Footnote 1:  The contract structure is the implementation of the Consolidated Facilities Management approach.

Footnote 2:  Modification 1, dated June 1, 2003, increased the contract ceiling to $31 million. Modification 4, dated May 1, 2004, increased the contract ceiling to $32.5 million.

Footnote 3:  We use SBRA to refer the Small Business Act, as amended by the SBRA or other laws.

Footnote 4:  Substantial contract bundling is not defined by statute but is defined by regulation as discussed further in Finding A.

Footnote 5:  Internal control structure refers to the application of the five internal control standards in the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, dated November 1999.

Footnote 6:  Market research is a systematic, objective collection and analysis of general data to obtain information and knowledge about the availability and types of goods or services in the commercial marketplace.

Footnote 7:  The approval process for expenditure authority in effect at the time the CFM contract was awarded (details are provided on the next page) was significantly modified by FDIC Board resolutions in December 2004 and May 2005. Specifically, the Board delegated resource allocation decisions to senior FDIC management.

Footnote 8:  The FAR is not generally applicable to the FDIC but is used to implement the SBRA at other federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the General Services Administration.

Footnote 9:  See footnote 7.

Footnote 10:  There is a mathematical error in the Rationale. The amounts total $7,189,974, but the document shows a total of $7,213,844, which we used in our analysis.

Footnote 11:  Actual interior space alteration expenses decreased from over $1.3 million in 2002 to under $300,000 during base year 2 of the CFM contract.

Footnote 12:  In June 2002, FDIC representatives visited one government facility that was deemed comparable to FDIC-owned buildings. However, the results of the visit are not included in the FOS Rationale, and other evidence indicates that the visit was limited in scope and duration.

Footnote 13:  The CFM contract has 3 option periods with Option 2 extending from April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2007. Option 2 will include the newly constructed facilities at the FDIC's Virginia Square location. The additional cost of serving the new facilities is under negotiation with CESI, Inc., the CFM contractor.

Footnote 14:  FOS stated it reduced contract administration personnel from 8 oversight managers responsible for the 13 facilities-related contracts to 1 oversight manager and 5 technical monitors responsible for the CFM contract. However, the cost savings associated with this reduction were not quantified. Similarly, FOS concluded that there were savings, including in acquisition cycle time, associated with awarding 1 contract rather than 13 contracts but did not quantify the dollar amount.

Footnote 15:  We determined that $2,063,461 was paid to the CFM contractor to complete the work.

Footnote 16:  Expenditures related to capital assets can increase future benefits by (1) extending the useful life of the asset or (2) increasing the operating efficiency of the asset. An increase in operating efficiency results in either an increase in the quantity of goods or services produced, a decrease in future operating costs, or an increase in the quality of the goods or services produced by the asset.

Footnote 17:  The FDIC’s APM discusses the use of cost and price analysis as part of the procurement process to assist the contracting officer in evaluating contractor proposals.