U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

67–639 PDF 2011

S. Hrg. 112–53 

STIMULUS CONTRACTORS WHO CHEAT ON THEIR 

TAXES: WHAT HAPPENED? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 24, 2011 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Minority Staff Director 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

PATRICIA R. HOGAN, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

ELISE J. BEAN, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ALLISON ABRAMS, GAO Detailee 

CHRISTOPHER J. BARKLEY, Minority Staff Director 

CANDICE WRIGHT, GAO Detailee for the Minority 

MARY D. ROBERTSON, Chief Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 1 

Senator Begich .................................................................................................. 4 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 4 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 25 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 28 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 30 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2011 

Gregory D. Kutz, Director, Forensic Audits and Special Investigative Service, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office .............................................................. 6 

Hon. Daniel I. Gordon, Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, 

U.S. Office of Management and Budget ............................................................. 7 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Gordon, Hon. Daniel I.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Kutz, Gregory D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

EXHIBIT LIST 

1. GAO Report, Recovery Act—Thousands of Recovery Act Contract and Grant 

Recipients Owe Hundreds of Millions in Federal Taxes, GAO–11–485, April 

2011 ...................................................................................................................... 46 

2. Responses to supplemental questions for the Record submitted to Gregory 

D. Kutz, Director, Forensic Audits and Investigative Service, U.S. Government Accountability Office ................................................................................. 75 

3. Responses to supplemental questions for the Record submitted to Hon. 

Daniel I. Gordon, Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, 

U.S. Office of Management and Budget ........................................................... 82 

(1) 

STIMULUS CONTRACTORS WHO CHEAT ON 

THEIR TAXES: WHAT HAPPENED? 

TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2011 

U.S. SENATE,

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Carl Levin, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Levin, Begich, and Coburn. 

Staff Present: Elise J. Bean, Staff Director and Chief Counsel; 

Christopher Barkley, Staff Director to the Minority; Mary D. Robertson, Chief Clerk; Allison Abrams, Detailee (GAO); Michael 

Martineau, Detailee (DOJ); Katie Martin-Browne, Law Clerk; Daniel Perez, Law Clerk; John Richards (Senator Begich); Sarah 

Deutschmann, Detailee (ICE); and Candice Wright, Detailee (GAO). 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

Senator LEVIN. Good afternoon, everybody. The Subcommittee 

today is examining Federal contractors who get paid with taxpayer 

dollars but then fail to pay the taxes they owe. I commend my colleague Senator Coburn for taking the initiative to press forward on 

this issue. 

Prior Subcommittee hearings on this and related topics have exposed as tax delinquents tens of thousands of Federal contractors 

and service providers who collectively owe billions in unpaid taxes. 

The spotlight today is on businesses that receive contract or grant 

funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA 

or Recovery Act). While the vast majority—well over 90 percent— 

of the Recovery Act recipients are in compliance with Federal requirements and are contributing to the economic recovery, a small 

portion—about 5 percent—have put taxpayer dollars in their pockets while failing to meet their tax obligations. 

That 5 percent, by the way, is about half the percentage of the 

Department of Defense (DOD) contractors that an earlier report 

found had unpaid taxes, but this is obviously very troubling, 

whether it is 5 percent or 10 percent. 

According to the report the Subcommittee is releasing today, that 

5 percent translates into about 3,700 contractors and grant recipients out of a total of about 63,000 that received over $24 billion in 

stimulus dollars while owing unpaid Federal taxes of more than 

2 

$750 million. That is they owed taxes at the time they received the 

contracts. 

Federal programs now exist to stop this type of abuse. One key 

program is the Federal Payment Levy Program, which was established over 10 years ago to enable the Federal Government to identify Federal payments being made to tax delinquents and authorize 

the withholding of a portion of those payments to apply to the person’s tax debt. 

When the Subcommittee began looking at the Federal contractor 

issue in 2004, the tax levy program was weighed down by bureaucratic requirements and red tape. In response to the Subcommittee’s request, the key Federal agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Financial Management Service at Treasury, 

and others, formed a governmentwide task force to streamline the 

tax levy program. That task force has addressed many of the problems that have been identified by the Subcommittee. As a result, 

the tax levy program has become energized. It has moved from covering only 10 percent to covering 100 percent of the payment systems at the Department of Defense. In addition, by September of 

this year, 100 percent of the $400 billion in Medicare payments 

made each year will be screened for tax delinquents. 

Tax levy collections from tax delinquent Federal contractors as a 

whole have increased almost six-fold over the last 6 years, from 

about $20 million in 2004 to $115 million in fiscal year 2010. Last 

year is the first time the tax levy program has collected over $100 

million from tax delinquent Federal contractors in a single year. 

We applaud that progress. But at the same time, that $100 million 

per year has to be compared to the billions of dollars in unpaid tax 

debt still owed by Federal contractors, which means there is still 

an awful lot more work to be done. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) selected 15 of the 

Recovery Act recipients that raised particular red flags for a closer 

look. The GAO found that those 15 recipients alone were responsible for $40 million in unpaid taxes. The GAO also found that 

those 15 had engaged in abusive or potentially criminal activities, 

including failing to remit the payroll taxes that were taken out of 

employee paychecks but never sent to the IRS. 

Federal law requires employers to hold payroll tax money ‘‘in 

trust’’ for the IRS, and the failure to remit those funds as required 

is a violation of civil and criminal law. 

In one case, GAO identified a security company that received 

$100,000 in Federal funds yet owed $9 million in unpaid taxes. 

Those unpaid taxes were primarily payroll taxes from 5 years earlier that the company never forwarded to the IRS. The company 

had also been cited by the Department of Labor for violating Federal labor laws. 

In another case GAO identified, a social services company owed 

over $2 million in taxes yet received more than $1 million in Federal funds. That company had defaulted on several installment 

agreements with the IRS, which finally imposed a penalty on an 

executive who was personally responsible for nonpayment of the 

taxes owed. GAO found that this executive had numerous transactions with casinos totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars a 

3 

year, indicating that he had substantial funds to apply to the company’s tax debt, yet failed to do so. 

The GAO also found that while some of the recipients were subjected to the tax levy program, about $315 million of the tax debt 

was not because the Recovery Act funds had not been paid directly 

by the Federal Government to the tax-delinquent businesses. Instead, in those cases the Federal Government had paid the funds 

to a State or a prime contractor or a grant recipient, which in turn 

made payments to the ultimate recipients. The businesses that got 

their money from a State, a prime contractor, or grant recipient 

were never screened by the Federal tax levy program and so escaped having any portion of their funds withheld for payment of 

their tax debt. That gap in the tax levy program needs to be addressed. 

In addition to hearing from GAO, we will hear today from the 

President’s Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), which 

sets contract policy for the Administration and is part of the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB). President Obama became concerned about the issue of Federal contractors with unpaid taxes 

while he was here in the Senate, and he has not forgotten the 

issue. 

In addition to setting a policy against awarding Federal contracts 

to tax-delinquent companies, his Administration has changed the 

Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), to require businesses bidding on Federal contracts to certify in writing if they have a tax 

debt of $3,000 or more so that Federal agencies would know about 

the problem when awarding contracts. The Administration also 

made nonpayment of tax grounds for debarring a business from 

bidding on any Federal contract. 

In January 2010, the President also issued a memorandum 

which, among other matters, caused the Office of Management and 

Budget to initiate an evaluation of whether Federal contracting officers and debarment officials were fully utilizing tax debt information. Today we are going to hear more about those efforts. 

Since the problem of Federal contractors who get paid with taxpayer dollars while dodging their own tax obligations is not going 

away, we need to do more to stop the abuse. One action we could 

surely take is a concerted effort to debar the really flagrant tax 

cheats from obtaining Federal contracts and grants. In each of the 

hearings that we have held on this topic, GAO has identified 15 or 

20 or 25 tax-delinquent businesses that have essentially thumbed 

their noses at Uncle Sam. Some paid their taxes with bounced 

checks, repeatedly violated installment agreements, or reincorporated as a new company to escape past tax debt. 

Some business owners sported mansions, expensive cars, or other 

luxury assets, indicating that they had the money needed to repay 

the outstanding tax debt but did not do so. 

While these egregious cases have been referred to the IRS and 

prosecutors, in most cases the companies and their owners have 

not been debarred from obtaining new Federal contracts or grants. 

Starting with the cases flagged by GAO, the Administration ought 

to get on with an immediate effort to debar egregious tax cheats 

from competing against honest businesses that pay their fair share. 

4 

We should also consider requiring States, prime contractors, and 

grant recipients that receive Federal funds to require their subcontractors or sub-recipients to disclose tax debt as described in the 

Federal Acquisition Regulations, and then we should consider prohibiting those States, prime contractors, and grant recipients from 

dispensing Federal taxpayer dollars to those who have outstanding 

tax debt. 

Tax deadbeats should not be getting taxpayer dollars, and they 

should not be allowed to compete against honest businesses that 

meet their tax obligations. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today about these and other ideas to stop the abuse, and I 

now turn, again with thanks, to Dr. Coburn for his initiative in this 

area and for the great work of his staff. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I would 

like for my complete statement to be made a part of the record. 

Senator LEVIN. It will be. 

Senator COBURN. And I would like to thank you for this hearing. 

I know you have worked on these issues for a long time, and I appreciate your work. 

My colleague in the Senate, Senator Obama, and I passed the 

Federal Financial Accountability and Transparency Act, and one of 

the goals of that was to have subcontractees and sub-awardees on 

grants available on USAspending.gov. They are still not there, and 

one of the reasons we are not getting where we need to be is because of that. 

To comment on the 5 percent, it is true that 5 percent of the con- tractors have a problem, but it is $1 in $6 that came through the 

stimulus grants and contracts that were issued if we extrapolate, 

and that is an extrapolation so I am not sure that is factual. But 

if you were to extrapolate it, that is what it would be. 

I appreciate GAO’s hard work. I think there are a lot of problems 

in terms of implementing the Federal Payment Levy Program. I 

think we can see that is obvious from the GAO report. And I would 

say that I think the Obama Administration has done a better job 

than the Bush Administration in many of these areas, but we are 

not where we need to be, obvious by this GAO report. So I look forward to the hearing, the comments, and the questioning in the 

hopes that we can truly achieve what is needed to get there. 

It is one thing for us to have a hearing. It is totally another to 

say this has got to stop. What do we need to do to empower OMB 

and the Administration to put this to a dead stop? It is always inappropriate, but it is more so today when we find ourselves in such 

difficult times. 

With that, I would yield back, and look forward to the testimony. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you very much, Dr. Coburn. Senator 

Begich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEGICH 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be very 

brief. I just want to say thank you also for holding this hearing and 

for you two to be here and hear more about the report. I am going 

to be interested in, as you looked at the ARRA money, how wideVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:10 Aug 23, 2011 Jkt 067639 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\67639.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
5 

spread this is in the sense of the Federal Government in total. I 

will only give you my experience. 

When I was mayor of Anchorage, we came in, we had about $20 

million of owed fees, fines, and other taxes, and we could not get 

a lot of response. So we ended up creating a Web site. We posted 

everyone’s name with what they owed on a Friday. The system 

crashed three times because it was not necessarily the person who 

owed the money who was looking. It was everyone else who wanted 

to see who was on the list. And within a short time, almost half 

of that money was paid up, and we were very aggressive about it. 

So like Senator Levin and Senator Coburn, I am going to be interested in what is the next step. It is somewhat appalling to see 

that people can continue to do business, owe money to us, take our 

checks, and then never pay us for the taxes that are due when 

good, strong business folks are out there trying to compete and 

they are paying their taxes. 

So I am going to be anxious to associate my comments and whatever actions the Subcommittee deems necessary, but I can tell you 

what we did as mayor, and it sure did change the deck, especially 

when we posted their names with what they owed and what for. 

Like I said, it got a lot of people talking and a lot of bills paid. 

So I will just leave it at that and say thank you again, Mr. 

Chairman, for this opportunity. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Begich. Let me now call on 

our witnesses for this afternoon’s hearing. 

First, Gregory Kutz, Director of Forensic Audits and Investigative Service at the Government Accountability Office, who has testified many times before our Subcommittee. 

Second, Daniel Gordon, the Administrator of the Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy at the Office of Management and Budget. 

We welcome you both. We appreciate both of you being with us 

this afternoon and look forward to your testimony. And as you 

know, we have a rule here, Rule VI, which requires all witnesses 

who testify before the Committee to be sworn, and at this time I 

would ask both of you to please stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give 

will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you, God? 

Mr. KUTZ. I do. 

Mr. GORDON. I do. 

Senator LEVIN. We will use our timing system today. At about 

1 minute before the red light comes on, you will see that the light 

is changing from green to yellow, which would give you an opportunity to conclude your remarks. Your written testimony will be 

printed in the record in its entirety. We would appreciate it if you 

could limit your oral testimony to no more than 7 minutes. 

Mr. Kutz, you go first. 

6 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Kutz appears in the Appendix on page 31. 

TESTIMONY OF GREGORY D. KUTZ,1 DIRECTOR, FORENSIC 

AUDITS AND INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE, U.S. GOVERNMENT 

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. KUTZ. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Coburn, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss 

the tax gap. Today’s testimony highlights the results of our investigation into whether the Recovery Act recipients have unpaid Federal taxes. 

My testimony has two parts: First, I will discuss the magnitude 

of unpaid taxes; and, second, I will discuss our case studies. 

First, we found that at least 3,700 contract and grant recipients with $750 million of unpaid Federal taxes received $24 billion of 

Recovery Act funds. This represents about 5 percent of the 80,000 

contract and grant recipients reported on Recovery.gov through 

July 2010. The numbers are understated for several reasons, including the fact that we could not derive taxpayer identification 

numbers for 17,000 of the 80,000 recipients. 

As was mentioned, Federal law does not prohibit contract and 

grant recipients with unpaid taxes from receiving future contract 

and grant awards. However, Treasury can levy certain payments to 

satisfy tax debt. About 90 percent of the $750 million of unpaid taxes was not 

subject to the continuous levy program for two key reasons: First, 

only 13 percent of the dollars were reported by the IRS to Treasury 

for levy; and, second, half of the 3,700 recipients were not directly 

paid by the Federal Government. 

Moving on to my second point, as you mentioned, we took a further look at 15 of the 3,700 contract and grant recipients. We focused on those with unpaid payroll taxes. All 15 of these cases, 

which included 8 contract and 7 grant recipients, had unpaid payroll taxes. These entities provided construction, engineering, security, and health care services. These 15 cases were not randomly 

selected and, thus, may not be representative of all 3,700 recipients. 

IRS has taken collection or enforcement action for all 15 of these 

cases. For example, IRS has filed Federal tax liens for 13 of the 15 

cases. In addition, they have assessed trust fund recovery penalties 

for 12 cases. The effect of this civil penalty is a company’s owners 

and officers are personally held responsible for a portion of the unpaid corporate or other entity payroll taxes. 

Examples of some interesting facts related to these 15 cases include: Over half had reported State and local tax liens. Several had 

defaulted on installment agreements. Several did not file required 

tax returns. Several were cited for Federal labor law violations. 

Several executives received substantial salaries, as you mentioned, 

along with company loans. Several executives had hundreds of 

thousands of dollars each in gambling transactions. And several received millions of dollars of non-stimulus government contracts, 

Medicare and Medicaid dollars. 

These cases raise questions not only about the integrity of government programs but also about fairness. Organizations that fail 

to pay their payroll taxes have a lower cost base and an unfair adVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:10 Aug 23, 2011 Jkt 067639 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\67639.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
7 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon appears in the Appendix on page 37. 

vantage when competing for government contract and grant 

awards. 

As the Chairman mentioned, I first testified on this issue many 

years ago, in 1999, including several times before this Subcommittee. Our past reports have shown tens of thousands of individuals, corporations, and nonprofit organizations with unpaid 

taxes receiving billions of dollars of Medicare, Medicaid, contract, 

and grant payments. 

In conclusion, today’s report shows once again billions of dollars 

going to individuals, corporations, and nonprofit organizations that 

failed to pay their fair share of taxes. This sends a negative message to the vast majority of American taxpayers that pay their fair 

share. 

As the Chairman mentioned, I am pleased to report to you that 

the continuous levy program has shown great improvement, and I 

applaud this Subcommittee for its role in making that happen. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Coburn, that ends my opening 

statement, and I look forward to your questions. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you so much, Mr. Kutz. Mr. Gordon. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. DANIEL I. GORDON,1 ADMINISTRATOR, 

OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY, U.S. OFFICE 

OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, sir. Chairman Levin, Ranking Member 

Coburn, and Members of the Subcommittee, I very much appreciate 

the opportunity to appear before you today. This is my first time 

before this Subcommittee. I am happy to discuss the question of 

preventing tax cheats from getting government contracts. I want to 

talk about the progress we have made, but also the challenges 

ahead. 

I very much want to thank this Subcommittee for shining a spotlight on this issue for a good number of years, and with good results. And if I could be permitted to put in a good word for my 

former colleague, Mr. Kutz, and my former employer, GAO, where 

I had the honor to work in the Office of General Counsel for 17 

years, let me say that we in the Administration appreciate GAO’s 

report on tax debts held by recipients of Recovery Act funds, another in an ongoing series of GAO reports on tax-delinquent recipients of Federal funds. 

We are proud of the high level of transparency and the low level 

of fraud, waste, and abuse shown in Recovery Act spending, and I 

think that the work of the Recovery Board has certainly helped in 

that regard. That said, we take very seriously what GAO found in 

its latest report using its unique statutory access to tax records. 

I do have a few questions about data in the GAO report which 

I hope will be addressed, either at this hearing or we can do it as 

follow-up with GAO afterwards. 

With the encouragement of this Subcommittee and due in part 

to hearings, as has been mentioned, that this Subcommittee held 

several years ago on this very important topic, we have taken action, as the Chairman was pointing out, to better protect taxpayer 

interests when dealing with contractors who have tax delinquency. 

8 

The fact is that the great majority of contractors pay their taxes, 

but we have an obligation to our citizens to crack down on those 

who abuse the system. 

A key step forward that the Chairman mentioned has been mandatory self-certification in which prospective contractors must state 

whether they have tax delinquencies, and there is a similar disclosure requirement for applicants for grants. And, again, as the 

Chairman pointed out, there has been considerable progress with 

the levy program through which we take part of government payments to contractors to pay off tax debts before money goes to the 

contractors. 

In January 2010, the President directed OMB and the Internal 

Revenue Service to evaluate the effectiveness of that contractor 

self-certification process. OMB worked with the agencies to check 

whether contracting officers had awarded new contracts to companies that had certified to having a tax delinquency. And the IRS 

evaluated the overall accuracy of contractor certifications based on 

their statistical sampling. 

OMB’s review showed that only a tiny fraction of contract dollars 

went to contractors that had certified to a tax delinquency, and 

IRS’s review revealed that the vast majority of the certifications 

were accurate. That shows promise, suggesting that certification 

acts as an effective deterrent. 

At the same time, we recognize that there is much more work 

that needs to be done. In particular, the statutory limits on IRS’s 

ability to share taxpayer information represent a challenge for our 

contracting agencies, although we obviously fully appreciate and 

respect the importance of protecting taxpayer information. That is 

why we welcome the opportunity to work with Congress to craft 

statutory authority for limited sharing of information on tax delinquencies with appropriate safeguards so that the IRS can more effectively alert agencies if, for example, would-be contractors are 

misrepresenting their tax status, and agencies can stop those entities from getting government contracts. 

In addition to increasing attention on the tax status of prospective contractors, we are, as you have noted, getting much better at 

collecting tax debt from contractors. I think the contrast with the 

environment in 2004 is noteworthy. At that time GAO concluded 

that defense contractors were able to abuse the Federal tax system 

with little consequence. Today we are moving much more vigorously to collect tax debt. And as you have noted, probably the most 

important way that we are doing that is through Treasury’s Federal Payment and Levy Program under which a contracting agency 

is advised on a payment-by-payment basis how much to pay the 

IRS in satisfaction of a tax levy and how much, if any, to pay the 

contractor. And, again, as the Chairman noted, last year Treasury 

collected more than $110 million from tax delinquents through that 

program. 

The bottom line is this: We must take all appropriate actions, including debarment, to ensure that government contracts are rewarded to responsible, law-abiding contractors who take their tax 

obligations seriously. And we need to collect tax debts that contractors owe the government. We very much look forward to working 

9 

with this Subcommittee, as we have in the past, and with other 

Members of Congress, as we move forward. 

This concludes my oral remarks, but obviously I am happy to answer all of your questions. Thank you. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you so much, Mr. Gordon. 

Why don’t we try an 8-minute first round, if that is OK. 

Mr. Kutz, let me first ask you about the 15 cases which GAO 

identified as apparently involving some real tax dodgers, hard-core 

tax dodgers. You said these cases were not selected at random, but 

they had some things which made it appear that these would be 

some good targets for you to analyze what is happening and what 

is not happening. I think you said that eight of them were Federal 

contractors, seven of them grant recipients; one of them was a 

prime, the rest were subcontractors. 

Did you see any evidence that the Federal agencies intend to 

debar any of the eight that received contract dollars? 

Mr. KUTZ. No, and one of them, according to IRS, was under 

criminal investigation by the IRS Criminal Investigative Division. 

So we did not see evidence that they were under debarment. 

Senator LEVIN. Now, is there a different issue relative to the 

seven that received grants? Is that a harder problem in terms of 

getting debarment in those cases? 

Mr. KUTZ. Not necessarily, but the levy program does not cover 

most grant payments. So the Federal Payment Levy Program 

would not have allowed offset of a Federal payment at the back 

end. So I do not think necessarily debarment would be more or less 

difficult for them because if you look at the health care system, 

HHS debars Medicare providers, etc. So I do not think the process 

would vary necessarily. 

Senator LEVIN. OK. Now, we have all these businesses that are 

kind of obvious tax dodgers, and so obvious that you can pick them 

out. They stick out. And yet there is no debarment in evidence for 

any of those. What explains that lack of debarment? We have got 

the procedure that can be used, but apparently it is not often used, 

even in cases which are this egregious. Have you been able to figure out why? 

Mr. KUTZ. Well, the agencies would not necessarily know that 

they had tax issues because they were not mostly primes. They 

were mostly at the subcontractor or sub-grant recipient type level. 

So under the self-certification under the FAR for the contractors, 

it would not have been necessarily apparent for the prime. But you 

mentioned the primes could get their subs to certify to them; that 

would have potentially gotten you a little bit more visibility if they 

were honest in that reporting. 

Senator LEVIN. But 8 of the 15 were Federal contractors. 

Mr. KUTZ. Correct. 

Senator LEVIN. Only one of those was a prime. Is that right? 

Mr. KUTZ. That is correct. 

Senator LEVIN. And are you saying for the ones that were subcontractors, in effect, that it would be hard to know—it would be 

hard to utilize the current debarment proceeding? 

Mr. KUTZ. Oh, no, not necessarily that. 

Senator LEVIN. Well, then, why is there so little debarment? 

10 

Mr. KUTZ. Mr. Gordon maybe can answer that better. I do not 

know. Debarment is something that is one avenue for protecting 

the government from individuals and corporations that are bad actors. 

Senator LEVIN. Yes, but it is apparently not very often used. 

Do you have any statistics on debarment, Mr. Gordon? 

Mr. GORDON. I am not sure I have numbers at hand, but I can 

tell you a little bit about suspension or debarment in this particular area, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, when we checked with the agencies, we found 

that the Department of Defense, in fact, did refer a number of 

cases. (This is not with respect to GAO’s report. This is the review 

we did last year.) The Department of Defense referred a number 

of companies because of tax delinquency certifications to their suspension or debarment offices, and, in fact, one of the companies 

was debarred. 

Senator LEVIN. One company. I mean, we have got tens of thousands of companies out there that are delinquent, and debarment 

is rare. One company out of I do not know how many were referred 

by the Department of Defense. I think your testimony says several 

instances. 

We just have to find out—it was great we collected over $100 

million. We need it. But we have got billions out there, and we 

have got to figure out why debarment is not more often used. That 

is one of the things that I would like to figure out. 

Mr. GORDON. If I could, Mr. Chairman—first of all, I agree with 

you. We need to be much more vigorous in our suspension and debarment programs. I will say that there has been improvement 

over the last 2 years. As you know, USAID has exercised their authority, and that is a good thing. The Small Business Administration certainly got everybody’s attention when they suspended companies because of concerns of abuse. 

Suspension and debarment is a key protection, and it needs to 

be exercised, when it is appropriate, but we should be seeing more 

vigorous investigations by our suspension and debarment officials, 

and you would expect there to be suspension or debarment. 

One of the challenges, I think, that we all face as we look at this 

GAO report is one you alluded to, Mr. Chairman, and that is, many 

of the problems here were actually not by entities that directly received Federal funds. As Mr. Kutz pointed out, their report, when 

it looked at 15, had 8 what they call contract recipients. But, in 

fact, only one of them was a prime contractor. The other seven, I 

am not even sure that they were subs because they might have just 

been vendors. We need to find out more. 

But it is noteworthy that the one entity that was a prime contractor in the GAO report was current in paying back its taxes. 

Senator LEVIN. What would you think of requiring the prime contractors to include a provision in all of their contracts that says to 

anyone who wants to be one of their subs or supply materials or 

services that they must disclose to the prime whether there are any 

back taxes owing to Uncle Sam? What would you think of making 

that a requirement in every contract that we issue? 

Mr. GORDON. Obviously, there may be sensitivities about taxpayer information, but I will tell you, I like the idea of shining a 

11 

brighter light on this question. The challenge that the GAO report 

points to is that tier below the primes. We need to find a way to 

reach them. 

On the grant side, by the way, the vast majority of the grants— 

and I think Mr. Kutz alluded to this—were going to States and 

local governments. They are tax free. They are not the problem. It 

is the sub-recipients beyond the States. 

It is a challenge, and we would very much look forward to the 

opportunity to working with this Subcommittee and others in Congress to find a way to reach those tax delinquents. 

Senator LEVIN. Well, let me repeat one way, which is that there 

be a standard contract provision in all of our contracts with primes 

requiring them to have a clause in all of their subcontracts and in 

all of their purchase agreements that requires their subs or their 

vendors to disclose whether or not there is a back tax owed to 

Uncle Sam. Failure to disclose that would really create some jeopardy, or if there is a misstatement about it, because that could be 

a false statement that would be put in place in order to obtain Federal funds. So it could be very serious, a false statement or an 

omission where there is one that is required. 

I hope you would take a look at that, and give us some other 

ideas as to how we can get to that tier below, because we are not 

using the tools that we have against very many people. We have 

made a small dent in the problem, and we are grateful we have. 

A lot of oversight has gone into this. I think probably, Mr. Kutz, 

there have been 100 to 150 contractors that the GAO has identified 

in this and earlier hearings. 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes. 

Senator LEVIN. I would hate to find out how many of those contractors never did pay their taxes, but we want to kind of not look 

that far backward. We want to just pick up right from here and 

really put some teeth into our laws and in the procedures which 

are supposed to be enforcing those laws, and we would look to both 

of you for specific recommendations on how we can use debarment 

more often and suspension more often and perhaps get that clause 

into all of our prime contracts. Thank you. 

Dr. Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. I want to repeat this one statement. If 

USAspending.gov was working the way it was supposed to, you 

would have a historical record of every sub-grantee and sub-subgrantee of every grant and every contract with the Federal Government. And the fact that that is not happening—and it is something 

that the President actually authored the bill on, along with myself—and now it is not being implemented is one of our problems. 

I want to go back to the question: Why should somebody get a 

Federal contract if they owe the Federal Government money? I 

mean, should we be in the business of giving them business so we 

can collect the taxes? Or should there be a consequence to being 

irresponsible? 

Mr. GORDON. Shall I respond, sir? 

Senator COBURN. Sure. 

Mr. GORDON. First of all, I should say on USAspending.gov, it is 

a serious issue. I had the pleasure when I was preparing for this 

hearing of watching a hearing that you held about a year ago with 

12 

my colleague Vivek Kundra and others, talking about that. As I am 

sure you know, there has been some progress, Dr. Coburn, in terms 

of getting subcontractor data up, but we have a lot more work to 

do in that area. 

On the issue of ever giving a contract to a tax delinquent contractor, as a general rule, we can all agree that tax cheats should 

not be getting Federal contracts. That said, on reflection, I think 

we would also agree that, for example, if the tax debt is very small, 

that probably would not be a reason to exclude them, and—— 

Senator COBURN. Why not? If I owe you money and I do not pay 

you the money, why would you give me more money? If I am not 

responsible—I do not care if it is a dime. Why would we say that 

you can be just a little bit irresponsible and still get a contract 

versus a little bit more irresponsible and you do not? I do not understand that thinking. 

Mr. GORDON. I understand the point, Senator, but I think that 

when you are talking about if you had a tax debt of $200 and those 

debts are captured in the universe that GAO has in its report, it 

feels like the Federal Government could be cutting off its nose to 

spite its face if it says, ‘‘We are not going to award a contract even 

though with the levy program we will get our $200 back immediately.’’ 

Senator COBURN. That is not true. We do not get our levy money 

back. As a matter of fact, we have big problems with the levy program. It is much better than what it used to be, but it is not anywhere close to where it needs to be. 

Mr. GORDON. It is certainly not as good as it should be, but, sir, 

we have collected overall through that levy program more than half 

a billion dollars, more than $600 million cumulatively through that 

levy program. Is it where it should be? Absolutely not. Have we 

made substantial progress? Yes. And if we were to say we are not 

going to award a contract to this company even though it offers us 

the best price or the best quality, or both, because of a $200 

debt—— 

Senator COBURN. Have them go fix it before—in other words, 

what you are saying is rationalizing that you are going to create 

an expectation less than what we should have in terms of integrity. 

If all contractors know, if it is a given that if you have an outstanding debt liability to the Federal Government, you are not 

going to be considered for a contract, I guarantee you they will go 

borrow it from Granny and pay the two hundred bucks. This rationalization that, oh, well, we might miss one, if you create the 

proper expectation, you are not going to have that problem. That 

is not even going to be there. They are going to worry. If they are 

depending on Federal Government contracts or grants for their revenue, they are going to make sure that is taken care of. And if they 

do not take care of it, it tells you they are a terrible manager to 

begin with and you do not want them contracting with the Federal 

Government. So I would challenge that position. 

Let me go back. In 2004, in the American Jobs Creation Act, we 

increased the levy amount to 100 percent of payments to Federal 

contractors and other vendors for goods or services sold or leased 

to the Federal Government. This increase would allow the Federal 

Government to be fully repaid, in some cases before payments are 

13 

made to contractors with back taxes. However, IRS officials told us 

that they have not implemented this authority because, in their 

opinion, the statute did not explicitly name real property among 

the assets that could be levied up to 100 percent. 

So here we have a decision by the IRS that says we are not going 

to implement what the law is starting in 2004 because we are not 

sure it clarifies our ability to levy. 

So what percentage of the levy program is not being levied because we do not have clarification—that is one of the things we are 

going to have to take care of if we address it. There is no question 

that it was the intent of the Congress to levy real property, and 

for them to not do it—what percentage of the levies are not being 

accomplished because the IRS will not levy real property? 

Mr. GORDON. Sir, I do not know the percentage that is not being 

collected now, but I can tell you that we agree with your—we share 

your concern. The President’s budget, as I am sure you know, includes a provision that would correct that problem. 

Senator COBURN. All right. Let me have one other question, if I 

might, to you. Let us say I am a Federal contractor and I certify 

that I have no tax liability when, in fact, I do. What are the checks 

on that? And how often does it happen that you actually check 

whether I have a tax liability or not? 

Mr. GORDON. It is very difficult to check because our contracting 

officers cannot get that information from the IRS. That is what we 

did last year. We had the IRS check certifications. They checked, 

if I remember correctly, a statistically valid sample of 400 of the 

certifications. It is just the situation you are referring to, Dr. 

Coburn. They looked at situations where companies said, ‘‘We do 

not have a qualifying tax delinquency,’’ and what they found was 

that in the great majority—do not hold me to the exact number, 

but something like 93 percent of the time those certifications were 

accurate. And in the few that were not accurate, the problems 

were—I think they called them ‘‘transitory.’’ They were either very 

minor, or they were resolved within a matter of weeks. And it is 

not because IRS was looking. They had already been resolved. 

Senator COBURN. They had been resolved, so in the mind of the 

vendor, they had resolved the issue. 

Mr. GORDON. Eventually, although at the time they certified, 

they were not accurate. 

Senator COBURN. So what are the consequences to that? If I 

falsely certify to the Federal Government on the basis to get a contract that I have no tax liability, when I know very well that I do, 

what are the consequences? 

Mr. GORDON. It is a very serious matter. As you know, it potentially is a criminal matter. It is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001. But 

the problem is that our contracting officials do not have any way 

to find out because we are barred by 6103 from getting taxpayer 

information. 

Senator COBURN. You do not have to get taxpayer results. All 

you have to do is send to the IRS, is this an accurate representation? They either say yes or no. They are not giving you any tax 

information other than to say this representation is false or it is 

accurate. 

14 

Mr. GORDON. I would defer to my colleagues at IRS, but I fear 

that they would have concern that they were sharing taxpayer information. 

Senator COBURN. Well, we need to fix that. That is something we 

need to fix. 

Mr. GORDON. We would very much support improved ability to 

communicate between IRS and the agency. 

Senator COBURN. I would also say, in terms of the levy program, you have saved half a billion dollars. This one report found $757 

million, which is three-quarters of a billion dollars, just in this one 

report. So the magnitude—it is great that you found $500 million. 

I am happy for you. I want to find $5 billion. And I think we have 

a lot of work to do to get there. 

You said a moment ago in your testimony or in answering one 

of Senator Levin’s questions that you found a tiny fraction when 

you looked in terms of noncompliance at the OMB when you all 

looked at it. What is a tiny fraction to you? 

Mr. GORDON. My recollection, sir, is that there was less than $20 

million of contracts awarded during the fiscal year where the contracting officer was awarding a contract making a responsibility determination, and as to those $20 million, the contractor actually 

had certified to a tax delinquency. So that is $20 million out of 

something on the order of $540 billion. 

Senator COBURN. OK. One last question real quick, Mr. Chairman, if you do not mind. 

Mr. Kutz, you testified that you had no taxpayer identification 

number on 17,000 of these. 

Mr. KUTZ. Correct. 

Senator COBURN. Out of some 80,000. 

Mr. KUTZ. Correct. 

Senator COBURN. Why? 

Mr. KUTZ. Because of the way—they had to use DUNS numbers. 

We matched Recovery.gov to the Central Contract Registry so we 

could get taxpayer identification numbers because Recovery only 

has Dun & Bradstreet numbers. To match the IRS unpaid assessment file, you have to get a taxpayer identification number. So 

these were entities that were not registered in the Central Contract Registry because they were not direct Federal Government 

contractors. 

Senator COBURN. OK. So would you imagine that we need some 

help to clarify or at least clean up so that we have a consistent 

standard so that there is a way to track it? 

Mr. KUTZ. Certainly, with respect to transparency of who these 

subs are, yes, that would be useful. 

Senator COBURN. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for being 

lenient. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Dr. Coburn. Senator Begich. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am feeling bad 

that I have a 3:30 meeting because I would rather be in here. 

Let me ask one thing. You talked about how to get that. I know 

everyone who buys a home in this country, when you settle, do a 

settlement—I know this as being someone in real estate for several 

years—you have to fill out the 4506 form, which is an IRS form. 

At any time that file is audited, they have the right to go look at 

15 

your tax records. Now, everybody in America who buys a home has 

to do that. Why can’t we have that as a simple clause on the contractor who certifies that also says—it is a simple form. IRS produces it. It is a transcript form, and it is not complicated, and you 

just sign it. If you do not sign it, you do not get the contract. Why 

can’t you just do that now? What prohibits you from that? 

Mr. GORDON. I think that the idea of requiring consent—— 

Senator BEGICH. I know you like that. 

Mr. GORDON [continuing]. Is a good idea. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. What prohibits you from doing that right 

now? 

Mr. GORDON. My understanding is that there is concern about 

6103, but it is certainly something we are happy—— 

Senator BEGICH. But a contract of service is a mutually agreed 

upon arrangement. So I, government, offer you a contract; here are 

the terms of the contract. You sign it or you do not. You do not sign 

it, you do not get the contract. And part of that is at any time we 

audit this file on this contract, we have the right to review, just 

like every homeowner—I mean, if any of us in our homes, if the 

title company, and we closed that, got audited, they have the right 

to determine, to make sure that what we said our income levels 

were and everything at the time of purchase was accurate and we 

actually were doing our business. 

So I challenge you with that because what I fear greatly is the 

way the legislative process works around this place, millions more 

will not be paid while we wait around. So I would encourage you 

to look at that. 

Second, I will tell you this: As a former mayor and assembly, no 

one could get a liquor license unless they paid their taxes. That 

was the rule. You come up, you get a liquor license, but you are 

not in business until you pay your taxes. If you do not pay your 

taxes, you do not get the license. It is not complicated. 

So I think administratively there are probably some things you 

can do, especially because it is under contract law. We always go 

back and say we have to write a new law to make this. It is contract law. 

The other thing that drives me a little crazy as I am sitting here 

is that people—for example, if I wanted to know the person who 

has been banned from—I think it was one prime, where do I go to 

find that? If I am a local government official and I am granting out 

these contracts, and I want to look at a list that the Federal Government has of bad actors, is there any place I can go? 

Mr. GORDON. Senator Begich, you raise several important points. 

I want to tell you, we in the Administration want to leave no stone 

unturned, whether it is through the suspension or debarment process, whether it is through more vigorous following up on these certifications, whether it is through thinking about how to get to subrecipients. They were all challenging, but I think we can make 

progress, as you say, on the administrative side and not only 

through the legislative side. 

The certifications that entities have, if they are prime entities, 

prime contractors, the certifications go into a database that all of 

our contracting officials can see. It is called Online Representations 

and Certifications Application (ORCA). That is not publicly accesVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:10 Aug 23, 2011 Jkt 067639 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\67639.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
16 

sible at this point. We would eventually want to make that publicly 

accessible. The main reason that we are not doing it is, frankly, the 

cost of building out the system. 

We think, as long as there is not a taxpayer information problem, 

that there should be a way that the public can see which entities, 

in fact, have put into the system called ORCA, the fact that they 

have delinquencies. 

But if I could, two other points that are worth considering. One 

of them is, what does the contracting officer do if she or he is given 

the right of access to tax returns? It is giving them a lot of sensitive information, and I think that our contracting officers would 

be hard pressed to make calls about how serious a tax return is 

as part of the responsibility determination. If we ended up going 

down that path, I would want to be sure that contracting officers 

get training. 

Senator BEGICH. I am not necessarily saying that. What I am 

saying is one of the things I have heard over and over again is access. All I am saying is just like every homeowner has to sign a 

document that if that file is audited, they can get the information 

very easily. 

But the other piece I want to try to dive into, if the IRS has a 

tax lien on any business, is there a simple—I can go to the IRS 

Web site, and if I am a Federal Government purchasing officer or 

a State purchasing officer or a local government purchasing officer, 

because a lot of the contracts local governments do, they require 

you to name your subs. They do not just give you a contract. I 

know this from the work we used to do as mayor. You have to 

name your subs. So can they access a site publicly to show if there 

are tax liens? I know you can do it State by State. But is there a 

central location as well as criminal investigations, just a simple 

one, two, three site, that is it. 

Mr. GORDON. I do not believe there is a simple way to get that 

information today. 

I should say, Senator, one of the challenges—and this is one of 

the things, as I was studying the GAO report. Again, in the 15 examples where they drilled down, the great majority of them were 

not entities that got money directly from the Federal Government. 

Senator BEGICH. No, I understand. But what I am trying to do 

is follow the next link, and that is, if I am the municipality of Anchorage, when I was mayor, the purchasing officer would—they 

have Federal receipts. The requirement is you have to certify that 

no one owes taxes who you are granting this to. If I am a contractor with the city of Anchorage, the prime will give the list of 

the subbers. That is a requirement. At least in our city it was, that 

you cannot just go pick people later. You actually had to find your 

subcontractors. So then the purchasing officer just goes to one site, 

and they see who has tax liens all across this country. And if Joe 

Blow subcontractor has a tax lien, he tells the prime, ‘‘I cannot give 

you this contract until that is cleared up.’’ 

So that is what I am saying. In other words, what we have a 

tendency to do—at least what I am learning after 21⁄2 years here, 

we have a disjointed information source. So if you expect a sizable 

amount of this money which does go to State and local governments and health care agencies, there has to be a point where they 

17 

can go to and what I call is a three-click rule. If it takes beyond 

that, it is never going to work. 

So I am asking you to kind of look at that, and if there is a cost 

issue to this, I am sure we could do the pay-for as much we collect 

from the past due. I think we can figure this out. If you think there 

is money to be collected, the pay-for alone could probably solve this 

problem and have tons left over. But I am struggling here, and I 

will tell you, I will probably go to a Web site. I will pretend I am 

a contractor and try to see if I can accomplish the goal of finding 

out how to find this information. My guess is I will not be able to 

find it. It will be difficult for me, because we cannot—the Federal 

Government can only do so much, especially with so much money 

granted to States and local governments who are also using layers 

of prime and subs. And we give them tools. They sure do not want 

to have a violation because they want those dollars, whether they 

be transportation dollars or whatever they might be. But the combination of the three entities could be powerful. And I agree with 

Senator Coburn and Senator Levin. The minute they get the message, they are going to be kicked off the list. And I would agree— 

I would say one comment. Probably the reason why they have best 

prices is because they are not paying their taxes. But once they are 

kicked off the list, I know what we did in local government. They 

got their act together, or as Senator Coburn said, they were bad 

actors anyway and they needed to be cleared out of the system. 

So, again, I just want to say thanks for having the hearing. 

Hopefully, again, the form that I suggested is an example, it is a 

contract relationship. I cannot see why every contractor cannot sign 

that and say, ‘‘We will ensure that the information is available.’’ If 

not, then we will audit them. 

Mr. KUTZ. Senator, could I address those before you go? Because 

I want to just touch on a couple things. We have mentioned—we 

believe, I think, that consent is a valid option here. We have talked 

about it at past hearings, and it is something that could be done 

to allow the government to do more of a systematic look at the tax 

issue. 

There is a central location for all suspended and debarred contractors and other entities called the Excluded Parties List System. 

I do not know if it is available to State and local governments, 

though. 

Mr. GORDON. It is publicly available. 

Mr. KUTZ. OK. So then it could be searched by State and local— 

and it also includes the HHS exclusion list for health care-related 

issues. 

On the tax liens, I do not believe—— 

Senator BEGICH. What Web site would you find that on? 

Mr. GORDON. It is a GSA Web site, www.epls.gov, Excluded Parties List System. Publicly available. 

Mr. KUTZ. The tax liens, I believe IRS does not have a central 

system, but we go to LexisNexis, and it is public information. So 

it is not one push. It might be a couple of buttons to get to. So it 

is available. 

And then the criminal investigations, they are only available if 

they are closed. If it is an open criminal investigation, law enforcement is not going to talk to you about it. 

18 

Senator LEVIN. Before you leave, Senator Begich, we did act last 

year to have a more publicly available Web site, which shows a list 

of basically bad actors beyond those that are excluded formally. But 

let me go through this—there are a lot of acronyms here, and there 

is a lot of new stuff here, and I am not sure it has been implemented. But let me start. 

You have a governmentwide database, as I understand it, called 

ORCA. You made reference to ORCA, the Online Representations 

and Certifications Application. Then you have something which we 

passed last year, which is FAPIIS. I do not know how you pronounce it. 

Mr. GORDON. Usually ‘‘fap-is,’’ although every so often there are 

people who say ‘‘fay-pis.’’ It is the Federal Awardee Performance 

and Integrity Information System. It actually was up and running 

1 year ago now, April of last year. 

Senator LEVIN. That is what I want to get into, because I think 

this may or may not address some of the issues which have been 

raised here. So the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System has been up for a year. But I believe that—and 

your excluded contractors are just one part of that. That is not the 

whole deal. 

Mr. GORDON. Yes. 

Senator LEVIN. Then we adopted in our last year’s defense authorization bill—I think this was the one where it was Congresswoman Maloney, I think, in the House and Mr. Waxman in the 

House and Mr. Towns in the House; Senator McCaskill and I were 

involved, Senators McCain and Sanders were involved here. Are 

you familiar with that issue? 

Mr. KUTZ. I am not. 

Senator LEVIN. Is that the FAPIIS issue? 

Mr. GORDON. I have not heard what the next point is, sir. 

Senator LEVIN. It is a public version of FAPIIS. 

Mr. GORDON. Yes, now I understand. Last year, Congress required that we open up most of FAPIIS to the public except for the 

past performance section, and that has now happened as of—— 

Senator LEVIN. A month ago or so. 

Mr. GORDON. Yes, exactly, several weeks ago. FAPIIS is now 

publicly available. That provides an enormous amount of information, for example, about civil problems, about convictions, about 

terminations for default, and many other issues. Publicly available. 

Senator LEVIN. We are going to ask you, Mr. Kutz, if you would 

look at what is now publicly available and tell us what is available, 

since it is brand new, and what is not available. You have heard 

the kind of questions here today as to what we think ought to be 

available and what is there which is available publicly and what 

is not. That would be very helpful. I think while you are still here, 

it is right along the line, Senator Begich, that you were talking 

about. 

OK. So that would be very helpful. But I also want to get to this 

other provision that I talked about, that every contractor would 

have to include a provision in their contract or purchase agreement 

with a supplier that the supplier would have to represent that they 

are current on their taxes, or if not, what their back taxes are. If 

they misrepresented in response to that, if a subcontractor made 

19 

1See Exhibit No. 2, which appears in the Appendix on page 75. 

a misstatement to a contractor in order to get a contract, or if a 

supplier misstated something, I presume that would be covered by 

current Federal law. Would that be true? It would be a misrepresentation in order to access Federal money. 

Mr. GORDON. Well, Chairman Levin, I no longer work in GAO’s 

Office of General Counsel, so I had better be careful about law. But 

what I would say is it sounds like that statement would not be 

going to the Federal Government, but it would be used in order to 

get Federal funds, so there might be a false claim issue, I will say, 

not functioning as a lawyer. 

Senator LEVIN. OK. We have to find that out. I do not know who 

I am looking at to find that out. 

Mr. KUTZ. We can try to report back to you on that. 

Senator LEVIN. OK. Would you find out if there is a misrepresentation if a subcontractor misstates whether or not it is current in 

its Federal taxes? 

Mr. KUTZ. And you want to know whether that would be a false 

statement. 

Senator LEVIN. Is that a false statement under Federal law 

which would invoke some criminal liability? 

Mr. KUTZ. Right, because it is not being made to the Federal 

Government, but we could do that. 

Senator LEVIN. That is right, but if you are getting Federal 

funds—— 

Mr. KUTZ. Right, that is getting Federal funds. 

Senator LEVIN [continuing]. Indirectly with the Federal Government. But the second question is whether or not if there is silence—if there is no statement made at all—if there is a requirement, tell us if you are behind in your Federal taxes, you must disclose to us, and there is no disclosure, would that be covered by 

Federal law? Is the failure to disclose—which is a harder case, I 

would think. But can you also let us know? 

Mr. KUTZ. Sure.1

Senator LEVIN. Finally, would you let us know in both cases, is 

there anything we can do to tighten that law? Because that is really where a lot of this problem lies, is down below the prime level, 

for reasons you both have given. So we have to figure out, well, 

how do we get below the prime level? It may be a crime level too, 

but below the prime level. So if you could give us that information, 

we will look to you then, Mr. Kutz. 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes, we will look into that, and I think that this is 

a good issue for today, too, because I think the Recovery Board provides some additional transparency at the sub-recipient level— 

which has not been there much in the past. 

Senator LEVIN. All right. And then while we are asking, any 

other legislation that you can recommend to us to tighten our laws, 

it would be appreciated. If you could give us that for the record, 

that would be helpful. 

Dr. Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. How do we know that contracting officers are 

checking ORCA? 

20 

1See Exhibit No. 3, which appears in the Appendix on page 82. 

Mr. GORDON. The short answer is I cannot be 100 percent sure. 

They are required to, and we are providing them training that tells 

them how important it is. But can I be 100 percent sure that in 

every case every contracting officer is checking? I cannot. 

Senator COBURN. They do not have a checklist of things that 

have to happen before a contract is issued? 

Mr. GORDON. Oh, I suspect they do, but my point was—— 

Senator COBURN. Yes, I understand that. What about on contract 

renewals? Are they required to go back and look at ORCA again? 

Mr. GORDON. If I could state it somewhat differently, but it is the 

very same question. Do they have to do a responsibility determination, for example, when they are exercising options? It is a very important question. I would want to check the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation and see if they are required to. I am not sure they are 

required to.1

Senator COBURN. OK. Why did the IRS go after these guys only 

after your report? Why not before? 

Mr. KUTZ. The 15 cases? 

Senator COBURN. Yes. 

Mr. KUTZ. Well, they certainly did collection action against all of 

them. They did some enforcement action, as I mentioned. There 

were some levies and other types of things. But should there have 

been more aggressive action in some cases? That is a fair question. 

We did not really try to evaluate it. 

Senator COBURN. And it is not fair to go after the IRS here because overall they do a pretty good job, but maybe one of the things 

we should have done is talk with them maybe a little bit and have 

them on a second panel. 

Mr. KUTZ. Well, let me just say, on the payroll tax issue it is a 

felony to withhold and not forward payroll taxes, and that is rarely 

investigated from a criminal perspective. It is almost always investigated from a civil case. That is why I mentioned in my opening 

statement, trust fund recovery penalties are exclusively used. We 

have hardly ever seen anyone convicted. And if you think about it, 

it is like taking money out of a 401(k) plan. These are for the Social 

Security and the Medicare trust funds, which the trustees report 

just came out. That is pretty egregious behavior, in our view. 

Senator COBURN. Yes. 

Mr. GORDON. Dr. Coburn, if I could? 

Senator COBURN. Yes. 

Mr. GORDON. A couple of things here. If I were going to ask GAO 

for a little bit more detail, actually your question goes to one of the 

areas where I think it would be useful to know more. For example, 

we learned in the GAO report that the only prime contractor in 

their 15, as I mentioned earlier, was fully current in repaying their 

taxes. 

The $40 million that were owed by the 15 entities that GAO 

identified, IRS was already collecting from them. And, in fact, before IRS ever saw the GAO report, before the IRS ever saw the list 

of 15, they were already taking action so that the $40 million that 

is owed by the 15 is already down below $32 million. IRS did not 

wait for the GAO report to go after those 15. 

21 

Senator COBURN. Good point. Which comes back to the point. 

What did their certification say? 

Mr. GORDON. It is an excellent question, sir. None of the entities 

were required to certify—none but one. I will get to that one in a 

moment. 

Senator COBURN. Because they were not prime contractors. 

Mr. GORDON. Because they were not prime contractors. The one 

that was required to certify accurately certified no delinquency because they were fully current in paying their taxes. 

Senator COBURN. OK. So what we have discovered here is there 

is a problem, a big problem with subcontractors. 

Mr. GORDON. Subcontractors, sub-recipients, and vendors, absolutely. It is a challenging one, and we want to work with you to 

find solutions, either administrative or legislative, that make sense. 

Senator COBURN. I think this is probably a repeat of what Senator Levin said, but you advocated for legislation that would permit 

the Treasury to share information with agency contracting officials. 

Have you done any research to say what needs to be done and 

what is the likely cost of that? I can sit and think, if I have a certification that says I do not have a tax liability, that is not hard 

to put into a computer and bounce it off IRS and it says, yes, that 

is an accurate statement, or no, it is not. So you know nothing 

about their tax situation other than that it is not an accurate statement or it is. That cannot be too hard, can it? 

Mr. KUTZ. It depends on the link you have with IRS and to 

what—— 

Senator COBURN. Well, I mean, we have all sorts of links with 

the IRS that are protected under statute that are monitored that 

can go back—and they do go back and forth. 

Mr. KUTZ. Right. One approach is to do it case by case. The other 

is to do it systematically periodically and update the Central Contract Registry with who is and is not delinquent. Now, that would 

get into some disclosure issues with 6103 also, but right now there 

is an indicator in the Central Contract Registry about whether 

there is certain Federal tax debt—or Federal debt. Not tax debt— 

debt. There is a yes or no in there, and so there are certain types 

of situations where that could be a more systematic approach. 

Mr. GORDON. And to be fair, Dr. Coburn, to our colleagues in 

IRS, you could be talking about hundreds of thousands of inquiries 

each year that would be going to them. 

Senator COBURN. But hundreds of thousands of inquiries mean 

nothing on good modern computer systems, whereas if you are 

going—IRS knows who has a tax liability. It is on one server or one 

group of servers. There is nothing to write a program that if an 

intermediary said these are coming from contracting officers, all 

you have to say is yes or no, here is the taxpayer identification 

number, boom, yes, no, it is out. And nobody has to touch that except the contracting officer that says submit. And they can do them 

in batches or they can do it as they are working a contract. And 

they get an automatic answer, yes or no. So that is not a hard 

thing. It is not any harder than checking the box that said they 

filed the statement and certified that they did not have a tax liability. I mean, that is not a hard thing. We always try to make things 

hard. The only thing that is hard is getting the government up to 

22 

1See Exhibit No. 3, which appears in the Appendix on page 82. 

speed on some of its computer software and allowing it to talk to 

each other. 

Is it a felony to falsely certify? 

Mr. GORDON. I would want to turn to counsel to answer that 

question. 1

Senator COBURN. OK. Please do. 

Mr. GORDON. But I think that a false certification to the Federal 

Government might be a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, which would 

be a criminal violation. 

Senator COBURN. One other question, and then we will finish up. 

I am going to have some questions for the record, and I hope you 

all will submit those. What I really want to do is create an environment where we can actually get from these gentlemen what we 

really need to do on our side to fix this and make it run smoother, 

make it more easily done. 

As you look back on the Recovery Act, besides it being controversial, do you think Congress did a good job of setting up—I know 

we did good with the Recovery Board. We had a great IG. Overall, 

whether I agree with where the money was spent, we did more to 

work on accuracy with that than anything. But in this one area it 

looks to me like Congress did not get it done. What is your assessment of that? 

Mr. GORDON. I think that would be a very harsh assessment, sir. 

I think that the Federal funds were going to recipients where I am 

not at all sure they had significant problems. The fact that there 

was a problem beyond that first tier—maybe it was the second tier, 

maybe even the third tier—that is very tough to do. Congress 

would have had to have some sort of a system to address the 6103 

problem. It would have needed to be addressed. And the fact is we 

have had very few assertions of fraud, waste, or abuse in connection with the spending of Recovery Act funds. 

Senator COBURN. So looking forward, what do we need to do to 

make sure we do not—I have put out a few reports on the Recovery 

Act myself in terms of some of the awards that were associated 

with it. What are the systematic changes that we need to make 

going forward so that when we have another episode when we are 

going to do this or with the tremendous amount of dollars that flow 

out of this, what do we need to do? 

Mr. GORDON. And this is much broader than the Recovery Act. 

We need to be sure that the suspension and debarment progress 

is vigorous. I very much agree with what Chairman Levin said 

about that. The suspension and debarment process needs to be reinvigorated. We are working on that now. We need to be sure that 

our contracting officers have access to information. That is why 

ORCA and FAPIIS—forgive me for the acronyms, but that is why 

those databases are so important. 

We then need to train our contracting officers, and we are working on that right now to be sure that they know they have to check. 

They must not overlook these important issues. Those three steps 

alone I think will help us move forward. 

Senator COBURN. So do we have a system of randomly checking 

our contracting officers to see if they are checking? 

23 

1See Exhibit No. 3, which appears in the Appendix on page 82. 

Mr. GORDON. I do not know that we have one governmentwide, 

but it is something I want to look into.1

Senator COBURN. Do we have one in the Defense Department? 

Mr. GORDON. I think that some agencies are doing that, but I 

will tell you, one of the things I have done since I started this job 

a year and a half ago is talk to the senior procurement executives 

across the government. I want to raise that issue with them. I 

think it is a very important idea. 

Senator COBURN. We have a tremendous shortage of contracting 

officers, and what I want to do is make it to where their job is easy 

to be effective and efficient. 

Mr. GORDON. I could not agree more, sir. 

Senator COBURN. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Dr. Coburn, again for your leadership 

here. 

When I was a young lawyer practicing law, we represented companies, some of whom did not send along their Social Security 

money to the Federal Government that they had deducted from 

their employees’ salaries. We told them that was about one of the 

worst things in the world you could do because you could be in jail 

for that one. I mean, that is serious business, trust fund money. 

And I am surprised that there has been, as you talked about, Mr. 

Kutz, so little criminal enforcement of those provisions. That is 

theft of money that belongs in a trust fund. 

As you point out, there has been a reluctance to use the criminal 

law. But, I do not think there was a reluctance about that—I will 

not say how many decades ago, it is embarrassing—when I was 

practicing law, but I do not think there was that much reluctance. 

Senator COBURN. Six or seven. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you—that is years. That is not decades. 

Mr. KUTZ. I used to be the auditor of IRS back in the 1990s, and 

we looked at it back then, and it really has not changed that much 

in the 15 or so years. 

Senator LEVIN. I am talking about the 1970s. 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes, so you are little longer than that, but—— 

Mr. GORDON. But, sir, I very much agree. Those payroll taxes are 

held in trust by the employers. For the employers to take their employees’ funds and not to pay them to the IRS is absolutely beyond—— 

Senator LEVIN. It is criminal. 

Mr. GORDON. It is criminal and immoral. 

Senator LEVIN. It is not figuratively criminal. It is literally criminal. It is not what? You said it is criminal and what? 

Mr. GORDON. I said it is criminal and it is immoral. 

Senator LEVIN. Immoral. 

Mr. GORDON. It is taking those employees’ funds. 

Senator LEVIN. Right. But it is also—isn’t there individual liability for that? 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes, that is the trust fund recovery penalty. So the officers and owners that are held responsible for that, they get assessed personally, and as I said, in 12 of these 15 cases that was 

at least done. But no criminal. 

24 

1See Exhibit No. 3, which appears in the Appendix on page 82. 

Senator LEVIN. No criminal. At any rate, one of the things that 

would be helpful is if you could give us, Mr. Gordon, a little bit of 

an assessment of why there are so few suspensions and debarments.1 What is missing in that area if we are going to really move 

strongly in that area to try to deter what is going on? There is still 

too much, although we have made some progress, and we also 

ought to acknowledge when we have made progress. We have. It 

just is frustrating that it has not been enough, and it is too slow. 

But if you could get us a report on the suspensions and debarments 

and why we do not debar more egregious tax deadbeats. 

And, finally, from my perspective, if you could get us the responses to that idea of a provision in all the contracts requiring the 

people who are going to get Federal funds on subcontracts or on 

purchases to represent whether or not they are current on their 

taxes. You are going to give us some information on that, but also 

give us a recommendation as to whether that would be a wise idea. 

Thank you again, and to you and your staff, Dr. Coburn, and my 

staff. Thank you all. And to our witnesses, thank you so much. 

[Whereupon, at 3:49 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(25) 

A P P E N D I X 


67639.001
26 


67639.002
27 


67639.003
28 


67639.004
29 


67639.005
30 


67639.006
31 


67639.007
32 


67639.008
33 


67639.009
34 


67639.010
35 


67639.011
36 


67639.012
37 


67639.013
38 


67639.014
39 


67639.015
40 


67639.016
41 


67639.017
42 


67639.018
43 


67639.019
44 


67639.020
45 


67639.021
46 


67639.022
47 


67639.023
48 


67639.024
49 


67639.025
50 


67639.026
51 


67639.027
52 


67639.028
53 


67639.029
54 


67639.030
55 


67639.031
56 


67639.032
57 


67639.033
58 


67639.034
59 


67639.035
60 


67639.036
61 


67639.037
62 


67639.038
63 


67639.039
64 


67639.040
65 


67639.041
66 


67639.042
67 


67639.043
68 


67639.044
69 


67639.045
70 


67639.046
71 


67639.047
72 


67639.048
73 


67639.049
74 


67639.050
75 


67639.051
76 


67639.052
77 


67639.053
78 


67639.054
79 


67639.055
80 


67639.056
81 


67639.057
82 


67639.058
83 


67639.059
84 


67639.060
85 


67639.061
86 


67639.062
87 


67639.063
88 


67639.064
89 


67639.065
90 


67639.066
91 


67639.067
92 


67639.068
93 


67639.069
94 

Æ 


67639.070