United States Senate 

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Rob Portman, Chairman

Tom Carper, Ranking Member

FEDERAL AGENCY COMPLIANCE 

WITH THE DATA ACT

STAFF REPORT

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON

INVESTIGATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE
i

FEDERAL AGENCY COMPLIANCE

WITH THE DATA ACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................... 1

A. The Subcommittee’s Review................................................................................ 5

B. Findings of Fact and Recommendations............................................................. 5

II. BACKGROUND................................................................................................. 10

A. Expansion of the Federal Government and Increased Spending .................... 12

B. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act........................... 14

C. The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014.............................. 16

1. The DATA Act Process to Populate USAspending.gov............................... 17

2. OMB and Treasury Guidance to Agencies to Submit Spending Data ....... 19

3. Oversight of Agency Compliance with the DATA Act ................................ 21

a. Agency Implementation Plans .............................................................. 23

b. Agency Readiness .................................................................................. 26

c. Initial Submissions and Implementation Reviews............................... 28

d. GAO Reporting on Agency Spending Data Submissions ..................... 31

III. USASPENDING.GOV PROVIDES INCONSISTENT SEARCH RESULTS 

FOR THE SAME PROGRAMS ................................................................................... 32

A. Available Search Tools on USAspending.gov ................................................... 32

B. USAspending.gov Provides Different Results for the Same Programs Based on 

Search Function........................................................................................................ 33

IV. EXAMPLES OF AGENCY NONCOMPLIANCE ............................................. 37

A. The Treasury Department................................................................................. 37

B. The State Department....................................................................................... 38

C. The Department of Housing and Urban Development .................................... 38

D. The Department of Transportation................................................................... 39

E. The Department of Agriculture......................................................................... 40

F. The Department of Veterans Affairs................................................................. 41
ii

G. The Department of Health and Human Services and Environmental 

Protection Agency..................................................................................................... 42

H. The Department of Defense and Department of Energy ................................. 45

V. CONCLUSION................................................................................................... 46
1

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 1804, President Thomas Jefferson told the U.S. Department of the 

Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin that the federal government’s finances had 

become too complex for the U.S. Congress and the public to understand, thus 

obscuring waste and permitting excessive increases in spending and debt.1 

Jefferson wanted the scattered “scraps & fragments” of the Treasury Department’s

accounts combined into “one batch” or a “consolidated mass.”2 More than 200 years 

later, Jefferson’s vision could be within reach. In May 2017, the Treasury 

Department compiled the first-ever single, unified data set containing information

that, in theory, would present a complete picture of federal government spending.3 

Efforts in recent years to make this information publicly available were built on the 

idea that transparency encourages effective and efficient government spending, and 

that taxpayers are entitled to fully understand the federal government they fund 

through their tax dollars. While federal agencies have made positive strides in

collecting and presenting their spending data, in practice, a great deal of work 

remains to ensure the information is complete, accurate, and timely.

A number of factors continue to hinder the federal government’s ability to 

uniformly report spending data—in particular, the amount of spending and the 

complexity of the federal government. In fiscal year 2017, for example, the

government spent $3.98 trillion across the 96 agencies4 that comprise the executive 

branch.5 Further complicating the ability to uniformly report spending data, each 

agency operates independently with its own systems, metrics, and standards to 

track and publish spending data.6 While the White House and Congress make 

decisions about and track spending government-wide through the annual budget 

and appropriations process, each federal agency tracks what they spend internally

 

1 Letter from Thomas Jefferson, President of the U.S., to Albert Gallatin, Sec’y of the Treasury (Apr. 

1, 1802), https://memory.loc.gov/service/mss/mtj//mtj1/026/026_0004_0005.pdf; see Hudson Hollister, 

This Data Set Took Six Years to Create. Worth Every Moment, DATA COAL. (May 9, 2017), 

https://www.datacoalition.org/this-data-set-took-six-years-to-create-worth-every-moment/. 2 Id. 3 Hudson Hollister, This Data Set Took Six Years to Create. Worth Every Moment, DATA COAL. (May 

9, 2017), https://www.datacoalition.org/this-data-set-took-six-years-to-create-worth-every-moment/. 4 USAspending.gov, https://www.usaspending.gov/#/ (last visited July 11, 2018).

5 “Agencies” is used in this report to refer collectively to federal departments, independent agencies, 

and government corporations that submitted spending data to USAspending.gov. 

6 Subcommittee briefing with CIGIE (May 7, 2018); See also, e.g., U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, 

GAO-18-138, OMB, Treasury, and Agencies Need to Improve Completeness and Accuracy of 

Spending Data and Disclose Limitations, 12 (Nov. 8, 2017); Office of the Inspector General, U.S. 

Department of State, AUD-FM-18-03, Audit of the Department of State’s Implementation of the 

Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (Nov. 2017).

https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/684322.pdf page 10. 
2

through individualized and complex accounting methods and systems.7 Recent 

attempts to track and standardize reporting reveal issues with data inaccuracy and 

completeness across nearly every federal agency. And with spending at historic 

levels, the need to track spending data across the federal government is more 

important than ever.

Congress embarked on its first attempt at standardizing spending data in 

2002 with the E-government Act that intended to “enhance the access to and 

delivery of government information and services.”8 Later, in 2006, Congress took 

additional steps with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act

(“FFATA”) to standardize the reporting of more comprehensive federal spending

data to provide accurate and transparent information on a publicly-available

website, USAspending.gov.9 And more recently, under the Digital Accountability 

and Transparency Act of 2014 (“DATA Act”), Congress directed federal agencies to 

start reporting data in a cohesive and manageable way to the Treasury 

Department.10 The DATA Act required federal agencies to report spending in real 

time down to the location by congressional district by May 9, 2017.11 The intended 

result would be a central depository for government-wide spending readily available 

for the public to review.

As federal agencies implemented the DATA Act, most experienced significant 

complications in providing accurate data for just one snapshot in time: spending 

data for fiscal year 2017’s second quarter (“Q2 2017”). The Subcommittee examined 

25 federal agencies, representing roughly 77 percent12 of all federal spending for 

FY 2017, responsible for submitting complete, accurate, and timely spending data to 

the Treasury Department for display on USAspending.gov.13 Based on the 

Subcommittee’s review of Inspector General (“IG”) reports for these 25 federal 

agencies, at least 55 percent of the spending data submitted to USAspending.gov—

submissions representing roughly $240 billion (out of $779 billion)—was 

incomplete, inaccurate, or both. Inaccurate spending data frustrates the purpose of 

the DATA Act: a user friendly search engine detailing government-wide spending. 

 

7 Hudson Hollister, This Data Set Took Six Years to Create. Worth Every Moment, DATA COAL. (May 

9, 2017), https://www.datacoalition.org/this-data-set-took-six-years-to-create-worth-every-moment/.

8 The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 206, 116 Stat. 2899, 2915–16 (2012).

9 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-13-758, Federal Data Transparency: Opportunities Remain 

to Incorporate Lessons Learned as Availability of Spending Data Increases, 10 (Sept. 12, 2013); See 

also Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-282, 120 Stat. 

1186 (2006). 10 Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (“DATA Act”), Pub. L. No. 113-101, 28 STAT. 

1146 (2014).

11 Id. 12 This figure does not account for data labeled as “Unreported Data” on USAspending.gov. 

Unreported Data accounts for 22% of FY2017 spending data published on USAspending.gov.

13 USAspending.gov, https://www.usaspending.gov/#/ (last visited July 11, 2018).
3

The chart below shows each agency’s error rate for its Q2 2017 data 

submissions, and the Subcommittee’s determination of the incorrectly reported data

to USAspending.gov.

Agency Error Rate Q2 2017 Financial 

and Award Data14

Total Incorrectly 

Reported to 

USAspending.gov15

SSA 36.9% $248,077,220,903 $91,540,494,513

HUD Could not 

test16

$39,600,000,000 $39,600,000,000

Agriculture 97.1% $38,964,000,000 $37,834,044,000

VA 60% $61,354,996,332 $36,812,997,799

DOT Could not 

test17

$5,182,810,992 $5,182,810,992

Energy 100% $4,101,229,733 $4,101,229,733

DHS 64% $5,313,193,672 $3,400,443,950

State 83.6% $3,795,080,336 $3,172,687,161

NASA 57% $3,692,766,298 $2,104,876,790

 

14 Q2 2017 spending figures were produced to the Subcommittee by the agencies and IGs or taken 

from IG DATA Act reports. Following the FAEC DATA Act Working Group: Inspectors General 

Guide to Compliance Under the DATA Act, the Subcommittee relied on files D1 and D2 when an IG 

could not provide a File C figure. 

15 The Subcommittee obtained agency error rate based on IG reporting of statistically valid samples 

from agency DATA Act submissions. Multiplying the agency’s error rate by the agency’s Q2 2017 

spending produced the amount each agency incorrectly reported to USAspending.gov. 

16 Email from Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, to 

Subcommittee staff, (Apr. 6, 2018) (On file with Subcommittee) (The HUD IG “did not report error 

percentages because the audit scope limitation.”)

17 Email from Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, to Subcommittee 

staff (April 10, 2018) (On file with the Subcommittee) (The DOT IG “could not assess the accuracy 

rate because of unresolved data reliability issues associated with a primary system we were using to 

assess the data.”).
4

Justice 89.6% $9,400,000,00018 $8,422,400,000

GSA 54.6% $2,657,055,023 $1,450,752,043

OPM 1.3% $159,359,16819 $2,071,669

Interior 37.6% $2,745,131,731 $1,032,169,530

HHS .3% $333,000,000,000 $999,000,000

Defense 100% $990,100,000 $990,100,000

Treasury 96.2% $711,803,354 $684,754,827

Commerce 64.3% $936,175,503 $601,960,848

Science 

Foundation

62.2% $930,008,596 $578,465,347

Labor 76.8% $571,390,543 $438,827,937

Education 2.8% $12,035,006,875 $336,980,193

IRS 97% $332,607,474 $322,629,250

USAID 8.3% $3,816,398,303 $316,761,059

Nuclear 

Regulatory 

Commission

54% $477,775,111 $257,998,560

SBA 32.3% $66,307,161 $21,417,213

EPA 0% $628,478,907 $0

 

18 Email from Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice, (Jul. 19, 2018).

19 Email from Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management, to Subcommittee staff (July 27, 2018) (on file with Subcommittee) (“File C totaling 

$159,359,168.72 is the spending number for Quarter 2 FY 2017, and does not include Quarter 1 

data”). 
5

Totals 55%20 $779,538,896,015 $240,205,873,414

There are also problems with the USAspending.gov website. The website is 

internally inconsistent with users getting different results depending on how they 

conduct their search. Spending data searched and reviewed through the “Spending 

Explorer” section can be different from spending data a user finds using the 

“Award” section of the website. 

Given these issues with the website and that the IGs found that over half of 

the data submitted to USAspending.gov was inaccurate, the Subcommittee finds the 

website does not currently fulfill its legislative mandate as a reliable source of 

government-wide spending. The executive branch, and specifically the Treasury 

Department, must work to ensure the spending information found on 

USAspending.gov is both accurate and reliable.

A. The Subcommittee’s Review 

The DATA Act required IGs to review and analyze a statistically valid 

sample of spending data submitted by each respective agency.21 The law mandated 

that IGs review Q2 2017 spending data for completeness, timeliness, quality, and 

accuracy.22 IGs were required to publish their reports by November 8, 2017.23 This 

report draws on the findings of those reports. The Subcommittee also reviewed 

additional data and documents from IGs and federal agencies to supplement the 

IGs’ findings and conclusions. Finally, the Subcommittee reviewed 

USAspending.gov to develop its own findings and conclusions regarding the 

reliability of the website and internal consistency.

B. Findings of Fact and Recommendations 

Findings of Fact

(1) The current version of USAspending.gov fails to achieve its legislative 

mandate as a user-friendly website with accurate, consistent, and reliable

data on government-wide spending for taxpayers and policy makers.

(2) USAspending.gov spending data is internally inconsistent. Users will get 

different results for a particular program or agency depending on how they 

 

20 Percentage was calculated by averaging the percentage errors rates calculated by the various IG 

offices. This average does not account for HUD and DOT. 

21 Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (“DATA Act”), Pub. L. No. 113-101, 28 STAT. 

1146 (2014).

22 Id. 23 Id.
6

conduct their search. Initiating a search in the “Award Search” section of the 

website can produce a different spending amount than initiating a search for 

the same program in the “Spending Explorer” section of the website.

(3) Twenty-five IG reports reviewed by the Subcommittee found over half of the 

data submitted to USAspending.gov for Q2 2017—roughly $240 billion in 

spending—was inaccurate. 

(4) The Treasury Department was responsible for ensuring that all agencies

submit accurate spending data to USAspending.gov on a timely basis, yet 96 

percent of the Treasury Department’s own Q2 2017 submission was 

inaccurate.24

(5) Of the 78 agencies the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) examined, 

thirteen agencies, including the Departments of Defense (“DOD”) and 

Agriculture (“USDA”), did not submit spending data to USAspending.gov 

before the statutorily required deadline of May 9, 2017.25 

(6) In June 2018, OMB and the Treasury Department updated agency guidance 

for submitted data to USAspending.gov that could lead to continued 

inaccurate DATA Act submissions. 

(7) Other IG reports highlighted shortcomings of certain agencies:

• The State Department was unable to certify that data for “15,898 

transactions that originated at overseas posts was ‘valid and reliable.’”26 

These transactions amounted to $199,585,866 in Q2 2017 spending. The 

State Department IG was “unable to assess the accuracy, completeness, 

timeliness, and quality of the data related to overseas transactions.”27

• The Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) 

“underreported a total of $17.9 billion in incurred obligations.” Most of these 

errors were attributable to the Federal Housing Administration. 

 

24 Email from Office of the Treasury Department Inspector General to Subcommittee staff (Apr. 3, 

2018) (on file with Subcommittee).

25 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-18-138, OMB, Treasury, and Agencies Need to Improve 

Completeness and Accuracy of Spending Data and Disclose Limitations (Nov. 8, 2017).

26 Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of State, AUD-FM-18-03, Audit of the 

Department of State’s Implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 

(Nov. 2017).

27 Id. at 7.
7

• HUD and Department of Transportation (“DOT”) IGs reported that they 

could not determine error rates for the accuracy of their agencies’ 

submissions due to errors associated with the DATA Act Broker, run by the 

Treasury Department and the failure to complete a proper review of the 

supporting documentation. 

• The DOT IG was “unable to assess the accuracy or overall quality of DOT’s 

submission” and “any additional work to test accuracy ... may not provide 

meaningful results” for the over $5 billion in DOT spending data.28

• The DOD and Department of Energy (“DOE”) IGs determined that 100 

percent of DOD’s and DOE’s award and financial data was incorrectly 

reported or not reported to USAspending.gov. 

• The DOD IG stated DOD spending data displayed on USAspending.gov was 

“inconsistent and unreliable” to members of Congress and the public. 

Importantly, the DOD IG warned that “Policymakers may not be able to rely 

on the DOD’s financial and award data to make decisions and effectively plan 

for mission critical programs and operations.”

• The Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) did not have a centralized grants 

management system in place and the agency relied on a manual process for 

submitting certain spending data. The VA IG reported that manual 

processes likely increased the likelihood of errors. 

Recommendations

(1) The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) and the Treasury

Department should continue to update the guidelines they were

required to issue for agencies to follow when making DATA Act 

submissions. Many of the IG reports the Subcommittee reviewed showed 

that agencies did not always understand how they were supposed to submit 

their spending data. Updated guidelines should continue to require agencies 

to provide 100 percent accurate data to USAspending.gov. 

(2) The Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency 

(“CIGIE”) should update and make uniform the guidance it put in 

place for IGs to follow in their reviews of agencies’ DATA Act 

 

28 Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, FI2018018, DATA Act: Report 

on DOT’s Submission, 9 (Jan. 29, 2018).
8

submissions. 29 Current CIGIE guidance is unclear whether IGs should 

conduct a performance review or a more granular examination of each

agency’s DATA Act submission. IGs produced a variety of different reports 

that varied in detail and in some cases made it challenging to determine the 

quality of agencies’ DATA Act submissions. 

(3) The Treasury Department should improve the overall quality of 

USAspending.gov. The Subcommittee learned of complications with the 

website, even after it was moved out of the beta testing phase. These issues 

related to both the quality of data and of the user experience. The Treasury 

Department should correct issues associated with the website to ensure it 

provides consistent, reliable government-wide spending data.

(4) OMB, the Treasury Department, and CIGIE should agree to clear, 

standardized definitions for the terms agencies and IGs use when 

conducting reviews of DATA Act compliance. The different 

stakeholders involved in agencies’ DATA Act submissions used different 

definitions for certain terms, including key terms like “error.” This 

contributed to inconsistent DATA Act submissions and IG reports.

(5) Congress should assign IGs to federal agencies that do not have their 

own IGs to review the agencies’ DATA Act submissions. Some federal 

agencies, GAO identified 38, do not have a designated IG to review their 

DATA Act submissions, including the Selective Service System, the 

Commission on Fine Arts, and the National Transportation Safety Board.30

The lack of IG reports on those agencies’ DATA Act submissions makes it 

more challenging for Congress, GAO, and others to assess compliance with 

the law. 

(6) The Treasury Department should monitor future agency submissions 

to ensure accurate, timely, and complete submissions to 

USAspending.gov. Regular monitoring of agency progress and the 

submission process will result in agencies submitting more accurate spending 

figures to USAspending.gov. 

 

29 CIGIE is tasked with increasing the professionalism and effectiveness of agency personnel by 

developing policies, standards, and approaches for the Offices of the Inspectors General, Inspector 

General Reform Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-409, 122 Stat. 4302, (2008); See also Council of the 

Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, Governing Documents, Mission, (last visited July 11, 

2018), https://www.ignet.gov/content/mission-0. 30 Email from, U.S. Government Accountability Office (Jul. 20, 2018).
9

(7) OMB and the Treasury Department should ensure searches on

USAspending.gov produce consistent results. Spending information 

should be consistent regardless of how the user searches for the information.
10

II. BACKGROUND

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 established the modern budget and 

appropriations process.31 In accordance with that process, the U.S. House of 

Representatives and U.S. Senate must adopt their own budget resolutions by April 

15 each year presenting the overall spending framework for the coming fiscal year 

and guiding members of Congress as they make tax and spending decisions.32

Congress must then pass twelve separate appropriations bills by October 1 to 

complete the budget process.33 

Congress, however, seldom completes the entire budget and appropriations 

process in the allotted time and instead provides itself more time by extending

previous funding levels for existing programs through continuing resolutions

(“CR”).34 Additionally, Congress may pass an omnibus spending bill rather than 

twelve separate appropriations bills.35 An omnibus bill bundles multiple 

appropriations together into one large bill.36 Omnibus bills have become more 

frequent in recent years. In each of the last seven fiscal years, all or nearly all of 

the regular appropriations bills were combined into an omnibus package.37 The last 

time Congress funded the government through individual-passed appropriations 

bills was over 20 years ago in 1997.38

Like the Congressional budget and appropriations process, the federal 

spending process is complex. It involves up to eight steps between an agency’s

receipt of funds provided to it in an appropriations bill and payment of those funds 

to the intended recipients.39 With respect to DATA Act implementation, the first 

half of the spending “life cycle” is referred to as “budget data” and begins with 

congressional authorization and appropriation of funds for agencies and programs 

 

31 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-344, 88 Stat. 297, 

(July 12, 1974). 32 Desliver, Congress has Long Struggled to Pass Spending Bills on Time, Pew Research Center (Jan.

16, 2018), http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/16/congress-has-long-struggled-to-passspending-bills-on-time/.

33 Id. 34 Id. 35 Id. 36 Id. 37 Id. 38 Id. 39 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service Financial Data Transparency 

(2014), 

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fstraining/events/Session2_OMBTreas_TownHallDATAActPresentati

on.pdf. 
11

through legislation signed by the president.40 OMB apportions the appropriated 

funds, which then completes the “budget data” portion of the life cycle by 

committing or reserving the funds for future expenditures.41 

The second half of the spending cycle is referred to as “financial data” and it 

includes obligations and payments.42 Agencies use the committed funds to make 

“awards” in the form of contracts, loans, and grants (“award data”).43 An agency

incurs an obligation once it makes an award and sets aside money for that purpose. 

Payments occur when the agency distributes cash or its equivalent to satisfy an 

obligation.44 The chart below represents the life cycle for federal spending, from 

appropriation, appointment, allotment/allocation, commitment, award, obligation, 

payment, and receipts/financing.45 As seen on the chart, the DATA Act tracks 

spending appropriations followed by the award, obligation, and payment stages of 

the spending life cycle. 

 

46

 

40 NASA Office of Inspector General, IG-18-004, NASA’S Compliance with the Digital Accountability 

and Transparency Act of 2014, 2 (Nov. 7, 2017).

41 Id. at 2. 42 Id. 43 Id. 44 Id. 45 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service Financial Data Transparency 

(2014), https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fstraining/events/FinancialDataTransparency.pdf.

46 NASA Office of Inspector General, IG-18-004, NASA’S Compliance with the Digital Accountability 

and Transparency Act of 2014, 2 (Nov. 7, 2017).
12

The DATA Act requires agencies to gather and link budget data, award data, 

and financial data to effectively track federal spending through this complex 

spending process. The resulting information is made publically available on 

USAspending.gov for review by taxpayers and Congress. This, however, is easier 

said than done. Government-wide and agency financial systems were developed 

separately over time and are inconsistent in defining and collect data.47 These 

inconsistencies complicate the crucial steps of linking agency data with data stored

in government-wide systems to create a complete picture of federal spending. These 

complications prompted Congress to require the modernization and standardization

of spending data collection and reporting across the federal government.48

A. Expansion of the Federal Government and Increased Spending

The federal government has significantly grown over the last 60 years.49 In 

1961, President Kennedy entered office with seven cabinet posts, 17 layers of 

agency leadership, and 451 political and career management positions.50 Today, the 

number of cabinet posts has more than doubled to 15, leadership layers have more 

than quadrupled to 71, and the number of political and career management 

positions has grown to 3,265.51 

The federal government’s expansion reflects new departments, agencies, and 

functions intended to benefit the American people; however, it also brings an

associated rise in spending. Over the past 60 years, federal spending increased 

from $76.5 billion in 1957 to $3.98 trillion in 2017, as depicted in the chart below. 

 

47 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-15-83, Government Efficiency and Effectiveness: 

Inconsistent Definitions and Information Limit the Usefulness of Federal Program Inventories, 

What GAO Found (Oct. 31, 2014).

48 Id. at 5-6. 

49 US Off. of Personnel Management, Historical Tables, Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and 

Surpluses or Deficits 1789-2013, Table 1.1 https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/. 50 The True Size of Government: Tracking Washington’s Blended Workforce, 1984–2015, Volcker 

Alliance (Oct. 5, 2017).

51 Id.
13

52

As federal departments and agencies became more complex and spending 

increases, it became increasingly difficult to track where the dollars are going and 

how they are being used.53 The growth in the number of departments, agencies,

and their spending levels led to a call for fiscal responsibility and a better 

understanding of federal spending from members of Congress, the public, and other 

stakeholders.54

In response to these calls, the E-Government Act of 200255 aimed to increase 

federal transparency by making a limited set of spending data publicly available.56 

The E-Government Act established the E-Government Fund to support projects to 

expand the government’s ability to conduct activities electronically, including efforts 

to “make government information and services more readily available to members 

of the public.”57 It also required agencies to place their official rulemaking dockets 

 

52 US Off. of Personnel Management, Historical Tables, Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and 

Surpluses or Deficits 1789-2013, Table 1.1, https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/.

53 Id. 54 Alice M. Rivlin, How to Balance the Budget, Brookings Institute (Mar. 1, 2004), 

https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-to-balance-the-budget/; See also Paul Winfree, Causes of the 

Federal Government’s Unsustainable Spending, Heritage Foundation (July 7, 2016), 

https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/causes-the-federal-governmentsunsustainable-spending. See also Peter G. Peterson Foundation, https://www.pgpf.org/the-fiscal-andeconomic-challenge (last visited June 27, 2018).

55 The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 206, 116 Stat. 2899, 2915–16, (2012).

56 Jennifer Shkabatur, Transparency With(out) Accountability: Open Government in the United 

States, 31 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 79, 100 (2012).

57 The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 206, 116 Stat. 2899, 2915–16, (2012).
14

online to the extent practicable and to accept electronic comments from the public.58

Finally, the law required OMB to create a website that would publish information 

on government funds used for research and development projects.59 Congress’ next 

major effort to increase awareness and access to federal spending data was the 

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (“FFATA”).60

B. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act

FFATA61 aimed to “increase the transparency ... and accountability” of 

federal disbursements, with the goal of reducing wasteful spending.62 FFATA 

required OMB to establish and maintain a new website, USAspending.gov, a 

publicly-available website that is supposed to provide information about federal 

grants, loans, contracts, and other financial assistance.63 To facilitate the collection 

of this information, OMB issued binding guidance that ensures the existence and 

operation of such a website.64 OMB issued guidance for submitting spending data 

to federal agencies on November 9, 2007, and USAspending.gov launched in 

December 2007.65 OMB issued additional guidance in December 2009 under the 

Open Government Directive.66 OMB’s Open Government Directive instructed 

agencies to:

(1) Designate a high-level senior official to be accountable for the 

quality of federal spending information disseminated on public 

websites;

 

58 Id. 59 The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 206, 116 Stat. 2899, 2915–16, (2012).

60 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-13-758, Federal Data Transparency: Opportunities Remain 

to Incorporate Lessons Learned as Availability of Spending Data Increases, 4 (Sept. 12, 2013);

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-282, 120 Stat. 1186 

(2006).

61 Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-282, 120 Stat. 

1186 (2006). 62 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO 10-365, Electronic Government: Implementation of the 

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, 1 (Mar. 12, 2010); See also Hearing 

Before Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and 

International Security of the S. Comm. on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, 109th Cong. 

109-965 (2006).

63 Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-282, 120 Stat. 

1186 (2006). 64 Office of Management and Budget, Exec. Office of the President, Pub. L. No. 113-101, Federal 

spending Transparency Data Standards, (May 8, 2015); See also U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, 

GAO-13-758, Federal Data Transparency: Opportunities Remain to Incorporate Lessons Learned as 

Availability of Spending Data Increases, 4 (Sept. 12, 2013).

65 Office of Management and Budget, Exec. Office of the President, M-08-04, OMB Guidance on Data 

Submission under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (Nov. 9, 2007).

66 Office of Management and Budget, Exec. Office of the President, M-10-06, Open Government 

Directive (Dec. 8, 2009).
15

(2) Establish a data quality framework for federal spending 

information, including a governance structure, risk assessments, 

control activities, and monitoring program; and 

(3) Submit plans to OMB for addressing these requirements.67 

OMB also issued guidance on improving the quality of data that agencies submitted 

to the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (“FPDS-NG”), a contract 

database and a source of USAspending.gov data.68

Prior to FFATA’s enactment, GAO reported weaknesses in the reliability of 

the data in all three of the data sources USAspending.gov relied on to collect 

spending data. The original USAspending.gov sourced information from three 

separate databases: FPDS-NG; the Federal Assistance Award Data System 

(“FAADS”); and Grants.gov.69 GAO found that FPDS-NG had a history of problems 

with data timeliness and accuracy,70 and a group of procurement experts said that 

it was “not a reliable database.”71 GAO also reported similar problems with FAADS 

and Grants.gov—finding that 44 of 86 federally funded grant programs reviewed 

did not report any data or reported incomplete or inaccurate data.72 The 

Congressional Research Service (“CRS”) also found problems with the data and 

could not determine if any data from Grants.gov was used by USAspending.gov.73

Even after FFATA’s enactment, GAO reported that OMB failed to fully 

correct existing issues and successfully implement the law.74 GAO’s 2010 report 

concluded that “the utility of USAspending.gov [was] impaired by gaps in the 

required information” and “the widespread inconsistencies between 

 

67 U. S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-13-758, Federal Data Transparency: Opportunities Remain 

to Incorporate Lessons Learned as Availability of Spending Data Increases, 4 (Sept. 12, 2013).

68 Id. at 4–5.

69 Id. 70 U. S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-05-960R, Improvements Needed to the Federal 

Procurement Data System Next Generation, 1-2 (Sept. 27, 2005).

71 Chris Gosier, Contracts Database Short on Info, Long on Problems, Fed. Times, 5 (July 31, 2006).

72 U. S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-06-294, Rural Economic Development: More Assurance is 

Needed that Grant Funding is Accurately Reported, 23–34 (Feb. 24, 2006).

73 Garrett L. Hatch, Cong. Research Serv., RL34718, The Federal Funding Accountability and 

Transparency Act: Implementation and Proposed Amendments (Oct. 22, 2008) (CRS found that the 

information in Grants.gov was not available to the public, and the quality of the data it contains was 

unknown).

74 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO 10-365, Electronic Government: Implementation of the 

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, 1 (Mar. 12, 2010).
16

USAspending.gov data and agency records suggest the need for clearer guidance on 

completing and validating agency data submissions.”75 

As envisioned under FFATA, USAspending.gov should be a repository for 

federal spending data that users can search based on a variety of data points. The 

data reliability issues and underreporting made clear that USAspending.gov was 

unable to provide users with comprehensive information on federal spending, 

prompting Congress to update FFATA in 2014.

C. The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014

In 2014, to address USAspending.gov’s inadequacies under FFATA, Congress 

passed the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (the “DATA Act”).76 The 

DATA Act expanded FFATA’s data tracking and transparency efforts by requiring 

agencies to disclose expenditures, and linking information on those expenditures to 

federal program activities.77

The DATA Act required OMB and the Treasury Department to establish 

government-wide financial data standards. These standards would specify, define, 

and describe the data to be submitted to increase the consistency and comparability 

of information from the various agencies.78 OMB and the Treasury Department 

intended for the new standards to create more simplified and efficient reporting 

while improving transparency and reducing compliance costs. Under the new 

standards, they also sought to provide constant, reliable, and searchable data that 

is accurately displayed for use by the public and Congress.79

The DATA Act also broadened the scope of spending data agencies are

required to submit to the Treasury Department for publication on 

USAspending.gov. For example, the DATA Act expanded FFATA by including 

direct expenditures and linking federal contract, loan, and grant spending 

information to federal agency programs.80 Senior Accountable Officials (“SAOs”) 

 

75 Id. at 3.

76 Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (“DATA Act”), Pub. L. No. 113-101, 28 STAT. 

1146 (2014). Original sponsors of the DATA Act included, Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Rob 

Portman (R-OH) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD). 

77 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-18-138, OMB, Treasury, and Agencies Need to Improve 

Completeness and Accuracy of Spending Data and Disclose Limitations, 5 (Nov. 8, 2017).

78 Id. 79 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-16-824, DATA Act: Initial Observation on Technical 

Implementation, 5 (Aug. 3, 2016).

80 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-16-261, DATA Act: Data Standards Established, But More 

Complete and Timely Guidance is Needed to Ensure Effective Implementation, 4 (Jan. 29, 2016). 

Prior to the DATA Act, anyone seeking federal spending information had to search multiple 
17

with each agency were required to certify that all of their agency’s submissions were

accurate, complete, and in compliance with the standards established by OMB and 

the Treasury Department.81 The DATA Act gave agencies until May 9, 2017 to

submit data for publication on USAspending.gov.82

Finally, the DATA Act imposed requirements on (1) OMB and the Treasury 

Department to “increase the quantity, quality, and transparency of spending data 

available to agencies, Congress, and the public by establishing standards to enable 

the reporting and tracking of Government-wide spending at multiple points in the 

spending life cycle”; (2) “[f]ederal agencies to report the data in accordance with 

those standards on USAspending.gov”; and (3) the IGs “to assess how their agencies 

implement the data standards, as well as the completeness, timeliness, and 

accuracy of their agencies’ data.”83 The progress of each of these groups in their 

respective roles of guidance, implementation, and oversight are discussed in the 

following sections.

1. The DATA Act Process to Populate USAspending.gov

The DATA Act process takes individual data elements from agency and 

government-wide systems, compiles them into a single data set, and then links 

them together. This allows the information to be searched and publically displayed 

on USAspending.gov. To accomplish this, OMB and the Treasury Department

established:

(1) The requirements for the data points; 

(2) The formatting of the files containing the data; 

(3) The methodology for submitting and validating data files; and 

(4) A system for aggregating the data. 

 

databases including the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) for contract 

actions, the Award Submission Portal (ASP) for financial assistance data, and others.

81 Office of Management and Budget, M-17-04, Additional Guidance for DATA Act Implementation: 

Further Requirements for Reporting and Assuring Data Reliability, 5 (Nov. 4, 2016) [hereinafter, 

OMB Memorandum M-17-04].

82 Id. at 1.

83 NASA Office of Inspector General, IG-18-004, NASA’S Compliance with the Digital Accountability 

and Transparency Act of 2014, 1 (Nov. 7, 2017).
18

The DATA Act process begins when federal agencies submit three data files 

to a Treasury Department-created, open-source software system84 referred to as the 

“DATA Act Broker” or “Broker.” The Broker also extracts information from the 

government-wide databases to create an additional four files.85 The DATA Act 

Broker “check[s] that submitted data follow a standardized format that will allow

for aggregation and comparison across [the] government and validate[s] selected 

data elements to ensure that the data are accurate.”86 After the Broker checks for 

formatting compliance (e.g., correct character length), it validates budget and 

financial data by cross-checking the submissions against multiple sources.87 It then 

submits the data to USAspending.gov on a quarterly basis.88

The DATA Act Broker reviews the submissions, accepts or rejects them, and 

produces error reports on accepted submissions for the agencies to review.89 A 

designated Senior Accountable Official (“SAO”) at each agency is required to certify 

that the data is valid, reliable, and aligns with required data elements based on the 

Broker reports.90 After the SAO certifies the files, the agency submits them to the 

Broker. Then the Broker data files move to the Treasury Department database that 

populates USAspending.gov.91 The chart below depicts this process in more detail:

 

84 DATA Act 2022: Changing Technology, Changing Culture, Deloitte DATA Foundation, (May 2017) 

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/public-sector/us-ps-data-act-2022.pdf.

85 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-18-138, OMB, Treasury, and Agencies Need to Improve 

Completeness and Accuracy of Spending Data and Disclose Limitations, 8 (Nov. 8, 2017).

86 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-16-824R, DATA Act: Initial Observations on Technical 

Implementation, 1 (Aug. 3, 2016).

87 NASA Office of Inspector General, IG-18-004, NASA’S Compliance with the Digital Accountability 

and Transparency Act of 2014, 1-4 (Nov. 7, 2017).

88 The DATA Act requires the DATA Act Broker to submit file A-F once every quarter, however, the 

government-wide systems update daily. See USAspending.gov, https://www.usaspending.gov/#/about.

89 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-18-138, OMB, Treasury, and Agencies Need to Improve 

Completeness and Accuracy of Spending Data and Disclose Limitations, 8 (Nov. 8, 2017); See also

Subcommittee briefing with the U.S. Department of Treasury and the Office of Mgmt. & Budget 

(July 13, 2018).

90 Id. at 38. 

91 The Beta site also displays data from Monthly Treasury Statements, summary accounting reports 

prepared by Treasury from agency account reports.
19

92

The success of these processes relies on many parties, including OMB and the 

Treasury Department providing sufficient guidance and support, agencies 

dedicating resources to develop and revise processes and procedures, and the IGs 

and GAO executing effective oversight.

2. OMB and the Treasury Department Guidance to Agencies to 

Submit Spending Data

The DATA Act directed OMB and the Treasury Department to develop 

government-wide financial standards for the reporting of searchable and reliable 

spending data.93 To develop these standards—or “data elements”—OMB and the 

 

92 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-18-138, OMB, Treasury, and Agencies Need to Improve 

Completeness and Accuracy of Spending Data and Disclose Limitations, 9 (Nov. 8, 2017).

93 DATA Act, S.994, 113th Cong. §6 (2014).
20

Treasury Department established definitions for each data element in an attempt to 

ensure consistent and comparable information.94

OMB and the Treasury Department collaborated to establish 57 standardized 

data element definitions and issued guidance on implementation of these standards 

and the reporting requirements.95 OMB and the Treasury Department officials told

the Subcommittee that they created 57 white papers that attempted to detail each 

data standard agencies were to use in completing their DATA Act submissions.96 

The same officials described the evolution and updating of OMB guidance as an 

“agile” process that focused on harmonizing rather than standardizing the 

guidance.97 The shift away from strong guidance requiring complete accuracy could 

lead to a variance in the reported data published on USAspending.gov.

The Treasury Department also conducted outreach activities and provided 

mechanisms to provide additional support to agencies, including online response 

and comment tools.98 The Treasury Department led the development of technical 

guidance, reporting processes, and systems to facilitate reporting.99 The Treasury

Department established the DATA Act Information Model Schema (“DAIMS”), 

guidance on the reporting systems agencies should use to generate the required 

data elements.100 The DAIMS provides information on how to standardize the way 

financial assistance awards contracts and other financial and nonfinancial data will 

be collected and reported.101 The Treasury Department continues to revise DAIMS 

and plans to release a new version in the second half of FY 2018.102

The Treasury Department also developed a new version of USAspending.gov, 

known as Beta.USAspending.gov. The information displayed on 

Beta.USAspending.gov comes from a variety of sources including agency systems 

and government-wide reporting systems. The data is organized into seven different 

files, A–F, shown in the table below along with the authoritative source and 

information included:

 

94 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-18-138, OMB, Treasury, and Agencies Need to Improve 

Completeness and Accuracy of Spending Data and Disclose Limitations, 3 (Nov. 8, 2017).

95 Id. at 6.

96 Subcommittee Briefing with the U.S. Department of Treasury and the Office of Mgmt. & Budget 

(July 13, 2018).

97 Id. 98 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-18-138, OMB, Treasury, and Agencies Need to Improve 

Completeness and Accuracy of Spending Data and Disclose Limitations, 7 (Nov. 8, 2017).

99 Id. at 6.

100 NASA Office of Inspector General, IG-18-004, NASA’S Compliance with the Digital Accountability 

and Transparency Act of 2014, 4 (Nov. 7, 2017).

101 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-18-138, OMB, Treasury, and Agencies Need to Improve 

Completeness and Accuracy of Spending Data and Disclose Limitations, 6 (Nov. 8, 2017).

102 Id. at 7.
21

103

Agencies submit files A, B, and C, which rely on data drawn from each 

agency’s financial and award system. The DATA Act Broker extracts the data to 

build files D1, D2, E, and F from existing government-wide reporting systems. The 

government-wide source systems include: FPDS-NG for contract actions; ASP, the 

platform for agencies to report financial assistance data prior to September 2017; 

System for Award Management (“SAM”), the primary database for reporting by 

entities that do business with the federal government); and FFATA Sub-award 

Reporting Systems (“FSRS”), where prime award recipients report data on first-tier 

sub-awards. 

When the agencies initially submit files A, B, and C, the DATA Act Broker 

validates the submissions, checking formatting and against the multiple reporting 

systems, and produces warning and error reports.104 Some Broker validation errors 

merely produce a report, while others constitute fatal errors that prevent the 

submission of the data.105

3. Oversight of Agency Compliance with the DATA Act

 

103 NASA Office of Inspector General, IG-18-004, NASA’S Compliance with the Digital Accountability 

and Transparency Act of 2014, 6 (Nov. 7, 2017).

104 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-17-156, DATA Act: OMB and Treasury Have Issued 

Additional Guidance and Have Improved Pilot Design But Implementation Challenges Remain, 18 

(Nov. 8, 2017).

105 Id.
22

Congress included several deadlines and oversight requirements in the DATA 

Act to ensure federal agency compliance. The DATA Act further required reporting 

on the Act’s implementation and the agencies’ success. Reviews and reporting by

both the agency IGs and GAO were required before and after the DATA Act’s 

implementation. Each IG reviewed a statistically-valid sample of its agency’s 

submitted spending data. The IGs then provide reports to Congress on the 

completeness, timeliness, quality, and accuracy of the data sampled and the

agency’s implementation and use of the government-wide financial data 

standards.106 Congress also required GAO to issue supplemental reports on the 

agencies’ successes and challenges in submitting spending data and a report on the 

reviews conducted by agency IGs.107 To date, each IG has issued two reports on 

agency DATA Act readiness and compliance. 

The DATA Act also required GAO to review agencies’ overall compliance. 

Following the DATA Act’s enactment, GAO issued eight reports and GAO officials 

also testified before Congress on multiple occasions. In January 2016, GAO 

published findings concerning OMB and the Treasury Department’s progress on the 

guidance.108 According to that report, GAO found several of OMB and the Treasury 

Department’s definitions for the 57 data elements were too vague and could lead to 

inconsistent reporting that would prevent accurate aggregation of the data across 

the government.109 In April 2016, GAO’s Director of Strategic Issues, Michelle A. 

Sager, testified before Congress on the progress toward DATA Act implementation. 

At that hearing she noted agencies’ implementation plans identified significant 

challenges and indicated more support was needed from OMB and the Treasury

Department, as depicted in the table below.110

 

106 Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (“DATA Act”), Pub. L. No. 113-101, 28 STAT. 

1146 (2014).

107 Id. 108 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-16-261, DATA Act: Data Standards Established, But More 

Complete and Timely Guidance is Needed to Ensure Effective Implementation, 1 (Jan. 29, 2016).

109 Id. at “What GAO Found.” For example, the definition of “Primary Place of Performance” 

included the phrase “where the predominant performance of the award will be accomplished.” GAO 

concluded that this could be interpreted as the town hall or state capitol for town-wide or statewide 

projects respectively, or as the contractor’s worksite where physical work would be carried out, or the 

contractor’s legal business address. 

110 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-16-556T, DATA Act: Progress Made But Significant 

Challenges Must Be Addressed To Ensure Full and Effective Implementation, “What GAO Found” 

(Apr. 19, 2016).
23

111

a. Agency Implementation Plans 

The Treasury Department’s DATA Act Implementation Playbook (Version 

1.0), released in June 2015, proposed eight steps and timelines for agencies to use in 

developing their DATA Act implementation plans, as depicted in the table below. 

 

111 Id. at 11.
24

112

GAO identified significant deficiencies in agencies’ plans to implement key 

aspects of the DATA Act. In May 2015, OMB directed agencies to submit DATA Act 

implementation plans.113 Agency implementation plans needed to modify “existing 

agency regulatory and non-regulatory policies, business processes, and, as needed, 

systems to support agency-level financial reporting and new data quality 

requirements.”114 The plans also needed to include:

(1) A timeline of tasks and steps that graphically displays the major 

milestones the agency expects to complete as part of the 

implementation process;

(2) A cost estimate that includes costs for each activity and step in the 

timeline;

(3) A narrative that summarizes the steps the agency will take to 

implement the DATA Act and any foreseeable challenges; and

(4) A detailed project plan that reflects the major milestones in the 

agency’s timeline and expands on the narrative.115

 

112 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-17-460, DATA Act: Readiness Reviews, 4 (Apr. 26, 2017)

113 Office of Management and Budget, M-15-12, Memorandum to the Heads of Executive 

Departments and Agencies: Increasing Transparency of Federal Spending by Making Federal 

Spending Data Accessible, Searchable, and Reliable, 2-8 (May 8, 2015). 114 Id. at 2.

115 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-16-698, DATA Act: Improvements Needed In Reviewing 

Agency Implementation Plans and Monitoring Progress, 5 (Jul. 29, 2016).
25

GAO reported in July 2016 that “none of the 42 implementation plans

received and reviewed contained all 51 plan elements described in OMB and the 

Treasury Department guidance.”116 The report also stated that OMB and the 

Treasury Department had “not designed and implemented controls or fully

documented processes related to the review and use of agency implementation

plans.”117 Furthermore, OMB failed to determine which agencies were required to 

report DATA Act spending data and submit implementation plans.118 GAO found 

that these issues “increase[d] the risk that the purposes and benefits of the DATA 

Act may not be fully achieved, and could result in incomplete spending data being 

reported.”119

In August 2016, GAO released another congressionally mandated report on 

preparing for DATA Act implementation focusing on the development of the DATA 

Act Broker and the DAIMS version 1.0.120 The report highlighted that the DATA 

Act Broker was still in development and that even when complete it would not 

validate the accuracy of data, an area of concern GAO previously identified. 

Instead, GAO explained, OMB “directed agencies to use existing quality assurance 

processes and controls to assure the quality of data reported under the DATA 

Act.”121 The report also made clear that the DAIMS schema was released four 

months later than planned, leaving agencies approximately one year to develop, 

test, and customize software patches needed to facilitate agency data submissions 

from their existing financial management systems.122 

In December 2016, GAO issued another report that, despite acknowledging

that OMB and the Treasury Department had “taken steps to establish a data 

governance structure, [and] issued more guidance,” stated that “more work is 

needed for effective implementation of the DATA Act.”123 Specifically, GAO 

identified four categories of challenges that raised concerns for agencies when 

implementing the DATA Act: systems integration issues, lack of resources, evolving 

 

116 Id. at 15.

117 Id. at “What GAO Found.” 118 Id. OMB’s Controller testified in Apr. 2016 that OMB would provide Congress with its list of 

agencies required to report under the DATA Act, but noted that the twenty-four CFO Act

Agencies would be required to report and collectively represent approximately ninety percent of 

federal spending.” Id. at 10 (citing Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Information Technology and 

Subcommittee on Government Operations, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 

114th Cong., (Apr. 19, 2016) (statement of David Mader, Controller, Office of Management and 

Budget).

119 Id. at “What GAO Found.” 120 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-16-824R, DATA Act: Initial Observations on Technical 

Implementation, 1 (Aug. 3, 2016).

121 Id. at 3. 122 Id. 123 Id. at 2. 
26

and complex reporting requirements, and inadequate guidance.124 Those 

implementation challenges and the related IG reports are discussed below.

b. Agency Readiness

The DATA Act required IGs to review a statistically valid sampling of the 

spending data submitted under the DATA Act eighteen months after OMB and the 

Treasury Department issued guidance.125 OMB and the Treasury Department

guidance was issued on May 8, 2015 and the IGs’ reports were due to Congress on

November 8, 2016.126 The agencies were not, however, required to submit spending 

data until May 9, 2017. Thus, the IGs could not initially perform the mandated 

review. 

CIGIE attempted to resolve this timing incongruity. And postponed the 

mandatory IG reporting on agency data submissions until November 8, 2017.127 In 

lieu of reporting on agency data submissions that agencies had yet to make, the IGs 

conducted non-mandatory “readiness reviews” to determine how prepared their 

respective agencies were to implement DATA Act requirements.128 According to the 

Federal Audit Executive Council (“FAEC”), the CIGIE working group established to 

provide guidance to IGs when reporting on agency DATA Act submissions, the 

readiness reviews sought to “encourage the IG community in gaining an 

understanding of the processes, systems, and controls their agency implemented, or 

planned to implement.”129 The readiness reviews served to determine if the 

agencies were prepared and able to comply with DATA Act provisions.130 

The FAEC formed the FAEC DATA Act Working Group (“FAEC working 

group”), which “(1) serv[ed] as a working level liaison with the Treasury

Department, (2) consult[ed] with GAO, (3) develop[ed] a common approach and

methodology for the readiness reviews and mandated audits, and (4) coordinat[ed] 

key communications with other stakeholders.”131 The FAEC working group issued 

 

124 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-18-138, OMB, Treasury, and Agencies Need to Improve 

Completeness and Accuracy of Spending Data and Disclose Limitations, 10 (Nov. 8, 2017).

125 DATA Act, S.994, 113th Cong. §6 (2013).

126 Id. 127 Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Treasury, OIG-CA-17-012, Inspectors General 

Guide to Compliance Under the DATA Act, 3 (Feb. 27, 2017).

128 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-17-460, DATA Act: Readiness Reviews, 5 (Apr. 26, 2017);

See also U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-18-138, OMB, Treasury, and Agencies Need to 

Improve Completeness and Accuracy of Spending Data and Disclose Limitations, 10 (Nov. 8, 2017).

129 Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Treasury, OIG-CA-17-012, Inspectors General 

Guide to Compliance Under the DATA Act, 5 (Feb. 27, 2017). 

130 Id. 131 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-17-460, DATA Act: Office of Inspector General Reports 

Help Identify Agencies’ Implementation Challenges, 5 (Apr. 26, 2017).
27

two versions of a Review Guide to assist the IGs in completing the non-mandatory 

readiness reviews.132

GAO reviewed these readiness reviews and issued its report in April 2017.133 

This April 2017 report, GAO’s fifth report on the subject, compiled the IGs’ 

readiness review and report methodologies, described the agencies’ readiness, and 

evaluated OMB and the Treasury Department’s plans to use those readiness 

reviews.134 GAO found agencies’ readiness reports varied in the type of reviews 

conducted, standards used, and scope of work.135 GAO generally found weaknesses 

in agencies’ abilities to submit quality data due to flaws in accounting and financial 

management, financial management systems, and information technology security 

and controls.136 GAO also indicated weaknesses in OMB and the Treasury 

Department guidance that would not be resolved before the May 9, 2017 reporting 

deadline.137 

Almost every IG reported its agencies were facing challenges consistent with 

those reported in the implementation plans and reported by GAO in its earlier 

periodic DATA Act reports.138 Challenges included systems integration, 

dependencies, guidance, resources, project management, reporting, and competing 

priorities.139 GAO also found that OMB and the Treasury Department were not 

using the readiness reports to monitor agency progress or identify implementation 

issues, despite the information and opportunities those reports could provide.140 

The IGs for DOD141 and the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”)

reported to GAO that their agencies would not submit complete data by the May 9, 

2017 deadline.142 The IGs for HUD, Department of the Interior, and the U.S. 

International Trade Commission all reported that their agencies were “not on track” 

 

132 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-17-460, DATA Act: Readiness Reviews, (Apr. 26, 2017).

133 Id. at 5.

134 Id. 135 Id. at “What GAO Found.”

136 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-17-496, DATA Act: As Reporting Deadline Nears, 

Challenges Remain That Will Affect Data Quality, “What GAO Found” (Apr. 28, 2017).

137 Id. 138 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-17-460, DATA Act: Office of Inspector General Reports 

Help Identify Agencies’ Implementation Challenges, 15 (Apr. 26, 2017).

139 Id. at 16.

140 Id. at “What GAO Found.” 141 As part of the DATA Act, DOD received waivers for the data reporting deadlines required in the 

law, “Upon request by the Secretary of Defense, the Director may grant an extension of the deadline 

under subparagraph (A) to the Department of Defense for a period of not more than 6 months to 

report financial and payment information data in accordance with the data standards.” DATA Act, 

S.994, 113th Cong. §4(c)(3) (2013). 

142 Id. at 11–12.
28

to comply with the DATA Act for their May 2017 submission.143 Thirteen IGs 

reported that they expected their agencies to comply with the DATA Act and the 

remaining twelve did not specifically state whether their agencies were on track for 

the May 9, 2017 deadline and DATA Act compliance.144

GAO issued its sixth report in April 2017, immediately before the first DATA 

Act data submission was due in May 2017.145 The final pre-submission report 

focused on the risks to and agency assurances of data quality.146 GAO identified 

three categories of issues related to the quality of agency data: (1) accounting and 

financial management; (2) financial management systems; and (3) information 

technology security and controls.147 Additionally, the report reiterated weaknesses 

in the government-wide financial management systems used for DATA Act 

reporting.148 Predictably, these unresolved issues resulted in problems with 

submissions, as described below.

c. Initial Submissions and Implementation Reviews

The first agency DATA Act submissions were for Q2 of FY 2017 and were due 

May 9, 2017.149 As required by the DATA Act, 78 agencies, including all 24 CFO 

Act agencies, submitted their data by this deadline or shortly thereafter.150 The IGs 

then began a mandatory review of the submissions and the agencies’ controls, 

including procedures, certifications, and documentation.151 This review required a 

statistically valid sampling of the spending data submitted to “assess the 

completeness, timeliness, quality, and accuracy of the data sampled and the 

implementation and use of data standards by the federal agency.”152 To assist in 

 

143 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-17-460, DATA Act: Office of Inspector General Reports 

Help Identify Agencies’ Implementation Challenges, 10-11 (Apr. 26, 2017). 144 Id. at 9.

145 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-17-496, DATA Act: As Reporting Deadline Nears, 

Challenges Remain That Will Affect Data Quality (Apr. 28, 2017).

146 Id. at “Why GAO Did This Study.”

147 Id. at “What GAO Found.”

148 Id. 149 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-18-138, OMB, Treasury, and Agencies Need to Improve 

Completeness and Accuracy of Spending Data and Disclose Limitations “What GAO Found” (Nov. 8, 

2017).

150 Id. 151 Id. at 11.

152 DATA Act, S.994, 113th Cong. §6(a)(1)(B) (2013); See also Office of Management and Budget, 

Executive Office of the President M-17-04, Additional Guidance for DATA Act Implementation: 

Further Requirements for Reporting and Assuring Data Reliability, 5 (Nov. 4, 2016); See also DATA 

Act § 4(c)(2)(A).
29

this, CIGIE issued guidance to the IGs to conduct the first review of DATA Act 

compliance.153

However, different stakeholders involved in the DATA Act submissions used 

different definitions for certain terms needed to make DATA Act submissions. For 

example, stakeholders defined crucial terms like “error” differently from each other, 

which produced inconsistent DATA Act submissions and IG reports. The OPM IG 

interpreted that errors associated with government-wide systems, like the DATA 

Act Broker, should not count as errors attributable to OPM’s data submission. 

Other IGs, such as the DOE IG, did attribute government-wide errors to their 

respective agencies. 

Even though OMB required SAOs to “provide quarterly assurance” for the

accuracy and quality of the agency’s data, many challenges made those 

certifications difficult.154 For example, some SAOs certified their agency’s 

submission even though the IG eventually determined it was not accurate and not

of good quality.155 Some SAOs did not certify their agency’s submission at all.156

Because the DATA Act Broker would not accept agency submissions without SAO 

certification, a failure by an agency to certify its submission would have resulted in 

the agency’s failure to comply with the DATA Act.157

Twenty-one of the twenty-four CFO Act agency IGs completed their reports 

on the Q2 2017 submission by November 2017. The Department of Homeland 

Security’s (“DHS”) IG published their report in December 2017 and the DOT’s and 

the Department of Labor’s IGs released theirs in January 2018. As discussed, the 

IG reports demonstrated a wide variation in how the testing was done and what 

they ultimately reported. 

After the agencies submitted the first round of spending data, GAO identified 

some government-wide issues related to crucial data elements. For instance, GAO 

 

153 FAEC DATA Act Working Group, U.S. Department of Treasury, OIG-CA-17-012, Inspectors 

General Guide to Compliance Under the DATA Act (Feb. 27, 2017).

154 Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, M-17-04, Additional 

Guidance for DATA Act Implementation: Further Requirements for Reporting and Assuring Data 

Reliability, 5 (Nov. 4, 2016); See also DATA Act, S.994, 113th Cong § 4(c)(2)(A) (2013).

155 Office of the Inspector General, the Department of Energy, DOE-OIG-18-08, Special report: 

Department of Energy’s Implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014, 

9 (Nov. 2017); Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, OIG-18-34, 

DHS’ Implementation of the DATA Act, 9 (Dec. 29, 2017).

156 Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense, DODIG-2018-020, DOD Compliance 

with the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (Nov. 8, 2017).

157 Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, OIG-18-34, DHS’ 

Implementation of the DATA Act, 9 (Dec. 29, 2017); See also Subcommittee briefing with the DATA 

Coalition (Apr. 17, 2018).
30

found problems with the Current Total Value Award, Procurement Award 

Modifications, Indefinite Delivery Vehicle Type Errors, Legal Entity Code and 

Primary Place of Performance Country Name errors that may be raising quality 

concerns with the data.158

In October 2017, in response to GAO and IG reports, the FAEC working 

group issued standard reporting language about government-wide issues to include 

in their audit reports for known government-wide issues identified subsequent to 

agencies submitting data.159 The FAEC working group reported that governmentwide issues were attributable to Broker issues with agency supplied information

outside the agencies’ control.160

CIGIE explained to the Subcommittee that they participated in working 

groups with agencies, IGs, GAO, OMB, and the Treasury Department to create a 

common review policy.161 The working groups served as a way for the various 

stakeholders to voice concerns with the different levels of guidance and standards 

being applied. CIGIE stated that some agencies expressed concerns about OMB 

guidance, specifically regarding the requirement that every data element must be 

accurate for a whole transaction to be considered accurate.162 As part of those

working groups, OMB determined that the guidance requiring 100 percent accuracy 

for every element of a transaction was “not fair” to the agencies submitting the 

data.163

OMB and Treasury Department officials changed the guidance to give 

agencies more flexibility, and ultimately leniency, to focus on the elements the 

agencies deemed most important.164 This change means that agencies can prioritize 

different data elements, making reporting less standardized and harder to compare 

 

158 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-18-138, OMB, Treasury, and Agencies Need to Improve 

Completeness and Accuracy of Spending Data and Disclose Limitations, 11 (Nov. 8, 2017); See also

Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, OIG-18-34, DHS’ 

Implementation of the DATA Act, 28-29 (Dec. 29, 2017).

159 Id. 160 Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, OIG-18-34, DHS’ 

Implementation of the DATA Act, 28 (Dec. 29, 2017).

161 Subcommittee briefing with CIGIE (May 7, 2018); Subcommittee briefing with the U.S. Dep’t of 

Treasury and the Office of Mgmt. & Budget (July 13, 2018).

162 Id.; Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, M-18-16, Memorandum 

to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Appendix A-OMB Circular No.A-123, 

Management of Reporting in Data Integrity risk (June 6, 2018).

163 Subcommittee briefing with the U.S. Department of Treasury and the Office of Mgmt. & Budget 

(July 13, 2018); Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, M-18-16, 

Memorandum to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Appendix A-OMB Circular 

No.A-123, Management of Reporting in Data Integrity risk (June 6, 2018).

164 Id.
31

against other agency data submissions. It may also make future IG reviews more 

challenging to compare. The DATA Act sought to create more standardized 

reporting elements across the federal government, but allowing agencies to 

unilaterally decide which elements to prioritize defeats that purpose. 

On June 6, 2018, OMB issued new guidance that could weaken data 

reporting, stating:

Prior to this update, Appendix A165 was prescriptive and rigorous in 

what agencies were required to implement in order to provide 

reasonable assurances over internal controls over financial reporting 

(ICOFR). This update balances that rigor with giving agencies the 

flexibility to determine which control activities are necessary to achieve 

reasonable assurances over internal controls and processes that support 

over all stat quality contained in agency reports.166

Moreover, CIGIE informed the Subcommittee that OMB and the Treasury 

Department planned to amend the guidance to take into account some of the lessons 

learned in the first round of DATA Act submissions.167 Strong guidance that 

requires 100 percent accuracy, however, is important to ensure agencies submit 

completely accurate spending figures to USAspending.gov. 

d. GAO Reporting on Agency Spending Data Submissions

In November 2017, following agency submissions to the Treasury

Department, GAO issued a report examining the overall completeness and quality 

of the agencies’ spending data submissions, including compliance with the 

standards set forth by OMB and the Treasury Department.168 GAO’s November 

2017 report identified a number of issues, some which it previously reported and 

others that it discovered from the initial review of the IG reports.169 The report 

reiterated concerns about OMB and the Treasury Department guidance, agency 

 

165 Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, M-18-16, Memorandum to 

the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Appendix A-OMB Circular No.A-123, 

Management of Reporting in Data Integrity risk (June 6, 2018) (Appendix A refers to the Assurances 

for each DATA Act file submitted). 166 Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, M-18-16, Memorandum to 

the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Appendix A-OMB Circular No.A-123, 

Management of Reporting in Data Integrity risk (June 6, 2018). 167 Subcommittee briefing with CIGIE (May 7, 2018).

168 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-18-138, OMB, Treasury, and Agencies Need to Improve 

Completeness and Accuracy of Spending Data and Disclose Limitations, 11 (Nov. 8, 2017) (In 

performing its review, GAO held monthly coordination meetings with the IGs to discuss its work and 

methods).

169 Id. at 12.
32

system integration, agency source system quality, and issues with the awards 

systems.170 

In other words, GAO identified weaknesses related to nearly every phase and 

participant in DATA Act reporting. Noted issues included a lack of effective 

reporting controls, unresolved issues from the readiness reports, financial

management systems out of compliance with laws and regulations, and lack of 

validation of award and sub-award information from FPDS-NG, SAM, ASP, and 

FSRS. All of these issues undermine the accuracy of the data, utility of the public 

website, and, subsequently, the entire purpose of the Act.171

III. USASPENDING.GOV PROVIDES INCONSISTENT SEARCH RESULTS 

FOR THE SAME PROGRAMS

Data provided on government spending is only useful if a user can easily 

navigate USAspending.gov and find consistent and accurate results. In an effort to 

achieve that goal, the Treasury Department launched a beta version of a new 

website on May 9, 2017 with the web address “beta.USAspending.gov.”172 The 

Treasury Department stated this new beta version of website was the result of it 

conducting two years of “extensive user research and stakeholder outreach.”173 In 

March 2018, the Treasury Department transitioned the beta version to the official 

version of the website.

A. Available Search Tools on USAspending.gov

USAspending.gov currently provides two ways for a user to search 

government spending: (1) an “Award Search” through a keyword or specific filters; 

or (2) through the “Spending Explorer.” An Award Search allows a user to search a 

keyword or perform an “advanced search” and filter results by the following fields: 

Time Period; Award Type; Agency; Location; Recipient; Recipient Type; Award 

Amount; Award ID; Catalog of Domestic Assistance program; North American 

Industry Classification System Code; Product/Service Code; Type of Contract 

Pricing; Type of Set Aside; and Extent Completed.174

 

170 Id. 171 Id. 172 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, Treasury Unveils New Website to Track Federal Spending, 

(May 9, 2017), https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/sm0076.aspx.

173 Id. 174 USAspending.gov, https://www.usaspending.gov/#/search (last visited July 19, 2018).
33

The Spending Explorer invites a user to “explore the spending landscape” 

asserting it “makes it easy to understand the big picture of federal spending” by 

searching in three ways:175

(1) Budget Function: The federal budget is divided into approximately 

20 categories, known as budget functions. These categories organize 

federal spending into topics based on major purpose the spending 

services (e.g., National Defense, Transportation, Health). These are 

further broken down into budget sub functions.176

(2) Agency: On this website, we use the term agency to mean any federal 

department, commission, or other U.S. government entity. Agencies 

can have multiple sub-agencies. For example, the National Parks 

Service is a sub-agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior.177 

(3) Object Class: Object Class is one way to classify financial data in the 

federal budget. An object class groups obligations by the types of items 

or services purchased by the federal government. Examples: 

“Personnel Compensation” and “Equipment.”178

B. USAspending.gov Provides Different Results for the Same 

Programs Based on Search Function

Search results on USAspending.gov can be different depending on how a user 

initiates a search on the site. For example, there are two different results when a 

user searches for spending of the Department of Labor’s Unemployment Insurance 

program. Using the Spending Explorer, a user sees the FY2017 expenditures for 

the program at $29,589,861,672:

 

175 USAspending.gov, https://www.usaspending.gov/#/explorer (last visited July 19, 2018).

176 Id. 177 Id. 178 Id.
34

179

Searching for Unemployment Insurance spending for FY2017 using the Award 

Search through the Catalog of Domestic Assistance Code shows $2,967,388,602, a 

difference of over $26 billion.

180

 

179 Id.

180 USAspending.gov, https://www.usaspending.gov/#/search (last visited July 19, 2018).
35

Another example is the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) 

Children’s Health Insurance Program (“CHIP”). The Award Search section on 

USAspending.gov attributes $15,582,421,905 in total obligations181 to CHIP for 

fiscal year 2017, as seen in the screenshot of USAspending.gov below:

182

And the Spending Explorer section of the website attributes $15,965,684,168 

in total obligations183 to CHIP, as seen in the screenshot of USAspending.gov below. 

 

181 USAspending.gov, https://www.usaspending.gov/#/search/c00ae9dc122b616e09ce572e8a84f692 

(last visited July 18, 2018).

182 USAspending.gov, https://www.usaspending.gov/#/search/c00ae9dc122b616e09ce572e8a84f692 

(last visited July 18, 2018).

183 USAspending.gov, https://www.usaspending.gov/#/explorer/agency (last visited July 18, 2018).
36

184

USAspending.gov reports a difference of $383,262,263 in 2017 CHIP funding 

between the Award Search section and Spending Explorer section.185 In yet another 

data point, the HHS CMS Budget in Brief website states the CHIP program outlays 

for 2017 were approximately $15,015,000,000.186 

187

The result is potentially inconsistent results based on how the user chooses to 

navigate the website to any program of interest. Officials from the Treasury 

Department indicated to the Subcommittee that the “Award Search” and “Spending 

 

184 Id.

185 USAspending.gov (last visited July 18, 2018).

186 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: 

Children’s Health Insurance Program, CMS CHIP Budget Overview (2017), 

https://www.hhs.gov/about/budget/fy2017/budget-in-brief/cms/chip/index.html.

187 Id.
37

Explorer” sections of the USAspending.gov should “ideally” match. And that timing 

of when data populates the different sections accounts for the difference in spending 

figures for the same program.188 

IV. EXAMPLES OF AGENCY NONCOMPLIANCE

The Subcommittee reviewed the November 2017 DATA Act reports published 

by 24 CFO Act agency IGs and the IRS that examined the effectiveness of federal 

agencies’ DATA Act implementation. This section summarizes ten IG reports that 

detail the failures of federal agencies in preparing and reporting agency spending 

data. Federal agencies repeatedly failed to submit accurate and complete data to 

the DATA Act Broker resulting in inaccurate and incomplete data published on 

USAspending.gov.

A. The Treasury Department 

The Treasury Department’s implementation and use of data standards were 

not consistent with the very standards it established with OMB, according to the 

Treasury Department IG. The most troubling aspect of the Treasury Department’s 

difficulties in submitting accurate data to USAspending.gov is that it is the very 

agency that created the DATA Act standards for rest of the federal government. 

The DATA Act required that OMB and the Treasury Department create standards 

that federal agencies would adhere to in making submissions to USAspending.gov.

The Treasury Department IG assessed the accuracy of the Treasury 

Department’s submission as the percentage of transactions that were complete and 

matched all data elements.189 If one data element was found inaccurate by the IG 

then the entire transactions was deemed inaccurate. The Treasury Department IG 

found that 96.2 percent of the Treasury Department’s data submitted to the DATA 

Act Broker was inaccurate, resulting in approximately $684 million of the Treasury 

Department’s data submitted to USAspending.gov inaccurate.190

The Treasury Department IG also determined that the Treasury 

Department’s implementation of the data standards was not consistent with the 

standards definitions the department created with OMB.191 This lack of consistency

helps to explain the high percentage error rate. 

 

188 Briefing with the U.S. Dep’t of Treasury and the Office of Mgmt. & Budget (July 13, 2018).

189 Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Treasury, Treasury Continues to Make 

Progress in Meeting DATA Act Reporting Requirement, But Data Quality Concerns Remain, 2 (Nov.

8, 2017). 

190 Id. at 21. 

191 Id. at 3.
38

B. The State Department

The State Department IG contracted with a private consulting firm, Kearney 

& Company P.C. (“Kearney”), to conduct its audit of its agency’s spending data. As 

charged by CIGIE guidance, Kearney conducted its audit to assess the 

completeness, timeliness, and accuracy of the State Department’s financial 

spending data submissions to USAspending.gov.192 Kearney determined that the 

State Department had a 54.8 percent accuracy error rate, but that number grew to 

83.6 percent when accounting for external errors, such as errors attributed to the 

DATA Act Broker.193 When accounting for the errors attributable to both the DATA 

Act Broker and the State Department, roughly $3.1 billion of the department’s Q2 

2017 spending was inaccurate when submitted to USAspending.gov.194 

For Q2 2017, the State Department received roughly $3.8 billion in 

funding.195 Over the course of Q2 2017, the State Department paid out these funds 

through 21,003 transactions. The majority of these transactions, specifically

15,898, originated at overseas posts where the State Department conducts 

diplomatic business. The remaining 5,105 transactions were domestic. Kearney 

was unable to assess the completeness, timeliness, or accuracy the 15,898 overseas 

transactions because the agency could not certify whether the data submitted was 

“valid and reliable.”196 Therefore all of the State Department’s 15,898 transactions 

that originated overseas, totaling $199,585,866, were deemed inaccurate or 

incomplete as published on USAspending.gov.197

C. The Department of Housing and Urban Development

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) IG found that 

HUD failed to comply with the DATA Act requirements for completeness and 

accuracy.198 Among the problems with HUD’s DATA Act submission was a failure 

to report $17.9 billion in incurred obligations.199 In addition, the HUD IG noted 

 

192 Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of State, AUD-FM-18-03, Audit of the 

Department of State’s Implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 

(Nov. 1, 2017).

193 Id. at 8.

194 Id. at 8-9.

195 Id. at 9.

196 Id. at 7. 

197 Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of State, AUD-FM-18-03, Audit of the 

Department of State’s Implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014, 9

(Nov. 1, 2017).

198 Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2018-FO0001, DATA Act Compliance Audit of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(Nov. 3, 2017).

199 Id.
39

that it was “unable to complete our statistical sample” due to HUD’s failure to 

provide the IG with the appropriate supporting documentation for the tested 

transactions.200 The IG informed the Subcommittee that it could not calculate an 

error rate for the agency because it was not able to complete a full review of the 

data sampled.201 Specifically, the HUD IG stated the Federal Housing 

Administration (“FHA”), which provides mortgage insurance on loans made by 

FHA-approved lenders in the United States,202 accounted for $17.3 billion in 

obligations that were not reported to USAspending.gov.203 

Additionally, the HUD IG noted multiple concerns with the management of

the agency’s DATA Act compliance process. The HUD management did not 

implement internal controls or risk management strategies that were outlined in 

OMB guidance for DATA Act reporting.204 This included HUD not “establishing 

policies and procedures and analytical review and analysis of data before data were 

certified and submitted,” to the DATA Act Broker.205

The HUD IG also criticized HUD’s level of planning and weaknesses in 

implementing the DATA Act requirements. The IG report explained that source 

systems and financial systems at HUD did not have the technical capabilities to 

implement the DAIMS into reportable data.206 HUD also lacked sufficient funding 

to address these problems and the agency did not allocate any additional funding 

for information system upgrade, even after acknowledging that certain upgrades 

were needed in order to comply with the DATA Act.207

D. The Department of Transportation 

The DOT IG reported an 81.6 percent rate of completeness and 96.6 percent 

rate of timeliness for DOT’s transactions tested.208 Similar to the HUD IG, the DOT 

IG did not report an accuracy error rate, stating, “We could not assess the 

submission’s accuracy because we could not rely on data in the Broker and other 

 

200 Id. at 10.

201 Email from Office of Inspector General of Housing and Urban Development, to Subcommittee 

staff (Apr. 16, 2018) (On file with Subcommittee). 

202 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Housing Administration, 

https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/housing/fhahistory (last visited June 27, 2018). 

203 Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2018-FO0001, DATA Act: Compliance Audit of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(Nov. 3, 2017). 204 Id. 205 Id. at 9.

206 Id. at 8.

207 Id. 208 Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, FI2018018, DATA Act: 

Report on DOT’s Submission, 5 (Jan. 29, 2018).
40

external systems.”209 The DOT IG did not report a percentage for the overall 

quality of the data.210 The DOT IG did also state that officials from the Federal 

Highway Administration and Federal Aviation Administration reported that their 

file C submissions omitted “some transactions.”211

E. The Department of Agriculture

The USDA IG identified several areas that contributed to USDA’s inaccurate 

reporting to USAspending.gov. Most significantly, USDA’s DATA Act repository—

where USDA stores its data—was not fully functional in time to incorporate 

spending totals for the Q2 2017 submission. This resulted in USDA submitting a 

blank file C that was supposed to include all financial award data for the quarter.212 

Further, the IG determined that USDA did not have proper policies and procedures 

in place to oversee the DATA Act submission and reconciliation process with the 

DATA Act Broker.213 The IG also identified multiple external issues with the DATA 

Act Broker and other government-wide systems. For example, USDA uses a 9-digit 

ZIP code for its award system whereas the government-wide system uses the 5-digit 

ZIP code. This error alone resulted in a significant portion of data being

underreported or misreported because the addresses did not match.214 

The USDA IG found that 97.1 percent of USDA’s data submitted to the DATA 

Act Broker was inaccurate, resulting in approximately $37.83 billion of USDA’s 

data inaccurately submitted to USAspending.gov. 

Additionally, the Project on Government Oversight (“POGO”) recently sent a 

letter to OMB and the Treasury Department highlighting challenges and gaps that 

still exist on USAspending.gov.215 POGO found gaps in USDA’s data as it is 

presented on the website, specifically with data related to the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”). For FY 2017, SNAP spending reached 

approximately $68 billion. USAspending.gov, however, only published awards 

totaling $160 million, less than 1 percent of the program’s spending for 2017.216

 

209 Id. 210 Id. 211 Id. 212 Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 11601-0001-22, USDA’s 2017 

Compliance with the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act, 8 (Nov. 1, 2017).

213 Id. at 6. 214 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-18-138, OMB, Treasury, and Agencies Need to Improve 

Completeness and Accuracy of Spending Data and Disclose Limitations, 15 (Nov. 8, 2017).

215 Sean Moulton, Senior Policy Analyst, Project on Government Oversight, Letter to Amy Edwards, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Accounting Policy and Financial Transparency, U.S. Department of 

Treasury, Victoria Collin, Chief Management Controls and Assistance Branch, Office of Management 

and Budget 8 (June 28, 2018). 

216 Id. at 8.
41

F. The Department of Veterans Affairs

The VA IG identified multiple errors attributable to a lack of organizational 

structure in the VA’s submissions to USAspending.gov. For example, the VA did 

not have a centralized grants management system, instead relying on a mostly 

manual process for submitting grant data to the DATA Act Broker.217 The IG 

report emphasized that not having an automated grants management system raises 

the likelihood of errors and reduces accuracy.218 

The VA also had errors and flaws in the Veterans Benefits Administration 

(“VBA”) part of its DATA Act submission. The VBA is responsible for providing 

benefits and services to service members and veterans, such as compensation

services, pensions, life insurance, education services, and vocational rehabilitation 

services.219 As part of the VA’s DATA Act submission, the VBA included two 

different balances for its Delivered Orders and Outlays account. The difference 

between the two balances totaled $7.5 billion—indicating a major flaw in the 

reconciliation process between VBA’s accounts.220 The VA was also unable to 

explain the reason for this discrepancy in the accounts.221 

The VA’s troubles did not stop at account balance discrepancies. The VA IG 

reported that, due to the problems experienced with VA’s Financial Management 

System, the agency was unable to submit a file C to the DATA Act Broker.222 As 

part of the DATA Act standards issued by OMB and the Treasury Department, file 

C represents obligation and outlay information at the award level which must then

be linked to file D1 and D2 figures housed outside the agency to certify a submission 

before posting on USAspending.gov. 

Overall, the IG indicated that approximately 60 percent of the data 

submitted by the VA for Q2 2017 was inaccurate, totaling roughly $36.8 billion

incorrectly reported spending on USAspending.gov.

 

217 Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 17-02811021, Department of 

Veteran’s Affairs Audit of VA’s Compliance with the DATA Act, 8 (Nov. 8, 2017). 218 Id. 219 U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, Veteran Benefits Administration, 

https://benefits.va.gov/BENEFITS/about.asp (last visited June 27, 2018). 

220 Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 17-02811021, Department of 

Veteran’s Affairs Audit of VA’s Compliance with the DATA Act, 11 (Nov. 8, 2017).

221 Id. 222 Id. at 24. 
42

G. The Department of Health and Human Services and 

Environmental Protection Agency

Both HHS and EPA IGs reported zero percent error rates for their respective

agencies.223 As such, HHS and EPA were the only CFO Act agencies found to have 

accurately submitted all spending data to USAspending.gov in accordance with the 

DATA Act requirements.

Yet, the agencies did experience some complications submitting their

spending data. The HHS IG contractor performing the review stated, “As of the 

second quarter of FY 2017, HHS had ongoing issues that impacted the quality of its 

DATA Act submission.”224 HHS experienced deficiencies with its information 

technology systems forcing the agency to develop an interim solution to process its 

DATA Act submission. As a result, HHS relied on manual processes to collect the 

data from different owners and systems. In its report the HHS IG acknowledged 

that relying on manual processes “creates the opportunity for data quality to be 

compromised.”225 

The EPA IG only included a top-line description in its eight-page report in 

which it determined the agency complied with the DATA Act. Other IGs published 

more thorough reports that extensively detailed agency compliance and 

complications. The EPA IG stated in its report and also told the Subcommittee that 

initially the EPA’s historical program activity and budget class levels did not align 

with the DATA Act reporting requirements and were not in accordance with OMB 

and Treasury guidance.226 The EPA mitigated this problem by creating a tool

known as the DATA Act Evolution and Approval Repository. The IG stated that the 

tool takes the required reporting data from EPA systems and then validates and 

submits them to the Treasury Department.227

When reviewing EPA data submitted to USAspending.gov, however, the 

Subcommittee found inconsistencies between the Award Search and Spending 

 

223 Office of the Inspector General, the Environmental Protection Agency, Report No. 18-P-0037, EPA 

Reported Its Fiscal Year 2017 Second Quarter Financial and Award Data in Accordance with the 

DATA Act, 4-5 (Nov. 9, 2017), Office of the Inspector General, the Department of Health and Human 

Services, Report No. A-17-17-02018; See also U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Met 

the Requirements of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014, but Key Areas 

Require Improvement (Nov. 6, 2017).

224 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Met the Requirements of the Digital 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014, but Key Areas Require Improvement, (Nov. 6, 2017).

225 Id. 226 Office of the Inspector General, the Environmental Protection Agency, Report No. 18-P-0037, EPA 

Reported Its Fiscal Year 2017 Second Quarter Financial and Award Data in Accordance with the 

DATA Act, 4-5 (Nov. 9, 2017).

227 Id. 
43

Explorer sections of the website. For example, the Subcommittee reviewed the 

Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (“SRF”), which 

accounts for approximately 8 percent of EPA spending for 2017.228 The Award 

Search section on USAspending.gov attributes $928,697,163229 in total obligations 

to the SRF for 2017, as seen in the screenshot of USAspending.gov below:

230

And the Spending Explorer section attributes $863,910,068 to the SRF, a

difference of $64,787,095, as seen in the screenshot of USAspending.gov below.231 

 

228 USAspending.gov, https://www.usaspending.gov/#/explorer/agency (last visited July 12, 2018).

229 USAspending.gov, https://www.usaspending.gov/#/search/5f7d91a36723f284e6a87bbd03004509 

(last visited July 12, 2018).

230 Id.

231 USAspending.gov, https://www.usaspending.gov/#/explorer/agency (last visited July 12, 2018).
44

232

Further, when compared to the amount cited for the same program for FY 

2017 in the 2019 EPA Budget in Brief (“EPA Budget”),233 the figures for the 

Drinking Water SRF are not identical, as shown in the EPA Budget in Brief

screenshot below:

234

The EPA Budget attributes $944,392,000 in obligations to the Drinking 

Water SRF for FY 2017, a difference of roughly $15 million from the figure 

published on the Awards section235 of USAspending.gov and a difference of roughly 

$80 million from the figure published on the Spending Explorer section.236

The Treasury Department told the Subcommittee that some parts of 

USAspending.gov have accounted for obligation spending only and not the outlays, 

which could explain why the figures above are not the same.237 The Treasury 

 

232 Id.

233 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-190-R-18-002, FY 2019 EPA Budget in Brief, 66 

(Feb. 2018).

234 Id.

235 USAspending.gov, https://www.usaspending.gov/#/search/5f7d91a36723f284e6a87bbd03004509 

(last visited July 12, 2018).

236 USAspending.gov, https://www.usaspending.gov/#/explorer/agency (last visited July 12, 2018).

237 Briefing with the U.S. Dep’t of Treasury and the Office of Mgmt. & Budget (July 13, 2018).
45

Department did indicate that the Spending Explorer and the Award sections would 

ideally be the same, along with the EPA Budget obligation spending data.238 These 

discrepancies leave the user of the website wondering which figure, if any, is 

accurate. 

H. The Department of Defense and Department of Energy

The DOD239 and DOE240 IGs reported their agencies had a 100 percent error 

rate for Q2 2017 spending submitted to USAspending.gov. The DOD IG cited 

complications with DOD’s ability to comply with the DATA Act, including: (1) a lack 

of internal controls to assess completeness, timeliness, and accuracy for spending 

data; (2) a failure by DOD to update its grant award feeder systems to interface 

with federal grant reporting systems; (3) DOD guidance that was inconsistent with 

OMB and the Treasury Department’s guidance; and (4) DATA Act Broker errors.241

The IG’s report makes clear that, 

As a result, DoD spending data displayed on USASpending.gov was 

inconsistent and unreliable to policymakers and taxpayers. Therefore, 

taxpayers may not be able to rely on the DoD’s financial and award data 

display on USASpending.gov to track DoD spending effectively. 

Additionally, policymakers may not be able to rely on the DoD’s financial 

and award data to make decisions and effectively plan for mission 

critical programs and operations.242 

As such, inaccurate DOD spending on USAspending.gov totaled 

approximately $1 billion for Q2 FY2017.

The DOE IG found that all 354 transactions sampled contained at least one 

error, associated with government-wide errors. The IG states, “If one data element 

reviewed was incomplete, inaccurate, or not timely the complete item was in 

error.”243 DOE also experienced difficulty in reporting some data for nonappropriated funding “[w]hich should not have been reported as part of the DATA 

 

238 Id. 239 Office of the Inspector General, the Department of Defense, DODIG-2018-020, DOD Compliance 

With the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act, i (Nov. 8, 2017).

240 Office of the Inspector General, the Department of Energy, DOE-OIG-18-08, Special report: 

Department of Energy’s Implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014, 

2 (Nov. 2017).

241 Office of the Inspector General, the Department of Defense, DODIG-2018-020, DOD Compliance 

With the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act, i (Nov. 8, 2017). 242 Id. at ii.

243 Id. at 2. 
46

Act.”244 According to the IG, discrepancies remained within DOE regarding 

whether the DATA Act requires certain data figures reported. The IG considered 

the information reported by DOE inaccurate.245 As such, the total amount of 

inaccurate data on for DOE on USAspending.gov amounted to $4,101,229,733.

V. CONCLUSION

Despite federal agencies submitting spending data to USAspendging.gov as 

mandated by the DATA Act, this report highlights areas of concern associated with 

agencies’ first submission to USAspending.gov. The Subcommittee will continue to 

monitor efforts for further improvement in future submissions to USAspending.gov 

to create more transparent government. 

 

244 Id. at 6. 

245 Id.