Congressional probers say the Air Force is pulling shenanigans, again, that may hinder transferring work from two closing depot bases to Hill Air Force Base.
That includes packaging such work in ways that hurts Hill's ability to bid for it; not justifying that in writing; not studying whether that will actually save the most money; and refusing to show Congress its documents about such decisions.It has Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Utah, and other Utah delegation members howling that the Air Force is blatantly ignoring a law passed last year that carefully defines how such repair-and-maintenance work should be bid among bases and contractors.
It also renews a years-long battle that began when President Clinton promised in his 1996 campaign to "privatize in place" work at the ordered-to-close bases to preserve jobs in vote-rich Texas and California, which threatened Hill and others.
The General Accounting Office, a research arm of Congress, outlined the problems Tuesday in a hearing before the House National Security Subcommittee on Readiness.
The problems were found when the GAO, as required by the law passed last year, had to review a December Air Force decision to bid remaining work at closing bases in one large package each, instead of in smaller components.
That decision hurts Hill. The base could win bids for smaller components such as landing gear and electronics. But to win large-package bids, it would have to build large buildings for such aircraft as the KC-135 cargo plane - an expense that would put it out of realistic competition.
Assistant Comptroller General Henry L. Hinton Jr. noted that while the Air Force certified to Congress that it had found such large-package bids were the most logical and cost-effective, it has been unable to produce studies that back up its position.
Meanwhile, he said the GAO found that other Defense Department "reports and other data (including some performed by Hill) do not support the defense secretary's determination."
So he said the GAO then specifically asked to see documentation used to make the decision, but the Air Force refused - or provided papers with so many portions blacked-out that they were useless.
After a formal demand letter, Hinton said the GAO was shown some documents, but "the Air Force limited our review to reading the documents in Air Force offices and required that . . . no notes, copies or other materials could leave those premises."
Subcommittee Chairman Herbert Bateman, R-Va., complained that happened even though the GAO receives "similar documents from the Air Force and other military departments on a routine basis."
On top of that, Hansen finally received some written answers to questions - which had been delayed for months - where the Air Force acknowledges it has a goal of maintaining 16,000 jobs at the closing Texas base through 2001, and 8,700 at the California base.
The Air Force also said it has no such employment goals for Hill or other surviving bases. And it said those goals were set by the president himself through public statements.
Bill Johnson, legislative director for Hansen, said the only way for those bases to maintain such employment levels is for contractors to win large-package bids, and keep the work in place at the closing bases.
Also, the GAO said the Air Force decided not to give as much credit in bids to Hill and other bases for possibly reducing expensive overhead, the main goal of the base closing process.
The GAO has said $182 million in overhead could be saved by moving work to underused facilities at Hill and similar bases, but the Air Force will give only partial credit for the first two years' savings in bids.
Hansen told the subcommittee, "The Air Force isn't even coming close to living up to the law." He also called on it to demand proper access to documents.
The Utah congressional delegation met Tuesday night to discuss the issue. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said afterward, "The Air Force absolutely is not abiding by the law. We're not going to put up with it. We're going to let them know that in no uncertain terms."
Hatch and Hansen added that the delegation has several plans on how to fight the Air Force actions, but declined to elaborate.