Page 1 GAO-12-977R Iraq and Afghanistan

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

September 12, 2012

Congressional Committees

 

Subject: Iraq and Afghanistan: Agencies Are Taking Steps to Improve Data on Contracting 

but Need to Standardize Reporting 

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

Development (USAID) have relied extensively on contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan to 

provide a range of services, such as security, transportation, and base operations. 

Additionally, State and USAID have relied on recipients of grants and cooperative 

agreements—two types of assistance instruments—to implement infrastructure, 

governance, and economic development projects in the two countries. 

Reliable, meaningful data related to contracts and assistance instruments are a starting 

point for informing agency decisions and ensuring proper management and oversight. In 

recent years, Congress has taken a series of actions to increase the oversight and 

availability of information related to Iraq and Afghanistan contracts and assistance 

instruments. Specifically, amendments from the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (NDAA for FY2011) require those three agencies to submit annual 

joint reports to Congress on their contracts and assistance instruments with work performed 

in Iraq and Afghanistan.1 The reports are to address several matters, such as the number 

and value of contracts and assistance instruments, number of contractor and assistance 

personnel, number of contractor personnel performing security functions, and any plans for 

strengthening the collection and coordination of contract information. In April 2012, the three 

agencies issued their second Annual Joint Report on Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

covering fiscal year 2011(hereafter, referred to as the 2011 joint report), to congressional 

committees. Their first joint report, covering fiscal year 2010 (2010 joint report) was issued in 

May 2011. 

The joint reporting requirement builds upon earlier requirements for the three agencies to 

track information on contracts, assistance instruments, and associated personnel. The 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (NDAA for FY2008) directed DOD, 

State, and USAID to identify common databases to serve as repositories of information on 

contracts and contractor personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2

 

1

Pub. L. No. 111-383, § 835.

The three agencies 

subsequently designated the DOD-managed Synchronized Predeployment and Operational 

Tracker (SPOT) as their common database for such information. With the passage of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (NDAA for FY2010), Congress 

expanded the requirement to cover grants, cooperative agreements, and associated 

2

Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 861. 
Page 2 GAO-12-977R Iraq and Afghanistan

personnel.3 In response, the agencies agreed that SPOT was also their system of record for 

tracking statutorily required assistance instrument and personnel information. Although 

tracking this information should provide much of what the agencies are to include in their 

joint reports, there is no statutory requirement for the agencies to use SPOT as the basis for 

what they present in the joint reports or for any other purpose.

Amendments to the NDAA for FY2008 made in 2011 directed us to assess and report 

annually on the three agencies’ joint report.4 Pursuant to that mandate, we have reviewed 

the 2011 joint report and are providing our required assessments of (1) the data and data 

sources used by the agencies to develop the joint report; (2) the agencies’ steps to improve 

SPOT to track statutorily required information on contracts, assistance instruments, and 

associated personnel; and (3) the agencies’ use of SPOT to manage, oversee, and 

coordinate contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.5

To assess the information presented in the 2011 joint report, we reviewed the report and 

obtained the underlying data from DOD, State, and USAID. We assessed the data and 

sources by performing various analyses to identify limitations or errors that would affect the 

information presented in the report. This included comparing data and methodologies used 

to prepare the 2010 and 2011 joint reports for each agency. We also interviewed agency 

officials to discuss steps they took to obtain, validate, and verify the data. To determine 

steps taken to improve the reliability of data in SPOT and the system’s functionality, we 

reviewed documentation of recent and planned SPOT system changes. We also interviewed 

agency officials to identify relevant improvement efforts, particularly as they pertain to 

shortcomings identified in prior GAO reports. To determine how the agencies used data 

from SPOT to manage, oversee, or coordinate contracting, we interviewed DOD, State, and 

USAID officials responsible for maintaining SPOT and users of the system to identify 

examples of how they are using these data.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2012 to September 2012 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan 

and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

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

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives.

Results in Brief

Although SPOT was designated as the common database for the statutorily required 

information on contracts, assistance instruments, and related personnel in Iraq and 

Afghanistan, officials from DOD, State, and USAID generally relied on other data sources 

they regarded as more reliable to prepare the 2011 joint report. For example, only State 

relied directly on SPOT for contractor and assistance personnel information, while none of 

the three agencies used SPOT to identify the number of contractor and assistance 

personnel killed or wounded in the two countries. The agencies used a variety of sources to 

prepare the 2011 joint report and, in some cases, used different data sources or changed 

their methodologies from what was used for the 2010 joint report. This was generally done 

in an effort to provide better information or address limitations identified in our prior reports. 

 

3

Pub. L. No. 111-84, § 813 (2009).

4

Section 835 of NDAA for FY2011. 

5

For our assessment of the 2010 joint report, see GAO, Iraq and Afghanistan: DOD, State and USAID Cannot 

Fully Account for Contracts, Assistance Instruments, and Associated Personnel, GAO-11-886 (Washington D.C.: 

Sept. 15, 2011).
Page 3 GAO-12-977R Iraq and Afghanistan

While the agencies’ changes in sources and methodologies could result in more reliable 

data, they limit the comparability of agency-specific information to identify trends from the 

2010 joint report to the 2011 joint report. Additionally, the agencies did not use consistent 

methodologies to obtain and present the data contained in the 2011 joint report, limiting 

comparability of data across the agencies. For example, based on information presented by 

each agency, it is not possible to obtain an accurate number for the total value of new 

contracts awarded in Afghanistan because the agencies used different measures for 

contract values and one agency did not break out values by country. As a result of the 

differences from year to year and among the agencies, information in the joint report should 

not be used to draw conclusions across the three agencies about contracts, assistance 

instruments, and associated personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan for fiscal year 2011 or to 

identify trends over time.

DOD and State have taken some steps to improve their contractor personnel data in SPOT 

and recent system changes may also help to improve the system’s functionality. DOD and 

State officials explained that they are continuing to verify that data in an effort to improve the 

reliability of personnel data, while USAID did not identify any effort to improve the data, 

citing its limited use of the system. In addition, the SPOT program office implemented 

changes to the system that may improve functionality as well as address limitations we 

previously identified. For example, contractor personnel job titles have been standardized to 

make it easier to identify related jobs such as security functions. These changes were not in 

place in time to facilitate the agencies’ efforts to prepare the 2011 joint report, but according 

to agency officials, they may help with the preparation of future reports. However, some 

State and USAID officials have questioned whether continued investments should be made

in SPOT’s development given that other systems can provide them with information on 

contracts, assistance instruments, and associated personnel that better meet their mission 

needs. 

DOD, State, and USAID generally do not use SPOT to help manage, oversee, and 

coordinate contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The three agencies have primarily used the 

system to generate authorizations for contractor personnel to use U.S. government services. 

Officials from the three agencies identified the use of systems and mechanisms other than 

SPOT to facilitate contract management and coordination. For example, each agency has 

its own systems to manage its contracts. Additionally, State and DOD officials cited seniorlevel interagency groups that meet regularly to coordinate contracting issues in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. DOD officials told us that although SPOT was not designed to be a planning 

tool, they anticipate using data from the system more to help inform planning efforts, 

particularly those related to the drawdown in Afghanistan. 

In this report, we are recommending that the Secretaries of Defense and State and the 

USAID Administrator work together to standardize the methodologies used to obtain and 

present information contained in the annual joint report on contracting in Iraq and 

Afghanistan to provide Congress with comparable information across agencies and years. 

We provided DOD, State, and USAID with a draft of this report for their review and 

comment. In written comments on the draft, the three agencies agreed with our 

recommendation and indicated they would work together to implement it.

Background

Congress previously required us to report on DOD, State, and USAID contracts and 

assistance instruments with work performed in Iraq or Afghanistan.6

 

6

Section 863 of the NDAA for FY2008.

In those reports, we 
Page 4 GAO-12-977R Iraq and Afghanistan

detailed challenges faced by these agencies in tracking and reporting information on 

contract and assistance information.

7 Last year, the responsibility for reporting this 

information was transferred from us to the agencies. The NDAA for FY20118

• number and value of contracts and assistance instruments awarded,

directs DOD, 

State, and USAID to submit an annual joint report on contracts in Iraq or Afghanistan to 

include the following information:

9

• number and value of active contracts and assistance instruments,

• extent to which such contracts and assistance instruments used competitive 

procedures,10

• number of contractor and assistance personnel working at the end of each quarter of 

the reporting period,11

• number of contractor and assistance personnel who are performing security 

functions at the end of each quarter of the reporting period,12

• number of contractor and assistance personnel killed or wounded.

and

The law further specifies that the agencies are to include in their reports the sources of 

information and data used to compile the required information, a description of any known 

limitations of the data reported, and any plans for strengthening collection, coordination, and 

sharing of information on contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan through improvements to 

common databases. 

The requirements in the NDAA for FY2011 build upon requirements contained in prior 

national defense authorization acts. Specifically, Section 861 of the NDAA for FY2008 

directed DOD, State, and USAID to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that, 

among other things, identified common databases to serve as repositories of information on 

 

7

See GAO, Iraq and Afghanistan: DOD, State, and USAID Face Continued Challenges in Tracking Contracts, 

Assistance Instruments, and Associated Personnel, GAO-11-1 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1, 2010); Contingency 

Contracting: DOD, State, and USAID Continue to Face Challenges in Tracking Contractor Personnel and 

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

DOD, State, and USAID Contracts and Contractor Personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, GAO-09-19 (Washington, 

D.C.: Oct. 1, 2008). 

8

Pub. L. No. 111-383, § 835.

9

Section 864(a)(2) of the NDAA for FY2008, as amended by section 813(a) of the NDAA for FY2010, defines a 

“contract in Iraq or Afghanistan” as “a contract with [DOD], [State], or [USAID], a subcontract at any tier issued

under such a contract, a task order or delivery order at any tier issued under such a contract, a grant, or a 

cooperative agreement (including a contract, subcontract, task order, delivery order, grant, or cooperative 

agreement issued by another Government agency for [DOD], [State], or [USAID] if the contract, subcontract, task 

order, delivery order, grant, or cooperative agreement involves worked [sic] performed in Iraq or Afghanistan for 

a period longer than 30 days.” In this report, the term contract refers to a contract, task order, or delivery order 

with work in Iraq or Afghanistan and the term assistance instrument refers to a grant or cooperative agreement 

with work in Iraq or Afghanistan, within the parameters established by the NDAAs for FY2008 and FY2010.

10Section 844(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-81 (2011)

further amended the required contents of the joint report to include the percentage of contracts awarded on a 

competitive basis as compared to established goals for competition in contingency contracting actions. This 

requirement took effect in December 2011 and was not reflected in the 2011 joint report.

11The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, Pub. L. No. 110-417, § 854(d) 

(2008) amended section 864 of the NDAA for FY2008 to define “contractor personnel” as “any person performing 

work under contract for [DOD], [State], or [USAID], in Iraq or Afghanistan, including individuals and 

subcontractors at any tier.” Section 813 of the NDAA for FY2010 expanded the NDAA for FY2008 definition of 

“contract” to include grants and cooperative agreements and, therefore, personnel working under grants or 

cooperative agreements in Iraq and Afghanistan fall within the definition of “contractor personnel.”

12Section 864 of the NDAA for FY2008 defines private security functions as the “guarding of personnel, facilities 

or property of a Federal agency, the contractor or subcontractor, or a third party” and “any other activity for which 

personnel are required to carry weapons in the performance of their duties.”
Page 5 GAO-12-977R Iraq and Afghanistan

contracts and contractor personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. In July 2008, DOD, State, and 

USAID signed an MOU in which they agreed SPOT would serve as their common database 

and be the system of record for the statutorily required contract and personnel information. 

After amendments were made to the original requirement in 2010, the three agencies signed 

an MOU that specified that SPOT would include information on DOD, State, and USAID 

contracts, assistance instruments, and associated personnel with more than 30 days of 

performance in Iraq or Afghanistan or valued at more than the simplified acquisition 

threshold.13 

SPOT is funded and managed by DOD and was initially developed by the U.S. Army to track 

detailed information on contractor personnel deployed with U.S. forces. DOD, State, and 

USAID have phased in SPOT’s implementation, with each developing its own policies and 

procedures governing the system’s use. SPOT contains information on the contract or task 

order, contractor personnel, and each contractor personnel’s deployments, as well as tracks

information on contractor-managed equipment. Most of the data in SPOT is entered by the

contractor firms, and agencies provide guidance and requirements to the contractor firms

specifying requirements to enter information into SPOT. 

DOD, State, and USAID Used Different Data Sources and Methodologies in an Effort to 

Provide More Accurate Information but Comparability Is Limited

Although DOD, State, and USAID designated SPOT as their system for tracking statutorily 

required information on contracts, assistance instruments, and associated personnel in Iraq 

and Afghanistan, the agencies generally relied on other sources of information to prepare 

the 2011 joint report. For example, only State relied directly on SPOT for contractor and 

assistance personnel information, and none of the three agencies used SPOT to identify the 

number of contractor and assistance personnel killed or wounded. A State official 

responsible for developing the joint report told us that it is unrealistic that one database 

could provide all the information required for the joint report. According to the officials 

responsible for preparing their respective agency’s section of the joint report, they utilized 

sources they regard as providing more complete and accurate information than the data 

available in SPOT. For example, USAID officials stated that they generally do not use SPOT 

for management purposes because it does not meet their mission needs, and other data 

collected by the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan provided more reliable information. Table 

1 summarizes the data sources DOD, State, and USAID used to report on contracts, 

assistance instruments, and associated personnel for the 2010 and 2011 joint reports.

 

13At the time the MOU was signed, the simplified acquisition threshold was $100,000 for most acquisitions. This 

threshold was increased to $150,000 in October 2010. 75 Fed. Reg. 53129 (Aug. 30, 2010).
Page 6 GAO-12-977R Iraq and Afghanistan

Table 1: Data Sources used by DOD, State, and USAID on Contracts, Assistance Instruments, and 

Associated Personnel for the 2010 and 2011 Joint Reports

Data source

Agency 2010 2011 

Number and value of new and 

active contracts and extent of 

competition

DOD Federal Procurement Data 

System—Next Generation 

(FPDS-NG)

FPDS-NG and SPOT

State FPDS-NG FPDS-NG

USAID Phoenixa and FPDS-NG

FPDS-NG

Number and value of assistance 

instruments

State b Not reported State’s Grants Database

Management System

USAID Phoenix USAID’s grant and financial 

management systemsc

Number of personnel working on 

contracts and assistance 

instruments, including personnel 

performing security functions

 

DOD U.S. Central Command 

Quarterly Contractor Census/ 

SPOT-Plus

U.S. Central Command 

Quarterly Contractor Census/ 

SPOT-Plus d

State SPOT SPOT

USAID Mission-collected data and 

estimates

Mission-collected data

Number of personnel killed or

wounded

DOD Department of Labor’s Office 

of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs Defense Base Act 

Summary

Department of Labor’s Office 

of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs Defense Base Act 

Summary e

State Bureau-collected data Bureau-collected data

USAID Mission-collected data Mission-collected data

Source: 2010 and 2011 joint reports.

a

Phoenix is USAID’s financial management system.

b

We did not identify any DOD assistance awards in Iraq or Afghanistan for fiscal years 2010 or 2011. c

Systems include the Federal Assistance Award Data System and the Global Acquisition and Assistance System.

d

SPOT-Plus is a SPOT-populated census template that is distributed to DOD contracting activities for quarterly review. e

The Defense Base Act Summary is a Department of Labor system that tracks claims for disability, medical, and death benefits 

for contractor personnel working outside the United States or on U.S. military bases.

The data presented in the agencies’ 2011 joint report not only came from a variety of 

sources, but even when the agencies relied on the same data sources, they in some cases 

used different methodologies, definitions, and presentations. Further, in some cases, the 

agencies used different data sources or changed their methodologies from the 2010 joint

report for certain categories of information. Officials explained that, in some cases, this was 

done in an effort to provide better information or address limitations we previously identified. 

However, the differences among the agencies and between the years in how data were 

obtained, analyzed, and presented limit the comparability of the information. For example, 

based on information presented in each agency’s section of the report, it would not be 

possible to obtain an accurate number for the total value of contracts awarded across 

agencies in Afghanistan because the agencies used different measures for contract values

and did not always break out values by country. In some cases, the agencies explained the 

limitations and differences associated with the information they presented in the 2011 joint 

report. In other cases, these limitations and differences are not disclosed or evident in the 

joint report. As a result of the differences among the agencies and from year to year, the 

joint report should not be used to draw conclusions across agencies about contracts, 
Page 7 GAO-12-977R Iraq and Afghanistan

assistance instruments, and associated personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan for fiscal year 2011 

or to identify trends over time.

For contract-related information presented in the 2011 joint report, all three agencies 

changed either their data sources or methodology from the 2010 joint report. In addition, 

although all three agencies utilized the Federal Procurement Data System – Next 

Generation (FPDS-NG), the federal government’s system for tracking information on 

contracting actions, as their source for contract values in the 2011 joint report, the 

information presented by the three agencies is not comparable because of differences in 

methodologies and definitions.

• DOD changed its data source and methodology for identifying contracts and reporting 

contract values and, as a result, the information presented in the 2011 joint report is not 

comparable to the 2010 joint report. DOD noted in the 2011 joint report that the change 

in methodology resulted in relatively lower values than reported for fiscal year 2010. For 

example, DOD estimated a difference for new contract awards of about $8 billion in 

Afghanistan and $800 million in Iraq as a result of the methodological change. DOD’s 

methodology, including limitations, was disclosed in the 2011 joint report. For the 2010 

joint report, DOD used FPDS-NG as its only data source for contract information, using 

the principal place of performance recorded there to identify relevant contracts and their

values. As we noted in last year’s report, relying on principal place of performance in 

FPDS-NG is imprecise and contributes to underreporting of contracts and their 

associated value because agencies can only choose one country, but contracts may 

have performance in multiple countries. In contrast, for the 2011 joint report, DOD used 

SPOT to identify contracts with performance in Iraq and Afghanistan. Once it identified 

those contracts, it then used FPDS-NG to determine their value. In trying to match the 

contracts in SPOT with FPDS-NG data, DOD officials found that some contracts did not 

have a match. The officials explained they manually searched FPDS-NG and were able 

to identify values for most contracts with a significant number of contractor personnel 

deployments recorded in SPOT. This methodology addresses the limitation of using 

FPDS-NG’s place of performance to identify contracts performed in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. DOD officials also stated they believed this methodology represented a 

step forward in using SPOT as the common database. They acknowledged, however, 

this methodology presents other limitations because it does not include some contracts 

that were included in the 2010 joint report. For example, contracts for products were not 

included in the 2011 report because such contracts would not have contractor personnel 

registered in SPOT, but contracts for products and their associated values were included 

in the 2010 report.

In addition, DOD made changes to how it determined the total contract value for each 

country. For the 2010 joint report, DOD reported the total value of each contract in one 

country identified in FPDS-NG as the principal place of performance. For the 2011 joint 

report, DOD allocated the value of each contract to Iraq and Afghanistan based on the 

percentage of contractor personnel deployed to each country. For example, for a 

contract with 20 percent of its personnel deployed in Afghanistan, 30 percent in Iraq, and 

50 percent in other countries, 20 and 30 percent of the contract value identified in FPDSNG would be allocated to Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively. In contrast, State and 

USAID counted the entire obligated amount of each contract for the country identified as 

the principal place of performance in FPDS-NG. In addition, how DOD reported the 

value of its new contract awards differed from State and USAID, which prevents 

comparability of values across the agencies. DOD reported contract dollar values based 

on the FPDS-NG field “Base and All Options Value”—the total estimated value of the 
Page 8 GAO-12-977R Iraq and Afghanistan

contract including the base contract and all options or orders. In contrast, State and 

USAID reported the amounts obligated during fiscal year 2011.

14 Using the total 

estimated value of contracts generally results in a higher value than reporting actual 

obligations in a given fiscal year. 

• State relied on FPDS-NG to identify contract values in terms of obligations for both the 

2010 and 2011 joint reports but changed its methodology, which produced slightly 

different results between the two years. For the 2010 joint report, State included values 

for all contracts including products and services identified as having performance in Iraq 

and Afghanistan. For the 2011 joint report, State excluded contracts for products and 

contracts for which the sum of all obligations during fiscal year 2011 was less than 

$100,000.15 Excluding contracts coded as products reduced State’s reported amounts 

for fiscal year 2011 by about 4 percent for both new and active contracts.

16 Excluding 

contracts with less than $100,000 in obligations reduced the amount reported for new 

contracts by less than 1 percent but increased the amount reported for active contracts 

by $235 million, or about 8.5 percent, because this methodology excluded a number of 

contracts for which funds were deobligated in fiscal year 2011. 

In addition, State’s presentation of contract values differed from DOD and USAID. State 

aggregated contract values for Iraq and Afghanistan, presenting a single value for the 

two countries. In contrast, DOD and USAID report contract values by country. This 

difference precludes the calculation of contract values for each country across the three 

agencies. 

• For the 2010 joint report, USAID used its financial management system (Phoenix) as the 

primary data source for contracts because its contract writing system that feeds data into 

FPDS-NG was deployed in Iraq but not Afghanistan. As a result, not all contract 

information from Afghanistan was entered into FPDS-NG. For the 2011 joint report, 

USAID used FPDS-NG for the source of contract information because the contract 

writing system had been deployed in Afghanistan and, therefore, USAID officials had 

greater confidence in the FPDS-NG data. 

For both the 2010 and 2011 joint reports, all three agencies provided data on the extent of 

competition or competitive procedures used for contract awards. DOD changed its data 

source for competition information from FPDS-NG to SPOT for the 2011 joint report. FPDSNG identifies the specific competitive procedures used, while SPOT reports competition in a 

yes/no field that does not provide the same level of detail. In contrast, State and USAID 

presented the more detailed contract competition information available through FPDS-NG. 

However, those two agencies did not provide information, as required, on the extent to 

which competitive procedures were used to award their assistance instruments.

In developing information on contractor and assistance personnel, including those 

performing security functions, DOD, State, and USAID used the same data sources they 

had used for the 2010 joint report. However, we identified some differences in methodology 

and, in one case, errors in the 2011 joint report. 

 

14The amount obligated or deobligated by each transaction.

15State officials plan to exclude contracts with obligations of less than $150,000 from next year’s joint report to 

reflect the revised simplified acquisitions threshold. 

16State used the FPDS-NG product and service code to identify and exclude contracts for products. FPDS-NG 

allows only one code per record based on the preponderance of the contract value but a contract can include 

both products and services.
Page 9 GAO-12-977R Iraq and Afghanistan

• USAID counted contractor and assistance personnel differently for Iraq and Afghanistan 

and, for Afghanistan, made changes in how those personnel numbers were presented in 

the joint report. For Iraq, for both the 2010 and 2011 reports, USAID presented the 

number of personnel working under its contracts and assistance instruments at the end 

of each quarter, which is also how DOD and State presented their personnel information. 

In contrast, for Afghanistan, USAID presented the number of personnel hired throughout 

each quarter but used different methods to report those numbers for the two years. For 

fiscal year 2010, the quarterly personnel numbers for Afghanistan represented the 

incremental number of new hires. For example, if 1,000 personnel were hired in the first 

quarter and in the second quarter an additional 500 were hired and 500 were fired—

ending with 1,000, USAID would have reported 500 personnel for the second quarter. In 

the 2011 joint report, the numbers represented the cumulative number of new hires 

reported for each quarter. Therefore, using the example above, USAID would have 

reported 1,500 personnel for the second quarter. USAID did not disclose the basis for 

these numbers or the change in methodology from 2010 to 2011 in the joint report, 

which could lead to incorrect conclusions about the number of USAID contractor and 

assistance personnel in Afghanistan, particularly when compared to USAID’s number for 

Iraq or the other agencies’ personnel numbers. USAID officials told us that for the joint 

report covering fiscal year 2012, they plan to change the presentation of personnel in 

Afghanistan from the number hired throughout each quarter to the number working at 

the end of each quarter.

• State relied on SPOT to determine contractor personnel numbers for both the 2010 and 

2011 joint reports, including those performing security functions. However, our review of 

State’s fiscal year 2011 data identified a calculation error that resulted in both an overand under-statement for security personnel in Afghanistan for each quarter reported. For 

one quarter, we found that this error undercounted personnel by 383 individuals, or 

26 percent, but for another quarter over counted personnel by 173 individuals, or 

10 percent.

• DOD did not change its data source or methodology for identifying the number of 

contractor personnel, as it continues to utilize the U.S. Central Command quarterly 

contractor census until the reliability of SPOT data improves. As we previously reported, 

DOD has experienced challenges collecting accurate and reliable census data on local 

national contractor personnel, particularly in Afghanistan. These challenges include 

fluctuating numbers and work at remote locations, which make it difficult for DOD 

officials to validate the data. Although DOD officials told us they continue to face 

challenges counting local national contractor personnel, they indicated increased 

confidence in the reported numbers. 

To identify the number of contractor and assistance personnel killed or wounded, the 

three agencies used the same data sources and methodologies for both the 2010 and 2011 

joint reports. Although SPOT has the functionality to track information on personnel killed or 

wounded, contractor firms do not generally enter this information. As a result, none of the 

three agencies used SPOT to report this information. The joint report noted challenges 

obtaining this information through SPOT. For example, the agencies expressed uncertainty 

as to the scope of the requirement to report contractor personnel who are killed or wounded; 

specifically, whether this should include only those personnel killed or wounded as a result 

of hostile actions or should also include those who died or were injured in non-hostile 

incidents, such as car accidents. 
Page 10 GAO-12-977R Iraq and Afghanistan

Efforts Taken to Improve SPOT Data Reliability and Functionality

Efforts to Improve Data Reliability

In an effort to improve the reliability of the data in SPOT, DOD and State officials informed 

us that they are continuing to regularly validate data regarding the number of contractor and 

assistance personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, USAID officials told us that given 

the fact they do not generally use SPOT for management purposes because it does not 

meet their mission needs, they have not taken steps to validate or otherwise improve the 

reliability of the data in SPOT. 

Since January 2010, DOD has had a process in place—known as SPOT-Plus—to reconcile 

contractor personnel numbers from SPOT with the quarterly U.S. Central Command 

contractor census. Through this process, DOD distributes SPOT-populated templates to 

DOD contracting activities for quarterly review to identify information that needs to be 

corrected or entered into SPOT, which DOD officials told us has improved its completeness 

and accuracy. They explained that they will continue comparing SPOT and census data for 

all contracting offices within each DOD agency until SPOT data reaches a confidence level

of 85 percent.

17 That is, the same personnel are counted in the census as in SPOT. At that 

point they plan to discontinue the census for that agency and rely on SPOT for contractor 

personnel information for the joint report. They noted that once agencies are dropped from 

the census, DOD plans to conduct random samplings to ensure they maintain this level of 

confidence. According to DOD officials, 8 DOD agencies out of 13 have achieved the 

85 percent confidence level and are no longer participating in the quarterly census. DOD 

officials explained that the category of contractor personnel that still presents a challenge to 

reaching the 85 percent confidence level is local national personnel, due to a lack of 

identification information, such as unique names or identification numbers. In contrast, the 

officials expressed a relatively high level of confidence in the reliability of data in SPOT on 

U.S. citizen contractor personnel. 

State officials also explained that they are continuing to review SPOT data on a monthly 

basis in an effort to improve data reliability. State officials responsible for the joint report 

receive monthly rosters from the State bureaus with contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan, which 

they use to reconcile and correct personnel data in SPOT. As a result of these efforts, State 

officials told us that they are increasingly confident in the reliability of personnel data in 

SPOT.

 

Efforts to Improve Functionality

In our prior work, we identified a number of challenges associated with the agencies’ 

implementation of SPOT and the system’s functionality. In 2009, we recommended that 

DOD, State, and USAID develop a joint plan for addressing SPOT’s limitations, such as 

establishing uniform requirements for contract number entry. DOD and State disagreed with 

the need for a plan to address the issues we identified. They cited ongoing coordination 

efforts and planned upgrades to SPOT as sufficient. While USAID did not address our 

recommendation, it noted plans to continue meeting with DOD and State regarding SPOT. 

Our work in 2011, in which we identified several practical and technical challenges that 

continued to affect SPOT’s ability to track statutorily required data, demonstrated that many 

of the issues with the agencies’ implementation of SPOT that our recommendation was 

 

17Each DOD agency has multiple contracting offices or components for which that agency retains oversight. For 

example, the Department of the Army is an agency with 67 contracting offices that are tracked individually under 

the census. Each of these 67 contracting offices must reach the 85 percent confidence level before the 

Department of the Army as a whole will be removed from the manual census requirement.
Page 11 GAO-12-977R Iraq and Afghanistan

intended to address had not been resolved. In particular, the agencies had not assessed 

their respective informational needs or determined how SPOT could be best implemented to 

meet those needs. 

Although the agencies have still not implemented our 2009 recommendation, the SPOT 

Program Office has implemented several changes intended to improve the system’s 

functionality that may address some previously identified limitations. Not all of these 

changes were in place in time to facilitate the agencies’ efforts to prepare the 2011 joint 

report, but according to agency officials, they should help with the preparation of future 

reports. 

SPOT job titles are standardized. We previously found that SPOT could not be used to 

reliably distinguish contractor personnel performing security functions from other contractor 

personnel. Specifically, categorizing personnel by job title, which is a SPOT data field, was 

problematic because, according to SPOT managers, the system had many job titles to 

choose from and contractor firms could also enter their own job titles. To address this issue, 

in March 2012 the SPOT Program Office standardized and reduced the available job titles, 

as well as removed the capability for contractor firms to enter their own job titles. For job 

titles, SPOT now uses the Department of Labor’s occupational categories and descriptions. 

According to SPOT program officials, this change should make it easier to categorize 

personnel by their jobs, which may help facilitate the identification of contractor personnel 

performing security functions. 

SPOT can track task orders and subawards. As we previously reported, SPOT did not 

provide a reliable means of obtaining information on task orders and subawards. The 

statutory requirement to track information on contracts and assistance instruments includes 

a requirement to track comparable information on task and delivery orders as well as 

subcontracts. In August 2011, SPOT was modified to allow for the identification of task 

orders and subawards, and users can now associate contractor personnel deployments with 

the specific task order or subaward they support. This should facilitate tracking of these 

statutorily required data, according to SPOT program officials.

SPOT has a limited link to FPDS-NG. We previously reported that SPOT could not be 

used to obtain financial and competition information on contracts as agreed to in the MOUs 

because it lacked a link to FPDS-NG. In January 2012, SPOT program managers linked 

FPDS-NG to SPOT through the Total Operational Picture Support System (TOPSS), which 

is the reporting and analysis component of SPOT. This link provides a limited connection to 

FPDS-NG information and allows users to query TOPSS to obtain total contract values. 

However, through our discussions with agency officials, we identified several limitations with 

the FPDS-NG link.

• The link cannot be used to populate SPOT with other contract data, such as contract 

numbers, dates, or competition information. As a result, SPOT users must still manually 

enter this information. 

• Based on our review of the TOPSS contract value reports for all three agencies, about 

17 percent of contracts in SPOT could not be linked to data in FPDS-NG. According to 

SPOT Program Office officials, this occurred because there was no match between the 

contract numbers in SPOT and those in FPDS-NG.18

 

18In November 2010, the SPOT Program Office modified SPOT to require DOD users to enter contract numbers 

in a standardized format that can be matched with information in FPDS-NG, but contract number formats for 

State and USAID users are not similarly standardized. 

 
Page 12 GAO-12-977R Iraq and Afghanistan

• As FPDS-NG only contains information on contracts, the link does not provide a means 

to obtain information on the value of assistance instruments and whether they were 

competed. According to DOD officials, State and USAID officials have not requested a 

link to their systems that contain assistance instrument information.

In April 2011, SPOT was modified to address concerns cited by State and USAID officials

and contractor firms and assistance recipients that the safety of local nationals could be at 

risk should SPOT, with its detailed personal information, be compromised. The system now 

allows users to enter the aggregate number of personnel working under a contract or 

assistance instrument, rather than requiring personnel to be entered individually with 

personally identifiable information. This provides a means of counting local nationals 

working under contracts and assistance instruments who previously were not entered into 

the system. The 2011 joint report was the first joint report to incorporate information from the 

aggregate count function. However, the use of this function appears relatively limited. State 

was the only agency to use SPOT directly for personnel numbers in the joint report. Of 

State’s personnel numbers, for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011, the number of 

personnel entered aggregately was less than 2 percent of all personnel in Iraq and about 

16 percent in Afghanistan. USAID officials explained that while they have entered aggregate 

personnel information into SPOT, doing so is not a priority because they regard other 

sources that collect such information as better meeting their mission needs and entering the 

information into SPOT would be duplicative. For example, USAID created the Afghan Info 

database to help manage its development projects and associated personnel in 

Afghanistan. They, therefore, used Afghan Info instead of SPOT’s aggregate count function 

to develop the numbers presented in the joint report. DOD officials told us they generally do 

not use the aggregate count function as DOD’s policy continues to require most personnel 

working under contracts that meet reporting thresholds to be entered by name into SPOT.

While these changes to SPOT are intended to improve the system’s functionality and 

address aspects of our 2009 recommendation, their implementation is relatively recent. It is, 

therefore, not yet clear whether these changes are sufficient to improve the system to the 

point that agencies could rely primarily on SPOT to prepare the joint report. In addition, 

these changes do not address the fact that the agencies cannot rely on SPOT to report on 

the number of personnel killed or wounded. Although SPOT has the functionality to record 

this information, none of the agencies identified efforts to improve compliance in entering 

this information into the system. Further, officials at State and USAID indicated a reluctance 

to invest in SPOT’s continued development since they have other systems that provide them 

with information on contracts, assistance instruments, and associated personnel that better 

meet their mission needs. State officials also questioned whether such continued 

development is needed as the number of contractor and assistance personnel in Iraq and 

Afghanistan is expected to decrease. As a result, the agencies will likely continue to rely on 

other sources of information for the joint report.

Agencies Primarily Use SPOT to Manage Contractor Personnel 

Officials from each of the three agencies told us that they primarily use SPOT to help 

manage and oversee contractor personnel and their deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

as opposed to using the system to help manage, oversee, or coordinate contracting. As 

such, DOD officials explained that they use the system to track and manage contractor 

personnel deployments at locations throughout combatant commands and to generate 

documents that authorize contractor personnel to use U.S. government services, such as 

medical and dining services. Similarly, State and USAID officials told us that they primarily 

use the system to generate authorizations for the use of government services in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. 
Page 13 GAO-12-977R Iraq and Afghanistan

Instead of using SPOT to help manage contracts, officials from the three agencies identified 

other systems and mechanisms used to facilitate management as well as coordination. For 

example, State uses its Integrated Logistics Management System to manage its contracts, 

while USAID uses its Global Acquisition and Assistance System. In addition to having its 

own systems to manage contracts, DOD also uses its Joint Contingency Contracting System 

to maintain information on local vendors in Afghanistan. Additionally, officials identified 

mechanisms beyond SPOT to coordinate contracting among and within their agencies. For 

example, State and DOD officials explained that the Executive Steering Groups for Iraq and 

Afghanistan, which involve senior officials from those departments, regularly meet to 

coordinate on contracting issues. State officials told us that in preparation for the transition 

from a DOD to State-led presence in Iraq, they held regular teleconferences, during which 

they were able to coordinate with about 20 DOD contracting entities at one time. In addition, 

a DOD contracting command in Afghanistan identified steps it has taken, such as assigning 

liaisons, to help U.S. Forces-Afghanistan determine the level of contractor support needed 

as they plan for the drawdown of U.S. forces and to ensure that contractor support is 

synchronized with operations. This should help ensure that contracts are ended as bases 

close or that, for bases that will remain open, support contracts are transitioned to longerterm contractual relationships. The officials noted that SPOT and other systems, such as 

FPDS-NG, can provide data to help inform their coordination discussions and efforts.

DOD officials told us that although SPOT was not designed to be a planning tool, as the 

quality of its data improves, they anticipate using data from the system more to help inform 

planning efforts. For example, U.S. Central Command officials have already used such data 

to help generate forecasting reports identifying resource requirements, including food and 

other services provided to contractor personnel. In addition, DOD officials told us they plan 

to use the system to help manage contractor personnel and equipment during the drawdown 

in Afghanistan. For example, data taken from SPOT on the number of contractor personnel 

and their equipment at a particular location could be used to create projections to help 

develop a plan for effectively and efficiently drawing down the number of contractor 

personnel and removing equipment from that location. This would help the commander at 

that location ensure that services, such as security, continue as contractor personnel 

transfer out. DOD officials told us that U.S. Central Command is working to identify 

additional data fields, such as those related to equipment, to be added in SPOT that could 

facilitate planning for the drawdown. Such additions would not only be useful for Afghanistan 

but could have utility for future DOD missions. However, a senior DOD contracting official in 

Afghanistan noted that use of the system as a planning tool is entirely dependent on the 

validity of the data and expressed confidence that the data are relatively accurate.

Conclusions

Congress has directed DOD, State, and USAID to report annually on specific information 

regarding contracts and assistance instruments with performance in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Such data are a starting point for providing decision makers, both at the agencies and in 

Congress, with a clearer understanding of the extent to which they rely on contractors and 

assistance instrument recipients and for facilitating oversight to improve planning and better 

account for costs. Although the agencies designated SPOT as their system of record for the 

statutorily required information on contracts, assistance instruments, and associated 

personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no requirement for the agencies to use the 

system to prepare their joint reports or for other purposes. As was the case with their 2010 

joint report, the agencies primarily relied on other sources of data—sources that they view 

as more reliable—for their 2011 joint report. Regardless of what data systems the agencies 

rely on, the usefulness of the resulting joint report has been limited by differences in 

methodology, definitions, and presentation. These differences prevent decision makers from 
Page 14 GAO-12-977R Iraq and Afghanistan

using information in the report to compare across agencies and obtain an overall accurate 

picture of contracting and assistance activities in Iraq and Afghanistan over time. 

Recommendation for Executive Action

To ensure that the agencies provide Congress with comparable information across agencies 

and years on contracts, assistance instruments, and associated personnel with performance 

in Iraq and Afghanistan, we recommend that the Secretaries of Defense and State and the 

Administrator of USAID work together to standardize the methodologies used to obtain and 

present information contained in the annual joint report on contracting in Iraq and 

Afghanistan to the greatest extent possible. 

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to DOD, State, and USAID for their review and comment. 

The three agencies agreed with our recommendation, acknowledging the value of having 

standardized methodologies and presentations in the joint report, and indicated they would 

work together to do so. Written comments provided by DOD, State, and USAID appear in 

enclosures I, II, and III, respectively. 

***

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, 

and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as 

interested congressional committees. The report also is available at no charge on the GAO 

website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 

512-4841 or huttonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations 

and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff that made major 

contributions to this report are listed in enclosure IV. 

John P. Hutton

Director

Acquisition and Sourcing Management

Enclosures — 4
Page 15 GAO-12-977R Iraq and Afghanistan

List of Committees

The Honorable Carl Levin 

Chairman 

The Honorable John McCain 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate 

The Honorable John Kerry 

Chairman 

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Foreign Relations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman 

Chairman 

The Honorable Susan M. Collins 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Chairman 

The Honorable Saxby Chambliss 

Vice Chairman 

Select Committee on Intelligence 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon 

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives

The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Chairman 

The Honorable Howard L. Berman 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Darrell E. Issa 

Chairman 

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

House of Representatives 
Page 16 GAO-12-977R Iraq and Afghanistan

The Honorable Michael Rogers 

Chairman 

The Honorable C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger 

Ranking Member 

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 

House of Representatives
Page 17 GAO-12-977R Iraq and Afghanistan

Enclosure I: Comments from the Department of Defense
Page 18 GAO-12-977R Iraq and Afghanistan

Enclosure I: Comments from the Department of Defense (cont’d)
Page 19 GAO-12-977R Iraq and Afghanistan

Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of State
Page 20 GAO-12-977R Iraq and Afghanistan

Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of State (cont’d)
Page 21 GAO-12-977R Iraq and Afghanistan

Enclosure III: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development
Page 22 GAO-12-977R Iraq and Afghanistan

Enclosure III: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development (cont’d)
Page 23 GAO-12-977R Iraq and Afghanistan

Enclosure IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

John P. Hutton, (202) 512-4841 or huttonj@gao.gov. 

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Johana R. Ayers, Assistant Director; Carole Coffey; 

Burns Chamberlain Eckert; Kasea Hamar; David Hancock; Julia Kennon; Bradley Terry; and 

Alyssa Weir made key contributions to this report. 

(121049)
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.