FISCAL YEARS-- 1967,

1 Table 9. --NET VALUE OF MILITARY PROCUREMENT ACTIONS BY STATES,

1968, 1969--Continued (Dollar amounts in thousands)

1 Notes on coverage: It is emphasized that data on prime contracts by State do not provide any direct indication as to the State in which the actual production work is done. For the majority of contracts with manufacturers, the data reflect the location of the plant where the product will be finally processed and assembled. If processing or assembly is to be performed in more than 1 plant of a prima contractor, the location shown is the plant where the largest dollar amount of work will take place. Construction contracts are shown for the State where the construction is to be performed. For puro chases from wholesale or other distribution firms, the location is the address of the contractor's place of business. For service contracts, the location is generally the place where the service is performed, but for transportation and com. munications services the home office address is frequently used.

More important is the fact that the reports refer to prime contracts only, and cannot in any way reflect the distribution of the very substantial amount of material and component fabrication and other subcontract work that may be done outside the State where final assembly or delivery takes place.

The report includes definitive contracts, and funded portions of letter contracts and letters of intent, job orders, task orders, and purchase orders on industrial firms, and also includes interdepartmental purchases, made from or through other governmental agencies, such as those made through the General Services Administration. The State data include upward or downward revisions and adjustments of $10,000 or more, such as cancellations, price changes, supplemental agreements, amendments, etc.

The estimated amounts of indefinite delivery, open end, or call-typo contracts for petroleum ara includat in the raport Except for petroleum contracts, the report does not include indefinite delivary, open end, or call-type contr3:ts as suci but does include specific purchase or delivery orders of $10.000 or more which are placed against th33: contracts. Als? excluded from the report are project orders: that is, production orders; issued to Government onned and operated facilities such as Navy shipyards. However, the report includes the contracts placed with industry by the Government operated facility to complete the production order.

: Includes all contracts awarded for work performance in the United States. The United States includes the 50 States, the District of Columbia, U.S. possessions, the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and other areas subject to the complete sovereignty of the United States, but does not include occupied Japanese islands and trust territories,

s Includes contracts of less than $10,000, all contracts awarded for work performance in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, U.S. possessions, and other areas subject to the complete sovereignty of the United States, contracts wnich are in a classified location, and any intragovernmental contracts entered into overseas.

Net value of contracts of $10,000 or more for work in each State and the District of Columbia. * Less than 0.05 percent.

TABLE 9-A.-NET VALUE OF MILITARY PROCUREMENT BY STATES, BY PERCENT OF TOTAL, FISCAL YEAR 1969

This table show concentration of military procurement in the favored states. California rereived 19.4% of the trtal or about the amount of the 35 lowest. California, Texas and New York received 38.1% or more than the lowest 42 states and the hichest 6 received 52.2% or more than the lowest 45.

1 South Dakota
2 Wyoming
3 Idaho
44

Montana
5 Nevada
6 North Dakota

Delaware 8 Maine 9 Kentucky 10 West Virginia 11 Vermont 12 Oregon 13 Alaska 14 New Mexico -----15 Nebraska 16 New Hampshire 17 Hawaii 18 Arkansas 19 Rhode Island 20 Utah 22 South Carolina 22 Oklahoma 23

1.5
1.8
2.1

27 Arizona
28 Kansas
29 Louisiana
30 Wisconsin
31 Alabama
32 Tennessee
33 North Carolina
34 Washington
35 Michigan
36 Virginia
37 Maryland
38 Minnesota-
39 Illinois
40' Georgia
41 Florida
42 Indiana
43 Missouri
44 New Jersey
45 Ohio
46 Massachusetts
47 Pennsylvania
48 Connecticut
49 New York
50 Texas
51

1.2 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.9 2:0 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.7 3.0 3.1 3.6 4.4 4.4 4.8 4.9

8.8 9.8 10.9 12.0 13.2 14.6 16.1 17.7 19.6 21.6 23.7 25.8 28.4 31.0 33.7 36.7 39.8 43.4 47.8 52.2 57.0 61.9 70.6 80.6 100.0

2.4

34556679

2.7 3.0 3.3 3.6 4.0 4.5 5.0

5.6

Awards to 100 Largest Military Contractors, Fiscal Year 1969--(July 1968 -- June 1969)

NEGOTIATED AXD ADVERTISED PROCUREMENT ACTIONS

Negotiated procurements for fiscal year 1969 were 88 percent of total awards to business firms in the United States; this was about the same as for the previous year.

TABLE 10.-NET VALUE OF MILITARY PROCUREMENT ACTIONS, WITH BUSINESS FIRMS FOR WORK IN THE UNITED STATES, CLASSIFIED BY METHOD OF PROCUREMENT, FISCAL YEARS 1951-69

[Dollar amounts in millions)

Source: "Military Prime Contract Awards and Subcontract Payments or Commitments, July 1968June 1969," Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Four types of negotiation authority account for 57 percent of all procurement in fiscal 1969..

The two smallest of these exceptions each approxi-
mates the 11.8% of formally advertised procurement
whébh Congress intended to be the general rule of
prceedure.

The results for fiscal years 1967, 1968, and 1969 follow:

CONTRACT AWARDS BY STATUTORY AUTHORITY

(Excerpt from table 11]

Impracticable to secure competition by formal advertising--
Experimental, developmental, test, or research--
Technical or specialized supplies requiring substantial initial

investment or extended period of preparation for manufacture Purchases to keep facilities available in the interest of National

Defense or Industrial Mobilization--

7.6

129,148

0.3

132,084

0.3