Accessible Version

EXCESS PERSONAL

PROPERTY

DOD Should Further 

Reassess the 

Priorities of Its 

Disposal Process

Report to Congressional Committees

January 2016

GAO-16-44

United States Government Accountability Office
Letter 1

Page i GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

Background 6

The Process for Disposing of DOD’s Excess Personal Property 

Involves Several Stages and Provides Multiple Opportunities for 

Recipients to Obtain Property 10

DOD’s Implementation of the Disposal Process Has Given Some 

Non-Federal Entities Priority over Some Federal Agencies for 

Obtaining Property 17

DOD Has Encountered Challenges in Its Capacity to Manage 

Excess Property in Need of Disposal 26

Conclusions 34

Recommendation for Executive Action 34

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 35

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 38

Appendix II: DOD Special Programs 46

Appendix III: 48

Appendix IV: Excess Property Obtained by Law Enforcement Agencies 49

Appendix V: 50

Appendix VI: 51

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Defense 52

Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 54

GAO Contacts 54

Staff Acknowledgments 54

Tables

Table 1: Selected Examples of Non-Controlled Property Obtained 

by Law Enforcement Agencies in 2013 and 2014 24

Table 2: Actions Taken by Defense Logistics Agency Disposition 

Services to Reduce Customer Wait Times and Backlogs 29

Table 3: List of Organizations and Agencies Contacted during Our 

Review 43

Table 4: DOD Special Programs Found in Statutes 46

Table 5: Special Programs Established by DOD 47

Contents
Figures

Page ii GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

Figure 1: Timeline of Specific Laws Providing DOD with the 

Authority to Administer Its Program for the Disposal of 

Excess Personal Property 8

Figure 2: Process for Identifying, Receiving, Holding, and 

Redistributing or Disposing of Excess Property 11

Figure 3: Overview of DOD’s Disposal Process 12

Figure 4: Proportion of Total Original Acquisition Value of Property 

Obtained at the Reutilization Stage by Recipient in Fiscal 

Year 2014 19

Abbreviations List

DLA Defense Logistics Agency

DOD Department of Defense

GSA General Services Administration

LESO Law Enforcement Support Office

MARS Military Affiliate Radio System

MWR Morale, Welfare, and Recreation

ROTC Reserve Officer Training Corps
Page iii GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

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.
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-44, a report to 

congressional committees

January 2016

EXCESS PERSONAL PROPERTY

DOD Should Further Reassess the Priorities of Its 

Disposal Process

Why GAO Did This Study

Each year the military services identify 

thousands of items of personal 

property—including military equipment 

and materiel—that they need to 

dispose of because it is obsolete, not 

repairable, or excess to their 

requirements. For fiscal year 2014, 

DOD reported that excess and surplus 

property with a total original acquisition 

value of approximately $3.18 billion in 

nominal dollars was reutilized, 

transferred, or donated. DOD reported 

total revenues of almost $128 million 

from items sold in fiscal year 2014.

Congress included provisions in 

reports accompanying legislation for 

GAO to review DOD’s current process 

for disposing of excess personal 

property. This report (1) describes the 

process for disposing of DOD’s excess 

personal property in the U.S.; (2) 

assesses how DOD’s priorities in its

disposal process affect the distribution 

of excess property; and (3) assesses 

the extent to which DOD has 

encountered challenges in its capacity 

to manage excess personal property to 

be processed. GAO reviewed 

guidance; obtained the most recently 

available calendar year (2013-2014) 

data on property obtained by law 

enforcement agencies, wait times, and 

backlogs; and interviewed cognizant 

officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD further 

reassess its disposal process to 

determine whether additional changes 

are needed in the priorities of 

recipients within the process and revise 

its guidance reflecting those priorities, 

accordingly, to better fulfill the disposal 

program’s objectives. DOD concurred 

with the recommendation.

What GAO Found

Disposing of Department of Defense (DOD) property that is excess to a military 

service’s needs is a multi-stage process, executed by the Defense Logistics 

Agency (DLA). The process includes a 42-day period during which potential 

recipients may screen, request, and obtain excess property at the stages in 

which they are eligible to do so (see figure). First, usable property may be 

reutilized within DOD or provided to special programs (such as the program that 

provides excess DOD property to federal, state, and local law enforcement 

agencies) identified in statutes or by DOD. If not reutilized, this property may be 

transferred to federal civilian agencies, after which it becomes surplus and may 

be donated to other parties, such as state governments. Remaining property may 

be sold to the general public, if appropriate and safe, or rendered useless for its 

original military purpose (demilitarized) and sold as scrap or destroyed.

Overview of DOD’s Disposal Process

The priorities outlined in DOD’s disposal process guidance place special program 

recipients in the first stage of the process (reutilization) versus the later stages 

(transfer or donation), giving some non-federal entities priority for excess 

property over some federal civilian agencies that may have similar needs. For 

instance, in calendar years 2013-2014, the special program for law enforcement 

agencies mentioned above provided 150 of those agencies with 285 pieces of 

earth-moving and excavating equipment, while at least 9 federal agencies also 

purchased equipment in this category for their mission needs. GAO could not 

definitively conclude that any specific item provided to state or local law 

enforcement agencies would have filled the need any federal agencies met using 

appropriated funds for new procurement, but the possibility exists. In October 

2015, DOD revised its process so that DOD components will obtain its excess 

property before special programs. Still, special programs could obtain such 

property before most federal civilian agencies and non-federal entities. DOD is 

not planning to further assess its priorities to see if additional changes may be 

needed in the priorities of property recipients. Thus, the risk remains that federal 

agencies could spend federal funds to procure property that they might have 

been able to obtain through the DOD disposal process.

DLA Disposition Services faces challenges processing excess property that has 

been turned in for disposal. DLA has established goals for processing times and 

modified some of its practices for processing this property, but some military 

customers still face long waits to turn in property and thus may incur costs for 

moving, storing, and maintaining property they no longer need. DLA officials said 

they plan to study this issue to identify and make needed improvements.

View GAO-16-44. For more information, 

contact Brian J. Lepore at (202) 512-4523 or 

leporeb@gao.gov, or Seto J.Bagdoyan at 

(202) 512-6722 or bagdoyans@gao.gov. 
Page 1 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

January 29, 2016

Congressional Committees

Each year the military services identify thousands of items of personal 

property—including military equipment and materiel—that they need to 

dispose of because the property is obsolete, not repairable, or excess to 

their requirements.1 Because this property was originally purchased with 

federal funds, the government seeks to promote its reuse by federal 

agencies to minimize new procurement costs. Personal property that is 

not reutilized by another Department of Defense (DOD) organization or a 

special program becomes excess to DOD and may be transferred to 

other federal agencies. Remaining excess personal property becomes 

surplus when it is no longer required by federal agencies and may be 

donated to other parties, such as state and local governments; sold 

through a commercial vendor, if it is appropriate and safe to be sold to the 

general public; or demilitarized (i.e., rendered useless for its originally 

intended military purpose) and sold as scrap or destroyed. For fiscal year 

2014, DOD reported that excess and surplus property with a total original 

acquisition value of approximately $3.18 billion in nominal dollars was 

reutilized, transferred, or donated.2 DOD reported total revenues of 

almost $128 million from items sold in fiscal year 2014.3In our body of 

work on federal debt and long-term fiscal challenges, we have reported 

that the federal government is facing serious long-term fiscal challenges, 

and DOD and other federal agencies will likely encounter considerable 

 

1DOD defines personal property as all DOD property except real property, records of the 

federal government, and certain naval vessels (battleships, cruisers, aircraft carriers, 

destroyers, and submarines). DOD excess property is not required for the needs and the 

discharge of the responsibilities of any DOD activity. DOD defines property disposition as 

the process of reusing, recycling, converting, redistributing, transferring, donating, selling, 

demilitarizing, treating, destroying, or other ultimate disposition of personal property.

2The acquisition value is the amount identified as the original cost of the property or the 

estimated replacement cost. DLA uses this figure when reporting on its excess property 

disposal process.

3DOD reported approximately $39 million in sales of usable property, $34 million in scrap 

sales, and $55 million from other contracts in fiscal year 2014.

Letter
budget pressures over the coming years.

Page 2 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

4 This makes it potentially 

attractive for DOD and other federal agencies to obtain usable personal 

property that is already in the federal inventory, rather than procuring 

similar new items. State and local governments face similar fiscal 

pressures, and obtaining federal surplus property assists those nonfederal recipients in offsetting budgetary shortfalls.

The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-66, included a 

provision for us to study DOD’s process for disposing of excess personal 

property. The House Armed Services Committee Report (House Report 

113-446) accompanying H.R. 4435, the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2015, also included a provision for us to review 

aspects of DOD’s and the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) excess and 

surplus personal property programs. This report (1) describes the process 

for disposing of DOD’s excess personal property in the United States; (2) 

assesses how DOD’s priorities in its disposal process affect the 

distribution of excess property; and (3) assesses the extent to which DOD 

has encountered challenges in its capacity to manage excess personal 

property to be processed.5

To describe DOD’s process for the disposal of excess personal property 

in the United States, we reviewed key documentation, such as the 

 

4GAO, The Federal Government’s Long-Term Fiscal Outlook: Spring 2013 Update, 

GAO-13-481SP (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2013) and State and Local Governments’

Fiscal Outlook: 2014 Update, GAO-15-224SP (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 17, 2014). These 

products are part of GAO’s body of work on the federal debt and long-term fiscal 

challenges.

5DLA Disposition Services also manages disposition activities for military installations 

located outside of the United States. However, in this review, we focused solely on the 

process within the United States, including Alaska and Hawaii.
Defense Materiel Disposition Manual,

Page 3 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

6

to identify the guidance DOD 

provides to DLA Disposition Services and DOD components7 on the 

disposal of excess personal property. We met with officials from the 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Logistics & Materiel 

Readiness), DLA Headquarters, DLA Disposition Services Headquarters, 

and 5 of the 80 disposition sites in the United States to identify the 

specific priorities, systems, processes, and controls DOD uses to dispose 

of excess personal property. We selected the disposition sites based on 

the types of excess property they process, support provided to each of 

the four military services, and locations in two of the three Disposition 

Services Directorates that oversee the disposition sites in the continental 

United States. The information we obtained from these five disposition 

sites offers insight into the manner in which the process was implemented 

at those specific locations, although it is not projectable to DOD’s entire 

disposal process. We also met with supply and logistics representatives 

from each of the military services and reviewed key service-specific 

guidance documents to determine how the services implement DOD 

guidance and the processes they establish to turn in their excess property 

in the United States. In addition, we met with officials from the General 

Services Administration (GSA) to gain an understanding of the overall 

federal system for disposing of excess property, including governmentwide policies in general and DOD’s disposal process in particular. We 

 

6During the course of our audit, we relied on DOD’s August 1997 Defense Materiel 

Disposition Manual, which implemented the requirements of the Federal Property 

Management Regulation and other laws as appropriate, as they apply to the disposition of 

DOD’s excess, surplus, and foreign excess personal property. On October 22, 2015, DOD 

released an updated four-volume Materiel Disposition Manual, which, in general, clarifies 

aspects of DOD’s disposition process while maintaining the essential structure of the 

program. Because the 1997 manual was in effect during the audit period, our report relies 

on the 1997 guidance. Where there are noteworthy differences between the 1997 and 

2015 Defense Materiel Disposition Manuals, we have highlighted those changes as 

appropriate. Our findings and recommendation remain valid, however, when considered 

within the context of the updated guidance, since the fundamental framework of the 

disposition process remains unchanged. See DOD 4160.21-M (Aug. 1997) and DODM 

4160.21, vols. 1–4 (Oct. 22, 2015).

7DOD guidance defines components, collectively, as the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the 

combatant commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, 

the defense agencies, DOD field activities, and all other organizational entities within 

DOD. See DOD Directive 5100.01, Functions of the Department of Defense and Its Major 

Components (Dec. 21, 2010). For this review, we focused on the military services, 

because they collectively generate the most property for disposal. DLA’s process for 

turning in excess personal property applies to all DOD components.
looked in more detail at two of the special programs through which certain 

qualified organizations are authorized to receive excess DOD property—

the foreign security assistance program and the program that provides 

excess DOD property to federal, state, and local law enforcement 

agencies (called the “1033 program,” for the section of the law that 

authorizes it)—to illustrate how these programs fit into and reflect the 

priorities in DOD’s disposal process.

Page 4 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

8 We selected the foreign security 

assistance program because DLA Disposition Services has different 

processes to manage excess property for this special program, and we 

selected the 1033 program because, among the special programs, it 

receives the largest proportion of DOD excess personal property in terms 

of original acquisition value.

To assess how DOD’s priorities in its disposal process affect the 

distribution of excess property, we reviewed key guidance, manuals, and 

policies; legal authorities; and reports and other documents related to the 

disposal process and met with officials from DLA’s Disposition Services

Headquarters. We met with officials from U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection to get the perspectives of a federal agency on DOD’s disposal 

process. We selected this federal agency because of its border security 

mission and its interest in obtaining DOD excess personal property. We 

also obtained detailed data on DLA Disposition Services transactions 

from the 1033 program for 2013 and 2014—the most recent full calendar 

years for which data were available. We analyzed these data to identify 

classes of items that were obtained by state and local law enforcement 

agencies; however, we did not review the justifications for individual 

property requests—including how those requests were verified by DLA 

Disposition Services personnel—because the purpose for which 

recipients planned to use the property they obtained and the ultimate 

disposal of such property were outside the scope of this review. To 

identify situations in which federal agencies may have purchased property 

similar to that obtained by law enforcement agencies, we reviewed 

publicly available government procurement data for the same time frame; 

however, we did not review signed contract language, determine whether 

donated property would have been suitable for the needs of the 

 

8Under the special program for foreign security assistance, approved foreign countries 

and international organizations may receive excess DOD personal property through either 

sales or donation. As implemented, foreign security assistance program participants may

request excess DOD property at the same time as other DOD and special program 

reutilization recipients.
purchasing agency, or confirm that the purchased equipment had been 

delivered. Finally, to identify processes that states follow and potential 

challenges that state recipients face in obtaining excess and surplus DOD 

personal property, we met with officials from four states who are 

responsible for managing either the 1033 program to support law 

enforcement activities, the Federal Surplus Personal Property Donation 

Program, or both programs for their states.

Page 5 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

9 We selected these states 

based on their proximity to DLA Disposition Services disposition sites, 

their status in the 1033 program, whether the 1033 program coordinator 

also serves as the surplus coordinator, and whether the surplus 

coordinator serves as an officer or committee member of the National 

Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property.10 Although the views 

of officials from these states are not generalizable to all states, they 

provided insights into the types of challenges faced by non-federal 

organizations involved in the disposal process.

To assess the extent to which DOD has encountered challenges in its 

capacity to manage excess personal property to be processed, we 

obtained from DLA Disposition Services available data and management 

briefings on the amount of time it took for military service customers to 

schedule an appointment to turn in their excess property and for DLA 

Disposition Services staff to process the property at disposition sites in 

the United States. We requested this information for calendar years 2013 

and 2014, to obtain data for the two most recent calendar years, and 

analyzed it to gain an understanding of customer wait times and any 

backlogs at each of those sites. We also met with DLA officials at the 

selected disposition sites to discuss challenges they face in disposing of 

excess personal property, actions they have taken to address those 

challenges, and what resources are available to enable them to perform 

their property disposal functions. Additionally, we toured the sites and 

observed their disposal operations to understand the challenges 

associated with multiple types of operational structures and the effect that 

an increase in the amount of property to be processed could have on the 

sites’ operations. Finally, we met with officials from each of the services to 

 

9The Federal Surplus Personal Property Donation Program provides for the donation of 

surplus personal property to state agencies for surplus property for further distribution to 

state and local governments and eligible nonprofit organizations.

10The National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property is an organization 

whose 56 member agencies seek to establish and promote the acquisition and equitable 

distribution of federal personal property to public agencies and other eligible entities.
identify challenges their units encounter in turning in or managing their 

excess personal property for disposal.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2014 to January 2016 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

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

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

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

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I contains additional 

information about our scope and methodology.

Page 6 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

According to DOD’s guidance for disposing of its excess personal 

property, the objectives of the defense material disposition process are to 

dispose of the property in a manner that ensures maximum use to satisfy 

valid needs, permits authorized donations of surplus property, obtains 

optimum monetary return to the U.S. government for property sold, and, 

among other things, minimizes the need for abandoning or destroying 

property.11 In order to reutilize excess and surplus property before 

initiating repair or new procurement, DOD components are to screen 

available excess property for those assets which could satisfy their valid 

needs. DLA’s Disposition Services executes the disposal of DOD’s 

personal property. DLA Disposition Services receives, classifies, 

segregates, demilitarizes, accounts for, and disposes of personal property 

that has been identified as “excess” to the military services’ needs. Before 

a military service determines that property it holds is excess and turns it in 

to Disposition Services, it may reallocate the property within the service, 

return it to a DLA distribution depot, sell it to a foreign government, or sell 

 

11Department of Defense, DOD 4160.21-M, Defense Materiel Disposition Manual (August 

1997). According to the manual, recipients of donations, loans, and exchanges accept 

DOD excess and surplus property on an “as is-where is” basis, that is, in its current 

condition, without DOD performing any necessary repairs or modifications. In addition, 

eligible recipients are responsible for all costs associated with the preparation, handling, 

and movement of the property.

Background

DOD’s Process for Turning 

in Excess Personal 

Property
it or trade it in for property of the same type through the exchange/sales 

program.

Page 7 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

12

The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as 

amended, established GSA to, among other things, manage surplus 

federal property.13 The act authorizes the administrator of GSA to 

delegate surplus property management to the heads of other federal 

agencies, and the administrator has delegated management of DOD’s 

surplus property to the Secretary of Defense.14 DOD’s process for 

disposing of its excess personal property has changed over time as new 

laws have introduced eligible recipients in addition to DOD components 

and other federal agencies. Each new law allowed DOD discretion over 

the manner in which it implemented its disposal process with respect to 

new recipient programs, to include giving preference to non-federal 

special programs over some other federal agencies in claiming excess 

personal property. As shown in figure 1, subsequent laws have provided 

the Secretary with authority to reutilize, transfer, donate, or sell DOD’s 

excess personal property to entities other than DOD components or 

federal agencies. For example, the Department of Defense Authorization 

Act of 1986 authorized the Secretary of Defense to make available 

excess nonlethal supplies from DOD stocks for humanitarian relief 

purposes to eligible foreign countries and international organizations.15

Similarly, the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1997 

authorized the Secretary of Defense to transfer DOD’s excess personal 

property to federal and state agencies through what is now known as the 

 

12Under the exchange/sales program authority, an agency replacing personal property 

with similar items may exchange or sell the old items and apply the exchange allowance 

or sale proceeds in whole or part payment to reduce the cost of obtaining the replacement 

property, so long as the items are identical to and used for the same purpose as the items 

they are meant to replace.

13Pub. L. No. 81-152 (June 30, 1949), codified at 40 U.S.C. § 471, et seq.

1440 U.S.C. § 121(d).

15Pub. L. No. 99-145, § 1454, (Nov. 8, 1985), codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2557. DOD 

administers both the nonlethal excess supply program and the military sales program 

created by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, Pub. L. No. 87-194, § 507 (Sept. 1, 1961). 

See DODM 4160.21-M, chap. 12 (Aug. 1997).

Laws and DOD Guidance 

Defining DOD’s Disposal 

Process
1033 program.

Page 8 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

16 Appendix II provides additional information on DOD’s 12 

current special programs, including the foreign security assistance and 

1033 programs, which enable certain federal, state, or local 

organizations; nonprofit organizations; and selected foreign countries to 

receive DOD excess personal property.

Figure 1: Timeline of Specific Laws Providing DOD with the Authority to Administer Its Program for the Disposal of Excess 

Personal Property

DOD’s policy is to identify any property that has a significant military or 

commercial technology application and control that property to prevent 

improper use. The military services assign demilitarization codes when 

property enters the DOD supply system, and DLA validates the accuracy 

 

16Pub. L. No. 104-201, § 1033 (Sep. 23, 1996), codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2576a. Prior to the 

creation of the 1033 program, a separate program, enacted in 1989, allowed the Secretary 

of Defense to make available to federal and state agencies excess DOD personal 

property—including small arms and ammunitions—that the Secretary determined was 

suitable for use by such agencies in counterdrug activities. Pub. L. No. 101-189, § 1208 

(Nov. 28, 1989). This program, known as the section 1208 program, was repealed when 

the 1033 program was enacted.

Demilitarization of Excess 

Property
of these codes when the property is turned in after being identified as 

excess. These codes indicate whether the property is available for reuse 

without restriction or whether specific restrictions apply, such as removal 

of classified components, destruction of sensitive military technology, or 

trade security control.

Page 9 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

17 DOD has procedures for demilitarizing such 

property, some of which may be screened for redistribution. The DOD 

Inspector General recently reported on inaccuracies in the initial 

assignment of demilitarization codes, noting that improper coding of 

property can result in an increased risk that sensitive military technology 

could be accidentally released to unauthorized individuals or in DOD 

spending unnecessary funds by over-controlling items that do not require 

demilitarization.18 DOD concurred with the recommendations that the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics & Materiel Readiness revise 

demilitarization guidance, establish metrics, and require the military 

services to revise their respective demilitarization guidance and establish 

controls.

We have previously reported significant issues with DOD’s program for 

the reutilization of its excess personal property. In 2005, we made 13 

recommendations to improve the overall economy and efficiency of 

DOD’s reutilization program, including recommendations for better 

coordination between the predecessor to DLA Disposition Services (the 

Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service), DLA, and the military 

services with regard to data reliability and strengthened management 

oversight, accountability, and physical inventory control.19 Since that 

review, DOD has implemented all 13 recommendations and made some 

improvements to its disposal process, including developing written 

guidance and formal training to assist Disposition Services personnel and 

the military services in the proper assignment of condition codes for 

excess property being turned in. Additionally, in June 2014, in a review of 

DLA’s inventory management, we found that, in fiscal year 2013, DLA 

 

17Department of Defense Manual 4160.28-V2, Defense Demilitarization: Demilitarization 

Coding (June 7, 2011).

18DOD, Office of Inspector General, The Services Need To Improve Accuracy When 

Initially Assigning Demilitarization Codes, DODIG-2015-031 (Alexandria, VA: Nov. 7, 

2014).

19GAO, DOD Excess Property: Management Control Breakdowns Result in Substantial 

Waste and Inefficiency, GAO-05-277 (Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2005).

Prior GAO Reviews of 

DOD’s Disposal Process
disposed of $855 million in items that its economic analyses determined 

should have been kept because there was risk that DLA would need to 

buy the same items again in the future.

Page 10 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

20 To ensure that DLA does not 

dispose of inventory that it would be more economical to keep, we 

recommended that it reassess and, if appropriate, revise its inventoryreduction goals and schedule in a way that minimizes the risks and costs 

of having to buy items again. As a result of our recommendation, in July 

2014 DLA conducted and documented a re-examination of its on-hand 

inventory reduction goal for fiscal year 2014 and revised its on-hand 

inventory goal for fiscal year 2014. DLA’s adjustment to its goals resulted 

in less inventory needing to be disposed of to meet the goals, which 

reduced the risk that DLA might have to buy the same inventory again in 

the future.

 

20GAO, Defense Inventory: Actions Needed to Improve the Defense Logistics Agency’s 

Inventory Management, GAO-14-495 (Washington, D.C.: June 19, 2014).

The Process for 

Disposing of DOD’s 

Excess Personal 

Property Involves 

Several Stages and 

Provides Multiple 

Opportunities for 

Recipients to Obtain 

Property
There are several stages in the process for disposing of DOD’s excess 

property in the United States. When a DOD component has identified 

property that it no longer needs, and there is no valid requirement for the 

property elsewhere within that component, it turns the property over to 

DLA Disposition Services. The redistribution of such property to other 

DOD components, special programs, federal agencies, and states helps 

to conserve the budgetary resources of those recipients. As DLA 

Disposition Services receives excess personal property, it holds the 

property for processing (i.e., screening, verifying, demilitarizing, and 

downgrading) and enters information about the property into its inventory 

management system—the Distribution Standard System—and its 

website, from which DOD components are able to screen property that 

could satisfy their requirements. Once excess property has been turned in 

by a service or other DOD component and processed by DLA Disposition 

Services, DOD’s disposal process redistributes it in one of three ways—

by reutilizing the property within DOD or, in certain other organizations, 

through special programs; transferring the property to other federal 

agencies; or donating the property to state and local agencies or other 

organizations—before ultimately selling or destroying it if it is not claimed 

by a qualified organization. Figure 2 illustrates this process.

Figure 2: Process for Identifying, Receiving, Holding, and Redistributing or Disposing of Excess Property

Page 11 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

Note: According to DOD guidance, DOD components are encouraged to use electronic turn-in 

documents. Although a component’s excess property will not always be physically moved to a DLA 

Disposition Services disposition site—for example, when the site is unable to accept the property 

because of regulations or other restrictions—the property is still turned in to DLA Disposition Services 

electronically and removed from the component’s property records.

The Process for Disposing 

of Excess Personal 

Property in the United 

States Involves Several 

Stages
Once usable property is identified as excess, turned in by a service or 

other DOD component, and received by DLA Disposition Services, it is 

disposed of through DOD’s “Reutilization, Transfer, Donation, and/or 

Sale” process. DLA officials explained that, in accordance with DLA 

guidance and policy, the disposal process is a four-stage process that 

includes 42 days (known as the “screening cycle”) during which potential 

recipients may screen, request, and obtain excess property at the stages 

in which they are eligible to do so, after which any remaining property 

may be sold. The property may spend a specific number of days in each 

stage, as identified in figure 3.

Page 12 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

21 If the property is not disposed of during 

one stage of the cycle, it moves on to the next stage. We discuss the 

disposal process in more detail in the sections that follow.

Figure 3: Overview of DOD’s Disposal Process

 

21DOD officials stated that not all property goes through the entire 42-day screening cycle. 

For example, usable property for which demilitarization is required undergoes a 14-day 

reutilization screening period only and does not go through all of the stages of the cycle.
DLA Disposition Services reallocates excess defense property during the 

42-day disposal screening cycle that begins when Disposition Services 

receives the property and records the property in its accountable records. 

Potential recipients can obtain excess or surplus property at different and, 

in some cases, multiple stages of the cycle.

Page 13 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

22 DLA Disposition Services 

restricts the number of days during which specific organizations are 

allowed to screen property they may wish to obtain, either onsite or 

electronically on its website. According to DLA Disposition Services, a 7-

day accumulation period precedes the 42-day disposal screening cycle. 

DLA Disposition Services officials stated that DOD components and 

special programs, including law enforcement agencies participating in the 

1033 program, were allowed to screen and request property during the 

accumulation period.23 Each stage of the disposal process—reutilization, 

transfer, donation, and sales—is described in more detail below.

Reutilization (first stage–days 1-14). After a service or other DOD 

component has turned in excess personal property, DLA Disposition 

Services posts information about that property on its website, called RTD 

Web, where DOD components can screen and determine whether to 

request it. Although it is not required by law or regulation, DOD allows 

special programs to screen and request this property at the same time. 

Officials from DLA Disposition Services told us that property requests 

made through its website are processed nightly; however, while any 

special program may screen and request excess property from the first 

 

22Given a compelling reason—such as a property item’s low potential for reutilization, 

transfer, or donation or the possibility of deterioration from outside storage, and with prior 

GSA approval—DLA Disposition Services may authorize expedited processing of its 

excess personal property. Additionally, certain property, because of its inherent nature or 

its potential negative effect on public health, safety, the environment, security, or private 

industry, must be disposed of in accordance with specialized procedures. This property 

includes, but is not limited to, agricultural commodities, aircraft and watercraft, 

ammunition, medical equipment and non-consumable medical supplies, safes and related 

equipment, trophies and relics, vehicles, and environmentally regulated and hazardous 

property.

23Since the completion of our fieldwork, DOD has updated its materiel disposition process 

to limit screening during the accumulation period to DOD components only. See DODM 

4160.21, Defense Materiel Disposition: Reutilization, Transfer, and Sale of Property, vol. 

3, encl. 5, § 3(b)(1) (Oct. 22, 2015).

The Disposal Process 

Allows Multiple 

Opportunities for Potential 

Recipients to Obtain 

Property
through the fourteenth day of the disposal screening cycle, there is no 

guarantee that the program will receive the property.

Page 14 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

24 DOD components 

and other organizations can specify their excess property needs on a 

“want list,” and DLA Disposition Services’ website will automatically send 

notices when such property becomes available.25 Those components and 

other organizations may then screen the property on DLA Disposition 

Services’ website and place a request for it through the system. 

Measured in terms of original acquisition value, DOD disposes of most of 

its excess personal property in this stage. Of the $3.18 billion (in nominal 

dollars) in excess and surplus property that DOD disposed of in fiscal 

year 2014, approximately $2.83 billion, or 89 percent, was reutilized by 

DOD components or provided to the special programs.26

Transfer (second stage–days 15-35). Once DOD components and 

special programs have screened the excess property during the 

reutilization stage (the first stage) and have determined it is not required 

for the needs and the discharge of the responsibilities of any DOD 

activity, excess property that is still available at this point is considered 

excess to DOD and may be transferred to other federal agencies.27

During the transfer stage, both federal and non-federal agencies may 

 

24DOD’s updated guidance specifies that, although special programs can screen and 

request property during the reutilization stage of the process, property will not be issued to 

the special programs until the end of this stage. DODM 4160.21, Defense Materiel 

Disposition: Reutilization, Transfer, and Sale of Property, vol. 3, encl. 5, § 3(b)(2) (Oct. 22, 

2015). The effect is that special programs may not obtain excess property before DOD 

components have an opportunity to request and claim the same property for themselves.

25The Distribution Standard System is the accountable system of record for DLA 

Disposition Services that is used to receive property.

26For fiscal year 2014, DOD also reported approximately $254 million in transfers to 

federal agencies and approximately $101 million in donations to state agencies and other 

eligible recipients. These figures represent the total original acquisition value of the 

property in nominal dollars.

27In addition to federal agencies, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Architect 

of the Capitol and any activities under his direction, the District of Columbia government, 

and certain mixed-ownership government corporations are also eligible to acquire excess 

personal property. See 41 C.F.R. § 102-36.60.
view the property on the GSA website, GSAXcess, for 21 days.

Page 15 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

28 Federal 

agencies—including DOD components—may also request property 

during this stage. DLA Disposition Services officials told us that, like a 

DOD component or a special program, a federal agency may obtain 

property only if there is no higher priority request that has been received 

before the federal agency’s request has been processed.

Donation (third stage–days 36-40). If excess property is still available 

after the reutilization and transfer stages, it is declared by GSA to be 

surplus and may be donated to state and municipal governments and 

other qualified organizations (eligible recipients) through the Federal 

Surplus Personal Property Donation Program.29 These eligible recipients 

include public agencies, nonprofit educational and public health activities, 

veterans’ organizations, and certain businesses that have been approved 

by the Small Business Administration. While potential recipients may 

screen and request excess DOD personal property simultaneously with 

federal agencies from days 15 through 35 of the cycle, they may not 

actually obtain the property until it has been declared surplus and GSA 

has made its allocation decisions—during days 36 through 40 of the 

cycle. Officials from DLA Disposition Services told us that if higher priority 

requests have been received before a potential recipient’s request is 

processed, the property may no longer be available.

After day 40 of the cycle, DOD provides two additional days during which 

all eligible recipients may screen and request surplus property that is still 

 

28GSAXcess is GSA’s customer interface to the federal disposal system, which eligible 

customers—including DOD—use to report their unrequired personal property to GSA 

electronically. The website is also used by customers seeking property that has been 

reported and is available. Agencies can search GSA’s inventory through a process known 

as screening, and they can request property by selecting specific items. According to DLA 

Disposition Services officials, the special programs may not request property through DLA 

Disposition Services’ website during this stage of the disposal process. However, a 

special program customer could also be eligible as a federal customer and would be able 

to screen and request property through GSAXcess as a federal agency.

29In the donation stage, as in the transfer stage, eligible recipients request property 

through GSAXcess, and GSA reviews and allocates the property. DOD, however, 

maintains physical control of the property until it is picked up by the recipient.
unclaimed before it is sold or destroyed. During this final screening 

period, federal and state agencies have another opportunity to obtain the 

property through GSAXcess.

Sales (fourth stage–days 43+). Usable property that is not redistributed 

during the reutilization, transfer, and donation stages of the cycle, and is

determined to be viable for sale, is sold through one of two commercial 

venture contracts. Some property is also sold through other negotiated 

sales contracts, downgraded to scrap, or disposed of through other 

mechanisms if sales are impracticable. According to officials from DLA 

Disposition Services, until 2014, DLA Distribution Services administered a 

term commercial sales contract with a single contractor. Under this 

contract, DLA would turn over its remaining usable DOD surplus property 

to the contractor to sell. In return, DOD would receive no more than 2 

percent of the property’s original acquisition value. DOD received 

proceeds of approximately $153 million in nominal dollars from 

commercial venture sales of usable surplus personal property in fiscal

years 2010 through 2014.

Page 16 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

30

In July 2014, DLA Disposition Services awarded a contract to a new 

contractor for the sale of surplus rolling stock and a separate contract to 

its existing contractor for all other surplus property.31 DLA Disposition 

Services officials told us that under the new rolling stock contract, the 

contractor pays DLA Disposition Services 0.25 percent of the property’s 

original acquisition value when it receives the property. After selling the 

property, the contractor gives DLA Disposition Services 75.29 percent of 

the resale proceeds. DOD officials told us that the government realized a 

revenue increase of over 300 percent as a result of separating the 

disposal of rolling stock from the disposal of other property, restructuring 

the rolling stock contract so that the buyer paid DLA a percentage of the 

gross resale proceeds rather than of the original acquisition value, and 

 

30These figures include only sales of usable property through commercial venture 

contracts. They do not include sales from scrap or other sales contracts.

31In its invitation for bid No. 14-0092, DLA defined the pool of rolling surplus property 

(rolling stock) to include passenger motor vehicles, trucks, dozers, and trailers.
using a live auction to determine the high bidder for the contract. DOD 

officials said that, from November 2014 through June 2015, the rolling 

stock contractor sold 7,255 pieces of rolling stock with a total original 

acquisition value of about $432.8 million, from which DLA received resale 

proceeds of approximately $34 million. According to those officials, rolling 

stock revenue under the previous commercial sales contract would have 

been less than $7.8 million. Similarly, DLA Disposition Services officials 

told us that, under the new contract for non-rolling stock, DLA Disposition 

Services will receive 4.35 percent of the original acquisition value of the 

property. DOD officials characterized this as a significantly greater 

percentage than it had received under the previous single sales contract. 

DLA Disposition Services also administers contracts for scrap property, 

hazardous materials, and precious metals recovery, among other kinds of 

contract.

Page 17 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

DOD’s disposal process has evolved over time as new laws have 

authorized non-federal program recipients to obtain property from DOD 

that DOD no longer needs. As new laws have added special programs to 

the list of eligible recipients for DOD’s excess property, DOD has 

exercised its statutory authority to implement these special programs by 

allowing certain non-federal recipients (such as state and local law 

enforcement agencies) to screen and request property in the first stage of 

the disposal process—reutilization—before federal civilian agencies and 

state and local governments, which obtain property in later stages—

DOD’s 

Implementation of the 

Disposal Process Has 

Given Some NonFederal Entities 

Priority over Some 

Federal Agencies for 

Obtaining Property

DOD’s Program for Law 

Enforcement Agencies 

Allows Some State and 

Local Agencies to Take 

Priority over Some Federal 

Agencies
transfer or donation.

Page 18 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

32 Officials from DLA Disposition Services told us that 

if they received a higher priority request—for example, if an item was 

critical to the mission of a DOD component—and the special program’s 

request for the property had not yet been processed, the DOD component 

would receive the property. However, if the special program’s request had 

already been processed, the special program would receive the property 

even should DLA Disposition Services later receive a higher priority 

request.33 As a result, the relative order of priority for other federal 

agencies and for state and local governments to request this excess and 

surplus property comes after the special programs, including those 

special programs that provide property to non-federal entities. Figure 4 

shows a breakdown of the approximately $2.83 billion in excess personal 

property obtained by recipients in the reutilization stage during fiscal year 

2014 and identifies the percentage of the dollar value of the property 

obtained by each recipient, as measured by its original acquisition value 

(original cost to DOD).34 For that year, the military services combined, 

including the Coast Guard, obtained the greatest proportion of reutilized 

property, in terms of original acquisition value, followed by law 

enforcement agencies.35 For example, the law enforcement agencies 

obtained 32.6 percent of property disposed of at the reutilization stage, or 

about $922 million in original acquisition value (in nominal dollars), which 

was approximately 29.0 percent of all of the property that DOD reutilized, 

transferred, or donated in fiscal year 2014.

 

32In this report, we refer to federal civilian agencies as those which are not military, law 

enforcement, or firefighting agencies.

33Under DOD’s revised materiel disposition guidance, the process described above 

remains essentially unchanged except that the updated manual explicitly states that DOD 

reutilization requirements have priority during the first 14 days of the screening cycle when 

special programs may also place orders. Property is not issued to special programs until 

the end of the cycle, ensuring that DOD components will receive the property they request 

before special programs. However, special programs continue to receive priority ahead of 

federal civilian agencies for screening and issuance. As under DOD’s prior guidance, 

federal civilian agencies may screen on days 15–35 of the disposition process. See 

DODM 4160.21-V3, encl. 5 (Oct. 22, 2015).

34The Federal Firefighters Program, as codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2576b, is also a large 

special program that receives excess DOD personal property. However, it is smaller than 

the 1033 program, and we did not include it in the scope of this review.

35DLA Disposition Services officials told us that federal law enforcement agencies have 

not participated in the 1033 program in great numbers in the past. These officials told us 

that federal participation has been increasing in recent months.
Figure 4: Proportion of Total Original Acquisition Value of Property Obtained at the 

Page 19 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

Reutilization Stage by Recipient in Fiscal Year 2014

Notes:

1. The 1033 program provides excess DOD personal property to federal, state, local, and tribal law 

enforcement agencies. For fiscal year 2014, approximately 85 percent of the property obtained 

by 1033 program recipients, by original acquisition value, went to state and local law 

enforcement agencies.

2. DLA includes the Coast Guard with the military services because, like the DOD components, the 

Coast Guard has been assigned a DOD identification code to request and obtain DOD excess 

property.

3. Other includes all other DOD components and special programs.

4. Percentages refer to the percentage of the dollar value of the property obtained as measured by 

its original acquisition value. This is the original cost to DOD, not a depreciated value of the 

property at the time it is turned in.

As previously discussed, DOD’s implementation of its disposal process 

gives special programs, including the 1033 program—which provides 

excess property to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies 

during the reutilization stage—priority over some federal civilian agencies 

in obtaining such property.36

 

36As identified earlier and in appendix II, some of the special programs were established 

in laws and codified in statute, such as the 1033 and foreign military sales programs. 

Other programs, however, were established by DOD under its GSA-delegated authority to 

manage its own personal property. Such programs include support provided to morale, 

welfare, and recreation activities, National Guard units, Senior Reserve Officer Training 

Corps units, and DOD contractors.
Under the 1033 program, the Secretary of Defense may provide excess 

DOD property to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, 

giving preference among these agencies to those law enforcement 

agencies that indicate the property obtained from DOD will be used in 

their counterdrug or counterterrorism activities.

Page 20 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

37 The Law Enforcement 

Support Office (LESO), within DLA Disposition Services, manages the 

1033 program, which is unique to DOD. Governor-appointed state 

coordinators approve (or disapprove) applications from local law 

enforcement agencies in their states to participate in the program. Before 

they forward the requests and justifications to LESO for approval, state 

coordinators ensure, among other things, that law enforcement agencies 

requesting excess DOD personal property have submitted proper 

justification for requesting the property.

The statutory language authorizing the 1033 program is silent on the 

issue of whether state and local law enforcement agencies are to be 

prioritized over federal law enforcement agencies for the receipt of DOD 

excess property. As noted earlier, DOD has discretion in the manner in 

which it implements its disposal process, and both DOD and DLA officials 

acknowledged that DOD has the authority to revise the 1033 program, 

provided that such revisions do not violate the language of the statute. 

LESO officials explained that property is generally allocated on a first 

come, first served basis to law enforcement agencies at all levels, and 

such requests are to have a sufficient and valid justification that clearly 

defines how the agency will utilize the requested property for law 

enforcement. Thus, if LESO receives a request from a state or local law 

enforcement agency and later receives one from a federal law 

enforcement agency, such as Customs and Border Protection, the state 

or local agency will typically receive the property. LESO officials told us 

that allocations may be restricted based on information about the property 

a law enforcement agency has previously received from LESO or about 

limits to the quantities of a specific type of property that a law 

 

37The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, created by Congress with the AntiDrug Abuse Act of 1988, provides assistance to federal, state, local, and tribal law 

enforcement agencies operating in areas determined to be critical drug-trafficking regions 

of the United States. Pub. L. No. 100-690, § 1005 (Nov. 18,1988, codified at 10 U.S.C. § 

1706). Most of the counties on the southern border of the United States have been 

designated High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. As a result, Disposition Services officials 

told us, the law enforcement agencies supporting border security activities in those areas, 

such as Customs and Border Protection, are also eligible to receive excess property 

through the 1033 program, because of their counterdrug and counterterrorism missions.
enforcement agency may receive, based on the number of law 

enforcement officers it has. In accordance with its guidance, DLA 

Disposition Services’ LESO generally allocates no more than one of any 

item per officer through the 1033 program. For example, LESO is to 

allocate no more weapons to a law enforcement agency than that 

agency’s total number of officers.

In late 2014, DOD proposed an update to the priority that special 

programs have for obtaining excess property during the reutilization stage 

of the disposal process. Citing the large drawdown of forces from the 

wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which resulted in significant quantities of 

unneeded property—including hazardous property—for which the proper 

disposition must be determined, DOD submitted an interim final rule to 

the Federal Register on December 29, 2014, prescribing updated 

procedures for the disposition of DOD personal property. The interim final 

rule was incorporated into the new disposition manual released October 

22, 2015. In the new manual, DOD explicitly allows special programs to 

screen and request excess DOD personal property during the reutilization 

stage (days 1-14). However, during this time, only DOD components are 

able to obtain property; property will not be issued to special programs 

until the reutilization stage has ended. This change now explicitly gives 

priority for obtaining DOD excess property to DOD components over the 

special programs. This, in turn, lessens the potential for a special 

program to obtain excess property generated by one DOD component 

before other DOD components are able to request it. It does not, 

however, affect the possibility for a special program to obtain property 

before federal civilian agencies, which will continue to screen, request, 

and obtain property during the transfer stage (days 15-35).

Page 21 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

38 Likewise, 

special programs will still be able to obtain property before potential 

recipients in the donation stage (days 36-40). As of November, DOD 

officials told us they were not planning further revisions to the priorities in 

the disposal process at that time, as discussed later in this report.

 

38DOD Manual 4160.21, Defense Materiel Disposition: Reutilization, Transfer, and Sale of 

Property, vol. 3, encl. 5, § 3(b)(3) (Oct. 22, 2015).
In analyzing 1033 program information from the Federal Excess Property 

Management Information System,

Page 22 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

39 we found that law enforcement 

agencies at all levels have used the program to obtain property—such as 

excavating equipment, fencing, and musical instruments—that could also 

be used by other agencies at the federal, state, and local levels. While 

some of this property went to federal law enforcement agencies, the vast 

majority was obtained by state and local law enforcement agencies. If 

such property were available as excess to federal civilian agencies that 

do not have law enforcement missions, those agencies could potentially 

save appropriated funds by obtaining it from DOD through the disposition 

process rather than by initiating new procurements.40 The Executive 

Office of the President has reported that approximately 96 percent of the 

property issued to law enforcement agencies through the 1033 program 

from September 2013 through August 2014 was non-controlled property, 

or property without military attributes—such as furniture and forklifts.41

Because DOD has implemented the 1033 program to give state and local 

law enforcement agencies priority over federal non-law enforcement 

(civilian) agencies for obtaining excess property, property originally 

purchased with federal dollars may go to state and local agencies before 

other federal agencies have the opportunity to request it. As a result, in 

 

39The Federal Excess Property Management Information System is the online property 

book for all agencies that are enrolled in the 1033 program. It is managed by the U.S. 

Forest Service on behalf of LESO.

40We did not review the justifications for individual requests to determine their specific 

planned use and relation to the law enforcement agencies’ arrest and apprehension 

missions because the purpose for which recipients planned to use claimed property and 

the use and ultimate disposition of such property were outside the scope of this review. In 

addition, we did not estimate the value of any potential cost savings to the federal 

government, because that, too, fell outside the scope of this review.

41The Executive Office of the President, Review: Federal Support for Local Law 

Enforcement Equipment Acquisition (December 2014) defines controlled property as 

military designed equipment on the Department of State Munitions Control List or 

Department of Commerce Control List, such as small arms, night vision devices, certain 

tactical vehicles (High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles and Mine Resistant 

Ambush Protected vehicles), aircraft, and watercraft. Non-controlled property, i.e., 

property without military attributes, includes items such as commercial vehicles, office 

furniture, generators, and forklifts. The property’s assigned demilitarization code 

determines whether it is controlled or non-controlled. We did not assess how much of this 

property could potentially be used by other agencies, or the extent to which cost savings 

might accrue to those agencies by using such property, because these efforts were 

outside the scope of our review.

Some Excess Property 

Obtained by State and 

Local Law Enforcement 

Agencies May Meet the 

Needs of Other Federal 

Agencies and Non-federal 

Entities
some cases, federal agencies that may also have a need for such 

property for their missions may not be able to obtain it through the 

disposal process, because the excess property that was available has 

already been claimed by or provided to state or local law enforcement 

agencies. As noted previously, most of DOD’s excess property is 

reutilized by DOD components or provided to specific organizations 

through special programs in the first stage of the disposal process. In 

fiscal year 2014, law enforcement agencies obtained approximately 29.0 

percent of that property, in terms of original acquisition value. This could 

result in those federal agencies then using appropriated funds to acquire 

property similar to the property that has been provided at little to no cost 

to the non-federal agencies. Non-controlled excess property that law 

enforcement agencies receive under this program could also potentially 

be used by state and local governments, non-law enforcement public 

agencies, and other eligible recipients, if it is not needed by other federal 

agencies and becomes surplus property available for donation, as 

illustrated in the example discussed below.

During calendar years 2013 and 2014, 150 law enforcement agencies 

obtained 285 pieces of earth-moving and excavating equipment through 

the 1033 program, with original acquisition values totaling just over $25 

million. We found that at least 9 federal agencies purchased earth-moving 

equipment to meet their mission requirements during the same period. 

We could not determine whether any specific item that DLA Disposition 

Services provided to state and local law enforcement agencies would 

have filled the need that one of those federal agencies met by using 

appropriated funds for a new procurement. Nonetheless, DLA’s 

implementation of the disposal process risks such an occurrence. While 

the property that was available might not have been suitable to meet 

federal agency requirements—for example, because of matters such as 

quantity, timing, condition, and transportation costs—it is possible that 

equipment that was suitable could have allowed the federal government 

to postpone or even avoid some of these purchases. See appendix III for 

more information about this example, which illustrates that DOD also 

transferred, donated, and sold property in this category during the same 

time frame. Table 1 provides examples of some of the other categories of 

Page 23 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property
items we analyzed.

Page 24 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

42 Such property could potentially be transferred to 

federal civilian agencies to meet their needs or donated to states, 

municipalities, schools, or nonprofit organizations. Appendixes IV through 

VI provide additional examples of non-controlled property we identified 

that was provided to law enforcement agencies at around the same time 

that some federal agencies were purchasing similar equipment.43

Table 1: Selected Examples of Non-Controlled Property Obtained by Law Enforcement Agencies in 2013 and 2014

Description Total number of items

Total number of law 

enforcement agencies 

that obtained the 

propertya

Total number of states 

whose law enforcement 

agencies obtained the 

property

Approximate total 

original acquisition 

valueb

Rough Terrain Container 

Handlers

4 4 3 $3,430,344

Forklifts 331 198 30 $15,126,622

Fence posts 18,291 13 6 $197,245

Musical instruments 65 17 11 $93,730

Source: GAO analysis of Federal Excess Property Management Information System data. | GAO-16-44

aOnly one federal law enforcement agency obtained property in these specific categories during this 

time frame. That federal agency obtained 500 fence posts with a total original acquisition value of less 

than $2,500. We do not include that agency in our state count.

bAcquisition value is rounded to the nearest dollar and represents the original cost of the property or 

the estimated replacement cost. DLA uses this figure when reporting on its excess property disposal 

process.

As implemented, the 1033 program enables federal, state, and local law 

enforcement agencies to request excess DOD personal property during 

the first stage of the disposal process (reutilization), rather than the 

transfer stage, which occurs later and during which federal agencies that 

are not law enforcement agencies can request and obtain the property. 

 

42We reviewed the data in the Federal Excess Property Management Information System

for calendar years 2013 and 2014 and extracted only those property items with a valid 

national stock number. We did not include property with locally assigned stock numbers, 

so the totals could potentially be greater for some of these items. For the earth-moving 

and excavating equipment, we included only the equipment end items and not parts or 

attachments.

43Our analysis could not definitively conclude whether any of the property DLA Disposition 

Services disposed of was suitable for another federal agency’s needs, because of such 

considerations as quantity, timing, condition, and transportation costs. However, it is 

possible that suitable equipment that agencies might have obtained through the disposal 

process could have allowed the federal government to postpone or even avoid some of 

these purchases.
DLA Disposition Services’ guidelines for the 1033 program allow a law 

enforcement agency to obtain DOD property even if it does not appear to 

be exclusively related to law enforcement activities so long as the law 

enforcement agency provides the required justification for obtaining the 

property, and the state coordinator and then LESO approve the request.

Page 25 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

44

The Executive Office of the President has reported that, over the last 25 

years, DLA has provided excess property estimated to be worth $5.1 

billion in original acquisition value to law enforcement agencies through 

the 1033 program; $2.7 billion worth of that property has been provided 

within the last 5 years.45

A key internal control for federal agencies is management’s ability to 

assess and manage risks associated with achieving agency objectives, 

including consideration of an assessment of significant interaction 

between the organization and other parties and development of 

mechanisms to respond to changes in governmental and operating 

conditions, among other special risks.46 DOD has revised its policies and 

procedures for disposing of excess personal property, but has not altered 

the program’s screening and issuance priorities because, according to 

DOD officials, there is no demand from federal agencies, other than 

Customs and Border Protection, to change these priorities. DOD officials 

acknowledged that they have the authority to give preference to federal 

law enforcement agencies over state and local law enforcement agencies 

and to limit the quantity of non-controlled property provided to law 

enforcement agencies under the 1033 program. DOD’s disposal process 

gives preference to special programs over potential federal civilian 

agency recipients for obtaining excess property. Consequently, in some 

cases, federal agencies may be disadvantaged in favor of non-federal 

 

44Law enforcement agencies participating in the 1033 program must meet eligibility 

requirements and comply with program guidelines. Specifically, program participants must 

be government agencies whose primary function is the enforcement of applicable federal, 

state, and local laws and whose compensated law enforcement officers have powers to 

apprehend and arrest. LESO requires that all requests for property be based on current, 

bona fide law enforcement requirements and that any property obtained be placed into 

use within a year. See Defense Logistics Agency Instruction 8160.01, Law Enforcement 

Support Office (LESO) (July 21, 2014).

45The Executive Office of the President, Review: Federal Support for Local Law 

Enforcement Equipment Acquisition (December 2014).

46Internal controls comprise the plans, methods, and procedures used to meet the 

mission, goals, and objectives of the entity. See GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the 

Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: 1999).
agencies in their ability to obtain property that was originally purchased 

with federal funds. In such cases, federal agencies are at risk of spending 

appropriated funds to acquire property that could potentially be obtained 

through DOD’s disposal process at lower cost. While DOD has modified 

the disposal process so that excess property is provided only to DOD 

components during the first 14 days of the disposal cycle, this 

modification does not change the preference given to special programs to 

request and obtain excess property before federal civilian agencies and 

other non-federal entities. It is reasonable that, in certain circumstances, 

agencies under the special programs may need property before federal 

civilian agencies—for example, in order to provide humanitarian 

assistance or for other U.S. government priorities. However, DOD has not 

identified any additional changes that need to be made to the priorities 

within its disposal process or to the categories and quantities of excess 

property that special programs may obtain. Unless DOD further 

reassesses its disposal process to determine if it needs to make 

additional changes to its guidance governing the priorities of the disposal 

process—specifically for property obtained by special programs such as 

the 1033 program—and revises its guidance reflecting those priorities, the 

risk remains that federal civilian agencies may spend additional 

appropriated federal funds to procure equipment, rather than pursue

obtaining equal or similar items at little or no additional cost to the federal 

government through DOD’s disposal process.

Page 26 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

DOD Has 

Encountered 

Challenges in Its 

Capacity to Manage 

Excess Property in 

Need of Disposal
DLA Disposition Services faces challenges in processing the current 

levels of excess property that the military services are turning in for 

disposal, and these challenges may affect DOD’s ability to handle any 

increases in the amount of property for disposal in an efficient manner. 

Once a military service determines that property is excess to its needs, its 

military units (customers) that have excess property to dispose of typically 

bring or send that property to a Disposition Services disposition site. DOD 

guidance states that the customers should schedule all turn-ins in 

advance, before delivering the property to a disposition site. DLA 

Disposition Services personnel are to coordinate closely with their DOD 

customers to ensure that the scheduling of property turn-ins takes into 

consideration each site’s receiving capacity and the volume of property to 

be turned in. Disposition Services has established a goal for customers to 

be able to turn in their excess property within 14 days of requesting an 

appointment. Once Disposition Services has physically received property 

from the customer, its goal is to record the receipt of the property in its 

accountable system of record within 5 days. When this process takes 

more than 5 days, Disposition Services experiences backlogs of 

unprocessed property and future customers may sometimes have to wait 

to turn in property.

Customers wanting to turn in property use DLA Disposition Services’

online appointment system to schedule a time to drop off the property. 

This system identifies the next available appointment date and time for 

property turn-in. Military service officials told us that, in some cases, the 

next appointment may be several weeks out, and some units have 

experienced wait times of a month or more.

Page 27 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

47 These officials told us that 

customer wait times longer than 14 days prevent them from turning in 

their property in a timely manner and that the extra wait may result in 

additional costs to the services. For example, Navy officials told us that, 

while waiting for their scheduled turn-in appointment date at some 

disposition sites, they place excess property into temporary storage 

ashore. These officials said that, in addition to costs for storage, this 

leads to redundant work by fleet supply personnel who have to prepare 

the materiel for storage and later, for transfer to the disposition site. They 

also cited the additional work Navy personnel must perform to maintain 

 

47Navy, Army, and Marine Corps officials all cited challenges with the amount of time it 

took to schedule property turn-ins to the DLA Disposition Services disposition sites. Air 

Force officials did not identify similar issues.

Some Disposition Services 

Sites Have Extended 

Waits for Turn-In 

Appointments and 

Backlogs of Unprocessed 

Property
visibility, access, accountability, and, in some cases, maintenance of 

property that has been set aside to turn in later.

DLA Disposition Services officials told us that, at some of the 80 

disposition sites in the United States, it takes several weeks to process 

the property being turned in, leading to backlogs of unprocessed 

property.

Page 28 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

48 According to these officials, the reasons for backlogs and 

extended customer wait times vary by site. They include shortages of 

staff, a lack of covered storage at the site, and limitations on space for 

receiving trucks and processing the property. DLA Disposition Services 

tracks customer wait times and backlogs at its sites, and officials told us 

that those tracking data are monitored daily, briefed to management 

monthly, and reported to all locations. Although we found that these data 

have certain limitations because they are not consistently collected and 

reported over time, are estimates, are captured for only points in time, or 

do not address the underlying causes of the wait times or backlogs, 

officials from DLA Disposition Services told us that the data do provide 

indications to management of potential issues at the sites and that they 

are supplemented by other information sources.

· For customer wait times, DLA Disposition Services looks at the 

automated appointment calendar for each site once a month to 

identify the next available appointment date. Because the next 

available appointment date changes from day to day as customers 

make, change, and cancel their turn-in appointments, this method 

provides data only for a specific point in time, and the information 

cannot be replicated. However, officials at DLA Disposition Services 

told us that collecting these data for each site on an on-going basis 

enables them to compare the wait times across several months. This 

practice helps them identify those sites that might consistently have 

long waits over time. Other sources of information on customer wait 

times that supplement these monthly data are comments on DLA 

Disposition Services’ website and direct contacts from military service 

customers.

 

48According to data obtained from DLA Disposition Services officials, as of the end of April 

2015, there were 17 disposition sites in the United States that had backlogs of over 5 

days. Of those 17 sites, 11 had backlogs of over two weeks, including some of the larger 

sites, such as those at Norfolk, Virginia; Red River, Texas; and Warner Robins, Georgia.
· Similarly, DLA Disposition Services tracks the backlogs at its sites 

based on estimates of the amount of property that is queued for 

processing, but the actual amounts of property to be processed can 

vary greatly from these estimates once the disposition site personnel 

determine the number of items in each line of the turn-in document. 

However, officials at DLA Disposition Services told us that collecting 

these data for each site on an ongoing basis enables them to monitor 

the backlogs at each site over time. This practice helps them assess 

where there might be problems at the disposition sites and therefore 

where they can focus their efforts to reduce backlogs. DLA Disposition 

Services supplements these data with other tools for identifying 

backlogs, such as its performance reviews and inspections of the 

sites.

As shown in table 2, DLA Disposition Services has recently taken some 

actions to address customer wait times and backlogs at its sites.

Page 29 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

Table 2: Actions Taken by Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services to Reduce Customer Wait Times and Backlogs

Action Taken Effect Reported

Increased Resources. Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 

Disposition Services officials have established special teams, 

which they refer to as “Tiger Teams,” to go to those sites where 

they had identified the greatest backlogs to assist in processing 

the property, among other things. These teams were 

supplemented as necessary with personnel from sites without 

large backlogs and by contractor personnel.

Reduced the backlogs at most Disposition Services sites, 

although backlogs remained at some larger sites, including the 

one in Norfolk, Virginia. At one Disposition Services site we 

visited, officials told us that they had reallocated personnel and 

increased work hours to address processing backlogs at the site. 

At the Bragg disposition site in North Carolina, officials described 

how they had pulled staff from administrative jobs and had all staff 

working overtime on weekends to reduce the backlogs from 

around 100 days to within the 5-day goal. At the time of our visit, 

officials told us that the site’s goal was to process property on the 

day it was turned in. 

Redirecting Property to Other Sites. DLA Headquarters and 

DLA Disposition Services officials told us that customers are 

required to turn in their excess property to the closest disposition 

site. However, if there are backlogs and extended customer wait 

times at that site, a customer can either wait for the next available 

appointment or use the online transportation scheduler to request 

that DLA Disposition Services arrange transportation for the 

property to a location other than the closest site. The officials said 

they have begun redirecting property that would normally go to the 

Norfolk site to other nearby sites.

Eliminates the need for customers to wait for extended periods for 

the next available appointment to turn in the property at the 

closest disposition site.

Disposition Services Has 

Taken Some Actions to 

Address Customer Wait 

Times and Backlogs
Page 30 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

Action Taken Effect Reported

Disposal Service Representatives. Personnel from DLA 

Disposition Services travel to the customers’ locations to assist 

with documentation and processing of the property to be turned in. 

These disposal service representatives provide onsite 

assessments of the property, training, and assistance with the 

turn-in of property. According to DLA Disposition Services 

guidance, the disposal service representatives assist the 

customers by helping them prepare for the actual property turn-in 

and making sure the documentation is correct and ready for 

processing. For example, at Marine Corps Base Quantico, 

Virginia, which generally sends its excess property to the 

Disposition Services site at Richmond, Virginia, for disposal, 

officials told us that a disposal service representative from the 

Richmond site rotates among the installations the site serves and 

assists property control officers at the installations with turning in 

excess property.

Enables the services to turn in excess property more efficiently by 

ensuring that documentation is correct, thereby eliminating the 

need for service customers to make multiple trips to turn in 

property.

On-site Property Inspections. Prospective transfer and donation 

recipients go to an installation that has excess property it planned 

to turn in to look at the property in place.

Prevents multiple and potentially costly moves of property that

would consume space at the DLA Disposition Services site.

Receipt in Place. DLA Disposition Services sites develop 

separate memorandums of agreement with their customers to 

receive property for turn-in at the customer’s location. These 

agreements lay out, for example, responsibilities for both agencies 

that address, among other things, how property is to be labeled 

and how long it will remain in place at the installation once DLA 

Disposition Services has entered it onto its accountable records. 

Although the property has been removed from the customer’s 

property book, the customer still retains custodial responsibility for 

the property and must maintain and secure it until it is physically 

moved.

Avoids repetitive handling and shipping costs for the property.

Expedited Processing. DLA Disposition Services, with the 

approval of the relevant General Services Administration regional 

office, may be authorized to expedite the processing of property 

being turned in when there is documented low redistribution, 

transfer, or donation potential; backlog situations; potential 

deterioration from being stored outside; or for other compelling 

reasons. DLA Disposition Services officials told us that sites 

requesting expedited processing must receive approval from both 

their headquarters and the General Services Administration.

Frequently used for processing large amounts of furniture that 

must be stored indoors, where space at the disposition sites may 

be inadequate. Now continuously used as a DLA business 

practice in certain circumstances.

Demilitarization as a Condition of Sale. DLA Disposition 

Services officials told us that they use a sales contract in which 

the buyer is required to perform the physical demilitarization of the 

property in order to receive the title to the scrap residue. As a 

condition of sale for these types of contracts, the buyer provides 

the necessary equipment and resources to demilitarize the 

property. For all demilitarization as a condition of sale actions, an 

independent government employee must verify that the 

demilitarization was done properly and completely before the 

buyer receives the title to the residue. Once the government 

employee verifies the demilitarization, the buyer generates 

revenue by selling the resulting scrap material.

Reduces backlogs of materiel to be processed at its Centralized 

Demilitarization Center sites.
Page 31 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

Action Taken Effect Reported

Network Optimization and Standardized Procedures. DLA 

Headquarters and DLA Disposition Services are initiating a study 

of the throughput at all of the disposition sites. This study is one 

piece of a new initiative—network optimization—that will look at 

the workload and resources at each disposition site to determine 

where improvements could be made. DLA Disposition Services 

officials told us that this study is still in the planning stages, but it 

will include a review of the different types and sizes of sites 

(cross-dock operations, hubs, and small sites) and any shifts of 

the customer base. Another part of network optimization is looking 

at standardizing procedures among the sites.

Will identify areas where efficiencies and customer service can be 

improved. DLA Disposition Services officials stated that the study 

will help them to assess the issues at each disposition site and 

identify whether they are due to changes in the types and 

numbers of customers being served, site leadership, or other 

factors. Additionally, they said that standardizing procedures 

across the disposition sites will provide DLA Disposition Services 

information on the throughput at each site. Identifying where the 

property is being turned in will assist the agency in determining 

where to truck property or redirect it to other locations.

Source: GAO analysis of DLA Headquarters and DLA Disposition Services information. | GAO-16-44

Despite these actions, at the time of our review, DLA Disposition Services 

officials acknowledged that customer wait times and backlogs were still a 

problem at some of the larger DLA Disposition Services disposition sites, 

such as Norfolk (Virginia) and Hill (Utah). Further, some of these actions, 

such as deploying Tiger Teams or diverting property, may temporarily 

reduce backlogs at a location but do not guarantee that the underlying 

problems that led to the backlogs have been addressed.

The challenges that DLA Disposition Services is currently facing with its 

turn-in process will likely have a negative effect on its ability to handle an 

increase in the amount of property to be processed, particularly with the 

ongoing backlogs it continues to experience at several of its larger sites 

and the extended wait times many customers are facing at certain 

disposition sites. Specifically,

· Inconsistent tracking. As noted earlier, although DLA Disposition 

Services has established a method for monitoring and tracking 

backlogs at its sites, this tracking has not been consistent over the 

past few years. The data collected through this tracking provide an 

indicator to management about potential backlogs at the sites, but 

they do not provide context for the various factors that might be 

driving the development of a backlog at a particular site.

· Lack of formal plans. While we were told that site management must 

submit a formal plan for addressing backlogs if those backlogs exceed 

5 days, we found that such plans had not been prepared for two of the 

five sites we visited—Bragg (North Carolina), which had overcome its 

backlogs with assigned personnel and overtime, and Norfolk 

(Virginia), which has experienced backlogs and extensive customer 

wait times for the past several years.

Existing Challenges May 

Limit DOD’s Ability to 

Manage a Large Increase 

in the Amount of Personal 

Property for Disposal
· Lack of backlog reduction process. Backlogs have been addressed 

by deploying temporary duty personnel to specific sites and by 

starting to standardize some procedures, but no agency-wide process 

exists for reducing backlogs and maintaining those reductions. DOD 

officials told us that standardized receiving is the agency-wide 

process used for reducing backlogs, increasing production efficiency, 

and maintaining sustainable controls over backlogs. In addition, the 

recent Tiger Teams have managed to reduce the backlogs at most 

disposition sites. However, according to DLA Disposition Services 

officials, backlogs persist at a few of the larger sites that have a large 

number of customers. Additionally, because DLA Disposition Services 

has not yet reassessed the capacity at its sites, it is not certain 

whether some of the sites may have developed backlogs as a result 

of shortages of storage or processing space rather than insufficient 

personnel or inadequate procedures. If this is the case, adding more 

personnel or standardizing procedures would not solve the underlying 

problems at those sites.

· Diversions create other costs. Diverting property to another 

disposition site may be a short-term solution that does not address the 

underlying problem, and, if the excess property has to be transported 

across greater distances than is normally the case, could involve 

additional transportation costs and coordination with customers.

· Drawbacks to expedited processing. Given a large amount of 

property to be processed, DLA Disposition Services could expedite 

the disposal process under certain circumstances. However, 

expediting the processing of excess and surplus property may carry 

the risk of DOD’s excess property moving too quickly to sales or 

destruction, possibly giving potential recipients insufficient opportunity 

to screen and request it. State surplus property officials, in particular, 

expressed concern about the potential effect of expedited processing 

on their ability to obtain surplus property for their states.

We asked DLA and military service officials the extent to which they 

coordinate the turn-in of excess personal property and how they prepare 

for any large increase in the amount of property identified for disposal, 

such as during force drawdowns or base realignment and closure actions. 

DLA officials told us that they believed the effect of such an increase on 

DLA Disposition Services’ overall disposal process would not be 

significant. These officials cited the example of the drawdown in the 

Army’s brigade combat teams, which they asserted had not had a 

significant effect at any disposition site. To support this drawdown, DLA 

Disposition Services officials told us they had successfully implemented 

Page 32 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property
mobile disposal capabilities at several Army sites to expedite disposal, 

adding turn-in appointments and increasing operating hours and even 

manpower in cases where the current capabilities were not sufficient. 

They also said that any significant increase in the amount of excess 

property would become apparent as an increase in the receiving backlog 

at the affected sites, which is monitored on a monthly basis. DLA officials 

also said that, if a site’s backlog grows beyond the 5-day threshold, site 

management must submit a plan for reducing it, using local resources 

such as overtime or split shifts. If this plan is not effective, DLA 

Disposition Services Headquarters can add more personnel resources to 

that site or divert some of the property to be turned in to other disposition 

sites. These officials also said that DLA Disposition Services coordinates 

with the services in advance of large amounts of property being turned in, 

so that the sites can plan for increased workloads. However, as noted 

previously, even with these assurances, backlogs continued at 17 sites as 

of the end of April 2015.

A key internal control of successful federal organizations is their 

management’s ability to identify, analyze, and respond to risks that could 

inhibit the organization in reaching its defined objectives.

Page 33 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

49 DLA 

Disposition Services has established an operational goal for customers to 

be able get an appointment to turn in their excess property within 14 days 

of requesting one. After Disposition Services has received property from a 

customer, it has 5 days to process the property, that is, record the receipt 

of the property in its accountable system of record. When it takes more 

than 5 days for DLA to process property that has been turned in, backlogs 

of unprocessed property occur. DOD components turn in huge amounts 

of excess property, particularly at the larger disposition sites. Although 

DLA Disposition Services has modified some of its practices for 

processing this property, backlogs in processing property that has been 

turned in continued to occur at 17 locations as of the end of April 2015. 

As noted in table 2, officials from DLA Disposition Services told us that 

the study they have initiated to review the throughput at the disposition 

sites will enable them to look at the workload and resources at each site 

to determine where improvements could be made.

 

49GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.
For fiscal year 2014, DOD reported that it had reutilized, transferred, or 

donated excess and surplus property with a total original acquisition value 

of approximately $3.18 billion in nominal dollars. Property amounting to a 

little over a quarter of this value was obtained by law enforcement 

agencies—through special programs—during the reutilization stage of the 

disposal process, rather than moving forward through the other stages 

where it might be transferred to federal civilian agencies, donated to nonfederal organizations, or sold or destroyed. DOD’s implementation of the 

disposal process has placed special program recipients in the first stage 

of the process (reutilization) rather than the later stages (transfer or 

donation), where some of these organizations would otherwise obtain the 

property. As a result, in some cases the disposal process gives 

preference for obtaining excess property to special programs—

particularly to state and local law enforcement agencies—over potential 

federal recipients outside of DOD. When preference is given to eligible 

recipients under special programs over federal civilian agencies, there is 

a risk that federal agencies could spend appropriated funds to acquire 

property through new procurement that they could potentially have 

obtained at lower cost (such as the costs to cover transportation from the 

disposition site) through the DOD disposal process. While DOD has taken 

some steps to update its procedures to better ensure that DOD 

components can obtain its excess property before the special programs, 

those special programs could still obtain such property prior to most 

federal civilian agencies and non-federal entities. It is reasonable that 

agencies under the special programs may obtain specific property ahead 

of federal civilian agencies in certain circumstances, such as for 

humanitarian assistance or to meet other U.S. government priorities. 

However, DOD has not determined whether additional changes are 

needed in the priorities of its disposal process and the categories and 

quantities of excess property that special programs may obtain through 

the process, and it does not currently have plans to do so. Thus, the risk 

remains that federal agencies may spend federal funds to procure 

property rather than obtaining that or similar property through the DOD 

disposal process.

Recognizing that DOD has recently revised its disposition guidance, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Director, DLA, to 

further reassess DOD’s disposal process to determine whether additional 

changes are needed in the priority given to recipients within the process, 

including potential changes to the categories and quantities of property 

that special programs may obtain, and revise its guidance reflecting those 

Page 34 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

Conclusions

Recommendation for 

Executive Action
priorities accordingly to better enable DOD to fulfill the disposal program’s 

objectives.

We provided a draft of this product to the Department of Defense, the 

General Services Administration, and the Department of Homeland 

Security for comment. In its written comments, DOD concurred with our 

recommendation and stated that it would continue to assess all aspects of 

the disposal process as part of its standard operating procedures. As we 

discuss in this report, we believe that DOD should separately assess the 

priorities in its disposal process, to include preferences provided to the 

special programs. Absent such an assessment, risk remains that federal 

agencies may spend additional appropriated federal funds to procure 

equipment, rather than pursue obtaining equal or similar items at little or 

no additional cost to the federal government through DOD’s disposal 

process. While we understand that DOD already assesses its disposal 

process as part of its normal operations, we continue to believe that the 

potential chance to make more efficient use of federal funds warrants 

further efforts in this area, even though this could require some effort by 

DOD entities for the primary benefit of federal civilian agencies. DOD’s 

comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix VII. We also received 

technical comments from the General Services Administration and the 

Department of Homeland Security, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of the General 

Services Administration, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other 

interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the 

GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

Page 35 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

Agency Comments 

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

Brian J. Lepore at (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov or Seto J. 

Bagdoyan at (202) 512-6722 or bagdoyans@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found

on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix VIII.

Brian J. Lepore

Director, Defense Capabilities and Management

Seto J. Bagdoyan

Director, Forensic Audits and Investigative Service

Page 36 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property
List of Committees

The Honorable John McCain

Chairman

The Honorable Jack Reed

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Chairman

The Honorable Richard Durbin

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Mac Thornberry

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable Rodney Frelinghuysen

Chairman

The Honorable Pete Visclosky

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Page 37 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To describe the process for disposing of Department of Defense (DOD) 

excess personal property in the United States, we reviewed key 

documentation of guidance DOD provides to Defense Logistics Agency 

(DLA) Disposition Services and DOD components on the disposition of 

excess personal property, such as the Defense Materiel Disposition 

Manual

Page 38 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

1 and the DOD Demilitarization Manual.2 We met with officials from 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense to discuss the overall disposal 

process, property accountability policies for DOD property, and the costs 

and revenues associated with the process. We also met with officials from

DLA Headquarters and DLA Disposition Services Headquarters to 

discuss the overall disposal process and their roles and responsibilities in 

that process. In addition, we met with staff at 5 of the 80 DLA Disposition 

Services disposition sites in the United States that support different 

military services and specific disposition processes, in order to view 

DOD’s disposal process and identify the specific systems, processes, and 

controls DOD uses to dispose of excess personal property. Criteria we 

used to select those sites include, among others, the capacity to process 

controlled property, property requiring demilitarization, or hazardous 

property. The sites also represent two of the three Disposition Services 

Directorates that oversee the disposition sites in the continental United 

States—Eastern United States and Middle America. The information 

obtained from these five disposition sites offers insight into the manner in 

which the process was implemented at those select locations, although it 

is not projectable to DOD’s entire disposal process. Additionally, we 

reviewed key service-specific guidance documents to determine how the 

services implement DOD guidance and the processes they establish for 

turning in their excess property in the United States, and we met with 

supply and logistics representatives from each of the military services. 

 

1During the course of our audit, we relied on DOD’s August 1997 Defense Materiel 

Disposition Manual, which implemented the requirements of the Federal Property 

Management Regulation and other laws, as appropriate, as they apply to the disposition of 

DOD’s excess, surplus, and foreign excess personal property. On October 22, 2015, DOD 

released an updated four-volume Materiel Disposition Manual which, in general, clarifies 

aspects of DOD’s disposition process while maintaining the essential structure of the 

program. Because the 1997 manual was in effect during the audit period, our report relies 

on the 1997 guidance. Our findings and recommendation remain valid, however, when 

considered within the context of the updated guidance, since the fundamental framework 

of the disposition process remains unchanged. See DOD 4160.21-M (Aug. 1997) and 

DODM 4160.21, vols. 1–4 (Oct. 22, 2015).

2Department of Defense, DOD 4160.28-M, Defense Demilitarization: Program 

Administration (Vol.1), Demilitarization Coding (Vol. 2), and Procedural Guidance (Vol. 3)

(June 7, 2011).

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

We also contacted officials from the DOD Office of the Inspector General 

for information on their recently completed, ongoing, or planned audits of 

DOD’s disposal process, including the 1033 program. Finally, we met with 

officials from the General Services Administration (GSA) to gain an 

understanding of the overall federal system for disposing of excess 

property, including government-wide policies in general and DOD’s 

disposal process in particular, and obtained access to GSAXcess to view 

how GSA makes property available to potential customers to view and 

obtain.

We looked in more detail at two of the special programs through which 

certain qualified organizations are authorized to receive excess DOD 

property—the foreign security assistance program and the program that 

provides excess DOD property to federal, state, and local law 

enforcement agencies (called the “1033 program” for the section of the 

law that authorizes it)—to illustrate how these programs fit into and affect 

the priorities in DOD’s disposal process. We selected the foreign security 

assistance program because DLA Disposition Services has different 

processes to handle excess property for this special program, and we

selected the 1033 program because it is the special program that 

receives the greatest proportion of DOD excess personal property each 

year in terms of original acquisition value. In addition to reviewing laws 

and policies related to these two programs, we discussed the programs 

with officials from DLA Disposition Services Headquarters. We also 

obtained reported reutilization, transfer, donation, and sales information 

for fiscal years 2010 through 2014—the most recent full fiscal year data 

available—from DOD and GSA to describe the disposal process. 

Although we did not independently validate the accuracy of the detailed 

reutilization, transfer, donation, and sales data, we believe the data are 

sufficiently reliable for our purpose of illustrating the overall size and 

scope of DOD’s disposal process.

To assess how DOD’s priorities in its disposal process affect the 

distribution of excess property, we reviewed key guidance, manuals, and 

policies; legal authorities; and reports and other documents related to the 

process. We met with officials from DLA’s Disposition Services 

Headquarters and the selected sites to discuss challenges they had 

identified. To get the perspectives of a federal law enforcement agency 

on DOD’s disposal process for its excess personal property, we met with 

officials from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. We selected this 

federal agency because of its border security mission and its interest in 

obtaining DOD excess personal property. To identify challenges that state 

recipients face in obtaining excess and surplus DOD personal property, 

Page 39 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

we met with officials from four states who are responsible for managing 

either the 1033 program to support law enforcement activities, the 

Federal Surplus Personal Property Donation Program, or both programs 

for their states. We selected these states based on proximity to DLA 

Disposition Services disposition sites, their status in the 1033 program, 

whether the 1033 program coordinator also serves as the surplus 

coordinator, and whether the surplus coordinator serves as an officer or 

committee member of the National Association of State Agencies for 

Surplus Property.

Page 40 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

3 We also met with the executive director of the National 

Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property and participated in 

one of the conference calls that the association holds with officials from 

DLA Disposition Services and GSA, in which association members bring 

up issues and questions related to obtaining surplus property from DOD. 

Finally, we contacted the audit agencies for each of the four states to 

determine whether or not they had any recently completed, ongoing, or 

planned audits of the Federal Surplus Personal Property Donation 

Program or the 1033 program in their state. Although the views of officials 

from these states are not generalizable to all states, they provided 

insights into the types of challenges faced by non-federal organizations 

involved in the disposal process and into other related audit work.

To identify types of excess property obtained by law enforcement 

agencies, we obtained and analyzed data on the 1033 program from an 

extract of the Federal Excess Property Management Information System 

provided by the U.S. Forest Service, which manages this database on 

behalf of the Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO). To assess the 

reliability of these data, we interviewed knowledgeable officials at the U.S. 

Forest Service and LESO, performed electronic testing of key data 

elements, and met with both the 1033 program coordinator and a local 

law enforcement agency in each of two states to compare the property on 

hand with the records in the database. Based on these efforts, we 

concluded that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

review. We then used the data to examine property obtained by law 

enforcement agencies from calendar years 2013 and 2014—the most 

recent full calendar year data available—that did not appear to be 

exclusive to law enforcement activities and that did not possess military 

 

3The National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property is an organization 

whose 56 member agencies seek to establish and promote the acquisition and equitable 

distribution of federal personal property to public agencies and other eligible entities.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

attributes.

Page 41 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

4 To provide some examples of types of property that could fall 

into these categories, we analyzed data from six federal supply classes, 

including earth-moving and excavating equipment (federal supply class 

#3805); self-propelled warehouse trucks and tractors (3930); fencing, 

fences, gates, and components (5660); food cooking, baking, and serving 

equipment (7310); kitchen equipment and appliances (7320); and musical 

instruments (7710).5 We selected these broad categories of property 

based on testimonial evidence we had gathered during site visits to the 

four states and our judgment of property that did not seem to be 

exclusively related to law enforcement activities but that had recently 

been obtained by law enforcement agencies. We used the national stock 

numbers to calculate the number of items, number of distinct law 

enforcement agencies, number of states, and range of acquisition values 

for various equipment types within each federal supply class.6 We also 

met with officials from an international police association to discuss the 

potential uses by law enforcement agencies of the categories of property 

we selected. Finally, to identify situations in which federal agencies may 

have purchased property similar to that obtained by law enforcement 

agencies, we reviewed publicly available government procurement data. 

Specifically, we searched the USASpending.gov website for terms related 

to the six federal supply classes and obtained additional details about 

individual contracts using the Federal Procurement Data System-Next 

 

4We analyzed these data to identify classes of items that were obtained by state and local 

law enforcement agencies; however, we did not review the justifications for individual 

property requests—including how those requests were verified by DLA Disposition 

Services personnel—because the purpose for which recipients planned to use the 

property they obtained and the ultimate disposal of such property were outside the scope 

of this review.

5DOD uses federal supply classification to classify all personal property types identified in 

the federal cataloguing system. There are 80 federal supply groups that identify broad 

commodity areas, and these groups are further subdivided into 645 classes. Each federal 

supply class covers a relatively homogeneous area of commodities, in respect to physical 

or performance characteristics, items that are usually requisitioned or issued together, or 

items that constitute a related grouping for supply management purposes. For example, 

earth-moving and excavating equipment is in federal supply class 3805, which is part of 

federal supply group 38 (construction, mining, excavating, and highway maintenance 

equipment).

6We did not include in our analysis property that had been turned in to DLA Disposition 

Services using locally assigned stock numbers, since the numbers vary by location and it 

is difficult to make comparisons among them. For these federal supply classes, including 

local stock numbers would increase the amount of property obtained by law enforcement 

agencies during this time frame.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Generation database. However, in performing this work, we did not 

review signed contract language, determine whether donated property 

would have been suitable for the needs of the purchasing agency, or 

confirm that the purchased equipment had been delivered.

Page 42 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

7

To assess the extent to which DOD has encountered challenges in its 

capacity to manage excess personal property to be processed, we 

obtained from DLA Disposition Services available data and management 

briefings on the amount of time it took for military service customers to 

schedule an appointment to turn in their excess property and for DLA 

Disposition Services staff to process the property at disposition sites in 

the United States. We requested this information for calendar years 2013 

and 2014, to obtain data for the two most recent calendar years. To 

obtain more recent backlog information, we subsequently requested data 

through April 2015. We analyzed these data and briefings and discussed 

them with officials at DLA Disposition Services so we could gain an 

understanding of customer wait times and backlogs at each of those 

sites. These data and briefings are among the tools that DLA Disposition 

Services uses to identify potential problems at its sites, although we found 

that they had certain limitations in providing comprehensive information 

on customer wait times and backlogs at the disposition sites because 

they were not consistently reported over time, were estimates, captured 

data for only a point in time, or did not get at underlying causes. We also 

received documentation on initiatives that DLA Disposition Services has 

undertaken to reduce customer wait times and backlogs, and we 

discussed these documents with officials from DLA Disposition Services. 

Additionally, we met with DLA officials at the selected Disposition 

Services disposition sites to discuss challenges they face in disposing of 

excess personal property, actions they have taken to address those 

challenges, and what resources they have available to perform their 

property disposal functions.8 We toured the sites and observed their

 

7Due to the ongoing reviews of the use of military equipment by law enforcement 

agencies, we did not focus on the 4 percent of property that those agencies obtain that is 

controlled. We did, however, discuss with DOD officials developments in this area that will 

affect the 1033 program, including the White House review and subsequent Law 

Enforcement Equipment Working Group report.

8Under the Disposition to Distribution initiative, storage and distribution functions 

(receiving, storing, and issuing property) performed by both DLA Distribution and DLA 

Disposition Services were consolidated under DLA Distribution. As a result, we talked with 

officials from both DLA Distribution and DLA Disposition Services, depending on the site.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

disposal operations to understand the challenges associated with multiple 

types of operational structures and the effect that an increase in the 

amount of property to be processed could have on the sites’ operations. 

Finally, we talked with officials representing each of the military services 

to discuss the disposal process and to identify challenges their units 

encounter in turning in or managing their excess personal property for 

disposal. These officials represented the headquarters, some major 

commands, and at least one installation from each of the military 

services.

Table 3 identifies the organizations and agencies we contacted during our 

review.

Table 3: List of Organizations and Agencies Contacted during Our Review

Page 43 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

Organization or agency Location

Office of the Secretary of Defense

Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics)

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Logistics & Materiel Readiness) - Supply 

Chain Integration

Arlington, Virginia

Acquisition Resources and Analysis Directorate - Property & Equipment 

Policy

Arlington, Virginia

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Arlington, Virginia

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)

DLA Headquarters Fort Belvoir, Virginia

DLA Disposition Services Headquarters Battle Creek, Michigan

Five DLA Disposition Services disposition sites Anniston and Huntsville, Alabama; Warner Robins, 

Georgia; Bragg, North Carolina; and Norfolk, Virginia

United States Army

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) Arlington, Virginia

Department of Army Headquarters G-4 (Logistics) Arlington, Virginia

U.S. Army Forces Command Fort Bragg, North Carolina

U.S. Army Materiel Command Redstone Arsenal, Alabama

3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division; Department of Public 

Works; and Logistics Readiness Center

Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Directorate of Public Works and Directorate of Material Management’s 

Material Movement Branch

Anniston Army Depot, Alabama

United States Navy

Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Research Development and Acquisition 

and Energy, Installations and Environment

Arlington, Virginia

Chief of Naval Operations, Director for Material Readiness and Logistics 

(N4)

Arlington, Virginia
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 44 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

Organization or agency Location

Naval Supply Systems Command Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania

USS Harry S Truman (aircraft carrier) Norfolk, Virginia

United States Marine Corps

Headquarters Marine Corps, Logistics Plans, Policies, and Strategic 

Mobility

Washington, D.C.

Marine Corps Installation Command Quantico, Virginia

Logistics (G-4) Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia

United States Air Force

Headquarters Air Force A4 (Logistics, Installations and Mission Support) Joint Base Andrews, Maryland

Air Combat Command Langley Air Force Base, Virginia

Air Force Materiel Command Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio

Air Force Vehicle and Equipment Management Support Office Langley Air Force Base, Virginia

Federal Agencies

General Services Administration Washington, D.C.

Office of Government-wide Policy Washington, D.C.

Federal Acquisition Service Washington, D.C.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Headquarters (Department of Homeland 

Security)

Washington, D.C.

Offices of Administration, Border Patrol, Field Operations, and Technology 

Innovation and Acquisition

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Forest Service Headquarters (U.S. Department of Agriculture) Washington, D.C.

Fire and Aviation Management Program (Federal Excess Property 

Management Information System Program Manager)

Boise, Idaho

States

1033 program coordinators Montgomery, Alabama; Atlanta, Georgia; Jessup, 

Maryland; Raleigh, North Carolina; and North 

Chesterfield, Virginia

Surplus coordinators Montgomery, Alabama; Atlanta, Georgia; Raleigh, 

North Carolina; and Richmond, Virginia

Local law enforcement agencies Colmar Manor, Maryland, and Quantico, Virginia

Associations

National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania

International Association of Chiefs of Police Alexandria, Virginia

Source: GAO. | GAO-16-44
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

We conducted this performance audit from April 2014 to January 2016 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

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

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

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

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Page 45 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property
Appendix II: DOD Special Programs

There are 12 special programs that may screen and request DOD excess 

personal property during the reutilization stage of the disposal process. 

Six of these programs are found in laws and codified in statutes as shown 

in table 4.

Table 4: DOD Special Programs Found in Statutes

Page 46 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

Special program Description Authority

1033 program for law 

enforcement agencies

Authorizes the Secretary of Defense to transfer excess DOD property that is suitable 

for use by law enforcement activities, including counter-drug and counter-terrorism 

activities.

10 U.S.C. § 2576a

Foreign military sales Authorizes international defense cooperation and sales of arms to eligible foreign 

countries in accordance with the purposes of the foreign assistance program (22 

U.S.C. § 2151 et. seq) and the foreign policy interest of the United States.

22 U.S.C. § 2751

Firefighter property 

program

Authorizes the Secretary of Defense to transfer any personal property of DOD to a 

firefighting agency in a state. The U.S. Forest Service manages DOD firefighting 

property transfers.

10 U.S.C. § 2576b

Humanitarian assistance 

programs

Authorizes the Secretary of Defense to make available for humanitarian relief 

purposes any nonlethal excess supplies of DOD. The Secretary may also make 

available to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs excess clothing, shoes, sleeping bags, 

and related nonlethal excess supplies for distribution to homeless veterans and 

programs assisting homeless veterans.

10 U.S.C. § 2557

Computers for Learning Authorizes federal agencies to loan, lease, or give research equipment that is 

excess to the agency to an educational institution or nonprofit organization for 

technical and scientific education and research activities.

15 U.S.C. § 3710(i)

Museums program Authorizes the Secretary of Defense to lend, gift, or exchange books, manuscripts, 

works of art, historical artifacts, drawings, plans, models, and condemned or 

obsolete combat materiel to a state, county, or city; a servicemen’s monument 

association; a museum, historical society, or historical institution; a Veterans of 

Foreign Wars of the United States or an American Legion post or other recognized 

war veterans’ association.

10 U.S.C. § 2572

Source: GAO analysis of existing legal authorities. | GAO-16-44

The remaining six special programs were established by DOD, and no 

separate legal authorities apply. Table 5 identifies these special 

programs.

Appendix II: DOD Special Programs
Appendix II: DOD Special Programs

Table 5: Special Programs Established by DOD

Page 47 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

Special program Description DOD guidance

National Guard units National Guard units are designated by DOD to receive excess DOD property 

with the approval of the National Guard Bureau or the U.S. Property and Fiscal 

Officer, or their authorized representative, for the state in which the National 

Guard unit is located.

DOD 4160.21-M, chap.

5, att. I, § 6 (Aug. 1997)

Morale, welfare, and 

recreation (MWR) 

activities and services

MWR activities are authorized by DOD to receive excess DOD property 

through their servicing accountable officer.

DOD 4160.21-M, chap.

5, att. I, § 8 (Aug. 1997)

Military Affiliate Radio 

System (MARS)

The military services responsible for the MARS program are authorized to 

requisition excess DOD property from DLA Disposition Services through their 

respective accountable officers.

DOD 4160.21-M, chap.

5, att. I, § 9 (Aug. 1997)

Civil Air Patrol As the official auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force, this program is eligible to receive 

excess DOD property without reimbursement.

DOD 4160.21-M, chap.

5, att. I, § 10 (Aug. 1997)

Senior Reserve Officer 

Training Corps units 

(ROTC)

ROTC units may obtain excess DOD property to support supplemental 

proficiency training programs, with the approval of the installation commander 

or designee normally responsible for providing logistical support for the 

instructor groups concerned. Junior ROTC units are not covered.

DOD 4160.21-M, chap.

5, att. I, § 7 (Aug. 1997)

DOD contractors A military service or Defense component may withdraw or authorize the 

withdrawal of specified excess property from a DLA Disposition Services 

disposition site for use by or for a contractor as government-furnished 

equipment to fulfill contract requirements.

DLM 4000.25-1, chap.

11, § C11.1.1 (July 14, 

2014)

Source: GAO analysis of DOD guidance. | GAO-16-44
Appendix III:

Page 48 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

Appendix III:
Appendix IV: Excess Property Obtained by 

Law Enforcement Agencies

Page 49 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

Appendix IV: Excess Property Obtained by 

Law Enforcement Agencies
Appendix V:

Page 50 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

Appendix V:
Appendix VI:

Page 51 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

Appendix VI: 
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 52 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Defense
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 53 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property
Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Brian J. Lepore, (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov

Seto J. Bagdoyan, (202) 512-6722 or bagdoyans@gao.gov

In addition to the contacts named above, Maria Storts and Philip Reiff 

(Assistant Directors), John Ahern, Karyn Angulo, Ronnie Bergman, Gary 

Bianchi, Steve Boyles, John Bumgarner, William Cordrey, Jeanette 

Espinola, Robert Graves, Samuel Harris, Joanne Landesman, Felicia 

Lopez, Daniel McKenna, Anna Maria Ortiz, Carol Petersen, Terry 

Richardson, Amie Steele, Sabrina Streagle, Guiovany Venegas, and 

Nicholas Weeks made key contributions to this report.

Page 54 GAO-16-44 Excess Personal Property

Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100020)
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 and read The Watchblog.

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

PleasrintoRecyldPapr.