This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-886R 
entitled 'National Transportation Safety Board: Observations on the 
Draft Business Plan for NTSB's Training Center' which was released on 
June 14, 2007. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

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. 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. 

June 14, 2007: 

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Ted Stevens: 
Vice Chairman: 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable James L. Oberstar: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable John L. Mica: 
Ranking Republican Member: 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: 
House of Representatives: 

Subject: National Transportation Safety Board: Observations on the 
Draft Business Plan for NTSB's Training Center: 

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) opened a training 
center in 2003 to train its investigators and others from the 
transportation community on accident investigation techniques. As we 
reported last year,[Footnote 1] NTSB's training center is not cost- 
effective, as its revenues, when combined with the external training 
costs NTSB staff avoid by using the center, do not cover its costs. In 
fact, in fiscal year 2006, costs exceeded revenues by $2.7 million. We 
concluded that potential strategies to increase revenues or decrease 
costs could increase the cost-effectiveness of the training center; 
however, vacating the space may be the strategy that reduces costs the 
most. As a result, we recommended that NTSB (1) develop a business plan 
to increase the utilization of its training center or vacate it and (2) 
submit the plan to Congress. On December 21, 2006, Congress passed 
Public Law 109-443, requiring NTSB to prepare a utilization plan for 
the training center that would, among other things, consider other 
revenue-generating measures, such as subleasing the training center to 
another entity; include a detailed financial statement covering current 
training center expenses and revenues and an analysis of the projected 
expenses and revenues; and submit the plan to us for review and comment 
within 90 days of passage of the act. 

NTSB prepared a draft business plan for the training center and 
provided the draft to us on March 28, 2007. We are mandated to review 
and comment on the draft plan so that NTSB can submit a final plan to 
Congress within 180 days of the enactment of Public Law 109-443. The 
draft plan provides an overall strategy to outsource to a vendor (1) 
the management and operations of the training center and (2) 
development of new courses. The vendor would be responsible for 
managing the facility and courses, and renting out unused space under a 
revenue-sharing arrangement with NTSB.[Footnote 2] The plan projects 
yearly increases in the percentage of operating expenses (excluding 
rental costs) covered by revenue, with 100 percent coverage by the end 
of fiscal year 2010. The plan relies on marketing and financial data 
and assumptions to realize this objective. To fulfill this plan, NTSB 
solicited vendors through a request for proposal issued on April 18, 
2007. NTSB expects to award the contract in August 2007 and the vendor 
to be operating at the training center within 30 days of the award of 
the contract. 

In reviewing and commenting on the draft business plan, we are 
addressing the following questions: (1) To what extent are relevant 
marketing and financial data and assumptions included in the plan? (2) 
Based on the available information, is the plan likely to achieve its 
objective of self-sufficient operation of the training center by the 
end of fiscal year 2010? In addition, we assessed how the business plan 
could be improved and provide a list of suggested improvements in 
appendix II of enclosure I. To address these questions, we assessed 
NTSB's draft business plan and request for proposal using the opinions 
of internal GAO experts on financial management, contracting, training, 
and legal issues and two external experts on business plans and 
marketing. We also identified GAO reports and other literature for 
leading practices relevant to business plans and interviewed NTSB 
officials for further clarification and documentation of information 
contained in the plan and request for proposal. (See app. I of 
enclosure I for additional information on our methods.) We conducted 
our work from April 2007 through June 2007 in accordance with generally 
accepted government auditing standards. 

On June 5, 2007, we provided information to NTSB on the results of this 
work. This report summarizes the information provided and officially 
transmits the slides used to provide the information to NTSB. 

Summary: 

The business plan provides little rationale for its relevant marketing 
and financial data and assumptions. For example, the business plan 
includes certain marketing information but expects the market analysis 
and data to be provided by the vendor. In addition, the business plan 
presents some historical and projected financial data and calls for a 
revenue-sharing strategy with a vendor for the length of the contract 
but lacks explanations of important assumptions, such as a 10 percent 
growth in revenues. The plan also does not provide significant 
information about historical or projected revenues and expenses of the 
training center, such as whether (1) expenses are presented as full 
cost, (2) salaries and benefits of NTSB staff used for teaching or 
developing courses are included in expenses, and (3) revenue includes 
an amount representing fees that NTSB staff attending the training 
center would pay if they were charged. 

The business plan lacks sufficient data or analysis to determine 
whether it is likely to achieve its goal of recovering 100 percent of 
the training center's operating expenses by the end of fiscal year 
2010. In addition, the time frame for receiving proposals from 
interested vendors has already been extended once, indicating that the 
ambitious time frames contained in the plan are questionable. 
Furthermore, even if the business plan achieves its goal of self- 
sufficient operations by the end of fiscal year 2010, substantial 
expenses, amounting to over $2 million each year, will have to be 
covered by annual appropriations because the plan's definition of self- 
sufficiency excludes lease payments from expenses. 

We conclude that the overall strategy presented in the business plan-- 
to hire a vendor to operate the training center--is reasonable. 
However, the plan provided too little rationale for its marketing and 
financial assumptions for us to assess the viability of this strategy. 
Since the success of the plan relies on marketing and financial 
analyses that will be developed by the potential vendor, it will be 
important for NTSB to have staff in-house who are capable of assessing 
the reasonableness of that information or to hire outside expertise to 
do so. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided copies of a draft of this report to NTSB for their review 
and comment. The agency provided written comments (see enclosure II). 
NTSB agreed with our suggestions for improving the plan. In addition, 
the agency provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated 
into the report as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman of the National 
Transportation Safety Board and other interested parties. In addition, 
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 
http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. Major contributors to this report were 
Teresa Spisak, Maren McAvoy, Sharon Dyer, David Hooper, and John 
Warner. 

Signed by: 

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

Enclosures: 

[End of section] 

Enclosure I: Information Provided to the National Transportation Safety 
Board: 

Observations on the Draft Business Plan for the National Transportation 
Safety Board's Training Center: 

Information Provided to the National Transportation Safety Board: 

June 5, 2007: 

Overview: 

Background: 

Objective, Research Questions, and Methods: 
Marketing and Financial Data and Assumptions: 
Likelihood of Financial Self-Sufficiency: 
Concluding Observations: 
Appendix 1 - Methods: 
Appendix 2 - Suggestions for Improving the Business Plan: 

Background: 

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) opened a training 
center in 2003 to train its investigators and others from the 
transportation community on accident investigation techniques. 

In November 2006, we reported that training center revenues combined 
with external training costs NTSB staff avoid by using the facility do 
not cover the center's costs.[Footnote 3]  

Congress passed Public Law 109-443 on December 21, 2006, requiring NTSB 
to prepare a utilization plan for the training center that would, among 
other things, consider other revenue-generating measures, such as 
subleasing the training center to another entity; include a detailed 
financial statement covering current training center expenses and 
revenues and an analysis of projected expenses and revenues; and submit 
the plan to us for review and comment within 90 days of the passage of 
the act. 

In response, NTSB prepared a business plan for the training center and 
provided the plan to GAO on March 28, 2007. GAO is mandated to review 
and comment on a draft of the plan so that NTSB can submit a final plan 
to Congress within 180 days of the enactment of Public Law 109-443. 

Overview of Business Plan: 

The business plan provides an overall strategy of outsourcing to a 
vendor the (1) management and operational activities of the training 
center and (2) development of new courses. The facility management and 
subleasing and course management are under a revenue sharing 
arrangement, while course development will be a fee-for-services 
arrangement. 

The plan projects yearly increases in the percentage of operating 
expenses (excluding rental costs) covered by revenue, with 100 percent 
coverage by the end of fiscal year 2010. The business plan relies on 
marketing and financial data and assumptions to forecast the 
realization of this objective. 

Vendors were solicited through a request for proposal issued on April 
18, 2007. NTSB expects to award the contract in August 2007 and the 
vendor to become operational at the training center within 30 days of 
the award of the contract. 

Objective, Research Questions, and Methods: 

Objective: 

To review and comment on the quality and viability of NTSB's draft 
business plan for the training center. 

Research Questions: 

1. To what extent are relevant marketing and financial data and 
assumptions included in the plan? 

2. Based on the available information, is the plan likely to achieve 
its objective of self-sufficient operation of the training center by 
the end of fiscal year 2010? 

In addition, we assessed how the business plan could be improved and 
provide a list of suggested improvements in appendix II. 

Methods: 

We assessed NTSB's draft business plan and request for proposal using 
the opinions of GAO experts on financial management, contracting, 
training, and legal issues and two external experts on business plans 
and marketing. 

We also identified GAO reports and other literature for leading 
practices relevant to business plans and interviewed NTSB officials for 
further clarification and documentation of information contained in the 
plan and proposal. 

See appendix I for more information on our methods. 

1. To what extent are relevant marketing and financial data and 
assumptions included in the plan? 

The business plan includes certain marketing information, but NTSB told 
us it expects the market analysis and data to be provided by the 
vendor. 

The business plan identifies groups of potential customers (e.g., NTSB 
staff, active duty military, other federal agency employees, and the 
emergency response community). 

However, the portions of these groups that are potential customers are 
not justified. For example, the plan assumes 1 percent of active duty 
military are potential customers but does not explain the rationale for 
that percentage, such as the number of active duty military who are 
involved in accident investigation. 

In addition, the plan does not explain the portion of potential 
customers that the training center needs to capture to achieve the 
revenue projection. 

The business plan assumes a 10 percent growth in enrollment but lacks 
an explanation or justification to support that assumption. Moreover, 
our analysis of historical enrollment information indicates that 
enrollment dropped 24 percent from 2005 to 2006. 

The business plan lists marketing approaches, such as the use of 
mailing lists and exhibitions at conferences and trade shows, but lacks 
a strategy based on identification of the target market and other 
marketing approaches. 

The business plan describes four relevant institutions that offer 
either a partially or fully competing service, but the plan lacks a 
competitive analysis that discusses how the training center will 
compete with these institutions. 

The business plan identifies the training center's competitive 
advantage as its ability to use NTSB investigators as instructors but 
indicates their use will be limited, consistent with congressional 
concerns. Since contractors rather than NTSB investigators would be the 
primary instructors, the training center loses its competitive 
advantage, which could impact revenues. 

The business plan presents some historical and projected financial data 
but lacks explanations of important assumptions. 

The plan does not provide significant information about historical or 
projected revenues and expenses of the training center, such as whether 
(1) expenses are presented as full cost, (2) salaries and benefits of 
NTSB staff used for teaching or developing courses are included in 
expenses, and (3) revenue includes an amount representing fees that 
NTSB staff attending the training center would pay if they were 
charged. 

The plan assumes a 10 percent annual increase in projected revenues 
based on historical revenues. However, from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal 
year 2006, earned revenues increased only 3 percent, according to our 
analysis of information presented in the plan. 

The business plan calls for a revenue-sharing strategy with a vendor 
for the length of the contract. 

The plan lacks details on the percentage split for revenue sharing, 
leaving that to be presented by potential vendors in their proposals. 
This is a reasonable omission from the plan. 

2. Based on the available information, is the plan likely to achieve 
its objective of self-sufficient operation of the training center by 
the end of fiscal year 2010? 

The plan lacks sufficient data or analysis to determine whether it is 
likely to achieve its goal of recovering 100 percent of the training 
center's operating expenses (excluding rental costs) by the end of 
fiscal year 2010. In certain cases, the limited information provided 
suggests the plan will not be successful. 

* Projected revenues in the plan may be overestimated due to the use of 
a 10 percent growth rate while past growth has been much lower. 

* Without a more in-depth and verifiable market analysis, the 
reasonableness of the projected expenses cannot be determined. 

Because the plan's definition of self-sufficiency excludes lease 
payments, about two-thirds of training center expenses are not 
projected to be covered by revenues. 

While Public Law 109-443 calls for NTSB to develop a plan to achieve, 
to the maximum extent feasible, "the self-sufficient operation" of the 
training center, it does not define "self-sufficient." 

The mandate does not state whether achieving a "self-sufficient 
operation" would include making lease payments for the training center 
from training center revenues. 

The business plan defines self-sufficiency as covering 100 percent of 
the training center's operating expenses with training center revenues 
by the end of the third full year of the vendor contract. The plan 
excludes lease payments (i.e., space rental) from expenses. 

As a result, an average deficit of $2,500,000 per year is not covered 
by the business plan, as shown on the next slide. 

Statement of Estimated Revenues and Expenses, FYs 2007-2010: 

Gross costs: Salary and Benefits; 
Period ending Sept. 30, 2007 Estimate: $597,849; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2008 Estimate: $615,784; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2009 Estimate: $634,258; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2010 Estimate: $653,286. 

Other non-Space Rental. 

Gross costs: Operating expenses; 
Period ending Sept. 30, 2007 Estimate: $466,000; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2008 Estimate: $479,980; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2009 Estimate: $494,380; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2010 Estimate: $509,211. 

Gross costs: Facility Enhancements; 
Period ending Sept. 30, 2007 Estimate: $200,000; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2008 Estimate: $150,000; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2009 Estimate: $100,000; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2010 Estimate: $100,000. 

Gross costs: Subtotal Operating Expenses; 
Period ending Sept. 30, 2007 Estimate: $1,263,849; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2008 Estimate: $1,245,764; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2009 Estimate: $1,228,638; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2010 Estimate: $1,262,497. 

Gross costs: Space Rental (Not covered by current calculations); 
Period ending Sept. 30, 2007 Estimate: $2,288,073; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2008 Estimate: $2,356,715; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2009 Estimate: $2,427,416; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2010 Estimate: $2,500,239. 

Gross costs: Total Gross Costs; 
Period ending Sept. 30, 2007 Estimate: $3,551,922; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2008 Estimate: $3,602,480; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2009 Estimate: $3,656,054; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2010 Estimate: $3,762,736. 

Less: Earned revenue; 
Period ending Sept. 30, 2007 Estimate: ($952,145); 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2008 Estimate: ($1,047,360); 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2009 Estimate: ($1,152,095); 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2010 Estimate: ($1,267,305). 

Less: Earned revenue: Deficit/(Surplus); 
Period ending Sept. 30, 2007 Estimate: $2,599,777; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2008 Estimate: $2,555,119; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2009 Estimate: $2,503,959; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2010 Estimate: $2,495,431. 

Percent of Operating Expenses Covered by Revenue; 
Period ending Sept. 30, 2007 Estimate: 75%; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2008 Estimate: 84%; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2009 Estimate: 94%; 
Period Ending Sept. 30, 2010 Estimate: 100%. 

Source: NTSB. 

[End of table] 

The time frames of the plan may not be reasonable. 

The plan calls for the recovery of operating expenses by the end of 
fiscal year 2010, with the vendor's first full fiscal year to provide 
services beginning in fiscal year 2008. This is an extremely ambitious 
undertaking. 

NTSB has already extended once the time frame for receiving proposals 
from interested vendors. This, along with our experts' opinion, shows 
that the current success-oriented, aggressive time frame for hiring the 
vendor and completing the transition of the training center's facility 
operations and training is questionable. 

Concluding Observations: 

The overall strategy presented in the business plan-to hire a vendor to 
operate the training center-is reasonable and responsive to 
congressional concerns that NTSB limit the levels of investigative 
resources used to support the training center. Nonetheless, the plan 
does not reflect consideration of subleasing the entire facility to 
another entity as required by Public Law 109-443. An explanation of 
NTSB's decision not to address this option would enhance the rationale 
for using a vendor. 

While the success of the business plan depends on the vendor's 
performance, the plan provides insufficient rationale for marketing and 
financial information to assess the viability of this strategy. 

Since the success of the business plan relies on the marketing and 
financial analyses to be developed by the potential vendor, it will be 
important for NTSB to have in-house the ability to assess the 
reasonableness of that information or to hire outside expertise to do 
so, if necessary. 

Even if the business plan achieves its goal of self-sufficient 
operations by the end of fiscal year 2010, substantial expenses with 
regard to the training center's lease payments amounting to about $2.5 
million dollars each year will have to be covered by annual 
appropriations. 

The quality and viability of the plan could be improved by including 
more detailed marketing and financial information, and the logic and 
clarity of the plan could be improved by reorganizing the information 
presented. 

Appendix I - Methods: 

To analyze the extent to which relevant marketing and financial data 
and assumptions were included in NTSB's draft business plan, we 
assessed the plan and request for proposal using the opinions of GAO 
experts on financial management, contracting, raining, and legal issues 
and two external experts on business plans and marketing. We also 
assessed the business plan according to the requirements of Public Law 
109-443. In addition, we identified GAO reports and other literature 
for leading practices relevant to business plans and interviewed NTSB 
officials for further clarification and documentation of information 
contained in the plan and proposal. 

To determine the extent to which the plan is likely to achieve its 
objective of the self-sufficient operation of the training center based 
on the available information, we consulted with GAO financial experts 
and our external experts to review the underlying assumptions upon 
which the financial projections were based. We reviewed NTSB's 
financial statements to determine whether the results of projected 
revenues and expenses were realistic. We also interviewed NTSB 
officials. 

To analyze what could improve the business plan, we consulted with GAO 
and our external experts to suggest improvements to the marketing and 
financial data and assumptions. The experts also assisted in 
identifying organizational changes to improve overall presentation of 
the business plan to enhance logic and clarity. 

We conducted our review from April 2007 to June 2007 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Appendix II - Suggestions for Improving the Business Plan: 

1. Consider revising the marketing information to include: 

An overview and goals of the marketing strategy and a plan for 
assessing marketing effectiveness. 

Disclosure of the basis for all market assumptions, such as the current 
plan's assumption that 1 percent of active duty military are potential 
customers. 

Justification to support any projected growth in enrollment. 

A specific strategy for gaining market share through approaches such as 
the use of mailing lists and exhibitions at conferences and trade 
shows. 

A competitive analysis that explains how the training center will 
compete with the four institutions identified as offering similar 
courses. 

2. Consider revising the financial information to include: 

Detailed statements of net costs, balance sheets, and cash flow 
statements for 3 historical and 5 forecast years, and a break-even 
analysis using a daily tuition rate assumption (operation and rent 
excluded in this case). 

Categories of costs that are material-i.e., more than 5 percent of 
total cost-for any period shown separately for all periods. 

Discussion of primary causes for changes in annual training center 
revenues and expenses since 2004, actual and forecast. 

Identification of whether the financial information is presented on an 
accrual basis or a cash basis and consistent presentation throughout 
the plan. 

Annual revenues shown by type (e.g., break out revenues by rental 
space, course revenue, and continuity of operations plans). 

Explanation of whether costs to vacate NTSB's headquarters' space or 
regional office space at the training center are included or credited 
overall. 

Discussion of how price elasticity supports any expected annual growth 
in revenue. 

The percentage of revenue sharing once a vendor has been selected. 

Disclosure of whether financial information is full cost or description 
of items precluding full cost presentation. 

Disclosure of whether salaries and benefits of NTSB staff used for 
teaching or developing courses are included in costs. 

Details of significant financial data for historical or projected 
revenues and expenses of the training center, such as whether (1) 
expenses are presented as full cost, (2) salaries and benefits of NTSB 
staff used for teaching or developing courses are included in expenses, 
and (3) revenue includes an amount representing fees that NTSB staff 
attending the training center would pay if they were charged. 

Assumptions used in preparing the forecast, such as imputed revenue for 
NTSB staff attendance at the training center and the projected revenue 
increase of 10 percent. 

Analysis of the level of attendance required to achieve the projected 
course revenue each year. 

Details on curriculum offerings, enrollments, revenues, and expenses 
needed to meet the revenue-sharing goal. 

3. Consider reorganizing the overall presentation of the business plan 
to improve logic and clarity. 

Plan currently contains the following sections: 

Executive Summary, Background, Business Plan Concept of Operations, 
Justification for Contracting Out Operational Support of the Training 
Center, Benefits, Acquisition Program Concepts and Implementation, Risk 
Mitigation, Reporting Requirements, Appendixes: 

Consider revising sections to include the following: 

Executive Summary, Organizational Plan, Transition and Management, 
Marketing Plan, Notional Schedule (Timeline), Reporting Requirements, 
Financial Documents, Supporting Documents: 

4. In the revised sections, consider including this additional 
information: 

Organizational Plan section: An analysis of strengths, weaknesses, 
opportunities, and threats to clarify why the training center needs to 
be more effectively utilized and more cost-effective. 

Transition and Management section: Detail the transition, how it will 
be managed, how the new model will result in the desired outcome, and 
why an outside vendor would be in a better situation to run the 
facility profitably. 

Notional Schedule section: Explain revised dates such as extending the 
deadline for the receipt of proposals from May 18, 2007, to June 4, 
2007. 

Supporting Documents section: A copy of the proposed contract that 
would be negotiated with the selected vendor, NTSB's lease with George 
Washington University for the training center, and research documents. 

[End of section] 

Enclosure II: Comments from the National Transportation Safety Board: 

National Transportation Safety Board: 
Washington, D.C. 20594: 
Office of the Managing Director: 

June 8, 2007: 

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph. D. 
Director, Civil Aviation Issues: 
Physical Infrastructure: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W., Room 2T23B: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Dr. Dillingham: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft report entitled 
National Transportation Safety Board: Observations on NTSB's Draft 
Business Plan for its Training Center. We agree with your suggestions 
for improving our business plan and we will work quickly to adjust the 
document accordingly. 

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has worked diligently 
to address Congressional concerns expressed about the Training Center, 
and our business plan details our continuing efforts in that regard. We 
are pleased that you recognized and agreed that our overall strategy of 
competitively awarding a contract to operate the training center is 
reasonable and responsive. As you know, our desired outcome is for a 
vendor to offset operating costs by increasing revenue through the 
collection of fees from rentals of the facility. 

Thank you again for providing the NTSB with the opportunity to comment 
on your draft report. Your comments and thoughtful recommendations are 
important to us and will be invaluable as we finalize our business 
plan. I am pleased that, once again, our agencies have worked together 
constructively in the spirit of good government. If you have any 
questions, please feel free to contact me on (202) 314-6068. 

Sincerely, 

Signed for: 

Joseph G. Osterman: 
Managing Director: 

[End of section] 

(540152): 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] GAO, National Transportation Safety Board: Progress Made, Yet 
Management Practices, Investigation Priorities, and Training Center Use 
Should Be Improved, GAO-07-118 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2006). 

[2] The vendor would be paid for course development under a fee-for- 
services arrangement. 

[3] GAO, National Transportation Safety Board. Progress Made, Yet 
Management Practices, Investigation Priorities, and Training Center Use 
Should Be Improved, GAO-07-118 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2006).