Report | Aug. 23, 2013

Award and Administration of Multiple-AwardContracts at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland Need Improvement



Our objectives were to determine whether contracting officials provided a fair opportunity to compete, supported price reasonableness determinations, and performed adequate surveillance for task orders issued under multiple-award contracts for services in accordance with Federal and DoD procedures. We reviewed 20 task orders, valued at $15.8 million, awarded under two multiple-award contracts.


The 772nd Enterprise Sourcing Squadron (ESS) contracting officers provided contractors a fair opportunity to compete or adequately justified a fair opportunity exception for 19 task orders reviewed, valued at $15.3 million. However, a contracting officer did not justify a fair opportunity exception for one task order, valued at $446,954, because the contracting officer did not understand the Federal Acquisition Regulation requirements for documenting fair opportunity exceptions. In addition, they did not adequately document that the prices paid for the 20 task orders were fair and reasonable because they relied on unsupported technical evaluations and independent Government cost estimates (IGCE) that did not include the estimate basis to make their determinations. As a result, Air Force customers may have paid more than they should have for the services purchased under the 20 task orders reviewed.

Contracting officers did not adequately oversee Air Force Civil Engineer Center contracting officer’s representatives (CORs) surveillance of 19 task orders, valued at $15.4 million. Specifically, contracting officers did not:

  • prepare quality assurance surveillance plans (QASPs) for the 19 task orders because they did not understand QASP requirements;
  • tailor COR designation letters because they relied on a standard template;
  • monitor the CORs because they used customer feedback instead;
  • obtain COR reviews of contractor monthly status reports because CORs were not required to document their reviews; and
  • verify the adequacy of COR reviews of other direct costs because CORs reviewed proposed costs, not actual costs.

As a result, Air Force customers may not have received all of the services they paid for.


We recommend the Commander, 772nd ESS, obtain technical reviews and IGCEs that are adequately supported and require contracting officers to prepare QASPs, tailor COR designation letters, and require CORs to document surveillance performed and report progress to the contracting officer.

Management Comments and Our Response

The Acting Deputy Director, 772nd ESS, responding for the Commander, 772nd ESS, agreed with the recommendations. However, the Acting Deputy Director’s comments on Recommendation A.1 were partially responsive because the comments did not address whether the 772nd ESS will develop written procedures for technical evaluations. The Acting Deputy Director’s comments were not responsive for Recommendations B.1 and B.2. because the comments did not address the type of multiple-award task orders we reviewed.

This report is a result of Project No. D2013-D000CF-0014.000.