Download

Download eBook for Free

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 2.3 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Purchase

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price Price
Add to Cart Paperback65 pages $9.00 $7.20 20% Web Discount

Contractors represent a sizable and potentially growing portion of the Air Force's repair system. This report asks the question, How should the Air Force design its repair contracts to ensure high-quality, responsive repair? By developing an economic model of contractor motivations and behavior and simulating how contractors would respond to different types of contracts, the report aims to derive the government's optimal repair contract. The simulation suggests that a contract combining a sizable lump-sum payment with cost-sharing for required expensive spares can be a desirable approach. The contractor should be required to maintain a specified weapon system availability role. Such a contract assumes the contractor has fairly detailed information about the weapon system. These contracts are probably most appropriate for mature weapon systems with predictable usage patterns.

Research conducted by

This report is part of the RAND Corporation monograph report series. The monograph/report was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1993 to 2003. RAND monograph/reports presented major research findings that addressed the challenges facing the public and private sectors. They included executive summaries, technical documentation, and synthesis pieces.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.