Procurement Reform: How Selected Countries Perform Certain GSA Activities
(Letter Report, 07/15/1999, GAO/GGD-99-109).

The General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Supply Service (FSS)
and Federal Technology Service (FTS) act on behalf of federal agencies
as central buying agents for a wide range of goods and services. FSS has
four business lines: supply and procurement, vehicle acquisition and
leasing, travel and transportation, and personal property management.
FTS has two business lines: network services (for telecommunications)
and information technology solutions. This report provides information
on how foreign governments perform procurement activities that in the
United States fall under the responsibility of FSS and FTS. GAO focuses
on the supply and procurement and vehicle acquisition and leasing
business lines in FSS and two of FTS' business lines.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-99-109
     TITLE:  Procurement Reform: How Selected Countries Perform Certain
	     GSA Activities
      DATE:  07/15/1999
   SUBJECT:  Federal procurement
	     Comparative analysis
	     Foreign governments
	     Procurement regulations
	     Federal supply systems
	     Federal procurement policy
IDENTIFIER:  National Performance Review
	     Information Technology Fund
	     FTS Federal Acquisition Services for Technology Program
	     General Supply Fund
	     United Kingdom
	     Australia
	     New Zealand
	     Canada

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  This text was extracted from a PDF file.        **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,      **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some   **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into          **
** body text in the adjacent column.  Graphic images have       **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included.       **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been   **
** preserved.                                                   **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

    United States General Accounting Office GAO               Report
    to Congressional  Requesters July 1999         PROCUREMENT REFORM
    How Selected Countries Perform Certain GSA Activities GAO/GGD-99-
    109 United States General Accounting Office GAO    Washington,
    D.C.  20548 General Government Division B-281162 July 15, 1999 The
    Honorable Stephen Horn Chairman, Subcommittee on Government
    Management, Information and Technology Committee on Government
    Reform House of Representatives The Honorable Tom Davis House of
    Representatives This report responds to your July 30, 1998,
    request for information on how foreign governments perform
    procurement activities that in the United States fall under the
    responsibility of the General Services Administration's (GSA)
    Federal Supply Service (FSS) and Federal Technology Service (FTS).
    FSS and FTS act on behalf of federal agencies as central buying
    agents for a wide range of goods and services. FSS has four
    "business lines": supply and procurement, vehicle acquisition and
    leasing, travel and transportation, and personal property
    management. FTS has two business lines: network services, for
    telecommunications, and IT solutions, for IT (information
    technology) systems and related services. Your offices wanted us
    to focus on the supply and procurement and vehicle acquisition and
    leasing business lines in FSS and the two FTS business lines. As
    you know, FSS and FTS have undergone reforms in recent years aimed
    at incorporating commercial practices to improve the level of
    service they provide to federal customers. In addition, with the
    exception of vehicle acquisitions through FSS, FSS and FTS are now
    nonmandatory sources, meaning that agencies are not required to
    use them. Despite these reforms, you were concerned that because
    of current government rules and regulations, FSS and FTS face
    several barriers-such as the inability to recruit top-level staff
    and various financial management requirements- that can impede the
    effectiveness of their operations. To aid the Subcommittee in its
    discussions about future FSS and FTS reforms, you wanted to know
    whether other countries had organizations similar to FSS and FTS
    and how they performed similar activities. As agreed with your
    offices, we selected Canada, the United Kingdom (UK), Australia,
    and New Zealand because our preliminary work showed they had made
    a major commitment to procurement reform, and some of the reforms
    were in activities similar to those carried out by FSS and FTS.
    Our objective was to identify the organizations, policies, and
    programs that Page 1                                      GAO/GGD-
    99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 these countries had in place to
    assist agencies with the procurement of supplies, vehicles,
    telecommunications, and IT. None of the countries had
    organizations that completely mirrored FSS and Results in Brief
    FTS. Canada and the UK had the closest models in that they had
    organizations available to assist agencies in the procurement of
    supplies, vehicles, telecommunications, and IT. However, these
    organizations had different features from those of FSS and FTS.
    For example, in Canada, the organization that performed many
    activities similar to those of FSS also had a large role in
    assisting agencies with the acquisition of IT systems and related
    services, a function performed by FTS in the United States. The
    two organizations in the UK differed from FSS and FTS because they
    were given more flexibility than traditional government
    departments in the personnel and financial areas. Australia and
    New Zealand had very different models from the United States.
    Australia had only an organization that performed activities
    similar to those of FTS, and its role in assisting agencies with
    the acquisition of IT systems and related services was minor. New
    Zealand had no government organizations that performed activities
    similar to those of FSS and FTS because it sold its central
    procurement agency to the private sector several years ago. This
    private sector business assisted government agencies with the
    procurement of supplies, vehicles, telecommunications, and IT and
    did business only with the government. Our analysis also showed
    that there were similarities and differences in the programs and
    policies these countries used in the procurement of supplies,
    vehicles, telecommunications, and IT compared to those of FSS and
    FTS. In supply, the procurement organizations in Canada and the UK
    had prenegotiated contract arrangements, as does FSS, under which
    agencies deal directly with vendors, to procure goods and
    services. Australia and New Zealand did not have such
    arrangements. Also, none of the countries had distribution centers
    or government stores, like FSS does, that stocked common-use
    supplies for resale to agencies.1 In the vehicle area, only Canada
    had a requirement that vehicles be purchased through its central
    procurement organization, like the U.S. requirement for FSS. The
    other three countries allowed their agencies to acquire vehicles
    directly from the private sector. None of the countries had a
    central vehicles fleet, like FSS does. Australia recently sold its
    fleet to the private sector. In telecommunications, agencies in
    Canada and the UK-like in the United States-had the option to
    either use contract arrangements with private 1 On July 8, 1999,
    as this report was being prepared for printing, GSA announced that
    it was phasing out its distribution centers. Page 2
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 carriers offered by
    their organizations with activities similar to those of FTS or to
    go directly to the private sector, which was the only option in
    New Zealand. In Australia, officials told us that agencies were
    required to use service providers that had agreed to certain terms
    and conditions with the organization like FTS. For IT systems and
    related services, agencies in the UK, like agencies in the United
    States, could either use the organization like FTS or go directly
    to the private sector to meet their needs. However, Canada was
    unique because major IT projects had to be procured through the
    central procurement organization if they exceeded certain dollar
    thresholds. In Australia, there was no major, central government
    effort to assist agencies in acquiring IT systems and related
    services because of a new government initiative to phase out IT
    systems ownership and instead have the private sector own and
    maintain the systems and the government contract for IT services.
    In New Zealand, a government committee was to review and monitor
    high-dollar, high-risk IT system acquisitions. Appendix I
    identifies the key organizations in these countries and summarizes
    their activities. According to officials in these countries,
    procurement reform evolved over a number of years and was
    primarily influenced by a desire to rely more on the private
    sector to perform activities of a business nature so that
    government could operate more efficiently, improve its services,
    and focus on its core mission. As part of their broad reform
    efforts, Canada and the UK were using techniques aimed at
    transforming the way major procurements are designed and managed.
    Canada's benefits-driven- procurement approach asks the private
    sector to deliver certain agreed- upon results instead of
    following what Canadian officials viewed as the traditional
    approach in which a government blueprint with detailed
    specifications was used. The UK's private finance initiative (PFI)
    is designed to meet major capital investment needs by having the
    private sector finance capital assets and having the government or
    users pay for the services. Information on the various approaches
    used by these countries provides insight into how they performed
    activities similar to those of FSS and FTS. However, it is
    important to recognize that such factors as differences in
    political and economic environments, the role of social objectives
    in the procurement process, and the volume of contracting activity
    would have to be considered in a discussion of whether these
    approaches had applicability to FSS and FTS operations in the
    United States. Furthermore, some reforms were very recent, and
    performance data on the effectiveness of the various reforms were
    generally unavailable or were in the early stages of development.
    Consequently, we could not, from an overall Page 3
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 perspective, gauge how
    well these reforms were working. Nonetheless, officials we
    interviewed who were end-users of the procurement organizations
    and policies we observed said they were generally satisfied with
    the reforms and believed their governments were operating more
    efficiently than under old policies. GSA was established by the
    Federal Property and Administrative Services Background    Act of
    1949 to serve as a central procurement and property management
    agency for the federal government. GSA's diverse activities and
    programs have governmentwide implications that, according to GSA,
    affect over $52 billion, which is more than one-fourth of the
    federal government's total procurement dollars. Through various
    revolving funds, GSA buys goods and services from private vendors
    and resells them to agencies. GSA has four major components-the
    Public Buildings Service, FSS, FTS, and its Office of
    Governmentwide Policy (OGP)-to carry out its various programs and
    activities. FSS provides contract arrangements for commercial
    products and services worth over $17 billion per year through its
    four business lines: supply and procurement, vehicle acquisition
    and leasing, travel and transportation, and personal property
    management. As previously indicated, we did not focus on the
    travel and transportation and personal property management
    business lines. FTS provides reimbursable services for local and
    long- distance telecommunications. It also assists agencies with
    acquiring, managing, and using IT systems. FTS accomplishes this
    through two business lines: network services, for its
    telecommunications activities; and IT solutions, for its IT
    systems-related activities. In carrying out their duties, FSS and
    FTS are to follow the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which
    is the uniform set of policies and procedures executive agencies2
    are required to follow in procuring goods and services. The FAR
    implements various statutory requirements intended to advance
    national social and economic goals, such as giving preferential
    treatment in awarding contracts to certain groups, such as the
    blind and severely handicapped, small and disadvantaged
    businesses, and the federal prison work program. Governmentwide
    procurement policy is overseen by the Office of Federal
    Procurement Policy (OFPP) within the Office of Management and
    Budget (OMB). OFPP is responsible for prescribing policy and
    coordinating the development of governmentwide 2 In the United
    States, an executive agency is a civilian or military department,
    or an independent establishment within the meaning of 5 U.S.C 101,
    102, and 104(1) respectively, and any wholly owned government
    corporation within the meaning of 31 U.S.C. 9101. Page 4
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 procurement standards.
    OGP within GSA has a supporting role by creating networks of
    agency procurement representatives and by providing guidance and
    policy related to specific areas, such as vehicles, aircraft, and
    electronic commerce. Each year, the U.S. government spends
    approximately $200 billion in acquiring goods and services. FSS
    finances its supply and vehicle activities though the General
    Supply FSS Supply and Vehicle    Fund, which is a revolving fund
    that is sustained by revenues received Activities
    from customer agencies for goods and services. Through its supply
    and procurement business line, FSS offers federal agencies a
    choice of more than 4 million commercial products and a range of
    technology-oriented, financial, environmental, management, and
    administrative services. FSS' three methods of supply are (1) the
    stock program, (2) special order sales and (3) federal supply
    schedules. In the stock program, FSS stores approximately 19,000
    common-use items for resale to agencies in 4 major distribution
    centers, 3 smaller centers, and 19 government stores located
    throughout the country and overseas. This program had sales of
    $817 million in fiscal year 1998. The special order program, which
    had sales of $477 million in fiscal year 1998, provides products
    for special needs or when stocking is not desirable, such as
    office furniture and appliances. The federal supply schedules
    program is similar to a commercial catalog business and provides
    agencies with access to over 6,800 contracts to obtain various
    goods and services. In addition to covering a vast range of
    commercial items, the schedules cover IT products and services.
    FSS prenegotiates terms, conditions, and ceilings on price with
    vendors; agencies deal directly with the vendors to negotiate
    final prices and establish deliveries. Supply schedule sales were
    about $8 billion in fiscal year 1998. The vehicle acquisition and
    leasing business line in FSS provides agencies with one-stop
    shopping for purchasing vehicles or leasing them from the FSS-
    managed interagency fleet. FSS is the federal government's
    mandatory source for the purchase of new, nontactical vehicles.3
    Although leasing vehicles through the interagency fleet is not
    mandatory, agencies that choose this option get scheduled
    replacement, full-service management, and a fleet services card
    for fuel and repairs, for a fixed monthly fee, as well as a cost
    per mile charged by vehicle type. In fiscal year 1998, the vehicle
    acquisition and leasing business line purchased about 56,800
    vehicles worth about $1 billion; one-half of the vehicles were for
    the 3 Nontactical vehicles, which are referred to throughout this
    report, are motor vehicles primarily of commercial design that are
    used in support of general transportation services and facility
    maintenance functions not directly connected with combat or
    tactical operations. Page 5
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 interagency fleet, with
    the rest reflecting vehicle purchases for agencies. The
    interagency fleet comprised over 160,000 automobiles, passenger
    vans, trucks, buses, ambulances, and special-purpose equipment in
    fiscal year 1998. FSS relies on the private sector for vehicle
    delivery, fuel, maintenance and repair, and vehicle auctions. FTS
    finances its telecommunications and IT activities through the FTS
    Telecommunications    Information Technology Fund, which is a
    revolving fund sustained by and IT Activities         revenues
    received from customer agencies for goods and services. In fiscal
    year 1998, FTS had revenues of $3.4 billion. The network services
    business line in FTS provides customer agencies with
    telecommunication services, including global voice, data, and
    video services, supporting both the local and long-distance needs
    of the federal government. According to FTS officials, the network
    services business line had revenues of about $1 billion in fiscal
    year 1998. Until the end of 1998, FTS long-distance services-under
    its FTS2000 arrangements with AT&T and Sprint-were a mandatory
    source for federal agencies. Under the FTS2001 arrangements with
    MCI and Sprint that were recently awarded, agencies are able to
    select their own service provider. According to FTS officials,
    these are the largest non-Defense government contracts, valued at
    between $5 and $8 billion over 8 years. FTS local
    telecommunications services also used to be mandatory; however,
    FTS now offers a range of nonmandatory services in this area,
    where revenue totaled $266 million in 1998. The IT solutions
    business line in FTS provides agencies with a range of assistance
    related to acquiring, managing, and using IT. In fiscal year 1998,
    the IT solutions business line had revenues of about $2.4 billion.
    FTS prides itself in this area on being an objective and trusted
    third party that can provide independent assistance to agencies.
    For a fee, FTS acts as a consulting agent for agencies in the
    acquisition of large IT systems and related services, systems
    integration, software definition and design, and office systems
    development. It also supports federal systems through risk
    analysis and information security support. Its Federal Acquisition
    Services for Technology (FAST) program is intended to provide
    quick procurement assistance for IT products and services. The
    FAST program had revenues of $973 million in fiscal year 1998.
    According to FTS officials, FTS services differ from the IT
    products and services offered by FSS under the supply schedules in
    that FTS is involved as a third party. Agencies deal directly with
    vendors under the FSS schedules. An FTS official added that FTS
    views its role as that of a value-added reseller of
    telecommunications and IT. In addition, this official said that
    FTS recognizes the significance of the evolving integration of
    telecommunications and IT in meeting customer agency needs, now
    and in the future. Page 6
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 The federal government
    has undergone reform and downsizing in response Government Reform
    Has    to efforts like the National Performance Review and
    congressional Affected FSS and FTS     initiatives to promote
    efficiency and economy in contracting, such as the Federal
    Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. More recently, the Federal
    Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 (FAIR) required executive
    agencies to identify functions they perform that are not
    inherently governmental and could be performed by the private
    sector. This environment of reform has affected FSS and FTS. GSA,
    as a whole, has gone from 39,000 employees in 1971 to fewer than
    14,000 employees in 1999. It also realigned itself
    organizationally to mirror the private sector and incorporated
    commercial practices to improve the level of service provided to
    agencies and to enhance its relationships with the private sector.
    These changes were evident in FSS and FTS with the establishment
    of the aforementioned business lines. The changes also manifested
    themselves in the shift from being a mandatory to nonmandatory
    source for agencies in such areas as supply procurement, vehicle
    leasing through the interagency fleet, telecommunications
    services, and IT acquisition. Also, the Government Performance and
    Results Act of 1993 increased FSS' and FTS' focus on performance
    measurement as a vital component of operating in a more business-
    oriented environment. Despite the changes that occurred, FSS and
    FTS believe that several barriers still exist that impede their
    ability to compete in this new environment and operate in a
    businesslike manner. Barriers cited by FSS were the inability to
    recruit and train top-level staff because of various federal
    personnel requirements, prohibitions on its ability to enter into
    cooperative purchasing arrangements, the extensive bid protest
    processes available to federal contractors, and its inability to
    deal effectively with poor-performing vendors. FTS also cited
    personnel-related barriers but had more concerns about financial-
    related barriers, such as the inability to consider accounts
    receivable the same as cash in managing the Information Technology
    Fund. An FTS official said this limits FTS' ability to commit to
    new business opportunities because payments to FTS from some
    agencies can take up to 90 days. Another barrier FTS cited was
    that federal rules related to disposal of property can make
    agencies less efficient because they cannot exchange the equipment
    they own for like services. FTS also cited being prohibited from
    using the standard of "adequate" competition as an alternative to
    "full and open" competition, which is required by law, in certain
    multiple award contracting situations as another barrier to
    operating effectively. Page 7
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 In the past, Congress
    has amended laws to allow agencies to overcome various barriers
    when they were shown to impede effective performance. For example,
    government corporations, including the Tennessee Valley Authority
    (TVA), and dozens of others, serve public functions of a business
    nature and were given some flexibility related to the
    applicability of federal statutes to overcome barriers caused by
    the laws and implementing regulations. Congress authorized TVA, a
    government corporation, as well as federal agencies such as the
    Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Federal Aviation
    Administration (FAA), to adopt alternative personnel systems.
    Congress also gave FAA authority to implement a streamlined
    procurement system so FAA could more easily deploy new
    technologies. Agencies have also outsourced4 a wide range of
    functions that typically were done in-house. For example, the
    Office of Personnel Management (OPM) now contracts for
    investigative services, which were formerly done in-house until
    OPM privatized5 its investigative unit. The United States is not
    alone in its efforts to make its agencies more businesslike and to
    address barriers to efficient and streamlined government.
    Governments around the globe have reassessed the role of
    government and have made organizational and operational changes to
    improve the level of service to citizens. Changes that have taken
    place have included greater reliance on the private sector through
    such methods as outsourcing, empowering civil servants to make
    business decisions, adopting a more results-oriented focus, and
    developing and monitoring data on performance. To meet our
    objective, we obtained information on FSS' and FTS' Scope and
    procurement activities and federal procurement in general. We
    primarily Methodology    relied on interviews with, and documents
    obtained from, officials from FSS, FTS, GSA's OGP, and OFPP within
    OMB. We conducted research, primarily using the Internet, to
    select countries for the review. We identified countries where the
    government had made a commitment to procurement reform and where
    preliminary work showed reforms were made in activities similar to
    those carried out by FSS and FTS. On the basis of this work, we
    selected Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. We confirmed
    our selections primarily through discussions with our 4Under
    outsourcing, the government remains fully responsible for a
    service or function and retains control over management decisions,
    while another entity, usually the private sector, performs the
    function or operates the service. 5 The terms privatize and
    privatization have generally been defined as any process aimed at
    shifting functions and responsibilities, in whole or in part, from
    the government to the private sector. Page 8
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 counterpart
    organizations-the Auditor General offices-in each of the
    countries. To collect information on the organizations, programs,
    and policies in these countries, we visited the countries,
    interviewed key officials about their operations, and obtained a
    wide range of material. After collecting the information, we
    compared these countries' operations to the way FSS and FTS assist
    agencies with the procurement of supplies, vehicles,
    telecommunications, and IT. We performed our work between July
    1998 and May 1999 in accordance with generally accepted government
    auditing standards. We requested comments on a draft of this
    report from the Director of OMB, Administrator of GSA, and
    responsible officials in the countries we visited. On June 4,
    1999, OFPP's Associate Administrator for Procurement Law and
    Legislation told us that OMB had no comments. In response to our
    request for comments from the Administrator of GSA, FSS and FTS
    officials provided comments. Our FSS liaison orally provided the
    comments of various FSS components on June 11, 1999, and FTS'
    Chief of Staff provided oral comments on June 16, 1999. Various
    officials from the four countries provided comments via e-mail,
    facsimile, or letter during June 1999. These comments are
    discussed near the end of this letter. Appendix II contains a more
    detailed description of our objective, scope, and methodology and
    identifies the organizations discussed in this report and their
    Internet addresses. Canada, with a population of about 31 million,
    is a federation of 10 Canada: Central                provinces and
    3 territories and has a central government that operates as a
    Procurement Agency             parliamentary democracy. Canada's
    central procurement department- Public Works and Government
    Services Canada (PWGSC)-had two Has Functions Similar
    organizations-the Supply Operations Service (SOS) and the
    Government To FSS and FTS With            Telecommunications and
    Informatics Services branch (GTIS)-with Some Differences
    activities similar to those carried out by FSS and FTS.
    Procurement in the Canadian government centered on purchase
    authority thresholds, which were delegated by the Treasury Board.6
    That is, agencies had authority to automatically buy goods and
    services up to certain amounts. For goods purchases above a $5,000
    Canadian threshold ($3,425 U.S., assuming that $1 U.S. = $1.46
    Canadian), agencies generally were required to use PWGSC as a
    central purchasing agency. 6 The Treasury Board is a committee of
    the Cabinet that sets procurement policy. Page 9
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 SOS arranged
    governmentwide contracts for supplies, including IT products and
    services, similar to FSS' function. However, it no longer operated
    a stock program with distribution centers or government stores. As
    with FSS in the United States, agencies were required to use SOS
    for vehicle acquisitions, although unlike FSS, it did not manage a
    central vehicle fleet. SOS differed from FSS in the IT area in
    that it had a unit that provided IT systems acquisition services,
    similar to FTS' role. GTIS also provided some services in the IT
    area, where it assisted mostly smaller agencies in defining their
    needs, but it was primarily involved in the procurement of
    telecommunications services, like FTS. In the IT area, the
    government of Canada was starting to use benefits-driven-
    procurement (BDP), under which the government asks the private
    sector to deliver certain agreed-upon results, instead of a more
    traditional approach under which the private sector is asked to
    follow a government blueprint with detailed specifications.
    Greater use of BDP was part of a broad vision for reform being
    developed by the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS).7 Appendix I
    identifies the key organizations in Canada and summarizes their
    activities. The central government of Canada meets its procurement
    needs through a Central Purchasing and      combination of central
    purchasing and delegated authority to agencies. Delegations of
    Authority    PWGSC is the central purchasing agent for the
    government of Canada. PWGSC's activities covered both civilian and
    defense purchasing for approximately 100 departments and agencies
    of the central government and other jurisdictions. Employing about
    11,800 people, PWGSC, among other things, managed approximately
    63,000 contracts and was responsible for purchasing some 17,000
    categories of goods, services, and construction, with a total
    annual value in excess of $8 billion Canadian (about $5.5 billion
    U.S.). This amount is more than one-half of the total amount of
    all federal government contracting in Canada. In addition, PWGSC
    had several other governmentwide responsibilities, including those
    related to real property, personnel, consulting and audit, public
    information, and translation services. It also banked and
    dispersed government funds and maintained the government's
    accounts. The Treasury Board sets contracting authority levels for
    departments in the Canadian government. As a central procurement
    agency, PWGSC had much higher authority than other departments. In
    addition, the Public Works and Government Services Act of 1996
    gave PWGSC exclusive responsibility to purchase goods on behalf of
    the Canadian government 7 The Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) is
    the central agency that advises the Treasury Board and
    communicates its decisions. Page 10
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 and also for delegating
    purchase authority for goods to other departments. PWGSC's
    standard delegation of authority for goods to other departments
    was $5,000 Canadian ($3,425 U.S.) and according to an official
    with TBS, some departments had authority of $25,000 Canadian
    ($17,123 U.S.). Each department could procure services within its
    own authority, although the departments could ask PWGSC to do the
    procurement for them. Departments had authority to purchase
    services up to $2 million Canadian (about $1.4 million U.S.) if
    they used the government's electronic tendering service.8
    Purchases above contracting authorities set by the Treasury Board
    required approval by the Treasury Board. Government policy in
    Canada requires that contracting be conducted in a manner that
    will, among other things, ensure competition and the preeminence
    of operational requirements. According to TBS officials,
    government policy also seeks to advance certain national
    objectives, including regional development and award of some
    contracts to aboriginal populations. Canada did not, however,
    appear to use its procurement system to advance social objectives
    to the extent this is done in the United States. SOS-a major
    component of PWGSC-arranged governmentwide SOS Supply, Fleet, and
    IT    agreements with suppliers through its standing offers and
    supply Activities                   arrangements. Standing offers
    provide goods and services to departments at prearranged prices,
    under set terms and conditions, without specifying delivery
    schedules or quantities required up front. Standing offers are
    employed when one or more purchasers repetitively order the same
    good or service. Common products offered under the standing offers
    are food, fuel, plumbing supplies, tires, stationery, and office
    equipment. Services include repair and overhaul of equipment and
    temporary help services. Supply arrangements are nonbinding
    agreements between SOS and suppliers to provide a range of goods
    or services on an as-required basis. With supply arrangements,
    departments solicit bids from a pool of prescreened vendors based
    on their specific scope of work; in this way supply arrangements
    differ from standing offers, under which departments accept a
    portion of a requirement already defined and priced. Many supply
    arrangements include ceilings on prices, which allow departments
    to negotiate the price downward on the basis of the actual
    requirement or scope of work. 8 Known as MERX, this service lists
    contract opportunities at all levels of government in Canada and
    includes hundreds of hospitals, universities, and school boards.
    Page 11
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 Although we did not do
    a comprehensive comparison of the supply activities of SOS and
    FSS, they were similar in that they aim to simplify the buying
    process for the government purchaser by prenegotiating terms,
    conditions, and sometimes prices with suppliers. We also noted
    that like FSS, SOS had on-line catalogues that purchasers could
    use to find products and services. There was, however, a
    difference in SOS and FSS supply operations in that SOS no longer
    operates a stock program with distribution centers or government
    stores as FSS does. According to SOS officials, the government had
    operated distribution centers at one time, but they were
    considered inefficient and the government stopped operating them
    several years ago. SOS' current supply activities rely primarily
    on direct delivery from the vendor. According to these officials,
    the government also used to operate government stores that at one
    time were found in most of the major federal buildings. However,
    for ideological reasons, the government decided that it should not
    be in competition with the private sector and privatized the
    stores several years ago. Another difference we noted was that SOS
    can be a mandatory source of supply if the purchase amount exceeds
    the buyer's threshold. FSS, in contrast, is a nonmandatory source
    of supply, regardless of the purchase amount. In the vehicle area,
    SOS' activities were similar to FSS' activities in that
    departments were required to use SOS for nontactical vehicle
    acquisition. According to TBS officials, the Canadian government
    purchases over 2,250 vehicles each year. The most common method of
    supply for vehicles is standing offers, whereby manufacturers
    provide prices for different models with different option
    combinations. For urgent requirements, departments could access
    SOS' inventory of vehicles that were already purchased by SOS
    through standing offers and were being held by manufacturers until
    needed. The least common method, which required special approval
    by the Treasury Board because it was the most expensive, was
    direct purchase from dealer stock. Departments could also lease
    vehicles from the private sector through SOS. According to SOS
    officials, departments generally managed their own fleets and had
    arrangements with dealerships and private garages for vehicle
    servicing. Under this framework, SOS differed from FSS in that it
    did not manage a central fleet like FSS' interagency fleet. As
    with most other goods and services in which PWGSC was involved,
    SOS acted as the contract authority on behalf of the buyer and was
    not involved in delivery of the goods and services. Like FSS'
    schedules, SOS contracts also covered IT goods and services.
    However, SOS had a role in the IT area that went beyond what FSS
    offers Page 12                                       GAO/GGD-99-
    109 Procurement Reform B-281162 through its IT schedules and more
    closely resembled what FTS offers in assisting agencies with the
    acquisition of IT systems and related services. SOS had a branch
    called the Science, Informatics, and Professional Services Sector
    (SIPSS) that managed the IT goods and services contracts mentioned
    earlier. These contracts included consulting services for IT
    systems design, research and development, and training as well as
    goods, such as IT systems infrastructure, electronic data
    processing systems, hardware, and software. In addition to
    managing these contracts, which was similar to what FSS does
    through its IT schedules, SIPSS provided direct assistance to
    departments with major IT systems acquisitions, similar to what
    FTS does. A difference between SIPSS and FSS/FTS activities in
    this area, however, was that SIPSS was often a mandatory source
    for departments because of the purchasing thresholds. FSS and FTS,
    on the other hand, are always nonmandatory sources in the IT area.
    Like FTS, GTIS managed governmentwide telecommunications contracts
    GTIS Telecommunications    and sought to aggregate government
    requirements to save costs. In fiscal and IT Activities
    year 1997/1998, GTIS spent about $275 million Canadian (about $188
    million U.S.) on telecommunications services. According to GTIS
    officials, the telecommunications industry in Canada has undergone
    a great deal of change since the mid-1990s. In 1995, the Canadian
    Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission deregulated
    large segments of the telecommunications industry. According to
    these officials, prior to this time, the Stentor alliance of
    regional carriers was the dominant service provider; Bell Canada
    was the largest provider of services in the provinces of Ontario
    and Quebec. The deregulation resulted in a more competitive
    environment and required GTIS to develop a competitive
    telecommunications supply arrangement. In general, most
    departments procured local and long distance service through GTIS,
    although its services were not mandatory. GTIS officials said it
    was more convenient and less expensive for departments to use
    GTIS. At the time of our review, however, GTIS officials were
    evaluating the ongoing impact of deregulation on their optional
    status and governmentwide bargaining position as departments began
    procuring services directly from the private sector. GTIS also
    provided services related to IT systems acquisition that were
    similar to services offered by FTS. Small agencies or agencies
    that did not have IT expertise could get assistance from GTIS in
    defining their needs and procurement objectives. GTIS then
    interfaced with SIPSS on behalf of these agencies and could bundle
    their requirements to get a better price. GTIS also was involved
    in several governmentwide IT initiatives, which Page 13
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 included fostering
    electronic data interchange and electronic transactions within
    government. We noted during our review that in the IT procurement
    area, the Benefits-Driven       government of Canada was starting
    to use an approach called benefits- Procurement           driven
    procurement (BDP). BDP stresses the results and benefits that the
    government and suppliers mutually seek to gain from each
    acquisition. Although we did not do a detailed comparison, BDP has
    concepts similar to performance based service contracting (PBSC)
    in the United States in that contractors are given more freedom to
    determine how to meet the government's performance objectives.
    Arising from recognition by the Canadian government that one of
    the major reasons IT projects fail is that the procurement process
    is too inflexible, BDP is an alternative to traditional
    approaches. According to Canadian procurement officials, under
    traditional procurement approaches, departments could spend
    months, even years, developing a detailed requirement that, when
    completed, is often outdated and did not reflect changes that have
    taken place in the organization. Instead, the BDP approach is to
    ask the private sector to deliver certain agreed-upon results
    rather than follow a blueprint with detailed specifications. The
    private sector is also invited to submit ideas on what sort of
    project should be undertaken before a formal request for proposals
    is issued. Another key feature of BDP is up-front planning to
    remove or mitigate potential problems in the procurement process.
    Both the front-end planning and the management of the entire
    acquisition are based on four elements: (1) a solid business case,
    (2) risk analysis, (3) clear delineation of accountabilities, and
    (4) a compensation structure tied closely to the contractor's
    performance. Appendix III provides a more detailed description of
    these elements and the BDP approach. At the time of our review,
    TBS was in the midst of developing a broad Future Reforms Are
    agenda for procurement reform. TBS officials said that the main
    problem Planned               with Canada's procurement system was
    that it was still too focused on rules and process and not
    streamlined and results-oriented. The officials said that although
    key departments had made a good start at modifying and
    streamlining their processes and focusing on their core missions,
    more could be done. TBS was planning to take a leadership role in
    reforming procurement processes and was aiming to create a system
    in which central policy focused on principles instead of on
    developing prescriptive rules. In addition, TBS officials said
    they would support applying BDP principles to other types of
    acquisitions and would attempt to coordinate the other reforms
    under way in PWGSC and other departments. TBS and PWGSC Page 14
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 officials said that the
    government was in the early stages of applying performance
    measurement principles in assessing the reforms that have taken
    place and therefore did not have much data available to gauge
    results. A top procurement official with the Department of
    National Defence (DND) whom we interviewed agreed that there had
    been some positive gains as a result of recent procurement
    reforms. This official cited examples where DND had privatized
    support functions so it could focus more on its core mission.
    These included maintenance of vehicles and some weapons systems
    and pilot training. DND had also used the BDP process for a new
    information system for its supply network. Also, this official
    said that DND and PWGSC had a good working relationship. He added
    that skilled procurement staffs were crucial as departments
    focused more on their core missions and increasingly relied on the
    private sector for activities that were traditionally done in-
    house. The UK, with a population of about 59 million, encompasses
    England, United Kingdom:                 Wales, Scotland, Northern
    Ireland, and several dependent areas, and has a Agencies Like FSS
    and central parliamentary government that operates under a
    constitutional monarchy. The central government had two
    organizations-The Buying FTS Have More                   Agency
    (TBA) and the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency
    Flexibility Than                (CCTA)-with activities similar to
    those of FSS and FTS. However, these Traditional
    agencies had more flexibility in how they managed their financial
    and Government Agencies personnel affairs than if they were
    traditional government departments. Known as executive or "next
    steps" agencies because they represented the next steps in
    reforming government management, they were structured like private
    businesses and were one part of a broad government reform effort
    being led by Her Majesty's Treasury (HM Treasury), which sets
    procurement policy. Like FSS, TBA had contract arrangements for
    supplies that departments and agencies could use on a nonmandatory
    basis. However, TBA did not operate a stock program with
    distribution centers or government stores as FSS does. Also, the
    UK did not have a central vehicle fleet like FSS; however, TBA
    could assist agencies in obtaining fleet management services or
    with vehicle acquisition. Agencies also could use vehicle
    acquisition arrangements held by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) or
    go directly to the private sector. Like FTS, CCTA arranged
    telecommunications contracts for governmentwide use and provided
    services in IT systems acquisition on a nonmandatory basis. Across
    the government, HM Treasury was leading a public-private
    partnering initiative known as the private finance initiative
    (PFI) and had other efforts under Page 15
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 way to encourage
    knowledge sharing and performance measurement in procurement.
    Appendix I identifies the key organizations in the United Kingdom
    and summarizes their activities. In recent years, the central
    government of the United Kingdom has Decentralization of
    undergone a continued program of government reform, where,
    according Procurement and the          to UK government officials,
    the emphasis has been on cost consciousness, Evolution of "Next
    Steps"    value for money, downsizing, and greater concentration
    on the core Agencies                     businesses of government.
    With these reforms, the government has decentralized procurement
    authority to its agencies and ministries, which spend over  20
    billion each year for goods and services (about $32.3 billion,
    assuming that $1 U.S. =  0.62). According to officials with HM
    Treasury, most procurement prior to the reforms went through
    several central procurement departments, which supplied everything
    from pencils to large computer systems. Now, agencies and
    departments are, for the most part, responsible for their own
    procurement, although they are expected to adhere to standards
    that are part of HM Treasury's broad strategy for procurement.
    These standards include achieving value for money; emphasizing
    fair competition; incorporating best practices; and carefully
    assessing and managing business cases, risks, and contracts. HM
    Treasury officials told us that their procurement system was
    generally not used to advance any social objectives. However, UK
    officials pointed out that in the procurement area, the UK cannot
    act unilaterally and is required to implement laws compatible with
    directives promulgated by the European Community, such as ensuring
    that relevant contracts are awarded objectively. As part of the
    trend toward decentralization and getting government to run more
    like business, the government separated its service delivery and
    policy formulation functions. In February 1988, the government
    launched the "Next Steps" initiative, referring to the next steps
    in improving government management. Under the initiative, the
    government identified areas of departmental work that could be
    grouped together into operational units under single officials who
    would be accountable directly to their ministers9 for delivering
    specific objectives, services, and results. The government looked
    critically at its service delivery functions and determined
    whether each should be retained, reengineered, privatized,
    contracted out, or abolished. As a result of this process, several
    next steps agencies were established. 9 In parliamentary systems,
    ministers are high level officers in the government and usually
    are charged with managing a department or major segment of
    government activities. Page 16
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 Next steps agencies
    operate within a framework with targets set by ministers for the
    task to be done, the results to be achieved, and the resources to
    be provided. The day-to-day responsibility for running the
    organization is delegated by ministers to a chief executive, who
    is to have the management tools and freedoms needed to do the job.
    Each next steps agency has a public framework document, so that
    everyone can know the framework within which the agency operates.
    It includes the aims and objectives of the agency, its financial
    and accounting processes, and its approaches to pay and personnel
    issues. The frameworks for each agency vary; however, they
    generally are intended to provide the chief executive with much
    greater flexibility than if the units were operating within a
    traditional government department. As of October 1997, there were
    about 120 next steps agencies with staff numbering about 362,000,
    or about 77 percent of the civil service. TBA was established in
    1991 as a next steps agency and is part of the The Buying Agency
    Is a          Cabinet Office, which is the UK's central department
    for policy Supply Procurement Source formulation, government
    management, and the civil service. TBA was similar to FSS in that
    it offers departments and agencies nonmandatory supply
    arrangements for common-use goods and services. TBA sought to
    provide a center of procurement excellence within the public
    sector and to help customers secure better value for money than
    they could otherwise achieve. TBA's framework document included
    objectives to provide procurement services so that agencies could
    receive better value for money than they would otherwise and to
    bring about improvements in cost effectiveness and the quality
    that agencies receive from suppliers. TBA offered a range of
    procurement services that were similar to FSS' supply activities.
    These included pretendered "direct call-off" contracts covering
    over 50,000 products and services; the "Pathfinder" service for
    larger or more complex procurements; and direct sales and spot
    buying, where TBA coordinates volume purchases or assists with
    complex items or items that are difficult to source. TBA had a
    catalogue of goods and services for its direct call-off contracts.
    TBA was to be self-sufficient financially and derived its income
    from commissions paid by departments and agencies related to the
    direct call-off arrangements and direct charges for services. In
    1997, TBA had sales of  272 million (about $439 million). A
    difference between TBA and FSS was that TBA appeared to have more
    managerial and financial flexibilities because of its status as a
    next steps agency. Although we did not do a comprehensive analysis
    of TBA's status as a next steps agency and FSS' status within the
    U.S. government, next steps agencies generally have greater
    flexibility with regard to how they Page 17
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 manage their finances
    and human resources than traditional government departments in the
    UK that operate within a government structure. In the case of TBA,
    its framework document specifies that the chief executive has the
    authority to seek flexibility in the personnel area, subject to
    approval by HM Treasury. According to TBA's Procurement Director,
    some specific personnel flexibility that TBA had included the
    ability to seek its own staffing levels by taking on or releasing
    staff as the business need arose. TBA also could set its own pay
    scale. According to this official, if TBA needed to increase the
    pay of procurement specialists to compete with a tight labor
    market, it could obtain approval to do so rather quickly. Like
    FSS, TBA operated on what is called a "trading fund basis" in the
    area of financial management, which means it was self-supporting
    and received no revenue from the central government. Unlike FSS,
    however, TBA could retain its revenue after covering operating
    costs and other financial obligations. In contrast, FSS generally
    had to return excess revenue to the U.S. Treasury after recovering
    its costs. TBA also had the authority to commit to capital
    expenditures or asset disposals up to  250,000 ($403,226). Another
    difference between FSS and TBA was that TBA did not operate
    distribution centers or government stores. Also, unlike FSS, TBA
    provided its services to local government. In addition to TBA, we
    noted that for some types of office supplies, departments and
    agencies could use a former government agency that was privatized.
    In 1996, the government privatized Her Majesty's Stationery Office
    (HMSO), now referred to as The Stationery Office (TSO). In
    addition to being the official publisher of government documents,
    similar to the Government Printing Office in the United States,
    HMSO provided letterhead stationary and other office supplies to
    departments and agencies. Today, TSO is a nonmandatory source in
    the private sector that departments can also use to meet some of
    their office supply needs, a function similar to that of FSS. In
    the UK, departments and agencies purchased and maintained their
    own Vehicle Procurement and    vehicles and could go directly to
    the private sector. According to a TBA Fleet Management Are
    official we interviewed, TBA could assist agencies with vehicle
    purchases, Decentralized              if requested. However, these
    services were not required like they are with FSS. TBA also did
    not operate, nor does the government have, a central fleet that is
    similar to the FSS interagency fleet. It is important to note that
    according to HM Treasury and MOD officials, MOD had the majority
    of the nontactical vehicles and had purchasing arrangements with
    vehicle suppliers. These officials said that other departments and
    agencies often Page 18
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 "piggyback" these
    contracts to take advantage of the favorable prices MOD gets. We
    also noted that the government had a small fleet of 160 cars
    within the Cabinet Office known as the Government Car and Despatch
    Agency; however, these cars were to be used for courier services
    and to transport top officials only. In the vehicle area, MOD was
    in the midst of developing an arrangement that was like a public-
    private partnership10 for its entire "white fleet" vehicles that
    were used for nontactical, administrative, and support functions.
    This project was being done as part of a major UK procurement
    reform effort, known as the private finance initiative (PFI). PFI
    is designed to meet major capital investment needs by having the
    private sector finance capital assets and having the government or
    users pay for the service. HM Treasury had established a special
    task force to improve the PFI procurement process and to assist
    departments and agencies with implementing PFI projects. The PFI
    project for the entire white fleet was under development at the
    time of our review, and test projects for two portions of the
    white fleet were among 115 PFI projects that were in progress.
    According to MOD officials, preliminary data on these test
    projects showed reductions in cost of 15 and 27 percent for these
    two portions compared to in-house alternatives. Under the planned
    PFI arrangement for the entire white fleet, the private sector was
    to invest in, manage, and operate the vehicles necessary to
    deliver an agreed-upon level of service to MOD under a long-term
    contract. MOD officials said that they were pleased the government
    has given them tools such as PFI and had moved to a decentralized
    purchasing environment. Appendix IV provides an overview of the
    PFI initiative and a more detailed description of MOD's white
    fleet PFI efforts. CCTA, which is also part of the Cabinet Office
    and became a next steps CCTA Offers                      agency in
    1996, was similar to FTS in that it assisted departments and
    Telecommunications and IT agencies in acquiring telecommunications
    services and IT systems and Services
    related services on a nonmandatory, cost recovery basis. CCTA's
    main objective in its framework document was "to develop,
    maintain, and make available, expertise about IT which public
    sector organizations will draw on in order to operate more
    effectively and efficiently." According to a CCTA official, its
    new mission statement emphasized "championing electronic
    government." CCTA managed contracts to operate about 80 percent of
    the government's telephone lines, involving almost 45,000 10 Under
    a public-private partnership, a contractual arrangement is formed
    between public and private sector partners that can include a
    variety of activities that involve the private sector in the
    development, financing, ownership, and operation of a public
    facility or service. Page 19
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 extensions. Similar to
    the FTS telecommunications contracts, CCTA was to charge
    government users a flat fee for each line. According to the chief
    executive of CCTA, departments and agencies, especially the
    smaller ones, liked the simplicity of dealing with CCTA. Some
    larger agencies, such as MOD, have chosen to procure their own
    telecommunications services. The telecommunications industry in
    the UK is dominated by British Telecom, which is a major supplier
    to CCTA. We noted that unlike FTS, CCTA could provide its services
    to local government. In the IT area, CCTA was similar to FTS in
    that for a fee, it advised departments and agencies on, and
    identified vendors that could assist with IT management, systems
    analysis and design, and procurement. CCTA's work also involved
    full Internet service, including Internet site provision,
    development, maintenance, and consulting; and advice on electronic
    commerce. It also had written many publications to help
    departments and agencies on such topics as IT systems strategy,
    benchmarking, and business process reengineering. According to an
    FTS official, GSA's Office of Governmentwide Policy has activities
    similar to these. CCTA also had a catalogue of IT products and
    services, like FSS. We noted that TBA also had contract
    arrangements for IT products and services; however, a CCTA
    official told us that CCTA and TBA see the goods and services they
    offer in the IT area as complementary, with little overlap.
    Despite the similarities between CCTA and FTS in the
    telecommunications and IT areas-and FSS in the case of the
    catalogue of IT products and services-there was a difference
    related to CCTA's status as a next steps agency. That is, like
    TBA, CCTA appeared to have greater managerial and financial
    flexibility because of its status as a next steps agency. For
    example, like TBA, responsibility for personnel management,
    including developing its own pay and grading system, was delegated
    to CCTA's chief executive. The chief executive was given the
    freedom to manage CCTA on a quasi-commercial basis within the
    framework of government accounting rules. According to a CCTA
    official, CCTA was, for the most part, left alone to run its own
    affairs so long as its operations ran smoothly and in accordance
    with its business plan. Because it was a government organization,
    however, there were some requirements CCTA had to meet. For
    example, the business case for its pay and grading system had to
    be approved by HM Treasury. According to HM Treasury officials,
    the government of the UK views Procurement Performance
    performance measurement as crucial to any core business activity,
    Measurement Is Viewed as    including procurement. However, HM
    Treasury and the Cabinet Office Important
    recognized that, in the past, developing performance measures for
    Page 20                                      GAO/GGD-99-109
    Procurement Reform B-281162 procurement was difficult.
    Difficulties arose over defining universally applicable measures
    and questions were raised about whether the effort was worth it.
    In July 1998, HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office jointly reported
    that changes in the procurement environment, such as the shift to
    purchasing services instead of investing in capital assets, had
    opened the door of opportunity for refining and improving
    procurement performance measurement. This report, entitled
    Efficiency in Civil Government Procurement, noted that although
    most departments and agencies measured procurement performance,
    their practices varied. The majority were using measures that were
    not very sophisticated, although some progress had been made in
    the prior 12 to 18 months. As a result, HM Treasury and the
    Cabinet Office were planning to develop a performance measurement
    system for procurement that would allow benchmarking across
    government and would increase the sophistication of the measures
    used by modeling the government's efforts after the private
    sector. The report contained several other recommendations aimed
    at setting a new agenda for improving the efficiency of government
    procurement. Also, at the time of our review, HM Treasury was
    starting an effort to determine how, in a decentralized
    environment, departments and agencies could share knowledge,
    capitalize on lessons learned, and ensure that efficiencies gained
    in one area are utilized in other areas. Although HM Treasury's
    report did not address the adequacy of specific performance
    measures, we noted that TBA and CCTA had some key performance
    measures that they used to compare performance from year to year.
    TBA had performance measures that included total sales volume,
    customer satisfaction, and cost per  1 of savings achieved. For
    example, TBA reported it cost 4.38 pence for every  1 saved (100
    pence is equal to 1), exceeding its 1997 target of 4.40 pence.
    CCTA had performance measures that included the reduction in cost
    of support services per  1 of salary of project staff and
    percentage of assignments or services delivered to customers'
    satisfaction. CCTA reported a 97 percent customer satisfaction
    rating for 1998, although it noted that more feedback from
    customers was needed to make the results statistically
    significant. Australia, with a population of about 18 million, has
    a federal-state system Australia: No Agency             with a
    central government that operates as a parliamentary democracy.
    Like FSS but Has Some The central government, which has devolved
    purchasing responsibilities for goods and services to its
    agencies, did not have an organization with Central Efforts in
    FTS- activities like those of FSS, but did have an agency that
    performed some Related Areas                    activities similar
    to those of FTS. In purchasing goods and services, agencies in
    Australia were encouraged to follow broad principles-such as Page
    21                                       GAO/GGD-99-109
    Procurement Reform B-281162 achieving value for money-that were
    set by the Department of Finance and Administration (DOFA). DOFA
    also administered a vendor certification program for certain goods
    and services. However, unlike FSS, it did not enter into
    governmentwide supply contracts with vendors, administer supply
    schedules, or run a stock program with distribution centers or
    government stores. Also unlike FSS, Australia did not own and
    operate a central vehicle fleet, because it had been privatized.
    In the telecommunications and IT areas, however, Australia did
    have an agency with activities similar to those of FTS. In
    telecommunications, officials with the Office for Government
    Online (OGO) said that OGO had agreements with service providers
    on certain terms and conditions; however, unlike with FTS in the
    United States, agencies were required to use these providers. Like
    FTS, OGO also assisted agencies, on a nonmandatory basis, with IT
    projects; however, this role was relatively minor. In fact,
    agencies were moving away from operating and maintaining their own
    IT infrastructures. The government had undertaken a major
    initiative to phase out IT systems acquisition and ownership-
    except for some systems related to national security--and instead
    have agencies purchase IT services from the private sector. This
    outsourcing effort was being done through a multiyear, phased
    process being administered by the Office of Asset Sales and IT
    Outsourcing (OASITO). To assess the outcomes of these and other
    procurement reforms, a committee of the Australian parliament had
    begun a review of government purchasing policies and practices.
    Appendix I identifies the key organizations in Australia and
    summarizes their activities. The government of Australia has
    devolved purchasing responsibilities to Devolution of Purchasing
    its agencies, which spent about $9 billion Australian for goods
    and services Responsibilities            in fiscal year 1997-1998
    (about $6 billion U.S., assuming that $1 U.S. = $1.51 Australian).
    With enactment of the Financial Management and Accountability Act
    of 1997, the government gave agencies the responsibility to handle
    their affairs and to ensure that the government's procurement
    policies were observed. DOFA's Competitive Tendering and
    Contracting branch had a key role in Australia's procurement
    reform agenda. This branch, among other things, provided
    assistance to agencies in implementing reforms, surveyed and
    reported on agencies' implementation efforts, and developed and
    maintained the government's purchasing policy framework. The
    government's procurement policies were set by DOFA in its March
    1998 guidance entitled Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines: Core
    Page 22                                       GAO/GGD-99-109
    Procurement Reform B-281162 Policies and Principles.11 The
    guidelines stated that the fundamental objective of procurement in
    the Australian government was to provide the means to efficiently
    and effectively deliver the government's programs. This objective,
    according to the guidance, was supported through several core
    principles: value for money, open and effective competition,
    ethics and fair dealing, accountability and reporting, national
    competitiveness and industry development, and support for other
    government policies. The guidance also encouraged agencies to
    provide opportunities for Australian and New Zealand industry.
    However, DOFA officials said that their procurement system was not
    used to advance other social objectives. When developing
    instructions for procurement within their agencies, agency
    executives were expected to take these core policies and
    principles into account. According to DOFA officials, the
    government decided that its agencies should be involved only in
    core, mission-related activities and should not be performing
    functions that could be performed by the private sector. DOFA
    officials said that most agencies were pleased with the devolution
    that had occurred. An official from a large agency we interviewed,
    the Department of Family and Community Services, said that they
    liked having more control over purchasing decisions and were very
    satisfied with the reforms. As a result of the devolution of
    purchasing responsibilities to agencies, No Centrally Administered
    Australia did not have an organization like FSS to assist agencies
    with the Supply Program               procurement of supplies. In
    the supply area, DOFA administered a vendor certification process
    for IT, office machines, office furniture, and auction services
    known as the Endorsed Supplier Arrangement (ESA). The ESA was to
    rely on a good faith, self-assessment approach where vendors
    submitted information about key factors, such as delivery
    performance and financial viability. According to DOFA officials,
    DOFA was to assess vendors' applications in terms of financial
    capability and compliance with industry standards. These officials
    told us that DOFA also did random and targeted vendor reviews. A
    key difference between the ESA and FSS' schedule programs was that
    DOFA did not establish governmentwide supply contracts with the
    vendors, as does FSS. Another difference was that unlike FSS'
    schedule programs, agencies were required to buy IT from ESA
    vendors. 11 These guidelines apply to the procurement of "property
    and services," which cover all goods and services, including
    consulting/professional services, real property activities,
    construction, equipment and real property leases, training
    services, public utility services, and outsourcing or contracting-
    out services. Page 23
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 According to DOFA
    officials, DOFA and one of its predecessor departments, the
    Department of Administrative Services (DAS),12 used to administer
    "common use arrangements" that were replaced with the ESA. The
    common-use arrangements more closely resembled FSS supply
    activities in that they were governmentwide contractual agreements
    administered centrally. The non-IT arrangements were ended in June
    1998, and IT and major office machine arrangements were ended in
    September 1998. The officials said that the primary reason for
    eliminating these arrangements was the government's ideological
    decision to devolve financial accountability to agencies. In
    addition, they said that the arrangements generally were not
    achieving a level of savings that would justify continuing them.
    Also, the officials added that the government did not administer a
    stock program, like FSS does, with supply distribution centers or
    government stores. In the vehicle area, DAS used to manage the
    government's vehicle fleet, Government Fleet Was    known as
    DASFLEET, up until its privatization in 1997. DASFLEET was
    Privatized              established in the 1920s and was expanded
    to become the sole supplier of passenger and commercial vehicles
    for the Australian government. DASFLEET operated three main
    business areas: long-term vehicle leasing, short-term vehicle
    rental, and fleet management and maintenance services. Prior to
    its sale, agencies were free to use private sector operators for
    their short-term rentals and fleet management and maintenance
    requirements. In practice, however, these customers used DASFLEET
    for much of these needs. In early 1997, DASFLEET's total fleet was
    valued at $376 million Australian (about $249 million U.S.) and
    comprised over 17,000 vehicles. DASFLEET owned these vehicles,
    except for about 700 that were privately financed or managed by
    DASFLEET for other parties. DASFLEET's workforce totaled 376
    people, and its yearly profits were about $23 million Australian
    (about $15.2 million U.S.). In 1996, the Department of Finance
    reviewed DASFLEET's finances and operations and determined that
    the government should either refinance the fleet or privatize the
    business. The privatization option would include a tied contract
    commitment by the government whereby agencies would be required,
    for 5 years, to use the new entity for their long-term leasing
    needs. The short-term vehicle rental business would not be
    included in the tie. The government ultimately determined that the
    privatization option provided the best option and assigned
    responsibility for the sale to the Office of Asset Sales (OAS). In
    September 1997, DASFLEET was sold to 12 In 1997, the Department of
    Finance and Department of Administrative Services merged, creating
    DOFA. Page 24
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 Macquarie Fleet Leasing
    Pty. Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Macquarie Bank.13 The
    sale produced proceeds of about $407 million Australian (about
    $270 million U.S.). At the time of our review, DOFA had
    responsibility for monitoring the tied contract. As with other
    goods and services, agencies in Australia were responsible Whole-
    of-Government       for acquiring their own telecommunications
    services. However, officials Telecommunications        told us
    that agencies were required to use service providers that had
    Arrangements Centrally    agreed to certain terms and conditions
    with the Office for Government Managed                   Online
    (OGO), formerly known as the Office of Government Information
    Technology (OGIT). Each year, government agencies spend about $365
    million Australian (about $242 million U.S.) to meet their
    telecommunications needs, including voice, data, and mobile
    services. Telstra is the major service provider, accounting for
    just over 75 percent of government expenditures on
    telecommunications services, although a number of other smaller
    companies also compete for the government's business. OGO sought
    to aggregate the government's buying power to achieve a better
    price for the government as a whole, like FTS does. According to
    OGO officials, OGO managed centrally administered "whole-of-
    government" telecommunications arrangements where service
    providers agreed to certain terms and conditions in "head
    agreements" negotiated by OGO. The officials said that agencies
    were to purchase services directly from the service providers
    under the umbrella of the head agreements and the latest prices
    negotiated in those agreements. The officials added that for
    agency-specific requirements, agencies could seek the assistance
    of OGO in negotiating favorable terms and conditions that became
    part of the whole-of-government arrangements and were available to
    other agencies, as appropriate. In this way, the officials said
    that the government used its aggregated purchasing power to
    achieve lower prices, competition, and economies of scale.
    According to the OGO officials, the government has saved in excess
    of $30 million Australian (about $20 million U.S.) in the last 3
    years through the leverage of these arrangements. OGO was also a
    central agency for IT. OGO's primary objectives in the IT All IT
    Systems to Be      area related to bringing a governmentwide
    perspective to IT management. Outsourced                The
    agency's main focus was to promote efficient access to government
    information and services, help agencies avert problems related to
    the year 2000 crisis, and provide policy advice to the government
    related to online 13 According to an Australian official, the
    government retained a fleet of limousines for members of
    Parliament. Page 25
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 services. Like FTS, OGO
    officials said that OGO also acted as a third party in providing
    agencies with advice on the development and implementation of
    their IT projects, although this role was relatively minor. A
    major development in the IT area was that agencies were moving
    away from in-house implementation and management of IT systems. In
    April 1997, the government announced a major initiative to
    outsource all of its IT systems infrastructure, with the exception
    of some systems related to national security. The initiative was
    to be accomplished through a multiyear, phased process currently
    being administered by the Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing
    (OASITO).14 Appendix V provides a more detailed description of
    Australia's IT outsourcing initiative. In December 1998, the
    Australian parliament's Joint Committee for Public Parliamentary
    Review of    Accounts and Audit announced that it would conduct an
    inquiry into Purchasing Policies and    Australian government
    purchasing policies and practices. The inquiry was Practices
    to have two general purposes. First, the Committee was interested
    in whether government entities had achieved effective outcomes,
    such as value for money, through the new purchasing policies.
    Second, the Committee was interested in whether the Australian
    business community had achieved more equitable outcomes as a
    result of these policies. To determine how government entities had
    performed, the Committee planned to collect and analyze
    statistical and performance information showing trends in
    purchasing opportunities and outcomes and planned to hold a series
    of hearings. According to DOFA officials, the extent to which
    agencies maintained this type of information, including
    information on performance goals and measures, likely varied
    across government, with some agencies having better data than
    others. There has, according to these officials, been no central
    effort to collect and report this type of information. Separate
    from the parliamentary inquiry, DOFA officials said they had begun
    surveying agencies on the types of performance data they
    collected. 14 In November 1997, information technology outsourcing
    functions formerly managed by OGIT were transferred to OAS, which
    was renamed OASITO. Page 26
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 New Zealand, with a
    population of about 3.6 million, has a local New Zealand: No
    government structure with counties and districts and a central
    government Central Procurement      that operates as a
    parliamentary democracy. The central government has decentralized
    purchasing authority for goods and services, and did not Agencies
    but Uses a      have any government organizations similar to FSS
    or FTS because it Private Business Like    privatized its central
    procurement agency in 1992. With the exception of FSS and FTS
    some central monitoring for major IT projects, agencies were given
    complete discretion over how they acquire goods and services while
    still being expected to follow some general principles, such as
    ensuring that domestic suppliers were treated fairly. In meeting
    their needs for goods and services, agencies could go directly to
    the private sector and had the option of using the private sector
    business that was created when the central procurement agency was
    privatized. This business, called GSB Supply Corporation Ltd.
    (Supplycorp), acted as a purchasing agent for the government by
    assisting agencies with their procurement needs and did business
    only with government organizations. Supplycorp was similar to FSS
    and FTS in that it negotiated contracts on behalf of the
    government for supply, fleet, telecommunications, and IT products
    and services, yet it operated completely outside the government
    sector. One exception to New Zealand's highly decentralized
    approach to procurement was in the IT area, where the Treasury and
    the State Services Commission (SSC) were responsible for examining
    and monitoring IT projects. SSC was also responsible for assessing
    overall agency performance with a focus on measuring outputs
    rather than inputs. Because procurement was viewed as an input,
    performance data were not readily available to measure progress or
    gauge the results of the various procurement reforms. Appendix I
    identifies the key organizations in New Zealand and summarizes
    their activities. Over the last decade, reform in the central
    government of New Zealand has Agency Accountability    centered on
    shifting accountability for results to departments and relying
    Without Centralized      more on the private sector to perform
    activities of a business nature. The Procurement              New
    Zealand government spends about $3 billion New Zealand for goods
    and services each year (about $1.7 billion U.S., assuming that $1
    U.S. = $1.78 New Zealand). With enactment of the State Sector Act
    of 1988 and Public Finance Act of 1989, departments were given
    complete discretion over how they managed their affairs, including
    how they acquired goods and services. The reforms also set up a
    relationship between each department and SSC, which is a central
    management agency that reviews and reports on agency performance.
    Departmental chief executives, who are civil servants who manage
    the day-to-day affairs of departments, enter into agreements with
    SSC to deliver results that are defined as an agreed- Page 27
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 upon level of outputs.
    Generally speaking, outputs are measurable units of whatever the
    department produces, whether it is policy advice or direct
    services to the public. In return, departments had nearly complete
    freedom over how much of their budgets they spent on the different
    types of resources-inputs they need to produce the outputs-and
    from where they would be purchased. Although departments had these
    freedoms, they were still expected to operate open, fair, and
    competitive procurement processes. Guidance by both the Treasury
    and the Ministry of Commerce outlined the government's open
    purchasing policy and principles and recommended procedures that
    are considered to be consistent with sound business practices. The
    government's general purchasing policy was based on the commercial
    principle of best value for money through open and effective
    competition and full and fair opportunity for New Zealand and
    Australian suppliers. According to SSC officials, the policy did
    not seek to advance any social objectives, which instead were
    usually funded directly. New Zealand and Australian suppliers
    could register with the New Zealand Industrial Supplies Office
    (NZISO), a unit within the Ministry of Commerce. NZISO provided
    information to purchasers on domestic suppliers and their
    capabilities. Prospective purchasers were urged, but not required,
    to contact NZISO, which did not get involved in actual purchasing
    negotiations or decisions. Within this policy framework for
    procurement, the government of New Zealand did not have any
    central procurement agencies. In meeting their supply, fleet,
    telecommunications, and IT needs, departmental purchasers did not
    have the same options that exist in the United States with FSS and
    FTS. That is, within the government, there were no central supply
    schedules, stock programs with distribution centers or government
    stores, vehicle acquisition and fleet management services,
    governmentwide telecommunications arrangements, or IT-related
    services that were available for governmentwide use like there are
    in the United States through FSS and FTS. The government of New
    Zealand once had a central procurement agency, Central Procurement
    but it was reorganized as a state-owned enterprise (SOE) in 1989
    and Function Was Privatized    privatized in 1992. Prior to this
    time, the Government Stores Board (GSB) acted as a central
    purchasing agent within the government. Chaired by the Secretary
    of the Treasury, it consisted of representatives from other
    departments and was administered by a division of the Treasury.
    The function of GSB was to act as a central controlling,
    supervisory, and coordinating authority for the purchase, custody,
    distribution, use, Page 28
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 interdepartmental
    transfer, and disposal of public stores. GSB's main service was to
    award contracts for the supply of goods to government departments.
    It did not stock goods; rather, it acted as an agent for the
    government by arranging bulk purchase contracts under which
    departments were required to purchase specific goods from selected
    suppliers. GSB also issued binding instructions to departments to
    regulate their purchasing activities. In 1989, the government
    reorganized GSB from a government agency to an SOE, renamed it the
    Government Supply Brokerage Corporation (NZ) Ltd. (GSBC), and made
    its services nonmandatory. The Treasury assumed responsibility for
    the former GSB's control functions but did not issue any
    purchasing instructions to departments, leaving these matters to
    each department to determine. As an SOE, GSBC gained the ability
    to act as a private sector firm, but the New Zealand government
    owned all the shares of the corporation. The government eventually
    sold its shares in 1992 and a new private business-GSB Supply
    Corporation Ltd. (Supplycorp)-was established. At the time of our
    review, Supplycorp performed activities similar to those carried
    out by FSS and FTS in that it assisted agencies with procurement,
    yet it was a private sector business that operated completely
    outside the government sector. In fact, Supplycorp only did
    business with government organizations, defined as those that
    receive at least 50 percent of their funding from a government
    source. Supplycorp also provided its services to local governments
    as well, unlike FSS and FTS. Each year, Supplycorp has sales of
    about $350 million to $450 million New Zealand (about $197 million
    to $253 million U.S.). According to Auditor General staff we
    interviewed, more than 90 percent of government departments and
    local authorities continued to use Supplycorp after it was
    privatized to meet at least some of their needs for goods and
    services. In the supply area, it managed over 800 contracts with
    1,200 suppliers for a wide range of common-use commodities,
    including IT products and services. These included national
    purchase contracts, as well as local purchase contracts tailored
    to individual regions of the country. It did not, however, operate
    distribution centers or government stores like FSS does. In the
    vehicle area, Supplycorp services covered the purchase, disposal,
    and management of new and used motor vehicles, similar to FSS'
    services. Supplycorp arranged for the purchase of about 3,750
    vehicles each year. Unlike FSS, it did not manage a central fleet
    for the government. Like FTS, Supplycorp arranged bulk rate
    telecommunications contracts. It is important to note that prior
    to the formation of Supplycorp as a private Page 29
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 sector business,
    departments did not use GSB for telecommunications services
    because the government owned the sole telecommunications provider
    in New Zealand, Telecom Corporation. Departments simply went to
    Telecom for telecommunications services. In 1990, the government
    privatized Telecom and departments began arranging their own
    telecommunications contracts. In the IT area, like FTS, Supplycorp
    had a technology team that offered advice and consultations to
    departments and also had contract arrangements for IT products and
    services. Supplycorp also prided itself on being positioned to
    meet the future technology needs of the government. Before GSB was
    privatized, its Computer Services Division (CSD) was a
    nonmandatory source that assisted departments with procurement of
    large IT systems. In 1994, the government privatized CSD
    separately from Supplycorp. CSD was fully absorbed by the buyer
    and no longer exists. One exception to New Zealand's highly
    decentralized approach to Major IT Projects Centrally
    procurement was in the IT area, where SSC and the Treasury
    recently set Monitored                      up a monitoring team
    to conduct joint reviews of departments' major IT projects.
    According to SSC officials, the frequency of review was determined
    by the monitoring team and depended on the complexity of the
    project and the capability of the department. Departments were
    expected to submit external quality assurance reports to the IT
    monitoring team, which assessed project risks and mitigation
    strategies, and SSC and Treasury provided program officials with
    feedback. In addition to this monitoring, SSC and the Treasury
    conducted higher profile reviews of high-risk projects and
    reported directly to ministers through what was called the Ad Hoc
    Officials IT Committee. According to SSC officials, projects
    reviewed by this Committee cost over $5 million New Zealand (about
    $2.8 million U.S.), involved strategic and mission-critical
    application systems, and generally posed a high risk to the
    government. The State Sector Act of 1988 was designed to introduce
    the government of Performance Measurement        New Zealand to
    many of the positive features of the private sector. The key
    Efforts Focus on Outputs       principle was that managers, if
    they were permitted to make all input decisions-pay, appointments,
    organizational structures, production systems, etc.-would respond
    by accepting personal responsibility for producing substantially
    higher quality outputs-the goods and services provided by the
    government.15 As mentioned before, SSC played a key role by
    entering into performance agreements with departmental executives
    15 It is interesting to note that in New Zealand, the government
    made a conscious decision not to focus on outcomes-what the
    government is trying to achieve-because it believed that holding
    departments accountable for outcomes would be too difficult. That
    is, there would be endless debate over measurement and the reasons
    for outcomes, making accountability enforcement difficult. Page 30
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 and monitoring
    performance. According to SSC officials, however, information that
    would enable an assessment of New Zealand's approach to
    procurement was generally not available. According to these
    officials, procurement processes and approaches were viewed as
    inputs and accordingly were not routinely measured or assessed.
    Officials we contacted who operated in this environment-from the
    Ministry of Health, Health Funding Authority, and Ministry of
    Defence- were very satisfied with being held accountable for
    outputs while having the freedom to control inputs, including how
    they procured goods and services. They said that the reforms have
    made their departments more efficient and effective. It is
    important to note that although New Zealand's management approach
    did not focus on regulating procurement practices, there were
    other controls over abuse of purchasing freedoms. These included
    parliamentary inquiries, audits of procurement practices by the
    Auditor General, and obligations set in law for departments to
    respond to any requests for information. Information on the
    various approaches used by these four countries Conclusions
    provides insight into how they performed activities similar to
    those of FSS and FTS. These countries had reassessed the role of
    their central procurement agencies and procured goods and services
    in a variety of ways. None of the countries had government
    organizations that completely mirrored FSS and FTS. For example,
    in the UK, the government organizations that performed activities
    similar to FSS and FTS were different in that they had more
    flexibility to manage personnel and financial matters than
    traditional government departments. New Zealand sold its central
    procurement agency to the private sector, and agencies now could
    use the private sector business that was created to help meet
    their procurement needs. Also, there were similarities and
    differences in the programs and policies these countries used in
    the procurement of supplies, vehicles, telecommunications, and IT.
    Amending laws and regulations under which agencies operate and
    reforming procurement processes are not new concepts in the United
    States. For example, Congress authorized TVA, a government
    corporation, and some federal agencies such as VA and FAA to adopt
    alternative personnel systems. In addition to modifying
    requirements to help agencies accomplish their missions, the U.S.
    government has also reformed its procurement practices. The
    Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 was enacted in part
    to promote efficiency and economy in contracting. In recent years,
    agencies have outsourced, or contracted for, a wide range of
    functions that had been done in-house. For example, the
    investigative unit Page 31
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 of OPM was privatized
    and OPM now contracts for investigative services. To identify
    future candidates for privatization or outsourcing, the FAIR Act
    of 1998 requires agencies to identify functions they perform that
    are not inherently governmental. These reforms and streamlining
    efforts in the United States, as well as those in the four
    countries, were designed to make government operate more
    efficiently, improve service delivery, and focus on government's
    core mission. In considering the merits of the approaches used by
    the countries and their applicability to FSS and FTS, it is
    important to recognize that such factors as differences in
    political and economic environments, the role of social objectives
    in the procurement process, and the volume of contracting activity
    would have to be considered. Furthermore, although the officials
    we interviewed in the four countries were generally satisfied with
    the reforms and believed their governments were better off with
    them in place, performance data on the effectiveness of the
    various reforms were generally unavailable or were in the early
    stages of development. Nonetheless, considering the experiences of
    these countries in reforming similar activities can serve as a
    starting point for examining what, if any, alternatives there are
    to the way FSS and FTS are currently organized and operate. OFPP's
    Associate Administrator for Procurement Law and Legislation told
    Agency Comments    us that OMB had no comments. Our FSS liaison,
    FTS' Chief of Staff, and several responsible officials from each
    of the four countries provided technical comments on a draft of
    this report to add clarity and context to how we describe their
    procurement approaches. We incorporated their comments into the
    final report where appropriate. As agreed with your offices,
    unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no
    further distribution of this report until 30 days from its issue
    date. At that time, we will send copies to the Honorable David J.
    Barram, Administrator of GSA; the Honorable Jacob J. Lew, Director
    of OMB; the Honorable Deidre A. Lee, Administrator of OFPP; and
    the key officials in each of the countries we visited. We will
    also make copies available to others on request. Page 32
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform B-281162 Major contributors to
    this report were Gerald Stankosky, David E. Sausville, and David
    W. Bennett. We also greatly appreciate the assistance provided by
    the Auditor General staffs in each country as well as the
    willingness of the other officials to meet with us and provide
    information. If you or your staffs have any questions, please
    contact me on (202) 512- 8387 or at [email protected]. Bernard L.
    Ungar Director, Government Business Operations Issues Page 33
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform Contents 1 Letter 36 Appendix I
    Organizations With Activities Related to Supply, Vehicle,
    Telecommunications, and IT Procurement 38 Appendix II Objective,
    Scope, and Methodology 43 Appendix III Canada's Benefits Driven
    Procurement 46 Appendix IV The UK's Private Finance Initiative 50
    Appendix V Australia's IT Outsourcing Initiative Table II.1:
    United States                                   41 Tables
    Table II.2: Canada                                          41
    Table II.3: United Kingdom                                  41
    Table II.4: Australia                                       41
    Table II.5: New Zealand                                     42
    Page 34                       GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform
    Contents Abbreviations BDP         benefits-driven procurement
    CCTA        Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency CSD
    Computer Services Division DAS         Department of
    Administrative Services DND         Department of National Defence
    DOFA        Department of Finance and Administration ESA
    Endorsed Supplier Arrangement FAA         Federal Aviation
    Administration FAIR        Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act
    of 1998 FAR         Federal Acquisition Regulation FAST
    Federal Acquisition Services for Technology FSS         Federal
    Supply Service FTS         Federal Technology Service GSA
    General Services Administration GSB         Government Stores
    Board GSBC        Government Supply Brokerage Corporation (NZ)
    Ltd. GTIS        Government Telecommunications and Informatics
    Services HMSO        Her Majesty's Stationery Office MOD
    Ministry of Defence NZISO       New Zealand Industrial Supplies
    Office OAS         Office of Asset Sales OASITO      Office of
    Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing OFPP        Office of Federal
    Procurement Policy OGIT        Office of Government Information
    Technology OGO         Office for Government Online OGP
    Office of Governmentwide Policy OMB         Office of Management
    and Budget PFI         private finance initiative PWGSC
    Public Works and Government Services Canada SIPSS       Science,
    Informatics, and Professional Services Sector SOE         state-
    owned enterprise SOS         Supply Operations Service SSC
    State Services Commission TBA         The Buying Agency TBS
    Treasury Board Secretariat TSO         The Stationery Office TVA
    Tennessee Valley Authority VA          Department of Veterans
    Affairs RAF         Royal Air Force NAO         National Audit
    Office Page 35                                        GAO/GGD-99-
    109 Procurement Reform Appendix I Organizations With Activities
    Related to Supply, Vehicle, Telecommunications, and IT Procurement
    Procurement policy-                          Supply activitiesa
    Country        Procurement organizations               setting
    organizations United States General Services Administration's
    Office of Management               FSS has nonmandatory,
    prenegotiated contract Federal  Supply Service (FSS)        and
    Budget's Office of         arrangements under which agencies deal
    directly with and Federal Technology Service Federal Procurement
    vendors to acquire a range of supplies, including IT (FTS)
    Policy (OFPP); GSA's           goods and services; FSS also stocks
    supplies for resale Office of                      to agencies
    from its distribution centers and government Governmentwide Policy
    stores. (OGP) Canada         Public Works and Government
    Treasury Board and its         Like FSS, SOS had prenegotiated
    contract arrangements Services Canada's Supply
    operational arm, the           under which agencies dealt directly
    with vendors for Operations Service (SOS) and         Treasury
    Board                 supplies, including IT products and
    services; however, Government Telecommunications Secretariat
    unlike FSS, they were mandatory over certain dollar and
    Informatics Service (GTIS)
    thresholds; also unlike FSS, SOS had no distribution branch.
    centers or government stores. United         The Buying Agency
    (TBA);b            Her Majesty's Treasury         Like FSS, TBA
    had nonmandatory, prenegotiated Kingdom        Central Computer
    and                 (HM Treasury)                  contract
    arrangements for supplies, under which Telecommunications Agency
    agencies dealt directly with vendors for supplies, (CCTA)b
    including some for IT products and services; unlike FSS, TBA did
    not have distribution centers or government stores. Australia
    Office for Government Online         Department of Finance
    Unlike in the United States with FSS, the government did (OGO);
    Office of Asset Sales         and Administration             not
    have any centrally administered supply contract and IT Outsourcing
    (OASITO)          (DOFA)                         arrangements and
    had no distribution centers or government stores; DOFA did,
    however, administer a vendor certification program that was
    mandatory for IT. New Zealand    GSB Supply Corporation Ltd.
    Commerce Ministry;             Unlike in the United States with
    FSS, the government did (Supplycorp)d                        The
    Treasurye                  not have any centrally administered
    supply contract arrangements and had no distribution centers or
    government stores; Supplycorp was a nonmandatory source in the
    private sector that, like FSS, had similar arrangements under
    which agencies dealt directly with vendors to acquire a range of
    supplies, including IT products and services; Supplycorp also did
    not have distribution centers or government stores. Page 36
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform Appendix I Organizations With
    Activities Related to Supply, Vehicle, Telecommunications, and IT
    Procurement Vehicle activities                Telecommunications
    activities                                    IT activitiesa FSS
    is the mandatory source for vehicle          FTS has nonmandatory,
    local and               FTS assists agencies, on a nonmandatory
    basis, purchases and operates a nonmandatory,           long
    distance telecommunications              with acquiring IT systems
    and related services; interagency fleet for short-term agency
    service arrangements with private             FSS has an IT
    products and services schedule; needs.
    carriers that agencies can use.               FTS services differ
    from those of FSS in that FTS acts as a third party; with the FSS
    schedule, agencies deal directly with the IT vendors. Like FSS,
    SOS was the mandatory source           Like FTS, GTIS had
    nonmandatory,              SOS had a mandatory role in assisting
    agencies for vehicle purchases but did not operate a      local
    and long distance                       with IT systems
    acquisitions if they exceeded central fleet.
    telecommunications service                    certain dollar
    thresholds; SOS also had arrangements with private carriers
    prenegotiated arrangements for IT products and that agencies could
    use.                      services, like FSS; GTIS assisted
    smaller agencies and those without IT expertise, on a nonmandatory
    basis, with identifying their IT needs. Unlike in the United
    States with FSS,            Like FTS, CCTA had nonmandatory,
    Like FTS, CCTA assisted agencies, on a agencies could go directly
    to the private        local and long distance
    nonmandatory basis, with acquiring IT systems sector to purchase
    vehicles                      telecommunications service
    and related services; like FSS and its sister and there was no
    central fleet agencies          arrangements with private carriers
    agency TBA, CCTA also had a schedule of IT could use; TBA could
    assist agencies with        that agencies could use.
    products and services. vehicle acquisition and agencies could use
    vehicle purchase arrangements held by the Ministry of Defence
    (MOD).c Unlike in the United States with FSS,            Like FTS,
    OGO sought to aggregate             OGO had a minor role assisting
    agencies in the agencies went directly to the private sector
    the government's buying power                 acquisition of IT
    systems; there was no major for vehicles and there was no central
    fleet;     through agreements it had with
    government initiative to assist agencies in the government used to
    have a central fleet, telecommunications service providers;
    acquiring IT systems because of a new initiative to but it was
    privatized in 1997; agencies were however, unlike with FTS in the
    United phase out IT systems ownership and instead required to use
    the privatized fleet for a 5-    States, agencies were required to
    use outsource, or contract for, IT services; this year period to
    meet their vehicle needs.         those providers.
    initiative was being done through a multiyear, phased process
    being administered by OASITO. Unlike in the United States with
    FSS,            Unlike with FTS in the United States,
    Agencies went directly to the private sector for IT agencies went
    directly to the private sector     agencies went directly to the
    private         systems and had the option of using Supplycorp for
    vehicles and there was no central fleet;     sector for
    telecommunications services; for assistance; Supplycorp had a
    technology team Supplycorp had prenegotiated contract
    Supplycorp had prenegotiated contract that offered advice and
    consultations, like FTS arrangements for vehicle purchases that
    arrangements for telecommunications has, and a schedule of IT
    products and services, agencies could use, and could assist
    services that agencies could use.             like FSS has; major
    IT projects were to be agencies in obtaining fleet management
    examined and monitored by SSC and the services.
    Treasury. a"Supply activities" can include commercially available
    IT products and services; "IT activities" refer primarily to the
    acquisition of IT systems and related services. bTBA and CCTA are
    executive or "next steps" agencies, which means they had more
    flexibility than traditional government departments in how they
    managed their finances and personnel. cIn the vehicle area, MOD
    was in the midst of implementing a privately financed partnering
    arrangement for its nontactical and administrative support fleet.
    This effort is described in more detail in appendix IV.
    dSupplycorp is a private sector business that sells only to
    government agencies. eThe State Services Commission is also a key
    central agency that is responsible for reviewing and reporting on
    agency performance, but it does not set procurement policy.
    Source: GAO analysis of information on organizations with
    activities related to supply, vehicle, telecommunications, and IT
    procurement in the United States and selected countries. Page 37
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform Appendix II Objective, Scope,
    and Methodology Our objective was to identify the organizations,
    policies, and programs that Canada, the United Kingdom (UK),
    Australia, and New Zealand had in place to assist agencies with
    the procurement of supplies, vehicles, telecommunications, and IT.
    To meet this objective, we obtained information on FSS' and FTS'
    procurement activities by interviewing top FSS and FTS officials
    as well as program officials in the four business lines. We also
    held discussions with GSA's OGP and OFPP within OMB. We collected
    information on federal procurement through research on the
    Internet and by reviewing our past work. We also reviewed
    procurement- related laws and regulations, such as the Federal
    Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, the Federal Activities
    Inventory Reform Act of 1998, and the Federal Acquisition
    Regulation. To select countries for the review, we first
    determined, on the basis of available resources and the time
    frames for the assignment, that we could collect and analyze
    information on four countries. We then conducted research, relying
    heavily on the Internet, as well as discussions with officials at
    the World Bank and Department of State, to identify Western
    industrialized countries that had made a commitment to procurement
    reform and would be candidates for selection. On the basis of this
    work, we selected Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand
    because they had made such a commitment, and preliminary work
    showed they had reformed activities similar to those carried out
    by FSS and FTS. Our work was limited to the activities of the
    central or federal governments in these countries. We confirmed
    our selections primarily through further discussions with our
    counterpart organizations-the Auditor General offices-in each of
    the countries as well as the Department of State offices for each
    of the countries. We also held discussions with the embassy of New
    Zealand in Washington, D.C. and the U.S. embassies in Ottawa,
    Canada, and London, UK. It is important to note that the four
    countries were judgmentally selected and were not intended to be
    representative of how countries around the world were reforming
    similar activities. To collect information on the organizations,
    programs, and policies in these countries, we visited them and
    interviewed key officials about their operations. To identify
    which officials would provide information that would help us best
    meet our objective, we relied heavily on advice from the Auditor
    General staffs. The Auditor General staffs then arranged the
    interviews, provided us with relevant material, and assisted us
    with other logistical matters related to the visits. In Canada,
    the central procurement department also played a vital role in
    identifying key officials and Page 38
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform Appendix II Objective, Scope,
    and Methodology arranging the interviews. In each country, we
    interviewed officials in any central procurement organizations
    involved in the procurement of supplies, vehicles,
    telecommunications, and IT. We also interviewed knowledgeable
    officials in organizations that set procurement policy such as
    each country's Treasury department or equivalent; selected
    agencies that were the end-users of the procurement organizations,
    programs, and policies in place; and the Auditor General offices.
    In Australia, we held discussions with staff from a parliamentary
    committee conducting an inquiry into procurement practices. We
    also interviewed the general manager of a private sector business
    in New Zealand that assisted the government with procurement. In
    doing our work, we also analyzed a wide range of material on the
    organizations, programs, and policies in the four countries.
    Tables identifying the organizations in each country discussed in
    this report and their Internet addresses appear at the end of this
    appendix. After collecting the information, we compared these
    countries' operations to how FSS and FTS assist agencies with the
    procurement of supplies, vehicles, telecommunications, and IT. It
    is important to note that we did not do a comprehensive
    comparison. That is, in each of the four FSS and FTS business
    lines, we focused on the major activities that FSS and FTS perform
    and determined how each country carried out similar activities.
    For example, for supply and procurement, we determined whether
    there were central supply contracts in the countries that agencies
    could use that were similar to those available through the FSS
    supply schedules and special order arrangements and whether the
    countries had operations similar to the FSS stock program. For
    vehicle acquisition and leasing, we focused on whether vehicles
    were purchased centrally and whether each country had a central
    fleet like the FSS interagency fleet. For network services and IT
    solutions, we focused on whether, in general, the countries had
    central sources from which agencies could obtain
    telecommunications services or assistance with the acquisition of
    IT systems and related services. In using this approach, we
    recognize that we did not focus on all the specific
    characteristics of the activities FSS and FTS perform in each of
    the business lines. Resource and time constraints prevented us
    from doing a detailed comparison, nor did they allow us to assess
    the applicability of the approaches used by these countries to FSS
    and FTS operations. We also did not analyze or verify the laws
    cited by the foreign officials or contained in documents they
    provided. Although we did ask the countries for performance data
    related to their procurement organizations and Page 39
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform Appendix II Objective, Scope,
    and Methodology activities, we did not independently verify any
    data we obtained or assess the effectiveness of the reform
    initiatives. Finally, we did not verify the barriers cited by FSS
    and FTS or assess the effectiveness of reforms implemented in the
    United States. We did our work at FSS and FTS offices in Arlington
    and Falls Church, VA, respectively, and OGP and OFPP offices in
    Washington, D.C. In our visits to the countries, we did work in
    the cities of Ottawa and Hull in Canada; London and Bath in the
    UK; Canberra, Australia; and Wellington, New Zealand. In
    discussing the organizations in the countries, we used terms such
    as "agency" and "department" interchangeably. The exchange rates
    used throughout the report were as of May 2, 1999; we obtained
    them from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and rounded them to
    the nearest cent. We performed our work between July 1998 and May
    1999 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
    standards. We requested comments on a draft of this report from
    the Director of OMB, Administrator of GSA, and key officials in
    the countries we visited. OMB had no comments. In response to the
    request for comments from the Administrator of GSA, FSS and FTS
    officials provided comments on a draft of this report, as did
    responsible officials from the four countries. Tables II.1 through
    II.5 identify the organizations in the United States and each of
    the four countries discussed in this report and their Internet
    addresses. Page 40                                       GAO/GGD-
    99-109 Procurement Reform Appendix II Objective, Scope, and
    Methodology Table II.1: United States General Services
    Administration (GSA)
    http://www.gsa.gov GSA/Federal Supply Service (FSS)
    http://www.fss.gsa.gov GSA/Federal Technology Service (FTS)
    http://www.fts.gsa.gov GSA/Office of Governmentwide Policy (OGP)
    http://www.policyworks.gov Office of Federal Procurement Policy
    (OFPP)
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/procurement/index.html Table II.2:
    Canada Department of National Defence (DND)
    http://www.dnd.ca/ Department of Public Works and Government
    Services Canada           http://w3.pwgsc.gc.ca/ (PWGSC) PWGSC/
    Government Telecommunications and Informatics
    http://w3.pwgsc.gc.ca/gtis/ Services (GTIS) PWGSC/ Supply
    Operations Service (SOS)
    http://w3.pwgsc.gc.ca/sos/text/sosext-e.htm Office of the Auditor
    General of Canada (OAG)                       http://www.oag-
    bvg.gc.ca/ Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada (TBS)
    http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ Table II.3: United Kingdom Central
    Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA)
    http://www.ccta.gov.uk/ Her Majesty's Treasury (HM Treasury)
    http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/ HM Treasury's task force on PFI
    http://www.treasury-projects-taskforce.gov.uk/ Ministry of Defence
    (MOD)                                           http://www.mod.uk/
    National Audit Office (NAO)
    http://www.open.gov.uk/nao/home.htm The Buying Agency (TBA)
    http://www.open.gov.uk/tba/menu.htm The Stationery Office (TSO)
    http://www.tsonline.co.uk/ Table II.4: Australia Australian
    National Audit Office  (ANAO)
    http://www.anao.gov.au/ Department of Family and Community
    Services (DFaCS)                 http://www.facs.gov.au/
    Department of Finance and Administration (DOFA)
    http://www.dofa.gov.au/ Joint Committee for Public Accounts and
    Audit (JCPAA)
    http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jpaa/index.htm Office of
    Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing (OASITO)
    http://www.oasito.gov.au/ Office for Government Online (OGO)
    http://www.ogo.gov.au/ Page 41
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform Appendix II Objective, Scope,
    and Methodology Table II.5: New Zealand GSB Supply Corporation
    Ltd. (Supplycorp)
    http://www.gsb.co.nz/ Health Funding Authority (HFA)
    http://www.hfa.govt.nz/ Ministry of Commerce
    http://www.moc.govt.nz/ Ministry of Defence (MOD)
    http://www.defence.govt.nz/ Ministry of Health
    http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf Office of the Controller and
    Auditor-General of New Zealand
    http://www.netlink.co.nz/~oag State Services Commission (SSC)
    http://www.ssc.govt.nz/Welcome.asp Sources: The sources for tables
    II.1 through II.5 are the Internet addresses identified, as of the
    time of our review. Page 42
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform Appendix III Canada's Benefits
    Driven Procurement Benefits Driven Procurement (BDP) is a new
    approach the Canadian government has started to use to help ensure
    the success of complex acquisition projects traditionally
    characterized as having significant risk. BDP stresses a focus on
    results and on the benefits that the government and its suppliers
    can gain from each acquisition project. Developed by the Canadian
    government in collaboration with Canadian industry, the BDP
    approach is designed to avoid the pitfalls that beset many complex
    projects-delays, cost overruns, and end results that often fall
    far short of expectations.  BDP was first developed to solve
    problems with major IT acquisitions; but according to Canadian
    government officials, the concept has a broad application and is
    relevant to a wide range of complex, high- risk acquisitions.
    According to information on BDP from Public Works and Government
    Services Canada (PWGSC),1 Canada's central procurement agency,
    major IT projects, which are among its most complex procurement
    projects, have a history of failure. Research done in the United
    States and Canada support this assertion.  For example, in 1990,
    the President's Council on Management Improvement cited the
    "unwieldy procurement process" as a reason IT projects often
    failed.  Other reasons cited in this report included lack of top
    management commitment, inadequate planning, inadequate user input,
    and flawed technical approaches. In 1997, KPMG Consulting
    conducted a survey of IT projects in Canada and reported that the
    reasons for failure among IT projects were poor planning, a weak
    business case, and lack of top management involvement.  A study by
    the Standish Group in the United States showed that 31.1 percent
    of U.S. IT development projects were cancelled before completion;
    about 53 percent of the projects were likely to cost 189 percent
    of their original estimates; and only 16.2 percent of software
    development projects were completed on time and within budget.
    Concerned about problems with IT acquisition, the Treasury Board
    of Canada developed a framework of management policies in 1996
    that comprised best practices, principles, methodologies, and
    tools and standards aimed at ensuring a better success rate. Part
    of this framework addressed the procurement process, which the
    Treasury Board described as "too inflexible" and "not conducive to
    cooperation."  BDP evolved as a response to this Treasury Board
    framework. 1 This appendix draws heavily from a PWGSC paper on BDP
    presented on June 10, 1998, before the International Public
    Procurement Association. Page 43
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform Appendix III Canada's Benefits
    Driven Procurement BDP focuses on the big picture-the overall
    desired outcomes-rather The BDP Philosophy     than on detailed
    project requirements. The traditional approach to procurement in a
    complex IT project was for an organization to spend months, even
    years, developing a detailed requirement-thousands of pages of
    specifications to present to the private sector. However,
    according to Canadian officials, the specifications may be
    outdated before they are complete, can be out of step with the
    latest technology, and the organization's goals may even have
    changed during the long, drawn-out process of developing
    specifications. Finally, according to these officials, the private
    sector may know the project is not feasible, but may present bids
    anyway in order to obtain work. As a result, the traditional
    approach tends to be too lengthy, rigid, prescriptive, and costly
    in terms of time and human resources that have to be dedicated to
    each project, according to Canadian officials. BDP attempts to
    address this problem by asking the private sector to deliver
    certain agreed-upon results rather than follow a government
    blueprint with detailed specifications. The private sector is also
    invited to submit ideas on what sort of project should be
    undertaken before a formal request for proposals is issued.
    Another feature of BDP is that it is to incorporate rigorous up-
    front planning to remove potential problems in the procurement
    process. Both the front end planning and the management of the
    entire acquisition Elements of the BDP    life cycle are based on
    four elements: a business case; risk analysis; clear Process
    delineation of accountabilities; and, a compensation structure
    closely tied to the contractor's performance. Under BDP, a
    department is to prepare a business case justifying the project at
    the highest level and identifying the outcomes and benefits to be
    achieved. The business case is also to look at such issues as how
    much the project will cost, whether there are cheaper ways to
    realize goals, and what the benefits will be to the taxpayer.
    According to Canadian officials, under traditional methods, a
    project was often launched prematurely without a determination of
    whether it was really needed, whether it fit with the
    organization's long-term goals, and without having the support of
    top management. Risk analysis is used to identify what could go
    wrong with the project and how to deal with the consequences. The
    goal is essentially to minimize risk and be prepared with
    contingencies for containment when problems do arise. Departments
    are to conduct risk assessments not just during the planning
    phase, but also throughout implementation.  This helps ensure that
    projects with little chance of success are cancelled or modified
    as early as possible.  Delineation of accountabilities is used to
    protect the Page 44                                      GAO/GGD-
    99-109 Procurement Reform Appendix III Canada's Benefits Driven
    Procurement client department from service delivery problems by
    identifying the specific risks each party assumes.  For example,
    if the contract states that the supplier is responsible for
    delivering a certain outcome, or level of service, by a certain
    date but fails to do so, the supplier could be required to bear
    the cost of the delay. Relatedly, BDP encourages the use of a
    compensation structure closely tied to the contractor's
    performance.  For example, bonus payments may be made for
    finishing earlier than expected. A nonmonetary incentive could be
    intellectual property rights to a technology developed under
    government contract. Although BDP has been used primarily in the
    IT area, PWGSC and Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) officials told
    us they anticipated greater usage of BDP in other areas in the
    future.  BDP is part of a broad framework for procurement reform
    that TBS was developing at the time of our review.  These
    officials said, however, that BDP should not always be used; in
    many cases, traditional procurement approaches are quite
    appropriate. They said that rigorous up-front planning by
    departments is done to help identify the most appropriate method.
    More information on BDP can be accessed at the PWGSC and TBS
    Internet addresses, http://w3.pwgsc.gc.ca/ and http://www.tbs-
    sct.gc.ca/, respectively. Page 45
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform Appendix IV The UK's Private
    Finance Initiative The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) is a
    procurement reform approach being used by the United Kingdom to
    provide services requiring a major capital investment. Under a PFI
    project, the private sector finances the capital assets and the
    government or users pay for the services. Similar to what are
    commonly referred to as public-private partnerships in the United
    States, PFI contracts require the private sector to invest in,
    manage, and operate a capital asset necessary to deliver a defined
    level of service. By way of example, in a PFI project to fill the
    need for a highway, the government would pay for the service of
    having a fully maintained and functional highway instead of
    constructing and maintaining the highway itself. In the IT area,
    the government would seek an arrangement in which the private
    sector would meet a department's IT needs through services,
    instead of having the government own and manage an IT system and
    software. An example where the user of the services and not the
    government pays for the service would be a privately financed
    bridge that is paid for directly by tolls from motorists using the
    bridge. The thinking behind PFI includes transfering the risks and
    rewards of ownership of an asset to the private sector, along with
    the need for capital funding. According to HM Treasury officials,
    it requires government to consider not only whether it can afford
    to pay for the capital asset, but also to rigorously consider the
    long-term financial implications of the asset being properly
    maintained and operated over a period of, frequently, 25 years or
    more.  PFI also aims to allocate procurement risks more
    appropriately between the supplier and the government customer to
    ensure that the risks rest with the appropriate party. For
    example, in a construction project, the risk of delay or cost
    overruns would rest with the private sector supplier.
    Alternatively, the risk of changes in legislation that could
    affect the contract would rest with the government customer, who
    is better placed to influence any such changes. Under PFI
    projects, the government also believes it can also potentially
    benefit from the innovation and skills of the private sector. By
    concentrating on the end service required, the government allows
    the private sector supplier to determine innovative ways of
    delivering the service-the government customer specifies the
    outputs but leaves the inputs to the supplier. To ensure value for
    money under PFI projects, the government customer is to
    demonstrate that the PFI method of procurement is likely to be
    better value for money than alternative means of supply-in
    particular, conventional means of procurement.  This comparison is
    to be done by comparing the quality and cost of the service
    required under the different alternative means of supply. Page 46
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform Appendix IV The UK's Private
    Finance Initiative At the time of our review, the UK was at
    various stages of implementing 115 PFI projects for capital assets
    valued at about  10.9 billion (about $17.6 billion U.S., assuming
    that $1 U.S. =  0.62). These projects covered a wide range of
    services, including highways, prisons, IT services, and part of
    the Ministry of Defence's (MOD) vehicle fleet. To improve the PFI
    procurement process and to assist departments and agencies with
    implementing PFI projects, HM Treasury had established a PFI task
    force. The task force sought to ensure that departments' projects
    were not placed on the market until it was confident that the
    service was affordable, project teams had adequate resources,
    output specifications had been developed, and an acceptable risk
    allocation had been proposed. The task force issued guidance for
    carrying out PFI projects and also provided direct assistance to
    departments and agencies. At the time of our review, task force
    officials told us they had hired several individuals from the
    private sector to ensure that the government had high-calibre
    legal, financial, and other professional skills available to
    assist departments. HM Treasury's guidance for PFI projects, as
    well as more detailed information on the PFI process, can be found
    at its Internet address that is dedicated to PFI,
    http://www.treasury-projects-taskforce.gov.uk. At the time of our
    review, MOD was in various stages of implementing 20 MOD's White
    Fleet PFI    PFI projects for capital assets with a total
    estimated value of about  967 Project                  million
    (about $1.6 billion U.S.). These projects included services
    involving IT systems at the Army Logistics Agency and Army
    Training and Recruitment Agency, training for the Defence
    Helicopter Flying School, water and sewage at certain Royal Air
    Force (RAF) bases, and housing at two other MOD bases. Related to
    the vehicle acquisition and fleet area, two projects involved
    MOD's "white fleet" of  nontactical, administrative, and support
    vehicles. The two projects were for white fleet vehicles used by
    British forces in Germany and a portion of the RAF white fleet
    vehicles in the UK. This year, MOD planned to expand this project
    to include all of the white fleet vehicles in the British
    military. The white fleet PFI project had its origins in 1994,
    when MOD began a study to identify methods for encouraging greater
    commercial involvement in vehicle funding and management. The
    study concluded that there were both the capacity within the
    private sector and the potential for financial and operational
    benefits for MOD to expose the support vehicle fleet to industry
    competition. It was recognized that adopting a PFI approach to the
    supply of the white fleet would involve the private sector
    providing complete vehicle service, not just the funding for a
    substitution of new assets. MOD believed that through PFI, it
    would be exposed to private Page 47
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform Appendix IV The UK's Private
    Finance Initiative sector innovation and management skills and
    progressively would benefit from the latest commercial techniques
    in vehicle management. MOD selected two portions of the white
    fleet to test the PFI approach: the support vehicles for British
    forces in Germany and a stratified group of RAF support vehicles
    in the UK.  According to MOD officials, preliminary data showed
    that both of these projects were delivering efficiencies in terms
    of the number of vehicles operated and the cost of operation.  At
    the time of our review, MOD officials estimated that in Germany,
    savings of 27 percent were being realized compared to in-house
    operation; and in the UK, savings under PFI were estimated to be
    about 15 percent.  In both cases, MOD believed it was getting a
    newer and more reliable fleet, along with a better information
    system and commercial fleet management expertise. According to MOD
    officials, they drew on the experience gained from these two test
    efforts, did detailed research, and held extensive discussions
    with the leading service providers to develop a strategy for
    subjecting the rest of the white fleet to competition. Five
    regional projects covering approximately 12,000 vehicles were
    developed inside defined boundaries to cover all the requirements
    of all three services (Royal Navy, Army, and RAF). Each project
    covered the full range of vehicles in the white fleet and
    encompassed short and medium term needs.  Under the PFI
    arrangements, MOD staff were to assess fluctuating vehicle needs,
    and the industry providers are to be under contract to meet all
    levels of demand, even on short notice. This was a departure from
    the traditional procurement philosophy MOD had in the fleet area,
    in which vehicle holdings were to be matched to anticipated
    maximum usage requirements. Instead, MOD would be paying for
    vehicle services as an alternative to owning and operating them.
    As of October 1998, the time of our discussions with MOD
    officials, the projects had been advertised and MOD had received
    expressions of interest and proposal outlines from a number of
    leading vehicle suppliers who were backed by international
    financial institutions. Binding bids were to be obtained by the
    early part of 1999, which would lead to the selection of a
    preferred supplier and detailed negotiations before projected
    contract signings in September 1999.  Implementation of the
    contracts would then commence and would be completed in 6 months.
    To ensure value for money, MOD has established an in-house cost
    benchmark that reflected the best of several other in-house
    options MOD has considered for managing the fleet.  Should the
    bids MOD receives be Page 48
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform Appendix IV The UK's Private
    Finance Initiative above the in-house benchmark, MOD officials
    said they would instead implement the in-house alternatives.
    Also, MOD was planning to provide the in-house benchmark to
    industry to prevent providers from submitting bids if they could
    not provide the required service at a price below the in- house
    benchmark. The National Audit Office (NAO), our counterpart
    organization in the UK, National Audit Office Role    reports to
    the British parliament on whether individual PFI projects
    represent good value for money. NAO supports the PFI concept
    because it offers, in appropriate cases, the prospect of improved
    value for money. NAO also recognizes that successful
    implementation will require well- thought innovation and risk-
    taking by public servants, which it supports. According to NAO
    officials, the merits of the PFI initiative will be judged on the
    success of individual projects.  To date, these officials said
    that some projects could have benefited from better up-front
    planning; as a result, it was questionable whether some projects
    were achieving value for money. On the other hand, other projects
    have represented clear value for money and other benefits to the
    government. Overall, NAO officials said that as time went by,
    public servants likely would become more adept at using the PFI
    approach, and the overall gains would be positive. Information on
    NAO's findings for individual projects can be accessed at its
    Internet address, http://www.open.gov.uk/nao/home.htm. Page 49
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform Appendix V Australia's IT
    Outsourcing Initiative In April 1997, Australia's Minister for
    Finance announced a major initiative to outsource, or contract
    for, the government's IT infrastructure. The initiative was to
    cover everything from the large mainframe computers agencies
    operated to the equipment for over 140,000 desktop computers
    across the government.1 According to officials with the Office of
    Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing, this infrastructure had an
    estimated value of between $6 and $7 billion Australian (between
    about $4 and $4.6 billion U.S., assuming that $1 U.S. = $1.51
    Australian).  Under the initiative, the government committed to
    achieving best value for money for its information technology
    dollar in order to support the delivery of services at the lowest
    cost to the taxpayer. This major announcement had its origins in
    1996, when the government tasked the former Office of Government
    Information Technology (OGIT) with studying the potential savings
    that could accrue through consolidation of systems and potential
    outsourcing. The resulting study indicated that a very strong case
    for outsourcing existed and led to a decision that agencies should
    undertake extensive market testing. Potential savings of $1
    billion Australian (about $662 million U.S.) were estimated over 7
    years if agencies shifted to outsourcing. The April 1997
    announcement reflected the government's commitment to apply the
    outsourcing concept for IT across government, with the exception
    of some systems related to national security. In November 1997, IT
    outsourcing functions managed by OGIT were transferred to the
    Office of Asset Sales, which was renamed OASITO. OASITO was given
    responsibility for leading and managing the implementation of the
    initiative, with the aim of delivering savings, developing the
    Australian IT industry, and improving service delivery. The
    initiative had clear objectives related to the Australian IT
    industry. That is, OASITO was committed to ensuring substantial
    and sustainable development of the domestic IT industry,
    encouraging the industry to achieve a global focus, and assisting
    regional development and the creation of jobs. OASITO's executive
    coordinator told us that in addition to the Australian IT
    industry, firms from overseas, including the United States, had
    been, and would likely continue to be, active participants in the
    initiative. 1 In March 1999, we reported that several agencies in
    the United States were studying the outsourcing option for their
    information systems (Outsourcing and Privatization: Private Sector
    Assistance for Federal Agency Studies (GAO/GGD-99-52R, March 26,
    1999). Page 50
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform Appendix V Australia's IT
    Outsourcing Initiative OASITO was managing the initiative through
    a multi-year, phased process where agencies' IT needs were being
    grouped together and the requirements offered to the private
    sector for bids. The government originally estimated that the
    initiative would be completed by mid-1999. At the time of our
    review, the schedule for outsourcing had to be adjusted to
    accommodate the capacity of agencies to prepare for outsourcing
    and the capacity of industry to absorb the requirements. OASITO
    was responsible for identifying the groupings and structuring them
    to maximize the benefits of outsourcing. It also provided guidance
    and assistance to agencies and managed the sequence and timing of
    the offerings to maximize competition. In addition, OASITO was the
    central coordinator for development of project documentation and
    was to oversee the financial evaluation of the offers. After
    contracts were signed, OASITO planned to remain involved to ensure
    that issues affecting the overall success of the initiative were
    effectively addressed. In close consultation with OASITO, each
    agency was responsible for defining its business and technical
    requirements, assisting with the evaluation of bids, participating
    in negotiations, and otherwise preparing the agency for transition
    to an outsourcing relationship and subsequent contract management.
    At each step of the process, agencies were expected to ensure that
    sufficient resources were dedicated to the process to enable the
    project timetable to be met. Agencies were also expected to
    implement strategies for internal matters, such as human resource
    transition, and to execute the change to the new operating
    environment. The government anticipated that IT professionals
    within government would transfer to the private sector, thus
    enhancing their skills and furthering their career opportunities.
    OASITO's executive coordinator told us that the government
    undertook this initiative because of a belief that agencies should
    focus on their core missions and allow the private sector to
    perform government activities of a business nature. Further, he
    said that in meeting their IT needs through purchasing IT
    services, agencies, and the government as a whole, would also
    benefit from access to the latest technologies and current
    commercial expertise in information management. Page 51
    GAO/GGD-99-109 Procurement Reform Page 52    GAO/GGD-99-109
    Procurement Reform Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO
    report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each.
    Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a
    check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents,
    when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted,
    also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single
    address are discounted 25 percent. Order by mail: U.S. General
    Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 or visit:
    Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S.
    General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed
    by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061,
    or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly
    available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of
    the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call
    (202) 512-6000 using a touch-tone phone. A recorded menu will
    provide information on how to obtain these lists. For information
    on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send e-mail message
    with "info" in the body to: [email protected] or visit GAO's World
    Wide Web Home Page at: http://www.gao.gov United States General
    Accounting Office           Bulk Rate Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
    Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. G100 Official Business Penalty
    for Private Use $300 Address Correction Requested (240316)

*** End of document. ***