	Background

The U.S. military has relied on contractors to provide supplies and  services in support of contingency operations since the Revolutionary  War. This same emphasis on planning  and the early identification of requirements is also discussed in Army  Regulation 700-137—”Logistics Civil Augmentation Program”—which  establishes the policies, responsibilities, and procedures for implementing  LOGCAP. Specifics follow:    The Army developed a plan to support the troops in Iraq (task order 59 of  the LOGCAP contract) in May 2003, but the plan was not comprehensive  because it did not include all of the dining facilities, troop housing, and  other services that the Army has since added to the task order. We believe it will be  difficult to comprehensively assess the contractor’s performance in an  award fee board because customer evaluations of the contractor’s  performance have not been uniformly documented. Efforts to control costs vary widely both across  and within logistics support contracts. We have noted  that when the customer reviews the contractor’s work for economy and  efficiency, savings are realized. Steps to Ensure That the Contractors Provide Service in an Economical and Efficient Manner Have Not Been Taken at All Task Order Locations

Customers who use the logistics support contracts have a role in ensuring  that the contracts are used in an economical and efficient manner, and our  previous work has shown that when government officials (including  customers) review the contractor’s work for economy and efficiency,  savings are generated. Obtain the housing under the LOGCAP contract. DOD Did Not Always Have Enough Personnel to Manage Its Logistics Support Contracts, and Available Personnel Often Lack the Training to Effectively Use and Monitor the Contract

Given the scope and complexity of logistics support contracts, there were  not always enough personnel responsible for contract oversight and  monitoring the performance of the contractor, and oversight personnel  have not always been adequately trained. DOD deploys civilian and  military personnel to provide contract administration and oversight of its  logistics support contractors. In addition, military  units receiving services from the contracts generally lacked a  comprehensive understanding of their roles and responsibilities. The Air Force has not consistently provided training for its personnel  overseeing the performance of the AFCAP contractor. We selected these contracts (1) on the  basis of their size and scope and (2) to include more than one of the  military services. We reviewed the guidance prepared by the Chairman, Joint  Chiefs of Staff; the Army’s regulations and guidance related to planning for  contractor support to deployed forces; and an array of additional guidance  specific to each of the logistics support contracts as follows:  the Army Materiel Command’s LOGCAP battle book,    U.S. Army, Europe, Users’ Guide to the Balkans Support Contract and  operating procedures written by the Balkans Support Contract  procurement contracting office on task order development,  the Air Force’s guide for using the Air Force’s AFCAP contract—the  AFCAP Concept of Operations, and  the Navy’s CONCAP Users’ Guide. To assess the extent to which DOD had a sufficient number of qualified  personnel with the training and skills necessary to provide effective  contract oversight and management in place, we determined the numbers  of DCMA, Defense Contract Audit Agency, and Army Materiel Command  personnel that were deployed in support of AFCAP, LOGCAP, and BSC. Other LOGCAP sites in Kuwait.
Why GAO Did This Study

In its contingency operations since the early 1990s, the Department of Defense (DOD) has relied extensively on logistics support contractors to provide many of the supplies and services needed by deployed U.S. forces. As requested, GAO assessed DOD's planning in its use of logistics support contracts in contingency operations; determined whether DOD has had contract oversight processes that are adequate to ensure that quality services were provided in an economical and efficient manner; and assessed the extent to which DOD provided trained personnel qualified to oversee its contractors. GAO focused its efforts on four logistics support contracts chosen because of their size and chosen to represent more than one military service--the Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) and Balkans Support Contract, the Navy's Construction Capabilities Augmentation Program, and the Air Force's Contract Augmentation Program.

What GAO Found

The effectiveness of DOD's planning to use the logistics support contracts during contingency operations varies widely between the commands that use them and the contracts themselves. In many cases, planning was done effectively, in close coordination with the respective contractors. For LOGCAP, however, the Army Central Command did not develop plans to use the contract to support its military forces in Iraq until May 2003, even though Army's LOGCAP guidance calls for early planning and early involvement of the contractor. Those plans, moreover, have undergone numerous changes since that initial planning. In Kuwait, as well, the Army has made frequent changes in its use of LOGCAP. DOD's contract oversight processes were generally good, although there is room for improvement. DOD customers have not always ensured that contractors provide services in an economic and efficient manner, although they have a responsibility to do so. We have found that when the customer reviews the contractor's work for economy and efficiency, savings are realized. Under the LOGCAP contract, months-long delays in definitizing contract task orders have frequently undermined the contractor's cost-control incentives, and the absence of an Army award fee board to comprehensively evaluate the contractor's performance has further limited DOD's oversight. DOD did not have sufficient numbers of trained personnel in place to provide effective oversight of its logistics support contractors. The Army has deployed units responsible for supporting the LOGCAP contract, but some of the personnel have little knowledge of the contract. The Air Force did not consistently train evaluators to monitor its logistics support contractor's performance. Military units across the services receiving contractor support have lacked a comprehensive understanding of their roles and responsibilities, which include establishing the work to be done by contractors and monitoring contractors' performance.