Impact of A-76 Competitions on Facilities-Related Maintenance and Repair Costs

Abstract

This study examined the impact of public-private competitions on the costs of providing maintenance and repair services for administrative buildings at 104 Army installations from 1989 to 1999. The study’s purpose was to determine whether the Army achievedstatistically significant cost savings through competition. The study is significant because it challenges the Army’s policy of allowing its in-house workforce to compete with private contractors to provide commercial-type services as a means of reducing the costs of providing those services, instead of merely outsourcing its work andterminating the employment of the in-house workforce. The study found that the impact of competition depended on the category of the winner of the competition. Contracting out ledto significant cost efficiencies, whereas keeping the work in-house did not. Consequently, the Army policy of allowing the in-house workforce to compete for its work has been only partially effective in achieving intended cost savings.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alchian, A. A. , & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organization.American Economic Review,62, 777-795.

Anderson, E. , & Schmittlein, D. C. (1984). Integration of the sales force: An empirical investigation.RandJournal of Economics,15, 385-395.

Bereny, E. B. , & Stevens, B. (1988). Does privatization work? A study of the delivery of eight local services. State and Local Government Review,20, 11-20.

Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm.Economica,4, 386-405.

Coase, R. H. (1988).The firm, the market, andthe law. Chicago: University Press.

Dilger, R. J. , Moffett, R. R. , & Struyk, L. (1997). Privatization of municipal services in America’s largest cities.Public Administration Review,57(1), 21-26.

Domberger, S. S. , Meadowcroft, S. A. , & Thompson, D. (1986). Competitive tendering and efficiency: The case of refuse collection.Fiscal Studies,7(4), 253-266.

Downs, A. (1965). Why the government budget is too small in a democracy. In E. S. Phelps (Ed.),Private wants and public needs (pp. 32-40). New York: W. W. Norton.

Leibenstein, H. (1978). On the basic proposition of e-efficiency, efficiency of managerial processes.American Economic Association,68(2), 328-334.

10.

Luftin, P. S. , & Pepition, A. J. (1997).The Whitestone building maintenance and repair cost reference 1997 (3rd ed.). Seattle, WA: Whitestone Research.

11.

Moss, M. E. , & Silverman, R. (1997, June).Benchmarking of site support services for the Formerly UtilizedSites Reme dial Action Program (FUSRAP) (Report No. DE701R1). McLean, VA: Logistics Management Institute.

12.

Niskanen, W. A., Jr. (1971).Bureaucracy andrepresentative government. Chicago: Aldine-Atherson.

13.

Savas, E. S. (1987).Privatization: The key to better government. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

14.

Stevens, B. J. (1984a). Comparing public and private sector productive efficiency: An analysis of eight activities. National Productivity Review,3, 395-406.

15.

Stevens, B. J. (1984b).Delivering municipal services efficiently: A comparison of municipal andprivate service deliv ery. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

16.

Tullock, G. (1965).The politics of bureaucracy. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.

17.

U.S. Department of Defense .(1996).Improving the combat edge through outsourcing. Washington, DC: Author.

18.

U.S. Department of Defense .(1998).The report of the Department of Defense on base realignment andclosure. Washington, DC: Author.

19.

U.S. Department of Defense .(2001a).A-76 costing manual (DOD 4100.XX-M). Washington, DC: Author.

20.

U.S. Department of Defense .(2001b, May).Fiscal year 2000 report to Congress on savings resulting from workforce reviews conducted under OMB circular A-76. Washington, DC: Author.

21.

U.S. General Accounting Office .(1997a, March).Challenges confronting DOD as it renews emphasis on outsourcing(GAO/NSIAD-97-96). Washington, DC: Author.

22.

U.S. General Accounting Office .(1997b, March).Challenges facing DOD as it attempts to save billions in infrastructure costs (GAO/NSIAD-97-110). Washington, DC: Author.

23.

U.S. General Accounting Office .(1997c, March).Lessons learnedby state andlocal governments (GAO/GGD-97-48). Washington, DC: Author.

24.

U.S. General Accounting Office .(1998, February).Better data needed to support overhead rates for A-76 studies(GAO/NSIAD-98-62). Washington, DC: Author.

25.

U.S. General Accounting Office .(2000, August).DOD competitive sourcing: Some progress, but continuing challenges remain in meeting program goals (GAO/NSIAD-00-106). Washington, DC: Author.