Department of State Contract for Security Installation at Embassies
Gao ID: GAO-07-34R November 8, 2006In March 2003, the Department of State (State) awarded a sole-source contract to EmbSEC, a Virginia limited liability corporation, for work at U.S. embassies. The contract currently has a ceiling price of $354 million. The contractor is required to install and maintain technical security equipment, such as alarms, cameras, and controlled-access equipment; establish X-ray capability for special projects; and maintain and repair physical security products. The contractor also procures equipment and materials and operates the warehouse where they are stored. EmbSEC was created as a joint venture, mentor/protege partnership under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 8(a) business development program. A joint venture in the 8(a) program is an agreement between an 8(a) participant and one or more businesses to work together on a specific 8(a) contract. SBA regulations state that the purpose of the mentor/protege relationship is to enhance the capabilities of the protege and to improve its ability to successfully compete for contracts. The EmbSEC joint venture is comprised of RDR, Inc., the mentor, and BP International (BPI), the protege, an 8(a) firm at the time the contract was awarded. The terms of the EmbSEC joint venture state that RDR will perform operations support, database development, and security system design and installation under the contract, in addition to performing administrative services under the joint venture, such as accounting and contract administration. BPI is to provide program management, warehousing, computer resource, and procurement services. EmbSEC's only source of revenue is its contract with State. We received a tip on our fraud hotline regarding the EmbSEC contract. The objectives of our review, conducted under the authority of the Comptroller General to conduct evaluations on his own initiative, were to determine (1) the basis for awarding the contract without competition, (2) the effect of treating travel costs, which comprise a large portion of contract costs, as firm, fixed-price, and (3) whether contract administration is being effectively carried out. We are sending a separate management letter to the Administrator of the Small Business Administration (SBA) regarding this contract.
State relied on a waiver of 8(a) competitive thresholds, granted by SBA in 2001, to award the sole-source contract to EmbSEC. An SBA official approved the waiver on behalf of the Associate Administrator for 8(a) Business Development. However, the waiver was improper because SBA was not authorized to grant it. SBA can only authorize sole-source 8(a) awards above the competitive thresholds (1) for specific procurements and (2) if it determines that other 8(a) firms cannot compete for the requirement. In this case, SBA authorized State to make sole-source 8(a) awards in any amount for contracts that "supplement the security of U.S. Government diplomatic posts and protect the lives of Departmental personnel." The waiver was not tied to a specific procurement, but was a blanket waiver that could be applied to any contract pertaining to security at diplomatic posts. According to contracting officials, they have struggled to administer this contract and exercise appropriate oversight. For example, after the contractor notified State of accidental errors it had made in pricing its proposals, the contracting office took initial steps in November 2005 to request an audit by the Defense Contract Audit Agency due to concerns about the pricing errors and other aspects of the contract, such as travel costs. However, the office has not followed up to actually get the audit under way because it lacked the staff to do so. Much of the contracting officer's time has been taken up with resolving disagreements with the contractor. In July 2006, EmbSEC complained to State about a large number of outstanding requests for adjustments to task order prices, some of which are more than a year old, and $2.8 million in work completed or partially completed without a corresponding contractual document under which it could submit invoices. State officials told us they have recently taken actions in response, such as permitting partial funding for work begun before final negotiations on all price components are complete. We also found that the contracting office was not monitoring the percentage of the work being performed by the subcontractor as opposed to the 8(a) joint venture.
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: William T. Woods Team: Government Accountability Office: Acquisition and Sourcing Management Phone: (202) 512-4383GAO-07-34R, Department of State Contract for Security Installation at Embassies
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-34R
entitled 'Department of State Contract for Security Installation at
Embassies' which was released on November 8, 2006.
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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
November 8, 2006:
Henrietta H. Fore:
Under Secretary for Management:
Charles E. Williams:
Director and Chief Operating Officer:
Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations:
Department of State:
Subject: Department of State Contract for Security Installation at
Embassies:
In March 2003, the Department of State (State) awarded a sole-source
contract to EmbSEC, a Virginia limited liability corporation, for work
at U.S. embassies. The contract currently has a ceiling price of $354
million. The contractor is required to install and maintain technical
security equipment, such as alarms, cameras, and controlled-access
equipment; establish X-ray capability for special projects; and
maintain and repair physical security products. The contractor also
procures equipment and materials and operates the warehouse where they
are stored.
EmbSEC was created as a joint venture, mentor/protégé partnership under
the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 8(a) business development
program. A joint venture in the 8(a) program is an agreement between an
8(a) participant and one or more businesses to work together on a
specific 8(a) contract. SBA regulations state that the purpose of the
mentor/protégé relationship is to enhance the capabilities of the
protégé and to improve its ability to successfully compete for
contracts. The EmbSEC joint venture is comprised of RDR, Inc., the
mentor, and BP International (BPI), the protégé, an 8(a) firm at the
time the contract was awarded. The terms of the EmbSEC joint venture
state that RDR will perform operations support, database development,
and security system design and installation under the contract, in
addition to performing administrative services under the joint venture,
such as accounting and contract administration. BPI is to provide
program management, warehousing, computer resource, and procurement
services. EmbSEC's only source of revenue is its contract with State.
We received a tip on our fraud hotline regarding the EmbSEC
contract.[Footnote 1] The objectives of our review, conducted under the
authority of the Comptroller General to conduct evaluations on his own
initiative, were to determine (1) the basis for awarding the contract
without competition, (2) the effect of treating travel costs, which
comprise a large portion of contract costs, as firm, fixed-price, and
(3) whether contract administration is being effectively carried out.
We are sending a separate management letter to the Administrator of the
Small Business Administration (SBA) regarding this contract.[Footnote
2]
Background:
RDR has been performing security installation work for State for a
number of years, dating back to work it performed as a subcontractor
beginning in 1987. When its first contract as the prime contractor--
which had been awarded in 1992 and included a base year plus 4 option
years--was about to expire, RDR requested that State expedite the
solicitation for the follow-on contract so that the company would be
eligible to compete for it before graduating from the 8(a) program. RDR
was the only 8(a) offeror for that contract, subcontracting with
DynCorp, International.[Footnote 3] The contract also had a 5-year
period of performance. In preparation for the 2003 contract award,
State officials wanted RDR to continue the security installation work,
and RDR subsequently partnered with BPI, an 8(a) firm, under an 8(a)
joint venture. DynCorp is again the subcontractor.
The 8(a) program is one of the federal government's primary means for
developing small businesses owned by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals. Firms approved as 8(a) participants can
receive business development assistance from SBA but may only
participate in the 8(a) program for a maximum of 9 years. Contracting
officers can award contracts to 8(a) firms without competition below
certain dollar thresholds--namely up to $5 million for manufacturing
and up to $3 million for all other contracts. SBA's Associate
Administrator for 8(a) Business Development may accept a requirement
for a sole-source award above these thresholds if there is not a
reasonable expectation that at least two eligible 8(a) participants
will submit offers at a fair price.
State's Security Management Division within the Bureau of Overseas
Buildings Operations (OBO) is the program office that requested the
security installation services. OBO directs the worldwide overseas
buildings program for State. For the EmbSEC contract, contracting
officer's representatives (COR) within OBO prepare statements of the
work to be performed under each task order and review the contractor's
proposals. The contract was initially awarded as a time-and-materials
contract.[Footnote 4] This contract type may be used only when it is
not possible at the time of contract award to estimate accurately the
extent or duration of the work or to anticipate costs with any
reasonable degree of confidence. In November 2003, the contract was
modified bilaterally to convert it to an indefinite delivery/indefinite
quantity contract with firm, fixed-price task orders, with an effective
date of December 1, 2003.[Footnote 5] The contract type was changed to
help control costs after overruns were experienced in the first year.
The contract provides for indefinite quantity, within stated limits, of
supplies or services during a fixed period, with the government placing
task orders under the contract for individual requirements. Because the
orders under this contract are firm, fixed-price, once the price is
approved by the government, it is not subject to adjustment on the
basis of the contractor's cost experience. Thus, firm, fixed-price
contracts place upon the contractor maximum risk and full
responsibility for all costs and resulting profit or loss. The
contract's period of performance includes the base year and 4 option
years. To date, 3 option years have been exercised and, according to
State officials, 258 task orders had been issued as of August 2006.
Results in Brief:
State relied on a waiver of 8(a) competitive thresholds, granted by SBA
in 2001, to award the sole-source contract to EmbSEC. An SBA official
approved the waiver on behalf of the Associate Administrator for 8(a)
Business Development.[Footnote 6] However, the waiver was improper
because SBA was not authorized to grant it. SBA can only authorize sole-
source 8(a) awards above the competitive thresholds (1) for specific
procurements and (2) if it determines that other 8(a) firms cannot
compete for the requirement. In this case, SBA authorized State to make
sole-source 8(a) awards in any amount for contracts that "supplement
the security of U.S. Government diplomatic posts and protect the lives
of Departmental personnel." The waiver was not tied to a specific
procurement, but was a blanket waiver that could be applied to any
contract pertaining to security at diplomatic posts. SBA headquarters
officials were unaware of the waiver until we brought it to their
attention; they agreed that it was improper. State incorporated the
waiver in its procurement regulation in April 2004, but officials told
us it has been used only for the EmbSEC contract. It is not clear why
State relied on the waiver instead of using competitive procedures to
award the 2003 contract. Five years earlier, when RDR was awarded the
prior contract as the only 8(a) offerer, the contracting officer
expressed concern with the lack of competition, noting that "it would
be in the best interest of the government to re- compete this
requirement at the earliest practical time." State officials indicated
to us that a number of companies could perform this work.
Using a firm, fixed-price, rather than cost-reimbursable, arrangement
for travel costs has had unintended consequences under this contract,
leading to instances where the government has paid far more than the
contractor's actual costs in airfare, per diem, excess baggage, and
other travel costs, in addition to the contractor's negotiated profit
rate. For example, the contractor priced its proposal to include 23
travelers for work in Baghdad, Iraq. However, only 10 actually made the
trip, and the government paid $380,000 more than the contractor's
incurred costs, according to a State analysis. According to contractor
representatives and government officials, accurately estimating travel
costs is difficult because travel under this contract is highly
unpredictable. Often it is not known ahead of time when the travel will
occur or how long it will last. Contractor representatives explained
that they must cover the risk of this unpredictability in preparing
their task order proposals and that they can never be certain all of
their costs will be covered. CORs in OBO told us they review the
reasonableness of the contractor's proposed technical approach and
number of hours for each task order but not the number of travelers.
Since we began this review, OBO officials said they are paying
increased attention to the contractor's proposed travel costs. The
contracting officer recently negotiated a contract clause that allows
the government to recover unused travel funds after work is completed,
but the clause has not yet been invoked because work under recent task
orders has not been completed.
According to contracting officials, they have struggled to administer
this contract and exercise appropriate oversight. For example, after
the contractor notified State of accidental errors it had made in
pricing its proposals, the contracting office took initial steps in
November 2005 to request an audit by the Defense Contract Audit Agency
due to concerns about the pricing errors and other aspects of the
contract, such as travel costs.[Footnote 7] However, the office has not
followed up to actually get the audit under way because it lacked the
staff to do so. Much of the contracting officer's time has been taken
up with resolving disagreements with the contractor. In July 2006,
EmbSEC complained to State about a large number of outstanding requests
for adjustments to task order prices, some of which are more than a
year old, and $2.8 million in work completed or partially completed
without a corresponding contractual document under which it could
submit invoices. State officials told us they have recently taken
actions in response, such as permitting partial funding for work begun
before final negotiations on all price components are complete. We also
found that the contracting office was not monitoring the percentage of
the work being performed by the subcontractor as opposed to the 8(a)
joint venture.
We are making several recommendations, pertaining to competition,
travel costs, contract type, and contract administration. We also are
recommending that State delete reference to the blanket waiver from its
acquisition regulation. In written comments on a draft of this report,
State concurred with our recommendations and made additional comments,
which we address in the agency comments section of this letter. State's
comments are reproduced in their entirety in appendix I. We also
received technical comments from EmbSEC and RDR, Inc., which we
incorporated as appropriate.
Basis for the Sole-Source Award Was an Improper SBA Waiver:
On September 18, 2001, State requested that SBA waive 8(a) competitive
thresholds for contracts that "supplement the security of U.S.
Government diplomatic posts and protect the lives of Departmental
personnel." An SBA official approved the waiver on behalf of the
Associate Administrator for 8(a) Business Development the next day to
apply "for the duration of the national state of emergency" as declared
by the President; the waiver contains no expiration date. This waiver
was improper because SBA was not authorized to issue it. SBA can waive
the competitive thresholds for a specific contract opportunity after
determining that there is not a reasonable expectation that at least
two eligible 8(a) participants will submit offers at a fair
price[Footnote 8] but was not authorized to approve a blanket waiver,
as was done here. In its letter approving the waiver, SBA agreed that
"it is not reasonable that the Department of State would have the time
to advertise, evaluate and negotiate with several contractors to obtain
reasonable pricing." State, however, had identified no specific
requirement under which this would be the case. State officials said
they interpret the waiver as a "security policy" after the September
2001 terrorist attacks and never viewed it as pertaining to a specific
requirement. SBA's Associate Administrator for 8(a) Business
Development and a representative from SBA's Office of General Counsel
were not aware of the waiver until we brought it to their attention.
They agreed that it was improper.
State made the waiver authority effective on September 19, 2001, via a
procurement information bulletin. It was subsequently incorporated in
State's acquisition regulation[Footnote 9] on April 13, 2004, so that,
according to officials, it would be more visible to contracting
officers. Officials from State's Office of Small Business Utilization
and from the contracting office told us the EmbSEC contract is the only
one that has been awarded under the waiver.
It is unclear why State did not use competitive procedures to award
this contract. State contracting officers had raised concerns in the
past about the lack of competition for the security installation work.
In recommending RDR for the 1998 contract award as the only 8(a)
offerer under a competitive solicitation, the contracting officer noted
that RDR had been either the prime or subcontractor on contracts to
provide these services for the past 10 years. The contracting officer
expressed concern with the lack of competition and concluded that "it
would be in the best interest of the government to re-compete this
requirement at the earliest practical time." CORs in OBO indicated to
us that a number of companies could perform the security installation
work. Nevertheless, State's desire to continue contracting with RDR
after it had graduated from the 8(a) program led RDR to seek out an
8(a) company with which to form a joint venture for the follow-on, sole-
source contract. After the first year of the contract, the contracting
officer decided to initiate a competitive 8(a) acquisition rather than
extend the contract another year, citing unresolved pricing issues and
"mounting evidence" that negotiated rates were significantly higher
than rates for similar services on other contracts. However, State
eventually reopened negotiations with EmbSEC and was able to reach
agreement on a pricing structure that the contracting officer
determined to be fair and reasonable.
Fixed-Price for Travel Has Led to Unintended Consequences:
Changing the contract type from time-and-materials to one with firm,
fixed-price task orders was well intentioned, because time-and-
materials contracts provide no positive profit incentive to the
contractor for cost control or labor efficiency. However, treating
travel as a fixed-price item has led to unintended consequences.
According to the contracting officer, travel costs typically account
for 30 to 45 percent of the task order price. Because travel is fixed-
price and not cost-reimbursable, the government pays airfare and other
associated travel costs for the number of travelers proposed for each
task order, regardless of the actual costs the contractor incurs.
According to our review of the contract file and discussions with State
personnel, there have been instances where the contractor has proposed
a number of travelers that turned out to be more than actually
traveled, and the government has thus paid for trips that did not
occur. For example, for work in Baghdad, Iraq, the contractor's price
proposal reflected 23 travelers, but only 10 actually traveled. For
work in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 12 travelers were proposed and only 5
traveled. In the case of Baghdad, a State official calculated that the
government paid at least $380,000 more than incurred costs. Contractor
representatives told us that the proposed 23 travelers were for two
separate Baghdad projects that they expected to run concurrently.
However, due to schedule delays, the same technician staff ended up
being used for both projects back-to-back. They pointed out that the
opposite situation has also occurred, where the actual number of
travelers exceeded the number in the task order proposal. However, a
November 2005 analysis by State found that six of seven travel status
reports submitted by the contractor showed that fewer travelers
actually made the trips than were proposed.
The Federal Acquisition Regulation provides that a firm, fixed-price
contract be used in certain circumstances, such as when available cost
or pricing information permits realistic estimates of the probable
costs of performance.[Footnote 10] Firm, fixed-price contracts are
suitable for acquiring supplies or services on the basis of reasonably
definite functional or detailed specifications when the contracting
officer can establish fair and reasonable prices at the outset. State
officials and contractor representatives agree that travel under this
contract is very unpredictable. It is often not known in advance when
the travel will occur under each task order or how long it will last.
Frequently, schedules are changed with little notice. For example,
general contractors at the embassy sites must complete their work
before installation of security equipment can begin. If the general
contractor is behind schedule, EmbSEC's trip must be postponed.
Sometimes schedule slips cause the contractor to send fewer people for
a longer period of time to complete the work.
Contractor representatives told us they must consider the
unpredictability of travel costs when pricing their proposals and,
while they furnish an estimate that they believe to be fair and
reasonable, they can never be certain that all of their costs will be
covered due to the extreme uncertainty involved. The contractor
maintains that the government is paying a fixed price to successfully
complete a technical installation that is approved at the post and that
schedule and other changes beyond its control frequently occur after
the project plan has been submitted. According to the contractor, such
changes can force resources to be adjusted to accomplish the work on
time and can result in situations where fewer or more travelers than
proposed are needed. Most of the CORs we spoke with, who have extensive
technical experience installing these systems in the field, told us
that they focus on the labor hours required to complete a task and the
technical aspects of the proposals, such as what equipment is
necessary; they do not typically assess the reasonableness of the
proposed number of travelers.
Another issue related to travel costs pertains to excess baggage
handling fees. These fees are intended to cover the contractor's
expenses associated with transporting equipment overseas. According to
contractor representatives and State officials, the tools and equipment
needed under this contract can be very large and bulky, requiring
additional fees to transport them in and out of the countries of
destination. The contractor's proposals for 200 task orders between
December 2003 and July 2005 reflected a fixed price per traveler for
excess baggage fees that some State officials believed was too high.
State paid this price until it requested information on actual costs,
which turned out to be much less. An OBO official calculated that State
overpaid $1.2 million during this 1 1/2 year period. Contractor
representatives explained that excess baggage fees are extremely
variable and unpredictable and that this risk must be considered when
they price their proposals. However, the contractor agreed to include
the lower estimate in subsequent proposals.
The issue of travel costs has been a contentious one for State and the
contractor. In 2004, State's contracting officer attempted to change
travel to a cost-reimbursable expense, which would have removed the fee
the contractor was including in its travel costs. The contractor would
not agree without receiving consideration in return, stating that doing
so would undermine the agreed-upon fee structure of the contract, under
which air transportation and lodging were fee-bearing. In negotiating
the most recent contract option year, which began in March 2006, the
contracting officer again intended to convert travel to a cost-
reimbursable item, and in fact, the contractor's proposal for that
option year did reflect some portions of travel as cost-reimbursable.
Ultimately, however, the contracting officer decided that the
contractor would have no incentive to keep travel costs down under a
cost-reimbursable arrangement and continued to include it as fixed-
price. However, a new contract clause was inserted that allows recovery
of unused travel funds after order completion. According to the
contracting officer, the clause has not been invoked to date, because
work under the current task orders is still ongoing. OBO officials told
us they are now tracking travel costs more closely.
Difficulties Keeping Pace with Contract Administration Workload:
The extensive activity on this contract and the variety of projects
involved call for a significant amount of oversight. From our reviews
of contract documents and interviews with current and prior contracting
officers, it appears that the contracting office has had difficulty
keeping pace with the contract administration workload. For example,
after the contractor notified the government of accidental errors it
had made in pricing its proposals, in which it was charging the
government for government-furnished equipment,[Footnote 11] the
contracting office contacted the Defense Contract Audit Agency in
November 2005. Due to concerns about the pricing errors, as well as
other aspects of the contract such as travel costs, the office
requested an audit of the contractor's estimating system, overhead
rates, and incurred costs for selected task orders. As of this date,
however, the audit has not been initiated because, according to the
contracting officer, he lacks the staff to follow up with the audit
agency. Recently, State officials told us they plan to turn their
attention once again to getting the audit underway.
Three additional aspects of this contract have required substantial
time and effort on the part of the contracting staff: the high number
of undefinitized task orders (that is, actions for which the contract
terms, specifications, or prices are not agreed to before performance
begins); contractor requests for payment adjustments based on such
things as changes to scope or unforeseen schedule delays; and
monitoring the extent of work the subcontractor is performing under the
contract.
* Undefinitized contract actions authorize the contractor to begin work
immediately, before the contract's terms are definitized.
Definitization of the contract's terms is to occur at the earliest
practicable date. State officials explained that undefinitized orders
have occurred under this contract because projects must be kept on
schedule while negotiations are still under way. According to a
contracting officer previously involved with the contract, she spent
months working to definitize 96 task orders. In a July 2006 letter to
State, the contractor complained that it could not invoice for $2.8
million in work completed or partially completed under notices to
proceed, pending definitization. State officials told us that, in
response, they have changed their procedures and will now permit
partial funding under undefinitized contract actions for such things as
long-lead equipment, even if negotiations on other components of the
price--such as travel costs--are still ongoing.
* The contractor has requested over $3 million in adjustments to
payments because of what it claims are changes in scope or delays for
which it was not responsible. Almost 80 of these items are outstanding,
and some of the requests for payment adjustments date back more than a
year. The contracting officer told us that it takes a lot of time to
sort through the details of these requests and that often only the
project manager on site has the specific information needed. State
officials said that in the time since the July 2006 letter was written,
they have made 22 adjustments for $3.15 million, with additional
requests for payment negotiated and approved and waiting for funding.
* The contracting office is not monitoring the percentage of the work
being performed by DynCorp, the subcontractor, as opposed to the work
being performed by EmbSEC. Because this is an 8(a) contract for
services, the joint venture is required to incur at least 50 percent of
the personnel costs with its own employees.[Footnote 12] The purpose of
this requirement, which limits the amount of work that can be performed
by the subcontractor, is to ensure that small businesses do not pass
along the benefits of their contracts to their subcontractors.
According to contractor representatives, an agreement is in place to
ensure that DynCorp performs 40 percent of the work. When we brought
the limitation on subcontracting requirement to State's attention, the
contracting officials said they do have a mechanism to track
subcontracting activity and that they will start doing so under this
contract. A recent subcontracting activity report, submitted by EmbSEC,
shows that subcontracting has not exceeded the contract's limitation on
subcontracting percentage.
Conclusion:
Given the continued uncertainties surrounding security needs at U.S.
embassies, State's desire for flexibilities in contracting for security
installation is understandable. However, this desire does not obviate
the need to use competitive contracting procedures to the extent
possible and to establish firm terms and conditions for contract
actions as soon as feasible. The recent inclusion of the contract
clause allowing government recovery of unused travel funds is a step in
the right direction toward addressing some of the problems we
identified, but its implementation needs to be monitored to ensure that
it accomplishes the intended goal. In the interim, a re-assessment of
the contract type is called for, given the uncertainties associated
with travel costs under this contract. In addition, a contract this
complex carries with it a certain amount of risk that must be mitigated
by careful government oversight and monitoring of contractor
performance, including timely definitization of task orders.
We are making recommendations to SBA in a separate letter.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help manage risk under this contract, we recommend that the Under
Secretary for Management direct the Director of the Bureau of OBO and
the Assistant Secretary for Administration to take the following five
actions:
* compete the requirement at the earliest feasible opportunity;
* closely monitor travel expenses incurred by the contractor, and take
necessary steps to promptly recover unused travel funds after task
order completion;
* reevaluate the contract type, in light of unpredictable travel costs;
* assess the workload of the contracting office to determine whether
changes are needed to keep up with the contract administration
workload, including timely definitization of contract actions; and:
* delete reference to the improper September 19, 2001 blanket waiver
from State's acquisition regulation.
Agency Comments:
In written comments on a draft of this report, State agreed with our
findings and recommendations, stating that it is developing an
acquisition plan to compete the requirement and that it does not plan
to exercise the last option year under the contract. During the
recompetition, it will carefully consider the contract type. State said
that it is also more closely evaluating the contractor's proposed
travel costs and that it intends to assess the workload of the
contracting office. Finally, State will amend its acquisition
regulation to remove reference to the blanket waiver.
State also suggested that we disassociate the footnote on page one,
regarding our fraud hotline, from the statement of our reporting
objectives or that we clarify that we did not find fraud, waste, abuse,
or mismanagement. The intent of the footnote is simply to describe the
purpose of FraudNET for the general reader. That being said, we believe
our findings do point to some mismanagement issues that could have led
to waste of government funds. State also questioned the accuracy of two
statements in the report, pertaining to its interest in retaining RDR
for the follow-on contract and to the reason the contracting office
requested assistance from the Defense Contract Audit Agency. Both of
these statements are correct as written. State did seek to retain RDR
specifically for the follow-on work. The contracting officer who
inquired about the audit did so after the pricing errors reported by
the contractor, viewing the pricing errors as one of several concerns
with the contract. We added a sentence to the report to clarify this
point. State's comment letter is reproduced in appendix I of this
report.
We also received comments from EmbSEC and RDR, which we incorporated
where appropriate.
Scope and Methodology:
We analyzed documents in State's EmbSEC contract files as well as the
prior contract with RDR. We reviewed pertinent sections of the Federal
Acquisition Regulation and State's supplement. We interviewed State
contracting officials in the Facilities Design and Construction
Division within the Office of Logistics/Acquisitions Management and
program officials in the Security Management Division, Bureau of OBO.
We also met with contractor representatives. We held discussions with
SBA officials and reviewed pertinent small business regulations. We
conducted our review from May 2006 to August 2006 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Key contributors to
this correspondence were Michele Mackin, Assistant Director; John
Krump; Sylvia Schatz; and Tatiana Winger.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Katherine V. Schinasi, Managing Director:
Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State:
Assistant Secretary for Resource Management and Chief Financial
Officer:
Washington, D.C. 20520:
Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers:
Managing Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
OCT 2 6 2006:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "Department
of State Contract for Security Installation at Embassies," GAO Job Code
120569.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact
Christina Maier, Management Program Analyst, Bureau of Overseas
Building Operations at (703) 875-5752 or Walter Cate, Division Chief,
Bureau of Administration at 703-875-56286.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Bradford R. Higgins:
cc: GAO - Michele Mackin:
OBO - Charles Williams:
State/OIG - Mark Duda:
Department of State Comments on the GAO Draft Letter Report Department
of State Contract for Security Installation at Embassies (GAO-07-34R,
GAO Code 120569):
Comments:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft letter report.
Overall, we concur with GAO's findings and observations. State has a
few specific comments on some of the facts as reported; our comments
are set out below.
1. Page 1, 3rd paragraph, on the following language and footnote:
We received a tip on our fraud hotline regarding the EmbSEC contract.
[1] The purpose of GAO's FraudNET is to facilitate reporting of
allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement of federal funds.
Allegations are received via e-mail at fraudnet@gao.gov.
DOS comment: As this paragraph is currently structured, the reader
might be left with an unduly negative impression. While a "fraud
hotline" tip led to GAO's review of the EmbSec contract, it is State's
understanding that some or all of the specific allegations that
triggered the inquiry were subsequently proved to be erroneous, or at
least overstated. If that was the case, we would suggest that the first
sentence and the accompanying footnote be disjoined from the balance of
the paragraph, perhaps with some additional clarifying remarks that
GAO, in its study, did not find fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement.
We acknowledge, as GAO has documented in its report, that there have
been problems and some complicated issues addressed in both the
formation and administration of the contract. That said, we would also
point out that this critical worldwide security program has been
carried out-with overall success-by the Department and its contractor
under difficult and even dangerous circumstances. One particularly
stark example was the situation encountered in Baghdad. In addition to
gunfire in the vicinity, a mortar shell hit the palace as EmbSec's
employees were working at that location. In sum, we do not believe that
the events and actions described in the draft report can properly be
categorized as "fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement."
2. Page 2, 1st paragraph, the following language:
In preparation for the 2003 contract award, State officials wanted RDR
to continue the security installation work, and RDR subsequently
partnered with BPI, an 8(a) firm, under an 8(a) joint venture.
DOS Comment: We suggest that this sentence be re-worded to reflect that
the Department did not have an interest in specifically retaining RDR;
rather we had an interest, in the 2003 time frame, to maintain our
capabilities without risking a period of time when we would not be able
to support our programs or more importantly react to an emergency.
Unless GAO has actual evidence that the primary motivation of one or
more Department officials was specifically for "RDR to continue the
security installation work," we would ask that the sentence be modified
to reflect more accurately the then-existing situation, e.g., "In
preparation for the 2003 contract award, State officials realized a
need to maintain their program capabilities and be able to react to
emergencies. RDR subsequently partnered with BPI,..."
3. Page 6, 3rd paragraph:
DOS Comment: We do not believe that Paragraph 3 on page 6 is accurate.
The reason State requested a DCAA audit was not due to the double
billing for equipment as the draft states. The double billing episode
was addressed and resolved as stated in footnote no. 10. The third
sentence from the end of the paragraph should state:
"For Example, the contracting office contacted the Defense Contract
Audit Agency in November 2005 to request an audit of the contractor's
estimating system, overhead rates, and incurred costs for a selected
task order in order to determine if overcharges existed in relation to
travel/excess baggage and to determine if any of the overcharges were
recoverable. The audit was requested through the Department of State
Office of Inspector General on September 15, 2006. According to the
contracting officer, the delay in requesting the audit was due to a
shortage of staff and the need to address priorities."
4. Page 8, Recommendations for Executive Action, 1st sentence:
DOS Comment: Please change the first sentence to read,..."we recommend
that the Under Secretary for Management, the Director of the Bureau of
OBO, and the Assistant Secretary for Administration take the following
five actions."
5. Page 8, Recommendations for Executive Action:
Recommendation 1 - compete the requirement at the earliest feasible
opportunity;
DOS Comment: We concur. OBO's Security Management Division prepared a
Decision Memorandum for the OBO Director and, citing GAO's draft
report, recommended, "That the Department not exercise the last option
year on the EmbSEC contract and that OBO move forward with discussions
with A/LM to develop and finalize a comprehensive Acquisition Plan for
Security Installation Services." OBO Director General Williams approved
the recommendation on October 2, 2006. The following day (October 3),
representatives from the DOS Bureau of Administration's Office of
Acquisitions Management (A/LM/AQM) - the cognizant contracting office-
and the OBO Security Management Division held the initial acquisition
planning session and preliminarily agreed on an overall strategy to
compete the requirement, while concurrently ensuring that critical
security program objectives continue to be addressed. We ask that GAO
include this updated information in its report.
Recommendation 2 - closely monitor travel expenses incurred by the
contractor, and take necessary steps to promptly recover unused travel
funds after task order completion;
DOS Comment: As stated elsewhere in the report, OBO officials are now
more closely evaluating travel costs proposed by EmbSEC. Furthermore, a
contract clause was incorporated into the contract that allows the
government to recover unexpended travel funds after work is completed.
DOS will continue to carefully monitor travel expenses and recover
unused obligations as appropriate.
Recommendation 3 - reevaluate the contract type, in light of
unpredictable travel costs;
DOS Comment: The contract type will be carefully considered during the
recompetition of this requirement.
Recommendation 4 - assess the workload of the contracting office to
determine whether changes are needed to keep up with the contract
administration workload, including timely definitization of contract
actions; and:
DOS Comment: Concur:
Recommendation 5 - delete reference to the improper September 19, 2001
blanket waiver from State's acquisition regulation.
DOS Comment: The waiver provided by the Small Business Administration
was assumed to be proper and was honored by the Department in good
faith. The Department of State Acquisition Regulation will be amended
to remove any reference to this exception to Section 8(a) competition
requirements.
[End of Section]
(120569)
FOOTNOTES
[1] The purpose of GAO's FraudNET is to facilitate reporting of
allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement of federal funds.
Allegations are received via e-mail at fraudnet@gao.gov.
[2] GAO, State Department Contract for Security Installation at
Embassies Awarded to 8(a) Joint Venture, GAO-07-33R (Washington, D.C.:
Nov. 8, 2006).
[3] DynCorp was acquired by Computer Sciences Corporation in 2003.
[4] Time-and-materials contracts provide for acquiring supplies or
services on the basis of (1) direct labor hours at specified fixed
hourly rates that include wages, overhead, general and administrative
expenses, and profit and (2) materials at cost. Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) 16.601(a)(1) and (2) (2006).
[5] The contract also provides for time-and-materials task orders.
However, according to the contracting officer, the vast majority of the
orders issued to date have been fixed-price.
[6] The official who approved the waiver is no longer with SBA.
[7] The Defense Contract Audit Agency performs contract audits for the
Department of Defense. The agency also provides contract audit services
to some other government agencies.
[8] 13 C.F.R.124.506(d) (2001). These standards remain in place. See 13
C.F.R. 124.506(d) (2006).
[9] Department of State Acquisition Regulation, 48 C.F.R. 619.805-2
(2005).
[10] FAR16.202-2 (2006).
[11] In August 2005, the State Department Inspector General found the
potential for double billing for government-furnished equipment on over
90 task orders. In one example, the contractor charged the government
for an $112,000 X-ray machine, which was later identified as government-
furnished equipment. Price reductions and cash refunds from the
contractor of almost $1.4 million resulted from the investigation, but
no criminal or administrative misconduct was found. Contractor
representatives attributed the problem to employee error.
[12] FAR 52.219-14; 13 C.F.R. 124.510 and 13 C.F.R. 125.6.
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:
