INSPECTORS 

GENERAL

Improvements to IG 

Oversight Needed for 

Architect of the 

Capitol Operations

GAO-17-25

Report to the Ranking Member, 

Committee on Rules and Administration, 

U.S. Senate

November 2016

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-25, a report to the

Ranking Member, Committee on Rules and 

Administration, U.S. Senate

November 2016

INSPECTORS GENERAL

Improvements to IG Oversight Needed for

Architect of the Capitol Operations

What GAO Found

During fiscal years 2012 through 2015—the 4-year period GAO reviewed—the

Architect of the Capitol (AOC) Office of Inspector General (OIG) had

responsibilities for independent audits and investigations of AOC’s

• 10 jurisdictions with specific program responsibilities for the maintenance, 

operations, and preservation of the buildings and grounds across Capitol Hill; 

• Capitol Construction and Operations with central support offices; and

• construction and restoration projects, including its four largest ongoing “mega 

projects,” with an estimated combined cost of over $1 billion.

The AOC OIG’s audit planning during this period did not include either risk 

assessments or assigned priorities for conducting audits consistent with 

standards of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency 

(CIGIE). In addition, the OIG did not adopt these CIGIE standards in its policies 

and procedures. Instead, the current IG emphasized “continuous review” of 

mega projects, which he defined as an effort to alert AOC and the Congress of 

contract management issues as they occurred. This approach and the prior IG’s 

efforts did not result in any audit reports of AOC’s mega projects during fiscal 

years 2012 through 2015. The OIG also reported a decline in total audit reports 

and monetary accomplishments of potential dollar savings during fiscal years 

2014 and 2015 (see table). Further, the OIG provided only one audit report of an 

AOC jurisdiction program during the 4-year period. Because of incomplete plans, 

a limited number of audit reports, and the lack of audit reports of AOC’s mega 

projects, AOC and the Congress did not have the full benefit of OIG findings and 

recommendations and were not kept fully and currently informed of possible 

AOC problems and deficiencies during the 4-year period. 

In fiscal year 2014, the IG rescinded the OIG’s law enforcement authority and 

removed the OIG investigators’ responsibility to complete criminal investigations. 

Instead, the OIG’s investigators have responsibility for administrative 

investigations and rely primarily on the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) to perform 

criminal investigations, and on occasion other AOC program offices perform their 

own investigations. USCP and AOC program offices are not subject to CIGIE 

standards. The OIG is required to follow CIGIE standards for investigations. 

These OIG changes contributed in part to a decline in investigative reports and 

monetary accomplishments. The OIG has volunteered to receive a peer review 

of its investigations that could be expanded to include consideration of 

investigations by these other entities.

Reports of Audits and Investigations, Other Reports, and Monetary Accomplishments, Fiscal 

Years 2012 through 2015

Fiscal year Audit reports

Investigative 

reports Other reports

Total monetary 

accomplishments

2012 4 23 7 $1,032,485

2013 5 30 1 444,930

2014 3 12 7 242,610

2015 2 11 1 7,260

Total 14 76 16 $1,727,285

Source: GAO analysis of Architect of the Capitol Office of Inspector General-reported data. I GAO-17-25

View GAO-17-25. For more information, 

contact Beryl H. Davis at (202) 512-2623 or 

davisbh@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

The AOC OIG was established by 

statute in 2007, in part because of

congressional concerns about time 

delays and cost overruns during 

construction of the Capitol Visitor 

Center. GAO was asked to assess the 

AOC OIG’s oversight of AOC. This 

report describes AOC areas subject to 

OIG oversight and examines the extent 

to which the OIG developed plans and 

policies for AOC oversight for fiscal 

years 2012 through 2015 and the 

extent to which oversight was 

provided. GAO reviewed AOC’s annual 

performance and accountability 

reports, the OIG’s statutory 

requirements, the OIG’s policies and 

procedures, and applicable CIGIE 

standards. GAO also interviewed AOC 

OIG officials, analyzed the OIG’s plans 

and reports for the 4-year period, and 

compared these efforts with the AOC 

areas subject to oversight.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making two recommendations 

to the AOC OIG to (1) revise and 

implement policies and procedures to 

provide audit reports based on 

planning that includes risk assessment 

and assignment of priorities consistent 

with CIGIE standards and (2) obtain a 

peer review from another federal OIG 

of overall investigative operations, 

including consideration of the OIG’s 

reliance on investigations performed by 

other entities, and to make any needed 

changes based on the results of such 

review. In comments on a draft of this 

report, the AOC OIG agreed with the 

two recommendations but raised 

concerns with some of GAO’s findings. 

GAO continues to believe that its 

findings are valid, as discussed in the 

report.
Page i GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

Letter 1

Background 3

AOC Jurisdictions, Offices, and Major Contracts Subject to OIG 

Oversight 5

Statutory Requirements, Policies, and Resources Related to the 

AOC OIG’s Work 7

OIG’s Insufficient Audit Planning and Changes to Investigative 

Operations Limited OIG Oversight 12

Conclusions 22

Recommendations for Executive Action 23

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 24

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 28

Appendix II Architect of the Capitol Jurisdictions Subject to Office of Inspector 

General Oversight 31

Appendix III Architect of the Capitol Offices Subject to Office of Inspector General 

Oversight 33

Appendix IV Architect of the Capitol Mega Projects Subject to Office of Inspector 

General Oversight 35

Appendix V Comments from the Architect of the Capitol Office of 

Inspector General 37

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 44

Tables

Table 1: Architect of the Capitol Office of Inspector General 

Budget and Staff, Fiscal Years 2012 through 2015 11

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

Table 2: Architect of the Capitol (AOC) Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) Audit Reports Issued Fiscal Years 2012 through 

2015 15

Table 3: Office of Inspector General Audit Reports and Reports of 

Evaluations and Other Reports Issued and Related 

Reported Monetary Accomplishments, Fiscal Years 2012 

through 2015 16

Table 4: Decline in Architect of the Capitol Office of Inspector 

General Investigative Reports and Related Reported 

Monetary Accomplishments, Fiscal Years 2012 through 

2015 21

Table 5: Architect of the Capitol Jurisdictions and Program 

Responsibilities 31

Table 6: Architect of the Capitol’s Capitol Construction and 

Operations Offices and Functions 33

Table 7: Architect of the Capitol (AOC) Mega Projects and 

Descriptions 35

Figures

Figure 1: Architect of the Capitol Office of Inspector General 

Organization as of September 30, 2015 5

Figure 2: Architect of the Capitol Organization 6
Page iii GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

Abbreviations

AOC Architect of the Capitol

AOC IG Act AOC Inspector General Act of 2007

CIGIE Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and 

Efficiency

CVC Capitol Visitor Center

IG inspector general

IG Act Inspector General Act of 1978

OIG Office of Inspector General

OPM Office of Personnel Management

USCP U.S. Capitol Police

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-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 4, 2016

The Honorable Charles E. Schumer

Ranking Member

Committee on Rules and Administration

United States Senate

Dear Senator Schumer:

The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) is responsible for the maintenance, 

operation, and preservation of the buildings and grounds that make up 

the U.S. Capitol complex, including the Capitol Building, the House and 

Senate Office Buildings, the Library of Congress, the Supreme Court, and 

U.S. Botanic Garden, among other facilities. Overall, AOC programs are 

managed by 10 jurisdictions supported by its Capitol Construction and 

Operations, which is made up of nine central offices. All of the 

jurisdictions and offices report to the Architect.1 Contracting also plays a 

central role in helping AOC achieve its mission. The AOC Office of 

Inspector General (OIG) was established by the AOC Inspector General 

Act of 2007 (AOC IG Act) as an independent and objective office to 

conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to AOC;2 to 

provide leadership and coordination and to recommend policies to 

promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness; and to keep AOC and 

the Congress fully and currently informed about problems and 

deficiencies relating to the administration of programs and operations of 

AOC.3 The AOC OIG was established in part because of congressional 

concerns about time delays and cost overruns during the construction of 

the Capitol Visitor Center, which was opened to the public in 2008.

You requested that we review the role of the OIG given the history 

surrounding its creation and assess whether the OIG is performing at the 

level the Congress directed and anticipated in its oversight of AOC. This 

 1

The Architect of the Capitol is the title of both the agency and the AOC head. For 

purposes of this report, Architect is used to refer to the head of AOC.

2

Audits are independent, objective assessments of the stewardship, performance, or cost 

of an agency’s policies, programs, or operations. Investigations can involve allegations of 

criminal, civil, or administrative misconduct, and can result in criminal prosecutions, fines, 

civil monetary penalties, administrative sanctions, and personnel actions.

3

Pub. L. No. 110-161, div. H, title I, § 1301, 121 Stat. 1844, 2240 (Dec. 26, 2007), 

classified at 2 U.S.C. § 1808. 

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

report addresses (1) the AOC jurisdictions, offices, and major contracts 

subject to AOC OIG oversight during fiscal years 2012 through 2015; 

(2) the statutory requirements, policies, and budgetary and staffing 

resources of the AOC OIG during fiscal years 2012 through 2015; and 

(3) the extent to which the AOC OIG developed plans and policies for 

oversight of AOC’s jurisdictions, offices, and major contracts during fiscal 

years 2012 through 2015, and the extent to which oversight was 

provided.

To identify the jurisdictions, offices, and major contracts subject to OIG 

oversight, we obtained information from AOC’s performance and 

accountability reports for fiscal years 2012 through 2015. To determine 

the statutory requirements of the AOC OIG, we reviewed the AOC IG Act 

that established the office and relevant congressional reports. We 

identified the OIG’s written policies and procedures during the 4-year 

period through interviews with the Inspector General (IG) and his staff 

and reviewed them to obtain an understanding of the intended oversight. 

We obtained AOC OIG budget information for fiscal years 2012 through 

2015 from the OIG that had been verified by AOC budget officials for data 

reliability. We obtained AOC OIG staffing information for fiscal years 2012 

through 2015 from the OIG, and AOC budget staff verified data reliability. 

We determined that the data were reliable for the purposes of this report.

To examine the extent to which the AOC OIG developed plans and 

policies for oversight of AOC’s jurisdictions, offices, and major contracts, 

we reviewed the OIG’s strategic and annual audit plans for the 4-year 

period and compared them with the jurisdictions, offices, and major 

contracts subject to OIG oversight. We also compared the OIG’s audit 

plans with requirements for OIG planning contained in the Council of the 

Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency’s (CIGIE) Quality 

Standards for Federal Offices of Inspector General.

4 We examined the 

extent of the AOC OIG’s oversight coverage for fiscal years 2012 through 

2015 by reviewing the OIG’s semiannual reports, individual audit and 

investigative reports, and other oversight efforts that addressed AOC’s 

jurisdictions, offices, and major contracts. We also reviewed the OIG’s 

monetary accomplishments reported in semiannual reports for fiscal 

years 2012 through 2015 to determine any trends in the results of the 

 4

CIGIE, consisting mainly of IGs, was established by the IG Reform Act of 2008 to 

address integrity, economy, and effectiveness issues that transcend individual 

government agencies, and to increase the professionalism and effectiveness of personnel 

in the IG offices. Pub. L. No. 110-409, § 7, 122 Stat. 4302, 4305 (Oct. 14, 2008). 
Page 3 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

OIG’s oversight. In addition, we interviewed the IG and OIG staff to obtain 

an understanding of the oversight provided. We determined the reliability 

of the OIG’s semiannual report information and other OIG information by 

comparing it with the source reports issued by the OIG. The data were 

appropriate and reliable for meeting the report’s objectives. Additional 

details on our scope and methodology are discussed in appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from December 2014 to November

2016 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.

The Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) was the largest construction project on 

the Capitol Grounds in over 140 years. It was built to provide greater 

security for all persons working in or visiting the U.S. Capitol and an 

enhanced educational experience for visitors to learn about the Congress 

and the Capitol Building. The construction contract for structural and 

excavation work was awarded in June 2002. Subsequently, we reported 

on delays in the construction of the CVC and uncertainties in the 

estimated cost of the project until it opened in December 2008, at a total 

cost of $600 million, well above the original project budget of 

$265 million.5

The House report accompanying the fiscal year 2008 Legislative Branch 

Appropriations bill noted the long-standing and continuing lapses in AOC 

management practices, including the delays and escalating costs of the 

CVC; cost overruns and time delays on other projects; and with regard to 

the Capitol Power Plant utility tunnels, complete management breakdown, 

failure of appropriate oversight responsibilities, and total disregard for the 

human element.6 That Legislative Branch Appropriations bill included 

 5

For example, see GAO, Capitol Visitor Center: Current Status of Schedule and Estimated 

Cost, GAO-03-1014T (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2003); Capitol Visitor Center: Priority 

Attention Needed to Manage Schedules and Contracts, GAO-05-714T (Washington, D.C.: 

May 17, 2005); and Capitol Visitor Center: Schedule Delays Continue; Reassessment 

Underway, GAO-05-1037T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2005). As a result of these 

identified problems, we provided an update on the project’s schedule and cost almost 

monthly from mid-2005 through late 2007.

6

H.R. Rep. No. 110-198, at 17 (June 19, 2007).

Background
Page 4 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

language that would have created an OIG for AOC to provide an 

independent office within AOC, and the AOC IG Act establishing the OIG 

was enacted on December 26, 2007, as part of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008. The Senate report that 

accompanied this legislation called for a statutory inspector general for 

AOC to promote integrity and efficiency in AOC programs and to detect 

and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.7 The related House report directed 

that the new IG ensure that AOC is utilizing appropriate management 

practices and budgetary and accounting standards within the limitations 

of all laws applicable to AOC operations and auditing and reporting 

semiannually on management, operational issues, and other issues as 

outlined in an annual audit plan.

The first statutory AOC IG was the former Assistant IG for Audit at the 

Corporation for National and Community Service and was appointed by 

the Architect in August 2008. After the first IG’s retirement in August 

2013, the Architect appointed AOC’s Deputy General Counsel to become 

the current IG in September 2013. In addition to the IG, at the end of 

fiscal year 2015, the AOC OIG consisted of a Deputy IG (who also serves 

as the OIG’s legal counsel), Assistant IG for Audit, Assistant IG for 

Investigations, two auditors, two investigators, a management analyst, 

and an administrative officer. (See fig. 1.)

 7

S. Rep. No. 110-89, at 3 (June 25, 2007).
Page 5 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

Figure 1: Architect of the Capitol Office of Inspector General Organization as of September 30, 2015

AOC is responsible for the maintenance, renovation, and construction of 

the Capitol Hill buildings and grounds covering 17.4 million square feet of 

facilities and more than 587 acres, and the AOC OIG is responsible for 

the audit and investigative oversight of AOC. AOC carries out its mission 

through 10 jurisdictions with specific program responsibilities and Capitol 

Construction and Operations, which is made up of nine central offices, 

including the independent OIG. (See fig. 2.)

AOC Jurisdictions, 

Offices, and Major 

Contracts Subject to 

OIG Oversight
Page 6 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

Figure 2: Architect of the Capitol Organization

AOC’s 10 jurisdictions manage AOC’s programs for the maintenance, 

operations, and preservation of the grounds and structures across Capitol 

Hill. (See app. II.) AOC’s Capitol Construction and Operations offices 

have responsibilities that range from overall planning and project 

management to financial and human capital in support of AOC’s mission 

and programs. (See app. III.)

AOC’s responsibilities include the construction and restoration of key 

facilities. AOC classifies its largest projects for construction and 

restoration—those with an expected cost of over $50 million—as mega 

projects. Mega projects are designed by external architecture and 

engineering firms and constructed by external construction firms under 

major contracts managed by AOC. AOC’s performance and accountability 
Page 7 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

reports highlight mega projects, including the Capitol Dome restoration 

and the Cannon House Office Building renewal. According to AOC 

officials, at the end of fiscal year 2015 AOC had four ongoing mega 

projects estimated to cost in total approximately $1.1 billion. (See app. 

IV.) According to AOC officials, the Cannon House Office Building 

renewal project is estimated to cost approximately $752.7 million, and the 

Capitol Dome restoration project is estimated to cost approximately 

$96.7 million. In addition, AOC estimated that the Refrigeration Plant 

Revitalization and the Capitol Power Plant Cogeneration projects will cost 

approximately $183.2 million and $116.6 million, respectively.8

As established by statute in 2007, the stated purposes of the AOC OIG 

are to (1) conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to 

AOC; (2) provide leadership and coordination and recommend policies to 

promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness; and (3) provide a means 

of keeping the Architect and the Congress fully and currently informed 

about problems and deficiencies related to the administration of programs 

and operations of AOC.9 The AOC IG is appointed by the Architect, in 

consultation with the Inspectors General of the Library of Congress, the 

Government Publishing Office, the U.S. Capitol Police, and GAO, and is 

to be selected without regard to political affiliation and solely based on

integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial 

analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or 

investigations. The IG reports to and is under the general supervision of 

the Architect, who has no authority to prevent or prohibit the IG from 

initiating or completing any audit or investigation, issuing any subpoena 

during the course of an audit or investigation, issuing any report, or 

carrying out any other statutory duty or responsibility of the IG. In 

 8

These estimated amounts were provided by AOC officials in November 2015. 

9

See 2 U.S.C. § 1808(b).

Statutory 

Requirements, 

Policies, and 

Resources Related to 

the AOC OIG’s Work

Significant Statutory 

Requirements of the OIG
Page 8 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

addition, the IG may be removed from office by the Architect, who must 

promptly communicate in writing the reasons for such removal to each 

house of the Congress. Subject to the laws governing selection, 

appointment, and employment by AOC, generally, the IG is authorized to 

select, appoint, and employ such officers and employees, including 

consultants, necessary to carry out the functions, powers, and duties of 

the OIG.

The AOC IG Act also incorporates numerous provisions of the Inspector 

General Act of 1978 (IG Act), as amended, imposing responsibilities and 

providing authorities common among federal OIGs.10 Among those 

responsibilities, the IG must comply with Government Auditing Standards, 

which requires, among other things, that in all matters relating to audit 

work, the audit organization and the individual auditor must be free from 

personal, external, and organizational impairments to independence and 

must avoid the appearance of such impairments.11 The IG must also take 

appropriate steps to ensure that any work performed by nonfederal 

auditors complies with these standards. In addition, whenever the IG has 

reasonable grounds to believe there has been a violation of federal 

criminal law, it is to be reported expeditiously to the Attorney General. 

The IG is also required to prepare semiannual reports to inform the 

Architect and the Congress of any significant problems found and 

recommendations for corrective action made by the OIG during the 

reporting period. The IG’s semiannual reports are to contain updates on

significant recommendations from previous reports that have not been 

completed; a summary of matters referred to prosecutors and any 

prosecutions that occurred; and monetary accomplishments for the 

reporting period, including the dollar value of questioned costs and the 

dollar value of recommendations that funds be put to better use.

AOC Order 40-1, Order on the Office of Inspector General Authority and 

Responsibilities and Architect of the Capitol Employee Responsibilities, 

effective October 12, 2010, sets out the authority and responsibilities of 

the AOC OIG in carrying out independent audits and investigations and 

promoting the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of AOC. The 

 10Pub. L. No. 95-452, 92 Stat. 1101 (Oct. 12, 1978), codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. App. 

The AOC IG Act incorporates sections 4, 5 (other than subsections (a)(13) and (e)(1)(B)), 

6 (other than subsections (a)(7) and (8)), and 7 of this law. 2 U.S.C. § 1808(d)(1). 

11GAO, Government Auditing Standards: 2011 Revision, GAO-12-331G (Washington, 

D.C.: December 2011).

AOC OIG Policies and 

Procedures
Page 9 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

requirements are mostly derived from the statutory requirements and 

authorities of the AOC IG. These include the IG’s direct access to the 

Architect, as well as access to all records, reports, audits, reviews, 

documents, papers, or other material available to the AOC. The order 

also specifies the IG’s authority to undertake such investigations and 

reports that are, in the judgment of the IG, necessary or desirable; 

request information and assistance from any federal, state, or local 

governmental agency; and administer or take from any person an oath, 

affirmation, or affidavit, when necessary in performing OIG functions. In 

addition, CIGIE’s Quality Standards for Federal Offices of Inspector 

General provides requirements for OIGs when developing an appropriate 

planning process and for managing, operating, and conducting oversight, 

including audits and investigations.12

AOC Order 40-1 includes the requirement for OIG audits to comply with 

Government Auditing Standards and the responsibility to follow an audit 

process, starting with an audit plan at the beginning of each fiscal year. 

According to the order, the plans are to include audits based on risk and 

materiality (significance or importance), legislatively mandated audits, 

requests from the Congress and AOC, or other work selected for audit or 

evaluation. The audit process is to include written notification to AOC 

followed by an entrance conference with pertinent AOC representatives 

before the audit begins. After the audit work is complete, an exit 

conference is to be held with the AOC point of contact and AOC 

management to discuss the results of the audit. The audit team is to issue 

a draft audit report to AOC management for comment and then issue a 

final audit report to present the results of the audit with the comments of 

AOC management. The AOC OIG has also developed written policies in 

its Audit Policies Manual and its Audit Standard Operating Procedures 

Manual. Together, these two manuals provide general auditing policies as 

well as specific audit procedures for planning and conducting audits and 

reporting the results of audits to AOC and the Congress. They also 

 12As a member of CIGIE, the AOC OIG is required to comply with CIGIE standards, as 

appropriate, where permitted by law, and where consistent with Government Auditing 

Standards. See Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, § 11(c)(2)(A). However, 

many of the provisions in CIGIE’s Quality Standards for Federal Offices of Inspector 

General are based on laws, regulations, and sources of guidance that may not apply 

within legislative branch entities such as AOC. In instances where the authority upon 

which a provision is premised is not clearly applicable to a particular OIG, the standards 

encourage the OIG to adopt the underlying principles and concepts to their operations. 

For example, OIGs that are not bound by the regulations on ethical conduct by executive 

branch officials are encouraged to adopt internal policies consistent with the goals of 

those regulations.

Audit Policies and Procedures
Page 10 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

provide guidelines for using nonfederal auditors to audit AOC’s annual 

financial statements.

AOC Order 40-1 includes the requirement for OIG investigations to be 

conducted in accordance with CIGIE Quality Standards for 

Investigations.

13 The order states generally that the OIG is responsible for 

conducting and supervising investigations to find, remedy, or prevent 

fraud, waste, and abuse. It also lists examples of subjects that the OIG 

investigates, including fraud, waste, or abuse; bribes, kickbacks, and bid 

rigging; conflicts of interest; credit or purchase card fraud; forgery or 

thefts; improper use of AOC resources or property; violations of laws, 

rules, or regulations; and reprisal for reporting allegations of fraud, waste, 

or abuse to the OIG. The order also specifies that individual 

discrimination or retaliation complaints, individual employee benefits and 

compensation issues, individual grievances, individual workplace conflicts 

or matters covered in the collective bargaining agreement, or complaints 

regarding workplace safety and health or environmental issues are to be 

referred to AOC offices rather than to the OIG.

Policies and procedures for OIG investigations are contained in the 

Investigative Program Manual, which outlines the investigative conduct 

policy, coordination procedures, and other policies on the administration 

of investigations. These OIG policies also require that investigators 

adhere to all applicable CIGIE Quality Standards for Investigations. The 

CIGIE investigative standards include requirements for the qualifications 

of investigative personnel and the independence of investigative 

organizations and investigators from personal, external, and 

organizational impairments. In addition, the standards require the use of 

due professional care in the thoroughness of investigations, the 

application of legal requirements, and the use of appropriate investigative 

techniques. Due professional care also requires investigators to be 

impartial and objective and to provide accurate and complete 

documentation to support investigative reports. The CIGIE investigative 

standards also provide guidance on conducting investigations; using 

investigative plans with organizational and case-specific priorities; 

accurately, completely, and objectively reporting all relevant aspects of 

investigations; and managing investigative information.

 13Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, Quality Standards for 

Investigations (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2011).

Investigative Policies and 

Procedures
Page 11 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

Funding for the AOC OIG is included in the appropriation available for 

AOC’s general administration. The OIG submits its budget requests for 

review to the AOC budget office, which then includes it as part of AOC’s 

overall budget request submitted to the Congress. The OIG’s budgets 

grew from approximately $2.0 million in fiscal year 2012 to approximately 

$2.7 million in fiscal year 2015, while the OIG’s staffing remained 

relatively constant, as shown in table 1.

Table 1: Architect of the Capitol Office of Inspector General Budget and Staff, Fiscal Years 2012 through 2015

OIG budget area Fiscal year 2012 Fiscal year 2013 Fiscal year 2014 Fiscal year 2015

Payroll $1,340,000 $1,644,454 $1,639,380 $1,848,179

Financial statement audit 

contract

463,000 367,075 347,401 370,000

Support services 141,000 67,988 31,613 403,511

Training 37,000 34,174 33,000 35,000

Other 27,000 37,746 35,500 38,950

Total $2,008,000 $2,151,437 $2,086,894 $2,695,640

Staffing level at year-end 11 10 10a 10

Source: GAO analysis of Architect of the Capitol Office of Inspector General budget information. I GAO-17-25

a

Includes the Office of Inspector General’s Attorney-Advisor, who was detailed to the Architect of the 

Capitol Office of General Counsel in January 2014 and permanently transferred there in January 

2015.

The OIG’s budget increase occurred primarily in fiscal year 2015 when 

the OIG was provided additional funding for support services. According 

to the OIG, the additional funds were intended to hire individuals with 

engineering expertise to assist in the audit oversight of the Capitol Dome 

restoration and Cannon House Office renewal projects, but instead the 

OIG returned $343,501 of the funds to AOC when the engineering 

expertise was not obtained. The OIG ultimately hired a civil engineer in 

fiscal year 2016.

OIG Budgetary and 

Staffing Resources
Page 12 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

The OIG’s strategic and annual audit plans for the 4-year period we 

reviewed did not include an assessment of AOC’s risks and did not 

establish priorities for providing audit reports. In addition, the current IG 

eliminated all criminal investigator positions, leaving the OIG investigators 

with no responsibility to complete investigations of allegations of criminal 

wrongdoing, which the OIG now refers to the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) 

for investigation. Also, although the OIG is responsible for addressing 

fraud, waste, and abuse under AOC policy, we found instances where 

other AOC offices investigated such allegations of wrongdoing within their 

own offices, despite the potential for conflicts of interest. The OIG’s lack 

of adequate audit planning, lack of criminal investigators, and reliance on 

AOC program offices to conduct investigations of alleged wrongdoing 

have contributed to a significant decline in its audit and investigative 

reports and reported monetary accomplishments. As a result, AOC 

management and the Congress may not be fully and currently informed 

about potential problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of 

programs and operations of AOC.

The AOC IG Act states that the OIG’s primary purposes are to conduct 

and supervise audits and investigations; promote economy, efficiency, 

and effectiveness; and keep AOC and the Congress fully and currently 

informed about problems and deficiencies through semiannual reports 

and other means. In addition, the act requires that OIG audits comply with 

Government Auditing Standards, which requires audit reports to 

communicate the results of audits. CIGIE’s Quality Standards for Federal 

Offices of Inspector General provides requirements for OIGs when 

developing an appropriate planning process and for managing, operating, 

and conducting oversight, including audits. The CIGIE standards direct 

OIGs to develop a methodology and process for identifying and 

prioritizing agency programs and operations as potential subjects for 

audits. In addition, the standards state that because resources are rarely 

sufficient to meet all requirements, audit planning should include an 

assessment of risk and an assignment of priorities to help ensure the 

optimum use of OIG resources. The CIGIE standards also provide 

guidance for OIGs on maintaining a planning system that assesses the 

nature, scope, and inherent risks of agency programs and operations. 

According to these standards, the annual performance planning process 

is to identify the activities to audit and investigate, inspect, or evaluate 

OIG’s Insufficient 

Audit Planning and 

Changes to 

Investigative 

Operations Limited 

OIG Oversight

Insufficient Planning 

Limited Audit Oversight

OIG Planning Was Not 

Consistent with Policies and 

Did Not Apply CIGIE 

Standards
Page 13 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

and translate these priorities into outcome-related goals, objectives, and 

performance measures.

The OIG’s Audit Standard Operating Procedures Manual requires a risk 

analysis—using input received from AOC management and the 

Congress, as well as audit leads developed during the past year—to 

identify the most viable audits based on risk and potential payback. The 

OIG’s annual audit plans for fiscal years 2012 through 2015 included the 

annual financial statement audits performed by an outside accounting 

firm; audits from prior years that were not completed, such as those of the 

Capitol Dome restoration and Cannon House Office Building 

reconstruction mega projects; and new planned audits, such as the audit 

of the Capitol Power Plant Cogeneration. However, the OIG’s strategic 

and annual audit plans for the 4-year period we reviewed did not include 

an assessment of risk. In addition, neither the OIG’s plans nor its policies 

included the assignment of priorities to help ensure the effective use of 

OIG resources in providing audit reports. While the OIG’s policies 

included CIGIE’s standards for investigations, the OIG has not adopted 

CIGIE’s Quality Standards for Federal Offices of Inspector General or 

developed comparable policies and procedures on planning that include 

both risk assessment and assigned priorities. In interviews with the IG, he 

explained that instead of formal plans with an assessment of risk and an 

assignment of priorities, the OIG relied on a process of “continuous 

review” defined by the IG as an effort to alert AOC and the Congress to 

cost overruns, delays, and other contract management issues as they 

occurred.

In large part because of the OIG’s insufficient audit planning, the OIG 

provided no audit reports of AOC’s mega projects with an estimated 

combined cost of over $1.1 billion, and the OIG provided limited audit 

oversight of AOC’s jurisdictions and offices during the 4-year period we 

reviewed.14 According to OIG officials, the OIG staff performed 

continuous review by attending AOC’s weekly progress meetings for both 

the Capitol Dome restoration and Cannon House Office Building renewal 

mega projects. However, without audit reports developed from plans 

based on an independent assessment of AOC’s risks and with assigned 

 14After the 4-year period we reviewed, the OIG issued Audit of Capitol Dome 

Rehabilitation Project, A-2016-02 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 23, 2015), which was reissued 

on July 11, 2016, to include agency comments in accordance with Government Auditing 

Standards, and issued Cannon House Office Building Renewal Project, A-2016-01 

(Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2016).

OIG Provided No Audit 

Reports of AOC’s Mega 

Projects and Most Jurisdictions 

and Offices during Fiscal Years 

2012 through 2015
Page 14 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

priorities, the OIG provided little assurance that AOC’s most critical 

programs and contracts received adequate oversight, that audit resources 

were being applied to the most critical areas, and that the OIG’s efforts 

would fully inform AOC management and the Congress of any problems 

or deficiencies.

In addition, the lack of sufficient planning contributed to the minimal audit 

coverage of the jurisdictions and offices responsible for providing AOC’s 

programs and support services during fiscal years 2012 through 2015. To 

illustrate, the fiscal year 2015 audit report of CVC’s restaurant operations 

was the only OIG audit of a program provided by an AOC jurisdiction 

during the 4-year period we reviewed. However, this audit report was not 

a result of the OIG’s annual audit plan for fiscal year 2015, but rather was 

provided in response to a request from CVC management. Additional 

audit reports issued by the OIG focused on procurement, human capital, 

and other support services provided by three of AOC’s central offices in 

Capitol Construction and Operations during the 4-year period. (See table 

2.)
Page 15 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

Table 2: Architect of the Capitol (AOC) Office of Inspector General (OIG) Audit Reports Issued Fiscal Years 2012 through 2015

Fiscal 

year 

2012

Fiscal 

year 

2013

Fiscal 

year 

2014

Fiscal 

year 

2015

Total

AOC jurisdictions

Capitol Building 0 0 0 0 0

Capitol Grounds 0 0 0 0 0

Capitol Police Buildings, Grounds, and Security 0 0 0 0 0

House Office Buildings 0 0 0 0 0

Senate Office Buildings 0 0 0 0 0

Library Buildings and Grounds 0 0 0 0 0

Supreme Court Building and Grounds 0 0 0 0 0

Utilities and Capitol Power Plant 0 0 0 0 0

U.S. Botanic Garden 0 0 0 0 0

U.S. Capitol Visitor Center 0 0 0 1 1

Total audits of AOC jurisdictions 0 0 0 1 1

AOC Capitol Construction and Operations Offices

Chief Administrative Officer 3 4 1 0 8

Chief Financial Officer 1 1 1 1 4a

Chief Operating Officer 0 0 0 0 0

Communications and Congressional Relations 0 0 0 0 0

General Counsel 0 0 0 0 0

Planning and Project Management 0 0 0 0 0

Safety, Fire, and Environmental Programs 0 0 1 0 1

Office of the Attending Physician 0 0 0 0 0

Inspector General NA NA NA NA NA

Total audits of Capitol Construction and Operations 4 5 3 1 13

Total audits of AOC 4 5 3 2 14

Legend: NA = not applicable.

Source: GAO analysis of AOC OIG audit reports issued during fiscal years 2012 through 2015. I GAO-17-25

Note: OIG audit report coverage does not include OIG evaluations or other reviews not performed 

under Government Auditing Standards.

a

Audits of AOC’s financial statements are performed by an independent public accountant.

Because of the current IG’s emphasis on performing continuous reviews 

rather than planned audit reports, the audit accomplishments reported by 

the AOC OIG have declined significantly in recent years. To illustrate, 

under the prior IG, the OIG completed a total of nine audit reports and two 

evaluations in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, with reported monetary 

accomplishments of approximately $324,000. In fiscal years 2014 and 

Insufficient OIG Planning 

Contributed to a Decline in 

OIG Audits and Monetary 

Accomplishments
Page 16 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

2015, the OIG, under the current IG, completed five audit reports and 

three other reviews, with reported monetary accomplishments of 

approximately $54,000, or approximately 14 percent of the 4-year total.15

(See table 3.)

Table 3: Office of Inspector General Audit Reports and Reports of Evaluations and 

Other Reports Issued and Related Reported Monetary Accomplishments, Fiscal 

Years 2012 through 2015

Fiscal year Audit 

reports

Reports of 

evaluations and 

other reviews

Total 

reports

Reported monetary 

accomplishments

2012 4 2 6 $324,000

2013 5 0 5 0

2014 3 2 5 54,000

2015 2 1 3 0

Total 14 5 19 $378,000

Source: GAO analysis of Architect of the Capitol Office of Inspector General semiannual reports. I GAO-17-25

Note: Monetary accomplishments include potential savings amounts from audits and other reviews.

As a result of changes by the current IG to eliminate criminal investigator 

positions, the OIG no longer has staff with the explicit responsibility to 

complete investigations of potential criminal wrongdoing and refers such 

cases to USCP for investigation. Also, we found instances where the OIG 

referred certain allegations of wrongdoing involving potential fraud, waste, 

and abuse to the AOC program offices for investigation. Neither USCP 

nor AOC program offices are subject to CIGIE’s Quality Standards for 

Investigations when performing investigations or AOC IG Act 

requirements for protecting complainants’ identities. These changes of 

investigative operations by the IG have contributed in part to a significant 

decline in the investigative reports and monetary accomplishments 

reported by the OIG. In addition, these changes have increased the risk 

that (1) criminal and other improper activities may not be detected and 

(2) potential cases of fraud, waste, and abuse may not be fully and 

independently investigated and may not be reported to AOC management 

and the Congress.

 15The OIG’s evaluations are not performed under Government Auditing Standards. 

According to OIG policies, evaluations are completed under CIGIE Quality Standards for 

Inspection and Evaluation and are defined as systemic and independent assessments of 

the design, implementation, or results of an agency’s operations, programs, or policies. 

Other OIG reviews were completed without any specified standards. 

IG Changes to 

Investigative Operations 

Resulted in Limited 

Oversight
Page 17 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

The OIG’s policies and procedures provide that the OIG receives 

allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse and determines whether to initiate 

investigations, which are to be conducted in accordance with CIGIE’s 

Quality Standards for Investigations. In addition, the AOC IG Act states 

that in carrying out the duties and responsibilities established under the 

act, the IG shall report expeditiously to the Attorney General whenever 

the IG has reasonable grounds to believe there has been a violation of 

federal criminal law. The act also provides that the Attorney General may 

provide the AOC IG with the necessary authority for law enforcement. 

The prior AOC IG obtained law enforcement authority for the OIG 

investigators through special deputation as authorized by the Attorney 

General, which allowed investigators to seek and exercise warrants, 

make arrests, and carry firearms when performing their investigative 

duties.

After the current IG rescinded the OIG investigators’ law enforcement 

authority in January 2014, the IG stated, in the OIG’s semiannual report 

for the first half of fiscal year 2014, that the carrying of firearms created 

AOC employee anxiety and was unnecessary to fulfill statutory OIG 

obligations.16 Nevertheless, the OIG investigators had passed their most 

recent peer review, which included a review by another OIG on the proper 

use of firearms. In addition, the IG was unable to provide any specific 

incident where the OIG investigators had exercised the inappropriate use 

of their law enforcement authorities. The IG informed us that in his prior 

position as the AOC’s Deputy General Counsel, he had become aware of 

AOC management’s concerns with the OIG investigators’ authority to 

carry firearms, and for this reason, he rescinded the OIG’s law 

enforcement authority.

The OIG completed a job hazard analysis under the prior IG that was 

provided to the AOC Director of Safety, Fire, and Environmental 

Programs in June 2011. The OIG analysis concluded that OIG criminal 

investigators experienced safety hazards when conducting investigations 

of AOC personnel, programs, contracts, or funds when off the Capitol 

complex. The hazards included the surveillance of suspects, serving 

subpoenas, collecting physical evidence, and working with other law 

enforcement officials. The carrying of firearms was included among the 

personal protective equipment necessary to respond to these hazards. 

 16Architect of the Capitol, Office of Inspector General, Architect of the Capitol Office of 

Inspector General Semiannual Report to the Congress.

IG’s Rescinding of Law 

Enforcement Authority Led to 

Removal of Criminal 

Investigators
Page 18 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

Having removed their authority to carry firearms, rather than place the 

OIG investigators into potentially unsafe conditions without the protection 

of firearms, the current IG removed the staff’s responsibility to complete 

criminal investigations altogether by revising the position descriptions of 

the investigators. The IG stated in the second fiscal year 2014 

semiannual report that carrying out law enforcement duties is

unnecessary to the OIG’s missions to serve AOC and the Congress. As a 

result, the OIG’s criminal investigators were reclassified from Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) Criminal Investigating Series 1811, with 

responsibilities for criminal investigations, to OPM General Investigating 

Series 1810, which has no specified responsibilities for criminal 

investigations.17

Because it has no criminal investigators to complete investigations of

potential criminal allegations, the OIG refers such allegations to USCP for

investigation. According to USCP officials, USCP is the only law

enforcement agency with primary law enforcement authority for the U.S.

Capitol buildings and grounds. In addition, USCP statutory authority

extends to the protection of congressional members, officers, visitors, and

facilities, which includes performing criminal investigations relating to

AOC and other Capitol Hill entities. USCP officials confirmed that USCP

does not have access to AOC’s internal systems and therefore cannot

develop leads for proactive criminal investigations of fraud in AOC’s 

program management and contracting areas without being granted such

access. Instead, USCP investigations are focused on criminal allegations

referred to it by the OIG. USCP officials stated that USCP personnel have 

extensive training in performing criminal investigations. OIGs are required 

to follow CIGIE’s Quality Standards for Investigations when they conduct

investigations, which contain, among other things, explicit requirements

for investigator independence, objectivity, and due professional care. As

mentioned previously, AOC OIG has incorporated these investigative

standards into its policies and procedures. Although USCP is not subject 

to CIGIE’s investigative standards, USCP officials stated that the 

requirements in CIGIE’s investigative standards are required for all of its

17OPM series definition for General Investigating Series, GS-1810, specifies positions that 

involve planning and conducting investigations used to make or enable administrative 

judgments, sanctions, or penalties. OPM series definition for Criminal Investigating Series, 

GS-1811, specifies positions that involve planning and conducting investigations relating 

to alleged or suspected violations of criminal laws.

OIG Relied on Investigations 

by Entities That Were Not 

Subject to Professional OIG 

Standards
Page 19 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

criminal investigations and are integral to USCP directives, processes, 

policies, and procedures.18

In addition to the IG’s elimination of the OIG investigators’ responsibility to 

complete criminal investigations, the AOC OIG also changed its

investigative operations with respect to noncriminal investigations. 

According to OIG investigators, shortly after the current IG took office, 

they were told in a meeting with the IG that senior AOC leadership would 

need to build its own investigative capabilities because the OIG would no 

longer handle many issues it previously investigated. Also, in the 

semiannual report for the period ending fiscal year 2014, the IG 

emphasized that the OIG would defer to AOC supporting offices in the 

absence of reasonable cause to believe complaints of alleged fraud, 

waste, and abuse of government resources. Consequently, the OIG may 

refer allegations of noncriminal wrongdoing to AOC’s program offices for 

investigation and rely on the investigative capabilities developed by 

AOC’s program offices. The review of allegations by other AOC offices is 

often appropriate when administrative actions can address the issues 

without OIG assistance. For example, AOC’s policies specify that 

individual complaints of discrimination or retaliation, individual employee 

benefits and compensation issues, individual grievances, individual 

workplace conflicts, matters covered in the collective bargaining 

agreement, or complaints regarding workplace safety and health or 

environmental issues are addressed by AOC offices in association with 

the Office of Compliance.19 The AOC IG Act allows the IG to exercise 

judgment when determining whether to conduct an OIG investigation. 

However, according to OIG investigators, the IG has also encouraged 

AOC program offices to conduct their own investigations, which can result 

in these offices addressing wrongdoing in areas outlined in the OIG’s 

policies and procedures as OIG responsibilities regarding fraud, waste, 

and abuse. The program offices are not subject to explicit policies 

requiring independence, objectivity, and due professional care, which are 

requirements under CIGIE’s investigative standards for OIGs.

 18We did not assess and therefore make no conclusions regarding whether USCP’s 

policies and procedures align with CIGIE standards or how referrals were handled. Our 

audit focused on the AOC OIG’s responsibilities for investigations of potential criminal 

allegations.

19The Office of Compliance is an independent legislative branch agency tasked with 

administering and enforcing certain legal provisions related to fair employment and 

occupational safety and health among certain legislative branch agencies, including AOC.
Page 20 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

To illustrate, the OIG under the prior IG conducted investigations of 

alleged abuses of worker’s compensation benefits by employees who 

filed potentially fraudulent claims.20 The OIG investigations conducted 

under the prior IG found that these employees were not always potentially 

eligible for worker’s compensation benefits. However, the AOC Human 

Capital Management Division is responsible for investigations of worker’s 

compensation issues. The Human Capital Management Division awarded 

a 1-year contract for $150,000 in August 2015 to a private investigative 

firm to perform the surveillance work once done by OIG investigators and 

to determine whether AOC employees have filed false claims in order to 

collect worker’s compensation or disability benefits. Since these 

investigations are not being performed by the OIG, they are not subject to 

CIGIE standards requiring independence, objectivity, or due professional 

care, which are among the requirements for investigations performed by 

the OIG. Human Capital Management Division officials stated that any 

suspected criminal violations would be referred to the OIG; however, 

under the IG’s current investigative operations, even if such criminal 

referrals were made they would not be investigated by the OIG but rather 

referred to USCP.

In another example, the OIG referred allegations of potential ethics 

violations to the AOC Office of General Counsel for investigation, even 

though such cases are consistent with the OIG’s responsibilities to 

investigate fraud, waste, and abuse. By referring these allegations to the 

Office of General Counsel for investigation, the resulting investigations 

are subject to neither CIGIE investigative standards for independence, 

objectivity, and due professional care nor the AOC IG Act, which requires 

the OIG to safeguard the identity of complainants. The lack of a statutory 

protection may hinder complainants from coming forward with information 

about potential wrongdoing within AOC. To illustrate, we reviewed an 

investigative case file provided by OIG investigators indicating that the 

OIG had received an allegation about a potential violation of AOC orders

that prohibit using public office for private gain by the complainant’s 

supervisor. Such violations of abuse are specified by OIG policies and 

procedures as matters the OIG investigates. However, the IG determined 

this allegation was an ethical matter to be investigated by the AOC Office 

of General Counsel. Upon learning that the AOC Office of General 

Counsel rather than the OIG would be performing the investigation, 

 20The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193, provides for cash 

benefits to federal workers who sustain injuries or illnesses while performing federal 

duties. 
Page 21 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

according to the case file, the complainant withdrew the allegation 

because of fear of possible repercussions for moving forward with the 

case.

Although the OIG continues to perform investigations, the IG’s changes in 

investigative operations have contributed in part to a significant decline in 

the number of investigative reports and monetary accomplishments 

reported by the OIG. To illustrate, under the prior IG, the OIG issued 53 

investigative reports in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, compared to 23 

reports in fiscal years 2014 and 2015 under the current IG, an almost 60 

percent reduction. Also, as illustrated in table 4, since fiscal year 2013 the 

reported monetary accomplishments from investigations have declined 

from approximately $444,930 to approximately $7,260 in fiscal year 2015, 

as the current IG’s changes to investigative operations gradually became 

effective.

Table 4: Decline in Architect of the Capitol Office of Inspector General Investigative 

Reports and Related Reported Monetary Accomplishments, Fiscal Years 2012 

through 2015

Fiscal 

year

Investigative 

reports

Management 

advisories

Reported 

investigative 

monetary 

accomplishments

Percentage of 4-year 

total of monetary 

accomplishments

2012 23 5 $708,485 52.5

2013 30 1 444,930 33.0

2014 12 5 188,610 14.0

2015 11 0 7,260 0.5

Total 76 11 $1,349,285 100.0

Source: GAO analysis of Architect of the Capitol Office of Inspector General semiannual reports. I GAO-17-25

Note: Monetary accomplishments are savings to the Architect of the Capitol as specified in individual 

investigative reports.

In fiscal year 2015, the OIG reported monetary accomplishments that 

accounted for less than 1 percent of the 4-year total reported by both IGs. 

In addition, the OIG had previously provided management advisories, 

which reported internal control weaknesses identified by investigations; 

however, it did not issue any management advisory reports in fiscal year 

2015.

The AOC OIG has voluntarily agreed to be a part of the CIGIE peer 

review process, which includes a review of its investigative operations by 

another OIG. The primary purpose of CIGIE peer reviews is to determine 

Investigative Changes 

Contributed to a Decline of 

Reports and Accomplishments
Page 22 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

whether OIGs have consistently applied CIGIE’s Quality Standards for 

Investigations. However, the OIG’s reliance on investigations by other 

entities will not necessarily be included in CIGIE’s peer review process. 

For example, the investigative operations of USCP when addressing 

criminal allegations and the investigations performed by AOC’s program 

offices, such as the Human Capital Management Division, would not be 

included in a peer review of the AOC OIG’s investigations. We discussed 

the objectives and scope of CIGIE’s investigative peer reviews with the 

outside OIG scheduled to perform the AOC OIG’s next review. We 

concluded that the issues raised in our report could be included within the 

scope of a peer review if expanded to include consideration of the OIG’s 

reliance on investigations provided by USCP, AOC’s Human Capital 

Management Division, the Office of General Counsel, and any additional 

AOC program offices that perform investigations of potential fraud, waste, 

and abuse.

The Congress passed legislation establishing the AOC OIG, in part, to 

address the cost overruns and time delays of AOC projects, such as 

those found during the construction of the CVC, and the failure of 

appropriate oversight responsibilities. In addition, the stated purposes of 

the AOC OIG as established by the AOC IG Act include OIG audits and 

investigations and for the OIG to keep the Architect and the Congress 

fully and currently informed through semiannual reports and otherwise 

concerning fraud and other serious problems, abuses, and deficiencies. 

The Congress also intended the AOC OIG to promote economy and 

efficiency in AOC programs and to detect and prevent fraud, waste, and 

abuse.

During fiscal years 2012 through 2015, the AOC OIG issued no audit 

reports of AOC’s mega projects, which have an estimated combined cost 

of over $1 billion. In addition, the current IG’s emphasis on the continuous 

review of specific mega projects since fiscal year 2014 contributed to this 

outcome. During the same 4-year period, the OIG provided only one audit 

report that addressed a single program among all the programs provided 

by AOC’s 10 jurisdictions, and reported a declining number of other audit 

reports accompanied by a corresponding decline in the reported amount 

of monetary accomplishments. As a result of the OIG’s minimal audit 

report coverage, the Architect and the Congress may not be fully and 

currently informed about the operations of AOC’s jurisdictions, offices, 

and major contracts. The OIG’s efforts during the 4-year period, including 

its continuous review of mega projects, did not have audit plans that were 

based on an assessment of risk or assignment of priorities. This is in part 

because the OIG has not adopted CIGIE’s Quality Standards for Federal 

Conclusions
Page 23 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

Offices of Inspector General that includes these requirements for planning 

audits, investigations, and evaluations based on an assessment of 

agency risk and priority of efforts. Without policies and procedures for 

complete OIG plans with an assessment of AOC’s risks and established 

priorities to help direct its resources, the OIG can provide little assurance 

that it will provide future audit reports that address AOC’s most critical 

areas.

In addition, the current IG rescinded the OIG’s law enforcement authority 

and removed its investigators’ responsibility to complete investigations of 

potential criminal allegations, resulting in these allegations being referred 

to USCP for investigation. Furthermore, under the IG’s changes, AOC 

program offices can perform their own investigations of alleged 

wrongdoing in areas that can include the OIG’s responsibilities under its 

current policies regarding fraud, waste, and abuse. USCP and AOC 

program offices are not subject to CIGIE’s Quality Standards for 

Investigations. The OIG is subject to CIGIE’s standards that require 

investigations to be objective, independent, and consistent with due 

professional care, and to AOC IG Act requirements that complainants’

identities be protected. The current IG’s changes have contributed, at 

least in part, to fewer investigative reports and monetary 

accomplishments and may hinder potential complainants from coming 

forward with allegations of wrongdoing. As a result, the OIG’s practices 

raise questions about whether the OIG is carrying out its work in a way 

that fulfills the Congress’s original intent regarding the oversight of AOC.

We are making two recommendations to the AOC OIG regarding its 

(1) audit planning and (2) investigative operations.

• To provide increased oversight of AOC and to keep the Architect and 

the Congress fully and currently informed, we recommend that the 

AOC OIG revise and implement policies and procedures to provide 

audit reports that are based on planning that includes an assessment 

of risk and the assignment of priorities, consistent with requirements 

in CIGIE’s Quality Standards for Federal Offices of Inspector General.

• To reduce the risk that fraud, waste, and abuse and criminal activities 

are not detected or fully addressed, we recommend that (1) the AOC 

OIG work with CIGIE to obtain a peer review from another federal OIG 

of the AOC OIG’s overall investigative operations, including 

consideration of the OIG’s reliance on investigations performed by 

other entities, and (2) make any needed changes in its operating 

procedures based on the results of the review to help ensure that 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 24 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

investigations of AOC are conducted in accordance with CIGIE 

standards for investigations and AOC IG Act requirements.

We provided a draft of this report to the AOC OIG for review and 

comment. In written comments reprinted in appendix V, the AOC OIG 

agreed with the two recommendations and stated that it would implement 

them. The AOC OIG also provided information on changes made in late 

2015 and 2016, which was after our review period. Although these 

changes were outside the scope of our work, our report acknowledges 

the hiring of a civil engineer in fiscal year 2016 and the issuance of two 

reports on AOC mega projects, also in fiscal year 2016. The OIG 

acknowledged our findings on audit planning and the number of audit 

reports on AOC’s major construction projects and jurisdictions and stated 

that the OIG has now moved away from an approach that appeared to 

simply monitor projects and will incorporate a more formal risk 

assessment and prioritization process into its audit planning. We also 

received technical comments from the AOC OIG, which were addressed 

as appropriate. However, the OIG disagreed with a number of the 

statements and findings in the report related to its investigative 

operations, as discussed below. The USCP General Counsel also 

provided technical comments on behalf of USCP, which were addressed 

as appropriate. 

In its written response, the AOC OIG stated that a CIGIE investigative 

program review had been scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 2016, 

and that without advance notice to the AOC OIG, the GAO review team 

requested that the designated CIGIE OIG peer review team suspend its 

activities pending the completion of this GAO audit. As we state in our 

report, our purpose in contacting the OIG peer reviewer was to determine 

the extent to which the AOC OIG’s investigative operations would be 

included in a peer review. The peer review had not yet begun when we 

met with the OIG peer reviewer, who provided information on CIGIE’s 

peer review process. We did not request that the peer review be 

suspended or postponed. We also discussed the ability of the peer review 

to include the OIG’s overall investigative operations, including 

consideration of the OIG’s reliance on investigations performed by other 

entities.

In its written comments, the AOC OIG also stated that the GAO draft 

confuses program responsibilities with investigative responsibilities and 

that the OIG does not rely on agency program offices to perform OIG 

investigations. The OIG commented that AOC program offices do not 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 25 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

investigate any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse for the OIG and that 

the AOC OIG is the only office responsible for performing such 

investigations pursuant to the IG Act. The OIG added that it is the only 

AOC office that can guarantee confidentiality to employees and other 

witnesses. The OIG concluded that GAO’s factual findings in this area are 

mistaken and not supported. Our report discusses AOC’s policies 

applicable to the OIG that specify the issues that program offices can and 

should address, and the issues of fraud, waste, and abuse that are 

specifically OIG responsibilities. Our report provides examples of AOC 

program offices that have addressed wrongdoing in areas of OIG 

responsibilities regarding fraud, waste, or abuse. These examples are 

based on our review of documentation in the OIG’s case files. 

Specifically, as noted in our report, we reviewed an investigative case file 

provided by OIG investigators indicating that the OIG had received an 

allegation about a supervisor’s potential violation of AOC orders that 

prohibit using public office for private gain. Such violations of abuse are 

specified by OIG policies and procedures as matters the OIG 

investigates. However, the OIG determined that this allegation would be 

investigated by the AOC Office of General Counsel. In another example, 

we obtained documentation from the Human Capital Management 

Division of its contract for $150,000 in August 2015 for a private 

investigative firm to perform the surveillance work once done by OIG 

investigators, to determine whether AOC employees have filed false 

claims in order to collect worker’s compensation or disability benefits. 

Based on these examples, AOC program offices may have investigated 

matters of fraud, waste, and abuse, which are specifically OIG 

responsibilities. The OIG agreed with our recommendation to work with 

CIGIE to obtain a peer review of the AOC OIG’s investigative operations, 

including consideration of the OIG’s reliance on investigations performed 

by other entities.

The AOC OIG stated that our draft report rejects the OIG’s reliance on the 

law enforcement authority of USCP and that this is contrary to law. Our 

report does not assess and therefore provides no opinion on the law 

enforcement authority of USCP and how these investigations were 

handled or resolved. Contrary to the OIG’s assertion, our report 

specifically addresses the OIG’s investigative process, including the 

referral of matters for investigation, relative to CIGIE’s quality standards. 

In addition, our report does not address whether the policies and 

procedures of USCP align with CIGIE standards on how referrals are to 

be handled. Also, as stated in our report, the AOC OIG had law 

enforcement authority, which includes the authority to carry firearms, 

already in place when the current IG entered office in September 2013, 
Page 26 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

which he rescinded based on reasons outlined in our report. In addition, 

the Attorney General had previously determined under the criteria laid out 

in Section 6 of the IG Act that law enforcement authority was appropriate 

for the AOC OIG. We did not assess this determination. 

The AOC OIG also provided several comments about the qualifications of 

USCP, citing its accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation for Law 

Enforcement Agencies, Inc. The OIG includes the attributes for 

accreditation, which included among others, professionalism, 

independence, and objectivity. As stated in our report, our focus was on 

OIG investigations and specifically how OIG investigations follow quality 

standards provided by CIGIE, which were established, in part, to help 

ensure the independence of OIG investigative efforts. Based on technical 

comments provided by the USCP General Counsel on behalf of USCP 

officials, we added certain information regarding requirements of USCP’s 

criminal investigations. However, we did not audit USCP or the policies 

and procedures that apply to its investigations. AOC OIG has 

responsibility for ensuring that its investigations comply with applicable 

standards. It is for these reasons that we have recommended that the 

AOC OIG work with CIGIE to obtain a peer review from another federal 

OIG of the AOC OIG’s overall investigative operations, including 

consideration of the OIG’s reliance on investigations performed by other 

entities, and make any needed changes in its operating procedures 

based on the results of the review to help ensure that investigations of 

AOC are conducted in accordance with CIGIE standards for 

investigations and AOC IG Act requirements. The AOC OIG agreed to 

implement this recommendation. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Architect, the Architect of the 

Capitol Inspector General, and interested congressional committees. In 

addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 
Page 27 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

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

me at (202) 512-2623 or davisbh@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 VI.

Sincerely yours,

Beryl H. Davis

Director

Financial Management and Assurance
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 28 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

Our audit objectives were to (1) identify the Architect of the Capitol’s 

(AOC) jurisdictions, offices, and major contracts subject to AOC Office of 

Inspector General (OIG) oversight during fiscal years 2012 through 2015; 

(2) determine the statutory requirements, policies, and budgetary and 

staffing resources of the AOC OIG during fiscal years 2012 through 2015; 

and (3) examine the extent to which the AOC OIG developed plans and 

policies for oversight of AOC’s jurisdictions, offices, and major contracts 

during fiscal years 2012 through fiscal year 2015, and the extent to which 

oversight was provided.

To identify the AOC jurisdictions, offices, and major contracts subject to 

AOC OIG oversight during fiscal years 2012 through 2015, we obtained 

the AOC’s performance and accountability reports for each fiscal year. 

From these reports, we determined AOC’s priorities and the focus of 

AOC’s efforts for matters that could be considered for OIG oversight. We 

also obtained descriptions of AOC’s organizational units, including the 

administrative offices that provide operational support and the 10 

jurisdictions that provide the AOC’s programs for the maintenance, 

renovation, and construction of the Capitol Hill buildings and grounds. We 

identified the largest construction and renovation contracts as reported by 

AOC that are classified as mega projects, with over $50 million each in 

estimated cost.

To determine the statutory requirements of the AOC OIG, we reviewed 

the AOC Inspector General Act of 2007 (AOC IG Act) and obtained the 

associated legislative history of that law, including committee reports and 

accompanying statements regarding the proposed bills leading to 

enactment. We summarized the views of the congressional committees 

as stated in reports and bills that led to the creation of the OIG to obtain 

an understanding of where the OIG could focus its efforts and resources. 

We also analyzed the statutory requirements from the Inspector General 

Act of 1978, as amended, that apply to the AOC OIG to determine the full 

range of requirements applicable to the office. We obtained the OIG’s 

written policies and procedures that applied to the 4-year period we 

reviewed. We summarized the guidance provided by the OIG’s policies 

and procedures to help determine whether they included requirements for 

audits and investigations and addressed the requirements of the AOC IG 

Act.

We obtained AOC OIG budget information for fiscal years 2012 through 

2015 from the OIG that had been verified by AOC budget officials for data 

reliability. We obtained AOC OIG staffing information for fiscal years 2012 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 29 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

through 2015 from the OIG; AOC budget staff verified data reliability. We 

determined that the data were reliable for the purposes of this report.

To examine the OIG’s oversight plans and policies, we obtained the 

strategic plans and annual audit plans for the 4-year period we reviewed 

from the OIG and discussed the focus and definition of continuous review 

efforts with the Inspector General (IG). We also obtained the OIG policies 

and procedures specific to OIG planning and compared these 

requirements with the OIG’s plans. We also reviewed the OIG’s plans for 

consistency with CIGIE’s Quality Standards for Federal Offices of 

Inspector General regarding planning. In addition, we obtained and 

summarized the requirements in the OIG’s policies and procedures for 

audits and investigations. We obtained all OIG reports issued during the 

4-year period we reviewed, which included audits, investigations, 

evaluations, management advisories, and memorandums, and identified 

the AOC programs addressed by the reports. We compared the subjects 

addressed by OIG’s audit reports with AOC’s jurisdictions, offices, and 

major contracts and noted any lack of audit coverage during the 4-year 

period. We also obtained the monetary accomplishments from OIG audits 

reported in the OIG’s semiannual reports to determine any trends and 

changes over the period. We also summarized the content and results of 

all investigative reports for the 4-year period to determine any changes in 

the reported results and any trends and changes in reported monetary 

accomplishments.

We interviewed all OIG investigative staff and the IG to obtain an 

understanding of changes made to the OIG’s investigative operations. We 

also interviewed an officer in the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) 

Investigations Division identified by the AOC OIG to obtain an 

understanding of USCP’s mission and investigative procedures related to 

allegations of criminal violations referred to it by the AOC OIG. In 

addition, we obtained the assistance of AOC OIG investigators who 

provided examples of OIG investigations for our review. We determined 

the reliability of information in the OIG’s semiannual reports and other 

reported information by comparing it with the source information in 

individual reports issued by the OIG. The data we obtained were 

appropriate and reliable for meeting the report’s objectives.

We conducted this performance audit from December 2014 to November

2016 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 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 30 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Architect of the Capitol 

Jurisdictions Subject to Office of Inspector 

General Oversight

Page 31 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was 

established, in part, to conduct and supervise audits and investigations 

relating to AOC. This includes AOC’s jurisdictions, which are responsible 

for AOC’s programs and are subject to OIG oversight (see table 5).

Table 5: Architect of the Capitol Jurisdictions and Program Responsibilities

Jurisdiction Program responsibilities

Capitol Building Is responsible for the care and stewardship 

of the U.S. Capitol Building, including 

carpentry, construction, masonry, painting, 

plumbing, special events, and Flag Office 

support.

Capitol Grounds Is responsible for preserving and 

maintaining 286 acres of landscape and 

infrastructure across Capitol Hill.

Capitol Police Buildings, Grounds, and 

Security

Managed by the Office of Security 

Programs, is responsible for the 

maintenance, care, and operation of the 

buildings, grounds, and security 

enhancements of the U.S Capitol Police. 

Manages all Architect of the Capitol internal 

security programs and emergency 

preparedness.

House Office Buildings Oversees the office and committee space 

for the members of the House of 

Representatives and their staffs, including 

maintenance and preservation of the offices, 

leased space, underground garages, 

annexes, and subways.

Senate Office Buildings Is responsible for the facilities, operations, 

planning, and domestic care of office 

spaces housing U.S. senators and their 

staffs and committees, hearing rooms, child 

care, restaurants, congressional page 

school and student dormitory, subway 

transportation systems, and leased facilities.

Library Buildings and Grounds Provides day-to-day structural, mechanical, 

and grounds care of the Library of 

Congress.

Supreme Court Building and Grounds Operates and maintains the Supreme Court 

Building and the Thurgood Marshall Federal 

Judiciary Building.

Utilities and Capitol Power Plant Manages the year-round operations of the 

power plant, providing steam and chilled 

water to heat and cool the U.S. Capitol and 

22 other facilities.

Appendix II: Architect of the Capitol 

Jurisdictions Subject to Office of Inspector 

General Oversight
Appendix II: Architect of the Capitol 

Jurisdictions Subject to Office of Inspector 

General Oversight

Page 32 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

Jurisdiction Program responsibilities

U.S. Botanic Garden Is responsible for maintenance, operations, 

and construction improvements throughout 

the Botanic Garden’s public areas and 

approximately 8 acres of surrounding 

gardens encompassing the National Garden 

and Frederic Auguste Bartholdi Park.

U.S. Capitol Visitor Center Provides the main entrance for visitors to 

the U.S. Capitol and informational exhibits, 

a restaurant, two orientation theaters, a 

large auditorium, and two gift shops.

Source: GAO analysis of Architect of the Capitol Fiscal Year 2015 Performance and Accountability Report, November 13, 2015. |

GAO-17-25
Appendix III: Architect of the Capitol Offices 

Subject to Office of Inspector General 

Oversight

Page 33 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was 

established, in part, to conduct and supervise audits and investigations 

relating to AOC. This includes AOC’s Capitol Construction and 

Operations offices, which provide program support and are subject to OIG 

oversight (see table 6).

Table 6: Architect of the Capitol’s Capitol Construction and Operations Offices and 

Functions

Capitol Construction and Operations 

offices

Functions

Chief Administrative Officer Provides administrative and business 

support, which includes acquisition, 

material management, human capital 

management, and information technology.

Chief Financial Officer Is responsible for accounting operations, 

budget formulation and execution, financial 

reporting, financial systems management, 

fiscal policy, internal controls, and 

managerial cost accounting.

Chief Operating Officer Is responsible for organization-wide 

strategic planning, performance 

management, quality management, work 

safety, customer satisfaction, and service 

quality.

Communications and Congressional 

Relations

Is responsible for strategic communications 

initiatives, legislative affairs, and media and 

community relations.

General Counsel Provides legal counsel to the Architect, 

senior staff, and others within the 

organization on matters involving 

procurement, contract claims, litigation, real 

property, the environment, employment, 

labor, occupational safety, occupational 

health, and torts.

Planning and Project Management Oversees capital planning and 

improvement efforts, including construction; 

provides architectural and engineering 

design expertise; and executes project and 

in-house construction services.

Safety, Fire, and Environmental Programs Is responsible for ensuring that the 

Architect of the Capitol complies with 

safety, fire, and environmental regulations.

Office of the Attending Physician Comprises several health units throughout 

Capitol Hill and provides primary care, 

emergency, environmental, and 

occupational health services to visiting 

dignitaries, staff, and visitors.

Appendix III: Architect of the Capitol Offices 

Subject to Office of Inspector General 

Oversight
Appendix III: Architect of the Capitol Offices 

Subject to Office of Inspector General 

Oversight

Page 34 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

Capitol Construction and Operations 

offices

Functions

Inspector General Is responsible for promoting the integrity, 

efficiency, and effectiveness of the 

Architect of the Capitol’s operations and 

programs through independent audits and 

investigations, and for recommending 

policies to detect and prevent fraud, waste, 

and abuse.

Source: GAO analysis of Architect of the Capitol’s Fiscal Year 2015 Performance and Accountability Report, November 13, 2015. |

GAO-17-25
Appendix IV: Architect of the Capitol Mega 

Projects Subject to Office of Inspector General 

Oversight

Page 35 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was 

established, in part, to conduct and supervise audits and investigations 

relating to AOC. This includes AOC’s mega projects, which are each 

estimated to cost over $50 million and are subject to OIG oversight (see 

table 7).1

Table 7: Architect of the Capitol (AOC) Mega Projects and Descriptions

Mega project Description

Cannon House Office Building 

Renewal

AOC began a top-to-bottom, phased building renewal 

of the oldest congressional office building, the 

Cannon House Office Building (Cannon Building). 

AOC plans to correct serious safety, health, 

environmental, and operational issues within the 

Cannon Building and address requirements such as 

energy conservation, physical security, hazardous 

material abatement, and historic preservation. The 

project is to involve substantial reconfiguration of 

interior and exterior spaces, including reconstructing 

the building’s top floor and landscaping the courtyard. 

AOC plans to conduct the work in phases 

corresponding to the four sections of the building. The 

Cannon Building project is scheduled to be completed 

in 2025 and is estimated to cost $752.7 million.

Capitol Dome Restoration This AOC project’s goal is to repair more than 1,600 

cracks and deficiencies in the Capitol Dome. The

project is intended to stop deterioration in the dome’s 

cast iron structure and to ensure the protection of the 

interior of the dome and rotunda. This work includes 

removing lead paint, cleaning stains, repairing cast 

iron, preparing new castings, and repairing windows. 

The scope of the repairs is significant. The project is 

scheduled to be completed in time for the 2017 

presidential inauguration ceremonies and is 

estimated to cost $96.7 million.

Refrigeration Plant Revitalization AOC has a long-term plan to replace its older chillers 

for producing chilled water, which calls for the 

replacement of several existing chillers and the 

addition of cooling towers over several phases by 

2018. The program will replace inefficient equipment 

dating from the 1970s and will incorporate new 

controls to improve the efficiency of chilled water 

delivery. The Refrigeration Plant Revitalization project 

was initially estimated to cost $183.2 million; 

however, this estimate is being reevaluated.

 1

These estimated amounts were provided by AOC officials in November 2015. 

Appendix IV: Architect of the Capitol Mega 

Projects Subject to Office of Inspector 

General Oversight
Appendix IV: Architect of the Capitol Mega 

Projects Subject to Office of Inspector General 

Oversight

Page 36 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

Mega project Description

Capitol Power Plant 

Cogeneration

As part of AOC’s plans to be energy efficient and to 

provide a cost-effective means to meet future energy 

requirements by generating on-site electricity, AOC 

received permits to construct a cogeneration plant, 

which involves the simultaneous production of 

electricity and heat from the same fuel source. The 

project is estimated to cost $116.6 million, of which 

$67 million is financed by a public-private partnership.

Source: GAO analysis of AOC information and GAO reports. | GAO-17-25
Appendix V: Comments from the Architect of 

the Capitol Office of Inspector General

Page 37 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

Appendix V: Comments from the Architect of 

the Capitol Office of Inspector General
Appendix V: Comments from the Architect of 

the Capitol Office of Inspector General

Page 38 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight
Appendix V: Comments from the Architect of 

the Capitol Office of Inspector General

Page 39 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight
Appendix V: Comments from the Architect of 

the Capitol Office of Inspector General

Page 40 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight
Appendix V: Comments from the Architect of 

the Capitol Office of Inspector General

Page 41 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight
Appendix V: Comments from the Architect of 

the Capitol Office of Inspector General

Page 42 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight
Appendix V: Comments from the Architect of 

the Capitol Office of Inspector General

Page 43 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 44 GAO-17-25 AOC OIG Oversight

Beryl H. Davis, (202) 512-2623 or davisbh@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Jackson Hufnagle (Assistant 

Director), Lisa Boren, Jason Kirwan, Lisa Motley, Taya Tasse, and 

Kenneth Thiry made key contributions to this report.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(197250)
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

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.