SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contractor Performance and Oversight

OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AFGHANISTAN RECONSTRUCTION

DOD, State, and USAID Obligated Over $17.7 Billion to

About 7,000 Contractors and Other Entities for 

Afghanistan Reconstruction During 

Fiscal Years 2007-2009

October 27, 2010
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page i

OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AFGHANISTAN RECONSTRUCTION

October 27, 2010

Executive Departments and Agencies:

This report presents the results of the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 

Reconstruction’s review of the obligations made during fiscal years 2007-2009 by the Departments of 

Defense (DOD) and State and the U.S. Agency for International Development for reconstruction in 

Afghanistan (USAID). We are not making any recommendations; we plan to use this information to 

prioritize our future work.

A summary of this report is on page iii. This performance audit was conducted by the Office of the 

Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction under the authority of Public Law No. 110-181 

and the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. We provided a draft of this report to DOD, State, 

and USAID for their comments. Only DOD’s Joint Contracting Command-Iraq/Afghanistan provided 

comments. It noted it is undertaking several initiatives to improve the quality of the contract data it

manages.

John Brummet

Assistant Inspector General for Audits

Office of the Special Inspector General 

for Afghanistan Reconstruction
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page ii

List of Addressees

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State

The Honorable Robert Gates

Secretary of Defense

The Honorable Karl W. Eikenberry

U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan

General James N. Mattis

Commander, U.S. Central Command

General David Petraeus

Commander, U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, and 

Commander, International Security Assistance Force

Lieutenant General Robert Van Antwerp

Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Lieutenant General Kevin T. Campbell

Commanding General, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense 

Command/Army Forces Strategic Command

The Honorable Dr. Rajiv Shah

Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development

Mr. Earl Gast

USAID Mission Director to Afghanistan

Mr. Dennis M. Firman

Director, Air Force Center for Engineering and the 

Environment
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page iii

SIGAR

Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction

SIGAR Audit-11-4 October 2010

DOD, State, and USAID Obligated Over $17.7 Billion to 

About 7,000 Contractors and Other Entities for 

Afghanistan Reconstruction During FY 2007-FY 2009

What SIGAR Reviewed

Since 2001, the United States has appropriated about $55 billion for the reconstruction of Afghanistan—primarily for 

the Departments of Defense (DOD) and State, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). DOD, State, 

and USAID rely extensively on contractors and other implementing partners to undertake reconstruction projects. 

However, information on reconstruction contractors and other entities and the financial mechanisms used—contracts, 

cooperative agreements, and grants—is not routinely reported. The objective of SIGAR’s review was to identify the 

contractors and implementing partners associated with reconstruction. To accomplish this, we obtained data from DOD, 

State, and USAID on the obligations made from Afghanistan reconstruction funding during fiscal years 2007-2009 and 

the financial mechanisms used. We found that inconsistencies in the data prevented us from reporting on individual 

obligations. However, the data were sufficiently reliable to illustrate the relative magnitude of obligations made to 

contractors and implementing partners. We also note that certain appropriated funds may be obligated over multiple 

fiscal years; therefore, comparing obligations in a given fiscal year to the appropriations for that year is not appropriate. 

We conducted this review in Washington, D.C., from December 2009 to September 2010 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. 

What SIGAR Found

DOD, State, and USAID reported more than $17.7 billion in obligations made against contracts, cooperative 

agreements, and grants for Afghanistan reconstruction during fiscal years 2007-2009. SIGAR identified about 7,000

contractors and other entities, including for-profit and non-profit 

organizations and multilateral organizations.

Four DOD contracting organizations obligated about $11.5 billion for 

reconstruction contracts. The Joint Contracting Command-Iraq/Afghanistan 

(JCC-I/A) reported about $6.7 billion in contract obligations or half of DOD’s 

$11.5 billion total; we identified 6,253 contractors with 27 of these accounting 

for more than half of JCC-I/A’s total. The largest obligation during this period 

was about $691 million to Kabuljan Construction Company. The U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) reported about $3.2 billion in contract obligations; 

we identified 393 contractors of which 7 accounted for half of USACE’s total. 

The largest obligation during this period was $366 million to Contrack 

International to construct and maintain Afghan National Security Forces’ 

facilities. The Air Force Center for Engineering and Environment (AFCEE) 

reported $770 million in contract obligations; we identified 17 contractors with 5 accounting for about 70 percent of 

AFCEE’s total. Finally, DOD’s Counter Narcoterrorism Technology Program Office (CNTPO) reported about $850 million 

in contract obligations; we identified 5 contractors with 2 accounting for over 60 percent of CNTPO’s total.

Two State bureaus reported obligating about $2.4 billion. The Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement 

Affairs (INL) reported about $2.3 billion in contract obligations; we identified 4 contractors, with DynCorp International 

accounting for over 80 percent of INL’s total obligations during this period. DynCorp’s work included police training 

and counter-narcotics support. The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) obligated approximately 

$178 million to cooperative agreements and grants; we identified 21 implementing partners, with the UN High 

Commissioner for Refugees accounting for more than half of PRM’s total obligations during this period.

USAID reported obligating about $3.8 billion—over $2 billion (53 percent) for contracts, $1.1 billion (nearly 30 percent) 

for cooperative agreements, and $625 million (17 percent) for grants—to 283 contractors and other entities. Of the 

contracts, Louis Berger International received the most obligations, with $736 million; of the cooperative agreements, 

International Relief and Development received the most with about $358 million; and of the grants, the World Bank 

received the most with $322 million during this period. About $809 million or 21 percent of USAID’s total obligations 

were provided to multilateral organizations or federal agencies.

SIGAR is not making recommendations, but plans to use this information to prioritize future work. We provided a draft 

of this report to DOD, State, and USAID for comments. Only JCC-I/A provided comments. It noted it is undertaking 

several initiatives to improve the quality of the contract data it manages.

For more information contact: SIGAR Public Affairs at (703) 602-8742 or PublicAffairs@sigar.mil
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background ...................................................................................................................................................2

DOD Obligated About $11.5 Billion for Afghanistan Reconstruction During Fiscal 

Years 2007-2009.....................................................................................................................................4

State Obligated About $2.4 Billion for Afghanistan Reconstruction During Fiscal 

Years 2007-2009.....................................................................................................................................9

USAID Obligated About $3.8 Billion for Afghanistan Reconstruction During Fiscal 

Years 2007-2009...................................................................................................................................12

Concluding Observations............................................................................................................................16

Comments...................................................................................................................................................17

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology.........................................................................................................18

Appendix II: Obligations Made by DOD Against Contracts........................................................................21

Appendix III: Obligations Made by USAID Against Contracts, Cooperative 

Agreements, and Grants.......................................................................................................................32

Appendix IV: Comments by Joint Contracting Command-Iraq/Afghanistan .............................................37

TABLES

Table 1: Contractors and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan Reconstruction 

Contracts as Reported by JCC-I/A, FY 2007- FY 2009 .............................................................................5

Table 2: Contractors and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan Reconstruction 

Contracts as Reported by USACE, FY 2007-FY 2009...............................................................................7

Table 3: Contractors and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan Reconstruction 

Contracts as Reported by AFCEE, FY 2007-FY 2009 ...............................................................................8

Table 4: Contractors and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan Reconstruction 

Contracts as Reported by SMDC, FY 2007-FY 2009................................................................................9

Table 5: Contractors and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan Reconstruction 

Contracts as Reported by INL, FY 2007-FY 2009 ..................................................................................10

Table 6: Implementing Partners and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan 

Reconstruction Cooperative Agreements as Reported by PRM, FY 2007-FY 

2009......................................................................................................................................................11

Table 7: Contractors and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan Reconstruction 

Contracts as Reported by USAID, FY 2007-FY 2009 .............................................................................13

Table 8: Implementing Partners and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan 

Reconstruction Cooperative Agreements as Reported by USAID, FY 2007-FY 

2009......................................................................................................................................................14

Table 9: Implementing Partners and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan 

Reconstruction Grants as Reported by USAID, FY 2007-FY 2009.........................................................15
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page v

Table 10: Obligations Made to Multilateral Organizations and Federal Agencies 

by USAID, FY 2007-FY 2009 ..................................................................................................................16

Table 11: Contractors and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan 

Reconstruction Contracts as Reported by JCC-I/A, FY 2007-FY 2009...................................................21

Table 12: Contractors and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan 

Reconstruction Contracts as Reported by USACE, FY 2007-FY 2009 ...................................................25

Table 13: Contractors and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan Reconstruction 

Contracts as Reported by AFCEE, FY 2007-FY 2009 .............................................................................31

Table 14: Contractors and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan 

Reconstruction Contracts as Reported by USAID, FY 2007-FY 2009....................................................32

Table 15: Implementing Partners and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan 

Reconstruction Cooperative Agreements as Reported by USAID, FY 2007-

FY 2009 .................................................................................................................................................34

Table 16: Implementing Partners and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan 

Reconstruction Grants as Reported by USAID, FY 2007-FY 2009.........................................................36

FIGURES 

Figure 1: Contract Obligations for Afghanistan Reconstruction by DOD 

Contracting Organization, during FY 2007-2009, (Dollars in millions)...................................................4

Figure 2: USAID Obligations Made Against Contracts, Cooperative Agreements, 

and Grants for Afghanistan Reconstruction, FY 2007-FY 2009 (Dollars in 

millions)................................................................................................................................................12

ACRONYMS

AFCEE Air Force Center for Engineering and Environment

ANSF Afghan National Security Forces

AQM Office of Acquisitions Management

CENTCOM U.S. Central Command

CNTPO Counter Narcoterrorism Technology Program Office

CSTC-A Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan

DOD Department of Defense

ICASS International Cooperative Administrative Support Services

IDIQ Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity 

INL Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

JCC-I/A Joint Contracting Command-Iraq/Afghanistan

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PRM Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

SMDC Space and Missile Defense Command

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

USFOR-A U.S. Forces-Afghanistan
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 1

DOD, State, and USAID Obligated Over $17.7 Billion to About 7,000 Contractors 

and Other Entities for Afghanistan Reconstruction During Fiscal Years 2007-2009

The United States has appropriated about $55 billion for reconstruction in Afghanistan since 2001. 

Reconstruction funds are used to build or rebuild the physical infrastructure of Afghanistan; establish 

training or technical assistance programs for the Afghan government; deliver relief assistance to the 

people of Afghanistan; and provide security or other support functions to facilitate reconstruction 

efforts. The Departments of Defense (DOD) and State, and the U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID) have relied extensively on contractors to provide a range of services in 

Afghanistan. Congress has taken a number of actions to increase the oversight of contracts in 

Afghanistan and Iraq, such as requiring DOD, State, and USAID to create a common database to track 

contractor personnel and contracts.1

 However, federal agencies have faced challenges in using this 

database.2

To provide more effective oversight over Afghanistan reconstruction funds, we identified contractors 

and other entities receiving reconstruction funds and the financial mechanisms used to provide these 

funds. To accomplish our objective, we identified sources of funding for Afghanistan reconstruction as 

reported by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and obtained the obligations

 In addition, these agencies do not routinely report which contracts, cooperative agreements, 

and grants are for reconstruction versus other purposes in Afghanistan, such as support for U.S. combat 

troops. 

3

To determine the reliability of the data provided, we met with officials, including contracting and 

financial officers, from DOD, State, and USAID, and documented how the data were collected and 

reported to us. Although we found certain inconsistencies, we concluded that the data were sufficiently 

that DOD, 

State, and USAID reported from these funding sources during fiscal years 2007-2009. Because certain 

appropriated funds may be obligated over multiple fiscal years, comparing the obligations we report in a 

given fiscal year to the appropriations for that fiscal year is not appropriate. For each obligation the 

agencies reported to us, we obtained the name of the contractor or other entity; the contract, 

cooperative agreement, or grant identifier; and the date the obligation was made. 

 1 Pub. L. No. 110-181, §§ 861 and 863. 2 GAO-10-1, Contingency Contracting: DOD, State, and USAID Continue to Face Challenges in Tracking Contractor 

Personnel and Contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1, 2009); GAO-10-187, Contingency

Contracting: Further Improvements Needed in Agency Tracking of Contractor Personnel and Contracts in Iraq and 

Afghanistan (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2, 2009). 3 For the purposes of this report, an obligation is an agency’s legal commitment to provide funds for the payment 

of goods and services ordered or received. For example, an agency incurs an obligation when it signs a contract, 

cooperative agreement, or grant; places an order for a good or service against a contract, grant, or cooperative 

agreement; purchases a service; or takes other actions that require the government to make payments to the 

public or to provide funds from one government account to another. See OMB circular No. A-11 and Section 

1501(a) of title 31 of the United States Code. 
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 2

reliable to illustrate the relative magnitude of the obligations made to contractors and implementing 

partners and the financial mechanisms used. We conducted our review from December 2009 to 

October 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. See appendix I for 

a more complete explanation of our scope and methodology. We are not making recommendations in 

this report but plan to use this information to guide our audit and investigative work on contracts. 

BACKGROUND 

Since 2001, Congress has appropriated about $55 billion for the purpose of reconstruction in 

Afghanistan. The vast majority of the funds were provided to DOD, State, and USAID.4

 Federal agencies 

may use a wide range of financial mechanisms, such as contracts, cooperative agreements, or grants, to 

fund activities not performed by agency direct-hire personnel. Agencies use contracts to acquire 

property or services for their direct benefit or the use of other government agencies or entities. 

Agencies use cooperative agreements and grants to provide funds and technical assistance to help a 

recipient, or implementing partner, accomplish its mission. Agencies use cooperative agreements when 

expecting to provide substantial support to help the implementing partner accomplish the purpose of 

the obligation and grants when it does not expect to provide such assistance.5

DOD, State, and USAID reported using multiple organizations to award and manage contracts, 

cooperative agreements, and grants for reconstruction in Afghanistan. Four organizations manage 

reconstruction contracts at DOD:

• Joint Contracting Command-Iraq/Afghanistan (JCC-I/A) manages contracts for U.S. ForcesAfghanistan’s (USFOR-A)6 subcommands, including the Combined Security Transition CommandAfghanistan (CSTC-A),

7 which is responsible for distributing and managing all U.S.-provided 

funding to support the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), according to JCC-I/A officials. In 

2005, the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) established JCC-I/A to maintain visibility over all 

contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Renamed the Joint Theater Support Contract Command in 

June 2010,8

• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)-Afghanistan Engineer District (AED) manages 

contracts on behalf of CSTC-A to construct ANSF facilities and other infrastructure projects. 

Additionally, USACE provides engineering and support services for other federal agencies. 

JCC-I/A’s mission was expanded to serve as a centralized contracting organization to 

account for all contracting efforts for forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other key areas in 

CENTCOM’s area of responsibility. 

• The Air Force Center for Engineering and Environment (AFCEE) builds facilities for the ANSF on 

behalf of CSTC-A and provides construction support services for CSTC-A. 

 4 Congress provided $405 million to the Departments of Agriculture, Justice, and the Treasury for Afghanistan 

reconstruction. 5 Agencies may award cooperative agreements or grants to individuals, organizations, and non-profit or for-profit 

entities. However, if a for-profit entity is awarded a cooperative agreement or grant, it may not earn a profit. 6 USFOR-A commands all U.S. forces assigned to Afghanistan. 7 The NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan and CSTC-A were created in November 2009; they operate with a single 

commander. The mission provides training for the Afghan National Army and trains and mentors the Afghan 

National Police. However, because CSTC-A distributes and manages all U.S.-provided funding to support ANSF, this 

report refers to CSTC-A. 8 While the organization is currently named the Joint Theater Support Contracting Command, we refer to JCC-I/A 

throughout this report because it was under this name when the command provided us the data.
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 3

• The U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) is part of the Army Forces 

Strategic Command. SMDC officials stated that the Command manages contracts for DOD’s 

Counter Narcoterrorism Technology Program Office (CNTPO). These contracts are used to 

provide aviation support for Afghanistan’s counter-narcotics office, construct facilities on the 

Afghan border to intercept narcotics shipments, and train Afghan counter-narcotics officials. 

State’s Office of Acquisitions Management (AQM) enters into contracts on behalf of State and is 

responsible for providing department-wide oversight for contracts, according to AQM officials. 

According to State officials, two State bureaus reported managing reconstruction contracts, cooperative 

agreements, or grants:

• The Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) promotes security 

from international criminal threats and illicit narcotics. In Afghanistan, INL’s objectives include 

working with the Afghan government to improve law enforcement capabilities, reform the 

criminal justice system, strengthen the rule of law, and reduce the supply, production, and 

trafficking of illegal drugs.

• The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) provides assistance to refugees and 

displaced persons worldwide. In Afghanistan, PRM provides assistance to Afghan and Pakistani 

refugees, conflict victims, and internally displaced persons.

USAID’s Mission in Kabul enters into and manages contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants to 

support Afghanistan Reconstruction. USAID’s Afghanistan-Pakistan Task Force in Washington, D.C., 

reports data on contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants and provides administrative support, 

according to Task Force officials.
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 4

DOD OBLIGATED ABOUT $11.5 BILLION FOR AFGHANISTAN RECONSTRUCTION DURING 

FISCAL YEARS 2007-2009

As shown in figure 1, JCC-I/A, USACE, AFCEE, and SMDC made approximately $11.5 billion in obligations 

for Afghanistan reconstruction contracts during fiscal years 2007-2009.

Figure 1: Contract Obligations for Afghanistan Reconstruction

by DOD Contracting Organization, during FY 2007-2009, 

(Dollars in millions)

Source: SIGAR analysis of JCC-I/A, USACE, AFCEE, and SMDC data.

JCC-I/A Reported About $6.7 Billion in Contract Obligations for Afghanistan Reconstruction

Our analysis of JCC-I/A data identified over 6,200 contractors that received approximately $6.7 billion in 

obligations for Afghanistan reconstruction contracts during fiscal years 2007-2009. Twenty-seven 

contractors accounted for about $3.3 billion or almost half of JCC-I/A’s total obligations (see table 1). 

Kabuljan Construction Company received the most obligations during this period, totaling about 

$691 million for the construction of military facilities. Of the JCC-I/A contractors that we identified, 

593 (about 9 percent) received obligations of more than $1 million each. See appendix II for a listing of 

all JCC-I/A contractors with more than $10 million in contract obligations.

JCC-I/A

$6,675

58%

USACE

$3,235

28%

AFCEE

$770

7%

SMDC

$850

7%
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 5

Table 1: Contractors and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan 

Reconstruction Contracts as Reported by JCC-I/A, FY 2007- FY 2009

Vendor

Value of 

contract

(dollars in 

millions)

Percentage 

of total

obligations

Kabuljan Construction Company $691 10

Red Sea Construction Company 478 7

KBY & Bozdemir Joint Venture 452 7

Recon International 159 2

Nimrah Construction Company 138 2

R.M. Asia, Limited 128 2

Unity Logistics and Supply Services 105 2

Arrow General Supplies 98 1

No Lemon, Ltd. 95 1

GLC Group 78 1

IAP Worldwide Services 73 1

Abdul Wasi Faqire, Ltd. 69 1

Alaska Structures, Inc. 68 1

Network Innovations 64 1

Kabul Melli Trading, Ltd. 58 1

Green United Group, Inc. 56 1

Central Asia Development Group 55 1

Canafgusa International Corporation 55 1

Rauf Aziz Construction Company 52 1

Heb International Logistics 50 1

Dell Federal Systems 50 1

Atlantic Diving Supply 49 1

Qasemi 48 1

Ronco Consulting Corporation 47 1

Downrange Services 46 1

Tarsian & Blinkley 44 1

Afghan United International Company 42 1
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 6

Vendor

Value of 

contract

(dollars in 

millions)

Percentage 

of total

obligations

Sub-total (27) $3,348 50

Remaining contractors (6,226) 3,327 50

Total (6,253) $6,675 100

Source: SIGAR analysis of JCC-I/A data.

Notes: Totals affected by rounding.

As we note in appendix I, the JCC-I/A data contained a number of errors, including 

misspellings and some contractor names that were similar and may refer to the 

same contractor. For contractors with total obligations of more than $10 million, 

we confirmed the contractors’ name in the Federal Procurement Data System-Next 

Generation, or other online sources. For contractors with less than $10 million in 

reported obligations, we reviewed 600 records (about 10 percent of the total), and 

found that approximately 19 percent of the records contained firms with similar 

names.

USACE Reported about $3.2 Billion in Contract Obligations for Afghanistan Reconstruction

Our analysis of USACE data identified 393 contractors that received approximately $3.2 billion in 

obligations for Afghanistan reconstruction contracts during fiscal years 2007-2009. Seven contractors 

accounted for about $1.6 billion or half of the total obligations (see table 2). Contrack International Inc. 

received the most obligations, totaling about $366 million during this period, which included obligations 

for the design, construction, and maintenance of Afghan National Army facilities. Of the USACE

contractors that we identified, 148 (38 percent) received obligations of more than $1 million each. See 

appendix II for the complete list of USACE contractors receiving more than $1 million in obligations 

against Afghanistan reconstruction contracts.
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 7

Table 2: Contractors and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan 

Reconstruction Contracts as Reported by USACE, FY 2007-FY 2009

Contractor

Value of 

contract 

obligations

(dollars in 

millions)

Percentage

of total

obligations

Contrack International Inc $366 11

FCEC UI Projects Joint Venture 321 10

Technologists Inc. 303 9

ECC International LLC 204 6

DynCorp International LLC 162 5

Perini Corporation 135 4

Road & Roof Construction Company 120 4

Sub-Total (7) $1,611 50

Remaining contractors (386) 1,460 45

Total (393) $3,233 100

Source: SIGAR analysis of USACE data.

Note: Totals affected by rounding.

This total includes $162 million in obligations (roughly 5 percent) that USACE made 

to support contract management functions. These obligations are not listed 

seperately in the table because they were awarded to USACE or other DOD 

contracting organizations for the purposes of supervision and administration of 

contracts.

Of the nearly $3.2 billion that USACE reported in obligations, $162 million was for USACE contract 

management functions, such as project and cost management, contract administration, scheduling, and 

quality assurance. USACE’s accounting system automatically adds a supervision and administration fee 

ranging between 5.7 percent to 8.5 percent for the contracts that USACE’s contract management office 

administers. 

AFCEE Reported $770 Million in Contract Obligations for Afghanistan Reconstruction

Our analysis of AFCEE data identified 17 contractors that received $770 million in obligations to 

Afghanistan reconstruction contracts during fiscal years 2007-2009. Five contractors accounted for 

almost $539 million or 70 percent of the total (see table 3). AMEC Earth and Environment received the 

most obligations during this period, totaling nearly $166 million, which included the construction of the 

Kabul Military Training Center. See appendix II for the complete list of contractors receiving obligations 

that AFCEE made against Afghanistan reconstruction contracts.
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 8

Table 3: Contractors and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan 

Reconstruction Contracts as Reported by AFCEE, FY 2007-FY 2009

Contractor

Value of 

contract 

obligations

(dollars in 

millions)

Percentage

of total

obligations

AMEC Earth and Environment $166 21

ITSI 108 14

URS Group Inc. 106 14

CH2M Hill Constructors Inc. 92 12

Toltest Inc. 67 9

Sub-total (5) $539 70

Remaining contractors (12) 231 30

Total (17) $770 100

Source: SIGAR analysis of SMDC data.

Note: Totals affected by rounding.

SMDC Reported About $850 Million in Contract Obligations for Afghanistan Reconstruction

Our analysis of SMDC data identified 5 contractors that received approximately $850 million in 

obligations to Afghanistan reconstruction contracts during fiscal years 2007-2009 (see table 4). Two 

contractors, Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, Inc., and U.S. Training Center,9

 9 U.S. Training Center is a Xe Company, formerly known as Blackwater.

accounted for more 

than 60 percent of the total. Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, Inc., held two contracts to provide 

engineering and operations support to CNTPO programs. 
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 9

Table 4: Contractors and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan 

Reconstruction Contracts as Reported by SMDC, FY 2007-FY 2009

Contractor

Value of 

contract 

obligations

(dollars in 

millions)

Percentage

of total

obligations

Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, Inc. $320 38

U.S. Training Center 218 26

ARINC Incorporated 169 20

Northrop Grumman TASC 118 14

Raytheon Company 26 3

Total $850 100

Source: SIGAR analysis of SMDC data.

Note: Totals affected by rounding.

STATE OBLIGATED ABOUT $2.4 BILLION FOR AFGHANISTAN RECONSTRUCTION DURING 

FISCAL YEARS 2007-2009

Two bureaus within State—Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) and 

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM)—reported making obligations for Afghanistan 

reconstruction totaling approximately $2.4 billion during fiscal years 2007-2009. INL obligated nearly 

$2.3 billion, more than 90 percent of the total obligations made by the two Bureaus during this period. 

PRM reported obligating about $178 million for cooperative agreements and $79,000 in grants. 

INL Reported Approximately $2.3 Billion in Contract Obligations for Afghanistan 

Reconstruction

Our analysis of INL data identified four contractors that received nearly $2.3 billion in obligations against 

indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts10 during fiscal years 2007-2009 (see table 5). 

DynCorp International accounted for $1.8 billion or more than 80 percent of INL’s total obligations. 

DynCorp International’s work included training and mentoring the Afghan National Police under a 

contract funded by DOD, but administered by State.11

 10 An IDIQ contract can be used when the exact quantities or delivery times of a product or service are unknown. 

The government enters into a contract with a contractor to purchase a minimum stock of goods and retains the 

option to purchase up to a maximum number of products and services from the contractor. The agency exercises 

this option by issuing an order to the contractor for delivery of goods or services at a specified time and place.

 Additionally, DynCorp International provided 

personnel for police training for Afghan drug-eradication operations. 

11 Departments of Defense and State Inspectors General, DOD Obligations and Expenditures Provided to the 

Department of State for the Training and Mentoring of the Afghan National Police, D-2010-042 (Feb. 9, 2010).
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 10

Table 5: Contractors and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan 

Reconstruction Contracts as Reported by INL, FY 2007-FY 2009

Contractor

Value of 

contract 

obligations

(dollars in 

millions)

Percentage

of total

obligations

DynCorp International $1,826 81

PAE Government Services 349 15

Civilian Police International 79 3

Hill and Knowlton 4 < 1

Total $2,258 100

Source: SIGAR analysis of State data.

Note: Totals affected by rounding.

PRM Reported Approximately $178 Million in Cooperative Agreement and Grant Obligations 

for Afghanistan Reconstruction

Our analysis of PRM data identified 21 implementing partners that received about $178 million in 

obligations for Afghanistan reconstruction cooperative agreements from fiscal years 2007-200912

 12 In addition to the obligations made against cooperative agreements, PRM reported about $79,000 in obligations 

made against grants with two implementing partners. 

(see 

table 6). The United Nations accounted for the most obligations, $94 million, or more than half of PRM’s 

total for cooperative agreements. Most of this amount was provided to the UN High Commissioner for 

Refugees to administer programs such as refugee resettlement programs in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

Five implementing partners accounted for nearly $144 million, or over 80 percent of PRM’s obligations 

for Afghanistan reconstruction cooperative agreements.
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 11

Table 6: Implementing Partners and Obligations Made Against 

Afghanistan Reconstruction Cooperative Agreements as Reported 

by PRM, FY 2007-FY 2009

Implementing Partner

Value of 

cooperative 

agreement 

obligations

(dollars in 

millions)

Percentage 

of total

obligations

UN High Commissioner for Refugees $94 53

International Committee of the Red Cross 32 18

International Rescue Committee 7 4

Save the Children Federation 6 3

Mercy Corps 5 3

International Medical Corps 5 3

Church World Service 5 3

CARE International 4 2

Afghan Center 3 2

United Methodist Committee on Relief 3 1

American Refugee Committee 3 1

Shelter for Life, Inc. 3 1

Christian Children’s Fund 2 1

Norwegian Refugee Council 2 1

Agency for Technical Cooperation and 

Development

2 1

Catholic Relief Services 1 1

Sub-total (16) $175 98

Remaining implementing partners (5) 3 2

Total (21) $178 100

Source: SIGAR analysis of State data.

Note: Totals affected by rounding.

PRM reported about $79,000 in obligations made against Taft Fund grants, whose purpose included 

installing safe drinking water for refugee camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, funding a textile training 

project in Afghanistan, and expanding a school and building a medical clinic in Kabul. 
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 12

USAID OBLIGATED ABOUT $3.8 BILLION FOR AFGHANISTAN RECONSTRUCTION DURING 

FISCAL YEARS 2007-2009

USAID’s Mission in Kabul reported obligating approximately $3.8 billion for reconstruction in 

Afghanistan during fiscal years 2007-2009. USAID obligated about $2 billion against contracts or 

53 percent of the $3.8 billion. Additionally, USAID obligated about $1.1 billion or nearly 30 percent to 

cooperative agreements, and about $625 million or 17 percent to grants for Afghanistan reconstruction 

(see figure 2). Approximately 46 percent of the $1.7 billion in obligations for cooperative agreements 

and grants ($809 million) was provided to multilateral organizations and other federal agencies. 

Figure 2: USAID Obligations Made Against Contracts, 

Cooperative Agreements, and Grants for Afghanistan 

Reconstruction, FY 2007-FY 2009 (Dollars in millions) 

Source: SIGAR analysis of data reported by the USAID Mission in 

Kabul.

USAID Reported About $2 Billion in Contract Obligations for Afghanistan Reconstruction

Our analysis of USAID data identified 214 contractors that received approximately $2 billion in 

obligations against Afghanistan reconstruction contracts during fiscal years 2007-2009.13 Two 

contractors accounted for about $1 billion, or more than half the total (see table 7). Louis Berger 

International received nearly $736 million during this period, which included work under USAID’s 

Rehabilitation of Economic Facilities and Services program to modernize Afghanistan’s South East Power 

System and to rehabilitate the Kajakai Dam.14

 13 Additionally, we identified 226 personal services contracts funded with Afghanistan reconstruction funding. We 

include the value of these obligations in the total, but do not list them individually in this report.

 Of the 214 contractors, 42 (about 20 percent) received 

14 See SIGAR Audit 10-4, Afghanistan Energy Supply Has Increased but an Updated Master Plan Is Needed and 

Delays and Sustainability Concerns Remain (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 15, 2010) and SIGAR Audit 10-6, Contract Delays 

and Cost Overruns for the Kabul Power Plant and Sustainability Remains a Key Challenge (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 

20, 2010).

Contracts

$2,005

(53%)

Grants

$625

(17%)

Cooperative 

Agreements

$1,124

(30%)
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 13

total obligations of more than $1 million each. See appendix IV for all USAID contractors with more than 

$1 million in contract obligations.

Table 7: Contractors and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan 

Reconstruction Contracts as Reported by USAID, FY 2007-FY 2009

Contractor

Value of 

contract 

obligations

(dollars in 

millions)

Percentage

of total

obligations

Louis Berger International $736 37

Development Alternatives Inc. 296 15

Chemonics International 230 12

Bearing Point 130 7

Association for Rural Development 70 4

Sub-total (5) $1,463 73

Remaining contractors (208) 543 27

Total (213) $2,005 100

Source: SIGAR analysis of USAID data.

Note: Totals affected by rounding.

In addition, USAID’s contract obligations included a total of about $50 million for air charter services to 

transport U.S. Embassy and USAID personnel around Afghanistan. USAID also reported obligating 

approximately $7 million for International Cooperative Administrative Support Services (ICASS),15 which 

is the principal means by which USAID and other federal agencies share the cost of common 

administrative support at State’s diplomatic and consular posts overseas, including the Embassy in 

Kabul.16

USAID Reported About $1.1 Billion in Cooperative Agreement Obligations for Afghanistan 

Reconstruction

Our analysis of USAID’s data identified 53 implementing partners that received approximately 

$1.1 billion in obligations for Afghanistan reconstruction cooperative agreements during fiscal years 

2007-2009 (see table 8). Three implementing partners accounted for about $562 million, or almost half 

of USAID’s total obligations. International Relief and Development accounted for nearly $358 million, 

which included obligations for USAID’s Strategic Provincial Roads program and the Afghanistan Vouchers 

for Increased Production in Agriculture Plus program. The objectives of the roads program include 

increasing stability and security in eastern and southern Afghanistan by rehabilitating provincial roads 

 15 U.S. Department of State, Foreign Affairs Handbook, 6-FAH-5, “ICASS Organization” (Washington, D.C.: April 

1998). State’s ICASS provides more than 30 basic administrative support services, such as motor pool operations, 

vehicle maintenance, travel services, and information management services. 

16 We do not include obligations made against the ICASS contract in our total.
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 14

and increasing institutional capacity to facilitate efficient movement of goods and people. The 

agriculture program is an expansion of USAID’s wheat seed voucher program, which provides wheat 

seeds to farmers and training in agricultural best practices to improve production. Of the 

53 implementing partners, 46 (about 87 percent) received obligations of more than $1 million each. See 

appendix IV for a complete list. 

Table 8: Implementing Partners and Obligations Made Against 

Afghanistan Reconstruction Cooperative Agreements as Reported 

by USAID, FY 2007-FY 2009

Implementing Partner

Value of grant 

obligations

(dollars in 

millions)

Percentage

of total

obligations

International Relief and Development $358 32

Academy for Education Development 109 10

United Nations 95 8

International Organization for Migration 80 7

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 48 4

Sub-total (5) $691 61

Remaining implementing partners (48) 433 39

Total (53) $1,124 100

Source: SIGAR analysis of USAID data.

Note: Totals affected by rounding.

USAID Reported About $625 Million in Grant Obligations for Afghanistan Reconstruction

Our analysis of USAID data identified 17 implementing partners that received approximately 

$625 million in obligations for Afghanistan reconstruction grants during fiscal years 2007-2009 (see 

table 9). The World Bank accounted for about $322 million, or more than half of USAID’s total grant 

obligations. The United States and 23 other bilateral donors provide funding for the Afghanistan 

Reconstruction Trust Fund, which is administered by the World Bank. The trust fund has been a source 

of financing for the government of Afghanistan’s budget and has supported World Bank-administered 

reconstruction projects. Of the 17 implementing partners we identified, 15 received obligations of 

$1 million or more. See appendix IV for a complete list.
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 15

Table 9: Implementing Partners and Obligations Made Against 

Afghanistan Reconstruction Grants as Reported by USAID, 

FY 2007-FY 2009

Implementing Partner

Value of grant 

obligations

(dollars in 

millions)

Percentage

of total

obligations

The World Bank $322 52

The United Nations 160 26

World Health Organization 81 13

The Asia Foundation 18 3

Catholic Relief Services 11 2

Sub-total (5) $592 95

Remaining implementing partners (12) 33 5

Total (17) $625 100

Source: SIGAR analysis of USAID data.

Note: Totals affected by rounding.

About 21 Percent of USAID’s Total Obligations Were Made to Multilateral Organizations and 

Other Federal Agencies

We identified approximately $809 million that USAID provided to four multilateral organizations and 

eight federal agencies during fiscal years 2007-2009.17

 17 USAID reported transfers to federal agencies as cooperative agreements.

 These obligations represent about 21 percent of 

a total of $3.7 billion in USAID reported obligations. Of the obligations made to multilateral 

organizations or federal agencies, the World Bank and the United Nations accounted for $578 million, or 

about 71 percent. Of the federal agencies, USACE received the most obligations during this period; it 

provided design and engineering services to USAID reconstruction projects. See table 10 for obligations 

of more than $1 million made to multilaterals and federal agencies.
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 16

Table 10: Obligations Made to Multilateral Organizations and 

Federal Agencies by USAID, FY 2007-FY 2009

Implementing partner

Cooperative 

agreement 

and grant 

obligations

(dollars in 

millions)

Percentage

of total

obligations

The World Bank $322 40

The United Nations 255 32

International Organization for Migration 85 11

World Health Organization 81 10

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 48 6

Department of State 8 1

Department of Transportation 3 <1

Department of the Treasury 3 <1

U.S. Institute of Peace 2 <1

Sub-Total (9) $808 99

Remaining implementing partners (3) Less than 

1 million

<1

Total (12) $809 100

Source: SIGAR analysis of USAID data.

Note: Totals affected by rounding.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

DOD, State, and USAID rely extensively on contractors and other entities to carry out reconstruction 

projects in Afghanistan. However, data describing this involvement are not readily available. To provide 

more effective oversight over U.S. reconstruction funds, we undertook this audit to identify the principal 

contractors and other entities involved, as well as the financial mechanisms used. 

At our request, DOD, State, and USAID provided us with data on the $17.7 billion in obligations they 

reported for Afghanistan reconstruction during fiscal years 2007 through 2009. As we describe in this 

report, we identified about 7,000 contractors and other entities involved in Afghan reconstruction. 

However, a relatively small number of contractors and other entities accounted for the majority of 

obligations. At DOD, out of the more than 6,600 contractors that received obligations for Afghan 

reconstruction, 44 that we identified received more than $6.3 billion, or about 55 percent of the $11.5 

billion that four DOD contracting organizations reported obligating. Similarly, one contractor, DynCorp 

International, accounted for about 75 percent of the $2.4 billion that 2 bureaus at State reported 
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 17

obligating. Finally, at USAID, 5 of the 280 contractors or other entities accounted for more than half of 

the $3.8 billion in contract, cooperative agreement, and grant obligations. 

Although the obligation data was in some cases more than three years old, this is the first analysis of its 

kind—namely, identifying the principal contractors and other entities involved in reconstruction efforts 

in Afghanistan and the funding mechanisms used. We plan to use this information to guide our audit 

and investigative oversight of contracts.

COMMENTS 

We provided a draft of this report to DOD, State, and USAID for their comments. Only JCC-I/A provided 

written comments (See app. IV). In their comments, JCC-I/A reported that it is undertaking several 

initiatives to improve the quality of contract data that it maintains, including participating in interagency 

working groups to strengthen strategic partnerships and improving data system protocols to reduce the 

number of errors in its data. 
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 18

APPENDIX I: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

This report presents the results of the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 

Reconstruction’s review of obligations made during fiscal years 2007-2009 against contracts, 

cooperative agreements, and grants for the purposes of reconstruction in Afghanistan. In this report, 

we used the definition of reconstruction in SIGAR’s enabling legislation. The legislation defines 

reconstruction as the use of contracts, grants, agreements, or other funding mechanisms for any of the 

following purposes: (a) to build or rebuild the physical infrastructure of Afghanistan; (b) to establish or 

reestablish a political or societal institution of Afghanistan; and (c) to provide products or services to the 

people of Afghanistan.18

Our objective was to identify the contractors and implementing partners associated with reconstruction 

and the financial mechanisms used. To accomplish this, we obtained data from the Departments of 

Defense (DOD) and State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) on the obligations 

made during fiscal years 2007-2009 against contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants from 

Afghanistan reconstruction funding sources.19

For DOD, we held a teleconference with officials from the U.S. Central Command, which identified four 

contracting agencies within DOD that used Afghanistan reconstruction funding sources to make 

obligations against contracts: the Joint Contracting Command-Iraq/Afghanistan (JCC-I/A);

However, DOD, State, and USAID do not separately 

identify obligations made for Afghanistan reconstruction from obligations made for other purposes. 

Therefore, we identified 15 sources of funding used for Afghanistan reconstruction and confirmed this 

with the Office of Management and Budget. We also verified funding sources with contracting and 

financial officials from the DOD Office of the Comptroller; State’s Bureau of Administration, Office of 

Acquisitions Management; and the USAID Afghanistan-Pakistan Task Force. Because certain 

appropriated funds may be obligated over multiple fiscal years, it is not appropriate to compare 

appropriations to obligations made in that fiscal year. At DOD, we reviewed obligations made from four 

sources of funding: The Afghan Security Forces Fund; Commander’s Emergency Response Program; 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities; and National Defense Authorization Act Section 1207 

Transfer Funds. At State, we reviewed obligations made from six sources of funding: International 

Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement; Migration and Refugee Assistance; Emergency Migration and 

Refugee Assistance; Non-Proliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related; and Educational and 

Cultural Affairs. At USAID, we reviewed obligations made from five sources of funding: Economic 

Support Fund; Development Assistance; P.L. 480, Title II Funds; Global Health and Child Survival; and 

International Disaster Assistance. We excluded sources of funding that did not have contract, 

cooperative agreement, or grant obligations made during fiscal years 2007-2009. 

20

 18 Public Law No. 110-181, § 1229(i)(2), as amended.

the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); the Air Force Center for Engineering and Environment (AFCEE); and 

the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC), which manages contracts for DOD’s 

Counter Narcoterrorism Technology Program Office (CNTPO).

19 In addition to funds provided to DOD, State, and USAID, Congress also provided $405 million to the Departments 

of Agriculture, Justice, and the Treasury for Afghanistan reconstruction. Because Congress provided DOD, State, 

and USAID the vast majority of funds for Afghanistan reconstruction, we included only these three agencies in our 

report.

20 In June 2010, JCC-I/A’s mission was expanded. Renamed the Joint Theater Support Contract Command (JTSCC), 

it is to serve as a centralized contracting organization to account for all contracting efforts for forces in 

Afghanistan, Iraq, and other areas in U.S. Central Command’s area of responsibility. Although the organization is 

currently named the Joint Theater Support Contracting Command, we use the term “JCC-I/A” because it was under 

this name that the organization provided us with the data we use in this report. 
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 19

• To identify JCC-I/A’s contracts, we held a teleconference with officials from JCC-I/A and obtained 

data on Afghanistan reconstruction-related contract obligations made during fiscal years 2007-

2009. JCC-I/A reported that they use multiple electronic information systems to record and 

store contract data, including the Standard Procurement System, Joint Contingency Contracting 

System, Army Contracting Business Information System, and Electronic Document Access. 

JCC-I/A provided us with information on the policies and procedures in place to ensure that the 

data captured by these systems are reliable. Data provided by JCC-I/A contained records on the 

contract number, the contractor receiving the obligation, dates of contract performance, the 

contract type, funding source, and value of obligations made. We excluded records marked by 

JCC-I/A identified for operations and maintenance. We analyzed these data and identified 

errors, which included multiple names referring to the same contractor, inaccurate dates 

identifying the contract period of performance, the lack of a unique contractor number for some 

records, and some blank records. For records with total obligations of more than $10 million, 

we confirmed the contractor’s name in the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation, 

or another online source. For contractors with less than $10 million in reported obligations, we 

reviewed 600 records (about 10 percent of the total), and found that approximately 19 percent 

of the records contained data elements with similar names that may refer to the same vendor. 

JCC-I/A officials stated that the errors resulted from inaccurate data entry into JCC-I/A’s various 

databases, and that when errors such as these are discovered, system administrators manually 

correct them. We reformatted and summarized the data reported to us by standardizing 

contractor names and totaling JCC-I/A contract obligations made during fiscal years 2007-2009 

by contractor.

• To identify USACE’s contracts, we obtained data on Afghanistan reconstruction-related contract 

obligations made during fiscal years 2007-2009. USACE reported that it uses the Corps of 

Engineers Financial Management System to record and store contract data. Data provided by 

USACE contained records on the contract number, contractor name, purpose of the obligation, 

fiscal year in which the obligation was made, and the value of the obligation. We analyzed the 

reported data to identify errors that would prevent us from using it, but did not find any 

significant errors. We reformatted and summarized the data reported to us by standardizing 

contractor names and totaling USACE contract obligations made during fiscal years 2007-2009 

by contractor.

• To identify AFCEE’s contracts, we obtained data on Afghanistan reconstruction-related contract 

obligations made during fiscal years 2007-2009. AFCEE officials reported that their contingency 

construction and finance offices used a variety of data systems to record and store contract data 

and provided us information on the procedures they use to ensure data reliability. AFCEE’s data 

contained records on the contract number, contractor name, task order number, place of 

contract performance, obligation award date, project title, contract type, and value of the 

obligation. We excluded obligations that AFCEE marked for operations and maintenance. We 

reformatted and summarized the data reported to us by standardizing contractor names and 

totaling AFCEE contract obligations made during fiscal years 2007-2009 by contractor.

• To identify SMDC’s contracts, we obtained data on Afghanistan reconstruction-related contract 

obligations made during fiscal years 2007-2009. SMDC reported that it used several information 

systems to store and retrieve contract information, such as Procurement Desktop Defense, 

Electronic Document Access, and the Army Contracting Business Intelligence System. Data 

provided by SMDC contained records on the contract number, contractor name, dates of 

contract performance, source of funding, and the value of the obligations. We analyzed the 

reported data to identify errors that would prevent us from using it, but did not find any 

significant errors. We reformatted and summarized the data reported to us by standardizing 
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 20

contractor names and totaling SMDC contract obligations made during fiscal years 2007-2009 by 

contractor. 

To identify State’s contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants for the purpose of reconstruction in 

Afghanistan, we met with officials from the State’s Bureau of Administration, Office of Acquisitions 

Management, who told us that State’s bureaus maintain data on contract, cooperative agreement, and 

grant obligations. We obtained data from the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement 

Affairs (INL) on the Afghanistan reconstruction-related contract obligations made during fiscal years 

2007-2009. We also obtained data from the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) on 

the Afghanistan reconstruction-related cooperative agreement and grant obligations during the same 

period. The Office of Acquisitions Management reported to us that State uses the Global Financial 

Management System to record and store contract data and provided us with a statement on the 

system’s data reliability. Data provided by INL and PRM contained records on the vendor or 

implementing partner, contract number, purpose of obligation, funding source, status of contract, and 

value of obligations. We analyzed the reported data to identify errors that would prevent us from using 

it, but did not find any significant errors. We reformatted and summarized the data reported to us by 

standardizing the names and totaling INL contract obligations and PRM cooperative agreement and 

grant obligations made during fiscal years 2007-2009 by contractor or implementing partner.

To identify USAID’s Afghanistan reconstruction-related contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants, 

we met with officials from USAID’s Afghanistan-Pakistan Task Force, and obtained data developed by 

the USAID Mission in Kabul on obligations made during fiscal years 2007-2009. USAID officials reported 

that it used the Phoenix Viewer to generate data on obligations made from fiscal years 2007-2009. 

USAID’s data contained records on the type of financial mechanism (contract, cooperative agreement, 

or grant), the mechanism number, contractor or implementing partner name, dates of performance, 

funding source, description of obligation, and value of obligation. We analyzed the reported data to 

identify errors that would prevent us from using it, but did not find any significant errors. We 

reformatted and summarized the data reported to us by standardizing contractor and implementing 

partner names and totaling USAID contract, cooperative agreement, and grant obligations made during 

fiscal years 2007-2009 by contractor or implementing partner. 

To ensure the reliability of the computer-processed data that DOD, State, and USAID reported to us, we 

conducted several reliability assessments on each of the datasets described above. We (1) reviewed 

selected system controls that the agency uses to ensure data reliability; (2) conducted electronic testing 

of compiled data by checking for missing data, valid dates, and erroneous duplicates; and (3) reviewed 

audit reports on the information management systems used to store the data to determine if systemic 

weaknesses could affect the validity of the data we analyzed. On the basis of our reliability assessments, 

we determined that the data reported to us were sufficiently reliable to illustrate the relative 

magnitudes of the obligations made for Afghanistan reconstruction contracts, cooperative agreements, 

and grants for the purpose of this report. 

We conducted this review from December 2009 to October 2010 in Washington, D.C., 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 the evidence obtained provides a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. This performance audit 

was conducted by SIGAR under the authority of Public Law No. 110-181, and the Inspector General Act 

of 1978, as amended.
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 21

APPENDIX II: OBLIGATIONS MADE BY DOD AGAINST CONTRACTS

Four Department of Defense (DOD) contracting organizations provided SIGAR with data on obligations 

made against contracts used for Afghanistan reconstruction during fiscal years 2007-2009: the Joint 

Contracting Command-Iraq/Afghanistan (JCC-I/A),21 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Air Force 

Center for Engineering and Environment (AFCEE), and U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command 

(SMDC). This appendix presents additional contractors and obligation data that are not in the body of 

the report for JCC/IA, USACE, and AFCEE.

22

Joint Contracting Command-Iraq/Afghanistan

We identified 6,253 contractors that received $6.7 billion in obligations JCC-I/A made against 

Afghanistan reconstruction contracts during fiscal years 2007-2009. Table 11 shows contractors with 

obligations totaling $10 million or more. 

Table 11: Contractors and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan 

Reconstruction Contracts as Reported by JCC-I/A, FY 2007-FY 2009

Contractor

Value of contract 

obligations

(dollars in millions)

1 Kabuljan Construction Company $691

2 Red Sea Construction Company 478

3 KBY & Bozdemir Joint Venture 452

4 Recon International 159

5 Nimrah Construction Company 138

6 RM Asia Limited 128

7 Unity Logistics & Supply Services 105

8 Arrow General Supplies 98

9 No Lemon, Ltd. 95

10 GLC Group 78

11 IAP Worldwide Services 73

12 Abdul Wasi Faqire, Ltd. 69

13 Alaska Structures, Inc. 68

14 Network Innovations 64

15 Kabul Melli Trading, Ltd. 58

 21 JCC-I/A was renamed the Joint Theater Support Contracting Command in June 2010. We use JCC-I/A throughout 

this report because it provided us with the data. 22 All the information we obtained from SMDC is presented in the body of the report.
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 22

Contractor

Value of contract 

obligations

(dollars in millions)

16 Green United Group, Inc. 56

17 Central Asia Development Group 55

18 Canafgusa International Corporation 55

19 Rauf Aziz Construction Company 52

20 Heb International Logistics 50

21 Dell Federal Systems 50

22 Atlantic Diving Supply, Inc. 49

23 Qasemi 48

24 Ronco Consulting Corporation 47

25 Downrange Services 46

26 Tarsian & Blinkley 44

27 Afghan United International Company 42

28 The Marshal Group, LLC 41

29 Qasem Hadad 41

30 Worldwide Language Resources 37

31 The Management Group 34

32 Rona Trading Company 31

33 Jubaili Brothers 31

34 Ansar Noori Group 31

35 Anham, LLC 31

36 Toifor 29

37 Yuksel Insaat 29

38 CADG Engineering, Ltd. 28

39 National Trading Company 28

40 Overseas Lease Group, Inc. 27

41 AIT 26

42 Afghan Trade Transportation 26

43 Bennett Fouch & Associates 25

44 SSG, LLC 23
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 23

Contractor

Value of contract 

obligations

(dollars in millions)

45 Cetena Group 22

46 Saleem Apparel & Supplies 20

47 A-Z Corporation 20

48 Mowlana Construction Company 20

49 Dasnet Corporation 20

50 Afghan Wireless 20

51 Alops 20

52 Blue Sky Construction Company, Ltd. 19

53 Safi Apparel Corporation 19

54 Attayee Logistics, Ltd. 19

55 Critical Mission Support Services 18

56 Blue Hackle Middle East 17

57 Faizi Masroor Construction & Supply Company 17

58 Prosima Four Horsemen 17

59 Bashir Logistics & Construction Company 17

60 Wise Global Group 17

61 All Points International Distributors, Inc. 17

62 Zmatrix Solutions Corporation 16

63 Allied Machinery, Ltd. 16

64 Amin Kapisa Construction Company 16

65 California Industrial Facilities Resources, Inc. 16

66 Supreme Site Services 16

67 Capital Aviation, Inc. 16

68 EOD Technology, Inc. 15

69 Kabul Marine Construction Company 15

70 AWCC 14

71 Khenj Logistics Group 14

72 PAE Government Services, Inc. 14

73 Asia Security Group 14
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 24

Contractor

Value of contract 

obligations

(dollars in millions)

74 Red Orange International Services 14

75 Amanullah Durbaz Trading Company 14

76 Afghan Armada 13

77 Uniworld Fze 13

78 Aria Target Logistics Services 13

79 Afghanistan Rehab & Architectural Organization 12

80 Bob Shir Traders & General Supplies 12

81 L3 Services, Inc. 12

82 Najeebullah Trading & Construction Company 11

83 Arabian Sea Eng & Karkon Construction Company, Joint 

Venture

11

84 Galaxy Sky Construction Company 11

85 SSG Offshore 10

86 Zaatc 10

87 Young Afghan Construction Company 10

88 Afghan Ready Mix 10

89 New Jan Group 10

Sub-total (89) $4,512

Remaining contractors (6,164) 2,124

Total (6,253) $6,675

Source: SIGAR analysis of JCC-I/A data.

Note: Totals affected by rounding.

As we noted in appendix I, the JCC-I/A data contained a number of errors, including 

misspellings, and some contractor names that were similar and may be the same. For 

contractors with total obligations of more than $10 million, we confirmed the contractors’a 

name in the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation, or another online source. For 

contractors with less than $10 million in reported obligations, we reviewed 600 records (about 

10 percent of the total), and found that approximately 19 percent of the records contained 

firms with similar names.
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 25

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

We identified 393 contractors that received about $3.2 in obligations USACE made against Afghanistan 

reconstruction contracts during fiscal years 2007-2009. The data also included $162 million obligated 

for the purpose of USACE supervision and administration of U.S.-funded reconstruction contracts in 

Afghanistan. Table 12 shows contractors with obligations totaling $1 million or more.

Table 12: Contractors and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan 

Reconstruction Contracts as Reported by USACE, FY 2007-FY 2009

Contractor

Value of contract 

obligations

(dollars in millions)

1 Contrack International Inc $366 

2 FCEC United Infrastructure Projects Joint Venture 321 

3 Technologists, Inc. 303 

4 ECC International, LLC 204 

5 DynCorp International, LLC 162 

6 Perini Corporation 135 

7 Road and Roof Construction Company 120 

8 Proccea Consulting 81 

9 NGI Afghanistan 74 

10 Yuksel Metag Tepe Yenigun Zafer Joint Venture 69 

11 BYA International 61 

12 Metag Insaat Ticaret A.S. 56 

13 Zurmat Construction Company 55 

14 Fluor Intercontinental, Inc. 54 

15 Zafer Construction Company 44 

16 Afghan Builders Consortium 39 

17 Network of Construction and Development Company 35 

18 Herai Alpha Construction 33 

19 Ronco Consulting Corporation 31 

20 Omran Consulting Construction and Engineering 

Company

30 

21 Red Sea Engineering Corporation 29 

22 Prosima International 29 
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 26

Contractor

Value of contract 

obligations

(dollars in millions)

23 Highland Al Hujaz Company, Ltd. 29 

24 Rizzani de Eccher S.P.A. 28 

25 OBD Construction Company 28 

26 AZ Corporation 28 

27 Venco Imtiaz Construction Company 27 

28 Krima Construction Corporation 23 

29 Sadath Business Group, Ltd. 21 

30 Washington Group International, Inc. 20 

31 Emar-e-sarey Construction Company 18 

32 Swiz Hewadwal JV 17 

33 Areebel Engineering & Logistics 16 

34 International Construction, Consultation and Supplies, 

Ltd.

16 

35 Krima/Kainaat Construction Company Joint Venture 15 

36 Shafi Sirat, Inc. 15 

37 Sayed Bilal Sadath Construction Company 15 

38 Basirat Construction 12 

39 Anham Afghansitan Joint Venture 12 

40 Afghanistan Reconstruction Company, LLC 11 

41 Unique Builders Construction Company 11 

42 Lakeshore Engineering Services, Inc. 11 

43 Farzam Construction Company 10 

44 SAF/FMBIB Company 10 

45 Patriot Builders 10 

46 Michael Baker Jr, Inc. 9 

47 Excellent Planning and Construction Company 9 

48 Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 8 

49 Framaco Epiksan Metis Joint Venture 8 

50 Ariana Popal Construction Company 8 

51 TASC, Inc. 8 
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 27

Contractor

Value of contract 

obligations

(dollars in millions)

52 Albironi Construction and Engineering, Inc. 7 

53 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 7 

54 Kainaat Construction, Logistics and Trading Company, 

LLC

7 

55 First Afghanistan Construction, Ltd. 7 

56 Lotfi Construction Company 7 

57 Nawid Bakshi Construction and Roads 7 

58 Mercury Development 7 

59 Yuksel Insaat 7 

60 Yarash Huma Const and Engineering Company, Ltd. 6 

61 Mensel Joint Venture Company 6 

62 Afghanistan Rehab and Architecture Company 6 

63 Development Organization for the Revival of 

Afghanistan

6 

64 FKH Geoexpert Services 6 

65 New Vegas Construction 6 

66 ARAO 5 

67 New Jan Group 5 

68 Shaw Centcom Services, Ltd. 5 

69 Midfield International 5 

70 CH2M Hill/Dragados/Soluziona Joint Venture 5 

71 Hollywood Construction Company 5 

72 Global Freedom Construction Company 4 

73 Feka Insaat Sanayi Ve Ticaret, Ltd. 4 

74 UCC Budservice Construction and Engineering, Joint 

Venture

4 

75 Kolin Construction Manufacturing and Trading 

Company

4 

76 Jubaili Bros 4 

77 Swiz Engineering and Construction Company 4 

78 Kestral SPD, Ltd. 4 
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 28

Contractor

Value of contract 

obligations

(dollars in millions)

79 Jamshidyar Construction Company Joint Venture 4 

80 Biltek Org Mush Basrek Tur Insaat 4 

81 John's Construction Company 3 

82 Associated Construction Management Inc. 3 

83 Mustafa Sahak Construction Company 3 

84 Dora Construction Company 3 

85 TFI International, LLC 3 

86 Abdul Khabir Construction Company 3 

87 L3 Communications Integrated Systems 3 

88 Sediq Now Bahar Construction Company 3 

89 Mowlana Construction Company 3 

90 Ariae Koh General Maintenance and Construction 

Company 

2 

91 Blue Sky Logistics Company 2 

92 Armada Afghan 2 

93 Kamal Baba Construction and Production Materials 2 

94 Soufiany Construction Company 2 

95 Attayee Logistics 2 

96 Afghan Wardak Construction Company 2 

97 Kabul Europe Construction Road and Material 

Company

2 

98 Fareed Saboor Construction Company 2 

99 Allied Machinery Limited 2 

100 Jamal Aziz Construction and Engineering Company 2 

101 FIN/FOS/LS Joint Venture 2 

102 Global Engineering and Consulting Services 2 

103 Engineering Precision Company, Ltd. 2 

104 Pamir Zameen Construction and Logistics Company 2 

105 Zamari Ali Ahmad Zada Construction Company 2 

106 Ahmadzay and Noorazy Construction Company 2 
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 29

Contractor

Value of contract 

obligations

(dollars in millions)

107 Asia Khurshaid Construction Company 2 

108 Wise Global Group 1 

109 Combat Construction Company 1 

110 Kuwait Kochak Company 1 

111 Mostafa Construction Company 1 

112 Centex Construction Company 1 

113 Hassib Azizi Construction Company 1 

114 JQ Builders and Contractors 1 

115 State Corps, Ltd. 1 

116 Stanley Consultants, Inc. 1 

117 Toll Brothers Construction Company 1 

118 Zaaztc Trading Company 1

119 Afghan Electrical Power Corporation 1 

120 Team Integrated Engineering, Inc. 1 

121 Hamza Shahab Construction Company 1 

122 New Paiman Construction Company 1 

123 Esko International, Inc. 1 

124 Qaderdan Rural Technology Development 1

125 Aadel Amin Construction Company 1

126 Innovative Technical Solutions, Inc. 1

127 Wahiridullah Rahimi Construction 1

128 Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, Inc. 1

129 Sharafat Nasari Construction Company 1

130 Afghan Behsazan Construction Company 1

131 Versar, Inc. 1

132 Phrama Group Construction Company 1

133 Swiz Grand Joint Venture 1

134 Haroki Construction Company 1

135 Hameed Saeed Construction Company 1
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 30

Contractor

Value of contract 

obligations

(dollars in millions)

136 HCG/TFI International 1

137 Passaran Noori Construction Company 1

138 Najibullah Khushbin General Contractor 1

139 Haspania Construction Company 1

140 Young Afghan Construction Company 1

141 Kani Construction Company 1

142 Sysorex Federal, Inc. 1

143 Shafi Safdary Construction Company 1

144 Panjsher Group 1

145 CCSO 1

146 Empire Construction Company 1

147 Black Panther Construction 1

148 ARY and Karimi Construction Company 1

Sub-total (148) $3,044 

Remaining contractors (245) 28 

Total (393) $3,234 

Source: SIGAR analysis of USACE data.

Note: Totals affected by rounding. The total includes about $162 million that USACE obligated 

for the purposes of supervision and administration expenses.
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 31

Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment

We identified 17 contractors that received $770 million in obligations AFCEE made against Afghanistan 

reconstruction contracts during fiscal years 2007-2009 (see table 13).

Table 13: Contractors and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan 

Reconstruction Contracts as Reported by AFCEE, FY 2007-FY 2009

Contractor Value of contract obligations

(dollars in millions)

1 AMEC Earth and Env. $166

2 ITSI 108

3 URS Group Inc. 106

4 CH2M Hill Constructors Inc. 92

5 Toltest Inc. 67

6 ECC 56

7 Weston Solutions 52

8 MACTEC Engineering 44

9 PRI-DJI 25

10 Versar Inc. 15

11 Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 10

12 CDM/CAPE - Joint Venture 8

13 TEAM, IE 8

14 Lakeshore Engineering Services, Inc 6

15 AECOM 3

16 E2M 2

17 Portage 2

Total (17) $770

Source: SIGAR analysis of AFCEE data.

Note: Totals affected by rounding.
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 32

APPENDIX III: OBLIGATIONS MADE BY USAID AGAINST CONTRACTS, COOPERATIVE 

AGREEMENTS, AND GRANTS

The U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Afghanistan-Pakistan Task Force provided us 

with data developed by the USAID Mission in Kabul for obligations made against contracts, cooperative 

agreements, and grants for Afghanistan reconstruction during fiscal years 2007-2009.

Contracts

We identified 214 USAID contractors that received about $2 billion in obligations during fiscal years 

2007-2009. Table 14 shows contractors with obligations totaling $1 million or more.

Table 14: Contractors and Obligations Made Against Afghanistan 

Reconstruction Contracts as Reported by USAID, FY 2007-FY 2009

Contractor

Value of contract obligations

(dollars in millions)

1 Louis Berger International, Inc. $736

2 Development Alternatives, Inc. 296

3 Chemonics International, Inc. 230

4 Bearing Point, Inc. 130

5 Association for Rural Development 70

6 Deloitte Consulting 60

7 Norse Air Charter, Ltd. 48

8 Creative Associates International, Inc. 47

9 Checchi & Company 42

10 International Foundation for Election Systems 37

11 Personal services contracts(a) 36

12 AECOM International Development 36

13 International Relief and Development 34

14 Emerging Markets Group 32

15 Associates in Rural Development 24

16 Advanced Engineering Associates 24

17 Constella Futures International 14

18 International Resources Group 14

19 State University of New York 8

20 Al-Haj Abdul Ghafar Ghazanfar Co.Ltd 8
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 33

Contractor

Value of contract obligations

(dollars in millions)

21 Rashad Elham Trading Company, Ltd. 8

22 Ahham FZCO, Ltd. 6

23 Partnership for Child Healthcare 6

24 PA Government Services, Inc. 6

25 Global Strategies Group 6

26 Afghanistan Management Group 5

27 Descon Holdings, Ltd. 5

28 ECODIT 5

29 Camp Dresser McKefee International 3

30 Aircraft Charter Solutions, Inc. 3

31 IO Global Services 2

32 QED Group 2

33 Protection Devices, Inc. 2

34 Lakeshore Engineering Services, Inc. 2

35 University Research Company 2

36 Bank Alfalah, Ltd. 2

37 Macro International 2

38 Agility International, Inc. 1

39 GW Consulting 1

40 Dell Computer 1

41 Computer Sciences Corporation 1

42 MWH Americas, Inc. 1

Sub-Total (42) $1,997

Remaining contractors (172) 8

Total (214) $2,005

Source: SIGAR analysis of USAID data.

Notes: Totals affected by rounding. (a) We identified 226 personal services contracts that were funded with Afghanistan 

reconstruction funding. 
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 34

Cooperative Agreements

We identified 53 USAID implementing partners that received $1.1 billion in obligations against 

cooperative agreements during fiscal years 2007-2009. Table 15 shows implementing partners with 

cooperative agreements and obligations totaling $1 million or more.

Table 15: Implementing Partners and Obligations Made Against 

Afghanistan Reconstruction Cooperative Agreements as Reported by USAID, 

FY 2007-FY 2009

Implementing Partner

Value of cooperative agreement 

obligations

(dollars in millions)

1 International Relief and Development $358

2 Academy for Education Development 109

3 United Nations 95

4 International Organization for Migration 80

5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 48

6 Management Sciences for Health 48

7 Consortium for Elections and Political Process 

Strengthening

46

8 CARE International 36

9 Development Alternatives, Inc. 35

10 International City/County Management 

Association

28

11 The Asia Foundation 28

12 Jhpiego Corporation 22

13 Counterpart International, Inc. 15

14 PACT 14

15 Mercy Corps 12

16 American University of Afghanistan 11

17 Central Asia Development Group 10

18 Volunteers for Economic Growth Alliance 9

19 Washington State University 8

20 Creative Associates International, Inc. 8

21 New Mexico State University 8

22 U.S. Department of State 8
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 35

Implementing Partner

Value of cooperative agreement 

obligations

(dollars in millions)

23 Loma Linda University 8

24 Department of Agriculture 7

25 Catholic Relief Services 6

26 Danish International Development Agency 5

27 Oasis International Schools, Inc. 5

28 Democracy International 5

29 Government of Afghanistan 5

30 Wildlife Conservation Society 5

31 World Vision 4

32 University of California 4

33 KNCV 4

34 Purdue University 4

35 U.S. Department of Transportation 3

36 Citizen Network for Foreign Affairs 3

37 U.S. Department of Treasury 3

38 Turquoise Mountain Trust 3

39 Cornell International Institute for Food, 

Agriculture and Development

2

40 U.S. Institute of Peace 2

41 Education Development Center 1

42 Center for International Private Enterprise 1

43 ABT Associates 1

44 International Center for Integrated Mountain 

Development

1

45 Christian Children's Fund 1

46 Public Health Institute 1

Sub-Total (46) $1,123

Remaining Implementing Partners (7) 1

Total (53) $1,124

Source: SIGAR analysis of USAID data.

Note: Totals affected by rounding.
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 36

Grants

We identified 17 USAID implementing partners that received about $625 million in grant obligations 

during fiscal years 2007-2009. Table 16 shows implementing partners with grants and obligations 

totaling $1 million or more.

Table 16: Implementing Partners and Obligations Made Against 

Afghanistan Reconstruction Grants as Reported by USAID, FY 2007-FY 2009

Implementing Partner

Value of grant 

obligations

(dollars in millions)

1 The World Bank $322

2 United Nations 160

3 World Health Organization 81

4 The Asia Foundation 18

5 Catholic Relief Services 11

6 Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development 7

7 International Organization for Migration 5

8 Cooperative Housing Foundation International 5

9 CARE International 4

10 CHF International 4

11 Shelter for Life International, Inc. 2

12 Aga Khan Foundation 2

13 ARZU, Inc. 1

14 Programe-e-Tahkem Solh 1

15 New York University 1

Sub-Total (15) $624

Remaining Implementing Partners (2) 1

Total (17) $625

Source: SIGAR analysis of USAID data.

Note: Totals affected by rounding.
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 37

APPENDIX IV: COMMENTS BY JOINT CONTRACTING COMMAND-IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN
SIGAR Audit-11-4 Contract Performance and Oversight Page 38

(This report was conducted under the audit project code SIGAR Audit 018-A)
SIGAR’s Mission The mission of the Special Inspector General for 

Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) is to enhance 

oversight of programs for the reconstruction of 

Afghanistan by conducting independent and objective 

audits, inspections, and investigations on the use of 

taxpayer dollars and related funds. SIGAR works to 

provide accurate and balanced information, evaluations, 

analysis, and recommendations to help the U.S. Congress, 

U.S. agencies, and other decision-makers to make 

informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions to:

• improve effectiveness of the overall reconstruction 

strategy and its component programs;

• improve management and accountability over funds 

administered by U.S. and Afghan agencies and their 

contractors;

• improve contracting and contract management 

processes;

• prevent fraud, waste, and abuse; and

• advance U.S. interests in reconstructing 

Afghanistan.

Obtaining Copies of SIGAR 

Reports and Testimonies

To obtain copies of SIGAR documents at no cost, go to 

SIGAR’s Web site (www.sigar.mil). SIGAR posts all 

released reports, testimonies, and correspondence on its 

Web site.

To Report Fraud, Waste, and 

Abuse in Afghanistan 

Reconstruction Programs

To help prevent fraud, waste, and abuse by reporting 

allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement, and 

reprisal contact SIGAR’s hotline:

• Web: www.sigar.mil/fraud

• Email: hotline@sigar.mil

• Phone Afghanistan: +93 (0) 700-10-7300

• Phone DSN Afghanistan 318-237-2575

• Phone International: +1-866-329-8893

• Phone DSN International: 312-664-0378

• U.S. fax: +1-703-604-0983

Public Affairs Public Affairs Officer

• Phone: 703-602-8742 

• Email: PublicAffairs@sigar.mil

• Mail: SIGAR Public Affairs

400 Army Navy Drive

Arlington, VA 22202