FEDERAL VEHICLE 

FLEETS

Adopting Leading 

Practices Could 

Improve Management

Report to the Ranking Member, 

Committee on the Budget, United 

States Senate

July 2013

GAO-13-659

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-659, a report to the 

Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget, 

U.S. Senate

July 2013

FEDERAL VEHICLE FLEETS

Adopting Leading Practices Could Improve 

Management 

Why GAO Did This Study

Federal agencies (excluding the U.S. 

Postal Service) spend about $3 billion 

annually to acquire, operate, and 

maintain about 450,000 civilian and 

non-tactical military vehicles. Agencies 

may lease or buy vehicles from GSA, 

which also issues requirements and 

guidance on fleet management. In 

recent years, Congress and the 

President have raised concerns about 

the size and cost of federal agencies’ 

fleets. In 2011, the President directed 

agencies to determine their optimal 

fleet inventories and set targets for 

achieving these inventories by 2015

with the goal of a more cost-effective

fleet. 

GAO was asked to review agency 

efforts to reduce fleet costs. This 

report addresses (1) the extent to 

which selected federal agencies use 

leading practices to manage their 

fleets, including their sizes and costs, 

and (2) any challenges these agencies 

face in managing their fleets and 

strategies they use to address these 

challenges. GAO selected USDA, 

DHS, Interior, VA, Air Force, and the 

Army Corps for review based on 

factors such as fleet size, fleet 

composition, and changes in fleet size 

from 2005 to 2011. To identify leading 

practices, GAO interviewed recognized 

private sector and government fleet 

management experts and GSA 

officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the 

Administrator of GSA 1) develop and 

publish guidance for agencies on 

estimating indirect fleet costs and 2) 

request that agencies provide

supporting documentation on their 

methods for determining their optimal 

fleet inventories. GSA agreed with the

recommendations.

What GAO Found

GAO identified three leading practices for fleet management and found that 

selected federal agencies—the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Homeland 

Security (DHS), the Interior (Interior), and Veterans Affairs (VA); the U.S. Air 

Force (Air Force); and the Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps)—follow these 

practices to varying degrees. These practices are 1) maintaining a well-designed 

fleet-management information system (FMIS), 2) analyzing life-cycle costs to 

inform investment decisions, and 3) optimizing fleet size and composition. GAO 

identified these practices based on views provided by recognized fleet experts 

and determined that the practices align with legal requirements and General 

Services Administration (GSA) recommendations. 

• None of the agencies GAO reviewed capture in their FMISs all of the data 

elements recommended by GSA. The types of data missing most frequently 

are data on fleet costs, including indirect costs, such as salaries of personnel 

with fleet-related duties. Also, some of these systems are not integrated with 

other key agency systems. As a result, fleet managers face challenges in 

performing analyses that can guide fleet decisions. All of these agencies are 

making efforts to improve their data and FMISs, but some lack an approach 

for estimating indirect fleet costs. GSA’s guidance does not discuss how to 

estimate these costs. 

• Most of the selected agencies are not fully analyzing life-cycle costs to make 

decisions about when to replace vehicles. In addition, although most of the 

selected agencies use life-cycle cost analyses to decide whether to lease or

purchase vehicles, some agencies’ analyses do not consider a full set of 

costs. As a result, agencies may not have full information with which to make 

vehicle replacement and procurement decisions. Officials mainly cited 

problems with their cost data and FMISs as contributing factors, and efforts to 

improve in these areas have the potential to enhance agencies’ ability to 

conduct these types of analyses. 

• In response to the President’s 2011 directive and related GSA guidance, the 

selected agencies have set targets for achieving optimal fleet size and 

composition. Planned changes in fleet sizes from 2011 to 2015 range from 

DHS’s 15 percent fleet reduction to VA’s 8 percent increase. GSA reviewed 

agencies’ initial targets in 2012 and recommended some changes, but lacked 

supporting documentation to explain how most agencies produced their 

targets. GSA’s lack of information on these methods limits its ability to 

oversee agencies’ fleet optimization efforts and help agencies ensure that 

their fleets are the right size and composition to meet their missions costeffectively. 

In addition to data-related challenges, agency officials identified three broad fleet 

management challenges: meeting energy requirements, such as requirements 

for acquiring alternative fuel vehicles; uncertainty regarding the allocation of 

funding to fleet management activities; and ensuring that fleet managers have 

adequate expertise. Agencies have pursued or are pursuing a variety of 

strategies to address these challenges. These include the fleet optimization 

process, which calls for agencies to determine how best to fulfill requirements for 

alternative fuel vehicles; using a working capital fund, which provides a steady 

stream of funding; and providing online training for fleet managers.

View GAO-13-659. For more information, 

contact Susan Fleming at (202) 512-2834 or 

flemings@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

Letter 1 

Background 3

Selected Agencies Follow Leading Practices for Fleet Management 

to Varying Degrees 8

Selected Agencies Have Adopted Strategies to Mitigate Such 

Challenges as Competing Requirements, Funding Allocation, and 

Lack of Expertise 29

Conclusions 36

Recommendations 37

Agency Comments 38

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 39

Appendix II Home-to-Work and Executive Vehicle Assignments of 

Selected Federal Agencies 43

Appendix III Comments from the General Services Administration 45

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Defense 46

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 48

Appendix VI GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 49

Tables

Table 1: Fleets at Selected Agencies, Fiscal Year 2012 5

Table 2: Selected Statutes, Executive Orders, and Policy Initiatives 

Affecting Management of Federal Agencies’ Fleets 6

Table 3: GAO Synthesis of Fleet Management Leading Practices 9

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

Table 4: Fleet Management Information System Integration 

Improvements Underway or Planned at DHS, Interior, 

USDA, VA, Air Force and Army Corps 18

Table 5: Agency Actual and Planned Fleet Sizes, Fiscal Years 2011-

2015, as of March 2013 25

Table 6: Home-to-Work and Executive Vehicle Assignments for 

Selected Agencies, 2013 44

Figures

Figure 1: Characteristics of Selected Agencies’ Fleet Management 

Information Systems, 2013 11

Figure 2: Integration of Selected Agencies’ Fleet Management 

Information Systems with Financial and Property 

Systems, 2013 16

Abbreviations

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

FAST Federal Automotive Statistical Tool

FMIS fleet management information system

GSA General Services Administration

OGP GSA’s Office of Government-wide Policy

OMB Office of Management and Budget

USDA Department of Agriculture

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

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.
Page 1 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

July 31, 2013

The Honorable Jeff Sessions

Ranking Member

Committee on the Budget

United States Senate

Dear Senator Sessions:

Federal agencies (excluding the U.S. Postal Service) spend about $3 

billion annually to acquire, operate, and maintain about 450,000 civilian 

and non-tactical military vehicles, including passenger vehicles, trucks, 

and other vehicles such as ambulances and buses. Agencies can 

purchase these vehicles or lease them from the General Services 

Administration (GSA).1 In recent years, Congress, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), and the President have raised concerns 

about the size and cost of federal agencies’ fleets. For example, in May 

2011, the President issued a memorandum which, among other things, 

directed agencies to determine their optimal fleet inventories, using a 

methodology which emphasizes elimination of unnecessary vehicles and 

ensuring the cost-effectiveness of maintaining these inventories. In 

addition, recent legislative proposals have called for reductions in 

agencies’ fleets.2

We assessed the extent to which the following agencies use leading 

practices to manage their fleets: the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), 

the Interior (Interior), Homeland Security (DHS), and Veterans Affairs 

(VA); and the United States Air Force (Air Force) and the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) within the Department of 

Defense. Collectively, these agencies account for about 46 percent of the 

Given these concerns, you asked us to review efforts to 

reduce federal vehicle fleet costs. This report addresses (1) the extent to 

which selected federal agencies use leading practices to manage their 

fleets, including the size and cost of their fleets, and (2) any challenges 

these agencies face in managing their fleets and strategies they use to 

address these challenges.

 

1

In certain instances, federal agencies may lease vehicles from commercial sources 

without prior approval or permission from GSA.

2

See e.g., S. 417, 113th Cong. (2013).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

roughly 450,000 civilian and non-tactical military vehicles maintained by 

the federal government (excluding the U.S. Postal Service).3

To determine the extent to which these selected federal agencies use 

leading practices to manage their fleets, including the size and cost of 

these fleets, we first identified key leading fleet management practices.

To do so, we interviewed recognized fleet management experts from 

consulting companies and private, local government, and nonprofit 

entities as well as representatives of fleet management associations. To 

identify agency practices, we reviewed agency fleet management 

policies, procedures, plans, and other documentation on their fleet 

management practices and conducted interviews with fleet management 

officials at our selected agencies. We also obtained information from 

agencies on their fleet management information systems and on the 

types of data that they maintain in these systems and consider in making 

In selecting 

these agencies for our review, we considered both civilian and military 

agencies with fleets of more than 5,000 vehicles. We looked for variation 

in fleet characteristics, such as age of passenger vehicles, changes in 

fleet size from 2005 to 2011, and changes in fleet composition (owned 

versus leased) from 2005 to 2011, with the goal of capturing a range of 

agency characteristics. Within USDA, Interior, DHS, and VA, we selected 

the subagencies with the largest fleets and selected a sufficient number 

to account for two-thirds of each department’s non-tactical fleet.

Consequently, in USDA we reviewed the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service and Forest Service; in DHS we reviewed U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement; in Interior we reviewed the National Park Service, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management; and in VA we 

reviewed the Veterans Health Administration. Within these four 

departments, we focused most of our work on these subagencies’ 

management of their fleets, except in areas where the department level 

has primary responsibility, such as reporting to GSA on department-wide 

plans to determine and achieve optimal fleet inventories. Specifically, 

except where noted, we focused our work on fleet management practices, 

such as the collection and analysis of fleet cost data, of these eight 

subagencies as well as the Air Force and Army Corps. Throughout this 

report, we refer to these subagencies and their departments as well as to 

the Air Force and Army Corps as “agencies.” 

 

3

The U.S. Postal Service has about 213,000 vehicles.
 

Page 3 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

investment decisions, such as decisions about whether to own or lease 

vehicles. In addition, we examined selected agencies’ assignments of 

home-to-work and executive vehicles. To select agencies for our review 

and to describe changes in selected agencies’ fleet inventories over time, 

we used data in GSA’s Federal Fleet report and additional data provided 

by the agencies. We assessed the reliability of this data by reviewing 

program documentation and quality assurance tests and discussing data 

elements with GSA and agency staff responsible for these data and found 

the data sufficiently reliable for these purposes. To identify any 

challenges these agencies face in managing their fleets and strategies 

they use to address these challenges, we interviewed agency fleet 

managers from our selected agencies. We also obtained the views of 

GSA officials and the experts identified above about these challenges and 

strategies. We analyzed these interviews to identify the challenges that 

agency fleet managers identified most frequently and strategies agencies 

are pursuing to address these challenges. Further details about our scope 

and methodology can be found in appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to July 2013 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The size and cost of federal vehicle fleets have been subjects of concern 

for many years.4

 

4

We previously reported on changes in the sizes of selected agencies’ fleets from fiscal 

years 2005 to 2011. See GAO, Federal Fleets: Overall Increase in Number of Vehicles 

Masks that Some Agencies Decreased Their Fleets, 

In 2002, OMB sent a memorandum to the heads of 

executive branch agencies directing them to examine the size of their 

vehicle fleets and report the size, composition, and cost of their fleets as 

part of their budget submission process. In 2004, we reported that 

because of a lack of attention to key vehicle fleet management practices, 

the agencies we reviewed could not ensure their fleets were the right size 

GAO-12-780 (Washington, D.C.: 

August 2, 2012.)

Background 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

or composition to meet their missions.5 Most recently, in May 2011, the 

President directed each federal agency to determine its optimal fleet 

inventory—including the number and types of vehicles needed—and to 

set targets for achieving this inventory by December 31, 2015. Key goals 

of this process are to eliminate unnecessary vehicles, ensure the costeffectiveness of maintaining vehicle inventories, and meet alternative fuel 

vehicle goals.6

From fiscal years 2002 through 2012, the number of federal civilian and 

non-tactical military vehicles (excluding postal vehicles) increased 19 

percent, from about 364,000 to 450,000 vehicles. Federal agencies use 

vehicles—specifically non-tactical vehicles such as passenger cars and 

trucks, and special purpose vehicles (e.g., ambulances and buses)—to 

carry out their missions. See table 1 for a breakdown of the fleets at the 

agencies we selected to study. Reported total costs associated with these 

agencies’ fleets in fiscal year 2012 ranged from $48 million for the Army

Corps’ fleet of 8,041 vehicles to $523 million for DHS’ fleet of 50,170 

vehicles.

 

5

GAO, Federal Acquisition: Increased Attention to Vehicle Fleets Could Result in Savings, 

GAO-04-664, (Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2004.)

6

The memorandum directed that all new light duty vehicles leased or purchased by 

agencies as of December 31, 2015 be alternative fuel vehicles. Alternative fuel vehicles 

are vehicles that operate using an ethanol blended fuel, compressed natural gas, or 

batteries, among other fuels.
 

Page 5 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

Table 1: Fleets at Selected Agencies, Fiscal Year 2012

Agency

Total number 

of vehicles How agencies use these vehicles

DHS 50,170 DHS uses its vehicles across the United States to support its missions of preventing 

terrorism and enhancing security; securing and managing American borders; enforcing 

immigration laws; safeguarding and securing cyberspace, and ensuring resilience to 

disasters. Vehicle types most commonly used: light trucks, sedans, sport utility vehicles, 

and vans.

Customs and 

Border Protection

26,587

Immigration and 

Customs 

Enforcement

13,580

Interior 33,975 Interior operates its vehicles in rugged terrain and remote locations to support the 

department’s mission of managing the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; 

providing scientific and other information about those resources; and honoring trust 

responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated 

island communities. Vehicle types most commonly used: trucks, sport utility vehicles, and 

passenger sedans.

Bureau of Land 

Management

5,451

Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

7,195

National Park 

Service 

11,808

USDA 41,665 USDA operates its vehicles in cities, rural communities, and National Forests across the 

United States and uses them to support the departments’ varied missions, including food 

safety inspections, agricultural and forestry research, fire suppression, resource 

management, and law enforcement. Vehicle types most commonly used: trucks, sedans, 

sport utility vehicles, and vans.

Forest Service 20,235

Natural Resources 

Conservation 

Service 

9,516

VA 17,381 VA uses vehicles to help provide health care, benefits, and memorial services to America’s 

veterans and their families. The Veterans Health Administration uses most of these vehicles 

to assist in its mission of providing comprehensive care to more than 8.8 million veterans a 

year through its health care facilities, including 152 medical centers and nearly 1,400 

community-based outpatient clinics. Vehicle types most commonly used: sedans, vans, 

and light trucks.

Veterans Health 

Administration

14,819

Air Force 47,384 The Air Force vehicle fleet operates in various terrains supporting the following mission 

categories: aircraft platforms, civil engineering, base maintenance, first responders, force 

support, nuclear support, and tactical support. Vehicle types most commonly used: 

trucks, sedans, and vans.
 

Page 6 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

Agency

Total number 

of vehicles How agencies use these vehicles

Army Corps 8,041 The Army Corps fleet supports missions throughout the nation such as engineering, design 

and construction and real estate for the Armed Forces; water resources development and 

management; recreation; environmental cleanup and restoration; research and 

development, and disaster assistance. Vehicle types most commonly used: trucks, 

sedans, and vans.

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by agencies.

Federal agencies are responsible for acquiring, maintaining, and 

managing their vehicle fleets. They are responsible for deciding the 

number and type of vehicles they need and how to acquire them, 

including whether to own or lease them and when to replace them. Four 

of our selected agencies—USDA, Air Force, DHS, and Interior—own 

most of the vehicles in their fleets. VA and the Army Corps, lease most of 

the vehicles in their fleets. Agencies must develop a maintenance 

program for their owned and commercially leased vehicles. Further, 

agencies must operate their fleets in a manner that enables them to fulfill 

their mission and meet various federal requirements and directives that 

affect their fleets and fleet management. These include various statutes, 

executive orders, and policy initiatives that direct federal agencies to, 

among other things, collect and analyze data on the costs of operating 

their fleets, reduce petroleum consumption, acquire alternative fuel 

vehicles, and eliminate non-essential vehicles. (See table 2.) In addition, 

agencies must follow federal vehicle management regulations.

Table 2: Selected Statutes, Executive Orders, and Policy Initiatives Affecting Management of Federal Agencies’ Fleets

Statute, executive order, or 

policy initiative

Year enacted or 

issued Description

The Consolidated Omnibus 

Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1985a

1986 Requires agencies to have a centralized system to collect and analyze data on the 

costs of their motor vehicle operations, including acquisition decisions, in order to 

improve the management and efficiency of their fleets and reduce costs.

Energy Policy Act of 1992b 1992 Requires that alternative fuel vehicles make up 75 percent of light duty vehicles 

acquired by federal agencies operating fleets of 20 or more vehicles in 

metropolitan statistical areas with populations of 250,000 or more.

Office of Management and 

Budget memo to federal 

agencies

2002 Requires agencies, as part of their budget submission, to report the size, 

composition, and cost of their fleets for the current year and to project costs for the 

next 3 fiscal years.

Executive Order 13423c 2007 Set goals in various energy efficiency areas and directs federal agencies to 

increase alternative fuel consumption by 159.4 percent (or 10 percent annually 

over the previous year) by 2015, from a 2005 baseline.
 

Page 7 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

Statute, executive order, or 

policy initiative

Year enacted or 

issued Description

Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007d 2007 Requires federal agencies to achieve at least a 20 percent reduction in annual 

petroleum consumption and a 10 percent increase in annual alternative fuel 

consumption by 2015 relative to a fiscal year 2005 baseline. Also prohibits federal 

agencies from acquiring any light duty motor vehicle or medium duty passenger 

vehicles that are not a low greenhouse gas emitting vehicle.

Executive Order 13514e 2009 In an effort to reduce greenhouse gas, the executive order directs federal agencies 

to reduce petroleum consumption by 30 percent or 2 percent annually by 2020, 

from a 2005 baseline.

Presidential Memorandum on 

Fleet Management

2011 Calls on federal agencies to lead the way in meeting the goal of reducing oil 

imports by, among other activities, determining the optimum size of their fleets and 

eliminating non-essential vehicles.

Source: GAO analysis of selected federal statutes, executive orders, and policy initiatives

a

Pub. L. No. 99-272, § 15302, 100 Stat. 82 (Apr. 7, 1986).

b

Pub. L. No. 102-486, § 303, 106 Stat. 2776 (Oct. 24, 1992).

c

Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy and Transportation Management, 72 Fed. Reg. 3919 

(Jan. 26, 2007).

d

Pub. L. No. 110-140, §§ 141, 142 (Dec. 19, 2007).

e

Federal Leadership in Environmental Energy and Economic Performance, 74 Fed. Reg. 52117 (Oct. 

8, 2009.)

GSA plays a key role in helping agencies manage their fleets. GSA’s 

Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP) promulgates federal vehicle 

management regulations, issues guidance on federal fleet operations, 

and provides reports on the federal fleet. Federal regulations on fleet 

management include requirements regarding agencies’ fleet management 

information systems, vehicle replacement policy, and vehicle fuel 

efficiency, among other things.7 OGP also establishes policies and issues 

guidance to help agencies manage their fleets effectively and meet 

federal requirements. Guidance includes bulletins on various aspects of 

fleet management, including fleet management information systems and 

methodologies for determining the optimal fleet size for agency fleets. 

OGP also promotes interagency collaboration through various 

committees and councils, including the Federal Fleet Policy Council,8

 

7

We previously reported that, while GSA promulgates regulations regarding the federal 

fleet, GSA officials indicated the agency lacks enforcement authority. See 

and 

has sponsored an annual conference on fleet management. GSA’s OGP 

GAO-12-780. 

8

The Federal Fleet Policy Council provides a mechanism for coordinating federal vehicle 

management programs and policies, reviewing new technologies and automated systems, 

and analyzing the impact of current and proposed regulations, laws, Executive Orders, 

and international agreements. It is composed of representatives of federal agencies that 

operate federal motor vehicle fleets.
 

Page 8 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

is also responsible for reviewing annually the Federal Automotive 

Statistical Tool (FAST) submissions from agencies. FAST is a web-based 

reporting tool, jointly sponsored by GSA and the Department of Energy 

(DOE), for agencies to report data on their fleets, such as number of 

vehicles, costs, and miles driven. FAST is used to satisfy statutory and 

regulatory reporting requirements and GSA uses it to produce an annual 

Federal Fleet Report.

GSA’s Fleet and Automotive organization manages vehicle-purchasing 

and vehicle-leasing programs that offer federal agencies an array of 

automotive products, including alternative fuel vehicles, sedans, light 

trucks, buses, and heavy trucks. GSA purchases over 50,000 vehicles 

annually for federal agencies at prices that, according to GSA, are an 

average of 17 percent below the manufacturer’s invoice price.9 Supported 

by a network of regional Fleet Management Centers, GSA also leases 

more than 200,000 vehicles to over 75 federal agencies. Federal

agencies may also lease from commercial vendors in certain instances.10

We identified three leading practices for fleet management: 1) maintaining 

a well-designed fleet management information system (FMIS), 2) 

analyzing life-cycle costs to inform investment decisions, and 3) 

optimizing fleet size and composition and found that the selected 

agencies in our review follow these practices to varying degrees. Most of 

the selected agencies lack the data needed to support sound fleet 

decision making and oversight and some of their fleet data systems are 

not integrated with other key agency systems. None of these agencies 

are fully analyzing lifecycle costs to make vehicle investment decisions.

All of the agencies we examined have carried out an internal process for 

determining their optimal fleet size and composition and have set targets 

for achieving these optimal inventories, but most have not provided GSA, 

which reviews these targets, with clear information on the methods they 

used for producing them.

 

9

The vehicle price to the agencies includes GSA’s one percent surcharge to administer 

the purchase.

10According to GSA officials, an agency that lacks specific statutory authority to purchase 

or hire passenger motor vehicles as required by 31 U.S.C. § 1343(b), or has not been 

delegated leasing authority, is required to participate in the GSA centralized leasing 

program.

Selected Agencies 

Follow Leading 

Practices for Fleet 

Management to 

Varying Degrees
 

Page 9 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

We identified three leading practices for fleet management. We identified 

these leading practices based on views provided by fleet management 

experts in the private sector, local government, and fleet management 

associations.11

Table 3: GAO Synthesis of Fleet Management Leading Practices

We also compared these practices with legal requirements 

and GSA and OMB guidance related to federal fleet management. We 

found that these leading practices generally align with federal fleet 

management legal requirements and GSA and OMB recommendations, 

and, as discussed in the following sections, these recommendations 

identify specific actions that agencies should complete to adhere to these 

types of leading practices. In particular, GSA has issued guidance 

containing recommendations for following all of these leading practices. 

Finally, we obtained the views of GSA officials responsible for fleet 

management on these leading practices. Overall, according to the experts 

and GSA officials we interviewed, these practices provide a foundation for 

agencies to manage fleet costs while meeting their missions. They 

emphasized, in particular, that sound data systems provide the basis for 

the various types of analyses that are needed to make cost-effective 

investment decisions, such as decisions about whether to own or lease 

vehicles, and determine appropriate fleet size and composition. See table 

3 for a fuller description of these leading practices.

Practice Description

Maintain a well-designed 

FMIS

An FMIS should include data from various parts of the organization on aspects of fleet management—

such as inventory, costs, and utilization—and be integrated with agency financial and property 

management systems. Such a system allows managers to monitor performance and conduct analyses 

needed for management decision making. 

Analyze life-cycle costs to 

inform investment decisions

Decisions about fleet investments should be informed by an analysis of the life-cycle costs of owning 

and operating a vehicle, such as acquisition, fuel, maintenance, and administrative costs. Such an 

analysis helps agencies make cost-effective decisions, including decisions about when to replace or

dispose of an owned vehicle and whether to purchase or lease a new vehicle.

Optimize fleet size and 

composition

Determining the number of vehicles needed based on a consideration of certain factors, such as 

mission needs and vehicle utilization, that can provide a basis for downsizing fleets and reducing 

costs. Determining the proper mix of vehicles based on a similar analysis can also reduce costs. 

Source: GAO analysis.

 

11We interviewed 9 experts, including representatives of two fleet management consulting 

companies, three public sector fleet managers, one private sector fleet manager, one fleet 

manager from a nonprofit and representatives of two fleet management professional 

associations. All noted the importance of maintaining a well-designed FMIS and 

conducting life cycle cost analyses and seven noted the importance of optimizing fleet size 

and composition. See appendix I for more information on our methodology.

Leading Fleet Management 

Practices
 

Page 10 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

All of the experts we interviewed noted the importance of maintaining an 

FMIS that tracks key data needed to manage the fleet. Additionally, GSA 

guidance states that a sound FMIS is needed for monitoring and 

analyzing fleet performance and meeting internal and external reporting 

requirements. The guidance recommends that agencies’ FMISs capture a 

range of information and integrate with financial and property 

management systems to facilitate fleet analyses and reporting. Each of 

the selected agencies we studied had established an FMIS except for 

USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service.12

Based on information provided by the selected agencies, most of their 

FMISs capture the majority of the types of fleet data recommended by 

GSA but none include all of these types of data. (See table 4.) GSA 

recommends that agencies’ FMISs include data on fleet costs, vehicle 

acquisition, utilization, repair and servicing history, accidents, and 

disposal, among other things.13

 

12Officials of the Natural Resources Conservation Service explained that the agency 

intends to transition to FedFMS, an FMIS developed by GSA to help agencies meet the 

requirement for a centralized fleet information system. This is expected to occur by the 

end of fiscal year 2013. 

In some cases, agencies collect the 

recommended data but store some of it outside of their FMISs. Some of 

the data stored outside of the FMIS are kept in electronic systems, and in 

other cases, they are stored in paper file folders.

13GSA has reported that depending on their missions and structures, agencies may not 

need all of the recommended types of data in their FMISs, or may benefit from other data 

that is not explicitly recommended; however, agencies should have the data necessary to 

support relevant and comprehensive analyses. 

Most Selected Agencies 

Lack the Data and System 

Integration Needed to 

Support Sound Fleet 

Decisionmaking and 

Oversight, but 

Improvement Efforts Are 

Under Way

Data Collection 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

Figure 1: Characteristics of Selected Agencies’ Fleet Management Information Systems, 2013

a

GAO asked agencies to identify a single system as their FMIS and to report on what data are stored 

in that system. Fleet data are sometimes collected and stored in systems other than the FMIS, such 

as financial and property management systems. For information about whether an agency’s FMIS is 

integrated with its financial and property management systems, see table 5.

b

For the purposes of this review, direct costs include data on fleet costs associated with capitalized 

value, depreciation, all fuel, vehicle modifications, repair, and preventative maintenance, which are 

types of data recommended by GSA.

c

For the purposes of this review, indirect costs include data on fleet costs associated with facilities, 

equipment, shop supplies, staffing costs, staffing training, and administrative costs, all of which are 

types of data recommended by GSA. To facilitate required analyses and reporting recommended by 

GSA, indirect fleet costs should be readily distinguishable from other indirect costs.

d

Interior uses a single, centralized property management system as the department-wide FMIS.

e

The Natural Resources Conservation Service does not currently have an FMIS.

The type of data missing most frequently from selected agencies’ FMISs 

are data on costs associated with their fleets, especially indirect costs.

According to GSA’s recommendations, cost data should include direct 

expenses, such as fuel, repair, and vehicle depreciation, as well as 

indirect costs attributable to the fleet, such as expenditures associated 

with personnel.
 

Page 12 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

Six of the nine agencies with FMISs that we reviewed reported to us that 

their FMISs do not capture all direct fleet costs. Most selected agencies 

keep at least some direct cost data in locations other than in an FMIS, 

such as in a financial management information system. For example, of 

the nine agencies with FMISs:

• five reported that they collect data on vehicle modification costs and 

accessory equipment, but some of the data are not stored in the 

FMIS; and

• three reported that they track some or all of their fuel costs outside of 

the FMIS.

In addition, three officials noted that some of their direct cost data lacked 

the detail needed to help them track life-cycle costs and make decisions 

such as when to replace vehicles.14

With regard to indirect costs, eight of the nine agencies with FMISs that 

we reviewed reported to us that their FMISs do not capture all indirect 

fleet costs, or that the indirect costs cannot be readily discerned from 

other non-fleet costs. GSA defines indirect costs as any cost that cannot 

be ascribed to a particular vehicle or class of vehicles. Examples of 

indirect costs include most personnel costs, office supplies, building 

rental, and utility costs. While GSA identifies in its guidance the types of 

indirect costs that agencies should capture in their FMISs, it has not 

provided agencies with guidance on how to estimate those costs.

For example, officials from DHS’s 

Customs and Border Protection told us that certain details on 

maintenance and repair costs may not be reported due to the limitations 

of their current fleet payment card, making life-cycle cost analysis difficult 

to conduct.

15

 

14Also, officials from Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and National Park Service told us that while maintenance and repair cost data are in 

Interior’s FMIS, they do not know how to access this data and run reports on the life-cycle 

costs of specific vehicles because they are transitioning to a new system, the capabilities 

of which they are still learning. 

Indirect costs can be challenging to estimate because they may reflect 

the salaries of employees who only work on fleet management part-time 

15GSA officials told us that they provide a variety of resources to help agencies identify, 

but not estimate, indirect costs. For example, additional information on definitions of direct 

and indirect costs is available in GSA’s FAST system.
 

Page 13 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

or buildings that are only used partially for fleet-related purposes. Some 

agencies have not yet developed an approach for estimating these costs.

For example, officials of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, and VA’s 

Veteran’s Health Administration told us that they lack a method to 

attribute a certain percentage of indirect costs, such as of facilities and 

equipment, to fleet management. In some cases, total personnel and 

facility costs are stored in the agencies’ FMISs but the costs specifically 

associated with the agency’s fleet are not readily distinguishable. For 

example, DHS’s Customs and Border Protection’s FMIS records data on 

facility costs, but it does not have the capability to separate facility costs 

associated with fleet management from total facility costs.16

• eight reported that their FMIS does not include data on facility costs, 

or that facility costs in their FMIS are not readily attributable to fleet 

management;

Out of the 

nine agencies with FMISs that we reviewed:

• seven reported that their FMIS does not include data on staffing costs, 

or that staffing costs in their FMIS are not readily attributable to fleet 

management; and

• three reported that their FMIS does not include data on fleet-related 

equipment costs, including office and shop equipment, and tools.

Only one agency, USDA’s Forest Service, reported that it captures all of 

the indirect fleet-related cost data recommended by GSA and can readily 

distinguish fleet costs from other indirect costs. For example, Forest 

Service officials track all fleet–related program management costs—such 

as personnel, facility, travel, and supply costs—and include them in the 

Forest Service’s fleet costs. Forest Service officials explained that it is 

critical that the agency capture all fleet-related costs, because it charges 

the programs and functions that use the vehicles much like how GSA 

charges lessees.17

 

16Also, Interior officials who maintain the department’s FMIS told us that it is capable of 

providing indirect fleet-related costs but that these costs would need to be determined 

though an accounting analysis of overall staffing and facility costs. 

17Forest Service collects payment for the use of any vehicle. For example, a program is 

charged a monthly base rate plus a cost-per-mile charge when an employee of that 

program uses a specific vehicle.
 

Page 14 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

In addition, of the nine agencies with FMISs we reviewed, one reported 

that it does not keep all of its data on vehicle utilization in its FMIS and 

three reported that they do not keep all their data on repairs and servicing 

in their FMIS.18 Officials from DHS’s Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement told us that fleet officials in headquarters have access to 

limited data on vehicle utilization because some utilization data are 

gathered by the mission groups that use the vehicles and are not shared 

with headquarters.19 A few agencies also reported that limitations of the 

fleet payment cards they use to record transactions have impaired their 

ability to gather detailed data on servicing and repairs. Some cards record 

the cost of maintenance, but do not collect information on the type of 

maintenance performed.20

The lack of an FMIS with comprehensive data on fleet-related costs can 

make monitoring and analysis needed for fleet management challenging.

For example, several agency officials said that gathering data on the type 

of maintenance performed on vehicles through methods such as 

reconciling receipts or using paper logs can make it difficult for fleet 

managers to perform timely analyses and guide fleet decisions. As 

explained in forthcoming sections, key analyses of agencies’ fleets that 

are essential for sound investment decisions and management of fleet 

size and composition depend on complete and accurate data, particularly 

data on costs and utilization. Furthermore, the lack of complete data in 

agencies’ FMISs can impair the validity of reporting on federal fleets, and 

could therefore impede the ability of GSA, OMB, and Congress to 

oversee the performance of these fleets. According to GSA officials, data 

gaps compromise the reporting of accurate agency fleet costs in the 

FAST system. In particular, because some agencies do not track all costs 

 

18Furthermore, USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, which does not have an 

FMIS, maintains monthly usage logs which manually track plate number, trip date, origin, 

destination, and mileage.

19Immigrations and Customs Enforcement has three primary mission groups, each which 

has its own fleet manager and fleet staff. These three mission groups are responsible for 

the majority of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement vehicles. Officials in 

headquarters have access to utilization indicators such as mileage and fleet payment card 

activity, but do not have regular access to utilization data such as number of trips or 

number of passengers.

20Several fleet managers reported that switching to a different payment card can be 

challenging. Fleet managers may not have the authority to select a new card, changing 

cards may have contractual implications for other functions within the agency, and not all 

fleet payment cards are universally accepted by vendors.
 

Page 15 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

associated with their owned or leased vehicles, the expenditures 

associated with all vehicles may appear lower than they actually are. GSA 

uses the data that agencies report to produce its annual Federal Fleet 

Report, which is used to report statistics such as costs per mile for owned 

and leased vehicles. However, because these reports may not fully reflect 

the costs of all vehicles, those statistics may be misleading, limiting the 

usefulness of this report for oversight of federal fleet costs.21

Four agencies’ FMISs are not integrated with financial or property 

management systems (see table 5). In other words, data cannot be 

passed from one system to another for processing and analysis. GSA 

recommends that agencies integrate their FMISs with financial and 

property management systems and GSA officials explained that this 

integration can improve data accuracy and completeness and reduce 

duplication of data entry.22 Agency officials noted that integrating these 

systems can be challenging for various reasons, including legacy systems 

that use different data fields, competing internal data requirements, lack 

of authority over the systems to be integrated, and lack of funding for 

upgrades.23

 

21According to GSA officials, the costs associated with GSA leased vehicles in this system 

are more accurate, because the leasing cost data that GSA provides to agencies, which 

they then roll up and input into the system, include all leasing costs. However, these costs 

do not include indirect fleet costs agencies incur when leasing from GSA. Vehicles leased 

from GSA comprised 30.2 percent of the federal fleet—including the United States Postal 

Service—in 2011.

While there are many reasons that systems may not be 

integrated, this division of information can make it challenging to perform 

timely analyses of fleet costs and performance and to report on fleets. For 

example, the Army Corps keeps financial information in a system that is 

not integrated with their FMIS, which officials said causes duplication of 

data entry and makes annual reporting more difficult. Similarly, GSA 

officials reported that when systems are not integrated, users will enter 

data into the required reporting system of record, and may not have time 

22We have previously reported that integrated systems can promote efficiency. See 

Information Technology: FDA Needs to Fully Implement Key Management Practices to 

Lessen Modernization Risks, GAO-12-346 (Washington, D.C.: March 2012) and 

Organizational Transformation: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Enterprise 

Architecture Management, GAO-10-846G, (Washington D.C.: August 2010). 

23The costs of an FMIS vary depending on the agency’s needs. Air Force has invested 

approximately $6.2 million in its customized fleet management information system since 

2006. GSA’s FedFMS system is currently free to agencies, and will cost 15 cents per 

month, per vehicle, once GSA begins to charge for the service.

System Integration
 

Page 16 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

to repeat the data entry process for the FMIS. Lack of data greatly 

reduces the usefulness of FMISs to conduct fleet analysis.

Figure 2: Integration of Selected Agencies’ Fleet-Management Information Systems 

with Financial and Property Systems, 2013

Note: Integration in this context means that data can be passed from one system to another, which 

can then process the data.

a

The FMIS of DHS’ s Immigration and Customs Enforcement contains some fleet financial data, 

including the capitalization and depreciation of assets.

b

The Natural Resources Conservation Service does not currently have an FMIS.

Some agencies we reviewed are making efforts to upgrade and automate 

their data collection, which could provide them with additional data 

recommended by GSA as well as additional detailed information to 

improve analysis and reporting. Most of the experts we interviewed noted 

the usefulness of automated data collection to provide timely and 

Improvement Efforts
 

Page 17 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

accurate information to guide fleet decisions.24 In addition, if data are 

entered automatically, fewer personnel hours would be needed to collect, 

reconcile, and enter data. Several agencies are seeking to adopt fleet 

payment cards that will provide them with additional data on certain types 

of financial transactions, which would increase their data on direct fleet 

costs. For example, officials from USDA’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service told us that, in addition to implementing an FMIS, it 

will obtain vehicle and repair cost data from the new USDA fleet card 

program by the end of 2013.25

In 2012, GSA recommended that DHS, USDA, Interior, and VA obtain 

centralized, department-wide FMISs.

Officials anticipate that the new fleet card 

will help them collect cost data that their previous card did not collect 

accurately or completely. Similarly, DHS’s Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement is pursuing the capability of importing fuel and maintenance 

cost data from fleet payment cards. Four agencies are also exploring 

GPS systems that are capable of collecting data on utilization, 

greenhouse gas emissions, and direct costs such as scheduled 

maintenance and fuel consumption. For example, VA’s Veterans Health 

Administration is pursuing efforts to use GPS based devices to upload 

data, including utilization and direct cost data, directly into its FMIS.

26

 

24Examples of automated data entry include fleet payment cards that capture detailed 

financial transaction data when purchases are made, technology such as scanners to 

automatically read vehicle identification numbers, and GPS.

Various efforts are under way at 

these departments to address these recommendations, as well as efforts 

to integrate systems with property and financial management systems. 

(See table 6.) Interior currently possesses a centralized, department-wide 

FMIS, which its agencies are either using or plan to use soon. DHS, 

USDA, and VA do not currently possess such an FMIS, but are exploring 

new ways to store and share fleet data. For example, USDA is adopting 

FedFMS, an FMIS developed by GSA for federal agencies, for its 

25Fleet cards that capture detailed data can be a powerful tool, according to some experts 

we interviewed. These experts said that access to detailed data, such as fuel grades used 

or the precise parts that were repaired on a vehicle, allows fleet managers to more 

accurately analyze trends and better target their cost reduction efforts. 

26As noted previously, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 

required federal agencies to have a centralized system to collect and analyze data on the 

costs of their motor vehicle operations. While all but one of the agencies that we reviewed 

within these four departments possesses an FMIS, these FMISs, with the exception of 

those used by Interior’s agencies, are for the particular agency’s use and are not part of 

centralized, department-wide systems.
 

Page 18 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

agencies, with the exception of the Forest Service.27

Table 4: Fleet Management Information System Integration Improvements Under Way or Planned at DHS, Interior, USDA, VA, 

Air Force, and Army Corps

Also, VA plans to 

adopt a centralized FMIS and is examining various options for doing so. 

The Air Force and Army Corps already possess centralized FMISs and 

are pursuing additional interfaces between systems that will provide 

additional cost information.

Agency Improvements under way or planned 

DHS DHS is currently developing an asset management data warehouse that is expected to, among other things, compile 

fleet data and ultimately serve as the single source of record for all fleet inventory, acquisitions and operational 

information. This effort is expected to be complete by the end of fiscal year 2014.

Interior Agencies within Interior are currently using—or are in the process of transitioning to— the department-wide FMIS. 

According to Interior, this FMIS is fully integrated with department financial and property systems. All of the agencies 

we reviewed are currently using this system, and the system is expected to be used department-wide by the end of

calendar year 2013.

USDA USDA is in the process of integrating data from its current property management system with FedFMS. USDA 

anticipates that FedFMS will capture all transactions and costs for owned and leased vehicles, except for those 

under Forest Service, which uses a separate FMIS. The new system is expected to be operational by the end of 

fiscal year 2013.

VA VA reported that it has considered many systems, including FedFMS, but has yet to identify an FMIS that will meet 

all of its needs. VA is continuing to evaluate systems, and hopes to determine the best fit before the end of fiscal year 

2013. 

Air Force By December 2014, Air Force plans to complete an interface between its FMIS and another internal system that 

contains some maintenance, repair, accident, direct cost and indirect cost data. 

Army Corps Army Corps is working with IT personnel, the Department of the Army and GSA to have multiple systems interfaced, 

including the FMIS, financial management system and the property system. This effort is expected to be complete by 

the end of fiscal year 2014.

Source: GAO presentation of information provided by agencies.

The steps these agencies are taking to improve their data collection and 

integration of their data systems have the potential to improve their ability 

to access and analyze data related to fleet management. However, these 

efforts are in various stages of completion and it is too early to tell 

whether they will fully address the problems we have identified. While 

agencies are making some progress, as previously discussed, some have 

not yet developed an approach for estimating indirect costs associated 

with fleet management. This is a particular problem when fleet 

 

27According to USDA, the Forest Service has additional reporting requirements because 

of its working capital funding that FedFMS is unable to meet. However, Forest Service will 

continue to use its current FMIS and provide periodic reporting to the department.
 

Page 19 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

management is assigned as a collateral duty and facilities are used for 

fleet management as well as other functions. GSA officials told us that 

they believe that a number of agencies have not developed such a 

method. As noted previously, GSA’s current guidance on FMISs does not 

discuss how agencies can determine indirect costs. Providing additional 

guidance to agencies on a method to estimate indirect fleet costs for 

owned vehicles would be one step toward improving the overall quality of 

fleet data for agency decision making. As discussed in the next section, 

without complete fleet cost data, including indirect costs, agencies are 

unable to perform comprehensive analyses to determine the most costeffective course of action, such as whether to lease or own vehicles. Also, 

as discussed previously, without complete cost data on their fleets, 

agencies’ ability to accurately report on these costs is impaired.

According to all fleet management experts we interviewed, life-cycle cost 

analysis, which captures vehicle costs from the beginning to the end of 

vehicle ownership, helps agencies make cost-effective fleet investment 

decisions, such as decisions about the best time to replace a vehicle they 

own. OMB requires agencies to analyze total costs to inform investment 

decisions.28 Further, GSA’s fleet management guidance recommends that 

agencies use life-cycle cost analysis to make vehicle replacement 

decisions and make decisions about whether to purchase or lease a 

vehicle. When agencies consider life-cycle cost information along with 

information on costs and benefits of alternatives or their effectiveness in 

meeting fleet objectives,29

For example, the manager of the fleet of Troy, Michigan, an expert we 

consulted, told us that he used life-cycle cost data from Troy’s fleet to 

show that the lifecycle of police vehicles can be extended without causing 

problematic downtime. Instead of replacing vehicles at the city’s 60,000 

mile recommendation, Troy’s life-cycle cost analysis showed that police 

they can better evaluate investment 

alternatives and make choices that cost effectively meet their mission.

 

28OMB Circular A-94 provides general guidance for conducting cost-effectiveness 

analyses, which should consider alternative means of meeting program objectives and 

comprehensive estimates of the expected benefits and costs to society. In addition, A-94 

states that lease-purchase analyses should compare the net discounted present value of 

the life-cycle cost of leasing with the full costs of buying or constructing an identical asset. 

29Fleet objectives include meeting environmental and socioeconomic goals (such as the 

number of alternative fuel vehicles needed) established in law, regulation, or policy. 

Selected Agencies Are Not 

Fully Analyzing Life-Cycle 

Costs to Make Key Vehicle 

Investment Decisions
 

Page 20 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

vehicles did not need to be replaced until 90,000 miles. Conversely, the 

manager of the fleet of Portland, Oregon, another expert we consulted, 

told us that Portland used data on the life-cycle costs of vehicles by class 

to reduce patrol car ownership from 16 years to 5 years (or 100,000 

miles) because this replacement cycle is what kept annual costs of 

vehicle ownership to a minimum.

Officials at two of the agencies we reviewed—Air Force and the National 

Park Service—reported that they incorporate elements of life-cycle cost 

analysis into their vehicle replacement decision-making process. Three 

fleet management experts we consulted noted that owned vehicles 

should be replaced around the time that their operating costs (mainly 

maintenance and repair costs) begin to outweigh their resale value.

GSA’s fleet management guidance says that an ideal fleet practice is for 

an organization to develop replacement guidelines based on empirical 

analysis of the relationship between cumulative usage and total vehicle 

ownership costs, such as depreciation30

The other agencies, we reviewed, however, acknowledged that they do 

not analyze life-cycle costs to make vehicle replacement decisions.

and maintenance and repair 

costs. Air Force fleet managers told us that they consider the previous 2 

years of maintenance costs and depreciation figures to make vehicle 

replacement decisions. The National Park Service has developed an 

equipment (vehicle) replacement guide, but the vehicle replacement 

analyses that the agency provided did not depreciate the value of the 

vehicle over its life-cycle or consider increases in maintenance and repair 

costs as the vehicle ages.

31

According to GSA officials, these agencies typically follow minimum 

federal vehicle replacement guidelines32

 

30According to GSA, depreciation, or the decline in the value of a vehicle, should be 

counted as a cost each year as part of the cost of owning a vehicle.

(part of GSA regulations) or 

internal agency guidelines combined with professional judgment about 

when to replace vehicles. For example, officials of DHS’s Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement told us that the agency generally follows minimum 

31Army Corps and VA have fleets that are 90 percent and 75 percent leased, respectively, 

so, according to GSA and these agencies, they have less of a need to conduct vehicle 

replacement analysis since GSA conducts this analysis for leased vehicles for these 

agencies.

3241 C.F.R. § 102-34.270. 

Vehicle Replacement Analysis 
 

Page 21 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

federal fleet replacement guidelines, but also analyzes each vehicle on a 

case-by-case basis. According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

officials, some vehicles may be doing well and kept longer, while others 

may have repair problems and may be disposed of. However, according 

to fleet management experts we consulted, without life-cycle cost analysis 

that uses an agency’s own data, agencies will not have full information to 

make vehicle replacement decisions and may incur higher costs as a 

result. For example, if vehicles are kept past the point when their 

operating costs begin to outweigh their resale value, agencies may incur 

larger maintenance and repair costs as vehicles age and may require a 

larger fleet to accommodate vehicles that are undergoing repair work.

Eight of the 10 agencies that we reviewed told us that they are analyzing 

life-cycle costs to make lease versus ownership decisions, but our review 

of examples they provided indicates that some agencies do not consider 

all types of costs in their analysis. Some do not conduct this type of 

analysis at all. Fleet management experts and GSA have recommended 

that agencies base decisions about whether to purchase or lease vehicles 

on a comparison of the direct and indirect costs projected for the life-cycle 

of the owned vehicles to the total lease costs over an identical life-cycle.33

• According to Forest Service officials, the Forest Service conducts a 

lease versus ownership analysis that includes a range of life-cycle 

costs. It has developed a structured “lease versus ownership” 

decision tool that, according to the officials, leads fleet managers to 

an informed decision about whether to own or lease a vehicle. Forest 

Service officials told us that direct and indirect costs are factored into 

the life-cycle cost analysis of any given vehicle because all costs have 

The following bullets illustrate the range of lease versus ownership 

analyses that our selected agencies conducted:

 

33Some costs can be excluded if they are the same for the leasing and purchasing 

options. One agency and one fleet management expert commented that when making 

lease versus ownership decisions, it is important to include the cost of aftermarket 

equipment installation, like heavy duty bumpers, for law enforcement vehicles because 

this affects the breakeven point for lease versus owned decisions.

Lease versus Ownership 

Analysis 
 

Page 22 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

to be charged to its sub-agencies, including salaries and facilities, to 

make its vehicle fleet management system viable.34

• Six other agencies conduct lease versus ownership analyses, but 

these analyses sometimes do not include some key direct costs, such 

as depreciation, and indirect costs, such as costs associated with 

facilities, equipment, and staffing. For example, Interior’s Fish and 

Wildlife Service and National Park Service provided us with a lease 

versus ownership analysis that included direct costs, such as 

depreciation and maintenance costs, but not indirect costs.

• Officials of USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service and VA’s 

Veterans Health Administration told us that they do not regularly 

conduct lease versus ownership analyses. Natural Resources 

Conservation Service officials told us that they lack the information 

system necessary to conduct this analysis regularly. Veterans Health 

Administration officials told us that some local fleet managers conduct 

lease versus ownership analysis, but most opt for leasing from GSA 

based on experience rather than a formal analysis.

Not considering a full set of costs or not conducting any lease versus 

ownership analysis may lead agencies to incorrectly conclude that one 

method of vehicle procurement is less expensive than another and could 

therefore lead to higher overall fleet management costs.

Agencies that do not conduct life-cycle cost analyses to make vehicle 

replacement or lease versus ownership decisions mainly cited problems 

related to their cost data and FMISs:

• As noted previously, most agencies we reviewed do not fully track 

data on costs in their FMISs. For example, officials at Interior’s 

Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service told us 

that they lack detailed data on maintenance costs and the tools to 

collect this data for individual vehicles to make fully informed vehicle 

replacement decisions. Also, officials of VA’s Veterans Health 

Administration and DHS’ Customs and Border Protection told us that 

 

34To fund vehicle replacement and operating expenses, USDA’s Forest Service uses a 

working capital fund, which Forest Service programs reimburse for using fleet vehicles at 

rates representing the approximate cost to operate, maintain, and replace the vehicle. 

Rates are set to cover fixed costs such as depreciation and fleet program management.
 

Page 23 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

they do not capture some indirect costs such as costs of staff, 

facilities, equipment, and data systems related to fleet management.

• Officials of USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service told us 

that they cannot conduct a life-cycle cost analysis regularly because 

the agency does not currently have an FMIS. In addition, Interior 

officials told us that the National Park Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service are migrating to a new 

customized FMIS, the capabilities of which these agencies are still 

learning. According to Interior fleet management officials, 

implementation of a life-cycle cost analysis process within that system 

to make replacement decisions is at least a year away.

Improvement efforts under way in agencies’ collection of data on fleet 

costs and in their FMISs, described previously, have the potential to 

improve their ability to capture and analyze life cycle costs. Officials from 

three agencies told us that they are seeking to improve their ability to 

perform life-cycle cost analyses through efforts to improve their data. For 

example, officials from Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service told us that past 

life-cycle cost analyses did not include depreciation or indirect costs, but 

they are working to develop this capability. Interior’s Bureau of Land 

Management is undertaking efforts to improve its maintenance data to 

better enable life-cycle cost analysis. Officials from the Veterans Health 

Administration told us that improvement in depreciation and indirect cost 

data would help them conduct life-cycle cost analyses. They told us that 

they are implementing efforts to improve their FMIS to capture this data.

While these various efforts may enhance agencies’ abilities to determine 

costs associated with their fleets, as noted previously, some agencies 

lack a method for estimating indirect costs.

Most experts we spoke with told us that it is essential that fleet managers 

reduce the size of their fleet to the least amount of vehicles needed to 

meet the organization’s mission. According to some experts, reducing 

fleet size holds great potential for cost savings. As noted previously, in a 

May 2011 memorandum, the President directed each federal agency to 

determine its optimal fleet inventory, including number and types of 

vehicles needed, using a methodology which emphasizes eliminating 

unnecessary vehicles and ensuring fleet vehicle composition is based on 

meeting agency missions. As directed by the memorandum, GSA 

Agencies Have Reported to 

GSA Their Targets for 

Achieving Optimal Fleet 

Size and Composition, but 

GSA Lacks Information on 

the Basis for Targets
 

Page 24 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

subsequently issued guidance to agencies on a methodology to follow in 

determining their optimal fleet inventories.35

DHS, Interior, USDA, VA, Air Force, and Army Corps carried out internal 

processes for determining their optimal fleet inventories, set targets for 

each fiscal year from 2012 through 2015 for achieving the optimal number 

and types of vehicles, and developed plans for achieving these targets.

DHS, Interior, USDA, and VA provided department-level targets and 

plans.

The memorandum directed 

agencies to set targets for achieving this inventory by December 31, 

2015, and to report their results to GSA by February 2012, along with 

their plans for achieving their 2015 fleet targets. GSA directed agencies, 

pursuant to the memo, to provide it with annual updates on progress 

toward meeting their optimal fleet size and composition targets.

36 These agencies reported their targets and plans to GSA in 

February 2012 and submitted updates in March 2013. While VA is 

planning to increase its fleet size by 8 percent from fiscal years 2011 to 

2015 due to an increased demand for Veterans Health Administration

services, the other agencies are planning reductions over this period 

ranging from 3 percent (Interior) to 15 percent (DHS). (See table 7.)

 

35General Services Administration, GSA Bulletin FMR B-30 Motor Vehicle Management: 

Vehicle Allocation Methodology for Agency Fleets. Washington, D.C.: 2011. This guidance 

updates previous guidance GSA issued in 2005 to federal agencies on developing and 

documenting a methodology for determining optimal fleet size and composition. See 

General Services Administration, GSA Bulletin FMR B-9 Motor Vehicle Management: 

Documented Structured Vehicle Allocation Methodology for Agency Fleets. Washington, 

D.C.: 2005. 

36DHS, Interior, USDA, and VA noted in their plans that individual agencies within these 

departments had conducted their own studies. These departments then used these 

studies to develop department-wide targets and plans. 
 

Page 25 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

Table 5: Agency Actual and Planned Fleet Sizes, Fiscal Years 2011-2015, as of March 2013

Agency

2011 Actual 

Fleet Size

2012 Actual 

Fleet Size

2013 Planned 

Fleet Size

2014 Planned 

Fleet Size

2015 Planned 

Fleet Size

Projected 

percentage 

change in fleet 

size 2011-2015

DHS 56,534 50,170 49,596 49,036 48,307 -15

Interior 33,645 33,193 32,721 32,661 32,663 -3 

USDA 43,399 41,665 40,846 40,545 40,340 -7 

VA 16,421 17,381 17,398 17,668 17,694 8 

Air Force 50,897 47,384 46,875 46,442 47,528 -7 

Army Corps 8,634 8,041 8,084 8,057 8,097 -6 

Source: GAO analysis of Federal Automotive Statistical Tool data.

All of the agencies, with the exception of VA, reduced their fleet sizes in 

fiscal year 2012. VA had planned to reduce its fleet by 45 vehicles to 

15,174, but instead its fleet grew by nearly a thousand vehicles. VA 

explained that it is struggling to meet fleet size targets because of 

growing mission needs. Officials of the Veterans Health Administration, 

which is responsible for about 85 percent of VA’s fleet, told us that their 

vehicles are generally used to transport disabled veterans to and from 

medical appointments and that their fleet has grown 49 percent since 

2005 largely due to an increase in the number of service men and women 

needing their transportation services. They also noted that it is difficult to 

predict the agency’s fleet needs up through 2015 because of the 

uncertainty of the number of veterans needing services, and the kinds of 

services needed.

While all of these agencies have set targets and developed plans for 

achieving their optimal fleet inventories by 2015 and most of them made 

progress in 2012 toward these targets, some may not be fully following 

GSA’s recommended methodology for determining their optimal fleet 

inventories and therefore may be missing opportunities to ensure that 

their fleets are the right size and composition to meet their mission costeffectively. The methodology recommended by GSA includes

• establishing specific vehicle utilization criteria to justify mission 

essential vehicles;

• conducting an assessment of vehicle utilization to determine how and 

the extent to which vehicles are used and apply the criteria to each 

vehicle;
 

Page 26 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

• identifying underutilized vehicles and determining the optimal number 

and type of vehicles needed in the fleet inventory by considering 

utilization, mission needs, and other alternatives such as public 

transportation; and

• reviewing and updating this type of study annually or sooner as 

mission needs change.

We found that nine of the agencies in our review have defined utilization 

criteria, but one—the Air Force—has not.37, 38 These nine agencies, or 

their departments, have established these criteria in policies or 

procedures, generally by specifying minimum numbers of miles, days, or 

trips a vehicle should be used in a given timeframe to be considered 

adequately utilized. Air Force officials told us that they review the bottom 

10 percent of vehicles in terms of utilization on a periodic basis; however, 

specific utilization criteria are not included in Air Force’s fleet 

management policies. Also, while DHS has established department-wide 

utilization criteria, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials told us 

that these criteria are not used to make replacement or disposal decisions 

at the mission-group level.39

Furthermore, we found that eight of the agencies in our review have 

policies or procedures calling for annual or more frequent assessments of 

vehicle utilization, but two do not. Interior’s National Park Service, for 

example, has established procedures for annually studying utilization and 

for replacing, reassigning, or disposing vehicles based on that study.

USDA’s Forest Service conducts an annual utilization study, requiring 

units to report their plans for moving, selling, or reassigning underutilized 

 

37We focused our review of utilization criteria and assessment policies and procedures on 

the following 10 agencies and subagencies: DHS’s Customs and Border Protection and 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and National Park Service; USDA’s Forest Service and Natural 

Resources Conservation Service; VA’s Veterans Health Administration; the Air Force, and 

the Army Corps of Engineers.

38In a previous review of selected federal agencies, we found that these agencies had not 

established policies that contain clearly defined utilization criteria and were not routinely 

conducting periodic assessments of vehicle utilization. See Federal Acquisition: Increased 

Attention to Vehicle Fleets Could Result in Savings (GAO-04-664), May 25, 2004.

39These officials did note that fleet officials in headquarters analyze utilization before any 

new acquisition can proceed. At Immigration and Customs Enforcement, vehicles are 

acquired and managed with mission group funding allocations and, as noted previously, 

the agency has three primary mission groups. 
 

Page 27 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

vehicles. Two agencies—VA’s Veterans Health Administration and the Air 

Force—have established procedures to review utilization more frequently 

and reassign or dispose of underutilized vehicles. However, the fleet 

management policies of DHS’ Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

and Customs and Border Protection do not specify how often they should 

review utilization. Officials at Immigrations and Customs Enforcement told 

us that officials at the mission group level analyze utilization for vehicles 

they might replace, but that the agency does not otherwise review 

utilization on a regular basis.40 DHS officials have told us that the agency 

is updating its procedures on fleet management to include requirements 

in GSA’s methodology for determining an optimal fleet inventory, 

including utilization criteria and assessments.41

GSA reviewed agencies’ plans and targets in 2012 and provided 

recommendations for changes in some agencies’ fleet size and 

composition targets to further reduce fleet costs. GSA recommended that 

some agencies consider further reductions in the sizes of their fleets, 

increase alternative fueled vehicles, reduce expensive commercially 

leased vehicles,42 and consider further use of vehicle sharing, rental 

vehicles, or public transportation.43

 

40These officials did note that utilization is discussed at monthly meetings on fleet issues. 

GSA officials explained that they 

made these recommendations if they believed that an agency had not 

planned significant changes in its fleet inventory or its plans did not 

demonstrate that it had conducted a thorough analysis. However, GSA 

officials noted that they had limited information on which to base its 2012 

recommendations because most agencies did not provide it with 

information on the methods they used to produce their fleet size and 

composition targets. Only two of the six agencies we reviewed (DHS and 

41According to DHS officials, DHS headquarters has conducted an annual departmentwide survey of utilization in each of the past 2 years in response to the May 2011 

Presidential memo and GSA’s guidance.

42For these agencies, average costs for commercially-leased vehicles ranged from 60 

percent higher than the average commercially-leased costs government-wide (VA) to over 

400 percent higher than the government average (DHS).

43In its recommendations to agencies on reducing fleet size, GSA noted that, where it is 

not mission required, vehicles assigned to a single employee should be eliminated. Such 

vehicle assignments would include vehicles assigned to individuals on a home to work 

basis and vehicles assigned to agency executives. (See app. II for further information on 

our selected agencies’ assignments of vehicles on a home to work basis and assignments 

of executive fleet vehicles.) 
 

Page 28 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

USDA) included a detailed description of these methods in the plans they 

submitted to GSA.44

As of May 2013, GSA officials told us they were reviewing updated 

agency plans submitted in March 2013 and would provide further 

recommendations on agency targets and plans. The 2013 plans 

submitted by our selected agencies contain information on various topics 

related to fleet management, including the agency’s FMIS and efforts to 

control fleet size and cost, but do not contain information on key aspects 

of the methods agencies followed in determining their optimal fleet 

inventories, such as how they identified underutilized vehicles using 

established criteria. According to GSA officials, it would be helpful for their 

review of agency plans and targets if they had information on how 

agencies conducted their analyses, including key aspects of their 

methods such as the utilization criteria they used, how they assessed 

utilization, and how they considered these and other factors in 

determining their optimal fleet inventories. The President’s memorandum 

did not specify that agencies should provide this information to GSA and 

GSA has not requested this information. Reviews by external parties are 

a useful internal control activity and it is important that the external party 

gain a sufficient understanding of the agency’s relevant operations and 

activities.

For example, DHS outlined step-by-step how it went 

about producing these targets, including, among other things, the data it 

captured, the department-wide utilization criteria it used, and how it 

assessed fleet utilization. However, in the 2012 plans they submitted, Air 

Force, Army Corps, Interior, and VA provided little or no information on 

the methodologies they used.

45

 

44DHS noted that a full analysis had not been done of all of its agencies’ fleets, but that 

the department planned to complete a more comprehensive analysis in 2013.

However, GSA plays an important role in providing guidance 

to federal agencies on managing their fleets effectively and, without 

information on methods agencies used to produce their optimal fleet size 

and composition targets, its ability to determine if the basis for agencies’ 

targets is sound, if changes in these targets are appropriate, and if 

improvements in agencies’ methods are needed is limited. Without such 

informed oversight, opportunities to fully identify changes in fleets that 

can reduce costs, based on appropriate methods, may be missed.

45See GAO, Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool (GAO-01-1008G), August 

2001. 
 

Page 29 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

As previously discussed, data availability and integration of data systems 

are key challenges that affect many aspects of fleet management; 

however, agency officials also identified three additional, broad 

challenges: multiple and competing energy requirements, the allocation of 

funding to fleet management activities, and ensuring that fleet managers 

have adequate expertise in a decentralized environment. The extent to 

which each agency faces these challenges varies. Nevertheless, these 

were the most common challenges cited across the agencies we 

reviewed. Agencies have pursued or are pursuing a variety of strategies 

to address these challenges, which include the fleet optimization process, 

leveraging Department of Energy (DOE) tools, using a working capital 

fund, and providing online training, among other things.

Seven agencies we reviewed identified multiple and sometimes 

competing energy requirements as a challenge to effective fleet 

management. As described earlier, a defined set of energy requirements 

and goals governs the federal fleet through statutes, regulations, and 

executive orders. However, we have previously reported that these 

statutes and orders were enacted and issued in a piecemeal fashion and 

represent a fragmented rather than integrated approach to meeting key 

national goals.46 We have also noted that, because of these numerous 

and sometimes conflicting requirements and directives, fleet managers 

often lack the flexibility and tools to meet various energy goals, such as 

reducing petroleum consumption, energy consumption and greenhouse 

gas emissions. For example, agencies may not acquire light-duty or 

medium duty motor vehicles that are not low-greenhouse gas emitting 

vehicles,

47 and the May 2011 Presidential memorandum directed that by 

December 2015, all new light duty vehicles purchased or leased by 

agencies must be alternative fuel vehicles.48

 

46See Federal Energy and Fleet Management: Plug-in Vehicles Offer Potential Benefits, 

but High Costs and Limited Information Could Hinder Integration into the Federal Fleet, 

However, VA has reported 

that most alternative fuel vehicles that meet their mission needs do not 

GAO-09-493 (Washington, D.C.: June 2009) and Opportunities to Reduce Potential 

Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars and Enhance Revenue, 11-

318SP, (Washington, D.C.: March 2011).

47Pub. L. No. 110-140, § 141. 

48Examples of alternative fuels include electricity, E85 (a blend of up to 85 percent ethanol 

and petroleum), and compressed natural gas.

Selected Agencies 

Have Adopted 

Strategies to Mitigate 

Such Challenges as 

Competing 

Requirements, 

Funding Allocation, 

and Lack of Expertise

Some Agencies Struggle to 

Meet Multiple and 

Competing Energy 

Requirements
 

Page 30 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

qualify as low-greenhouse gas vehicles, making it difficult to meet both 

mandates.49

Officials from four agencies also noted that it is challenging to meet 

energy requirements in a constrained budget environment because some 

of the requirements may result in additional costs. Agency officials 

explained that given their choices, they still acquire the most cost-efficient 

vehicle option as directed by OMB, but they are selecting from a more 

expensive inventory due to the environmental requirements. Also, while 

agencies must increase alternative fuel use, alternative fuels are not yet 

universally available50 and ways to address this problem can require 

additional expenditures. Officials from several of our selected agencies 

explained that they have acquired some hybrids that can be used in areas 

that lack alternative fuel infrastructure; however, hybrids can be more 

expensive to acquire than traditional fuel vehicles or flex fuel vehicles that 

can operate on traditional fuel or E85 fuel.51

The 2011 Presidential memorandum directs agencies, where practicable,

to develop alternative fueling infrastructure, but agencies differ on the 

extent to which they are willing and able to make this investment. DHS 

has stated that such construction is too costly and not appropriate for 

their needs. VA has constructed 45 E-85 fueling stations at medical 

centers across the country, at a cost of approximately $17 million, and 

plans additional investment. Officials from three agencies reported that 

commercial vendors are reluctant to install alternative fuel tanks when the 

return on investment is not promising. Two agency officials also said that 

Similarly, a few agency 

officials reported that the requirement to reduce petroleum is 

compromised when users must drive out of their way to find an alternative 

fueling station.

 

49We have previously reported on the same challenge. See GAO-09-493 and 

GAO-11-318SP.

50According to May 2013 data from the Department of Energy, more than 36 percent of 

publicly-available compressed natural gas stations are found in just two states—California 

and Oklahoma. Also, E-85 stations are relatively uncommon. We have recently reported 

that E85 suppliers are concentrated in a few regions in the country. See United States 

Postal Service: Strategy Needed to Address Aging Delivery Fleet, GAO-11-386 

(Washington, D.C: May 2011).

51GSA officials also stated that hybrids are typically more expensive than traditional fuel 

vehicles and noted that GSA adds a surcharge to leases to cover any additional 

incremental costs.
 

Page 31 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

accessing non-commercial fueling sites can pose unique, though not 

insurmountable, challenges. For example, according to a Forest Service 

official, accessing alternative fuel located on military installations can be 

hindered by security concerns and differing payment systems.

Negotiations to resolve these concerns can require investments of 

personnel time and effort, which represents additional cost.

The fleet optimization process required by the May 2011 Presidential 

memo,52 financial assistance from GSA, and tools provided to agencies 

by the DOE can help agencies balance competing requirements and 

determine the best approach for meeting these requirements while 

minimizing cost. A key goal of the fleet optimization process is to 

determine what fleet size and composition would best meet the agency’s 

mission while also adhering to requirements for alternative fuel and fuelefficient vehicles. To assist agencies with the costs associated with 

meeting energy requirements, GSA recently announced an initiative that 

would assist agencies in paying for the increased cost of hybrid vehicles.

If agencies choose to consolidate their agency-owned vehicles into the 

GSA Fleet inventory, GSA will fund the total incremental cost to replace 

eligible vehicles with new, leased hybrid sedans. DOE also offers a 

variety of tools to help agencies. For example, the alternative fuel locator 

on DOE’s website helps agencies determine what kinds of alternative 

fuels are available in a given area, and allows fleet managers to place 

alternative fuel vehicles in appropriate locations. In addition, the Army 

Corps and DHS have used a DOE tool to project which alternative fuel 

vehicles would be appropriate replacements for some of their current 

inventories. Some DOE tools can encourage collaboration, which reduces 

the burden of meeting requirements and advances mutual goals. For 

example, USDA plans to use DOE’s interactive map of vehicles that were 

granted waivers to use non-alternative fuels to help identify partners 

interested in supporting commercial development of alternative fuel 

infrastructure.

 

52According to DOE, the Presidential memorandum does not reconcile conflicting 

requirements that federal fleets increase use of alternative fuels, reduce petroleum use, 

and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the memorandum does require activities that 

will help meet existing requirements.
 

Page 32 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

Uncertainty regarding the allocation of funds for fleet management 

activities can make it difficult for fleet managers to operate their fleets 

cost-effectively. Several agency officials and fleet experts explained that 

predictable and reliable funding streams better support sound fleet 

management and planning. For example, several officials explained that 

when there are unforeseen reductions in acquisition funds that can be 

used to replace vehicles, fleet managers are more likely to keep vehicles 

that are older and therefore more prone to mechanical failure. As 

explained previously, several fleet management experts cautioned that 

keeping older vehicles can result in larger and more expensive fleets. 

Some noted that in such cases, more vehicles need to be available since 

the chance of breakdown is higher.

In some cases, fleet funding is allocated only for certain activities and 

may not be used for options that managers consider to be more costeffective. For example, fleet officials from VA’s Veterans Health 

Administration and USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service 

reported that funds are sometimes allocated specifically for leasing or 

specifically to purchase vehicles. Officials said that the required 

procurement type is not always the most cost-effective, but they have no 

choice but to spend the money as directed. In other cases, funds 

allocated for a specific purpose become depleted, even though additional 

investment could result in overall savings. For example, Air Force fleet 

officials reported that as of March 2013, there are approximately 210 

underutilized vehicles, including specialized vehicles, which cannot be 

moved to locations where they are needed because funding to transport 

vehicles has been exhausted and additional funds have not yet been 

approved.53

Fleet officials cited two strategies that address challenges associated with 

the allocation of funds for fleet management: (1) using a working capital 

Officials said that transporting those underutilized vehicles at 

a cost of approximately $2 million would help the Air Force avoid $20 

million in potential acquisition costs for new vehicles.

 

53Air Force fleet officials stated that they submitted an internal business case to receive 

additional funds for transporting these specific vehicles, which is under review. As of May 

31, 2013, the funding had not yet been approved.

Funding Allocation Can 

Affect Fleet CostEffectiveness
 

Page 33 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

fund54

USDA’s Forest Service and Interior’s Bureau of Land Management are 

the two agencies within the scope of this review that have a working 

capital fund. Officials from these agencies said that a steady stream of 

available capital helped them to replace vehicles on schedule and avoid a 

fleet that needed excessive maintenance.

and (2) developing clear, data- based analyses on the predicted 

outcomes of specific funding changes. A fleet management consultant, 

one of the experts we interviewed, told us that his company has 

previously recommended working capital funds to help agencies better 

manage the vehicle replacement cycle. Similarly, a county-level fleet 

manager we interviewed reported that without its working capital fund, the 

county might not be able to replace vehicles at the optimal time due to 

budget constraints.

55

 

54Working capital funds, which are a form of a revolving fund, are accounts that may 

receive reimbursements and advances from other federal accounts. They generally do not 

receive appropriations directly. In addition, they may accept revenues collected from 

nonfederal sources for the sale of government products, such as the sale of vehicles. We 

have previously found that a working capital fund is recommended by fleet experts 

because it provides a stable and timely source of replacement funding. See Federal Motor 

Vehicles: Private and State Practices Can Improve Fleet Management, GGD-95-18 

(Washington, D.C.: December 1994).

In addition, in 2004 GSA 

recommended that agencies should operate their fleets using a revolving 

fund or similar mechanism that allows them to capture all vehicle costs 

and provides them with the means to replace their vehicles in a timely 

manner. However, an agency must have statutory authority to establish 

such a fund. Moreover, even among agencies that possess the legal 

authority to establish a working capital fund, other hurdles may exist. For 

example, officials from Interior’s National Park Service stated that while 

having a working capital fund could be advantageous and Interior 

possesses the legal authority to establish such a fund in any of its 

55In 2012, Forest Service collected approximately $171 million and distributed 

approximately $170 million through its working capital fund. The Bureau of Land 

Management collected approximately $63 million and distributed approximately $50 

million. 
 

Page 34 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

agencies, start-up costs are a substantial barrier, as are issues related to 

fund administration.56

The Air Force has programmed mission needs at every installation into an 

algorithm that allows decision-makers to see the “ripple effects” of specific 

funding changes. Officials stated that although funding may still be cut, it 

is done strategically and with the lowest overall impact on mission 

performance or with full knowledge of the consequences. Similarly, DHS’s 

Customs and Border Protection has drafted a strategic plan that 

considers costs, benefits and resource availability to achieve prioritized 

goals, and an accompanying implementation guide to measure progress. 

One expert we interviewed suggested that having data and analysis to 

demonstrate the specific outcomes of funding changes will help to ensure 

that decisions regarding cuts or re-allocation are made with full 

knowledge.

Officials of four agencies also noted that ensuring that fleet managers 

consistently possess adequate expertise can be a challenge. The majority 

of agencies we examined reported that fleet management is a part-time 

task for some of their managers, which can make it difficult to develop 

fleet expertise. Officials from these agencies said that fleet managers can 

be responsible for various tasks beyond their fleet duties, such as 

property management. Officials from three agencies explained that in 

rural, remote locations it is not cost-effective to pay for a full-time fleet 

manager since the fleet is smaller than in more metropolitan areas.57

 

56We have conducted work that discusses key operating principles associated with 

working capital funds and has examined the uses of this funding approach in several 

agencies. See Intergovernmental Revolving Funds: Commerce Departmental and Census 

Working Capital Funds Should Better Reflect Key Operating Principles, 

They also cautioned that being part-time does not automatically indicate a 

lack of expertise in fleet management. However, some officials also 

agreed that when an employee only commits a portion of work hours to 

fleet management it can be more difficult to manage the fleet, and it can 

be challenging to consistently train a cadre of part-time workers located in 

GAO-12-56 

(Washington, D.C.: November 2011) and Intergovernmental Revolving Funds: NIST’s 

Interagency Agreements and Workload Require Management Attention, GAO-11-41 

(Washington, D.C.: October 2010).

57Officials did not provide information regarding when a full-time fleet manager would 

become cost-effective. 

Having Fleet Management 

as a Collateral Duty Makes 

Developing Expertise 

More Difficult
 

Page 35 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

remote areas. Officials from Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service, for 

example, said that the challenge of training numerous, part-time 

employees has become particularly evident as the agency tries to 

implement Interior’s new FMIS. Similarly, officials from USDA’s Forest 

Service reported that it is challenging to establish and maintain expertise 

in an environment where responsibilities are divided among multiple 

employees in different locations. Moreover, two agencies reported that it 

is challenging to retain the expertise already possessed. For example, Air 

Force officials explained that there is high demand for knowledgeable 

fleet managers in the private sector, and the challenges associated with 

deployment coupled with pay differences can make it hard to retain skilled 

fleet managers. Similarly, officials of DHS’s Customs and Border 

Protection told us that some managers have moved on to another job 

after they were trained.

Agencies use varying approaches to enhance the expertise of their fleet 

managers.58

• Sending personnel to the annual GSA conference: Officials from 

several agencies reported that the annual FedFleet conference 

hosted by GSA was a valuable tool for developing and maintaining 

expertise. Some found the conference useful for teaching core skills, 

Approaches differ even among agencies within the same 

department. For example, within DHS, Customs and Border Protection 

has a specific training program for fleet managers, while Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement provides fleet management training on an asneeded basis. Officials from each of these agencies expressed that they 

believed their training policies met their specific needs. Below are a few 

strategies that various agencies have pursued to address the challenge of 

developing consistent fleet management expertise:

and others said it provided updates on the latest practices to 

experienced managers.59

 

58We have not reviewed the efficacy of any of these training strategies, as such an 

evaluation was beyond the scope of this review. It is not known if these strategies meet 

the training needs of fleet managers, or if agencies should provide additional resources 

and training. 

59In 2013, GSA renamed this conference FedForum. Due to sequestration and 

government-wide budget cuts, GSA determined that projected attendance was not 

sufficient to support the conference in 2013.
 

Page 36 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

• Online training and tools: The Army Corps provides an online 

toolbox that contains information on fleet management requirements 

and internal processes. Similarly, Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service 

provides online fleet management training, and National Park Service 

has established an online fleet management portal that provides a 

variety of resources, including virtual training.

• Communication and collaboration strategies to share specialized 

knowledge: Officials from Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service reported 

that regional offices and the program management offices collaborate 

on decisions involving heavy fleet equipment because the program 

offices have expertise in that area.

• Consolidation of fleet functions and expertise: Air Force is in the 

process of transferring its fleet functions to one office.60 Air Force 

officials explained that although the transfer is complex and multistaged, the consolidation will allow for enhanced fleet management.

USDA’s Forest Service is also actively seeking ways to reduce the 

number of personnel with part-time fleet responsibilities. Forest 

Service officials explained that they recently conducted a study which 

indicated that fleet performance could be improved if they reduced 

fragmentation of personnel, and are currently deciding how to 

consolidate some fleet duties. In April 2013, USDA’s Natural 

Resources Conservation Service began piloting a centralized, national 

fleet management team to consolidate fleet functions and expertise, 

and minimize collateral fleet management duties.

Understanding where agencies might improve fleet management 

practices can inform ways to achieve fleet savings across agencies and 

address recent concerns about the size and cost of the federal fleet. 

Specifically, fleets should be well managed to provide appropriate and 

reliable transportation at the least cost, while meeting agency missions 

and achieving petroleum and greenhouse gas reduction goals. Complete 

data and well-designed FMISs are essential for the management of 

federal fleets. Most of the agencies that we reviewed lack the complete 

fleet data, particularly cost data, and some lack the integrated fleet data 

 

60The Air Force vehicle fleet is centrally managed at the Headquarters Air Staff level 

(Pentagon) by Air Force Element Vehicle and Equipment Management Support Office. 

Some functions, such as procurement, are still in the process of being transferred to this 

office.

Conclusions 
 

Page 37 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

systems that would facilitate the analyses, such as life-cycle cost 

analysis, necessary to support sound fleet decision making. The steps 

these agencies are taking to improve data collection and system 

integration have the potential to improve their ability to access and 

analyze data related to fleet management, including their ability to capture 

and analyze life cycle costs. We are not making a recommendation to 

these agencies because of the actions they are currently undertaking, 

although it is too soon to tell if these actions will successfully address the 

issues we have identified.

While these agencies are making some progress in improving their data 

systems, some have not yet developed an approach for estimating 

indirect costs that are attributable to fleet management. Calculating 

indirect costs—such as costs for staff, facilities, and equipment—can be a 

challenge for some agencies when only a portion of these costs is 

attributable to fleet management. Current GSA fleet management 

guidance does not include a methodology to calculate these indirect 

costs. While developing such a method would only be one part of an 

agency’s overall efforts to improve agency cost data to inform investment 

decisions, it is a necessary step. By not fully tracking and analyzing total 

fleet costs, including such indirect costs, some agencies may not have full 

cost information with which to analyze life-cycle costs and make costeffective investment decisions, such as decisions about whether to lease 

or purchase vehicles, and may not be able to fully monitor and report on 

fleet costs.

Determining the number and types of vehicles truly needed by 

agencies—based on a thorough analysis of vehicle utilization, mission 

needs, and alternatives—also holds the potential for cost savings. The 

agencies in this review have made progress in determining their optimal 

fleet inventories and have set targets and developed plans for achieving 

these optimal inventories. However, GSA’s lack of information on the 

methods agencies used in producing their targets limits its ability to 

identify and recommend opportunities for improvement, which could 

perhaps lead to additional fleet cost savings.

To help improve fleet management, we recommend that the Administrator 

of GSA take the following two actions.

1. Develop and publish guidance for agencies on estimating indirect 

costs attributable to fleet management to help ensure that agencies 

have complete and accurate cost data.

Recommendations 
 

Page 38 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

2. Request that when agencies submit their annual updates on their fleet 

optimization targets, they provide GSA information and supporting 

documentation on the methods that they used to produce their 

targets.

We provided a draft of this report to the Acting Administrator of GSA and 

to the Secretaries of Agriculture, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, 

and Veterans Affairs for review and comment. In commenting on this 

draft, GSA noted that it agreed with our findings and recommendations 

and that it intends to carry out the recommendations. DHS and the 

Department of Defense provided comments that included additional 

information on efforts they are taking to improve fleet management, 

especially systems for maintaining fleet data. GSA’s, DOD’s, and DHS’s 

comments are reprinted in appendices III, IV, and V, respectively. In 

addition, DHS, USDA, and VA provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate. Interior did not have any comments on this 

report. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Defense, Homeland Security, 

Interior, and Veterans Affairs; and the Administrator of GSA. In addition, 

this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

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

me at (202)512-2834 or Flemings@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix VI. 

Sincerely yours,

Susan Fleming

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 39 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

We assessed the extent to which the following agencies use leading 

practices to manage their fleets, including the size and costs of these 

fleets: the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Interior (Interior), 

Homeland Security (DHS), and Veterans Affairs (VA), and the United 

States Air Force (Air Force) and the United States Army Corps of 

Engineers (Army Corps) within the Department of Defense. Collectively, 

these agencies account for about 46 percent of the roughly 450,000 

civilian and non-tactical military vehicles maintained by the federal 

government (excluding the U.S. Postal Service). When selecting these 

agencies, we considered both military and civilian agencies with fleets of 

more than 5,000 vehicles. We looked for variation in fleet characteristics, 

including: age of passenger vehicles, change in fleet size from 2005-

2011, and change in fleet composition (owned versus leased) from 2005-

2011, to ensure that we selected agencies with a range of fleet 

characteristics. We eliminated agencies that had been the subject of a 

fleet-related audit within the past 2 years,1 with the exception of agencies 

covered in a recent report that stemmed from the same Congressional 

request as this review.2

Within USDA, Interior, DHS, and VA, we selected the subagencies with 

the largest fleets and selected a sufficient number of subagencies to 

account for at least two-thirds of each agency’s non-tactical fleet.

Consequently, in USDA we reviewed the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service and Forest Service; in DHS we reviewed U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement; in Interior we reviewed the National Park Service, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management; and in VA we 

We considered those agencies to provide 

continuity of information. To select agencies for our review and to 

describe changes in selected agencies’ fleet inventories over time, we 

relied on data in GSA’s Federal Fleet report and on additional data 

provided by the agencies. We assessed the reliability of this data by 

reviewing program documentation and quality assurance tests and 

discussing data elements with GSA and agency staff responsible for 

these data and found the data sufficiently reliable for these purposes.

 

1

This included both GAO reports and reviews conducted by agencies’ respective 

Inspector Generals. For example, we excluded the U.S. Postal Service because of a 

recent GAO report on their fleet. See Strategy Needed to Address Aging Delivery Fleet, 

GAO-11-386 (Washington, D.C: May 2011).

2

See Federal Fleets: Overall Increases in the Number of Vehicles Masks That Some 

Agencies Decreased their Fleets, GAO-12-780. (Washington, D.C.: Aug 2012).

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 40 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

reviewed the Veterans Health Administration. Within these four 

departments, we focused most of our work on these subagencies’ 

management of their fleets, except in areas where the department level 

has primary responsibility, such as in reporting to GSA on departmentwide optimal fleet inventories. Specifically, except where noted, we 

focused our work on fleet management practices, such as the collection 

and analysis of fleet cost data, of these eight subagencies as well as the 

Air Force and Army Corps. Throughout this report, we refer to these 

subagencies and their departments as well as to the Air Force and Army 

Corps as “agencies.” 

To identify leading fleet management practices, we interviewed 

recognized fleet management experts from consulting companies and 

private, local government, and nonprofit entities as well as 

representatives of fleet management associations. We identified fleet 

management experts by determining if they met more than one of the 

following criteria: (1) winner of a fleet management award such as those 

sponsored by the American Public Works Association, (2) spoke at or 

organized a relevant fleet management conference such as GSA’s 

FedFleet conference or the Government Fleet Expo and Conference, (3) 

served as a previous GAO expert, and (4) recommended by other fleet 

management experts. We interviewed 9 experts, including 2 

representatives of fleet management consulting companies, 3 public 

sector fleet managers, one private sector fleet manager, one fleet 

manager from a nonprofit, and representatives of 2 fleet management 

professional associations. These experts include:

Consulting Companies

• Accenture

• Mercury Associates

Private, Public, and Nonprofit Fleet Managers

• Two fleet managers for cities with approximately 3,000 and 500 

vehicles and pieces of equipment respectively (Portland, Oregon and 

Troy, Michigan)

• One fleet manager for a County with 1,800 vehicles (Hillsborough 

County, Florida)

• One private sector fleet manager overseeing more than 4,000 

vehicles
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 41 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

• One fleet manager for a nonprofit overseeing more than 12,000 

vehicles

Professional Organizations

• Automotive Fleet and Leasing Association

• National Association of Fleet Administrators

We compared practices these experts identified to legal requirements and 

GSA and Office of Management and Budget guidance related to fleet 

management. We also obtained the views of GSA officials on these 

leading practices. Based on the frequency with which practices were 

identified, as well as our professional judgment, we synthesized this 

information into a set of leading practices against which we compared 

agency practices. These leading practices are: (1) maintaining a welldesigned fleet management information system, (2) analyzing life-cycle 

costs to inform investment decisions, and (3) optimizing fleet size and 

composition.

To determine the extent to which the selected federal agencies use 

leading practices to manage their fleets, including the size and cost of 

these fleets, we reviewed agency fleet management policies, procedures, 

plans, and other documentation on their fleet management practices and 

conducted interviews with fleet management officials at these agencies.

We also developed a structured questionnaire sent to each agency 

regarding whether or not they have a fleet management information 

system (FMIS), the types of data that are maintained in their FMIS, 

whether their FMIS is integrated with property and financial management 

systems, and the efforts under way or planned to improve system 

integration and fleet data collection. We used the questionnaire 

responses, as well as supporting information gathered during interviews, 

to determine if an agency maintained an FMIS and if so, whether it stored 

all, some or none of the data elements recommended by GSA in that 

system. We used the information provided by agencies, such as the 

process that agencies follow in making decisions about whether to own or 

lease vehicles, to determine if agencies analyze total life cycle costs for 

their investment decisions. We also used information provided by 

agencies to determine how agencies are optimizing their fleet size and 

composition. As part of our review of fleet size and composition, we 

examined agencies’ assignments of home-to-work vehicles and large or 

non-alternative fuel executive vehicles. These assignments are discussed 

in appendix II.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 42 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

To identify challenges these agencies face in managing their fleets and 

strategies they use to address these challenges, we interviewed agency 

fleet managers from our selected agencies. We also obtained the views 

of GSA officials and fleet experts about these challenges and strategies. 

We analyzed these interviews to identify the challenges that agency fleet 

managers identified the most often and the strategies most frequently 

identified to address these challenges.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to July 2013, in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Home-to-Work and Executive 

Vehicle Assignments of Selected Federal 

Agencies

Page 43 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

The agencies we covered all have procedures in place to determine, on a 

case-by-case basis, whether the assignment of home-to-work vehicles is 

justified based on mission. Of these agencies, DHS’s Customs and 

Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement and 

Interior’s National Park Service have the largest number of home-to-work 

vehicles. (See table below.) These vehicles are generally assigned for 

purposes of law enforcement duties and field work, such as patrolling the 

U.S. border and conducting and performing immigration law enforcement 

activities and field-level audit work. Agencies we reviewed have home-towork policies in place at the department level, or have established 

policies at the agency or regional/local level establishing permissible uses 

of home to work vehicle assignments. For example, the National Park 

Service property management handbook states that all home-to-work 

vehicle assignments must be authorized by the Secretary of the Interior, 

and that monitoring of the use of home-to-work vehicles be monitored at 

the local level so long as an authorization is in effect. DHS home to work 

policy also requires a log be maintained to ensure use is for official 

purposes only, that a detailed analysis of proposed costs associated with 

home-to-work use be provided, and that these vehicles assignments be 

certified annually to the DHS Office of the Chief Administrative Officer.

The President’s May 2011 memorandum to federal agencies on their fleet 

management directed, among other things, that agencies post on their 

respective websites the number of vehicles assigned to agency 

executives that are larger than a mid-size sedan or do not use alternative 

fuel.1

 

1

GSA subsequently issued guidance to agencies regarding fulfilling these requirements.

See General Services Administration, GSA Bulletin FMR B-32 Motor Vehicle 

Management: Posting Executive Fleet Vehicles on Agency Websites. Washington, D.C.: 

2011.

Of the agencies we reviewed, DHS’s Customs and Border 

Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement and USDA’s 

Natural Resources Conservation Service have the largest number of such 

vehicles: 49, 20, and 20, respectively. In 2012, GSA noted that DHS as a 

whole retains a very large executive fleet of 90 luxury sedans and large 

sport utility vehicles and recommended a reduction in the size of this fleet 

and in the size of the assigned vehicles. In response, DHS stated that 

when their executive vehicles are up for replacement, they will closely 

examine the need for each, and, if still needed for mission purposes, it 

Appendix II: Home-to-Work and Executive 

Vehicle Assignments of Selected Federal 

Agencies
Appendix II: Home-to-Work and Executive 

Vehicle Assignments of Selected Federal 

Agencies

Page 44 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

would consider replacing them with smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles.2

Table 6: Home-to-Work and Executive Vehicle Assignments for Selected Agencies, 2013

Other agencies we reviewed maintain smaller fleets of such executive 

vehicles that are either large or not alternative fuel vehicles, ranging from 

zero to 14.

Agency

Home-to-work 

vehicles Home-to-work vehicle uses

Executive 

vehiclesb

DHS

Customs and Border Protection 1635 Canine operations, marine vessel transport, and 

law enforcement activities

49

Immigration and Customs Enforcement 8276 Law enforcement and field work 20

Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 270 Law enforcement and wildland fire response 0 

Fish and Wildlife Service 426 Law enforcement 0 

National Park Service 1,164 Law enforcement 0 

USDA

Forest Service 800a Primarily law enforcement, also seasonal wildland 

fire response, and field work

0 

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

1 Economical for the government and employee 20

VA 

Veterans Health Administration 0 N/A 1 

Air Force 2 Secretary of Air Force and Chief of Staff only 14

Army Corps 0 N/A 0 

Source: Information provided by agencies and on agency websites.

Note: We did not assess the reliability of these numbers because they were not material to our 

findings, conclusions, and recommendations. a

Estimate provided by agency.

b

These numbers represent executive fleet vehicles that are larger than midsize sedans or are not 

alternative fuel vehicles.

 

2

Also, DHS has noted that due to the unique nature of the U.S. Secret Service missions 

such as dignitary protection, exemptions are granted for them to acquire larger vehicles on 

an as needed basis.
Appendix III: Comments from the General 

Services Administration

Page 45 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

Appendix III: Comments from the General 

Services Administration 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 46 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Defense 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 47 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 48 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 49 GAO-13-659 Federal Vehicle Fleets

Susan A. Fleming, 202-512-2834.

In addition to the contact above, Judy Guilliams-Tapia (Assistant 

Director), Maria Edelstein, Kieran McCarthy, Alison Hoenk, Steve 

Rabinowitz, Russell Burnett, Tim Guinane, Josh Ormond, Crystal Wesco, 

and Colin Fallon made key contributions to this report.

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(541098)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

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

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

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

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

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

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

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

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

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

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

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

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.