United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

February 1995 FEDERALLY FUNDED

R&D CENTERS

Executive

Compensation at The

Aerospace Corporation

GAO/NSIAD-95-75

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-259373 

February 7, 1995

The Honorable William F. Clinger, Jr.

Chairman

The Honorable Cardiss Collins

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

House of Representatives

As requested, we are reviewing the financial and management practices of

The Aerospace Corporation, which operates a federally funded research

and development center (FFRDC) sponsored by the Air Force. This report

discusses the salary and other benefits provided to Aerospace’s corporate

officers and other senior management personnel and includes information

on Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audits on Aerospace

compensation costs and congressional actions regarding FFRDC

compensation. This report does not draw conclusions about the

comparability or reasonableness of Aerospace executive compensation.

As agreed with your offices, we plan to report later on other issues you

asked us to review at Aerospace.

Results in Brief As of September 1994, Aerospace employed 32 senior management

personnel (referred to as Aerospace executives), 12 of which were

corporate officers. The officers’ total annual compensation averaged about

$240,200 and their annual salary averaged about $176,400. Corporate

officers’ benefits included a retirement plan that is not available to senior

management personnel or other employees. The total annual

compensation for the other 20 Aerospace executives that were not

corporate officers averaged about $154,300 and their annual salary

averaged about $139,500.

From September 1991 to September 1994, total salary cost for all

Aerospace executives increased by 78 percent, from about $2.75 million to

about $4.91 million, primarily due to salary increases of up to 29 percent

for individual executives during 1992 and a 45-percent increase in the

number of executives from 22 to 32 between 1991 and 1994. During that

time, the average annual executive salary increased by 23 percent, from

about $125,000 to about $153,300. Aerospace officials told us that

increasing both the salaries and the number of executives were sound

management decisions based on the best information available at the time

and were justified for a number of reasons, including to better align

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-95-75 Federally Funded R&D Centers
B-259373 

Aerospace with its customers. In addition, in 1993, Aerospace paid two

executives hiring bonuses of $30,000 each. Aerospace classified these

bonuses as nonreimbursable costs, consistent with the Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR).

Between September 1991 and September 1994, the number of

nonexecutive employees at Aerospace decreased by 17 percent, from 3,973

to 3,303. This decrease, coupled with the increase in the number of

executives, reduced the ratio of executives to total nonexecutive

employees from 1 per 181 employees to 1 per 103 employees.

In an audit started in response to Aerospace’s June 1992 salary increases,

DCAA initially questioned the reasonableness of corporate officers’ salaries

and fringe benefits. In its final report, however, DCAA no longer questioned

the reasonableness of corporate officers’ salaries but recommended that

Aerospace provide further support for corporate officers’ fringe benefits.

The Air Force and Aerospace have been working to resolve the issues

raised by DCAA’s audit.

Fiscal year 1995 appropriations legislation limits employee compensation

at the Department of Defense (DOD) FFRDCs, effective July 1, 1995, to a rate

not to exceed Executive Schedule Level I. As of September 30, 1994, 16

Aerospace executives had annual salaries of more than $148,400, the

current Executive Schedule Level I salary amount.

Background Aerospace is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation that provides

scientific and technical support, principally general systems engineering

and integration services, for the Air Force and other government agencies.

Aerospace is headquartered in El Segundo, California, and has offices

throughout the United States. The corporation, established in 1960, is

governed by a 19-member Board of Trustees in accordance with its articles

of incorporation and bylaws.

FFRDCs are funded solely or substantially by federal agencies to meet

special long-term research or development needs that cannot be met as

effectively by existing in-house or contracting resources. One federal

agency serves as the primary sponsor and signs an agreement specifying

the purpose, terms, and other provisions for the FFRDC’s existence.

Agreement terms cannot exceed 5 years but can be extended after a

review of the continued use and need for the FFRDC. Federal regulations

regarding FFRDC policy encourage long-term relationships between the

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-95-75 Federally Funded R&D Centers
B-259373 

federal government and FFRDCs to provide the continuity that will attract

high-quality personnel.

Aerospace’s primary sponsor is the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for

Acquisition. The Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC),

located adjacent to Aerospace in El Segundo, has day-to-day management

responsibility. SMC negotiates annual cost plus fixed-fee contracts with

Aerospace. The DOD funding ceiling for Aerospace in fiscal year 1994 was

$365.8 million. Aerospace employed 3,335 personnel at the end of fiscal

year 1994 and had an annual payroll of about $208 million.

Aerospace’s typical practice in establishing compensation levels is to

recommend an annual salary adjustment to the Board of Trustees for final

approval. According to company policy, such recommendations are to be

based on an assessment of competitive salary positions, increases and rate

structure adjustments at other aerospace industry firms, and other

economic considerations.

Compensation to Aerospace employees is primarily paid from government

contracts, which represent over 99 percent of the company’s total business

revenue. A small portion is paid out of government contract fees,

nongovernment contracts and fees, interest income, and other sources.

Aerospace compensation is reviewed by the Air Force for reasonableness

during its annual contract negotiations. The Air Force routinely requests

that DCAA review Aerospace’s proposed compensation costs and uses its

recommendations during contract negotiations.

Total Executive

Compensation

Aerospace corporate officers, in addition to their annual salary, receive

the standard benefit package that is available to all employees and several

additional benefits that are available only to them. Standard benefits

include social security contributions, a retirement plan, medical insurance,

dental insurance, long-term disability insurance, and life insurance.

Additional corporate officer benefits are a supplemental corporate

officers’ retirement plan; personal use of a company automobile; airline

upgrade coupons; and, in the case of two officers, a home security system.

Table 1 summarizes the total fiscal year 1994 compensation provided to

Aerospace’s 12 corporate officers and 20 senior managers based on actual

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-95-75 Federally Funded R&D Centers
B-259373 

benefits paid and salaries as of September 30, 1994.1 (See app. I for a

further breakdown.)

Table 1: Total Aerospace Executives

Compensation Paid in Fiscal Year 1994 Corporate officers Senior managers

Compensation Total cost Average cost Total cost Average cost

Annual salary $2,116,712 $176,393 $2,789,192 $139,460

Standard benefits 179,494 14,958 297,495 14,875

Other corporate officer

benefits:

Retirement plan a 488,000 40,667 e e

Personal auto use b 61,534 5,128 e e

Airline upgrade coupons 23,550 1,963 e e

Home security systems c 13,146 1,096 e e

Total benefits $765,724 $63,810 $297,495 $14,875

Total compensation $2,882,436 $240,203 $3,086,687d $154,334

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

aCurrent year costs for retired and former corporate officers and prior year adjustments totaling

$219,000 were not included.

bPersonal automobile use cost of $5,426 was not included for two former corporate officers.

cHome security system cost included $11,544 for the system of one corporate officer, which was

paid in fiscal year 1994 from fees received on an international contract to cover home security

costs for the period of January 1994 to January 2001.

dThese costs do not include a one-time hiring bonus of $30,000 for a senior manager.

eNot applicable.

Executive Salaries From September 1991 to September 1994, the average annual salary for all

Aerospace executives (corporate officers and senior management

personnel) increased by 23 percent, from about $125,000 to about

$153,300. The average salary for corporate officers increased from about

$135,100 to about $176,400, or 31 percent, and the average salary for senior

managers increased from about $115,000 to about $139,500, or 21 percent.

During those 3 years, the total cost of salaries for Aerospace executives

increased by 78 percent, from about $2.75 million to about $4.91 million,

primarily due to salary increases of up to 29 percent for individual

executives during 1992 and a 45-percent increase in the number of

1

Table 1 describes total Aerospace executive compensation, including salaries and other benefits. The

FAR defines fringe benefits as including paid absences; however, we included paid absences in salary.

Therefore, for this reason and other methodology differences, the total benefits shown in table 1 and

appendix I are different than they would be using the strict FAR definition.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-95-75 Federally Funded R&D Centers
B-259373 

executives from 22 to 32. Salaries included paid absences, such as

vacations, holidays, and sick leave. Table 2 shows the number and total

salaries of Aerospace executives as of September 1991 and

September 1994 and the percent increase for both.

Table 2: Increase in Number of Executives and Salary Cost Between September 1991 and September 1994

September 1991 September 1994 Percent increase

Type of executivea Number

Total annual

salary cost Number

Total annual

salary costs Number

Annual salary

cost

Corporate officer 11 $1,486,500 12 $2,116,700 9 42

Senior manager 11 1,264,200 20 2,789,200 82 121

Total 22 $2,750,700 32 $4,905,900 45 78

aAll managers at pay levels 5 through 7.

Aerospace increased the average salary of its executives by about

18 percent in 1992, from about $132,900 to about $156,600. Most of this

increase occurred by implementing a special, one-time increase in

June 1992 that averaged 13 percent and by giving a merit pay increase in

December 1992. (See app. II for more details.)

Aerospace justified the June 1992 pay increase based on the need to bring

its salaries more in line with industry salaries and resolve a pay

compression problem that had developed between technical staff

managers and their subordinates. Although Aerospace notified the 

Air Force 3 weeks before implementing the increase, the Air Force

expressed concern that Aerospace did not present the salary increase and

supporting documentation to the government in time to allow the Air

Force to review the increase and determine its reasonableness.

According to the Air Force, the salary increase represented a major

change to Aerospace’s compensation package and the process used by

Aerospace was inconsistent with SMC’s environment of trust and

teamwork. Even though the Air Force allowed the salary increase, it

requested a DCAA audit of Aerospace’s compensation and warned

Aerospace that the government would request full reimbursement of any

costs determined to be unreasonable.

Aerospace told us that it believes that SMC’s environment of trust and

teamwork has continued throughout this period and that it notified the 

Air Force immediately after its Board of Trustees approved the salary

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-95-75 Federally Funded R&D Centers
B-259373 

adjustment, which was based on a sound business position and the best

information available at the time. Aerospace also noted that the FAR does

not mandate prior contracting officer review; it only mandates that there

will be no presumption of allowability when a contractor introduces major

revisions of existing compensation plans and has not notified the

contracting officer either before implementation or within a reasonable

period after implementation. Aerospace maintained that the salary

increase did not represent a major revision to its existing compensation

plan. Further, Aerospace advised us that the salary adjustment occurred

during fiscal years 1992-93, when it was confidently looking toward an

increased budget and workload. Even though an unanticipated downturn

in Aerospace employment occurred, the increase only restored salaries to

market levels, in Aerospace’s view. However, Aerospace records provided

to us showed that, before the June 1992 salary increase, Aerospace

reduced its employment by 423 (272 technical staff and 151 nontechnical

staff) through a reduction in force in November 1990 and a retirement

incentive program in November 1991.

No merit salary increases were given in December 1993, but 13 executives

received additional salary increases since December 1992 through 

13 promotions.

From September 1991 to September 1994, Aerospace increased the

number of its executives by 45 percent, from 22 to 32. During the same

period, Aerospace nonexecutive employment decreased by about

17 percent, from 3,973 to 3,303. As a result, the ratio of executives to

nonexecutive employment decreased from 1 per 181 employees to 1 per

103 employees. Aerospace did not, and is not required by the past or

current contracts to, obtain Air Force approval for changing the number of

executives. Table 3 compares the number of executives and the total

number of employees since September 1991.

Table 3: Aerospace Employment From

September 1991 to September 1994 Number of employees

Type of employee 9/30/91 9/30/92 9/30/93 9/30/94

Corporate officer 11 12 12 12

Senior manager 11 14 17 20

Total executives 22 26 29 32

Total other employees 3,973 3,770 3,739 3,303

Number of other employees per

executive 181 145 129 103

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-95-75 Federally Funded R&D Centers
B-259373 

Aerospace gave us many reasons for increasing the number of executives,

including satisfying customer requirements and customer reorganizations

and its continuing efforts to improve customer support. For example,

when the SMC chief engineer position was expanded to emphasize

horizontal engineering and integrated product teams, Aerospace said it

added a corporate chief engineer to interface with SMC’s chief engineer.

Also, it said that a general manager position was created in its Colorado

division to improve support to the U.S. Space Command and the Air Force

Space Command and consolidate seven different Aerospace organizational

units at that division. Aerospace cited other factors, such as more robust

succession planning and creating a senior manager position to better

distinguish FFRDC and non-FFRDC activities, in response to recent

congressional focus on FFRDC activities. It also concluded that increasing

the number of senior managers would increase the leverage of the

corporate officers. Aerospace noted that, even though the number of

executives increased, the total number of managers decreased and the

cost per member of the technical staff decreased. Aerospace further

concluded that the pressure to downsize programs required adding some

higher level managers with a broader perspective to support the Air Force

and that the total number of employees decreased because of funding

ceilings, not workload.

Hiring Bonuses In 1993, Aerospace paid two executives hiring bonuses of $30,000 each.

Aerospace informed us that the hiring bonuses were needed, over and

above an initial annual salary of $155,000, to hire these two individuals and

that the special circumstances of each offer were reviewed and approved

by Aerospace’s Board of Trustees.

Aerospace initially reported these two hiring bonuses as

government-reimbursable costs in June and October 1993. Subsequently,

Aerospace reclassified these costs as nonreimbursable expenses in

accordance with the FAR in July 1994 and December 1993, respectively.

Aerospace commented that these were one-time bonuses that were paid in

only two special cases for employees that had successfully discharged

important responsibilities.

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-95-75 Federally Funded R&D Centers
B-259373 

DCAA Audit of

Aerospace

Compensation Costs

After the Air Force’s request in June 1992, DCAA initiated a review of

Aerospace’s compensation. On December 9, 1993, DCAA issued its report,

which was subsequently revised three times.2 DCAA compared Aerospace

positions with comparable compensation market survey data and used FAR

criteria to initially conclude that Aerospace had provided $616,846 and

$4,092,954 in unreasonable compensation for fiscal years 1992 and 1993,

respectively. The FAR criteria call for general conformity with

compensation practices of other firms of the same size, in the same

industry, and in the same geographic area that are engaged in

predominantly nongovernment business.3

Aerospace objected to the comparable compensation market survey DCAA

used because it included a number of industries and corporations that

Aerospace judged had no comparability to the technical education and

experience of the FFRDC staff. Aerospace’s objection was that the FAR

provides, in part, that the relevant fact is the general conformity with the

compensation practice of other firms of the same size, industry, and

geographic area. Aerospace noted that its own compensation survey

included companies with which it competes for scientific and engineering

talent.

Aerospace also objected to the market compensation survey data used by

DCAA because it did not include bonuses and other monetary compensation

of the comparison group. Since Aerospace officers do not receive

performance bonuses, Aerospace informed DCAA in December 1993 that all

renumeration must be used for a valid comparison. DCAA agreed and, as a

result of using additional data, issued a revised report in January 1994,

which no longer questioned the reasonableness of corporate officers’

salaries and reduced the compensation costs considered unreasonable for

other employees. DCAA made further revisions to its report in February and

March 1994 to (1) use more current compensation market survey data;

(2) challenge, rather than classify as unreasonable, corporate officer fringe

benefit costs because Aerospace had not performed a fringe benefit

market survey to justify the costs; and (3) adjust the amount of

unreasonable compensation to include only that portion of fringe benefits

costs that were determined based on a percentage of base salaries.

2

DCAA issued two supplemental audit reports and one memorandum, each updating the findings in the

December 9, 1993, report. DCAA said that these revisions were in response to additional, more current

information provided by Aerospace. The memorandum directed that 18 pages of the prior

supplemental report be replaced because of an error found in a calculation.

3

DCAA’s audit involved reviewing the compensation of Aerospace’s corporate officers, managers of

members of the technical staff, and certain nonsupervisory personnel for a total of 104 positions.

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-95-75 Federally Funded R&D Centers
B-259373 

DCAA’s fourth and final memorandum reduced the costs classified as

unreasonable compensation to $306,809 and $1,788,612 for fiscal years

1992 and 1993, respectively. DCAA informed us that these revisions were

done after consideration of additional, more current information. In

addition, the final report also challenged $2,124,291 for fiscal year 1993

due to the lack of adequate supporting documentation. DCAA’s final

memorandum also stated that Aerospace should have provided the

government an opportunity to review the reasonableness of the June 1992

increase. DCAA concluded that it was unreasonable for Aerospace to

increase salaries by a significant percentage at a time when other

industries were implementing cost-saving measures and planning smaller

salary increase budgets in response to DOD downsizing and other economic

conditions that have resulted in major cutbacks of employees. Appendix

III summarizes the four DCAA products.

Aerospace objected to each of DCAA’s products, including the final one. It

concluded that, despite some improvements, DCAA still used inappropriate

data and reached erroneous conclusions. Aerospace also said that DCAA’s

statements were unsupported opinions and that its actions to redress the

then-existing salary situation were entirely reasonable. In addition,

Aerospace stated that it had complied with FAR requirements by providing

the government with notice of the salary increase before implementation.

After the DCAA compensation audit reports and subsequent fiscal year 1994

contract negotiations between the Air Force and Aerospace, additional

provisions were placed in the fiscal year 1994 contract with Aerospace for

determining reasonable technical staff compensation costs. First, the Air

Force and Aerospace agreed that about $1.4 million of Aerospace’s billings

would not be paid until the Air Force determined the reasonableness of

the cost of Aerospace’s supervisory and nonsupervisory technical staff

salaries. To assist the Air Force in making this determination, Aerospace

was to provide current and accurate job descriptions and use a

compensation market survey agreed to by the government. Second,

Aerospace was to commission an independent survey to establish a

reasonable executive fringe benefit level. Third, to resolve the notification

issue, Aerospace is to notify the contracting officer at least 60 days before

announcing any major salary adjustment that was not planned or included

in the estimated contract cost. As of December 1994, Aerospace and

government contracting representatives were in the process of

implementing these contractual provisions and clarifying the computation

of Aerospace executive fringe benefits. According to the Air Force, the

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-95-75 Federally Funded R&D Centers
B-259373 

compensation market survey has been completed and the results are being

reviewed.

Congressional Actions

Regarding FFRDC

Compensation

DOD’s FFRDCs are privately operated contractors of the United States, and

the salaries of officers and employees have not generally been subject to

federal government pay scales. However, the Congress has at times

restricted the use of DOD appropriations to pay compensation of FFRDC

officers or employees over certain levels and has imposed notice

requirements concerning certain payments. In the Fiscal Year 1995 DOD

Appropriations Act, the Congress placed a limit on defense FFRDC

compensation after July 1, 1995. The act states that no employee or

executive officer of a defense FFRDC can be compensated from DOD

appropriations at a rate exceeding Executive Schedule Level I. The act’s

legislative history indicates that the July 1, 1995, date was selected to

allow individuals affected by the compensation limitation to adjust to its

impact. As of September 30, 1994, there were 16 Aerospace executives

with annual salaries of more than $148,400, the current Executive

Schedule Level I salary amount.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 requires, in

part, that DOD funds may not be paid to an FFRDC unless it enters into an

agreement with DOD that no officer or employee who is compensated at an

annual rate that exceeds Executive Schedule Level I will be compensated

in fiscal year 1995 at a higher rate than in fiscal year 1994 and that no such

officer or employee will be paid a bonus or provided any other financial

incentive in fiscal year 1995. This act also requires the DOD Inspector

General to review compensation paid by FFRDCs to all officers and

employees who are paid at a rate exceeding the Executive Schedule Level

I rate. According to the act, the Inspector General is to (1) assess the

validity of the data submitted by FFRDCs, justifying salaries that exceed the

Executive Schedule Level I rate; (2) compare the compensation paid to

those individuals exceeding that rate with the compensation of similar

technical and professional staff from profit and nonprofit organizations

that must compete for defense work and with government officials of

comparable expertise and responsibility; and (3) examine other

appropriate forms of nonsalary compensation, such as bonuses and

retirement plans. The results of the Inspector General’s review are to be

reported to the Senate and House Committees on Armed Services no later

than May 1, 1995.

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-95-75 Federally Funded R&D Centers
B-259373 

We are also reviewing compensation at FFRDCs sponsored by DOD, as

required by the Fiscal Year 1992 Defense Appropriations Conference

Report. This review will collect data on compensation for selected

professional, technical, and managerial employees, not just the highest

paid executives, as discussed in this report.

Scope and

Methodology

To determine the compensation Aerospace provided corporate officers

and senior managers, we reviewed Aerospace personnel and payroll

records, Board of Trustees’ minutes and resolutions, contract documents,

accounting records related to executive benefit costs, and policies and

procedures that relate to Aerospace’s compensation program. We also

reviewed DCAA compensation audit reports, supporting workpapers, and

Aerospace’s responses to the audit reports. In addition, we met with

Aerospace’s compensation and benefits officials, Air Force program and

contract administration officials responsible for overseeing the work at

Aerospace, and cognizant DCAA officials.

We conducted our work from April to December 1994 in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards. As agreed with your

office, we did not obtain written agency comments on a draft of this

report. However, we discussed our results with officials from DOD and

Aerospace and included their comments where appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the

Director, Office of Management and Budget; the Administrator, Office of

Federal Procurement Policy; and other interested congressional

committees. Copies will also be available to others on request.

Please contact me at (202) 512-4587 if you or your staff have any questions

concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in

appendix IV.

David E. Cooper

Director, Acquisition Policy, Technology,

 and Competitiveness Issues

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-95-75 Federally Funded R&D Centers
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Aerospace Executive

Compensation for

Fiscal Year 1994

14

Appendix II 

Executive Salary

Increases Between

December 1991 and

December 1992

15

Appendix III 

Summary of DCAA’s

Compensation Audit

Reports

16

Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to

This Report

17

Tables Table 1: Total Aerospace Executives Compensation Paid in Fiscal

Year 1994

4

Table 2: Increase in Number of Executives and Salary Cost

Between September 1991 and September 1994

5

Table 3: Aerospace Employment from September 1991 to

September 1994

6

Abbreviations

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation

FFRDC federally funded research and development center

DCAA Defense Contract Audit Agency

DOD Department of Defense

SMC Space and Missile Systems Center

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-95-75 Federally Funded R&D Centers
Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-95-75 Federally Funded R&D Centers
Appendix I 

Aerospace Executive Compensation for

Fiscal Year 1994

Number in position

Average annual

salarye

Average

benefits

Average total

compensation

Corporate officers

1 $265,000 $149,691a $414,691

1 202,400 48,691 251,091

3 181,467 55,109 236,576

1 155,012 70,121 225,133

5b 161,980 53,088 215,068

1 140,000 66,456 206,456

Senior managers

1c 181,100 14,953 196,053

15d 140,443 15,483 155,926

2 132,220 12,674 144,894

1 125,000 12,634 137,634

1 112,000 12,313 124,313

aIncluded in the benefit cost is a corporate officer retirement plan cost of $117,000. This plan

exceeds the amounts paid to other executives, since it is based on salary, number of years until

age 62, and time as a corporate officer.

bTwo newly appointed corporate officers were not included in the corporate officer retirement plan

cost for fiscal year 1994 because they became officers after the cost had been assigned. A cost

adjustment will be made in fiscal year 1995.

cCorporate officer retirement plan cost of $15,000 and personal use of company auto cost of

$4,821 associated with time as a corporate officer are not included.

dRetirement plan cost of $10,000 for one senior manager that was previously a corporate officer is

not included.

eAs of September 30, 1994.

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-95-75 Federally Funded R&D Centers
Appendix II 

Executive Salary Increases Between

December 1991 and December 1992

December 1991 December 1992

Type of executive Number

Average

annual salary Number

Average

annual salary

Percent increase

in average salary

Range of salary

percent increasea

Corporate officer 11 $144,327 12 $174,167 21 11 to 29

Senior manager 11 121,427 15 142,600 17 0 to 25

Total 22 $132,877 27 $156,630 18 0 to 29

aRange is only for executives that were in place as of both dates.

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-95-75 Federally Funded R&D Centers
Appendix III 

Summary of DCAA’s Compensation Audit

Reports

DCAA reportsa

Issue 12/9/93 1/26/94 2/18/94 3/17/94

Fiscal year 1992 costs

(unreasonable compensation)

Corporate officers $188,737 0 0 0

Technical staff managersb 428,109 $384,383 $384,383 $306,809

Total $616,846 $384,383 $384,383 $306,809

Fiscal year 1993 costs

(unreasonable compensation)

Corporate officers $67,388 0 0 0

Corporate officers fringe benefits 804,854 $804,854 0 0

Technical staff managersb 2,290,291 1,445,026 $1,417,330 $1,133,666

Technical staff non-supervisorsb 930,421 876,185 818,825 654,946

Total $4,092,954 $3,126,065 $2,236,155 $1,788,612

Compensation challenged

Corporate officers fringe benefits c c $1,688,579 $1,688,579

Positions with no position

descriptions available c c 435,712 435,712

Total c c $2,124,291 $2,124,291

aDCAA issued its audit report on December 9, 1993. DCAA then issued two supplemental reports

on January 26, 1994, and February 18, 1994, and one memorandum on March 17, 1994, which

was issued to correct a computation in the supplemental report.

bThe senior manager category discussed in this report is included in these DCAA categories but

is not comparable, since DCAA included personnel below pay level 5.

cNot applicable.

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-95-75 Federally Funded R&D Centers
Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Charles W. Thompson

Office of General

Counsel, Washington,

D.C.

Ernie E. Jackson

Los Angeles Field

Office

Odi Cuero

Benjamin H. Mannen

Ambrose A. McGraw

(705052) Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-95-75 Federally Funded R&D Centers
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/NSIAD-95-75 Federally Funded R&D Centers