For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m., EDT

Wednesday,

October 4, 2000

GAO-01-34T

ANTI-DRUG MEDIA

CAMPAIGN

Investigation of Actions

Taken Concerning Alleged

Excessive Contractor Cost

Statement of Robert H. Hast,

Managing Director

Office of Special Investigations

Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy

and Human Resources, Committee on Government

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives

United States General Accounting Office

GAO
Page 1 GAO-01-34T

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

We are here to discuss the investigation you asked us to undertake

concerning the Office of the National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP)

contract with Ogilvy & Mather (Ogilvy), the lead media campaign

contractor for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. The

Subcommittee received allegations that ONDCP had learned that Ogilvy

was allegedly inflating its labor cost and, as a result, was over-billing the

government for its services under the contract by falsifying time sheets. In

response, ONDCP’s Chief of the Media Branch hired a consultant to study

the Ogilvy contract. This consultant reported that Ogilvy’s labor costs

were far above industry standards. Further, in April 2000, the Director of

ONDCP, General Barry McCaffrey, U.S. Army, Retired, was informed

about these allegations and the results of the consultant’s study, which

allegedly resulted in his decision that an external audit be conducted of

the Ogilvy contract. However, according to the allegation, after the

director met privately with the contractor’s project director, the project

director announced that Director McCaffrey was satisfied with the

contract’s costs and no external audit was to be conducted. In addition,

the Subcommittee received information that Ogilvy allegedly had provided

assistance to the director concerning matters not involving ONDCP and

billed for this service under the contract.

Beginning in July 2000, we investigated the facts and circumstances

surrounding actions taken by ONDCP after receiving the allegations that

Ogilvy may have over-billed the government. We also investigated

allegations that Ogilvy had provided services unrelated to the contract and

submitted invoices under the contract for those services. We did not

investigate the allegation that Ogilvy had over-billed the government under

this contract; however, GAO is currently conducting a review and audit of

ONDCP’s contracting operations, which will include this issue.

In summary, we found that Director McCaffrey knew about the fraud

allegations concerning Ogilvy’s billing practices; and there is evidence that

suggests he agreed with the need for “an external audit” of the contract.

When we interviewed Director McCaffrey, he initially stated that he had no

recollection of accusations of fraud related to the Ogilvy contract until we

provided him a memorandum dated April 13, 2000, that showed he had

been informed of the allegations. (See app. I.) He then told us that after

receiving the April 13 memorandum and a report that questioned Oglivy’s

costs, he traveled to New York City where he met with Ogilvy executives

and told them that their costs were growing and that they needed to get

them under control.
Page 2 GAO-01-34T

Regarding the allegation that he had ordered an “external audit,” Director

McCaffrey stated that he had never ordered such an audit. He added that

he had no knowledge of any written order for an external audit or an

annotated memorandum with a handwritten comment stating the need for

an external audit. He was then asked if he ever used the words “we need

an external audit,” and he stated “no.” After Director McCaffrey reviewed

the annotated April 13, 2000, memorandum, he acknowledged that the

handwritten comments—which included the statement, “we need an

external audit”—were his. He told us that although he admittedly wrote

that phrase on the document, he never ordered an independent audit to be

carried out on the Ogilvy contract but that it was his intention to conduct

one at some point in time.

ONDCP’s general counsel informed us that after we interviewed Director

McCaffrey, the director approved a closeout audit of all media campaign

contracts, including the Ogilvy contract, in conjunction with the proposed

transfer of contracting responsibilities to the Navy. In addition, Director

McCaffrey has also approved an internal audit of the management

practices of the Media Campaign.

With regard to the allegation of a private meeting, we found that Director

McCaffrey had a private meeting with Ogilvy’s project director after

internal ONDCP discussions of the need for an external audit. Director

McCaffrey’s description of the meeting and the project director’s

description vary as to whether excessive costs were discussed. However,

we found no evidence that this meeting impacted any decision with

respect to an external audit of the Ogilvy contract; and we were told by

Director McCaffrey that he never ordered an audit.

Further, concerning the allegation that services were provided beyond

those covered by the contract, we found that Ogilvy did not write

congressional testimony for ONDCP employees. Ogilvy did provide

ONDCP with figures, research, and documentation for use in responding

to congressional inquiries and testimony. Ogilvy billed for this service

under the contract. Ogilvy did not provide any services to Director

McCaffrey involving his response to an article in the New Yorker magazine

that was critical of Director McCaffrey’s actions when he was in the

military. Director McCaffrey denied to us that anyone had assisted him in

his response to this article. However, we found that an official of another

ONDCP contractor, Fleishman-Hillard, spent 3 to 4 hours advising Director

McCaffrey on this matter. This time was not charged to the ONDCP

contract. We were told that this time was considered a personal favor to

Director McCaffrey.
Page 3 GAO-01-34T

On December 28, 1998, the Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS) awarded Ogilvy a cost plus fixed-fee contract for the advertising

component of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. HHS

awarded the contract pursuant to an agreement with ONDCP.1 The

contract has an estimated value of over $684 million over 5 years (1 base

year plus 4 option years).

Alan Levitt, Chief of the Media Branch at ONDCP, stated that he has

oversight responsibility for the Ogilvy contract. Mr. Levitt told us that

prior to March 2000, Dan Merrick,2 Ogilvy’s then Co-Project Director on

this contract, had informed him that Ogilvy was over-billing on the

contract. Mr. Levitt stated that Mr. Merrick told him that he had

previously raised concerns with Ogilvy’s management about their billing

practices.

Mr. Levitt stated that he immediately notified ONDCP’s general counsel,

Edward Jurith. Mr. Jurith told us that ONDCP was aware of billing

irregularities with regard to Ogilvy’s labor costs on the contract and that

ONDCP’s conclusion was that Ogilvy had billed some nonpayable charges.

He was aware of a concern about a cost overrun but could not remember

the exact figures quoted. He also was aware that these billing concerns

had been brought to Director McCaffrey’s attention and that Ogilvy was

brought in to explain why its costs were higher than industry standards.

Further, David Shull, Deputy General Counsel, told us that he was aware

that Mr. Merrick had previously made negative statements regarding

Ogilvy’s billing practices.

Mr. Levitt also told us that in late March 2000, he contracted with Jane

Twyon, Director of Worldwide Media Directors, an advertising media

consultant, to review and analyze Ogilvy’s compensation and manpower as

it related to its billable labor costs.

Richard Pleffner, ONDCP’s project officer and contracting officer’s

technical representative, told us that Ms. Twyon’s initial findings

reinforced his own concerns. As a result, Mr. Pleffner prepared a

memorandum dated April 13, 2000, titled “Irregularities With Ogilvy

Billing,” and transmitted it, through the Chief of Staff, Janet Crist, to

1 ONDCP entered into an agency reimbursable work agreement with HHS to provide administrative

contract support for ONDCP’s paid advertising efforts, including award of the contract.

2 Mr. Merrick was the project director for Bates, U.S.A, which held the previous two contracts for the

ONDCP media campaign.

Chronology of the

Ogilvy & Mather’s

Contract and

Allegations of Overbilling
Page 4 GAO-01-34T

Director McCaffrey. In the memorandum, Mr. Pleffner stated that

Ms. Twyon had informed ONDCP that Ogilvy’s proposed staffing levels

were excessive,3 its labor mix was overly top heavy, and its salaries were

extraordinarily high. In addition, Mr. Pleffner identified the issue

discussed in this document as the following:

“Excessive billing irregularities under the Ogilvy contract have led to growing

uncertainties with Ogilvy’s management practices. These uncertainties were

recently reinforced when a former Ogilvy employee relayed facts to ONDCP

supporting suspicion of fraudulent conduct.”

Mr. Pleffner told us that in March 2000, Mr. Merrick had contacted him and

Jill Bartholomew, ONDCP’s Deputy Director for National Media Campaign.

According to Mr. Pleffner, Mr. Merrick told them that Ogilvy was falsifying

billing records. In his April 13, 2000, memorandum, Mr. Pleffner stated the

following:

“The fact that an outside source, particularly an executive level employee,

corroborates these concerns, prompts me to formally document these issues in

this communication.”

In his April 13, 2000, memorandum, Mr. Pleffner stated that he had

requested that HHS audit the base year (1999) of this contract. HHS

agreed to request an audit only if ONDCP agreed to pay for it. He added

that since ONDCP was considering changing contracting offices from HHS

to the Department of the Navy,4 ONDCP decided to wait before initiating

an audit. He also commented that he had discussed the need for an audit

with the Navy acquisition staff, including the possibility of requesting an

immediate audit of this contract.

We were provided a copy of the April 13, 2000, memorandum that

contained handwritten comments attributed to Director McCaffrey. One

comment refers to the last two sentences of the memorandum that read as

follows:

“Since we are considering changing contracting offices ... we decided to wait

before initiating an audit. I have discussed our audit needs with Navy acquisition

staff and possibility of requesting an immediate audit of this contract.”

3 The initial findings were that total compensation charges of over $34 million were very high

compared to the industry norm.

4 On Apr. 13, 2000, Director McCaffrey approved a recommendation that ONDCP negotiate dissolution

with HHS and enter an agreement with the Navy to accept contract administration of the media

campaign contracts from HHS.
Page 5 GAO-01-34T

The words “decided to wait before initiating an audit” are underlined. In

addition, the words “immediate audit” are circled. The words “yes” and

“We need an external audit” are handwritten at the bottom of the page

under these highlighted remarks. In addition, the word “NO!” is written

next to a statement by HHS's contracting office concerning its policy to

perform an audit at the end of the contract—in this case, at the end of 5

years.

On April 26, 2000, Dan Schecter, Assistant Deputy Director, and Mr. Levitt

issued a memorandum to the ONDCP Director through the chief of staff

and deputy director. The subject of the memorandum was the Worldwide

Media Directors’ report. The purpose of the memorandum was to outline

Ms. Twyon’s background and to discuss a number of ongoing and serious

concerns of the media campaign staff regarding Ogilvy nonmedia costs.

The memorandum reports that the general counsel, the chief of staff, and

Director McCaffrey discussed these concerns. Attachments to this

memorandum included Ms. Twyon’s report overview, detailed report, and

biographical data.

This memorandum also summarized Ms. Twyon’s finding that the cost to

execute Ogilvy’s media plan far exceeds the industry norm. Specifically,

Ms. Twyon found the costs associated with nonmedia activities and

components to be dramatically higher than even the high end of what is

standard industry practice. This is due mainly to the high number of

people working on the ONDCP account, allocation of senior manpower,

redundancy of manpower, and cost of manpower versus the industry

norm. The memorandum also reported that there is no doubt that the

average cost per “salary labor hours,” etc. across all components is far

higher than the industry average. Ms. Twyon believes ONDCP could

realize a savings of from $8.5 million to $14.8 million if Ogilvy’s staffing

was realigned to reflect industry standards. Ms. Twyon’s analysis reflects

that controls over costs were inadequate. The following recommendation

is made in the memorandum submitted to the director:

“That the media campaign management team continue its analysis of possible

recommendations to you. In the meantime, this should serve as justification for

you to discuss with Ogilvy their non-media costs, which will be presented to you

as part of a whole package on May 3.”

We were provided with a copy of the April 26, 2000, memorandum, which

contained handwritten comments attributed to Director McCaffrey. One

comment refers to the last paragraph under the heading

“Recommendation,” regarding the media campaign management team

continuing its analysis of possible recommendations to Director
Page 6 GAO-01-34T

McCaffrey. The words “continue its analysis of possible” are underlined

with the word “yes” written above. The comment “to discuss” was circled,

and the statement “Give me a letter to have C/S [chief of staff] send [to]

O&M [Ogilvy & Mather]” was written in the bottom margin.

On April 27, 2000, Ms. Twyon provided an oral briefing to ONDCP

management, which covered the material attached to the April 26, 2000,

memorandum. Director McCaffrey was present for this briefing.

Ms. Shona Seifert, Senior Partner/Executive Group Director (Ogilvy) and

Project Director for the ONDCP contract, stated that as a result of the

consultant’s report, Ogilvy was asked to reduce its costs. Ms. Crist, on

behalf of Director McCaffrey, sent a letter dated May 4, 2000, to Ogilvy in

response to the Twyon report, asking it to reduce costs. Mr. Pleffner

stated that this letter outlined issues (labor costs) raised by the Twyon

report and that as a result of the letter, Ogilvy asked for a meeting to

present its response.

Ms. Seifert stated that on May 23, 2000, there was a meeting held in

Washington, D.C., which she attended, along with other management

officials from Ogilvy. Mr. Pleffner stated that at this meeting, Ms. Seifert

attacked the Twyon report and pointed out errors in it. He said that there

were some discrepancies in the Twyon report but only because Ms. Twyon

had not had all the information and figures available to her to begin with.

Ms. Seifert stated that sometime after the May 23, 2000, meeting, Ogilvy

received another letter from Ms. Crist, which included a form to be filled

out in order to have Ogilvy explain its labor costs.
Page 7 GAO-01-34T

We interviewed Director McCaffrey on August 24, 2000. At that time, after

being advised of the allegations in this case, he told us that Ogilvy is a very

high profile outfit, ONDCP was very pleased with its work, and he has a

very high confidence level in Ogilvy’s integrity. He stated that to his

knowledge, there were no accusations of fraudulent activity on the part of

Ogilvy concerning labor costs. He added that the media campaign was a 5-

year, billion-dollar effort in uncharted waters, which ONDCP is constantly

testing. He stated that this is not to say that there aren’t any problems

associated with the advertising campaign but that it was the “crown jewel”

in the government’s program in fighting drugs.

Regarding the allegation that he had ordered an “external audit,” Director

McCaffrey stated that he had never ordered such an audit. He added that

he had no knowledge of any written order for an external audit or an

annotated memorandum with a handwritten comment stating the need for

an external audit.5 He was then asked if he ever used the words “we need

an external audit,” and he stated “no.” After Director McCaffrey reviewed

the annotated April 13, 2000, memorandum previously discussed, he stated

that he must have seen it, but that he didn’t recall it, because he

recognized that the handwriting, which included the statement “we need

an external audit,” was his. He told us that although he admittedly wrote

the phrase “we need an external audit” on the document, he never ordered

an independent audit to be carried out on the Ogilvy contract. He added

that it was his intention to conduct one at some point in time. He also

stated that he was embarrassed that he had not remembered the

memorandum that we gave him.

Director McCaffrey told us that the statement attributed to Ms. Seifert—

that an audit was not going to be conducted on the Ogilvy contract—never

occurred. He added that Ms. Seifert would never say that because he had

never ordered an external audit on the Ogilvy contract. Although he

5 Two days prior to our meeting with Director McCaffrey, we interviewed ONDCP’s general counsel,

deputy general counsel, and assistant general counsel and raised the issue of a memorandum

annotated by Director McCaffrey discussing the need for an external audit. All individuals denied

knowledge of the existence of such a memorandum.

Director McCaffrey’s

Response to the

Allegations

Investigation of Allegation

That Director McCaffrey

Failed to Act on Concerns

of Over-billing by Ogilvy &

Mather
Page 8 GAO-01-34T

recalled the report prepared by Ms. Twyon, he had no recollection of any

accusations by anyone in ONDCP regarding fraudulent activity on the part

of Ogilvy. He stated that this report was in response to questions raised

about excessive costs of the contract. After further questioning, Director

McCaffrey stated that he was aware that Mr. Merrick was alleging fraud

with the media campaign contract.

Director McCaffrey told us that after Ms. Twyon’s report was reviewed, he

traveled to New York City and had a meeting at Ogilvy’s headquarters with

Ogilvy executives, including Ms. Seifert. He stated that he had told them

that their costs were growing and that they needed to get them under

control.

Director McCaffrey stated that he almost never sees anybody, including

Ms. Seifert, alone; however, he recalled only two occasions, one of which

was sometime after his trip to New York City, on which he saw Ms. Seifert

alone in his office. At this meeting, Director McCaffrey stated that

Ms. Seifert had expressed dismay at any problems about excessive costs in

the media campaign contract and said that she would rather “throw herself

out the window” than lose the contract.

Ms. Seifert told us6 that on June 5, 2000, she had a private meeting with

Director McCaffrey for approximately 20 minutes. She also stated that she

had met with Director McCaffrey alone approximately 4 to 5 times in the

past 2 years and that on other occasions she had met with Director

McCaffrey when someone else was present. In addition, she has had many

telephone conversations with Director McCaffrey. Ms. Seifert stated that

the subject of the June 5, 2000, meeting with Director McCaffrey was to

discuss contract priorities. She said that she was concerned about

whether any problems could develop in the contract at the end of the year.

She told us that over-billing was never a subject discussed at this meeting,

allegations of fraud were never mentioned, and Director McCaffrey never

mentioned that he thought an audit was necessary. She added that at this

meeting there was no mention of labor costs or reducing costs associated

with the contract. Ms. Seifert also denied that she had stated that she

would jump out of the window rather than lose this contract.

Mr. Pleffner told us that after Ms. Seifert left the June 5, 2000, meeting with

Director McCaffrey, she met with Mr. Levitt and Ms. Bartholomew where,

according to them, she announced that Director McCaffrey was satisfied

with the contract costs and that the Ogilvy contract would continue.

6 We interviewed Ms. Seifert on Sept. 6, 2000.
Page 9 GAO-01-34T

Mr. Levitt and Ms. Bartholomew deny that this conversation occurred.

Ms. Seifert denies making this statement.

Director McCaffrey stated that the second meeting was on August 18,

2000, when Ms. Seifert presented a new proposal to control cost growth in

the contract.

On August 25, 2000, after we interviewed Director McCaffrey, Mr. Jurith,

ONDCP General Counsel, provided a written response to the allegations

raised at the meeting. Mr. Jurith stated in this letter,

“Although the Director did signal his agreement in a memorandum which

recommended that DCAA [Defense Contract Audit Agency] conduct an external

audit of Ogilvy, the memorandum recommended that the audit should be delayed

until after contract administration functions transferred from HHS – a condition

which ONDCP is in the process of completing. Director McCaffrey never ‘started’

or ‘stopped’ an audit process before or after a meeting with Shona Seifert.”

Mr. Jurith further wrote,

“ONDCP has questioned a number of Ogilvy billings and specifically questioned

the amount of Ogilvy’s salaries. ONDCP advised the HHS contracting officer of its

concerns, and requested an interim audit. HHS refused to fund the audit. In

reaction, ONDCP: (1) looked for a new contract administrator; (2) hired an

independent consultant to examine Ogilvy’s compensation practices; (3)

demanded a formal explanation from Ogilvy; and (4) advised the HHS Chief of

Staff of its findings.”

In addition, Mr. Jurith wrote,

“The Director has approved a recommendation by the Office of General Counsel

that ONDCP conduct an internal audit of the management practices of the Media

Campaign. The purpose of the internal audit is to determine where ONDCP has

excelled, and to identify those areas that need improvement. The Director has

approved a recommendation by the Office of General Counsel that HHS conduct a

close-out audit of all media campaign contractors in conjunction with the

proposed transfer of contracting responsibility to the Navy.”
Page 10 GAO-01-34T

With respect to the allegation that Ogilvy prepared congressional

testimony for Director McCaffrey and Mr. Levitt and billed for this service

even though the service was not included under the contract, Director

McCaffrey stated that neither Ogilvy nor any other outside contractor ever

wrote congressional testimony for any employee of ONDCP. He further

stated that it is common practice to ask contractors for input into

congressional inquiries and testimony but that these requests are for

figures, research, and documentation to support the testimony. These

contractors, in turn, bill ONDCP for their services.

Ms. Seifert told us that Ogilvy never directly provided written testimony

for congressional inquiries. It did provide figures to ONDCP and helped

prepare responses specifically asked of Ogilvy at congressional hearings.

Ogilvy regularly provides facts, figures, and research material to ONDCP in

response to requests for information from ONDCP resulting from outside

inquiries. She stated that, to her knowledge, these responses go through

layers of review at ONDCP and are rewritten by members of the

congressional liaison staff at ONDCP before they are issued. She told us

that at no time did Ogilvy ever draft congressional testimony for ONDCP’s

use. She said that Ogilvy was never asked to prepare testimony for

Director McCaffrey or Mr. Levitt. She stated that Ogilvy bills ONDCP for

any time spent on preparing facts and figures or researching material

pertinent to the contract, since the time spent preparing the information

relates to Ogilvy’s handling of the media campaign.

Investigation of

Allegations That

Ogilvy & Mather

Provided Services Not

Covered by the

Contract and Billed

the Contract for

Those Services

Congressional Testimony
Page 11 GAO-01-34T

With respect to the allegation that Ogilvy had helped shape Director

McCaffrey’s response to a New Yorker magazine article7 and billed for this

service, Director McCaffrey stated that neither Ogilvy nor anyone else

outside of ONDCP had done any work for him whatsoever in response to

criticisms brought forth in the New Yorker article. Nothing was ever billed

to the ONDCP media campaign contract by Ogilvy or anyone else as a

result of concerns raised in the article. Ms. Seifert stated that neither she

nor any other Ogilvy employee ever supplied material to Director

McCaffrey for him to respond to this article. She said that she did write a

personal note to Director McCaffrey expressing her distaste for the article

and offering her personal assurances that she knew that the statements

accusing Director McCaffrey of any wrongdoing were not true.

Mr. Pleffner stated that the Fleishman-Hillard public relations firm helped

Director McCaffrey respond to criticisms raised in the New Yorker article.

He stated that Paul Johnson, President of Fleishman-Hillard, told

Fleishman-Hillard employees that he was helping Director McCaffrey

shape responses to the article and that he had referred Director McCaffrey

to a libel attorney. Mr. Pleffner added that he did not know whether

Fleishman-Hillard had billed for these services under its ONDCP contract.

On May 16, 2000, Messrs. Schecter and Levitt issued a memorandum to

Director McCaffrey, through the chief of staff and the deputy director. The

memorandum involved topics discussed for an upcoming meeting with

Paul Johnson from Fleishman-Hillard. The memorandum included a

statement that Mr. Johnson let it be known to Fleishman-Hillard staff that

he had been helping Director McCaffrey with the New Yorker article and

had referred Director McCaffrey to a libel attorney.

Mr. Johnson told us that he is Regional President & Senior Partner of

Fleishman-Hillard, a public relations firm, and that he is the project

director for the media campaign contract that his company has with

ONDCP. He stated that Fleishman-Hillard basically handles public

relations matters for ONDCP concerning the advertising media campaign.

He was aware of the article that appeared in the New Yorker magazine.

He stated that Director McCaffrey called him about it and was very

concerned about the article. He added that Director McCaffrey’s concern

was not so much for personal reasons but rather for the effect it would

have on the war against drugs. He advised Director McCaffrey to seek his

7 An article by Seymour Hersh appeared in the May 22, 2000, issue of The New Yorker. The article was

critical of Director McCaffrey’s actions during the Persian Gulf war.

The New Yorker Article
Page 12 GAO-01-34T

own legal counsel because of the accusations made in the article and

provided him with the name of a law firm. He subsequently learned that

Director McCaffrey did engage a libel attorney from the law firm he had

recommended.

In addition, Mr. Johnson stated that Fleishman-Hillard regularly responded

to inquiries from ONDCP to provide information, statistics, or responses to

congressional inquiries. He stated that he provided information to

Director McCaffrey and to ONDCP on how to respond to the New Yorker

article. He stated that to his knowledge, all information that FleishmanHillard provides to ONDCP goes through many layers of review before

ONDCP crafts a final response to be presented to any outside inquiry. He

stated that at most, he spent 3 to 4 hours on the New Yorker magazine

matter for Director McCaffrey and that Fleishman-Hillard did not bill

ONDCP for this time. He told us that he did this as a personal favor to

Director McCaffrey.

For information about this testimony, please contact Robert H. Hast,

Managing Director, Office of Special Investigations, on (202) 512-7455.

Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included John

Cooney and Patrick Sullivan.

This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to respond to any

questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have.

Contacts and

Acknowledgements
Page 13 GAO-01-34T

Appendix I

April 13, 2000, Memorandum With Director

McCaffrey’s Handwritten Comments
Appendix I

April 13, 2000, Memorandum With Director

McCaffrey’s Handwritten Comments

Page 14 GAO-01-34T

(600739)
Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send

an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

Info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Contact one:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Ordering Information

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs