a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Readiness, Committee 

on Armed Services, House of 

Representatives

August 2003 DOD PERSONNEL

Documentation of the 

Army’s Civilian 

Workforce-Planning 

Model Needed to 

Enhance Credibility

GAO-03-1046
The Army has taken adequate steps to ensure that the historical 

personnel data used in the model are sufficiently reliable and that the 

information technology structure adequately and appropriately supports 

the model. For example, the Army has established adequate control 

measures (e.g., edit checks, expert review, etc.) to ensure that the 

historical data that goes into the model are sufficiently reliable. 

Moreover, it has taken adequate steps to ensure that the information 

technology support structure (i.e., the software and hardware used to 

interface with and house the model) would enable continuity of 

operations, functionality, and system modification and operations. 

However, the Army has not demonstrated that it has taken adequate 

steps to ensure that the model’s forecasting capability provides the basis 

for making accurate forecasts of the Army’s civilian workforce. The 

Army’s original certification of CIVFORS in 1987 was based on a formal 

documented verification and validation of the model structure that has 

not been formally updated since that time even though the Army has 

undertaken several model improvements. According to the Army’s 

CIVFORS program manager, the Army has taken several steps, to include 

an independent review, peer reviews, and a comparison of forecasted 

data to actual data. However, documentation of these steps is 

incomplete and, therefore, does not provide adequate evidence to 

demonstrate the credibility of the forecast results. Without adequate 

documentation, the Army cannot show that it has taken sufficient steps 

to ensure the model’s credibility in terms of its forecasting capability; 

consequently, there exists a risk that the forecasts it produces may be 

inaccurate or misleading. Furthermore, without documentation of 

CIVFORS’s forecasting capability, it may be difficult for DOD and other 

federal organizations to accurately determine its suitability for their use. 

Between fiscal years 1989 and 2002, 

the Department of Defense (DOD) 

reduced its civilian workforce by 

about 38 percent, with little 

attention to shaping or specifically 

sizing this workforce for the future. 

As a result, the civilian workforce 

is imbalanced in terms of the 

shape, skills, and experience 

needed by the department. DOD is 

taking steps to transform its 

civilian workforce. To assist with 

this transformation, the department 

is considering adopting an Army 

workforce-planning model, known 

as the Civilian Forecasting System 

(CIVFORS), which the Army uses 

to forecast its civilian workforce 

needs. Other federal agencies are 

also considering adopting this 

model. GAO was asked to review 

the adequacy of the steps the Army 

has taken to ensure the credibility 

of the model. 

To assure the reliability of Army 

civilian workforce projections and 

the appropriateness of the model 

for use DOD-wide and by other 

federal agencies, we recommend 

that the Secretary of Defense direct 

the Secretary of the Army to 

appropriately document the 

forecasting capability of the model. 

Although DOD stated, in written 

comments on a draft of this report, 

it did not concur with GAO’s 

recommendation, the Army is 

taking actions that, in effect, 

implement it. 

 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1046.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Derek Stewart, 

202-512-5559, stewartd@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-1046, a report to the 

Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee 

on Readiness, Committee on Armed 

Services, House of Representatives 

August 2003 

DOD PERSONNEL

Documentation of the Army's Civilian 

Workforce-Planning Model Needed to 

Enhance Credibility 
Page i GAO-03-1046 DOD Personnel 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 3

Civilian Workforce-Planning Model’s Data Reliability and 

Information Technology Structure Are Adequate, but 

Forecasting Ability Not Fully Established 4

Conclusions 8

Recommendation for Executive Action 8

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 8

Scope and Methodology 9

Appendix I Comments from the Department of Defense 11 

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 13 

Abbreviations 

CIVFORS Civilian Forecasting System 

DOD Department of Defense 

WASS Workforce Analysis Support System 

Contents 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It 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. 
Page 1 GAO-03-1046 DOD Personnel 

August 22, 2003 

The Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Readiness 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Ortiz: 

Between fiscal years 1989 and 2002, the Department of Defense (DOD) 

reduced its civilian workforce from 1,075,437 to 670,166—about a 38 

percent reduction—with little attention to shaping or specifically sizing 

this workforce for the future. As a result, the civilian workforce is 

imbalanced in terms of the shape, skills, and experience needed by the 

department. DOD plans to downsize its civilian workforce by an additional 

55,000 through fiscal year 2007. In addition, in April 2003, DOD submitted a 

proposal to Congress that would authorize DOD to establish a National 

Security Personnel System to transform its current civilian personnel 

system.1

 DOD is also exploring the feasibility of placing hundreds of 

thousands of civilians into essentially nonmilitary jobs that are currently 

performed by uniformed personnel. To assist in determining its future 

workforce, DOD will need reliable workforce planning tools, such as 

workforce projection models. According to DOD guidance, a model used 

to provide data for decision making should be accredited--that is, the 

model should be officially certified as acceptable for use for a specific 

purpose. 

In a February 2003 testimony, the Chief of Staff of the Army stated that the 

Army has begun to transform its civilian personnel system. To assist with 

this transformation, the Army is using its workforce-planning model, 

known as the Civilian Forecasting System (CIVFORS), which forecasts 

future civilian workforce needs.2

 The Army is working closely with the 

 1

 The system is proposed in the Transformation for the 21st Century Act of 2003. The act 

also proposes other wide-ranging changes, affecting civilian personnel pay and 

performance management, collective bargaining, rightsizing, and other human capital 

areas. 

2

 The Civilian Forecasting System was adapted from an Army military forecasting model for 

civilian use in 1987. 

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-03-1046 DOD Personnel 

Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Office of Personnel 

Management to demonstrate the applicability of the model for use DODwide and in other federal agencies. According to Army guidance (Army 

Regulation 5-11 and Department of the Army Pamphlet 5-11), verification 

is one of the steps needed to ensure a model’s suitability to perform its 

intended purpose. The verification process evaluates the extent to which a 

model has been developed using sound and established software 

engineering techniques, and it establishes whether the computer code 

correctly performs the intended functions. Army guidance also states that 

assessment of the correctness and forecasting capability is required. 

In this report, we reviewed the adequacy of the steps the Army has taken 

to ensure the credibility of the model. In March 2003, we briefed your staff 

on our preliminary findings. To determine the Army’s efforts to ensure the 

credibility of its model, we interviewed and obtained pertinent 

documentation from the Army’s CIVFORS program manager. We also 

reviewed DOD and Army guidance relevant to the management of Army 

models and interviewed DOD officials to discuss their plans to adopt 

CIVFORS. We conducted our review from September 2002 to June 2003. 

More detailed information on our scope and methodology appears at the 

end of this report. 

The Army’s steps were adequate to ensure that the historical personnel 

data used in the model are sufficiently reliable and that the information 

technology support structure3

 adequately and appropriately supports the 

model, but the Army has not documented its steps to ensure the credibility 

of the model’s forecasting capability. The Army has established adequate 

control measures (e.g., edit checks, expert review, etc.) to ensure that the 

historical data that goes into the model are sufficiently reliable. Moreover, 

it has taken adequate steps to ensure that the information technology 

support structure would enable continuity of operations, functionality, and 

system modification and operations. However, the Army has not 

documented that it has taken adequate steps to ensure that the model’s 

structure (including its forecasting capability and the appropriateness of 

its assumptions) provides the basis for making accurate forecasts of the 

Army’s civilian workforce. The Army’s original certification of CIVFORS in 

1987 was based on a formal documented verification and validation of the 

model structure that has not been formally updated since that time, even 

 3

 The software and hardware used to interface with and house the model. 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-03-1046 DOD Personnel 

though the Army has undertaken several model improvements. According 

to the Army’s CIVFORS program manager, the Army has taken several 

steps, to include an independent review, peer reviews, and a comparison 

of forecasted data to actual data. However, documentation of these steps 

is incomplete and, therefore, does not provide adequate evidence to 

demonstrate the credibility of the forecast results. Without adequate 

documentation, the Army cannot show that it has taken sufficient steps to 

ensure the credibility of the model’s forecasting capability; consequently, 

there exists a risk that the forecasts it produces may be inaccurate or 

misleading. Furthermore, without documentation of CIVFORS’s 

forecasting capability, it may be difficult for DOD and other federal 

organizations to accurately determine its suitability for their use. 

We are recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary 

of the Army to appropriately document the Army’s forecasting capability 

of the civilian workforce-planning model. Although DOD stated, in written 

comments on a draft of this report, it did not concur with our 

recommendation, the Army is taking actions that, in effect, implement it. 

According to an Army Human Resource official, the Army uses the 

workforce-planning model—CIVFORS—for human resources 

management. CIVFORS is a collection of software programs that 

anticipate future impacts on the workforce so that management can plan 

for changes instead of reacting to them. The model is used to evaluate a 

number of critical areas in civilian workforce planning, including 

projected recruitment of personnel, impact of organizational realignments, 

and changes in workforce trends (such as aging, retention, and projected 

personnel shortfalls). It is a life-cycle modeling and projection tool that 

models the most significant events that describe the life-cycle path of 

personnel, which includes accessions, promotions, reassignments, 

retirements, and voluntary and involuntary separations over a 7-year 

period. 

Verification and validation of models are important steps to building 

credible models because they provide the foundation for the accreditation 

process to ensure the suitability of the models for their intended purposes, 

as stated in Army guidance, Management of Army Models and 

Background 
Page 4 GAO-03-1046 DOD Personnel 

Simulations.4 The verification process evaluates the extent to which a 

model has been developed using sound and established software 

engineering techniques, and it establishes whether the model’s computer 

code correctly performs the intended functions. Model verification 

includes data verification, model documentation, and testing of the 

information technology structure that supports the model; model 

verification is contained in such documents as the programmer’s manual, 

installation’s manual, user’s guide, analyst’s manual, and trainer’s manual. 

According to Army guidance, assessment of the correctness and 

forecasting capability of the model is also required, and it should be 

performed by a subject matter expert independent from the model 

developer; however, the developer is expected to conduct in-house 

verification and testing to assist in the overall model development process. 

Validation is the process of determining the extent to which the model 

adequately represents the real world. 

The Army has taken steps to ensure the reliability of the historical 

personnel data used by the model and the adequacy of its information 

technology structure used to support the model, but it has not provided 

documentation that it has sufficiently tested and reviewed the most critical 

aspect of the model—its forecasting capability and the appropriateness of 

its assumptions. As a result, the forecasting credibility of the current 

version of the model is not sufficiently validated or documented. Without 

proper documentation of the abilities of the model, there is a risk that the 

forecasts it produces may be inaccurate or misleading and the suitability 

for use by other organizations may be difficult to determine. 

The Army’s review of the historical personnel data used to provide 

information for workforce planning was adequate to show that the data 

are sufficiently reliable for use in the workforce model. Data regarding 

personnel (such as date hired, education, age, grade level, and 

occupational series) are taken from the Army’s Workforce Analysis 

 4

 Headquarters, Department of the Army, Management of Army Models and Simulations, 

Army Regulation 5-11 (Washington, D.C., July 10, 1997). This regulation prescribes policy 

and guidance and assigns responsibilities for the management of Army models and 

simulations, including development and maintenance. 

Civilian WorkforcePlanning Model’s Data 

Reliability and 

Information 

Technology Structure 

Are Adequate, but 

Forecasting Ability 

Not Fully Established 

Historical Personnel Data 

Reliability Is Adequate 
Page 5 GAO-03-1046 DOD Personnel 

Support System (WASS).5 CIVFORS uses the most recent 5 years of 

historical data to forecast the civilian workforce planning needs during the 

next 7 years. 

According to Army guidance, to ensure that data are sufficiently reliable 

for use in the Army model, support documents should contain information 

about the overall characteristics of the database. Furthermore, the 

documents should show the intended range of appropriate uses for the 

model as well as constraints on its use. They should also include concise 

statements of the condition of the database for the purpose of indicating 

its stability. The Army provided most, but not all, of the documents 

referred to in Army guidance; we believe that the documents provided are 

key ones and are adequate to show that WASS data are sufficiently reliable 

for use in CIVFORS. In addition, the Army program manager for the 

CIVFORS workforce-planning model stated that the workforce data are 

checked by reviewing the arithmetic in the numerical algorithms to verify 

that there is no unexplained change in the size of the civilian personnel 

workforce contained in the database. Further, edit checks include 

matching social security numbers for personnel from one time period to 

another to account for actual personnel and personnel transactions 

processed. In addition, CIVFORS has automated checks for inappropriate 

numbers or characters. Such steps help to assure that the data contained 

in WASS accurately and completely reflect critical personnel aspects and 

transactions. 

The Army’s procedures for validating the information technology support 

structure (the software and hardware used to interface with and house the 

model) were also sufficient. For example, the Army (1) adequately 

documented the information technology structure to allow for continuity 

of operations, (2) tested its functionality, and (3) provided expertise for 

system modification and operation. Procedures used by the Army include 

documenting the model’s system description and hardware and software 

requirements, providing system and user manuals, planning for 

configuration management,6

 and conducting functionality tests to help 

 5

 WASS enables analysis of data on Army civilians from 1974 to the present. It has analysis 

capabilities that range from frequency distribution to trend analysis. 

6

 Configuration management is the control and documentation of changes made to system 

hardware, software, and documentation throughout the development and operational life 

of the system. 

Information Technology 

Structure Is Adequate 
Page 6 GAO-03-1046 DOD Personnel 

ensure the system’s usability and operability over time and to demonstrate 

the adequacy of the information technology structure to support use of the 

workforce model. 

The Army’s documentation cannot show that the forecasting ability of 

CIVFORS has been adequately evaluated and, therefore, we cannot fully 

assess the credibility of the model. According to Army guidance, validation 

is the process of determining the extent to which a model adequately 

represents the real world. According to the Army program manager, over a 

7-year period, CIVFORS forecasts the anticipated impacts on the 

workforce based on the most significant events in the life-cycle path of 

personnel (to include accessions, promotions, reassignments, retirements, 

voluntary separations, and involuntary separations). Army guidance states 

that an independent, peer, and subject matter expert review of the model 

should be conducted. The Army guidance also suggests generally accepted 

methods, such as conducting a careful line-by-line examination of the 

model design and computer code and algorithms. The Army’s program 

manager said this had been done for the original certification of CIVFORS 

in 1987. However, no formal document of the reviews has been prepared 

in the years since, even though the Army has undertaken several model 

improvements, such as (1) an expanded scope to include more dimensions 

in the modeling process; (2) a more integrated, streamlined process that 

involves fewer steps; and (3) greater flexibility, achieved by generalizing 

the formulas and parameters. 

In addition, there is insufficient documentation regarding tests performed, 

since 1987, in which CIVFORS’s forecasts for prior years are compared 

against equivalent historical data (called an “out of sample” test) to 

measure the model’s forecasting capability. Such testing, which is one 

method to validate a model’s forecasting capability, would involve using 

the first 5 of the last 7 years of historical data to forecast the 2 subsequent 

years. The forecasts for the last 2 years could then be compared to the 

actual historical data. The Army, however, performed tests comparing 

patterns of forecasts against historical data (called “in sample” tests), 

showing that forecasts reflect the same patterns as the historical data used 

to develop them for a sample of three Army major commands. However, 

the draft document that was provided to us was inadequate to fully assess 

the sampling used by the Army and the value of the tests. 

Finally, the Army could not provide adequate documentation of an 

independent or peer review of the model. The Army’s CIVFORS program 

manager stated that the major commands served as peer reviewers by 

Model’s Forecasting Ability 

Is Not Fully Established 
Page 7 GAO-03-1046 DOD Personnel 

conducting a comparison of their workforce data to WASS and CIVFORS 

workforce data. We believe that such assessments by users provide 

important information but do not constitute a peer review as defined in 

Army guidance. Also, the results of these assessments were not available 

for us to review. The program manager also stated that an independent 

subject matter expert reviewed the functional design and the code in 1999, 

but a formal report of the activities performed and the specific changes or 

modifications implemented during the review were not produced. 

Documentation has often not been a priority for several reasons. 

According to the Army’s CIVFORS program manager, lack of 

documentation is primarily due to limited funding, which was spent on 

implementing changes to CIVFORS and WASS rather than on the 

production of formal documents. Further, a shortage of staff (only one 

staff person—the program manager) and loss of documents during the 

attack on the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, also affected the amount of 

documentation the Army could provide us. The program manager also 

stated that some documentation was not needed because CIVFORS’s 

design is predicated on proven methods in other Army active-duty, military 

manpower forecasting models. In addition, the program manager stated 

that the Army and contractors have primarily been adapting technology 

(upgrading from mainframe to personal computer to Web-based) to 

improve model functionality rather than creating new technology. 

However, without proper documentation of the abilities of the model, 

there exists a risk that the forecasts it produces may be inaccurate or 

misleading. Consequently, decisions about future workforce requirements 

may be questionable, and planning for the size, shape, and experience 

level of the future workforce may not adequately meet the Army’s needs. 

These issues may extend beyond the Army. In April 2002, DOD published a 

strategic plan for civilian personnel, which includes a goal to obtain 

management systems to support workforce planning. According to a DOD 

official responsible for civilian workforce planning tools, components 

within DOD have been requesting a modeling tool to assist them with 

civilian workforce planning. As a result, DOD has decided to test the 

Army’s civilian forecasting model. In October 2002, DOD purchased 

hardware, installed modified software, and provided training to a small 

number of personnel. Recently, DOD obtained a historical database of 

civilian personnel data from the Defense Management Data Center and 

provided the database to the contractor to load into the model. Two 

agencies have volunteered to test the model: the Defense Logistics Agency 

and the Washington Headquarters Service. DOD is working to develop a 

test for these organizations using their own civilian personnel data to test 
Page 8 GAO-03-1046 DOD Personnel 

the model. At the end of the testing period, DOD will assess the model to 

obtain a better understanding of its logic and determine whether or not it 

should be implemented departmentwide. 

As DOD continues to transform and downsize its civilian workforce, it is 

imperative that the department properly shape and size the workforce. 

One tool that could assist in this effort is CIVFORS—the Army’s workforce 

planning model. However, proper documentation of the verification and 

validation of CIVFORS is needed before expanding its use. The Army has 

taken adequate steps to ensure that the historical personnel data used in 

the model are sufficiently reliable and the information technology 

structure appropriately supports the model; however, it has not fully 

documented that it has taken adequate steps to demonstrate the credibility 

of the model’s forecasting capability. Further, a model should be fully 

scrutinized before each new application because a change in purpose, 

passage of time, or input data may invalidate some aspects of the existing 

model. Without sufficient documentation to demonstrate that adequate 

steps have been taken to ensure the credibility of the model’s forecasting 

capabilities, decisions about the Army’s future civilian workforce may be 

based on questionable data and other potential users cannot determine 

with certainty the model’s suitability for their use. 

To assure the reliability of Army civilian workforce projections, as well as 

the appropriateness of the model for use DOD-wide and by other federal 

agencies, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the 

Secretary of the Army to appropriately document the Army’s forecasting 

capability of the model. 

Although DOD stated, in written comments on a draft of this report, that it 

did not concur with our recommendation, the Army is taking actions that, 

in effect, implement it. DOD’s written comments are contained in 

appendix I. 

Regarding our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense direct the 

Secretary of the Army to appropriately document the Army’s forecasting 

capability of the model, DOD stated that the Army recognizes the need to 

fully document its verification and validation efforts. Further, DOD stated 

the staff of the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Manpower and Reserve 

Affairs, has begun developing a verification and validation plan to enable 

outside parties to assess the suitability and adaptability of the model for 

Conclusions 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 9 GAO-03-1046 DOD Personnel 

their organizational use. This verification and validation process is 

scheduled for completion in September 2003. However, during our review, 

DOD did not provide information about the full scope of this verification 

and validation effort. We believe that as the Army undertakes its 

verification and validation effort, it should clearly document, as we 

recommended, its assumptions, procedures, and the results so that future 

users can replicate the tests to appropriately establish the model’s validity 

for their purposes. 

DOD also did not concur with our finding that the forecasting ability of the 

model has not been fully established. DOD stated that the ultimate test of a 

system is performance and that CIVFORS has been consistently generating 

Army projections with high standards of accuracy. We did not 

independently evaluate the model’s accuracy. As our report makes clear, 

our basic point is that the model’s forecasting ability has not been 

documented in accordance with Army guidance. We continue to believe 

that without adequate documentation, the Army cannot show that it has 

taken sufficient steps to ensure the model’s credibility in terms of its 

forecasting capability. DOD also provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated where appropriate. 

We did not independently evaluate the model or the application of the 

steps; rather, we reviewed the adequacy of the steps that the Army 

program manager stated were taken to ensure the credibility of the model. 

To determine the adequacy of the steps the Army has taken to ensure the 

credibility of its civilian workforce-forecasting model, we discussed 

CIVFORS with the Army’s CIVFORS program manager in the Army G-1 

office, Civilian Personnel Policy Directorate, who has overall 

responsibility for the workforce analysis and the forecasting system. In 

addition, Army contractor officials who are responsible for providing 

technical, analytic, and management support to operate, maintain, and 

enhance the planning tool and model participated in several of our 

discussions with the program manager. We reviewed the following 

CIVFORS’s documents regarding the information technology support 

structure: the Configuration Management Manual, the System’s 

Specifications, the Design/Subsystem Documentation, the Operator’s 

Manual, and the User’s Manual. In addition, we reviewed the 1987 and 

draft 2002 test analysis report on the Civilian Forecasting System and 

other documentation provided by the Army to obtain information on how 

the model operates according to model assumptions. We also reviewed the 

DOD Defense Modeling and Simulation Office guidance on verification and 

validation of models, the Army regulation and pamphlet pertaining to the 

Scope and 

Methodology 
Page 10 GAO-03-1046 DOD Personnel 

management of Army models and simulations, and other literature 

regarding model credibility. We also interviewed DOD officials in the 

Civilian Personnel Management Service responsible for developing plans 

to adopt the Army’s workforce forecasting model to discuss the status of 

their efforts. 

We conducted our review from September 2002 to June 2003 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness, and the Secretary of the Army. We will also 

make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will 

be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-5559. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. 

Sincerely yours, 

Derek B. Stewart 

Director, Defense Capabilities 

 and Management 
Appendix I: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 11 GAO-03-1046 DOD Personnel 

Appendix I: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 
Appendix I: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 12 GAO-03-1046 DOD Personnel 
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 13 GAO-03-1046 DOD Personnel 

Christine Fossett (202) 512-2956 

In addition to the name above, David Dornisch, Barbara Johnson, Barbara 

Joyce, John Smale, Dale Wineholt, and Susan Woodward made significant 

contributions to this report. 

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

(350385) 
The General Accounting 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 the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs