Federally Owned Vehicles: Agencies Should Improve Processes to Identify Underutilized Vehicles
Published: 2017-04-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Federal agencies spent about $3.4 billion in fiscal year 2015 to keep and operate almost 450,000 federally owned vehicles. Each federal agency is responsible for determining utilization criteria and assessing vehicle utilization. GAO was asked to describe federally owned vehicles and examine federal processes for assessing their utilization.
This report, among other objectives: (1) describes recently purchased vehicles, and (2) assesses selected agencies' efforts to determine if vehicles are utilized.
GAO analyzed government-wide data on approximately 64,500 light trucks and passenger vehicles purchased through GSA from fiscal years 2011 through 2015, the most recent available. To assess utilization efforts, GAO selected three agencies (using factors such as fleet size), and reviewed agency utilization information on over 12,000 owned vehicles from fiscal year 2015. GAO also interviewed federal officials. These findings are not generalizable to all agencies but provide insight into the practices of agencies that procure thousands of vehicles.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Federal agencies spent more than $1.6 billion to purchase approximately 64,500 passenger vehicles and light trucks through the General Services Administration (GSA) from fiscal years 2011 through 2015. Five departments—Defense (DOD), Homeland Security (DHS), Agriculture (USDA), Justice, and Interior—purchased 90 percent of these vehicles, and spent a comparable percentage of the associated funds. The vehicles cost an average of approximately $25,600 each.
GAO determined that the three agencies reviewed—Navy within DOD, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) within DHS, and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) within USDA—varied in efforts to determine if vehicles were utilized in fiscal year 2015. Navy determined that all of the 3,652 vehicles GAO selected for review were utilized by applying DOD and Navy criteria such as for mileage and individually justifying vehicles. CBP did not determine if 1,862 (81 percent) of its 2,300 selected vehicles were utilized in fiscal year 2015 even though the vehicles did not meet DHS's minimum mileage criteria. CBP officials stated that, contrary to DHS policy, CBP did not have criteria to measure these vehicles' utilization because it was difficult to manually collect the data needed to establish appropriate criteria and assess if vehicles met those criteria. CBP is currently installing devices in many of its vehicles that will allow it to more easily collect such data, but lacks a specific plan for how to ensure these data will allow it to determine if vehicles are utilized. NRCS did not determine if 579 (9 percent) of its 6,223 selected vehicles were utilized in fiscal year 2015. USDA and NRCS fleet officials stated that the agency did not annually assess vehicle utilization, nor did it apply USDA criteria such as mileage or days used. USDA and NRCS officials said they were unaware of USDA's policy requiring these steps because the policy had not been widely discussed or shared within USDA since 2012. CBP and NRCS cumulatively incurred an estimated $13.5 million in depreciation and maintenance costs in fiscal year 2015 for vehicles with unknown utilization (see table). While these costs may not equal the cost savings agencies derive from eliminating underutilized vehicles, without corrective action, agencies are incurring expenses to retain vehicles without determining if they are utilized.
a Selected owned vehicles for each agency in GAO's review covered all passenger vehicles and light trucks, except those that were: 1) emergency responder vehicles, 2) law enforcement vehicles, 3) tactical vehicles, or 4) located outside the Continental United States, among other limited exclusions.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that CBP develop a plan for how it will use its new data collection devices to establish criteria and assess vehicle utilization and that USDA communicate its vehicle utilization policy to fleet officials. DHS and USDA plan to implement these recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2015, the federal government spent almost $3.4 billion to  keep and operate almost 450,000 owned vehicles, ranging from buses to  compact sedans. Each federal agency is responsible for managing its  vehicle fleet, whether the vehicles are owned, leased from the General  Services Administration (GSA), or leased from a commercial vendor. In  fiscal year 2015, federally owned vehicles accounted for slightly less than  70 percent of the government’s vehicle inventory, and approximately 78  percent of the fleet expenditures reported by agencies. In recent years,  Members of Congress and the President have urged federal agencies to  “right size” their fleets and manage costs; however, there is limited  publicly available information on vehicles purchased by federal agencies  and how those vehicles are utilized.
As the government continues to seek opportunities to reduce costs, it is  important to understand the methods agencies use to determine their  vehicle needs and how their methods may affect the cost of federal fleets.  You asked us to review data on federal vehicle purchases and agencies’  efforts to determine if their owned vehicles are utilized. This report  addresses: (1) the types, locations, and acquisition costs of passenger  vehicles and light trucks that were recently purchased by federal  agencies; (2) the extent to which selected agencies identify utilized  owned vehicles, if any, and (3) any challenges selected agencies  reported facing in managing the costs of their owned vehicle fleets.
To determine the types, locations, and costs of vehicles recently  purchased across the federal government from GSA, we analyzed  government-wide data from GSA’s Requisition, Ordering, and  Documentation System (ROADS) database on more than 64,500 non- tactical passenger vehicles and light trucks purchased by federal  agencies through GSA from fiscal years 2011 through 2015. These data  include the options (i.e., changes from the standard model) that agencies  selected for the vehicles they purchased. To identify what vehicles were  purchased from a non-GSA source, we identified the 17 waivers that GSA  approved from fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2015 that allowed  agencies to purchase either a single vehicle or any executive fleet  vehicles from these other sources, and we determined what vehicle was  ultimately purchased with the approved waiver.
To determine the extent to which selected agencies identify utilized  vehicles, we selected three departments that had among the largest  owned fleets in fiscal year 2015, among other criteria: the Department of  Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and  the Department of Defense (DOD). Then, within each of those  departments we selected agencies that reported among the most owned,  non-law enforcement passenger vehicles and light trucks. The agencies  selected were Customs and Border Protection (CBP) within DHS; the  Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) within the USDA; and  the Navy within DOD. For each agency, we reviewed policies for  assessing vehicle utilization and obtained information on selected  vehicles in these agencies’ fleets as of September or October 2016. We  then determined whether the selected agencies followed these policies,  including asking each agency to identify whether or not selected vehicles  met utilization criteria or had documentation to justify their retention,  among other categorization requests. We analyzed the costs agencies  reported paying for maintenance in fiscal year 2015 and the lost resale  value (i.e., depreciation) agencies may have incurred for any potentially  underutilized vehicles they did not identify and remove. We also  interviewed agency fleet officials about their agency’s policies for  assessing vehicle utilization. The experiences of these agencies are not  generalizable to their departments or government-wide, but they do  provide insight into the practices of several agencies responsible for  thousands of federally owned vehicles.
To determine challenges selected agencies reported facing in managing  the costs of their fleets, we convened two non-generalizable discussion  panels of fleet officials with multiple representatives from each selected  agency. We also reviewed information related to the issues raised in  these discussion panels, such as the cost of alternative fuel vehicles, and  interviewed officials from the headquarters of each agency. For more  information about our scope and methodology, please see appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2016 to April 2017 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Federal agencies owned more than 446,000 non-tactical vehicles in fiscal  year 2015, according to the Federal Fleet Report. Five departments  owned approximately 89 percent of these vehicles, as shown in Table 1.
Agencies acquire vehicles through purchase or lease and are responsible  for making decisions about the number and type of vehicles they need.  Agencies obtain almost all of their vehicles through GSA. Specifically, by  purchasing through GSA’s Vehicle Purchasing program or leasing a  vehicle through GSA Fleet. GSA is a mandatory source for purchase of  new vehicles for federal executive agencies and other eligible users.  According to federal guidelines, when deciding what vehicle to buy,  agencies should purchase vehicles that meet their mission and represent  the best value by considering price, when the vehicle can be delivered,  fuel economy, lifecycle cost, past performance, and other considerations.  GSA Vehicle Purchasing offers an array of non-tactical vehicles and  options at a savings from the manufacturer’s invoice price, including  traditional vehicles (such as pickup trucks and sedans) and specialized  vehicles (such as firetrucks and utility trucks). GSA develops annual  vehicle standards that establish the types and sizes of vehicles and  general equipment it will offer through the GSA Vehicle Purchasing  program. GSA also maintains an on-line procurement tool—known as  AutoChoice—that allows the purchasing agency officials to view the  standard vehicle models, choose equipment options, view side-by-side  comparisons of vehicle models from different manufacturers, place their  orders, and track delivery. The order is then recorded in a GSA  procurement database called ROADS. If GSA cannot meet an agency’s  needs for a specific vehicle, agencies can apply to GSA for a waiver. If  approved, agencies may then purchase a vehicle directly from a non-GSA  source, such as a dealership.
In some cases, agencies are required to or directed to acquire vehicles  with a lower environmental footprint. For example, the Energy Policy Act  of 1992 requires that 75 percent of agencies’ light-duty vehicle  acquisitions be alternative-fuel vehicles (AFVs). In addition, the Energy  Independence and Security Act of 2007 prohibits agencies from acquiring  any light-duty motor vehicle or medium-duty passenger vehicle that is not  a low greenhouse-gas emitting vehicle. Executive Order 13693, issued  in March 2015, directed that agencies plan for zero emission vehicles or  plug-in hybrid vehicles to make up 20 percent of all new agency  passenger vehicle acquisitions by December 31, 2020, and 50 percent of  all new agency passenger vehicle acquisitions by December 31, 2025.
Agencies are responsible for managing their vehicles’ utilization in a  manner that allows them to fulfill their missions and meet various federal  guidelines and directives, such as by completing a vehicle allocation  methodology (VAM). The VAM process is designed to help agencies  identify the optimal size and composition of their respective fleets. Under  GSA guidance, agencies are directed to complete a VAM survey, which  measures the usage of each vehicle in the fleet, at least every 5 years.  GSA guidance further advises agencies on how to complete the VAM  process. For example, agencies are instructed to have standards for the  minimum amount of use of a vehicle—called utilization criteria—that are  appropriate for their missions. Agencies define their own utilization  criteria—which may include mileage, number of trips, or other metrics— and decide which vehicles, if any, to eliminate from their fleets.
Federal agencies determine when to replace or dispose of vehicles based  on federal vehicle replacement standards and their mission and program  needs. GSA has established minimum standards in federal regulations  that call for agencies to retain agency-owned vehicles for at least a  requisite number of years or miles before replacing them. For example,  an agency should keep a sedan or station wagon for at least 3 years or  60,000 miles, whichever occurs first. It may keep the vehicle beyond the  minimum years and miles if the vehicle can be operated without  excessive maintenance or substantial reduction in resale value.  Conversely, the agency may replace a vehicle that has not yet met the  threshold if the vehicle needs body or mechanical repairs that exceed the  fair market value of the vehicle. Federal regulations allow agencies to  dispose of vehicles they no longer need and have been declared excess,  even if the vehicles have not met the minimum replacement standards for  years and mileage. Agencies may dispose of vehicles by exchange, sale,  transfer to another agency, or donation.
section_title: Federal Agencies Spent Over $1.6 Billion in 5 Recent Fiscal Years to Purchase a Variety of Vehicles across the United States
paragraphs: Based on our analysis of ROADS data, federal agencies spent more than  $1.6 billion from fiscal years 2011 through 2015 to purchase a wide  variety of vehicles though GSA. Included in the $1.6 billion is  approximately $2.5 million that agencies spent on vehicle options such as  power seats and remote keyless start. In less than 1 percent of purchases  during this time frame, agencies received approval to acquire a vehicle  from a source other than GSA. In those cases, agencies purchased a  variety of vehicles that included ambulances and modified passenger  vehicles.
subsections: section_title: Federal Agencies Spent Over $1.6 Billion between Fiscal Years 2011 and 2015 to Purchase Approximately 64,500 Vehicles through GSA
paragraphs: From fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2015, federal agencies  purchased 64,522 passenger vehicles and light trucks through GSA at a  total cost of over $1.6 billion. Agencies used these vehicles to meet a  wide variety of mission needs, including supporting operations on the  U.S. border, transporting veterans, accessing remote locations, and  hauling repair equipment, among other functions. The annual number of  new passenger vehicle and light trucks purchased decreased from  approximately 14,400 in fiscal year 2011 to approximately 13,300 in fiscal  year 2015. See appendix II for information on selected agencies’  procedures for purchasing vehicles.
Five departments (DHS, the Department of Justice, USDA, DOD, and the  Department of the Interior) purchased 90 percent of the vehicles  purchased through GSA during this 5-year time period, and spent a  comparable percentage of the associated funds. (see fig. 1).
The average purchase prices for passenger vehicles and light trucks  among these five departments were relatively comparable, ranging from  $24,163 to $28,101. Similarly, the average price for such vehicles  purchased by other federal agencies in our analysis was $26,107. The  most expensive of these vehicles was a cargo van purchased by the  Department of Justice for $158,191 in fiscal year 2012, for use by the FBI.  The least expensive vehicle was purchased for $11,855 in fiscal year  2011 by the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service.
section_title: Federal Agencies Purchased a Variety of Vehicles for Use in Diverse Locations
paragraphs: Federal agencies purchased a variety of passenger vehicles and light  trucks during this time period. Relatively large vehicles, such as pickup  trucks, made up the majority of acquisitions and had higher average costs  than sedans. For example, of the 64,522 vehicles purchased from fiscal  years 2011 through 2015, four-by-four (4x4) pickup trucks and 4x4 sport  utility vehicles (SUV) accounted for more than half of the purchases, while  sedans accounted for about 15 percent. On average, these 4x4 SUVs  cost approximately $7,600 more than a sedan, while 4x4 pickup trucks  cost approximately $5,000 more (see table 2).
According to available data, at least 52 percent of the passenger vehicles  and light trucks purchased during fiscal years 2013 through 2015 were  capable of running on alternative fuel. Fuel type information was available  for approximately 83 percent of vehicle purchases during that time.  According to GSA officials, the fuel type for a vehicle is not reported in the  purchase data if manufacturers do not voluntarily specify the fuel type.  Manufacturers reported a fuel type for fewer than 10 percent of vehicle  purchases in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. As previously discussed, a  variety of laws and directives instruct agencies to increase their  acquisition of low-greenhouse-gas-emitting, hybrid, or zero-emissions  vehicles.
Agencies purchased vehicles during fiscal years 2011 through 2015 for  locations throughout the continental United States and other areas. Some  concentrations of spending were for vehicles delivered in and around the  Washington, DC, capital region (see fig. 2). Another concentration of  spending was for vehicles delivered in states such as Texas and  California.
section_title: Agencies Selected a Variety of Options when Purchasing Vehicles
paragraphs: Each year, GSA publishes standards for vehicles, including what features  will be included with particular base models. When making a purchase,  agencies may change these standard vehicle features by selecting  “options.” According to federal regulations, when agencies opt for  additional systems or equipment to be added to vehicle purchases, these  systems and equipment should be selected for purposes related to overall  safety, efficiency, economy, and suitability (i.e., mission) of the vehicle.
Based on our analysis of ROADS data, agencies added approximately  350 different types of options to passenger vehicles and light trucks  purchased from fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2015. In  approximately 41 percent of the instances that an agency added an  option to a vehicle, the option increased the vehicle cost. In approximately  45 percent of instances, adding an option did not change the cost. In  approximately 14 percent of instances, the selection resulted in a cost  reduction.
In analyzing these options, we were not able to determine if six of these  types of options were related to safety, efficiency, economy, suitability, or  administrative functions. These six option types included power seats,  video entertainment systems, and heated or leather seats, among others  (see table 3). Agencies added at least one of these six options to 7,344  vehicles (approximately 11.4 percent of the passenger vehicles and light  trucks purchased through GSA during fiscal years 2011 to 2015) at a total  cost of over $2.5 million. In some cases, agencies added multiple options to one vehicle. While these six options accounted for  approximately 1.9 percent of all instances of options selected, they  accounted for approximately 3.4 percent of the total cost of options. GSA  does not determine for what purpose an agency may select a particular  option. GSA officials discussed some instances of when these six options  may have been related to the agency’s mission or could be considered a  safety feature. For example, according to GSA officials, remote keyless  start could be a safety feature when a vehicle is operated in an extreme  climate.
section_title: Agencies Requested 102 Waivers to Purchase Vehicles from a Non-GSA Source, GSA Approved about Half
paragraphs: From fiscal years 2011 through 2015, agencies submitted 102 waiver  requests to GSA, requesting permission to purchase a total of  approximately 550 vehicles through non-GSA sources (see table 4).  According to GSA officials, vehicles purchased with a waiver account for  less than 1 percent of annual purchases in any given year. DOD  submitted almost 40 percent of the 102 waiver requests. Cumulatively,  the five departments—DOD, Interior, DHS, Veterans Affairs (VA), and the  Department of Justice (DOJ)—submitted approximately 80 percent of the  requests.
In reviewing these 102 waiver requests, GSA: approved 56 (approximately 55 percent), denied 32 (approximately 31 percent), and did not ultimately process the remaining 14 (approximately 14  percent), in some cases, according to GSA officials, directing  agencies to other services or letting them know a waiver was not  required.
We selected 17 approved waivers from fiscal years 2013 through 2015 for  additional review. For these 17 approved waivers, we found agencies purchased vehicles ranging from ambulances to passenger vehicles to  dump trucks, with an average cost of approximately $117,000. See  appendix III for more details on the vehicles purchased with these 17  waivers. Some agency examples include:
Army purchased a truck with a number of upgrades for $167,427, to  be used for recruiting purposes, according to officials (see figure 3).  Army officials noted that the upgrades contributed to its success as a  recruiting tool, and that the truck was purchased as a replacement for  six Hummers.
DHS purchased a pair of leather-appointed Chevrolet Suburbans for  approximately $67,000 each to transport the CBP Commissioner and  dignitaries.
VA purchased a minivan that was adapted to allow injured veterans to  operate it, at a total cost of $50,515 (See fig. 4).
section_title: Two of Three Selected Agencies Did Not Follow Policies to Identify Underutilized Vehicles, Spending Millions of Dollars on Vehicles without Determining Their Utilization
paragraphs: According to federal standards for internal control, management should  design control activities, such as policies and procedures, to achieve  objectives and respond to risks. DHS, USDA, and Navy have policies  aimed at achieving the objective of determining if vehicles are utilized and  mitigating the risk of retaining vehicles that are not needed. However, as  discussed below, we found that two agencies—CBP and NRCS—did not  follow their respective departments’ policies for assessing vehicle  utilization. Specifically, CBP did not assess the utilization of vehicles that  fell below DHS’s mileage minimums, and NRCS did not use USDA’s  utilization criteria or annually assess vehicles’ utilization. As a result,  these two agencies could not determine if 2,441 of the 12,175 vehicles  we selected (20 percent) were fully utilized. Cumulatively, these two  agencies incurred an estimated $13.5 million in depreciation and  maintenance costs for these vehicles during fiscal year 2015 (see table  5). While these estimated costs might not be equal to the cost savings if  all vehicles with undetermined utilization were determined to be underutilized and eliminated, the amount provides insight into the  potential scope of the issue. Based on our review of policies and  agency-provided data, we found that the Navy uses criteria and  justification processes to determine if a vehicle is utilized and was able to  determine that all of the 3,652 vehicles we selected for our review were  utilized.
subsections: section_title: CBP Did Not Determine if 81 Percent of Selected Vehicles Were Utilized in Fiscal Year 2015
paragraphs: DHS’s fleet policy requires that agencies determine if their vehicles are  justified. DHS defines a fully justified vehicle as one that either (1) travels  a minimum number of miles per year (12,000 miles for sedans and  10,000 miles for light trucks), (2) meets alternative vehicle utilization  criteria developed by the agency to reflect their mission needs, or (3) has  an individual written justification if the vehicle did not meet DHS’s  minimum mileage criteria or any of the alternative criteria developed by  the agency.
Of the 2,300 CBP vehicles that we examined, 1,862—81 percent—either  did not achieve the DHS mileage utilization criteria or did not have  sufficiently accurate mileage data to determine if the vehicle met the DHS  mileage minimums. CBP officials told us that DHS’s mileage criteria are  not always an appropriate utilization metric for their diverse fleet. But CBP  has not developed its own alternative criteria to determine if the vehicles  that did not meet the DHS mileage criteria are utilized. While DHS policy  instructs agencies to individually justify vehicles that did not meet DHS’s  or agency-developed utilization criteria, CBP officials could not provide  justifications for these 1,862 vehicles, and one official stated that CBP  does not develop such justifications. CBP incurred an estimated $12.7  million in maintenance and depreciation costs for these vehicles during  fiscal year 2015. Because CBP did not determine if these vehicles are  utilized, some of this cost may have been for vehicles that the agency did  not need.
CBP officials explained that it would not be efficient or cost-effective to  manually collect the data needed to establish criteria appropriate for CBP,  such as “engine run time.” Furthermore, even if criteria were to be  established, the lack of readily available data would make it difficult to  measure vehicle performance against such criteria. However, officials  stated that CBP has begun to install “telematics” devices in many of its  vehicles. These devices can measure and transmit data on the vehicle’s  use. CBP officials plan to have the devices installed in approximately 60  percent of its fleet by March 2017. Officials reported that once these  devices are fully deployed, a variety of new data points may become  available, including engine hours and idle time. Officials stated that they  have begun collecting data from the telematics devices installed to date to  support the eventual development of appropriate utilization criteria;  however, they have not yet developed a specific plan that outlines how  they will use the data to develop appropriate utilization criteria and  evaluate vehicles against those criteria. Officials also reported that while  they intend to eventually install telematics on the remaining 40 percent of  CBP’s fleet, there is currently no funding plan or timeline to do so, and  CBP does not have a specific plan that details how it will assess the  utilization of vehicles not equipped with telematics.
CBP officials stated that given the large number of vehicles that did not  meet the DHS mileage criteria, it was too difficult to develop individual  justifications. If CBP developed utilization criteria that were appropriate  for a large percentage of their vehicles’ missions, the number of vehicles  requiring individual justifications could substantially decrease. In turn, this  decrease in vehicles needing individual justification could facilitate CBP’s  compliance with DHS’s policy that requires justifications for vehicles that  do not meet utilization criteria.
section_title: NRCS Did Not Determine If 9 Percent of Its Selected Vehicles Were Utilized in Fiscal Year 2015
paragraphs: A 2012 USDA policy memo requires that all vehicles be utilized. The  memo specifies utilization criteria as either a function of mileage or days  used, as shown in the table 6 below, although agencies can request  changes to these requirements:  In addition to setting forth utilization criteria, the policy memo allows  agencies to individually justify vehicles’ falling below the utilization  minimums (for example, law enforcement vehicles or vehicles with a  unique mission). Furthermore, the memo outlines USDA’s expectation  that NRCS and other agencies will annually identify vehicles that did not  meet the utilization criteria or have an individual justification documenting  why the vehicle should be retained.
NRCS did not follow the USDA policies on annual utilization and  justification because key officials were not aware of these policies.  Specifically, all of the USDA and NRCS fleet managers we spoke to were  unaware of this policy memo, which officials from USDA said had not  been re-circulated since 2012. According to USDA officials, the utilization  policy and the requirement for annual justifications were not widely  discussed or shared. Thus, NRCS did not apply USDA’s utilization criteria  to its vehicles to determine if the vehicles were utilized. In addition, NRCS  does not have a process for annually justifying its vehicles. NRCS  conducted a VAM survey, which agencies must conduct at least every 5  years, in fiscal year 2015 (the year covered in our review). As a part of  that survey, NRCS developed individual justifications for its vehicles. As a  result, NRCS determined that 91 percent of the 6,223 vehicles we  selected for this review were utilized. For the remaining 9 percent of the  selected vehicles (579), NRCS was unable to determine if the vehicles  were utilized. While the VAM survey provided justifications for fiscal  year 2015, NRCS officials reported that they did not plan to conduct an  annual VAM survey because the surveys cover every vehicle in the fleet  and are resource intensive. If NRCS followed USDA policies on annual  utilization and justification, the annual process would be less resource  intensive than the VAM because the annual process would not need to  cover vehicles that met USDA’s utilization criteria. NRCS retained all of  the vehicles for which it could not determine if the vehicles were utilized  and incurred approximately $750,000 in maintenance and depreciation  costs in fiscal year 2015 for the 579 vehicles that were retained.
section_title: Navy Determined All Selected Vehicles Were Utilized in Fiscal Year 2015
paragraphs: DOD has established criteria for minimum annual mileage (either 7,500 or  10,000 annual miles for trucks—depending on vehicle characteristics— and 12,000 annual miles for sedans). According to Navy officials, Navy  has additional criteria to assess the utilization of each vehicle based on  mission needs and has a process to annually review the usage and  justification of one third of its fleet to determine if the vehicles are utilized  and still needed.
Navy reported all 3,652 vehicles we selected for review met the DOD  mileage criteria or had an individual justification in fiscal year 2015.  Navy has a process to individually review its entire fleet within a 3-year  cycle even if some vehicles meet the DOD mileage requirements. These  triannual justifications—known as the TRIO process—are considered  valid by the Navy until the vehicles are reassessed again in 3 years.  Through this process, each vehicle has its own requirement criteria and  justification for retention. According to Navy officials, the TRIO process  will be replaced by annual reviews within the next few years.
section_title: Officials from Three Selected Agencies Identified a Variety of Challenges to Managing the Costs of their Vehicle Fleets
paragraphs: During panel discussions and individual interviews, fleet management  officials from three selected agencies—CBP, Navy, and NRCS—identified  several key challenges to managing the costs of their fleet. These  challenges included alternative fuel vehicle requirements, fragmented  data systems, and budget constraints.
subsections: section_title: Alternative Fuel Vehicle Requirements Can Increase Costs for Owned Vehicle Fleets
paragraphs: Agency officials from CBP, Navy, and NRCS reported that the  requirements for purchasing alternative fuel vehicles and using alternative  fuel make it challenging to manage fleet costs. Some officials reported  that complying with these requirements sometimes involves purchasing  more expensive vehicle models. According to data from GSA’s 2016  Model AFV Guide, in some cases acquisition costs for alternative fuel  vehicles were substantially more expensive than the gasoline-powered  model. For example, an electric-only sub-compact car costs  approximately 82 percent more than the standard gasoline-only model.  Similarly, the plug-in electric hybrid version of a subcompact car costs  approximately 99 percent more than the gasoline-only model. However, in  other cases, acquisition costs for alternative fuel vehicles were the same  as those of their gasoline-powered counterpart (see table 7).
Selected agency fleet management officials also reported that complying  with AFV requirements involves installing and maintaining the  infrastructure required for AFVs, a process that can be costly. For  example, supporting AFVs can require electric charging stations, which  agency officials reported to be costly and difficult to manage, given the  outdated condition of some agencies’ facilities and the need to ensure  National Electric Code standards compliance. In addition, one official  noted that if an agency’s fleet involves a variety of different alternative  fuel sources—such as E-85, electric vehicles, and compressed natural  gas—the agency would need to incur the cost of developing and  maintaining infrastructure that supports each type of fuel source if it is not  commercially available. We previously reported similar findings related to  the costs of alternative fuel requirements. Specifically, in 2013, we  reported that some agency officials found commercial vendors to be  reluctant to install alternative fuel tanks when the return on investment  was not promising. In addition, we noted that agencies found it difficult  to meet certain energy requirements in a constrained budget environment  due to the potential for related additional costs.
Officials from the three selected agencies also reported that  administrative tasks associated with meeting AFV requirements can be  difficult and resource-intensive. For instance, these officials reported that  it can be time-consuming for fleet managers to ensure that drivers of  dual-fueled vehicles, which can run on gasoline or an alternative fuel, use  the required alternative fuels when reasonably priced and available,  which is defined as within a 5 mile or 15 minute drive. Similarly, agency  officials reported that completing paperwork associated with the AFV  requirements can take up costly staff time. For example, one official  stated that an agency’s mission may require the use of certain vehicle  types—such as pickup trucks— that do not meet the Energy  Independence and Security Act of 2007’s requirement to purchase only  low-greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicles, resulting in the need for an agency  to certify that no low-greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicle is available to meet  the functional needs of the agency. The official explained that it was very  time-consuming for his staff to complete the required paperwork for each  vehicle in the fleet that was not a low-greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicle.
section_title: Inaccurate and Fragmented Data Can Require Additional Personnel Resources
paragraphs: Officials from the three selected agencies reported that limitations of their  fleet management information systems—including manual data entry and  recording fleet data in multiple systems—can lead to increased costs in  the form of staff time and missed opportunities to analyze the available  information. Officials also reported that efforts to address these limitations  by adopting more sophisticated technology typically involve obstacles  such as the complications associated with cybersecurity.
Officials for each selected agency said that their systems require the  manual entry of some data, which is resource intensive. For example, one  official said users needed to complete some forms by hand before the  data were manually entered into the system. Officials also said users  sometimes manually enter data in non-standard formats, which can  increase the amount of time needed to analyze the data.
In addition, according to agency officials, when fleet data are recorded in  multiple systems that do not communicate with each other, it requires  more staff time to accomplish fleet management tasks. One official stated  that in some cases, agencies within the same department may not use  the same data systems, a situation that complicates internal processes  such as transferring a vehicle from one agency to another.
Several officials said that they are interested in adopting new  technologies that have the potential to streamline the collection and  improve the accuracy of fleet data, such as using scanners to collect data  from bar codes. However, officials cautioned that it can be costly and  time-consuming to adopt new technologies and integrate them into  existing systems and processes. For example, an official within Navy said  that his office paid a local vendor to run diagnostics on their vehicles’  engines —a costly process. In an attempt to minimize these costs, his  office identified an available software program that could perform these  diagnostics at a potential savings of $200–300 per test. The official said  that as of October 2016 the Navy was 8 months into the process of  evaluating the program for potential use. Similarly, officials from Navy  reported challenges in adopting telematics.  Specifically, according to  Navy officials, telematics have been installed in approximately 700 owned  vehicles in Navy’s fleet, at an estimated cost of approximately $300,000;  however, they have not yet been able to activate 674 of those 700  installed telematics systems due to cybersecurity reviews to ensure that  the vehicles cannot be manipulated by outside sources.  Navy officials  said that while telematics offer information that benefits some vehicles  and missions, installing telematics in their vehicle fleets required a  substantial initial investment.
section_title: Budget Restrictions Can Increase Fleet Costs
paragraphs: `  Some officials said that when budgets are tight they retain vehicles that  need to be replaced beyond the standard replacement timeframe of three  years or 60,000 miles for sedans and station wagons, which can lead to  higher overall fleet costs. Officials explained that maintenance costs  increase as vehicles age, so the overall lifecycle costs of owning older  vehicles is higher. According to the fiscal year 2015 Federal Fleet Report,  the average age of owned passenger vehicles was 5.8 years for DHS, 5.4  years for USDA, and 5.2 years for Navy. According to officials, some  agencies perform vehicle lifecycle cost analyses which help determine  when vehicles are no longer cost effective to retain, among other  decisions. However, one official said they were not always able to replace  vehicles when their analyses suggested the vehicle should be replaced  due to budget constraints. Moreover, by using more of their fleet funds on  maintenance, agencies have even fewer available resources to purchase  new vehicles. Officials said that this cycle can make it challenging for fleet  managers to contain costs. According to officials, to help address the  costs of aging owned vehicles, Navy and NRCS are planning to increase  their use of GSA-leased vehicles. An official from CBP reported that  converting their fleet from owned to leased vehicles was generally not  financially feasible because CBP installs mission-specific special systems  and equipment and operates in conditions that would be likely to damage  vehicles.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Given the billions of dollars spent annually to operate and maintain  federally owned vehicles and the government-wide emphasis on efficient  fleet management, it is critical for agencies to have sound fleet  management practices. The three departments in our review have  established policies to appropriately use vehicles and facilitate the  removal of unnecessary vehicles. Nonetheless, our finding that millions of  dollars are being spent on vehicles that are potentially underutilized  indicates action is needed.
Because CBP does not view DHS criteria to be appropriate in all cases  for its diverse fleet and does not individually justify vehicles, CBP  management cannot determine which vehicles, if any, are being properly  utilized by CBP staff, and the agency may be spending millions of dollars  on vehicles that are not needed. While new telematics devices are  capable of providing vehicle usage information, CBP risks losing the  opportunity to use these new data to identify and remove underutilized  vehicles because CBP has not developed a plan to determine how it will  use this usage data to improve its utilization assessment processes,  including processes for vehicles without telematics devices.
Additionally, because key NRCS and USDA officials were unaware of  USDA’s policies on utilization and assessment, staff did not have  necessary information to guide retention decisions for vehicles that cost  more than $750,000 annually. Awareness of this policy would provide  important information to NRCS officials to determine which vehicles, if  any, may be underutilized and could be removed from their fleet. It is  important for departments to ensure that all of their fleet management  staff, including those in each agency within a department, are aware of  and comply with departmental policies.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To facilitate the removal of underutilized vehicles, we recommend that the  Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Commissioner of Customs and  Border Protection to develop a written plan for how CBP will use newly  available usage data to improve its utilization assessment processes.  Such a plan would define utilization criteria that reflect CBP’s mission and  describe how CBP will review and individually justify vehicles that do not  meet the utilization criteria established by either DHS or CBP.
To enhance awareness of NRCS’s utilization assessment process and  facilitate the elimination of unnecessary vehicles, we recommend that the  Secretary of the Department of Agriculture communicate USDA’s policy  on vehicle utilization to USDA’s fleet management staff to ensure staff are  aware of USDA policy. This communication could include redistributing  the 2012 utilization policy memo.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the departments of Agriculture,  Commerce, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, and  Veterans Affairs and to GSA for review and comment. The Departments  of Defense, Energy, Justice, and Veterans Affairs did not have  comments. The Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Homeland  Security, and the Interior, as well as GSA, provided technical comments  which we incorporated as appropriate. In its written comments,  reproduced in appendix V, DHS stated that it concurred with our  recommendation. A Program Analyst in the Office of the Chief Financial  Officer provided emailed comments on behalf of USDA’s Office of  Procurement and Property Management. In these emailed comments,  USDA did not agree or disagree with our findings, but noted that the  Department will address the recommendation.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees, the Secretaries of the departments of Agriculture,  Commerce, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, and  Veterans Affairs, and the Administrator of GSA. In addition, this report is  available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at 202-512-2834 or rectanusl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report  are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report covers: (1) the types and locations of vehicles recently  purchased across the federal government and the associated costs; (2)  the extent to which selected agencies determine what vehicles are  utilized; and (3) any challenges that selected agencies face in managing  the costs of their owned vehicle fleets.
To determine the types, locations, and costs of vehicles recently  purchased across the federal government, we analyzed purchase data  from the General Services Administration’s (GSA) ROADS database, the  primary repository for information on vehicle purchase transactions.  Specifically, we analyzed information on more than 64,500 passenger  vehicles and light trucks purchased by federal agencies through GSA  from fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2015 (the most recent, complete  fiscal year at the time of the request), including information such as:  the quantity of vehicles purchased;  the type of vehicle, such as a pickup truck or sedan;  the agencies that acquired vehicles;  the cost of the vehicles purchased; and  the location of where the purchased vehicles were delivered.
We also used the ROADS data to analyze the options that agencies  purchased with these vehicles, as options provide additional insight into  the characteristics of the vehicles purchased. Agencies selected 346  unique options for the passenger vehicles and light trucks purchased  during this 5-year time period. In order to describe the purpose of these  options, we categorized the options into six groups. The first four groups  were derived from the Federal Property Management Regulations  (FPMR):  1.  Safety: We defined this category as options that serve to prevent  collisions, vehicle or other damage, injury, or theft of the vehicle. This  includes protecting occupants in the event of a collision and  supporting the recovery of a vehicle if it is stolen. Lane-departure  warning systems and backup cameras are examples of options we  placed in the safety category.  2.  Economy: We defined this category as options that remove features,  or options that reduce the size, power, or features to be included in a  vehicle. Reducing the engine size or eliminating air conditioning, thus  potentially reducing vehicle’s cost, are examples of options we placed  in the economy category.  3.  Efficiency: We defined this category as options that could increase  the fuel efficiency of a vehicle (including supporting use of alternative  fuels) as well as options that facilitate vehicle maintenance and  optimal operation (including reducing operating costs). An engine  capable of running on compressed natural gas is an example of an  option we placed in the efficiency category.  4.  Suitability: We defined this category as options that could reasonably  be determined to be necessary to accomplish an agency’s mission.  Pre-wired police equipment is an example of an option we placed in  the suitability category.
In addition, we created two additional categories:  5.  Administration: We defined this category as including options that  were related to the purchase, delivery, or warranty of the vehicle  (such as the option to send a vehicle overseas).  6.  Undetermined: We used this category to group options that did not  meet any of the five defined categories, including options with unclear  descriptions.
We then conducted a content analysis to categorize all 346 options into  each of these categories. In order to conduct this analysis, two analysts  independently coded each of the options into the six categories, and then  met to discuss and resolve any coding discrepancies. After this initial  categorization, 48 options were categorized as “undetermined”. We  subsequently discussed our categorizations with GSA officials and asked  them for any examples of why agencies might select these undetermined  options for any of the other five categories. After reviewing GSA’s  responses, we placed 38 of the previously undetermined options into one  of the five other categories. The remaining 10 options were still  categorized as “undetermined” because GSA’s response did not provide  assurance that the option belonged in one of the other five categories.  For example, GSA replied that power seats could be selected for drivers  with mobility impairments, but we found that agencies selected power  seats over 5,000 times. Similarly, GSA suggested that remote keyless  entry could be a safety feature for vehicles operated in extreme climates,  but it is unclear what climates would constitute “extreme”. When we  randomly selected zip codes to determine where 10 of the vehicles with  remote keyless entry were delivered, we found that they were delivered to  Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia, among other locations. We  subsequently reported the cost and frequency of these remaining options,  combining some similar options (i.e., leather seats and heated front  leather seats), which resulted in the six options we analyzed.
We also analyzed information on the number of waivers that agencies  submitted to GSA during this time frame in order to purchase vehicles  from a non-GSA source. We examined all 17 waivers that GSA approved  from fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2015 for an executive agency to  either purchase one vehicle or to purchase executive vehicles. For each  of these waivers, we requested purchase orders and other relevant  information from the agencies that received these waivers to determine  what vehicles were purchased.
To determine how selected federal agencies identify what vehicles are  utilized, we judgmentally selected three federal agencies for review: the  U.S. Navy (Navy); U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources  Conservation Service (NRCS); and U.S. Department of Homeland  Security’s Customs and Border Protection (CBP). We made our selection  after considering the following criteria about their respective departments: among the largest owned fleets in fiscal year 2015, at least 10,000 non law enforcement designated vehicles, and a majority of domestic vehicles in their overall fleet.
We then selected the agencies from these three selected departments  that reported among the largest number of domestic, non-law  enforcement passenger vehicles and light trucks in response to a GAO  request for this information. We selected these fleets to broadly discuss  the experiences and practices across a section of the federal fleet. These  results are not generalizable to their overarching departments or other  federal agencies.
We reviewed the selected agencies’ policies on utilization and interviewed  officials. To estimate the costs associated with potentially underutilized  vehicles, we conducted a multi-step analytical process. First, we focused  on a selected population of vehicles, which included:  light trucks or passenger vehicles, because these two categories  comprise the majority of federal-owned vehicle fleets (approximately  55 percent and 15 percent respectively);  vehicles that are still in the selected agencies’ inventories as of  November 2016; and  vehicles that were acquired prior to fiscal year 2015, so that the  agencies were fully accountable for the selected vehicles’ utilization  over the entire fiscal year 2015 time period.
We defined passenger vehicles and light trucks using vehicle descriptions  in GSA’s Federal Automotive Statistical Tool (FAST) database, as shown  in table 8.
We excluded tactical, law-enforcement, and emergency-responder  vehicles from the selected vehicle population as well as vehicles located  outside of the continental U.S., due to the differences in reporting and  management processes that can be associated with these characteristics.  We also excluded vehicles that were procured through non-appropriated  funds, such as user fees, as any savings associated with eliminating  those vehicles would not accrue to the federal government.
We then requested data from the three selected agencies on all of the  relevant vehicles in our defined population. After receiving the data from  the selected agencies, we conducted various diagnostic analyses of  these data to assess their reliability and performed logic procedures to  address obvious data issues. For example, we examined VIN numbers  and acquisition cost values and removed any vehicles with errors from  the population of analysis, removing approximately 12,900 vehicles in  total across the three agencies. We received over 25,000 vehicle records  from the three agencies that we reviewed for reliability and data issues,  and 12,175 vehicle records met our selection criteria for analysis. In total,  the selected vehicles from these agencies accounted for about 3 percent  of the federally owned fleet. The findings from our analysis of these  vehicle records are not generalizable to all vehicles at the agencies or to  agencies beyond those we selected.
Next, we sent to each selected agency a list of their selected vehicles and  requested that they group the vehicles into one of the categories  described below and depicted in figure 5, so that we could determine how  many vehicles were utilized, underutilized, or of unknown utilization.  Specifically, groups 3, 5, and 7 reflect shortcomings in agency efforts to  identify and remove underutilized owned vehicles. We focused on  determining the costs associated with the vehicles in these groups.
Group 1: Vehicle must be a law enforcement, emergency response, or  tactical vehicle or located outside of the United States or no longer in the  agency’s owned inventory. These vehicles are excluded from our  population of analysis.
Group 2: Vehicle must have met at least one agency utilization criteria,  specifically defined in the agency’s policy or guidance documents in fiscal  year 2015. This group did not apply to agencies that do not have  utilization criteria written in their policy.
Group 3: The agency must have specific utilization criteria defined in  agency policy or guidance documents AND be unable to determine  whether the vehicle met this standard in fiscal year 2015. Example: The  agency has mileage-based utilization criteria, but the mileage data are  either missing or clearly incorrect (negative mileage).
Group 4: For this category, for the vehicle’s retention, there must be a  written justification that was considered valid by the agency in fiscal year  2015 in lieu of meeting criteria defined in agency policy or guidance. If the  agency does not have utilization criteria, then the vehicles would need to  have written justifications in regards to vehicle retention in order to be  placed in this category.
Group 5: The agency is unable to determine whether there is a written  record verifying that in fiscal year 2015, the vehicle’s continued use was  justified and approved.
Group 6: Vehicle must NOT have met any agency utilization criteria for  fiscal year 2015 (or there are no criteria in agency policy) that was  specifically defined in agency policy or guidance documents, AND there  was no written justification for the vehicle’s retention that was considered  valid by the agency in fiscal year 2015. AND the vehicle was reassigned,  repurposed, or given other tasks within the agency in fiscal years 2015 or  2016.
Group 7: Vehicle must NOT have met, for fiscal year 2015, any agency  utilization criteria (or there are no criteria in agency policy) that was  specifically defined in agency policy or guidance documents, AND there  was no written justification for the vehicle’s retention that was considered  valid by the agency in fiscal year 2015. AND the vehicle was not  reassigned, repurposed, or given other tasks within the agency in fiscal  years 2015 or 2016.
Agencies were responsible for categorizing each of the vehicles. We  provided the agencies with each vehicle’s VIN number, make, model, and  other identifying information to assist in the process. We did not verify  whether agencies categorized vehicles correctly as some of the  information necessary for these categorizations was contained within  agency systems and records (for example, if the vehicle met an agency’s  defined criteria or if the vehicle was repurposed). However, to evaluate  the overall reliability of agencies’ vehicle justification reporting, we  selected a random sample of 20 vehicles from each agency that placed  vehicles into group 4 and then requested the written justifications for  those vehicles.
To determine the cost savings that could be achieved through the  reduction of potentially underutilized vehicles (groups 3, 5, and 7), we first  determined what factors drove cost for the selected agencies in managing  their owned vehicles. After conducting agency interviews, we determined  that the main drivers of cost for agencies were depreciation,  maintenance, and fuel. While there are other drivers of cost, agency  officials reported that they did not collect information on the indirect costs  associated with owned vehicle fleets such as fleet manager salaries or  the costs to garage the vehicles. Although fuel is a main driver of cost,  any reduction in fuel costs by removing these underutilized owned  vehicles would most likely be offset to a large extent by an increase in  fuel costs for other vehicles in the agency’s fleet in order to complete the  agency’s mission. Thus, we determined that potential cost savings of  underutilized vehicles would be achieved through determining the  aggregate depreciation—which represents foregone cost avoidance—  and maintenance costs for fiscal year 2015.
Agencies used different methods to calculate depreciation, so we used  GSA’s simplified straight-line depreciation method to calculate a  consistent average annual depreciation cost per vehicle for each agency.  We asked each agency to provide the average capitalized value, average  salvage value, and average useful life (in years) for vehicles in their  respective fleets. We then used these values to calculate average annual  depreciation per vehicle and multiplied that cost to the number of vehicles  that were potentially underutilized. This calculation represented the total  depreciation of all potentially underutilized vehicles in each agency’s fleet  for fiscal year 2015. However, because vehicles typically have greater  depreciation during their first few years in operation, the straight-line  depreciation method underestimates the actual loss of value for relatively  new vehicles but overestimates the actual loss for vehicles nearing the  end of their useful lives. The actual total cost savings—in the form of  avoiding loss of value—from removing vehicles is difficult to estimate  because it depends on many factors specific to each individual vehicle  such as age and model, and economic factors such as the fluid market  value for used vehicles.
To calculate the total maintenance cost for potentially underutilized  vehicles, we asked the agencies to provide all maintenance transaction  records by vehicle for fiscal year 2015. While NRCS and Navy could  provide this information, CBP could only provide an unknown percentage  of their total fleet maintenance transactions. This response is due to the  fact that 60 percent of CBP’s fleet has access to agency-owned  maintenance garages. CBP does not record asset-level maintenance  transactions for their agency-owned maintenance garages. To address  this issue, we asked CBP to provide the total maintenance cost incurred  to the agency in fiscal year 2015 as well as the total number of vehicles in  its fleet for fiscal year 2015. After CBP provided this information, we were  able to calculate its average vehicle maintenance cost for fiscal year  2015, and we multiplied this average to the number of potentially  underutilized vehicles in its fleet. Although the average per-vehicle  maintenance costs are substantively lower for NRCS vehicles (groups 5  and 7) than those of CBP, high maintenance costs are consistent with  CBP officials’ statements that their vehicles drive in difficult terrain. Given  the potential for harsh driving conditions, we determined that their  calculated total costs are reliable for reporting purposes.
To gather information related to challenges agencies face in managing  the costs of their owned vehicle fleets, we spoke with fleet management  officials from our three selected agencies: Navy, CBP, and NRCS. We  conducted two discussion groups with fleet management officials in  October 2016. We recruited participants by requesting volunteers from  each agency’s fleet management pool, and then judgmentally selected  the eventual participants in order to achieve a balance of representation  among all three of the selected agencies. A total of 17 fleet management  officials participated in our discussions, with at least one representative  from each agency in each group. We also conducted individual interviews  with upper management officials from each of the three selected agencies  to discuss the challenges agencies face in managing the costs of their  fleets. Findings from our discussion groups and interviews, while  illustrative, are not generalizable to the full population of fleet  management officials at these three agencies or the federal government.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2016 to April 2017 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Selected Agencies’ Procedures for Purchasing New or Replacing Existing Vehicles
paragraphs: Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Natural Resources Conservation  Service (NRCS), and Navy have various processes to add an additional  vehicle to their fleet or to replace an existing vehicle, specifically:
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) fleet policy requires agency  fleet managers to submit an annual Fleet Management Plan to the  DHS Fleet Manager. According to DHS officials, upon approval by  DHS, agencies may purchase vehicles based on available funding, up  to the maximum number of vehicles approved. When ordering a  replacement for an existing vehicle, CBP officials are to its established  vehicle replacement criteria (which include mileage and age  minimums) and, according to officials, ensure at least one of these  standards are met before replacing a vehicle.
When ordering a vehicle, NRCS officials are to determine the  appropriate type of vehicle to purchase within each state and request  vehicle replacements or new acquisitions from a centralized office,  called Personal Property Services (PPS).  PPS is responsible for  purchasing all vehicles once the projected acquisitions are approved  by USDA headquarters.
According to Navy officials, Navy is subject to Department of  Defense’s purchasing guidelines as well as its own policies. To  purchase a new vehicle, users must submit a requirement form with a  written justification for the vehicle. The justification may include  descriptions such as vehicle type, required mileage, and anticipated  number of times the vehicle will be used in a day. To order  replacement vehicles, users must assess and justify the continued  need for the vehicle to be replaced.
section_title: Appendix III: Vehicles Purchased by Departments with Selected Approved GSA Waivers from 2013-2015
paragraphs: Transport Truck (Mack)
Heavy Equipment Transport Truck (CT660S)
Truck (Ford F650 Crew Cab XLT 4x4)  Brush Fire Truck (Ford F550 Crew Cab 4x4 Truck, with bed  conversion)
Heavy Haul Tractor (T-30)
SUV (Chevrolet Suburban)
Passenger Van (Chevrolet Express 2500)
Ambulance (PL Custom Classic 170 Dodge 4500 4WD) (2) SUVs (Chevrolet 1500 Suburbans)
Dump Truck (Hook Lift with Flat Bed and 8 Yard Dump Box)  (2) Minivans (Dodge Grand Caravans)  Ambulance (Ford E450)  Truck (Toyota Tacoma, 4WD)
Dump Truck (Mack Model GU713)
Passenger Bus (Turtle Top Odyssey XLT with Freightliner M2)
SUV (Ford Explorer Limited)
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, John W. Shumann (Assistant  Director), Alison Snyder (Analyst-in-Charge), Margaret Hettinger, Terence  Lam, Jerome Sandau, Candace Silva-Martin, Michelle Weathers, Crystal  Wesco, and Elizabeth Wood made key contributions to this report.
section_title: Appendix V: Agency Comments from the Department of Homeland Security