CONTRACTOR 

WHISTLEBLOWER 

PROTECTIONS 

PILOT PROGRAM

Improvements 

Needed to Ensure 

Effective 

Implementation

Report to Congressional Committees

March 2017

GAO-17-227

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

 

Highlights of GAO-17-227, a report to 

congressional committees

March 2017

CONTRACTOR WHISTLEBLOWER 

PROTECTIONS PILOT PROGRAM 

Improvements Needed to Ensure Effective 

Implementation 

What GAO Found

The Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program (pilot program) provides enhanced 

legal protections to contractor employees who believe that they have 

experienced reprisal as a result of disclosing certain wrongdoings. Among other 

enhancements, the act expanded the persons and entities to which a 

whistleblower could disclose wrongdoing and identified which office within an 

agency has responsibility for handling complaints. For example, under the pilot 

program, when the Office of Inspector General (OIG) receives a complaint, it 

must determine whether a complaint is covered by the pilot program and if 

covered, conduct an investigation and submit the findings to the agency head, 

complainant, and contractor. The 14 selected departments that GAO reviewed 

reported receiving an estimated 1,560 whistleblower reprisal complaints from 

July 1, 2013, through December 31, 2015. Of these complaints, 127 were 

submitted by contractor, subcontractor, and grantee employees under the pilot 

program. The 14 OIGs investigated 44 of the 127 complaints but did not find that 

reprisal had occurred in any of them. The complaints not investigated by the 

OIGs were excluded for a variety of reasons, such as the complaint was deemed 

to be frivolous or was being decided by another judicial authority. 

GAO’s in-depth review of four selected departments’ implementation of the pilot 

program found various opportunities for improvement. Specific details follow:

• The pilot program requires findings of investigated reprisal complaints to be 

forwarded to several entities, including to the agency head for a determination 

of whether reprisal occurred and, as of December 2015, to the head of the 

contracting activity. However, at two of the four departments reviewed, the

OIGs either did not forward their investigation findings to the appropriate

entities or did not forward findings in the necessary format because, according 

to OIG officials, they were unclear about how to execute the requirement. As a 

result, at these two departments, the agency heads did not make the 

determination of whether reprisal occurred as required by the pilot program. 

• Contracting officers must insert the required Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR) whistleblower clause to be inserted into contracts exceeding the 

simplified acquisition threshold, which is generally $150,000, as a method to 

communicate with contractors about pilot program requirements. However, 

while the four selected departments reported that they inserted the clause into 

the required contracts, GAO found new contracts awarded during the pilot 

program’s timeframe that did not include the required clause. Without effective 

internal control policies, agencies may continue to omit the required clause. 

• Some contractors GAO spoke with were unaware of their obligations under the 

pilot program. Officials from all four departments reported taking no additional 

action to communicate to contractors their responsibilities to inform employees 

of their rights under the pilot program. This is inconsistent with federal internal 

control standards for communication. Without actions to help contractors fully 

understand their responsibilities under the pilot program, the departments do 

not have assurance that contractor employees are also aware of the 

protections afforded by the pilot program legislation. 

View GAO-17-227. For more information, 

contact Marie A. Mak at (202) 512-4841 or 

makm@gao.gov. 

Why GAO Did This Study

Whistleblowers play an important role 

in safeguarding the federal government 

against fraud, waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement. The National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 introduced a pilot program

to expand whistleblower rights against 

reprisal for executive agencies’ 

contractors, subcontractors, and 

grantee employees. Also, in 2013, the

FAR was amended to require agencies 

to insert a contract clause to ensure

contractors communicate rights to their

employees for certain contracts. 

The act also contained a provision for 

GAO to report on the status of the pilot

program. This report: (1) describes the 

results of the whistleblower pilot 

program across 14 selected executive 

departments from July 1, 2013, to

December 31, 2015 and (2) assesses 

the extent to which four departments

implemented the pilot program. GAO 

analyzed survey data from 14 

executive departments, which are a 

subset of all entities covered by the 

legislation; selected four departments

based on high and low contract funds 

awarded to conduct a more detailed 

review of the pilot program

implementation; interviewed agency 

officials and contractors; and reviewed 

a non-generalizable sample of 

contracts included in the pilot program. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making specific 

recommendations to the four selected 

departments to improve whistleblower 

protections policies and guidance and 

communication with contractors. The 

departments agreed with the 

recommendations and have taken or 

identified actions to address the 

recommendations.
Page i GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

Letter 1

Background 4

All 14 Executive Departments Surveyed Varied in the Number of 

Reprisal Complaints Received and How They Implemented the 

Pilot 10

Four Selected Departments Did Not Fully Implement Provisions of 

the Mandate 16

Conclusions 25

Recommendations for Executive Action 26

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 26

Appendix I Survey 30

Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 44

Appendix III A Summary of Selected Departments’ Reprisal Complaints 

and the Handling of Those Complaints 48

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Commerce 50

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 54

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of State 58

Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 61

Tables

Table 1: Methods Used by 14 Departments to Facilitate the 

Contractor, Subcontractor, and Grantee Employee 

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

Whistleblower Disclosures and Reprisal Complaints Filed 

under the Whistleblower Protection Pilot Program 14

Table 2: Summary of Contractor Employee Reprisal Complaints 

Reported by Offices of Inspector General (OIG) at 

Selected Departments under the Whistleblower 

Protections Pilot Program from July 1, 2013, to December 

31, 2015 49

Figures

Figure 1: Disclosure Process and Reprisal Complaint Investigation 

and Review Process under the Whistleblower Protection 

Pilot Program 6

Figure 2: Disposition of 127 Pilot Program Reprisal Complaints 

Received by Offices of Inspector General at 14 Executive 

Departments from July 1, 2013, to December 31, 2015 12
Page iii GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

Abbreviations 

CIGIE Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and 

Efficiency

Commerce Department of Commerce

DOD Department of Defense

Energy Department of Energy

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation

FPDS-NG Federal Procurement Data System-Next 

Generation

Homeland Security Department of Homeland Security

Interior Department of the Interior

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NDAA National Defense Authorization Act

OIG Office of Inspector General

pilot program Pilot Program for Enhancement of Contractor 

Employee Whistleblower Protections

State Department of State

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

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

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

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

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

March 2, 2017

Congressional Committees:

Whistleblowers play an important role in safeguarding the federal 

government against waste, fraud, and abuse, and their willingness to 

come forward can contribute to improvements in government operations, 

including in the acquisition of services and goods provided by contractors. 

In fiscal year 2015, the federal government, excluding the Department of 

Defense, obligated over $164 billion in contracts for a variety of services 

and goods, such as nuclear site cleanup, information technology services, 

and office supplies. Contractor, subcontractor, and grantee employees 

who carry out activities under federal contracts and grants may have 

insight into potential fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. In order 

to encourage disclosure of wrongdoing, contractors should maintain an 

open environment without fear of reprisal.

Although some protections for contractor employee whistleblowers 

existed before 2013, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 

Fiscal Year 2013 introduced a Pilot Program for Enhancement of 

Contractor Employee Whistleblower Protections (pilot program) to 

enhance contractor whistleblower protections for employees of 

contractors, subcontractors, and grantees at certain executive agencies 

against reprisal.1 The legislation covers numerous executive agencies, 

including 14 executive departments.2 The pilot program, among other 

things, provides enhanced legal protections to contractor employees who 

reasonably believe they have experienced reprisal as a result of 

disclosing certain wrongdoing as defined in the statute to specified bodies

and individuals.

 

1

Pub. L. No.112-239, § 828, (codified as amended at 41 U.S.C. § 4712). The legislation 

provides protections for certain civilian executive agencies, but those protections are not 

extended to others such as elements of the intelligence community. Further, some 

agencies, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Defense, 

and the Coast Guard are not covered by the pilot program and are covered under other 

statutory provisions. 

2

Since the legislation uses the terms “agency” and “agency head”, when we use those 

terms in this report, we are referring to the language used in the statute. When we use the 

term department, we are referring to our analysis of all applicable executive departments, 

which is a subset of the agencies covered by the statute. The 14 executive departments 

we reviewed in this report are also defined in statute. 

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 also contained a provision for us to 

evaluate and report on the implementation of the pilot program. This 

report (1) describes the results of the whistleblower protections pilot 

program between July 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015, across 14 

executive departments subject to the act and (2) assesses the extent to 

which four selected executive departments implemented the pilot 

program.

To describe the results of the pilot program, we surveyed the Office of 

Inspector General (OIG) at the 14 executive departments covered by the 

legislation on whistleblower reprisal complaints received between July 1, 

2013, and December 31, 2015.3 In this report, we use the terms “agency” 

and “agency head” when referring to provisions of the whistleblower 

protections pilot program legislation in general because the legislation 

uses these terms. When we refer to departments, we are referring to the 

14 executive departments defined by statute and covered by the 

whistleblower protections pilot program that we focused on for our review. 

We surveyed the OIGs at the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, 

Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, 

Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, 

Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs and received responses 

from the OIGs at all 14 of these departments. Among other things, the 

survey collected information about the number of disclosures of fraud, 

waste, abuse, and mismanagement as well as reprisal complaints and 

mechanisms used by executive departments to implement provisions of 

the pilot program. Each department’s OIG consulted with their cognizant 

department officials to obtain responses to our survey questions on an 

as-needed basis. The survey used for this study is reprinted in appendix I.

To assess the extent to which departments have implemented the pilot 

program, we selected four executive departments based primarily on the 

dollar value of their fiscal year 2015 contract funds awarded, the most 

recent year available at the time we began our review. To obtain a range 

of departments, we included two departments (Homeland Security, State) 

with higher contract funds awarded and two departments (Commerce, 

Interior) with lower contract funds awarded. At each department, we 

focused on the department’s handling of reprisal complaints filed by 

contractor and subcontractor employees. We interviewed or obtained 

 

3

Congress enacted legislation making the pilot program permanent on December 14, 

2016. Pub. L. No. 114-261.
Page 3 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

written answers from officials at each department’s OIG, the office of the 

agency head, and the acquisitions office about their processes and 

practices for the agency duties outlined in the mandate. Where 

applicable, we reviewed documentation such as relevant policies, 

guidance, and internal reports. To identify whether contracts contained a 

required Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause, we requested a 

non-generalizable sample of contracts from each of the four selected 

departments. To identify an example of a contract without the clause, we 

reviewed documentation for a random selection of at least 50 contracts at 

each of the four departments. We asked for contract actions awarded in 

the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015 to ensure we were sampling 

contracts that are required to have the clause and would be reasonably 

accessible by the departments (e.g., they would likely not be archived). 

We also reviewed orders awarded during this period. We used the 

Federal Procurement Data System–Next Generation (FPDS-NG) to 

generate a sample of contract actions over $150,000, which is generally 

the simplified acquisition threshold, that were awarded by the four

departments included in our review in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 

2015. We conducted data reliability checks on the FPDS-NG dataset by 

comparing it to contract documentation obtained from contract files and 

determined it was sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

Further, to identify challenges experienced during the implementation of 

the pilot program, we conducted interviews with contractors and 

whistleblower advocacy groups. We contacted a total of 13 contractors, 

including both large and small business contractors based on their 

contract obligations from fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2015, as 

reported in FPDS-NG, and we spoke with or received written answers to 

our questions from 7. We also spoke with two whistleblower advocacy 

groups. For additional information on our scope and methodology, see 

appendix II.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2016 to March 2017 

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 4 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

Federal employees have had protections against whistleblower reprisal—

also known in some cases as adverse consequences or retaliation—for 

several decades. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and the 

Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 both provided federal employees 

with certain rights against reprisal for disclosing certain wrongdoing and 

created avenues of investigation of complaints. More recently, the 

Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 expanded and 

clarified protections for federal employee whistleblowers, including adding 

clarity that federal employees are protected even if the disclosures are 

identified as part of their existing job duties, such as for auditors and 

safety inspectors.

In 1986, whistleblower reprisal protections were extended to employees 

of defense contractors. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 1987 provided protections for employees of defense contractors, 

who were prohibited from discharging, demoting, or otherwise 

discriminating against an employee for disclosing certain wrongdoing. 

Similar protections were expanded to other executive agencies in 1994, 

when legislation provided certain rights for contractor employees at 

civilian executive agencies. For example, one right is to have the OIG of 

the executive agency conduct an investigation into reprisal complaints 

when the contractor employee believes reprisal has occurred as a result 

of disclosing certain information to authorized persons or bodies, such as 

a member of Congress.4 In 2013, after the passage of the NDAA for 

Fiscal Year 2013, the pilot program went into effect and further expanded 

protections to also include employees of subcontractors and grantees and 

directs the agency head to make the determination on whether a 

contractor employee had been reprised against.5

 

4

Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA), Pub. L. No. 103-355 § 6006.

5

The term “protections”, here and throughout the report, refers to the rights and remedies 

provided under the pilot program.

Background

Federal Employee 

Whistleblower Protections

Contractor Employee 

Whistleblower Protections

Disclosure:

An allegation to certain bodies and individuals 

made by an employee who believes he or she 

has witnessed certain wrongdoing, such as 

gross mismanagement or gross waste.

Source: GAO analysis based on 41 U.S.C. 4712(a) | 

GAO-17-227. 

Reprisal Complaint: 

Following a disclosure, a complaint that an 

employee has experienced reprisal as a result 

of the disclosure, such as demotion or 

discharge. 

Source: GAO analysis based on 41 U.S.C. 4712(b) | 

GAO-17-227. 
Page 5 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

In 2013, the pilot program went into effect and, among other 

enhancements, limited the OIG investigation of complaints to 180 days, 

whereas previously there was no time limitation on the investigation.6

Further, under the pilot program, contractor, subcontractor, and grantee 

employees are protected from reprisal if they disclose to certain persons 

or bodies information they reasonably believe is evidence of gross 

mismanagement of a federal contract or grant, a gross waste of federal 

funds, an abuse of authority relating to a federal contract or grant, a 

substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or a violation of 

law, rule, or regulation related to a federal contract or grant. Moreover, in 

addition to protections under the previous statute for disclosing certain 

information to a Member of Congress or an authorized official of an 

executive agency or the Department of Justice, employees are now 

protected when disclosing information related to certain wrongdoing to a 

broader range of authorized persons or bodies, such as a management 

official at the contractor, or to a law enforcement agency.

Under the pilot program, both the OIG at each executive agency as well 

as certain agency officials are responsible for executing provisions of the 

pilot program. The pilot program not only enhances agency responsibility 

to help ensure contractor employees are aware of their rights, but clearly 

identifies which office within the agency has responsibility for handling 

reprisal complaints. Figure 1 depicts the disclosure process and the 

complaint process.

 

6

The December 14, 2016, legislation making the pilot program permanent expanded 

protections to subgrantees and now applies to personal services contracts, which were 

not covered under the pilot program. Pub. L. No. 114-261.

Requirements under the 

Pilot Program
Page 6 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

Figure 1: Disclosure Process and Reprisal Complaint Investigation and Review Process under the Whistleblower Protection 

Pilot Program

a

An employee has three years from when the alleged reprisal took place to file a complaint.
Page 7 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

b

Neither the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013 nor the interim FAR rule 

issued in September 2013 implementing the pilot program required the OIG to submit a report to the 

head of the contracting activity. The final FAR rule implementing the pilot program was issued in 

December 2015 and requires the OIG to also submit a report to the head of the contracting activity. 

Changes in Disclosure Process. Under the pilot program, the number 

of persons and bodies to whom a contractor employee may disclose 

protected information has expanded. Under the prior statute, a contractor 

employee was only covered if he or she disclosed certain wrongdoing to a 

Member of Congress, an authorized official of an executive agency, or the 

Department of Justice.7 Figure 1 above describes the disclosure process 

under the pilot program.

Agencies’ OIG Responsibilities. Upon receiving a reprisal complaint, 

OIGs must evaluate whether a reprisal complaint is covered under the 

pilot program. OIGs might not investigate for a variety of reasons, such as 

in cases where the complaint is already under investigation by another 

authority such as another OIG, or otherwise does not allege a violation of 

the law, such as if the claim was made prior to July 1, 2013. If the OIG 

determines the case is not covered under the pilot program, it may then 

notify the complainant that no further action will be taken on the reprisal 

complaint.

If the reprisal complaint is covered, the OIG must investigate the 

complaint and submit a report of its findings to the agency head, the 

complainant, the head of the contracting activity, and the contractor. OIGs 

may make a preliminary determination of whether reprisal occurred based 

on the investigation; however, the final determination of reprisal must be 

made by the agency head. As described in figure 1 above, the report 

provided by the OIG to the agency head must be sent within 180 days 

from receipt of the reprisal complaint. If the OIG determines it needs more 

time to investigate, OIGs are able to seek an extension of this timeline by 

getting permission from the complainant to do so.

 

7

FAR 3.901 defines “authorized official of an agency” to mean an officer or employee 

responsible for contracting, program management, audit, inspection, investigation, or 

enforcement of any law or regulation relating to Government procurement or the subject 

matter of the contract. In addition, it defines an “authorized official of the Department of 

Justice” to mean any person responsible for the investigation, enforcement, or prosecution 

of any law or regulation.
Page 8 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

Agencies’ Responsibilities. Once the investigation findings are 

forwarded from the OIG, the agency head must determine whether there 

is a sufficient basis to conclude that a contractor employee was reprised 

against, and must either issue an order that the contractor take some 

form of remedial action or issue an order denying relief. During the 30-day 

period after the agency head receives the OIG report, the agency head 

may ask the OIG for additional investigative work. In addition, the 

complainant and the contractor must be afforded an opportunity to submit 

a written response to the OIG report during the same 30-day period.8

Under the pilot program, contracting officers are also responsible for 

inserting Federal Acquisition Regulation clause 52.203-17 (FAR clause) 

into applicable contracts and agency heads are responsible for ensuring 

that contractors communicate to their employees their rights under the 

pilot program.9 This FAR clause lays out the responsibility of contractors 

to communicate to their employees their rights under the pilot program, 

which requires these protections to be communicated to contractor, 

subcontractor, and grantee employees in writing and in their predominant 

language. Applicable contracts that require the FAR clause include all 

contracts over the simplified acquisition threshold awarded on or after 

September 30, 2013, according to the FAR interim rule.10 The pilot 

program also requires agencies to make best efforts to include the clause 

in contracts awarded before July 1, 2013, that have undergone major 

contract modifications; the terms “best efforts” and “major modifications,” 

are not defined in the statute.

In 2015 and 2016, we reported on whistleblower protection issues, 

including issues related to the general public and federal employees, as 

illustrated below:

• In October 2015, we reported on whistleblower protections for any 

individual, including the general public, reporting tax fraud to the 

Internal Revenue Service Whistleblower Office. We found that 

whistleblowers may not have adequate protections against employer 

 

8

Within 60 days of the agency head’s issuance of the order, the complainant may file an 

appeal in the United States Court of Appeals. 

9

For commercial item acquisitions, contracting officers must insert FAR 52.212-4 in all 

solicitations and contracts. The clause requires that the contractor comply with, among 

other things, the whistleblower protections in 41 U.S.C. §4712.

10The simplified acquisition threshold is generally $150,000. FAR 2.101. 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.203-17

Contractor Employee Whistleblower Rights 

and Requirement to Inform Employees of 

Whistleblower Rights 

(a) This contract and employees working on 

this contract will be subject to the 

whistleblower rights and remedies in the pilot 

program on Contractor employee 

whistleblower protections established at 41 

U.S.C. 4712 by section 828 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2013 (Pub. L. 112-239) and FAR 3.908.

(b) The Contractor shall inform its employees 

in writing, in the predominant language of the 

workforce, of employee whistleblower rights 

and protections under 41 U.S.C. 4712, as 

described in section 3.908 of the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation. 

(c) The Contractor shall insert the substance 

of this clause, including this paragraph (c), in 

all subcontracts over the simplified acquisition 

threshold.

Source: Federal Acquisition Regulation | GAO-17-227

Our Recent Work on 

Whistleblower Protections
Page 9 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

retaliation when filing disclosures.11 We made 10 recommendations to 

the Internal Revenue Service including tracking dates, strengthening 

and documenting procedures for award payments and whistleblower 

protections, and improving external communications. The Internal 

Revenue Service agreed with our recommendations.

• In July 2016, we reported on the whistleblower process at Homeland 

Security for a specific regulation on Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism 

Standards and found that the Department did not have documented 

procedures for investigating disclosures made by whistleblowers and 

their website provided only limited guidance.

12 We recommended that 

Homeland Security develop a documented process and procedures to 

address whistleblower retaliation reports, and provide additional 

guidance on the Homeland Security whistleblower website and 

telephone tip line. Homeland Security agreed with our 

recommendations.

• In September 2016, we testified before a House subcommittee on the 

status of DOD’s implementation of whistleblower protections and 

reported that of the 18 recommendations we had previously made, 

DOD had implemented 15, including that DOD ensure that 

investigations are conducted by someone outside of the complainant’s 

chain of command.13 DOD also had implemented our 

recommendations to improve and track investigation timeliness and 

strengthen oversight of the military services’ investigations, and was 

considering steps to implement the remaining three recommendations 

regarding standardized investigations and reporting to Congress.

• In November 2016, we reported on the status of implementing the 

Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which strengthens 

protections for federal employees. We reported that the Merit Systems 

Protection Board has taken steps to collect and report whistleblower 

appeals data, but we found a number of weaknesses in Merit Systems 

 

11GAO, IRS Whistleblower Program: Billions Collected, but Timeliness and 

Communication Concerns May Discourage Whistleblowers, GAO-16-20 (Washington, 

D.C.: Oct. 29, 2015). 

12GAO, Critical Infrastructure Protection: Improvements Needed for DHS’s Chemical 

Facility Whistleblower Report Process, GAO-16-572 (Washington, D.C.: July 12, 2016). 

13GAO, Whistleblower Protection: DOD Has Improved Oversight for Reprisal 

Investigations, but Can Take Additional Actions to Standardize Process and Reporting, 

GAO-16-860T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7, 2016). 
Page 10 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

Protection Board’s data collection.14 We recommended that the Merit 

Systems Protection Board help ensure the accuracy of its reporting on 

whistleblower appeals received and closed by (1) updating its data 

entry user guide to include additional guidance and procedures and 

(2) adding a quality check in its data analysis and reporting process to 

better identify discrepancies. The Merit Systems Protection Board 

agreed with these recommendations.

In 2016, we also reported on aspects of the Department of Energy’s 

(Energy) whistleblower program and its contractor-run facilities, including 

its implementation of the 2013 pilot program. In our July 2016 report, we 

reported that Energy had taken limited to no action to hold responsible 

contractors that had created a chilled work environment, or an 

environment that may not respond favorably to whistleblower 

disclosures.15 We recommended that Energy revise existing guidance to 

clarify what constitutes a chilled work environment and define appropriate 

steps the Department can take to hold contractors accountable. Energy 

agreed with this recommendation.

As the pilot program was being implemented, the number of reprisal 

complaints received varied across the 14 executive departments, 

according to the OIGs’ responses to our survey. According to the OIGs, of 

the estimated 1,560 reprisal complaints received from July 1, 2013, to 

December 31, 2015, the OIGs investigated about one-third of the total 

127 complaints submitted by contractors, subcontractors, and grantee

employees covered under the pilot program. All remaining reprisal 

complaints were disposed of for various reasons, but none of the pilot 

program investigations completed thus far resulted in findings that 

substantiated reprisal. In addition, the 14 OIGs reported using multiple 

mechanisms to implement the pilot program, including incorporating a 

new contract clause to notify contractors of their responsibilities.

 

14GAO, Whistleblower Protections: Additional Actions Would Improve Recording and 

Reporting of Appeals Data, GAO-17-110 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 28, 2016). 

15GAO, Department of Energy: Whistleblower Protections Need Strengthening,

GAO-16-618 (Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2016). 

All 14 Executive 

Departments 

Surveyed Varied in 

the Number of 

Reprisal Complaints 

Received and How 

They Implemented 

the Pilot
Page 11 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

The number of reprisal complaints received varied across the 14 

executive departments we surveyed. OIGs at the 14 executive 

departments reported receiving an estimated 1,560 whistleblower reprisal 

complaints from July 1, 2013, through December 31, 2015. The 1,560 

reprisal complaints consisted of each department receiving a range of 

complaints, from approximately 3 to 600 based on survey responses. The 

1,560 reprisal complaints included complaints from employees of 

contractors, subcontractors, and grantees as well as groups not covered 

by the pilot program, such as federal employees and the general public.

Of the estimated 1,560 reprisal complaints received from July 1, 2013, 

through December 31, 2015, OIGs from the 14 departments reported that 

127 were submitted by employees of contractors, subcontractors, and 

grantees under the pilot program. However, the OIGs reported varying 

levels of insight into whether federal, contractor, subcontractor, or grantee 

employees had submitted the reprisal complaints. For example, 2 

departments reported actual counts for all categories while 4 departments 

provided a mix of actual counts and estimates. Two of the 14 

departments could not separate the number of reprisal complaints by 

category, and did not track how many they had received from federal, 

contractor, subcontractor, or grantee employees. At these 2 departments, 

OIG officials said that their case management systems, the electronic 

systems they use to track complaints, could not provide this level of detail 

on the source of the complaint. As a result, the officials at these 2 

departments said that they reviewed individual cases to determine if the 

reprisal complaints filed were relevant to the pilot program.

The 14 departments differed in the number of reprisal complaints 

received under the pilot program. For example, 2 departments reported 

receiving as few as 1 complaint apiece while 1 department received 35 

complaints. Three departments accounted for almost 60 percent of the 

pilot program complaints received from employees of contractors, 

subcontractors, and grantees between July 1, 2013, and December 31, 

2015. Almost all of the 127 reprisal complaints were reported directly to 

the department’s OIG. For the remaining reprisal complaints, 4 were 

referrals from within the respective department, 1 was a referral from 

Congress, and 1 was filed by an advocacy group on the behalf of a 

complainant.

Reprisal Complaints 

Received Varied across 

the 14 Executive 

Departments
Page 12 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

Of the 127 reprisal complaints submitted by employees of contractors, 

subcontractors, and grantees under the pilot program, 44 were 

investigated by the OIG and none of the investigations completed thus far 

resulted in findings that substantiated reprisal. See figure 2 for more 

information about the disposition of reprisal complaints covered in the 

pilot program. 

Figure 2: Disposition of 127 Pilot Program Reprisal Complaints Received by Offices 

of Inspector General at 14 Executive Departments from July 1, 2013, to December 

31, 2015

Note: We fielded our survey in June 2016 and all 14 executive departments submitted their 

responses by July 2016. Two of the 14 agencies had case management systems that were not able 

to provide actual counts. Instead, they reported data based on their review of individual complaints to 

determine their relevancy to the Pilot Program for Enhancement of Contractor Employee 

Whistleblower Protections (pilot program).

According to OIG responses to our survey, they had completed 

investigations for 27 of the 44 investigated reprisal complaints. As 

OIGs Investigated About 

One-Third of the 127 

Reprisal Complaints 

Identified Under the Pilot 

Program

Unsubstantiated Complaint:

A complaint where the Office of Inspector 

General performed an investigation and 

determined that no reprisal occurred. 

Source: GAO analysis based on 41 U.S.C. 4712 (b) | GAO17-227.
Page 13 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

required under the pilot program, OIGs reported forwarding their 

investigation findings to the agency head in 12 of the 27 completed 

investigations. The remaining 15 investigations were completed by 1 OIG 

that reported it did not forward its findings to the agency head. This is not 

consistent with a provision of the pilot program and is discussed later in 

this report.

Of the 32 reprisal complaints submitted but not investigated, OIGs 

determined that the cases were one of the following: frivolous, previously 

decided by another federal or state judicial proceeding, to be referred to 

another investigative body, or to receive an “other disposition.”16 In cases 

that received other dispositions, OIGs reported that these cases could not 

proceed because the complainants did not respond to requests for 

information or declined to waive confidentiality, which they stated were 

necessary to conduct an investigation.

Of the 51 reprisal complaints submitted for which it was determined that 

the complaints were not covered by the pilot program, the OIGs at the 

respective departments—10 in total—did not take any further actions to 

investigate. In these cases, the OIGs determined that the initial disclosure 

was related to conduct that did not, for example, allege gross 

mismanagement covered under the pilot, and therefore, these reprisal 

complaints were not covered by the pilot program.17

All 14 OIGs reported using a combination of mechanisms to implement 

the pilot program, including existing efforts to manage whistleblower 

disclosures and new efforts to handle reprisal complaints filed under the 

pilot program. Some of these mechanisms were extensions of existing 

efforts, such as using existing whistleblower hotlines to accept reprisal 

complaints related to the pilot program. Several OIGs also noted that they 

developed education programs for contractors, subcontractors, and 

grantees, such as adding information about the pilot program to their 

whistleblower websites. In addition to these efforts, a few OIGs reported 

developing efforts specifically for the pilot program. For example, one OIG 

reported using a monthly report to provide a snapshot for the status of 

 

16The term “frivolous” is not defined in the pilot program statute. 

17Following our survey period, from January 1, 2016, through May 31, 2016, 8 OIGs 

reported receiving an additional 39 reprisal complaints under the pilot program, and 6

OIGs reported they were conducting investigations for 23 of these complaints. 

OIGs Reported Using 

Multiple Mechanisms to 

Implement the Pilot 

Program
Page 14 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

complaints and when the 180-day investigative period would end for each 

complaint—a specific time frame that is part of the pilot program’s 

enhancements to whistleblower protections. See table 1 for various 

methods used by OIGs to implement the pilot program.

Table 1: Methods Used by 14 Departments to Facilitate the Contractor, 

Subcontractor, and Grantee Employee Whistleblower Disclosures and Reprisal 

Complaints Filed under the Whistleblower Protection Pilot Program

Method

Of 14 

departments, 

used by

Hotline All

Whistleblower ombudsmana All

Electronic case management system All

Required OIG training for pilot program investigations 5 

Education programs for contractors, subcontractors, and grantees 8 

Guidance for pilot program reprisal investigations 7 

Establishment of separate office or division to handle pilot program 

complaints and reprisals

2 

Source: GAO analysis of survey responses from 14 departments’ Offices of Inspector General (OIG). | GAO-17-227

a

The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 describes a whistleblower ombudsman as 

an official who shall educate agency employees: (1) about prohibitions on retaliation for protected 

disclosures; and (2) who have made or are contemplating making a protected disclosure about the 

rights and remedies against retaliation for protected disclosures. The whistleblower ombudsman is 

not discussed in the pilot program.

Under the pilot program as implemented, contracting officers are also 

required to include a FAR clause—which instructs contractors to 

communicate to their employees, in writing and in their predominant 

language, their protections under the pilot program—in new contracts 

(contracts awarded after September 30, 2013) that exceeded the 

simplified acquisition threshold, generally over $150,000. All 14 

departments reported in the survey that they had required insertion of the 

FAR clause 52.203-17 into new contracts as a means of ensuring that 

contractor employees are informed of their rights under the pilot 

program.18 In addition to the clause, 2 departments reported taking 

additional steps to ensure contractors are informing their employees of 

 

18Although this information was reported by OIGs, OIGs also gathered information from 

department officials, where applicable. For example, OIGs are not responsible for 

inserting the whistleblower FAR clause 52.203-17 into contracts. Our survey did not 

include a question about contract modifications or FAR clause 52.212-4, the commercial 

items contract terms and conditions. 
Page 15 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

their rights. One department reported developing new guidance that will 

require their contracting staff to obtain email confirmation from contractors 

that they have notified employees of their rights. Also, during a roundtable 

discussion we conducted with senior procurement officials, another 

department official said that they had conducted forums with contractors 

to inform them about the importance of the pilot program and to gather 

feedback about challenges.

Despite using various mechanisms to implement the pilot program, most 

of the 14 OIGs identified ambiguities and some challenges with the pilot

program. For example, over half of the OIGs identified at least one of 

each of the following as a challenge that they experienced while 

implementing the pilot:

• Ambiguities in the pilot program (10 of 14 departments)—for example, 

the OIGs reported that there is a lack of guidance regarding the 

definition of a “frivolous” allegation.

• Personnel or funding (9 of 14 departments)—for example, the OIGs 

reported that these are complex cases where the investigation can be 

extensive and consume significant investigative manpower.

• Timeliness requirements for investigating reprisal complaints (8 of 14 

departments)—for example, the OIGs reported that it is difficult to 

determine how much time it will take to complete an investigation 

because they have little formal control over non-government entities.

Two whistleblower advocacy groups we spoke with echoed these 

concerns, noting that contractor employees’ reprisal complaints can take 

a backseat to other issues because OIGs may have limited resources or 

other priorities, such as investigating federal employee complaints. Given 

these limited resources, one of the groups said that they had started to 

offer training on whistleblower protections during the implementation of 

the pilot program to help OIGs better understand issues such as what is 

considered a covered disclosure or personnel actions that may constitute 

reprisal to the detriment of the contractor.
Page 16 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

Four selected departments—Commerce, Homeland Security, Interior, and 

State—used various processes for implementing the pilot program, and 

some had not yet fully implemented the program. In particular, OIGs of 

these departments reported they provided internal training on the 

protections provided by the pilot program. Further, the OIGs reported that 

they either had existing guidance or developed guidance during the 

implementation of the pilot program, however we found that the guidance 

was lacking in certain details. Moreover, the pilot program requires that 

the departments’ OIGs forward a report of their investigation findings to 

several entities, but we found two OIGs with completed investigations that 

did not fully implement these reporting requirements. Additional details of 

contractor and subcontractor employees’ reprisal complaints submitted to 

the selected departments and the handling of the complaints are included 

in appendix III. In addition, within the four departments’ contracting 

offices, some of the new contracts we reviewed were missing one of the 

required FAR clauses as required by law, and none of the four 

departments have policies in place to make best efforts to include a 

required FAR clause in major contract modifications, as required by the 

pilot program. Finally, departments have not taken full advantage of 

opportunities to improve communications between department officials 

and contractors to help make contractors’ employees aware of their 

protections from reprisal for disclosing potential wrongdoing.

At the four selected departments we reviewed, the OIGs reported that 

they provided internal training on the protections provided by the pilot 

program. For example, an official at State reported having training 

available not only for OIG staff, but also for contracting officers. Interior 

officials reported that they had developed detailed training slides that 

cover several whistleblower laws, including the pilot program protections. 

Homeland Security officials reported that they had a slide dedicated to the 

pilot program in whistleblower training slides, but also said additional 

training would be helpful. Commerce OIG officials reported that the Office 

of Special Counsel and Department of Justice officials provided training 

related to whistleblower protections to the OIG staff.

Four Selected 

Departments Did Not 

Fully Implement 

Provisions of the 

Mandate

Selected OIGs Provided 

Internal Training on the 

Pilot Program
Page 17 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

Commerce, Homeland Security, Interior, and State OIGs all reported 

having guidance in place to implement the pilot program, but that 

guidance varied and lacked certain details regarding the provisions in the 

pilot program. Specific details follow:

• Commerce OIG officials provided a flow chart and a legal 

memorandum as the pilot program guidance which detail the OIG and 

department responsibilities under the pilot program. Commerce OIG 

also has guidance related to conducting investigations, but not 

specifically those that fall under the pilot program. Commerce officials 

we spoke with said that these documents are sufficient as guidance to 

effectively implement the pilot program. However, we noted that while 

the flow chart provides a description of the pilot program, it does not 

include some program details that will facilitate implementing the 

program, such as identifying to which offices within Commerce a 

report should be sent following an investigation. For example, it does 

not identify which office is the “head of the contracting activity” or the 

designee to where a report should be sent. Further, the investigations 

guidance may benefit from incorporating some elements of the flow 

chart specific to the pilot program. 

• Homeland Security OIG officials provided a directive as the pilot 

program guidance. The directive outlines OIG responsibilities under 

the pilot program, including intake and investigation procedures, as 

well as a process for tracking complaints. Homeland Security officials 

we spoke with said this directive is thorough. However, we noted the 

directive does not include the FAR 3.908-5 requirement to send the 

investigation findings to the head of the contracting activity and 

believe there may be opportunity to include more guidance. When we 

asked about the FAR requirement, OIG officials said they believed 

forwarding findings to the head of the contracting activity is a 

responsibility of the agency head which had not previously provided 

the proper contact to the OIG. 

• Interior OIG officials provided their policy for investigations as the pilot 

program guidance. However, we noted that Interior’s OIG 

investigations policy document was not specific to the pilot program 

processes or protections. Interior OIG officials agreed and reported 

Selected OIGs Have 

Varying Pilot Program 

Guidance, but This 

Guidance Is Lacking in 

Certain Details
Page 18 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

that if the pilot is made permanent they plan to make changes to the 

policy for investigations to include the pilot program details.19

• State OIG officials provided their policy for pilot program 

investigations as the pilot program guidance. The policy includes 

instructions on obtaining evidence for pilot program investigations, on 

the reporting process when an investigation is complete, as well as 

identifies levels of review. The policy instructs State officials to share 

investigation findings with the agency head; however, we found it 

does not specify how that information should be communicated. A 

State OIG official said that the report of findings is communicated to 

the agency head through a system that allows memoranda to be 

submitted as either an action memorandum or information 

memorandum. State OIG officials reported that initially, they had 

submitted information memoranda because action memoranda 

traditionally have a one page limit, which is insufficient to 

communicate the findings of an investigation. However, according to 

State OIG officials, in 2016, the Office of the Executive Secretariat 

(which handles executive communication) requested that OIG put its 

whistleblower reports in the form of an action memorandum, but this 

change has not been put into guidance. An action memorandum 

signals that action by the agency head is required, while an 

information memorandum does not. Although a determination by the 

agency head is required by law, we noted that the OIG guidance does 

not specify that the action memoranda should be sent to the agency 

head, signaling action is to be taken.

According to federal internal control standards, management should 

internally communicate the necessary information to achieve the entity’s 

objectives.20 This can be achieved through clear guidance or policies. 

Further, FAR 3.908-5 establishes pilot program requirements, and 

department guidance should include the requirements laid out in the FAR, 

such as time frames for determinations by the agency head and who 

receives copies of the investigation results. Although the four selected 

OIGs all provided some level of guidance on executing the pilot program, 

 

19In addition to the OIG’s policy for investigations, the Department of the Interior issued 

specific guidance on implementing the pilot program in July 2014. However, we found that 

the department’s guidance provides detailed explanation of the pilot program, but does not 

specify to which parties the OIG should report its investigation findings or that the agency 

head should make the determination of whether reprisal occurred, as required by the pilot 

program.

20GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2014). 
Page 19 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

it is possible that some steps in this process may be missed because they 

do not have detailed guidance that addresses all required elements of the 

pilot program. Without providing more details in their guidance, these 

departments may be at risk of not fully implementing all the provisions of 

the pilot program.

The pilot program statute and implementing regulations require that the 

OIG forward a report of its investigation findings to several entities, 

including the agency head, the complainant, and the contractor. 

Additionally, the FAR requires that the agency’s head of the contracting 

activity also receive a report of investigation findings. Of our four selected 

departments, Commerce and Interior reported that they did not have any 

investigations finalized during our review period. In contrast, Homeland 

Security and State had investigations with findings that were not 

forwarded to all appropriate entities to allow the agency head to make a 

final determination of whether reprisal occurred. Specific details follow:

• Homeland Security OIG officials reported that they found the 

complaints to be unsubstantiated in their two investigative reports and 

reported forwarding the findings from their two investigations during 

this period to the contractor and the complainant. However, although 

OIG officials reported attempting to send the report to the agency 

head, department officials reported that the reports did not actually go 

to the appropriate contacts. As a result, the reports were not received 

by the correct contact in the department, and the agency head did not 

make the determination in either case, as required by law. Agency 

officials reported that in one case a report was sent to the Office of 

General Counsel Labor and Employment division, not the agency 

head, and in the other case, the report was forwarded to the 

Secretary’s office, but nothing was done with the report. OIG officials 

said their implementation of the pilot was an evolving process and that 

they were not notified that the reports had gone to the wrong person. 

• State OIG officials reported that the five investigations completed by 

December 31, 2015, were forwarded to the agency head, and the 

results of the OIG investigations were communicated to both the 

complainant and the contractor. During the course of our review, a 

State OIG official said that he had previously sent the reports to the 

relevant contracting activity at each Bureau, as designated by the 

Department of State Acquisition Regulation, in an effort to meet the 

requirement to provide the investigation results to the head of the 

Two OIGs with Completed 

Investigations Did Not 

Fully Implement Pilot 

Program Reporting 

Requirements
Page 20 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

contracting activity.

21 However, starting in October 2016 and going 

forward, officials said the OIG plans to send reports to State’s 

Procurement Executive, the head of the contracting activity at the 

State Department, who has since been designated by the agency 

head during the course of this review to make determination of 

potential reprisals, as well as provide remedies. For these five cases, 

a State OIG official reported that the complaints were unsubstantiated 

and the OIG forwarded all findings as information memoranda to the 

agency head. The information memoranda include a cover page 

indicating the investigation’s findings, and that the Secretary should 

review the report for informational purposes, but there is no indication 

on the cover page of actions required—including that the agency head 

has 30 days to make a determination—because a determination had 

been made by the OIG. However, the pilot program requires that even 

if the OIG determines the reprisal complaint is unsubstantiated, the 

agency head must make the final determination. Officials from the 

agency head at State explained that for the five cases in which 

information memoranda were provided to report the investigations’ 

findings, they understood that no action was required, and no action 

was taken, however the responsibility to make a final determination of 

whether reprisal occurred under the pilot program remained. As a 

result, no documentation exists indicating that the agency head 

agreed with the investigations’ findings. According to the statute, 

however, the agency head, not the OIG, must make the determination 

of whether reprisal occurred within 30 days of receiving the report of 

investigation findings. During our review, and in part as a result of 

ongoing work, in June 2016, OIG officials said State instructed the 

OIG to provide the results of its investigations as action memoranda, 

rather than information memoranda, for both substantiated and 

unsubstantiated investigation findings of a reprisal complaint in order 

to indicate action from the agency head is necessary. In addition, the 

action memorandum now includes the 30-day requirement for the 

agency head to make a determination as to whether the employee 

was subjected to a reprisal on the complaint. As a result of these 

changes, two additional investigation findings from October 2016 were 

reported to the agency head in the action memorandum format.

 

2148 C.F.R. § 601.601-70. 
Page 21 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

In addition to investigating reprisal complaints, the pilot program required 

a new FAR clause to be inserted into contract actions; this action is to be 

accomplished by the departments’ contracting officials. As discussed 

earlier, the FAR clause instructs contractors to communicate to their 

employees, in writing and in the predominant language of their workforce, 

their rights under the pilot program. These rights include who an 

employee may report an initial disclosure or submit a reprisal complaint 

to, their right to an investigation for covered reprisal complaints, and other 

rights and remedies. The FAR clause is required to be inserted into new 

contracts over the simplified acquisition threshold, generally $150,000, for 

any contracts awarded after September 30, 2013, until the close of the 

pilot program on July 1, 2017.22 For commercial item acquisitions, 

contracting officers must insert an already-required clause, 52.212-4, that 

now requires compliance with the pilot program statute 41 U.S.C. § 4712.

Commerce, Homeland Security, Interior, and State contracting officials 

reported that they use the FAR clause to inform contractors of their 

responsibilities. However, we found that at State, Commerce, and 

Homeland Security, contract writing systems may not automatically 

include the clause into contracts that are required, and some required a 

contracting officer to insert the FAR clause into each contract into which it 

is required to be included, rather than through an automated system. At 

Interior, officials said the clause would be automatically inserted into new 

awards as appropriate, however, we found the clause was not inserted in 

all contracts that we reviewed. Internal control standards require that an 

entity should establish monitoring activities and evaluate results.23

However, we found all four selected departments reported having no 

department-wide, regular compliance review that would detect whether 

the required FAR clause is included in required contracts. For example, 

Commerce officials reported that while they do have a compliance review 

that checks for the insertion of mandatory clauses, and a review was 

conducted in 2014 and included contract actions from 2011 through 2013, 

a review has not been done since; therefore, no department-wide review 

has been done on the inclusion of the FAR clause required by the pilot

program. A contracting official from Homeland Security said that all 

contracting officers, as part of the review process before a contract is 

 

22The December 14, 2016, legislation making the pilot program permanent expanded 

protections to subgrantees and now applies to personal services contracts, which were 

not covered under the pilot program. Pub. L. No. 114-261. 

23GAO-14-704G. 

Some New Contracts at 

the Four Departments 

Were Missing the FAR 

Clause, and the 

Departments Lack 

Processes to Ensure the 

FAR Clause Is Inserted
Page 22 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

signed, are required to review contract actions to ensure that all 

applicable clauses are included; however, no department-wide review is 

done. Contracting officials from Interior said that, while they conduct 

contracting compliance reviews, they do not include specific clauses in 

those reviews unless the agency has a specific reason to do so, such as 

if they determined through risk analysis that the clause may not be 

included. To date, according to these officials, Interior has not checked 

compliance of the inclusion of the FAR clause. Officials from State report 

they rely solely on supervisory review of contract documents and there is 

no higher-level compliance review to determine whether the FAR clause 

is inserted into new contracts.

Despite the acknowledgement from all four departments that the required 

clause was to be included in new contracts, we found that some contracts 

in our review lacked the required whistleblower protections FAR clause 

52.203-17 or 52.212-4 for commercial item contracts.24 The contracts for 

Homeland Security, Interior, and State were not commercial item 

contracts, but the contract for Commerce was. At Commerce, a contract 

awarded in September 2015 of more than $450,000 for computer 

hardware and software licenses provided by contractors does not include 

the required whistleblower protections FAR clause or the commercial item 

contract clause. Further, at Homeland Security, a contract awarded in 

September 2015 for over $550,000 for the design and implementation of 

security software does not include the required whistleblower protections 

FAR clause. In addition, at Interior, a contract awarded in August 2015 of 

about $200,000 to perform research and development does not include 

the required whistleblower protections FAR clause. At State, a contract 

awarded in September 2015 for project development and design services 

for over $230,000 also did not include the required whistleblower 

protections FAR clause. Without a process in place to ensure the required 

contract clause is inserted into new contracts, these clauses may 

continue to be excluded. If acquisition officials fail to include the required 

clauses and fail to take other action that would inform the contractor 

employees of their rights under the pilot program, contractor employees 

may not be aware of their rights.

 

24To identify an example of a contract without the clause, we reviewed documentation for 

a random selection of at least 50 contracts at each of the four departments. 
Page 23 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

The pilot program requires that executive agencies make a best effort to 

include the FAR clause in major contract modifications of existing 

contracts awarded before July 1, 2013. Officials from Commerce reported 

that they do not include the FAR clause in major modifications, but 

pointed out that the standard FAR convention for incorporating clauses 

into existing contracts allows the contracting officer to use discretion. 

Homeland Security officials also noted that contracting officers are 

encouraged to include the clause in major modifications to required 

contracts and task orders. Interior officials reported that it is up to the 

bureaus within Interior to decide if the clause is inserted into major 

modifications, and there is no department-wide policy.25 State officials 

reported that the clause is added on a case-by-case basis, and 

contracting officials are responsible for determining whether it is 

necessary to add the clause. Contracting officials at all four departments 

said they do not have a policy in place that defines major modification, or 

any policy or guidance that instructs contracting officials on how to 

determine if a modification would be considered “major” or what the 

contracting officer should do to make a best effort to include the FAR 

clause. Some contracting officials reported that even though there are 

requirements in the statute regarding making best efforts, they rely on the 

FAR and generally do not seek out additional counsel on the 

implementation of the law. However, the requirement to make best efforts 

to include the FAR clause into existing contracts (those awarded before 

the effective date of the pilot program) during major modifications of those 

contracts is not implemented in the FAR. In the FAR interim rule, 

agencies are only “encouraged” to put the clause in major modifications, 

but there is no mention of “best efforts” to do so. As a result, some 

departments’ officials who rely on the FAR guidance and rules may not be 

aware of the statutory requirement to make a best effort to include the 

FAR clause in major modifications to contracts awarded before July 1, 

2013. 

Additionally, some of the contracting officials we spoke with said there 

may be costs associated with asking a contractor to include the clause 

during a major modification of an existing contract. However, contractors 

we spoke with said that adding the FAR clause would be largely 

administrative and they would be unlikely to ask for additional 

compensation to do so. Further, one contractor we spoke with pointed out 

 

25Interior’s bureaus include the National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of 

Land Management, and Bureau of Reclamation, among others. 

The Four Departments 

Lack Policies on Making 

Best Efforts to Include the 

FAR Clause in Major 

Contract Modifications
Page 24 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

that the company he represents would be hesitant to argue against 

including the FAR clause because the contractor understood and agreed 

with the importance of protecting whistleblowers from potential reprisal.

Without a department-wide policy in place to determine whether or not to 

include the FAR clause into an existing contract during a major 

modification and to define what is major, it may not be possible for these 

departments to ensure their contracting officers are making a best effort 

to include the clause into existing contracts awarded prior to July 1, 2013, 

as required by the pilot program.

Some contractors we spoke with were unaware of their obligations under 

the pilot program. These contractors not only have received federal funds 

from one or more of the four selected departments in our review, but also 

other federal agencies. They pointed out that they generally have not 

been contacted by agencies to follow up on what steps or actions they 

have taken to communicate in writing to employees about their rights 

against reprisal. However, another contractor pointed out that agencies 

have followed up and sought confirmation or attestation on other contract 

clauses, such as clauses designed to address human trafficking. In 

addition, one whistleblower advocacy group we spoke with noted that 

contractors’ employees may not be aware of their rights or where to find 

more information about the pilot program protections. This reinforces the 

need for agencies to ensure the mechanisms are in place for contractors 

to communicate these rights to the covered employees.

At the four selected departments, department officials reported taking no 

additional action beyond inserting the FAR clause to inform contractors 

about their responsibilities to communicate to their employees—in writing 

and in the employees’ predominant language—their rights under the pilot 

program. Some officials noted that contractors are responsible for 

implementing FAR clauses, and if they do not do so, they are in breach of 

the contract. Federal internal control standards, under the information and 

communication standard, note that management should externally 

communicate necessary information to achieve its objectives.26 Given that 

contractors we spoke with stated they were not all aware of the need to 

communicate to their employees about their rights in this area, 

opportunities for improvements to communications between the two 

 

26GAO-14-704G. 

Opportunities Exist to 

Improve Communications 

between Department 

Officials and Contractors
Page 25 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

parties exist. For example, one department in our survey of 14 

departments reported conducting external communication beyond 

including the FAR clause in new contracting actions by developing new 

guidance that will require its contracting staff to obtain email confirmation 

from contractors that they have notified their employees of their rights as 

reported above. Without additional communication about the 

requirements and protections provided by the whistleblower protections 

pilot program between the four departments and their contractors, 

contractors may not fully understand or appreciate the significance of 

their responsibility to communicate to their employees.

Executive departments have an opportunity to help reduce fraud, waste, 

abuse, and mismanagement of government funds by leveraging the 

willingness of contractor, subcontractor, and grantee employees to report 

such instances. Because whistleblowers risk reprisal, including potential 

job loss, agencies must ensure those contractor employees are aware of 

their protections against reprisal. To fully implement the enhancement of 

contractor employee whistleblower protections pilot program, especially 

now that it has been made permanent, and to ensure that the review 

process does not stop short of the agency head review, OIGs must report 

their investigation findings to the agency head.27 When reports are not 

forwarded to the agency head for final determination, the requirement 

under the statute is not met. Further, the determination of the agency 

head may differ from that reached by the OIG, possibly affecting the 

complainant’s recourse. At the four selected departments reviewed, 

confusion among department officials about the pilot program’s processes 

and requirements remain, and further guidance may help clarify 

responsibilities under the pilot program. Further, opportunities exist for 

these four departments to ensure that the necessary FAR clause is 

included in all required contracts, and that they make a best effort to 

include the FAR clause in major modifications to existing contracts. 

Finally, improving communication with contractors, subcontractors, and 

grantees to ensure employees are aware of their responsibilities and 

rights under the pilot program are important steps for the selected 

executive departments’ contracting officials to take. By fully implementing 

the pilot program, these departments can encourage contractor personnel 

to disclose evidence of wrongdoing. Without these critical oversight 

 

27Pub. L. No. 114-261. In December 2016, Congress enacted legislation making the pilot 

program permanent and expanded protections to subgrantees and now applies to 

personal services contracts, which were not covered under the pilot program.

Conclusions
Page 26 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

elements of contracts, contractor employees may be unaware of the 

protections they have against reprisal, which may ultimately impact their 

willingness to come forward when witnessing fraud, waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement.

We recommend that the Inspectors General of Commerce, Homeland 

Security, Interior, and State develop or clarify existing guidance on the 

implementation of the pilot program. For example, the guidance should 

identify specific pilot program processes such as levels of review during 

an investigation, and where the findings of investigations are to be 

reported.

We also recommend that the Secretaries of Commerce, Homeland 

Security, Interior, and State develop policies and processes to help 

ensure that

• the FAR clause 52.203-17 is inserted in new contracts and major 

modifications as appropriate, 

• contracting officials can determine whether a modification is major 

and the applicability of the FAR clause, and whether they are making 

their best efforts to include the clause into existing contracts during 

major modifications, and

• contracting officials communicate with contractors and subcontractors 

to help ensure employees are informed about the requirements and 

protections provided by the whistleblower protection pilot program.

We provided a draft of this product to the Departments of Commerce, 

Homeland Security, Interior, and State for comment. All four departments 

concurred with the recommendations. The agencies’ comments are 

summarized below and written comments from Commerce, Homeland 

Security, and State are reproduced in appendices IV, V, and VI 

respectively. Interior agreed with the recommendations in an email. We 

also received technical comments from Commerce, Homeland Security, 

and State which we incorporated, as appropriate.

In Commerce’s written comments, the Department said the differences 

between the statute and the FAR regulations need to be addressed, and 

agreed to encourage contractors to communicate with their 

subcontractors about the requirements and protections of the pilot 

program. Commerce OIG agreed to incorporate some of the guidance in 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 27 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

their policy manual into their flowchart guidance, and revise their 

investigative policy manual as necessary. 

In Homeland Security’s written comments, the Department agreed to 

review processes to ensure the FAR clause is inserted into new 

contracts, develop policies and procedures to ensure contracting officers 

have clear guidance on when to incorporate the FAR clause, and will 

communicate broadly with those who do business with the Department to 

remind them of their contractual obligation under the pilot. The Homeland 

Security OIG has updated their directive in accordance with our 

recommendation. 

In an email, Interior noted that the Department plans to develop 

supplemental guidance in fiscal year 2017 to assist contracting officers in 

appropriately applying the FAR clause and remind them of their 

responsibility to communicate the requirements of the clause to their 

contractors and subcontractors where possible. 

In State’s written comments, the Department agreed to ensure that the 

FAR clause is inserted in new contracts and major modifications, assist 

contracting officers to determine whether a modification is major and 

whether they are making best efforts to include it, and assist contracting 

officials with communicating to contractors and subcontractors to help 

ensure contractor employees are informed about the requirements under 

the pilot program. The State OIG has updated policies to include the 30-

day deadline for agency head determination in whistleblower reports, 

accommodate the agency head’s specifications for sending the report, 

and specify that the Procurement Executive is the Secretary of State’s 

designee for whistleblower investigations. 
Page 28 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretaries of Commerce, Interior, Homeland Security,

and State, and to other interested parties. In addition, the report is 

available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

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

me at (202) 512-4841 or makm@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 VII.

Marie A. Mak

Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management
Page 29 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

List of Committees

The Honorable John McCain

Chairman

The Honorable Jack Reed

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate

The Honorable Ron Johnson

Chairman

The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate

The Honorable Mac Thornberry

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives

The Honorable Jason Chaffetz

Chairman

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings

Ranking Member

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Survey

Page 30 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

Appendix I: Survey
Appendix I: Survey

Page 31 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program
Appendix I: Survey

Page 32 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program
Appendix I: Survey

Page 33 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program
Appendix I: Survey

Page 34 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program
Appendix I: Survey

Page 35 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program
Appendix I: Survey

Page 36 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program
Appendix I: Survey

Page 37 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program
Appendix I: Survey

Page 38 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program
Appendix I: Survey

Page 39 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program
Appendix I: Survey

Page 40 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program
Appendix I: Survey

Page 41 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program
Appendix I: Survey

Page 42 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program
Appendix I: Survey

Page 43 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 contained a 

provision for us to evaluate and report on the implementation of the Pilot 

Program for the Enhancement of Contractor Employee Whistleblower 

Protections (pilot program). In December 2016, Congress enacted 

legislation making the pilot program permanent.1 Our report: (1) describes 

the results of the whistleblower pilot program between July 1, 2013, and 

December 31, 2015, across 14 executive departments; and (2) assesses 

the extent to which four selected departments implemented the pilot 

program.

To describe the results of the whistleblower pilot program, we surveyed 

the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the 14 executive departments 

covered by the legislation on the reprisal complaints received between 

July 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015. In this report, we use the terms 

“agency” and “agency head” when referring to provisions of the 

whistleblower protections pilot program legislation in general because the 

legislation uses these terms. We use the term “departments” when we 

refer to the 14 executive departments defined by statute and covered by 

the whistleblower protections pilot program that were the focus of this 

review. Specifically, we surveyed the OIGs at the Departments of 

Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, 

Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, 

Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs. We sent the 

survey questionnaire—by e-mail in an attached Microsoft Word form that 

respondents could return electronically after completing it—to 14 

executive departments on June 15, 2016, and received responses from 

the OIGs at all 14 departments. We coordinated survey responses 

through each department’s OIG, which consulted with their cognizant 

department officials to respond to questions on an as-needed basis.

Among other things, the survey collected information about the number of 

disclosures of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement as well as 

reprisal complaints and mechanisms used by executive departments to 

implement provisions of the pilot program. For each department, we 

asked officials to provide information about activities and data related to 

whistleblower complaints, including data on complaints that were not 

subject to the pilot program.2 For pilot program-related information, we 

 

1

Pub. L. No. 114-261.

2

For example, we requested information about the department’s overall number of reprisal 

complaints, including complaints filed by federal employees. 

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 45 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

requested data on contractor, subcontractor, and grantee employees, 

such as the number of complaints received from each group and how 

many of the complaints were investigated by the OIG. When necessary, 

we performed limited follow-up with all 14 departments to clarify answers 

and request relevant documentation; this follow-up took place from July 

26, 2016, to December 8, 2016. We did not independently verify 

information obtained through the survey, including data describing the 

case numbers the departments provided; however, to determine the 

information was reliable for our purposes we asked the departments to 

describe the source(s) of information used and steps taken to determine 

these numbers.3 We believe these data are reliable for our purposes. The 

survey used for this study is reprinted in appendix I.

Since this was not a sample survey, it has no sampling errors. However, 

the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors, 

commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties in 

interpreting a particular question, sources of information available to 

respondents, or entering data into a database or analyzing them can 

introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps in 

developing the survey, collecting the data, and analyzing them to 

minimize such nonsampling error. We conducted three telephone pretests 

of the survey instrument with officials at three departments to ensure that 

questions were clear, comprehensive, and unbiased, and to minimize the 

burden the questionnaire placed on respondents. An independent 

reviewer within GAO also reviewed a draft of the questionnaire prior to 

administration of the survey. We made changes to the content and format 

of the questions based on feedback from the pretests and independent 

review. In addition to pretesting the survey, we coordinated with the 

Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) to 

hold a question and answer session after releasing the survey.4

To assess the extent to which departments implemented the pilot 

program, we selected four departments based primarily on the dollar 

value of their fiscal year 2015 contract funds awarded, the most recent 

 

3

We obtained documentation in instances where departments reported new efforts 

created under the pilot program. 

4

CIGIE was established by The Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-

409, §7 and is, “an independent entity established within the executive branch to address 

integrity, economy and effectiveness issues that transcend individual Government 

agencies and aid in the establishment of a professional, well-trained and highly skilled 

workforce in the Offices of Inspectors General.” 
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 46 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

year available at the time we began our review. To obtain a range of 

experience level with contracting at departments, we included two

departments with higher contract funds awarded (Homeland Security, 

State) and two departments with lower contract funds awarded

(Commerce, Interior). To identify these departments, we ranked 

department contract funds awarded from highest to lowest, and selected 

two departments from the top half of the 14 departments, and two from 

the bottom half. Our secondary criteria included the proportion of contract 

funds awarded to overall obligations in fiscal year 2015 and whether the 

departments’ OIG website included mention of the pilot program. At each 

department, we focused on the department’s handling of reprisal 

complaints filed by contractor and subcontractor employees. We 

interviewed or obtained written answers from department OIG officials, 

the office of the agency head, and contracting officials about their 

processes and practices for the agency duties outlined in the mandate. 

Where applicable, we reviewed documentation such as relevant policies, 

guidance, and internal reports. Findings based on information collected 

from the four departments cannot be generalized to all departments.

To identify whether a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause was 

included in contracts as required, we reviewed a non-generalizable 

sample from each of the four case study departments. To identify an 

example of a contract without the clause, we reviewed documentation for 

a random selection of at least 50 contracts at each of the four 

departments. We used the Federal Procurement Data System–Next 

Generation (FPDS-NG) to generate a sample of contract actions over 

$150,000 that were awarded by the four departments included in our 

review in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015. The sample also included 

orders awarded in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015, regardless of the 

award date of the associated contract. To avoid selecting contracts where 

the underlying base contract was awarded by another department, we 

excluded interagency contracts. We asked for contract actions awarded in 

the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015 to ensure we were sampling 

contracts that are required to have the clause and would be reasonably 

accessible by the departments (e.g., they would likely not be archived). 

To avoid selecting contracts where the underlying base contract was 

awarded by another department, we excluded interagency contracts. We 

also excluded task or delivery orders awarded using blanket purchase 

agreements because we could not consistently determine which 

department awarded the underlying base contract based on FPDS-NG 

data. For Homeland Security, we excluded contracts awarded by the 
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 47 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

Coast Guard because the Coast Guard is not covered under the pilot 

program and its contracts would not be required to contain this clause.5

We excluded personal services contracts because they are not 

specifically included in the pilot program statute. 

We conducted data reliability checks on the FPDS-NG dataset by 

comparing it to contract documentation obtained from contract files and 

determined it was sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

Finally, in order to learn about challenges experienced during the 

implementation of the pilot program, we also conducted interviews with 

contractors and whistleblower advocacy groups. We contacted five large 

and eight small business contractors based on their contract obligations 

from fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2015, as reported in FPDS-NG. 

For large contractors, we contacted firms that were listed on FPDS-NG’s 

“Top 100 Contractors” list for at least two of the four selected departments 

and in at least two of the fiscal years since 2013, when the pilot program 

went into effect. For small business contractors, we contacted firms that 

received among the largest amount of contract obligations at each of the 

four selected departments in at least two separate years since 2013.6 We 

ultimately interviewed or obtained written answers from seven 

contractors. While information collected from the contractors is not 

generalizable to all contractors, they provide important perspectives on 

challenges experienced by both large and small contractors. Lastly, we 

spoke with two advocacy groups for whistleblowers.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2016 to March 2017 

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.

 

5

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. No. 112-239, §827, Jan. 

2, 2013. Although the Act does not specifically discuss the Coast Guard, see 

Memorandum from Daniel L. Clever, deputy Chief Procurement Officer to Ashley J. Lewis, 

HCA, USCG, on DHS-USCG Class Deviation Number 14-01 Deviation from FAR §3.908, 

Pilot program for enhancement of contractor employee whistleblower protections, Dec. 31, 

2013; see also FAR §3.908-1(b)(1). 

6

We conducted this contract analysis based on contract actions over $150,000. 
Appendix III: A Summary of Selected 

Departments’ Reprisal Complaints and the 

Handling of Those Complaints

Page 48 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

This appendix provides additional information on reprisal complaints for 

the four selected departments—Commerce, Homeland Security, Interior, 

and State—under the Pilot Program for Enhancement of Contractor 

Employee Whistleblower Protections (pilot program).1

Table 2 provides a summary of the data collected regarding reprisal 

complaints received at each department and the Office of Inspector 

General officials’ disposition of each complaint.

 

1

Pub. L. No.112-239, § 828 (codified as amended at 41 U.S.C. §4712). The legislation 

provides protections for certain civilian executive agencies, but those protections are not 

extended to others such as elements of the intelligence community. Further, some 

agencies, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Defense, 

and the Coast Guard are not covered by the pilot program and are covered under other 

statutory provisions. 

Appendix III: A Summary of Selected 

Departments’ Reprisal Complaints and the 

Handling of Those Complaints
Appendix III: A Summary of Selected 

Departments’ Reprisal Complaints and the 

Handling of Those Complaints

Page 49 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

Table 2: Summary of Contractor Employee Reprisal Complaints Reported by Offices of Inspector General (OIG) at Selected 

Departments under the Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program from July 1, 2013, to December 31, 2015

Department

Total 

reported 

reprisal 

complaints

No further investigation required

Referred to 

another 

investigative 

bodyb Investigated by OIG 

Investigations 

completed

Failed to allege 

a violation in 

accordance 

with Pilota Determined frivolous

Previously 

decided by 

another 

federal or 

state judicial 

proceeding

State 25C 12 2 0 1 8 5 completed and 

3 still under 

investigation

Commerce 9 1 2 1 3 2 2 still under 

investigation

Homeland 

Security 

6 1 0 0 0 5 2 completed and 

3 still under 

investigation

Interior 5 1 0 2 0 2 2 still under 

investigation

Total 45 15 4 3 4 17

Source: GAO analysis of department data | GAO-17-227

a

Failed to allege a violation in accordance with the pilot program includes reprisal claims based on 

disclosures that did not meet the criteria established in the pilot program, including that the alleged 

violation did not constitute gross waste of federal funds, an abuse of authority relating to a federal 

contract or grant, a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or a violation of law, 

rule, or regulation related to a federal contract or grant.

b

Referred to another investigative body may include another OIG with jurisdiction over pilot program 

complaints.

C

Two of State’s reported reprisal claims were not investigated because the complainant did not waive 

confidentiality, so are not included in the dispositions to the right.
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 50 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Commerce
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 51 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 52 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 53 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 54 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 55 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 56 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 57 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of State

Page 58 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of State
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of State

Page 59 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of State

Page 60 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 61 GAO-17-227 Contractor Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program

Marie A. Mak, (202) 512-4841 or MakM@gao.gov

In addition to the contact names above, Penny Berrier (Assistant 

Director), Mary Diop, Meghan Perez, and Jocelyn Yin were principal 

contributors to this report. In addition, the following people made key 

contributions to this report: James Ashley, Lorraine Ettaro, Stephanie 

Gustafson, Kurt Gurka, Julia Kennon, John Krump, Kate Lenane, Sylvia 

Schatz, and Roxanna Sun.

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100693)
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, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube. 

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

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog. 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

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

Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.