Defense Management: Issues in Contracting for Lodging and	 
Temporary Office Space at MacDill Air Force Base (27-JAN-04,	 
GAO-04-296).							 
                                                                 
Since the September 11, 2001, attacks and the beginning of	 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, thousands of National Guard and Reserve 
members have been activated and mobilized to military		 
installations across the country. Some installations, like	 
MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, where more than 3,000  
reservists have been mobilized, have had to arrange for off-base 
lodging in local hotels and apartment buildings. In addition,	 
MacDill, which serves as U.S. Central Command headquarters, has  
had to set up temporary office space for staffs of coalition	 
partner nations. Public concerns have been raised about these	 
arrangements. GAO was asked to review (1) the extent to which	 
MacDill used cost-effective measures to provide off-base lodging 
for reservists and (2) whether a contract providing office space 
for coalition partners was adequately managed to control costs.  
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-296 					        
    ACCNO:   A09155						        
  TITLE:     Defense Management: Issues in Contracting for Lodging and
Temporary Office Space at MacDill Air Force Base		 
     DATE:   01/27/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Counterterrorism					 
	     Military cost control				 
	     Military operations				 
	     Military reserve personnel 			 
	     Mobilization					 
	     National defense operations			 
	     Temporary lodging allowances			 
	     Cost effectiveness analysis			 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** 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-04-296

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

                       Report to Congressional Requesters

January 2004

DEFENSE MANAGEMENT

  Issues in Contracting for Lodging and Temporary Office Space at MacDill Air
                                   Force Base

GAO-04-296

Highlights of GAO-04-296, a report to Congressional requesters

Since the September 11, 2001, attacks and the beginning of Operation Iraqi
Freedom, thousands of National Guard and Reserve members have been
activated and mobilized to military installations across the country. Some
installations, like MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, where more
than 3,000 reservists have been mobilized, have had to arrange for
off-base lodging in local hotels and apartment buildings. In addition,
MacDill, which serves as U.S. Central Command headquarters, has had to set
up temporary office space for staffs of coalition partner nations. Public
concerns have been raised about these arrangements. GAO was asked to
review (1) the extent to which MacDill used cost-effective measures to
provide off-base lodging for reservists and (2) whether a contract
providing office space for coalition partners was adequately managed to
control costs.

January 2004

DEFENSE MANAGEMENT

Issues in Contracting for Lodging and Temporary Office Space at MacDill Air
Force Base

During recent mobilizations, MacDill contracting officials used two
practices that effectively reduced the overall cost of off-base lodging
for reservists on extended temporary duty to below that allowed by the
General Services Administration's (GSA) lodging rate. Officials used a
simplified acquisition procedure-Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA)-to
obtain prices that were at or below the maximum allowable GSA rate of $93
per day for Tampa, Florida. MacDill officials obtained daily lodging rates
of $71 to $93 per unit for two-bedroom apartments. The BPAs also provided
greater flexibility in vacating units without incurring penalties. In
addition, MacDill officials reduced per person lodging costs further by
implementing a roomsharing policy for personnel at certain ranks. When two
reservists shared a two-bedroom unit (about 600 reservists), the cost
dropped by up to 55 percent of the daily GSA rate. Overall, during fiscal
year 2003, MacDill reported that it saved about $12.6 million using these
practices. Our review of local rental costs showed that BPA prices were
similar to those paid by corporate entities for comparable lodging units,
but were lower on a perperson basis because of lodging sharing
arrangements.

Comparison of Prices for Furnished Two-Bedroom, Corporate, and Military
(MacDill) Apartments in Tampa, Florida

           Type      Cost per day  Cost per month         Extras beyond 
                                                              furniture 
         Furnished  $20.77-$55.17   $623-$1,655           None          
         apartment                                
                                                            Amenities,a 
                                                        utilities, maid 
         Corporate  $46.50-$114.60 $1,395-$3,438         service        
         apartment                                
        MacDill BPA                               Amenities, utilities, 
        apartment-                                maid                  
         1 person      $71-$93      $2130-$2,790         service        

GAO is recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of
the Air Force to direct the Commander of the Air Mobility Command to
emphasize to MacDill personnel the importance of adhering to sound
contract management procedures. In commenting on a draft of this report,
DOD partially concurred with GAO's recommendation and identified
corrective actions taken or planned.

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

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Barry W. Holman at (202)
512-8412 or [email protected].

MacDill BPA apartment-Per person Per person Amenities, utilities, maid 2
persons $35.50-$46.50 $1,065-$1,395 service

Source: GAO analyses.

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

From project initiation to settlement of the contractor's claim, the
Coalition Village II contract suffered from questionable acceptance of the
winning offer, poor record keeping, undocumented contracting decisions,
and changes to contract requirements that were not properly coordinated
with contracting officials. Although MacDill officials determined that the
winning offer was received on time, only the first page of the proposal
was received by the established deadline. Contract costs for the project,
which was implemented under tight time constraints, increased by more than
$367,000 over the winning offer of $142,755. However, due to the absence
of proper documentation in the contract files, we were unable to fully
assess the basis for additional costs paid to the contractor or the extent
to which costs might have been avoided or minimized.

Contents

  Letter

Results in Brief
Background
MacDill Air Force Base Implemented Procedures to Reduce Off-

Base Lodging Costs for Reservists Weaknesses in Contract Management Hamper
Efforts to Assess

Contract Costs Conclusions Recommendations for Executive Action Agency
Comments and Our Evaluation

                                       1

                                      2 4

                                       6

14 19 20 20

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense

  Tables

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

Base Apartment Units in Tampa, Florida 8 Table 2: Comparison of Prices for
Two-Bedroom Furnished, Corporate, and Military (MacDill) Apartments in
Tampa, Florida 10

Table 3: Contracted Prices for Bedrooms Used to House Reservists in
Fayetteville, North Carolina, Area 12 Table 4: Payments and Claims for
Coalition Village II Contract 17

Abbreviations

BPA
CENTCOM
DOD
FAR
GSA
JFTR
SOCOM

Blanket Purchase Agreement
U.S. Central Command
Department of Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation
General Services Administration
Joint Federal Travel Regulations
U.S. Special Operations Command

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

January 27, 2004

The Honorable Bill Nelson Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces Committee on Armed Services United States Senate

The Honorable Jim Davis House of Representatives

Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, more than 3,000
activeduty, reservists1 and National Guard personnel have been mobilized
to MacDill Air Force Base (MacDill) in Tampa, Florida, for periods of up
to 2 years. Because of this large influx of military personnel, MacDill,
like some other military installations, has had to arrange for off-base
lodging in commercially operated apartment buildings and hotels for many
reservists. In addition, MacDill, which is headquarters to both the U. S.
Central Command (CENTCOM) and the U. S. Special Operations Command
(SOCOM),2 had to provide temporary office space for foreign military
personnel who serve as liaison officers from coalition partner nations
fighting with the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq. MacDill leased
dozens of trailers to provide office space in two complexes called
Coalition Village I and Coalition Village II.

In the summer of 2003, public concerns were raised in the Tampa area that
reservists assigned to MacDill could be paying apartment rents that were
substantially higher than market prices and that MacDill officials had not
followed proper contracting procedures in obtaining office trailers for
Coalition Village II.

1Unless specified otherwise, the terms "reserves" and "reservists" refer
to the collective forces of the Army National Guard, the Air National
Guard, the Army Reserve, the Naval Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve, and
the Air Force Reserve.

2CENTCOM is the unified command responsible for executing military
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. SOCOM is the unified command that
directs special operations, psychological operations and civil affairs
forces from the Army, Navy, and Air Force under a single commander.

In your initial request, you asked us to conduct a review of the
Department of Defense's (DOD) practices for providing lodging for military
personnel on extended temporary duty. Subsequently, after discussions with
your offices, we expanded the request to include MacDill's contracting
procedures in leasing trailers for Coalition Village II. Our objectives
were to (1) determine the extent to which MacDill Air Force Base used
costeffective measures to provide off-base lodging for reservists on
extended temporary duty and whether more cost-effective procedures could
be identified at other military installations and (2) assess whether the
contract to provide office space for coalition partners supporting the war
against Iraq was adequately managed to avoid significant escalation of
costs.

To address these objectives, we visited MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa,
Florida, and Fort Bragg Army base and Pope Air Force Base in Fayetteville,
North Carolina. We also reviewed information from five other Army and Air
Force installations3 to determine if they acquired off-base lodging for
reservists on extended temporary duty and, if so, what practices they used
to obtain such services. In addition, we obtained data from Navy and
Marine Corps headquarters officials about their practices for housing
reservists. We also interviewed contracting officials at MacDill and
reviewed contract files and records related to Coalition Village II. We
conducted our review from July 2003 through December 2003 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. A more detailed
description of our scope and methodology is provided in appendix I.

Results in Brief 	During recent mobilizations, officials at MacDill Air
Force Base in Tampa used two practices that effectively reduced the
overall cost of off-base lodging for some 1,700 personnel on short-term
and extended temporary duty4 to below the maximum amount allowed under the
General Services

3These installations were Fort Hood, TX; Fort Dix, N.J.; McGuire Air Force
Base, N.J.; Dover Air Force Base, Del.; and Fort Meyer, Va.

4At MacDill, short-term temporary duty consists of less than 45 days, and
long-term or extended temporary duty consists of 45 days or longer.

Administration's (GSA) standard lodging rate.5 MacDill's contracting
officials used Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA)6 with local hotels and
apartments to obtain prices that were at or below the maximum allowable
GSA rate of $93 per day for Tampa. MacDill officials obtained daily
lodging rates of $71 to $93 per unit for two-bedroom apartments and used
installation-specific guidance to lower per-person costs further by
requiring personnel at specified ranks to share lodging. When two
reservists shared a two-bedroom unit (about 600 reservists), the cost
dropped by up to 55 percent of the daily GSA rate. The BPAs also provided
greater flexibility in vacating units without incurring penalties.
Overall, MacDill officials estimate that they saved about $12.6 million in
lodging costs in fiscal year 2003, of which about $7.6 million could be
attributed to the use of apartments. In reviewing local rental costs, we
found that on a unit basis, the prices MacDill paid under its BPAs were
similar to those paid by corporate entities for comparable lodging units,
but were lower on a per-person basis due to lodging sharing arrangements.
Although we found some similarities and differences at other installations
that we identified as providing off-base lodging for military personnel
(e.g., Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base), our review did not find any
one approach that stood out as being significantly more cost-effective
than other approaches where shared lodging was required. Other
alternatives for acquiring off-base lodging, such as long-term government
leases for blocks of properties, would need to consider added overhead
cost implications associated with government management of such
properties.

From project initiation to settlement of the contractor's claim, the
management of Coalition Village II suffered from questionable acceptance
of the winning offer, poor record keeping, undocumented decisions
regarding changes to the contract, and changes to contract requirements
that were not properly coordinated with contracting officials. Although
MacDill contracting officials determined that the winning offer of
$142,755 was received on time, only the first page of the proposal was
received by

5DOD's Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR) govern the amount of per
diem, travel, and transportation allowances that reserve personnel can
receive when they are traveling on official government business in the
continental United States. JFTR, Chapter 1, Part A, paragraph U 1000. They
are entitled to the per diem set by the General Services Administration
(GSA) for a particular location. At the time of our review, the maximum
allowable GSA rate for lodging in Tampa, Florida, was $93 per day.

6Blanket purchase agreements (BPA) are simplified procurement procedures
used to fill repetitive needs for supplies or services by establishing
"charge accounts" with qualified sources of supply. 48 C.F.R. S: 13.303-1.

the deadline established for receipt of proposals. The project was
implemented under tight time constraints, and contract costs increased by
over $367,000 over the winning offer. However, we were not able to
determine if the government paid for costs that otherwise might have been
avoided or disallowed because of the absence of proper documentation in
contract files. For example, although changes to the contract were made
during twice-weekly meetings of representatives of the contractor, the
customer (CENTCOM), technical advisors (civil engineers), and contracting
staff, no official minutes of the meetings were maintained to document the
agreements reached, who authorized the changes, or the proposed cost of
the changes. Because of these weaknesses, we were unable to fully assess
the basis for additional costs paid to the contractor for Coalition
Village II or the extent to which costs might have been avoided or
otherwise minimized through more effective contract management.

We are recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of
the Air Force to direct the Commander of the Air Mobility Command to
emphasize to MacDill personnel the importance of adhering to sound
contract management procedures that exist to protect the interests of the
government. Communications should ensure that contract files are properly
maintained and that only authorized personnel initiate changes to contract
requirements, even during time-sensitive procurements.

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD did not disagree with our
findings but expressed the view that our recommendation was not needed due
to corrective actions that had been planned or taken by the 6th
Contracting Squadron at MacDill Air Force Base. Because all planned
corrective actions have not been completed, we continue to believe that
our recommendation has merit.

Background 	On September 14, 2001, President Bush proclaimed a national
emergency in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In his
proclamation,7 he said he would use various sections of Title 10 of the
United States Code to mobilize additional forces. Section 12302, in
particular, authorizes the President to call up National Guard and Reserve
members to active duty for up to 2 years. Since September 2001, DOD has
activated about 300,000 of the 1.2 million National Guard and Reserve
personnel. As of October 8, 2003, about 166,000 Reserve and National

7Proclamation No. 7463, 66 Fed. Reg. 48199 (Sept. 14, 2001).

Guard members remained on active duty. Some of the reservists were
assigned to domestic military installations to provide, for example, base
security.

When reserve members are mobilized to serve on active duty at military
installations in the United States, the installations where they serve
arrange lodging for them. If lodging is not available on base,
installations may provide activated reservists with Certificates of
Non-Availability enabling them to acquire off-base lodging in the local
area at prevailing GSA rates. Because of the size and length of the
current mobilization, some installations, like MacDill Air Force Base,
made arrangements with local hotels and apartment vendors to provide
reservists with off-base lodging. The 6th Contracting Squadron at MacDill
was responsible for developing the BPAs, and the 6th Services
Squadron/Military Lodging was in charge of assigning reservists to
available lodging.

Because mobilized National Guard and Reserve personnel are considered to
be in temporary duty status, their per-diem, travel, and transportation
allowances are governed by DOD's Joint Federal Travel Regulations. A
per-diem allowance is designed to offset the cost of lodging, meals, and
incidental expenses incurred by reservists while they are on travel status
or on temporary duty away from their permanent duty station. DOD's
regulations state that within the continental United States, travelers are
entitled to the per diem set by GSA for a particular location.
Specifically, if a contracting officer contracts for rooms and/or meals
for members traveling on temporary duty, the total daily amount paid by
the government for the member's lodging, meals, and incidental expenses
may not exceed the applicable GSA per-diem rate.

In December 2002, CENTCOM established plans for providing working quarters
at MacDill for coalition partners supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom and
titled the project Coalition Village II. The project was modeled after
similar working quarters established at MacDill for coalition partners
supporting the war on terrorism, Coalition Village I. Representatives from
CENTCOM and Civil Engineering8 supported the 6th Contracting Squadron,
which provides contracting support to MacDill's base tenant units, in its
efforts to establish Coalition Village II. The 6th Contracting Squadron is
a part of the 6th Air Mobility Wing, which reports

8A contractor, Chugach Management Services, performs the civil engineering
function at MacDill. Chugach Management Services provides base operations
and maintenance, construction management, facilities operation, and
environmental services.

  MacDill Air Force Base Implemented Procedures to Reduce Off-Base Lodging Costs
  for Reservists

to the Air Mobility Command. The Air Mobility Command is a component of
the United States Transportation Command.

During the summer of 2003, public concerns were raised in the Tampa area
about the practices used at MacDill to acquire off-base lodging for
reservists and temporary office space for coalition partners in the war
against Iraq. Specifically, these concerns questioned whether MacDill
officials paid above-market rates for apartments; used competition in
awarding BPAs for off-base lodging; and advertised for bids for lodging
services. Questions were also raised about whether the contract providing
office space for coalition partners supporting military operations in Iraq
was adequately managed to avoid excessive costs.

In order to reduce the cost of off-base lodging for 1,700 military
personnel and reservists on short-term and long-term temporary duty,
MacDill Air Force Base officials instituted two procedures. MacDill used
BPAs as a flexible procurement method to obtain lodging at prices that
were at or below the maximum allowable GSA rate of $93 per day for Tampa.
MacDill also implemented installation guidance that required reservists at
certain ranks to share two-bedroom apartment units that further reduced
costs on a per-person basis. MacDill officials estimate that these
procedures saved about $12.6 million in off-base lodging costs in fiscal
year 2003. Our review showed that the prices paid by MacDill were similar
to those paid by corporate entities in Tampa for comparable lodging units,
but were lower on a per-person basis due to lodging sharing arrangements.
Our work showed that practices used at other military installations to
provide offbase lodging varied but did not reveal any one approach that
resulted in more significant cost savings over other approaches, where
shared lodging was required. Alternative approaches for obtaining off-base
lodging, such as obtaining long-term leases for blocks of properties,
could be considered but would require that various factors be weighed in
considering their use.

MacDill's Use of BPAs and MacDill Air Force Base contracting officials
used BPAs to acquire off-base
Shared Housing Achieved lodging to handle the large influx of reservists
who were mobilized
Cost Savings and Complied following the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks. According to the

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), a BPA is a simplified method ofwith
Federal Regulations filling anticipated, repetitive needs for supplies or
services by establishing "charge accounts" with qualified sources of
supply.9 Air Force officials had

948 C.F.R.S: 13.303-1.

MacDill's Practices Achieved Cost Savings

used this method to acquire off-base lodging for several years.10 We have
no basis to conclude that the Air Force's use of BPAs was inconsistent
with the FAR.

MacDill contracting officials told us that these agreements provide them
with greater flexibility than contracts would in arranging temporary
lodging. BPAs permit either party to walk away from the agreement without
a penalty. The agreements allow federal travelers to use their
government-issued travel cards to obtain lodging at hotels and apartments
at reduced prices and favorable contract terms. The costs for reservists
who do not have government-issued travel cards are billed to MacDill under
a purchase order.11

MacDill officials indicated that they go through an established process to
set up an agreement with an apartment vendor or hotel. The process begins
when either MacDill contacts a lodging facility or a facility contacts
MacDill. As part of this initial contact, MacDill schedules an inspection
to ensure that the facility meets its cleanliness, safety, health, and
fire standards. If the facility passes the inspection, MacDill sets up an
agreement with the facility and lists the facility as a source of lodging
for reservists at an agreed-upon daily rate. MacDill officials told us
they review BPAs annually to ensure that their needs are still being met
and to determine if the facility still meets standards.

At the time of our review, MacDill had agreements with 35 vendors (29
hotels and 6 apartment providers) and was housing an average of about
1,700 personnel a day in off-base lodging facilities. Of these, about 900
were in hotels and 800 were in apartments. In September 2003, the prices
that MacDill had obtained for hotel rooms ranged from $44 to $93 per
person per day, and for apartment units from $55 to $93 per person per day
(see table 1). The agreements with apartment vendors do not require
security deposits and also allow reservists to leave earlier than their
scheduled departure dates without paying penalties. Apartment rental
officials told us that, in contrast, other apartment renters must give a
30-day notice before leaving or incur penalties, such as the loss of

10Air Force Contracting Policy Memo 96-C-04, Aug. 16, 1996, encouraged
officials to use BPAs to obtain off-base housing.

11A purchase order when issued by the government means an "offer by the
Government to buy supplies or services including construction and research
and development, upon specified terms and conditions, using simplified
acquisition procedures." 48 C.F.R. S: 2.101.

1 month's rent, forfeiture of the security deposit, or being held liable
for the cost of the remaining term of the lease. The apartments acquired
by MacDill are fully furnished. The daily rate for the apartment covers
the cost of utilities, amenities (kitchenware, linens, vacuum cleaners,
microwave ovens, and cable television service), and weekly maid service.
Apartment vendors also do not charge reservists a 12 percent Florida tax
for leases of less than 6 months, which private renters typically pay.

Table 1: Differences between BPA Prices and GSA Rates for Off-Base
Apartment Units in Tampa, Florida

                           BPA price                 Difference   
                           range per      BPA price  between BPA      Average 
                          person per      range per price and GSA  percentage 
             Unit type         month person per day    rate ($93) differencea 
           One-bedroom $1,650-$2,790         $55-93         $38-0        23.4 
         Two-bedroom b $1,065-$1,395 $35.50-$46.50  $57.50-$46.50        55.4 

Source: GAO analysis of MacDill data.

aBased on our analysis of all BPAs.

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

In addition to using BPAs to procure off-base lodging for reservists,
MacDill used installation-specific guidance on sharing lodging to further
reduce off-base lodging costs in two-bedroom apartments. The guidance
requires officers at or below the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and enlisted
personnel at or below the rank of Chief Master Sergeant or Sergeant Major
to share two-bedroom apartments. This practice allowed MacDill to achieve
a cost savings of up to 55 percent of the GSA rate (table 1). For example,
if two reservists were sharing a two-bedroom apartment that costs $93 per
day, each would pay half of that amount, significantly less than the GSA
daily rate of $93 per person. Of a total of 800 reservists housed in
apartments, about 600 shared two-bedroom units.

MacDill officials responsible for lodging operations told us that they try
to place military personnel12 who are on temporary duty for 45 days or
longer in apartments. This allows personnel to have access to cooking
facilities, as well as more room than they would have in a hotel room.
MacDill officials indicated that they consider three criteria in placing
personnel in

12MacDill lodging officials told us they make no distinction in providing
off-base lodging for active duty personnel and reservists in that they
follow the same procedures for both groups.

MacDill's Lodging Costs Are Similar to Corporate Lodging Prices on a Unit
Basis but Less on a Per-Person Basis

apartments: (1) whether or not personnel have access to transportation to
get to the base, (2) whether they are compatible in terms of rank and
gender to fill a vacancy in a two-bedroom apartment, and (3) if these two
criteria are met, officials randomly assign personnel to a unit. However,
the officials also must consider such factors as security or the ability
of a particular apartment complex to accommodate an entire reserve unit.

Based on data that we received from MacDill lodging officials, the base
spent about $23.3 million for 386,466 bed-nights in off-base lodging,
including both short- and long-term stays, in fiscal year 2003. However,
had MacDill paid the maximum allowable GSA rate of $93 per day for the
same number of days, the costs would have amounted to $35.9 million. As a
result, the installation reported that it saved an estimated $12.6 million
for off-base lodging costs by using blanket purchase agreements and
requiring apartment sharing. Of the $23.3 million spent in fiscal year
2003, MacDill paid about $13.9 million for apartment rentals and about
$9.3 million for hotels. The estimated savings attributable to apartments
is about $7.6 million and about $5 million in savings is attributable to
hotels.

In our limited review of local rental prices in the Tampa area, we found
that MacDill's lodging costs were comparable with those paid by corporate
entities for the same types of units but were higher than prices for
typical furnished apartments cited in media reports. These reports
compared MacDill's apartment costs with the cost of furnished apartments
that ranged, for example, from $1820 to $1880 ($60.66 to $62.66 per day)
for a two-bedroom unit with maid service and utilities. In a search of
Internet sites listing housing prices in the Tampa area, we found that
individually furnished two-bedroom apartments ranged from $623 to $1655
($20.77 to $55.17 per day)-but typically would not include the full range
of services obtained by MacDill.

However, according to apartment brokers that we contacted in the Tampa
area who provide services to corporate entities and private sector renters
as well as MacDill, corporate-style facilities may be the most appropriate
to compare to MacDill's costs. Corporate apartments offer essentially the
same provisions as the apartments that MacDill obtains: they are fully
furnished and the prices include amenities (i.e., kitchenware, linens,
microwave ovens, vacuum cleaners, and cable television service), maid
service, and utilities. The main difference is that corporate apartments
generally require a minimum 3-month lease and a 30-day notice to break the
lease while MacDill's BPA arrangements do not require a minimum length of
stay or have any penalties if reservists leave earlier than scheduled.

We found that prices paid per unit by MacDill are comparable to those paid
by corporate entities, but MacDill's prices are generally much lower on a
per-person basis due to lodging sharing arrangements. According to one
apartment broker we interviewed, the price of a corporate apartment ranged
from $46.50 to $114.60 per day. The price that MacDill pays for a similar
apartment at the same complex ranges from $71 to $93 per day. Another
apartment broker we contacted told us that the corporate rates for his
apartments ranged from $76 to $100 per day, depending on the location of
the apartment. The price that MacDill pays for a similar unit ranges from
$71 to $93 per day, with the actual cost per person in both examples being
lower depending on the number of occupants.

Table 2: Comparison of Prices for Furnished Two-Bedroom, Corporate, and
Military (MacDill) Apartments in Tampa, Florida

                                                           Extras beyond      
                  Type  Cost per day   Cost per month               furniture 
             Furnished  $20.77-$55.17      $623-$1,655                   None 
            apartments                                 
             Corporate $46.50-$114.60   $1,395-$3,438  Amenities,a utilities, 
            apartments                                           maid service 

MacDill apartments via BPAs 1 occupant

$71-$93 $2,130-$2,790�Amenities, utilities, maid service

                    MacDill apartments Per person Per person

Amenities, utilities, maid service

via BPAs 2 occupants

                          $35.50-$46.50 $1,065-$1,395

Source: GAO analyses.

aAmenities include kitchenware, linens, vacuum cleaners, microwave ovens,
and cable television service.

Public concerns were raised about the absence of advertising and
competition in creating BPAs to provide off-base lodging, suggesting that
increased competition and advertising would help control costs. However,
because a BPA is not a contract,13 competition and advertising were not
required to establish these BPAs.14 In any event, while MacDill did not
hold a competition or advertise for bids, it did establish BPAs with
multiple vendors. According to MacDill officials, contracts over $25,000
require 15 days to advertise, 30 days for the vendor to respond, and 15
days to

13See Boehringer Mannheim Corporation, B-279238, May 21, 1998, 98-1 CPD P:
141. 1448 C.F.R. S: 13.302-2.

negotiate. MacDill officials told us that they used BPAs because they
could be arranged in a shorter time frame than solicited contracts. They
stated that they were under extreme time pressures to acquire immediate
housing in February 2003 when 325 reservists arrived at MacDill to provide
force protection services.

    Approaches Used at Some Other Military Installations Have Similar Cost
    Benefits

Army Installations Use Contracts to Obtain Off-Base Lodging

Other DOD installations that we contacted during our review either
provided lodging for reservists on base or used similar practices to
reduce off-base lodging costs. In the few selected instances where we
identified the use of off-base lodging, housing officials used a variety
of procurement methods (BPAs, contracts, and purchase orders) to obtain
prices at or below the allowable GSA lodging rate for those locations. In
addition, they required reservists to share hotel rooms and apartment
units. However, our review did not identify any one approach that stood
out as offering more significant cost benefits than other approaches where
shared lodging was required.

In general, the Army installations that we surveyed used purchase orders
or requirements contracts15 to procure off-base lodging for temporary duty
reservists. At the time of our review, Fort Bragg housed about 2,400
reservists off base. Fort Bragg had awarded contracts to 25 vendors (20
hotels and 5 apartment providers) to supply lodging for reservists and had
spent an estimated $35 million between October 2002 and November 2003 for
this lodging. The contracted lodging rates were at or below the maximum
allowable GSA lodging rate of $63 per day for Fayetteville. Fort Bragg had
also implemented an installation policy requiring reservists at the rank
of sergeant and below to share hotel rooms as well as apartment bedrooms.
This sharing resulted in average savings of up to 56 percent in relation
to the GSA lodging rate (see table 3)-savings similar to those realized at
MacDill.

Although Fort Bragg used purchase orders immediately after September 11,
2001, the base switched to contracts to obtain off-base

15The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) describes a requirements
contract as providing for "filling all actual purchase requirements of
designated Government activities for supplies or services during a
specified contract period, with deliveries or performance to be scheduled
by placing orders with the contractor." 48 C.F.R. S: 16.503(a). As with
the BPA, a requirements contract may be used to acquire supplies or
services when the exact times or exact quantities of future deliveries are
not known at the time of contract award. This type of contract allows
flexibility in both quantities and delivery scheduling and ordering of
supplies or services after requirements materialize.

lodging soon thereafter to streamline the process. When they used purchase
orders, for example, contracting officials had to issue a modification
each time a reserve unit increased or decreased its numbers or changed its
length of stay. Two full-time contracting specialists and one part-time
contracting officer were needed to handle the paperwork. According to Fort
Bragg officials, the change to contracts made the process more economical
because contracts require less paperwork and less manpower to administer.

Unlike MacDill's BPAs, however, Fort Bragg's contracts were based on the
number of bedrooms being rented, irrespective of whether they were in a
hotel or an apartment. Bedrooms were defined as single- or
doubleoccupancy.16 Fort Bragg's contracted rates were below the GSA
lodging rate of $63 per day and ranged from $32 to $60 per day for
singleoccupancy rooms and from $20 to $30 per day for double-occupancy
rooms (see table 3). Thus, at Fort Bragg, two reservists sharing a
twobedroom apartment with single-occupancy rooms could cost $60 per room
or up to $120 per day. However, if the bedrooms were double-occupancy, up
to four reservists could be housed for $120 per day. The contract terms
required a 72-hour to 2-week notice to vacate the lodging unit earlier
than scheduled.

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

                           Contracted price   Difference between      Average 
                           range per person   contracted price     percentage 
               Unit type            per day   and GSA rate ($63)     savingsa 
           Single room b            $32-$60               $31-$3         20.8 
            Double roomc            $20-$30              $43-$33         55.7 

Source: GAO analysis of Fort Bragg data.

aBased on our analysis of all BPAs. bBased on one person in a room.cBased
on two persons in a room; price shown is half the daily rate of $40-$60
per day.

Fort Bragg's sharing policy required enlisted personnel at the rank of
sergeant and below to share rooms. When a bedroom was to be shared,

16A single occupancy room has one bed. A double occupancy room has two
beds, along with a chest of drawers or dresser for each bed.

Other Air Force Installations House Most Reservists on Base

Most Navy and Marine Corps Reservists Receive On-site Lodging

Fort Bragg required that each reservist have sufficient space and be
provided with a dresser or chest of drawers in the room.

In contrast to Fort Bragg, Army officials at Fort Hood, Texas, and Fort
Dix, New Jersey, told us that they were able to accommodate most of their
temporary duty reservists on base. In the few cases when off-site lodging
had to be procured, the installation's contracting personnel used purchase
orders to obtain the needed facilities. Officials told us that, in
general, these off-base stays were for 3 to 4 days at Fort Hood and a
maximum of 60 days at Fort Dix. At both bases, enlisted personnel below
the rank of Sergeant First Class were required to share hotel rooms.

Unlike MacDill Air Force Base, reservists on long-term temporary duty at
Pope, Dover, and McGuire Air Force bases were accommodated on site.
According to an Air Force official, most reservists did not have
transportation and, thus, were given priority for on-site lodging. As a
result, some non-reserve service members had to be placed in off-base
lodging. Like MacDill, these Air Force bases used BPAs to procure their
off-site lodging needs, which were generally for short periods of time.

At the time of our review, Pope Air Force Base had 12 BPAs with hotel
vendors. Pope officials said that they do not use apartments because most
stays off-base are less than a week, and personnel are not required to
share rooms. We were told that, in general, service members or reservists
who are assigned to Pope for extended duty are housed on base. Under the
terms of the BPAs, personnel accommodated in hotels may vacate the hotel
at any time without a penalty. The first priority in selecting a hotel for
off-base lodging is the distance from the base to the hotel because
aircrews sometimes have to leave on short notice. According to a Pope
official, in general about 300 airmen are housed in off-base lodging
facilities each month. Prices for a one-bedroom hotel room for Pope ranged
from $48 to $63, for savings of up to $15 per day compared with the GSA
lodging rate of $63 per day for Fayetteville. According to a lodging
official, Pope spent an estimated $1.825 million on off-base lodging in
fiscal year 2003.

Our analysis of data provided by Navy officials indicates that the Navy
spent a total of $14.8 million in fiscal year 2003 on contracted and
leased lodging facilities. However, a Navy official told us that, in most
cases, the temporary-duty reservists were accommodated in on-site lodging.
The major exceptions are reservists mobilized in the Washington, D.C.,
area. These reservists are provided with Certificates of Non-Availability,
which enable them to acquire lodging in local area hotels, and they are

reimbursed for their lodging costs up to the maximum GSA rate allowed for
the Washington, D.C., area, which currently is $150 per day. About $11.3
million of the $14.8 million the Navy spent on contracted and leased
lodging facilities was used to acquire lodging in local markets with
Certificates of Non-Availability. Marine Corps reservists were
accommodated in existing on-site facilities.

    Alternative Off-Base Lodging Arrangements Could Be Explored

  Weaknesses in Contract Management Hamper Efforts to Assess Contract Costs

The extent and length of the current mobilization has created some
longterm, off-base lodging requirements and associated costs that appear
high when considered on a monthly basis and when compared with private
sector prices that typically, however, offer fewer amenities. Whether
other alternatives for obtaining off-base lodging should be considered or
whether they would be cost effective is unclear. Much would depend on
individual circumstances, local market conditions and costs, the number of
personnel requiring lodging, and the length of the lodging requirement.

One alternative approach that could be explored might be to obtain
longterm leases for blocks of properties to provide lodging for reservists
on extended temporary duty during times of high mobilizations. However,
MacDill lodging officials told us that this approach would require them to
obtain furnishings, utility hook-ups, and amenities (i.e., vacuum
cleaners, kitchenware, linens) as well as staffs to manage property
inventories and reservation systems. Government management of such
inventories could be viewed as counter to recent defense initiatives to
rely on the private sector for the provision of commercially available
services. MacDill lodging officials also pointed out that the need for
long-term lodging could vanish as quickly as it materialized, leaving them
committed to long-term leases, property inventories, and the attendant
costs. Under the approach MacDill currently uses, apartment units and
hotels assume these risks. This approach would also need to consider
potential force protection issues that might be of concern with large
concentrations of personnel lodged together off base.

From project initiation to settlement of the contractor's claim, the
management of Coalition Village II suffered from questionable acceptance
of the winning offer, poor record keeping, undocumented decisions
regarding changes to the contract, and changes to contract requirements
that were not properly coordinated with contracting officials. As a result
of these weaknesses, we were unable to assess the basis for significant
cost increases in the contract. These weaknesses also made it difficult
for

us to determine whether the government paid for costs that otherwise might
have been avoided or disallowed.

    Challenges Associated with Contract Solicitation, Award, and Pricing for
    Coalition Village II

Coalition Village II was implemented under tight time constraints that
presented unique challenges for the 6th Contracting Squadron in the
solicitation, award, and pricing of the contract. MacDill contracting
officials reference a March 21, 2003, memorandum from the Air Force's
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Contracting)/Assistant Secretary (Acquisition)
whose subject was, "Rapid, Agile Contracting Support During Operation
Iraqi Freedom." The memorandum encourages, "...every contracting
professional to lean way forward, proactively plan for known and
anticipated customer needs, and put the necessary contract vehicles and
supporting documents in place as soon as possible." The memorandum further
calls for Air Force contracting officers to be a "community of innovative,
even daring risk takers."

CENTCOM initiated its urgent request for temporary office space to the 6th
Contracting Squadron in February 2003. It requested 14 temporary office
trailers to house additional coalition partners that were supporting the
United States in Operation Iraqi Freedom. CENTCOM said it needed the
trailers in 30 days, and the 6th Contracting Squadron used a provision of
the FAR, entitled "Unusual and Compelling Urgency,"17 to meet the tight
timeline. Under this provision, the government is allowed to limit the
number of sources and approve written justifications after the contract is
awarded within a reasonable time, if preparation and approval prior to the
award would unreasonably delay the acquisition. Consistent with the
authority for an urgent and compelling acquisition, MacDill's contracting
office developed a list of three potential contractors. According to a
MacDill contracting official, the office contacted only those contractors
who had proven records of timely and satisfactory performance for similar
work at the base. MacDill issued the solicitation for leasing the trailers
on February 14, 2003, and established 12:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on
February 18, 2003, as the deadline for receipt of proposals.

One contractor, the Warrior Group, did not submit a proposal in time to
meet the deadline, and its proposal was not considered. Two other
contractors were judged to have met the deadline for submitting their
proposals, although acceptance of the winning proposal was controversial.

1748 C.F.R. S: 6.302-2.

William Scotsman, the incumbent contractor for the Coalition Village I
project, hand-carried its proposal to the 6th Contracting Squadron at
11:31 a.m. on February 18, 2003, and there was no question that it had met
the deadline. The third contractor and winning offeror, Resun Leasing,
faxed its proposal at 3 minutes past 12:00 p.m., according to the time
stamp on the fax machine. However, MacDill contracting officials
determined that the fax machine clock was 3 minutes fast, and that the
first page of Resun's proposal was received by the 12:00 p.m. deadline.
Although not all the pages of Resun's proposal were received by the
deadline, the contracting officer determined that because the first page
had been received in time, the entire proposal was timely.

Although Resun's proposal was arguably late, MacDill contracting officials
determined that Resun Leasing was the "lowest price, technically
acceptable offeror" and verbally notified the contractor on February 18,
2003, to proceed with the project. Resun's initial offer for the contract
was $111,000, but a MacDill contracting official subsequently noted a
computation error, which increased the offer to $142,755. The offer
submitted by William Scotsman was for $196,000. William Scotsman
subsequently questioned MacDill officials about the propriety of
considering Resun's apparently late offer. Nevertheless, although William
Scotsman submitted a timely offer and therefore could have protested to
GAO, it did not protest the award to Resun Leasing and MacDill's handling
of the Resun offer.18 A contracting official told us that MacDill has now
instituted a policy clearly stating that all pages of a faxed proposal
must be received by the deadline for it to be considered timely.

Numerous modifications to the contract were made after work began on
February 19, 2003. On April 22, 2003, Resun filed a claim for additional
work, including six additional flagpoles, electrical and wiring changes,
interior and exterior trailer modifications, revised grounding/lightning
protection, interior and exterior locks, and additional air conditioning
units totaling $467,000, but revised the amount several times. Resun
submitted another revision on June 9, 2003, claiming an amount of
$372,172. On May 20, 2003, MacDill validated $134,000 of the claim,
leaving $238,172 to be negotiated. On July 20, 2003, the contractor
acknowledged that it owed the government $4,977 because of erroneous
billing, which left a total of $233,196 to be negotiated. MacDill
officials agreed to pay this

18Under GAO's Bid Protest Regulations, a protest by William Scotsman at
this time would be untimely and would not be considered. See 4 C.F.R. S:
21.2 (a)(2).

amount and issued a contract modification on July 31, 2003, to capture
this change. The total amount paid for the project was, therefore,
$509,951 (see table 4). However, as discussed subsequently, the contract
file did not contain adequate documentation for us to determine how
MacDill officials arrived at this settlement.

Table 4: Payments and Claims for Coalition Village II Contract

Amount paid by Amount claimed Contract phase Date MacDill by contractor

                      Initial contract award  02/18/03   $142,755  
           Contractor's claim for additional                       
                                        work  04/22/03               $467,082 
               Amount of claim validated for                       
                          payment by MacDill  05/20/03   134,000   
              Revised contractor's claim for                       
                             additional work  06/09/03                372,172 
                     Additional reduction in                       
                   contractor's claim due to                       
                           erroneous billing  07/20/03                 -4,977 
             Payment on claim for additional                       
                                        work  07/31/03   233,196   
                Total amount paid by MacDill             $509,951  

                     Source: GAO analysis of MacDill data.

    Poor Record Keeping, Undocumented Decisions, and the Lack of Coordination of
    Changes with Contracting Officials Hamper Ability to Assess Contract Costs

Our efforts to assess contract costs for Coalition Village II were
hampered by missing documents in the contract file, undocumented decisions
for properly authorized changes to the contract, and changes to contract
requirements by on-site personnel that were not properly coordinated with
contracting officials. Because of these weaknesses in contract management,
we were unable to determine if the government paid costs that otherwise
might have been avoided or minimized.

Our review of the Resun contract file showed that it was missing several
key documents needed to assess the appropriateness of contract costs. The
file did not contain documentation that the winning proposal represented a
technically acceptable offer19 or an assessment that the price

19"The relative strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and risks
supporting proposal evaluation shall be documented in the contract file."
48 C.F.R. S: 15.305 (a).

was reasonable.20 MacDill contracting officials agreed that poor record
keeping was a problem with the Coalition Village II contract. The contract
file also did not contain documentation to fully validate the contractor's
entire claim. While validation of $134,000 of the initial claim was
documented, there was no documentation indicating how MacDill officials
determined that the remaining amount of the claim was valid and
reasonable.

Further, the file did not contain sufficient documentation regarding
authorized changes to the contract. Modifications to the contract were
made during twice-weekly meetings between representatives of the
contractor, the customer (CENTCOM), technical advisors (civil engineers),
and contracting staff, but no official minutes were maintained to document
the agreements that were reached. In a memorandum for the record, the
contract administrator acknowledged that a written log of contract changes
was not developed. The absence of documentation of authorized contract
modifications makes it difficult to assess contract costs.

The Resun contract file also did not contain sufficient documentation to
indicate who authorized some contract changes21 or the cost estimates for
some changes. MacDill officials told us that they were surprised when the
contractor submitted the claim for $467,000 to cover additional work
performed under the contract. They said that the contracting officer and
contract administrator were not aware of all changes that had been made
because unauthorized personnel inappropriately authorized changes to the
contract on site without informing contracting officials. During the rush
to get the project completed, involved parties including representatives
of the customer and technical advisors made on-site changes that were not
always coordinated with the contracting officer. In a memorandum for the
record dated June 29, 2003, the contract administrator wrote that he did
not know about many of the changes, nor did the CENTCOM point of contact
or the representative from civil engineering, who assisted with

20"The contracting officer shall document the cost or price evaluation."
48 C.F.R. S: 15.305 (a)(1).

2148 C.F.R. S: 43.102 (a) provides that "[o]nly contracting officers
acting within the scope of their authority are empowered to execute
contract modifications on behalf of the Government. Other government
personnel shall not (1) Execute contract modifications; (2) Act in such a
manner as to cause the contractors to believe that they have authority to
bind the Government; or (3) Direct or encourage the contractor to perform
work that should be the subject of a contract modification."

Conclusions

contract oversight. The price negotiation memorandum written to document
the final settlement of the claim also notes a lack of adequate
documentation to determine who authorized the extra work. The absence of
these documents along with inadequate documentation of contract changes
makes it difficult to retrospectively assess the appropriateness of
contract costs.

MacDill Air Force Base and other installations we identified that provide
lodging for reservists on extended temporary duty are often making efforts
to reduce off-base lodging costs by (1) obtaining prices that are below
the maximum allowable rate for lodging established by GSA and (2)
requiring military personnel below specified ranks to share apartments
and/or hotel rooms. While public concerns in the Tampa area were accurate
in citing MacDill's monthly rental costs for some two-bedroom apartment
units of $2,400, these concerns failed to recognize that GSA establishes
lodging rates for travelers on official government business based on daily
perperson rates. Therefore, a two-bedroom apartment renting for $2,400 per
month ($80 per day) shared by two people results in a daily lodging rate
of $40 per person, well below the maximum allowable GSA rate of $93 per
day in the Tampa area. On a unit basis, these rates are also comparable to
corporate housing rates in the Tampa area, which generally provide
furnished units with similar amenities to those provided to military
personnel, though MacDill's per-person costs were usually lower due to
lodging sharing arrangements.

Each installation we visited had different methods for providing extended
temporary lodging. The majority of installations contacted had sufficient
capacity to provide lodging for reservists on base or made arrangements to
provide lodging off base for other military travelers on a short-term
basis. Installations providing off-base lodging used different procurement
tools (BPAs, purchase orders, and contracts) but obtained comparable
savings regardless of the procurement instrument used. Local GSA lodging
rates are public knowledge and generally represent the ceiling for
acceptable offers. Significant savings over GSA daily rates were also
obtained through the implementation of installation specific guidance
requiring reservists at specific ranks to share rooms and/or apartments,
but the ranks required to share units varied by installation.
Installations also obtained varying terms in their agreements with hotels
and apartment vendors, primarily regarding penalties for early departures.

The primary factors affecting off-base lodging prices are local market
conditions (the inventory of vacant hotel rooms and apartment units) and

  Recommendation for Executive Action

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

the prevailing GSA lodging rate. An alternative approach to providing
offbase lodging, such as direct leasing of apartment properties, might be
considered but would need to consider other factors such as the added
costs of government management and the provision of additional services
comparable to those now being provided.

Although Coalition Village II was implemented under extreme time
constraints, effective contract management suffered from questionable
acceptance of the winning offer, poor record keeping, undocumented
decisions, and changes to contract requirements that were not properly
coordinated with contracting officials. We were not able to assess the
basis for additional costs paid to the contractor or the extent to which
costs might have been avoided or minimized because of these contract
management weaknesses.

We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the Air
Force to direct the Commander of the Air Mobility Command to emphasize to
MacDill personnel the importance of adhering to sound contract management
procedures that exist to protect the interests of the government.
Communications should reemphasize that contract files should be properly
maintained and only authorized personnel should initiate changes to
contract requirements, even during time sensitive procurements. In
addition to contracting officials, such communications should also be
provided to contractors, base customers of contracting services, and
contract support personnel.

In commenting on a draft of this report, the office of the Director,
Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, did not dispute the GAO audit
findings regarding the Coalition Village II procurement and partially
concurred with our recommendation. The office suggested that the
recommendation is not needed because the 6th Contracting Squadron at
MacDill Air Force Base had already taken corrective actions, including an
internal review of Coalition Village II contract files that resulted in
letters of reprimand for a contracting officer and contract administrator.
However, as noted in DOD's response, some of the more significant actions
that relate to the specifics of our recommendation are planned but not yet
completed. Accordingly, we believe it appropriate to retain the
recommendation pending completion of all indicated corrective actions. We
expect to follow up to determine the extent to which planned actions have
been taken. The comments from the office of the Director, Defense

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

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the
Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of
the Marine Corps; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and
other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others
upon
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO
Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions on the matters discussed in this
letter, please contact me at (202) 512-5581. Key contributors to this
letter
were George Poindexter, Vijay Barnabas, Nelsie Alcoser, Kenneth Patton,
Tanisha Stewart, and Nancy Benco.

Barry W. Holman
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management

                       Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To describe the extent to which MacDill Air Force Base used cost-effective
measures to provide long-term, off-base lodging for reservists on extended
temporary duty, we visited and interviewed officials from the 6th
Contracting Squadron and 6th Services Squadron at MacDill Air Force Base,
and we interviewed apartment managers and brokers in the Tampa, Florida,
area. We analyzed records on temporary lodging rates paid for military
personnel housed off-site at MacDill Air Force Base and the numbers of
National Guard and Reserve service members on extended temporary duty at
this installation. We identified the allowable GSA lodging rate for the
Tampa, Florida, area and compared this amount to the amounts paid for
off-base lodging. We determined whether MacDill Air Force Base used
contracts or BPAs to provide off-site lodging for service members on
extended temporary duty and reviewed the processes followed in developing
these procurement instruments for acquiring offbase lodging. We reviewed
the BPAs MacDill had with hotel and apartment vendors in the Tampa area.

To compare the practices used at MacDill Air Force Base to acquire offbase
lodging to practices at other installations, we visited and interviewed
contracting and lodging officials at Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base.
These installations were selected based on our review of Reserve and
National Guard deployment data for force protection activities and
followup phone calls to establish that the bases procured off-base
lodging. In addition, we obtained information on lodging practices at Fort
Meyer, Dover Air Force Base, McGuire Air Force Base, Fort Hood, and Fort
Dix. We also contacted Navy and Marine Corps officials at the headquarters
level to determine their practices for providing lodging for reservists on
extended temporary duty. We identified the allowable GSA lodging rates for
Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base and compared these amounts to the
amounts paid for off-base lodging. We determined whether these
installations used contracts, purchase orders or BPAs to provide off-site
lodging for service members on extended temporary duty and the processes
followed in developing these procurement instruments.

We met officials from the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and
Readiness), U.S. Air Force (Installations and Logistics Contracting), and
DOD's Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee to collect
information on Department of Defense lodging regulations and procedures.
At each of the installations we visited, we collected and reviewed lodging
policies, procedures, and practices regarding temporary duty personnel. In
addition, we reviewed the requirements in the Joint Federal Travel
Regulations regarding temporary duty travel. We reviewed

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

all data that we received, but we did not verify the accuracy of the data
provided by DOD or the installations.

To determine if MacDill followed proper procedures in contracting for the
lease of temporary office trailers for Coalition Village II, we
interviewed officials from the 6th Contracting Squadron, including the
commander, the current contracting officer, the contract administrator,
and other contract staff familiar with the procurement process. In these
discussions, we sought information on the actions taken to implement the
project, the timing of such actions, and the justification for contracting
procedures followed. We reviewed documents prepared by contracting
officials to explain procedures followed in administering the contract,
including a Talking Paper and Acquisition Timeline of Events for Coalition
Village II. In addition, we reviewed the contract and other documentation
in the contract file, including correspondence, memorandums for the record
and the contractor's claims for payment. We also reviewed relevant
provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) related to this
procurement. Specifically, we researched FAR authorities related to the
use of "Unusual and Compelling Urgency" in government procurements,
including competition and documentation requirements under such
circumstances. We also researched and analyzed prior GAO bid protest
decisions regarding determinations of timeliness in the acceptance of
electronic submissions of proposals.

We conducted our review from June 2003 through December 2003 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense

Note: Page numbers in the draft report may differ from those in this
report.

  GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files.
To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.

Order by Mail or Phone 	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

Contact:

To Report Fraud, Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

  Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]

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

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

Public Affairs 	U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***