GAO-12-715R

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

June 12, 2012

The Honorable E. Benjamin Nelson

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Legislative Branch

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate 

Subject: Government Is Analyzing Alternatives for Contractor Identification Numbers

In 2011, the federal government spent more than $1 trillion on contracts and grants. 

To help manage and oversee these activities, the government relies on a number of 

data systems which are used, for example, to advertise solicitations, report awards, 

and track performance. The government needs a way to distinguish between the 

numerous entities with which it does business. For decades, the government has 

relied on Dun & Bradstreet’s Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) as a unique 

identifier. The General Services Administration (GSA) contracts with Dun & 

Bradstreet for use of DUNS numbers in governmentwide data systems. Over time, 

DUNS numbers have become embedded in various government data systems and 

processes, and all prospective contractors, grantees, and other federal aid recipients 

generally are required to have a DUNS number in order to do business with the 

government. In recent years, government officials have expressed concerns about 

the rising costs of using DUNS numbers. In addition, other companies that offer 

unique identifier numbering systems have questioned why the government will not 

consider their products and services as an alternative to DUNS numbers.

You asked us to review the federal government’s use of DUNS numbers. In 

response, we examined (1) how the government currently contracts for and uses 

DUNS numbers; (2) the challenges posed by the government’s use of DUNS 

numbers; and (3) steps GSA has taken to mitigate these challenges. To address 

these objectives, we analyzed GSA documents such as analyses of alternatives and 

contracts and interviewed officials from GSA, other agencies, and Dun & Bradstreet.

We also interviewed officials from companies that compete with Dun & Bradstreet in 

commercial markets.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 to June 2012 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
Page 2 GAO-12-715R

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.

Results in Brief

In recent years, the government’s reliance on DUNS numbers has increased 

significantly. There has been a dramatic increase in the number and types of entities 

that are required to have DUNS numbers to do business with the government. GSA 

also has expanded the level of business information services that it acquires from 

Dun & Bradstreet. These services include data verification and monitoring as well as 

corporate linkage information to support enhanced reporting capabilities. As GSA 

has increased its use of the DUNS number and business information services, its 

costs have increased from about $1 million in 2002 to approximately $19 million per 

year under the current contract. The current contract for DUNS numbers is a solesource contract awarded to Dun & Bradstreet in 2010 for a 3-year base period with 

options for 5 additional years—the contract now totals up to $154 million. 

There are several challenges associated with GSA’s contract for unique 

identification numbers. GSA believes that Dun & Bradstreet effectively has a 

monopoly for government unique identifiers that has contributed to higher costs. This 

effective monopoly results in part from government regulations and directives that 

require contractors, grantees, and other entities seeking to do business with the 

government to obtain a DUNS number. Also, due to the proprietary nature of DUNS 

numbers, Dun & Bradstreet has placed restrictions on how GSA can use DUNS 

numbers. This limits the purposes for which the government can use the data and 

hampers the ability to switch to a new numbering system. Dun & Bradstreet’s 

competitors have raised concerns regarding the government’s use of DUNS 

numbers as its unique identification number. These companies believe that the 

integral role of DUNS numbers in government systems has provided Dun & 

Bradstreet with unfair advantages in the government or commercial markets for 

business data. Other organizations have expressed concerns about the 

government’s use of DUNS numbers as well. For example, one organization noted 

that DUNS numbers are not subject to transparency requirements such as Freedom 

of Information Act requests so it is difficult to determine independently the accuracy 

or comprehensiveness of DUNS information.

To address concerns about the high costs and proprietary restrictions associated 

with the government’s use of DUNS numbers, GSA recently began an analysis of 

alternatives for unique numbering systems. In its ongoing analysis, GSA has 

conducted market research and plans to conduct a cost-benefit analysis and 

feasibility study for alternatives to using DUNS numbers by September 2012. GSA 

has concluded that it is not in the best interests of the government to change from 

one proprietary number to another. The agency is therefore evaluating the 

advantages and disadvantages of replacing DUNS numbers with a governmentowned numbering system. GSA also will be considering a hybrid approach utilizing 
Page 3 GAO-12-715R

both DUNS numbers and a government-owned numbering system, which could be a 

viable alternative. A key factor in deciding whether to replace DUNS numbers in 

government data systems is the cost of switching. In the event of a change, GSA 

and dozens of other agencies would have to modify their data systems, replace all 

DUNS-related data in those systems, and update policies and procedures that refer 

to DUNS numbers. GSA officials have said switching costs could be substantial and, 

while they have outlined steps for capturing costs, they are still developing their 

methodology for estimating these costs. Meanwhile, even as GSA continues using 

DUNS numbers, the agency may be able to ease current restrictions on their use, 

such as the requirement to delete associated DUNS data when the contract with 

Dun & Bradstreet ends. We are recommending that GSA initiate negotiations with 

Dun & Bradstreet to that end. GSA agreed with our recommendation.

Background

Governmentwide acquisition systems, finance systems, and other data systems 

depend on the ability to assign a unique identification number to businesses and 

other organizations seeking to do business with the government. The federal 

government has contracted with Dun & Bradstreet since 1978 to provide DUNS 

identification numbers for all government contractors. A DUNS number is a unique 

nine-digit number that is assigned to every business entity in Dun & Bradstreet’s 

global business database, which according to Dun & Bradstreet contains more than 

166 million records. Many businesses have multiple DUNS numbers since Dun & 

Bradstreet assigns a number to each physical location of an organization (such as 

branches, divisions, and headquarters). In addition to the right to use DUNS 

numbers as a unique identification number, GSA also contracts with Dun & 

Bradstreet to provide business information and related services on all existing and 

potential government contractors and awardees. This information is linked to the 

business entity through the DUNS number. The DUNS number and associated 

business information are owned and controlled by Dun & Bradstreet, but licensed to 

the government to be used for selected acquisition purposes.

The federal government began using DUNS numbers in the 1970s to identify and 

track contractors. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the government replaced 

the DUNS number and established its own database of Contractor Establishment 

Code (CEC) numbers. The government contracted with Dun & Bradstreet to operate 

and maintain this database. In 1996, the government made a determination to 

replace the CEC numbers and use the commercially available DUNS number to 

fulfill its needs; a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) interim rule was issued to 

implement this determination.1

 

1

61 Fed. Reg. 67,412 (Dec. 20, 1996).

Government officials said the decision was based on 

several factors, most notably that the DUNS number was widely used and accepted, 

both domestically and internationally, and that the DUNS number was viewed as the 

only reliable mechanism for cross-walking to other numbering systems. In 1998, the 

FAR was amended with a final rule to replace the CEC with the DUNS number as 

the means of identifying contractors in the government’s main reporting data system, 
Page 4 GAO-12-715R

the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS).2 In 2003, another amendment to the 

FAR specified that contractors must obtain and submit a DUNS number in order to 

register in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR), a data system in which all 

prospective contractors generally must register to be eligible for government 

contracts.3 

GSA is the agency responsible for managing the Dun & Bradstreet contract. That 

contract provides the rights to use DUNS numbers in CCR, the Federal Procurement 

Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG), and several other governmentwide 

acquisition data systems. In 2002, the contract became part of the Integrated 

Acquisition Environment (IAE), a GSA-led initiative to bring together different 

acquisition data systems. IAE consists of several data systems that support actions 

integral to the acquisition process, such as posting contracting opportunities, 

registering prospective contractors, assessing contractor performance, and reporting 

contract actions.4 GSA uses memorandums of understanding with the 24 

departments and agencies now covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990

to collect funding contributions, which pay for the development, operations, and 

maintenance of IAE’s portfolio, including the Dun & Bradstreet contract. GSA is 

currently working to consolidate its portfolio of data systems into one single system 

known as the System for Award Management (SAM). The first phase of SAM will 

incorporate the functionality of three IAE data systems—CCR, the Excluded Parties 

List System (EPLS), and the Online Representations and Certifications Application 

(ORCA). GAO recently reported on GSA’s progress in implementing SAM and found 

that higher than anticipated costs and constrained resources have resulted in delays 

and pose a risk to the future viability of the project.5 In response to our 

recommendations, GSA is currently reassessing its approach to developing and 

implementing SAM. 

The DUNS Number Has Become an Increasingly Integral Component in How 

Government Data Systems Operate 

In recent years, the government’s reliance on DUNS numbers has increased and 

they have become an integral component in how government data systems operate. 

For instance, there has been a dramatic increase in the number and type of entities 

that are required to have DUNS numbers to do business with the government. When 

the DUNS number was incorporated into the FAR as a final rule in 1998, only 

 

2

63 Fed. Reg. 9,049 (Feb. 23, 1998). The final rule is currently implemented at FAR § 4.605(b) which 

identifies the DUNS number as the Contractor Identification Number for reporting the successful 

offeror in the Central Contractor Registration database. 3

FAR § § 4.1102; 52.204-7. Exceptions to registration in the CCR database for prospective offerors 

are in FAR 4.1102

4

The nine systems of IAE include Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps), FPDS-NG, Wage 

Determinations OnLine (WDOL), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Excluded 

Parties List System (EPLS), Central Contractor Registration (CCR), Federal Agency Registration 

(FedReg), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and Online Representations and 

Certifications Application (ORCA). 

5

GAO, Effort to Consolidate Government Acquisition Data Systems Should Be Reassessed, GAO-12-

429 (Washington, D.C.: March 2012)
Page 5 GAO-12-715R

prospective contractors were required to obtain DUNS numbers. In 2003, the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance that also required grant and 

cooperative agreement applicants to obtain DUNS numbers.6 OMB expanded this 

policy in 2008 when it required DUNS numbers for recipients of loans and other 

types of financial assistance.7 In January 2006, there were 403,000 contractors 

registered in CCR. There are approximately 625,000 entities currently registered in 

CCR, including contractors, grantees, and other federal assistance recipients and 

each had to obtain a DUNS number in order to register. 

In addition to an increase in the number of entities required to obtain a DUNS 

number, the level of business information services that GSA acquires from Dun & 

Bradstreet also expanded. These services include verifying basic information such 

as an entity’s name and address, providing corporate linkages, and monitoring 

changes to entity names or corporate ownership.8 Previously, GSA’s contract with 

Dun & Bradstreet only provided business information services for the acquisition 

community and the IAE systems associated with it. This changed when the Federal

Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act) required 

OMB to ensure the existence and operation of a website at which the public could 

search certain data about government financial awards, including contracts, grants, 

and loans.9 Among the required searchable elements for each award is a unique 

identifier of the entity receiving the award and of the parent entity of the recipient. 

OMB chose the DUNS number to fulfill the unique identifier requirement. With this 

action the number of entities for which Dun & Bradstreet provides corporate linkage 

information expanded from just contractors to all recipients of federal awards. Later, 

in 2010, OMB also began requiring all federal awardees to register in CCR, which 

increased the level of business verification information provided by Dun & 

Bradstreet.10 Finally, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(Recovery Act) temporarily increased the number of entities receiving federal 

awards, thereby increasing the number of entities registering in CCR for which the 

government collected DUNS information.11 

 

6

Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-03-16, “OMB Issues Grants Management 

Policies” (July 15, 2003); Use of a Universal Identifier by Grant Applicants, 68 Fed. Reg. 38,402 (June 

27, 2003) Grantees were not required to register in CCR at that time, but were directed to do so by 

OMB in August 2010. OMB Memorandum, “Open Government Directive—Federal Spending 

Transparency and Subaward and Compensation Data Reporting” (Aug. 27, 2010); Financial 

Assistance Use of Universal Identifier and Central Contractor Registration, 75 Fed. Reg. 55,671 

(Sept. 14, 2010).

7

OMB Memorandum M-08-19, “Authority to Collect DUNS Number to Meet Requirements of the 

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006” (May 30, 2008).

8

The corporate family information allows the government and the public, through the Federal 

Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) and USAspending.gov, to aggregate data to 

show the total amount of contracts or awards a company has received. The linkage information also 

enhances the effectiveness of the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS), the list designed to identify 

individuals and entities that have been debarred or suspended from obtaining government awards. 9

Pub. L. No. 109-282, as amended by Pub. L. No. 110-252 § 6202. The website became 

USAspending.gov.

1075 Fed.Reg. 55,671 (Sept. 14, 2010). 11Pub. L. No. 111-5.
Page 6 GAO-12-715R

The DUNS number has also become embedded in agencies’ internal data systems 

and is used to support other agency missions. IAE officials report that most of the 

more than 60 agencies that use IAE acquisition systems rely on DUNS numbers in 

their internal financial and contract writing systems. For example, CCR contains 

information on contractors, including DUNS numbers and entity name and address, 

which agencies download and use to make payments. The DUNS number has 

become so integrated and common in government financial systems that GAO 

recommended its use in a report that provided guidelines on properly functioning 

financial processes.12 In addition, some agencies have separate contracts with Dun 

& Bradstreet for DUNS numbers and business information services to support their 

specific missions. GSA officials said that agencies may use Dun & Bradstreet data 

from CCR or other IAE systems for acquisition purposes. However, if they need 

DUNS related information or services that are not covered by the GSA contract, they 

must enter into their own contract with Dun & Bradstreet. For instance, the Small 

Business Administration has a contract with Dun & Bradstreet to use DUNS 

numbers and related data to help provide financial oversight of its loan programs. 

Other agencies have their own contracts with Dun & Bradstreet for data used for 

visa fraud detection, financial fraud detection, and air cargo risk management. 

As use of the DUNS number and business information services has increased, 

GSA’s costs have increased as well. Between 2002 and 2004, the cost of the DUNS 

number contract was tied to the number of CCR registrants and cost about $1 million 

per year. In response to the new demands for business information services 

required by the Transparency Act, GSA signed a contract with Dun & Bradstreet in 

2007 that changed the pricing structure from a per-transaction model, where costs 

were based on the number of CCR registrants, to an “enterprise” model where the 

government is provided with access to Dun & Bradstreet business data for a fixed 

price. GSA officials told us that the requirements in the Transparency Act to make 

corporate linkage information available on a public website also resulted in higher 

prices since Dun & Bradstreet needed to be compensated for making proprietary 

information publicly accessible. While GSA believes this pricing structure is more 

cost effective given the new requirements, it has resulted in a large increase in 

payments to Dun & Bradstreet, which average $19 million per year under the current 

contract (see figure 1). There was a temporary drop in payments in fiscal year 2011 

because GSA modified its contract with Dun & Bradstreet to defer payments to later 

years. Under the terms of the contract, GSA had been scheduled to pay Dun & 

Bradstreet $18 million in August 2011. In order to support efforts related to the 

development of SAM, GSA negotiated two modifications to the contract that allowed 

GSA to defer $14 million from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2012. This action was a 

result of the fiscal challenges GSA has faced as it consolidates its portfolio of data 

systems into its new unified data system, SAM. 

 

12GAO, Core Financial System Requirements: Checklist for Reviewing Systems under the Federal 

Financial Management Improvement Act, GAO-05-225G (Washington, D.C.: February 2005).
Page 7 GAO-12-715R

Figure 1: IAE Payments to Dun & Bradstreet by Fiscal Year

Source: GAO analysis of GSA information.

Note: The dotted line indicates the future payment schedule identified in the Dun & Bradstreet contract. Also, the 

final option ends on June 29, 2018, so the fiscal year 2018 payment does not cover the final 3 months of the 

fiscal year.

The current contract, which was awarded in 2010 for up to 8 years (3-year base 

period plus options for 5 additional years) and is now worth up to $154 million, is the

latest in a series of sole-source, multiple-year contracts awarded to Dun & 

Bradstreet. GSA officials told us the DUNS contracts have been sole-source awards 

because of the FAR requirement that all government contractors obtain a DUNS 

number, and because they have been unable to identify an acceptable alternative. In 

addition to assigning DUNS numbers and providing related services, Dun & 

Bradstreet operates a help desk to support current and new registrants and carries 

out special analyses and ad hoc projects. GSA officials reported that assigning 

DUNS numbers and the help desk represent about 20 percent of the contract price. 

The remaining 80 percent of the price primarily pays for the business verification and 

corporate linkage information that Dun & Bradstreet provides. 

The Government Faces Several Challenges Associated with Using DUNS 

Numbers

The government faces several challenges associated with GSA’s contract for unique 

identification numbers. GSA believes that Dun & Bradstreet effectively has a 

monopoly that has contributed to higher costs. This effective monopoly results in 

part from the FAR requirement and OMB directives that require all contractors, 

grantees, and other entities seeking to do business with the government to acquire a 

DUNS number. GSA officials have said that as long as the FAR requirement is in 

place they must use the DUNS number and cannot hold a competition for unique 

identification numbers. GSA officials said that the current sole-source environment 

results in higher prices to the government, and that a competitive acquisition likely 

would result in lower prices to GSA. They also expressed concern that Dun & 
Page 8 GAO-12-715R

Bradstreet’s prices may continue to rise as the government’s use of its services 

continues to expand. Additionally, members of the Acquisition Committee for e-Gov 

(ACE), IAE’s governance committee, have also questioned the high costs for DUNS 

numbers as Dun & Bradstreet’s contract is IAE’s largest expense.13 In response to 

cost concerns, GSA officials held discussions with a Dun & Bradstreet competitor in 

2008 to help gauge the reasonableness of the prices that Dun & Bradstreet charged. 

GSA officials found that Dun & Bradstreet’s prices were relatively high compared to 

this competitor, which offered another proprietary product, and the officials said they 

used this information to negotiate a better price from Dun & Bradstreet for the 

contract awarded in 2010. GSA officials said they negotiated a 25 percent reduction 

in prices in exchange for a longer contract length and changes in how GSA 

administers the contract. However, despite the lower prices, GSA officials are still 

concerned with the high costs associated with the use of DUNS numbers relative to 

other IAE program costs. 

Another challenge the government faces involves the proprietary limitations that Dun 

& Bradstreet has placed on GSA’s use of DUNS numbers. Specifically, GSA’s 

contract with Dun & Bradstreet limits how and where Dun & Bradstreet data can be 

used. For example, the contract specifies that Dun & Bradstreet data may only 

reside in IAE data systems and on federal agency acquisition systems, and can be 

used only for acquisition purposes. Any other uses or disclosure of data outside of 

the contract scope and licensing terms, even if the activity is government related, 

would require either a contract modification or a new separate contract. In at least 

one case, this has hampered the government’s ability to effectively use DUNS 

numbers. In 2009 Congress requested that the Department of Defense (DOD) report 

on the total value of DOD contracts entered into with contractors that have been 

indicted for, settled charges of, or had been fined or convicted of fraud in connection 

with any contract entered into with the federal government over the past 10 years.14

In responding to this directive, DOD obtained fraud case data from the Department 

of Justice that did not contain DUNS numbers. DOD used the company names to 

search for contract obligation data in FPDS-NG. Without DUNS numbers and their 

associated corporate linkage information, however, DOD was unable to identify the 

parent company of all offending companies and could not capture all the obligation 

data. DOD was unable to use corporate linkage information since this use of data fell 

outside the scope of GSA’s contract with Dun & Bradstreet.15 

 

13The ACE is a subcommittee of the Chief Acquisition Officer’s Council which was established to 

provide a senior level forum for monitoring and improving the federal acquisition system.

14Explanatory Statement of the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations

H.R. 3326, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 (the Act). 155 Cong. Rec. H15,042, 

H15,043 (2009). As enacted, the Act provided that the Explanatory Statement shall have the same

effect as if it were a joint explanatory statement of a committee of conference. Public Law No. 111-

118 § 1014 (2009). 15GSA officials told us that the Dun & Bradstreet contract was modified to clarify GSA’s liability in the 

event that another agency used Dun & Bradstreet data in ways that were not allowed under GSA’s 

contract. Specifically, they said that GSA was not responsible for the misuse of Dun & Bradstreet’s 

data by non-GSA users. GSA officials said other government agencies would have to determine 

whether their use of Dun & Bradstreet’s data complied with the terms of the contract. 
Page 9 GAO-12-715R

Additionally, there are other restrictions in the contract that could cause challenges 

for the government if it were to change to an alternative numbering system. 

According to GSA, the contract specifies that the government would have to delete

certain Dun & Bradstreet provided data from its databases at the end of the GSA

contract. GSA officials said that under the terms of the contract, GSA is not required 

to delete the DUNS numbers, but could have to purge associated data. This would 

include data elements such as business name and address.16 GSA officials said this 

would apply to the IAE systems in addition to agency acquisitions systems if GSA 

ended the Dun & Bradstreet contract and moved to a new numbering system. Given 

the widespread use of DUNS numbers and associated data in government data 

systems, this could be very disruptive. 

Dun & Bradstreet’s competitors have raised concerns regarding the government’s 

use of DUNS numbers as its unique identification number. We spoke with three 

companies that compete in the commercial market with Dun & Bradstreet and each 

of these companies raised issues that they believe provide Dun & Bradstreet unfair 

advantages in the government or commercial markets for business data. For 

instance, one company noted that some federal agency officials have interpreted the 

DUNS requirement in the FAR to mean that DUNS numbers are required in other 

contexts as well. The company provided several examples, one of which was a 

solicitation to create a new agency-specific database that required the database to 

use DUNS numbers. Although this solicitation was using full and open competition, 

the company told us that including the DUNS number requirement in the solicitation 

ensured that only Dun & Bradstreet could qualify for the contract. Additionally, the 

same company also pointed out that the requirement to register in CCR means that 

thousands of companies provide Dun & Bradstreet with their business information, 

while Dun & Bradstreet’s competitors have to discover this information using their 

own resources. Because of this, the competitor believes that Dun & Bradstreet has a 

monopoly for government identifiers which gives Dun & Bradstreet an unfair 

advantage in the competitive commercial market for business data as well. 

Organizations concerned about transparency in government activities also have 

raised concerns related to using a numbering system that does not enable the public 

to fully track entities doing business with the government. For example, in a 2008 

letter to OMB, the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers, and 

Treasurers (NASACT) noted that Dun & Bradstreet is not accountable to any 

government authority, yet DUNS numbers play a vital role in providing a 

governmentwide identifying system. NASACT also cited data reliability concerns with 

Dun & Bradstreet’s process for assigning DUNS numbers to state government 

agencies and other entities. OMB Watch, a nonprofit organization, also has criticized 

the lack of transparency associated with using the DUNS numbers. For example, the 

organization noted that DUNS numbers are not subject to transparency 

requirements such as Freedom of Information Act requests so it is difficult to 

 

16When entities register in CCR, they only need to enter their DUNS number for their entity name and 

address information to be imported from Dun & Bradstreet’s database. GSA officials said that 

because these data come from Dun & Bradstreet, they are subject to the limitations specified in the 

Dun & Bradstreet contract. 
Page 10 GAO-12-715R

determine independently the accuracy or comprehensiveness of DUNS information. 

OMB Watch encouraged the government to develop its own unique identification 

number rather than remain dependent on a privately owned system that is 

inaccessible to the public. 

GSA Is Analyzing Alternatives to Mitigate DUNS Challenges, but Results Yet to 

Be Determined

Concerns about the high costs associated with the government’s use of DUNS 

numbers have led GSA to consider using alternative unique numbering systems. In 

2009, GSA issued a sources sought notice to measure the interest and availability of 

companies capable of providing a system for unique identification numbers.17 GSA 

officials did not know whether any companies other than Dun & Bradstreet offered 

unique identifiers and related services that were comparable to DUNS numbers. 

GSA received two responses to its 2009 sources sought notice (and a third from 

Dun & Bradstreet) and determined that one of the companies was a viable 

competitor to Dun & Bradstreet. However, in their evaluation of the responses, GSA 

officials concluded that they could not conduct a competition for unique identifiers 

until the FAR was modified to remove the DUNS requirement. These officials 

recommended that GSA initiate a FAR change and then conduct a full and open 

competition for unique identifiers once the change had been completed. GSA 

officials said they developed a proposal to change the FAR, but the Federal 

Acquisition Regulatory Council recommended suspending the effort to change the 

FAR until the completion of a comprehensive cost and schedule analysis.18 GSA 

had not evaluated the costs of changing numbering systems at that time although 

some agencies had voiced concerns that switching costs could be significant. 

Shortly after the FAR change was put on hold, GSA awarded the current sole-source 

contract to Dun & Bradstreet in 2010. In explaining its rationale for awarding a solesource contract, the agency noted that the FAR required the use of DUNS numbers 

and Dun & Bradstreet was the only source of DUNS numbers.

In 2011, GSA initiated another effort to identify possible alternatives for unique 

identification numbers and expects to issue a report on its findings and 

recommendations by September 2012. This latest effort consists of a sources 

sought notice as well as a cost-benefit analysis and feasibility study of alternative 

approaches to acquiring numbering systems. The different approaches that GSA 

has considered include:

• Continue to use DUNS numbers and services,

 

17A sources sought notice is a form of market research that is designed to allow agencies to describe 

a specific need and get input from industry to determine if there are sources capable of meeting the 

need, whether commercial solutions are available, and whether a particular approach is viable. See 

FAR Part 10. Responses to these notices are not offers that could result in a contract. See generally 

FAR 15.201(e).

18 The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council is made up of representatives from OMB, GSA, DOD, 

and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The Council is responsible for 

managing, coordinating, controlling, and monitoring the maintenance of, issuance of, and changes in 

the FAR.
Page 11 GAO-12-715R

• Conduct a full-and-open competition, if the sources sought assessment identifies 

potential competitors, 

• Change to a non-proprietary solution, either using a non-proprietary numbering 

system or obtaining services from one or more vendors, and

• Change to a government-owned number and obtain data services from one or 

more vendors.

GSA issued a sources sought notice in October 2011 and received six responses, 

including one from Dun & Bradstreet. Based on the responses, GSA determined that 

there are potential competitors for unique identification numbers. However, GSA has 

ruled out conducting a full and open competition for numbering systems after 

concluding that it is not in the government’s best interest to move from one 

proprietary numbering system (DUNS numbers) to another one. GSA officials said 

the additional costs and data system disruptions encountered each time it changed 

numbering systems would at least partially offset any potential cost savings 

achieved by introducing competition. GSA also has ruled out changing to a nonproprietary numbering system because none of the sources sought responses 

included a non-proprietary alternative.19 

GSA is currently considering two strategies as part of its analysis—continuing to use 

DUNS numbers or changing to a government-owned numbering system. The first 

option is to continue the current Dun & Bradstreet contract “as-is.” However, this 

alternative does not address a key concern raised about the use of DUNS numbers. 

The Dun & Bradstreet contract limits the purposes for which the government may 

use DUNS information and according to GSA requires the government to delete Dun 

& Bradstreet data such as business name and address when the contract ends. Two 

of Dun & Bradstreet’s competitors indicated that they do not require that clients 

delete their data when a contract ends, but it is unclear what they would offer in a 

formal contract. Continuing to use DUNS numbers does not prevent GSA from 

taking steps to ease some of the restrictions that Dun & Bradstreet has placed on 

the government’s use of DUNS information. GSA officials said that simply by asking 

Dun & Bradstreet for a discount they were able to negotiate a significant price 

reduction for the current contract. However, they said they did not raise the issue of 

expanding the government’s data rights during negotiations.

GSA is also considering changing to a government-owned numbering system. There 

are several possible government-owned numbers that GSA could use, such as SAM 

numbers. SAM is scheduled to begin operation in 2012 and once operational,

contractors, grantees and other entities seeking to do business with the government 

will have to register in SAM, which will replace CCR. As entities register, they will 

automatically be assigned a SAM number. The SAM number was not initially 

 

19Some of the responding companies offered numbering systems that have non-proprietary aspects. 

For example, one company indicated that its identification numbers and data are non-proprietary, but 

its process for generating that information is. Another company told GSA that its numbers are not 

proprietary, but the associated information including name, address, and phone number is.
Page 12 GAO-12-715R

intended to serve as a unique identifier and like other government-owned numbers, 

GSA would have to add capability to make them viable alternatives to DUNS 

numbers. For example, SAM does not currently have a registration system to collect 

name, address, and other information on businesses and other entities so a 

registration system would have to be created. Similarly, SAM numbers would not 

provide corporate linkage information or the ability to verify or monitor data so GSA 

would have to add those capabilities. GSA officials said that if they were to change 

to government-owned number, they would likely award one or more competitive 

contracts to manage the numbering system and provide services similar to those 

that Dun & Bradstreet currently provides. They said that other adjustments and 

associated costs, both internal to the government and otherwise, could be involved 

as well. They also said that there could be other solutions not yet identified.

Although there may be numerous benefits to changing to a government-owned 

numbering system, including long-term cost savings, unlimited data rights, and 

greater transparency, the switching costs from using DUNS numbers could be 

prohibitively high. We asked GSA whether it would be feasible to use a hybrid 

approach in which GSA would continue to use DUNS numbers in addition to a 

government-owned number for an extended period of time. Under this alternative, 

GSA would continue its current contract with Dun & Bradstreet while it phases in the 

use of a government-owned number. Entities registering in SAM would have both a 

DUNS number and a number from the new system. Once the new numbering 

system is fully established, GSA would have the option of phasing out DUNS 

numbers. A hybrid approach could avoid or defer a significant portion of the 

switching costs, minimize disruptions to agencies, and better position the 

government to introduce competition for unique identifiers in the future. GSA officials 

agreed that a hybrid approach was a viable alternative and now are considering it as 

part of the analysis of alternatives.

GSA officials are planning to assess the feasibility of the alternatives and then begin 

coordinating with federal agencies to develop a cost estimate for changing 

numbering systems. Changing to a new numbering system would include costs 

associated with the following actions:

• Adding capabilities to a government-owned number. As noted above, changing 

to a government-owned number would require GSA to establish a registration 

process and add the ability to provide corporate linkage information and add data 

verification and monitoring capabilities.

• Modifying data systems. To accommodate a new number, GSA and other 

agencies would have to change the name of data fields and possibly add new 

data fields or modify the format of the existing DUNS field in their data systems. 

For example, DUNS numbers are numeric whereas SAM numbers are alphanumeric and therefore may not be compatible with current DUNS data fields. 

• Replacing DUNS information with information from a new numbering system. 

Changing numbering systems could require agencies to delete DUNS 

information, including contractor name and address, from their data systems and 

replace it with information from the new numbering system. This process could 
Page 13 GAO-12-715R

be complicated by the data restrictions in GSA’s contract with Dun & Bradstreet. 

GSA officials said that they are uncertain whether the terms of the contract with 

Dun & Bradstreet would allow the government to use the existing DUNS 

information to transition to a new numbering system. If GSA is unable to use 

DUNS information for transition purposes, it would have to match the new 

numbering system to existing contractor information without the benefit of using 

the contractor’s name or address. GSA is planning to discuss with Dun & 

Bradstreet what rights the government would have in the event of a transition.

• Updating policies and procedures. GSA would have to modify the FAR to remove 

the DUNS requirement and agencies would have to update their FAR 

supplements. Agencies would also have to update acquisition-related policies, 

procedures, and documents that refer to DUNS numbers.

GSA provided documents to us reflecting some initial steps it will take to assess 

switching costs. A GSA official said the agency plans to estimate the costs of 

changing its own internal systems and then extrapolate the costs to other agencies. 

GSA’s analysis is still ongoing. The agency has identified potential cost drivers, but it 

is still developing a methodology for quantifying them. Determining an accurate 

estimate of switching costs could be difficult due to the number of agencies and data 

systems involved. GSA identified approximately 80 data systems that contained 

DUNS information extracted from CCR and would therefore have to be modified in 

the event of a transition to a new numbering system. There are also many more 

subsystems within agencies that could potentially be affected by changing DUNS 

numbers. GSA is still determining how best to capture switching costs associated 

with these agency data systems.

Conclusions

Rising costs, restrictions on the government’s data rights, and a lack of competition 

have raised concerns about the government’s use of DUNS numbers as a unique 

identifier. Those concerns have prompted GSA, not for the first time, to analyze 

options for changing how it acquires unique identifiers. GSA has a difficult task 

ahead as it evaluates the legal, contractual, and technical challenges associated 

with changing identification numbering systems. GSA is still developing its 

methodology for conducting its analysis so it is too soon to comment on how 

comprehensive GSA’s analysis will be. Further, choosing an alternative may only be 

the first step in a process that GSA expects could take years to complete. If GSA 

decides to change how it acquires unique identifiers, it would need to develop a 

detailed plan for executing the transition. GSA would need to develop an acquisition 

plan for acquiring additional services, plan and budget for any additional resources 

necessary to effect the change, and define the roles and responsibilities for 

numerous stakeholders. If GSA is able to successfully complete its analysis and a 

transition plan, it may be able to mitigate the challenges posed by the government’s 

use of DUNS numbers as a unique identifier. Alternatively, the analysis may 

demonstrate that GSA’s current approach is the best for the government.
Page 14 GAO-12-715R

Meanwhile, there may be an opportunity to negotiate better terms for the 

government under the existing arrangement with Dun & Bradstreet. Even as GSA 

continues to use Dun & Bradstreet as the provider of unique identifier services, the 

agency may be able to ease the current contractual restrictions on the use of DUNS 

numbers, such as the requirement to delete data at the end of the contract, by 

bringing these provisions more in line with prevailing industry practices.

Recommendation for Executive Action

To ensure that government agencies have improved access to information needed 

to effectively fulfill their missions, we recommend that the Administrator of GSA 

initiate discussions with Dun & Bradstreet on ways to reduce current restrictions on 

the use of DUNS numbers.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to GSA. The agency agreed with our 

recommendation and indicated it would take appropriate action. GSA’s written 

comments appear in enclosure I. GSA also provided technical comments that we 

incorporated as appropriate.

- - - - - - - - - - 

We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional committees, 

the Acting Administrator of General Services, and the Office of Management and 

Budget. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-

4841 or by email at woodsw@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 

report. Key contributors to this report were John Oppenheim, Assistant Director; E. 

Brandon Booth; Jeffrey Sanders; Benjamin Shattuck; Deanna Laufer; and Marie 

Ahearn.

William T. Woods

Director

Acquisition and Sourcing Management

Enclosures – 1 
Page 15 GAO-12-715R

Enclosure I: Comments from the General Services Administration
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.
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 (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 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: 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.