\ 3 - UNITED STATESGENERALACCOUNTINGOFFICE WASHINGTON, D C 20548 LOGISI-ICS AND COMMUNICATIONS DIVIStON AUG 3 I ‘I977 Mr. Robert Graham, Commlssloner Federal Supply Service General Services AdmLnlstratlon Washmgton, D,C 20405 Dear Mr Graham We recently completed a study (GAO asszgnment code 943441) of problems experienced by GSA m its efforts to consolidate and establish Interagency motor pools and purchase vehicles needed to meet increased agency requirements Our draft report on this matter was forwarded to Mr Solomon for comment on July 18, 1977. In addltlon to the matters discussed xn our draft report, we have two other observations that we want to bring to your attention SpecLflcally, we belleve that GSA needs to Improve the accuracy of its consolidation studies and should give more conslderatlon to multi- shift maintenance operation as a means of reducing vehicle requirements Details of our observations follow. Consolidation Studies Studies prepared by GSA supportlng proposed consolrdatlon of motor pool systems include costs which have no real bearing on comparative cost operations and tend to overstate potential savings In arrlvlng at estimated savings, GSA studies include the differences in depreclatlon charges on Its motor pool vehicles with vehicles operating m agency fleets We found that the comparisons were meanIngless because depreclatlon rates used by GSA and other agencies were not uniform and the age of vehicles mncluded In the comparisons varied considerably. In any event, since depreclatlon expenses have no real bearing on savings that the Government will realize by consolldatlng motor pools, we do not believe that they should be included In GSA cost analysis studies On th1.s issue the Office of Management and Budget policy states . "that even if there existed unlformlty between agencies In accounting for depre- clatlon, there would still be no Justlflcatlon for using different rates for cost comparison purposes In dealing with the same vehicles, depreclatzon should be based on the same factors One agency should not logically have a cost advantage over another agency " . The followmg example shows how GSA studies have overstated savings by lncludlng vehicle depreclatlon 1~1 Its cost comparisons. . At the request of the AzLr Force, GSA made a study of four Air Force bases m 5an Antonlo, Texas (Brooks, Kelly, Lackland, and Randolph) The purpose of the study was to detemne the feaslbillty of expanding the exlstlng San Antonlo Lnteragency motor pool to serve these Arr Force bases The GSA study recommended consolldatlon and estimated savings of $745,000 annually Differences In deprecla- tlon represented $331,000 of the $745,000 savings stated In the GSA report. In addltlon to depreclatlon, other costs have received questionable treatment 1n GSA's studies For example, one study conducted by GSA Involved some 698 agency vehicles, some dispersed In rural areas and scattered over a 200-rmle radius The savings proJected by the study were based on comparlng the maintenance costs assocrated with motor pool vehicles operating In a metropolitan area with the maintenance costs of agency vehicles operatmg 1n rural areas on unmmproved roads Furthermore, GSA personnel arbltrarlly adJusted the cost figures subrmtted by the agencies to colnclde with GSA experienced costs For example, if the agency showed accumulated mlleage of 60,000 rmles for a vehacle and lndrcated that it had requlrea only two sets of new tires, GSA arbltrarlly added the cost of a third set of tires before making Its cost comparisons. We belleve that the eredlbllrty of GSA studies IS reduced when potential savings are overstated and that this may foster agency opposltlon to proposed consolldatlon. Multi-shift Maintenance In a May 1976 letter to the Admnlstrator of GSA, we reported that during 1975 a dally average of about 62 dispatch vehicles, or 15 percent, were deadlined for repair, service, or lnspectlons In Region 5 Durmg our current review, we noted that all of the GSA interagency motor pools we vlszted performed vehzcle maintenance only during daylight hours from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m We believe GSA should consider performing preventive maintenance and repairs on a second or third shift so that fewer vehicles would be deadlined for service or repair during the regular workday. Maintenance of vehicles during other than normal duty hours wauld also provide better service to GSA customers since the pools would be open longer hours thus allowing customers more flexlblllty in picking up and retumlng vehicles Also, by havmg fewer vehicles down for maintenance during "prime time", the number of vehicles to meet total motor paols requirement would be reduced. --- 2 Although we do not plan to formally report on these areas, we would appreciate I$ if you would gave us your thoughts on these matters and advlse us of any corrective measures taken or contemplated We wxll be happy to discuss these matters with you or members of your staff If you have any questxons, please contact Paul Spitz of my staff on 275-5877 Sincerely yours, 4 /L-&J Hen7 W. Connor Assocxate Dxector 3
Need To Improve Consolidation Feasibility Studies and Maintenance Practices--GSA
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1977-08-31.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)