TOPICS
TOPICS
Inspector general to audit massive FAA outsourcing effort
The Transportation Department inspector general soon will launch an audit of a contract awarded last year through the government's largest-ever public-private job competition at a civilian agency, including a closer look at a $500 million drop in the contract's anticipated savings, department officials said this week.
In a memorandum issued on Monday, the inspector general's office announced the review to examine the transition from federal employee to contractor operations of 58 Federal Aviation Administration flight service centers across the country. The centers employed roughly 2,500 federal workers at the time of the outsourcing decision. Lockheed Martin Corp., the winner of the contract, plans to consolidate operations into 20 facilities.
The audit will assess the plans for transition, whether the contract is achieving the anticipated savings, and the extent to which the needs of general aviation pilots using the flight service stations are being met, the IG office announced.
Explaining the impetus for the audit, IG spokesman David Barnes said, "While FAA has experience with outsourcing air traffic control services on a limited scale, this is significantly larger in scope."
He said the review was initiated out of consideration for the program's importance to the agency, the savings anticipated, the agency's limited experience with outsourcing and congressional interest in the subject. It was not requested by legislators.
Among other issues, the IG office plans to look into changes in projections for how much the agency expects to save. When the contract was awarded, FAA announced that private sector performance would save the government $2.2 billion over the life of the contract, based on a 10-year estimate for the 5-year base period with up to five extension years. In its announcement of the audit this week, the inspector general's office quoted an anticipated savings of $1.7 billion.
"We are aware of the difference and will be looking into this as part of our review," Barnes told Government Executive.
"If this is an honest-to-goodness audit, then I'm thrilled," said Kate Breen, president of the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists, which represented the federal employees at the centers. She said the competition for the work, which was run under the Office of Management and Budget's Circular A-76 rules, and the appeals process at the time, seemed slanted in favor of the contractor.
An OMB official said this is the first formal audit of an A-76 award that the office is aware of. But the circular "requires that agencies monitor the implementation of their awards made pursuant to public-private competition on an ongoing basis, regardless of the selected service provider," said the official, who asked to remain anonymous.
The official said some agencies have taken their own measures to validate results of completed competitions, with each establishing its own procedure. Some of those rely on agency inspectors general, while others use contractors or an agency office other than the one that conducted the competition.
The official underlined that the agency, and not OMB, is responsible for FAA's audit.
Transportation's Barnes said his office will conduct the audit by reviewing records, interviewing officials with FAA and Lockheed, visiting service stations and communicating with the general aviation community. That process will begin soon with an FAA meeting, he said.
COMMENTS
- FAA Worked on the installation of the first GPS tracking system. Patented a Range Safety GPS Tracking and Data Collection System. Most of this can be done NOW using off the shelf software. In 1989 I tried to get the FAA to install GPS in their AC but politics came into play. I went to Boeing and other AC companies and was told it would add to the cost of the AC and there was no FCC requirement. I went to Trimble Navigation and they used what I gave then for GPS navigation BUT said "There is no FAA requirement". Went to the AC insurance CEO got a favorable response but no follow up. I hold a US Patent probably why I am having a problem. Today Air France lost a flight. If I had been successful they would have known what happened and where the AC is within 50 meters. My system would allow UAV’s to operate in commercial air space. A collision avoidance feature will improve air safety. Allowing ‘FREE FLIGHT” will save time and fuel costs. The TITOT can be eliminated. It’s about time we put this device on all AC especially the over seas flights. Bob Brewster Posted September 19, 2009 7:10 AM
- Where do I begin? Yes, this contract was flawed from the beginning. The FAA wanted to outsource the flight service stations at any cost. Why? Ask the recently retired upper management FAA employees who are now working for contractors. Ask the current upper management FAA employees who have been given better jobs in the last year. Ask the Secretary of Transportation who is a former executive of the service provider. Did the FAA want to dispose of a union or was it just to make the Transportation Department look good so they may receive "green lights" from the present administration? Now that the estimated cost savings have already dropped $500 million, could it be to save the taxpayers money? Where do we go from here? The service provider will ask for and receive more money. The 2,000-plus displaced employees will continue to stress over lost jobs, lost retirement benefits, and moving away from their families and friends. With the threat of outsourcing, why would anyone consider working for the government today? M. Stain Posted May 27, 2006 9:58 AM
- The cost savings predicted at the beginning of the contract will completely disappear by the end of the contract. Lockheed Martin has no intention of honoring any of the commitments it made and I also predict that they will not opt to renew the contract. If anyone cares to check, most, if not all, of the mid-level managers at Lockheed Martin involved in this contract are retired FAA and some of them left the FAA on Friday and showed up at Lockheed Martin on Monday. Does anyone care? It doesn't seem to matter. I thought there were conflict of interest laws but I guess they only apply to other agencies. GovExec.com reader Posted May 18, 2006 12:35 PM









