United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

March 1998 ACQUISITION

REFORM

Implementation of Key

Aspects of the Federal

Acquisition

Streamlining Act of

1994

GAO/NSIAD-98-81

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-274611 

March 9, 1998

Congressional Committees

The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) contained more

than 200 sections changing the laws that govern how federal agencies

annually acquire almost $200 billion in goods and services. The act

required us to evaluate the effectiveness of actions taken to implement

FASA. To address this mandate, we determined whether selected federal

organizations were (1) reducing unique purchasing requirements,

(2) increasing the use of simplified acquisition procedures, and

(3) obtaining goods and services faster while reducing in-house purchasing

cost.

Background FASA provided the executive branch with tools to improve the process for

acquiring goods and services. FASA’s changes were implemented in

revisions to federal acquisition regulations, directives, and instructions. All

changes directed by FASA were to apply to government acquisitions by

October 1, 1995. To determine the extent that selected FASA key purposes

were being achieved, we selected procurement measures that, for the most

part, had been identified by the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s

Acquisition Reform Benchmarking Group and the Procurement

Executives’ Working Group of the President’s Management Council as

indicators of the progress in streamlining the government’s acquisition

system. We discussed the use of our selected measures with congressional

staff, agency and service officials, and experts in the field of government

procurement.

To determine whether selected federal organizations were taking actions

to implement FASA purposes, we collected procurement data for seven

measures. Figure 1 shows the linkage of these measures to selected key

FASA purposes.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
B-274611 

Figure 1: Selected Key FASA Purposes and Related Procurement Measures

Reduce unique purchasing

requirements

Minimize requirements for obtaining certified cost or pricing 

 data--factual information that could significantly affect contract 

 price negotiations.

Increase purchase of commercial items--goods and services 

 available to the general public.

Increase use of simplified

acquisition procedures 

Increase the use of simplified acquisition procedures--less complex and 

 faster purchasing techniques that generally involve less formal 

 competitive procedures and paperwork and are used for purchases of 

 goods and services valued at $100,000 or less.

Increase use of purchase cards--one of the simplest buying methods 

 and the preferred method for purchases valued at $2,500 or less.

Obtain goods and services

faster and reduce in-house

purchasing cost

Reduce the number of bid protests--formal complaints of inappropriate 

 treatment in awarding federal contracts.

Reduce procurement administrative lead time--average time from 

 receipt of a purchase request in the procurement office until a contract 

 is awarded.

Lower in-house purchasing cost--the procurement organization's cost 

 to acquire goods and services.

We collected procurement data at eight selected federal organizations to

determine their status in achieving key FASA purposes. Also, for several

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
B-274611 

measures, we added overall Department of Defense (DOD) data for

comparative purposes. See appendix I for additional details.

Results in Brief No uniform procurement data were being collected centrally to adequately

assess whether FASA’s purposes were being achieved. Data for each

measure were not always available for the eight federal organizations.

Accordingly, our analyses had variations. Certain organizations had

introduced acquisition streamlining initiatives before FASA’s

implementation, and they had several years of data available for some

measures. For other measures, only 1 year of data was available, and that

provides a baseline for comparing subsequent years’ data.

Despite data limitations, our measures indicate that the organizations we

reviewed were working toward achieving key FASA purposes. To reach

more meaningful conclusions on the extent to which these key FASA

purposes are being achieved, additional data would have to be collected

and examined for subsequent fiscal years. The following is a summary of

results linked to key FASA purposes.

Reduce unique purchasing requirements:

• Requests for submission of cost or pricing data decreased at two of three

defense locations, while little change was noted DOD-wide.

• Sufficient information was not available to determine whether acquisition

of commercial items had increased.

Increase use of simplified acquisition procedures:

• Use of simplified acquisition procedures, including the use of purchase

cards, increased at most locations.

Obtain goods and services faster and reduce in-house purchasing

cost:

• The number of bid protests declined at most locations.

• The time needed to award a contract had generally decreased, thereby

expediting the purchases of goods and services.

• Sufficient data were not available to make a definitive observation

regarding in-house purchasing costs. Additional data would have to be

available and examined for subsequent fiscal years.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
B-274611 

Reduce Unique

Purchasing

Requirements

To determine whether selected federal organizations had reduced the use

of unique purchasing requirements, we collected information on requests

for cost and pricing data and the acquisition of commercial items at three

defense organizations. Requests for cost or pricing data decreased from

fiscal year 1991 to 1996 at two of the organizations, while little change was

noted at the other organization. DOD-wide statistics, which we have

included for comparative purposes, also show relatively little change.

Sufficient information was not available to determine whether acquisition

of commercial items had increased. Therefore, our data show only

baseline information. Increasing government purchases of commercial

items has been a major acquisition reform effort that is expected to

streamline and reduce government unique requirements. However,

defense organizations only began reporting data on commercial item

acquisitions in fiscal year 1996. Civilian organizations started reporting

such data the following year.

Certified Cost or Pricing

Data

In the absence of adequate price competition, certified cost or pricing data

can help ensure that the government receives a fair and reasonable price.

Because production and maintenance of such data can be costly, FASA

sought to limit the circumstances under which this data would be

required. In fiscal year 1991, the threshold for obtaining certified cost or

pricing data was increased to $500,000 for DOD, the Coast Guard, and the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), but remained at

$100,000 for civilian organizations. FASA raised the threshold to $500,000

governmentwide and promoted the use of alternatives to cost or pricing

data for determining whether a price is reasonable. The act emphasized

that cost or pricing data should not be requested if specific exemptions

apply—such as the presence of adequate price competition.

We did not include civilian organizations in our analysis, as none of the

selected sites in our review collected information on cost or pricing data.

Also, we excluded the Defense Supply Center, Columbus (DSCC) from our

analysis because less than 1 percent of its actions exceeded $500,000.

Figure 2 shows the percent of the actions—definitive contracts and certain

modifications—over $500,000 for which cost or pricing data were reported

to have been required.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
B-274611 

Figure 2: Certified Cost or Pricing Data for Contract Actions Over $500,000 (fiscal years 1991-96) 

0

20

40

60

80

100

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

FY91 

FY92 

FY93 

FY94 

FY95 

FY96 

AAA AAA

AAA

AAA AAA

NAVAIR ASC MICOM DOD

71 76 55 29

70 43 54 30

70 55 44 32

75 55 50 31

59 47 58 31

57 48 55 29

Percent 

a

aMICOM is now the Aviation and Missile Command.

The percent of contracting actions for which cost or pricing data were

obtained decreased from fiscal year 1991 to 1996 at the Naval Air Systems

Command (NAVAIR) and the Aeronautical Systems Center (ASC), while little

material change was noted at the Missile Command (MICOM). DOD-wide

statistics, which we have included for comparative purposes, also show

relatively little change.

Commercial Item

Acquisitions

The purchase of commercial items eliminates the need to use detailed

government specifications and standards and allows the government to

obtain state-of-the-art commercial technology. Advocates of commercial

item acquisitions claim substantial savings are possible.

FASA stated a preference for the procurement of commercial items.

Defense organizations began reporting information on the procurement of

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
B-274611 

commercial items in fiscal year 1996. Figure 3 contains information on the

procurement of commercial items at three of the four defense

organizations we visited. For comparative purposes, we have also included

data for DOD. We excluded DSCC, since only 1.6 percent of its total

actions—commercial and noncommercial—were over $25,000 for fiscal

year 1996. The Department of Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), the General Services Administration (GSA), and the Marshall

Space Flight Center (MSFC) were not included in our analysis because they

did not begin reporting commercial item acquisitions until fiscal year 1997.

Figure 3: Acquisition of Commercial

Items Costing Over $25,000 (fiscal year

1996) Dollars in billions

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

All other

Commercial 

Percent commercial

DOD ASC NAVAIR MICOM

$109.37 $14,013.00 $9,649.00 $3,089.00

$10.18 $441.00 $121.00 $24.00

$9.00 $3.00 $1.00 $1.00

Thousands 100

110

120

$10.18

$109.37

9

$0.44

$14.01

3

$9.65

$0.12

1

$3.09

$0.02

1

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
B-274611 

Because agencies were only beginning to collect data on commercial item

acquisitions, data were not available to measure whether the procurement

of such items has increased.

Increase Use of

Simplified Acquisition

Procedures

Use of simplified acquisition procedures, including the use of purchase

cards, increased at most selected federal organizations.1

Simplified Acquisition

Procedure Actions

FASA expanded the use of simplified acquisition procedures to acquisitions

costing between $25,000 and $100,000 when it established a simplified

acquisition threshold of $100,000. Prior to enactment of FASA, the threshold

had been set at $25,000. Simplified acquisition procedures permit

streamlined competition with less paperwork and reduced processing

times.

Figure 4 shows the number of times simplified acquisition procedures

were used in acquisitions ranging from $25,000 to $100,000. For

comparative purposes, data for DOD is also shown. No statistics are shown

for EPA, as data were not available for fiscal year 1996.

1

Simplified acquisition procedures also include the use of blanket purchase agreements, that can be

used like charge accounts, and pocket-size purchase order forms for over-the-counter purchases.

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
B-274611 

Figure 4: Use of Simplified Acquisition

Procedures (fiscal year 1996)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

FY 96 

DOE GSA DOD

0.3 5.7 26.8

Actions in thousands

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

FY 96 

ASC MSFC MICOM NAVAIR DSCC

0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 2.0

Actions in thousands

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
B-274611 

Without the increased threshold, acquisitions illustrated in figure 4 would

have required the use of more complex procedures. DOD’s 26,800 simplified

acquisition procedure actions represent 17 percent of all its actions

between $25,000 and $100,000. Data for 1 full year under the increased

threshold should serve as a baseline for comparing subsequent years’ data.

Purchase Card Actions The use of a government purchase card is one of the simplest forms of a

simplified acquisition procedure. In December 1994, a FASA implementing

regulation made using these cards the preferred buying method for

micro-purchases—procurement actions valued at $2,500 or less. Figure 5

shows the number of purchase card actions during fiscal years 1995-96.

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
B-274611 

Figure 5: Purchase Card Actions (fiscal years 1995-96)

0

50

100

150

200

FY 95 

FY 96 

EPA GSA DOD DOE

34.8 40.6 69.2 87.3

34.5 76.8 143.6 180.7

Actions in thousands

0

20

40

60

80

FY 95 

FY 96 

DSCC MSFC MICOM ASC NAVAIR

1.3 4.4 12.5 19.4 49.7

2.7 5.9 15.5 40.5 69.8

Actions in thousands

a b

c

aAccording to a headquarters Defense Logistics Agency official, DSCC data are primarily base

support actions. Most micro-purchase actions are excluded as they are processed through an

automatic disbursement system that makes payments through electronic fund transfers.

bASC data include all actions from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

cDOE totals include actions by the Department’s management and operating contractors as well

as by DOE.

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
B-274611 

The number of purchase card actions increased at most activities we

visited. This increase is an indication of progress being made in

simplifying the acquisition process for selected procurement actions.

Obtain Items Faster

and Reduce In-House

Purchasing Cost

The number of bid protests declined at most selected procuring

organizations. Also, the time needed to award a contract generally

decreased, thus expediting the purchase of goods and services for our

selected federal organizations. Sufficient data were not available to make

definitive observations regarding in-house purchasing costs at these

organizations.

Number of Bid Protests Formal bid protests may be filed with the soliciting agency, federal courts,

and GAO.

2

 Adjudication of formal bid protests can be costly and

time-consuming. FASA sought to reduce the number of protests by

establishing a more meaningful debriefing process for explaining to

vendors why they were not selected for the award of a contract.

Figure 6 shows the annual number of bid protests filed during fiscal 

years 1993-96 for the sites we visited. Protest data should not be compared

among organizations, as complete data were not readily available at each

site. Figure 7 shows, for all government organizations, the number of bid

protests filed annually with GAO during fiscal years 1993-97.

2

Until recently, protests on information technology acquisitions could also be filed with the General

Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals.

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
B-274611 

Figure 6: Bid Protests at Selected

Procuring Activities (fiscal years

1993-96)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

 FY 93 

 FY 94 

 FY 95 

 FY 96 

DSCC NAVAIR ASC MICOM MSFC

47 68 29 25 5

63 38 19 20 7

100 28 26 36 6

87 26 29 19 1

Number of protests

a

0

50

100

150

200

 FY 93 

 FY 94 

 FY 95

 FY 96 

GSA DOE EPA

185 83 21

177 72 9

83 67 18

126 25 9

Number of protests

b

aFiscal year 1993 totals do not include protests filed with the agency as such records were not

available.

bAccording to GSA, fiscal year 1995 protest data are incomplete. Annual protest statistics for the

remaining years include all data that were readily available at GSA headquarters.

The number of bid protests declined at most selected procuring

organizations.

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
B-274611 

Figure 7: Bid Protests Filed With GAO

(fiscal years 1993-97)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Protests to GAO

FY 93 FY 94 FY 95 FY 96 FY 97

3,377 2,809 2,529 2,286 1,852

Number of protests

The number of bid protests filed with GAO declined significantly from fiscal

year 1993 to 1997.

Procurement

Administrative Lead Time

This measure is used by defense and civilian agencies to determine the

responsiveness of their procurement organizations. In determining the

extent to which our selected organizations had streamlined their response

time, we noted that the procurement administrative lead time was being

measured in a variety of ways. Therefore, direct comparisons should not

be made among the organizations shown in figure 8. EPA data were

excluded, as these data were incomplete. DOE did not collect procurement

administrative lead time data.

Figure 8 shows procurement administrative lead time during fiscal 

years 1993-96 at six of the sites we visited.

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
B-274611 

Figure 8: Procurement Administrative Lead Time (fiscal years 1993-96)

0

50

100

150

200

250

FY 93 

FY 94 

FY 95 

FY 96 

NAVAIR GSA MICOM ASC MSFC DSCC

165 176 182 41 39 37

194 162 164 45 50 47

146 163 146 42 27 34

109 157 102 42 14 31

Average number of days

a b c d f e

aNAVAIR totals are the average of totals for research, development, test, and evaluation; other

services; and supplies and equipment.

bGSA totals are the average of the individual services and the supplies and equipment

commodity codes with the greatest activity at the Federal Supply Service.

cMICOM totals are only for spares and repair parts. The fiscal year 1993 total is based on 

11 months of data.

dASC totals are based on all contractual actions from ASC systems at Wright-Patterson and Eglin

Air Force Bases and research and development contracts at Wright Laboratory.

eMSFC totals are based on data from contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, purchase

orders, charge account orders, purchase card orders, and delivery orders, but not modifications.

f

DSCC totals are based on stocked items and direct vendor delivery items.

Procurement administrative lead times were reduced for the goods and

services covered at five of the sites.

In-house Purchasing Cost We computed an in-house purchasing cost for selected DOD organizations

by dividing the personnel cost of the professional acquisition workforce by

the value of contract actions over $25,000, less research, development,

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
B-274611 

testing, and evaluation costs.3 The DOD professional acquisition workforce

is defined by the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 1990

(DAWIA).4

 We limited our analysis to DOD organizations, as the act does not

apply to civilian agencies.5

Figure 9 shows the in-house purchasing cost in cents per contract dollar,

and figure 10 shows the number of professional acquisition personnel.

Figure 9: In-house Purchasing Cost (fiscal years 1993-96)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

FY 93 

FY 94 

FY 95 

FY 96 

NAVAIR MICOM DSCC

12.1 5.2 5.0

14.0 8.0 5.4

11.6 8.6 4.6

13.1 6.9 5.9

Cents

3

Our analysis was based on contract actions over $25,000 as these data were readily available from the

Defense Contract Action Data System. We excluded research, development, testing, and evaluation

costs, as DOD had used this approach in its cost analyses. However, even when we included this cost,

we found that the in-house purchasing cost from fiscal year 1993 to 1996 still increased at two of these

sites, while there was no material change at the remaining site. We recognize that other methods for

computing in-house cost exist.

4

DAWIA required the Secretary of Defense to designate professional acquisition personnel

occupational categories. The categories in this professional workforce include accountants, budget

analysts, computer specialists, engineers, and contracting officers. About 20 percent of the employees

in defense acquisition organizations have been designated as the professional workforce.

5

The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 expanded requirements similar to those in DAWIA to civilian agencies’

acquisition workforces.

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
B-274611 

When assessing the government’s in-house purchasing cost, it is important

to separately examine changes in the actual number of DAWIA personnel, as

shown in figure 10. For example, NAVAIR’s in-house purchasing cost

increased from fiscal year 1993 to 1996, but its actual number of DAWIA

personnel declined. Additional data would have to be examined for

subsequent years to draw meaningful observations regarding the in-house

purchasing cost.

DAWIA defined the types of positions that are included in the professional

acquisition workforce. Each employee within this workforce must meet

specific experience, training, and education requirements. Figure 10 shows

the number of DAWIA personnel for whom we obtained personnel costs.

Figure 10: DAWIA Acquisition Personnel (fiscal years 1993-96)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

 FY93 

 FY94 

 FY95 

 FY96 

NAVAIR MICOM DSCC

13,208 2,141 644

12,541 2,048 611

12,580 2,201 570

12,244 2,111 737

Numbers in Thousands

From fiscal year 1993 to 1996, the number of DAWIA employees declined at

NAVAIR and at MICOM. The number of DAWIA employees increased at the DSCC,

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
B-274611 

primarily due to the merger of the Defense Logistics Agency’s Defense

Electronics Supply Center in Dayton with the DSCC.

Conclusions As FASA did not have to be fully implemented until fiscal year 1996, only

limited data were available for our analyses. Using these data, our analyses

show a snapshot of the extent to which selected key FASA purposes were

being achieved at selected organizations at the end of fiscal year 1996. To

reach more meaningful conclusions on the extent to which these key FASA

purposes are being achieved, additional data would have to be collected

and examined for subsequent fiscal years.

Agency Comments We asked the Departments of Defense and Energy, EPA, GSA, and NASA to

review and comment on a draft of this report. At our exit conference, DOD

officials stated that they concurred with the views expressed in our draft

report concerning the summary of results linked to key FASA purposes.

They noted, however, that results from their Enterprise Acquisition and

Technology Metrics showed “significant baseline progress” being made in

the acquisition reform arena. They stated that these results, including

some fiscal year 1997 procurement data, could be found on the

Department’s Acquisition Reform internet

homepage—www.acq.osd.mil/ar. Although the website referred to by DOD

does contain graphical displays of data, including some with fiscal year

1997 information, we located only four measures similar to the ones in our

report. As of February 26, 1998, none of these four measures contained

fiscal year 1997 data.

DOE, GSA, and NASA each commented favorably on our report and also

offered several technical suggestions for clarifying data in the report. Their

comments, which are reprinted in appendixes III, IV, and V, respectively,

were addressed by adding several footnotes to the final report. EPA did not

comment on our draft report.

Appendix I describes our objective, scope, and methodology, and

appendix II describes the eight organizations from which we obtained data

for this report.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Defense, the

Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and Energy; the Administrator of the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the Director, Defense

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
B-274611 

Logistics Agency; the Administrators of the General Services

Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency; and the

Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also provide copies to

other interested parties upon request.

Please contact me or my Assistant Director, Ralph C. Dawn, at

(202) 512-4841 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this

report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.

David E. Cooper

Associate Director

Defense Acquisitions Issues

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
B-274611 

List of Congressional Committees

The Honorable Fred Thompson

Chairman

The Honorable John Glenn

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Strom Thurmond

Chairman

The Honorable Carl Levin

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Christopher S. Bond

Chairman

The Honorable John F. Kerry

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Small Business

United States Senate

The Honorable Dan Burton

Chairman

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

House of Representatives

The Honorable Floyd Spence

Chairman

The Honorable Ike Skelton

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on National Security

House of Representatives

The Honorable James M. Talent

Chairman

The Honorable Nydia M. Velazquez

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Small Business

House of Representatives

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Objective, Scope, and

Methodology

22

Appendix II 

Organizations That

Provided Data

25

Army Missile Command 25

Naval Air Systems Command 25

Aeronautical Systems Center 25

Defense Supply Center, Columbus 26

Marshall Space Flight Center 26

Department of Energy 26

Environmental Protection Agency 27

General Services Administration 27

Appendix III 

Comments From the

Department of Energy

28

Appendix IV 

Comments From the

General Services

Administration

29

Appendix V 

Comments From the

National Aeronautics

and Space

Administration

31

Appendix VI 

Major Contributors to

This Report

32

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
Contents

Figures Figure 1: Selected Key FASA Purposes and Related Procurement

Measures

2

Figure 2: Certified Cost or Pricing Data for Contract Actions Over

$500,000

5

Figure 3: Acquisition of Commercial Items Costing Over $25,000 6

Figure 4: Use of Simplified Acquisition Procedures 8

Figure 5: Purchase Card Actions 10

Figure 6: Bid Protests at Selected Procuring Activities 12

Figure 7: Bid Protests Filed With GAO 13

Figure 8: Procurement Administrative Lead Time 14

Figure 9: In-house Purchasing Cost 15

Figure 10: DAWIA Acquisition Personnel 16

Figure I.1: Selected Key FASA Purposes and Related

Procurement Measures

23

Abbreviations

ASC Aeronautical Systems Center

DAWIA Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 1990

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DSCC Defense Supply Center, Columbus

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FASA Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994

GSA General Services Administration

MICOM Missile Command

MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NAVAIR Naval Air Systems Command

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
Appendix I 

Objective, Scope, and Methodology

The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) mandated that we

evaluate and report on the effectiveness of actions taken to implement the

act. To address this mandate, we determined whether the selected federal

organizations were (1) reducing unique purchasing requirements,

(2) increasing use of simplified acquisition procedures, and (3) obtaining

goods and services faster while reducing in-house purchasing cost.

To determine the extent the three FASA purposes were being achieved, we

selected procurement measures that, for the most part, had been identified

by the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Acquisition Reform

Benchmarking Group and the Procurement Executives’ Working Group of

the President’s Management Council as indicators of the progress in

streamlining the government’s acquisition system. We discussed the use of

our selected measures with congressional staff, agency and service

officials, and experts in the field of government procurement. Our analysis

was based on seven measures, which are linked to three key FASA purposes

discussed in this report (see fig. I.1).

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
Appendix I 

Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Figure I.1: Selected Key FASA

Purposes and Related Procurement

Measures

Reduce unique purchasing

requirements

Increase use of simplified

acquisition procedures 

Obtain goods and services

faster and reduce in-house

purchasing cost

Reduce the number of bid protests--formal complaints 

 of inappropriate treatment in awarding federal contracts.

Reduce procurement administrative lead time--

 average time from receipt of a purchase request in

 the procurement office until a contract is awarded.

Lower in-house purchasing cost--the procurement 

 organization's cost to acquire goods and services.

Minimize requirements for obtaining certified cost or 

 pricing data--factual information that could 

 significantly affect contract price negotiations.

Increase purchase of commercial items--goods and 

 services available to the general public.

Increase the use of simplified acquisition procedures--less

 complex and faster purchasing techniques that generally

 involve less formal competitive procedures and paperwork

 and are used for purchases of goods and services valued

 at $100,000 or less.

Increase use of purchase cards---one of the simplest 

buying methods and the preferred method for purchases 

valued at $2,5000 or less.

As uniform procurement data were not being collected centrally to fully

assess FASA’s effectiveness, we collected and analyzed data at five

procuring organizations that annually reported large amounts of contract

dollars. These organizations, along with their parent organizations, are the

Aeronautical Systems Center (Air Force); the Defense Supply Center,

Columbus (Defense Logistics Agency); the Marshall Space Flight Center

(National Aeronautics and Space Administration); the Missile Command

(Army);1

 and the Naval Air Systems Command (Navy). At these five sites,

we interviewed officials involved in procurement and collected documents

and procurement data. To provide additional civilian agency coverage, we

performed limited work at three departments and agencies. We

1

Effective October 1, 1997, the Army’s Aviation and Troop Command was merged into the Missile

Command, with the latter now designated as the Aviation and Missile Command. All Army data in our

report pertain solely to the former Missile Command.

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
Appendix I 

Objective, Scope, and Methodology

interviewed headquarters acquisition officials and analyzed agencywide

procurement data for a limited number of measures at the Department of

Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the General

Services Administration (GSA). In addition, we also collected some overall

procurement data from the Department of Defense (DOD).

To assess the validity of computerized data from our selected

organizations’ automated systems, we obtained information on internal

controls over data input; processing; and output, such as built-in

automated edit checks; and on external reviews of the systems. We did not

verify these data to original source documents.

We issued written requests for procurement data to agency and service

officials. In addition to site data, we also obtained procurement data from

the Defense Contract Action Data System and the Federal Procurement

Data System2

 and personnel data from the Defense Manpower Data Center

and the Office of Personnel Management. We discussed our data collection

and subsequent analyses with acquisition officials at each site and made

revisions to our approach in response to their comments.

Data presented in our report should serve only as indicators of trends and

baselines, since the information was gathered from a limited number of

locations. These data should not be projected to a larger universe. In

addition, as executive agencies had introduced acquisition streamlining

initiatives before FASA implementation, it was not possible to determine

the extent to which FASA alone was responsible for changes in acquisition

at the selected federal organizations.

We performed our review between June 1996 and February 1998 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

2

As of February 23, 1998, fiscal year 1997 procurement data was not available from either of these two

data systems.

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
Appendix II 

Organizations That Provided Data

Army Missile

Command

The Army Missile Command (MICOM), located in Huntsville, Alabama, is

one of five major commodity commands of the Army Materiel Command.

MICOM’s primary mission is to integrate systems acquisitions and

commodity management of missile and rocket systems and other assigned

materiel. It also serves as the worldwide distributor of parts and

components for all of the Army’s missile systems. The Command manages

a number of combat optics systems and combat laser systems and

executes the Security Assistance and Logistics Assistance Programs.

MICOM obligated approximately $3.1 billion for goods and services in fiscal

year 1996. In October 1997, the Army Aviation and Troop Command was

consolidated at Huntsville, with MICOM, to form the Aviation and Missile

Command. The new Command currently employs about 6,700 people,

including about 1,750 contractor personnel.

Naval Air Systems

Command

The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), one of seven major buying

commands in the Navy, is headquartered in Patuxent River, Maryland. The

Command’s mission is to acquire and support air weapon systems that

meet Navy and Marine requirements. These systems include aircraft,

air-launched missiles, avionics, air-launched sonar and mine-sweeping

equipment, unmanned strike weapons, aerial vehicle and target systems,

and a joint program for the next generation fighter.

The Command employs about 32,000 military and civilian personnel and

had procurement obligations of nearly $9.9 billion in fiscal year 1996.

Aeronautical Systems

Center

The Aeronautical Systems Center (ASC), an Air Force Materiel Command

organization, is headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio,

and consists of three components. The first is the Air Force’s research,

development, and acquisition operations for aeronautical systems such as

the F-15 and F-22 fighters, the B-1B and B-2 bombers, and the C-17 cargo

plane. The second is the 88th Air Base Wing, which is responsible for

airfield operations and other services, including maintenance of the

8,000-plus acres and nearly 1,600 buildings at Wright-Patterson. The third

is the 74th medical group, which operates the Wright-Patterson medical

center.

The Center has a workforce of more than 9,000 military and civilian

employees and obligated over $16 billion in procurement actions in fiscal

year 1996.

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
Appendix II 

Organizations That Provided Data

Defense Supply

Center, Columbus

The Defense Supply Center, Columbus (DSCC), a Defense Logistics Agency

organization, is one of the largest supply management and procurement

activities for spare parts in DOD. The Center, located in Columbus, Ohio,

was created in 1996 when the former Defense Electronics Supply Center in

Dayton, Ohio, was merged with the former Defense Construction Supply

Center in Columbus.

The Center’s primary mission is to purchase spare parts used on weapon

systems such as planes, tanks, missile systems, and ships. It also

purchases construction material, such as lumber, pipe, and fencing. In

total, its employees manage over 1.8 million spare parts. The Center’s

managed items are shipped directly from contractor facilities to customers

or are stored at Defense Logistics Agency distribution depots until

requisitioned by customers.

The Center employs about 3,000 people and had procurement obligations

of $788 million in fiscal year 1996.

Marshall Space Flight

Center

The Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), located in Huntsville, Alabama, is

1 of 10 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) field

installations or centers. As a civilian agency, NASA is responsible for

maintaining and developing the government’s space transportation and

propulsion systems. The Center manages such NASA projects as the space

shuttle propulsion system program and the reusable launch vehicle

technology program. Approximately 6,800 workers, including nearly 3,900

contractor employees, are currently employed at MSFC. The Center

obligated about $2.2 billion for goods and services in fiscal year 1996.

Department of Energy The Department of Energy (DOE), headquartered in Washington, D.C., is

responsible for fostering a secure and reliable energy system for this

country and serving as a responsible steward of its nuclear weapons. In

addition, the Department supports our country’s continued leadership in

science and technology. DOE employs about 15,000 federal workers,

excluding the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In addition, about

105,000 workers are employed by DOE management and operating

contractors in government-owned, contractor-operated facilities. The

Department obligated $17.8 billion for goods and services in fiscal year

1996, with about $13.1 billion being used to manage and operate the

government-owned, contractor-operated facilities.

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
Appendix II 

Organizations That Provided Data

Environmental

Protection Agency

The Environmental Protection Agency is headquartered in Washington,

D.C., and its mission is to protect human health and safeguard the natural

environment. It works to clean the air, land, and water and to prevent and

reduce pollution nationally and globally by enforcing environmental laws

and working in partnership with state and local governments, industry,

and other organizations. The Agency employs over 17,000 people and

obligated $1.1 billion for goods and services in fiscal year 1996.

General Services

Administration

The General Services Administration, headquartered in Washington, D.C.,

is one of three central management agencies in the federal government. Its

mission is to provide supplies, services, and managed space to other

federal departments and agencies. In addition, it manages the

government’s fleet of motor vehicles. The Administration employs over

14,000 workers nationwide and obligated $6.3 billion for goods and

services in fiscal year 1996.

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Energy

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
Appendix IV 

Comments From the General Services

Administration

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
Appendix IV 

Comments From the General Services

Administration

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
Appendix V 

Comments From the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
Appendix VI 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D. C.

Ralph C. Dawn

Anne W. Howe

Roy B. Karadbil

Julia M. Kennon

William M. McPhail

Minette D. Richardson

Office of General

Counsel

John A. Carter

Chicago Field Office Daniel J. Hauser

Atlanta Field Office Reginia S. Grider

(707171) Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-98-81 Acquisition Reform
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

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

or visit:

Room 1100

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or 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.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail 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

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100