Summary: The Air Force reported that the C-17 transport aircraft met or exceeded 10 of the 11 contract specification requirements during its reliability, maintainability, and availability (RM&A) evaluation. However, the evaluation was less demanding than the one called for in a draft 1992 plan. The reduced rigor stemmed primarily from changes in the number of aircraft sorties, average sortie length, and total flying hours. The evaluation was also less demanding because it had fewer airdrops and landings at small, austere airfields than originally planned and flew cargo loads that were significantly lighter than projected in the contract specifications. The RM&A evaluation was not a statistically valid test for determining C-17 wartime utilization rates and did not prove what a mature C-17 fleet would do during 45 days of wartime surge operations. It simply demonstrated that a high utilization rate could be achieved during a 48-hour period. Finally, in awarding the incentive fee, the Air Force credited the C-17 aircraft with meeting the full mission capable rate goal. During the RM&A evaluation, however, the aircraft was restricted from performing formation personnel airdrop under realistic conditions and was rated not functionally effective for aeromedical evacuation. As a result, the $5.91 million incentive fee was $750,000 higher than justified.
