U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: More Operational and Financial Oversight Needed
Published: 2003-10-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Over the past 10 years, GAO, the Congress, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and others have raised numerous concerns about the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. GAO was asked to assess (1) the adequacy of the Commission's project management procedures, (2) whether the Commission's controls over contracting services and managing contracts are sufficient, and (3) the extent of recent oversight of the Commission's financial activities.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Commission has established a set of project management procedures for commissioners and staff to follow when they plan, implement, and report the results of approved Commission projects. However, the procedures lack, among other things, a requirement for systematic commissioner input throughout projects. As a result, commissioners lack the opportunity to review many of the reports and other products drafted by Commission staff before products are released to the public, which serves to significantly reduce the opportunity for commissioners to help shape a report's findings, recommendations, and policy implications of civil rights issues. The Commission lacks sufficient management control over its contracting procedures. The Commission routinely did not follow proper procedures for its fiscal year 2002 contracting activities. For the Commission's largest dollar contract, key documentation on how the contract was initially awarded was missing from contract files. Moreover, Commission officials did not follow the legal requirements to obtain competition for its subsequent media services contracts. As a result, the Commission did not have all of the information it should have had to determine whether its contracts provided the best value to the government. Little, if any, external oversight of the Commission's financial activities has taken place in recent years. An independent accounting firm has not audited the Commission's financial statements for the last 12 years. Although the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 requires the Commission--along with certain other executive agencies--to have its financial statements independently audited annually, the Commission has been granted a waiver by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from compliance with the financial statement preparation and audit requirements of the act for the fiscal years 2002 and 2003 audit cycles, which OMB was authorized to waive during an initial transition period of up to 2 years.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was created as an independent,  bipartisan, fact-finding agency to protect the civil rights of people in the  United States. The Commission is authorized to undertake projects that  study the impact of federal civil rights laws and policies and disseminate  information on its findings through the issuance of reports to the Congress and the President. In our past work, we recommended to the Commission ways to improve how it managed its projects and issued reports.
You asked us to assess  the adequacy of the Commission’s project management procedures, whether the Commission’s controls over contracting services and  managing contracts are sufficient, and  the extent of recent oversight of the Commission’s financial activities.
To respond to your request, we reviewed Commission records, applicable  legislation and regulations, and internal administrative guidance. We  interviewed all current commissioners, the staff director, key Commission  officials, and several former Commission officials. We also observed  several Commission meetings. In addition, we reviewed all projects and all  contracts that were active during fiscal year 2002. Our review focused on  projects undertaken by Commission offices located at headquarters and  excluded those produced in field office locations. Our review also focused  on whether the Commission maximized competition and followed  established procedures in purchasing services. See appendix I for a more  detailed overview of our scope and methodology. We performed our work  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  between December 2002 and September 2003.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Commission on Civil Rights is a fact-finding federal agency required to  report on civil rights issues. Established by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the  Commission is currently directed by eight part-time commissioners and  employs approximately 70 staff members in fiscal year 2003. The  Commission’s annual appropriation has averaged approximately $9 million  since fiscal year 1995. The eight commissioners have a number of  responsibilities, including investigating claims of voting rights violations  and studying and disseminating information, often collected during  specific projects, on the impact of federal civil rights laws and policies.  Commissioners serve 6-year terms, and they are appointed on a staggered  basis. Four commissioners are appointed by the President, two by the  president pro tempore of the Senate, and two by the speaker of the House  of Representatives. No more than four commissioners can be of the same  political party.
The Commission accomplishes its mission by (1) investigating charges of  citizens being deprived of voting rights because of color, race, religion,  sex, age, disability, or national origin; (2) collecting and studying  information concerning legal developments on voting rights; (3) appraising  federal laws and policies with respect to discrimination or denial of equal  protection of the laws; (4) serving as a national clearinghouse for  information; and (5) preparing public service announcements and  advertising campaigns on civil rights issues. The Commission may hold  hearings and, within specific guidelines, issue subpoenas to obtain certain  records and have witnesses appear at hearings.
The Commission must submit at least one report annually to the President  and the Congress that monitors federal civil rights enforcement in the  United States, and such other reports as deemed appropriate by the  Commission, the President, or the Congress. For instance in 2002, the  Commission issued a report that evaluated the civil rights activities of the  Departments of Justice, Labor, and Transportation and another on election  reform. The Commission is also authorized to investigate individual  allegations of voting rights discrimination.  However, because it lacks  enforcement powers that would enable it to apply remedies in individual  cases, the Commission refers specific complaints it receives to the  appropriate federal, state, or local government agency for action. A staff  director, who is appointed by the President with the concurrence of a  majority of the commissioners, oversees the day-to-day operations of the  Commission and manages the staff in its six regional offices and  Washington, D.C., headquarters.
The Commission also has 51 State Advisory Committees—1 for each state  and the District of Columbia. Each committee is composed of citizens  familiar with local and state civil rights issues. The members serve without  compensation and assist the Commission with its fact-finding,  investigative, and information dissemination functions.
subsections: section_title: Concerns Raised in the Past
paragraphs: In 1997, we reported that the management of the Commission’s operations  lacked control and coordination. Among other findings, we found that  projects lacked sufficient documentation, project monitoring to detect  budget delays or overruns was not systematic, and little coordination took  place among offices within the Commission to approve and disseminate  reports. Moreover, senior officials were unaware of how Commission  funds were used and lacked control over key management functions,  making the Commission’s resources vulnerable to misuse. We reported  that key records had been lost, misplaced, or were nonexistent, leaving  insufficient data to accurately portray Commission operations. Centralized  agency spending data resulted in Commission officials being unable to  provide costs for individual offices or functions. We also found in 1997  that the Commission had never requested any audits of its operations, and  information regarding Commission audits in its fiscal year 1996 report on  internal controls was misleading. The Commission also had not updated  administrative guidance to reflect a major reorganization that occurred in  1986. We recommended that the Commission develop and document its  policies and procedures to assign responsibility for management functions  to the staff director and other Commission officials and provide  mechanisms for holding them accountable for proper management of  Commission operations.
section_title: Federal Regulations Governing Contracting
paragraphs: The FAR, established to codify uniform policies and procedures for  acquisition by executive agencies, applies to acquisitions of supplies and  services made by federal executive agencies—including the U.S.  Commission on Civil Rights—with appropriated funds. The FAR contains  procedures for awarding both competitive and sole-source contracts and  selecting contracting officers.
subsections: section_title: Competition Using Simplified Acquisition Procedures
paragraphs: The FAR calls for federal agencies to promote competition to the  maximum extent practicable when making purchases using simplified  acquisition procedures.In 1994, Congress authorized the use of simplified  acquisition procedures for acquisitions not exceeding $100,000. Under  those procedures, agency officials may, among other things, select  contractors using expedited evaluation and selection procedures and are  permitted to keep documentation to a minimum. In 1996, Congress  authorized a test program that permits federal agencies to use simplified  acquisition procedures for commercial items not exceeding $5 million.The authority to issue solicitations under this test program is set to expire  on January 1, 2004.
section_title: Awarding a Sole-Source Contract under Simplified Acquisition Procedures
paragraphs: When they award on a sole-source basis, contracting officers are required  by regulations to prepare a written justification explaining the absence of  competition. The regulations also generally require public notices of  proposed sole-source awards. Further, contracting officers must  determine that the price of a sole-source award is reasonable. This  determination may be based on evidence such as (1) market research,  (2) current price lists or catalogs, (3) a comparison with similar items in  related industry, or (4) a comparison to an independent government cost  estimate.
section_title: Using the Federal Supply Schedule
paragraphs: Under the Federal Supply Schedule, the General Services Administration  (GSA) awards contracts to several companies supplying comparable  products and services. These contracts can then be used by any federal  agency to purchase products and services. As a general rule, the  Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 requires that orders under the  Federal Supply Schedule result in the lowest overall cost alternative to  meet the needs of the agency. The FAR and GSA procedures generally  require agencies to compare schedule offerings of multiple vendors in  arriving at an award decision.
section_title: Procedures Have Improved, but Lack Some Key Elements of Good Project Management
paragraphs: The Commission has established a set of project management procedures  for commissioners and staff to follow when they plan, implement, and  report the results of approved Commission projects. However, the  procedures lack certain key elements of good project management that are  reflected in federal internal control and budget preparation guidance. For  example, commissioners do not generally receive updates about certain  project cost information. Commissioners, in practice, make many planning  decisions with little or no discussion of project costs, which can  eventually contribute to problems such as delayed products and lower- quality products if too many projects are undertaken. Additionally,  Commission procedures do not provide for systematic commissioner input  throughout projects. In practice, commissioners do not always have the  opportunity to review many of the reports and other products drafted by  Commission staff before products are released to the public, which serves  to significantly reduce the opportunity for commissioners to help shape a  report’s findings, recommendations, and policy implications of civil rights  issues.
subsections: section_title: Commission Has Updated Its Management Policies and Procedures to Better Manage Projects
paragraphs: The Commission has made a number of improvements in project  management since our 1997 review. For example, the Commission has  revised and established policies that clarify the roles of the staff director  and senior Commission staff such as the assistant staff director of the  Office of Civil Rights Evaluation (OCRE) and the general counsel in the  Office of the General Counsel (OGC), both of whom report directly to the  staff director. These three key Commission officials are responsible for  carrying out the policies established by the eight commissioners and for  directly overseeing and managing virtually all headquarters projects that  result in Commission products. See figure 1 for an abbreviated  organization chart that shows the reporting relationship between  commissioners, the staff director, and senior Commission staff.
Commissioners (8)
In addition to clarified roles of the staff director and senior Commission  staff, the chief of the Budget and Finance Division now regularly provides  the staff director with spending data by office and function. This detailed  information enables the staff director to track the status of the  Commission’s expenditures by organizational component at headquarters  and field offices.
Senior Commission staff and the project team leaders we interviewed  were also using various project management procedures to meet target  deadlines. For example, the assistant staff director, OCRE, and the deputy  general counsel, OGC, were using a combination of techniques to ensure  that project deadlines were met. These techniques included weekly  meetings with staff, weekly or monthly reports from staff, and computer- generated schedules to monitor large, complex projects and smaller  projects. Moreover, all project team leaders were routinely monitoring  their assigned projects to ensure that projects stayed on schedule. Our  review determined that the Commission’s project management procedures  allow commissioners, the staff director, senior Commission staff, and  project team leaders to manage long-range projects that take a year or  longer to complete as well as time-critical projects that take several  months or weeks to complete. The Commission chairperson, who was  also chairperson in 1997, is of the opinion that Commission projects and  products in fiscal year 2002 and later were generally timelier than those  products discussed in our 1997 report and testimony.
Table 1 summarizes the number of Commission products issued during  fiscal year 2002 by Commission office and by type of product. Appendix I  provides details about project names and product titles produced during  fiscal year 2002 by those offices that generate headquarters Commission  products that result from commissioner-approved projects: the Office of  Civil Rights Evaluation, the Office of General Counsel, and the Office of  the Staff Director (OSD). In addition, some fiscal year 2002 projects will  generate products in future years. Appendix II lists the number of  products, by type of product, issued or expected to be issued after fiscal  year 2002 from projects that were ongoing during fiscal year 2002.
section_title: Procedures Do Not Ensure the Inclusion of Cost Information
paragraphs: Commission procedures do not provide for commissioners and senior  Commission staff to systematically receive project cost information—  primarily staff time charges—to help commissioners and senior staff plan  and monitor projects. Commissioners continue to approve the majority of  projects and products each year without having any specific information  on how much the project will cost, or how much similar projects have cost  in past years. Both federal government guidance and private sector project  management specialists emphasize the importance of top-level reviews of  actual performance. Feedback about actual project performance,  including costs, is basic information essential for sound planning and  allocation of scarce staff and other dollar resources. Without specific  estimates of how much staff time will be spent and how much the project  and its products will cost, Commission planning will continue to be  conducted without key information. Commissioner approval of projects  without key cost information may contribute to problems such as delayed  products and lower-quality products if too many projects are undertaken  for staff to carry out without additional resources.
The Commission has taken action to limit the number of major projects  that it will approve during the Commission’s annual long-range planning  meeting at which commissioners decide which projects to undertake.  However, commissioners continue to approve new projects throughout  the year without any detailed feedback from the staff director about the  amount of time that staff is already committed to spend to complete  previously approved projects. Unless they periodically receive a  comprehensive picture of how much current projects have cost to date  and how much staff time has already been committed, commissioners will  continue to make decisions about how many and which future projects to  undertake, or which current projects and costs to adjust, without basic  information necessary for sound project planning.
Without downplaying the value of cost information in project  management, commissioners have been divided over how much project  cost information they need. During our review, several commissioners  expressed concern, both to us and publicly at monthly Commission  meetings, that commissioners were not receiving sufficient information  about project costs. However, several other commissioners said that they  received a sufficient amount of information about the status of projects. In  March 2003, the commissioners did not pass a motion—the vote was tied  4-4—for the staff director to provide them with, among other things,  quarterly information about project costs that commissioners were not  receiving at that time. However, the commissioners reached a compromise  and passed a subsequent motion in April 2003 to receive that quarterly cost  information. Specifically, the motion requires commissioners to receive  information quarterly on cost by project and by office. A category of  information that was in the original motion that was not included in the  motion that passed includes projects’ travel costs.
Good project management principles dictate that cost information be  integrated in a timely manner into project management. As applied to the  Commission, cost information may be most useful if it is provided on a  monthly basis. During its monthly meetings, the commission discusses  whether or not to undertake emerging civil rights issues. These decisions  will be better informed if, for example, data on costs that are already being  experienced—or expected on other projects—be included in the monthly  discussions.
As of September 2003, commissioners had not begun to receive the agreed  upon information. Once the commissioners begin to receive the cost  information, it will be important to assess the extent that the information  is meeting their collective needs and responsibilities.
section_title: Procedures Do Not Ensure Commissioner Input Once Projects Have Been Approved
paragraphs: Although the Commission has guidance on project management  procedures, we found that commissioners have limited involvement in the  management of commission projects once they have been approved. This  condition serves to significantly reduce the commissioners’ ability to lend  their expertise to the development of Commission products that address  civil rights issues.
On a positive note, the Commission has a set of written instructions that  outline the procedures that should be followed to manage its projects.The instructions describe the general steps that should be taken in the  planning, implementation, and product preparation stages of projects  undertaken by the commission. For example, the instructions address  steps for planning projects at the front-end as well as legal review prior to  the publication of reports.
Nevertheless, the general nature of the written project management  guidance limits the involvement of commissioners in project management.  Specifically, the guidance does not specify the role that commissioners  play in the implementation and report preparation phases, nor does it  discuss the timing that commissioners should be involved throughout the  process. It is especially important to have clear guidance on commissioner  involvement because commissioners serve on a part-time basis and are not  headquartered in a central building. Clear guidance on the nature and  timing of commissioner involvement can help commissioners prepare  themselves to make substantive contributions to implement a project and  sharpen its conclusions and policy recommendations. In addition, clear  guidance can help commissioners balance their commission duties with  other professional duties and travel commitments.
While the guidance addresses the role of commissioners in the last stage of  the product preparation phase—final revision and approval prior to  official release—this guidance only covers 2 of the 15 types of products  produced by the Commission: statutory reports and clearinghouse  reports. In fiscal year 2002, 3 of the Commission’s 32 products were  either a statutory or a clearinghouse report. Put another way, the guidance  does not dictate that commissioners give final review and approval for 29  of the 32 products worked on in fiscal year 2002. The 13 product types  not covered by the guidance include, for example, briefings, briefing  papers, executive summaries, staff reports, and State Advisory Committee  reports. However, these reports address civil rights issues and as such,  they could benefit from review by commissioners, as appropriate, as they  are being developed.
Further evidence pointing to a lack of commissioner involvement in  project management is the very general nature of the monthly staff  reports—the main management tool currently used to keep commissioners  informed about the progress of projects. The monthly staff report is  prepared by the staff director and sent to commissioners in preparation  for the monthly Commission meetings. The report highlights the status of  selected on-going projects (the report may contain a summary of any of  the 15 product types). The staff director has the discretion to select the  projects to include in the monthly report. We reviewed the 11 monthly  reports that the staff director sent to the commissioners during fiscal year  2002 in preparation for the monthly Commission meetings and found that  information in those reports about the two-volume statutory report (and  other projects and reports) to be issued during the year was limited to  general descriptions of project status. For example, regarding the  Commission’s statutory report, commissioners were informed via the staff  director’s monthly reports that “progress on the project has slowed” or  “staff is working on an initial draft of the report” or “staff has nearly  completed a draft of the report.” These updates did not contain  information about the project’s costs or staff day usage to date, nor  potential findings or conclusions. Likewise, during the 4-month period that  the one clearinghouse project and report were being developed, only one  monthly report even mentioned that project, and none of the four monthly  staff reports made reference to the anticipated product or the anticipated  date of report issuance.
During our review, several commissioners told us that they are often  unaware of the status and the content of many of the written products that  result from approved projects until they are published or released by the  Commission to the public. Moreover, some commissioners expressed  dissatisfaction with the level of detail on project status contained in the  monthly report.
Some commissioners are increasingly concerned about their lack of  opportunity to review reports and other products drafted by Commission  staff before they are released to the public. These commissioners believe  that a lack of periodic commissioner input and review undermines the  opportunity for commissioners to help shape a report’s findings,  recommendations, and policy implications of civil rights issues. In June  and July 2003, several commissioners expressed their displeasure publicly  about this lack of involvement by voting against, or abstaining from,  acceptance of Commission draft products, in part because the  commissioners had not had the opportunity to provide input to those  projects or products. Other commissioners voted to accept the draft  reports without commenting on their opportunity, or lack thereof, to  provide input.
section_title: Controls Over Commission’s Contracting Procedures Are Insufficient
paragraphs: The Commission on Civil Rights lacks sufficient management controls  over its contracting procedures. In fiscal year 2002, the Commission did  not follow proper procedures in awarding most of its 11 contracts. For  example, the Commission’s largest dollar contract—currently $156,000—is  for media services and has been ongoing for over 3 years with the same  vendor. According to Commission officials, key documentation on how the  contract was initially awarded was missing from contract files. Moreover,  Commission officials did not follow the legal requirements to obtain  competition for subsequent media services contracts. As a result, the  Commission did not have all of the information it should have had to  determine if the contract pricing was fair and reasonable. The Commission  also has inadequate controls over the administration of its contracts. For  example, information on specific tasks to be performed by vendors is  communicated orally, not in a performance based statement of work as  required by regulation. As a result, it is difficult for the Commission to  track vendors’ performance against an objective measure and ensure that  public funds are used in an effective manner.
subsections: section_title: Proper Procedures for Awarding Contracts Were Not Followed
paragraphs: The Commission did not follow federal contracting regulations for any  contracts initiated in fiscal year 2002 that were over $2,500. All but 4 of its  11 contracts were at or over this amount. When a government agency  purchases services, the contracting officer must follow certain procedures,  though these procedures vary slightly depending on the contracting  method. Using simplified acquisition procedures, the contracting officer  may select contractors using expedited evaluation and selection  procedures and is permitted to keep documentation to a minimum. The  agency still must, for contracts over $2,500, seek competition to the  maximum practical extent. If circumstances prevent competition, agencies  may award “sole-source” contracts, but are required to justify them in  writing.
A government agency may also issue orders against contracts that GSA  awards to multiple companies supplying comparable products and  services under its Federal Supply Schedule. The FAR and GSA procedures  require agencies to consider comparable products and services of multiple  vendors prior to issuing an order over $2,500. For service orders, the  agency must send a request for quotes (RFQ) to at least three Federal  Supply Schedule contractors based on an initial evaluation of catalogs and  price lists. The agency must evaluate the quotes based on factors identified  in the RFQ. GSA’s ordering procedures also state that the office ordering  the services is responsible for considering the level of effort and mix of  labor proposed to perform specific tasks and for making a determination  that the total price is fair and reasonable.
In fiscal year 2002, seven of the commission’s contracts were for amounts  over $2,500, and the Commission did not follow proper procedures for any  of them. For example, in fiscal year 2002, the Commission ordered its  media services from a contractor listed on the Federal Supply Schedule.  Instead of requesting quotes from other Schedule vendors, as required by  GSA’s special ordering procedures, the Commission merely selected the  same contractor to which it had made improper awards in previous years  using simplified acquisition procedures.
A factor that likely caused the Commission to not follow proper  contracting procedures is that the Commission does not have personnel  who are sufficiently qualified to conduct several of the required actions.  The Commission has only two officials authorized to enter into contracts:  the Acting Chief of the Administrative Services and Clearinghouse Division  and the staff director. However, both officials are operating with limited  awareness of proper federal contracting procedures.
By not following proper procedures, the Commission did not obtain the  benefits of competition and did not meet federal standards of conducting  business fairly and openly. For example, by not competing its media  services contract, and by using an incremental approach to obtaining  media services, the Commission did not make clear the fact that it would  have a recurring need for media services. Initially, in April 2000, the media  services contract was offered with a 90-day/$25,000 maximum. A series of  90-day, 60-day, and even 30-day contracts followed, none of which were  competed. The Commission’s relationship with this media services vendor  has evolved into what is now an annual award with a maximum value of  $156,000. The staff director could not document for us whether the  agency competed its media services contract initially in 2000, and told us  that it did not compete subsequent awards, including the last 2 years using  the Schedule. In effect, the Commission denied itself the opportunity to  choose from a potential pool of bidders because other vendors were likely  unaware of the contract, the contract’s potential value or both.
section_title: Contract Administration Lacks Sufficient Internal Control
paragraphs: The Commission lacks sufficient internal control over the administration  of its contracts. Examples of internal control activities include  maintaining clear and prompt documentation on all transactions and other  significant events; evaluating contractor performance; and segregating key  duties and responsibilities among different people to reduce the risk of  error or fraud. However, these elements of good organizational  management are not evident in the Commission’s administration of its  contract activities. For example, the Commission has not met federal  requirements to establish and maintain proper contract files and to report  contract actions to the Federal Procurement Data Center (FPDC), just a  few of the numerous contract administration functions listed in the FAR.  As a result, the Commission is not promoting the transparency necessary  to keep the Congress and others informed about the Commission’s  contracting activities.
subsections: section_title: Record-keeping and Reporting Standards Not Met
paragraphs: According to federal regulations, an agency must establish and maintain  for a period of 5 years a computer file containing unclassified records of  all procurements exceeding $25,000. Agencies must be able to access  certain information from the computer file for each contract, such as the  reason why a non-competitive procurement procedure was used, or the  number of offers received in response to a solicitation. Agencies must  transmit this information to the FPDC, the government’s central repository  of statistical information on federal contracting that contains detailed  information on contract actions over $25,000 and summary data on  procurements of less than $25,000.
The Commission has not followed federal regulations or established  internal control standards with regard to reporting transactions. According  to the Acting Chief of the Administrative Services and Clearinghouse  Division, and to officials at the FPDC, the Commission has not met federal  reporting requirements to the FPDC for at least the last 3 fiscal years. The  Acting Chief said that a lack of resources is the reason for its  noncompliance with this federal requirement. Moreover, the FPDC was  unaware that the Commission, which historically had not entered into  contracts over $25,000, now had contracts above that amount. FPDC  officials told us that when they contacted the Commission, officials there  told the FPDC that they were not able to submit the data because, for  example, of problems with its firewalls. In addition, Commission officials  did not accept FPDC’s offer to come to FPDC’s offices and key in the  data.
section_title: Little If Any Performance Monitoring Being Done
paragraphs: According to federal regulations, agency requirements for service  contracts should be defined in a clear, concise performance-based  statement of work that enables the agency to ensure a contractor’s work  against measurable performance standards. Despite these regulations and  principles of good management, the Commission has not established a  system to monitor contractors’ performance, even for its contract that  exceeds $100,000. The Commission has no records that document its  decision-making on this contract. Lack of this basic, well-established  management control makes the Commission vulnerable to resource losses  due to waste or abuse.
section_title: Commissioner Participation in Contract Management Is Minimal
paragraphs: An integral component of good organizational management is a strong  communication network between key decision-makers. To that end, it is  vital that information on key transactions be communicated among the  staff director, the commissioners and other key decision-makers. In  addition, internal control standards dictate that key duties and  responsibilities be divided or segregated among different people to reduce  the risk of error or fraud. This includes the separation of the  responsibilities for authorizing, processing, recording, and reviewing  transactions, and handling any related assets. No one individual should  control all key aspects of a transaction or event.
Due to the nature of the Commission’s operating environment, the staff  director does not provide information on procurements to the  commissioners. According to the chairperson of the Commission,  contracting is one of the duties that the Commission has delegated to the  staff director. In fact, at public Commission meetings, when  commissioners raised questions concerning contracting activities and  sought information on contract cost and vendor performance, the  chairperson asserted that contracting is not an area with which  commissioners should be concerned. Moreover, a recent motion for  commissioners to, among other things, be provided with cost and status  information on contracts and other items failed to pass. Commissioners  reached a compromise and passed a subsequent motion; however, it did  not include the provision to receive information on contracts. Although  the commissioners are charged with setting the policy direction of the  agency, the Chairperson told us that the decision to contract out for a  service is not a policy decision. She told us that the decision for the  Commission to receive a certain service is a policy decision, but whether  or not to perform that function in-house or contract out for it, is not. Since  the contracting function is delegated to the staff director, it is her position  that the commissioners need not know any details, unless there is an  allegation of fraud, waste, or abuse on the staff director’s part. For the  Commission’s largest contract, however, only the staff director has  knowledge of what is being done, why it is being done and how it is being  done. The Acting Chief of the Administrative Services and Clearinghouse  Division is not involved because of the dollar limit on her contracting  authority. Without greater transparency, the current operating  environment has no mechanism to elevate concerns about contractual  impropriety to the Commission.
section_title: No Independent Financial Audits Have Been Conducted in Recent Years
paragraphs: The Commission’s fiscal activities have not been independently audited in  at least 12 years. As noted in our 1997 report, the Commission is not  required by statute to have an Inspector General, which could  independently and objectively perform financial audits within the agency.  In addition, for the fiscal year 2002 audit cycle, the Commission received a  waiver from the federal requirement that its financial statements be  independently audited. The Commission submitted a request to have the  requirement waived for both the fiscal year 2003 and 2004 audit cycles,  citing a stable budget and high costs incurred through the agency’s  conversion to a new accounting system. OMB granted the waiver for fiscal  year 2003, but denied the request for the fiscal year 2004 cycle.
In addition to this lack of independent financial oversight, the  Commission’s current financial situation is not transparent within the  agency. The majority of the agency’s budget-related information is  centralized, with only the staff director and the chief of the Budget and  Finance Division having a detailed knowledge of the Commission’s  financial status. However, both the body of the commissioners, which  heads the organization, and senior Commission officials, who are  responsible for planning and carrying out Commission projects, only know  what is reported to them by the staff director. On the basis of our  interviews with commissioners and other Commission officials, we found  that information on costs is limited. As a result of the centralized nature of  the Commission’s financial operations, financial oversight is structured in  a way that precludes appropriate checks and balances.
Moreover, the Commission has in place a policy that discourages  individual commissioners and their special assistants from making  inquiries of any nature to Commission staff and to direct all inquiries to  staff through the staff director. The policy dictates that commissioners  not make direct contact with staff but work through the staff director to  exchange information with staff and vice-versa. According to Commission  documentation, this policy is meant to ensure that requests are carried out  and to avoid confusion and difficult or embarrassing situations between  staff and commissioners. One memo we saw even stated that violations of  this policy could result in appropriate disciplinary action. Another stated  that circumventing the staff director can only create confusion and  disorder within the agency. According to some commissioners we spoke  with, as well as senior Commission managers, this policy stifles  communication and productivity within the agency and creates an  environment of uneasiness. In addition, while some commissioners  believe it is their fiscal duty to oversee the financial activities of the  Commission and want complete financial information, others do not and  cite their part-time status as the reason why they do not seek more  information on financial activities. The commissioners who have the latter  view believe that the fiscal responsibility of the agency lies with the staff  director.
In the absence of independent financial oversight, what is known about  the Commission’s financial status suggests an austere financial picture.  The staff director has characterized the Commission’s financial condition  in public meetings as “challenging.” In fact, although the Commission’s  budget has remained at essentially the same level for about the last 10  years, it has incurred several new costs associated with operations. For  example, the Commission recently converted its accounting and payment  processing system from the National Finance Center (NFC) to the  Department of Treasury’s Bureau of the Public Debt at a cost to the  Commission of almost $300,000. In addition, Commission officials cited  an increase of more than $130,000 in rent for the Commission’s  headquarters and field offices over the past year. Moreover, the  Commission’s financial condition has affected its operations. For example,  the Commission ordered a moratorium, citing funding limitations, on all  previously authorized and new travel by the agency’s regional staff or  State Advisory Committee members between late March 2003 and the end  of July 2003. In addition, the Commission’s financial status has left it  unable to reduce its high staff vacancy rate, which now stands at 20  percent.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: While the Commission has taken steps in recent years to improve its  operations, it nevertheless continues to operate in a manner not fully  consistent with sound management principles. These principles dictate  that key decision makers receive timely information on project cost and  have a vehicle throughout the project process to communicate their ideas  and expertise. We recognize that commissioners should soon be receiving  more information on project costs than had been previously received.  While it remains to be decided whether the amount and timing of this  information will meet the Commission’s needs, the challenge now facing  commissioners is to partner toward the strategic use of cost information.  In addition, the current level of commissioner involvement in the reporting  phase of Commission products does not ensure that products are  reflecting the full and wide-ranging expertise of the commissioners and as  such, the potential impact of Commission products can be limited. This  outcome can undermine the important mission of the Commission—to  help inform and guide the nation on civil rights issues  The Commission’s procurement of services is not being conducted in  accordance with established internal control standards or federal  regulations. We have long held that an agency’s internal control activities  are an integral part of its planning, implementing, reviewing, and  accountability for stewardship of government resources and achieving  effective results. Without the proper internal controls, there is little public  assurance that funds are being spent in a proper and effective manner. As  a result of the Commission’s weak contract management operations, the  Commission does not have all of the information it should have to  determine that the contracts it is entering into are reasonable and offer the  best value to the government.
Although the dollar amount involved in its contracting activities represents  a small percentage of its overall appropriation, such expenditures are  growing. But regardless of the amount spent on contracting, there is a  need for the Commission to take steps now to ensure that current and  future contract actions are performed in compliance with established  regulations. If the Commission does not adhere to these regulations, then  transparency cannot be established and no assurance can be given to the  public that the Commission’s activities are leading to the proper and  efficient use of public funds.
The Commission has not had an independent audit of its financial  statements in recent years. The requirement for the Commission to  prepare and submit an audited financial statement, included in the  Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002, is an important step to  strengthening its financial and performance reporting. However, these  benefits have yet to be realized. Given the Commission’s limited financial  management controls and current budget situation, the lack of external  oversightparticularly in terms of financial audits—may make the  Commission vulnerable to resource losses due to waste, mismanagement  or abuse. Although funding an independent audit could represent a  significant new cost to the Commission, these audits are essential to the  sound stewardship of federal funds. Our longstanding position has been  that the preparation and audit of financial statements increase  accountability and transparency and are important tools in the  development of reliable, timely, and useful financial information for day- to-day management and oversight. Preparing audited financial statements  also leads to improvements in internal control and financial management  systems.
section_title: Recommendations
paragraphs: To further the Commission’s efforts to better plan and monitor project  activities, we recommend that the Commission monitor the adequacy and timeliness of project cost information that the  staff director will soon be providing to commissioners and make the  necessary adjustments, which could include providing information on a  monthly rather than quarterly basis, as necessary; and adopt procedures that provide for increased commissioner involvement in  project implementation and report preparation. These procedures could  include giving commissioners a periodic status report and interim review  of the entire range of Commission draft products so that, where  appropriate, commissioners may help fashion, refine, and provide input to  products prior to their release to the public.
To ensure proper contracting activities at the Commission, we recommend  that the Commission establish greater controls over its contracting activities in order to be in  compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation. These controls could  include putting in place properly qualified personnel to oversee  contracting activities, properly collecting and analyzing information about  capabilities within the market to satisfy the Commission’s needs, and  properly administering activities undertaken by a contractor during the  time from contract award to contract closeout.
While the Commission has received waivers from preparing and  submitting audited financial statements for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, we  recommend that the Commission take steps immediately in order to meet the financial statement  preparation and audit requirements of the Accountability of Tax Dollars  Act of 2002 for fiscal year 2004. These steps toward audited fiscal year  2004 financial statements could include, for example, (1) identifying the  skills and resources that the Commission needs to prepare its financial  statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles  and comparing these needs to the skills and resources that the  Commission presently has available; (2) preparing such financial  statements, or at least the balance sheet with related note disclosures, for  fiscal year 2003; and (3) ensuring that evidence is available to support the  information in those financial statements.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights provided us with two sets of  comments on a draft of this report. We received comments from four  commissioners and from the Commission’s Office of the Staff Director.  Commissioners Kirsanow, Redenbaugh, Thernstrom, and Braceras  concurred with our conclusions and recommendations on the  management practices at the Commission. Their comments are  reproduced in their entirety in appendix III. We did not receive comments  from the remaining four commissioners, who include both the chairperson  and the vice-chair of the Commission.
In comments from the Office of the Staff Director, the staff director  pointed out that the Commission is committed to ensuring that its  operations are well maintained and will consider implementing whatever  recommendations and suggestions that appear in the final report.  However, the staff director believed that many of the findings were  inaccurate and that aspects of the draft report contained errors,  unsubstantiated allegations, and misinterpretations. For example, the staff  director disagreed with our finding that the Commission lacks sufficient  management controls over its contracting procedures and concluded the  Commission’s overall fundamental contract practices are sound. Similarly,  he disagreed with our findings concerning weaknesses in project and  financial oversight. After carefully reviewing his concerns, we continue to  believe that our conclusions and recommendations are well founded. The  staff director’s detailed comments and our responses to them are  contained in appendix IV. Finally, the staff director also provided a  number of technical comments and clarifications, which we incorporated,  as appropriate.
As arranged with your office, unless you announce its contents earlier, we  plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its issue date.  At that time, we will provide copies of this report to interested  congressional committees. We are also sending copies to the  commissioners and the staff director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. We  will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the  report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 or Brett Fallavollita on (202) 512-8507  if you or your staff have any questions about this report. Other contact and  staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: During our review of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ activities, we  focused on the management of individual projects, as we had done during  our 1997 review and examined them in the context of broader  management issues at the Commission. For example, to analyze the  Commission’s expenditures on projects since 1997 in the context of both  the project spending discussed in our 1997 report as well as in comparison  with the Commission’s most recent budget request, we reviewed the  Commission’s annual Request for Appropriation for fiscal years 1999  through 2004, which provided data on how the Commission actually spent  its appropriations for fiscal years 1997 through 2002. We noted that the  Commission’s fiscal year 2004 Request for Appropriation requests a  significant increase in funding, from $9 million in fiscal year 2002 to $15  million in fiscal year 2004. Consequently, we not only focused on how well  the Commission currently manages its projects, but also considered the  implications of potentially significant increases in project and product  spending and the human resources need to properly manage such  increases.
We used a combination of Office of Management and Budget (OMB),  private sector, and our own guidance as criteria to identify key elements of  good project management. These criteria included U.S. General  Accounting Office, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999);  Preparation and Submission of Budget Estimates (2002) (OMB Circular  No. A-11, Part 2); Project Management Scalable Methodology Guide (  1997, James R. Chapman); A Guide to the Project Management Body of  Knowledge (PMBOK Guide)—2000 Edition (The Project Management  Institute, Sept. 2003); and Project Management—Conventional Project  Management (Northern Institute of Technology, Hamburg, Mar. 2002). Our  standards for internal control list top-level review of actual performance  (e.g., commissioner review of actual project cost) as a key control activity.  OMB Circular No. A-11 emphasizes the importance of managing financial  assets.
To supplement the general guidance on good project management  principles described in OMB’s and our guidance to agencies, we identified  several private sector principles, practices, and techniques for good  project management at the individual project level. For example, the  Project Management Scalable Methodology Guide ( 1997, James R.
Chapman) and the Project Management Institute’s A Guide to the Project  Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide)—2000 Edition  identify project management principles for small, straightforward projects  as well as a best practices approach for large, complex projects. According  to these principles, regardless of project size or degree of risk, sound  project cost management calls for comparisons between project plans and  actual project performance—even for projects with minor levels of  investment and low risk.
We reviewed the most recent complete fiscal year’s project activities at the  time of our review (fiscal year 2002) and identified 22 projects and 43  products (briefings, executive summaries, internal memorandums, reports,  etc.) that resulted from those projects. Of the 43 total products that  resulted from these projects as of July 2003, we included in our review the  32 issued during fiscal year 2002. We excluded 3 products issued during  fiscal year 2001 and 8 products issued or expected to be issued during  fiscal years 2003 or 2004.
Table 2 provides details about project names and product titles produced  during fiscal year 2002 by those offices that generate headquarters  Commission products that result from commissioner-approved projects:  the Office of Civil Rights Evaluation (OCRE), the Office of General  Counsel (OGC), and the Office of the Staff Director (OSD). The OSD  product resulted from a project initiated by the staff director rather than  from the commissioners. Table 2 also includes a State Advisory Committee  report from Alaska because OCRE staff assisted in preparing the report.  The table excludes an Arizona State Advisory Committee briefing and  State Advisory Committee reports from Iowa and Pennsylvania in 2002  because OCRE staff were not involved in preparing the briefing or those  reports. Some fiscal year 2002 projects will generate products in future  years. (See app. II.)
section_title: Appendix II: Products Issued or Expected to Be Issued after Fiscal Year 2002
paragraphs: This appendix lists the number of products, by type of product, issued or  expected to be issued after fiscal year 2002 from projects that were  ongoing during fiscal year 2002. (See app. I.)
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Commission’s Staff Director
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1. 	 Our draft report clearly indicates that we found deficiencies in the  project management practices at the Commission. We focused largely  on the role of the Commissioners because they comprise the  Commission which, under the applicable statute, has ultimate  responsibility in providing reports to Congress and the President, and  carrying out other statutory responsibilities.  2. 	 We do not concur with the staff director’s comment that the  Commission has rejected the desirability of Commissioners shaping  the findings and recommendations of Commission projects.  Commission staff play an important role in running projects and  helping produce reports, but their involvement does not diminish the  important role that commissioners can and should play in shaping  reports on civil rights issues.  3. 	 We disagree that our draft failed to acknowledge the Commissioners’  role in helping scope projects. The draft indicates that Commissioners  have some involvement, albeit limited, in the planning process. Our  basic point remains: procedures do not provide for systematic  commissioner input throughout projects and in practice,  commissioners do not always have the opportunity to review many of  the reports and other products drafted by the staff before they are  released to the public.  4. 	 We believe that the draft report accurately portrays the amount of  information provided to commissioners and project managers about  ongoing projects. We based our assessment on the (limited)  information that has been provided to commissioners and project  managers in the recent past. Project managers told us that, during  fiscal years 2002 and 2003 (as of August), they were not regularly  receiving project cost data and staff hour information. Additionally, the  draft recognized that arrangements have recently been made to  provide additional information to commissioners. As we noted in a  draft recommendation, the efficacy of this action will need to be  monitored. For example, the staff director’s first project cost report on  September 30, 2003, in response to the commissioners’ April 2003 vote  for quarterly cost information, was incomplete because it did not  contain cost information for at least two projects that had been  regularly reported in monthly staff director reports during fiscal year  2003.  5. 	 In our discussions with Commission officials subsequent to the  December 18, 2002, letter, we discussed in further detail the scope of  our review. We indicated that our review would primarily focus on  current management operations and not entail a specific point-by-point  assessment of the Commission’s implementation of our past  recommendations. Nevertheless, during our review, we learned that  the Commission had made a number of improvements since our 1997  review. Our draft report discusses these improvements. However, our  review was not intended to evaluate either the improvement in  timeliness or the quality of Commission products since our 1997  review. Notably, Commissioners Kirsanow, Redenbaugh, and  Thernstrom expressed concern in their written response to our report  that although we did not include an assessment of the quality of  Commission products, they found that “reports lack the substantive  and methodological rigor worthy of the Commission’s history and  seal.” The staff director may wish to pursue the commissioners’  comments in further detail.  6.  As noted above, our report includes this recent development.  7. 	 The staff director believes that our sentence in the draft stating that  the report contains recommendations for improving Commission  operations should be deleted or at least modified to reflect that  recommendations are directed at commissioners and not staff offices.  We do not believe that a change is warranted. The implementation of  our recommendations will clearly involve the commissioners, the staff  director, and officials throughout the agency.  8. 	 The Commission’s responsibilities are described in the applicable  statute. See 42 U.S.C. 1975a. We have qualified our description of the  responsibilities we list in our report.  9. 	 Our draft report noted that improvements in certain project  management procedures have been made.  10.  We believe that the staff director’s comment that project milestone  dates are routinely provided to commissioners in monthly reports from  the staff director is an overstatement. Our draft report noted that,  during fiscal year 2002, the staff director’s monthly reports to the  commissioners in preparation for their monthly meetings did not  contain a comprehensive list of project milestone dates for all ongoing  projects. Furthermore, fiscal year 2003 staff director reports to the  commissioners generally did not list all ongoing projects and did not  include estimated product issuance dates or project completion dates  for most projects. This information was maintained and routinely  updated when warranted by OCRE and OGC project managers for  project planning, management and monitoring purposes but was not  reported in the staff director’s monthly reports to the commissioners.  11.  As we note in comment 5, our review was not intended to evaluate the  quality of Commission products.  12.  We shared a draft of tables 1 and 2 with the staff director and other  senior staff before we sent the draft report to the Commission. The  officials indicated that the tables were generally accurate.  Nevertheless, we made technical corrections, as appropriate, in areas  clarified by the Commission.  13.  The purpose of the table in which the footnote in question appears is  to provide details about the projects produced by those offices that  generate headquarters products. The footnote intends to inform the  reader about an OGC internal product not contained in the body of the  table. The footnote is not intended to convey collateral duties.  Therefore, we did not add the information suggested by the staff  director. We note, however, the draft report contained a background  paragraph which lists the activities carried out by the Commission to  accomplish its mission, including the investigation of charges of  citizens being deprived of voting rights because of color, race, religion,  sex, age, disability, or national origin.  14.  The products that the staff director refers to were accurately described  in our draft report as expected to be issued after fiscal year 2002, as he  acknowledges in his description of expectations regarding each  product.  15.  We continue to believe that our findings on the extent of financial  oversight at the Commission are factually correct. Moreover, the  recommendations we made in the draft report were based on the  deficiencies we found in the Commission’s management practices.  16.  We do not agree that the draft report implied that a flow of financial  information from the staff director to the commissioners is  inappropriate. In fact, the concern the draft highlights is that  information is centralized around the staff director, creating a situation  that precludes appropriate checks and balances.  17.  We believe that the Commission’s internal communication policy was  an appropriate aspect of Commission operations for us to review. As  noted in our draft report, some commissioners, as well as senior  Commission managers, told us they believe that the current policy  stifles communication and productivity within the agency and creates  an environment of uneasiness. Moreover, the Commission’s policy  limiting direct commissioner and staff interaction is not consistent  with sound management principles of highly effective organizations.
Finally, we do not believe the longevity of a policy justifies its  existence when the need for change becomes apparent.  18.  While it is true that the Commission has several large dollar  agreements with other agencies, these agreements are not contracts  awarded pursuant to the FAR, and our review did not extend to them.  Our review was limited to an examination of how well the Commission  used its contracting authority for purchases above the micro-purchase  threshold. Our review focused on the extent to which the Commission  complied with regulatory requirements applicable to these  procurements.  19.  When we requested a list of all contracts for which the Commission  budgeted or paid funds against in fiscal year 2002, the Commission  provided us with a list of 11 contracts and orders awarded by the  Commission. The staff director correctly points out that we requested  and received information on a 12th  contract that was entered into in  fiscal year 2003. This contract was specifically brought to our attention  by our requester, but fell outside the timeframe we included in our  scope. The draft has been corrected to show 11 contracts reported by  the Commission as ongoing in fiscal year 2002. The change in the  number of contracts we are reporting on did not affect in any manner  our findings or conclusions.  20.  Our draft report has been revised to report 11 as the number of  contracts that the Commission listed to us that it entered into in fiscal  year 2002. The Commission noted in a letter accompanying the list,  however, that its list of contracts did not include the Commission’s  day-to-day administrative contracts, such as those for court reporters,  temporary support services, and meeting room rentals. In discussions  with the staff director and the acting chief, Administrative Services and  Clearinghouse Division, we were told, as the staff director restates  here, that these administrative contracts were modest and done  through small scale purchase orders below the micro-purchase  threshold. We noted in our draft report that we did not include these  contracts in our review.  21.  We disagree with the staff director’s conclusion, and the logic used to  reach that conclusion, that the Commission’s contracting practices are  currently sound. We recognize that the Commission has undertaken  many other contracting actions. We did not include these in our  analysis because of the reasons stated in comments 18 and 20. Our  review of the 11 contracts provided to us reveals that the Commission  did not follow proper procedures for the majority of these contracts,  that is, all 7 above the micro-purchase threshold.  22.  We refer the staff director to the list of 11 contracts provided to us  earlier in our review, 7 of which were of amounts exceeding the micro- purchase threshold. The Commission, in addition to lacking  documentation on whether some contracts were competed, could not  provide documentation to support that publicity requirements were  met for other purchases, nor in the absence of such documentation,  written justifications from contract files that would explain why those  requirements were not met.  23.  The staff director acknowledges that the Commission could improve  its recordkeeping and documentation procedures in terms of contract  maintenance. He indicates that we erroneously state that the  Commission did not compete its media services contract. In fact, our  report states that the Commission could not document that it  competed the initial media services contract. Without such  documentation, we cannot ascertain whether or not this or certain  other contracts at the Commission were, in fact, competed. We believe  documentation deficiencies constitute a material breach of proper  contracting activities.  24.  The staff director’s comments support our finding that documentation  deficiencies were found across the contracts we reviewed. To the  extent that an unfamiliarity with specific requirements contributed to  the deficiencies, our draft recommendation for greater controls,  including the need for qualified personnel to oversee contracting  activities, becomes underscored.  25.  We continue to believe that the Commission did not follow proper  procedures in awarding any of its contracts over the micro-purchase  threshold, and that this condition limited the Commission’s ability to  obtain the benefits of competition. Concerning the 2 contracts  specifically mentioned in the staff director’s comments, we found that  the Commission did in fact send out requests for quotations; however,  it could not document that it had met other regulatory requirements,  such as the requirements for publicizing proposed contract actions  that serve to ensure that the vendor community is made aware of an  agency’s need for services. By not doing so, the Commission limited  the potential pool of bidders because other vendors were likely  unaware of the contract and therefore did not have the opportunity to  submit bids.  26.  We continue to believe that the manner in which the Commission  obtained media services from the Federal Supply Schedule was not  consistent with GSA’s established ordering procedures. While it is true  that the GSA has clarified its regulation language to make clear its  intent that soliciting from three vendors is mandatory, the staff  director in his comments ignores the requirements in those earlier  regulations to prepare an RFQ, transmit the request to contractors, and  evaluate the responses before selecting the contractor to receive the  order. We maintain that even the earlier version of GSA’s regulation  was sufficiently clear in its requirement to solicit quotes from more  than one vendor.  27.  For the reasons cited in comments 28 and 30, we do not agree that we  imposed subjective and arbitrary criteria when assessing the  soundness of the Commission’s contracting activities.  28.  While the Commission’s concern for small, traditionally disadvantaged  and women-owned businesses is laudable, it does not provide a license  for circumventing established contracting regulations and procedures  to achieve these ends. We are aware of the Small Business  Administration’s 8(a) program. Having elected not to pursue the 8(a)  program, however, it was incumbent upon the Commission to adhere  to procedures governing its choice of procurement vehicles. The  regulations do not state nor imply that agencies promoting small  disadvantaged or women-owned businesses in government  procurement may dispense with the other requirements, such as the  requirement to solicit multiple bids. Moreover, we note that OMB  Circular A-76 does not encourage contracting out but merely  establishes procedures for public-private competition.  29.  We disagree. The Commission’s relationship with its media services  vendor has evolved into a de facto annual award. In addition, for fiscal  year 2003, the contract had a maximum value of $156,000. We did not  request records from the Commission in attempt to tally a fiscal year  2003 total of funds actually spent. We did, however, tally a fiscal year  2002 total of funds spent on the media services contract and found that  $131,225 was spent on a “not-to-exceed” limit of $140,000. We have  added a footnote in the report section to clarify this point.  30.  We disagree with the staff director’s belief that our findings are  subjective and erroneous. We continue to believe that it is important to  provide written performance-based requirements documents and do  not believe that simplified acquisition procedures preclude this need.  31.  As our draft report stated, written performance-based requirements  documents can help ensure contractors’ work against measurable  standards.  32.  For the 7 contracts we reviewed with amounts above the micro- purchase threshold, the Commission did not provide contractors in  writing with specific task orders, instead providing oral information on  tasks to be performed. For example, for its largest contract (media  services), a broad statement of work with little detail was written to  accompany the order. The staff director told us that he meets regularly  with the contractor to discuss specific tasks under the order. As we  state in comment 31, without written performance-based requirements  documents, contractors’ work products cannot be successfully  evaluated in a transparent manner.  33.  The Commission does not maintain written information on specific  work tasks communicated to the vendor, expected timeframes for  specific tasks to be performed, or the definition or description of how  tasks were to be performed. Rather, the work reports that the staff  director refers to consisted of several press releases, meant to  illustrate activities performed by its media services vendor and copies  of vendor invoices that showed tasks such as, media outreach/story  placement, faxing, planning and consultation, etc., for which the  Commission was billed. We continue to believe that the Commission  cannot effectively assess contractor performance based on the  documentation we were provided.  34.  The staff director recognizes that the Commission has experienced  significant turnover with regard to its contracting personnel. Yet he  disagrees with our characterization that the Commission’s current  personnel are not sufficiently qualified in certain areas of contracting.  The problems identified in this report should alert the Commission to  the necessity of improving its contracting support or to look for  outside assistance in this area.  35.  To conduct our review, we relied upon the extensive legal and  technical assistance available within our agency. When issues arose  during our interviews that required either GAO or Commission officials  to conduct additional analysis, then a follow-on discussion usually  transpired. We stand behind the findings reported in the draft report.
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Dennis Gehley made significant contributions to this report, in all aspects  of the work throughout the review. In addition, Caterina Pisciotta assisted  in gathering and analyzing information and in writing a section of the  report; Lori Rectanus was instrumental in developing our overall design  and methodology; Corinna Nicolaou assisted in report and message  development; Julian Klazkin and Robert Ackley provided legal support;  and Ralph Dawn and H. Kent Bowden provided specialized assistance in  the areas of contract and financial management.