a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

May 2004 FEDERAL 

ACQUISITION

Increased Attention to 

Vehicle Fleets Could 

Result in Savings

GAO-04-664
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-664.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact David Cooper 

at (202) 512-4841 or cooperd@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-664, a report to 

congressional requesters 

May 2004

FEDERAL ACQUISITION 

Increased Attention to Vehicle Fleets 

Could Result in Savings 

Because of a lack of attention to key vehicle fleet management practices, 

the agencies GAO reviewed cannot ensure their fleets are the right size or 

composition to meet their missions. Industry practices for cost-efficient 

fleets include the development of utilization criteria related to the mission 

of a vehicle and periodic fleet assessments using these criteria to determine 

the appropriate fleet size and composition. If unneeded vehicles are 

identified, they are disposed of. However, the agencies GAO reviewed have 

not established policies that contain clearly defined utilization criteria that 

would allow them to determine the number and type of vehicles they need. 

Further, agencies are not routinely conducting periodic fleet assessments. 

Two agencies, the Navy and the Forest Service within the Department of 

Agriculture, conduct assessments; however, these assessments are either 

inconsistently applied or the results are not enforced. Some agencies have 

begun to recognize the need to revise their guidelines to provide better 

criteria for determining their vehicle needs. 

GAO’s work and reviews by inspectors general identified numerous 

instances where agencies were retaining vehicles they did not need, with 

potential savings ranging from thousands to millions of dollars if these 

vehicles were eliminated. For example, the Department of the Interior’s 

Inspector General reported that a significant portion of the department’s 

36,000 vehicles were underutilized and estimated savings of $34 million 

annually if these vehicles were disposed of. 

GSA’s Office of Governmentwide Policy and the Office of Management and 

Budget have recently taken a number of actions to require agencies to better 

manage and improve the cost-efficiency of their fleets. The Office of 

Governmentwide Policy is currently revising the Federal Management 

Regulation to require agencies to (1) appoint a central fleet manager with 

control over all aspects of fleet management, including fleet budgets, which 

are now generally controlled at the local level; (2) establish utilization 

criteria and periodically review fleet size; and (3) fund a fleet management 

information system. The Office of Governmentwide Policy plans to work in a 

cooperative effort with agencies to implement the revised regulation. 

However, based on discussions with officials from the agencies GAO 

reviewed, GAO anticipates that GSA will face opposition to its requirement 

for centralized budget control over the fleets. In 2002, the Office of 

Management and Budget began requiring agencies to report, as part of their 

budget submissions, the size, composition, and cost of their fleets for the 

current year and to project costs for the next 3 fiscal years. 

Federal agencies spend about 

$1.7 billion annually to operate a 

fleet of about 387,000 vehicles. 

During the last decade, concerns 

have been raised about whether 

agencies have more vehicles than 

they need. In an April 2002 letter to 

federal agencies, the Office of 

Management and Budget stated 

that the size of the federal fleet 

seemed excessive. 

GAO was asked to determine 

(1) the extent to which agencies 

ensure that their fleets are the right 

size to meet agency missions, 

(2) whether potential savings 

could result from the disposal of 

unneeded vehicles, and (3) what 

actions are being taken on a 

governmentwide basis to improve 

fleet management practices. GAO 

focused its review on the 

justification for acquiring and 

retaining vehicles at the 

Departments of Agriculture, Army, 

Homeland Security, Navy, and 

Veterans Affairs. 

GAO is making recommendations 

to the General Services 

Administration (GSA), the Office of 

Management and Budget, and the 

Departments of Agriculture, 

Defense, Homeland Security, and 

Veterans Affairs on the need to 

periodically assess fleet size and 

composition using utilization 

criteria related to the mission of 

a vehicle. In written and oral 

comments on a draft of this report, 

the agencies generally agreed with 

GAO’s recommendations. 
Page i GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

Fleet Management Attention Is Needed to Ensure That Fleets Are 

the Right Size and Composition 6

Opportunities Exist to Dispose of Underutilized Vehicles and 

Realize Potential Savings 9

Governmentwide Initiatives to Improve Fleet Management 

Practices 11

Conclusions 13

Recommendations for Executive Action 13

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 14

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 18 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Agriculture 22 

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Defense 24 

Appendix IV Comments from the General Services 

Administration 26 

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security 29 

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Veterans 

Affairs 31 

Appendix VII Reviews Identifying Excess Vehicles at Various 

Agencies 33 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

Figures 

Figure 1: Approximate Number of Vehicles Operated by the 

Agencies Included in Our Review 5

Figure 2: Extent to Which Agencies’ Policies Provide MissionRelated Utilization Criteria and Agencies Conduct 

Periodic Fleet Assessments 7

Abbreviations 

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FAST Federal Automotive Statistical Tool 

GSA General Services Administration 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

OGP Office of Governmentwide Policy 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

TEMC Transportation Equipment Management Centers 

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

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

May 25, 2004 

The Honorable Susan M. Collins 

Chairman 

Committee on Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Russell D. Feingold 

United States Senate 

Federal agencies spend about $1.7 billion annually to acquire, operate, and 

maintain a fleet of about 387,000 trucks, passenger vehicles, and other 

vehicles, such as ambulances and buses.1

 These vehicles can be leased 

from the General Services Administration (GSA) or commercial companies 

or purchased by the agency. According to GSA data, the size of the federal 

fleet has remained fairly constant over the last 6 years. However, during 

the last decade, concerns have been raised about whether agencies are 

acquiring more vehicles than they need to meet their missions. These 

concerns culminated in an April 2002 letter to federal agencies, in which 

the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), stated that 

the size of the federal fleet seemed, in many cases, to be excessive and 

that significant reductions may be in order. 

You asked us to determine (1) the extent to which agencies ensure that 

their fleets are the right size to meet agency missions, (2) whether 

potential savings could result from the disposal of unneeded vehicles, and 

(3) what actions are being taken on a governmentwide basis to improve 

fleet management practices. We conducted our work at the Departments 

of Agriculture, Army, Navy, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs; all of 

which account for about 200,000 vehicles, or about 53 percent of the 

federal government’s fleet. Within the Department of Veterans Affairs, we 

focused on the Veterans Health Administration because it is responsible 

for agencywide fleet management. Within Agriculture, we focused our 

review on the Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS), and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which 

account for about 75 percent of Agriculture’s vehicles. Because the 

 1

 This number does not include Postal Service vehicles or tactical vehicles (those intended 

for use in combat). 

United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was formed only recently and its 

various organizational elements are currently operating under fleet 

policies from their legacy agencies, we limited our review to the actions 

the department is taking to leverage its buying power when acquiring 

vehicles and to develop departmentwide fleet management guidelines. We 

interviewed officials and analyzed information provided by these agencies, 

as well as GSA and OMB. We focused our work on agencies’ justifications 

for acquiring and retaining vehicles and did not assess their vehicle 

operation, maintenance, or disposal practices. We also talked with 

representatives from private industry who are familiar with efficient fleet 

management practices. A detailed discussion of our scope and 

methodology is in appendix I. We conducted our review from September 

2003 to April 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. 

The agencies we reviewed cannot ensure that their vehicle fleets are 

the right size and composition to meet agency missions because of a 

lack of attention to key fleet management practices. Industry practices 

for cost-efficient fleets include developing utilization criteria related to 

the mission of a vehicle and conducting periodic fleet assessments to 

determine whether fleets are the right size and composition. If unneeded 

vehicles are identified, they are disposed of. However, policies at the 

agencies we reviewed do not generally call for clearly defined utilization 

criteria related to the mission of a vehicle—such as the number of trips 

per day or hours on station—to ensure that decisions to acquire and retain 

vehicles are based on a validated need. In addition, most of the agencies 

do not conduct periodic assessments of their fleets to determine whether 

they have the right number and type of vehicles. The Navy and the Forest 

Service do conduct assessments, but either they are done sporadically or 

the results are not enforced. Some agencies have started to recognize the 

need to pay more attention to fleet management and are taking steps to 

revise their guidelines to provide better criteria to determine vehicle 

needs. 

Our work and reviews by inspectors general identified numerous instances 

where agency fleets included a number of underutilized vehicles. If these 

vehicles were disposed of, agencies could realize savings ranging from 

thousands to millions of dollars. For example, the Department of the 

Interior’s Inspector General reported that a significant portion of the 

department’s fleet of approximately 36,000 vehicles is underutilized 

and estimated savings of $34 million if these vehicles were eliminated from 

the fleet. Savings can also be realized by changing the composition of 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

the fleet—buying vehicles that are less expensive and less costly to 

operate and maintain. For example, officials at a Veterans Affairs medical 

center are replacing 15 passenger vans with less expensive sedans and 

minivans that will still allow them to meet their community outreach goals. 

GSA’s Office of Governmentwide Policy and OMB have recently taken a 

number of actions to require agencies to better manage and improve the 

cost-efficiency of their fleets. The Office of Governmentwide Policy is 

currently revising the Federal Management Regulation pertaining to fleet 

management.2

 The revised regulation will require agencies to (1) appoint a 

senior level fleet manager at agency headquarters with the authority for all 

aspects of fleet management, including control over budget and local 

decisions; (2) establish utilization criteria and periodically review fleet 

size; and (3) invest in a fleet management information system. GSA plans 

to work cooperatively with agencies to help them implement these 

requirements; however, based on our discussions with agencies outside of 

GSA, we anticipate strong opposition to the requirement that agencies 

centralize budget control of the fleets. OMB has recently required 

agencies, as part of their budget submissions, to report on the size, 

composition, and cost for their fleets for the current year and to project 

fleet costs over the subsequent 3-year period. 

In this report, we make recommendations to GSA, OMB, and the 

Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans 

Affairs on the need to periodically assess fleet size and composition using 

utilization criteria related to the mission of a vehicle. In written and oral 

comments on a draft of this report, the agencies generally concurred with 

our findings and recommendations. 

 2

 41 CFR Part 102-34 (2003). 
Page 4 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

The size and cost of operating the federal vehicle fleet has been a subject 

of concern for many years. In 1986, Congress enacted legislation that 

required agencies, among other things, to collect and analyze the costs of 

their motor vehicle operations, including acquisition decisions, in order to 

improve the management and efficiency of their fleets and to reduce 

costs.3 Two years later, we reported that most agencies had not conducted 

the required studies. In 1992, an interagency task force identified obstacles 

to cost-efficient fleet management, including the continued lack of 

compliance with the 1986 legislative requirements, and stated that 

agencies lacked basic information to effectively and efficiently manage 

their fleets. In 1994, we reported,4

 among other things, that successful fleet 

practices included oversight at the headquarters level to ensure that 

uniform written policies and guidance are provided throughout the 

organization and fleet management information systems to provide 

accurate data about the fleet. We also reported that agencies need to 

conduct periodic reviews to ensure their fleets are the right size and 

composition. 

The vehicle fleets at the agencies we reviewed are widely dispersed. For 

example, the Army and Navy operate vehicles throughout the world, while 

the Veterans Affairs fleet is spread across medical centers, national 

cemeteries, and other locations throughout the country. The approximate 

number of vehicles operated by the agencies included in our review is 

shown in figure 1. 

 3

 Pub. L. No. 99-272, Sections 15301-15313 (Apr. 7, 1986). 

4

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Motor Vehicles: Private and State Practices Can 

Improve Fleet Management, GAO/GGD-95-18 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 29, 1994). 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

Figure 1: Approximate Number of Vehicles Operated by the Agencies Included in 

Our Review

The Office of Governmentwide Policy within GSA develops policies, 

disseminated through the Federal Management Regulation, and bulletins 

for agency vehicle fleet management. Federal agencies, however, are 

responsible for managing their own fleets, including making decisions 

about the number and type of vehicles they need and how to acquire them. 

OGP also collects data from agencies via the Federal Automotive 

Statistical Tool (FAST) concerning fleet size, composition, and costs. 

Although GSA uses these data in annual reports to OMB on the 

government’s fleet size and costs, GSA officials told us that much of the 

data are inaccurate because of the different systems agencies use to 

collect and report information. 











5%

Veterans Affairs 10,000

15%

21%

24%

35%

Department of 

Homeland Security

30,000

U.S. Department of 

Agriculture

42,000

Navy

49,000

Army

71,000

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
Page 6 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

The agencies we reviewed cannot ensure that their vehicle fleets are the 

right size and composition to meet their missions because of a lack of 

attention to key fleet management practices. In particular, agencies 

generally have not established policies with clearly defined utilization 

criteria related to the mission of a vehicle to ensure that decisions to 

acquire and retain vehicles are based on a validated need. In addition, 

agencies have not implemented periodic assessments to determine 

whether they have the right number and type of vehicles in the fleet. Some 

agencies have begun to recognize the need to pay more attention to fleet 

management and are taking steps to review their guidelines in an effort to 

provide better criteria to determine vehicle needs and to manage their 

fleets more efficiently. 

Industry practice for cost-efficient fleets includes establishing policies and 

procedures that contain clearly defined utilization criteria related to the 

mission of a vehicle. These criteria are then used to conduct periodic 

assessments of the fleet to identify underutilized vehicles. As previously 

noted, our 1994 report highlighted the importance of these fleet 

management practices. However, as shown in figure 2, most of the 

agencies we reviewed do not have clearly defined criteria and have not 

conducted periodic fleet assessments. We did not include DHS in this 

chart because the agency is still developing most of its fleet management 

guidelines, policies, and vehicle utilization standards.

Fleet Management 

Attention Is Needed 

to Ensure That Fleets 

Are the Right Size and 

Composition 

Agency Policies Do Not 

Define Mission-Related 

Utilization Criteria and 

Fleets Are Not Periodically 

Assessed 
Page 7 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

Figure 2: Extent to Which Agencies’ Policies Provide Mission-Related Utilization 

Criteria and Agencies Conduct Periodic Fleet Assessments 

The lack of appropriate utilization criteria means that local level 

officials—who usually make the decisions to acquire and retain vehicles—

are not basing their decisions on a validated need. Some agencies establish 

the number of miles traveled, such as the 12,000 miles per year in GSA’s 

guidance, as a criterion to measure vehicle utilization. However, this 

criterion is not appropriate for the mission of some vehicles, such as those 

used for utility work, medical transportation, or security. Therefore, 

agency officials often ignore mileage standards. None of the agencies 

assigned a value to other criteria, such as number of trips per day or hours 

on station, to measure vehicle use when mileage is not an appropriate 

measure. 

Following are some examples of cases we found where the application of 

specific criteria related to the mission of a vehicle would give local fleet 

managers a more accurate basis on which to make decisions about 

fleet size: 

• At one Veterans Affairs medical center, vehicles are used to transport 

veterans from their homes to outpatient rehabilitation activities in a 

metropolitan area outside of Boston. Veterans Affairs officials told us that 

using only a mileage standard to justify the need for the vehicles is 

inappropriate because they are used within a confined area. The officials 

agreed that a better measure would be the number of trips or the number 

of veterans served. 

Do agency policies provide clearly defined

utilization criteria to allow local officials to

make decisions on fleet size based on the

specific mission of the vehicle?

Does the agency conduct periodic fleet

assessments to determine whether all

vehicles are needed?

Army Navy Forest

Service

NRCS APHIS VA

Source: GAO analysis.

Yes indicates that agency policies, procedures, or guidelines specifically and completely

address the issue.

Somewhat indicates that the agency policies, procedures, or guidelines address the issue 

in a general manner.

No indicates that agency policies, procedures, or guidelines do not address the issue.
Page 8 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

• The Department of Defense prescribes that the military services establish 

utilization measures, such as passengers carried or hours used, to measure 

the need for a vehicle when mileage is not appropriate. However, neither 

Army nor Navy guidelines incorporate these types of utilization criteria. 

• Natural Resources Conservation Service policy includes only one criterion 

to establish fleet size, which is a ratio of employees to vehicles. The 

definition of employees includes full- and part-time employees and 

volunteers, regardless of roles or job description. 

Further, agencies generally do not conduct periodic assessments of their 

fleets. Decisions about whether to acquire and retain vehicles are made at 

the local level with little or no headquarters oversight. These local-level 

decisions are frequently based on the availability of funds rather than on a 

validated need. For example, directors of Veterans Affairs medical centers 

and state conservationists at the Natural Resources Conservation Service 

determine whether or not to acquire vehicles based on the availability of 

funds. The Army allows local commanders to acquire vehicles with 

available funds without further justification within established allocation 

levels. However, these levels have not been reviewed since 1991, 13 years 

ago. 

The Navy and the Forest Service conduct periodic assessments of fleet 

size, but the results of the assessments are either not enforced or not 

conducted in a systematic manner. The Navy’s Transportation Equipment 

Management Centers (TEMC)5

 conduct utilization assessments to 

recommend fleet inventory levels for Navy commands, yet the commands 

are not required to implement the recommended inventory levels. The 

Forest Service’s guidelines contain instructions for a systematic review of 

vehicle utilization at local sites, but these reviews are not consistently 

performed at the locations we visited, and the local sites are not required 

to report the results of the reviews to agency headquarters. 

Some agencies have begun to focus more attention on fleet management 

practices that they believe will improve the efficiency of their fleets. At the 

start of fiscal year 2004, the Army and Navy reorganized to centralize the 

management of facilities and equipment, including vehicles that are not 

related to combat forces, at various commands and installations. The Navy 

 5

 TEMCs are responsible for the management of transportation equipment at the Navy 

command level including assignment, replacement, and approval of transportation 

equipment requirements. 

Some Agencies Are Taking 

Steps to Improve Fleet 

Management Practices 
Page 9 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

established the Naval Installations Command and the Army established the 

Installation Management Agency for this purpose. Navy and Army officials 

told us that these organizations should result in increased attention to fleet 

management, including the enforcement of the TEMCs’s recommended 

inventory level in the Navy and the revision of outdated vehicle allocation 

levels in the Army. Officials told us that these organizations will provide 

more centralized oversight of the Army and Navy vehicle fleets, but 

individual commands will continue to determine the need for vehicles 

within the established inventory objectives or allocation levels. At the time 

of our review, it was too early to determine the impact these 

reorganizations will have on improving fleet management practices. 

In addition, some agencies are reviewing their guidelines in an attempt to 

include more specific requirements for fleet management. For example, 

Veterans Affairs officials told us that they are developing a vehicle manual 

with detailed guidance on how to measure utilization and hope to issue it 

in the fall of 2004. Department of Defense officials are in the process of 

revising the department’s guidelines and are considering requiring the 

application of utilization criteria tied to the mission of a vehicle to 

determine the need for vehicles. In early 2003, DHS established a Fleet 

Commodity Council to review strategic sourcing issues, including how the 

department can leverage its purchasing power when acquiring vehicles. 

The council, made up of agency fleet managers, meets quarterly. In 

addition, departmentwide fleet management policies and guidelines are 

being developed and will include criteria for justifying and assessing 

vehicle fleet sizes. 

Our work and reviews by inspectors general identified numerous instances 

where agencies had an excessive number of vehicles in their fleets. If 

these vehicles were disposed of, agencies could realize savings ranging 

from thousands to millions of dollars, as illustrated in the following 

examples: 

• In February 2004, the Department of the Interior’s Inspector General 

reported that a significant portion of the department’s fleet of 

approximately 36,000 vehicles is underutilized and estimated savings of 

$34 million. 

• At the end of fiscal year 2003, Navy reviews of selected activities estimated 

fleet savings of $3.7 million per year if installations reduced their fleets 

based on recommendations from these reviews. 

• In 2003, a U.S. Army Audit Agency report identified one Army garrison that 

had retained 99 excess vehicles in its fleet. 

Opportunities Exist 

to Dispose of 

Underutilized Vehicles 

and Realize Potential 

Savings 
Page 10 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

• A 2001 Veterans Affairs’ Inspector General report noted that accountability 

over the department’s owned vehicles at a medical center could not be 

reasonably assured. For example, agency auditors found one vehicle that 

had been parked behind a laundry facility and had not been moved since it 

was purchased in 1997. The report described the acquisition of the vehicle 

as unjustified. 

Appendix VII contains additional examples of reports that highlight 

potential savings if unnecessary vehicles were eliminated from agencies’ 

fleets. 

In other cases, locations have reduced their fleet size—primarily because 

of pressure to cut their budgets—and consequently realized savings, as 

illustrated in the following examples: 

• A Navy command decreased its fleet from 156 to 105 vehicles over the 

course of a year, resulting in savings of about $12,000 per month. A Navy 

official explained that the decrease in vehicles was driven by cuts in the 

command’s budget. 

• A Veterans Affairs medical center, in an effort to find potential savings, 

reduced its fleet by 12 vehicles, with estimated savings of about $57,000 

per year. 

• In the 1990s, a Forest Service region eliminated 500 leased vehicles when 

the agency reduced its workforce due to budget reductions, according to a 

regional official. 

However, because these reductions were not based on the application of 

utilization criteria to identify vehicle needs, there is no guarantee that the 

fleets are the right size to meet the agencies’ missions. 

Industry practice for cost-efficient fleets also calls for an assessment of 

the type of vehicles being acquired. Savings can be realized by changing 

the composition of the fleet—buying vehicles that are less expensive and 

less costly to operate and maintain. We found cases where local level 

officials had taken this step. For example, in assessing the need for 

vehicles to expand community outreach services, program officials at a 

Veterans Affairs medical center are replacing 15 passenger vans with less 

expensive sedans and minivans that will still allow them to accomplish the 

program’s goals. In another case, a local Navy fleet manager was able to 

help a security organization reduce its fleet costs by using less expensive 

trucks for carrying dogs used by law enforcement officials. 
Page 11 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

As a result of a review of governmentwide fleet practices, GSA’s Office of 

Governmentwide Policy (OGP) and OMB are taking actions to require 

agencies to better manage and improve the cost-efficiency of their fleets. 

In 2002, OGP initiated a review of federal agencies’ fleet management 

practices in cooperation with OMB. Twenty-one agencies responded to a 

GSA survey, which found, among other things, that the vast majority of 

agencies lack utilization criteria by which to determine vehicle needs and 

identify underutilized vehicles. The survey further found that many 

agencies have little control over fleet budgets and allocation levels for 

vehicles and lack effective fleet management information systems. Based 

on the survey results, OGP is currently revising the Federal Management 

Regulation to require agencies to improve fleet management practices by, 

among other things, (1) appointing a central fleet manager, (2) periodically 

reviewing fleet size, and (3) funding a fleet management information 

system. 

In 1994, we reported that the primary role of a central fleet manager is 

to establish and monitor written policies, collect and analyze fleet data, 

and look for opportunities to improve fleet operations. OGP officials 

believe that effective fleet management requires centralizing control at 

the headquarters level over all decisions related to fleet size. Thus, 

OGP will require agencies to appoint a senior management official with 

decision-making authority and control over all aspects of the agency’s 

fleet program, including the entire fleet budget and approval of local-level 

decisions. However, we anticipate strong opposition to this requirement, 

based on our discussions with agency officials outside of GSA. Many of the 

headquarters officials we interviewed believe that local-level fleet 

managers, given the right tools, are in the best position to make decisions 

on the need for vehicles and that centralized oversight, rather than control 

over the budgets and decision making, would be more appropriate. 

The revised regulation will also require agencies to develop criteria against 

which to evaluate the need for vehicles and to use these criteria in 

performing annual fleet assessments. OGP officials told us that the 

regulation will not include examples of the different criteria that could be 

used to determine vehicle needs. Instead, this type of information will be 

incorporated in GSA bulletins issued periodically to agencies and posted 

on the GSA Web site. Based on the results of the 2002 survey, OGP had 

planned to recommend that agencies base their decisions about the need 

for vehicles on a staff-to-vehicle ratio; however, officials told us they will 

require agencies to consider other measures more appropriate to a 

vehicle’s mission. As discussed above, industry practices include 

establishing multiple utilization criteria, such as mileage, number of trips 

Governmentwide 

Initiatives to Improve 

Fleet Management 

Practices 
Page 12 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

per day and hours on station, because of the differing nature of 

agency missions. 

OGP further intends to require agencies to fund a fleet management 

information system that would allow them to accurately collect 

information on the cost to acquire, operate, and maintain their fleets. 

This initiative will allow agencies to better forecast fleet funding and make 

well-founded decisions about when to replace vehicles. OGP plans to issue 

guidelines defining the minimum functional requirements for the system. 

Officials we spoke with at Defense, DHS, and Veterans Affairs stated that 

they believe that developing a fleet management system is important, but 

they are at varying stages of exploring options, requesting bids from 

contractors, and requesting funding. 

While OGP believes it has the authority to require agencies to follow its 

regulation and guidelines, enforcement will be another matter. OGP 

officials plan to work with agencies in a cooperative effort, through 

workshops and federal fleet conferences, to help them implement the 

requirements in the upcoming regulation, which they expect to issue in 

October 2004. They are also considering issuing “report cards” on the 

progress agencies are making in implementing and following the revised 

regulation. 

OMB has also taken steps to hold agencies accountable for more effective 

fleet management practices. In 2002, OMB began requiring agencies, as 

part of their budget submission, to report the size, composition, and 

cost of their fleets for the current year and to project costs for the next 

3 fiscal years.6

 The narrative in the report must also detail the reasons for 

any significant changes in fleet size, discuss the methodology used to 

assign vehicles, and identify any impediments to managing the fleets. 

Recognizing the difficulties with collecting reliable data, GSA and OMB 

plan to work with agencies to improve their data collection and reporting. 

Officials believe that as agencies move to better fleet management 

information systems, the data will improve. 

 6

 OMB Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, 

§ 25.5 (2003). 
Page 13 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

Despite long-standing concerns over the size of the federal fleet, the 

agencies we reviewed still do not know if their fleets are the right size and 

composition. Until agencies develop and apply utilization criteria tied to 

the mission of the vehicles in their fleets, they will not know how many 

vehicles they need to meet their missions. Moreover, by not using such 

criteria to assess their fleets periodically, agencies are missing the 

potential opportunity to identify excess vehicles, reduce their fleets, and 

save money. While some agencies have started to take actions to improve 

fleet management, at this time it is unclear how successful these efforts 

will be in providing more efficient fleet management. Because of its role in 

providing fleet management policy, GSA’s Office of Governmentwide 

Policy is in a position to take the lead in assisting agencies to develop 

appropriate utilization criteria and to assess their fleet size and 

composition. That office, in conjunction with OMB, has taken steps to 

focus attention at a governmentwide level on the need to improve fleet 

management practices. However, the plan to require agencies to centralize 

budget control over their fleets is a contentious one, and it remains to be 

seen how agencies will respond once the draft regulation is issued. In the 

meantime, additional measures are needed to ensure that the federal 

government’s fleet does not contain excessive numbers of vehicles. 

To help agencies determine the appropriate size and composition of their 

fleets, we recommend that the Administrator of GSA direct the Office of 

Governmentwide Policy to include in the revised Federal Management 

Regulation the following two requirements for agencies 

• develop utilization criteria related to the missions of the vehicles and 

• conduct periodic assessments of the number and type of vehicles in their 

fleets using these criteria. 

To bring further attention to the potential budget impact of retaining 

excessive vehicles, we recommend that the Director of OMB require 

agencies, as part of the new reporting requirement in their budget 

submissions, to report on (1) the criteria they used to determine the need 

for vehicles and (2) the results of fleet assessments they have conducted. 

Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 
Page 14 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

To ensure that agency fleets are the right size and composition to meet 

their missions, we recommend that the Secretaries of the Departments of 

Agriculture, Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs take the 

following three actions 

• establish guidance and policies that include clearly defined utilization 

criteria to be used in validating the need for vehicles based on their 

missions; 

• require fleet managers to use these criteria in determining the need for 

vehicles and in conducting periodic fleet assessments; and 

• establish effective oversight mechanisms to ensure that the utilization 

criteria are defined and fleet assessments are carried out. 

We received written comments on a draft of this report from GSA and the 

Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans 

Affairs, and we received oral comments from OMB. All of the agencies 

generally concurred with our findings and recommendations. The written 

comments are reproduced in appendixes II through VI. 

GSA noted that the primary contributor to the lack of progress in fleet 

management improvement has been the absence of strong management 

support for fleet reform and the consequent lack of resources for acquiring 

management information systems. GSA observed, however, that many 

agencies are becoming more aware of these issues. GSA also noted that 

although our report discusses three revisions to the Federal Management 

Regulation that GSA is in the process of drafting, these three revisions are 

part of a comprehensive package of 10 recommendations for fleet 

management reform that came out of GSA’s Federal Fleet Review 

Initiative. We focused our review on the key revisions directly related to 

the justification for acquiring and retaining vehicles. GSA also stated that, 

while it agrees that local managers are best qualified to know their 

requirements, only a central manager can provide the consistent oversight, 

policy, and budget review that has been lacking in many agencies, and it is 

this deficiency GSA seeks to address by its requirement that each agency 

appoint a senior management official with decision-making authority and 

control over all aspects of the agency’s fleet program, including the fleet 

budget. As we note in our report, during the course of our audit work, it 

was clear that the agency officials we spoke with were opposed to GSA’s 

position on this matter. We did not assess the ramifications of GSA’s 

proposal as part of our review. In addition, GSA expressed disappointment 

that we did not recommend that agencies fund a fleet management 

information system. Because we found that agencies are in different stages 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 15 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

of implementing such systems, and because GSA already plans to require 

such systems in its revised Fleet Management Regulation, we did not 

believe it was necessary for us to recommend this action. 

The Departments of Agriculture and Veterans Affairs agreed with our 

recommendations but raised concerns about GSA’s planned revision to the 

Federal Management Regulation that would require agencies to centralize 

budget authority for fleet management. Veterans Affairs strongly opposes 

such a requirement. It noted that, in a system as large and complex as the 

department’s, such a massive administrative responsibility would be 

unwieldy and inefficient and would require significant additional resource 

support. The department believes that oversight at the local level is the 

preferred approach to fleet management. Agriculture noted that the 

budget is a complex process involving detailed review and comparison of 

vehicle costs. It stated that changing priorities, such as national 

emergencies, require intense local management of the fleet to ensure a 

high state of mission-readiness and that, therefore, increased 

centralization of the budget process would not be in the best interest of 

overall fleet efficiency and mission success. As we point out in our report, 

the issue of centralized budget authority is a contentious one. It will need 

to be addressed by the agencies, OMB, and GSA. 

Agriculture also expressed concern that our recommendation on the need 

to establish utilization criteria would lead to a set of national criteria that 

all local fleet managers would be required to use. That is not the intent of 

our recommendation. Our recommendation is aimed at having each 

agency establish utilization criteria based on the specific mission of the 

vehicles in its fleet. Where a single criterion such as mileage, for example, 

is inappropriate, local officials need to have alternative criteria available, 

such as hours on station or number of clients served, to validate the need 

for vehicles. We believe it is the responsibility of agencies to establish 

clearly defined utilization criteria and guidelines to allow local officials to 

appropriately apply these criteria. 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agreed with our 

recommendations and emphasized that it has undertaken efforts, in a 

relatively short time frame, to establish a departmentwide fleet 

management program. It noted that the process used by its Bureau of 

Customs and Border Protection for assessing vehicle utilization based on a 

variety of factors is considered a best practice and will be extended to the 

rest of the department. In addition, DHS stated that an updated 

management directive on motor vehicle management sets forth the 

requirement for maintaining systems for effective control and 
Page 16 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

accountability of motor vehicle assets and for maintaining the minimum 

number of vehicles needed to meet requirements. The directive is 

currently being reviewed within the department. In DHS’s view, these two 

actions meet the requirement to establish effective oversight mechanisms 

to ensure that fleet utilization criteria are defined and fleet assessments 

are carried out and reviewed on a regular basis. While these are positive 

actions, DHS needs to ensure that oversight is maintained and that 

periodic fleet assessments are conducted using the appropriate criteria. 

Veterans Affairs stated that it will address our recommendations with 

several planned initiatives which, when completed, should rectify 

identified weaknesses. For example, the department will convene a 

national work group to develop a broad-based fleet management 

operations manual that will include a section that defines utilization 

criteria based on vehicle missions. The department is also reviewing 

various options for establishing a systemwide software application to be 

used as an oversight tool for managing the fleet. 

The Department of Defense agreed with our recommendations. It stated 

that action will be taken to ensure that utilization criteria, which may be 

comprised of existing mileage goals or other appropriate criteria, will 

apply to all nontactical vehicles. It will also require components to review 

their vehicle inventories annually against fleet assessments and to conduct 

on-site surveys or inspections on a minimum 3-year cycle (resources 

permitting) with the purpose of purging or fully justifying underutilized 

vehicles. 

In oral comments, OMB representatives told us that they agree with our 

findings and recommendations and will consider incorporating the 

recommended changes to agencies’ reporting requirements in new 

guidance for the fiscal year 2006 budget cycle. 

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

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its 

issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to other 

interested congressional committees; the Administrator of GSA; the 

Director of OMB; and the Secretaries of Defense, Army, Navy, Agriculture, 

Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security. We will make copies of this 

report available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 
Page 17 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

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

contact me at 202-512-4841 or cooperd@gao.gov, or Michele Mackin, 

Assistant Director at 202-512-4309 or mackinm@gao.gov. Major 

contributors to this report include Marie Ahearn, Benjamin Howe, 

Emma Quach, Richard Silveira, and Tatiana Winger. 

David Cooper 

Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 18 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

To determine the extent to which agencies can ensure that their fleets are 

the right size, we obtained and analyzed agency policies and guidelines on 

fleet management from the Departments of Agriculture, Army, Navy, 

Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs. These agencies, 

according to GSA data, have some of the largest fleets in the government. 

Because the Department of Homeland Security was only recently formed, 

its organizational elements continue to operate their vehicle fleets under 

the policies of their legacy agencies. Therefore, we limited our review to 

the department’s efforts to leverage its buying power through a strategic 

sourcing initiative for vehicles and to the steps it is taking to establish 

departmentwide guidelines on fleet management. Although the 

Department of the Interior also has a large fleet, we did not include it in 

our review because the Inspector General recently issued a report on that 

department’s vehicle fleet.1

 We did not assess agencies’ policies on vehicle 

operation, maintenance or disposal. 

To illustrate how local, state and regional officials determine the need for 

vehicles, we selected local, state and regional offices based on location 

and number of vehicles within each agency. We obtained and analyzed 

information and interviewed fleet managers and other officials responsible 

for fleet management at these locations to identify the controls, oversight, 

and criteria used to determine the need for vehicles. Following are the 

locations we contacted or where we conducted our work. 

• Washington, D.C. 

• State Conservationist Office, Athens, Ga. 

• Southern Regional Office, Atlanta, Ga. 

• Texas 

• Washington, D.C. 

• Wildlife Service, Athens, Ga. 

• Wildlife Service, Wash. 

• Veterinary Service, Iowa 

 1

 U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Fleet Management 

Operations, U.S. Department of the Interior; C-IN-MOA-0042-2003 (Lakewood, Colo.: 

Feb. 2004). 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Natural Resources 

Conservation Service 

Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 19 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

• Veterinary Services, Conyers, Ga. 

• Veterinary Service, Eastern Regional Office, Raleigh, N.C. 

• Washington, D.C. 

• Southern Region, Atlanta, Ga. 

• Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest, Gainesville, Ga. 

• Daniel Boone National Forest, Ky. 

• Land Between the Lakes National Recreational Area, Ky. 

• Pacific Northwest Region, Oreg. 

• Siuslaw and Willamette National Forests, Oreg. 

• Office of Asset Management, Washington, D.C. 

• Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Glynco, Ga. 

• Customs and Border Protection, Washington, D.C. 

• Transportation Security Administration, Arlington, Va. 

• Office of the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Transportation 

Policy), Washington, D.C. 

• Headquarters, Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Chief of 

Staff for Installation Management, Washington, D.C. 

• Fort Belvoir, Va. 

• United States Military Academy, West Point, N.Y. 

• Fort Carson, Colo. 

• Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington Navy Yard, D.C. 

• Navy Public Work Center, Washington, D.C. 

• Navy Public Works Center, Norfolk, Va. 

• Naval Air Station, Joint Reserve Base, Fort Worth, Tex. 

• Navy Public Works Center, Jacksonville, Fla. 

• Naval Station Newport, Newport, R.I. 

• Pacific Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Transportation 

Equipment Management Center, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 

• Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Transportation 

Equipment Management Center, Norfolk, Va. 

Forest Service 

Department of 

Homeland Security 

Department of 

Defense 

Department of the Army 

Department of the Navy 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 20 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

• Headquarters, Washington, D.C. 

• Medical Center, Bedford, Mass. 

• Medical Center, Baltimore, Md. 

• Medical Center, Jamaica Plain, Boston, Mass. 

• Medical Center, Brockton, Mass. 

We reviewed prior GAO and other audit agency reports, reviewed other 

public documents, and contacted the following offices of inspectors 

general 

• Department of Energy, 

• Department of Defense, 

• Department of Veterans Affairs, 

• Department of Justice, 

• Department of Treasury, 

• Department of Transportation, 

• Department of Homeland Security, 

• Department of the Interior, and 

• Department of Agriculture. 

We also contacted officials from the Naval Audit Service and the Army 

Audit Agency. 

To identify industry standards for efficient fleet management, we 

discussed the fleet management practices contained in our 1994 report2

and the use of utilization criteria with three industry fleet management 

consultants, one of whom was a contributor to our 1994 report. We 

selected these consultants based on their experience dealing with the fleet 

management practices in both the public and private sectors. We also 

talked with the manager of the Fleet Information Resource Center of the 

National Association of Fleet Administrators. 

 2

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Motor Vehicles: Private and State Practices Can 

Improve Fleet Management, GAO/GGD-95-18 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 29, 1994). 

Department of 

Veterans Affairs 

Veterans Affairs Health 

Administration 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 21 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

To identify governmentwide steps to improve fleet management, we 

collected, analyzed, and discussed information obtained from officials at 

the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Transportation/GSA 

Branch, GSA’s Office of Governmentwide Policy, and GSA’s Office of 

Vehicle Acquisition and Leasing Services, which runs the leasing program. 

We also discussed with GSA officials the Office of Governmentwide 

Policy’s proposed revisions to the regulation on fleet management. 

We conducted our review from September 2003 to April 2004 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture 

Page 22 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture 

Page 23 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 24 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Defense 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 25 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

Note: Page numbers in 

the draft report may differ 

from those in this report. 
Appendix IV: Comments from the General 

Services Administration 

Page 26 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

Appendix IV: Comments from the General 

Services Administration 
Appendix IV: Comments from the General 

Services Administration 

Page 27 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

Note: Page numbers in 

the draft report may differ 

from those in this report. 
Appendix IV: Comments from the General 

Services Administration 

Page 28 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security 

Page 29 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security 

Page 30 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Veterans 

Affairs 

Page 31 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of Veterans Affairs 
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Veterans 

Affairs 

Page 32 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 
Appendix VII: Reviews Identifying Excess 

Vehicles at Various Agencies 

Page 33 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

 Selected report findings Potential dollar savings 

U.S. Army Audit Agency 

Non-Tactical Vehicles, U.S. Army Garrison 

Japan, August 2003. 

U.S. Army Garrison Japan does not 

effectively use its nontactical fleet. 

Utilization data were only available for 430 

of the 633 vehicles at the Garrison, and 

235 of these vehicles had low utilization. 

The reviewers identified about 99 excess 

vehicles, representing about 16 percent of 

the fleet. 

Report did not estimate potential savings; 

however, it noted that for the 99 excess 

vehicles, the estimated replacement cost 

was about $3.8 million and maintenance 

cost was about $42,000. 

Transportation Motor Pool Operations, 8th 

U.S. Army, December 1997. 

A substantial portion of the nontactical 

vehicle fleet within the 8th Army was 

underutilized. Each motor pool in the study 

had a substantial number of vehicles with 

average utilization rates of 50 percent or 

less, as shown below: 

• 34 vehicles (representing 33 percent of 

the fleet), 

• 61 vehicles (representing 39 percent of 

the fleet), and 

• 203 vehicles (representing 54 percent of 

the fleet) 

No estimate on potential savings. 

Management of Non-tactical Support 

Vehicles, Fort Carson, Colorado, 

December 1996. 

Activities did not always effectively use 

their nontactical support vehicles. Vehicle 

usage goals set by the command were 

considerably below Department of the 

Army goals. 

About $109,600 if activities met command’s 

usage goals; $465,100 if they met the 

Army’s goals. 

Navy Transportation Equipment Management Center (TEMC), Atlantic Division 

Selected Navy Transportation Equipment 

Management Center reviews. 

At the end of fiscal year 2003, Navy 

reviews of selected activities estimated cost 

avoidance of $3.7 million per year if 

installations reduced their fleets by a total 

of 775 vehicles to meet the recommended 

inventory level. 

$3.7 million per year cost avoidance. 

Naval Audit Service 

Management of Non-tactical 

(Administrative) Transportation Vehicles, 

March 1998. 

Auditors found that 6,605 of the 24,387 

vehicles in the review were not needed. 

The Navy did not have a systematic 

mechanism within the transportation 

management structure to enforce Navy 

policy on fleet management. 

$19.8 million annually. 

Appendix VII: Reviews Identifying Excess 

Vehicles at Various Agencies 
Appendix VII: Reviews Identifying Excess 

Vehicles at Various Agencies 

Page 34 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

Government Vehicle Usage at Naval Air 

Station Patuxent River, Md., December 

1998. 

The Air Station retained 79 assigned 

vehicles that were not needed to support 

mission requirements because the Public 

Works Transportation Department did not 

have a systematic and continuous process 

for the review and evaluation of vehicle 

assignments. In addition, 141 of the 359 

vehicle assignments were without required 

justification. 

Report did not specify amount, but noted 

that the Naval Air Station had unnecessary 

administrative transportation costs as a 

result of excess vehicles. 

Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Inspector General 

Review of Selected Construction Contracts, 

Purchase Card Activities, and Vehicle 

Administration at Veteran’s Affairs Medical 

Center (VAMC), Clarksburg, West Virginia, 

January 2001. 

Auditors could not account for all vehicles 

at the facility. Poor supervision contributed 

to a lack of accountability and records were 

incomplete and inaccurate. Poor business 

decisions were made during the trade and 

acquisition of vehicles. In one example, an 

acquisition was not justified because the 

vehicle had been parked behind a laundry 

facility and not moved since it was 

purchased in 1997. In fact, the keys were 

missing at the time of the review. 

Not addressed as a whole. The purchase 

price of the one vehicle that did not move 

was $1,800. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Inspector General, Office of Audit Services 

Richland Operations Office Fleet 

Management, January 2001. 

The size of the fleet was not appropriate 

because Richland had not established or 

implemented controls required by DOE’s 

Property Management Regulation. The 

review found that 85 percent of 1,332 

vehicles were used less than DOE’s 

mileage standards, and Richland could 

potentially reduce its fleet by 559 vehicles. 

$1.7 million annually. 

Vehicle Use at Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory, September 2000. 

The allotment of 516 on-site discretionary 

vehicles was too large because the 

vehicles were measured in mileage instead 

of number of trips, which was the standard 

for this laboratory. None of the 31 randomly 

selected on-site discretionary vehicles met 

the standard of 9.2 trips per day. Livermore 

would need to reduce its fleet by 363 

vehicles to meet the established usage 

standard. 

$690,000 annually. 

Vehicle Fleet Management at the Idaho 

National Engineering and Environmental 

Laboratory, March 1999. 

The light vehicle fleet was larger than 

necessary. The review found that 

45 percent of the light vehicles were used 

significantly less than the mileage 

standards and that Idaho could potentially 

reduce its fleet by 86 vehicles. 

$321,000 annually in operation, 

maintenance and replacement costs. 
Appendix VII: Reviews Identifying Excess 

Vehicles at Various Agencies 

Page 35 GAO-04-664 Federal Acquisition 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General 

Fleet Management Operations, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, February 2004 

The department and its bureaus were not 

effectively managing its approximately 

36,000-vehicle fleet. A significant portion of 

the department’s fleet was underutilized 

(44 percent). 

$34 million annually. 

Selected Administrative Activities at the 

Colorado State Office, Bureau of Land 

Management, March 1996. 

The state office did not complete its 

required annual review and was not 

managing its vehicle fleet efficiently. The 

review found that 20 of the 60 owned or 

leased vehicles were underutilized and 

recommended a fleet reduction of up to 6 

GSA vehicles. 

$22,000 annually for the 6 returned GSA 

vehicles. 

Source: GAO analysis and inspectors general reports 

(120284) 
The General Accounting 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 the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

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. General Accounting 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 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs