Weaknesses in the Site Selection Process

The process used by DLA to support the site selection decision for its consolidated distribution headquarters contained several weaknesses, including insufficient data on personnel and facilities requirements, a questionable methodology for evaluating and comparing costs, and subjective responses used by steering group members for two criteria. Subsequent changes to the process, made at the request of the selecting official, did not correct these weaknesses and created concerns about the perception of bias. This produced the requirement for a third data request. No Evidence to Validate Claims of Predetermination

Allegations had been made that DLA officials had selected the eastern site for the Defense Distribution Center before the site selection study took place. 1.) Conclusions

DLA’s efforts to establish a steering group and formulate decision-making criteria indicate that DLA recognized the need for a credible process to guide its decision-making. However, the process used by DLA to support the site selection for its consolidated distribution headquarters contained a number of weaknesses, and raised questions about the soundness of the decision-making process. Although various officials from the western location raised concerns about whether the decision had been predetermined, we found no evidence to validate that the information they provided to us reflected official DLA positions. Also, we found no evidence that prior studies examining the consolidation issue influenced the current site selection process or outcome. The cumulative effect of these weaknesses raised questions about the soundness of the site selection process and the ultimate decision. GAO Comments

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the process used by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to select the site for its new defense distribution center, focusing on whether: (1) the process was sound; and (2) there was any evidence that the site selection had been predetermined.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) DLA officials believed that the consolidation of its eastern and western regional distribution headquarters would produce savings; (2) DLA's establishment of a steering group and decisionmaking criteria indicate that DLA recognized the need for a credible process to guide its decisionmaking in selecting a site for its consolidated distribution headquarters; (3) however, the process used by DLA to support the site selection decision contained a number of weaknesses; (4) among the weaknesses in the process were the absence of sufficient information concerning personnel facilities requirements for the new center, unrealistic cost comparisons between the competing sites, and the use of subjective data for two noncost criteria; (5) subsequent changes to the process, made at the request of the selecting official, did not correct these weaknesses and created concerns about the perception of bias; (6) the cumulative effect of these weaknesses raised questions about the soundness of the site selection process and the ultimate decision; (7) although various persons from the western location raised concerns about whether the decision had been predetermined, GAO found no evidence to validate these concerns; and (8) likewise, GAO found no evidence that prior studies examining the consolidation issue influenced the current site selection process or outcome.