DOD Competitive Sourcing:

Air Force Reserve Command A-76 Competitions

NSIAD-99-235R: Published: Sep 13, 1999. Publicly Released: Sep 13, 1999.

Additional Materials:

Contact:

David R. Warren
(202) 512-8412
contact@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the Air Force Reserve Command's completed competitions for contracts recently won by the private sector for functions at Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Georgia, and Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, New York, focusing on the: (1) Command's process for conducting the competitions, including the development of the performance work statements; and (2) estimates of expected savings and cost to conduct the studies, and the likelihood that base operating efficiency can be expected to improve.

GAO noted that: (1) according to the information GAO reviewed, the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 competitions at Dobbins and Niagara Falls were conducted following A-76 guidelines; (2) the Air Force Reserve Command developed the performance work statements and determined the in-house most efficient organization at the headquarters level to ensure a comparable level of service among the bases under its command; (3) according to various installation officials at both Niagara Falls and Dobbins, the centrally developed performance work statements adequately captured the work that needed to be done when they were written; (4) however, because the Niagara Falls and Dobbins contracts have been in place since April 1, 1999, and June 1, 1999, respectively, it is too soon to assess the completeness of the performance work statements; (5) data available from the Reserve Command indicate that savings over 5 years from these recent competitions are estimated to be approximately $8 million for Dobbins and $1.8 million for Niagara Falls; (6) however, these projections do not take into account the cost of completing the studies and transition costs; (7) also, initial A-76 projected savings may not necessarily represent long-term savings; (8) the contracts have not been in place long enough to assess the likelihood of changes in contract requirements that could affect costs and savings, nor have they been in place long enough to assess improved efficiencies in base operations; (9) most of the modifications to the prior contract at Niagara Falls were due to technical changes or changes in labor wage rates that are normal and expected; and (10) according to officials at Niagara Falls, the prior contract's performance work statement adequately captured the work that needed to be done at that time.

Sep 19, 2014

Sep 18, 2014

Sep 10, 2014

Sep 9, 2014

Sep 8, 2014

Jul 31, 2014

Looking for more? Browse all our products here