Report No. DODIG-2015-143 - Media.defense.gov
Report No. DODIG-2015-143I nspec tor Ge ne ralU.S. Department of DefenseJ U LY 6 , 2 0 1 5Patriot Express Program Could BeMore Cost-Effective for OverseasPermanent Change of Station andTemporary Duty TravelI N T E G R I T Y E F F I C I E N C Y A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y E X C E L L E N C E
I N T E G R I T Y E F F I C I E N C Y A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y E X C E L L E N C EMissionOur mission is to provide independent, relevant, and timely oversightof the Department of Defense that supports the warfighter; promotesaccountability, integrity, and efficiency; advises the Secretary ofDefense and Congress; and informs the public.VisionOur vision is to be a model oversight organization in the FederalGovernment by leading change, speaking truth, and promotingexcellence—a diverse organization, working together as oneprofessional team, recognized as leaders in our field.Fraud, Waste & AbuseHOTLINEDepartment of Defensedodig.mil/hotline 8 0 0 . 4 2 4 . 9 0 9 8For more information about whistleblower protection, please see the inside back cover.
Results in BriefPatriot Express Program Could Be More Cost-Effectivefor Overseas Permanent Change of Stationand Temporary Duty TravelJuly 6, 2015Finding (cont’d)ObjectiveAs a result, DoD did not maximize its return on investment inthe Patriot Express Program and overpaid for overseas travel.The objective of the audit was todetermine whether using Patriot Expresschannels for overseas permanent changeof station and temporary duty travelwas cost‑effective to DoD.FindingAlthough the Patriot Express flights werenot always the most economical mode oftransportation for DoD personnel travelingoverseas, the program is an integralcomponent to support DoD readinessand force protection. In addition, forthe five nonstatistically sampled routeswe reviewed, DoD did not maximizethe use of available seats on PatriotExpress flights that U.S. TransportationCommand purchased through the CivilReserve Air Fleet Program contracts.This occurred because: U.S. Transportation Commandpersonnel did not consider alltransportation costs when itevaluated the economic feasibility ofPatriot Express channels; passengers did not always takebooked Patriot Express flights; U.S. Transportation Command didnot have a documented processbefore June 2014 to forecast futureyears’ Patriot Express passengerrequirements; and some Military Services did not havecontrols in place to ensure thatthe transportation office personnelchecked Patriot Express availabilityfor passengers traveling overseas.Visit us at www.dodig.milRecommendationsAmong other recommendations, we recommended thatthe Commander, U.S. Transportation Command performtransportation feasibility studies on all Patriot Expresschannels to evaluate the economics of using Patriot Expressfor permanent change of station and temporary dutytravel. We also made recommendations to the Chief ofStaff, Army G-4; the Commander, Naval Supply SystemsCommand; the Director, Headquarters Air Force Logistics;and the Director, Marine Corps Logistics Plans, Policy, andStrategic Mobility.Management Commentsand Our ResponseComments from the Commander, U.S. TransportationCommand, did not address all specifics of Recommendations1.a, and 1.b. Comments from the Chief of Staff, Army G-4,addressed all specifics of Recommendation 2.a and partiallyaddressed Recommendation 2.b. Comments from theCommander, Naval Supply Systems Command, and Director,Headquarters Air Force Logistics, addressed all specifics ofRecommendations 3.a and 4.a. However, comments fromthe Commander, Naval Supply Systems Command, partiallyaddressed Recommendation 3.b.As a result of management comments, we redirectedRecommendations 2.c, 3.c, 4.b, and 5 to the Chief of Staff,Army G-4; Commander, Naval Supply Systems Command;Director, Headquarters Air Force Logistics; and Director,Marine Corps Logistics Plans, Policy, and Strategic Mobility.Therefore, we request they provide additional commentson the recommendations by August 5, 2015. Please see theRecommendations Table on the back of this page.DODIG-2015-143 (Project No. D2014-D000CJ-0192.000) i
Recommendations TableRecommendationsRequiring CommentManagementNo AdditionalComments RequiredCommander, U.S. Transportation Command1.a, 1.bChief of Staff, Army G-42.b, 2.c2.aCommander, Naval Supply Systems Command3.b, 3.c3.aDirector, Headquarters Air Force Logistics4.b4.aDirector, Marine Corps Logistics Plans, Policy,and Strategic Mobility5Please provide Management Comments by August 5, 2015.ii DODIG-2015-143 (Project No. D2014-D000CJ-0192.000)
INSPECTOR GENERALDEPARTMENT OF DEFENSEYorktown Audit Office111 Cybernetics Way, Suite 110Yorktown, Virginia 23693July 6, 2015MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDER, U.S. TRANSPORTATION COMMANDASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE (FINANCIAL MANAGEMENTAND COMPTROLLER)AUDITOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYNAVAL INSPECTOR GENERALSUBJECT: Patriot Express Program Could Be More Cost-Effective for Overseas Permanent Changeof Station and Temporary Duty Travel (Report No. DODIG-2015-143)We are providing this report for review and comment. Although the Patriot Express flights were notalways the most economical mode of transportation for DoD personnel traveling overseas, it is anintegral component to support DoD readiness and force protection. In addition, DoD did not maximizethe use of available seats on Patriot Express flights that U.S. Transportation Command purchasedthrough the Civil Reserve Air Fleet Program contracts. DoD travelers should use the program to themaximum extent possible to capitalize fully on its benefits. We conducted this audit in accordancewith generally accepted government auditing standards.We considered management comments on a draft of this report when preparing the final report.DoD Instruction 7650.03 requires that recommendations be resolved promptly. Commentsfrom the Commander, U.S. Transportation Command, did not address all the specifics ofRecommendations 1.a and 1.b. Comments from the Chief of Staff, Army G-4, addressed all thespecifics of Recommendation 2.a and only partially addressed Recommendation 2.b. Comments fromthe Commander, Naval Supply Systems Command, and Director, Headquarters Air Force Logistics,addressed all the specifics of Recommendations 3.a and 4.a. However, comments from the Commander,Naval Supply Systems Command, only partially addressed the specifics of Recommendation 3.b.The Chief of Staff, Army G-4; Commander, Naval Supply Systems Command; Director, HeadquartersAir Force Logistics; and Director, Marine Corps Logistics Plans, Policy, and Strategic Mobility did notcomment on Recommendations 2.c, 3.c, 4.b, and 5 because they were redirected to them in the finalreport. Therefore, we request the Commander, U.S. Transportation Command; Chief of Staff, Army G-4;Commander, Naval Supply Systems Command; Director, Headquarters Air Force Logistics; and Director,Marine Corps Logistics Plans, Policy, and Strategic Mobility provide comments on the final report byAugust 5, 2015.Please send a PDF file containing your comments to audyorktown@dodig.mil. Copies of your commentsmust have the actual signature of the authorizing official for your organization. We cannot acceptthe /Signed/ symbol in place of the actual signature. If you arrange to send classified commentselectronically, you must send them over the SECRET Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET).We appreciate the courtesies extended to the staff. Please direct questions to me at (703) 604-9187(DSN 664-9187).Michael J. RoarkAssistant Inspector GeneralContract Management and PaymentsDODIG-2015-143 iii
ContentsIntroduction 1Objective 1Background 1Review of Internal Controls 3Finding. DoD Could Realize Efficienciesin the Patriot Express Program 4Patriot Express Travel Was Not Always the Most Economical Travel Option 4Patriot Express Passenger Flights Were Underused 7Conclusion 14Management Comments on the Finding and Our Response 14Recommendations, Management Comments, and Our Response 14AppendixesAppendix A. Scope and Methodology 23Use of Computer-Processed Data 25Use of Technical Assistance 26Prior Coverage 26Appendix B. Cost Comparison of Patriot Express Channelsto Commercial Flight Segments 28Appendix C. Discussion of Management Commentson the Background and Finding 33Management CommentsU.S. Transportation Command Comments 36Army G-4 Comments 42Naval Supply Systems Command Comments 44Headquarters Air Force Logistics Comments 47Acronyms and Abbreviations 48iv DODIG-2015-143
IntroductionIntroductionObjectiveThe objective of the audit was to determine whether using Patriot Express channelsfor overseas permanent change of station (PCS) and temporary duty travel (TDY)was cost‑effective to DoD. See Appendix A for the scope and methodology andprior audit coverage.BackgroundThe Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) Program is an alliance between the Departmentof Transportation, DoD, and U.S. commercial air carriers. Under CRAF, commercialair carriers volunteer aircraft resources to support DoD air travel requirementsin times of emergency or contingency. In return, the commercial air carriersreceive a portion of DoD’s peacetime business. The Patriot Express Program is thepeacetime passenger component of CRAF.DoD established the Patriot Express Program to provide an incentive for commercialair carriers to participate in the CRAF Program and support DoD’s operationalreadiness in times of conflict. The Patriot Express Program: provides increased force protection;improves travelers’ quality of life through increased passengerservice benefits;provides:{{{{{{{{meals that are comparable to business class;latest box office movies;significantly reduced price pet travel compared to commercialflights; andgreater luggage weight allowances; keeps families together while moving; alleviates travel inconveniences such as language barriers andcurrency exchanges. ensures travel solely with other DoD passengers; andDODIG-2015-143 1
IntroductionFigure 1. Patriot Express plane interiorSource: AMC Passenger Policy Branch PatriotExpress BrochureFigure 2. DoD air terminal ticketing areaSource: DoD, Inspector GeneralDoD guidance1 states DoD (active duty and civilian) international travelersmust use U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM)‑contracted flights,Patriot Express, before taking General Services Administration (GSA) commercialair service through the City Pair Program, unless there is a documented negativecritical mission impact.DoD guidance2 directs the Commander, USTRANSCOM, as the singlemanager for common user transportation, to develop, publish, and maintainDoD Regulation 4500.9‑R, Defense Transportation Regulation3 (DTR). The DTRstates that, unless there is a documented negative critical mission impact to justifynonusage, travelers should use Patriot Express for travel outside the continentalUnited States (OCONUS), even if a commercial carrier can provide the service atless cost or if commercial air service is more convenient to the traveler.U.S. Transportation CommandUSTRANSCOM develops and maintains relationships between DoD and thecommercial transportation industry to implement airlift programs, such asPatriot Express. USTRANSCOM manages the Transportation Working CapitalFund and uses it to fund the Patriot Express Program by chartering passengerflights through CRAF contracts. In FY 2014, USTRANSCOM exercised optionson 5 contracts, for Patriot Express passenger flights, valued at approximately 749.3 million.2 DODIG-2015-1431DoD Instruction 4500.57, “Transportation and Traffic Management,” March 18, 2008, Enclosure 3, “Air Transportation.”2DoD Directive 4500.09E, “Transportation and Traffic Management,” September 11, 2007.3The DTR Part I, “Passenger Movement,” January 29, 2015.
IntroductionAir Mobility CommandAir Mobility Command (AMC), a component command of USTRANSCOM, is themanager for DoD airlift. AMC schedules Patriot Express channel flights on aircraftchartered for DoD international travel through the CRAF Program. When AMCcharters an aircraft the carrier dedicates the entire flight for DoD use. The aircraftfly internationally between select military or commercial air terminals.Review of Internal ControlsDoD Instruction 5010.40, “Managers’ Internal Control Program Procedures,”May 30, 2013, requires DoD organizations to implement a comprehensive system ofinternal controls that provides reasonable assurance that programs are operatingas intended and to evaluate the effectiveness of the controls. We identifiedinternal control weaknesses with the Military Services’ use of the Patriot ExpressProgram; the processes USTRANSCOM and AMC used to evaluate the economicsof Patriot Express channels; and the processes the Military Services used tobook Patriot Express flights. Specifically, we identified weaknesses related topassengers who did not show for scheduled flights; forecasting Patriot Expressroute and channel requirements; processes to fully document Patriot Express costs;and processes to check availability for and book Patriot Express flights. We willprovide a copy of the report to the senior officials responsible for internal controlsat USTRANSCOM, AMC, and the Military Services.DODIG-2015-143 3
FindingFindingDoD Could Realize Efficiencies in the PatriotExpress ProgramAlthough Patriot Express flights were not always the most economical mode oftransportation for DoD personnel traveling overseas, the program is an integralcomponent to support DoD readiness and force protection. In addition, for thefive nonstatistically sampled routes we reviewed, DoD did not maximize the useof Patriot Express seats USTRANSCOM purchased through CRAF contracts. Thisoccurred because: USTRANSCOM personnel did not consider all transportation costs whenevaluating the economic feasibility of Patriot Express channels;4 USTRANSCOM did not have a documented process before June 2014 toforecast future years’ Patriot Express passenger requirements; and passengers5 did not always take booked Patriot Express flights;some Military Services did not have controls in place to ensure thattransportation office (TO) personnel checked Patriot Express availabilityfor passengers traveling overseas.As a result, DoD did not maximize its return on investment in the Patriot ExpressProgram and overpaid for overseas travel.Patriot Express Travel Was Not Always the MostEconomical Travel OptionUsing Patriot Express channels for overseas PCS and TDY travel was not always themost economical travel option for DoD. Of the three Patriot Express channels wereviewed, the Ramstein channel was generally more expensive than commercialtravel, the Aviano channel was generally less expensive than commercial travel,and the Bahrain channel was generally comparable in cost to commercial travel.Table 1 shows examples of the difference between the total transportation costs toDoD for passengers taking Patriot Express versus taking commercial flights.4 DODIG-2015-1434A channel is a scheduled stop within a Patriot Express route. For example, one route we evaluated departedfrom the Baltimore-Washington International Airport and included channel stops at Ramstein Air Base (AB),Germany; Aviano Air Base (AB), Italy; and Incirlik Air Base (AB), Turkey; and returned to Baltimore-WashingtonInternational Airport.5DoD passengers traveling under official orders.
FindingTable 1. Cost Comparison Examples of Patriot Express Channels to Commercial Flight SegmentsTraveled by DoD PassengersPatriotExpressChannelBaltimore –RamsteinBaltimore –AvianoNorfolk –BahrainCommercialFlightSegmentsTraveledby DoDPassengersPatriotExpressRateGSA City PairProgramRate forFlight nCost to DoD forPatriot ExpressTravel 1Cost tionCost of PatriotExpress andCommercialTravel2Dallas, TX –Frankfurt 1,122 406 1,528 443 1,085Miami, FL –Frankfurt1,1223041,4264121,014Atlanta, GA –Venice5511757261,599(873)Seattle, WA –Venice5512748251,549(724)San Diego, CA –Bahrain1,2932111,5041,208296Atlanta, GA –Bahrain1,2931801,4731,549(76)1The total transportation cost to DoD for a passenger to take Patriot Express represents the FY 2014 Patriot Express rate plus the GSA CityPair Program rate for the flight required to deliver passengers to or from the designated Patriot Express airport.2When the value in this column is positive, it represents that travel using Patriot Express is more expensive than commercial travel; and whenthe value is negative (in red), it represents that travel using Patriot Express is less expensive than commercial travel.Table 1 demonstrates how large the disparity can be between the total cost ofPatriot Express flights and commercial flights. For example, commercial flightsto or from Frankfurt, Germany can cost 1,085 less than Patriot Express flightsto or from Ramstein, while commercial flights to or from Venice, Italy can cost 873 more than Patriot Express flights to or from Aviano. See Appendix Bfor a listing of the flight cost comparisons for the Ramstein, Aviano, andBahrain channels.USTRANSCOM Did Not Consider All Transportation CostsWhen it Evaluated Patriot Express RoutesWhen USTRANSCOM evaluated Patriot Express channels for economic feasibility,USTRANSCOM did not consider the total transportation cost DoD incurredfor passengers traveling overseas. Although USTRANSCOM used GSA CityPair Program6 rates as the benchmark to establish flight rates for Patriot Expresstravel, USTRANSCOM only used the rates that represented the cost of travel6The GSA developed the City Pair Program to provide discounted air passenger transportation services toFederal Government travelers. Airfares are unrestricted with no advance purchase required, no charge for cancellationsor changes, and are fully refundable.DODIG-2015-143 5
Findingbetween the designated Patriot Express departure or arrival airport andthe OCONUS channel stop. Those rates did not include the cost of additionaldomestic flights required to deliver passengers to the designated Patriot Expressdeparture or arrival airports.The DTR7 requires USTRANSCOM to perform a transportation feasibility studyto determine whether Patriot Express can service a channel economically.However, the DTR does not require USTRANSCOM, when evaluating channels, toconsider additional transportation costs DoD incurred. Although USTRANSCOMperformed these studies in accordance with the DTR, they did not consider thecomplete transportation cost to DoD associated with Patriot Express flights,including the transportation costs DoD incurred to get passengers to and from thePatriot Express departure or arrival airports; and therefore, did not accuratelyevaluate the total cost of Patriot Express channels. USTRANSCOM should updatethe DTR t
channels for overseas permanent change of station and temporary duty travel wasostffective c -e to DoD. Finding. Although the Patriot Express flights were . not always the most economical mode of transportation for DoD personnel traveling overseas, the program is an integral component to support DoD readiness and force protection. In addition, for
Feb 26, 2018 · DODIG-2018-079 (Project No. D2016-D000XD-0201.000) i Results in Brief Followup Audit: Transfer of Service Treatment Records to the Department of Veterans Affairs Objective We determined whether the DoD had implemented recommendations in DoD OIG Report No. DODIG-2014-097
DODIG-2016-004 (D2015-D000RE-0101.000) i. Results in Brief. Army Needs to Improve Contract Oversight for the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program's Task Orders. Visit us at www.dodig.mil. Objective. Our objective was to determine whether . the Army was providing sufficient contract oversight for Logistics Civil Augmentation
(Report No. DODIG-2015-011) This final report is provided for information and use. We evaluated the Defense Criminal Investigative Organizations’ (DCIOs) process for reporting accurate criminal incident data to the Defense Incident-Based Reporting System (DIBRS) in accordance with DoD Directive 7730.47 and
Jul 30, 2019 · Items (Report No. DODIG -2019-106) (U) This final report provides the results of the DoD Office of Inspector General’s audit. We previously provided copies of the draft report and requested written comments on the recommendations. We considered management’s comments on the draft report
Need Improvement (Report No. DODIG-2016-054) We are prov iding this report for your review and comment . The Nav y processed over 75,000 invoices valued at 16.3 billion through iR APT in the second quar ter F Y 2015. The Nav y did not diligently document processes and implemen
SUBJECT: Audit of Physical Security Controls at Department of Defense Medical Treatment Facilities (Report No. DODIG-2020-078) This final report provides the results of the DoD Office of Inspector General’s audit. We previously provided copies of the draft report and requested written comments on the recommendations.
AND MATERIEL READINESS DIRECTOR, DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY SUBJECT: Management of Items in the Defense Logistics Agency’s Long-Term Storage Needs Improvement (Report No. DODIG-2016-036) We are providing this report for your information and use. The Defense Logistics Agency
Compilation and Certification Requirements for FY 2013. DODIG-2015-106 (Project No. D2015-D000CG-0006.000) i. Visit us at www. dodig.mil. Objective. . Results 4d: Certification Letters Provided Limited Information on Fundingeductions R _15; Procedure 5: Follow Up on Previous Recommendation _17 .
