Army Logistics: Status of Proposed Support Plan for Apache Helicopter
(Letter Report, 07/01/1999, GAO/NSIAD-99-140).

The Pentagon has embarked on a strategy to reengineer its logistics
support for weapon systems by relying more on the private sector. The
military has selected the Apache AH-64 helicopter as a pilot for
implementing this new strategy. At the same time, the Army has been
considering a logistics support concept called prime vendor support for
the Apache. Prime vendor support is a contractor's proposal to use
commercial practices to reengineer logistics support, improve readiness,
reduce life-cycle costs, and provide savings that can be used to
modernize the helicopter. The program will rely on private-sector
capital to upgrade Apache components and to manage the parts pipeline.
DOD is prohibited from entering into a prime vendor contract for depot
maintenance and repair of a weapons system until 30 days after the
military submits a report to Congress describing the competitive
procedures used to select the awardee and provides a cost analysis that
shows the savings to the government over the life of the contract. This
report determines the status of the Apache prime vendor support
proposals. GAO discusses the evolution of the prime vendor support
concept and the financial and operational issues that have been raised
over whether the Army should implement the concept.

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

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-99-140
     TITLE:  Army Logistics: Status of Proposed Support Plan for Apache
	     Helicopter
      DATE:  07/01/1999
   SUBJECT:  Weapons systems
	     Army procurement
	     Department of Defense contractors
	     Private sector practices
	     Military aircraft
	     Helicopters
	     Military cost control
	     Logistics
	     Reengineering (management)
	     Cost effectiveness analysis
IDENTIFIER:  DOD Quadrennial Defense Review
	     Apache Helicopter
	     Army Working Capital Fund
	     Army Second Generation Forward Looking Infrared Program
	     Target Acquisition Designation Sight and Pilot Night
	     Vision Sensor
	     Army Apache Helicopter Reliability Improvement Program
	     DOD Prime Vendor Program

******************************************************************
** 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           ARMY LOGISTICS
    Status of Proposed Support Plan for Apache Helicopter GAO/NSIAD-
    99-140 United States General Accounting Office
    National Security and Washington, D.C. 20548
    International Affairs Division B-282580
    Letter July 1, 1999 The Honorable Herbert H. Bateman Chairman The
    Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on
    Military Readiness Committee on Armed Services House of
    Representatives Consistent with the results of the 1997
    Quadrennial Defense Review, the Department of Defense (DOD) has
    embarked on a strategy to reengineer its logistics support for
    weapon systems, placing greater reliance on the private sector for
    this support. The Apache AH-64 helicopter has been designated by
    DOD as a pilot effort for implementing this new strategy.1  At the
    same time, the Army has been considering a logistics support
    concept called Prime Vendor Support2 (PVS) for the Apache
    helicopter. Apache PVS is a contractor's proposal to use
    commercial practices to reengineer logistics support, improve
    readiness, reduce life-cycle costs and provide savings that can be
    used to modernize the Apache aircraft.3 The program is also
    intended to rely on private-sector capital to upgrade Apache
    components and to manage the parts pipeline. The program also
    corresponds with an Army General Officer Steering Committee's
    desire to seek ways to reengineer logistics support for the Apache
    helicopter, lower costs, and provide savings for modernization.
    1The Apache helicopter is the Army's premier aviation weapon
    system.  Its mission as an attack helicopter is to perform rear,
    close, and deep operations and deep precision strikes and to
    provide armed reconnaissance and security.  The terms rear, close,
    and deep refer to where in the battlefield military operations
    take place.   These vary according to the depth of the
    battlefield.  Depth is the extension of operations in time, space,
    resources, and purpose. 2Prime vendors typically are third-party
    contractors that buy inventory from a variety of suppliers, store
    it in commercial warehouses, and ship it to customers when
    ordered.  In the case of the Apache helicopter, the prime vendor
    concept is much different in that the major equipment
    manufacturers are teaming together to provide the full range of
    logistics support along with continuous product improvement and
    modernization. 3The proposed contract amount of the PVS offer and
    the value of the government's estimate of its in-house best-case
    approach are considered proprietary and competition sensitive,
    respectively; therefore, this data is not included in this report.
    Letter           Page 1
    GAO/NSIAD-99-140 Army Logistics B-282580 Section 346 of the Strom
    Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999
    (P.L. 105-261) prohibits the Secretary of Defense from entering
    into a prime vendor contract for depot maintenance and repair of a
    weapon system until 30 days after the Secretary submits a report
    to the Congress that describes the competitive procedures used to
    select the awardee and provides a cost analysis that shows savings
    to the government over the life of the contract. As you requested,
    we determined the status of the Apache PVS proposal.  This report
    addresses the evolution of the PVS concept and the financial and
    operational issues that have been raised over whether the Army
    should implement the concept. Results in Brief        The Apache
    PVS concept began as an unsolicited contractor proposal whose
    scope has evolved over time. As would be expected when a new
    concept of this magnitude is introduced, there are significantly
    different views about various aspects of the proposal. Although
    the Apache PVS proposal is viewed by various Office of the
    Secretary of Defense (OSD) and Army officials as a key effort to
    test improved weapon system logistics support, the proposal
    remains under study within the Army to address unresolved issues.
    The Army does not know when a decision will be made on whether or
    not the program will go forward. Key questions remain regarding
    how certain cost factors should be considered in evaluating the
    PVS proposal.  Estimates of the cost differences between PVS and
    the government's best-case cost study of the in-house approach
    vary significantly, and each is considered the most cost-effective
    depending on which assumptions, including program requirements,
    are used.  Also, a number of questions have been raised about the
    potential operational impact of PVS on meeting warfighters'
    logistics support needs. Because of uncertainties and differing
    views and issues that have emerged, the Under Secretary of the
    Army directed in January and March 1999 that more rigorous and
    comprehensive analyses be conducted of cost, operational, and
    requirement issues.  Those efforts are still underway. Because the
    PVS studies directed by the Under Secretary are not yet complete,
    we are not making any recommendations in this report. Background
    In recent years, DOD has concluded that its logistics support
    system needs to be more efficient and effective in meeting war-
    fighters' needs.  DOD has recently designated the AH-64 Apache
    helicopter as one of several pilot Letter    Page 2
    GAO/NSIAD-99-140 Army Logistics B-282580 programs to test
    improvements in program management responsibility for life-cycle
    logistical support of specific weapon systems. Traditional
    Logistics        The Army currently manages its logistics system
    through a network of Management System            federal workers
    who acquire spare parts, manage the configuration and the
    upgrades, and oversee all logistics functions.4  This extensive
    and interrelated logistics support system is executed by dedicated
    program and commodity management personnel that work for the Army
    as well as contractor personnel and employees of the Defense
    Logistics Agency (DLA).  The Army's Aviation and Missile Command-a
    major subordinate command under the Army Materiel Command-manages
    support of the Apache system through a broad range of activities
    and functions, including determining the need for and acquiring
    spare parts and depot level maintenance, managing inventory, and
    managing configuration and engineering upgrades. The Apache
    program manager is responsible for the development, acquisition,
    and fielding of the system.  The manager reports to the Aviation
    Program Executive Officer (PEO) under the Assistant Secretary of
    the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology.  The PEO is
    responsible for providing executive-level management of assigned
    weapon system programs such as the Apache helicopter.  At the unit
    level, a combination of federal civilian, military, and contractor
    maintenance and supply activities provide support to the Apache
    system. Working Capital Funds        The Army and DLA use working
    capital funds to finance logistics support Finance Logistics
    Support    for the Apache system.5  Customers that buy supplies
    through working capital funds pay the latest acquisition or repair
    price plus a surcharge for additional costs such as
    transportation, inventory management, and depreciation.  Sales
    related to the Apache system represent a sizable 4The Army has a
    two-tiered, wholesale and retail logistics support system.  The
    wholesale system is comprised of the four major commands
    subordinate to the Army Materiel Command; these subordinate
    commands procure supplies directly from vendors and hold
    inventories of stocks to meet the demands of retail customers.
    Retail customers are field-operating commands, which receive
    support from the wholesale level. 5DOD has used revolving or
    working capital funds for years.  However, in December 1996, the
    Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) reorganized the Defense
    Business Operations Fund and created four working capital funds-
    Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense-wide.  Under the working
    capital fund concept, Defense components are expected to break
    even over time by charging customers the full cost of goods and
    services provided to them.  Customers use appropriated funds,
    primarily Operations and Maintenance appropriations, to finance
    purchases. Page 3
    GAO/NSIAD-99-140 Army Logistics B-282580 portion of the Army
    Working Capital Fund's business activity.  For fiscal year 1999,
    the Army estimated that total sales for the fund would be about
    $2.94 billion and that sales involving the Apache system would be
    about $543 million.  Surcharges represent about 25 percent of the
    fund's total sales value.  For fiscal year 1998, sales in DLA's
    Working Capital Fund totaled $7.39 billion, including about $52.6
    million for the Apache system. DLA estimated that its surcharge
    rate was about 24 percent of total sales. Policy and Legislative
    Although OSD has designated the Apache PVS proposal a pilot
    effort, this Guidance Applicable to     designation did not
    provide an exemption from policy and legal Outsourcing Decisions
    requirements that might otherwise affect outsourcing decisions.
    Since 1955, federal agencies have been encouraged to obtain
    commercially available goods and services from the private sector
    if doing so is cost-effective.  In 1966, the Office of Management
    and Budget (OMB) issued Circular A-76, which established federal
    policy for the government's performance of commercial activities
    and set forth the procedures for studying them for potential
    contracting.  The circular and its Supplemental Handbook provide
    guidance to federal agencies on procedures to follow in
    determining whether commercial activities should be performed in-
    house, by another federal agency through interservice support
    agreements, or by the private sector.  This guidance generally
    applies to commercial functions except those involving depot
    maintenance workloads performed in-house and valued at more than
    $3 million-those are subject to the competitive requirements of 10
    U.S.C. 2469.  Under the Apache PVS proposal, the current plan is
    for in-house depot maintenance work to remain in Army depots;
    under these circumstances, section 2469 and its requirements for
    competing depot workloads would not apply. Generally, the A-76
    process requires (1) developing a performance work statement and
    quality assurance surveillance plan; (2) conducting a management
    study to determine the government's most efficient organization
    (MEO); (3) developing an in-house government cost estimate for the
    MEO; (4) issuing a request for proposal or invitation for bid; (5)
    evaluating the proposals or bids and comparing the in-house
    estimate with a private-sector offer or interservice support
    agreement and selecting the winner of the cost comparison; and (6)
    considering any appeals submitted under the administrative appeals
    process, which is designed to ensure that all costs are fair,
    accurate, and calculated in the manner prescribed by the A-76
    handbook. Page 4
    GAO/NSIAD-99-140 Army Logistics B-282580 The A-76 Supplemental
    Handbook provides that under certain circumstances agencies may
    waive cost comparisons and direct conversion to or from in-house,
    contract, or interservice support agreements.  A waiver may be
    granted where the appropriate official determines that * the
    conversion will result in a significant financial or service
    quality improvement and will not serve to significantly reduce the
    level or quality of competition in the future award or performance
    of work or * the waiver will establish why in-house or contract
    offers have no reasonable expectation of winning a competition
    conducted under the cost comparison procedures of the handbook. In
    addition to A-76, DOD must consider the effect of 10 U.S.C. 2461
    when it plans changes to an industrial- or commercial-type
    function performed by its civilian employees.  Section 2461, as
    amended by the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 1999, requires an analysis of the activity,
    including a comparison of the cost of performance by DOD civilian
    employees and by a contractor, to determine whether contractor
    performance could result in savings to the government.  It also
    requires DOD to notify the Congress and to provide other
    information prior to instituting a change in performance.6  In
    October 1997, the Army provided an initial notification to the
    Congress regarding its intent to study Apache logistics functions
    for possible performance by a contractor.  This notification
    included the Army's intent to make appropriate cost comparisons
    between current government operations and proposed contractor
    operations.7 Evolution and Status of  The Apache PVS concept began
    as an unsolicited contractor proposal, PVS Support Proposal  whose
    scope has evolved over time.  However, because of questions and
    uncertainties regarding PVS requirements, cost-effectiveness, and
    operational impact, the proposal was the subject of various
    studies and reviews that provided differing results.  In January
    and March 1999, the Under Secretary of the Army directed a
    comprehensive review of various 6Further, section 8014 of the
    Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999
    (P.L. 105-262) requires that DOD certify its in-house estimate to
    congressional committees before outsourcing any activity performed
    by more than 10 DOD civilian employees. 7The Army's notification
    was submitted under 10 U.S.C. 2461 prior to the 1999 Defense
    Authorization Act amendments.  The earlier version of section 2461
    contains similar, but less detailed, analysis and notification
    requirements. Page 5
    GAO/NSIAD-99-140 Army Logistics B-282580 issues surrounding the
    PVS proposal.  Those reviews are still underway, but no milestone
    has been established for their completion. Program Evolution    In
    April 1997, the Army received an unsolicited proposal from
    McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) and Lockheed Martin to provide full
    wholesale logistics support for the Apache helicopter.  The Apache
    PVS proposal would outsource almost all of the Army's traditional
    logistics support functions8 to a contractor, Team Apache Systems
    (TAS).9  The proposal would significantly reengineer logistics
    support for the Apache helicopter while meeting a 120,000 flying-
    hour requirement each year.  The program would be expected to
    lower total ownership costs, improve parts availability, and
    leverage private-sector resources for modernization. In assessing
    the value of the PVS proposal, the Aviation PEO stated that the
    government's traditional logistics management system was a problem
    because of split management responsibility and shared control
    between the government and contractors.  In his view, under the
    current approach, no single entity is responsible for identifying
    and implementing cost-saving changes to improve Apache logistics
    support.  The Aviation PEO also described the current system as
    having parts shortages, requiring extensive use of local special
    repair activities to meet needs, needing controlled substitution
    of spare parts to meet maintenance requirements, and having
    declining financial resources to support the wholesale system due
    to the use of local options and high flying-hour costs.  In his
    view, decapitalizing10 the Apache system from the Army Working
    Capital Fund and converting it to PVS as a pilot program would
    test whether the Army can develop a better way to manage its
    logistics business operations. 8Current plans for the Apache PVS
    proposal provide that the Corpus Christ Army Depot, the Army's in-
    house helicopter depot, would accomplish about 85,000 direct labor
    hours of Apache depot maintenance work.  The components repaired
    by Corpus Christi would be provided as government furnished
    materiel to the PVS contractor.  Although a limited amount of
    direct labor hours of Apache work is currently being performed by
    the Anniston and Tobyhanna Army depots, the Army has not yet
    determined how or to what extent this work would continue to be
    done at Army depots under the proposed PVS program. 9Team Apache
    Systems is a limited liability company formed by Boeing, Lockheed
    Martin, and General Electric. 10Decapitalization is the transfer
    of fund inventories to other appropriations or funds without
    reimbursement.  Decapitalizing a weapon system leaves the fund
    with essentially the same costs, at least in the short term, but
    reduces the number of contributors that will continue to pay their
    share of the costs. Page 6
    GAO/NSIAD-99-140 Army Logistics B-282580 The Aviation PEO office
    expects the PVS contractor to * use commercial best practices to
    develop and implement design and logistics support changes to
    improve performance and reduce life-cycle support costs; * improve
    stock availability and maximize rapid distribution without
    impacting safety, readiness, supportability, or performance; and *
    reduce failures and removals and repairs and improve
    supportability through component reliability improvements. After
    receiving the PVS proposal, the Army initiated several actions to
    establish a framework for analyzing Apache PVS for a 5-year
    period, from fiscal year 1999 through 2003: * In May 1997, the
    Army's commercialization General Officer Steering Committee
    concluded that the Army had to reengineer the Apache logistics
    support functions to lower costs and provide savings for
    modernization.  Thus, the committee designated Apache PVS as a
    pilot program and directed the Army Aviation PEO to study the
    acceptability of the proposal. * In October 1997, the Acting
    Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development, and
    Acquisition, authorized the Army Aviation and Missile Command to
    pursue a PVS contract through other than full and open competition
    because the original equipment manufacturers were considered the
    only entities technically capable of providing complete logistics
    support for the Apache system.11 * In October 1997, the Aviation
    PEO and Army Aviation and Missile Command began negotiations with
    the PVS contractor to jointly develop a proposal acceptable to
    both parties.  Under an approach referred to as alpha contracting,
    the Army's team and TAS jointly developed requirements and a PVS
    performance work statement that defined the performance-based
    products and services to be provided by the firm. * In November
    1997, consistently with A-76 requirements, representatives from
    the Army Materiel Command began an internal evaluation to develop
    the government's best case cost estimate for its in-house approach
    under a streamlined concept to provide Apache logistics support.
    11The approval to negotiate a PVS contract on the basis of other
    than a full and open competition conditioned the award of the
    contract on approval of an OMB Circular A-76 waiver to the
    requirement for a cost study that compares the negotiated price of
    the contract with the cost of government performance. Page 7
    GAO/NSIAD-99-140 Army Logistics B-282580 * In December 1997,
    representatives from the Aviation PEO's Office and the Army's Cost
    and Economic Analysis Center developed a cost baseline for the
    Apache system.  This baseline represented the estimated
    operational costs for the 5-year period. * In March 1998, the Army
    Materiel Command provided its best-case government estimate for
    accomplishing the Army's in-house effort to improve the efficiency
    of in-house logistics support for the 5-year period. * In June
    1998, contract negotiations resulted in an offer from TAS for
    Apache PVS for the 5-year period. To facilitate developing the
    government's best estimate of its in-house approach, in September
    1997 the Aviation PEO provided the Army Materiel Command a number
    of proposed metrics and requirements that had been developed for
    Apache PVS.  In developing its in-house estimate, Army Materiel
    Command expected to improve the current logistical support system
    through a number of efficiencies related to actions such as *
    reducing overhead costs, * reducing the number of civilian
    personnel devoted to material management and contract oversight, *
    reducing the cost of Apache components, and * establishing
    logistics centers of excellence and consolidating repair functions
    to provide support for the Apache system. Where Things Stand Today
    Because of uncertainties and differing views and issues that have
    emerged from the Army's acquisition, logistics, and operational
    communities regarding requirements of the proposed Apache PVS
    program, cost-effectiveness, and operational impact, the Under
    Secretary of the Army directed in January 1999 that a more
    rigorous and comprehensive analysis be conducted.  More
    specifically, he directed Army components to expand the PVS
    analysis to include * a review of the Aviation PEO's A-76 waiver
    package for proper accounting; * a 20-year cash flow analysis to
    determine the net present value of positive and negative cash flow
    if PVS were implemented; * identification of PVS implementation
    costs and of the financial impact of the Army's transition to PVS,
    to include a validation of inventory and pipeline values and
    determination of the impact on the Army Working Capital Fund and
    customer funding; Page 8
    GAO/NSIAD-99-140 Army Logistics B-282580 * an update of the
    government's best-case proposal cost estimate, extending it beyond
    the original 5-year period to be as compatible as possible with
    the current PVS proposal; * a determination of how much the PVS
    and management information systems will be transparent to the
    soldiers; * an evaluation of how PVS would work in a transition to
    war; and * an assessment of the impact of an increase in the
    Apache flying-hour requirement on expected PVS operations and
    costs. Also, in March 1999 the Under Secretary of the Army tasked
    the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans to identify the
    Army's requirements to satisfy the Apache flying-hour program.
    This would include determining whether additional services offered
    by the PVS contractor would be needed.  If they are, the Army does
    not know at this time whether or not further analysis might be
    required to ensure a more level playing field between the
    government and the private sector to determine which could provide
    the most cost-effective option. Various Army components have
    proposed milestones for completing the Apache PVS study and
    transitioning to PVS operations.  However, the Under Secretary of
    the Army's expansion of the study process has resulted in a
    stretching out of the time frames for completing the study effort.
    As of May 1999, the Army had not established a firm milestone for
    completing its study efforts. Significant Financial     There are
    significant differences of opinions within the Army over the
    Issues Led the Under      cost-effectiveness of the Apache PVS
    proposal.  On one hand, there are those within the PEO community
    who believe the proposal is more Secretary to Request      cost-
    effective than the government's in-house approach; on the other
    hand, More Detailed             there are others who believe the
    government's approach is the most Analyses                  cost-
    effective. Army analysts tasked with studying the matter have
    reached varying conclusions ranging from increased costs to
    significant savings about the financial effects of Apache PVS. The
    Aviation PEO, based on analysis and adjustments to PVS contractor
    and government cost estimates made by his office, concluded that
    the PVS proposal was the more cost-effective solution to meeting
    the Apache program's needs.  The PEO office also concluded that
    waiver provisions of OMB Circular A-76 applied in this instance
    and submitted a formal request for the waiver to the Assistant
    Secretary of the Army for Installations, Logistics, and
    Environment.  Continuing debate within the Army over cost
    adjustments Page 9
    GAO/NSIAD-99-140 Army Logistics B-282580 introduced by the PEO
    office and other issues led, as indicated earlier, to the Under
    Secretary's request for additional analyses. The primary
    controversy over the different conclusions reached by various Army
    organizations involves how key features introduced by the Aviation
    PEO should be considered when comparing the costs of the PVS offer
    and the government's best-case estimate.  These features include
    the contractor's offer of (1) increased field technical assistance
    and engineering support and reliability improvements and (2) a
    reliability improvement program.  Another issue is the impact that
    removing Apache inventory support from that system would have on
    the Army's Working Capital Fund.  The Army is considering these
    factors in its evaluation. Aviation PEO's Conclusions  An Army
    cost team completed an initial cost comparison of the Apache
    Differed From Results of          PVS offer and the government's
    best-case estimate in August 1998.  The Initial Cost Comparison
    team concluded that the Apache PVS offer did not represent a
    significant financial advantage to the Army and that the
    government's best-case estimate could be competitive.  After
    reviewing the results of the cost team's comparison, the Aviation
    PEO office adjusted the cost estimates and drew different
    conclusions.  These adjustments became the focus of subsequent
    efforts to determine whether the Apache PVS proposal would be
    financially advantageous to the Army. After completing an
    evaluation of the PVS and the government's best-case estimate, an
    Army cost team, with representatives from the Army's Aviation and
    Missile Command, Materiel Command, Apache Program Office, and the
    Army's Cost and Economic Analysis Center (CEAC), concluded that
    available data would not support an A-76 waiver and, that if
    implemented, PVS would become a significant affordability issue.
    During its analysis, the Army team adjusted the Apache PVS
    proposal and the government's best-case estimate to reflect common
    costs and savings.  For example, the team added $542.3 million in
    costs to the PVS offer, including $437.2 million for the estimated
    impact on the working capital fund.12  Also included in the added
    costs to the PVS offer were $105.1 million for factors such as
    transition, contract maintenance services purchased at the local
    level to support the Apache system, and the value of government-
    furnished depot 12This $437.2 million would represent the
    estimated loss of revenue from the sale of Apache parts-the
    surcharge loss and nonsystem specific fixed costs-and the value of
    inventory on order but not yet delivered. Page 10
    GAO/NSIAD-99-140 Army Logistics B-282580 maintenance work.  The
    team added $44.9 million to the government's best-case estimate
    for local contract maintenance services and contractor field
    service representatives that would remain in place under the
    government's approach.  The study did not address the issue of
    transitioning to the contractor Apache parts already in the Army's
    inventory. The Army cost team's August 1998 analysis concluded
    that, overall, the government's best-case estimate would cost $431
    million less than the PVS proposal. PEO Adjustments to Initial
    Cost     After reviewing the results of the cost team's analysis,
    the Aviation PEO's Comparison                          office made
    sufficient adjustments to the government's cost estimate to reach
    the conclusion that the PVS proposal would cost $362.5 million
    less than the government's approach.  These adjustments were based
    primarily on features of the contractor's offer that the PEO
    office considered superior to the government's approach-increased
    technical and engineering services and a reliability improvement
    program for Apache components.  The office also reduced the
    estimated impact of PVS on the Army's Working Capital Fund by
    limiting the impact from 5 years to 1 year and by using a more
    current estimate of due-in inventory (parts that have been ordered
    but not yet received).  The costs that the Aviation PEO added to
    the government's estimate were primarily to reflect the value of
    the contractor's proposed field technical assistance and
    engineering support and for reliability improvements and
    obsolescence engineering.  These improvements related primarily to
    improving the reliability of the Target Designation Sight/Pilot
    Night Vision Sensor (TADS/PNVS).13 After the PEO concluded that
    the PVS' and not the government's approach was the most cost-
    effective option, he formally requested a waiver of A-76 cost
    comparison requirements.  He justified this decision in his waiver
    request in part on the basis of his belief that neither the
    government nor another contractor would have a reasonable
    expectation of winning a competition under the A-76 process. 13The
    TADS/PNVS provides pitch/roll/yaw rate stabilization data for
    proper flight operation of the aircraft and provides the
    capability to fly at night and in poor weather conditions.  The
    aircraft uses TADS/PNVS to control all weapons targeting
    functions. Page 11
    GAO/NSIAD-99-140 Army Logistics B-282580 PEO Offered Further
    In addition, to further support his position that PVS was more
    cost-effective Adjustments to Include the     than the
    government's approach, the Aviation PEO included in his waiver
    Introduction of Second         request an assessment of the
    contractor's proposal to upgrade the Second Generation Forward
    Looking     Generation Forward Looking Infrared Program (2nd Gen
    FLIR), a program Infrared Program               that was not part
    of the original Apache PVS proposal and was not addressed by the
    Army's cost analysis.14  The Army has a requirement to introduce
    the 2nd Gen FLIR program into the Apache system.  However, the
    Army's current funding stream is not adequate to fully fund the
    program. The Army's total estimated costs for a stand-alone
    program to introduce the 2nd Gen FLIR are $961 million-$575
    million for the PVS reliability improvement program and $386
    million for the 2nd Gen FLIR.  At the time of the Aviation PEO's
    waiver request, the Army had a funding commitment of only $317
    million for the 2nd Gen FLIR.  Outside of inclusion under the
    Apache PVS, it is not clear how 2nd Gen FLIR requirements-either
    funded or unfunded-would be evaluated against other Army
    requirements in a constrained budget environment. Although the 2nd
    Gen FLIR was not part of the Apache PVS statement of work, the PVS
    contractor  offered to introduce the program along with the
    upgrade of the TADS/PNVS components so that improved reliability
    components in the TADS/PNVS would be compatible with the 2nd Gen
    FLIR. Additionally, although completion of the 2nd Gen FLIR
    program would take longer than the 5 years covered in the Army's
    cost comparison, the Aviation PEO extrapolated the 5-year costs
    through fiscal year 2010 to support his A-76 waiver request.  This
    extrapolation allowed the PEO to increase the cost difference
    between the PVS' and the government's best case estimate to the
    point that the PVS proposal would cost $420 million less than the
    government's estimate. PEO's Proposal to Consign      The Army's
    original cost comparison did not address how Apache parts Apache
    Inventory to PVS        already in the Army's inventory would be
    incorporated into the proposed Contractor
    Apache PVS.  The Aviation PEO, as part of his waiver request, also
    proposed that the Army retain ownership of all existing inventory
    and consign it to the PVS contractor as government-furnished
    materiel.  As of September 1998, the existing inventory was
    reportedly valued at $745.5 million for both serviceable and
    unserviceable items.  The Aviation PEO believes that consignment
    would be the most cost-effective option because 14The purpose of
    the 2nd Gen FLIR is to improve the performance of the TADS/PNVS
    system in target acquisition.  As part of the PVS proposal, the
    contractor proposed to replace the obsolete 1st Gen FLIR with the
    2nd Gen FLIR within the program budget. Page 12
    GAO/NSIAD-99-140 Army Logistics B-282580 the contractor would not
    incur and pass to the government the costs of insurance and taxes
    on the inventory, both of which would be likely if the contractor
    owned the inventory. Army Analysts Raised             Subsequent
    analyses by Army analysts questioned the Aviation PEO's Questions
    About the              adjustments, concluding that, for the most
    part, the adjustments were not Aviation PEO's Adjustments
    necessary to meet the proposed flying-hour requirements for the
    Apache helicopter and that some of the claimed savings in the cost
    comparison were inappropriate.  Analyses of the A-76 waiver
    request by CEAC and the Army Audit Agency questioned the Aviation
    PEO's adjustments.  CEAC and the Army Audit Agency did not support
    the Aviation PEO's conclusion that the Apache PVS was less costly
    than the best-case government estimate and that the government had
    no chance of winning an A-76 competition. Also, the Army
    Comptroller opposed the consignment of inventory to the PVS
    contractor without reimbursement. CEAC Analysis
    In addition to participating in the original cost comparison,
    CEAC, at the request of the Army Comptroller, made a subsequent
    analysis of the cost adjustments made by the Aviation PEO's
    office.  Its February 18, 1999, report on these adjustments
    concluded that the government's estimate was cheaper than the PVS
    proposal by about $154.3 million.  CEAC's conclusions were: * The
    value of the contractor's proposed field technical assistance and
    engineering support should not be added to the government's
    estimate because, among other things, it includes an excessively
    high labor rate, and the government's proposal is sufficient to
    meet the 120,000 flying-hour requirement included in the statement
    of work. * The PEO's adjustment for the reliability improvement
    program related to the TADS/PNVS should be reduced to reflect the
    funding amount already in the government's estimate.  Although
    CEAC pointed out that the program may not result in savings to the
    government, the Center believed that adding an amount for the
    program to the government's estimate would help make the analysis
    more equitable. * The impact of Apache PVS on the Army's Working
    Capital Fund was correctly computed by the initial cost team.  For
    comparison purposes, CEAC noted that the value of the due-in
    inventory should be consistent with other cost elements in the
    analysis and that the government's estimate should not be charged
    for inventory that would be issued free to the PVS contractor.
    Also, CEAC determined that a 5-year surcharge loss was more
    appropriate than a 1-year loss for the cost comparison Page 13
    GAO/NSIAD-99-140 Army Logistics B-282580 because nonweapon system
    specific or common costs, such as the surcharge, were already
    embedded in the government's best-case estimate. Regarding the 2nd
    Gen FLIR program, CEAC recommended that the cost comparisons for
    the A-76 waiver analysis should not extend beyond the 5-year
    period, in part because the proposed PVS contract does not extend
    beyond 2003.  CEAC's report also noted that PVS costs could be
    impacted by the findings of the ongoing study of the Army Working
    Capital Fund. Army Audit Agency Analysis    In addition, the Under
    Secretary of the Army asked the Army Audit Agency to examine the
    adjustments made by the Aviation PEO's office and reflected in the
    A-76 waiver justification.  On February 22, 1999, the Army Audit
    Agency released the results of its review of the A-76 waiver
    justification.  It stated that * Army leaders above the Aviation
    PEO should determine the adjustments needed to satisfy Army
    requirements and * the cost comparisons could be impacted by the
    results of an ongoing study of the Working Capital Fund. Like CEAC
    report, the Army Audit Agency considered the Aviation PEO's
    adjustment to the government's in-house approach for field
    technical assistance and engineering support unnecessary because
    it represented a different approach to achieving the same
    requirement.  The Army Audit Agency concluded that the
    government's best-case cost estimate should not necessarily be
    adjusted for the engineering program as related to the TADS/PNVS,
    as the program may not be needed to satisfy the Army's 120,000
    flying-hour requirement.  The Army Audit Agency did not comment on
    the Army Working Capital Fund impact adjustment, noting that the
    issue was still under review.  At the time we completed our work,
    the Army Working Capital Fund study team had not yet completed its
    study of the impact of Apache PVS on the fund. Army Comptroller
    Concern      When the PEO office proposed a waiver to the A-76
    study requirements, it also expressed the desire to consign
    existing Army Apache parts inventory at no cost to the contractor,
    should the contractor's proposal be accepted. The Army Comptroller
    opposed consigning the inventory without reimbursement to the
    Fund.  The Comptroller's primary concern was that consignment
    without reimbursement would cause the Army Working Capital Fund to
    absorb a large operating loss, increasing future sale prices for
    other items in the fund. The Army is studying the issue of
    inventory Page 14
    GAO/NSIAD-99-140 Army Logistics B-282580 consignment without
    reimbursement.  Officials in the Office of the Assistant Secretary
    of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller told us that
    the Army may have to seek a waiver from the Under Secretary of
    Defense, Comptroller, to consign the inventory without
    reimbursement. However, at the time of our review, the Army had
    not requested a waiver. Army Analysts' Concern About        Army
    analysts identified additional short-term investment cost issues
    that Potential for Funding Shortfall     could affect
    implementation of either the contractor's or the government's
    Under Either Proposal               approaches; however, the
    initial investment costs appeared  much greater under the PVS
    proposal. Preliminary results from the Army's follow-on analysis
    indicated that both the government's estimate and the PVS proposal
    would cause a funding shortfall in the first year of
    implementation because insufficient funding was included in the
    Army's proposed budget to cover costs.  The results showed that
    the government's approach would create a $34-million shortfall in
    the first year of implementation, compared with a $209-million
    shortfall estimated for the Apache PVS.15  In its continuing
    analysis of Apache PVS, the Army Audit Agency said on March 16,
    1999, that, for the most part, the government's estimate would
    support the Apache flying-hour requirements and that
    implementation costs were generally reasonable. The Agency did not
    project shortfalls in funding for future years.  In its continuing
    analysis of Apache PVS, on March 9, 1999, the Army Budget Office
    estimated that the costs to implement PVS in the first year would
    exceed available funding by about $209 million and that future
    years could also have funding shortfalls. Logistical and Other
    Army logistics managers and operational commanders have concerns
    Operational Issues                  about the impact Apache PVS
    would have on the Army's support infrastructure for the Apache
    system.  They question whether Apache PVS Being Addressed by the
    operations could (1) pair well with the Army's current logistics
    support Army                                structure, (2)
    adversely impact transitioning to war, or (3) limit commanders'
    flexibility to meet changing funding needs.  The Army is
    considering these concerns in its continuing analysis of Apache
    PVS, mostly as a result of the Under Secretary's January 1999
    directive. 15The government's best-case estimate proposed
    improvements to the government's current support system that would
    require some upfront investment costs.  For instance, the proposal
    to implement centers of excellence for the Apache system would
    require additional funds to establish the centers and consolidate
    existing support sites. Page 15
    GAO/NSIAD-99-140 Army Logistics B-282580 PVS Compatibility With
    Existing  U.S. Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) officials at several
    subordinate Army Logistics Support            locations have
    emphasized that the PVS support system should appear the Structure
    same as other support systems so as to be easy for soldiers to
    use.  But there are questions about how the proposed PVS would
    interface with standard Army systems. The Aviation PEO has stated
    that Apache users in the field would be unaware of the difference
    between the Apache's and other support systems.  However, FORSCOM
    officials have emphasized that they desire a clearer definition of
    the proposed integration of PVS supply and financial systems with
    standard Army systems.  For example, the Standard Army Retail
    Supply System does not automatically provide a free exchange of
    broken parts for new parts, as the PVS proposal would offer.
    FORSCOM officials have requested that a functional test be made of
    the proposed PVS supply system to determine how it would work,
    whether Apache PVS will require a separate management information
    system, and whether intermediate level operations would require
    two independent supply and support systems.  They said that a
    demonstration is also needed to show how a supply requisition
    would be processed at the intermediate- level to the contractor
    without any functional problems or additional soldier
    requirements.  Further, they want more input into deciding the
    criteria used to measure the effectiveness of the contractor's
    support. FORSCOM's views were similar to those expressed in August
    1998, when a team from the Army Materiel Command, the U.S. Army
    Aviation and Missile Command, and the Aviation PEO made a
    technical evaluation of the Apache PVS' and the government's
    approach.  The team's report noted that the PVS system should
    provide the same level of data and management visibility for the
    Apache system as that provided by DOD systems.  This would require
    the PVS contractor to modify its current systems.  The PVS system
    would also have to be expanded to include all members of the PVS
    contractor consortium.  Furthermore, the government would have to
    modify its automated requisition system so that data could flow to
    the PVS contractor.  The Apache program manager and the contractor
    have agreed to conduct a demonstration of the proposed PVS support
    system prior to any formal conversion to the proposed PVS support
    system. Concerns Over How PVS Would       Amidst concerns by Army
    officials at various levels about the operational Affect
    Transitioning to War       flexibility of PVS, the Army is
    studying how Apache PVS operations would function in peacetime as
    well as how it would respond to contingency operations. Page 16
    GAO/NSIAD-99-140 Army Logistics B-282580 The PVS proposal covers
    support for all wartime and contingency operations, and contractor
    personnel would be expected to deploy with military units.  The
    concept calls for PVS assistance to include on-site field
    technical support and operational and supply support to Apache
    units for contingency operations.  However, officials at the Army
    Aviation and Missile Command have expressed concern that the PVS
    proposal that would relieve the contractor of responsibility for
    delivering supplies into theaters of operation and allow the
    contractor to turn in-transit materiel over to government
    distribution/transportation channels.  Under this approach, the
    government would become responsible for transportation of parts
    and contractor equipment, along with combat units, into and within
    theaters of operations.  Thus, the government might have to take
    over the PVS distribution and transportation system during
    contingency operations. The officials also pointed out that the
    proposed contract would authorize additional costs for other than
    normal peacetime operations. According to the Command, these types
    of costs have increased significantly during prior contingency
    operations. In wartime contingencies, DOD-owned depots play a role
    in supporting readiness and sustainability requirements of
    warfighters and, by design, can quickly increase their output to
    high levels in a short period of time to accomplish required
    contingency workloads.  Under the proposed PVS structure, the Army
    would retain surge capability at its depots by having the depots
    perform Apache maintenance work.  The proposed PVS contract would
    include an option for up to an additional 25,000 flying hours to
    respond to surge requirements.  The Army is currently studying the
    cost impact of increased flying hour requirements on the proposed
    PVS contract. Loss of Flexibility to        FORSCOM officials were
    concerned about the impact of PVS operations on Balance Funding
    Priorities    commanders in the field.  Their concerns focused on
    funding and unit-level repair issues. Currently, field commanders
    receive annual funding for expenses related to readiness,
    infrastructure, and soldiers' quality of life.  Various Army
    officials expressed concerns that adoption of the PVS approach
    would result in their receiving less direct funding for support
    and give them less flexibility to shift funds between support
    areas to adjust to changing priorities.  According to FORSCOM
    representatives, PVS would place the funding for wartime and
    contingency wholesale support under the Aviation PEO contracting
    officer.  FORSCOM officials said that the PVS proposal Page 17
    GAO/NSIAD-99-140 Army Logistics B-282580 would require Apache
    units to become dependent on the wholesale system because they
    would not have the funding to pursue alternatives for Apache parts
    repair, as they do now.  Under the government's approach, funding
    for the Apache helicopter too would no longer go directly to the
    field commanders. In a memorandum to the Army Chief of Staff (Aug.
    20, 1998), the FORSCOM Commander provided his fiscal year 1999
    funding assessment. He noted that FORSCOM commanders could no
    longer train and sustain the force, stop infrastructure
    degradation, and provide soldiers the quality of life programs
    critical to long-term readiness.  In discussing the areas impacted
    by insufficient funding levels, the Commander noted that
    flexibility in meeting all programs would be further hampered by
    funding designated for and restricted to use by specific programs
    that are becoming an increasingly larger percentage of FORSCOM's
    budget. Conclusions                     As would be expected when
    a new concept is being considered, there are significantly
    differing views within the Army regarding various aspects of the
    Apache PVS proposal.  The key questions and uncertainties that
    remain unresolved regarding the Apache PVS proposal are related to
    cost and operational issues.  From a cost standpoint, there are
    uncertainties concerning whether the additional services and the
    reliability improvement program offered by the PVS contractor are
    appropriate for use in the public-private cost comparison and what
    level of costs should be recognized-and for how long-if the Apache
    system were to be removed from the Army Working Capital Fund.  A
    number of operational questions have also been raised about the
    potential impact of PVS on meeting warfighters' logistical support
    needs.  Consequently, at the end of our review the Army was
    continuing to study these issues and had not established a firm
    milestone for a decision on whether or when the program would go
    forward. Agency Comments and  DOD's comments to our draft report
    are reprinted in appendix I.  In its Our Evalutation
    comments, DOD concurred with our findings but suggested several
    technical changes.  DOD suggested that we  include a planned
    implementation date for PVS of October 1, 1999; recognize that the
    PVS proposal is for wholesale-level logistics while retail-level
    logistics performed by soldiers would be left unchanged; and
    recognize that the Department plans to review expected savings and
    readiness from Apache Page 18
    GAO/NSIAD-99-140 Army Logistics B-282580 PVS in 2 years.  DOD also
    noted that the Army is currently defining the Apache's capability
    and reliability requirements which will be used as the basis for
    comparing PVS and the government's in-house cost estimate.  We
    incorporated DOD's technical comments in the report as
    appropriate. Scope and      In conducting our work, we obtained
    documents from and interviewed Methodology    officials from the
    Army headquarters, including the Office of the Assistant Secretary
    of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology) and its
    Office of the Aviation PEO; Army Materiel Command; Army Aviation
    and Missile Command; U.S. Army Forces Command; Army Audit Agency;
    Army Cost and Economic Analysis Center; and Defense Logistics
    Agency, regarding the Army's study of Apache PVS.  At these
    locations, we made extensive use of the work that was ongoing to
    identify and evaluate issues concerning the outsourcing of
    government activities and programs. To determine the status of the
    Army's Apache PVS study, we discussed and reviewed the study
    process, extent of work completed, and the specific taskings that
    remained to be completed for all levels within the Army logistics
    and financial community.  To evaluate the Army's study process and
    its preliminary results, we examined the methodology, assumptions,
    and procedures that were being used to develop the government's
    estimated costs and to negotiate the PVS offer.  In testing the
    reasonableness of the preliminary results, we examined the cost
    comparisons and the cost elements that were used, including the
    adjustments made for comparison purposes.  Specifically, due to
    the significance of the cost impact and the internal disagreement
    about the applicability of the adjustments to the cost
    comparisons, we focused on the normalization adjustments made by
    the Aviation PEO.  Further, we reviewed pertinent documentation
    regarding the PVS study, including the Army's Justification and
    Approval for Other than Full and Open Competition, the Aviation
    PEO's A-76 cost comparison waiver package, the technical
    evaluation of the government's estimate and the contractor's
    offer, and the PVS transition plan.  Finally, we reviewed the cost
    comparison requirements of OMB Circular A-76 and Supplemental
    Handbook and the applicable DOD financial regulations regarding
    the operations of the Army Working Capital Fund. To identify the
    potential impact that Apache PVS would have on other Army
    activities and programs, we examined documentation and discussed
    operational issues with Army logistics managers and field
    commands.  We obtained data from DLA regarding its support for the
    Apache system and Page 19
    GAO/NSIAD-99-140 Army Logistics B-282580 how Apache PVS would
    impact that supporting role.  Finally, we examined applicable
    statutory requirements affecting the Army's outsourcing decisions
    and the Army's legal analysis of how Apache PVS would meet these
    requirements. We conducted our review from October 1998 to April
    1999 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
    standards. We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable
    William S. Cohen, the Secretary of Defense; the Honorable Louis
    Caldera, the Secretary of the Army; and the Honorable Jacob J.
    Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget.  We will also make
    copies available to others upon request. If you have any questions
    regarding this report, please contact me on (202) 512-8412.  Key
    contributors to this assignment were Barry Holman, Julia Denman,
    and Bobby Worrell. David R. Warren, Director Defense Management
    Issues Page 20                                        GAO/NSIAD-
    99-140 Army Logistics Page 21    GAO/NSIAD-99-140 Army Logistics
    Appendix I Comments From the Department of Defense Appendix I
    (709374)      Letter    Page 22      GAO/NSIAD-99-140 Army
    Logistics Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report
    and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each.  Orders
    should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or
    money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when
    necessary, VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.
    Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
    discounted 25 percent. Orders by mail: U.S. General Accounting
    Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC  20013 or visit: Room 1100
    700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General
    Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by
    calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or
    TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available
    reports and testimony.  To receive facsimile copies of the daily
    list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000
    using a touchtone phone.  A recorded menu will provide information
    on how to obtain these lists. For information on how to access GAO
    reports on the INTERNET, send an e-mail message with "info" in the
    body to: [email protected] or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page
    at: http://www.gao.gov United States                       Bulk
    Rate General Accounting Office       Postage & Fees Paid
    Washington, D.C. 20548-0001            GAO Permit No. GI00
    Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Correction
    Requested

*** End of document. ***