DATA 

TRANSPARENCY

Oversight Needed to 

Address 

Underreporting and 

Inconsistencies on 

Federal Award 

Website

Report to Congressional Requesters

June 2014

GAO-14-476

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-476, a report to 

congressional requesters

June 2014

DATA TRANSPARENCY 

Oversight Needed to Address Underreporting and 

Inconsistencies on Federal Award Website

Why GAO Did This Study

The Federal Funding Accountability 

and Transparency Act was enacted in 

2006 to increase the transparency over

the more than $1 trillion spent by the

federal government on awards 

annually. Among other things, the act 

requires OMB to establish a website 

that contains data on federal awards

(e.g., contracts and grants) and 

guidance on agency reporting 

requirements for the website, 

USASpending.gov. 

GAO’s objectives were to determine 

the extent to which (1) agencies report 

required award data and (2) the data 

on the website are consistent with

agency records. To assess reporting, 

GAO reviewed laws and guidance, 

analyzed reported award data, and 

interviewed agency officials. To assess 

inconsistency, GAO selected a 

representative sample of 385 fiscal 

year 2012 awards and traced them 

back to agency source records. 

What GAO Recommends

To improve reliability of information on

the USASpending.gov website, GAO is 

making recommendations to the 

Director of OMB to (1) clarify guidance

on reporting award information and 

maintaining supporting records, and (2)

develop and implement oversight 

processes to ensure that award data 

are consistent with agency records. 

GAO also recommends that the Chief 

Executive Officer of the Millennium 

Challenge Corporation report its award 

information, as required. OMB 

generally agreed with GAO’s 

recommendations. While the 

Millennium Challenge Corporation 

neither agreed nor disagreed with the 

recommendation, GAO believes it is 

needed, as discussed in this report.

What GAO Found

Although agencies generally reported required contract information, they did not 

properly report information on assistance awards (e.g., grants or loans), totaling 

approximately $619 billion in fiscal year 2012. Specifically, 33 of 37 agencies with 

a budget authority of at least $400 million reported at least one contract. The 

other four claimed exemptions from reporting, such as the use of nonappropriated funds, but gaps in Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

guidance make it unclear whether such exemptions are appropriate. Also, 

agencies reported required information for at least one assistance award for 

1,390 of 2,183 programs listed in a federal catalog. Another 451 programs did 

not make an award subject to USASpending.gov reporting. However, agencies

did not appropriately submit the required information for the remaining 342

programs, although many reported the information after GAO informed them of 

the omission. Officials with the Millennium Challenge Corporation said that they 

could not report because its recipients are foreign. However, OMB’s guidance 

describes how to report foreign assistance and other agencies report such 

awards. OMB has taken steps to improve the completeness of assistance 

awards on the website, including issuing a memorandum in June 2013 directing

agencies to ensure that data on USASpending.gov are consistent with agency 

financial records. If properly implemented, these procedures could better ensure 

that agencies report future assistance awards. 

Few awards on the website contained information that was fully consistent with 

agency records. GAO estimates with 95 percent confidence that between 2 

percent and 7 percent of the awards contained information that was fully 

consistent with agencies’ records for all 21 data elements examined. The 

element that identifies the name of the award recipient was the most consistent, 

while the elements that describe the award’s place of performance were 

generally the most inconsistent. GAO could not determine whether the remaining 

data elements were significantly consistent or inconsistent, in large part because 

of incomplete or inadequate agency records. Four data elements in particular

(e.g., program source information and the state of performance) had 

inadequacies that were significant. This means that for each of the four data 

elements, at least 10 percent of awards contained unverifiable information. While 

OMB placed responsibilities on agencies to ensure their reported information is 

accurate and substantiated by supporting documentation, this approach has had 

limited effect on the overall quality of the data on the website, reinforcing the 

need for a more comprehensive oversight process by OMB and more specific 

guidance from OMB on how agencies are to validate information reported to 

USASpending.gov. Until these weaknesses are addressed, any effort to use the 

data will be hampered by uncertainties about accuracy.

View GAO-14-476. For more information, 

contact Carol R. Cha at (202) 512-4456 or 

chac@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

Letter 1 

Background 2

Agencies Generally Reported Contracts, but Many Assistance 

Programs Were Not Reported 11

Information on USASpending.gov Was Largely Inconsistent with 

Agency Records or Unverifiable 18

Conclusions 28

Recommendations for Executive Action 28

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 29

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 33

Appendix II List of Agencies Reviewed, Based on the Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance 36

Appendix III List of Agencies Included in Our Sample 38

Appendix IV GAO Estimates of Consistency Rates 39

Appendix V Comments from the Department of the Treasury 40

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 41

Tables

Table 1: Required Data Elements for Federal Agency Reporting 3

Table 2: Total Amount Agencies Did Not Report, or Reported 

Late, for Assistance Programs (dollars in thousands) 15

Table 3: Estimates of Consistent Data Elements, Fiscal Year 2012 19

Table 4: Estimates of Inconsistent Data Elements, Fiscal Year 

2012 20

Table 5: Estimate of Unverifiable Information in Data Elements 25

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

Table 6: Data Elements Tested, Fiscal Year 2012 34

Table 7: Agencies Listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance, as of February 2013 36

Table 8: Agencies Included In Representative Sample, by Awards 38

Table 9: GAO Estimates of Consistency Rates for Award 

Information by USASpending.gov Data Element, Fiscal 

Year 2012 39

Figure

Figure 1: Extent of Agency Reporting of Assistance Program Data 14

Abbreviations

CFDA Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

DUNS Data Universal Numbering System

FAADS+ Federal Assistance Award Data System PLUS

FFATA Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act

FPDS-NG Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation

FSRS FFATA Subaward Reporting System

GSA General Services Administration

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

OMB Office of Management and Budget

SAM System for Award Management

Treasury Department of the Treasury

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

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

June 30, 2014

Congressional Requesters:

The federal government spends more than $1 trillion awarded in the form 

of contracts, grants, loans, and other awards. To increase the 

transparency of and accountability for that spending, Congress passed 

the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) in 

2006.1 Among other things, the act requires the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to ensure the existence and operation of a free, 

publicly accessible website containing data on federal awards and 

subawards.2

Our objectives were to determine the extent to which (1) federal agencies 

report required award data and (2) inconsistencies exist between the data 

on USASpending.gov and records at federal agencies.

In addition, FFATA requires agencies to comply with OMB 

instructions and guidance for reporting award information. OMB launched 

the website—www.USASpending.gov—in December 2007.

To address these objectives, we examined data collection and reporting 

requirements under FFATA; relevant OMB guidance, other relevant 

requirements variously published in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, 

Code of Federal Regulations, and the Federal Register, and agency 

systems documentation. To determine the extent to which federal 

agencies are reporting required award data, we searched 

USASpending.gov to determine which selected agencies reported 

contractual information for fiscal year 2012. We also compared programs 

listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) against 

assistance programs reported on USASpending.gov in fiscal year 2012. 

To determine the extent to which inconsistencies existed between the 

data on USASpending.gov and records at federal agencies, we selected 

 

1

Pub. L. No. 109-282, §§ 1 to 4 (Sept. 26, 2006). FFATA was amended by the 

Government Funding Transparency Act of 2008, § 6202(a), Title VI, Ch. 2, Supplemental

Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-252 (June 30, 2008); 31 U.S.C. § 6101 Note.

2

FFATA defines the term federal award as federal financial assistance and expenditures 

that (with certain exemptions) include—(i) grants, subgrants, loans, awards, cooperative 

agreements, and other forms of financial assistance and (ii) contracts, subcontracts, 

purchase orders, task orders, and delivery orders. OMB defines subawards as first-tier 

subcontracts or grants-specific subawards.
 

Page 2 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

a simple random sample of 385 records and traced them back to agency 

source data for required data elements. The probability sample was 

designed to estimate a rate of reporting errors for all fiscal year 2012 

awards reported on USASpending.gov with a sampling error of no greater 

than plus or minus 5 percentage points at the 95 percent level of 

confidence. We interviewed officials responsible for maintenance and 

oversight of the website from OMB, the General Services Administration 

(GSA), and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury). We also 

interviewed officials at each of the executive branch agencies within the 

scope of our audit (identified in appendix II). Finally, we reviewed our 

previous work on the quality of data reported to the Federal Procurement 

Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) and the website and actions 

OMB took to address our recommendations. For a full description of our 

objectives, scope, and methodology, see appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from December 2012 to June 2014, 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

FFATA as amended by the Government Funding Transparency Act of 

2008, gave OMB responsibility for ensuring the existence and operation 

of a website that captures specific information on federal awards (e.g. 

contracts, loans and grants).3

 

3

On May 9, 2014, the President signed into law the Digital Accountability and 

Transparency Act of 2014 (Pub. L. No. 113-101), also known as the DATA Act. This law 

amends FFATA in a number of ways with the purpose of improving public access to 

information about federal spending. Its amendments to FFATA, which are to be 

implemented over several years, include requirements for: (1) Treasury to ensure the 

availability of required data through USASpending.gov within 3 years; (2) OMB to 

establish a 2-year pilot program to develop recommendations for improved financial 

reporting; (3) Treasury and OMB to establish government-wide financial data standards, 

including common data elements, to improve reporting to USASpending.gov; (4) 

strengthening agency submissions of accurate and complete data to USASpending.gov; 

and (5) agency inspectors general and GAO to periodically review agency spending data 

submitted under the act starting in November 2016. 

The website is to promote transparency in 

government spending by providing the public with the ability to track 

Background
 

Page 3 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

where and how federal funds are spent. Agencies4

Table 1: Required Data Elements for Federal Agency Reporting

were to include 

specific information on awards made in fiscal year 2007 and later along 

with other relevant information specified by OMB, and awards were to be 

added to the site within 30 days after the award was made. Further, 

agency financial award reporting is limited by several exemptions 

provided by FFATA and OMB guidance, including exemptions for 

reporting of transactions made to individuals, those under $25,000, and 

any containing classified information. Table 1 lists and describes the 

required data elements.

Data element Description

Name of the entity receiving the 

award

Legal name by which the entity is incorporated and pays taxes. If the entity is not incorporated, 

this is the legal name contained in other official filings.

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

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

cooperative agreements).

Funding agency Federal departments and independent agencies

North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code 

(for contracts)

Identification of the industry for which funds are being spent.

CFDA number (not applicable for 

contracts)

Identification of the funding agency and program.

Program source Accounts from which funds are drawn (i.e., source of funding for the award); includes subcomponents: agency code and account code.

Award title descriptive of the purpose 

of each funding action

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

Location of entity receiving the award Address of the entity, including sub-components: street address, zip code, city, state, 

congressional district, and country.

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

the award will be completed; includes the sub-components’ city, state, congressional district, 

and country.

Unique identifier for the award 

recipient and parent entity (if 

applicable)

Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number used to uniquely identify entities and 

parent entities (if applicable) doing business with the government.

 

4

FFATA does not define the term agency. However, OMB guidance addresses this issue: 

“Agency means a federal agency as defined at 5 U.S.C. 551(1) and further clarified by 5 

U.S.C. 552(f)” 75 FR 55663, 55670 (Sept. 14, 2010). This means agencies or other 

establishments in the executive branch are to comply with FFATA reporting requirements.
 

Page 4 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

Data element Description

Executive compensation Names and total compensation of the five most highly compensated officers of the entity if 

certain criteria are met.a

Subawardb information Information on an award made directly by the entity receiving the award to another entity for 

support services.

Source: GAO analysis of FFATA and OMB guidance. | GAO-14-476

a

The Government Funding Transparency Act of 2008 amended FFATA to require that the new 

website to include for each federal award: the names and total compensation of the five most highly 

compensated officers of the entity if— (i) the entity in the preceding fiscal year received— (I) 80 

percent or more of its annual gross revenues in federal awards; and (II) $25,000,000 or more in 

annual gross revenues from federal awards; and (ii) the public does not have access to [such] 

information . . . through periodic reports filed under [certain sections of the Security Exchange Act or 

the Internal Revenue Act]. Sec. 6202(a), sec. 2(b)(1)(F), as amended by the Government Funding 

Transparency Act of 2008, sec. 6202(a)(3).

b

FFATA exempted award recipients with gross income of $300,000 or less from reporting a subaward

until OMB determines that the imposition of such a reporting requirement will not impose an undue 

burden.

The information displayed on USASpending.gov is derived from several 

sources:

• Contract data are imported from the Federal Procurement Data 

System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG),5 which collects information on 

contract actions.6 GSA, with guidance from OMB’s Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy, established and administers this system. Since 

1980, FPDS-NG and its predecessor have been the primary 

contracting databases used government-wide. Federal agencies are 

responsible for ensuring that the information reported in this database 

is complete and accurate. Additionally, FPDS-NG pre-populates core 

vendor data using the System for Award Management (SAM).7

 

5

Although FFATA requires reporting of contracts above $25,000 to USASpending.gov, 

FPDS-NG contains data on contracts valued above the micro-purchase threshold of 

$3,000.

SAM 

is the primary database for information on potential government 

business partners in which those wishing to do business with the 

federal government must register.

6

FPDS-NG can be accessed at https://www.fpds.gov. FPDS-NG data and reporting 

requirements for FPDS-NG are described in Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 4.6.

7

All entities that wish to do business with the government are to maintain an active 

registration in SAM unless exempt. Among other things, entities register a name, unique 

identifier, address, and executive compensation information. 

Sources of Data on 

USASpending.gov
 

Page 5 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

• Data on financial assistance awards8 (e.g., grants) are received from 

reports submitted by agencies in a file format called Federal 

Assistance Award Data System PLUS (FAADS+). To report 

information on financial assistance awards to USASpending.gov, 

OMB guidance requires agencies to submit FAADS+ files directly 

through the USASpending.gov web submission tool, the Data 

Submission and Validation Tool, maintained and operated by GSA.9

• The FFATA Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) provides data on 

first-tier subawards.

The Data Submission and Validation Tool applies data validation 

checks to 32 data fields. For example, the recipient name must be 

non-blank and must contain the value “MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS” for 

awards aggregated at the county level. The tool will reject individual 

records that contain an error or entire submissions if more than 10 

percent of the records in the submission contain errors.

10

 

8

According to OMB guidance, federal financial assistance subject to FFATA reporting 

means assistance in the form of (1) grants; (2) cooperative agreements (which does not 

include cooperative research and development agreements pursuant to the Federal 

Technology Transfer Act of 1986, as amended (15 U.S.C. 3710a)); (3) loans; (4) loan 

guarantees; (5) subsidies; (6) insurance; (7) food commodities; (8) direct appropriations; 

(9) assessed and voluntary contributions; and (10) other financial assistance transactions 

that authorize the non-federal entities’ expenditure of federal funds. Federal financial 

assistance does not include (1) technical assistance, which provides services in lieu of 

money; (2) A transfer of title to federally owned property provided in lieu of money, even if 

the award is called a grant; (3) any classified award; or (4) any award funded in whole or 

in part with Recovery Act funds, as defined in section 1512 of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111–5) 2 C.F.R. § 170.320; 75 FR 55669 (Sept. 14, 

2010). 

Prime awardees register and report subaward 

and/or subawardee executive compensation information through 

FSRS. The subawardee provides to the prime awardee all information 

required for such reporting. This includes subawardee entity 

information, subawardee unique identifier and relevant executive 

compensation data, if applicable. Additionally, FSRS pre-populates 

data using FPDS-NG, SAM, and USASpending.gov, where 

applicable.

9

OMB, Memorandum for the Heads of Departments and Agencies: Guidance on Data 

Submission under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, M-09-19 

(Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2009).

10OMB, Memorandum for Senior Accountable Officials: Open Government Directive – 

Federal Spending Transparency and Subaward and Compensation Data Reporting

(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 27, 2010).
 

Page 6 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

In addition, USASpending.gov uses other data sources to supplement 

and validate agency-supplied data. These sources include:

• CFDA—CFDA is a government-wide compendium of federal 

programs, projects, services, and activities that provide assistance or 

benefits to the American public, and is the authoritative source for 

CFDA program numbers. This database is used to validate CFDA 

numbers provided by agencies.

• Dun and Bradstreet—This commercial entity maintains a repository of 

unique identifiers and is used to validate unique identifiers provided by 

agencies and to acquire the parent entity unique identifier based on 

linkage information at the time of the award.

• SAM—Information in SAM is used to pre-populate specific contractual 

information contained in FPDS-NG based on the unique identifier 

submitted by an agency. Among other things, SAM populates the 

entity name and address (street, city, state, congressional district, zip 

code, and country). If a subawardee is registered in SAM, executive 

compensation and other subawardee information is pre-populated in 

FSRS prior to the prime awardee’s reporting.

OMB issued a series of guidance documents to facilitate accurate 

reporting of information to the website. For example, OMB guidance 

requires agencies to increase efforts to improve data quality by outlining 

high-level reporting requirements, focusing primarily on validation of 

unique identifiers for recipients, collection of program source data,11 and 

formatting of assistance data prior to submission.12

OMB guidance further requires agencies to designate a high-level senior 

official to be accountable for information on USASpending.gov and 

requires agencies to submit a quarterly report on their progress toward 

improving data quality.13 In June 2013, OMB issued a memorandum14

 

11According to OMB memorandum M-08-04 (Nov. 9, 2007), the Treasury Account Symbol 

should be considered the official program source.

12OMB, M-09-19 and OMB, Memorandum for Federal Agencies: Guidance on Future Data 

Submissions under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act 

(Transparency Act), M-08-12 (Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2008).

13OMB, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: Open 

Government Directive, M-10-06 (Washington D.C.: Dec. 8, 2009); and OMB,

Memorandum for Senior Accountable Officials over the Quality of Federal Spending 

Information: Open Government Directive–Federal Spending Transparency (Washington, 

D.C.: Apr. 6, 2010).

OMB Has Issued 

Guidance for Reporting 

Award Information
 

Page 7 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

requiring each federal agency to assign financial assistance award 

identification numbers unique within the federal agency and to identify 

and implement a process to compare and validate website funding 

information with data in the agency’s financial system. Based on this 

validation process, each agency is to report to OMB the accuracy rate of 

its website data on a quarterly basis.

OMB guidance also outlines the reporting requirements on first-tier 

subawards and executive compensation of awardees,15 focusing on 

reporting requirements related to federal grants and cooperative 

agreements. Detailed reporting requirements related to federal contracts 

are located in the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

16

To provide maximum transparency to the public in the use of all federal 

funds, OMB directs agencies to report awards that would otherwise be 

exempt from reporting–specifically, those under $25,000 and awards to 

individuals—as an aggregated amount, where possible.

Among the specific 

requirements described in OMB’s guidance, prime awardees are to report 

first-tier subawards and executive compensation associated with new 

federal contracts and grants as of October 1, 2010, and register in SAM. 

For contracts, agencies shall include these requirements in all new 

contracts. For assistance awards, agencies shall include these 

requirements in each program announcement, regulation, or other 

issuance containing instructions for the applicant. The agency is not 

required to review data for which it would not normally have supporting 

information, such as the executive compensation information.

17

• Transactions under $25,000—Agencies should submit information 

under $25,000 at a transaction level. If necessary, agencies may 

report these as county-level aggregate amounts.

An aggregated 

record is created by taking a group of similar records and tallying the 

dollars based on a specific set of data fields in order to create one 

summary, or aggregated, record. Aggregated records are to be reported 

as follows:

 

14OMB, Memorandum for Agency Chief Financial Officers: Improving Data Quality for 

USAspending.gov, (Washington, D.C.: June 12, 2013).

15OMB, August 27, 2010.

16Federal Acquisition Regulation, 48 C.F.R. §§ 4.14 and 52.204-10, Reporting Executive 

Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards. 

17OMB, M-09-19.
 

Page 8 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

• Payments to individuals—Agencies should not report payments to 

individuals at a transaction level, to protect their privacy. All payments 

to individuals should be reported as an aggregated amount.

The transaction information submitted in FAADS+ files usually contains 

data in each field, except where the submitting agency is unable to 

provide those data. As a general principle, OMB guidance calls for 

agencies to provide as much information as possible on their aggregate 

records. However, OMB guidance allows the exclusion of certain data 

elements, since data for numerous transactions are summarized into one 

record.18

Prior to 2014, GSA was responsible for operating and maintaining the 

USASpending.gov website in accordance with OMB guidance. In 

February 2014 OMB announced the transfer of those responsibilities to 

Treasury’s Fiscal Service. Treasury also received funding in the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act 2014, for website maintenance, 

improvements to the site’s functionality and usability, and data 

standardization efforts.

As of May 2014, Treasury had not yet taken on operational responsibility 

of the website. According to the Assistant Commissioner for Governmentwide Accounting at the Fiscal Service, Treasury has begun developing a 

plan for transferring operational responsibility from GSA to Treasury.

In prior audits, we have looked at several areas which impact the 

reliability of USASpending.gov data. Since 2003, we have issued several 

reports and offered testimony on data reliability issues associated with 

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

data in these systems have revealed inaccurate and incomplete 

 

18Specifically, according to OMB memorandum M-09-19, agencies may omit program 

source agency and account codes; recipient DUNS and parent DUNS numbers; recipient 

street, city, zip code, and country; place of performance congressional district; and project 

description when reporting aggregate awards.

Responsibility for 

USASpending.gov 

Operations Will Be 

Transferring to Treasury

Prior GAO Reports 

Recommended 

Improvements to Federal 

Award Data
 

Page 9 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

reporting.19 To help improve data reliability in FPDS-NG, we 

recommended that OMB work with agencies to implement systems for 

contract writing20 that connect directly to FPDS-NG and provide 

confirmation of agencies’ review and verification of the accuracy and 

completeness of their data in FPDS-NG. We also recommended that 

OMB develop a plan to improve the system’s ease of use and access to 

data for government-wide reporting needs. In response to our 

recommendations for improving the accuracy and timeliness of contract 

award data, OMB issued a memorandum in August 2004 directing 

agencies to ensure that their contract writing systems could electronically 

transfer information directly to FPDS-NG. In March 2007, OMB issued a 

memorandum requiring agencies to regularly certify the accuracy and 

completeness of its information to GSA. In November 2007, May 2008, 

and June 2009, OMB issued additional guidance to agencies that 

addressed improvements in data quality.21

In March 2010,22

 

19GAO, Contract Management: No Reliable Data to Measure Benefits of the Simplified 

Acquisition Test Program, 

we reported on OMB compliance with requirements in 

FFATA. We found that while OMB had satisfied most of the requirements 

associated with the act, it had only partially satisfied or not met others 

such as the requirement to report to Congress on the site’s usage. Also, 

from a sample of 100 awards on USASpending.gov, each award had at 

least one data error and the website did not include information on grants 

from programs at nine agencies for fiscal year 2008. To improve the 

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

GAO-03-1068 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2003); Government 

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

Dec. 30, 2003); Government Operations: Improvements Needed to the Federal 

Procurement Data System-Next Generation, GAO-05-960R (Washington, D.C.: 

September 27, 2005); and Federal Contracting: Observations on the Government’s 

Contracting Data Systems, GAO-09-1032T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2009). 

20Contract writing systems are computer software that, among other things, allow 

agencies to report their contracting data electronically to FPDS-NG through a machine-tomachine interface. The use of contract writing systems is expected to improve the 

reliability of the data in FPDS-NG because it reduces or eliminates separate data entry 

requirements that could lead to a reporting error.

21OMB, M-08-04; OMB, Memorandum for Chief Acquisition Officers, Senior Procurement 

Executives, and Small Agency Council Members: Improving Acquisition Data Quality – FY 

2008 FPDS Data (Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2008); and OMB M-09-19.

22GAO, Electronic Government: Implementation of the Federal Funding Accountability and 

Transparency Act of 2006, GAO-10-365 (Washington, D.C.; Mar. 12, 2010).
 

Page 10 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

USASpending.gov website, we recommended, among other things, that 

the Director of OMB revise guidance to federal agencies on reporting 

federal awards to clarify the requirement that award titles describe the 

award’s purpose and requirements for validating and documenting 

agency award data submitted by federal agencies; and include 

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

of the completeness of agency data submissions. Although OMB 

generally agreed with our findings and recommendations, it has not yet 

implemented our recommendations to clarify guidance or include 

performance information.

Moreover, at a hearing in July 2012,23

In September 2013,

we testified on the status of efforts 

to improve the quality of publicly-available data on government awards 

and expenditures. Specifically, we noted OMB’s reporting on data quality 

and user feedback was limited. Further, previously available information 

on the timeliness and completeness of agency-submitted data was no 

longer provided on USASpending.gov. In its April 2010 memorandum, 

OMB discussed the creation of a dashboard on the website to track the 

timeliness, completeness, and accuracy of agencies’ reported data. After 

establishing a baseline, these data were to be updated quarterly. 

However, the website did not include such a dashboard. Further, OMB 

produced only one of the required annual reports to Congress that should 

have included data on usage of the site and public feedback on its utility. 

We did not make new recommendations, but reiterated the importance of 

fully implementing our prior recommendations from 2010.

24

 

23GAO, Government Transparency: Efforts to Improve Information on Federal Spending,

we reported on initiatives under way at several 

federal agencies to improve the accuracy and availability of federal 

spending data. We identified a number of issues, such as the need for 

data standardization in implementing the transparency objectives. We 

made recommendations to OMB to ensure that reporting challenges were 

addressed and a matter for consideration to Congress to consider 

legislating transparency requirements to ensure that approaches for 

improving transparency are carried out government-wide. OMB, along 

GAO-12-913T (Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2012).

24GAO, Federal Data Transparency: Opportunities Remain to Incorporate Lessons 

Learned as Availability of Spending Data Increases, GAO-13-758 (Washington, D.C.; 

Sept. 12, 2013).
 

Page 11 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

with the Government Accountability and Transparency Board, has begun 

taking steps to obtain stakeholder input as improvements to collecting 

spending data are developed.

Although agencies generally reported information for contracts to 

USASpending.gov, they did not properly report information on assistance 

awards, totaling nearly $619 billion. With few exceptions, FFATA and 

supplemental OMB guidance require agencies to report spending 

information on federal awards to USASpending.gov. We found that 

agencies generally reported information on contracts but did not report 

timely assistance information, leading to underreporting of nearly $619 

billion for awards made in fiscal year 2012. Many of those awards were 

subsequently reported by agencies. One agency, the Millennium 

Challenge Corporation, reported an ongoing inability to report its awards 

because its recipients are foreign governments or non-governmental 

organizations. However, OMB’s guidance describes how to report foreign 

assistance and other agencies report such awards.25 In June 2013, OMB 

issued a memorandum directing agencies to establish procedures to 

ensure that financial data reported on USASpending.gov is consistent 

with agency financial records. If properly implemented, these procedures 

could better ensure that agencies fully report future assistance awards.

According to FFATA and OMB guidance, information on contracts made 

with funds appropriated in fiscal year 2007 and later is to be reported by 

agencies and made available on USASpending.gov. Of the 37 agencies 

with budget authority of at least $400 million each in fiscal year 2012, the 

website includes information on at least one contract awarded by 33 of 

the agencies.26

The USASpending.gov website states that expenditures made with nonappropriated funds are not to be reported. Of the four agencies that did 

not report contractual information, officials from three27

 

25OMB, M-09-19. 

stated that their 

26There is no authoritative source which identifies all of the contracts issued by each 

agency. As such, we could not verify whether all contracts were displayed on the website 

and only determined whether at least one contract was displayed for each agency.

27These agencies were the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union 

Administration, and Tennessee Valley Authority.

Agencies Generally 

Reported Contracts, 

but Many Assistance 

Programs Were Not 

Reported

Most Agencies Reported 

Spending Data on 

Contracts
 

Page 12 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

contracts are awarded using funds that are available outside of annual 

appropriations and therefore considered to be non-appropriated and 

exempt from reporting. However, agency funding can be appropriated by 

means other than through an annual appropriations act. For example, a 

permanent appropriation makes funds available on the basis of previously 

enacted legislation, such as statutory authorization for self-financing 

through offsetting collections. Each of these three agencies receives a 

form of appropriation other than through an annual appropriations act, 

and this is used to fund their contract awards. Because the 

USASpending.gov website does not define what constitutes nonappropriated funds, it is unclear whether agencies making awards using 

funds received on the basis of an appropriation other than an annual 

appropriation are required to report.

The fourth agency—the Central Intelligence Agency—stated that it did not 

report contracts due to concerns about the ability of someone to use them 

to infer agency requirements. Specifically, a liaison official from the 

Central Intelligence Agency stated that it does not report information on 

classified contracts to USASpending.gov. This practice is consistent with 

FFATA, which does not require the disclosure of classified information. 

The official added that the agency also does not report unclassified 

contract information because of the risk that an individual could use it, 

along with other publicly available information to develop a picture of 

Central Intelligence Agency requirements (e.g., key information about the 

agency). Therefore, the Central Intelligence Agency restricts the release 

of both classified and unclassified information, including information on 

contracts, in order to protect intelligence sources and methods. However, 

OMB’s guidance does not clearly exempt agencies from reporting

unclassified contract information that they believe must not be disclosed.

Without clear OMB guidance to define the type of appropriated funds 

exempt from reporting or how to report information on unclassified awards 

that raise concerns related to intelligence operations, it is unclear whether 

justifications from each of the four agencies for not reporting its contracts 

are appropriate.

As with contracts, information on assistance awards made using funds 

appropriated in fiscal year 2007 and later is to be reported by agencies 

and made available on USASpending.gov. While agencies are to report 

the amount of federal funding awarded for most types of assistance 

programs, OMB guidance requires that agencies report a face value and 

long-term subsidy costs for loan programs. OMB also calls for agencies to 

Hundreds of Billions of 

Dollars in 2012 Awards 

Were Not Properly 

Reported
 

Page 13 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

report awards under $25,000 and awards to individuals as an aggregated 

amount, where possible.

Of the 2,183 federal assistance programs listed in the CFDA,28

 

28This figure reflects the total number of assistance programs listed in the CFDA as of 

February 2013, excluding those programs associated with non-executive branch 

establishments or agencies.

agencies 

reported federal funding or subsidy cost information for at least one award 

for 1,390 (64 percent) programs. For another 451 (21 percent) programs, 

the awarding agency either did not make an award or made at least one 

award in fiscal year 2012, but its awards were exempt from 

USASpending.gov reporting. For example, under FFATA and OMB 

guidance, an award can be exempt from reporting if it was not a financial 

award (e.g., technical assistance), involves classified information, or was 

made to an individual and the agency could not aggregate the information 

without endangering the privacy of an individual recipient. For the 

remaining 342 (16 percent) programs, agencies made at least one award 

subject to reporting but did not properly report the associated award data. 

Figure 1 captures the extent to which agencies reported data on 

assistance programs.
 

Page 14 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

Figure 1: Extent of Agency Reporting of Assistance Program Data

Note: This figure does not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

As of January 2013, 2 months after the deadline for reporting fiscal year 

2012 awards, agencies had not properly reported 342 programs. Of 

these:

• Agencies should have, but did not, report awards for 275 (80 percent) 

assistance programs. This includes 237 assistance programs that 

made awards of at least $25,000 and 38 assistance programs that 

made awards to individuals that should have been reported as an 

aggregate.

• Agencies reported award data under an incorrect program number for 

40 (12 percent) assistance programs.

• Agencies reported assistance data late for 27 (8 percent) assistance 

programs.

Federal funding for the 302 programs which agencies did not report as 

required, or reported late, totaled nearly $619 billion for fiscal year 2012 

(see table 2). These estimates are based on the amounts of awards 

reported late to the website, program estimates in the CFDA, and the 

agencies’ estimates of the amount awarded by the unreported programs. 
 

Page 15 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

Inclusion of these funds would increase the total amount reported for 

assistance awards as of February 2013—approximately $2.6 trillion—by 

approximately 23 percent.

After we notified agencies of the unreported programs, many 

subsequently reported them. As of April 2014, the total value of fiscal year 

2012 assistance awards had risen to approximately $3.2 trillion, largely 

due to the subsequently reported awards.

Table 2: Total Amount Agencies Did Not Report, or Reported Late, for Assistance 

Programs (dollars in thousands)

Agencya Dollars not properly reported (in thousands)

Number of 

programs

Department of Health and Human Services $543,874,682 27

Department of Veterans Affairs 64,464,745 5 

Department of the Interior 5,310,718b 156

Department of Homeland Security 1,930,175 16

Department of Transportation 1,842,786 27

Department of Defense 317,674c 18

Executive Office of the President 247,472 4 

Broadcasting Board of Governors 247,190 1 

Department of Justice 177,577 7 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 95,068 1 

Department of Agriculture 59,957 20

Department of Commerce 30,855 3 

Department of State 27,378 3 

Small Business Administration 17,500 1 

Overseas Private Investment Corporation 10,399 2 

Delta Regional Authority 8,165 1 

Millennium Challenge Corporation 2,800 3 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 2,576 1 

Japan U.S. Friendship Commission 608 1 

National Credit Union Administration 485 1 

Christopher Columbus Fellowship 

Foundation 279 3 

Department of Education unavailablec 1 

Total $618,669,087 302

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. | GAO-14-476
 

Page 16 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

a

A number of agencies reported 2012 awards following our preliminary discussions. These agencies 

included the Delta Regional Authority, Japan U.S. Friendship Commission, National Credit Union 

Administration, and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The Department of Health and Human 

Services reported awards of about $542 billion for 10 programs, including Medicare. The Department 

of Transportation reported awards of about $202 million for 11 programs. The Departments of 

Agriculture and Justice reported 1 award each, totaling about $2 million and $145 million, 

respectively.

b

The Department of Education could not estimate the subsidy cost associated with the Federal Direct 

Student Loans program. As an estimate of the subsidy cost was not reported on the CFDA, we 

cannot reflect an amount for this program.

c

The Department of Defense did not provide an estimate for one program that was not reported and 

there is no estimated spending amount for the program in 2012 in the CFDA.

Agency officials provided several reasons why programs were not 

properly reported. These reasons included:

• Technical issues—The Director, Office of Acquisition and Property 

Management and Senior Procurement Executive within the 

Department of the Interior, stated that fiscal year 2012 awards were 

not reported because the financial assistance reporting mechanisms 

utilized by Department of the Interior bureaus prior to the 

implementation of a new financial management system were not 

compatible with the FAADS+ reporting format required for the 

submission of data to USASpending.gov. Office of Acquisition and 

Property Management officials stated that it is not feasible to report 

these transactions due to the complexities associated with crossing 

fiscal years and the costs that would be incurred to backload reports. 

However, officials stated the current financial system should resolve 

the technical reporting issue, allowing future submissions. Similarly, 

officials in the Office of the Chief Information Officer at the 

Department of Education stated that subsidy costs for the Federal 

Direct Student Loans program are not collected through its existing 

internal grants system; therefore, the department was unsure of the 

subsidy amount and instead reported no subsidy cost. Officials stated 

that the department is now working to capture this information in order 

to accurately report a subsidy cost.

• Aggregation of awards—The Department of Health and Human 

Services Division of Grants officials stated that in fiscal year 2012 the 

department was not reporting awards made under assistance 

programs that issue direct payments to individuals, such as the 

Medicare program. Officials acknowledged that this information 

should be reported. Since that time, the department has begun to 

assess what data can and should be reported in aggregate form to 

USASpending.gov, starting with assistance programs under the 

Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. In February 2014, the 

department submitted approximately $542 billion in aggregated 

assistance awards to USASpending.gov across 7 programs. Officials 
 

Page 17 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

in the Department of Health and Human Services Division of Grants 

stated that the department will continue to explore which other 

assistance program awards it will report in aggregate form.

• Unclear understanding of reporting requirements—Officials at the 

Millennium Challenge Corporation’s Department of Administration and 

Finance stated that it was unable to report its assistance awards to 

USASpending.gov using the standard reporting tool because they 

were predominantly made to foreign governments and foreign nonprofit organizations. Specifically, the officials cited problems with 

obtaining unique identifiers for foreign recipients and CFDA numbers 

for programs that serve only foreign recipients. However, OMB’s 

guidance describes how to report foreign assistance, as well as how 

to verify unique identifiers with Dun and Bradstreet, the designated 

source of such identifiers. In addition, the Millennium Challenge 

Corporation has three numbers listed in the CFDA, and other 

agencies including the Departments of State and Health and Human 

Services reported awards to foreign recipients in fiscal year 2012. 

Finally, the officials said that they report foreign assistance spending 

online using the Greenbook, Foreign Assistance Dashboard, and 

International Aid Transparency Initiative. However, reporting to other 

sources does not satisfy FFATA’s requirement that award information 

be displayed on USASpending.gov. Until the Corporation properly 

reports its assistance award information, the website will not include 

complete information on spending for foreign recipients.

• Lack of internal oversight—While OMB guidance assigns agencies 

the responsibility for complete and accurate reporting of their award 

information, agencies did not always have processes in place to 

ensure proper reporting. Specifically, the Office of National Drug 

Control Policy made fiscal year 2012 awards in four programs that 

were not reported. An official at the office stated that the Office of 

Administration in the Executive Office of the President has an 

agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services 

Program Support Center to report grant data on its behalf to 

USASpending.gov. However, officials with the Program Support 

Center stated that the agreement does not cover such reporting. 

Regardless, the Office of National Drug Control Policy did not verify 

whether the information was reported to USASpending.gov and only 

became aware of the lack of reporting after our initial inquiry.

Similarly, 18 programs within various DOD departments were not 

properly reported. According to officials in the Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the 

prior systems administrator retired in fiscal year 2012 during a 

transition to a new grants system. As a result, properly trained 
 

Page 18 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

personnel were not available to report awards. However, the office did 

not have any internal oversight mechanism in place to ensure that the 

individual given responsibility for reporting the awards fulfilled this 

responsibility.

In March 2010,29

By comparing the total amount spent to award programs to the amount of 

awards made and reported to USASpending.gov, agencies can identify 

the completeness of award reporting. According to officials in the Office of 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics, the office is working to implement this new requirement to 

ensure that submissions are complete. In addition, this requirement could 

address reporting shortfalls at other agencies, such as those we identified 

at the Department of Education and Office of National Drug Control 

Policy. OMB officials stated this memorandum was part of a three-part 

strategy focused on improving data quality, transforming the user 

experience, and increasing outreach to federal and nonfederal 

stakeholders. If properly implemented, these procedures could better 

ensure that agencies fully report future assistance awards.

we recommended that OMB develop and implement a 

process to regularly ensure that all federal agencies report required 

award information. In response, OMB’s June 2013 memorandum required

each federal agency to identify and implement a process to compare and 

validate website funding information with data in the agency’s financial 

system. Based on this validation process, each agency is to report to 

OMB the results on a quarterly basis.

Among fiscal year 2012 awards reported on USASpending.gov, most 

contained information that was not fully consistent with agency records or 

was unverifiable due to gaps in agency records. Award data displayed on 

the website consists, in part, of 21 data elements required by FFATA.

According to OMB guidance, the goal of the website was to have 100 

percent of award data be accurate by the end of fourth quarter for fiscal 

year 2011, meaning the information is the same as (consistent with) the 

information contained in agency records or other authoritative sources.

However, the USASpending.gov data for fiscal year 2012 infrequently 

approached OMB’s goals for data quality. Specifically, of our sample of 

 

29GAO-10-365. 

Information on 

USASpending.gov 

Was Largely 

Inconsistent with 

Agency Records or 

Unverifiable
 

Page 19 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

385 awards, 4 percent contained information that was fully consistent with 

agency records for all 21 data elements. Projecting to the entire set of 

fiscal year 2012 awards, we estimate that only 2 percent to 7 percent of 

awards contain information that is fully consistent with agency records for 

all 21 data elements, and thus is also consistent with OMB’s goal.30

Further, across all awards, only one of the data elements we tested met 

our criterion for significant consistency with agency records, while eight 

did not. We considered a data element to be significantly consistent if we 

estimated that for at least 90% of fiscal year 2012 awards, the information 

displayed on USASpending.gov were consistent with the information in 

the awarding agency’s records. Conversely, we considered an element 

significantly inconsistent if we estimated that in more than 10 percent of 

awards, the USASpending.gov information for that element and the 

underlying agency records were not in agreement.31

Based on our testing of a representative sample of fiscal year 2012 

awards, only one data element was significantly consistent with agency 

records, with a consistency rate of at least 90 percent (see table 3).

We could not 

determine whether the remaining data elements were significantly 

consistent or inconsistent, in large part because of incomplete or 

inadequate agency records.

Table 3: Estimates of Consistent Data Elements, Fiscal Year 2012 

Data element Estimated range of consistency (%)a

Name of the entity receiving the award 91-96

Sources: GAO analysis of agency records. | GAO-14-476

a

This table shows the 95 percent confidence intervals for the estimates.

• Name of the recipient: The name of the award’s recipient contained 

consistent information for 91 percent through 96 percent of fiscal year 

2012 awards. The data for this element as displayed on the website 

 

30Unless otherwise noted, we provide the lower and upper bound of the 95 percent 

confidence interval for estimates based upon our sample of 385 records.

31We define a variable as “significantly” inconsistent for USASpending.gov if the lower 

bound of the 95 percent confidence interval for the estimated percent of records with 

inconsistent data is greater than 10 percent. We define a variable as “significantly” 

consistent for USASpending.gov if the lower bound of the 95 percent confidence interval 

for the estimated percent of records with consistent data is greater than 90 percent.

One Data Element Had 

Information that Was 

Significantly Consistent with 

Information in Agency Records
 

Page 20 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

was almost always consistent with the underlying information in 

agency records.

While only one data element contained information that was significantly 

consistent with agency records, eight were significantly inconsistent for 

fiscal year 2012 awards, with estimated rates on inconsistency of at least 

10 percent (see table 4).

Table 4: Estimates of Inconsistent Data Elements, Fiscal Year 2012 

Data element

Estimated range of 

inconsistency (%)a

Award title descriptive of the purpose of each funding action 24-33

Recipient street 13-21

Recipient zip 10-18

Recipient congressional district 12-19

Principal place of performance city 22-31

Principal place of performance congressional District 20-28

Principal place of performance country 29-38

Unique identifier for the parent entity 26-35

Sources: GAO analysis of agency records. | GAO-14-476

a

This table shows the 95 percent confidence intervals for the estimates.

• Award title descriptive of the purpose of each funding action:

The title contained inconsistent information for 24 percent through 33 

percent of awards. Of these, most were inconsistent with FFATA’s 

requirement that an award title be descriptive of the purpose of the 

award. Instead, many titles consisted of shorthand descriptions, 

acronyms, or other language that did not convey intent for the funding. 

For example, according to an official in the Defense Procurement and 

Acquisition Policy group, personnel often use terminology that is only 

understood by other agency officials, without considering whether it 

can be understood by the general public. For example, the award title 

for one award at the Department of Defense was reported as “Cca.” 

The associated delivery order indicated that the purpose of the award 

was to analyze the repair cost of several items including “Cca,” which 

refers to a “circuit card assembly,” and comprises less than a quarter 

of the total cost of the award.

• Recipient street and zip code: The recipient street element 

contained inconsistent information for 13 percent through 21 percent 

of awards; and the recipient zip code was inconsistent for 10 percent 

through 18 percent. For example, for an Air Force award to BAE 

Systems Technology Solutions & Services Inc., the vendor’s address 

Eight Data Elements Had 

Information That Was 

Significantly Inconsistent with 

Information in Agency Records
 

Page 21 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

was reported on USASpending.gov as 1601 Research Blvd in zip 

code 20850-3173, while the contract documentation showed the 

vendor to be located at 520 Gaither Road in zip code 20850-6198. In 

another example, a Department of Education award issued to one 

component of the SLM Corporation was reported on 

USASpending.gov with an address for a different component of the 

corporation.

• Recipient congressional district: The recipient congressional 

district contained inconsistent information for 12 percent through 19 

percent of awards. This included cases in which the website displayed 

an incorrect congressional district, omitted the district, or erroneously 

displayed a district for a foreign awardee.

• Principal place of performance city: The city of performance 

contained inconsistent information for 22 percent through 31 percent 

of awards. This included cases in which agencies reported the 

recipient’s business address as the place of performance, even when 

the work funded by an award was performed in another location. In 

other cases, agencies reported a county instead of the specific city for 

some awards. For example, several awards from the Federal Highway 

Administration reported the county name on USASpending.gov 

instead of the city as the primary locator.

• Principal place of performance congressional district: The 

congressional district of performance contained inconsistent 

information for 20 percent through 28 percent of awards. Many of 

these inconsistencies were because the website displayed “zz” for this 

element.

• Principal place of performance country: The information on the 

country of performance contained inconsistent information for

• 29 percent through 38 percent of awards. Nearly all of these cases 

were assistance awards aggregated at the county level, for which the 

field was reported by the awarding agency but not displayed on the 

website.32

• Unique identifier for the parent entity: The Parent DUNS number, 

used to uniquely identify parent entities (if applicable) doing business 

with the government, contained inconsistent information for 26 

percent through 35 percent of awards. DUNS numbers are provided 

to the government through a contract with Dun and Bradstreet, a 

 

32We estimate that only about 5 percent of contracts contained an inconsistency for this 

data element. The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is (2 percent, 9 

percent). 
 

Page 22 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

commercial entity. Nearly all of these cases were assistance awards, 

for which the field is not displayed on the website.

Report formatting for the website and the existing contract with Dun and 

Bradstreet along with an unclear reporting requirement and incomplete 

oversight of agency reporting processes contributed to many of the 

inconsistencies. Specifically:

• Display format on USASpending.gov: Inconsistencies in the 

recipient congressional district and place of performance 

congressional district and country fields are partly attributable to the 

website either not displaying the information or improperly displaying 

it. Officials from the Integrated Award Environment program 

management office at GSA stated that the principal place of 

performance country was not displayed on the website because the 

report format was missing that field. Further, officials stated that the 

recipient congressional district displayed incorrect information in some 

cases due to a logic error on the website. As of April 2014, GSA made 

technical changes to the website which addressed these issues.

• Access to vendor-provided data: GSA officials stated that the 

parent unique identifier was not displayed on the website for 

assistance awards because its contract with the provider of that 

information, Dun and Bradstreet, only covers publishing the data for 

contract awards. According to these officials, GSA plans to add this 

data in an upcoming service pack in 2014. 

• Lack of clear guidance: Multiple agency officials attributed 

nondescriptive award titles to a lack of guidance to define what 

constitutes a fully descriptive award title. We identified this as an issue 

in our March 2010 report, in which we recommended that OMB 

provide clarifying guidance on this reporting requirement. As of April 

2014, OMB officials stated that the office still concurs with this 

recommendation. However, OMB has not yet provided clarifying 

guidance. Unless each award has a descriptive title clearly identifying 

the purpose of the award, the public may not be able to determine 

why the award was made and taxpayer dollars spent.

• Incomplete oversight of agency reporting processes: Agency 

reporting processes for which there is incomplete oversight to identify 

and correct mistakes contributed to several of the significantly 

inconsistent data elements. For example, multiple agency officials 

attributed inconsistent recipient congressional district information to a 

system lookup that automatically generates this information based on 

a zip code. They stated that inconsistencies were caused when the 

zip code was incomplete or incorrect, or when the lookup table was 

out-of-date. 
 

Page 23 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

Further, for the recipient street address and zip code, inconsistencies 

occurred, in part, because agencies did not update FPDS-NG with the 

correct information. For a new contract, FPDS-NG relies on the 

recipient’s unique identifier to automatically populate the recipient’s 

address from SAM, but for a modification to an existing contract, the 

system uses the address from the base award unless the agency 

submits an updated address. Meanwhile, the system for entering 

information on assistance awards does not have the capability to 

automatically generate address information, so OMB directed 

agencies to verify recipients’ addresses against Dun and Bradstreet’s 

information, and enter a confidence code,33 provided by Dun and 

Bradstreet, to confirm the information had been verified. However, we 

estimate that agencies submitted a confidence code that meets 

OMB’s threshold for only about a third34

Lastly, inconsistencies in the principal place of performance 

information were caused, in part, by agency processes that resulted in 

the wrong data being reported. For example, officials from the Federal 

Highway Administration stated that the agency reported the county 

instead of the city because the Federal Aid Highway Program 

mandates the use of county names. In another example, the Chief of 

the Payment Management Office at the Department of Agriculture 

stated that its award tracking system is programmed to use the 

business address if a specific principal place of performance address 

is not provided. However, these practices are inconsistent with 

FFATA’s requirement that agencies report the city, state, 

congressional district, and country of performance for each award. 

Based on relevant guidance, if work occurs across multiple cities, the 

agency should report the city in which the majority of the work took 

place. Because there was no oversight to verify that the agencies 

were following this guidance, each continued to report information that 

was inconsistent with the guidance.

of fiscal year 2012 

transactional assistance awards, and the validation rules applied by 

the website do not validate these elements except to ensure that they 

are non-blank and, in the case of the zip code, contain five digits.

 

33A confidence code is a numeric measure on a scale of 1 to 10 of the match accuracy of 

agency business information to an entity’s unique identifier. OMB determined that for the 

purpose of FFATA, a confidence code of 7 is the acceptable threshold for accuracy.

34We estimate that about 35 percent of the awards contained a confidence code value 

between 7 and 10. The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is (26 percent, 44

percent). 
 

Page 24 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

Weaknesses in OMB’s guidance on data validation likely contributed 

to these problems remaining unaddressed. We identified this as an 

issue in our March 2010 report, in which we stated that OMB’s 

guidance specified that agency data submissions are to be validated 

by an appropriate official but did not identify how or by whom. In that 

report, we recommended that OMB provide guidance to agencies to 

clarify the requirement for validating agency award data. As of April 

2014, OMB officials stated that the office still concurs with the 

recommendation, and stated that it had initiated a validation process 

in its June 2013 memorandum that directed agencies to use data from 

their financial systems or other authoritative sources to validate 

financial data reported on USASpending.gov.

However, this validation process only focuses on the award amount 

but does not address the remaining 20 data elements. Further, OMB 

decided not to implement one oversight mechanism it had previously 

considered using—a dashboard displaying the quality of agency data 

submissions on the website. In addition, the recently enacted Digital 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 established 

requirements for agency inspectors general and GAO to periodically 

review agency spending data. However, because these requirements 

do not come into effect until November 2016, it will be some time 

before they affect the quality of agency spending data. Thus, until 

OMB implements a process to ensure that agencies report consistent 

information for each required data element, it risks continued 

inconsistencies that significantly limit the accuracy of data displayed 

on USASpending.gov.

For the 12 remaining data elements, incomplete or inadequate agency 

records prevented us from determining whether they were significantly 

consistent or inconsistent. OMB directed agencies to ensure that 

USASpending.gov reporting contains information that is consistent with 

agency records or other authoritative sources. OMB did this twice. Most 

directly, in its April 6, 2010, memorandum that requires agencies to 

ensure reporting is accurate, and defines this as “the percentage of 

transactions that are complete and do not have inconsistencies with 

systems of record or other authoritative sources.” Earlier, OMB issued 

more general guidance directing agencies to have a process that enables 

the agency to substantiate (by documentation or other means) the quality 

of information it disseminates.

However, for 12 of the data elements, we could not determine the extent 

of consistency or inconsistency because agency records provided to us 

Twelve Data Elements Could 

Not Be Determined to Be 

Significantly Consistent or 

Inconsistent Due to a Lack of 

Supporting Documentation
 

Page 25 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

did not always include definitive information adequate to verify the 

information reported on USASpending.gov (see table 5).

Table 5: Estimate of Unverifiable Information in Data Elements 

Data element

Estimated range of unverifiable 

information (%)a

Award amount 2-7 

Transaction type 7-13

Funding agency 4-9 

NAICS code (contracts only) 3-11

CFDA number (assistance awards only) 12-22

Program source: agency code 14-21

Program source: account code 19-27

Recipient city 4-9 

Recipient state 2-6 

Recipient country 2-6 

Principal place of performance state 23-31

Unique identifier for the award recipient 1-4 

Sources: GAO analysis of agency records. | GAO-14-476

a

This table shows the 95 percent confidence intervals for the estimates.

Four data elements in particular exhibited a significant amount of 

unverifiable information, meaning that at least 10 percent of awards 

contained unverifiable information for these data elements. Specifically, 

we found that:

• CFDA number: FFATA requires agencies to identify and display on 

USASpending.gov the assistance funding agency and CFDA program 

number. However, records provided to us did not include definitive 

information adequate to verify the information reported on 

USASpending.gov for the CFDA program number for 12 percent 

through 22 percent of assistance awards. For example, our 

representative sample contained four assistance awards identified in 

USASpending.gov under CFDA program 64.012, Veterans 

Prescription Service. However, records provided by the agency did 

not identify the CFDA program number nor distinguish funding from a 

number of other medical benefits programs.

• Program source agency and account codes: Treasury’s Account 

Symbol was selected to be used as the official program source for use 

on the website and is made up of two related codes: agency code and 

account code. OMB guidance requires agencies to ensure that award 
 

Page 26 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

documents contain the predominant Treasury Account Symbol. 

However, records provided to us did not include definitive information 

adequate to verify the information reported on USASpending.gov for 

the data element agency code for 14 percent through 21 percent of 

awards and 19 percent through 27 percent for the account code. For 

example, officials from Department of Veterans Affairs Data Quality 

Services stated that program source information could not be 

provided because there was no documented link between the award 

and the program source information stored in the financial system. For 

another award, the Office of Personnel Management provided a 

system screenshot that documented charge account information. 

However, the office did not provide supporting documentation to show 

how the charge account information tracked to the program source 

reported on USASpending.gov.

• Principal place of performance state: Guidance on

USASpending.gov states that the place of performance should be 

reported as the place where the majority of work takes place,35 while 

other specific guidance is available for contract36

Several factors contributed to agencies’ lack of records to verify award 

information:

reporting. However, 

records provided to us did not include definitive information adequate 

to verify the information reported on USASpending.gov for the place 

of performance state for 23 percent through 31 percent of awards. For 

example, five contractual transactions for pharmaceuticals, conducted 

by the Defense Logistics Agency, were with the same entity but 

agency records did not specify the vendor location responsible for 

distribution of these pharmaceuticals. In another example, the source 

system for an award at the Farm Service Agency did not contain place 

of performance information and therefore provided empty spaces to 

the system which generates reports to USASpending.gov.

 

35USASpending.gov Glossary and USASpending.gov Federal Contracts and Assistance 

Data Dictionary.

36FPDS-NG manual provides guidance on reporting principal place of performance for 

contracts as “the location of the principal plant or place of business where the items will be 

produced, supplied from stock, or where the service will be performed. For construction 

contracts, enter the site of construction. If more than one location is involved in 

performance, enter the principal place of performance (where the predominant amount of 

work is performed).”
 

Page 27 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

• Lack of clear guidance: No guidance on how to substantiate 

information reported to USASpending.gov contributed to a lack of 

records to verify several data elements. In particular, agencies 

generally use electronic systems to manage awards, but the CFDA 

program number is not routinely included in the electronic records. 

Instead, according to officials at several agencies, the CFDA program 

number is reported at the time information is reported to the website 

and officials do not document this decision in the system.

Moreover, in one case, officials stated that the agency relies on an 

automated process whereby the address of the recipient of a contract 

is reported to USASpending.gov as the place of performance, which 

may or may not be correct. As this is an automated process, the 

agency does not document place of performance information in the 

contract file. By not capturing this information in some authoritative 

source, the information displayed on the website is not verifiable.

• Agency compliance with existing guidance: Multiple agency 

officials attributed a lack of program source documentation to this 

information being stored in a financial system and therefore not 

always accessible. However, OMB guidance requires agencies to 

ensure that award documents, and not the financial system, contain 

this information.

Without more specific guidance on how agencies are to substantiate the 

information required to be reported to USASpending.gov and a process to 

ensure adherence to that and existing guidance, agencies will be 

constrained in their ability to comply with OMB guidance requiring agency 

validation of award information.

In addition to the required data elements we tested, there are two 

additional types of data that should be displayed on USASpending.gov, 

executive compensation and subaward information. As discussed earlier, 

it is the responsibility of a prime awardee to report subaward and 

executive compensation information.

We were unable to test the consistency of these data elements because 

agencies frequently do not maintain records to verify the information 

reported by the awardees. For example, the Federal Highway 

Administration issued 12 awards included in our sample, 3 of which 

displayed subaward information on the website. A senior financial policy 

analyst for the Office of Financial and Management Programs at the 

Federal Highway Administration stated that the entering of subaward 

information is the responsibility of a state’s Department of Transportation 

and not a part of the federal Department of Transportation process. She 

Two Additional Data Elements 

Could Not Be Tested
 

Page 28 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

added that there is not a process whereby the Department of 

Transportation confirms the validity of subaward information entered in 

FSRS. As such, officials could not provide agency records with subaward 

information for any of the 12 awards included in our sample. Officials with 

the Federal Highway Administration added that the same issue pertained 

to the verification of executive compensation information displayed on 

USASpending.gov. Without agency records on subawards and executive 

compensation, we could not test whether the information reported by 

prime awardees is accurate.

Fulfilling FFATA’s purpose of increasing transparency and accountability 

of federal expenditures requires that USASpending.gov contain complete 

and accurate information on applicable federal awards. However, our 

examination of awards identified significant underreporting of awards and 

few that contained information that was fully consistent with the 

information in agency records. While OMB placed additional 

responsibilities on agencies to ensure their reported information was 

accurate, our testing of the 2012 awards shows that this approach has 

had limited effect on the overall quality of the data. In addition, many of 

the specific issues we first identified in 2010, such as unclear award titles 

and inaccurate information on place of performance, continue to limit the 

reliability of USASpending.gov data. If properly implemented, OMB’s 

2013 guidance on linking award financial information to information from 

agency financial systems and reporting the results on a quarterly basis 

could help address underreporting of awards. However, the ongoing 

inaccuracies in reported non-financial award information reinforce the 

need for a more comprehensive oversight process. Finally, gaps in 

records used to validate the data on the website continue to exist.

Until these issues are addressed, any effort to validate USASpending.gov 

data will be hampered by uncertainties about the accuracy of the data. 

The transition of operational responsibility for the USASpending.gov 

website to Treasury presents an opportunity to reexamine the appropriate 

level and methods of oversight and to develop and implement procedures 

that more effectively ensure that data reported to USASpending.gov are 

complete and accurate enough to fulfill the purpose of FFATA.

To improve the completeness and accuracy of data submissions to the 

USASpending.gov website, we recommend that the Director of the Office 

of Management and Budget, in collaboration with Treasury’s Fiscal 

Service, take the following two actions:

Conclusions

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 29 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

• clarify guidance on:

• agency responsibilities for reporting awards funded by non-annual 

appropriations;

• the applicability of USASpending.gov reporting requirements to

non-classified awards associated with intelligence operations;

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

(consistent with our prior recommendation);

• agency maintenance of authoritative records adequate to verify 

the accuracy of required data reported for use by 

USASpending.gov; and

• develop and implement a government-wide oversight process to 

regularly assess the consistency of information reported by federal 

agencies to the website other than the award amount.

To improve the completeness of foreign recipient data on the 

USASpending.gov website, we recommend that the Chief Executive 

Officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation direct responsible 

officials within the Corporation’s Department of Administration and 

Finance to report spending information on all assistance award programs 

to USASpending.gov for prior and future fiscal years in accordance with 

statutory requirements and OMB guidance.

We provided a draft of this report to GSA, OMB, the Millennium Challenge 

Corporation, and Treasury for review and comment. GSA provided 

technical comments only, which we have incorporated as appropriate.

OMB generally agreed with our recommendations. The Millennium 

Challenge Corporation and Treasury neither agreed nor disagreed with 

our recommendations. Each agency’s comments that we received are 

discussed in more detail below.

• In oral comments, staff from OMB’s Office of Federal Financial 

Management stated that the agency generally agreed with our 

recommendations for OMB to clarify guidance and develop and 

implement a government-wide oversight process to improve 

completeness and accuracy of data submissions to the 

USASpending.gov website. OMB staff stated that these 

recommendations are consistent with future actions required by the 

Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014, including 

establishment of a government-wide financial data standard and 

periodic review of agency spending data by inspectors general. Staff 

stated that OMB in conjunction with Treasury will consider interim 

steps to improve data quality but added they do not want to inhibit 

agency efforts to work toward implementation of the act. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 30 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

We agree that the newly enacted provisions of the act could 

eventually help improve the quality of federal spending data. We 

believe that our recommendations are not in conflict with adherence to 

the act but rather will help agencies to take steps towards achieving 

the core tenets of data transparency reflected in the act. Accordingly, 

it will be important for OMB to fully address our recommendations.

• In e-mail comments, staff from the Millennium Challenge 

Corporation’s Financial Management Division neither agreed nor 

disagreed with our recommendation that the corporation should report 

spending information on all assistance award programs to 

USASpending.gov for prior and future fiscal years in accordance with 

statutory requirements and OMB guidance. However, agency 

comments reflect general disagreement. Specifically, staff stated that 

the Millennium Challenge Corporation has made significant attempts 

to load foreign assistance data on USASpending.gov but has been 

unable to do so due to technical limitations of the website. However, 

we found that the attempted transmittal submitted by the Millennium 

Challenge Corporation for our review was rejected because the 

corporation omitted most of the data fields required by FFATA and 

guidance for the website, including several for which the required 

information should be readily available regardless of the recipient, 

including the transaction type, funding amount, and project 

description. Moreover, other agencies have successfully submitted 

data on assistance awards to foreign governments such as the 

Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, and State.

Agency staff also noted that the Millennium Challenge Corporation 

continues to work with GSA and OMB to resolve the technical issues 

preventing transmittal of the data in order to reach full compliance in 

the future. Specifically, the Millennium Challenge Corporation staff 

indicated that the corporation had asked OMB for an alternate 

reporting mechanism. However, until OMB agrees to an alternate 

approach, the Millennium Challenge Corporation is required by OMB 

guidance to use the existing mechanism to report its awards in the 

same manner as other agencies that make awards to foreign 

governments. Accordingly, we maintain our recommendation.

• Treasury stated in its comments that the bureau will consider the 

recommendations as it assumes responsibility for USASpending.gov. 

Treasury’s comments are reprinted in appendix V.
 

Page 31 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

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

report date. At that time we will send copies to the appropriate 

congressional committees; the Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget; the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury; the 

Administrator of General Services; and the Chief Executive Officer of the 

Millennium Challenge Corporation. In addition, the report will be available 

at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-4456 or chac@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix VI. 

Carol R. Cha

Director

Information Technology Acquisition Management Issues
 

Page 32 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

List of Requesters

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

Chairman

The Honorable Thomas A. Coburn, M.D.

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Claire McCaskill

Chairman

Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight

United States Senate

The Honorable Mark R. Warner

Chairman

Task Force on Government Performance

Committee on the Budget

United States Senate

The Honorable Susan M. Collins

United States Senate
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 33 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

Our objectives were to determine the extent to which (1) federal agencies 

report required award data and (2) inconsistencies exist between the data 

on USASpending.gov and records at federal agencies. To address these 

objectives, we examined data collection and reporting requirements under 

FFATA; relevant OMB guidance, other relevant requirements variously 

published in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Code of Federal 

Regulations, and the Federal Register, and agency systems 

documentation.

To determine the extent to which federal agencies are reporting required 

award data, we reviewed contract and assistance award reporting 

requirements as defined in FFATA, OMB guidance, and other federal 

guidance. We compiled a list of potential award-making 

agencies/programs using the Public Budget Database1 for contracts and 

the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance for assistance awards.2

• To determine the extent to which agencies reported contractual 

information to USASpending.gov, we selected the agencies listed in 

the Public Budget Database with budget authorities greater than $400 

million for fiscal year 2012. We selected these agencies to ensure the 

inclusion of large agencies likely to have awarded a significant 

number of contracts. We searched USASpending.gov to determine 

which of these agencies reported contractual information for fiscal 

year 2012. For any selected agency reporting no contractual 

information for fiscal year 2012, we reviewed documentation and 

interviewed agency officials to determine why contracts were not 

reported.

We 

then assessed the list of agencies against reporting requirements under 

FFATA and relevant guidance to determine which agencies are exempt 

from reporting to USASpending.gov.

• To determine the extent to which agencies reported assistance award 

information to USASpending.gov, we identified all programs listed in 

the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance as of February 2013. We 

searched USASpending.gov to determine which programs reported 

information on at least one assistance award for fiscal year 2012. In 

addition, we selected all loan programs reporting transactions to 

 

1

The Public Budget Database can be accessed at http://catalog.data.gov/dataset/publicbudget-database-budget-authority-and-offsetting-receipts-1976-current

2

CFDA can be accessed at https://.www.cfda.gov.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 34 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

USASpending.gov for fiscal year 2012 but reporting $0 in subsidy 

costs. For any program reporting no assistance award information for 

fiscal year 2012 or reporting a subsidy cost of $0, we interviewed 

agency officials and reviewed documentation to determine why 

information was not reported. For programs that claimed they do not 

make financial assistance awards and are therefore exempt from 

reporting to USASpending.gov, we assessed the purpose of each 

program against the definition for federal financial assistance for 

validity. For all programs categorized as either making an award and 

not reporting, or reporting awards late to USASpending.gov, we 

requested that the agency provide an estimate for obligations made 

under this program for fiscal year 2012.

To determine the extent to which inconsistencies existed between the 

data on USASpending.gov and records at federal agencies, we selected 

a simple representative random sample of 385 fiscal year 2012 records. 

The probability sample was designed to estimate a rate of reporting errors 

with a sampling error of no greater than plus or minus 5 percentage 

points at the 95 percent level of confidence. Because we followed a 

probability procedure based on random selections, our sample is only one 

of a large number of samples that we might have drawn. Since each 

sample could have provided different estimates, we express our 

confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 

percent confidence interval (e.g., plus or minus 5 percentage points). This 

is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 

percent of the samples we could have drawn. For 21 data elements 

required by FFATA or OMB guidance, we compared the information 

reported on USASpending.gov to information contained in the originating 

agency’s underlying records, where available, to evaluate to what extent 

the data was consistent.

Table 6: Data Elements Tested, Fiscal Year 2012

Data element

Name of the entity receiving the award

Award amount

Transaction type

Funding agency

NAICS code (contracts only)

CFDA number (assistance awards only)

Program source: agency code

Program source: account code
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

Data element

Award title descriptive of the purpose of each funding action

Recipient street

Recipient city

Recipient state

Recipient zip

Recipient congressional district

Recipient country

Principal place of performance city

Principal place of performance state

Principal place of performance congressional District

Principal place of performance country

Unique identifier for the award recipient

Unique identifier for the parent entity

Sources: GAO analysis of FFATA. | GAO-14-476

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

supporting documentation to confirm that the agency provided only official 

agency records, such as a system of records notice. When such a 

supporting document was unavailable, we reviewed agency transparency 

policy documentation, data verification and validation plans or 

procedures, or system source code information to ensure the reliability of 

the data. We did not assess the accuracy of the data contained in records 

provided by agencies. To the extent that we had previously assessed the 

reliability of a system, we worked within GAO to obtain the necessary 

supporting documentation.

We conducted this performance audit from December 2012 to June 2014 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: List of Agencies Reviewed, Based 

on the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Page 36 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

Table 7 shows the agencies included in our review of assistance 

programs listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, broken 

out by the number of programs.

Table 7: Agencies Listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, as of 

February 2013

Agency

Number of 

CFDA 

programs

Number of CFDA 

programs not 

reported

Agency for International Development 12 1 

Appalachian Regional Commission 5 1 

Architectural and Transportation Barriers 

Compliance Board 1 1 

Barry Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence In 

Education Foundation 1 1 

Broadcasting Board of Governors 1 1 

Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation 4 4 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 1 1 

Corporation for National and Community Service 12 2 

Delta Regional Authority 3 3 

Denali Commission 1 0 

Department of Agriculture 241 62

Department of Commerce 88 30

Department of Defense 78 50

Department of Education 125 12a

Department of Energy 40 9 

Department of Health and Human Services 463 110

Department of Homeland Security 81 29

Department of Housing and Urban Development 124 74

Department of the Treasury 11 6 

Department of the Interior 265 163

Department of Justice 121 57

Department of Labor 58 20

Department of State 64 8 

Department of Transportation 91 48

Department of Veterans Affairs 50 22

Environmental Protection Agency 104 13

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 6 6 

Executive Office of the President 4 4 

Appendix II: List of Agencies Reviewed, 

Based on the Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance
Appendix II: List of Agencies Reviewed, Based 

on the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Page 37 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

Agency

Number of 

CFDA 

programs

Number of CFDA 

programs not 

reported

Export-Import Bank of the United States 1 0 

Federal Communications Commission 1 1 

Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities 1 1 

Federal Maritime Commission 1 1 

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service 2 2 

Federal Trade Commission 1 1 

General Services Administration 4 4 

Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation 1 1 

Institute of Museum and Library Services 9 2 

James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation 1 1 

Japan U.S. Friendship Commission 1 1 

Millennium Challenge Corporation 3 3 

Morris K. Udall Foundation 3 3 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 11 2 

National Archives and Records Administration 3 2 

National Credit Union Administration 2 2 

National Endowment for the Arts 2 0 

National Endowment for the Humanities 9 0 

National Labor Relations Board 1 1 

National Science Foundation 12 0 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4 0 

Office of Personnel Management 7 7 

Overseas Private Investment Corporation 2 2 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 1 1 

Railroad Retirement Board 2 1 

Securities and Exchange Commission 1 1 

Small Business Administration 28 9 

Social Security Administration 9 1 

United States Commission on Civil Rights 1 1 

United States Election Assistance Commission 4 4 

Total 2,183 787

Sources: GAO analysis of CFDA information. | GAO-14-476

a

We identified one program which reported awards to USASpending.gov but did not report a subsidy 

cost
Appendix III: List of Agencies Included in Our 

Sample

Page 38 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

Table 8 shows the agencies included in our representative sample, 

broken out by the number of contracts and assistance awards. The table 

further breaks down assistance awards to show the total number of 

awards aggregated at the county level.

Table 8: Agencies Included In Representative Sample, by Awards

Agency

Number of 

contracts

Total number of 

assistance awards

Number of aggregate 

assistance awards

Total 

awards

Agency for International Development 1 1 0 2 

Department of Agriculture 3 15 5 18

Department of Commerce 4 0 0 4 

Department of Defense 91 2 0 93

Department of Education 1 18 0 19

Department of Energy 1 1 0 2 

Department of Health and Human Services 3 31 0 34

Department of Homeland Security 4 10 6 14

Department of Housing and Urban Development 1 16 0 17

Department of the Treasury 1 0 0 1 

Department of the Interior 5 2 0 7 

Department of Justice 6 1 0 7 

Department of Labor 2 0 0 2 

Department of State 5 0 0 5 

Department of Transportation 2 13 0 15

Department of Veterans Affairs 12 58 56 70

Environmental Protection Agency 1 0 0 1 

Export-Import Bank of the United States 0 2 0 2 

General Services Administration 3 0 0 3 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 4 3 0 7 

National Endowment for the Arts 0 1 0 1 

National Endowment for the Humanities 0 1 0 1 

National Science Foundation 1 3 0 4 

Office of Personnel Management 1 0 0 1 

Peace Corps 1 0 0 1 

Railroad Retirement Board 0 4 4 4 

Small Business Administration 0 1 0 1 

Social Security Administration 0 49 49 49

Total 153 232 120 385

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. | GAO-14-476

Appendix III: List of Agencies Included in Our 

Sample
Appendix IV: GAO Estimates of Consistency 

Rates

Page 39 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

Table 9 lists the estimates for each of the required data elements we 

tested for fiscal year 2012.

Table 9: GAO Estimates of Consistency Rates for Award Information by USASpending.gov Data Element, Fiscal Year 2012

Estimated rangesa

Data element Consistent (%) Inconsistent (%) Unverifiable (%)

Name of the entity receiving the award 91-96 2-6 1-5 

Award amount 88-94 3-7 2-7 

Transaction type 84-90 2-5 7-13

Funding agency 89-94 1-3 4-9 

NAICS code (contracts only) 72-85 10-22b 3-13

CFDA number (assistance awards only) 78-88 0-2 12-22

Program source: agency code 78-85 0-3 14-21

Program source: account code 70-79 1-4 19-27

Award title descriptive of the purpose of each funding action 62-71 24-33 3-8 

Recipient street 73-82 13-21 4-9 

Recipient city 83-90 5-10 4-9 

Recipient state 90-95c 2-6 2-6 

Recipient zip 76-84 10-18 4-9 

Recipient congressional district 69-78 12-19 8-14

Recipient country 88-94 3-7 2-6 

Principal place of performance city 46-56 22-31 18-27

Principal place of performance state 63-73 3-8 23-31

Principal place of performance congressional District 43-53 20-28 23-32

Principal place of performance country 36-46 29-38 21-30

Unique identifier for the award recipient 88-94 4-9 1-4 

Unique identifier for the parent entity 64-73 26-35 0-2 

Sources: GAO analysis of agency records. | GAO-14-476

a

This table shows the 95 percent confidence intervals for the estimates.

b

We estimate that the NAICS code data element is inconsistent in at least 9.77 percent of fiscal 2012 

awards. Although it is displayed in the table as 10 percent due to rounding, we do not consider this 

element to have exceeded the 10 percent threshold of significant inconsistency.

c

We estimate that the recipient state data element is consistent in at least 89.66 percent of fiscal 2012 

awards. Although it is displayed in the table as 90 percent due to rounding, we do not consider this 

element to have exceeded the 90 percent threshold of significant consistency.

Appendix IV: GAO Estimates of Consistency 

Rates
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of the Treasury

Page 40 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of the Treasury
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 41 GAO-14-476 Federal Spending Data Reliability

Carol R. Cha at (202) 512-4456 or chac@gao.gov

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

(assistant director), Mathew Bader, Carl Barden, Colleen Candrl, Nancy 

Glover, Wilfred Holloway, James Houtz, Ruben Montes de Oca, Kate 

Nielsen, David Plocher, Matthew Snyder, and Umesh Thakkar made key 

contributions to this report.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(311601)
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 website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

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

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.