Hearing on Transitioning to Contractor-Operated Flight Service Stations

Statement

Rep. Mica Statement from Hearing on Transitioning to Contractor-Operated Flight Service Stations

The following are the opening statements of U.S. Rep. John L. Mica (R-FL), Transportation from today's hearing entitled "The Transition from FAA to Contractor-Operated Flight Service Stations: Lessons Learned."

Rep. Mica's Statement

I want to thank the Chairman for holding this very important oversight hearing today.

In 2001, while I was Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Department of Transportation Inspector General (IG) published reports critical of the FAA's Flight Service Station (FSS) program.

Both reports cited problems including the high cost of maintaining the program - $550 million a year, widespread inefficiencies, and the Government's failed attempts to modernize the legacy Flight Service Station computer system.

The FAA pursued the A-76 process for Flight Service Stations in order to save money while modernizing the system and ensuring a consistent level of reliable and safe service for pilots.

Therefore, the FAA took on the largest, non-defense, A-76 process worth about $1.8 billion. This effort is estimated to save the Federal Government approximately $2.2 billion over the ten-year life of the agreement.

While I was Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, I supported the FAA's decision to pursue the A-76 process for the Flight Service Station Program and remain supportive now.

In February 2005, the FAA announced that Lockheed Martin won an open bid contract and was awarded a five-year fixed-price contract (with five additional option years) to modernize and operate the Flight Service Station system (FS21 system) and tie all facilities together into a single network.

At the time the contract was awarded, I was particularly pleased to see that Lockheed's performance was going to be rated based upon 21 performance metrics. One of the important benefits of this contract is a clear process to track performance and ensure accountability -elements that were absent from the legacy Government-run flight service station system.

A few of the performance metrics include -

(1) That a live briefer answer pilot calls within 20 seconds and radio calls within five seconds at least 85% of the time;

(2) That flight plans be filed correctly within three minutes; and

(3) That less than five percent of all calls get a busy signal.

Additionally, the Lockheed contract includes customer satisfaction requirements like penalties intended to lower the number of customer complaints and rewards for scoring well on customer satisfaction surveys.

In October 2005, Lockheed took over the existing Flight Service Stations as a "turnkey" operation. The takeover did not impact continuity of service and according to pilots, went smoothly.

Pilots reported shorter delays and fewer dropped calls during the first 18 months after the FAA handover. An AOPA survey conducted in August 2006 indicated a majority of pilots said service was "good" or "very good."

As part of its Flight Service Station program, Lockheed planned to consolidate the existing 58 Flight Service Stations into three "hubs" and 15 modernized "legacy" sites.

By April 2007, Lockheed launched an aggressive implementation plan to transition to the new FS21 technology and opened three new Flight Service Station hubs and began closing 39 Flight Service Stations nationwide. As of today, the consolidations are complete except for Islip and San Juan.

Unfortunately, problems reported by pilots skyrocketed after implementation began - including extended call hold times, missing or dropped flight plans, inadequate local knowledge by FSS specialists, and problems with the issuance of Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs). It appears that many of the problems initially reported have been addressed. But it is important to learn from this process.

The Lockheed Flight Service Station contract is a huge and unprecedented contract. Therefore, not surprisingly, there have been some hiccups along the way.

While safety has never been compromised, customer service and customer satisfaction has been impacted.

Luckily, the Lockheed Martin contract allows for close government oversight and clear performance evaluation. In fact, according to the IG, in fiscal year 2006, the contractor incurred $8.9 million in financial penalties and submitted corrective actions plans to resolve other performance measures that were cited as deficient.

That is the benefit of this type of contract. The FAA did not track performance metrics data while it operated Flight Service Stations and as a result there is no data to compare the FAA and Lockheed programs. But it is my belief that the strict performance evaluation, imposition of penalties, and immediate corrective action did not take place prior to the Lockheed Flight Service Station contract.

In any event, I think everyone can agree that there are areas where service can be improved. In particular, I look forward to hearing testimony on:

- Why the implementation of FS21 System occurred at the beginning of the busy general aviation season.

- How the FAA and Lockheed are working through problems with the FS21 computer system communicating with the FAA's computer system.

- Staffing under FS21 calls for a reduction in workforce from 2,300 employees down to approximately 950-1000 employees. I'd like to hear where LM currently stands with its workforce and what they are doing to assure these facilities are appropriately staffed with knowledgeable workers.

Finally, I would specifically like to call attention to an incident that occurred on August 9th when Lockheed attempted a software update and as a result caused a disruption in service.

It is my understanding that the backup system was used the entire time, weather briefings remained available, and flight plans could still be filed. I further understand that at no time on August 9th was safety ever compromised. But I would like to have a better understanding of what happened that day and how we can be assured that future updates will not have the same result.

Again, I want to thank the witnesses for coming today and look forward to learning more about the Flight Service Station transition, FAA oversight, and Lockheed's level of performance and accountability.

Although things aren't perfect just yet, I would view this as a success story and a model for future government contracts.

Source