Page 1 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

January 12, 2007 

The Honorable Carl Levin 

Chairman 

The Honorable Norm Coleman 

Ranking Minority Member 

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

Subject: Selected Agencies Use of Criminal Background Checks for Determining 

Responsibility 

This letter and its enclosure respond to your request for information on selected 

executive agencies’ policies and practices for making responsibility determinations 

before awarding contracts. You requested this information because of your continued 

concern for effective pre-contract screening to reduce fraudulent activities by 

contractors. 

On the basis of discussions with your office, our objectives were to (1) identify agency 

policies and practices for making contractor responsibility assessments, and determine 

under what conditions agencies conduct criminal background checks, (2) determine how 

contracting officers use the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) to make responsibility 

assessments and identify planned improvements to the system, if any, and (3) determine 

the number of fraud investigations in which the contractor or principals had a prior 

criminal background. 

On August 31, 2006, we briefed your office on the information gathered during our 

preliminary work. This letter summarizes and updates the information presented at the 

briefing. The additional information you requested regarding suspensions, debarments, 

and proposed debarments for fiscal years 1996 through 2006 is included in the briefing at 

Enclosure I. 

In developing the information for this report, you asked us to focus our work in the 

following agencies: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration 

(GSA), Department of Justice (DOJ), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We 

reviewed appropriate sections of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); agency 

supplements for DOD, GSA, DOJ, and DHS; and discussed our objectives with agency 

officials from offices of policy and general counsel (debarment officials). We also 

obtained data on fraud investigations and discussed agency efforts to track whether the 

subjects of these investigations had prior criminal backgrounds with agency officials in 
the Criminal Investigative Divisions within the offices of Inspectors General.1

 In addition, 

we reviewed relevant Comptroller General decisions discussing responsibility 

determinations and documentation for an Army base services contract. We obtained and 

analyzed fiscal year 1996-2006 data from GSA for EPLS, a system that contains 

governmentwide data on suspensions, debarments, and proposed debarments. We also 

obtained fiscal year 2003-2005 data on procurements from GSA’s Federal Procurement 

Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG)2

 that contains governmentwide data on agency

contract awards and obligated funds. We conducted our work between June 2006 and 

October 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Background 

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) generally governs most executive agencies’ 

acquisitions. The FAR is issued and maintained jointly by the Secretary of Defense, the 

Administrator of GSA, and the Administrator of NASA.3

 However, agencies can 

supplement the FAR with agency-specific regulations. For example, Navy regulations 

include Navy/Marine Corps Acquisition Regulation Supplements, a supplement to the 

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation, which is, in turn, a supplement to the FAR. A 

few agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration and the Transportation 

Security Administration are not subject to the FAR, but have regulations that are similar 

in purpose to the FAR. 

Under FAR, contracting officers are responsible for ensuring contracts are awarded only 

to those contractors who are capable, responsible, and ethical.4

 FAR, Part 9, prescribes 

policies, standards, and practices for determining contractor responsibility and requires 

that agency contracting officers make an affirmative determination of responsibility 

before contract award. 

Responsibility determinations include an assessment of a number of specific areas 

including a contractor’s technical capability, past performance, financial capability, and 

business ethics and integrity. The contracting officer may also use information from preaward surveys conducted by an outside agency, such as the Defense Contract 

Management Agency. 

There are a number of tools, such as the EPLS and the Central Contractor Registration 

System (CCR), to assist contracting officers in obtaining information and determining 

responsibility. The EPLS is a web-based listing of those entities that are suspended, 

debarred, or proposed for debarment5

 and is maintained by GSA. 

 1

We were asked to obtain data specifically on fraud investigations by contractors and the number of contractor 

principals who had previous criminal convictions. We were not asked to identify the nature of the previous criminal 

convictions to be reported, for example, such as those for nonpayment of taxes or product substitution. Only two 

agencies, DOJ and GSA, were able to provide us with data on the numbers of contractors with previous convictions. 

2

FPDS-NG is a computer-based system for collecting, developing, and disseminating procurement data to the Congress, 

the Executive Branch, and the private sector. The Federal Procurement Data Center, managed by GSA, oversees the 

system. Fiscal Year 2005 information was the latest available data at the time we completed our work. 

3

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)1.103(b) (2006) . 

4

FAR 9.104-1. 

5

Suspensions temporarily disqualify a contractor from doing business with the government for a specified period of

time—generally not to exceed 12 months. Debarments preclude a contractor from receiving further government

contracts or assistance from any federal agency and generally may be for up to three years. 

Page 2 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
The contracting officer is required to check the contractor’s name or other identifying 

information against EPLS data to determine if the contractor is eligible to receive a 

contract.6

The CCR is the primary contractor registration database for the U.S. federal government. 

CCR collects, validates, stores, and disseminates data in support of agency acquisition 

missions, including federal agency contract and assistance awards. The FAR requires 

prospective federal government contractors to register in CCR in order to be awarded 

contracts by the federal government.7

 In September 2006, these two tools were integrated 

through the release of EPLS Version 3. The new system pulls available data from CCR 

when the agency user enters a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. 

Summary of Findings 

Federal Acquisition Regulation Governs Responsibility Determinations

Agencies base their policies and practices for making responsibility determinations on 

the FAR and their own supplements to the FAR. The FAR specifies a number of factors 

to consider in making responsibility determinations, but it does not require any 

particular type of background check.8

 Criminal background checks are neither required 

by the FAR nor prohibited in making responsibility determinations. 

Although procedures for making responsibility determinations do vary among agencies, 

contracting officers we spoke with generally said they: 

• check the EPLS for debarments or suspensions, 

• conduct pre-award surveys for larger contracts, and 

• document other aspects of the contractor’s ability to perform the contract, such

as the contractors’ technical, financial, and ethical capacity to perform the work 

required.

Agency officials and contracting officers stated that they rely on past performance of the 

contractor to determine the extent of documentation needed to determine responsibility. 

However, according to agency officials, if contracting officers want a criminal 

background check completed, they would need to request it through their agency 

investigative components, such as in the office of Inspector General. Apart from 

determining responsibility, a criminal background check could be needed as a condition 

of the contract if the work under the contract required contractor personnel to have 

access to federally controlled facilities or federal information systems.9

 As another 

example, contractors or contractor personnel may be required to undergo a criminal 

background check, according to officials, if the work requires a National Security 

 

6

FAR 9.405(d)(1) and (4). 

7

FAR 4.1102(a). 

8

FAR 9.104-1. 

9

Criminal background checks could be required to implement Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12. This 

Directive sets forth policy for a common identification standard for federal employees and contractors who need

physical access to secure federal facilities, and logical access to federally controlled information systems. In order to 

enhance security, increase government efficiency, reduce identity fraud, and protect personal privacy, the directive 

establishes a mandatory, governmentwide standard for secure and reliable forms of identification issued by the federal 

government to its employees and contractors. 

Page 3 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
clearance. National Security clearances include checks of criminal databases as well as 

other background investigations. Agency officials we spoke with stated that neither of 

these background checks is normally a part of the contracting officer’s determination of 

responsibility. 

Contracting Officers Use EPLS to Determine Eligibility

The FAR requires contracting officers to determine whether prospective contractors are 

eligible (not suspended, debarred, or proposed for debarment) to receive a contract as 

part of determining responsibility before awarding the contract.10 Contracting officers 

stated they generally search the EPLS by using (1) an identifying number such as the 

Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) or a Taxpayer Identification Number, and/or 

(2) the name of either the firm or an individual. 

A 2005 GAO report11 identified several limitations with reporting data on suspensions, 

debarments and administrative agreements: 

• an identifying number such as the DUNS was not a required field when officials 

added suspension and debarment data to the EPLS; 

• there was no common forum for sharing information on administrative 

agreements and compelling reason waivers;12 and 

• searches using names might not identify an excluded contractor or person 

because of name changes. 

GAO recommendations included making a contractor identification number a required 

data element in reporting suspensions and debarments and providing information about 

administrative agreements to contracting officers. As we noted above, and in response 

to the reported limitations, GSA released an updated version of EPLS in September 2006 

that provides a required data field for the DUNS number and pulls in data from the CCR 

system. The Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee is discussing how to 

make information on administrative agreements more readily available to agencies. 

Enclosure I contains data you asked for on the number of suspensions, debarments, and 

proposed debarments from the four agencies. The data we reviewed from the 1996-2006 

time period did not show any trends. 

Data on Instances of Previous Fraud by Contractor Principals Not Readily Available

According to officials, agencies receive allegations of irregularities from many sources 

including contracting officers, oversight organizations such as the Defense Contract 

Management Agency, agency or contractor employees, competitors, other federal 

agencies, whistleblower cases, and hotlines. Agencies assign investigations of fraud to 

 

10FAR 9.104-1 and 9.405(d)(1) and (4). 

11Federal Procurement: Additional Data Reporting Could Improve the Suspension and Debarment Process, GAO-05-

479 (Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2005). 

12Administrative agreements are actions to be taken by a contractor in place of other remedies such as suspension or 

debarments. A contractor might agree to pay a fine or institute an ethics program, for example, in order to remain 

eligible to receive contracts. A compelling reason determination, which is an exception that allows the award of a

contract to a debarred or suspended entity, may be sought from the head of an agency if there is an urgent need for 

supplies or services or if the debarred or suspended contractor is the only known source. 

Page 4 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
criminal investigative units within the within the agencies, such as the office of Inspector

General. The investigative offices coordinate with offices of General Counsel to report 

indictments or evidence to initiate suspensions; they report convictions for debarment 

proceedings. According to agency officials, detailed information on whether 

investigations include employees or principals of the company or whether the parties 

had a prior criminal history may be contained in the case files if it is a part of the 

information collected in developing the investigation. For example, an official at DOJ 

told us that prior criminal history checks are a routine part of case development. 

However, the case files are narrative in nature and, therefore, obtaining the information 

requires a case-by-case analysis. 

Two agencies, DOJ and GSA, did perform such a review and were able to tell us in 

addition to the number of investigations, the number of principals and the number of 

principals with prior convictions. Together the agencies reported six principals with 

prior criminal histories who had been investigated for fraud over the 3-year period. DHS 

and DOD officials said that they were unable to provide the number of principals who 

had previous criminal histories within the timeframe of this work. 

Table 1 shows the number of cases of fraud by agency closed in fiscal years 2003 – 2006 

from the Office of Inspector General investigative offices at DHS, GSA, DOJ, and DOD. 

Table 1: Closed Investigations for Fiscal Years 2003-2006 

Agency Closed Investigations

DHS 41 

GSA 33

DOJ 33

DODa

Defense 

Criminal

Investigative

Service 

856 

Air Force 536 

Department of

Navy

394 

Army 168

a

We do not total cases for DOD because joint cases are counted in each 

component, and we could not obtain an unduplicated total.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

We provided a draft of this report to DOD, DHS, DOJ and GSA. DOD, DHS, and GSA 

provided technical comments which we incorporated as appropriate. DOJ stated that it 

did not have any comments. 

As we agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days from the date of this report. At 

that time we will send copies to the Secretaries of the Departments of Defense, Justice, 

and Homeland Security; the Administrator of the General Services Administration; 

appropriate congressional committees; and other interested parties. We will also make 

this report available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Page 5 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
Major contributors to this report included Michael J. Hesse, Letisha T. Jenkins, John A. 

Krump, Carol T. Mebane, and Carol Dawn Petersen. If you have any questions about the 

report, please contact me at (202) 512-4841. 

Cristina T. Chaplain 

Acting Director, 

Acquisition and Sourcing Management 

Page 6 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
Enclosure I 

Making Responsibility 

Determinations

Briefing to the Permanent Subcommittee on

Investigations, Committee on Homeland

Security and Governmental Affairs

U.S. Senate

Page 7 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
Enclosure I 

2

Objectives

To ensure that agencies award contracts to those who are technically,

financially, and ethically responsible, you asked GAO to: 

• Identify agency policies and practices for making contractor

responsibility assessments and under what conditions criminal

background checks are conducted.

• Determine how the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) is

used in making responsibility assessments and identify planned 

improvements to the system.

• Determine what is known about the number of fraud 

investigations in which the contractor or principals had a prior

criminal background.

Page 8 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
Enclosure I 

3

Scope and Methodology

• You asked us to address these objectives in the following agencies:

• Department of Defense (DOD) 

• General Services Administration (GSA)

• Department of Justice (DOJ)

• Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

• We reviewed appropriate sections of 

• Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

• Agency supplements for DOD, GSA, DOJ, and DHS

• We discussed our objectives with agency officials from offices of policy and general

counsel (debarment officials).

• We also obtained data on fraud investigations and discussed agency efforts to track

whether the subjects of these investigations had prior criminal backgrounds with

officials from offices of Inspectors General, Criminal Investigative Divisions.

Page 9 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
Enclosure I 

4

Scope and Methodology

In addition, we

• Reviewed

• Relevant Comptroller General decisions

• Army documentation for base services contract for Redstone 

Arsenal

• Obtained and analyzed data from GSA:

• Federal Procurement Data System—Next Generation 

(FPDS-NG): containing governmentwide data on agency

contract awards and obligated funds (2003-2005)

• EPLS: containing governmentwide data on suspensions,

debarments and proposed debarments (1996-2006)

Page 10 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
Enclosure I 

5

71.3%

7.4%

21.2%

Background: Contracting Dollars for Fiscal

Year 2005

• FPDS-NG reports

$377.1 billion in

contracting for fiscal 

year 2005.

• DOD’s share—over

70 percent—is about 

$268.9 billion. 

• Other agencies in this

review, GSA, DHS, 

and DOJ comprise

about $28 billion.

All other 

agencies

DOD

GSA, DHS, DOJ

Page 11 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
Enclosure I 

6

Background: Contracting Dollars for Four

Federal Agencies for Fiscal Years 2003-2005

D H S

-

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

2003 2004 2005

Fiscal Year

Billions of Dollars

d s

-

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

2003 2004 2005

Fiscal Year

Billions of Dollars

d

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

2003 2004 2005

Fiscal Year

Billions of Dollars

D O D

-

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

2003 2004 2005

Fiscal Year

Billions of Dollars

DOD

DOJ

DHS

GSA

Page 12 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
Enclosure I 

7

Background: Federal Acquisition Regulation

• Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) generally governs most

executive agencies’ acquisitions.

• Agencies can supplement the FAR with agency-specific

regulations.

• A few agencies are not subject to the FAR but have regulations

that are similar in purpose to the FAR:

• Federal Aviation Administration

• Transportation Security Administration

• FAR is issued and maintained jointly by Secretary of Defense, the 

Administrator of GSA, and the Administrator of NASA under the 

Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 USC 405, 421).

Page 13 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
Enclosure I 

8

Background: Federal Acquisition Regulation 

FAR Part 9 prescribes policies, standards, and practices for

determining contractor responsibility and requires that agency

contracting officers make an affirmative determination of 

responsibility before contract award.

• Responsibility determinations include an assessment of a 

number of specific areas including a contractor’s

• technical capability,

• past performance, 

• financial capability, and

• business ethics and integrity.

• The contracting officer should check the EPLS to determine 

whether the contractor is prohibited (suspended, debarred, 

proposed for debarment, or otherwise ineligible) from receiving 

an award.

Page 14 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
Enclosure I 

9

Background: Federal Acquisition Regulation 

FAR Part 9 also regulates debarments and suspensions. 

• Agencies may suspend or debar contractors for a number of 

reasons including

• fraudulent or criminal offenses associated with contracts

such as embezzlement, theft, or bribery; or

• any serious or compelling reason that affects contractor

responsibility including failure to comply with the 

requirements of the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988 or the 

Clean Air and Water Acts.

• Suspensions are generally for a period not to exceed 12

months. Generally, debarments may be for up to 3 years.

• A debarment or suspension precludes any government agency

from awarding a contract to the debarred or suspended entity

except for a compelling reason as determined by the agency

head.

Page 15 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
Enclosure I 

10

Background: Excluded Parties List System

• The EPLS is a Web-based listing of debarred, suspended or

otherwise excluded contractors and other entities. The list is 

maintained by GSA. 

• Each agency has a representative on the Interagency 

Suspension and Debarment Committee, a policy-making 

body in the Office of Management and Budget.

Page 16 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
Enclosure I 

11

Agency Policies and Practices in Making 

Responsibility Determinations

DOD, GSA, DOJ, and DHS officials all cited the FAR as 

providing the basis for responsibility determinations.

• Each agency has its own supplemental regulations that

provide agency specific procedures. 

• Agencies or their components may also have

standardized operating procedures they follow:

• Some agency components such as the Army or

Transportation Security Administration use checklists

of required steps and documentation that outline FAR 

or agency regulations and operating procedures.

• Some components reported that they conduct

compliance reviews to assure that contract files are 

properly documented.

Page 17 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
Enclosure I 

12

Agency Policies and Practices in Making 

Responsibility Determinations

• Procedures vary among agencies, but contracting officers reported 

that in general, they

• check EPLS for debarments or suspensions,

• conduct pre-award surveys for larger contracts, and

• document other aspects of the contractor’s ability to perform the 

contract.

• Contracting officers also stated that they rely on the past

performance of the contractor to determine the extent of

documentation needed.

Page 18 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
Enclosure I 

13

Background Checks in Responsibility 

Determinations

• The FAR defines a number of factors to consider and 

address in making responsibility determinations but does not

mandate any particular type of background check.

• Neither the FAR nor agency supplemental regulations require

criminal background checks for contractors or principals as a 

part of responsibility determinations.

• Criminal background checks are not prohibited; however,

• according to agency officials, if contracting officers want a

criminal background check, they would need to request it

through an office such as the Inspector General with

authority to access the relevant databases.

Page 19 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
Enclosure I 

14

Other Background Checks

• Implementation of Homeland Security Presidential 

Directive12 could require that contractor personnel who have 

access to federally controlled facilities or federal information

systems undergo a criminal background check.

• The procedures and rules amend FAR Parts 2, 4, 7, and 52. 

• The addition does not change responsibility determinations 

for contract award.

Page 20 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
Enclosure I 

15

Other Background Checks

Officials we talked to reported that agencies that award 

contracts to do work involving national security or intelligence

may require additional background checks.

• Contractors may be required to obtain national security

clearances for their principals, facilities, and personnel to

respond to a solicitation.

• National security clearances require checks of criminal 

databases as well as other background investigation.

Page 21 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
Enclosure I 

16

Use of EPLS in Determining Responsibility

• FAR requires contracting officers to determine whether prospective

contractors are eligible to receive a contract as part of an initial 

determination of responsibility and again before awarding the 

contract.

• Contracting officers stated they generally search the EPLS in either

of two ways:

• by an identifying number if it was provided to the database

• Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS)

• Taxpayer Identification Number

• by name of either the firm or an individual.

Page 22 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
Enclosure I 

17

Excluded Parties List System Data for

Selected Agencies

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Number

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Years

FY 1996-2006 Suspensions, Debarments

 and Proposed Debarments for DOD

Page 23 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
Enclosure I 

18

Excluded Parties List System Data for

Selected Agencies

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Number

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Years

FY 1996-2006 Suspensions, Debarments

and Proposed Debarments for GSA

Page 24 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
Enclosure I 

19

Suspensions, Debarments, and Proposed 

Debarments by Agency from 1996 to 2006

DHS* 0 0 2 13 9 5 10 13 0 0 0

GSA 363 240 144 101 147 217 242 326 244 243 241

DOJ 0 0 2 1 4 0 4 0 0 2 2

DOD 1,045 1,569 1,769 1,254 1,192 1,069 1,262 2,081 2,104 810 871

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

*Although DHS was not created until 2003, data include information from the legacy

agencies that now comprise DHS.

Page 25 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
Enclosure I 

20

Planned Modifications to EPLS to Address

Identified Limitations

A 2005 GAO report (GAO-05-479) identified several limitations with reporting data

on suspensions and debarments and administrative agreements: 

• an identifying number such as the DUNS was not a required field when

officials added suspension and debarment data to EPLS; 

• there was no common forum for sharing information on administrative

agreements or compelling reason waivers; and

• searches using names might not identify an excluded contractor or

person because of name changes.

• GAO recommendations included making a contractor identification number

a required data element in reporting debarments.

• GSA released EPLS version 3 in September 2006. Version 3 requires 

inclusion of the DUNS number and pulls information from the CCR.

• The Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee is discussing how 

to make information on administrative agreements and compelling reason

determinations more readily available.

Page 26 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
Enclosure I 

21

Investigating Fraud Allegations

• According to officials, agencies receive allegations of irregularities from

many sources including 

• contracting officers, 

• oversight organizations such as Defense Contract Management

Agency, 

• agency or contractor employees, 

• competitors, 

• other federal agencies, and 

• hotlines.

• Agencies assign investigations of fraud to offices with investigative units 

such as offices of Inspectors General.

• The offices of the Inspectors General coordinate with offices of General

Counsel to report indictments or evidence to initiate suspensions; they 

report convictions for debarment proceedings.

Page 27 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
Enclosure I 

22

Contractor Principals with Prior Criminal

Backgrounds

• Agencies we reviewed do not uniformly keep data on prior criminal 

backgrounds, if any, of contractor principals investigated for fraud or make 

a distinction in their investigations about whether the allegation involves a

principal or an employee.

• Fiscal year 2003 – 2006 to date:

• DOD: information on principals not readily available*

• DCIS: 856 investigations 

• OSI: 536 investigations

• NCIS: 394 investigations

• CID: 168 investigations

• DHS – 41 investigations; information on principals not readily available

• GSA – 33 investigations; 5 principals with prior criminal histories 

• DOJ – 33 investigations; 1 principal with prior criminal history

*Each DOD component includes joint investigations in totals.

(120562)

Page 28 GAO-07-215R Responsibility Determinations
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. 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. 
GAO’s Mission 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 Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER