This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-14-427R, entitled 'Defense Contracting: DOD's Use of Class Justifications for Sole-Source Contracts' which was released on April 16, 2014. 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. GAO-13-427R: United States Government Accountability Office: GAO: 441 G St. N.W. Washington, DC 20548: April 16, 2014: The Honorable Claire McCaskill: Chairman: Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: United States Senate: Defense Contracting: DOD's Use of Class Justifications for Sole-Source Contracts: Dear Madam Chairman: Awarding contracts through full and open competition is key to ensuring that the federal government efficiently acquires goods and services to best meet its needs. However there are certain circumstances when competition may not be practical. In fiscal year 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) awarded contracts for about $308 billion for products and services, of which 43 percent was awarded without competition. In addition, DOD accounted for over 80 percent of government-wide obligations that used noncompetitive contracts. According to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), noncompetitive contracts must generally be supported by written justifications that address the specific exception to full and open competition that is being applied to the procurement.[Footnote 1] Justifications may cover an individual contract or multiple contract actions under a single "class justification," which generally include a dollar limit and time period for all actions taken under the authority. Additionally, justifications must be approved at various levels within the organization based on the estimated dollar value of the contract or contracts, but there are no separate requirements for either the justification or approval of class justifications. You asked us to review issues related to the use of class justifications. This report covers for identified DOD class justifications, (1) products and services included, (2) the rationale cited, and (3) efforts to obtain competition. You also asked us to review the use of "bridge contracts," which are awarded to avoid gaps between the end of one contract and the follow-on award. We are beginning work on that effort. We selected DOD for this review because it accounted for the highest percentage of noncompetitive obligations across all federal agencies in fiscal year 2012. We included four DOD components: Army, Air Force, Navy, and Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)--which account for about 92 percent of DOD's non-competitive awards. The universe of contracts justified and approved on a class basis is unknown because the information is not tracked in the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation--the government's procurement database. To identify the facts and circumstances around noncompetitive contracts awarded by DOD under class justifications, we identified a nonprojectable sample of 65 class justifications from fiscal years 2009 through 2013. Beginning in 2009, the FAR generally has required federal agencies to publish their justifications on the Federal Business Opportunity website-- federal agencies' primary tool for soliciting potential offers--which we used as a source for identifying these class justifications. [Footnote 2] See the enclosure for a summary of the class justifications in our sample. We identified about half from prior and current GAO work that reviewed various aspects of DOD noncompetitive contracting, and the remainder by searching the Federal Business Opportunities website. We reviewed and summarized the information within each class justification, such as the description of the products or services covered; the estimated dollar value and time period covered; the cited exception to competition; efforts to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as is practicable; and the actions, if any, taken or planned to increase future competition. We did not independently verify the information contained in the justification documents. We reviewed the FAR and DOD policy to determine requirements, if any, related to class justifications. We also interviewed DOD and component officials to obtain their perspective on the use of class justifications. We conducted our work from August 2013 to April 2014 in accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions in this product. Results in Brief: The DOD class justifications included in our sample were used primarily for the acquisition of weapon systems or related subsystems and components. About 77 percent (50 of 65) covered specific weapon system development, production, sustainment, or modernization efforts; about 14 percent (9 of 65) covered logistics support of multiple weapon systems or training systems, and the remaining 9 percent (6 of 65) covered other requirements. Because weapon systems are typically used for many years, DOD officials told us class justifications provided an administrative efficiency by allowing one justification for multiple contracts that would essentially require the same justification. Most of the class justifications in our sample had a total value of over $85.5 million and required approval at the highest level--the senior procurement executive of the DOD component. About 90 percent (59 of 65) of the class justifications in our sample cited only one responsible source as the exception to competition, generally because the contractor's ownership of proprietary technical data or expertise prevented the ability to compete the contract.[Footnote 3] The class justifications we reviewed generally cited the publication of notices of proposed contract actions on the Federal Business Opportunities website or market research to identify other qualified sources, neither of which identified other contractors that could meet the requirements. About 17 percent (11 of 63) of the class justifications identified plans to compete future requirements. [Footnote 4] For example, three cited plans to acquire technical data to enable future competition and two cited efforts to break out some portion of the requirement for competition. Background: The FAR generally requires that contracting officers provide for full and open competition in soliciting proposals and awarding government contracts.[Footnote 5] However, the FAR recognizes the statutory authorities that permit contracting without full and open competition under certain conditions. For example, exceptions to full and open competition are permitted where there is only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements; an unusual and compelling urgency; or in the interest of national security.[Footnote 6] Generally, noncompetitive contracts must be supported by a written justification with sufficient information to justify the use of the specific exception to full and open competition, including: * the supplies or services required and estimated dollar value; * a demonstration that the proposed contractor's unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition require use of the exception cited; * efforts made to solicit offers from as many potential sources as is practicable; and: * the actions, if any, the agency may take to overcome barriers to competition for any subsequent acquisitions.[Footnote 7] The justifications can generally be made on an individual or class basis. We found class justifications covered contract actions for the same or related supplies or services or other contract actions that require essentially identical justification. Class justifications generally include a dollar limit and specified time period for the contract actions taken under the authority of the justification. Justifications must be approved by agency officials, with the approval level based on dollar value of the proposed contracts. For class justifications, the approval level is determined by the estimated total value of the class. The approval levels range from the contracting officer for proposed contracts not exceeding $650,000 up to the agency senior procurement executive for contracts over $85.5 million.[Footnote 8] Neither the FAR or DOD policy specify separate requirements for the justifications or approvals of class justifications--they are justified and approved using the same process and dollar thresholds as individual justifications considering the estimated total value of the class.[Footnote 9] DOD Class Justifications Are Used Primarily for the Acquisition of Weapon Systems and Related Components: The DOD class justifications in our non-projectable sample of 65 class justifications from fiscal years 2009 through 2013 were primarily weapon systems related. As shown in figure 1, 77 percent (50 of 65) of the class justifications in our sample were for the acquisition of specific weapon systems or related subsystems and components. Figure 1: Percentage of Identified Fiscal Year 2009 through 2013 DOD Class Justifications by Type of Product or Service Covered: [Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] Weapon systems/subsystems/components: 77%; Logistics support/training system: 14%; Other: 9%. Source: GAO analysis of a sample of 65 DOD class justifications from fiscal years 2009–2013. [End of figure] For these weapon system related justifications, the contracts covered were generally for production, sustainment, or modernization efforts. About 14 percent (9 of 65) covered logistics support or supplies for multiple weapon systems or training systems. The remaining 9 percent (6 of 65) of class justifications covered counternarcotics and terrorism programs, information technology, utilities, and disaster relief. Although some of the weapon system-related class justifications covered development contracts, most covered production quantities and related support, such as test equipment and initial spare and repair parts; supplies, equipment, and support services; and upgrades or modernization. For example, the class justification for the Army's Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System included production of various rockets, rocket pods, special tooling, test equipment, and quality assurance testing. The Navy's Trident II missile MK6 Guidance System life extension program class justification covered various engineering support, test, repair, and maintenance and design, and production activities. According to DOD acquisition officials, class justifications are primarily used for sole-source weapon systems contracts because these systems are typically used for decades, and DOD is often reliant on the original manufacturer for production and support. For these noncompetitive acquisitions, DOD officials told us class justifications provide an administrative efficiency by allowing one justification for multiple contracts that would essentially require the same justification. About 14 percent (9 of 65) of the class justifications covered logistics support--spare and repair parts and support services that covered multiple systems--or training systems. For example, the class justification for the Air Force's Aging Aircraft Fleet program covered specialized engineering services in support of developing and transitioning emerging technologies and methodologies for various aging aircraft, including studies, investigations, and analysis. In another case, the Army's Logistics, Maintenance and Supply Support Program class justification covered various contracts to provide mission-critical support for logistics, maintenance, and supply functions and associated technologies to numerous DOD entities. The remaining 9 percent (6 of 65) of class justifications in our sample covered counter-narcotics and terrorism programs, information technology, utilities, and disaster relief. Examples of the programs and related products and services acquired under these class justifications included: * The Army's Counter Narco-Terrorism Program covered technology development and application, training, operations, and logistics support. * The Air Force's Local Area Network Standard Architecture Program acquired hardware, software, maintenance, and associated equipment in support of the Air Force Institute of Technology's Local Area Network. * The Air Force's Wastewater Treatment Reconfiguration and Services program covered recurring wastewater treatment services. * The Defense Logistics Agency disaster relief for Hurricane Sandy covered emergency relief (food, water, heat, housing, generators); transportation and electricity restoration; and wreckage removal. The estimated dollar value of contracts covered by the class justifications in our sample ranged from under $1 million to $19 billion. Of the 55 class justifications in our sample with an identifiable estimated dollar value, about 71 percent (39 out of 55) were over $85.5 million, requiring approval at the highest level--the senior procurement executive of the DOD component--and about one-third (16 out of 55) were over $1 billion.[Footnote 10] About 70 percent (45 of 65) of the time periods covered under the class justifications we reviewed were 5 years or less. For weapon system-related class justifications, the average time period was slightly less than 5 years. The longest time period covered in our sample was 12 years--a Defense Logistics Agency class justification covering sole source parts used on multiple weapon systems. Most DOD Class Justifications Cite Only One Responsible Source: Over 90 percent (59 of 65) of the class justifications in our sample cited "only one responsible source" as the exception to competition. As noted in DOD's annual competition report, much of the noncompetitive contracts are for weapon systems and specialized equipment that may have been originally competed, but now require sole- source contracts because the programs have moved past the stage in their program lifecycle where competition is economically viable. [Footnote 11] The class justifications we reviewed that use the "only one responsible source" exception generally cited the contractor's ownership of proprietary technical data or expertise that prevented the ability to compete the requirements. We found in previous work that a long-standing factor affecting DOD's competition rate is the reliance on an original equipment manufacturer throughout the life cycle of a program because of a previous decision not to purchase proprietary technical data. Without technical data, any new potential contractor would not possess or have access to the information necessary to meet the government's requirements.[Footnote 12] DOD has recognized the lack of ownership of technical data as a challenge and is taking steps to address this through its Better Buying Power initiative, which outlined a series of actions to promote competition including outlining an approach for the acquisition of technical data rights.[Footnote 13] DOD policy now provides that the acquisition strategy will address how program management will create and sustain a competitive environment, from program inception through sustainment, including considering acquiring complete technical data packages.[Footnote 14] Other exceptions to competition in our sample of class justifications include "unusual and compelling urgency" for natural disaster recovery and urgent warfighter needs; "industrial mobilization" for research and development centers: and "national security" for classified and sensitive programs.[Footnote 15] DOD Contracting Officials Publicized Contract Actions, but Few Class Justifications Identified Plans for Future Competition: The class justifications we reviewed generally cited the publication of notices of proposed contract actions on the Federal Business Opportunities website.[Footnote 16] The primary purposes of these notices are to improve small business access to acquisition information and enhance competition by identifying contracting and subcontracting opportunities. However, according to the information in the justification documents, either no other contractors responded to the notices or contractors who did respond were determined to be unable to meet the stated requirements. In addition, some class justifications cited various market research efforts to identify additional contractors but did not identify any additional contractors that were capable of meeting the requirement. About 17 percent (11 of 63) of the class justifications in our sample identified plans to compete all or part of future requirements. Three class justifications in our sample cited plans to acquire technical data in order to compete some future requirements. For example, the class justification for the Navy's T-45 Aircraft Training System cited plans to procure data rights to enable competition for future service life extension programs. Two cited breaking out some portion of the acquisition for competition, and one cited a certification program to qualify additional sources. Four of the justifications citing future competitive efforts were for bridge contracts where a delay in the competitive award of the follow-on contracts required non-competitive extensions to existing contracts. About 83 percent (52 of 63) of the class justifications we reviewed did not indicate any specific plans to compete future requirements. In some cases, this was because the acquisitions covered in the class justification completed the requirements of the program and no additional acquisitions were planned. In other cases, future competition was cited as not feasible because the incumbent was the only source available to meet the requirement. For about one-third of the class justifications in our sample, future competition was uncertain. In most cases, the agency was evaluating competition opportunities and cited continued plans to conduct market research and monitor markets for potential additional sources. In other cases, future competition was uncertain because follow-on requirements were undetermined. Agency Comments: We provided a draft of this product to DOD for comment and DOD responded it had no comments on the report. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense as well as interested congressional committees. The report also is available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4841 or martinb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. In addition to the contact named above, LaTonya Miller, Assistant Director; Helena Brink; Julia Kennon; Bradley Terry; and Marie Ahearn, made key contributions to this report. Sincerely yours, Signed by: Belva M. Martin: Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management: [End of section] Enclosure: Summary of Class Justifications: Table 1 below provides a summary of the class justifications we reviewed including the Military Department approving the justification; the program name or requirements covered; the total estimated dollar value of contracts covered, the FAR exception to competition cited, and the category of products or services covered. For 10 of the 65 class justifications, we could not identify the estimated dollar value. For 9, the value was either redacted or was not identifiable because the value was referenced to another document we were not able to identify and one was a no-cost modification. Table 1: Summary of Class Justifications in Our Sample: Dollars in millions. Military Department:Air Force; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle; Dollar Value: $19,000; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Air Force; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (STARS) System Improvement Program II modernization; Dollar Value: $929; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Air Force; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Raptor Enhancement, Development, and Integration; Dollar Value: Redacted; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Air Force; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile; Dollar Value: $4,400; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Air Force; Program Name/Requirements Covered: C-17 Globemaster III Aircraft (Fiscal Year 2009 Overseas Contingency Operations aircraft); Dollar Value: Redacted; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Air Force; Program Name/Requirements Covered: C-17 Globemaster III Aircraft (Fiscal Year 2008 Supplemental Appropriations Act aircraft); Dollar Value: Redacted; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Air Force; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Predator/Reaper; Dollar Value: $7,400; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Air Force; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Embedded Global Positioning System /Inertial Navigation System; Dollar Value: $613; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Air Force; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod Post- Production Support; Dollar Value: $842; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Air Force; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures; Dollar Value: $3,200; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Air Force; Program Name/Requirements Covered: F-16 Mode 5 Advanced Identification Friend/Foe; Dollar Value: $201; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Air Force; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Big Safari - aircraft, avionics, specialized mission equipment; Dollar Value: $15,200; FAR Exception: National Security; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Air Force; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Hard Target Void Sensing Fuze; Dollar Value: $250; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Air Force; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Laser Target Imaging Program; Dollar Value: $39; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Air Force; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Counter Communications System; Dollar Value: $3; FAR Exception: Unusual and Compelling Urgency; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Air Force; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Blue Devil Block II; Dollar Value: $4; FAR Exception: Unusual and Compelling Urgency; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Army; Program Name/Requirements Covered: H-60 Helicopters; Dollar Value: Redacted; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Army; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System; Dollar Value: $2,400; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Army; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Husky Mounted Detection Systems; Dollar Value: $579; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: EA-18G Aircraft; Dollar Value: $869; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Trident II missile MK6 Guidance System life extension; Dollar Value: $626; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Harpoon/Slam-ER AII-Up-Round missiles; Dollar Value: $78; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Trident II SSBN Fire Control System and US SSGN Attack Weapon Control System; Dollar Value: $49; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Trident II missile; Dollar Value: $213; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: F/A-18 and EA-18G Aircraft; Dollar Value: $467; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Littoral Combat Ships; Dollar Value: $12,600; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Joint Strike Fighter; Dollar Value: $1,300; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: AN/SPS-67 Radar; Dollar Value: $0.43; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: T-AO Class Vessels; Dollar Value: $5; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: OHIO class submarine replacement; Dollar Value: $2,900; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Trident I and II missile subsystems; Dollar Value: $1,000; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: H-1 Helicopter Parts Upgrade (AH- 1Z/UH-1Y Common Cuff and Yoke); Dollar Value: $114; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: H-1 Helicopter Upgrades; Dollar Value: $1,800; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement; Dollar Value: $420; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class Destroyer; Dollar Value: $500; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Aircraft Wireless Intercom Communications System; Dollar Value: Not identifiable; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: F/A-18E/F and EA-18G Aircraft; Dollar Value: $568; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: DDG 1000 Class ships; Dollar Value: $1,600; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: F/A-18 and EA-18G Aircraft; Dollar Value: $1,600; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: DDG-1002 ship Advanced Gun System; Dollar Value: $868; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Harpoon/SLAM-ER missile; Dollar Value: $128; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: MH-60R helicopter Program ANlAQS-22 Airborne Low Frequency Sonar; Dollar Value: $439; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: LPD Amphibious Transport Dock Ship; Dollar Value: $1,600; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: F/A-18, AV-8B, and T-45 Aircraft Computer Systems; Dollar Value: Not identifiable; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: E-2D Advanced Hawkeye; Dollar Value: $2,300; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; System for Navy Target Control; Dollar Value: $21; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: MH-60R Helicopter Situational Awareness Technology Insertion; Dollar Value: $65; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: V-22 Osprey Tiltrotor Aircraft; Dollar Value: $8,100; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: H-60 Helicopter; Dollar Value: $79; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: P-8A Aircraft; Dollar Value: $6,400; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Weapon System. Military Department:Air Force; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Raytheon Enterprise Wide Strategic Corporate Contracts; Dollar Value: $286; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Logistics Support. Military Department:Air Force; Program Name/Requirements Covered: USAF Aging Aircraft Fleet; Dollar Value: $46; FAR Exception: Industrial mobilization; Category: Logistics Support. Military Department:Army; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Logistics, Maintenance, and Supply Support; Dollar Value: Redacted; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Logistics Support. Military Department:DLA; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Honeywell Spare Parts; Dollar Value: $765; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Logistics Support. Military Department:DLA; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Parker Hannfin Spare Parts; Dollar Value: $502; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Logistics Support. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Low Temperature Fresh Water Cooling System; Dollar Value: $0.7; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Logistics Support. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: T-45 Aircraft Training System; Dollar Value: $215; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Training System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Aviation, Undersea, and Surface Training Systems; Dollar Value: $12; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Training System. Military Department:Navy; Program Name/Requirements Covered: T-45 Aircraft Training System; Dollar Value: $268; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Training System. Military Department:DLA; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Disaster relief for Hurricane Sandy; Dollar Value: $50; FAR Exception: Unusual and Compelling Urgency; Category: Disaster relief. Military Department:Air Force; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Local Area Network Standard Architecture; Dollar Value: Redacted; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Information Technology. Military Department:Army; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Counter Narco-Terrorism Program; Dollar Value: $0 - no cost modification; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Counter Narco-Terrorism. Military Department:Army; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Counter Narcotics Transnational Threats Project; Dollar Value: Not identifiable; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Counter Narco-Terrorism. Military Department:Air Force; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Local Exchange Services (dial tone); Dollar Value: $3; FAR Exception: Unusual and Compelling Urgency; Category: Utilities. Military Department:Air Force; Program Name/Requirements Covered: Wastewater Treatment Reconfiguration and Services; Dollar Value: $41; FAR Exception: one responsible source; Category: Utilities. [End of table] [End of section] Footnotes: [1] FAR §§ 6.303-1(a), 6.303-2. [2] Interim rule at 74 Fed. Reg. 2731 (Jan. 15, 2009) and final rule at 75 Fed. Reg. 34273 (June 16, 2010), implementing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 844, "Public Disclosure of Justification and Approval Documents for Noncompetitive Contracts." [3] For the purpose of this report, technical data is recorded information used to define a design and to produce, support, maintain or operate an item. [4] There are two justifications that were amendments to original class justifications, and plans to compete future requirements were not included as part of the amendment. These were excluded from the overall calculations because the information is not known. [5] FAR § 6.101. [6] See FAR §§ 6.302-1 through 6.302-7 for the seven exceptions to competition. [7] FAR §§ 6.303-1(a)(1), 6.303-2. [8] FAR § 6.304. [9] FAR § 6.303-1 requires that any justification for contracts awarded under the public interest exception to full and open competition only be made on an individual basis. [10] For 10 of the 65 class justifications, we could not identify the estimated dollar value. For 9, the value was redacted or was referenced to another document we were not able to identify, and one was a no-cost modification. [11] Department of Defense Competition Report for Fiscal Year 2012. [12] GAO, Defense Contracting: Actions Needed to Increase Competition, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-325] (Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2013). [13] In June 2010, DOD announced its "Better Buying Power" initiative and issued implementing guidance in September 2010, which outlined a series of actions to promote competition including requiring a business case analysis prior to the official start of the program that outlines an approach for acquiring technical data rights. [14] Interim DOD Instruction 5000.02, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System ( Nov. 25, 2013). [15] See GAO, Federal Contracting: Noncompetitive Contracts Based on Urgency Need Additional Oversight, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-304] (Washington, D.C.: March 26, 2014) for information on DOD and other agencies' use of the unusual and compelling urgency exception to competition. [16] The FAR generally requires the publication of notices of various proposed contract actions to the Federal Business Opportunities website. FAR § 5.201. [End of section] 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 website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select "E-mail Updates." Order by Phone: The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. Connect with GAO: Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube. Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: Contact: Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. Congressional Relations: Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: (202) 512-4400: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room 7125: Washington, DC 20548. Public Affairs: Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: (202) 512-4800: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room 7149: Washington, DC 20548. [End of document]