Number

The 20 agencies reported owning over 136,000 heavy equipment items. 5). Agencies Reported Spending Over $7.4 Billion to Purchase Heavy Equipment, Although Actual Costs Were Greater Than Reported

The twenty agencies reported spending over $7.4 billion in 2016 dollars to  acquire the heavy equipment they own (see table 1). Three Selected Agencies Purchased Almost 3,500 Pieces of Heavy Equipment in Calendar Years 2012 through 2016, but Did Not Consistently Document Lease- Versus-Purchase Analyses

		Air Force, FWS, and NPS Purchased Almost 3,500 Pieces of Heavy Equipment in Calendar Years 2012 through 2016; Limited Information Is Available on Leases

In calendar years 2012 through 2016, the Air Force, FWS, and NPS  purchased almost 3,500 pieces of heavy equipment through GSA and  private vendors at a total cost of about $360 million to support mission  needs. Selected Agencies Did Not Consistently Conduct and Document Lease-versus- Purchase Analyses

As mentioned earlier, the FAR provides that executive branch agencies  seeking to acquire equipment should consider whether it is more  economical to lease equipment rather than purchase it and identifies  factors agencies should consider in this analysis, such as estimated  length of the period that the equipment is to be used, the extent of use in  that time period, and maintenance costs. While the FAR does not  specifically require that agencies document their lease-versus-purchase  analyses, according to federal internal control standards, management  should clearly document all transactions and other significant events in a  manner that allows the documentation to be readily available for  examination and also communicate quality information to enable staff to  complete their responsibilities. Although we identified several instances in which officials in the three  selected agencies did not document lease-versus-purchase analyses,  officials from these agencies stated that they consider mission needs and  equipment availability, among other factors, when making these  decisions. Conclusions

The federal government has spent billions of dollars to acquire heavy  equipment. There is no requirement that agencies report on the inventory  of this equipment, as there is no standard definition of heavy equipment. In the absence of clarity on the  circumstances in which lease-versus-purchase analyses for heavy  equipment acquisitions are to be conducted and documented, the  agencies may not be spending funds on heavy equipment cost- effectively. .  .  .  .

	U.S. Census Bureau Department of Defense

. Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report addresses: (1) the number, type, and cost of heavy equipment  items that are owned by the 24 CFO Act agencies; (2) the heavy  equipment items selected agencies have recently acquired and how  selected agencies decided to purchase or lease this equipment; and (3)  how selected agencies manage the utilization of their heavy equipment. In meeting  with officials at these departments, we learned that agencies within each  department manage heavy equipment independently, so we requested  current inventory data for Interior bureaus and the DOD military  departments and selected three agencies that had among the largest  inventories of construction and/or heavy equipment at the time, among  other criteria: the U.S. Air Force (Air Force); the Fish and Wildlife Service  (FWS); and the National Park Service (NPS). To determine how the three selected agencies decide whether to  purchase or lease heavy equipment, we interviewed fleet and property  managers at these selected agencies and asked them to describe their  process for making these decisions as well as to identify relevant federal  and agency regulations and guidance.
Why GAO Did This Study

Federal agencies use heavy equipment such as cranes and forklifts to carry out their missions, but there is no government-wide data on federal agencies' acquisition or management of this equipment.
GAO was asked to review federal agencies' management of heavy equipment. This report, among other objectives, examines: (1) the number, type, and costs of heavy equipment items that are owned by 20 federal agencies and (2) the heavy equipment that selected agencies recently acquired as well as how they decided whether to purchase or lease this equipment.
GAO collected heavy equipment inventory data as of June 2017 from the 24 agencies that have chief financial officers responsible for overseeing financial management. GAO also selected three agencies (using factors such as the heavy equipment fleet's size) and reviewed their acquisitions of and guidance on heavy equipment. These agencies' practices are not generalizable to all acquisitions but provide insight into what efforts these agencies take to acquire thousands of heavy equipment items. GAO also interviewed officials at the three selected agencies.

What GAO Found

Of the 24 agencies GAO reviewed, 20 reported owning over 136,000 heavy equipment items such as cranes, backhoes, and forklifts, and spending over $7.4 billion (in 2016 dollars) to acquire this equipment. The remaining 4 agencies reported that they do not own any heavy equipment.
The three selected agencies GAO reviewed in-depth—the Air Force within the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service within the Department of the Interior (Interior)—spent about $360 million to purchase about 3,500 heavy equipment assets in calendar years 2012 through 2016 and over $5 million to lease heavy equipment from fiscal years 2012 through 2016. Officials from all three agencies stated that they consider mission needs and the availability of equipment leases when deciding whether to lease or purchase heavy equipment. Federal regulations provide that agencies should consider whether it is more economical to lease or purchase equipment when acquiring heavy equipment, and federal internal control standards require that management clearly document all transactions in a manner that allows the documentation to be readily available for examination. However, in reviewing selected leases and purchases of heavy equipment from these three agencies, GAO found that officials did not consistently conduct or document lease-versus-purchase analyses. Officials at the Air Force and Interior said that there was a lack of clarity in agency policies about when they were required to conduct and document such analyses. Without greater clarity on when lease-versus-purchase analyses should be conducted and documented, these agencies may not be spending funds on heavy equipment effectively.

What GAO Recommends

The Department of the Interior and the Air Force should clarify the circumstances in which lease-versus-purchases analyses for heavy equipment acquisitions are to be conducted and documented. The Departments of the Interior and Defense concurred with these recommendations.