FEDERAL DATA 

TRANSPARENCY

Opportunities Remain 

to Incorporate 

Recovery Act Lessons 

Learned 

Statement of Stanley J. Czerwinski

Director, Strategic Issues

Testimony

Before the Government Performance 

Task Force, Committee on Budget,

U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT

September 18, 2013

GAO-13-871T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-871T, a testimony 

before the Government Performance Task 

Force, Committee on Budget, U.S. Senate

September 18, 2013

FEDERAL DATA TRANSPARENCY

Opportunities Remain to Incorporate Recovery Act 

Lessons Learned

Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government spends more 

than $3.7 trillion annually, with more 

than $1 trillion awarded through 

contracts, grants, and loans. Improving 

transparency of this spending is 

essential to improve accountability. 

Recent federal laws have required 

increased public information on federal 

awards and spending.

This testimony is based on GAO’s 

recently issued report GAO-13-758. It 

addresses (1) the status of 

transparency efforts under way and 

(2) the extent to which new initiatives 

address lessons learned from the 

Recovery Act. GAO reviewed relevant 

legislation, executive orders, OMB 

circulars and guidance, and previous 

GAO work, including work on Recovery 

Act reporting. GAO also interviewed 

officials from OMB, the GAT Board,

and other federal entities; government 

reform advocates; associations 

representing fund recipients; and a 

variety of contract and grant recipients.

What GAO Recommends

In its report GAO recommended that 

the director of OMB, with the GAT 

Board, develop a long-term plan to 

implement comprehensive 

transparency reform, and increase 

efforts for obtaining stakeholder input 

to ensure reporting challenges are 

addressed. Further, Congress should 

consider legislating transparency 

requirements and establishing clear 

authority to implement these 

requirements to ensure that 

recommended approaches for improving 

transparency are carried out across the 

federal government. The GAT Board, 

OMB and other cognizant agencies 

generally concurred with GAO’s 

recommendations.

What GAO Found

Several federal entities, including the Government Accountability and

Transparency Board (GAT Board), the Recovery Accountability and 

Transparency Board (Recovery Board), and the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), have initiatives under way to improve the accuracy and 

availability of federal spending data. The GAT Board, through its working groups,

developed approaches to standardize key data elements to improve data 

integrity; link financial management systems with award systems to reconcile 

spending data with obligations; and leverage existing data to help identify and 

reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. With no dedicated funding, GAT Board plans 

are incremental and leverage ongoing agency initiatives and resources designed 

to improve existing business processes as well as improve data transparency. 

These initiatives are in an early stage, and some progress has been made to 

bring greater consistency to contract and grant award identifiers. The GAT 

Board’s mandate is to provide strategic direction, not to implement changes. 

Further, while these early plans are being developed with input from a range of 

federal stakeholders, the GAT Board and OMB have not developed mechanisms 

for obtaining input from non-federal fund recipients.

Lessons from implementing the transparency objectives of the Recovery Act 

could help inform these new initiatives:

• Standardize data to integrate systems and enhance accountability. Similar 

to the GAT Board’s current focus on standardization, the Recovery Board 

recognized that standardized data would be more usable by the public and the 

Recovery Board for identifying potential misuse of federal funds. However, 

reporting requirements under the Recovery Act had to be met quickly. Because 

agencies did not collect spending data in a consistent manner, the most 

expedient approach was to collect data from fund recipients, even though

similar data already existed in agency systems. Given the longer timeframes to 

develop current transparency initiatives, OMB and the GAT Board are working 

toward greater data consistency by focusing on data standards. Their plans, 

however, do not include long-term steps, such as working toward uniform 

award identifiers, that would improve award tracking with less burden on 

recipients.

• Obtain stakeholder involvement as reporting requirements are 

developed. During the Recovery Act, federal officials listened to the concerns 

of recipients and made changes to guidance in response, which helped ensure 

they could meet those requirements. Without similar outreach under the current 

initiatives, reporting challenges may not be addressed, potentially impairing the 

data’s accuracy and completeness, and increasing burden on those reporting. 

• Delineate clear requirements and lines of authority for implementing 

transparency initiatives. Unlike the present efforts to expand spending 

transparency, the Recovery Act provided OMB and the Recovery Board with 

clear authority and mandated reporting requirements. Given this clarity,

transparency provisions were carried out successfully and on time. Going 

forward, without clear, legislated authority and requirements, the ability to 

sustain progress and institutionalize transparency initiatives may be 

jeopardized as priorities shift over time.

View GAO-13-871T. For more information, 

contact Stanley J. Czerwinski, (202) 512-6806, 

czerwinskis@gao.gov.
Page 1 GAO-13-871T 

Chairman Warner, Ranking Member Ayotte, and Members of the Task 

Force:

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the findings from our recent 

report on federal efforts to increase the transparency of information 

detailing federal awards and expenditures.1 The federal government 

awards more than $1 trillion annually through contracts, grants, and 

loans. Transparency—shedding light on the amount of spending, what it 

is spent on, who receives the funds, and what are the results of that 

spending—is essential to improving government accountability and 

fostering civic engagement. Within the last decade, Congress and the 

administration have taken several steps to improve the transparency of 

federal spending data, including passing two statutes intended to expand 

public access to information on federal programs. The Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA)2 and the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)3

www.USAspending.gov

have allowed 

the public to access information on spending, recipients, and uses of 

funds. Information on grant and contract awards is available on 

, and information on Recovery Act awards and 

spending is available on www.Recovery.gov. The data’s availability has 

also provided opportunities for increased oversight to prevent and detect 

fraud, waste, and abuse of federal funds, and to improve the efficiency 

and effectiveness of federal spending.

While the transparency of federal spending data has increased, both the 

administration and Members of Congress have suggested the need for 

more transparency. For example, USAspending.gov only provides data 

on funds awarded and does not include information on disbursements. In 

terms of data collection, federal agencies and recipients report to various 

systems, sometimes with the same information and, as a result, direct 

unnecessary time and resources to administrative activities. In addition, 

the lack of consistent data structures prevents easy aggregation of data 

at the government-wide level, hampering the ability to link existing 

 1

GAO, Federal Data Transparency: Opportunities Remain to Incorporate Lessons 

Learned as Availability of Spending Data Increases, GAO-13-758 (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 12, 2013).

2

Pub. L. No. 109-282, 120 Stat. 1186 (2006), as amended by Pub. L. No. 110-252, § 

6202(a), 122 Stat. 2323, 2387 (2008) (codified at 31 U.S.C. § 6101 note).

3

Pub. L. No. 111-5, §§ 1512, 1526, 123 Stat. 115, 287–288, 293–294 (2009).
Page 2 GAO-13-871T 

financial, award, and procurements systems. It also increases the cost of 

government transactions and the burden on federal fund recipients. And, 

as we have reported previously, the accuracy and reliability of the data 

needs to be improved.4 Emerging transparency efforts include specific 

changes in data collection under consideration by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and the Government Accountability and 

Transparency Board (GAT Board), newly-created under a June 2011 

Executive Order.5

My testimony today is drawn from our recent report to you on efforts to 

improve federal data transparency. It will address (1) federal initiatives 

under way to improve the accuracy and availability of federal spending 

data and (2) the extent to which lessons identified by us and federal fund 

recipients from the operation of Recovery.gov and USAspending.gov are 

being addressed by these new transparency initiatives.

To conduct our work on federal data transparency efforts, we examined 

data collection and reporting requirements under FFATA and the 

Recovery Act; the June 2011 Executive Order related to transparency;6

relevant OMB guidance;7

 4

See, for example, GAO, Electronic Government: Implementation of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, 

and action plans created by the GAT Board, the 

Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board (Recovery Board), and 

other federal entities with responsibility for developing approaches to 

improve federal data transparency. We interviewed officials at OMB, the 

GAT Board, and the Recovery Board who are examining new data 

transparency initiatives. We also interviewed officials at three agencies 

who are developing new transparency prototypes within their agencies: 

the Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS), and Department of the Treasury (Treasury), and also 

interviewed officials at the General Services Administration (GSA), the 

agency that manages USAspending.gov. To get their perspectives on 

GAO-10-365 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12, 

2010).

5

Executive Order 13,576, “Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable 

Government,” 76 Fed. Reg. 35,297 (June 16, 2011).

6

Executive Order 13,576.

7

OMB, Open Government Directive, M-10-06 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 8, 2009); OMB, 

Improving Acquisition Data Quality for Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 (Washington, D.C.: 

Oct. 7, 2009).
Page 3 GAO-13-871T 

lessons learned from both the operation of existing transparency systems 

and federal efforts under way to improve data transparency, we spoke 

with officials from organizations representing federal fund recipients and 

government reform organizations. We also conducted seven focus groups 

with federal fund recipients representing state and local governments, 

nonprofit organizations, higher education research institutions, and 

private businesses who receive grants from, or contracted with, the 

federal government. Finally, we reviewed our previous work on the 

reporting successes and challenges experienced by both agencies and 

federal fund recipients. This step allowed us to identify lessons learned 

from those experiences that should be considered as new approaches to 

data transparency are developed. Our work was performed in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. More detailed 

information on our scope and methodology can be found in our report.

The GAT Board, the Recovery Board, and OMB, have initiatives under 

way to improve the accuracy and availability of federal spending data. 

The GAT Board, with a mandate of providing strategic direction, has four 

working groups charged with developing approaches for improving the 

quality of data in federal contract, grants, and financial management 

systems, and for expanding the availability of these data to improve 

oversight of federal funds. The working groups represent the federal 

procurement, grants, financial management, and oversight communities 

and include interagency forums such as the Chief Acquisition Officers 

Council and the Council for Inspectors General for Integrity and 

Efficiency. (See appendix I for more information on the GAT Board 

working groups.) For example, the GAT Board established the 

Procurement Data Standardization and Integrity Working Group to 

develop approaches that ensure that contracting data are accurate and 

contract transactions can be tracked from purchase order through vendor 

payments. The GAT Board selected DOD to lead this effort in order to 

leverage its long-standing efforts to increase the accuracy of contract 

data submitted to the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation 

(FPDS-NG).

Through these working groups, the GAT Board has begun to develop 

approaches to (1) standardize data elements across systems; (2) link 

financial management systems with award systems so that spending data 

can be reconciled with obligations; and (3) use the data to help identify 

and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. However, the GAT Board’s mandate 

does not provide it with the authority to implement these reforms; 

therefore, it must rely on its working groups’ lead agencies to implement 

Transparency Efforts 

Under Way Focus on 

Standardizing Data to 

Integrate Systems and 

Enhance Spending 

Oversight
Page 4 GAO-13-871T 

approaches that it has approved. Moreover, the GAT Board has no 

dedicated funding, so its strategic plan is short-term and calls for an 

incremental approach that builds upon ongoing agency initiatives.

We found that standardizing data and having a uniform convention for 

indentifying contract and grant awards throughout their life cycle are the 

first steps in ensuring data quality and tracking spending data. Without 

this uniformity, reporting and tracking spending data is inefficient and 

burdensome. Current efforts are focused on identifying approaches to 

standardize contract and grant award data elements to improve data 

accuracy, and to date some progress has been made, such as:

• Based in part on work of the GAT Board for the Federal Acquisition 

Regulatory Council, DOD proposed a regulation requiring federal 

agencies to use a uniform procurement identifier—a number that 

could be attached to a contract so it can be tracked across various 

systems throughout the procurement process.8

• OMB, working with the GAT Board, issued new guidance that requires 

all federal agencies to establish unique identification numbers for 

financial assistance awards.9

• Through its work with the GAT Board, HHS examined more than 

1,100 individual data elements used by different agencies and found 

wide variation in terminology and associated definitions that impacted 

how spending was captured, tracked, and reported.

While this guidance could help bring 

greater consistency to grant award data, it only requires agencies to 

assign award numbers unique within their agency and thus does not 

provide the same level of uniformity as is required for contracts. OMB 

has noted that standardizing an identifier format could cause 

problems for agency systems because some agencies structure their 

award identifiers to track particular characteristics of grants for their 

internal use.

• The Recovery Board recently concluded its Grant Reporting 

Information Project that tested the feasibility of using the website 

FederalReporting.gov to collect data on non-Recovery Act grant 

expenditures. The Recovery Board’s analysis of the project supported 

 8

78 Fed. Reg. 34,020 (June 6, 2013).

9

OMB, Improving Data Quality for USAspending.gov. (Washington, D.C.: June 12, 2013).
Page 5 GAO-13-871T 

using FederalReporting.gov for grant reporting and validated the 

effectiveness of using a universal award identifier.10

The GAT Board is also building on Treasury’s effort to integrate financial 

management systems to track spending better. Its Financial Management 

Working Group is developing recommendations for a work plan that will 

seek to leverage Treasury’s on-going transparency and system 

modernization efforts. For example, the board is building on Treasury’s 

initiative to standardize payment transaction processes, which will 

consolidate more than 30 agency payment systems into a single 

application. This application will process agency payment requests using 

a standardized payment request format, which all agencies that use 

Treasury disbursing services will be directed to use by October 1, 2014.11

A third area on which federal transparency efforts have focused is on 

using existing data to enhance spending oversight. Data mining 

applications are emerging as essential tools to inform management 

decisions, develop government-wide best practices and common 

solutions, and effectively detect and combat fraud in federal programs. 

For example, predictive analytic technologies can identify fraud and errors 

before payments are made, while data-mining and data-matching 

techniques can identify fraud or improper payments that have already 

been awarded. The Recovery Board’s Recovery Operations Center 

The GAT Board also intends to leverage Treasury’s plans to develop a 

centralized repository with detailed and summarized records of payment 

transactions from all federal agencies including payments reported by the 

federal agencies that disburse their own payments. The Payment 

Information Repository will contain descriptive data on payments that can 

be matched with other data to provide additional information regarding the 

purpose, program, location, and commercial recipient of the payment.

 10Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, Grants Reporting Information Project, 

Washington, D.C.: June 2013.

11Treasury disbursing organizations will be directed to use the Standard Payment Request 

format to submit detailed payment and accounting data, which in turn will be used to 

populate the Payment Information Repository. Non-Treasury disbursed agencies will be 

directed to report detailed payment and accounting data directly to the Payment 

Information Repository using a different but standard format. Both the Standard Payment 

Request format used by Treasury disbursing organizations as well as the direct input 

format used by Non-Treasury disbursed agencies defines the data elements and 

validation rules that must be used to report payments and associated information into the 

Payment Information Repository.
Page 6 GAO-13-871T 

(ROC) uses data analytics to monitor Recovery Act spending and has 

provided several inspectors general with access to these tools. ROC staff 

were able to notify agencies that they had awarded Recovery funds to 

companies that were debarred. ROC analysts also found hidden assets 

that resulted in a court ordering the payment of a fine, and indentified 

several individuals employed by other entities while receiving worker’s 

compensation benefits. The GAT Board’s Data Analytics Working Group 

has set a goal of expanding on the ROC’s work to develop a shared 

platform for improving fraud detection in federal spending programs. This 

approach relies on the development of data standards. It will provide a set 

of analytic tools for fraud detection to be shared across the federal 

government. Although this work is just starting, working group members 

have identified several challenges including reaching consensus among 

federal agencies on a set of common data attributes to be used and 

obtaining changes needed to existing privacy laws to allow access to 

certain types of protected data and systems. A forum we co-hosted in 

January 2013, along with the Council of the Inspectors General on 

Integrity and Efficiency and the Recovery Board, explored these 

challenges and identified next steps to address them. Forum participants 

identified a range of challenges, including a lack of data standards and a 

universal award identifier that limit data sharing across the federal 

government and across federal, state, and local agencies. Working 

groups or other structures have been formed to forward these issues. For 

example, we are leading a community of practice for federal, state, and 

local government officials to discuss challenges and opportunities related 

to data sharing within and across government agencies.12

 12See GAO, Highlights of a Forum: Data Analytics for Oversight and Law Enforcement, 

GAO-13-680SP. (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2013).
Page 7 GAO-13-871T 

In many cases, the transparency initiatives of the GAT and Recovery 

Boards, OMB, and key federal agencies build on lessons learned from the 

operation of existing transparency systems. But as new transparency 

initiatives get under way, we believe there are opportunities to give 

additional consideration to these lessons to help ensure new 

transparency programs and policies are implemented successfully.

First, we found that in implementing the Recovery Act, OMB directed 

recipients of covered funds to use a series of standardize data elements 

and report centrally into the Recovery Board’s reporting web site. The 

transparency envisioned under the Recovery Act required the 

development of a system that could quickly trace billions of dollars 

disbursed to thousands of recipients, across a variety of programs. 

Agencies had systems in place that captured such information as award 

amounts, funds disbursed, and, to varying degrees, progress being made 

by recipients. However, the lack of uniform federal data and reporting 

standards made it difficult to obtain these data from federal agencies. 

Because agencies did not collect spending data in a consistent manner, 

the most expedient approach for Recovery Act reporting was to collect 

data from fund recipients, which placed additional burden on them to 

provide these data. Federal fund recipients we spoke to said that the lack 

of consistent data standards and commonality in how data elements are 

defined and reported places undue burden on them because it can result 

in having to report the same information multiple times and requires 

recipients to enter data manually, which can impact the accuracy of the 

data. For example, a nonprofit group representative who participated in 

one of our focus groups said that they had to report the same information 

through 15 different reporting platforms, so having data standards and

single reporting platform would make the reporting process more efficient. 

Given the longer time frames to develop current transparency initiatives, 

OMB and the GAT Board are working toward greater data consistency by 

focusing on data standards. Citing agency budgetary constraints and the 

potential of emerging technologies for extracting nonstandard data 

elements from disparate systems, the GAT Board and OMB are taking 

incremental steps toward increasing data standardization. Their plans, 

however, do not include long-term steps, such as working toward uniform 

award identifiers that would improve award tracking with less burden on 

recipients.

Second, we found that early in the development of both the Recovery Act 

reporting system and its procedures, federal officials listened to the 

concerns of recipients and made changes to guidance in response, which 

helped ensure they could meet those requirements. Given the daunting 

As Transparency 

Efforts Get Under 

Way, Opportunities 

Remain to 

Incorporate Lessons 

Learned from the 

Recovery Act
Page 8 GAO-13-871T 

task of rapidly establishing a system to track billions of dollars in 

Recovery Act funding, OMB and the Recovery Board implemented an 

iterative process which allowed many stakeholders to provide insight into 

the challenges that could impede their ability to report Recovery Act 

expenditures. Federal fund recipients we spoke with stressed the 

importance of having a formal mechanism to provide feedback to the 

federal government as guidance is crafted and before new transparency 

reporting requirements are established to ensure that the guidance is 

clear and understandable. Such guidance will ensure that the data they 

report are accurate, on time, and minimally burdensome. Although, the 

GAT Board has implemented a structure that leverages the expertise of 

federal officials with in-depth knowledge of federal procurement, grantmaking, and financial management operations, the board does not have 

any formal mechanisms, other than the federal rule-making process, to 

obtain input from non-federal fund recipients. As we learned through our 

work examining Recovery Act implementation, without similar outreach 

under the current initiatives, reporting challenges may not be addressed, 

potentially impairing the data’s accuracy and completeness, and 

increasing burden on those doing the reporting.

Third, we found that the under the Recovery Act, specific requirements

and responsibilities for transparency were clearly laid out in statute, which 

provided unprecedented transparency and helped to ensure that the act’s 

transparency requirements were implemented within tight time frames. 

The Recovery Act specified the timing of reporting, including its frequency 

and deadlines, and the items that needed to be included in the reporting. 

The act also required the Recovery Board to conduct and coordinate 

oversight of the funds and to deploy a data-collection system and a 

public-facing website to provide spending data to the public. Unlike the 

GAT Board, the Recovery Board had funding which was used to provide 

staff and resources for developing and operating its data collection 

system, website, and oversight activities. In contrast, authority for 

implementing the current transparency initiatives is not as clearly defined 

and authority for expanding transparency is centered in an executive 

order rather than legislation. An official from an association representing 

federal fund recipients told us that of clear reporting guidance was 

essential for ensuring compliance with reporting requirements, especially 

for recipients with limited resources. Moreover, unlike under the Recovery 

Act, new transparency initiatives are being funded through existing 

agency resources using agency personnel, as separate funding is 

unavailable. As, we have previously reported, given the importance of 

leadership to any collaborative effort, transitions and inconsistent 

leadership, which can occur as administrations change, can weaken the 
Page 9 GAO-13-871T 

effectiveness of any collaborative efforts, and result in a lack of 

continuity.13

In our recently released report, we recommended that OMB and the GAT 

Board develop a long-term strategy for implementing data standards 

across the federal government and for obtaining input from federal fund 

recipients. Specifically, we recommended that the Director of OMB, in 

collaboration with the members of the GAT Board, take the following two 

actions:

We found that the GAT Board’s vision for comprehensive 

transparency reform will take several years to implement, and therefore, 

continuity of leadership becomes particularly important. Going forward, 

without clear, legislated authority and requirements, the ability to sustain 

progress and institutionalize transparency initiatives may be jeopardized 

as priorities shift over time.

• Develop a plan to implement comprehensive transparency reform, 

including a long-term timeline and requirements for data standards, 

such as establishing a uniform award identification system across the 

federal government.

• Increase efforts for obtaining input from stakeholders, including 

entities receiving federal funds, to address reporting challenges, and 

strike an appropriate balance that ensures the accuracy of the data 

without unduly increasing the burden on those doing the reporting.

The GAT Board, OMB and other cognizant agencies generally agreed 

with our recommendations and identified actions underway or planned, 

which they believe will operationalize comprehensive transparency 

reforms and help them obtain stakeholder input.

Our recently issued report also suggested that Congress could consider 

legislating transparency requirements and establish clear lines of 

authority to ensure that recommended approaches for improving 

spending data transparency are implemented across the federal 

government. Among other things, this will ensure effective decision 

making and the efficient use of resources dedicated to enhancing the 

transparency of federal spending data.

 13GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).
Page 10 GAO-13-871T 

Chairman Warner, Ranking Member Ayotte, and Members of the Task 

Force, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to 

respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please 

contact me at (202) 512-6806 or czerwinskis@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to 

this testimony are Carol L. Patey, Assistant Director and 

Kathleen M. Drennan, Ph.D., Analyst-in-Charge. Additional contributions 

to our detailed report were made by Gerard S. Burke, Patricia Norris, 

Cynthia M. Saunders, Ph.D., Robert Robinson, Jessica Nierenberg, 

Judith Kordahl, and Keith O’Brien.

Contacts and 

Acknowledgements
Appendix I: Government Accountability

and Transparency Board and Work Group 

Agency Partners

Page 11 GAO-13-871T 

The Government Accountability and Transparency Board (GAT Board) is 

composed of the following 11 members designated by the President from 

among agency inspectors general, agency chief financial officers or 

deputy secretaries, and senior officials from OMB. The President 

designates a chairman from among the members.

• Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, U.S. 

Department of Defense

• Inspector General, U.S. Postal Service

• Assistant Secretary, Department of the Treasury

• Inspector General, U.S. Department of Energy

• Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

• Inspector General, National Science Foundation

• Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

• Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources and Chief Financial 

Officer, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

• Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation

• Inspector General, U.S. Department of Education

• Deputy Controller, Office of Management and Budget

The GAT Board established four working groups, as shown in table 1.

Appendix I: Government Accountability

and Transparency Board and Work Group 

Agency Partners
Appendix I: Government Accountability

and Transparency Board and Work Group 

Agency Partners

Page 12 GAO-13-871T 

Table1: Composition and Purpose of the GAT Board Working Groups

Source: GAO Analysis of GAT Board Documents

Working Group Working groups members Purpose

Procurement Data Standardization and 

Integrity

• Department of Defense (Lead)

• Office of Federal Procurement Policy 

(OMB)

• Chief Acquisition Officers Council

Identify approaches for standardizing 

contract data elements and electronic 

transactions to ensure data accuracy and 

enable the tracking of contract transactions 

from purchase order through vendor 

payment.

Grants Data Standardization and Integrity • Department of Health and Human 

Services (Lead)

• Office of Federal Financial 

Management (OMB)

• Council on Financial Assistance 

Reform

Identify approaches to standardize grants 

data elements to achieve great consistency 

across the federal government.

Financial Management Integration and 

Data Display

• Department of Treasury

• Office of Federal Financial 

Management (OMB)

Identify approaches for linking the financial 

management data maintained in agency 

financial systems with agency awards data in 

order to improve the quality of the data 

displayed to the public.

Data Analytics • United States Postal Service (Lead)

• Recovery Board

Expand upon the work of the Recovery 

Board’s Recovery Operation Center to 

develop a shared platform to improve fraud 

detection in federal spending programs.

(451072)
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 (http://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 http://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: http://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.