GAO-Opportunities to Improve Surveillance
Content
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
Report to the Secretary of Defense
March 2005
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT Opportunities to Improve Surveillance on Department Defense Serviceof Contracts
GAO-05-274
a
March 2005
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT Accountability Account ability Integrity Reliability
Highlights
Opportunities to Improve Surveillance on Department of Defense Service Contracts
Highlights of GAO-05-274, GAO-05-274, a report to the Secretary of Defense
Why GAO Did This Study
What GAO Found
The Department of Defense (DOD) is the federal government’s largest purchaser of contractor services, spending $118 billion in fiscal year 2003 alone—an increase of 66 percent since fiscal year 1999. DOD is expected to rely increasingly on contractors to carry out its mission.
Surveillance varied on the 90 contracts we reviewed. Surveillance was insufficient on 26 of the contracts we reviewed but was sufficient on 64 contracts. Fifteen had no surveillance because no personnel were assigned such responsibilities; the other 11 had assigned personnel but could not provide evidence of surveillance due to incomplete documentation. Also, some surveillance personnel did not receive r eceive required training before beginning their assignments.
In recent reports, DOD has identified inadequate surveillance on service contracts. This report examines how DOD manages
According to DOD officials, insufficient insufficient surveillance occurred because surveillance is not as important to contracting officials as awarding contracts and therefore, does not receive the priority needed to ensure that surveillance occurs. The Army, unlike the Air Force and Navy organizations we visited, does not require surveillance personnel to be assigned responsibility prior to contract award. We also found that surveillance personnel involved in our review were not evaluated evaluated on how well they perform their surveillance duties. Further, surveillance surveillance was usually a parttime responsibility and some personnel felt that they did not have enough time in a normal workday to perform their surveillance duties.
service contract surveillance. It looks at the extent of DOD’s surveillance on a selection of service contracts, reasons why insufficient surveillance occurred, and efforts to improve surveillance. What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that DOD: require properly trained surveillance personnel be assigned to service contracts by the date of contract award; ensure surveillance personnel are held accountable for their duties; ensure DOD’s service contract review process and data collection requirements provide more useful information; and revise guidance on surveillance for services procured from other agencies’ contracts. DOD should also direct the Army to conduct surveillance, as appropriate, on ongoing Contract Advisory and Assistance Services contracts awarded before April 2004. DOD concurred with four of our recommendations and partially concurred with a fifth and identified actions it has taken or plans to take to address them.
DOD has taken steps to implement provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year Year 2002 intended to improve the general management and oversight of service contract procurement and, in October 2004, DOD issued a policy that emphasized the proper use of other agencies’ contracts. However, these efforts did little to improve service contract surveillance. On a more specific item, DOD did issue guidance that now requires appointment of surveillance personnel during the early planning cost-rei cost-reimbursable mbursable time 2004, and materials service ce its contracts.phases At the of military service level,and in April the Armyservi revised acquisition instructions and began requiring surveillance on some professional support service contracts; contracts; but, the revision did not apply to those contracts awarded before the enactment date that were still in effect.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-274 GAO-05-274.. www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more information, contact David E. Cooper at (617) 788-0555 or [email protected].
United States Government Accountability Office
Contents
Results in Brief Background Sufficiency Sufficie ncy of Service Contract Surveillance Varied Contract Surveillance Not Always a High Priority DOD Initiatives Affecting Surveillan Surveillance ce Conclusions Recommendations Recommendat ions for Executive Action Agency Comments Comments and Our Our Evaluation Evaluation
1 2 4 7 12 13 16 16 17
Appendix I
Scope and Methodology
19
Appendix II
Roles of Contracting Officers and an d Surveillance Personnel
21
Appendix III
Contracts Reviewed
22
Appendix IV
Comments from the Department of Defense
30
Table 1: Summary of Surveillance on DOD Service Contracts Table 2: Surveillance Personnel Training
8 10
Letter
Tables
Figure Figure 1: DOD Spending on Services, FY 1999 through FY 2003
Page i
5
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
Abbreviations Abbreviat ions
ACA-North AFMC DFARS DOD FAR GSA NAVSEA OSD
Army Contracting Contrac ting Agency–North Agen cy–North Region Region Air Force Materiel Command Command Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation General Service Administration Administrat ion Naval Sea Systems Command Office of the Secretary of Defense
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page ii
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548
March 17, 2005 The Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense Washington, D.C. Dear Secretary Rumsfeld: The Department of Defense (DOD) is the federal government’s largest purchaser of of contractor provided services and its spending on those services has increased significantly over the past few years. Spending for services has increased about 66 percent since fiscal year 1999 and this trend is expected to continue as DOD increasingly relies more on contractors to carry out aspects of its mission. In fiscal year 2003, DOD spent over $118 billion on services–about 57 percent of its procurement dollars. Because of the increasing use of contractors and the large expenditures involved, quality assurance surveillance—oversight surveillance—oversight of the services being performed by the contractor—is contractor—is important important to provide provide assurance assurance that contractors are providing timely and quality services and to help mitigate any contractor performance problems. Surveillance is not a one-step process. It begins begins with properly training personnel personnel for assignment of surveillance responsibilities responsibilities and involves ongoing surveillance actions throughoutt the performance throughou performance period of the contract to ensure the government receives the services it contracted for in a timely manner. Surveillance includes creating an official record documenting that the contractor’s performance was acceptable or unacceptable. Because of past problems with inadequate surveillance identified by DOD, 1 GAO reports determining that contract management and oversight has not always been adequate,2 and DOD’s increasing reliance on service contracts, our overall review objective was to determine how DOD manages service contract surveillance. To address this issue we
1
DOD Inspector General, Acquisitio Acquisition: n: Contracts for Professional, Professional, Administrative, Administrative, and Management Support Support Service Servicess, D-2004-015 (Oct. 30, 2003) and D-2000-100 (Mar. 10, 2000). 2
GAO, Majo r Management Management Challenges Challenges and Program Risks: Department Department of Defense, Defense, GAO-03-98 (Washington, GAO-03-98 ( Washington, D.C.: January 2003) and GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, Update, Department of Defense Defense Contr Contract act Managemen Management, t, GAO-05-207 GAO-05-207 (Washington D.C.:
January 2005).
Page 1
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
(1) examined the extent surveillance was performed on a selection of service contracts, (2) identified reasons for why insufficient surveillance occurred, and (3) identified recent efforts to help improve surveillance. To conduct our work, we met with representatives of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the t he military services to discuss how contract surveillance is carried out across DOD and what efforts are being made to improve surveillance. We also selected and reviewed 90 service contracts and their associated surveillance records. records. The 90 contracts had a total value of about $385.7 million at the time of contract award, but that value has increased increased significantly significantly over over time. These These contracts were awarded awarded primarily at three military military commands within the military departments: departments: (1) the Army Contracting Agency–North Region (ACA-North) at Fort Monroe, Virginia; (2) the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) at the Navy Ship Yard, Washington, D.C.; and (3) the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. 3 Each of these organizations spends significant funding for services within their respective military department. Although our results are not projectable across all of DOD’s service contracts, they are illustrative of the challenges involved in conducting conducting surveillance surveillance for services. We contacted contracting officers, surveillance personnel, and procurement management officials associated with each of the selected contracts to obtain information about surveillance. We did not include research and developmentt contracts or construction contracts in the contracts selected developmen because the surveillance process typically differs for these types of contracts. A more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology is in appendix I. We conducted our review from January 2004 to February 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief
Surveillance varied on the 90 contracts we reviewed. Surveillance was insufficient on 26 of the contracts we reviewed but was sufficient on 64 contracts. Fifteen of the 26 contracts had no surveillance activity because no personnel were assigned surveillance responsibilities. responsibilities. The other 11 contracts had surveillance personnel assigned but could not provide evidence that surveillance was being conducted because of incomplete documentation. Further, some surveillance personnel did not receive required training prior to beginning their surveillance assignments on
3
We also reviewed a small number of contracts associated with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and other defense agencies.
Page 2
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
contracts . In some instances surveillance was very rigorous. For example, contracts. a Navy contract for critical submarine hull repair involved Navy personnel and an independent specialist using live video to observe all the repairs in real-time. DOD officials attributed insufficient surveillance to a number of factors. Contract surveillance is not always a top priority for contracting officers and managers who oversee contracting organizations organizations told us that surveillance is not given the same importance as getting the contract awarded. Also, the Army, unlike the Air Force and Navy organizations we visited, does does not require require that surveillance surveillance personnel personnel be assigned to service contracts prior to contract award. In addition, no organization we visited consistently evaluates surveillance surveillance personnel on how well they perform their surveillance responsibilities. Finally, some surveillance personnel believe they do not have enough time in a normal workday to perform surveillance, a factor that may be influenced by declining personnel levels in DOD functional offices responsible for conducting surveillance. DOD has begun implementing some initiatives that have the potential to improve service contract management and oversight practices on a broad basis. DOD has taken t aken steps to implement provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 20024 intended to improve the management and oversight of service contract procurement and, in October 2004, it issued a policy that emphasized the proper use of other agencies’ contracts. However, little has been done as part of these efforts to specifically improve DOD service s ervice contract surveillance practices. For specific types of contracts—cost-reimburse contracts—cost-reimbursement ment5 and time and materials6 service contracts—DOD established additional guidance, in September 2004, that requires surveillance surveillance personnel be appointed to these contracts during the early planning phase to provide appropriate oversight. Also, in April 2004, the Army began began requiring requiring surveillance surveillance for the first time on certain types of professional professional support service contracts; however, Army
4
Section 801, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Public Law 107-107, Dec. 28, 2001. 5
Cost-reimbursement contracts provides for Government’s payment of allowable costs incurred by the contractor. Federal Acquisition Regulation 16.301-1, Cost-Reimbursement Contracts (hereinafter FAR). 6
Time-and-materials contracts that provide for acquiring supplies or services on the basis of
direct contractor labor hours at fixed rates and materials at cost. FAR 16.601, Time-andMaterials Contracts.
Page 3
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
officials told us this requirement did not apply to contracts of this type awarded prior to April 2004 that are still in effect. We are making four recommendations to help improve DOD service contract surveillance and one recommendation to help ensure that the Army is conducting conducting surveillance surveillance on certain types types of service contracts awarded and still in use prior to April 2004. DOD concurred with four of our recommendations and partially concurred with a fifth and identified actions it has taken or plans to take to address them.
Background
DOD and the federal government government classify procurements as either the purchase of of goods or services. DOD procures many types of services ranging from research and development efforts on major weapon systems 7
to operating military installations. installations. Service contracts, contracts, because they involve the contractor providing a service rather than a good, by nature require different approaches in describing require requirements ments and overseeing contractor performance than the purchases purchases of goods. DOD spends spends more of its its procurementt funds on services than it does on goods. Moreover, DOD procuremen spends significantly more than any other federal agency on services. DOD spending on services has been increasing significantly over the last several years—about 66 66 percent since fiscal year 1999—to a level of $118 billion billion in fiscal year 2003 (see fig. 1).
7
The DOD and the federal government have 24 different categories of service contracts.
These categories range from contracts for information technology and medical services to base operating support.
Page 4
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
Figure 1: DOD Spending on Services, FY 1999 through FY 2003 Dollars in millions 140 118
120
100
93 77
80
71
72
60
40
20
0 1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Fiscal year Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Surveillance and documentation that it occurred are required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)8 and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Supplement (DFARS). (DFARS).9 Moreover, documentation is necessary to help ensure accountability over the surveillance process. Surveillance Surveillan ce involves government oversight of contractors with the purpose of of ensuring that that the contractor contractor (the service service provider) provider) performs performs the requirements of the contract and the government (the service receiver or customer) receives the service as intended. Surveillance begins with trained personnel being nominated for and assigned surveillance responsibilities, and then conducting surveillance actions throughout the performance period of the contract contract to ensure ensure the government government receives receives the services required by the contract. While surveillance is required by the DFARS, specific methods are not prescribed. DOD organizations organizations use various various methods methods to conduct conduct surveillance, ranging from formal written assessments (monthly, semi
8
FAR 37.602-2, Quality Assurance and FAR 46.104, Contract Administration Office Responsibilities. 9
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement 246.102.
Page 5
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
annually, or annually) of contractor performance prepared by DOD surveillance personnel to more informal observations or inspections of contractor performance by surveillance personnel. The methods used generally relate to the dollar value of the contract and the risk associated with the service being provided. Proper documentation of surveillance is required. Proper documentation is not only stressed in the DFARS but also in other DOD guidance that requires performance-based service contracts,10—which DOD is requiring to be used more often in the acquisition of services—to have a surveillance plan. Surveillance Surveillance of of contractor contractor performance performance should be documented documented as it is conducted. DOD guidance maintains that this documentation constitutes an official record and the surveillance personnel assessing performance are to use a checklist to record their observations observations of the contractor’s performance. The guidance also concludes that all performance should be be documented documented whether whether it is acceptable acceptable or not. Surveillance personnel11 are usually not considered part of DOD’s acquisition workforce. Instead, surveillance personnel personnel represent the DOD functional organization receiving receiving the service and are usually assigned surveillance as an ancillary responsibility in addition to their primary job. For example, if a DOD weapon system program office (a functional organization) has a need to contract for professional support services, the program office office would assist the contracting contracting officer officer by defining defining contract contract requirements and methods of contractor performance and by nominating an official to serve as the surveillance personnel. Surveillance Surveillance personnel are likely to be full-time employees of the DOD organization needing needing the service and are generally knowledgeable knowledgeable about the aspects of the service to be provided by the contractor. This knowledge knowledge is useful in assessing contractor performance. performance. However, it is the contracting officer’s responsibility to assign surveillance personnel and to ensure that surveillance is conducted on the contract. The surveillance personne personnell act as a liaison between the contracting officer and the contractor. If less than
10
Guidebook for Performance-Based Performance-Based Services Acquisition in the Department of Defense,
December 2000. 11
The military services, including the contracting offices we visited during this review use different terms to describe personnel involved in surveillance including: Quality Assurance Personnel (QAP), Quality Assurance Evaluator (QAE), Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) and Task Order Manager
(TOM). For purposes of this report, we will refer to all these positions as surveillance personnel.
Page 6
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
adequate contractor performance is noted by the surveillance personnel, they notify the contracting officer as a first step toward corrective action. Appendix II II shows in more detail detail the roles roles of contracting contracting officers officers and surveillance personnel. personnel. Congressional concern over the management of DOD’s growing sservices Congressional ervices procurement led Congress Congress to include include provisions provisions in section section 801 of of the 12 National Defense Authorization Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 designed to improve management and oversight of services procurement and reinforce compliance with all applicable statutes, regulations, directives, and other requirements, regardless regardless of whether the services were procured through DOD contracts or those of another agency. We have previously reported on section 801, but at that time DOD had not completely determined how to implement specifics of the legislation.13 In our prior report, we stated that DOD and the military departments had a management structure and a process in place place for reviewing reviewing individual individual acquisition acquisitionss valued at $500 million or more, but the approach did not provide a departmentwide assessment of how spending for services could be more effective. In October 2004, to help reinforce the requirements requirements of section 801, DOD issued a policy designed to emphasize the proper use of other agencies’ contracts. DOD spends billions of dollars dollars every year using other agencies’ agencies’ contracts and is the largest purchaser of services from GSA’s multiple multiple award schedules program.
Sufficiency of Service Contract Surveillance Varied V aried
The use of surveillance surveillanc e varied on the 90 contracts we reviewed. While 26 of the 90 DOD contracts we reviewed had insufficient insufficient surveillance, 64 contracts had sufficient, documented surveillance that in some instances was extensive. More specifically, 25 of the 26 contracts with insufficient surveillance were contracts for services that DOD obtained by using GSA contracts available under its multiple award schedules program. In addition, 13 surveillance personnel had not completed required training prior to being being assigned assigned surveillance surveillance responsibilities. responsibilities. Our review also found that 64 contracts had sufficient, documented surveillance and in some of these instances, surveillance was extensive.
12
Public Law 107-107, Dec. 28, 2001.
13
Management: High-Level Attention Needed to Transform DOD Services GAO, Contract (Washington, Washington, D.C.: Sep. 10, 2003). Acquisition , GAO-03-935 ( GAO-03-935
Page 7
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
Surveillance Personnel Not Always Assigned and and Surveillance Documentation Insufficient
For the 90 DOD service contracts we reviewed, 26 of the contracts (29 percent) had insufficient surveillance in that they lacked assigned surveillance personnel or complete documentation of surveillance. 14 Of these 26 contracts, 15 contracts had no surveillance personnel personnel assigned. Additionally, Additional ly, 11 of the the 26 contracts contracts had insufficient insufficient documentation documentation to show if surveillance was occurring. Table 1 summarizes our findings for the 90 contracts and shows that there were more instances of insufficient surveillance related to the Army contracts compared to the Navy. All of the Air Force contracts we reviewed had surveillance. surveillance. (See app. III for a more detailed summary of the 90 contracts.)
Table 1: Summary of Surveillance on DOD Service Contracts Dollars in millions Total contracts reviewed DOD organization
Number of contracts Number of contracts with no surveillance with insufficient personnel assigned evidence of surveillance
Number of contracts
Award amount
20
$39.0
0
0
8
2.4
0
0
ACA-North
19
86.2
7
2
Other organizations
11
20.7
6
1
20
226.6
0
0
6
8.7
1
4
6
2.1
1
4
90
$385.7
15
11
Air Force AFMC Other organizations Army
Navy NAVSEA Other organizations OSD and other DOD agencies Total
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Our further analyses of the 90 contracts found only one common characteristic as to whether surveillance surveillance was affected by other contractua contractuall
14
The $46.6 million was the total value of the 26 contracts at the time they were awarded. Contracts can increase in value for a number of reasons after they are awarded. Contracts can increase in value when additional contract options are exercised, the scope of the contract changes, etc. For example, one NAVSEA contract increased from $225,000 at contract but in has the potential increase to $96 million. Many of the contracts we reviewedaward, increased value since theytowere awarded.
Page 8
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
factors. Specifically, we found that of the 45 interagency contracts we reviewed where DOD awarded them using GSA’s multiple award schedules program,15 25 had insufficient surveillan surveillance. ce. GAO has recently identified issues with DOD’s use of interagency contracts contracts in general and reported that they were not being effectively managed.16 We also found that the contract award amount was not always a good indication of the total value of the services that needed to be surveilled. While the award amount of the 90 contracts we reviewed was $385.7 million in fiscal year 2003, the amount of funds obligated on about one-half of these contracts had grown to about $1.5 billion as of November 2004.17 We found that for some of the 15 contracts without surveillance personnel assigned, assigned, the contract amounts amounts have more than tripled over over the course of the contract. For example, one Army contract for educational services was awarded for $271,690 but had increased to $900,125. We did not find that the sufficiency of surveillance was related to other factors, including type of service contract (fixed price or costreimbursable), type of services being procured, use of performance-based contract methods, or dollar value at award. For some of the contracts without sufficient documentation of surveillance, we asked the personnel how the government’s interests were being protected. They told us they were conducting surveillance, but they had not been keeping documented records to verify surveillance surveillance had taken place.
15
GSA’s multiple award schedules program provides federal agencies with a simplified process of acquiring commonly used supplies and services in varying quantities while obtaining volume discounts. In return, agencies utilizing the schedules program provide GSA with a user fee to cover GSA’s administrative expenses. 16
GAO-05-207 (Washington D.C.: January 2005). GAO, High-Risk Series: Series: An Update, Update, GAO-05-207
17
We did not obtain the total amount of obligations for about one-half of the contracts.
Page 9
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
Surveillance Personnel Training Not Always Completed Prior to Surveillance Beginning
Surveillance training, despite DOD regulations Surveillance regulations requiring such training, t raining, was not always completed prior to personnel being assigned surveillance responsibilities. responsibilitie s. Such training explains their responsibilities and identifies methods of conducting surveillance. On the contracts we reviewed, 13 surveillance personnel had not received the required training. Without timely training, surveillance personnel may not know how to perform their duties. We found examples of this late training at each of the commands we visited including 10 instances at AFMC, 2 instances at NAVSEA, and 1 instance at ACA-North. In some cases, surveillanc s urveillance e personnel had not completed training until several months after assignment to a contract. See table 2 for a summary of surveillance personnel personnel training information. information. Table 2: Surveillance Personnel Training Surveillance personnel assigned to contracts
Surveillance personnel not trained before assignment
Air Force Materiel Command
60
10
ACA-North
13
1
NAVSEA
31
2
104
13
Military command
Total Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Surveillance Often Sufficient and Used to Identify Insufficient
We found that 64 of the 90 contracts we reviewed had surveillance personnel who were assigned their their surveillance surveillance responsibilities responsibilities and and were conducting and documenting surveillance. The 64 contracts included 20 that were awarded using GSA’s multiple award schedules program.
Contractor Performan Performance ce
The amount of surveillance varied depending on the type of service being provided. In some instances, instances, the surveillance surveillance was a very very detailed, rigorous process. For example, one Navy contract contract we reviewed involved involved critical critical submarine hull repair. The surveillance on the services was extensive and involved Navy personnel and an independent specialist using live video to observe all the repairs in real time. For lower risk contracts, such as one involving maintenance maintenance of an Army recruiting internet site, surveillance was significantly less formal because the contractor and surveillance personnel actually actually shared shared office space space and had daily interaction. interaction. If surveillance is done properly, it has the t he potential to identify poor contractor performance and mitigate problems on a contract. For example, on one of the contracts we reviewed, AFMC was having problems with with a custodial custodial contract worth approximately approximately $3 $3 million. The surveillance personnel assigned to the job followed the surveillance plan
Page 10
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
and documented observations and customer complaints that the contractor was not meeting some of the contract requirements for a few consecutive months. In each instance, the contractor was asked to re perform the tasks that were were deemed unacceptab unacceptable le and the surveillance personnel informed informed the contracting officer of the issues. As As the problems problems continued, the contracting officer involved the contractor’s corporate headquarters and arranged a meeting to resolve the underlying problems. Two main problems were identified. Some tasks the government expected to be performed were not in the contract, and the contractor was providing poor service service on other other tasks. Both Both of these problems were were remedied and surveillance showed the contractor subsequently subsequently received high ratings. Another example where surveillance caught insufficient performance was on a NAVSEA contract worth worth approximately approximately $14 million. The surveillance on this contract was structured so that the government would rate each contractor employee’s performance. Two contract employees were not performing as required and the corporate headquarters subsequently subsequently replaced both of them within in a few months.
AFMC and NAVSEA NAVSEA Practices Help Provide Sufficient Surveillance
NAVSEA and AFMC have policies that help ensure that surveillance begins as soon as possible on contracts. Both organizations require surveillance personnel to be assigned assigned before or or at contract contract award. Based Based on the the contracts reviewed, we found that both organizations complied with their respective policies—each contract we reviewed had someone assigned to conduct surveillance. In contrast, the Army and ACA-North have no policy requiring surveillance personnel be assigned at or before contract award. Of the 26 contracts we identified as having insufficient surveillance, 16 were Army contracts, including 9 ACA-North contracts. The Air Force requires a team be created prior to the award of service contracts. This team is comprised of at least the contracting officer, a representative from the buying entity, and the surveillance personnel who will be assigned to the contract. This policy helps assure that surveillance surveillance is given a higher priority because because the contract contract cannot cannot be awarded awarded until the team has met.
Page 11
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
Contract Surveillance Not Always a High Priority
Surveillance was not always given high priority by either the contracting or functional organizations, according to officials responsible for the contracts we reviewed. These officials told us getting the contracts awarded, and thus supporting the customer, takes priority over assuring trained surveillance personnel are assigned prior to contract award. The Army, unlike unlike the Air Air Force and Navy organizations organizations we visited, does not require surveillance personnel personnel to be assigned to contracts prior to the contract award date. Officials also told us almost all surveillance personnel are are not evaluated evaluated on their surveillance surveillance responsibilitie responsibilitiess in their performance assessments because because surveillance surveillance is considered considered a part-time part-time or ancillary activity. Also, some surveillance personnel feel they do not have sufficient hours during their normal workday to get the job done.
Surveillance Secondary to Awarding Contracts
Federal and DOD acquisition regulation regulationss do not require surveillance personnel to be assigned prior to contract contract award. award. Contracting Contracting officials officials from all three service commands as well as OSD and senior military acquisition policy officials stated that, in general, the priority of contracting offices is awarding contracts, not assuring that trained surveillance personnel are assigned early on so that surveillance can begin upon contract award. Contracting officials told us that their primary objective is to get the necessary contracts awarded in order to support the functional office (the service customer) and that delaying a contract award because of delays in the assignment or training of surveillance personne personnell does not normally occur. It is the assignment of surveillance personnel that is usually delayed until after contract award because contractin contracting g officers cannot assign them until they are nominated by the functional office. NAVSEA and AFMC, however, have recognized the importance of timely assignment and require contracting contracting officers to assign surveillance personnel by contract contract award. The Army and and ACA-North ACA-North have no such requirement. For all the NAVSEA contracts we reviewed, surveillance personnel were timely assigned. assigned.
Surveillance Personnel Not Rated on Surveillance Responsibilities
A further indication indication that surveillance surveillance is not not always given a high priority priority is that almost all personnel involved in our review are not rated on performance of their surveillance surveillance responsibiliti responsibilities. es. NAVSEA NAVSEA and Army policy indicates indicates that surveillance surveillance responsibilities responsibilities should at least be considered in performance ratings, and Army training material indicates that surveillance performance should be evaluated; however, in almost all cases, personnel were not being assessed on these responsibilities. Officials at NAVSEA told us they plan to issue a policy memo encouraging the functional organizations to include surveillance duties in performance ratings. While these efforts demonstrate a willingness to hold surveillance
Page 12
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
personnel accountable accountable through ratings, they they provide provide no plans or processes processes to help accomplish this. OSD and senior acquisition policy officials also acknowledge that assessing surveillance personnel on their responsibilities could improve accountability but told us this could require modifications to job descriptions, which could be a difficult task.
Some Air Force and Navy Surveillance Personnel Feel Not Enough Time to Perform Surveillance Surveillance
Several Air Force and Navy personnel told us they do not always have sufficient time to focus on surveillance responsibilities; responsibilities; thus, possibly contributing to inadequate surveillance or leaving at risk the potential for not detecting contractor performance problems. Five NAVSEA surveillance personnel out of 17 we talked to told us they felt they did not have enough time, in a normal workday, to fully perform their surveillan surveillance ce duties. They told us they are usually assigned surveillanc surveillance e as a part-time duty to be done in additional to their regular, full-time job responsibilities. NAVSEA contract managers agreed that surveillance personnel at times do need to work additional hours to ensure surveillance is done. According to OSD and senior acquisition policy officials, this situation is occurring, in part, due to a reduction reduction in the the staffing of functional offices that nominate nominate personnel to perform surveillance duties.
DOD Initiatives Affecting Surveillance
DOD is in the process of implementing some initiatives that may help improve contract management and oversight practices. DOD has taken some steps to implement provisions in the National Defense Authorization Authorization 18 Act for Fiscal Year 2002 designed to help improve the general management and oversight of service contract procurement and also recently issued a policy emphasizing the proper use of other agencies’ contracts. DOD also recently established additional additional guidance on contract surveillance for cost-reimbursable cost-reimbursable and time and materials service contracts that states that surveillance personnel should be appointed to these types of service contracts during the early contract planning phase to help improve oversight. oversight. In addition, a recently revised Army acquisition instruction clarified surveillance surveillance requirements for certain types of service contracts for which the Army was not previously requiring requiring surveillance.
18
Section 801, Public Law 107-107, Dec. 28, 2001.
Page 13
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
DOD Efforts to Improve Service Contract Management and Oversight
DOD has taken some steps to implement provisions in section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002,19 which was intended to improve DOD management and oversight of services procurement and reinforce reinforce compliance compliance with all applicable applicable statutes, statutes, regulations, directives, directives, and other requirements, regardless of whether the services are procured through a DOD contract or other agencies’ contracts. DOD also recently issued a policy placing empha emphasis sis on the proper use of other agencies’ agencies’ contracts, contracts, such as GSA’s schedules schedules program. program. Regarding establishment of a management and review structure for service contracts, we reported in September 200320 that DOD and the military departments each had a management structure in place for reviewing individual individual service contracts valued at $500 million or more prior to contract award, but that approach did not provide a departmentwide assessment of how spending for services could be more effective. During our current review, we found that DOD and the military departments continue to focus their efforts on activities that lead up to contract awards and do not track or assess the sufficiency sufficiency of surveillan s urveillance ce on service contracts regardless of their dollar value or risk. As a result, little has been done as part of implementing section 801 to specifically improve DOD surveillance practices. Section 801 of the act,21 as well as DOD policy, requires requires that certain data elements on service contracts be collected and analyzed to help support management decisions. The requirement applies to contracts for services valued at $100,000 $100,000 or more. more. While DOD has been collecting data data to comply comply with the act, no data related to contract surveillance is being collected because neither the act nor DOD guidance requires requires collection of this type of data. As a result, DOD is not tracking whether the assignme assignment nt of surveillance personnel has taken place. Without this data, DOD and the military departments will likely continue to have limited visibility over the timely assignment of surveillance personnel and the results of surveillance.
19
Section 801, Public Law 107-107, Dec. 28, 2001.
20
GAO, Contract Management: High-Level Attention Needed to Transform DOD Services Acquisition, GAO-03-935 GAO-03-935 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2003). 21
Public Law 107-107, Dec. 28, 2001.
Page 14
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
Further, DOD’s October 2004 policy, which placed emphasis on the proper use of other agencies’ contracts, does not specifically address surveillance. The policy focuses on ensuring that DOD’s procurement procurement processes and procedures are done correctly. correctly. As discussed earlier, surveillance surveillance on contracts awarded using interagency arrangements is an area where we found efforts could be improved—25 of the 26 contracts we determined to have insufficient surveillance were contracts using GSA’s schedules program.
Additional DOD DOD Surveillance Guidance for Cost Reimbursable and Time and Materials Service Contracts
In September 2004, OSD issued additional guidance to the military services on service contracts called cost-reimbursable cost-reimbursable and time and material contracts. The guidance stresses the need for the assignment of surveillance personnel for these contracts because they usually require significant government surveillance surveillance during contract performance to ensure the government receives good value. The additional DOD guidance was issued in response to a 2003 DOD Inspector General report that found surveillance was inadequate for 29 of 43 cost-reimbursable contract actions.22 The Inspector General found that surveillance personnel were designated in writing, as required, on only 21 of 43 contract actions. Further, for these 21 contracts, 13 had insufficient surveillance. DOD’s September 2004 guidance was issued to help correct some of these inadequacies.
Revised Army Acquisition Instruction
Revised Army acquisition instructions, issued in April 2004, now require surveillance personnel personnel to be assigned for a certain type of service contract called Contract Advisory and Assistance Services.23 Senior Army acquisition and other officials at the ACA-North told us that, t hat, in the past, these contracts required less surveillance because they were generally seen as lower risk; in addition, the officials noted that shortages of personnel in the functional functional offices offices also contributed contributed to conducting less surveillance on this type of service contract. The Army was unable to provide us us information on the quantity quantity and dollar dollar amounts amounts associated associated with
22
DOD Inspector General, Acquisition Acquisition:: Contracts for Professional, Professional, Administrative, Administrative, and Management Support Support Service Servicess, D-2004-015 (Oct. 30, 2003). 23
Contract Advisory and Assistance Services, CAAS, are contracts where contractors
provide professional consultation and assistance to government organizations contracting for services.
Page 15
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
these contracts that did not have surveillance; as a result, we were unable to determine the overall significance of this issue. We are encouraged that the Army has now decided to require surveillance for this type of contract. However, the new acquisition instructions are not retroactive and therefore do not provide a means to require surveillance for Contract Advisory and and Assistance Services contracts contracts awarded awarded prior to April 2004 2004 and still in effect.
If surveillance is not conducted, not sufficient, or not well documented, DOD is at risk of being unable to identify and correct poor contractor performance in a timely manner. Ultimately, Ultimately, if surveillance surveillance is not being being done, DOD can be at risk of paying contractors more than the value of the services they performed. Key to sufficient surveillance are personnel
Conclusions
trained in how to conduct surveillance, assigned at or prior to contract award, held accountable for their surveillance duties, and conducting and documenting surveillance throughout the period of the contract. While DOD has taken some actions to improve management and oversight of service contracts, more can be done to ensure these practices are in place.
Recommendations for Executive Action •
• •
•
To help improve service contract surveillance and further mitigate risk, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense ensure that the proper surveillance training of personnel and their assignment to service contracts occurs no later than the date of contract award; develop practices to help ensure accountability for personnel carrying out surveillance responsibilities; responsibilities; ensure that DOD’s service s ervice contract review process and associated data collection requirements provide information that will provide more management visibility over contract surveillance; and revise the October 2004 policy on proper use of other agencies’ contracts to include guidance on conducting surveillance of services procured from other agencies’ contracts. Further, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the Army to assign surveillance personnel personnel to conduct surveillance, as appropriate, on ongoing Contract Advisory and Assistance Services contracts awarded prior to April 2004.
Page 16
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
DOD provided us with written comments on a draft of this report. DOD concurred with four of our recommendations and partially concurred with a fifth recommendation and identified actions it has taken or plans to take to address them. The comments appear in appendix IV. DOD partially concurred with our recommendation recommendation that the Secretary develop practices to help ensure accountability for personnel carrying out surveillance responsibilities. responsibilities. DOD stated that it will review the feasib feasibility ility of including a performance performance goal in a contracting contracting officer representative’s (surveillance personnel) annual performance evaluation which would address the representative’s performance of their surveillance duties. We believe DOD’s willingness to review and determine the feasibility of this issue is a step in the right direction and we believe it could lead to a process that holds surveillance surveillance personnel personnel accountable accountable for their their surveillance surveilla nce responsibilities. Whether this is done using annual performance evaluations evaluations or by other other means, we believe believe it can only only lead to more sufficient surveillance on DOD service contracts.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy; appropriate appropriate congressiona congressionall committees; committees; and other other interested parties. We will also provide copies to others on request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov .. http://www.gao.gov If you or your staff has questions concerning concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4841 or by e-mail at [email protected], or [email protected], or James Fuquay at
Page 17
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
(937) 258-7963. Key contributors to this report were R. Elizabeth DeVan, Johnetta Gatlin-Brown, Gatlin-Brown, Arthur James, James, Victoria Klepacz, John Krump, Krump, Jean Lee, Don Don Springman, Springman, and Robert Swierczek. Swierczek. Sincerely yours,
David E. Cooper, Director Acquisition and Sourcing Sourcing Management Management
Page 18
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and and Methodology
To conduct our work, we selected and reviewed 90 Department of Defense (DOD) service contracts, each with a contract action for an amount over $100,000 in fiscal year 2003, and their associated surveillance record records. s. For each contract, we reviewed surveillance actions for up to a 1-year period. Collectively, these contracts had a value of $385.7 million at the time of contract award. The majority of these contracts (59) were awarded primarily at three military military commands within the military departments: departments: (1) the Army Contracting Agency–North Region (ACA-North) at Fort Monroe, Virginia; (2) the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) at the Navy Ship Yard, Washington, D.C.; and (3) the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Each of these organizations spends significant funding for services within their respective military department. An additional 31 primarily Army, Navy and Air Force contracts contracts that were selected were awarded awarded using the General Service Administration’s schedules program; these contracts had been analyzed in a recent GAO review.1 (See app. III for a listing of the contracts we reviewed.) Our selection of contracts was not large enough to allow projection of our findings across DOD. In addition, it did not include research and development service contracts for weapon systems and construction construction contracts as the surveillance process typically differs for these types of service contracts. We met with procurement procurement management officials at the three military commands as well as senior acquisition policy officials for each of the military departments and OSD. We also contacted contracting officials or surveillance personnel personnel associated with all 90 contracts selected to discuss the surveillance on each contract. We reviewed the federal and DOD acquisition regulations and policies, as well as the instructions and regulations regulations of the military departments departments and the commands we visited, to determine their processes for assigning surveillance personnel and performing surveillance on service contracts. To assess whether DOD’s service contract management and oversight process developed developed to comply with with section 801 801 of the National National Defense Defense
1
ontract Mana gement: Guidance Ne Needed eded to Promote Promote Competition Competition for Defense Defense Task GAO, C ontract GAO-04-874 ( (Washington, Washington, D.C.: July 2004). Orders, GAO-04-874 Orders,
Page 19
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Authorization Act for Fiscal Fiscal Year 20022 addressed contract surveillance, we reviewed the implementation policies of OSD and the military departments along with their associated data collection efforts. We also discussed DOD’s efforts with senior OSD acquisition acquisition officials. We conducted our review from January 2004 to February 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
2
Public Law 107-107, Dec. 28, 2001.
Page 20
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
Appendix II: Roles of Contracting Officers and Surveillance Personnel
Appendix II: Roles of Contracting Contracting Officers and Surveillance Personnel
Contract Planning and Formulation
Contracting office
Contracting officer:
Organization buying service
Buying personnel:
Helps define contract requirements and determine methods of surveillance
Pre-Award contract activities
Ensures training for surveillance personnel
Helps define contract requirements and determine methods of sur veillance Nominates surveillance personnel for contract
Appoints surveillance personnel for contract (can also be done at contract award)
Contracting officer: Contract Award activities
Contractually binds DOD and contractor(s) Appoints surveillance personnel for contract (can also be done dur ing pre-award)
Surveillance personnel:
Contracting officer: Notified by surveillance personnel of any less than adequate contractor performance
Post-Award contract activities
Notifies contractor that performance is not satisfactory
Uses surveillance methods to conduct/document contractor performance Notifies management, contracting officer, and contractor of any less than adequate contractor performance
End of Contract
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Page 21
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
Appendix III: Contracts Reviewed
Appendix III: Contracts Reviewed Reviewed
Description of services
Award amount
Total obligations as of Nov. 24, 2004
$27,369,377
$13,425,866
Air Force AFMC 1
Management Support Services
2
ADP & Telecommunication Services
4,466,003
—
3
ADP & Telecommunication Services
1,300,000
1,300,000
4
Fueling & Other Petroleum Services
1,211,480
5,036,280
5
Administrative Support Services
768,310
—
6
Administrative Support Services
692,042
—
7
Trash/Garbage Collection Services
438,855
999,831
8
ADP & Telecommunication Services
343,481
1,336,647
9
ADP & Telecommunication Services
340,749
39,997,549
10
Custodial/Janitorial Services
294,556
1,817,702
11
Technical Assistance
283,980
—
12
Research & Development Facilities
240,869
—
13
Custodial/Janitorial Services
214,007
1,841,015
14
Architect-Engineering Services
198,009
1,179,395
15
Technical Representative Services/Aircraft
170,040
6,114,699
16
ADP Data Entry Services
154,197
—
17
Architect-Engineering Services
134,555
1,002,798
18
ADP & Telecommunication Services
133,962
202,728
19
Technical Representative Services/Aircraft
117,764
654,266
20
ADP & Telecommunication Services
111,000
27,203,283
21
ADP System Acquisition Support Services
667,554
—
22
ADP System Acquisition Support Services
376,708
—
23
Systems Engineering Services
323,308
—
24
Management Support Services
320,123
—
25
ADP & Telecommunication Services
254,298
—
26
Other ADP & Telecommunication Services
210,239
—
27
ADP & Telecommunication Services
145,468
—
28
ADP & Telecommunication Services
140,655
—
Other organizations
Page 22
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
Appendix III: Contracts Reviewed
Evidence of surveillance
Surveillance personnel assigned
Surveillance personnel trained before duty
Contract/ order a pricing type
DOD contract/ order via GSA schedules
Yes
Yes
Yes
FFP
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
T T&M &M
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
FFP
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
FFP
No
Yes
Yes
—
LH
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
LH
Yes
Yes
Yes
—
FFP
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
FFP
No
Yes
Yes
—
T&M
No
Yes
Yes
No
FFP
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
FFP
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
LH
Yes
Yes
Yes
—
FFP
No
Yes
n/a
n/a
FFP
No
Yes
n/a
n/a
FFP
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
LH
Yes
Yes
n/a
n/a
FFP
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
COST
No
Yes
n/a
n/a
FFP
No
Yes
Yes
—
T&M
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
FFP
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
FFP
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
T&M
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
FFP
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
FFP
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
FFP
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
FFP
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
FFP
Yes
Page 23
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
Appendix III: Contracts Reviewed
Description of services
Award amount
Total obligations as of Nov. 24, 2004
Army ACA-North 29
Logistics Support Services
49,402,900
50,058,493
30
Professional Services
21,717,754
—
31
Engineering Technical Services
5,406,297
10,688,167
32
Guard Services
3,637,858
38,176,593
33
Professional Services
1,746,076
—
34
Program Management/Support Services
1,107,053
64,850,669
35
Trash/Garbage Collection Services
660,735
451,142
36
Professional Services
543,651
—
37
Professional Services
297,961
—
38
Educational Services
271,690
—
39
Professional Services
253,477
—
40
Education & Training Services
175,450
63,576,850
41
Non-nuclear Ship Repair
160,720
1,769,422
42
Systems Engineering Services
159,111
28,038,198
43
ADP & Telecommunication Services
157,015
—
44
Non-nuclear Ship Repair
152,000
3,446,965
45
Conservation & Development Facilities Maintenance
144,718
—
46
Office Buildings Maintenance
129,250
1,175,090
47
Communications Services
110,463
110,463
Other organizations 48
Engineering Technical Services
6,722,044
—
49
ADP & Telecommunication Services
5,999,724
—
50
Medical Services
3,791,788
—
51
Special Studies & Analyses
1,659,302
—
52
Medical Services
1,146,743
—
53
Programming Services
349,932
—
54
Patent & Trademark Services
288,417
—
55
ADP System Acquisition Support
238,992
—
56
Engineering Technical Services
192,894
—
57
Management Support Services
187,210
—
58
ADP System Acquisition Support
123,648
—
Page 24
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
Appendix III: Contracts Reviewed
Evidence of surveillance
Surveillance personnel assigned
Surveillance personnel trained before duty
Contract/ order a pricing type
DOD contract/ order via GSA schedules
Yes
Yes
Yes
CPAF
No
No
Yes
Yes
FFP
Yes
Yes
No
n/a
CPAF
No
Yes
Yes
No
FPAF
No
No
No
n/a
FFP
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
FFP
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
FFP
No
No
No
n/a
LH
Yes
No
No
n/a
LH
Yes
No
No
n/a
FFP
Yes
No
No
n/a
FFP
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
FFP
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
FFP
No
No
No
n/a
FFP
No
No
No
n/a
FFP
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
FFP
No
No
Yes
Yes
FFP
Yes
Yes
Yes
n/a
FFP
No
Yes
Yes
No
FFP
No
No
No
n/a
FFP
Yes
Yes
No
n/a
FFP
Yes
No
Yes
—
FFP
Yes
Yes
No
n/a
T&M
Yes
Yes
Yes
—
FFP
Yes
Yes
Yes
—
T&M
Yes
No
No
n/a
FFP
Yes
No
No
n/a
FFP
Yes
No
No
n/a
FFP
Yes
No
No
n/a
FFP
Yes
No
No
n/a
FFP
Yes
Page 25
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
Appendix III: Contracts Reviewed
Description of services
Award amount
Total obligations as of Nov. 24, 2004
196,709,927
575,647,323
Navy NAVSEA 59
Modification of Equipment/Ships/Docks
60
Systems Engineering Services
5,616,591
23,609,031
61
Maintenance & Repair of Fire Control Equipment
4,791,859
75,750,011
62
Maintenance & Repair of Electrical & Electric Equipment
4,757,680
3,105,727
63
Professional Services
3,180,123
36,978,828
64
Professional Services
2,902,171
74,917,520
65
Program Management/Support Services
2,083,517
21,189,632
66 67
Equipment & Mats Testing/Fire Control Professional Services
1,425,096 990,787
36,244,138 3,523,667
68
Engineering Technical Services
980,000
68,436,790
69
Professional Services
733,450
7,252,297
70
Professional Services
470,000
6,314,877
71
Professional Services
400,340
12,605,550
72
Program Management/Support Services
329,014
27,694,233
73
Professional Services
274,510
7,146,906
74
Maintenance & Repair of Equipment
250,000
33,101,536
75
Professional Services
225,000
11,272,286
76
Professional Services
195,518
26,758,191
77
Maintenance & Repair of Ship & Marine Equipment
148,320
1,118,694
78 Other organizations
Salvage Services
136,364
38,460,222
79
ADP Software, Equipment, and Tele-Training
2,794,083
—
80
ADP Software, Equipment, and Tele-Training
2,586,967
—
81
Other ADP & Telecommunication Services
1,177,846
—
82
ADP & Telecommunication Services
841,402
—
83
ADP Facility Operations & Maintenance
830,491
—
84
ADP & Telecommunication Services
492,776
—
Page 26
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
Appendix III: Contracts Reviewed
Evidence of surveillance
Surveillance personnel assigned
Surveillance personnel trained before duty
Contract/ order a pricing type
DOD contract/ order via GSA schedules
Yes
Yes
Yes
CPFF
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
CPFF
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
CPAF
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
CPFF
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
CPFF
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
CPFF
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
CPFF
No
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
No Yes
CPAF CPFF
No No
Yes
Yes
Yes
CPFF
No
Yes
Yes
No
CPFF
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
CPFF
No
Yes
Yes
No
CPFF
No
Yes
Yes
No
CPFF
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
CPFF
No
Yes
n/a
n/a
FFP
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
CPFF
No
Yes
Yes
No
CPFF
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
CPIF
No
Yes
n/ a n/a
n/a
CPAF
No
No
Yes
Yes
LH
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
LH
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
LH
Yes
No
Yes
—
LH
Yes
Yes
No
n/a
LH
Yes
No
No
n/a
LH
Yes
Page 27
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
Appendix III: Contracts Reviewed
Description of services
Award amount
Total obligations as of Nov. 24, 2004
132,443
—
OSD & Other Defense Agencies 85
ADP Facility Operations & Maintenance
86
ADP & Telecommunication Services
1,033,000
—
87
ADP & Telecommunication Services
362,160
—
88
ADP & Telecom Services
237,024
—
89
ADP & Telecommunication Services
185,355
—
90
ADP & Telecommunication Services
156,740
—
Page 28
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
Appendix III: Contracts Reviewed
Evidence of surveillance
Surveillance personnel assigned
Surveillance personnel trained before duty
Contract/ order a pricing type
DOD contract/ order via GSA schedules
No
Yes
—
FFP
Yes
No
No
n/a
—
Yes
No
Yes
—
FFP
Yes
Yes
Yes
—
FFP
Yes
No
Yes
—
—
Yes
No
Yes
—
—
Yes
Source: GAO. a
FFP – Firm Fixed Price
T&M – Time and Materials LH – Labor Hour COST – Cost Type CPAF – Cost Plus Award Fee FPAF – Fixed Price Award Fee CPFF – Cost Plus Fixed Fee CDIF – Cost Plus Incentive Fee
Page 29
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
Appendix IV: IV: Comments from the Department of Defense Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense
Page 30
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense
Page 31
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense
(120313)
Page 32
GAO-05-274 Surveillance of DOD Service Contracts
GAO’s Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov (www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order or der should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C. 20548 To order by Phone: Voice: TDD: Fax:
(202) 512-6000 (202) 512-2537 (202) 512-6061
Contact:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected] Automated answering system: sy stem: (800) 42 424-5454 4-5454 or (202) (202 ) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington, D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
