GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Readiness and 

Management Support, Committee on 

Armed Services, U.S. Senate

November 2000 CONTRACT 

MANAGEMENT

Not Following 

Procedures 

Undermines Best 

Pricing Under GSA’s 

Schedule

GAO-01-125

Page 1 GAO-01-125 Contract Management

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 14

Appendix II: Information on Selected Orders 15

Appendix III: Comments From the General Services 

Administration 17

Appendix IV: Comments From the Office of Federal Procurement 

Policy 21

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 23
Page 2 GAO-01-125 Contract Management
Page 3 GAO-01-125 Contract Management

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548 Letr

November 28, 2000

The Honorable James M. Inhofe

Chairman

The Honorable Charles S. Robb

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Readiness and

 Management Support

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

Federal spending for goods and services has changed significantly in recent 

years. The government now spends more on services—ranging from basic 

maintenance to running computer systems—than on supplies and 

equipment. The government acquisition process has also changed in terms 

of how the government buys. In particular, the process has become more 

streamlined as new contract vehicles and techniques have allowed 

agencies to buy what they need much faster than in the past.1

 To streamline 

its own acquisitions, the Department of Defense (DOD) is making 

extensive use of contracts awarded by other agencies, including contracts 

that the General Services Administration (GSA) awards to multiple 

companies supplying comparable products and services under the Federal 

Supply Schedule.2

In view of concerns that there is inadequate oversight and accountability 

over using new contract vehicles and techniques to acquire services faster, 

you requested that we assess whether DOD is using the Federal Supply 

Schedule to purchase information technology services in a manner that 

maximizes competition. As agreed with your offices, our specific objectives 

were to assess whether contracting officers were following established 

procedures to ensure fair and reasonable prices and whether guidance and 

regulations regarding purchases under the Federal Supply Schedule were 

1

 A General Services Administration-contracted study found that it takes only 15 days to 

place an order under a Federal Supply Schedule contract versus 268 days to award a 

contract using the traditional method.

2

 The Federal Supply Schedule is also called the Multiple Award Schedule (MAS). Under the 

program, GSA negotiates contracts with vendors for a wide variety of mostly commercialtype products and services at varying prices. These contracts permit other agencies to place 

orders directly with the vendors.
Page 4 GAO-01-125 Contract Management

adequate. We did not assess whether DOD in fact obtained fair and 

reasonable prices on specific orders.

In conducting our review, we identified four large buying commands, 

including one for each military department. From these four commands, 

we selected the largest orders for information technology services 

purchased in fiscal year 1999 using the Federal Supply Schedule. In total, 

22 orders were selected, which represented about $112.7 million. Appendix 

I contains details on our scope and methodology.

Results in Brief Most DOD contracting officers included in our review did not follow GSA’s 

established procedures intended to ensure fair and reasonable prices when 

using the Federal Supply Schedule. In fact, 17 of the 22 orders—valued at 

$60.5 million—were placed without seeking competitive quotes from 

multiple contractors. Instead, in placing the 17 orders, contracting officers 

often relied just on a comparison of labor rates of various contractors listed 

on the Federal Supply Schedule and generally ended up placing the orders 

with incumbent contractors. Relying on labor rates alone does not offer an 

agency a good basis for deciding which contractor is the most competitive 

since it does not reflect the full cost of the order or even critical aspects of 

the service being provided, such as the number of hours and mix of labor 

skill categories needed to complete the work.

The key reason that established procedures were not followed is that many 

contracting officers were not even aware of GSA’s requirement to seek 

competitive quotes. Also, guidance for the program is not clear. In 

particular, the Federal Acquisition Regulation does not make distinctions 

between services and products, and the regulations do not inform 

contracting officers that GSA’s special ordering procedures for services 

even exist. Most contracting officers were not aware of the ordering 

procedures for services at the time the orders included in our survey were 

placed. In addition, the ordering procedures do not address whether solesource orders are permitted and what procedures to use for such orders.

By not following the Federal Supply Schedule requirement for competitive 

quotes, DOD has significantly undermined its ability to ensure that it is 

getting the best information technology services at the best prices. 

Moreover, the lack of clear guidance on when to seek competitive quotes 

for services has increased the risk that agencies will not identify and 

acquire the lowest cost alternatives to meet their needs. This report makes 

recommendations for GSA and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 
Page 5 GAO-01-125 Contract Management

aimed at promoting more competition for orders and providing additional 

guidance to agencies using the Federal Supply Schedule. GSA and the 

Office of Federal Procurement Policy agreed with our recommendations 

and their written comments are contained in appendixes III and IV. 

Background Over the past several years, the government has purchased billions of 

dollars each year in information technology products and services using 

the Federal Supply Schedule. The Schedule provides federal agencies with 

a simplified and streamlined process to obtain commonly used products 

and services at prices associated with volume buying. Sales under the 

Federal Supply Schedule for information technology services increased 

from $1.2 billion in fiscal year 1998 to about $4.4 billion in fiscal year 2000. 

Under the Federal Supply Schedule, GSA awards contracts to multiple 

companies supplying comparable products and services. These contracts 

can be used by any federal agency to purchase commercial products and 

services. As a general rule, the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 

requires that orders under the Federal Supply Schedule result in the lowest 

overall cost alternative to meet the needs of the United States.3

 The Federal 

Acquisition Regulation instructs government ordering offices to review 

catalogs or price lists of at least three contractors and place orders for the 

alternative that represents the best value and results in the lowest overall 

cost alternative (considering price, special features, etc.) to meet the 

agency’s needs.

Traditionally, the Federal Supply Schedule covered only products, such as 

office equipment. In 1998, GSA issued special ordering procedures for 

services. At the time of our review, these procedures required ordering 

agencies to seek competitive quotes for services priced at hourly rates.4

Specifically, they were required to (1) prepare a request for quotes, (2) send 

the request for quotes to at least three Federal Supply Schedule contractors 

based on an initial evaluation of catalogs and price lists, and (3) evaluate 

the quotes and select the contractor to receive the order based on factors 

3

 If this requirement is met, and the program has been open to all responsible sources, the 

competition requirements of the Competition in Contracting Act are satisfied. See 10 U.S.C. 

§ 2302(2)(C) and 41 U.S.C. § 259(b)(3).

4

 In July 2000, GSA revised the ordering procedures for services. These procedures now 

apply to an order for services that requires a statement of work.
Page 6 GAO-01-125 Contract Management

identified in the request. The ordering procedures also state that the office 

ordering the services (ordering office or program office) is responsible for 

considering the level of effort and mix of labor proposed to perform 

specific tasks and for making a determination that the total price is fair and 

reasonable.

Few Competing Quotes 

for Information 

Technology Orders

On 17 of the 22 orders we reviewed—totaling $60.5 million—contracting 

officers did not solicit quotes because they were unaware of GSA’s 

requirement to seek competitive quotes at the time the orders were placed. 

Rather than obtaining competitive quotes, in most cases, DOD contracting 

officers reviewed the hourly labor rates for various contractors listed on 

the Federal Supply Schedule and placed the orders. In four of these cases, 

DOD contracting officers believed there was only a single source that could 

meet the government’s needs. In most of the cases, contracting officers 

used the Federal Supply Schedule as a convenient and quick way to place 

orders with incumbent contractors. Appendix II provides more detailed 

information on each of the 22 orders.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation provisions covering the Federal Supply 

Schedule do not provide clear guidance to contracting officers concerning 

the procedures to use to order services. The regulations do not make 

distinctions between services and products, and do not inform contracting 

officers that special ordering procedures for some types of services even 

exist. Equally important, GSA’s current ordering procedures, which GSA 

now says apply to services that require a statement of work, do not specify 

the types of services for which a statement of work is required. During our 

review, GSA began the process to incorporate the ordering procedures for 

services into the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

Table 1 shows the extent that the government contracting officers at four 

locations (see app. I) that we visited sought competitive quotes on the 22 

orders that we reviewed.
Page 7 GAO-01-125 Contract Management

Table 1: Summary of Selected Orders 

The table shows that only one of the four locations that we visited—the 

Electronics Systems Center at Hanscom Air Force Base—sought 

competitive quotes before placing an order for information technology 

services. The Center had developed a centralized program to manage its 

service contracts. Moreover, government contracting officers at the Center 

sought and received competitive quotes on the five orders selected for 

review. In placing the orders, the Center established criteria to evaluate the 

quotes and documented its decisions. 

At the other three locations, DOD contracting officers did not seek 

competitive quotes before placing an order for information technology 

services. The following examples illustrate the steps that DOD contracting 

officers performed instead.

• Orders were placed with two incumbent contractors to continue 

providing information technology support services to the Office of the 

Secretary of the Air Force. For these orders, the DOD ordering office 

advised the contracting officer that the incumbent contractors were 

most familiar with the current systems and that loss of either would 

have a detrimental effect on their mission. In addition to estimates for 

the work by the incumbent contractors, the ordering office also 

provided the contracting officer with labor hour rates from the Federal 

Supply Schedule for two other contractors—both higher than the 

incumbent contractors. The contracting officer received quotes from 

only the two incumbent contractors. The government contracting 

officer issued orders for about $3.1 million and about $1.5 million to 

Orders placed without seeking 

competitive quotes

Location

Number of

orders

reviewed Number Value

Electronic Systems Center 5 0 0.0

Communications-Electronics 

Command

5 5 $12.1

Space and Naval Warfare Systems 

Center 

5 5 29.7

Defense Supply Service 7 7 18.7

Total 22 17 $60.5
Page 8 GAO-01-125 Contract Management

these incumbent contractors. One of the contractors proposed labor 

rates that were substantially below its Federal Supply Schedule rates 

but consistent with rates charged for the prior year. The other 

contractor’s rates were consistent with its schedule rates. In neither 

case did the contracting officer request price reductions. The 

contracting officer told us that they were unaware of the GSA ordering 

procedures that required competitive quotes. The contracting officer 

pointed out that they would have followed the ordering procedures for 

services had they been included in the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

• An order was placed with an incumbent contractor to continue software 

development work for the Defense Manpower Data Center. The 

contracting officer did not seek quotes from any contractors, including 

the incumbent contractor. Instead, the contracting officer relied on cost 

estimates developed by the Data Center for the incumbent contractor to 

continue providing information technology services for fiscal year 1999. 

The estimates also included labor rates from the Federal Supply 

Schedule for four additional contractors. Based on the labor rates, the 

total estimated costs for the four contractors were all higher than the 

incumbent contractor. Several weeks after receipt of the estimates, the 

contracting officer issued the $2.7-million order to the incumbent. The 

order was based on the labor rates contained on the Federal Supply 

Schedule. The contracting officer did not request any price reductions. 

• An order was placed with an incumbent contractor to provide 

information technology services in the design, development, integration, 

deployment, and maintenance of a military human resources system for 

DOD’s Systems Executive Office for Manpower and Personnel. Again, 

unaware of the GSA ordering procedures, the contracting officer did not 

seek competitive quotes. The ordering office requested that the 

contracting officer place an order with the incumbent contractor under 

the Federal Supply Schedule. On this order, the contracting officer 

merely compared hourly labor rates for the incumbent contractor with 

hourly labor rates from the GSA schedule for two other contractors. The 

contracting officer obtained a quote from the incumbent contractor and 

placed an $18.5 million order for 5 months of work. The contractor’s 

quote was based on the contractor’s labor rates (and its subcontractors’ 

rates) contained on the Federal Supply Schedule but included a 

2-percent price reduction. The contracting officer said that the 

contractor did not give any additional price reductions during 

negotiations. 

In these examples and in other orders we reviewed, the contracting officers 

did not solicit quotes, as called for by GSA’s ordering procedures, and 
Page 9 GAO-01-125 Contract Management

generally did not seek price reductions from contractors. Moreover, on 17 

of the orders we reviewed, contracting officers often relied solely on labor 

rates to make a decision on acquiring information technology services. 

Such rates do not provide a meaningful basis for assessing which 

contractor is providing the best and most cost-effective services since they 

do not reflect the total cost of the order or important aspects such as the 

number of hours and mix of labor skill categories needed to complete the 

work. As a result, the DOD agencies included in our review did not have all 

of the information they should have had to determine that the total price of 

an order was fair and reasonable and that the order resulted in the lowest 

overall cost alternative meeting the needs of the agency, as required by the 

Competition in Contracting Act. 

Sole-Source Orders Four orders that we reviewed were placed on a sole-source basis. In each 

case, DOD ordering offices advised contracting officers that the incumbent 

contractors were the only contractors able to meet government needs. At 

the time these orders were placed, the ordering procedures for services did 

not contain any guidance on how sole-source orders should be handled. 

Although in the spring of 2000, GSA officials added to their buying guide a 

statement that sole-source orders are not authorized, this statement was 

not incorporated into the ordering procedures or the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation. On all four sole-source orders that we reviewed, contracting 

officers obtained statements from DOD program agencies concerning the 

need for services from the specific contractors, received a contractor’s 

quote and made brief comparisons to the government estimate for labor 

and GSA-approved labor rates, and then processed the orders.

The following two examples illustrate how orders were placed with 

incumbent contractors for continued support of computer information 

systems.

• The ordering office (the Army’s Office of the Surgeon General) sent a 

brief memorandum to the contracting officer recommending the 

incumbent contractor for an order. The memorandum stated that the 

contractor had performed satisfactorily and was uniquely qualified and 

experienced to provide continued support. The contracting officer 

considered this letter a noncompetitive sole-source justification. In 

placing this sole-source order, the contracting officer requested a quote 

from the incumbent contractor, had that quote evaluated by the ordering 

office, reviewed the incumbent’s GSA-approved labor rates, and then 

processed the $1.7-million order. The contractor’s quote was based on 
Page 10 GAO-01-125 Contract Management

the labor rates listed on the Federal Supply Schedule, and the 

contracting officer did not request price reductions.

• The Office of the Secretary of Defense, Program Analysis and 

Evaluation, sent a memorandum to the contracting officer 

recommending the incumbent contractor for an order. The 

memorandum stated that changing its information technology support 

contractor would jeopardize several ongoing projects. Ordering office 

officials told us they did not view the memorandum as a noncompetitive 

sole-source justification, but rather a recommended source for their 

needs. In placing this order, the contracting officer requested a quote 

from the incumbent contractor, had that quote evaluated by the ordering 

office, reviewed the incumbent’s GSA-approved labor rates, and then 

processed the $4.3-million order. The contractor’s quote was based on 

the labor rates contained on the Federal Supply Schedule. However, 

program officials and the contracting officer were able to negotiate 

labor rates that overall were about 4.4 percent below the labor rates 

contained on the Federal Supply Schedule.

Conclusions Even though it spends millions of dollars each year to acquire information 

technology services through the Federal Supply Schedule, DOD has not 

been taking steps critical to ensuring that it is getting the best services at 

the best prices. The key reason for this is the lack of clear guidance for the 

program. Specifically, the Federal Acquisition Regulation does not indicate 

that special procedures should be used to order certain types of services, 

and does not describe those procedures and when they should be used. In 

addition, the Regulation does not provide any guidance on the use of the 

program for sole-source orders for services. The lack of clear guidance on 

when to seek competitive quotes increased the risk that agencies would not 

identify and acquire the lowest cost alternatives to meet their needs.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To encourage agencies to maximize competition in acquiring information 

technology services, we recommend that the Administrator of the Office of 

Federal Procurement Policy, as chair of the Federal Acquisition Regulatory 

Council, take steps to revise the Federal Acquisition Regulation to 

incorporate the requirements contained in the ordering procedures for 

services to obtain competitive quotes. The Regulation should clearly 

describe the procedures and when they should be used.
Page 11 GAO-01-125 Contract Management

In addition, we recommend the Regulation address whether sole-source 

orders for services may be placed using the Federal Supply Schedule. If 

sole-source orders are allowed, the guidance should provide instructions 

on what steps contracting officers should take to ensure that prices are fair 

and reasonable and that orders result in the lowest overall cost alternative 

meeting the government’s needs.

Pending these changes to the Regulation, we also recommend that the 

Administrator of General Services contact contracting agencies to ensure 

that the agencies are aware of the ordering procedures for services and 

emphasize the need for seeking competitive quotes.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation 

GSA, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, and DOD reviewed a draft 

of this report. GSA’s written comments are in appendix III and the Office of 

Federal Procurement Policy’s comments are in appendix IV. DOD did not 

provide comments on this report. 

GSA’s written comments indicated that GSA has conducted a wide range of 

outreach efforts to educate agencies on the ordering procedures. These 

efforts, among other things, included making presentations at GSA 

seminars and enhancing the agency’s website. GSA stated that it would 

continue its outreach programs and pursue additional efforts to educate 

agencies about ordering procedures and the best practices for managing 

their buys. Despite GSA’s outreach efforts, contracting officers at three of 

four agencies included in this review were unaware of the special ordering 

procedures for services well after those procedures were put in place. 

GSA agrees with our recommendation to revise the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation coverage pertaining to the ordering procedures for services. A 

draft proposed rule, currently being considered by the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Council, proposes to revise the Regulation to include the 

ordering procedures for services. GSA also stated that it would ask the 

Council to review our recommendation regarding the treatment of 

sole-source orders for services under the program. GSA also provided a 

number of technical comments, which we considered in finalizing the 

report.

GSA’s current ordering procedures apply to services that require a 

statement of work, but those procedures do not specify the types of 

services for which a statement of work is required. Under the 

circumstances, simply incorporating the current ordering procedures into 
Page 12 GAO-01-125 Contract Management

the Federal Acquisition Regulation would not satisfy our recommendation. 

Rather, as we recommended, the amended regulation should clearly 

describe procedures to be used for ordering various types of services and 

when those procedures should be used.

The Office of Federal Procurement Policy’s written comments also 

indicated that they agreed with the recommendation to revise the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation pertaining to the ordering procedures for services. 

It stated that the current guidance in the Regulation provides insufficient 

attention to the acquisition of services. It stated that they would be working 

with the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to promulgate a proposed 

rule that addresses the recommendations in the report as well as some 

additional issues. It also stated that, in the meantime, it has been working 

with GSA and DOD on a discussion paper addressing the use of interagency 

contracts, such as contracts under the Federal Supply Schedule. The 

discussion paper will be incorporated into a handbook that DOD is 

developing to assist its buyers in acquiring commercial items.

We conducted our review from January through September 2000 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to Senator John Warner, Chairman, and 

Senator Carl Levin, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on 

Armed Services, and other interested congressional committees. We are 

also sending copies of this report to the Honorable William S. Cohen, the 

Secretary of Defense; the Honorable David J. Barram, Administrator of 

General Services; and the Honorable Jacob J. Lew, Director, Office of 

Management and Budget. We will make copies available to others upon 

request. 
Page 13 GAO-01-125 Contract Management

Please contact me at (202) 512-4841 if you have any questions concerning 

this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.

David E. Cooper

Director

Acquisition and Sourcing Management
Page 14 GAO-01-125 Contract Management

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

We conducted our evaluation to determine whether contracting officers 

maximized competition and followed established procedures in purchasing 

information technology services using the Federal Supply Schedule. We 

reviewed regulations and other General Services Administration (GSA) 

guidance issued for the Federal Supply Schedule. We also held discussions 

with GSA representatives to gain an understanding of the Federal Supply 

Schedule program. In addition, we met with representatives of the Office of 

Federal Procurement Policy, which is responsible for government policy on 

procurement programs. Further, we reviewed specific orders to assess 

whether contracting officers sought competitive quotes. 

We identified the Department of Defense (DOD) buying commands that, in 

total, had made large information technology purchases of services during 

fiscal year 1999 under the Federal Supply Schedule program using DOD’s 

Individual Contracting Action Report (DD-350 database). Results from this 

database were corroborated by the selected buying commands. The four 

DOD buying commands that were selected for our review were 

(1) the Air Force’s Electronic Systems Center at Hanscom Air Force Base, 

(2) the Army’s Communications-Electronics Command, (3) the Navy’s 

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, and (4) the Defense Supply 

Service. In general, the largest orders were selected for review at the four 

buying commands. We selected the largest orders at each command until 

we had selected enough orders to exceed $25 million in total value or we 

had selected all orders over $1 million. However, we selected only one 

order for each contractor to ensure an array of various contractors and 

competitions. In total, 22 orders were selected for review, which 

represented about $112.7 million. We did not assess whether DOD obtained 

fair and reasonable prices on these orders.

To determine the extent of competition on these orders, we held 

discussions with contracting officers and examined documentation in the 

contract files. We held discussions with representatives of the DOD 

agencies procuring the information technology services to understand their 

role in the award process. We also held discussions with officials of 

selected contractors to obtain information on the orders.
Page 15 GAO-01-125 Contract Management

Appendix II

Information on Selected Orders ApendxiI

#

Customer/program contractor

Project value

($ millions) Competition for order

Incumbent 

contractor

Communication-Electronics Command

1 Information Technology Support for Army 

Program Offices

Computer Science Corporation

$2.93 No competitive quotes New requirement

2 Army Materiel Command Information 

Technology 

Scientific and Commercial Systems

$1.11 No competitive quotes, review of labor 

rates

Yes

3 Drug Enforcement Administration

Worldwide Local Area Network 

ManTech

$3.68 No competitive quotes New requirement

4 Army Systems Support for Strategic and 

Tactical Units 

Sytex Corporation

$2.00 No competitive quotes Yes

5 DOD Single Agency Manager 

Lockheed Martin Corporation

$2.38 No competitive quotes New requirement

Defense Supply Service

6 Defense Data Manpower Center 

Systems Research and Applications 

Corporation

$2.68 No competitive quotes, review of labor 

rates 

Yes

7 Corporate Executive Information System 

Performance Engineering Corporation

$1.74 No competitive quotes, sole-source Yes

8 Office of the Secretary of Air Force 

Anser 

$3.14 No competitive quotes, review of labor 

rates 

Yes

9 Office of the Secretary of Air Force

Raytheon Corporation

$1.55 No competitive quotes, review of labor 

rates 

Yes

10 Office of the Secretary of Defense Program 

Analysis and Evaluation 

Advanced Systems Development, 

Incorporated

$4.30 No competitive quotes, sole-source Yes

11 Defense Medical Logistics Standard Support 

IBM Corporation

$2.76 No competitive quotes, sole-source Yes

12 Single Agency Manager − Pentagon 

Information Technology Services

SETA Corporation

$2.51 No competitive quotes, sole-source Yes

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center

13 DOD Advanced Simulation Technology 

Programs 

AB Technologies, Incorporated

$2.97 No competitive quotes, review of labor 

rates 

New requirement 

14 Defense Integrated Military Human 

Resource System 

Science and Engineering Associates

$18.50 No competitive quotes, review of labor 

rates 

Yes
Appendix II

Information on Selected Orders

Page 16 GAO-01-125 Contract Management

a

All cases at the Electronic Systems Center were categorized as new requirements because the 

statements of work consolidated work requirements that previously were completed by a number of 

contractors. Nevertheless, incumbent contractors generally completed a major portion of the work.

15 National Cancer Institute Medical 

Data Collection System 

Oracle Corporation

$3.40 No competitive quotes, review of labor 

rates 

New requirement

16 SPAWAR Automated Tool

Design System 

Titan/Eldyne Corporation

$1.80 No competitive quotes, review of labor 

rates 

New requirement

17 SPAWAR Automated Data 

Processing System 

Science Applications International 

Corporation 

$3.07 No competitive quotes, review of labor 

rates

Yes

Electronic Systems Center at HANSCOM 

Air Force Basea

18 Global Air Traffic Operations 

Horizon Technology Corporation

$8.00 Competitive quotes Newa requirement

19 Strategic Nuclear Deterrence 

SenCom

$13.97 Competitive quotes Newa

 requirement

20 Defense Information Global Grid 

ASEC (now ACS)

$3.34 Competitive quotes Newa requirement

21 Combat Air Force Command and Control 

Dynamics Research Corporation 

$15.10 Competitive quotes Newa

 requirement

22 Combat Air Force Command and Control 

KKP Corporation

$11.80 Competitive quotes Newa

 requirement

(Continued From Previous Page)

#

Customer/program contractor

Project value

($ millions) Competition for order

Incumbent 

contractor
Page 17 GAO-01-125 Contract Management

Appendix III

Comments From the General Services 

Administration ApendxiI

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in the 

report text appear at the end 

of this appendix.
Appendix III

Comments From the General Services 

Administration

Page 18 GAO-01-125 Contract Management
Appendix III

Comments From the General Services 

Administration

Page 19 GAO-01-125 Contract Management

See comment 1.

See comment 2.
Appendix III

Comments From the General Services 

Administration

Page 20 GAO-01-125 Contract Management

The following is GAO’s comments on GSA’s letter dated November 9, 2000.

GAO Comments 1. We changed the report title.

2. This statement has been deleted from the report.
Page 21 GAO-01-125 Contract Management

Appendix IV

Comments From the Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy ApendxiIV
Appendix IV

Comments From the Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy

Page 22 GAO-01-125 Contract Management
Page 23 GAO-01-125 Contract Management

Appendix V

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiV

GAO Contacts David E. Cooper (202) 512-4841

Ralph Dawn (202) 512-4544

Acknowledgments In addition to those named above, Ken Graffam, Russ Reiter, Jeffrey Rose, 

Tom Taydus, and John Van Schaik made key contributions to this report.

(707460) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of 

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to 

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit 

cards are accepted, also.

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 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

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 (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone 

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain 

these lists.

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

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, or Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact one:

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

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00