Veteran-Owned Small Businesses: Preliminary Observations on Verification Program Progress and Challenges
Published: 2015-11-04T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: VA must give contracting preferences to service-disabled and other veteran-owned small businesses and verify the ownership and control of firms seeking such preferences. GAO found in 2013 ( GAO-13-95 ) that VA faced challenges in verifying firms on a timely and consistent basis, developing and implementing long-term strategic plans, and enhancing information technology infrastructure. This testimony discusses preliminary observations on (1) VA's progress in establishing a timely and consistent verification program and improving communication with veterans, and (2) the steps VA has taken to identify and address verification program challenges and long-term goals.
This statement is based on GAO's ongoing review of VA's verification program. GAO reviewed VA's verification procedures and strategic plan, reviewed a random sample of 96 verification applications, and interviewed VA officials, and representatives from two veterans' organizations, and four verification assistance counselors.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Based on GAO's preliminary observations, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has made significant improvements to its verification process and communication with veterans since GAO's 2013 report. VA reported it reduced its average application processing times by more than 50 percent—from 85 days in 2012 to 41 in 2015. GAO reviewed a randomly selected sample of verification applications and found that VA followed its procedures for reviewing applications. VA continued to refine its quality management by developing written work instructions for every part of the verification process, and implemented an internal audit process. As of September 2015, VA had taken action on and closed 364 of 379 (96 percent) of internal audit recommendations. The agency also conducted post-verification site visits to 606 firms in fiscal year 2015 to check the accuracy of verification decisions and help ensure continued compliance with program regulations. Since 2013, VA has made several changes to improve veterans' experiences with the program. For example, VA revised procedures to allow veterans additional opportunities to withdraw their applications or submit additional information and has partnered with federally supported assistance centers to provide assistance to veterans applying for verification. Correspondingly, the percentage of firms that received denials has dropped from 66 percent in 2012 to 5 percent in 2015. Veterans' organizations and verification counselors with whom GAO spoke noted improvements in VA's communications and interactions with veterans, although most verification counselors we spoke with suggested the program's website and letters to veterans could be clearer.
VA has multiple efforts underway to make its verification program more cost-effective and veteran-friendly, but GAO's preliminary results indicate that it lacks a comprehensive operational plan to guide its efforts. For instance, VA intends to restructure part of its verification process and in August 2015, began a pilot that gives veterans one point of contact (a case manager, who would be aware of the specifics of the application throughout the verification process). VA plans to fully transition to this new process by April 2016. VA also plans to change the program's organizational structure and hire a director for the program, which has had three different directors, the last two of which have been acting directors, since 2011. Finally, VA plans to replace the program's outdated case management system, but has faced delays due to contractor performance issues. Efforts are under way to develop and evaluate a pilot system by January 2016 and fully transition to the new case management system by September 2016. VA has developed a high-level operating plan that identified objectives for the office overseeing the verification program—the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU). But the plan does not include an integrated schedule with specific actions and milestone dates for achieving the multiple program changes under way or discuss how these various efforts might be coordinated within OSDBU. GAO's work on organizational transformations states that organizations should set implementation goals and a timeline to show progress. Such a plan is vital to managing multiple efforts to completion and achieving long-term program objectives, particularly when senior-level staffing for the verification program has lacked continuity. GAO continues to assess these issues and will report its results early next year.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is not making recommendations at this time; as it finalizes its work for issuance early next year, it will consider making recommendations, as appropriate. GAO obtained comments from VA and incorporated them as appropriate.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here to discuss our ongoing work on the Department  of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) efforts to verify the eligibility of veteran-owned  small businesses (VOSB), including service-disabled veteran-owned  small businesses (SDVOSB), to receive contracting preferences with VA.  Since the passage of the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information  Technology Act of 2006, the agency reported that total contracting  awards to VOSBs increased from $616 million ($356 million to  SDVOSBs) in fiscal year 2006 to $4.0 billion ($3.6 billion to SDVOSBs) in  fiscal year 2014. The act requires VA to give contracting preferences to  SDVOSB and VOSBs and to verify the ownership, control, and status of  firms seeking such preferences and maintain a database of verified  businesses that have SDVOSB or VOSB status. The program grew from  2,900 verified firms in 2010 to more than 7,400 verified firms in 2015.  GAO found in 2013 that VA faced challenges in verifying firms on a timely  and consistent basis, developing and implementing long-term strategic  plans, and enhancing information technology infrastructure.
My statement today is based on preliminary observations from our  ongoing review of the verification program on which we plan to issue a  report early next year. Specifically, this statement discusses (1) VA’s  progress in establishing a timely and consistent verification program and  improving communication with veterans, and (2) the steps VA has taken  to identify and address verification program challenges and long-term  goals.
In conducting this work, we reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, and  procedures, as well as our prior work on the program. We reviewed VA  administrative program data on application processing times from fiscal  years 2014 and 2015, assessed the reliability of data by interviewing VA  officials and reviewing documentation related to VA’s data system, and  determined the data are sufficiently reliable for the purpose of describing  VA’s reported processing statistics. In addition, we reviewed a random  sample of verification applications submitted to VA from June through  September 2014, stratified by decision outcome (i.e., approval, denial, or  withdrawal) to estimate the length of time it took firms to become verified  and assess the extent to which VA followed its procedures for verifying  firms. We reviewed the internal audit reports prepared by CVE from  December 2014 through March 2015. We interviewed agency officials  and representatives of two veteran service organizations and four  verification assistance centers selected based on geographic diversity to  obtain information about VA’s procedures to verify applications and  communicate with veterans. We reviewed VA’s strategic and operating  plans, and interviewed VA officials to discuss steps taken to address  program challenges.
The work on which this testimony is based is being conducted 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: VA’s Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU)  has overall responsibility for the verification program. OSDBU’s Center  for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) maintains the mandated database  of verified SDVOSBs and VOSBs and is responsible for verification  operations, such as application processing. VA’s verification process  consists of reviewing and analyzing a standardized set of documents  submitted with each verification application. VA uses contractors to  support its verification program and federal employees oversee the  contractors and review and approve verification decisions. As of  September 1, 2015, CVE had 15 federal employees and 156 contract  staff (employed by five different contractors) verifying applications or  filling supporting roles.
CVE is funded by VA’s Supply Fund, a self-supporting revolving fund that  recovers its operating expenses through fees and markups on different  products or services. CVE’s final obligations for fiscal year 2014 were  $17.9 million and its approved budget for fiscal year 2015 was $16.1  million, representing a decrease of about 10 percent ($1.8 million) from  2014.
We and VA’s Office of Inspector General previously found that VA has  faced numerous challenges in operating the verification program. Our  most recent work on this program in 2013 found that VA had made  significant changes to address previously identified program weaknesses,  but that it still faced challenges establishing a stable and efficient program  to verify firms on a timely and consistent basis. Specifically, we found  that VA consistently placed a higher priority on addressing immediate  operational challenges than on developing a comprehensive, long-term  strategic focus for the verification program—an approach that contributed  to programmatic inefficiencies. We also found that VA’s case  management data system had shortcomings that hindered the agency’s  ability to operate, oversee, and monitor the program. Therefore, we  recommended that VA (1) refine and implement a strategic plan with  outcome-oriented long-term goals and performance measures, and (2)  integrate efforts to modify or replace the program’s data system with a  broader strategic planning effort to ensure the system addresses the  program’s short- and long-term needs. VA adopted a strategic plan in  2013 and efforts to update its case management system are ongoing.
In 2014, VA launched the MyVA Reorganization Plan in an effort to  improve the efficiency and effectiveness of VA’s services to veterans. The  plan’s strategy emphasizes improved service delivery, a veteran-centric  culture, and an environment in which veteran perceptions are the  indicator of VA’s success. MyVA extends to all aspects of the agency’s  operations, including the verification program. In response to this  organizational change, OSDBU is required to align its own strategy with  MyVA and take steps to make its operations more customer service- oriented and veteran-centric.
section_title: VA Took Steps to Improve Its Verification Program and Communication with Veterans
paragraphs: Based on our preliminary observations, VA has improved its timeliness for  application processing, followed its policies for verifying businesses,  continued to refine quality controls for the program, and improved  communications with veterans. For instance, CVE reported its processing  times have improved by more than 50 percent since October 2012, going  from an average processing time of approximately 85 days to 41 days in  fiscal year 2015. Additionally, VA officials told us that they have been  generally meeting their processing goal of 60 days (from receipt of a  complete application) and only had 5 applications in fiscal year 2014 and  11 applications in fiscal year 2015 for which it did not meet this goal. Our  review of randomly selected application files corroborates that CVE has  generally met its processing goals, but the verification process can take  longer from a veteran’s perspective. In calculating processing times,  CVE excludes any time spent waiting for additional information it asked  firms to supply, so the actual number of days it takes an applicant to  become verified is typically longer than what CVE reports. Our preliminary  estimates are that it takes an average of 56 days (without stopping the  regulatory clock while the veteran is preparing and submitting additional  documents) from when CVE determines a firm’s application is complete  to when the firm receives notification of the verification determination.  During that time, CVE is reviewing the application and potentially  requesting and waiting for the applicant to submit additional information.  Additionally, firms can submit and withdraw their application multiple  times should they need to correct issues or wish to apply at a later date.  Each time a firm resubmits an application, CVE resets the application  processing clock, meaning that CVE’s average case processing time  does not account for instances where a firm withdraws and resubmits an  application. VA officials said that allowing applicants to withdraw and  resubmit multiple applications is an advantage to the veteran because  veterans can make several attempts to become verified, and without  allowing veterans to withdraw their applications, more veterans would  receive denials and have to wait 6 months before submitting another  application. However, this means that some veterans might perceive the  application process as lengthy if they have submitted and withdrawn  several applications in their attempt to become verified. For example, we  estimated that for 15 percent of applications, it took the firm more than 4  months from the initial application date to receive a determination from  CVE.
Based on our initial review of application files, VA appeared to follow its  policies and procedures for verifying SDVOSBs and VOSBs, which  includes checking the veteran and disability status of the applicant,  conducting research on the firm from publicly available information, and  reviewing business documents to determine compliance with eligibility  requirements, such as direct majority ownership by the veteran,  experience of the veteran manager, and the SBA small business size  standard. But, we also found that VA did not have a policy requiring  documentation of the rationale for assigning risk level to the application,  and did not document the rationale in an estimated 40 percent of the  cases. VA recently implemented a procedure (October 2015) to require  documentation of the rationale after we notified the agency of this finding.
CVE has continued to refine its quality management system since our  January 2013 report. For example, CVE has developed detailed written  work instructions for each part of the verification process, and developed  a quality manual that documents the requirements of its quality  management system. CVE officials said they update the work instructions  on a regular basis. Additionally, CVE implemented an internal audit and  continuous improvement process. As of September 2015, CVE had taken  action on and closed 364 of 379 (96 percent) internal audit  recommendations made from June 2014 through August 2015. Based on  our review of internal audits conducted by CVE from September 2014  through February 2015, the findings generally identified information that  was incomplete, unclear, missing, or not applicable to the current  verification process.
CVE also conducted post-verification site visits to 606 firms in fiscal year  2015 to check the accuracy of verification decisions and help ensure that  firms continued to comply with program regulations. CVE officials said the  site visits identified two instances in which evaluators mistakenly verified  a firm (a less than 1 percent error rate), and CVE issued 25 cancellations  to firms found noncompliant with program regulations at the time of the  site visit (a 4 percent noncompliance rate). CVE also monitors compliance  by investigating potentially noncompliant firms identified through tips from  external sources. CVE officials said they received about 400 such tips in  2014. Officials said that they investigate every credible tip by conducting  public research, reviewing eligibility requirements related to the tip, and  making a recommendation for corrective action, if necessary.
We reviewed case files associated with 10 firms for which CVE received  allegations of noncompliance from June 2014 through May 2015. These  cases included one with an active status protest (a mechanism for  interested parties to a contract award to protest if they feel a firm  misrepresented its SDVOSB or VOSB status in its bid submission) and  nine firms for which CVE received an e-mail allegation that the firm was  not in compliance with program regulations (a few of these firms also  recently received a status protest decision). CVE investigated 6 of 10  cases we reviewed, although it did not always document that an  allegation of noncompliance had been received or that it was conducting  a review of the firm’s eligibility based on the allegation. In comparison,  anytime a protest was filed against a verified firm, the case file had a note  indicating the firm was the subject of a status protest and verification  activities should be put on hold until the protest was resolved. We will  continue to monitor these issues and report our final results early next  year.
Our preliminary work revealed that since our 2013 report, VA has made  several changes to improve veterans’ experiences with the verification  program and reduced the percentage of firms that receive denials from 66  percent in 2012 to 5 percent in 2015, according to agency data. A few  examples include the following.
VA implemented procedures to allow firms to withdraw applications in  order to avoid denials. For example, veterans can correct minor  deficiencies or withdraw an application to address more complex  problems instead of receiving a denial decision and having to wait 6  months to reapply.
VA established procedures to communicate with verified firms and  applicants about their verification status. According to VA officials, the  agency sends e-mail reminders 120, 90, and 30 days before the  expiration of a firm’s verification status, contacts firms by telephone 90  days before expiration of verification status; and notifies firms in  writing 30 days before cancelling verified status. Officials said they  also send notifications to applicants to indicate that an application is  complete, additional documents are needed, and that a determination  has been made.
VA partnered with Procurement Technical Assistance Centers— funded through cooperative agreements with the Department of  Defense—to provide verification assistance to veterans at no cost.  VA trained more than 300 procurement counselors at the centers on  the verification process so they could better assist veterans applying  for verification.
VA increased interaction with veterans by conducting monthly pre- application, reverification, and town hall webinars to provide  information and assistance to verified firms and others interested in  the program.
VA provided resources for veterans on its website, such as fact  sheets, verification assistance briefs, and standard operating  procedures for the verification program. VA also has a tool on its  website that allows firms to obtain a list of documents required for  their application depending on the type of company they own.
VA developed surveys to obtain feedback from firms (1) that go  through the verification process, (2) that receive a site visit, (3) that  leave the program, and (4) that participate in any pre-verification  information sessions. CVE officials stated that they hope these  surveys will allow them to more systematically collect feedback on  different aspects of the program.
All of the verification assistance counselors and representatives of  veterans’ service organizations with whom we spoke noted that VA has  improved its verification process, although most had some  recommendations for areas for continued improvement. Three of the four  verification assistance counselors we spoke with stated that VA’s new  policies to allow veterans to withdraw or submit changes to their  application represented a positive change. Representatives of one  veterans’ group we spoke to stated that VA was doing a better job  communicating with applicants on missing documentation and other  potential issues. They also said VA was interacting more with veteran  service organizations and veterans at conferences for veteran-owned  small businesses and town hall meetings.
However, three of the four verification assistance counselors noted that  resources on VA’s website for the verification program can be difficult to  locate and representatives from one veteran service organization said VA  does not provide adequate documentation of the program standards for  applicants. VA officials said they have been working with the strategic  outreach team in OSDBU to redesign the website to make documents  easier to locate. Additionally, we determined that the standard operating  procedures—documents to help veterans understand the verification  process—posted on the website were from 2013 and did not reflect  current procedures, such as the ability to withdraw an application after  CVE’s evaluation. When we notified VA of this issue, the agency updated  the program’s website to reflect current procedures and implemented a  policy to review and update the operating procedures every 6 months.
All of the verification assistance counselors we interviewed also stated  that VA’s determination letters to applicants could be clearer and that they  include regulatory compliance language that could be difficult for some  applicants to understand. VA officials maintained that the inclusion of  regulatory language in the determination letters was necessary, but  acknowledged that this language can present readability challenges. We  also observed several instances in our review where a letter initially  stated that documents were due on one date, and then later stated the  applicant should disregard the initial statement and that documents were  due on a different, earlier date. VA officials said this was due to a glitch in  the system that generated the letters and this issue was resolved in May  2015.
section_title: VA Has Addressed Some Program Challenges, but Preliminary Findings Indicate That VA Lacks a Comprehensive Operational Plan
paragraphs: Despite the significant improvements VA has made to its verification  program, it continues to face challenges establishing a more cost- effective, veteran-friendly verification process, and acquiring an  information technology system that meets the agency’s needs. The efforts  that VA has either made or currently has underway include restructuring  the verification process, revising verification program regulations,  changing the program’s organizational structure, and developing a new  case management system—some of which have been ongoing since our  January 2013 report. While these efforts are intended to help address  some of the challenges associated with the verification program, VA lacks  a comprehensive operational plan with specific actions and milestone  dates for managing these efforts and achieving its long-term objectives  for the program.
Changes in the verification process. VA intends to restructure part of  the verification process in an effort to make it more veteran-focused and  cost-effective. According to OSDBU’s Executive Director, VA embarked  on these changes in response to the agency’s new MyVA strategy and  requests from the Supply Fund to design a veteran-centered process that  highlights customer service and maximizes cost efficiency. In August  2015, VA began a pilot for a new verification process that makes a case  manager the point of contact for the veteran and the coordinator of staff  evaluating the application. According to the Executive Director, the new  process is expected to provide cost savings to the agency by reducing the  amount of time staff spend reviewing applications and addressing  veterans’ questions. Officials said the specific tasks staff perform to  review applications would not change; rather, the new process would  eliminate some redundancies and focus on the veteran’s experience. Key  differences between the new and current processes as described by CVE  officials are shown in table 1.
According to CVE officials, as of September 2015, 43 applications had  been reviewed using the new pilot process and VA had begun collecting  feedback from applicants. VA also has developed metrics to inform  adjustments to the pilot and plans to calculate processing times for each  application, according to CVE officials. Officials stated that VA plans to  finalize the new process in October 2015 and fully transition to the new  process by April 2016. VA has not yet conducted an analysis to determine  the cost of the new pilot process as compared with the current process,  but OSDBU’s Executive Director said that he estimates the new pilot  process will save the program about $2 million per year.
Revisions to regulations. VA is continuing to make revisions to its  program regulations. In 2013 we reported that VA had begun the process  of modifying the verification program regulations to extend the verification  period from 1 year to 2 years and published an interim final rule to this  effect in late June 2012. In addition, VA began a process in 2013 to  revise program regulations in order to account for common business  practices that might otherwise lead to a denial decision under the current  regulation. For example, in addressing the challenges associated with  one current regulatory provision, VA officials told us that VA plans to allow  minority owners to vote on extraordinary business decisions such as  closing or selling the business according to CVE officials. Officials stated  that the revisions to the regulation are not expected to provide cost and  resource efficiencies, but are intended to provide clarity for veterans and  increase their satisfaction with the process. As of September 2015, the  regulation was undergoing internal review with VA’s Office of General  Counsel according to CVE officials.
Approach to site visits. According to CVE officials, VA plans to  determine how many site visits should be conducted annually to maintain  the quality of the program while minimizing cost. CVE officials told us  that they plan to visit a random sample of 300 of 2,312 verified firms that  received VA contracts from March 2014 through April 2015 fiscal years  2014 and 2015 and then calculate the percentage of firms found to be  noncompliant with program requirements. A high noncompliance rate  could indicate that VA should increase the annual number of visits, while  a low rate could indicate that VA should decrease or maintain the annual  number of site visits it conducts, according to CVE officials. VA officials  said that the statistical analysis will allow them to validate the  noncompliance rate obtained from site visits conducted in fiscal year 2014  and that VA plans to complete its study by January 2016. We plan to  include additional information on this study in our upcoming report.
Reverification policy. VA revised its reverification policy in an effort to  improve efficiency and customer service. According to CVE’s Acting  Director, reverification used to require nearly the same effort of CVE staff,  contractors, and veterans as the full verification process. Under a new  process CVE implemented in October 2015, CVE contractors are to  conduct an initial meeting with the veteran to identify necessary  documentation based on changes to the company since its last  verification. These changes are intended to improve veterans’  understanding of the requirements for reverification, and reduce the  amount of time spent re-verifying applications, according to CVE officials.  However, it is not yet clear how the change to the reverification procedure  will impact the number and type of documents veterans will be required to  submit. In addition, VA analyzed data obtained from its fiscal year 2014  site visits and concluded that there is no correlation between a firm’s  noncompliance and the time passed since its last verification. According  to information provided by CVE officials, the agency therefore may be  able to reduce the number of site visits conducted each year by  lengthening the 2-year reverification cycle.
Staffing and organizational structure. VA plans to fill vacant leadership  positions and make changes to CVE’s organizational structure to reflect  the new verification process and align staffing resources with agency  needs. In 2010, we noted that leadership and staff vacancies had  contributed to the slow pace of implementation of the verification  program. CVE has since filled most of its vacant positions. However,  staffing at the senior level has been in flux. Since 2011, CVE has had  three different directors, the last two of which have been acting directors.  The deputy director position also was vacant from March 2014 to  September 2015. OSDBU’s Executive Director (who has overseen the  overall verification program since 2011) indicated that VA would begin  advertising for a CVE director in October 2015.
VA has developed a draft organizational structure and position  descriptions for the new verification process. According to CVE officials, it  also has begun an analysis—using initial data from the new verification  process pilot—to determine optimal staffing levels for implementing the  new process and meeting the demand for verification. CVE officials stated  that VA plans to continue using contractor staff to conduct its verification  activities because the use of such staff allows VA the flexibility to adjust  staffing levels as needed. As discussed earlier, CVE currently has 15 full- time federal employees and 156 contract staff. OSDBU’s Executive  Director stated that VA has contracts in place for the verification program  through April 2016 and plans to start the process for securing new  contracts in January 2016.
Plans for case management system. VA has faced delays in replacing  the verification program’s outdated case management system. In our  January 2013 report, we also identified deficiencies in VA’s data  system—such as a lack of certain data fields and workflow management  capabilities needed to provide key information on program  management—and recommended that VA modify or replace the  system. VA hired a contractor in September 2013 to develop a new  system but the contract was cancelled in October 2014 due to poor  contractor performance. VA paid the contractor about $871,000 for work  that had been performed prior to the contract’s termination, and received  several planning documents from the contractor that helped inform its  current acquisition effort, according to CVE officials. VA has since  decided to develop a pilot case management system through one of the  agency’s other existing contracts. According to VA officials, the pilot  system is intended to provide VA with the opportunity to test and evaluate  the capabilities of a new system without the time and expense of putting a  whole new system in place. VA developed specifications and other  planning documents for the pilot system, and plans to develop and  evaluate the system from November 2015 through January 2016. If the  pilot is successful, VA plans to issue a solicitation and award a contract  for development of a full system by April 2016 and fully transition to the  new system by September 2016. VA was in the initial stages of  developing the pilot system as of October 2015, and has not determined  how it will select cases for the pilot, evaluate the pilot, and fully transition  to the new system once the pilot is complete.
VA has taken some steps to address our previous recommendations, but  our preliminary findings indicate that additional steps may be needed. In  our January 2013 report, we found that VA faced challenges in its  strategic planning efforts and recommended that VA refine and implement  a strategic plan with outcome-oriented long-term goals and performance  measures. VA developed a strategic plan for fiscal years 2014–2018  that described OSDBU’s vision, mission, and various performance goals  for its programs. It has since developed an operating plan for fiscal year  2016 that identifies a number of key actions needed to meet OSDBU’s  objectives, such as transitioning to a new verification process, completing  revisions to the verification regulations, and developing a new case  management system. But, the plan does not have an integrated schedule  that includes specific actions and milestone dates for achieving program  changes or discuss how the various efforts described above might be  coordinated. Useful practices and lessons learned from organizational  transformation show that organizations should set implementation goals  and a timeline to build momentum and show progress from day one.  These practices also show that it is essential that organizations  undergoing a transformation establish and track implementation goals  and establish a timeline to pinpoint performance shortfalls and gaps and  suggest midcourse corrections. According to OSDBU’s Executive  Director, each OSDBU program team (such as CVE) is to develop action  plans for their specific programs that include resource needs and  expected timelines. However, it is not clear if OSDBU will develop an  overall plan that captures and integrates the various efforts it has been  undertaking that are managed by CVE and other program teams within  OSDBU. We are continuing to assess the issues discussed in this  statement and as we finalize our work for issuance early next year, we  will consider making recommendations, as appropriate.
Chairmen Coffman and Hanna, Ranking Members Kuster and Takai, and  Members of the Subcommittees, this concludes my prepared statement. I  would be happy to answer any questions at this time.
If you or your staff have any questions about this statement, please  contact me at (202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this statement. Key contributors to this testimony include  Harry Medina (Assistant Director); Katie Boggs (Analyst-in-Charge), Mark  Bird, Charlene Calhoon, Pamela Davidson, Kathleen Donovan, John  McGrail, Barbara Roesmann, and Jeff Tessin.
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.