covered by using expired Aircraft Procurement Navy appropri- ations. This $424 million cost growth was the result of negotiating contract target prices for the airframe in excess of the amount bud- geted for that purpose and cost growth projected by McDonnell Douglas on these contracts at the time of our audit. The cost growth that we identified for the airframe did not include flyaway equipment, weaponry and support items estimated to cost $1.16 bil- lion, which the Naval Air Systems Command planned to spend in future years to fully equip F/A-18s procured from fiscal years 1979 through 1983. The substantial increase in the SAR to which you refer resulted from significantly higher inflation rates than used for budgeting purposes, extension of delivery schedules and in- creases in estimated labor, materiel and subcontract costs of the entire program, including future procurements and quantity changes. Our audit concentrated on cost growth in the fiscal year 1979-1983 portion of the program. 55 QUESTION. What efforts were made to get the auditors knowl- edgeable of the applicable DoD and Navy acquisition documents