FEDERAL REAL 

PROPERTY

Better Guidance and More 

Reliable Data Needed to 

Improve Management

Statement of David J. Wise, Director 

Physical Infrastructure Issues

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on 

Government Operations, Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform, 

House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. ET

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

GAO-14-757T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-757T a testimony before 

the Subcommittee on Government Operations, 

Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform, House of Representatives

July 29, 2014

FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY

Better Guidance and More Reliable Data Needed to 

Improve Management

Why GAO Did This Study

The federal real property portfolio, 

comprising approximately 900,000

buildings and structures and worth 

billions of dollars, presents several key 

management challenges. GAO has 

designated federal real property 

management as a high risk issue since 

2003 due to long-standing challenges

including unreliable data on this 

property, excess and underutilized 

property, over-reliance on leasing, and 

challenges with security. Since then, 

the federal government has given highlevel attention to reforming real 

property management and has made 

some progress. It established the 

FRPC, chaired by OMB, in 2004. The 

FRPC created the FRPP, which is 

intended to be a comprehensive 

database developed for describing the 

nature, use, and extent of all real 

property under the custody and control 

of executive branch agencies. The 

FRPP is managed by GSA and began 

collecting data in 2005. GAO’s recent 

work has found, however, that data 

problems related to federal real 

property have continued.

This statement discusses data 

guidance and reliability issues GAO

has found regarding federal civilian 

agencies’ data on: (1) excess and 

underutilized property, (2) structures, 

(3) maintenance backlogs, and (4) cost 

saving estimates. It is based on 

previous GAO reports on federal real 

property issued from June 2012 

through January 2014 and some 

updates on the status of 

recommendations made in those 

reports. To obtain these updates, GAO 

monitored agency actions taken and 

performed follow-up with agency 

officials. 

What GAO Found

GAO found in 2012 that government-wide real property data were not sufficiently 

reliable to support sound management and decision making about excess and 

underutilized property. The Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) had not 

ensured that key data elements of the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) were 

defined and reported consistently and accurately. For example, FRPP data did 

not accurately describe the properties at 23 of the 26 locations GAO visited, often 

overstating the condition and annual operating costs of buildings. GAO 

recommended that the General Services Administration (GSA), in consultation 

with FRPC, develop a plan to improve the FRPP. Consequently, GSA developed 

an action plan and was scheduled to complete these changes by June 2013. 

GAO is determining whether these actions improve FRPP consistency and 

reliability and plans to report the results as part of GAO’s 2015 high risk update. 

In 2014, GAO found that incorrect and inconsistent data on federal structures 

such as roads, bridges, railroads, and utility systems, limited the value of the 

government-wide FRPP data. For example, agencies GAO reviewed defined 

structures differently leading to inconsistencies. GAO recommended that GSA, in 

coordination with FRPC, clarify the definition of structures and assess the 

feasibility of limiting the data on structures submitted to the FRPP. GSA provided 

an action plan in December 2013 to implement GAO's recommendations, but no 

timeframe was provided for when the proposed actions would be completed. 

In a 2014 report, GAO found that civilian agencies followed most leading 

practices in managing their facility maintenance and repair backlogs, except for 

transparent reporting about the funding amounts agencies are spending to 

maintain their assets and manage their backlogs. Different agency financial 

reporting requirements as well as FRPP reporting guidance did not require a 

specific process for determining deferred maintenance and repair backlogs, and 

agencies could use their existing processes. Thus, GAO recommended that 

OMB, in collaboration with agencies, collect and report information on agencies' 

costs for annual maintenance and repair performed and funding spent to manage 

their existing backlogs. OMB and FRPC agencies have taken actions to improve 

management of deferred maintenance, including working to refine FRPP data, 

but have not yet fully implemented GAO’s recommendation. 

In a 2013 review of selected agencies’ reporting of real property cost savings 

data, GAO identified several challenges that reduced the reliability and 

transparency of the data the government reported. For example, OMB did not 

require agencies to provide detailed documentation of their reported savings or 

include specific information about agencies' reported savings on 

Performance.gov, limiting transparency. Furthermore, guidance issued by OMB 

was not clear on the types of savings that could be reported, particularly because 

the term "cost savings" was not clearly defined. GAO recommended that OMB 

establish clear and specific standards to help ensure reliability and transparency 

in the reporting of future real-property cost savings. OMB generally agreed with 

the recommendation. GAO is determining the extent to which OMB has 

implemented it and GAO plans to report the results as part of GAO’s 2015 high 

risk update.

View GAO-14-757T. For more information, 

contact David Wise at (202) 512-2834 or 

wised@gao.gov 
 

Page 1 GAO-14-757T 

Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Connolly, and Members of the 

Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss federal real property 

management, including how data guidance and reliability issues 

contribute to its high risk designation. The federal government’s real 

property portfolio comprises approximately 900,000 buildings and 

structures and is worth billions of dollars.1 Federal real property 

management has been on our high-risk list since 2003 due to the 

presence of unneeded and underutilized facilities, overreliance on 

leasing, security challenges at federal facilities, and unreliable real 

property data.2 In 2004, the President issued an executive order 

establishing the Federal Real Property Council (FRPC). The executive 

order required the FRPC to work with the General Services 

Administration (GSA) to establish and maintain a single, comprehensive 

database describing the nature, use, and extent of all real property under 

the custody and control of executive branch agencies, except when 

otherwise required for reasons of national security.3 The FRPC created 

the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) to meet this requirement and 

began data collection in 2005. GSA is responsible for managing the 

FRPP. As we have reported, despite the implementation of the executive 

order, nationwide data collection efforts, and various reform efforts and 

proposals, data problems have continued and agencies continue to face 

persistent challenges with managing real property.4

 

1

Examples of federal buildings include office buildings, warehouses, laboratories, 

hospitals, and family housing. Examples of federal structures include items such as roads 

and bridges, railroads, utility systems, weapons ranges, and monuments and memorials.

2

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-13-283 (Washington, D.C.: February 2013). 

3

Federal Real Property Asset Management, Exec. Order No. 13327, 69 Fed. Reg. 5897

(Feb. 6, 2004). The executive order applies to executive branch agencies listed at 31

U.S.C. §901(b); the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy,

Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the

Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the

Environmental Protection Agency; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the

U.S. Agency for International Development; GSA; the National Science Foundation; the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission; the Office of Personnel Management; the Small

Business Administration; and the Social Security Administration. 

4

GAO, Federal Real Property: Excess and Underutilized Property Is an Ongoing 

Challenge, GAO-13-573T (Washington, D.C.: April 2013). 
 

Page 2 GAO-14-757T 

My statement today summarizes our recent work as it pertains to data 

problems affecting federal real property management by civilian agencies. 

It highlights our work on data guidance and reliability issues related to the 

management of: (1) excess and underutilized property, (2) structures, (3) 

maintenance and repair backlogs, and (4) cost saving estimates. For this 

statement, we drew primarily from GAO reports on federal real property 

issued from June 2012 through January 2014 including some updates on 

the status of recommendations made in those reports. To obtain these 

updates, we monitored agency actions taken and performed follow-up 

with agency officials. See appendix I for a list of these GAO reports. For 

those reports, we obtained and analyzed FRPP data submissions and 

other real property data from the agencies we selected, reviewed FRPC 

and agency guidance documents, and interviewed federal agency 

officials. Our reports contain more detailed explanations of the methods 

used to conduct our work. The work on which this statement is based was 

conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

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

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

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

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Federal excess and underutilized property is an ongoing challenge facing 

the government due in part to unreliable data. In June 2012, we found 

that the FRPC did not ensure that key data elements—including buildings’ 

utilization, condition, annual operating costs, mission dependency, and 

value—were defined and reported consistently and accurately.5 For 

example, the FRPP data did not accurately describe the properties at 23 

of the 26 locations we visited, often overstating the condition and annual 

operating costs of buildings. The types of inconsistencies and 

inaccuracies we identified in these five key data elements suggest that

the FRPP database is not a useful decision-making tool for managing 

federal real property. Our review focused on five civilian federal real 

property-holding agencies—GSA and the departments of Energy (DOE), 

 

5

GAO, Federal Real Property: National Strategy and Better Data Needed to Improve 

Management of Excess and Underutilized Property, GAO-12-645 (Washington, D.C.: June 

2012). 

Unreliable Data Create 

Challenges for Managing 

Excess and Underutilized 

Property
 

Page 3 GAO-14-757T 

the Interior (Interior), Veterans Affairs (VA), and Agriculture (USDA).6 We 

reviewed key agency-reported FRPP data elements including utilization, 

condition index, annual operating costs, and value, and we found 

inconsistencies and inaccuracies for each of these data elements. For 

example, several buildings that received high scores for condition were 

actually in poor condition, with problems including: asbestos, mold, health 

concerns, radioactivity, and flooding (see fig. 1).

 

6

We chose GSA, DOE, Interior, and VA because these agencies contained the largest 

total building square footage of all civilian real property agencies that are required to 

submit data under the executive order. We added USDA to our list of selected agencies 

because USDA reported significantly more excess properties than the other civilian 

agencies in 2009. In May 2011, the administration posted an interactive map of excess 

federal properties on its website, and OMB told us that this map was created from the list 

of excess properties submitted to the FRPP database in 2009. The data from this map 

showed that USDA has over 2,000 more properties than the civilian agency with the next 

highest number. 
 

Page 4 GAO-14-757T 

Figure 1: Examples of Federal Property Reported as Being in Excellent Condition in the Federal Real Property Profile, 2012

In addition to the various problems we found and documented with real 

property data, we have also found that the federal government continues 

to face other challenges when managing excess and underutilized 
 

Page 5 GAO-14-757T 

properties.7 Such challenges include (1) the high cost of property 

disposal, (2) legal requirements prior to disposal such as those related to 

preserving historical properties and the environment, (3) stakeholder 

resistance to property disposal or reuse plans, and (4) remote property 

locations that make selling or disposal difficult. Given the complexities of 

issues related to excess and underutilized federal real property 

management, unsuccessful implementation of cost savings efforts across 

administrations, and the issues that remain with data reporting, we 

concluded that a national strategy could provide a clear path forward to 

help federal agencies manage excess and underutilized property in the 

long term. A national strategy can guide federal agencies and other 

stakeholders to systematically identify risks, resources needed to address 

those risks, and investment priorities when managing federal portfolios. 

Without a national strategy, the federal government may be ill-equipped 

to sustain efforts to better manage excess and underutilized property.

In our June 2012 report, we recommended that OMB, in consultation with 

the FRPC, develop a national strategy for managing federal excess and 

underutilized real property. OMB did not directly state whether it agreed 

or disagreed with our recommendation. Up to now, no comprehensive 

national strategy has been issued. We view such a strategy as a key step 

needed to improve the federal government’s management of its real 

property portfolio. Additionally, FRPP is not yet a useful tool for describing 

the nature, use, and extent of excess and underutilized federal real 

property. We concluded in June 2012 that FRPP data must be consistent 

and reliable to help decision makers overcome these long-standing 

problems. Accordingly, in the same report, we recommended that GSA 

and FRPC take action to improve the FRPP. GSA stated that they intend 

to improve the agency’s management of FRPP data by:

• making enhancements to clearly define data collection requirements,

• performing data quality tests and assessments to ensure data 

reliability,

• developing new performance measures to support government-wide 

goals, and

• improving collaboration with agencies.

 

7

GAO, Federal Real Property: National Strategy and Better Data Needed to Improve 

Management of Excess and Underutilized Property, GAO-12-645 (Washington, D.C.: June 

2012).
 

Page 6 GAO-14-757T 

GSA developed an action plan for implementing GAO’s recommendations 

and was scheduled to complete these changes by June 2013. We are in 

the process of determining whether these actions improve FRPP 

consistency and reliability. We plan to report our results as part of our 

2015 high risk update.

The federal government manages a wide variety of structures that

represent over half of the federal government’s real property assets, 

including roads and parking structures, utility systems, monuments, and 

radio towers. In January 2014, we found that incorrect and inconsistent 

data on structures limit the value of the government-wide FRPP data the 

government collects.8 First, at the most basic level, some of the data 

agencies submit on their structures are incorrect, undermining agencies’ 

ability to manage their structures and the reliability of the data in FRPP.

Second, even if agencies effectively apply the OMB guidance, the 

government-wide data will continue to face reliability problems because of 

the flexibility built into FRPP guidance on how agencies track key 

elements, such as defining and counting structures. For example, 

agencies we reviewed—including the Department of Transportation 

(DOT), DOE, VA, USDA, and Interior9

—defined structures differently 

leading to inconsistencies in what assets are included in the FRPP.

Figure 2 provides examples of some facilities we visited that were 

classified as structures, even though they were similar to buildings 

(having features such as walls, roofs, doors, windows, and airconditioning systems in some cases). We concluded that agencies must 

improve their data quality in order to document performance and support 

decision making.

 

8

GAO, Federal Real Property: Actions Needed to Improve How Agencies Manage 

Structures, GAO-14-87 (Washington, D.C.: January 2014).

9

We selected these civilian real property-holding agencies for our review using the 

following criteria: number of structures, diversity in types of structures, and the high 

replacement value and operations and maintenance costs.

Incorrect and Inconsistent 

Data Undermines 

Government-wide

Management of Structures
 

Page 7 GAO-14-757T 

Figure 2: Examples of Building-Like Structures Owned by Federal Government Agencies, 2014

Additionally, the agencies we reviewed submitted incorrect information for 

key data elements for structures, such as replacement value, annual 

operating costs, and condition. GSA officials who manage the FRPP said 

that FRPC chose to provide flexibility in the reporting guidance for data on 

structures to account for the wide diversity in federal structures, but it also 

aggregates the data as if they were comparable. We found that, even if 

this data were useful, FRPC reports very little information on structures. 

Officials at GSA told us that there is low interest in and demand for this 

information, creating few incentives to improve data reliability.

We recommended that OMB, in coordination with the FRPC, develop 

guidance to improve agencies’ internal controls to produce consistent, 

accurate and reliable information on their structures.10 We also 

recommended that GSA, in coordination with the FRPC, clarify the 

definition of structures and assess the feasibility of limiting the data 

collected on structures submitted to the FRPP. OMB and GSA agreed 

 

10Internal control standards for federal executive branch agencies require that agencies 

have relevant, reliable, and timely information for decision-making and external reporting 

purposes. 
 

Page 8 GAO-14-757T 

with the recommendations, and GSA provided an action plan in 

December 2013 to implement them, but no timeframe was provided for 

when the proposed actions would be completed.

In a 2014 report, we found that civilian agencies followed most leading 

practices in managing their facility maintenance and repair backlogs, 

except for transparent reporting about the funding amounts agencies are 

spending to maintain their assets and manage their backlogs. However, 

the deferred maintenance and repair of federal real property contributes 

to deteriorating assets in the federal inventory, and we found that the 

eventual need to address deferred maintenance and repair could 

significantly affect future budget resources.11 The five federal agencies we 

reviewed for our 2014 report— GSA, DOE, VA, Interior, and the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — reported fiscal year 2012 

deferred maintenance and repair backlog estimates that ranged from 

nearly $1 billion to $20 billion.12 However, agencies do not share a 

common definition of deferred maintenance, resulting in dissimilar 

backlog estimates. In addition, financial reporting requirements as well as 

FRPP reporting guidance do not require a specific process for 

determining deferred maintenance and repair backlogs, and agencies can 

use their existing processes to do so. For example, Interior excludes, 

while DHS includes, costs for some assets scheduled for disposal. As a 

result, when agencies report information in their financial reports and to 

FRPP, data include dissimilar backlog estimates and makes estimates 

across agencies not comparable. As such, an opportunity exists to better 

conform to leading practices and increase transparency.

We recommended that OMB, in collaboration with agencies, collect and 

report information on agencies’ costs for annual maintenance and repair 

performed and funding spent to manage their existing backlogs. OMB 

agreed with our recommendation, and along with FRPC, has taken 

actions to improve management of deferred maintenance, including 

working to refine FRPP data and develop performance measures that 

 

11GAO, Federal Real Property: Improved Transparency Could Help Efforts to Manage 

Agencies’ Maintenance and Repair Backlogs, GAO-14-188 (Washington, D.C.: January 

2014).

12We selected these five civilian agencies because they were examined as part of our 

2011 high risk update on managing federal real property and reported a high ratio of 

deferred maintenance and repairs to annual operating costs.

Agencies Do Not Apply 

Standard Definitions for 

Deferred Maintenance and 

Repair Needs
 

Page 9 GAO-14-757T 

reflect current federal real-property management priorities, but OMB has 

not yet fully implemented our recommendation. Thus, as OMB and FRPC 

agencies work to improve FRPP data and develop new performance 

metrics, the opportunity exists to revise requirements for agencies to 

collect and report costs of annual maintenance and repair and to address 

deferred maintenance and repair backlogs as we recommended earlier 

this year.

In June 2010, the President issued a memorandum directing federal 

agencies to achieve $3 billion in real property cost savings by the end of 

fiscal year 2012 through a number of methods, including disposal of 

excess property, energy efficiency improvements, and other space 

consolidation efforts. Agencies reported real property cost savings of $3.8 

billion across the OMB categories of disposal, space management, 

sustainability, and innovation in response to the June 2010 presidential 

memorandum. Space management savings, defined by OMB as those 

savings resulting from, among other things, consolidations or the 

elimination of lease arrangements that were not cost effective, accounted 

for the largest portion of savings reported by all agencies. In October 

2013, we found that space management savings accounted for about 70 

percent of the savings reported by the six agencies we reviewed— GSA, 

USDA, DOE, DHS, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Department 

of State (State).13 The requirements of the memorandum, as well as 

agencies’ individual savings targets and the time frame for reporting 

savings, led the selected agencies to primarily report savings from 

activities that were planned or under way at the time the memorandum 

was issued.

GAO’s October 2013 review of the six selected agencies found several 

problems that affected the reliability and transparency of the cost savings 

 

13GAO, Federal Real Property: Improved Standards Needed to Ensure That Agencies’ 

Reported Cost Savings Are Reliable and Transparent, GAO-14-12 (Washington, D.C.: 

October 2013). We selected the six agencies because they had the largest cost savings 

targets for civilian agencies, collectively accounting for about 75 percent of the $3 billion 

cost savings goal; reported a variety of cost savings measures to achieve their savings 

target; and had a range of property types in their real property portfolios. The Department 

of Defense (DOD) had the largest cost savings target for a single agency over the 2010 to 

2012 time period. However, we focused on the cost savings reported by civilian agencies, 

and therefore excluded DOD from our review. Furthermore, the U.S. Postal Service was 

not subject to the requirements of the June 2010 memorandum. 

Cost Savings Data is Not 

Reliable or Transparent
 

Page 10 GAO-14-757T 

data that the government reported in response to the June 2010 

memorandum. For example, OMB did not require agencies to provide 

detailed documentation of their reported savings or include specific 

information about agencies’ reported savings on Performance.gov, 

limiting transparency. Furthermore the memorandum and subsequent 

guidance issued by OMB were not clear on the types of savings that 

could be reported, particularly because the term “cost savings” was not 

clearly defined. For instance, officials from several agencies we reviewed 

said the guidance was unclear about whether savings from cost 

avoidance measures could be reported. In addition some agencies made 

different assumptions in reporting disposal savings. Some agencies did 

not deduct costs associated with disposals, and some reported savings 

outside the time frame of the memorandum. For example, two agencies 

reported one year of avoided operations and maintenance savings for the 

year in which the disposal occurred, while three agencies reported up to 3 

years of savings depending on when disposals occurred during the 3-year 

period.

Agency officials stated that the memorandum broadened their 

understanding of real property cost-savings opportunities. However, we 

concluded that establishing clearer standards for identifying and reporting 

savings would improve the reliability and transparency of the reporting of 

cost savings and help decision-makers better understand the potential 

savings of future initiatives to improve federal real-property management.

As such, we recommended that OMB establish clear and specific 

standards to help ensure reliability and transparency in the reporting of 

future real-property cost savings. OMB generally agreed with the 

recommendation. We are in the process of determining the extent to 

which OMB has implemented the recommendation and plan to report our 

final results as part of our 2015 high risk update.

Sustained progress is needed to address the conditions and persistent 

challenges that make the area of federal real property management high 

risk. Multiple administrations have committed to a more strategic 

approach toward managing real property. However, problems with data 

reliability remain an underlying challenge for agencies to properly manage 

the multiple areas of real property reform. We will continue to monitor 

these agencies’ efforts to implement our recommendations, which we 

believe are critical to addressing the challenges that have led us to keep 

federal real property management on our High Risk List.
 

Page 11 GAO-14-757T 

Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Connolly, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy 

to answer any questions that you may have at this time.

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact David 

Wise at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. In addition, contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this statement. Individuals who made key contributions 

to this testimony are Keith Cunningham (Assistant Director), David 

Sausville (Assistant Director), Raymond Griffith, Geoffrey Hamilton, Amy 

Higgins, Hannah Laufe, and Sara Ann Moessbauer.

GAO Contacts and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 12 GAO-14-757T 

GAO, Federal Real Property: Improved Transparency Could Help Efforts 

to Manage Agencies’ Maintenance and Repair Backlogs, GAO-14-188 

(Washington, D.C.: January 2014).

GAO, Federal Real Property: Actions Needed to Improve How Agencies 

Manage Structures, GAO-14-87 (Washington, D.C.: January 2014).

GAO, Federal Real Property: Improved Standards Needed to Ensure 

That Agencies’ Reported Cost Savings Are Reliable and Transparent,

GAO-14-12 (Washington, D.C.: October 2013).

GAO, Federal Real Property: Excess and Underutilized Property Is an 

Ongoing Challenge, GAO-13-573T (Washington, D.C.: April 2013).

GAO, Federal Real Property: High-Risk Designation Remains due to 

Persistent Management Challenges, GAO-13-422T (Washington, D.C.: 

February 2013).

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-13-283 (Washington, D.C.: 

February 2013).

GAO, Federal Real Property: Improved Data and a National Strategy 

Needed to Better Manage Excess and Underutilized Property, 

GAO-12-958T (Washington, D.C.: August 2012).

GAO, Federal Real Property: National Strategy and Better Data Needed 

to Improve Management of Excess and Underutilized Property, 

GAO-12-645 (Washington, D.C.: June 2012).

GAO, Federal Real Property: The Government Faces Challenges to 

Disposing of Unneeded Buildings, GAO-11-370T (Washington, D.C.: 

February 2011).

Related GAO Products

(542236)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

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

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

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

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

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

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

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

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

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

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

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

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

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.