GAO-06-582R Human Capital 

1 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

March 24, 2006 

The Honorable Susan M. Collins 

Chairman 

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

Subject: Post-Hearing Questions for the Record Related to the Department of 

 Defense’s National Security Personnel System (NSPS) 

On November 17, 2005, I testified before your Committee at a hearing entitled: “From 

Proposed to Final: Evaluating the Regulations for the National Security Personnel 

System”.1

 This letter responds to your requests for my response to questions for the 

record. 

Questions from Senator John Warner

1. The civilian mariners have a long tradition of supporting our military 

forces—operating at the call of a combatant commander on Navy vessels—

carrying combat equipment and supplies to fighting forces during World War 

II, Korea, Vietnam and our current military operations. They also have a 

unique legal status as excepted employees—whose compensation is tied to 

prevailing wage rates for commercial crews. 

To what extent did the Department examine the appropriateness of the 

NSPS authorities governing labor relations for certain unique segments of 

the workforce, such as the civilian mariners? 

In supplementary information to the final regulations, DOD and OPM responded to 

comments suggesting that certain groups of employees, including teachers, public 

safety employees, civilian mariners, be excluded from the labor relations system. In 

evaluating the merits of excluding these groups of employees from the labor relations 

system, DOD and OPM noted that the Department considered the employees' unique

characteristics but could find no compelling argument that this particular group 

should not be covered by the new system. 

 

1

GAO, Human Capital: Observations on Final Regulations for DOD’s National Security Personnel 

System, GAO-06-227T (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17, 2005). 
Is legislation needed to permit the Secretary to exempt any DOD unit from 

the labor relations provisions if the Secretary thought it necessary to do so? 

We understand that DOD's interpretation of section 9902(m)(8) of Title 5 is that 

legislation would be needed to allow the Secretary of Defense to exempt any unit 

from the labor relations system. If this is DOD's position, then clarifying legislation 

would be necessary. 

2. The GAO, as part of its ongoing review of the Department’s 

implementation efforts, has emphasized the importance of employee buy-in 

to the new system, and also of evaluating its success throughout 

implementation. 

What are the specific mechanisms that will be in place for continuous 

employee involvement, and for evaluation of the NSPS system? 

As we noted in our statement, DOD faces a significant challenge in involving—and 

continuing to involve—its employees, employee representatives, and other 

stakeholders in implementing NSPS. DOD’s final regulations, while providing for 

continuing collaboration with employee representatives, do not identify a process for 

the continuing involvement of employees and other key stakeholders in 

implementation of NSPS. DOD’s final NSPS regulations on the collaboration process, 

among other things, would permit the Secretary of Defense to determine (1) the 

number of employee representatives allowed to engage in the collaboration process, 

and (2) the extent to which employee representatives are given an opportunity to 

discuss their views with and submit written comments to DOD officials. In addition, 

DOD’s final regulations indicate that nothing in the continuing collaboration process 

will affect the right of the Secretary of Defense to determine the content of 

implementing guidance and to make this guidance effective at any time. DOD’s final 

regulations will give designated employee representatives an opportunity to be 

briefed and to comment on the design and results of the new system’s 

implementation. However, the active, visible, and continuous involvement of top key 

players, including the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense, the military 

services’ secretaries, and presidents of the employee labor unions will be a major 

factor in determining whether such efforts will be meaningful, successful, and 

credible. 

Our prior statement and work also indicate that evaluating the effect of NSPS will be 

an ongoing challenge for DOD. As we noted in our statement, DOD’s final regulations 

indicate that DOD will evaluate the regulations and their implementation. In our July 

2005 report on DOD’s efforts to design NSPS, we recommended that DOD develop 

procedures for evaluating NSPS that contain results-oriented performance measures 

and reporting requirements.2

 We also recommended that these evaluation procedures 

could be broadly modeled on the evaluation requirements of the OPM demonstration 

projects. If the department follows through with this effort, we believe that it will be 

responsive to our recommendation. 

 2

GAO, Human Capital: DOD’s National Security Personnel System Faces Implementation 

Challenges, GAO-05-730 (Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2005). 

Page 2 GAO-06-582R Human Capital 
How will the Department know whether or not the new system is “getting it 

right”? 

Our answer to question 2 above regarding evaluating the effect of NSPS applies to 

this question. 

3. The level of employee and employee representative participation will help 

determine the success of this personnel system for DOD, and ultimately, 

possible extensions throughout the federal government. GAO Comptroller 

General Walker underscored the need for DOD to continue to involve 

employees, including employee representatives, throughout the 

implementation process. The “implementing issuance” process, which 

remains under the sole authorization of the Secretary of Defense and other 

principal partners, will provide the ultimate framework and details for 

important aspects of implementing NSPS. While final regulations specify 

that employee representatives will have the opportunity to participate in 

this process, could you elaborate on some of the ways you will seek to

request and include suggestions from employees and their representatives in 

the implementing issuances? 

By including employees and their representatives in the planning process, 

organizations can improve related policies and processes, increase their acceptance 

within the workforce and minimize any potential adverse morale implications. For 

NSPS to be a successful transformation, it must involve DOD employees and their 

representatives from the beginning of the process in order to obtain their input and 

acceptance, and hopefully their ownership of the changes that are occurring within 

the department. Employee involvement strengthens the transformation process by 

including frontline perspective and experiences. Further employee involvement 

helps to create the opportunity to establish new networks and break down existing 

organizational silos, increase employees’ understanding and acceptance of 

organizational goals and objectives, gain ownership for new policies and procedures, 

and reduce related implementation risks. 

Our prior work also indicates that involving employees and other stakeholders helps 

to improve overall confidence and belief in the fairness of the system, enhance their 

understanding of how the system works, and increase their understanding and 

ownership of organizational goals and objectives. Organizations have found that the 

inclusion of employees and their representatives needs to be meaningful, not just pro 

forma. At GAO, to obtain direct feedback from employees, we created the elected 

Employee Advisory Council (EAC) to serve as an advisory body to the Comptroller 

General and other senior executives on a range of management and employee issues. 

Comprising employees who represent a cross-section of the agency, the EAC’s 

participation is an important source of front-end input and feedback on our human 

capital and other major management initiatives. Specifically, EAC members convey 

the views and concerns of the groups they represent, while remaining sensitive to the 

collective best interest of all GAO employees; propose solutions to concerns raised 

by employees; provide input to and comment on GAO policies, procedures, plans, and 

practices; and help to communicate management’s issues and concerns to employees 

while also relaying employees’ comments and concerns to management. 

Page 3 GAO-06-582R Human Capital 
We have found that organizations undergoing a transformation should establish a 

communications strategy that creates shared expectations and seeks to genuinely 

involve stakeholders in the process. As we have noted in our prior testimonies on 

DOD’s human resources management system, it will face multiple implementation 

challenges that include establishing overall communications strategies and involving 

employees in implementing the new systems. We believe that one of the most 

relevant implementation steps is for DOD to enhance two-way communication

between employees, employee representatives, and management, including 

enhancing communication between top political appointees and labor leaders. To 

enhance communications, there needs to be visible and ongoing involvement of a 

number of top-level DOD leaders, including the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of 

Defense, and the military services’ secretaries. Frequent and timely communication 

cultivates a strong relationship with management and helps gain employee ownership 

for a transformation like NSPS. But communication is not about just “pushing the 

message out” or seeking information without any meaningful response. It should 

facilitate a two-way honest exchange with and allow feedback from employees, 

employee representatives, customers, and stakeholders. Once employee feedback is 

received, it is important to acknowledge, consider, and use it to make any 

appropriate changes to the implementation of the transformation. 

4. As Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and as a veteran of 

World War II and the Korean War, I have a profound respect and gratitude 

for our nation’s veterans. During my 27 years in the Senate, I have 

supported efforts to provide veterans with employment opportunities in the 

federal government. Concerns have been expressed that the final 

regulations modify the current rules governing workforce reshaping, and 

consequently could negatively impact DOD’s veteran employees. What 

assurance can you provide my colleagues and I that the changes will not have 

a detrimental impact on veterans? 

While GAO cannot provide any assurance that the final NSPS regulations will not 

have a detrimental impact on veterans, we note that the regulations continue to give 

veterans' preference the same priority in the event of a reduction-in-force (RIF) as 

under current regulations. 

5. During my service as Secretary of the Navy—during which I was privileged 

to have some 650,000 civilian employees working side by side with the 

uniformed Navy, — I valued very highly the sense of teamwork between the 

civilian and uniformed members of the United States Navy. Teamwork is an

intrinsic military value, in my judgment, and essential to mission 

accomplishment. Some have been concerned that NSPS could undermine 

that sense of teamwork by increasing the competition between individuals 

for recognition of their performance. How can we safeguard this essential 

element of national service—teamwork—as we move forward in changing the 

personnel systems of the Department of Defense? 

Senior executives need to lead the way to transform their agencies’ cultures to be 

more results-oriented, customer focused, and collaborative in nature. Performance 

Page 4 GAO-06-582R Human Capital 
management systems can help manage and direct this process. As public sector 

organizations shift their focus of accountability from outputs to results, they have 

recognized that the activities needed to achieve those results often transcend specific 

organizational boundaries. Consequently, organizations that focus on collaboration, 

interaction, and teamwork across organizational boundaries are increasingly critical 

to achieve results. High performing organizations use their performance 

management systems to strengthen accountability for results, specifically by placing 

greater emphasis on competencies and other factors that promote teamwork and 

collaboration to achieve desired organizational results.

6. In preparation for a hearing of the Armed Services Committee which I 

chaired in April, 2005, I asked my good friend John Gage to whittle down the 

scores of issues that he identified with the draft regulations to a few 

flashpoint issues—a handful of things that had the highest priority from his 

perspective. He did that, and in his testimony to the SASC on April 14, 2005, 

identified six “flashpoints” of concern: 

1. The scope of bargaining 

2. Composition of the National Security Relations Board 

3. The standard for mitigation of adverse actions by the Merit Systems 

Protection Board 

4. The requirement for written standards for employee performance 

5. A general lowering of pay for the DOD civilian workforce; and 

6. Procedures for identifying who will be affected by a Reduction in 

Force. 

It is my understanding that the final regulations reflect progress on some of 

these issues. How far has the Department come in addressing these issues to 

ensure the success of NSPS? 

Importantly, DOD should move expeditiously to resolve the appeals issue, since it 

will be critical to the effective, credible, and fair implementation of any major 

classification, compensation and performance management, and reduction-in-force 

changes. John Gage is in the best position to judge if his concerns are being 

addressed. However, as you noted, the final regulations reflect progress on some of 

the issues John Gage identified as flashpoints. However, 10 federal labor unions filed 

suit last fall challenging the final NSPS regulations on several grounds. On February 

27, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that DOD was 

authorized to establish a labor relations system that differed from the federal labor 

relations system under Chapter 71 of title 5 of the U.S. Code, and that DOD satisfied 

their statutory obligation to collaborate with the unions.3

 The court, however, ruled 

that the final NSPS regulations do not ensure that employees can bargain collectively. 

The court also ruled that the proposed internal labor relations board at DOD is not an 

"independent third party" as required by the NSPS authorizing legislation and that the 

proposed employee appeals process does not provide fair treatment to DOD 

employees. The court permanently enjoined DoD from implementing the parts of the 

final NSPS regulations addressing adverse actions, appeals, and labor relations. At 

 3

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et. al. v. Rumsfeld et al, No. 05-2183, 2006

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7068 (D.D.C. Feb. 27, 2006).

Page 5 GAO-06-582R Human Capital 
this point, DOD and OPM officials are continuing to work with the Department of 

Justice to determine their next steps relative to the court's decision. As such, while 

DOD can implement the performance management, compensation and classification, 

staffing, and workforce shaping portions of the regulation, the regulations on the 

scope of bargaining, composition of the National Security Labor Relations Board, and 

the standard for mitigation of adverse actions by the Merit Systems Protection Board 

may not move forward. 

In response to public comments to its proposed regulations and feedback obtained 

during the meet and confer process with employee representatives, DOD modified 

the proposed regulations, so that the final regulations state that the basic 

performance expectations should be provided to employees in writing. 

Similar to the proposed regulations, DOD’s final regulations could not reduce 

employees’ basic rates of pay when converting to pay bands. However, employees’ 

compensation may increase at a rate higher or lower than under the current 

compensation system because under NSPS compensation is designed to be (1) 

market-based, with consideration of local market conditions to set pay rates, and (2) 

more performance-oriented. 

Similar to the proposed regulations, the final NSPS regulations allow DOD to reduce, 

realign, and reorganize the department’s workforce through revised reduction-inforce (RIF) procedures. In a change from the proposed regulations, employees 

serving in an initial probationary period have a lower retention standing than career 

employees (i.e., permanent will be listed first, followed by employees serving an 

initial probationary period, and then followed by employees on temporary 

appointments). In another change, the final regulations reflect the use of more than 

one year’s performance ratings in placing employees on the retention list. 

Questions from Senator Joseph Lieberman

Downward pressure on pay levels.

John Gage in his written testimony expresses concern that the NSPS system 

will create downward pressure on DOD civilian pay. Are there mechanisms 

that you could suggest to assure that pay levels are adequate for employee 

recruitment and retention and to truly reward good performance? 

We have observed that a competitive, market-based compensation system can help 

organizations attract and retain a quality workforce. To begin to develop such a 

system, organizations assess the skills and knowledge they need; compare 

compensation against other public, private, or nonprofit entities competing for the 

same talent in a given locality; and classify positions along levels of responsibility. 

While one size does not fit all, organizations generally structure their competitive 

compensation systems to separate base salary—which all employees receive—from 

other special incentives, such as merit increases, performance awards, or bonuses, 

which are provided based on performance and contributions to organizational 

results. DOD needs to conduct annual, high-level compensation reviews to determine 

the competitiveness of the pay ranges, and periodic (every 3 to 5 years) much more 

comprehensive compensation studies while at the same point in time, monitoring 

Page 6 GAO-06-582R Human Capital 
employee recruiting, retention statistics as well as employee feedback during the 

interim in order to try to help assure the competitiveness of the system. 

We have reported that direct costs associated with salaries were one of the major 

cost drivers of implementing pay for performance systems, based on the data 

provided us by selected Office of Personnel Management demonstration projects. We 

found that some of the demonstration projects intended to manage costs by providing 

a mix of one-time awards and permanent pay increases. Rewarding an employee’s 

performance with an award instead of an equivalent increase to base pay can help 

contain salary costs in the long run because the agency only has to pay the amount of 

the award one time, rather than annually. 

Safeguards to help ensure fairness and guard against abuse.

Mr. Walker, in your testimony you expressed concern about whether the 

regulations contain adequate safeguards to help ensure fairness and guard 

against abuse. This seems particularly relevant with respect to the process 

for assessing performance. 

Could you elaborate on what kinds of safeguards you believe should be

considered in this context? 

As we noted in our statement, although DOD’s proposed regulations provide for some 

safeguards to ensure fairness and guard against abuse, additional safeguards should 

be developed. We have developed an initial list of possible safeguards to help ensure 

that pay-for-performance systems in the government are fair, effective, and credible. 

The safeguards include, among other things, the following. 

• Assure that certain predecisional internal safeguards exist to help achieve the 

consistency, equity, nondiscrimination, and nonpoliticization of the performance 

management process (e.g. independent reasonableness reviews by Human Capital 

Offices and/or Offices of Opportunity and Inclusiveness or their equivalent in 

connection with the establishment and implementation of a performance 

appraisal system, as well as reviews of performance rating decisions, pay 

determinations, and promotion actions before they are finalized to ensure that 

they are merit-based; internal grievance processes to address employee 

complaints; and pay panels whose membership is predominantly made up of 

career officials who would consider the results of the performance appraisal 

process and other information in connection with final pay decisions). 

• Assure that there are reasonable transparency and appropriate accountability 

mechanisms in connection with the results of the performance management 

process. This includes reporting periodically on internal assessments and 

employee survey results relating to the performance management system and 

publishing overall results of performance management and individual pay 

decisions while protecting individual confidentiality. 

• Assure that the agency’s performance management systems (1) link to the 

agency’s strategic plan, related goals, and desired outcomes and (2) result in 

Page 7 GAO-06-582R Human Capital 
meaningful distinctions in individual employee performance. This should include 

consideration of critical competencies and achievement of concrete results. 

• Involve employees, their representatives, and other stakeholders in the design of 

the system, including having employees directly involved in validating any related 

competencies, as appropriate. 

• Assure that there is an independent and credible employee appeals mechanism. 

Do you know of federal agencies where such mechanisms have proven 

effective to guard against unfairness and abuse in a pay-for-performance 

system? 

The list of safeguards mentioned earlier are based on our own experience at GAO as 

well as our extensive body of work looking at the performance management 

practices used by leading public and private sector organizations in the United States. 

For example, to help provide transparency on how employees’ performance 

compares to the rest of an organization, we previously reported that that Naval Sea 

Systems Command Warfare Center’s Newport division publishes the results of its 

annual performance cycle. Newport aggregates the data so that no individual 

employee’s rating or payout can be determined to protect confidentiality. Employees 

can compare their performance rating category against others in the same unit, other 

units, and the entire division. 

IBM built in several accountability mechanisms to help achieve consistency and 

equity in pay decisions across employee groups and teams. To help ensure there is 

no discrimination in pay decisions, IBM conducts a base pay equity analysis to review 

the pay of women or minority employees if their proposed pay is one standard 

deviation or more away from the mean of the majority of employees and looks for an 

explanation for these pay differences, such as poor performance, a recent promotion 

into the pay band, or an extended leave of absence. In addition, IBM built in secondlevel reviews of pay decisions before employees receive any pay increases to ensure 

consistency in the compensation process. The first-line managers discuss their 

proposed pay decisions with managers at the next level—the up-line managers—to 

ensure the performance assessments and justifications are consistent across groups. 

Up-line managers can also shift pay allocations across groups if necessary in order to 

ensure employees who perform similarly are compensated the same regardless of 

their first-line managers. As a final check, the senior managers sign off on the pay 

decisions for each employee. 

Questions from Senator Daniel Akaka

1. As you know, I was joined by Senators Collins, Lieberman, and Voinovich 

in asking GAO to review the costs associated with the design, 

implementation, and training related to the National Security Personnel 

System (NSPS) so I am very pleased that our request has been elevated to a 

GAO initiative. Your evaluation will assist us greatly with our oversight of 

NSPS. What methodologies, mileposts, and timeframes have been 

established for the review? 

Page 8 GAO-06-582R Human Capital 
As we have noted in our most recent testimony, DOD is challenged to provide 

adequate resources to implement its new personnel system, especially during a time 

when some of the department’s resources are being directed towards the Global War 

on Terrorism. By April 2006, we plan to begin an evaluation of the costs associated 

with the design and implementation of NSPS, and provide Congress with relevant 

information by September 2006. 

2. You have repeatedly testified that safeguards are needed to ensure 

fairness and guard against abuse in any pay-for-performance system. From 

your meetings with the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM), do you know why similar safeguards have not

been included in the NSPS final regulations? 

In our most recent testimony on the final NSPS regulations, we noted several issues 

that DOD will need to define in more detail than is currently provided. We believe 

that the details of DOD’s system do matter and that they should have been addressed 

in the final regulations and then further defined in implementing issuances. 

Importantly, DOD has plans to issue a number of issuances that will contain detailed 

policies and procedures for the new system. These issuances will be of critical 

importance and their content will include important details that can serve to either 

enhance or reduce the likelihood of a successful implementation. Hopefully, these 

issuances will be responsive to our recommendations with regard to the need for 

additional safeguards. In any event, these critically important details must be defined 

in conjunction with applicable key stakeholders and certain steps should be taken 

before any new authorities are implemented.

3. Mr. Walker, you support revising reduction-in-force (RIF) procedures to 

emphasize employee performance over tenure. However, union 

representatives state that the change in RIF procedures will adversely 

impact veterans by allowing DOD to design a RIF that will affect only 

veterans. Would you comment on this, and do you have any suggestions as to 

how this situation can be avoided? 

Our answer to Senator Warner’s question 4 above also applies to this question.

4. DOD has clearly stated that NSPS must be perceived as fair by employees. 

However, based on public comment and congressional testimony from 

employee representatives, it appears that employees believe NSPS is neither 

fair nor perceived as fair. What would you do to make the NSPS appeals 

system both fair and perceived as fair by employees? 

There is no question that DOD’s proposed and final regulations relating to the adverse 

actions and appeals process has not been without controversy. As you know, 10 

federal labor unions filed suit alleging that, among other things, DOD’s adverse 

actions and appeals process is unlawful. In ruling on the labor unions’ suit, a federal 

judge found that DOD’s appeals process does not provide fair treatment to DOD 

Page 9 GAO-06-582R Human Capital 
employees, and permanently enjoined DOD from moving forward with implementing 

the final regulations relating to the adverse actions and appeals process.4

As Comptroller General, I have worked with others to make the Government 

Accountability Office a model federal agency by transforming its organization and 

operations to address the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. In other 

presidentially appointed posts, including public trustee for Social Security and 

Medicare, I have seen the federal government falter in its attempts at major public 

policy reforms in those areas. The process one employs to advance major initiatives 

is critical. Based on my experience, three key process related elements maximize the 

chances for success: principles, players, and proposals. 

With regard to principles, before leaders can achieve major internal or external 

changes, they need to make a clear and compelling case that the status quo is

unacceptable and unsustainable. But that's not enough. Leaders also must provide a 

set of clear, comprehensive and compelling principles to frame the debate and help 

others understand the overall direction and objectives. 

With regard to players, any major reform effort requires the direct and sustained 

involvement of an organization's chief executive officer. But the CEO also must 

recruit champions from various stakeholder groups. For internal reforms, this 

includes managers, employees and employee organizations. For legislative reforms, 

it includes businesses, unions, citizen groups, think tanks, the media and members of 

both major political parties. Champions should be capable, credible, committed and 

effective communicators. These individuals also should be part of a broad-based "big 

tent" approach to both crafting and selling reform proposals. 

With regard to proposals, a detailed plan should be developed and presented or 

endorsed for action. The proposal should be consistent with the articulated 

principles, supported by applicable champions and informed by the "big tent" 

process. There is always risk in presenting a specific plan, especially in politically 

charged environments. But realistic leaders recognize that any major reform proposal 

is likely to be revised before it is enacted. Revisions could include desirable 

improvements or necessary compromises, but as the old saying goes, "Don't let the 

perfect be the enemy of the good." 

These three steps to reform do not have to be addressed in a particular or guarantee 

success, but failure to effectively address one or more would likely ensure defeat. 

 4

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et. al. v. Rumsfeld et al, No. 05-2183, 2006

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7068 (D.D.C. Feb. 27, 2006).

Page 10 GAO-06-582R Human Capital 
For additional information on our work on human capital issues at DOD, please 

contact me on 512-5500 or Derek B. Stewart, Director, Defense Capabilities and 

Management on 512-5559 or stewartd@gao.gov, or J. Christopher Mihm, Managing 

Director, Strategic Issues on governmentwide human capital issues at 512-6806 or 

mihmj@gao.gov. 

David M. Walker 

Comptroller General 

of the United States 

(350806) 

Page 11 GAO-06-582R Human Capital 
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. 
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, 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 

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