Auditors Say Point Mugu Data Is Out of Date : Military: Meeting with Beilenson, analysts concede that projected savings from closure are based on unreliable estimates.

Pentagon auditors on Thursday acknowledged that the projected $1.7-billion savings for closing the Point Mugu Navy base is outdated and that base-closing commissioners should not rely on their numbers to determine the fate of the facility, according to congressional aides.

In a meeting with Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills) and congressional staff, Defense Department auditors said an inspector general’s report was based on facts and figures that were compiled at least two years ago.

They told congressional staff that Point Mugu may have changed since then, thus the numbers may no longer be valid.

“It would be a mistake for the commission to make decisions about Point Mugu’s future” based on the earlier audit, Steven Hughes, the audit’s author, reportedly said at the meeting. “You can’t use ’93 data to make ’95 decisions.”

Supporters of Point Mugu plan to use these comments to undermine the audit that inspired the base-closing commission to add Point Mugu to the list of military installations now being scrutinized for shutdown.

Although the inspector general’s office stands by the report, an official acknowledged that the data is getting old and may not accurately reflect the base’s current operations.

The concessions from the auditors were applauded by Point Mugu supporters, who staged a fund-raising rally in Oxnard on Thursday evening as part of their campaign to fight for the preservation of the base and its 9,000 jobs.

“We were hoping we could get a complete retraction,” said Cal Carrera, co-chairman of the task force working to save the base. “But this is pretty good news. We are starting to saw away at the report. Our point is to try to kill it.”

About 200 supporters attended the rally that helped the task force generate more than $30,000 in donations since Point Mugu was selected by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission last week.

Task force members said they need an infusion of cash to pay their lobbyists in Washington and to prepare arguments to the eight commissioners regarding why missile-testing operations should continue at Point Mugu, the gateway to the Navy’s test range that stretches far into the Pacific Ocean.

Several task force members are scheduled to present their case before the commissioners next week in San Francisco. They will be joined by at least one local congressman and Point Mugu’s commanding officer, Adm. Dana B. McKinney, who is a participant in the Navy’s increasingly forceful effort to bump Point Mugu off the closure list.

Reached by telephone in his Pentagon office, Hughes declined to comment on his audit or Thursday’s meeting on Capitol Hill.

But Patricia Brannin, a manager in the inspector general’s office who accompanied Hughes to the meeting, said congressional staff have gone too far if they suggest that Hughes was telling the base-closing commissioners what to do with the report.

“All we really said is that we recognize there might be some difference in the numbers because of the passage of time,” Brannin said. “We don’t know what’s happened since our report was issued.”

The 57-page audit, completed June 10, 1994, recommended that the Navy move most of its missile-testing operations to its sister base at China Lake, about 120 miles away in the upper Mojave Desert.

The audit concluded that the Navy could save $1.7 billion over 20 years by consolidating overlapping programs between the two bases and eliminating about 2,000 jobs. But the auditors projected no savings in the first six years due to $518 million in moving costs.

Last year, the Navy issued a 44-page rebuttal to the audit, refuting its conclusions point by point. Overall, the Navy said the report is based on inaccurate assumptions and faulty data.

In the past week, a growing number of top naval officials have rallied behind Point Mugu. Deputy Assistant Navy Secretary Charles P. Nemfakos, for instance, said he plans to show the commissioners how the inspector general’s audit was flawed and that there is no money to be saved by shuttering Point Mugu.

Brannin said auditors in the inspector general’s office continue to stand by the conclusions of its 1994 report. “Based on the data we had, it made sense.”

In Thursday’s meeting, “we never said it would be a mistake to close Point Mugu,” she said. “We recognize that a year or more has passed since we had that data. But we don’t know what has changed, if anything.”

Beilenson, who had to leave the meeting early, said representatives from his office and the offices of Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley), and Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer all noted the same concessions from the author of the controversial report.

The auditors conceded, Beilenson said, that “the report is based on 1993 data and possibly on 1992 data and the numbers have changed. And, if asked, they would not recommend that the commission rely on the data. They were very clear about that.”

In the past few days, Beilenson, who represents most of the Conejo Valley, said he has been impressed by the Navy’s commitment to fight for Point Mugu.

“I really believe that if people do the right thing, we will not be hurt,” he said.