Department of Energy
Improved Oversight Could Better Ensure Opportunities for Small Business Subcontracting Gao ID: GAO-05-459 May 13, 2005Federal policy requires that small businesses receive the maximum practicable subcontracting opportunity for providing goods and services to large businesses that contract directly with federal agencies. The Department of Energy (DOE) annually directs almost $20 billion to the 34 "facility management contractors" of which $3.3 billion was redirected to small business subcontractors in fiscal year 2004. DOE negotiates annual small business subcontracting goals with individual contractors and monitors their achievements. GAO was asked to (1) determine the usefulness of the data that DOE uses to monitor subcontracting performance and (2) discuss the actions that DOE has taken to address any problems with the contractors' subcontracting efforts.
DOE's facility management contractors' small business subcontracting achievements--reported as a percentage of their total subcontracted dollars--are not useful for monitoring purposes because the reported data overstates subcontracting achievements in two ways: (1) All of the contractor-reported data incorrectly excluded some large-business subcontracts, beyond what federal reporting guidelines allow. Excluding these subcontracts made the percentage of subcontracted dollars going to small businesses appear larger than it would have, if such subcontracts were not incorrectly excluded. If these subcontracts had been included, some contractors said it was likely they would have requested lower goals. (2) Even when all relevant subcontracts are included, the contractor-reported data can still overstate contractors' subcontracting achievements. Because a contractor could decide to subcontract only a small amount of its total federal contract, the portion of subcontracted dollars going to small businesses could, by comparison, appear misleadingly large. As a result, contractor-reported data is not useful to DOE in determining its contractors' actual small business subcontracting achievements or adequately assessing whether small businesses are receiving maximum practicable subcontracting opportunities. DOE has not taken adequate steps to address known problems with the contractor-reported data. Because the data showed that the department was meeting its subcontracting goals, DOE officials were not inclined to closely monitor contractors' practices for calculating their subcontracting goals and achievements. DOE officials were aware in 2002 that the contractors were not following federal guidelines on which subcontracts to include when developing goals. DOE's Small Business Office did provide clarifying information on the requirements, but DOE officials failed to ensure that the guidelines were being followed, and problems continued. In March 2005, DOE issued additional guidance, but it is uncertain whether DOE will ensure that the guidance is followed. These oversight problems occurred, in part, because DOE has not clearly defined the roles, responsibilities, and needed interaction of the various headquarters and field organizations that collectively oversee the contractors' small business subcontracting efforts.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-05-459, Department of Energy: Improved Oversight Could Better Ensure Opportunities for Small Business Subcontracting
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-459
entitled 'Department of Energy: Improved Oversight Could Better Ensure
Opportunities for Small Business Subcontracting' which was released on
May 24, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
May 2005:
Department of Energy:
Improved Oversight Could Better Ensure Opportunities for Small Business
Subcontracting:
GAO-05-459:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-459, a report to congressional committees:
Why GAO Did This Study:
Federal policy requires that small businesses receive the maximum
practicable subcontracting opportunity for providing goods and services
to large businesses that contract directly with federal agencies. The
Department of Energy (DOE) annually directs almost $20 billion to the
34 ’facility management contractors“ of which $3.3 billion was
redirected to small business subcontractors in fiscal year 2004. DOE
negotiates annual small business subcontracting goals with individual
contractors and monitors their achievements. GAO was asked to (1)
determine the usefulness of the data that DOE uses to monitor
subcontracting performance and (2) discuss the actions that DOE has
taken to address any problems with the contractors‘ subcontracting
efforts.
What GAO Found:
DOE‘s facility management contractors‘ small business subcontracting
achievements”reported as a percentage of their total subcontracted
dollars”are not useful for monitoring purposes because the reported
data overstates subcontracting achievements in two ways: (1) All of the
contractor-reported data incorrectly excluded some large-business
subcontracts, beyond what federal reporting guidelines allow. Excluding
these subcontracts made the percentage of subcontracted dollars going
to small businesses appear larger than it would have, if such
subcontracts were not incorrectly excluded. If these subcontracts had
been included, some contractors said it was likely they would have
requested lower goals. (2) Even when all relevant subcontracts are
included, the contractor-reported data can still overstate contractors‘
subcontracting achievements. Because a contractor could decide to
subcontract only a small amount of its total federal contract, the
portion of subcontracted dollars going to small businesses could, by
comparison, appear misleadingly large. As a result, contractor-reported
data is not useful to DOE in determining its contractors‘ actual small
business subcontracting achievements or adequately assessing whether
small businesses are receiving maximum practicable subcontracting
opportunities.
DOE has not taken adequate steps to address known problems with the
contractor-reported data. Because the data showed that the department
was meeting its subcontracting goals, DOE officials were not inclined
to closely monitor contractors‘ practices for calculating their
subcontracting goals and achievements. DOE officials were aware in 2002
that the contractors were not following federal guidelines on which
subcontracts to include when developing goals. DOE‘s Small Business
Office did provide clarifying information on the requirements, but DOE
officials failed to ensure that the guidelines were being followed, and
problems continued. In March 2005, DOE issued additional guidance, but
it is uncertain whether DOE will ensure that the guidance is followed.
These oversight problems occurred, in part, because DOE has not clearly
defined the roles, responsibilities, and needed interaction of the
various headquarters and field organizations that collectively oversee
the contractors‘ small business subcontracting efforts.
Data on 13 facility management contractors‘ reported fiscal year 2004
small business subcontracting achievements, which incorrectly excluded
certain subcontracts:
Number of contractors: 13 (100%).
Number of contractors that reported achieving their subcontracting
goals: 12 (92%).
Number of contractors achieving their goals if all appropriate
subcontracts were included: 4 (31%).
Source: GAO analysis of facility management contractor data.
Note: Details on selection of these 13 facility management contractors
can be found in appendix II of the report.
[End of table]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that DOE (1) ensure that facility management contractors
are following federal guidelines for reporting subcontracting
achievements; (2) for internal management purposes, calculate
contractors‘ achievements as a percent of the annual contract funding;
and (3) issue guidance to clarify oversight responsibilities. In
commenting on the report, DOE agreed with ensuring that reporting
guidelines are being followed and clarifying oversight
responsibilities. DOE disagreed with calculating the achievement data
as a percent of contract funding, but we believe doing so would improve
oversight.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-459.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Gene Aloise at (202) 512-
3841 or aloisee@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Data Reported by Facility Management Contractors Is Not Useful for
DOE's Monitoring of Their Small Business Subcontracting Performance:
DOE Oversight of Small Business Subcontracting by Facility Management
Contractors Was Not Adequate to Address Identified Problems with
Contractor-Reported Data:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: DOE Facility Management Contractors' Annual Small Business
Subcontracting Goals and Achievements:
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology:
Determining the Usefulness of the Facility Management Contractor-
Reported Data:
Determining Actions Taken by DOE to Address Problems:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Energy45:
GAO Comments:
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgment53:
Tables:
Table 1: Subcontracting Dollars that DOE Facility Management
Contractors Reported Directing to Small Businesses in Fiscal Years 2001
through 2004:
Table 2: Types of Subcontracts Incorrectly Excluded from the 34
Facility Management Contractors' Calculations of Fiscal Year 2004 Small
Business Subcontracting Achievements:
Table 3: Fiscal Year 2004 Small Business Subcontracting Goals, Reported
Achievements, and Recalculated Achievements for 13 Facility Management
Contractors:
Table 4: Comparison of Fiscal Year 2004 Reported Small Business
Subcontracting Achievements with Achievements Recalculated as a Percent
of Annual Amount Funded on the Facility Management Contract:
Abbreviations:
DOE: Department of Energy:
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
NNSA: National Nuclear Security Administration:
SBA: Small Business Administration:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 13, 2005:
The Honorable Pete V. Domenici:
Chairman:
The Honorable Jeff Bingaman:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Olympia J. Snowe:
Chair:
The Honorable John F. Kerry:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship:
United States Senate:
The Small Business Act, as amended by the Small Business
Reauthorization Act of 1997, established a federal policy that small
businesses shall have the maximum practicable opportunity to
participate in providing goods and services to the federal government
and its direct contractors, consistent with efficient contract
performance. Directing federal dollars to small businesses can produce
cost savings, increase competition, encourage greater innovation, and
enhance small business capacity. The policy of the federal government
is to encourage contracting with small businesses--both prime
contracts, which would be contracts directly between small businesses
and federal agencies, and subcontracts, which would be between federal
prime contractors and small businesses.
The Department of Energy (DOE), the largest civilian contracting agency
in the federal government, spent $22.4 billion on contracts in fiscal
year 2004. The majority of this amount--$18.9 billion--was spent on
large contracts for managing DOE's laboratories, production facilities,
and environmental restoration sites located in various states across
the nation. Under these "facility management contracts," a contractor
is responsible for performing, managing, and integrating work at a DOE
site, often subcontracting specific portions of the work to other
businesses. In fiscal year 2004, DOE's 34 facility management
contractors subcontracted out about $6.5 billion, of which about $3.3
billion went to small businesses.
Federal regulations require that DOE's facility management contractors
develop small business subcontracting plans that set forth a strategy
for providing the maximum practicable opportunities for small
businesses to participate as subcontractors in the work that the
facility management contractors oversee at DOE sites. The Small
Business Administration (SBA) provides guidelines for how contractors
should develop small business subcontracting plans and goals. These
guidelines describe the procedures that contractors should use to
officially report their small business subcontracting goals and
achievements. In reporting, contractors must express the dollars going
to their small business subcontractors as a percentage of the total
dollars going to all of their subcontractors--including both large and
small businesses as well as government agencies and nonprofit
organizations. Contractors generally must report on all of their
subcontracts, although SBA guidelines allow two exclusions: (1)
subcontracts performed outside of the U.S. or its territories and (2)
subcontracts with an affiliate organization, such as a subsidiary
company or a parent company.
To meet government-wide small business subcontracting goals, SBA
negotiates annual subcontracting goals with each federal agency. The
goal that DOE's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
(referred to in this report as DOE's Small Business Office) has
negotiated with SBA is for 50 percent of its total subcontracting
dollars to be directed to small businesses each year. To meet this
goal, DOE contracting officers located at the various agency sites
negotiate annual goals with individual facility management contractors
and, with the assistance of small business program managers, monitor
contractors' compliance with subcontracting plans as well as progress
toward achieving annual small business subcontracting goals.
Despite the efforts of SBA to meet government-wide annual
subcontracting goals, there have been continuing concerns that small
businesses were not being provided the maximum practicable opportunity
to provide goods and services to the federal government and its
contractors. In March of 2002, the President announced a Small Business
Agenda that proposed steps toward creating a more dynamic environment
where small businesses could flourish, including ways to improve the
access of small businesses to federal contracting opportunities. One of
the strategies was to strengthen federal agency oversight of its
contractors' efforts to comply with small business subcontracting
plans.
In this context, you asked us to review the small business
subcontracting achievements of DOE's facility management contractors.
This report discusses (1) the usefulness of the data reported by DOE
facility management contractors for monitoring contractor performance
in small business subcontracting and (2) the actions that DOE has taken
to address any problems identified with its facility management
contractors' small business subcontracting efforts.
To determine the usefulness of the data reported by DOE facility
management contractors on their small business subcontracting goals and
achievements, we received and analyzed data on fiscal year 2001 through
2004 subcontracting goals and achievements from DOE's 34 facility
management contractors, as well as information on how the contractors
developed their goals and calculated their achievements. To assess the
reliability of the data that the contractors provided about their
achievements, we obtained and analyzed information from all 34
contractors about their methods for compiling subcontracting
achievement data and steps they took to ensure the accuracy and
completeness of these data. We also visited 13 of the 34 facility
management contractors, which we selected based on the contractors'
association with the department's three largest component
organizations--Environmental Management, Science, and National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA)--and on the geographic location of DOE
sites. During these site visits, we obtained and analyzed supporting
documents for small business subcontracts reported in the contractors'
fiscal year 2004 achievements, and we obtained documentation on the
dollar value of any subcontracts that the contractors excluded from
their reported achievements for that year. A more detailed description
of our scope and methodology is presented in appendix II. We performed
our work from June 2004 to April 2005 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
The subcontracting data reported by DOE's facility management
contractors is not useful for monitoring whether they are meeting small
business subcontracting goals. All contractor-reported data incorrectly
excluded some subcontracts, beyond what SBA guidelines allow, thereby
overstating contractors' reported small business subcontracting
achievements. Excluding these subcontracts reduced the facility
management contractors' total reported subcontracting dollars without
reducing the reported amount that went to small businesses. As a
result, the reported percentage of subcontracting dollars that went to
small business appeared larger than it would have if such subcontracts
were not incorrectly excluded. When we added the incorrectly excluded
subcontracts (about $887 million) back into selected contractors'
reported achievements, 9 out of the 13 selected contractors would have
fallen short of their subcontracting goals, although 12 had reported
achieving their goals. However, if these subcontracts had been
included, some contractors said it was likely they would have requested
lower goals. In addition, even when all relevant subcontracts are
included, the contractor-reported data are misleading because they can
make the small business subcontracting results appear higher than they
actually are. This happens because the contractors calculate their
small business subcontracting achievements as a percentage of the total
amount of their subcontracted dollars. Because the total amount of
their subcontracted dollars could be very small, the portion going to
small businesses could appear as a misleadingly large percentage. As a
result, the contractor-reported data do not provide a true picture of
the contractors' performance. Therefore, the department cannot
meaningfully use the data to monitor performance and determine whether
the contractors are affording small business subcontractors the maximum
practicable opportunity to provide goods and services to the facility
management contractors, as required by the policy set out by the Small
Business Act.
DOE has not taken adequate steps to address the problems with the small
business subcontracting data reported by its facility management
contractors, resulting in a lack of assurance that facility management
contractors are providing maximum practicable opportunities for small
business subcontracting. Because achievement data reported by the
facility management contractors showed that DOE was meeting the small
business subcontracting goal it established with SBA, DOE officials
were not inclined to closely monitor facility management contractors'
subcontracting practices or take adequate steps to address even known
problems with the achievement data. In some cases, DOE's contracting
officers approved facility management contractors' small business
subcontracting plans, even though those plans specified practices for
calculating goals and achievements that were not consistent with SBA
guidelines. In other cases, officials in DOE's Small Business Office
knew of, but did not adequately address, problems with subcontracting
achievement data until we raised concerns about the data. Further, DOE
officials were aware in 2002 that the facility management contractors
were not consistently following SBA guidelines concerning which
subcontracts to include when developing small business subcontracting
goals. Although DOE's Small Business Office then provided clarifying
information on the requirements, these problems continued. In March
2005, DOE issued additional guidance, but it is uncertain whether DOE
will ensure that the guidance is followed. As a result of these
oversight problems, DOE had not ensured that its facility management
contractors were providing maximum practicable opportunities for small
businesses. These problems occurred, in part, because DOE has not
clearly defined the roles, responsibilities, and needed interaction of
the various headquarters and field organizations that must work
together to provide oversight of the small business subcontracting
program.
To improve the overall effectiveness of DOE's small business
subcontracting program, we are recommending that the Secretary of
Energy take steps to (1) ensure that DOE has useful data for managing
the small business subcontracting program and (2) improve oversight of
the subcontracting program by ensuring that roles and responsibilities
are clearly defined.
DOE agreed with our recommendations that the department strengthen
oversight of its small business subcontracting program by clarifying
oversight roles and responsibilities and by ensuring that facility
management contractors follow a consistent practice for calculating and
reporting their small business subcontracting goals and achievements.
However, DOE disagreed with our recommendation that, for internal
program management purposes, the department use data on its
contractors' subcontracting achievements, calculated as a percentage of
the dollars obligated to their prime contract. DOE maintained that it
should continue to use subcontracting data, calculated as a percentage
of the total dollars subcontracted, as reported to SBA. While we agree
that DOE's contractors should continue to report their subcontracting
achievements as SBA requires, we continue to believe that, for internal
management purposes, the data do not provide a true picture of
contractor performance. Without a true picture of performance, DOE
cannot effectively oversee that performance to determine whether its
facility management contractors are providing the maximum practicable
subcontracting opportunities to small businesses.
Background:
DOE has major sites and facilities around the country where the
department carries out its missions, including developing, maintaining,
and securing the nation's nuclear weapons capability; cleaning up the
nuclear and hazardous wastes resulting from more than 50 years of
weapons production; and conducting basic energy and scientific
research, such as mapping the human genome. DOE relies on facility
management contractors to operate its facilities and accomplish its
missions. This mission work is carried out under the direction of the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and DOE's program
offices, including the offices of Environmental Management and Science.
SBA develops regulations and provides guidance for federal agencies and
their contractors to follow in carrying out the federal policy to
provide maximum practicable contracting opportunities for small
businesses, consistent with efficient contract performance.[Footnote 1]
Under the Small Business Act and federal regulations, any large
business with a federal prime contract that has a value over $500,000
(or $1 million for construction contracts) and that has subcontracting
possibilities, must have a small business subcontracting plan,
including annual goals for directing subcontracting dollars to small
businesses. SBA has also issued specific guidance for developing annual
subcontracting goals and reporting achievements to SBA.[Footnote 2]
Although there is no specified percentage goal for small business
subcontracting in law or regulations, SBA's government-wide goal is
that 40 percent of federal subcontracted dollars be directed to small
businesses.[Footnote 3]
DOE's facility management contractors carry out the SBA requirements by
developing subcontracting plans and annual goals, and reporting their
achievements to DOE and SBA.[Footnote 4] Facility management
contractors use the following process:
* Develop small business subcontracting plans. Facility management
contractors generally develop small business subcontracting plans as
part of the overall proposal submitted in response to a DOE request for
proposals on a new contract or upon extension or renewal of an existing
contract. The subcontracting plan includes information on the types of
work to be subcontracted and how, and to what extent, the contractor
would provide subcontracting opportunities for small businesses. The
proposed subcontracting plans are reviewed as part of the overall
proposal and are then incorporated into the contract when it is
awarded.
* Develop annual small business subcontracting goals. Generally, the
facility management contractors perform "make-or-buy" analyses to
determine how much of their work will be subcontracted rather than
performed by the contractors' own employees. For the portion of the
work the facility management contractor intends to subcontract, the
facility management contractors develop small business subcontracting
goals each year, after considering the proposed funding for the
contracts, upcoming subcontracting opportunities, and the potential for
small businesses to perform the subcontracting work. After an agreement
is reached on the proposed goals, the goals are incorporated into the
contract.
* Report small business subcontracting achievements. Facility
management contractors are required to report their small business
subcontracting achievements to SBA twice each fiscal year--as of the
ends of March and September. SBA guidelines specify that small business
subcontracting achievements should be calculated as a percentage of
total dollars subcontracted. Facility management contractors also
report this achievement information to DOE.[Footnote 5]
DOE's Small Business Office negotiates the department's annual small
business subcontracting goals with SBA, coordinates outreach efforts
with the small business community, and works with NNSA and DOE's
program offices to establish and monitor annual goals. DOE's Office of
Procurement and Assistance Management and NNSA's Office of Acquisition
and Supply Management establish policies and guidance for conducting
procurements according to federal and departmental regulations, and
they maintain the information systems on the department's prime
contracts, including annual dollars provided to each facility
management contractor. NNSA and DOE's program offices, such as
Environmental Management and Science, are responsible for providing
program oversight and direction to the contractors.
In addition to the oversight responsibilities shared among DOE's
various headquarters and field organizations, SBA has a role in the
oversight of facility management contractors' small business
subcontracting efforts. SBA officials in regional offices generally
review proposed subcontracting plans and proposed annual small business
goals. Regional SBA officials also review the reports on small business
subcontracting achievements submitted by facility management
contractors, and they may review large proposed subcontracts to
determine if there are potential opportunities for small businesses.
SBA regional offices also perform periodic compliance reviews of
individual contractor's small business subcontracting efforts,
including validating the data reported by the contractors to ensure
that the contractor is following SBA guidelines.[Footnote 6]
Data Reported by Facility Management Contractors Is Not Useful for
DOE's Monitoring of Their Small Business Subcontracting Performance:
The data that DOE uses to monitor its facility management contractors'
performance in small business subcontracting generally shows that the
contractors have exceeded their annual subcontracting goals. However,
these data are not useful for monitoring purposes for two reasons.
First, the data reported by the facility management contractors
frequently overstated their subcontracting achievements, by failing to
account for all of their subcontracts, as required by SBA reporting
guidelines. As a result, the percent of total subcontracting dollars
going to small businesses appeared larger than if the contractors had
been following SBA's reporting guidelines. Second, even if the facility
management contractors were correctly reporting their small business
subcontracting achievements, the method for calculating those
achievements does not provide a true picture of contractors'
performance. The method can make a contractor appear to be performing
well--for example, by directing 80 percent of subcontracting dollars
annually to small businesses--when, in fact, that percentage is based
on a small amount of dollars. When small business subcontracting
dollars are recalculated as a percent of the annual funding on the
facility management contract, the contractor's actual achievement can
turn out to be relatively low. Because contractor-reported data does
not provide a true picture of the contractors' performance, the
department cannot meaningfully use the data to monitor performance and
determine whether the contractors are providing small business
subcontractors with the maximum practicable opportunity to provide
goods and services to the facility management contractors, as required
by the policy set out by the Small Business Act.
Contractor-Reported Data on Small Business Subcontracting Achievements
Frequently Overstated Performance:
The contractor-reported data that DOE uses to monitor facility
management contractors' performance in small business subcontracting
generally showed that contractors exceeded their annual small business
subcontracting goals in fiscal years 2001 through 2004. In fiscal year
2004, for example, 29 of the 34 facility management contractors
reported exceeding their annual goals when they directed 33 to 88
percent of their subcontracting dollars to small businesses. These
contractors reported exceeding their goals by as much as 28 percent,
whereas the contractors that reported falling short of their goals for
that year did so by as much as 26 percent. Whether or not individual
contractors achieved their goals, the 34 contractors collectively
reported directing nearly $3.3 billion[Footnote 7] to small business
subcontractors in fiscal year 2004, representing a 27 percent increase
over the amount they had directed to small businesses in fiscal year
2001 (see table 1). Additional information on the facility management
contractors' subcontracting goals and achievements for fiscal years
2001 through 2004 is presented in appendix I.
Table 1: Subcontracting Dollars that DOE Facility Management
Contractors Reported Directing to Small Businesses in Fiscal Years 2001
through 2004:
Fiscal year: 2001;
Small business subcontracting dollars: $2,574,701,477.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Small business subcontracting dollars: $3,076,546,419.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Small business subcontracting dollars: $3,071,831,243.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Small business subcontracting dollars: $3,281,485,994.
Source: GAO analysis of DOE and facility management contractor data.
[End of table]
Although facility management contractors generally reported exceeding
their subcontracting goals, the data are not useful for monitoring the
contractors' performance, because the contractors' achievements were
frequently overstated. When calculating subcontracting achievements,
SBA guidelines allow contractors to exclude from their calculations
only those subcontracts performed outside of the U.S. or its
territories and subcontracts with affiliate organizations, such as a
subsidiary or parent company[Footnote 8]. However, in fiscal year 2004,
all 34 of the contractors' reported achievements incorrectly excluded
other types of subcontracts, beyond what SBA guidelines allow (see
table 2). The facility management contractors we visited generally told
us it was their normal practice to make these types of exclusions. In
making these types of exclusions, the contractors said they were
following their past practices or that DOE contracting officers had
approved the additional exclusions. For example, officials representing
one of these contractors pointed out that, in excluding subcontracts
from the calculation of their subcontracting achievements beyond what
SBA guidance allows, their company was following the subcontracting
plan approved by DOE. The contractor officials said that they would not
have made these exclusions, if DOE had not permitted them, nor would
they have negotiated as high a subcontracting goal under those
circumstances.
Table 2: Types of Subcontracts Incorrectly Excluded from the 34
Facility Management Contractors' Calculations of Fiscal Year 2004 Small
Business Subcontracting Achievements:
Type of subcontracts incorrectly excluded from calculations of small
business subcontracting achievements: Purchases from other government
agencies, nonprofit organizations, or other facility management
contractors;
Number of facility management contractors[A]: 29.
Type of subcontracts incorrectly excluded from calculations of small
business subcontracting achievements: Utility purchases;
Number of facility management contractors[A]: 26.
Type of subcontracts incorrectly excluded from calculations of small
business subcontracting achievements: Credit card transactions;
Number of facility management contractors[A]: 22.
Type of subcontracts incorrectly excluded from calculations of small
business subcontracting achievements: Purchases from sources directed
by DOE or mandated by law;
Number of facility management contractors[A]: 14.
Type of subcontracts incorrectly excluded from calculations of small
business subcontracting achievements: Selected blanket purchasing
agreements[B];
Number of facility management contractors[A]: 10.
Type of subcontracts incorrectly excluded from calculations of small
business subcontracting achievements: Lease agreements;
Number of facility management contractors[A]: 8.
Source: GAO analysis of facility management contractor data.
[A] For a given type of subcontract, the remainder of the 34
contractors not reflected in this column had either included the
subcontract type in their reported achievements or did not have any
subcontracts of that type in fiscal year 2004.
[B] Blanket purchasing agreements reflect purchases made through DOE's
integrated contractor purchasing team or through the General Services
Administration's federal supply schedule.
[End of table]
Facility management contractors' practice of incorrectly excluding
certain subcontracts from achievement calculations resulted in
overstating their reported subcontracting achievements by making the
achievements appear larger than they would have appeared, if only the
appropriate exclusions had been made in the calculation. For SBA-
reporting purposes, contractors calculate their subcontracting
achievements by expressing the dollars that they directed to small
business subcontracts as a percentage of the total amount they
subcontracted. However, because they incorrectly excluded subcontracts
that generally did not go to small businesses--such as subcontracts
with other facility management contractors--the facility management
contractors incorrectly reduced the total amount that was subcontracted
(the denominator), without affecting the total amount going to small
businesses (the numerator). As a result, the percentage of total
subcontracted dollars going to small businesses appeared larger than it
actually was.
The effect of making incorrect exclusions on achievement calculations
is significant. At the 13 facility management contractors we visited,
we analyzed the fiscal year 2004 dollar amounts associated with the
subcontracts that were incorrectly excluded from the calculation of
their reported subcontracting achievements. These excluded subcontracts
totaled about $887 million. For these 13 contractors, the practice of
incorrectly excluding subcontracts from their reported achievements
resulted in overstating the percentage achievements by as much as 27
percent. Moreover, although 12 of the 13 contractors had appeared, from
their reported achievements, to be meeting or exceeding their
subcontracting goals, when the achievements were recalculated by adding
the incorrectly excluded subcontracts back into the calculation, only 4
contractors would have achieved their goals. The remaining 9
contractors would have fallen short of their subcontracting goals, by
as much as $31.1 million, or about 19 percent. According to contractor
officials, it is also likely that these contractors would not have
agreed to as high of a subcontracting goal, if they had to include
these subcontracts (see table 3).[Footnote 9]
Table 3: Fiscal Year 2004 Small Business Subcontracting Goals, Reported
Achievements, and Recalculated Achievements for 13 Facility Management
Contractors:
Fiscal year 2004 (percent).
Battelle Memorial, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Wash;
Subcontracting goal: 55.0%;
Reported subcontracting achievement: 60.8%;
Recalculated achievement[A]: 42.9%;
Extent to which the recalculated achievement differed from the
subcontracting goal[B]: (12.1%).
Bechtel Hanford, Hanford Site, Wash;
Subcontracting goal: 50.0%;
Reported subcontracting achievement: 65.0%;
Recalculated achievement[A]: 64.7%;
Extent to which the recalculated achievement differed from the
subcontracting goal[B]: 14.7%.
Bechtel Jacobs, Oak Ridge Site, Tenn;
Subcontracting goal: 28.0%;
Reported subcontracting achievement: 38.9%;
Recalculated achievement[A]: 36.4%;
Extent to which the recalculated achievement differed from the
subcontracting goal[B]: 8.4%.
Bechtel National, Waste Treatment Plant, Wash;
Subcontracting goal: 46.0%;
Reported subcontracting achievement: 65.2%;
Recalculated achievement[A]: 38.1%;
Extent to which the recalculated achievement differed from the
subcontracting goal[B]: (7.9%).
Bechtel Nevada, Nevada Test Site, Nev;
Subcontracting goal: 62.0%;
Reported subcontracting achievement: 70.6%;
Recalculated achievement[A]: 58.1%;
Extent to which the recalculated achievement differed from the
subcontracting goal[B]: (3.9%).
Bechtel SAIC, Yucca Mountain Project, Nev;
Subcontracting goal: 55.0%;
Reported subcontracting achievement: 57.0%;
Recalculated achievement[A]: 36.4%;
Extent to which the recalculated achievement differed from the
subcontracting goal[B]: (18.6%).
BWXT Y-12, Y-12 National Security Complex, Tenn;
Subcontracting goal: 63.0%;
Reported subcontracting achievement: 66.7%;
Recalculated achievement[A]: 56.5%;
Extent to which the recalculated achievement differed from the
subcontracting goal[B]: (6.5%).
CH2M Hill Hanford, Hanford Site, Wash;
Subcontracting goal: 48.0%;
Reported subcontracting achievement: 59.9%;
Recalculated achievement[A]: 42.6%;
Extent to which the recalculated achievement differed from the
subcontracting goal[B]: (5.4%).
Fluor Hanford, Hanford Site, Wash;
Subcontracting goal: 40.0%;
Reported subcontracting achievement: 52.1%;
Recalculated achievement[A]: 44.6%;
Extent to which the recalculated achievement differed from the
subcontracting goal[B]: 4.6%.
Lockheed Martin, Sandia National Laboratories, N. Mex;
Subcontracting goal: 50.0%;
Reported subcontracting achievement: 49.9[C]%;
Recalculated achievement[A]: 46.0%%;
Extent to which the recalculated achievement differed from the
subcontracting goal[B]: (4.0%).
University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
Calif;
Subcontracting goal: 35.0%;
Reported subcontracting achievement: 39.2%;
Recalculated achievement[A]: 31.6%;
Extent to which the recalculated achievement differed from the
subcontracting goal[B]: (3.4%).
University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory, N. Mex;
Subcontracting goal: 42.0%;
Reported subcontracting achievement: 44.0%;
Recalculated achievement[A]: 39.3%;
Extent to which the recalculated achievement differed from the
subcontracting goal[B]: (2.7%).
UT Battelle, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tenn;
Subcontracting goal: 48.0%;
Reported subcontracting achievement: 62.7%;
Recalculated achievement[A]: 50.3%;
Extent to which the recalculated achievement differed from the
subcontracting goal[B]: 2.3%.
Source: GAO analysis of facility management contractor data.
Note: Details on selection of these 13 facility management contractors
can be found in appendix II.
[A] Recalculated achievements include the subcontracts that had been
incorrectly excluded from the reported achievements.
[B] Numbers in parentheses are negative and represent the percentage by
which the contractor would have fallen short of subcontracting goals.
[C] Although the fiscal year 2004 small business subcontracting
achievement reported by the facility management contractor at the
Sandia National Laboratories fell short of that contractor's
subcontracting goal by less than 0.1 percent of total subcontracted
dollars (or approximately $591,000), the contractor directed the
largest subcontracting dollar amounts to small businesses of the 34
facility management contractors in 3 of the 4 years of our study,
including fiscal year 2004. That year, for example, the contractor
directed about $486 million to small businesses out of the $974 million
it subcontracted--$115 million more in subcontract dollars to small
businesses than the second highest facility management contractor.
[End of table]
The fiscal year 2004 small business subcontracting achievements
reported by many of the remaining 21 contractors that we did not visit
during our study also are likely overstated, although we did not
document the extent of the overstatement. Based on information these
contractors reported to us, all 21 contractors had incorrectly excluded
subcontracts from the calculations of fiscal year 2004 subcontracting
achievements. This practice will almost always result in overstating
actual achievements, because the subcontracts excluded from the
calculations are generally not awarded to small businesses.
Small Business Subcontracting Reporting Method Does Not Provide a True
Picture of Facility Management Contractors' Performance:
The method that facility management contractors use to calculate their
small business subcontracting achievements for SBA reporting purposes
does not present a true picture of a contractor's small business
subcontracting because achievements are not calculated in relation to
the total value of the facility management contract. Rather, the method
for calculating small business subcontracting achievements is based on
a quantity determined by the facility management contractors--namely,
the portion of total work under their DOE contract that they intend to
subcontract out. Thus, a contractor can appear to be performing well--
i.e., directing 80 percent of its subcontracting dollars to small
businesses--but that percentage is not very informative about the
actual amount of subcontracting occurring with small businesses.
In our view, calculating small business subcontracting achievements in
this manner invariably presents a misleading picture. For example, in
fiscal year 2004, contractors at two of DOE's weapons production
facilities reported substantially different small business
subcontracting achievements--one reported directing 80 percent of its
subcontracting dollars to small businesses (or $92.6 million) while the
other reported 57 percent (or $109.9 million). However, these
percentages hide the fact that the first contractor subcontracted out
proportionally less of the work of the facility management contract
than the second contractor, despite the fact that both facility
management contracts were similar in size. Recalculating the
subcontracting achievements as a percentage of the amount of funding
directed by DOE to each facility management contract for the year
reveals that the actual subcontracting achievements were quite similar-
-21 and 23 percent respectively of the contracts' annual funding. Thus,
the contractor that appeared, from the data that DOE uses, to be
significantly outperforming the other was actually devoting a slightly
smaller portion of its facility management contract dollars to small
business subcontracting.
Recalculating the subcontracting achievement data as a percent of the
annual amount funded by DOE for each facility management contract
provides a very different picture of the contractors' performance. Some
contractors that appeared to be outperforming most other contractors
were ranked near the bottom of the list when their achievements were
measured as a percent of the annual funding on their contract. For
example, the reported subcontracting achievement in fiscal year 2004 of
the contractor at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory appeared to
be the second highest among the 34 contractors. However, after we
recalculated the achievements as a percentage of annual contract
funding, the contractor's performance dropped significantly to 28th out
of 34 contractors (see table 4). Conversely, 6 of the 17 contractors
that were in the bottom half of the rankings of reported subcontracting
achievements moved to the top half, after we recalculated the
achievements as a percent of the annual amount funded on each facility
management contract.
Table 4: Comparison of Fiscal Year 2004 Reported Small Business
Subcontracting Achievements with Achievements Recalculated as a Percent
of Annual Amount Funded on the Facility Management Contract:
Facility management contractor and location: Washington TRU Solutions,
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, N. Mex;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 88.0;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 1;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 27.9;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 5.
Facility management contractor and location: Princeton University,
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, N.J;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 83.2;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 2;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 12.8;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 28.
Facility management contractor and location: BWXT Pantex, Pantex
Facility, Tex;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 80.3;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 3;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 21.2;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 9.
Facility management contractor and location: Bechtel Nevada, Nevada
Test Site, Nev;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 70.6;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 4;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 20.5;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 10.
Facility management contractor and location: BWXT Y-12, Y-12 National
Security Complex, Tenn;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 66.7;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 5;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 17.0;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 16.
Facility management contractor and location: Midwest Research
Institute, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colo;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 66.6;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 6;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 22.7;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 7.
Facility management contractor and location: West Valley Nuclear
Services Company, West Valley Demonstration Project, N.Y;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 66.5;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 7;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 28.6;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 4.
Facility management contractor and location: Bechtel National, Waste
Treatment Plant, Wash;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 65.2;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 8;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 29.1;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 3.
Facility management contractor and location: Bechtel Hanford, Hanford
Site, Wash;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 65.0;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 9;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 29.2;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 2.
Facility management contractor and location: Universities Research
Association, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Ill;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 63.5;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 10;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 14.3;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 24.
Facility management contractor and location: UT Battelle, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Tenn;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 62.7;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 11;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 17.0;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 17.
Facility management contractor and location: Battelle Memorial, Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, Wash;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 60.8;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 12;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 14.8;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 23.
Facility management contractor and location: CH2M Hill Hanford, Hanford
Site, Wash;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 59.9;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 13;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 30.3;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 1.
Facility management contractor and location: Stanford University,
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Calif;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 59.3;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 14;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 15.7;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 22.
Facility management contractor and location: Bechtel BWXT Idaho, Idaho
National Laboratory, Idaho;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 58.2;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 15;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 12.7;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 29.
Facility management contractor and location: Westinghouse Savannah
River, Savannah River Site, S.C;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 58.0;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 16;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 7.5;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 34.
Facility management contractor and location: Brookhaven Science
Associates, Brookhaven National Laboratory, N.Y;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 57.5;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 17;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 13.8;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 26.
Facility management contractor and location: Bechtel SAIC, Yucca
Mountain Project, Nev;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 57.0;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 18;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 20.3;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 11.
Facility management contractor and location: Honeywell Federal
Manufacturing & Technologies, Kansas City Plant, Mo;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 56.8;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 19;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 23.2;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 6.
Facility management contractor and location: Iowa State University,
Ames Laboratory, Iowa;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 56.7;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 20;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 9.5;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 33.
Facility management contractor and location: Fluor Hanford, Hanford
Site, Wash;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 52.1;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 21;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 13.9;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 25.
Facility management contractor and location: Southeastern Universities
Research Association, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility,
Va;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 50.1;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 22;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 16.4;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 19.
Facility management contractor and location: Lockheed Martin, Sandia
National Laboratories, N. Mex;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 49.9;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 23;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 21.5;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 8.
Facility management contractor and location: University of Chicago,
Argonne National Laboratory, Ill;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 46.0;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 24;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 12.0;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 30.
Facility management contractor and location: University of California,
Los Alamos National Laboratory, N. Mex;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 44.0;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 25;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 19.8;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 12.
Facility management contractor and location: Bechtel Bettis, Bettis
Atomic Power Laboratory, Pa;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 39.4;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 26;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 16.5;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 18.
Facility management contractor and location: University of California,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 39.2;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 27;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 12.9;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 27.
Facility management contractor and location: Bechtel Jacobs, Oak Ridge
Site, Tenn;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 38.9;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 28;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 17.8;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 14.
Facility management contractor and location: DynMcDermott Petroleum
Operations, Strategic Petroleum Reserve, La;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 38.8;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 29;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 16.1;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 20.
Facility management contractor and location: University of California,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Calif;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 37.4;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 30;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 16.0;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 21.
Facility management contractor and location: KAPL, Inc., Knolls Atomic
Power Laboratory, N.Y;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 36.4;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 31;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 11.2;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 32.
Facility management contractor and location: CH2M Hill Mound, Mound
Site, Ohio;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 36.1;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 32;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 12.0;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 31.
Facility management contractor and location: Fluor Fernald, Fernald
Closure Project, Ohio;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 33.5;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 33;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 17.7;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 15.
Facility management contractor and location: Kaiser-Hill, Rocky Flats
Closure Project, Colo;
Reported subcontracting achievements (percent of total dollars
subcontracted): 33.3;
Rank of reported achievements from highest (1) to lowest (34): 34;
Recalculated subcontracting achievements (percent of annual amount
funded on the facility management contract): 17.8;
Rank of recalculated achievements from highest achievement (1) to
lowest (34): 13.
Source: GAO analysis of DOE and facility management contractor data.
Note: Any apparent tie situations are due to rounding of the
achievement data. Ranks in the table reflect the actual rank-order.
Both the reported and the recalculated subcontracting achievements
presented in this table have not been adjusted to include any
subcontracts that the facility management contractors incorrectly
excluded from their calculations, because we did not have information
on the dollar value of the incorrectly excluded subcontracts for all 34
contractors.
[End of table]
While a contractor may be subcontracting a smaller percentage of its
facility management contract to small businesses than other facility
management contractors, there can be several reasons for differences in
contractors' small business subcontracting achievements, which should
be examined before concluding that a particular contractor is
underperforming. For example, DOE and contractor officials told us that
the type of work contractors perform at DOE sites is an important
factor in determining the potential for small business subcontracting.
Our analysis of the 34 facility management contractors' fiscal year
2004 small business subcontracting achievements suggests that this may
be true. We found that the 16 contractors primarily involved in
environmental cleanup or weapons production at DOE sites generally
directed a greater percentage of their contracts' annual funding to
small business subcontracting than the 16 contractors at DOE research
laboratories.[Footnote 10] Contractor and DOE officials said that
opportunities for small business subcontractors tend to be more limited
at research laboratories than other types of DOE facilities, because
research activities are often integrated, and fragmenting those
activities among several contractors could negatively impact the work.
Officials said that other types of work, such as facility construction
or cleanup projects, generally have more subcontracting potential and
can often be structured at such a scale that small businesses could
perform the work.
Contract performance goals can also affect opportunities for small
business subcontracting. For example, small business subcontracting
opportunities diminished somewhat at an environmental cleanup site in
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, after DOE and the facility management contractor,
Bechtel Jacobs, renegotiated the contract to include more aggressive
time lines and cost limitations for completing the work. In response to
the changes in its contract, Bechtel Jacobs began subcontracting less
of the work, including work that small business subcontractors had
previously performed. DOE and contractor officials told us that the
company wanted more control over the work to better ensure meeting the
new time lines and cost limitations. Officials from local small
businesses that subcontract with Bechtel Jacobs said that while they
did not disagree with Bechtel Jacobs's strategy for dealing with the
changes to its contract, the small businesses had to adapt to a new
business environment in which less subcontracting work would be
available under that facility management contract.
Although differences in the type of work and contract performance goals
may account for some of the differences in facility management
contractors' performance in small business subcontracting, there may be
other reasons for those differences. For example, contractor officials
said that the timing of projects or changes in the annual funding for a
facility management contract could affect opportunities for small
businesses to participate in work that is generally conducive to small
business subcontracting. In addition, contractors at sites with similar
missions and similar types of work can vary substantially in the amount
of funding that they direct to small business subcontractors. For
example, contractors at the Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories
in New Mexico ranked highly among the 34 facility management
contractors--8th and 12th, respectively--in the percentage of their
contracts' annual funding that they directed to small businesses in
fiscal year 2004. In contrast, the contractor at the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory in California, which conducts work similar to that
of the two New Mexico laboratories, ranked much lower--27th among the
34 contractors. Contractor and DOE officials with whom we met suggested
reasons for such differences in performances, for example, differences
in the availability of small businesses that are capable of providing
the needed goods and services or differences in the facility management
contractors' commitment to providing small businesses with the maximum
practicable opportunity to participate in the work.
Furthermore, actions by DOE to increase its direct, or prime,
contracting with small businesses may reduce the subcontracting
opportunities available for small businesses. For example, in an effort
to increase the amount of prime contract dollars going to small
businesses, in 2003, DOE redirected around $30 million of work from the
facility management contract for managing and operating the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve in Louisiana and awarded it as a separate prime
contract to a small business. Before DOE redirected the work, a
contractor official said that the facility management contractor
responsible for performing the work had been subcontracting most of it
to small businesses. The official further stated that, as a result, DOE
and the facility management contractor negotiated a lower small
business subcontracting goal for fiscal year 2004 of 27.7 percent of
the total dollars subcontracted, representing a 21.3 percent drop from
the 49 percent goal at the end of fiscal year 2003. Although the
facility management contractor exceeded its subcontracting goal in
fiscal year 2004, the total dollars available for subcontracting
decreased by around 12 percent ($6.1 million), and the portion going to
small businesses decreased by 9.3 percent ($1.8 million).
Because the subcontracting achievement data that DOE relies on does not
provide a true picture of the facility management contractors'
performance in small business subcontracting, the department cannot
meaningfully use those data to monitor performance. Without data
providing a truer picture of contractors' performance, DOE lacks a
basis for knowing whether differences in performance truly exist.
Moreover, the department also lacks a basis for understanding whether
differences in performance are legitimate--such as stemming from the
types of work performed under a facility management contract--or are
the result of differences in contractors' level of commitment to small
business subcontracting.
Having recognized potential weaknesses in contractor-reported
achievement data, at least one federal agency we contacted is taking a
more innovative approach for using data to monitor subcontracting
efforts.[Footnote 11] The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), for internal management purposes, calculates small business
subcontracting goals and achievements for its prime contractors as a
percentage of the annual funding for the prime contracts. NASA's small
business office said it uses this method to oversee contractor
performance because it (1) presents a truer picture of actual
achievements and (2) provides a better basis to evaluate a contractor's
maximum practicable opportunity to subcontract with small businesses.
This office said the data the contractors report to SBA can be
misleading, in that a large percentage achievement can be reported even
though a relatively small amount of dollars may actually be going to
small business subcontracts.
Although DOE continues to base its facility management contractors'
subcontracting goals on the total dollars subcontracted, for at least
one of those contractors, the department's Environmental Management
program plans to use a small business subcontracting approach that is
similar to NASA's approach. During a recent solicitation for bids for
an environmental cleanup contract at the Hanford Site's River Corridor
Project in Washington State, the program's solicitation specified that
the winning bidder must subcontract 60 percent of work under the
approximately $2 billion contract, with half of that directed to small
businesses, or potentially about $600 million over the 7-year life of
the contract. According to proposal documents, Environmental Management
took this approach in part because of input from small businesses and
because it would better ensure that small businesses had an opportunity
to participate in a significant portion of the work under the contract.
DOE Oversight of Small Business Subcontracting by Facility Management
Contractors Was Not Adequate to Address Identified Problems with
Contractor-Reported Data:
DOE had not taken adequate steps to address known problems with the
small business subcontracting achievement data reported by its facility
management contractors. Because misleading achievement data gave the
appearance of a successful small business subcontracting program, DOE
officials did not closely monitor facility management contractors'
subcontracting practices or follow through to ensure that the
contractors complied with SBA reporting guidelines. DOE's reliance on
misleading data also resulted in a lack of assurance that the facility
management contractors were providing the maximum practicable
opportunities for small business subcontracting. The inadequate
oversight was due, in part, to a lack of clear guidance on how DOE's
various headquarters and field organizations should coordinate and
integrate their efforts to effectively oversee the small business
subcontracting program.
Reliance on Misleading Data Undermined DOE's Oversight:
DOE knew there were problems with the data reported by the facility
management contractors but did not take adequate corrective action.
This had several undesirable consequences: (1) it created the false
impression that DOE was meeting its small business subcontracting
goals, (2) it caused errors in recognizing and rewarding contractor
performance, and (3) it undermined efforts to ensure that facility
management contractors were providing the maximum practicable
subcontracting opportunities for small businesses.
False impression that DOE was meeting its small business subcontracting
goals. The misleading data that DOE was using gave the appearance of a
successful small business subcontracting program. As a result, DOE
officials were not inclined to closely monitor facility management
contractors' subcontracting practices or to fully address known
problems with the achievement data. DOE officials in the small business
and procurement offices told us that they recognized in 2002 that the
facility management contractors were not consistently following SBA
guidelines on what subcontracts could be excluded when calculating
small business subcontracting goals and achievements. In April 2002,
DOE's Small Business Office provided clarifying information in an e-
mail message to small business program managers both in the DOE program
offices and the facility management contractors. The information
emphasized the importance of consistently following SBA guidelines.
Although DOE provided subsequent training for small business program
managers, DOE officials did not take adequate steps to ensure that the
contractors were correctly applying SBA guidelines. Based on our
analysis of fiscal year 2004 subcontracting practices, none of the 34
facility management contractors fully complied with the SBA guidelines.
In some cases, DOE actually approved the incorrect reporting practices
by its facility management contractors. For example, we found 10
instances where DOE had reviewed and approved subcontracting plans that
specifically called for incorrectly excluding subcontracts from the
calculations of small business subcontracting goals and achievements.
In two other cases, the facility management contractors specified
incorrect exclusions in annual planning documents for fiscal year 2004.
DOE uses these planning documents to evaluate overall contractor
performance for the year. DOE contracting officers told us that they
had approved or allowed the incorrect practices because they did not
believe these subcontracts could practically go to small businesses
anyway. For example, the facility management contractors may have had
existing long-term subcontracts with large businesses to provide
information technology assistance, building maintenance, or other site
support services.
Recent program reviews by DOE's Small Business Office were also not
sufficient to identify and rectify these incorrect practices. In
September 2002, the Secretary directed the Small Business Office to
develop a strategic plan for providing maximum practicable
opportunities to small businesses, including subcontracting by facility
management contractors. As part of its May 2003 strategic plan, the
Small Business Office stated that it would periodically review the
small business subcontracting efforts of the facility management
contractors. During fiscal year 2004, the Small Business Office
performed reviews of the small business subcontracting programs at five
of DOE's facility management contractors. These reviews focused
primarily on determining if the small business subcontracting plans
contained the information required by federal regulations and whether
the contractors met their annual small business subcontracting goals.
The reviews did not evaluate how the facility management contractors
were developing the annual small business subcontracting goals or
whether all appropriate subcontracts were included in the goal and
achievement calculations. DOE Small Business Office officials told us
that, based on the results of our work, they are considering revising
their review methodology to include these steps.
In March 2005, near the end of our review, DOE and NNSA procurement
organizations issued additional guidance on small business contracting
goals. The guidance stressed that the accuracy of contractor-reported
data was vital to the credibility of the department's performance in
small business subcontracting. The guidance emphasized that, in
calculating and reporting small business subcontracting goals and
achievements, contractors could exclude only the subcontract types
allowed by SBA guidelines. The guidance further states that contracting
officers shall ensure that facility management contractors are aware of
these procedures and do not apply additional exclusions when developing
their subcontracting goals. However, given DOE's oversight of these
practices in the past, it remains to be seen whether DOE will now
follow through and ensure that facility management contractors comply
with this guidance.
Errors in recognizing and rewarding contractor performance. DOE's Small
Business Office established a Secretarial Small Business Awards program
to recognize and acknowledge outstanding performance on an annual
basis. One of these awards--the facility management contractor small
business achievement award--is presented each year to the facility
management contractor with the highest percentage increase in
subcontract awards to small businesses from the previous year.
We reviewed the facility management contractor small business
achievement awards DOE presented in fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Although the fiscal year 2003 award appears to be appropriate, the
fiscal year 2004 award went to a facility management contractor who
directed fewer dollars to small businesses from one year to the next.
Specifically, the data DOE used to make the determination showed that
the percentage of subcontracting dollars going to small businesses
increased from 61 percent in fiscal year 2002 to 66 percent in fiscal
year 2003, a 5 percentage point increase. However, during the same
period, the total dollars subcontracted by the facility management
contractor dropped from $60.7 million to $52.1 million, and the
subcontracting dollars directed to small businesses dropped from $36.8
million to $34.4 million. If DOE had measured the change in the
contractor's small business subcontracting achievements by comparing
them with the annual funding on the facility management contract, DOE
officials would have discovered that the contractor's performance
actually declined by about 7 percent during the period (from 19.7
percent of annual funding on the contract to 13.0 percent). DOE Small
Business Office officials told us that they based this award on
increases in the percentage of subcontracting dollars going to small
businesses rather than changes in the total dollars directed to small
businesses. Officials said using changes in total dollars directed to
small businesses would not be fair to all the contractors because the
facility management contractors with multibillion dollar annual funding
on their contracts would have an advantage in showing increased dollars
to small businesses. While we agree that using dollars to compare the
performance among contractors could favor those with greater annual
funding, relying solely on the percentage of subcontracted dollars
going to small businesses may result in rewarding declining
performance, as demonstrated above.
Undermined efforts to ensure maximum practicable opportunities for
small businesses. DOE's reliance on misleading data created an
environment in which DOE officials were not inclined to closely monitor
the small business subcontracting program. For example, DOE allowed
facility management contractors to incorrectly exclude subcontracts
when calculating their small business subcontracting achievements,
which led to the incorrect perception that they were achieving their
subcontracting goals. Without accurate and consistent data on the
subcontracting efforts of the facility management contractors, DOE has
no way of determining whether a facility management contractor is
providing the maximum practicable opportunity for small businesses.
Another consequence of these program weaknesses is a perception among
members of the small business community that DOE's facility management
contractors could do better at providing opportunities for meaningful
subcontracting work. This perception has led to distrust and criticism
of DOE's facility management contractors by small business associations
and advocates. For example, during a May 2004 congressional hearing on
DOE's direct contracting with small businesses, small business advocacy
groups raised concerns about whether the level of subcontracting by DOE
facility management contractors reflected maximum practicable
opportunities.[Footnote 12] Additionally, small business associations
have expressed concerns about what they perceive as unfair treatment by
DOE facility management contractors, such as using small business
subcontractors to perform work that provides little opportunity for the
small business to develop technical capabilities. Small business
advocacy groups that we contacted said that if DOE held the facility
management contractors more accountable for achieving small business
subcontracting results, such as by using data that provided a truer
picture of actual performance, the small business groups would have a
basis for greater confidence in DOE's small business subcontracting
program.
Oversight Responsibilities for the Small Business Subcontracting
Program Were Not Clearly Defined or Integrated:
DOE officials did not address problems with the small business
subcontracting program, in part, because the various headquarters and
field organizations that must work together to provide oversight of the
small business subcontracting program did not do so effectively.
Oversight of facility management contractors' small business
subcontracting efforts includes reviewing and approving facility
management contractors' small business subcontracting plans and annual
goals, monitoring the contractors' progress toward achieving small
business subcontracting goals, and taking action when necessary to
ensure that the contractors meet their small business subcontracting
goals.
Although DOE contracting officers have final responsibility for
providing direction to the facility management contractors on all
aspects of DOE contracts, other DOE headquarters and field offices,
such as the Small Business Office and the program offices, share
responsibilities for monitoring and overseeing the small business
subcontracting activities of facility management contractors. DOE
contracting officers, usually located at DOE field locations, have
primary responsibility for communicating with facility management
contractors on all aspects of the contracts, including the contractors'
small business subcontracting efforts.[Footnote 13] DOE's Small
Business Office has the overall responsibility for managing the
department's small business programs and monitoring performance toward
meeting annual goals. Since the Small Business Office has no direct
authority over DOE's facility management contractors, it coordinates
the subcontracting program efforts by using small business program
managers within DOE's program offices and field locations. The small
business program managers at the field locations review subcontracting
plans and annual goals, and they provide input to the contracting
officers.
Effective oversight requires more than just carrying out these
activities, but also collectively ensuring that the activities identify
and correct problems and that program goals are achieved. Effective
oversight was not happening, in part, because DOE guidance does not
clearly define the roles, responsibilities, and needed interaction of
the various headquarters and field organizations involved. DOE guidance
on the small business program clearly defines only the roles of the
contracting officer, which include review of small business
subcontracting plans, annual goals, and reported achievements. The
guidance also states that the contracting officer is responsible for
ensuring that facility management contractors comply with the SBA
guidelines on which subcontracts may be excluded from their
subcontracting goals and achievements. However, the guidance does not
clearly define roles or responsibilities for the Small Business Office,
small business program managers, or others who need to coordinate their
efforts to achieve department goals.[Footnote 14] Absent this guidance,
we found that the collective efforts of these officials were not
sufficient to identify and correct the problems discussed in this
report or to ensure that program goals were being achieved.
Conclusions:
Creating opportunities for small businesses to participate in providing
goods and services to DOE's facility management contractors supports
federal policy and produces benefits for both DOE and the small
business community. Because about 85 percent of DOE's funding currently
goes to its facility management contractors, none of which are small
businesses, the small business subcontracting efforts of those facility
management contractors are of even greater importance to DOE. However,
misleading data has created the false impression that DOE is meeting
its small business subcontracting goals, undermined DOE's oversight of
subcontracting efforts, and generated mistrust among members of the
small business community. Furthermore, DOE actions to date have not
adequately addressed problems with misleading data. Until the problems
with contractor-reported achievement data are resolved and the program
oversight issues are addressed, DOE cannot ensure that the federal
policy of providing the maximum practicable opportunity for small
businesses is being achieved.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To ensure that facility management contractors comply with SBA
guidelines and follow a consistent practice for calculating and
reporting small business subcontracting goals and achievements, we
recommend that the Secretary of Energy direct the appropriate officials
responsible for DOE's Small Business Office and procurement
organizations to ensure, through regular oversight and review
activities, that facility management contractors comply with DOE's
March 2005 guidance on small business procurement goals.
To ensure that DOE has useful data for managing its small business
subcontracting program and for measuring and comparing contractors'
performance in pursuing the maximum practicable opportunity for small
business subcontracting, we recommend the Secretary of Energy direct
the appropriate officials responsible for DOE's Small Business Office
and procurement organizations to use, for internal management purposes,
data on facility management contractors' annual small business
subcontracting achievements calculated as a percentage of the obligated
dollars facility management contractors received that year on their
contract with DOE.
To improve DOE's oversight of the small business subcontracting program
and to provide the maximum practicable opportunity for small businesses
to subcontract at DOE sites, we recommend that the Secretary of Energy
take steps to strengthen oversight of the program, including issuing
guidance clarifying the roles, responsibilities, and necessary
interactions among DOE small business office, program office, and
procurement officials responsible for managing the small business
subcontracting program.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to DOE for review and comment. In
written comments the Secretary of Energy generally agreed with the
report and two of the recommendations but disagreed with one of the
recommendations. The department agreed with our recommendation to
strengthen oversight of its small business subcontracting program. DOE
said that it is in the process of revising existing guidance to clarify
oversight roles and responsibilities and the necessary coordination and
integration of oversight efforts between DOE headquarters and field
organizations.
The department also agreed with our recommendation to ensure that the
facility management contractors follow a consistent practice for
calculating and reporting their small business subcontracting goals and
achievements, as outlined in DOE's March 2005 guidance. In its
comments, DOE outlined several steps it had taken to provide training,
clarifying information, and guidance on the importance of accurate and
consistent small business subcontracting data. However, effective
oversight requires more than providing guidance and training. We
believe that regular review and oversight activities will also be
necessary to verify that contractors are complying with the guidance.
Regarding our recommendation that the department use data on its
facility management contractors' small business subcontracting
achievements--recalculated as a percentage of the dollars obligated on
their prime contract--to internally manage its program, DOE disagreed
with the recommendation and proposed to continue calculating the
achievements as a percentage of the total dollars subcontracted. While
we agree that DOE should continue to follow SBA guidance for SBA
reporting purposes, we continue to believe that this calculation method
fails to provide a true picture of the facility management contractors'
small business subcontracting performance, which is necessary for
effective oversight. As our report clearly demonstrated, the method can
overstate the performance of contractors that devote a relatively small
portion of their total contract to subcontracting. Thus, to ensure that
DOE is providing the maximum practicable subcontracting opportunities
to small businesses, for internal program management purposes, the
department should use subcontracting achievement data calculated as a
percentage of the facility management contract obligations. As
described in our report, one of the department's programs intends to
use this approach to internally manage the small business
subcontracting goals and achievements for the $2 billion contract to
clean up the Hanford Site's River Corridor in Washington State.
DOE also provided technical comments on the facts presented in the
report, which we incorporated as appropriate. DOE's comments and our
responses are presented in appendix III.
We conducted our review from June 2004 to April 2005, in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix II
provides details on our scope and methodology.
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until
30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send
copies to the Secretary of Energy. We will also make copies available
to others on request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions on this report, please call me
at (202) 512-3841. Other staff contributing to this report are listed
in appendix IV.
Signed by:
Gene Aloise:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: DOE Facility Management Contractors' Annual Small Business
Subcontracting Goals and Achievements:
Facility management, contractor, and location: Battelle Memorial,
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Wash.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 47%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $54,357,833;
Total dollars subcontracted: $104,872,886;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
51.8%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$421,791,076;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
12.9%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 47%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $59,788,116;
Total dollars subcontracted: $131,556,970;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
45.5%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$470,448,150;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
12.7%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 47%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $75,350,321;
Total dollars subcontracted: $114,311,713;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
65.9%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$555,727,382;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
13.6%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 55%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $81,388,171;
Total dollars subcontracted: $133,912,552;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
60.8%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$550,910,993;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
14.8%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: Bechtel Bettis, Bettis
Atomic Power Laboratory, Pa.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 30%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $53,093,888;
Total dollars subcontracted: $162,362,210;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
32.7%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$342,340,000;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
15.5%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 30%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $71,145,858;
Total dollars subcontracted: $136,485,213;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
52.1%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$343,972,000;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
20.7%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 30%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $55,542,807;
Total dollars subcontracted: $135,949,919;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
40.9%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$334,771,000;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
16.6%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 35%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $62,811,750;
Total dollars subcontracted: $159,372,044;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
39.4%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$381,767,479;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
16.5%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: Bechtel BWXT Idaho,
Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 70%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $123,469,383;
Total dollars subcontracted: $171,069,181;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
72.2%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$643,793,953;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
19.2%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 60%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $103,106,547;
Total dollars subcontracted: $153,887,715;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
67%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$681,960,071;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
15.1%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 60%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $100,852,558;
Total dollars subcontracted: $155,992,132;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
64.7%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$809,719,475;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
12.5%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 60%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $98,794,079;
Total dollars subcontracted: $169,798,501;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
58.2%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$775,716,116;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
12.7%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: Bechtel Hanford, Hanford
Site, Wash.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $18,287,757;
Total dollars subcontracted: $34,632,902;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
52.8%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$131,770,462;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
13.9%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $15,967,088;
Total dollars subcontracted: $36,927,958;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
43.2%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$127,488,208;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
12.5%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $13,210,454;
Total dollars subcontracted: $35,202,892;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
37.5%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$110,244,402;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
12%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $38,940,166;
Total dollars subcontracted: $59,915,369;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
65%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$133,563,675;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
29.2%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: Bechtel Jacobs, Oak
Ridge Site, Tenn.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 46%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $134,014,921;
Total dollars subcontracted: $292,351,969;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
45.8%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$488,503,515;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
27.4%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 34%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $142,094,257;
Total dollars subcontracted: $335,397,251;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
42.4%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$476,330,731;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
29.8%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 38%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $140,783,155;
Total dollars subcontracted: $358,596,321;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
39.3%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$489,003,276;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
28.8%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 28%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $116,441,561;
Total dollars subcontracted: $299,533,583;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
38.9%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$653,252,083;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
17.8%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: Bechtel National, Waste
Treatment Plant, Wash.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 46%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $34,590,534;
Total dollars subcontracted: $53,276,882;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
64.9%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$339,471,427;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
10.2%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 46%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $122,452,585;
Total dollars subcontracted: $217,707,111;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
56.3%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$646,035,709;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
19%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 46%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $167,633,416;
Total dollars subcontracted: $290,642,324;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
57.7%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$653,965,320;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
25.6%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 46%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $196,320,937;
Total dollars subcontracted: $301,003,381;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
65.2%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$675,301,802;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
29.1%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: Bechtel Nevada, Nevada
Test Site, Nev.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $54,888,245;
Total dollars subcontracted: $85,069,821;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
64.5%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$287,008,003;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
19.1%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 55%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $56,746,250;
Total dollars subcontracted: $83,089,259;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
68.3%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$409,298,787;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
13.9%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 62%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $83,639,885;
Total dollars subcontracted: $121,103,349;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
69.1%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$434,472,175;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
19.3%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 62%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $95,085,821;
Total dollars subcontracted: $134,734,610;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
70.6%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$464,972,914;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
20.5%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: Bechtel SAIC, Yucca
Mountain Project, Nev.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 60%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $22,607,401;
Total dollars subcontracted: $42,993,104;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
52.6%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$173,504,003;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
13%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 55%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $36,779,883;
Total dollars subcontracted: $60,749,142;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
60.5%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$187,150,369;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
19.7%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 55%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $34,363,154;
Total dollars subcontracted: $52,122,410;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
65.9%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$265,198,002;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
13%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 55%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $60,965,967;
Total dollars subcontracted: $106,904,609;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
57%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$300,692,496;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
20.3%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: Brookhaven Science
Associates, Brookhaven National Laboratory, N.Y.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 55%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $55,169,181;
Total dollars subcontracted: $96,259,669;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
57.3%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$453,190,513;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
12.2%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 55%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $69,726,716;
Total dollars subcontracted: $127,327,687;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
54.8%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$460,076,142;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
15.2%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 55%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $62,610,576;
Total dollars subcontracted: $108,708,417;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
57.6%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$440,919,419;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
14.2%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 55%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $58,257,687;
Total dollars subcontracted: $101,331,077;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
57.5%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$422,891,497;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
13.8%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: BWXT Pantex, Pantex
Facility, Tex.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 60%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $36,294,115;
Total dollars subcontracted: $57,583,576;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
63%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$329,219,350;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
11%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 60%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $72,514,853;
Total dollars subcontracted: $97,829,311;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
74.1%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$404,242,527;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
17.9%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 60%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $74,018,228;
Total dollars subcontracted: $99,218,150;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
74.6%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$424,131,223;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
17.5%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 60%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $92,587,654;
Total dollars subcontracted: $115,264,030;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
80.3%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$437,236,858;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
21.2%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: BWXT Y-12, Y-12 National
Security Complex, Tenn.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 40%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $69,072,392;
Total dollars subcontracted: $130,070,576;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
53.1%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$889,855,250;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
7.8%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $88,579,725;
Total dollars subcontracted: $139,672,095;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
63.4%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$574,888,585;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
15.4%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $86,985,976;
Total dollars subcontracted: $140,627,195;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
61.9%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$707,392,050;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
12.3%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 63%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $114,442,560;
Total dollars subcontracted: $171,568,241;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
66.7%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$675,042,163;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
17%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: CH2M Hill Hanford,
Hanford Site, Wash.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 32%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $36,726,618;
Total dollars subcontracted: $106,629,667;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
34.4%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$380,827,936;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
9.6%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 36%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $59,584,936;
Total dollars subcontracted: $92,552,044;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
64.4%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$277,569,297;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
21.5%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 48%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $55,134,273;
Total dollars subcontracted: $114,819,210;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
48%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$363,753,927;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
15.2%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 48%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $103,529,585;
Total dollars subcontracted: $172,878,788;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
59.9%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$342,276,389;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
30.3%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: CH2M Hill Mound, Mound
Site, Ohioa
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 62%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $10,158,519;
Total dollars subcontracted: $20,966,482;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
48.5%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$85,566,434;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
11.9%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 62%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $12,064,809;
Total dollars subcontracted: $33,408,204;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
36.1%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$100,904,523;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
12%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: DynMcDermott Petroleum
Operations, Strategic Petroleum Reserve, La.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 46%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $24,470,589;
Total dollars subcontracted: $51,250,166;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
47.8%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$119,355,167;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
20.5%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 47%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $37,801,131;
Total dollars subcontracted: $79,267,315;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
47.7%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$158,111,114;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
23.9%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 49.0b%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $19,475,303;
Total dollars subcontracted: $51,608,283;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
37.7%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$156,520,402;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
12.4%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 27.7b%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $17,655,913;
Total dollars subcontracted: $45,487,040;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
38.8%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$109,940,228;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
16.1%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: Fluor Fernald, Fernald
Closure Project, Ohio
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $25,068,949;
Total dollars subcontracted: $64,304,653;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
39%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$287,185,818;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
8.7%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $59,830,146;
Total dollars subcontracted: $108,034,504;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
55.4%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$227,425,087;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
26.3%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 36%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $68,038,876;
Total dollars subcontracted: $170,975,046;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
39.8%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$317,787,501;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
21.4%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 36.8%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $57,402,853;
Total dollars subcontracted: $171,172,293;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
33.5%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$323,951,180;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
17.7%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: Fluor Hanford, Hanford
Site, Wash.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 38%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $88,065,808;
Total dollars subcontracted: $165,445,464;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
53.2%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$634,136,465;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
13.9%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $76,600,234;
Total dollars subcontracted: $158,177,744;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
48.4%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$646,094,972;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
11.9%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 34%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $93,676,386;
Total dollars subcontracted: $169,044,664;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
55.4%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$663,332,198;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
14.1%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 40%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $97,261,252;
Total dollars subcontracted: $186,626,708;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
52.1%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$702,003,969;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
13.9%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: Honeywell Federal
Manufacturing & Technologies, Kansas City Plant, Mo.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 39.6%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $79,894,524;
Total dollars subcontracted: $156,636,154;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
51%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$461,742,878;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
17.3%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 43.6%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $78,418,650;
Total dollars subcontracted: $150,710,281;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
52%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$444,906,343;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
17.6%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 48%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $95,707,764;
Total dollars subcontracted: $163,478,172;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
58.5%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$477,229,514;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
20.1%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50.4%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $109,887,925;
Total dollars subcontracted: $193,471,624;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
56.8%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$473,410,852;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
23.2%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: Iowa State University,
Ames Laboratory, Iowa
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $2,646,192;
Total dollars subcontracted: $4,101,321;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
64.5%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$24,840,396;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
10.7%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $3,454,193;
Total dollars subcontracted: $5,279,121;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
65.4%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$30,371,174;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
11.4%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $2,752,123;
Total dollars subcontracted: $4,557,186;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
60.4%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$23,839,727;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
11.5%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $3,012,140;
Total dollars subcontracted: $5,311,183;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
56.7%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$31,619,046;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
9.5%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: Kaiser-Hill, Rocky Flats
Closure Project, Colo.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 28%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $162,257,410;
Total dollars subcontracted: $563,299,072;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
28.8%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$628,143,478;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
25.8%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 28%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $264,673,600;
Total dollars subcontracted: $584,969,258;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
45.3%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$650,955,392;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
40.7%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 32%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $176,490,595;
Total dollars subcontracted: $500,214,847;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
35.3%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$676,926,087;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
26.1%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 32%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $115,112,878;
Total dollars subcontracted: $346,231,264;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
33.3%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$645,566,636;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
17.8%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: KAPL, Inc., Knolls
Atomic Power Laboratory, N.Y.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 30%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $41,862,997;
Total dollars subcontracted: $120,798,260;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
34.7%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$269,009,235;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
15.6%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 30%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $32,610,006;
Total dollars subcontracted: $109,724,015;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
29.7%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$258,475,000;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
12.6%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 30%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $33,006,151;
Total dollars subcontracted: $105,297,202;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
31.4%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$277,624,659;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
11.9%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 30%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $46,460,851;
Total dollars subcontracted: $127,753,113;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
36.4%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$416,417,286;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
11.2%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: Lockheed Martin, Sandia
National Laboratories, N. Mex.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 55%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $360,026,522;
Total dollars subcontracted: $517,397,711;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
69.6%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$1,612,890,671;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
22.3%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $387,917,485;
Total dollars subcontracted: $694,278,857;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
55.9%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$1,851,953,436;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
21%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $458,883,711;
Total dollars subcontracted: $866,283,746;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
53%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$2,027,314,032;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
22.6%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $486,348,399;
Total dollars subcontracted: $973,878,609;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
49.9%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$2,259,983,950;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
21.5%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: Midwest Research
Institute, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colo.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 60%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $56,987,818;
Total dollars subcontracted: $81,181,977;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
70.2%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$214,696,696;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
26.5%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 60%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $46,934,755;
Total dollars subcontracted: $70,828,281;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
66.3%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$211,027,075;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
22.2%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 60%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $52,932,233;
Total dollars subcontracted: $81,724,746;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
64.8%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$229,855,701;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
23%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 60%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $48,276,350;
Total dollars subcontracted: $72,503,042;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
66.6%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$212,381,970;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
22.7%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: Princeton University,
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, N.J.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 52%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $9,925,776;
Total dollars subcontracted: $14,701,621;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
67.5%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$74,149,076;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
13.4%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 52%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $8,043,427;
Total dollars subcontracted: $10,670,803;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
75.4%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$74,716,992;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
10.8%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 55%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $5,928,245;
Total dollars subcontracted: $7,905,233;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
75%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$68,961,918;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
8.6%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 60%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $9,901,358;
Total dollars subcontracted: $11,895,244;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
83.2%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$77,635,828;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
12.8%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: Southeastern
Universities Research Association, Thomas Jefferson National
Accelerator Facility, Va.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 46%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $22,966,248;
Total dollars subcontracted: $36,869,558;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
62.3%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$106,312,598;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
21.6%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $23,663,361;
Total dollars subcontracted: $41,217,369;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
57.4%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$108,275,952;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
21.9%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $16,561,882;
Total dollars subcontracted: $25,653,401;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
64.6%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$98,731,409;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
16.8%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 48%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $18,697,871;
Total dollars subcontracted: $37,285,236;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
50.1%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$113,896,732;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
16.4%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: Stanford University,
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Calif.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 55%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $31,172,615;
Total dollars subcontracted: $51,630,433;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
60.4%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$204,122,243;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
15.3%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 56%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $28,252,330;
Total dollars subcontracted: $51,405,657;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
55%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$210,650,537;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
13.4%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 57.5%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $39,451,555;
Total dollars subcontracted: $62,778,071;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
62.8%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$230,864,436;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
17.1%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 56%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $39,419,478;
Total dollars subcontracted: $66,461,098;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
59.3%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$250,900,104;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
15.7%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: Universities Research
Association, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Ill.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $44,450,000;
Total dollars subcontracted: $91,872,000;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
48.4%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$307,997,017;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
14.4%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $45,862,000;
Total dollars subcontracted: $87,820,000;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
52.2%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$309,200,090;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
14.8%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $39,552,000;
Total dollars subcontracted: $77,990,000;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
50.7%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$316,292,588;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
12.5%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $45,284,000;
Total dollars subcontracted: $71,268,000;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
63.5%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$316,519,364;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
14.3%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: University of
California, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Calif.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 51.8%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $60,364,815;
Total dollars subcontracted: $129,655,264;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
46.6%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$471,669,387;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
12.8%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 51.8%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $61,485,715;
Total dollars subcontracted: $157,523,278;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
39%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$471,786,072;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
13%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 34%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $48,337,720;
Total dollars subcontracted: $114,788,499;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
42.1%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$456,533,356;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
10.6%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 32%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $63,686,742;
Total dollars subcontracted: $170,154,503;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
37.4%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$397,451,166;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
16%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: University of
California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 46%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $168,927,591;
Total dollars subcontracted: $423,235,849;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
39.9%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$1,389,055,837;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
12.2%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 46%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $182,167,689;
Total dollars subcontracted: $497,929,164;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
36.6%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$1,562,149,121;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
11.7%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 35%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $175,743,871;
Total dollars subcontracted: $470,886,313;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
37.3%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$1,556,259,049;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
11.3%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 35%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $204,297,721;
Total dollars subcontracted: $520,668,966;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
39.2%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$1,589,252,698;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
12.9%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: University of
California, Los Alamos National Laboratory, N. Mex.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 35%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $314,500,000;
Total dollars subcontracted: $846,300,000;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
37.2%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$2,056,138,764;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
15.3%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 42%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $431,300,000;
Total dollars subcontracted: $1,072,100,000;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
40.2%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$1,968,726,402;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
21.9%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 42%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $370,700,000;
Total dollars subcontracted: $854,600,000;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
43.4%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$1,984,708,594;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
18.7%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 42%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $371,100,000;
Total dollars subcontracted: $843,200,000;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
44%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$1,876,507,610;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
19.8%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: University of Chicago,
Argonne National Laboratory, Ill.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 48%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $66,709,921;
Total dollars subcontracted: $127,394,963;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
52.4%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$498,328,731;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
13.4%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 48%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $66,089,187;
Total dollars subcontracted: $120,411,075;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
54.9%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$530,767,915;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
12.5%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 48%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $65,525,795;
Total dollars subcontracted: $120,451,914;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
54.4%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$525,415,187;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
12.5%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $70,362,618;
Total dollars subcontracted: $152,980,199;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
46%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$585,987,022;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
12%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: UT Battelle, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Tenn.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 46%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $68,303,840;
Total dollars subcontracted: $141,080,341;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
48.4%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$667,887,413;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
10.2%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 43%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $91,435,096;
Total dollars subcontracted: $185,694,443;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
49.2%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$849,633,299;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
10.8%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 46%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $118,547,793;
Total dollars subcontracted: $219,013,040;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
54.1%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$807,960,210;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
14.7%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 48%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $170,389,081;
Total dollars subcontracted: $271,744,455;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
62.7%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$1,005,411,132;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
17%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: Washington TRU
Solutions, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, N. Mex.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 75%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $20,291,938;
Total dollars subcontracted: $26,456,431;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
76.7%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$111,360,499;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
18.2%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 75%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $33,534,321;
Total dollars subcontracted: $44,576,023;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
75.2%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$118,905,751;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
28.2%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 75%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $38,629,035;
Total dollars subcontracted: $45,053,723;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
85.7%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$124,985,758;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
30.9%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 60%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $39,136,122;
Total dollars subcontracted: $44,500,492;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
88%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$140,432,118;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
27.9%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: West Valley Nuclear
Services, West Valley Demonstration Project, N.Y.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 46%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $22,445,717;
Total dollars subcontracted: $36,359,853;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
61.7%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$95,636,099;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
23.5%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $32,013,652;
Total dollars subcontracted: $45,896,861;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
69.8%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$91,345,339;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
35.1%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 55%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $21,906,883;
Total dollars subcontracted: $37,503,459;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
58.4%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$95,835,513;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
22.9%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 45%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $26,661,695;
Total dollars subcontracted: $40,088,050;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
66.5%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$93,272,276;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
28.6%.
Facility management, contractor, and location: Westinghouse Savannah
River, Savannah River Site, S.C.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 50%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $193,000,000;
Total dollars subcontracted: $367,000,000;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
52.6%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$1,498,224,335;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
12.9%;
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 48%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $171,800,000;
Total dollars subcontracted: $298,000,000;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
57.7%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$1,419,323,559;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
12.1%;
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 51%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $169,700,000;
Total dollars subcontracted: $291,000,000;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
58.3%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$1,478,654,637;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
11.5%;
Fiscal year: FY 2004;
Subcontracting goal (percent of total dollars subcontracted): 51%;
Subcontracting dollars to small businesses: $109,500,000;
Total dollars subcontracted: $188,900,000;
Subcontracting achievement (percent of total dollars subcontracted):
58%;
Annual funding received on the facility management contract:
$1,452,022,082;
Recalculated subcontracting achievement (percent of annual funding):
7.5%.
Source: GAO analysis of DOE and facility management contractor data.
Note: The subcontracting achievements--both as a percent of total
dollars subcontracted and as a percent of annual funding--presented in
this table have not been adjusted to include any subcontracts that the
facility management contractors incorrectly excluded from their
calculations because we did not know the dollar value of the
incorrectly excluded subcontracts for all 34 contractors.
[A] We omitted subcontracting goal and achievement data for DOE's Mound
Site in Ohio for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, because the contractor
that managed and operated the site in 2001 and 2002 is not the same
contractor that did so from 2003 through the duration of our study.
While we included subcontracting achievement data from the previous
contractor in the aggregated data for all facility management
contractors in table 1, we did not include those data in this appendix
because the fiscal year 2001 and 2002 data for the Mound Site came from
a different source than the rest of the subcontracting goal and
achievement data in this appendix. As a result, we had not assessed the
reliability of the fiscal year 2001 and 2002 data for the Mound Site to
be able to publish the contractor-level subcontracting goal and
achievement data.
[B] The facility management contractor managing and operating the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve had a small business subcontracting goal of
47.0 percent for the first half of fiscal year 2003, but the goal was
increased to 49.0 percent for the second half of the fiscal year, after
the contractor was awarded a new facility management contract with DOE
for the same site, and they negotiated a new subcontracting goal.
However, for fiscal year 2004, the contractor's subcontracting goal
dropped to 27.7 percent. According to a contractor official, DOE and
the contractor renegotiated the lower goal after DOE removed about $30
million of work from the facility management contract in fiscal year
2003. The facility management contractor had been subcontracting a
majority of that work to small business subcontractors.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology:
We determined (1) the usefulness of the data reported by the Department
of Energy's (DOE) facility management contractors for monitoring
contractor performance in small business subcontracting and (2) the
actions that DOE has taken to address any problems identified with its
facility management contractors' small business subcontracting efforts.
To conduct our work, we contacted DOE and contractor officials, as well
as representatives from the Small Business Administration (SBA) and
from small-business advocacy groups. We also collected data from all 34
of DOE's facility management contracts on their subcontracting
activities and took steps to assess the reliability of the contractors'
data, which included reviews of subcontracting files at 13 of the 34
contractors.
Determining the Usefulness of the Facility Management Contractor-
Reported Data:
To determine the usefulness of the facility management contractor-
reported data for DOE monitoring purposes, we requested data from DOE's
34 facility management contractors on their annual small business
subcontracting goals and achievements. Specifically, we asked the
contractors to provide the subcontracting percentage-goals that they
negotiated with DOE for fiscal years 2001 through 2004, as well as the
dollar figures comprising those percentages, including the total
dollars to be subcontracted during the year and the portion of
subcontracting dollars they expected would go to small
businesses.[Footnote 15] We also asked the contractors to provide us
with their subcontracting percentage achievements for fiscal years 2001
through 2004 and the dollar figures comprising those percentages--
namely, the total dollars that were subcontracted and the small
business subcontracting dollars. (Selected subcontracting goal and
achievement data appear in app. I.) Additionally, in our data request,
we asked the contractors to identify the types of subcontracts that
they included or excluded from their small business subcontracting
goals and achievements for fiscal year 2004. Furthermore, we requested
copies of the contractors' small business subcontracting plans that
were in effect during fiscal year 2004.
We used a data collection instrument to obtain data from the facility
management contractors on their fiscal year 2001 through 2004 small
business subcontracting goals and achievements. In the data collection
instrument, we provided tables for the contractors to enter their
subcontracting information, and we included instructions on how to
complete the tables. The data collection instrument also included a
series of questions on various aspects of the reliability of the data
they provided, as part of our assessment of data reliability described
later in this appendix.
Because we received the requested information from all 34 of DOE's
facility management contractors, we did not rely on results from any
subset of those contractors to conduct our analysis and, therefore, no
sampling error is associated with our work. However, data gathering
methods, such as the ones we used, may introduce error into the data
that is not associated with statistical sampling, commonly referred to
as nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties in how a particular
instruction was interpreted, in the availability of the information
requested, and in how the data were entered into the tables could
introduce unwanted variation into the data collected. We took steps in
the development of the data collection instrument to minimize these
nonsampling errors. For example, we pretested a draft of the data
collection instrument with 3 facility management contractors. In
addition, we provided the draft to 5 knowledgeable small business and
procurement officials in DOE headquarters. Within GAO the data
collection instrument was reviewed by the Office of General Counsel and
by experts in federal contracting and research methodology. We modified
the data collection instrument as appropriate to reflect the comments
and suggestions of the contractor, DOE, and GAO reviewers, and sent the
data collection instrument to all 34 of DOE's facility management
contractors. We received responses from all 34 contractors.
We then assessed the reliability of the subcontracting data we received
from each of the 34 facility management contractors. To assess the data
reliability, we (1) analyzed the contractors' responses to the data
reliability questions that were included in the data collection
instrument and (2) conducted a more detailed review of subcontract
files at 13 of the 34 contractors.
First, we reviewed the contractors' responses to the series of data
reliability questions in the data collection instrument, which
addressed such areas as data entry, data access, quality control
procedures, and data accuracy and completeness. Follow-up questions
were added as necessary. In consultation with a GAO expert in research
methodology, we analyzed the contractors' responses for weaknesses in
data reliability that would make their data unusable for analysis and
reporting purposes. In their responses, 7 of the 34 contractors
discussed minor limitations to their data control processes that might
affect how the data should be interpreted. For example, 3 contractors
stated that their subcontracting data was both accurate and complete,
while noting that it was such to the extent that they could make it.
Another contractor reported that the data it provided for fiscal years
2001 and 2002 may be less accurate than the data for fiscal years 2003
and 2004, because prior to 2003, the contractor did not require that
its small business subcontractors self-certify or provide documents
that verify their small business status.
Second, we visited a nonprobability sample[Footnote 16] of 13 of the 34
facility management contractors to conduct a more detailed assessment
of the reliability of the fiscal year 2004 subcontracting achievement
data that they provided in response to our data collection instrument.
We used several criteria to select facility management contractors for
site visits, including a contractors' association with DOE's three
largest component organizations--Environmental Management, the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), and the Office of Science--as
well as geographic location, and the type of work performed under the
facility management contract. The three DOE component organizations we
focused on control 30 of DOE's 34 facility management contracts, and
their annual budgets account for over 70 percent of DOE's overall
budget. In selecting NNSA contractors, we chose both research
laboratories and weapons production facilities, to ensure inclusion of
the types of work that NNSA uses to carry out its missions. In
addition, to obtain geographically diverse cases, we selected
contractors from four states in the Western U.S.--California, Nevada,
New Mexico, and Washington--and one Eastern state, Tennessee. Nearly
one-half of the 34 DOE facility management contractors are located
within these five states.
Based on these selection criteria, we made visits to the following 13
facility management contractors:
Battelle Memorial, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Wash;
Bechtel Hanford, Hanford Site, Wash;
Bechtel Jacobs, Oak Ridge Site, Tenn;
Bechtel National, Waste Treatment Plant, Wash;
Bechtel Nevada, Nevada Test Site, Nev;
Bechtel SAIC, Yucca Mountain Project, Nev;
BWXT Y-12, Y-12 National Security Complex, Tenn;
CH2M Hill Hanford, Hanford Site, Wash;
Fluor Hanford, Hanford Site, Wash;
Lockheed Martin, Sandia National Laboratories, N. Mex;
University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
Calif;
University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory, N. Mex;
and UT Battelle, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tenn.
Collectively, these 13 contractors had subcontracts worth about $4.2
billion in fiscal year 2004 (or 64.2 percent of the total
subcontracting dollars for all 34 facility management contractors). Of
that amount, over $2.1 billion went to small businesses, accounting for
nearly two-thirds of the almost $3.3 billion in subcontract dollars
that the 34 contractors directed to small businesses that year.
During our visits to these 13 facility management contractors, we
looked at the reliability of the fiscal year 2004 small business
subcontracting achievement data that the contractors provided in the
data collection instrument. Even though our data covered fiscal years
2001 through 2004, for our more detailed review of data reliability, we
focused on fiscal year 2004, because we performed most of our analyses
on data from that year.
Although individual contractors may manage thousands of small business
subcontracts in a given year, for each of the 13 contractors, we chose
separate nonprobability samples of 5 small business subcontracts--for a
total of 65 subcontracts--that the facility management contractors had
included in the fiscal year 2004 small business subcontracting
achievements. We selected each nonprobability sample from a complete
list of the contractors' fiscal year 2004 small business subcontracts,
which we obtained prior to visiting the contractors. The criteria we
used for selecting contracts was the subcontract amount and the goods
and services provided. We selected subcontracts that received among the
largest dollar commitments in fiscal year 2004 and that encompassed a
variety of the types of goods and services provided by small business
subcontractors. In total, the 65 subcontracts in our nonprobability
samples accounted for 17.2 percent ($368.1 million) of the $2.1 billion
dollars committed to small business subcontracts in fiscal year 2004 by
the 13 facility management contractors.
At each contractor's facility, we reviewed documents for each of the
five subcontracts, in order to verify the dollar commitments to those
subcontracts in fiscal year 2004, that the contractor included in their
response to the data collection instrument. We also reviewed any
documents certifying the small business status of those subcontractors
at the time the subcontracts were awarded. In addition, to understand
the effect of excluding certain subcontracts from the contractors'
small business subcontracting achievement calculations, these 13
contractors provided us with data on the dollar amount of their
excluded subcontracts in fiscal year 2004.
For all 65 of the small business subcontracts we reviewed, we were able
to verify through documents in the subcontract files that the amount of
dollars committed to the selected subcontracts in fiscal year 2004
equaled the dollar amounts that the facility management contractors had
taken credit for when reporting their small business subcontracting
achievements for that year. Also, for 63 of the selected subcontracts,
we were able to find documents that certified the subcontractor's
status as a small business at the time the subcontract was awarded.
However, for the 2 remaining subcontracts--which were from 2 different
facility management contractors--documents showed that the
subcontractors had been classified as large businesses at the time the
subcontract was awarded.[Footnote 17] Therefore, these 2 subcontracts
should not have been reflected in those contractors' fiscal year 2004
subcontracting achievements as small business subcontracts. Because
this only occurred with 3 percent of the 65 subcontracts (representing
5.7 percent of the total $368.1 million value of those subcontracts),
we did not consider it to be a material weakness of the subcontracting
achievement data. In both instances where facility management
contractors had mistakenly included a large business subcontract in
their small business subcontracting achievements, the contractors
subsequently restated their fiscal year 2004 subcontracting
achievements.[Footnote 18] The subcontracting achievement data included
in this report reflect the restated amounts.
Based on all of our efforts to assess data reliability, we believe that
the data are sufficiently reliable for characterizing the 34 facility
management contractors' fiscal year 2004 small business subcontracting
achievements.
Determining Actions Taken by DOE to Address Problems:
To determine the actions that DOE has taken to address any problems
identified with its facility management contractors' small business
subcontracting efforts, we visited officials at the nonprobability
sample of 13 of the 34 facility management contractors previously
described. We also met with the field-based DOE small business
officials and contracting officers responsible for overseeing the
facility management contractors' performance in small business
subcontracting.
In addition to our site visits, in DOE's headquarters we interviewed
officials from DOE's Small Business Office and small business officials
from the major component organizations, as well as DOE and NNSA
procurement officials, to learn about their role and actions for
overseeing the facility management contractors' small business
subcontracting efforts. From these officials, we obtained policy
guidance, results of field reviews, and other documents related to DOE
and NNSA's oversight activities. We also interviewed headquarters and
field-based officials from SBA's Office of Government Contracting to
further understand SBA guidelines for contractor reporting of small
business subcontracting data. Furthermore, we spoke with
representatives from three small business advocacy groups--the East
Tennessee Environmental Business Association, the New Mexico 8(a) and
Minority Business Association, and the Small Environmental Business
Action Coalition.
We conducted our work from June 2004 to April 2005 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Energy:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
The Secretary of Energy:
Washington, DC 20585:
May 3, 2005:
Mr. William R. Swick, Assistant Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
701 5th Avenue, Suite 2700:
Seattle, Washington 98104:
Dear Mr. Swick:
The Department of Energy (DOE) has reviewed the draft report entitled
Department of Energy: Improved Oversight Could Better Ensure
Opportunities for Small Business Subcontracting (GAO-05-459).
The attached comments reflect DOE's position with regard to the report
findings and recommendations. The comments fall into three categories:
"technical comments," "substantive comments," and Recommendations for
Executive Action. We respectfully request that the substantive comments
and the Recommendation for Executive Action be included in the appendix
to the final report and that the technical comments be used to make
needed corrections to the report.
As regards the specific recommendations of the report, DOE concurs with
the recommendations. With regard to recommendations one and three for
strengthening oversight of the subcontracting program and for ensuring
regular oversight and reviews of facility management contractors, DOE
has begun the process of implementing these recommendations through the
issuance of several documents and directives. In reference to
recommendation two, the department proposes to continue to capture its
award information based on the guidance provided by SBA that reflects
small business subcontract awards as a percentage of the subcontract
base; and not of the total contract.
In June of this year we will be hosting the 6Th Annual DOE Small
Business Conference and will be providing training for all small
business and contracting staff as well as DOE contractors in attendance
on small business procurement goals.
Should you have any questions regarding the DOE response, please
contact:
Ms. Theresa Speake, Director of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization at (202) 586-8383.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Samuel W. Bodman:
Enclosure:
DOE COMMENTS ON GAO DRAFT REPORT (05-459)
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: IMPROVED OVERSIGHT COULD BETTER DENSURE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING:
Substantive Comments:
On the Highlights Page the GAO has stated that "DOE has not taken
adequate steps to address known problems with the contractor-reported
data." They further state that DOE officials became aware in 2002 that
contractors were not following federal guidelines...[and] failed to
ensure that the guidelines were being followed..." Additionally, the
GAO states that "DOE has not clearly defined the roles,
responsibilities and needed interaction of the various headquarters and
field organizations...."
DOE has taken numerous actions to address these issues. Specifically,
these actions include the provision of written guidance by the OSDBU to
the field in mid 2002, numerous meetings with both internal procurement
and small business staff and external contractors to specifically
discuss small business goaling and reporting requirements beginning in
August of 2003 and running through December 2004. In May of 2004 DOE
issued Acquisition Letter 2004-03 which improving the accuracy of small
business information including conforming to the SBA document, Goaling
Guidelines for the Small Business Preference programs for Prime and
Subcontract Federal Procurement Goals & Achievements. In December of
2004, a video was prepared (which is available on-line) providing
information on small business subcontracting, including the
establishment of subcontract bases, subcontracting goals and specific
requirements for subcontracting plans as established in FAR 19.704.
To ensure the accuracy of contractor-reported data and the
implementation of these guidelines, OSDBU has completed subcontract
reviews of five DOE prime contractors and has planned additional
reviews.
2) On pages 8 & 9 the GAO has stated that "...even if the facility
management correctly reporting their small business contracting
achievements, the methods for calculating those achievements does not
provide a true picture of contractors' performance. The method can make
the contractor appear to be performing well--for example, by directing
80 percent subcontracting dollars annually to small businesses-when, in
fact, that percentage is based on a small amount of dollars."
The Small Business Act and the Federal Acquisition Regulations that
cover all Federal agencies/departments do not require a specific level
of subcontracting for each subcontracting plan. The contractor is
responsible for determining the level of work it will perform and the
level it will subcontract. Once a subcontracting base is determined,
small business goals become applicable against that level of work.
Since we compute the goals as percentage rather than dollars available
for awards, any percentage of its total available subcontracting
dollars to small business is in fact a true reflection of the
contractors' actual performance.
3) On page 11, the GAO states that 13 contractors incorrectly excluded
subcontracts from their reported achievements resulting in overstating
those achievements by as much as $214 million, or 27 percent.
DOE is concerned that this statement could lead the reader to conclude
that the dollars reported were not actually awarded to small business
as claimed, which is not accurate. The dollar awards for small business
are actual; although the percentage may vary because of the actual
subcontract baseline. DOE requests that the GAO either remove the
dollar reference or restructure the sentence to ensure that it
clarifies that the dollars reported as awarded are actual.
4) On Page 10, the GAO states that all 34 of the contractors reported
achievements incorrectly excluded other types of subcontracts, beyond
what SBA guidelines allow. The statement goes on to state that
"...contractors we visited generally told us it was their normal
practice to make these types of exclusions... and that ...they were
following their past practices...."
It should be noted that for the ten years prior to Fiscal Year 2000,
the Department's facility management contractors' subcontracting
activities were considered as prime contracts for the purpose of small
business goaling and, therefore, had different exclusions than if they
were subcontracts. These past practices support the reporting of
exclusions as disclosed by these contractors to the GAO.
DOE has, however, noted in its most recent Acquisition Letter 2005-06
that "DOE shall comply with the SBA's Goaling Guideline..." that spells
out the specific exclusions for each type of contract. Furthermore the
Acquisition Letter specifically identifies the two exclusions listed on
the Standard Form SF 294 and SF 295 forms used for reporting
subcontracts.
5) On page 20 the GAO attributes problems with DOE taking steps to take
action to address known problems with subcontracting achievements to
the inadequate oversight "...due, in part, to a lack of clear guidance
on how DOE's various headquarters and field organizations should
coordinate and integrate their efforts to effectively oversee the small
business subcontracting programs."
DOE has an existing Acquisition Letter 2004-03 that addresses
procedures that may not be sufficiently clear with regard to the
coordination and integration of small business efforts between
headquarters and the field. That Acquisition Letter is currently in the
process of being rewritten to better define the role and
responsibilities of the various parties. Additionally, training of
small business managers and contracting officers throughout DOE is
being planned for the DOE 6th Annual Small Business Conference to be
held on June 12-15, 2005. Finally, all small business managers
throughout the department (both at headquarters and in the field) are
being provided a "desk manual" that contains all the applicable laws
and regulations required for small business goaling, reporting and
monitoring.
6) On Page 22 and 23 the GAO states that "In March 2005, near the end
of our review, DOE and NNSA procurement organizations issued additional
guidance on small business contracting goals. It remains to be seen
whether DOE will now follow through and ensure that facility management
contractors comply with this guidance."
DOE has established a process to establish its subcontracting goals as
negotiated with SBA, and plans to follow through with its
implementation.
7) In several places in the report the GAO states that, "more small
business subcontracting is always better."
Whereas we agree with the GAO in principle that more subcontracting is
always desirable, it is important to note that each contract varies
significantly and requires its own separate review to determine what
opportunities are available in a given year as well as determining the
best contracting method to support the mission.
Technical Comment:
1) References to the Fiscal Year 2004 subcontract data are premature.
No data has been submitted by the prime contractors to DOE or to the
new eSRS system; therefore, DOE does not have this information and
cannot verify the data in the report. Once the data is received, DOE
will be able to respond as to its conformance with SBA's "baseline
guidelines" issued in July 2003.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
1) Secretary of Energy direct the appropriate officials responsible for
the DOE's Small Business Office and procurement organizations to
ensure, through regular oversight and review activities, that facility
management contractors comply with DOE's March 2005 guidance on small
business procurement goals.
We note that DOE's Secretarial policy statement encourages the
expansion of procurement opportunities for small business policy. As a
result, the Department continues to enhance small business
participation in both prime and subcontracting opportunities.
2) Secretary of Energy direct the appropriate officials responsible for
the DOE's Small Business Office and procurement organizations to use,
for internal management purposes, data on facility management
contractors' annual small business subcontracting achievements
calculated as a percentage of the obligated dollars facility management
contractors received that year on their contract with DOE.
DOE disagrees with this recommendation. The department proposes to
continue to capture its award information based on the guidance
provided by SBA that reflects small business subcontract awards as a
percentage of the subcontract base; and not of the total contract.
3) Secretary of Energy take steps to strengthen oversight of the
program, including issuing guidance clarifying the roles,
responsibilities, and necessary interactions among DOE small business
office, program office, and procurement officials responsible for
managing the small business subcontracting program.
DOE agrees with this recommendation.
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Energy's letter
dated May 3, 2005.
GAO Comments:
1. We acknowledge in the draft report and highlights page that DOE had
taken steps to address the problems with contractor-reported data,
including issuing clarifying information in 2002 and additional
guidance in March 2005. However, we stated that these steps had not
been adequate to ensure that the facility management contractors were
complying with the guidance. The draft report also stated that the
reviews of the five facility management contractors performed by DOE's
Small Business Office did not include an evaluation of whether the
facility management contractors were following SBA guidelines for
developing small business subcontracting goals.
2. We agree that the Small Business Act and the Federal Acquisition
Regulation do not require a specific level of subcontracting and that
individual contractors determine the amount of work that will be
subcontracted. The draft report reflects these two statements. However,
we also stated in the draft report that if a contractor determines that
only a small percentage of the work will be subcontracted, calculation
of small business subcontracting achievements as a percentage of that
percentage can be misleading.
3. We agree and modified the final report.
4. We modified the final report to acknowledge that prior to fiscal
year 2000, DOE was able to include the small business subcontracting
achievements of its facility management contractors toward the
department's small business prime contracting goals. However, while it
may have been an acceptable past practice for the facility management
contractors to exclude more subcontracts under these conditions, the
practice should have been discontinued in fiscal year 2000.
5. In the draft report, we acknowledged that DOE is in the process of
revising existing guidance to clarify oversight roles and
responsibilities and the necessary coordination and integration of
oversight efforts between DOE headquarters and field organizations.
6. In the draft report, we stated that effective oversight of facility
management contractors' practices for calculating and reporting their
small business subcontracting goals and achievements will require more
than providing guidance and training. We believe that regular oversight
activities will also be necessary to verify that contractors are
complying with this guidance.
7. Our draft report does not state that "more small business
subcontracting is always better." The draft report does discuss federal
policy, set out in the Small Business Act, that small businesses shall
have the maximum practicable opportunity to provide goods and services
to the federal government and its contractors, consistent with
efficient contract performance. The draft report also states that there
can be several reasons for differences in contractors' small business
subcontracting achievements, including type of work, contract
performance goals, and changes in the annual funding for a contract.
8. We disagree that the fiscal year 2004 subcontracting achievement
data are premature. Although the facility management contractors have
not yet submitted their fiscal year 2004 subcontracting reports to DOE,
we obtained this data directly from the 34 facility management
contractors so that we could include the most recent results in our
report. We obtained fiscal year 2004 data after the end of the fiscal
year so that it would reflect the final subcontracting activities for
the year. We assessed the reliability of the data for accuracy and
completeness (see app. II). In addition, in March 2005, we provided a
statement of facts to the contractors for their review to ensure the
accuracy of the information.
9. DOE disagreed with our recommendation that, for internal management
purposes, the department use data on its contractors' subcontracting
achievements, calculated as a percentage of the dollars obligated to
their prime contract with DOE. While the contractors should continue to
report their subcontracting achievements as SBA requires, we continue
to believe that, for internal management purposes, the data do not
provide a true picture of their performance, which is necessary for the
department to perform effective oversight.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgment:
GAO Contacts:
Gene Aloise, (202) 512-3841;
William R. Swick, (206) 287-4851:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individuals named above, Carole Blackwell, Ellen
Chu, John Delicath, Doreen Feldman, Dominic Nadarski, Judy Pagano,
Laina Poon, Jeff Rueckhaus, and Ginny Vanderlinde made key
contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Federal subcontracting requirements pertain to small businesses
both as an overall category and in terms of the various subcategories
of small businesses that are defined in federal law, such as small
disadvantaged businesses, women-or veteran-owned small businesses, and
small businesses located in historically underutilized business zones.
For this report, we examined DOE facility management contractors'
activities in subcontracting with small businesses, as an overall
category. We did not examine their subcontracting activities with
respect to any of the subcategories of small businesses.
[2] Small Business Administration, Office of Government Contracting,
Goaling Guidelines for the Small Business Preference Programs: For
Prime and Subcontract Federal Procurement Goals and Achievements
(Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2003).
[3] To meet this 40 percent government-wide goal, SBA negotiates annual
subcontracting goals with each federal agency. The goal that SBA
negotiated with DOE for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 is that 50 percent
of subcontracted dollars be directed to small businesses.
[4] For the 10 years prior to fiscal year 2000, the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy within the Office of Management and Budget had
allowed DOE to include in its small business prime contracting
achievements, the subcontracting dollars awarded to small businesses by
its facility management contractors. For a discussion of the change in
policy starting with fiscal year 2000, see Department of Energy:
Achieving Small Business Prime Contracting Goals Involves Both
Potential Benefits and Risks, GAO-04-738T (Washington, D.C.: May 18,
2004).
[5] Large business subcontractors of DOE's facility management
contractors are subject to the same requirements for small business
subcontracting plans and annual goals. Although the facility management
contractors are not allowed to include the small business
subcontracting achievements of these "lower-tier" subcontractors in
their reported achievements, SBA guidelines allow DOE to include these
lower-tier subcontracting achievements toward the department's small
business subcontracting goals.
[6] GAO has reported on SBA compliance reviews in the past. See Small
Business Subcontracting Report Validation Can Be Improved, GAO-02-166R
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 13, 2001).
[7] The $3.3 billion includes only dollars directed by the facility
management contractors to small businesses with which they had a direct
contractual relationship. The figure does not account for the dollars
directed to small businesses by the approximately 592 large business
subcontractors of DOE's facility management contractors that also had
their own small business subcontracting plans in fiscal year 2004.
These dollars were not within the scope of our review because we
focused on the achievements of the 34 facility management contractors.
[8] Except for these types of subcontracts, SBA guidelines for
contractor reporting of small business subcontracting achievements
require that reports include all subcontracts awarded by the prime
contractor. Section 19.701 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
defines "subcontract" to mean "any agreement (other than one involving
an employer-employee relationship) entered into by a Government prime
contractor or subcontractor calling for supplies and/or services
required for performance of the contract, contract modification, or
subcontract." According to a contracting program manager in SBA's
Office of Government Contracting, electricity and other utilities,
whether or not they are obtained through a formal procurement process,
would be considered a subcontract under the FAR.
[9] The facility management contractors at the 13 sites we visited
provided us with the dollar amounts associated with subcontracts
excluded from their fiscal year 2004 small business subcontracting goal
and achievement calculations. After the facility management contractors
reviewed a statement of facts that we provided to them to ensure the
accuracy of the information, several of the contractors responded that
they would have negotiated lower goals if they had included all of the
appropriate subcontracts in their calculations.
[10] On average, facility management contractors at the DOE
Environmental Management program's cleanup sites and at the NNSA's
weapons production facilities directed to small businesses 20.4 percent
of their contracts' annual funding. In contrast, contractors managing
and operating research laboratories for NNSA and DOE directed to small
businesses an average of 15.4 percent of their facility management
contracts' annual funding. These calculations do not include the
achievements of facility management contractors at the Yucca Mountain
Project or the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, because their missions and
the type of work performed there do not coincide with the two
categories of DOE and NNSA facilities identified above.
[11] We examined limited aspects of the subcontracting program managed
by small business officials at the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), because DOE and NASA share some similarities in
their approach to accomplishing their respective missions. For example,
both NASA and DOE contract extensively to carry out their missions,
accomplished in part through work at the agencies' contractor-operated
research facilities.
[12] U.S. Government Printing Office, DOE Contracting with Small
Business: Hearing Before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
United States Senate, S. Hrg. 108-610 (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2004).
[13] In addition, contracting officers usually review upcoming
subcontract procurements exceeding a specified dollar amount to
determine if facility management contractors have given adequate
consideration to small business opportunities.
[14] In addition to DOE guidance on small business programs, NNSA has
issued policy guidance on small business that defines requirements and
responsibilities but has limited information on how various
organizations should coordinate oversight efforts for small business
subcontracting.
[15] Although contractors are required to establish annual
subcontracting goals for various subcategories of small businesses,
such as small disadvantaged or women-owned small businesses, during our
study, we only examined small business subcontracting as an overall
category. We did not examine the contractors' subcontracting activities
with respect to any subcategories.
[16] Results from a nonprobability sample cannot be used to make
inferences about a population, because in a nonprobability sample, some
elements of the population being studied have no chance or an unknown
chance of being selected as part of the sample.
[17] In addition to the two facility management contractors, one other
facility management contractor informed us, prior to the site visit,
that one of the five subcontracts in the nonprobability sample had
turned out to be awarded to a large business. The contractor said that,
as a result, they were restating their reported small business
subcontracting achievement data. Therefore, we selected an additional
subcontract to complete the nonprobability sample of five, before
beginning our review of this contractor's subcontracting files.
[18] Following our reliability assessment, one contractor reported that
it encountered other problems with potential miscoding of large
business subcontracts as small in the data system that the contractor
uses to calculate its small business subcontracting achievements. A
contractor official said that the contractor is implementing corrective
actions, such as requiring its procurement staff to manually enter
subcontractors' business size information into the contractor's
procurement data system.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
