GAO-09-590R Recovery Act Grant Applications 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

April 29, 2009 

The Honorable George V. Voinovich 

Acting Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 

 the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Edolphus Towns 

Chairman 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Stephen F. Lynch 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Danny Davis 

House of Representatives 

Subject: Recovery Act: Consistent Policies Needed to Ensure Equal Consideration of 

Grant Applications 

Grants.gov is the central grant identification and application portal for the more than 

1,000 federal grants programs offered by 26 federal grant-making agencies and 

organizations.1

 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) created Grants.gov, to 

streamline administrative grant application requirements and reduce the burden on 

applicants, among other things. On March 6, 2009, Grants.gov began posting specific 

grant opportunities provided in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 

(Recovery Act).2

 As a result, submissions have escalated to an unprecedented level. 

 

1

All federal discretionary grant opportunities are required to be posted on the site, and many “grantor 

agencies” require applicants to submit most or all grant applications using the Grants.gov “apply” 

mechanism. We use the term grantor agencies throughout this report to mean the 26 grant-making 

agencies and their subcomponents that have distinctive application policies. For example, the 

Department of Health and Human Services is made up of agencies, each of which has its own policies 

on grant applications. We consider each operating division a grantor agency. In a survey we conducted 

of 80 grantor agencies, we found that 64 percent (47) of the 74 respondents required the use of 

Grants.gov for most to all of their grants. 

2

Pub. L. No. 111-5 (Feb. 17, 2009). For grant opportunity postings, see 

http://www.grants.gov/applicants/recovery.jsp (as of Apr. 28, 2009). 
During the first week in April, Grants.gov processed almost 11,500 applications, or 

about three times the weekly average number of submissions in fiscal year 2008. One 

day that week Grants.gov accepted 3,555 applications—the largest 1-day total to date. 

On March 9, 2009, OMB notified federal agencies that over the past several months 

Grants.gov had experienced increased activity beyond what was originally 

anticipated by the system, which had at times resulted in noticeably degraded 

performance. OMB further noted that given the expected increase in application 

volume because of the Recovery Act, the system was at significant risk of failure, 

thus potentially hampering Recovery Act implementation.3

 To reduce demand on the 

Grants.gov system and to assist applicants in the short term, OMB instructed federal 

grant-making agencies to identify alternate methods for accepting grant applications 

during the peak period of the Recovery Act, with a focus on minimizing any 

disruption to the grants application processes. OMB and agencies estimate that this 

peak period will last from April through about August 2009. Alternate methods for 

applying include agency-specific electronic systems (i.e., non-Grants.gov electronic 

systems run by a grantor agency), e-mail, fax, and mail.4

 

On April 8, 2009, OMB issued another memorandum stating that the existing 

Grants.gov infrastructure will not be able to handle the influx of applications 

expected as key Recovery Act deadlines approach.5

 OMB said that the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal agency that operates and maintains 

Grants.gov, and the General Services Administration (GSA), which serves as the 

facilitator of governmentwide solutions, are working together to initiate urgent 

improvements to the system, and that each grant-making agency is being asked to 

cover a proportionate share of these improvements.6 

Based on our ongoing work for you on Grants.gov, you asked us to issue two reports: 

one immediately on our initial observations on improving grant submission policies 

that could help minimize disruptions to the grants application process during the 

Recovery Act’s peak filing period, and the second in June 2009 addressing in more 

detail systemic issues with Grants.gov and implications of varying agency policies for 

processing application submissions. 

Our initial observations are based on our review of policies and procedures related to 

grant applications submissions from the Grants.gov Program Management Office 

(PMO) and federal grant-making agencies. We also examined documentation from 

 

3

Office of Management and Budget, Recovery Act Implementation—Improving Grants.gov and Other 

Critical Systems, M-09-14 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 9, 2009). 4

OMB instructed agencies that applicants be provided an electronic alternative to Grants.gov; a paperonly alternative was not an approved option. 

5

Office of Management and Budget, Improving Grants.gov, M-09-17 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8, 2009). 6

Like many e-Government initiatives, Grants.gov is funded by voluntary agency contributions. OMB 

instructed the 26 grant-making agencies that together finance Grants.gov to immediately submit any 

fiscal year 2009 unpaid contributions to HHS and to provide the additional funding requested for 

Recovery Act–related improvements to Grants.gov. See Office of Management and Budget, Improving 

Grants.gov. 

Page 2 GAO-09-590R Recovery Act Grant Applications
HHS, the Grants Executive Board (GEB), and OMB.7

 As part of the audit work for our 

June 2009 report, we also conducted a Web-based survey in December 2008 and 

January 2009 of 80 agency officials representing the 26 federal grant-making agencies 

and organizations within those agencies that have distinctive grant application 

submission and processing policies. Throughout this report, we call these 

organizations grantor agencies. We received responses from 74 grantor agencies for a 

response rate of 92.5 percent.8

 Our survey contained questions on agency policies and 

practices with respect to competitive grant application submissions, and questions on 

agency experiences assisting applicants that have had problems while using 

Grants.gov. To construct the questionnaire, we interviewed agency grant officials and 

pretested it with five grantor agencies to ensure that the questions were clear and 

unbiased and that the questionnaire could be completed in a reasonable amount of 

time. In addition, to encourage them to respond, we sent three follow-up e-mails. For 

those that did not respond, we made phone calls to encourage respondents to 

complete the questionnaire. We also conducted interviews with officials from the 

Grants.gov PMO, HHS, GEB, and OMB. To obtain more information from the grantee 

perspective on using Grants.gov and other application submission methods, we also 

reviewed documents from associations representing grant applicants and conducted 

interviews with officials from these organizations. 

We conducted the performance audit for our ongoing work on Grants.gov from May 

2008 to April 2009 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. 

Background 

OMB created Grants.gov (initially known as e-Grants) in response to the Federal 

Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999, commonly referred to by 

the grants community and OMB as Public Law 106-107.9

 Public Law 106-107 sought to 

improve coordination among federal grantor agencies and their nonfederal partners. 

It required federal grant-making agencies to streamline and simplify the application, 

administrative, and reporting procedures for their programs. The act also required 

OMB to direct, coordinate, and assist agencies in developing and implementing a 

common application and reporting system that included electronic processes with 

 

7

The Grants.gov PMO is in charge of the day-to-day management of Grants.gov. HHS is the designated 

managing partner of Grants.gov and has lead responsibility for the initiative. The GEB consists of 

representatives from the 26 grant-making agencies and provides strategic leadership and resources to 

Grants.gov. OMB provides oversight and guidance to the 24 e-Government initiatives of which 

Grants.gov is one. 

8

We worked with officials from the 26 grant-making agencies to determine if policies on submitting and 

reviewing grant applications are centralized at the agency level or if they differ within an agency by 

subagency or program office. We then administered the survey at the level where policies are 

established in order to capture differences between and within the 26 grant-making agencies. We 

identified 80 grantor agencies that have distinctive grant application policies. The 74 responses we 

received were from all of the 26 grant-making agencies. 

9

Pub. L. No. 106-107 (Nov. 20, 1999). Although we focus on grants and cooperative agreements in this 

report, the law covers all types of federal financial assistance. 

Page 3 GAO-09-590R Recovery Act Grant Applications
which a nonfederal entity can apply for multiple grant programs that serve similar 

purposes but are administered by different federal agencies.10

 

In order to log in and submit an application, first-time applicants must register with 

Grants.gov—a complex process meant to ensure that only authorized applicants can 

apply on behalf of an organization.11 According to Grants.gov, the registration process 

for an organization should take from 3 to 5 business days; however, for some 

applicants, this process can take 2 weeks or more.12 Table 1 highlights key steps in 

the registration process and typical difficulties that can result in delay. In addition

registration difficulties, which may or may not be caused by Grants.gov system 

issues, applicants commonly encounter technical issues with Grants.gov, such as 

system slowness and unresponsiveness, which also delay applicants’ ability to log in 

and submit applications in a timely manner. 

 to 

 

To submit an application, an applicant logs in and uploads a completed application to 

Grants.gov. Grants.gov notifies the applicant by e-mail that the application was 

received and provides a tracking number and submission time stamp. Grants.gov then 

attempts to “validate” the application by screening for technical errors, such as 

computer viruses. The validation checks are typically completed within 48 hours. If 

validation was successful, Grants.gov notifies the applicant by e-mail. If validation 

was not successful, Grants.gov notifies the applicant via e-mail that the application 

was “rejected due to errors” and the application must be resubmitted. Grants.gov 

makes the successfully validated application available to the grantor agency and 

notifies the applicant via e-mail when this occurs.13 Grantor agencies retrieve the 

validated applications from Grants.gov and review them and make determinations 

about grant awards. If a grantor agency determines that an application is late, the 

applicant can often appeal this determination. There is no standard set of criteria that 

agencies use to determine whether they will consider an appeal. 

10OMB requires agencies to announce all discretionary grants opportunities on Grants.gov; it does not 

require agencies to accept applications through Grants.gov. 

11Applicants applying as individuals (not as part of an organization) must also register with Grants.gov 

before applying for grants; however, individuals are only able to apply for grant opportunities that are 

open to individuals. In our survey, only 32 percent (24) of the 74 respondents stated that they offer 

grants to individuals. 

12As shown in table 1, obtaining an employer identification number from the Internal Revenue Service 

may take 2 weeks or more. 

13The Grants.gov validation process is not designed to verify any agency-specific or grant-specific 

requirements; as such, an application that was validated by Grants.gov could be forwarded to the 

agency and still fail to meet criteria specified in a grant’s application instructions. 

Page 4 GAO-09-590R Recovery Act Grant Applications
Table 1: Key Steps and Time Frames in the Grants.gov Organization Registration Process

Steps Estimated time required and considerations 

Obtain DUNS number 

from Dun & Bradstreet 

(D&B)a

Typically 1 business day. 

 Requires organization information to be submitted to D&B via phone or 

Internet. 

GSA’s Central 

Contractor Registration 

(CCR)b

Typically 1 to 2 business days. (Can take 2 weeks or more.) 

 Requires DUNS number. 

 Requires an employer identification number (EIN) from the Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS). An EIN must be obtained from IRS if the 

organization does not already have one. It may take 2 to 5 weeks for a 

newly assigned EIN to become active for purposes of registering with CCR. 

 Requires CCR to check the organization information provided against the 

IRS data on file; delays could result if there are inconsistencies. 

 Establishes organization’s E-Business Point of Contact (POC) who creates 

a unique identification number for the organization called the marketing 

partner identification number (MPIN). Only the E-Business POC can 

authorize individuals to submit for the organizations as authorized 

organization representatives (AOR)c

Obtain username and 

password 

Typically 1 day. 

 Requires DUNS number. 

 Requires complete and active CCR registration.Requires CCR registration 

to be updated annually to be valid. 

 Requires AOR to create profile on Grants.gov, which will serve as the 

electronic signature when submitting grants. 

Typically 1 day. (Can vary because it depends on the E-Business POC.) 

 E-Business POC receives e-mail from Grants.gov asking him/her to log in 

using MPIN and confirm the AOR. 

 This takes about 24 hours from when the E-Business POC responds to the 

Grants.gov request for authorization. AORs cannot submit an application 

until the E-Business POC responds to Grants.gov with a confirmation of 

their AOR status. 

 Grants.gov advises the AOR to verify that the organization’s E-Business 

POC has confirmed them as authorized to submit grant applications for the 

organization through Grants.gov. 

Register with 

Grants.gov to establish 

an AOR 

Source: GAO presentation of Grants.gov and CCR information. 

Notes: 

See http://grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp for complete details of the registration process and links to the entities described here.

a

The federal government uses DUNS numbers, which identify an organization to track how federal grant money is allocated. b

CCR is operated by GSA. 

c

AORs are the only people in an organization who can apply for grants on its behalf through Grants.gov.

Applicants Lack a Central Source of Information on Recovery Act 

Alternatives to Grants.gov 

Federal agencies must post all discretionary grant opportunities on Grants.gov; many 

also require applicants to apply for most or all grant applications through Grants.gov.

Given the growing pressure on Grants.gov caused by increased volume from the 

Recovery Act, OMB required grantor agencies to identify by March 13, 2009, alternate 

ways for applicants to submit grant applications during the Recovery Act peak filing 

period and submit them to OMB for review and approval. These alternatives include 

electronic systems run by a grantor agency, e-mail, fax, and mail. Recovery.gov, the 

Web site established to provide information on the Recovery Act,14 directs people to 

 

14Pub. L. No. 111-5, div. A, title XV, § 1526. 

Page 5 GAO-09-590R Recovery Act Grant Applications
use Grants.gov to search for federal grant opportunities but, as of April 28, 2009, 

lacked information on the alternate submission methods agencies have identified. On 

April 22, 2009, Grants.gov prominently posted an announcement stating that all 

opportunities announced on Grants.gov will include specific application instructions, 

as appropriate, for submitting applications.15 The notice directs applicants to 

carefully read the instructions for all grant opportunities—even if they have applied 

before—to ensure that they are following proper submission procedures for the 

programs. 

nd 

as 

r 

he option of submitting 

pplication materials by hard copy or through e-mail.17

 

r 

 apply 

nt 

ould be adversely affected by a lengthy Grants.gov system problem or 

utage. 

 

As noted in the April 22 Grants.gov announcement, at least 10 agencies will accept 

some or all applications outside of Grants.gov during the Recovery Act peak filing 

period. For example, the National Science Foundation and National Aeronautics a

Space Administration are only accepting applications through their own existing 

electronic systems for some grants, and two Department of Justice program offices

are requiring applicants to use an internal electronic system to apply for grants for 

the remainder of fiscal year 2009. Many agencies lack alternate electronic systems 

and instead plan to rely on alternatives such as e-mail, fax, or mail.

16 For example, 

stated in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Recovery Act Request fo

Applications Under the Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies Program (released 

March 19, 2009), EPA will generally provide applicants t

a

On the other hand, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which will be competing 

at least an additional $400 million of Recovery Act grants,18 has no viable alternative 

to Grants.gov. While it is the largest federal grant-making entity, with over 90 percent

of its applications (101,000 submissions) coming in through Grants.gov in fiscal year

2008, NIH does not have its own electronic system for receiving applications. NIH

officials told us that given the size and structure of NIH applications, printing and 

mailing hard copies or receiving applications via e-mail is “incredibly impractical” fo

both applicants and NIH. These officials said that applicants will continue to

through Grants.gov but that NIH will accept late applications in the event of 

Grants.gov system problems as it has done in the past.19 These officials also said that

they believe this work-around will address most issues, but that since Recovery Act

grants have shorter time frames than most other NIH grants, decisions about gra

awards c

o

15See http://www.grants.gov/applicants/bulletin.jsp (as of Apr. 28, 2009). 16In some cases, agencies already allowed applicants to submit using these alternative methods. 17The other 6 agencies are: Corporation for National and Community Service, and the Departments of 

Defense, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation. 18NIH plans to compete approximately $9.9 billion in Recovery Act grants and Recovery Act contracts. 

At the time of our review, NIH officials estimated that of the $9.9 billion, a minimum of $400 million 

would be awarded through grants. The Web portal for all federal government contracting opportunities 

is www.FedBizOpps.gov. 

19Even before the Recovery Act became law, some agencies recognized the need to amend their 

application submission policies to better meet applicants’ needs. For example, NIH reported that it has 

changed its policies to accommodate applicants that encounter technical problems with Grants.gov or 

NIH systems, and that it works with applicants in need of assistance even if it means granting an 

extension beyond the grant closing date. 

Page 6 GAO-09-590R Recovery Act Grant Applications
Disparate Agency Policies for Processing Grant Applications Could Res

Different Treatment fo

ult in 

r Applications Submitted Electronically versus 

hrough Other Means 

and (4) criteria 

for considering an appeal when an application has been deemed late. 

•

ight 

e 

n 

 have 

me) to help resolve 

ongoing Grants.gov system overload issues.21

•

urvey, 

pplication 

nt 

two 

eans 

to establish the timeliness of these submissions. For example, the 

 

t

Agencies have disparate policies on several important aspects of processing 

applications, specifically, (1) closing times for submitting an application, (2) how to

determine whether an application was submitted timely, (3) when and whether to 

notify applicants that an application has been successfully submitted, 

Grants.gov accepts applications after the closing time of some 

grant opportunities. Grants.gov accepts applications until midn

eastern time on a grant’s closing date, but about one-third of the 

responding grantor agencies we surveyed had application deadlines 

before midnight—sometimes as early as noon eastern time.20 NIH, th

largest grantor agency, has a 5:00 p.m. local time deadline for all its 

grants. This presents problems for applicants using Grants.gov for two 

reasons. First, applicants could receive confirmation that an applicatio

was successfully submitted to Grants.gov, but the application can still 

be deemed late by the grantor agency. Second, Grants.gov officials

told applicants to submit applications during off-peak hours, (i.e., 

before 11:00 a.m. and after 8:00 p.m. eastern ti

Agencies have different policies for determining the timeliness

of Grants.gov applications as well as for submissions through 

other methods. Of the 74 grantor agencies responding to our s

more than 60 percent (47) said that they determine whether an 

application is timely based on the time the application was submitted to 

Grants.gov; 16 percent (12) said they determine whether an a

is timely based on the time the application was validated by 

Grants.gov.22 However, validation can take up to 48 hours after a gra

is successfully submitted; this has resulted in late submissions.23 In 

contrast, applications submitted by e-mail or mailed in hard copy—

of the options agencies have made available as alternate means of 

submitting applications during the Recovery Act peak filing period—are 

not subject to Grants.gov validation. Instead, agencies use other m

20Grants.gov officials told us that in rare cases application deadline times are written into a grant’s 

authorizing legislation. 

21For example, on April 6, 2009, the day Grants.gov received its largest numbers of submissions to date, 

almost one-third of the 3,555 applications received were submitted from 3:00 p.m. through 6:00 p.m. 

eastern time. 

22Six respondents said that they used another indicator to determine timeliness, and nine did not 

answer the question. 

23Although it was beyond the scope of our work to fully examine other agency-specific electronic 

systems, we found evidence that some of those systems have a registration process similar to the 

Grants.gov registration process; we could not determine if any had a similar validation process. 

Page 7 GAO-09-590R Recovery Act Grant Applications
postmark24 or the arrival date is often used to determine the timeliness 

of paper applications. 

• Agencies differ in notifying applicants when and whether 

applications have been successfully submitted. There are no 

common requirements for notifying applicants of the status of their 

applications; as such, these policies vary across grant-making agencies. 

More than half of the agencies responding to our survey (39 

respondents) said that they notify an applicant “immediately or almost 

immediately” when an application is late and will not be forwarded for 

content review. In contrast, 13 respondents said that they either wait 

until the time that the grant is awarded to notify applicants or do not 

notify applicants at all.25 Further, an applicant’s ability to determine the 

status of an application varies depending on how the application was 

submitted. For example, applicants that mail hard copies of 

applications can choose to track their applications through the U.S. 

Postal Service or commercial delivery service; applicants that submit 

their applications via e-mail or an electronic system have no way of 

knowing if their applications were successfully submitted unless the 

grantor agencies or electronic systems notify them. Lack of notice, or 

untimely notice, can eliminate an applicant’s chance to appeal a late 

determination. 

• Agencies have different criteria for considering appeals when an 

application is late and do not always consider the most common 

reasons for late submissions. If a grantor agency determines that an 

application is late, applicants can often appeal this determination; 

however, the criteria agencies use to determine whether they will 

consider an appeal vary. Our survey results and interviews indicate that 

being unable to register with Grants.gov is one of the most common 

problems experienced by applicants. However, more than half of the 23 

survey respondents that provided data about appeals based on 

registration difficulties said that appeals on this basis were more likely 

to be denied than approved. Registering with Grants.gov in a timely 

manner—which should take from 3 to 5 business days but can take 2 

weeks or more if applicants encounter problems—may be even more 

difficult during the Recovery Act period given the number of applicants 

trying to register. On the other hand, most of the 27 survey respondents 

who provided data on appeals based on technical issues with 

Grants.gov, such as system slowness or unresponsiveness, said that 

these appeals were approved most to all of the time. To provide 

evidence of technical issues, agencies may ask applicants to provide 

case numbers from the Grants.gov contact center so the agencies can 

obtain the details of the cases and confirm the technical problems.26

 

24Agencies may specify the requirement of a U.S. Postal Service postmark or a dated receipt from a 

commercial carrier in their application instructions. 

25Of the remaining responses, 12 answered “other,” and 10 did not respond or answered “no response.” 

26The Grants.gov contact center is a help desk that applicants can call or e-mail when they need 

assistance. The contact center assigns case numbers and attempts to resolve callers’ issues. The 

Page 8 GAO-09-590R Recovery Act Grant Applications
However, applicants report that obtaining a case number from the 

contact center in a timely fashion has become more challenging in 

recent months. Grants.gov officials and applicants have reported long 

wait times—sometimes 30 minutes or more—when calling the contact 

center, because of the large numbers of applicants seeking assistance. 

These delays could hamper an applicant’s ability to obtain the 

necessary data to support a request for an appeal.

Conclusions 

OMB has acknowledged the importance of Grants.gov in successfully implementing 

the Recovery Act. By working with agencies to initiate immediate improvements to 

Grants.gov and requiring agencies to identify alternate methods for accepting grant 

applications, OMB has played a critical role in minimizing disruptions to the grants 

application process. OMB and the Grants.gov staff have worked quickly to mitigate 

an impending system failure and protect the flow of Recovery Act grant funds to 

struggling communities around the country. 

However, applicants lack a centralized source of information on how and when to 

use these alternatives, rendering them less effective than they otherwise might be in 

reducing the strain on a system already suffering from seriously degraded 

performance. Moreover, inconsistent agency policies for grant closing times, what 

constitutes a timely application, when and whether applicants are notified of the 

status of their applications, and the basis on which applicants can appeal a late 

application create confusion and uncertainty for applicants and could result in an 

application being treated differently depending on how it is submitted—results that 

are contrary to OMB’s stated purposes for recent efforts to improve Grants.gov and 

to the streamlining goals of Public Law 106-107 in general. 

Recommendations for Executive Action 

We are making the following two recommendations to the Director of OMB to 

increase the likelihood that applicants can successfully apply for grants during the 

Recovery Act’s peak application filing period. 

We recommend that the Director of OMB ensure that an announcement discussing 

agency alternate submission methods similar to that recently posted on Grants.gov is 

posted in a prominent location on Recovery.gov and on all federal Web sites or in all 

documents where instructions for applying to Recovery Act grants are presented. 

Such announcements, including the one on Grants.gov, should also include guidance 

for applicants that try to submit through Grants.gov but cannot successfully register 

and are therefore unable to submit timely applications. 

We recommend that the Director of OMB implement and prominently post the 

following governmentwide policies, effective immediately, for all grant applications 

submitted during the peak filing period for Recovery Act grants: 

 

grantor agency can contact the call center and use the case number to obtain the case notes. Grantor 

agencies may also allow the applicants to provide additional evidence. 

Page 9 GAO-09-590R Recovery Act Grant Applications
• To the extent permissible by law, applications received at any point on the stated 

grant opportunity closing date should be considered timely. 

• Agencies must notify an applicant when an application submission has been 

received and if the application has been deemed late. An applicant that submits 

electronically (including by e-mail or fax) should receive automatic confirmation, 

including a date and time stamp. 

• Applicants whose applications have been deemed late should be given an 

opportunity to provide supporting documentation to demonstrate that they 

attempted to submit an application on time. Proof of timely submission could 

include (1) e-mail confirmation of receipt from the electronic system used to 

submit the application, (2) system time stamps from the electronic system used to 

submit the application, or (3) a dated postmark or receipt from the U.S. Postal 

Service or a commercial delivery service. 

Agency Comments 

In commenting on a draft of this report, OMB concurred with our findings and the 

overall objectives of our recommendations. OMB staff also provided technical 

comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate. OMB said that it plans to 

work with the Grants Policy Committee and with other stakeholders as appropriate 

to define the best path forward in addressing our recommendations. HHS provided 

technical comments which have been incorporated as appropriate. 

_________________

We are sending copies of this report to the Director of OMB, the Secretary of Health 

and Human Services, and other interested parties. The report also is available at no 

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

Should you wish to discuss these matters, please contact me at (202) 512-6806 or 

czerwinskis@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and 

Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Major contributors to this 

report were Thomas James, Assistant Director; Jacqueline M. Nowicki, Assistant 

Director; Jennifer Ashford; Carolyn Boyce; James J. Burns; David Fox; and James R. 

Sweetman, Jr. Cynthia Grant, Chelsa Gurkin, Luann Moy, and Carol Patey also made 

key contributions. 

Sincerely Yours, 

Stanley J. Czerwinski 

Director 

Strategic Issues 

(450753) 

Page 10 GAO-09-590R Recovery Act Grant Applications
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. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site 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.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 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 Web site, 

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. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

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

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

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs