Background DOD’s contracting process—governed by laws and regulations—seeks to  promote competition, be transparent in conducting business and  ultimately satisfy DOD users in terms of cost, quality, and timeliness to  protect taxpayers’ interests. DOD’s acquisition process begins at the point  when agency needs are established; it includes requirements  development and acquisition planning, a process for awarding contracts,  and contract administration. While we recognize that requirements  development and acquisition planning can affect the time it takes to  award a contract, this review focuses on the time from solicitation  issuance to contract award. An overview of competition in contracting,  contract phases, and DOD initiatives follows. Competition Federal statutes and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) generally  require that federal agencies award contracts through full and open  competition, but recognize that such competition is not always feasible or  desirable, and authorize the use of other than full and open competition  under certain conditions. The exceptions include: only one responsible source exists and no other supplies or services  will satisfy agency requirements; unusual and compelling urgency exists; or when authorized or required by statute (for example, statutorily  allowed sole-source awards to small businesses). Even when using other than full and open competition, agencies must  solicit offers from as many potential sources as is practicable. Generally,  contracts awarded using other than full and open competition must be  supported by written justifications and approvals that contain sufficient  facts and rationale to justify the use of the specific exception to full and  open competition. The approval level for these types of contracts varies  according to the dollar value of the procurement. Contract Phases We  Identified The acquisition planning phase includes pre-solicitation activities such as  market research and defining requirements, among others. We identified  four contract phases subsequent to acquisition planning: solicitation,  initial evaluation, discussion/negotiation, and contract award. See figure  1. Solicitation: Agencies solicit offers from prospective contractors by  issuing a request for proposals. The request for proposals informs the  prospective contractors of the government’s requirements, the  anticipated terms and conditions that will apply to the contract, the  information required in a proposal and, in a competitive acquisition,  the factors used to evaluate proposals and their relative importance.  Those who wish to respond must submit their proposal to the  government office in the time and manner stated in the request for  proposals. We consider the solicitation phase to begin with solicitation  issuance and end at the deadline to submit the initial proposals. Initial Evaluation: Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the  proposals and the offerors’ ability to perform the prospective contract  successfully. For example, proposals undergo technical evaluation to  determine offerors’ ability to meet the technical requirements and cost  or price evaluation to determine whether the price is fair and  reasonable. Agencies also evaluate proposals when using other than  full and open competition as part of agency preparation for negotiation  with the offerors. We consider the evaluation phase to begin when  contractors submit initial proposals and to end once government  contracting personnel receive approval to enter into negotiations or  discussions. Discussion/Negotiation: Negotiations are exchanges, in either a  competitive or sole-source environment, between the government and  offerors that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the offerors to  revise the proposals. Negotiations allow the offerors to address any  concerns with the proposals or provide additional information on  relevant past performance, among other things. We consider this  phase to start when the contracting officer receives approval to enter  into negotiations and end when contracting personnel receive  approval to award the contract. Contract Award: We consider the contract award phase to start  when the approval to award the contract is given and end when the  contracting officer signs the contract. DOD Initiatives: Source  Selection Procedures and  Peer Reviews The following DOD initiatives identify certain tasks that contracting  officials should address between solicitation issuance and contract award: Source Selection Procedures: DOD updated its source selection  procedures in April 2016 to help standardize the process to deliver  products at the best value. These procedures outline a common set  of principles and procedures for conducting acquisitions in  accordance with applicable statutes and regulations. Unless waived,  the source selection procedures apply to all acquisitions conducted as  part of a major system acquisition and all competitively negotiated  acquisitions with an estimated value of more than $10 million. Peer Reviews: The Office of Defense Procurement and Acquisition  Policy is responsible for all pricing, contracting, and procurement  policy matters within DOD and has required peer reviews of certain  DOD acquisitions since 2009. The office currently conducts peer  reviews for all procurements with an estimated value of over $1 billion  and for noncompetitive procurements for new contract actions valued  at $500 million or more. The office generally conducts peer reviews  prior to issuance of the solicitation, prior to request for final proposal  revisions, and prior to contract award, as well as periodic post-award  reviews. Peer review teams include contracting officials from the  military departments and defense agencies as well as legal advisors.  For acquisitions below $1 billion, the military components must  establish their own policies for conducting reviews based on expected  acquisition value and the extent of competition. DOD Components  Have Taken Steps to  Track the Time  Frames for Awarding  Contracts, but DOD  Does Not Have a  Strategy for  Assessing the  Information DOD components in our review have efforts underway to track and  reduce the time to award contracts, but these efforts are not coordinated  across the department. The DOD components collect information on the  time to award contracts, but differ on what information they collect and  how they use it. DOD is taking a number of actions to understand the  information the components collect such as determining what events are  tracked, but DOD does not have a department-wide strategy for collecting  and assessing the components’ information. DOD has proposed reducing  how long it takes to award contracts. DOD Components Collect  Varying Levels of  Information about the Time  Frames for Awarding  Contracts Each component we reviewed collected information on the length of time  to award certain contracts, but the information varied. The differences  include: (1) the types of contract actions tracked; (2) the start of the  period measured; (3) whether components track interim dates between  solicitation issuance and award; and (4) how goals to reduce the length of  time are determined. For example, the Air Force limits its scope to  discrete contract value ranges while the other components include  broader dollar ranges. The components also use different starting points  to measure the time frames. For example, the Army Contracting  Command currently tracks time starting from the submission of an  adequate requirements package to contracting officials, which occurs  before solicitation issuance. The Air Force, however, tracks how long it  takes to award a contract starting from solicitation issuance. The selected  components in our review also differ in collecting data for interim phases  of the contract award process—such as evaluation or negotiation. Both  Navy commands capture multiple data points, such as when negotiations  begin, among other events, but there is no common practice for including  certain data across the commands that is provided to DOD. Table 1  shows the broad categories of information collected. Concerns within the Air Force about the length of time taken to award  contracts led to a process, begun in 2014, for tracking award times for  sole-source contracts, including identifying practices and procedures that  contributed to the time, according to Air Force contracting officials. The  officials stated that this effort helped to reduce the average time to award  sole-source contracts between $50 million and $500 million from about 16  months in fiscal year 2014 to about 12 months in fiscal year 2017. Air  Force officials attributed the reductions in time to various streamlining  initiatives, such as asking for contractors’ feedback on draft solicitations  and clarifying as needed. Beginning with new contracts awarded in fiscal year 2014, the Air  Force collected information on sole-source contracts between $50  million and $500 million. In early fiscal year 2018, the Air Force  expanded its data collection to include competitive contracts from $50  million to $1 billion. The Air Force tracks the time starting from solicitation issuance to  contract award. It also tracks interim phases of contract awards such  as the start of evaluation or negotiation. According to Air Force officials, they establish fiscal year goals to  measure progress based on the average of schedule dates. The data for both the sole-source contracts and now the competitive  contracts are collected through a manual data call and are entered  into a spreadsheet. The data are reported to the Office of the  Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition. Army In November 2017, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army  (Procurement) called for the formation of an Army-wide team to examine  approaches for improving procurement time frames similar to one already  underway at the Army Contracting Command. The command began  tracking the lengths of time to award contracts in 2015, and expanded the  effort across the command in January 2017. The Army Contracting  Command: Tracks all procurements based on dollar thresholds, dividing the  contracts by competitive and non-competitive actions. Tracks the time from the receipt of the requirements package to  contract award. The process does not capture interim phases of  contract award such as the start of evaluation or negotiation. Establishes goals by averaging historical data. For instance, a  competitively awarded contract between $50 million and $250 million  is estimated to take 600 days. Army officials stated that they track  actual performance against their goals on a quarterly basis. Collects data through its Virtual Contracting Enterprise system, which  includes electronic contract files that can be used to obtain contract  data such as solicitation issuance date. The command computes  averages by aggregating the data by dollar threshold, contracting  organization, and portfolios—such as weapon systems or services  contracts. Defense Logistics Agency In November 2014, the Defense Logistics Agency examined awards from  2011 to 2013 to determine areas to focus on to make the contract award  process more efficient. Defense Logistics Agency contracting officials  stated that they have reduced the award time since they began their  assessment by streamlining their procedures. The agency: Collects contract data for all of its procurements. Measures the time period from receipt of purchase requirement  package to contract award, but not the phases in between solicitation  and contract award—such as evaluation or negotiation. Establishes a goal based on historical averages for the various  contract types, such as long-term contracts or delivery orders, in order  to aggregate contracts with similar characteristics. The agency varies  the goals according to the kind of contract, such as those using  simplified acquisition procedures or larger value contracts. For  example, the Aviation command’s goal is to award contracts that  require certified cost or pricing data with a period of performance that  exceeds 3 years within 315 days for fiscal year 2018. For those  contracts that do not require certified cost or pricing data, the goal is  215 days. Collects contract data using its contract management systems,  continues to assess whether it is meeting timeliness goals on a  monthly basis, and revises goals each fiscal year to reflect changes in  trends and volume of contract actions. Navy Starting in May 2015, the Navy contracting commands presented data  quarterly on execution of contracts and areas for improvement within the  contract award process to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the  Navy, (Research, Development, and Acquisition) in response to concerns  about the length of time for contract awards. The Navy commands we  selected have made efforts to identify bottlenecks within the contract  award process. For example, their analysis of the data highlighted the  timeliness and quality of the procurement request as a common issue  among the Navy contracting commands as well as the justification and  approval cycle for sole-source awards. The analyses also included areas  for improvement during the process, such as improving guidance and  training for technical evaluation teams and exploring opportunities to  streamline or waive some peer reviews. Naval Air Systems Command piloted the Procurement Management  Tool in fiscal year 2013. The Procurement Management Tool is an  electronic system to collect information on contracts, which allows  contracting officials to forecast and manage procurement time frames.  The system: Maintains data from all of the Naval Air Systems Command’s  contracts, starting from acquisition planning (pre-solicitation  efforts), in addition to various interim dates such as proposal  receipt. The tool allows contracting officials to compare planned,  revised, and actual dates. Tracks the overall length of time to award contracts. Navy  contracting officials said they use the planned dates as the  baseline to compare to the actual dates to determine the variance.  Their goal is to reduce the variance between the dates. Uses data from the Command’s contract writing systems, but  updates are done manually. Data are made available to Naval Air  Systems Command officials and provide them a high-level view of  the cost and cycle time drivers that may be selected for further  investigation. Reports can be generated at any time, on an as- needed basis. Naval Sea Systems Command, starting in 2005, conducted analyses  on the contract award phases that were used to identify problem  areas that added time beyond what was anticipated. The analyses  also capture data from entities outside of the contracting office, such  as program offices. Naval Sea Systems Command has used the  analyses to implement streamlining initiatives as well as establish  performance measures to assess progress on a quarterly basis. A  Naval Sea Systems Command official told us that the command has  reduced the average length of time to award contracts above  $750,000. Specifically, for competitive contracts, the average was  reduced from 467 days to 387 days (about 18 percent), and for sole- source contracts the average was reduced from 336 to days to 278  days (about 18 percent) from fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year  2017. The Naval Sea Systems Command tracks its contracts valued at  $750,000 or greater using an electronic data base—E-milestone— to collect contract information. The data base collects information  starting from pre-solicitation efforts, which includes the purchase  request to contract award. The system includes interim dates  within the contract award process, such as the beginning of  evaluation. Contracting officials are responsible for capturing both planned  and actual dates in the system. Analysis of the variation between  the planned and actual dates can be used to identify areas where  difficulties occur. Command officials stated that their goal is to reduce the variance  between the planned and actual dates. The system reports  performance metrics monthly to program executive offices as well  as to higher offices. The metrics the command collects reveal  acquisition process bottlenecks and facilitate corrective action and  acquisition streamlining. DOD Has Proposed  Reducing the Length of  Time to Award Contracts  but Does Not Yet Have a  Strategy for Assessing the  Information Components  Collect According to Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy officials, DOD  is taking steps to address its concerns about the time to issue sole-source  contract awards for major weapon systems. DOD has proposed reducing  this time by 50 percent over a 3-year period, as measured from the  receipt of the requirements to contract award. DOD officials also plan to  expand this effort to include competitively awarded contracts. While DOD has proposed reducing the length of time to award contracts  by as much as 50 percent, according to DOD officials, it does not have a  department-wide strategy for the information components are to collect  and report because it has not defined what is to be measured. Internal  control standards for the federal government state that management  should use relevant information to make informed decisions and evaluate  an agency’s performance in achieving key objectives and establish a  baseline as a measure to assess progress in achieving its goals. As discussed above, DOD components have made some efforts to collect  information to understand the length of time to award contracts for their  own management purposes. Since the components differ on when they  start measuring the time to award contracts and whether they collect data  on interim dates between solicitation issuance and contract award, it is  difficult for DOD to ensure that the data from the various components are  comparable and comprehensive. This issue was highlighted in the  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, which contained  a provision for DOD to develop a definition of “procurement administrative  lead time” to be used throughout the department and a plan for  measuring and publicly reporting data on procurement administrative lead  time. DOD proposed a definition for the procurement administrative lead  time as the time between the date on which DOD issues the initial  solicitation for a contract or task order and the date of the award in a  February 2018 notice in the Federal Register. The proposed definition  applies to DOD contracts and task orders above the Simplified Acquisition  Threshold. In addition to issuing the Federal Register notice, Defense  Procurement and Acquisition Policy officials have started working with the  military components (Army, Navy, and Air Force) to understand the  information they have on the time frames for awarding contracts. Further,  DOD officials stated that they are starting to identify events common  across the components, relative to contract award time frames. According  to DOD officials, DOD plans to include pre-solicitation events and some  interim events between solicitation issuance and contract award in its  DOD-wide data collection efforts. Because DOD’s efforts are in the early  stages, they have not established which specific events to measure and  how they will use the information collected. Without a strategy for data  collection and assessment, DOD will be limited in its ability to assess  progress toward achieving its proposed goal and addressing challenges  across components. Most of the Selected  Weapon Systems- Related Contracts  Were Awarded within  a Year Our review of a nongeneralizable selection of 129 weapon systems- related contracts had a wide range of time intervals from solicitation  issuance to award. The time intervals from solicitation to award ranged  from less than a month to more than 4 years, with a median of about 9  months. Based on our analysis, 88 of the 129 contracts were awarded  less than a year from the solicitation issuance date, while 38 were  awarded between 1 and 2 years. The remaining 3 selected contracts took  more than 2 years to award. We analyzed the time taken to award  contracts based on three characteristics identified by some DOD officials  and contractor representatives that may affect the time taken to award  contracts: contract value, extent competed, and contract type. We did not  observe any patterns based on these characteristics. The results of our  analysis are as follows. Contract Value We found a wide range of time intervals for the 129 contract awards we  reviewed, which ranged from about $5 million to over $12 billion. We  observed that both shortest and the longest time intervals from solicitation  to contract award were for contracts valued under $50 million. One of the  two contracts that were awarded within 20 days had a contract value of  about $7 million for commercial software services. Figure 2 summarizes  information on the time interval based on contract value. Extent Competed DOD contracting officials and industry representatives we interviewed  stated that contracts awarded using full and open competition could have  a longer time interval than contracts awarded using other than full and  open competition due to the need to evaluate proposals from multiple  offerors. Twenty-seven of the 129 contracts in our review used full and  open competition, and the remaining 102 contracts used other than full  and open competition. Based on our analysis, roughly two-thirds of the  selected contracts in either group took less than 1 year to award.  Specifically: Eighteen of the 27 selected contracts awarded using full and open  competition were awarded within a year of solicitation issuance, and  the remaining 9 were awarded between 1 and 2 years. Seventy of the 102 selected contracts awarded using other than full  and open competition were awarded within a year and 29 of the 102  were awarded between 1 and 2 years. Contract Type DOD contracting officials and industry representatives we interviewed  asserted that firm-fixed-priced contracts would generally take a shorter  amount of time to award. For example, Navy contracting officials told us  that other than firm-fixed-priced contracts—such as contracts with award  or incentive fees—could take longer to award because the government  would need to negotiate the fee structure with the contractor. We found a  wide range of time intervals based on contract type. Roughly two-thirds of  the 129 selected contracts were awarded in less than 1 year regardless of  contract type. Specifically: Thirty-eight of the 53 firm-fixed-price contracts were awarded within a  year of when the solicitation was issued and 50 of the 76 other  contracts were awarded within a year of solicitation issuance. Survey Respondents  Identified Several  Factors Affecting the  Time Frame for  Awarding Contracts The results of our survey of contracting officials for 37 contracts showed  that contracting officials cited a number of factors—such as the quality of  the proposal—that helped reduce or increase the time to award the  selected contracts. They did not identify any one factor that consistently  affected the time to award. Officials for more than half of the contracts  reported needing more time to award the contracts than they initially  anticipated. Survey Respondents  Reported that Most of the  Contracts Took Longer  than Anticipated to Award  and Identified Various  Factors That Affected  Overall Length of Time to  Award Contracts DOD contracting officials we surveyed for 23 of 37 contracts reported  needing more time to award their contract than anticipated at the time  they issued their solicitation. Table 2 summarizes how respondents in  our survey characterized differences between the anticipated contract  award date and the actual date. DOD contracting officials cited the decision to make the award an office  priority and contractor responsiveness as factors helping to decrease the  overall time. In addition, contracting officials for four contracts awarded  using full and open competition cited receiving waivers or deviations from  relevant federal and service-level acquisition regulations as a factor that  reduced the time. In case study interviews, contracting officials for two  of these four contracts added that peer review waivers and delegation of  the decision authority level to a lower level helped decrease the overall  time. According to these contracting officials, they received these waivers  because the procurements were considered low risk since the  requirements that the offerors needed to meet were straightforward. DOD  policy officials said peer review waivers are infrequently requested and  granted on case-by-case bases. According to these officials, as of March  2018, 14 peer review waivers had been requested since fiscal year 2016  and all of them were granted. In contrast, contracting officials responding to our survey cited several  factors that lengthened the time for contracts that were awarded later  than anticipated. For example, in the solicitation phase, contracting  officials for contracts awarded using full and open competition cited the  lack of quality of the solicitation as a factor that lengthened the time  needed, while contracting officials for contracts awarded using other than  full and open competition cited the contractor’s inability to provide a timely  proposal and government changes in requirements. In an Air Force  cost-plus-award-fee contract awarded using other than full and open  competition for a ballistic missile-related system valued over $400 million,  a contracting official noted that the government changed some of the  requirements after solicitation issuance. This resulted in amendments to  the solicitation and revisions to the contractor’s proposal, which increased  the time needed in the solicitation phase, and led to the contract being  awarded later than anticipated. Various Factors Affected  Specific Phases from  Solicitation Issuance to  Contract Award Based on survey responses, we also found variation in the factors that  shortened or lengthened the time needed in the different phases—  solicitation, initial evaluation, and negotiation. Contracting officials  pointed out, however, that additional time needed in one phase could  result in less time being needed in other phases. Solicitation Phase Contracting officials cited factors related to the quality of the solicitation  and whether there were government changes in requirements as  shortening or lengthening the time in this phase. Contracting officials for contracts awarded using other than full and  open competition cited the contractor’s inability to provide a timely  proposal as a factor that lengthened this phase. For an Army sole- source contract for aircraft maintenance and sustainment support,  contracting officials told us that the solicitation phase took longer than  anticipated. This phase took over 10 months from the solicitation  issuance to when the contractor submitted a proposal. According to  the contractor, after solicitation issuance, the government made some  changes to the requirements, including the quantities of items. During  that period, labor rates had changed, which increased the time  needed to submit a proposal so that these changes could be  incorporated. Evaluation Phase Some of the factors cited by contracting officials as shortening or  lengthening the evaluation phase included those related to the quality of  the proposal, the acquisition workforce, or the staff performing  evaluations or approving the analyses. Technical and cost or price  evaluations, among others, assess the offerors’ ability to perform  successfully, ensure that offerors’ proposals meet the requirements listed  in the solicitation, and establish that the price is fair and reasonable.  Contracting officials we surveyed cited different factors based on the cost  or price evaluation, technical evaluations, and the extent competed. Contracting officials with contracts awarded using full and open  competition cited the number and quality of the proposals—whether  they needed revisions or not—as shortening or lengthening the time  needed to complete technical evaluations. For cost or price  evaluations, they cited the number of proposals received and the  completeness of the information provided by the contractor. Contracting officials with contracts awarded using other than full and  open competition cited contractor responsiveness to requests for  additional information as a factor regardless of the time needed to  complete both types of evaluations. For cost or price evaluations,  contracting officials cited factors related to the proposal, such as its  quality and timeliness, as among the factors that helped shorten the  time. In a case study involving a Navy sole-source research and  development contract valued over $1 billion for the Next Generation  Jammer, contracting and program officials said it took the contractor  about 4 months after submitting the initial proposal to provide the  contracting office a complete proposal due to delays in getting  subcontractor information. According to these officials, despite the  delay, they did not need more time in this phase since they were able  to start evaluating the initial proposal consisting of the prime  contractor’s technical and cost information, and incorporate analyses  for the subcontractor information once they received it. Contracting officials that used other than full and open competition also  cited requesting audit assistance from the Defense Contract Audit Agency  as a factor that lengthened the time needed for cost or price  evaluations. For example, in a Navy firm-fixed-price contract that was  awarded using other than full and open competition for radar engineering  services valued at $221 million, an audit took longer than anticipated— about 5 months—due in part to a complex pricing model and delays in  receiving subcontractor pricing data. While the Defense Contract Audit  Agency and the contractor communicated on the pricing data and cost  structure, the agency was unable to complete its audit without the  subcontractor data. Negotiation Phase In addition to agreeing on the price of a contract, the negotiation phase  also includes any additional evaluations of revised proposals.  Contracting officials cited the need for subsequent evaluations due to  revised proposals as a factor that lengthened this phase. Among other  factors, contracting officials cited the contract approval authority level and  the approving authority’s availability or responsiveness as factors that  shortened this phase. In contrast, contracting officials also cited bid  protests or agreement on fees as factors that lengthened it. A contracting official for an Air Force contract awarded using full and  open competition cited pre-award bid protests as a factor that  lengthened the discussion phase. One of the offerors protested the  evaluation of its proposal, which was found technically unacceptable.  The offeror’s protest was denied because it was found that the  evaluation of the proposal was reasonable and consistent with the  terms of the solicitation. In addition, the offeror initially selected for  award of the approximately $17 million contract was the lowest priced  proposal that was found technically acceptable. However, the  contracting officer subsequently found the offeror nonresponsive due  to several challenges. These challenges and the pre-award bid  protest resulted in a longer than anticipated discussion phase, and the  award was made to the next lowest priced offeror. Contracting officials for 2 contracts awarded using other than full and  open competition cited obtaining agreement on profit or fee as a factor  that lengthened the negotiation phase. For example, in an Army  contract for spares, maintenance, and overhaul of an airframe, the  government and the contractor disagreed over the profit margin.  Negotiations for the approximately $54 million contract stalled until the  issue was elevated to higher levels at both the contractor and the  government. This contract took about 22 months from solicitation  issuance to contract award, with the negotiations phase taking about  8 months from approval to enter into negotiations to approval for  contract award. For additional information on the survey results, see appendix II. Conclusions DOD has proposed reducing the time to award contracts in order to  address concerns that it is taking too long. To measure progress against  its goal, DOD will need relevant information about the time frames  involved. DOD components are collecting information on the length of  time to award contracts, but their efforts differ. DOD does not have a  comprehensive strategy to use the component information already  available or to collect other information that may be needed to assess  contract award time frames. Having a DOD-wide strategy could enable  DOD to consistently and comprehensively track contract award time,  assess the factors contributing to this time, leverage the various efforts  that the components have taken, identify any best practices, and measure  progress toward any goals for reducing the time to award contracts.  Currently, DOD does not define the events that should be measured  occurring prior to solicitation or those that occur between solicitation  issuance and contract award. While the military components collect  various information about the length of time to award contracts based on  their specific needs and organizational structures, at a minimum, DOD  should have relevant information for its own management purposes. As  DOD implements provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for  Fiscal Year 2018, the department has an opportunity to identify what  data, if any, beyond just the overall procurement administrative lead time  should be collected and reported. Identifying the information that is to be  collected is a necessary first step for DOD to assess its progress in  reducing the time taken to award contracts. Recommendation for  Executive Action We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Director,  Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy to develop a strategy  regarding contract award time frames that identifies:  the information the department needs to collect; and how the department will use the information to assess the time it takes  to award contracts. The strategy should seek to communicate the department’s goals related  to contract award time frames, seek to leverage ongoing data collection  efforts by the various components, and specify the events prior to  solicitation and between solicitation issuance and contract award that the  department believes should be tracked. (Recommendation 1) Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report to DOD for comment. DOD concurred  with the recommendation. DOD provided written comments which have  been reproduced in appendix III. DOD also provided technical comments  which we incorporated as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the  Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics;  the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the Director, Defense  Logistics Agency; appropriate congressional committees; and other  interested parties. This report will also be available at no charge on  GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-4841 or by e-mail at woodsw@gao.gov. Contact  points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may  be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are  listed in appendix IV. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and  Methodology We were asked to evaluate the length of time taken to award weapon  systems-related contracts. This report examines (1) the Department of  Defense’s (DOD) efforts to determine the time it takes to award weapon  systems contracts; (2) what available data show regarding the time  between solicitation issuance and award for selected weapon systems- related contracts; and (3) factors identified as contributing to contract  award time frames. To understand the procedures DOD follows to award contracts and  DOD’s efforts to determine the time it takes to award contracts, we  reviewed relevant sections of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR),  such as Part 6: Competition Requirements, and Part 15: Contracting by  Negotiation, and relevant sections of the Defense Federal Acquisition  Regulation Supplement. In addition, we analyzed DOD-level and  component-level guidance, policies, memorandums, and training  materials on the contract award process. We also reviewed Standards for  Internal Control in the Federal Government and prior GAO reports. To determine the extent DOD components (Air Force, Army, Navy and  the Defense Logistics Agency) collected and analyzed data and how they  are managing the time from solicitation issuance to contract award, we  analyzed relevant documentation, such as monthly or quarterly  management reviews and briefings. We interviewed acquisition officials at  DOD and the components regarding studies or analysis conducted  related to the time to award contracts. We selected the components  based on the highest total number of contracts and highest total contract  value. We discussed contract award time frames included in studies or  analysis to determine the selected components’ or commands’ reasons  for conducting the analysis, any challenges identified, actions taken to  address those challenges, and ongoing efforts to reduce the time needed  to complete the contract award process. We also discussed their data  collection and verification process, but we did not independently verify the  data that were reported in the studies and analyses. We determined that  the data reported by the military components were reliable for the  purposes of describing data collection and analyses done by DOD  components. We also met with industry associations for their perspective  regarding the length of time to award weapon systems-related contracts. Identifying Weapon  Systems-Related  Contracts To understand the length of time taken to award DOD weapon systems- related contracts, and how contract value, extent competed, and contract  type relate to that time, we analyzed contract data for a nongeneralizable  sample of weapon systems-related contracts from the Federal  Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG). We used FPDS- NG to identify DOD weapon systems-related contracts that were newly  awarded from fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2016, with a contract  value of $5 million or more. To include weapon systems-related contracts,  we initially selected major defense weapon systems contracts as  identified by DOD and identified the supplies or service codes (Product  Service Code and North American Industry Classification Systems  codes). We then compared the list of contracts with contract information  in FPDS-NG to identify the contracts that contain the same codes to  identify similar supplies and services. We narrowed the number of  contracts using the DOD acquisition program field in FPDS-NG as a  proxy to identify weapon systems-related contracts. For multiple award  contracts, we selected the first contract awarded among those that were  awarded under the same solicitation as indicated by the contract number.  We excluded contracts that were awarded under specific circumstances  that use different acquisition procedures, such as contracts awarded  under simplified acquisition procedures. In addition, we excluded basic  ordering agreements; blanket purchase agreements; orders of any type,  including task and delivery orders; and extensions of existing contracts.  We excluded undefinitized contract actions and contracts that included  foreign funds or foreign military sales because of the peculiarities  associated with these procurements. We also excluded contracts coded  as Ballistic Missile Defense Organization in FPDS-NG because this field  was used broadly to include contracts for both weapon systems and non- weapon systems. We further limited our selection of contracts to selected military  components—Air Force, Army, Navy and the Defense Logistics Agency  based on the highest number of contracts and highest total contract  value. We then identified the largest commands within these components  also based on the number of contracts and total contract value. Air Force- Air Force Materiel Command, Army- Army Contracting Command Defense Logistics Agency- Aviation Navy- Naval Air Systems Command Navy- Naval Sea Systems Command  Defense Logistics Agency-Aviation, Air Force Materiel Command, and the  Army Contracting Command awarded the higher number of contracts and  the highest total value within their respective components. For Navy, the  Naval Air Systems Command awarded the higher number of contracts,  but the Naval Sea Systems Command awarded a higher total value, so  we included both. For multiple award contracts, we selected the first contract awarded  among those that were awarded under the same solicitation as indicated  by the contract number. We excluded contracts that were awarded under  specific circumstances that use different acquisition procedures, such as  contracts awarded under simplified acquisition procedures. In addition,  we excluded basic ordering agreements; blanket purchase agreements;  orders of any time, including task and delivery orders; and extensions of  existing contracts. We excluded undefinitized contract actions and  contracts that included foreign funds or foreign military sales because of  the peculiarities associated with these procurements. We also excluded  contracts coded as Ballistic Missile Defense Organization in FPDS-NG  because this field was used broadly to include contracts for both weapon  systems and non-weapon systems. As a result, we initially identified a  nongeneralizable sample of 145 contracts. In addition, we used the  information contracting officials reported in our web-based survey to  confirm whether the 60 contracts we surveyed met our selection criteria,  and excluded those that did not. These exclusions resulted in a  nongeneralizable selection of 129 weapon systems-related contracts. To assess FPDS-NG data reliability, we compared the FPDS-NG data to  the contract documentation that we obtained for the solicitation issuance  and contract award dates to verify the dates. We verified the contract  value, extent competed, and contract type by comparing the data  reported in FPDS-NG, such as the contract number and award value, to  information in the contract documentation. We also verified the solicitation  and contract award dates using contract documentation. We determined  that the FPDS-NG data was reliable for the purposes of identifying a  nongeneralizable sample of contracts and analyzing time between  solicitation and contract award dates, contract value, extent competed,  and contract type. Survey Methodology To obtain information on the factors that helped or hindered the length of  time to award contracts, we conducted a web-based survey of contracting  officials—such as contracting officers or contract specialists—for 60  contracts. The survey collected information from contracting officials on  the start and end dates of the solicitation, initial evaluation, discussion or  negotiation, and contract award phases. We also collected information on  factors that helped mitigate the time interval or hindered contracting  officials from completing the solicitation, initial evaluation, and discussion  or negotiation phases. For the survey, we additionally screened out  contracts awarded using sealed bidding. We also did not include the  Defense Logistics Agency-Aviation as part of the survey because it is a  combat support agency providing weapon systems parts for the military  services. From 145 of the 171 selected weapon systems-related  contracts, we randomly selected 20 contracts from the Air Force Materiel  Command, 20 from the Army Contracting Command, 10 from the Naval  Air Systems Command, and 10 from the Naval Sea Systems Command  for a nongeneralizable survey sample. For the survey, we identified the time to award contracts by phases, from  solicitation issuance to contract award. These phases are based on  discrete events found in the FAR or component-specific guidance as  necessary steps in awarding a contract by negotiation. The 4 phases we identified are: Solicitation: from solicitation issuance to solicitation closing date or  Initial Evaluation: from solicitation closing date or receipt of initial  proposal to when contracting personnel receive approval to enter into  discussion or negotiation Discussions/negotiations: from approval to enter into discussion or  negotiation to approval to award the contract Contract award: from approval to award the contract to the date the  contract was signed by the contracting officer. We conducted a total of eight telephone pre-tests on the contents and  format of the survey with officials from the Air Force Materiel Command,  Army Contracting Command, Naval Air Systems Command, and Naval  Sea Systems Command to determine if the questions were  understandable and answerable, in addition to verifying that the  terminology used in the survey was accurate, and that the survey was  unbiased. As a result of the pre-tests, we refined the survey as  appropriate. We emailed a link to the web-based survey to contracting  officials for the 60 selected weapon systems-related contracts on October  19, 2017. To encourage respondents to complete the survey, we sent  reminder emails and made telephone calls to contracting officials after the  initial email was sent. We closed the survey on January 10, 2018. Of the  60 contracts we surveyed, we excluded 18 contracts that did not meet our  selection criteria based on the responses from the contracting officials.  These included contracts that were not newly awarded, used sealed bid  procedures, or contained foreign funding or foreign military sales. Of the  42 remaining contracts, we received responses from contracting officials  for 37 contracts, for an overall response rate of 88 percent. The survey included event dates, which differentiate between the phases.  We did not verify the start and end dates of the phases reported in the  survey and relied on contracting officials’ responses. We did, however,  verify the dates for solicitation issuance and contract award against the  FPDS-NG reported data and contract documentation as part of the  verification process for the 129 selected contracts. We emailed  contracting officials in certain instances where we needed clarification on  survey responses. For example, we followed-up on responses that  differed from FPDS-NG reported data and responses that indicated that a  contract was awarded using both full and open and other than full and  open competition, among others. We made corrections to the data as  needed. Case Study Methodology For more in-depth information on the factors and circumstances that  affected the time from solicitation issuance to contract award, we selected  7 contracts from the survey for further analysis. To obtain a variety of  contract characteristics, we selected the case studies based on certain  criteria including: (1) representation of different DOD components; (2) a  range of longer and shorter time intervals between solicitation and  contract award date; (3) contracts with larger contract value; and (4) the  extent the contracts were competed. We selected 4 contracts awarded  using other than full and open competition and 3 awarded using full and  open competition. For the purposes of our report, full and open  competition after exclusion of sources is considered to be full and open  competition. We did not select contracts from the Naval Sea Systems  Command as part of our case study because the extent of competition  was not confirmed at the time of selection. For these 7 contracts, we reviewed the survey results, analyzed contract  file documentation, and conducted interviews with available contracting  officials and program office officials, as well as contractor representatives  to obtain their perspectives on the factors that helped or hindered the time  from solicitation issuance to contract award. We conducted this performance audit from January 2017 to July 2018 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix II: Supplemental Survey Results  for Selected Questions from GAO’s Survey  of Factors Affecting the Length of Time to  Award Contracts We distributed a web-based survey to a random sample of contracting  officials for 60 weapon systems-related contracts and reviewed  responses for 37 contracts. The survey results presented in tables 4  through 13 are nongeneralizable. For more information on our  methodology for designing and distributing the survey, see appendix I. Appendix III: Comments from the  Department of Defense Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff  Acknowledgments GAO Contact: Staff  Acknowledgments In addition to the contact named above, Penny Berrier (Assistant  Director), Peter Anderson, David Ballard, Sonja Bensen, Lorraine Ettaro,  Kurt Gurka, Gina Hoover, Julia Kennon, Carol Mebane, Anh Nguyen,  Bonita Oden, Jenny Shinn, Abby Volk, and Robin Wilson made major  contributions to this report.
DOD's contracting process is designed to protect taxpayers' interests, among other things, and can take time. DOD leadership and contractors have expressed concern about the length of time to award contracts and DOD has proposed reducing that time. GAO was asked to evaluate the length of time to award weapon systems contracts. This report examines (1) DOD's efforts to determine the time it takes to award contracts; (2) data on the time interval from solicitation to contract award for selected contracts; and (3) factors identified as contributing to contract award time frames. GAO used the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation to identify new weapon systems-related contracts awarded in fiscal years 2014 through 2016, valued over $5 million, among other factors. GAO selected a nongeneralizable sample of 129 contracts at four DOD components with the highest total dollar value and highest number of contracts from those fiscal years for further analysis. GAO analyzed contract documentation and surveyed contracting officials on a subset of contracts to determine the factors affecting the time between solicitation issuance and award. Although the Department of Defense (DOD) has proposed reducing the time it takes to award contracts related to weapon systems, the department has a limited understanding of how long it currently takes and therefore lacks a baseline to measure success. The DOD components GAO reviewed—Air Force, Army, Defense Logistics Agency, and Navy—collect data on their time frames for awarding contracts. However, they do so in different ways in the absence of a DOD-wide strategy for what information should be collected. For example, the Air Force measures the time to award beginning with solicitation issuance, while the other components use a different starting point. As a result, information the components collect is not comparable and is of limited use for understanding contract award time frames department-wide. Determining what information is needed to monitor time taken to award contracts consistently across components should help DOD assess its progress toward reducing the time. GAO analyzed the time from solicitation issuance to award for 129 weapon systems-related contracts and found it ranged from less than a month to over 4 years. Although some DOD and industry officials stated that contract value could affect contract award time frames, GAO observed a wide range of time intervals and did not observe any patterns based on this characteristic. (See figure below.) According to DOD contracting officials GAO surveyed, factors that can help reduce—or, alternatively lengthen—the time between when a solicitation is issued to when a contract is awarded include a decision to make the contract award an office priority and how quickly contractors respond to requests for additional information after initial proposals are received.