Report to the Honorable

Charles E. Grassley Co-Chairman,

Caucus on International Narcotics

Control, U.S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

September 2001 DRUG CONTROL

State Department

Provides Required

Aviation Program

Oversight, but Safety

and Security Should

Be Enhanced

GAO-01-1021
Page i GAO-01-1021 State's Aviation Program

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 3

Office of Aviation’s Contractor Oversight and Evaluation Measures

Met Requirements 4

Office of Aviation Ensured Safe Operations but Needs to Address

Certain Safety and Security Concerns 9

Conclusions 13

Recommendation for Executive Action 14

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 14

Scope and Methodology 14

Appendix I Aviation Program Staff and Aircraft 17

Appendix II Comments From the Department of State 19

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements 20

Tables

Table 1: Office of Aviation Staff, Location, and Responsibilities, as

of July 31, 2001 17

Table 2: DynCorp Employees Supporting State’s Aviation Program,

as of July 31, 2001 18

Table 3: Office of Aviation Aircraft by Location, as of July 31, 2001 18

Contents
Page 1 GAO-01-1021 State's Aviation Program

September 14, 2001

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

Co-Chairman, Caucus on International Narcotics Control

United States Senate

Dear Senator Grassley:

According to the Department of State, the Andean region continues to

cultivate, produce, and export almost all of the world’s cocaine and an

increasing amount of heroin.1

 Colombia is the source of 90 percent of the

cocaine entering the United States and approximately two-thirds of the

heroin found on the East Coast. While coca cultivation estimates have

decreased by approximately two-thirds in Bolivia and Peru since 1996,

increases in coca cultivation in Colombia have offset much of these

successes.2

Under State’s Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement

Affairs, the Office of Aviation, through a contract with DynCorp Aerospace

Technology, supports foreign governments’ efforts to locate and eradicate

illicit drug crops in the Andean region. In recent years, DynCorp has

maintained and operated aircraft to locate and eradicate drug crops in

Colombia, trained pilots and mechanics for the Colombian Army Aviation

Brigade, and provided logistical and training support for the aerial

eradication programs of the Colombian National Police and manual

eradication programs in Bolivia and Peru.

Your office raised concerns about reports you had received that the Office

of Aviation might not be providing adequate oversight of its aviation

program and might not be ensuring that the program operates safely. In

response to these concerns, we determined whether the Office of Aviation

(1) oversaw and evaluated DynCorp’s performance in accordance with

 1

Over the years, U.S. counternarcotics efforts in the Andean region have focused on

Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru. Small amounts of coca are also grown in Brazil, Ecuador,

Panama, and Venezuela; however, production from these fields is believed to be minimal.

2

According to State, between 1996 and 2000, the net hectares under coca cultivation in

Colombia increased by 69,000—from 67,200 hectares in 1996 to 136,200 hectares in 2000,

while the number of hectares under coca cultivation in Bolivia and Peru declined by 93,700

over the same period.

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-01-1021 State's Aviation Program

applicable requirements and (2) ensured the safe operation of its aircraft

and the physical security of its operational sites.

To address your concerns, we discussed these matters with cognizant U.S.

officials at the Department of State, Washington, D.C., and the U.S.

Embassy in Bogota, Colombia; and U.S. and DynCorp officials at the Office

of Aviation’s main operating base in Florida and operational sites in

Colombia. We reviewed pertinent contract evaluation reports and related

documentation and followed up on several recent operational and safety

reviews of the Office of Aviation’s program. Although we examined

relevant documentation for Bolivia and Peru, we focused our review on

the Office’s program in Colombia because the majority of its assets and

personnel are in Colombia, the threat to its safety and security is greatest

there, and the U.S. counternarcotics program to Colombia recently

increased significantly.3

The Office of Aviation met both State’s overall contracting oversight

requirements and more specific oversight and evaluation requirements in

the DynCorp contract. Office of Aviation Officials interacted daily with

DynCorp managers at the main operating base and in each country, made

regular site visits to each country, and reviewed DynCorp’s internal

reports. The Office of Aviation also relied on a series of evaluation reports

prepared by Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials in-country and at the

main operating base that led to a trimester contract performance

evaluation. We found that the performance evaluation process often led

DynCorp to take action to correct operational deficiencies.

The Office of Aviation ensured that its aviation program operates safely

and is physically secure, but it can do more. The Office relied on monthly

reports and the trimester performance evaluations, as well as periodic

surveys and independent assessments of DynCorp’s operations and

facilities. Overall, these reports have concluded that the aviation program

was safe and that physical security was adequate. However, several

matters of concern have not been resolved. For example, forward

operating locations in Colombia do not have emergency vehicles; manuals

 3

In July 2000, the United States agreed to provide about $860 million for fiscal years 2000 to

2001 to support Plan Colombia, the Colombian government’s $7.5 billion, 6-year

counternarcotics plan. This amount was in addition to previously programmed U.S.

assistance of over $300 million for the same period and almost doubled U.S.

counternarcotics assistance to Colombia compared with fiscal year 1999 levels.

Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO-01-1021 State's Aviation Program

for certain eradication aircraft do not reflect modifications to the aircraft;

and the airfield at one forward operating location and the Office of

Aviation headquarters office in Colombia were not secure.

To improve the safety and security of its aviation program, we are

recommending that the Secretary of State ensure that the Bureau follows

up on the concerns identified in recent reviews and either complete action

to address them or document why it should not. In commenting on a draft

of this report, State generally concurred with the information presented

and the recommendation.

Since 1991, DynCorp Aerospace Technology has provided support services

for State’s counternarcotics program in the Andean region and,

occasionally, in Central America. In 1998, State awarded a 5-year, cost plus

award fee contract to DynCorp for approximately $170 million to continue

this support.4 The Bureau’s Office of Aviation manages the overall aviation

program from its main operating base at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida.

As the aviation program’s contractor, DynCorp performs major

maintenance and initial pilot training at Patrick Air Force Base and flies

and maintains U.S. aircraft and trains foreign personnel at various

locations in Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru. The total budget for the aviation

program is about $50 million annually. See appendix I for a summary of

the aviation program’s staffing and assets by country.

In Colombia, the Office of Aviation and DynCorp maintain a headquarters

office and hangar at the El Dorado International Airport in Bogota. They

also operate forward operating locations at airfields on several Colombian

military and police bases.

• The Office of Aviation and DynCorp fly aerial eradication missions

from several locations in Colombia. In recent months, they have used a

Colombian Army base at Larandia and a Colombian National Police

base in San Jose—usually one or the other but currently both.

 4

State has awarded two 5-year contracts to DynCorp to support the aviation program. The

first was awarded in 1991 for approximately $99 million. Between the time when DynCorp’s

initial contract with State was scheduled to expire in 1996 and the current 5-year contract

was awarded in 1998, State issued three interim sole-source contract extensions to

DynCorp. See our report Drug Control: The Department of State’s Contract Award for Its

Counternarcotics Aviation Program (GAO-01-435R, Feb. 28, 2001).

Background
Page 4 GAO-01-1021 State's Aviation Program

• The Office of Aviation and DynCorp are collocated with the Colombian

Army Aviation Brigade in Tolemaida. They use this base primarily for

training, maintenance, and repair.

As we reported in June 1999 and October 2000, U.S. estimates indicate that

the illicit drug threat from Colombia has both expanded and become more

complex over the past several years. Insurgent and paramilitary groups

have increased their drug-trafficking activities, severely complicating U.S.

and Colombian efforts to reduce illicit drug cultivation and production.

For example, the insurgents exercise some degree of control over 40

percent of Colombia’s territory east and south of the Andes where,

according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, most of the new coca

cultivation sites and most of the major drug production facilities are

located.5

As a result, the aerial eradication missions are dangerous; and as a normal

course, helicopter gunships and search and rescue aircraft accompany the

eradication aircraft. Eradication planes and the supporting helicopters are

often shot at. Aerial eradication missions have been cancelled or

redirected because Office of Aviation or government of Colombia officials

considered the targeted locations too dangerous.

The Office of Aviation’s oversight of DynCorp met both State’s overall

contracting requirements and requirements specified in the contract with

DynCorp. State requires the Office of Aviation to examine contractor

performance to ensure compliance with the contract and coordinate with

the contractor on all matters that may arise in the administration of the

contract. The contract includes State’s oversight requirements and also

establishes DynCorp’s performance-based award fee plan, which requires

the Office of Aviation to evaluate contractor performance every 4 months

to determine DynCorp’s monetary award.

Under the terms of the contract, DynCorp is entitled to reimbursement of

reasonable and allowable costs incurred and an award fee—which

averaged about $410,000 each trimester between June 1999 and January

2001—based on the Office of Aviation’s evaluation of DynCorp’s

 5

Drug Control: Narcotics Threat From Colombia Continues to Grow (GAO/NSIAD-99-136,

June 22, 1999) and Drug Control: U.S. Assistance to Colombia Will Take Years to Produce

Results (GAO-01-26, Oct. 17, 2000).

Office of Aviation’s

Contractor Oversight

and Evaluation

Measures Met

Requirements
Page 5 GAO-01-1021 State's Aviation Program

performance. The contract establishes four evaluation categories—

management, technical proficiency, safety, and cost—and four

performance assessment levels—outstanding, excellent, satisfactory, and

unsatisfactory. Each assessment level corresponds to a range of

percentages of the additional compensation that could be granted to

DynCorp. For example, if the Office of Aviation rates DynCorp’s overall

performance in the evaluation categories as outstanding, the Office would

award a minimum of 95 percent of the award fee. An excellent rating

would be 75 to 94 percent of the award fee. A key distinguishing factor

between each assessment level is the Office’s evaluation of DynCorp’s

ability to identify and correct deficiencies in the program or preclude

deficiencies from occurring by proactive management.

The Office of Aviation’s oversight measures consisted of regular

interaction with DynCorp officials and frequent visits to operating sites. In

addition, Office of Aviation officials regularly reviewed reports submitted

by DynCorp’s senior in-country managers outlining DynCorp’s

performance on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis.

The Office of Aviation is collocated with DynCorp at the main operating

base and in each country, thus allowing Office of Aviation officials to

monitor DynCorp’s operations on a daily basis. At the headquarters office

in Bogota, Colombia, for example, we observed a senior Office of Aviation

official conferring with DynCorp’s operations manager about the flight

schedule of the C-27 cargo plane; frequent telephone communication

among Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials about operational matters,

such as the delivery of needed supplies or the availability of pilots and

mechanics at specific locations; and discussions about a program to verify

the amount of coca eradicated. Further, during our visits to Larandia and

Tolemaida, DynCorp managers made frequent contacts with their Office of

Aviation counterparts concerning the status of planned security upgrades

and training for the Colombian Army Aviation Brigade, respectively.

Senior Office of Aviation officials told us that they held regular meetings at

the main operating base with DynCorp managers to discuss program

objectives and provide guidance on operational plans and procedures.

Several DynCorp employees stated that the regular meetings have

improved the program’s operations. The DynCorp maintenance manager in

Colombia told us that Office of Aviation officials have incorporated his

expertise when drafting or revising standard operating procedures on

issues relevant to his duties. Furthermore, a manager’s meeting in April

2001 addressed the delay in shipping special tools to the DynCorp

Contract Oversight
Page 6 GAO-01-1021 State's Aviation Program

maintenance manager in Tolemaida. To solve the problem, DynCorp is

now assessing the status of requests and reviewing the procedures for

ordering tools.

Senior Office of Aviation officials also made frequent visits to Colombia to

oversee DynCorp operations. The operations officer made seven visits

from June 1999 to March 2001. On several of his visits in 2000, he provided

guidance to help establish the aviation support for the Colombian Army’s

Aviation Brigade. He stated that he regularly accompanies the contractors

on eradication missions to provide guidance. The Office of Aviation

Director and other senior officials told us they made numerous trips to

overseas locations, primarily Colombia, during the same period to confer

with DynCorp managers and other Office of Aviation officials and provide

technical assistance.

Office of Aviation officials regularly reviewed DynCorp’s reports, including

monthly reports from DynCorp’s in-country managers summarizing the

contractor’s performance. These reports are based on daily and weekly

reports submitted by managers from each forward operating location. The

Office of Aviation also regularly received daily and weekly reports on the

flight status of all aircraft and copies of all contractor memorandums

dealing with safety. The senior Office of Aviation official in Colombia told

us he viewed the contractor’s input as critical for his monthly evaluation

of contractor performance.

Although the Office of Aviation and DynCorp interacted regularly, several

Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials told us that a high turnover of

DynCorp managers in Colombia over the past 2 years had led to frequent

misunderstandings between the main operating base in Florida and

operational sites in Colombia. We were told about several instances when

managers in Colombia communicated directly with the main operating

base, bypassing DynCorp managers in Bogota. In late 2000, the Office of

Aviation encouraged DynCorp to promote a pilot to operations manager in

Bogota and, after a new country manager was hired, provided oral and

written guidance clarifying the chain of command. A number of Office of

Aviation and DynCorp officials told us that these changes had alleviated

tension that had been building between the Office of Aviation and

DynCorp and greatly improved the overall morale of personnel in the

program.

Every month, senior Office of Aviation officials in Bolivia, Colombia, and

Peru submit a report to the main operating base in Florida evaluating

DynCorp’s performance using the evaluation categories—management,

Contract Evaluation
Page 7 GAO-01-1021 State's Aviation Program

technical proficiency, safety, and cost. The Office of Aviation Deputy

Director consolidates the country reports and an evaluation of contractor

performance at the main operating base into an overall monthly

evaluation. The consolidated report is used to evaluate DynCorp’s

performance and help make the trimester award fee determination.

We reviewed the monthly and consolidated reports prepared from June

1999 through January 2001. We noted that the trimester performance

evaluations encouraged DynCorp to correct deficiencies. For example:

• In August and September 1999, the senior Office of Aviation official in

Peru rated DynCorp’s performance in quality control (a measure within

the technical proficiency category) as unsatisfactory—the lowest of

four ratings. He determined that poor quality control resulted in

unnecessary downtime for one of the aviation program’s cargo planes

and that the downtime affected daily operations. These evaluations

were incorporated into the September 1999 trimester evaluation,

lowering Peru’s technical proficiency and overall ratings from the

previous trimester evaluation. In October and November 1999, Peru’s

quality control ratings improved, and in January 2000 a joint review by

Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials also noted improvements in

Peru’s quality control program. The January 2000 trimester evaluation

showed Peru’s quality control as excellent—the second highest of the

four ratings.

• In the May 2000 trimester performance evaluation, the Office of

Aviation lowered DynCorp’s safety rating to satisfactory following a

March 2000 internal safety survey that was highly critical of the

Colombian program. Office of Aviation officials noted that most

deficiencies resulted from an unqualified safety manager at one

operating location. In response, DynCorp hired a new safety manager,

who began conducting regular audits and inspections of each operating

location in Colombia. The September 2000 trimester evaluation showed

that DynCorp had addressed the shortcomings identified in the internal

safety survey.

• In the January 2000 trimester performance evaluation, the Office of

Aviation rated Bolivia’s material support as unsatisfactory. The

monthly reports leading to the evaluation cited lengthy delays in

receiving spare parts and chemicals for a corrosion control program.

Following the poor trimester rating, DynCorp improved the timeliness

of its shipments and received an excellent rating in the April 2000

monthly report and the subsequent trimester evaluation in May 2000.
Page 8 GAO-01-1021 State's Aviation Program

In our review of the monthly and consolidated reports, we noted that

DynCorp did not meet aspects of an evaluation category but received a

high evaluation overall. Office of Aviation officials told us that in assessing

DynCorp’s overall performance, the evaluation system permits them to

consider mitigating circumstances and other information not specifically

in the formal assessment.6

 We found this to be the case with the contract’s

technical proficiency category, which is based, in part, on the time aircraft

cannot fly due to (1) maintenance deficiencies or (2) needed supplies were

not available. During the majority of the period we examined (June 1999

through January 2001), DynCorp met the maintenance and supply rates.

However, during two periods when DynCorp did not meet the contract’s

rates, it was rated satisfactory or better for these two subcategories.

• During July through September 1999, more aircraft flying hours were

lost due to maintenance problems than the contract allowed. Office of

Aviation officials determined that this loss was beyond DynCorp’s

control because an unusually high number of aircraft engine changes

were needed.

• During August through December 2000, more aircraft flying hours were

lost than allowed by the contract because DynCorp did not have

needed supplies. Office of Aviation officials considered the situation

beyond DynCorp’s control because it was the Office’s responsibility to

provide the needed helicopter mast assemblies. Further, Office officials

said that DynCorp did well to come as close as it did to this measure

given the lack of mast assemblies.

Although we are satisfied that the Office of Aviation considered each

country’s reports in preparing the consolidated reports, during July 1999 to

May 2000, portions of the Bolivian Office of Aviation senior official’s

reports were not included. The current Office of Aviation officials in

Bolivia and at the main operating base in Florida told us that the Office of

Aviation official in Bolivia at the time sometimes provided information

that was irrelevant to contractor performance. As a result, senior Office of

Aviation officials at the main operating base often revised or excluded

parts of the reports. For example, the official in Bolivia repeatedly

reported that several training documents needed to be translated into

Spanish, although translation was not part of the contract with DynCorp.

In other instances, the official in Bolivia evaluated Office of Aviation

 6

See Federal Acquisition Regulation, section 52.249-14.
Page 9 GAO-01-1021 State's Aviation Program

performance rather than contractor performance—in more than half the

affected reports, the official reported that the Office of Aviation did not

provide needed supplies or guidance on the Bolivian nationalization

program.

To oversee and evaluate the safety of contractor operations and physical

security of the aviation program’s facilities, Office of Aviation officials

relied on daily interaction with DynCorp’s country managers and forward

operating location managers, frequent site visits, periodic reports as part

of the trimester performance evaluation, and internal and external

reviews. Overall, these assessments judged aviation program operations to

be safe and physically secure; however, some concerns have not been

resolved.

According to Office of Aviation and DynCorp senior officials, enhancing

safety is an ongoing process, and their employees should always strive to

identify and implement ways to enhance safety. To ensure that aircraft

were maintained and operated safely, the Office of Aviation safety

manager monitored and evaluated the safety of contractor operations at

the main operating base and at overseas locations. The manager said he

used a safety checklist based on U.S. government and aircraft

manufacturers’ requirements when inspecting contractor operations and

maintenance. He said that he monitored the main operating base on a daily

basis and made periodic trips to overseas locations to monitor the safety

of operations and maintenance. His trip reports identified safety issues

that needed to be resolved and progress made in implementing previously

identified safety concerns.

The safety manager also coordinated with the DynCorp staff responsible

for maintaining safe aircraft operations. For example, they worked

together to update the aviation program’s accident response plan,

modeling it after a plan the DynCorp safety manager used while serving in

the U.S. Air Force.

In addition, Office of Aviation officials conducted internal Aviation

Resources Management Surveys of DynCorp operations at the main

operating base and overseas locations. According to Office of Aviation

officials, these surveys are intended to provide a stringent on-site safety

assessment. The most recent survey for Colombia, completed in March

2000, concluded that DynCorp needed to devote more attention to safety.

As previously noted, DynCorp hired a new safety manager who began

Office of Aviation

Ensured Safe

Operations but Needs

to Address Certain

Safety and Security

Concerns

Operational Safety
Page 10 GAO-01-1021 State's Aviation Program

conducting regular audits and inspections of each operating location in

Colombia. In addition, DynCorp made other safety improvements,

including establishing safety classes for pilots and instituting an airfield

cleanup campaign.

In August 2000, the Office of Aviation requested an independent evaluation

of aviation operations and safety by the Inter-Agency Committee for

Aviation Policy (ICAP).7 In November 2000, ICAP conducted a review of

the Office of Aviation’s operations at two forward operating locations and

the headquarters office in Colombia and at the main operating base in

Florida. In February 2001, ICAP issued its report. ICAP concluded that the

aviation program in Colombia and at Patrick Air Force Base was safe but

made approximately 80 suggestions and recommendations to enhance

safety and security.8

Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials have taken action on or

implemented most of ICAP’s suggestions and recommendations. For

instance:

• To improve their document control process, Office of Aviation and

DynCorp officials told us they clarified the procedures for seeking

comments on and approving changes to operating procedures and

other directives.

• To improve maintenance oversight, DynCorp hired additional quality

control staff to fill this role.

• To correct deficiencies identified at fuel stations at forward operating

locations, DynCorp hired a fuel management specialist who has

ensured that the deficiencies were corrected.

In some instances, Office of Aviation officials disagreed with ICAP’s

suggestions and recommendations. Among others, we noted the following:

 7

This Committee is under the aegis of the General Services Administration. The Committee

formulates aviation policies for the various civilian federal departments and agencies that

maintain aircraft. The Committee also helps to ensure that agency aircraft fleets are

maintained properly and are operationally safe through on-site reviews. The Committee

appoints a team of aviation experts from various federal agencies to perform these reviews.

8

Some of the suggestions and recommendations were not specifically labeled as such, and

some were duplicative.
Page 11 GAO-01-1021 State's Aviation Program

• ICAP recommended that search and rescue helicopters accompany

eradication aircraft on night operations. The Office of Aviation Director

and Deputy Director said that eradication planes are much less likely to

be shot down during night operations than in the daylight because the

planes cannot be easily seen. Deploying helicopters nearby would serve

to alert drug traffickers to the impending arrival of eradication aircraft

and increase the likelihood that the traffickers could shoot them down.

Further, deploying many aircraft during night operations increases the

likelihood of aircraft accidents.

• ICAP recommended that the Office of Aviation update manuals to

reflect modifications that were made to certain eradication aircraft.

Office of Aviation officials noted that the aircraft in question were

originally used 40 years ago as unarmed observation planes by the U.S.

military. Later, the U.S. military added armaments9

 and tested and

documented their effect on the airplane’s performance. According to

the Office of Aviation Director, the aviation program’s modifications

have less effect on the aircraft’s performance than the U.S. military’s

modifications. He said that as a result the manuals reflect a worse case

than necessary and the aircraft does not need additional testing. In

addition, such testing would be very expensive.

In other instances, Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials agreed with

ICAP’s suggestions or recommendations but have not yet corrected the

problem.

• ICAP recommended that the aviation program provide emergency

vehicles at its forward operating locations to assist in the event its

aircraft have an accident during takeoff or landing. Office of Aviation

officials said that they have asked the Department of Defense to

identify any excess emergency vehicles in its inventory. The Office of

Aviation was also searching for used emergency vehicles because new

emergency vehicles are very expensive.

• ICAP pointed out that the aviation program needed to improve its

management information system. Office of Aviation officials said they

are implementing a new, integrated management information system

and obtaining a satellite communications system to improve

 9

The Office of Aviation’s eradication aircraft are not armed.
Page 12 GAO-01-1021 State's Aviation Program

communication between remote locations. They said they expect to

have both systems in place by November 2001.

• ICAP found that certification and training records for maintenance

personnel were often not readily available or were dated. Office of

Aviation and DynCorp officials agreed, and the DynCorp Program

Manager said he would either hire a training coordinator or assign

existing staff to fulfill those responsibilities.

Although Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials assess physical security

through regular site visits and inspections, State’s Bureau of Diplomatic

Security has overall responsibility for ensuring a secure as possible

workplace for U.S. government employees at overseas locations. Its

Regional Security Office (RSO) in Bogota has assessed the aviation

program’s security needs through site visits and inspection reports.

RSO and Office of Aviation and other Bureau officials have reviewed

Office of Aviation sites in Colombia to determine what action had been

taken on previously identified weaknesses and to determine the adequacy

of physical security. In May 2001, the forward operating location in use at

Larandia still needed security improvements and, according to RSO

officials, was especially vulnerable to sabotage. Specifically, a public road

runs within a few feet of and parallel to a runway used for aerial

eradication missions. On weekends the road carries considerable civilian

traffic. The only physical security is a chain-link fence and a partially

completed barrier. We observed that the public road had only minimal

security with a checkpoint at the base entrance and an unmanned bunker

near the airfield. RSO and other security reports have recommended

additional security measures, such as adding a second checkpoint and

erecting a solid barrier between the road and the airfield.

Further, both RSO and ICAP have concluded that the headquarters office

and hangar at the Bogota airport are not secure. The ICAP report

identified this location as being especially vulnerable. During several

weeks in April and May 2001, we observed that only one guard was at the

entrance at any given time, and the office had no x-ray or bomb-detection

equipment to inspect packages. Further, the office and hangar are on a

public road adjacent to a commercial shipping business. Each day, we

observed a large volume of vehicles entering the area and parking near the

aviation program’s office. Both RSO and ICAP recommended that State

find a more secure facility.

Physical Security
Page 13 GAO-01-1021 State's Aviation Program

Office of Aviation and Bureau officials agreed with the physical security

assessments and recommendations and said upgrades in security should

be completed in the next few months. However, they noted that they must

rely on government of Colombia and U.S. Embassy support to make the

improvements because aviation program facilities are not located on U.S.

government property.

• Office of Aviation officials told us that the U.S. Embassy is negotiating

with the Colombian Army base commander at Larandia to increase

security checkpoints on the public road. In addition, the Colombia

National Police have increased the number of staff assigned to the

airfield.

• The U.S. Embassy had found a more secure location for the aviation

program’s headquarters office and hangar at the Bogota airport and had

been negotiating a lease. However, according to Office of Aviation

officials, that location is no longer suitable and U.S. Embassy and

Bureau officials have begun a search for another location.

The Office of Aviation complied with the requirements of the State

Department and the DynCorp contract through an integrated oversight and

performance evaluation process. The Office’s oversight measures, which

include reviews of DynCorp reports and frequent communication, are a

fundamental part of the process. These measures provide the Office with

sufficient information to evaluate the effectiveness of DynCorp’s

performance. Based on this information, each month the Office of Aviation

formally notifies the contractor of how well it is doing and actions that it

needs to take to improve performance. These steps culminate in a

trimester evaluation leading to a performance-based, monetary award.

This monetary award serves as an incentive for the contractor to

cooperate with the Office of Aviation throughout the evaluation process.

Because Office of Aviation and contractor staff in Colombia must perform

their mission in a hostile environment, maintaining the safety and security

of these personnel, the physical structures, and aircraft is crucial.

Although the Office of Aviation has taken steps to improve safety and

security in Colombia, it has not completed all actions that ICAP and RSO

identified as necessary. We recognize that guaranteeing the safety and

security of Office of Aviation and contractor employees and assets is very

difficult. Nevertheless, the Office of Aviation has not yet fully implemented

all suggestions and recommendations to ensure that its employees and

contractors work in locations that are as safe and secure as possible.

Conclusions
Page 14 GAO-01-1021 State's Aviation Program

To improve the safety and security of the Office of Aviation’s forward

operating locations and headquarters office in Colombia, we recommend

that the Secretary of State direct the Assistant Secretary of State for the

Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs to

document what remains to be done to address the suggestions and

recommendations made by ICAP and RSO and when action is expected to

be completed. In those instances where the Bureau disagrees that

corrective action is necessary, we recommend that it document the

reasons why it disagrees.

The Department of State provided written comments on a draft of this

report (see app. II). It stated that the report findings are essentially factual

and correct and that it will continue to pursue improvements where

needed. State also noted, as we did, that many of the concerns presented

in the report are outside the control or influence of the Office of Aviation.

Therefore, we urge the Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau for

International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs to work with the

Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the U.S. Embassy in Bogota, in

particular, to complete required action in these areas.

In addition, in oral comments, Office of Aviation officials provided

technical comments that we have incorporated into this report, as

appropriate.

To determine what oversight and evaluation requirements were applicable

for the DynCorp contract, we reviewed State’s regulations for contract

oversight and the relevant contract provisions. We also discussed the

contract oversight and evaluation requirements with State’s contract

officer. To determine whether the Office of Aviation was adhering to the

applicable oversight and evaluation requirements, we examined the

trimester performance evaluation documentation for the period June 1999

through January 2001 in detail. Specifically, we

• examined each of the monthly reports from Bolivia, Colombia, and

Peru and the consolidated reports and related documents prepared by

Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials for the period and

• discussed the specific reports and issues raised in them with Office of

Aviation’s senior officials, including the Director, the Deputy Director,

and the Contract Technical Officer, at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida,

and other Office of Aviation officials in Washington, D.C.

Recommendation for

Executive Action

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

Scope and

Methodology
Page 15 GAO-01-1021 State's Aviation Program

In Colombia, we also discussed specific reports with Office of Aviation

officials and DynCorp managers who had first-hand knowledge of the

evaluations and the status of DynCorp’s efforts in the country at the time

the reports were prepared.

To determine whether the Office of Aviation ensured the safe operations

of its aircraft and physical security of its facilities, we examined the safety

issues raised in the monthly reports prepared for the trimester

performance evaluations and the findings of the recent ICAP and RSO

reports and Aviation Resources Management Surveys. We met with the

team that conducted the ICAP review and discussed their methodology

and criteria and the support for many of their findings in more detail than

is presented in ICAP’s report. We followed up with Office of Aviation

officials in Washington, D.C.; Patrick Air Force Base, Florida; and in

Colombia to determine the status of their efforts to address the

shortcomings raised in the reports. In Colombia, we discussed safety and

physical security issues with cognizant Office of Aviation officials and

DynCorp managers at the headquarters office at the El Dorado

International Airport in Bogota, the forward operating location at

Larandia, and the maintenance and training facility at Tolemaida. At each

site, we also toured the facilities to make our own observations and met

with fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter pilots and mechanics to obtain

their views on flight operations, safety, and physical security. In addition,

at the main operating base in Florida, we flew on an eradication training

mission.

Finally, we discussed the Office of Aviation’s implementation of its

contract oversight and evaluation requirements and germane safety and

security issues and concerns with the U.S. Ambassador and Deputy Chief

of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Bogota, Colombia; senior Bureau

officials in Washington, D.C.; and the Director and Deputy Director at the

main operating base in Florida.

Our review was conducted from November 2000 through August 2001 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman, Senate Caucus on

International Narcotics Control; interested congressional committees; and

the Secretary of State. Copies will also be made available to other

interested parties upon request.
Page 16 GAO-01-1021 State's Aviation Program

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call

me at (202) 512-4268. An additional GAO contact and staff

acknowledgments are listed in appendix III.

Sincerely yours,

Jess T. Ford, Director

International Affairs and Trade
Appendix I: Aviation Program Staff and

Aircraft

Page 17 GAO-01-1021 State's Aviation Program

The State Department’s Office of Aviation manages a major

counternarcotics aviation program with a highly mobile workforce that

includes State employees and staff on loan from other U.S. agencies. As of

July 31, 2001, the Office of Aviation had 24 staff to oversee the contractoroperated aviation program in Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru. Table 1 lists the

number of Office of Aviation staff, where they are located, and their major

job responsibilities.

Table 1: Office of Aviation Staff, Location, and Responsibilities, as of July 31, 2001

Location Staff Major responsibilities

Washington, D.C. 3 Coordinate activities with other State and U.S.

government agencies and provide

administrative support.

Patrick Air Force Base,

Florida

11 Manage the aviation program for all overseas

locations and oversee DynCorp management,

maintenance, and training activities.

Bolivia 4 Act as aviation advisers to oversee DynCorp

maintenance and training activities.

Colombia 3 Act as aviation advisers to oversee DynCorp

operations, maintenance, and training activities.

Peru 3 Act as aviation advisers to oversee DynCorp

maintenance and training activities.

Source: State Department.

As of July 31, 2001, DynCorp, the contractor that implements the aviation

program, employed about 545 staff—including 25 fixed-wing aircraft pilots

hired under a subcontract with Eagle Aviation Services Technology, Inc.

Of the 545 employees, 344 are assigned to Colombia—about 90 are U.S.

citizens and count against the congressionally-mandated ceiling limiting

U.S. civilian contractors in Colombia at any time to 300.10 About 88

DynCorp employees are stationed in Colombia permanently; the rest—

mainly pilots and mechanics—rotate in and out of Colombia about every

2 weeks. Table 2 shows the number of DynCorp employees supporting

State’s aviation program, where they are located, and their major job

responsibilities.

 10Title III, chapter 2, sec. 320e (b)(1)(B) of the Emergency Supplemental Act, FY 2000, as

enacted in the Military Construction Appropriations Act, FY 2001, P.L. 106-246, 114 Stat.

576.

Appendix I: Aviation Program Staff and

Aircraft
Appendix I: Aviation Program Staff and

Aircraft

Page 18 GAO-01-1021 State's Aviation Program

Table 2: DynCorp Employees Supporting State’s Aviation Program, as of July 31,

2001

Location Employees Major responsibilities

Patrick Air Force

Base, Florida

154 Manage and support programs in all three countries,

perform major maintenance on aircraft, and provide

initial training for pilots.

Bolivia 20 Train helicopter mechanics who maintain aircraft

supporting the Bolivian Army’s manual eradication

program.

Colombia 344aWork as pilots, mechanics, and managers, and train

the Colombian Army UH-1N helicopter mechanics

and pilots and help with the Colombian National

Police eradication program.

Peru 27 Train helicopter mechanics who maintain aircraft

supporting the Peruvian Army’s manual eradication

program.

a

This number varies daily due to rotations in and out of Colombia.

Source: State Department.

Table 3 lists the number and type of aircraft the Office of Aviation has

assigned to Patrick Air Force Base and each of the three countries

involved in the aviation program.

Table 3: Office of Aviation Aircraft by Location, as of July 31, 2001

Location

Transport

aircraft Eradication aircraft Helicopters

Crop

identification

aircraft

C-27 OV-10D T-65 UH-1H UH-1N

C-208

Patrick Air

Force Base,

Floridaa

1 7 01 2 0

Bolivia 0 0 0 16 0 0

Colombia 2 5 5 6 40 1

Peru 1 0 0 14 0 0

a

Of the aircraft at Patrick, four of the OV-10Ds were being modified for aerial eradication operations in

Colombia, and one OV-10D and the C-27 were undergoing scheduled maintenance. The other

aircraft are used primarily for training.

Source: State Department.
Appendix II: Comments From the Department

of State

Page 19 GAO-01-1021 State's Aviation Program

Appendix II: Comments From the

Department of State
Appendix III: GAO Contact and

Staff Acknowledgements

Page 20 GAO-01-1021 State's Aviation Program

Albert H. Huntington, III (202) 512-4140

In addition to the contact named above, Jim Strus and Chris Hall made key

contributions to this report.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff

Acknowledgements

GAO Contact

Acknowledgements

(320008)
The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are

$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the

Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also

accepted.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St., NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To

receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days,

please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will

provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email message with “info” in the body to:

Info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Ordering Information

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs