Additionally, McClellan Air Force Base, California, and the Sacramento Air Logistics Center, California, including the Air Force maintenance depot, is to be closed by July 2001. Consequently, the act requires that a solicitation may be issued for a single contract for the performance of multiple depot-level maintenance or repair workloads, only if (1) the Secretary of Defense determines in writing that the individual workloads cannot as logically and economically be performed without combination by sources that are potentially qualified to submit an offer and to be awarded a contract to perform those individual workloads, (2) the Secretary submits a report setting forth the determination together with the reasons for the determination, and (3) the solicitation of offers for the contract is issued more than 60 days after the date on which the Secretary submits the report. DOD’s Reports Do Not Provide Sufficient Support for the Determination

DOD’s reports and supporting data do not provide adequate support for the determinations that the Sacramento and San Antonio competition workloads cannot as logically and economically be performed without combination by sources that are potentially qualified to submit an offer and to be awarded a contract to perform those workloads. Air Force officials indicated they were uncertain about how to perform this analysis. However, our work indicates that there is sufficient information to make an analysis of the logic and economics of having solicitations for individual workloads. Other Air Force studies show that the Air Force has analyzed information related to the performance of individual workloads by qualified offerors. For example, in late 1996, the Air Force accomplished repair base analyses for six depot-level workloads currently performed by the Sacramento depot. The objective of each analysis was to identify industry capabilities and capacity to repair and overhaul specific workloads. The report states that all competitors indicated throughout their separate workload studies for Sacramento that consolidating workloads offered the most logical and economical performance possibilities. Further, one offeror’s study states that the present competition format is not in the best interest of the government. A second option recommended in this study was that the Sacramento workload be separated into two competitive packages—aircraft and commodities—with the A-10 workload being transferred within the Air Force rather than being included in the competition package. We were unable to fully evaluate the support for the report because the Air Force did not give us adequate or timely access to the contractor studies. Conclusions

DOD’s reports and supporting documentation do not provide adequate support for its determinations that the individual workloads at the Sacramento and San Antonio depots cannot as logically and economically be performed without combination by sources that are potentially qualified to submit an offer and to be awarded a contract to perform those workloads.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the requirements relating to the public-private competitions for maintenance workloads at two closing Air Force maintenance depots.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) it may be that the individual workloads at the closing San Antonio, Texas, and Sacramento, California, Air Force maintenance depots cannot as logically and economically be performed without combination by sources that are potentially qualified to submit an offer and be awarded a contract to perform those individual workloads; (2) however, Department of Defense (DOD) reports and supporting data do not provide adequate information supporting the determinations; (3) there is no analysis of the logic and economies associated with having the workload performed individually by potentially qualified offerors; (4) there is no support for determining that the individual workloads cannot as logically and economically be performed without combination by sources that would do them individually; (5) Air Force officials stated that they were uncertain as to how an analysis of performing the workloads on an individual basis would be done; (6) however, Air Force studies indicate that the information to make such an analysis is available; (7) in 1996 the Air Force performed analyses for six depot-level workloads performed by the Sacramento depot to identify industry capabilities and capacity; (8) as a part of these analyses, the Air Force identified sufficient numbers of qualified contractors interested in various segments of the Sacramento workload to support a conclusion that it could rely on the private sector to support these workloads; (9) the reports and available supporting data did not adequately support DOD's determination that the individual workloads cannot as logically and economically be performed without combination by sources that are potentially qualified to submit an offer and to be awarded a contract to perform those individual workloads; (10) DOD's determination report relating to the Sacramento Air Logistics Center states that all competitors indicated throughout their Sacramento workload studies that consolidating workloads offered the most logical and economical performance possibilities; (11) this statement was based on studies performed by the offerors as part of the competition process; (12) one offeror's study states that the present competition format is not in the best interest of the government and recommended that the workload be separated into two competitive packages; and (13) GAO was unable to determine whether the other two contractor studies support the statement in the DOD report that all competitors favored consolidating the workloads because the Air Force did not provide it adequate or timely access to the studies cited in the report.