Drug Control: State Department Provides Required Aviation Program
Oversight, but Safety and Security Should Be Enhanced (14-SEP-01,
GAO-01-1021).							 
								 
According to the Department of State, the Andean region continues
to cultivate, produce, and export almost all of the world's	 
cocaine and an increasing amount of heroine. Colombia is the	 
source of 90 percent of the cocaine entering the United States	 
and approximately two-thirds of the heroin found on the East	 
Coast. While coca cultivation estimates have decreased by	 
approximately two-thirds in Bolivia and Peru since 1996,	 
increases in coca cultivation in Colombia have offset much of	 
these successes. Under State's Bureau for International Narcotics
and Law Enforcement Affairs, the Office of Aviation, through a	 
contract with DynCorp Aerospace Technology, supports foreign	 
governments' efforts to locate and eradicate illicit drug crops  
in the Andean region. In recent years, DynCorp has maintained and
operated aircraft to locate and eradicate drug crops in Colombia,
trained pilots and mechanics for the Colombian Army Aviation	 
Brigade, and provided logistical and training support for the	 
aerial eradication programs of the Colombian National Police and 
manual eradication programs in Bolivia and Peru. The Office of	 
Aviation met both State's overall contracting oversight 	 
requirements and more specific oversight and evaluation 	 
requirements in the DynCorp contract. Office of Aviation	 
officials interacted daily with DynCorp managers at the main	 
operating base and in each country, made regular site visits to  
each country, and reviewed DynCorp's internal reports. The Office
of Aviation ensured that its aviation program operates safely and
is physically secure, but it can do more. The Office relied on	 
monthly reports and the trimester performance evaluations, as	 
well as periodic surveys and independent assessments of DynCorp's
operations and facilities. Overall, these reports have concluded 
that the aviation program was safe and that physical security was
adequate. However, several matters of concern have not been	 
resolved.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-01-1021					        
    ACCNO:   A01788						        
  TITLE:     Drug Control: State Department Provides Required Aviation
Program Oversight, but Safety and Security Should Be Enhanced	 
     DATE:   09/14/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Aircraft						 
	     Contracts						 
	     Drug trafficking					 
	     Facility security					 
	     Federal aid to foreign countries			 
	     Foreign governments				 
	     International cooperation				 
	     Law enforcement					 
	     Narcotics						 
	     Bolivia						 
	     C-27 Aircraft					 
	     Colombia						 
	     Peru						 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-1021
     
Report to the Honorable Charles E. Grassley Co- Chairman, Caucus on
International Narcotics Control, U. S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

September 2001 DRUG CONTROL State Department Provides Required Aviation
Program Oversight, but Safety and Security Should Be Enhanced

GAO- 01- 1021

Page i GAO- 01- 1021 State's Aviation Program Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 Background 3 Office of Aviation?s Contractor Oversight
and Evaluation Measures

Met Requirements 4 Office of Aviation Ensured Safe Operations but Needs to
Address

Certain Safety and Security Concerns 9 Conclusions 13 Recommendation for
Executive Action 14 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 14 Scope and
Methodology 14

Appendix I Aviation Program Staff and Aircraft 17

Appendix II Comments From the Department of State 19

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements 20

Tables

Table 1: Office of Aviation Staff, Location, and Responsibilities, as of
July 31, 2001 17 Table 2: DynCorp Employees Supporting State?s Aviation
Program,

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

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

September 14, 2001 The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Co- Chairman, Caucus on
International Narcotics Control United States Senate

Dear Senator Grassley: According to the Department of State, the Andean
region continues to cultivate, produce, and export almost all of the world?s
cocaine and an increasing amount of heroin. 1 Colombia is the source of 90
percent of the cocaine entering the United States and approximately two-
thirds of the heroin found on the East Coast. While coca cultivation
estimates have decreased by approximately two- thirds in Bolivia and Peru
since 1996, increases in coca cultivation in Colombia have offset much of
these successes. 2

Under State?s Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement
Affairs, the Office of Aviation, through a contract with DynCorp Aerospace
Technology, supports foreign governments? efforts to locate and eradicate
illicit drug crops in the Andean region. In recent years, DynCorp has
maintained and operated aircraft to locate and eradicate drug crops in
Colombia, trained pilots and mechanics for the Colombian Army Aviation
Brigade, and provided logistical and training support for the aerial
eradication programs of the Colombian National Police and manual eradication
programs in Bolivia and Peru.

Your office raised concerns about reports you had received that the Office
of Aviation might not be providing adequate oversight of its aviation
program and might not be ensuring that the program operates safely. In
response to these concerns, we determined whether the Office of Aviation (1)
oversaw and evaluated DynCorp?s performance in accordance with

1 Over the years, U. S. counternarcotics efforts in the Andean region have
focused on Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru. Small amounts of coca are also grown
in Brazil, Ecuador, Panama, and Venezuela; however, production from these
fields is believed to be minimal.

2 According to State, between 1996 and 2000, the net hectares under coca
cultivation in Colombia increased by 69, 000- from 67, 200 hectares in 1996
to 136,200 hectares in 2000, while the number of hectares under coca
cultivation in Bolivia and Peru declined by 93, 700 over the same period.

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 01- 1021 State's Aviation Program

applicable requirements and (2) ensured the safe operation of its aircraft
and the physical security of its operational sites.

To address your concerns, we discussed these matters with cognizant U. S.
officials at the Department of State, Washington, D. C., and the U. S.
Embassy in Bogota, Colombia; and U. S. and DynCorp officials at the Office
of Aviation?s main operating base in Florida and operational sites in
Colombia. We reviewed pertinent contract evaluation reports and related
documentation and followed up on several recent operational and safety
reviews of the Office of Aviation?s program. Although we examined relevant
documentation for Bolivia and Peru, we focused our review on the Office?s
program in Colombia because the majority of its assets and personnel are in
Colombia, the threat to its safety and security is greatest there, and the
U. S. counternarcotics program to Colombia recently increased significantly.
3

The Office of Aviation met both State?s overall contracting oversight
requirements and more specific oversight and evaluation requirements in the
DynCorp contract. Office of Aviation Officials interacted daily with DynCorp
managers at the main operating base and in each country, made regular site
visits to each country, and reviewed DynCorp?s internal reports. The Office
of Aviation also relied on a series of evaluation reports prepared by Office
of Aviation and DynCorp officials in- country and at the main operating base
that led to a trimester contract performance evaluation. We found that the
performance evaluation process often led DynCorp to take action to correct
operational deficiencies.

The Office of Aviation ensured that its aviation program operates safely and
is physically secure, but it can do more. The Office relied on monthly
reports and the trimester performance evaluations, as well as periodic
surveys and independent assessments of DynCorp?s operations and facilities.
Overall, these reports have concluded that the aviation program was safe and
that physical security was adequate. However, several matters of concern
have not been resolved. For example, forward operating locations in Colombia
do not have emergency vehicles; manuals

3 In July 2000, the United States agreed to provide about $860 million for
fiscal years 2000 to 2001 to support Plan Colombia, the Colombian
government?s $7.5 billion, 6- year counternarcotics plan. This amount was in
addition to previously programmed U. S. assistance of over $300 million for
the same period and almost doubled U. S. counternarcotics assistance to
Colombia compared with fiscal year 1999 levels. Results in Brief

Page 3 GAO- 01- 1021 State's Aviation Program

for certain eradication aircraft do not reflect modifications to the
aircraft; and the airfield at one forward operating location and the Office
of Aviation headquarters office in Colombia were not secure.

To improve the safety and security of its aviation program, we are
recommending that the Secretary of State ensure that the Bureau follows up
on the concerns identified in recent reviews and either complete action to
address them or document why it should not. In commenting on a draft of this
report, State generally concurred with the information presented and the
recommendation.

Since 1991, DynCorp Aerospace Technology has provided support services for
State?s counternarcotics program in the Andean region and, occasionally, in
Central America. In 1998, State awarded a 5- year, cost plus award fee
contract to DynCorp for approximately $170 million to continue this support.
4 The Bureau?s Office of Aviation manages the overall aviation program from
its main operating base at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida. As the aviation
program?s contractor, DynCorp performs major maintenance and initial pilot
training at Patrick Air Force Base and flies and maintains U. S. aircraft
and trains foreign personnel at various locations in Bolivia, Colombia, and
Peru. The total budget for the aviation program is about $50 million
annually. See appendix I for a summary of the aviation program?s staffing
and assets by country.

In Colombia, the Office of Aviation and DynCorp maintain a headquarters
office and hangar at the El Dorado International Airport in Bogota. They
also operate forward operating locations at airfields on several Colombian
military and police bases.

 The Office of Aviation and DynCorp fly aerial eradication missions from
several locations in Colombia. In recent months, they have used a Colombian
Army base at Larandia and a Colombian National Police base in San Jose-
usually one or the other but currently both.

4 State has awarded two 5- year contracts to DynCorp to support the aviation
program. The first was awarded in 1991 for approximately $99 million.
Between the time when DynCorp?s initial contract with State was scheduled to
expire in 1996 and the current 5- year contract was awarded in 1998, State
issued three interim sole- source contract extensions to DynCorp. See our
report Drug Control: The Department of State?s Contract Award for Its
Counternarcotics Aviation Program (GAO- 01- 435R, Feb. 28, 2001). Background

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

 The Office of Aviation and DynCorp are collocated with the Colombian Army
Aviation Brigade in Tolemaida. They use this base primarily for training,
maintenance, and repair.

As we reported in June 1999 and October 2000, U. S. estimates indicate that
the illicit drug threat from Colombia has both expanded and become more
complex over the past several years. Insurgent and paramilitary groups have
increased their drug- trafficking activities, severely complicating U. S.
and Colombian efforts to reduce illicit drug cultivation and production. For
example, the insurgents exercise some degree of control over 40 percent of
Colombia?s territory east and south of the Andes where, according to the
Drug Enforcement Administration, most of the new coca cultivation sites and
most of the major drug production facilities are located. 5

As a result, the aerial eradication missions are dangerous; and as a normal
course, helicopter gunships and search and rescue aircraft accompany the
eradication aircraft. Eradication planes and the supporting helicopters are
often shot at. Aerial eradication missions have been cancelled or redirected
because Office of Aviation or government of Colombia officials considered
the targeted locations too dangerous.

The Office of Aviation?s oversight of DynCorp met both State?s overall
contracting requirements and requirements specified in the contract with
DynCorp. State requires the Office of Aviation to examine contractor
performance to ensure compliance with the contract and coordinate with the
contractor on all matters that may arise in the administration of the
contract. The contract includes State?s oversight requirements and also
establishes DynCorp?s performance- based award fee plan, which requires the
Office of Aviation to evaluate contractor performance every 4 months to
determine DynCorp?s monetary award.

Under the terms of the contract, DynCorp is entitled to reimbursement of
reasonable and allowable costs incurred and an award fee- which averaged
about $410,000 each trimester between June 1999 and January 2001- based on
the Office of Aviation?s evaluation of DynCorp?s

5 Drug Control: Narcotics Threat From Colombia Continues to Grow (GAO/
NSIAD- 99- 136, June 22, 1999) and Drug Control: U. S. Assistance to
Colombia Will Take Years to Produce Results (GAO- 01- 26, Oct. 17, 2000).
Office of Aviation?s

Contractor Oversight and Evaluation Measures Met Requirements

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

performance. The contract establishes four evaluation categories-
management, technical proficiency, safety, and cost- and four performance
assessment levels- outstanding, excellent, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory.
Each assessment level corresponds to a range of percentages of the
additional compensation that could be granted to DynCorp. For example, if
the Office of Aviation rates DynCorp?s overall performance in the evaluation
categories as outstanding, the Office would award a minimum of 95 percent of
the award fee. An excellent rating would be 75 to 94 percent of the award
fee. A key distinguishing factor between each assessment level is the
Office?s evaluation of DynCorp?s ability to identify and correct
deficiencies in the program or preclude deficiencies from occurring by
proactive management.

The Office of Aviation?s oversight measures consisted of regular interaction
with DynCorp officials and frequent visits to operating sites. In addition,
Office of Aviation officials regularly reviewed reports submitted by
DynCorp?s senior in- country managers outlining DynCorp?s performance on a
daily, weekly, and monthly basis.

The Office of Aviation is collocated with DynCorp at the main operating base
and in each country, thus allowing Office of Aviation officials to monitor
DynCorp?s operations on a daily basis. At the headquarters office in Bogota,
Colombia, for example, we observed a senior Office of Aviation official
conferring with DynCorp?s operations manager about the flight schedule of
the C- 27 cargo plane; frequent telephone communication among Office of
Aviation and DynCorp officials about operational matters, such as the
delivery of needed supplies or the availability of pilots and mechanics at
specific locations; and discussions about a program to verify the amount of
coca eradicated. Further, during our visits to Larandia and Tolemaida,
DynCorp managers made frequent contacts with their Office of Aviation
counterparts concerning the status of planned security upgrades and training
for the Colombian Army Aviation Brigade, respectively.

Senior Office of Aviation officials told us that they held regular meetings
at the main operating base with DynCorp managers to discuss program
objectives and provide guidance on operational plans and procedures. Several
DynCorp employees stated that the regular meetings have improved the
program?s operations. The DynCorp maintenance manager in Colombia told us
that Office of Aviation officials have incorporated his expertise when
drafting or revising standard operating procedures on issues relevant to his
duties. Furthermore, a manager?s meeting in April 2001 addressed the delay
in shipping special tools to the DynCorp Contract Oversight

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

maintenance manager in Tolemaida. To solve the problem, DynCorp is now
assessing the status of requests and reviewing the procedures for ordering
tools.

Senior Office of Aviation officials also made frequent visits to Colombia to
oversee DynCorp operations. The operations officer made seven visits from
June 1999 to March 2001. On several of his visits in 2000, he provided
guidance to help establish the aviation support for the Colombian Army?s
Aviation Brigade. He stated that he regularly accompanies the contractors on
eradication missions to provide guidance. The Office of Aviation Director
and other senior officials told us they made numerous trips to overseas
locations, primarily Colombia, during the same period to confer with DynCorp
managers and other Office of Aviation officials and provide technical
assistance.

Office of Aviation officials regularly reviewed DynCorp?s reports, including
monthly reports from DynCorp?s in- country managers summarizing the
contractor?s performance. These reports are based on daily and weekly
reports submitted by managers from each forward operating location. The
Office of Aviation also regularly received daily and weekly reports on the
flight status of all aircraft and copies of all contractor memorandums
dealing with safety. The senior Office of Aviation official in Colombia told
us he viewed the contractor?s input as critical for his monthly evaluation
of contractor performance.

Although the Office of Aviation and DynCorp interacted regularly, several
Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials told us that a high turnover of
DynCorp managers in Colombia over the past 2 years had led to frequent
misunderstandings between the main operating base in Florida and operational
sites in Colombia. We were told about several instances when managers in
Colombia communicated directly with the main operating base, bypassing
DynCorp managers in Bogota. In late 2000, the Office of Aviation encouraged
DynCorp to promote a pilot to operations manager in Bogota and, after a new
country manager was hired, provided oral and written guidance clarifying the
chain of command. A number of Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials told
us that these changes had alleviated tension that had been building between
the Office of Aviation and DynCorp and greatly improved the overall morale
of personnel in the program.

Every month, senior Office of Aviation officials in Bolivia, Colombia, and
Peru submit a report to the main operating base in Florida evaluating
DynCorp?s performance using the evaluation categories- management, Contract
Evaluation

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

technical proficiency, safety, and cost. The Office of Aviation Deputy
Director consolidates the country reports and an evaluation of contractor
performance at the main operating base into an overall monthly evaluation.
The consolidated report is used to evaluate DynCorp?s performance and help
make the trimester award fee determination.

We reviewed the monthly and consolidated reports prepared from June 1999
through January 2001. We noted that the trimester performance evaluations
encouraged DynCorp to correct deficiencies. For example:

 In August and September 1999, the senior Office of Aviation official in
Peru rated DynCorp?s performance in quality control (a measure within the
technical proficiency category) as unsatisfactory- the lowest of four
ratings. He determined that poor quality control resulted in unnecessary
downtime for one of the aviation program?s cargo planes and that the
downtime affected daily operations. These evaluations were incorporated into
the September 1999 trimester evaluation, lowering Peru?s technical
proficiency and overall ratings from the previous trimester evaluation. In
October and November 1999, Peru?s quality control ratings improved, and in
January 2000 a joint review by Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials also
noted improvements in Peru?s quality control program. The January 2000
trimester evaluation showed Peru?s quality control as excellent- the second
highest of the four ratings.

 In the May 2000 trimester performance evaluation, the Office of Aviation
lowered DynCorp?s safety rating to satisfactory following a March 2000
internal safety survey that was highly critical of the Colombian program.
Office of Aviation officials noted that most deficiencies resulted from an
unqualified safety manager at one operating location. In response, DynCorp
hired a new safety manager, who began conducting regular audits and
inspections of each operating location in Colombia. The September 2000
trimester evaluation showed that DynCorp had addressed the shortcomings
identified in the internal safety survey.

 In the January 2000 trimester performance evaluation, the Office of
Aviation rated Bolivia?s material support as unsatisfactory. The monthly
reports leading to the evaluation cited lengthy delays in receiving spare
parts and chemicals for a corrosion control program. Following the poor
trimester rating, DynCorp improved the timeliness of its shipments and
received an excellent rating in the April 2000 monthly report and the
subsequent trimester evaluation in May 2000.

Page 8 GAO- 01- 1021 State's Aviation Program

In our review of the monthly and consolidated reports, we noted that DynCorp
did not meet aspects of an evaluation category but received a high
evaluation overall. Office of Aviation officials told us that in assessing
DynCorp?s overall performance, the evaluation system permits them to
consider mitigating circumstances and other information not specifically in
the formal assessment. 6 We found this to be the case with the contract?s
technical proficiency category, which is based, in part, on the time
aircraft cannot fly due to (1) maintenance deficiencies or (2) needed
supplies were not available. During the majority of the period we examined
(June 1999 through January 2001), DynCorp met the maintenance and supply
rates. However, during two periods when DynCorp did not meet the contract?s
rates, it was rated satisfactory or better for these two subcategories.

 During July through September 1999, more aircraft flying hours were lost
due to maintenance problems than the contract allowed. Office of Aviation
officials determined that this loss was beyond DynCorp?s control because an
unusually high number of aircraft engine changes were needed.

 During August through December 2000, more aircraft flying hours were lost
than allowed by the contract because DynCorp did not have needed supplies.
Office of Aviation officials considered the situation beyond DynCorp?s
control because it was the Office?s responsibility to provide the needed
helicopter mast assemblies. Further, Office officials said that DynCorp did
well to come as close as it did to this measure given the lack of mast
assemblies.

Although we are satisfied that the Office of Aviation considered each
country?s reports in preparing the consolidated reports, during July 1999 to
May 2000, portions of the Bolivian Office of Aviation senior official?s
reports were not included. The current Office of Aviation officials in
Bolivia and at the main operating base in Florida told us that the Office of
Aviation official in Bolivia at the time sometimes provided information that
was irrelevant to contractor performance. As a result, senior Office of
Aviation officials at the main operating base often revised or excluded
parts of the reports. For example, the official in Bolivia repeatedly
reported that several training documents needed to be translated into
Spanish, although translation was not part of the contract with DynCorp. In
other instances, the official in Bolivia evaluated Office of Aviation

6 See Federal Acquisition Regulation, section 52. 249- 14.

Page 9 GAO- 01- 1021 State's Aviation Program

performance rather than contractor performance- in more than half the
affected reports, the official reported that the Office of Aviation did not
provide needed supplies or guidance on the Bolivian nationalization program.

To oversee and evaluate the safety of contractor operations and physical
security of the aviation program?s facilities, Office of Aviation officials
relied on daily interaction with DynCorp?s country managers and forward
operating location managers, frequent site visits, periodic reports as part
of the trimester performance evaluation, and internal and external reviews.
Overall, these assessments judged aviation program operations to be safe and
physically secure; however, some concerns have not been resolved.

According to Office of Aviation and DynCorp senior officials, enhancing
safety is an ongoing process, and their employees should always strive to
identify and implement ways to enhance safety. To ensure that aircraft were
maintained and operated safely, the Office of Aviation safety manager
monitored and evaluated the safety of contractor operations at the main
operating base and at overseas locations. The manager said he used a safety
checklist based on U. S. government and aircraft manufacturers? requirements
when inspecting contractor operations and maintenance. He said that he
monitored the main operating base on a daily basis and made periodic trips
to overseas locations to monitor the safety of operations and maintenance.
His trip reports identified safety issues that needed to be resolved and
progress made in implementing previously identified safety concerns.

The safety manager also coordinated with the DynCorp staff responsible for
maintaining safe aircraft operations. For example, they worked together to
update the aviation program?s accident response plan, modeling it after a
plan the DynCorp safety manager used while serving in the U. S. Air Force.

In addition, Office of Aviation officials conducted internal Aviation
Resources Management Surveys of DynCorp operations at the main operating
base and overseas locations. According to Office of Aviation officials,
these surveys are intended to provide a stringent on- site safety
assessment. The most recent survey for Colombia, completed in March 2000,
concluded that DynCorp needed to devote more attention to safety. As
previously noted, DynCorp hired a new safety manager who began Office of
Aviation

Ensured Safe Operations but Needs to Address Certain Safety and Security
Concerns

Operational Safety

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

conducting regular audits and inspections of each operating location in
Colombia. In addition, DynCorp made other safety improvements, including
establishing safety classes for pilots and instituting an airfield cleanup
campaign.

In August 2000, the Office of Aviation requested an independent evaluation
of aviation operations and safety by the Inter- Agency Committee for
Aviation Policy (ICAP). 7 In November 2000, ICAP conducted a review of the
Office of Aviation?s operations at two forward operating locations and the
headquarters office in Colombia and at the main operating base in Florida.
In February 2001, ICAP issued its report. ICAP concluded that the aviation
program in Colombia and at Patrick Air Force Base was safe but made
approximately 80 suggestions and recommendations to enhance safety and
security. 8

Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials have taken action on or implemented
most of ICAP?s suggestions and recommendations. For instance:

 To improve their document control process, Office of Aviation and DynCorp
officials told us they clarified the procedures for seeking comments on and
approving changes to operating procedures and other directives.

 To improve maintenance oversight, DynCorp hired additional quality control
staff to fill this role.

 To correct deficiencies identified at fuel stations at forward operating
locations, DynCorp hired a fuel management specialist who has ensured that
the deficiencies were corrected.

In some instances, Office of Aviation officials disagreed with ICAP?s
suggestions and recommendations. Among others, we noted the following:

7 This Committee is under the aegis of the General Services Administration.
The Committee formulates aviation policies for the various civilian federal
departments and agencies that maintain aircraft. The Committee also helps to
ensure that agency aircraft fleets are maintained properly and are
operationally safe through on- site reviews. The Committee appoints a team
of aviation experts from various federal agencies to perform these reviews.

8 Some of the suggestions and recommendations were not specifically labeled
as such, and some were duplicative.

Page 11 GAO- 01- 1021 State's Aviation Program

 ICAP recommended that search and rescue helicopters accompany eradication
aircraft on night operations. The Office of Aviation Director and Deputy
Director said that eradication planes are much less likely to be shot down
during night operations than in the daylight because the planes cannot be
easily seen. Deploying helicopters nearby would serve to alert drug
traffickers to the impending arrival of eradication aircraft and increase
the likelihood that the traffickers could shoot them down. Further,
deploying many aircraft during night operations increases the likelihood of
aircraft accidents.

 ICAP recommended that the Office of Aviation update manuals to reflect
modifications that were made to certain eradication aircraft. Office of
Aviation officials noted that the aircraft in question were originally used
40 years ago as unarmed observation planes by the U. S. military. Later, the
U. S. military added armaments 9 and tested and documented their effect on
the airplane?s performance. According to the Office of Aviation Director,
the aviation program?s modifications have less effect on the aircraft?s
performance than the U. S. military?s modifications. He said that as a
result the manuals reflect a worse case than necessary and the aircraft does
not need additional testing. In addition, such testing would be very
expensive.

In other instances, Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials agreed with
ICAP?s suggestions or recommendations but have not yet corrected the
problem.

 ICAP recommended that the aviation program provide emergency vehicles at
its forward operating locations to assist in the event its aircraft have an
accident during takeoff or landing. Office of Aviation officials said that
they have asked the Department of Defense to identify any excess emergency
vehicles in its inventory. The Office of Aviation was also searching for
used emergency vehicles because new emergency vehicles are very expensive.

 ICAP pointed out that the aviation program needed to improve its
management information system. Office of Aviation officials said they are
implementing a new, integrated management information system and obtaining a
satellite communications system to improve

9 The Office of Aviation?s eradication aircraft are not armed.

Page 12 GAO- 01- 1021 State's Aviation Program

communication between remote locations. They said they expect to have both
systems in place by November 2001.

 ICAP found that certification and training records for maintenance
personnel were often not readily available or were dated. Office of Aviation
and DynCorp officials agreed, and the DynCorp Program Manager said he would
either hire a training coordinator or assign existing staff to fulfill those
responsibilities.

Although Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials assess physical security
through regular site visits and inspections, State?s Bureau of Diplomatic
Security has overall responsibility for ensuring a secure as possible
workplace for U. S. government employees at overseas locations. Its Regional
Security Office (RSO) in Bogota has assessed the aviation program?s security
needs through site visits and inspection reports.

RSO and Office of Aviation and other Bureau officials have reviewed Office
of Aviation sites in Colombia to determine what action had been taken on
previously identified weaknesses and to determine the adequacy of physical
security. In May 2001, the forward operating location in use at Larandia
still needed security improvements and, according to RSO officials, was
especially vulnerable to sabotage. Specifically, a public road runs within a
few feet of and parallel to a runway used for aerial eradication missions.
On weekends the road carries considerable civilian traffic. The only
physical security is a chain- link fence and a partially completed barrier.
We observed that the public road had only minimal security with a checkpoint
at the base entrance and an unmanned bunker near the airfield. RSO and other
security reports have recommended additional security measures, such as
adding a second checkpoint and erecting a solid barrier between the road and
the airfield.

Further, both RSO and ICAP have concluded that the headquarters office and
hangar at the Bogota airport are not secure. The ICAP report identified this
location as being especially vulnerable. During several weeks in April and
May 2001, we observed that only one guard was at the entrance at any given
time, and the office had no x- ray or bomb- detection equipment to inspect
packages. Further, the office and hangar are on a public road adjacent to a
commercial shipping business. Each day, we observed a large volume of
vehicles entering the area and parking near the aviation program?s office.
Both RSO and ICAP recommended that State find a more secure facility.
Physical Security

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

Office of Aviation and Bureau officials agreed with the physical security
assessments and recommendations and said upgrades in security should be
completed in the next few months. However, they noted that they must rely on
government of Colombia and U. S. Embassy support to make the improvements
because aviation program facilities are not located on U. S. government
property.

 Office of Aviation officials told us that the U. S. Embassy is negotiating
with the Colombian Army base commander at Larandia to increase security
checkpoints on the public road. In addition, the Colombia National Police
have increased the number of staff assigned to the airfield.

 The U. S. Embassy had found a more secure location for the aviation
program?s headquarters office and hangar at the Bogota airport and had been
negotiating a lease. However, according to Office of Aviation officials,
that location is no longer suitable and U. S. Embassy and Bureau officials
have begun a search for another location.

The Office of Aviation complied with the requirements of the State
Department and the DynCorp contract through an integrated oversight and
performance evaluation process. The Office?s oversight measures, which
include reviews of DynCorp reports and frequent communication, are a
fundamental part of the process. These measures provide the Office with
sufficient information to evaluate the effectiveness of DynCorp?s
performance. Based on this information, each month the Office of Aviation
formally notifies the contractor of how well it is doing and actions that it
needs to take to improve performance. These steps culminate in a trimester
evaluation leading to a performance- based, monetary award. This monetary
award serves as an incentive for the contractor to cooperate with the Office
of Aviation throughout the evaluation process.

Because Office of Aviation and contractor staff in Colombia must perform
their mission in a hostile environment, maintaining the safety and security
of these personnel, the physical structures, and aircraft is crucial.
Although the Office of Aviation has taken steps to improve safety and
security in Colombia, it has not completed all actions that ICAP and RSO
identified as necessary. We recognize that guaranteeing the safety and
security of Office of Aviation and contractor employees and assets is very
difficult. Nevertheless, the Office of Aviation has not yet fully
implemented all suggestions and recommendations to ensure that its employees
and contractors work in locations that are as safe and secure as possible.
Conclusions

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

To improve the safety and security of the Office of Aviation?s forward
operating locations and headquarters office in Colombia, we recommend that
the Secretary of State direct the Assistant Secretary of State for the
Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs to document
what remains to be done to address the suggestions and recommendations made
by ICAP and RSO and when action is expected to be completed. In those
instances where the Bureau disagrees that corrective action is necessary, we
recommend that it document the reasons why it disagrees.

The Department of State provided written comments on a draft of this report
(see app. II). It stated that the report findings are essentially factual
and correct and that it will continue to pursue improvements where needed.
State also noted, as we did, that many of the concerns presented in the
report are outside the control or influence of the Office of Aviation.
Therefore, we urge the Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau for
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs to work with the Bureau
of Diplomatic Security and the U. S. Embassy in Bogota, in particular, to
complete required action in these areas.

In addition, in oral comments, Office of Aviation officials provided
technical comments that we have incorporated into this report, as
appropriate.

To determine what oversight and evaluation requirements were applicable for
the DynCorp contract, we reviewed State?s regulations for contract oversight
and the relevant contract provisions. We also discussed the contract
oversight and evaluation requirements with State?s contract officer. To
determine whether the Office of Aviation was adhering to the applicable
oversight and evaluation requirements, we examined the trimester performance
evaluation documentation for the period June 1999 through January 2001 in
detail. Specifically, we

 examined each of the monthly reports from Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru and
the consolidated reports and related documents prepared by Office of
Aviation and DynCorp officials for the period and

 discussed the specific reports and issues raised in them with Office of
Aviation?s senior officials, including the Director, the Deputy Director,
and the Contract Technical Officer, at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, and
other Office of Aviation officials in Washington, D. C. Recommendation for

Executive Action Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

Scope and Methodology

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

In Colombia, we also discussed specific reports with Office of Aviation
officials and DynCorp managers who had first- hand knowledge of the
evaluations and the status of DynCorp?s efforts in the country at the time
the reports were prepared.

To determine whether the Office of Aviation ensured the safe operations of
its aircraft and physical security of its facilities, we examined the safety
issues raised in the monthly reports prepared for the trimester performance
evaluations and the findings of the recent ICAP and RSO reports and Aviation
Resources Management Surveys. We met with the team that conducted the ICAP
review and discussed their methodology and criteria and the support for many
of their findings in more detail than is presented in ICAP?s report. We
followed up with Office of Aviation officials in Washington, D. C.; Patrick
Air Force Base, Florida; and in Colombia to determine the status of their
efforts to address the shortcomings raised in the reports. In Colombia, we
discussed safety and physical security issues with cognizant Office of
Aviation officials and DynCorp managers at the headquarters office at the El
Dorado International Airport in Bogota, the forward operating location at
Larandia, and the maintenance and training facility at Tolemaida. At each
site, we also toured the facilities to make our own observations and met
with fixed- wing aircraft and helicopter pilots and mechanics to obtain
their views on flight operations, safety, and physical security. In
addition, at the main operating base in Florida, we flew on an eradication
training mission.

Finally, we discussed the Office of Aviation?s implementation of its
contract oversight and evaluation requirements and germane safety and
security issues and concerns with the U. S. Ambassador and Deputy Chief of
Mission at the U. S. Embassy in Bogota, Colombia; senior Bureau officials in
Washington, D. C.; and the Director and Deputy Director at the main
operating base in Florida.

Our review was conducted from November 2000 through August 2001 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman, Senate Caucus on
International Narcotics Control; interested congressional committees; and
the Secretary of State. Copies will also be made available to other
interested parties upon request.

Page 16 GAO- 01- 1021 State's Aviation Program

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call
me at (202) 512- 4268. An additional GAO contact and staff acknowledgments
are listed in appendix III.

Sincerely yours, Jess T. Ford, Director International Affairs and Trade

Appendix I: Aviation Program Staff and Aircraft

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

The State Department?s Office of Aviation manages a major counternarcotics
aviation program with a highly mobile workforce that includes State
employees and staff on loan from other U. S. agencies. As of July 31, 2001,
the Office of Aviation had 24 staff to oversee the contractoroperated
aviation program in Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru. Table 1 lists the number of
Office of Aviation staff, where they are located, and their major job
responsibilities.

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

Washington, D. C. 3 Coordinate activities with other State and U. S.
government agencies and provide administrative support. Patrick Air Force
Base, Florida 11 Manage the aviation program for all overseas

locations and oversee DynCorp management, maintenance, and training
activities. Bolivia 4 Act as aviation advisers to oversee DynCorp

maintenance and training activities. Colombia 3 Act as aviation advisers to
oversee DynCorp

operations, maintenance, and training activities. Peru 3 Act as aviation
advisers to oversee DynCorp

maintenance and training activities. Source: State Department.

As of July 31, 2001, DynCorp, the contractor that implements the aviation
program, employed about 545 staff- including 25 fixed- wing aircraft pilots
hired under a subcontract with Eagle Aviation Services Technology, Inc. Of
the 545 employees, 344 are assigned to Colombia- about 90 are U. S. citizens
and count against the congressionally- mandated ceiling limiting U. S.
civilian contractors in Colombia at any time to 300. 10 About 88 DynCorp
employees are stationed in Colombia permanently; the rest- mainly pilots and
mechanics- rotate in and out of Colombia about every 2 weeks. Table 2 shows
the number of DynCorp employees supporting State?s aviation program, where
they are located, and their major job responsibilities.

10 Title III, chapter 2, sec. 320e (b)( 1)( B) of the Emergency Supplemental
Act, FY 2000, as enacted in the Military Construction Appropriations Act, FY
2001, P. L. 106- 246, 114 Stat. 576. Appendix I: Aviation Program Staff and

Aircraft

Appendix I: Aviation Program Staff and Aircraft

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

Table 2: DynCorp Employees Supporting State?s Aviation Program, as of July
31, 2001

Location Employees Major responsibilities

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida 154 Manage and support programs in all three
countries,

perform major maintenance on aircraft, and provide initial training for
pilots. Bolivia 20 Train helicopter mechanics who maintain aircraft

supporting the Bolivian Army?s manual eradication program. Colombia 344 a
Work as pilots, mechanics, and managers, and train

the Colombian Army UH- 1N helicopter mechanics and pilots and help with the
Colombian National Police eradication program. Peru 27 Train helicopter
mechanics who maintain aircraft

supporting the Peruvian Army?s manual eradication program. a This number
varies daily due to rotations in and out of Colombia.

Source: State Department.

Table 3 lists the number and type of aircraft the Office of Aviation has
assigned to Patrick Air Force Base and each of the three countries involved
in the aviation program.

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

aircraft Eradication aircraft Helicopters Crop

identification aircraft

C- 27 OV- 10D T- 65 UH- 1H UH- 1N C- 208

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida a

1 7012 0 Bolivia 0 0 0 16 0 0 Colombia 2 5 5 6 40 1 Peru 1 0 0 14 0 0 a Of
the aircraft at Patrick, four of the OV- 10Ds were being modified for aerial
eradication operations in Colombia, and one OV- 10D and the C- 27 were
undergoing scheduled maintenance. The other aircraft are used primarily for
training.

Source: State Department.

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of State

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

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of State

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements

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

Albert H. Huntington, III (202) 512- 4140 In addition to the contact named
above, Jim Strus and Chris Hall made key contributions to this report.
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff

Acknowledgements GAO Contact Acknowledgements

(320008)

The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are
$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also accepted.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100 700 4 th St., NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) Washington, DC
20013

Orders by phone:

(202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet

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

Info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO?s World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
gao. gov

Contact one:

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

 E- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov

 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system) Ordering Information

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
*** End of document. ***