be updated, changed, and deleted. Transportation personnel provided the following suggestions for managing and controlling VIL key usage:
* Set a maximum allowable fuel quantity per VIL key for a 24-hour period. This would decrease use of one VIL key to refuel several vehicles.
* Establish vehicle identification number on the VIL key (number could be the same as the last five digits of the registration number). This would prevent a found key's being used.
* Automate a semiannual reconciliation of assigned vehicles with BFMO's VIL key listing. This would help ensure assigned vehicles have a VIL key and coding is correct.
* Refueling from organizational bulk-fuel tanks.
Refueling vehicles from organizational bulk-fuel tanks is allowed, but units are required to report issues to the BFMO. Transportation personnel at five of the seven bases visited were aware of units' refueling vehicles from bulk-fuel tanks, but none was aware of the requirement for the units to report vehicle fuel usage from the tanks.
* Fuel data were not retrieved from the DESC FAS Enterprise Server.
Two of the bases visited had not retrieved their data from the FAS Enterprise Server during the period the data were transferred from SBSS to DESC. BFMOs transferred the fuel-transaction accounting to DESC between May and October 2001. When the transfer took place, there was a lack of communication informing transportation units of the system transfer. By the time transportation units were aware of the system transfer and because of the time involved in obtaining a user identification and password, the data were not retrievable for the previous quarters.
Another problem can occur with two or more OLVIMS systems on the same installation; fuel-consumption data can be lost when correct procedures are not followed. The DoDAAC identifies each installation's fuel data. For example, a host OLVIMS user downloads the files and does not provide a copy to tenant OLVIMS users. Personnel at three of the bases visited were not aware of procedures to use when more than one system share the same DoDAAC. Of the three bases, only one had the interim procedures issued by SSG for downloading fuel data from DESC.
All independent organizations (main base, RED HORSE, Guard) on a single base or falling under the control of a base will use the same DoDAAC (FPnnnn, and so forth) and will share the FES file created. This is because the FAS Enterprise Server does not distinguish between the organizations as the SBSS did.
Off-Base Fuel Purchases Using DoD Fleet Credit Card
The second major issue was commercial fuel purchases made with the DoD Fleet Credit Card. As base fuels transferred fuel data from SBSS to DESC, the automated flow of data for commercial purchases stopped. DESC has since implemented new procedures that allow populating the OLVIMS file with off-base purchase data beginning in the FY02 third quarter.
Procedures call for vehicle operations to provide MC&A a copy of the commercial receipts for processing. However, three of the bases visited indicated they had not forwarded copies of the receipts anywhere and had only processed them for payment. At the other four bases, MC&A had received copies of the receipts; three of the four bases were holding the receipts until processing into OLVIMS was completed (as explained in AFCSM 24-1, paragraph 5.3.20 b.(2)). Bases were not aware the flow of data for DoD Fleet Credit Card sales (commercial receipts) had been severed during the switchover to the DESC FAS Enterprise Server. One base had input the transactions into OLVIMS manually using the MZ transaction screen; however, it did not enter OZ as the issuing station, which enables the data to be processed to the off-base database.
Suspect Fuel Data. Bases were asked if procedures were in place to check for suspect fuel data (for example, a standard pickup truck showing 80 miles per gallon). Six bases indicated they checked one or more of the following--monthly PCN 32 reports, quarterly PCN 56 reports, input transactions PCN 5--and reviewed the data during annual staff assistance visits. One base indicated it was not in the fuel data-policing business and did not review fuel-related data.
Alternative Fuel. Data collection at bases dispensing alternative fuel was another issue. Discussions were categorized by fuel type:
* Compressed natural gas:
* Eglin AFB--station just built, establishing-data collection procedures.
* Andrews AFB-BFMO provides hard copy of data.
* Langley AFB--data provided electronically.
* Peterson AFB--hard copy of data provided by commercial vendor.
Because DESC is not the procurement agency for CNG, it does not flow the data. Each base that uses CNG fuel stations has established its own county option for data collection from a local utility company where the CNG is obtained. The Air Force fuels community is currently engaged in developing CNG procurement and transaction accounting procedures that will flow consumption data electronically to OLVIMS.
* Biodiesel:
* Peterson AFB--consumption data flow electronically from DESC.
* E-85--ethanol fuel (85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline).
* Peterson AFB--consumption data flow electronically from DESC.
Alternative fuel is tracked manually in OLVIMS because of the inability to break down consumption for each fuel type consumed in bi-, flex-, and dual-fueled vehicles. Modernized OLVIMS will eliminate this manual tracking process.
Base Questionnaires. Eighty-five percent of the bases surveyed indicated they review for suspect data by checking one or more of the following: monthly PCN 32 reports, quarterly PCN 56 reports, input transactions PCN 5. The data are reviewed during the annual staff assistance visits. Thirty-seven percent of those that indicated they review for suspect data provided additional information indicating they coordinate with unit personnel for corrective action.
They were asked what their total off-base commercial fuel consumption was. Base responses totaled 45,930 gallons while OLVIMS only reported 6,167 gallons. The difference in actual usage from that reported in OLVIMS is mainly attributed to the interruption in the automated flow of these data with the transfer to DESC's FAS Enterprise Server.
One hundred and four bases reported having no alternative-fueled vehicles. For those 24 bases with alternative-fueled vehicles, collection of the data mirrors the discussion from the base visits. For fuel procured by DESC (contracted), the data flow from the BFMO to DESC, and OLVIMS users retrieve from DESC. CNG fuel data collection was split about 50/50 between being manually or electronically captured.
Another alternative fuel not usually considered is electricity. Few comments identified that electric-charging stations have no meters to track the electric kilowatt-hour being consumed.
With regard to GSA reporting of alternative fuel usage, bases were asked if they could obtain reports from GSA that break out alternative-fuel consumption for bi-, flex-, and dual-fueled vehicles. Responses were similar to the discussion of the GSA visit.
To see how many users were downloading fuel data from DESC, we asked if the petroleum fuels data for OLVIMS pulled from the FAS Enterprise Server or SBSS. The flow of fuel data switched over on 1 October 2001, and the questionnaire was sent out January 2002. Responses were as follows:
Number of Bases Response
107 FAS Enterprise Server
6 SBSS
6 Unable to access or download data from
FAS Enterprise Server
3 Waiting for FAS user identification and
password
6 No (to FES or SBSS?)
9 Yes (to FES or SBSS?)
5 NA (no explanation as to how data are
received)
16 Manually inputting data in OLVIMS
One base provided the following comment: "SBSS is used at this location; unable to use the FES system due to lack of training."
Seventy-four bases provided comments to help improve reporting of vehicle fuel data. The two most common comments were:
* Long lead time to establish DESC user identification and password and use Netscape in order to access DESC's Purple Hub. (Some base computer managers were not aware that Netscape is a DoD authorized program.)
* VIL key abuses and misuses.
General Services Administration. In FY01, the Air Force leased 13,530 vehicles from GSA. These vehicles, as well as the government-owned vehicles, must meet EPAct and 13149 EO requirements. The leasing costs for GSA vehicle contracts include maintenance and fuel costs; the fleets use a GSA credit card for commercial vendor services. GSA provides basic fleet services, including motor vehicles and replacements, maintenance and repairs, fuel, and vehicle asset management and asset management accounts for consumed fuel (including alternative fuels). However, getting alternative-fuel data from the commercial vendor to GSA is a problem.
The problem of accurate alternative-fuel data lies with product codes not being standardized among suppliers of alternative fuels (ethanol or E-85). Because the product code is not uniform, the data get lost during the billing process from the commercial vendor to GSA. As the billing data are passed from commercial vendors to the GSA billing office, the alternative-fuel-type code is usually changed to reflect regular unleaded fuel. The GSA representatives were involved in tracking the alternative fuel for the assigned vehicle. They purchased E-85 fuel for their assigned vehicle. The receipt reflected the fuel type as E-85; but when they checked the GSA data 2 days later, it reflected they had purchased regular unleaded gasoline. The processors (from one electronic system to another) were not programmed to allow the product type code (E-85 alternative fuel) to flow to the next system in the billing process (Figure 13).
Reporting data for CNG poses even greater challenges than E-85 does. CNG is usually purchased from local utility companies, which use different processes. One major problem is caused by local utility CNG stations issuing their own credit cards since their electronic systems are not programmed to accept the GSA card; CNG usage data do not usually flow electronically to GSA for billing. As with the Air Force, GSA depends heavily on electronic data to populate its databases. In addition, CNG is measured in several different ways, including gallons at 2,400 pounds per square inch (psi), 3,000 psi, and 3,600 psi. These require computation of different conversion factors to allow data to be reported as gasoline-gallon equivalents.
Because there is no standard for alternative-fuel coding, GSA recommended each base work with its fleet manager to resolve problems. Together, the base points of contact and GSA can work with alternative-fuel commercial vendors to flow the electronic data and find out where the alternative-fuel-type information is being lost or changed. However, this requires individual action on the part of each base, rather than a resolution for all users.
Vehicle Fuel-Consumption Reporting--Air Force Regulatory Guidance
This section lists Air Force policies reviewed while conducting the analysis. Current policy guidance still reflects data flow from SBSS rather than DESC. The Air Force Logistics Readiness Infrastructure and Vehicles Division and the Materiel Management Policy Division are aware of the requirement to update policy and, prior to DESC implementation, had fielded interim policies to ensure OLVIMS users had guidance until final updates to the policies were completed. Also, the analysis contained herein was begun 1 month after the data flow changed from SBSS to DESC.
AFMAN 23-110, Volume 1, Part 3, USAF Supply Manual
Paragraph 1.78--Vehicle Serv-O-Plates, Ground Fuel Credit Cards, and Vehicle Identification Links (VIL).
Paragraph 1.82--Issues at Non-Air Force Locations--Ground Fuels.
Fuel purchases made with the DoD Fleet credit card are now processed through DESC.
Attachment 34D-4--Manual Fuels Issue/Defuel (lRD/lDF) Screens 1RF#106, 1DFI#107.
This process is now done through DESC, not through an SBSS transaction.
Attachment 34D-8--Ground Fuel Commercial Issues (1GC) (Screen #356). SBSS transaction to record ground fuel issues to vehicles serviced by commercial vendors.
Appendix D identifies procedures to record fuel purchases from commercial vendors via the DoD Fleet Credit Card.
AFI 23-204, Organizational Fuel Tanks
Paragraph 10--How to Record Fuel Issues.
The process is current; however, terms need to reflect DESC rather than SBSS.
AFCSM 24-1, Transportation Online Vehicle Interactive Management System (OLVIMS): 0009/VQ End User Manual
Paragraph 2.l.l.4.8--Fuel/Oil Issues to OLVIMS.
Information reflects data flow from SBSS rather than DESC.
Section "b" states fuel issue "not processed through SBSS" should reflect DESC. Fuel issues from other Air Force installations using the VIL key will flow from DESC to OLVIMS. The SF 149 is no longer used for commercial fuel purchases. The information needs to reflect the DoD Fleet Credit Card.
Paragraph 2.3.6--Loading Base Supply Floppy Disks.
Fuels data now from DESC.
Paragraph 2.3.7--Processing/Files Maintenance.
Fuels data now from DESC.
Paragraph 5.3.20-Fuel/Oil Issues, M.
Most subsections reflect data flow from SBSS rather than DESC (5.3.20 through 5.3.20.6)
Section "b. (2)" requires update to reflect procedures established by DESC
Section "b.(3)" needs to state that organizational bulk-fuel issue data should be processed through BFMO for processing to OLVIMS (AFI 23-204, para 10).
Section "b.(5)" SF 149, replaced by DoD Fleet Credit Card.
AFI 24-301, Vehicle Operations
Paragraph 3.1.1--Supports Air Force Form 1252/1252A, USAF Vehicle Serv-O-Plate and Vehicle Identification Link (VIL).
Paragraph 3.1.8 through 3.1.8.5--Manages the DoD Fleet Credit Card System.
Instructions are required under paragraph 3.1.8.3, "Administering the Fleet Credit Card," to provide BFMO information. This information is required to update DoD Fleet Credit Card fuel consumption data. It is also used to charge the organization for fuel usage and, most important, to identify the vehicle registration number. Only after the registration number is added will OLVIMS be able to capture off-base fuel purchases.
Modernized OLVIMS has a menu designed for the DoD Fleet Credit Card. Its purpose is to allow input of commercial fuel receipts so that billing and usage can be tracked. A hardcopy document reflecting the information can be printed (Figure 14). However, the data contained on the printed document were required for an "IGC" SBSS transaction that flowed to OLVIMS through daily transactions.
Update section 3.1.8.3.7, which currently reads "Forward a copy of all delivery tickets to Maintenance Control & Analysis (MC&A) weekly for processing." Courtesy copies of the receipts should be provided to MC&A to monitor the flow of data from DESC to OLVIMS. If fuel-consumption data are from a source not controlled by DESC (for example, fuel coupons purchased through AAFES), the data should be manually processed in OLVIMS.
Overseas purchases using AAFES coupons are few, and the data recording these purchases do not flow through DESC. One base acknowledged it had not provided consumption data from these receipts to MC&A for manual processing.
Instructions are required to ensure MC&A is provided a copy of all non-DoD Fleet Credit Card receipts so that the data can manually input into OLVIMS.
AFMAN 24-307, Procedures for Vehicle Maintenance Management Paragraph 2.24--Areas to Monitor.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Summary
From the requirements for vehicle fuel-consumption reporting to Air Force regulations that provide guidance on reporting, the complexity of vehicle fuel-consumption reporting is apparent. Public law requires federal agencies to provide this information. Annual reports provide indicators that mark where the Air Force stands on achieving the required 20-percent petroleum, fuel-consumption reduction and use of alternative fuels. Fuel-consumption expenditures are also included in the total operating and maintenance cost for each vehicle. The data are then fed into a vehicle replacement model, which is used to determine vehicle life expectancies and assist with vehicle procurement decisions.
Limited fuel data were not being reported to OLVIMS, but procedures and systems were in place. Policies need to be updated, widely disseminated, and adhered to. The release of modernized OLVIMS will eliminate manual tracking of data and greatly enhance vehicle fuel-reporting requirements. So how do we achieve accurate and adequate reporting of fuel-consumption data? The best answer was in comments received from the field.
* 192d Fighter Wing, Byrd Field, Virginia--"If you do analysis on your fleet using the PCNs provided, you should be able to keep a handle on fuel consumption."
* 137th Airlift Wing, Will Rogers World Airport--"Accurate reporting of fuel data has always been a problem. The best we have been able to do this is to educate everyone on the importance of accurate reporting and correct problems as they are discovered."
* Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany--"Educating the users on VIL usage is key."
OLVIMS provides reports that will indicate suspect fuel consumption. By using the PCN reports and working with the BFMO and vehicle users, problems can be corrected, and vehicle users can be educated to prevent reoccurrence.
Conclusions
The results of the analysis indicate fuel consumption is under-reported in OLVIMS, which is not attributed to the system but to the bad or incomplete data fed into it.
Causes of under-reporting of vehicle fuel consumption include the following:
* VIL keys were encoded incorrectly, and operators were not using the VIL key assigned to the vehicle.
* Operators and unit tank custodians were not reporting individual vehicle fuel consumption from organizational bulk-fuel tanks to the BFMO.
* Fuel data were not retrieved from DESC; some OLVIMS users were unaware of exactly when fuel data moved from SBSS to DESC. Consumption data were lost for quarters preceding the establishment of user IDs and passwords for DESC.
* Data for off-base commercial fuel purchases made with DoD Fleet Credit Cards did not flow electronically to OLVIMS with the changeover from SBSS to DESC. DESC has established new procedures, and the electronic flow should be reestablished in the third quarter of FY02.
Modernized OLVIMS will offer improved methodology for tracking vehicle fuel consumption. Once fielded, modernized OLVIMS will offer the following improvements:
* As a Web-based system on GCSS, OLVIMS will have a new interface agreement with DESC to feed fuel-consumption data directly to OLVIMS. Currently, 258 OLVIMS users must retrieve and upload their data individually.
* Alternative fuel-consumption data for bi-, flex-, and dual-fueled vehicles will be tracked.
* Constraints will be in place to reduce misuse of VIL keys. OLVIMS will identify fuel amounts that exceed vehicle fuel-tank capacity over a 1-day period, thus identifying vehicle users who abuse their VIL keys.
* Current written formal policy still reflects vehicle fuel data flow from SBSS versus the DESC FAS Enterprise Server.
Because GSA only provided an explanation of why alternative-fuel data are not being captured, no determination could be made concerning the accuracy of fuel data for its vehicles.
Recommendations
* Require OLVIMS end users to conduct quarterly analysis of fuel data to check for suspect data.
* Establish VIL key management procedures to prevent misuses.
* Incorporate vehicle fuel consumption reporting as an inspection item during inspector general visits.
* Ensure written policy on fuel data flow from DESC is clear and specific.
* Until vehicle fuel data can be fed directly from DESC to OLVIMS, DESC should provide a quarterly report to the Air Force Logistics Readiness Directorate of vehicle fuel transactions not downloaded by base transportation organizations.
* Ensure Standard Systems Group's OLVIMS program managers are consulted whenever procedural changes or updates occur with vehicle fuel data.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
Figure 3
FAST, Section II
Description Direct Cost Data
Vehicle Model Commercial Owned Owned Miles GSA
Lease Cost Maintenance Traveled Lease
Cost Cost
a b C d E
Sedans & SW $ $ $
Ambulances $ $ $
Buses $ $ $
LD Truck 4x2 $ $ $
LD Truck 4x4 $ $ $
MD 8,501- $ $ $
16,000 lbs
HD over $ $ $
16,001 lbs
Description Direct Cost
Data
Vehicle Model GSA Miles
Traveled
Cost
a f
Sedans & SW
Ambulances
Buses
LD Truck 4x2
LD Truck 4x4
MD 8,501-
16,000 lbs
HD over
16,001 lbs
Figure 4
FAST, Section III
Fuel Type Cost Natural Units
GSA Commercially Owned
Leased Leased
a b c d e f
B20 $ gallons
CNG $ gallons
@ 2400
psi
CNG $ gallons
@ 3000
psi
CNG $ gallons
@ 3600
psi
CNG $ hundred
cubic
feet
Diesel $ gallons
Diesel- $ gallons
Emergency,
Special
Purpose &
Military
Diesel-Law $ gallons
Enforcement
Vehicles
E-85 $ gallons
Electric $ KWH
Gasoline $ gallons
Gasoline- $ gallons
Emergency,
Special
Purpose &
Military
Fuel Type GGE
GSA Commercially Owned Total Conversion
Leased Leased Radio
a g h i j k
B20 112.6%
(gal x
1.126=GGE)
CNG 18% (gal x
.18=GGE)
CNG 22.5% (gal x
.225=GGE)
CNG 27% (gal x
.27=GGE)
CNG 83% (ccf x
.83=GGE)
Diesel 114.7% (gal
x
1.147=GGE)
Diesel- 114.7% (gal
Emergency, x
Special 1.147=GGE)
Purpose &
Military
Diesel-Law 114.7% (gal
Enforcement x
Vehicles 1.147=GGE)
E-85 72% (gal x
.72=GGE)
Electric 3% (KWH x
.03=GGE)
Gasoline No
conversion
needed
Gasoline- No
Emergency, conversion
Special needed
Purpose &
Military
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 10 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 11 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 12 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 13 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 14 OMITTED]
Table 1
Breakdown of DESC Vehicle Fuels Data
Name Type Record Definition
Position
Transaction Alpha 1 - 3 Always VIM. Ignored by
Identification OLVIMS.
Code
Issuing Station Alphanumeric 4 - 5 The issuing station code. May
be blank--this one is. OY
indicates a transient issue.
OZ is used for other government
agency and commercial
purchases. If blank, the
system will enter the vehicle's
using organization code.
Registration Alphanumeric 6 - 13 The registration number of the
Number vehicle that received fuel or
oil processed by FAS. If the
registration number is not in
the database or the vehicle is
coded with an N (no fuel) code,
disregard this input and
continue with the next inout.
01B00119 is the registeration
number.
Fuel/Oil Numeric 14 - 17 The quantity of fuel or oil
Quality purchased. If the product
identification is 0, 1, 2, or
3, the quantity is oil, and the
system will charge as oil. All
other product identification is
fuel, and the system will
charge as fuel. 0120 is the
quantity = 12.0 gallons.
Product ID Numeric 18 Oil issues will have 0-3.
Others are for fuel. This is 4;
it stands for a fuel
transaction.
Julian Date Julian Date 19 - 22 Date issued. This date cannot
be greater than system date or
in a prior month, unless system
is in dual-month status, where
it cannot be earlier than
first of that month. 1324 is
the Julian date = 19 Nov 01;
new system will use the
complete date.
Reverse Post Alphanumeric 28 Blank or R. If R, reverse the
Indicator quantity/cost and recalculate
affected system areas. This is
used for error inputs.
Fuel/Oil Cost Numeric 29 - 37 Total cost of fuel or oil.
000001224 = the cost which
equals $12.24.
System Alphanumeric 38 - 39 Used to identify the fuel or
Designator oil issue point as a host or
satellite. Ignored by OLVIMS.
01 designates a host (base
transaction).
Grade/Type Alphanumeric 40 - 42 Identifies the type of fuel
issued. If it was an oil
purchase, this field will be
blank. BDI is the product fuel
code--biodiesel.
Unit of Issue Alpha 43 - 44 Specifies how the fuel or oil
was issued; for example,
gallons, pounds, and so
forth. GL = gallons.
Table 2
Registered Vehicles Consuming Fuel
Usage Count % Mean Median
Indicator Utilization Utilization
FY01, 3d Quarter--
Total of 94,186 records
H (hours) 20,639 30 173 21
K (kilometers) 3,497 5 1,667 624
M (miles) 45,657 65 1,104 396
FY01, 4th Quarter--
Total of 95,987 records
H (hours) 21,164 30 161 23
K (kilometers) 3,468 5 1,707 661
M (miles) 46,608 65 1,216 471
FY02, 1st Quarter--
Total of 93,804 records
H (hours) 20,953 31 171 23
K (kilometers) 3,578 5 1,915 750
M (miles) 43,905 64 800 415
Usage Minimum Maximum
Indicator Utilization Utilization
FY01, 3d Quarter--
Total of 94,186 records
H (hours) 0 85,627
K (kilometers) 0 92,368
M (miles) 0 99,959
FY01, 4th Quarter--
Total of 95,987 records
H (hours) 0 90,995
K (kilometers) 0 97,283
M (miles) 0 99,776
FY02, 1st Quarter--
Total of 93,804 records
H (hours) 0 86,676
K (kilometers) 0 81,733
M (miles) 0 99,173
Table 3
Registered Vehicles with Utilization and Zero Fuel Consumption
Usage Count Count # 2 Count # 3
Indicator # 1 Utilization Utilization
FY01, 3d Quarter--
Total of 69,793 records
H (hours) 6,872 50-1,000 1,982 <50
K 930 800-16,000 423 <800
(kilometers)
M (miles) 11,562 500-10,000 4,172 <500
19,364 6,577
Note 1 27.7% 9.4%
FY01, 4th Quarter--
Total of 71,240 records
H (hours) 6,596 50-1,000 1,988 <50
K 948 800-16,000 210 <800
(kilometers)
M (miles) 11,767 500-10,000 4712 <500
19,311 7,210
Note 1 27.1% 10.1%
FY02, 1st Quarter--
Total of 68,436 records
H (hours) 6,807 50-1,000 2,183 <50
K 1,105 800-16,000 605 <800
(kilometers)
M (miles) 11,513 500-10,000 4,798 <500
19,425 7,586
Note 1 28.4% 11.1%
Usage Count # 3 Count # 4
Indicator Utilization
FY01, 3d Quarter--
Total of 69,793 records
H (hours) 4,770 >1,000 120
K 496 >1,6000 11
(kilometers)
M (miles) 7,257 >10,000 133
12,523 264
Note 1 17.9% 0.4%
FY01, 4th Quarter--
Total of 71,240 records
H (hours) 4,491 >1,000 117
K 423 >16,000 15
(kilometers)
M (miles) 6,914 >10,000 147
11,828 273
Note 1 16.6% 0.4%
FY02, 1st Quarter--
Total of 68,436 records
H (hours) 4,504 >1,000 120
K 486 >16,000 14
(kilometers)
M (miles) 6,574 >10,000 141
11,564 275
Note 1 16.9% 0.4%
Note 1. Represents the percentage of vehicles being analyzed
Table 4
DoE Fuel-Economy Averages
Year Ford Ranger Chevrolet Dodge Ram
Model (city/ S10 (city/ 50 (city/
highway) highway) highway)
1985 21/24 21/27 23/24
1986 21/26 21/28 22/24
1987 21/26 21/23 23/27
1988 22/27 21/28 23/26
1989 20/24 21/28 23/26
1990 * 21/27 19/23
1991 21/23 21/28 19/23
1992 20/23 20/26 19/23
1993 21/24 20/26 19/23
1994 21/24 19/25 *
1995 21/25 20/26 *
1996 20/25 20/27 *
1997 21/25 20/27 *
1998 20/25 19/26 *
1999 20/25 19/26 *
2000 20/25 19/26 *
2001 20/24 * *
* Four-cylinder not available
Average for city/highway for above numbers 20.6/25.3
Table 5
Comparison of Raw Data to Estimated Data
6PAX CMPT PU Bobtail
Raw Data 2125 / 4240 / 3167 /
(# / M/HPG) 17.55 23.38 8.72
Remove Bad 2077 / 4214 / 2923 /
Records 17.01 22.90 3.97
(# / M/HPG)
20-80% 1009 / 1757 / 1351 /
(# / HPG) 13.47 19.88 1.84
Estimated (1) 12.5 18.0 1.65
(# / HPG)
(1)Estimated range (cluster) determined by author
Table 6
Comparison of Fuel-Consumption Reporting
6PAX CMPT PU Bobtail
Actual Reported (1)
Miles/hours 12,627,720 17,810,332 1,788,858
Fuel consumption 742,329 777,616 455,062
(gal)
20-80%
Actual miles/hours 12,627,720 17,810,332 1,788,858
Avg M/HPG 13.47 19.88 1.84
Estimated fuel 937,470 895,891 972,205
consumption (gal)
(1) Raw OLVIMS records minus bad records where reported. Miles/ hours
were greater than lifetime miles/hours.
Sergeant Lindsay is superintendent, Transportation Division, Air Force Logistics Management Agency, Maxwell AFB, Gunter Annex, Alabama; Mr Deitz is senior analysist, Air Force Logistics Management Agency. Sergeant McGonagle is superintendent, Fuels Analysis Branch, Supply Division, Air Force Logistics Management Agency. Captain Winkler is chief Transportation Systems and Policy, Transportation Division, Air Force Logistics Management Agency.
COPYRIGHT 2002 U.S. Air Force, Logistics Management Agency
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group
扫一扫关注微信