Detailed Information on the
General Services Administration - Vehicle Acquisition Assessment

Annually reassessing targets for performance measures where actual results indicate that more aggressive targets are appropriate.

Using GSA's performance management process to improve the linkages between program performance and funding needs.

Commissioning regular, independent outside evaluations of this program that would assess its performance against commercial and other vehicle fleet acquisition programs.

Measure: Achieve acquisition cost savings for customer agencies by providing vehicles at 20% or more below manufacturer's invoice price.

Explanation:

Measure: Percentage discount from the invoice price

Explanation:

Measure: GSA Automotive external customer satisfaction survey score

Explanation:

Measure: Number of Vehicles Purchased per FTE

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: GSA Automotive consolidates Federal vehicle requirements and contracts with a wide selection of vehicle manufacturers to provide Federal agencies with a choice of vehicle models at the best value from convenient delivery locations.

Evidence: 40 U.S.C. 481(a); 31 U.S.C. 1343; Federal Property Management Regulations (41 CFR 101-26.501-1)

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: Federal agencies spend a significant amount annually to purchase vehicles (nearly $1.2 billion in FY 03) and GSA Automotive assists agencies in meeting their vehicle procurement needs.

Evidence: Federal Procurement Data System

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Annually, GSA Automotive purchases over 60,000 vehicles valued at nearly $1.2 billion. GSA Automotive is the mandatory source for providing non-tactical vehicles to federal agencies, and is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort to consolidate the purchase of vehicles for the Federal Government.

Evidence: Supplier Summary Report of Big 3, 40 U.S.C 481(a); 31 U.S.C. 1343; Federal Property Management Regulations (41 CFR 101-26.501-1)

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: GSA Automotive has a unique authority to purchase standard vehicles (e.g. sedans, SUVs, light trucks, etc.) directly from vehicle manufacturers. This allows GSA to avoid state and local taxes as well as customary dealer markups. GSA also procures non-standard, low volume vehicles on behalf of agencies through a competitive process that permits manufacturers as well as dealerships to bid. There are certain classes of vehicles where dealerships may offer lower prices than manufacturers and GSA Automotive is able to take advantage of this for its agency customers. It is rare that agencies are able to obtain lower prices than GSA. GSA sometimes delegates its vehicle procurement authority to agencies with unusual vehicle needs, e.g. to procure vehicles from foreign manufacturers for overseas use.

Evidence: 40 U.S.C. 481(a); 31 U.S.C. 1343; Federal Property Management Regulations (41 CFR 101-26.501-1)

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: GSA Automotive solicits customer agencies' input on their vehicle needs and works with the vehicle manufacturers to obtain vehicles that are responsive to those needs. Since the program responds to agencies' orders for vehicles, it only provides vehicles to intended beneficiaries.

Evidence: Federal Vehicle Standards, Screen capture of MPG summary from AutoChoice, comparison of prices paid by GSA to the "Black Book" dealer prices.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: GSA Automotive has one longstanding long-term goal to "Provide vehicles at an average discount better than 20%." This goal is consistent with the GSA Strategic Goal of providing best value to the customer.

Evidence: FY 2004 GSA Strategic Plans; FSS Corporate Scorecard published in Guide to the FSS Performance Measurement System

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The FSS Performance Measurement System incorporates ambitious stretch targets for each goal. GSA Automotive's average discount has averaged 26.5% for FY 2002 and FY 2003. Targets are estasblished in out years that focus on continued program improvement, these long-term goals help drive program planning and performance.

Evidence: FY 2004 GSA Strategic Plans; FSS Corporate Scorecard published in Guide to the FSS Performance Measurement System

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: GSA Automotive has annual performance measure goals that demonstrate progress towards achieving GSAs Strategic Goals. The following three annual performance measures focus the program on meeting its long-term goal. 1) Percentage that average GSA vehicle costs to agencies are below manufacturer's invoice price. 2) GSA Automotive external customer satisfaction survey score. 3) Number of vehicles purchased per FTE

Evidence: FY 2004 GSA Strategic Plans; FSS Corporate Scorecard published in Guide to the FSS Performance Measurement System

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The FSS Performance Measurement System assigns ambitious stretch targets to each goal. GSA Automotive's average discount has averaged 26.5% for FY 2002 and FY 2003, tartgets have been established for the out years to focus on increasing this discount over time. GSA Automotive's external customer satisfaction measure has established out year targets for a score of 79 from a baseline score of 75.7 in FY 2003 which would maintain the organization in the 75th percentile of organizations for customer satisfaction. Additionally, GSA Automotive has established targets for improved efficiency based on increasing the number of vehicles purchased per FTE.

Evidence: FY 2004 GSA Strategic Plans; FSS Corporate Scorecard published in Guide to the FSS Performance Measurement System

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: GSA Automotive's programs are not carried out through grantees, sub-grantees, or contractors.

Evidence:  

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: In FY 2000 and FY 2001 there were Inspector General Audits conducted on the core components of the Automotive program. The FY 2000 Audit covered the use of multiple award (MA) indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIG) contracts by the program and the program processes in place to use this tool. The FY 2001 review addressed the "Percent Savings Compared to Black Book Price" and how this measure is utilized and calculated by the program. The findings and recommendations of these reviews have been incorporated into the program's operations. However, to get a Yes on this question, FSS would have to commit to seeking regular independent reviews that evaluated the effectiveness of this program.

Evidence: FY 2000 GSA Final Report, "Audit of Federal Supply Service's Use of Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Contracts" and FY 2001 GSA Final Advisory Report on a Limited Audit of the Federal Supply Service's Performance Measure: "Percent Savings Saved Compared to Black Book Price"

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: GSA Automotive implemented the Internet-based vehicle ordering program, AutoChoice, to improve program efficiency while maintaining high customer satisfaction. This investment has achieved its intended result and enabled the organization to reduce its personnel levels through attrition. This reduction in personnel has generated savings in salaries and personnel expenses. GSA Automotive continues to seek opportunities similar to AutoChoice that will generate additional operational efficiencies, while maintaining or improving customer service.

Evidence: GSA Form 685 - Summary Report of Paid Employment

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: Following the FY 2004 PART review, GSA Automotive revised its long-term outcome goal and established new annual performance goals and measures which support that revised long-term goal. These new performance measures are tied to GSA's agency-wide strategic goals, and focused on continuously improving program operations to increase program efficiency and continue to meet customer needs.

Evidence: FY 2005 GSA Strategic Plans; FSS Corporate Scorecard published in Guide to the FSS Performance Measurement System

Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals and used the results to guide the resulting activity?

Explanation: Each year as part of its annual planning process, GSA Automotive analyzes customer ordering trends to identify opportunities to save money by working with vehicle manufacturers to incorporate certain widely requested vehicle equipment options as standard equipment. By offering vehicles with standard equipment configurations that meet a higher percentage of agencies' needs, GSA Automotive is able to provide vehicles at lower costs as well as more quickly that when agencies have to order vehicles with more non-standard equipment. GSA Automotive also analyzes vehicle model and optional equipment bid prices compared to the Black Book - Official New Car Invoice Guide publication. This analysis is used to set negotiation objectives and to ensure price reasonableness when reviewing vendor offers.

Evidence: Option analysis report

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: GSA Automotive began performing annual customer satisfaction surveys in FY 2002. Based on the first survey results, GSA Automotive established a Customer Care focus group to improve issues related to communication. GSA Automotive also reviews operating cost ratios against targets semi-annually and has initiated several cost reduction efforts as a result of these reviews.

Evidence: Black Book - Official New Car Invoice Guide example, Customer Satisfaction survey

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The performance of GSA Automotive Managers is reviewed annually against program goals and objectives. Managers are responsible to control operating costs and to complete all program initiatives within target dates. Financial incentives are distributed based upon the results of these reveiws.

Evidence: FSS' annual employee review and rating evaluation

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: All Program funds are obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose. It is an inherent part of the GSA accounting system requierments that obligations be established prior to processing payments for goods and services. This ensures that payments correspond to their intended purpose.

Evidence: FY 2005 Congressional Justification; Consolidated Financial Statements

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: Program efficiency is tracked and measured via the following efficiency measure - Number of vehicles purchased per FTE. GSA Automotive strives to meet its customers' needs while improving efficiency by reducing program inputs.

Evidence: FY 2005 Congressional Justification; FY 2006 PART performance and efficiency measures.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: GSA Automotive collaborates and coordinates with GSA Fleet to leverage the Government's buying power. GSA Automotive also coordinates with Federal fleet managers through hosting of the Federal Motor Vehicle Standards Conference and active participation in quarterly meetings of Federal fleet managers (FedFleet meetings). This collaboration results in GSA Automotive setting vehicle standards that incorporate equipment which responds to agencies' needs and allows the government to obtain lower prices from vehicle manufacturers.

Evidence: Federal Motor Vehicle Standards invitation and agenda; FedFleet agenda/program

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: GSA has received clean audit opinions for 16 consecutive years. No material internal control weaknesses for several years.

Evidence: GSA FY 2003 Annual Financial Statements Audit Report

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: GSA Automotive mangement team meets semi-annually to review ways to improve program processes and performance. For example, during a semi-annual review, the GSA Automotive management team reviewed project management weaknesses and established new procedures to ensure timely processing of speciality vehicle procurements. GSA has also implemented the IG's recommendations for improving the computation of savings and reporting of vehicle purchasing data.

Evidence: GSA Automotive Strategic Plan

Is the program managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?

Explanation: GSA establishes minimum standards or specific specifications for its different vehicle programs and specialized vehicle procurements, which clearly define vehicle performance characteristics and delivery requirements. Vehicles that are delivered thru dealers are inspected by those dealers for compliance with the standards or specifications before they are released to the customers. Customers then inspect and either accept or reject vehicles at the dealerships based on the vehicles meeting the customer's requirements. All other vehicles are inspected by GSA's contract management division personnel and either accepted or rejected. Quality Deficient Reports (QDRs) are generated by customers when deficiencies are identified after delivery; GSA Automotive then follows up on any QDR notices or issues. In addition, contractors are required to provide periodic status reports which GSA uses to seek contract cost reductions for late deliveries.

Evidence: Contract Management Reports (QDRs)

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: GSA Automotive has one longstanding long-term goal to "Provide vehicles at an average discount better than 20%." This goal is consistent with the GSA Strategic Goal of providing best value to the customer and FSS has consistently exceeded this goal.

Evidence: Trend analysis of Big 3 Discounts

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: GSA Automotive has 3 annual performance measures and goals: Percentage that average GSA vehicle costs to agencies are below manufacturer's invoice prices, GSA Automotive external customer satisfaction survey score and Number of vehicles purchased per FTE. In FY 2002 and FY 2003 GSA Automotive exceeded its target for percentage that average GSA vehicle costs are below manufacturer's invoice prices, based on preliminary FY 2004 data it also appears that this goal will again be met. The Customer Satisfaction Survey results for FY 2003 were below the program targets and FY 2004 data is not yet available to determine the current year performance in this area. In FY 2003 the number of vehicles purchased per FTE was slightly below target levels, but based on current employment levels and orders it appears that the FY 2004 target will be met.

Evidence: GSA Automotive Performance Measurement Report Card; FY 2005 Congressional Justification

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: GSA Automotive developed the AutoChoice program to allow Federal agencies to submit orders electronically. In the 3 years since its introduction, GSA Automotive has gone from having no orders submitted electronically to having 86% of orders submitted electronically. Use of AutoChoice has reduced average order processing time from more than 17 days to 6 days. Although this reduction in manual processes will allow GSA Automotive to reduce its total number of associates through attrition in the coming years, the program did not meet its efficiency target for 2003. Year-to-date customer orders in 2004 have been higher than in prior fiscal years and the program is expected to achieve its efficiency target for this year.

Evidence: Summary Requisition Received report, Perfoemance Measures report

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: Although GSA Automotive is the only mandatory source for the purchase of all new non-tactical vehicles, other government organizations (Federal, state, and local) as well as private sector entities purchase similar vehicles. Since there are no data available to compare these vehicle acquisition programs against one another, however, NA is the most appropriate answer to this question.

Evidence:  

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: In FY 2000 and FY 2001 there were Inspector General Audits conducted on components of the Automotive program. The FY 2000 Audit covered the use of multiple award (MA) indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIG) contracts by the program and the program processes in place to use this tool. The FY 2001 review addressed the "Percent Savings Compared to Black Book Price" and how this measure is utilized and calculated by the program. Both reviews identified weaknesses in those respective activities, and GSA Automotive has incorporated the recommendations of these reviews into its operations to eliminate those weaknesses.

Evidence: FY 2000 GSA Final Report, "Audit of Federal Supply Service's Use of Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Contracts" and FY 2001 GSA Final Advisory Report on a Limited Audit of the Federal Supply Service's Performance Measure: "Percent Savings Saved Compared to Black Book Price"

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: GSA Automotive achieved one of its three major program goals within planned budget in FY 2003. Preliminary data for FY 2004 indicates that the program will met its targets for average GSA vehicle cost to agencies below manufacturer's invoice price and number of vehicles purchased per FTE. Data on customer satisfaction is not yet available to indicate FY 2004 performance to date.

Evidence: FY 2005 Congressional Justification; FY 2006 PART Performance and Efficiency Measures