IG-03-021

AUDIT 

REPORT CONTRACT DATA REPORTS 

September 16, 2003 

Report Recipients: 

AE/Chief Engineer 

AS/Chief Scientist 

B/Deputy Chief 

 Financial Officer for 

 Financial Management 

H/Assistant Administrator 

 for Procurement

cc: 

B/Deputy Chief Financial 

 Officer for Resources 

 (Comptroller) 

BF/Director, 

 Financial Management 

 Division 

G/General Counsel 

JM/Director, 

 Management 

 Assessment Division 

H/Audit Liaison 

 Representative 

ARC/200-9/Audit 

 Liaison Representative 

GRC/3-12/Audit 

 Liaison Representative 

GSFC/201/Audit 

 Liaison Representative 

JSC/BD5/Audit Liaison 

 Representative 

MSFC/RS40/Audit 

 Liaison Representative

 

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Released by: __Original Signed By ___________________

David M. Cushing, Assistant Inspector General for Auditing
IG-03-021 September 16, 2003 

 A-02-004-00 

Contract Data Reports 

Contract data reports, described in the Data Requirements List of a contract, include 

information needed by NASA to effectively administer contracts. The audit focused on 

whether NASA programs effectively managed these reports obtained under NASA 

contracts. We reviewed the process for requiring, obtaining, and safeguarding data 

reports on NASA contracts and management’s use of electronic commerce in submitting 

or receiving the reports. (Details on our audit objectives, scope, and methodology are in 

Appendix C.) The President's Management Agenda lists electronic commerce as one of 

five critical management initiatives for Federal agencies. The Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy and the Federal Acquisition Regulation require agencies to use 

electronic commerce for acquisitions whenever practicable or cost-effective. 

Additionally, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires Federal agencies to 

provide for the option of electronically submitted information as a substitute for paper by 

October 21, 2003. 

We found that generally, NASA programs effectively managed contract data reports. For 

example, NASA personnel ensured that contract-required data reports were necessary for 

administering the contract and that contractor proprietary data was adequately protected 

from improper use, duplication, or disclosure. 

However, we also found that NASA can more effectively promote the use of electronic 

commerce as the preferred method for submitting contract data reports. We found that 

NASA contracts did not request electronic copies of data reports but instead required 

contractors to submit hard copies. Additionally, NASA Headquarters and five Centers 

had not established effective electronic commerce policies for contract data reports. We

recognize that there are some costs associated with sending electronic copies but 

contractors charge extra to send hard copy reports. (See Appendix F for a range of 

contractor costs.) We believe the Agency could have saved thousands of dollars by 

requesting contractors to submit electronic copies of contract data reports instead of hard 

copies. 

NASA Contracts Required Hard Copies. Center contracting and technical personnel at 

the 6 Centers we reviewed stated that electronic data reports would have been acceptable 

for the 48 contracts that we reviewed -- but 37 (77 percent) of the 48 contracts required 

hard copy reports (see Appendix E). We projected that there was a total of 457,771 hard 

copy pages of contract data reports for the audit universe that required contractor labor to 

print, assemble, package, and mail in addition to providing paper and copying supplies, 

binding materials, postage and often personal delivery. Only Marshall Space Flight 

Center (Marshall) had established a formal policy that electronic commerce is preferred 

for submitting contract data reports. However, Marshall management had not effectively 

 

1
communicated that policy to Center personnel administering contracts. None of the six 

Centers reviewed had implemented electronic commerce as a standard practice for 

contract data reports. 

The 48 contracts were at Ames Research Center (Ames), John H. Glenn Research Center 

(Glenn), Goddard Space Flight Center (Goddard), NASA Headquarters, 

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (Johnson), and Marshall. To assess the latest 

procurement practices, we initially selected 16 Goddard and Marshall contracts. We

subsequently expanded the review by statistically selecting a total of 32 contracts from

Ames, Glenn, NASA Headquarters, and Johnson from a universe of 961 contracts 

(Appendix C describes the audit sample). 

NASA Requires Hard Copy Contract Data Reports for the Data Storage Facility. In 

response to the Center for Aerospace Information (CASI) process requirements, NASA 

contractually requires all research and development contractors to submit two hard copies 

of final contract data reports. CASI is a NASA-funded data storage facility. CASI 

personnel disassemble one hard copy to scan into a record management system and retain 

the second hard copy in the event the disassembled copy is damaged during scanning. In 

2001, CASI received 2,943 hard copies (90 percent) of final contract data reports from

contractors; the remaining final reports (10 percent) were electronic copies. Submitted 

hard copy reports had an average of 65 pages with 382,590 total pages. CASI can 

process either hard or electronic copies of final contract data reports and makes both 

types of reports available to the public on the World Wide Web. 

Recommendations for Corrective Action 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Procurement: 

1. Issue guidance to the NASA contracting community (e.g., contracting officers, 

contracting officer’s technical representatives, task monitors, resource analysts) in 

the form of a Procurement Information Circular (PIC), or other suitable vehicle, 

to clearly state that the use of electronic commerce is NASA’s preferred method 

for the submission of contract data requirements whenever feasible. 

2. Establish an implementation plan that requires Center procurement offices, in 

conjunction with the cognizant technical personnel, to reassess the contract data 

requirements for all active contracts with a performance period extending beyond 

October 21, 2003, to identify opportunities to increase the use of electronic 

commerce for the submission of such deliverables. The implementation plan 

should identify impediments to the use of electronic commerce and include 

planned actions to remove the impediments by October 21, 2003, as required by 

the Government Paperwork Elimination Act of 1998. 

 

2
Management’s Response and our Evaluation of the Response 

The Agency concurred with the recommendations (see Appendix I). NASA’s Office of 

Procurement will advise the Chief Scientist, Chief Engineer, and Chief Financial Officer 

to expand their use of electronic commerce as the preferred method for submitting 

contract data reports and suggest they issue electronic commerce policies for these 

reports. The Office of Procurement also agreed to work with the Chief Scientist, Chief

Engineer, and Chief Financial Officer to suggest they establish an implementation plan 

that will reassess contract data requirements on all active contracts. In subsequent 

discussions with the Agency, the Office of Procurement agreed to complete corrective 

action by January 16, 2004. We consider the recommendations resolved, but they will 

remain undispositioned and open until the Agency completes the agreed-to corrective 

action. We address the Agency’s general comments in Appendix J. 

 

3
Appendixes 

Appendix A - Status of Recommendations 

Appendix B - Background 

Appendix C - Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Appendix D - Electronic Commerce Laws, Regulations, and Policy

Appendix E - Locations of Contracts Requiring Hard Copy Reports 

Appendix F - Contractor Costs Per Hard Copy Page 

Appendix G - Contracts in the Initial Audit Sample 

Appendix H - Statistically Selected Contracts 

Appendix I - Management’s Response 

Appendix J - OIG Comments on Management’s Response 

Appendix K - Report Distribution List 

Acronyms Used in the Report 

CASI Center for Aerospace Information 

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation 

OFPP Office of Federal Procurement Policy 

 

4
Appendix A. Status of Recommendations 

Recommendation 

No. 

Resolved Unresolved Open/ECD* Closed

1. X 1/16/04

2. X 1/16/04

 *ECD – Estimated completion date 

 

5
Appendix B. Background 

Authority. The NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Supplement, Part 

1827.406-70, “Reports of Work,” allows NASA contracting officers to require reports of 

work, such as monthly progress reports, in the contract. 

Contract Data Reports. The Data Requirements List of the contract describes specific 

data reports the contractor must provide, gives the Government's delivery instructions, 

and identifies the number of report copies the contractor must provide and the persons 

who must receive copies. Specific data reports include progress, technical, and financial 

management reports. Data report delivery requirements depend on the need for the 

information. Generally, data reports are required monthly, quarterly, or annually. Data 

reports are submitted in hard copy, electronic forms, and other media. Persons receiving 

data reports typically include the contracting officer, the contracting officer's technical 

representative, and NASA personnel involved in contract oversight or administration. 

Contract data reports vary in length and may exceed several hundred pages. 

Electronic Commerce. FAR, Subpart 2.101 defines electronic commerce as techniques 

an agency uses to accomplish its business transactions such as electronic mail (e-mail) 

and World Wide Web technology. Since 1994, laws, regulations, and executive orders 

have aimed to move Federal agencies from conducting business with paper, or hard 

copies, to using electronic commerce. Electronic documents cost less to store, maintain, 

and disseminate than hard copy documents. For example, for a hard copy contract data 

report, contractors incur additional costs for labor and overhead (printing, assembling, 

and packaging); paper and copying supplies; binding materials; and postage. 

The Center for Aerospace Information. NASA operates the Center for Aerospace 

Information (CASI) under a cost-plus-award fee contract. CASI personnel make NASA 

contract final reports available to the public on the World Wide Web 

(http://www.sti.nasa.gov). 

 

6
Appendix C. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Objectives 

The overall objective was to determine whether NASA programs effectively managed 

data reports obtained under NASA contracts. Specifically, the audit determined whether 

management: 

• ensured that data reports required under NASA contracts were necessary for 

administering the contract; 

• protected contractor proprietary data reports from improper use, duplication, and 

disclosure; and 

• used electronic commerce for the submission and receipt of contract data reports. 

Scope and Methodology 

Audit Sampling. We reviewed a total of 48 contracts of which 16 contracts were 

judgmentally selected and 32 were statistically selected. Our initial audit results based 

on review of the 16 judgmentally selected contracts indicated that contract data reports 

were necessary for administering the contracts and that NASA personnel protected the 

data reports from improper use or disclosure. Our results also indicated that there was 

room for improvement in the submission process for contract data reports, so we 

expanded our review to an additional 32 statistically selected contracts. Details on our 

sampling methodology follow. 

Initial Audit Sample. We selected the 16 contracts for initial testing from a 

universe of 559 research and development, service, and supply contracts totaling $24.8 

billion for 10 NASA locations. The sampling universe included contracts valued at more 

than $1 million that were active during fiscal year 2001. We excluded all contracts with 

a completion date before September 28, 2001, because we believed they would be closed. 

The 16 contracts were from Goddard Space Flight Center (Goddard) and Marshall Space 

Flight Center (Marshall), had the most recent award dates in fiscal year 2001, and totaled 

$124.3 million. 

For each of the 16 contracts, we selected data reports from the contract Data 

Requirements List. When possible, we selected recurring data reports, such as contract 

progress and performance and financial management reports. We reviewed contract 

documentation, Center contract data policies and procedures, contract data reports, the 

use of data reports in administering the contract, current data report recipients, and 

procedures to protect contractor proprietary data. We interviewed contracting officers, 

contracting officer’s technical representatives, other persons listed as data report 

recipients in the contract, and contractors. 

 

7
Appendix C 

We modified the audit universe (see next section) and used the 247,771 projected number 

of hard copy pages to calculate a rate of .06 hard copy pages per $1,000 of contract value. 

We applied the .06 rate to the value of the Goddard and Marshall contracts and estimated 

210,000 hard copy pages for the contracts. 

Modified Audit Sample. We modified the initial audit universe by expanding 

our testing to other NASA Centers. The modified audit universe eliminated contracts in 

the initial audit universe, supply and construction contracts, and the contract at the Jet 

Propulsion Laboratory. The modified audit universe consisted of 961 research and 

development and service contracts with a total value of $4.2 billion. The 961 contracts 

included individual contracts valued from $2,000 to $600 million and award dates from

November 1, 1998, through September 30, 2001. We selected these dates because the 

Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires Federal agencies to provide for the 

option of electronic submission of information as a substitute for paper by 

October 21, 2003. Therefore, contracts awarded as of September 30, 2001, would have 

received contract data reports by the time of our review. 

To evaluate the universe of 961 contracts, we statistically selected a sample of 32 

contracts at Ames Research Center (Ames), Glenn Research Center (Glenn), 

Headquarters, and Johnson Space Center (Johnson). The 32 statistically selected 

contracts had a total value of $1.59 billion. When possible, we selected recurring data 

reports, such as contract progress and performance and financial management reports for 

testing. We reviewed contract documentation, Center contract data policies and 

procedures, and contract data reports. We interviewed the contracting officers, 

contracting officer's technical representatives, and other persons listed in the contract as 

data report recipients. 

To determine the average number of pages for the data reports being reviewed, we either 

(1) calculated the average number of pages for a 3- to 6-month period or (2) obtained an 

estimate from a data report recipient. We determined the number of report pages per year 

by multiplying the data report count by 12 (for monthly reports) or by 4 (for quarterly 

reports). We reviewed 101 of 431 data reports required under the 32 sampled contracts 

and estimated an annual total of 56,368 hard copy pages for the contracts. We projected 

that number of hard copy pages to the audit universe of 961 contracts and calculated a 

total of 247,771 hard copy pages. (The 247,771 hard copy pages were less than the 

number one might expect from statistical sampling because we used probability and 

dollar unit sampling techniques. The techniques provided different projections for each 

of the sampled Centers instead of a single projection from the sample to the universe.) 

We obtained hard copy costs from 10 contractors in our sample and developed a range of 

hard copy costs ($.21, $1.10, and $6.79) per page because contractor estimates varied 

widely. 

 

8
Appendix C 

Hard Copy Pages in Sample. 

Hard copy pages from initial audit sample 210,000 

Hard copy pages from modified audit sample 247,771

Total hard copy pages from sample 457,771

Final Contract Data Reports CASI Received. We observed the procedures the Center 

for Aerospace Information (CASI) followed to receive, scan, and process final contract 

data reports for NASA contracts. We discussed procedures, requirements, and the use of 

electronic commerce with CASI officials, the NASA performance monitor, and the 

contracting officer's technical representatives. NASA and CASI personnel provided us 

data on final contract data reports for contract year 2001. Contractors had submitted a 

total of 3,270 final data reports of which 2,943 reports were in hard copy form with an 

average of 65 pages. We calculated 382,590 total hard copy pages for the 2,943 reports 

by applying 65 pages per report and 2 copies for each report (as discussed previously, 

NASA required 2 copies of the final report). 

Management Controls Reviewed

We used the General Accounting Office (GAO) “Standards for Internal Control in the 

Federal Government,” dated November 1999, to review controls applicable to our audit 

objectives. Four GAO standards applied to our audit: (1) restrict access to and account 

for resources and records, (2) document transactions and internal controls, (3) maintain 

physical control over vulnerable assets, and (4) ensure timely information is available 

and communicated. To test controls, we obtained a description of control techniques for 

the protection of proprietary data from contracting officers and contracting officer’s 

technical representatives, assessed the adequacy of management's controls against the 

GAO standards, observed compliance with the controls, and reviewed the timeliness of 

hard and electronic copies of contract data reports. NASA policy contains requirements 

for the protection of contractor proprietary data, but some Centers have not issued formal 

policy or procedures. Our testing at Goddard and Marshall did not identify any 

weaknesses in the protection of proprietary data. NASA personnel at the two Centers 

were aware of the need to protect contractor proprietary data.

Computer-Generated Data 

We used computer-generated data to establish the number of final contract data reports 

received by CASI from December 2000 to November 2001 and the number of pages in 

the reports. We relied on the computer-generated data to determine the average number 

of pages. We used that number in our calculation of potential NASA savings and did not 

verify the number with additional testing. 

 

9
Appendix C 

Audit Field Work 

We performed the audit from October 2001 through December 2002. We performed 

audit field work at Ames, Glenn, Goddard, NASA Headquarters, Johnson, and Marshall. 

We conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

Prior Audit Coverage 

GAO report, “Information Management: Electronic Dissemination of Government 

Publications,” dated March 2001, reported that the Federal Depository Library Program

could reduce distribution costs and make information more usable and accessible through 

electronic dissemination of Government reports. 

 

10
Appendix D. Electronic Commerce Laws, Regulations, and Policy 

Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) of 1994. FASA, effective 

October 13, 1994, aimed to overhaul the Federal procurement system by eliminating 

costly paperwork for small-dollar value purchases. FASA provisions established the 

Government-wide electronic commerce system that was readily accessible to the public. 

The objective of the electronic commerce system, the Federal Acquisition Computer 

Network, was to convert the existing acquisition process that was dependent on 

paperwork to an expedited process that relied on electronic commerce. 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The Act's objectives were to (1) make Federal 

agencies more responsible by holding them publicly accountable for reducing paperwork 

imposed on the public; (2) minimize paperwork for Federal contractors; and (3) minimize 

the cost to the Government for the creation, collection, maintenance, use, dissemination, 

and disposal of information. 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Subpart 4.8, “Government Contract Files.” 

FAR Subpart 4.8 prescribes requirements for establishing, maintaining, and disposing of 

contract files. The subpart states that agencies may retain contract files in any medium

(paper, electronic, microfilm, etc.) or any combination of media, as long as the retained 

contract files meet the stated requirements. Since at least October 1, 1995, agencies 

could choose how to maintain the files. 

Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), Section 30, “Use of Electronic 

Commerce in Federal Procurement.” This amendment to Section 30 became effective 

November 18, 1997. It states that “the head of each executive agency shall establish, 

maintain, and use, to the maximum practicable and cost-effective extent, procedures and 

processes that employ electronic commerce in the conduct and administration of its 

procurement system.” OFPP Section 30 is in Public Law 105-85 and USC, Title 41, 

Section 426. 

Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) of 1998, Section 1704, “Deadline 

for Implementation by Executive Agencies of Procedures for Use and Acceptance of 

Electronic Signatures.” The GPEA states that Federal agencies must comply with 

requirements “not later than five years after the date of enactment of this Act (1998),” 

making the deadline October 21, 2003. The GPEA further states that when electronic 

commerce processes are more efficient than hard copy processes, executive agencies 

must provide for (1) the option of the electronic maintenance, submission, or disclosure 

of information as a substitute for paper and (2) the use and acceptance of electronic 

signatures. 

 

11
Appendix D 

FAR, Subpart 4.5, “Electronic Commerce in Contracting.” Subpart 4.5 provides 

policy and procedures for establishing and using electronic commerce in Federal 

acquisitions as required by OFPP Section 30. The effective date was October 30, 1998. 

The policy states, “the Federal Government shall use electronic commerce when 

electronic processes are more efficient than hard copy processes. Contracting officers 

may supplement electronic transactions by using other media to meet the requirements of 

any contract action governed by the FAR.” The FAR states contractors may transmit 

hard copies of construction drawings as an example of other media that would be 

acceptable. 

FAR, Subpart 2.101, “Definitions.” The subpart defines electronic commerce as 

electronic techniques for accomplishing business transactions. Electronic commerce 

includes electronic mail (e-mail), Internet-based technology, electronic bulletin boards, 

purchase cards, electronic funds transfer, and electronic data interchange. The FAR 

defined electronic commerce in October 1998. 

E-Government Act of 2001, Public Law S.803. The public law strives to enhance the 

management and promotion of electronic Government services and processes by 

establishing a Federal Chief Information Officer within the Office of Management and 

Budget. The public law also establishes a broad framework of measures that require 

using Internet-based information technology to enhance citizen access to Government 

information and services. 

The President’s Management Agenda (Agenda), Fiscal Year 2002. As stated in the

Agenda, “Agencies will undertake a federal public key infrastructure to promote digital 

signatures for transactions within the federal government, between government and 

businesses, and between government and citizens.” 

 

12
Appendix E. Locations of Contracts Requiring Hard Copy Reports 

The following table summarizes the locations of the 48 contracts we reviewed and the 37 

contracts that required hard copy reports. 

Contracts Reviewed Contracts Requiring 

Hard Copy Data Reports 

Ames Research Center 8 7 

Glenn Research Center 8 4 

Goddard Space Flight Center 11 11 

NASA Headquarters 8 7 

Johnson Space Center 8 4 

Marshall Space Flight Center 5 4 

Total 48 37

 

13
Appendix F. Contractor Costs Per Hard Copy Page 

The following table shows our calculation of the cost per hard copy page for contract 

data reports. We based our calculation on cost estimates provided by 10 contractors. We

did not include the complete contract number because of the related proprietary cost 

information that is shown. The contract number indicates the Center that awarded the 

contract (NAS2 applies to Ames Research Center; NAS3 applies to Glenn Research 

Center; NAS5 applies to Goddard Space Flight Center; and NAS9 applies to Johnson 

Space Center). We calculated the cost per page by dividing the hard copy cost by the 

number of hard copy pages. We dropped the lowest and highest contractor estimates 

($.06 and $9.76) and calculated an average cost of $1.10 using the remaining eight 

contractor estimates. 

Contract 

Number

Data 

Reports 

Required 

by 

Contract

Data 

Reports 

with

ContractorProvided 

Cost 

Estimates 

Hard 

Copy Cost

($) 

Total 

Hard 

Copy 

Pages

Cost 

per 

Page

Action 

Taken

1 NAS5-xxxxx 9 4 $4,344 67,204 $.06 Dropped 

Lowest 

Cost 

2 NAS5-xxxxx 8 1 5,000 24,000 .21 

3 NAS2-xxxxx 15 4 1,200 3,714 .32 

4 NAS5-xxxxx 8 3 36,000 40,000 .90 

5 NAS2-xxxxx 6 4 466 203 2.30 

6 NAS5-xxxxx 9 5 26,161 8,928 2.93 

7 NAS9-xxxxx 20 5 1,759 578 3.04 

8 NAS3-xxxxx 61 1 14,742 2,700 5.46 

9 NAS3-xxxxx 2 1 3,180 468 6.79 

10 NAS5-xxxxx 7 2 586 60 9.76 Dropped 

Highest 

Cost 

Total of 10 

Estimates 

$93,438 147,855 31.77

Total (Excludes 

dropped costs) 

 Average Cost 

($88,508 divided 

by 80,591) 

$88,508 80,591 

$1.10 

 

14
Appendix G. Contracts in the Initial Audit Sample 

The following table shows contracts at Goddard Space Flight Center (Goddard) and 

Marshall Space Flight Center (Marshall) that we selected for the initial audit sample. We

obtained cost information from some contractors. We did not include the complete 

contract number for all contracts in the table because the contract number could relate to 

proprietary information shown in other sections of the report. 

Contract 

Number

Type of Contract Data Reports 

We Reviewed 

Data Reports 

Required by 

Contract 

Hard Copy Pages 

Goddard 

NAS5-01095 Research and

Development 

(R&D) 

 3 17 Electronic Copy

NAS5-xxxxx Service 6 9 8,928 

NAS5-01106 Service 2 7 Not requested 

NAS5-xxxxx Service 4 9 67,204 

NAS5-xxxxx Service 2 11 20 

NAS5-xxxxx R&D 2 7 60 

NAS5-xxxxx R&D 2 8 40,000 

NAS5-xxxxx R&D 2 8 24,000 

NAS5-xxxxx R&D 2 8 Contractor did not 

provide. 

NAS5-01127 R&D 3 10 Not requested 

NAS5-00188 Service 4 5 Electronic Copy

Marshall 

NAS8-00017 R&D 5 30 334 

NAS8-00208 Service

(Construction) 

 3 325 455 

NAS8-01094 R&D 1 16 504 

NAS8-00144 Service 3 8 9 

NAS8-97310 R&D 1 5 Electronic Copy

Totals: 45 483 141,514

 

15
Appendix H. Statistically Selected Contracts 

The following table shows the 32 statistically selected contracts at Ames Research Center 

(Ames), Glenn Research Center (Glenn), NASA Headquarters, and Johnson Space Center 

(Johnson). The total 56,368 hard copy pages relate to our review of 101 of 431 data 

reports required on the 32 sampled contracts. We did not include the complete contract 

number for all contracts in the table because the contract number could relate to 

proprietary information shown in other sections of the report. 

Contract 

Number 

Type of Contract Data Reports 

We Reviewed 

Data Reports 

Required by 

Contract 

Hard Copy Pages 

for 1 Year 

Ames 

NAS2-xxxxx Research and 

Development (R&D) 

4 6 520

NAS2-98083 Service 8 14 975

NAS2-00015 R&D 8 18 0

NAS2-00055 Service 5 18 1,788

NAS2-00065 Service 3 11 1,100

NAS2-01064 R&D 4 10 798

NAS2-99078 Service 0 0 0

NAS2-xxxxx Service 7 15 4,556

Glenn 

NAS3-00145 R&D 2 2 1,344

NAS3-99155 R&D 2 61 2,880

NAS3-00139 R&D 2 2 396

NAS3-xxxxx Service 2 2 468

NAS3-01136 R&D 2 9 864

NAS3-99120 R&D 1 1 60

NAS3-xxxxx R&D 2 61 2,700

NAS3-99169 R&D 2 3 24

Headquarters 

NASW-00017 Service 3 5 7,200

NASW-99027 Service 6 9 5,856

NASW-00003 R&D 4 16 2

NASW-01001 Service 4 6 652

NASW-01003 Service 3 8 3,360

NASW-99001 Service 0 0 0

NASW-99005 Service 1 1 0

NASW-99037 Service 1 1 2080

Johnson 

NAS9-99072 Service 3 21 14,172

NAS9-xxxxx Service 6 20 726

NAS9-00080 Service 3 14 1,688

NAS9-00091 Service 1 1 0

NAS9-01008 Service 5 48 1,440

NAS9-98123 Service 2 31 96

NAS9-99058 R&D 4 16 23

NAS9-99075 R&D 1 1 600

Total 101 431 56,368

 

16
Appendix I. Management’s Response 

 

17
Appendix I 

See 

Appendix J, 

OIG 

Comment.

 

18
Appendix I 

 

19
Appendix I 

 

20
Appendix J. OIG Comments on Management’s Response 

The Agency concurred (see Appendix I) with the report recommendations and included 

general comments regarding the report’s cost estimating methodology, implementation 

costs, and the appropriate action official. In response to the Agency’s comments, we 

removed our cost savings projections and references to those projections from the report. 

The following addresses the Agency’s comments regarding the appropriate action 

official. 

The Office of Procurement did not agree that the Assistant Administrator for 

Procurement is the appropriate official to perform the recommended corrective actions. 

We directed the report recommendations to the Associate Administrator for the Office of 

Procurement because the Associate Administrator establishes policy that affects NASA 

procurement offices, contracting officers, and procurement initiatives. NASA 

contracting officers are authorized to award contracts and provide contract language that 

requires action by NASA contractors, including requirements involving contract data 

reports. The Office of Procurement also serves in an advisory capacity to advise the 

Administrator and NASA senior management of potential efficiencies to be gained 

through Agency-wide standardization of procurement systems and to coordinate the 

implementation of approved procurement initiatives. 

In contrast, the Chief Scientist, Chief Engineer, and Chief Financial Officer determine 

specific procurement requirements but are not authorized to award contracts. These 

officials can also establish policy for operations and organizations under their authority 

but do not coordinate procurement initiatives. They rely on the Associate Administrator 

for Procurement for guidance and direction on cost-effective and efficient procurement 

methods. The report merely recommends changing the delivery method for data reports 

and is comparable to any other delivery instruction contained in the contract. The 

recommendations do not materially impact the end-user's requirements and in no way 

affects the substance or contents of what the contractor delivers under the contract. The 

Office of Procurement’s planned actions meet the intent of the recommendations and 

should increase the use of electronic contract data reports. 

 

21
Appendix K. Distribution List 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Headquarters 

A/Administrator 

ADT/Associate Deputy Administrator for Technical Programs 

AE/Chief Engineer 

AS/Chief Scientist 

B/Deputy Chief Financial Officer for Financial Management 

B/Deputy Chief Financial Officer for Resources (Comptroller) 

BF/Director, Financial Management Division 

G/General Counsel 

H/Assistant Administrator for Procurement 

HK/Director, Contract Management Division 

HS/Director, Program Operations Division 

J/Assistant Administrator for Management Systems 

JM/Director, Management Assessment Division 

L/Assistant Administrator for Legislative Affairs 

NASA Centers 

ARC/D/Director, Ames Research Center 

GRC/0100/Director, John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

GSFC/100/Director, Goddard Space Flight Center 

GSFC/210H/Procurement Manager, Headquarters Procurement Office 

JSC/AA/Director, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center 

KSC/CC/Chief Counsel, John F. Kennedy Space Center 

MSFC/DA01/Director, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center 

WSTF/RE/Procurement Manager, White Sands Test Facility 

Non-NASA Federal Organizations and Individuals 

Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Policy 

Deputy Associate Director, Energy and Science Division, Office of Management and 

 Budget 

Branch Chief, Science and Space Programs Branch, Energy and Science Division, Office 

 of Management and Budget 

Managing Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management Team, General Accounting 

 Office 

Senior Professional Staff Member, Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and 

 Space 

 

22
Appendix K 

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member – Congressional Committees and 

Subcommittees 

Senate Committee on Appropriations 

Senate Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space 

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs 

House Committee on Appropriations 

House Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies 

House Committee on Government Reform

House Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial Management 

House Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations, 

 and the Census 

House Committee on Science 

House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 

Congressional Member 

Honorable Pete Sessions, U.S. House of Representatives 

 

23
NASA Assistant Inspector General for Auditing 

Reader Survey 

The NASA Office of Inspector General has a continuing interest in improving the 

usefulness of our reports. We wish to make our reports responsive to our customers’ 

interests, consistent with our statutory responsibility. Could you help us by completing 

our reader survey? For your convenience, the questionnaire can be completed 

electronically through our homepage at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/audits.html

or can be mailed to the Assistant Inspector General for Auditing; NASA Headquarters, 

Code W, Washington, DC 20546-0001. 

Report Title: Contract Data Reports, IG-03-021, dated September 16, 2003

Circle the appropriate rating for the following statements. 

Strongly 

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree 

Strongly 

Disagree N/A 

1. The report was clear, readable, and 

logically organized. 

5 4 3 2 1 N/A

2. The report was concise and to the 

point. 

5 4 3 2 1 N/A 

3. We effectively communicated the 

audit objectives, scope, and 

methodology. 

5 4 3 2 1 N/A 

4. The report contained sufficient 

information to support the finding(s) 

in a balanced and objective manner. 

5 4 3 2 1 N/A 

Overall, how would you rate the report? 

# Excellent # Very Good # Good # Fair # Poor

If you have any additional comments or wish to elaborate on any of the above 

responses, please write them here. Use additional paper if necessary. 

 

24
How did you use the report?

How could we improve our report?

How would you identify yourself? (Select one) 

# Congressional Staff # Media 

# NASA Employee # Public Interest 

# Private Citizen # Other:

# Government: Federal: State: Local:

May we contact you about your comments? 

Yes:_____________ No:______________ 

Name:_______________________________ 

Telephone:___________________________ 

Thank you for your cooperation in completing this survey. 

 

25
Additional Copies 

To obtain additional copies of this report, contact the Assistant Inspector General for 

Auditing at (202) 358-1232, or visit www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/issuedaudits.html.

Suggestions for Future Audits 

To suggest ideas for or to request future audits, contact the Assistant Inspector General 

for Auditing. Ideas and requests can also be mailed to: 

Assistant Inspector General for Auditing 

Code W

NASA Headquarters 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

NASA Hotline

To report fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement contact the NASA Hotline at (800) 

424-9183, (800) 535-8134 (TDD), or at www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/hotline.html#form; or 

write to the NASA Inspector General, P.O. Box 23089, L’Enfant Plaza Station, 

Washington, DC 20026. The identity of each writer and caller can be kept confidential, 

upon request, to the extent permitted by law. 

Reader Survey 

Please complete the reader survey at the end of this report or at 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/audits.html.

Major Contributors to the Report 

Dana M. Mellerio, Director, Office of Audits (OA) Strategic Enterprises 

Daniel J. Samoviski, OA Associate Director, Strategic Enterprises 

Nora E. Thompson, OA Program Manager, Strategic Enterprises 

Sandra Leibold, Team Leader 

William Falter, Auditor 

Iris Purcarey, Program Assistant