UNITED STATES

GOVE

RNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

OFFICE

Performance and

Accountability Report

Fiscal Year 2015

U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

SERVING 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-16-3SP
Did you know?

In 2015 

—The Congress used GAO’s work extensively 

to identify legislative solutions to emerging 

problems, achieve cost savings, and find 

efficiencies in federal agencies and programs. 

—GAO received requests for work from 

97 percent of the standing committees 

of the Congress and 66 percent of their 

subcommittees.

—Senior GAO officials testified 109 times on a 

wide range of issues that touched virtually all 

major federal agencies.

—GAO’s work yielded a record high of $74.7 

billion in financial benefits—a return of about 

$134 for every dollar invested in GAO.

—GAO also identified 1,286 other benefits—

those that cannot be measured in dollars, but 

lead to program and operational improvements 

across the government. 

—GAO reported on 32 areas designated as highrisk due to their vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, 

abuse, and mismanagement or because they 

face economy, efficiency, and effectiveness 

challenges. This work resulted in 162 reports, 

32 testimonies, $17 billion in financial benefits, 

and 435 other benefits.

—GAO also remained an employer of choice. 

In December 2014, the Partnership for Public 

Service ranked GAO as second among mid-size 

federal agencies as one of the best places to 

work in the federal government and first for its 

diversity and inclusion efforts. 

GAO’s Fiscal Year 2015 Snapshot 

A Fiscal Year 2015 Performance and Financial 

Snapshot for the American Taxpayer

Government Accountability Office

Who We Are: GAO is an independent, nonpartisan professional services agency in the 

legislative branch of the federal government 

created in 1921 to investigate how federal 

dollars are spent. 

What We Do: Commonly known as the investigative arm of the Congress or the “congressional watchdog,” we examine how taxpayer 

dollars are spent and develop nonpartisan, 

objective, and reliable information to advise lawmakers and agency heads on ways to 

make government work better.

Our Results: Since 2003, GAO’s work has resulted in over 1/2 trillion dollars in financial 

benefits and about 17,000 program and operational benefits that helped change laws, 

improved public services, and promoted 

sound management throughout the government. 

Accountability  Integrity  Reliability

GAO-16-3SP 2015 Performance and Accountability Report i
ii 2015 Performance and Accountability Report GAO-16-3SP

GAO’s Fiscal Year 2015 Snapshot

Figure 4: Percentage of New Products with 

Recommendations

Percentage

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Actual Target Actual

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015

68%

63% 60% 64% 66%

61%

67%

Figure 5: Testimonies

0

50

100

150

200

250

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015

Hearings at which GAO testified

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Actual Target Actual

192

130

114 109

129

174

159

Figure 6: Timeliness

Percentage of products on time

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Actual Target Actual

95% 90% 95% 95% 94% 95% 98%

0

20

40

60

80

100

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015

Figure 1: Financial Benefits GAO Recorded

Dollars in billions

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Actual Target Actual

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015

$49.9 $51.5

$45.7 $46.0

$74.7 

$55.8 $54.4

Figure 2: Other Benefits

0

300

600

900

1,200

1,500

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015

Number

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Actual Target Actual

1,361

1,200

1,318 1,314 1,288 1,286

1,440

Figure 3: Percentage of Past 

Recommendations Implemented

Four-year implementation rate

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Actual Target Actual

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015

80% 80% 79% 78% 80% 79% 82%
GAO-16-3SP 2015 Performance and Accountability Report iii

GAO’s Fiscal Year 2015 Snapshot

Figure 7: Financial Snapshot (Dollars in millions)

Fiscal year 2015

Clean opinion on financial statements Yes

Clean opinion on internal control over 

financial reporting Yes

Timely financial reporting Yes

Material weaknesses None

Total assets $103.9

Total liabilities $79.0

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Table 1: GAO’s Financial Highlights: Resource Information (Dollars in millions): 

Fiscal Year 2015 Fiscal Year 2014

Total budgetary resources $588.3 $562.5 

Total outlays $549.9 $529.3 

Net cost of operations

Goal 1: Well-being / Financial Security of American People $221.7 $218.0 

Goal 2: Changing Security Threats / Challenges of Global 

Interdependence 152.2 141.6

Goal 3: Transforming the Federal Government's Role 135.8 135.2

Goal 4: Maximize the Value of GAO 14.6 14.9

Other Costs in Support of the Congress 29.5 26.9

Reimbursable services not attributable to above cost by goal 

categories (9.5) (9.3)

Total Net Cost of Operations $544.3 $527.3 

Actual full-time equivalents (FTE) 2,989 2,891

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Figure 8: Use of Fiscal Year 2015 Funds by 

Category 

Percentage of total net costs

Facilities

Salaries 

and benefits

1.9%

83.3%

IT services and 

equipment 9.3%

Contract services 

(non-IT)

Other 3.1%

2.4%

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP
iv 2015 Performance and Accountability Report GAO-16-3SP

GAO’s Fiscal Year 2015 Snapshot

In 2016, GAO will continue to focus its work in 

areas that improve services to the public, and 

enhance public safety and national security. 

This will include topics such as addressing 

health care reform, countering terrorist and 

cybersecurity threats, and protecting taxpayers’ 

personally identifiable information. 

GAO will also continue its work on 32 areas 

across the federal government that it has 

identified as 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. Solutions that we have identified to 

these high-risk problems offer the potential to 

save billions of dollars, improve service to the 

public, and strengthen government performance 

and accountability. 

In 2016 and beyond, GAO looks forward to 

continuing its work to identify options for the 

Congress in addressing important challenges, 

including addressing the debt limit; reducing 

improper payments; closing the tax gap; 

meeting the government’s short-term financing 

needs; and placing the nation on a more 

sustainable long-term fiscal path, among other 

pressing matters.

What’s Next? Future Challenges

and Priorities

The federal government continues to face an 

unsustainable long-term fiscal path. Changing 

this path will require difficult fiscal policy 

decisions to alter both long-term federal 

spending and revenue. In the near term, 

executive branch agencies and the Congress can 

take action to improve the government’s fiscal 

position by addressing two long-standing issues—

improper payments and the tax gap. Improper 

payments are defined by statute as payments 

that should not have been made or that were 

made in an incorrect amount. The tax gap is the 

difference between taxes owed and those paid 

on time, as a result of taxpayers underreporting 

their tax liability, underpaying taxes, or not 

filing tax returns. Over time, improper payments 

and the tax gap issues involve amounts near or 

exceeding $1 trillion.

To further assist with near-term needs, per 

statute, GAO will continue to report annually 

on actions that executive branch agencies and 

the Congress can take to improve the efficiency 

and effectiveness of government programs and 

activities that are fragmented, overlapping, or 

duplicative. GAO will also identify additional 

opportunities to achieve greater efficiency 

and effectiveness that result in cost savings 

or enhanced revenue collection through its 

reviews across the federal government. 

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2014

GAO-16-3SP Contents v

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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.

A Fiscal Year 2015 Performance and Financial 

Snapshot for the American Taxpayer .............. i

Contents ..................................................v

How to Use This Report ...............................vi

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

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

Financial Reporting Assurance Statements ..........7

Mission ............................................... 10

Organizational Structure .......................... 10

Our Strategic Plan.................................. 13

Strategies for Achieving Our Goals .............. 14

How We Measure Our Performance.............. 17

Setting Performance Targets ..................... 18

Part I Management’s Discussion and Analysis ..... 21

Assisting the Congress and Benefiting the 

Nation during Challenging Times ................. 21

Overall Performance toward Our Goals......... 22

Other Ways GAO Serves the Congress and 

the American People............................. 40

Strategic Planning and Partnerships ............ 47

Managing Our Resources........................... 51

Management Challenges........................... 56

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

Performance Information by Strategic Goal ....... 63

Goal 1 Overview: Address Current and 

Emerging Challenges to the Well-being 

and Financial Security of the American 

People.............................................. 64

Financial Benefits ........................... 66

Other Benefits................................ 66

Testimonies................................... 66

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................................... 81

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

Part III Financial Information ......................... 93

From the Chief Financial Officer .................... 93

Audit Advisory Committee’s Report ................ 96

Independent Auditor’s Report....................... 97

Purpose of Each Financial Statement..............102

Financial Statements................................. 103

Notes to Financial Statements......................107

Other Information .................................... 119

Part IV: Inspector General’s View of GAO’s 

Management Challenges ........................... 121

Inspector General’s Statement .....................122

Part V: Appendixes ....................................123

Appendix I: Abbreviations .......................... 124

Appendix II: Data Quality............................ 126

Verifying and Validating Performance Data ... 126

Image Sources .......................................... 135

Providing Comments on This Report............... 136

Obtaining Copies of GAO Documents .............. 136

Connect with GAO ..................................... 136
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

How to Use This Report

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

measures, results, and accountability processes for fiscal year 2015. 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/about/

performanceaccountabilityreport/overview.

This report has an introduction, four parts, and supplementary appendixes 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 control over 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 agency-wide 

performance results and use of resources 

in fiscal year 2015. 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 2015 and the targets we 

are aiming for in fiscal year 2016. It also 

includes a summary of our program 

evaluation for fiscal year 2015. 

Financial Information

This section includes details on our 

finances in fiscal year 2015, 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. 

Appendixes

This section provides the report’s 

abbreviations and describes how we 

ensure the completeness and reliability 

of the data for each of our performance 

measures.

vi GAO-16-3SP How to Use This Report
SERVING CONGRESS AND THE NATION

Introduction

U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

UNITED STATES

GOVE

RNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

OFFICE

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

2 GAO-16-3SP From the Comptroller General

November 16, 2015

I am pleased to present GAO’s Performance and Accountability Report for fiscal year 2015. 

Our results demonstrate that GAO continues to effectively fulfill its mission—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. The 

examples that follow illustrate the wide range of financial and other benefits that GAO 

achieved. 

Financial Benefits: During the past fiscal year, we documented a record high of $74.7 billion 

in financial benefits for the government—a return of about $134 for every dollar invested in 

us. Examples of key financial benefits that resulted from GAO’s recommendations included 

(1) auctioning of the commercial spectrum by the Federal Communications Commission 

($32.8 billion in revenue), (2) ending the direct payment program for farmers ($4.9 billion 

in cost avoidance), and (3) canceling of the BioWatch Generation-3 acquisition by the 

Department of Homeland Security ($2.1 billion in financial benefits). 

Legislative Impacts: In fiscal year 2015, the Congress used GAO’s work extensively to inform 

its decisions on important legislation, which also resulted in financial and other benefits for 

the government. Examples linked to GAO’s work included: 

 The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015: which among other 

provisions, rescinded or reduced Administration proposals for weapon systems (e.g., 

an estimated total of $500 million for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle, Joint Tactical 

Radio System, and the Kiowa Warrior helicopter program); directed the Department of 

Defense (DOD) to improve cemetery and burial operations and provide better service 

to rural veterans; addressed the severe financial difficulties of multiemployer pension 

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

From the Comptroller General
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 3 From the Comptroller General

plans and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s Multiemployer Insurance Program; 

and withheld funds from agencies (e.g., DOD and the Department of Energy), until 

problems identified by GAO are addressed. 

 The Medicare Access and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization 

Act of 2015: reauthorized CHIP and mandated the removal of Social Security numbers 

from Medicare cards, relying on GAO’s findings. 

 The Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2015: directed DOD to periodically reassess its headquarters requirements 

to keep growth in check and identify alternative data sources to verify that mandated 

reductions in contracted services are achieved, reflecting GAO’s recommendations. 

 Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 and Cybersecurity Enhancement 

Act of 2014 (December 2014): included requirements to clarify oversight and improve 

agencies’ responses to data breaches, as recommended by GAO. 

 Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act: improved several aspects 

of federal IT management, including additional scrutiny and transparency of highrisk IT investments, certification that agencies are implementing incremental system 

development, and improved management of agencies’ IT portfolios, as recommended 

by GAO.

 Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act of 2014 (December 2014): required 

the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) and the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) to reform their approach to identifying technology investments and monitoring 

performance, as recommended by GAO.

 Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014

(December 2014): improved risk assessment procedures for regulated chemical facilities, 

reflecting GAO’s recommendations.

Other Benefits: Many other benefits resulting from our work cannot be measured in dollars, 

but lead to program and operational improvements across the government. During fiscal 

year 2015, we recorded 1,286 of these other benefits. Our work led to improvements 

in numerous areas affecting public safety and security and the efficient and effective 

functioning of government programs. For example, our work 

 strengthened the ability of states’ Adult Protective Services to oversee a growing elder 

abuse caseload by prompting the Department of Health and Human Services to create a 

nationwide database and resource center for oversight, 

 prompted the Federal Aviation Administration to develop a comprehensive model to 

assess cybersecurity threats to the NextGen air traffic control system, 

 led to better management of information technology risks by participants in financial 

securities markets to help protect consumers’ financial information,

 led the State Department to take action to enhance security and mitigate against 

threats to diplomatic residences, U.S. employees, and other soft targets overseas,

 led DOD to share lessons learned and best practices from implementing the fiscal year 

2013 sequestration to better plan for possible future events, and
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

4 GAO-16-3SP From the Comptroller General

 referred over 1,000 cases to the Social Security Administration for investigation that 

we identified of potential overpayments to beneficiaries receiving concurrent payments 

from disability insurance and the Federal Workers Compensation Act.

Building Bodies of Knowledge: Through the products we issued in fiscal year 2015, we 

continued to build on bodies of work under our three broad strategic goals to (1) address 

current and emerging challenges to the well-being and financial security of the American 

people, (2) help respond to changing security threats and global interdependence, and (3) 

help transform the federal government to address national challenges. Work completed in 

fiscal year 2015 in these areas included

 Protection of children. We reported on children’s health insurance, unregulated custody 

transfers of adopted children, oversight challenges for the Bureau of Indian Education, 

and care for unaccompanied alien children in U.S. custody. 

 Veterans. We reported on the availability of qualified nursing staff at the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers, inconsistencies in processing veterans’ disability 

benefits, improvements needed to support eligibility decisions for veterans’ disability 

benefits, and the need to improve monitoring of veterans’ antidepressant use and the 

accuracy of veterans’ suicide data. 

 Health care. We reported on the need to address improper payments in the Medicare 

and Medicaid programs, coordinate federal efforts to address serious mental illness, 

reduce antipsychotic drug use among older adults in nursing homes, improve the 

transparency of health care cost and quality information for consumers, and improve 

oversight of tax provisions for individuals under the Patient Protection and Affordable 

Care Act. 

 Science and Technology. We reported on the need to enhance the nation’s 

biosurveillance capabilities, address safety lapses at high-containment laboratories, 

address potential gaps in environmental satellite coverage, and minimize long-term 

federal exposure to climate-related risks. Our technical assessments included 3D 

printing (additive manufacturing) and reducing freshwater use in hydraulic fracturing 

and thermoelectric power plant cooling. 

 Fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. We issued our fifth annual report identifying 

66 actions across 24 areas that could reduce fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, 

as well as other cost savings and revenue enhancement opportunities across the federal 

government. Executive branch and congressional efforts to address approximately 440 

recommendations from our first four reports have resulted in over $20 billion in financial 

benefits, with about $80 billion more anticipated in future years. 

 High-risk areas. 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 due to economy, 

efficiency, or effectiveness challenges. This report offers solutions to 32 identified highrisk problems. This year, our high-risk work resulted in 162 reports, 32 testimonies, $17 

billion in financial benefits, and 435 other benefits. In 2015, we identified two new highrisk areas—managing risks and improving VA health care and improving the management 

of information technology (IT) acquisitions and operations. We also expanded the tax 

law enforcement area to focus on the prevention of identity theft related to tax refunds 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 5 From the Comptroller General

and the federal cybersecurity area to include the better protection of personally 

identifiable information. 

Serving Our Clients 

In fiscal year 2015, we received requests for work from 97 percent of the standing 

committees of the Congress and 66 percent of their subcommittees—supporting a 

broad range of congressional interests. We issued 688 reports and made 1,680 new 

recommendations. Of the recommendations that we made in 2011, 79 percent were 

implemented—we use a 4-year reporting cycle because it generally takes four full years to 

implement some of our recommendations. Our senior executives testified at 109 hearings 

before 63 separate committees or subcommittees—on topics spanning most federal 

agencies. Key testimony topics included information security risks facing federal agencies, 

the timeliness of disaster assistance for small businesses, major challenges for the Medicaid 

program, electromagnetic threats to the electric grid, improper payments governmentwide, and integration of unmanned aerial systems into the National Airspace System. I 

also continued my regular meetings with Chairs and Ranking Members of congressional 

committees and subcommittees to obtain their views on GAO’s work, including their 

priorities, and to discuss challenges and opportunities facing GAO. In addition, I sent letters 

to the heads of 19 federal departments to call their attention to unimplemented GAO 

recommendations that we believe warrant priority attention by these departments. We are 

also sending these letters to the congressional committees of jurisdiction to inform their 

oversight. 

Supporting Our People

The hard work and dedication of our professional, diverse, and multidisciplinary staff 

positioned GAO to achieve a 98 percent on-time delivery of our products in 2015. Our fiscal 

year 2015 performance continues to indicate that we provide staff with the necessary 

support to produce high-quality work. We exceeded the annual targets for all of our 

people measures—staff development, staff utilization, effective leadership by supervisors, 

organizational climate, new hire rate, and retention rates (with and without retirements). 

Further, GAO maintained its status as an employer of choice—ranking second among midsized federal agencies after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on the Partnership 

for Public Service’s “best places to work” list and first for our diversity and inclusion 

efforts. 

Managing Our Internal Operations

In fiscal year 2015, we continued efforts to support our fourth strategic goal—to maximize 

our value by enabling quality, timely service to the Congress and being a leading practices 

federal agency. Specifically, we made progress addressing our three internal management 

challenges—human capital management, engagement efficiency, and information security—

and added telework as a fourth challenge. For human capital management, we filled 

critical positions—primarily building our cadre of new analysts to meet current work 

demands and future leadership needs—a pressing concern as 35 percent of our executives 

are eligible to retire. We filled 195 positions and reached 2,989 full-time equivalents—

bringing us closer to our optimal level of 3,250. To improve engagement efficiency, 

we completed the pilot of our streamlined engagement process and companion new 

engagement management system and began agency-wide implementation. For information 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

6 GAO-16-3SP From the Comptroller General

security, we took steps to better protect against inappropriate access to computer 

resources, including enhanced authentication and updated encryption on mobile devices. 

We again received from independent auditors an unmodified or “clean” opinion on 

our financial statements for fiscal year 2015 and on our internal control over financial 

reporting. The detailed performance and financial information in this report is complete 

and reliable, and meets our high standards for accuracy and transparency. 

This fiscal year, we continued to make significant contributions to the domestic and 

international auditing community, including standards setting and capacity building for 

our accountability counterparts in other nations; developed a new tool to assist federal 

program managers in combatting fraud; and delivered presentations to more than 7,500 

participants to help strengthen implementation of revised internal control standards for 

the federal government (GAO’s Green Book). In addition, our Office of General Counsel 

made progress in establishing an electronic protest docking system, handled about 2,600 

bid protests, issued over 500 decisions on the merits, and released an update of the third 

edition of Principles of Federal Appropriations Law (GAO’s Red Book)—the primary resource 

for appropriations law guidance in the federal community. We also positioned ourselves 

to open a new Center for Audit Excellence in October 2015 to build institutional auditing 

capacity by providing training and other services to domestic and international audit 

organizations. 

In fiscal year 2016, we will continue to focus our attention on identifying options for the 

Congress in addressing the debt limit; closing the tax gap; reducing improper payments 

across the government; meeting the government’s short term financing needs; and placing 

the nation on a more sustainable, long-term fiscal path, among other pressing matters. We 

look forward to continuing to serve the Congress and the public in the coming years on 

issues affecting the lives of all Americans.

Gene L. Dodaro

Comptroller General

of the United States
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 7 Financial Reporting Assurance Statements

November 16, 2015 

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, 2015, 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, 2015, 

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. 

Financial Reporting 

Assurance Statements 

Source: See Image Sources

Financial Reporting Assurance Statements
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

8 GAO-16-3SP Financial Reporting Assurance Statements

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, as amended, (GPRA) 

and related OMB guidance.

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 substantially comply 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

Karl J. Maschino 

Chief Administrative Officer/

Chief Financial Officer

Patricia A. Dalton

Chief Operating Officer

William L. Anderson 

Controller

Susan A. Poling

General Counsel
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 9 About GAO

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 audits that 

examined the economy and efficiency of government operations. By the 1960s, GAO also 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 spent efficiently, effectively, 

and in accordance with applicable laws; and 

 policy analyses to assess needed actions and the implications of proposed actions.

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

About GAO

GAO is an independent, nonpartisan 

professional services agency in the 

legislative branch of the federal 

government. Commonly known as the 

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 the Federal Managers’ 

Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) also referred 

to as FIA; the Government Performance and 

Results Act (GPRA), as amended; and the 

Federal Information Security Management 

Act (FISMA). Accordingly, this performance 

and accountability report for fiscal year 2015 

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 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

10 GAO-16-3SP About GAO

fulfills our requirement to report annually 

on the work of the Comptroller General 

under 31 U.S.C. 719.1

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, and we 

recommend improvements 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.

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, Chief Administrative Officer/

Chief Financial Officer Karl J. Maschino, and 

General Counsel Susan A. Poling.

1

FMFIA was enacted to strengthen internal controls and accounting 

systems in the federal government and requires the Comptroller 

General to issue standards for internal control in the federal 

government. 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. FISMA 

requires federal agencies to implement policies and procedures to costeffectively reduce information technology risks.

To achieve our mission, our staff is 

organized primarily into 14 evaluation, 

audit, research, and investigative teams that 

support our three external strategic goals—

with several of the teams supporting more 

than one strategic goal. Our Forensic Audits 

and Investigative Service team (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 independent 

and unbiased information quickly on 

emerging issues as we also continue longerterm 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 in greater detail 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 Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 11 About GAO

Mission Teams

Acquisition and

Sourcing Management

Paul Francis

Defense Capabilities

and Management

Cathleen Berrick

Financial Management

and Assurance

Gary Engel

Forensic Audits and

Investigative Service

Stephen Lord

Homeland Security

and Justice

George Scott

In

Te

Joel 

Applied Research

and Methods

Nancy Kingsbury

Legend:

Education, Workforce,

and Income Security

Barbara Bovbjerg

Financial Markets and

Community Investment

Orice Williams Brown

Health Care

A. Nicole Clowers

International

Affairs and Trade

Loren Yager

Chief Quality Officer

Timothy Bowling

Continuous Process

Improvement

Thomas Williams

Managing Associate G.C. 

Goal 1

Susan Sawtelle

Managing Associate G.C. 

Goal 1

Helen Desaulniers

Audit Policy

Quality Assurance

Managing Associate G.C. 

Goal 3

Edda Emmanuelli-Perez

Managing Associate G.C. 

Goal 3

Robert Cramer

Managing Associate G.C. 

Goal 2

Stephanie May

Managing Associate G.C.

Legal Services

Joan Hollenbach

Anu Mittal

Benjamin Nelson

Managing Associate G.C.

Procurement Law

Ralph White

Managing Associate G.C.

Procurement Law

Kenneth Patton 

Deputy General Counsel/

Ethics Counselor

Tom Armstrong

Managing Associate G.C. 

Mission and Operations

(Vacant)

Chief Operating Officer

Patricia Dalton

General Counsel

Susan Poling

The Executive Committee

Indicates support or advisory relationship with the teams/units rather than a direct reporting relationship.

Note: Everyone listed on this table, other than the Comptroller General, is an SES-level manager. Also, with the following exceptions, the SES managers are titled “Managing 

Director” or “Managing Associate Director”— the Chief Operating Officer, the Chief Administrative Officer, the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, the Inspector General, the 

General Counsel, the Deputy General Counsel, the Chief Quality Officer, the Chief Information Officer, and the Chief Human Capital Officer. 

abilities

ement

errick

Financial Management

and Assurance

Gary Engel

Forensic Audits and

Investigative Service

Stephen Lord

Homeland Security

and Justice

George Scott

Information

Technology

Joel Willemssen

Physical

Infrastructure

Phillip Herr

ducation, Workforce,

and Income Security

Barbara Bovbjerg

Financial Markets and

Community Investment

Orice Williams Brown

Health Care

A. Nicole Clowers

International

Affairs and Trade

Loren Yager

Natural Resources

and Environment

Mark Gaffigan

Strategic Issues

Christopher Mihm

Chief Quality Officer

Timothy Bowling

Continuous Process

Improvement

Thomas Williams

ate G.C. 

rs

Audit Policy

Quality Assurance

ate G.C. 

i-Perez

ate G.C.

Anu Mittal

Benjamin Nelson

ate G.C.

ate G.C. 

ations

Field Operations

Linda Calbom

Financial Management

and Business Operatio

William Anderson

Human Capital

William White

Information Systems

and Technology Servic

Howard Williams

Infrastructure

Operations

Terrell Dorn

Professional Developm

Program

Teresa Rivera Russel

Chief Administrative Officer/

Chief Financial Officer

Karl Maschino

Chief Operating Officer

Patricia Dalton

November 2015

Deputy Chief

Administrative Officer

Paul Johnson

er than a direct reporting relationship.

 SES-level manager. Also, with the following exceptions, the SES managers are titled “Managing 

 Chief Administrative Officer, the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, the Inspector General, the 

 Chief Information Officer, and the Chief Human Capital Officer. Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

abilities

ement

errick

Financial Management

and Assurance

Gary Engel

Forensic Audits and

Investigative Service

Stephen Lord

Homeland Security

and Justice

George Scott

Information

Technology

Joel Willemssen

Physical

Infrastructure

Phillip Herr

ducation, Workforce,

nd Income Security

Barbara Bovbjerg

Financial Markets and

Community Investment

Orice Williams Brown

Health Care

A. Nicole Clowers

International

Affairs and Trade

Loren Yager

Natural Resources

and Environment

Mark Gaffigan

Strategic Issues

Christopher Mihm

Chief Quality Officer

Timothy Bowling

Continuous Process

Improvement

Thomas Williams

te G.C. 

s

Audit Policy

Quality Assurance

te G.C. 

i-Perez

te G.C.

Anu Mittal

Benjamin Nelson

te G.C.

te G.C. 

ations

Field Operations

Linda Calbom

Financial Management

and Business Operatio

William Anderson

Human Capital

William White

Information Systems

and Technology Service

Howard Williams

Infrastructure

Operations

Terrell Dorn

Professional Developm

Program

Teresa Rivera Russel

Chief Administrative Officer/

Chief Financial Officer

Karl Maschino

Chief Operating Officer

Patricia Dalton

November 2015

Deputy Chief

Administrative Officer

Paul Johnson

r than a direct reporting relationship.

 SES-level manager. Also, with the following exceptions, the SES managers are titled “Managing 

Chief Administrative Officer, the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, the Inspector General, the 

Chief Information Officer, and the Chief Human Capital Officer. 

Figure 9: Organizational Structure

Mission Teams

Acquisition and

Sourcing Management

Paul Francis

Defense Capabilities

and Management

Cathleen Berrick

Financial Management

and Assurance

Gary Engel

Forensic Audits and

Investigative Service

Stephen Lord

Homeland Security

and Justice

George Scott

Information

Technology

Joel Willemssen

Physical

Infrastructure

Phillip Herr

GAO’s Organization Chart

Comptroller General

of the United States

Gene Dodaro

Opportunity and

Inclusiveness

Reginald Jones

Inspector General

Adam Trzeciak

Strategic Planning

and External Liaison

James-Christian

Blockwood

Public Affairs

Chuck Young

Congressional

Relations

Katherine Siggerud

Applied Research

and Methods

Nancy Kingsbury

Legend:

Education, Workforce,

and Income Security

Barbara Bovbjerg

Financial Markets and

Community Investment

Orice Williams Brown

Health Care

A. Nicole Clowers

International

Affairs and Trade

Loren Yager

Natural Resources

and Environment

Mark Gaffigan

Strategic Issues

Christopher Mihm

Chief Quality Officer

Timothy Bowling

Continuous Process

Improvement

Thomas Williams

Managing Associate G.C. 

Goal 1

Susan Sawtelle

Managing Associate G.C. 

Goal 1

Helen Desaulniers

Audit Policy

Quality Assurance

Managing Associate G.C. 

Goal 3

Edda Emmanuelli-Perez

Managing Associate G.C. 

Goal 3

Robert Cramer

Managing Associate G.C. 

Goal 2

Stephanie May

Managing Associate G.C.

Legal Services

Joan Hollenbach

Anu Mittal

Benjamin Nelson

Managing Associate G.C.

Procurement Law

Ralph White

Managing Associate G.C.

Procurement Law

Kenneth Patton 

Deputy General Counsel/

Ethics Counselor

Tom Armstrong

Managing Associate G.C. 

Mission and Operations

(Vacant)

Field Operations

Linda Calbom

Financial Management

and Business Operations

William Anderson

Human Capital

William White

Information Systems

and Technology Services

Howard Williams

Infrastructure

Operations

Terrell Dorn

Professional Development

Program

Teresa Rivera Russell

Chief Administrative Officer/

Chief Financial Officer

Karl Maschino

Chief Operating Officer

Patricia Dalton

General Counsel

Susan Poling

November 2015

Deputy Chief

Administrative Officer

Paul Johnson

The Executive Committee

Indicates support or advisory relationship with the teams/units rather than a direct reporting relationship.

Note: Everyone listed on this table, other than the Comptroller General, is an SES-level manager. Also, with the following exceptions, the SES managers are titled “Managing 

Director” or “Managing Associate Director”— the Chief Operating Officer, the Chief Administrative Officer, the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, the Inspector General, the 

General Counsel, the Deputy General Counsel, the Chief Quality Officer, the Chief Information Officer, and the Chief Human Capital Officer. 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

12 GAO-16-3SP About GAO

The Office of General Counsel is structured 

to facilitate the delivery of legal services 

to the teams and staff offices that support 

our four strategic goals (three external 

and one internal). 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 on behalf of the Comptroller 

General. Specifically, the legal groups 

that support our three external goals 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 for 

committees and members of the Congress 

on agency adherence to laws applicable to 

their programs and activities. The Legal 

Services group provides in-house 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 our one internal strategic goal, staff 

in our Chief Administrative Office take the 

lead. Our Office of Continuous Process 

Improvement, established in fiscal year 

2012, leads the agency’s efforts to improve 

efficiency and effectiveness of the work 

conducted by our mission and mission 

support operations. Other teams and 

offices across GAO 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. As previously 

mentioned, attorneys in the General 

Counsel’s office, primarily in the Legal 

Services group, provide legal support for 

goal 4.

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.

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 approximately 3,000 employees are 

based at our headquarters in Washington, 

D.C.; the rest are deployed in 11 field offices 

across the country (see fig. 10). 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.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 13 About GAO

Figure 10: GAO’s Office Locations

Los Angeles Chicago Dayton

San Francisco Huntsville

Seattle

Dallas Norfolk

Denver Boston

Atlanta

Washington, D.C.

Source: See Image Sources

Our Strategic Plan

In February 2014, we issued our strategic 

plan for fiscal years 2014 through 2019—

describing our proposed goals and strategies 

for supporting the Congress and the nation 

and identifying seven broad trends that 

provide context for the plan. 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. See figure 11 for 

the seven trends shaping the United States 

and its place in the world. 

Our strategic plan is based on a four-tiered 

hierarchy—four strategic goals (the highest 

tier) followed by strategic objectives, 

performance goals, and key efforts. Each 

strategic goal is comprised of strategic 

objectives, for which there are specific 

strategies taking the form of performance 

goals, each of which has a set of key 

efforts. The text box below provides an 

example from one of our strategic goals. 

Our audit and investigative work is aligned 

primarily under the first three strategic 

goals in our plan, which span domestic 

and international issues affecting the lives 

of all Americans. Our fourth strategic 

goal is focused on improving our internal 

operations. See figure 11 for our strategic 

plan framework. Our strategic plan is the 

blueprint that lays out the areas in which 

we expect to conduct research, audits, 

analyses, and evaluations to meet our 

clients’ needs and allocate our resources. 

Any revisions to our strategic plan or 

resource allocations are disclosed in our 

annual performance plans, which are 

available—along with our strategic plan—on 

our website (http://www.gao.gov/about/

strategic.html)
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

14 GAO-16-3SP About GAO

.

An Example of Our Four-tiered Strategic Planning Process

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

Strategic Objective: Analyze the Government’s Fiscal Condition and Opportunities to Strengthen Approaches 

to Address the Current and Projected Fiscal Gaps

Performance Goal: Identify specific opportunities to reduce the tax gap by improving taxpayer voluntary 

compliance and IRS’s ability to pursue noncompliance

Key Efforts:

 Identify potential improvements to the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) taxpayer service, such as 

easier tax return filing; faster refund processing; and more informative telephone, website, and written 

communications. 

 Identify opportunities to improve IRS’s enforcement programs in light of a changing U.S. and international 

economy, evolving technology, and the tax gap. 

 Identify opportunities to leverage paid preparers, tax preparation software companies, and information 

return reporters to ensure timely, accurate filing of tax returns. 

 Evaluate IRS’s efforts to modernize its expenditure plans and its information systems. 

 Assess IRS’s efforts to improve planning, resource allocations, and evaluation of operations, including using 

research and data to enhance compliance programs. 

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 externally focused 

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 these 

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; 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 15 About GAO

CORE VALUES

Trends Shaping the United States and Its Place in the World 

National 

Security 

Trends

Fiscal Sustainability 

and Debt Challenges 

Global 

Interdependence

Science and 

Technology 

Trends

Communication 

Networks and Information 

Technologies 

Shifts in 

Governance and 

Government 

Demographic 

and Societal 

Changes

Serving the Congress and the Nation

MISSION

GAOexists 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-16-3SP

n Health care needs

n Lifelong learning

n Challenges facing an aging 

population 

n Effective system of justice 

n Housing finance and viable 

communities 

n Stable financial system 

and sufficient consumer 

protection 

n Natural resources and the 

environment 

n National infrastructure 

n Benefits and protections 

for workers, families, and 

children 

n Homeland security

n Military capabilities and 

readiness

n Foreign policy and 

international economic 

interests

n Government’s fiscal position 

and approaches to address 

current and projected fiscal 

gaps

n Federal government audit and 

internal control standards

n Major management 

challenges and program 

risks

n Fraud, waste, and abuse, 

and improvements in 

internal controls 

n Efficiency, effectiveness, and 

quality

n Diverse workforce and 

inclusive work environment

n Networks, collaborations, and partnerships

n Human, information, 

fiscal, technological, and 

physical resources

Provide Timely, Quality Service to the 

Congress and the Federal Government 

to...

Maximize the Value of GAO by 

Enabling Quality, Timely Service to the 

Congress and Being a Leading Practices 

Federal Agency by focusing on...

Help Transform the Federal 

Government to Address National 

Challenges by assessing...

Respond to Changing Security 

Threats and the Challenges 

of Global Interdependence 

involving...

Address Current and Emerging 

Challenges to the Well-being 

and Financial Security of the 

American People related to...

GAO’s Strategic Plan Framework

Figure 11: GAO’s Strategic Plan Framework
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

16 GAO-16-3SP About GAO

 legal opinions that determine whether 

agencies are in compliance with 

applicable laws and regulations; 

 policy analyses to assess needed actions 

and the implications of proposed 

actions; and

 additional assistance to the Congress in 

support of its oversight and decisionmaking 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 2015, we devoted 

95 percent of our engagement resources 

to work requested or mandated by the 

Congress. We devoted the remaining 5 

percent of engagement resources to work 

initiated under the Comptroller General’s 

authority. Much of this work addressed 

various challenges that are of broad-based 

interest to the Congress, such as disaster 

assistance; our 2015 fragmentation, 

overlap, and duplication report; and the 

federal, state, and local government fiscal 

outlook.2

 Our reviews of government 

programs and operations have identified 

those programs that are at high risk for 

fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. 

These reviews helped support our biennial 

high-risk report, which was updated in 

2015. 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 reviews of agencies’ 

budget requests also help us support 

congressional decision making. 

Our staff are responsible for following high 

standards for gathering, documenting, 

and supporting the information we collect 

and analyze. This information is usually 

2

GAO, State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook: 2014 Update, 

GAO-15-224SP, (Washington, D.C.: Dec.. 17, 2014). 

presented in products that are made 

available to the public. Over the past 

5 years, we have issued, on average, 

833 products annually, primarily in an 

electronic format. In addition, we publish 

about 400 legal decisions and opinions 

annually. In some cases, we develop 

products that contain classified or sensitive 

information that cannot be made available 

publicly. 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.3

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. Such special 

publications are valuable planning tools 

3

GAO, Bid Protest Annual Report to the Congress for Fiscal Year 2014, 

GAO-15-256SP (Washington, D.C.: Nov.18, 2014); and GAO, 

Principles of Federal Appropriations Law: Annual Update of the Third 

Edition, GAO-15-303SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12, 2015).
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 17 About GAO

because they help us identify areas of 

focus on important policy and management 

issues facing the nation. Collectively, our 

products contain 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 

post our findings to a recommendations 

database, which is updated regularly and 

publicly available (http://www.gao.gov/

recommendations/).

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 the national audit offices 

of other countries.

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 

are expected to occur over a period of 

several years. 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 agency-wide 

targets. For past recommendations 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

18 GAO-16-3SP About GAO

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 agency-wide 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 quantitative and qualitative 

data and information on the services 

we are providing to our congressional 

clients. We also set a target at the 

agency-wide 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 

agency-wide 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 

agency-wide 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 our work. 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 agency-wide 

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 agency-wide 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. 126) and the external factors 

that influence our work. Some external 

factors are not in our control, such as 

the pace at which agencies implement 

our recommendations and the number of 

hearings at which we are asked to testify 

(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 the strategic plan 

and what they believe they can accomplish 

in the upcoming fiscal year. Our Executive 

Committee then establishes targets for the 

performance measures.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 19 About GAO

Once approved by the Comptroller 

General, the targets become final and are 

presented in our annual performance plan 

and budget.4 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 and why this was done. 

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 2015 against our 

previously established performance targets. 

We also present our financial statements, 

our Audit Advisory Committee’s report, 

the independent auditor’s report, and a 

statement from GAO’s Inspector General.

4

Our most current plan is available at http://www.gao.gov/products/

GAO-15-309SP
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

20 GAO-16-3SP About GAO

Awards

2014 CEAR, 2015 American Graphic Design, and 

2015 Inhouse Graphic Design Awards

 CERTIFICATE OF 

 EXCELLENCE IN 

ACCOUNTABILITY

 REPORTING®

Presented to the

In recognition of your outstanding efforts

in preparing the agency’s Performance and 

Accountability Report for the fiscal year 

ended September 30, 2014.

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

Ann Ebberts, MS, PMP 

Chief Executive Officer, AGA

UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Performance and

Accountability Report

Fiscal Year 2014

U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

SERVING CONGRESS AND THE NATION

UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

GAO Summary of

Performance and

Financial Information

Fiscal Year 2014

U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

SERVING CONGRESS AND THE NATION

Last year, the Association of Government Accountants awarded GAO for the 14th 

consecutive year its Certificate of Excellence in Accountability Reporting for our 

Performance and Accountability Report for fiscal year 2014. In fiscal year 2015, we also 

received the American Graphic Design Award for our Performance and Accountability 

Report for fiscal year 2014 and the American Inhouse Design Award for our Summary 

Performance and Accountability Report from Graphic Design USA.

Figure 12: GAO’s Performance and Accountability Report Awards

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 21 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

In fiscal year 2015, demand for our work 

was high with 813 congressional requests 

and new mandates. Our work in key 

areas helped inform the Congress and 

the administration on issues relevant 

to all Americans. This section contains 

information on 

Overall Performance toward Our Goals

 Our results goals

 Our client goals

 Our people goals

 Our internal operations

Other Ways GAO Served the Congress 

and the American People

 GAO’s High-Risk Program

 Opportunities to Reduce 

Fragmentation, Overlap, and 

Duplication, Achieve Savings, and 

Enhance Revenue

 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act of 2010

 The Troubled Asset Relief Program

 The Patient Protection and Affordable 

Care Act

 General Counsel Decisions and Other 

Legal Work

Strategic Planning and Partnerships

Managing Our Resources

Management Challenges

Assisting the Congress and Benefiting the 

Nation during Challenging Times

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Part I

Management’s Discussion and Analysis
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

22 GAO-16-3SP Management’s Discussion and Analysis

The results of our efforts are reflected in 

our solid performance in fiscal year 2015 

(see table 2). 

Results: 

We exceeded our target of $46 billon 

in financial benefits by $28.7 billion—

reaching a record high of $74.7 billion. 

This represents a $134 return on every 

dollar the Congress invested in us. We 

also exceeded our target of 1,200 other 

benefits by 86 benefits, accomplishing 

1,286 other benefits. We fell short of 

meeting our target of 80 percent for 

past recommendations implemented by 1 

percentage point—finishing the fiscal year 

at 79 percent. We exceeded our target 

of 60 percent for new products with 

recommendations by 6 percentage points, 

with 66 percent of new products containing 

recommendations.

Client: 

We exceeded our target of 90 percent for 

delivering our products and testimonies in 

a timely manner by 8 percentage points—

reaching 98 percent on time delivery for 

fiscal year 2015. We were asked to testify 

at 109 hearings, falling 21 hearings short of 

our fiscal year 2015 target of 130 hearings. 

This was due to fewer than anticipated 

hearings being held, which is a factor not 

in our control. We were asked to testify 

before 63 separate committees and 

subcommittees on topics spanning most 

federal agencies.

People: 

We exceeded our annual targets for 

our people measures, including staff 

development, staff utilization, effective 

leadership by supervisors, organizational 

climate, and retention rates (with and 

without retirements). In addition, we 

exceeded our new hire rate target by 3 

percentage points—reaching 83 percent. 

We fell short of our hiring target of 236, 

yet we recruited for and filled 195 critical 

positions and made important strides 

toward meeting our optimal full-time 

equivalent (FTE) staffing level of 3,250. 

Internal Operations: 

We will be measuring staff satisfaction 

with our three internal operations for fiscal 

year 2015 through our internal customer 

satisfaction (CSAT) survey, scheduled for 

January 2016. In this survey, we will 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. We continued 

our efforts to maintain staff satisfaction 

with our internal measure for “helping staff 

get the job done” (82 percent in fiscal year 

2014) and are working to improve the other 

two services that did not meet our goal of 

80 percent in fiscal year 2014—“Improve 

the quality of work life” (78 percent) and 

“IT Tools” (65 percent). 

Overall Performance toward Our Goals
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 23 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Table 2: Agency-wide Summary of Annual Measures and Targets

Performance

measure

2010

actual

2011

actual

2012

actual

2013

actual

2014

actual

2015

target actual

Met/

not met

2016

target

Results

Financial benefits

(dollars in billions) $49.9 $45.7 $55.8 $51.5 $54.40 $46.0 $74.7 Met $50.0

Other benefits 1,361 1,318 1,440 1,314 1,288 1,200 1,286 Met 1,200

Past 

recommendations 

implemented

82% 80% 80% 79% 78% 80% 79% Not Met 80%

New products with

recommendations 61% 68% 67% 63% 64% 60% 66% Met 60%

Client

Testimonies 192 174 159 114 129 130 109 Not Met 120

Timeliness 95% 95% 95% 94% 95% 90% 98% Met 90%

People

New hire rate 95% 84% 76% 66% 88% 80% 83% Met 80%

Retention rate

With 

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

Without

retirements 96% 96% 96% 96% 97% 94% 96% Met 96%

Staff development 79% 79% 80% 80% 83% 80% 84% Met 80%

Staff utilization 77% 78% 76% 75% 77% 76% 79% Met 76%

Effective 

leadership by 

supervisors

83% 83% 82% 83% 83% 82% 83% Met 82%

Organizational

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

Internal operations

Help get job done 3.94 80% 

(3.98) N/Aa

82% 82% 80% N/AbN/Ab80%

Quality of work 

life 3.94 80% 

(3.99) N/Aa

78% 78% 80% N/AbN/Ab80%

IT tools N/A N/A N/Aa

68%c65% 80% N/AbN/Ab80%

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

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

a

No survey was conducted in calendar year 2012 (denoted by N/A). 

b

The survey will be conducted in January 2016 (denoted by N/A).

c

In 2013, we added the IT performance measure to better gauge and track satisfaction with GAO’s IT services. In prior survey 

years, IT services were covered under one of the other performance measures (years prior to addition of performance measure 

are denoted by N/A). 

Overall Performance toward Our Goals
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

24 GAO-16-3SP Management’s Discussion and Analysis

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. We maintained our target 

of 130 testimonies for 2015, but fell short 

of this target by 21 testimonies. The 

general decline in the number of hearings 

that GAO testified at over the past 6 

years mirrors the general decline in the 

number of oversight hearings held by the 

Congress. Therefore, it reflects a reduced 

opportunity for GAO to participate in 

congressional hearings. For 2016, we have 

lowered our target to 120 testimonies, 

which we consider a stretch goal, given the 

level of testimony requests over the past 6 

years and the fact that 2016 is an election 

year. 

Overall Performance toward Our Goals

Our fiscal year 2016 targets for 12 of 16 of 

our performance measures are the same as 

those targets we reported in our fiscal year 

2016 performance plan issued in March 

2015. Three of the remaining 4 targets 

(financial benefits, retention rate with 

retirements, and retention rate without 

retirements) have been increased and one 

(testimonies) has been decreased to what 

we believe are challenging yet realistic 

targets for fiscal year 2016. 

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 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 3 shows that 

our averages for financial benefits remained 

the same from 2010 to 2011, decreased in 

2012, rose slightly from 2013 to 2014 and 

increased sharply in 2015. The average 

number of other benefits we recorded 

decreased slightly from 2010 to 2011, 

increased slightly in 2012, remained steady 

in 2013, and declined in 2014 and 2015. 

New products with recommendations have 

been very stable from 2010 through 2015. 

Table 3: Four-Year Rolling Averages for Selected GAO Measures

Performance measure 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Results

Financial benefits (billions) $49.2 $49.2 $48.6 $50.7 $51.9 $59.1

Other benefits 1,357 1,348 1,359 1,358 1,340 1,332

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

Client

Testimonies 242 217 182 160 144 128

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 25 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Our findings and recommendations produce 

measurable financial benefits for the 

federal government after the Congress 

or agencies act on them and government 

expenditures are reduced or funds are 

reallocated to other areas. For example, 

a 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 2015, our work generated 

about $74.7 billion in financial benefits 

(see fig. 13). We exceeded our target by 

about 62 percent, primarily because of 

one unexpectedly large accomplishment of 

$32.8 billion. In light of our performance 

in fiscal year 2015 and expected future 

financial benefits based on our past, 

ongoing, and expected work, we have set 

our 2016 target for financial benefits at $50 

billion. This is $4 billion above the fiscal 

year 2015 target, but lower than our actual 

performance in fiscal year 2015, because 

we do not anticipate a similarly high level 

of financial benefits in fiscal year 2016. 

Figure 13: Financial Benefits GAO Recorded

Dollars in billions

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Actual Target Actual

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015

$49.9 $51.5

$45.7 $46.0

$74.7 

$55.8 $54.4

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 involving 

only the current year. Financial benefit 

amounts vary depending on the nature of 

the benefit, and we can claim financial 

Source: See Image Sources

Financial Benefits
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

26 GAO-16-3SP Management’s Discussion and Analysis

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. For example, fiscal year 2015 

was our fifth year of financial benefits 

resulting from improved tax reporting by 

banks and others to the IRS on merchant 

income from credit and other payment 

cards or third-party networks such as 

PayPal—about $1.5 billion in financial 

benefits in fiscal year 2015. Similarly, fiscal 

year 2015 was our fourth year of savings 

from the elimination of the ethanol tax 

credit for corn, which had duplicated a 

fuel standard—resulting in a $6.09 billion in 

tax expenditure savings. See figure 14 for 

examples of new financial savings for fiscal 

year 2015.

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 

by each goal in Part II of this report.

Figure 14: Examples of GAO’s Major Financial Benefits Reported in Fiscal Year 2015

Description of New Financial Benefits

Amount

(Dollars in 

billions)

Federal Communications Commission Auction Proceeds. In 2011, we recommended that 

the Congress extend the expiration date of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) 

authority to conduct auctions to assign spectrum licenses, which companies use to provide 

services such as mobile broadband. We found that experts and stakeholders, by large margins, 

supported such an extension. In 2012, the Congress and the President extended the FCC’s 

auction authority. In January 2015, the FCC completed the AWS-3 auction, which generated 

over $41 billion; after accounting for costs, such as relocating existing federal agencies using 

the spectrum, this auction will net revenues for the federal government exceeding $32.8 billion. 

(GAO-12-118) $32.8

Elimination of Direct Payments to Farmers. From 2009 to 2012 GAO completed a body of 

work on direct payments to farmers—fixed annual payments based on a farm’s history of crop 

production—received regardless of whether farmers grew crops and even in years of record 

income. GAO suggested that the Congress consider reducing or eliminating these payments 

to achieve savings of up to $5 billion annually—concluding that these payments did not align 

with principles significant to the integrity, effectiveness, and efficiency in farm bill programs. 

In 2014, the Congress passed the Agricultural Act of 2014 without reauthorizing these 

payments—reducing costs by about $4.9 annually from fiscal years 2015-2019. (GAO-12-640, 

GAO-12-338SP, GAO-11-714T, GAO-11-635T, GAO-11-441T, GAO-11-318SP) $4.9

HHS Reduces Improper Payments. Since 2000, GAO has issued multiple reports and 

testimonies to focus attention on government-wide and agency-specific improper payments 

issues, identified deficiencies in agencies’ estimation methodologies and actions taken to 

prevent, detect, and correct improper payments, including those at the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS). The role of GAO’s work in the passage of the Improper Payment 

Act of 2002, and our continued oversight of HHS’ efforts to meet the requirements of the 

act, has resulted in a total cost reduction of $3.3 billion (present value) in fiscal year 2015. 

(GAO-12-573T, GAO-12-405T, GAO-11-575T, GAO-09-628T, GAO-08-438T, GAO-07-92, 

GAO-02-749, GAO/AIMD-00-10) $3.3
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 27 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Cancellation of the BioWatch Generation-3 Acquisition. In September 2012, we reported 

that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not fully justify or pursue optimal solutions 

for its Generation-3 acquisition for BioWatch, a program for detecting an aerosolized biological 

attack. We recommended that DHS reevaluate the need and alternatives for the program in 

accordance with guidance and good acquisition practices. DHS concurred and, after analyzing 

alternatives, cancelled the acquisition. This resulted in financial benefits for the government of 

about $2.1 billion, based on present value calculations. (GAO-12-810) $2.1

Standard Missile Block IIB Program Cancelled. In 2012, GAO found that the Missile 

Defense Agency’s Standard Missile-3 Block IIB Program included high levels of concurrency 

and other acquisition risks (e.g., we found that the program planned to enter product 

development prior to holding a preliminary design review). In 2013, we reported that the lack of 

an analysis of alternatives contributed to the risk of cost growth and schedule delays. Following 

our 2013 report, the Department of Defense (DOD) restructured the program—effectively 

canceling it—citing schedule and technical concerns. This resulted in a net financial benefit 

of about $1.68 billion in fiscal year 2015 from this restructuring/cancellation. (GAO-13-382R, 

GAO-12-486) $1.7

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Note: Additional examples of fiscal year 2015 financial benefits can be found in Part II of this report.

COMMERCIAL 

SPECTRUM 

Plans and Actions to 

Meet Future Needs, 

Including Continued 

Use of Auctions 

Report to Congressional Committees

November 2011 

GAO-12-118 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO 

FARM PROGRAMS

Direct Payments 

Should Be 

Reconsidered

Report to Congressional Requesters

July 2012

GAO-12-640

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

IMPROPER PAYMENTS

Remaining Challenges 

and Strategies for 

Governmentwide 

Reduction Efforts

Statement of Beryl H. Davis, Director 

Financial Management and Assurance

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Federal Financial 

Management, Government Information, Federal 

Services, and International Security, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

U.S. Senate 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

GAO-12-573T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

BIOSURVEILLANCE

DHS Should 

Reevaluate Mission 

Need and Alternatives 

before Proceeding 

with BioWatch 

Generation-3 

Acquisition 

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2012 

GAO-12-810 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO 

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

28 GAO-16-3SP Management’s Discussion and Analysis

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 2015, we recorded a total of 1,286 

other benefits (see fig. 15). We exceeded 

our target by about 7 percent largely 

because of a number of accomplishments we 

documented for public safety and security 

and business process and management. We 

have set our 2016 target for these other 

benefits at 1,200 again given our past, 

ongoing, and expected work. 

Figure 15: Other Benefits

0

300

600

900

1,200

1,500

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015

Number

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Actual Target Actual

1,361

1,200

1,318 1,314 1,288 1,286

1,440

We categorize our other benefits into six 

areas—similar to those on our high-risk list 

(see fig. 16). This year, most of our other 

benefits were in public safety and security 

(42 percent) and business process and 

management (29 percent). See Figure 17 and 

Part II of this report for specific examples.

Figure 16: Types of Fiscal Year 2015 Other 

Benefits

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percentage of total

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

 Public Insurance 

 and Benefits 

 Public Safety and 

 Security

 Acquisition and 

Contract Management

 Tax Law 

Administration

 Program Efficiency 

 and Effectiveness

Business Process 

 and Management

10%

42%

2%

8% 9%

29%

Source: See Image Sources

Other Benefits
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 29 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Examples of programs included in categories in figure 16 are:

 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 financial reporting, 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 17: Examples of GAO’s Other Benefits Reported in Fiscal Year 2015

Program Description

Public 

Insurance and 

Benefits

Ensuring Foreclosure Protections for Servicemembers. In 2012, we reported 

that some servicemembers were not receiving the foreclosure protections due to 

them under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Among other deficiencies, we found 

that regulators responsible for overseeing mortgage protections for servicemembers 

were not sharing information that could improve their oversight of these problems. In 

response to our recommendations, several banking regulators have begun sharing 

this information. This will help ensure that servicemembers receive their mortgagerelated benefits—and help them keep their homes. (GAO-12-700)

Public Safety 

and Security

Improving TSA’s Rail Security Incident Data. In 2012, we reported that 

weaknesses hampered the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) ability 

to extract information from its rail security incident data system, causing TSA to 

miss chances to identify important trends or patterns. Per our recommendations, 

TSA established a process and provided guidance to ensure the completeness of 

incident data and minimize errors. TSA also developed the Surface Compliance 

Trend Analysis Network, which in part provides stakeholders with analyses of 

rail security trends and potential threats. These actions will help TSA develop 

recommended security measures for rail agencies, as appropriate. (GAO-13-20)
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

30 GAO-16-3SP Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Acquisition 

and Contract 

Management

Federal IT Acquisition Reform Act. Drawing on a large body of our work and 

scores of recommendations across multiple areas, the Congress passed legislation 

in 2014 to improve several aspects of federal IT management. Specifically, 

the Federal IT Acquisition Reform Act requires additional scrutiny of high-risk 

IT investments, enhanced transparency of these investments, certification 

that agencies are implementing incremental system development, improved 

management of agencies’ IT portfolios, strengthening the authority of agency 

chief information officers, continued efforts to consolidate federal data centers, 

and improved management of software licenses. (GAO-14-713, GAO-14-413, 

GAO-14-361, GAO-14-237, GAO-14-64, GAO-13-524)

Program 

Efficiency and 

Effectiveness

Enhancing Accountability over Discretionary Surface Transportation Grants. 

In 2014, we reported that the Department of Transportation (DOT) could not assess 

the performance of the $4 billion Transportation Investment Generating Economic 

Recovery (TIGER) grants program for surface transportation projects. Because many 

project performance measures did not connect with the overall program’s long-term 

outcomes, we recommended that DOT clearly link those measures with program goals. 

DOT agreed to implement our recommendation by 2016, which will allow it to better 

measure and report on the program’s performance, in turn helping the Congress make 

more informed funding decisions. (GAO-14-766)

Business 

and Process 

Management

Improving Estimates of Identity Theft Refund Fraud. The Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS) estimated it stopped over $24 billion in attempted identity theft 

(IDT) refund fraud but paid about $4.8 billion in fraudulent IDT refunds in filing 

season 2013. We found in May 2014 that IRS’s methodology for counting returns 

was missing two categories of fraudulent returns. In response, in August 2014, 

IRS changed its methodology for counting IDT refunds paid, which increased 

the estimate by about $1 billion (to $5.8 billion). The methodology IRS used 

to develop IDT estimates helps the agency better understand how IDT refund 

fraud is bypassing agency defenses, which in turn helps IRS improve IDT filters. 

(GAO-15-119, GAO-14-633)

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Note: Additional examples of other benefits for the fiscal year can be found in Part II of this report.

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

MORTGAGE 

FORECLOSURES

Regulatory Oversight 

of Compliance with 

Servicemembers Civil 

Relief Act Has Been 

Limited

Report to Congressional Requesters

July 2012

GAO-12-700

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

PASSENGER RAIL 

SECURITY

Consistent Incident 

Reporting and 

Analysis Needed to 

Achieve Program 

Objectives

Report to Congressional Committees

December 2012

GAO-13-20

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

DATA CENTER 

CONSOLIDATION

Reporting Can Be 

Improved to Reflect 

Substantial Planned 

Savings

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2014

GAO-14-713

United States Government Accountability Office

IDENTITY THEFT 

AND TAX FRAUD

Enhance

Authentication Could 

d 

Combat Refund 

Fraud, but IRS Lacks 

an Estimate of Costs, 

Benefits and Risks

Report to Congressional Requesters

January 2015

GAO-15-119

United States Government Accountability Office
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 31 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. We use a 4-year reporting 

window because it generally takes 

four full years to implement our cycle 

for recommendations. The 79 percent 

implementation rate for fiscal year 2015 fell 

just short of our target of 80 percent for 

the year (see fig. 18).

Figure 18: Percentage of Past 

Recommendations Implemented

Four-year implementation rate

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Actual Target Actual

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015

80% 80% 79% 78% 80% 79% 82%

Putting these recommendations into 

practice generates tangible benefits for 

the nation. As figure 19 indicates, agencies 

need time to act on our 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 19: Cumulative Implementation Rate for 

Recommendations Made in Fiscal Year 2011

Percentage

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

After

4 years

After

3 years

After

2 years

After

1 year

79%

43%

30%

16%

Other Measures of Our Results

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

INDIAN AFFAIRS

Further Actions on GAO 

Recommendations 

Needed to Address 

Systemic Management 

Challenges with Indian 

Education 

Statement of Melissa Emrey-Arras, Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security

Testimony 

Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, 

U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:15 p.m. ET

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

GAO-15-597T

United States Government Accountability Office

SURFACE 

TRANSPORTATION

Department of 

Transportation Should 

Measure the Overall 

Performance and 

Outcomes of the 

TIGER Discretionary 

Grant Program

Report to the Ranking Member, 

Committee on Environment and Public 

Works, U.S. Senate

September 2014

GAO-14-766

United States Government Accountability Office

CIVIL SUPPORT

DOD Is Taking Action 

to Strengthen Support 

of Civil Authorities

Statement of Joseph W. Kirschbaum, PhD 

Director, Defense Capabilities and Management

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on 

Emergency Preparedness, Response, 

and Communications, Committee on 

Homeland Security, House of 

Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at10:00 a.m. EDT

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

GAO-15-686T

United States Government Accountability Office

IMPROPER PAYMENTS

Government-Wide 

Estimates and Use of 

Death Data to Help 

Prevent Payments to 

Deceased Individuals

Statement of Daniel Bertoni,

Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

Beryl H. Davis, 

Director, Financial Management and Assurance

Testimony 

Before the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, 

Expected at 4:00 p.m. ET

For Release on Delivery 

U.S. Senate

Monday, March 16, 2015

GAO-15-482T

United States Government Accountability Office
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

32 GAO-16-3SP Management’s Discussion and Analysis

New Products Containing 

Recommendations

In fiscal year 2015, about 66 percent 

of the 556 written products we issued 

contained recommendations (see fig. 20). 

We track the percentage of new products 

with recommendations because we want 

to focus on developing recommendations 

that, when implemented by the Congress 

and agencies, produce financial and other 

benefits for the nation. We exceeded 

our target of 60 percent by 6 percentage 

points. However, we are maintaining the 

60 percent target for 2016 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 20: Percentage of New Products with 

Recommendations

Percentage

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Actual Target Actual

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015

68%

63% 60% 64% 66%

61%

67%

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

DATA ACT

Progress Made in Initial 

Implementation but 

Challenges Must be 

Addressed as Efforts 

Proceed

Statement of Gene L. Dodaro 

Comptroller General of the United States

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittees on Information 

Technology and Government Operations, 

Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 1:00 pm ET

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

GAO-15-752T

United States Government Accountability Office

GOVERNMENT 

EFFICIENCY AND 

EFFECTIVENESS

Opportunities to Reduce 

Fragmentation, Overlap, 

and Duplication and 

Achieve Other Financial 

Benefits

Statement of Gene L. Dodaro 

Comptroller General of the United States

Testimony 

Before the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, 

U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. ET Tuesday, April 14, 2015

GAO-15-522T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO’S 2015 HIGH-RISK SERIES

An Update

Statement of Gene L. Dodaro 

Comptroller General of the United States

Testimony 

Before the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, 

U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10 a.m. ET

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

GAO-15-371T

United States Government Accountability Office

FEDERAL DATA 

TRANSPARENCY

Effective Implementation of 

the DATA Act Would Help 

Address Government-wide 

Management Challenges 

and Improve Oversight

Statement of Gene L. Dodaro 

Comptroller General of the United States

Testimony 

Before the Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform, House of 

Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expect

Wednesday, December 3, 2014 ed at 9:30, a.m. ET

GAO-15-241T

United States Government Accountability Office
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 33 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

To fulfill the informational needs of the 

Congress, 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 when promised based on the 

feedback from our clients. We issued 754 

total products and completed work for 150 

clients in fiscal year 2015. 

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 2015, our senior executives testified 

at 109 congressional hearings and fell 21 

hearings short of our target (see fig. 21). 

Although we did not meet our target, we 

were asked to testify before 63 separate 

committees and subcommittees—on topics 

spanning most federal agencies (see 

fig. 22). This measure is client-driven based 

on invitations to testify; therefore we 

cannot always anticipate clients’ specific 

subject area interests. The 109 hearings at 

which the Congress asked our executives 

to testify in fiscal year 2015 covered the 

scope of our mission areas. Twenty-nine 

percent of the hearings at which our senior 

executives testified were related to highrisk areas and programs, which are listed 

on page 35 of this report.

Figure 21: Testimonies

0

50

100

150

200

250

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015

Hearings at which GAO testified

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Actual Target Actual

192

130

114 109

129

174

159

We have set our fiscal year 2016 target for 

testimonies at 120 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. Our experience has also shown 

that during the fiscal year in which an 

election occurs, such as 2016, the Congress 

generally holds fewer hearings. 

Focusing on Our Client

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Comptroller General of the United States Gene Dodaro testifying 

(2015 High-Risk testimony).
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

34 GAO-16-3SP Management’s Discussion and Analysis

 Indian Education Management Challenges

 Railroad Retirement Board: Reducing Fraud and 

Improper Payments

 VA Health Care: Monitoring of Antidepressant 

Use and Accuracy of Suicide Data

 Management Challenges Facing the National 

Nuclear Security Administration 

 Improving Oversight of Motor Carrier Safety

 Rural Housing Service: Managing Loan Risks 

 Sustaining Indian Irrigation Projects

 Managing Federal Real Property

 Public Safety Communications: Establishing a 

Nationwide Broadband Network 

 Improving Oversight of HUD Public and Indian 

Housing Programs

 Extending Federal Funding for Children’s 

Health Insurance

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

Security of the American People

 Observations on the State Department’s Bureau 

of Counterterrorism

 DOD Strengthens Support of Civil Authorities

 Nuclear Nonproliferation: Minimizing Reporting 

Delays That May Affect Trade Sanctions

 Defense Acquisitions: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 

Program Progress 

 Afghanistan: Embassy Construction Faces Cost 

Increases and Schedule Delays 

 Addressing IT Cyber Threats and Security 

Breaches at Federal Agencies

 Strengthening Oversight for International 

Cash-Based Food Assistance

 International Space Station: Utilization and 

Cost-effectiveness 

 Improving Oversight of IT Acquisitions

 Improving Oversight of VA Contracting

 Border Security: Monitoring High-Risk 

Travelers and Maritime Cargo

 Enhancing National Capacity for 

Biosurveillance

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

Interdependence

 DATA Act Implementation Challenges

 Monitoring Government-wide Improper 

Payments

 Reducing Fragmentation, Overlap, and 

Duplication in Federal Programs

 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Enrollment Controls

 Improving Medicaid’s Fraud Controls 

 High-Risk Update: Fiscal Year 2015

 Federal Retirement System IT Modernization

 Homeland Security Acquisitions: Gaps in 

Oversight and Information

 Using Security Clearances Process to Aid 

Federal Tax-Debt Collection

 Addressing Biosafety Lapses in High 

Containment Laboratories

 Environmental Satellites: Addressing Potential 

Gaps

 Cybersecurity Challenges Facing Federal 

Systems

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

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Note: Additional information on selected testimonies can be found in Part II of this report.

Figure 22: Selected Testimony Topics • Fiscal Year 2015
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 35 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Table 4: GAO’s High-Risk List as of September 30, 2015 

High-risk area Year 

designated

Strengthening the Foundation for Efficiency and Effectiveness

■ Improving the Management of IT Acquisitions and Operations (new) 2015

■ Limiting the Federal Government’s Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks 2013

■ Management of Federal Oil and Gas Resources 2011

■ Modernizing the U.S. Financial Regulatory System and the 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 Support Infrastructure Management 1997

■ DOD Business Systems Modernization 1995

■ 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 2013

■ Protecting Public Health through Enhanced Oversight of Medical Products 2009

■ Transforming EPA’s Processes for Assessing and Controlling Toxic Chemicals 2009

■ Ensuring the Effective Protection of Technologies Critical to U.S. National Security Interests 2007

■ Improving Federal Oversight of Food Safety 2007

■ Establishing Effective Mechanisms for Sharing and Managing Terrorism-related Information to 

Protect the Homeland 2005

■ Strengthening Department of Homeland Security Management Functions 2003

■ Ensuring the Security of Federal Information Systems and Cyber Critical Infrastructure and 

Protecting the Privacy of Personally Identifiable Information 1997

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

■ Managing Risks and Improving VA Health Care (new) 2015

■ National Flood Insurance Program 2006

■ Improving and Modernizing Federal Disability Programs 2003

■ Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Insurance Programs 2003

■ Medicaid Program 2003

■ Medicare Program 1990

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

36 GAO-16-3SP Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Timeliness

To be useful to the Congress, our products 

must be available when our clients need 

them. In fiscal year 2015, we exceeded 

our timeliness target of 90 percent by 

8 percentage points (see fig. 23). 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 management and 

those expected to reach 500 staff days or 

more), which represented about 56 percent 

of the congressionally requested written 

products we issued in fiscal year 2015. 

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 2015, of the forms returned 

to us, 99 percent of the congressional 

staff responding answered the question 

on timeliness. Overall, the response rate 

to our entire form was 25 percent and we 

received feedback on 58 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 again set our fiscal year 2016 

target at 90 percent because we believe 

that this is realistic given current staffing 

levels and workload demands. 

Figure 23: Timeliness

Percentage of products on time

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Actual Target Actual

95% 90% 95% 95% 94% 95% 98%

0

20

40

60

80

100

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 37 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

separations divided by the average onboard 

strength. We calculate this measure with 

and without retirements. Table 6 shows 

that in fiscal year 2015, we exceeded our 

target rate of 90 percent for retention 

with retirements by 4 percentage points 

at 94 percent. We also exceeded our 

retention rate target of 94 percent without 

retirements by 2 percentage points at 96 

percent.

Our highly professional, multidisciplinary, 

and diverse staff were critical to the level 

of performance we demonstrated in fiscal 

year 2015. 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 8 fiscal years, we have refined 

our processes for measuring how well we 

manage our human capital. In fiscal year 

2015, we exceeded all 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 20, which begins on 

page 126 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. Table 5 shows that 

in fiscal year 2015, our new hire rate was 

83 percent. We exceeded our target by 

3 percentage points. We planned to hire 

236 new staff, but filled 195 positions (83 

percent of our target) by year-end. 

Focusing on Our People

Table 5: Actual Performance and Targets Related to Our New Hire Rate Measure

Performance

measure

2010

actual

2011

actual

2012

actual

2013

actual

2014

actual

2015

target

2015

actual

People

New hire rate 95% 84% 76% 66% 88% 80% 83%

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

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 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

38 GAO-16-3SP Management’s Discussion and Analysis

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. 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. (See Part V of 

this report on pp. 126-134 for additional 

information about these measures.) This 

fiscal year, 68 percent of our employees 

completed the survey, and we exceeded all 

four targets (see Table 7). Our performance 

on staff development exceeded our target 

of 80 percent by 4 percentage points. Staff 

utilization exceeded our target of 76 percent 

by 3 percentage points, organizational 

climate exceeded our target of 76 percent 

by 4 percentage points, and leadership 

exceeded our target of 82 percent by 1 

percentage point. Given our performance 

on these measures in recent years, we have 

decided to keep these targets for fiscal year 

2016.

Table 6: Actual Performance and Targets Related to Our Retention Rate Measures, Including and 

Excluding Retirements

Performance

measures

2010

actual

2011

actual

2012

actual

2013

actual

2014

actual

2015

target

2015

actual

People

Retention rate

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

Without retirements 96% 96% 96% 96% 97% 94% 96%

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Table 7: 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

2010

actual

2011

actual

2012

actual

2013

actual

2014

actual

2015

target

2015

actual

People

Staff development 79% 79% 80% 80% 83% 80% 84%

Staff utilization 77% 78% 76% 75% 77% 76% 79%

Effective leadership 

by supervisorsb 83% 83% 82% 83% 83% 82% 83%

Organizational 

climate 79% 80% 78% 77% 79% 76% 80%

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

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.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 39 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

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 

(see Table 8). We ask staff to rate 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. We 

will be measuring staff satisfaction with 

our three internal operations for fiscal 

year 2015 through our internal customer 

satisfaction survey, scheduled for January 

2016. 

The first measure encompasses services 

that help employees get their jobs done, 

such as information security, desktop 

computer equipment, travel services, and 

report production. The second measure 

encompasses services that affect quality 

of work life, such as assistance related to 

pay and benefits, building security and 

maintenance, and internal communications. 

The third measure encompasses 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. 

Focusing on Our Internal Operations

Table 8: Actual Performance and Targets Related to Our Internal Operations Measures

Performance

measures

2010

actual

2011

actual

2012

actual

2013

actual

2014

actual

2015

target

2015

actual

Met/

not Met

2016

target

Internal operations

Help get job done 3.94 80% 

3.98 N/Aa 82% 82% 80% N/Ab N/Ab 80%

Quality of work life 3.94 80% 

3.99 N/Aa 78% 78% 80% N/Ab N/Ab 80%

IT tools N/A N/A N/Aa 68%c 65% 80% N/Ab N/Ab 80%

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Notes: Information explaining the measures included in this table appears in the Appendix on Data Quality. a

No survey was conducted in calendar year 2012 (denoted by N/A). 

b

The survey will be conducted in January 2016 (denoted by N/A).

c

In 2013, we added the IT performance measure to better gauge and track satisfaction with GAO’s IT services. In prior 

survey years, IT services were covered under one of the other performance measures (denoted by N/A). 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

40 GAO-16-3SP Management’s Discussion and Analysis

GAO’s High-Risk Program

Every two years at the start of a new 

Congress, we issue a biennial update of our 

High-Risk report. This report focuses 

attention on government operations that 

are at high risk of fraud, waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement, or need transformation to 

address economy, efficiency, or 

effectiveness challenges. This report, which 

was updated in 2015, offers solutions to 32 

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. In 2015, we identified two 

new high-risk areas—managing risks and 

improving VA health care and improving the 

management of information technology (IT) 

acquisitions and operations. We also 

expanded the tax law enforcement area to 

focus on the prevention of identity theft 

related to tax refunds and the federal 

cybersecurity area to include the better 

protection of the privacy of personally 

identifiable information. 

The major cross-cutting High-Risk program 

areas range from transforming DOD 

business operations and managing federal 

contracting more effectively, to assessing 

the efficiency and effectiveness of tax 

law administration and modernizing 

and safeguarding insurance and benefit 

programs. Our 2015 High-Risk work 

produced 162 reports, 32 testimonies, 

$17 billion in financial benefits, and 

435 program and operational benefits. 

The high-risk areas with the largest 

amount of financial benefits were DOD 

Weapon Systems Acquisitions, Tax Law 

Administration, and Medicaid. The 2017 

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 25 years 

has shown that the key elements 

needed to make progress in high-risk 

areas are congressional action, highlevel administration initiatives, and 

agency efforts targeted to address the 

risk. In 2015, we met with top Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and agency 

leaders in a series of regular meetings to 

discuss progress and actions needed for 

removal from the High-Risk list. A complete 

list of high-risk areas is shown in Table 4.

Details on each high-risk area can be found 

at http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/overview.

Opportunities to Reduce 

Fragmentation, Overlap, and 

Duplication, Achieve Savings, 

and Enhance Revenue

In April 2015, we issued our fifth report 

(GAO-15-404SP) to the Congress in response 

to a statutory provision that calls for us 

to identify federal programs, agencies, 

offices, and initiatives that have duplicative 

goals or activities and report annually 

to the Congress on our findings, as well 

as actions to reduce such duplication. 

Given the current fiscal condition, we also 

identify additional opportunities to achieve 

greater efficiency and effectiveness by 

means of cost savings or enhanced revenue 

collection. 

Our 2015 annual duplication report 

identifies 66 new actions that executive 

branch agencies and the Congress could 

Our 2015 High-Risk work:

 162 reports 

 32 testimonies 

 $17 billion in financial benefits

 435 other benefits 

Other Ways GAO Serves the Congress and the American People
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 41 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

take to improve the efficiency and 

effectiveness of 24 areas of government. 

GAO identifies 12 new areas in which there 

is evidence of fragmentation, overlap, or 

duplication. For example, GAO suggests 

that the Congress repeal the statutorily 

required US Family Health Plan—a decadesold component of the Department of 

Defense’s (DOD) Military Health System—

because it duplicates the efforts of DOD’s 

managed care support contractors by 

providing the same benefit to military 

beneficiaries. GAO also identifies 12 areas 

where opportunities exist either to reduce 

the cost of government operations or 

enhance revenue collections. For example, 

GAO suggests that the Congress update 

the way Medicare has paid certain cancer 

hospitals since 1983, which could save 

about $500 million per year. 

In addition to identifying new areas, we 

continued to monitor the progress the 

Congress and executive branch agencies 

have made in addressing issues we 

previously identified. As we reported in 

April 2015, the Congress and executive 

branch agencies have addressed or partially 

addressed 76 percent of approximately 440 

areas we identified in our first four reports. 

We estimate that congressional and 

executive branch efforts to address these 

nearly 440 actions government-wide over 

the past four years have resulted in over 

$20 billion in cost savings, with $80 billion 

more in cost savings anticipated in future 

years from these actions. Policymakers 

and the public can track the status of 

congressional and executive branch efforts 

to address the issues we have previously 

identified on GAO’s Action Tracker located 

on our website under the “Duplication and 

Cost Savings” collection.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street 

Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act of 2010

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act of 2010 was 

intended to address regulatory gaps and 

oversight failures in the U.S. mortgage, 

securities, and financial markets. In fiscal 

year 2015, we issued six reports (with 

one recommendation) on issues the act 

mandates GAO to review. The reports 

covered: 

 legislative proposals and international 

coordination related to financial 

company bankruptcies (GAO-15-299); 

 the Securities and Exchange 

Commission’s oversight activities 

of the operations of the Financial 

Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) 

(GAO-15-376);

 views on the merits of a professional 

organization for credit rating analysts 

of nationally recognized statistical 

rating organizations and the challenges 

of creating such an organization 

(GAO-15-591); 

 information from company filings in 

response to the Securities and Exchange 

Commission conflict minerals disclosure 

rule and actions taken by agencies to 

implement the U.S. conflict minerals 

strategy (GAO-15-561); and 

 audits of the financial statements 

of the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (GAO-15-166R) and the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

(GAO-15-146R). 

In addition to work mandated by the act, 

GAO also responded to requests from the 

Congress on topics such as the impact of 

the Dodd-Frank Act on community banks 

and credit unions and the effects of new 

regulations related to mortgage reform. 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

42 GAO-16-3SP Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overall, our work provided the Congress 

with information that helped it oversee 

the financial markets and understand the 

effects of new regulations.

The Troubled Asset Relief 

Program 

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) 

began in October 2008 to help restore 

liquidity and stability to the U.S. financial 

system. The act that established TARP also 

included a provision for GAO to oversee 

TARP and report on our oversight. In fiscal 

year 2015, we completed several reports 

that culminated the large body of work we 

have undertaken over the last seven years 

in response to this mandate. In the future, 

we expect that our efforts in this area will 

be significantly reduced given the current 

status of the program (GAO-15-5, GAO-15-

197, GAO-15-367R, GAO-15-542, GAO-15-670, 

GAO-15-813, GAO-15-132R). 

The Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act

The Congress passed the Patient Protection 

and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in 2010 to 

increase the accessibility and affordability 

of health coverage for Americans. Key 

provisions of PPACA were implemented 

starting in 2014, including the establishment 

of health insurance exchanges—new 

marketplaces for individuals and small 

employers to purchase qualified health 

plans—and requirements affecting insurers’ 

premium rates and benefits. In fiscal year 

2015, we issued 6 products to assist the 

Congress in monitoring the implementation 

of PPACA, including 

 the need for the Internal Revenue 

Service to strengthen oversight of tax 

provisions for individuals (GAO-15-540), 

 observations on 18 undercover tests 

of enrollment controls for health care 

coverage and consumer subsidies under 

PPACA (GAO-15-702T),

 progress made, despite delays, by 

the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services (CMS) programs to limit health 

insurer risk, (GAO-15-447),

 trends in reported net sales and profits 

for medical device companies before 

and after implementation of PPACA 

(GAO-15-635R), 

 the range of private health insurance 

premiums and plan availability 

for individuals in 2014 and 2015 

(GAO-15-687), and

 the need for CMS to improve oversight 

of states’ information technology 

projects used to support their health 

insurance marketplaces (GAO-15-527).

We also studied several issues related 

to CMS’ website, Healthcare.gov, and 

its underlying systems. Specifically, we 

found that CMS has taken steps to address 

problems with initial deployment of 

Healthcare.gov and its supporting systems 

that led to consumers encountering 

widespread performance issues when 

trying to create accounts and enroll in 

health plans. Since the initial launch, CMS 

has taken steps to address inadequate 

capacity planning, software coding errors, 

and lack of functionality, which significantly 

reduced performance issues affecting 

Healthcare.gov. The initial launch of 

Healthcare.gov and its supporting systems 

also experienced problems because CMS 

did not apply recognized best practices 

for system development—requirements 

were not effectively managed, systems 

testing was inconsistent, and project 

oversight was not effective. As it has 

undertaken further development, CMS 

has made improvements in some of these 

areas, by, for example, establishing new 

requirements management processes and 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 43 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

improving test documentation. However, 

weaknesses remain in its application 

of requirements, testing, and oversight 

practices (GAO-15-238). 

a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Office of the General Counsel

March 2015

PRINCIPLES OF 

FEDERAL 

APPROPRIATIONS 

LAW

Annual Update of the 

Third Edition

GAO-15-303SP

HIGH-RISK SERIES

An Update 

Report to Congressional Committees

February 2015

GAO-15-290

United States Government Accountability Office

Fragmentation, 

Overlap, and 

Duplication:

 

An Evaluation and 

Management Guide

GAO-15-49SP

APRIL 2015

A Framework for Managing 

Fraud Risks in Federal Programs

July 2015

GAO-15-593SP

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

44 GAO-16-3SP Management’s Discussion and Analysis

General Counsel Decisions

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 

2015. The following exemplify some of our 

key contributions.

The Office of General Counsel handled 

over 2,600 bid protests during the course 

of fiscal year 2015.5 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. 

In fiscal year 2015, we issued over 500 

decisions on the merits, which are 

accessible on GAO’s Bid Protest Decisions 

web page at http://www.gao.gov/legal/

bid-protests/search. 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. Many of our 

fiscal year 2015 protests were resolved 

without a written decision on the merits 

because the federal agency involved 

voluntarily took corrective action to 

5

The number of protests in the last 4 years has been relatively stable: 

There were 2,561 filings in fiscal year 2014; 2,429 filings in fiscal year 

2013; and 2,475 filings in fiscal year 2012.

address the protest, in some cases after 

GAO used alternative dispute resolution 

techniques. The remaining protests were 

decided on the merits, dismissed for 

procedural deficiencies, or withdrawn 

by the protester. As required by the 

Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 

31 U.S.C. § 3554(e)(2), 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. 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2014,6

 included a provision for GAO to 

develop an electronic filing and document 

dissemination system for bid protests. The 

statute also authorized GAO to collect and 

use fees to offset the costs of that system. 

GAO is making progress in establishing the 

electronic protest docketing system. We 

have engaged the Enterprise Applications 

Services group of the Department of 

Agriculture’s Office of the Chief Information 

Officer to assist us in developing and 

hosting the system. In addition, we have 

conducted outreach with the Congress, 

and with small business groups identified 

by congressional stakeholders, on their 

thoughts about approaches to using a 

filing fee to offset the costs of the system. 

We are also regularly providing updates 

to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations on our progress.

Within the Office of General Counsel, 

seven attorneys appointed by the General 

Counsel also serve on our Contract Appeals 

Board, established by the Congress in 

2007 to hear and decide the appeals of 

contracting officer decisions with respect 

to contract disputes involving all legislative 

branch agencies. In addition to using 

6

Pub. L. No. 113-76, div. I, title I, § 1501, 128 Stat. 5, 433-34 (Jan. 

17, 2014).

Other Ways GAO Serves the Congress and the American People
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 45 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

alternative dispute resolution procedures, 

the GAO Contract Appeals Board also 

issues formal decisions as necessary to 

adjudicate contract appeals. These appear 

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

legal/contract-appeals-board/about. During 

fiscal year 2015, the GAO Contract Appeals 

Board opened 14 new appeals and closed 

9 appeals. Most of the closed appeals 

involved settlements between the parties 

based on varying degrees of GAO Contract 

Appeals Board input, and the board issued 

one formal decision in fiscal year 2015. At 

the end of fiscal year 2015, the board had 8 

pending appeals on its docket, as compared 

with 3 appeals pending at the end of fiscal 

year 2014.

In fiscal year 2015, we published 9 

appropriations law products, which 

included 8 appropriations decisions and 

letters, and 1 testimony. We addressed 

issues such as the use of appropriations 

for the personal expenses of an agency’s 

employees and the inapplicability of the 

bona fide needs statute to no-year funds. 

We testified before the House Committee 

on Financial Services, Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations on an agency’s 

contravention of a prohibition on the use of 

appropriations for lobbying activities and 

the resulting Antideficiency Act violation.7

These are available on our Appropriations 

Law Decisions webpage at http://www.

gao.gov/legal/appropriations-law-decisions/

search. 

One of our most highly visible decisions, 

issued in December 2014 to the 

Department of Commerce (Commerce), 

involved the prohibition on the use of 

appropriated funds for the personal 

expenses of employees.8 Commerce asked 

whether its appropriations were available 

for the purchase of disposable cups, plates, 

and cutlery pursuant to an agreement 

reached with the National Weather 

7

GAO-15-360T, Feb. 4, 2015.

8

B-326021, Dec. 23, 2014.

Service Employees Organization (NWSEO). 

Because Commerce did not have specific 

statutory authority or any other basis to 

pay for these expenses, we concluded 

that Commerce’s appropriation was not 

available for this purpose. In August 2015, 

NWSEO asked us to reconsider our decision, 

asserting that GAO lacked jurisdiction 

because the matter was subject to 

arbitration and to resolution by the Federal 

Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). In our 

reconsideration decision, we rejected 

NWSEO’s argument and emphasized 

the Comptroller General’s longstanding 

statutory responsibility to settle matters 

regarding the use of appropriated funds—a 

responsibility integral to the Congress’s 

exercise of its constitutional power of 

the purse.9 We noted that the collective 

bargaining process gives Commerce no 

mechanism to circumvent the Congress’s 

prerogatives to decide when to make public 

money available for personal expenses of 

public employees.

In September 2015, we issued a decision to 

the General Services Administration, which 

asked whether it properly accepted no-year 

appropriations to fund increased costs to 

customer orders, even though the amounts 

were appropriated after the customer 

agency incurred the original liability. We 

explained that the bona fide needs statute 

does not apply to no-year appropriations 

and thus, those amounts are available 

for any needs, whether past, present, or 

future.10

Other Legal Work

Attorneys from General Counsel also 

provided ongoing appropriations law 

assistance to various congressional 

committees and federal agencies on a 

number of topics. We helped committees 

and agencies understand the application of 

9

B-327146, Aug. 6, 2015.

10B-326945, Sept. 28, 2015.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

46 GAO-16-3SP Management’s Discussion and Analysis

the Antideficiency Act, the bona fide needs 

statute, and the miscellaneous receipts 

statute. We also informally assisted the 

Congress on a number of other matters, 

including user fees, continuing resolutions, 

legislative drafting, and the impact of 

expiration of authorizations.

The third edition of Principles of Federal 

Appropriations Law, commonly known as 

the Red Book, continued to be the primary 

resource for appropriations law guidance 

in the federal community. In fiscal year 

2015, the Red Book averaged thousands of 

downloads 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-15-303SP). 

Attorneys from General Counsel 

continued to teach a 21⁄2 day course on 

appropriations law. Presenting a framework 

for understanding and properly applying 

provisions of appropriations law for 

agencies across the federal government, 

the course helps ensure that agencies use 

public money as the Congress directed. We 

held 18 classes across 10 agencies. We also 

taught specialized seminars for the Senate 

and House Committees on Appropriations, 

the House Committee on the Budget, and 

the Executive Office of the President. In 

addition, appropriations lawyers spoke on 

our appropriations law work at conferences 

and trainings hosted by six agencies and 

professional organizations. To enhance 

communication within the appropriations 

law community across all agencies and 

within the three branches of government, 

we hosted our 11th annual Appropriations 

Law Forum in March 2015, at which 215 

attorneys from 90 government agencies and 

30 Inspector General offices participated. 

For fiscal year 2015, we received 14 

Antideficiency Act reports and made 

selected information from these reports 

available on our website. Since the 

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 195 reports 

and maintain an official repository of 

Antideficiency Act reports. 

We continued to report under the 

Congressional Review Act on major rules 

proposed by federal agencies to the 

standing committees of jurisdiction of 

both Houses of the Congress. We issued 

70 reports for rules received in fiscal year 

2015.

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.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 47 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

GAO’s 2014-2019 Strategic Plan provides a 

comprehensive road map for how GAO’s 

audit work will support the most important 

priorities of the Congress and the American 

people in the coming years. To effectively 

assist the Congress, GAO must not only 

perform oversight and insight work, but it 

must also conduct foresight work to better 

position itself to identify the emerging 

issues that present both opportunities and 

significant risks to our nation and our wellbeing. 

Building further foresight capabilities will 

be essential to preparing GAO and the 

Congress for these future challenges. For 

more than 90 years, GAO has stood at the 

vanguard of the U.S. government’s efforts 

to ensure government accountability and 

effectiveness. Key to this role is foresight 

and the ability to understand evolving 

trends and evaluate emerging issues.

GAO’s strategic plan also underscores how 

collaboration and partnership among the 

auditing and accountability community are 

essential to meet the calls of citizens and 

taxpayers for greater oversight, efficiency, 

and effectiveness of government operations 

and spending in the face of fiscal constraints 

and tighter government budgets. 

By leveraging its domestic and international 

partnerships, GAO builds collaborative 

capacity-building and knowledge-sharing 

networks that enhance our ability to do 

audits, strengthen government auditing 

standards, avoid duplication of effort, and 

share best practices with the wider audit 

and accountability communities, both in the 

United States and around the world.

Moreover, 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 

planning, audit work, and operations. 

During fiscal year 2015, we strengthened 

our collaboration with our domestic and 

international counterparts in the audit and 

accountability community to, among other 

things, develop standards, share knowledge 

and build audit capacity through ongoing 

communication and collaboration. 

Networks, Collaborations, and 

Partnerships 

With GAO’s authority to “follow the federal 

dollar,” there are unique challenges in 

assuring accountability for grants and 

other federal funds flowing to subfederal 

recipients in states and localities. 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. Each 

year, GAO receives hundreds of requests 

for international visitors to come to the 

agency to learn more about its mission, 

organization, and work. GAO values these 

visits as an important opportunity to build 

professional networks, share knowledge, 

and strengthen the capacity of Supreme 

Audit Institutions (GAO’s direct counterpart 

in other countries). We also provide 

domestic audit and accountability offices 

with guidance, expertise, and technical 

assistance in implementing professional 

standards. 

Strategic Planning and Partnerships 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

48 GAO-16-3SP Management’s Discussion and Analysis

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 are building 

capacity within our agency and among 

our partners to do quality work auditing 

programs involving U.S. funds and to set 

standards for the audit and accountability 

community. 

Federal, State, and Local Collaboration 

In fiscal year 2015, we supported the 

domestic audit and accountability 

community at the federal, state, and local 

levels. At the federal level, we coordinated 

with our federal partners, including a 

coordination meeting with the Council 

of the Inspectors General on Integrity 

and Efficiency (CIGIE). We also held a 

coordination meeting with our counterparts 

at the Congressional Research Service and 

Congressional Budget Office to share best 

practices on effective agency operations 

to assure high levels of service to the 

Congress and effective management of 

administrative programs.

Our collaboration with the federal, 

state and local audit community is also 

an important element of our standardsetting responsibilities, such as those for 

government internal controls. During this 

fiscal year, we presented the update of 

GAO’s Standards for Internal Controls for 

the Federal Government (Green Book) 

to hundreds of state and local auditors 

across the country through 5 regional 

intergovernmental audit forums and 1 

joint forum. We also introduced GAO’s 

new Fraud Risk Management Framework 

to federal, state, and local government 

auditors at 5 regional intergovernmental 

audit forum meetings. This new framework 

is a comprehensive set of leading practices 

for developing or enhancing a robust antifraud program. 

We supported and provided leadership to 

a combined 16 regional intergovernmental 

audit forums via 12 meetings during 

the fiscal year, with more than 1,200 

attendees overall. These regional audit 

forums enhance information-sharing and 

collaboration between accountability 

organizations at the federal, state and 

local levels of government through 

improved communication, coordination, 

and cooperation. Key topics discussed at 

forums included the Digital Accountability 

and Transparency Act; data analytics; 

cybersecurity; the Affordable Care 

Act; professional standards; updates 

on standards for internal control in 

the federal government, government 

auditing standards, and principles of 

federal appropriations law; the Uniform 

Guidance and Single Audit Process; forensic 

accounting; and risk management.

INTOSAI 

For over 4 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. 

Our participation in INTOSAI 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. GAO 

contributed knowledge and assistance to 26 

different committees, subcommittees, and 

working groups in INTOSAI during this fiscal 

year.

We provided leadership for a number 

of important INTOSAI bodies, including 

chairing the Working Group on Financial 

Modernization and Regulatory Reform 

and the Task Force for Strategic Planning, 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 49 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

leading the International Journal of 

Government Auditing, serving as vicechair of the Finance and Administration 

Committee, serving as vice-chair of the 

Supervisory Committee on Emerging Issues, 

and serving as a member of the Governing 

Board. 

We helped strengthen INTOSAI’s strategic 

planning capacity by leading a task force 

to update the INTOSAI strategic plan 

and assisting with the development of 

a mechanism for INTOSAI to monitor 

emerging issues. Serving as chair of the 

INTOSAI Task Force on Strategic Planning, 

GAO completed and analyzed the results of 

a survey of the group’s 192 members and 

5 associate members to understand the 

strengths, opportunities, and challenges 

facing INTOSAI. GAO also worked with 

the task force to interview 30 external 

stakeholder organizations to understand 

the policy issues faced by international 

organizations and opportunities for INTOSAI 

to play a role in responding to these issues. 

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 knowledgesharing working groups and task forces 

(e.g., Public Debt, Information Technology, 

Environmental Auditing, Program 

Evaluation, Fight Against International 

Money Laundering and Corruption, Value 

and Benefits of Supreme Audit Institutions 

(SAI), Key National Indicators, Procurement, 

Extractive Industries, and Financial 

Modernization and Regulatory Reform), 

we acquire knowledge and networks with 

experts in other countries in subject areas 

relevant to our audit work.

We modernized the INTOSAI Journal by 

launching a new social media presence 

and converted the publication to a solely 

electronic platform to reduce costs, while 

continuing to provide leadership for this 

important knowledge-sharing tool for our 

international SAI partners. 

Capacity Building 

To promote good governance and help 

ensure 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. The 

initiative provides a common approach of 

increased strategic focus and coordination 

for donors and the SAI community in 

strengthening SAIs in developing countries. 

During this fiscal year we worked with 

INTOSAI-Donor Cooperation to facilitate 

funding to SAIs in need through the SAI 

Capacity Development Fund (SAI CDF), 

a multidonor trust fund that approved 6 

projects totaling more than $2 million in 

developing countries. We also supported 

efforts to plan and execute the first 

outside evaluation of the INTOSAI-Donor 

Cooperation examining the impact of the 

initiative since its inception in 2009.

We further promoted SAI capacity-building 

efforts by leading efforts to improve mutual 

cooperation in audit and accountability. 

We helped plan an international seminar 

on financial regulatory reform in October 

2014 to contribute to good governance on a 

broader scale. 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

50 GAO-16-3SP Management’s Discussion and Analysis

In fiscal year 2015, 14 participants from 

11 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 36-

year history to more than 550. Through 

this program, our instructors, mentors, 

and sponsors become part of a growing 

international community and network 

of good government professionals and 

experts. Graduates of the program in many 

cases advance to senior positions; some 

have become auditors general, and others 

have reached ministerial positions in their 

government. 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. 

Center for Audit Excellence 

An important component of GAO’s 

efforts to build the capacity of other 

accountability organizations is the 

establishment of the Center for Audit 

Excellence. Legislation enacted at the end 

of 2014 authorized GAO to establish the 

center to provide training and assistance 

to qualified personnel and entities, 

such as federal, state, local and foreign 

governments. The center’s mission is to 

promote good governance and build the 

capacity of domestic and international 

accountability organizations.

During fiscal year 2015, we obtained 

approval for the business plan to launch 

the center, which will provide customized 

training, technical assistance, and other 

products and services. The center, which 

officially opened on October 1, 2015, 

has the goal of fostering the capacity of 

accountability organizations that can help 

improve government performance and 

transparency, in addition to ensuring the 

sound use of public funds.

To ensure high-quality services while 

providing independence from GAO units 

doing routine audit and oversight work, the 

center will be staffed primarily by former 

senior-level GAO auditors and managers. 

The center’s programs will be primarily 

demand-driven and offer fee-based 

products and services tailored to the 

needs of accountability organizations, such 

as state and local auditors in the United 

States and audit offices in other countries. 

Training, technical assistance, and other 

services, such as needs assessments and 

mentoring, will be offered in areas like 

conducting performance and financial 

audits, institutional capacity building, 

internal controls, and leadership and 

supervision in effectively overseeing audits. 

Fees collected will be used to support 

operations of the center.

How We Work

We work with organizations in a collaborative fashion 

to develop and deliver customized training and technical 

assistance programs to strengthen institutional capacity. 

After being contacted by an organization that is interested 

in our services, we:

 Engage in dialogue to understand your 

organization’s needs 

Upon receiving an inquiry or request for services, we 

will schedule a time to meet with representatives of the 

requesting organization to gain a better understanding 

of its needs, identify types of services that can best meet 

those needs, and discuss timeframes. We will then develop 

a description of proposed services along with associated 

fees.

 Assign highly experienced Center staff

Our cadre of highly experienced audit professionals and 

trainers have previously served as senior audit executives 

and managers, instructors, and professional development 

coaches at GAO and other organizations.

 Determine the most cost-efficient 

location and approach for providing 

services

During discussions with requesting organizations, we 

work collaboratively to identify the most efficient and 

cost-effective way to provide services. Our goal is to limit 

costs for providing services and keep fees at an affordable 

level. We have the capacity to travel to requesting 

organizations’ locations and anticipate this will often be 

the most cost-effective way to provide services. However, 

we also have the capacity to provide services at GAO and 

are exploring options for delivering services using webbased tools.

 Develop and deliver services

After signing an agreement with a requesting 

organization, we prepare relevant materials, provide 

regular updates and deliver services in accordance with 

agreed timeframes, fees, and scope of work. We seek 

feedback from organizations throughout the process 

to help ensure their needs are met.

441 G STREET, NW

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548

email: centerforauditexcellence@gao.gov

phone: (202) 512-7100

website: http://www.gao.gov/resources/

centerforauditexcellence/overview CAE

CENTER FOR

AUDIT EXCELLENCE

U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

CAE

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Center for Audit Excellence brochure cover.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 51 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

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 2015, our budgetary resources 

included new direct appropriations 

of $522.0 million, and $30.7 million 

in spending authority from offsetting 

collections, primarily from the lease 

of space in our headquarters building 

and certain audits of agency financial 

statements. Our total budgetary resources 

in fiscal year 2015 were $588.3 million. 

Resources Used to Achieve Our Fiscal 

Year 2015 Performance Goals 

Our financial statements for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 2015, were 

audited by an independent auditor, 

CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP, and received an 

unmodified 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 the United States. The 

auditor’s report, along with the statements

and their accompanying notes, begins on 

page 97 in this report. 

Table 9 summarizes key data.

Managing Our Resources

Table 9: GAO’s Financial Highlights: Resource Information (Dollars in millions): 

Fiscal Year 2015 Fiscal year 2014

Total budgetary resources $588.3 $562.5

Gross outlays $549.9 $529.3

Net cost of operations

Goal 1: Well-being / Financial Security of 

American People $221.7 $218.0 

Goal 2: Changing Security Threats / 

Challenges of Global Interdependence 152.2 141.6 

Goal 3: Transforming the Federal 

Government's Role 135.8 135.2 

Goal 4: Maximize the Value of GAO 14.6 14.9 

Other Costs in Support of the Congress 29.5 26.9 

Reimbursable services not attributable to 

above cost by goal categories (9.5) (9.3)

Total Net Cost of Operations $544.3 $527.3 

Actual full-time equivalents (FTE) 2,989 2,891 

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

52 GAO-16-3SP Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Total assets were $103.9 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), and substantially the same 

as total assets at the end of fiscal 2014.

Total liabilities were $79.0 million, composed 

largely of employees’ accrued annual leave, 

employees’ salaries and benefits, amounts 

owed to other government agencies, and 

nongovernmental accounts payable. The 

balance of total liabilities at the end of fiscal 

year 2015 remains substantially the same as 

total liabilities at the end of fiscal 2014. 

Overall, our net cost of operations in 

fiscal year 2015 is approximately $17.0 

million greater than in fiscal year 2014. 

This increase is consistent with the 

increase in budgetary resources and 

primarily was used to fund the increase in 

personnel. Costs for Goal 2, which deals 

with security threats and the challenges 

of global interdependence, increased by 

$10.6 million due to increased efforts 

by several engagement teams including: 

Defense Capabilities and Management, 

Acquisition and Sourcing Management, 

Homeland Security and Justice, and 

International Affairs and Trade. The 

cost category “Other costs in support of 

the Congress” represents costs of work 

which directly supports the 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 the Congress. 

Figure 24 shows how our fiscal year 2015 

costs break down by category. 

Figure 24: Use of Fiscal Year 2015 Funds by 

Category: 

Percentage of total net costs

Facilities

Salaries 

and benefits

1.9%

83.3%

IT services and 

equipment 9.3%

Contract services 

(non-IT)

Other 3.1%

2.4%

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Figure 25 shows our net costs by goal for 

fiscal years 2014 and 2015. 

Figure 25: Net Cost by Goal

2014

2015

Dollars in millions

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

0

50

100

150

200

250

Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Other

221.7

218.0

152.2

141.6

135.8

135.2

14.6

14.9

29.5

26.9

Note: Totals are not adjusted for inflation.

Summary of Financial Systems 

Strategies and Framework 

Our financial management system is an offthe-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 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 53 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

small purchases; CWTSato’s E2 Solutions 

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.

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, 2015, was operating effectively and 

that no material control weaknesses exist 

in the design or operation of the internal 

control over financial reporting. Additionally, 

our independent auditor found that we 

maintained effective internal control 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, 2015. We made 

this assessment based on criteria established 

under FFMIA and guidance issued by OMB. 

The Improper Payments Elimination 

and Recovery Act of 2012 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 found no improper payments 

in fiscal year 2015. In addition, our shared 

service provider performs the following 

additional controls related to payments, 

1) for pre-payment processes, a verification 

is performed against both General Services 

Administration’s (GSA) System for Award 

Management (SAM) and the IRS Taxpayer 

Identification Number (TIN) Match Program 

before establishing new vendors in the 

core financial system, and 2) payments 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

54 GAO-16-3SP Management’s Discussion and Analysis

are subject to verification against online 

portal matching from Treasury’s Do Not Pay 

Business Center (DNP) database.

Our Inspector General (IG) independently 

conducts audits and investigations of 

GAO programs and operations. During 

fiscal year 2015, the IG issued three audit 

and evaluation reports. The first report 

evaluated how well our privacy program 

managed and protected personally 

identifiable information. [http://www.

gao.gov/products/OIG-15-1] The second 

report assessed GAO internal controls over 

preventing, detecting, and responding 

to potential misuse, waste, and abuse of 

GAO purchase cards. [http://www.gao.

gov/products/OIG-15-2] Finally, the third 

report assessed the extent to which our 

Forensic Audits and Investigative Service had 

effective controls for ensuring compliance 

with the Law Enforcement Availability Pay 

(LEAP) Act requirements for receiving LEAP. 

[http://www.gao.gov/products/OIG-15-3] 

In addition, the IG operated a hotline for 

use by employees, contractors, and the 

public. The hotline is a primary source 

of complaints or information related to 

suspected fraud and other problems, 

abuses, and deficiencies pertaining to 

the administration of GAO programs and 

operations.

Hotline complaints are converted to 

OIG investigations when the complaint 

contains credible allegations involving 

GAO operations or its employees, and the 

possible violation of law or regulation. 

Investigations can substantiate an allegation; 

find the allegation to be unsubstantiated; or 

conclude that insufficient evidence exists 

for criminal and/or administrative action. 

In fiscal year 2015, the IG initiated 22 

investigations and closed 20 investigations. 

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. [http://www.gao.

gov/about/workforce/ig_semiannual.html] 

Furthermore, our Audit Advisory Committee 

assists the Comptroller General in 

overseeing the effectiveness of our financial 

reporting and audit processes, internal 

control 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 2015 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. 

 Robert H. Attmore, CPA, CGFM-Retired, 

previously served as the Chairman 

of the Governmental Accounting 

Standards Board, New York Deputy State 

Comptroller, President of the National 

State Auditors Association, and a 

Trustee of the Academy for Government 

Accountability. 

The committee’s report appears in Part III

of this report on page 96.

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, 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 55 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

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 2016 Performance Goals 

For fiscal year 2016, GAO requested an 

appropriation of $553.1 million, an increase 

of $31.1 million or 5.9 percent over the fiscal 

year 2015 appropriation of $522 million. 

Though no final decisions have been made 

on our fiscal year 2016 appropriation, initial 

indications are that funding levels will 

remain largely flat at around $522 million 

plus $35.4 million in receipts from rental 

income, reimbursements from program and 

financial audits, and bid protest user fees. 

At this funding level there are significant, 

unavoidable mission related impacts related 

to an expected decrease in FTEs from 2,989 

at the end of fiscal year 2015 to 2,944 at the 

close of fiscal year 2016.

At this FTE level, GAO will not be able 

to sustain the number of audits, reviews, 

testimonies, or deliver on the number 

of financial and non-financial benefits 

planned for fiscal year 2016. Although the 

implementation of New Blue and other 

process improvements will help mitigate 

some of the mission related challenges, 

a gap in capability and staff capacity 

will still exist and persist in the future 

without adequate funding. Because about 

80 percent of our funding goes toward 

salaries and benefits, flat funding is not a 

sustainable scenario for GAO going forward 

and will result in continued staff reductions 

and reduced capabilities, not to mention 

postponing much needed building and 

information technology improvements. 

GAO has been actively working to reduce 

costs for more than 5 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 2016. Additionally, 49,000 

square feet of headquarters office space 

has been renovated and rented, which 

has generated about $2 million in annual 

rental income. Plans are also underway to 

explore the possibility of renovating and 

renting out additional headquarters office 

beginning in fiscal year 2017. Additionally, 

we are undertaking a full scale review of 

our information technology and building 

and security offices to see if additional 

efficiencies are available that will further 

reduce infrastructure and operating costs.

Collectively, these actions will help 

ensure that we have the capacity in the 

near term 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 2016. With that 

said, it must be noted that there is a real 

risk that continued flat or reduced funding 

will result in a tangible degradation in 

GAO’s ability to perform its mission, achieve 

results, and support the Congress. This 

will become an ever increasing possibility 

as we exhaust operations efficiencies and 

revenue generating opportunities and must 

make real cuts to our number one asset—our 

people. 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

56 GAO-16-3SP Management’s Discussion and Analysis

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. We monitor our 

progress in addressing these challenges 

through our annual performance and 

accountability process, and ask our IG 

each year to comment on management’s 

assessment of these challenges. For 

fiscal year 2016, we will focus high-level 

management attention on the following 

four challenges, which are summarized 

below:

 Human capital

 Improving the efficiency of our 

engagements

 Information security

 Telework (new this year)

Additional information on progress made 

and actions planned for the future can be 

found in Part II. 

 CHALLENGE: Human Capital

GAO relies on a high-performing, resultsoriented workforce to deliver innovative 

and effective products to the Congress 

and the American people. The diverse skill 

sets and expertise required to provide 

timely, high-quality, reliable products 

and recommendations, and to perform 

followup actions to our work, present three 

human capital challenges that we need to 

strategically manage in a budget-conscious 

environment:

 Succession planning: Retirements 

and the potential loss of leadership 

and institutional knowledge, coupled 

with fiscal pressures, underscore the 

importance of a strategic and efficient 

approach to acquiring and retaining 

individuals with needed critical skills. 

While we met our recruiting and hiring 

goals this year, we know that investing 

in our staff throughout their careers is 

essential to maintaining our pipeline 

now and moving forward. Providing 

the right training, mentoring, and 

opportunities to entry- and mid-level 

employees in particular to help them 

grow professionally is the most efficient 

way we can foster and retain an expert, 

seasoned workforce, leveraging their 

experience, knowledge, and skills in the 

future.

 Human capital management systems 

and processes: The development, 

expanded use of system functionality, 

and integration of systems are essential 

for effective and efficient strategic 

human capital management. For the 

past few years, GAO has pursued fuller 

use of the federal government’s primary 

human resource processing system, HR 

Connect, in order to bring enhanced 

accountability, integrity, and consistency 

to the various human capital lines of 

business and to make better use of 

human capital data for informed decision 

making. In addition, we are continuously 

reviewing and assessing the ongoing 

efficiency of our other human capital 

management systems to identify those 

that may benefit from updates.

 Diversity and inclusion: GAO’s Diversity 

and Inclusion Strategic Plan guides our 

efforts to create, support, and promote 

a highly diverse and inclusive work 

environment. The plan identifies three 

primary workforce goals: (1) diversity, 

(2) inclusion, and (3) sustainability. 

Our diversity and inclusion efforts are 

becoming integrated into our everyday 

work practices, but there is more to 

Management Challenges
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 57 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

be done. We must continue to increase 

the representation of minorities and 

staff with disabilities in leadership 

positions; increase the representation of 

Hispanics, people with disabilities, and 

veterans in our workplace; and maintain 

a work environment that is respectful 

and inclusive of all segments of our 

society.

CHALLENGE: Improving the Efficiency 

of Our Engagements

In 2011, we identified improving the 

efficiency of our engagements as a new 

management challenge. With the many 

complex challenges facing the Congress and 

the nation, and in light of ongoing budget 

constraints, we recognized the need to 

look for ways to produce our reports and 

analyses more quickly and efficiently 

without sacrificing quality. Since 2011, we 

have made great strides in identifying ways 

we can gain efficiencies in the engagement 

process, and have implemented a number 

of recommendations. We have focused 

significant resources on developing a suite 

of efficiency improvements such as revised 

procedures, job aids, and tools. The 

Continuous Process Improvement Office 

(CPIO) and an executive-level leadership 

board were created in 2012 to guide and 

carry out the assessments, projects, 

and change management necessary to 

implement needed efficiency solutions. 

Several agency-wide project teams have 

been working to develop and implement 

such solutions. While much work has been 

done to achieve our goals in this area, 

two main challenges remain in our efforts 

to further streamline and improve the 

efficiency of our engagement processes:

 Technology: While we have successfully 

implemented a number of efficiency 

measures agency-wide, our ongoing 

challenge is identifying, acquiring, and/

or configuring available technology to 

match our work-flow-process needs 

to introduce greater efficiencies into 

the way we do our work. For example, 

identifying available technology to 

improve product development and 

distribution has been challenging 

because of several unique aspects of 

our product-writing process.

 Change management: Change takes 

time and must be rolled out according 

to the greatest needs and priorities of 

the agency. To ensure that we achieve 

our intended efficiency gains, we need 

to focus on managing the people side 

of change and expanding outreach 

with staff to understand and address 

opportunities for improvement and 

areas of resistance. A key component of 

this is listening to employee feedback 

and making revisions along the way as 

needed.

CHALLENGE: Information Security

Information security continues to be a 

challenge due to ongoing shifts in security 

threats, a changing security landscape, 

and evolving security guidance. As a 

result, information security has been one 

of GAO’s management challenges for 10 

of the past 12 years. Risks to information 

and communication systems include 

insider threats from employees, escalating 

and emerging threats from around the 

globe, the ease of obtaining and using 

hacking tools, the steady advance in 

the sophistication of attack technology, 

and the emergence of new and more 

destructive attacks. Deployed malware in 

the form of advanced, persistent threats 

and “zero-day” attacks comprise the 

most significant threat to our information 

and information system assets. Given the 

constantly evolving nature of these threats, 

information security will continue to be 

a management challenge for GAO and all 

government and private sector entities for 

the foreseeable future. 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

58 GAO-16-3SP Management’s Discussion and Analysis

GAO has identified five areas of opportunity 

for improved management and oversight 

of our information security systems and 

processes.

 Detecting and responding to 

inappropriate access to computer 

resources: Attacks on some federal 

agencies’ networks, including GAO’s, 

over this last year identified the 

relentlessness of the security threats we 

face. These breaches have heightened 

our awareness of, and responsiveness 

to, such threats. Our focus has been 

on integrating our security tools 

suite and on improving our security 

monitoring capabilities to ensure that 

the enterprise infrastructure effectively 

protects our information resources.

 Managing software and hardware 

configuration: Over the years, 

major technology changes within 

GAO have advanced our ability to 

effectively perform our work, but 

have challenged our ability to keep up 

with the implementation of security 

configuration standards across legacy 

and new technology. However, as 

business practices have evolved 

through technology, GAO has focused 

on improved project management to 

manage continuous technology and 

deployment schedules in a way that 

ensures risk mitigation as well as meets 

business requirements. Further, GAO 

has selected and configured technology 

to optimize the overall protection of 

our information systems and reduce 

our exposure to security risks. For 

example, GAO’s migration to a virtual 

environment for both desktops and 

servers has enabled a more consistent 

configuration and reduced the instances 

of specialized systems deployments. 

 Ensuring appropriate account 

privileges: GAO is focused on ensuring 

appropriate controls are in place 

to manage accounts with elevated 

privileges. In an effort to protect 

the “keys to the kingdom,” GAO is 

implementing a privileged account 

management solution to enhance our 

oversight of staff account privileges. 

Further, we will make changes to 

control and manage the operational 

requirements for system administrators 

within our network directory structure. 

 Planning for continuity of operations:

The continued operation of GAO 

information systems, especially in times 

of a significant crisis, requires effective 

IT planning, coordination, and training 

in continuity operations. Managing our 

human and fiscal resources efficiently 

and effectively plays a significant part 

in our efforts to upgrade our current 

IT infrastructure and address evolving 

business practices (e.g., telework, 

mobility, and data sharing), and we 

recognize that continuity of operations 

must be a critical part of our planning 

processes. 

 Implementing agency-wide enterprise 

risk management: GAO has embraced 

FISMA as the foundation of our 

information security program and 

has integrated this concept with the 

support from business and system 

owners. GAO recognizes the need for an 

overarching enterprise risk management 

perspective; the continuous monitoring 

of security controls provides a 

foundation for this process. GAO 

continues to review its agency-wide 

enterprise security perspective and 

prioritize remediation efforts to address 

any system deficiencies, as well as 

monitor and respond to internal security 

risks such as the potential for insider 

threats, and vulnerabilities associated 

with cloud-based services and data on 

mobile devices.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 59 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

CHALLENGE: Telework

In last year’s report, we identified managing 

a mobile workforce as one of several 

human capital challenges. We described 

the challenge of implementing, monitoring, 

and maintaining accountability of policies 

and programs that support the worklife balance needs of a diverse, mobile 

workforce, while attaining cost efficiencies 

and ensuring quality and efficiency in 

GAO’s work products. Due to increased 

attention government-wide to the effective 

implementation of agency telework 

programs and GAO’s ongoing efforts to 

manage its field office enhanced telework 

pilot and expand that pilot to headquarters, 

we are electing this year to add telework as 

a separate management challenge. 

GAO has a comprehensive telework 

program that provides employees with 

work-life flexibilities. Our telework program 

is a valuable recruitment and retention 

tool; reduces energy consumption, traffic 

congestion, and pollution; provides 

operational cost-efficiencies; affords 

employees flexibility in maintaining worklife balance; and allows the agency to 

continue to operate even when there are 

emergency building closures. The current 

telework policy allows eligible employees 

to telework up to 49 percent of their 

scheduled work hours and more in the field 

offices as part of the enhanced telework 

pilot. As we reported last year, between 

February 2012 and March 2014, GAO rolled 

out an enhanced telework pilot in its field 

offices. The pilot permitted eligible field 

office employees to telework up to 66 

hours per pay period (or 82.5 percent of 

the time), and required them to report to 

their official duty station for at least 14 

hours during the pay period over at least 2 

work days. The goals of the pilot were to

 Enhance flexibility for employees 

by allowing them to spend more of 

their time working from home or an 

alternative worksite.

 Help reduce infrastructure and other 

costs during a period of tight budgets.

 Maintain the underlying principle that 

GAO must preserve its historic levels of 

quality, timeliness, and productivity.

During 2015, GAO completed a 

comprehensive analysis of its telework 

program. The evaluation focused on (1) 

evaluating whether the enhanced telework 

pilot met its goals; (2) identifying lessons 

learned from GAO’s overall telework 

program; and (3) providing recommendations 

for improvement. We found that while 

overall the telework program is sound 

— meeting its goals of reducing agency 

operational costs, enhancing employee 

work-life balance, and not negatively 

impacting the quality, timeliness, and 

productivity of GAO engagements — there 

are some areas that require additional 

attention to ensure GAO has the right tools, 

policies, and oversight in place. 

We have identified four areas of 

opportunity for improved management and 

oversight of GAO’s telework program. 

 Guidance and training for staff and 

managers: GAO needs to ensure that all 

staff and managers have ready access to 

clear, accurate, and thorough telework 

policies and guidance. Our evaluation 

revealed that telework guidance exists, 

but it is spread across many official 

documents that were prepared by 

various sources and at different times, 

and that our telework training had not 

been updated in many years. Additional 

guidance and clarification about 

telework policy and procedures will help 

managers and staff better understand 

and meet their telework responsibilities.

 Cost-benefit monitoring: Telework 

provides many positive benefits. 

However, there are both quantitative and 

qualitative costs associated with running 

a telework program, from the cost of 

providing employees telework tools and 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

60 GAO-16-3SP Management’s Discussion and Analysis

technology to the potential impact of 

telework on the quality and timeliness 

of our products. While our evaluation 

found that our enhanced telework pilots 

provided financial cost savings with no 

evidence of any impact on engagement 

quality, timeliness, or productivity, we 

recognize the importance of continuing 

to analyze and monitor these areas to 

ensure that the resources we commit to 

telework provide an ongoing return on 

investment.

 Informal employee interaction and 

collaboration: While our evaluation 

results indicated a high level of 

satisfaction with telework across 

GAO, we did identify a few areas 

with a higher level of negative 

responses that warrant additional 

attention. For example, about onethird of respondents to GAO’s agencywide telework survey reported that 

telework negatively affected their 

informal interaction with coworkers, 

collaboration, and the ability to share 

knowledge and experiences. There 

were also a few areas where GAO 

managers expressed stronger negative 

reactions such as the ability to mentor 

and coach employees. GAO needs to 

better understand and find new ways 

to address the concerns of its managers 

and staff in these areas.

 Telework tools and management 

systems: While GAO has made 

continuous improvements to its IT 

tools and infrastructure, more needs 

to be done to improve the systems 

and collaboration tools that support 

the efficiency of working remotely. 

We recognize that improvements are 

needed to integrate systems to make 

it easier for managers to monitor and 

review staff schedules and related time 

and attendance data, and for telework 

program administrators to perform 

overall program monitoring of reporting 

requirements.

Mitigating External Factors 

In addition to the resource constraints and 

uncertainty of the budget for fiscal year 

2016, 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 as 

demonstrated by the 813 congressional 

requests and new mandates in fiscal 

year 2015. The Comptroller General and 

other senior officials maintain frequent 

communication with our congressional 

clients to keep informed of their interests 

as unanticipated shifts in congressional 

priorities can change the mix of work we 

are asked to perform. In addition, we 

reserve a limited portion of our resources 

for work initiated 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. 

One way in which we manage the high 

demand for our work is to conduct 

bipartisan work. In fiscal year 2015, 

58 percent of the work we completed 

was based on bipartisan requests and 

mandates. The 4-year average for our 

bipartisan work is almost 60 percent. 

Because 33 percent of our audit resources 

were devoted to addressing mandates 

in fiscal year 2015, we have used 

multidisciplinary teams composed of staff 

from across the agency to address crosscutting mandates. In addition, we continue 

to work with the Congress to modify or 

repeal recurring statutory requirements 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 61 Management’s Discussion and Analysis

which have already been fully analyzed, 

thereby freeing up resources for higher 

congressional priorities. 

Again this year the Rules of the House of 

Representatives for the 114th Congress 

require each standing committee or 

subcommittee to hold at least one 

hearing focusing attention on government 

operations under their jurisdiction that 

were identified by GAO as high risk due 

to vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, 

and mismanagement (see p. 40 for more 

information about our high-risk areas).

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.

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. As we reported 

in fiscal year 2014, as a result of the 

difficulty GAO was having in obtaining 

copies of documents deemed to be 

Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) from the 

State Department and U.S. Agency for 

International Development (USAID), GAO 

had engaged in ongoing discussions with 

senior officials from both agencies to 

seek changes to this practice. As a result 

of these discussions, which continued 

well into fiscal year 2015, both the State 

Department and USAID modified their 

practices in ways that should significantly 

improve GAO’s ability to obtain copies 

of SBU documents going forward. These 

changes should also bring the State 

Department and USAID practices more 

in line with those of the other executive 

branch agencies, which routinely provide 

copies of SBU documents to GAO, and 

greatly enhance our ability to effectively 

and efficiently carry out our mission. We 

will be monitoring how both agencies 

respond to GAO access requests to ensure 

they are effectively implementing these 

new practices.

Another issue relating to our access 

to information is in the context of the 

Intelligence Community. As we have 

reported for the past several years, 

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 Community, such as 

establishing a presumption of cooperation 

with us. However, we continue to have 

concerns with how several key 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 its oversight responsibilities. 

In fiscal year 2015, we successfully worked 

through a number of issues with various 

elements of the Intelligence Community 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

62 GAO-16-3SP Management’s Discussion and Analysis

related to obtaining information we 

requested. We will continue to monitor the 

implementation of ICD 114 moving forward.

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.

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Top row left to right: CG Townhall meeting, new employees being sworn in; bottom row: GAO staff working on projects.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 63 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 2015 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 agency-wide 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 were no 

changes in our strategic goals or measures 

during fiscal year 2015. 

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Part II

Performance Information
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

64 GAO-16-3SP 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 wellbeing and financial security of the American 

people and American communities. Our 

multiyear (fiscal years 2014-2019) 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 and well-being of an 

aging population;

 a responsive, fair, and effective system 

of justice;

 housing finance and viable communities;

 a stable financial system and sufficient 

consumer protection;

 responsible stewardship of natural 

resources and the environment; and

 a viable, safe, secure, and accessible 

national physical infrastructure. 

Source: See Image Sources

Strategic Goal 1

Address Current and Emerging Challenges to the 

Well-being and Financial Security of the American 

People

Example of Work under Goal 1

In preparing to consider reauthorizing funding for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) beyond 

fiscal year 2015, the Congress asked us to report on the program’s outcomes and other issues. We found that 

the percentage of uninsured children nationwide decreased by half since CHIP began. We also found that CHIP 

children had better access to care and use of services compared with uninsured children, and access and use 

of services comparable to that of privately insured children. As a result, the Congress reauthorized funding for 

CHIP through fiscal year 2017, helping to ensure access to health care for millions of children. (GAO-15-348)
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 65 Performance Information

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: Education, Workforce, and Income Security; Financial 

Markets and Community Investment; Health Care; Homeland Security and Justice; Natural 

Resources and Environment; and Physical Infrastructure.

To accomplish our work under these strategic objectives in fiscal year 2015, we conducted 

engagements, audits, analyses, and evaluations of programs at major federal agencies. As 

shown in table 10, we met the target set for financial and other benefits for goal 1, but we 

did not meet the target for testimonies.

Table 10: Strategic Goal 1’s Annual Performance Results and Targets

Performance 

measure

2010

actual

2011

actual

2012

actuala

2013

actuala

2014

actual

2015

targetb

2015

actual

Met/

not met

2016

target

Financial benefits

(dollars in billions) $17.8 $12.6 $25.7 $22 $15.5 $15.5 51.4 Met $15.0

Other benefits 233 243 275 271 240 230 255 Met 235

Testimonies 86 84 61 60 57 63 57 Not Met 62

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

a

In fiscal years 2012 and 2013, we achieved some unexpectedly large financial benefits; however, we did not expect this level 

of results in fiscal years 2014 or 2015, when we set our targets. 

b

Our fiscal year 2015 targets for all three performance measures differ from those we reported in our fiscal year 2015 

performance plan in April 2014. Specifically, we increased the financial benefits target from $13 billion to $15.5 billion, 

decreased other benefits target from 231 to 230, and decreased the testimony target from 64 to 63 (see Setting Performance 

Targets).

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 11. This table indicates that the 4-year average for goal 

1 financial benefits remained stable from fiscal year 2010 to 2011, increased in 2012 and 

2013, and declined slightly in 2014. In 2015, our financial benefits rose sharply due primarily 

to one unexpectedly large benefit. Goal 1’s average other benefits were stable from fiscal 

year 2010 to 2011, and increased each year thereafter through 2015. The average number 

of hearings at which we testified for goal 1 has declined steadily since fiscal year 2010. 

Table 11: Four-Year Rolling Averages for Strategic Goal 1

Performance measure 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Financial benefits (dollars in billions) $15.5 $15.5 $17.1 $19.5 $19.0 $28.7

Other benefits 230 232 244 256 257 260

Testimonies 105 95 79 73 66 59

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

The following sections describe our performance under goal 1 for each of these three 

quantitative performance measures and describe the targets for fiscal year 2016.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

66 GAO-16-3SP Performance Information

Financial Benefits

The financial benefits reported for this goal in fiscal year 2015 totaled $51.4 billion, exceeding 

the target we set by $35.9 billion, due primarily to one large financial accomplishment for the 

auctioning of the commercial spectrum by the Federal Communications Commission in 

January 2015 ($32.8 billion). Other financial benefits contributing to this total, included 

savings from our work that resulted in eliminating the ethanol tax credit for corn, the 

elimination of direct payments to farmers, and the return of unobligated balances from the 

Department of Agriculture to the Department of the Treasury. We set the target for fiscal 

year 2016 at $15.0 billion based on our recent performance and discussions with the goal 1 

teams about the level of benefits they believe they can achieve.

Other Benefits

Other benefits reported for goal 1 in fiscal year 2015 totaled 255, exceeding our target of 

230 by 25 benefits. The majority of goal 1’s other benefits were in the areas of public 

safety and security and program efficiency and effectiveness. For fiscal year 2016, we set 

our target at 235 for these other benefits based on our recent experience. 

Testimonies

Our senior executives testified at 57 congressional hearings related to goal 1, which fell 

short of the fiscal year 2015 target of 63 by 6 testimonies. Among the topics on which we 

testified were veterans’ use of antidepressants and the accuracy of veteran’s suicide data; 

overseeing management challenges facing the National Nuclear Security Administration; 

improving oversight of motor carrier safety; extending federal funding for children’s 

health insurance; sustaining Indian irrigation projects; reducing the Railroad Retirement 

Board’s improper payments; and creating a national broadband network for public safety 

communications (See fig. 22 for selected testimony topics by goal.) We set our fiscal year 

2016 target at 62 testimonies on goal 1 issues based on our experience over the past few 

years. 

Example of Goal 1’s Financial Benefits

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) takes possession of thousands of homes resulting 

from foreclosures on borrowers who defaulted on mortgages insured by its Federal Housing Administration—

an inventory that reached over 65,000 in 2011. In 2013, GAO reported that HUD generally disposes of 

these properties by taking them into inventory and then marketing them for sale to others—occasionally 

using alternative means of disposition (e.g., selling the properties to other organizations at a discount or 

selling the mortgages). GAO also found that HUD’s performance in selling these properties lagged behind 

other government-sponsored enterprises with similar responsibilities—recommending that HUD improve its 

disposition practices for these properties. HUD’s subsequent actions led to financial benefits of $1.7 billion 

(net present value). (GAO-13-542)

Example of Goal 1’s Other Benefits

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) spent $563 million on surgical implants, such as stents and bone and 

skin grafts, in fiscal year 2012. In 2013, we found that VHA’s purchase requirements were not always followed 

at selected medical centers and that its oversight of purchases needed improvement. As a result, VHA 

evaluated opportunities for additional VHA-wide supply and surgical implant contracts and began monitoring 

compliance with these contracts and other purchasing requirements. These steps should help ensure more 

cost-effective use of VHA resources and improve care for veterans. (GAO-14-146)
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 67 Performance Information

Example of Goal 1’s Testimonies

In 2015, we testified three times on challenges facing the Bureau of Indian Education’s oversight of 185 

schools. The bureau’s information on the physical state of the schools was incomplete due to bad data, 

among other problems. We also found communication problems between the bureau and its schools. In fact, 

the bureau still used a 2011 directory of schools. After we noted it was outdated, a new directory was soon 

issued. Further, a year after requesting funding, one school was still waiting to restore hot water. We raised 

the issue to bureau officials, who were unaware of the request, and a new water heater was finally purchased. 

(GAO-15-389T, GAO-15-539T, GAO-15-597T, GAO-15-121)

Table 12 provides examples of goal 1 accomplishments and contributions, which includes 

both financial and other benefits.

Table 12: Goal 1 Accomplishments and Contributions

Health Needs—Aging and Diverse Population

Reducing Medicare 

Payments for 

Non-emergency 

Ambulance Transports

In 2012, we found that basic life support non-emergency ambulance 

services in super-rural areas increased by 82 percent from 2004 to 2010. 

We also found that the Department of Health and Human Services Office 

of Inspector General had cited Medicare improper payments as one 

potential cause for increases in ambulance utilization and stated that 

supplemental Medicare payments for ambulance transports were highly 

vulnerable to abuse. As a result, the Congress reduced payment rates 

for certain basic life support non-emergency ambulance services by 10 

percent, which will save an estimated $138.5 million dollars in 2014 and 

2015. (GAO-15-110)

Reducing Information 

Security Risks to 

Medical Devices

With wireless technology leading to more complex medical devices, we 

reported in 2012 that it also raised vulnerabilities that could risk their 

safety and effectiveness. For example, the settings of a pacemaker 

with inadequate access controls could be adjusted by someone with 

unauthorized access. We recommended that the Food and Drug 

Administration develop and implement a plan to enhance its review and 

surveillance of such devices. The agency took several steps to do so, 

including raising awareness about potential vulnerabilities and reporting 

suspected problems, which should help limit risks to the information 

security of these devices. (GAO-12-816)

Addressing 

Vulnerabilities to 

Medicare Improper 

Payments

In 2010, we reported that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services (CMS) lacked an adequate process to address vulnerabilities to 

improper payments identified by recovery audit contractors. Per our 

recommendation, CMS has taken steps to develop an adequate process, 

including monitoring for issues that need correction and creating a 

protocol to determine the effectiveness of corrective actions. By taking 

these steps, CMS is better equipped to reduce improper payments in the 

Medicare program. (GAO-10-143)

Improving Recovery 

of Medicaid 

Overpayments

Medicaid has the second-highest estimated improper payments of any 

federal program that reports such data. Yet in 2012 and 2013, we found 

gaps and errors in state reports of overpayment recoveries, which 

could prevent the federal government from recovering its full share. 

After we recommended that CMS resolve these issues, it provided 

additional training and guidance to states. These efforts will help CMS 

determine whether states are returning the federal share of recovered 

overpayments. (GAO-14-25, GAO-13-50) 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

68 GAO-16-3SP Performance Information

Lifelong Learning

Fighting Back Against 

School Bullying

Bullying causes millions of students to suffer serious problems. Yet 

in 2012, we found that the prevalence of bullying in certain groups 

was unknown, making it difficult to track national trends. After we 

recommended that agencies collect more information, the Department 

of Health and Human Services added a sexual orientation category to 

one if its youth surveys. Our work helped increase protections for victims 

when the Department of Education implemented our recommendation to 

inform complainants about their state-level legal options. (GAO-12-349)

Benefits and Protection for Workers, Families, and Children

Making Medicare 

Cards More Secure

We have frequently reported that displaying Social Security numbers 

(SSNs) on government identity cards increases the risk of identity theft. 

After finding that CMS had no plans to remove SSNs from 48 million 

Medicare cards, we recommended that it do so in a way that both 

protects beneficiaries and minimizes burdens for providers and other 

parties. The Congress then enacted the Medicare Access and CHIP 

Reauthorization Act (P.L. 114-10), requiring that cost-effective means be 

established to ensure that SSNs are not displayed or coded on Medicare 

cards. (GAO-12-831, GAO-06-586T, GAO-06-238, GAO-05-1016, GAO-05-59) 

Protecting Elderly 

Americans

Our reports on elder abuse identified challenges state Adult Protective 

Services (APS) had in addressing growing caseloads. These stemmed 

from difficulty collecting and using data to track outcomes and assess 

APS program effectiveness, leaving states with limited information for 

resolving cases of abuse. Per our recommendations, the Department of 

Health and Human Services worked with other agencies to develop a 

nationwide APS data system and established the National Adult Protective 

Services Resource Center to provide information and technical assistance 

to APS. (GAO-13-110, GAO-11-208)

Supporting the Financial Security and Well-being of an Aging Population

Helping Secure 

the Finances of 

Working and Retired 

Americans

Our work has helped strengthen multiemployer pension plans that more 

than 10 million workers and retirees rely on for their financial future. With 

the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s (PBGC) insurance trust fund 

in critical financial condition, we identified congressional actions needed 

to allow severely distressed plans to reduce accrued pension benefits, 

expand PBGC’s ability to assist financially distressed plans, and raise 

insurance premiums to provide more resources. The Congress enacted 

these provisions with the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014.

(GAO-13-240)

Facilitating IRA 

Rollovers in TSP

In 2010, over 60 million workers held more than $3.1 trillion in 401(k) 

plans. In 2013, we reported that difficulties rolling over savings from 

one 401(k) to another encouraged participants to choose an IRA rollover 

instead of potentially lower fee plans, such as the defined-contribution 

Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Our findings prompted the TSP Investment 

Board to implement policies to simplify and encourage rollovers. As a 

result, TSP’s 4.73 million participants can more easily consolidate their 

retirement savings into this well-regarded plan. TSP received $1 billion 

in rollovers in 2014—a record in December 2014 for rollovers in a month. 

(GAO-13-30)
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 69 Performance Information

Improving Quality 

Assurance for 

Veterans’ Disability 

Claims

The Veterans Benefits Administration pays billions of dollars to millions of 

disabled veterans, but we found problems with its ability to ensure that 

backlogged claims were processed accurately and consistently by its 57 

regional offices. After we recommended improvements, the agency made 

plans to revise its sampling methodology, make guidance more accessible, 

and incorporate all types of quality reviews in a new database. After we 

found that the agency excluded claims processed during overtime from 

staff performance reviews, limiting its ability to address quality concerns, 

it issued guidance to include those claims in reviews. (GAO-15-50)

A Responsive, Fair, and Effective System of Justice

Improving the 

Handling of FBI 

Whistleblower 

Retaliation Complaints

We reported that, unlike at other agencies, Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) employees generally have no recourse if retaliated 

against for reporting wrongdoing to their supervisors or others in 

management. In fact, the Department of Justice has denied 17 such 

complaints over 5 years. Dismissing potentially legitimate complaints 

could deny whistleblowers protection, permit retaliatory activity, and 

discourage future whistleblowers. We recommended that the Congress 

consider whether FBI whistleblowers should have means to seek 

corrective action if retaliated against for such disclosures. The Congress 

considered this concern during a 2015 hearing. (GAO-15-112)

Housing Finance and Viable Communities

Making the 

Manufactured 

Housing Program 

More Financially 

Sustainable

We reported in 2014 that the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development’s (HUD) program for certifying the factory-built homes it 

regulates faced unstable revenue because HUD had not implemented the 

fee increase that it had proposed in budget justifications dating back to 

fiscal year 2009. We recommended that HUD raise the fees it charges to 

manufacturers for certification labels instead of relying on supplemental 

federal funding. HUD agreed to implement our recommendation, 

which will save an estimated $6.1 million each year from general fund 

appropriations starting in fiscal year 2015. (GAO-14-410)

Stable Financial System and Sufficient Consumer Protection

Reducing Technology 

Threats to Financial 

Markets

We highlighted in a series of reports the challenges that the Securities 

and Exchange Commission faced in protecting financial securities markets 

from information technology outages and cyberattacks, including 

a limited ability to ensure compliance with its voluntary guidance. 

In response to our work, the commission issued a final rule in 2014 

that mandates market participants better manage their information 

technology risks. As a result, markets should be more resilient to 

problems arising from both internal failures and external threats. 

(GAO-04-984, GAO-01-863)

Securing Consumer 

Financial Data

In 2014, we identified ways for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

(CFPB) to better secure the data it collects on consumer credit card 

accounts, mortgage loans, and other products. Per our recommendations, 

the CFPB conducted additional privacy training for its staff and obtained 

assurance from the Office of Management and Budget that its collection 

of credit card data complied with federal requirements. These steps 

should help ensure CFPB collects and protects consumer financial data in 

accordance with federal requirements. (GAO-14-758)
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

70 GAO-16-3SP Performance Information

Reducing Funding for 

the Underperforming 

Short Refinance 

Program

After finding that fewer-than-expected people with underwater 

mortgages participated in the Federal Housing Administration’s Short 

Refinance Program, we recommended in 2012 that the Department of the 

Treasury reassess the terms of its $8 billion letter of credit for financing 

the program. Treasury did so after receiving updated participation 

estimates. Since fiscal year 2013, it has deobligated $7.9 billion, $900 

million of which was deobligated in fiscal year 2015. (GAO-12-296)

Stewardship of Natural Resources and the Environment

Improving Regulation 

and Oversight of 

Indian Gaming

As the National Indian Gaming Commission considered guidance for 

Indian casino gaming, part of the $28 billion Indian gaming industry, we 

reported in 2015 that the commission had no clear plan to get input 

from any of the 24 affected states. We also found that the effectiveness 

of some of the commission’s approaches to encourage tribes to comply 

with its regulations was unclear. The commission agreed with our 

recommendations to obtain input from states and to take steps to better 

demonstrate the effectiveness of its oversight activities. The input will 

help the commission be better informed about how its actions may affect 

gaming compacts. (GAO-15-355, GAO-15-743T)

Clarifying Eligibility 

Requirements for 

Farming Payments

In 2013, we reported that broad, subjective criteria hindered the 

Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) ability to determine whether farm 

program payment recipients met requirements for being actively engaged 

in farming. To reduce the risk that individuals with little involvement in 

farming qualify for payments, we suggested that the Congress consider 

making the criteria clearer and more objective. The Congress cited our 

findings numerous times in its debate of the 2014 Farm Bill, and in the 

final bill directed USDA to revise the criteria. USDA issued a rule clarifying 

these criteria and projects the rule will save about $50 million by 2018. 

(GAO-13-781)

Reporting the 

Potential Implications 

of Removing Crude Oil 

Export Restrictions

In 2014, we examined the potential effects of removing restrictions 

on crude oil exports, the subject of proposed legislation. We reported 

that removing the restrictions would likely increase domestic crude 

oil prices, production, investment in production, and employment; 

decrease consumer fuel prices; and may affect the environment. In 

2015, we testified about these effects before the House Committee on 

Agriculture. Our work will help inform the debate on this important issue. 

(GAO-15-745T, GAO-14-807)

Improving Contract 

and Project 

Management at the 

Department of Energy

In 2014 and 2015, we reported deficiencies in the Department of Energy’s 

(DOE) contract and project management practices, including those related 

to a multibillion dollar nuclear security program on our High Risk List for 

cost overruns and other challenges. We recommended that DOE revise 

its cost-estimating procedures to reflect best practices and require root 

cause analyses for projects that experience cost increases or schedule 

delays. In June 2015, DOE took action to implement both of these 

recommendations. Doing so will help it address long-standing difficulties in 

completing projects within cost and on schedule. (GAO-15-29, GAO-14-231)

Viable National Infrastructure

Freezing the Federal 

Footprint

In the 2015 update to our High Risk List, we identified issues with the 

results of the administration’s Freeze the Footprint policy—directing 

agencies not to increase their domestic office and warehouse inventory. 

While we noted that the policy demonstrates a leadership commitment 

to improving real property management, we found that the first year 

results—a 10.2 million square foot reduction in inventory between 2012 

and 2013—were overstated. In response, the Office of Management and 

Budget and General Services Administration have taken steps to improve 

data quality and issued a national strategy for managing real property. 

(GAO-15-290)
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 71 Performance Information

Improving 

Management of Rural 

Water Infrastructure

Rural and small communities could require $190 billion over 20 years for 

water and wastewater infrastructure. We have reported how improved 

coordination and funding could enhance federal efforts to help meet their 

needs. Per our recommendation, the Environmental Protection Agency 

and the Department of Agriculture issued guidance to reduce the effort 

to apply for funding and worked with states to use it. We also testified on 

communities’ funding challenges and how technical assistance helps them 

make better use of funds, which will assist the Congress as it considers 

legislation to continue technical assistance funding through 2020. 

(GAO-15-450T, GAO-13-111, GAO-10-126, GAO-07-1094)

Recalculating USPS 

Shipping Contract 

Costs

Despite the growing importance of parcel services to the financially 

struggling U.S. Postal Service (USPS), we reported in 2015 that it had not 

studied key factors in delivery costs for Parcel Select contracts. A $2.5 

billion product, Parcel Select allows mailers to enter negotiated service 

agreements to lower their shipping prices for meeting volume and other 

requirements. However, USPS did not study the impact of weight or 

dimensions on its delivery costs for individual contracts. USPS agreed with 

our recommendation to identify and study such information and develop 

contract-specific cost estimates, which could help improve USPS’s bottom 

line. (GAO-15-408)

Assessing Risks in 

the Public Safety 

Broadband Network

In 2015, we reported that an interoperable public safety broadband 

network, which will supplement the existing patchwork of incompatible 

systems used by public safety officials, could cost as much as $47 billion 

to construct and operate. We also reported that the First Responder 

Network Authority (FirstNet), mandated to establish the new network, 

faces a multitude of risks and challenges, including funding the network’s 

ongoing costs. We recommended that FirstNet fully assess these risks and 

develop more robust plans to help it achieve its complex objectives and 

maximize resources. (GAO-15-407)

Strengthening 

Cybersecurity at 

Federal Facilities

As access and control to critical federal facilities increasingly goes online, 

they become more vulnerable to cyberattacks. Yet our 2015 report 

found that the Department of Homeland Security had no strategy to 

address these risks for the thousands of facilities it protects. In response 

to our work, the department issued guidance that will help strengthen 

cybersecurity at federal facilities. (GAO-15-6)

Realizing Benefits 

from Surplus Federal 

Property

In 2014, we reported that a lack of criteria could have caused the 

General Services Administration (GSA) to miss opportunities for its 

“swap-construct” program, through which the government can provide 

unneeded property to developers in exchange for improving federal 

buildings on other properties. We also found that GSA provided too few 

details about construction needs to get meaningful input from interested 

parties. Per our recommendations, GSA issued new guidance addressing 

these concerns, which will help the government address long-standing 

challenges with disposing of surplus real property and modernizing 

outdated buildings. (GAO-14-586)

Promoting Public 

Interest in Broadband 

Pricing

With access to broadband services increasingly critical for daily life and 

economic growth, in 2014 we examined the effects of usage-based pricing 

on consumers—that is, when service providers charge by data consumed 

instead of offering unlimited plans. In our focus groups, in-home Internet 

consumers were concerned that usage-based pricing could cost more or 

limit their Internet use. The Federal Communications Commission agreed 

with our recommendation to use existing data to extensively analyze 

the effects of this type of pricing on in-home consumers, which will help 

fulfill its mission of promoting the public interest. (GAO-15-108)
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

72 GAO-16-3SP Performance Information

Securing the Skies 

with Stronger Aviation 

Cybersecurity

In 2015, we reported that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

lacked a comprehensive model for identifying cybersecurity threats to 

the NextGen air traffic control system replacing the older radar-based 

system. We found that the move to the new networked, satellite-based 

navigation system introduced cybersecurity risks to air-traffic control 

and operational and guidance avionics systems that the FAA had not 

fully addressed. Drawing congressional, media, and public attention to 

these potential threats, our work spurred the agency to develop such a 

cybersecurity model. (GAO-15-370)

Improving Processes 

for Aviation Product 

Approvals

In 2015, we reported that the FAA still had challenges to overcome to 

address inconsistencies in interpreting and applying its regulations for 

certifying new aviation products for domestic use, which can lead to 

variation in approval decisions, and helping U.S. companies obtain foreign 

approvals. Our work prompted the FAA to consult with experts to develop 

performance metrics to ensure its efforts achieve intended outcomes, 

which will help inform the Congress for the next FAA reauthorization act. 

Such efforts should also support the nation’s ability to stay competitive 

and ensure safety in the aviation industry. (GAO-15-550T, GAO-15-327T)

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

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

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 Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 73 Performance Information

Source: See Image Sources

Strategic Goal 2

Respond to Changing Security Threats and the 

Challenges of Global Interdependence

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 federal 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 2014-2019) 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; and

 advance and protect U.S. foreign policy 

and international economic 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. 

Example of Work under Goal 2

In addition to directly combating terrorist groups overseas, the U.S. government has invested billions to build 

up foreign partners’ capacity to fight terrorist groups such as the Islamic State, al Qaeda, and Boko Haram. In 

fiscal year 2015, we completed several reviews resulting in numerous recommendations to improve operations 

and save costs related to these efforts. For example, the State Department agreed with our recommendation 

to set specific time frames for completing a required evaluation of its security assistance program for Egypt, 

which is supported by an average of about $1.3 billion a year. (GAO-15-685R, GAO-15-493, GAO-15-279, 

GAO-15-259, GAO-15-75)
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

74 GAO-16-3SP Performance Information

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 2015 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 shown in table 13, we exceeded our fiscal year 2015 performance targets for financial 

and other benefits, but fell short of our testimonies target for goal 2.

Table 13: Strategic Goal 2’s Annual Performance Results and Targets

Performance

measure

2010

actual

2011

actual

2012

actual

2013

actuala

2014

actuala

2015

targetb

2015

actual

Met/

not met

2016

target

Financial benefits

(dollars in billions)

$20.5 $25.9 $13.4 $21.4 $25.7 $13 $13.1 Met $11.1

Other benefits 444 447 513 488 535 340 505 Met 358

Testimonies 58 48 54 30 40 38 23 Not Met 35

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

a

In fiscal years 2013 and 2014, we achieved some unexpectedly large financial benefits; however, we did not expect this level 

of results in fiscal year 2015.

b

Our fiscal year 2015 targets for two of the three performance measures differ from those we reported in our fiscal year 2015 

performance plan in April 2014. Specifically, we increased our financial benefits target from $12.8 billion to $13 billion and 

reduced our other benefits target from 343 to 340 benefits (see Setting Performance Targets).

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 14. This table indicates that the 4-year average for goal 2 financial 

benefits increased between fiscal year 2010 through 2011, decreased in fiscal year 2012, 

increased in fiscal year 2013 through 2014, and decreased in 2015. Goal 2’s average other 

benefits decreased slightly from fiscal year 2010 through 2011, and increased from 2012 

through 2015. The average number of hearings at which we testified for goal 2 has declined 

steadily since 2010. 

Table 14: Four-Year Rolling Averages for Strategic Goal 2

Performance measure 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Financial benefits (dollars in billions) $14.7 $18.6 $18.1 $20.3 $21.6 $18.4

Other benefits 459 454 465 473 496 510

Testimonies 73 67 57 48 43 37

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

The following sections describe our performance under goal 2 for each of our quantitative 

performance measures and describe the targets for fiscal year 2016. 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 75 Performance Information

Financial Benefits

The financial benefits reported for this goal in fiscal year 2015 totaled $13.1 billion, which 

was just over our target of $13 billion. The financial benefits that contributed to goal 2, 

included termination of the precision tracking space system, cancellation of the BioWatch 

Gen-3 Program, as well as cancellation of the Standard Missile Block IIB Program. We set 

our fiscal year 2016 target at $11.1 billion based on what our goal 2 teams believe they can 

achieve based on past, ongoing, and expected work.

Other Benefits

The other benefits reported for goal 2 in fiscal year 2015 totaled 505 and exceeded our 

target by 165 benefits, or about 49 percent. The majority of goal 2’s other 

accomplishments were in the areas of public safety and security for programs including 

homeland security acquisitions, international trade, national defense and foreign policy, 

acquisition and contract management, DOD weapon system acquisition, and National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration operations. We set our fiscal year 2016 target at 358, 

which is well below our fiscal year 2015 actual performance, but above our fiscal year 2015 

target of 340—based what our goal 2 teams expect to achieve based on past, ongoing, and 

expected work. 

Testimonies

Our senior executives testified at 23 congressional hearings related to goal 2 in fiscal year 

2015, falling short of our target of 38 hearings by 15, or about 39 percent. Goal 2 testimony 

topics included monitoring high-risk travelers and maritime cargo, nuclear nonproliferation, 

the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program, VA contracting, international food assistance, and 

counterterrorism. (See fig. 22 for selected testimony topics by goal.) We have set our fiscal 

year 2016 testimony target at 35 based on our recent experience.

Example of Goal 2’s Financial Benefits

In our reviews of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) fiscal year 2015 budget requests for the Defense Health 

Program and foreign currency fluctuations, we identified potential reductions from unobligated balances in 

the Defense Health Program and our analysis of more current foreign exchange rates than what DOD used to 

develop its budget estimate. As a result of our work, the Congress reduced DOD’s appropriations for that year 

by about $1.3 billion.

Example of Goal 2’s Other Benefits

Our July 2015 report on diplomatic security made several recommendations to the State Department (State) 

to enhance security at residences, schools, and other overseas facilities used by U.S. diplomatic personnel 

and their families. State concurred with all our recommendations and described steps it is taking to develop 

new procedures, clarify standards, and raise awareness of guidance and tools for securing these soft targets. 

State also has taken steps to address several other issues we reported, including requesting cost estimates 

from posts for newly required residential security upgrades. These actions will help State better protect U.S. 

personnel and their families overseas. (GAO-15-700)
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

76 GAO-16-3SP Performance Information

Table 15 provides examples of goal 2 accomplishments and contributions, which includes 

both financial and other benefits.

Table 15: Goal 2 Accomplishments and Contributions

Protect and Secure the Homeland

Improving Screening 

and Care for 

Unaccompanied Alien 

Children

In recent years, apprehensions of unaccompanied alien children—

minors under 18 with no lawful immigration status and no parent in the 

United States available to provide custody—have significantly increased. 

Responding to a mandate in 2015, we reported problems with the 

Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) screening and care of these 

children. To address inconsistent screening decisions, we recommended 

that DHS provide guidance for applying screening criteria. We also 

recommended that it record reliable data on care provided to these 

children. DHS plans to address our recommendations, which should help it 

better comply with screening and care requirements. (GAO-15-521)

Fighting Duplication 

in Emergency 

Preparedness Grants

In 2011 and 2012, we reported that the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) did not compare or coordinate grant applications 

across its preparedness programs to identify potential duplication. We 

also reported that it had not yet completed a national preparedness 

assessment of capability gaps based on tiered, capability-specific 

performance objectives. The Congress concurred with our suggestion to 

limit preparedness grant funding until FEMA identifies capability gaps and 

prioritizes grant funding. In 2013, the Congress reduced FEMA’s requested 

funding, saving about $416 million based on present-value calculations. 

(GAO-12-453SP, GAO-12-342SP, GAO-11-318SP)

Collecting Better Data 

for the Terrorism Risk 

Insurance Program

The Terrorism Risk Insurance Program is meant in part to help reduce the 

economic impact of terrorist attacks, but we found that comprehensive 

data about the market were not readily available. Without such data, the 

government cannot fully understand the market or analyze the risk of 

potential financial losses. Following our recommendations, the Congress 

required the Department of the Treasury to collect data to help better 

understand the terrorism risk insurance market and ensure the availability 

and affordability of coverage. This could help make the program more 

effective and inform analysis of potential program changes to limit the 

government’s fiscal exposure. (GAO-14-445)

Example of Goal 2’s Testimonies

In 2015, we testified on the utilization and cost effectiveness of the International Space Station. GAO’s 

analysis of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) fiscal year 2016 budget estimate 

found that the agency anticipates that the costs to operate, sustain, perform research, and provide 

crew and cargo transportation to the International Space Station are projected to increase by almost 

$1 billion—or almost 53 percent—from fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2020 when the projected costs are 

expected to exceed $4 billion. GAO identified several challenges that the agency must overcome to 

increase utilization and achieve a better return on investment. (GAO-15-722T)
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 77 Performance Information

Military Capabilities and Readiness

Identifying 

Weaknesses in the 

Ford-Class Aircraft 

Carrier Program

Since 2007, we have reported on acquisition struggles related to the 

technology, cost, construction, and capabilities of the Ford-class aircraft 

carrier and recommended actions to improve the program’s business 

case. In 2013 and 2014, we reported that the lead ship would be more 

expensive and less capable than planned. In 2014, we stated that the 

Navy’s strategy for the follow-on ship relies on unprecedented efficiency 

gains, shifting work until after delivery, and delivering the ship with 

the same baseline capability as the lead. As a result of our work, the 

Congress has launched independent inquiries and asked us to testify on 

these issues. (GAO-15-22, GAO-13-22, GAO-07-943, GAO-07-866)

Overseeing DOD’s 

Implementation of 

the Defense Health 

Agency

With the nearly $50 billion Military Health System expected to double in 

cost by 2030, the Congress required the Department of Defense (DOD) to 

make reforms in fiscal year 2013. We analyzed DOD’s plans for doing so 

through its Defense Health Agency. While we found that DOD mostly met 

its reporting requirements, its submissions were missing key details. We 

recommended it develop performance measures, interim time frames, 

and staffing baselines, and refine cost estimates. DOD agreed, and while 

it has yet to develop staffing baseline assessments, it has made significant 

progress in developing performance measures and refining cost estimates. 

(GAO-14-49)

Avoiding Costs by 

Sharing Ammunition

The Department of Defense (DOD) manages inventories of conventional 

ammunition valued at nearly $70 billion. While excess ammunition can be 

redistributed among the services to offset new procurements, we found 

that the Army’s annual inventory reports did not have data on certain 

missiles. Per our recommendations, the Army began to include missile 

data in its annual reports. As a result, it transferred missiles to the Marine 

Corps, which, according to officials, will lead to about $248 million in cost 

avoidance for fiscal year 2015. (GAO-14-182)

Helping Sustain DOD’s 

GPS Capability

Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites cannot deliver advanced 

capabilities for weapon systems not equipped with updated ground 

control software and receivers. Yet in 2015, we reported that software 

development was taking about $1 billion more and 4 years longer than 

planned, while development issues remained unresolved. We also 

reported shortcomings with DOD’s strategy for timely delivery of new 

military GPS receivers. We concluded that these issues posed significant 

risks to sustaining GPS capability. Our recommendations to identify and 

fix root causes in software development should help DOD correct these 

problems. (GAO-15-657)

Improving Pacific 

Realignment Cost 

Estimates

We reported that the Department of Defense (DOD) lacked important 

information for estimating costs associated with the largest 

transformation of its military posture in the Pacific since World War 

II. Specifically, DOD did not conduct a comprehensive cost analysis of 

alternatives for facilities and infrastructure, including those associated 

with realigning forces from Japan to Guam. We recommended that 

DOD develop comprehensive cost estimates of its posture within the 

Pacific Command. As a result, the Congress limited funding for public 

infrastructure projects in Guam by $153.9 million in DOD’s fiscal year 2014 

budget request.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

78 GAO-16-3SP Performance Information

Improving the 

Security Force 

Assistance Guide

As the United States and coalition members have transitioned from 

leading operations to assisting Afghanistan security forces, we reported 

that DOD’s broad goals were not always clearly linked to its advisor 

activities. We recommended that commanders work with advisors to 

identify end states, objectives, and milestones for developing Afghanistan 

security forces. Following our work, U.S. and coalition members released 

a security force assistance guide, which outlines 8 essential functions 

for advisors to achieve stability within Afghanistan security forces. 

(GAO-13-381)

U.S. Foreign Policy Interests

Ensuring Greater 

Accountability for 

Billions in Foreign 

Affairs Grants

In 2014, we found that the State Department lacked adequate risk 

analyses and documentation to ensure that nearly $2 billion a year 

in foreign affairs grants were used as intended. Responding to our 

recommendations to develop processes to address these challenges, 

State has begun to overhaul grants management. For example, it is 

developing new training courses, information systems, and steps to follow 

up on recommendations from internal reviews. When completed, these 

actions will provide greater assurance that State’s grant funds are used as 

intended to achieve foreign policy goals. (GAO-14-635)

Improving U.S. 

Enforcement of Labor 

and Environmental 

Provisions in Trade 

Agreements

In two 2014 reports on free trade agreements (FTA), we recommended 

that the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and the Department of 

Labor coordinate a strategic approach to monitor and enforce FTA 

labor provisions and that USTR enhance compliance monitoring of 

environmental provisions by setting time frames and performance 

indicators. USTR stated that it has begun working with its partners to 

address these issues. Better enforcement of FTA labor and environmental 

provisions will help ensure that U.S. companies are not at a competitive 

disadvantage with companies that operate in countries with weaker 

standards.( GAO-15-161, GAO-15-160)

Strengthening Efforts 

to Counter Overseas 

Threats

In several 2015 reports and testimony to the Congress, we highlighted 

challenges to the State Department’s efforts to designate foreign terrorist 

organizations, mitigate threats to locally hired staff overseas, and help 

partner countries around the globe counter violent extremism. State 

concurred with our recommendations and reported some immediate steps 

to address them. For example, it took action to better protect locally 

hired personnel working at critical high-threat posts overseas and began 

to track efforts to address recommendations from program evaluations, 

which will help State take more timely action aimed at improving those 

programs.( GAO-15-684, GAO-15-655T, GAO-15-629) 

Improving Global HIV/

AIDS Relief Efforts

Based on our 2012 recommendations, the State Department recently 

established evaluation standards for the President’s Emergency Plan for 

AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) that adhere more fully to best practices. The new 

standards, which cite our report, require agencies to better plan PEPFAR 

evaluations, ensure that evaluators are qualified and independent, and 

publish results, among other improvements. By following these standards, 

agencies will generate more systematic, reliable, and accessible 

information for program decisions. This will make PEPFAR more effective 

at preventing HIV, treating the millions infected, and caring for AIDS 

patients. (GAO-12-673)

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

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

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 Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 79 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 

2014-2019) 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 General 

Counsel.

To accomplish work under these objectives, 

we also perform foresight work, for 

example, examining the nation’s long-term 

fiscal and management challenges, and 

insight work focusing on federal programs 

at high risk for fraud, waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement.

Source: See Image Sources

Strategic Goal 3

Help Transform the Federal Government to Address 

National Challenges
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

80 GAO-16-3SP Performance Information

As shown in table 16, we exceeded our fiscal year 2015 performance targets for goal 3’s 

financial benefits, other benefits, and testimonies.

Table 16: Strategic Goal 3’s Annual Performance Results and Targets

Performance

measure

2010

actual

2011

actual

2012

actual

2013

actual

2014

actuala

2015

targetb

2015

actual

Met/

not met

2016

target

Financial benefits

(dollars in billions)

$11.6 $7.2 $16.7 $8.1 $13.30 $8.85 $10.1 Met $8.85

Other benefits 684 628 652 555 513 425 526 Met 362

Testimonies 45 39 41 22 30 23 26 Met 23

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

a

In fiscal year 2014, we achieved some unexpectedly large financial benefits; however, we did not expect this level of results in 

fiscal 2015. 

b

Our fiscal year 2015 targets for all three performance measures differ from those we reported in our fiscal year 2015 

performance plan in April 2014. Specifically, we increased our financial benefits target from $5.6 billion to $8.85 billion, 

decreased our other benefits target from 455 to 425 benefits, and increased our testimonies target from 22 to 23 (see Setting 

Performance Targets).

To help us examine trends for these measures over time, we look at their 4-year averages— 

shown in table 17—which minimize the effect of an unusual level of performance in any 

single year. Table 17 indicates that the 4-year average for goal 3 financial benefits declined 

steadily from 2010 through 2013 and increased in 2014 and 2015. Average other benefits for 

goal 3 have decreased steadily since 2010. The trend in the average number of hearings on 

goal 3 issues held steady from 2010 to 2011, and then declined from 2012 through 2015. 

Table 17: Four-Year Rolling Averages for Strategic Goal 3

Performance measure 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Financial benefits (dollars in billions) $19.1 $15.2 $13.5 $10.9 $11.3 $12.1

Other benefits 668 663 650 630 587 562

Testimonies 52 52 44 37 33 30

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

The following sections describe our performance under goal 3 for each of our quantitative 

performance measures and describe the targets for fiscal year 2016. 

Example of Work under Goal 3

GAO’s Chief Scientist and Chief Technologist and their highly specialized staff provide unbiased information 

on scientific and technical developments that affect society, the environment, and the economy. In 2015, this 

included an assessment of additive manufacturing (3D printing), which uses a growing variety of materials and 

processes to create objects without molds or casts. To date, additive manufacturing has been used primarily 

as a design or prototyping tool, but the shift to using it to develop functional parts (e.g., medical implants or 

aircraft engine parts), could fundamentally change how we produce and distribute goods. (GAO-15-505SP)
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 81 Performance Information

Financial Benefits

The financial benefits reported for goal 3 in fiscal 2015 totaled $10.1 billion, exceeding our 

target of $8.85 billion by $1.25 billion. Financial benefits under goal 3 included a reduction 

in improper payments at five agencies, increased capital gains tax revenue, improvements 

to the federal government’s IT portfolio, and elimination of duplicative programs at the 

Census Bureau. We have set our 2016 target at $8.85 billion again, based on what our goal 

3 teams believe they can achieve based on past, ongoing, and expected work.

Other Benefits

Other benefits reported for goal 3 in fiscal year 2015 totaled 526, exceeding our target of 

425 benefits, by 101, which is about 24 percent. The majority of goal 3’s benefits were in 

the areas of public safety and security; tax law administration; program efficiency and 

effectiveness; business process and improvement, including financial reporting; federal 

information technology; business systems modernization; and human capital. We have set 

our fiscal year 2016 target at 362 other benefits based on past, ongoing, and expected 

work.

Testimonies

Our senior executives testified at 26 congressional hearings related to this strategic goal in 

fiscal year 2015, exceeding the target of 23 hearings by 3, or about 13 percent. Among the 

goal 3 testimony topics covered were fragmentation, overlap, and duplication of federal 

programs and activities; improper payments government-wide; government-wide efficiency 

and effectiveness challenges; and. (See fig. 22 for selected testimony topics by goal.) For 

fiscal year 2016, we have set the testimony target at 23, based on our recent experience. 

Example of Goal 3’s Financial Benefits

In September 2012, we reported that the Census Bureau needed to fully implement its new process for 

managing IT investments across the organization. This led the bureau to develop an implementation plan, 

including establishing directorate-level investment review boards for ensuring investments are aligned with 

strategic goals, eliminating redundancy, and reducing operating costs. In April 2014, one of these boards 

approved a single, bureau-wide program for data collection and processing to replace multiple existing efforts. 

This elimination of duplicative efforts at the bureau is estimated to save at least $520 million from 2015 to 

2019. (GAO-12-915)

Example of Goal 3’s Other Benefits

In ongoing work in federal cybersecurity, which has been on GAO’s high-risk list since 1997, we have identified 

areas where federal cybersecurity could be improved, including clarifying oversight, streamlining security 

reporting requirements to reduce duplication, improving the consistency and effectiveness of agencies’ 

response to a data breach, strengthening cybersecurity research and development, and implementing 

and securing cloud computing solutions. Our work assisted the Congress in enacting legislation to address 

these areas, including the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 and the Cybersecurity 

Enhancement Act of 2014. (GAO-14-34, GAO-13-187, GAO-10-512, GAO-10-466)
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

82 GAO-16-3SP Performance Information

Table 18 provides examples of goal 3 accomplishments and contributions, which include 

both financial and other benefits.

Table 18: Goal 3 Accomplishments and Contributions

Analyze Government’s Fiscal Position

Improving Federal 

Financial Reporting

Through the 25th anniversary of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, 

our financial audits continued to yield recent benefits. The Securities 

and Exchange Commission automated updates for several key accounts, 

improving the accuracy of information needed to better manage 

investments. The Department of the Treasury improved information 

system controls relevant to the federal debt. Finally, our audit of the 

U.S. Government’s Consolidated Financial Statements helped improve 

government-wide financial reporting, which will now clearly describe 

the agencies included in the financial statements. (GAO-15-387R, 

GAO-15-341R, GAO-15-157) 

Increasing Revenue 

through Improved 

Tax Reporting on 

Securities Sales

In our 2006 report on capital gains tax compliance, we found that many 

taxpayers misreported their gains or losses from securities sales. This 

often happened because taxpayers 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 enacted this requirement, 

which is expected to raise about $983 million in revenue in 2015, the 

fourth fiscal year after the legislation’s effective date. (GAO-06-603)

Prevent Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

Reducing Federal 

Improper Payments

Since fiscal year 2000, we have issued several reports and testimonies 

to focus attention on government-wide and agency-specific improper 

payment issues. These reports identified deficiencies in how agencies 

estimate and report improper payments and recommended actions to 

prevent, detect, and correct improper payments. For fiscal year 2014, 

despite an overall government-wide increase in improper payments, 13 

programs at five agencies reported reduced improper payment rates. 

Based on these programs’ fiscal year 2014 outlays, the lower error rates 

resulted in a $4.9 billion reduction in these programs’ improper payments. 

(GAO-15-482T, GAO-15-341R, GAO-14-737T, GAO-13-229, GAO-13-227)

Highlighting 

Noncompliance 

with Key Improper 

Payment Legislation

Drawing on the work of federal inspectors general, in 2014 we reported 

to the Congress that only 13 of the largest 24 federal agencies complied 

with the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 for 

fiscal year 2013. Two areas—reporting error rates below 10 percent and 

meeting improper payment reduction targets—continue to be the most 

frequently cited reasons for agency noncompliance. Our work helped the 

Congress monitor the implementation of federal legislation intended to 

help reduce the federal government’s improper payments, which in fiscal 

year 2014 were estimated to be $124.7 billion. (GAO-15-87R) 

Example of Goal 3’s Testimonies 

The government spends $3.5 trillion a year, but data on spending are often incomplete or poor quality. After 

the Congress directed the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of the Treasury to establish 

government-wide data standards with the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014, we identified 

challenges with proposed data definitions and provided feedback. We also recommended that they establish 

a governance structure to maintain the integrity of data standards over time and foster an effective dialogue 

with stakeholders. When implemented, these recommendations have the potential to improve the consistency 

and accuracy of spending data. (GAO-15-241T, GAO-15-752T)
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 83 Performance Information

Providing a 

Framework to Combat 

Fraud in Federal 

Programs

In 2015, we published a revised Fraud Risk Management Framework that 

includes a comprehensive set of leading practices that serve as a guide for 

managers to use when developing or enhancing efforts to combat fraud 

in a strategic, risk-based manner. We developed the framework through 

a deliberative process that involved antifraud experts from state and 

local governments, private companies, other national audit institutions, 

and nongovernmental organizations. The framework is designed to help 

manage fraud risks across the federal government. (GAO-15-593SP)

Preventing Ineligible 

Providers and 

Suppliers from 

Enrolling in Medicare

In 2015, we reported on weaknesses in the Medicare enrollment screening 

procedures that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) 

use to detect ineligible providers and suppliers. We found thousands of 

questionable practice location addresses, such as UPS stores and fast-food 

franchises, listed as providers’ practice locations. The agency agreed 

to our recommendations to use software to flag questionable locations 

and collect additional license information, which will help prevent 

ineligible providers from enrolling. However, it did not agree to revise its 

verification guidance, which we believe continues to put the program at 

risk. (GAO-15-762T, GAO-15-448)

Preventing 

Prescription Drug 

Fraud in Medicaid

In 2015, we reported on potential prescription medication fraud and 

abuse among Medicaid beneficiaries and prescribers during fiscal year 

2011. For example, we found more than 16,000 beneficiaries potentially 

engaged in “doctor shopping” by visiting five or more doctors to receive 

prescriptions for antipsychotics and other medications valued at about 

$33 million. We recommended that CMS require states to report on 

specific drug-utilization review controls to determine whether additional 

guidance is needed. Doing so could help the agency reduce abuse of 

prescription drugs in Medicaid. (GAO-15-66, GAO-15-390)

Detecting 

Disability Insurance 

Overpayments 

Due to Workers’ 

Compensation

In 2015, we reported that the Social Security Administration (SSA) had not 

detected potential Disability Insurance overpayments to beneficiaries who 

also received federal workers’ compensation payments. For example, 7 of 

20 nongeneralizable case study individuals we reviewed received potential 

overpayments of more than $100,000 each that SSA had not detected at 

the time of our review. SSA agreed with our recommendations to review 

the potential overpayments we found and to strengthen its internal 

controls in this area. These steps will help the agency to ensure that 

payments go only to eligible beneficiaries. (GAO-15-531)

Identifying 

Disability Insurance 

Overpayments to 

Beneficiaries Who 

Returned to Work

In 2013, we estimated that SSA made $1.29 billion in Disability Insurance 

benefit payments that were potentially improper to about 36,000 

individuals who worked beyond program limits. At SSA’s request, we 

provided the agency a list of individuals who we identified as working 

beyond program limits. As of July 2015, SSA’s investigation of these cases 

confirmed overpayments to 9 individuals. SSA established overpayments 

receivable for these individuals, thus enforcing the agency’s rules on 

working while receiving Disability Insurance payments. (GAO-13-635)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks

Identifying 

Accountability Issues 

with Major DHS 

Acquisition Programs

In 2015, we testified on the need for the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) to improve the outcomes of key acquisitions to increase 

its accountability for the billions of dollars it spends annually on these 

programs. Specifically, only 2 of the 22 programs we assessed were on 

track to meet DHS’s cost and schedule parameters. We made three 

recommendations to DHS to address gaps in oversight and improve the 

quality of information available to decision makers across all major 

acquisition programs. DHS concurred with our recommendations 

and provided estimated completion dates for each. (GAO-15-541T, 

GAO-15-171SP)
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

84 GAO-16-3SP Performance Information

Addressing 

Cyberthreats and Data 

Breaches at Federal 

Agencies 

In 2015, GAO testified on the need for stronger controls to address 

cyberthreats and data breaches across federal agencies. Effective 

cybersecurity for federal information systems is essential to preventing 

the loss of resources, the compromise of sensitive information, and 

the disruption of government operations. Specifically, our testimony 

addressed (1) cyberthreats to federal systems, (2) challenges facing 

federal agencies in securing their systems and information, and (3) 

government-wide initiatives aimed at improving cybersecurity—drawing on 

GAO’s large body of work in this area and hundreds of recommendations 

made by GAO and agency inspectors general. (GAO-15-758T)

Shaping Congressional 

and DOD Weapon 

System Acquisition 

Reforms

In 2015, the Congress and the Department of Defense (DOD) made a 

major push to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of DOD’s weapon 

system acquisition process—an area on our High Risk List. Our reports 

this year highlighted inefficiencies and non-value-added requirements 

in the acquisition process, explored the role of senior military leaders 

in acquisition decision-making, and raised concerns about the lack of 

reliable data on hundreds of acquisition programs. These reports and the 

associated recommendations shaped legislative reform proposals, which 

passed the House and Senate, as well as agency initiatives to address 

these challenges.( GAO-15-469, GAO-15-192, GAO-15-188)

Improving 

Transparency and 

Accountability 

in Government 

Performance 

Management

Our work on the implementation of the Government Performance and 

Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 led the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) to strengthen its guidance to agencies in several areas. 

OMB improved its guidance to cross-agency priority goal teams to report 

on goal performance, progress, trends, risks, and plans for improvements. 

It also revised its guidance requiring agencies to improve accountability 

and transparency for agency priority goals, by identifying a senior career 

leader to support agency priority goal implementation and discussing 

the quality of the performance information to assess goal progress on 

the Performance.gov website. (GAO-15-788,GAO-14-747,GAO-14-639, 

GAO-14-526)

Improving Federal 

Employee Engagement

Higher levels of employee engagement can lead to better organizational 

performance. However, government-wide levels of employee engagement 

declined from 67 percent in 2011 to 63 percent in 2014, as measured by 

the Office of Personnel Management’s Employee Engagement Index. We 

identified six key drivers associated with higher engagement index scores. 

These drivers were consistent when we analyzed the data governmentwide, by agency and by employee subgroup (e.g. agency tenure and 

supervisory status), and therefore provide a starting point for agencies 

embarking on efforts to improve engagement. (GAO-15-585, GAO-15-529T)

Improving Management 

of Department of 

Defense Working 

Capital Funds

Our body of work on DOD’s working capital funds has helped improve 

congressional oversight. DOD manages working capital funds to perform 

over $100 billion of work each year to support combat readiness. In 

2013, we found that excessive funds for work budgeted but not yet 

performed were carried over from year to year, leading to inaccurate 

budget estimates. Our work resulted in the Congress reducing the Army 

fiscal year 2015 operation and maintenance appropriation by $186 million 

and the Army issuing guidance on the acceptance of orders that affect 

carryover. (GAO-13-499)
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 85 Performance Information

Improving Department 

of Defense Financial 

Management and 

Audit Readiness

In 2015, we reviewed DOD’s actions toward implementing 29 congressional 

panel recommendations to address long-standing financial management 

weaknesses and attain financial statement auditability. We concluded that 

DOD’s actions had met 6 recommendations and partially met the other 

23. However, we recommended that DOD reconsider the status of 3 of the 

9 recommendations that it concluded were met. Although implementing 

these 29 recommendations may not include all actions needed to become 

audit ready, DOD will be closer to achieving its financial statement 

auditability goals. (GAO-15-463)

Monitoring DOD and 

VA Efforts to Develop 

an Interoperable 

Health Records 

System

In testimonies and reports spanning nearly two decades, we have 

provided the Congress with key analysis of efforts by the Departments 

of Defense and Veterans Affairs to develop an interoperable electronic 

health records system. Their efforts have been plagued with planning and 

management challenges, missed deadlines, and lack of performance goals 

and measures needed to provide a comprehensive picture by which to 

manage progress. In a recent report, we advised the Congress to restrict 

Department of Defense procurement appropriations, which the Congress 

implemented, resulting in a reduction of about $300 million for fiscal year 

2014. (GAO-15-530, GAO-14-609, GAO-14-302, GAO-14-237)

Portfolio Initiative 

Saves Millions of 

Dollars in Fiscal Years 

2013 and 2014

The Office of Management and Budget and federal agencies have taken 

steps to address potentially duplicative and wasteful IT investments 

since we began highlighting it in 2011, resulting in significant cost savings 

and avoidance. In April 2015, we reported that agencies were expecting 

over 200 initiatives to yield approximately $2 billion in savings between 

fiscal years 2013 and 2015. Further, the Office of Management and 

Budget implemented our recommendation to identify IT duplication 

and overlap, and as a result, agencies reported achieving approximately 

$808.24 million in cost savings or avoidance in fiscal years 2013 and 2014. 

(GAO-15-296, GAO-14-753, GAO-11-826)

Improving IT Services 

Spending through 

Strategic Sourcing

We have reported that leading companies strategically manage about 90 

percent of their procurement spending, helping them save 4 to 15 percent 

a year on IT and other services. In 2015, we found that selected agencies 

managed only 10 to 44 percent of their IT services spending through 

strategic sourcing contracts, and recommended that DOD, the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Department of Homeland 

Security adopt leading commercial practices to increase insights and 

better manage spending to achieve savings. As a result of implementing 

our recommendations, these agencies will more effectively leverage their 

IT services spending and will have improved insights to prices paid for 

similar services. (GAO-15-549)

Helping DOD Manage 

Contracted Services 

Reductions

In 2012, the Congress mandated that DOD reduce funding for contract 

staff who may risk inappropriately influencing government decisions. In 

2014, we found that DOD relied on incomplete data to demonstrate that 

it reduced funding. We recommended that DOD identify alternative data 

sources to verify that mandated reductions were achieved, and as a result 

the Congress instructed DOD to do so. In 2015, DOD updated its budget 

submission guidance to collect the data necessary to fulfill the intent of 

required funding reductions. (GAO-15-115)

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

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

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 Performance and Accountability Report 2015

86 GAO-16-3SP Performance Information

Our fourth strategic goal embraces 

the spirit of continuous and focused 

improvement in order to sustain highquality, timely service to the Congress, 

while also implementing leading practices 

in our internal operations. Activities 

carried out under this goal also address our 

four internal management challenges. The 

multiyear (fiscal years 2014-2019) 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 strategically 

targeted recruiting, hiring, reward, and 

retention 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 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 

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

Strategic Goal 4

Maximize the Value of GAO by Enabling Quality, Timely 

Service to the Congress and by Being a Leading 

Practices Federal Agency
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 87 Performance Information

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, we 

performed internal studies and completed 

projects that further the strategic goal. As 

shown in table 6 on page 38, our internal 

operations for services and functions that 

help employees get their jobs done, 

improve the quality of their work life, and 

the IT tools they use to accomplish their 

work were rated by our staff with scores of 

82 percent, and 78 percent, 65 percent, 

respectively. Table 19 provides examples of 

goal 4 accomplishments and contributions.

Examples of Work under Goal 4

Technology. We successfully deployed a virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) agency-wide, enabling employees 

to securely access their “virtual desktop” on a variety of personal devices, from any location, further 

enhancing our ability to support a mobile, agile workforce.

Telework. We completed a comprehensive internal review of our telework program to identify strengths and 

weaknesses, recommend improvements, and inform decision making for implementation of expanded telework 

in headquarters. 

Leadership training. To provide our leaders the training necessary to ensure their success in managing and 

developing staff, we made great strides in implementing enhancements to our training for this cohort in fiscal 

year 2015. To elevate the visibility and importance of leadership at GAO, we revised our 3-day senior leader 

transition promotion seminar, designed a 2-day course for new leaders that focuses on GAO’s six dimensions 

of leadership, created and began piloting a 2-year leadership training curriculum, and identified outside and 

online training opportunities on our intranet.

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

GAO staff working on a project.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

88 GAO-16-3SP Performance Information

Table 19: Goal 4 Accomplishments and Contributions

Improve Efficiency and Effectiveness

Enhancing 

Support for 

Conducting, 

Managing, and 

Reporting on 

Our Work

Facilitating access to our work. GAO’s key audiences—the Congress, 

congressional staff, and the American people—increasingly engage with our work 

via social and digital media platforms. In publishing to half a dozen social media 

sites, and tailoring our information to those platforms, we reach our audiences 

where they are, on the platforms they regularly use. Since its launch in 2014, the 

GAO WatchBlog has featured more than 250 blog posts on a wide range of topics. 

It has been viewed nearly 95,000 times and was named one of the five most 

unforgettable government agency blogs by GovLoop. In addition, we exceeded 

9,000 Facebook “page likes,” a 45-percent increase from last year, and produced 

45 podcasts for a total podcast library of 230. To create the wide variety of 

high-quality content we provided to the public in fiscal year 2015—including video 

webchats, report-related videos and animations, infographics, and web-based 

interactive graphics—we leveraged resources from across the agency. Staff from 

every mission team contributed tweets, blog posts, and other content, and more 

than 90 GAO staff completed our Writing for Social Media course, which helps 

them generate timely, relevant web and social media content to facilitate access 

to GAO’s work and promote understanding of the issues facing the Congress and 

the nation. We also continued to evaluate and improve our website to ensure 

users can easily search, find, and access our work. This year, we redesigned the 

legal sections of GAO.gov to improve functionality and streamline content based 

on user feedback, and continued to work to revise reports’ product summary 

pages to improve users’ ability to engage with our content. 

Strengthening our relationship with the Congress. We continue to support 

the Congress by offering training courses for congressional staff on GAO’s 

mission and services through the Senate Office of Education and the House of 

Representatives Learning Center. The curriculum is designed to help congressional 

staff understand how GAO does its work, how to access our products, and how 

to request the various services we offer. Training was provided on 22 occasions 

in fiscal year 2015. During orientation for newly-elected Members of the 114th 

Congress, the Comptroller General spoke on GAO’s mission and our role in 

assisting congressional decision making, providing specific examples of how GAO 

serves Members and congressional committees. 

Managing our work. During fiscal year 2015, GAO collaborated with the Congress 

to revise or repeal statutory reporting requirements which have, over time, 

lost relevance or usefulness. On November 26, 2014, the President signed H.R. 

4194, the Government Reports Elimination Act, which modified or repealed 11 

statutory mandates, including outdated and recurring requirements related to the 

American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, and annual audits of the Congressional 

Award Foundation. The Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘Buck’ McKeon National Defense 

Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015, also enacted in November 2014, included 

an additional 4 revisions to statutory requirements. These changes will allow 

resources that would have been devoted to these reports to be allocated to other 

congressional priorities. 

On May 15, 2015, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1735, the National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2016, which contained provisions 

to repeal or modify four mandates for GAO work. On June 18, 2015, the Senate 

passed its version of the NDAA for fiscal year 2016, which also contained 

provisions to revise or repeal two mandates for GAO work. 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 89 Performance Information

While the final outcome of DOD authorization legislation for the coming fiscal 

year is uncertain, GAO plans to continue collaboration with our congressional 

oversight committees to modify or repeal an additional 16 statutory requirements 

in the second session of the 114th Congress.

Streamlining our engagement-related processes. We continued to make strides 

in fiscal year 2015 in identifying and implementing new systems, processes, and 

tools to better manage the way we do our work, and improving elements of 

methods already in place to introduce efficiencies. We successfully transitioned 

from piloting to implementing agency-wide the Updated Engagement Process 

(UEP) and the Engagement Management System (EMS). UEP facilitates improved 

decision making about resources and engagement scope and objectives by 

ensuring earlier stakeholder, team management, and senior manager-level 

involvement, and reduces management and oversight engagement costs by 

reducing the number of engagement review meetings from two to one. Further, 

UEP continues the prior year’s efforts to clarify roles and responsibilities on 

engagements to ensure that the right stakeholders are involved at the right 

time. EMS reduces duplicative data entry and provides enhanced functionality 

for monitoring and tracking engagement progress. We awarded a contract for 

New Blue, a software solution that will modernize how we create, review, 

approve, validate, distribute, and post our content electronically. The Executive 

Committee and managing directors received training in fiscal year 2015 on change 

management and GAO hired a change management expert to join the Continuous 

Process Improvement Office—all to better assure our success in achieving the 

desired outcomes of the changes we have implemented, as well as those still in 

the pipeline. 

Maintain and Enhance Recruitment, Development, Retention, and Rewards

Strengthening 

Strategies for 

Hiring and 

Retention, 

Developing the 

Workforce, 

Managing and 

Monitoring 

Performance, 

and Promoting 

an Inclusive 

Work 

Environment 

Hiring. Our recruitment and outreach efforts attracted thousands of interested 

candidates for our job openings, and we again were able to hire talented staff 

at all levels. Our successful hiring cycle was the result of seeking the input of 

subject matter experts to assess candidates’ qualifications, leveraging our intern 

program with 162 paid interns located both in headquarters and in our field 

offices, and fortifying our entry-level analyst ranks by hiring 117 entry-level staff. 

Staff development, performance management, and retention. As discussed 

earlier in our human capital management challenge narrative, we know that 

investing in our staff through all career stages is instrumental in maintaining and 

retaining our expert workforce. To this end, we actively focused on providing 

leadership training opportunities to staff at all levels via virtual leadership 

courses, several offsite trainings, our leadership speaker series, workshops on 

giving and receiving performance feedback, and updated leadership training 

curricula. We also selected a new class of 13 candidates for the Senior Executive 

Service (SES) Executive Candidate Assessment and Development Program, 

placed the 13 graduates from the prior class into SES positions, and promoted 26 

employees into management positions. For the entry-level employees currently 

in our Professional Development Program (PDP), we sponsored a variety of 

information-sharing initiatives to keep them and their managers informed of 

topics of interest and policies, thus promoting collaboration and team building. 

For our field office administrative support staff, we developed and delivered a 

week-long training that included courses in critical thinking, MS Outlook program 

skills, and various GAO administrative processes. 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

90 GAO-16-3SP Performance Information

Inclusive workplace. For all managers, a new required course—Leadership and 

Inclusion—was delivered to increase awareness, knowledge, and skills in the 

areas of leadership, diversity, and inclusion. To further enhance all employees’ 

understanding of diversity and inclusion issues, the GAO-wide Diversity and 

Inclusion Community of Practice launched a Wiki page that provides a list of 

resources, articles, and videos on topics such as race, hidden biases, gender 

equality, and more. We also issued our sixth update to GAO’s Workforce Diversity 

Plan, certified 63 additional staff for a total of 114 Diversity Facilitators through 

our in-house certification program, and added Women’s Equality Day to the list 

of diversity and inclusion events our agency recognizes annually. To support 

employees requiring reasonable accommodations, we handled 390 requests for 

accommodation in fiscal year 2015—70 more requests than in the prior fiscal 

year—and improved our outreach to employees with reasonable accommodations 

to proactively address issues and concerns through the creation of user guides 

for assistive technologies and a comprehensive intranet page to facilitate access 

to reasonable accommodation services, as well as the institution of monthly 

meetings with the Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities. 

Financial literacy. In its third year, our Financial Literacy Program for employees 

remains strong, sponsoring nearly 20 seminars and trainings to help employees 

make informed financial decisions. At the Comptroller General Financial Literacy 

Forum, leaders from across government and the private sector collaborated on 

ways organizations can help improve employee financial decision making and 

wellness, and made its recommendations public. Finally, we began an effort to 

identify, tag, and track our financial literacy-related engagements to further raise 

awareness of this topic publicly via a variety of social media platforms.

Collaboration with internal employee organizations. In fiscal year 2015, we 

worked with the GAO Employees Organization, International Federation of 

Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) Local 1921, to establish memoranda 

of agreements for the following initiatives: Electronic Travel System, Engagement 

Management System, several chapters of the Forensic Audits and Investigative 

Service Policy and Procedures, Virtual Desktop Initiative, Implementation of 

Business Travel Tool, Continuation Process Improvement Business Rules for Final 

Processing of Products, GAO Cafeteria Renovation, Smoking Memorandum, 

Centralized Voice Mail System, and the Performance Based Compensation. 

We also began negotiations on several critical initiatives, including expanded 

telework pilot in headquarters, additional field office renovations, new computer 

notebooks, field office parking, stand-alone printers, and automation of the 

transit benefit system. Together we participated in a Pre-Decisional Involvement 

Training in an effort to provide an opportunity for the union to obtain information 

and provide input before initial decisions are made.

Expand Networks, Collaborations, and Partnerships

Enhancing 

Professional 

Accounting 

and Auditing 

Standards

We significantly influenced the development and quality of newly established 

standards promulgated by the International Organization of Supreme Audit 

Institutions (INTOSAI). Used by over 190 countries, these standards articulate 

the proper conduct for government auditors worldwide and increase the audit 

quality, professionalism, and credibility of the audit institutions. We also made 

notable contributions toward identifying potential improvements in the standardsetting process. In the past year, our efforts have assisted in the development of 

guidance for audits of public debt and the related systems throughout the world. 

To promote understanding of the revised Green Book (GAO’s Standards for 

Internal Controls for the Federal Government), we presented on this topic to 

hundreds of state and local auditors through one joint and five regional audit 

forums.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 91 Performance Information

Enhancing 

Information 

Sharing and 

Collaboration 

with Others to 

Expand Audit 

Knowledge

We worked with the INTOSAI-Donor Cooperation to facilitate funding to SAIs in 

need through the SAI Capacity Development Fund (SAI CDF), a multidonor trust 

fund that approved 6 projects totaling nearly $2.3 million in developing countries. 

We also led or participated in 26 different INTOSAI committees and working 

groups, including serving as chair of the INTOSAI Task Force on Strategic Planning, 

where we analyzed the results of a survey of the group’s 192 members and 5 

associate members to understand the strengths, opportunities, and challenges 

facing INTOSAI. 

We provided briefings for more than 500 international visitors to help promote 

good governance globally and build capacity in SAIs with a focus on accountability, 

audit, and oversight.

We provided organizational and thought leadership to the public sector 

foresight community by organizing and moderating three panels with more 

than 50 participants, and made presentations at five events with more than 120 

participants, further positioning GAO as a leader in this realm and expanding our 

networks and partnerships for building a foresight capability from within. We also 

served as vice-chair for INTOSAI’s Supervisory Committee for Emerging Issues and 

laid the groundwork for launching a Foresight Speaker Series to bring knowledge 

of emerging issues and trends to employees to enhance internal operations and 

help inform forward-looking audit work for the Congress. 

Human, Information, Fiscal, Technological, and Physical Resources

Proactively 

Protecting 

Physical and 

Information 

Security

Physical security. We completed necessary facility upgrades to maintain our high 

levels of security in our headquarters building. We visited and briefed staff in all 

11 field offices to continue to ensure employees are aware of how to react and 

respond in a variety of safety situations.

Information security. We completed the redesign and upgrade of the network 

we use to access classified data and emails, reducing its footprint, which cuts 

operational costs and enhances overall information security. We continued to 

enhance our communications on protecting privacy through targeted monthly tips 

published in GAO’s weekly agency-wide email, revisions to our privacy glossary on 

GAO’s intranet with more comprehensive definitions and guidance, and five new 

podcasts to educate employees on GAO’s privacy program. 

Leveraging 

Technology 

to Achieve 

Business 

Process 

Improvement 

and Efficiency 

Gains

Managing physical infrastructure. In our field offices, we continued to 

experience savings related to our footprint reduction and enhanced telework 

pilot. We began a space utilization study of our headquarters building which, in 

conjunction with quarterly report data from our field offices’ hoteling reservation 

system to track telework against workspace and conference room usage, will 

help identify possible scenarios for reconfiguring our headquarters footprint to 

both support enhanced telework and free up unneeded workspace to lease as an 

additional revenue stream. Also in headquarters, we improved building efficiency 

by replacing and updating old and failing HVAC components for increased cost 

savings.

Automating key business tools. We continued to leverage our business 

intelligence (BI) tool to support our Travel Dashboard, and promoted enhanced 

system features among all of our mission teams. To more efficiently manage 

the hundreds of reasonable accommodation requests we receive annually, we 

developed business requirements for a database tracking system to be developed 

in fiscal year 2016. 

Improving communications. We expanded our efforts to ensure that employees 

understand how to use and navigate our intranet’s search engine to quickly locate 

the information they need to do their jobs through briefings at approximately 18 

team and staff office “all hands” meetings, reaching the majority of employees 

agency-wide. Through our online employee feedback system, we received
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

92 GAO-16-3SP Performance Information

and responded to more than 250 employee suggestions and comments on a 

range of issues, ensuring a constructive and consistent dialogue between staff 

and management. To further inform employees of our telework program’s 

requirements and their responsibilities under the program, we hosted a hallway 

fair, developed and disseminated a one-page matrix outlining the program’s 

features, and developed content for an online training video. Finally, we issued 

approximately 800 GAO “Notices” that keep employees informed of upcoming 

events and training opportunities, updates to policies and procedures, time 

critical deadlines, and more.

Improving 

Management 

of Key 

Administrative 

Processes

Improving business analytics. We stood up a new unit—the Business Process 

Analytics Group—to develop and maintain a data-driven operational culture 

whereby performance data and analysis better inform the Chief Administrative 

Officer (CAO) units’ understanding and management of GAO’s resources by 

increasing quality, driving value, finding efficiencies, and reducing the cost of 

business. 

Managing business processes. We initiated an effort—the Bridge to Best Practices 

—to determine the extent to which our internal operations reflect established, 

government-wide best practices in performing our work. Our CAO units identified 

more than 200 practices, a majority of which have been fully or partially adopted. 

We will follow up this effort in fiscal year 2016 to monitor our progress in adopting 

the remaining practices. To expedite the way we process security clearances for 

our Professional Development Program employees, we implemented a system 

for identifying and prioritizing the order in which employees were processed 

and granted clearances based on their engagements’ security needs. To realize 

efficiencies in our travel management system, we migrated the entire agency to a 

new system with direct interface to the Delphi financial system, resulting in cost 

savings and an improved user experience. To ensure the appropriate oversight 

of short-term telework agreements, we implemented more rigorous monitoring 

procedures, in addition to launching an improved telework data retrieval and 

delivery process for overall telework program monitoring. 

Strengthening internal controls. To more proactively manage agency cost and 

resources related to fulfilling employee compensation claims, we implemented 

ECOMP—the Employees’ Compensation Operations and Management Portal—which 

allows us to better track and report on claims. We developed a comprehensive 

approach to document GAO’s compliance with the 17 principles of the revised 

Green Book; this three-phase approach, to be completed by July 2016, will 

identify, document, and test key controls, ensuring we meet the Green Book’s 

rigorous standards for internal controls of our operations. To help program 

managers more efficiently and accurately monitor workers’ compensation claims, 

we implemented a workers’ compensation case-processing system.

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 93 From the Chief Financial Officer

November 16, 2015

The Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) is the primary mechanism for GAO 

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 2015 financial statements for the 29th consecutive year. Our independent 

auditors found that GAO maintained, in all material aspects, effective internal 

control 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 45 days after the 

end of the fiscal year. Our fiscal year 2014 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.

With increased funding in fiscal year 2015, GAO was able to continue to rebuild 

staff capacity through a targeted recruiting strategy to address critical skills gaps. 

This was a positive step forward in rebuilding staff capacity, which in recent years 

had fallen to its lowest level since 1935. The additional staff will help ensure 

GAO has the resources to assist Congress in improving government performance, 

effectiveness, and accountability, as well as support our commitment to customer 

focus and quality. In addition to staffing gains in fiscal year 2015, GAO also 

made critical investments in IT and building infrastructure that will allow GAO 

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

From the Chief Financial Officer

Part III

Financial Information
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

94 GAO-16-3SP From the Chief Financial Officer

to further streamline business operations, increase staff productivity, improve 

access to information, and ensure efficient building and security operations. 

However, uncertainty in future funding levels will impact GAO’s ability to add staff 

capacity in fiscal year 2016 and will limit further investments in IT and building 

infrastructure. Given the near-term funding outlook, GAO will continue to focus 

attention on reducing costs where possible and look to leverage efficiencies across 

its infrastructure.

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 (DOT). ESC maintains the accounting 

system and performs our daily transaction processing. We continue to look at other 

processes to streamline in support of GAO financial and travel operations in an 

effort to continue to reduce overhead costs and allow staff to shift their focus to 

analytics. We also improved the efficiency of the information technology available 

to all our staff by implementing a Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) this year. 

VDI is a flexible way of providing staff with secure access to their network account 

and the tools needed to do their important work. Using an internet connection 

from any location, staff have access to their “virtual desktop” where all their daily 

applications are available on the network instead of locally on their GAO notebook 

and can access them from a wide variety of personal devices.

Additionally, GAO implemented the next generation of eGov Travel System. 

CWTSato’s e2Solutions was selected and went live in April with a two team Pilot 

followed by a full agency roll out in June. The new travel system provides for 

enhanced on-line reservations capability and stricter adherence to the Federal 

Travel Regulation. The use of the Mission Intelligence (MI) Tool in GAO operations 

for enhanced travel and other reporting needs continued with encouraging results 

through 2015. The Travel Module served its intended purpose of providing analytics 

and metrics to GAO’s mission teams on the financial aspects of travel transactions, 

and was a key instrument of support in the migration to the new travel management 

system. We also launched a MI-based Budgetary Status of Funds capability. The MI 

Status of Funds capability provides a comprehensive view and drill-down capability 

on the budgetary status of each mission and support team’s budgeted activities.

In the area of internal control, we continued to review and test key business cycles, 

such as human capital/payroll, procurement and disbursements, which are consistent 

with the Federal Manager’s Financial Integrity Act and Office of Management and 

Budget Circular A-123, Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control. To ensure 

the integrity of financial data and the appropriate levels of authorization, we used 

an end-to-end transactional testing approach to 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. In fiscal year 2016, we 

will continue to assess and enhance our internal control program to comply with the 

recently revised Standards for Internal Control for the Federal Government (“Green 

Book”).
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 95 From the Chief Financial Officer

All of these efforts contributed to our independent auditors providing a favorable 

opinion on the effectiveness of our internal control again this year. We will continue 

to look for efficiencies throughout the agency to improve our operations, tools, 

and information available for our managers and staff to do their important work. 

These ongoing operational improvements will 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.

Karl J. Maschino

Chief Administrative Officer/

Chief Financial Officer
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

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 control 

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 assure itself 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 2015 Performance and Accountability Report.

Michael A. Nemeroff

Chair

Audit Advisory Committee

96 GAO-16-3SP Audit Advisory Committee’s Report
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 97 Financial Information

Independent Auditor’s Report

CliftonLarsonAllen LLP 

www.cliftonlarsonallen.com

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT 

Comptroller General of the United States 

In our audits of the fiscal years (FY) 2015 and 2014 financial statements of the United States 

Government Accountability Office (GAO), we found: 

 The financial statements as of and for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2015 and 

2014, 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 as of September 30, 2015; 

 GAO’s financial management systems substantially complied with the applicable 

requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) as of 

September 30, 2015; and 

 No reportable noncompliance for fiscal year 2015 with provisions of applicable laws, 

regulations, contracts, and grant agreements we tested. 

The following sections discuss in more detail (1) our report on the financial statements and on 

internal control over financial reporting, which includes required supplementary information 

(RSI) and other information included with the financial statements; (2) our report on systems’ 

compliance with FFMIA; and (3) our report on compliance with laws, regulations, contracts and 

grant agreements. 

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, 2015 and 2014, and the related statements of net cost, changes in 

net position, and budgetary resources for the years then ended, and the related notes to the 

financial statements (financial statements). We have also audited GAO’s internal control over 

financial reporting as of September 30, 2015. 

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a 

basis for our audit opinions. 

Management’s Responsibility 

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) 

preparing, measuring, and presenting the RSI in accordance with U. S. generally accepted 

accounting principles; (3) preparing and presenting other information included in documents 

containing the audited financial statements and auditor’s report, and ensuring the consistency of
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

98 GAO-16-3SP Financial Information

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT (Continued) 

that information with the audited financial statements and the RSI; (4) 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; (5) evaluating the 

effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting based on criteria established under 

31 U.S.C. §3512 (c), (d), commonly known as the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act 

(FMFIA) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, Management’s 

Responsibility for Internal Control, as amended (OMB Circular A-123), and (6) providing its 

assertion about the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, based on its 

evaluation as of September 30, 2015. Management’s Statement of Assurance 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 based on our audits. We conducted our audit 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. Our audit of internal control 

over financial reporting was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by 

the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and the attestation standards 

contained in Government Auditing Standards. Those standards require that we plan and 

perform the audit 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 information included with the financial 

statements. We also conducted our audits in accordance with OMB Bulletin No. 15-02, Audit 

Requirements for Federal Financial Statements (OMB Bulletin 15-02). 

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 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 

whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained, in all material 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 99 Financial Information

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT (Continued) 

respects. Consequently, our audit may not identify all deficiencies in internal control over 

financial reporting that are less severe than a material weakness1

.

Definitions and Inherent Limitations of Internal Control over Financial Reporting 

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 U.S. generally accepted 

accounting principles, and assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized acquisition, 

use, or disposition; and (2) transactions are executed in accordance with provisions of 

applicable laws, including those governing the use of budget authority; regulations; contracts; 

and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a material effect on the financial 

statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting 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. 

Opinions

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, 

the financial position of GAO as of September 30, 2015 and 2014, 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. In our opinion, GAO maintained, in all material 

respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2015, based on 

criteria established under FMFIA and OMB Circular A-123. 

Other Matters 

Required Supplementary Information 

Accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. issued by the Federal Accounting 

Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) require that GAO’s Management Discussion and Analysis 

(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 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 in order to report omissions or material departures from 

FASAB guidelines, if any, identified by these limited procedures. We did not audit and we do not 

 

1 A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such 

that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be 

prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or 

operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned 

functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

100 GAO-16-3SP Financial Information

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT (Continued) 

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. 

Other Information 

Other information included in the PAR, other than the basic financial statements, RSI, 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 purposes of additional analysis and is not 

a required part of the basic financial statements or RSI. We read the other information included 

with the financial statements in order to identify material inconsistencies, if any, with the audited 

financial statements. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on GAO’s 

financial statements. We did not audit and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance 

on the other information. 

Report on Systems’ Compliance with FFMIA Requirements 

We have audited GAO’s financial management systems’ compliance with certain requirements 

as prescribed in the FFMIA as of September 30, 2015. 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 with FFMIA requirements. 

Auditors’ 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 attestation standards 

established by the AICPA and the attestation standards 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 as of September 30, 2015. Our opinion is based on criteria established 

under FFMIA for federal financial management systems. 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 101 Financial Information

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT (Continued) 

Report on Compliance with Laws, Regulations, Contracts, and Grant Agreements Based 

on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing 

Standards

In connection with our audit of GAO’s financial statements, we tested GAO’s compliance with 

certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements consistent with our 

professional responsibility discussed below. We caution that noncompliance with laws, 

regulations, contracts and grant agreements may occur and not be detected by these tests. We 

performed our tests of compliance in accordance with Government Auditing Standards.

Management’s Responsibility for Compliance 

Management is responsible for complying with applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant 

agreements.

Auditors’ Responsibility 

We are responsible for testing compliance with selected provisions of laws, regulations, 

contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a material effect on the 

financial statements. We did not test compliance with all laws, regulations, contracts, and grant 

agreements applicable to GAO. 

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, 2015, that are required to be reported in accordance with Government Auditing 

Standards. However, the objective of our tests was not to provide an opinion on compliance with 

laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements applicable to GAO, and accordingly, we do 

not express such an opinion. 

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 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 considering GAO’s 

compliance. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose. 

CliftonLarsonAllen LLP 

Calverton, Maryland 

November 13, 2015 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

102 GAO-16-3SP 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 and other costs in support of the 

Congress.

 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 Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 103 Financial Information

Financial Statements

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Balance Sheets

As of September 30 , 2015 and 2014

(Dollars in thousands)

2015 2014

Assets

Intragovernmental

 Funds with the U.S. Treasury (Note 2) $73 ,074 $72 ,311 

 Accounts receivable 2 ,819 1 ,772 

Total Intragovernmental 75 ,893 74 ,083 

Property and equipment, net (Note 3) 27 ,335 27 ,961 

Other 714 513 

Total Assets $103 ,942 $102 ,557 

Liabilities

Intragovernmental

 Accounts payable $7 ,278 $3 ,193 

Employee benefits payable (Note 5) 2 ,646 2 ,149 

 Workers' compensation (Note 6) 2 ,532 2 ,511 

Total Intragovernmental 12 ,456 7 ,853 

Accounts payable and other 5 ,698 9 ,618 

Salaries and benefits 13 ,629 12 ,281 

Accrued annual leave (Note 4) 31 ,400 31 ,307 

Actuarial FECA liability (Note 6) 15 ,796 16 ,591 

Total Liabilities 78 ,979 77 ,650 

Net Position

Unexpended appropriations 25 ,225 26 ,151 

Cumulative results of operations (262) (1 ,244)

Total Net Position (Note 13) 24 ,963 24 ,907 

Total Liabilities and Net Position $103 ,942 $102 ,557 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

104 GAO-16-3SP Financial Information

Financial Statements

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Statements of Net Cost

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30 , 2015 and 2014

(Dollars in thousands)

2015 2014

Net Costs by Goal (Note 10)

Goal 1: Well-being/Financial Security of American People

 Gross Costs $222 ,321 $218 ,768 

 Less: reimbursable services (591) (799)

 Net goal costs 221 ,730 217 ,969 

Goal 2: Changing Security Threats/Challenges of Global 

 Interdependence

 Gross Costs 152 ,180 141 ,594 

 Less: reimbursable services - - 

 Net goal costs 152 ,180 141 ,594 

Goal 3: Transforming the Federal Government’s Role

 Gross Costs 150 ,486 152 ,051 

 Less: reimbursable services (14 ,658) (16 ,802)

 Net goal costs 135 ,828 135 ,249 

Goal 4: Maximize the Value of GAO

 Gross Costs 14 ,588 14 ,917 

 Less: reimbursable services - - 

 Net goal costs 14 ,588 14 ,917 

Other Costs in Support of the Congress

 Gross Costs 30 ,732 28 ,171 

 Less: reimbursable services (1 ,226) (1 ,295)

 Net costs 29 ,506 26 ,876 

Less: reimbursable services not attributable to above cost by 

goal categories (Note 7) (9 ,536) (9 ,307)

Net Cost of Operations (Note 9) $544 ,296 $527 ,298 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 105 Financial Information

Financial Statements

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Statements of Changes in Net Position

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30 , 2015 and 2014

(Dollars in thousands)

2015 2014

Cumulative Results of Operations, beginning of year ($1 ,244) ($9 ,688)

Budgetary Financing Sources - Appropriations used 522 ,924 505 ,844 

Other Financing Sources

 Federal employee retirement benefit costs paid by OPM 

 and imputed to GAO (Note 5) 22 ,363 29 ,898 

Transfers Out (9) - 

Total Financing Sources 545 ,278 535 ,742 

Net Cost of Operations 544 ,296 527 ,298 

Net Change 982 8 ,444 

Cumulative Results of Operations, end of year ($262) ($1 ,244)

Unexpended Appropriations, beginning of year $26 ,151 $26 ,616 

Budgetary Financing Sources and Uses

 Appropriations received 522 ,000 505 ,383 

 Appropriations transferred out, net - (4)

 Appropriations permanently not available (2) - 

 Appropriations used (522 ,924) (505 ,844)

Total Unexpended Appropriations, end of year $25 ,225 $26 ,151 

Net Position $24 ,963 $24 ,907 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

106 GAO-16-3SP Financial Information

Financial Statements

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Statements of Budgetary Resources

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30 , 2015 and 2014

(Dollars in thousands)

2015 2014 

Budgetary Resources (Note 11)

Unobligated balance, beginning of year $28 ,227 $22 ,105 

Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations 7 ,339 5 ,007 

Other changes in unobligated balances (2) (74)

Unobligated balance from prior year budget authority, net 35 ,564 27 ,038 

Appropriations 522 ,000 505 ,453 

Spending authority from offsetting collections 30 ,706 29 ,995 

Total Budgetary Resources $588 ,270 $562 ,486 

Status of Budgetary Resources

Obligations Incurred $555 ,388 $534 ,259 

Unobligated balance, end of year:

Apportioned 6 ,887 11 ,888 

Unapportioned 25 ,995 16 ,339 

Total unobligated balance, end of year 32 ,882 28 ,227 

Total budgetary resources $588 ,270 $562 ,486 

Change in Obligated Balances

Unpaid Obligations: 

Unpaid obligations, beginning of year $53 ,223 $53 ,246 

Adjustment to unpaid obligations:

Obligations incurred 555 ,388 534 ,259 

Gross outlays (549 ,883) (529 ,275)

Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations (7 ,339) (5 ,007)

Unpaid obligations, end of year $51 ,389 $53 ,223 

Uncollected Payments:

Uncollected customer payments from Federal sources, brought 

forward, beginning of year ($9 ,139) ($8 ,082)

Change in uncollected customer payments from Federal sources (2 ,058) (1 ,057)

Uncollected customer payments from Federal sources ($11 ,197) ($9 ,139)

Obligated balance, beginning of year $44 ,084 $45 ,164 

Obligated balance, end of year $40 ,192 $44 ,084 

Budget Authority and Outlays, Net

Budget authority, gross $552 ,706 $535 ,448 

Actual offsetting collections (28 ,648) (28 ,938)

Change in uncollected customer payments from Federal sources (2 ,058) (1 ,057)

Budget authority, net $522 ,000 $505 ,453 

Outlays, gross $549 ,883 $529 ,275 

Actual offsetting collections (28 ,648) (28 ,938)

Outlays, net $521 ,235 $500 ,337 

Distributed offsetting receipts (21) (10)

Outlays, net $521,214 $500 ,327 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 107 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. 

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 used to prepare the Statement 

of Budgetary Resources. 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, Revised. 

Intragovernmental 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 from which GAO is authorized to make 

expenditures and pay liabilities.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

108 GAO-16-3SP 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, net

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. The building was depreciated on a straight-line basis over 

25 years and is fully depreciated.

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.

With regards to policies surrounding maintenance and repairs, GAO has a fully funded 

Commercial Facilities Management (CFM) contract that performs activities directed towards 

keeping fixed assets in an acceptable condition. These activities include preventive 

maintenance, replacement of parts, systems, or components, and other actions needed 

to preserve or maintain these assets. GAO ranks and prioritizes maintenance and repair 

activities by using our current asset management plan which is based on a detailed 

condition assessment survey, which helps GAO program major repair and replacement 

projects. The factors considered in determining an acceptable asset condition include 

meeting established maintenance standards, operating efficiently, and having a normal 

life expectancy. Scheduled maintenance is generally sufficient to maintain assets in their 

current condition. GAO has no deferred maintenance and repairs as of September 30, 2015.

Liabilities

Liabilities represent amounts that are likely to be paid by GAO as a result of transactions 

that have already occurred. Intragovernmental liabilities are those liabilities that arise from 

transactions with other federal entities. 

Accounts Payable

Accounts Payable consists of amounts owed to federal agencies and commercial vendors 

for goods and services received. 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 109 Financial Information

Federal Employee Benefits Payable

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 5).

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 

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 6).

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 recognize a 

contingent liability in the financial statements for any losses considered probable and 

estimable. Management believes that the likelihood of losses from certain other claims 

and lawsuits is remote and therefore no provision for losses is 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. 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

110 GAO-16-3SP Financial Information

Note 2. 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, 2015, and September 30, 2014, is as follows:

Dollars in thousands

2015 2014

Unobligated balance

Available $6 ,887 $11 ,888

Unavailable Resources

Total unavailable resources 25 ,995 16 ,339

Less uncollected payments from Federal sources (11 ,197) (9 ,139)

Unavailable funds with U.S. Treasury 14 ,798 7 ,200

Unobligated funds with U.S. Treasury 21 ,685 19 ,088

Obligated balance

Obligated balance end of year, net 40 ,192 44 ,084

Plus uncollected payments from Federal sources 11 ,197 9 ,139

Unpaid obligations, end of year 51 ,389 53 ,223

Total funds with U.S. Treasury $73 ,074 $72 ,311

This table has been expanded to make the relationships to the lines on the statements of 

budgetary resources more intuitive for the reader.

Note 3. Property and Equipment, Net

The composition of property and equipment as of September 30, 2015, 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 129 ,576 $112 ,557 17 ,019

Computer and other

equipment and software 63 ,183 54 ,186 8 ,997

Leasehold improvements 3 ,165 3 ,037 128

Total property and equipment $197 ,115 $169 ,780 $27 ,335

Depreciation expense for property and equipment for fiscal year 2015: $5,927,000.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 111 Financial Information

The composition of property and equipment as of September 30, 2014 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 128 ,810 $110 ,379 18 ,431

Computer and other

equipment and software 61 ,691 53 ,552 8 ,139

Leasehold improvements 3 ,531 3 ,331 200

Total property and equipment $195 ,223 $167 ,262 $27 ,961

Depreciation expense for property and equipment for fiscal year 2014: $6,007,000.

Note 4. 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, 2015, and September 30, 2014, is as follows:

Dollars in thousands

 2015 2014

Intragovernmental liabilities—Workers’ compensation $2 ,532 $2 ,511

Salaries and benefits—Comptrollers’ General retirement plan* 1 ,177 1 ,246

Accrued annual leave 31 ,400 31 ,307

Workers’ compensation (Actuarial FECA liability)** 15 ,796 16 ,591

Liabilities not covered by budgetary resources 50 ,905 51 ,655

Liabilities covered by budgetary resources 28 ,074 25 ,995

Total liabilities $78 ,979 $77 ,650

* See Note 5 for further discussion of the Comptrollers’ General retirement plan.

** See Note 6 for further discussion of workers’ compensation.

Note 5. 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. 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

112 GAO-16-3SP Financial Information

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. In fiscal year 2015, OPM’s 

cost factors were lower resulting in a reduction of GAO’s imputed pension costs. 

Amounts owed to OPM and Treasury as of September 30, 2015, and September 30, 2014, 

are $2,646,000 and $2,149,000, 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, 2015, and September 30, 2014, are as follows:

Dollars in thousands

Federal employee benefits costs 2015 2014

Federal employee retirement benefit costs paid by OPM and imputed to GAO:

Estimated future pension costs (CSRS/FERS) $8 ,099 $16 ,746 

Estimated future postretirement health and life insurance (FEHBP/FEGLI) 14 ,264 13 ,152

Total $22 ,363 $29 ,898

Pension expenses (CSRS/FERS) $41 ,661 $36 ,318

Health and life insurance expenses (FEHBP/FEGLI) $22 ,212 $21 ,206

FICA and Medicare payments made by GAO $21 ,754 $20 ,745

Thrift Savings Plan – matching contribution by GAO $14 ,150 $13 ,337

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 $1,177,000 as of September 30, 2015, and $1,246,000 as of September 30, 2014, 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 the current plan year: 

Dollars in thousands

Actuarial liability as of September 30 , 2014 $1 ,246

Expense: 

Interest on the liability balance 41

Actuarial loss:

From experience 58

From assumption changes 3 

Total expense 102

Less benefits paid (171)

Actuarial liability as of September 30 , 2015 $1 ,177
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 113 Financial Information

Note 6. 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, 2015, and September 30, 2014, which is expected to be paid in future periods. 

This estimated liability of $15,796,000 and $16,591,000 as of September 30, 2015, 

and September 30, 2014, respectively, is reported on GAO’s balance sheets. GAO also 

recorded a liability for amounts paid to claimants by DOL as of September 30, 2015, and 

September 30, 2014, of $2,532,000 and $2,511,000, 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 7. 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 year 

2022. 

Rental revenue from space leased at GAO headquarters for fiscal years 2015 and 2014 was 

$9,286,000 and $9,178,000, respectively. These amounts are included on the Statements 

of Net Cost as a major component of “Reimbursable services not attributable to above cost 

by goal 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*

2016 $9 ,395

2017 9 ,509

2018 9 ,626

2019 9 ,747

2020 9 ,873

2021 - 2022 4 ,399

Total $52 ,549

*If option years are exercised.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

114 GAO-16-3SP Financial Information

Note 8. 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 years 2015 and 2014 amounted to approximately $5,935,000 and $7,118,000, 

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

2016 $5 ,571

2017 5 ,549

2018 4 ,020

2019 2 ,547

2020 2 ,123

2021 and thereafter 8 ,989 

Total estimated future lease payments $28 ,799

Note 9. Net Cost of Operations

Expenses for salaries and related benefits, net of reimbursable collections, for fiscal year 

2015 and fiscal year 2014 amounted to $453,431,000 and $438,185,000, respectively, about 

83 percent of GAO’s net cost of operations for both fiscal years which totaled $544,296,000 

and $527,298,000 for 2015 and 2014, respectively. Included in the net cost of operations 

are federal employee benefit costs paid by OPM and imputed to GAO of $22,363,000 in 

fiscal year 2015 and $29,898,000 in fiscal year 2014. 

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 2015 and fiscal year 2014 amounted to $26,011,000 and $28,203,000, 

respectively. Further details of the intragovernmental components are provided in Note 10.

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. 

“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 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 115 Financial Information

Standards Advisory Board, General Counsel statutory bid protest decision writing function, 

recommendation follow up work, and other direct support to Congress. 

Note 10. 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 fiscal years ended September 30, 2015, and September 30, 2014, are as 

follows: 

Dollars in thousands

2015 2014

Goal 1: Well-Being/Financial Security of American People

Intragovernmental costs $49 ,012 $55 ,740

Public costs 173 ,309 163 ,028

Total Goal 1 costs 222 ,321 218 ,768

Intragovernmental earned revenue (591) (799)

Net Goal 1 costs 221 ,730 217 ,969

Goal 2: Changing Security Threats/Challenges of Global Interdependence

Intragovernmental costs 34 ,285 36 ,665

Public costs 117 ,895 104 ,929

Total Goal 2 costs 152 ,180 141 ,594

Goal 3: Transforming the Federal Government’s Role

Intragovernmental costs 32 ,617 36 ,702

Public costs 117 ,869 115 ,349

Total Goal 3 costs 150 ,486 152 ,051

Intragovernmental earned revenue (14 ,658) (16 ,802)

Net Goal 3 costs 135 ,828 135 ,249

Goal 4: Maximize the Value of GAO

Intragovernmental costs 3 ,697 3 ,392

Public costs 10 ,891 11 ,525

Total Goal 4 costs 14 ,588 14 ,917

Other costs in support of the Congress

Intragovernmental costs 12 ,107 11 ,584

Public costs 18 ,625 16 ,587

Total other costs 30 ,732 28 ,171

Intragovernmental earned revenue (1 ,226) (1 ,295)

Net other costs 29 ,506 26 ,876

Earned revenue not attributable to above cost categories

Intragovernmental (9 ,405) (9 ,183)

Public (131) (124)

Total earned revenue not attributable to goals ($9 ,536) ($9 ,307)
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

116 GAO-16-3SP Financial Information

Goals 2 and 4 have no associated intragovernmental revenues. GAO tracks direct costs 

(payroll and contracts) to each Goal or Other Costs as assigned through a designated part 

of the accounting code. Costs which are not considered direct costs of a Goal or Other 

Costs are accumulated as Indirect and Overhead costs, which are then allocated across the 

Goals or Other Costs on a rational pro-rata basis.

Note 11. Budgetary Resources

Budgetary resources available to GAO during fiscal year 2015 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. 

A comparison of GAO’s fiscal year 2014 statement of budgetary resources with the 

corresponding information presented in the 2016 President’s Budget is as follows: 

 Dollars in thousands

Budgetary resources Obligations incurred

Fiscal year 2014 Statement of Budgetary Resources $562 ,486 $534 ,259

Unobligated balances, beginning of year – (funds

activity, expired accounts) (325) -

Unobligated balance transferred to other accounts 74 -

Recovery of prior year unpaid obligations (4 ,954) -

Spending authority from offsetting collections – (funds

activity, expired accounts) (823) -

Other – rounding in President’s Budget (458) 741 

2016 President’s Budget – fiscal year 2014 , actual $556 ,000 $535 ,000

As the fiscal year 2017 President’s Budget will not be published until February 2016, a 

comparison between the fiscal year 2015 data reflected on the statement of budgetary 

resources and fiscal year 2015 data in the President’s Budget cannot be performed, though 

we expect similar differences will exist. The fiscal year 2017 President’s Budget will be 

available on the OMB’s website and directly from the Government Printing Office.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 117 Financial Information

Budgetary resources obligated for undelivered orders at the end of fiscal year 2015 and 

fiscal year 2014 totaled $23,538,000 and $27,239,000, respectively. GAO’s apportionments 

fall under Category A, quarterly apportionment. Apportionment categories of obligations 

incurred for fiscal years 2015 and 2014 are as follows: 

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year ending September 30 2015 2014

Direct – Category A $527 ,375 $511 ,124

Reimbursable – Category A 28 ,013 23 ,135 

Total obligations incurred $555 ,388 $534 ,259

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, 2015 and 2014 are as follows: 

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year ending September 30 2015 2014

Resources used to finance activities

Budgetary resources obligated

Obligations incurred $555 ,388 $534 ,259

Less: spending authority from offsetting collections and recoveries (38 ,045) (35 ,002)

Obligations net of offsetting collections and recoveries 517 ,343 499 ,257 

Other resources

Transfers out without reimbursement (9) -

Federal employee retirement benefit costs paid by OPM imputed to GAO 22 ,363 29 ,898 

Net other resources used to finance activities 22 ,354 29 ,898 

Total resources used to finance activities 539 ,697 529 ,155 

Resources used to finance items not part of the net cost of operations

Change in undelivered orders and unfilled customer orders 4 ,713 (232)

Assets capitalized (5 ,232) (7 ,223)

Net decrease in receivables not generating resources until collected and 

other adjustments (62) (144) 

Total resources used to fund items not part of the net cost of operations (581) (7 ,599)

Total resources used to finance net cost of operations 539 ,116 521 ,556 

Components of net costs that will not require or generate resources in 

the current period

Decrease in workers’ compensation (774) (207)

Increase in accrued annual leave 93 23

Change in other liabilities (66) (81)

Total components of net costs that will not generate resources in the 

current period (747) (265)

Costs that do not require resources

Depreciation and other 5 ,927 6 ,007 

Net cost of operations $544 ,296 $527 ,298
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

118 GAO-16-3SP 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 for appropriated funds. 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, 2015, and 2014, are as follows:

Dollars in thousands

2015 2014

Investment in property and equipment, net $27 ,335 $27 ,961

Net reimbursable funds activity 22 ,594 21 ,937

Other (supplies inventory, prepayments, and accounts receivable from public) 714 513

Liabilities not covered by budgetary resources (50 ,905) (51 ,655)

Cumulative results of operations ($262) ($1 ,244)

Liabilities not covered by budgetary resources are liabilities for which congressional action 

is needed before budgetary resources can be provided. See Note 4 for components.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 119 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, 2015 and September 30, 2014 following our audited financial statements 

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 Performance and Accountability Report 2015

120 GAO-16-3SP Financial Information

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Schedules of Spending

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30 , 2015 and 2014

(Dollars in thousands)

UNAUDITED

2015 2014

What Money is Available to Spend? 

Appropriations $522 ,000 $505 ,453 

Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections 30 ,706 29 ,995 

Recoveries and Other Changes in Prior Year Unobligated Balances 35 ,564 27 ,038 

Total Resources 588 ,270 562 ,486 

Less Amount Available but Not Agreed to be Spent (6 ,887) (11 ,888)

Less Amount Not Available to be Spent (25 ,995) (16 ,339)

Total Amounts Agreed to be Spent $555 ,388 $534 ,259 

How was the Money Spent?

Direct Funds

Personnel

Salaries and Benefits $436 ,648 $417 ,775 

 Training 3 ,383 2 ,990 

Operations

 IT Services and Equipment 52 ,063 52 ,436 

 Buildings and Equipment 16 ,545 17 ,948 

 Travel 8 ,179 7 ,128 

 Contractual Services (non-IT) 10 ,557 12 ,847 

Total Direct Funds Spending $527 ,375 $511 ,124 

Reimbursable Funds

Personnel

Salaries and Benefits $14 ,250 $11 ,263 

Operations

 Buildings and Equipment 5 ,142 6 ,604 

 Travel 8 481 

 Contractual Services (non-IT) 8 ,613 4 ,787 

Total Reimbursable Funds Spending $28 ,013 $23 ,135 

Total Amounts Agreed to be Spent $555 ,388 $534 ,259 
U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

SERVING CONGRESS AND THE NATION

Part IV

Inspector General’s View 

of GAO’s Management 

Challenges

UNITED STATES

GOVE

RNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

OFFICE

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

122 GAO-16-3SP Inspector General’s View of GAO’s Management Challenges

Inspector General’s Statement

United States Government Accountability Office

Memorandum

Date: October 2, 2015 

To: Comptroller General Gene L. Dodaro

From: Inspector General Adam R. Trzeciak 

Subject: GAO Management Challenges

We considered management’s assessment of GAO’s internal management challenges. 

Based on our work and institutional knowledge, we agree that GAO faces human capital, 

engagement efficiency, and information security challenges. This year, GAO added telework

as a fourth challenge. The OIG believes it is prudent for GAO to recognize telework as a 

challenge based on the need for available and effective guidance and tools for supervisors 

and managers to use in monitoring, assessing, and appropriately responding to any adverse 

impact to GAO’s mission resulting from expanded telework.

OIG audits, evaluations, and investigations, completed in fiscal year 2015 and in prior years, 

validate the relevance of GAO’s reported challenges. For example, our evaluation of GAO’s 

privacy program found that opportunities exist to further protect personally identifiable 

information (PII), including minimizing the collection and retention of PII. Our audit of GAO’s 

compliance with Law Enforcement and Availability Pay Act requirements found that GAO 

lacked the guidance and other controls needed to effectively ensure compliance with this 

premium pay statute. Further, prior and ongoing OIG audits have found that improved 

process and monitoring controls are needed within key human capital management 

programs intended to support GAO recruitment and retention goals. 

As illustrated in its management challenges discussion, GAO has on-going efforts intended 

to mitigate the risks to the agency presented by each challenge and to improve its operating 

controls and efficiency. Due to the ever-changing nature of its operating environment, 

including its possible move to agency-wide enhanced telework, GAO must maintain 

flexibility. The four challenges and corresponding initiatives must continue to evolve in

tandem with the potential risks to GAO’s ability to efficiently and effectively perform its 

mission. 
SERVING CONGRESS AND THE NATION

Part V

Appendixes

U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

UNITED STATES

GOVE

RNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

OFFICE

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

124 GAO-16-3SP Abbreviations

APS Adult Protective Services 

APQA Audit Policy and Quality Assurance 

ARM Applied Research and Methods 

BI business intelligence 

CAO Chief Administrative Officer 

CEAR Certificate of Excellence in Accountability Reporting

CFPB Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 

CHIP State Children’s Health Insurance Program

CIGIE Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency

CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 

Commerce Department of Commerce

CPIO Continuous Process Improvement Office 

CSAT Customer Satisfaction Survey 

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 

DOT Department of Transportation

ECOMP Employees’ Compensation Operations and Management Portal

EMS Engagement Management System 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERS Engagement Reporting System 

ESC Enterprise Services Center 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAIS Forensic Audits and Investigative Service 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FCC Federal Communications Commission

FECA Federal Employees’ Compensation Act 

FEGLI Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Program 

FEHBP Federal Employees Health Benefit Program 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FERS Federal Employees Retirement System 

FFMIA Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 

FIA Financial Integrity Act 

FICA Federal Insurance Contributions Act 

FINRA Financial Industry Regulatory Authority 

FirstNet First Responder Network Authority 

FISMA Federal Information Security Management Act 

FLRA Federal Labor Relations Authority 

FMFIA Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act 

FTA free trade agreements

FTE full-time equivalent 

FVRA Federal Vacancies Reform Act

GAO Government Accountability Office 

Appendix I: Abbreviations 
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 125 Abbreviations

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act as amended

GPS Global Positioning System 

GSA General Services Administration 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development 

ICD Intelligence Community Directive 

IDT identity theft

IFPTE International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers 

IG Inspector General 

INTOSAI International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions 

IRS Internal Revenue Service

IT information technology 

MI Mission Intelligence 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NDAA National Defense Authorization Act

NFC National Finance Center 

NWSEO National Weather Service Employees Organization 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPM Office of Personnel Management 

PAR Performance and Accountability Report 

PBGC Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

PDP Professional Development Program

PEPFAR President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief 

PII personally identifiable information

PPACA Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

SAI supreme audit institution 

SAI CAD Supreme Audit Institution Capacity Development Fund

SBU Sensitive But Unclassified 

SES Senior Executive Service 

SSA Social Security Administration

SSN Social Security number 

State Department of State 

TARP Troubled Asset Relief Program 

TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery 

TSA Transportation Security Administration 

TSP Thrift Savings Plan

UEP Updated Engagement Process 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development 

USDA Department of Agriculture 

USPS U.S. Postal Service

USTR United States Trade Representative

VA Department of Veterans Affairs 

VDI Virtual Desktop Infrastructure

VHA Veterans Health Administration
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

126 GAO-16-3SP Appendix on 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 20. 

Table 20: 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 long-term 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 Audit Policy and Quality Assurance (APQA) office for review. Once accomplishment 

reports are approved, they are entered into our Engagement Reporting System (ERS), which is 

the official reporting database. 

Appendix II: Data Quality
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 127 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 2015, APQA approved accomplishment reports covering almost 

98 percent of the dollar value of financial benefits we reported.

In fiscal year 2015, 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 2015 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.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

128 GAO-16-3SP 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. Beginning in fiscal year 2015, GAO’s Performance and Accountability 

Report will no longer include in its calculation of percentage of products with recommendations 

those products that include Matters for Congressional Consideration, but no recommendations 

to federal agencies. 

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, 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 2015 

implementation rate is the percentage of recommendations made in fiscal year 2011 products 

that were implemented by the end of fiscal year 2015). Our experience has shown that if a 

recommendation has not been implemented within 4 years, it is not likely to be implemented.

Beginning in fiscal year 2015, GAO’s Performance and Accountability Report will no 

longer include actions taken by the Congress based on GAO’s Matters for Congressional 

Consideration in calculating past recommendations 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 Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 129 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.”
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

130 GAO-16-3SP 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 56 percent of the congressionally requested written products 

we issued during fiscal year 2015. 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 99 percent of those who responded answered the timeliness question. 

We received responses from one or more people for about 58 percent of the products for 

which we sent a form in fiscal year 2015.

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 Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 131 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 2015 the contractor also analyzed the data.

This measure is based on staff’s favorable responses to four 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 four 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 as well as 

team-led training and knowledge sharing events. 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.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

132 GAO-16-3SP 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 2015, our 

response rate to this survey was about 68 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 Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 133 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 

encouraged to indicate how satisfied they are with services that help them get their jobs done, 

services that affect their quality of work life and IT tools.

We asked staff to rate the 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 suggestions for improving the service, 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, in 2011 we began calculating 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.
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

134 GAO-16-3SP 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 services that help employees get their jobs done, 

such as records management, information technology customer support, mail services, and 

travel support services. The second measure reflects satisfaction with 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 is for IT tools, such 

as 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 can 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. We do not yet have data to report for fiscal year 2015. We analyzed responses 

by self-reported demographic data such as unit, tenure, and location. Each unit responsible for 

administrative services will conduct follow-on work, including analyzing written comments to 

gain a better understanding of the information from the survey and developing action plans to 

address problem areas. 

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-16-3SP
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

GAO-16-3SP 135

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 (GAO building)

Page 7: PhotoExplosion (bills)

Page 14: Map Resources (map)

Page 26: PhotoDisc (bills)

Page 28: National Park Service Digital Image Archives (Statue of Liberty)

Page 64: PhotoDisc (children) 

Page 73: DOD (plane)

Page 79: Getty Images (eagle)
GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2015

136 GAO-16-3SP

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 

apqa@gao.gov, or at the following address:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room 5036

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.
UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Performance and

Accountability Report

Fiscal Year 2015

U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

SERVING CONGRESS AND THE NATION

Source: GAO | GAO-16-3SP

This report and a summary version of it will be available through our website 

at http://www.gao.gov/about/performanceaccountabilityreport/overview. 

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

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

Review performance information for all cabinet departments and nine other 

major agencies http://www.performance.gov

Performance.gov
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-3SP