LOCU0NET RESUME 01734 - [A10517953 Federal Agencies' Contracting for Research' and Development in the Private, Profitmaking Sector. PSAD-77-66; B-164912. March 24, 1977. Released April 8, 1977. 1 pp. + appendices (18 pp.). Report to Sen. Charles H. Percy, Ranking Minority Renter, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; by Elmer B. Staats, Comptroller General. Issue Area: Science and Technology: Federal Laboratories and Federally Supported Organizations Performing Research and Development (2003). Contact.} Procurement and Systers Acquisition Div. Budget Function: General Science, Space, and Technology: General Science and Basic Research (251). Organization Concerned: National Science Foundation; Environmental Protection Agency; Department of Transportation; Department of Commerce. Congressional Relevance: Senate Ccnmittee on Governmental Affairs. Authority: Merchant Marine Act of 1936. Public Health Service Act. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Clean Air Act. Solid waste Disposal Act. Fedcral water pollution Control Act. Noise Control Act. Federal Aviation Act. High Speed Ground Transportation Act. Department of Transportation Act. Rational Traffic and Rotor VehiCle Safety Act. Federal Railroad Safety Act. Federal research and development contract awards to the private, profitmaecing sector are increasing. These contract awards have particular potential problems which should receive attention. The autherity, practices 4, and procedures for awarding research and development contracts to private, profitmaking firms were investigated for the following agencies: the Maritime Administration, the Environnental Protection Agency, the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation Findings/Conclusions: Er:amination of more than 100 contracts awarded by these agencies in fiscal year 1975 to private, profitmaking firms indicated that there are three potential problem areas: end-of-year contract awards; contract modifications; and a lack of formal procedures for evaluating the usefulness of contract work. In addition, agencies were found to be furnishing inaccurate research and development funding data to the National Science Founuation. The Foundation uses this funding data to compile annual comprehensive statistical reports on the magnitude and composition of Federal research and development programs which are used in planning for Government programs. Many of the inaccuracies of the agencies' reports may occur because the agencies have not issued firm instructions for supplying accurate statistics. (Author/SC) o-.1*tC '' ' _ Iby v rd' . i >- > > >9s 3 REPORT OF THE z;..i COMPTROLLER GENERAL %CCoU~,P OF THE UNITED STATES L Ili; Federal Agencies' Contracting For Research And Development In The Private, Profitmaking Sector Potential problems in Federal agencies' award- ing of research' and development contracts to private, profitmaking firms are --end-of-year contract awards, --contract modifications, --lack of procedures for evac,,.ting end products, and --inaccurate reporting of research and development funding. PSAD-77-66 MAr',J 24., 1 9 7 7 /i COMPTROLLER GeNEIAL OP THE UNKIATEDTAT'S WASHINGTON. D.C. 20541 B-164912 The HonoLable Charles H. Percy Ranking Minority Member, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee United States Senate Dear Senator Percy: You requested that we obtain information on the private sector's involvement in Federal research and development (R&D) programs. In subseauent discussions with your office, we agreed to -- describe six agencies' authority, practices, and procedures for awarding R&D contracts to private, profitmaking firms; -- provide a list of contracts awarded by the selected agencies; and -- identify potential problems in awarding contracts. Agencies reviewed were the Maritime Administration; the Environmental Protection Agency; and in the Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, and Office of the Secretary of Transportation. We examined more than 100 R&D contracts awarded by these agencies in fiscal year 1975 to private, profitmaking firms. We identified three potential problem areas--end-of-year contract awards; contract modifications; and a lack of formal procedures for evaluating the usefulness of contract work. Inordinate yearend contracting and contract modifying can indicate weaknesses in agency planning. Moreover, agencies were furnishing inaccurate R&D fund- ing data Zto the National Science Foundation. Using agency funding data, the Foundation compiles annual comprehensive statistical reports on the magnitude and composition of Federal R&D programs. These reports should be as accurate B-164912 as is reasonable, because they influence planning and sionmaking for Government deci- programs. The results of our review in the summary which follows. are set forth in more detail did not obtain written comments As your office requested, we from the departments and agencies. However, we discussed with responsible officials the matters in the report and considered their comments where appropriate. We agreed with your office would examine in detail the that either you or our a later date. We plan to causes of potential problemsoffice be in touch with you in the at future in this regard. near y your Comptroller General of the United States 2 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I SUMMARY CF THE hEVIEW BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE OF FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS AWARDED TO THE PRIVATE, PROFITMAKING SECTOR INTRODUCTION Federal research and development (R&D) contract awards to the private, profitmaking rector are increasilni. Accord- ing to the National Science Foundation (NSF), Federal research and development obligations 1/ in fisca. year 1975 totaled over S19 billion. Of this amount, $9.1 billion, or 48 percent, was awarded to the private, profitmakinq sector. NSF expects R&D obligations to this sector to increase to 50 percent in fiscal year 1976 and to 52 percent ill 1977. The Office of Management and Budget has recently revised its Circular A-76 describing the Government's policy cf relying on private enterprise to supply its needs. An Office of Management and Budget official expects this revision to expand the amount of Government functions that are contracted out. The Ranking Minority Member, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, requested information on R&D awards to private, profitmaking firms by the Maritime Administration (MarAd); the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and the following components within the Department of Transporta- tion: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST). l/Obligations are actions which legally bind the Government to disburse funds, including placing orders, awarding contracts, or receiving goods or services. APPENDIX I APPENDIX I The table below taken from an NSF Publication shows the distribution of R&D obligations by type of performer for the selected agencies. Distribution of Federal R&D Obliaations by Performers and Selected Agencies Fiscal Year 1975 Agencies Performers KarA T EPA FAA NHTSA FRA OST Total ----------------- …(millions) ----------------- In-house $ 2.6 $141.5 $ 23.0 $ 1.7 $ 9.8 $11.1 $189.7 Profitmaking organizations 18.7 51.9 68.4 15.5 18.8 16.4 3.83.7 Educational institutions .5 33.9 3.2 2.0 .7 6.0 46.3 State and local governments .3 14.2 .0 12.2 .8 2.1 29.6 Nonprofit organizations .8 13.4 .0 2.6 .5 .8 18.1 Other (note a) - .0 2.8 10.9 .0 1.8 .9 16.4 Total $22.9 $257.7 $105.5 $34.0 $32.4 $31.3 $483.8 Profitmaking organizations' share as per- centages of the total 82% 20% 65% 46% 58% 33% 38% a/Includes amounts awarded to Federally Funded Research and Development Centers and foreign countries. 2 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO AWARD CONTRACTS MarAd One of MarAd's objectives under the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 is to develop and promote the operation of the U.S. Merchant Marine. Its R&D goal is to improve the com- petitive position of the Merchant Marine through practical applications of technical advances. Specifically, its goals are to reduce life-cycle costs, decrease subsidies, and increase productivity of commercial ship systems. To aid in the transfer of R&D results to the U.S. Merchant Marine, MarAd awards contracts to concerns in the merchant marine industry. EPA EPA was created in 1970 to permit coordinated and effective governmental action on behalf of the environment. The agency's mission requires an in-house expertise capable of responding quickly to emergency environmental crises. EPA's activities have been directed toward identifying environmental problems, surveying polluting industries, developing standards, and exploring control technologies. Most of EPA's R&D is performed in-house. Its authority to contract for R&D is stipulated under the followirn legis- lation: -- Public Health Service Act. -- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. -- Clean Air Act. -- Solid Waste Disposal Act. -- Federal Water Pollution Control Act. -- Noise Control Act. Department of Transportation The components of the Departmer Transportation--FAA, NHTSA, FRA, and OST--are responsible ior improving and pro- moting air, rail, and motor vehicular transportation. Their R&D efforts include testing and developing new vehicles and related equipment and improving transportation safety and 3 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I efficiency. The agencies perform in-house research in addition to contracting with the private following legislation provides contractingsector. The authority: -- Federal Aviation Act. -- High Speed Ground Transportation Act. -- Department of Transportation Act. -- National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. -- Federal Railroad Safety Act. CONThACT AWARD PROCEDURES The agencies reviewed use Regulations (FPRs) in awarding the Federal Procurement R&D contracts to private, profitmaking firms. The FPIs provide executive agencies on the procurement guidance to civilian services. The agencies supplement of supplies and and implement the FPRs with internal procurement regulations. We reviewed the agencies' application and regulations for a limited number of these policies found they generally were being (13) of contracts and implemented Under the FPRs, agencies' practices as prescribed. managing contracts in most instances and procedures for should be as follows. Decision to contract In the first phase, the agency decides and how it is to be obtained, considering what is required dates and agency mission statements. legislative man- ments are the basis for developing These broad reauire- projects. and initiating individual An agency can accomplish R&D projects ways: in one of three the work may be performed in-house, Government agency, or through a by another contract or grant. In deciding how the work will be performed, first consider its own capabilities the agency should and Government agencies. If these alternativesthose of other the decision can be made to contract are not feasible, Government. the work outside the An agency should not restrict a on the basis of its status as a prospective contractor institution. Eligibility should profitmaking or nonprofit be based ability to perform the work required. primarily on cases where profitmaking firms competed We found several against educational 4 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I institutions and other nonprofit organizations for the same contract. After the decision to contract has been made, the program office reviews and approves the contract request and supporting documentation before submitting them to the procurement office for award. The supporting documentation generally includes a statement of work, a list of potential bidders, and, if necessary, a sole-source justification. The approval level varies with the dollar amount of proposed contract. the Awarding contracts The second part of the procurement process involves the steps leading to the actual contract award. Each agen- cy reviewed had its own procurement office except for MarAd, whose contracts were awarded by the Department of Commerce. When the procurement office receives the contract request, it initiates award procedures. These procedures vary according to whether the contract is to be awarded a competitive or sole-source basis. In the competitive on process, interested contractors submit proposals to the agency in response to an advertised solicitation for pro- posals. A contractor should be selected on the basis the best combination of cost and technical competence of according to established source selection criteria. Although competition is preferred, contracts can be on a sole-source basis when there is only one source awarded when competition is impractical. or Monitoring contracts Once a contract is awarded, a project officer in the program office is usually assigned responsibility for monitoring its progress. Reviewing mont ly progress ports is the most common method of monitoring. Other re- include onsite visits and periodic briefings. methods R&D GRANT POLICY Of the agencies reviewed, only EPA awards R&D grants to private, profitmaking firms. The grants result primarily from proposals submitted to the Government without solicitation. Grants are awarded in areas relating prior pollution, solid waste, radiation, and public health.to water In fiscal year 1975, EPA awarded 13 grants totaling $1,340,000 to private, profitmaking firms. 5 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I EPA's procedures for awarding these grants are the same as for awarding grants to educational, governmental, or other nonprofit organizations. When evaluating the prospec- tive grantees, however, EPA makes a cost analysis regardless of dollar amount for all proposals received from profitmaking firms. Cost analyses are made on proposals from other organ- izations only if the value of the grant is over $i00,000. PATENT AND COPYRIGHT POLICIES Agencies have adopted the FPRs' patent and copyright policies, which implement the 1971 Presidential Statement on Government Patent Policy. The goals are to promote for the public benefit the development, use, and availability of inventions made under Government R&D contracts. The Government normally acquires or reserves the right to acquire principal or exclusive rights to any invention developed under an R&D contract. An exception arises when the work under contract is in an area where the contractor has acquired technical competence (including prior patents) and has an established commercial interest. In such cases either the contractor retains the rights to the invention or the agency allocates such rights after the invention is identified. Regarding copyrights, the Department of Transportation procurement regulations state that all subject data first produced in the performance of the contract shall be the sole property of the Government. The contractor must also agree to grant to the Government a royalty-free, nonexclu- sive, and irrevocable license to all data not first produced or composed in the performance of the contract but which is incorporated in the work furnished under the contract. POTENTIAL PROBLEMS IN AWARDING CONTRACTS In fiscal year 1975, the agencies reviewed awarded 475 R&D contracts totaling $82.2 million to profitmaking firms. In accordance with the Minority Member's request, we examined contracts with obligations (including modifications) totaling $100,000 or more as of June 1976. (See list of contracts beginning on page 15.) These 111 contracts totaled $35.8 million. We identified three potential problem areas: -- End-of-year contract awards. 6 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I -- Contract modifications. --A lack of formal procedures for evaluating use is made of contract work. what End-of-year contract awards The agencies awarded two-thirds of their profitmaking firms in the last month of contracts to the fiscal year. In fact, MarAd awarded 42 percent of its fiscal year's last 2 working days. The contracts in the statistics by agency are presented below. Schedule of Contracts Awarded Durin- Last Month of Fisca-i Year 1975 Total MarAd EPA NHTSA FAA FRA OST Total number of contracts 111 26 38 30 7 8 2 Awarded June 1975 72 19 26 19 3 5 0 Percent of total 65% 73% 68% 63% 43% 63% 0% Awarding a large number of contracts fiscal year suggests improper planning at the end of the and funds are obligated to prevent the authorityimplies that to avoid reductions in future appropriations. from lapsing or have issued policies discouraging peak buying EPA and FAA the fiscal year. These policies recognize at the end of that ning would enable the distribution of contract proper plan- out the year and minimize bottleneck conditions awards through- According to the policies, peaks in procurement at year's end. can cause: -- Inadequate review of projects, inexact work state- ments, and/or incomplete proposal evaluations. -- Awarding of unnecessary contracts. -- Lower quality proposals because of peaks in contractor workload when most solicitations are issued about the same time. -- Increased cost to the Government due to overtime in the procurement office. 7 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I Agency officials believe they are expected to obligate R&D funds in the fiscal year in which they are appropriated, even if the funds remain available for obligation in the following year; otherwise they will be vulnerable to criticism and congressional action reducing funding in subsequent years if appropriations are carried over to the next fiscal year. If subsequent appropriations are reduced, agencies may be undble to fund needed projects. There are varying perceptions among agency officials as to why award concentrations occur at the year's end. Some believe it is caused by delays in the procurement offices and others, by poor planning in the R&D program offices. Still other officials attribute this problem to R&D funds not being appropriated before the start of the fiscal year. Contract modifications Modifications incorporate new and unanticipated reauire- ments into contracts. They range from minor administrative changes to major redirections. Modifications can increase the contract dollar value and/or extend the completion date. Because R&D work deals with unknown and variable factors, there are often valid reasons for modifying R&D contracts. However, a high incidence of modifications can indicate poor planning. Sixty-nine of the 111 contracts reviewed had modifica- tions resulting in dollar increases and/or time extensions. Contracts with dollar modifications increased in value by an average of 72 percent, whereas contracts with time modi- fications extended the contract completion date by an average of 9 months. Many contracts with dollar increases also had time extensions. The statistics by agency follow. Total MarAd EPA NHTSA FAA FRA OST Total number of contracts 111 26 38 30 7 8 2 Contracts with dollar/time increases 69 17 21 15 6 8 2 Average dollar increase (percent) 72 40 33 42 20 111 41 8 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I Average time increase (months) 9 7 8 7 11 17 7 Increasing contract time and/or dollar values may affect R&D program management and cost in several ways. -- Modifying contracts lessens cost competition since modifications are essentially sole-source awards. -- Extending completion dates may result in pro- viding outdated information and conclusions to management. -- Providing funds for unanticipated modifications may cause other planned projects to be deferred or eliminated. Our review of 13 completed contracts showed that in some instances, modifications were valid and necessary to incorporate new developments identified during the course of the work. For example, an EPA contract involved a pilot scale evaluation of combustion control techniques for fossil and waste fuels. During the course of the contract, new technological developments were identified that affected the work being performed. By modifying the contract, the agency was able to provide for additional tests using the most up-to-date technology. According to an official, the research results will be more meaningful. On the other hand, modifications were sometimes used to remedy poor agency planning in the initial stages of the contract. Two examples are presented below: 1. An OST contract was awarded for an analysis of the Department of Transportation's R&D program to be used for presenting the Department's budget to the Congress. The contract was modified several months later, reauiring the contractor to produce a comprehensive report on automotive energy efficiency. This modifi- cation, in response to the energy crisis, was unrelated to the contract's original scope of work. Some months later the office requesting the automotive energy efficiency report became busy in other areas and told the contractor to stop work on the report. A final report was never provided to OST. 9 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I 2. FRA contracted for a comprehensive analysis of its safety inspection program. During performance of the contract, the agency the nized that a deadline was approaching forrecoq- a' report tc the Congress on a related subject. The report was added to the original contract as a modification, which greatly increased the value of the contract. The requirement for the report to the Congress was identified several months before action was taken to procure the services. An agency official said that if action had been taken when the need was initially identified, the project could have been awarded on a competitive basis rather than as a sole-source modification. Evaluation of end products We were requested to evaluate the results or conclusions of internal agency evaluations of project performance results. Of the 111 contracts reviewed, only and completed because 13 had been -- many efforts were initially planned as multiyear (some were scheduled for 36 months or more) and -- modifications extended the completion dates average extension was 9 months), as follows. (the Number of contracts With Reviewed Completed Multiyear time extensions MarAd 26 3 3 15 EPA 38 3 10 11 NHTSA 30 5 3 10 FAA 7 1 1 3 FRA 8 1 0 5 OST 2 0 1 2 Total 111 13 18 46 10 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I Because of the short timespan between the completion of the contracts and our review, we cannot comment on the use made of the end products. However, we noted that four of the agencies--MarAd, NHTSA, FRA, and OST--did not have formal systematic procedures for evaluating the usefulness of contracted R&D end products. OBSERVATIONS As arranged with the Ranking Minority Member's office, we did not identify the causes for the agencies' numerous yearend awards and contract modifications. Nor did we determine the impact of the lack of formal agency procedures for evaluating the usefulness of R&D contract results. However, we believe it important to discuss further investi- gation of these potential problem areas with representatives of the Ranking Minority Member. REPORTING OF R&D STATISTICS The National Science Foundation promotes scientific research and education. Specific activities include collect- ing, disseminating, and analyzing scientific information to facilitate decisions on national research. NSF compiles annual comprehensive statistical reports, which provide information on the magnitude and composition of Federal R&D programs. "Federal Funds for Research, Development and Other Scientific Activities" is one such report, providing RF5D data based on the President's Federal budget submitted to the CongLess. The report analyzes funds given by supporting agencies to the performing sector by character of work, such as basic or applied research or development; by field of science; and by distribution by State. Information is based on an annual survey questionnaire to 93 agencies and agency subdivisions. The accuracy of the statistics is important because the statistics are used by: --The Congress, committee staffs, and science advisory groups to evaluate Federal R&D program emphasis and establish scientific policy for the Nation. -- Private industry and research institutes to make planning decisions on the basis of the direction of Federal spending. 11 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I -- Universities and colleges to plan staffpower requirements and make budgetary and research policy decisions. -- The scientific community and science histo- rians to trace trends in Government R&D program funding and to analyze the effects of this funding. -- The press and general public to increase their knowledge and understanding of Federal R&D programs. -- Scienre administrators in the executive branch of one Government to assist them in evaluating the status of past and current Federal R&D activi- ties. Agencies sometimes submitted inaccurate information to NSF. Inaccuracies noted in reporting-satii cs- NSF instructions request that agencies use the ing definition in reporting R&D funding data: follow- "all direct, indirect, incidental, or related costs resulting from or necessary to performance of research and development * * * regardless when the funds were originally authorized or of received, and regardless of whether they were appropriated, received, or identified in the agency's budget specifically for research and development * * *." Agencies did not always follow this definition mitting their data reports; therefore, they were in sub- not report- ing all funding for R&D activities to NSF. EPA reported $52 million in R&D obligations For example, to profitmakinQ firms in fiscal year 1975. However, this amount only on obligations from EPA's R&D appropriations.was based additional $22 million was identified at the An agency's curement office as obligations for R&D activities pro- financed from other appropriations. Similarly, a major portion of the $43 million budget of a NHTSA division should reported but was not because the funds were not have'been R&D appro- priations. 12 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I In addition, MarAd and EPA assigned a low priority to the reporting of R&D statistics, especially when the statis- tics were not readily available. Their information systems did not categorize R&D by basic or applied research or development, although NSF requires such data. A MarAd official said he had not analyzed the agency's R&D efforts but had developed statistics based on prior year data missions. EPA did not have complete records to supportsub- its data submissions. OBSERVATIONS We did not perform an indepth analysis of the NSF report nor of the agencies' procedures for reporting R&D funding data. However, for the agencies reviewed, the procedural deficiencies merit comment. NSF officials are concerned about agencies' inaccurate reporting because the NSF data influences policy decisions. These officials believe that many of the inaccuracies occur because agencies have not issued firm instructions for supplying accurate R&D statistics. Because the NSF publications are the and detailed reports on Governmentwide R&D most comprehensive funding and are used as a reference in decisionmaking, we believe the com- pilation of these statistics should not be taken lightly by agency officials and should be made as accurate as is reasonable. SCOPE OF REVIEW Our work was performed at the Washington, D.C., head- guarters of the agencies previously named and EPA's labora- tory facilities at Research Triangle Park, Durham, North Carolina. We reviewed the agencies' procurement regulations and other documenation prescribing procedures for awarding R&D contracts to private, profitmaking firms. We discussed these procedures with officials of procurement and R&D offices. We analyzed data on all R&D contracts awarded to private, profitmaking firms in fiscal year 1975, except those (1) under $100,000, (2) for developing an item of hardware, (3) for buying R&D plant or equipment, or (4) for a purpose other than research, study, analysis, or similar 13 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I service. We examined in detail the procedures used in award- ing and managing 13 of these contracts prescribed procedures. We made for comparison with a limited review of the agencies' procedures for evaluating the usefulness of the results of completed contracts. We also evaluated the accuracy of information on R&D expenditures the statistical furnished to the National Science Foundation. by those agencies 14 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II LIST OF SELECTED CONTRACTS AWARDED TO PRIVATE, PROFITMAKING FIRMS IN FISCAL YEAR 1975 MARITIME ADMINISTRATION Contract Date of Initial number Contractor award award amount 5-37039 Magnavox Research Laboratories 6/27/75 $ 436,195 5-37043 Prudential Lines, Inc. 4/24/75 190,560 5-37045 NUS Corporation 2/06/75 147,088 5-38000 Exxon Research and Engineering Co. 5/14/75 108,000 5-38003 Grumman Data Systems Corporation 6/30/75 1,049,964 5-38014 Combustion Engineering, Inc. 3/13/75 a/96,187 5-38019 John J. McMullen Associates, Inc. 6/24/75 138,638 5-38021 RCA Global Communications 6/10/' 83,265 5-38022 Newport News Shipbuild- ing and Dry Dock, Co. 4/21/75 418,078 5-38023 Hydrodynamics, Inc. 5/12/75 48,451 5-38024 BDM Corporation 6/24/75 164,892 5-38032 Prairie Shipping Co. 6/26//5 150,000 5-38034 Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co. 6/24/75 132,814 5-38036 J.J. Henry Co., Inc. 6/30/75 151,225 5-38037 Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. 6/30/75 99,000 5-38040 Lykes Brothers Steamship Company, Inc. 6/24/75 370,160 5-38042 Pyramid Marine Co. 6/30/75 144,739 5-38045 Raytheon Company 6/30/75 133,000 5-38046 Pacific Far East Line, Inc. 6/18/75 350,000 5-38347 Comsat General Corp. 6/19/75 116,400 5-38048 Sperry Rand Corp. 6/30/75 360,000 5-38051 Waterway Communications Systems, Inc. 6/27/75 500,000 5-38060 ECON, Inc. 6/30/75 102,844 5-38071 Avondale Shipyards, Inc. 6/30/75 102,156 5-38074 Hydronautics, Inc. 6/13/75 255,000 5-38075 Delta Steamship Lines, Inc. 6/30/75 105,224 15 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Contract Date of Initial number Contractor award award amount 68-01-2959 Mathematica, Inc. 11/11/74 $ 111,537 68-01-3228 National Planning Association 6/19/75 135,522 68-01-3299 Urban Systems Research 6/27/75 127,314 68-02-1182 Englehard Mineral and Chemical Corporation 10/18/74 117,368 68-02-1712 Copley International 9/01/74 64,671 68-02-1863 KVB, Inc. 2/13/75 675,400 68-02-1869 Air Pollution Technology, Inc. 3/06/, 106,400 68-02-1873 United Aircraft Research Laboratories 3/ 31 /., 343,765 68-02-1874 Monsanto Research Corporation 4/14/75 4,006,656 68-02-1881 TRW, Inc. 6/17/75 1,065,000 68-02-1885 Acurex Corporation 6/06//5 497,638 68-02-1887 Westinghouse Research Laboratories 6/30/75 245,200 68-02-2075 DeBell & Richardson, Inc. 6/28/75 285,818 68-02-2101 Ralph M. Parsons Co. 6/25/75 220,617 68-02-2102 Radian Corporation 6/06/75 187,000 68-02-2105 PEDCCO Environmental Specialists 6/30/75 281,920 68-02-2116 Aerotherm Division, Acurex Corp. 6/30/75 594,933 68-02-2232 Olson Laboratories 6/27/75 351,000 68-02-2245 Meterology Research, Inc. 6/30/75 187,251 68-03-2153 Lockheed Electronics Co. 11/12/74 317,696 68-03-2173 Matrecon, Inc. 2/03/75 88,075 68-03-2186 Cltin Water Consultants 4/28/75 75,000 68-03-2190 Lockheed Aircraft Corporation 4/07/75 108,000 68-03-2193 Geraghty and Miller, Inc. 4/22/75 66,000 68-03-2198 Arthur D. Little, Inc. 6/09/75 783,400 68-03-2202 United Engineers :nd Construction, Inc. 6/18/75 159,970 68-03-2207 Water Purification Association 6/10/75 224,778 68-03-2213 Hittman Associates 6/10/75 128,100 68-03-2216 HRB Singer, Inc. 6/10/75 144,000 16 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (con't) Contract Date of Initial number Contractor award award amount 68-03-2223 Gannet Fleming 6/25/75 $ 249,997 68-03-2226 Mathematica, Inc. 6/30/75 173,000 68-03-2228 Metcalf and Eddy, Irc. 6/26/75 117,300 68-03-2334 Arthur D. Little, Inc. 6/25/75 298,300 68-03-2336 Texas Instruments, Inc. 6/30/75 366,773 68-03-2337 Exxon Research & Engi- neering Co. 6/30/75 965,500 68-03-2338 E. D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers 6/27/75 239,547 68-03-2339 Radian Corporation 6/30/75 197,257 68-03-2340 Energy Resource Co., Inc. 6/30/75 319,800 NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION DOT-HS-5-01026 South Texas Tire Test Fleet, Inc. 8/14/74 65,923 DOT-HS-5-01036 Computer Sciences Cor- poration, Systems Division 11/04/74 711,9,9 DOT-HS-5-01037 AVCO Corporation 11/04/74 808,304 DOT-HS-5-01039 Opinion Research Cor- poration 9/25/74 99,635 DOT-HS-5-01045 Informatics, Inc. 10/01/74 83,136 DOT-HS-5-01075 Agbabian Associates 1/06/75 b/BOA DOT-HS-5-01093 Rockwell International Corporation 3/20/75 166,230 DOT-HS-5-01099 Calspan Corporation 2/20/75 b/BOA DOT-HS-5-01142 Human Factors Researcllr, Inc. 5/27/75 324,990 DOT-HS-5-01144 Dunlap and Associates, Inc. 6/07/75 128r687 DOT-HS-5-01154 Opinion Research Cor- poration 5/30/75 93,755 DOT-HS-5-01159 AVCO Systems Division 6/20/75 152,393 DOT-HS-5-01163 Appilied Science Associ- ates, Inc. 6/20/75 149,990 DOT-HS-5-01178 AVCO Systems Division 6/26/75 122,416 DOT-HS-5-01179 Calspan Corporation 6/23/75 150,810 DOT-HS-5-01181 AMF Advanced Systems Laboratory 6/30/75 117,253 DOT-HS-5-01183 Control Data Corporation 6/30/75 136,175 DOT-HS-5-01188 AVCO Systems Division 4/25/75 169,510 DOT-HS-5-01191 Systems Technology, Inc. 6/25/75 188,967 DOT-HS-5-01223 Systems Technology, Inc. 6/30/75 178,444 DOT-HS-5-01224 Compliance Testing, Inc. 6/30/75 193,200 17 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (con't) Contract Date of Initial number Contractor award award amount DOT-HS-5-01228 Essex Corporation 6/30/75 $ 117,692 DOT-HS-5-01230 Calspan Corporation 6/30/75 117,490 DOT-HS-5-01242 Southern California Research Institute 6/30/75 110,185 DOT-HS-5-01249 Grey Advertising, Inc. 6/30/75 112,966 DOT-HS-5-01251 Systems Technology, Ino. 6/30/75 284,705 DOT-HS-5-01254 Calspan Corporation 6/30/75 527,838 DOT-HS-5-01256 Grey Advertising, Inc. 6/30/75 235,831 DOT-HS-5-01260 Calspan Corporation 6/30/75 127,840 DOT-HS-5-01261 Buda Company 6/30/75 133,490 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION DOT-FA75WA-3613 Grumman Aerospace Corporation 6/30/75 1,329,317 DOT-FA75WA-3614 Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co. 4/01/75 22,200 DOT-FA75WA-3634 Sierra Research Corporation 3/14/75 669,466 DOT-FA75WA-3662 Systems Control, Inc. 5/02/75 1,244,382 DOT-FA75WA-3663 United Aircraft Corpo- ration 12/12/74 302,760 DOT-FA75WA-3707 Lockheed Aircraft Corporation 6/27/75 509,300 DOT-FA75WA-3718 Wyle Laboratories 6/20/75 71,636 FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION DOT-FR-53060 Arthur Young and Co. 2/17/75 98,931 DOT-FR-54089 Rohr Industries, Inc. 5/01/75 550,000 DOT-FR-54174 ENSCO, Inc. 6/30/75 2,087,681 DOT-FR-55055 Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co. 6/30/75 485,021 DOT-FR-56003 Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co. 12/02/74 129,903 DOT-FR-56007 Dynatrend, Inc. 6/19/75 420,890 DOT-FR-56010 Richardson Associates 6/30/75 91,300 DOT-FR-56014 Harry Weese and Asso- ciates, Ltd. 6/30/75 607,120 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORATION DOT-FR-50134 Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co. 4/01/75 106,151 DOT-FR-50256 Wyle Laboratories 5/20/75 147,000 18 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II a/Althouqh the initial award amounts for this and other con- tracts were under $100,000, subsequent modifications increased the contracts to $100,000 or more. b/F c Order Agreements (BOA) have no initial obligation ie time of award, but rather funds are obligated for e._.i assigned task. 19
Federal Agencies' Contracting for Research and Development in the Private, Profitmaking Sector
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1977-03-24.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)