Report to Congressional Requesters

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO 

February 2006 FEDERAL CONTACT 

CENTERS 

Mechanism for 

Sharing Metrics and 

Oversight Practices 

along with Improved 

Data Needed 

GAO-06-270 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-270.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact William T. 

Woods at (202) 512-8214 or 

woodsw@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-06-270, a report to 

congressional requesters 

February 2006

FEDERAL CONTACT CENTERS

Mechanism for Sharing Metrics and 

Oversight Practices along with Improved 

Data Needed 

The contracts and oversight practices for the contact centers of the six 

agencies reviewed, which handle millions of inquiries annually, varied 

significantly regarding the emphasis they placed on providing accurate 

information to the public. Although federal policy for disseminating 

information to the public specifically emphasizes accuracy, only four of the 

six agencies include accuracy as a performance metric in their contracts. 

With respect to oversight, only two of the six agencies used all four of the 

accuracy-related oversight practices we identified—regular knowledge 

database reviews, regular contact monitoring, postcontact customer 

satisfaction surveys, and validation of contractor reports. Although each 

agency used some form of oversight to assess the accuracy of the 

information provided by its contact center, each agency differed regarding 

how it implemented these practices. 

There is no governmentwide guidance or standards for operating contact 

centers—including guidance on specifying accuracy as a contract 

performance metric or as a key focus for oversight. Some agencies indicated 

that had federal guidance been available, it would have helped them 

establish performance indicators and develop oversight policies and 

practices. Recognizing the need for operational standards for contact 

centers, an interagency working group recently proposed draft guidelines to 

OMB and other federal agencies, but OMB has no plans to issue these 

guidelines or any standards for use by agencies. Additionally, until recently 

the federal government had not collected data on the universe of federal 

contact centers. OMB and GSA attempted to collect data on the number, 

types, and costs of federal contact centers in 2004, but the data collected 

were incomplete. In addition, no governmentwide procurement information 

was reported to the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) in fiscal years 

2000 through 2004 using the reporting code for telephone call centers, which 

OMB said is the appropriate code for contact centers. The five agencies we 

reviewed that report data to FPDS used a variety of different codes, some 

because they believe that the telephone call center code is too narrow to 

cover the services of their multichannel contact centers. 

Agency Oversight Practices Used for Ensuring Accuracy of Information

Agency 

Regular 

knowledge 

database 

review 

Regular

contact 

monitoring 

Postcontact 

customer 

satisfaction 

surveys 

Validation of 

contractor 

reports 

CDC planned √ planned √

DOD-TMA North √ 

DOL √ √ 

Education √ √

GSA √ √ √ √

USPS √ √ √ √

Source: GAO analysis. 

Federal agencies have increasingly 

relied on contact centers—centers 

handling inquiries via multiple 

channels such as telephone, Web 

page, e-mail, and postal mail—as a 

key means of communicating with 

the public. Many of these centers 

are contractor-operated. Concerns 

exist about the accuracy of 

responses provided through 

contractor-operated centers. 

This report examines (1) the extent 

to which the contract terms and 

oversight practices for contact 

centers at selected agencies 

emphasize the importance of 

providing accurate information to 

the public, and (2) whether 

guidance for the operation of 

contact centers and basic 

information needed to provide 

general oversight exist. GAO 

reviewed one contractor-operated 

contact center at each of six 

agencies: the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC), 

General Services Administration 

(GSA), U.S. Postal Service (USPS), 

and the Departments of Defense, 

Labor, and Education (DOD, DOL, 

and Education). 

What GAO Recommends

GAO makes recommendations to 

the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) and GSA to improve 

the sharing of metrics and 

oversight practices for contact 

centers, and to improve data 

reporting on contracts for these 

services. OMB and GSA concurred 

with our recommendations. 
Page i GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4 

Background 5 

Emphasis on Providing Accurate Information to the Public Varies 7 

Governmentwide Guidance and Information on Contact Centers 

Do Not Exist 12 

Conclusions 17 

Recommendations for Executive Action 17 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 18 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 21 

Appendix II Contact Center Profiles for Six Agencies Reviewed 24 

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Defense 27 

Appendix IV Comments from the General Services Administration 32 

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Health & Human 

Services 36 

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 38 

Appendix VII Related GAO Products 39 

Tables 

Table 1: Agency Contact Centers Reviewed 3 

Table 2: Summary of Key Performance Metrics in Agency Contracts 8 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

Table 3: Description of Oversight Practices for Ensuring Accuracy 

of Information 9 

Table 4: Agency Oversight Practices Used for Ensuring Accuracy of 

Information 10 

Table 5: NAICS Codes Used for Contact Center Contracts 

Reviewed 16 

Table 6: Contact Center Profiles for Agencies Reviewed 24 

Abbreviations 

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

DOD Department of Defense 

DOL Department of Labor 

FPDS Federal Procurement Data System 

GSA General Services Administration 

NAICS North American Industry Classification System 

OFPP Office of Federal Procurement Policy 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

TMA TriCare Management Activity 

USPS U.S. Postal Service 

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

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

February 8, 2006 

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Government Reform 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Edolphus Towns 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Government Management, 

 Finance, and Accountability 

Committee on Government Reform 

House of Representatives 

Each year millions of citizens contact the government for information 

critical to their health, finances, or general well-being. In recent years, 

federal agencies have increasingly relied on contact centers—centers 

handling inquiries via multiple channels such as telephone, Web page, email, and postal mail—as an important means of communicating with the 

general public. This was demonstrated most recently during the response 

to Hurricane Katrina. One of the principal ways the federal government 

delivers results, according to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), is by providing timely and accurate information to citizens.1

Improving access to high-quality government information and services is 

an important focus for OMB’s current electronic government initiative, 

which is an element of the President’s Management Agenda. Information 

provided to the public can be evaluated by various measures, including 

accuracy, timeliness, completeness, courtesy, and overall customer 

service satisfaction. OMB guidance specifies accuracy as one of the basic 

elements of quality for information provided by agencies to the public.2

Incorrect information provided in a fast and courteous manner may be 

satisfying initially, but in the long run, it may be of little use or could be 

detrimental to the individual. 

 1

 Office of Management and Budget, Expanding E-Government: Partnering for a ResultsOriented Government, (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 2004). 

2

 Office of Management and Budget, Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the 

Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal 

Agencies, Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 36 (Feb. 22, 2002). 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

Many agencies have contracted with private sector firms to operate 

contact centers. Recent GAO reports identified high error rates in the 

accuracy of policy-oriented responses given to the public through one 

contractor-operated contact center.3

 In this context, you asked us to 

review how agencies are overseeing their contractor-operated contact 

centers to ensure that they provide accurate information to the public. 

Specifically, we (1) identified the extent to which the contract terms and 

oversight practices for selected agencies’ contractor-operated contact 

centers emphasize the importance of providing accurate information to 

the public, and (2) determined whether guidance for the operation of 

contact centers and basic information needed to provide general oversight 

exist. 

To identify contract terms and oversight practices for contact centers, we 

selected one contact center at each of six agencies. We selected centers 

that handle over 1 million inquiries annually and provide information to 

citizens that could significantly affect their finances, health, or safety.4

Table 1 lists the contact centers we selected for our review and the main 

public inquiry issues they handle. 

 3

 GAO, Medicare: Accuracy of Responses from the 1-800-MEDICARE Help Line Should Be 

Improved, GAO-05-130 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 8, 2004); GAO, Medicare: Call Centers Need 

to Improve Responses to Policy-Oriented Questions from Providers, GAO-04-669 

(Washington, D.C.: Jul. 16, 2004). 

4

 One agency we selected for our review—the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention—is in its first year of a 4-year consolidation of workloads. The contact center is 

projected to receive an estimated 2.7 million inquiries annually when it is fully operational. 
Page 3 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

Table 1: Agency Contact Centers Reviewed 

Agency Contact center Public inquiry issues handled 

Department of Defense (DOD) TriCare 

Management Activity (TMA) North regiona

Healthnet’s contact center Medical benefit coverage, enrollments, and 

claims processing 

Department of Education (Education) Federal Student Aid Information 

Center 

Aid application status and loan issues 

Department of Health and Human Services’ 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC) 

CDC INFO contact center Disease prevention, detection, and outbreak 

control information 

Department of Labor (DOL) National Contact Center Job issues, workplace safety, pension and 

health benefits 

General Services Administration (GSA) National Contact Center General information and referrals for any 

government program; orders for government 

publications 

U.S. Postal Service (USPS) National Contact Center Mail delivery and shipping issues 

Source: GAO. 

a

DOD TMA is divided into three separate contract service regions—North, South, and West. 

For each of these centers, we interviewed agency officials and reviewed 

the contract terms and performance measures, as well as the policies, 

procedures, reports, and tools used to oversee and evaluate the 

contractors’ operation of the contact centers. In addition, we visited four 

contractor-operated centers to observe their operations and quality 

control procedures. We did not independently assess the operations of the 

contact centers or evaluate the effectiveness of the contractors’ quality 

control processes. We identified industry practices for ensuring the 

accuracy of information provided by contact centers and interviewed 

representatives from two major contact center industry groups. 

To determine the guidance provided to agencies and the information 

gathered by the federal government about contact centers, we interviewed 

OMB and GSA officials and reviewed OMB guidance, the results of OMB’s 

request for information from federal agencies about their centers, GSA’s 

baseline survey of a sample of agencies’ centers, and data from the Federal 

Procurement Data System (FPDS). We also reviewed the report of the 

GSA-sponsored interagency working group—the Citizen Service Levels 

Interagency Committee—that developed potential standards for federal 

contact centers. Appendix I includes a more detailed discussion of our 

scope and methodology, and appendix II contains additional details on the 

six contact centers we reviewed. Our work was conducted from February 

through November 2005 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 
Page 4 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

The contracts and oversight practices six agencies used for their 

contractor-operated contact centers varied significantly regarding the 

emphasis they placed on providing accurate information to the public. 

Although federal policy for disseminating information to the public 

specifically emphasizes accuracy, only four of the six agencies’ contracts 

explicitly include accuracy as a performance metric. Each agency we 

reviewed used some form of oversight to assess the accuracy of the 

information provided by its contact center, but only two of the six 

agencies used all four of the accuracy-related oversight practices we 

identified, such as contact monitoring and independent review of 

contractor performance reports. Each agency differed regarding how it 

implemented the various practices. For example, some agencies monitor 

calls only on an ad hoc basis, whereas others use a more structured 

system of monitoring to ensure accuracy. This variance was due to a 

number of factors, such as differences among the agencies in staffing 

levels, funding, and the use of guidance specific to the agency. 

There is no governmentwide guidance or standards for operating contact 

centers—including guidance on including accuracy as a contract 

performance metric or as a focus for oversight. Some agencies indicated 

that had federal guidance been available, it would have helped them 

establish performance indicators for service quality, identify the most 

effective contract types and provisions, and develop oversight policies and 

practices. Recognizing the need for operational standards, an interagency 

working group recently proposed draft guidelines to federal agencies and 

OMB. Officials at OMB have reviewed the proposed guidelines but do not 

plan to issue any governmentwide guidance at this time; they believe 

agencies can refer to the proposed guidelines for guidance. Additionally, 

until recently the federal government has not collected data on the 

universe of federal contact centers that could be used in oversight of their 

operations. In 2004, OMB and GSA attempted to collect data on the 

number, types, and costs of federal contact centers. The data collected are 

incomplete, however, because OMB did not follow up with nonresponding 

agencies and the survey GSA used to collect the data had methodological 

flaws. In addition, each of the agencies we reviewed that reported 

information to FPDS chose a different reporting code for its contact 

center. None of the agencies used the code that OMB says covers contact 

center services because at least some of the agencies believe the code is 

limited to telephone services. OMB is considering issuing a clarification to 

the description of the code to explain that the code includes not just 

telephones, but also Web sites, e-mails, facsimiles, and so forth, in its next 

update to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

manual. 

Results in Brief 
Page 5 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

This report contains recommendations to OMB and GSA that are intended 

to promote the sharing of metrics and oversight practices for contact 

center operations and to ensure that governmentwide data gathered on 

contact centers provide reliable information. OMB and three of the six 

agencies whose centers we reviewed provided comments on a draft of this 

report. OMB, CDC, and GSA concurred with our recommendations. DOD 

did not concur with our draft report because it believed that we did not 

describe all the efforts taken to ensure the accuracy of its contact center 

information. We recognize that DOD takes steps, through its contractor 

and otherwise, to ensure the accuracy of its contact center information. 

Nevertheless, we found no specific performance metric in the contract 

itself regarding accuracy, and we believe our report correctly depicts 

DOD’s use of the oversight practices we identified. 

In 2001, the President announced his management agenda for making the 

government more focused on citizens and results, which included 

expanding Electronic Government (E-Government). The President’s EGovernment Strategy identified several governmentwide initiatives with a 

goal of eliminating redundant systems and significantly improving the 

government’s quality of customer service for citizens and businesses. The 

expected results of the E-Government initiative include providing highquality customer service regardless of whether a citizen contacts an 

agency by phone, in person, or on the worldwide Web. The E-Government 

Act of 2002 codified the President’s E-Government initiatives and 

expanded OMB’s leadership role by establishing the Office of EGovernment and Information Technology within OMB.5

 The act also 

requires that agencies comply with OMB E-Guidance. One of the 24 

presidential E-Government initiatives is developing and deploying 

governmentwide citizen customer service using industry best practices 

that will provide citizens with timely, consistent responses about 

government information and services via e-mail, telephone, Internet, and 

publications. 

By congressional direction, OMB also is responsible for establishing and 

issuing governmentwide guidelines to federal agencies for ensuring the 

quality of the information disseminated to the public.6

 In response to this 

 5

 E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, Section 101 (December 17, 2002). The U.S. 

Postal Service considers itself exempt from this act. 

6

 Consolidated Appropriations Act 2001, Public Law 106-554, Section 515 (December 21, 

2000). 

Background 
Page 6 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

direction, OMB issued guidance to agencies in February 2002 that defined 

the quality of information to include accuracy as one of its fundamental 

elements and directed agencies to develop procedures for reviewing and 

substantiating the quality of their information before dissemination. 7

Contact centers are one method agencies use to disseminate information 

to the public. In the past, public inquiries to the government were often 

made by telephone and thus federal agencies began establishing call 

centers. With evolving technology, citizen inquiries to the government 

now come through various channels such as e-mails, Web-based forms, 

facsimiles, Web chat rooms, and traditional postal mail. As a result, 

agencies have established multichannel contact centers to handle these 

inquiries.8

 Contact centers rely on automated and live telephone response 

systems, Web site technologies, and trained customer service 

representatives to provide information to the public. For contractoroperated contact centers, the agency typically provides either scripted 

responses or the content from which the contractor creates its own 

scripted responses. The scripts are used for the prerecorded telephone 

response systems, Web pages, and preformatted responses given by the 

customer service representatives. Contact centers are staffed in tiers by 

generalist or specialist representatives or a combination of both. Usually, 

Tier 1 staff handle general information inquiries and direct more complex 

or personal issues to specialized Tier 2 or Tier 3 staff or to the agency’s 

subject matter experts. 

One method for obtaining information on the contact centers that are 

operated by contractors on behalf of the government is to review data 

from FPDS. FPDS is used to report individual procurement transactions, 

which include the industrial classification of the goods and services 

procured by the federal government. FPDS was implemented by OMB’s 

Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) in 1978 in response to the 

Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act of 1974 requirement of 

establishing a system for collecting and developing information about 

federal procurement contracts.9

 Since 1982, GSA has administered FPDS 

on OFPP’s behalf. In 2003, the system was revised and is now called FPDS-

 7

 Federal Register, volume 67, number 36, pages 8452–8460, February 22, 2002. 

8

 See appendix IV for a list of GAO reports concerning call and contact centers. 

9

 Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act of 1974, Public Law 93-400 (August 30,1974). 
Page 7 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

Next Generation.10 A wide range of users, including those with the 

executive and legislative branches, rely on FPDS data for information on 

agency contracting actions, governmentwide procurement trends, and 

achievement of goals related to small business. 

The six agencies we reviewed emphasized accuracy of contact center 

information to varying degrees through the quality assurance mechanisms 

of their contracts and various oversight practices. Four of the six included 

a specific metric to measure contractor performance related to providing 

accurate information to the public, but only one of the six used all four of 

the oversight practices we identified—such as actively monitoring 

contacts—to ensure that accurate information is provided to the public. 

Each of the six agencies we reviewed specified key performance metrics 

that its contractor is required to meet. These performance metrics define 

the minimum level of quality acceptable to the agency and provide the 

basis against which the contractor is to be evaluated. We found that four 

of the six agencies’ contracts included accuracy of information in one or 

more of the key performance metrics. The remaining two agencies did not 

have specific metrics that addressed the need to provide accurate 

information to the public. Table 2 summarizes the key performance 

metrics specified in the contracts we reviewed and indicates through 

shading those that specifically address providing accurate information. 

 10 GAO, Improvements Needed to the Federal Procurement Data System-Next 

Generation, GAO-05-960R, (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2005). 

Emphasis on 

Providing Accurate 

Information to the 

Public Varies 

Most Agencies’ Contract 

Metrics Include Accuracy, 

but Some Did Not 
Page 8 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

Table 2: Summary of Key Performance Metrics in Agency Contracts 

Agency Key performance metrics 

CDC • Quality of service—accuracy and completeness of response and customer service skills 

• Customer satisfaction—point value based on monthly average of survey respondents providing favorable 

rating 

• Cost management—efficiency of operational costs 

• Business performance—ability to collaborate with other related contractors 

DOD-TMA • Busy signals—required percentage of calls received without busy signal 

• Hold time—limit to the number of seconds of hold time during the call 

DOL • Quality of service—accuracy of response and customer service skills 

• Staff occupancy—Minimum percentage of time that customer service representatives are actively handling 

inquiries 

• First contact resolution—required percentage of contacts resolved during first contact 

• Service level—percentage of calls answered within specified number of seconds 

• Average speed of answer—required percentage of calls answered within specific number of seconds 

• Abandonment rate—minimum percentage of calls that disconnect before being handled by the automated 

system or a customer service representative 

• All trunks busy—minimum percentage of time all telephone trunk lines are busy 

• Percentage of calls completed in Interactive Voice Response system—minimum percentage of calls handled 

by the automated response system 

• Customer satisfaction—percentage of survey respondents providing favorable rating 

• Hold time—limit to the number of seconds of hold time while waiting in call queue 

Education • Accuracy of agent answer on calls/e-mails/online live help/facsimile—required percentage without errors 

• Customer satisfaction—percentage of survey respondents providing favorable rating 

• Average speed of answer—required percentage of calls answered within specific number of seconds while 

maintaining minimal abandonment rate 

GSA • Accuracy of agent answer on calls/e-mails/postal/facsimile—required percentage without errors 

• Knowledge base audits—number of knowledge pieces reviewed that meet accuracy checks 

• Customer satisfaction—percentage of survey respondents providing favorable rating on automated surveys 

at end of call, outbound call surveys, and e-mail surveys; required percentage increase in the number of 

survey respondents providing favorable ratings each quarter 

• Average speed of answer—required percentage of calls answered within specific number of seconds and emails/postal/faxes/orders responded to within specific number of business days 

• Service availability—required percentage of time that services are available to the public 

USPS • First contact resolution—required percentage of inquiries resolved during first contact (call/e-mail/postal/fax) 

• Service level—required percentage of calls answered within specific number of seconds 

• Customer satisfaction—percentage of survey respondents providing favorable rating on automated surveys 

at end of call, outbound call surveys, and e-mail surveys 

Source: GAO analysis of agencies’ contracts. 

Note: Shaded metrics are those that specifically address accuracy of information. 
Page 9 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

The Federal Acquisition Regulation requires agencies to perform and 

document oversight of their contractors’ performance to ensure the 

government receives high-quality services as specified in the contract.11

Agency oversight provides quality assurance independent of the 

contractors’ own quality control processes. Although each agency 

employed some oversight practices, only two of the six agencies we 

reviewed used all four of the oversight practices we identified for ensuring 

that accurate information is provided to the public. Each agency 

emphasized accuracy of information to varying degrees within its 

practices. 

On the basis of our review of industry contact center practices and the 

practices employed by the agencies considered leaders in government 

contact centers, we identified four agency oversight practices related to 

ensuring that accurate information is provided to the public via a 

contractor-operated contact center.12 Table 3 describes the four accuracyrelated oversight practices. 

Table 3: Description of Oversight Practices for Ensuring Accuracy of Information 

Oversight practice Description 

Regular knowledge database 

management 

Regular review of the information used by customer service representatives to respond to 

inquiries, known in the industry as the “knowledge database;” “regular” is defined as occurring 

at least annually 

Regular contact monitoring Regular reviews of the information provided in calls or e-mails to evaluate how well the 

customer service representatives handled the inquiry; the evaluation typically uses a score 

sheet that allows the reviewer to rate the customer service representatives in multiple areas, 

such as courtesy, accuracy of information provided, timeliness, completeness, and so forth; 

“regular” is defined as occurring at least on a weekly basis 

Postcontact customer satisfaction 

surveys 

Surveys asking if the individual was satisfied with the service received from the contact center; 

survey questions ask about the individual’s opinions, including, to a limited extent, whether the 

information received was accurate; “postcontact” surveys refer to those initiated by the agency 

subsequent to the initial contact and do not include self-selected surveys available at the end 

of a telephone conversation 

Validation of contractor reports Validating the data provided in contractor-prepared reports to ensure accuracy; these reports,

which could be provided daily, weekly, monthly, or quarterly, include operational information 

such as the center’s workload volumes, transaction handling times, and results of the 

contractor’s contact monitoring 

Source: GAO analysis based on review of industry practices and discussions with officials from the agencies we reviewed. 

 11 Federal Acquisition Regulation, at Sections 37.602-2 and 46.104 (July 2005). 

12 Some of the agencies we reviewed indicated that training is also a key part of ensuring 

accuracy. However, since training was provided as part of the contractors’ quality control 

processes, we did not consider it an oversight practice. 

Agencies’ Contractor 

Oversight Practices Vary 
Page 10 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

The first two practices, knowledge database management and agency 

contact monitoring, provide direct oversight regarding accuracy of 

information, because they focus on detecting inaccuracies in the source 

information used to provide responses to the public and in the actual 

responses provided by the customer service representatives. The 

remaining two practices, customer satisfaction surveys and validation of 

contractor-prepared reports, are more indirect methods of ensuring 

accuracy in that they review customers’ reactions to the information 

provided and independent agency corroboration of the contractor’s 

reporting on its own quality procedures. The agencies we reviewed varied 

with respect to how they implemented these practices. This variance was 

due to a number of factors, such as differences among the agencies in 

staffing levels, funding, and the use of guidance specific to the agency. 

Table 4 shows the extent to which the six agencies we reviewed employ 

each of the accuracy-related oversight practices. 

Table 4: Agency Oversight Practices Used for Ensuring Accuracy of Information 

 Agency oversight practices 

Agency 

Regular knowledge 

database review 

Regular contact 

monitoring 

Postcontact customer 

satisfaction surveys 

 Validation of 

contractor reports 

CDC √ √

 Planned Daily by third-party 

contractor 

Planned By third-party 

contractor 

DOD-TMA North √ 

 

DOL √ √ 

 Continuous basis Weekly 

Education √ √ 

 Annually Weekly 

GSA √ √ √ √

 Continuous basis Weekly On publication orders 

USPS √ √ √ √

 Continuous basis Weekly With third-party 

contractor assistance

Source: GAO analysis. 
Page 11 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

Most of the agencies we reviewed had a structured process for ensuring 

accurate information is maintained in the knowledge database. DOL, 

Education, GSA, and USPS approve contractor-developed information that 

is created based on government-provided materials. These agencies then 

perform periodic reviews of the information in the knowledge database. 

CDC currently prepares all scripted responses and Web site information, 

which the contractor is required to use, and plans to implement annual 

reviews of the knowledge database, starting at the first anniversary of 

operation in February 2006. TMA allows the contractor to develop 

information based on material TMA provides, but does not review the 

information used by the contractor to respond to public inquires. DOD 

said that TMA relies on the expertise and skills of its contractor to provide 

the required services. 

Almost all of the agencies we reviewed perform regular monitoring of the 

contractor’s responses to the public to help assess whether accurate 

information is provided. CDC, DOL, Education, GSA, and USPS each 

monitor a number of contacts on a regular basis, although accuracy of 

information is addressed to varying degrees in the score sheets. For 

example, accuracy is clearly weighted as an important aspect of the call in 

CDC’s score sheet. Therefore if an inaccurate answer is provided, the 

contractor “fails” for that call and the customer service representative is 

counseled. On the other hand, Education’s score sheet does not clearly 

weight accuracy of information. Education and its contractor staff could 

not explain how providing inaccurate information on a call would be 

indicated on the monitoring score sheet. In addition to giving different 

weights to accuracy, the five agencies also vary in terms of the frequency 

with which they monitor their contacts. Education and USPS each employ 

one full-time staff to monitor a selection of the contact centers’ contacts. 

CDC has a third-party contractor monitor the contact center on a daily 

basis and uses this assessment in the determination of the contractor’s 

award fee. GSA staff monitor a sample of calls on a weekly basis and 

started performing quarterly audits of the contractor’s monitoring efforts 

in November 2005. The sixth center, TMA, only monitors calls on an ad 

hoc basis when officials visit the contact center. 

Three of the agencies we reviewed conduct customer satisfaction surveys 

subsequent to the initial contact from an individual. GSA, TMA, and USPS 

conduct customer satisfaction surveys, which ask, to limited degrees, 

questions that address the accuracy of information provided. While 

providing some level of insight regarding accuracy, customer surveys may 

not always provide a valid basis for oversight of the accuracy of 

information, since they usually ask the individual’s opinion on the service 

Oversight Practice 1: 

Regular Knowledge Database 

Reviews 

Oversight Practice 2: 

Regular Agency Contact 

Monitoring 

Oversight Practice 3: 

Postcontact Customer 

Satisfaction Surveys 
Page 12 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

provided. If the survey is conducted too closely to the time of the inquiry, 

the individual may not have had time to act upon the information to know 

whether it is accurate or not. CDC plans to implement three types of 

postcontact customer satisfaction surveys through a third-party contractor 

beginning in June 2006. DOL does not conduct postcontact surveys 

because it does not maintain personal information on the individuals that 

contact the agency. 

Three of the six agencies we reviewed take steps to validate the 

information in the contractor-prepared reports related to contact center 

performance. These reports generally include some aspects related to 

accuracy of information provided to the public, such as the contractor’s 

results of its monitoring of contacts. CDC and USPS validate to some 

degree the reports provided by the contractor. GSA conducts quarterly 

audits of its contractor’s supporting data. Although DOL, Education, and 

TMA review their contractor reports, they rely upon the reports without 

validation. According to GAO’s standards for internal control in the federal 

government, good internal control practices require that agencies validate 

the performance reports provided by the contractor to ensure the 

information is valid.13

The federal government does not have comprehensive, centralized 

guidance for operating a contact center or for overseeing a contractoroperated center. Although operation and oversight of contact centers are 

the responsibility of individual agencies, GSA, in consultation with OMB, 

determined that governmentwide standards would be useful. GSA 

sponsored an interagency committee that recently provided draft 

guidelines for operating federal contact centers to OMB and other federal 

agencies. However, OMB told us it does not plan to issue any 

governmentwide guidance based on the committee’s recommended 

guidelines at this time, because OMB has not identified the operation of 

contact centers as an area of concern. Furthermore, until recently, no 

governmentwide information specific to contact centers has been 

collected. Initial attempts to gather governmentwide information about the 

number and type of activities that agencies use to provide public 

information proved to be inadequate for providing a comprehensive 

 13 GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999); Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, 

GAO-01-1008G (Washington, D.C.: August 2001). 

Oversight Practice 4: 

Validation of Contractor 

Reports 

Governmentwide 

Guidance and 

Information on 

Contact Centers Do 

Not Exist 
Page 13 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

governmentwide view of contact centers. In addition, officials from the 

agencies we reviewed told us that no industry classification code in FPDS 

currently covers the full range of services provided by a contact center. 

In its 2004 report on the electronic government initiative, OMB highlighted 

the importance of delivering timely and accurate information to the public 

and stated that there are opportunities to apply existing and emerging best 

practices to achieve increases in productivity and delivery of services and 

information.14 To date, however, OMB has established only limited 

guidance on preferred practices at contact centers. The only OMB 

guidance15 we found that specifically related to contact centers is focused 

on the use of performance-based contracting for such services.16 This 

guidance is dated and limited in its coverage and does not provide 

guidance on performance metrics for contact centers or oversight 

practices. 

Because of the need for governmentwide standards for operating contact 

centers, GSA in consultation with OMB, took the initiative to form an 

interagency working group to propose guidelines to OMB and other 

federal agencies. Formed in March 2005, the Citizen Service Levels 

Interagency Committee is composed of 58 contact service representatives 

from 33 executive branch agencies. In addition to relying on their 

knowledge in running contact centers, the committee also had a 

contractor perform two studies to provide insight on citizens’ expectations 

when contacting government agencies for information and current 

industry metrics, benchmarks, and best practices for operating contact 

centers. The committee submitted a report with 37 proposed standards for 

operating contact centers to OMB in September 2005, including four 

standards specifically related to ensuring accuracy. The committee plans 

to continue to work on additional contact center issues and to help 

agencies implement any contact center standards that OMB might 

 14 Office of Management and Budget, Expanding E-Government: Partnering for a ResultsOriented Government, (Washington, D.C.: December 2004). 

15 Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Performance-Based Concepts for Telephone Call 

Center Contracting, (Washington, D.C.: 1997).

16 Performance-based contracts specify the desired outcomes and allow the contractors to 

determine how best to achieve those outcomes, rather than prescribe the methods 

contractors should use. Performance-based contracts can encourage contractors to be 

innovative and to find cost-effective ways of delivering services. 

Limited Federal Guidance 

for Operating and 

Overseeing ContractorOperated Contact Centers 
Page 14 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

endorse. In October 2005, OMB officials stated that they had reviewed the 

committee’s report but did not plan to issue any governmentwide guidance 

based on the committee’s recommended guidelines at this time, because 

OMB has not identified the operation of contact centers as an area of 

concern. OMB stated further that if agencies need additional guidance in 

developing their standards, they can refer to the committee’s report. 

The agencies we reviewed each performed independent research to 

develop their contracts and formulate a management strategy for 

operating their contact centers. Performing independent research resulted 

in duplication of efforts across agencies, using limited resources and 

taking valuable time. For example, to develop guidance, the Department of 

Education performed market research, worked with a contractor on 

customer services and related standards, and studied industry best 

practices on a limited basis. Similarly, CDC sent out a request for 

information to industry to gain insight on the technology available for 

operating contact centers before it developed its contract. CDC then 

performed market research, reviewed industry practices, and visited other 

government contact centers, such as that of the Social Security 

Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to 

learn about the practices of government- and contractor-operated centers. 

In 2004, GSA created a multiple-award contract called FirstContact to 

assist agencies in contracting for contact center services. Under this 

multiple-award contract, agencies can issue a task order to any of five 

preapproved contractors to operate a contact center. Using FirstContact 

will minimize the time and effort required of agencies to locate a 

contractor to manage their centers. To date, the Department of Homeland 

Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency, GSA, and the 

Department of Health and Human Services have placed six task orders 

against this contract, and three other agencies are looking to place orders 

as well. For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

recently used this contract vehicle to quickly provide contact center 

services for the influx of calls and applications for government assistance 

in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Although agencies now have this 

multiple-award contract as a mechanism to assist them in contracting for 

contact center service, they still must develop specific performance 

metrics and oversight practices specific to their center. 

Given the lack of governmentwide information on the activities that 

provide information to the public, OMB made an initial attempt to collect 

such data in 2004. For this effort, OMB issued a data request to all 

executive branch agencies to obtain basic data, such as the contact center 

Governmentwide Data on 

Contact Centers Do Not 

Exist 
Page 15 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

name, volume of contacts, and whether performance and cost metrics are 

collected, for every activity that provides information directly to the 

public. OMB normally uses data requests as a census tool to acquire a 

snapshot of the current budget environment of the government. Agencies 

responded by self-identifying over 1,800 activities that currently provide 

information to citizens using various communication channels such as 

telephone, e-mail, and Internet Web sites. The individual activities 

identified ranged in size from a couple of employees who answer 

telephone calls as part of their duties to contact centers with staffs of 

several hundred employees who handle millions of inquiries through 

several channels. Of the 1,800 activities identified, over 500 categorized 

themselves as contact centers. Since it was making a nonstandard data 

request, OMB performed little follow-up on nonresponding agencies and 

did not verify reported results. We noted that some large agencies, such as 

DOD, did not report any activities that provide information to the public. 

In an effort to expand on the information collected through the OMB data 

request, GSA surveyed 360 activities—approximately a quarter of those 

who responded to the data request—to develop a baseline snapshot of 

governmentwide activities providing information to the public. However, 

GSA’s survey methodology was flawed because the agency selected its 

sample from an incomplete universe, had a low survey response rate, and 

did not perform a nonresponder analysis. Thus, the survey results did not 

provide a representative view of activities across the government. GSA 

plans to conduct a follow-up survey of government activities in 2007. 

While OMB and GSA information regarding the universe of federal contact 

centers is incomplete, another potential source of information on those 

contact centers that are contracted out by the government is the FPDS. 

Since its inception in 1978, the FPDS has served as the governmentwide 

system for collecting federal procurement data. Five of the six agencies we 

reviewed, however, each used a different code to report their contact 

center procurement actions to FPDS.17 Officials from agencies we 

reviewed told us that no current North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code covers the full range of services provided by a 

 17 USPS does not report to FPDS. 
Page 16 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

contact center.18 Table 5 lists the NAICS codes used by the five agencies 

reporting data to FPDS. 

Table 5: NAICS Codes Used for Contact Center Contracts Reviewed 

Agency NAICS code NAICS definition 

CDC 518210 Data processing, hosting, and related services 

DOD-TMA 524114 Direct health and medical insurance carriers 

DOL 541519 Other computer-related services 

Education 541512 Computer systems design services 

GSA 519190 All other information services 

Source: GAO analysis. 

The five agencies that reported to FPDS chose different NAICS codes for 

different reasons. Officials from DOL and GSA stated that they chose 

alternative NAICS codes because the definition provided for telephone call 

center does not cover all of the activities handled in a contact center. 

Education and DOD-TMA officials explained that they chose NAICS codes 

that encompassed the main work of the contract, since the contact center 

is only a portion of the work in a contract for a larger program. CDC chose 

its NAICS code based upon the information technology services required 

for creating its contact center. 

No governmentwide procurement information was reported to FPDS using 

the NAICS codes for telephone call centers in fiscal years 2000 through 

2004. This category of NAICS codes—56142—is defined as establishments 

primarily engaged in answering telephone calls and relaying messages or 

in telemarketing activities. Although officials from three of the agencies 

we reviewed expressed the opinion that the definition for telephone call 

centers is too narrow to encompass all the work performed by a contact 

center, OMB told us that the telephone call center code is the correct code 

to use. Specifically, OMB stated that the subcode of 561422—

telemarketing bureaus—was written with the intent to cover all the 

functions of a contact center. OMB is considering issuing a clarification to 

the description of the 56142 codes to explain that these codes include 

more than telephones—such as Web sites, e-mails, facsimiles, and so 

forth—in its next update to the NAICS manual in 2012. 

 18 The NAICS code is used to classify the industry type for the product or service being 

purchased. It replaced the Standard Industrial Code. 
Page 17 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

Providing timely and accurate information is a key result area for the 

federal government. Federal agencies that use contractor-operated contact 

centers to meet the public’s demand for information assume the burden of 

assuring that the information provided by the contractors is accurate. 

While the agencies we reviewed have taken a variety of steps to ensure 

that their contractor-operated contact centers address accuracy, at some 

agencies accuracy clearly does not have the same priority as other 

objectives, such as timeliness. Although agencies need flexibility in 

meeting the needs of the individuals that contact them, they also can 

benefit from the experience gained by their peers operating other 

government contact centers. Short of mandating specific guidance, 

increased sharing among agencies of successful practices for managing 

contact centers may help improve their abilities to write and oversee 

contracts for these centers and may avoid needless duplication of effort. 

The guidelines proposed by the Citizen Service Levels Interagency 

Committee are a step in this direction. However, whether this effort will 

result in information sharing across agencies is uncertain. Leveraging 

knowledge gained by other agencies through the sharing of effective 

practices could be enhanced by governmentwide leadership. OMB’s 

leadership of the electronic government initiative, its role in guiding 

agency dissemination of public information, as well as its procurement 

policy role, put it in an ideal position to facilitate the exchange of 

information among agencies to ensure effective oversight of contractors in 

meeting the public’s need for timely and accurate information. 

While OMB and GSA have taken initial steps to enhance the oversight of 

federal contact centers by gathering some information on the universe of 

these centers, it is not clear whether the data collected provide enough 

information for governmentwide oversight of contact center operations or 

whether GSA’s planned data collection efforts will do so either. With 

additional reliable information, OMB may be able to more quickly identify 

and act on emerging problems and opportunities. In addition, FPDS can 

also be more effective in identifying the number of contracts and dollars 

obligated for contact centers across the government, but only if the 

agencies consistently use the appropriate NAICS code for these services. 

To facilitate the sharing of sound oversight practices for the operation of 

contact centers, to help ensure that providing accurate information to the 

public by contact centers is a priority outcome, and to improve the quality 

of information gathered about these centers, we recommend that the 

Director of the Office of Management and Budget take the following 

actions: 

Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 
Page 18 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

• Building on efforts begun by the GSA-sponsored interagency 

committee, work with agencies to develop a mechanism for sharing 

performance metrics and oversight practices for contact centers. 

Continued efforts should stress that providing accurate information to 

the public needs to be a key factor in the oversight of federal contact 

centers. 

• Take steps to ensure consistent reporting on contact centers by 

developing an industry category or specific code definition in NAICS 

that encompasses all the services provided by contact centers or by 

providing further instruction to agencies regarding the appropriate 

NAICS code to use for contact centers. 

To improve the quality of information about federal contact centers, we 

recommend that the Administrator of General Services take the following 

action: 

• Ensure that further efforts to develop governmentwide data on contact 

center operations—such as the survey planned for next year—employ 

sound methodologies to ensure that the resulting information is 

representative of the activities across the government. 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Office of 

Management and Budget and each of the six agencies we reviewed—

Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Health 

and Human Services, Department of Labor, General Services 

Administration, and U.S. Postal Service. The Office of Management and 

Budget provided oral comments in which they concurred with our findings 

and recommendations. The Department of Defense, Department of Health 

and Human Services, and the General Services Administration provided 

written comments that are reproduced in appendices III, IV, and V, 

respectively. OMB and most of the agencies also provided technical 

comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

The Department of Health and Human Services and the General Services 

Administration also concurred with our findings and recommendations. 

The Department of Defense did not concur with our draft report because it 

believes the report does not fully reflect all the metrics and practices DOD 

and its contractor use to ensure the accuracy of information provided to 

TRICARE beneficiaries. In its comments, DOD emphasizes that its 

approach to contracting for contact center operations relies on the 

contractor to use industry standards for ensuring information accuracy. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 19 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

DOD states that standards exist in its contract related to the accuracy of 

information provided by telephone. DOD also cites additional metrics it 

uses for monitoring contractor performance. In addition, DOD requires 

the contractor to have a quality management program which must be 

validated by a nationally recognized third-party organization. DOD points 

out that it receives monthly briefings on the operation of the contractor’s 

quality management program and observes call center operations during 

site visits. Finally, DOD explained that it monitors the expertise and skills 

of the contractor staff that perform the knowledge management function. 

We recognize that DOD has decided to use what it calls the “audit the 

auditor” approach to quality assurance. It was not our objective, however, 

to assess the merits of any particular approach to ensuring quality, but 

rather to determine the extent to which contract terms and agency 

oversight practices emphasize the importance of providing accurate 

information to the public. In this regard, while the contractor may use 

specific standards for accuracy in its quality management program, we 

found no specific metric related to accuracy in the TRICARE contact 

center contract itself or in the additional metrics cited in DOD’s 

comments. For the most part, the additional quality control activities 

listed by the Department are those of its contractor, not oversight 

activities performed by the agency, which was the focus of our review. 

While independent validation of the contractor’s quality control program 

helps to ensure the contractor has a quality process in place for 

monitoring its responses to the public, this does not substitute for DOD 

oversight activities such as validating the contractor’s reports of its 

monitoring efforts. In addition, while DOD performs site visits to oversee 

the contractor’s operations, it does so only on an ad hoc basis. Based on 

DOD’s comments, we added additional language to the report regarding 

DOD’s approach to knowledge management. 

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the 

date of this report. We will then send copies of this report to the Director 

of the Office of Management and Budget, the Administrator of General 

Services, the Postmaster General, and the Secretaries of the Department of 

Defense, Department of Education, Department of Health and Human 

Services, and Department of Labor. We will also make copies available to 

others upon request. Contact points for our Office of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

This report is available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 
Page 20 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me at 

(202) 512-4841. An additional GAO contact and staff who made 

contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI. 

William T. Woods 

Director, Acquisition and 

 Sourcing Management
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 21 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

To assess the guidance provided to federal agencies and the information 

gathered by the federal government about contact centers, we conducted 

interviews with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and General 

Services Administration (GSA) officials, and reviewed related guidance 

and results of their initial data collection efforts. We researched and 

discussed with OMB the absence of guidance related to the operation and 

oversight of contact centers. We also discussed the results of OMB’s 2004 

request for information to federal agencies that asked for selfidentification of any activities that provide information to the public. In 

addition, we reviewed and discussed the results of GSA’s survey of a 

sample of agency activities that responded to OMB’s request. We did not 

assess the validity of the data gathered by OMB and GSA. However, a GAO 

methodologist reviewed the GSA survey methodology and identified its 

weaknesses. In addition, we monitored the progress of the GSA-sponsored 

working group—the Citizen Service Levels Interagency Committee—as it 

developed and recommended standards to OMB for federal contact 

centers. We did not assess the committee’s recommendations as a whole, 

but rather reviewed how accuracy of information was addressed within its 

proposed standards. We reviewed data from the Federal Procurement 

Data System for the past 5 fiscal years to determine if any contract actions 

were reported using the code for telephone call center services.1

To describe federal agencies’ efforts to ensure accurate information is 

provided to the public by contractor-operated centers, we reviewed the 

contract terms and oversight activities for one center at each of six 

agencies. We selected centers that handle over 1 million inquiries annually 

and provide information to citizens that could significantly affect their 

finances, health, or safety.2

 The contact centers selected for our review are 

• Department of Defense TriCare Management Activity (TMA) North 

region—Healthnet’s contact center: provides general and personalized 

medical benefit and coverage information and processes enrollments 

and claims for military families in the North region;3

 1

 Despite the shortcomings of FPDS noted in previous GAO reports, using FPDS did not 

adversely affect our work. GAO, Improvements Needed to the Federal Procurement Data 

System-Next Generation, GAO-05-960R (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2005), and Reliability 

of Federal Procurement Data, GAO-04-295R (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 30, 2003). 

2

 One agency we selected for our review—Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—is 

in its first year of a 5-year consolidation of workloads. The contact center is projected to 

receive an estimated 2.7 million inquiries annually when it is fully operational. 

3

 DOD TMA is divided into three separate contract service areas—North, South, and West. 

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

Page 22 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

• Department of Education (Education)—Federal Student Aid 

Information Center: provides general information about applications 

and loan issues and personalized information on the status of 

applications and loans to the public and academic community; 

• Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC)—CDC INFO contact center: provides 

information about health and safety issues—including prevention, 

detection, and outbreak control—to the public and medical 

professionals; 

• Department of Labor (DOL)—National Contact Center: provides 

general information and referrals regarding job issues, workplace 

safety, and pension and health benefits to the public and employers; 

• General Services Administration—National Contact Center: provides 

general information and referrals related to any agency or government 

program; and 

• U.S. Postal Service (USPS)—National Contact Center: provides general 

and individualized information on mail delivery and shipping issues to 

the public and businesses. 

To complete our review, we interviewed management and staff 

responsible for oversight of the contractor-operated contact center at each 

agency. We reviewed the performance metrics specified in the agency’s 

contract as well as the related reports used to oversee and evaluate the 

contractors’ operation of the contact centers. In addition to conducting 

discussions with the agencies, we visited four contractor-operated centers 

to observe their operations and quality control procedures. Specifically, 

we visited locations for the GSA center operated by ICT Group, CDC and 

Education centers operated by Pearson Government Solutions, and the 

DOL center operated by Datatrac Information Services.4

 At each center we 

interviewed management and customer service representatives regarding 

the oversight practices used to monitor the accuracy of information. We 

did not test the contractors’ internal control procedures or validate any 

data from their sample reports. 

We identified industry practices for ensuring the accuracy of information 

provided by contact centers, interviewed representatives from two major 

contact center industry groups—the Society of Consumer Affairs 

Professionals and the Incoming Calls Management Institute—and attended 

the 2005 Government Customer Support Conference. In addition, we 

reviewed prior GAO reports concerning contact centers. We also 

 4

 The contractors consider the locations of their call centers to be proprietary information. 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 23 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

discussed contact center issues with other GAO teams that were currently 

reviewing or had recently reviewed other federal contact centers. Our 

work was conducted from February through November 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Appendix II: Contact Center Profiles for Six 

Agencies Reviewed 

Page 24 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

Table 6: Contact Center Profiles for Agencies Reviewed 

Agency 

Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention 

Department of Defense 

TriCare Management 

Activity—North 

Contact center CDC INFO Healthnet’s contact center 

Purpose of public 

inquiries 

Medical disease issues—

including prevention, 

detection, and outbreak 

control 

Medical benefits and 

coverage issues, 

enrollment, and claims 

processing 

Methods of contact 

handled 

Telephone, e-mail Telephone, e-mail 

Main hours of operation Daily 24 hours/day Daily 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 

(eastern time) 

Languages supported 

(beyond English) 

Spanish Spanish 

Fiscal year 2005 call 

volume 

314,749 

from February to September 

2005 

(estimated at 2.7 million 

calls when fully operational)c

5,236,793 

Fiscal year 2005 e-mail 

volume 

834 

from February to September 

2005 

(estimated at 18,000 e-mails 

when fully operational)c

56,160 

Contractor Pearson Government 

Solutions 

Healthnet Federal Services 

Date of award September 1, 2004 September 1, 2003 

Period of performance 2-year base plus 5 1-year 

options 

7-month base plus 5 1-year 

options 

Total value of contract at 

award (in millions of 

dollars) 

$73.7 $2,298 

(the contact center is only a 

portion of this contract)d

Payment structure Cost plus award fee Firm fixed price plus award 

fee 

Number of customer 

service representatives 

50-100 600-650 

Number of locations 3 6 

Appendix II: Contact Center Profiles for Six 

Agencies Reviewed 
Appendix II: Contact Center Profiles for Six 

Agencies Reviewed 

Page 25 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

Department of Labor Department of Education 

General Services 

Administration U.S. Postal Service 

National Contact Center Federal Student Aid Information 

Center 

National Contact Center National Contact Center 

Job loss support, wage 

information, workplace safety, 

pension and health benefits; 

fulfillment of orders for posters, 

fact sheets, and handbooks 

Federal Student Aid application 

and loan issues 

Any citizen issues for any 

agency in the government; 

fulfillment orders for government 

publications 

Mail delivery and shipping 

information 

Telephone, e-mail Telephone, e-mail, facsimile, 

Web site, online live help 

Telephone, e-mail, Web site Telephone, e-mail, facsimile, 

Web sites 

Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 

8:00 p.m. (eastern time)a

Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 

midnight; Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 

6:00 p.m. (eastern)a

 

Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 

p.m. (eastern)a

Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 

8:30 p.m.; Saturday 8:00 a.m. 

to 6:00 p.m. (eastern time) 

Spanish and 140 additional 

languages via translation 

service 

Spanish Spanishb Spanish 

1,347,476 5,780,158 1,700,000 64,001,962 

71,765 488,158 107,000 1,041,210 

Datatrac Information Services Pearson Government Solutions ICT Group Convergys 

September 30, 2001 February 1, 2005 November 28, 2004 January 27, 2003 

1-year base plus 4 1-year 

options 

1-year base plus 9 1-year 

options 

1-year base plus 4 1-year 

options 

4-year base plus 6 1-year 

options 

$23 $80.1 

(the contact center is only a 

portion of this contract)d

$29 $254.6 (for 4-year base only) 

Time and materials Firm fixed price plus award fee Firm fixed price Firm fixed price plus award fee

50-100 400-450 50-100 1,200–1,300 

2 3 1 3 

Source: GAO analysis. 
Appendix II: Contact Center Profiles for Six 

Agencies Reviewed 

Page 26 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

a

DOL provides service 24 hours a day for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration toll-free 

number and provided service 24 hours a day during hurricane relief efforts; Education extends its 

hours during student aid application season; GSA provides service 24 hours a day under emergency 

situations. 

b

Although only Spanish is provided at this time, GSA’s contract allows for the provision of additional 

languages. 

c

The CDC contact center is in its second year of operation and is consolidating the work for 40 

different toll-free numbers over a total period of 4 years. 

d

The contact center is a portion of a larger service contract. The value shown here is for the entire 

contract, as the agency could not provide a breakdown of the cost for the contact center alone. 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 27 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Defense 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 28 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 29 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 30 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 31 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 
Appendix IV: Comments from the General 

Services Administration 

Page 32 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

Appendix IV: Comments from the General 

Services Administration 
Appendix IV: Comments from the General 

Services Administration 

Page 33 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 
Appendix IV: Comments from the General 

Services Administration 

Page 34 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 
Appendix IV: Comments from the General 

Services Administration 

Page 35 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Health & Human Services 

Page 36 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Health & Human Services 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Health & Human Services 

Page 37 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 38 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

John K. Needham (202) 512-5274 

In addition to the contact named above, Ruth Eli DeVan, William McPhail, 

Jean Lee, David Schilling, Nyankor Matthews, Robert Swierczek, John 

Krump, Monica Wolford, and Karen O’Conor made key contributions to 

this report. 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 
Page 39 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

Improvements Needed to the Federal Procurement Data System-Next 

Generation. GAO-05-960R. Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2005. 

Social Security Administration: Additional Actions Needed in Ongoing 

Efforts to Improve 800-Number Service. GAO-05-735. Washington, D.C.: 

August 8, 2005. 

Immigration Services: Better Contracting Practices Needed at Call 

Centers. GAO-05-526. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2005. 

Federal Thrift Savings Plan: Customer Service Practices Adopted by 

Private Sector Plan Managers Should be Considered. GAO-05-38. 

Washington, D.C.: January 18, 2005. 

Medicare: Accuracy of Responses from the 1-800-MEDICARE Help Line 

Should Be Improved. GAO-05-130. Washington, D.C.: December 8, 2004. 

Medicare: Call Centers Need to Improve Responses to Policy-Oriented 

Questions from Providers. GAO-04-669. Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2004. 

Reliability of Federal Procurement Data, GAO-04-295R. Washington, D.C.: 

December 30, 2003. 

Medicare: Communications with Physicians Can Be Improved. 

GAO-02-249. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2002. 

IRS Telephone Assistance: Limited Progress and Missed Opportunities 

to Analyze Performance in the 2001 Filing Season. GAO-02-212. 

Washington, D.C.: December 7, 2001. 

IRS Telephone Assistance: Quality of Service Mixed in the 2000 Filing 

Season and below IRS’ Long-Term Goal. GAO-01-189. Washington, D.C.: 

April 6, 2001. 

IRS Telephone Assistance: Opportunities to Improve Human Capital 

Management. GAO-01-144. Washington, D.C.: January 30, 2001. 

Customer Service: Human Capital Management at Selected Public and 

Private Call Centers. GAO/GGD-00-161. Washington, D.C.: August 22, 2000. 

Social Security Administration: Information on Monitoring 800 

Number Telephone Calls. GAO/HEHS-98-56R. Washington, D.C.: 

December 8, 1997. 

Appendix VII: Related GAO Products 
Appendix VII: Related GAO Products 

Page 40 GAO-06-270 Federal Contact Centers 

Social Security Administration: More Cost-Effective Approaches Exist to 

Further Improve 800-Number Service. GAO/HEHS-97-79. Washington, 

D.C.: June 11, 1997. 

(120407) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

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

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

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

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

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

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER