Page 1 GAO-14-427R DOD Class Justifications

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

April 16, 2014

The Honorable Claire McCaskill

Chairman

Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Defense Contracting: DOD’s Use of Class Justifications for Sole-Source Contracts

Dear Madam Chairman:

Awarding contracts through full and open competition is key to ensuring that the federal 

government efficiently acquires goods and services to best meet its needs. However there are 

certain circumstances when competition may not be practical. In fiscal year 2013, the 

Department of Defense (DOD) awarded contracts for about $308 billion for products and 

services, of which 43 percent was awarded without competition. In addition, DOD accounted for 

over 80 percent of government-wide obligations that used noncompetitive contracts. 

According to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), noncompetitive contracts must generally 

be supported by written justifications that address the specific exception to full and open 

competition that is being applied to the procurement.1

You asked us to review issues related to the use of class justifications. This report covers for 

identified DOD class justifications, (1) products and services included, (2) the rationale cited, 

and (3) efforts to obtain competition. You also asked us to review the use of “bridge contracts,” 

which are awarded to avoid gaps between the end of one contract and the follow-on award. We 

are beginning work on that effort. 

Justifications may cover an individual 

contract or multiple contract actions under a single “class justification,” which generally include a 

dollar limit and time period for all actions taken under the authority. Additionally, justifications 

must be approved at various levels within the organization based on the estimated dollar value 

of the contract or contracts, but there are no separate requirements for either the justification or 

approval of class justifications. 

We selected DOD for this review because it accounted for the highest percentage of 

noncompetitive obligations across all federal agencies in fiscal year 2012. We included four 

DOD components: Army, Air Force, Navy, and Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)—which account 

for about 92 percent of DOD’s non-competitive awards. The universe of contracts justified and 

approved on a class basis is unknown because the information is not tracked in the Federal 

Procurement Data System-Next Generation—the government’s procurement database. To 

identify the facts and circumstances around noncompetitive contracts awarded by DOD under 

class justifications, we identified a nonprojectable sample of 65 class justifications from fiscal 

years 2009 through 2013. Beginning in 2009, the FAR generally has required federal agencies 

 

1 FAR §§ 6.303-1(a), 6.303-2. 
Page 2 GAO-14-427R DOD Class Justifications

to publish their justifications on the Federal Business Opportunity website—federal agencies’ 

primary tool for soliciting potential offers—which we used as a source for identifying these class 

justifications.

2 See the enclosure for a summary of the class justifications in our sample. We 

identified about half from prior and current GAO work that reviewed various aspects of DOD 

noncompetitive contracting, and the remainder by searching the Federal Business Opportunities 

website. We reviewed and summarized the information within each class justification, such as 

the description of the products or services covered; the estimated dollar value and time period 

covered; the cited exception to competition; efforts to ensure that offers are solicited from as 

many potential sources as is practicable; and the actions, if any, taken or planned to increase 

future competition. We did not independently verify the information contained in the justification 

documents. We reviewed the FAR and DOD policy to determine requirements, if any, related to 

class justifications. We also interviewed DOD and component officials to obtain their perspective 

on the use of class justifications. 

We conducted our work from August 2013 to April 2014 in accordance with all sections of 

GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our objectives. The framework 

requires that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence 

to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe that the 

information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any 

findings and conclusions in this product.

Results in Brief

The DOD class justifications included in our sample were used primarily for the acquisition of

weapon systems or related subsystems and components. About 77 percent (50 of 65) covered 

specific weapon system development, production, sustainment, or modernization efforts; about 

14 percent (9 of 65) covered logistics support of multiple weapon systems or training systems, 

and the remaining 9 percent (6 of 65) covered other requirements. Because weapon systems 

are typically used for many years, DOD officials told us class justifications provided an 

administrative efficiency by allowing one justification for multiple contracts that would essentially 

require the same justification. Most of the class justifications in our sample had a total value of 

over $85.5 million and required approval at the highest level—the senior procurement executive 

of the DOD component. About 90 percent (59 of 65) of the class justifications in our sample 

cited only one responsible source as the exception to competition, generally because the 

contractor’s ownership of proprietary technical data or expertise prevented the ability to 

compete the contract.3 The class justifications we reviewed generally cited the publication of 

notices of proposed contract actions on the Federal Business Opportunities website or market 

research to identify other qualified sources, neither of which identified other contractors that 

could meet the requirements. About 17 percent (11 of 63) of the class justifications identified 

plans to compete future requirements.

4 For example, three cited plans to acquire technical data 

 

2 Interim rule at 74 Fed. Reg. 2731 (Jan. 15, 2009) and final rule at 75 Fed. Reg. 34273 (June 16, 2010), 

implementing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 844, “Public 

Disclosure of Justification and Approval Documents for Noncompetitive Contracts.”

3 For the purpose of this report, technical data is recorded information used to define a design and to produce, 

support, maintain or operate an item.

4 There are two justifications that were amendments to original class justifications, and plans to compete future 

requirements were not included as part of the amendment. These were excluded from the overall calculations 

because the information is not known.
Page 3 GAO-14-427R DOD Class Justifications

to enable future competition and two cited efforts to break out some portion of the requirement 

for competition.

Background 

The FAR generally requires that contracting officers provide for full and open competition in 

soliciting proposals and awarding government contracts.5 However, the FAR recognizes the 

statutory authorities that permit contracting without full and open competition under certain 

conditions. For example, exceptions to full and open competition are permitted where there is 

only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements; 

an unusual and compelling urgency; or in the interest of national security.6

Generally, noncompetitive contracts must be supported by a written justification with sufficient 

information to justify the use of the specific exception to full and open competition, including 

• the supplies or services required and estimated dollar value; 

• a demonstration that the proposed contractor’s unique qualifications or the nature of the 

acquisition require use of the exception cited; 

• efforts made to solicit offers from as many potential sources as is practicable; and 

• the actions, if any, the agency may take to overcome barriers to competition for any 

subsequent acquisitions.7

The justifications can generally be made on an individual or class basis. We found class 

justifications covered contract actions for the same or related supplies or services or other 

contract actions that require essentially identical justification. Class justifications generally 

include a dollar limit and specified time period for the contract actions taken under the authority 

of the justification.

 

Justifications must be approved by agency officials, with the approval level based on dollar 

value of the proposed contracts. For class justifications, the approval level is determined by the 

estimated total value of the class. The approval levels range from the contracting officer for 

proposed contracts not exceeding $650,000 up to the agency senior procurement executive for 

contracts over $85.5 million.8 Neither the FAR or DOD policy specify separate requirements for

the justifications or approvals of class justifications—they are justified and approved using the 

same process and dollar thresholds as individual justifications considering the estimated total 

value of the class.

9

DOD Class Justifications Are Used Primarily for the Acquisition of Weapon Systems and 

Related Components 

 

 

5 FAR § 6.101.

6 See FAR §§ 6.302-1 through 6.302-7 for the seven exceptions to competition.

7 FAR §§ 6.303-1(a)(1), 6.303-2.

8 FAR § 6.304.

9 FAR § 6.303-1 requires that any justification for contracts awarded under the public interest exception to full and 

open competition only be made on an individual basis.
Page 4 GAO-14-427R DOD Class Justifications

The DOD class justifications in our non-projectable sample of 65 class justifications from fiscal 

years 2009 through 2013 were primarily weapon systems related. As shown in figure 1, 77

percent (50 of 65) of the class justifications in our sample were for the acquisition of specific 

weapon systems or related subsystems and components. 

Figure 1: Percentage of Identified Fiscal Year 2009 through 2013 DOD Class Justifications by 

Type of Product or Service Covered

For these weapon system related justifications, the contracts covered were generally for 

production, sustainment, or modernization efforts. About 14 percent (9 of 65) covered logistics 

support or supplies for multiple weapon systems or training systems. The remaining 9 percent

(6 of 65) of class justifications covered counternarcotics and terrorism programs, information 

technology, utilities, and disaster relief. 

Although some of the weapon system-related class justifications covered development 

contracts, most covered production quantities and related support, such as test equipment and 

initial spare and repair parts; supplies, equipment, and support services; and upgrades or 

modernization. For example, the class justification for the Army’s Guided Multiple Launch 

Rocket System included production of various rockets, rocket pods, special tooling, test 

equipment, and quality assurance testing. The Navy’s Trident II missile MK6 Guidance System 

life extension program class justification covered various engineering support, test, repair, and 

maintenance and design, and production activities. 

According to DOD acquisition officials, class justifications are primarily used for sole-source 

weapon systems contracts because these systems are typically used for decades, and DOD is 

often reliant on the original manufacturer for production and support. For these noncompetitive 

acquisitions, DOD officials told us class justifications provide an administrative efficiency by 

allowing one justification for multiple contracts that would essentially require the same 

justification.

About 14 percent (9 of 65) of the class justifications covered logistics support—spare and repair 

parts and support services that covered multiple systems—or training systems. For example, 

the class justification for the Air Force’s Aging Aircraft Fleet program covered specialized 

engineering services in support of developing and transitioning emerging technologies and 

methodologies for various aging aircraft, including studies, investigations, and analysis. In 

another case, the Army’s Logistics, Maintenance and Supply Support Program class justification 
Page 5 GAO-14-427R DOD Class Justifications

covered various contracts to provide mission-critical support for logistics, maintenance, and 

supply functions and associated technologies to numerous DOD entities. 

The remaining 9 percent (6 of 65) of class justifications in our sample covered counter-narcotics 

and terrorism programs, information technology, utilities, and disaster relief. Examples of the 

programs and related products and services acquired under these class justifications included:

• The Army’s Counter Narco-Terrorism Program covered technology development and 

application, training, operations, and logistics support. 

• The Air Force’s Local Area Network Standard Architecture Program acquired hardware, 

software, maintenance, and associated equipment in support of the Air Force Institute of 

Technology's Local Area Network.

• The Air Force’s Wastewater Treatment Reconfiguration and Services program covered 

recurring wastewater treatment services.

• The Defense Logistics Agency disaster relief for Hurricane Sandy covered emergency 

relief (food, water, heat, housing, generators); transportation and electricity restoration; 

and wreckage removal.

The estimated dollar value of contracts covered by the class justifications in our sample ranged 

from under $1 million to $19 billion. Of the 55 class justifications in our sample with an 

identifiable estimated dollar value, about 71 percent (39 out of 55) were over $85.5 million, 

requiring approval at the highest level—the senior procurement executive of the DOD 

component—and about one-third (16 out of 55) were over $1 billion.10 About 70 percent (45 of 

65) of the time periods covered under the class justifications we reviewed were 5 years or less. 

For weapon system-related class justifications, the average time period was slightly less than 5 

years. The longest time period covered in our sample was 12 years—a Defense Logistics 

Agency class justification covering sole source parts used on multiple weapon systems.

Most DOD Class Justifications Cite Only One Responsible Source 

Over 90 percent (59 of 65) of the class justifications in our sample cited “only one responsible 

source” as the exception to competition. As noted in DOD’s annual competition report, much of 

the noncompetitive contracts are for weapon systems and specialized equipment that may have 

been originally competed, but now require sole-source contracts because the programs have 

moved past the stage in their program lifecycle where competition is economically viable.11 

The class justifications we reviewed that use the “only one responsible source” exception 

generally cited the contractor’s ownership of proprietary technical data or expertise that 

prevented the ability to compete the requirements. We found in previous work that a longstanding factor affecting DOD’s competition rate is the reliance on an original equipment 

manufacturer throughout the life cycle of a program because of a previous decision not to 

purchase proprietary technical data. Without technical data, any new potential contractor would 

not possess or have access to the information necessary to meet the government’s 

 

10 For 10 of the 65 class justifications, we could not identify the estimated dollar value. For 9, the value was redacted 

or was referenced to another document we were not able to identify, and one was a no-cost modification.

11 Department of Defense Competition Report for Fiscal Year 2012.
Page 6 GAO-14-427R DOD Class Justifications

requirements.12 DOD has recognized the lack of ownership of technical data as a challenge and 

is taking steps to address this through its Better Buying Power initiative, which outlined a series 

of actions to promote competition including outlining an approach for the acquisition of technical 

data rights.

13

DOD policy now provides that the acquisition strategy will address how program management 

will create and sustain a competitive environment, from program inception through sustainment, 

including considering acquiring complete technical data packages.14 

Other exceptions to competition in our sample of class justifications include “unusual and 

compelling urgency” for natural disaster recovery and urgent warfighter needs; “industrial 

mobilization” for research and development centers: and “national security” for classified and 

sensitive programs.15

DOD Contracting Officials Publicized Contract Actions, but Few Class Justifications 

Identified Plans for Future Competition

The class justifications we reviewed generally cited the publication of notices of proposed 

contract actions on the Federal Business Opportunities website.16 The primary purposes of 

these notices are to improve small business access to acquisition information and enhance 

competition by identifying contracting and subcontracting opportunities. However, according to 

the information in the justification documents, either no other contractors responded to the 

notices or contractors who did respond were determined to be unable to meet the stated 

requirements. In addition, some class justifications cited various market research efforts to 

identify additional contractors but did not identify any additional contractors that were capable of 

meeting the requirement. 

About 17 percent (11 of 63) of the class justifications in our sample identified plans to compete 

all or part of future requirements. Three class justifications in our sample cited plans to acquire 

technical data in order to compete some future requirements. For example, the class 

justification for the Navy’s T-45 Aircraft Training System cited plans to procure data rights to 

enable competition for future service life extension programs. Two cited breaking out some 

portion of the acquisition for competition, and one cited a certification program to qualify 

additional sources. Four of the justifications citing future competitive efforts were for bridge 

contracts where a delay in the competitive award of the follow-on contracts required noncompetitive extensions to existing contracts.

 

12 GAO, Defense Contracting: Actions Needed to Increase Competition, GAO-13-325 (Washington, D.C.: March 28, 

2013). 

13 In June 2010, DOD announced its “Better Buying Power” initiative and issued implementing guidance in 

September 2010, which outlined a series of actions to promote competition including requiring a business case 

analysis prior to the official start of the program that outlines an approach for acquiring technical data rights. 

14 Interim DOD Instruction 5000.02, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System ( Nov. 25, 2013). 

15 See GAO, Federal Contracting: Noncompetitive Contracts Based on Urgency Need Additional Oversight, GAO-14-

304 (Washington, D.C.: March 26, 2014) for information on DOD and other agencies’ use of the unusual and 

compelling urgency exception to competition.

16 The FAR generally requires the publication of notices of various proposed contract actions to the Federal Business 

Opportunities website. FAR § 5.201.
Page 7 GAO-14-427R DOD Class Justifications

About 83 percent (52 of 63) of the class justifications we reviewed did not indicate any specific 

plans to compete future requirements. In some cases, this was because the acquisitions 

covered in the class justification completed the requirements of the program and no additional 

acquisitions were planned. In other cases, future competition was cited as not feasible because 

the incumbent was the only source available to meet the requirement. For about one-third of the 

class justifications in our sample, future competition was uncertain. In most cases, the agency 

was evaluating competition opportunities and cited continued plans to conduct market research 

and monitor markets for potential additional sources. In other cases, future competition was 

uncertain because follow-on requirements were undetermined. 

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this product to DOD for comment and DOD responded it had no 

comments on the report.

***

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense as well as interested 

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

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-

4841 or martinb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. In addition to the contact named above, 

LaTonya Miller, Assistant Director; Helena Brink; Julia Kennon; Bradley Terry; and Marie 

Ahearn, made key contributions to this report.

Sincerely yours,

Belva M. Martin

Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management
Page 8 GAO-14-427R DOD Class Justifications

Enclosure: Summary of Class Justifications

Table 1 below provides a summary of the class justifications we reviewed including the Military 

Department approving the justification; the program name or requirements covered; the total 

estimated dollar value of contracts covered, the FAR exception to competition cited, and the 

category of products or services covered. For 10 of the 65 class justifications, we could not 

identify the estimated dollar value. For 9, the value was either redacted or was not identifiable 

because the value was referenced to another document we were not able to identify and one 

was a no-cost modification. 

Table 1: Summary of Class Justifications in Our Sample 

Military 

Department Program Name/Requirements Covered

Dollar Value 

$Millions FAR Exception Category

Air Force Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle $19,000 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Air Force Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System 

(STARS) System Improvement Program II 

modernization

$929 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Air Force Raptor Enhancement, Development, and 

Integration

Redacted one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Air Force Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile $4,400 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Air Force C-17 Globemaster III Aircraft (Fiscal Year 2009 

Overseas Contingency Operations aircraft)

Redacted one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Air Force C-17 Globemaster III Aircraft (Fiscal Year 2008 

Supplemental Appropriations Act aircraft)

Redacted one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Air Force Predator /Reaper $7,400 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Air Force Embedded Global Positioning System /Inertial 

Navigation System

$613 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Air Force Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod PostProduction Support$842 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Air Force Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures $3,200 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Air Force F-16 Mode 5 Advanced Identification 

Friend/Foe

$201 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Air Force Big Safari - aircraft, avionics, specialized 

mission equipment

$15,200 National Security Weapon 

System

Air Force Hard Target Void Sensing Fuze $250 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Air Force Laser Target Imaging Program $39 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Air Force Counter Communications System $3 Unusual and 

Compelling Urgency

Weapon 

System

Air Force Blue Devil Block II $4 Unusual and 

Compelling Urgency

Weapon 

System

Army H-60 Helicopters Redacted one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Army Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System $2,400 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Army Husky Mounted Detection Systems $579 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy EA-18G Aircraft $869 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy Trident II missile MK6 Guidance System life 

extension

$626 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy Harpoon/ Slam-ER AII-Up-Round missiles $78 one responsible Weapon 
Page 9 GAO-14-427R DOD Class Justifications

Military 

Department Program Name/Requirements Covered

Dollar Value 

$Millions FAR Exception Category

source System

Navy Trident II SSBN Fire Control System and US 

SSGN Attack Weapon Control System

$49 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy Trident II missile $213 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy F/A-18 and EA-18G Aircraft $467 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy Littoral Combat Ships $12,600 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy Joint Strike Fighter $1,300 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy AN/SPS-67 Radar $0.43 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy T-AO Class Vessels $5 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy OHIO class submarine replacement $2,900 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy Trident I and II missile subsystems $1,000 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy H-1 Helicopter Parts Upgrade (AH-1Z/ UH-1Y 

Common Cuff and Yoke) 

$114 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy H-1 Helicopter Upgrades $1,800 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement $420 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class Destroyer $500 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy Aircraft Wireless Intercom Communications 

System

Not 

identifiable

one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy F/A-18E/F and EA-18G Aircraft $568 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy DDG 1000 Class ships $1,600 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy F/A-18 and EA-18G Aircraft $1,600 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy DDG-1002 ship Advanced Gun System $868 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy Harpoon/SLAM-ER missile $128 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy MH-60R helicopter Program ANlAQS-22 

Airborne Low Frequency Sonar

$439 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy LPD Amphibious Transport Dock Ship $1,600 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy F/A-18, AV-8B, and T-45 Aircraft Computer 

Systems

Not 

identifiable

one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy E-2D Advanced Hawkeye $2,300 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy System for Navy Target Control $21 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy MH-60R Helicopter Situational Awareness 

Technology Insertion

$65 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy V-22 Osprey Tiltrotor Aircraft $8,100 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy H-60 Helicopter $79 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Navy P-8A Aircraft $6,400 one responsible 

source

Weapon 

System

Air Force Raytheon Enterprise Wide Strategic Corporate 

Contracts

$286 one responsible 

source

Logistics 

Support
Page 10 GAO-14-427R DOD Class Justifications

Military 

Department Program Name/Requirements Covered

Dollar Value 

$Millions FAR Exception Category

Air Force USAF Aging Aircraft Fleet $46 Industrial 

mobilization

Logistics 

Support

Army Logistics, Maintenance, and Supply Support Redacted one responsible 

source

Logistics 

Support

DLA Honeywell Spare Parts $765 one responsible 

source

Logistics 

Support

DLA Parker Hannfin Spare Parts $502 one responsible 

source

Logistics 

Support

Navy Low Temperature Fresh Water Cooling System $.7 one responsible 

source

Logistics 

Support

Navy T-45 Aircraft Training System $215 one responsible 

source

Training 

System

Navy Aviation, Undersea, and Surface Training 

Systems

$12 one responsible 

source

Training 

System

Navy T-45 Aircraft Training System $268 one responsible 

source

Training 

System

DLA Disaster relief for Hurricane Sandy $50 Unusual and 

Compelling Urgency

Disaster 

relief

Air Force Local Area Network Standard Architecture Redacted one responsible 

source

Information 

Technology

Army Counter Narco-Terrorism Program $0 – no cost 

modification

one responsible 

source

Counter 

NarcoTerrorism

Army Counter Narcotics Transnational Threats 

Project 

Not 

identifiable

one responsible 

source

Counter 

NarcoTerrorism

Air Force Local Exchange Services (dial tone) $3 Unusual and 

Compelling Urgency

Utilities

Air Force Wastewater Treatment Reconfiguration and 

Services

$41 one responsible 

source

Utilities

(121161)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.