HUMAN 

TRAFFICKING

Oversight of 

Contractors’ Use of 

Foreign Workers in 

High-Risk 

Environments Needs 

to Be Strengthened

Report to Congressional Committees

November 2014

GAO-15-102

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-15-102, a report to 

congressional committees

November 2014

HUMAN TRAFFICKING

Oversight of Contractors’ Use of Foreign Workers in 

High-Risk Environments Needs to Be Strengthened

Why GAO Did This Study

Since the 1990s, there have been 

allegations of abuse of foreign workers 

on U.S. government contracts 

overseas, including allegations of TIP. 

In 2002, the United States adopted a 

zero tolerance policy on TIP regarding 

U.S. government employees and 

contractors abroad and began 

requiring the inclusion of this policy in 

all contracts in 2007. Such policy is 

important because the government 

relies on contractors that employ 

foreign workers in countries where, 

according to State, they may be 

vulnerable to abuse.

GAO was mandated to report on the 

use of foreign workers. This report 

examines (1) policies and guidance 

governing the recruitment of foreign 

workers and the fees these workers 

may pay to secure work on U.S. 

government contracts overseas and (2) 

agencies’ monitoring of contractor 

efforts to combat TIP. GAO reviewed a 

nongeneralizable sample of 11 

contracts awarded by DOD, State, and 

USAID, composing nearly one-third of 

all reported foreign workers on 

contracts awarded by these agencies 

at the end of fiscal year 2013. GAO 

interviewed agency officials and 

contractors about labor practices and 

oversight activities on these contracts.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that agencies (1) 

develop a more precise definition of 

recruitment fees and (2) ensure that 

contract monitoring specifically 

includes TIP. DOD concurred with the 

first recommendation, while State and 

USAID noted that forthcoming 

regulations would prohibit all 

recruitment fees. Agencies concurred 

with the second recommendation.

What GAO Found

Current policies and guidance governing the payment of recruitment fees by 

foreign workers on certain U.S. government contracts do not provide clear 

instructions to agencies or contractors regarding the components or amounts of 

permissible fees related to recruitment. GAO found that some foreign workers—

individuals who are not citizens of the United States or the host country—had 

reported paying for their jobs. Such recruitment fees can lead to various abuses 

related to trafficking in persons (TIP), such as debt bondage. For example, on the 

contract employing the largest number of foreign workers in its sample, GAO 

found that more than 1,900 foreign workers reported paying fees for their jobs, 

including to recruitment agencies used by a subcontractor. According to the 

subcontractor, these fees were likely paid to a recruiter who assisted foreign 

workers with transportation to and housing in Dubai before they were hired to 

work on the contract in Afghanistan (see figure). Some Department of Defense 

(DOD) contracting officials GAO interviewed said that such fees may be 

reasonable. DOD, the Department of State (State), and the U.S. Agency for 

International Development (USAID) have developed policy and guidance for

certain contracts addressing recruitment fees in different ways. However, these 

agencies do not specify what components or amounts of recruitment fees are 

considered permissible, limiting the ability of contracting officers and contractors 

to implement agency policy and guidance.

Sample Recruitment Paths for Foreign Workers on a U.S. Government Contract in Afghanistan

GAO found that agency monitoring, called for by federal acquisition regulations 

and agency guidance, did not always include processes to specifically monitor 

contractor efforts to combat TIP. For 7 of the 11 contracts in GAO’s sample, DOD 

and State had specific monitoring processes to combat TIP. On the 4 remaining 

contracts, agencies did not specifically monitor for TIP, but rather focused on 

contractor-provided goods and services, such as building construction. In 

addition, some DOD and State contracting officials said they were unaware of 

relevant acquisitions policy and guidance for combating TIP and did not clearly 

understand their monitoring responsibilities. Both DOD and State have 

developed additional training to help make contracting officials more aware of 

their monitoring responsibilities to combat TIP. Without specific efforts to monitor 

for TIP, agencies’ ability to implement the zero tolerance policy and detect 

concerns about TIP is limited.

View GAO-15-102. For more information, 

contact Thomas Melito at (202) 512-9601 or

melitot@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

Letter 1

Background 5

Current Agency Policy and Guidance on the Payment of 

Recruitment Fees Do Not Provide Clear Instructions 10

Agencies’ Monitoring of Contractor Labor Practices in Our Sample 

Varied, but Contractors’ Labor Practices Reflect Efforts to 

Combat TIP 20

Conclusions 30

Recommendations for Executive Action 31

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 31

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 35

Appendix II International Definitions and Indicators of Trafficking in Persons 41

Appendix III Migrant Workers in Gulf Countries 42

Appendix IV Federal Acquisition Regulations and Agency Policy and Guidance 

Related to Contractor Recruitment and Labor Practices 45

Appendix V Sample Defense Contract Management Agency Universal Examination 

Record for Combating Trafficking in Persons, May 2011 49

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Defense 51

Appendix VII Comments from the Department of State 53

Appendix VIII Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development 57

Contents
Page ii GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

Appendix IX GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 60

Related GAO Products 61

Tables

Table 1: GAO Sample of U.S. Government Contracts Employing 

Foreign Workers Overseas 4

Table 2: Migrants in and Tier Placement of Gulf Countries, 

Afghanistan, and Iraq in 2013 10

Table 3: Varying Levels of Specificity in the FAR and Agency 

Policy on Recruitment Fees 12

Table 4: GAO Sample of U.S. Government Contracts Employing 

Foreign Workers Overseas 37

Table 5: Number of Migrants in Gulf Countries from Each of the 

Top Five Source Countries in 2013 42

Table 6: Agency Policy and Guidance Related to Recruitment and 

Labor Practices on U.S. Government Contracts 46

Figures

Figure 1: Examples of Different Paths Foreign Workers Take from 

Their Home Countries to Work on a U.S. Government 

Contract Overseas 18

Figure 2: Examples of Subcontractor-Provided Housing for 

Foreign Workers on a Base Operations Support Services 

Contract in Qatar 27
Page iii GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

Abbreviations

CENTCOM U.S. Central Command

C-JTSCC U.S. Central Command-Joint Theater Support Contracting 

Command

DCMA Defense Contract Management Agency

DOD Department of Defense

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation

ILO International Labour Organization

IRIS International Recruitment Integrity System

KSCR Kuwait-Specific Contract Requirement

SPOT Synchronized Pre-deployment and Operational Tracker

State Department of State

TIP Trafficking in Persons

TVPA Trafficking Victims Protection Act

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

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-15-102 Human Trafficking

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 18, 2014

Congressional Committees

The U.S. government relies on contractors to provide services overseas, 

such as construction, security, and facilities maintenance. In some 

countries, such as the Gulf countries,1 where the local labor force is small, 

or in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, where the employment of 

local labor poses security risks, these contractors rely on foreign 

workers—individuals who are citizens of neither the United States nor the 

host country—to perform this work.2 According to the Commission on 

Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. government’s 

reliance on local nationals and foreign workers leads to considerable cost 

savings compared with the employment of U.S. military personnel or 

civilians.3 Many foreign workers come from developing countries such as 

India, Bangladesh, and the Philippines, where job opportunities and 

wages compare poorly with those in destination countries. The disparities 

in income levels and the methods used to recruit these workers often 

make them vulnerable to a variety of labor abuses.

There have been allegations of abuse of foreign workers on government 

contracts overseas since at least the 1990s. In 2000, Congress enacted 

the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) to combat trafficking 

in persons,4 and in 2002, the United States adopted a zero tolerance 

policy regarding government employees and contractors engaging in 

trafficking in persons (TIP) abroad.5 Since then, Congress and the 

President have taken further steps to address the issue of trafficking in 

 1

For the purposes of this report, we use the term “Gulf countries” to refer to the six 

member states of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, also known as 

the Gulf Cooperation Council. These states are Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi 

Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

2

These workers are alternately referred to as third-country nationals or other-country 

nationals.

3

Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, Transforming Wartime 

Contracting: Controlling Costs, Reducing Risks (Arlington, Va.: August 2011).

4

Pub. L. No. 106-386, Div. A, 114 Stat. 1464, 1466-1491, as amended.

5

The White House, National Security Presidential Directive-22, Combating Trafficking in 

Persons (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 16, 2002).
Page 2 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

persons, including through amendments to the TVPA. In 2007, federal 

acquisition regulations related to combating TIP were amended to require 

the inclusion of the U.S. government’s zero tolerance policy in all 

government contracts.6

In the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, Congress 

included a requirement for GAO to report on the use of foreign workers 

both overseas and domestically—including those employed on U.S. 

government contracts.7 This report examines (1) policies and guidance 

governing the recruitment of foreign workers and the fees these workers 

may pay to secure work on U.S. government contracts overseas and (2) 

agencies’ monitoring of contractor efforts to combat TIP.8

This report focuses on Department of Defense (DOD), Department of 

State (State), and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) 

contracts with performance in countries with large percentages of foreign 

workers as compared with local nationals, and in Afghanistan and Iraq, 

where U.S. government contractors employ significant numbers of foreign 

workers. We focused on contractor practices related to the recruitment of 

foreign workers, as well as labor practices such as housing, wages and 

hours, access to identity documents, and return travel. We selected these 

practices because they were mentioned explicitly in both recent 

legislation and an executive order on combating trafficking in persons, 

and because the International Labour Organization (ILO) has identified 

potential indicators of TIP related to these practices.9

To examine the recruitment of foreign workers and agencies’ monitoring 

of contractor labor practices, we reviewed acquisition regulations, 

policies, and guidance. We selected a sample of 11 contracts that were 

 6

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 22.1705. See also FAR clause 52.222-50, 

Combating Trafficking in Persons; 72 Fed. Reg. 46,431 (requiring the inclusion of the 

policy in all contracts) (Aug. 17, 2007).

7

Pub. L. No. 113-4, § 1235, 127 Stat. 54, 146.

8

This report addresses the use of foreign workers for labor on U.S. government contracts 

overseas. GAO is scheduled to issue a separate report in early 2015 focusing on the 

recruitment and use of foreign workers within the United States.

9

The ILO is a tripartite United Nations agency with government, employer, and worker 

representatives. The ILO’s mission includes promoting fundamental rights at work, 

creating opportunities for decent employment and income, and enhancing social 

protection. 
Page 3 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

active at the end of fiscal year 2013, based on the contracts’ place of 

performance, value, type of service provided, and the number of foreign 

workers employed to reflect a range of agencies, countries, and services. 

We conducted structured interviews with agency contracting officials, 

contractors, and, in some cases, interviewed the subcontractors 

responsible for these contracts.10 The contracts in our sample represent 

nearly one-third of all reported foreign workers employed on contracts 

awarded by these three agencies as reported in the Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker (SPOT) database at the end of fiscal 

year 2013.11 The results of our structured interviews are not generalizable 

but provided us with insights about contractor recruitment practices and 

efforts to combat TIP, as well as agencies’ monitoring of these efforts. 

Table 1 provides basic information on these contracts. In addition, we 

conducted fieldwork in Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Qatar, where we spoke 

with contracting officials, contractors, and subcontractors regarding 

contracts in our sample, and in Jordan, where we spoke with State and 

USAID officials to inform our research design and methodology. We also 

spoke with other DOD, State, and USAID officials; host government 

officials; and local nongovernmental organizations to obtain a broader 

view about labor practices and efforts to combat TIP in these countries. 

We chose these countries based on the range of U.S. government 

activities in these countries, the prevalence of foreign workers, and 

State’s assessment of the host government’s efforts to combat TIP. 

Furthermore, we interviewed contracting officials, acquisition policy 

 10For the purposes of this report, we use the term “agency contracting officials” to refer to 

individuals involved in the award, administration, and monitoring of government contracts. 

These officials include the contracting officer and the contracting officer’s representative, 

among others. The contracting officer is a U.S. government employee who has the 

authority to enter into, administer, or terminate contracts and make related determinations. 

The contracting officer is responsible for ensuring performance of all necessary actions for 

effective contracting, ensuring compliance with the terms of the contract, and 

safeguarding the interests of the United States in its contractual relationships. The 

contracting officer’s representative is designated in writing by the contracting officer to 

perform specific technical or administrative functions. Unlike the contracting officer, a 

contracting officer’s representative has no authority to make any commitments or changes 

that affect price, quality, quantity, delivery, or other terms and conditions of the contract 

and cannot direct the contractor or its subcontractors to operate in conflict with the 

contract terms and conditions.

11While our previous work has described data limitations related to SPOT, we found these 

data sufficiently reliable for the purposes of identifying and selecting contracts employing 

large numbers of foreign workers to review. App. I provides further information about our 

methodology.
Page 4 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

officials, and officials responsible for coordinating agencies’ efforts to 

combat TIP in the United States. The contract employing the largest 

number of foreign workers in our sample included a requirement for the 

contractor to report certain data related to alleged violations of the 

government’s zero tolerance policy on TIP; we analyzed these data, 

including reports of foreign workers paying for their jobs, to demonstrate 

the prevalence and relative amounts of these payments. Appendix I 

provides more information on our scope and methodology.

Table 1: GAO Sample of U.S. Government Contracts Employing Foreign Workers Overseas

Contract description

Contracting 

agency

Place of 

performance

Services 

provided

Total 

obligations as 

of fiscal year 

2014 (Dollars 

in millions)

Peak 

number of 

foreign 

workers

Logistics Civil Augmentation Program IV, Task Order 5 

(Afghanistan)

DOD/Army Afghanistan Facilities 

support $8,714 9,807

Field and Installation Readiness Support Team DOD/Army Afghanistan Facilities 

support $1,417 3,658

Army Pre-positioned Stocks-5 DOD/Army Kuwait Facilities 

support $1,022 2,570

Qatar - Base Operations Support Services DOD/Army Qatar Facilities 

support $174 650

Logistics Civil Augmentation Program IV, Task Order 5 

(Bahrain)

DOD/Army Bahrain Facilities 

support $48 323

Coalition Compound Construction DOD/U.S. 

Army Corps of 

Engineers

Qatar Construction

$45 391

Full Line Food and Beverage Support DOD/Defense 

Logistics 

Agency

Kuwait/Iraq/ 

Jordan

Food 

services

$1,092 1,889

Worldwide Protective Services-Baghdad State Iraq Security $608 1,410

Operations and Maintenance Support Services State Iraq Facilities 

support $150 432

Embassy Doha Local Guard Force State Qatar Security $6 70 a

Kandahar-Helmand Power Project USAID Afghanistan Construction $227 41

Sources: Department of Defense (DOD), Department of State (State), and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Data on peak number of foreign workers provided by contractors. | 

GAO-15-102

a

Contract value at time of award.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2013 to November 2014 

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 
Page 5 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

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.

Human trafficking—the worldwide criminal exploitation of men, women, 

and children for others’ financial gain—is a violation of human rights. 

Victims are often lured or abducted and forced to work in involuntary 

servitude. Although the crime of human trafficking can take different forms 

in different regions and countries around the world, most human 

trafficking cases follow a similar pattern. Traffickers use acquaintances or 

false advertisements to recruit men, women, and children in or near their 

homes, and then transfer them to and exploit them in another city, region, 

or country. The U.S. government defines severe forms of trafficking in 

persons to include the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or 

obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, 

or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, 

peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.12 International organizations have 

also defined trafficking in persons and developed a list of indicators of 

trafficking for labor exploitation.13 Appendix II describes these efforts in 

more detail.

Congress and others have highlighted the role that deceptive recruitment 

practices can play in contributing to trafficking in persons. Workers who 

pay for their jobs are at an increased risk for human trafficking and other 

 12The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-386, codified as 

amended at 22 U.S.C. §§ 7101-10. The TVPA defines the term ‘‘debt bondage’’ as the 

status or condition of a debtor arising from a pledge by the debtor of his or her personal 

services or of those of a person under his or her control as a security for debt, if the value 

of those services as reasonably assessed is not applied toward the liquidation of the debt 

or the length and nature of those services are not respectively limited and defined. 

According to the TVPA, severe forms of trafficking also include sex trafficking in which a 

commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced 

to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age.

13For an example of a definition of trafficking in persons, see the United Nations’ Protocol 

to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, 

Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, 

2237 U.N.T.S. 319 (Vienna: Nov. 15, 2000). The United States became a party in 2005.

Background

Definition of Trafficking in 

Persons
Page 6 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

labor abuses. State’s Inspector General has reported that such 

recruitment fees, which can amount to many months’ salary, are a 

possible indicator of coercive recruitment and may indicate an increased 

risk of debt bondage, as some workers borrow large sums of money to 

pay the recruiter.14 A 2011 ILO survey of workers in Kuwait and the 

United Arab Emirates found that the recruitment fees and interest on 

loans may limit workers’ ability to negotiate the terms of their work 

contracts.15 This debt burden can result in involuntary servitude through 

excessive work hours or virtually no pay for months to recover the 

advance payments of fees and interest.

Since 2007, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) has required all 

U.S. government contracts to include a clause citing the U.S. 

government’s zero tolerance policy regarding TIP. This clause prohibits 

contractors from engaging in severe forms of trafficking, procuring 

commercial sex acts, or using forced labor during the period of 

performance of the contract.16 In addition, this clause establishes several 

contractor requirements to implement this policy, such as notifying the 

contracting officer of any information that alleges a contractor employee, 

subcontractor, or subcontractor employee has engaged in conduct that 

violates this policy and adding this clause in all subcontracts.

In 2012, Congress and the President took further steps to reduce the risk 

of trafficking on U.S. government contracts. The TVPA, as amended,17

and an executive order18 both address acts related to TIP, such as 

denying foreign workers access to their identity documents and failing to 

pay for return travel for foreign workers. In September 2013, amendments 

 14United States Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors Office of 

the Inspector General, Performance Evaluation of Department of State Contracts to 

Assess the Risk of Trafficking in Persons Violations in Four States in the Cooperation 

Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, MERO-I-11-06 (Arlington, Va.: January 2011).

15ILO, Kuwait Economic Society, University of Sharjah, Travels of Hope, Toils of Despair: 

The Lives of Migrant Workers in the Gulf States (Geneva: December 2011).

16FAR § 22.1705. See also FAR clause 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons.

17National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. No. 112-239, § 1702, 

codified at 22 U.S.C. § 7104(g).

18Strengthening Protections Against Trafficking in Persons in Federal Contracts, Exec. 

Order 13627, 77 Fed. Reg. 60,029 (Oct. 2, 2012).

U.S. Government 

Approach to Trafficking in 

Persons in Acquisitions 

Policy
Page 7 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

to the FAR were proposed to implement the requirements of the 2013

amendments to the TVPA and the executive order related to 

strengthening protections against trafficking in persons.19 As of October 

2014, these proposed amendments to the FAR are still under review.

Agencies also have developed their own acquisition policies and 

guidance to augment the FAR that aim to protect foreign workers on 

specific contracts. Many of these policies and much of this guidance 

include requirements related to recruitment and other labor practices, 

including housing, wages, and access to identity documents.

• DOD policy is intended to deter activities of a variety of actors, 

including contractor personnel, that would facilitate or support TIP.20 A 

region-specific DOD acquisition policy that addresses combating TIP 

has evolved in recent years and has applied to different places of 

performance at different times.21 Currently, this policy requires the 

insertion of a clause to combat TIP into certain service and 

construction contracts that require performance in Iraq or Afghanistan.

• In 2011 and 2012, State issued acquisition guidance, applicable to all 

domestic and overseas contracting activities, on how to monitor 

contracts for TIP compliance and to provide a clause and procedures 

to reduce the risk of abusive labor practices that contribute to the 

potential for TIP. Among other things, this guidance requires 

contracting officers to require offerors to include information related to 

the recruitment and housing of foreign workers in their proposals for 

certain contracts.22

 1978 Fed. Reg. 59,317 (Sept. 26, 2013). See also proposed rule to amend Department of 

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement intended to supplement these 

changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulations. 78 Fed. Reg. 59,325 (Sept. 26, 2013). 

20DOD, DOD Instruction 2200.01, Combating Trafficking in Persons (Arlington, Va.: Sept. 

15, 2010).

21For example, see U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)-Joint Theater Support 

Contracting Command (C-JTSCC) Acquisition Instruction (Sept. 1, 2011) and related CJTSCC Clause 952.222-0001, Prohibition Against Human Trafficking, Inhumane Living 

Conditions, and Withholding of Employee Passports. Previously, similar clauses, such as 

Kuwait-Specific Contract Requirement (KSCR) 1-2, Prohibition Against Human Trafficking, 

Inhumane Living Conditions, and Withholding of Employee Passports, were to be included 

in certain contracts whose place of performance was Iraq, Kuwait, or Pakistan. 

22Department of State, Procurement Information Bulletins No. 2011-09, Combating 

Trafficking in Persons (Sept. 19, 2012), and No. 2012-10, Contractor Recruitment of ThirdCountry Nationals (Arlington, Va.: Oct. 17, 2012).
Page 8 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

• In 2012, USAID issued guidance reminding contracting officials of 

their responsibilities to implement TIP requirements and requiring 

officials to, among other things, discuss issues such as access to 

certain documents and understanding local labor laws with 

contractors following contract award.23

Subcontracting is an acquisition practice in which the vendor with the 

direct responsibility to perform a contract, known as the prime contractor, 

enters into direct contracts with other vendors, known as subcontractors, 

to furnish supplies or services for the performance of the contract. This 

practice can help contractors to consider core competencies and supplier 

capabilities to achieve efficiencies from the marketplace. In some cases, 

prime contractors use subcontractors to supply labor on government 

contracts, and these subcontractors may use second-tier subcontractors 

or recruitment agencies to identify prospective employees. Our prior work 

has shown that government visibility into subcontracts is generally 

limited.24 Government agencies have a direct relationship only with the 

prime contractor, and generally “privity of contract” limits the 

government’s authority to direct subcontractors to perform tasks under 

the contract. 25 As a result, agencies generally do not monitor 

subcontractors directly, as they expect the prime contractor to monitor its 

subcontractors. Further, the FAR notes the prime contractor’s 

responsibility in managing its subcontractors, and officials have 

underscored the limited role of the government in selecting and managing 

subcontracts.

Contractors performing U.S. government contracts overseas operate 

under local conditions and in accordance with local labor practices. In 

Gulf countries, contractors employ large numbers of foreign workers, who 

make up a significant portion of the local labor force. These workers 

 23USAID, Procurement Executive’s Bulletin No. 2012-07, Combating Trafficking in 

Persons (TIP).

24GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Additional Guidance Needed to Improve Visibility into the 

Structure and Management of Major Weapon System Subcontracts, GAO-11-61R

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 28, 2010). 

25“Privity of contract” describes the legal relationship between parties to the same 

contract. It is commonly understood to mean that the government’s contractual 

relationship is with the prime contractor, not with subcontractors.

Use of Subcontractors

Foreign Workers on U.S. 

Government Contracts 

Overseas
Page 9 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

typically come from countries such as India, Bangladesh, and the 

Philippines for economic reasons. According to State and the ILO, several 

common and restrictive labor practices in Gulf countries stem from these 

countries’ sponsorship system, which limits workers’ freedom of 

movement. Appendix III provides further detail on the prevalence of 

foreign workers in Gulf countries, as well as efforts to regulate this 

migration of workers in home and destination countries. State’s 2014 

Trafficking in Persons Report found that certain labor practices in the 

Middle East, including Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain, can render foreign 

workers susceptible to severe forms of trafficking in persons.26

In addition, U.S. government contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan often 

employ foreign workers for cost and security reasons. As of July 2014, 

DOD reported nearly 17,000 foreign workers on contracts in Afghanistan, 

approximately one-third of the department’s total contractor workforce in 

that country. Although DOD reports that it no longer has foreign workers 

in Iraq, it reported more than 40,000 foreign workers on DOD contracts in 

Iraq—nearly 60 percent of its total contractor workforce in the country—as 

of January 2011. State contractors currently employ foreign workers in 

Iraq for security and operations and maintenance services. GAO and 

others have reported that operating in insecure environments can hinder

agencies’ ability to monitor contracts, including efforts to combat TIP, 

because of the general absence of security, among other factors.27 Table 

2 shows the prevalence of migrants in Gulf countries, Afghanistan, and 

Iraq, as well as State’s Trafficking in Persons Report tier placement for 

2014, which illustrates areas where the risk of TIP is high.

 26U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report (Washington, D.C.: June 2014). 

This annual report contains information on countries’ efforts to combat TIP, placing each 

country on one of four tiers based on the extent of their governments’ efforts to comply 

with the TVPA’s minimum standards for the elimination of human trafficking. 

27GAO, Contingency Contracting: State and USAID Made Progress Assessing and 

Implementing Changes, but Further Actions Needed, GAO-14-229 (Washington, D.C.: 

Feb. 14, 2014), and Congressional Research Service, Trafficking in Persons: International 

Dimensions and Foreign Policy Issues for Congress, R42497 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 9, 

2013).
Page 10 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

Table 2: Migrants in and Tier Placement of Gulf Countries, Afghanistan, and Iraq in 

2013

Country

Migrants as a 

percentage of total 

population

Total number of 

migrants a

Trafficking in 

Persons Report tier 

placement (2014) a

United Arab 

Emirates

b

83.7% 7,826,981 2

Qatar 73.8% 1,600,955 2 Watch List

Kuwait 60.2% 2,028,053 3

Bahrain 54.7% 729,357 2 Watch List

Saudi Arabia 31.4% 9,060,433 3

Oman 30.6% 1,112,032 2

Afghanistan not available not available 2

Iraq not available not available 2

Sources: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Trends in International Migrant Stock: the 2013 revision; 

Department of State Trafficking in Persons Report, 2014. | GAO-15-102

a

These data do not include the number of foreign workers in each country but rather reflect the 

number of overall migrants, including children, to each country.

b

In the report, Tier 1 countries fully comply with the Trafficking Victims Protection Act’s minimum 

standards for the elimination of human trafficking; Tier 2 countries do not fully comply with the 

minimum standards, but are making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance; Tier 2 

Watch List countries do not fully comply with the minimum standards, but are making significant 

efforts to bring themselves into compliance, among other criteria; and Tier 3 refers to countries whose 

governments do not fully comply with the minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to 

do so.

Agency policy and guidance on combating trafficking in persons has 

attempted to address the payment of recruitment fees by foreign workers 

on certain U.S. government contracts. However, current policy and 

guidance does not specifically define the components or amount of 

permissible fees related to recruitment. Agency officials and contractors 

said that without an explicit definition of what constitutes a recruitment 

fee, they may not be able to effectively implement existing policy and 

guidance on this issue. Despite efforts to prohibit or restrict the payment 

of recruitment fees, we found that some foreign workers on U.S. 

government contracts have reported paying for their jobs. Prime 

contractor reliance on subcontractors for recruitment of foreign workers 

further limits visibility into recruitment fees.

Current Agency 

Policy and Guidance 

on the Payment of 

Recruitment Fees Do 

Not Provide Clear 

Instructions
Page 11 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

The FAR provides broad prohibitions against contractors engaging in 

trafficking but does not explicitly address the payment of recruitment fees. 

The FAR prohibits contractors from engaging in severe forms of 

trafficking, including recruitment of a person for labor or services through 

the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purposes of subjection to debt 

bondage, but it does not address more specific issues related to how 

contractors recruit foreign workers, such as recruitment fees.

Some agencies have developed policy and guidance that address certain 

recruitment issues more specifically. Although DOD’s department-wide 

guidance on combating TIP does not explicitly address recruitment, its 

current region-specific policy requires certain services and construction 

contracts in Afghanistan to include a clause requiring contractors to avoid 

using unlicensed recruitment firms or firms that charge illegal recruitment 

fees.28 However, this policy does not define “illegal” recruitment fees. 

State’s 2012 guidance required certain contracts to include a clause 

requiring contractors to submit, as part of their proposals, recruitment 

plans that must state that employees will not be charged any recruitment 

or similar fees and that contractors and subcontractors will use only bona 

fide licensed recruitment companies.29 USAID’s 2012 guidance on 

combating trafficking in persons reminds officials of the FAR 

requirements, but it provides no further guidance on the recruitment of 

foreign workers for work on USAID contracts. Table 3 illustrates how the 

FAR and agency policy and guidance address recruitment fees with 

varying levels of specificity.

 28C-JTSCC Clauses 952.222-0001 and 5152.222-5900, Prohibition Against Human 

Trafficking, Inhumane Living Conditions, and Withholding of Employee Passports. Officials 

stated that a similar clause, KSCR1-2, was included in another contract in our sample 

whose place of performance was Kuwait. Furthermore, on one contract in Qatar, the 

contractor stated in its proposal that it would ensure compliance with C-JTSCC clause 

952.222-0001, even though it was not required for contracts in Qatar.

29Department of State, Procurement Information Bulletin No. 2012-10, Contractor 

Recruitment of Third-Country Nationals (Arlington, Va.: Oct. 17, 2012).

The FAR and Agency 

Policy and Guidance Lack 

Specificity Regarding 

Recruitment Fees
Page 12 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

Table 3: Varying Levels of Specificity in the FAR and Agency Policy on Recruitment 

Fees

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): FAR § 22.1705(a) and Clause 52.222-50

No explicit discussion of recruitment fees.

Department of Defense policy: U.S. Central Command-Joint Theater Support 

Contracting Command (C-JTSCC) Acquisition Instruction and Clauses 952.222-0001 

and 5152.222-5900

a

Prohibits the use of unlicensed recruiting firms or firms that charge illegal recruiting fees.

State guidance: Procurement Information Bulletin No.2012-10

Offerors are to be required to submit a recruitment plan as part of the proposal that 

states that the recruited employee will not be charged recruitment or any similar fees.

USAID guidance: Procurement Executive’s Bulletin No. 2012-07

No explicit discussion of recruitment fees.

Source: GAO analysis of the FAR, C-JTSCC Acquisition Instruction, State Procurement Information Bulletin 2012-10, and U.S. Agency 

for International Development (USAID) Procurement Executive’s Bulletin 2012-07. | GAO-15-102

a

In September 2013, amendments to the FAR were proposed to implement the requirements of the 

2013 amendments to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and the executive order related to 

strengthening protections against trafficking in persons, including the issue of recruitment fees.

We found that some agency officials, both on contracts in our sample and 

on others, and contractors in our sample did not have a common 

understanding of what constitutes a permissible fee related to 

recruitment—in terms of components or amount—or whether contractors 

or subcontractors at any level were permitted to charge such fees to 

recruited employees. According to GAO’s standards for internal control, 

information should be recorded and communicated to management and 

others in a form that enables them to carry out their internal control and 

other responsibilities.30 Currently, agency contracting officials lack policy 

or guidance that specifies what components are considered to be 

recruitment fees and may not be able to determine which fees are 

permissible, hindering their ability to carry out their responsibilities. For 

example, neither the FAR nor agency policy or guidance specifies what 

components are considered to constitute recruitment fees, but these fees 

could include air tickets, lodging, passport and visa fees, or medical 

screening, among other expenses. One subcontractor who hires foreign 

workers in Dubai for work in Afghanistan said that the definition of 

recruitment fees is imprecise and varies widely within the contracting 

community. He added that he believed every foreign worker hired in 

 30GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 1999).
Page 13 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

Dubai for this contract had paid someone some type of fee for his or her 

job, but the fee could have included airfare from the home country to 

Dubai, housing and food in Dubai, or a commission for the recruiter, any 

of which may be legal. In addition, the Qatari Under Secretary of Labor 

noted that Qatari law prohibits recruitment fees, but he and State and 

DOD officials in Qatar acknowledged that most foreign workers are 

initially recruited in their home countries, where such fees may or may not 

be allowed. Without explicit definitions of what, if anything, constitute 

permissible fees related to recruitment, contractors said that they could 

not ensure that they were in compliance with contractual requirements. 

DOD contracting officials in Kuwait said that a definition of recruitment 

fees would improve their ability to implement the government’s 

antitrafficking policy.

The President and Congress have both directed that the FAR be 

amended to address several issues related to trafficking, including the 

payment of recruitment fees. The 2012 executive order directed 

amendments to the FAR that would expressly prohibit federal contractors 

from charging employees any recruitment fees,31 while amendments to 

the TVPA in 2013 allow the government to terminate a contract if 

contractors, subcontractors, labor brokers, or other agents charge 

unreasonable placement or recruitment fees.32 Public comments on the 

proposed FAR rule have noted that the FAR Council will have to reconcile 

these prohibitions, deciding whether to prohibit all recruitment fees or only 

unreasonable ones and defining what is considered unreasonable.33

The TVPA states that unreasonable placement or recruitment fees 

include fees equal to or greater than the employee’s monthly salary, or 

recruitment fees that violate the laws of the country from which an 

employee is recruited.34 The Department of Labor and foreign 

 31Strengthening Protections Against Trafficking in Persons in Federal Contracts, Exec. 

Order 13627, 77 Fed. Reg. 60,029 (Oct. 2, 2012).

32Pub. L. No. 112-239, §§ 1702, 1708(c).

33The FAR Council assists in the direction and coordination of government-wide 

procurement policy and government-wide procurement regulatory activities in the federal 

government. 41 U.S.C. § 1302.

34Pub. L. No. 112-239, § 1702.

Other Entities Provide 

Definitions of Permissible 

Recruitment Fees
Page 14 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

governments have also defined permissible fees paid by workers to their 

employers.

• A Department of Labor regulation relating to assurances that 

employers must provide in seeking to employ certain temporary 

foreign workers in the United States allows for reimbursements from 

workers for costs that are the responsibility and primarily for the 

benefit of the worker, such as government-required passport fees.35

• The government of India permits recruiting agents to recover service 

charges from workers of up to the equivalent of 45 days’ wages, 

subject to a maximum of 20,000 rupees (currently about $325), 

according to India’s Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs.

• The government of the Philippines permits recruiters to charge its 

hired workers a placement fee in an amount equivalent to 1 month’s 

salary, excluding documentation costs such as expenses for 

passports, birth certificates, and medical examinations, according to 

the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.

• The International Organization for Migration, with others, has 

established the International Recruitment Integrity System (IRIS), 

which is a voluntary consortium of stakeholders including recruitment 

and employment agents. Members of IRIS are prohibited from 

charging any recruitment fees to job seekers.

Senior acquisition officials expressed conflicting views regarding the 

feasibility of prohibiting recruitment fees. Senior officials in State’s Office 

of the Procurement Executive stated that they would prefer that all 

recruitment fees be prohibited, in line with the executive order, to 

eliminate any uncertainty or ambiguity among contracting officials. They 

said that they had consulted State’s Office to Monitor and Combat 

Trafficking in Persons, which took the same position of the Office of the 

Procurement Executive given that such fees create vulnerability among 

workers and often are the precursor to debt bondage. These officials 

further stated that the term “reasonable recruitment fees” was difficult to 

define and apply in practice. In public comments on the proposed FAR 

rule, one nongovernmental organization noted that “the definition of 

reasonableness is amorphous and is unduly burdensome on private 

industry to enforce.” Other officials, including DOD contracting officials in 

Kuwait, stated that it may be reasonable for employees to pay a fee for a 

job in some cases, echoing the recent amendment to the TVPA. They 

 3520 C.F.R. § 655.135(j).
Page 15 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

noted that eliminating these fees would be nearly impossible, and that 

recruiters would pass these fees on to workers in some other form if

recruitment fees were explicitly banned. DOD Joint Staff officials added 

that the elimination of recruitment fees will cause contractors to change 

the name from recruitment fees to travel or per diem fees to cover air 

travel, housing and food, thus a precise definition of these fees that 

specifically addresses travel costs is needed. A subcontractor supplying 

foreign workers on the largest contract in our sample said that its 

recruitment agencies likely charge fees to recruits for services such as air 

tickets, housing, and food, which the subcontractor deemed reasonable. 

However, according to senior State, DOD, and contractor officials, 

regardless of whether recruitment fees are banned in their entirety or only 

when unreasonable, the ability of contracting officers and contractors to 

implement this restriction will be limited until recruitment fees, including 

what is considered permissible, are defined in regulation, guidance, or 

policy.

On at least two contracts in our sample, including the one employing the 

largest number of foreign workers, contractors reported that workers have 

paid for their jobs. We found that, on the largest contract in our sample, 

employing nearly 10,000 foreign workers in Afghanistan, recruitment 

agencies have likely charged fees to some foreign workers. On this 

contract, the prime contractor uses several subcontractors to supply 

labor, including one that hires workers through more than 10 recruitment 

agencies in Dubai. We found that from September 2012 through April 

2014, more than 1,900 subcontractor employees reported to the prime 

contractor that they had paid fees for their jobs, including to recruitment 

agencies with which the subcontractor had a recruitment agreement. For 

2012 and 2013, recruitment agencies used by this subcontractor signed 

statements acknowledging that they would not charge any recruitment 

fees to candidates facilitated as part of their agreements with the 

subcontractor. In April 2014, the last month for which data were available, 

82 workers reported having paid an average of approximately $3,000 to 

get their jobs. The fees that these workers reported paying averaged 

approximately 5 months’ salary and, in one case, amounted to more than 

Some Foreign Workers 

Employed on U.S. 

Contracts Paid 

Recruitment Fees to 

Subcontractors or 

Recruitment Agencies
Page 16 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

1 year’s salary.36 According to the subcontractor who employed all 82 of 

these workers, these fees were likely paid to an agent who assisted 

foreign workers with transportation and housing prior to being hired for 

work on the U.S. government contract. Although the prime contractor 

provided DOD information about reported fees, neither DOD nor the 

prime contractor took further action because the allegations did not 

involve the prime contractor or its subcontractor.

On another DOD services contract in Afghanistan, we found that the 

contractor modified its subcontract with a recruiter in January 2014 to 

clarify that the contractor would pay recruitment fees previously charged 

to foreign workers—$670 per worker. The contractor reported that this 

modification to the subcontract was a result of its interpretation of the 

FAR clause prohibiting TIP. According to the contractor, the contracting 

agency had not directed it to make this modification; it made this change 

on its own initiative to prevent potential TIP abuses in the performance of 

the contract.

These practices may be long-standing and widespread in Gulf countries. 

In January 2011, the State Inspector General reported in an evaluation of 

efforts to combat TIP on contracts in four Gulf countries that a substantial 

portion of the workers they interviewed had obtained their jobs by paying 

a recruitment agency in their country of origin. Some of these workers 

reported paying more than 1 year’s salary in such fees.37

 36These 82 workers reported paying fees as early as October 2010. We compared the 

fees reported in April 2014 with the workers’ April 2014 salaries, as reported by the prime 

contractor. According to our analysis of these data provided by the prime contractor, these 

fees ranged from $500 to $5,000, with a mean and median fee of about $3,000. In 

comparison, the prime contractor reported that the average monthly base salary in April 

2014 for these workers was about $650 and ranged from less than $400 to about $1,250.

37United States Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors Office of 

the Inspector General, Performance Evaluation of Department of State Contracts to 

Assess the Risk of Trafficking in Persons Violations in Four States in the Cooperation 

Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, MERO-I-11-06 (Arlington, Va.: January 2011). For 

this review, the Inspector General interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of workers in 

Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.
Page 17 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

Nearly all prime contractors in our sample reported that they generally 

used subcontractors or recruitment agencies to recruit foreign workers, 

and some reported that their knowledge about the payment of recruitment 

fees is limited. These subcontractors generally recruited foreign workers 

either from their home countries or in host countries where they may have 

lived and worked for an extended period of time. In other cases, 

subcontractors recruited workers in a third country, neither their home 

country nor the host country, and then transported them to the contract 

location. Figure 1 illustrates a variety of potential paths a foreign worker 

may take to be recruited for work on a U.S. government contract 

overseas.

Prime Contractors Used 

Subcontractors to Recruit 

Foreign Workers, and 

Some Did Not Know if 

Recruitment Fees Were 

Paid
Page 18 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

Figure 1: Examples of Different Paths Foreign Workers Take from Their Home Countries to Work on a U.S. Government 

Contract Overseas
Page 19 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

For foreign workers recruited in their home countries, prime contractors in 

our sample reported that they often used subcontractors who relied on 

recruitment agencies to identify workers. Since prime contractors do not 

have a direct relationship with these recruitment agencies, their visibility 

into these agencies’ practices, including whether the agencies charged 

workers recruitment fees, was limited. For foreign workers recruited in 

host countries, prime contractors in our sample reported that they 

typically also used subcontractors to identify workers. When foreign 

workers are already living in the host country, prime contractors may not 

know whether these workers paid recruitment fees when they first came 

to the host country. For example, one subcontractor that employs more 

than 2,500 foreign workers in Afghanistan said that it hired foreign 

workers from the previous contractor and did not know whether these 

workers had paid recruitment fees previously.

The following examples illustrate how contractors use subcontractors to 

recruit foreign workers and their limited knowledge about recruitment 

fees:

• On a DOD services contract in Kuwait, a local subcontractor recruited, 

employed, and housed foreign workers supporting the prime contract. 

According to the subcontractor, some employees were recruited from 

an existing pool of foreign workers living in Kuwait. The prime 

contractor reported that it did not monitor the subcontractor’s 

recruitment practices, including if recruitment fees were paid by 

foreign workers in this existing pool (see scenario 1, fig. 1).

• On a DOD services contract in Afghanistan, the prime contractor used 

a subcontractor to supply labor. This subcontractor recruited workers 

in Dubai using several recruitment agencies. In some instances, these 

agencies identified workers in countries such as India and Nepal and 

transported them to Dubai. As noted above, many workers on this 

contract reported having paid for their jobs, but the prime contractor 

did not investigate these reports because they did not involve the 

prime contractor or its subcontractors (see scenario 2, fig. 1).

• On a DOD construction contract in Qatar, the prime contractor used a 

subcontractor that maintained a pool of foreign workers in Qatar who 

were originally identified by recruitment agencies in source countries 

such as Sri Lanka, Nepal, India, and Jordan. The prime contractor 

reported that it had no way of knowing how these workers had been 

initially recruited, including if they had paid any recruitment fees (see 

scenario 3, fig. 1).

• On a State services contract in Iraq, the prime contractor said that it 

did not use subcontractors. Instead, it transferred workers from 
Page 20 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

another contract it was supporting in Djibouti and also employed 

several foreign workers from the contractor that had previously 

performed this work for DOD. Consequently, most workers had 

already been recruited before contract award.

• On a State security contract in Iraq, the prime contractor used 

subcontractors in Kenya and Uganda to recruit foreign workers. 

According to the prime contractor, subcontractors were paid a fixed 

fee for each worker it hired and the prime contractor did not believe 

workers paid a separate fee for these services.

The FAR and DOD, State, and USAID guidance outline requirements for 

monitoring contractor labor practices, and DOD and State had processes 

for monitoring these practices and efforts to combat TIP on some 

contracts in our sample. However, we found that DOD, State, and USAID 

did not specifically monitor these practices on other contracts, hindering 

their ability to detect potential TIP abuses and implement the U.S. 

government’s zero tolerance policy. For example, we found that agencies 

did not specifically monitor for labor practices on some contracts, but 

rather focused on contractor-provided goods and services, such as 

building construction. The FAR and agency policy and guidance require 

the use of contract clauses that outline contractor responsibilities related 

to labor practices in areas such as wages and hours, housing, access to 

identity documents, and return travel, which have been linked to TIP 

abuses by the U.S. government and international organizations. All 

contractors in our sample reported to us that their practices reflect efforts 

to combat TIP.

The FAR and agency policy and guidance outline requirements for DOD, 

State, and USAID to monitor contractor labor practices. For some 

contracts in our sample, DOD and State had specific processes to 

monitor efforts to combat TIP. On other contracts, however, neither DOD, 

nor State, nor USAID had such specific processes and focused their 

monitoring on contractor-provided goods and services. In addition, some 

agency contracting officials indicated that they were unaware of their 

monitoring responsibilities to combat TIP.

Agencies’ Monitoring 

of Contractor Labor 

Practices in Our 

Sample Varied, but 

Contractors’ Labor 

Practices Reflect 

Efforts to Combat TIP

Agencies Monitored 

Contractor Labor Practices 

on Some Contracts in Our 

Sample but Not on Others
Page 21 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

Federal acquisition regulations and agency guidance provide instructions 

for agencies to monitor contractor labor practices. The FAR requires that 

agencies conduct contract quality assurance activities as necessary to 

determine that supplies or services conform to contract requirements, 

which would include requirements related to efforts to combat TIP.38 In 

addition, DOD guidance states that quality assurance surveillance plans 

should describe how the government will monitor a contractor’s 

performance regarding trafficking in persons.39 State’s guidance requires 

contracting officials to document a monitoring plan to combat TIP, obtain 

information on employer-furnished housing and periodically visit to ensure 

adequacy, and verify that the contractor does not hold employee 

passports or visas. Finally, USAID guidance requires contracting officials 

to monitor all awards to ensure compliance with TIP requirements. 

Specifically, the guidance states that officials should conduct appropriate 

site visits and employee interviews to verify that the contractor does not 

hold employee passports, among other things.

DOD and State have developed specific processes for monitoring 

contractor labor practices, including efforts to combat TIP, for some 

contracts in our sample. Specifically, DOD developed a process for 

monitoring efforts to combat TIP for five of the seven DOD contracts 

included in our sample, all of which were awarded by the Army 

Contracting Command, and State had a TIP-specific process for two of 

the three State contracts in our sample. On the other four contracts in our 

sample, DOD, State, and USAID did not monitor specifically for TIP 

because of a focus on contractor provided goods and services, as 

discussed in the next section.

For DOD, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA)40

administered four contracts in Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Qatar and used a 

checklist to help it conduct systematic audits of contractor compliance 

with certain requirements related to labor practices and efforts to combat 

 38FAR § 46.401.

39DOD, Department of Defense Procedures, Guidance, and Information § 222.1703(4).

40DCMA is responsible for providing contract administration services for DOD buying 

activities, working directly with defense contractors to help ensure that goods and services 

are delivered on time, at projected cost, and that they meet performance requirements. In 

addition, as a designated combat support agency, DCMA is tasked with providing contract 

administration and support to combatant commanders during contingency operations.

Federal Acquisition 

Regulations and Agency 

Guidance Include Instructions 

on Monitoring Contractor Labor 

Practices

DOD and State Have 

Developed Specific Processes 

for Monitoring Contractor Labor 

Practices on Some Contracts
Page 22 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

TIP.41 (See app. V for a sample checklist used by DCMA in Afghanistan.) 

DCMA’s checklist included questions about foreign worker housing, 

employment contracts, and policies and procedures for reporting potential 

TIP abuses. DCMA also interviewed a sample of foreign workers to 

further validate contractor compliance with requirements related to 

combating TIP. For example, in Kuwait, DCMA inspectors asked workers 

about wages, hours, overtime, identity documents, and return travel. The 

inspectors asked workers how the contractor paid their wages, if the 

contractor held their passports, and if the contractor paid for their return 

travel. DCMA documented contractor noncompliance with contract 

requirements related to labor practices and efforts to combat TIP through 

corrective action requests.42 DCMA issued such requests related to 

contractor labor practices—including housing, wage, and TIP issues—on 

three out of the four contracts it was responsible for administering in our 

sample. According to agency officials, none of these requests was issued 

in response to a serious or unacceptable contract violation. For example, 

on a facilities support contract in Afghanistan, the contractor was issued a 

corrective action request in January 2012 for not providing foreign 

workers an employment contract in their native language. This request 

was closed in December 2012 after the contractor provided DCMA a 

corrective action plan.

DCMA officials stated that it is transitioning its contract administration 

responsibilities, including its process for monitoring efforts to combat TIP 

in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the military services. In 2009, DOD directed 

selected contract administration service tasks to be transferred from 

DCMA to the military services. Although DCMA continued to administer 

selected contracts until after the beginning of fiscal year 2014, DCMA 

officials said that it is currently developing a plan to transition contract 

administration responsibilities to the military services, including the 

Army’s contracts in Kuwait, Qatar, and Afghanistan.

 41DCMA also administered a DOD contract in Bahrain, but did not use the same checklist 

to help it conduct these audits. However, DCMA did not report any concerns related to 

contractor compliance with certain requirements related to labor practices and efforts to 

combat TIP. 

42DCMA used corrective action requests to document contractual non-compliance issues 

ranging from minor to unacceptable. These requests are intended to bring deficiencies to 

the contractor’s attention for appropriate action.
Page 23 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

State monitored contract requirements related to labor practices and 

efforts to combat TIP for two contracts in our sample in Iraq. For a 

security contract, State used an inspection checklist to help it monitor 

contractor compliance with these requirements. This checklist included 

verification of wages and access to identity documents, as well as other 

labor practices. State officials responsible for monitoring this contract 

conducted monthly foreign worker housing inspections and verified that 

workers (1) willingly accepted their living and working conditions, (2) were 

paid in accordance with the terms of their employment contracts, (3) had 

access to their passports, (4) had access to their employment contracts 

and fully understood them, and (5) were free to end their employment 

contracts at any time, acknowledging that certain penalties may apply. On 

another services contract, State’s Contract Management Office—a 

regional office established in August 2013 to improve management and 

oversight of contract performance of major contracts in Iraq—used incountry interviews of foreign workers to monitor contractor labor 

practices, including access to identify documents and return travel.

For 4 of the 11 contracts in our sample, agency officials stated that they 

did not specifically monitor contractor labor practices or efforts to combat 

TIP, as their monitoring processes were primarily focused on contractorprovided goods and services. First, on a construction contract in Qatar, 

DOD officials reported that they focused their monitoring on areas such 

as building design and quality of materials and that they did not 

specifically monitor for potential TIP abuses. As a result, according to an 

agency official, they have no ability to monitor the treatment of foreign 

workers once they step off the work site and thus might not be able to 

detect potential abuses. Second, on a DOD food services contract in 

Kuwait, agency officials said that they did not specifically monitor 

recruitment practices or have an audit program or checklist designed to 

combat TIP. Third, on a State security contract in Qatar, an official 

responsible for contract monitoring reported that monitoring efforts were 

focused on technical issues such as personnel qualifications and 

performance of duties, not on contractor labor practices or efforts to 

combat TIP. Finally, on a USAID construction contract in Afghanistan, an 

agency official stated that the agency monitored only for quality 

assurance and technical specifications and did not monitor specifically for 

TIP abuses. In addition, the contractor on this contract said it did not 

monitor subcontractors’ labor practices. Agency officials reported that 

they had not documented any concerns regarding recruitment or labor 

practices on any of these 4 contracts. However, without efforts to 

specifically monitor labor practices or efforts to combat TIP, agencies’

ability to detect such concerns is limited, and they cannot ensure that 

On Some Contracts, Agencies’

Monitoring Efforts Were 

Limited to Contractor-Provided 

Goods and Services
Page 24 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

foreign workers are being treated in accordance with the U.S. 

government’s zero tolerance policy regarding trafficking in persons.

Some DOD and State contracting officials were unaware of relevant 

acquisitions policy and guidance for combating TIP and did not clearly 

understand their monitoring responsibilities. For example, DOD officials 

responsible for monitoring a construction contract in Qatar expressed 

uncertainty about their authorities for combating TIP. As a result, these 

officials indicated that they conducted little monitoring of labor practices or 

other efforts to combat potential TIP abuses. Furthermore, a State official 

in Qatar responsible for contract monitoring stated that he had only 

recently become aware of State’s 2012 acquisition guidance on 

combating TIP and his monitoring activities did not specifically include 

efforts to combat TIP. In addition, a State official in Afghanistan with 

monitoring responsibilities for a services contract said that he was not 

aware of State’s current guidance on combating TIP in contracts. This 

official noted that some State officials responsible for contract monitoring 

may need refresher training because their initial training occurred prior to 

the issuance of this guidance. Finally, State’s Inspector General found, in 

a recent inspection of the U.S. embassy in Afghanistan, that embassy 

officials involved in contract administration were unaware of their 

responsibilities for monitoring grants and contracts for TIP violations.43

Agencies have developed training to help contracting officials become 

more aware of their monitoring responsibilities. DOD has developed new 

training for contracting officials that, according to a senior official, will help 

ensure that these officials are knowledgeable, qualified, and authorized to 

complete their TIP monitoring responsibilities. In October 2014, DOD 

made this training mandatory for all DOD personnel with job 

responsibilities that require daily contact with DOD contractors, foreign 

national personnel, or both.44 State officials noted that required training 

for officials responsible for contract monitoring includes a module on 

combating TIP, and State recently conducted a series of web-based 

 43United States Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors Office of 

the Inspector General, Inspection of Embassy Kabul, Afghanistan, ISP-I-14-22A 

(Arlington, Va.: August 2014). 

44We reviewed a draft of this training and found that it contained information on FAR 

requirements and DOD policy and guidance, as well as information on how to monitor 

contractor labor practices and efforts to combat TIP.

Some Contracting Officials 

Were Unaware of Their 

Monitoring Responsibilities to 

Combat TIP
Page 25 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

seminars for acquisition personnel on how to monitor contracts for TIP 

abuses.

The FAR and agency policy and guidance recognize that contractors 

should follow various labor practices. For example, for certain contracts, 

State requires the inclusion of a clause that prohibits contractors from 

denying employees access to their passports, which helps to ensure that 

workers have freedom of movement. In addition, both DOD and State 

generally require the inclusion of clauses in certain contracts that speak 

to a minimum of 50 square feet of space per employee in contractorprovided housing. Contractors in our sample reported to us that their 

practices related to wages and hours, housing, access to identity 

documents, and the provision of return travel reflected efforts to combat 

TIP. Appendix IV provides more detailed information about requirements 

in the FAR and agency policy and guidance related to these practices.

In general, the FAR and DOD’s FAR supplement require the inclusion of 

clauses in certain contracts that require contractors to comply with the 

labor laws of the host country, which, according to officials, govern 

practices related to wages, hours, leave, and overtime for the contracts in 

our sample. State and USAID guidance directs contracting officials to 

discuss the observance of local labor laws with contractors after awarding 

the contract.

According to agency and contractor officials, local labor laws in Kuwait, 

Qatar, Bahrain, and Iraq governed wages, hours, leave, and overtime for 

foreign workers on U.S. government contracts in these countries.45 All 

eight of the contractors in our sample operating in Gulf countries or Iraq 

reported that their practices for foreign workers’ hours, wages, leave, and 

overtime were generally established in accordance with the labor laws of 

 45Currently, for DOD contracts in Afghanistan, where contractors are performing work only 

on U.S. military installations, contractors reported that Afghan labor laws do not apply to 

their foreign workers. One contractor stated that the Afghan labor laws do not apply 

because these workers fly directly into U.S. military installations and do not leave these 

facilities for the duration of their employment contract, other than for periods of leave 

where they can transit directly from the military base to an international airport and back 

again. Another contractor stated that DOD contractor employees are protected by a 

variety of U.S. laws and contract provisions, and consequently, the government of 

Afghanistan has not expressed concern about the working conditions for foreign workers 

that fly directly into and out of U.S. military installations.

Contractors Reported to 

Us that Their Labor 

Practices Reflect Efforts to 

Combat TIP

Contractors Reported that 

Practices Related to Wages, 

Hours, Leave and Overtime 

Generally Complied with Host 

Country Labor Laws
Page 26 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

the country in which they were performing their U.S. contract. According 

to agency officials and contractors, foreign workers employed on six 

contracts in our sample in these countries worked 8 to12 hours per day 

and 6 days per week. On the contracts for which overtime was permitted, 

contractors reported that workers often earned overtime wage rates of 

125 to 150 percent of their base pay for any hours worked in excess of 

their regularly scheduled shifts. Furthermore, employers generally 

provided these workers with 1 day off per week and 3 to 4 weeks of leave 

per year.

Both DOD and State generally require the inclusion of clauses in certain 

contracts that speak to a minimum of 50 square feet of space per 

employee in contractor-provided housing. Contractors in our sample 

reported to us that housing practices for contracts in our sample generally 

fell into the following categories, which reflect efforts to combat TIP:

• Foreign workers were provided housing by the U.S. government on 

U.S. installations. All of the DOD and State contractors in our sample 

that were operating in Iraq or Afghanistan reported that their foreign 

workers lived on-site at U.S. installations in U.S. government-provided 

housing.

• Foreign workers lived in contractor-provided housing facilities that 

included at least 50 square feet of living space per person, according 

to the contractors. For example, on a DOD services contract in Qatar, 

the contractor reported that its subcontractors provided housing for 

foreign workers. See figure 2 for examples of subcontractor-provided 

housing on this contract.

• Foreign workers were provided a housing stipend by the contractor, 

which workers used to secure their own housing. For instance, on the 

same DOD services contract in Qatar, the contractor reported that 

foreign workers who did not live in subcontractor-provided housing 

were given a housing stipend by the subcontractor and found their 

own housing. According to a DOD official associated with this 

contract, foreign workers who had families living in Qatar often choose 

to take the stipend to find housing that would accommodate their 

families.

• Foreign workers received no housing support from the contractor and 

had to secure and pay for their housing themselves. For example, on 

a DOD services contract in Bahrain, most foreign workers secured 

their own housing at their own expense, according to the contractor.

Contractors Reported that 

Housing Practices Reflect 

Efforts to Combat TIP
Page 27 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

Figure 2: Examples of Subcontractor-Provided Housing for Foreign Workers on a Base Operations Support Services Contract 

in Qatar
Page 28 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

DOD and State require the inclusion of clauses in certain contracts that 

require contractors to provide workers with access to their identity 

documents. DOD’s contract clause generally allows contractors to hold 

employee passports only for the shortest time reasonable for 

administrative processing, and State’s contract clause prohibits 

contractors from destroying, concealing, confiscating, or otherwise 

denying employees’ access to identity documents or passports.

Contractors reported that foreign workers on the 11 contracts in our 

sample generally had access to their identity documents, such as 

passports. In general, workers either maintained personal possession of 

their documents or were guaranteed access to documents that they 

voluntarily submitted to the contractor for safekeeping. For the majority of 

contracts in our sample, the contractor reported that workers maintain 

possession of their identity documents and therefore had access to them. 

A DOD services contractor in Kuwait, for instance, reported that all of its 

foreign workers kept possession of their identity documents, including 

passports, work permits, driver’s licenses, and insurance cards. For other 

contracts in our sample, contractors offered foreign workers the option to 

voluntarily submit their identity documents to the contractor for 

safekeeping and gave them access to their documents upon request. For 

example, on a DOD services contract in Bahrain, the contractor reported 

that it would hold foreign workers’ identity documents for safekeeping if 

requested, but required them to sign a waiver that stated they had 

voluntarily submitted the documents.

Contractors included in our sample did not report any instances of 

withholding or restricting employees’ access to identity documents; 

however, agency officials at two State posts we visited said that some 

contractors performing smaller-scale contracts for the U.S. government 

restricted access to identity documents. According to State’s 2014 

Trafficking in Persons Report, withholding employees’ passports is a 

common practice in these countries. State officials in Kuwait, for instance, 

said that a Kuwaiti company providing janitorial services for the embassy 

was found to have withheld employee passports against the employees’

will. These officials said that they removed the employees’ supervisor 

from the contract when they learned of these allegations. State officials 

we spoke to in Jordan reported similar allegations of passport withholding 

Contractors Reported that 

Foreign Workers Had Access 

to Identity Documents
Page 29 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

against the embassy’s janitorial services contractor.46 These officials 

reported that they took corrective action against the contractor that 

partially addressed this concern.

Under certain circumstances, DOD policy and State guidance require the 

inclusion of contract clauses in certain contracts that require contractors 

to provide workers with return travel upon completion of their employment 

contract. Certain DOD contracts in Afghanistan are to include a clause 

generally requiring contractors to return their employees to their point of 

origin or home country within 30 days after the end of the contract’s 

period of performance.47 State’s contract clause notes that contractors are 

generally responsible for repatriation of workers imported for contract 

performance.

Contractors reported that they provide transportation to foreign workers to 

their home countries at the conclusion of their employment on all 11 

contracts in our sample. For example, on a USAID construction contract 

in Afghanistan, the contractor provided return travel for all of the foreign 

workers on its contract by purchasing one-way plane tickets for the 

workers back to their home countries. In Bahrain, a DOD services 

contractor provided each foreign worker with a range of return travel 

options, including transportation to their home country, to a new 

employment location, or to any other desired location, or allowed them to 

stay in Bahrain and seek new employment arrangements.

On 6 of the contracts in our sample, officials stated that foreign worker 

repatriation was explicitly addressed in the terms of the contract. For 

example, State officials reported that a security contract in Iraq required 

the contractor to provide return travel for its foreign workers and that this 

requirement was discussed with the contractor at the end of the 

contract.48 On 5 of these 6 contracts, officials reported that the contract 

also included provisions for repatriation expenses incurred by the 

 46Although none of the contracts in our sample employed foreign workers in Jordan, we 

conducted preliminary fieldwork there where we discussed embassy contracts with State 

officials.

47DOD, Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, DOD Class Deviation 

2013-O0017, Contractor Demobilization (Aug. 30, 2013).

48In 2010, DOD reported that it had discovered that some foreign workers on DOD 

contracts had been left in Iraq by their previous employers.

Contractors Reported that 

They Provided Foreign 

Workers with Return Travel
Page 30 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

contractor to be reimbursable by the U.S. government. For instance, 

State officials associated with a services contract in Iraq explained that 

State reimbursed the contractor for repatriation expenses because Iraqi 

law required all foreign workers to leave the country immediately following 

the conclusion of their employment, and State wanted to ensure that 

these workers returned to their home countries.

Human trafficking victimizes hundreds of thousands of men, women, and 

children worldwide, including workers who move from their home 

countries to seek employment overseas and improve their own and their 

families’ well-being. The United States conducts diplomatic, defense, and 

development activities throughout the world, including in countries with 

restrictive labor practices and poor records related to trafficking in 

persons. The United States has an obligation to prevent entities working 

on its behalf from engaging in trafficking in persons, and when it uses 

contractors to support its activities in such countries, it bears an even 

greater responsibility to protect workers given the increased risk of abuse. 

Accordingly, it has taken several steps to eliminate trafficking in persons 

from government contracts and strengthened these efforts in 2007 with 

amendments to a contract clause required on all contracts that prohibits 

contractors from engaging in a variety of trafficking-related activities. 

Recognizing the need for further guidance on how to implement these 

regulations, agencies developed their own guidance and policy to 

augment worker protections and to clarify agency and contractor 

responsibilities.

The President and Congress both signaled the need for further clarity in 

reducing the risk of TIP on government contracts by directing 

amendments to existing regulations in 2012. While improving the 

government’s ability to oversee its contractors’ labor practices is a step in 

the right direction, ambiguity regarding the components and amounts of 

permissible fees related to recruitment can limit the effectiveness of these 

efforts. Many contractors acknowledge that their employees may have 

been charged a fee for their jobs, a common practice in many countries, 

but they do not know if these fees are acceptable, given the existing 

guidance and policy. Some fees may appear reasonable, but others could 

be exploitative or lead to debt bondage and other conditions that 

contribute to trafficking. Without a more precise definition of what 

constitutes a recruitment fee, agencies are hindered in effectively 

determining which fees are allowed, and therefore developing effective 

practices in this area.

Conclusions
Page 31 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

Some agencies have established systematic processes for monitoring 

efforts to combat TIP on some contracts but do not monitor other 

contracts for TIP, focusing rather on contractor-provided goods and 

services. The lack of monitoring could inhibit agencies’ ability to detect 

potential abuses of foreign workers and reflects the limited utility of 

existing guidance on monitoring. Further, without consistent monitoring of 

contractors’ labor practices, the U.S. government is unable to send a 

clear signal to contractors, subcontractors, and foreign workers that the 

U.S. government will follow through forcefully on its zero tolerance human 

trafficking policy.

To help ensure agencies can more fully implement their monitoring policy 

and guidance related to recruitment of foreign workers, the Secretaries of 

Defense and State and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for 

International Development should each develop, as part of their agency 

policy and guidance, a more precise definition of recruitment fees, 

including permissible components and amounts.

To help improve agencies’ abilities to detect potential TIP abuses and 

implement the U.S. government’s zero tolerance policy, the Secretaries of 

Defense and State and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for 

International Development should each take actions to better ensure that 

contracting officials specifically include TIP in monitoring plans and 

processes, especially in areas where the risk of trafficking is high. Such 

actions could include developing a process for auditing efforts to combat 

TIP or ensuring that officials responsible for contract monitoring are 

aware of all relevant acquisition policy and guidance on combating TIP.

We provided a draft of this product to DOD, State, and USAID for 

comment. These agencies provided written comments, which are 

reproduced in appendices VI through VIII.

Regarding our recommendation for agencies to develop a more precise 

definition of recruitment fees as part of their policy and guidance, DOD 

concurred, while State and USAID neither agreed nor disagreed. DOD 

indicated that it would define recruitment fees during the next review of its 

policy related to combating TIP and incorporate this requirement in 

agency acquisition regulations as necessary. Such actions, if 

implemented effectively, should address the intent of our 

recommendation to DOD. State commented that it prohibits charging any 

recruitment fees to foreign workers, and both State and USAID noted that 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 32 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

the proposed FAR rule on combating TIP would prohibit charging 

employees any recruitment fees. However, even if the final FAR rule 

prohibits all recruitment fees, it remains unclear whether the term 

“recruitment fees” includes components such as air tickets, lodging, 

passport and visa fees, and other fees that recruited individuals may be 

charged before being hired. Contracting officers and agency officials with 

monitoring responsibilities currently rely on policy and guidance that do 

not define recruitment fees, resulting in ambiguity over what constitutes 

such a fee. Without an explicit definition of what components constitute 

recruitment fees, prohibited fees may be renamed and passed on to 

foreign workers, increasing the risk of debt bondage and other conditions 

that contribute to trafficking. State also commented that, to ensure 

consistent treatment of recruitment fees across government, we should 

recommend that the Office of Management and Budget draft a FAR 

definition of recruitment fees. However, we believe that each agency 

should have the flexibility to determine, within its implementing 

regulations or policy, which components it considers to be included in the 

term “recruitment fees” to address each agency’s contracting practices. 

Thus we continue to believe our recommendation is valid and should be 

fully implemented by State and USAID.

DOD and State concurred with our recommendation to better ensure that 

contracting officials specifically include TIP in monitoring plans and 

processes in areas where the risk of trafficking is high. DOD said that it 

would update its FAR supplement following the publication of the final 

FAR rule on combating TIP to improve the government’s oversight of 

contractor compliance with TIP. State noted that it would add a 

requirement to the process that contracting officer’s representatives use 

to certify that they are familiar with requirements for TIP monitoring and 

include verification of TIP monitoring in reviews of contracting operations. 

USAID stated that all USAID staff would be required to take training in 

TIP, which will be released by the end of 2014. Further, USAID said that it 

will develop training for contracting officer’s representatives on how to 

include combating TIP in monitoring plans, as well as training for 

contracting officers to verify that efforts to combat TIP have been 

appropriately included in the monitoring plans. These actions, if fully 

implemented, may address the intent of our recommendation, but we 

continue to believe that DOD, State, and USAID should ensure that 

contracting officials specifically include TIP in monitoring plans and 

processes, especially in areas where the risk of trafficking is high.

In addition, USAID stated that it would be useful to obtain further 

guidance to help it and other agencies consistently determine what areas 
Page 33 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

are considered high risk for TIP. One useful source of guidance is State’s 

annual Trafficking in Persons Report, which places countries into tiers 

based on the extent of their governments’ efforts to comply with the 

TVPA’s minimum standards for the elimination of human trafficking. In 

addition, in its written comments, State noted that it is developing a tool 

for procurement and contracting officers and federal contractors to assess 

the risk of TIP, expected to be completed in spring 2015.

We also received technical comments from DOD and State, which we 

incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of the Department of Defense, the Secretary of 

the Department of State, the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for 

International Development, and other interested parties. In addition, the 

report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

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

me at (202) 512-9601 or melitot@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 IX.

Thomas Melito, Director

International Affairs and Trade
Page 34 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

List of Committees

The Honorable Tom Harkin

Chairman

The Honorable Lamar Alexander

Ranking Member

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

United States Senate

The Honorable Patrick Leahy

Chairman

The Honorable Chuck Grassley

Ranking Member

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

The Honorable John Kline

Chairman

The Honorable George Miller

Ranking Member

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte

Chairman

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.

Ranking Member

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

This report responds to a requirement included in the Violence Against 

Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 for GAO to report on the use of 

foreign workers both overseas and domestically, including those 

employed on U.S. government contracts.1 Our objectives were to 

examine (1) policies and guidance governing the recruitment of foreign 

workers and the fees these workers may pay to secure work on U.S. 

government contracts overseas and (2) agencies’ monitoring of contractor 

efforts to combat TIP.

This report focuses on Department of Defense (DOD), Department of 

State (State), and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) 

contracts with performance in countries with large percentages of 

migrants as compared with local nationals,2 and in Afghanistan and Iraq, 

where U.S. government contractors employ significant numbers of foreign 

workers. We selected a nongeneralizable sample of 11 contracts based 

on the contracts’ place of performance, value, type of service provided, 

and the number of foreign workers employed. Specifically, we obtained a 

list of all contracts in the Federal Procurement Data System based on the 

following criteria:

• The contract was awarded by DOD, State, or USAID.

• The contract’s completion date was on or after October 1, 2013.

• The contract’s place of performance was in a country with a large 

portion of migrants, according to data from the United Nations, or was 

in Afghanistan or Iraq.

• The contract’s product or service code indicated that the contract was 

for services, construction, or security—areas that were likely to 

include low-wage, low-skilled labor, because these types of jobs may 

be associated with a higher risk of TIP.

We narrowed this list to reflect a range of agencies, countries, and 

services. We compared this list with data provided by DOD, State, and 

USAID through the Synchronized Pre-deployment and Operational 

Tracker (SPOT) database at the end of fiscal year 2013 to identify 

contracts that employed large numbers of foreign workers. On the basis 

of this comparison, we selected 11 contracts that represent nearly onethird of all reported foreign workers employed on contracts awarded by 

 1

Pub. L. No. 113-4, § 1235.

2

We used data on migrants as a proxy for the number of foreign workers, as data on 

foreign workers were unavailable. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 36 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

these three agencies as reported in SPOT. Our previous work has 

described several data limitations related to SPOT,3 but we determined 

that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of identifying 

and selecting contracts employing large numbers of foreign workers for 

in-depth review. Table 4 provides basic information on the selected 

contracts.

 3

In 2011, we reported that it is unclear when SPOT will serve as a reliable source of data 

to meet statutory requirements and be used by agencies for management, oversight, and 

coordination of contracts (GAO, Iraq and Afghanistan: DOD, State, and USAID Cannot 

Fully Account for Contracts, Assistance Instruments, and Associated Personnel, 

GAO-11-886 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2011)). In 2012, we reported that the agencies 

had made improvements to their contractor personnel data and related systems that could 

result in more reliable data, but data comparability across years and agencies was limited 

(GAO, Iraq and Afghanistan: Agencies Are Taking Steps to Improve Data on Contracting 

but Need to Standardize Reporting, GAO-12-977R (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2012)).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 37 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

Table 4: GAO Sample of U.S. Government Contracts Employing Foreign Workers Overseas

Contract name

Contracting 

agency

Place of 

performance

Services 

provided

Total obligations 

as of fiscal year 

2014 (Dollars in 

millions)

Peak 

number of 

foreign 

workers

Logistics Civil Augmentation Program IV, Task 

Order 5 (Afghanistan)

DOD/Army Afghanistan Facilities 

support

$8,714 9,807

Field and Installation Readiness Support Team DOD/Army Afghanistan Facilities 

support

$1,417 3,658

Army Pre-positioned Stocks-5 DOD/Army Kuwait Facilities 

support

$1,022 2,570

Qatar - Base Operations Support Services DOD/Army Qatar Facilities 

support

$174 650

Logistics Civil Augmentation Program IV, Task 

Order 5 (Bahrain)

DOD/Army Bahrain Facilities 

support

$48 323

Coalition Compound Construction DOD/U.S. Army 

Corps of 

Engineers

Qatar Construction $45 391

Full Line Food and Beverage Support DOD/Defense 

Logistics Agency

Kuwait/Iraq/ 

Jordan

Food 

services

$1,092 1,889

Worldwide Protective Services-Baghdad State Iraq Security $608 1,410

Operations and Maintenance Support Services State Iraq Facilities 

support

$150 432

Embassy Doha Local Guard Force State Qatar Security $6 70 a

Kandahar-Helmand Power Project USAID Afghanistan Construction $227 41

Sources: Department of Defense (DOD), Department of State (State), and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Data on foreign workers provided by contractors. | GAO-15-102

a

Contract value at time of award.

To examine the recruitment of foreign workers and the fees they might 

pay to secure work on U.S. government contracts overseas, we 

conducted structured interviews with agency officials and contractors 

responsible for the contracts in our sample to identify, among other 

things, the relevant laws, regulations in the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR), agency acquisition policies, and agency acquisition 

guidance related to contractor recruitment practices. We reviewed these 

laws, regulations, policies, and guidance, as well as the Trafficking 

Victims Protection Act4 and Executive Order 136275

—Strengthening 

 4

Pub. L. No. 106-386, Div. A, 114 Stat. 1464, 1466-1491, as amended.

5

77 Fed. Reg. 60,029 (Oct. 12, 2012).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 38 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

Protections Against Trafficking in Persons in Federal Contracts—which 

include additional requirements related to the recruitment of workers on 

U.S. government contracts. We also obtained detailed information from 

contractors performing the contracts in our sample about their recruitment 

practices through structured interviews, and, in some cases, we 

interviewed subcontractors who recruited and employed foreign workers 

regarding their practices. In addition, we reviewed DOD and State 

Inspector General reports to identify instances where foreign workers 

have reported paying recruitment fees. We conducted site visits in 

Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Qatar to interview DOD, State, and USAID 

officials, including personnel responsible for contract monitoring, 

contractors, subcontractors, host government officials, and 

nongovernmental organizations about the recruitment of foreign workers 

in these countries. We chose these countries based on the range of U.S. 

government activities in these countries, the prevalence of foreign 

workers, and State’s assessment of the host government’s efforts to 

combat TIP as indicated by State’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report

tier placement. We also spoke with State and USAID officials in Jordan 

during preliminary fieldwork to inform our research design and 

methodology.6

On the contract employing the largest number of foreign workers in our 

sample, we obtained data from the contractor detailing cases of workers 

reporting that they had paid for their job. These data, collected from 

September 2012 through April 2014, included 2,534 reports of workers 

having paid for their jobs, and to whom, when, and where these reported 

payments were made. We analyzed these data to determine the number 

of unique individuals who had reported paying for their jobs. We then 

compared the data on who received these payments with a list of 

recruitment agencies provided by the subcontractor to determine if 

workers reported paying fees to recruitment agencies with which the 

subcontractor had agreements. We also obtained data from the 

contractor listing the monthly salaries in April 2014 of workers who had 

reported, in April 2014, having paid for their job at some point in the past. 

We then compared these data with the amount these workers reported 

having paid to determine the range and average number of months 

required for workers to earn the amount they reported having paid for 

 6

We did not interview foreign workers as part of this review, because doing so in a 

rigorous and systematic way would have been impractical and excessively labor-intensive.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

their job. We analyzed these data to calculate the mean, median, and 

mode of the reported fees for April 2014. We assessed the reliability of 

the survey data by interviewing knowledgeable officials, including the 

contractor and subcontractor, and analyzing the data for outliers and 

duplicate records. We found these data sufficiently reliable to show that 

workers reported having paid for their jobs and that these payments were 

made to several recruitment agencies that supplied workers for this 

contract; and to calculate the number of months’ reported salary required 

to pay for the reported fee.

To assess agencies’ monitoring of contractor labor practices affecting 

foreign workers, we obtained information through our structured 

interviews regarding housing, wages and hours, access to identity 

documents, and return travel for foreign workers on contracts in our 

sample. We selected these practices because they were mentioned 

explicitly in either or both an amendment to the Trafficking Victims 

Protection Act, contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2013,7 and Executive Order 13627—Strengthening 

Protections Against Trafficking in Persons in Federal Contracts—and 

were included in a list of potential indicators of trafficking in persons (TIP) 

by the International Labour Organization (ILO). We analyzed information 

from DOD and State officials regarding their monitoring processes for 

these practices, including monitoring checklists and audit procedures for 

combating TIP provided by the Defense Contract Management Agency. 

We conducted site visits to contractor-provided housing for foreign 

workers on 2 contracts in our sample during our fieldwork in Kuwait and 

Qatar. In these countries and in Afghanistan, we interviewed DOD and 

State officials; contractors; and, in some cases, subcontractors about 

labor practices related to foreign workers on the contracts in our sample. 

We also met with DOD and State officials responsible for monitoring 

contracts to discuss their efforts to monitor contracts in our sample for 

potential TIP abuses. We reviewed relevant laws, regulations in the FAR, 

agency acquisition policies, and agency acquisition guidance related to 

contractor labor practices and agencies’ responsibilities for monitoring 

these practices. We also reviewed training requirements for acquisition 

personnel related to monitoring for TIP abuses and discussed existing 

and planned training with DOD and State officials.

 7

Pub. L. No. 112-239, § 1702.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 40 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

We also reviewed relevant studies and reports on TIP and foreign 

workers, including reports by DOD’s and State’s Inspectors General, the 

United Nations, the International Labour Organization, and

nongovernmental organizations. We reviewed the methodologies used to 

conduct these studies and, for those that we used to corroborate our 

findings, we determined that they were sufficiently reliable for that 

purpose.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2013 to November 2014 

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.
Appendix II: International Definitions and 

Indicators of Trafficking in Persons

Page 41 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

In the United Nations’ Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish 

Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing 

the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime,

1

trafficking in persons is defined as the recruitment, transportation, 

transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of 

force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of 

the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or 

receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person 

having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.2

In addition, the ILO has developed a list of indicators of trafficking for 

labor exploitation.3 These indicators specify several indicators of 

deceptive or coercive recruitment, recruitment by abuse of vulnerability, 

exploitation, and coercion or abuse of vulnerability at the destination. For 

example, these indicators include

• deception about travel and recruitment conditions,

• confiscation of documents,

• debt bondage,

• excessive working days or hours, and

• no respect for labor laws or signed contracts.

 1

This agreement, also known as the Palermo Protocol, seeks to prevent and combat 

trafficking in persons, protect and assist victims of trafficking , and promote cooperation 

among Parties in order to meet these objectives. The protocol supplements the U.N. 

Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. It was opened for signature in 

Palermo, Italy, in December 2000. The United States became a party to this protocol in 

December 2005.

2

The term “exploitation” in the protocol is further defined to include, at a minimum, the 

exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor 

or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or removal of organs.

3

ILO, Operational Indicators of Trafficking in Human Beings (Geneva: March 2009, 

revised September 2009).

Appendix II: International Definitions and 

Indicators of Trafficking in Persons
Appendix III: Migrant Workers in Gulf 

Countries

Page 42 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

Migrants, such as foreign workers, from many countries seek employment 

in the Gulf region.1 In 2013, the top five source countries of international 

migrants to Gulf countries were India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Egypt, and 

the Philippines (see table 5). Growing labor forces in source countries 

provide an increasing supply of low-cost workers for employers in the Gulf 

and other host countries where, according to the International Labour

Organization (ILO), demand for foreign labor is high.

Table 5: Number of Migrants in Gulf Countries from Each of the Top Five Source Countries in 2013

Source country

Host country

Bahrain Kuwait Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia Total

United Arab 

Emirates

India 262,855 730,558 644,704 576,776 1,761,857 2,852,207 6,828,957

Bangladesh 100,444 279,169 148,314 220,403 1,309,004 1,089,917 3,147,251

Pakistan 87,892 244,281 117,208 192,860 1,319,607 953,708 2,915,556

Egypt 65,607 182,342 41,365 143,960 1,298,388 711,894 2,443,556

Philippines 43,971 122,214 21,669 96,487 1,028,802 477,139 1,790,282

Rest of the world 168,588 469,489 138,772 370,469 2,342,775 1,742,116 5,232,209

Total 729,357 2,028,053 1,112,032 1,600,955 9,060,433 7,826,981 22,357,811

Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Trends in International Migrant Stock: the 2013 revision. | GAO-15-102

Economic conditions and disparities in per capita income between source 

and host countries encourage foreign workers to leave their countries to 

seek employment. In 2012, average per capita income in the six Gulf 

countries was nearly 25 times higher than average income per capita in 

the top five source countries, and some differences between individual 

countries were even more dramatic, according to the World Bank. For 

example, in 2012, annual per capita income in Qatar was more than 

$58,000, nearly 100 times higher than in Bangladesh, where per capita 

income was almost $600. Foreign workers in Gulf countries send billions 

of dollars in remittances to their home countries annually. For example, in 

2012 the World Bank estimated that migrant workers from the top five 

source countries sent home almost $60 billion from the Gulf countries, 

 1

For the purposes of this report, we use the term “Gulf countries” to refer to the six 

member states of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, also known as 

the Gulf Cooperation Council. These states are Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi 

Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

Appendix III: Migrant Workers in Gulf 

Countries

Migrants from Source 

Countries in Asia and 

Africa Move to Gulf 

Countries for Economic 

Reasons
Appendix III: Migrant Workers in Gulf 

Countries

Page 43 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

including nearly $33 billion to India, nearly $10 billion to Egypt, and nearly 

$7 billion to Pakistan.2

Source countries regulate the recruitment of their nationals for overseas 

employment in a variety of ways. According to relevant regulatory

agencies in their countries, some source countries, such as India and the 

Philippines, have a licensing process for recruitment agencies and require 

potential overseas employers to use only licensed recruiters. According to 

these agencies, these countries also permit recruiters to charge 

prospective migrant workers a fee in specified circumstances but limit the 

amount of this fee. For example, according to the Indian Ministry of 

Overseas Indian Affairs, India’s Emigration Act and Rules detail 

requirements for the registration of recruiters, prohibit the use of 

subagents, prescribe the emigration clearance process, and permit 

registered recruiters to charge migrant workers fees up to 20,000 rupees, 

currently about $325, for their services. Similarly, according to the 

Philippines Overseas Employment Administration, the government of the 

Philippines facilitates the emigration of Filipino workers employed abroad 

and provides standards and oversight through licensing, required contract 

provisions, and placement fees. Filipino embassies in host countries also 

provide services for its citizens in those countries, such as assistance 

establishing bank accounts and wiring money home and information 

regarding worker rights in the host country, according to the Filipino Labor 

Attaché in Qatar. According to the Bangladeshi Ministry of Expatriates’

Welfare and Overseas Employment, the ministry was established in 2001 

to ensure the overall welfare of migrant workers and has established a 

process for licensing recruitment agents. Other countries, such as Egypt, 

do not regulate overseas recruitment, lacking a licensing process for 

recruiters and regulations on the amount of fees that these recruiters may 

charge, according to the Egyptian Ministry of Manpower and Emigration.

The ILO has reported that in Gulf countries, several common and 

restrictive labor practices stem from the Kafala sponsorship system of 

foreign workers.3 According to the ILO, the Kafala system is a 

 2

World Bank staff calculation based on data from the International Monetary Fund 

Balance of Payments Statistics database and data releases from central banks, national 

statistical agencies, and World Bank country desks.

3

ILO, Tricked and Trapped: Human Trafficking in the Middle East (Beirut: April 2013).

Source Country 

Regulation of Overseas 

Employment

Host Country Labor 

Practices
Appendix III: Migrant Workers in Gulf 

Countries

Page 44 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

sponsorship system whereby a foreign worker is employed in a Gulf 

country by a specific employer that controls the worker’s residency, 

immigration, and employment status. Under this system, employers meet 

their demand for labor either by direct recruitment or through the use of 

recruitment agents who find foreign workers. The system generally ties 

workers’ residency and immigration status to the employer, which can 

prevent workers from changing employers and limit their freedom of 

movement, according to the ILO. The ILO further stated that sponsors 

can also prohibit workers from leaving the country and have the right to 

terminate workers’ employment contracts and have residency permits 

canceled. According to State’s Qatar 2013 Human Rights Report, 

international media and human rights organizations alleged numerous 

abuses against foreign workers, including a sponsorship system that gave 

employers an inordinate level of control over foreign workers.4

In addition to the labor practices associated with the Kafala system, the 

withholding of workers’ passports is an additional restrictive labor practice 

common in many Gulf countries. For example, State reported that in 

Qatar, despite laws prohibiting the withholding of foreign workers’ identity 

documents, employers withheld the passports of a large portion of their 

foreign workers in that country. According to State’s most recent 

Trafficking in Persons Report, the withholding of foreign workers’

passports contributes to the potential for trafficking in persons (TIP). 

Furthermore, the ILO has reported that employers in Gulf countries may 

refuse to release workers or may charge high fees for release, withhold 

wages as security to prevent workers from running away, and withhold 

personal travel documents.5 The ILO also found that workers in these 

countries may be subjected to forced overtime, limited freedom of 

movement, degrading living and working conditions, and physical 

violence and threats. Overall, the ILO estimated that there were 600,000 

victims of forced labor in the Middle East at any given point in time 

between 2002 and 2011.6

 4

Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Country Reports 

on Human Rights Practices for 2013: Qatar (Washington, D.C.: 2013).

5

ILO, Tricked and Trapped.

6

ILO, Global Estimate of Forced Labour: Results and Methodology (Geneva: 2012).
Appendix IV: Federal Acquisition Regulations 

and Agency Policy and Guidance Related to 

Contractor Recruitment and Labor Practices

Page 45 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires all solicitations and

contracts to include Clause 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons 

(TIP). This clause includes a prohibition on contractors engaging in 

severe forms of TIP, which includes the recruitment, harboring, 

transportation, provision or obtaining of a person for labor or services, 

through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection 

to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery. However, 

the clause contains no further provisions related to recruitment or other 

labor practices discussed in this report. The Department of Defense 

(DOD), Department of State (State), and the U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID) have developed policy and guidance that provides 

more specificity on these practices, as outlined in table 6.1

 1

In September 2013, amendments to the FAR were proposed to implement the 

requirements of the 2013 amendments to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) 

and the executive order related to strengthening protections against TIP. 78 Fed. Reg. 

59,317 (Sept. 26, 2013).

Appendix IV: Federal Acquisition Regulations 

and Agency Policy and Guidance Related to 

Contractor Recruitment and Labor Practices
Appendix IV: Federal Acquisition Regulations 

and Agency Policy and Guidance Related to 

Contractor Recruitment and Labor Practices

Page 46 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

Table 6: Agency Policy and Guidance Related to Recruitment and Labor Practices on U.S. Government Contracts

DOD State USAID

Citation U.S. Central Command-Joint 

Theater Support Contracting 

Command (C-JTSCC) Acquisition 

Instruction

Procurement Information Bulletin No.

a

2012-10, 

Contractor Recruitment of Third-Country 

Nationals

Procurement Executive’s 

Bulletin No. 2012-07, Combating 

Trafficking in Persons

Related 

contract 

clause

U.S. Central Command 

(CENTCOM) contracts for services 

or construction that require 

performance in Afghanistan are to 

include C-JTSCC Clause 5152.222-

5900, Prohibition Against Human 

Trafficking, Inhumane Living 

Conditions, and Withholding of 

Employee Passports (August 2011).

All solicitations and contracts valued over 

$150,000 requiring nonprofessional labor 

where contract performance will require 

recruitment of third-country national labor 

specifically for contract performance must 

include contract clause “Recruitment of Third 

Country National for Performance on 

Department of State Contracts” (October 

2012).

Recruitment Contractors shall not utilize 

unlicensed recruiting firms or firms 

that charge illegal recruiting fees.

Requires offerors to submit a recruitment plan 

as part of the proposal. This plan should 

include, for example, the following elements:

State in the offer that the recruited employee 

will not be charged recruitment or any similar 

fees. The contractor or employer pays the 

recruitment fees for the worker if recruited by 

the contractor or subcontractor to work 

specifically on Department of State jobs.

b

State in the offer that the contractor’s 

recruitment practices comply with recruiting 

nation and host country labor laws.

c

Contractor and subcontractors shall only use 

bona fide licensed recruitment companies. 

Recruitment companies shall only use bona 

fide employees and not independent agents.

No specific provisions

Wages, 

hours, 

leave, and 

overtime

Contractors shall provide 

employees with a signed copy of 

their employment contract, in 

English and the employee’s native 

language, that defines the terms of 

their employment and 

compensation.

Contractors shall provide employees with 

signed copies of the/their employment 

contracts, in English and the employee’s native 

language, that define the terms of employment, 

compensation including, for example, salary, 

overtime rates, allowances, and salary 

increases.

Contracting officers to tell 

implementing partners that they 

should explain to employees 

when it must make deductions 

from wages.
Appendix IV: Federal Acquisition Regulations 

and Agency Policy and Guidance Related to 

Contractor Recruitment and Labor Practices

Page 47 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

DOD State USAID

Housing Contractors shall be required to 

provide adequate living conditions 

(sanitation, health, safety, living 

space) for their employees. Fifty 

square feet is the minimum 

acceptable square footage of 

personal living space per employee.

The offeror will submit a housing plan if the 

contractor intends to provide employer 

furnished housing for third country nationals. 

The housing plan must describe the location 

and description of the proposed housing. 

Contractors must state in their offer that 

housing meets host country housing and safety 

standards and local codes or explain any 

variance. Contractor shall comply with any 

temporary labor camp standards contained in 

this contract. In contracts without a temporary 

labor camp standard, 50 square feet is the 

minimum amount of space per person without 

a contracting officer waiver. Contractor shall 

submit proposed changes to their housing plan 

to the contracting officer for approval.

No specific provisions

Access to 

identity

documents

Contractors shall only hold 

employee passports and other 

identification documents for the 

shortest period of time reasonable 

for administrative processing 

purposes.

Contractor may not destroy, conceal, 

confiscate, or otherwise deny access to an 

employee’s identity documents or passports. 

Contractors and subcontractors are reminded 

of the prohibition contained in Title 18, United 

States Code, Section 1592, against knowingly 

destroying, concealing, removing, confiscating, 

or possessing any actual or purported passport 

or other immigration document to prevent or 

restrict the person’s liberty to move or travel in 

order to maintain the services of that person, 

when the person is or has been a victim of a 

severe form of trafficking in persons. 

Contractor must be familiar with any local labor 

law restrictions on withholding employee 

identification documentation.

Contracting officers must tell the 

contractor that it must not 

withhold employee passports or 

visas without employee 

permission.

Return 

travel

No specific provisions Contractor and subcontractors shall comply 

with sending and receiving nation laws 

regarding transit, entry, exit, visas, and work 

permits. Contractors are responsible for 

repatriation of workers imported for contract 

performance except an employee legally 

permitted to remain in the country of work and 

who chooses to do so; or an employee who is 

a victim of trafficking seeking victim services or 

legal redress in the country of employment or a 

witness in a trafficking-related enforcement 

action.

d No specific provisions

Source: GAO analysis of C-JTSCC Acquisition Instruction, State Procurement Information Bulletin 2012-10, and USAID Procurement Executive’s Bulletin 2012-07. | GAO-15-102

a

Certain non-CENTCOM contracts with performance in Afghanistan are also to include this clause. 

See, e.g., Contracting Officer’s Guide for Theater Business Clearance Afghanistan (Aug. 31, 2013).

b

Contractors submit recruitment and housing plans as appropriate. Contracts shall only be awarded to 

contractors submitting acceptable plans.

c

Once a contractor is chosen for award, and its offer is accepted by the government, the terms of the 

offer generally become binding.
Appendix IV: Federal Acquisition Regulations 

and Agency Policy and Guidance Related to 

Contractor Recruitment and Labor Practices

Page 48 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

d

Another Department of Defense (DOD) policy requires certain DOD contracts in Afghanistan to 

include a clause generally requiring contractors to return their employees to their point of origin or 

home country within 30 days after the end of the contract’s period of performance. DOD Class 

Deviation 2013-O0017, Contractor Demobilization (Aug. 30, 2013). 
Appendix V: Sample Defense Contract 

Management Agency Universal Examination 

Record for Combating Trafficking in Persons, 

May 2011

Page 49 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

Appendix V: Sample Defense Contract 

Management Agency Universal Examination 

Record for Combating Trafficking in Persons, May 

2011
Appendix V: Sample Defense Contract 

Management Agency Universal Examination 

Record for Combating Trafficking in Persons, 

May 2011

Page 50 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

Source: Defense Contract Management Agency, Afghanistan. | GAO-15-102
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 51 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of Defense
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 52 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 53 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of State
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 54 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

See comment 2.

See comment 1.
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 55 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 56 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of State letter dated October 

31, 2014.

1. State said that we should direct our recommendation to develop a more precise 

definition of recruitment fees to the Office of Management and Budget. We 

believe that each agency should have the flexibility to determine, within its 

implementing regulations, which items it considers to be included in the term 

“recruitment fees” to address each agency’s contracting practices.

2. State noted that the new regulations that will amend the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation will prohibit charging employees recruitment fees. As our report 

notes, even if the final FAR rule prohibits all recruitment fees, it remains unclear 

whether the term “recruitment fees” includes items such as air tickets, lodging, 

passport and visa fees, and other fees that recruited individuals may be charged 

before being hired. Contracting officers and agency officials with monitoring 

responsibilities currently rely on policy and guidance regarding recruitment fees 

that are ambiguous. Without an explicit definition of the components of 

recruitment fees, prohibited fees may be renamed and passed on to foreign 

workers, increasing the risk of debt bondage and other conditions that contribute 

to trafficking.

GAO Comments
Appendix VIII: Comments from the U.S. 

Agency for International Development

Page 57 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

Appendix VIII: Comments from the U.S. 

Agency for International Development
Appendix VIII: Comments from the U.S. 

Agency for International Development

Page 58 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

See comment 2.

See comment 1.
Appendix VIII: Comments from the U.S. Agency for 

International Development

Page 59 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

The following are GAO’s comments on the U.S. Agency for International 

Development letter dated November 5, 2014.

1. USAID stated that the final draft Federal Acquisition Regulation rule contained 

language that would prohibit charging contractor employees any recruitment fees 

and therefore USAID did not see any need to establish any policy or guidance 

that provides a "more precise definition of recruitment fees, including permissible 

components and amounts." As our report notes, even if the final FAR rule 

prohibits all recruitment fees, it remains unclear whether the term “recruitment 

fees” includes items such as air tickets, lodging, passport and visa fees, and 

other fees that recruited individuals may be charged before being hired. 

Contracting officers and agency officials with monitoring responsibilities currently 

rely on policy and guidance regarding recruitment fees that are ambiguous. 

Without an explicit definition of the components of recruitment fees, prohibited 

fees may be renamed and passed on to foreign workers, increasing the risk of 

debt bondage and other conditions that contribute to trafficking.

2. USAID said that it would be useful to obtain further guidance on the 

recommendation to take actions to better ensure that contracting officials 

specifically include TIP in monitoring plans and processes in areas where the 

"risk of trafficking is high." One useful source of guidance is State’s annual 

Trafficking in Persons Report, which places countries into tiers based on the 

extent of their governments’ efforts to comply with the TVPA’s minimum 

standards for the elimination of human trafficking. In addition, in its written 

comments, State noted that it is developing a tool for procurement and 

contracting officers and federal contractors to assess the risk of TIP, expected to 

be completed in the spring of 2015.

GAO Comments
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 60 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

Thomas Melito, (202) 512-9601

In addition to the individual named above, Leslie Holen, Assistant 

Director; J. Robert Ball; Gergana Danailova-Trainor; Brian Egger; Justine 

Lazaro; Jillian Schofield; and Gwyneth Woolwine made key contributions 

to this report. Lynn Cothern, Etana Finkler, Grace Lui, Walter Vance, 

Shana Wallace, and Alyssa Weir provided technical assistance.

Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 61 GAO-15-102 Human Trafficking

International Labor Grants: DOL’s Use of Financial and Performance 

Monitoring Tools Needs to Be Strengthened. GAO-14-832. Washington, 

D.C.: September 24, 2014.

International Labor Grants: Labor Should Improve Management of Key 

Award Documentation. GAO-14-493. Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2014.

Human Rights: U.S. Government’s Efforts to Address Alleged Abuse of 

Household Workers by Foreign Diplomats with Immunity Could Be 

Strengthened. GAO-08-892. Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2008.

Human Trafficking: Monitoring and Evaluation of International Projects 

Are Limited, but Experts Suggest Improvements. GAO-07-1034. 

Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2007.

Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to 

Enhance U.S. Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad. GAO-06-825. Washington, 

D.C.: July 18, 2006.

Related GAO Products

(320985)
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, 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.

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@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

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

Please Print on Recycled Paper.