Performance and 

Accountability Report 

Fiscal Year 2013

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Serving the Congress and the Nation 
SERVING THE CONGRESS

Mission

GAO exists to support the Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the 

accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American 

people.

Accountability

We help the Congress oversee federal programs and operations to ensure 

accountability to the American people. GAO’s analysts, auditors, lawyers, 

economists, information technology specialists, investigators, and other 

multidisciplinary professionals seek to enhance the economy, efficiency, 

effectiveness, and credibility of the federal government both in fact and in 

the eyes of the American people.

Integrity

We set high standards for ourselves in the conduct of GAO’s work. 

Our agency takes a professional, objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, 

nonideological, fair, and balanced approach to all activities. Integrity is the 

foundation of our reputation, and the GAO approach to work ensures it.

Reliability

We at GAO want our work to be viewed by the Congress and the American 

public as reliable. We produce high-quality reports, testimonies, briefings, 

legal opinions, and other products and services that are timely, accurate, 

useful, clear, and candid.

S c o p e o f w o r k 

GAO performs a range of oversight-, insight-, and foresight-related 

engagements, a vast majority of which are conducted in response to 

congressional mandates or requests. GAO’s engagements include 

evaluations of federal programs and performance, financial and 

management audits, policy analyses, legal opinions, bid protest 

adjudications, and investigations.

Source: GAO.
GAO-14-2SP i

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Contents

Source: GAO.

Abbreviations ........................................................................................ iii

How to Use This Report .............................................................................. v

Introduction................................................................................................ 1

From the Comptroller General ...................................................................... 2

Financial Reporting Assurance Statements ....................................................... 5

About GAO ............................................................................................. 7

Mission ............................................................................................ 7

Strategic Planning and Management Process ............................................... 8

Organizational Structure ......................................................................14

Strategies for Achieving Our Goals ..........................................................17

How We Measure Our Performance..........................................................19

Part I: Management’s Discussion and Analysis......................................................23

Assisting the Congress and Benefiting the Nation during Challenging Times ................24

Focusing on Our Client ........................................................................34

Focusing on Our People .......................................................................36

Focusing on Our Internal Operations ........................................................39

GAO’s High-Risk Program......................................................................40

Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, 

Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue...................................................43

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 ................44

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ..........................................45

The Troubled Asset Relief Program ..........................................................46

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act............................................46

General Counsel Decisions and Other Legal Work.........................................47

Managing Our Resources.......................................................................49

Strategic Planning and Partnerships.........................................................55

Internal Management Challenges ............................................................57

Part II: Performance Information .....................................................................63

Performance Information by Strategic Goal ......................................................64

Goal 1 Overview: Address Current and Emerging Challenges to the 

Well-being and Financial Security of the American People ............................65

Financial Benefits .......................................................................67

Other Benefits ...........................................................................67

Testimonies ..............................................................................68
ii GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Contents

Goal 2 Overview: Respond to Changing Security Threats and the 

Challenges of Global Interdependence....................................................73

Financial Benefits .......................................................................75

Other Benefits ...........................................................................75

Testimonies ..............................................................................75

Goal 3 Overview: Help Transform the Federal Government to Address 

National Challenges ..........................................................................79

Financial Benefits .......................................................................81

Other Benefits ...........................................................................81

Testimonies ..............................................................................82

Goal 4 Overview: Maximize the Value of GAO by Enabling Quality, Timely 

Service to the Congress and by Being a Leading Practices Federal Agency..........86

Data Quality...........................................................................................93

Verifying and Validating Performance Data ................................................93

Part III: Financial Information .........................................................................95

From the Chief Financial Officer ...................................................................96

Audit Advisory Committee’s Report ...............................................................98

Independent Auditor’s Report ......................................................................99

Purpose of Each Financial Statement............................................................ 104

Financial Statements............................................................................... 105

Notes to Financial Statements.................................................................... 109

Other Information .................................................................................. 122

Part IV: Inspector General’s View of GAO’s Management Challenges ........................ 125

Inspector General’s View of GAO’s Management Challenges ................................. 126

Part V: Appendix ....................................................................................... 127

Data Quality......................................................................................... 128

Image Sources .......................................................................................... 137

Providing Comments on This Report............................................................... 138

Obtaining Copies of GAO Documents............................................................... 138

Connect with GAO ..................................................................................... 138

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

product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this 

work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you 

wish to reproduce this material separately.
GAO-14-2SP iii

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Abbreviations

APQA Audit Policy and Quality Assurance 

BBEDCA Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985

CAO Chief Administrative Officer 

CBA collective bargaining agreement

CIGIE Council of Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency 

CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 

COR Contracting Officer Representative 

CPI Continuous Process Improvement

CPP Capital Purchase and Improvement Program 

CRA Congressional Review Act 

CSRS Civil Service Retirement System 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DOD Department of Defense 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOJ Department of Justice 

DOL Department of Labor 

DSH Disproportionate Share Hospital

EESA 2008 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act 

EMS Engagement Management System 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPLS Excluded Parties List System

ERS Engagement Reporting System 

ESC Enterprise Services Center 

Ex-Im Export-Import Bank

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAIS Forensic Audits and Investigative Service 

FDA Food and Drug Administration 

FECA Federal Employees’ Compensation Act 

FEGLI Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Program 

FEHBP Federal Employees Health Benefit Program 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FERPA Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974

FERS Federal Employees Retirement System 

FFMIA Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996

FICA Federal Insurance Contributions Act 

FINRA Financial Industry Regulatory Authority 

FISMA Federal Information Security Management Act 

FMFIA Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FTE full-time equivalent 

FVRA Federal Vacancies Reform Act

GE genetically engineered

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act as amended 

Abbreviations 
iv GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Abbreviations

GSA General Services Administration 

HCL high-containment laboratory

HERA Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

HRSA Health Resources and Services Administration

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development 

ICD Intelligence Community Directive 

IED improvised explosive device

IFPTE International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers 

IG inspector general 

INTOSAI International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions 

IRS Internal Revenue Service 

ISSAI International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions 

IT information technology

LIHEAP Low-income Home Energy Assistance Program

LRP local and regional procurement

MOA memorandum of agreement

MOU memorandum of understanding

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NFC National Finance Center 

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program 

NGEN Next Generation Enterprise Network

NIAF National Intergovernmental Audit Forum

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPM Office of Personnel Management

PAR performance and accountability report

PBC performance-based compensation

PBGC Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation

PEPFAR President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief

PPACA Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

SAI supreme audit institution 

SEC Securities and Exchange Commission

SES Senior Executive Service

SSA Social Security Administration 

TARP Troubled Asset Relief Program 

TSA Transportation Security Administration

UAS unmanned aircraft systems

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

USDA Department of Agriculture

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

WMATA Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
GAO-14-2SP v

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

How to Use This Report

How to Use This Report

This report describes the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s performance measures, 

results, and accountability processes for fiscal year 2013. In assessing our performance, we 

compared actual results against targets and goals that were set in our annual performance 

plan and performance budget and were developed to help carry out our strategic plan. Our 

complete set of strategic planning and performance and accountability reports is available 

on our website at http://www.gao.gov/sp.html.

This report has an introduction, four parts, and a supplementary appendix as follows:

Introduction

This section includes the letter from the Comptroller General and a statement attesting to 

the completeness and reliability of the performance and financial data in this report and 

the effectiveness of our internal controls over our financial reporting. This section also 

includes a summary discussion of our mission, strategic planning process, organizational 

structure, strategies we use to achieve our goals, and process for assessing our 

performance. 

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

This section discusses our agencywide performance results and use of resources in fiscal 

year 2013. It also includes information on our internal controls and the management 

challenges and external factors that affect our performance. 

Performance Information

This section includes details on our performance results by strategic goal in fiscal year 2013 

and the targets we are aiming for in fiscal year 2014. It also includes a summary of our 

program evaluation for the fiscal year. 

Financial Information

This section includes details on our finances in fiscal year 2013, including a letter from our 

Chief Financial Officer, audited financial statements and notes, and the reports from our 

external auditor and Audit Advisory Committee. This section also includes an explanation 

of the information each of our financial statements conveys. 

Inspector General’s View of GAO’s Management Challenges

This section includes our Inspector General’s perspective of our agency’s management 

challenges. 

Appendix on Data Quality

This section describes how we ensure the completeness and reliability of the data for each 

of our performance measures.
vi GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

This page intentionally left blank
Introduction

Serving the Congress and the Nation
2 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

From the Comptroller General

December 16, 2013 

I am pleased to present GAO’s performance and accountability report for fiscal year 2013. 

GAO’s mission is to support the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to 

help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the benefit 

of the American people. During the past fiscal year, our work yielded significant results 

across the government; for example, we documented $51.5 billion in financial benefits 

for the federal government—a return of about $100 for every dollar invested in us. We 

also recorded 1,314 other program and operational benefits across the government in the 

areas of public safety and security, program efficiency and effectiveness, public insurance 

and benefits, acquisition and contract management, tax law administration, and business 

process and management. 

We received requests for our work from 95 percent of the standing committees of the 

Congress and almost two-thirds of their subcommittees. We issued 709 reports, made 1,430 

new recommendations in this fiscal year, and 79 percent or 1,438 of the recommendations 

that we made during the past 4 years were implemented. Our senior officials also 

testified at 114 hearings on key topics, such as personnel security clearances, information 

technology investments, the U.S. Postal Service’s financial condition, and veterans’ 

health care. Additionally, the findings of our work were often cited in House and Senate 

deliberations and committee reports to support congressional action, including improving 

federal programs on our high risk list; addressing duplication, overlap, and fragmentation; 

and reviewing border security and immigration issues. 

Our work spans the full breadth and scope of the federal government’s responsibilities and 

responds to the extensive interests of the Congress. During fiscal year 2013, we reported 

on a broad range of issues including financial regulatory reform; addressing food safety; 

foreclosure mitigation; Medicare, Medicaid, and health care reform; defense weapons 

systems; counterterrorism; and cybersecurity. We continued to build on our bodies of work 

in many areas, through reports, testimonies, and accomplishments in the following areas: 

■ Protection of children. We reported on a broad range of critical issues such as 

evaluating health risks to children, addressing food safety in school lunches, accessing 

education records for children in foster care, and collecting reliable data related to 

pediatric medical devices. 

■ Veterans. We also continued to report on a range of issues impacting veterans, 

including the veterans’ health care budget, support services for transitioning veterans, 

patient safety risks for veterans and servicemembers, veterans’ employment and 

training, and challenges to the timely processing of veterans’ disability benefits. 

From the Comptroller General

Source: GAO.
GAO-14-2SP 3

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

From the Comptroller General

■ Food safety. We examined federal oversight of genetically engineered crops after 

unauthorized releases into the food supply, reviewed efforts to modernize meat and 

poultry inspections, and recommended action to ensure that schools are notified 

directly of emergency food recalls. 

■ Health care reform. Our reports related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

Act included a review of the status of the Administration’s efforts to implement the 

federally facilitated health insurance exchanges where eligible individuals can compare 

and select health insurance plans. This work also discussed the federal data services 

hub that is intended to provide access to federal, state, and third party data sources 

needed to verify consumer eligibility information.

■ High risk work. We issued the biennial update of our high-risk report that focuses 

attention on government operations that are high risk due to their greater vulnerabilities 

to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement or the need for transformation to address 

economy, efficiency, or effectiveness challenges. This report offers solutions to 30 

identified high-risk problems and the potential to save billions of dollars, improve 

service to the public, and strengthen the performance and accountability of the U.S. 

government. 

■ Overlap, duplication, and fragmentation. We issued our third annual report identifying 

31 new areas where agencies may be able to achieve greater efficiency or effectiveness 

pursuant to a law passed by Congress in 2010. Within these 31 areas, we identified 81 

actions that the executive branch and the Congress could take to reduce fragmentation, 

overlap, and duplication, as well as other cost savings and revenue enhancement 

opportunities. This work identifies opportunities for the federal government to save 

billions of dollars. We also maintain a scorecard and action tracker on GAO’s external 

website where the Congress, federal agencies, and the public can monitor progress 

being made to address GAO’s findings. Federal agencies and the Congress have made 

some progress in addressing the 131 areas we identified and the 300 actions that we 

recommended in our 2011 and 2012 reports.

■ Wall Street reform. We issued nine reports in response to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 

Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 intended to address regulatory gaps and 

oversight failures in the U.S. mortgage, securities, and financial markets. Among other 

things, the act required GAO to conduct over 40 studies on a broad range of regulatory, 

oversight, and consumer protection issues. By the end of fiscal year 2013, we had 

responded to all of the mandates due on or before that date.

We also continued to regularly report the results of our work on the Troubled Asset Relief 

Program and have a wide range of other high profile work underway, which is discussed in 

more detail throughout this report. 

We know that getting our message out is crucial. To help facilitate this, we enhanced GAO’s 

Watchdog website for congressional clients to improve their ability to track our ongoing 

work. We also launched a Key Issues website to allow both our clients and the public 

to browse information by topic, agency, or collection of GAO products. In addition, we 

continued to expand our presence in digital and social media, increased GAO’s followers on 

Twitter by 38 percent, created a new mobile application for Android users, and produced 

39 new audio podcasts. The total downloads of GAO podcasts reached 93,126 this past year. 
4

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

From The Comptroller General

We depend upon our professional, diverse, and multidisciplinary staff to meet our clients’ 

needs. Our people enable us to fulfill our mission to support the Congress and ensure that 

the federal government is accountable to the American people. Through the hard work and 

dedication of our staff, we achieved 94 percent on-time product delivery. Our performance 

measures continue to indicate that our employees have the support they need to produce 

high-quality work. We met or exceeded our annual targets for our people measures—staff 

development, staff utilization, effective leadership by supervisors, organizational climate, 

and retention, but did not meet our target for new hires because of a fiscally constrained 

budget and the effects of sequestration. This year our staffing level remained below 3,000 

and reached its lowest level since 1935. Even with the increased pressure on our staff 

to produce quality work with shrinking resources, GAO remained an employer of choice. 

We were named again this year as one of the 50 Great Places to Work in Washington by 

Washingtonian Magazine. We have also maintained our reputation as one of the best 

places to work in government as reported by the Partnership for Public Service and have 

remained among the Partnership’s top five agencies since 2005. 

Within an uncertain budget environment, we continued to focus on two internal 

management challenges, human capital and engagement efficiency. In the area of human 

capital, we recruited for and filled critical positions, implemented a new performance 

management system, expanded our enhanced telework program, and negotiated a 

grievance/arbitration procedure for the administrative professional and support staff—a 

new bargaining unit added in fiscal year 2012. We continued to work with the union and 

various employee groups on several issues, as well as continued to expand our diversity 

efforts. 

Fiscal year 2013 provided many opportunities for GAO to address complex issues facing 

the Congress and the nation. We met these challenges and continued to accomplish 

our objectives under constrained budgetary circumstances, including the impacts of 

sequestration and the federal government shutdown. We again received from independent 

auditors an unmodified or “clean” opinion on our financial statements for fiscal year 2013. 

The detailed performance and financial information in this report is complete and reliable, 

and meets our high standards for accuracy and transparency.

During fiscal year 2014, we plan to deliver our fourth annual report on overlap, duplication, 

and fragmentation across government and continue our work on financial regulatory reform 

and health insurance issues, among other pressing matters. We will also issue our strategic 

plan for serving the Congress for fiscal years 2014-2019. We look forward to continuing 

to serve the Congress and the public in the coming years through our work on issues and 

programs affecting the lives of all Americans. 

Gene L. Dodaro

Comptroller General

of the United States

GAO-14-2SP
GAO-14-2SP 5

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Reporting Assurance Statements

December 16, 2013 

We, as GAO’s executive committee, are responsible for preparing and presenting the financial 

statements and other information included in this performance and accountability report. The 

financial statements included herein are presented in accordance with U.S. generally accepted 

accounting principles; incorporate management’s reasonable estimates and judgments, where 

applicable; and contain appropriate and adequate disclosures. Based on our knowledge, 

the financial statements are presented fairly in all material respects, and other financial 

information included in this report is consistent with the financial statements.

We are also responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, 

including the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to 

the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material 

misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Our internal control over financial reporting is 

a process effected by those charged with governance, management, and other personnel, 

designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the preparation of reliable financial 

statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. 

We evaluated the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of 

September 30, 2013, consistent with the criteria in 31 U.S.C. 3512 (c), (d) (commonly referred 

to as the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA)) and in Appendix A of Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-123, Management’s Responsibility for Internal 

Control. Based on that evaluation, we conclude that, as of September 30, 2013, our internal 

control over financial reporting was effective and that no material weaknesses exist in the 

design or operation of internal control over financial reporting. 

On the basis of our comprehensive management control program, we are pleased to certify, 

with reasonable assurance, the following: 

■ Our financial reporting is reliable and complete. Transactions are (1) properly recorded, 

processed, and summarized to permit the preparation of financial statements in 

accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, and assets are safeguarded 

against loss from unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition; and (2) executed in 

accordance with laws governing the use of budgetary authority and with other applicable 

laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements that could have a direct and material 

effect on the financial statements.

■ Our performance reporting is reliable and complete. Transactions and other data 

that support reported performance measures are properly recorded, processed, and 

summarized to permit the preparation of performance information consistent with the 

criteria set forth in the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), as amended, and 

related OMB guidance.

Financial Reporting 

Assurance Statements 
6

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

We also believe that (1) these same systems of accounting and internal control provide 

reasonable assurance that we are in compliance with FMFIA and (2) we have implemented 

and maintained financial systems that comply substantially with federal financial management 

systems requirements, applicable federal accounting standards, and the U.S. Government 

Standard General Ledger at the transaction level consistent with the requirements in the 

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) and OMB guidance. These are 

objectives that we set for ourselves even though, as part of the legislative branch of the 

federal government, we are not legally required to do so. 

Gene L. Dodaro

Comptroller General

of the United States

Cheryl B. Whitaker

Acting Chief Administrative Officer/ 

Chief Financial Officer

Patricia A. Dalton

Chief Operating Officer

William L. Anderson 

Controller

Susan A. Poling

General Counsel

Financial Reporting Assurance Statements GAO-14-2SP
GAO-14-2SP 7

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

About GAO

GAO is an independent, nonpartisan professional services agency in the legislative branch 

of the federal government. Commonly known as the audit and investigative arm of the 

Congress or the “congressional watchdog,” we examine how taxpayer dollars are spent 

and advise lawmakers and agency heads 

on ways to make government work better. 

As a legislative branch agency, we are 

exempt from many laws that apply to the 

executive branch agencies. However, we 

generally hold ourselves to the spirit of 

many of the laws, including FMFIA, GPRA, 

and the Federal Financial Management 

Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA) and the 

Federal Information Security Management 

Act (FISMA).1 Accordingly, this performance 

and accountability report for fiscal year 2013 

provides what we consider to be information 

comparable to that reported by executive 

branch agencies in their annual performance 

and accountability reports. This report also 

fulfills our requirement to report annually on 

the work of the Comptroller General under 

31 U.S.C. 719.

Mission

Our mission is to support the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to 

help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for 

the benefit of the American people. The strategies and means that we use to accomplish 

this mission are described in the following pages. In short, we provide objective and 

reliable information and analysis to the Congress, to federal agencies, and to the public, 

1

FMFIA requires ongoing evaluations and annual reports on the adequacy of internal accounting and administrative control systems of each 

agency. GPRA seeks to improve public confidence in federal agency performance by requiring that federally funded agencies develop and 

implement accountability systems based on performance measurement that include goals and objectives and measure progress toward them. The 

GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 incorporates additional requirements for reporting and transparency. FFMIA emphasizes the need to improve 

federal financial management by requiring federal agencies to implement and maintain systems that comply with federal financial management 

systems requirements, applicable federal accounting standards, and the U.S. Government Standard General Ledger at the transaction level. FISMA 

requires federal agencies to implement policies and procedures to cost-effectively reduce information technology risks. 

GAO’s History

The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 required the 

President to issue an annual federal budget and established 

GAO as an independent agency to investigate how federal 

dollars are spent. In the early years, we mainly audited 

vouchers, but after World War II we started to perform more 

comprehensive financial audits that examined the economy 

and efficiency of government operations. By the 1960s, 

GAO had begun to perform the type of work we are noted for 

today—performance audits—which include 

 evaluations of federal policies, programs, and the 

performance of agencies; 

 oversight of government operations to determine 

whether public funds are spend efficiently, effectively, 

and in accordance with applicable laws; and 

 policy analyses to assess needed actions and the 

implications of proposed actions.

About GAO

UNITED STATES

GOVE

RNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

OFFICE

Source: GAO.
8 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

About GAO

and we recommend improvements, when appropriate, on a wide variety of issues. Three 

core values—accountability, integrity, and reliability—form the basis for all of our work, 

regardless of its origin. These are described on the inside front cover of this report.

Strategic Planning and Management Process 

To accomplish our mission, we use a strategic planning and management process that is 

based on a hierarchy of four elements (see fig. 1), beginning at the highest level with the 

following four strategic goals:

■ Strategic Goal 1: Provide Timely, Quality Service to the Congress and the Federal 

Government to Address Current and Emerging Challenges to the Well-being and Financial 

Security of the American People 

■ Strategic Goal 2: Provide Timely, Quality Service to the Congress and the Federal 

Government to Respond to Changing Security Threats and the Challenges of Global 

Interdependence 

■ Strategic Goal 3: Help Transform the Federal Government to Address National Challenges 

■ Strategic Goal 4: Maximize the Value of GAO by Enabling Quality, Timely Service to the 

Congress and Being a Leading Practices Federal Agency

Each strategic goal is composed of 

strategic objectives, for which there are 

specific strategies taking the form of 

performance goals, each of which has 

a set of key efforts. Figure 1 illustrates 

this hierarchy and the text box on the 

right provides an example of structure 

of one of our strategic goals. Our 

audit, strategic goals, and investigative 

work is primarily aligned under the 

first three strategic goals, which span 

domestic and international issues 

affecting the lives of all Americans 

and influencing the extent to which 

the federal government serves the 

nation’s current and future interests. 

The fourth goal is focused internally on 

improving efficiency and effectiveness 

in performing our work, maintaining 

and enhancing a diverse workforce, 

expanding collaboration to promote 

professional standards, and being a 

responsible steward of our resources.

An Example of Our Strategic Planning 

Elements

Strategic Goal 2: Provide Timely, Quality Service to the Congress 

and the Federal Government to Respond to Changing Security Threats 

and the Challenges of Global Interdependence

Strategic Objective: Protect and Secure the Homeland from Threats 

and Disasters

Performance Goal: Assess efforts to strengthen the sharing of 

terrorism-related information

Key Efforts:

 Evaluate federal efforts to implement the information-sharing 

environment.

 Assess whether agencies’ information-sharing roles and 

responsibilities have been clearly defined to help ensure 

effectiveness and minimize overlap or duplication.

 Determine federal, state, local, and tribal agencies’ progress in 

sharing terrorism and law enforcement information, including 

technology innovations.

 Assess how federal, state, local, and tribal agencies balance 

sharing terrorism information with protecting privacy and civil 

liberties. 
GAO-14-2SP 9

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

About GAO

Figure 1: GAO’s Strategic Planning Hierarchy

Source: GAO.

In July 2010, we issued and began the transition to our strategic plan for fiscal years 2010 

through 2015. The plan describes our goals and strategies for supporting the Congress 

and the nation and identifies eight trends that provide context for the plan. These are 

highlighted in our strategic planning framework for serving the Congress (see fig. 3). We 

identified these trends based on a review of external literature, discussions with outside 

advisors and selected experts, and input from our mission teams based on their discussions 

with congressional clients and their institutional knowledge.

The four strategic goals and the strategic objectives that support them reflect these broad 

trends. Several multiyear performance goals define a specific level of achievement for each 

strategic objective. At the base of our strategic planning hierarchy, key efforts describe a 

body of work that operationalizes each performance goal. To ensure that we are well 

positioned to meet the Congress’s current and future needs, we have updated our 6-year 

strategic plan every 3 years, consulting extensively during the update with our clients on 

Capitol Hill and with other experts. In keeping with the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, 

we plan to shift to a 4-year planning cycle. We issued an interim update to our plan in 

February 2012 and plan to issue the next full update in early 2014. A description of the 

steps in our strategic planning process is included in our strategic plan (see our complete 

strategic plan on http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-559SP). This site also provides 

access to our prior annual performance plans and performance and accountability reports. 

Using the plan as a blueprint, we lay out the 

areas in which we expect to conduct research, 

audits, analyses, and evaluations to meet our 

clients’ needs, and we allocate the resources 

we receive from the Congress accordingly. 

Given the increasing pace with which crucial 

issues emerge and evolve, we incorporate a 

certain amount of flexibility into our plan and staffing structure so that we can respond 

readily to the Congress’s changing priorities. When we revise our plan or our allocation 

of resources, we disclose those changes in annual performance plans, which are publicly 

available—like our strategic plan—on our website (http://www.gao.gov/sp.html).

Each year, we hold ourselves accountable to 

the Congress and to the American people for 

our performance, primarily through our annual 

performance and accountability report.
10 About GAO GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

 Improved the acquisition practices used by the Department of Defense (DOD) to manage its 

$1.6 trillion weapon system portfolio 

 Led the Department of Homeland Security to improve its efforts to detect and prevent the 

smuggling of radiological and nuclear materials into the United States 

 Identified steps the Congress could take to strengthen the financial stability of the National 

Flood Insurance program, such as limiting eligibility for subsidized premium rates 

 Led DOD to reconsider its mission requirements and permanent force structure in Europe to 

reduce costs, yielding $2.3 billion in savings by removing two brigade combat teams 

 Identified risks to DOD’s acquisition of the Joint Strike Fighter that resulted in a decreased 

procurement strategy of 103 aircraft and $8.72 billion in financial savings for 2013 

 Led DOD to develop department-level guidance to help ensure consistency and accountability 

for sexual assault investigations 

 Identified $1.1 billion in savings resulting from growing unobligated balances in the State 

Department’s Diplomatic and Consular Programs accounts 

 Led the State Department to develop a plan to expand its required security training to include a 

growing number of overseas diplomatic posts where U.S. personnel face increasing threats

 Prompted the State Department to provide more accessible emergency contact information on 

its diplomatic post websites for U.S. citizens who are abroad

 Led to an examination of border security data and better oversight of the Border Patrol’s 

measures related to its border security efforts 

 Identified risks to the Navy’s Next Generation Enterprise Network acquisition strategy that led 

to revisions in the strategy and reductions in programs costs by about $2.6 billion 

 Led DOD to take actions to eliminate duplication in its counter-improvised explosive devise 

efforts leading to costs savings of $313 million

Goal 2: Respond to Changing Security Threats and Challenges of Global Interdependence 

 Identified $7 billion in savings in a foreclosure mitigation program that had much lower than 

expected participation rates potentially making these funds available for other federal programs

 Prompted the Congress to improve food safety in school lunches by requiring the U.S 

Department of Agriculture to communicate directly with schools for emergency food recalls 

 Analyzed the effects of the U.S. Postal Service’s proposed health plan reforms to inform the 

Congress as it considers legislation to help restore the agency’s financial viability 

 Led the Health Resources and Services Administration to revise its guidance to help ensure 

equitable access of certain restricted drugs to providers at discounted prices 

 Prompted the Congress to reduce Medicare bundled payment rates for certain injectable drugs 

to reflect the most recent data, which show a decrease in utilization rates for these drugs

 Led the Federal Aviation Administration to develop a roadmap for ensuring that unmanned 

aircraft systems are safely integrated into the national airspace 

Goal 1: Address Current and Emerging Challenges to the Well-Being and Financial 

Security of the American People

Figure 2: How GAO Assisted the Nation • Fiscal Year 2013
GAO-14-2SP 11

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

About GAO

Source: GAO.

Note: Additional information on accomplishments by goal is highlighted in Part II of this report.

 As in prior years, helped promote a more complete and accurate financial reporting 

governmentwide through our financial audit of the U.S. Government’s Consolidated Financial 

Statements 

 Identified $1.29 billion in potentially improper payments in the Social Security Disability 

Insurance program and recommended action to improve related enforcement operations 

 Issued an exposure draft of proposed revisions to the Standards for Internal Control in the 

Federal Government 

 Contributed to U.S. tax code changes requiring banks and others to report to the Internal 

Revenue Service income on payment card transactions that merchants receive through credit 

cards or third-party networks like PayPal, resulting in $1.29 billion in financial benefits 

 Identified opportunities for significant cost savings in federal procurement, which led to the 

Office of Management and Budget(OMB) directing the increased use of strategic sourcing 

programs by federal agencies

Goal 3: Help Transform the Federal Government to Address National Challenges

Goal 4: Maximize the Value of GAO by Enabling Quality, Timely Service to the Congress 

and Being a Leading Practices Federal Agency

 Continued to reduce the physical footprint in our field offices to achieve lease and security cost 

savings and enhance work-life balance opportunities for employees 

 Developed a new Engagement Management System (EMS) to replace outdated, stand-alone 

systems and eliminate redundant data entry 

 Streamlined our engagement process and related electronic guidance and tools—positioning 

GAO to pilot this new engagement process and EMS prior to agencywide rollout in 2014 

 Published GAO’s Diversity and Inclusion Strategy for 2012-2016 and launched several new 

courses on diversity issues 

 Chartered a permanent GAO Workplace Financial Literacy Leadership Committee comprised 

of GAO executives to provide vision, direction, visibility, oversight, and monitoring of GAO’s 

financial literacy program

We have included some information about future plans in this report to provide as cohesive 

a view as possible of what we have done, what we are doing, and what we expect to do to 

support the Congress and to serve the nation.

Last year, the Association of Government Accountants awarded us for the 12th consecutive 

year its Certificate of Excellence in Accountability Reporting for outstanding accountability 

reporting for our fiscal year 2012 performance and accountability report (see fig. 4).
12 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

About GAO

CORE VALUES

TRENDS

National 

Security 

Threats

Fiscal 

Sustainability 

Challenges

Economic 

Recovery 

and Growth

Global 

Interdependence

Science and 

Technology

Networks and 

Virtualization

Shifting Roles 

of Government

Demographic 

and Societal 

Change

Serving the Congress and the Nation

 GAO’s Strategic Plan Framework

MISSION

GAO exists to support the Congress in 

meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and ensure 

the accountability of the federal government for 

the benefit of the American people.

 Goals Objectives

 Accountability Integrity Reliability

Source: GAO. GAO Strategic Plan 2010–2015

 Health care needs

 Lifelong learning

 Bene ts and 

protections for workers, 

families, and children

 Financial security

 E ective system of 

justice

 Viable communities

 Stable  nancial system and 

consumer protection

 Stewardship of natural 

resources and the 

environment

 Infrastructure

 Homeland security

 Military capabilities

and readiness

 U.S. foreign policy interests

 Global market forces

 Government’s  scal 

position and options for 

closing gap

 Fraud, waste, and abuse

 Major management 

challenges and program risks

 E ciency, e ectiveness, 

and quality

 Diverse and inclusive 

work environment

 Professional networks and 

collaboration

 Institutional stewardship and 

resource management

Provide Timely, Quality Service to the Congress 

and the Federal Government to...

...Address Current and Emerging 

Challenges to the Well-being and 

Financial Security of the American 

People related to...

...Respond to Changing Security 

Threats and the Challenges of Global 

Interdependence involving...

Help Transform the Federal Government to 

Address National Challenges by assessing...

Maximize the Value of GAO by Enabling 

Quality, Timely Service to the Congress and 

Being a Leading Practices Federal Agency in 

the areas of...

Figure 3: GAO’s Strategic Plan Framework
GAO-14-2SP About GAO 13

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Source: GAO.

Figure 4: GAO’s Performance and Accountability Report Awards

Certificate of Excellence 

in Accountability 

Reporting

2012

 CERTIFICATE OF 

 EXCELLENCE IN 

ACCOUNTABILITY

 REPORTING®

Presented to the

In recognition of your outstanding efforts in

preparing the agency’s Performance and

Accountability Report and Summary of

Performance and Financial Information for

the fiscal year ended September 30, 2012.

A Certificate of Excellence in Accountability Reporting is presented 

by AGA to federal government agencies whose Performance and 

Accountability Reports achieve the highest standards demonstrating 

accountability and communicating results.

U.S. Government

Accountability

Office

Executive Director, AGA

in Accountability Reporting Board

Serving the Congress and the Nation 

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Performance and 

Accountability Report 

Fiscal Year 2012

UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
14 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

About GAO

Organizational Structure

As the Comptroller General of the United States, Gene L. Dodaro is the head of GAO. On 

December 22, 2010, he was confirmed as Comptroller General after serving as the Acting 

Comptroller General since March 2008. Prior to that, Mr. Dodaro served as GAO’s Chief 

Operating Officer for 9 years. Three other executives join Comptroller General Dodaro to 

form our Executive Committee: Chief Operating Officer Patricia A. Dalton, Acting Chief 

Administrative Officer/Chief Financial Officer Cheryl B. Whitaker, and General Counsel 

Susan A. Poling.

To achieve our strategic goals, our staff is organized as shown in figure 5. For the most 

part, our 14 evaluation, audit, research, and investigative teams perform the work that 

supports strategic goals 1, 2, and 3—our three external strategic goals—with several of 

the teams working in support of more than one strategic goal. In addition to this work, 

Forensic Audits and Investigative Service (FAIS) follows up on engagements and referrals 

from our other teams when its special services are required for specific fraud allegations 

or for assistance in evaluating security matters. FAIS also manages FraudNet, which is our 

online system created for the public to report to GAO allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, 

or mismanagement of federal funds. FAIS is an integrated unit composed of investigators, 

analysts, and auditors who have experience with forensic auditing and data mining assisted 

by staff in our Office of General Counsel.

Senior executives in the teams manage a portfolio of engagements to ensure that we 

meet the Congress’s need for information on quickly emerging issues as we also continue 

longer-term work that flows from our strategic plan. To serve the Congress effectively 

with a finite set of resources, senior managers consult with our congressional clients and 

determine the timing and priority of engagements for which they are responsible.

As described below, our General Counsel’s office supports the work of all of our teams. 

In addition, the Applied Research and Methods team assists the other teams on matters 

requiring expertise in areas such as economics, research design, statistical analysis, and 

science and technology. Staff in many offices, such as Strategic Planning and External 

Liaison, Congressional Relations, Opportunity and Inclusiveness, Audit Policy and Quality 

Assurance, Public Affairs, and the Chief Administrative Office, support the efforts of the 

teams. This matrixed structure increases our effectiveness, flexibility, and efficiency in 

using our expertise and resources to meet congressional needs on complex issues.
GAO-14-2SP 15

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

About GAO

Figure 5: Organizational Structure

Inspector General Opportunity and

Inclusiveness

Congressional

Relations

Public

Affairs

Source: GAO.

Teams

Comptroller General

of the United States

Chief Operating Officer

Audit Policy and 

Quality Assurance

Continuous Process 

Improvement

Strategic Planning

and External Liaison

General

Counsel

Chief Administrative Officer/

Chief Financial Officer

Goal

4

Goal

2

Goal

3

Goal

1

Goal

4

Goal

3

Goal

2

Goal

1

• Provide Audit and 

Other Legal Support 

Services for All Goals 

and Staff Offices

• Manage GAO’s Bid 

Protest and 

Appropriations Law 

Work

Provide Timely, Quality 

Service to the Congress 

and the Federal 

Government to 

Respond to Changing 

Security Threats and 

the Challenges of 

Global Interdependence

• Acquisition and 

Sourcing 

Management

• Defense Capabilities 

and Management

• International Affairs 

and Trade

Provide Timely, Quality 

Service to the Congress 

and the Federal 

Government to Address 

Current and Emerging 

Challenges to the 

Well-being and 

Financial Security of the 

American People

• Education, 

Workforce, and 

Income Security

• Financial Markets 

and Community 

Investment

• Health Care

• Homeland Security 

and Justice

• Natural Resources 

and Environment

• Physical 

Infrastructure

Help Transform the 

Federal Government to 

Address National 

Challenges

• Applied Research

and Methods

• Financial 

Management and 

Assurance

• Forensic Audits and 

Investigative Service

• Information 

Technology

• Strategic Issues

Maximize the Value of 

GAO by Enabling 

Quality, Timely Service 

to the Congress and 

Being a Leading 

Practices Federal 

Agency

• Financial 

Management and 

Business 

Operations

– Controller

• Human Capital 

Office

– Chief Human

 Capital Officer

• Information Systems 

and Technology 

Services

– Chief Information

 Officer

• Infrastructure 

Operations

• Professional 

Development 

Program

• Field Operations

Notes: The structure of the Office of the General Counsel largely mirrors the agency’s goal structure, and attorneys who are assigned 

to goals work with the teams on specific engagements. Thus, the dotted lines in this figure indicate General Counsel’s support of or 

advisory relationship with the goals and teams, rather than a direct reporting relationship. 

Our mission teams often do work that falls outside of their primary goal assignment. For example, work conducted by the Homeland 

Security and Justice team frequently falls under goal 2 when it conducts work related to responding to changing national security 

threats.
16 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

About GAO

The Office of the General Counsel is structured to facilitate the delivery of legal services 

to the teams and staff offices that support our four strategic goals. This structure allows 

General Counsel to (1) provide legal support to our staff offices and audit teams concerning 

all matters related to their work and (2) produce legal decisions and opinions for the 

Comptroller General. Specifically, the goal 1, goal 2, and goal 3 groups are organized 

to provide each of the audit teams with a corresponding team of attorneys dedicated 

to supporting each team’s needs for legal services. In addition, these groups prepare 

advisory opinions to committees and members of the Congress on agency adherence to 

laws applicable to their programs and activities. The Legal Services group provides inhouse support to our management on a wide array of human capital matters and initiatives 

and on information management and acquisition matters and defends the agency in 

administrative and judicial forums. Finally, attorneys in the Procurement Law and the 

Budget and Appropriations Law groups prepare administrative decisions and opinions 

adjudicating protests to the award of government contracts or opining on the availability 

and use of appropriated funds.

For strategic goal 4, our only internal strategic goal, staff in our Chief Administrative Office 

take the lead. Our Office of Continuous Process Improvement, established in fiscal year 

2012, continued to lead the agency’s efforts to improve efficiency and effectiveness of 

the work conducted by our mission and mission support operations. Other teams and goal 

4 offices including the Applied Research and Methods team and the Office of Strategic 

Planning and External Liaison, Congressional Relations, Opportunity and Inclusiveness, Audit 

Policy and Quality Assurance, and Public Affairs assist in achieving specific key efforts. In 

addition, attorneys in the General Counsel’s office, primarily in the Legal Services group, 

provide legal support for goal 4.

We maintain a workforce with training in many disciplines, including accounting, law, 

engineering, public and business administration, economics, and the social and physical 

sciences. About 71 percent of our 2,869 employees are based at our headquarters 

in Washington, D.C.; the rest are deployed in 11 field offices across the country (see 

fig. 6). Staff in these field offices are aligned with our research, audit, investigative, and 

evaluation teams and perform work in tandem with our headquarters staff in support of 

our external strategic goals.

In September 2008, the Government Accountability Office Act of 2008 was enacted 

establishing the Office of the Inspector General (IG) of GAO as a statutory office within 

the agency. The IG is appointed by and reports to the Comptroller General. The IG is 

responsible for conducting audits and investigations relating to the administration of 

our programs and operations and for making recommendations to promote its economy, 

efficiency, and effectiveness. The IG also keeps the Comptroller General and the Congress 

fully informed through semiannual reports that describe the IG’s findings. In addition, the 

IG investigates allegations from our employees and other interested parties concerning 

activities within GAO that may constitute the violation of any law, rule, or regulation; 

mismanagement; or a gross waste of funds or other wrongdoing.
GAO-14-2SP 17

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

About GAO

Figure 6: GAO’s Office Locations

Chicago

Dayton

Los Angeles

San Francisco

Huntsville

Seattle

Norfolk

Dallas

Denver

Boston

Atlanta

Washington, D.C.

Source: See Image Sources.

Strategies for Achieving Our Goals

GPRA directs agencies to articulate not just goals but also strategies for achieving those 

goals. As detailed in Part I of this report, we emphasize two overarching strategies for 

achieving our goals: (1) providing information from our work to the Congress and the public 

in a variety of forms and (2) continuing to strengthen our human capital and internal 

operations. Specifically, our strategies emphasize the importance of working with other 

organizations on crosscutting issues and effectively addressing the challenges to achieving 

our agency’s goals and recognizing the internal and external factors that could impair 

our performance. Through these strategies, which have proved successful for us for a 

number of years, we plan to achieve the level of performance that is needed to meet our 

performance measures and goals and to achieve our four broad strategic goals.

Attaining our three external strategic goals (1, 2, and 3) and their related objectives rests, 

for the most part, on providing accurate, professional, objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, 

nonideological, fair, and balanced information to support the Congress in carrying out its 

constitutional responsibilities. To implement the performance goals and key efforts related 

to these three goals, we develop and present information in a number of ways, including 

■ evaluations of federal policies, programs, and the performance of agencies; 

■ oversight of government operations through financial and other management audits to 

determine whether public funds are spent efficiently, effectively, and in accordance 

with applicable laws; 

■ investigations to assess whether illegal or improper activities are occurring; 

■ analyses of the financing for government activities; 

■ constructive engagements in which we work proactively with agencies, when 

appropriate, to provide advice that may assist their efforts toward positive results; 

■ legal opinions that determine whether agencies are in compliance with applicable laws 

and regulations; 
18 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

About GAO

■ policy analyses to assess needed actions and the implications of proposed actions; and

■ additional assistance to the Congress in support of its oversight and decision-making 

responsibilities.

We conduct specific engagements as a result of requests from congressional committees 

and mandates written into legislation, resolutions, and committee reports. In fiscal year 

2013, we devoted 96 percent of our engagement resources to work requested or mandated 

by the Congress. We devoted the remaining 4 percent of the engagement resources to 

work initiated under the Comptroller General’s authority.2 Much of this work addressed 

various challenges that are of broad-based interest to the Congress, such as the war in 

Afghanistan; follow-up on our 2012 duplication, overlap and fragmentation report; and 

the federal, state, and local government fiscal outlook.3 Also covered by this work were 

reviews of government programs and operations that we have identified as at high risk for 

fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement as well as reviews of agencies’ budget requests 

to help support congressional decision making. By making recommendations to improve 

the accountability, operations, and services of government agencies, we contribute to 

increasing the effectiveness of federal spending and enhancing the taxpayers’ trust and 

confidence in their government.

Our staff are responsible for following high standards for gathering, documenting, and 

supporting the information we collect and analyze. This information is usually presented 

in a product that is made available to the public. In some cases, we develop products that 

contain classified or sensitive information that cannot be made available publicly. Over 

the past 5 years, we have issued around 900 products each year, primarily in an electronic 

format.4 In addition, we publish about 300 to 400 legal decisions and opinions each year. 

Our products include: 

■ reports and written correspondence; 

■ testimonies and statements for the record, where the former are delivered orally by one 

or more of our senior executives at a congressional hearing and the latter are provided for 

inclusion in the congressional record; 

■ briefings, which are usually given directly to congressional staff members; and 

■ legal decisions and opinions resolving bid protests and addressing issues of appropriations 

law, as well as opinions on the scope and exercise of authority of federal officers.

We also produce special publications on specific issues of general interest to many 

Americans, such as our reports on the fiscal future of the United States and our decisions 

on federal bid protests.5

 Our publication, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, is 

viewed both within and outside of the government as the primary resource on federal case 

law related to the availability, use, and control of federal funds. In addition, we maintain 

the government’s repository of reports on Antideficiency Act violations and make available 

on our website information extracted from those reports. Collectively, our products contain 

2

In fiscal year 2013 the work performed under the Comptroller General’s Authority represented 4 percent of our engagement resources.

3

GAO, The Federal Government’s Long-Term Fiscal Outlook: Spring 2013 Update, GAO-13-481SP, (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2013). 4

In fiscal year 2013 the number of products that we issued was down to 791. 

5

GAO, Bid Protest Annual Report to the Congress for Fiscal Year 2011, GAO-12-199SP (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2011); and GAO, Principles 

of Federal Appropriations Law: Annual Update of the Third Edition, GAO-12-413SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 8, 2012).
GAO-14-2SP 19

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

About GAO

information and often conclusions and recommendations that allow us to achieve our 

external strategic goals.

Another means of ensuring that we are achieving our goals is by examining the impact 

of our past work and using that information to shape our future work. Consequently, 

we evaluate actions taken by federal agencies and the Congress in response to our past 

recommendations. The results are reported in terms of financial benefits and other 

benefits. We actively monitor the status of our open recommendations—those that remain 

valid but have not yet been implemented—and report our findings annually to the Congress 

and the public (http://www.gao.gov/openrecs.html).

Similarly, our biennial high-risk report, updated in February 2013, provides a status report 

on major government operations that we consider high risk because they are vulnerable 

to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement or are in need of broad-based transformation 

(see p.40). Such special publications are valuable planning tools because they help us to 

identify areas of focus on important policy and management issues facing the nation.

To attain our fourth strategic goal—an internal goal—and its four related objectives, we 

implement projects to address the key efforts in our strategic plan. We conduct surveys 

of our congressional clients and internal customers to obtain feedback on our products, 

processes, and services and identify ways to improve them. We also perform internal 

management studies and evaluations.

Because achieving our strategic goals and objectives also requires strategies for 

coordinating with other organizations with similar or complementary missions, we use 

advisory panels and other bodies to inform our strategic and annual work planning and 

maintain strategic working relationships with other national and international government 

accountability and professional organizations, including the federal inspectors general, 

state and local audit organizations, and other national audit offices.

These types of strategic working relationships allow us to extend our institutional 

knowledge and experience; leverage our resources; and in turn, improve our service to the 

Congress and the American people. Our Strategic Planning and External Liaison office takes 

the lead and provides strategic focus for the work with external partner organizations, 

while our research, audit, and evaluation teams lead the work with most of the issuespecific organizations.

How We Measure Our Performance

To help us determine how well we are meeting the needs of the Congress and maximizing 

our value as a leading practices organization, we assess our performance annually using a 

balanced set of quantitative performance measures that focus on four key areas—results, 

client, people, and internal operations. These categories of measures are briefly described 

below.

■ Results. Focusing on results and the effectiveness of the processes needed to achieve 

them is fundamental to accomplishing our mission. To assess our results, we measure 

financial benefits, other benefits, recommendations implemented, and percentage of 

new products with recommendations. Financial benefits and other benefits provide 

quantitative and qualitative information, respectively, on the outcomes or results that 

have been achieved from our work. They often represent outcomes that occurred or 
20 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

About GAO

are expected to occur over a period of several years. The remaining measures are 

intermediate outcomes in that they often lead to achieving outcomes that are ultimately 

captured in our financial and other (nonfinancial and nonquantifiable) benefits. For 

financial benefits and other benefits, we first set targets for the agency as a whole, and 

then we set targets for each of the external goals (1, 2, and 3) to reach the agencywide 

targets. For past recommendations implemented and percentage of products with 

recommendations, we set targets and report performance for the agency as a whole 

because we want to encourage consistent performance across goals. Internally, we track 

our performance by strategic goal in order to understand why we meet or do not meet 

the agencywide target. We also use this information to provide feedback to our teams 

on the extent to which they are contributing to the overall target and to help them 

identify areas for improvement.

■ Client. To measure how well we are serving our client, we capture the number of 

congressional hearings where we are asked to present expert testimony and our 

timeliness in delivering products to the Congress. We use an electronic client feedback 

form to collect data on the services we are providing to our congressional clients. We 

set a target at the agencywide level for the number of hearings and then assign a 

portion of these hearings as a target for each of the external goals (1, 2, and 3) based 

on that goal’s expected contribution to the agencywide total. We base this target on 

our assessment of the congressional calendar and hearing trend data. As in measuring 

the results of our work, we track our progress on this measure at the goal level in 

order to understand where we met or did not meet the agencywide target. We set an 

agencywide target for timeliness because we want our performance on this measure to 

be consistent across goals.

■ People. As our most important asset, our people define our character and capacity to 

perform. A variety of data sources, including an internal survey, provide information 

to help us measure how well we are attracting and retaining high-quality staff and how 

well we are developing, supporting, using, and leading staff. We set targets for these 

measures at the agencywide level.

■ Internal operations. GAO’s ability to carry out its mission and retain a skilled and 

talented workforce is supported by our administrative services, including information 

management, infrastructure operations, human capital, and financial management. 

Through an internal customer satisfaction survey, we gather information on three 

areas of interest: (1) how well our internal operations help employees get their jobs 

done, (2) how our internal operations improve employees’ quality of work life, and 

(3) how satisfied employees are with our IT tools. Examples of surveyed services 

include information security, pay and benefits, building security and maintenance, and 

telework/mobility tools. We set targets for these measures at the agencywide level.

Setting Performance Targets

To establish targets for all of our measures, we consider our past performance, including 

recent patterns and 4-year rolling averages, as well as known upcoming events for most 

of our results measures (see p.128) and the external factors that influence our work (see 

p.60). Based on this information, the teams and offices that are directly engaged in the 

work discuss with our top executives their views of what we have planned to accomplish in 
GAO-14-2SP 21

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

About GAO

the strategic plan and what they believe they can accomplish in the upcoming fiscal year. 

Members of our Executive Committee then establish targets for the performance measures.

Once approved by the Comptroller General, the targets become final and are presented 

in our annual performance plan and budget.6 We may adjust these targets after they are 

initially published when our expected future work or level of funding warrants doing so. 

If we make changes, we include the changed targets in later documents, such as this 

performance and accountability report, and indicate that we have changed them. In Part 

V, we include detailed information on data sources that we use to assess each of these 

measures, as well as the steps we take to verify and validate the data.

On the pages that follow, we assess our performance for fiscal year 2013 against our 

previously established performance targets. We also present our financial statements, the 

independent auditor’s report, and a statement from GAO’s Inspector General.

6

Our most current plan is available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-463SP
22 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

About GAO

This page intentionally left blank
Part I

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Serving the Congress and the Nation
24 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Assisting the Congress and Benefiting the 

Nation during Challenging Times 

In fiscal year 2013, demand for our work was high with 868 congressional requests and 

new mandates. Our work in key areas helped inform the Congress and the administration 

on issues relevant to all Americans. These included issues related to duplication, overlap, 

and opportunities for cost saving in government programs, for which we identified 45 areas 

where programs may be able to achieve greater efficiencies or become more effective 

in providing government services; the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act; the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; and our continued 

oversight of high-risk and other critical areas.

This work also allowed us to achieve many of our performance goals, and we monitored 

how well we performed and supported our staff using 16 annual performance measures. 

The results of our efforts are reflected in our solid performance in fiscal year 2013 for 

which data are available (see table 1). Specifically, we met or exceeded all but two of the 

performance targets we set for our client and people measures. We exceeded our targets 

for our two priority measures—financial and other benefits. We achieved $51.5 billion in 

financial benefits, exceeding our target of $44 billion by $7.5 billion.7

 This represents about 

$100 return on every dollar the Congress invested in us. We recorded 1,314 other benefits, 

exceeding our target of 1,200 by 114 benefits. We fell just short of meeting our target of 

80 percent for past recommendations implemented, finishing the fiscal year at 79 percent. 

We exceeded our target for new products with recommendations by 3 percentage points. 

We did not meet our target of 170 hearings at which we were asked to testify, due to 

fewer-than-anticipated hearings in a range of subject areas. We exceeded our target for 

delivering our products and testimonies to our clients in a timely manner. We also met or 

exceeded our annual targets for our people measures, including staff development, staff 

utilization, effective leadership by supervisors, and organizational climate. In addition, we 

met our annual targets for retention rates (with and without retirements), but fell short of 

our hiring goal by 29 percentage points. The delay in receiving our final appropriations until 

mid-year impacted our ability to approve critical hires and fill entry-level positions by yearend. As a result, our staffing level for fiscal year 2013 remained below 3,000 and we ended 

the year at our lowest level since 1935.

For our three internal operations measures, we use an internal customer satisfaction 

survey to assess how well our administrative services (e.g., computer support, student 

loan repayment program, building maintenance, etc.) help employees get their jobs done 

and improve quality of work life, and how satisfied employees are with IT tools. These 

measures are directly related to our efforts under goal 4 of our strategic plan which 

focuses on enabling quality, timely service to the Congress and being a leading practices 

federal agency. The survey asks staff to indicate their satisfaction with each service, or 

to indicate if they did not use it. Our satisfaction scores from the 2013 survey were 82 

percent for services that “help get the job done,” 77.9 percent for services that “improve 

the quality of work life,” and 67.6 percent for satisfaction with “IT Tools.” We are working 

to improve the services that did not meet our target of 80 percent. 

7

A financial benefit is an estimate of the federal cost reduction of agency or congressional actions.
GAO-14-2SP 25

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Table 1: Agencywide Summary of Annual Measures and Targets

Performance 

measure

2008 

actual

2009 

actual

2010 

actual

2011 

actual

2012 

actual

2013 

target actual

Met/ 

not met

2014 

target

Results

Financial benefits

(dollars in billions) $58.1 $43.0 $49.9 $45.7 $55.8 $44.0 $51.5 Met $45.0

Other benefits 1,398 1,315 1,361 1,318 1,440 1,200 1,314 Met 1,200

Past recommendations implemented 83% 80% 82% 80% 80% 80% 79% Not Met 80%

New products with

recommendations 66% 68% 61% 68% 67% 60% 63% Met 60%

Client

Testimonies 298 203 192 174 159 170 114 Not Met 130

Timelinessa 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 90% 94% Met 90%

People

New hire rate 96% 99% 95% 84% 76% 95% 66% Not Met 75%

Retention rate

With retirements 90% 94% 94% 92% 93% 90% 93% Met 90%

Without

retirements 93% 96% 96% 96% 96% 94% 96% Met 94%

Staff developmentb 77% 79% 79% 79% 80% 76% 80% Met 80%

Staff utilizationb,c 75% 78% 77% 78% 76% 75% 75% Met 76%

Effective leadership 

by supervisorsd 81% 83% 83% 83% 82% 80% 83% Met 82%

Organizational

climate 77% 79% 79% 80% 78% 75% 77% Met 76%

Internal operationse,f

Help get job done 4.0 4.03 3. 94 80% 

(3.98) N/A 80% 82% Met 80%

Quality of work life 4.01 4.01 3.94 80% 

(3.99) N/A 80% 78% Not Met 80%

IT Toolsg N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 80% 68% Not Met 80%

Source: GAO.

Note: Information explaining all of the measure included in this table appears in the Appendix on Data Quality of this report. a

The timeliness measure is based on one question on a form sent out to selected clients. The response rate for the form in fiscal 

year 2013 was 24.5 percent and 98 percent of the clients who responded answered this question. The percentage shown in the 

table represents the percentage of respondents who answered favorably to this question on the form. 

b

This measure is derived from our annual agencywide employee feedback survey. From the staff who expressed an opinion, we 

calculated the percentage of those who selected favorable responses to the related survey questions. Responses of “no basis 

to judge/not applicable” or “no answer” were excluded from the calculation. While including these responses in the calculation 

would result in a different percentage, our method of calculation is an acceptable survey practice, and we believe it produces a 

better and more valid measure because it represents only those employees who have an opinion on the questions.

c

Our employee feedback survey asks staff how often the following occurred in the last 12 months: (1) my job made good use of 

my skills, (2) GAO provided me with opportunities to do challenging work, and (3) in general, I was utilized effectively.

d

In fiscal year 2009, we changed the name of this measure from “Leadership” to its current nomenclature to clarify that the 

measure reflects employees’ satisfaction with their immediate supervisors’ leadership. In fiscal year 2010, we changed one of 

the questions for this measure.

e

For our internal operations measures, we ask staff to rate 38 internal services available to them, indicating their satisfaction 

with each service from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied” or if they did not use the service. For 2008 – 2011, data was 

reported as a mean on a 5-point scale. For the purposes of comparison, starting in 2011 and going forward, we will calculate 
26 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

level of satisfaction as percent satisfied, ranging from 0 to 100 percent. These measures are described in more detail on page 

135-136 of this report.

f

No survey was conducted in calendar year 2012, which is indicated by N/A. The most recent surveys were conducted in 

December 2011 and April 2013. 

g

For 2013, we created a new IT Tools performance measure to better measure and track satisfaction with GAO’s IT services. In 

prior year surveys, IT services were covered under one of the other performance measures.

Our fiscal year 2014 targets for 9 of 15 of our performance measures are the same as those 

targets we reported in our fiscal year 2013 performance plan issued in March 2012. The 

remaining 6 targets have been revised to what we believe are challenging yet realistic 

targets for our staff given constrained resources.

We use 4-year rolling averages for key performance measures to help us examine trends over 

time, including financial benefits, other benefits, new products with recommendations, and 

testimonies. We use 4-year rolling averages for these measures because our performance has 

fluctuated from year to year and this calculation minimizes the effect of an atypical result 

in any given year. We consider this calculation, along with other factors, when we set our 

performance targets. Table 2 shows that our averages for financial benefits increased slightly 

from 2008 to 2009, remained fairly stable from 2009 to 2011, decreased in 2012, and rose 

again in 2013. The average number of other benefits we recorded decreased slightly from 

2008 to 2009, increased slightly from 2009 to 2010, declined in 2011, increased in 2012, and 

held steady in 2013. New products with recommendations have been very stable from 2009 

through 2013.

Table 2: Four-Year Rolling Averages for Selected GAO Measures

Performance measure 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Results

Financial benefits (billions) $48.7 $49.5 $49.2 $49.2 $48.6 $50.7

Other benefits 1,376 1,352 1,357 1,348 1,359 1,358

New products with recommendations 65% 66% 65% 66% 66% 65%

Client

Testimonies 248 254 242 217 182 160

Source: GAO.

We use several factors to set our annual testimonies target—the number of hearings at 

which we expect our senior executives to testify. These factors include the cyclical nature 

of the congressional calendar, our 4-year rolling averages, and our past performance. Our 

experience has shown that during the fiscal year in which an election occurs, the Congress 

generally holds fewer hearings. In the months after an election, the members usually only 

meet for a short session, and then they reorganize in the following months, providing 

fewer opportunities for us to testify. For the past 4 years, our testimonies have been lower 

than anticipated because of a congressional focus on a few key policy areas that did not 

encompass as many hearings on our broad scope of work as in recent years. We therefore 

have set a lower target for congressional testimonies in 2014.

Accomplishing our mission requires us to focus on the outcomes of our work and the 

efficiency of the processes we use to deliver results. The following four annual measures—

financial benefits, other benefits, past recommendations implemented, and new products 
GAO-14-2SP 27

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

containing recommendations—indicate the extent to which we have fulfilled our mission 

and benefited the nation.

Financial Benefits and Other Benefits

We generally describe the positive outcomes resulting from our work as either financial 

or other benefits. In many cases, the benefits we claimed in fiscal year 2013 are based 

on work we did in past years because it often takes the Congress and agencies time to 

implement our recommendations or to act on our findings.

To claim either type of benefit, our staff must document the connection between the 

benefits reported and the work that we performed. We can claim benefits within 2 years of 

when the Congress or an agency takes action on our recommendations. Our methodology 

for determining financial benefits can be found in table 19 in the Appendix on Data Quality

of this report.

Financial Benefits

Our findings and recommendations produce measurable financial benefits for the federal 

government after the Congress acts on or agencies implement them and the funds are made 

available to reduce government expenditures or are reallocated to other areas. For example, 

the financial benefit can be the result of changes in business operations and activities; the 

restructuring of federal programs; or modifications to entitlements, taxes, or user fees.

In fiscal year 2013, our work generated about $51.5 billion in financial benefits (see fig. 7). 

We exceeded our target by almost 17 percent because of several unexpectedly large 

accomplishments. Part II of this report provides more information on these accomplishments 

by goal. (See fig. 8.) In light of ongoing resource constraints that may affect our ability to 

follow up on actions taken, we have set our fiscal year 2014 target for financial benefits at 

$45 billion. This is above the fiscal year 2013 target but below our actual performance.

Figure 7: Financial Benefits GAO Recorded

Dollars in billions

Source: GAO.

Actual Target Actual

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013

$43.0 $44.0

$51.5 $49.9

$45.7

$58.1 $55.8

The financial benefits that we report in our performance measures are net benefits—that 

is, estimates of financial benefits that have been reduced by the estimated costs associated 

with taking the action that we recommended. We convert all estimates involving past 

and future years to their net present value and use actual dollars to represent estimates 
28 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

involving only the current year. Financial benefit amounts vary depending on the nature 

of the benefit, and we can claim financial benefits over multiple years based on a 

single agency or congressional action. We limit the period over which benefits from an 

accomplishment can accrue to no more than 5 years.

To calculate our financial benefits we rely on estimates from non-GAO sources. These 

sources are typically the agency that acted on our work, a congressional committee, or 

the Congressional Budget Office. Additional examples of financial benefits can be found in 

Part II of this report.

Financial Benefits

Figure 8: GAO’s Selected Major Financial Benefits Reported in Fiscal Year 2013

Source: See Image Sources.

Description

Amount

(Dollars in 

billions)

Reduction in Procurement Quantities of Joint Strike Fighter. From 2005 through 

2012 we made numerous recommendations to DOD aimed at reducing procurements 

of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter—its most expensive aircraft acquisition. Specifically, we 

cited the program’s very aggressive and risky acquisition strategy, including substantial 

concurrency or overlap among development, testing, and production activities. These 

factors combined with a management environment that was slow to acknowledge and 

address problems, were prime contributors to the relatively poor cost, schedule, and 

performance outcomes experienced by this program. Consistent with our findings and 

recommendations, DOD decreased near-term procurement quantities in three successive 

budget submissions to lessen concurrency and the associated cost risks. Procurement 

quantities were reduced by 103 aircraft for fiscal years 2013 and 2014 at a budgeted 

cost reduction of about $8.72 billion (in net present value). (GAO-09-303, GAO-10-382,

GAO-11-325) $8.7

Treasury Reduced TARP Obligation to FHA Short Refinance Program for Foreclosure 

Mitigation. We reported on foreclosure mitigation efforts across the federal government 

in 2012. Specifically, we found that the Department of the Treasury had not reassessed 

its need for the $8 billion letter of credit facility for the Federal Housing Administration’s 

refinancing program to help borrowers in negative equity positions, despite much lower 

than expected participation rates. Based on updated participation estimates, Treasury 

amended the purchase agreement for the line-of-credit facility in March 2013 by reducing 

the amount from $8 billion to $1 billion—deobligating approximately $7.1 billion dollars 

and returning that amount to the general fund during fiscal year 2013 potentially making 

this funding available for other federal programs. (GAO-12-296) $7.1
GAO-14-2SP 29

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Revised Approach for the Navy’s Next Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN) 

Acquisition. In 2011, we found that the Navy’s acquisition decisions for the Next 

Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN) had not always been performance- and riskbased because the program was allowed to proceed despite significant performance 

shortfalls and risks. For example, the Navy had not sufficiently analyzed NGEN acquisition 

alternatives. As a result, it was pursuing an approach that was riskier and potentially 

costlier than the other alternatives identified due to a higher number of contractual 

relationships. Our recommendations led the Navy to revise its acquisition strategy—

reducing the program’s costs between 2013 and 2017 by about $2.6 billion (net present 

value). (GAO-11-150, GAO-12-956) $2.6

Elimination of Seller-funded Payment Assistance for FHA-insured Mortgages. 

We reported in 2006, that FHA-insured mortgages purchased using down payment 

assistance from property sellers (seller-funded down payment assistance) had grown from 

6 percent in 2000 to 30 percent in 2004. In addition, we found that mortgages that used 

seller-funded payment assistance had substantially higher delinquency and insurance 

claim rates than similar loans without such assistance. Moreover, the losses associated 

with these loans were contributing to FHA’s deteriorating financial performance. Citing our 

findings, The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Congress 

took steps in 2007 and 2008 to prohibit seller-funded down payment assistance and this 

prohibition became law with passage of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 

(HERA). The passage of the act has continued to result in annual cost reductions to the 

federal government and for fiscal year 2013 this amount was approximately $2.5 billion. 

(GAO-06-24) $2.5

Consolidation of U.S. Forces Stationed in Europe. Since 2010, we have reported 

on the significant costs related to maintaining permanent Army forces in Europe and 

recommended that DOD identify alternatives that may lead to savings, analyze strategic 

documents to identify mission requirements, and better align permanent forces to address 

those requirements. In 2012, partly in response to our work, DOD announced that it was 

removing two brigade combat teams and support units from Europe, allowing it to further 

consolidate and close facilities. According to the Army, DOD can expect to reduce its costs 

about $2.3 billion through fiscal year 2017. (GAO-10-745R, GAO-11-131, GAO-12-711) $2.3

Reduction in Unobligated Balances for State Department Operations in Iraq. Our 

review of the State Department’s 2013 budget request for funding Diplomatic and 

Consular Programs in Iraq identified growing unobligated balances, despite the planned 

reductions in the U.S. civilian-led presence there. Given the growing unobligated balance 

in the Diplomatic and Consular Programs account and State’s request for $2.7 billion, we 

projected that the Iraq Operations budget would have an unobligated balance of between 

$1.7 billion and about $2.3 billion by the end of fiscal year 2013. Our work led to the 

Congress rescinding $1.1 billion from this State Department account. (GAO-12-856T) $1.1

Source: GAO.

Notes: One way we measure our effect on improving the government’s accountability, operations, and services is by 

tracking the percentage of recommendations that we made 4 years ago that have since been implemented. We assess 

recommendations implemented after 4 years based on our experience that recommendations remaining open after that 

period of time are generally not implemented in subsequent years. 

Additional examples of fiscal year 2013 financial benefits can be found in Part II of this report.

Other Benefits

Many of the benefits that result from our work cannot be measured in dollar terms, 

which we refer to as other benefits. During fiscal year 2013, we recorded a total of 1,314 

other benefits (see fig. 9). We exceeded our target by about 10 percent largely because 
30 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

of a number of accomplishments we documented for information technology, acquisition 

management, and public safety and security issues. We have set our 2014 target for these 

other benefits at 1,200 again given ongoing resource constraints.

Figure 9: Other benefits

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013

Number

Source: GAO.

Actual Target Actual

1,361

1,200

1,315 1,318 1,314 1,398 1,440

In fiscal year 2013 we documented actions taken across federal programs—about 31 percent 

resulted from improvements in public safety and security, including programs such as 

homeland security and justice programs and critical technologies. About 36 percent of 

the total other benefits were in the area of business process and management, including 

programs such as federal information systems, business systems modernization, and 

financial management. (See figure 10.) In figure 11, we provide examples of other benefits 

we claimed as accomplishments in fiscal year 2013. Additional examples of other benefits 

can be found in Part II of this report.

Figure 10: Types of Fiscal Year 2013 Other benefits

0

10

20

30

40

Percentage of total

Source: GAO.

 Public Insurance 

 and Benefits 

 Public Safety and 

 Security

 Acquisition and 

Contract Management

 Tax Law 

Administration

 Program Efficiency 

 and Effectiveness

Business Process 

 and Management

5%

31%

3%

8%

17%

36%

Note: These categories closely align with those in our high-risk list (see table 7).
GAO-14-2SP 31

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Examples of programs included in categories:

 Public insurance and benefits. Medicare, Medicaid, Department of Veterans Affairs and DOD health care, disability 

programs, national flood insurance, federal deposit insurance, and other insurance programs.

 Public safety and security. Homeland security and justice programs; critical infrastructure, including information security; 

critical technologies; food safety; transportation safety; telecommunications safety; international food assistance; public 

health; consumer protection; environmental issues; national defense; foreign policy; and international trade.

 Acquisition and contract management. DOD weapon system acquisition, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

acquisition management, and all federal agency and interagency contract management.

 Tax Law Administration. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) business systems modernization, tax policy, and enforcement of 

tax laws.

 Program efficiency and effectiveness. Fraud, waste, and abuse; U.S. financial regulatory system; federal oil and gas 

resources; U.S. Postal Service; transportation funding; and telecommunications funding.

 Business Process and Management. Federal agency financial audits, federal information systems, federal real property, 

human capital management, DOD business transformation, business systems modernization, financial management, support 

infrastructure management, and supply chain management.

Figure 11: GAO’s Selected Other Benefits Reported in Fiscal Year 2013

Other Benefits

Source: GAO.

Program Description

Public 

Insurance and 

Benefits

Our review of the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) 340B Drug 

Pricing Program in 2011, which gives certain providers access to discounted prices 

on restricted outpatient drugs, found that HRSA’s guidance was not specific in how 

manufacturers should ensure equitable distribution of restricted drugs. In response to our 

recommendation, HRSA issued guidance requesting submission of distribution plans 

for restricted drugs by manufacturers in advance of their implementation. Through this 

newly instituted process, HRSA is now better able to ensure that providers do not face 

challenges accessing restricted drugs at discounted 340B program prices. (GAO-11-836)

Public Safety 

and Security

We recommended in 2010 that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) develop a transition plan for tsunami research to address its non-compliance 

with the Tsunami Warning and Education Act, and incorporate lessons learned from 

the delays it experienced during the transition of a new tsunami forecasting system 

from research to application. In response, NOAA established a tsunami research-tooperations policy. The policy applies to all Tsunami Program research and development 

and outlines the processes, roles, and responsibilities for transitioning tsunami research 

into operations at tsunami warning centers. (GAO-10-490)
32 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Acquisition 

and Contract 

Management

We reported that the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) procedures 

for monitoring contracts related to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) lacked 

basic, important information. For example, we noted that the majority of the 145 monthly 

monitoring reports we reviewed did not specify the performance areas to which they 

were related and the majority were missing submission dates. Given FEMA’s extensive 

use of contractors to implement the NFIP, it is vital that FEMA maintain internal controls. 

As a result, we recommended in June 2008 that the Secretary of Homeland Security 

ensure that FEMA staff clearly monitor each performance standard that the contractor 

is required to meet in the time frames required by contract and that FEMA staff clearly 

link monitoring reports and performance areas. In response, FEMA issued updated 

policies in August 2011, among other steps, to reduce the likelihood that contractor 

performance problems would go unnoticed, and negatively affect NFIP operations. 

(GAO-08-347R)

Tax Law 

Administration

In 2013, we used newly available IRS data for tax year 2010 to estimate that profitable 

large U.S. corporations paid income taxes amounting to about 17 percent of the 

financial statement income that they reported on their federal tax returns. This effective 

tax rate, which includes taxes paid out of that reported financial statement income to 

the federal, state and local, and foreign governments, was well below the 35 percent 

federal statutory tax rate. The results of our work have demonstrated the need for 

congressional action that may include the potential for comprehensive tax reform. 

(GAO-13-520)

Program 

Efficiency and 

Effectiveness 

In 2012, we recommended that the Army and Veterans Affairs expand their 

interagency collaboration to improve management of military cemeteries. The 

departments have established a joint working group to identify improvements, share 

lessons learned, avoid potential duplication, and find solutions to common problems. 

The Army National Military Cemeteries also developed a strategic plan and workforce 

plan to better link missions, goals, resources, and business processes—steps that 

should improve overall management and help eliminate burial errors and other past 

problems. (GAO-12-105) 

Business 

Process and 

Management

In July 2009, we reported that HUD had established policies and procedures for 

creating portfolios of information technology (IT) investments but lacked related 

practices to effectively control them, such as procedures and criteria for assessing 

portfolio performance on a continual basis. Accordingly, we recommended that the 

department develop and implement a plan to address the IT portfolio investment 

management weaknesses identified. In January 2013, HUD provided a plan for 

implementing practices to control the performance of its IT investment portfolio. For 

example, the plan identified the process, timeline, and criteria for evaluating the 

performance of HUD’s IT investment portfolio. As a result of these actions, HUD has 

improved its ability to control the risks and achieve the benefits associated with the 

department’s IT investment portfolios. (GAO-09-675) 

Source: GAO.

Notes: One way we measure our effect on improving the government’s accountability, operations, and services is by 

tracking the percentage of recommendations that we made 4 years ago that have since been implemented. We assess 

recommendations implemented after 4 years based on our experience that recommendations remaining open after that 

period of time are generally not implemented in subsequent years.

Additional examples of other benefits for the fiscal year can be found in Part II of this report.
GAO-14-2SP 33

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Past Recommendations Implemented

One way we measure our effect on improving the government’s accountability, operations, 

and services is by tracking the percentage of recommendations that we made 4 years 

ago that have since been implemented. At the end of fiscal year 2013, 79 percent of 

the recommendations we made in fiscal year 2009 had been implemented (see fig. 12), 

primarily by executive branch agencies. Putting these recommendations into practice 

generates tangible benefits for the nation.

Figure 12: Percentage of Past Recommendations Implemented

Four-year implementation rate

Source: GAO.

Actual Target Actual

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013

83% 80% 82% 80% 80% 80% 79%

The 79 percent implementation rate for fiscal year 2013 fell just short of our target 

of 80 percent for the year. As figure 13 indicates, agencies need time to act on 

recommendations. We assess recommendations implemented after 4 years based on our 

experience that recommendations remaining open after that period of time are generally 

not implemented in subsequent years.

Figure 13: Cumulative Implementation Rate for Recommendations Made in Fiscal Year 2009

Percentage

Source: GAO.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

After

4 years

After

3 years

After

2 years

After

1 year

79%

44%

25%

12%

New Products Containing Recommendations

In fiscal year 2013, about 63 percent of the 575 written products we issued contained 

recommendations (see fig. 14). We track the percentage of new products with 

recommendations because we want to focus on developing recommendations that, when 
34 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

implemented by the Congress and agencies, produce financial and other benefits for 

the nation. We exceeded our target of 60 percent by 3 percentage points. However, 

we are maintaining the 60 percent target for 2014 because we recognize that including 

recommendations in our products is not always warranted, and the Congress and agencies 

often find informational reports as useful as those that contain recommendations. Our 

informational reports have the same analytical rigor and meet the same quality standards 

as those with recommendations and, similarly, can help to bring about substantial financial 

and other key benefits. Hence, this measure allows us some flexibility in responding to 

requests that result in reports without recommendations.

Figure 14: Percentage of New Products with Recommendations

Percentage

Source: GAO.

Actual Target Actual

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013

68% 68%

60% 61% 63% 66% 67%

Focusing on Our Client

To fulfill the Congress’s information needs, we plan to deliver the results of our work orally 

as well as in writing at a time agreed upon with our client. Our performance this year 

indicates that we assisted the Congress well, by striving to respond to all congressional 

requests for testimony and delivering almost all of our products on time based on the 

feedback from our clients. We issued 791 products and completed work for 143 clients.

Testimonies

Our clients often invite us to testify on our current and past work as it relates to issues 

that committees are examining through the congressional hearing process. During fiscal 

year 2013, experts from our staff testified at 114 congressional hearings covering a wide 

range of complex issues.8 We did not meet our target of 170 hearings (see fig. 15). This 

measure is client-driven based on invitations to testify; therefore we cannot always 

anticipate clients’ specific subject area interests. Our experience has also shown that 

during the fiscal year in which an election occurs, the Congress generally holds fewer 

hearings. The 114 hearings at which the Congress asked our executives to testify in fiscal 

year 2013 covered the scope of our mission areas. (See fig. 17) for selected topics we 

testified on by strategic goal in fiscal year 2012.) Thirty-one percent of the hearings at 

which our senior executives testified were related to high-risk areas and programs, which 

are listed on page 41 of this report.

8

Senior GAO officials testified 114 times during fiscal year 2013: Goal 1 (60), Goal 2 (30), Goal 3 (22), and Goal 4 (2 Comptroller General 

testimonies).
GAO-14-2SP 35

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Figure 15: Testimonies

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013

Hearings at which GAO testified

Source: GAO.

Actual Target Actual

192

170

114

174 159

203

298

We have set our fiscal year 2014 target of testimonies at 130 hearings and believe this 

should be a reasonable estimate given recent trends and the Congress’s continuing interest 

in such matters as national and homeland security, health care, information security, public 

safety, and natural resources.

Timeliness

To be useful to the Congress, our products must be available when our clients need them. 

In fiscal year 2013, we exceeded our timeliness target of 90 percent by four percentage 

points. (See fig. 16.) We outreach directly to our clients through several means, including 

an electronic feedback form. We use the results of our client feedback form as a primary 

source and barometer for whether we are getting our products to our congressional clients 

when they need the information. To calculate this result, we tally responses from the 

client survey form we send to key congressional staff working for the requesters of our 

testimony statements and more significant written products (e.g., engagements assigned 

an interest level of “high” by our senior management9 and those expected to reach 500 

staff days or more), which represented about 35 percent of the congressionally requested 

written products we issued in fiscal year 2013. Because our products usually have multiple 

requesters, we often send forms to more than one congressional staff person per testimony 

or product. One of the questions on each form asks the client whether the product was 

provided or delivered on time. In fiscal year 2013, of the forms returned to us, 98 percent 

of the congressional staff responding answered the question on timeliness. Overall, the 

response rate to our entire form was 24.5 percent, though we received feedback on 47 

percent of the products for which we sent forms.

We have consistently set a high target for timeliness because it is important for us to meet 

congressional needs when they occur. We have set our fiscal year 2014 target at 90 percent 

because of resource constraints that may affect our on-time delivery.

9

As part of our risk-based engagement management process, we identify a new engagement as high interest if the work we need to perform will 

likely require a large investment of our resources, involve a complex methodology, or examine controversial or sensitive issues.
36 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Figure 16: Timeliness

Percentage of products on time

Source: GAO.

Actual Target Actual

95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 90% 94%

0

20

40

60

80

100

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013

Focusing on Our People

Our highly professional, multidisciplinary, and diverse staff were critical to the level of 

performance we demonstrated in fiscal year 2013. Our ability to hire, develop, retain, and 

lead staff is a key factor to fulfilling our mission of serving the Congress and the American 

people.

Over the last 6 fiscal years, we have refined our processes for measuring how well we 

manage our human capital. In fiscal year 2013, we met or exceeded six of seven of our 

people measures. These measures are directly linked to our goal 4 strategic objective of 

being a leading practices federal agency. For more information about our people measures, 

see Table 19 on page 128 of this report.

New Hire Rate

Our new hire rate is the ratio of the number of people hired to the number we planned to 

hire. GAO’s annual workforce planning process helps to identify the human capital resource 

requirements needed to accomplish its mission. It is the key tool to put strategic goals 

into human capital actions that are needed to respond to changing work environments. 

The workforce plan takes into account strategic goals, projected workload requirements, 

and other changes, such as retirements, attrition, promotions, and skill gaps. It specifies 

the number of planned hires for the upcoming year. Adjustments to the plan are made 

throughout the year, if necessary, to respond immediately on the most pressing issues for 

congressional oversight and decision making. In fiscal year 2013, our new hire rate was 66 

percent. We did not meet the target of 95 percent. We planned to hire about 177 new 

staff, but only filled 117 by year-end. The remaining 60 positions will be carried over to 

fiscal year 2014 since recruitment activities were not completed prior to the end of fiscal 

year 2013. The delay in receiving our final appropriations until mid-year, impacted our 

ability to approve critical hires and fill entry-level positions by year-end. 
GAO-14-2SP 37

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

 Processing Veterans’ Disability Benefits

 Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics Education

 Social Security Administration Management

 School Lunch Nutrition Standards 

 Private Pensions Multiemployer Plans and PBGC

 Community Bank Failures: Causes and 

Consequences

 Export-Import Bank Management and 

Reporting 

 Veteran-owned Small Businesses

 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

 Medicare Highest-Expenditure Part B Drugs

 Medicare and Medicaid High Risk Update

 Federal Real Property Management

 Transportation Issues and Management

 U.S. Postal Service Financial Viability

 California High Speed Passenger Rail

 Chemical Regulation

 Water Infrastructure

 Federal Courthouse Construction 

Goal 1: Address Current and Emerging Challenges to the Well-being and Financial 

Security of the American People

 Intellectual Property: Effect of Counterfeited and 

Pirated Goods on U.S. Economy 

 State Department: Diplomatic Security 

Challenges

 Trade Adjustment Assistance for Manufacturers 

and Service Firms 

 Personnel Security Clearances

 DOD Security Cooperation and Capacity Building 

 Border Security Goals, Measures, and Resources

 TSA Oversight of Alleged Misconduct

 DHS at 10 Years: Progress and Remaining 

Work

 DOD’s POW/MIA Mission and Challenges

 Missile Defense Acquisition Management

 Strategic Sourcing Potential Savings

 Naval Acquisition Risks: Littoral Combat Ship

 DOD Acquisition Risks: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 

 Modernizing the Nuclear Security Enterprise

 DHS’s Overstay Enforcement Efforts

Goal 2: Respond to Changing Security Threats and the Challenges of Global 

Interdependence

 Need for Federal IT Efficiency Implementation 

Initiatives 

 Need to Improve National Cybersecurity 

Strategy 

 Weaknesses in OPM IT Management and 

Incremental Improvements 

 Financial Performance and Management 

Challenges 

 GAO’s 2013 High-Risk Series Update 

 VA and DOD Sharing of Electronic Health 

Records 

 Need to Eliminate Duplicative IT Investments

 Improved Mitigation Strategies Needed for 

Environmental Satellite Coverage Gaps 

 Unknown Extent of Refund Fraud Using 

Stolen Identities 

 Progress Made by DHS in Addressing HighRisk Issues 

Goal 3: Help Transform the Federal Government to Address National Challenges

Source: GAO.

Note: Additional information on selected testimonies can be found in Part II of this report.

Figure 17: Selected Testimony Topics • Fiscal Year 2013
38 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Table 3: Actual Performance and Targets Related to Our New Hire Rate Measure

Performance 

measure

2008 

actual

2009 

actual

2010 

actual

2011 

actual

2012 

actual

2013 

target

2013 

actual

People

New hire rate 96% 99% 95% 84% 76% 95% 66%

Source: GAO.

Retention Rate

We continuously strive to make GAO a place where people want to work. Once we have 

made an investment in hiring and training people, we would like them to stay with us. 

This measure is one indicator of whether we are attaining this objective. We calculate this 

measure by taking 100 percent minus the attrition rate, where attrition rate is defined as the 

number of separations divided by the average onboard strength. We calculate this measure 

with and without retirements. Table 4 shows that in fiscal year 2013, we exceeded our target 

rate of 90 percent for retention with retirements by 3 percentage points at 93 percent. We 

also exceeded our retention rate of 94 percent without retirements by 2 percentage points at 

96 percent. 

Table 4: Actual Performance and Targets Related to Our Retention Rate Measures, Including and 

Excluding Retirements

Performance 

measures

2008 

actual

2009 

actual

2010 

actual

2011 

actual

2012 

actual

2013 

target

2013 

actual

People

Retention rate

With retirements 90% 94% 94% 92% 93% 90% 93%

Without retirements 93% 96% 96% 96% 96% 94% 96%

Source: GAO.

Staff Development and Utilization, Effective Leadership by Supervisors, and 

Organizational Climate

One way that we measure how well we are supporting our staff and providing an 

environment for professional growth is through our annual employee feedback survey. 

This web-based survey is administered to all of our employees once a year. To ensure the 

confidentiality of every respondent, we use an outside contractor to administer the survey 

and to analyze the responses. Through the survey, we encourage our staff to indicate what 

they think about our overall operations, work environment, and organizational culture and 

how they rate their immediate supervisors on key aspects of their leadership styles.

The survey consists of over 100 questions. From the staff who expressed an opinion, we 

calculated the percentage of those who selected favorable responses to the related survey 

questions. Responses of “no basis to judge/not applicable” or “no answer” were excluded 

from the calculation. While including these responses in the calculation would result in 
GAO-14-2SP 39

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

a different percentage, our method of calculation is an acceptable survey practice, and 

we believe it produces a better and more valid measure because it represents only those 

employees who have an opinion on the questions. (See Part V of this report on pp. 128-136

for additional information about these measures.) This fiscal year, about 72.5 percent 

of our employees completed the survey, and we met or exceeded all four targets (see 

table 5). Our fiscal year 2013 performance on all of these measures has been fairly 

consistent for the past few years. Our performance on the staff development exceeded our 

target by 4 percentage points. We met our target for staff utilization, exceeded our target 

for organizational climate by 2 percentage points, and exceeded our target for leadership 

by 3 percentage points. Given our performance on these measures in recent years, we have 

decided to adjust each of these targets for fiscal year 2014 (see table 1).

Table 5: Actual Performance and Targets Related to Our Measures of Employee Satisfaction with 

Staff Development, Staff Utilization, Effective Leadership by Supervisors, and Organizational Climate

Performance 

measuresa

2008 

actual

2009 

actual

2010 

actual

2011 

actual

2012 

actual

2013 

target

2013 

actual

People

Staff development 77% 79% 79% 79% 80% 76% 80%

Staff utilization 75% 78% 77% 78% 76% 75% 75%

Effective leadership 

by supervisorsb 81% 83% 83% 83% 82% 80% 83%

Organizational 

climate 77% 79% 79% 80% 78% 75% 77%

Source: GAO.

a

Certain portions of our web-based survey are used to develop these four measures.

b

In fiscal year 2009, we changed the name of this measure from “Leadership” to its current nomenclature to clarify that the 

measure reflects employees’ satisfaction with their immediate supervisors’ leadership. In fiscal year 2010, we changed one of 

the questions for this measure.

Focusing on Our Internal Operations

Our mission and people are supported by our administrative services, including information 

management, infrastructure operations, human capital, and financial management. To 

assess our performance and set targets related to how well our administrative services help 

employees get their jobs done and improve quality of work life, and employee satisfaction 

with IT tools, we use information from our annual customer satisfaction survey. The 

results are shown in table 6. We asked staff to rate 38 internal services available to them, 

indicating their satisfaction with each service from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied,” 

or to indicate that they did not use the service. Our internal operations measures are 

directly related to our efforts under goal 4 of our strategic plan to enable quality, timely 

service to the Congress and be a leading practices federal agency. 

The first measure encompasses 14 services that help employees get their jobs done, 

such as information security, desktop computer equipment, travel services, and report 

production. The second measure encompasses another 17 services that affect quality 

of work life, such as assistance related to pay and benefits, building security and 
40 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

maintenance, and internal communications. The third measure encompasses seven IT tools, 

such as our internal engagement management system, telework tools, and the intranet. 

Using survey responses, we calculate a composite score for each service category. Our 

scores of 82 percent for the services under “help get the job done” and 78 percent for 

the services under “quality of work life” from the May 2013 survey show that staff were 

generally or very satisfied with the services they receive. We are working to improve 

employees’ satisfaction with IT tools, which was rated about 68 percent.

Table 6: Actual Performance and Targets Related to Our Internal Operations Measures

Performance 

measures

2008 

actual

2009 

actual

2010 

actual

2011 

actual

2012 

actual

2013 

target

2013 

actual

Internal operations

Help get job done 4.00 4.03 3.94

80% 

3.98 N/A 80% 82%

Quality of work life 4.01 4.01 3.94

80% 

3.99 N/A 80% 78%

IT tools N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 80% 68%

Source: GAO.

Notes: For our internal operations measures, we ask staff to rate 38 internal services available to them, indicating their 

satisfaction with each service from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied” or if they did not use the service. For 2008 – 2011, 

data were reported as a mean on a 5-point scale with 5 being the highest. For the purposes of comparison, starting in 2011 

and going forward, we will calculate level of satisfaction as percent age satisfied, ranging from 0 to 100 percent. These 

measures are described in more detail on page 135-136 of this report.

N/A for fiscal year 2012 indicates that the survey was not conducted in this year and N/A for fiscal years 2008 through 2011 

indicates that the question on IT tools was not asked. 

GAO’s High-Risk Program

In 1990, we began our high-risk program to highlight long-standing challenges facing the 

federal government. Historically, we designated high-risk areas based on their increased 

susceptibility to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. As the program has evolved, 

we have also used the high-risk designation to draw attention to the need for broadbased transformation to achieve greater efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, and 

sustainability of key government programs and operations.

Issued to coincide with the start of each new 

Congress, our high-risk updates have helped 

sustain attention from members of the 

Congress who are responsible for oversight 

and from executive branch officials who are 

accountable for performance. Overall, our 

high-risk program has served to identify and 

help resolve serious weaknesses in areas that 

involve substantial resources and provide 

Our 2013 high-risk area work:

 164 reports 

 35 testimonies 

 $17 billion in financial benefits

 411 other benefits 
GAO-14-2SP 41

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Table 7: GAO’s High-Risk List as of September 30, 2013

High-risk area Year 

designated

Strengthening the Foundation for Efficiency and Effectiveness

■ Limiting the Federal Government’s Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks (new) 2013

■ Management of Federal Oil and Gas Resources 2011

■ Modernizing the U.S. Financial Regulatory System and Federal Role in Housing Finance 2009

■ Restructuring the U.S. Postal Service to Achieve Sustainable Financial Viability 2009

■ Funding the Nation’s Surface Transportation System 2007

■ Managing Federal Real Property 2003

■ Strategic Human Capital Management 2001

Transforming DOD Program Management

■ DOD Approach to Business Transformation 2005

■ DOD Business Systems Modernization 1995

■ DOD Support Infrastructure Management 1997

■ DOD Financial Management 1995

■ DOD Supply Chain Management 1990

■ DOD Weapon Systems Acquisition 1990

Ensuring Public Safety and Security

■ Mitigating Gaps in Weather Satellite Data (new) 2013

■ Strengthening Department of Homeland Security Management Functions 2003

■ Establishing Effective Mechanisms for Sharing and Managing Terrorism-related Information to 

Protect the Homeland 2005

■ Protecting the Federal Government’s Information Systems and the Nation’s Cyber Critical 

Infrastructures 1997

■ Ensuring the Effective Protection of Technologies Critical to U.S. National Security Interests 2007

■ Revamping Federal Oversight of Food Safety 2007

■ Protecting Public Health through Enhanced Oversight of Medical Products 2009

■ Transforming EPA’s Processes for Assessing and Controlling Toxic Chemicals 2009

Managing Federal Contracting More Effectively

■ DOD Contract Management 1992

■ DOE’s Contract Management for the National Nuclear Security Administration and Office of 

Environmental Management 1990

■ NASA Acquisition Management 1990

Assessing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Tax Law Administration

■ Enforcement of Tax Laws 1990

Modernizing and Safeguarding Insurance and Benefit Programs

■ Improving and Modernizing Federal Disability Programs 2003

■ Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Insurance Programs 2003

■ Medicare Program 1990

■ Medicaid Program 2003

■ National Flood Insurance Program 2006

Source: GAO.
42 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

critical services to the public. Since 1990, we have designated over 50 areas as high risk 

and subsequently removed over one-third of the areas based on progress made. As of the 

end of fiscal year 2013, our high-risk list highlighted 30 troubled areas across government. 

Table 7 lists each current high-risk area and the year it was added to the list.

In our February 2013 high-risk update, we reported that sufficient progress had been made 

to remove the high-risk designation from two areas: the Management of Interagency and 

IRS Business Systems Modernization (GAO-13-283). 

Management of Interagency Contracting. We removed this area from the high-risk list based 

on (1) continued progress made by agencies in addressing previously identified deficiencies, 

(2) establishment of additional management controls, (3) creation of a policy framework for 

establishing new interagency contracts, and (4) steps taken to address the need for better 

data on these contracts.

IRS Business Systems Modernization. We removed IRS Business Systems Modernization 

from the high-risk list as IRS has made progress in addressing significant weaknesses in 

information technology and financial management capabilities. IRS delivered the initial 

phase of its cornerstone tax processing project and began the daily processing and posting 

of individual taxpayer accounts in January 2012. This enhanced tax administration and 

improved service by enabling faster refunds for more taxpayers, allowing more timely 

account updates, and faster issuance of taxpayer notices. In addition, IRS has put in place 

close to 80 percent of the practices needed for an effective investment management 

process, including all of the processes needed for effective project oversight. 

While these two areas have been removed from the high-risk list, we will continue to 

monitor them. 

In 2013, we added the following two areas to our high-risk list. 

Limiting the Federal Government’s Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change 

Risks. Climate related risks create significant financial challenges for the federal 

government, which owns extensive infrastructure, such as defense installations; insures 

property through the National Flood Insurance Program; and provides emergency aid in 

response to natural disasters. The federal government is not well positioned to address 

the fiscal exposure presented by climate change, and needs a governmentwide strategic 

approach with strong leadership to manage related risks. 

Mitigating Gaps in Weather Satellite Data. Potential gaps in environmental satellite data 

beginning as early as 2014 and lasting as long as 53 months have led to concerns that future 

weather forecasts and warnings—including warnings of extreme events such as hurricanes, 

storm surges, and floods—will be less accurate and timely. A number of decisions are 

needed to ensure contingency and continuity plans can be implemented effectively. 

In the past 2 years notable progress has been made in the vast majority of areas that 

remain on GAO’s high-risk list. This progress is due to the combined efforts of the Congress 

through oversight and legislation, the OMB through its leadership and coordination, and the 

agencies through their efforts to take corrective actions to address longstanding problems 

and implement related GAO recommendations. Our next biennial high-risk update is planned 

for January 2015. The update will report on progress made and what remains to be done to 

address each of the high-risk areas. Our experience over the past 23 years has shown that 

the key elements needed to make progress in high-risk areas are congressional action, high-
GAO-14-2SP 43

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

level administration initiatives, and agency efforts targeted to address the risk. We have 

met with top OMB and agency leaders in a series of regular meetings to discuss progress and 

actions needed for the high -isk areas. Our commitment to helping agencies address high risk 

areas is also reflected in the reports, testimonies, and other work we completed in 2013.

In fiscal year 2013, we issued 164 reports, delivered 35 testimonies to the Congress, and 

prepared several other products, such as briefings and presentations, related to our highrisk work. These reviews span a wide range of issues such as the financial regulatory 

system, food safety, acquisition management, tax laws, and Medicare and Medicaid 

programs. In addition, we documented over $17 billion in financial benefits and 411 other 

benefits related to high-risk areas. The high-risk areas with the largest amount of financial 

benefits were Protecting the Federal Government’s Information Systems and the Nation’s 

Cyber Critical Infrastructures, DOD Weapon Systems Acquisition, Medicaid Program, and 

Enforcement of Tax Laws. More information on the high-risk series is available on our 

website at http://www.gao.gov/highrisk.

Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue

In April 2013, we issued our third annual report (GAO-13-279SP) to the Congress in response 

to a statutory requirement that called for us to identify federal programs, agencies, offices, 

and initiatives—either within departments or governmentwide—that have duplicative goals 

or activities and report annually to the Congress on our findings, as well as actions to reduce 

such duplication.10 This body of work can help to inform government policymakers as they 

address the fiscal pressures facing our national government. We also continued to maintain a 

content area on our website titled “Improving Efficiency and Effectiveness” 

(http://www.gao.gov/duplication) to make our multiple reports and testimonies on this topic 

more easily accessible to the Congress and the public. 

Our 2013 annual duplication report identifies 31 new areas where agencies may be able 

to achieve greater efficiency or effectiveness. Seventeen areas involve fragmentation, 

overlap, or duplication. For example, we reported that the DOD could realize up to $82 

million in cost savings and ensure equivalent levels of performance and protection by 

taking action to address its fragmented approach to developing and acquiring combat 

uniforms. Additionally, we reported that a total of 31 federal departments and agencies 

collect, maintain, and use geospatial information. Better planning and implementation 

could help reduce duplicative investments and save millions of dollars.

The report also identifies 14 additional areas where opportunities exist to achieve cost 

savings or enhance revenue collections. For example, we suggested that Department 

of Health and Human Services cancel the Medicare Advantage Quality Bonus Payment 

Demonstration. We found most of the bonuses will be paid to plans with average 

performance and that the demonstration’s design precludes a credible evaluation of its 

effectiveness. Canceling the demonstration for 2014 would have saved about $2 billion. We 

also noted opportunities to save billions more in areas such as expanding strategic sourcing, 

providing greater oversight for Medicaid supplemental payments, and reducing subsidies 

for crop insurance. Additionally, we pointed out opportunities for enhancing revenues by 

10Pub. L. No. 111-139, § 21, 124 Stat. 29 (2010), 31 U.S.C. § 712 Note.
44 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

reducing the net tax gap of $385 billion, reviewing prices of radioactive isotopes sold by the 

government, and providing more equity in tobacco taxes for similar types of products.

The executive branch and the Congress have made some progress in addressing the 

areas that we identified in our 2011 and 2012 annual reports. Specifically, we identified 

approximately 300 actions among 131 overall areas that the executive branch and the 

Congress could take to reduce or eliminate fragmentation, overlap, or duplication or 

achieve other potential financial benefits. As of March 6, 2013, the date we completed our 

progress update audit work, about 12 percent of the areas were addressed, 66 percent 

were partially addressed, and 21 percent were not addressed. More recently, both the 

administration and the Congress have taken additional steps, including proposals in the 

President’s April Fiscal Year 2014 Budget submission.

Addressing fragmentation, overlap, and duplication will require continued attention by 

the executive branch agencies and targeted oversight by the Congress. In many cases, 

executive branch agencies have the authority to address the actions that we identified. In 

other cases, such as those involving the elimination or consolidation of programs, Congress 

will need to take legislative action. Moreover, sustained congressional oversight will be 

needed in concert with the administration’s efforts to address the identified actions 

by improving planning, measuring performance, and increasing collaboration. Effective 

implementation of the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 also could help the executive 

branch and the Congress as they work to address these issues over time.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 

of 2010

The Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act on July 

21, 2010, to address regulatory gaps and oversight failures in the U.S. mortgage, securities, 

and financial markets. The act requires significant rule making by regulatory agencies and 

includes mandates that we conduct over 40 studies on a broad array of issues. During fiscal 

years 2011 and 2012, we reported our findings on over two-thirds of these studies. We 

continued to conduct the required studies in fiscal year 2013 and issued nine reports on a 

range of issues, such as investor protection and the operations of the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (SEC), and made 11 recommendations to various financial regulators.

We studied several issues related to investor protection. We examined alternative criteria for 

qualifying as an accredited investor and recommended that SEC consider alternative criteria 

to help determine an individual’s ability to bear and understand the risks associated with 

investing in private placements (GAO-13-640). In our study on the small company exemption 

from a requirement that companies obtain an auditor’s attestation to management’s 

internal controls over financial reporting, we recommended that SEC consider requiring 

companies to explicitly state whether they had obtained an auditor attestation to increase 

transparency and aid investors in their investment decisions (GAO-13-582). We also studied 

the requirements and costs of SEC’s custody rule (GAO-13-569). 

In our work on SEC’s operations, we examined SEC’s personnel management challenges and 

its efforts to address them and made seven recommendations to improve SEC’s personnel 

management (GAO-13-621). We also assessed SEC’s internal supervisory controls for staff 

performing examinations, reviews of corporate financial securities filings, and investigations. 

We recommended that SEC ensure that existing internal supervisory controls and any 
GAO-14-2SP 45

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

developed in the future have clearly defined activities and clear and readily available 

documentation demonstrating that the activities have taken place (GAO-13-314). 

We explored other issues as well, including the advantages and disadvantages of proposals 

to make the bankruptcy code more effective in resolving failed financial companies. We 

recommended that the Financial Stability Oversight Council consider the implications for U.S. 

financial stability of changing the role of regulators and the treatment of qualified financial 

contracts in financial company bankruptcies (GAO-13-622). Further, we reviewed factors that 

could impact the effectiveness of SEC’s rule on conflict minerals (GAO-13-689). Finally, we 

audited the financial statements of SEC (GAO-13-125R) and the Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection (GAO-13-122R).

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in 201011 to 

increase the accessibility and affordability of health coverage for Americans. PPACA includes 

a wide range of provisions that affect individual and employer-sponsored health insurance 

markets as well as public health insurance programs. In fiscal year 2013 we issued nine 

related products, including: 

■ HHS’s Process for Awarding and Overseeing Exchange and Rate Review Grants to 

States. PPACA required the establishment of health insurance exchanges and a process 

for the annual review of unreasonable increases in insurance premiums charged by 

issuers of health coverage in each state. To assist states in establishing exchanges and 

in enhancing their ability to review issuers’ premium rate increases, the law established 

new grant programs under which HHS is authorized to award grants to states through 

2014. The law appropriated an unspecified amount of funds for exchange grants, and 

appropriated $250 million to HHS for rate review grants. GAO was asked to provide 

information on HHS’s processes to award and oversee these grants. In this report, GAO 

describes (1) the process HHS uses to award exchange and rate review grants to states; 

(2) the amounts of grants and key activities states funded through the grants; and 

(3) HHS’s process for overseeing states’ use of the grants. (GAO-13-543)

■ Status of CMS Efforts to Establish Federally Facilitated Health Care Exchanges and 

the Federal Data Services Hub: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) 

will operate a health insurance exchange in the 34 states that will not operate a statebased exchange for 2014. Further, to support consumer-eligibility determinations, CMS 

developed a data hub to provide electronic access to federal data, as well as provide 

access to state and third party data sources needed to verify consumer eligibility. GAO 

was asked to report on the status of the implementation of these federally facilitated 

exchanges and the data hub prior to October 1, 2013, when the exchanges opened for 

enrollment for coverage beginning as of January 1, 2014. GAO’s progress report identified 

CMS’s progress in completing activities necessary to establish federally facilitated 

exchanges as well as identifying activities that remained to be completed as of June 

2013 in the core functional areas of eligibility and enrollment, plan management, and 

consumer assistance. (GAO-13-601)

11Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-152, 

124 Stat. 1029 (2010).
46 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

The Troubled Asset Relief Program

The Congress created the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in October 2008 under the 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA) to help restore liquidity and stability to the U.S. 

financial system. Specifically, the act authorized the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to 

purchase or guarantee up to $700 billion in troubled assets and to reduce the growing number 

of foreclosures. The $700 billion ceiling was never reached, and in July 2010 the Dodd-Frank 

Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount to $475 billion. Five 

of TARP’s 10 nonmortgage programs had closed as of year-end 2012, and the other programs 

continue to wind down as Treasury works to divest itself of the assets that it purchased.

EESA also provided us with a statutory oversight role that included broad monitoring and 

reporting responsibilities and established a requirement that we submit a report on our 

work at least every 60 days. We have issued 65 reports since 2008. In fiscal year 2013, we 

issued six reports related to TARP that 

■ examined the condition and the status of TARP programs and Treasury’s efforts to better 

ensure that mortgage servicers were implementing as intended two new requirements 

designed to improve interactions with borrowers (GAO-13-192); 

■ analyzed the financial health of banks remaining in the Capital Purchase Program (CPP), 

which Treasury used to provide capital to banks during the financial crisis (GAO-13-458); 

■ reviewed Treasury’s use of auctions to sell its CPP investments (GAO-13-630);

■ monitored the status of our TARP recommendations to Treasury (GAO-13-324R); and 

■ provided a summary of our oversight of TARP (GAO-13-840R). 

In addition, we completed our annual financial statement audit for Treasury’s Office of 

Financial Stability, the entity established to implement TARP (GAO-13-126R). 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) mandated several 

studies for GAO, including conducting bimonthly reviews on the uses of Recovery Act funds in 

selected states and localities and commenting on the estimates of jobs created or retained 

as reported by recipients of Recovery Act funds. We are seeking repeal of the recurring 

bimonthly review reporting requirement as the vast majority of Recovery Act funds have 

been spent, and, as a result, our reviews are providing diminishing returns for the Congress. 

In fiscal year 2013, our reviews included: 

■ Employment and Training: Labor’s efforts to support “Green Jobs” for emerging 

industries and the challenges it faces (GAO-13-555)

■ Recovery Act: DOE cleanup projects and the need for better project management 

guidance (GAO-13-23)

■ Education: Race To The Top states implementation of teacher and principal evaluation 

systems (GAO-13-777)

■ Federal Data Transparency: Opportunities to incorporate lessons learned from the 

Recovery Act (GAO-13-871T)
GAO-14-2SP 47

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

We continue to maintain a separate page on our external website devoted to our Recovery 

Act work (http://www.gao.gov/recovery), where the public can find information on the 

Recovery Act, access our bimonthly reviews on the use of funds, learn about related work, 

and find out how to report allegations of abuse of Recovery Act funds.

General Counsel Decisions and Other Legal Work

In addition to benefiting from our audit and evaluation work, which reflects considerable 

legal input, the Congress and the public also benefited from the legal products and activities 

undertaken by our Office of General Counsel in fiscal year 2013. The following exemplify some 

of our key contributions.

The Office of General Counsel handled more than 2,400 bid protests during the course of 

fiscal year 2013.12 The bid protest process was authorized by the Congress, as part of the 

Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, to provide companies with an administrative forum 

to challenge the award, or solicitation for the award, of a federal contract. The statute 

requires that GAO resolve protest disputes in no more than 100 calendar days, and, in most 

cases, requires agencies to stop work on a contract until the protest is resolved. The Congress 

adopted this stop work approach to preserve the possibility for meaningful relief upon 

completion of the protest. 

Many of our fiscal year 2013 protests were resolved without a written decision on the merits 

because the federal agency involved voluntarily took corrective action to address the protest. 

The remaining protests were either decided on the merits, resolved using Alternative Dispute 

Resolution procedures, or dismissed for procedural deficiencies. In fiscal year 2013, we issued 

more than 500 decisions on the merits, which are accessible on GAO’s Legal Decisions & 

Bid Protest web pages at http://www.gao.gov/legal/index.html. These decisions addressed 

a wide range of issues involving compliance with, and the interpretation of, procurement 

statutes and regulations. Certain of these protests involved highly visible government programs 

and received extensive media coverage. As required by the Competition in Contracting 

Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. § 3554(e)(2) (2000), the Comptroller General reports annually to the 

Congress on federal agencies that do not fully implement a recommendation made by GAO in 

connection with a bid protest decided in the prior fiscal year. 

Within the Office of General Counsel, eight attorneys appointed by the General Counsel also 

serve on our Contract Appeals Board, established by the Congress in 2007 to hear appeals 

from contracting officer decisions with respect to any contract entered into by a legislative 

branch agency. In addition to using alternative dispute resolution procedures to resolve 

contract disputes, the board published two formal decisions in fiscal year 2013 (one based on 

a three-week hearing), which appear on our website at http://www.gao.gov/legal/contract/

decisions.html. As of the end of the fiscal year, the board had kept pace with the number 

of new filings received, with 12 pending appeals on its docket at the end of fiscal year 2013 

compared to 11 appeals pending at the end of fiscal year 2012.

In fiscal year 2013, we published 13 appropriations law decisions, opinions, and letters on 

a variety of appropriations law issues, including sequestration and continuing resolutions. 

One of our most highly visible opinions was issued in March 2013 to the House Committee on 

12The number of protests in the last 3 years has been relatively stable: There were 2,475 filings in fiscal year 2012, and 2,351 filings in fiscal year 

2011.
48 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Oversight and Government Reform,13 in which we concluded that the Continuing Appropriations 

Resolution, 2013, continued the applicability of a provision enacted in a fiscal year 2012 

appropriations act because absent specific legislative language, a continuing resolution 

maintains the status quo regarding government funding and operations. In July 2013, we issued 

an opinion to the House Budget Committee, concluding that the President’s March 1, 2013, 

sequestration order and the OMB’s accompanying report complied with the requirements of the 

Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA), as amended.14

Attorneys from General Counsel also provided ongoing informal technical appropriations law 

assistance to various congressional committees and executive agency officials on sequestration 

and other appropriations law matters. We helped committees navigate the mechanics of 

sequestration and the provisions of BBEDCA, which was significantly amended by the Budget 

Control Act in August 2011 and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. We also provided 

significant informal assistance to the Congress on a number of other matters, including the 

Antideficiency Act and reprogramming notification requirements. 

The third edition of Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, commonly known as the Red 

Book, continues to be a primary resource for appropriations law guidance in the federal 

community. In fiscal year 2013, the Red Book was downloaded thousands of times as attorneys, 

budget analysts, financial managers, project managers, contracting officers, and accountable 

officers from all three branches of government accessed it to research questions about budget 

and appropriations law. We also issued our Annual Update of the Third Edition of the Red Book

(GAO-13-273SP).

Attorneys from General Counsel continued to teach a 2 1⁄2 day course on appropriations law. 

Presenting a framework for understanding and properly applying provisions of appropriations 

law, the course helps ensure that agencies use public money as the Congress directed. We 

held 19 classes for 8 agencies, as well as for staff from the Senate and House Committees 

on Appropriations. In addition, appropriations lawyers taught 1-day seminars on specialized 

appropriations law topics for two agencies and spoke on our appropriations law work at 

conferences and training hosted by five agencies and professional organizations. To enhance 

communication within the appropriations law community across all agencies, including 

legislative and judicial branch agencies, we hosted our ninth annual Appropriations Law Forum 

in March 2013. Attorneys from 80 government agencies and 27 Inspector General offices 

participated. 

For fiscal year 2013, we received 10 Antideficiency Act reports and made summary information 

from these reports available on our website. Since Congress amended the Antideficiency Act in 

2004 requiring agencies to send us a copy of any report of an Antideficiency Act violation, we 

have received 171 reports and maintain an official repository of Antideficiency Act reports. 

We continued to report under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) on major rules proposed by 

federal agencies to the standing committees of jurisdiction of both Houses of the Congress. 

For fiscal year 2013, we issued 68 reports. To improve compliance with the CRA, we tracked 

executive branch rules that were published in the Federal Register and cross checked to ensure 

that they were submitted to us.

13B-324481, March 21, 2013 (concluding that the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013, required the U.S. Postal Service to maintain 

6-day delivery and rural delivery at not less than the 1983 level).

14B-324723, July 31, 2013.
GAO-14-2SP 49

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

We also continued to fulfill our responsibilities under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act 

(FVRA). FVRA requires executive departments and agencies to immediately report to 

the Congress and the Comptroller General certain vacancies that require presidential 

appointment and Senate confirmation. It requires the Comptroller General to report to 

the Congress, the President, and the Office of Personnel Management if the Comptroller 

General determines that an acting official is serving longer than the 210-day period (including 

applicable extensions) established by the act.

General Counsel was involved in the analysis of a wide range of labor relations and federal 

employment issues, as well as privacy and document disclosure matters, during the course of 

the year. General Counsel represented GAO and its officials in various ongoing civil litigation 

matters pending before federal courts and administrative boards. Attorneys also continued 

to provide training for managers on employment and other human capital responsibilities. 

General Counsel was an active stakeholder in ensuring that GAO’s acquisition practices and 

procedures comply with best practices.

Managing Our Resources

Resources Used to Achieve Our Fiscal Year 2013 Performance Goals

Our financial statements for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, were audited by 

an independent auditor, CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP, and received an unqualified opinion. The 

auditor found our internal controls to be effective—which means that no material weaknesses 

or significant deficiencies were identified—and reported that we substantially complied with 

the applicable requirements for financial systems in FFMIA. In addition, the auditor found no 

instances of noncompliance with the laws or regulations in the areas tested. In the opinion of 

the independent auditor, our financial statements are presented fairly in all material respects 

and are in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in U.S. The auditor’s 

report, along with the statements and their accompanying notes, begins on page 99 in this 

report.15

Table 8 summarizes key data.

15Note 14 to the financial statements describes our Davis-Bacon Act trust function. For more detailed Davis-Bacon Act financial information, 

contact our General Counsel’s Office.
50 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Table 8: GAO’s Financial Highlights: Resource Information: 

Fiscal year 2013 Fiscal year 2012

Total budgetary resources $546.7 $574.8

Total outlays $529.7 $538.7

Net cost of operations

Goal 1: Well-being / Financial Security of 

American People $215.2 $215.6

Goal 2: Changing Security Threats / 

Challenges of Global Interdependence 137.3 132.6 

Goal 3: Transforming the Federal Government's Role 131.8 140.2 

Goal 4: Maximize the Value of GAO 14.4 18.6 

Other Costs in Support of the Congress 27.2 24.4 

Reimbursable services not attributable to 

above cost categories (10.9) (7.3)

Total Net Cost of Operations $515.0 $524.1

Actual full-time equivalents (FTE) 2,849 2,997

Source: GAO.

Compared with the statements of large and complex departments in the executive branch, 

our statements present a relatively simple picture of a small yet very important agency 

in the legislative branch. We focus most of our financial activity on the execution of our 

congressionally approved budget with most of our resources devoted to the people needed 

for our mission. 

In fiscal year 2013, our budgetary resources included new direct appropriations, net of 

sequester reduction and rescission, of $479.5 million, and $25.7 million in spending authority 

from offsetting collections, primarily from the lease of space in our headquarters building 

and certain audits of agency financial statements. In addition, we received $419 thousand 

for our OIG to carry out its responsibilities as the Inspector General of the U.S. Commission 

on Civil Rights. Our total budgetary resources in fiscal year 2013 were $546.7 million, a five 

percent reduction from fiscal year 2012.

Total assets were $94.7 million, consisting mostly of funds with the U.S. Treasury and 

property and equipment (including the headquarters building, land and improvements, and 

computer equipment and software), which is $27.7 million less than fiscal year 2012. Fund 

Balance with Treasury decreased $18.1 million from fiscal year 2012 due primarily to reduced 

funding under sequestration and the rescission. The reduction in property and equipment of 

$4.7million is the result of depreciation expense (net of additions). 

Total liabilities were $77.7 million, composed largely of employees’ accrued annual leave, 

employees’ salaries and benefits, amounts owed to other government agencies, and 

nongovernmental accounts payable. The reduction in the balance of total liabilities is due 

primarily to fewer days accrued (worked but not yet paid to employees) for salary and 

benefits at the end of fiscal year 2013 of 6 days, compared with 15 days accrued at the end 

of fiscal year 2012. 
GAO-14-2SP 51

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overall, our net cost of operations in fiscal year 2013 is approximately $9.1 million below 

the fiscal year 2012 level largely as a result of a reduced current year appropriations. 

Budget constraints once again limited our ability to replace all of our staff departures from 

retirements and attrition. Goal 3 (Transforming the Federal Government’s Role) had the 

largest reduction in net costs from the prior year of $8.4 million mostly from Financial 

Management and Assurance (FMA). Additionally, Applied Research Methods (ARM) team 

reduced their work in goal 3 as part of a change in how we are accounting for resources to 

better align resources with strategic goals.

Figure 18 shows how our fiscal year 2013 costs break down by category.

Figure 18: Use of Fiscal Year 2013 Funds by Category

Percentage of total net costs

Building and

hardware maintenance

services

Salaries

and benefits

10.3%

83.3%

Rent (space

and hardware) 2.2%

Depreciation

Other 2.8%

1.4%

Source: GAO.

Figure 19 shows our net costs by goal for fiscal years 2012 and 2013.

Figure 19: Net Cost by Goal

2012

2013

Dollars in millions

Source: GAO.

0

50

100

150

200

250

Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Other

215.2

215.6

137.3

132.6

131.8

140.2

14.4

18.6

27.2

24.4

Note: Totals are not adjusted for inflation.
52 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Summary of Financial Systems Strategies and Financial Management System 

Framework

Our financial management system is an off-the-shelf system that meets OMB’s Office of 

Federal Financial Management’s Federal Financial Management System Requirements and is 

hosted by an OMB-designated shared service provider, the Department of Transportation, 

Enterprise Services Center (ESC). The major financial system in use at ESC is Delphi/Oracle 

Federal Financials (Delphi), supplemented by a number of supporting systems including: 

Compusearch’s PRISM, a contract and procurement system; U.S. Bank’s purchase card 

system for small purchases; Northrop Grumman’s GovTrip system for travel; and Kofax’s 

Markview, a document workflow system to process vendor invoices. 

These commercial-off-the-shelf systems are continuously updated by the respective system 

developers and by periodically upgrading to new versions; therefore, our systems remain 

current. Additionally, these systems ensure that we can produce timely, useful, and reliable 

financial information and maintain strong internal controls. In fiscal year 2013, ESC began 

testing for a technical upgrade to Oracle Release 12. Production implementation for this 

upgrade is scheduled to occur in fiscal year 2014.

Financial Systems and Internal Controls

We recognize the importance of strong financial systems and internal controls to ensure 

our accountability, integrity, and reliability. To achieve a high level of quality, management 

maintains a quality control program and seeks advice and evaluation from both internal and 

external sources. 

We complied with the spirit of OMB Circular No. A-123, Management’s Responsibility for 

Internal Control, which provides guidance for agencies’ assessments of internal control 

over financial reporting. We performed a risk-based assessment by identifying, analyzing, 

and testing internal controls for key business processes. Based on the results of the 

assessment, we have reasonable assurance that internal control over financial reporting, as 

of September 30, 2013, was operating effectively and that no material control weaknesses 

exist in the design or operation of the internal controls over financial reporting. 

Additionally, our independent auditor found that we maintained effective internal controls 

over financial reporting and compliance with laws and regulations. Consistent with our 

assessment, the auditor found no material internal control weaknesses. 

We are also committed to fulfilling the internal control objectives of FMFIA. Although 

we are not subject to the act, we comply voluntarily with its requirements. Our internal 

controls are designed to provide reasonable assurance that transactions are properly 

recorded, processed, and summarized to permit the preparation of financial statements 

and that assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized acquisition, use, or 

disposition. Further, they are designed to ensure that transactions are executed in 

accordance with the laws governing the use of budget authority; other laws and regulations 

that could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. 

In addition, we are committed to fulfilling the objectives of FFMIA. We believe that we 

have implemented and maintained financial systems that comply substantially with federal 

financial management systems requirements, applicable federal accounting standards, and 

the U.S. Government Standard General Ledger at the transaction level as of September 30, 
GAO-14-2SP 53

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

2013. We made this assessment based on criteria established under FFMIA and guidance 

issued by OMB. 

The Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 requires that agencies 

(1) periodically review activities susceptible to significant improper payments; (2) estimate 

the amount of improper payments; (3) implement a plan to reduce improper payments; 

and (4) report the estimated amount of improper payments and the progress to reduce 

them. We have implemented and maintained internal control procedures that help monitor 

disbursement of federal funds for valid obligations. These controls are tested annually. 

Based on the results of our tests, we made no improper payments in fiscal year 2013. 

Our Inspector General (IG) independently conducts audits and investigations of GAO 

programs and operations. During fiscal year 2013, the IG evaluated the effectiveness of 

our information security program and practices for fiscal year 2012 as prescribed by the 

Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA) and evaluated the extent 

to which GAO has established effective policies and procedures (controls) to review and 

validate top secret security clearance requirements.

In addition, the IG operated an internal hotline for use by our employees and contractors 

to report potentially serious problems in our operations. IG investigations typically originate 

from hotline complaints and are intended to strengthen our programs and operations by 

identifying and investigating allegations of fraud, waste, and abuse and misconduct of our 

government property, assets, and resources, including the possible violation of any law or 

regulation that may lead to criminal, civil, and administrative penalties and recoveries.

The results of the IG’s work and actions taken by us to address IG recommendations are 

highlighted in the IG’s semiannual reports to the Congress. In November 2011, our IG was 

also designated the IG of the United States Commission on Civil Rights by the Consolidated 

and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012. 

Furthermore, our Audit Advisory Committee assists the Comptroller General in overseeing 

the effectiveness of our financial reporting and audit processes, internal controls over 

financial operations, and processes that ensure compliance with laws and regulations 

relevant to our financial operations. The committee is composed of individuals who are 

independent of GAO and have outstanding reputations in public service or business with 

financial or legal expertise. For fiscal year 2013 the members of the committee were: 

■ Michael A. Nemeroff (Chair), a partner in Sidley Austin LLP, and head of its Government 

Contracting Practice, and a former member of the GAO Legal Advisory Committee. 

■ Lawrence B. Gibbs, a practicing attorney and member of Miller & Chevalier, Chartered, 

and a former Commissioner of IRS. 

■ Judith H. O’Dell, CPA CVA, President of O’Dell Valuation Consulting, LLC, Chair of the 

Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Private Company Financial Reporting Committee; 

former trustee of the Financial Accounting Foundation, which is responsible for 

overseeing, funding, and appointing members of the Financial Accounting Standards 

Board and the Governmental Accounting Standards Board; and former member of the 

board of directors of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 

The committee’s report appears in Part III of this report on page 98. 
54 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Limitation on Financial Statements: 

Responsibility for the integrity and objectivity of the financial information presented in the 

financial statements in this report rests with our managers. The statements were prepared 

to report our financial position and results of operations, consistent with the requirements 

of the Chief Financial Officers Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 3515). The statements were 

prepared from our financial records in accordance with the formats prescribed in OMB 

Circular No. A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements. These financial statements differ 

from the financial reports used to monitor and control our budgetary resources. However, 

both were prepared from the same financial records. 

Our financial statements should be read with the understanding that as an agency of a 

sovereign entity, the U.S. government, we cannot liquidate our liabilities (i.e., pay our bills) 

without legislation that provides resources to do so. Although future appropriations to fund 

these liabilities are likely and anticipated, they are not certain. 

Planned Resources to Achieve Our Fiscal Year 2014 Performance Goals 

As of December 16, 2013 (the date of this report), we are operating under a continuing 

resolution appropriation at the post-sequestration fiscal year 2013 funding levels, pending 

enactment of the final fiscal year 2014 appropriation bills (source – H.R. 2775 – fiscal year 

2014 Continuing Appropriations Act - http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr2775enr/

pdf/BILLS-113hr2775enr.pdf). Final congressional action on our fiscal year 2014 request of 

$505.4 million – an increase of 5.4 percent over our fiscal year 2013 appropriation amount 

– is still pending (source, FY 2014 Budget Request, Senate Testimony GAO-13-617T). On 

July 23, 2013, the House of Representatives approved direct appropriations of $486.2 

million, an increase of 1.4 percent over our fiscal year 2013 appropriation level of $479.5 

million (H.R.2792). On July 11, 2013, the Senate approved $505.4 million, an increase of 5.4 

percent over our fiscal year 2013 appropriation level (S.1283). Both the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations approved new authority for us to spend $32.4 million in 

collections derived from reimbursements for conducting financial audits and rental of office 

space in our headquarters building H.R.2792 and S.1283). In addition, both the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations continue to emphasize that the legislative branch 

will lead by example by tightening its belt wherever possible, employing best practices, 

finding efficiencies, and continuing to improve business practices. 

Because of the reductions noted above we have been unable to rebuild our staffing 

capacity to help enable us to optimize the benefits we yield for the Congress and the 

nation. Our ability to implement our hiring plans in fiscal year 2014 is contingent on the 

outcome of our full year fiscal year appropriation. We have been actively working to 

reduce costs for more than 3 years, and we are continuing to explore opportunities to 

enhance workforce and budget flexibilities, increase our effectiveness and efficiency, and 

further reduce our operating costs. For example, our ongoing enhanced office sharing and 

hoteling pilot is projected to continue to reduce infrastructure costs in fiscal year 2014. 

These actions will help ensure that we have the capacity to provide accurate, objective, 

nonpartisan, and constructive information to the Congress to help it conduct effective 

oversight, produce results for the American people, and help enable us to meet the 

performance goals outlined in our strategic plan through fiscal year 2015.
GAO-14-2SP 55

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Strategic Planning and Partnerships

As noted in our current strategic plan, we are operating in a dynamic, fiscally constrained 

environment where the challenges we face span national borders; the public, private, 

and nonprofit sectors; and multiple levels of government. Achieving our strategic 

goals and objectives requires us to coordinate and collaborate with international and 

intergovernmental organizations with similar or complementary missions. In particular, we 

use advisory panels and other bodies to inform our strategic and annual work planning and 

maintain strategic working relationships with other domestic and international government 

accountability and professional organizations, including the federal inspectors general, 

state and local audit organizations, and other countries’ national audit offices. Advisory 

boards and panels helped us to identify key trends, opportunities and challenges, and 

lessons learned that we should factor into our work and operations. During fiscal year 

2013, we continued to work with our domestic and international counterparts in the 

audit and accountability community to, among other things, develop standards and build 

audit capacity through ongoing communication and collaboration. (See Part II, Goal 4 for 

additional information).

Networks, Collaborations, and Partnerships

Unlike the national audit offices of some countries, we have no direct audit authority over 

states and localities. However, we do have authority to “follow the federal dollar,” but we 

face unique challenges in assuring accountability for grants and other federal funds flowing 

to subfederal recipients. We also play an important role in coordinating professional audit 

standards, setting audit standards for federally funded programs, and representing U.S. 

views and interests in the international community. The State Department and the U.S. 

Agency for International Development (USAID) look to us to represent the broader interests 

of the U.S. government in promoting good governance internationally and often seek 

our support of educational visits by current and future leaders from foreign countries. 

Domestic audit and accountability offices look to us for guidance, expertise, and technical 

assistance in implementing professional standards. 

We have leveraged our resources by collaborating with our domestic and global networks. 

Through these networks, such as the federal inspectors general and state and local 

auditors—notably the National Association of State Auditors, Controllers, and Treasurers and 

Association of Local Government Auditors—we have continued to build capacity within our 

agency and among our partners to do quality work auditing programs involving U.S. funds.

Federal, State, and Local Collaboration

On the domestic front in 2013, we continued to support the domestic audit and 

accountability community at the federal, state, and local levels. For example, we formed 

a task team to review the business model for supporting intergovernmental audit forms 

and will provide GAO’s Executive Committee and Office of Strategic Planning and External 

Liaison with recommendations. These intergovernmental audit forums provide a venue for 

local, state, and federal communities to learn about current and emerging issues related 

to the audit profession and to share best practices and lessons learned in conducting 

their work. At the federal level, we continued to coordinate with our federal partners, 

including co-sponsoring a forum on Data Analytics for Oversight and Law Enforcement with 
56 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) and the Recovery 

Accountability and Transparency Board, as well as participating on a GAO-IG Coordination 

panel at CIGIE’s annual meeting. In addition, we continued to expand our collaboration 

with other legislative branch agencies to share information on topics such as how to 

implement the spirit of the GPRA Modernization in the legislative branch. 

INTOSAI

For over 3 decades, we have been a member of the International Organization of 

Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI), an association of over 190 national audit offices—our 

counterparts around the world. This network has positioned us well to address a more 

interdependent world where domestic challenges (e.g., regulation of financial markets, 

prescription drugs, and consumer products; homeland security; and rebuilding our 

infrastructure) often have global dimensions. Through our active participation in INTOSAI’s 

Professional Standards Committee and subcommittees, we stayed abreast of changes in 

international accounting, auditing, and reporting standards and shared the U.S. perspective 

in shaping the standards. The U.S. Government Auditing Standards developed by the 

Comptroller General of the United States and the GAO policies that we apply in conducting 

our audits are consistent with the Fundamental Auditing Principles of the International 

Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions. This is especially important given the increased 

focus in recent years on the development and adoption of international accounting and 

auditing standards. 

By participating in INTOSAI knowledge-sharing working groups and task forces (e.g., Public 

Debt, Information Technology, Environmental Auditing, Program Evaluation, Fight Against 

International Money Laundering and Corruption, Value of Supreme Audit Institutions (SAI), 

and Key National Indicators), we acquire knowledge and network with experts in other 

countries. For example, our participation in the Working Group on Public Debt and our 

leadership of the Task Force on the Global Financial Crisis: Challenges to SAIs involves 

some 25 countries and has provided us with insight into the causes and the continuing 

international response to the global financial crisis. In fiscal year 2013, we transformed 

the INTOSAI Global Financial Crisis Task Force into a standing Working Group on Financial 

Modernization and Regulatory Reform, which GAO leads to enhance knowledge sharing 

across national boundaries. 

We continued to help strengthen INTOSAI’s strategic planning capacity by participating in 

a task force focused on continuous improvement, strategic foresight, emerging issues, and 

resource allocation. We also developed new approaches to the INTOSAI Journal operations 

to reduce costs while continuing to provide this important publication to our international 

SAI partners. 

Capacity Building

In support of the federal government’s interest in promoting good governance and ensuring 

that federal funds for programs abroad are spent effectively and efficiently, we continued 

to advance SAI capacity-building efforts and the INTOSAI-Donor Cooperation initiative. 

We worked actively with the INTOSAI-Donor Cooperation initiative, which achieved the 

milestone of 2 additional donors signing on to bring total signatories to 20. 
GAO-14-2SP 57

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

In fiscal year 2013, 20 participants from 15 countries completed our 4-month International 

Auditor Fellowship Program for mid- to senior-level staff from other countries. They 

brought the total number of participants during the program’s 34-year history to more 

than 520. Through this program, our instructors, mentors, and sponsors become part of 

a growing international community of good government professionals and experts. The 

goodwill engendered supports our country’s image abroad and facilitates our staff’s access 

to foreign officials, which is often essential to our international audit work.

We also facilitated information sharing in fiscal year 2013 by helping to organize GAO’s first 

international meeting (with the SAI of Russia) using WebEx technology, thereby eliminating 

the need for international travel or expensive VTC services. 

Collaboration

We helped guide the creation of the INTOSAI Task Force on Financial Foresight and helped 

develop and review its recommendations for the sustainable future financing of INTOSAI. 

Internal Management Challenges

The Comptroller General, the Executive Committee, and other senior executives identify 

management challenges through the agency’s strategic planning, management, internal 

controls, and budgetary processes. Under strategic goal 4, several performance goals 

and underlying key efforts focus attention on each of our management challenges. We 

monitor our progress in addressing these challenges through our annual performance and 

accountability process. Each year we also ask our IG to examine management’s assessment 

of these challenges. 

For fiscal year 2014, we will continue focusing high-level management attention on human 

capital issues and on the challenge related to improving the efficiency of our engagements 

and delivery of timely and quality information to the Congress. 

Human Capital Challenge

GAO depends on a talented, diverse, high-performing, knowledge-based workforce to carry 

out its mission in support of the Congress. To maintain this workforce, we need to address 

several human capital challenges and do so in a budget-constrained environment. These 

challenges include preparing for the retirement of many senior executives and senior staff 

through staff development, training and hiring efforts, maintaining a performance-based 

and inclusive culture that helps to motivate and retain our talented and diverse workforce, 

and implementing policies and programs to address a range of work environment and worklife balance issues. In fiscal year 2013, we took several steps to address these challenges 

and achieved some notable accomplishments. Specifically, we

■ identified candidates for our executive development program, 

■ hired new staff to fill critical skills gaps,

■ completed a learning needs analysis for analysts,
58 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

■ launched a new performance management system and ratified use of a new 

performance based compensation system in FY 2014 for the 2013 appraisal cycle, and

■ published our first Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan. 

Although we have made progress, the key human capital issue that we continue to face is 

ensuring that we support the mission of the agency with the right resources, where and 

when they are needed, while providing meaningful rewards and implementing programs 

that help retain our highly skilled and diverse workforce. We will continue to address 

several of the same human capital issues in fiscal year 2014 as we did last year. 

■ Succession planning. Succession planning remains a critical issue. Our succession 

planning efforts will focus on developing staff through training, and implementing a 

phased retirement program. We will continue to realign training for our employees 

based on our learning needs analysis, work demands from the Congress, and the 

emerging areas of emphasis identified in our strategic plan. To supplement this 

effort we will continue to enhance our learning delivery methods by using available 

technologies, including distance learning and online courses for our expanding telework 

populations. In addition, to help ensure that critical knowledge and expertise are not 

lost when our executives and senior leaders retire, we will implement the phased 

retirement program authorized by the Office of Personnel Management for the federal 

government. This program incentivizes participants with valuable experience to phase 

into retirement and provide agencies with a tool to implement succession planning 

through mentoring and strengthened knowledge transfer. 

■ Hiring. We will continue to focus on hiring employees to the extent that our budget will 

support. We will develop plans to recruit and hire entry-level staff to help us build our 

pipeline for the longer term. In addition, our plans will include steps to hire experienced 

employees to address critical skills gaps. We will continue to maintain relationships with 

colleges, universities, and professional organizations to help us attract talented, diverse 

candidates. 

■ Performance-based compensation. We are implementing a new performance-based 

compensation (PBC) system to reward and recognize our high-performing staff and 

help to motivate and retain them. This system is aligned with our new performance 

management system and linked with organizational outcomes. Based on the agreement 

reached with our union partners, we will implement the new PBC system in fiscal year 

2014 for the 2013 appraisal cycle. 

We will continue to work with our union partners to implement human capital programs in 

a manner that helps us meet the needs of an ever-changing workforce in a fair, equitable, 

and inclusive manner and helps to motivate and retain our talented and diverse workforce. 

Given the budget environment, we will also look for ways to refine our processes and 

further leverage technology to improve the efficiency of our operations and make the best 

use of our resources. 

Engagement Efficiency Management Challenge 

In 2011, we identified improving the efficiency of our engagements as a new management 

challenge and reported on our progress in last year’s Fiscal Year 2012 Performance and 

Accountability Report. Now in the second year of our focus on this challenge, we continued 
GAO-14-2SP 59

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

work on a large number of projects and expanded our outreach to employees, providing 

them opportunities to learn about and give feedback on process improvement activities. 

We made significant progress on three major multiyear projects: 

■ Engagement process changes. With active involvement from GAO’s managing directors, 

we identified changes to key steps and decision points in our engagement process and 

now have a revised engagement process that we will begin implementing on a pilot 

basis in January 2014. The revised process addresses opportunities for improvement in 

managing resources and cycle time, and eliminating rework. We have developed training 

on the new process and revised engagement guidance to provide to the pilot teams. 

■ Engagement Management System. Inextricably linked to the improvements being made 

in our engagement process is a major systems development project, the Engagement 

Management System (EMS), which will also be implemented on a pilot basis in 2014. 

EMS will ultimately allow GAO to retire costly legacy systems, reduce rework, and 

substantially improve systems support and management information. In 2013, we formed 

two groups—a business rules working group and an EMS reporting working group—that 

provided, respectively, discrete required data elements and management reporting 

capabilities that are being built into EMS for the pilot. 

■ New Blue. Another major systems project underway, New Blue, will dramatically 

improve the efficiency of our content creation and management processes by 

standardizing, automating, and streamlining the currently cumbersome and manuallyintensive processes for creating, fact-checking, and publishing GAO products. In 2013, 

we completed market research and determined that technology exists that could meet 

our needs. GAO senior leadership approved a vision for New Blue and we expect to 

issue a Request for Proposal for acquisition of this technical solution in fiscal year 2014. 

To ensure employees had an opportunity to learn about process improvement activities and 

to provide feedback, we 

■ conducted a large number of agency-wide meetings and unit briefings to promote 

awareness and understanding of process improvement projects and published several 

formal outreach pieces and newsletters on CPI activities; 

■ continued to engage a large number of GAO staff and managers in CPI projects—more 

than 10 percent of GAO employees have been engaged in a project or other CPI activity 

in the past year; 

■ utilized short-term details of GAO staff from other units to provide technical and 

programmatic experience and expertise; and

■ implemented our first “pulse” survey to determine awareness, understanding, and 

enthusiasm for CPI projects. 

Other project work includes 

■ piloting and revising a tool for agencywide dissemination in fall 2013 to help teams 

better estimate expected staff days required for engagements;

■ providing new guidance and job aids for handling delays getting access to officials or 

data from agencies; 
60 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

■ standardizing many different versions of agency notification letters into just a few in 

order to reduce confusion and unnecessary administrative burden for analysts; and 

■ providing just-in-time training materials for the changes that had been implemented to 

date for engagement leaders and delivering briefings with similar content for agency 

management. 

In addition to continuing work on our major projects and initiatives discussed above, 

in fiscal year 2014, we will focus on introducing diagnostic indicators to help us better 

understand how our engagement processes are working and to target leading practices as 

well as other areas for improvement. We will also be working to strengthen the alignment 

of individual mission team work with GAO’s Strategic Plan by instituting a process to assess 

work queue and client needs, and to emphasize focus on highest priorities.

Mitigating External Factors

In addition to the resource constraints and uncertainty of the budget for fiscal year 2014, 

which directly affect our internal management challenges, other external factors that 

could affect our performance and progress toward our goals include shifts in congressional 

interests, the ability of other agencies to make improvements needed to implement our 

recommendations in a constrained budget environment, and access to agency information. 

We mitigate these factors in several ways.

Demand for our work is very high, with 868 congressional requests and new mandates in 

fiscal year 2013. To be prepared to address timely and relevant issues, we use the eight 

broad trends identified in our strategic plan to guide our work plans. We also communicate 

frequently with our congressional clients to stay abreast of their interests as unanticipated 

shifts in congressional priorities can change the mix of work we are asked to perform. 

In addition, each year we conduct some evaluations annually under the Comptroller 

General’s authority to address priority issues we identify. We strive to maintain flexibility 

in deploying our resources in response to shifting priorities and have successfully redirected 

our resources when appropriate and maintained broad-based staff expertise. For example, 

to address crosscutting mandates we have used multidisciplinary teams composed of 

staff from across the agency. We devoted 35 percent of our audit resources to mandates 

in fiscal year 2013. We completed a third year of multiyear mandates to report on 

duplication in government programs, and health insurance and financial regulatory reform 

issues. We are also working with the Congress to revise or eliminate mandates that have 

outlived their usefulness. Moreover, the House rules require each standing committee or 

subcommittee to hold at least one hearing on issues raised by us indicating that federal 

programs or operations authorized by the committee are at high risk for fraud, waste, 

abuse, or mismanagement (see p. 41 for more information about our high-risk list areas and 

programs).

Another external factor that affects our ability to serve the Congress is the extent to which 

we can obtain access to agency information. This access to information plays an essential 

role in our ability to report on issues of importance to the Congress and the American 

people. Executive departments and agencies are generally very cooperative in providing 

us access to the information we need. It is fairly rare for an agency to deny us access to 

information, and rarer still for an agency to refuse to work toward an accommodation that 

will allow us to do our work. 
GAO-14-2SP 61

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

While we generally receive very good cooperation, over time we have experienced 

access issues at certain departments and agencies. We actively pursue access issues as 

they arise, and we are engaged in discussions and efforts with the executive branch to 

enhance our access to information. In FY 2013, there was continued progress on the access 

front relating to these discussions and efforts. As we reported in the Fiscal Year 2012 

Performance and Accountability Report, the Department of Justice (DOJ) instituted new 

protocols in March 2012 that were designed to improve the department’s timeliness in 

responding to our requests for information, and to improve communication between DOJ 

and GAO. The protocols include target time frames for DOJ production of documents and 

for the scheduling of interviews with agency officials, as well as the designation by DOJ 

of senior component officials for our reviews. As these procedures continue to be utilized, 

we hope to see additional improvements in certain components’ and offices’ timeliness in 

responding to our requests for information. 

Another issue relating to our access to information is in the context of intelligence. As 

we reported last year, the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the 

Comptroller General, issued a written directive in 2011 governing our access to information 

in the possession of an element of the intelligence community, Intelligence Community 

Directive (ICD) 114. The directive was designed to address the historic challenges that 

we have experienced in gaining access to information in the Intelligence Community, and 

it contains a number of provisions promoting constructive interaction between us and 

elements of the Intelligence Comunity, such as establishing a presumption of cooperation 

with us. However, we have had concerns with how several terms in the directive could 

be interpreted, since they are framed as areas where information would generally not be 

available to us for certain audits or reviews. It is crucial that these terms and the overall 

directive be carefully implemented and monitored to ensure that we are able to obtain 

the information we need to assist the Congress in our oversight responsibilities, including 

responding to requests from the committees on armed services, justice, homeland 

security, foreign affairs, and appropriations, as well as the congressional intelligence 

committees. In FY 2013, we worked through a number of issues with various elements of 

the Intelligence Community related to challenges in obtaining information we requested, 

and we will continue to monitor the implementation of ICD 114 moving forward.

We have experienced other access issues at certain agencies due to long-standing and 

erroneous interpretations of our access authority, even when the agencies involved are 

otherwise generally cooperative. In some cases, agencies have interpreted language 

in program statutes limiting their disclosure or use of data as restricting our access, 

notwithstanding our statutory access rights. One example includes an interpretation by 

the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with respect to a provision of the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Legislation that passed in the House this session (H.R. 1162) and 

that is currently pending in the Senate would confirm our access rights, refuting agency 

interpretations that restrict our access in this and other circumstances. 

We devote a high level of attention to monitoring and aggressively pursuing access issues as 

they arise. We appreciate the interest of the Congress in helping to ensure that we obtain 

access to information and the efforts by agencies to cooperate with our requests. 
62 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

This page intentionally left blank
Part II

Performance Information

Serving the Congress and the Nation
64 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

Performance Information by Strategic Goal

In the following sections, we discuss how each of our four strategic goals contributed to 

our fiscal year 2013 performance results. For goals 1, 2, and 3—our external goals—we 

present performance results for the three annual measures that we assess at the goal level 

as well as accomplishments under the strategic objectives for these goals. Most teams 

and units also contributed toward meeting the targets for the agencywide measures that 

were discussed in part I of this report. For goal 4—our internal goal—we present selected 

work and accomplishments for that goal’s strategic objectives. There was no change in our 

strategic goals or measures during fiscal year 2013.
GAO-14-2SP 65

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

Our first strategic goal upholds our mission to support the Congress in carrying out its 

constitutional responsibilities by focusing on work that helps address the current and 

emerging challenges affecting the well-being and financial security of the American people 

and American communities. Our multiyear (fiscal years 2010-2015) strategic objectives 

under this goal are to provide information that will help address

■ financing and programs to serve the health needs of an aging and diverse population; 

■ lifelong learning to enhance U.S. competitiveness; 

■ benefits and protections for workers, families, and children; 

■ financial security for an aging population; 

■ a responsive, fair, and effective system of justice; 

■ viable communities; 

■ a stable financial system and consumer protection; 

■ responsible stewardship of natural resources and the environment; and 

■ a viable, efficient, safe, and accessible national physical infrastructure. 

These objectives, along with the 

performance goals and key efforts that 

support them, are discussed fully in our 

strategic plan, which is available on our 

website at http://www.gao.gov/sp.html. 

The work supporting these objectives 

was performed primarily by 

headquarters and field office staff in the 

following teams: Education, Workforce, 

and Income Security; Financial Markets 

and Community Investment; Health 

Care; Homeland Security and Justice; 

Natural Resources and Environment; and 

Physical Infrastructure. In line with our 

performance goals and key efforts, goal 

1 staff reviewed a variety of programs 

affecting the nation’s health providers and patients, students and educators, employees and 

workplaces, and social service providers and recipients. In addition, goal 1 staff performed 

work for our congressional clients related to improving the nation’s law enforcement systems 

and federal agencies’ ability to prevent and respond to terrorism and other major crimes.

Example of Work under Goal 1

Our work found that child welfare agencies, which 

monitor the education of children in foster care, 

find it difficult to obtain education records under 

the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act 

of 1974 (FERPA), hindering their ability to make 

timely decisions for them. We suggested that 

the Congress consider amending amend FERPA to 

ensure timely and appropriate access by adding 

state and local child welfare agencies to the list 

of parties to whom schools may disclose records 

without first obtaining parental consent. The 

Congress subsequently passed the Uninterrupted 

Scholars Act in January 2013, which amends FERPA 

in the manner we suggested. (GAO-13-106) 

Source: See Image Sources.

Strategic Goal 1

Address Current and Emerging Challenges to the Well-being 

and Financial Security of the American People
66 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

To accomplish our work under these strategic objectives in fiscal year 2013, we conducted 

engagements, audits, analyses, and evaluations of programs at major federal agencies, such 

as the Department of Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, 

the Interior, Justice, and Transportation, and developed reports and testimonies on the 

efficacy and soundness of the programs they administer.

As shown in table 9, we met the target set for financial and other benefits for goal 1, but 

we did not meet the target for testimonies.

Table 9: Strategic Goal 1’s Annual Performance Results and Targets

Performance 

measure

2008 

actual

2009 

actual

2010 

actual

2011 

actual

2012 

actual

2013 

target

2013 

actual

Met/

not met

2014 

targeta

Financial benefits

(dollars in billions) $19.3 $12.1 $17.8 $12.6 $25.7 $11.5 $22 Met 13 

Other benefits 226 224 233 243 275 231 271 Met 231

Testimonies 123 85 86 84 61 70 60 Not Met 64

Source: GAO.

Note: Financial benefits for goals 1 through 3 do not sum to the total agencywide target as we have left a portion of the financial 

benefits target unassigned in 2014. Experience leads us to believe that we can meet the agencywide target but we cannot predict 

under which goals because of governmentwide resource constraints

a

Our fiscal year 2013 targets for all three performance measures differ from those we reported in our fiscal year 2013 performance plan 

in February 2012. Specifically, we have increased the financial benefits target from $9.7 billion to $11.5 billion and the other benefits 

from 225 to 231, and decreased the testimony target from 85 to 70. 

To help us examine trends for these measures over time, we look at their 4-year averages, 

which minimize the effect of an unusual level of performance in any single year. These 

averages are shown below in table 10. This table indicates that the 4-year average for goal 

1 financial benefits gradually declined from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2010. This 

decline was mostly because of some large financial benefits from earlier years that are 

reflected in the averages. Financial benefits were stable from fiscal year 2010 to 2011 and 

increased in fiscal year 2012 and 2013. Goal 1’s other benefits peaked in fiscal year 2008 

and declined until 2010 and then increased from 2011 through 2013. The average number of 

hearings at which we testified remained fairly stable from 2008 through 2010, declining in 

2011 through 2013. 

Table 10: Four-Year Rolling Averages for Strategic Goal 1

Performance measure 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Financial benefits (dollars in billions) $17.5 $16.6 $15.5 $15.5 $17.1 $19.5

Other benefits 252 239 230 232 244 256

Testimonies 108 108 105 95 79 73

Source: GAO.

The following sections describe our performance under goal 1 for each of these three 

quantitative performance measures and describe the targets for fiscal year 2014.
GAO-14-2SP 67

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

Financial Benefits

The financial benefits reported for this 

goal in fiscal year 2013 totaled $22 billion, 

exceeding the target we set by over $10 

billion. Among these accomplishments 

are large financial savings from our work 

that resulted in a reduction in the level 

of mortgage assistance funding available 

for TARP and fiscal year 2013 savings from 

eliminating the ethanol tax credit for corn.

Because we expect to have constrained 

resources, we have set the target for fiscal 

year 2014 at $13 billion based on discussions 

with the goal 1 teams about the level of benefits they believe they can achieve.

Example of Goal 1’s 

Financial Benefits

We found that a federal ethanol tax credit was duplicative 

with a federal renewable fuel standard that requires U.S. 

transportation fuels to contain certain volumes of biofuels, 

such as ethanol. In 2011, along with the fuel standard, the 

Congress supported domestic ethanol production through 

a $5.7 billion tax credit program, which provided a 45-centper-gallon federal tax credit to fuel blenders that purchase 

and blend ethanol with gasoline. We advised the Congress 

to consider allowing the tax credit to expire. The Congress 

took no action to extend the tax credit, which had been 

active in various forms since 1979, and it expired at the end 

of 2011. In fiscal year 2013, the tax expenditure savings 

totaled $6.1 billion. (GAO-11-318SP, GAO-09-446) 

Other Benefits

Other benefits reported for goal 1 in fiscal year 

2013 totaled 271, exceeding our target of 231 

by 40 benefits, or 17 percent. The majority 

of goal 1’s other benefits were in the areas of 

public safety and security, including programs 

in the areas of public health, food safety, 

transportation safety, consumer protection, 

environmental safety, and in the area of 

program efficiency and effectiveness, including 

the U.S. financial regulatory system, federal 

oil and gas resources, the U.S. Postal Service, 

and transportation and telecommunications 

funding. For fiscal year 2014, we kept our target at 231 for these other benefits based on our 

recent experience. 

Example of Goal 1’s 

Nonfinancial Benefits

In 2009 we reported on weaknesses in the transfer of 

DOD medical records to the Social Security Administration 

(SSA). SSA uses the records to help determine wounded 

warrior eligibility for SSA disability benefits. The paperbased records took a long time to deliver, prolonging 

SSA’s disability determination process. Following our 

recommendation that the two agencies coordinate to ensure 

more timely delivery of military medical records, they 

implemented a nationwide plan in 2012 using electronic 

transfer of records. SSA reports a reduction in the time it 

takes to receive DOD medical records from about 5 weeks 

to about 2 days. (GAO-09-762)
68 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

Testimonies

Our witnesses testified at 60 congressional 

hearings related to strategic goal 1, which 

fell short of the fiscal year 2013 target of 70 

by 10 testimonies, or 14 percent. Among the 

topics on which we testified were efforts to 

establish federally facilitated Health Care 

Exchanges and the Federal Data Services Hub 

under the Patient Protection and Affordable 

Care Act, urgent challenges faced by selected 

private pension programs, and causes and 

consequences of recent community bank 

failures. (See fig. 17 for selected testimony 

topics by goal.) We set our fiscal year 2014 

target at 64 testimonies on goal 1 issues based 

on our experience over the past few years.

Table 11 provides examples of goal 1 

accomplishments and contributions.

Table 11: Goal 1 Accomplishments and Contributions

Health Care Needs and Financing

Reducing Hospital 

Payment Allotments

Our 2009 review of states’ Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital 

(DSH) payments—funded by federal and state governments and designed 

to help offset hospitals’ uncompensated costs for serving Medicaid and 

uninsured low-income individuals—found problems such as some state 

payments not commensurate with the hospital’s share of care and in 

some cases exceeding uncompensated care costs. The Patient Protection 

and Affordable Care Act required improved allocations of federal DSH 

funds based on levels of uncompensated care, and reduced the federal 

DSH limit for spending. Reductions for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 totaled 

about $1.1 billion. (GAO-10-69) 

Reducing Medicare 

Bundled Payments to 

Reflect Decrease in 

Drug Utilization

Medicare Part B covers dialysis—the treatment of end-stage renal disease 

(ESRD)—and pays a bundled rate for its treatment and related services. In 

2008, the Congress expanded the bundle to include injectable drugs. The 

expansion was implemented in 2011, based on drug utilization in 2007. 

Our work showed that drug utilization in 2011 was about 23 percent lower 

than in 2007, suggesting that the 2011 rate was excessive. We asked the 

Congress to consider rebasing the payment rate, using the most recent 

data. In the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, the Congress revised 

the Medicare ESRD bundled payment to reflect the findings in our report. 

Once this provision is implemented, the total cost savings is expected to 

be more than $4 billion. (GAO-07-77, GAO-07-266T, GAO-11-126R)

Example of Goal 1’s Testimonies

Since 1990, GAO has designated Medicare as a highrisk program due to its complexity and susceptibility 

to payment errors from various causes. These factors, 

when added to its size, have made it vulnerable to fraud. 

In recently completed work, we found that hospitals 

and medical facilities (such as medical centers, clinics, 

and practices) were the most frequent subject of civil 

health care fraud cases that resulted in judgments or 

settlements. According to 2010 data, about one-quarter 

of the 7,848 subjects investigated in criminal health care 

fraud cases were medical facilities or were affiliated with 

these facilities. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services (CMS) has made progress in implementing 

strategies to prevent fraud, and recent legislation 

provided it with enhanced authority. However, CMS could 

do more to strengthen some of the key strategies we 

identified in our prior work to help it address challenges it 

faces in preventing fraud. Among others, these strategies 

include strengthening provider enrollment processes 

and standards, improving pre- and post-payment claims 

review, and developing a robust process for addressing 

identified vulnerabilities. (GAO-13-213T)
GAO-14-2SP 69

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

Improving Oversight 

of Veterans Affairs’ 

Medical Equipment 

and Supply Purchasing

As part of our 2011 review of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) 

purchasing and tracking of expendable medical supplies and reusable 

medical equipment, we found that VA generally does not oversee VA 

medical centers’ (VAMC) compliance with the purchasing requirements 

that we selected for review. Consistent with our recommendation to 

develop an approach to oversee compliance, VA began requiring Veterans 

Integrated Service Networks (VISN) and VAMCs to oversee compliance 

with purchasing and tracking requirements. VA headquarters provided 

VISNs and VAMCs with a standardized assessment tool and required VAMCs 

to document corrective actions taken. (GAO-11-391)

Encouraging the 

Collection of Reliable 

Data on Pediatric 

Medical Devices

As part of our 2012 report on pediatric medical device development, 

which lags years behind the development of devices for adults, we 

recommended that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) collect 

reliable data related to pediatric medical devices. In July 2013, FDA 

officials reported that in response to our recommendation they had 

created a corrective action plan to support standardized data collection 

requirements associated with pediatric device applications, such as 

creating an internal checklist to track pediatric application information 

and developing procedures to support the standardized analysis of the 

information. (GAO-12-225)

Lifelong Learning

Improving Indian 

Education

In our work on the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)—which receives 

more than $850 million in federal funds annually—we determined that 

students in BIE-funded schools perform consistently lower than Indian 

students attending public schools, and that management challenges 

continue to undermine efforts to improve Indian education. We testified 

on our findings before BIE’s House Appropriators in February 2013, and 

they subsequently took actions to increase their oversight of BIE. Our 

subsequent report recommended steps that BIE should take to improve 

school operations and student performance. (GAO-13-774, GAO-13-342T)

Ensuring Equal 

Opportunities in 

Athletics for Students 

with Disabilities

In 2010 we reported that among the schools we visited, we found that 

students with disabilities participated in athletics at consistently lower 

rates than students without disabilities due, in part, to the lack of clarity 

in schools’ responsibilities. We recommended that the Department of 

Education better clarify and communicate its guidance. In 2013, the 

department issued new guidance clarifying schools’ responsibilities 

to provide qualified students with disabilities equal opportunity to 

participate in nonacademic and extracurricular athletics. It included an 

overview of legal requirements and cautioned schools against making 

decisions based on presumptions and stereotypes. (GAO-10-519)

Benefits and Protection for Workers, Families, and Children

Improving Food Safety 

in School Lunches

Our work on food safety in the National School Lunch Program prompted 

the Congress to require the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to 

establish a notification system in 2013 to communicate directly with 

schools for emergency food recalls. USDA also developed a standard set 

of guidelines for commodity complaints related to food safety and worked 

with other agencies to establish new protocols and improve coordination 

and communication, as we recommended. We also identified challenges 

schools have faced in implementing new nutrition standards in school 

meals, and recommended ways to facilitate these changes. (GAO-09-649) 
70 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

Financial Security for an Aging Population

Targeting Funds to 

Older Americans 

Under the Older Americans Act, federal funds supporting services to 

older Americans are distributed to states through a funding formula 

generally based on the size of a state’s share of the elderly population. 

We determined that the formula could better target the greatest 

economic and social needs for services, and presented options to revise 

it, including ways to moderate the impact of such changes. In response 

to congressional interest, we presented these findings in a public 

briefing and provided ongoing technical assistance and modeling to 

inform congressional deliberations on reauthorizing the act. (GAO-13-74,

GAO-11-237 ) 

Responsive, Fair, and Effective System of Justice

Protecting the Public 

from Sex Offenders

In 2013, we reported on weaknesses in federal agencies’ efforts to track 

sex offenders in U.S. communities and abroad. We recommended that 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement develop a mechanism to notify 

relevant jurisdictions when offenders are removed from the United States 

and that federal law enforcement agencies better share information to 

track sex offenders’ international travel. We also found that 16 states and 

3 territories had substantially implemented federal laws governing sex 

offenders. Our work informed the Congress about barriers states faced in 

implementing these laws and federal assistance that could help address 

the barriers. (GAO-13-200, GAO-13-211)

Identifying Potentially 

Improper Payments 

in the Social Security 

Disability Program

In August 2013, we reported on potentially improper payments in the 

Social Security Disability Insurance program. We estimated that SSA 

made $1.29 billion in cash benefit payments that were potentially 

improper to beneficiaries with earnings beyond program limits. We also 

identified a systemic limitation in SSA’s enforcement operation that 

allows potentially disqualifying work activity to remain undetected. We 

recommended that SSA evaluate the costs and feasibility of establishing a 

mechanism to detect potentially disqualifying earnings that the agency’s 

enforcement operation does not currently detect, and SSA agreed to do 

so. (GAO-13-635)

Viable Communities

Reducing Abandoned 

Foreclosures and 

Information Gaps 

About Vacant 

Properties

In 2010, we identified practices that might contribute to servicers’ 

abandoning properties that were in foreclosure and that, left vacant, 

could cause blight. We found that servicers were not updating property 

values to determine if foreclosures were financially prudent or notifying 

borrowers and localities about abandoned foreclosures. We recommended 

that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal 

Reserve require servicers to take both these actions. In response, 

regulators in 2011 and 2012 issued guidance with these requirements 

that should result in fewer abandoned foreclosures and help communities 

address problems associated with them. (GAO-11-93)
GAO-14-2SP 71

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

Enhancing Guidance 

and Assistance to 

Affirmatively Further 

Fair Housing 

Jurisdictions that receive federal grants must develop plans for addressing 

impediments to fair housing access, such as restrictive zoning or 

segregated housing. We found that many such plans were outdated or 

missing or that HUD had not reviewed them. We recommended that HUD 

complete its new regulations to improve these plans and their oversight. 

In July 2013, HUD proposed a rule that would require these plans to have 

consistent content and formats, including completion time frames, and 

require HUD staff to review them, potentially enhancing HUD’s ability to 

oversee grantees’ efforts to further fair housing goals. (GAO-10-905)

Stewardship of Natural Resources and the Environment

Reducing Risks 

from Genetically 

Engineered Crops

We examined federal oversight of genetically engineered (GE) crops 

after unauthorized releases of GE crops into the food supply led trading 

partners to cancel purchases worth hundreds of millions of dollars. 

To improve oversight, we recommended that the USDA and the FDA 

formally agree to share information about GE crops with traits that could 

harm human health or lead to financial loss for farmers. In response, 

the agencies, along with the Environmental Protection Agency, in 2011, 

agreed to create a process for sharing confidential business information 

about the GE crops and foods they regulate. (GAO-08-104)

Improving Oversight 

of Coal Technologies

We found that the Department of Energy (DOE) did not assess the 

maturity of technologies to reduce carbon dioxide from coal power plants 

as part of its research and development program in this area, and we 

recommended that DOE develop a set of benchmarks to describe these 

technologies and report to the Congress on their maturity. In 2012, DOE 

developed a set of technology readiness levels and used these to prepare 

a status report on the maturity of technologies that reduce carbon 

dioxide emissions from coal power plants, and DOE announced plans to 

issue similar reports twice a year in the future. (GAO-10-675)

Viable National Infrastructure

Assessing the Quality 

of Estimates for 

the California High 

Speed Rail Project

The federal government has obligated $3.5 billion to California’s High 

Speed Rail project, but another $39 billion in federal funds are needed 

to complete this $70 billion project. In 2013, we reported that while 

the state’s revenue and ridership estimates are reasonable, further 

refinements to the process used to generate these estimates could 

decrease uncertainty in future funding decisions. Also, the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) has issued limited guidance on preparing 

cost estimates. We recommended that FRA improve its cost estimating 

guidance for states. Our work helped the state to take steps to improve 

its cost estimates. (GAO-13-163T)
72 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

Improving Priorities 

for New Federal 

Courthouses

For years, we have reported planning and oversight problems with the 

multibillion-dollar federal courthouse construction program. In 2013, we 

found that the federal judiciary had improved its planning process, but its 

one-page plan did not provide the Congress with the information needed 

to decide on proposed construction projects. Also, most of those projects 

were not evaluated under the new planning process. We recommended 

that the judiciary provide more project details to the Congress and 

impose a moratorium on the proposed projects until they are evaluated 

under the new process. Our work led to a 2013 House bill to reform 

courthouse construction. (GAO-13-523T, GAO-13-263) 

Ensuring Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems Are 

Safely Integrated into 

the National Airspace

In 2012, we reported that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had 

missed many of the deadlines and requirements set forth in the 2012 

FAA Modernization and Reform Act to safely accelerate the integration 

of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the national airspace. We also 

found that unresolved privacy concerns could further delay integration. 

In response to our recommendations, FAA is developing a roadmap 

with milestones to keep stakeholders informed on the progress of UAS 

integration. FAA is also developing regulations regarding government and 

commercial collection and use of UAS surveillance data to address privacy 

concerns. (GAO-12-981, GAO-13-346T) 

Addressing 

Overreliance on 

Costly Leasing of Real 

Property 

Our work on high-value General Service Administration (GSA) leases—

leases with a net annual rent above $2.79 million, for which GSA submits 

proposals to the Congress—showed that many represent space needs over 

20 years, for which ownership would be more cost-effective. While GSA 

has taken steps to reduce leasing costs, its capital planning approach 

lacks transparency and strategic focus that could reduce overspending 

on long-term space needs by supporting informed decision making. We 

made recommendations in 2013 to help GSA address these challenges. 

In providing a way forward on this long-standing issue, our work has 

refocused attention on GSA’s capital planning practices. (GAO-13-744,

GAO-11-879T) 

Improving Transit 

Governance

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s (WMATA) rail system 

has experienced challenges that include costs, service reliability, and 

safety. We reported in 2011 that WMATA’s board has, at times, focused on 

management’s responsibilities, rather than its responsibilities to provide 

oversight and strategic planning. This lack of strategic focus raised 

concerns about WMATA’s ability to confront its challenges. In response to 

our recommendations, the board issued bylaws to clearly delineate its 

responsibilities and is engaged in developing a strategic plan for WMATA 

to better equip the agency to provide safe and reliable transit service. 

(GAO-11-660) 

Source: GAO.

Note: One way we measure our effect on improving the government’s accountability, operations, and services is by tracking the 

percentage of recommendations that we made 4 years ago that have since been implemented. We assess recommendations 

implemented after 4 years based on our experience that recommendations remaining open after that period of time are generally not 

implemented in subsequent years.
GAO-14-2SP 73

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

The federal government is working to promote foreign policy goals, sound trade policies, and other strategies to advance the interests of the United States and its allies. The 

feder¬al government is also working to balance national security demands overseas and at 

home with demands related to an evolving national security environment. Given the importance of these efforts, our second strategic goal focuses on helping the Congress and the 

federal government in their responses to changing security threats and the challenges of 

global interdependence. Our multiyear (fiscal years 2010-2015) strategic objectives under 

this goal are to support congressional and agency efforts to 

■ protect and secure the homeland from threats and disasters, 

■ ensure military capabilities and readiness, 

■ advance and protect U.S. foreign policy interests, and 

■ respond to the impact of global market forces on U.S. economic and security interests. 

These objectives, along with the 

performance goals and key efforts that 

support them, are discussed fully in our 

strategic plan, which is available on our 

website at http://www.gao.gov/sp.html. 

The work supporting these objectives is 

performed primarily by headquarters and 

field staff in the following teams: Acquisition 

and Sourcing Management, Defense 

Capabilities and Management, Homeland 

Security and Justice, and International 

Affairs and Trade. In addition, the work 

supporting some performance goals and key 

efforts is performed by headquarters and 

field staff from the Financial Markets and Community Investment, Information Technology, 

Financial Management and Assurance, and Natural Resources and Environment teams.

To accomplish our work in fiscal year 2013 under these strategic objectives, we conducted 

engagements and audits that involved fieldwork related to international and domestic 

programs that took us across multiple continents. As in the past, we developed reports, 

testimonies, and briefings on our work.

As shown in table 12, we exceeded our fiscal year 2013 performance targets for financial 

and other benefits and testimonies.

Example of Work under Goal 2

DOD’s investment portfolio in weapon systems exceeds 

$1.6 trillion. We have reported for many years on the 

systemic reasons why problems, such as cost overruns, 

persist and reduce the buying power of these investments. 

Similarly, we have recommended many remedies for those 

problems. In 2009, the Congress passed the Weapon 

Systems Acquisition Reform Act, which codified several 

of our recommended actions. The act and other initiatives 

instituted in recent years aim to ensure programs are more 

affordable. In 2013, we reported on DOD’s progress in 

implementing the act, and determined that by implementing 

key provisions of the act DOD had improved its buying 

power for the weapons systems portfolio. (GAO-13-103)

Source: See Image Sources.

Respond to Changing Security Threats and the 

Challenges of Global Interdependence

Strategic Goal 2
74 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

Table 12: Strategic Goal 2’s Annual Performance Results and Targets

Performance 

measure

2008 

actual

2009 

actual

2010 

actual

2011 

actual

2012 

actual

2013 

target

2013 

actual

Met/

not met

2014

targeta

Financial benefits

(dollars in billions)

$15.4 $12.4 $20.5 $25.9 $13.4 $12.7 $21.4 Met $12.8

Other benefits 468 457 444 447 513 338 488 Met 343

Testimonies 93 67 58 48 54 45 30 Not Met 38

Source: GAO.

Note: Financial benefits for goals 1 through 3 do not sum to the total agencywide target for 2014 as we have left a portion of the 

financial benefits target unassigned. Experience leads us to believe that we can meet the agencywide target, but we cannot predict 

under which goals because of governmentwide resource constraints.

a

Our fiscal year 2013 targets for all three performance measures differ from those we reported in our fiscal year 2013 performance 

budget in February 2012. Specifically, we increased financial benefits from $11.4 billion to 12.7 billion, decreased other benefits from 

450 to 338, and decreased testimonies from 50 to 45. 

To help us examine trends for these measures over time, we look at their 4-year averages, 

which minimize the effect of an unusual level of performance in any single year and are 

shown below in table 13. This table indicates that over the past 6 years goal 2 financial 

benefits remained fairly stable in 2008 and 2009, grew in 2010 and 2011, fell slightly in 

2012, and reached their highest level in 2013. Average other benefits increased from 2008 

to 2009, declined in 2010 and 2011, and increased again in 2012 and 2013. Testimonies also 

increased from 2008 to 2009 and have declined steadily from 2010 through 2013.

Table 13: Four-Year Rolling Averages for Strategic Goal 2

Performance measure 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Financial benefits (dollars in billions) $12.7 $12.5 $14.7 $18.6 $18.1 $20.3

Other benefits 438 461 459 454 465 473

Testimonies 67 75 73 67 57 48

Source: GAO.

The following sections describe our performance under goal 2 for each of our quantitative 

performance measures and describe the targets for fiscal year 2013.
GAO-14-2SP 75

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

Other Benefits

The other benefits reported for goal 2 in 

fiscal year 2013 totaled 488 and exceeded our 

target by 150 benefits, or 44 percent. The 

majority of goal 2’s other accomplishments 

were in the areas of public safety and security 

for programs including homeland security and 

justice, international trade, national defense 

and foreign policy, and in acquisition and 

contract management, DOD weapon system 

acquisition, and National Aareonautics and 

Space Administration and Department of 

Homeland Security acquisition management. 

We set our fiscal year 2014 target at 343 

to rise only slightly above our fiscal year 2013 target of 338 rather than the high volume 

experienced in fiscal year 2013. 

Example of Goal 2’s 

Other Benefits

In 2011, we recommended that the DOD Inspector 

General, in conjunction with the military services, develop 

and implement a policy that specifies procedures for 

conducting sexual assault investigations. To address our 

recommendation, on January 25, 2013, DOD’s Inspector 

General established policy, assigned responsibilities, 

and provided procedures for investigating sexual assault 

incidents involving adults. As a result, the military services’ 

criminal investigative organizations have department-level 

guidance to help ensure consistency and accountability for 

sexual assault investigations. (GAO-11-579, GAO-12-571R,

GAO-13-182)

Financial Benefits

The financial benefits reported for this goal 

in fiscal year 2013 totaled $21.4 billion, which 

exceeded our target by $8.7 billion, or about 

68 percent. This was the result of one large 

financial benefit of $8.7 billion for DOD’s 

revised approach to procuring the Joint 

Strike Fighter–its most expensive aircraft 

acquisition—to reduce risks and associated 

costs. 

Example of Goal 2’s 

Financial Benefits

GAO’s budget justification review of DOD’s Fiscal 2012 

Operations and Maintenance Accounts (Active and Reserve 

subacounts) identified unobligated balances for fiscal years 

2006 through 2010 for the active and reserve components 

and defense-wide agencies, organizations, and programs. 

Based, in part, on our resulting budget justification issue 

papers for these years and our analyses of active and 

reserve execution trends for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the 

Congress reduced DOD’s 2012 Operation and Maintenance 

appropriation by about $1.05 billion (in present value terms). 

Testimonies

Our witnesses testified at 30 congressional 

hearings related to this strategic goal in 

fiscal year 2013, falling short of our target 

of 45 hearings by 15, or 33 percent. Goal 2 

testimony topics included unknowns about 

the capabilities, use, and cost of the Navy’s 

acquisition of the Littoral Combat Ship; 

shortfalls in DOD’s capacity and capability to 

account for missing persons (POW/MIA mission); 

efforts to modernize the nuclear security 

enterprise; and the potential for improved and 

expanded use of strategic sourcing to yield 

procurement savings. (See fig. 17 for selected 

testimony topics by goal.) We have set our 

fiscal year 2014 target at 38 for presenting testimony based on our recent experience.

Example of Goal 2’s Testimonies

The Department of State’s Diplomatic Security mission 

has faced several policy and operational challenges, 

including dangerous environments, staffing shortages, 

and other operational limitations. Although some planning 

initiatives have been undertaken, Diplomatic Security’s 

growth and approach to achieving its mission have been 

more reactive than strategic. In 2009 we recommended 

that the Secretary of State conduct a strategic review of 

the Bureau of Diplomatic Security to ensure that its mission 

and activities address State’s priority needs and address 

key human capital and operational challenges faced by this 

mission. Although State agreed with our recommendations, 

we subsequently learned that it has not yet conducted the 

strategic review as we recommended and still maintain is 

warranted. (GAO-13-191T)
76 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

Table 14 provides examples of goal 2 accomplishments and contributions.

Table 14: Goal 2 Accomplishments and Contributions

Protect and Secure the Homeland

Disaster Relief Costs In September 2012, we reported that the FEMA’s per capita damage 

indicator—the primary indicator for recommending whether to declare 

a major disaster—was artificially low because it did not fully reflect the 

rise in personal income or inflation since it was created in 1986. If the 

indicator had been adjusted for personal income or inflation since 1986, 

44 percent and 25 percent of declarations in fiscal years. 2004 through 

2011 would not have bee eligible for funding. This could have saved the 

federal government $3.6 billion and $1.9 billion, respectively. Based on 

our work, FEMA is considering how to improve its declarations criteria. 

(GAO-12-838)

Strengthening Efforts 

to Address Overstays

In July 2013, we reported on DHS’s efforts to address overstays—foreign 

nationals who stay in the country beyond their authorized period—

assisting Congress in overseeing DHS’s enforcement activities. We 

reported that DHS took steps to better identify potential overstays but 

had not assessed improvements in the reliability of overstay data. Further, 

DHS had not developed a framework for assessing implementation 

options for a biometric exit capability to collect biometric data, such as 

fingerprints. We recommended that DHS assess improvements in overstay 

data and set time frames for a biometric air exit evaluation framework. 

(GAO-13-683, GAO-13-602T)

Examining Border 

Patrol Data and 

Measures on Border 

Security

Border Patrol data for fiscal years 2006-2011 indicated that apprehensions 

and estimated known illegal entries across the southwest border 

declined; however, Border Patrol had not established performance goals 

and measures to determine how these data related to changes in border 

security. To increase oversight and accountability, we recommended 

that Border Patrol set time frames and milestones for developing border 

security goals and measures. Our work highlighting changes in border 

security data informed oversight of Border Patrol’s security efforts and 

congressional consideration of immigration reform proposals. (GAO-13-25,

GAO-13-653T, GAO-13-330T, GAO-13-414T)

Improving 

Coordination 

Among Field-based 

Information-sharing 

Entities

DOJ, DHS, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy fund and depend 

on field-based information-sharing entities (e.g., centers) to identify 

terrorist-related and other threats. In March 2013, we found 123 instances 

of overlap in analytical or investigative support activities at 37 selected 

entities, which could burden state and local partners with redundant 

information. We recommended that the three agencies hold the entities 

accountable for better coordination and look for additional opportunities 

to coordinate nationwide to help reduce any inefficiencies and potentially 

leverage resources. (GAO-13-471)

Enhancing 

Transportation 

Security 

Administration’s 

Monitoring of 

Employee Misconduct

In July 2013, we reported on procedural weaknesses in the Transportation 

Security Administration’s (TSA) monitoring of the investigation and 

adjudication of employee misconduct cases. We recommended, among 

other things, that TSA establish a process to verify that TSA airport 

staff comply with policies for adjudicating employee misconduct, issue 

guidance for recording all misconduct case outcomes in a centralized 

database, and develop procedures to identify allegations of employee 

misconduct not previously addressed through adjudication. Our work 

informed Congress, and TSA has begun taking steps to improve monitoring 

of employee misconduct. (GAO-13-624)
GAO-14-2SP 77

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

Military Capabilities and Readiness

Improving 

Management of 

National Cemeteries

As we recommended, the Army and VA expanded their interagency 

collaboration to improve management of military cemeteries. The 

departments have established a joint working group to identify 

improvements, share lessons learned, avoid potential duplication, and find 

solutions to common problems. The Army National Military Cemeteries 

also developed a strategic plan and work force plan to better link 

missions, goals, resources, and business processes—steps that should 

improve overall management and help eliminate burial errors and other 

past problems. (GAO-12-436T, GAO-12-374T, GAO-12-99)

Developing a Policy 

for Conducting 

DOD Sexual Assault 

Investigations

In 2011, we recommended that the DOD Inspector General, in conjunction 

with the military services, develop and implement a policy that specifies 

procedures for conducting sexual assault investigations. To address 

our recommendation, on January 25, 2013, DOD’s Inspector General 

established a policy, assigned responsibilities, and provided procedures 

for investigating sexual assault incidents involving adults. As a result, the 

military services’ criminal investigative organizations have departmentlevel guidance to help ensure consistency and accountability for sexual 

assault investigations. (GAO-11-579, GAO-12-571R)

Reducing Excess DOD 

Spare Parts Inventory 

Since 2008, we have reported that DOD held significantly more spare 

parts inventory than needed. As mandated by the Congress, and 

as we recommended, DOD implemented an inventory management 

improvement plan that in part was aimed at reducing purchase of items 

likely to be excess because of changing needs. Also, DOD increased the 

number of participating sites across the military services in a program 

that redistributes excess items to sites that need an item, which prevents 

an unnecessary procurement. As a result of these actions, DOD avoided 

approximately $351 million of costs for spare parts in fiscal year 2011. In 

fiscal years 2012 and 2013, DOD made progress implementing a statutory 

mandated corrective action plan for inventory management, which 

focuses on reducing excess inventory. DOD plans to fully implement this 

plan by fiscal year 2015.

Eliminating 

Duplication in 

Counter-IED Initiatives 

We reported in 2012 that DOD did not have full visibility over its billiondollar counter-improvised explosive device (IED) efforts, risking unneeded 

duplication. In response to our recommendation, DOD implemented a 

process to establish and continually update a comprehensive database 

of DOD-wide counter-IED efforts and to annually review its portfolio to 

identify and reduce duplication, overlap, and fragmentation among those 

efforts. DOD’s Deputy Chief Management Officer reported to the Congress 

in July 2013 that DOD had realized $313 million in counter-IED initiative 

cost savings as a result. (GAO-12-280, GAO-12-861R)

U.S. Foreign Policy Interests

Emergency Contact 

Information More 

Accessible for U.S. 

Citizens Abroad

Through its diplomatic posts, the Department of State provides services 

to U.S. citizens abroad who are crime victims or face other emergencies. 

However, we reported in 2009 that State’s data on these services 

were unreliable, making evaluation and resource allocation difficult. 

In response, State began developing a new system for gathering data. 

We also found that many post websites did not prominently display an 

emergency phone number. State responded in 2013 by requiring posts 

to use a website template that prominently displays emergency contact 

information and to periodically test the information. (GAO-09-989)
78 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

Improving the 

President’s 

Emergency Plan for 

AIDS Relief 

Our series of reports on the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief 

(PEPFAR) found that it has helped expand HIV treatment programs 

worldwide and increased their efficiency and effectiveness. We also 

found that better information management is crucial to help partner 

countries further improve and expand these programs to meet the needs 

of the estimated 16 million people who still lack needed treatment. Our 

reports included recommendations to the Department of State relating 

to treatment cost and quality and the supply chains for antiretroviral 

drugs. State generally agreed with our recommendations and has begun 

implementing some. (GAO-13-345, GAO-13-460, GAO-13-483, GAO-13-688)

Policy Oversight for 

High-Containment 

Laboratories 

In our 2009 report on high-containment laboratories (HCL), we found 

a governmentwide strategy for oversight of all HCLs was missing. No 

single agency knew about the ongoing expansion, no one agency could 

determine whether the national laboratory capacity need was met, and 

there are no national standards for biosafety, so we concluded that an 

oversight entity could address expansion, capacity needs and biosafety 

issues. We recommended that the National Security Advisor identify 

a single entity, in consultation with appropriate agencies across the 

government, charged with periodic governmentwide strategic evaluation 

of HCLs that will address the laboratories needed to effectively meet 

national goals to counter biothreats; what the existing capacity is within 

the United States; and the type oversight needed, among other things. A 

cabinet-level workgroup was created to address these issues, in part, due 

to our recommendations. (GAO-09-574)

U.S Foreign Policy Relations

Improving Quality of 

Local and Regional 

Food Procurement

USDA and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) oversee 

funds for local and regional procurement (LRP) programs, in which donors 

purchase food in or near countries facing shortages. In 2009, we reported 

concerns about LRP food quality and potential effects on local economies, 

and we made program improvement recommendations. In response, 

in 2012, USDA reported a pilot project tracking quality standards 

and specifications of LRP food, and USAID made food quality reports 

available. Also, a third-party evaluation of USDA’s project found that LRP 

interventions had not caused market effects. (GAO-09-570)

Global Market Forces

Improving ExportImport Bank 

Reporting and 

Forecasting

The 2007-2009 financial crisis increased demand for the Export-Import 

Bank’s (Ex-Im) services and led to rapid growth in Ex-Im’s portfolio. In 

a series of reports from 2007 to 2013, we found problems with Ex-Im’s 

risk and impact assessments and the transparency of its reporting. For 

example, Ex-Im had not reassessed its exposure forecast model and 

assumptions in response to the financial crisis. We also found that Ex-Im’s 

procedures for assessing its economic impact, as well as definitions of 

environmentally beneficial exports were unclear. Ex-Im has taken steps to 

rectify these issues. (GAO-07-1071, GAO-10-682, GAO-13-620, GAO-11-460)

Source: GAO.

Note: One way we measure our effect on improving the government’s accountability, operations, and services is by tracking the 

percentage of recommendations that we made 4 years ago that have since been implemented. We assess recommendations 

implemented after 4 years based on our experience that recommendations remaining open after that period of time are generally not 

implemented in subsequent years. 
GAO-14-2SP 79

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

Our third strategic goal focuses on the collaborative and integrated elements needed 

for the federal government to achieve results. The work under this goal highlights the 

intergovernmental relationships that are necessary to achieve national goals. Our multiyear 

(fiscal years 2010-2015) strategic objectives under this goal are to 

■ analyze the government’s fiscal position and opportunities to strengthen approaches to 

address the current and projected fiscal gap; 

■ identify fraud, waste, and abuse; and 

■ support congressional oversight of major management challenges and program risks.

These objectives, along with the 

performance goals and key efforts that 

support them, are discussed fully in our 

strategic plan, which is available on our 

website at http://www.gao.gov/sp.html. 

The work supporting these objectives 

is performed primarily by headquarters 

and field staff from the Applied Research 

and Methods, Financial Management and 

Assurance, Forensic Audits and Investigative 

Service, Information Technology, and 

Strategic Issues teams. In addition, the work 

supporting some performance goals and 

key efforts is performed by headquarters 

and field staff from the Acquisition and Sourcing Management and Natural Resources and 

Environment teams. This goal also includes our bid protest and appropriations law work, 

which is performed by staff in the Office of the General Counsel.

To accomplish our work under these objectives, we performed our foresight work, for 

example, examining the nation’s long-term fiscal and management challenges, and our 

insight work focusing on federal programs at high risk for fraud, waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement. 

As shown in table 15, we exceeded our fiscal year 2013 performance targets for this goal’s 

financial and other benefits, but did not meet our target for testimonies.

Example of Work under Goal 3

Our work identified information reporting as a powerful tool 

to reduce the tax gap, discussed its costs and benefits, 

and recommended action to improve compliance with tax 

laws. Our work contributed to legislation requiring banks 

and others to report to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

income that merchants receive through, for instance, credit 

cards or third-party networks like PayPal. IRS compares 

the information to what merchants report on their income 

tax returns to help verify compliance with tax laws. The 

new requirement is estimated to raise a total of about $1.29 

billion through improved tax compliance in the provision’s 

first 3 fiscal years after a December 31, 2010, effective date. 

(GAO-08-266, GAO-07-1014, GAO-07-488T) 

Source: See Image Sources.

Strategic Goal 3

Help Transform the Federal Government to 

Address National Challenges
80 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

Table 15: Strategic Goal 3’s Annual Performance Results and Targets

Performance 

measure

2008 

actual

2009 

actual

2010 

actual

2011 

actual

2012 

actual

2013 

target

2013 

actual

Met/

not met

2014

targeta

Financial benefits

(dollars in billions)

$23.4 $18.5 $11.6 $7.2 $16.7 $5.75 $8.1 Met $5.45

Other benefits 704 634 684 628 652 520 555 Met 475

Testimonies 76 49 45 39 41 29 22 Not Met 22

Source: GAO.

Note: Financial benefits for goals 1 through 3 do not sum to the total agencywide target for 2014 as we have left a portion of the 

financial benefits target unassigned. Experience leads us to believe that we can meet the agencywide target, but we cannot predict 

under which goals because of governmentwide resource constraints.

a

Our fiscal year 2013 targets for all three performance measures differ from those we reported in our fiscal year 2013 performance 

budget in February 2012. Specifically, we decreased financial benefits from $7.8 billion to $5.75 billion, other benefits from 525 to 520, 

and testimonies from 40 to 29.

To help us examine trends for these measures over time, we look at their 4-year averages—

shown in table 16—which minimize the effect of an unusual level of performance in any 

single year. Table 16 indicates that over the 6-year period from 2008 through 2013, financial 

benefits increased from 2008 through 2009 and have decreased each year from 2010 

through 2013. Other benefits declined from 2008 to 2009 and declined from 2009 through 

2013. The trend in the average number of hearings during which our senior executives 

testified on goal 3 issues also remained stable from 2008 to 2009, and declined in 2010 and 

again in 2012 and 2013.

Table 16: Four-Year Rolling Averages for Strategic Goal 3

Performance measure 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Financial benefits (dollars in billions) $18.6 $20.4 $19.1 $15.2 $13.5 $10.9

Other benefits 686 653 668 663 650 630

Testimonies 68 68 52 52 44 37

Source: GAO.

The following sections describe our performance under goal 3 for each of our quantitative 

performance measures and describe the targets for fiscal year 2014.
GAO-14-2SP 81

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

Financial Benefits

The financial benefits reported for this goal in 

fiscal 2013 totaled $8.1 billion, exceeding our 

target of $5.75 billion by $2.35 billion. Among 

these accomplishments are financial benefits 

from Navy’s revised approach for acquiring its 

Next Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN) 

and our work involving the U.S. tax code. 

We have set our 2014 target at $5.45 billion 

because we do not expect the high level of 

fiscal year 2013 benefits to continue. We have 

also left a portion of our agencywide target 

unallocated rather than increasing the target 

for each goal. Our experience leads us to 

believe that we can meet the target, but we are uncertain under which goals.

Other Benefits

Other benefits reported for goal 3 in fiscal 

year 2013 totaled 555, exceeding our target 

by 35 benefits, or about 6 percent. The 

majority of goal 3’s benefits were in the 

area of public safety and security; tax 

law administration; program efficiency 

and effectiveness; business process and 

improvement; including federal agency 

financial audits; federal information 

technology; business systems modernization; 

and human capital. We have set our 2014 

target at 475 benefits. While we recognize 

that this target is lower than our fiscal year 

2013 actual performance and 4-year average 

for this measure, we believe it is a realistic estimate based on our projected goal 3 work.

Example of Goal 3’s 

Financial Benefits

Our work identified information reporting as a powerful tool 

to reduce the tax gap, discussed its costs and benefits, 

and recommended action to improve compliance with 

tax laws. Our work contributed to legislation requiring 

banks and others to report to IRS income that merchants 

receive through, for instance, credit cards or third-party 

networks like PayPal. IRS compares the information to what 

merchants report on their income tax returns to help verify 

compliance with tax laws. The new requirement is estimated 

to raise a total of about $1.29 billion through improved tax 

compliance in the provision’s first 3 fiscal years after a 

December 31, 2010, effective date. (GAO-08-266, GAO-07-

1014, GAO-07-488T) 

Example of Goal 3’s 

Other Benefits

In 2010, we reported that some state Low-Income Home 

Energy Assistance Programs (LIHEAP) were at risk 

of fraud and improper payments because they did not 

verify applicants’ identities before awarding benefits. 

We recommended that state LIHEAP programs require 

applicants to provide social security numbers in order to 

receive these benefits. As we recommended, in 2011 and 

2012, several state LIHEAP programs began requiring 

applicants to provide documentation of their social security 

numbers to verify their identities before receiving benefits– 

a step that will help prevent fraud and improper benefit 

payments in the LIHEAP program, and ensure that only 

those applicants who are eligible for the program receive 

benefits.
82 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

Testimonies

Our witnesses testified at 22 congressional 

hearings related to this strategic goal in 

fiscal year 2013, missing the target of 29 

by 24 percent. Among the goal 3 testimony 

topics covered were an update of GAO’s 

governmentwide high-risk series, an urgent 

need for improvements to federal financial 

and performance management, and the need 

for improvements to the national strategy 

on cybersecurity to address persistent 

challenges. (See fig. 17 for selected testimony 

topics by goal.) For fiscal year 2014, we have 

set a target of testifying at 22 hearings as we 

do not expect goal 3 hearings to increase to a 

number greater than what actually occurred in 

2013.

Table 17 provides examples of goal 3 

accomplishments and contributions.

Example of Goal 3’s Testimonies

The federal government reportedly plans to spend at least 

$82 billion on IT in fiscal year 2014. Given the scale of 

such planned outlays and the criticality of many of these 

systems to the health, economy, and security of the nation, 

it is important that OMB and federal agencies provide 

appropriate oversight and adequate transparency into these 

programs. GAO has issued a number of key reports on 

the federal government’s efforts to efficiently acquire and 

manage IT. While OMB and federal agencies have taken 

steps to address underperforming IT projects and more 

effectively manage IT through a number of major initiatives, 

additional actions are needed. For example, OMB has taken 

significant steps to enhance the oversight and accountability 

of federal investments by creating the IT Dashboard, an 

OMB public website which provides detailed information 

on federal agencies’ major investments. However, GAO 

previously found there were issues with the accuracy and 

reliability of cost and schedule data in the Dashboard and 

recommended steps that OMB and agencies should take to 

improve these data—this is important since the Dashboard 

currently reports 154 investments totaling almost $10.4 

billion being at risk. OMB agreed with the recommendations. 

(GAO-13-796T)

Table 17: Goal 3 Accomplishments and Contributions

Analyze Government’s Fiscal Position

Improving Federal 

Financial Reporting

Our agency financial audit work furthered significant financial 

reporting and internal control improvements at SEC and the IRS. SEC’s 

improvements resolved three significant prior-year internal control 

deficiencies. IRS’s improvements reduced the dollar amount of duplicate 

manual refunds disbursed by a net present value of $328 million for fiscal 

years 2010-2012. Moreover, our financial audit of the U.S. Government’s 

Consolidated Financial Statements helped promote more complete 

and accurate financial reporting governmentwide in such key areas 

as contingencies and social insurance. (GAO-13-274R, GAO-13-122R,

GAO-12-219, GAO-13-420R, GAO-13-120)

Improving Capital 

Gains Tax Compliance 

in Securities 

Transactions

In our work on capital gains tax compliance, we found that many 

taxpayers misreported their gains or losses from securities sales, often 

because they failed to accurately report the cost, or basis, of the 

securities they sold. We suggested that the Congress require brokers to 

report to both taxpayers and IRS the adjusted basis of securities that 

taxpayers sell. The Congress subsequently enacted this requirement, 

which is estimated to raise about $306 million in revenue during fiscal 

years 2012 and 2013. (GAO-11-747T)
GAO-14-2SP 83

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

Restructuring 

Customs User Fees

In 2007 and 2008, we found that although all arriving international 

air passengers are subject to customs, immigration, and agriculture 

inspections, those arriving from certain locations were exempt from the 

customs fee. Other passengers’ fees and direct appropriations subsidized 

inspections for exempt passengers. We recommended that the Congress 

align the customs fee exemptions with those of other fees. Our work 

informed the Congress’s decision to lift the customs exemptions in the 

United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act 

in October 2011, freeing up an estimated $194 million for other needs in 

fiscal years 2012 and 2013. (GAO-07-1131, GAO-08-386SP)

IRS Testing of Security 

Controls 

In fiscal year 2010, we reported that IRS did not comprehensively test 

security controls over the mainframe environment supporting its general 

ledger for tax-related activities and tax processing applications. For 

example, the test was limited to a portion of the operating environment 

and, therefore, did not test all of the relevant controls. We recommended 

that IRS perform comprehensive testing of security controls over 

the mainframe environment to include all portions of the operating 

environment. In calendar year 2012, we verified that IRS, in response 

to our recommendation, performed comprehensive testing of security 

controls over the mainframe environment to include all portions of 

the operating environment. This action reduces the risk that IRS may 

not be fully aware of vulnerabilities that could adversely affect critical 

application and data. (GAO-13-350, GAO-12-393, GAO-11-308)

Prevent Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

Improving Oversight 

of Psychotropic Drug 

Prescriptions for 

Children in Foster 

Care

We reported that in 2011 some state Medicaid monitoring programs for 

psychotropic drugs provided to foster children fell short of best principles 

published by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 

In response to our report, several states took actions to improve their 

oversight of psychotropic drug prescriptions for children in foster care, 

such as assessing the appropriateness of certain psychotropic medications 

and enacting age restrictions on certain prescriptions. These actions 

will improve oversight of psychotropic drug prescriptions for children in 

foster care and other children in those states. (GAO-13-15, GAO-12-270T,

GAO-12-201)

Improving Federal 

Agency Search 

Capabilities for 

Suspended or 

Disbarred Contractors

We reported in 2009 on improper contracts and payments that we 

attributed to insufficient search capabilities in GSA’s Excluded Parties List 

System (EPLS), which agencies use to identify suspended and disbarred 

companies or individuals prior to approving contract awards or payments. 

In response to our recommendation, in 2011 GSA strengthened the EPLS’s 

search capabilities in an advanced search link on the EPLS website. These 

enhanced search capabilities will help federal agencies detect companies 

or individuals who have been disbarred or suspended from contract 

awards and payments and help ensure that they are not awarded future 

government contracts or receive payments. (GAO-09-174)
84 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

Convening a Forum 

on Data Analytics for 

Oversight and Law 

Enforcement

In January 2013, GAO, the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity 

and Efficiency, and the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board 

convened a forum to explore how oversight and law enforcement agencies 

use data analytics to assist in the prevention and detection of fraud, 

waste, and abuse. Participants identified challenges and opportunities 

associated with data analytics, such as legislative barriers to sharing 

data across federal, state, and local agencies. Participants also identified 

next steps that the sponsoring organizations agreed to implement, 

including developing a community of practice on data-sharing challenges. 

(GAO-13-680SP)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks

Leveraging Federal 

Buying Power

We identified a number of opportunities for significant cost savings and 

improved management of federal procurements through two reports 

on strategic sourcing in 2012 and 2013. We highlighted ways to better 

leverage the federal government’s buying power by applying leading 

commercial practices, and defined a framework federal agencies can use 

to tailor their buying tactics. As a result of our work, OMB directed all 

federal agencies to increase use of strategic sourcing, and departments 

such as DOD improved their strategic sourcing programs. Moreover, this 

work resulted in proposed bipartisan legislative reforms. (GAO-13-765T,

GAO-13-417)

Improving 

Congressional Insight 

into Contractor 

Compensation Caps

Federal law caps the amount of compensation contractors can charge 

to federal contracts. In 2013, we found that reducing the current cap 

from $763,029 to the salary of the President ($400,000) or Vice President 

($230,700) would substantially increase the number of contractor 

employees whose compensation exceeded those caps, and in turn, the 

amount of compensation no longer chargeable to federal contracts. 

Our work was instrumental in assisting congressional committees and 

members in drafting legislation to modify the compensation cap. 

(GAO-13-566)

Encouraging DOD to 

Analyze Risks and 

Prioritize Action Plans 

for Audit Readiness

We assisted the Congress in overseeing DOD’s financial accountability 

in the context of federal budget constraints, focusing on DOD’s efforts 

toward audit readiness of its Statement of Budgetary Resources by 2014. 

We identified process and internal control deficiencies that threaten 

DOD’s efforts to achieve this goal, including the lack of an effective 

process for managing department-level risks associated with achieving 

auditable financial statements. Our recommendations from this report 

and other reports are directed at helping DOD achieve its financial 

management and auditability goals. (GAO-13-123) 

Releasing Undisbursed 

Balances in Agencies’ 

Expired Grant 

Accounts

We found that significant amounts of funding remained in expired grant 

accounts—accounts more than 3 months past the grant end date and with 

no activity for 9 months—in the Payment Management System, the largest 

civilian payment system for grants. We recommended in 2008 and again 

in 2012 that OMB instruct agencies to track and report on the disposition 

of these funds. In response to our report and others, the Department of 

HHS released more than $116 million and the National Science Foundation 

more than $119 million in expired grant funds to meet other obligations or 

go back to Treasury. (GAO-12-704T, GAO-12-360)
GAO-14-2SP 85

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

Improving DOD’s 

Oversight of 

Contractor Pension 

Costs

In response to growing pension costs for contractors serving DOD, our 

2013 report assessed the steps taken by the department to ensure that 

such costs are appropriate. Our work identified changes needed to assess 

the reasonableness of contractor pension plans and successfully manage 

the cost challenges posed by recent rule changes, and DOD agreed with 

our recommendations. Industry experts praised the report as a “must 

read” for its educational value, and the clarity and fairness with which it 

explained a highly technical and complex topic. (GAO-13-158)

Source: GAO.

Note: One way we measure our effect on improving the government’s accountability, operations, and services is by tracking the 

percentage of recommendations that we made 4 years ago that have since been implemented. We assess recommendations 

implemented after 4 years based on our experience that recommendations remaining open after that period of time are generally not 

implemented in subsequent years.
86 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

Source: See Image Sources.

Strategic Goal 4

Maximize the Value of GAO by Enabling Quality, Timely Service 

to the Congress and by Being a Leading Practices Federal Agency

Our fourth strategic goal embraces the spirit 

of continuous and focused improvement in 

order to sustain high-quality, timely service 

to the Congress, while also implementing 

leading practices in our internal operations. 

Activities carried out under this goal also 

address our two internal management 

challenges—human capital and engagement 

efficiency. The multiyear (fiscal years 2010-

2015) strategic objectives under this goal are 

to

■ improve efficiency and effectiveness in 

performing our mission and delivering 

quality products and services to the 

Congress and the American people; 

■ maintain and enhance a diverse workforce 

and inclusive work environment through 

strengthened recruiting, retention, 

development, and reward programs; 

■ expand networks, collaborations, and 

partnerships that promote professional 

standards and enhance our knowledge, 

agility, and response time; and 

■ be a responsible steward of our human, 

information, fiscal, technological, and 

physical resources.

These objectives, along with the performance goals and key efforts that support them, 

are discussed fully in our strategic plan, which is available on our website at http://www.

gao.gov/sp.html. The work supporting these objectives is performed under the direction 

of the Acting Chief Administrative Officer through the following offices: the Controller and 

Financial Management and Business Operations, Human Capital, Information Systems and 

Technology Services, Infrastructure Operations, the Professional Development Program, 

and Field Operations. Assistance on specific key efforts is provided by the Applied Research 

and Methods team, and other offices, including Strategic Planning and External Liaison, 

Congressional Relations, Opportunity and Inclusiveness, Audit Policy and Quality Assurance, 

Public Affairs, and General Counsel. To accomplish our work under these four objectives, 

Examples of Work under Goal 4

Physical footprint. Continuing the momentum started in fiscal 

year 2012 to reduce the physical footprint in our field offices 

to achieve lease and security cost savings and enhance 

work-life balance opportunities for employees, we expanded 

our enhanced telework pilot to include six more work sites, 

bringing the total to eight offices. In fiscal year 2013, we 

achieved a cost savings of $1.2 million; these savings are 

projected to cumulatively exceed $1.8 million in fiscal year 

2014. We also completed the renovation of about 49,000 

square feet of our headquarters space for occupancy by DOJ 

Executive Office for United States Trustees, which will yield 

about $2 million in rental income for GAO in fiscal year 2014. 

Travel costs. To maximize GAO’s travel budget through 

greater flexibility in booking less costly airfares, we piloted 

and then implemented agencywide the use of noncontract 

airfares when certain criteria are met. Since the inception of 

the pilot and subsequent agency roll-out, GAO staff who have 

purchased noncontract fares have saved approximately 23 

percent on the cost of airplane tickets.

Financial literacy. To continue raising awareness, 

empowering staff, and improving access to information 

on personal financial matters, we chartered a permanent 

GAO Workplace Financial Literacy Leadership Committee 

composed of GAO executives to provide vision, direction, 

visibility, oversight, and monitoring of GAO’s financial literacy 

program, and a working group of employees from across 

the agency to implement the program elements. To facilitate 

access to the information contained in our financial literacy 

website, we rearranged content thematically, and brought in an 

outside financial planning speaker; more than 500 employees 

attended the event and expressed very positive feedback.
GAO-14-2SP 87

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

we performed internal studies and completed projects that further the strategic goal. As 

shown in table 6 on page 40, our internal operations for services and functions that help 

employees get their jobs done and improve the quality of their work life were rated by our 

staff with scores of 82 percent and 77.9 percent respectively. In 2013, we created a new 

IT Tools performance measure that was rated by our staff with a score of 67.6 percent. In 

prior year surveys, IT Tools was covered under one of the other performance measures. 

Table 18 provides examples of goal 4 accomplishments and contributions and additional 

examples are included throughout this report.

Table 18: Goal 4 Accomplishments and Contributions

Improve Efficiency and Effectiveness

Enhancing 

Support for 

Conducting, 

Managing, and 

Reporting on 

Our Work

Improved communication and outreach. Fiscal year 2013 was a very productive 

year in the expansion of our digital and social media presence. We created a 

new mobile application for Android users, created two GAO news widgets that 

allow users to automatically share up-to-date GAO reports and legal decisions 

on their own web pages, created the agency’s first official LinkedIn page as a 

way to share work, and planned the implementation of an agency blog in fiscal 

year 2014. We continued to focus on improving the usability of GAO.gov, and 

have made improvements to several large areas of the website, including the 

Key Issues section and pages centered around our work on duplication, overlap, 

and fragmentation; high risk; and technology assessments. We also streamlined 

the homepage to better integrate our social media platforms, and are working 

to add visual content to our online summary pages. We taught four webinars on 

how GAO uses web analytics and social media to continuously improve our public 

outreach, reaching more than a thousand federal and state participants. We also 

updated the agency logo, which is now consistently legible in a range of sizes 

from extremely small social media icons through large-scale posters.

We expanded our efforts in fiscal year 2013 to identify client needs and continue 

to promote an understanding of our work. Through our “Voice of the Client” 

project, we interviewed majority and minority congressional staff from 12 highuse House and Senate Committees and Subcommittees and conducted a content 

analysis of the interviews to identify staff’s information needs. We are using 

the results of this survey to inform current and ongoing efforts to improve how 

we explain our processes to Hill staff and respond to requests for new work. 

Other outreach efforts included the launch of a redesigned Watchdog website, 

available exclusively to Members and Congressional staff, that provides clearer 

instructions on how to request new work, a simple user interface to explore 

GAO’s ongoing work, a more prominent focus on the wide range of GAO products, 

and easier ways to contact GAO personnel. We developed a training program 

for congressional staff which was incorporated in the House Learning Center 

curriculum to provide information about GAO’s mission and services. 

Process improvement. We continued our commitment to improving and 

streamlining our engagement processes in fiscal year 2013 through a number of 

initiatives, including the rollout of project management guidance and training to 

engagement leaders and preparing to pilot our newest version of our Engagement 

Management System (EMS) to replace outdated, stand-alone systems that 

eliminate redundant data entry. We also updated our engagement process and 

related electronic guidance and tools to prepare for a FY 2014 pilot of this new 

process and EMS prior to agency wide rollout. We are on track to acquire and 

begin testing New Blue, a system that will enable analysts to draft, revise, index, 

reference, and ultimately publish final reports to multiple formats—all in one 

place—greatly expediting the content creation process and reducing the potential 
88 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

for introducing errors at critical stages of the writing and review process. We also 

created two communications boards as formal mechanisms to establish guidance 

and standards on GAO’s written and visual communications and launched the 

Visuals@Work website to provide engagement teams with an authoritative source 

of information on visual production standards. 

Workflow management. To further enhance support for our analysts in 

performing audits efficiently and effectively, we implemented several measures 

to improve their ability to manage and report on our work. To ensure that we 

receive timely access to agency officials, information, and data during GAO 

audits, we issued new guidance to assist analysts in determining when and how to 

elevate access issues, and identified and communicated strategies for mitigating 

access issues prior to elevation. To facilitate notification to agencies of a GAO 

audit, we adopted a standard notification letter for use agencywide. 

To help expedite review of draft products and better support GAO’s growing 

mobile workforce, the Audit Policy and Quality Assurance office adopted a new 

process, building on a successful pilot, to accept draft products electronically for 

Second Partner review. To reduce the administrative and environmental burden 

associated with producing and delivering final review paper report packages 

prior to issuance, we instituted an option for electronically routing products for 

a final quality check. To reinforce employees’ understanding of GAO’s protocols 

and guidance for disclosing engagement-related information to the Hill, media, 

and general public, we rolled out an agencywide multimedia briefing to all 

employees who work on or support engagements highlighting the importance of 

protecting engagement data; key disclosure-related policies, requirements, and 

responsibilities; and the implications of improper disclosure. To prepare for the 

upcoming peer review, we developed and delivered all hands training for analyst 

staff, managers, and Senior Executives (SES) and developed an independence 

refresher course for delivery in fiscal year 2014.

Enhance Recruitment, Development, Retention, and Rewards

Strengthening 

Hiring 

Strategies 

to Ensure a 

Pipeline for 

the Future

We again identified our critical hiring, promotion, and succession planning 

needs through our annual workforce planning analysis. Working within very 

constrained resources, we effectively recruited and hired staff to fill key critical 

positions and took proactive steps, such as reinstituting our intern program, to 

help re-establish a pipeline to fill future hiring needs. We also implemented a new 

program to attract, recruit, and hire recent graduates to fill entry-level analyst 

positions, which is essential to maintaining our analyst workforce. These new 

employees will begin working at GAO in early 2014. Additionally, we sparingly 

used recruitment incentives to attract staff to fill key specialist positions. Finally, 

to enhance our recruiting efforts, we convened a well-attended meeting with our 

partners from colleges, universities, and key organizations, and discussed trends 

related to recruitment, hiring, development, and retention of a diverse, talented, 

dedicated, and results-oriented workforce. 

Retention and succession planning. To encourage retention during this period 

of very limited hiring, we leveraged our Voluntary Transfer Program by approving 

geographic transfers for the largest number of staff in nearly a decade. This 

program allowed us to retain staff that, because of personal life situations such 

as spousal employment or family medical issues, likely would have otherwise 

separated from GAO. To retain staff with specialized skills, knowledge, and 

expertise, we prudently and effectively used retention incentives. These incentive 

payments enabled us to keep staff who were likely to leave GAO since they either 

had other job offers or had taken steps to retire. To support succession planning at 

our highest ranks and bolster our senior executive pool, we selected 13 candidates 

to participate in this year’s Executive Candidate Assessment and Development 

Program and appointed 12 graduates from this program to SES positions. 
GAO-14-2SP 89

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

Improving Our 

Performance 

Management 

and 

Compensation 

Systems

In fiscal year 2013, GAO implemented a new performance management system 

based on the results of a multiyear initiative involving staff at all levels, designed 

to improve the fairness, consistency, and accuracy with which we evaluate staff. 

This effort culminated in a renewed emphasis on ongoing, timely, year-round 

performance management and a streamlined appraisal system with more clearly 

defined competencies, work activities, and performance standards targeted 

specifically to each major occupation. During this year’s implementation, we 

conducted agencywide briefings and training sessions on the new system, with 

sessions designed specifically for supervisors. We also revamped our performancebased compensation system to more accurately reflect GAO’s highly talented 

workforce as well as administer a less complex system that recognizes the highest 

performers. In doing so, we worked with our Union colleagues to ratify this 

system for use in fiscal year 2014 for the 2013 appraisal cycle. 

Enhancing 

Efforts to 

Develop the 

Workforce

Professional development. To continue to develop and support staff in the 

field and those who regularly telework, we further expanded the number of 

courses we offer virtually, including the first-ever virtual course on indexing 

and referencing. To continually assess our field administrative and professional 

support services training curricula, a multilevel, geographically dispersed task 

team identified the changing skill sets needed for this critical segment of our 

staff, resulting in ongoing professional development opportunities. We held an 

extremely successful training seminar for support staff in the field during 2013, 

with plans to continue this effort in the future.

Work-life balance. To enhance the services our Counseling Center provides to 

employees in the field, we initiated virtual seminars to inform employees about 

a variety of work-related and personal challenges and established virtual support 

groups on parenting and eldercare. For our headquarters employees, we also 

sponsored monthly support groups and expanded the number of seminars offered 

on a wide range of topics. For employees choosing to participate in our enhanced 

telework program, benefits include improved work-life balance by eliminating 

commuting time. We also made use of our short-term telework authority to help 

staff balance short-term family needs while continuing to work.

Supporting 

an Unbiased 

Environment 

That Values 

Opportunity 

and 

Inclusiveness

We continued to emphasize our commitment to diversity and inclusiveness 

through delivery of a new, required course for GAO’s leaders on openmindedness and mindfulness. We made available for all employees 97 offerings 

of 3 new elective diversity courses — Hot Buttons, Navigating the Unwritten 

Rules, and Diversity and Inclusion: Continuing Forward. Finally, we facilitated 

an agencywide discussion session on race based on the PBS documentary, Race: 

The Power of an Illusion, with more than 200 employees participating. We also 

issued the agency’s first Diversity and Inclusion Strategic plan: The plan’s three 

goals are workforce diversity, workplace inclusion, and sustainability, with related 

components and performance indicators. We will assess these indicators annually 

and plan to achieve the goals by 2016.
90 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

Expand Networks, Collaborations, and Partnerships

Enhancing 

Professional 

Accounting 

and Auditing 

Standards

Training. We continued to leverage our investment in the National 

Intergovernmental Audit Forum annual meeting and the 19th Biennial Forum of 

Government Auditors by sharing online videos of the sessions with GAO staff and 

the broader intergovernmental audit community, thereby giving these entitites 

the opportunity to grant no-cost CPEs. 

Outreach. We significantly influenced the development and quality of several 

newly established standards promulgated by INTOSAI and used by over 190 

countries. These standards articulate the proper functioning and conduct 

for government auditors worldwide and increase quality, professionism, and 

credibility of audit institutions. To obtain input on revisions to the Federal 

Standards for Internal Control, we stood up a new Green Book Advisory Council. 

Enhancing 

Information 

Sharing and 

Collaboration 

with Others to 

Expand Audit 

Knowledge

Information sharing. We helped organize GAO’s first international meeting 

(with the Supreme Audit Institution of Russia) using WebEx technology, thereby 

eliminating the need for international travel or expensive VTC services. We 

developed new approaches to the INTOSAI Journal operations to reduce costs to 

GAO. 

Collaboration. We helped guide the creation of the INTOSAI Task Force on 

Financial Foresight and helped develop and review its recommendations for the 

sustainable future financing of INTOSAI. We worked actively with the INTOSAIDonor Cooperation initiative, which achieved the milestone of 2 additional donors 

signing on to bring total signatories to 20. We collaborated with the National 

Academies to convene a Comptroller General Forum on Nanomanufacturing. We 

helped transform the INTOSAI Global Financial Crisis Task Force into a standing 

Working Group on Financial Modernization and Regulatory Reform, which GAO 

leads.

Human, Information, Fiscal, Technological, and Physical Resources

Proactively 

Protecting 

Physical and 

Information 

Security

Physical infrastructure. To replace an antiquated, stand-alone security system 

in our field locations, we rolled out an integrated electronic security system to 

10 of our 11 field offices, thereby providing a standard security footprint and 

consolidating security maintenance contracts. This 24-hour security monitoring 

system provides GAO senior leaders and first-responders the assessment 

capabilities required to make real-time, critical, immediate decisions in the event 

of an incident affecting one or all of these locations, and eliminates the need 

for an outside party to alert GAO to an incident by directly alerting the GAO 

headquarter’ security operations center with an alarm and a visual of that field 

office. In consolidating the maintenance contract for this system, we benefit 

from enhanced preventive and reactive maintenance response times for both 

catastrophic failures and routine maintenance calls, and the ability to deploy a 

standardized set of equipment for expeditious component replacement. In fiscal 

year 2013, the Defense Information Systems Agency inspected our Huntsville 

and Denver field offices for classified sites, and both earned an “Outstanding” 

rating (the highest rating possible) on their SIPRNET classified facilities. To 

maintain our headquarters building in peak condition and reduce energy usage, 

we began replacing eight air-handling units that are about 60 years old with 5 

new, high-efficiency, state-of-the-art units. Two units have been installed and are 

operational; the remaining units will be installed in 2014. 

Information security. To reduce travel time to the Pentagon and other sites 

where classified engagement work is being conducted, we launched a new secure 

video teleconferencing capability for our headquarters staff to meet via a secure 

video feed. We entered into an agreement with OPM to utilize the e-Delivery 

process to obtain completed reports
GAO-14-2SP 91

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

of investigations on GAO personnel and contractor support staff in a more 

expedited time frame, resulting in decreased paperwork, enhanced protection 

and storage of personally identifiable information, and increased timeliness in 

reviewing background investigations in support of employment suitability.

Leveraging 

Technology 

to Achieve 

Business 

Process 

Improvement 

and Efficiency 

Gains

Workplace tools. After deploying and stabilizing HR Connect in fiscal year 2012, 

we launched an effort in 2013 to correct long-standing human capital data issues, 

including resolution of data mismatches between HR Connect and National 

Finance Center (NFC) systems. Scheduled for completion in early 2014, this 

effort includes a long-term strategy to ensure data integrity and the adoption 

of HRConnect as GAO’s definitive source for all human capital data, and lays 

the foundation for significant improvements in the timeliness and availability 

of human capital data in all the systems GAO uses to derive such data. In 

conjunction with HR Connect, we expanded use of our business intelligence 

tool to seamlessly integrate human capital, engagement, and cost data from 

disparate systems to provide management more robust, timely information on 

the cost of GAO products, major programs and functions, and information on 

how staff are utilized. In addition, we leveraged the business intelligence tool to 

strengthen workforce planning reporting capabilities by including analysis on fulltime equivalent (FTE) actual data, and particularly on actual field office data—

previously not feasible—and analyses by various payroll resource combinations. 

Lastly, to conserve staff time, we developed and launched a tool that automates 

the preparation of GAO’s quarterly financial statements and runs edit checks to 

reduce errors.

Video-conferencing. As part of our ongoing effort to provide employees 

technology tools that further promote collaboration and enhance communication 

across locations, we expanded the rollout of, and training on, our online videoconferencing software to all GAO staff, and have deployed approximately 1,500 

webcams to both field- and headquarters-based staff. Employees can now quickly 

initiate, lead, and join video conferences with multiple participants from the 

office and remotely, improving their ability to share ideas; work on documents 

virtually, in real-time; and maintain a team-based focus. 

Intranet. To improve access to, and the administration of, internal videos, 

we deployed a new intranet video platform with full search capability and 

multiple live streaming channels, expanding employee access to live events and 

training opportunities. To assist analysts in effectively using visual elements to 

communicate a report’s message, and to ensure consistency in the way visual 

elements are created agency-wide, we developed and launched a new intranet 

website, Visuals@Work, with detailed information on GAO’s visual standards and 

technical guidance. In addition, we created and launched a new privacy website 

on GAO’s intranet to provide staff with information on how GAO protects personal 

privacy and to give employees the right to review and request corrections to 

their personally identifiable information in a timely, secure fashion.

Travel. We authored, coordinated, and facilitated the implementation of a 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the GSA that will allow GAO to access 

critical data to aid in long-range travel budget planning and decision making. The 

newly signed MOU is expected to help GAO calculate the best and most costeffective locations for hosting conferences and provide analysis on trends for 

possible travel-related cost reductions.

Internal communications. Recognizing the importance of keeping employees 

informed about significant, agencywide issues and responding to employee 

feedback for more robust communication, we rolled out a variety of new 

internal communications initiatives, including a highly visible box on the intranet 

homepage with important and timely updates from GAO’s executive leadership; 

held regular informal meetings with the Comptroller General and interested 
92 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

employees; and conducted two agencywide meetings broadcast to our field 

offices and employees working remotely that focused on updates from GAO 

executives and responded to employee questions. Other internal initiatives 

included detailed briefings given by our Chief Information Officer to staff on 

key IT initiatives planned over the next few years, and significant outreach by 

our Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) office, including 5 agencywide town 

hall meetings, 12 mission team briefings, and 8 executive-level lunches, to keep 

employees abreast of ongoing improvement projects and their status, and to 

glean buy-in and generate enthusiasm. 

Shutdown planning. To ensure a smooth yet rapid shutdown of GAO work 

and operations in the event of a government-wide shutdown, we updated and 

expanded upon critical planning documents that were developed during prior 

shutdown activities, including legal guidance and a framework for operations; 

utilized a central focal point and a central library of resource materials; and 

communicated often with key stakeholders and all employees ensuring that 

everyone was aware of responsibilities and time frames.

Customer Satisfaction. To make the results of our annual internal customer 

satisfaction survey more meaningful and actionable for managers and staff 

charged with improving GAO’s administrative services, we added questions to 

better identify and target field-specific problem areas, created a new IT Tools 

measure to more specifically gauge and track satisfaction with IT tools, and began 

calculating and reporting satisfaction with internal administrative services as a 

percentage of satisfaction rather than the mean on a 5-point scale; this reporting 

methodology is now consistent with how we report other internal survey metrics 

and is more easily interpreted.

Improving 

Management 

of Key 

Administrative 

Processes

Training. Building on the success of the three-tier Contracting Officer 

Representative (COR) training that we launched in fiscal year 2012, we required 

all CORs to complete three additional training sessions in fiscal year 2013—

Appropriations Law, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, and 

Procurement Ethics—further ensuring consistent and accurate contract oversight 

agencywide. 

Human capital. To improve human capital programs, workforce planning, and 

decision making on staff retention, we enhanced the formal Exit Survey we 

administer to departing employees by adding demographic measures such as 

race, ethnicity, band level, pay plan, and location to better assess reasons why 

employees leave GAO and to apply that knowledge to our retention strategies. 

To independently track various types of telework and improve our notification 

and data tracking capabilities, we launched an upgraded version of our time 

and attendance system. To improve the efficiency of the SES appraisal process 

and provide real-time reporting capability to the Executive Committee, we 

implemented a new database for managing this information.

Process improvement. Continuing the efforts started in fiscal year 2012 by our 

CPI office, we focused on formalizing and expanding CPI’s activities through the 

development of a number of foundational documents, a strategic plan, and the 

leadership board’s charter. To ensure we use a common, repeatable approach to 

our process improvement projects, we finalized a formal governance framework 

for conducting all initiatives under our purview. 

Budget. We achieved a 99.9 percent budget utilization rate for GAO’s 2013 

direct appropriations in a fiscally constrained and sequester-imposed year, and, 

unlike many federal agencies, avoided furloughs and provided staff opportunities 

through promotions and increased performance-based compensation. We oversaw 

several new contract awards that are projected to save GAO $1.5 million to $1.75 

million a year. We also recommended a change to GAO’s host accounting system
GAO-14-2SP 93

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

configuration to eliminate Treasury edit check variances; this recommendation is 

being implemented at the Enterprise Services Center as a baseline configuration 

change for all 20 of their federal client agencies. Moreover, we developed 

several reporting tools to allow more timely and accurate financial reporting; 

one resulting report, through automatic comparisons, identifies and highlights 

potential issues that likely need action, allowing our budget and accounting 

staff to more efficiently monitor financial performance. Lastly, we implemented 

processes to provide us a more robust view of our reimbursable programs within 

our financial management system. 

Enhancing 

Information 

Sharing and 

Collaboration 

with Internal 

Employee 

Organizations

We engaged with the employee organization, IFPTE Local 1921, and members 

of the Diversity Advisory Council and Employee Advisory Council to implement 

expansion of our telework program to reduce our office space needs and other 

ways to improve the management of our physical infrastructure in Boston, 

San Francisco, Seattle, and Los Angeles. In fiscal year 2012, we welcomed 

the establishment of a new bargaining unit with IFPTE Local 1921, for our 

administrative professional and support staff, and in fiscal year 2013, negotiated 

a grievance/arbitration procedure for this employee group. We are prepared to 

begin negotiations for an interim Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for this 

unit, upon request by the union, and to begin planning for negotiations for a 

master CBA. We updated the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between GAO 

and Tiny Findings (TFI), GAO’s child care provider, to reflect current processes 

and organizational commitments, and created a new operational manual to 

accompany the MOA that lays out the operational responsibilities and procedures 

that GAO and Tiny Findings have agreed to follow and review on an annual basis.

Source: GAO.

Data Quality

Verifying and Validating Performance Data

Each year, we measure our performance with indicators of the results of our work, client 

service, people management, and internal operations. To assess our performance, we use 

actual, rather than projected, data for almost all of our performance measures. We believe 

the data are complete and reliable based on our verification and validation procedures 

to ensure quality. The specific sources of the data for our annual performance measures, 

procedures for independently verifying and validating these data, and the limitations of 

these data are described in table 19 of the Appendix on Data Quality. 
94 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Performance Information

This page intentionally left blank
Serving the Congress and the Nation

Part III

Financial Information
96 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

From the Chief Financial Officer

December 16, 2013 

The Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) is the primary mechanism for us to report 

on our financial operations and provide transparency and accountability to the American 

people. The financial statements included in the PAR demonstrate our sound stewardship for 

the taxpayers’ dollars entrusted to us. 

I am pleased to report that we received an unmodified “clean” opinion on our fiscal year 2013 

consolidated financial statements for the 27th consecutive year. Our independent auditors 

found that GAO maintained, in all material aspects, effective internal controls over financial 

reporting, and our financial management systems substantially complied with the applicable 

requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996. The financial 

statements that follow were prepared, audited, and made publicly available as an integral 

part of this PAR. Their issuance was delayed 30 days due to the government-wide shutdown 

in October. Our fiscal year 2012 PAR received a certificate of excellence in accountability 

reporting from the Association of Government Accountants, an honor we have received each 

year since we first applied in fiscal year 2001, and a Best in Class Award for providing the 

“Most Comprehensive and Candid Presentation of Forward Looking Information.”

In fiscal year 2013, GAO’s operations were strained by the fiscal challenges facing the nation, 

with significant reductions in our funding level for the third consecutive year. We continued 

to address succession planning and critical skill gaps, optimize our processes, leverage 

technology to enhance efficiency and effectiveness, and ensure effective resource utilization. 

This year’s accomplishments included, but were not limited to, efforts to further optimize our 

field office space which has generated significant rent savings. We also continued to rollout 

our enhanced telework/workspace sharing program; improve our mobile technology, such as 

Webex and videoconfercing; and implemented agency-wide use of non-contract airfares when 

certain criteria are met.

For example, we expanded our enhanced Telework/workspace sharing pilots to six additional 

field locations, bringing the total to eight field offices. This year, we achieved a cost savings 

of $1.2 million and these savings are projected to cumulatively exceed $1.8 million in FY 

2014. In addition, our renovation of about 49,000 square feet of our headquarters space 

for occupancy by the Department of Justice Executive Office for United States Trustees, 

will yield about $2 million in rental income in FY 2014. We expect all of these initiatives to 

generate long-term financial and efficiency benefits for us.

Source: GAO.

From the Chief Financial Officer
GAO-14-2SP 97

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

From the Chief Financial Officer

We also expanded and optimized GAO’s human resources system, HR Connect, by deploying 

both the Manager Self Service and Employee Self Service components of the system. In FY 

2014, HR Connect will serve as the single integrated system that supports virtually all of the 

human capital functions and processes. This human capital data architecture will enable the 

timeliness and accuracy of personnel actions and management decision making. 

Our financial management system continues to be centered on Oracle Federal Financials, 

hosted, operated and supported by the Enterprise Services Center (ESC) at the Department 

of Transportation. ESC maintains the accounting system and performs our daily transaction 

processing. In 2013 we succeeded in leveraging some additional services provided by the ESC, 

such as moving the Travel Help Desk operations to ESC which reduced contractor support 

costs. We continue to look at other economies to transition to ESC in support of GAO 

operations such as reconciliation activities in an effort to continue to reduce overhead costs 

and allow staff to shift focus to analytics. 

Our Financial Management Office continues to work in coordination with ESC while ESC 

upgrades Oracle Federal Financials to the version R12. Oracle R12 is scheduled to become 

operational in May 2014. Additionally, in collaboration with ESC, GAO continues to plan the 

implementation of the latest eGov Travel System. The new contract for eGov Travel Services 

was awarded by the General Services Administration late in 2012. These system changes and 

upgrades are expected to provide us with improved operational and reporting capabilities. 

In the area of internal controls, we continued performing testing that is consistent with 

the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123, Management’s Responsibility for 

Internal Control, for key business cycles such as financial reporting and payroll. To ensure 

the integrity of financial data and the appropriate levels of authorization, we continued 

testing the life-cycle of transactions from initial request and procurement, through the 

receipt of goods and services to payment. These tests validate compliance, effectiveness 

and efficiency, and proper financial reporting. We also reviewed the independent auditors’ 

reports of our service providers to ensure that we are able to proactively address any issues 

with appropriate compensating controls. 

All of these efforts contributed to our independent auditors providing a favorable opinion on 

the effectiveness of our internal controls again this year. Going forward, we will continue to 

implement important initiatives throughout the agency to improve the performance of our 

operations and the accountability of our employees. By focusing on measurable results we 

can further our ability to meet the highest priority needs of the Congress and maintain the 

quality, timeliness and usefulness of our reports, testimonies, briefings and other products 

and services.

Cheryl B. Whitaker

Acting Chief Administrative Officer/ 

Chief Financial Officer
98 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Audit Advisory Committee’s Report

Audit Advisory Committee’s Report

The Audit Advisory Committee (the Committee) assists the Comptroller General in 

overseeing the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) financial operations. As 

part of that responsibility, the Committee meets with agency management, its Inspector 

General, and its external auditors to review and discuss GAO’s external financial audit 

coverage, the effectiveness of GAO’s internal controls over its financial operations, and 

its compliance with certain laws and regulations that could materially impact GAO’s 

financial statements. GAO’s external auditors are responsible for expressing an opinion 

on the conformity of GAO’s audited financial statements with the U.S. generally accepted 

accounting principles. The Committee reviews the findings of the Inspector General and 

external auditors, and GAO’s responses to those findings, to ensure that GAO’s plan for 

corrective action includes appropriate and timely follow-up measures. In addition, the 

Committee reviews the draft Performance and Accountability Report, including its financial 

statements, and provides comments to management who have primary responsibility for 

the Performance and Accountability Report. The Committee met three times with respect 

to its responsibilities as described above. During these sessions, the Committee met with 

the Inspector General and external auditors without GAO management being present and 

discussed with the external auditors the matters that are required to be discussed by 

generally accepted auditing standards. Based on procedures performed as outlined above, 

the Committee recommends that GAO’s audited statements and footnotes be included in 

the 2013 Performance and Accountability Report.

Michael A. Nemeroff

Chair

Audit Advisory Committee
GAO-14-2SP 99

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

Independent Auditor’s Report

1

CliftonLarsonAllen LLP 

www.cliftonlarsonallen.com

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT 

Comptroller General of the United States 

In our audits of the fiscal years (FY) 2013 and 2012 financial statements of the United States 

Government Accountability Office (GAO), we found: 

 The financial statements are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with 

accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (U.S.); 

 GAO maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial 

reporting; 

 GAO’s financial management systems substantially complied with the applicable 

requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA); 

and

 No reportable noncompliance with certain provisions of applicable laws, regulations, 

contracts, and grant agreements tested. 

The following sections discuss in more detail (1) these conclusions, (2) Management’s 

Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) and other information included with the financial statements, 

(3) management’s responsibilities, and (4) our responsibilities. 

Report on the Financial Statements and Internal Control over Financial Reporting 

We have audited the accompanying financial statements of GAO, which comprise the balance 

sheets as of September 30, 2013 and 2012, and the related statements of net cost and changes 

in net position, the statements of budgetary resources for the years then ended, and the related 

notes to the financial statements. We have also audited GAO’s internal control over financial 

reporting as of September 30, 2013. 

Management’s Responsibilities 

GAO management is responsible for (1) the preparation and fair presentation of these financial 

statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S., (2) 

preparation, measurement, and presentation of the required supplementary information (RSI) in 

accordance with the accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S., (3) preparation and 

presentation of other information in documents containing the audited financial statements and 

auditors’ report, and consistency of that information with the audited financial statements and 

the RSI, (4) maintenance of effective internal control over financial reporting, including the
100 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT (Continued) 

2

design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair 

presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to 

fraud or error, and (5) evaluation of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting 

based on the criteria established under the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA). 

GAO management evaluated the effectiveness of GAO’s internal control over financial reporting 

as of September 30, 2013, based on criteria established under FMFIA. GAO management’s 

assertion based on its evaluation is included in the Introduction section of the Performance and 

Accountability Report (PAR). 

Auditors’ Responsibilities 

Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and an opinion on 

GAO’s internal control over financial reporting. We conducted our audits of the financial 

statements in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the U.S.; and the 

standards applicable to the financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued 

by the Comptroller General of the United States. We conducted our audit of internal control over 

financial reporting in accordance with attestation standards established by the American 

Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the standards applicable to audits of internal control 

contained in Government Auditing Standards. Those standards require that we plan and 

perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are 

free from material misstatement, and whether effective internal control over financial reporting 

was maintained in all material respects. We are also responsible for applying certain limited 

procedures with respect to the RSI and all other accompanying information included with the 

financial statements. We conducted our audits in accordance with Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 14-02, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements (OMB 

Bulletin 14-02). 

An audit of financial statements involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about 

the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on 

the auditor’s judgment, including the auditor’s assessment of the risks of material misstatement 

of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the 

auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation of the 

financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the 

circumstances. An audit of financial statements also involves evaluating the appropriateness of 

the accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made 

by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. An 

audit of internal control over financial reporting includes obtaining an understanding of internal 

control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, evaluating 

the design and operating effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting based on the 

assessed risk, and testing relevant internal control over financial reporting. Our audit of internal 

control also considered the entity’s process for evaluating and reporting on internal control over 

financial reporting based on criteria established under FMFIA. Our audits also included 

performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. 

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a 

basis for our audit opinions. 

We did not evaluate all internal controls relevant to operating objectives as broadly established 

under FMFIA, such as those controls relevant to preparing performance information and 

ensuring efficient operations. We limited our internal control testing to testing controls over 

financial reporting. Our internal control testing was for the purpose of expressing an opinion on 
GAO-14-2SP 101

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT (Continued) 

3

the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and may not be sufficient for other 

purposes. 

Definition of Internal Control and Inherent Limitations 

An entity’s internal control over financial reporting is a process effected by those charged with 

governance, management, and other personnel, the objectives of which are to provide 

reasonable assurance that (1) transactions are properly recorded, processed, and summarized 

to permit the preparation of financial statements in accordance with accounting principles 

generally accepted in the U.S., (2) assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized 

acquisition, use, or disposition, and (3) transactions are executed in accordance with laws 

governing the use of budget authority and with other applicable laws, regulations, contracts and 

grant agreements that could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. 

Because of inherent limitations, internal control may not prevent, or detect and correct, 

misstatements due to fraud or error. We also caution that projecting any evaluation of 

effectiveness to future periods is subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate 

because of changes in conditions or that the degree of compliance with the policies or 

procedures may deteriorate. 

Opinion on the Financial Statements 

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, 

the financial position of GAO as of September 30, 2013 and 2012, and its net costs, changes in 

net position, and budgetary resources for the years then ended, in accordance with accounting 

principles generally accepted in the U.S. 

Opinion on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

In our opinion, GAO maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial 

reporting as of September 30, 2013, that provided reasonable assurance that misstatements, 

losses, or noncompliance material in relation to the financial statements would be prevented, or 

detected and corrected, on a timely basis. Our opinion on internal control is based on criteria 

established under 31 U.S.C. 3512 (c), (d), commonly known as the FMFIA. 

Other Matters 

Required Supplementary Information

Accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. require that GAO’s MD&A, also regarded 

as RSI, included as Part I of the PAR, be presented to supplement the financial statements. 

Such information, although not a part of the financial statements, is required by the Federal 

Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), who considers it to be an essential part of 

financial reporting for placing the financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, 

or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the MD&A in accordance 

with auditing standards generally accepted in the U.S., which consisted of inquiries of 

management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for 

consistency with management's responses to our inquiries, the financial statements, and other 

knowledge we obtained during our audit of the financial statements. We do not express an 

opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not 

provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. 
102 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT (Continued) 

4

Other Information

Other information included in the PAR, other than the basic financial statements, MD&A, and 

the auditors’ report, contains a wide range of information, some of which is not directly related to 

the financial statements. This information is presented for additional analysis and is not a 

required part of the basic financial statements or RSI. This information has not been subjected 

to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements, and accordingly, we 

do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it. 

Reports on Systems’ Compliance with FFMIA and Compliance with Laws, Regulations, 

Contracts, and Grant Agreements Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed 

in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards

Report on Systems’ Compliance with FFMIA Requirements 

We have audited GAO’s financial management systems’ compliance with FFMIA requirements 

as of September 30, 2013. The objective of our audit was to express an opinion on whether 

GAO’s financial management systems substantially complied with the requirements in section 

803a of FFMIA as outlined in the following areas: (1) federal financial management systems 

requirements, (2) federal accounting standards, and (3) the United States Government Standard 

General Ledger (USSGL) at the transaction level. 

Management’s Responsibility

Management is responsible for implementing and maintaining financial management systems 

that comply substantially with FFMIA requirements. 

Auditor’s responsibility

Our responsibility is to express an opinion on GAO’s financial management systems’ 

compliance with the three FFMIA requirements based on our audit. 

We conducted our audit of GAO’s compliance with FFMIA requirements in accordance with 

auditing standards generally accepted in the U.S.; and the standards applicable to the financial 

audits contained in Government Auditing Standards. Under those standards, we planned and 

performed the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial management 

systems substantially complied with the three requirements of FFMIA. A compliance audit 

includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the entity’s compliance with those 

requirements and performing such other procedures as we consider necessary in the 

circumstance. Our audit does not provide a legal determination of GAO’s compliance. 

We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

Opinion on Systems’ Compliance with FFMIA

In our opinion, GAO’s financial management systems substantially complied with the applicable 

requirements of FFMIA. Our opinion is based on criteria established under FFMIA for federal 

financial management systems. 
GAO-14-2SP 103

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT (Continued) 

5

Report on Compliance with Laws, Regulations, Contracts, and Grant Agreements 

In connection with our audits of the financial statements, we performed tests of GAO’s 

compliance with certain provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant 

agreements that have a direct effect on the determination of material amounts and disclosures 

in the financial statements. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions 

was not an objective of our tests, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. We 

performed our tests of compliance in accordance with Government Auditing Standards.

Management’s Responsibility

Management is responsible for complying with laws, regulations, contracts, and grant 

agreements applicable to GAO. 

Auditors’ Responsibility

We are responsible for testing compliance with selected provisions of laws, regulations, 

contracts, and grant agreements applicable to GAO that have a direct effect on the 

determination of material amounts and disclosures in the financial statements and applicable 

laws for which OMB Bulletin 14-02 requires testing, and for performing certain other limited 

procedures. Accordingly, we did not test compliance with all laws, regulations, contracts, and 

grant agreements applicable to GAO. We caution that noncompliance may occur and not be 

detected by these tests and that such testing may not be sufficient for other purposes. 

Results of Tests of Compliance with Laws, Regulations, Contracts, and Grant Agreements

Our tests for compliance with selected provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and 

grant agreements disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters for the year ended 

September 30, 2013 that are required to be reported in accordance with Government Auditing 

Standards.

Purpose of the Report on Compliance with Laws, Regulations, Contracts, and Grant 

Agreements

The purpose of the Report on Compliance with Laws, Regulations, Contracts, and Grant 

Agreements section of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of compliance 

with selected provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, and 

the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on GAO’s compliance. This report is an 

integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in 

a 

considering GAO’s compliance. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose. 

Calverton, Maryland 

December 12, 2013 
104 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

Purpose of Each Financial Statement

The financial statements on the next four pages present the following information:

■ The balance sheet presents the combined amounts we had available to use (assets) 

versus the amounts we owed (liabilities) and the residual amounts after liabilities were 

subtracted from assets (net position).

■ The statement of net cost presents the annual cost of our operations. The gross cost 

less any offsetting revenue earned from our activities is used to arrive at the net cost of 

work performed under our four strategic goals.

■ The statement of changes in net position presents the accounting items that caused the 

net position section of the balance sheet to change from the beginning to the end of 

the fiscal year.

■ The statement of budgetary resources presents how budgetary resources were made 

available to us during the fiscal year and the status of those resources at the end of the 

fiscal year.
GAO-14-2SP 105

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

Financial Statements

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Balance Sheets

As of September 30, 2013 and 2012

(Dollars in thousands)

2013 2012 

Assets

Intragovernmental

 Funds with the U.S. Treasury (Note 3) $67,267 $85,341 

 Accounts receivable 285 5,138 

Total Intragovernmental 67,552 90,479 

Property and equipment, net (Note 4) 26,679 31,388 

Other 437 578 

Total Assets $94,668 $122,445 

Liabilities

Intragovernmental

 Accounts payable $4,485 $5,619 

 Advances from others (Note 8) - 2,233 

	 	 Employee benefits (Note 6) 1,734 4,380 

 Workers' compensation (Note 7) 2,595 2,637 

Total Intragovernmental 8,814 14,869 

Accounts payable and other 10,896 10,836 

	 Salaries and benefits (Note 6) 10,032 22,288 

Accrued annual leave (Note 5) 31,284 31,067 

Actuarial FECA liability (Note 7) 16,714 15,959 

Note payable (Note 5) - 2,198 

Total Liabilities 77,740 97,217 

Net Position

Unexpended appropriations 26,616 31,496 

Cumulative results of operations (9,688) (6,268)

Total Net Position (Note 13) 16,928 25,228 

Total Liabilities and Net Position $94,668 $122,445 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
106 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

Financial Statements

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Statements of Net Cost

For Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2013 and 2012

(Dollars in thousands)

2013 2012 

Net Costs by Goal (Note 2)

Goal 1: Well-being/Financial Security of American People $216,248 $216,771 

 Less: reimbursable services (1,002) (1,169)

 Net goal costs 215,246 215,602 

Goal 2: Changing Security Threats/Challenges of Global 

 Interdependence

 137,333 132,581 

 Less: reimbursable services - - 

 Net goal costs 137,333 132,581 

Goal 3: Transforming the Federal Government’s Role 147,127 161,839 

 Less: reimbursable services (15,343) (21,659)

 Net goal costs 131,784 140,180 

Goal 4: Maximize the Value of GAO 14,429 18,555 

 Less: reimbursable services - - 

 Net goal costs 14,429 18,555 

Other Costs in Support of the Congress 28,527 25,672 

 Less: reimbursable services (1,287) (1,252)

 Net costs 27,240 24,420 

Less: reimbursable services not attributable to above cost 

categories (10,953) (7,206)

Net Cost of Operations (Note 10) $515,079 $524,132 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
GAO-14-2SP 107

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

Financial Statements

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Statements of Changes in Net Position

For Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2013 and 2012

(Dollars in thousands)

2013 2012 

Cumulative Results of Operations, Beginning of fiscal year ($6,268) ($12,853)

Budgetary Financing Sources - Appropriations used 484,847 505,633 

Other Financing Sources

Federal employee retirement benefit costs paid by OPM

 and imputed to GAO (Note 6) 26,874 25,084 

Transfers Out (62) - 

Total Financing Sources 511,659 530,717 

Net Cost of Operations 515,079 524,132 

Net Change (3,420) 6,585 

Cumulative Results of Operations, End of fiscal year (9,688) (6,268)

Unexpended Appropriations, Beginning of fiscal year 31,496 29,701 

Budgetary Financing Sources and Uses

Current year appropriations 506,282 511,296 

Appropriations transferred in (Note 11) 419 250 

Appropriations permanently not available (26,734) (4,118)

Appropriations used (484,847) (505,633)

Total Unexpended Appropriations, End of fiscal year 26,616 31,496 

Net Position $16,928 $25,228 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
108 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

Financial Statements

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Statements of Budgetary Resources

For Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2013 and 2012

(Dollars in thousands)

2013 2012 

Budgetary Resources (Note 11)

Unobligated balance, brought forward October 1 $31,994 $18,894 

Adjustment of Unobligated balance, brought forward October 1 - - 

 Unobligated balance, brought forward October 1, as adjusted 31,994 18,894 

Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations 9,067 10,509 

Other changes in unobligated balances (+ or -) - (4,118)

Unobligated balance from prior year budget authority, net 41,061 25,285 

Appropriations 479,967 511,546 

Spending authority from offsetting collections 25,718 37,967 

Total Budgetary Resources $546,746 $574,798 

Status of Budgetary Resources

Obligations Incurred $524,641 $542,804 

Unobligated balance, end of year:

Apportioned 4,689 9,737 

 Unapportioned 17,416 22,257 

Unobligated balance, end of year 22,105 31,994 

Total Status of Budgetary Resources $546,746 $574,798 

Change in Obligated Balances

Unpaid Obligations: 

Unpaid obligations, brought forward, October 1 $67,413 $73,783 

Obligations incurred 524,641 542,804 

Gross outlays (529,741) (538,665)

Recoveries of prior-year unpaid obligations (9,067) (10,509)

Unpaid obligations, end of year $53,246 $67,413 

Uncollected Payments:

Uncollected customer payments from Federal sources, brought forward, October 1 ($14,063) ($8,413)

Change in uncollected customer payments from Federal sources 5,981 (5,650)

Uncollected customer payments from Federal sources, end of year ($8,082) ($14,063)

Obligated balance, start of year $53,350 $65,370 

Obligated balance, end of year $45,164 $53,350 

Budget Authority and Outlays, Net

Budget authority, gross $505,685 $549,513 

Actual offsetting collections (31,699) (32,317)

Change in uncollected customer payments from Federal sources 5,981 (5,650)

Budget authority, net $479,967 $511,546 

Outlays, gross $529,741 $538,665 

Actual offsetting collections (31,699) (32,317)

Outlays, net $498,042 $506,348 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
GAO-14-2SP 109

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

Notes to Financial Statements

Note 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Reporting Entity

The accompanying financial statements present the financial position, net cost of 

operations, changes in net position, and budgetary resources of the United States 

Government Accountability Office (GAO). GAO, an agency in the legislative branch 

of the federal government, supports the Congress in carrying out its constitutional 

responsibilities. GAO carries out its mission primarily by conducting audits, evaluations, 

analyses, research, and investigations and providing the information from that work 

to the Congress and the public in a variety of forms. The financial activity presented 

relates primarily to the execution of GAO’s congressionally approved budget. GAO’s 

budget consists of an annual appropriation covering salaries and expenses as well as 

revenue from reimbursable audit services and rental income. The revenue from audit 

services and rental income is presented on the statements of net cost as “reimbursable 

services” and included as part of “spending authority from offsetting collections” on the 

statements of budgetary resources. The financial statements, except for federal employee 

benefit costs paid by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and imputed to GAO, 

do not include the effects of centrally administered assets and liabilities related to the 

federal government as a whole, such as interest on the federal debt, which may in part 

be attributable to GAO. The Davis-Bacon Act trust’s assets, related liabilities, revenues, 

and costs related to beneficiary payments are not those of GAO and therefore are not 

included in the accompanying financial statements. See Note 14, Davis-Bacon Act Trust 

Function.

Basis of Accounting

GAO’s financial statements have been prepared on the accrual basis and the budgetary 

basis of accounting in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles for the 

federal government. Accordingly, revenues are recognized when earned and expenses 

are recognized when incurred, without regard to the receipt or payment of cash. These 

principles differ from budgetary reporting principles. The differences relate primarily to 

the capitalization and depreciation of property and equipment, as well as the recognition 

of other long-term assets and liabilities. The statements were also prepared in accordance 

with OMB Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements, as amended. 

Assets

Intragovernmental assets are those assets that arise from transactions with other federal 

entities. Funds with the U.S. Treasury comprise the majority of intragovernmental assets 

on GAO’s balance sheets.

Funds with the U.S. Treasury

The U.S. Treasury processes GAO’s receipts and disbursements. Funds with the U.S. 

Treasury represent appropriated funds Treasury will provide to pay liabilities and to 

finance authorized purchase commitments.
110 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

Accounts Receivable

GAO’s accounts receivable are due principally from federal agencies for reimbursable 

services; therefore, GAO has not established an allowance for doubtful accounts. 

Property and Equipment

The GAO headquarters building qualifies as a multiuse heritage asset, is GAO’s only 

heritage asset, and is reported with property and equipment on the balance sheets. The 

building’s designation as a multiuse heritage asset is a result of both being listed in the 

National Register of Historic Places and being used in general government operations. 

Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 29 requires accounting for 

multiuse heritage assets as general property, plant, and equipment to be included in the 

balance sheet and depreciated. Maintenance of the building has been kept on a current 

basis. The building is depreciated on a straight-line basis over 25 years. 

Generally, property and equipment individually costing more than $15,000 are capitalized 

at cost. Building improvements and leasehold improvements are capitalized when the 

cost is $25,000 or greater. Bulk purchases of lesser-value items that aggregate more than 

$150,000 are also capitalized at cost. Assets are depreciated on a straight-line basis over 

the estimated useful life of the property as follows: building improvements, 10 years; 

computer equipment, software, and capital lease assets, ranging from 3 to 6 years; 

leasehold improvements, 5 years; and other equipment, ranging from 5 to 20 years. GAO’s 

property and equipment have no restrictions as to use or convertibility except for the 

restrictions related to the GAO building’s classification as a multiuse heritage asset. 

Liabilities

Liabilities represent amounts that are likely to be paid by GAO as a result of transactions 

that have already occurred. 

Accounts Payable

Accounts Payable consists of amounts owed to federal agencies and commercial vendors 

for goods and services received. 

Federal Employee Benefits

GAO recognizes its share of the cost of providing future pension benefits to eligible 

employees over the period of time that they render services to GAO. The pension expense 

recognized in the financial statements equals the current service cost for GAO’s employees 

for the accounting period less the amount contributed by the employees. OPM, the 

administrator of the plan, supplies GAO with factors to apply in the calculation of the 

service cost. These factors are derived through actuarial cost methods and assumptions. 

The excess of the recognized pension expense over the amount contributed by GAO 

and employees represents the amount being financed directly through the Civil Service 

Retirement and Disability Fund administered by OPM. This amount is considered imputed 

financing to GAO (see Note 6).

The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) provides income and medical cost 

protection to covered federal civilian employees injured on the job, employees who have 

incurred a work-related occupational disease, and beneficiaries of employees whose deaths 
GAO-14-2SP 111

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

are attributable to job-related injury or occupational disease. Claims incurred for benefits 

for GAO employees under FECA are administered by the Department of Labor (DOL) and 

are paid, ultimately, by GAO (see Note 7).

GAO recognizes a current-period expense for the future cost of postretirement health 

benefits and life insurance for its employees while they are still working. GAO accounts for 

and reports this expense in its financial statements in a manner similar to that used for 

pensions, with the exception that employees and GAO do not make current contributions 

to fund these future benefits.

Federal employee benefit costs paid by OPM and imputed to GAO are reported as a 

financing source on the statements of changes in net position and are also included as a 

component of net cost by goal on the statements of net cost.

Annual, Sick, and Other Leave

Annual leave is recognized as an expense and a liability as it is earned; the liability is 

reduced as leave is taken. The accrued leave liability is principally long term in nature. Sick 

leave and other types of leave are expensed as leave is taken. All leave is funded when 

taken. 

Contingencies

GAO has certain claims and lawsuits pending against it. GAO’s policy is to include provision 

in the financial statements for any losses considered probable and estimable. Management 

believes that losses from certain other claims and lawsuits are reasonably possible but are 

not material to the fair presentation of GAO’s financial statements, and provision for these 

losses is not included in the financial statements. 

Estimates

Management has made certain estimates and assumptions when reporting assets, liabilities, 

revenue, expenses, and in the note disclosures. Actual results could differ from these 

estimates. 

Reclassifications

Certain prior year amounts in the financial statements and footnotes have been reclassified 

to conform to the current year presentation. 

Change in Methodology

During fiscal year 2013, GAO changed its methodology for calculating upward/downward 

adjustments of prior year obligations that have been adjusted in the current year (from 

a monthly calculation to a quarterly calculation). These adjustments are reflected on the 

Statement of Budgetary Resources as “Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations” and 

“Obligations Incurred.” We changed methodologies to be consistent with the timing of 

quarterly accruals.
112 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

Note 2. Intragovernmental and Public Costs and Revenue

Intragovernmental transactions arise from transactions made between two reporting 

entities within the federal government in contrast with public transactions, which arise from 

transactions made with a nonfederal entity. Intragovernmental and public costs and earned 

revenue for the periods ended September 30, 2013, and September 30, 2012, are as follows: 

Dollars in thousands

 2013 2012

Goal 1: Well-being/Financial Security of American People

Intragovernmental costs $55,611 $52,140

Public costs 160,637 164,631

Total goal 1 costs 216,248 216,771

Goal 1 intragovernmental earned revenue (1,002) (1,169)

Net goal 1 costs 215,246 215,602

Goal 2: Changing Security Threats/Challenges of Global Interdependence

Intragovernmental costs 35,758 31,896

Public costs 101,575 100,685

Total goal 2 costs 137,333 132,581

Goal 3: Transforming the Federal Government’s Role

Intragovernmental costs 36,838 43,266

Public costs 110,289 118,573

Total goal 3 costs 147,127 161,839

Intragovernmental earned revenue (15,343) (21,659)

Net goal 3 costs 131,784 140,180

Goal 4: Maximize the Value of GAO

Intragovernmental costs 3,443 3,516

Public costs 10,986 15,039

Total goal 4 costs 14,429 18,555

Other Costs in Support of the Congress

Intragovernmental costs 10,811 9,756

Public costs 17,716 15,916

Total other costs 28,527 25,672

Related intragovernmental earned revenue (1,287) (1,252)

Net other costs 27,240 24,420

Earned revenue not attributable to above cost categories

Intragovernmental (10,812) (6,976)

Public (141) (230)

Total earned revenue not attributable to goals ($10,953) ($7,206)

Goals 2 and 4 have no associated intragovernmental revenues and all public earned 

revenue collected is not attributable to Goals or Other Costs. 
GAO-14-2SP 113

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

Note 3. Funds with the U.S. Treasury

GAO’s funds with the U.S. Treasury consist of only appropriated funds. The status of these 

funds as of September 30, 2013, and September 30, 2012, is as follows:

Dollars in thousands

2013 2012

Unobligated balance

Available $4,689 $9,737

Unavailable 17,414 22,254

Obligated balances not yet disbursed 45,164 53,350 

Total funds with U.S. Treasury $67,267 $85,341

Note 4. Property and Equipment, Net

The composition of property and equipment as of September 30, 2013, is as follows:

Dollars in thousands

Classes of property and equipment Acquisition value Accumulated depreciation Book value

Land $1,191 – $1,191

Building and Improvements 125,649 $106,676 18,973

Computer and other

equipment and software 58,646 52,362 6,284

Leasehold improvements 3,650 3,419 231

Total property and equipment $189,136 $162,457 $26,679

Depreciation expense for property and equipment for fiscal year 2013: $7,369,000. During 

fiscal year 2013 a review of building improvements carried on the books was performed 

and, as a result, capitalized improvements, which for the most part were fully depreciated, 

of approximately $17,300,000 gross value, and $30,000 net book value, were removed from 

property and equipment balances.

The composition of property and equipment as of September 30, 2012, is as follows:

Dollars in thousands

Classes of property and equipment Acquisition value Accumulated depreciation Book value

Land $1,191 – $1,191

Building and Improvements 141,000 $119,754 21,246

Computer and other

equipment and software 62,686 53,799 8,887

Leasehold improvements 4,345 4,281 64

Total property and equipment $209,222 $177,834 $31,388

Depreciation expense for property and equipment for fiscal year 2012: $8,419,000.
114 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

Note 5. Liabilities Not Covered by Budgetary Resources

The liabilities on GAO’s balance sheets include liabilities not covered by budgetary 

resources, which are liabilities for which congressional action is needed before budgetary 

resources can be provided. Although future appropriations to fund these liabilities are 

likely and anticipated, it is not certain that appropriations will be enacted to fund 

these liabilities. The composition of liabilities not covered by budgetary resources as of 

September 30, 2013, and September 30, 2012, is as follows:

Dollars in thousands

 2013 2012

Intragovernmental liabilities—Workers’ compensation $2,595 $2,637

Salaries and benefits—Comptrollers’ General retirement plan* 1,324 1,386

Accrued annual leave 31,284 31,067

Workers’ compensation** 16,714 15,959

Note payable - 2,198 

Total liabilities not covered by budgetary resources $51,917 $53,247

* See Note 6 for further discussion of the Comptrollers’ General retirement plan.

** See Note 7 for further discussion of workers’ compensation.

In fiscal year 2011 GAO entered into an agreement to finance the replacement of the 

building’s hot water boilers under the Federal Energy Management Program following 

Section 201(a)(3) of the Federal Property Act. Financing guidance under this program allows 

participating agencies to obligate only the annual payments. The balance of this note 

payable of $2,198,000 was paid in fiscal year 2013. 

Note 6. Federal Employee Benefits

All permanent employees participate in either the contributory Civil Service Retirement 

System (CSRS) or the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). Temporary employees 

and employees participating in FERS are covered under the Federal Insurance Contributions 

Act (FICA). To the extent that employees are covered by FICA, the taxes they pay to the 

program and the benefits they will eventually receive are not recognized in GAO’s financial 

statements. GAO makes contributions to CSRS, FERS, and FICA and matches certain 

employee contributions to the thrift savings component of FERS. All of these payments are 

recognized as operating expenses. 

In addition, all permanent employees are eligible to participate in the contributory 

Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) and the Federal Employees Group Life 

Insurance (FEGLI) Program and may continue to participate after retirement. GAO makes 

contributions through OPM to FEHBP and FEGLI for active employees to pay for their 

current benefits. GAO’s contributions for active employees are recognized as operating 

expenses. Using the cost factors supplied by OPM, GAO has also recognized an expense in 

its financial statements for the estimated future cost of postretirement health benefits and 

life insurance for its employees. These costs are financed by OPM and imputed to GAO. 
GAO-14-2SP 115

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

Amounts owed to OPM and Treasury as of September 30, 2013, and September 30, 2012, 

are $1,734,000 and $4,380,000, respectively, for FEHBP, FEGLI, FICA, FERS, and CSRS 

contributions and are shown on the balance sheets as an employee benefits liability.

Details of the major components of GAO’s federal employee benefit costs for the periods 

ended September 30, 2013, and September 30, 2012, are as follows:

Dollars in thousands

Federal employee benefits costs 2013 2012

Federal employee retirement benefit costs paid by OPM and imputed to GAO:

Estimated future pension costs (CSRS/FERS) $13,648 $9,519 

Estimated future postretirement health and life insurance (FEHBP/FEGLI) 13,226 15,565 

Total $26,874 $25,084

Pension expenses (CSRS/FERS) $35,697 $36,538

Health and life insurance expenses (FEHBP/FEGLI) $20,562 $20,434

FICA and Medicare payments made by GAO $19,800 $19,788

Thrift Savings Plan – matching contribution by GAO $12,871 $12,937

Comptrollers general and their surviving beneficiaries who qualify, and so elect to 

participate, are paid retirement benefits by GAO under a separate retirement plan. These 

benefits are paid from current year appropriations. Because GAO is responsible for future 

payments under this plan, the estimated present value of accumulated plan benefits of 

$1,324,000 as of September 30, 2013, and $1,386,000 as of September 30, 2012, is included 

as a component of salary and benefit liabilities on GAO’s balance sheets. The following 

summarizes the changes in the actuarial liability for current plan year: 

Dollars in thousands

Actuarial liability as of September 30, 2012 $1,386

Expense:

Interest on the liability balance 50

Actuarial loss:

From experience 44

From assumption changes 15 

Total expense 109

Less benefits paid (171)

Actuarial liability as of September 30, 2013 $1,324
116 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

Note 7. Workers’ Compensation

GAO utilizes the services of an independent actuarial firm to calculate its FECA liability. 

GAO recorded an estimated liability for claims incurred but not reported as of September 

30, 2013, and September 30, 2012, which is expected to be paid in future periods. This 

estimated liability of $16,714,000 and $15,959,000 as of September 30, 2013, and September 

30, 2012, respectively, is reported on GAO’s balance sheets. GAO also recorded a liability 

for amounts paid to claimants by DOL as of September 30, 2013, and September 30, 2012, 

of $2,595,000 and $2,637,000, respectively, but not yet reimbursed to DOL by GAO. The 

amount owed to DOL is reported on GAO’s balance sheets as an intragovernmental liability.

Note 8. Building Lease Revenue

In fiscal year 2011 GAO entered into a 10-year lease agreement with U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) to continue to lease the entire third floor, and part of the sixth floor, 

of the GAO building. The period of this agreement began in fiscal year 2011 with an option 

to renew each year through fiscal year 2020. Total rental revenue to GAO includes a fixed 

base rent plus operating expense reimbursements, with escalation clauses each year, if the 

option years are exercised. 

In fiscal year 2012 GAO entered into a 10-year lease with the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

to lease part of the first and sixth floors of the GAO headquarters building. The period of 

this lease began in fiscal year 2012 with an option to renew each year through fiscal 2022. 

In fiscal year 2012, GAO received $2,175,000 from DOJ as advance payment for construction 

which was completed in January 2013 when DOJ occupied the space. The balance sheet 

reflects this payment as the majority of the intragovernmental liability line “Advances from 

Others” in fiscal year 2012. 

Rental revenue from space leased at GAO headquarters for fiscal years 2013 and 2012 

was $8,561,099 (USACE full fiscal year and DOJ from January through September 2013) 

and $6,928,000 (USACE full fiscal year), respectively. These amounts are shown on 

the statements of net cost as “Reimbursable services not attributable to above cost 

categories.” Total rental revenue for the future periods from both USACE and DOJ is as 

follows: 

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year ending September 30 Total projected receipts*

2014 $9,178

2015 9,286

2016 9,395

2017 9,509

2018 9,626

2019 - 2022 24,019

Total $71,013

*If option years are exercised.
GAO-14-2SP 117

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

Note 9. Leases

Operating Leases

GAO leases office space, predominately for field offices, from the General Services 

Administration and has entered into various other operating leases for office 

communication and computer equipment. Lease costs for office space and equipment 

for fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2012 amounted to approximately $11,452,000 and 

$12,670,000, respectively. Leases for equipment under operating leases are generally 

for less than 1 year; therefore there are no associated future minimum lease payments. 

Annual lease costs under the operating leases are included as components of net cost in 

the statements of net cost. Estimated future minimum lease payments for field office space 

under the current terms of the leases, which range from 1 to 10 years, are presented in 

the table below. 

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year ending September 30 Total

2014 $7,143

2015 4,502

2016 3,010

2017 3,044

2018 1,553

2019 and thereafter 2,529 

Total estimated future lease payments $21,781

Note 10. Net Cost of Operations

Expenses for salaries and related benefits, net of reimbursable collections, for fiscal year 

2013 and fiscal year 2012 amounted to $428,826,000 and $426,429,000, respectively, about 

83 percent and 81 percent of GAO’s net cost of operations for fiscal years 2013 and 2012, 

respectively. Included in the net cost of operations are federal employee benefit costs paid 

by OPM and imputed to GAO of $26,874,000 in fiscal year 2013 and $25,084,000 in fiscal 

year 2012. 

Revenues from reimbursable services are shown as an offset against the full cost to 

arrive at net cost. Earned revenues that are insignificant or cannot be associated with a 

major goal or other cost category are shown in total, the largest component of which is 

rental revenue from the lease of space in the GAO building. Revenues from reimbursable 

services for fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2012 amounted to $28,585,000 and $31,286,000, 

respectively. Further details of the intragovernmental components are provided in Note 2.

The net cost of operations represents GAO’s operating costs that must be funded by 

financing sources other than revenues earned from reimbursable services. These financing 

sources are presented in the statements of changes in net position. 
118 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

“Other costs in support of the Congress” represents costs of work which directly supports 

Congress and which represents GAO’s fulfillment of its statutory responsibilities but which is 

not engagement specific. Examples of this work include support of the Federal Accounting 

Standards Advisory Board, General Counsel statutory bid protest decision writing function, 

recommendation follow up work, and other direct support to Congress. 

Note 11. Budgetary Resources

Budgetary resources available to GAO during fiscal year 2013 include current year 

appropriations, prior years’ unobligated balances, reimbursements earned by GAO from 

providing goods and services to other federal entities for a price (reimbursable services), 

and cost-sharing arrangements with other federal entities. 

Earned reimbursements consist primarily of rent collected from USACE and DOJ for lease 

of space and related services in the GAO headquarters building as well as certain program 

and financial audits of federal entities, including components of the Department of the 

Treasury, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Federal Housing Finance Agency. Earned 

revenue from rent is available indefinitely, subject to annual obligation ceilings, and 

must be used to offset the cost of operating and maintaining the GAO headquarters 

building. Reimbursements from program and financial audits are available without 

limitations on their use and may be subject to annual obligation ceilings. GAO’s pricing 

policy for reimbursable services is to seek reimbursement for actual costs incurred, 

including overhead costs where allowed by law. The decrease in “Accounts Receivableintragovernmental” on the Balance Sheet from fiscal year 2012 to 2013 is due to the 

improved timeliness of billing and collections for interagency agreements. 

Fiscal year 2013 budgetary resources include $419,000 of budget authority transferred 

to GAO’s Inspector General Office to carry out the duties of the Inspector General of 

the Commission on Civil Rights. During fiscal year 2012 the corresponding amount was 

$250,000. 

Comparison of GAO’s fiscal year 2012 statement of budgetary resources with the 

corresponding information presented in the 2014 President’s Budget is as follows: 

Dollars in thousands

Budgetary resources Obligations incurred

Fiscal year 2012 statement of budgetary resources $574,798 $542,804

Unobligated balances, beginning of year – (funds activity, 

 expired accounts) (9,140) -

Recovery of prior year unpaid obligations (10,509) -

Permanently not available –(funds activity, expired accounts) 4,118 -

Spending authority from offsetting collections (funds activity, 

 expired accounts) (88) -

Other – rounding in President’s Budget 821 196 

2014 President’s Budget – fiscal year 2012, actual $560,000 $543,000
GAO-14-2SP 119

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

As the fiscal year 2015 President’s Budget will not be published until February 2014, a 

comparison between the fiscal year 2013 data reflected on the statement of budgetary 

resources and fiscal year 2013 data in the President’s Budget cannot be performed, though 

we expect similar differences will exist. The fiscal year 2015 President’s Budget will be 

available on the OMB’s website and directly from the Government Printing Office.

Budgetary resources obligated for undelivered orders at the end of fiscal year 2013 and 

the end of fiscal year 2012 totaled $29,788,000 and $25,682,000, respectively. GAO’s 

apportionments fall under Category A, quarterly apportionment. Apportionment categories 

of obligations incurred for fiscal years 2013 and 2012 are as follows:

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year ending September 30 2013 2012

Direct – Category A $488,294 $521,026

Reimbursable – Category A 36,347 21,778 

Total obligations incurred $524,641 $542,804
120 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

Note 12. Reconciliation of Net Costs of Operations to Budget

Details of the relationship between budgetary resources obligated and the net costs of 

operations for the fiscal years ending September 30, 2013 and 2012 are as follows: 

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year ending September 30 2013 2012

Resources used to finance activities

Budgetary resources obligated

Obligations incurred $524,641 $542,804

Less: spending authority from offsetting collections and recoveries (34,785) (48,476)

Obligations net of offsetting collections and recoveries 489,856 494,328 

Other resources

Transfers out without reimbursement (62) -

Federal employee retirement benefit costs paid by OPM imputed to GAO 26,874 25,084 

Net other resources used to finance activities 26,812 25,084 

Total resources used to finance activities 516,668 519,412 

Resources used to finance items not part of the net cost of operations

Change in undelivered orders and unfilled customer orders (5,118) 1,560

Net decrease in lease liability and other (2,188) (754)

Assets capitalized (2,740) (3,268)

Net decrease in receivables not generating resources until collected and 

other adjustments 145 119 

Total resources used to fund items not part of the net cost of operations (9,901) (2,343)

Total resources used to finance net cost of operations 506,767 517,069 

Components of net costs that will not require or generate resources in 

the current period

Increase/(decrease) in workers’ compensation 714 (139)

Increase/(decrease) in accrued annual leave 217 (1,173)

Decrease in other liabilities (63) (45)

Total components of net costs that will not require or (generate) 

resources in the current period 868 (1,357)

Costs that do not require resources

Depreciation and other 7,444 8,420 

Net cost of operations $ 515,079 $ 524,132
GAO-14-2SP 121

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

Note 13. Net Position

Net position on the balance sheets comprises unexpended appropriations and cumulative 

results of operations. Unexpended appropriations are the sum of the total unobligated 

appropriations and undelivered goods and services. Cumulative results of operations 

represent the difference between financing sources and expenses since inception. Details 

of the components of GAO’s cumulative results of operations for the fiscal years ended 

September 30, 2013, and 2012, are as follows:

Dollars in thousands

2013 2012

Investment in property and equipment, net $26,679 $31,388

Net reimbursable funds activity 15,259 15,093

Other – supplies inventory and accounts receivable from public 291 498

Liabilities not covered by budgetary resources (51,917) (53,247)

Cumulative results of operations ($9,688) ($6,268)

Liabilities not covered by budgetary resources are liabilities for which congressional action 

is needed before budgetary resources can be provided. See Note 5 for components.

Note 14. Davis-Bacon Act Trust Function – Separately Audited

GAO is responsible for administering for the federal government the trust function of the 

Davis-Bacon Act revenue and costs related to beneficiary payments and prepares separate, 

audited financial schedules for this fund. GAO maintains this fund to pay claims relating to 

violations of the Davis-Bacon Act and Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act. Under 

these acts, DOL investigates violation allegations to determine if federal contractors owe 

additional wages to covered employees. If DOL concludes that a violation has occurred, 

GAO collects the amount owed from the contracting federal agency, deposits the funds 

into an account with the U.S. Treasury, and remits payment to the claimant. GAO is 

accountable to the Congress and to the public for the proper administration of the assets 

held in the trust. Trust assets and liabilities under GAO’s administration as of September 

30, 2013 and 2012, totaled approximately $5,804,000 and $4,726,000, respectively. These 

assets are not the assets of GAO or the federal government and are held for distribution 

to appropriate claimants. Revenues and costs related to beneficiary payments in the 

trust amounted to $6,294,000 in fiscal year 2013 and $806,000 in fiscal year 2012. These 

numbers vary from year to year based on cases settled and distributions made during the 

year.

On November 21, 2013, GAO’s responsibility to pay claims for violations of the DavisBacon Act and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act was transferred to the 

Secretary of the Department of Labor. 
122 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

Other Information

Consistent with OMB Circular No. A-136 requirements, we are including an unaudited, 

comparative Schedule of Spending (Schedule) in Other Information for the years ended 

September 30, 2013 and September 30, 2012 following our audited financial statement 

and notes. The Schedule presents an overview of how we are spending money on a 

budgetary basis and is not meant to agree to the cost information on the Statement of Net 

Cost, which presents accrual based proprietary information. The data used to populate 

the schedule is the same underlying data used to populate the Statement of Budgetary 

Resources. The amounts in the Schedule agree with the budgetary resources and 

obligations incurred reported in the Statement of Budgetary Resources.
GAO-14-2SP 123

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Financial Information

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Schedules of Spending for the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2013 and 2012

(Dollars in thousands)

UNAUDITED

2013 2012 

What Money Is Available to Spend?

Appropriations $479,967 $511,546

Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections 25,718 37,967

Recoveries and Other Changes in Prior Year Unobligated Balances 41,061 25,285

Total Resources 546,746 574,798

Less Amount Available but Not Agreed to be Spent (4,689) (9,737)

Less Amount Not Available to be Spent (17,416) (22,257)

Total Amounts Agreed to be Spent $524,641 $542,804

How Was the Money Spent?

Direct Funds

Personnel

	 	 Salaries and Benefits $396,505 $413,691

 Training 2,604 3,328 

Operations

 IT Services and Equipment 48,419 50,591 

 Buildings and Equipment 17,061 23,586 

 Travel 6,392 7,288 

 Contractual Services (non-IT) 17,313 22,542 

Total Direct Funds Spending $488,294 $521,026

Reimbursable Funds

Personnel

	 	 Salaries and Benefits $22,306 $13,554 

Operations

 Buildings and Equipment 8,571 7,468 

 Travel 389 513 

 Contractual Services (non-IT) 5,081 243 

Total Reimbursable Funds Spending $36,347 $21,778

Total Amounts Agreed to Be Spent $524,641 $542,804
124 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

This page intentionally left blank
Serving the Congress and the Nation

Part VI

Inspector General’s View of 

GAO’s Management Challenges
126 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Inspector General’s View of GAO’s Management Challenges 

Inspector General’s View of GAO’s Management 

Challenges

United States Government Accountability Office

Memorandum

Date: December 9, 2013

To: Comptroller General Gene L. Dodaro

From: Inspector General Adam R. Trzeciak 

Subject: GAO Management Challenges

Based on our work and institutional knowledge, we agree that GAO faces challenges in (1) 

ensuring that the agency maintains a diverse, high-performing and knowledge-based 

workforce; and (2) improving engagement efficiency.

In fiscal year 2013, our office performed one audit that included human capital issues. We 

evaluated the extent to which GAO has established effective policies and procedures to 

review and validate top secret security clearance requirements for its workforce. We found 

that requests to grant or renew top secret clearances in fiscal year 2012 were, for the most 

part, made without written justification to support employees’ needs for access to top secret 

information.1

 

1

GAO, Office of Inspector General, Security Clearances: Actions Needed to Strengthen Controls over Top Secret 

Security Clearance Requirements, 

We have not assessed GAO’s engagement efficiency efforts.

OIG-13-3 OIG-13-3 (Washington, D.C.: Sep. 27, 2013). 
Serving the Congress and the Nation

Part V

Appendix on Data Quality
128 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Appendix on Data Quality

Table 19: How We Ensure Data Quality for Our Annual Performance Measures

Results measures

Financial benefits

Definition 

and 

background 

Our work—including our findings and recommendations—may produce benefits to the federal 

government that can be estimated in dollar terms. These benefits can result in better services 

to the public, changes to statutes or regulations, or improved government business operations. 

A financial benefit is an estimate of the federal cost reduction of agency or congressional 

actions. These financial benefits generally result from work that we completed over the past 

several years. The estimated benefit is based on actions taken in response to our work, such 

as reducing government expenditures, increasing revenues, or reallocating funds to other 

areas. Financial benefits included in our performance measures are net benefits—that is, 

estimates of financial benefits that have been reduced by the costs associated with taking the 

action that we recommended. We convert all estimates involving past and future years to their 

net present value and use actual dollars to represent estimates involving only the current year. 

In some cases, we can claim financial benefits over multiple years based on a single agency or 

congressional action. 

Financial benefits are linked to specific recommendations or other work. To claim that financial 

benefits have been achieved, our staff must file an accomplishment report documenting 

that (1) the actions taken as a result of our work have been completed or substantially 

completed, (2) the actions generally were taken within 2 fiscal years prior to the filing of 

the accomplishment report, (3) a cause-and-effect relationship exists between the benefits 

reported and our recommendation or work performed, and (4) estimates of financial benefits 

were based on information obtained from non-GAO sources. To help ensure conservative 

estimates of net financial benefits, reductions in operating cost are typically limited to 2 

years of accrued reductions, but up to 5 fiscal years of financial benefits can be claimed if 

the reductions are sustained over a period longer than 2 years. Multiyear reductions in longterm projects, changes in tax laws, program terminations, or sales of government assets are 

limited to 5 years. Financial benefits can be claimed for past or future years. For financial 

benefits involving events that occur on a regular but infrequent basis—such as the decennial 

census—we may extend the measurement period until the event occurs in order to compute 

the associated financial benefits using our present value calculator. 

Managing directors decide when their staff can claim financial benefits. A managing director 

may choose to claim a financial benefit all in 1 year or over several years, if the benefit spans 

future years and the managing director wants greater precision as to the amount of the benefit.

Data sources Our Accomplishment Reporting System provides the data for this measure. Teams use this 

Web-based data system to prepare, review, and approve accomplishments and forward them 

to our Office of Audit Policy and Quality Assurance (APQA) for review. Once accomplishment 

reports are approved, they are entered into our Engagement Reporting System (ERS), which is 

the official reporting database. 

Data Quality
GAO-14-2SP 129

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Appendix on Data Quality

Verification 

and 

Validation

Our policies and procedures require us to use the Accomplishment Reporting System to record 

the financial benefits that result from our work. They also provide guidance on estimating 

those financial benefits. The team identifies when a financial benefit has occurred as a result 

of our work. The team develops estimates based on non-GAO sources, such as the agency 

that acted on our work, a congressional committee, or the Congressional Budget Office, and 

files accomplishment reports based on those estimates. When non-GAO estimates are not 

readily available, GAO estimates—developed in consultation with our experts, such as the 

Chief Economist, Chief Actuary or Director for the Center for Economics, and corroborated 

with a knowledgeable program official from the executive agency involved. The estimates 

are reduced by significant identifiable offsetting costs. The team develops documentation to 

support accomplishments with evidence that meets our evidence standard, supervisors review 

the documentation, and an independent person within GAO reviews the accomplishment 

report. For all financial accomplishment reports, the managing director prepares a 

memorandum addressed to the Chief Quality Officer attesting that the accomplishment 

report meets our standards for accomplishment reporting. The memorandum specifically 

(1) addresses how linkage to GAO is established and (2) attests that the financial benefits 

are claimed in accordance with our procedures. Beginning in fiscal year 2010, teams are also 

required to consult with our Center for Economics on the calculation for financial benefits of 

$500 million or more. For each of the financial accomplishment reports, an economist reviews 

and approves the methodology for calculating the proposed financial benefit. The assessment 

results are documented in the accomplishment’s supporting documentation and provided to 

the second reviewers.

The team’s managing director is authorized to approve financial accomplishment reports with 

benefits of less than $100 million. The team forwards the report to APQA, which reviews all 

accomplishment reports and approves accomplishment reports claiming benefits of $100 

million or more. In fiscal year 2013, APQA approved accomplishment reports covering over 97 

percent of the dollar value of financial benefits we reported.

In fiscal year 2013, accomplishments of $500 million or more were also reviewed by 

independent second and third reviewers (reemployed GAO annuitants), who have substantial 

experience and knowledge of our accomplishment reporting policies and procedures. Our total 

fiscal year 2013 reported financial benefits reflect the views of the independent reviewers.

Data 

limitations

Not every financial benefit from our work can be readily estimated or documented as 

attributable to our work. As a result, the amount of financial benefits is a conservative 

estimate. Estimates are based on information from non-GAO sources and are based on both 

objective and subjective data, and as a result, professional judgment is required in reviewing 

accomplishment reports. We feel that the verification and validation steps that we take 

minimize any adverse impact from this limitation.

Other Benefits

Definition 

and 

background

Our work—including our findings and recommendations—may produce benefits to the 

government that cannot be estimated in dollar terms. These other benefits can result in better 

services to the public, changes to statutes or regulations, or improved government business 

operations. 

Other benefits generally result from past work that we completed. Other benefits are linked to 

specific recommendations or other work that we completed over several years. To claim that 

other benefits have been achieved, staff must file an accomplishment report that documents 

that (1) the actions taken as a result of our work have been completed or substantially 

completed, (2) the actions generally were taken within the past 2 fiscal years of filing the 

accomplishment report, and (3) a cause-and-effect relationship exists between the benefits 

reported and our recommendation or work performed.

Data sources Our Accomplishment Reporting System provides the data for this measure. Teams use this 

automated system to prepare, review, and approve accomplishments and forward them to 

APQA for its review. Once accomplishment reports are approved, they are entered into ERS, 

which is the official reporting system.
130 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Appendix on Data Quality

Verification 

and 

validation

We use the Accomplishment Reporting System to record the other benefits that result from our 

findings and recommendations. Staff in the team file accomplishment reports to claim benefits 

resulting from our work. The team develops documentation to support accomplishments with 

evidence that meets our standards. Supervisors review the documentation; an independent 

staff person checks the facts of the accomplishment report; and the team’s managing director, 

director, or both approve the accomplishment report to ensure its appropriateness, including 

attribution to our work.

The team forwards the report to APQA, where it is reviewed for appropriateness. APQA 

provides summary data on other benefits to team managers, who check the data on a regular 

basis to make sure that approved accomplishments from their staff have been accurately 

recorded.

Data 

limitations 

The data may be underreported because we cannot always document a direct cause-andeffect relationship between our work and the resulting benefits. Therefore, the data represent a 

conservative measure of our overall contribution toward improving government.

Percentage of products with recommendations

Definition 

and 

background

We measure the percentage of our written reports and numbered correspondence issued in 

the fiscal year that included at least one recommendation. We make recommendations that 

specify actions that can be taken to improve federal operations or programs. We strive to 

ensure that recommendations are directed at resolving the cause of identified problems; that 

are addressed to parties who have the authority to act; and are specific, feasible, and costeffective. Some of our products are informational and do not contain recommendations.

We track the percentage of our written products that are issued during the fiscal year and 

contain recommendations. This indicator recognizes that our products do not always include 

recommendations.

Data sources Our Publications Database incorporates recommendations from products as they are issued. 

The database is updated daily.

Verification 

and 

validation

Our Information Management team enters data on recommendations into a “staging” system 

where they are reviewed for accuracy and completeness. Once reviewed, the data are posted 

to the Publications Database. We provide our managers with reports on the recommendations 

being tracked to help ensure that all recommendations have been captured and that each 

recommendation has been completely and accurately stated.

Data 

limitations

This measure is a conservative estimate of the extent to which we assist the Congress and 

federal agencies because not all products and services we provide lead to recommendations. 

For example, the Congress may request information on federal programs that is purely 

descriptive or analytical and does not lend itself to recommendations.

Past recommendations implemented

Definition 

and 

background

We make recommendations designed to improve the operations of the federal government. 

For our work to produce financial or other benefits, the Congress or federal agencies must 

implement these recommendations. As part of our audit responsibilities under generally 

accepted government auditing standards, we follow up on recommendations we have made 

and report to the Congress on their status. Experience has shown that it takes time for some 

recommendations to be implemented. For this reason, this measure is the percentage rate of 

implementation of recommendations made 4 years prior to a given fiscal year (e.g., the fiscal 

year 2013 implementation rate is the percentage of recommendations made in fiscal year 

2009 products that were implemented by the end of fiscal year 2013). Our experience has 

shown that if a recommendation has not been implemented within 4 years, it is not likely to be 

implemented.

Data sources Our Publications Database incorporates recommendations as products are issued. The 

database is updated daily. As our staff monitor implementation of recommendations, they 

submit updated information to the database.
GAO-14-2SP 131

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Appendix on Data Quality

Verification 

and 

validation

Our policies and procedures specify that our staff must verify and document that an 

agency’s reported actions are adequately being implemented. Staff update the status of the 

recommendations on a periodic basis. To accomplish this, our staff may interview agency 

officials, obtain agency documents, access agency databases, or obtain information from an 

agency’s IG. Recommendations that are reported as implemented are reviewed by a senior 

executive in the team and by APQA.

Summary data are provided to the teams that issued the recommendations. The teams check 

the data regularly to make sure that the recommendations they have reported as implemented 

have been accurately recorded. We also provide to the Congress a database with the status 

of recommendations that have not been implemented, and we maintain a publicly available 

database of open recommendations that is updated daily.

Data 

limitations

The data may be underreported because, in some cases, a recommendation may require 

more than 4 years to implement. We also may not count cases in which a recommendation 

is partially implemented. Therefore, the data represent a conservative measure of our overall 

contribution toward improving government.

Client measures

Testimonies

Definition 

and 

background

The Congress asks us to testify at hearings on various issues, and these hearings are 

the basis for this measure. Participation in hearings is one of our most important forms of 

communication with the Congress, and the hearings at which we testify reflect the importance 

and value of our institutional knowledge in assisting congressional decision making. When we 

have multiple witnesses with separate testimonies at a single hearing, we count this as a single 

testimony. We do not count statements submitted for the record when our witness does not 

appear.

Data sources The data on hearings at which we testified are compiled in our Congressional Hearing System 

managed by staff in our Office of Congressional Relations (Congressional Relations).

Verification 

and 

validation

The teams responding to requests for testimony are responsible for entering data into the 

Congressional Hearing System. After we have testified at a hearing, Congressional Relations 

verifies that the data in the system are correct and records the hearing as one at which we 

testified. Congressional Relations provides weekly status reports to unit managers, who check 

to make sure that the data are complete and accurate.

Data 

limitations

This measure does not include statements for the record that we prepare for congressional 

hearings. Also, this measure may be influenced by factors other than the quality of our 

performance in any specific year. The number of hearings held each year depends on 

the Congress’s agenda, and the number of times we are asked to testify may reflect 

congressional interest in work in progress as well as work completed that year or the previous 

year. To mitigate this limitation, we try to adjust our target to reflect cyclical changes in the 

congressional schedule. We also outreach to our clients on a continuing basis to increase their 

awareness of our readiness to participate in hearings.

Timeliness

Definition 

and 

background

The likelihood that our products will be used is enhanced if they are delivered when needed 

to support congressional and agency decision making. To determine whether our products 

are timely, we solicit feedback from the client using an electronic form. We compute the 

proportion of favorable responses to a question related to timeliness. Because our products 

often have multiple congressional clients, we often outreach to more than one congressional 

staff person per product. We send a form to key staff working for requesters of our testimony 

statements and to clients of our more significant written products—specifically, engagements 

assigned an interest level of “high” by our senior management and those requiring an expected 

investment of 500 staff days or more. One question asks the respondent whether the product 

was delivered on time. When a product that meets our criteria is released to the public, we 

electronically send relevant congressional staff an e-mail message containing a link to the 

form. When this link is accessed, the form recipient is asked to respond to the timeliness 

question using a five-point scale—”strongly agree,” “generally agree,” “neither agree nor 

disagree,” “generally disagree,” or “strongly disagree”—or to choose “not applicable/no 

answer.” For this measure, favorable responses are “strongly agree” and “generally agree.”
132 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Appendix on Data Quality

Data sources To identify the products that meet our criteria (testimonies and other products that are high 

interest or expected to reach 500 staff days or more), we run a query against our Publications 

Database, which is maintained by a contractor. To identify appropriate recipients of the form 

for products meeting our criteria, we ask the engagement teams to provide in our Product 

Numbering Database e-mail addresses for congressional staff serving as contacts on a 

product. Relevant information from both of these databases is fed into another database that 

is managed by APQA. This database then combines product, form recipient, and data from 

our Congressional Relations staff and creates an e-mail message with a web link to the form. 

(Congressional Relations staff serve as the contacts for form recipients.) The e-mail message 

also contains an embedded client password and unique client identifier to ensure that a 

recipient is linked with the appropriate form. Our Client Feedback Database creates a record 

with the product title and number and captures the responses to every form sent back to us 

electronically.

Verification 

and 

validation

APQA staff review released GAO products to check the accuracy of the addressee information 

in the APQA database. APQA staff also check the congressional staff directory to ensure 

that form recipients listed in the APQA database appear there. In addition, our Congressional 

Relations staff review the list of form recipients entered by the engagement teams and identify 

the most appropriate congressional staff person to receive a form for each client. E-mail 

messages that are inadvertently sent with incorrect e-mail addresses automatically reappear 

in the form approval system. When this happens, APQA staff correct the errors and resend the 

e-mail message.

Data 

limitations

Testimonies and written products that met our criteria for this measure were sent a client 

survey form, representing about 35 percent of the congressionally requested written products 

we issued during fiscal year 2013. We exclude from our timeliness measure low and mediuminterest reports expected to take fewer than 500 staff days when completed, reports addressed 

to agency heads or commissions, some reports mandated by the Congress, classified reports, 

and reports completed under the Comptroller General’s authority. Also, if a requester indicates 

that he or she does not want to complete a form, we will not send one to this person again, 

even though a product subsequently requested meets our criteria. The response rate for the 

form is 25 percent, and 98 percent of those who responded answered the timeliness question. 

We received responses from one or more people for about 47 percent of the products for which 

we sent a form in fiscal year 2013.

People measures

New hire rate

Definition 

and 

background

This performance measure is the ratio of the number of people hired to the number we 

planned to hire. Annually, we develop a workforce plan that takes into account our strategic 

goals; projected workload changes; and other changes such as retirements, other attrition, 

promotions, and skill gaps. The workforce plan for the upcoming year specifies the number 

of planned hires. The Chief Operating Officer, Chief Administrative Officer, Deputy Chief 

Administrative Officer, Chief Human Capital Officer, and Controller meet monthly to monitor 

progress toward achieving the workforce plan. Adjustments to the workforce plan are made 

throughout the year, if necessary, to reflect changing needs and conditions.

Data sources The Executive Committee approves the workforce plan. The workforce plan is coordinated 

and maintained by the Chief Administrative Officer. Data on accessions—that is, new hires 

coming on board—is taken from a database that contains employee data from the Department 

of Agriculture’s National Finance Center (NFC) database, which handles payroll and personnel 

data for us and other agencies.

Verification 

and 

validation

The Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) maintains a database that monitors and tracks all our 

hiring offers, declinations, and accessions. In coordination with our Human Capital Office, 

our CAO staff enter workforce information supporting this measure into the CAO database. 

While the database is updated on a daily basis, CAO staff provide monthly reports to the 

Chief Operating Officer and the CAO that allow them to monitor progress by unit in achieving 

workforce plan hiring targets. The CAO continually monitors and reviews accessions 

maintained in the NFC database against its database to ensure consistency and to resolve 

discrepancies.
GAO-14-2SP 133

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Appendix on Data Quality

Data 

limitations

There is a lag of one to two pay periods (up to 4 weeks) before the NFC database reflects 

actual data. We generally allow sufficient time before requesting data for this measure to 

ensure that we get accurate results.

Retention rate

Definition 

and 

background

We continuously strive to make GAO a place where people want to work. Once we have made 

an investment in hiring and training people, we would like to retain them. This measure is one 

indicator that we are attaining that objective and is the complement of attrition. We calculate 

this measure by taking 100 percent minus the attrition rate, where attrition rate is defined as 

the number of separations divided by the average onboard strength. We calculate this measure 

with and without retirements.

Data sources Data on retention—that is, people who are on board at the beginning of the fiscal year and 

people on board at the end of the fiscal year—are taken from a CAO database that contains 

some data from the NFC database, which handles payroll and personnel data for us and other 

agencies.

Verification 

and 

validation

CAO staff continually monitor and review accessions and attritions against their database that 

contains NFC data and follow up on any discrepancies. In fiscal year 2009, we developed 

standard operating procedures, which are still in effect, to document how we calculate and 

ensure quality control over data relevant to this measure.

Data 

limitations

See New hire rate, Data limitations.

Staff development

Definition 

and 

background

One way that we measure how well we are doing and identify areas for improvement is through 

our annual employee feedback survey. This Web-based survey, which is conducted by an 

outside contractor to ensure the confidentiality of every respondent, is administered to all of 

our employees once a year. Through the survey, we encourage our staff to indicate what they 

think about GAO’s overall operations, work environment, and organizational culture and how 

they rate our managers—from the immediate supervisor to the Executive Committee—on key 

aspects of their leadership styles. The survey consists of over 100 questions. To further ensure 

confidentiality, in fiscal year 2013 the contractor also analyzed the data.

This measure is based on staff’s favorable responses to three of the six questions related to 

staff development on our annual employee survey. We correlated each of the questions with 

job satisfaction and selected those questions with the highest correlation. Staff were asked to 

respond to three questions on a five-point scale or choose “no basis to judge/not applicable” or 

“no answer.”

Data sources The survey questions we used for this measure ask staff how much positive or negative impact 

(1) external training and conferences and (2) on-the-job training had on their ability to do their 

jobs during the last 12 months. From the staff who expressed an opinion, we calculated the 

percentage of staff selecting the two categories that indicate satisfaction with or a favorable 

response to the question. For this measure, the favorable responses were either “very positive 

impact” or “generally positive impact.” In addition, the survey question asked how useful and 

relevant to your work did you find internal (Learning Center) training courses. From staff who 

expressed an opinion, we calculated the percentage of staff selecting the three categories 

that indicate satisfaction with or a favorable response to the question. For this measure, the 

favorable responses were “very greatly useful and relevant,” “greatly useful and relevant,” 

and “moderately useful and relevant.” Responses of “no basis to judge/not applicable” or 

“no answer” were excluded from the calculation. While including “no basis to judge/not 

applicable” or “no answer” in the calculation would result in a different percentage, our method 

of calculation is an acceptable survey practice, and we believe it produces a better and more 

valid measure because it represents only those employees who have an opinion on the 

questions.
134 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Appendix on Data Quality

Verification 

and 

validation

The employee feedback survey gathers staff opinions on a variety of topics. The survey is 

password protected, and only the outside contractor has access to passwords. In addition, 

when the survey instrument was developed, extensive focus groups and pretests were 

undertaken to refine the questions and provide definitions as needed. In fiscal year 2013, our 

response rate to this survey was about 72 percent, which indicates that its results are largely 

representative of the GAO population. In addition, many teams and work units conduct followon work to gain a better understanding of the information from the survey.

Data 

limitations

The information contained in the survey is the self-reported opinions of staff expressed under 

conditions of confidentiality. Accordingly, there is no way to further validate those expressions 

of opinion.

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors, commonly referred 

to as nonsampling errors. These errors could result from, for example, respondents 

misinterpreting a question or data entry staff incorrectly entering data into a database used 

to analyze the survey responses. Such errors can introduce unwanted variability into the 

survey results. We took steps in the development of the survey to minimize nonsampling 

errors. Specifically, when we developed the survey instrument we held extensive focus groups 

and pretests to refine the questions and define terms used to decrease the chances that 

respondents would misunderstand the questions. We also limited the chances of introducing 

nonsampling errors by creating a web-based survey for which respondents entered their 

answers directly into an electronic questionnaire rather than entering the data into a database, 

thus eliminating a potential source of error.

Staff utilization

Definition 

and 

background

This measure is based on staff’s favorable responses to three of the six questions related 

to staff utilization on our annual employee survey. We correlated each question with job 

satisfaction and selected those questions with the highest correlation. Staff were asked 

to respond to these three questions on a five-point scale or choose “no basis to judge/not 

applicable” or “no answer.” (For background information about our entire employee feedback 

survey, see Staff development.)

Data sources These data come from our staff’s responses to an annual web-based survey. The survey 

questions we used for this measure ask staff how often the following occurred in the last 12 

months: (1) my job made good use of my skills; (2) GAO provided me with opportunities to do 

challenging work; and (3) in general, I was utilized effectively. See also Staff development, 

Data sources.

Verification 

and 

validation

See Staff development, Verification and validation.

Data 

limitations

See Staff development, Data limitations.

Effective leadership by supervisors

Definition 

and 

background

This measure is based on staff’s favorable responses to 10 of 20 questions related to six 

areas of supervisory leadership on our annual employee survey. We correlated each of the 

questions with job satisfaction and selected those questions with the highest correlation. 

Specifically, our calculation included responses to 1 of 4 questions related to empowerment, 

2 of 4 questions related to trust, all 3 questions related to recognition, 1 of 3 questions related 

to decisiveness, 2 of 3 questions related to leading by example, and 1 of 3 questions related 

to work life. Staff were asked to respond to these 10 questions on a five-point scale or choose 

“no basis to judge/not applicable” or “no answer.” In fiscal year 2009, we changed the name of 

this measure from “Leadership” to its current nomenclature to clarify that the measure reflects 

employee satisfaction with the immediate supervisor’s leadership.
GAO-14-2SP 135

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Appendix on Data Quality

Data sources These data come from our staff’s responses to an annual web-based survey. The survey 

questions we used for this measure ask staff about empowerment, trust, recognition, 

decisiveness, leading by example, and work life as they pertain to the respondent’s immediate 

supervisor. Specifically, the survey asked staff the following questions about their immediate 

supervisor during the last 12 months: (1) gave me the opportunity to do what I do best; (2) 

treated me fairly; (3) acted with honesty and integrity toward me; (4) ensured that there was a 

clear link between my performance and recognition of it; (5) gave me the sense that my work 

is valued; (6) provided me meaningful incentives for high performance; (7) made decisions 

in a timely manner; (8) demonstrated GAO’s core values of accountability, integrity, and 

reliability; (9) implemented change effectively; and (10) dealt effectively with equal employment 

opportunity and discrimination issues. See also Staff development, Data sources.

Verification 

and 

validation

See Staff development, Verification and validation.

Data 

limitations

See Staff development, Data limitations.

Organizational climate

Definition 

and 

background

This measure is based on staff’s favorable responses to 5 of the 13 questions related to 

organizational climate on our annual employee survey. We correlated each of the questions 

with job satisfaction and selected those questions with the highest correlation. Staff were 

asked to respond to these 5 questions on a five-point scale or choose “no basis to judge” or 

“no answer.”

Data sources These data come from our staff’s responses to an annual web-based survey. The survey 

questions we used for this measure ask staff to think back over the last 12 months and indicate 

how strongly they agree or disagree with each of the following statements: (1) a spirit of 

cooperation and teamwork exists in my work unit; (2) I am treated fairly and with respect in my 

work unit; (3) my morale is good; (4) sufficient effort is made in my work unit to get the opinions 

and thinking of people who work here; and (5) overall, I am satisfied with my job. See also Staff 

development, Data sources.

Verification 

and 

validation

See Staff development, Verification and validation.

Data 

limitations

See Staff development, Data limitations.

Internal operations measures

Help get job done and quality of work life

Definition 

and 

background

To measure how well we are doing at delivering internal administrative services to our 

employees and identify areas for improvement, we conduct a web-based customer satisfaction 

survey on administrative services annually. All employees were administered this survey and 

were encouraged to indicate how satisfied they are with 14 services that help them get their 

jobs done, 17 services that affect their quality of work life and seven IT tools.

We asked staff to rate the 38 internal services available to them, indicating on a scale from 

“very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied” -- or to indicate if they did not use a service in the past 

year -- and to provide a written reason for their rating and recommendations for improvement, if 

desired. Based on employees’ responses to these questions, we calculate a composite score.

In prior years our measure was the average score on the 5-point scale, so that the calculation 

would range from 1 to 5. To be consistent with how we report our People Measures from our 

employee feedback survey, this year we calculated our satisfaction with internal administrative 

surveys using the percentage satisfied, thus the calculation would range from 0 to 100%. We 

also feel a percentage would more easily be interpreted.
136 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Appendix on Data Quality

Data sources These data come from our staff’s responses to an annual web-based survey. To determine 

how satisfied our employees are with internal administrative services, we calculate composite 

scores for three measures. This calculation is made by adding all of the generally and very 

satisfied ratings across all of the relevant services and dividing it by the number of respondents 

who provided any satisfaction rating. Of the three composite scores that we calculate, one 

measure reflects the satisfaction with the 14 services that help employees get their jobs done. 

These services include records management, information technology customer support, mail 

services, and travel support services. The second measure reflects satisfaction with another 

17 services that affect quality of work life. These services include assistance related to pay and 

benefits, building maintenance and security, and internal communications. The third measure 

was for seven IT tools, including our internal engagement management system, telework tools 

and the intranet. Employees were asked to rate only their satisfaction with services used during 

the past year, or to indicate if they did not use a service.

Verification 

and 

validation

The survey was administered by GAO’s Web Product Development Group in the Applied 

Research and Methods (ARM) team. While the two managers of this unit could access 

individual responses, they complied with the privacy statement that was posted on the website 

to only provide aggregated data to GAO management that could not be used to identify 

responses of any individual. Our survey response rate was 67 percent in 2013. We analyzed 

responses by demographic representation (unit, tenure, location). Each unit responsible for 

administrative services conducts follow-on work, including analyzing written comments to gain 

a better understanding of the information from the survey.

Data 

limitations

The information contained in the survey is the self-reported opinions of staff expressed under 

conditions of confidentiality. We do not plan any actions to remedy this limitation because we 

feel it would violate the pledge of confidentiality that we make to our staff regarding the survey 

responses.

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors, commonly referred 

to as nonsampling errors. These errors could result, for example, from respondents 

misinterpreting a question or entering their data incorrectly. Such errors can introduce 

unwanted variability into the survey results. We limit the chances of introducing nonsampling 

errors by using a web-based survey for which respondents enter their answers directly into an 

electronic questionnaire. This eliminates the need to have the data entered into a database by 

someone other than the respondent, thus minimizing a potential source of error.

While we asked respondents to indicate whether or not they used a service and then for the 

services they used to provide their satisfaction rating, we found that some respondents did not 

follow this logic and did not indicate whether or not they used a service. Consequently, we did 

not calculate how many people used a service. We only analyzed the level of satisfaction from 

those reporting a response on the satisfaction question.

Source: GAO.
GAO-14-2SP 137

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Image Sources

This section contains credit and copyright information for images and 

graphics in this product, as appropriate, when that information was not 

listed adjacent to the image or graphic.

Front cover: GAO (Capitol and flag) 

Inside front cover: GAO (GAO building)

Page i: Photodisc (columns), GAO (flag)

Pages 1, 23, 63, 95, 125, and 127: GAO (Capitol and flag)

Page 2: GAO (flag)

Page 7: GAO (GAO seal and flag)

Page 17: Map Resources (map)

Page 28: Brand X Pictures (maze of money), GAO (flag)

Page 31: GAO (relief and flag)

Page 65: PhotoDisc (children), GAO (flag)

Page 73: Comstock (eagle and flag), GAO (flag)

Page 79: GAO (relief and flag)

Page 86: GAO (GAO building and flag)

Page 96: GAO (flag)

Inside back cover: GAO (Capitol)
138 GAO-14-2SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2013

Providing Comments on This Report

To provide comments for improving this report, please contact our 

Chief Quality Officer, who can be reached at (202) 512-6100, at 

qci@gao.gov, or at the following address:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room 6K17Q 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Obtaining Copies of GAO Documents

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents 

at no cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

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

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

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

However, you can also order GAO documents by phone. The price of 

each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

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

whether the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing 

and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

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

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

TDD (202) 512-2537.

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

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

information.

Connect with GAO

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

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

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

This report and a summary version of it will be available through our website 

at http://www.gao.gov/sp.html. Also linked to that page are our strategic 

plan and our past performance and accountability publications. 

Accountability Integrity Reliability

Legal products

Download legal decisions and opinions 

about appropriations, bid protests, and 

major federal agency rules 

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

E-mail alerts

Get automatic updates on new GAO 

products 

http://www.gao.gov/subscribe/index.php

Careers at GAO

Review current job openings, apply 

online, and learn about GAO’s teams 

and offices

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

FraudNet

Report allegations of fraud, waste, 

abuse, or mismanagement of federal 

funds 

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

Other web pages of possible interest
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-2SP