This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-430 
entitled 'Contract Management: Agencies Can Achieve Significant 
Savings on Purchase Card Buys' which was released on April 28, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
March 2004:
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT:
Agencies Can Achieve Significant Savings on Purchase Card Buys:
GAO-04-430:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-430, a report to congressional requesters 
Why GAO Did This Study:
From 1994 to 2003, the use of government purchase cards exploded from 
$1 billion to $16 billion. Most purchase card transactions are for 
small purchases, less than $2,500. While agencies estimate that using 
purchase cards saves hundreds of millions of dollars in administrative 
costs, the rapid growth of the purchase card presents opportunities 
for agencies to negotiate discounts with major vendors, thereby better 
leveraging agencies buying power.
To discover whether agencies were doing this, we examined program 
management and cardholder practices at the Departments of Agriculture, 
Army, Navy, Air Force, Interior, Justice, Transportation, and Veterans 
Affairs. GAO also examined why agencies may not have explored these 
opportunities.
What GAO Found:
Although some agencies have begun to take actions to achieve savings 
through their purchase card programs, most have not identified and 
taken advantage of opportunities to obtain more favorable prices on 
purchase card buysopportunities that could yield hundreds of millions 
of dollars in savings. For example, most agencies have established 
some discount agreements with major purchase card vendors (those 
vendors with whom they did more than $1 million in purchase card 
business in fiscal year 2002), but these agreements cover only a few 
of the hundreds of major vendors and a limited number of products. 
Further, because agency purchase card training programs lack practical 
information to help cardholders take advantage of existing discount 
agreements or GSAs Federal Supply Schedule contracts, cardholders 
paid higher prices than necessary. The agencies that have taken steps 
to obtain better prices by negotiating discounts with their major 
vendors have achieved notable savings on purchase card buys. For 
example, in fiscal year 2003, the Agriculture Department negotiated a 
discount agreement for office supplies that yielded savings of $1.8 
millionabout 10 percent off Schedule contract pricesand the Interior 
Department recently negotiated agreements with information technology 
vendors for discounts up to 35 percent off Schedule prices. A 
conservative approach indicates that, if the agencies we reviewed 
obtained discounts of only 10 percent with their major vendors, annual 
savings of up to $300 million could be achieved.
Most agencies have not more aggressively pursued savings through the 
purchase card because of a lack of management focussimply put, this 
issue has not been the center of attention for managers. Further, the 
Office of Management and Budget has not leveraged its governmentwide 
oversight role by collecting and disseminating information on the 
successful initiatives some agencies have undertaken. Agency officials 
also expressed concerns that imposing additional requirements on 
cardholders would undermine the programs intent to streamline 
acquisitions and that pursuing discount agreements with large 
suppliers would limit their ability to provide opportunities for small 
businesses. They also cited poor data as a barrier to identifying 
savings opportunities. However, as individual agencies have 
demonstrated, these concerns are not insurmountable. For example, the 
Air Forces Air Mobility Command provides its cardholders a list of 
community vendorsmany of which are small businessesthat offer 
discounts, making it easy for the cardholders to obtain discounts from 
local small businesses. Despite data limitations, information such as 
vendor sales reports could be used to identify major vendors with whom 
to pursue discount agreements and to provide insight into cardholder 
activity. 
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is making several recommendations to each of the agencies as well 
as the Office of Management and Budget and the General Services 
Administration (GSA), aimed at encouraging agencies to begin taking 
steps to achieve savings through the purchase card program. GAO 
received comments on a draft of this report, either written or via 
e-mail, from the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, the Interior, 
Transportation, and Veterans Affairs and from GSA. In general, the 
agencies agreed with GAOs findings and recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-430.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click 
on the link above. For more information, contact David Cooper at (202) 
512-5841 (cooperd@gao.gov) or Greg Kutz at (202) 512-9505.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Agencies Generally Have Not Taken Advantage of Opportunities to Obtain 
Savings:
Lack of Management Focus Has Limited Efforts to Capture Savings:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix III: Comments from the General Services Administration:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs:
Appendix VI: Information on Purchase Card Expenditures:
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Purchase Cards and Purchase Card Expenditures, Fiscal Year 
2002:
Table 2: Purchase Card Expenditures and Expenditures with Major 
Vendors, Fiscal Year 2002:
Table 3: Department of Agriculture Purchase Card Expenditures by 
Transaction Dollar Value, Fiscal Year 2002:
Table 4: Department of Defense Military Services Purchase Card 
Expenditures by Transaction Dollar Value, Fiscal Year 2002:
Table 5: Department of the Interior Purchase Card Expenditures by 
Transaction Dollar Value, Fiscal Year 2002:
Table 6: Department of Justice Purchase Card Expenditures by 
Transaction Dollar Value, Fiscal Year 2002:
Table 7: Department of Transportation Purchase Card Expenditures by 
Transaction Dollar Value, Fiscal Year 2002:
Table 8: Department of Veterans Affairs Purchase Card Expenditures by 
Transaction Dollar Value, Fiscal Year 2002:
Figure:
Figure 1: Purchase Card Expenditures--Fiscal Years 1994 to 2003:
Abbreviations:
FAR: Federal Acquisition Regulation: 
FASA: Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act: 
GSA: General Services Administration 
JWOD: Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act 
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
March 12, 2004:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate:
The Honorable Russell D. Feingold: 
United States Senate:
The Honorable Janice Schakowsky: 
House of Representatives:
The introduction of government purchase cards fundamentally changed the 
way agencies make small, routine purchases of goods and services. The 
vast majority of purchase card transactions are micropurchases, 
purchases in amounts not greater than $2,500. Purchase card use has 
increased significantly over the past decade--from less than $1 billion 
in fiscal year 1994 to more than $16 billion in fiscal year 2003. This 
explosive growth has presented both challenges and opportunities. While 
estimates indicate that the use of government purchase cards could save 
taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in administrative costs over 
time, our office has reported that inadequate controls over purchase 
card programs left agencies vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse. 
Agencies are working, under the guidance of the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB), to strengthen these controls.
Given the rapid growth of this program, we and agency inspectors 
general have recently raised concerns about whether agencies and 
individual cardholders are seizing the opportunity to obtain discounts 
commonly available in the commercial marketplace for large volume 
purchasers.[Footnote 1] Recognizing the potential for increased 
savings, you asked us to (1) determine whether agencies are taking 
advantage of opportunities to help cardholders obtain more favorable 
purchase card prices and (2) if not, identify the reasons why.
We examined purchase card program management practices at eight federal 
agencies that account for over 85 percent of the government's purchase 
card spending: the Departments of Agriculture; the Interior; Justice; 
Transportation; Veterans Affairs; and within the Department of Defense 
(DOD), the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.[Footnote 2] In 
addition, we reviewed selected fiscal year 2002 purchase card 
transactions, at or below the micropurchase level, with major vendors 
at the eight agencies and compared prices paid to prices available 
through the General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Supply 
Schedule (Schedule)[Footnote 3] and telecommunications contracts. 
Although these transactions were selected at random from the population 
of micro-purchase[Footnote 4] transactions with vendors having the 
highest purchase card sales at the eight agencies, we cannot project 
the results to the population of transactions governmentwide. We also 
engaged the Dun and Bradstreet Corporation to perform a spend analysis 
of the Interior Department's fiscal year 2002 purchase card 
transactions to illustrate how a detailed analysis could begin to 
identify opportunities for purchase card savings. We conducted our work 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
For more information on our scope and methodology, see appendix I.
Results in Brief:
Although we found some initiatives under way to obtain vendor 
discounts, the agencies we reviewed generally had not seized 
opportunities to obtain more favorable prices on purchase card buys--
opportunities that could yield hundreds of millions of dollars in 
savings. Agency efforts were generally fragmentary and incomplete. For 
example, most agencies had established some agencywide discount 
agreements with major purchase card vendors, but the agreements 
generally covered only a few of the hundreds of major vendors--those 
with whom an agency spent $1 million or more using the purchase card. 
Some discount agreements did not cover the full range of products 
cardholders purchased from the vendors. In addition, most agency 
training has appropriately focused on internal controls, but the 
training has not focused on incorporating practical information to help 
cardholders take advantage of existing discount agreements or Schedule 
contracts. Consequently, we found that some cardholders paid higher 
prices than necessary. For example, hundreds of Interior Department 
purchase card transactions with three major office supply vendors were 
for a particular model of ink cartridge, but most of these purchases 
were made at prices higher than the vendors' Schedule prices. The 
experience of some agencies demonstrates agencies can achieve 
significant savings on purchase card buys. For example, the Agriculture 
Department negotiated a discount agreement for office supplies that 
yielded savings of $1.8 million--or about 10 percent off Schedule 
contract prices--during fiscal year 2003. Interior recently negotiated 
agreements with information technology vendors that give cardholders 
discounts of up to 35 percent off Schedule prices. If the agencies we 
reviewed negotiated and properly executed agreements providing 
discounts of just 10 percent off of Schedule prices with the major 
purchase card vendors from whom they currently buy in volume, a 
conservative approach indicates that $300 million in savings could be 
realized annually.[Footnote 5]
Agencies have not taken advantage of potential opportunities to capture 
purchase card savings because of a lack of management focus and 
oversight. The opportunity simply has not been the center of attention 
for most agency managers, who have been absorbed in improving internal 
controls and other priorities. Further, OMB has not leveraged its 
governmentwide oversight role by collecting and disseminating 
information on the successful initiatives some agencies have 
undertaken. In addition, agency officials identified several challenges 
that, in their view, have hindered them from more aggressively pursuing 
savings through the purchase card program. First, agencies are 
reluctant to impose additional requirements on cardholders, fearing 
that the intent of the program as a streamlined acquisition process 
would be subverted. Second, agency officials told us that actively 
pursuing discount agreements with large suppliers would provoke 
concerns about their ability to comply with socioeconomic requirements 
such as providing opportunities for small businesses. Third, officials 
cited the lack of detailed information on the specific products and 
services purchased as a hindrance to analyzing purchase card trends. 
These concerns are not insurmountable, and, in fact, individual 
agencies have been successful in addressing them. For example, some 
cardholders found Schedule contract and discount agreement vendors an 
effective and convenient way to fill their needs rather than a burden. 
The Air Force's Air Mobility Command provided its cardholders a list of 
community vendors--many of which were small businesses--that offered 
discounts, making it easy for the cardholders to obtain discounts from 
local small businesses. Further, despite the data limitations, agencies 
can fairly easily identify major vendors with whom they could pursue 
discount agreements. Vendor reports on sales under discount agreements 
can provide insight into whether cardholders are using the agreements.
To encourage agencies to begin taking steps to capitalize on 
opportunities for savings through the purchase card program, we are 
making recommendations to OMB, GSA, and the Departments of Agriculture, 
Defense, the Interior, Justice, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs 
concerning actions that could be taken to increase management attention 
on purchase card pricing issues, such as negotiating discount 
agreements with major vendors, improving cardholder training, and 
developing mechanisms for evaluating cardholder buying practices to 
assess whether cardholders are receiving favorable pricing. GSA and the 
Departments of Agriculture, Defense, and Veterans Affairs generally 
agreed with our recommendations. The Departments of Transportation and 
the Interior did not explicitly agree or disagree with our 
recommendations but offered several observations on our report. We did 
not receive comments from the Departments of Homeland Security or 
Justice or from OMB. The written comments we received are reproduced in 
appendixes II through V.
Background:
Through the purchase card program, agency personnel can acquire the 
goods and services they need directly from vendors. GSA, which manages 
the purchase card program governmentwide, has awarded contracts to 
banks to provide standard commercial charge cards for use by federal 
employees. When GSA first pilot-tested the purchase card in the late 
1980s, its use was restricted to procurement personnel. In 1994, 
however, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA)[Footnote 6] 
defined micropurchases as purchases in amounts not greater than $2,500. 
The act authorized cardholders to make micropurchases without obtaining 
competitive quotations if they considered the price reasonable and 
directed that purchases be distributed equitably among qualified 
suppliers. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) designated the 
purchase card as the preferred method of making 
micropurchases.[Footnote 7] By shifting authority for small purchases 
from procurement offices to individual cardholders, agencies 
dramatically improved their ability to acquire quickly and easily items 
that were needed for day-to-day operations and to reduce administrative 
costs.
Since the passage of FASA, the dollar value of goods and services 
acquired through the purchase card has exploded, as figure 1 shows. 
This growth was accompanied by an increase in the number of personnel 
using the purchase card.
Figure 1: Purchase Card Expenditures--Fiscal Years 1994 to 2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Table 1 provides information on fiscal year 2002 purchase card activity 
for the eight agencies we reviewed. Purchase card transactions at these 
agencies account for over 85 percent of the government's purchase card 
spending. While purchase cards may be used to make payments under 
established contracts in addition to making micropurchases, an 
overwhelming majority of transactions are micropurchases. At the eight 
agencies reviewed, micropurchases represented 98 percent of 
transactions and accounted for 63 percent of the dollars expended. 
Appendix VI provides additional information on purchase card activity 
at the agencies we reviewed.
Table 1: Purchase Cards and Purchase Card Expenditures, Fiscal Year 
2002:
Agency: Department of Agriculture; 
Purchase cards (as of Sept. 30, 2002): 23,448; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): $592,296.
Agency: Department of Defense: Air Force; 
Purchase cards (as of Sept. 30, 2002): 77,318; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): 1,604,367.
Agency: Department of Defense: Army; 
Purchase cards (as of Sept. 30, 2002): 101,398; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): 2,739,612.
Agency: Department of Defense: Navy; 
Purchase cards (as of Sept. 30, 2002): 22,594; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): 1,784,128.
Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Purchase cards (as of Sept. 30, 2002): 88,736[A]; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): 487,282.
Agency: Department of Justice; 
Purchase cards (as of Sept. 30, 2002): 16,274; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): 593,576.
Agency: Department of Transportation; 
Purchase cards (as of Sept. 30, 2002): 22,243; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): 425,431.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; 
Purchase cards (as of Sept. 30, 2002): 32,421; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): 1,560,309[B].
Total; 
Purchase cards (as of Sept. 30, 2002): 384,432; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): $9,787,001. 
Source: GSA, GAO analysis.
[A] The Department of the Interior has an integrated card program, with 
a single card being used for purchases, travel, or fleet expenditures. 
Data represent the total number of charge cards.
[B] Does not include about $2.7 billion in purchase card transactions 
under Veterans Affairs' prime vendor program.
[End of table]
GSA, whose mission is to help federal agencies better serve the public 
by offering acquisition services at the best value, has created several 
tools that can help cardholders obtain more favorable pricing for goods 
and services. The most common of these is the Schedule program, which 
offers discounted prices on a wide range of commercial goods and 
services from multiple vendors.[Footnote 8] The GSA Advantage on-line 
shopping service allows agencies to compare prices under various 
Schedule contracts, place orders, and make payments over the Internet. 
In addition, GSA has awarded contracts that offer federal agencies 
discounted prices on telecommunications services.
Our prior work found that weak internal controls left purchase card use 
at DOD and several civilian agencies vulnerable to fraud and abuse. The 
list of Related Products at the end of this report identifies recent 
work in this area. To address these concerns, Congress has enacted 
legislation that directs DOD to improve program management by limiting 
the number of purchase cards, providing appropriate training to 
purchase card officials and cardholders, monitoring purchase card 
activity, disciplining cardholders who misuse the purchase card, and 
assessing the credit worthiness of cardholders.[Footnote 9] We recently 
reported[Footnote 10] that DOD has taken a number of actions to improve 
the controls over the purchase card program based on congressional 
action and our recommendations. To improve management of the purchase 
card program governmentwide, the proposed Purchase Card and Travel Card 
Accountability Act of 2003[Footnote 11] would require the Administrator 
of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to prescribe a 
governmentwide policy regarding the appropriate and inappropriate uses 
of the purchase and travel cards. In addition, the proposed Credit Card 
Abuse Prevention Act of 2003[Footnote 12] would require civilian 
agencies to promulgate regulations to establish safeguards and internal 
controls to prevent fraud, misuse, and abuse.
Agencies Generally Have Not Taken Advantage of Opportunities to Obtain 
Savings:
Although we found some initiatives under way to obtain vendor discounts 
from major purchase card vendors, agencies generally had not seized 
opportunities to obtain more favorable prices on purchase card buys--
opportunities that could yield hundreds of millions of dollars in 
savings. Agency efforts to obtain more favorable prices for purchase 
cardholders had generally been limited to a few agencywide agreements 
with major vendors--that is, vendors with whom an agency spent $1 
million or more in fiscal year 2002. Further, training for cardholders 
usually focused on internal controls and regulatory policies and did 
not provide practical information about steps cardholders can take to 
get better prices. As a result, cardholders often paid higher prices 
than necessary. The successful initiatives taken within some agencies 
demonstrate that, if agencies negotiated effective discount agreements 
with major purchase card vendors and improved communications to 
cardholders about how to obtain more favorable prices, significant 
savings could be realized.
Scope and Coverage of Negotiated Discount Agreements Varied:
We found a wide variation in the number of agencywide discount 
agreements that the eight agencies we reviewed had negotiated with 
their major purchase card vendors. For example, Veterans Affairs had 
negotiated agencywide discount agreements with 37 of its 196 major 
purchase card vendors--the largest number of any of the agencies 
reviewed. The Army, Navy, and Air Force each had agencywide agreements 
with several major information technology vendors and one or more 
office supply vendors. Agriculture, Interior, and Justice each had a 
few agencywide agreements, which covered information technology 
products or office supplies. Transportation's senior procurement 
executive told us this agency had no discount agreements that could be 
used agencywide. As shown in table 2, cardholders at the agencies we 
reviewed are using the purchase card to a great extent to buy items 
from major purchase card vendors, an indication that opportunities 
exist to negotiate additional discount agreements with these vendors.
Table 2: Purchase Card Expenditures and Expenditures with Major 
Vendors, Fiscal Year 2002:
Agency: Agriculture; 
Total expenditures[A] (dollars in thousands): $592,296; 
Number of major purchase card vendors: 34; 
Expenditures with major purchase card vendors: Dollars (thousands): 
$71,932; 
Expenditures with major purchase card vendors: Percent of total: 12%.
Agency: Defense: Army; 
Total expenditures[A] (dollars in thousands): $2,739,612; 
Number of major purchase card vendors: 217; 
Expenditures with major purchase card vendors: Dollars (thousands): 
$774,361; 
Expenditures with major purchase card vendors: Percent of total: 28%.
Agency: Defense: Navy; 
Total expenditures[A] (dollars in thousands): $1,784,128; 
Number of major purchase card vendors: 145; 
Expenditures with major purchase card vendors: Dollars (thousands): 
$395,142; 
Expenditures with major purchase card vendors: Percent of total: 22%.
Agency: Defense: Air Force; 
Total expenditures[A] (dollars in thousands): $1,604,367; 
Number of major purchase card vendors: 130; 
Expenditures with major purchase card vendors: Dollars (thousands): 
$444,928; 
Expenditures with major purchase card vendors: Percent of total: 28%.
Agency: Interior; 
Total expenditures[A] (dollars in thousands): $487,282; 
Number of major purchase card vendors: 32; 
Expenditures with major purchase card vendors: Dollars (thousands): 
$85,161; 
Expenditures with major purchase card vendors: Percent of total: 17%.
Agency: Justice; 
Total expenditures[A] (dollars in thousands): $593,576; 
Number of major purchase card vendors: 56; 
Expenditures with major purchase card vendors: Dollars (thousands): 
$153,578; 
Expenditures with major purchase card vendors: Percent of total: 26%.
Agency: Transportation; 
Total expenditures[A] (dollars in thousands): $425,431; 
Number of major purchase card vendors: 27; 
Expenditures with major purchase card vendors: Dollars (thousands): 
$73,732; 
Expenditures with major purchase card vendors: Percent of total: 17%.
Agency: Veterans Affairs; 
Total expenditures[A] (dollars in thousands): $1,560,309; 
Number of major purchase card vendors: 196; 
Expenditures with major purchase card vendors: Dollars (thousands): 
$822,153; 
Expenditures with major purchase card vendors: Percent of total: 53%.
Agency: Total; 
Total expenditures[A] (dollars in thousands): $9,787,001; 
Number of major purchase card vendors: [Empty]; 
Expenditures with major purchase card vendors: Dollars (thousands): 
$2,820,987; 
Expenditures with major purchase card vendors: Percent of total: 29%. 
Source: GAO analysis of bank-provided data.
[A] Does not include about $2.7 billion in purchase card transactions 
under Veterans Affairs' prime vendor program.
[End of table]
The effectiveness of the agreements that are in place also varied 
widely, and we found a number of ways in which agencies had not 
maximized their agreements' potential to capture additional savings. 
First, agencies did not always take full advantage of competitive 
forces to ensure that their discount agreements with large vendors 
offered the most favorable prices, as shown in the following examples.
* The Army did not follow a competitive process awarding office supply 
discount agreements, but simply negotiated agreements with 12 office 
supply vendors that expressed interest in doing business with the Army. 
However, according to the results of an Army survey, cardholders found 
that the selected vendors offered high prices and poor service. The 
Army is now pursuing a formal competitive approach to establish new 
agreements that will replace the existing agreements.
* Agriculture competitively awarded a discount agreement with an office 
supply vendor-and points to $1.8 million in savings in fiscal year 2003 
as a result-but the agreement does not establish a specific expiration 
date. Because the benefits of the initial competition may not continue 
indefinitely, Agriculture cannot be assured that the agreement will 
continue to be the most advantageous source for office supplies.
Second, some agency discount agreements covered a limited range of 
products and therefore did not provide cardholders more favorable 
prices on all the items they purchase from a vendor. Overall, in 18 of 
the 27 transactions we reviewed where agencies had a discount agreement 
in place, the agreement did not cover the specific items that 
cardholders purchased, as demonstrated in the following examples.
* The agencywide Veterans Affairs discount agreements that we examined 
covered single products or product types-specimen containers, bandages, 
or washcloths-instead of the vendors' full product line. Estimated 
sales for the agreements we reviewed were relatively low, ranging from 
$27,000 to $1.6 million. According to agency officials, the intent of 
the agreements was to standardize specific products or product types 
throughout the agency, not to pursue savings from a vendor's entire 
product line. Veterans Affairs has identified its highest dollar value 
products and is standardizing these items to achieve savings.
* The Army's discount agreement with an information technology vendor 
covered only selected models of desktop and laptop computers and 
accessories and upgrades for these models. We found that one cardholder 
had bought computer accessories that were covered under the discount 
agreement, which provided cardholders a discount of about 29 percent 
off the vendor's Schedule price. Yet another cardholder bought several 
monitors that were not covered under the agreement, and this cardholder 
received no discount. According to an Army official, the discount 
agreement had been negotiated to cover the items the officials 
considered users would most likely order.
Finally, some discount agreements were not well-coordinated within the 
agency, creating the potential for overlap, as shown in the following 
example. Representatives of a number of agency components told us that, 
while they believed that their regional and local organizations had 
negotiated some discount agreements, they had no information on these 
agreements.
* Regional and local Veterans Affairs contracting centers had negotiated 
separate discount agreements with 18 of the same major purchase card 
vendors with whom the national contracting center also had agencywide 
discount agreements. In total, these 18 vendors had negotiated 94 
separate agreements with local, regional, and national contracting 
centers. A Veterans Affairs task force recently recommended that 
regional and local contracting centers coordinate with the national 
center before initiating separate agreements with contractors. 
Officials at the national contracting center told us that they are now 
exploring the benefits of consolidating agreements with vendors to 
reduce the number of potentially overlapping contracts to ensure that 
cardholders have access to the best prices.
Most Guidance and Training Did Not Provide Practical Information on 
Obtaining Favorable Pricing:
Each of the agencies we reviewed had developed guidance and training 
programs for their cardholders that focused on regulatory policies and 
internal controls intended to prevent misuse of the purchase card. 
However, most of the guidance and training programs did not provide 
cardholders with practical information to help them get better pricing 
by using Schedule contracts or agency discount agreements, as in the 
following examples.
* The Air Force's instruction on the purchase card assigned local program 
coordinators responsibility for training cardholders on various 
subjects, such as available sources-including Schedule contracts-that 
cardholders should consider when making purchases. (The FAR, Section 
8.002, identifies a number of sources that government buyers must 
consider-such as excess agency inventories, non-profit agencies serving 
people who are blind or severely handicapped, and Schedule contracts. 
FAR also establishes the priority order in which buyers must consider 
these sources.) However, the Air Force instruction did not direct the 
local program coordinators to tell cardholders how to access the 
Schedule contracts.
* Guidance manuals issued by Agriculture, Interior, Veterans Affairs, and 
the Army provided Internet addresses for the Schedule program or the 
GSA Advantage on-line shopping service, but they did not provide 
additional information on how to access or use these services.
* Veterans Affairs' purchase card program handbook simply stated that 
cardholders should distribute purchases equitably among qualified 
suppliers and use required sources when applicable.
* DOD required Army, Navy, and Air Force cardholders to complete a 4-hour 
Web-based training course. However, the course simply noted that 
Schedule contracts and other discount agreements negotiated by the 
cardholder's organization can provide lower prices. While the course 
also mentioned the GSA Advantage on-line shopping service, coverage of 
the service was limited to a brief description and a link that allowed 
students to view the service's main Web page.
* Several civilian agency components told us that they also required 
cardholders to complete a shorter Web-based training program developed 
by GSA's purchase card program office. This course, however, simply 
noted that contracts negotiated by the cardholder's agency can provide 
good prices, service, and quality, and advised cardholders to check 
with their local contracting office for more information.
Some training programs, however, had successfully communicated 
practical information to their cardholders on how to seek better 
prices, as in the following examples.
* An Agriculture cardholder found that training provided by a Natural 
Resources Conservation Service state program coordinator was invaluable 
and enabled him to obtain discounted Schedule prices on the transaction 
we reviewed. The training discussed discounts available to the agency 
and included a demonstration of how to register as a federal purchaser 
with an office supply vendor's on-line ordering system in order to 
receive Schedule contract prices.
* Another cardholder at Agriculture's Forest Service told us the program 
coordinator for her regional office had recently provided training that 
described several office supply vendors that had Schedule contracts and 
provided information on toll-free numbers and Internet addresses for 
placing phone and on-line orders with these vendors. According to the 
cardholder, she has found that these vendor phone and on-line ordering 
services are convenient and save the government money compared to 
retail store prices.
* Officials at the Air Force's Air Mobility Command developed an 
extensive briefing that highlights the importance of comparison-
shopping to identify more favorable pricing and introduces the GSA 
Advantage on-line shopping service as a tool for researching and 
comparing prices offered by Schedule vendors. The briefing also 
illustrates how cardholders can achieve savings by providing numerous 
examples of the varying prices vendors charge for common items at their 
on-line shopping portals and through their Schedule contracts. Finally, 
because some cardholders had experienced difficulty using GSA 
Advantage, the command invited GSA training teams to its installations 
to explain the features of GSA Advantage and demonstrate how to use the 
system. Command officials told us that in addition to providing 
cardholders with practical tools to help them be effective buyers, the 
enhanced training increased cardholder awareness of the importance of 
comparison-shopping.
Lacking Information, Cardholders Paid More Than Necessary:
Dun and Bradstreet's analysis of fiscal year 2002 Interior 
transactions, conducted on our behalf, illustrates that cardholders 
frequently paid more than necessary. For example, the company analyzed 
Interior purchases from three office supply vendors that provided 
product descriptions along with their purchase card billing 
information. This analysis showed that ink cartridges were the most 
frequently purchased product. For one specific model of ink cartridge, 
411 of 791 purchases were made at prices higher than the Schedule 
prices the vendors offered, indicating that cardholders had generally 
not taken advantage of discounts available through Schedule contracts. 
The prices paid for the same cartridge model ranged from $20.00 to 
$34.99.
Our review of selected transactions also showed that, because they 
lacked practical information on how to achieve savings on purchases, 
cardholders paid more than necessary, as highlighted in the following 
examples. Some cardholders we talked to were simply unaware of the 
savings potential of using Schedule contracts or agency discount 
agreements. Of the transactions we reviewed where items were available 
through a GSA contract, a number of cardholders were unaware that the 
items could have been purchased through the GSA contract.
* A Veterans Affairs cardholder, who purchased office supplies at a 
price 12 percent higher than the prices available under the vendor's 
Schedule contract, told us that she had not been aware that the vendor 
offered lower prices under its Schedule contract.
* A Navy cardholder who was not aware of an information technology 
vendor's Schedule contract purchased a spare laptop battery for 14 
percent more than he would have paid by using the vendor's Schedule 
contract.
Some cardholders appeared to not understand their fundamental 
responsibility for getting reasonable prices, as in the following 
examples.
* A Transportation cardholder paid about 20 percent more than the 
Schedule contract price for office supply items. The cardholder 
admitted he knew that the vendor had a Schedule contract, but did not 
offer reasons why he had not requested the Schedule discount.
* A Veterans Affairs cardholder paid about 12 percent more than the 
Schedule prices for office supply items. He was aware that Schedule 
contracts offered discounts, but stated that he preferred to do his 
shopping at local vendor locations.
* An Agriculture cardholder, who paid about 13 percent more for 
cellular telecommunications service than the GSA contract price, told 
us that her only role in the transaction was to pay the monthly bill 
for the cell phone user.
Other cardholders purchased products that were not available through 
the particular vendor's Schedule contract. Because the cardholders did 
not consider whether products that met their needs were available from 
other Schedule vendors, they were unable to take advantage of lower, 
discounted prices these vendors might have offered, as shown in the 
following examples. Of the 135 transactions we reviewed, 70 included 
items that were unavailable through the selected vendor's GSA contract.
* One Agriculture cardholder purchased six cases of copy paper from an 
office supply vendor that did not offer this item through a Schedule 
contract because, according to a vendor representative, the brand did 
not meet federal standards for recycled material content. The 
cardholder did not take advantage of discounted Schedule prices for 
acceptable recycled paper.
* An Army cardholder purchased word-processing software from an office 
supply vendor's retail store. The vendor did not offer the software 
through its Schedule contract, but the cardholder did not consider 
whether other vendors might offer discounts on the software through 
their Schedule contracts.
* A Veterans Affairs cardholder purchased various items-including 
paper, batteries, and computer data storage media-at an office supply 
vendor's retail store. Although most of the items purchased were not 
available through the vendor's Schedule contract, a few were, at a 
price about 10 percent less than the cardholder paid. This cardholder 
told us she had not reviewed the vendor's Schedule contract offerings 
because she preferred the convenience of shopping at local retail 
stores.
* A Transportation cardholder ordered a computer monitor from a 
particular information technology vendor because a user asked the 
cardholder to purchase the monitor from that vendor. The cardholder 
assumed that she received the Schedule contract price because she 
placed the order through the vendor's Web site; however, the vendor did 
not offer the monitor under its Schedule contract. The cardholder did 
not research other vendors to compare prices.
Other cardholders appeared to be confused about whether they were 
getting favorable prices.
* An Army cardholder purchased office supplies through a vendor's 
retail store, where prices were 20 percent higher than those under the 
same vendor's Schedule contract. The cardholder told us that while she 
had not actually checked Schedule prices she had believed that the 
retail store prices were generally lower than Schedule prices.
* An Agriculture cardholder purchased an item through an information 
technology vendor's federal Internet site, assuming that he would 
receive discounted Schedule contract prices. However, to obtain these 
discounts, customers must access a specific section of this vendor's 
federal Internet site-a step the cardholder was not aware of and did 
not complete. As a result, the cardholder paid about 20 percent more 
than Schedule contract prices for the item.
* An Air Force cardholder told us that a co-worker had checked the 
Schedule prices for certain information technology items before he 
ordered the items to ensure that he was paying reasonable prices. 
Despite this, the vendor he ordered the items from offered them under a 
Schedule contract for 7 percent less than the cardholder paid.
* An Interior cardholder purchased office supplies through a vendor's 
retail store and paid prices 20 percent higher than prices under the 
same vendor's Schedule contract. The cardholder told us that she had 
checked Schedule prices for the items before making this purchase, and 
recalled that the Schedule prices had been about the same or somewhat 
higher than prices at the retail store.
We also found cardholders who were not aware that they had received 
significant discounts, as in the following cases.
* A Veterans Affairs cardholder purchased computer data storage media 
from an information technology vendor for about 56 percent less than 
the Schedule contract price. A vendor representative told us that the 
company had lowered the price on the item in response to competitive 
pressures and had neglected to update the Schedule price.
* An Interior cardholder purchased a desktop computer from a vendor 
offering a promotional discount for 30 percent less than the Schedule 
contract price. However, the cardholder was unaware that he had 
benefited from promotional pricing.
* An Agriculture cardholder used her card to pay the monthly billing 
for 4 cellular telephones used by a fire-fighting team in a national 
forest. Team members had asked various cellular telecommunications 
service providers about discounts their federal agency might qualify 
for. One service provider offered the team a 20 percent discount on the 
monthly service charges, a much greater discount that this provider's 
GSA contract offered. At the same time this firefighting team received 
the 20 percent discount, other Agriculture cardholders who used the 
same service provider were paying regular consumer rates.
Experience at Some Agencies Suggests Significant Savings Are Possible:
Several agencies or agency components reported significant savings from 
their initiatives to leverage their buying power by negotiating 
discount agreements with major vendors, suggesting the potential for 
significant savings governmentwide. In all cases, the discount 
agreements are available to cardholders. Several examples follow.
* The Air Mobility Command initiated a program to promote the use of 
Schedule contracts by cardholders and to obtain customary trade 
discounts from local merchants in the vicinity of its installations. 
The command reported estimated savings of $189,000 in the first 3 
months after starting this program and anticipates that annual savings 
could reach $13 million-out of total purchase card expenditures of $260 
million-when the program is fully implemented.
* Veterans Affairs anticipates annual sales of $36.9 million under the 
discount agreements its National Acquisition Center awarded to vendors 
of medical and surgical supplies during fiscal years 2002 and 2003. 
Pricing under the agreements represents an estimated annual savings of 
$8.5 million-or about 19 percent-from prices the department had been 
paying.
* Sales under Agriculture's discount agreement for office supplies 
totaled $15.4 million during fiscal year 2003, and the agency achieved 
savings of $1.8 million, or about 10 percent off of Schedule prices.
* Interior recently awarded several agencywide discount agreements for 
information technology products. These agreements provided for savings 
of about 8 percent compared to Schedule prices for desktop computers 
and servers and savings ranging from 20 to 35 percent for laptop 
computers.
While the scope of our work did not include developing a governmentwide 
estimate of the potential savings from leveraging purchase card buying 
power, these examples indicate that the potential for savings could be 
significant. Given the range of savings under discount agreements 
currently in place with major vendors (8 to 35 percent) at the agencies 
we reviewed, a conservative approach indicates that, if these agencies 
were to achieve savings of just 10 percent on their purchase card 
expenditures with major vendors, annual savings of $300 million could 
be realized.
Lack of Management Focus Has Limited Efforts to Capture Savings:
The primary reason that agencies have not taken advantage of potential 
opportunities to capture savings through the purchase card program is 
the lack of management focus on this issue. Further, OMB has not 
leveraged its governmentwide oversight role by collecting and 
disseminating information on the successful initiatives some agencies 
have undertaken. In addition, agency officials identified several 
challenges that, in their view, have hindered them from more 
aggressively pursuing savings through the purchase card program. First, 
they noted that the purchase card is intended to streamline buying, and 
they are reluctant to impose requirements on cardholders that would 
undermine the simple, quick purchase card buying process. Officials 
also cited the need to balance governmentwide socioeconomic 
requirements--including providing opportunities for small businesses 
and purchasing products manufactured by non-profit agencies for the 
blind or severely handicapped (referred to as "JWOD" products)[Footnote 
13]--with efforts to get better purchase card prices. Finally, 
officials noted that little detailed information is available on the 
specific products and services purchased through the purchase card, 
hampering efforts to analyze trends in order to achieve more savings. 
Although agency officials consistently identified these challenges, our 
review suggests that the challenges are not insurmountable, as 
evidenced by individual agency initiatives to address them.
Agencies and OMB Have Not Focused on Opportunities for Savings:
Agency purchase card managers have yet to turn their attention to 
capturing opportunities for savings in their purchase card programs. In 
the mid-1990s, managers were focusing on capturing the savings in 
administrative costs that use of the purchase card made possible and 
reengineering administrative processes that discouraged use of the 
card. In more recent years, our work and the work of agency inspectors 
general highlighted weaknesses in internal controls that left purchase 
card use vulnerable to fraud and abuse. Agency managers have made a 
concerted effort to address these internal control weaknesses, but have 
not paid similar attention to capitalizing on opportunities for savings 
on purchase card buys. In general, the agency management structures and 
processes do not establish departmentwide goals for the effectiveness 
of micropurchase activity, such as savings goals.
To monitor agencies' progress in implementing better internal controls, 
OMB requires agencies to report quarterly on such topics as 
investigations of potential fraud, disciplinary actions for fraudulent 
or improper card use, and initiatives to improve program management. 
However, OMB's reporting requirement does not include gathering 
information on agency efforts to save money on purchase card buys. 
Consequently, governmentwide information on opportunities to achieve 
savings is not available.
OMB representatives stated that they would consider the benefits of 
having agencies share information on leveraging purchasing power. They 
believe that increased focus on purchase card pricing issues is 
appropriate and mentioned that periodic cross-agency forums, sponsored 
by GSA, could be one mechanism for agencies to share successes they 
have had in negotiating discounts with major vendors. They also 
acknowledged that the currently-required quarterly reports could be 
used to gather information on the steps agencies are taking to better 
leverage their purchase card buying. Most of the agency officials we 
met with expressed interest in learning of steps being taken within the 
government to capture purchase card savings, particularly in light of 
the challenges discussed below.
Steps to Capture Savings Need Not Burden Cardholders:
Several agency officials noted that promoting--or in some cases, 
requiring--the use of specific vendors with whom they have negotiated 
discount agreements could hinder cardholders from meeting their needs 
in the simplest, most expeditious manner. They fear that cardholders, 
who are generally not procurement officials, would be expected to spend 
more time seeking better prices--time that should be spent meeting 
mission requirements. While the FAR requires agencies to obtain 
reasonable prices, it limits the actions agencies need to take to 
verify price reasonableness. Given the wide variety of missions that 
cardholders must meet on a daily basis, they must retain the 
flexibility to make their purchases in a way that meets their needs. 
Our work showed that in some cases, as those shown below, Schedule 
contracts and discount agreements were not effective in meeting 
cardholder needs. In these cases, the cardholders took advantage of the 
purchase card's flexibility to find other ways to fill their 
requirements.
* The Army had in place 12 mandatory discount agreements for office 
supplies and required cardholders to purchase office supplies through 
an on-line shopping service known as "DOD e-Mall." According to the 
results of an Army survey, cardholders perceived this service as 
customer unfriendly and as requiring too much effort to place simple 
orders, and many bought office supplies through other channels. All 
stakeholders are now committed to making the service easier to use.
* One Interior cardholder found that receiving orders from national 
office supply vendors under a Schedule contract was unpredictable 
because the vendors used a next-day delivery express service that did 
not visit the cardholder's remote, mountainous location on a daily 
basis. The cardholder now buys office supplies at a retail store in a 
town about 45 miles from her location.
* An Air Force cardholder was on a travel assignment near Canterbury, 
England and needed supplies to complete his mission assignment. Because 
he needed the supplies urgently, and was not aware of any sources that 
offered Schedule contract discounts at his location, he purchased the 
supplies through a retail store.
* A Transportation cardholder normally takes advantage of Schedule prices 
when purchasing supplies to restock the vessel he is responsible for. 
However, the cardholder told us that if the vessel is about to depart 
on patrol and supplies are low, he makes purchases at a local retail 
store to ensure the vessel is fully stocked before it sails.
On the other hand, some cardholders were pleased with the Schedule 
contracts and agency discount agreements they used. Cardholders were 
able to easily place orders with the vendor, and the vendor filled 
their orders promptly and reliably, as in the following examples.
* An Agriculture cardholder stationed in Atlanta, Georgia, routinely 
places orders under Agriculture's agencywide discount agreement for 
office supplies. According to the cardholder, the vendor's delivery 
service is prompt and reliable and saves him effort because the vendor 
delivers directly to the agency supply room rather than to the building 
loading dock. When the occasional delivery problems occur, the vendor's 
customer service representatives have been able to resolve them.
* Customers completing a satisfaction survey issued by a vendor that has 
a discount agreement with a Justice component were generally satisfied 
with the overall performance of the vendor. In particular, respondents 
were satisfied with the ease of ordering from the vendor.
* A Transportation cardholder told us he had positive experiences with a 
Schedule contract information technology vendor. According to the 
cardholder, the vendor was easy to work with, provided quick turn-
around on orders, and offered competitive prices.
* A Justice cardholder expressed satisfaction with a Schedule contract 
information technology vendor, saying that the vendor had a good track 
record. Further, according to the cardholder, the vendor often offered 
him additional discounts from Schedule prices, even though his agency 
did not have a discount agreement with the vendor.
GSA is working to further simplify cardholder access to discounted 
prices. To receive Schedule discounts, cardholders generally must place 
orders with a vendor through the GSA Advantage on-line shopping service 
or other designated ordering procedures. Some of GSA's Schedule 
contracts, however, provide vendors the option of offering cardholders 
discounts at the point of sale in the vendors' retail stores. For 
example, one GSA contracting officer modified a vendor's contract to 
provide for point-of-sale discounts. The vendor then programmed cash 
registers in its retail stores to recognize a federal government 
purchase card when a shopper presents one and to apply the appropriate 
Schedule discount to the shopper's order. GSA has partnered with DOD 
purchase card program officials to explore ways to increase the number 
of vendors that offer point-of-sale discounts to federal purchasers. 
Civilian agency officials expressed strong interest in this approach to 
facilitating cardholder access to Schedule discounts.
Concerns about Balancing Governmentwide Socioeconomic Policies with 
Purchase Card Savings Initiatives Can Be Mitigated:
Balancing governmentwide socioeconomic policies--such as providing 
federal contracting opportunities to small businesses--with 
initiatives to leverage agency buying power has also been a recurring 
concern for agencies. Although agencies are not required to reserve 
micropurchases for award to small businesses, officials we met with 
repeatedly noted that because large national vendors would be in the 
best position to win agencywide discount agreements, concerns would be 
raised that opportunities for small, local vendors could be reduced. 
Officials similarly raised concerns about the effect agencywide 
discount agreements would have on their ability to meet requirements to 
purchase JWOD products.
Despite these concerns, some agencies have been able to leverage 
purchasing power while providing opportunities for small businesses, as 
highlighted in the following examples.
* The Army negotiated additional agreements with small business vendors 
in response to complaints that its agreements with large office supply 
vendors excluded small office supply vendors. The Army is considering a 
variety of other approaches to ensure that it purchases office supplies 
from small businesses, such as establishing separate agreements for 
selected high-volume products that would be reserved for these 
businesses.
* The Air Mobility Command initiative, discussed above, is supporting 
small businesses while generating savings through use of the purchase 
card. After the Command contacted local suppliers-many of which were 
small businesses-to determine whether they were willing to extend their 
customary trade discounts to cardholders, the command provided a 
listing of these suppliers and the discounts they provided to 
cardholders. Cardholders were encouraged to request the applicable 
discount-typically about 10 percent-when dealing with these suppliers. 
According to Air Force officials, this exercise was relatively simple 
because it did not involve negotiating formal contract arrangements 
with the suppliers.
* In response to concerns expressed by small businesses that its 
agencywide discount agreement for office supplies had adversely 
affected them, Agriculture officials explained to the small businesses 
that cardholders are free to patronize a small business if they find 
that it offers a better value.
Further, agency experience indicates that appropriately structured 
discount agreements can help ensure that cardholders purchase JWOD 
products when required, as in the following cases.
* Agriculture negotiated a discount agreement with a national office 
supply vendor that is an authorized distributor of MOD products. The 
vendor was selected, in part, because it had developed a system that 
screens orders and blocks delivery of a commercial product when a MOD 
product is available. According to agency officials, as sales under 
this discount agreement have increased, so have agency purchases of MOD 
products. In addition, because the vendor's ordering system helps 
ensure that USDA employees purchase MOD products when required, agency 
expenses for training employees on the importance of purchasing MOD 
products have been reduced.
* During the first 3 months after a Justice component awarded a 
discount agreement to an authorized distributor of MOD products, about 
26 percent of the items sold were MOD products.
Available Data, Though Limited, Can Be Used to Identify Potential 
Savings:
Agency officials point to the lack of adequate data as a barrier to 
taking steps to analyze purchase card activity. They raised concerns 
about their ability to analyze purchase trends due to a lack of 
detailed information on the specific products and services purchased, 
known as "level 3" data.[Footnote 14] The banks that provide the 
agencies' purchase cards generally do not have such data. For example, 
our analysis of Interior's fiscal year 2002 transaction data indicated 
that less than 15 percent of all transactions included descriptions of 
the items and services purchased. Dun and Bradstreet found that many 
merchants have not invested in the electronic point-of-sale devices 
needed to transmit item descriptions along with other transaction 
information. A common reason offered by major vendors for not providing 
level 3 data is that their customers--the ordering agencies--have not 
requested it. Agency officials told us, however, that they have made 
clear to the banks that issue their purchase cards that access to level 
3 information would be very helpful to them in gaining an understanding 
of what their cardholders are buying.
GSA and other agencies are pursuing initiatives to provide agencies 
better data on their purchase card activity. GSA's contracts with the 
banks that provide purchase cards, for example, require summary and 
analytical reports on agency purchase card activity, including 
information on the top 100 vendors by agency and on the types of 
vendors. According to the GSA purchase card program manager, these 
reports were intended to provide GSA with data it could use to help 
agencies gain insight into their purchase card expenditures and 
identify opportunities to leverage their purchasing power. The program 
manager indicated, however, that reports from the banks have frequently 
not been provided, not been provided timely, or not been provided in a 
format that facilitates analysis. For example, until the most recent 
reporting period, GSA had not received even basic information, such as 
the top 100 purchase card vendors, from some banks. The GSA program 
manager is pursuing efforts to encourage the banks to provide more 
useful reporting so that GSA will be able to provide more effective 
assistance to agencies, such as negotiating point-of-sale discounts 
with vendors. Other initiatives are also in place. GSA is working with 
DOD and other agencies to determine what barriers limit the level 3 
data agencies receive and to explore ways to overcome these barriers. 
In addition, the Air Force Materiel Command is piloting a system 
intended to accumulate more consistent and specific information on 
purchase card transactions.
While the lack of level 3 data is a valid concern, agencies can use the 
information that is available to start taking steps to get better 
prices. For example, we obtained from the banks a listing of all fiscal 
year 2002 purchase card transactions for each agency we reviewed. Using 
this listing, we summarized information on the vendors with whom 
cardholders at each agency had done $1 million or more in business 
during fiscal year 2002. All agencies have access to these data. When 
we shared this information with agency officials, several indicated 
that simply being able to identify major vendors was a useful first 
step in identifying opportunities to leverage their buying power.
Several agencies have taken the initiative to begin analyzing their 
purchase card expenditures to identify opportunities for additional 
savings, although these initiatives in some cases had limitations, as 
in the following examples.
* Agriculture hired a management consulting firm to conduct an 
agencywide analysis of purchase expenditures. This analysis considered 
all Agriculture purchasing activity, including contracts and purchase 
orders as well as purchase card transactions and identified several 
commodity categories-including telecommunications equipment, office 
technology, medical supplies and equipment, and office supplies and 
paper-where, due to the large number of transactions and/or amount of 
expenditures, the potential for leveraging the purchase card warranted 
further analysis. Agriculture is currently organizing teams to perform 
more detailed analysis of expenditures in selected commodity categories 
and develop acquisition strategies for capturing savings.
* Veterans Affairs is trying to achieve savings by identifying the 
medical and surgical products it spends the most money on and inviting 
vendors to compete to become the agency's nationwide source for those 
products. Officials told us that since their data system often does not 
include specific details on the items bought using the purchase card, 
the agency's analyses do not capture all purchase card activity.
* Interior has recently completed an analysis of contract and purchase 
card expenditures and identified information technology products, 
architect-engineer services, guard services, and relocation services as 
categories where savings can be achieved. Additional analyses in future 
years should identify more categories that cardholders typically buy, 
according to an agency official.
* About half of the Navy's major component organizations reported some 
efforts to identify high-volume vendors within their organizations. The 
Naval Sea Systems Command reported that purchase card coordinators at 
some of its installations had reviewed transactions to identify high 
volume vendors and that the command was beginning to do this command-
wide.
* The Air Force had not completed a servicewide analysis of purchase 
card expenditures, but eight Air Force commands reported having 
performed such analyses.
While analyses conducted by agency components can provide useful 
insight into opportunities to leverage their purchasing power, they do 
not reflect the bigger picture of agencywide expenditures or agencywide 
opportunities to capture savings.
Several of the agency discount agreements we reviewed require vendors 
to report periodically on sales made under discount agreements. This 
information can help agencies determine whether cardholders are taking 
advantage of favorable pricing.
* In the case of the Army's discount agreements for office supplies, 
data submitted by the vendors indicated that sales of about $8.6 
million had been made through the agreements during the first 8 months 
of fiscal year 2003. Because the Army identified total purchase card 
expenditures of $36.8 million over the same period for the same general 
class of supplies, it concluded that the agreements had not had the 
success anticipated.
* Under a Justice component's discount agreement for office supplies, 
the vendor reports periodically on total sales and on sales by regional 
office-data that can be used to assess whether cardholders are taking 
advantage of the agreement. In addition, the vendor's report separately 
identifies sales of certain higher-volume items on which the agreement 
provides for larger discounts.
Conclusions:
Agencies have just begun to tap the potential of leveraging the 
purchase card for better pricing. If greater management attention were 
paid to capitalizing on the opportunities to obtain more favorable 
prices, hundreds of millions of dollars in savings could be realized 
annually. Given the volume of purchase card activity, agencies could 
take advantage of these opportunities without sacrificing the ability 
to acquire items quickly or compromising socioeconomic goals. If 
agencies were to build on their initial experiences and duplicate these 
steps governmentwide, they would have the opportunity to save the 
taxpayer almost $300 million annually. OMB should take the lead in 
focusing management attention on this opportunity and guiding agencies 
towards capturing these savings.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We are making the following eight recommendations to OMB, GSA, and the 
agencies we reviewed:
To focus governmentwide management attention on taking advantage of 
opportunities to achieve savings on purchase card buys, we recommend 
that the director of OMB take the following two actions:
* Require agencies to report--either through the current quarterly 
reports or another mechanism--on the steps they are taking to leverage 
their purchase card buys in areas such as:
* negotiating discount agreements with major purchase card vendors,
* implementing initiatives to better inform cardholders of 
opportunities to achieve savings,
* conducting analyses to identify such opportunities, and:
* assessing, through mechanisms such as vendor reports, whether 
cardholders are taking advantage of savings opportunities.
* Annually report to Congress on the government's progress in 
identifying and taking advantage of opportunities for savings on 
purchase card micropurchases.
To assist agencies in identifying opportunities to achieve savings on 
purchase card buys and to facilitate cardholder access to discounted 
prices, we recommend that the administrator of GSA direct the purchase 
card program manager to take the following three actions:
* continue efforts to improve reporting by the banks that provide 
purchase cards so that GSA will have the data it needs--including basic 
information such as top vendors and level 3 data where feasible--to 
assist agencies in effectively identifying opportunities to leverage 
their purchasing power;
* work with GSA's acquisition center contracting officers to pursue 
point-of-sale discounts with large vendors; and:
* as part of the existing cross-agency forums for purchase card 
discussions, encourage agencies to share information on their successes 
in leveraging the purchase card to obtain better prices as well as 
strategies for overcoming challenges that could hinder agencies' 
ability to achieve purchase card savings.
To more effectively capture the significant potential for savings that 
agencies can achieve, we recommend that the Secretaries of Agriculture, 
Defense, the Interior, Justice, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs 
direct their purchase card program managers--in coordination with 
officials responsible for procurement, finance, small business 
utilization, and other appropriate stakeholders--to take the following 
three actions:
* Develop mechanisms that provide cardholders more favorable pricing 
from major vendors or for key commodity groups, such as agencywide 
discount agreements with major vendors or simpler mechanisms that 
capitalize on trade discounts offered by local merchants. In designing 
such mechanisms, purchase card program managers should consider the 
need to:
* take full advantage of competitive forces to assure the most 
favorable prices,
* ensure that agreements cover an adequate range of the products 
cardholders are likely to buy,
* coordinate negotiation activities within the department to reduce 
duplication of effort, and:
* ensure that agreements appropriately support agencies' efforts to 
meet governmentwide socioeconomic requirements.
* Revise programs for communicating with cardholders to ensure that the 
programs provide cardholders the information they need to effectively 
take advantage of mechanisms the agency has established to achieve 
savings. Such information would include telling cardholders about:
* the GSA Schedule contracts or agency-specific agreements chosen as 
vehicles for leveraging the agency's buying power, and:
* procedures cardholders should follow to access and use these vehicles 
when they plan to make a purchase from these vendors.
* To the extent possible using available data, such as information on 
major vendors, analyze purchase card expenditure patterns to identify 
opportunities to achieve additional savings and to assess whether 
cardholders are getting good prices. Where available data are not 
sufficient for such analyses, investigate the feasibility of gathering 
additional information. In evaluating options for gathering additional 
information, purchase card program managers should carefully consider 
the costs and benefits of obtaining comprehensive information and 
imposing unwarranted burdens on cardholders, vendors, and other 
stakeholders.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We received written comments on a draft of this report from DOD, GSA, 
the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. 
We received comments via e-mail from the Departments of Agriculture and 
Transportation. The Department of Homeland Security, the Department of 
Justice, and OMB did not provide comments.
DOD concurred with our recommendation that the department develop 
mechanisms that provide cardholders more favorable prices, but stated 
that negotiating agencywide discount agreements might impede achieving 
the department's small business goals. Accordingly, DOD intends to 
emphasize installation-level initiatives to obtain discounts from local 
vendors and to pursue point-of-sale discounts with larger vendors. DOD 
also concurred with our recommendation to revise programs for 
communicating with cardholders and partially concurred with our 
recommendation to analyze purchase card expenditure patterns to 
identify opportunities for savings. DOD stated that, until data on 
specific purchases is widely available, the feasibility of developing 
informed and cost-effective strategic sourcing decisions is 
questionable. Our recommendation, however, contemplated agencies using 
readily available data to gain insight into their purchase card 
expenditure patterns. Analysis of available purchase card transaction 
data could provide agencies a clearer understanding of which vendors 
are significant to their purchase card program. DOD's written comments 
are reproduced in appendix II.
GSA concurred with our findings and recommendations and stated that the 
report provides an objective analysis of the savings that agencies can 
obtain through the Schedule program and purchase card program. GSA's 
written comments are reproduced in appendix III.
The Department of the Interior did not specifically agree or disagree 
with our recommendations, but offered several observations on our 
report. The department took exception to our statement that lack of 
management focus and oversight had led to agencies' not taking 
advantage of opportunities to capture purchase card savings. This 
statement was intended to portray the general picture at all the 
agencies we reviewed, and our report discusses the instances we noted 
where agencies had focused management attention on capturing savings 
and the benefits agencies obtained by doing so. Interior also commented 
that our recommendation that departments develop mechanisms to provide 
cardholders with more favorable prices should be directed to GSA rather 
than Interior, and that GSA's buying programs should be revised to 
incorporate greater price reductions and be expanded to cover more 
vendors. We did not audit GSA's buying programs as part of this report; 
however, recognizing the benefits of point-of-sale discounts, we have 
made a recommendation to GSA to pursue these discounts with large 
vendors. At the same time, we found that individual agencies could 
achieve savings in the short term by negotiating discount agreements, 
such as Interior has done for information technology products. 
Interior--pointing to convenience and simplicity as key benefits of the 
purchase card program--also commented that we should further highlight 
in our recommendations the need for purchase card managers to take into 
account the costs and benefits of obtaining comprehensive information 
and imposing unwarranted burden on cardholders and others. We believe 
that our recommendations, as stated, afford program managers sufficient 
flexibility to develop mechanisms for more favorable pricing while not 
inconviencing cardholders. Finally, Interior recommended that we 
incorporate into the report a table of "best practices." The scope of 
our work did not include gathering information to verify that the 
agreements agencies have negotiated represent best practices. 
Interior's written comments are reproduced in appendix IV.
The Department of Veterans Affairs concurred with our recommendations 
and cited a number of planned and ongoing actions intended to provide 
cardholders with more favorable prices. In addition, Veterans Affairs 
expressed concern that our recommendation to OMB would impose a 
cumbersome and costly data-gathering burden on agencies. Veterans 
Affairs is apparently interpreting our recommendation as requiring 
agencies to report on discounts obtained on specific transactions. We 
agree that the availability of data to prepare such a report may be an 
issue and therefore are not recommending that OMB require such a 
report. Instead, we recommend that OMB require agencies to report on 
initiatives they have taken, such as analyzing purchase card 
expenditure patterns and negotiating discount agreements that 
cardholders can use. Veterans Affairs also endorsed our recommendation 
that GSA pursue point-of-sale discounts with large vendors and 
suggested that GSA consider encouraging vendors to program point-of-
sale devices to recognize that federal purchases are exempt from sales 
taxes. Veterans Affairs' comments are reproduced in appendix V.
In comments sent via e-mail, the Department of Agriculture concurred 
with our recommendations and outlined a number of steps the department 
will take to implement them. Commenting on our finding that 
Agriculture's discount agreement for office supplies did not take full 
advantage of competitive forces to ensure the most favorable prices, 
Agriculture stated that it reviews this agreement annually and will re-
compete the agreement when these annual reviews indicate that re-
competition is warranted. We believe that periodic--but not annual--re-
competitions would provide the best information for assessing whether 
the agreement continues to offer the most advantageous prices for 
office supplies.
In comments sent via e-mail, the Department of Transportation did not 
specifically agree or disagree with our recommendations, but noted that 
our report could benefit by explicitly recognizing that the greatest 
savings could by achieved by pooling the buying power of the entire 
federal government. We agree that leveraging governmentwide buying 
power would result in the greatest savings. While this would be the 
best end-state, we see this as a long-term effort with many obstacles 
to be overcome before it can be achieved. Our work identified 
initiatives--relatively simple to implement--that agencies can begin 
now to start achieving savings. In addition, Transportation commented 
that our report does not adequately depict the fundamental difficulties 
of complying with JWOD purchase requirements while at the same time 
achieving best value. We believe our report appropriately reflects the 
concerns agency officials expressed to us about complying with 
socioeconomic requirements, including JWOD, and we provide several 
examples of how some agencies have taken steps appropriately structure 
discount agreements so that they help ensure that cardholders purchase 
JWOD products when required. In addition, Transportation commented that 
the report should discuss some of the positive accomplishments of the 
purchase card program. Our report acknowledges that the purchase card 
has fundamentally changed the way agencies make small, routine, 
purchases and we believe the report appropriately reflects the 
administrative cost savings and convenience purchase cards have 
provided. Finally, Transportation suggested a technical correction, 
which we have incorporated in the report.
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its 
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 
30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this 
report to the Secretaries of Agriculture, DOD, Homeland Security, the 
Interior, Justice, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs; the director 
of OMB; the administrator of GSA; and other interested congressional 
committees. We will provide copies to others on request. This report 
will also be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://
www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report or need 
additional information please call David Cooper at (202) 512-4841 
(cooperd@gao.gov) or Gregory Kutz at (202) 512-9505 (kutzg@gao.gov). 
Key contributors to this report are acknowledged in appendix VII.
Signed by: 
David E. Cooper, 
Director, 
Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
Gregory D. Kutz, 
Director, 
Financial Management and Assurance:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
We reviewed laws and regulations relating to the purchase card program, 
held discussions with GSA officials responsible for governmentwide 
program management and OMB representatives responsible for program 
policy and oversight, and reviewed governmentwide policy and guidance 
for the program. We also performed our work at the Departments of 
Agriculture, Defense (DOD), the Interior, Justice, Transportation, and 
Veterans Affairs. These agencies accounted for over 85 percent of 
governmentwide purchase card expenditures during fiscal year 2002. 
Within DOD, we focused our work at the Departments of the Army, the 
Navy, and the Air Force, which represented 92 percent of all DOD 
purchase card expenditures during fiscal year 2002. We contacted all 
major component agencies--referred to as major commands in the Army and 
Air Force and as major claimants in the Navy. At the civilian 
departments, we contacted the component agencies that were the largest 
users of purchase cards.
To determine whether agencies had taken advantage of opportunities to 
obtain more favorable purchase card prices, we held discussions with 
officials responsible for the purchase card program at each department 
to obtain information on (1) efforts to identify opportunities to 
obtain more favorable prices, (2) efforts to negotiate discount 
agreements that made more favorable prices available to cardholders, 
and (3) guidance and training provided to cardholders to inform them of 
opportunities to obtain more favorable prices. We reviewed policy and 
guidance manuals, training materials, and other agency documentation 
that provided information on these topics. We also contacted the 
components responsible for the largest volume of purchase card activity 
within each department. Finally, to assess cardholder buying practices 
and gain insight into whether they were obtaining favorable prices, we 
selected a limited number of fiscal year 2002 micropurchase 
transactions at each department for review. We obtained and reviewed 
documentation relating to the transactions, such as invoices, and 
discussed the transactions with cardholders.
To identify the reasons why agencies had not taken advantage of 
opportunities to obtain more favorable purchase card prices, we 
discussed these issues with officials responsible for departmental 
purchase card programs and reviewed applicable agency documentation.
To select transactions for review, we first obtained data files of 
fiscal year 2002 purchase card transactions from the banks that 
provided purchase cards to each of the departments reviewed. (In the 
case of the military services, we obtained data files from the Defense 
Manpower Data Center, which had previously obtained the files from the 
applicable banks.) We reviewed these files to determine that they did 
not contain any apparent erroneous data and then summarized the total 
number and dollar value of transactions for each department. We 
reconciled these totals with totals reported by GSA for each 
department. Having determined that the data files were generally 
reliable, we summarized the data to determine the total number and 
dollar value of transactions by vendor and identified major purchase 
card vendors at each department. We defined major purchase card vendors 
as those vendors where the department had purchase card expenditures of 
$1 million or more in fiscal year 2002.
We then combined the data on major purchase card vendors for the eight 
departments and summarized the number and dollar value of transactions 
by vendor to identify those vendors where the eight departments had the 
highest purchase card expenditures. From this combined listing, we 
determined that vendors providing information technology products, 
office supplies, and cellular telecommunications services were among 
the top vendors at all eight departments. Accordingly, we selected two 
of the top information technology vendors, two of the top office supply 
vendors, and two of the top cellular telecommunications service 
providers as the vendors for which we would select transactions for 
review.
For each department, we identified the population of micropurchase 
transactions with the selected vendors. If a department did not have $1 
million or more in micropurchase transactions with the vendor, we 
excluded that vendor's transactions from further analysis at that 
department. We then identified, for each vendor, the subpopulation of 
micropurchase transactions valued at $100.00 or more for information 
technology and office supply vendors or $25.00 or more for cellular 
telephone service providers at each department.[Footnote 15] We 
selected--using a random selection process--3 transactions with each 
vendor at each department for a total of 135 transactions. Although 
these transactions were selected at random, we cannot project the 
results of the selected transactions to the population of transactions.
To assess the prices cardholders had paid on a transaction, we 
ascertained whether the vendor had a GSA contract or agency-negotiated 
discount agreement applicable to the items or services purchased. We 
obtained information on prices for the items or services under these 
contracts or agreements and used these prices as benchmarks for 
assessing whether the cardholder had obtained favorable pricing. In 
addition to making these price comparisons, we contacted the 
cardholders to discuss the transaction and gain insight into their 
buying practices and awareness of vehicles that provide favorable 
pricing.
To assess the potential magnitude of savings that agencies can achieve 
by negotiating discount agreements with their major purchase card 
vendors, we considered the discounts individual departments had 
obtained on the agencywide discount agreements we reviewed during our 
work. Discounts offered under these agreements varied--for example, 8 
percent under an Interior agreement for desktop computers, 10 percent 
under an Agriculture agreement for office supplies, and 35 percent 
under an Interior agreement for laptop computers. We considered the 10 
percent discount that Agriculture obtained to represent a reasonable 
and conservative benchmark for the potential discounts departments 
could obtain from their major vendors.
Our analysis showed that the agencies reviewed spent about $2.8 with 
major purchase card vendors in fiscal year 2002. Although some of these 
expenditures would have been covered by discount agreements the 
departments had negotiated, we found that agency discount agreements 
often did not cover all the items that cardholders purchased from those 
vendors. Further, we found that cardholders did not always know of, or 
take advantage of, the discounts agreements agencies had negotiated. A 
number of the transactions we reviewed were made at retail prices. If 
the agencies we reviewed obtained discounts of about 10 percent on the 
$2.8 billion spent with their major purchase card vendors, their 
savings would amount to about $282 million. Actual discounts would vary 
with factors such as sales volume, profit margin, and competitiveness 
of the industry. If agencies obtained discounts equivalent to the high 
end of the range we saw during our work, savings would amount to almost 
$1 billion, although it is unrealistic to expect savings of this 
magnitude. Nonetheless, we believe it is reasonable to anticipate that 
the federal government could save hundreds of millions of dollars if 
agencies negotiated discounts with major purchase card vendors.
Finally, we engaged the Dun and Bradstreet Corporation to perform a 
spend analyses of Interior's fiscal year 2002 purchase card 
transactions to illustrate how a detailed analysis could begin to 
identify opportunities for purchase card savings. In addition to 
performing analyses of Interior's purchase card transactions, Dun and 
Bradstreet gathered information on the costs and benefits to merchants 
and other stakeholders of providing "level 3" data--which includes 
descriptions of the items and services purchased--and on barriers to 
vendors providing this information.
We conducted our review between March 2003 and January 2004 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Note: Page numbers in the draft report may differ from those in this 
report.
ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS:
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
3000 DEFENSE PENTAGON 
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-3000:
Mr. Gregory D. Kutz
Director:
Financial Management and Assurance 
United States General Accounting Office 
Washington, DC 20548:
MAR 01 2004: 
Dear Mr. Kutz:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft 
report, "CONTRACT MANAGEMENT: Agencies Could Achieve Significant 
Savings on Purchase Card Buys," dated February 9, 2003 (GAO Code 
192082/GAO-04-430). Enclosed are DoD's detailed comments regarding the 
three recommendations on pages 25 and 26 of your draft report.
My point of contact for this report is Mr. Dennis Hudner, 703-681-3315 
or dennis.hudner@saalt.army.mil. We appreciate the opportunity to 
review and comment on your findings.
Sincerely,
Signed for Deidre A. Lee: 
Deidre A. Lee:
Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy:
GAO DRAFT REPORT DATED FEBRUARY 9, 2004 GAO-04-430 (GAO CODE 192082):
"CONTRACT MANAGEMENT: AGENCIES COULD ACHIEVE SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS ON 
PURCHASE CARD BUYS":
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS TO THE GAO RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECOMMENDATION 1: The GAO recommended that the DoD - in coordination 
with officials responsible for procurement, finance, small business 
utilization, and other appropriate stakeholders - develop mechanisms 
that provide cardholders more favorable pricing from major vendors or 
for key commodity groups, such as agency-wide discount agreements with 
major vendors or simpler mechanisms that capitalize on trade discounts 
offered by local merchants. (p. 25/GAO Draft Report):
DOD RESPONSE:	Concur. The Department believes that a full range of 
measures should be utilized to more fully leverage our purchasing 
volume in the market-place. However, the Department believes that less 
emphasis should be placed on agency-wide contract agreements which are 
costly to establish and maintain and may work at cross purposes to the 
Department's small business goals. We believe that the same results can 
be achieved through less formal measures both at the local level and on 
a Department-wide basis. For example, your report cites the efforts of 
a number of Air Force bases to elicit significant discounts from local 
vendors who value the business opportunity provided by these DoD 
activities. We intend to promote this best practice and encourage 
similar efforts across DoD. In addition, we are in exploratory 
discussions with both card associations to determine the potential for 
negotiating DoD-wide pricing discounts at the point-of-sale (register) 
with our larger purchase card vendors. Our view is that this could be 
fairly easily applied at the register based on the recognition of the 
standard number (BIN) assigned to each DoD purchase card. Recognition 
of the Government purchase card BIN would trigger the agreed-to 
discount.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The GAO recommended that the DoD - in coordination 
with officials responsible for procurement, finance, small business 
utilization, and other appropriate stakeholders - revise programs for 
communicating with cardholders to insure that the programs provide 
cardholders the information they need to effectively take advantage of 
mechanisms the agency has established to achieve savings. (p. 25/Draft 
Report):
DOD RESPONSE: Concur. The Department has developed a web-based tutorial 
that is used to train all "new" cardholders and billing officials. 
Included in this tutorial is a section which prioritizes the use of 
various sources of supply for purchase card buys. Additionally, 
detailed instructions are provided in the training tutorial regarding 
the accessing and use of GSA Advantage and other Federal Supply 
Schedules.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The GAO recommended that the DoD - in coordination 
with officials responsible for procurement, finance, small business 
utilization, and other appropriate stakeholders - analyze purchase card 
expenditure patterns to identify opportunities to achieve additional 
savings and to assess whether cardholders are getting good prices. The 
GAO recommends that where available data are not sufficient for such 
analyses, the DoD investigate the feasibility of gathering additional 
information.
(p. 26/Draft Report):
DOD RESPONSE: Partially concur. Until transaction level 3 data is 
widely available, a persuasive business case associated with this 
recommendation cannot be constructed which would result in informed and 
cost-effective strategic sourcing decisions. However, targeting our 
largest purchase card suppliers for point-of-sale discount agreements 
will largely have the same impact without the associated infrastructure 
burden.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the General Services Administration:
GSA:
GSA Administrator:
March 3, 2004:
The Honorable David M. Walker 
Comptroller General of the United States 
General Accounting Office 
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Walker:
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on the 
General Accounting Office (GAO) draft report entitled, "Contract 
Management: Agencies Could Achieve Significant Savings on Purchase Card 
Buys" (GAO-04-430), dated February 2004.
The draft report recommends that the General Services Administration 
(GSA): (1) continue efforts to improve reporting by the GSA SmartPay[R] 
banks so that GSA will have the data it needs to effectively assist 
agencies in identifying opportunities to leverage purchasing power, (2) 
pursue point of sale discounts with large vendors, and 
(3) encourage agencies to share information on their successes in 
leveraging the purchase card to obtain better prices, as well as 
strategies for overcoming challenges that could hinder their ability to 
achieve purchase card savings. GSA concurs with the draft report 
findings and recommendations.
The draft report provides an objective analysis of the savings that can 
be obtained by agencies through the use of our GSA Schedules and GSA 
SmartPay[R] programs. The report duly notes the history of Government 
purchase card program initiatives that have, until recently, superseded 
efforts to leverage spending opportunities. The use of purchase cards 
to improve process efficiency and reduce procurement cycle time has 
evolved from a mid-1990's best practice to a common practice today, and 
the annual administrative savings to the Government are tremendous - 
approximately $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2003 alone. In more recent 
years, the focus of Government purchase card programs has been on 
improving the management, control, and oversight of agency programs. 
Obtaining 
better data about spending and leveraging spending to obtain more 
favorable pricing are emerging goals that GSA will meet through the 
implementation of GAO's recommendations.
Sincerely, 
Stephen A. Perry
Administrator: 
cc:
Mr. David E. Cooper
Director:
Acquisition and Sourcing Management 
United States General Accounting Office 
Washington, DC 20548:
Mr. Greg Kutz 
Director:
Financial Management and Assurance 
United States General Accounting Office 
Washington, DC 20548:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 
Washington, D.C. 20240:
FEB 27 2004:
Mr. David Cooper:
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
United States General Accounting Office 
441 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Cooper:
Thank you for providing the United States Department of the Interior 
(DOI) with the opportunity to review and comment on the General 
Accounting Office's (GAO) draft report entitled, Contract Management: 
Agencies Could Achieve Significant Savings On Purchase Card Buys (GAO-
04-430, February 2004).
Enclosed for your consideration and possible inclusion in the final 
report are our comments on the draft report's findings and 
recommendations.
Thank you again for providing us with the opportunity to comment on the 
draft report. If you have any questions regarding our response, please 
contact Debra Sonderman, Director, Office of Acquisition and Property 
Management on 202-208-6352.
Sincerely,
Signed by: 
P. Lynn Scarlett:
Assistant Secretary-Policy, Management and Budget:
Enclosure:
United States Department of the Interior 
Comments on General Accounting Office Draft Report 
"Contract Management: Agencies Could Achieve Significant Savings on 
Purchase Card Buys" (GAO-04-430, February 2004):
1. Page 3: In the course of the subject audit, Debra Sonderman, 
Director, Office of Acquisition and Property Management, and members of 
her staff, DOI Bureau Procurement Chiefs and representatives from their 
procurement and charge card program communities, spent considerable 
time with Messrs. Kelly and Peters, GAO, and representatives from Dun & 
Bradstreet in which they shared background and the Department's on-
going efforts to use the purchase card effectively, efficiently, and in 
a manner compliant with laws and regulations.
We appreciate the draft report's reference (on page 22) to Interior's 
management initiative and analyses examining ways to leverage buying 
power and realize savings through consolidated buying in a number of 
product/service categories; and the reference on page 15, to Interior's 
agency-wide discount agreements for information technology products, 
which utilize the purchase card and have already realized significant 
savings for the agency.
In addition, as a pilot program, the Bureau of Land Management recently 
established a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) with a small, woman-
owned business for the purchase of toner and laser jet cartridges. The 
average savings from General Services Administration schedule prices is 
estimated at 49 percent. The BPA will be made available to all BLM 
purchase cardholders, and, depending on the pilot's results, will 
likely be expanded to all DOI purchase cardholders.
These initiatives did not develop overnight. They have been planned and 
considered for some time. Granted, implementation has been recent, 
simply because management's first duty was to ensure program soundness 
from an internal control standpoint. We have concentrated significant 
resources in the development of charge card-related training and 
reporting programs. Therefore, we take issue with the comment on page 
3, that "agencies have not taken advantage of potential opportunities 
to capture purchase card savings due to lack of management focus and 
oversight," and request that it be deleted. The next line, beginning 
with the sentence, "The opportunity simply has not been the center of 
attention for most agency managers, who have been absorbed in improving 
internal controls and other priorities" is a more accurate and fair 
assessment.
2. Recommendations for Executive Action: Second bullet on Page 25, 
third sub-bullet : "...coordinate negotiation activities to reduce 
duplication of effort":
The draft report encourages individual agencies to establish agency-
wide discount agreements. We believe that this recommendation would 
have far greater benefit and:
realize greater savings if extended beyond the six agencies to which it 
is addressed. Making an effort like this practical for purchase 
cardholders nation-wide (and even world-wide) would require the 
development of an on-line centralized list of vendors, products, and 
discounted prices by each of the six agencies. To a large extent, this 
already exists through the General Services Administration (GSA) 
Federal Supply Schedules and on-line GSA-Advantage programs, which 
leverage the entire Government's buying power and offer common 
discounts and easy on-line shopping to all Federal agencies. These 
programs have generally proven to be a useful and cost effective 
approach and they incorporate Government socio-economic programs and 
environmentally preferable products and services. Especially given the 
recent anti-bundling regulations, which prohibit the bundling of 
requirements unless measurably substantial benefits can be realized, we 
believe that the existing GSA programs should serve as the baseline and 
the area of focus for the incorporation of greater price reductions and 
delivery terms that will benefit purchase cardholders Governmentwide. 
Having the GSA expand these buying programs to include more national 
commercial vendors, coupled with purchase card point-of-sale discounts, 
will minimize the burden and increase the benefits for vendors, 
purchase cardholders and agencies.
Therefore, we recommend that the bulleted paragraphs on page 25 
beginning with "Develop mechanisms that provide cardholders with more 
favorable pricing ...," and on page 26 beginning with "To the extent 
possible ..." should be moved to the previous section on page 24 under 
the GSA actions. This falls in line with the existing recommendation 
that the GSA purchase card program manager "work with GSA's acquisition 
center contracting officers to pursue point-of-sale discounts with 
large vendors.":
3. Page 26, first paragraph, last line: "... purchase card program 
managers should carefully consider the costs and benefits of obtaining 
comprehensive information and imposing unwarranted burdens on 
cardholders, vendors and other stakeholders.":
We believe that this is an important overriding concept. Some of the 
key benefits of the purchase card program have been its ability to meet 
the needs of highly decentralized organizations and programs, and its 
convenience and simplicity in use, as outlined in Federal Acquisition 
Regulation subpart 13.2. This efficient process, authorized under the 
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, must remain that-a 
streamlined, efficient process. Because it is a primary considerations, 
we recommend that the above wording from page 26 be moved the very 
beginning of the recommendation section for agency consideration in 
determining the appropriate course(s) of action, i.e., move to the top 
of page 24.
4. Page 15, table: Although referenced in the table, we recommend that 
a "best practices" table be added to the report to include the 
following pertinent details regarding DOI's negotiated agreements for 
information technology:
The Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA) for the purchase of computers and 
related items, were awarded against GSA Federal Supply Schedules.
The BPAs include on-line ordering and payment by Departmental IT 
managers and procurement personnel (using their purchase cards), 
delivery of asset management reports, staggered shipping, single 
invoicing, and the potential for increased discounts on large orders. 
The BPAs also require the contractor to provide upgrades to the 
equipment as IT changes. To ensure compliance with the Department of 
the Interior IT architecture, ordering under the BPAs is mandatory. The 
BPAs provide the following additional discounts off of related GSA 
Federal Supply Schedules:
* 30 percent discount for standard computer configuration with monitor;
19 percent discount for standard computer configuration without 
monitor;
20 percent discount for laptop computers; and:
* 16 percent savings on servers:
The total estimated savings to the Department is $5 million.
Once the BPAs were awarded, the Bureau of Land Management provided 
training to all DOI information technology managers on the use of the 
BPAs.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs:
THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
WASHINGTON:
March 1, 2004:
Mr. David Cooper, Director:
Acquisition and Sourcing Management Team 
Mr. Greg Kutz, Director:
Financial Management and Assurance Team 
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Messrs. Cooper and Kutz:
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has reviewed your draft report, 
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT. Agencies Could Achieve Significant Savings On 
Purchase Card Buys (GAO-04-430) and agrees with your findings. VA also 
concurs with those report recommendations that are directed 
specifically to VA for action.
VA is recognized within the Federal community as a leading user and 
effective manager of the Department's credit card program. VA continues 
to take actions internally and with other agencies, commercial vendors, 
and the credit card industry to ensure ongoing improvement. VA supports 
the General Accounting Office's findings overall and agrees with the 
report's focus on cost savings potential through efforts to obtain best 
pricing. As an example of VA's efforts in this area, VHA's Office of 
Clinical Logistics (CLO) was created to lead VHA in establishing 
efficient, cost-saving procurement processes in all areas of medical 
purchasing. The CLO office works closely with VA's Office of 
Acquisition and Materiel Management to ensure consistent acquisition 
policy.
The enclosure provides comments specific to those recommendations 
directed to VA as well as comments to those recommendations directed to 
the Office of Management and Budget and the General Services 
Administration. The Department also shares information on challenges VA 
faces in achieving its goal of obtaining best pricing.
I appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on your draft 
report.
Enclosure:
Sincerely yours,
Signed by: 
Anthony J. Principi:
Enclosure:
THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMENTS TO GAO DRAFT REPORT 
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT. Agencies Could Achieve Significant Savings on 
Purchase Card Buys (GAO-04-430):
To more effectively capture the significant potential for savings that 
agencies could achieve, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs direct its purchase card program manager-in coordination with 
officials responsible for procurement, finance, small business 
utilization and other appropriate stakeholders-to take the following 
three actions:
Develop mechanisms that provide card holders more favorable pricing 
from major vendors or for key commodity groups, such as agency-wide 
discount agreements with major vendors or simpler mechanisms that 
capitalize on trade discounts offered by local merchants. In designing 
such mechanisms, purchase card program managers should consider the 
need to:
1. Take full advantage of competitive forces to assure the most 
favorable prices;
2. Ensure that agreements cover an adequate range of the products 
cardholders are likely to buy;
3. Coordinate negotiation activities to reduce duplication of effort; 
and:
4. Ensure that agreements appropriately support agencies' efforts to 
meet governmentwide socioeconomic requirements.
Concur - VA will continue to develop schedules and agreements to 
achieve the most favorable pricing. VA has instituted a hierarchy of 
contracting authority, which all procurement personnel and cardholders 
are required to follow. The first sources for procuring goods are from 
national contracts and Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA) to achieve the 
best available price. In addition, all local BPAs are reviewed at VA's 
National Acquisition Center for possible application at the national 
level. All Veterans Health Administration (VHA) staff involved in 
procurement is required to receive and certify that they have received 
appropriate training on this hierarchy.
In addition, VHA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer has developed 
a series of oversight monitors for the purchase card program. 
Cardholders, for example, must comply with a checklist of required 
actions for each transaction. The first two items on the checklist 
address adherence to GSA contracts or agency-specific agreements, while 
also stipulating that potential competitively priced vendors are not 
excluded from business transactions with VA.
THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMENTS TO GAO DRAFT REPORT 
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT: Agencies Could Achieve Significant Savings on 
Purchase Card Buys (GAO-04-430) (Continued):
VA's National Cemetery Administration (NCA) will provide guidance to 
its cardholders to seek out sources that provide favorable pricing and 
enter into agreements where possible to gain favorable pricing for 
volume purchases. INCA will also network with other VA elements to 
determine what agreements exist that NCA may use to obtain potential 
price discounts.
Revise programs for communicating with cardholders to insure that the 
programs provide cardholders the information they need to effectively 
take advantage of mechanisms the agency has established to achieve 
savings. Such information would include telling cardholders about:
1. the GSA contracts or agency-specific agreements chosen as vehicles 
for leveraging the agency's buying power, and:
2. procedures cardholders should follow to access and use these 
vehicles when they plan to make a purchase from these vendors:
Concur-VA's Office of Management (OM) will modify the guidance provided 
to VA staff on the need to take effective advantage of mechanisms that 
will achieve cost savings objectives. OM staff will also work with all 
other VA elements on the guidance provided to field facilities. The 
Department has established a web-based searchable database that 
provides item price comparisons, as well as each vendor's socioeconomic 
rating.
In addition, VHA's Clinical Logistics Officer (CLO) maintains a website 
that provides all the necessary information for medical/surgical 
procurement products that have been standardized at the national level. 
Several communication tools are used in conveying information to the 
purchase card holder, including instructions provided during training 
sessions and during new employee orientation. VHA's purchase card 
directive and the Department's purchase card handbook set policy 
requiring all cardholders to pay only reasonable prices and to provide 
justification for any outlier purchases that are made.
Annually, NCA will review how information is gathered to help ascertain 
which programs are successful and which programs should be curtailed. 
NCA will share the results of its review both internally and with other 
VA elements to identify beneficial programs as well as those that do 
not provide pricing advantages.
THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMENTS TO GAO DRAFT REPORT 
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT. Agencies Could Achieve Significant Savings on 
Purchase Card Buys (GAO-04-430) (Continued):
* To the extent of possible using available data, such as information on 
major vendors, analyze purchase card expenditure patterns to identify 
opportunities to achieve additional savings and to assess whether 
cardholders are getting good prices. Where available data are not 
sufficient for such analyses, investigate the feasibility of gathering 
additional information. In evaluating options for gathering additional 
information, purchase card program managers should carefully consider 
the costs and benefits of cardholders, vendors, and other stakeholders.
Concur - VA will direct the program office responsible for the purchase 
card program to work with the Office of Acquisition and Materiel 
Management staff and other VA offices to identify additional 
opportunities for savings. For example, VHA's CLO office regularly 
analyzes weekly summaries of all Citibank transactions. The CLO office 
reviews compliance with nationally standardized products as well as 
identifies potential opportunities to add for national standardization. 
Price comparisons of like products from the same company, but with 
different costs to different medical facilities, also provide leverage 
in contract negotiations with vendors.
In addition, NCA will instruct purchase cardholders to review quarterly 
their purchases to identify repeat sources and the socioeconomic groups 
where purchases are being made and how to capture the data. NCA 
officials will also require purchase card program managers to 
consolidate quarterly reviews from the cardholders and analyze 
purchases to determine opportunities for consolidation of purchases, 
which will result in savings. Finally, annually, a consolidated report 
will be created to compare quarterly purchases so that trends can be 
analyzed to determine long term savings or if adjustments need to be 
made.
In addition to the recommendations directed to the Department of 
Veterans Affairs, VA offers the following comments to GAO's other two 
major report recommendations:
It is recommended that the Director of OMB "(1) require agencies to 
report - either through the current quarterly reports or through 
another mechanism - on the steps they are taking to leverage their 
purchase card buys...," and (2) annually report to Congress on the 
Government's progress in identifying and taking advantage of 
opportunities for savings on purchase card micropurchases.":
THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMENTS TO GAO DRAFT REPORT 
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT. Agencies Could Achieve Significant Savings on 
Purchase Card Buys (GAO-04-430) (Continued):
Comment - VA manages a large decentralized operation. Gathering this 
information on a quarterly basis would be a cumbersome and costly task. 
As noted in the report, the availability of data may also be an issue. 
Identification of scheduled or discounted purchases is not easily done. 
Reporting this type of information would likely yield little useful 
data. It is for these reasons that VA believes GAO should change the 
recommendation to have OMB request agencies to submit a plan to OMB on 
how they propose to address these issues.
It is also recommended that the Administrator of GSA direct the 
purchase card program manager to "(3) continue efforts to improve 
reporting by banks that provide purchase cards so that GSA will have 
the data it needs ... to effectively assist agencies in identifying 
opportunities to leverage their purchasing power," (4) work with GSA's 
acquisition center contracting officers to pursue point-of-sale 
discounts with large vendors," and "(5) encourage agencies to share 
information on their successes in leveraging the purchase card to 
obtain better prices...":
Comment - Based on paper invoices received at VA's Financial Services 
Center, Austin, TX, vendors offer discounts on purchase card 
transactions, but no mechanism currently exists to take the discounts. 
The recommendation to use program vendor point of sale (POS) systems 
with an ability to take a discount based on the purchase card number 
would pay dividends. VA recommends considering programming these POS 
systems to recognize Government purchase card transactions as exempt 
from sales taxes, where appropriate. Expanding the Level 3 data 
availability would also provide agencies with better data with which to 
analyze payment volumes. VA also recommends that cardholder training on 
how to take advantage of existing discount arrangements include 
guidance regarding the exclusion of Government purchases from sales 
taxes.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Information on Purchase Card Expenditures:
Table 3: Department of Agriculture Purchase Card Expenditures by 
Transaction Dollar Value, Fiscal Year 2002:
Dollar value range: $0.00 to $2,500.00; 
Number: 1,584,822; 
Transactions: Percent: 98.4; 
Dollar value: $396,797; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 67.0.
Dollar value range: $2,500.01 to $25,000; 
Number: 25,221; 
Transactions: Percent: 1.6; 
Dollar value: $158,630; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 26.8.
Dollar value range: Over $25,000; 
Number: 793; 
Transactions: Percent: [A]; 
Dollar value: $36,869; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 6.2.
Dollar value range: All transactions; 
Number: 1,610,836; 
Dollar value: $592,296.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] Less than 0.1 percent.
[End of table]
Table 4: Department of Defense Military Services Purchase Card 
Expenditures by Transaction Dollar Value, Fiscal Year 2002:
Army; 
Dollar value range: $0.00 to $2,500.00; 
Number: 4,512,803; 
Transactions: Percent: 98.1; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Dollar value: $1,683,207; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 61.4.
Army; 
Dollar value range: $2,500.01 to $25,000; 
Number: 81,670; 
Transactions: Percent: 1.8; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Dollar value: $585,759; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 21.4.
Army; 
Dollar value range: Over $25,000; 
Number: 7,710; 
Transactions: Percent: 0.2[B]; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Dollar value: $470,646; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 17.2.
Army; 
Dollar value range: All Transactions; 
Number: 4,602,183; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Dollar value: $2,739,612.
Navy; 
Dollar value range: $0.00 to $2,500.00; 
Number: 2,545,170; 
Transactions: Percent: 97.6; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Dollar value: $1,141,762; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 64.0.
Navy; 
Dollar value range: $2,500.01 to $25,000; 
Number: 57,595; 
Transactions: Percent: 2.2; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Dollar value: $407,594; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 22.8.
Navy; 
Dollar value range: Over $25,000; 
Number: 4,451; 
Transactions: Percent: 0.2; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Dollar value: $234,772; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 13.2.
Navy; 
Dollar value range: All Transactions; 
Number: 2,607,216; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Dollar value: $1,784,128.
Air Force; 
Dollar value range: $0.00 to $2,500.00; 
Number: 2,938,898; 
Transactions: Percent: 97.5; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Dollar value: $1,022,646; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 63.7.
Air Force; 
Dollar value range: $2,500.01 to $25,000; 
Number: 75,587; 
Transactions: Percent: 2.5; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Dollar value: $532,522; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 33.2.
Air Force; 
Dollar value range: Over $25,000; 
Number: 971; 
Transactions: Percent: [A]; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Dollar value: $49,199; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 3.1.
Dollar value range: All Transactions; 
Number: 3,015,456; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Dollar value: $1,604,367.
Source: GAO analysis:
[A] Less than 0.1 percent.
[B] Exceeds 100 percent due to rounding.
[End of table]
Table 5: Department of the Interior Purchase Card Expenditures by 
Transaction Dollar Value, Fiscal Year 2002:
Dollar value range: $0.00 to $2,500.00; 
Transactions: 1,334,245; 
Transactions: Percent: 98.7; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): $356,082; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 73.1.
Dollar value range: $2,500.01 to $25,000; 
Transactions: 17,438; 
Transactions: Percent: 1.3; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): 103,500; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 21.2.
Dollar value range: Over $25,000; 
Transactions: 545; 
Transactions: Percent: [A]; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): 27,700; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 5.7.
Dollar value range: All Transactions; 
Transactions: 1,352,228; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): $487,282.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] Less than 0.1 percent.
[End of table]
Table 6: Department of Justice Purchase Card Expenditures by 
Transaction Dollar Value, Fiscal Year 2002:
Dollar value range: $0.00 to $2,500.00; 
Number of transactions: 897,028; 
Number of transactions: Percent: 96.9; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): $390,784; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 65.8.
Dollar value range: $2,500.01 to $25,000; 
Number of transactions: 28,988; 
Number of transactions: Percent: 3.1; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): 195,883; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 33.0.
Dollar value range: Over $25,000; 
Number of transactions: 146; 
Number of transactions: Percent: [A]; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): 6,909; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 1.2.
Dollar value range: All Transactions; 
Number of transactions: 926,162; 
Number of Expenditures (dollars in thousands): $593,576.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] Less than 0.1 percent.
[End of table]
 
Table 7: Department of Transportation Purchase Card Expenditures by 
Transaction Dollar Value, Fiscal Year 2002:
Dollar value range: $0.00 to $2,500.00; 
Transactions: 935,892; 
Transactions: Percent: 97.9; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): $279,300; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 65.7.
Dollar value range: $2,500.01 to $25,000; 
Transactions: 19,823; 
Transactions: Percent: 2.1; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): 120,034; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 28.2.
Dollar value range: Over $25,000; 
Transactions: 439; 
Transactions: Percent: [A]; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): 26,097; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 6.1.
Dollar value range: All Transactions; 
Transactions: 956,154; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): $425,431.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] Less than 0.1 percent.
[End of table]
 
Table 8: Department of Veterans Affairs Purchase Card Expenditures by 
Transaction Dollar Value, Fiscal Year 2002:
Dollar value range: $0.00 to $2,500.00; 
Transactions: 2,540,159; 
Transactions: Percent: 96.6; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): $920,137; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 59.0.
Dollar value range: $2,500.01 to $25,000; 
Transactions: 87,739; 
Transactions: Percent: 3.3; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): 506,769; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 32.5.
Dollar value range: Over $25,000; 
Transactions: 2,620; 
Transactions: Percent: 0.1; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): 133,403; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): Percent: 8.5.
Dollar value range: All Transactions; 
Transactions: 2,630,518; 
Expenditures (dollars in thousands): $1,560,309.
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: Data do not include about $2.7 billion in purchase card 
transactions under Veterans Affairs' prime vendor program.
[End of table]
[End of section] 
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
John Kelly (202) 512-6926 Michele Mackin (202) 512-4309:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individuals named above, Robert Ackley, Victoria 
Klepacz, James Moses, Jerrod O'Nelio, Monty Peters, Jose Ramos, Harold 
Reich, Sanford Reigle, Kenneth Roberts, Sylvia Schatz, Quan Thai, 
Najeema Washington, and Gary Wiggins made key contributions to this 
report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Products concerning purchase card internal controls:
Purchase Cards: Steps Taken to Improve DOD Program Management, but 
Actions Needed to Address Misuse, GAO-04-156 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 2, 
2003).
Audit Guide: Auditing and Investigating the Internal Control of 
Government Purchase Card Programs, GAO-04-87G (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 
1, 2003).
Forest Service Purchase Cards: Internal Control Weaknesses Resulted in 
Instances of Improper, Wasteful, and Questionable Purchases, GAO-03-
786 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 11, 2003).
HUD Purchase Cards: Poor Internal Controls Resulted in Improper and 
Questionable Purchases, GAO-03-489 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2003).
FAA Purchase Cards: Weak Controls Resulted in Instances of Improper and 
Wasteful Purchases and Missing Assets, GAO-03-405 (Washington, D.C.: 
Mar. 21, 2003).
Purchase Cards: Control Weaknesses Leave the Air Force Vulnerable to 
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse, GAO-03-292 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 20, 2002).
Purchase Cards: Navy Is Vulnerable to Fraud and Abuse but Is Taking 
Action to Resolve Control Weaknesses, GAO-02-1041 (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 27, 2002).
Purchase Cards: Control Weaknesses Leave Army Vulnerable to Fraud, 
Waste, and Abuse, GAO-02-732 (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2002).
FAA Alaska: Weak Controls Resulted in Improper and Wasteful 
Purchases, GAO-02-606 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2002).
Government Purchase Cards: Control Weaknesses Expose Agencies to Fraud 
and Abuse, GAO-02-676T (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2002).
Purchase Cards: Control Weaknesses Leave Two Navy Units Vulnerable to 
Fraud and Abuse, GAO-02-32 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2001).
Products concerning strategic purchasing:
Contract Management: Restructuring GSA's Federal Supply Service and 
Federal Technology Service, GAO-04-132T (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 2, 
2003).
Best Practices: Improved Knowledge of DOD Service Contracts Could 
Reveal Significant Savings, GAO-03-661 (Washington, D.C.: June 9, 
2003).
Contract Management: Taking a Strategic Approach to Improving Service 
Acquisitions, GAO-02-499T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 7, 2002):
Best Practices: Taking a Strategic Approach Could Improve DOD's 
Acquisition of Services, GAO-02-230 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 18, 2002):
FOOTNOTES
[1] For example, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Purchase Cards: 
Navy Is Vulnerable to Fraud and Abuse but Is Taking Action to Resolve 
Control Weaknesses, GAO-02-1041 (Washington D.C.: Sept. 27, 2002), 42-
43; and Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Inspector General, 
Evaluation of The Department of Veterans Affairs Purchasing Practices, 
Report No. 01-01855-75, (Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2001).
[2] We also met with officials of the Department of Homeland Security 
because certain components of the Departments of Agriculture, Justice, 
and Transportation were transferred to the new department in March 
2003.
[3] The Schedule program offers a large group of commercial products 
and services ranging from office supplies to information technology 
services.
[4] Micropurchases are acquisitions of supplies or services the 
aggregate amount of which does not exceed the micropurchase threshold. 
Generally, the micropurchase threshold is $2,500, but for certain 
purchases the Federal Acquisition Regulation defines a different 
threshold (FAR 2.101).
[5] See appendix I, "Scope and Methodology."
[6] P.L. 103-355, Sec. 4301.
[7] FAR 13.201(b). Further, FAR 13.301 establishes guidelines for the 
use and management of the purchase card.
[8] Although GSA negotiates to obtain discounted prices on its Schedule 
contracts, the GSA Inspector General has raised concerns about whether 
GSA is getting the best possible prices from vendors. GSA is currently 
examining options to address these concerns.
[9] Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, 
P.L. 107-314, Sec. 1007; Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
2003, P.L. 107-248, Sec. 8149 as amended by Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act, 2004, P. L.108.87, Sec.8144.
[10] U.S. General Accounting Office, Purchase Cards: Steps Taken to 
Improve DOD Program Management, but Actions Needed to Address 
Misuse, GAO-04-156 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 2, 2003).
[11] H.R. 3165, Sec. 2.
[12] H.R. 3329, Sec. 2(b)(c).
[13] The Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) Act established the Committee for 
Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled and charters 
the Committee to develop a procurement list of commodities produced and 
services provided by nonprofit agencies (41 U.S.C. Sec. 46, Sec. 47). 
GSA's proposal instructions for office supply Schedule contracts 
require vendors that are authorized JWOD distributors to describe the 
procedures they have in place to ensure that federal customers do not 
purchase commercial items when JWOD products are available. The act 
also directs agencies to buy items or services on the procurement list 
from nonprofit agencies for the blind or severely handicapped if the 
items are available within the period required by the government. (41 
U.S.C. Sec. 48). 
[14] Level 1 data include basic information about the transaction, such 
as the date and amount and basic identifying information about the 
merchant. Level 2 data include information on sales tax charged and 
additional information about the merchant. Level 3 data include details 
on the descriptions, quantities, and prices of items purchased. Our 
report --U.S. General Accounting Office, Contract Management: 
Government Faces Challenges in Gathering Socioeconomic Data on Purchase 
Card Merchants, GAO-03-56, (Washington, D.C: Dec. 13, 2002)--discussed 
the lack of detailed purchase card transaction data.
[15] We excluded transactions valued at less than $100.00 to limit our 
investment in researching transactions involving minimal amounts of 
money. We included smaller cellular telecommunications transactions 
because these are normally monthly, recurring charges that involve an 
annual amount greater than $25.00.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: 	
	Voice: (202) 512-6000:
	TDD: (202) 512-2537:
	Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548: