About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline



CED-82-111 1 (1982-07-12)

handle is hein.gao/gaobabdmp0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 

                      UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
     (WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548

                                        July 12, 1982
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

      B-208079
                      RESTRICTED-Not to be released outside the General
                      Accomuting Office except on the basis of sp.#hc approval
      The H on o r able M k~nfT'o Congressional Relations.
      Chairman, Subcommittee on
        Transportation.and Related Agencies     RELEASED
      Committee on Appropriations
      United States Senate
                                                                    119004
      Dear Mr. Chairman:

           Subject: Analysis of Amtrak's Acquisition of Office
                     Copying Equipment (GAO/CED-82-111)

           Your letter dated January 29, 1982, asked us to review the
      overall cost effectiveness of the purchase by the National Rail-
      road Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) of office copying machines.
      These copiers were purchased from Xerox and Eastman Kodak. You
      requested that we determine (1) whether copying machines of-
      fered by another contractor--Copylease Corporation of America--
      would have been suitable for Amtrak's needs and (2) whether
      Amtrak's position that it is not subject to Federal Procurement
      Regulations (FPR) is correct.
           We also looked into Copylease's contention that Amtrak should
      have used another method of financial analysis in justifying the
      purchase of the copiers, other than the two analysis methods Amtrak
      used, and examined the use of all three methods.

           We found that when compared with the office copiers that
      Amtrak had been leasing, the machines that were purchased are
      cost effective in that annual costs to provide copying services
      have been substantially reduced. We also found that:

           --Within certain limits, the copiers that Copylease offered
             would have provided Amtrak with the basic copying services
             needed. The machines offered for lease by Copylease would
             have been a more cost-effective acquisition than those
             offered by Xerox only if the special features which Amtrak
             considered essential to the success of its total copying
             equipment operation were disregarded.

           --As a mixed-ownership Government corporation, Amtrak is
             not required to conform to the FPR although it can avail
             itself of General Services Administration (GSA) Federal


(343767)