Air Traffic Control: Better Guidance Needed for Deciding Where to Locate
Facilities and Equipment (Letter Report, 12/01/94, GAO/RCED-95-14).

Although GAO found no evidence that Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) decisions for locating and replacing air traffic control equipment
did not meet the critical needs of the nation's aviation system, FAA's
process for selecting sites for facilities and equipment was not
consistent among the three projects GAO reviewed.  Moreover, FAA lacked
documentation showing the factors that program sponsors considered in
making location decisions.  Current FAA guidance does not require a
numerical ranking of locations on a national basis, define what emphasis
should be given to location-specific benefit-cost analyses or other
factors, or specify what documentation is required when evaluating and
selecting locations.  GAO believes that good business management of
proposed capital investments requires a more analytically based decision
process.  Improved guidance could help FAA better assure Congress and
aviation system users that it is making the best use of available funds
in allocating facilities and equipment to high-priority locations.

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

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-95-14
     TITLE:  Air Traffic Control: Better Guidance Needed for Deciding 
             Where to Locate Facilities and Equipment
      DATE:  12/01/94
   SUBJECT:  Navigation aids
             Transportation safety
             Federal procurement policies
             Air transportation operations
             Computerized information systems
             Air traffic control systems
             Radar equipment
             Cost control
             Federal procurement
             Avionics
IDENTIFIER:  FAA Digital Brite Radar Indicator Tower Equipment Program
             FAA Tower Replacement Project
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Related
Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives

December 1994

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL - BETTER
GUIDANCE NEEDED FOR DECIDING WHERE
TO LOCATE FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

GAO/RCED-95-14

FAA Facilities and Equipment Location


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  APS-1 - Airway Planning Standard Number One
  D-BRITE - Digital Brite Radar Indicator Tower Equipment
  FAA - Federal Aviation Administration
  GAO - General Accounting Office
  ILS - Instrument Landing System
  OMB - Office of Management and Budget

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-257921

December 1, 1994

The Honorable Bob Carr
Chairman, Subcommittee on
 Transportation and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is confronted each year
with the same challenge as many other public and private entities. 
Namely, FAA wishes to procure more facilities and equipment than its
budgetary resources will permit.  As a result, the agency must make
decisions about where to add new facilities and equipment to meet the
growing needs of aviation system users and where to replace aging
facilities and equipment.  In recent years, facilities and equipment
requests have grown faster than funding could permit because of
budget constraints, making these decisions more difficult for FAA. 
In fiscal year 1991, 65 percent, or $612 million, of FAA's $949
million initial requests for facilities and equipment located at or
near airports (terminal areas) was funded.  By fiscal year 1994, 32
percent, or $361 million, of FAA's $1.1 billion in terminal
facilities and equipment requests was funded. 

Your Subcommittee was concerned that FAA could not explain why it had
decided to select facilities and equipment projects at certain
locations but not at others.  As a result, you asked us to review how
the agency made its decisions to locate air traffic control
facilities and equipment in fiscal years 1992 through 1994 for three
terminal area projects:  (1) establishment of Instrument Landing
Systems (ILS), which allow aircraft to approach and land at airports
during adverse weather; (2) replacement of antiquated Terminal Air
Traffic Control (Tower) Facilities; and (3) establishment of Digital
Brite Radar Indicator Tower Equipment (D-BRITE), which assists tower
controllers in identifying and sequencing traffic.  Descriptions and
funding histories for these projects are contained in appendix I. 

The overall objective of our review was to determine how FAA targeted
its scarce facilities and equipment resources for these three
projects.  As agreed with the Subcommittee, this report focuses on
how the agency (1) prioritized locations, (2) considered the results
of benefit-cost analyses in its decisions, and (3) documented all
considerations that would establish a location's priority.  In
addition, the Subcommittee asked us to identify possible improvements
in the agency's decision-making process. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

For the three facilities and equipment projects we reviewed, FAA
officials funded high-priority locations in accordance with agency
guidance.  This often resulted in a fairly equal distribution of
facilities and equipment among FAA's nine regional offices based on
the priority assigned by each regional office and the availability of
the regional office's work force to implement the projects.  However,
we found that FAA generally did not rank locations numerically from a
national perspective, use benefit-cost analysis as a tool for ranking
eligible locations, and document the factors used to select certain
locations over others.  For example, for one of the projects we
reviewed--the establishment of Instrument Landing Systems--agency
officials told us that generally each regional office's top-priority
location was submitted to the Congress for funding in fiscal years
1992 and 1993.  FAA did not attempt to determine whether one regional
office's number two or lower-priority location was of a higher
national importance than another office's number one location. 

FAA officials believe that their approach for locating facilities and
equipment under the three projects ensured that scarce resources were
targeted to high-priority needs.  The officials said that it would be
too costly to numerically rank each location on a national basis and
subject each to a benefit-cost analysis, especially since other
factors such as safety may outweigh economic considerations. 
Moreover, according to the officials, such analyses would create
tension among regional offices about the methodologies used to
justify individual locations.  Furthermore, benefit-cost analyses may
bias the selection process in favor of projects at large airports if
qualitative criteria and judgment are excluded from the process. 
Finally, FAA officials said that current guidance contains no
provision that each location be ranked nationally and subjected to a
benefit-cost analysis and that decisions be documented for review by
interested parties. 

We believe that good business management of proposed capital
investments requires a more analytically based decision process.  We
recognize that operational considerations may outweigh benefit-cost
ratios, but such ratios provide a good starting point for ranking
eligible locations.  We believe that some level of benefit-cost
analysis and national ranking of eligible locations--tailored to the
size of the proposed investment--would help to identify the relative
importance of each location and demonstrate that FAA is taking a
businesslike approach to its investments.  Finally, we believe that
documentation of FAA's decisions would explain to offices within the
agency, aviation system users, and congressional decisionmakers why
some locations were selected over others. 

Improved guidance--focusing on the need for national prioritization
of locations and documentation of the factors, including the use of
benefit-cost analysis, that went into FAA's decisions--could help the
agency better ensure the Congress and aviation system users that it
is making the best use of available funds in allocating facilities
and equipment to high-priority locations. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

FAA provides facilities and equipment at airport terminal areas to
help aircraft begin and end their flights.  FAA's acquisition policy
provides the framework for initiating and managing national
facilities and equipment projects.  The projects are funded through
the agency's facilities and equipment appropriation. 

FAA's Airway Planning Standard Number One (APS-1) contains the policy
and criteria the agency uses to establish the eligibility of terminal
locations for facilities and equipment.  This standard requires that
traffic activity levels are the criteria to be used for "less
expensive" equipment, whereas for "more expensive" equipment,
locations must also meet minimum benefit-cost criteria.  However, the
standard does not define what is meant by less expensive or more
expensive.  Recognizing that it is not always economically possible
to satisfy all requirements, the standard requires that equipment be
allocated to locations where the greatest benefit will be derived
from its cost or where there is the greatest operational need.  The
standard also requires that economics be the primary factor in
considering improvements to existing facilities or services. 

The Department of Transportation and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) have not requested nor has the Congress provided all
funds requested by FAA's nine regional offices in recent years. 
Total requests have outpaced budgetary resources for facilities and
equipment in terminal areas, as illustrated in figure 1. 

   Figure 1:  Total Facilities and
   Equipment Funds Requested and
   Actual Funds Received for
   Terminal Area Projects, Fiscal
   Years 1990 through 1994

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  FAA Budget Office. 

FAA's annual budget Call for Estimates requires that regional offices
assign a numerical ranking to all locations recommended to receive
funding for facilities and equipment.  After the regions submit their
requests to FAA headquarters, program sponsors\1 for these projects,
along with regional representatives, develop a priority list of
locations for funding within the overall budget limitations for a
given year.  If the Office of the Secretary of Transportation or OMB
makes changes to budget line items for these projects, program
sponsors are expected to review and reprioritize locations for
funding.  The locations that are not funded must recompete for
future-year budget funds.  The Congress may also make changes to
budget line items for these projects.  For two of the three projects
we reviewed, the Congress added funding for locations that were not
requested by FAA.  (See app.  I.)


--------------------
\1 FAA designates an organizational unit as the program sponsor for
each facilities and equipment project.  These sponsors are
responsible for planning, prioritizing, and evaluating the projects. 


   FAA'S PROCESS FOR LOCATING
   FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

For the three projects we reviewed, FAA's process for locating
facilities and equipment ensured that candidate locations qualified
for funding consideration and that high-priority locations were
funded in accordance with agency guidance.  This resulted in
facilities and equipment being distributed in a fairly equal manner
among FAA's nine regional offices on the basis of the priority
assigned by each regional office and the availability of the regional
office's work force to implement the projects.  However, we found
that FAA generally did not rank locations numerically from a national
perspective, use benefit-cost analysis as a tool for ranking eligible
locations, and document the factors used to select certain locations
over others. 


      INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

Modern air commerce and transportation depend on consistently
completing scheduled flights safely and on time.  ILS is a critical
component of an all-weather aviation system, because it provides the
technology for allowing aircraft to approach and land at airports
during adverse weather. 

Each year, FAA's Budget Office initiates a Call for Estimates
requesting that regional offices submit candidate locations for ILS
equipment.  Once locations are identified, FAA's planning standard
requires that ILS locations meet two-phase criteria.  FAA regional
offices use the Phase 1 criterion to determine which locations will
be submitted to headquarters for further consideration.  Under Phase
1, a ratio is computed by dividing the actual number of instrument
approaches at a runway by FAA's standard for the minimum number of
such approaches that qualify locations to have an ILS.  Runways with
a ratio of at least 1.0 are eligible for funding.  The traffic
activity ratio is an efficiency measure; runways with higher ratios
are presumed to accommodate more traffic with given resources.  The
Phase 2 criterion is a benefit-cost analysis that FAA headquarters
prepares on all locations that met the Phase 1 criterion.  But since
the number of locations meeting the Phase 2 criterion is much larger
than budget constraints will allow, some locations may not be funded,
even if economically justified.  A location that is not funded must
recompete in the following year and be subject to the reevaluation
process.  Because of special safety considerations, some locations
will receive ILS equipment regardless of the criteria. 

For fiscal years 1992 through 1994, the program sponsor for the ILS
project--the Flight Standards Service--told us that FAA regional
offices developed the necessary justifications needed for each
eligible ILS location submitted in response to the annual Call for
Estimates.  Regional offices also assign a numerical ranking to all
locations within their respective regions.  Priorities are
established at the regional level on the basis of an analysis of such
factors as weather history and air traffic needs.  The program
sponsor then ensures that candidate locations at the national level
meet the Phase 1 criterion.  Once the program sponsor ensures that
candidate locations qualify for funding, cost estimates are
finalized.  The number of ILS locations that make it into FAA's
annual budget submission depends on the funding levels of the
agency's facilities and equipment budget and the ILS program. 

The program sponsor said that each regional office's number one
priority location was generally selected for inclusion in the budget
submissions for fiscal years 1992 and 1993.  For fiscal year 1992,
seven regions submitted requests and received funding for their
first-priority location.  In addition, one system was designated for
the FAA Academy, and one region also received its second priority. 
For fiscal year 1993, seven regions submitted requests and received
funding for their first priority, and two regions also received
funding for their second priority.  In addition to the locations FAA
requested in its budget submission, the Congress added a total of 27
ILS locations in fiscal years 1992 and 1993, along with additional
funding for those locations.  (See app.  I for more details.) The
sponsor told us that in 1992 and 1993, locations were not ranked
numerically from a national perspective.  Furthermore, there was no
documentation of what factors--including benefit-cost analysis--were
considered in deciding which terminal locations received the new ILS. 

For fiscal year 1994, the ILS program sponsor decided to institute a
numerical ranking system in which each eligible ILS location that the
regions submitted in response to the Call for Estimates would be
prioritized.  The sponsor and regional representatives met to decide
how to rank 179 candidate ILS locations on a national basis. 
Priorities for the first 78 locations were established on the basis
of an analysis of 12 factors, such as safety, weather, and potential
to improve air traffic flow.  However, the program sponsor could not
show how each factor was used to develop this national priority list. 
The program sponsor then requested benefit-cost analyses for the top
16 locations that were to be submitted to OMB for funding in order to
ensure that they met the minimum Phase 2 criterion.  Priorities for
the candidate locations numbered 79 to 179 were based on Phase 1
traffic activity ratios.  As OMB and the Congress made reductions to
this FAA budget line item, the program sponsor deleted lower-ranked
locations.  The sponsor told us that changing conditions, such as a
problem with an environmental impact statement or a delay in an
anticipated land acquisition, could also force modification to the
overall priorities.  Seven regions received funding for between one
and four new ILSs.  The Congress did not direct additional ILS
locations in fiscal year 1994. 

Despite the agency's additional emphasis on ILS in fiscal year 1994,
the program sponsor told us that documentation does not exist to show
how the 12 factors were used to select certain locations over others. 
As a result, while fiscal year 1994 was an improvement over prior
years, questions remain about the ranking of ILS locations.  For
example, the program sponsor could not explain how traffic activity
ratios were factored into the ranking process.  The sponsor could not
show why one location with a Phase 1 traffic activity ratio of 3.71
was ranked 6th nationally, yet another location with a Phase 1
traffic activity ratio of 49.08 was ranked 81st nationally.  Nor
could the sponsor show why a location with a ratio of 1.67 was ranked
4th nationally, yet another with a ratio of 35.66 was ranked 39th
nationally.  A more documented process would enhance FAA's ability to
quantitatively support its decisions to fund projects at certain
locations but not at others. 


      TOWER REPLACEMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

This project replaces airport traffic control towers that are past
their 20-year design life.  Approximately six to eight towers are
replaced each year.  FAA's Air Traffic Plans and Requirements Service
is the program sponsor for the Tower Replacement project. 

The program sponsor said that FAA used a consistent methodology based
on APS-1 and agency policy for selecting locations for replacement
towers in fiscal years 1992 through 1994.  Each year, regional
offices screened and ranked eligible locations on the basis of an
analysis of operational requirements, space requirements, facility
condition, airport traffic activity, safety conditions, and future
growth.  Because of funding limitations, the program sponsor told the
nine regional offices to submit only their top three locations in any
given budget year.  An important element in the regional decision as
to which location or locations are submitted is the availability of
the regional office's work force to implement the projects. 

The program sponsor then reduced the 25 to 30 locations submitted by
the regions to a top-priority group of 8 to 10, without any numerical
ranking, after reviewing the regions' written justifications for
tower replacement projects.  The program sponsor could not show how
each factor used by the regions--such as airport traffic activity or
facility condition--was considered and how each factor was weighed in
developing this list of 8 to 10 top locations.  The sponsor did not
use benefit-cost analyses to develop the list.  According to the
sponsor, the original tower siting was based on a benefit-cost
analysis, and tower replacement is based on a review of continuing
need, so the sponsor did not believe further analysis was needed. 
Generally one priority location was recommended for funding in each
FAA regional office, although in some cases a regional office had two
candidate locations funded in one year. 

Once the top locations had been identified, the program sponsor and
regional representatives conducted an on-site inspection of these
locations.  If the on-site inspection revealed that the location was
not in need of a replacement, it was removed as a replacement
candidate.  Moreover, the sponsor told us that changing conditions do
arise that force modifications to the list of top locations, such as
the identification of asbestos in a facility, a major shift of
traffic activity, or natural disasters that weaken existing
structures.  Another factor that the sponsor told us affects FAA's
decision-making process regarding tower replacement is congressional
additions to FAA's budget request.  In fiscal year 1992, the Congress
added seven Tower Replacement locations to FAA's funding request. 
However, in fiscal years 1993 and 1994, the Congress added no
additional locations for funding.  (See app.  I.) FAA recognizes the
importance of congressional direction as a major determinant in
naming towers for replacement and occasionally defers otherwise
qualified locations to accommodate congressionally directed
locations. 

The process for determining which towers are to be replaced raises
questions because the process is largely undocumented.  As a result,
it is difficult to determine why a particular location was
recommended for funding and another location was not.  For example,
FAA provided the Congress with the following justification for a
tower replacement project it sought funding for in fiscal year 1993: 

     "[The tower was] built in 1972.  .  .  .  The height of the
     control tower is not adequate to provide adequate depth
     perception for runways.  .  .  .  Controllers cannot visually
     determine if aircraft holding short of these runways are
     actually clear of the runways.  This situation is more
     pronounced at night.  .  .  .  A new runway is currently under
     construction which will increase the airport capacity.  The air
     conditioning and heating systems are inadequate and personnel
     must use a public access elevator to reach the tower cab."

Yet, a location where the tower likewise needed replacing was not
submitted to the Congress for funding.  According to the regional
justification,

     "[The tower] is an old Air Force Tower that was constructed in
     1947 and transferred to the FAA in 1954.  The tower cab is
     limited in size and not adequate to handle the current and
     projected staffing levels for a safe and efficient air traffic
     operation.  The support facilities are limited in area and very
     poorly arranged for a functional office environment.  Support
     systems, such as the cab heating and air conditioning system,
     the power supply system, and the basic utility system, have
     either outlived their normal useful lives or are in need of
     extensive refurbishing and maintenance."

Had FAA documented the factors it considered in arriving at its list
of tower replacements to be funded and prioritized those locations,
its ability to show why certain locations were selected over others
would be enhanced. 


   D-BRITE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

The D-BRITE system is an extension of an airport surveillance radar
system.  D-BRITE provides additional radar display positions at busy
air traffic control towers and establishes positions at remote towers
that do not currently have a radar display.  The new equipment also
reduces the need for verbal coordination and increases safety at both
hub and remote towers.  Additionally, the equipment assists the air
traffic controller in identifying and sequencing aircraft traffic and
provides traffic advisories to aircraft in visual flight rules
conditions. 

Regional offices screened and ranked eligible locations for the
D-BRITE project on the basis of traffic activity levels and the
operational needs of the towers associated with a surveillance radar. 
Locations with the highest traffic activity were given the highest
regional priorities.  The program sponsor--FAA's Air Traffic Plans
and Requirements Service--grouped the regional priorities into a
national delivery schedule.  According to the sponsor, this schedule
takes into consideration the regional offices' ranking of locations,
funding levels, and the ability of the offices' work force to install
systems.  The individual currently acting as the program sponsor was
not involved with D-BRITE funding decisions for fiscal years 1992 to
1994.  However, this individual believed that, in those years, each
regional office generally received funding for its top-priority
locations.  The program sponsor said that D-BRITE locations were not
ranked numerically from a national perspective.  The sponsor also
said that the locations were not analyzed from a benefit-cost
perspective because they were linked to the establishment of airport
surveillance radars for which benefit-cost analysis had already been
considered.  Moreover, the sponsor could not provide documentation to
explain why some D-BRITE locations were recommended to receive
equipment over others for any of the 3 years in question. 


   OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE FAA'S
   PROCESS FOR LOCATING FACILITIES
   AND EQUIPMENT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

While we found that FAA's process for selecting locations for
facilities and equipment generally complied with the agency's current
guidance, we believe that it could be improved if FAA ranked
locations numerically from a national perspective, considered the
results of benefit-cost analyses as a key factor when appropriate,
and documented the rationale for its decisions. 


      NATIONAL RANKING OF
      LOCATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

Program sponsors told us that a numerical national ranking was not
done for these projects for two major reasons.  First, national
directives, such as APS-1, the Call for Estimates, and FAA's
acquisition policy, do not require program sponsors to rank locations
numerically from a national perspective.  The officials pointed out
that current guidance only requires regional offices to assign a
numerical priority to all locations recommended to receive equipment. 
Second, although a national ranking may result in the allocation of
equipment unevenly across regions, some program sponsors said that no
useful purpose would be served in trying to determine whether one
regional office's number two or lower-priority location was of a
higher national importance than another office's number one location. 
According to the program sponsors, the cost of conducting such an
analysis would consume significant resources and would create tension
among regional offices about methodologies used to justify individual
locations. 

We believe that because regional offices are required to rank
candidate locations numerically for funding in their geographic area,
FAA headquarters could do the same from a national perspective.  This
would provide FAA and the Congress with greater assurance that scarce
resources are targeted to the highest-priority needs.  Such a ranking
would also expedite decision-making as program sponsors review,
reprioritize, and defer lower-priority locations in response to
changes made during each phase of the budget cycle.  Moreover, such a
ranking would quickly identify the importance of each location at any
given point in time and demonstrate that FAA is taking a businesslike
approach to investment decisions.  While some FAA program sponsors
said that no useful purpose is served in trying to determine whether
one office's number two or lower-priority location is of a higher
national importance than another office's number one priority, we
believe that such analyses are warranted, under today's budget
constraints, to ensure that the highest-priority locations are
selected as the first to receive equipment.  According to FAA's guide
for Economic Analysis and Investment and Regulatory Decisions,
rational decision-making requires that those activities with greater
returns be undertaken before those with smaller returns. 


      BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

FAA program sponsors told us that the results of benefit-cost
analyses were not a primary consideration when prioritizing locations
under the three projects.  For the ILS project, sponsors used
benefit-cost analysis to screen locations for compliance with minimum
criteria, not to rank alternative locations.  Sponsors believe that
regional staff have the most up-to-date information on locations in
need of equipment.  Therefore, they believe that the process for ILS
selection must look beyond benefit-cost analysis and emphasize other
factors, such as safety, weather, and potential to improve air
traffic flow.  Otherwise, benefit-cost considerations bias the
selection process in favor of projects at large airports if
qualitative criteria and judgment are excluded from the process.  For
the Tower Replacement and the D-BRITE establishment projects, program
sponsors told us that FAA guidance currently does not call for any
location-specific benefit-cost analysis.  This is because the
original tower siting was based on a benefit-cost analysis, and tower
replacement is based on a review of continuing need.  Decisions on
D-BRITE siting are dependent on the airport surveillance radar siting
decision, which is itself based on benefit-cost analysis. 
Furthermore, the sponsors believe that such analysis would serve no
useful purpose but would overwhelm FAA's resources.  The sponsors
contended that 25- to 30-year-old towers must be replaced in order to
continue serving an established need and that no useful purpose is
served if the cost of conducting a benefit-cost study for an eligible
D-BRITE location exceeded the cost of the project. 

We believe that good business management practices suggest that
benefit-cost analysis can provide a useful, quantifiable means for
weighing the value of alternative investments.  We recognize that
there are other considerations, such as a major shift in traffic
activity or congressional direction.  However, benefit-cost ratios
provide a good starting point for ranking eligible locations.  FAA's
guidance also states that sound economic justification should be an
important factor in the evaluation process.  This guidance recognizes
that benefit-cost analysis enables FAA to prioritize alternative
investments so as to maximize the return on investment dollars.  We
recognize that the cost of an elaborate benefit-cost analysis for
less expensive projects such as D-BRITE may be prohibitive, but a
less rigorous analysis could be appropriate.  For example, a
simplified methodology, to save analytical resources, may allow FAA
to approximate benefits. 


      DOCUMENTATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3

The Call for Estimates and APS-1 provide detailed guidance for how
regional offices should prepare location justifications and assign
priorities to locations recommended for funding.  However, the orders
provide no guidance for how program sponsors should document their
funding decisions.  FAA officials told us, however, that they do keep
track of locations that were funded or deferred during each phase of
the budget cycle. 

We believe that the process for selecting locations for funding would
be improved if program sponsors maintained minutes of meetings where
decisions are made and maintained an up-to-date system that tracked
the status of and rationale for funding decisions.  This system, if
available to inspection by offices within FAA, the Congress, and
aviation system users, would facilitate answers to queries from those
groups about the relative ranking of locations.  Moreover,
documentation would greatly help program sponsors to explain to these
groups the small differences that can determine whether a location is
approved or not approved for funding.  In addition, GAO's Standards
for Internal Controls in the Federal Government stresses the need for
agencies to clearly document significant events so that they are
readily available for examination.  The lack of documentation was a
problem for the current ILS and D-BRITE program sponsors because
various personnel changes--such as retirement, promotion, or
resignation--had left their offices with no one available to answer
questions about past decisions. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

We recognize that FAA views safety as its major responsibility,
allocates facilities and equipment to high- priority locations, and
responds to dynamic changes in traffic activity.  Moreover, we found
no evidence that FAA's decisions for locating and replacing air
traffic control equipment are not meeting the critical needs of the
nation's aviation system.  However, FAA's process for selecting
locations for facilities and equipment was not consistent among the
three projects reviewed, and documentation was not available to show
what factors program sponsors considered in location-selection
decisions. 

Current FAA guidance does not require a numerical ranking of
locations on a national basis, define what emphasis should be given
to location-specific benefit-cost analyses and other factors, or
specify what documentation is required when evaluating and selecting
locations.  If FAA improved its guidance, we believe that the agency
would be in a better position to assure the Congress and aviation
system users that the maximum value from investments in facilities
and equipment is being received.  Furthermore, the agency would help
its internal decisionmakers when they review and reprioritize
locations in response to changes made during each phase of the budget
cycle. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the
Administrator, FAA, to revise current guidance--APS-1, the Call for
Estimates, and the agency's acquisition policy--as necessary to
ensure that program sponsors (1) use consistent approaches and (2)
document what factors they used in location-selection decisions,
including benefit-cost analyses when warranted by the project's cost. 
This would allow FAA to rank eligible locations from a national
perspective and help ensure that scarce facilities and equipment
resources are targeted to the highest-priority needs. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

We discussed a draft of this report with FAA's Assistant
Administrator for Budget and Accounting and FAA program sponsors for
the three projects.  The officials expressed serious concerns about
the tone and conclusions of the draft because it implied that FAA
does not attempt to allocate facilities and equipment using a
rational process.  The officials said that given budget constraints,
congressionally directed locations, and limited regional office work
forces, FAA does a good job in allocating facilities and equipment to
high-priority locations.  In response to the officials' concerns, we
have made it clear in this report that FAA's process for locating
facilities and equipment ensured that candidate locations qualified
for funding consideration and that high-priority locations were
funded in accordance with current agency guidance.  Nevertheless, FAA
recognized that improvements can be made in documenting its
decision-making process.  FAA officials also said that
location-specific benefit-cost analysis would serve no purpose other
than to overwhelm the agency's resources.  While we recognize that an
elaborate benefit-cost analysis is not appropriate in all cases, we
continue to believe that, where warranted by a project's cost, it
helps ensure that equipment will be allocated to locations where the
greatest benefit will be derived from the cost.  FAA officials also
made several other suggested changes to improve the accuracy and
clarity of the report.  We made these changes throughout the text
where appropriate. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

We performed our work from July 1993 through September 1994 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  A
detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology is
contained in appendix II. 

We are providing copies of this report to interested congressional
committees; the Secretary of Transportation; the Administrator, FAA;
and the Director, OMB.  We will also make copies available to others
upon request. 

This work was performed under the direction of Allen Li, Associate
Director, who may be reached at (202) 512-3600 if you or your staff
have any questions.  Major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix III. 

Sincerely yours,

Kenneth M.  Mead
Director, Transportation Issues


DESCRIPTION AND FUNDING HISTORY
FOR THREE TERMINAL MODERNIZATION
PROJECTS
=========================================================== Appendix I

The following are general descriptions and funding histories for the
three Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) terminal modernization
projects that we reviewed. 


   INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS)
   ESTABLISHMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

These new landing systems provide precision approach guidance which
allows aircraft to approach and land at airports during adverse
weather.  The ILS establishment project was terminated in 1982 when
the Microwave Landing System was adopted as the precision landing
system for the National Airspace System beyond the year 2000. 
However, FAA determined that there was an immediate need for
precision approach systems at large and medium hub airports and their
associated reliever airports as an interim solution prior to
Microwave Landing System implementation.  FAA recently terminated the
Microwave Landing System project.  A 3-year funding history for ILS
establishment is shown in table I.1. 



                          Table I.1
           
            Funding History for ILS Establishment

                    (Dollars in millions)


              Dollar  System  Dollar  System  Dollar  System
Fiscal year        s       s       s       s       s       s
------------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
1994          $221.8      80   $36.2      15   $ 0.0       0
1993          $119.7      59   $10.4       9   $11.0      19
1992           $61.1      36   $13.7       9   $ 9.3       8
------------------------------------------------------------

   TERMINAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
   FACILITIES REPLACEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

This project replaces airport traffic control towers that are past
their 20-year design life.  FAA estimates that within the next 10
years nearly 150 towers will need to be replaced to enhance air
safety and meet operational requirements.  Approximately six to eight
towers are replaced each year.  Table I.2 provides a 3-year funding
history for air traffic control tower replacement. 



                          Table I.2
           
           Funding History for Air Traffic Control
                    Facilities Replacement

                    (Dollars in millions)


              Dollar  System  Dollar  System  Dollar  System
Fiscal year        s       s       s       s       s       s
------------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
1994          $218.3      31   $ 0.0       0   $ 0.0       0
1993          $160.0      35   $18.3      12   $ 0.0       0
1992          $130.0      37   $70.3      12   $16.7       7
------------------------------------------------------------

   DIGITAL BRITE RADAR INDICATOR
   TOWER EQUIPMENT (D-BRITE)
   ESTABLISHMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

D-BRITE will provide additional display positions at busy air traffic
control towers and establish positions at remote towers that do not
currently have a radar display.  The new equipment will reduce verbal
coordination and increase safety at both the hub and remote towers. 
Additionally, the equipment is used to help the air traffic
controller identify and sequence aircraft traffic and will provide
traffic advisories to aircraft in visual flight rules conditions.  A
3-year funding history for D-BRITE establishment is shown in table
I.3. 



                          Table I.3
           
                 Funding History for D-BRITE
                        Establishment

                    (Dollars in millions)


              Dollar  System  Dollar  System  Dollar  System
Fiscal year        s       s       s       s       s       s
------------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
1994              NA      59    $3.6      17      NA      NA
1993              NA      NA    $7.7      NA      NA      NA
1992              NA      NA    $3.0      NA      NA      NA
------------------------------------------------------------
NA = not available from FAA program sponsors. 


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================== Appendix II

Our objective in this review was to determine how FAA decides where
to locate and/or replace air traffic control facilities and equipment
at or near airports when it cannot economically satisfy all
operational requirements.  To assess FAA's efforts in this area, we
evaluated how FAA (1) prioritized locations to receive facilities and
equipment, (2) considered benefit-cost analysis in its decisions, and
(3) documented all considerations that would establish a location's
priority for the receipt of facilities and equipment. 

To attain our objectives, we interviewed FAA headquarters and field
personnel responsible for making decisions on locating facilities and
equipment for these projects.  Through interviews and reviews of
agency documentation, we collected information on a location's
justification, benefit-cost ratio, and national ranking.  We reviewed
federal regulations and guidelines pertaining to system acquisition,
compared FAA's actions to the guidance, and identified key issues
that could affect how the agency determines where to locate terminal
facilities and equipment. 

We conducted our review between July 1993 and September 1994 at FAA
headquarters in Washington, D.C., and FAA's New England Regional
Office in Burlington, Massachusetts. 

We performed this review in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.  We discussed the results of our work
with FAA officials and have incorporated their views in the report as
appropriate. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

Robert E.  Levin, Assistant Director
Robert D.  Wurster, Assignment Manager
Peter G.  Maristch, Evaluator-in-Charge
Amy Ganulin, Staff Evaluator

