Conclusions

The Air Force met the requirements of applicable laws and regulations in  the competition for depot maintenance work at the Sacramento ALC. We concluded that (1) the C-5 competition procedures provided an equal opportunity for public and  private offerors to compete without regard to where the work could be  performed; (2) the procedures did not appear to deviate in any material  respect from the applicable laws or the FAR; and (3) based on Air Force  assumptions and conditions at the time of award, the award resulted in the  lowest total cost to the government. Legal Review of Competition for Sacramento Air Logistics Center Workloads

On March 20, 1998, the Department of the Air Force, Sacramento ALC at  McClellan Air Force Base, California issued requests for proposal (RFP)  No. 2469a and all applicable laws and  regulations, (2) appropriate consideration was given to factors other than  cost in the selection, and (3) the award resulted in the lowest total cost to  the DOD for the performance of the workloads. Based on our review of the procedures the Air Force used to conduct the  Sacramento competition in context of the concerns that were raised by the  competitor, we found no basis to conclude that (1) the procedures did not  provide a substantially equal opportunity for the offerors to compete  without regard to performance location, (2) appropriate consideration was  not given to factors other than cost in the selection, and (3) the procedures  used in selecting the successful offeror deviated in any material respect  from the applicable laws and regulations. Compliance With Other Applicable Provisions of 10 U.S.C.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the Air Force's selection of a source of repair for depot maintenance work at the closing Sacramento Air Logistics Center (ALC), focusing on whether the: (1) Air Force's procedures for conducting the Sacramento competition provided substantially equal opportunity for the public and private offerors to compete for the work without regard to performance location; (2) procedures for conducting the competition were in compliance with 10 U.S.C. 2469a and other applicable laws and regulations; (3) appropriate consideration was given to factors other than cost; and (4) award resulted in the lowest total cost to the Department of Defense (DOD) for performance of the work.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) the Air Force's competition for work at the Sacramento ALC showed that: (a) the competition procedures provided an equal opportunity for public and private competitors without regard to where the work could be performed; (b) the procedures did not appear to deviate in any material respect from applicable laws and regulations; (c) the Air Force appropriately considered factors other than cost in the selection; and (d) within the framework set forth for the competition, the award resulted in the lowest total cost to DOD for performance of the work; and (2) GAO also identified several issues that may be useful for the Air Force to consider in future competitions.