GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

ELECTRONIC 

GOVERNMENT 

Implementation of the 

Federal Funding 

Accountability and 

Transparency Act of 

2006 

March 2010 

GAO-10-365 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

March 2010

ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT 

Implementation of the Federal Funding Accountability 

and Transparency Act of 2006 

Highlights of GAO-10-365, a report to 

congressional committees 

The Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency 

Act of 2006 (FFATA) is intended to 

increase the transparency of and 

accountability for the over $1 

trillion that federal agencies award 

each year in contracts, loans, 

grants, and other awards. Among 

other things, the act required the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to establish, no later than 

January 1, 2008, a publicly 

accessible Web site containing data 

on federal awards. The act also 

authorized OMB to issue guidance 

to federal agencies on reporting 

award data and instructs agencies 

to comply with that guidance. OMB 

launched the site 

(www.USAspending.gov) in 

December 2007. GAO’s objectives 

were to determine the extent to 

which (1) OMB is complying with 

FFATA requirements to make 

federal award data available, 

(2) federal agencies are reporting 

required award data, and 

(3) inconsistencies exist between 

data on the Web site and records at 

federal agencies. To do this, GAO 

reviewed FFATA requirements and 

OMB guidance, interviewed OMB 

and agency officials, and examined 

a sample of awards reported to 

OMB. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending that OMB, 

among other things, include all 

required data on the site, ensure 

complete reporting, and clarify 

guidance for verifying agencyreported data. In comments on a 

draft of this report, OMB generally 

agreed with GAO’s findings and 

recommendations. 

OMB has taken steps to comply with the requirements of FFATA; of nine 

requirements GAO reviewed, OMB has satisfied six and partially satisfied one. 

For example, it established a publicly accessible Web site containing data on 

federal awards that allows searches of data by all required data elements and 

provides for totals and downloadable data. However, OMB has only partially 

satisfied the requirement to conduct a pilot program on collecting subaward 

data beginning no later than July 2007—two pilot programs began in 2008, 

after the statutory deadline. OMB has not yet satisfied two requirements. First, 

it has not included subaward data on the USAspending.gov Web site, which 

was required by January 2009, and it does not have a specific plan in place for 

collecting and reporting such data. Until OMB ensures that subaward data are 

included on the site, it is not fully meeting its requirements under FFATA and 

the usefulness of the information on the site will be limited. Second, OMB has 

yet to submit a required annual report to Congress detailing the use of the site 

and the reporting burden placed on award recipients. However, OMB officials 

stated that they are collecting the necessary information and plan to issue the 

report in 2010. 

While USAspending.gov currently contains required fiscal year 2008 

information on federal assistance awards from 29 agencies, 9 agencies did not 

report a total of 15 awards. These agencies, which include the Department of 

the Treasury and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, stated that they 

plan to report future awards as required. Nevertheless, OMB has not 

implemented a process to identify nonreporting agencies as originally planned 

and instead has relied on agencies’ voluntary compliance with OMB guidance 

to ensure complete and accurate reporting. Without a more effective approach 

to ensuring that all agencies report applicable awards, the utility of 

USAspending.gov will be impaired by gaps in the required information. 

In a random sample of 100 awards, GAO identified numerous inconsistencies 

between USAspending.gov data and records provided by awarding agencies. 

Each of the 100 awards had at least one required data field that was blank or 

inconsistent with agency records—or for which agency records lacked 

sufficient information to evaluate their consistency with data on 

USAspending.gov. The most common data fields with inconsistencies or 

omissions included titles describing the purpose of the award and the city 

where award-funded work was to be performed. These errors can be 

attributed, in part, to a lack of specific OMB guidance on how agencies should 

fill in these fields and how they should perform the required validation of their 

data submissions. In addition, publicly available information that OMB 

provides on the completeness of agency-provided data does not address a 

required data field relating to the city where work for the award was to be 

performed. Until OMB and agencies better ensure that complete and accurate 

information is included on USAspending.gov, the Web site will be limited in 

providing the public with a view into the details of federal spending. View GAO-10-365 or key components.

For more information, contact David A. 

Powner at (202) 512-9286 or 

pownerd@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-10-365 

Contents 

Letter 1

Conclusions 3 

Recommendations for Executive Action 3 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 4 

Appendix I Briefing to Congressional Staffs on Implementation 

of the Federal Funding Accountability and 

Transparency Act of 2006 6 

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 51 

Abbreviations 

CFDA Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

DUNS Data Universal Numbering System 

FAADS Federal Assistance Award Data System 

FAST Federal Account Symbols and Titles 

FFATA Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

FPDS-NG Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation 

GSA General Services Administration 

NAIC North American Industry Classification System 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

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. 

 Electronic Government
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

March 12, 2010 

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman 

Chairman 

The Honorable Susan M. Collins 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Homeland Security 

 and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Edolphus Towns 

Chairman 

The Honorable Darrell Issa 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Oversight 

 and Government Reform 

House of Representatives 

To increase the transparency of and accountability for the over $1 trillion 

in contracts and financial assistance awarded each year by federal 

agencies, Congress passed the Federal Funding Accountability and 

Transparency Act (FFATA) in 2006.1

 Among other things, the act required 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to establish a free, publicly 

accessible Web site containing data on federal awards (e.g., contracts, 

loans, and grants) no later than January 1, 2008. In addition, OMB was 

required to include data on subawards by January 1, 2009. The act also 

authorized OMB to issue guidance and instructions to federal agencies for 

reporting award information and requires agencies to comply with that 

guidance. OMB launched the Web site—www.USAspending.gov—in 

December 2007. 

The act also requires GAO to submit to Congress a report on compliance 

with the act.2

 Specifically, our objectives were to determine the extent to 

which (1) OMB is complying with the act’s requirements to make federal 

award data available, (2) federal agencies are reporting required award 

data, and (3) inconsistencies exist between the data on USAspending.gov 

Electronic Government

 

1

Pub. L. No. 109-282, §§ 1 to 4, Sept. 26, 2006, as amended Pub. L. No. 110-252, Sec. 6202(a), 

June 30, 2008 (31 U.S.C. § 6101 Note). 

2

Pub. L. No. 109-282, Sec 4. 

Page 1 GAO-10-365 
 

and records at federal agencies. To do this, we reviewed FFATA 

requirements and OMB guidance, interviewed OMB and agency officials, 

reviewed data from other federal award databases, analyzed data from 

OMB, and reviewed agency award documentation. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2009 to March 2010 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. 

On December 18, 2009, we provided a briefing to your staffs on the results 

of our audit. This report includes the materials used at that briefing as well 

as the recommendations we are making to the Director of OMB to improve 

the completeness, accuracy, and usefulness of USAspending.gov. The full 

briefing materials, including details on our scope and methodology, are 

reprinted in appendix I. 

In summary, our briefing made the following major points: 

• OMB has taken steps to comply with the requirements of FFATA; of nine 

requirements we reviewed, OMB has satisfied six, partially satisfied one, 

and has yet to satisfy two. For example, OMB has not met the requirement 

to include data on subawards by January 2009 and does not yet have a 

plan or process in place for doing so. 

• While USAspending.gov contains required fiscal year 2008 data on grants 

from 29 agencies, 9 agencies did not report a total of 15 awards as 

required. Furthermore, OMB has not implemented a process for 

identifying nonreporting agencies but has instead relied on voluntary 

agency compliance with its guidance to ensure complete reporting. 

• In a random sample of 100 awards,3 we identified widespread 

inconsistencies between USAspending.gov data and records provided by 

awarding agencies. The most frequent inconsistencies occurred in certain 

required data fields, such as titles describing the purpose of the award and 

 

3

One transaction was randomly sampled in each of 100 randomly sampled awards. Since 

the number of transactions is not known for the entire population of awards, and because 

of the small sample size, the results are not generalizable to the population. 

Page 2 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
 

the city where work funded by the award was to be performed. These can 

be attributed in part to OMB guidance, which does not sufficiently address 

the completion and validation of agency data submissions. In addition, 

OMB’s public reporting on the completeness of agency data does not 

address the required field relating to the city where the award-funded 

work is to be performed. 

Until these limitations in USAspending.gov are addressed, the site will not 

fully meet the requirements of FFATA and serve its purpose of increasing 

the transparency of the federal awards process. 

Fulfilling FFATA’s purpose of increasing transparency and accountability 

of federal expenditures requires that USAspending.gov contain complete 

and accurate information on all applicable federal awards. While OMB has 

taken steps to meet the requirements of the act, including establishing a 

publicly available and searchable Web site containing data on federal 

awards, the site does not yet include all of the required information, such 

as data on subawards. In addition, several agencies did not report awards 

as required, and OMB has not yet implemented a process to effectively 

ensure that agencies report all applicable awards. Finally, the widespread 

inconsistencies between USAspending.gov data and agency records 

suggest the need for clearer guidance on completing and validating agency 

data submissions. Until OMB and agencies better ensure that complete 

and accurate information is included on USAspending.gov, the Web site 

will be of limited use in providing the public with a comprehensive view 

into the details of federal spending and increasing the transparency and 

accountability of the government for how it spends taxpayer dollars. 

To improve the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of all data 

submissions to OMB’s USAspending.gov Web site, we recommend that the 

Director of the Office of Management and Budget take the following four 

actions: 

Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

• develop and implement a specific plan for the collection and reporting of 

subaward data, including a time frame for including subaward data on 

USAspending.gov; 

• develop and implement a process to regularly ensure that all federal 

agencies report required award information to USAspending.gov; 

Page 3 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
 

• revise guidance to federal agencies on reporting federal awards to clarify 

• the requirement that award titles describe the award’s purpose and 

• requirements for validating and documenting agency award data 

submitted by federal agencies; and 

• include information on the city where work is performed in OMB’s public 

reporting of the completeness of agency data submissions. 

In oral comments on a draft of this report, the Office of Management and 

Budget’s E-Government Portfolio Manager generally agreed with our 

findings and recommendations and discussed steps the agency is taking to 

address them. He agreed that OMB has only partially satisfied the FFATA 

requirements for conducting pilot programs for collecting subaward data, 

reporting subaward data by January 1, 2009, and submitting an annual 

report to specified congressional committees. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

While generally agreeing with our recommendations, the manager offered 

clarification on several of them. Specifically, regarding our 

recommendation to develop and implement a process to ensure that all 

federal agencies report required information to USAspending.gov, the 

manager stated that OMB plans to improve the completeness of federal 

award data by creating an online data quality dashboard of agency 

submissions. Regarding our recommendation to revise guidance to 

agencies on validating and documenting their award data, the manager 

commented that OMB’s recently issued open government directive would 

address some of the concerns we raised by, among other things, requiring 

agencies to designate a high-level senior official to be accountable for the 

quality of data disseminated through USAspending.gov or other similar 

Web sites. He added that, consistent with the directive, OMB plans to issue 

additional guidance regarding agency data plans, internal controls over 

data quality, and a longer-term strategy for federal spending transparency. 

If OMB takes these steps as planned and effectively implements them, it 

could help improve the overall quality of federal spending data. 

In addition, regarding our recommendation to include city of performance 

information in OMB’s public reporting of agency data submissions, the 

manager stated that OMB would consider this as it develops the new online 

data quality dashboard. The manager also identified other actions OMB is 

planning to improve the transparency of federal award data, such as 

launching an improved version of the USAspending.gov Web site in 2010. 

Page 4 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; the 

Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health 

and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban 

Development, the Interior, the Treasury, Transportation, and Veterans 

Affairs; the U.S. Attorney General; the Executive Director of the 

Broadcasting Board of Governors; the Federal Co-Chairman of the Delta 

Regional Authority; the Federal Co-Chair of the Denali Commission; the 

Chairman and President of the Export-Import Bank; the Acting 

Administrator of the General Services Administration; the Executive 

Director of the Japan-U.S. Friendship Commission; the Chairman of the 

National Labor Relations Board; the Director of the National Science 

Foundation; the Administrator of the Small Business Administration; the 

Executive Director of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission; and the 

President of the U.S. Institute of Peace. In addition, the report will also be 

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

If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@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 major contributions to this 

David A. Powner 

report are listed in appendix II. 

Director, Information Technology 

 Management Issues 

Page 5 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

Electronic Government: Implementation of the Federal 

Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

Briefing for Staff of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate 

and 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives 

December 18, 2009 

Page 6 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government 
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 2 

Contents 

Introduction 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Results in Brief 

Background 

Results

Conclusions

Recommendations for Executive Action 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

Attachment 

1. List of Departments and Agencies in GAO Sample 

Page 7 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 3 

Introduction 

Each year, federal agencies award contracts and financial assistance amounting to over 

one trillion dollars. For example, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Consolidated 

Federal Funds report for fiscal year 2007, about $440 billion in contracts, $496 billion in 

grants, and $195 million in direct and guaranteed loans were awarded in that year. 

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA)1

 was enacted 

in September 2006 to increase the transparency and accountability of federal government 

expenditures by providing access to information on federal awards through a single, 

searchable, publicly available Web site. Among other things, the act required the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to establish an operational Web site by January 1, 2008, 

that included data on federal awards in the form of several required data elements. In 

addition, the act required OMB to ensure that data on federal subawards were included 

no later than January 1, 2009. The act also authorized OMB to issue guidance and 

instructions to federal agencies for reporting information on awards and requires agencies

to comply with that guidance. OMB launched the Web site—www.USAspending.gov—in 

December 2007. 

 

1

 Pub. L. No. 109-282, Sept. 26, 2006. 

Page 8 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 4 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Our objectives were to determine the extent to which 

x OMB is complying with the act’s requirement to make federal award data available, 

x federal agencies are reporting required award data, and 

x inconsistencies exist between the data on USAspending.gov and records at federal 

agencies. 

Page 9 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 5 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

To assess OMB’s compliance with the act’s requirements, we 

x reviewed and compared FFATA requirements regarding the data elements for 

applicable awards with USAspending.gov search capabilities on data elements for 

all types of federal awards identified in FFATA; 

x identified and analyzed other FFATA requirements, such as the requirement to 

include subaward data on the USAspending.gov Web site, to determine OMB’s

compliance with these requirements; 

x reviewed related OMB memorandums and guidance on FFATA requirements; 

x interviewed officials from OMB to discuss compliance with FFATA requirements

and data available on the USAspending Web site. 

Page 10 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 6 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

To determine the extent to which federal agencies are reporting award data, we reviewed 

data from the Federal Assistance Award Data System (FAADS), which is used to collect 

and report agency data on assistance awards, and the Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance (CFDA), a governmentwide database of federal programs that provide 

assistance or benefits to the public, to identify agencies that could have made assistance 

awards in fiscal year 2008. We then analyzed data from OMB to determine which 

agencies reported such awards. For those agencies that did not report awards to 

USASpending.gov, we interviewed agency officials to determine the reason for not 

reporting. 

Page 11 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 7 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

To determine the extent to which inconsistencies exist between the data on 

USAspending.gov and records at federal agencies, we 

x obtained data from OMB on FY 2008 awards reported to USAspending.gov; 

x selected a random sample of 100 federal awards, which included 50 contracts and 

50 grants, loans, and other federal awards; due to the small sample size, we could 

not reliably estimate the extent of compliance in the entire population. 

o for awards with multiple transactions, we randomly selected a single 

transaction for verification; 

x reviewed the Treasury Financial Manual (FAST book) and agency source records, 

such as award notice letters, contract orders, or contract modifications, and 

compared the results to the data provided by OMB for the selected awards; 

o we excluded one data field required by FFATA (unique identifier of the 

recipient’s parent entity) from our analysis because OMB does not require 

agencies to report information on this field and because information necessary 

to validate the field was not included in the records in our sample; 

Page 12 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 8 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

x discussed inconsistencies with agency officials and obtained clarifications where 

appropriate; and 

x reviewed and incorporated prior GAO work on weaknesses in federal contract 

reporting systems, e.g., the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation 

(FPDS-NG), which collects information on federal contract actions. 

Page 13 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 9 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

To test the controls over the reliability of agency data, we obtained data verification and 

validation plans and fiscal year 2008 data quality certifications from each agency. To the 

extent that the information was available, we also obtained documentation showing that 

data submissions provided to OMB were validated by agency officials. Since information 

submitted by one agency was taken from an electronic financial management system, we 

also reviewed GAO’s previous assessment of this system’s reliability, which found it to be 

reliable enough for our purposes. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2009 to December 2009 at the Office of 

Management and Budget and 17 federal departments and agencies included in our 

sample (identified in attachment I) 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 14 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 10 

Results in Brief 

While OMB has taken steps to meet the requirements of FFATA, including establishing a

publicly accessible and searchable Web site containing data on federal awards, it has not 

met all the requirements. Specifically, of nine requirements we reviewed, OMB has

satisfied six and partially satisfied one. For example, the site allows searches of data by 

all required data elements and provides totals for awards made as well as downloadable 

data. OMB partially met the requirement to begin a pilot to test the collection of subaward 

data not later than July 1, 2007, because the pilot tests it conducted began in 2008, after 

the statutory deadline. Further, according to OMB officials, the two pilot programs did not 

yield sufficient information to assess the burden that collecting such data would place on 

the recipients. In addition, OMB has not yet satisfied 2 requirements. First, the Web site 

does not include data on subawards, which were required by January 2009. Further, 

OMB does not have a specific plan in place for collecting and reporting subaward data. 

Until OMB ensures that subaward data are included on the site, it is not fully meeting its

requirements under FFATA, and the usefulness of the information on the site will be 

limited. Second, OMB has not yet produced a required annual report to Congress on, 

among other things, the site’s usage and the reporting burden placed on award recipients. 

According to OMB officials, it is collecting the information required for the report and plans

to issue it in 2010. 

Page 15 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 11 

Results in Brief 

USAspending.gov currently contains required fiscal year 2008 information on federal 

assistance awards (i.e., grants) from 29 agencies. However, 9 agencies did not report a

total of 15 awards to USAspending.gov as required, even though they reported the 

programs funding these awards to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, a

governmentwide database of federal programs. These agencies, which include the 

Department of the Treasury and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, plan to report 

future awards, as required. OMB had initially planned to compare reported data to other 

sources of information on federal awards, but it has not implemented a process for 

identifying non-reporting agencies and has instead relied primarily on agencies to 

voluntarily follow its guidance and report complete and accurate information. Without a

more effective approach to ensuring that all agencies report their applicable awards, the 

utility of USAspending.gov will be limited by gaps in the required information. 

Page 16 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 12 

Results in Brief 

For the awards we reviewed, widespread inconsistencies exist between data on 

USAspending.gov and records provided by awarding agencies. Specifically, in the sample 

of 100 awards we examined, each had at least one data field that was blank, inconsistent 

with agency records, or for which the agency records lacked adequate information to 

evaluate their consistency with the data on USAspending.gov. The data fields with the 

most errors or omissions included a title descriptive of the award’s purpose and the city 

where work funded by the award was performed. However, we did not review enough 

awards to estimate the rate of consistency for all federal awards. While OMB guidance 

requires agencies to report accurate data to USAspending.gov and validate their 

submissions, it does not adequately address the requirement for descriptive award titles

or specify how agencies should validate their data. Finally, although OMB provides

information on the completeness of agency-provided data on the USAspending.gov Web

site, this information does not address one of the required data fields relating to the city 

where the work for the award is to be performed. Without complete and accurate 

information, USAspending.gov is limited in its ability to improve the transparency of 

federal awards and the accountability of the awarding agencies. 

Page 17 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 13 

Results in Brief 

To improve the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of all data submissions to OMB’s

USAspending Web site, we recommend that the Director of OMB take the following 

actions: 

x develop and implement a specific plan for the collection and reporting of subaward 

data, including a timeframe for including subaward data on USAspending.gov; 

x develop and implement a process to regularly ensure that all federal agencies

report required award information to USAspending.gov; 

x revise guidance to federal agencies on reporting federal awards to clarify 

o the requirement that award titles describe the award’s purpose and 

o requirements for validating and documenting agency award data submitted by 

federal agencies; and 

x include information on the city where work is performed in OMB’s public reporting 

of the completeness of agency data submissions. 

Page 18 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 14 

Results in Brief 

In comments on a draft of this briefing, OMB officials suggested that the administration’s

recent open government initiative would address some of the concerns we raised about 

the quality of data on USAspending.gov. Among other things, this directive2

 requires

agencies to designate a high-level senior official to be accountable for the quality and 

objectivity of federal spending information publicly disseminated through such public 

venues as USAspending.gov. The directive also states that OMB plans to issue additional 

guidance, including a longer-term strategy for federal spending transparency. If 

implemented successfully, this guidance could potentially improve the overall quality of 

federal spending data. However, OMB action is still needed to address the specific issues

we identified. 

 

2

 OMB, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: Open Government Directive, M-10-06 (Washington, 

D.C.: December 8, 2009). 

Page 19 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 15 

Background 

FFATA Web Site Requirements

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) established a

number of requirements for the Office of Management and Budget as well as agency 

responsibilities. Primarily, OMB was to establish a free, publicly available Web site by 

January 1, 2008, that captured specific information on federal awards, in the form of 11 

required data elements. 

The site was to include awards made in fiscal year 2007 and later, and awards were to be 

added to the site within 30 days after the award was made. (OMB later issued guidance 

requiring agencies to report award data on the 5th and 20th of each month.) However, 

individual transactions under $25,000 and credit card transactions that occurred before 

October 1, 2008, did not need to be included. 

Table 1 lists the required data elements along with their descriptions. 

Page 20 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 16 

Background 

FFATA Web Site Requirements

Table 1: Data Elements Specified by FFATA 

Data elementsaDescriptions 

1. Name of the entity receiving the award Legal name by which the entity is incorporated and pays taxes. If the entity is not 

incorporated, this is the legal name contained in other official filings. 

2. Award amount Amount of support provided in the award based on obligations

3. Transaction type Specification of award type, e.g., contracts, grants, direct or guaranteed loans, and 

cooperative agreements

4. Funding agency Federal departments and independent agencies

5. North American Industry Classification 

System (NAIC) code (for contracts) 

Identification of the industry for which funds are being spent 

6. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) number (not applicable for 

contracts) 

Identification of the funding agency and program 

7. Program source Accounts from which funds are drawn (i.e. source of funding for the award) 

8. Award title descriptive of the purposes of 

each funding action 

Brief descriptive title of the project that includes the objective of the award 

9. Location of entity receiving the award Address of the entity; includes sub-components: city, state, congressional district, and 

country 

10.Primary location of performance Location where a majority of the effort required to satisfactorily fulfill the intended 

purpose of the award will be completed; includes sub-components: city, state, 

congressional district, and country 

11.Unique identifier for the award recipient 

and parent entity (if applicable) 

Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number used to uniquely identify entities and parent entities (if applicable) doing business with the government 

Sources: GAO analysis of FFATA and OMB guidance. 

a

The site should also include any other relevant information specified by OMB.

Page 21 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 17 

Background 

FFATA Web Site Requirements

In addition, the act specified several other requirements: 

x The site must allow searches by each of the required data elements, must provide 

totals awarded by recipient, and must provide downloadable data. 

x The site should provide an opportunity for the public to provide input about the 

utility of the site and recommendations for improvements. 

x No later than July 1, 2007, OMB was required to commence a pilot program to test 

the collection of subaward data and determine how to implement a subaward 

reporting program. The pilot program was to have been terminated no later than 

January 1, 2009. 

x The site was to have included subaward data no later than January 1, 2009.3

 The 

statute authorized OMB to grant an 18-month extension for subaward recipients

that receive federal funds through state, local, or tribal governments if OMB 

determined that compliance would impose an undue burden on the subaward 

recipient. 

 

3

 Entities with gross income of $300,000 or less are exempted from reporting subawards until OMB determines that the imposition of 

such reporting requirements will not impose an undue burden on them. 

Page 22 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 18 

Background 

FFATA Web Site Requirements

x OMB is to submit an annual report to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform to 

include (1) data regarding the usage of and public feedback on the utility of the 

Web site (2) an assessment of the reporting burden placed on federal award and 

subaward recipients, and (3) an explanation of any extension of the subaward 

reporting deadline.4

 

4

 The act does not specify a particular date by which the report is to be submitted. 

Page 23 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 19 

Background 

Agencies Required to Report Federal Award Data

FFATA also requires federal agencies to comply with OMB instructions and guidance for 

ensuring the existence and operation of the Web site. In November 2007, March 2008, 

and June 2009, OMB issued guidance that requires agencies to submit timely, accurate, 

and complete data as prescribed by FFATA and defines award reporting requirements for 

USAspending.gov.5

 

 

5

 Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum for the Heads of Departments and Agencies: Guidance on Data Submission under 

the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, M-09-19 (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2009); Memorandum for Federal 

Agencies: Guidance on Future Data Submissions under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (Transparency Act), 

M-08-12 (Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2008); and Memorandum to Executive Departments and Agencies: OMB Guidance on Data 

Submission under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (Transparency Act), M-08-04 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 9, 

2007). 

Page 24 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 20 

Background 

Data Sources for USAspending.gov 

OMB guidance states that agencies are to leverage existing systems, functionality, and 

available data to submit data to USAspending.gov.6 Specifically, OMB selected a

centralized solution to receive data from select systems and in specified file formats to 

post the data to the Web site: 

x Contract data are imported from the Federal Procurement Data System-Next 

Generation (FPDS-NG), which collects information on contract actions, 

procurement trends, and achievement of socioeconomic goals, such as small 

business participation.7

 OMB was responsible for establishing the system, which is

administered by the General Services Administration (GSA). Since 1980, FPDSNG and its predecessor have been the primary governmentwide contracting 

databases. Federal agencies are responsible for ensuring that the information 

reported in this database is complete and accurate.8

 

6

 OMB, M-08-04. 

7

 FPDS-NG can be accessed at www.fpds.gov. FPDS-NG data and reporting requirements for FPDS-NG are described in Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 4.6. 8

 Because FPDS-NG is a direct source of data for USAspending.gov, we did not compare the data on USAspending.gov with data from 

FPDS-NG when analyzing the extent to which agencies reported applicable awards. 

Page 25 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 21 

Background 

Data Sources for USAspending.gov 

x Data on financial assistance awards (e.g., grants) are provided by agencies

submitting information directly to OMB in a file format called FAADS PLUS. This is

a modified version of the file format used to submit information to the Federal 

Assistance Awards Database System (FAADS), which is administered by the 

Census Bureau. To report information on financial assistance awards to 

USAspending.gov, OMB guidance requires agencies to submit their FAADS PLUS

files directly to the USAspending.gov Web application. 

Page 26 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 22 

Background 

Data Sources for USAspending.gov 

In addition, agencies must separately submit or validate information on certain data

elements required by FFATA: 

x In November 2007, the Treasury Account Symbol was selected to be used as the 

official Program Source (i.e., funding source) for use in USASpending.gov. 

Agencies are to identify these symbols using the Department of the Treasury’s

Federal Account Symbols and Titles (FAST) Book, which contains Treasury 

Account Symbols for each agency and agency-specific program. For assistance 

awards, OMB requires agencies to include Treasury Account Symbols in their 

FFADS PLUS data submissions for each award. However, the FPDS-NG system 

does not currently allow agencies to include program source information as part of 

their contract information submissions. OMB has stated that it is in the process of 

updating the system to allow this. Until FPDS-NG is modified to allow reporting of 

program source data, OMB guidance9 states that agencies should submit this data

using a separate data file. 

 

9

 OMB, M-09-19 and M-08-04. 

Page 27 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 23 

Background 

Additional Award Reporting 

Agencies also report information on federal assistance award programs to other sources

such as the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA). CFDA is a governmentwide 

database of federal programs, projects, services, and activities that provide assistance or 

benefits to the American public. It contains financial and non-financial assistance 

programs administered by departments and establishments of the federal government. 

GSA maintains the CFDA database, and OMB helps to provide oversight of the collection 

of federal domestic assistance program data. 

Page 28 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 24 

Background 

Prior GAO Work 

Since 2003, we have issued several reports on data reliability issues associated with 

FPDS-NG and its predecessor, FPDS. Our reviews of contract award data in these 

systems have revealed inaccurate and incomplete reporting.10 

In 2006, we identified problems with agencies’ reporting of program data to FAADS.

11 We 

found that 44 of 86 economic development programs that we analyzed either did not 

report any funding data or reported incomplete or inaccurate data to FAADS during all or 

part of fiscal years 2002 – 2004. Reasons for these inaccuracies included the Census

Bureau’s inability to ensure that agencies were submitting the data, a lack of knowledge 

among program officials about reporting requirements, and poor oversight and 

coordination at the agencies. 

 

10 GAO, Contract Management: No Reliable Data to Measure Benefits of the Simplified Acquisition Test Program, GAO-03-1068 

(Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2003); Reliability of Federal Procurement Data, GAO-04-295R (Washington, D.C.: December 30, 

2003); and Improvements Needed to the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation, GAO-05-960R (Washington, D.C.: 

September 27, 2005). 11 GAO, Rural Economic Development: More Assurance Is Needed that Grant Funding Information Is Accurately Reported, GAO-06-

294 (Washington, D.C.: February 24, 2006). 

Page 29 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 25 

Background 

Prior GAO Work 

Most recently, at a hearing in September 2009, we testified on weaknesses identified in 

contracting data systems. Specifically, we noted that our past work had found that FPDSNG, in particular, often contains inaccurate data. Further, agencies do not always

document required information or input it into the system.12

To help improve data reliability in FPDS-NG, we recommended that OMB work with 

agencies to implement systems for contract writing13 that connect directly to FPDS-NG 

and provide confirmation of agencies’ review and verification of the accuracy and 

completeness of their data in FPDS-NG. We also recommended that OMB develop a plan 

to improve the system’s ease of use and access to data for governmentwide reporting 

needs. 

 

12 GAO, Federal Contracting: Observations on the Government’s Contracting Data Systems, GAO-09-1032T (Washington, D.C.: 

September 29, 2009). 13 Contract writing systems are computer software that, among other things, allows agencies to report their contracting data

electronically to FPDS-NG through a machine-to-machine interface. The use of contract writing systems is expected to improve the 

reliability of the data in FPDS-NG because it reduces or eliminates separate data entry requirements that could lead to a reporting 

error. 

Page 30 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 26 

Background 

Prior GAO Work 

In response to our recommendations for improving the accuracy and timeliness of 

contract award data, OMB issued a memorandum in August 2004 directing agencies to 

ensure that their contract writing systems could electronically transfer information directly 

to FPDS-NG by the end of fiscal year 2005. Further, in March 2007, OMB issued a

memorandum requiring agencies to regularly certify the accuracy and completeness of 

their information to GSA. In November 2007, May 2008, and June 2009, OMB issued 

additional guidance to agencies that addressed improvements in data quality.14

 

14 OMB M-08-04; OMB, Memorandum for Chief Acquisition Officers, Senior Procurement Executives, and Small Agency Council 

Members: Improving Acquisition Data Quality – FY 2008 FPDS Data (Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2008); and OMB M-09-19. 

Page 31 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 27 

Results 

OMB Compliance 

OMB Has Not Yet Fully Complied with FFATA Requirements 

Although OMB has established a free, public, searchable Web site as required, it has not 

yet satisfied all of the requirements of the act. As described in table 2 below, OMB has

satisfied six requirements we reviewed, partially met one requirement, and has not yet 

met two requirements. 

Table 2: OMB Compliance with FFATA Requirements 

FFATA requirement GAO assessment 

Establish a free, publicly available Web site 

by January 1, 2008 

Met 

OMB launched USAspending.gov, a free, publicly available Web site, in December 2007. 

Capture specific data elements for each 

award 

Met 

The site captures information on all required data elements, such as the entity receiving the 

award and the award amounts. 

Allow searches by each required data

element, provide total dollars awarded by 

recipient, and provide downloadable data

Met 

The site allows searches of data by all required data elements and provides totals for awards

made as well as downloadable data. 

Include awards made in fiscal year 2007 

and after 

Met 

The site includes data for federal awards made in fiscal year 2007 and later, as well as limited 

data from previous years. 

Ensure that information on awards is added 

to the site within 30 days of the award 

Met 

To facilitate timeliness of data available on the Web site, OMB guidance requires agencies to 

submit award data on the 5th and 20th of each month. 

Page 32 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 28 

Results 

OMB Compliance 

FFATA requirement GAO assessment 

Allow for public input about the site’s utility 

and suggestions for improvement 

Met 

The site includes a contact form for public comments and suggestions. 

Commence a pilot program to test 

collection of subaward data and determine 

how to implement a subaward reporting 

program across the federal government, 

beginning no later than July 1, 2007, and 

ending no later than January 1, 2009 

Partially met 

OMB commissioned two pilot programs for collecting subaward data, one at the General 

Services Administration that ran from April 2008 to December 2008, and one at the 

Department of Health and Human Services that ran from October 2008 to November 2008. 

Both pilots were begun after the July 2007 date specified in the act. 

Include subaward data no later than 

January 1, 2009 (An 18-month extension 

can be granted for subaward recipients that 

receive federal funds through state, local, or 

tribal governments if OMB determines that 

compliance would impose an undue burden 

on the subaward recipient.) 

Not met 

Subaward data (e.g., subcontracts and subgrants) are not yet available for searching on 

USAspending.gov. FFATA allows OMB to extend the deadline by 18 months for some 

subaward recipients. However, according to OMB, there is no official extension in place for 

reporting subaward data at this time. In addition, as of November 2009, OMB had not 

developed a specific plan for collecting and reporting subaward data. 

Submit an annual report to the specified 

congressional committees 

Not met 

OMB has not yet submitted the required annual report to Congress containing (1) data on the 

usage of and public feedback on the site, (2) an assessment of the reporting burden on award 

recipients, and (3) an explanation of any extension of the subaward deadline. According to 

OMB officials, it is gathering the necessary information and plans to issue a report in 2010.

Source: GAO analysis. 

Page 33 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 29 

Results 

OMB Compliance 

According to the Director of OMB, the subaward requirements were not fully implemented 

because the previous administration prioritized its efforts toward meeting the award 

reporting requirements, using existing resources to launch the USAspending.gov Web

site. Further, according to OMB, the two pilot programs for collecting subaward data did 

not yield sufficient information to assess the burden that collecting such data would place 

on the recipients. OMB is currently considering various options to further satisfy this

requirement. The options include (1) using federalreporting.gov, a Web site currently used 

to report subaward data on awards funded by the Recovery Act to recovery.gov, and (2) 

using the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System, an Internet-based tool developed 

by GSA and the Small Business Administration for reporting on subcontracting plans. 

However, OMB has not established a deadline for deciding among these options or 

developed a specific plan for implementing FFATA’s subaward reporting requirements. 

Until OMB develops and implements a specific plan for collecting and reporting subaward 

data, it will not fully meet its requirements under FFATA, and the USAspending.gov site 

will be of limited use to those interested in this level of information. 

Page 34 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 30 

Results 

OMB Compliance 

In addition, OMB has not yet produced the required annual report to Congress, which is to 

address, among other things, public feedback on the utility of the site and an assessment 

of the reporting burden on recipients. According to officials responsible for the 

USAspending.gov site, OMB lacked the information required to produce the report. 

However, these officials added, OMB is currently gathering the necessary information and 

plans to release its first report in 2010. 

Page 35 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 31 

Results 

Agency Reporting 

Nine Agencies Did Not Report Federal Assistance Award Data 

As part of its responsibilities under FFATA, OMB is required to ensure that the public Web

site includes data on all applicable federal awards. To gather this information, OMB 

issued guidance requiring agencies to report award data on the 5th and 20th of each 

month. The purpose of reporting twice per month is to facilitate the timeliness and 

completeness of the data available on USAspending.gov. OMB’s guidance also states

that agencies are to ensure that all reporting is complete and accurate. 

Currently, USAspending.gov provides fiscal year 2008 summary information on grants for 

29 agencies. However, USAspending.gov data do not include information on federal 

assistance awards from nine agencies that listed assistance award programs in the 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) during fiscal year 2008. In total, 15 

award programs that were listed in CFDA had no awards reported to USAspending.gov. 

The agencies that did not report these assistance awards included large agencies such 

as GSA and Treasury as well as smaller agencies such as the U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission and the Japan-U.S. Friendship Commission. Table 3 lists agencies and 

awards listed in CFDA but not included in OMB’s USASpending.gov data for fiscal year 

2008.

Page 36 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 32 

Results 

Agency Reporting 

Table 3: Agencies That Did Not Report Awards to USAspending.gov 

Agency Program title 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission Help America Vote College Program 

 Help America Vote Act Requirements

Payments

 Help America Vote Mock Election Program 

Delta Regional Authority Delta Regional Development 

 Delta Area Economic Development 

 Delta Local Development District Assistance 

Department of the Treasury Community Development Financial 

Institutions Program 

 Bank Enterprise Award Program 

U.S. Institute of Peace Annual Grant Competition 

 Priority Grant Competition 

General Services Administration Public Buildings Service 

Broadcasting Board of Governors International Broadcasting Independent 

Grantee Organizations

Denali Commission Denali Commission Program 

Japan-U.S. Friendship Commission Japan-U.S. Friendship Commission Grants

National Labor Relations Board Labor-Management Relations

Source: GAO analysis. 

Page 37 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 33 

Results 

Agency Reporting 

In discussing these awards, agency officials cited various reasons for not reporting them. 

For example, officials with five agencies stated that they did not know whether the award 

should be reported and how to report the award. Also, officials with the Denali 

Commission and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission stated that they relied on 

another source for their reporting and had not realized that the awards were not reported 

to USAspending.gov. At Treasury, officials stated that the agency’s resources were 

devoted to other day-to-day priorities, and in one case, they delayed reporting the award 

because they were uncertain whether the program would be funded in fiscal year 2008. 

GSA officials stated that they did not report one award to USAspending.gov because the 

agency does not normally issue grants, and the grant program was only in effect for one 

year (2008). They further stated that they have not implemented the interface to report 

grants to USAspending.gov via FAADS PLUS because they normally do not issue grants. 

Officials with each of the nine agencies told us that they planned to report future awards, 

as required. 

Page 38 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 34 

Results 

Agency Reporting 

Incomplete reporting by agencies can be attributed in part to OMB not implementing a

process to identify agencies that did not report applicable awards. In late 2007, OMB 

officials said that they planned to compare data submitted to USAspending.gov to other 

sources, such as the CFDA, to identify potential discrepancies. However, OMB has not 

implemented this process. Instead, OMB officials told us, it issued USAspending.gov 

reporting guidance to all federal agencies through normal channels, and relies on 

agencies to follow the guidance. Several agencies that did not report applicable awards

told us they were unaware of OMB’s guidance. Until OMB implements a process that 

better ensures that all agencies report required information, it risks continued gaps that 

limit the utility of the USAspending.gov Web site. 

Page 39 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 35 

Results 

Data Inconsistencies

Inconsistencies Exist Between Agency Records and USAspending.gov Data 

Although OMB guidance states that agencies must ensure that all of their reporting to 

USAspending.gov is complete and accurate,15 in the sample of 100 awards we examined, 

each had at least one data field that was blank, inconsistent with agency records, or for 

which the agency records lacked adequate information to evaluate their consistency with 

the data on USAspending.gov. In 73 of the awards, more than 5 of 17 data fields we 

reviewed had inconsistencies, omissions, or insufficient documentation provided by the 

awarding agency to evaluate data consistency.16

The data fields with the most frequent inconsistencies or omissions included the award 

title and the city where work funded by the award was performed. The data fields with the 

fewest inconsistencies or omissions were funding agency, CFDA number, and the country 

of the recipient and place of performance. Table 4 details the results of our review by data

field. 

 

15 OMB M-09-19. 

16 FFATA specifies 11 data elements; however, certain elements include sub-components, such as place of performance, which 

includes city, state, congressional district, and country. When these sub-components are distinguished, the result is 18 required data

fields, one of which we did not review because OMB derives it from other provided data. 

Page 40 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 36 

Results 

Data Inconsistencies

Table 4: Comparison of Agency Records and USAspending.gov Data 

Data element 

USAspending.gov 

data were

consistent with 

agency records

USAspending.gov 

data were 

inconsistent with 

agency records 

USAspending.gov 

did not include 

values for these 

fields

Agency records 

were insufficient to 

make comparisons 

for these fields 

Title descriptive of the 

award’s purpose 

37 41 0 22 

Recipient: 

Congressional District 

65 15 0 20 

Recipient name 79 12 0 9 

Place of Performance: 

City 

14 18 56 12 

Recipient: City 78 14 0 8 

Place of Performance: 

Congressional District 

66 12 1 21 

Award amount 80 12 0 8 

Recipient: State 85 7 0 8 

NAIC code (for 

contracts) 

65 6 24 5 

Place of Performance: 

State 

80 5 1 14 

Program Source Codea 41 4 55 0 

Transaction type 69 2 0 29 

Page 41 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 37 

Results 

Data Inconsistencies

Data element 

USAspending.gov 

data were

consistent with 

agency records

USAspending.gov 

data were 

inconsistent with 

agency records 

USAspending.gov 

did not include 

values for these 

fields

Agency records 

were insufficient to 

make comparisons 

for these fields 

Recipient unique 

identifier (DUNS) 

32 1 0 67 

Funding agency 92 1 0 7 

Recipient: Country 92 0 0 8 

CFDA number (for 

assistance awards) 

59 0 0 41 

Place of Performance: 

Country 

85 0 1 14 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB and agency data a Program source codes were compared for accuracy to the Treasury Financial Manual (FAST book). Program source codes were considered inconsistent or not having a value if one of the two 

component codes was inconsistent or blank, respectively. 

Page 42 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 38 

Results 

Data Inconsistencies

Agency records lacked adequate information to evaluate the accuracy of at least one 

required field for 93 of the 100 awards in our sample. According to agency officials, 

agency records, such as notices of awards and agency electronic systems, do not 

typically include information on all of the data fields required by FFATA. 

For those awards and data fields where we received sufficient documentation to evaluate 

their accuracy, the data field with the most frequent inconsistencies was the award title, 

41 of which were inconsistent with agency records. FFATA requires award titles that are 

descriptive of the purpose of the funding action. However, while information on the 

purpose of the selected awards was generally available in agency records, most of the 

descriptions on USAspending.gov for the awards we selected did not reflect the 

appropriate level of description. For example, the description for one contract reads

“4506135384!DUMMY LOA,” while the award records indicate that the award is for the 

purchase of metal pipes. Another was described as “Cont Renewals All Types,” while the 

award records indicate the contract was for an apartment building. 

The lack of descriptive titles can be attributed in part to OMB guidance, which does not 

specify that titles provide an adequate description of the purpose, as required by FFATA. 

Unless each award has a descriptive title clearly identifying the purpose of the award, the 

public will not be able to fully determine why the federal award was granted. 

Page 43 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 39 

Results 

Data Inconsistencies

The required field which most often had no data was the field identifying the city where 

the work funded by the award was to be performed, which was blank in 56 of 100 awards. 

Two agencies (accounting for 19 of the 56 awards with no data in this field) told us that 

they had reported the required city of performance information to OMB, but OMB officials

were unaware of any significant issues that would account for the apparent data gaps. 

However, while OMB maintains a page at USAspending.gov that addresses the 

completeness of the agency-submitted data by field,17 this page does not include any 

information on city of performance data, which could account in part for the large number 

of gaps. The OMB official responsible for USAspending.gov told us that OMB is currently 

planning a redesign of the USAspending.gov Web site. As part of this effort, OMB plans

to incorporate additional tools that that are intended to improve completeness, timeliness, 

and accuracy of the information, but these plans have not been finalized. However, if 

OMB does not include all FFATA-required data fields in future reports, its ability to identify 

significant issues with required data will be limited. 

 

17 http://www.usaspending.gov/data/dataquality.php. 

Page 44 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 40 

Results 

Data Inconsistencies

Weaknesses in OMB’s guidance on data validation also likely contributed to the 

inconsistencies and incompleteness in our sample. Although OMB’s guidance specifies

that agency data submissions are to be validated by an appropriate official, it does not 

specify how or by whom the validations should be performed. In addition, it does not 

specify whether agencies should document that the submissions have been validated. 

Only 5 of 17 agencies in our sample provided documentation showing that they had 

validated their assistance award data submissions. As a result, for most agencies, it is

unclear whether or how their assistance data were validated. Until OMB and agencies

ensure that the assistance data reported to USAspending.gov are fully consistent with 

agency records, users of the data will not have accurate information on federal spending, 

as envisioned by FFATA. 

 

Page 45 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 41 

Conclusions 

Fulfilling FFATA’s purpose of increasing transparency and accountability of federal 

expenditures requires that USAspending.gov contain complete and accurate information 

on all applicable federal awards; however, while OMB has taken steps to meet the 

requirements of the act, including establishing a publicly available and searchable Web

site containing data on federal awards, the site does not yet include all the required 

information, including data on subawards, and OMB has not yet developed a specific plan 

for including this data. OMB has also yet to provide a required annual report to Congress, 

but, according to officials, now plans to do so in 2010. 

In addition, while most agencies are reporting award data to USAspending.gov, several 

agencies had not reported federal assistance awards in 2008, but plan to do so in the 

future. While OMB had originally planned to implement a process to identify agencies not 

reporting applicable awards, it has instead relied on agencies to voluntarily follow its

guidance. Without a more effective approach to ensuring that agencies report all 

applicable awards, the utility of the USASpending.gov site is likely to continue to be 

impaired. 

Page 46 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 42 

Conclusions 

Finally, numerous omissions and inconsistencies exist in the data reported to 

USAspending.gov. These inconsistencies and omissions reinforce existing concerns

about the reliability of systems agencies use to report award data and the information 

they contain. These weaknesses are attributable, in part, to a lack of clear guidance on 

appropriate award titles and data validation. In addition, OMB’s efforts to encourage 

agencies to report timely and complete information through public reporting of the 

completeness of agency data submissions have been hindered by the lack of information 

on the city where award work is to be performed. Until OMB and agencies better ensure 

that complete and accurate information is included on USAspending.gov, the Web site will 

be of limited usefulness in providing the public with a comprehensive view into the details

of federal spending and for increasing the transparency and accountability of the 

government for how it spends taxpayer dollars. 

Page 47 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 43 

Recommendations for Executive Action 

To improve the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of all data submissions to OMB’s

USAspending Web site, we recommend that the Director of OMB take the following 

actions: 

x develop and implement a specific plan for the collection and reporting of subaward 

data, including a timeframe for including subaward data on USAspending.gov; 

x develop and implement a process to regularly ensure that all federal agencies

report required award information to USAspending.gov; 

x revise guidance to federal agencies on reporting federal awards to clarify 

o the requirement that award titles describe the award’s purpose and 

o requirements for validating and documenting agency award data submitted by 

federal agencies; and 

x include information on the city where work is performed in OMB’s public reporting 

of the completeness of agency data submissions. 

Page 48 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 44 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

In oral comments on a draft of this briefing, officials with OMB’s Office of E-Government 

and Information Technology suggested that the administration’s recent open government 

initiative would address some of the concerns we raised about the quality of data on 

USAspending.gov. Among other things, this directive, which was issued on December 8, 

2009,18 requires agencies to designate a high-level senior official to be accountable for 

the quality and objectivity of, and internal controls over, the federal spending information 

publicly disseminated through such public venues as USAspending.gov or other similar 

Web sites. The directive also states that OMB plans to issue additional guidance 

regarding agency data plans, internal controls over data quality, and a longer-term 

strategy for federal spending transparency. If this guidance is issued as planned and 

effectively implemented, it could help improve the overall quality of federal spending data. 

Nevertheless, OMB action is still needed to address our specific recommendations to 

improve the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of data currently submitted to the 

USAspending.gov Web site. 

OMB also made a technical comment, which we incorporated. 

 

18 OMB M-10-06. 

Page 49 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix I: Briefing to Congressional Staffs 

on Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 

 45 

 Attachment I 

List of Departments and Agencies in GAO Sample 

Department of Commerce 

Department of Defense 

Department of Education 

Department of Energy 

Department of Health and Human Services

Department of Homeland Security 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Department of Justice 

Department of the Interior 

Department of the Treasury 

Department of Transportation 

Department of Veterans Affairs

Export-Import Bank of the United States

General Services Administration 

National Science Foundation 

Small Business Administration 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Page 50 GAO-10-365 Electronic Government
Appendix II: 

S

GAO Contact and 

taff Acknowledgments

Page 51 GAO-10-365 

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

David A. Powner, (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov. 

In addition to the individual named above, James R. Sweetman, Jr., 

Assistant Director; Pamlutricia Greenleaf; Emily Longcore; Lee 

McCracken; and Kate Nielsen made key contributions to this report. 

 Electronic Government 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(311228) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

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

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 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 Web site, 

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. 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

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

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

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

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

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper