Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO 

January 2004 DEFENSE 

MANAGEMENT 

Issues in Contracting 

for Lodging and 

Temporary Office 

Space at MacDill Air 

Force Base 

GAO-04-296 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-296.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Barry W. 

Holman at (202) 512-8412 or 

holmanb@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-296, a report to 

Congressional requesters 

January 2004

DEFENSE MANAGEMENT 

Issues in Contracting for Lodging and 

Temporary Office Space at MacDill Air 

Force Base 

During recent mobilizations, MacDill contracting officials used two practices 

that effectively reduced the overall cost of off-base lodging for reservists on 

extended temporary duty to below that allowed by the General Services 

Administration’s (GSA) lodging rate. Officials used a simplified acquisition 

procedure—Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA)—to obtain prices that 

were at or below the maximum allowable GSA rate of $93 per day for 

Tampa, Florida. MacDill officials obtained daily lodging rates of $71 to $93 

per unit for two-bedroom apartments. The BPAs also provided greater 

flexibility in vacating units without incurring penalties. In addition, MacDill 

officials reduced per person lodging costs further by implementing a roomsharing policy for personnel at certain ranks. When two reservists shared a 

two-bedroom unit (about 600 reservists), the cost dropped by up to 55 

percent of the daily GSA rate. Overall, during fiscal year 2003, MacDill 

reported that it saved about $12.6 million using these practices. Our review 

of local rental costs showed that BPA prices were similar to those paid by 

corporate entities for comparable lodging units, but were lower on a perperson basis because of lodging sharing arrangements. 

Comparison of Prices for Furnished Two-Bedroom, Corporate, and Military (MacDill) 

Apartments in Tampa, Florida 

Type Cost per day Cost per month Extras beyond furniture 

Furnished apartment $20.77-$55.17 $623-$1,655 None 

Corporate apartment $46.50-$114.60 $1,395-$3,438 

Amenities,a

 utilities, maid 

service 

MacDill BPA apartment1 person $71-$93 $2130-$2,790 Amenities, utilities, maid 

service 

MacDill BPA apartment2 persons Per person 

$35.50-$46.50 

Per person 

$1,065-$1,395 

Amenities, utilities, maid 

service 

Source: GAO analyses. 

a Amenities include kitchenware, linens, vacuum cleaners, microwave ovens, and cable television 

service. 

From project initiation to settlement of the contractor’s claim, the Coalition 

Village II contract suffered from questionable acceptance of the winning 

offer, poor record keeping, undocumented contracting decisions, and 

changes to contract requirements that were not properly coordinated with 

contracting officials. Although MacDill officials determined that the winning 

offer was received on time, only the first page of the proposal was received 

by the established deadline. Contract costs for the project, which was 

implemented under tight time constraints, increased by more than $367,000 

over the winning offer of $142,755. However, due to the absence of proper 

documentation in the contract files, we were unable to fully assess the basis 

for additional costs paid to the contractor or the extent to which costs might 

have been avoided or minimized. 

Since the September 11, 2001, 

attacks and the beginning of 

Operation Iraqi Freedom, 

thousands of National Guard and 

Reserve members have been 

activated and mobilized to military 

installations across the country. 

Some installations, like MacDill Air 

Force Base in Tampa, Florida, 

where more than 3,000 reservists 

have been mobilized, have had to 

arrange for off-base lodging in local 

hotels and apartment buildings. In 

addition, MacDill, which serves as 

U.S. Central Command 

headquarters, has had to set up 

temporary office space for staffs of 

coalition partner nations. Public 

concerns have been raised about 

these arrangements. GAO was 

asked to review (1) the extent to 

which MacDill used cost-effective 

measures to provide off-base 

lodging for reservists and (2) 

whether a contract providing office 

space for coalition partners was 

adequately managed to control 

costs. 

GAO is recommending that the 

Secretary of Defense direct the

Secretary of the Air Force to direct 

the Commander of the Air Mobility 

Command to emphasize to MacDill 

personnel the importance of 

adhering to sound contract 

management procedures. In 

commenting on a draft of this 

report, DOD partially concurred 

with GAO’s recommendation and 

identified corrective actions taken 

or planned. 
Page i GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

MacDill Air Force Base Implemented Procedures to Reduce OffBase Lodging Costs for Reservists 6

Weaknesses in Contract Management Hamper Efforts to Assess 

Contract Costs 14

Conclusions 19

Recommendations for Executive Action 20

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 20

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 22 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense 24 

Tables 

Table 1: Differences between BPA Prices and GSA Rates for OffBase Apartment Units in Tampa, Florida 8

Table 2: Comparison of Prices for Two-Bedroom Furnished, 

Corporate, and Military (MacDill) Apartments in Tampa, 

Florida 10

Table 3: Contracted Prices for Bedrooms Used to House Reservists 

in Fayetteville, North Carolina, Area 12

Table 4: Payments and Claims for Coalition Village II Contract 17

Contents 
Page ii GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

Abbreviations 

BPA Blanket Purchase Agreement 

CENTCOM U.S. Central Command 

DOD Department of Defense 

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation 

GSA General Services Administration 

JFTR Joint Federal Travel Regulations 

SOCOM U.S. Special Operations Command 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

January 27, 2004 

The Honorable Bill Nelson 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Jim Davis 

House of Representatives 

Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, more than 3,000 activeduty, reservists1

 and National Guard personnel have been mobilized to 

MacDill Air Force Base (MacDill) in Tampa, Florida, for periods of up to 

2 years. Because of this large influx of military personnel, MacDill, like 

some other military installations, has had to arrange for off-base lodging in 

commercially operated apartment buildings and hotels for many 

reservists. In addition, MacDill, which is headquarters to both the U. S. 

Central Command (CENTCOM) and the U. S. Special Operations 

Command (SOCOM),2

 had to provide temporary office space for foreign 

military personnel who serve as liaison officers from coalition partner 

nations fighting with the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq. MacDill 

leased dozens of trailers to provide office space in two complexes called 

Coalition Village I and Coalition Village II. 

In the summer of 2003, public concerns were raised in the Tampa area that 

reservists assigned to MacDill could be paying apartment rents that were 

substantially higher than market prices and that MacDill officials had not 

followed proper contracting procedures in obtaining office trailers for 

Coalition Village II. 

 1

Unless specified otherwise, the terms “reserves” and “reservists” refer to the collective 

forces of the Army National Guard, the Air National Guard, the Army Reserve, the Naval 

Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve, and the Air Force Reserve. 

2

CENTCOM is the unified command responsible for executing military operations in 

Afghanistan and Iraq. SOCOM is the unified command that directs special operations, 

psychological operations and civil affairs forces from the Army, Navy, and Air Force under 

a single commander. 

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

In your initial request, you asked us to conduct a review of the Department 

of Defense’s (DOD) practices for providing lodging for military personnel 

on extended temporary duty. Subsequently, after discussions with your 

offices, we expanded the request to include MacDill’s contracting 

procedures in leasing trailers for Coalition Village II. Our objectives were 

to (1) determine the extent to which MacDill Air Force Base used costeffective measures to provide off-base lodging for reservists on extended 

temporary duty and whether more cost-effective procedures could be 

identified at other military installations and (2) assess whether the 

contract to provide office space for coalition partners supporting the war 

against Iraq was adequately managed to avoid significant escalation of 

costs. 

To address these objectives, we visited MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, 

Florida, and Fort Bragg Army base and Pope Air Force Base in 

Fayetteville, North Carolina. We also reviewed information from five other 

Army and Air Force installations3

 to determine if they acquired off-base 

lodging for reservists on extended temporary duty and, if so, what 

practices they used to obtain such services. In addition, we obtained data 

from Navy and Marine Corps headquarters officials about their practices 

for housing reservists. We also interviewed contracting officials at MacDill 

and reviewed contract files and records related to Coalition Village II. We 

conducted our review from July 2003 through December 2003 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. A 

more detailed description of our scope and methodology is provided in 

appendix I. 

During recent mobilizations, officials at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa 

used two practices that effectively reduced the overall cost of off-base 

lodging for some 1,700 personnel on short-term and extended temporary 

duty4

 to below the maximum amount allowed under the General Services 

 3

These installations were Fort Hood, TX; Fort Dix, N.J.; McGuire Air Force Base, N.J.; 

Dover Air Force Base, Del.; and Fort Meyer, Va. 

4

At MacDill, short-term temporary duty consists of less than 45 days, and long-term or 

extended temporary duty consists of 45 days or longer. 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

Administration’s (GSA) standard lodging rate.5 MacDill’s contracting 

officials used Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA)6

 with local hotels and 

apartments to obtain prices that were at or below the maximum allowable 

GSA rate of $93 per day for Tampa. MacDill officials obtained daily lodging 

rates of $71 to $93 per unit for two-bedroom apartments and used 

installation-specific guidance to lower per-person costs further by 

requiring personnel at specified ranks to share lodging. When two 

reservists shared a two-bedroom unit (about 600 reservists), the cost 

dropped by up to 55 percent of the daily GSA rate. The BPAs also provided 

greater flexibility in vacating units without incurring penalties. Overall, 

MacDill officials estimate that they saved about $12.6 million in lodging 

costs in fiscal year 2003, of which about $7.6 million could be attributed to 

the use of apartments. In reviewing local rental costs, we found that on a 

unit basis, the prices MacDill paid under its BPAs were similar to those 

paid by corporate entities for comparable lodging units, but were lower on 

a per-person basis due to lodging sharing arrangements. Although we 

found some similarities and differences at other installations that we 

identified as providing off-base lodging for military personnel (e.g., Fort 

Bragg and Pope Air Force Base), our review did not find any one approach 

that stood out as being significantly more cost-effective than other 

approaches where shared lodging was required. Other alternatives for 

acquiring off-base lodging, such as long-term government leases for blocks 

of properties, would need to consider added overhead cost implications 

associated with government management of such properties. 

From project initiation to settlement of the contractor’s claim, the 

management of Coalition Village II suffered from questionable acceptance 

of the winning offer, poor record keeping, undocumented decisions 

regarding changes to the contract, and changes to contract requirements 

that were not properly coordinated with contracting officials. Although 

MacDill contracting officials determined that the winning offer of $142,755 

was received on time, only the first page of the proposal was received by 

 5

DOD’s Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR) govern the amount of per diem, travel, and 

transportation allowances that reserve personnel can receive when they are traveling on 

official government business in the continental United States. JFTR, Chapter 1, Part A, 

paragraph U 1000. They are entitled to the per diem set by the General Services 

Administration (GSA) for a particular location. At the time of our review, the maximum 

allowable GSA rate for lodging in Tampa, Florida, was $93 per day. 

6

Blanket purchase agreements (BPA) are simplified procurement procedures used to fill 

repetitive needs for supplies or services by establishing “charge accounts” with qualified 

sources of supply. 48 C.F.R. § 13.303-1. 
Page 4 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

the deadline established for receipt of proposals. The project was 

implemented under tight time constraints, and contract costs increased by 

over $367,000 over the winning offer. However, we were not able to 

determine if the government paid for costs that otherwise might have been 

avoided or disallowed because of the absence of proper documentation in 

contract files. For example, although changes to the contract were made 

during twice-weekly meetings of representatives of the contractor, the 

customer (CENTCOM), technical advisors (civil engineers), and 

contracting staff, no official minutes of the meetings were maintained to 

document the agreements reached, who authorized the changes, or the 

proposed cost of the changes. Because of these weaknesses, we were 

unable to fully assess the basis for additional costs paid to the contractor 

for Coalition Village II or the extent to which costs might have been 

avoided or otherwise minimized through more effective contract 

management. 

We are recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary 

of the Air Force to direct the Commander of the Air Mobility Command to 

emphasize to MacDill personnel the importance of adhering to sound 

contract management procedures that exist to protect the interests of the 

government. Communications should ensure that contract files are 

properly maintained and that only authorized personnel initiate changes to 

contract requirements, even during time-sensitive procurements. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD did not disagree with our 

findings but expressed the view that our recommendation was not needed 

due to corrective actions that had been planned or taken by the 6th

Contracting Squadron at MacDill Air Force Base. Because all planned 

corrective actions have not been completed, we continue to believe that 

our recommendation has merit. 

On September 14, 2001, President Bush proclaimed a national emergency 

in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In his 

proclamation,7

 he said he would use various sections of Title 10 of the 

United States Code to mobilize additional forces. Section 12302, in 

particular, authorizes the President to call up National Guard and Reserve 

members to active duty for up to 2 years. Since September 2001, DOD has 

activated about 300,000 of the 1.2 million National Guard and Reserve 

personnel. As of October 8, 2003, about 166,000 Reserve and National 

 7

Proclamation No. 7463, 66 Fed. Reg. 48199 (Sept. 14, 2001). 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

Guard members remained on active duty. Some of the reservists were 

assigned to domestic military installations to provide, for example, base 

security. 

When reserve members are mobilized to serve on active duty at military 

installations in the United States, the installations where they serve 

arrange lodging for them. If lodging is not available on base, installations 

may provide activated reservists with Certificates of Non-Availability 

enabling them to acquire off-base lodging in the local area at prevailing 

GSA rates. Because of the size and length of the current mobilization, 

some installations, like MacDill Air Force Base, made arrangements with 

local hotels and apartment vendors to provide reservists with off-base 

lodging. The 6th Contracting Squadron at MacDill was responsible for 

developing the BPAs, and the 6th Services Squadron/Military Lodging was 

in charge of assigning reservists to available lodging. 

Because mobilized National Guard and Reserve personnel are considered 

to be in temporary duty status, their per-diem, travel, and transportation 

allowances are governed by DOD’s Joint Federal Travel Regulations. A 

per-diem allowance is designed to offset the cost of lodging, meals, and 

incidental expenses incurred by reservists while they are on travel status 

or on temporary duty away from their permanent duty station. DOD’s 

regulations state that within the continental United States, travelers are 

entitled to the per diem set by GSA for a particular location. Specifically, if 

a contracting officer contracts for rooms and/or meals for members 

traveling on temporary duty, the total daily amount paid by the 

government for the member’s lodging, meals, and incidental expenses may 

not exceed the applicable GSA per-diem rate. 

In December 2002, CENTCOM established plans for providing working 

quarters at MacDill for coalition partners supporting Operation Iraqi 

Freedom and titled the project Coalition Village II. The project was 

modeled after similar working quarters established at MacDill for coalition 

partners supporting the war on terrorism, Coalition Village I. 

Representatives from CENTCOM and Civil Engineering8

 supported the 6th

Contracting Squadron, which provides contracting support to MacDill’s 

base tenant units, in its efforts to establish Coalition Village II. The 6th

Contracting Squadron is a part of the 6th Air Mobility Wing, which reports 

 8

A contractor, Chugach Management Services, performs the civil engineering function at 

MacDill. Chugach Management Services provides base operations and maintenance, 

construction management, facilities operation, and environmental services. 
Page 6 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

to the Air Mobility Command. The Air Mobility Command is a component 

of the United States Transportation Command. 

During the summer of 2003, public concerns were raised in the Tampa 

area about the practices used at MacDill to acquire off-base lodging for 

reservists and temporary office space for coalition partners in the war 

against Iraq. Specifically, these concerns questioned whether MacDill 

officials paid above-market rates for apartments; used competition in 

awarding BPAs for off-base lodging; and advertised for bids for lodging 

services. Questions were also raised about whether the contract providing 

office space for coalition partners supporting military operations in Iraq 

was adequately managed to avoid excessive costs. 

In order to reduce the cost of off-base lodging for 1,700 military personnel 

and reservists on short-term and long-term temporary duty, MacDill Air 

Force Base officials instituted two procedures. MacDill used BPAs as a 

flexible procurement method to obtain lodging at prices that were at or 

below the maximum allowable GSA rate of $93 per day for Tampa. MacDill 

also implemented installation guidance that required reservists at certain 

ranks to share two-bedroom apartment units that further reduced costs on 

a per-person basis. MacDill officials estimate that these procedures saved 

about $12.6 million in off-base lodging costs in fiscal year 2003. Our review 

showed that the prices paid by MacDill were similar to those paid by 

corporate entities in Tampa for comparable lodging units, but were lower 

on a per-person basis due to lodging sharing arrangements. Our work 

showed that practices used at other military installations to provide offbase lodging varied but did not reveal any one approach that resulted in 

more significant cost savings over other approaches, where shared lodging 

was required. Alternative approaches for obtaining off-base lodging, such 

as obtaining long-term leases for blocks of properties, could be considered 

but would require that various factors be weighed in considering their use. 

MacDill Air Force Base contracting officials used BPAs to acquire off-base 

lodging to handle the large influx of reservists who were mobilized 

following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. According to the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), a BPA is a simplified method of 

filling anticipated, repetitive needs for supplies or services by establishing 

“charge accounts” with qualified sources of supply.9

 Air Force officials had 

 9

48 C.F.R.§ 13.303-1. 

MacDill Air Force 

Base Implemented 

Procedures to Reduce 

Off-Base Lodging 

Costs for Reservists 

MacDill’s Use of BPAs and 

Shared Housing Achieved 

Cost Savings and Complied 

with Federal Regulations 
Page 7 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

used this method to acquire off-base lodging for several years.10 We have 

no basis to conclude that the Air Force’s use of BPAs was inconsistent 

with the FAR. 

MacDill contracting officials told us that these agreements provide them 

with greater flexibility than contracts would in arranging temporary 

lodging. BPAs permit either party to walk away from the agreement 

without a penalty. The agreements allow federal travelers to use their 

government-issued travel cards to obtain lodging at hotels and apartments 

at reduced prices and favorable contract terms. The costs for reservists 

who do not have government-issued travel cards are billed to MacDill 

under a purchase order.11

MacDill officials indicated that they go through an established process to 

set up an agreement with an apartment vendor or hotel. The process 

begins when either MacDill contacts a lodging facility or a facility contacts 

MacDill. As part of this initial contact, MacDill schedules an inspection to 

ensure that the facility meets its cleanliness, safety, health, and fire 

standards. If the facility passes the inspection, MacDill sets up an 

agreement with the facility and lists the facility as a source of lodging for 

reservists at an agreed-upon daily rate. MacDill officials told us they 

review BPAs annually to ensure that their needs are still being met and to 

determine if the facility still meets standards. 

At the time of our review, MacDill had agreements with 35 vendors (29 

hotels and 6 apartment providers) and was housing an average of about 

1,700 personnel a day in off-base lodging facilities. Of these, about 900 

were in hotels and 800 were in apartments. In September 2003, the prices 

that MacDill had obtained for hotel rooms ranged from $44 to $93 per 

person per day, and for apartment units from $55 to $93 per person per 

day (see table 1). The agreements with apartment vendors do not require 

security deposits and also allow reservists to leave earlier than their 

scheduled departure dates without paying penalties. Apartment rental 

officials told us that, in contrast, other apartment renters must give a 

30-day notice before leaving or incur penalties, such as the loss of 

 10Air Force Contracting Policy Memo 96-C-04, Aug. 16, 1996, encouraged officials to use 

BPAs to obtain off-base housing. 

11A purchase order when issued by the government means an “offer by the Government to 

buy supplies or services including construction and research and development, upon 

specified terms and conditions, using simplified acquisition procedures.” 48 C.F.R. § 2.101. 

MacDill’s Practices Achieved 

Cost Savings 
Page 8 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

1 month’s rent, forfeiture of the security deposit, or being held liable for 

the cost of the remaining term of the lease. The apartments acquired by 

MacDill are fully furnished. The daily rate for the apartment covers the 

cost of utilities, amenities (kitchenware, linens, vacuum cleaners, 

microwave ovens, and cable television service), and weekly maid service. 

Apartment vendors also do not charge reservists a 12 percent Florida tax 

for leases of less than 6 months, which private renters typically pay. 

Table 1: Differences between BPA Prices and GSA Rates for Off-Base Apartment 

Units in Tampa, Florida 

Unit type 

BPA price 

range per 

person per 

month 

BPA price 

range per 

person per day 

Difference 

between BPA 

price and GSA 

rate ($93) 

Average 

percentage 

differencea

One-bedroom $1,650-$2,790 $55-93 $38-0 23.4 

Two-bedroomb $1,065-$1,395 $35.50-$46.50 $57.50-$46.50 55.4 

Source: GAO analysis of MacDill data. 

a

Based on our analysis of all BPAs. 

b

Based on two persons sharing a two-bedroom unit, with one person in each bedroom. 

In addition to using BPAs to procure off-base lodging for reservists, 

MacDill used installation-specific guidance on sharing lodging to further 

reduce off-base lodging costs in two-bedroom apartments. The guidance 

requires officers at or below the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and enlisted 

personnel at or below the rank of Chief Master Sergeant or Sergeant Major 

to share two-bedroom apartments. This practice allowed MacDill to 

achieve a cost savings of up to 55 percent of the GSA rate (table 1). For 

example, if two reservists were sharing a two-bedroom apartment that 

costs $93 per day, each would pay half of that amount, significantly less 

than the GSA daily rate of $93 per person. Of a total of 800 reservists 

housed in apartments, about 600 shared two-bedroom units. 

MacDill officials responsible for lodging operations told us that they try to 

place military personnel12 who are on temporary duty for 45 days or longer 

in apartments. This allows personnel to have access to cooking facilities, 

as well as more room than they would have in a hotel room. MacDill 

officials indicated that they consider three criteria in placing personnel in 

 12MacDill lodging officials told us they make no distinction in providing off-base lodging for 

active duty personnel and reservists in that they follow the same procedures for both 

groups. 
Page 9 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

apartments: (1) whether or not personnel have access to transportation to 

get to the base, (2) whether they are compatible in terms of rank and 

gender to fill a vacancy in a two-bedroom apartment, and (3) if these two 

criteria are met, officials randomly assign personnel to a unit. However, 

the officials also must consider such factors as security or the ability of a 

particular apartment complex to accommodate an entire reserve unit. 

Based on data that we received from MacDill lodging officials, the base 

spent about $23.3 million for 386,466 bed-nights in off-base lodging, 

including both short- and long-term stays, in fiscal year 2003. However, 

had MacDill paid the maximum allowable GSA rate of $93 per day for the 

same number of days, the costs would have amounted to $35.9 million. As 

a result, the installation reported that it saved an estimated $12.6 million 

for off-base lodging costs by using blanket purchase agreements and 

requiring apartment sharing. Of the $23.3 million spent in fiscal year 2003, 

MacDill paid about $13.9 million for apartment rentals and about $9.3 

million for hotels. The estimated savings attributable to apartments is 

about $7.6 million and about $5 million in savings is attributable to hotels. 

In our limited review of local rental prices in the Tampa area, we found 

that MacDill’s lodging costs were comparable with those paid by corporate 

entities for the same types of units but were higher than prices for typical 

furnished apartments cited in media reports. These reports compared 

MacDill’s apartment costs with the cost of furnished apartments that 

ranged, for example, from $1820 to $1880 ($60.66 to $62.66 per day) for a 

two-bedroom unit with maid service and utilities. In a search of Internet 

sites listing housing prices in the Tampa area, we found that individually 

furnished two-bedroom apartments ranged from $623 to $1655 ($20.77 to 

$55.17 per day)—but typically would not include the full range of services 

obtained by MacDill. 

However, according to apartment brokers that we contacted in the Tampa 

area who provide services to corporate entities and private sector renters 

as well as MacDill, corporate-style facilities may be the most appropriate 

to compare to MacDill’s costs. Corporate apartments offer essentially the 

same provisions as the apartments that MacDill obtains: they are fully 

furnished and the prices include amenities (i.e., kitchenware, linens, 

microwave ovens, vacuum cleaners, and cable television service), maid 

service, and utilities. The main difference is that corporate apartments 

generally require a minimum 3-month lease and a 30-day notice to break 

the lease while MacDill’s BPA arrangements do not require a minimum 

length of stay or have any penalties if reservists leave earlier than 

scheduled. 

MacDill’s Lodging Costs Are 

Similar to Corporate Lodging 

Prices on a Unit Basis but Less 

on a Per-Person Basis 
Page 10 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

We found that prices paid per unit by MacDill are comparable to those 

paid by corporate entities, but MacDill’s prices are generally much lower 

on a per-person basis due to lodging sharing arrangements. According to 

one apartment broker we interviewed, the price of a corporate apartment 

ranged from $46.50 to $114.60 per day. The price that MacDill pays for a 

similar apartment at the same complex ranges from $71 to $93 per day. 

Another apartment broker we contacted told us that the corporate rates 

for his apartments ranged from $76 to $100 per day, depending on the 

location of the apartment. The price that MacDill pays for a similar unit 

ranges from $71 to $93 per day, with the actual cost per person in both 

examples being lower depending on the number of occupants. 

Table 2: Comparison of Prices for Furnished Two-Bedroom, Corporate, and Military 

(MacDill) Apartments in Tampa, Florida 

Type Cost per day Cost per month 

Extras beyond 

furniture 

Furnished 

apartments 

$20.77-$55.17 $623-$1,655 None 

Corporate 

apartments 

$46.50-$114.60 $1,395-$3,438 Amenities,a utilities, 

maid service 

MacDill apartments 

via BPAs 

1 occupant 

$71-$93 $2,130-$2,790 Amenities, utilities, 

maid service 

MacDill apartments 

via BPAs 

2 occupants 

Per person 

$35.50-$46.50 

Per person 

$1,065-$1,395 

Amenities, utilities, 

maid service 

Source: GAO analyses. 

a

Amenities include kitchenware, linens, vacuum cleaners, microwave ovens, and cable television 

service. 

Public concerns were raised about the absence of advertising and 

competition in creating BPAs to provide off-base lodging, suggesting that 

increased competition and advertising would help control costs. However, 

because a BPA is not a contract,13 competition and advertising were not 

required to establish these BPAs.14 In any event, while MacDill did not hold 

a competition or advertise for bids, it did establish BPAs with multiple 

vendors. According to MacDill officials, contracts over $25,000 require 

15 days to advertise, 30 days for the vendor to respond, and 15 days to 

 13See Boehringer Mannheim Corporation, B-279238, May 21, 1998, 98-1 CPD ¶ 141. 

1448 C.F.R. § 13.302-2. 
Page 11 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

negotiate. MacDill officials told us that they used BPAs because they could 

be arranged in a shorter time frame than solicited contracts. They stated 

that they were under extreme time pressures to acquire immediate 

housing in February 2003 when 325 reservists arrived at MacDill to provide 

force protection services. 

Other DOD installations that we contacted during our review either 

provided lodging for reservists on base or used similar practices to reduce 

off-base lodging costs. In the few selected instances where we identified 

the use of off-base lodging, housing officials used a variety of procurement 

methods (BPAs, contracts, and purchase orders) to obtain prices at or 

below the allowable GSA lodging rate for those locations. In addition, they 

required reservists to share hotel rooms and apartment units. However, 

our review did not identify any one approach that stood out as offering 

more significant cost benefits than other approaches where shared lodging 

was required. 

In general, the Army installations that we surveyed used purchase orders 

or requirements contracts15 to procure off-base lodging for temporary duty 

reservists. At the time of our review, Fort Bragg housed about 2,400 

reservists off base. Fort Bragg had awarded contracts to 25 vendors (20 

hotels and 5 apartment providers) to supply lodging for reservists and had 

spent an estimated $35 million between October 2002 and November 2003 

for this lodging. The contracted lodging rates were at or below the 

maximum allowable GSA lodging rate of $63 per day for Fayetteville. Fort 

Bragg had also implemented an installation policy requiring reservists at 

the rank of sergeant and below to share hotel rooms as well as apartment 

bedrooms. This sharing resulted in average savings of up to 56 percent in 

relation to the GSA lodging rate (see table 3)—savings similar to those 

realized at MacDill. 

Although Fort Bragg used purchase orders immediately after 

September 11, 2001, the base switched to contracts to obtain off-base 

 15The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) describes a requirements contract as providing 

for “filling all actual purchase requirements of designated Government activities for 

supplies or services during a specified contract period, with deliveries or performance to 

be scheduled by placing orders with the contractor.” 48 C.F.R. § 16.503(a). As with the 

BPA, a requirements contract may be used to acquire supplies or services when the exact 

times or exact quantities of future deliveries are not known at the time of contract award. 

This type of contract allows flexibility in both quantities and delivery scheduling and 

ordering of supplies or services after requirements materialize. 

Approaches Used at Some 

Other Military Installations 

Have Similar Cost Benefits 

Army Installations Use 

Contracts to Obtain Off-Base 

Lodging 
Page 12 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

lodging soon thereafter to streamline the process. When they used 

purchase orders, for example, contracting officials had to issue a 

modification each time a reserve unit increased or decreased its numbers 

or changed its length of stay. Two full-time contracting specialists and one 

part-time contracting officer were needed to handle the paperwork. 

According to Fort Bragg officials, the change to contracts made the 

process more economical because contracts require less paperwork and 

less manpower to administer. 

Unlike MacDill’s BPAs, however, Fort Bragg’s contracts were based on the 

number of bedrooms being rented, irrespective of whether they were in a 

hotel or an apartment. Bedrooms were defined as single- or doubleoccupancy.16 Fort Bragg’s contracted rates were below the GSA lodging 

rate of $63 per day and ranged from $32 to $60 per day for singleoccupancy rooms and from $20 to $30 per day for double-occupancy 

rooms (see table 3). Thus, at Fort Bragg, two reservists sharing a twobedroom apartment with single-occupancy rooms could cost $60 per room 

or up to $120 per day. However, if the bedrooms were double-occupancy, 

up to four reservists could be housed for $120 per day. The contract terms 

required a 72-hour to 2-week notice to vacate the lodging unit earlier than 

scheduled. 

Table 3: Contracted Prices for Bedrooms Used to House Reservists in Fayetteville, 

North Carolina, Area 

Unit type 

Contracted price 

range per person 

per day 

Difference between 

contracted price 

and GSA rate ($63)

Average 

percentage 

savingsa

Single roomb $32-$60 $31-$3 20.8 

Double roomc $20-$30 $43-$33 55.7 

Source: GAO analysis of Fort Bragg data. 

a

Based on our analysis of all BPAs. 

b

Based on one person in a room. 

c

Based on two persons in a room; price shown is half the daily rate of $40-$60 per day. 

Fort Bragg’s sharing policy required enlisted personnel at the rank of 

sergeant and below to share rooms. When a bedroom was to be shared, 

 16A single occupancy room has one bed. A double occupancy room has two beds, along 

with a chest of drawers or dresser for each bed. 
Page 13 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

Fort Bragg required that each reservist have sufficient space and be 

provided with a dresser or chest of drawers in the room. 

In contrast to Fort Bragg, Army officials at Fort Hood, Texas, and Fort 

Dix, New Jersey, told us that they were able to accommodate most of their 

temporary duty reservists on base. In the few cases when off-site lodging 

had to be procured, the installation’s contracting personnel used purchase 

orders to obtain the needed facilities. Officials told us that, in general, 

these off-base stays were for 3 to 4 days at Fort Hood and a maximum of 

60 days at Fort Dix. At both bases, enlisted personnel below the rank of 

Sergeant First Class were required to share hotel rooms. 

Unlike MacDill Air Force Base, reservists on long-term temporary duty at 

Pope, Dover, and McGuire Air Force bases were accommodated on site. 

According to an Air Force official, most reservists did not have 

transportation and, thus, were given priority for on-site lodging. As a 

result, some non-reserve service members had to be placed in off-base 

lodging. Like MacDill, these Air Force bases used BPAs to procure their 

off-site lodging needs, which were generally for short periods of time. 

At the time of our review, Pope Air Force Base had 12 BPAs with hotel 

vendors. Pope officials said that they do not use apartments because most 

stays off-base are less than a week, and personnel are not required to 

share rooms. We were told that, in general, service members or reservists 

who are assigned to Pope for extended duty are housed on base. Under 

the terms of the BPAs, personnel accommodated in hotels may vacate the 

hotel at any time without a penalty. The first priority in selecting a hotel 

for off-base lodging is the distance from the base to the hotel because 

aircrews sometimes have to leave on short notice. According to a Pope 

official, in general about 300 airmen are housed in off-base lodging 

facilities each month. Prices for a one-bedroom hotel room for Pope 

ranged from $48 to $63, for savings of up to $15 per day compared with the 

GSA lodging rate of $63 per day for Fayetteville. According to a lodging 

official, Pope spent an estimated $1.825 million on off-base lodging in 

fiscal year 2003. 

Our analysis of data provided by Navy officials indicates that the Navy 

spent a total of $14.8 million in fiscal year 2003 on contracted and leased 

lodging facilities. However, a Navy official told us that, in most cases, the 

temporary-duty reservists were accommodated in on-site lodging. The 

major exceptions are reservists mobilized in the Washington, D.C., area. 

These reservists are provided with Certificates of Non-Availability, which 

enable them to acquire lodging in local area hotels, and they are 

Other Air Force Installations 

House Most Reservists on Base 

Most Navy and Marine Corps 

Reservists Receive On-site 

Lodging 
Page 14 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

reimbursed for their lodging costs up to the maximum GSA rate allowed 

for the Washington, D.C., area, which currently is $150 per day. About 

$11.3 million of the $14.8 million the Navy spent on contracted and leased 

lodging facilities was used to acquire lodging in local markets with 

Certificates of Non-Availability. Marine Corps reservists were 

accommodated in existing on-site facilities. 

The extent and length of the current mobilization has created some longterm, off-base lodging requirements and associated costs that appear high 

when considered on a monthly basis and when compared with private 

sector prices that typically, however, offer fewer amenities. Whether other 

alternatives for obtaining off-base lodging should be considered or 

whether they would be cost effective is unclear. Much would depend on 

individual circumstances, local market conditions and costs, the number 

of personnel requiring lodging, and the length of the lodging requirement. 

One alternative approach that could be explored might be to obtain longterm leases for blocks of properties to provide lodging for reservists on 

extended temporary duty during times of high mobilizations. However, 

MacDill lodging officials told us that this approach would require them to 

obtain furnishings, utility hook-ups, and amenities (i.e., vacuum cleaners, 

kitchenware, linens) as well as staffs to manage property inventories and 

reservation systems. Government management of such inventories could 

be viewed as counter to recent defense initiatives to rely on the private 

sector for the provision of commercially available services. MacDill 

lodging officials also pointed out that the need for long-term lodging could 

vanish as quickly as it materialized, leaving them committed to long-term 

leases, property inventories, and the attendant costs. Under the approach 

MacDill currently uses, apartment units and hotels assume these risks. 

This approach would also need to consider potential force protection 

issues that might be of concern with large concentrations of personnel 

lodged together off base. 

From project initiation to settlement of the contractor’s claim, the 

management of Coalition Village II suffered from questionable acceptance 

of the winning offer, poor record keeping, undocumented decisions 

regarding changes to the contract, and changes to contract requirements 

that were not properly coordinated with contracting officials. As a result 

of these weaknesses, we were unable to assess the basis for significant 

cost increases in the contract. These weaknesses also made it difficult for 

Alternative Off-Base 

Lodging Arrangements 

Could Be Explored 

Weaknesses in 

Contract Management 

Hamper Efforts to 

Assess Contract Costs 
Page 15 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

us to determine whether the government paid for costs that otherwise 

might have been avoided or disallowed. 

Coalition Village II was implemented under tight time constraints that 

presented unique challenges for the 6th Contracting Squadron in the 

solicitation, award, and pricing of the contract. MacDill contracting 

officials reference a March 21, 2003, memorandum from the Air Force’s 

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Contracting)/Assistant Secretary (Acquisition) 

whose subject was, “Rapid, Agile Contracting Support During Operation 

Iraqi Freedom.” The memorandum encourages, “...every contracting 

professional to lean way forward, proactively plan for known and 

anticipated customer needs, and put the necessary contract vehicles and 

supporting documents in place as soon as possible.” The memorandum 

further calls for Air Force contracting officers to be a “community of 

innovative, even daring risk takers.” 

CENTCOM initiated its urgent request for temporary office space to the 6th

Contracting Squadron in February 2003. It requested 14 temporary office 

trailers to house additional coalition partners that were supporting the 

United States in Operation Iraqi Freedom. CENTCOM said it needed the 

trailers in 30 days, and the 6th Contracting Squadron used a provision of the 

FAR, entitled “Unusual and Compelling Urgency,”17 to meet the tight 

timeline. Under this provision, the government is allowed to limit the 

number of sources and approve written justifications after the contract is 

awarded within a reasonable time, if preparation and approval prior to the 

award would unreasonably delay the acquisition. Consistent with the 

authority for an urgent and compelling acquisition, MacDill’s contracting 

office developed a list of three potential contractors. According to a 

MacDill contracting official, the office contacted only those contractors 

who had proven records of timely and satisfactory performance for similar 

work at the base. MacDill issued the solicitation for leasing the trailers on 

February 14, 2003, and established 12:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on 

February 18, 2003, as the deadline for receipt of proposals. 

One contractor, the Warrior Group, did not submit a proposal in time to 

meet the deadline, and its proposal was not considered. Two other 

contractors were judged to have met the deadline for submitting their 

proposals, although acceptance of the winning proposal was controversial. 

 1748 C.F.R. § 6.302-2. 

Challenges Associated 

with Contract Solicitation, 

Award, and Pricing for 

Coalition Village II 
Page 16 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

William Scotsman, the incumbent contractor for the Coalition Village I 

project, hand-carried its proposal to the 6th Contracting Squadron at 11:31 

a.m. on February 18, 2003, and there was no question that it had met the 

deadline. The third contractor and winning offeror, Resun Leasing, faxed 

its proposal at 3 minutes past 12:00 p.m., according to the time stamp on 

the fax machine. However, MacDill contracting officials determined that 

the fax machine clock was 3 minutes fast, and that the first page of 

Resun’s proposal was received by the 12:00 p.m. deadline. Although not all 

the pages of Resun’s proposal were received by the deadline, the 

contracting officer determined that because the first page had been 

received in time, the entire proposal was timely. 

Although Resun’s proposal was arguably late, MacDill contracting officials 

determined that Resun Leasing was the “lowest price, technically 

acceptable offeror” and verbally notified the contractor on February 18, 

2003, to proceed with the project. Resun’s initial offer for the contract was 

$111,000, but a MacDill contracting official subsequently noted a 

computation error, which increased the offer to $142,755. The offer 

submitted by William Scotsman was for $196,000. William Scotsman 

subsequently questioned MacDill officials about the propriety of 

considering Resun’s apparently late offer. Nevertheless, although William 

Scotsman submitted a timely offer and therefore could have protested to 

GAO, it did not protest the award to Resun Leasing and MacDill’s handling 

of the Resun offer.18 A contracting official told us that MacDill has now 

instituted a policy clearly stating that all pages of a faxed proposal must be 

received by the deadline for it to be considered timely. 

Numerous modifications to the contract were made after work began on 

February 19, 2003. On April 22, 2003, Resun filed a claim for additional 

work, including six additional flagpoles, electrical and wiring changes, 

interior and exterior trailer modifications, revised grounding/lightning 

protection, interior and exterior locks, and additional air conditioning 

units totaling $467,000, but revised the amount several times. Resun 

submitted another revision on June 9, 2003, claiming an amount of 

$372,172. On May 20, 2003, MacDill validated $134,000 of the claim, leaving 

$238,172 to be negotiated. On July 20, 2003, the contractor acknowledged 

that it owed the government $4,977 because of erroneous billing, which 

left a total of $233,196 to be negotiated. MacDill officials agreed to pay this 

 18Under GAO’s Bid Protest Regulations, a protest by William Scotsman at this time would 

be untimely and would not be considered. See 4 C.F.R. § 21.2 (a)(2). 
Page 17 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

amount and issued a contract modification on July 31, 2003, to capture this 

change. The total amount paid for the project was, therefore, $509,951 (see 

table 4). However, as discussed subsequently, the contract file did not 

contain adequate documentation for us to determine how MacDill officials 

arrived at this settlement. 

Table 4: Payments and Claims for Coalition Village II Contract 

Contract phase Date 

Amount paid by 

MacDill 

Amount claimed 

by contractor 

Initial contract award 02/18/03 $142,755 

Contractor’s claim for additional 

work 04/22/03 $467,082 

Amount of claim validated for 

payment by MacDill 05/20/03 134,000 

Revised contractor’s claim for 

additional work 06/09/03 372,172 

Additional reduction in 

contractor’s claim due to 

erroneous billing 07/20/03 -4,977 

Payment on claim for additional 

work 07/31/03 233,196 

Total amount paid by MacDill $509,951 

Source: GAO analysis of MacDill data. 

Our efforts to assess contract costs for Coalition Village II were hampered 

by missing documents in the contract file, undocumented decisions for 

properly authorized changes to the contract, and changes to contract 

requirements by on-site personnel that were not properly coordinated with 

contracting officials. Because of these weaknesses in contract 

management, we were unable to determine if the government paid costs 

that otherwise might have been avoided or minimized. 

Our review of the Resun contract file showed that it was missing several 

key documents needed to assess the appropriateness of contract costs. 

The file did not contain documentation that the winning proposal 

represented a technically acceptable offer19 or an assessment that the price 

 19“The relative strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and risks supporting 

proposal evaluation shall be documented in the contract file.” 48 C.F.R. § 15.305 (a). 

Poor Record Keeping, 

Undocumented Decisions, 

and the Lack of 

Coordination of Changes 

with Contracting Officials 

Hamper Ability to Assess 

Contract Costs 
Page 18 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

was reasonable.20 MacDill contracting officials agreed that poor record 

keeping was a problem with the Coalition Village II contract. The contract 

file also did not contain documentation to fully validate the contractor’s 

entire claim. While validation of $134,000 of the initial claim was 

documented, there was no documentation indicating how MacDill officials 

determined that the remaining amount of the claim was valid and 

reasonable. 

Further, the file did not contain sufficient documentation regarding 

authorized changes to the contract. Modifications to the contract were 

made during twice-weekly meetings between representatives of the 

contractor, the customer (CENTCOM), technical advisors (civil 

engineers), and contracting staff, but no official minutes were maintained 

to document the agreements that were reached. In a memorandum for the 

record, the contract administrator acknowledged that a written log of 

contract changes was not developed. The absence of documentation of 

authorized contract modifications makes it difficult to assess contract 

costs. 

The Resun contract file also did not contain sufficient documentation to 

indicate who authorized some contract changes21 or the cost estimates for 

some changes. MacDill officials told us that they were surprised when the 

contractor submitted the claim for $467,000 to cover additional work 

performed under the contract. They said that the contracting officer and 

contract administrator were not aware of all changes that had been made 

because unauthorized personnel inappropriately authorized changes to the 

contract on site without informing contracting officials. During the rush to 

get the project completed, involved parties including representatives of 

the customer and technical advisors made on-site changes that were not 

always coordinated with the contracting officer. In a memorandum for the 

record dated June 29, 2003, the contract administrator wrote that he did 

not know about many of the changes, nor did the CENTCOM point of 

contact or the representative from civil engineering, who assisted with 

 20“The contracting officer shall document the cost or price evaluation.” 48 C.F.R. § 15.305 

(a)(1). 

2148 C.F.R. § 43.102 (a) provides that “[o]nly contracting officers acting within the scope of 

their authority are empowered to execute contract modifications on behalf of the 

Government. Other government personnel shall not (1) Execute contract modifications; 

(2) Act in such a manner as to cause the contractors to believe that they have authority to 

bind the Government; or (3) Direct or encourage the contractor to perform work that 

should be the subject of a contract modification.” 
Page 19 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

contract oversight. The price negotiation memorandum written to 

document the final settlement of the claim also notes a lack of adequate 

documentation to determine who authorized the extra work. The absence 

of these documents along with inadequate documentation of contract 

changes makes it difficult to retrospectively assess the appropriateness of 

contract costs. 

MacDill Air Force Base and other installations we identified that provide 

lodging for reservists on extended temporary duty are often making efforts 

to reduce off-base lodging costs by (1) obtaining prices that are below the 

maximum allowable rate for lodging established by GSA and (2) requiring 

military personnel below specified ranks to share apartments and/or hotel 

rooms. While public concerns in the Tampa area were accurate in citing 

MacDill’s monthly rental costs for some two-bedroom apartment units of 

$2,400, these concerns failed to recognize that GSA establishes lodging 

rates for travelers on official government business based on daily perperson rates. Therefore, a two-bedroom apartment renting for $2,400 per 

month ($80 per day) shared by two people results in a daily lodging rate of 

$40 per person, well below the maximum allowable GSA rate of $93 per 

day in the Tampa area. On a unit basis, these rates are also comparable to 

corporate housing rates in the Tampa area, which generally provide 

furnished units with similar amenities to those provided to military 

personnel, though MacDill’s per-person costs were usually lower due to 

lodging sharing arrangements. 

Each installation we visited had different methods for providing extended 

temporary lodging. The majority of installations contacted had sufficient 

capacity to provide lodging for reservists on base or made arrangements to 

provide lodging off base for other military travelers on a short-term basis. 

Installations providing off-base lodging used different procurement tools 

(BPAs, purchase orders, and contracts) but obtained comparable savings 

regardless of the procurement instrument used. Local GSA lodging rates 

are public knowledge and generally represent the ceiling for acceptable 

offers. Significant savings over GSA daily rates were also obtained through 

the implementation of installation specific guidance requiring reservists at 

specific ranks to share rooms and/or apartments, but the ranks required to 

share units varied by installation. Installations also obtained varying terms 

in their agreements with hotels and apartment vendors, primarily 

regarding penalties for early departures. 

The primary factors affecting off-base lodging prices are local market 

conditions (the inventory of vacant hotel rooms and apartment units) and 

Conclusions 
Page 20 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

the prevailing GSA lodging rate. An alternative approach to providing offbase lodging, such as direct leasing of apartment properties, might be 

considered but would need to consider other factors such as the added 

costs of government management and the provision of additional services 

comparable to those now being provided. 

Although Coalition Village II was implemented under extreme time 

constraints, effective contract management suffered from questionable 

acceptance of the winning offer, poor record keeping, undocumented 

decisions, and changes to contract requirements that were not properly 

coordinated with contracting officials. We were not able to assess the 

basis for additional costs paid to the contractor or the extent to which 

costs might have been avoided or minimized because of these contract 

management weaknesses. 

We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the 

Air Force to direct the Commander of the Air Mobility Command to 

emphasize to MacDill personnel the importance of adhering to sound 

contract management procedures that exist to protect the interests of the 

government. Communications should reemphasize that contract files 

should be properly maintained and only authorized personnel should 

initiate changes to contract requirements, even during time sensitive 

procurements. In addition to contracting officials, such communications 

should also be provided to contractors, base customers of contracting 

services, and contract support personnel. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, the office of the Director, Defense 

Procurement and Acquisition Policy, did not dispute the GAO audit 

findings regarding the Coalition Village II procurement and partially 

concurred with our recommendation. The office suggested that the 

recommendation is not needed because the 6th Contracting Squadron at 

MacDill Air Force Base had already taken corrective actions, including an 

internal review of Coalition Village II contract files that resulted in letters 

of reprimand for a contracting officer and contract administrator. 

However, as noted in DOD’s response, some of the more significant 

actions that relate to the specifics of our recommendation are planned but 

not yet completed. Accordingly, we believe it appropriate to retain the 

recommendation pending completion of all indicated corrective actions. 

We expect to follow up to determine the extent to which planned actions 

have been taken. The comments from the office of the Director, Defense 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 21 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

Procurement and Acquisition Policy, are included in appendix II of this 

report. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the 

Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of 

the Marine Corps; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and 

other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon 

request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions on the matters discussed in this 

letter, please contact me at (202) 512-5581. Key contributors to this letter 

were George Poindexter, Vijay Barnabas, Nelsie Alcoser, Kenneth Patton, 

Tanisha Stewart, and Nancy Benco. 

Barry W. Holman 

Director, Defense Capabilities and Management 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 22 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

To describe the extent to which MacDill Air Force Base used cost-effective 

measures to provide long-term, off-base lodging for reservists on extended 

temporary duty, we visited and interviewed officials from the 6th

Contracting Squadron and 6th Services Squadron at MacDill Air Force Base, 

and we interviewed apartment managers and brokers in the Tampa, 

Florida, area. We analyzed records on temporary lodging rates paid for 

military personnel housed off-site at MacDill Air Force Base and the 

numbers of National Guard and Reserve service members on extended 

temporary duty at this installation. We identified the allowable GSA 

lodging rate for the Tampa, Florida, area and compared this amount to the 

amounts paid for off-base lodging. We determined whether MacDill Air 

Force Base used contracts or BPAs to provide off-site lodging for service 

members on extended temporary duty and reviewed the processes 

followed in developing these procurement instruments for acquiring offbase lodging. We reviewed the BPAs MacDill had with hotel and apartment 

vendors in the Tampa area. 

To compare the practices used at MacDill Air Force Base to acquire offbase lodging to practices at other installations, we visited and interviewed 

contracting and lodging officials at Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base. 

These installations were selected based on our review of Reserve and 

National Guard deployment data for force protection activities and followup phone calls to establish that the bases procured off-base lodging. In 

addition, we obtained information on lodging practices at Fort Meyer, 

Dover Air Force Base, McGuire Air Force Base, Fort Hood, and Fort Dix. 

We also contacted Navy and Marine Corps officials at the headquarters 

level to determine their practices for providing lodging for reservists on 

extended temporary duty. We identified the allowable GSA lodging rates 

for Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base and compared these amounts to 

the amounts paid for off-base lodging. We determined whether these 

installations used contracts, purchase orders or BPAs to provide off-site 

lodging for service members on extended temporary duty and the 

processes followed in developing these procurement instruments. 

We met officials from the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and 

Readiness), U.S. Air Force (Installations and Logistics Contracting), and 

DOD’s Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee to 

collect information on Department of Defense lodging regulations and 

procedures. At each of the installations we visited, we collected and 

reviewed lodging policies, procedures, and practices regarding temporary 

duty personnel. In addition, we reviewed the requirements in the Joint 

Federal Travel Regulations regarding temporary duty travel. We reviewed 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 23 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

all data that we received, but we did not verify the accuracy of the data 

provided by DOD or the installations. 

To determine if MacDill followed proper procedures in contracting for the 

lease of temporary office trailers for Coalition Village II, we interviewed 

officials from the 6th Contracting Squadron, including the commander, the 

current contracting officer, the contract administrator, and other contract 

staff familiar with the procurement process. In these discussions, we 

sought information on the actions taken to implement the project, the 

timing of such actions, and the justification for contracting procedures 

followed. We reviewed documents prepared by contracting officials to 

explain procedures followed in administering the contract, including a 

Talking Paper and Acquisition Timeline of Events for Coalition Village II. 

In addition, we reviewed the contract and other documentation in the 

contract file, including correspondence, memorandums for the record and 

the contractor’s claims for payment. We also reviewed relevant provisions 

of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) related to this procurement. 

Specifically, we researched FAR authorities related to the use of “Unusual 

and Compelling Urgency” in government procurements, including 

competition and documentation requirements under such circumstances. 

We also researched and analyzed prior GAO bid protest decisions 

regarding determinations of timeliness in the acceptance of electronic 

submissions of proposals. 

We conducted our review from June 2003 through December 2003 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 24 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 25 GAO-04-296 Defense Management 

Note: Page numbers in 

the draft report may differ 

from those in this report. 

(350399) 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs