TRANSPORTATION 

SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION

After Oversight 

Lapses, Compliance 

with Policy Governing 

Special Authority Has 

Been Strengthened 

Report to the Ranking Member, 

Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

December 2017

GAO-18-172

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-172, a report to the 

Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. 

Senate

December 2017

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION

After Oversight Lapses, Compliance with Policy 

Governing Special Authority Has Been Strengthened

What GAO Found

During fiscal years 2012 through 2016, the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) awarded at least 1,039 other transaction agreements 

(OTA) and obligated at least $1.4 billion on them. These agreements, which are 

neither traditional contracts nor grants, were primarily used to reimburse airports 

and law enforcement agencies for the costs associated with TSA security 

programs. For example, 

• TSA awarded at least 109 OTAs and obligated at least $783 million from 

fiscal years 2012 through 2016 to reimburse airports for the allowable design 

and construction costs associated with installing, updating, or replacing 

checked baggage screening systems.

• TSA also used OTAs for intelligence analysis and to offset the costs of 

providing canines for explosives detection, among other things.

TSA Used Other Transaction Agreements to Reimburse Airports for Design and Construction 

Costs Associated with Checked Baggage Screening Systems 

For the selected 29 OTAs GAO reviewed, GAO found that the methods TSA 

used to determine price reasonableness varied depending on the complexity of 

the requirement. For example, 

• For complex design and construction projects, TSA compared independent 

government cost estimates with contractor bids. Certified program managers 

monitored project schedule and scope through site visits and status reports.

• In contrast, TSA independently verified the rates set by the local power 

authority when reimbursing some airports for electricity costs to operate TSA 

screening equipment.

GAO also found that TSA has taken action to address prior lapses in oversight, 

resulting in improved compliance. In 2015, TSA identified significant gaps in OTA 

file documentation and data reported in the Federal Procurement Data SystemNext Generation. TSA took action to address these deficiencies by (1) updating 

its policy, (2) requiring additional training for contracting officers, (3) instituting 

monthly data verification, and (4) monitoring compliance through quarterly 

reviews. GAO’s analysis confirmed that the quality of the data had improved 

between fiscal year 2012 and 2016. Moreover, the 29 OTAs generally met key 

requirements of TSA’s policy that GAO identified.

View GAO-18-172. For more information, 

contact William T. Woods at (202) 512-4841 or 

woodsw@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

TSA is responsible for securing the 

nation’s transportation systems and 

uses security technologies to screen 

airline passengers and their luggage to 

prevent prohibited items from being 

carried on commercial aircraft. TSA 

has special authority for using OTAs, 

which are not subject to certain federal 

contract laws and requirements. OTAs 

provide flexibility to help meet mission 

needs, but potentially carry the risk of 

reduced accountability and 

transparency.

GAO was asked to examine TSA’s use 

of OTAs. This report addresses: (1) the

extent and purposes of TSA’s use of

OTAs, and (2) how TSA ensures prices 

are reasonable and how it oversees 

OTAs.

To address TSA’s use of OTAs, GAO 

analyzed data on OTA awards and 

obligations from the Federal 

Procurement Data System-Next 

Generation from fiscal years 2012 to 

2016 (the most recent years for which 

data were available). GAO determined

that data were sufficiently reliable to 

report on TSA’s minimum use of OTAs. 

To examine how TSA prices and 

oversees OTAs, GAO selected a 

nongeneralizable sample of 29 OTAs 

from the 8 TSA programs that awarded 

them based on program size and OTA 

value. GAO reviewed relevant 

documentation, and interviewed 

contracting and program officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making any 

recommendations in this report. 
Page i GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Letter 1

Background 4

TSA Obligates Millions Annually through OTAs, Primarily to 

Reimburse for Costs Associated with TSA Security Programs 8

Methods to Price and Monitor Selected OTAs Reviewed Varied, 

and TSA Has Taken Action to Strengthen Oversight 12

Agency Comments 17

Appendix I Summary of Key Areas for the Other Transaction 

Agreements GAO Reviewed 19

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 38

Tables

Table 1: Other Transaction Agreements by TSA Program from 

Fiscal Year 2012 to 2016 3

Table 2: Key Provisions of the Transportation Security 

Administration’s 2016 Policy for the Use of Other 

Transaction Agreements 7

Table 3: TSA Obligations through Contracts and OTAs from Fiscal 

Year 2012 to 2016 (dollars in millions) 9

Table 4: Number of New Other Transaction Agreement Awards 

and Obligations on New Awards by Program from Fiscal 

Year 2012 to 2016 10

Table 5: Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed for the 

Electronic Baggage Screening Program and a Related 

Project 21

Table 6: Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed for the 

Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Program 23

Table 7: Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed for the 

Advanced Surveillance Program 25

Table 8: Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed for the 

National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program 27

Table 9: Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed for the 

Checkpoint Janitorial and Utilities Program 29

Table 10: Two of Four Other Transaction Agreements GAO 

Reviewed for the Office of Security Policy and Industry 

Engagement 31

Contents
Page ii GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Table 11: One of Four Other Transaction Agreements GAO 

Reviewed for the Office of Security Policy and Industry 

Engagement 33

Table 12: One of Four Other Transaction Agreements GAO 

Reviewed for the Office of Security Policy and Industry 

Engagement 34

Table 13: Other Transaction Agreement GAO Reviewed for the 

Office of Global Strategies 35

Table 14: One of Two Other Transaction Agreements GAO 

Reviewed for the Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air 

Marshal Service 36

Table 15: One of Two Other Transaction Agreements GAO 

Reviewed for the Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air 

Marshal Service 37

Abbreviations 

COR Contracting Officer’s Representative

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation

FPDS-NG Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation

OTA Other Transaction Agreement

TSA Transportation Security Administration

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, 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.
Page 1 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

December 21, 2017

The Honorable Claire McCaskill

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Dear Senator McCaskill:

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is responsible for 

securing the nation’s transportation systems while facilitating the 

movement of passengers and commerce using security-related 

technologies. To fulfill this mission, TSA must ensure that all airline 

passengers and their carry-on and checked baggage are screened to 

deter, detect, and prevent the carriage of prohibited and other dangerous 

items, such as explosives, on board commercial aircraft. As one of the 

largest components of the Department of Homeland Security, TSA 

obligated more than $1.4 billion through instruments called other 

transaction agreements (OTA) from fiscal years 2012 to 2016. Congress 

granted TSA other transaction authority in 2001, allowing it to enter into 

agreements other than standard government contracts or other traditional 

mechanisms.1 OTAs entered into under this authority are generally not 

subject to certain federal laws and regulations related to federal contracts 

such as the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), allowing TSA to 

customize them to help meet project requirements and mission needs. As 

we and others have previously reported, the use of OTAs provides 

flexibility but carries the risk of reduced accountability and transparency, 

 1

Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), Pub. L. No. 107-71, § 101(a) (codified 

at 49 U.S.C. § 114(m)) states that the head of TSA “shall have the same authority as is 

provided to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration under subsection (l) 

and (m) of section 106 [of Title 49 of the U.S. Code]. See also, 49 U.S.C. §106(l)(6)), 

stating “the Administrator is authorized to enter into and perform such contracts, leases, 

cooperative agreements, or other transactions as may be necessary to carry out the 

functions of the Administrator and the Administration.”

Letter
Page 2 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

in part because such agreements are exempt from the FAR and the 

related controls and oversight mechanisms that apply to contracts.2

You asked us to review TSA’s use of OTAs. This report addresses (1) the 

extent and purposes of TSA’s use of OTAs and (2) how TSA ensures 

prices are reasonable and how it oversees OTAs.

To address the extent to which TSA uses OTAs, we analyzed data from 

the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) on 

obligations through contracts and OTAs from fiscal year 2012 to 2016.3

We assessed the reliability of the OTA data in FPDS-NG by performing 

electronic testing and comparing it to data from TSA’s financial 

management and accounting systems. We found that over this timeframe 

the data in all three systems were incomplete and we therefore excluded 

OTAs that did not match in two or more systems. As a result of this step, 

we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable to report on TSA’s 

minimum use of OTAs; however, we were not able to independently verify 

TSA’s total OTA obligations during this timeframe.

To address the purposes of TSA’s use of OTAs and how TSA prices and 

oversees them, we reviewed relevant TSA policy and guidance and 

selected a nongeneralizable sample of 29 OTAs from the eight TSA 

programs that awarded them from fiscal year 2012 to 2016. Table 1 

shows a breakdown by TSA program of the OTAs we reviewed.4

 2

GAO, Defense Acquisitions: DOD Has Implemented Section 845 Recommendations but 

Reporting Can be Enhanced, GAO-03-150 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 9, 2002); 

Congressional Research Service, Other Transaction (OT) Authority, RL34760 

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 4, 2012); National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Office 

of Inspector General, NASA’s Use of Space Act Agreements, IG-14-020 (Washington, 

D.C.: June 5, 2014); GAO, Homeland Security: Further Action Needed to Promote 

Successful Use of Special DHS Acquisition Authority, GAO-05-136 (Washington, D.C.: 

Dec. 15, 2004); and GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Further Action Needed to 

Improve Management of Special Acquisition Authority, GAO-12-557 (Washington, D.C.: 

May 8, 2012). 

3

FPDS-NG is a comprehensive, web-based tool for agencies to report contract 

transactions. It also includes a module for reporting OTAs.

4

For the purposes of this report, we refer to the list of programs, offices, and activities in 

table 1 as “programs” or “TSA security programs.”
Page 3 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Table 1: Other Transaction Agreements by TSA Program from Fiscal Year 2012 to 2016

Programs Number of New OTAs Number of OTAs GAO reviewed

Electronic Baggage Screening Program 109 7

Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Program 563 3

Advanced Surveillance Program 29 4

National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program 187 5

Checkpoint Janitorial and Utilities Program 133 3

Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service 13 2

Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement 4 4

Office of Global Strategies 1 1

Total 1,039 29

Source: GAO analysis of TSA data. I GAO-18-172

Note: These data represent minimum number of awards based on matches between data reported in 

the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation, the Transportation Security Administration’s 

(TSA) financial management system, and its accounting system. We found that the data in all three 

systems were incomplete and we excluded other transaction agreements (OTAs) that did not match 

in two or more systems. However, we were not able to independently verify the total number of OTAs 

that TSA awarded during this timeframe.

The number of OTAs we reviewed varied by program based on total 

obligations through the programs, OTA values, and the extent to which 

OTAs awarded under a program were similar. For example, we reviewed 

a larger percentage of OTAs awarded by the Electronic Baggage 

Screening Program and Advanced Surveillance Program because these 

programs accounted for about 79 percent of TSA’s overall obligations 

through OTAs from fiscal year 2012 to 2016. By contrast, we reviewed a 

smaller percentage of OTAs from the Law Enforcement Officer 

Reimbursement Program, National Explosives Detection Canine Team 

Program, and Checkpoint Janitorial and Utilities Program because OTAs 

under these programs were generally for a similar purpose. We reviewed 

all of the OTAs awarded by the Office of Security Policy and Industry 

Engagement and the Office of Global Strategies because each of the 

OTAs awarded by these offices was unique. For each OTA, we requested 

information from TSA on the total period of performance, including 

unexercised options and obligations as of the end of fiscal year 2017. We 

also reviewed file documents including the determination and findings, 

business clearance memoranda, and acquisition plans as applicable and 

interviewed contracting and program officials. Our review focused on five 

key areas: rationale for using an OTA instead of a traditional contract, 

method of selecting OTA recipients, OTA type, determination of price 

reasonableness, and contracting officer’s representative (COR) 
Page 4 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

monitoring. We also reviewed COR files for a sample of OTAs awarded 

by the top three programs that awarded cost reimbursable OTAs and one 

that awarded fixed-price OTAs to provide greater insight into monitoring 

methods. In addition, we reviewed TSA OTA compliance reviews from 

fiscal years 2015 and 2016 and interviewed officials responsible for OTA 

policy and oversight. Appendix I summarizes information on the 8 

programs and 29 OTAs in our review based on documentation provided 

by TSA.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 to December 

2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress passed 

the Aviation and Transportation Security Act which created TSA as the 

federal agency responsible for security in all modes of transportation, 

including civil aviation. Among its responsibilities, TSA must generally 

ensure that all passengers and property are screened before being 

transported on a commercial passenger aircraft.5 This statute also 

provided TSA the authority to enter into OTAs.6 TSA defines an OTA as a 

set of legally enforceable promises between TSA and another party that 

is other than a procurement contract, grant, cooperative agreement, 

lease, or loan.

Every agency has inherent authority to enter into contracts to procure 

goods or services for its own use; however, agencies must receive 

specific authority to award OTAs. Under these authorities, agencies may 

develop agreements that do not follow a standard format or include terms 

and conditions that are typically required when using traditional 

mechanisms such as FAR-based contracts. Agreements entered into 

using other transaction authority are not generally subject to certain 

statutory and regulatory requirements related to government contracting 

 5

Pub. L. No. 107-71, §§ 101(a), 110 (2001) (codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. § 114(m) 

and 40 U.S.C. § 44901).

6

Pub. L. No. 107-71, § 101(a) (2001) (codified at 49 U.S.C. § 114(m)).

Background
Page 5 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

such as the FAR and the terms and conditions of each individual OTA 

may be tailored to meet the specific situation. For example, OTAs may be 

fixed-price, cost-reimbursable, or provide that each party bear the costs of 

their participation. In addition, the length of an OTA is negotiable, with 

some agreements lasting a few days and others for years.

As we reported in 2016, Congress has granted other transaction authority 

to 11 federal agencies.7 The statutory authorities for most agencies, 

however, include some limitations on the use of the agreements, although 

the extent and type of limitations vary. We found that most of the 11 

agencies used OTAs for two purposes: (1) research, development, and

demonstration; and (2) prototype development. Three agencies—the 

Federal Aviation Administration, TSA, and the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration—used OTAs for different activities, such as airport 

security and education and outreach. Only a few agencies, including TSA 

and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have 

unrestricted authority to award OTAs. We also found that 9 of the 11 

agencies had fewer than 90 active OTAs per fiscal year, but that, in 

contrast, TSA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

had hundreds, and thousands, respectively.

 7

GAO, Federal Acquisitions: Use of ‘Other Transaction’ Agreements Limited and Mostly 

for Research and Development Activities, GAO-16-209 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 7, 2016). 

The 11 agencies with other transaction authority are: NASA, the Departments of Defense, 

Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Transportation, the Federal 

Aviation Administration, TSA, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, the National Institute 

of Health, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy.
Page 6 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

TSA’s Office of Contracting and Procurement established policy and 

procedures for the use, award, and oversight of OTAs in 2011.8 Prior to 

2011, TSA had no governing policy for OTAs. According to TSA’s policy, 

which has been revised several times since its inception, OTAs are best 

suited for situations where:

• an entity is not a traditional contracting partner, for example, airlines, 

airport authorities, trade associations, quasi-governmental entities, or 

research and development organizations;

• there are cost sharing mechanisms that require the recipient to 

contribute to the overall cost of the effort; or

• the recipient must recoup all costs through third-party user-fees.

Further, the policy states that OTAs may not be used when the principal 

purpose of the agreement is to acquire (by purchase, lease, or barter) 

property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States 

government. Table 2 identifies some of the key provisions of TSA’s OTA 

policy.

 8

The Office of Contracting and Procurement was previously known as the Office of 

Acquisition. In fiscal year 2017, the Office of Acquisition was separated into two new 

offices: the Office of Acquisition Program Management which is responsible for major 

acquisition functions such as test and evaluation and life cycle cost estimating and the 

Office of Contracting and Procurement, which is responsible for the procurement, award, 

and administration of contracts and OTAs including OTA policy and oversight. 

TSA’s OTA Policy
Page 7 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Table 2: Key Provisions of the Transportation Security Administration’s 2016 Policy for the Use of Other Transaction 

Agreements

Contracting Officer Warrant Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs) may only be negotiated, 

awarded, and administered by senior level contracting officers 

possessing Federal Acquisition Certification in Contracting Level III 

acquisition certification and a warrant that specifically identifies OTAs 

as within their scope and specify the authority as the Aviation and 

Transportation Security Act.

a

Determination and Findings All OTAs require a determination and findings which must be 

approved by the Deputy Assistant Administrator and obtain the 

concurrence of the Acquisition Branch Chief, Acquisition Division 

Director, cognizant program manager, and legal counsel prior to 

solicitation, negotiation, and award.b The determination and findings 

must include:

• a description of the requirement;

• the rationale for using an OTA including documenting the 

reasons why traditional contract types do not apply;

• method of selecting OTA recipients;

• OTA type (e.g., fixed price, cost reimbursable, no funding, etc.);

• market research; and

• method of determining price reasonableness.

Review and Approval 

Thresholds

A Pre-Negotiation Business Clearance Memorandum must be 

approved prior to negotiation and a post-Negotiation Business 

Clearance Memorandum must be approved prior to award. 

Thresholds and content requirements are the same as those for 

Federal Acquisition Regulation-based contracts. For example, all 

actions greater than $500,000 must be reviewed and approved at 

least one level above the Contracting Officer who will execute the 

action.

Value of Action Reviewer Approval Authority

$1 - $500K Contract Specialist Contracting Officer

>$500K - $2.5M Contracting Officer Branch Chief

>$2.5M - $20.0M Contracting Officer, and 

Branch Chief

Division Director
Page 8 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Value of Action Reviewer Approval Authority

>$20.0M - $40.0M Contracting Officer, Branch Chief, 

Division Director

Division Director, with Head of 

the Contracting Activity Brief 

Required

>$40M Contracting Officer, Branch Chief, 

Division Director, and Acquisition 

Policy Division

Head of the Contracting 

Activity

Contracting Officer’s 

Representative Appointment

Contracting Officers shall appoint a Contracting Officer’s 

Representative (COR) who shall be responsible for providing 

surveillance and ensuring that all requirements of the OTA are 

satisfactorily delivered. A COR is a member of the acquisition team 

with technical or administrative expertise in a particular field and has a

current Department of Homeland Security COR certification. The 

specific functions that are delegated to a COR are to be provided in 

the appointment letter and may include a wide range of contract 

administration tasks.

Source: GAO analysis of Transportation Security Administration policy. I GAO-18-172

a

The Federal Acquisition Certification in Contracting Program establishes general education, training, 

and experience requirements for contracting professionals in the federal government. Federal 

Acquisition Certification in Contracting Level III is the highest level of contracting officer certification 

and requires a minimum of 4 years of contract work experience based on the Contract Specialist (GS1102) Qualification Standard along with minimum education and training requirements.

b

In 2017, the policy was updated, and the Head of the Contracting Activity was made the approval 

authority for OTA determinations and findings.

This framework for awarding and overseeing OTAs is similar to those for 

contracts. Further, according to TSA’s OTA policy, contracting officers 

who award OTAs must be certified at Federal Acquisition Certification in 

Contracting Level III and demonstrate possession of a level of 

experience, responsibility, business acumen, and judgment that enables 

them to operate in the relatively unstructured business environment of the 

OTA.

From fiscal years 2012 through 2016, TSA reported obligating millions 

annually through OTAs, which amounted to at least $1.4 billion, or about 

13 percent of its overall obligations during this time. Five TSA 

reimbursement programs used OTAs to partially or fully reimburse 

airports and law enforcement agencies for the allowable costs associated 

with TSA security programs such as the design and construction of 

checked baggage inline systems. These five reimbursement programs 

accounted for about 99 percent of the $1.1 billion that TSA obligated on 

OTAs that were awarded during this period. The remaining three nonreimbursement programs accounted for a small amount of obligations and 

awarded a low number of OTAs for services including intelligence 

analysis and the development of aviation standards.

TSA Obligates 

Millions Annually 

through OTAs, 

Primarily to 

Reimburse for Costs 

Associated with TSA 

Security Programs
Page 9 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

From fiscal year 2012 to 2016, TSA reported obligating millions annually 

through OTAs, amounting to at least $1.4 billion, or about 13 percent of 

its overall obligations through contracts and OTAs. Annual OTA 

obligations remained fairly stable over this period, except for fiscal year 

2013 when obligations spiked and then sharply declined in fiscal year 

2014. This spike was driven in large part by the Electronic Baggage 

Screening Program, which obligated $519 million on 54 OTAs in fiscal 

year 2013 but obligated only $4 million on one OTA in fiscal year 2014. 

See table 3 for TSA’s obligations on contracts and OTAs.

Table 3: TSA Obligations through Contracts and OTAs from Fiscal Year 2012 to 2016 (dollars in millions) 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Totalc

Contractsa $1,969 $1,771 $1,712 $2,133 $2,195 $9,781

OTAsb $232 $665 $86 $205 $222 $1,411 

Totalc $2,200 $2,436 $1,798 $2,339 $2,418 $11,192

OTA percentage of total 11% 27% 5% 9% 9% 13%

Source: GAO analysis of data from Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation. I GAO-18-172

a

Contracts includes several types of Federal Acquisition Regulation-based acquisitions including 

contracts and agreements.

b

These data represent minimum obligations on new and ongoing awards based on matches between 

data reported in the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation, the Transportation Security 

Administration’s financial management system, and its accounting system. We found that the data in 

all three systems were incomplete and we excluded other transaction agreements that did not match 

in two or more systems. Therefore, we were not able to independently verify TSA’s total other 

transaction agreement (OTA) obligations during this timeframe.

c

The total obligations may not be the total of the numbers in this table due to rounding.

From fiscal year 2012 to 2016 eight TSA programs used OTAs to meet a 

variety of mission requirements. Five reimbursement programs used 

OTAs to partially or fully reimburse airports and law enforcement 

agencies for the allowable costs associated with TSA security programs. 

This accounted for about 99 percent of all OTA awards and obligations 

from fiscal year 2012 to 2016. The remaining three non-reimbursement 

programs accounted for a small amount of obligations and awarded a low 

number of OTAs for services including intelligence analysis and the 

development of aviation standards. See table 4 for the number of OTA 

awards and obligations by program. For more information on the 

programs and OTAs we reviewed, see appendix I.

TSA Obligates Millions 

Annually through OTAs

TSA Primarily Uses OTAs 

to Reimburse Airports and 

Law Enforcement 

Agencies for the Costs 

Associated with Security 

Programs
Page 10 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Table 4: Number of New Other Transaction Agreement Awards and Obligations on New Awards by Program from Fiscal Year 

2012 to 2016

New 

awards

Total obligations 

on new awards 

Dollars (in millions)a

Obligations as 

a percentage 

of total

Reimbursement programs 

Electronic Baggage Screening Program 109 783 69

Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Program 563 117 10

Advanced Surveillance Program 29 107 9

National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program 187 68 6

Checkpoint Janitorial and Utilities Program 133 42 4

Non-reimbursement programs

Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service 13 9 1

Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement 4 4 <1

Office of Global Strategies 1 1 <1

Total 1,039 $1,129 100%

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation. I GAO-18-172

Note: These data represent the minimum number of new awards and obligations based on matches 

between the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation, the Transportation Security 

Administration’s (TSA) financial management system, and its accounting system. We found that data 

in all three systems were incomplete and we excluded other transaction agreements (OTA) that did 

not match in two or more systems. Therefore, we were not able to independently verify TSA’s total 

OTA obligations during this timeframe.

a

The total obligations may not be the total of the numbers in this table due to rounding.

The five reimbursement programs awarded numerous OTAs to different 

airports and law enforcement agencies for similar requirements. These 

programs each used a class determination and findings that describes the 

general requirement and other parameters such as a range of possible 

award amounts or periods of performance. TSA has an OTA template 

with standard provisions. Terms tailored to the specific airport or law 

enforcement agency are then provided in the individual OTAs. The 

following examples illustrate some of the ways TSA has used OTAs to 

reimburse airports and law enforcement agencies for the costs associated 

with TSA security programs.

• The Electronic Baggage Screening Program is an acquisition 

program that tests, procures, deploys, and maintains checked 
Page 11 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

baggage screening equipment at federalized airports.

9 TSA uses 

FAR-based contracts to buy things like explosives detection machines 

and engineering support services. TSA uses OTAs to reimburse 

airports for the allowable design and construction costs associated 

with facility modifications needed for installing, updating, or replacing 

in-line checked baggage screening systems. These systems use 

conveyor belts to route checked luggage through an explosives 

detection machine which captures an image of the checked bag to 

determine if the bag contains any type of threat item including 

explosives. Agreements generally range in value from $50,000 to 

$150 million, and the anticipated period of performance can range 

from 6 months to 3 years, depending on the size and complexity of 

the project. In one example, TSA entered into an OTA to reimburse 

the City of Cleveland about $24 million for work at Cleveland Hopkins 

International Airport for installation of explosive detection systems 

within the checked baggage screening area.

• The Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Program provides 

partial salary reimbursement to approximately 325 airports to offset 

the costs of carrying out aviation law enforcement responsibilities in 

support of passenger screening activities. Reimbursement is based 

on an established “not-to-exceed” hourly rate or the actual cost per 

hour, whichever is lower. Agreements range in value depending on 

the airport category, the number of checkpoints and law enforcement 

officers, hours of operation, and availability of funds. The period of 

performance for these agreements is generally 3 to 5 years. For 

example, TSA entered into an agreement with the Dallas/Fort Worth 

International Airport Board that lasted from October 2012 to March 

2016 to reimburse the airport about $5.5 million.

While the five reimbursement programs awarded numerous OTAs for the 

same purpose to different airports and law enforcement agencies, the 

remaining three non-reimbursement programs awarded few OTAs and 

their use was more varied. Specifically, the Office of Security Policy and 

Industry Engagement, the Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal 

Service, and the Office of Global Strategies used OTAs for a range of 

services including intelligence analysis and the development of aviation 

standards. For example:

 9

For related work on the Electronic Baggage Screening Program, see GAO, Homeland 

Security Acquisitions: Earlier Requirements Definition and Clear Documentation of Key 

Decisions Could Facilitate Ongoing Progress, GAO-17-346SP (Washington, D.C., April 6, 

2017).
Page 12 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

• The Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement is 

responsible for developing security policies to reduce the risk of 

catastrophic terrorist attacks. From fiscal year 2012 to 2016, the office 

awarded four OTAs. These included two awards to the American 

Public Transportation Association to meet ongoing requirements for 

intelligence gathering, public transit information sharing and analysis, 

and the development of mass transit and passenger rail security 

practices.

• The Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service

awarded 13 OTAs to pay for parking for federal air marshals and 

authorized Law Enforcement Office employees at airports including 

John F. Kennedy International and Washington Dulles International. 

However, in September 2016, TSA competitively awarded a contract 

to manage parking expenses at numerous airports. According to 

officials, parking requirements for the Office of Law 

Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service will be met through the 

contract and as a result, existing OTAs for this requirement are being 

phased out.

Other than the parking OTAs, TSA officials noted that the requirements 

for the seven remaining programs that used OTAs from fiscal year 2012 

to 2016 are ongoing and that TSA will continue to use OTAs for the same 

purposes in fiscal year 2017 and beyond, contingent on available funding. 

They also noted that they do not anticipate any new uses of OTAs.

Our review of 29 OTAs awarded by 8 TSA programs from fiscal years 

2012 through 2016 found that the methods used to determine price 

reasonableness and monitor these OTAs varied based on the complexity 

of the requirement. Further, for the key areas we reviewed, the OTAs 

generally met the requirements of TSA’s policy. Nonetheless, TSA’s own 

2015 internal compliance review found significant gaps in OTA 

documentation and reporting. In response to these deficiencies, TSA has 

taken action to strengthen oversight and compliance with its policy.

TSA’s OTA policy requires contracting officers to determine that the price 

negotiated under the OTA is reasonable and to appoint a COR to provide 

monitoring and a range of administration tasks to ensure that 

requirements are satisfactorily delivered. For the 29 OTAs we reviewed, 

we found that the methods used to determine price reasonableness and 

provide monitoring varied based on the complexity of the requirement.

Methods to Price and 

Monitor Selected 

OTAs Reviewed 

Varied, and TSA Has 

Taken Action to 

Strengthen Oversight

Methods to Determine 

Price Reasonableness 

and Monitor OTAs Varied 

by Program
Page 13 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Approaches to determining price reasonableness ranged from instances 

where TSA extensively evaluated proposed costs to more straightforward 

analysis. For OTAs awarded by the Electronic Baggage Screening 

Program where the requirements for infrastructure design and 

construction can be complex, the program produces an independent 

government cost estimate based on design drawings and specifications 

from the airports which are required to follow TSA’s detailed guidance.10

The program compares the estimate with the airport authority’s

independent bid for the design and construction. Any discrepancies are 

noted in the technical evaluation, which the contracting officer reviews 

and documents in the business clearance memorandum. For example, in 

fiscal year 2016, TSA awarded an OTA for $23 million to the City of 

Chicago for the recapitalization of the checked baggage resolution area at 

O’Hare International Airport. Certain proposed costs in the contractor’s 

bid were higher than TSA’s independent government cost estimate. The 

contracting officer performed an evaluation of the costs and determined 

that they were reasonable and that the difference was, in part, the result 

of the airport having greater familiarity with the existing conditions at the 

site than TSA’s cost estimators.

By contrast, some programs took a more straightforward approach to 

determining price reasonableness, including cases where the costs were 

predetermined or not negotiable. For example, the Checkpoint Janitorial 

and Utilities Program used OTAs as a vehicle for reimbursing airport 

authorities for the costs of electricity to operate TSA screening equipment 

and for janitorial services in checkpoint areas. TSA had independently 

verified electricity prices set by the local power authority. Prices for 

janitorial services were verified based on the airport’s competitivelyawarded janitorial contracts. In one case, TSA entered into an OTA to 

reimburse the Massachusetts Port Authority for $678,000 for one year. 

TSA performed price analysis on historical data from agreements dating

back to 2008 and reviewed changes to the checkpoint square footage 

and changes in electrical consumption based on use of new TSA 

equipment. The airport authority provided documentation verifying 

electrical rates set by the local power authority that TSA’s contracting 

officer used to determine fair and reasonable pricing. Janitorial costs were 

based on TSA’s pro-rated share of the airport’s competitively-awarded 

 10TSA requires projects to follow TSA’s Planning Guidelines and Design Standards for 

checked baggage inspection systems, which provides a consolidated source for best 

practices, standards, and guidelines for selecting and designing cost-effective, optimal 

screening systems. 
Page 14 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

janitorial contract and considered to be fair and reasonable based on 

adequate competition in the commercial market-place. TSA verified the 

rates each year prior to executing options.

COR monitoring similarly varied depending on the complexity of the 

requirement. For the more complex design and construction projects 

under the Electronic Baggage Screening Program, COR monitoring was 

more rigorous than for programs with less complex requirements. 

According to 2016 guidance, the COR is the primary interface between 

TSA and the airport and is responsible for performing stakeholder 

coordination functions. During the design phase, the COR is to review the 

airport’s design documentation to ensure compliance with TSA’s 

guidelines and standards in collaboration with TSA subject matter 

experts. During the construction phase, the COR is responsible for 

performing ongoing oversight including reviewing invoices prior to 

payment. For an OTA awarded to the Miami Dade Aviation Department 

the COR reviews monthly milestone progress status reports as well as 

weekly status reports prepared by TSA’s site integration contractor 

highlighting work completed, ongoing activities, and program risks. A 

contracting official noted that schedule slippage is a big risk for cost 

reimbursement projects which is mitigated by COR oversight, as well as 

the ongoing oversight of the site leads. A contracting official also noted 

that most CORs for these OTAs have DHS certification for program and 

project management providing them with greater technical and 

administrative expertise to monitor more complex projects.11

In one instance on another project with complex requirements under the 

Advanced Surveillance Program, project monitoring resulted in TSA and 

the airport working together to contain costs when a project did not go as 

expected. In fiscal year 2012, TSA awarded an OTA for $7.2 million to the 

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for the design, installation 

and maintenance of a security system, including closed-circuit television 

cameras and associated software, at John F. Kennedy International 

Airport. In fiscal year 2013, TSA modified the OTA to add more cameras, 

thereby increasing the cost of the project to $21 million. However, during 

installation, the Port Authority experienced several unforeseen issues with 

the project, including reduced work hours available for unionized labor 

and asbestos abatement costs. As a result, the Port Authority reassessed 

 11DHS Program Manager Certification supplements the Federal Acquisition Certification 

for Program and Project Managers with additional requirements focused on knowledge of 

the DHS’s acquisition and program management processes and procedures.
Page 15 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

its original cost estimate and determined that it was not sustainable. In 

fiscal year 2017, TSA and the Port Authority agreed to decrease the 

scope of the project from 751 cameras to 389 cameras to stay within the 

original $21 million estimate.

Starting in fiscal year 2015, four years after it issued its 2011 OTA policy, 

TSA began to include OTAs in its contract compliance review program. 

Compliance reviews are conducted quarterly based on a selection of 

contracts and OTAs awarded in the previous quarter and intended to 

improve contracting operations, ensure compliance with applicable

standards and policies, and identify best practices. Based on the number 

of findings identified in its review of six OTA actions included in a 2015 

quarterly review, TSA commissioned an OTA-specific compliance review 

in June 2015. The OTA-specific review covered 30 actions with a total 

value of about $82 million and identified significant gaps in documentation 

and reporting. For example, 18 of 27 OTAs awarded after TSA’s 2011 

policy was issued did not include a determination and findings approving 

the action. As noted above, this is a key document that describes the 

rationale for using an OTA instead of a traditional contract and the 

determination of price reasonableness. The review also found that 18 of 

30 files did not document the assignment of a COR to perform oversight 

and that 20 of 30 FPDS-NG records were incorrect.

In response to the findings of the OTA-specific compliance review, TSA 

implemented a number of actions and has subsequently found 

improvement in OTAs meeting documentation and reporting 

requirements. We found that TSA revised the OTA policy to clarify 

requirements and increased training for contracting officers with OTA 

warrants. Specifically, to obtain the OTA warrant, contracting officers 

must complete webinar training and 3 days of classroom training. To 

maintain the warrant, contracting officers must retake the webinar training 

every two years. According to TSA contracting officials, all of the 56 

contracting officers had completed the new training requirements as of 

May 2017. In addition, TSA has continued to include OTAs in its quarterly 

compliance review process. Based on our analysis of TSA’s fiscal year 

2016 compliance reviews, we found that TSA reviewed 16 OTAs with a 

total value of $62 million. In those reviews, 12 of the 16 findings were 

determined to be low risk. For example, several of the files did not include 

documentation of COR certification. The remaining four OTAs had 

findings that were determined to be medium risk. This includes, for 

example, one case where the OTA period of performance started 5 

months before the OTA was signed. None of the OTAs, however, was 

TSA Found Improved 

Compliance in Its Reviews 

of OTAs after Taking 

Action to Address Lapses 

in Oversight
Page 16 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

missing a determination and findings and three had missing or incorrect 

FPDS-NG entries. Officials noted that their efforts to increase training, 

oversight, and enforcement of OTA policies and procedures have resulted 

in increased awareness of reporting requirements and greater 

compliance.

In addition, TSA also recently increased oversight of the COR program to 

support efficient OTA and contract oversight and administration. A TSA 

official responsible for the COR program reported that in fiscal year 2017, 

TSA began to conduct quarterly compliance reviews of the COR program 

to ensure greater consistency in oversight practices across the agency. 

According to COR compliance review guidance issued in 2016, the 

reviews are intended to highlight positive practices, effective management 

techniques, and identify areas of improvements.

Our analysis of data in FPDS-NG showed that issues with incomplete 

data have been corrected over time, in part due to increased oversight. 

We compared data reported in TSA’s financial management and 

accounting systems with data reported in FPDS-NG and found that the 

percentage of new OTAs reported in FPDS-NG increased from 37 

percent in 2012 to 95 percent in 2016. TSA’s policy requires that OTAs be 

reported in the OTA module within FPDS-NG. The awarding contracting 

officer has responsibility for accurately entering OTA information, 

including the value of the award and the period of performance. TSA 

contracting officials attributed gaps in data in part to the fact that the 

process for entering OTA data into FPDS-NG is manual, whereas FPDSNG automatically pulls data for contracts from TSA’s contract writing 

system. According to officials, OTAs are excluded from the contract 

writing system due to system limitations and this additional step increases 

the chance that a contracting officer may forget to enter the data into 

FPDS-NG or enter it into the system incorrectly. TSA officials noted that 

they have taken steps to improve the accuracy of the data reported in 

FPDS-NG by reviewing and verifying entries on a monthly basis in 

accordance with TSA’s policy.

Our review of 29 OTAs also demonstrated that the OTAs generally met 

the requirements for the key areas of TSA policy that we reviewed. For 

example, TSA’s policy states that if the OTA will be awarded without 

competition, the determination and findings must include a discussion of 

the method for selecting the OTA recipient. None of the OTAs we 

reviewed was competed because TSA determined that competition was 

not applicable due to the nature of the requirements. Nonetheless, all the 

determination and findings included a discussion of the method for 
Page 17 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

selecting OTA recipients, a process that varied by program. For example, 

the Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Program posts a solicitation 

and selects eligible applicants based on review criteria. By contrast, the 

Advanced Surveillance Program prioritizes projects using a risk-based 

matrix that assesses threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences populated 

with data from 449 airports.

Despite improvements, TSA officials acknowledged the need for 

continued vigilance based on several issues we identified. For example, 

TSA entered into a “no funding” OTA in 2013 with Signature Flight 

Support, a commercial fixed-base operator at Ronald Reagan 

Washington National Airport. A fixed-base operator is an organization 

granted the right by an airport to provide aeronautical services such as 

fueling, hangaring, tie-down and parking, aircraft rental, aircraft 

maintenance, flight instruction, and similar services. Under the 

agreement, Signature Flight Support collects and remits special security 

screening and threat assessment fees from airline operators on behalf of 

TSA, fees that are required due to the airport’s location within a flight 

restricted zone and special flight rules area. TSA does not obligate funds 

through the OTA, which primarily establishes the responsibilities and 

procedures for the fee collection and remittal. Our review found that TSA 

did not take any action to extend or renew the agreement after it expired 

in December 2014. However, TSA program officials told us that Signature 

Flight Support continued to provide the service although an agreement 

was not in place. When we brought this issue to TSA’s attention, officials 

agreed the OTA period of performance should have been extended each 

year. Officials told us that as of October 2017 they anticipate awarding a 

new OTA for this requirement in the second quarter of fiscal year 2018, 

more than three years after the OTA expired. In addition to the steps TSA 

has taken to improve OTA oversight, such as revising its OTA policy and 

increasing training requirements, TSA officials told us that they will 

continue to conduct quarterly compliance reviews and monthly data 

verification in accordance with their policy.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Homeland Security

for comment. The Department provided only technical comments, which 

we incorporated as appropriate. 

Agency Comments
Page 18 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

We are sending copies of this report to the Senate Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Secretary of the 

Department of Homeland Security. The report is also available at no 

charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-4841 or woodsw@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix II.

Sincerely yours,

William T. Woods

Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management
Appendix I: Summary of Key Areas for the 

Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed

Page 19 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Electronic Baggage Screening Program

Purpose: Reimburses airports for the allowable costs related to various 

airport checked baggage screening projects including the design and 

construction of checked baggage inline systems and the recapitalization 

of existing inline systems. Agreements generally range in value from 

$50,000 to $150 million, and the anticipated period of performance can 

range from 6 months to 3 years, depending on the size of airport and 

complexity of the project.

TSA rationale for using Other Transaction Agreement (OTA): Airports 

are owned and operated either by city or county municipalities, airport 

boards or trusts, or, in some cases as not-for-profit entities. Given that the 

program requires modifications to airport terminals that are owned by an 

entity other than the federal government, it is more practical for the airport 

to oversee and monitor the construction or modifications required for their 

facilities.

Method of selecting OTA recipient: Airports submit applications 

through the airport’s Federal Security Director—a TSA employee 

responsible for security operations at federalized airports—including a 

description of the requirement, schematic design, budgetary cost 

estimate, and data relating to number of bags processed and airlines 

served. TSA prioritizes applications using a risk-based model and by 

considering several factors such as the cost share the airport is willing to 

assume and the readiness of the airport to begin the project.

OTA type: Partial cost share/reimbursement. Depending on the airport’s 

size, TSA will reimburse 90 or 95 percent of the allowable, allocable and 

reasonable cost of certain projects. In other types of projects, TSA 

provides 100 percent reimbursement—for example, for existing systems 

requiring the correction of security or safety deficiencies.

Method of determining price reasonableness: TSA produces an 

independent government cost estimate based on design drawings and 

specifications received from the airport and approved by TSA. The 

estimate is developed using industry standards and is used for evaluating 

total project cost. When bids are received from the airport, TSA compares 

the bid amount with the estimate. TSA may conduct further analysis and 

discussion to ensure that the estimate correctly reflects the scope 

included in the bid documents.

Appendix I: Summary of Key Areas for the 

Other Transaction Agreements GAO 

Reviewed
Appendix I: Summary of Key Areas for the 

Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed

Page 20 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) monitoring: The COR is 

the primary interface between TSA and the airport and is responsible for 

performing stakeholder coordination functions. During the design phase, 

the COR is to review the airport’s design documentation to ensure 

compliance with TSAs guidelines and standards in collaboration with TSA 

subject matter experts. During the construction phase, the COR is to 

monitor project schedule and scope through processes such as weekly 

and monthly reporting.
Appendix I: Summary of Key Areas for the 

Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed

Page 21 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Table 5: Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed for the Electronic Baggage Screening Program and a Related Project

Awardee Purpose

Period of 

performance as 

of the end of fiscal 

year 2017

Total

obligations as 

of the end of 

fiscal year 2017

City and County of 

Denver

For modification or construction of the airport terminal 

building infrastructure to provide for the installation of 

explosive trace detection equipment in the checked baggage 

resolution areas and installation of applicable hardware and 

software for use with an inline baggage screening system. 

Mar 2012 –

Jun 2018

$49,249,646 

Miami Dade Aviation 

Department 

For modification or construction of the airport terminal 

building infrastructure at Miami International Airport to 

provide for the installation of explosive detection systems 

within the baggage screening area, explosive trace detection 

equipment in the checked baggage resolution areas, and the 

installation of hardware and software for use with an inline 

baggage screening system. 

Sept 2016 –

Sept 2018

$101,161,252 

City of Houston For modification or construction of the airport terminal 

building infrastructure at George Bush Intercontinental 

Airport to provide for the installation of explosive detection 

systems within the baggage screening area, explosive trace 

detection equipment in the checked baggage resolution 

areas, and the installation of hardware and software for use 

with an inline baggage screening system. 

Sept 2015 –

Jan 2019

$33,020,959 

City of Cleveland For modification or construction of the airport terminal 

building infrastructure at Cleveland Hopkins International 

Airport to provide for the installation of explosive detection 

systems within the baggage screening area, explosive trace 

detection equipment in the checked baggage resolution 

areas, and the installation of hardware and software for use 

with an inline baggage screening system.

Sept 2015 –

Dec 2017

$24,493,816 

City of Chicago –

Department of Aviation

For recapitalization of the checked baggage resolution area 

at O’Hare International Airport. 

Sept 2016 –

Sept 2018

$23,116,751

Dallas/Fort Worth 

International Airport 

Board

For design services to provide improvements to the checked 

baggage resolution area at the Dallas/Fort Worth 

International Airport.

Jul 2012 –

Jul 2016

$2,828,040 

Reno Tahoe Airport 

Authoritya For the construction for a centralized screening checkpoint at Reno-Tahoe International Airport. 

Jun 2012 –

May 2013

$1,500,000 

Source: GAO review of TSA other transaction agreement files and TSA data. I GAO-18-172

a

This agreement is not part of the Electronic Baggage Screening Program but is related in that it was 

awarded and overseen by the Office of Security Capabilities to provide reimbursement for the design 

and construction of modifications to an airport following TSA’s design guidelines.
Appendix I: Summary of Key Areas for the 

Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed

Page 22 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Program

Purpose: Provides partial reimbursement to approximately 325 airports 

to offset the allowable costs of carrying out aviation law enforcement 

responsibilities in support of passenger screening activities.

TSA rationale for using OTA: Participants are not traditional contracting 

partners; most participants must contribute to the cost of providing law 

enforcement officer support at the checkpoints; and the agreements do 

not acquire property or services for the direct benefit or use of the 

government.

Method of selecting OTA recipient: The program posts a solicitation to 

FedBizOpps.gov with eligibility requirements, application process, review 

criteria, and selection process. Airports as well as state, local, or other 

public institutions/organizations responsible for commercial airport 

operations that have incurred law enforcement service costs due to TSA 

security mandates are eligible. The Federal Security Director—a TSA 

employee responsible for security operations at federalized airports—

along with the Law Enforcement Officer Program Office, Office of Chief 

Counsel, and the contracting officer, participate in selecting eligible 

applicants.

OTA type: Partial cost reimbursement.

Method of determining price reasonableness: OTAs are negotiated to 

provide reimbursement for law enforcement officer support at an 

established “not-to-exceed” hourly rate or the actual cost per hour, 

whichever is lower. The amount of partial reimbursement is based on 

airport category, the number of checkpoints, hours of operation, and 

availability of funds.

COR monitoring: CORs provide technical direction and day-to-day 

oversight of the program, work with the airport Federal Security Director 

to make sure that requirements are being satisfied, and approve invoices 

prior to payment.
Appendix I: Summary of Key Areas for the 

Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed

Page 23 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Table 6: Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed for the Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Program

Awardee Purpose

Period of performance as of 

the end of fiscal year 2017

Total obligations 

as of the end of 

fiscal year 2017

Dallas/Fort Worth 

International Airport Board

Partially offset costs of carrying out aviation 

law enforcement responsibilities in support 

of passenger screening activities

Oct 2012 – Mar 2016 $5,462,149 

City of Chicago –

Department of Aviation

Partially offset costs of carrying out aviation 

law enforcement responsibilities in support 

of passenger screening activities

Feb 2016 – Dec 2018 $3,503,279 

Yuma County 

Airport Authority, Inc.

Partially offset costs of carrying out aviation 

law enforcement responsibilities in support 

of passenger screening activities

Oct 2012 – Mar 2016 $336,111 

Source: GAO review of TSA other transaction agreement files and TSA data. I GAO-18-172
Appendix I: Summary of Key Areas for the 

Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed

Page 24 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Advanced Surveillance Program

Purpose: Provides reimbursement for the allowable costs incurred to 

design, install, or expand surveillance systems to meet the required views 

of the local TSA. Project costs generally range from $200,000 to $21 

million with an anticipated period of performance ranging from 6 months 

to 3 years depending on the complexity of the system and facility size.

TSA rationale for using OTA: The primary beneficiary of the 

surveillance equipment is the facility that will take ownership of the 

system and be solely responsible for its operation. The use of an OTA 

provides for the facility to manage and perform the work but allows TSA 

oversight and control over the expenditure of TSA funds. TSA will not 

benefit directly from the purchase, installation, and operation of the 

system, so a traditional contract would not be appropriate.

Method of selecting OTA recipient: The program prioritizes projects 

based on a risk-based matrix that assesses threats, vulnerabilities, and 

consequences based on data from 449 airports. Airports must be willing 

to complete the project within the required timeframe.

OTA type: Cost reimbursement.

Method of determining price reasonableness: The program uses a 

pre-award systems engineering process which culminates in a project 

evaluation and plan, a comprehensive surveillance assessment of TSA 

managed areas, and an independent government cost estimate. TSA 

reviews the cost elements to, for example, validate labor categories, labor 

hours, materials, and other direct costs based on industry standards and 

comparison with other projects. The program also uses market research 

and historical data to inform price analysis.

COR monitoring: The COR works with project coordinators to monitor 

OTA performance and maintains direct contact with the transportation 

facility and the local TSA representatives. The COR reviews invoices to 

ensure that the transportation facility (via its contractor) has met all 

acceptance criteria prior to approval and payment of each invoice. Upon 

completion of installation and testing, TSA obtains an acceptance report 

to be signed by the transportation facility authority and major stakeholders 

including facility representatives, and the responsible TSA Federal 

Security Director, contracting officer, and COR.
Appendix I: Summary of Key Areas for the 

Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed

Page 25 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Table 7: Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed for the Advanced Surveillance Program

Awardee Purpose

Period of 

performance 

as of the end of 

fiscal year 2017

Total 

obligations as 

of the end of 

fiscal year 2017

Port Authority of New York 

& New Jersey

For a new video surveillance system at John F. Kennedy 

International Airport. 

May 2012 –

May 2018

$21,270,770 

Metropolitan Airports 

Commission

For a new video surveillance system at Minneapolis St. Paul 

International Airport.

Aug 2013 –

May 2018

$10,588,950 

Port of Seattle For the expansion of the video surveillance system at Seattle 

Tacoma International Airport.

Jul 2014 –

Jul 2019

$11,981,067 

Metropolitan Knoxville 

Airport Authority 

For the expansion of the video surveillance system at McGhee 

Tyson Airport.

Aug 2016 –

Jul 2017

$84,630 

Source: GAO review of TSA other transaction agreement files and TSA data. I GAO-18-172
Appendix I: Summary of Key Areas for the 

Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed

Page 26 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program

Purpose: Provides partial reimbursement to airports, mass transit 

systems, and state and local law enforcement participants for the 

allowable costs incurred associated with the operation of the authorized 

canine teams and explosives storage magazines. Allowable costs that will 

be reimbursed include handlers' salaries and care for the canines. In turn, 

the local jurisdiction agrees to a set of responsibilities including using TSA 

trained canine teams at least 80 percent of their on-duty time in the 

transportation environment and to maintain a minimum of three certified 

teams available for around-the-clock incident response. The program 

reimburses participants up to $50,500 per canine team for allowable costs 

incurred. The period of performance for these OTAs is up to 5 years.

TSA rationale for using OTA: A standard procurement contract is not 

suitable because the airports, mass transit, and maritime facilities are not 

owned by TSA, but by airport authorities, and state and local agencies. 

These entities have the responsibility for the control and oversight of 

security operations at a specific location, either by having their own law 

enforcement officers, or using the state or local law enforcement officers. 

Since TSA does not own the airport or have primary law enforcement 

responsibility and only provides participants partial reimbursement for the 

operating costs of the teams, an OTA is warranted.

Method of selecting OTA recipient: Transportation authorities and/or 

local law enforcement entities submit a written request outlining their 

desire to join the program in which they outline the need for the canine 

teams within their respective transportation system/s. TSA selects 

recipients based on a review of the transportation system’s risk profile 

and the program’s available team openings.

OTA type: Partial cost reimbursement.

Method of determining price reasonableness: The $50,500 per team 

stipend only covers a portion of the cost to the participant. There are 

instances after award that require an additional price reasonableness 

determination, such as when a participant requests reimbursement for a 

supply or service that is either unknown to the program or inconsistent 

with program historical prices for the given supply/service. If the program 

determines that the item is allocable the program will determine whether it 

was procured competitively and any facts that may support it being higher 

than historical prices paid. If the item was not procured competitively, the 

program will look at current price lists and catalogs for a same or similar 
Appendix I: Summary of Key Areas for the 

Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed

Page 27 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

item and consult program subject matter experts on their personal 

knowledge of the item(s) being purchased.

COR monitoring: The program assigns a Field Canine Coordinator who 

is responsible for overseeing the participant’s compliance with the 

agreement through periodic reporting and assessments. Reimbursement 

is to be made upon receipt and review of summited expenses by the COR 

and contracting officer.

Table 8: Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed for the National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program

Awardee Purpose

Period of 

performance as 

of the end of 

fiscal year 2017

Total 

obligations as 

of the end of 

fiscal year 2017

Northeast Illinois Regional 

Commuter Railroad 

Corporation

For TSA-certified explosives detection canine teams that will 

be available to respond to transportation systems under the 

jurisdiction of the Railroad Corporation.

Oct 2012 –

Dec 2014

$681,750 

City of Los Angeles, Los 

Angeles World Airports

For TSA-certified explosives detection canine teams that will 

be available to respond to Los Angeles and Ontario 

International Airports.

Oct 2012 –

Dec 2014

$4,508,000 

City of Los Angeles, Los 

Angeles World Airports

For TSA-certified explosives detection canine teams that will 

be available to respond to Los Angeles and Ontario 

International Airports.

Jan 2016 –

Dec 2019

$3,232,000 

City of Los Angeles, Los 

Angeles World Airports

For TSA-certified explosives detection canine teams that will 

be available to respond to Los Angeles and Ontario 

International Airports.

Jan 2015 –

Dec 2015

$1,666,500 

City of Houstona For the construction and use of a storage facility for canine 

explosive training devices located at the William P. Hobby 

Airport.

Sept 2013 –

Dec 2015

$31,219 

Source: GAO review of TSA other transaction agreement files and TSA data. I GAO-18-172

a

This other transaction agreement is not covered by the class determination and findings used by the 

other agreements in our sample under this program.
Appendix I: Summary of Key Areas for the 

Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed

Page 28 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Checkpoint Janitorial and Utilities Program

Purpose: The Checkpoint Janitorial and Utilities program uses OTAs to 

define the terms and conditions for TSA’s use of checkpoint space in 

mandated non-leased space at airports and to provide a vehicle for 

reimbursing the cost of electrical consumption and janitorial services.

TSA rationale for using OTA: A procurement contract is not suitable 

since the airport is a governmental entity, not a commercial vendor. 

Additionally, airports often contract directly with a utility provider or 

janitorial company.

Method of selecting OTA recipient: Airports request reimbursement for 

utility costs and janitorial services in mandated non-leased space at TSA 

security checkpoints. TSA Federal Security Directors who are responsible 

for security operations at federalized airports confirm the need for 

reimbursing the cost of utilities and janitorial services at the checkpoint 

space. These OTAs are not available for competition as the only available 

source is the airport authority.

OTA type: Cost reimbursement.

Method of determining price reasonableness: TSA reimburses airports 

at cost for the costs of electrical consumption by TSA screening 

equipment located in the checkpoint space based on a cost allocation 

methodology. TSA reimburses airports for its pro-rata share of the 

airports janitorial costs per square foot also based on a cost allocation 

methodology. In the files we reviewed, prices were considered to be fair 

and reasonable based on documentation verifying the rates set by the 

local power authority. Costs were considered to be fair and reasonable 

based on the airports’ competitively-awarded janitorial contracts and rates 

established by the local utility authority.

COR monitoring: Provides technical direction, contractor oversight, and 

certification of payments.
Appendix I: Summary of Key Areas for the 

Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed

Page 29 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Table 9: Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed for the Checkpoint Janitorial and Utilities Program

Awardee Purpose

Period of 

performance as 

of the end of 

fiscal year 2017

Total obligations 

as of the end of 

fiscal year 2017

City of Los Angeles, Los 

Angeles World Airports

Establish terms and conditions for use of space and to 

reimburse electrical and janitorial costs for the TSA 

checkpoint and baggage screening areas at Los 

Angeles and Ontario International Airports. 

June 2014 –

May 2019

$10,423,075 

Massachusetts Port 

Authority

Establish terms and conditions for use of space and to 

reimburse electrical and janitorial costs for the TSA 

checkpoint and baggage screening areas at Boston 

Logan International Airport.

Sept 2013 –

Feb 2018

$3,349,702 

Dallas/Fort Worth 

International Airport 

Board of Directors

Establish terms and conditions for use of space and to 

reimburse electrical and janitorial costs for the TSA 

checkpoint and baggage screening areas at 

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.

Oct 2015 –

Feb 2020

$3,123,950 

Source: GAO review of TSA other transaction agreement files and TSA data. I GAO-18-172
Appendix I: Summary of Key Areas for the 

Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed

Page 30 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement

Purpose: The office has an ongoing requirement for intelligence 

gathering, public transit information sharing and analysis, and 

development of mass transit and passenger rail recommended security 

practices.

TSA rationale for using OTA: The American Public Transportation 

Association is a not-for-profit trade association which therefore may not 

currently have the experience, knowledge, or past performance to support 

a FAR type contract.

Method of selecting OTA recipient: Through market research, TSA 

determined that the American Public Transportation Association was 

uniquely capable of meeting requirements.

OTA type: Fixed price.

Method of determining price reasonableness: In 2014, price was 

determined to be fair and reasonable based primarily on historical data 

and prices consistent with the preceding interagency agreement and the 

office’s independent government cost estimate. In 2016, the program 

updated the independent government cost estimate based on a quote 

from the American Public Transportation Association which provided for 

greater clarity, insight, and definition to the actual costs. Additional market 

research is planned to determine the best way to fulfill this requirement in 

the future.

COR monitoring: The COR developed a contract management plan 

which identifies a detailed list of work products and delivery schedule. 

The expected deliverables are also detailed in the OTA statement of 

work. Responsibilities of the contractor include developing and managing 

a project plan; updating the plan as the project evolves; reporting project 

progress and status via monthly reports; and, participating in TSAscheduled conference calls, if necessary, to review project progress, 

identify and discuss issues, and discuss corrective action.
Appendix I: Summary of Key Areas for the 

Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed

Page 31 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Table 10: Two of Four Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed for the Office of Security Policy and Industry 

Engagement

Awardee Purpose

Period of 

performance as 

of the end of 

fiscal year 2017

Total obligations 

as of the end of 

fiscal year 2017

American Public 

Transportation 

Association

For the operation and maintenance of the Information 

Sharing and Analysis Center and the generation of new, 

recommended practices and guidelines in order to meet 

the threats of domestic terrorism aimed at the nation’s 

transportation infrastructure.

Apr 2016 –

Oct 2016

$908,273

American Public 

Transportation 

Association

For the management of the Information Sharing and 

Analysis Center and to spread awareness concerning 

terrorist threats against surface transportation. 

Jan 2014 – Jan 2016 $3,000,000 

Source: GAO review of TSA other transaction agreement files and TSA data. I GAO-18-172
Appendix I: Summary of Key Areas for the 

Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed

Page 32 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement

Purpose: The Surface Division of the Office of Security Policy and 

Industry Engagement has a need to maintain railroad police personnel 

involvement and a liaison relationship with the FBI’s National Joint 

Terrorism Task Force. The requirement entails the direct employment of 

intelligence gathering focused on preventing terrorist acts affecting the 

nation’s passenger and freight-rail infrastructure to facilitate the continuity 

of communications, liaison, intelligence analysis and information sharing 

among federal, state, local and railroad industry police/security agencies.

TSA rationale for using OTA: A procurement contract is not suitable for 

this requirement, as the purpose of the action is to not acquire property or 

services for the direct benefit or use of the United States government. 

Rather, the requirement entails the direct employment of intelligence 

gathering focused on preventing terrorist acts affecting the nation’s 

passenger and freight-rail infrastructure.

Method of selecting OTA recipient: Since 2003, the Association of 

American Railroads has provided the TSA with a railroad police officer 

charged with collecting and analyzing intelligence information. Market 

research reveals the Association of American Railroads to be one of two 

major railway representation groups in the U.S. counting among its 

membership the seven largest freight and passenger rail carriers in North 

America. A follow-on agreement with the Association of American 

Railroads maintains an uninterrupted flow of the critical intelligence 

necessary in monitoring the safety and security of the nation’s railway 

infrastructure.

OTA type: Fixed price.

Method of determining price reasonableness: The program developed 

an independent government cost estimate based on prices paid under a 

previous agreement which allows for an inflationary cost adjustment of 3 

percent per year and determined the annual funding cost to be fair and 

reasonable in meeting this requirement.

COR monitoring: The COR is responsible for the technical 

administration and liaison of the agreement and is to review and certify 

invoices for completeness and accuracy before approving them for 

payment. As authorized by the FBI, the assigned railroad police officer is 

to provide a monthly written report that summarizes the activities and 

accomplishments related to the tasks outlined in the agreement.
Appendix I: Summary of Key Areas for the 

Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed

Page 33 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Table 11: One of Four Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed for the Office of Security Policy and Industry 

Engagement

Awardee Purpose

Period of 

performance as 

of the end of fiscal 

year 2017

Total 

obligations as 

of the end of 

fiscal year 

2017

Association of American 

Railroads

To provide funding for a railroad police officer, who will collect 

and analyze intelligence information and share this information 

with TSA and other government agencies as appropriate. The 

officer will also serve as a liaison between railroad police and 

the National Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Oct 2015 –

Sept 2020

$449,691 

Source: GAO review of TSA other transaction agreement file and TSA data. I GAO-18-172
Appendix I: Summary of Key Areas for the 

Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed

Page 34 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement

Purpose: Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is located within 

the Flight Restricted Zone and Special Flight Rules Area. As such, the 

Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement developed a security 

program for approved general aviation aircraft operators which requires 

stringent security measures including requirements for background 

checks, physical screening of passengers and baggage. Aircraft 

operators are responsible for reimbursing TSA for the cost of the security 

screening. TSA requires the use of the airport facility to perform the 

screening function and a mechanism for the collection of security 

screening and threat assessment fees from aircraft operators and 

remittance of those fees to TSA.

TSA rationale for using OTA: A procurement contract is not suitable for 

this requirement because TSA is not acquiring, purchasing, or leasing any 

product or service. The OTA primarily establishes the responsibilities of 

the parties and the fee collection and remittal procedures.

Method of selecting OTA recipient: TSA determined that Signature 

Flight Support, as the sole commercial fixed base operator granted the 

right to operate at Reagan National Airport to provide aeronautical 

services such as fueling, hangaring, parking, aircraft rental, aircraft 

maintenance, flight instruction, and similar services—is therefore the only 

entity capable of providing the facilities and services required to 

implement this program.

OTA type: No funding.

Method of determining price reasonableness: Not applicable.

COR monitoring: The COR is responsible for providing technical 

direction and administration.

Table 12: One of Four Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed for the Office of Security Policy and Industry 

Engagement

Awardee Purpose

Period of 

performance as of 

the end of fiscal year 

2017

Total 

obligations as 

of the end of 

fiscal year 2017

Signature 

Flight Support

To collect and remit security screening and threat 

assessment fees on behalf of TSA.

Dec 2013 –

Dec 2014

$0 

Source: GAO review of TSA other transaction agreement file and TSA data. I GAO-18-172
Appendix I: Summary of Key Areas for the 

Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed

Page 35 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Office of Global Strategies

Purpose: The Office of Global Strategies is directed to encourage the 

development of civil aviation security, and is authorized to furnish to 

international organizations certain technical expertise and assistance. 

The office awarded an OTA to the International Civil Aviation 

Organization—a specialized agency of the United Nations committed to 

preventing and deterring unlawful interference with international civil 

aviation—to cover the salaries and benefits for three TSA employees 

assigned to the organization as senior security advisors. TSA actively 

participates in the organization’s Aviation Security Panel of Experts, 

which is responsible for promulgating international security standards.

TSA rationale for using OTA: An OTA is best suited for this requirement 

since the International Civil Aviation Organization is a United Nations 

specialized agency and TSA is not acquiring any property or services for 

the direct benefit or use of the United States government.

Method of selecting OTA recipient: There are no known alternative 

sources.

OTA type: Fixed price.

Method of determining a fair and reasonable price: Both the Program 

Office and the Contracting Officer solely relied upon historical salaries as 

previously used with the International Civil Aviation Organization.

COR monitoring: The COR reviews and the contracting officer approves 

all invoices prior to payment.

Table 13: Other Transaction Agreement GAO Reviewed for the Office of Global Strategies

Awardee Purpose

Period of 

performance as of 

the end of fiscal year 

2017

Total 

obligations as 

of the end of 

fiscal year 2017

International Civil 

Aviation Organization

To provide three TSA personnel to serve in positions at 

the International Civil Aviation Organization to provide 

technical expertise in the field of civil aviation security.

Oct 2015 –

Sept 2016

$955,211 

Source: GAO review of TSA other transaction agreement file and TSA data. I GAO-18-172
Appendix I: Summary of Key Areas for the 

Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed

Page 36 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service

Purpose: TSA has a requirement to obtain parking spaces/permits for 

Federal Air Marshals during their mission flights for various airports.

TSA rationale for using OTA: A procurement contract is not suitable for 

this requirement as airport parking is not considered a commercial 

item/service to the public; it is only available to business partners. An 

OTA allows TSA to participate in an airport’s business partner category. 

Further OTAs provide a practical vehicle because the airport authority is 

considered a U.S. state government entity.

Method of selecting OTA recipient: TSA conducted market research 

which found that an OTA with the airport provides a significant cost 

savings to the government compared with other alternatives. TSA 

compared the costs of parking as a business partner with the cost of 

parking at the typical rates at the airport.

OTA type: Fixed price.

Method of determining a fair and reasonable price: TSA prepared an 

independent government cost estimate based upon commercial market 

pricing for airport parking.

COR monitoring: TSA will pay the airport the variable fixed rate on a 

monthly basis. All costs will be invoiced based on actual costs incurred, 

but not to exceed the OTA amount. To receive payment from TSA, the 

airport submits one-page invoice to include the quantity used, unit price, 

and extended prices of the monthly deliverable. The invoice will be 

reviewed and approved by the COR and contracting officer prior to 

payment.

Table 14: One of Two Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed for the Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal 

Service 

Awardee Purpose

Period of 

performance as of 

the end of fiscal year 

2017

Total 

obligations as 

of the end of 

fiscal year 2017

Port Authority of 

New York & New Jersey

For parking permits for the Federal Air Marshal 

Service at John F. Kennedy International Airport. 

Sept 2014 –

Aug 2017a

$1,890,237

Source: GAO review of TSA other transaction agreement file and TSA data. I GAO-18-172

a

The period of performance does not include unexercised options as TSA chose not to extend this

agreement after 2017.
Appendix I: Summary of Key Areas for the 

Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed

Page 37 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service

Purpose: TSA has a need for parking for authorized Office of Law 

Enforcement Employees at Washington Dulles International Airport.

TSA rationale for using OTA: Need for parking can be met more 

economically with mechanism to directly reimburse Metropolitan 

Washington Airports Authority.

Method of selecting OTA recipient: TSA conducted market research 

which found that an OTA with the Metropolitan Washington Area Airport 

authority provides a significant cost savings to the government compared 

with other alternatives.

OTA type: Fixed price.

Method of determining a fair and reasonable price: TSA conducted 

price analysis and found that other available lots are all more expensive, 

farther away from the airport, and lack the capacity to service 400 people.

COR monitoring: Perform surveillance to assure performance and 

compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Certify 

invoices to the contracting officer for payment.

Table 15: One of Two Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed for the Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal 

Service 

Awardee Purpose

Period of performance 

as of the end of fiscal 

year 2017

Total obligations 

as of the end of 

fiscal year 2017

Metropolitan Washington 

Airports Authority

To provide funding for parking passes for the 

Federal Air Marshal Service at Washington Dulles 

International Airport.

Sept 2013 –

Sept 2017

$810,500 

Source: GAO review of TSA other transaction agreement file and TSA data. I GAO-18-172
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 38 GAO-18-172 Transportation Security Administration

William T. Woods, (202) 512-4841 or woodsw@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Tatiana Winger (Assistant 

Director), Angie Nichols-Friedman (Analyst in Charge), Peter Anderson, 

Lorraine Ettaro, Julia Kennon, Carol Petersen, Lindsay Taylor, Westley 

Tsou, Alyssa Weir, and Robin Wilson made key contributions to this 

report.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact: 

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(101161)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.