Management of U.S. Air Force Aircraft Contractor Logistics Support Arrangements

Summary of Findings and Recommendations

Thomas Light, Dwayne M. Butler, Michael Boito, Vikram Kilambi, Kristin J. Leuschner, Sheng Tao Li, Abby Schendt, Sunny D. Bhatt

ResearchPublished Apr 17, 2024

Between fiscal years 1996 and 2017, U.S. Air Force (USAF) spending on contractor logistics support (CLS) grew from 6 percent to 21 percent of aircraft operating and support costs. Although CLS constitutes one of the fastest-growing elements of aircraft operating and support costs, USAF leadership has had limited visibility into the drivers of those costs, leading to uncertainty about what the Air Force can do to manage the growth and whether such arrangements are cost-effective relative to organic support. RAND Project AIR FORCE analyzed cost data for CLS and organically maintained fleets, reviewed product support business case analyses, synthesized findings from reports published by the U.S. Government Accountability Office and Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General on CLS, and interviewed subject-matter experts within DoD.

Key Findings

CLS costs have risen with CLS use

  • Since the mid-to-late 1990s, the USAF has opted to use CLS to support most new fleets, explaining much of the growth in CLS costs.
  • After controlling for fleet mix, size, and flying activity, rates of cost growth for organically and CLS-maintained aircraft are similar, averaging around 4 percent per year more than economy-wide inflation (as measured by the GDP deflator) from 1996 to 2017.

CLS may cost more than organic support arrangements but can have offsetting advantages

  • CLS was found to be more costly than organic support arrangements in seven of nine product support business case analyses (PS-BCAs) reviewed. Many PS-BCAs also noted, however, that CLS is likely to offer higher performance and/or lower risk than organic support arrangements.

The Air Force has limited power to control costs on large CLS contracts

  • Lack of technical data and suitable competitors, as well as limited tools to create incentives for efficiency and innovation, limits the Air Force’s ability to control costs on large CLS contracts.

Recommendations

  • Formally track and disseminate lessons learned and best practices related to CLS.
  • Consider transitioning some CLS arrangements to multiple-year contracts.
  • Provide additional training focused on managing CLS contracts.
  • Provide resources to stand up an independent, organic capability to conduct PS-BCAs.
  • Establish a process for deciding the timing and extent of PS-BCAs.
  • Ensure the integration of processes to manage and evaluate public-private partnerships with weapon system product support.

Order a Print Copy

Format
Paperback
Page count
35 pages
List Price
$15.00
Buy link
Add to Cart

Topics

Document Details

  • Availability: Available
  • Year: 2024
  • Print Format: Paperback
  • Paperback Pages: 35
  • Paperback Price: $15.00
  • Paperback ISBN/EAN: 1-9774-0371-9
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.7249/RR4194
  • Document Number: RR-4194-AF

Citation

RAND Style Manual
Light, Thomas, Dwayne M. Butler, Michael Boito, Vikram Kilambi, Kristin J. Leuschner, Sheng Tao Li, Abby Schendt, and Sunny D. Bhatt, Management of U.S. Air Force Aircraft Contractor Logistics Support Arrangements: Summary of Findings and Recommendations, RAND Corporation, RR-4194-AF, 2024. As of September 12, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR4194.html
Chicago Manual of Style
Light, Thomas, Dwayne M. Butler, Michael Boito, Vikram Kilambi, Kristin J. Leuschner, Sheng Tao Li, Abby Schendt, and Sunny D. Bhatt, Management of U.S. Air Force Aircraft Contractor Logistics Support Arrangements: Summary of Findings and Recommendations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2024. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR4194.html. Also available in print form.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

The research reported here was commissioned by the U.S. Air Force (USAF) and conducted within the Resource Management Program of RAND Project AIR FORCE.

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND 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.