United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

CONTRACT 

MANAGEMENT 

Protégés Value DOD’s 

Mentor-Protégé 

Program, but Annual 

Reporting to Congress 

Needs Improvement 

January 2007 

 

GAO-07-151 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

January 2007

CONTRACT MANAGEMENT 

Protégés Value DOD’s Mentor-Protégé 

Program, but Annual Reporting to 

Congress Needs Improvement 

Highlights of GAO-07-151, a report to 

congressional committees 

Congress authorized the MentorProtégé Program to boost the 

participation of small 

disadvantaged businesses as 

subcontractors and suppliers under 

Department of Defense (DOD) and

other contracts. The program 

provides incentives to major 

defense contractors (mentors) to 

help small disadvantaged 

businesses (protégés) strengthen 

their ability to compete for 

contracts. GAO administered a

Web-based survey to determine 

whether former protégés believe

the program enhanced their

business development; examined

the accuracy of the Mentor-Protégé

Program Office’s annual reporting

to Congress; determined whether 

DOD reported on the progress of 

former protégés and their 

contributions to small business 

goals; and, identified how program 

funds have been obligated and 

used. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the

Secretary of Defense take a 

number of actions to better 

evaluate the performance of DOD’s 

Mentor-Protégé Program and to 

improve annual reporting on the 

program to the Congress. 

DOD concurred with GAO’s 

findings and recommendations.

Most of the 48 former protégés that responded to GAO’s questionnaire 

reported that the Mentor-Protégé Program was a valuable experience and 

enhanced business development. Ninety-three percent of responding 

protégés reported the Mentor-Protégé Program enhanced, at least to some 

degree, their firms’ overall capabilities. While protégés also attributed 

increases in contracts and revenues as a result of their participation in the 

program, about one-quarter reported that the program had no impact on 

gaining new contracts or on increasing revenues.

Protégé Attribution of Outcomes to Program Participation

Source: GAO analysis of protégé questionnaire responses.

7%

22%

71%

20%

28%

52%

Moderate, great, or very 

great enhancement 

attributed to program

Enhancement of

overall capabilities

Increase in

contracts

24%

24%

52%

Overall increase

in revenues

Some or little 

enhancement attributed 

to program

No enhancement 

attributed to program

Although DOD’s annual reports to the Congress indicate the program has 

increased business opportunities, the accuracy of these reports is 

questionable, primarily because the data are not validated before the reports 

are submitted to Congress. Specifically, each March DOD submits its annual 

report to Congress, based on mentor-prepared reports on protégé progress, 

but the Defense Contract Management Agency does not complete its 

validation of the mentor-prepared reports until the following September. In 

addition, many of the validations are incomplete or not done at all. 

GAO could not measure the contribution of the Mentor-Protégé Program to 

the statutory objective of awarding 5 percent of DOD’s contracting dollars to 

small disadvantaged businesses. To do this, the progress of those protégés 

completing the program since the program’s inception would need to be 

identified. This data is not available.

Over the past 3 years, the majority of the Mentor-Protégé Program’s funds, 

which totaled about $70 million, were obligated to mentors. The mentors 

were reimbursed for the developmental assistance they provided to protégés

either directly or indirectly. Defense Contract Management Agency reviews 

determined that the reimbursements received by mentors during fiscal years 

2003 and 2004 were reasonable. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-151.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Anne

Calvaresi-Barr at (202) 512-4841 

calvaresibarra@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

Most Former Protégés Value Mentor-Protégé Program 6 

Accuracy of Statutorily Required Annual Reporting Is Questionable 8 

Requirement to Report Trends in Progress Made by Former 

Protégés Has Not Been Met 9 

Mentor-Protégé Program Funds Reimburse Mentors, Protégés, and 

Cover Program Operational Costs 11 

Conclusions 12

Recommendations for Executive Action 12 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 12 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 14 

Appendix II Results Attributable to Mentoring 16 

Mentor’s Support Provided to Protégés 22 

Level of Satisfaction, Perceived Value, and Willingness to 

Recommend the Program to Others 24 

Appendix III Mentoring Completion, Adequacy, and Helpfulness 27 

Appendix IV Composition of Responding Protégé Firms 30 

Developmental Assistance Providers 31 

North American Industry Classification System Codes 31 

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Defense 32 

Page i GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Tables 

Table 1: GAO Analysis of DCMA Reviews of Fiscal Year 2003 and 

2004 Semi-Annual Reports 9 

Table 2: Mentor-Protégé Program Fiscal Year 2004, 2005, and 2006 

Appropriations and Obligations as of October 12, 2006

(Dollars in Millions) 11 

Table 3: Socioeconomic Categories Reported by Protégés 30 

Table 4: Distribution of Institutions Providing Development 

Assistance to Protégés 31 

Figures 

Figure 1: Protégé Attribution of Outcomes to Program 

Participation 8

Figure 2: Extent of Increase in Contracts Directly Attributable to 

the Mentor-Protégé Program 16 

Figure 3: Extent of Increase in Contract Dollar Value Directly

Attributable to the Mentor-Protégé Program 17 

Figure 4: Extent of Overall Increase in Revenue Directly 

Attributable to the Mentor-Protégé Program 18 

Figure 5: Extent of Increase in Employees Directly Attributable to 

the Mentor-Protégé Program 19 

Figure 6: Extent of Increase in Certification Directly Attributable to 

the Mentor-Protégé Program 20 

Figure 7: Extent of Enhancement of Overall Capabilities Directly 

Attributable to the Mentor-Protégé Program 21 

Figure 8: Business Management/Corporate Infrastructure Support 22 

Figure 9: Engineering or Technical Support 23 

Figure 10: Level of Satisfaction with Participation in the MentorProtégé Program 24 

Figure 11: Response to Whether the Mentor-Protégé Program 

Provided a Valuable Experience 25 

Figure 12: Response to Whether Protégés Would Recommend the 

Mentor-Protégé Program to Other Eligible Firms 26 

Figure 13: Mentors’ Ability to Provide Anticipated Mentoring 28 

Figure 14: Mentor Helpfulness with Business Development and 

Engineering or Technical Expertise 29 

Page ii GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Abbreviations 

CMMI Capability Maturity Model Integration 

DCMA Defense Contract Management Agency 

DOD Department of Defense 

NAICS North American Industry Classification System 

SDB Small Disadvantaged Business 

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 iii GAO-07-151 Contract Management
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

January 31, 2007 

The Honorable Carl Levin 

Chairman 

The Honorable John Warner 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Ike Skeleton 

Chairman 

The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

Each year, the Department of Defense (DOD) obligates hundreds of 

billions of dollars in contracts for goods and services. To boost the 

participation of small disadvantaged businesses as subcontractors and 

suppliers under DOD and other federal and commercial contracts, 

Congress authorized a pilot Mentor-Protégé Program. The program, which 

was authorized in 19901

 and has been continually renewed, provides 

incentives for major defense contractors (mentors) to help small 

disadvantaged businesses (protégés) strengthen their ability to compete 

for defense and other federal contracts as well as commercial contracts. 

To ensure that the program is focused on a results-oriented approach to 

assessing program performance, Congress has required DOD to report 

annually on trends in the progress made in employment, revenues, and 

participation in DOD contracts of protégé firms and former protégé firms.2

Congress also required GAO to study the program’s effectiveness.3

 In 

responding to this mandate, we 

 1

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, Pub. L. No. 101-510, § 831 (1990). 

2

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-65, § 811(d) 

(1999). 

3

Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Pub. L. No. 

108-375, § 841 (2004). 

Page 1 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
• determined whether former protégés believe the Mentor-Protégé 

Program enhanced their business development, 

• assessed the accuracy of the Mentor-Protégé Program Office’s 

annual reporting to Congress, 

• determined if the Mentor-Protégé Program Office reports on the 

progress of former protégés and how their progress helped DOD 

contribute to the statutory objective4

 of awarding 5 percent of its 

contracting dollars to small disadvantaged businesses, and 

• identified how Mentor-Protégé Program funds have been obligated 

and used. 

In performing our work, we administered a Web-based survey to protégés 

that completed or left the program during fiscal years 2004 and 2005, 

obtaining a 63 percent response rate. We reviewed mentor-prepared semiannual reports, designed to quantify the progress made under active 

mentor-protégé agreements, and we examined the Defense Contract 

Management Agency’s (DCMA) audit of those reports. In addition, we 

interviewed protégés, mentors, and Mentor-Protégé Program Office 

officials. We also obtained funding data from the Mentor-Protégé Program

Office and reviewed the criteria established to ensure that costs incurred 

were reasonable. A complete statement of our methodology is in appendix 

I. We conducted our review from March 2006 to October 2006, in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Most of the 48 former protégés that responded to our survey reported that

the Mentor-Protégé Program was a valuable experience and helped 

enhance their business development. About 87 percent of responding 

protégés reported that support from their mentors helped their business 

development and corporate infrastructure. About 84 percent stated that 

mentor support enhanced their engineering or technical expertise; onefourth directly linked their participation in the program to their ability to 

meet International Organization for Standardization5

 quality standards; and 

Results in Brief 

 4

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987, Pub. L. No. 99-661, § 1207 (1986), 

codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2323.

5

The International Organization for Standardization is the world’s largest developer of 

standards. Suppliers meeting these standards have wide acceptance within their vendor 

industry. 

Page 2 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
over one-fifth responded they had received additional training and 

certifications, such as manufacturing process and control training or 

Capability Maturity Model Integration6

 certifications. Protégés also 

reported quantifiable business growth. For example, protégés collectively 

attributed 95 new contracts and about $131 million in increased revenue to 

their participation in the program. Further, about 63 percent reported an 

increase in employees. Despite the overall value protégés attributed to the 

program, about one-quarter reported that the program had no impact on 

gaining new contracts or on increasing revenues. 

The accuracy of DOD’s annual reports to the Congress is questionable, 

primarily because the data are not validated before the reports are 

submitted to Congress. Specifically, each March DOD submits its annual 

report to Congress, which is based on mentor-prepared reports on protégé 

progress, but DCMA does not complete its validation of the mentorprepared reports until the following September. In addition, many of the 

validations are incomplete, and some mentor-prepared reports are not 

validated at all. In fiscal year 2004, for example, 40 of the 183 active

agreements were not reviewed at all, and 30 percent of the mentorprepared reports did not have protégés’ signatures and/or concurrence, as

required to help corroborate data accuracy. If the data are flawed, the 

report could overstate or understate the success of the program. Yet, DOD 

does not know the extent of the validation problem or the overall 

effectiveness of the program because it does not summarize the audits in a

meaningful comprehensive report to assess what the findings of the DOD 

audits mean, how the DOD findings affect the program’s operation, or 

identify any corrective actions that need to be taken to make the program 

more effective. 

Until April 2006, DOD did not attempt to report on the trends of the 

progress made by protégés after they completed the program, as required 

by the Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act. Although 

Mentor-Protégé Program agreements signed since February 2000 required

protégés to report their progress for 2 years after they complete the 

 6

A Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)® certification confirms that a firm knows

the value of establishing effective processes. It is based on the premise that even a quality 

workforce cannot perform its best when a firm’s processes are not understood or not 

operating effectively. CMMI can be used to guide process improvement across a project, a

division, or an entire organization. CMMI helps integrate traditionally separate 

organizational functions, set process improvement goals and priorities, provide guidance

for quality processes, and provide a point of reference for appraising current processes. 

Page 3 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
program, they were not doing so. According to protégés we interviewed, 

they either were unaware or had forgotten that they had agreed to this 

reporting requirement. Program office officials, when asked if they sent 

letters to former protégés as a reminder to comply with the 2-year 

reporting requirement, said the first such letter was sent in April 2006, 

after GAO asked to see the progress reports. Even if the 2-year postagreement reporting requirement had been met, we could not determine 

the contribution of the program to the statutory objective of awarding 

5 percent of DOD’s contracting dollars to small disadvantaged businesses. 

To make this determination would require knowing the progress of those 

protégés completing the program since the program’s inception; this 

information is unavailable. 

Over the past 3 years, the majority of the Mentor-Protégé Program’s funds, 

which totaled about $70 million, were obligated to mentors. The mentors 

were reimbursed for the developmental assistance they provided to 

protégés, either directly or indirectly, by subcontracting to Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities, minority institutions, and certain 

government-sponsored groups—procurement technical assistance centers

and small business development centers. Funds were also obligated to 

reimburse protégés for their incidental costs, such as travel, and to cover 

the Mentor-Protégé Program Office’s operational costs. DCMA reviews 

determined that the reimbursements received by mentors during fiscal 

years 2003 and 2004 were reasonable.

We are making recommendations to improve the accuracy and 

completeness of the Mentor-Protégé annual reports to Congress, which 

should help to better assist in evaluating the program. In written 

comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our findings and 

recommendations, indicating that implementation of our 

recommendations is already underway. DOD stated that these actions are 

expected to fully address GAO’s recommendations and are scheduled to 

be completed by the end of fiscal year 2007. 

Congress established, as an objective for DOD, the goal of awarding 

5 percent of the amount contracted by DOD and subcontracted by DOD’s 

prime contractors to small disadvantaged businesses. The 

5 percent goal was not met in the years immediately following its 

establishment because, according to large DOD prime contractors, there 

were not enough qualified small disadvantaged businesses available as 

DOD subcontractors. 

Background 

Page 4 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Subsequently, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 

required the Secretary of Defense to establish a pilot Mentor-Protégé 

Program. The purpose of the program is to provide incentives for major 

DOD contractors (mentors) to furnish small disadvantaged businesses 

(protégés7

) with assistance designed to enhance their capabilities and 

increase their participation as subcontractors and suppliers under DOD 

contracts, other federal government contracts, and commercial contracts.

Since the Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program was authorized, it has been 

continuously extended. With the passage of the Fiscal Year 2005 National 

Defense Authorization Act, DOD is now authorized to approve new 

agreements through September 30, 2010, and program performance is 

authorized through September 30, 2013. 

DOD’s Office of Small Business Programs manages the Mentor-Protégé 

Program. Each year, as required by the fiscal year 2000 authorizing 

statute,8

 DOD submits to Congress an annual report on the trends in the 

progress made in employment, revenues, and participation in DOD 

contracts by protégé firms. To satisfy the requirements of the fiscal year 

2000 authorizing statute, DOD’s implementing regulations require 

(1) mentors to report on the progress made under active mentor-protégé 

agreements, semi-annually, throughout the term of an agreement, and 

(2) protégés to report progress in each of the 2 years following the 

completion of their agreements. In addition, DCMA is to conduct annual 

performance reviews to verify whether the mentors and protégés 

accurately reported progress and to determine that all costs reimbursed to 

mentors were reasonably incurred in accordance with the statute and 

applicable regulations. 

From the program’s inception through fiscal year 2006, Congress has 

appropriated $437.7 million to the program, and DOD has approved 

910 mentor-protégé agreements. Funding covers program operational 

costs and reimburses mentors for providing developmental assistance. 

Mentor-protégé agreements are usually limited to a 3-year period. At the 

end of July 2006, there were 149 active mentor-protégé agreements. 

 7

Eligible protégés now consist of small disadvantage businesses, 8(a) certified firms, 

Women-Owned Small Businesses, firms that employ severely disabled persons, servicedisabled veteran-owned businesses, historically underutilized business zone small business 

concerns, Indian tribe-owned, and Native Hawaiian Organization-owned.

8

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-65, § 811 (1999). 

Page 5 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
This report is one of a series we have issued on the Mentor-Protégé 

Program. We reported on the Mentor-Protégé Program in 1992,9

 

1994,

10 1998,11 and 2001.12 In our first report, one of our recommendations 

was that DOD develop and implement adequate internal controls in the 

application and approval process and in the oversight of protégé 

development. In our subsequent reports, we found DOD did not have 

sufficient data to adequately assess the program’s performance in meeting 

its objectives. Among other things, we recommended that DOD gather 

more complete information on program performance by strengthening 

performance reviews and seeking protégé feedback on the extent to which 

the program had resulted in additional contracting and subcontracting 

opportunities. DOD concurred with our recommendations to strengthen 

its data collection and performance reviews, but stated that asking 

protégés how the program has resulted in additional contracting and 

subcontracting would be an imposition to protégés. We disagreed because, 

within the context of statutory reporting requirements, DOD should 

remind protégés to report on how the program had resulted in contracting 

and subcontracting opportunities. 

To determine whether former protégés believe the Mentor-Protégé 

Program enhanced their business development, we administered a Webbased survey and received responses from 48 of the 76 protégés that 

completed or left the program during fiscal years 2004 and 2005. 

Ninety-three percent of protégés reported the Mentor-Protégé Program 

enhanced, at least to some degree, their firms’ overall capabilities. About 

87 percent reported that support from their mentors helped their 

businesses’ development, and about 84 percent stated that mentor support 

helped their engineering or technical expertise. As an example of specific

development support, about 71 percent of protégés reported receiving

help with their quality management programs, with one-fourth directly 

linking the assistance they received to their ability to meet International 

Most Former Protégés 

Value Mentor-Protégé 

Program 

 9

GAO, Defense Contracting: Interim Report on Mentor-Protégé Program for Small 

Disadvantaged Firms, GAO/NSIAD-92-135 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 1992). 

10GAO, Defense Contracting: Implementation of the Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program, 

GAO/NSIAD-94-101 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 1994). 

11GAO, Defense Contracting: Sufficient, Reliable Information on DOD’s Mentor-Protégé

Program is Unavailable, GAO/NSIAD-98-92 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 1998). 

12GAO, Contract Management: Benefits of the DOD Mentor-Protégé Program are Not 

Conclusive, GAO-01-767 (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2001). 

Page 6 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Organization for Standardization quality standards, which increased their 

business competitiveness. Over one-fifth responded that they had received 

additional training and certifications, such as manufacturing process and 

control training or Capability Maturity Model Integration certifications. 

Finally, nearly 98 percent of the protégés reported that they would 

recommend the program to other small businesses eligible to participate in

the program. 

In terms of the level of satisfaction, our survey found about 71 percent of

protégés were at least generally satisfied with their experience, with 

reasons ranging from enhanced capabilities and heightened exposure in 

the marketplace, to quantifiable business growth. Nearly 80 percent of 

protégés reported that their mentors provided the anticipated type and

level of mentoring. The overall results also indicate that the majority of 

responding protégés directly attributed some degree of business growth to 

their participation in the program. Measures of this growth include the 

number and dollar value of contracts received, overall revenues, new 

employee hiring, and new certifications. For example, protégés 

collectively attributed 95 new contracts and about $131 million in 

increased revenues, to their participation in the program. 

About 15 percent of the protégés reported dissatisfaction with their 

participation and about 21 percent responded that they did not receive the 

level of mentoring that they had anticipated. Reasons for dissatisfaction 

included a lack of mentor commitment to the program, mentor failure to 

meet the objectives of mentor-protégé agreements, and costs to the 

protégés that exceeded the return from participation. Furthermore, about 

28 percent of protégés reported that their program participation did not 

produce increases in their contracts and nearly one-quarter reported no 

impact on revenues. 

Figure 1 illustrates the extent to which protégés attributed the 

enhancement of their overall capabilities as well as increases in contracts,

dollar value of contracts, certifications, revenues, and additional 

employees to the Mentor-Protégé Program. 

Page 7 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Figure 1: Protégé Attribution of Outcomes to Program Participation

Source: GAO analysis of protégé questionnaire responses.

7%

22%

71%

20%

28%

52%

Moderate, great, or very great enhancement attributed to program

Some or little enhancement attributed to program

No enhancement attributed to program

Enhancement of

overall capabilities

Increase in

contracts

Increase in

contract dollar

value

24%

24%

52%

19%

37%

44%

Increase in

certifications

Overall increase

in revenues

Increase in

employees

13%

29%

58%

24%

32%

44%

Note: The percents are rounded and do not include responses of no basis to judge and not 

applicable. 

Appendixes II through IV provide detailed information on the results of 

our survey. 

The accuracy of statutorily required annual reporting is questionable 

because DOD’s annual performance reviews of mentor-protégé 

agreements, designed to verify the accuracy of progress made by protégés, 

are not completed until after DOD sends its annual report to Congress. 

Specifically, each March DOD submits its annual report to Congress. This 

report is based on mentor-prepared reports on protégé progress, but DOD 

does not complete its validation of the mentor-prepared reports until the 

following September. In addition, not all of the mentor-protégé agreements 

are reviewed; many of the reviews are incomplete; and many reports were 

not signed and/or concurred to by protégés. The protégé’s signature and 

concurrence are required to provide corroborating support of the data 

submitted by mentors. Further, the overall message of the performance 

reviews is unknown because the reviews, which consist of over a hundred

individual audits each year, are not summarized into a single report to 

assess what the findings of its audits mean, how these findings affect the 

program’s operation, and to identify any corrective actions that need to be

taken to make the program more effective. 

Accuracy of 

Statutorily Required 

Annual Reporting Is 

Questionable 

The Mentor-Protégé Program Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report to Congress, 

dated March 31, 2006, shows the trends in the progress of protégé 

Page 8 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
employment, revenues, and participation in DOD contracts during fiscal 

year 2005. The information in this report and previous annual reports sent 

to Congress was derived from mentor-prepared semi-annual reports, 

which had not been reviewed by DCMA. For example, the DCMA annual 

performance reviews of the fiscal year 2005 mentor-prepared semi-annual 

reports were not completed until September 2006, 6 months after the 

Mentor-Protégé Program Office reported to Congress. 

We analyzed the results of DCMA’s review of the fiscal years 2003 and 

2004 reports, which are shown in table 1. In sum, not all of the mentorprotégé agreements were reviewed, many reports were not signed and/or 

concurred to by protégés, and many of the reviews were incomplete. 

Table 1: GAO Analysis of DCMA Reviews of Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Semi-Annual 

Reports

Areas of Analysis FY 2003 FY 2004

Active agreements 189 183 

Active agreements with reports reviewed 125 143 

Active agreements not reviewed 64 (34%) 40 (22%)

Reports without protégé signature and/or indication of 

concurrence or non-concurrence 

34 (27%) 43 (30%)

Reports reviewed without verification of all the metrics 28 (22%) 21 (15%)

Source: GAO analysis of DCMA reviews of fiscal year 2003 and 2004 semi-annual reports 

Although the Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act 

established the requirement for DOD to report on the trends in the 

progress of former protégés for agreements entered into on or after 

October 1, 1999, the requirement has not been met. Pursuant to the Act,

protégés are to report their progress in employment, revenues, and 

participation in DOD contracts in each of the 2 years following the 

completion of their agreements. The Mentor-Protégé Program agreement 

application template was revised in February 2000 to require protégés to 

sign a statement indicating their willingness to comply with the program’s 

reporting requirements, including the 2-year post-agreement requirement. 

The Act also required DCMA to determine whether protégés are accurately 

reporting data during the 2-year post-agreement period. Accordingly, 

DCMA’s implementing guidance states that if the data are either not 

provided or are not verifiable, the DCMA report should provide the 

reason why. 

Requirement to 

Report Trends in

Progress Made by 

Former Protégés Has 

Not Been Met 

Page 9 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Despite the Act and DCMA’s guidance, the 2-year post-agreementreporting requirement has not been met, and DCMA did not explain in its 

annual performance reviews that protégé annual reporting data had not 

been provided. 

The protégés we interviewed told us that after their agreement period, 

they either forgot that they had agreed to the reporting requirement or 

were not aware of the requirement from the beginning. DCMA officials 

acknowledged that the reporting shortfall was the result of DCMA not 

following its own policy. Finally, when we asked Mentor-Protégé Program

office officials whether they sent letters to former protégés as a reminder 

to comply with the 2-year reporting requirement, they said that the first 

such letter was sent on April 17, 2006, after we first asked about 

compliance with the 2-year reporting requirement. Program Office officials 

advised us, in October 2006, that 48 percent of the protégés they attempted 

to contact13 responded to the reminder letter. 

Part of our requirement to review the Mentor-Protégé Program was to 

determine if the Mentor-Protégé Program office reports on the progress of 

former protégés and how their progress helps DOD contribute to the 

statutory objective of awarding 5 percent of its contracting dollars to small 

disadvantaged businesses. Even if the 2-year post-agreement reporting 

requirement had been met, we could not determine the contribution of the 

program to the statutory objective of awarding 5 percent of DOD’s 

contracting dollars to small disadvantaged businesses. To make this 

determination would require knowing the progress of those protégés 

completing the program since the program’s inception; this information is 

not available. 

 13Eight protégé companies had either gone out of business or had been purchased by a

larger company, precluding the program office from contacting them. 

Page 10 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Over the past 3 years, the majority of the Mentor-Protégé Program’s funds 

were obligated to mentors.14 The mentors were reimbursed for the 

developmental assistance they provided to protégés, either directly or 

indirectly, by subcontracting to Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities, minority institutions, and certain government-sponsored 

groups—procurement technical assistance centers and small business 

development centers. Funds were also obligated to reimburse protégés for 

their incidental costs, such as travel, and to cover the Mentor-Protégé 

Program Office’s operational costs. The services are responsible for 

managing reimbursable mentor-protégé agreements and do so by either 

modifying existing contracts or awarding new ones. 

Mentor-Protégé 

Program Funds 

Reimburse Mentors, 

Protégés, and Cover 

Program Operational 

Costs 

Table 2: Mentor-Protégé Program Fiscal Year 2004, 2005, and 2006 Appropriations and Obligations as of October 12, 2006 

(Dollars in Millions) 

Obligated funds 

Mentors subcontracted to

Fiscal 

year 

Appropriation

Received by

Program 

Officea

Mentors HBCUb

MIcPTACdSBDCe

Incidental

Protégé 

Fees

MPP Office 

Operational 

Costs Totals

UnObligated

Funds

2004 $25.006 $18.155 $1.357 $1.206 $.190 0 $.730 $3.362 $25.000 $.006

2005 $19.325 $10.837 $1.859 $.934 $.169 0 $.481 $3.787 $18.068 $1.257

2006 $25.543 $15.250 $.251 $.479 $.042 $.078 $.149 $1.936 $18.185 $7.358

Source: Mentor-Protégé Program Office 

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. 

a

Funds reflect the effect of DOD reprogramming actions. 

b

HBCU—Historically Black Colleges and Universities are accredited institutions of higher education 

with the principal mission of educating African Americans. 

c

MI—Minority institutions are accredited institutions of higher education whose enrollment of a single 

minority or a combination of minorities (American Indian; Alaskan Native; African American; not of 

Hispanic origin; Hispanic, including persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and Central or South 

American origin; Pacific Islander, and/or other ethnic group underrepresented in science and 

engineering), exceeds 50 percent of the enrollment or 25 percent of the enrollment if of Hispanic 

origin. 

d

PTAC—Procurement technical assistance centers provide assistance in marketing products and 

services to the federal, state, and local governments. The Defense Logistics Agency administers the 

DOD procurement technical assistance program. 

e

SBDC—Small business development centers are administered by the SBA to assist small business 

owners by providing a wide variety of information and guidance in central and easily accessible 

branch locations.

 14Mentor-Protégé appropriations are procurement funds, which can be obligated over a 

3 year period. 

Page 11 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
As part of its performance reviews of Mentor-Protégé agreements, DCMA 

is responsible for determining whether the costs reimbursed to mentor 

firms were reasonable. For the agreements reviewed by DCMA for fiscal

years 2003 and 2004, the costs claimed by mentors were determined to be 

reasonable. DCMA had not completed its review of the fiscal years 2005 

and 2006 agreements at the time of our review. 

The Mentor-Protégé Program has clearly been of value to the majority of 

protégés that responded to our survey. However, DOD is not measuring 

the impact of the program on participating and former protégé firms, as 

Congress intended. Until DOD does so, by obtaining and validating the 

data Congress requested to measure success, neither DOD nor Congress 

will have the information it needs to oversee the program. 

To better evaluate the success of the DOD Mentor-Protégé Program and to 

improve annual reporting to Congress, we recommend that the Secretary 

of Defense 

• direct DCMA to ensure that all Mentor-Protégé agreements are audited 

in accordance with DOD regulations and DCMA guidance and that 

these audits are summarized into a single report so that the MentorProtégé Program Office and Congress have reliable data on whether 

the program is accomplishing its goals and to determine whether any 

corrective action is necessary, and 

• direct DOD’s Office of Small Business to submit its annual report to 

Congress only after the data in the report have been validated by 

DCMA and require that the annual report contain information on the 

progress of protégés for 2 years following their completion of the 

Mentor-Protégé Program.

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our 

findings and recommendations, stating that the implementation of a new 

DCMA guidebook and revised reporting processes will address the 

recommendations. DOD expects to complete the revised reporting 

processes by the end of fiscal year 2007. DOD also noted in its response 

that many of the recommendations regarding reporting requirements were 

already being addressed through restructuring and procedural changes 

that have been underway within DCMA. This is not an accurate depiction 

of DOD’s actions. It was as a result of our work that the Small Business 

Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 12 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Office became aware of the reporting deficiencies. Only then did the Small 

Business Office identify actions to address these deficiencies. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the 

Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and interested 

congressional committees. We will also make copies available at no charge 

on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you have questions about this report or need additional information, 

please contact me at (202) 512-6986 or calvaresi-barra@gao.gov. Contact 

points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 

found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report were 

James Fuquay, Assistant Director; Greg Campbell, Daniel Hauser, 

Stewart Kaufman, Sean Merrill, Charlie Shivers, and Karen Thornton. 

Ann Calvaresi-Barr 

Director 

Acquisition and Sourcing Management 

Page 13 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

In the absence of data to determine whether former protégés believe the

Mentor-Protégé Program enhanced their business development and 

translated into growing their businesses, we designed and administered a 

Web-based survey. We pretested the survey with two protégé firms to 

determine whether (1) the questions were clear, (2) the terms used were 

precise, (3) the questions were unbiased, and (4) the survey did not place 

an undue burden on the respondents. Based on the pretests, we made 

changes to our final survey. In coordination with the Mentor-Protégé 

Program Office, we identified a universe of 79 protégés that had either 

completed or terminated Mentor-Protégé agreements during fiscal years 

2004 and 2005. We subsequently determined that three protégés would not 

be included in our survey because two had active agreements and one had 

no contact information. We selected former protégé firms to reduce the

potential for bias responses that could result from protégés with active 

agreements. Of the 76 eligible protégés that were sent the survey, 

48 responded, representing a response rate of 63 percent. The survey 

consisted of open-ended and close-ended questions to characterize 

protégé firms’ demographics as well as obtain information on their 

program participation experiences, the adequacy of mentoring, the results

attributable to mentoring, and protégés’ overall assessment of the 

program. We did not independently verify the data provided by the 

protégés. We supplemented the survey by interviewing officials from five 

protégé firms with active or recently completed agreements. These 

interviews were conducted to determine if current protégés had opinions 

of the program that were inconsistent with our survey findings. We also 

interviewed officials from four mentor firms to obtain their views on the 

value of their agreements with protégés. 

To assess the accuracy of the Mentor-Protégé Program Office’s annual 

reporting to Congress, we reviewed (1) the program’s statutory reporting 

requirements, (2) DCMA mentor-protégé reporting regulations, (3) DCMA 

reviews of the fiscal year 2003 and 2004 mentor-prepared semi-annual 

reports, and (4) the fiscal years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 Mentor-Protégé 

Program Office’s annual reports. We also held discussions with officials 

from the program office, DCMA, and the Army, Navy, and Air Force. 

To determine whether the Mentor-Protégé Program Office reports on the 

progress of former protégés, we reviewed its reports to Congress and held

discussions with program office officials. We also interviewed protégés 

and mentors, asking them if they were aware of the protégés’ postagreement reporting requirement. 

Page 14 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Finally, we obtained DOD funding data for the Mentor-Protégé Program 

and reviewed the criteria established to ensure that program costs 

incurred were reasonable. We also reviewed the DCMA audits of those 

agreements that were reviewed by DCMA for fiscal year 2003 and fiscal 

year 2004. 

Page 15 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
A

Men

ppendix II: Results Attributable to 

toring

Page 16 GAO-07-151

Appendix II: Results Attributable to 

Mentoring 

We asked protégé firms to respond to questions related to the business 

growth and whether that growth was attributable to their participation in

the Mentor-Protégé Program. The questions addressed increases in the 

number of contracts, revenue increases, expanding numbers of employees,

and additional business certifications. The overall results indicate that the 

majority of responding protégés directly attributed some degree of 

business growth to their participation in the program for all of the topics 

discussed above. 

The following bar graphs illustrate how protégés attributed increases in 

contracts, dollar value of contracts, revenues, employees, certifications, 

and enhancement of overall capabilities to their participation in the 

Mentor-Protégé Program. The graphs represent the responses of all 

48 protégés responding to our survey. The narrative accompanying each 

graph represents the responses of the subset of the protégés that elected 

to attribute specific values to each metric. 

Figure 2: Extent of Increase in Contracts Directly Attributable to the Mentor-Protégé

Program 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Number of responses

Source: GAO analysis of protégé questionnaire responses.

Very great extent

Great extent

Moderate extent

Some or little extent

No extent

No basis to judge

Not applicable

7

5

12

9

13

1 1

Contract Management
Appendix II: Results Attributable to 

Mentoring

The actual number of increased contracts reported ranged from 1 to 

20 contracts, with an average number of contracts of nearly 2, a median of 

2, and a mode of 1 contract, among 26 protégés that reported specific 

contract number increases. 

Figure 3: Extent of Increase in Contract Dollar Value Directly Attributable to the 

Mentor-Protégé Program

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Number of responses

Source: GAO analysis of protégé questionnaire responses.

Very great extent

Great extent

Moderate extent

Some or little extent

No extent

No basis to judge

Not applicable

6

4

8

10

13

5

2

The actual increase in contract dollar value reported ranged from 

$100,000 to $20 million, with an average dollar value over $750,000, a 

median increase of $530,000, and a mode increase of $500,000, among 

18 protégés that reported specific increases in contract dollar value. 

Page 17 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Appendix II: Results Attributable to 

Mentoring

Figure 4: Extent of Overall Increase in Revenue Directly Attributable to the MentorProtégé Program 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Number of responses

Source: GAO analysis of protégé questionnaire responses.

Very great extent

Great extent

Moderate extent

Some or little extent

No extent

No basis to judge

Not applicable

7

8

9

11 11

2

0

The overall increase in revenue reported ranged from $25,000 to 

$75 million, with an average revenue increase of over $5.2 million, a 

median increase of $1 million, and a mode increase of $1.5 million, among 

25 protégés that reported specific increases in overall revenue. 

Page 18 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Appendix II: Results Attributable to 

Mentoring

Figure 5: Extent of Increase in Employees Directly Attributable to the MentorProtégé Program 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Number of responses

Source: GAO analysis of protégé questionnaire responses.

Very great extent

Great extent

Moderate extent

Some or little extent

No extent

No basis to judge

Not applicable

4

5

10

8

16

2

3

The extent of increase in employees reported ranged from 1 to 

500 employees, with an average increase of 44 employees, a median 

increase of 17 employees, and a mode increase of 1 employee, among 

23 protégés that reported specific increases in employees. 

Page 19 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Appendix II: Results Attributable to 

Mentoring

Figure 6: Extent of Increase in Certifications Directly Attributable to the MentorProtégé Program 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Number of responses

Source: GAO analysis of protégé questionnaire responses.

Very great extent

Great extent

Moderate extent

Some or little extent

No extent

No basis to judge

Not applicable

11

6

5 5

11

5 5

The extent of increase in the number of certifications reported ranged 

from 1 to 60 certifications, with an average increase of 5 certifications, a 

median increase of 1 certification, and a mode increase of 1 certification, 

among 27 protégés that reported specific increases in certifications. 

Page 20 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Appendix II: Results Attributable to 

Mentoring

Figure 7: Extent of Enhancement of Overall Capabilities Directly Attributable to the 

Mentor-Protégé Program

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Number of responses

Source: GAO analysis of protégé questionnaire responses.

Very great extent

Great extent

Moderate extent

Some or little extent

No extent

No basis to judge

Not applicable

10

5

18

10

3

0

2

The vast majority of protégés reported that some degree of enhancement 

of overall capabilities was attributable to their participation in the 

program, with 15 reporting the program provided enhancements to a great 

or very great extent. 

Page 21 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Appendix II: Results Attributable to 

Mentoring

The figures below portray the types of support that protégés received 

through participation in the Mentor-Protégé Program. Figure 8 shows the 

different types of business management and corporate infrastructure 

support and the number of protégés reporting support for each type. 

Figure 9 shows the different types of engineering or technical support and 

the number of protégés receiving support for each type. 

Mentor’s Support 

Provided to Protégés 

Figure 8: Business Management/Corporate Infrastructure Support 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Percent

Source: GAO analysis of protégé questionnaire responses.

Organization planning

Marketing or sales

Human resource management

Accounting systems

Financial management

Contract management

Facilities or plant management

Advance payments under contract

Other support

30

28

23

17

16

15

13

3

16

Page 22 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Appendix II: Results Attributable to 

Mentoring

Figure 9: Engineering or Technical Support 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Percent

Source: GAO analysis of protégé questionnaire responses.

Other support

Technology transfer

Supply chain management

Product assembly technique

Tooling design and fabrication

Information systems design

Network systems

Hazardous material control

Logistics systems

Quality management programs

Environmental remedial system

design

13

7

7

6

6

5

5

4

3

34

9

Page 23 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Appendix II: Results Attributable to 

Mentoring

To determine former protégés’ overall assessment of the Mentor-Protégé 

Program, we asked (1) how satisfied or dissatisfied participants were with

the program; (2) whether the Mentor-Protégé experience was valuable 

(regardless of whether participants realized an increase in contracts 

and/or revenues); and (3) if they would recommend participation in the 

DOD Mentor-Protégé Program to other eligible small firms. The following 

bar graphs present how the protégés responded to these questions. 

Level of Satisfaction, 

Perceived Value, and 

Willingness to 

Recommend the 

Program to Others 

Figure 10: Level of Satisfaction with Participation in the Mentor-Protégé Program 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Number of responses

Source: GAO analysis of protégé questionnaire responses.

Very satisfied

Generally satisfied

As

satisfied as

Generally

Very dissatisfied

18

16

7

2

5

 dissatisfied

 dissatisfied

Page 24 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Appendix II: Results Attributable to 

Mentoring

Figure 11: Response to Whether the Mentor-Protégé Program Provided a Valuable 

Experience 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Number of responses

Source: GAO analysis of protégé questionnaire responses.

Definitely yes

Probably yes

Probably no

Definitely no

No opinion

33

10

1

2 2

Page 25 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Appendix II: Results Attributable to 

Mentoring

Figure 12: Response to Whether Protégés Would Recommend the Mentor-Protégé

Program to Other Eligible Firms 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Number of responses

Source: GAO analysis of protégé questionnaire responses.

Definitely yes

Probably yes

Probably no

Definitely no

No opinion

41

5

1 0 1

Page 26 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Appendix III: Mentoring Completion, Appendix III: Mentoring Completion, Adequacy, and Helpfulness 

Adequacy, and Helpfulness 

Of the 48 protégés that responded to the survey, 42, or about 88 percent, 

completed the agreement they signed with their mentors. For the six 

protégés that terminated their agreement before it was scheduled to end,

two reported their agreements were terminated early because their 

companies no longer qualified for the program and four reported that they 

chose to end their participation in the program. For the two agreements 

that ended because of a change in their eligibility, one reported that it 

grew out of its small business status, and the other reported that it was 

acquired by a publicly traded large business. For the four protégés that 

chose to terminate their agreements, the reported reasons for their 

decision included high cost both in resources and money, the program’s 

paperwork burden, and a lack of commitment from their mentor. 

Of the protégés that responded to questions regarding their mentors’ 

ability to provide the anticipated type and level of mentoring, about 

80 percent reported that their mentors provided the anticipated type and 

level or mentoring. Figure 13 shows the specific reporting results. 

Page 27 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Appendix III: Mentoring Completion, 

Adequacy, and Helpfulness 

Figure 13: Mentors’ Ability to Provide Anticipated Mentoring 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Number of responses

Source: GAO analysis of protégé questionnaire responses.

Number of protégés that received anticipated mentoring

Number of protégés that did not receive anticipated mentoring

Anticipated type 

of mentoring

Anticipated level 

or amount of 

mentoring

36

38

10 10

Note: “Not Sure” responses are not included. 

To address the adequacy of mentoring specifically related to business 

development and engineering or technical expertise, we asked protégés 

to provide responses on their program experiences with both. Their 

responses are depicted in Figure 14. Most reported the mentoring they 

received in both areas was helpful to some degree. However, 6 protégés, 

or nearly 13 percent, reported that the business development mentoring 

they received was not helpful, and 7 protégés, almost 16 percent, reported 

that mentoring related to engineering or technical expertise was 

not helpful.

Page 28 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Appendix III: Mentoring Completion, 

Adequacy, and Helpfulness 

Figure 14: Mentor Helpfulness with Business Development and Engineering or

Technical Expertise 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Number of responses

Source: GAO analysis of protégé questionnaire responses.

Business development mentoring

Engineering or technical expertise mentoring

Extremely helpful Very helpful Moderately 

helpful

Slightly helpful Not helpful

11

12

8

9 9 9 9

11

6

7

Note: Numbers include respondents providing actual responses, but do not include “Not Applicable” 

or “Not Sure” responses. 

Page 29 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Appendix IV: Composition of Responding Appendix IV Protégé Firms : Composition of Responding 

Protégé Firms 

Through analysis of the responses from the 48 protégé firms that 

completed our survey, we were able to identify basic demographic 

information for our respondents. For example, over 70 percent of protégés

reported having small and disadvantaged business status, and just over 

35 percent reported being women-owned small businesses. Table 3 depicts 

the socioeconomic categories reported by protégés. 

Table 3: Socioeconomic Categories Reported by Protégés

Reported Socioeconomic Category

Percentage Reporting 

Socioeconomic Category

Small disadvantaged business (SDB) 70.8%

SDB owned and controlled by an Indian Tribe 2.1%

Woman-owned small business 35.4%

HUBZone small business 10.4%

Service-disabled veteran-owned small business 4.2%

Othera10.4%

Source: GAO analysis of survey responses. 

a

Other responses were specified by respondents and included minority-owned business, veteranowned business, former 8(a) business, small business, and recently acquired by large business. 

Notes: No Protégés reported being SDB owned and controlled by a Native Hawaiian Organization or 

an Entity Employing the Severely Disabled. 

Percents shown add to more than 100 percent due to rounding and because respondents could 

answer with more than one response. 

The year that each responding protégé firm was established ranged from 

1957 to 2001, with about 85 percent having been established within the last

25 years and 60 percent opening for business between 1990 and 2001. In 

terms of business size, as many as 900 employees were reported by 

protégés, with an average of 166 employees and a median of 76 employees. 

For gross revenue, nearly 45 percent reported receiving more than 

$10 million in 2005 and about 85 percent earned at least $1 million. 

Protégés also reported that their percentage of current business with DOD 

averaged almost 54 percent. The median was even higher, at 65 percent of 

their total. Additionally, about 48 percent of the protégé firms reported 

that they are currently working as a subcontractor for their former 

mentor firm. 

Page 30 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Appendix IV: Composition of Responding 

Protégé Firms 

We also asked protégés whether they received any of their developmental 

assistance from Historically Black Colleges and Universities, minority 

institutions, procurement technical assistance centers, and small business 

development centers. The results are shown in table 4. 

Table 4: Distribution of Institutions Providing Development Assistance to Protégés 

Development assistance institution

Percentage of respondents receiving 

assistance from providera

Historically Black Colleges or Universities 47.8%

Minority institutions 10.0%

Procurement technical assistance centers 19.5%

Small business development centers 23.8%

Source: GAO analysis of survey responses. 

a

Percentages adjusted to only reflect respondents that were sure of their assistance providers. 

Note: Percents shown add to more than 100 percent due to rounding and because respondents could 

answer with more than one response. 

We asked protégés for their North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) codes. In total, 39 of 48 survey respondents provided 

47 different NAICS codes that represent their businesses. It is not unusual 

for a firm to have more than one NAICS code. Below are the code 

descriptions reported that had at least four responding protégés. The 

number beside each code description is the number of protégés reporting 

the code description. 

Developmental 

Assistance Providers 

North American 

Industry 

Classification System 

Codes 

• Engineering services—14

• Computer systems design services—11 

• Custom computer programming services—10 

• Other computer related services—10 

• Facilities support services—9 

• Research and development in the physical, engineering, and life 

sciences—8

• Computer facilities management services—7 

• Other management consulting services—5 

• Administrative management and general management consulting 

services—4 

• Remediation services—4 

• Environmental consulting services—4 

Page 31 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Appendix V: Comments from the Department Appendix V of Defense : Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 32 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 33 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

(120530) Page 34 GAO-07-151 Contract Management
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