The C-5 aircraft depot maintenance workload was the first of such competitions. C-5 Competition Placed No Limitation on Performance Location

The Air Force’s procedures provided an equal opportunity for public and private offerors to compete for the C-5 workload without regard to where the work could be performed. Review Results

Based on our review of the C-5 competition, we found no basis to conclude that procedures used in selecting the successful offeror deviated in any material respect from the applicable laws or relevant provisions of the FAR. Review Results

Our review of the proposal cost evaluation and adjustments showed that the award resulted in the lowest cost to the government given Air Force assumptions and conditions at the time of award. Fourth, within 60 days of its enactment, the 1998 Defense Authorization Act requires us to review the C-5 aircraft workload competition and subsequent award to the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center and report to Congress on whether (1) the procedures used provided an equal opportunity for offerors to compete without regard to performance location, (2) are in compliance with applicable law and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and (3) whether the award results in the lowest total cost to DOD.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the Air Force's solicitation and selection of a source for C-5 aircraft depot maintenance, focusing on whether the: (1) procedures used to conduct the C-5 competition provided substantially equal opportunity for the public and private offerors to compete for the workload without regard to work performance location; (2) procedures complied with the requirements of all applicable provisions of law and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); and (3) C-5 award results in the lowest total cost to the Department of Defense for performance of the workload.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that its assessment to the issues required under the 1998 Defense Authorization Act relating to the C-5 aircraft competition concluded that: (a) the C-5 competition procedures provided an equal opportunity for public and private offerors to compete without regard to where work could be performed; (b) the procedures did not appear to deviate in any material respect from the applicable laws or the FAR; and (c) based on Air Force assumptions and conditions at the time of award, the award resulted in the lowest total cost to the government.