Contract Management: Minimal Compliance with New Safeguards for Time-and-Materials Contracts for Commercial Services and Safeguards Have Not Been Applied to GSA Schedules Program
Published: 2009-06-24T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Federal agencies have used time-and-materials (T&M) contracts to purchase billions of dollars in services. These contracts are risky because the government bears the risk of cost overruns. Effective February 2007, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) was revised, pursuant to a statutory change, to allow T&M contracts to be used to acquire commercial services under FAR Part 12, which uses a streamlined procurement process. Certain safeguards were included in FAR Part 12, including a requirement that contracting officers prepare a detailed determination and findings (D&F) that no other contract type is suitable. Based on a mandate to review the use of T&M contracts for commercial services, we assessed (1) agencies' reported use of such contracts and what they acquired, (2) the degree to which agencies complied with the new safeguards, and (3) the applicability of the safeguards to General Services Administration (GSA) schedule contracts. GAO reviewed contracts and orders at DOD and civilian agencies and spoke with contracting officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: From February 2007 to December 2008, agencies reported using commercial item procedures under FAR Part 12 to buy a variety of services through T&M contracts; examples include emergency nursing services on Indian reservations and gunsmith services for the FBI. The reported value of these contracts was $4.4 billion--or less than 1 percent of the total federal dollars obligated for services during this period. Of the $4.4 billion, $3.1 billion had gone through GSA's schedules program. GAO identified about another $6 billion, in addition to the $3.1 billion, in T&M obligations for commercial services under GSA schedule contracts. The reliability of the data reported as T&M contracts using FAR Part 12 procedures is questionable. Of the 149 contracts GAO reviewed, 28 had been miscoded as acquiring commercial services or as T&M contracts. Another issue that indicates a potential underreporting of T&M contracts for commercial services is that contracting officials across the agencies had the mistaken impression that the fixed labor rate in T&M contracts makes these contracts fixed-price. GAO raised this issue with officials from the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP)--chair of the federal acquisition regulatory council--who agreed that clarification on what constitutes a fixed-price versus labor hour contract would be beneficial. Further, GAO found that contracting officials had different opinions of what generally constitutes a commercial service. Some viewed services intended to meet a specific government requirement as noncommercial, while others viewed similar services as commercial. The Part 12 D&F was rarely used for the contracts GAO reviewed. The D&F must incorporate four elements, such as a description of the market research conducted. Of 82 contracts reviewed that were explicitly subject to this D&F requirement, only 5 included all the required elements, and 9 partially met the requirement. Of the remaining contracts, 33 had no D&F at all and 35 included the less stringent D&F applicable to noncommercial T&M services. GAO found a general lack of awareness of the Part 12 D&F requirement at the agencies in this review. Agencies' internal management and legal reviews generally did not detect the failure to include the D&F. OFPP officials expressed concern about the lack of compliance with the D&F requirement. The Part 12 D&F requirement has not been applied to the GSA schedules program. GSA officials stated that the GSA Administrator has discretion about what procedures apply to the program. In a legal opinion to GAO on whether the statutory changes regarding T&M contracts for commercial services apply to the schedules program, GSA concluded that the applicability is uncertain but stated that existing regulations satisfy concerns about use of T&M under the schedules program. GAO notes that these regulations do not require the same level of detailed analysis as does the Part 12 D&F. Further, there is no indication that the statutory requirements cannot apply to items or services under the schedules program. GSA officials said they are in the process of developing a Part 12 D&F for the entire schedules program, but it is not clear how this D&F will act as a safeguard when T&M orders are used.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Time-and-materials (T&M) and labor-hour contracts are used to purchase  billions of dollars in services across the federal government. Under these  contracts, payments to contractors are based on the number of labor  hours billed at a fixed hourly rate—which includes wages, overhead,  general and administrative expenses, and profit—and the cost of materials  if applicable. These contracts are considered high risk for the government  because the contractor’s profit is tied to the number of hours worked.  Thus, the government bears the risk of cost overruns. The cost growth on  T&M and labor-hour contracts can be significant; we and agency  inspectors general have reported numerous instances in which the costs  grew to more than double the original value—in one case a contract  increased to almost 19 times the original price. Although these contracts  may be appropriate in certain circumstances, we reported in 2007 that  contracting officers used this contract type for ease and flexibility in the  face of unclear requirements or funding uncertainties and did not  adequately determine, as required, that no other contract type was  suitable.
Until recently, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) prohibited use of  any other contract type except fixed-price for the acquisition of  commercial items. Under FAR procedures for acquisition of commercial  items and services, government agencies can acquire goods or services via  a streamlined procurement process based on the idea that market forces  will help ensure good prices.  The question of whether or not T&M  contracts could be used for commercial services had been the subject of  debate and an issue of some contention. Proponents believed that  increased use of T&M contracts for commercial services would encourage  more commercial firms to compete for government business, while others,  such as the Department of Defense Inspector General, opposed expanded  use of this high-risk contract type. In 2003, the Services Acquisition  Reform Act (SARA) explicitly provided that the FAR shall include  authority for the use of T&M contracts for the procurement of commercial  services. Part 12 of the FAR, “Acquisition of Commercial Items,” was  subsequently amended, effective February 2007, to reflect this change.
The FAR Part 12 revisions included procedural safeguards to ensure that  T&M contracts for commercial services are used only when no other  contract type is suitable and that cost growth is monitored due to the  inherent risks to the government of this contract type. Contracting  officers using FAR Part 12 procedures to buy commercial services under  T&M contracts are required to conduct additional, more detailed analysis  than is required when buying noncommercial services using T&M  contracts. For example, the contracting officer must prepare a detailed  justification, called a determination and findings (D&F), to explain why no  other contract type is suitable for the procurement. The justification is  required to contain several elements, including a discussion of market  research conducted for the procurement and a description of actions  planned to maximize the use of fixed-price contracts on future  acquisitions for the same requirements. Additionally, the contracting  officer is to include in the contract a ceiling price, which the contractor  exceeds at its own risk, and any subsequent change in the ceiling price  may be made only after the contracting officer determines that such a  change is in the best interest of the procuring agency.
The Part 12 D&F requirement is not explicitly mentioned in FAR Subpart  8.4, which sets forth procedures pertaining to the General Services  Administration’s (GSA) federal supply schedules program. Under the  schedules program, GSA establishes long-term, governmentwide contracts  for commercially available goods and services, under which federal  agencies can issue orders. Even prior to the February 2007 changes to the  FAR, GSA had schedule contracts under which agencies were issuing T&M  orders for commercial services. According to GSA, it allowed this practice  based on its interpretation of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of  1994 (FASA), which provided that fixed-price contracts be used to the  “maximum extent practicable” for acquisition of commercial items and  was silent on whether T&M contracts could be used.
The Conference Report for the National Defense Authorization Act for  Fiscal Year 2004 directed us to report on the use of T&M contracts for  commercial services across government agencies. Accordingly, we (1)  identified the extent to which agencies have reported using T&M contracts  and GSA schedule T&M orders for commercial services and what they are  acquiring using this contract type, (2) evaluated the degree to which  agencies complied with the FAR Part 12 safeguards, and (3) determined  the applicability of the safeguards to the GSA schedules program.
To identify the extent to which agencies have acquired commercial  services under T&M contracts and orders and to determine what services  they are buying, we analyzed obligations coded in the Federal  Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) as having used  commercial item procedures, i.e., FAR Part 12 procedures. We selected  those agencies with the greatest reported use of this contract type during  the period from October 1, 2001, to June 30, 2008. Our primary focus was  on contracts outside of the GSA schedules program because the FAR Part  12 D&F requirement was explicitly applicable to those contracts.  However, because the FPDS-NG data showed that a large percentage of  the reported dollars and actions were through GSA schedule orders (under  FAR Subpart 8.4), we also reviewed T&M orders issued under GSA  schedule contracts at each agency in our review. Further, based on data  reported in FPDS-NG, we reviewed a limited number of T&M contracts for  commercial services that had been awarded prior to the February 2007  changes to FAR Part 12 commercial procedures to better understand the  circumstances of those procurements. In total, we reviewed 149 contract  files. At the Department of Defense (DOD), we selected one location for  each military service with high reported obligations for T&M commercial  services. Our sample represents all of the T&M contracts for commercial  services reported in FPDS-NG at the Departments of Justice (DOJ), Health  and Human Services (HHS), and Veterans Affairs (VA), as well as the  National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) during the  October 2001 to June 2008 time period. These 5 agencies represent 97  percent of obligations coded as T&M contracts awarded using commercial  item procedures from October 2001 to June 2008.
To corroborate that the contracts in our sample were T&M and that  commercial services were acquired as indicated in FPDS-NG, we reviewed  the contracts and orders for commercial or T&M clauses and other  contract documentation as necessary, or, when documentation was not  sufficient, spoke with the contracting officer. To determine the  government’s use of T&M contracts for commercial services relative to its  obligations for services as a whole, we analyzed FPDS-NG data from  February 12, 2007 (when the new FAR rule was implemented) to  December 31, 2008.
To determine the degree to which agencies’ use of T&M contracts for  commercial services complied with the FAR Part 12 D&F requirement, we  reviewed contract files and interviewed over 100 contracting and  procurement policy officials. We requested and received a legal opinion  from GSA as to whether the statutory change allowing the use of T&M  contracts for commercial services and the FAR D&F requirement are  applicable to the GSA schedules program. Appendix I contains additional  details on our scope and methodology and our sample. We conducted this  performance audit from September 2008 to June 2009, 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: Federal agencies can choose from among several different contract types,  including T&M contracts, to acquire products and services. This choice is  the principal means that agencies have for allocating cost risk between the  government and the contractor. The government’s basis for payments,  contractor’s obligations, and the party assuming more risk for cost  overruns changes depends upon the type of contract used—fixed-price,  T&M, or cost-reimbursement.
T&M contracts constitute a high risk to the government. The contractor  provides its best efforts to accomplish the objectives of the contract up to  the maximum number of hours authorized under the contract. Each hour  of work authorizes the contractor to charge the government an established  labor rate which includes profit. These contracts are considered high risk  for the government because the contractor’s profit is tied to the number of  hours worked. Thus, the government bears the risk of cost overruns.   Therefore the FAR provides that appropriate government monitoring of  contractor performance is required to give reasonable assurance that  efficient methods and effective cost controls are being used. Further,  because of the risks involved, the FAR directs that T&M contracts may  only be used when it is not possible at the time of award to estimate  accurately the extent or duration of the work or to anticipate costs with  any reasonable degree of confidence. For many years, federal regulations  have required contracting officers to justify in writing that no other  contract type (such as fixed-price) is suitable before using a T&M  contract.
Commercial services comprise services for support of commercial items  and services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial  quantities in the commercial marketplace based on established catalog or  market prices. During the 1990s, Congress enacted a number of laws to  increase the government’s use of commercial practices to make  government buying more efficient. The benefits of using commercial  practices were seen as creating greater access to commercial markets  (products and service types) with increased competition, better prices,  and new market entrants and/or technologies. Commercial acquisition  practices also present several advantages to contractors when doing  business with the government, such as generally not being required to  submit cost or pricing data. While the acquisition procedures in FAR Part  12 for purchasing commercial services allow for a streamlined process,  prices are accepted based on competition and availability in the  marketplace rather than the government’s review of a contractor’s cost  and pricing data. Improperly classifying an acquisition as commercial can  leave the government vulnerable to accepting prices that may not have  been established by the marketplace.
FASA authorized the use of fixed-price contracts for the acquisition of  commercial items, but it did not explicitly authorize the use of T&M  contracts for such acquisitions. SARA specifically authorized the use of  T&M contracts for the acquisition of commercial services with certain  safeguards to ensure proper use of these contracts. The implementing  regulations included additional requirements as safeguards under FAR  Part 12.
Table 2 summarizes the FAR safeguards when using T&M contracts under  FAR Part 12 acquisition procedures for commercial items; under FAR Part  16, acquisition procedures for noncommercial services; and under FAR  Subpart 8.4, GSA schedule contracts.
The FAR Part 12 revisions also added safeguards for agencies using T&M  pricing on indefinite-delivery contracts for commercial services.  Specifically, indefinite-delivery contracts for commercial services awarded  using Part 12 procedures may allow for the use of fixed-price or T&M  orders, and contracting officers are required to execute the Part 12 D&F  for each order placed on a T&M basis. If the contract only allows for the  issuance of orders on a T&M basis, the Part 12 D&F is required to be  executed to support the basic contract and also explain why using an  alternative fixed-price structure is not practicable. The D&F for this type  of contract is required to be approved one level above the contracting  officer. By contrast, the section of FAR Part 16 pertaining to T&M services  does not explicitly address the D&F requirement for indefinite-delivery  contracts.
Concerns by DOD and Congress over the increased use of T&M contracts  have sparked some actions to curb DOD’s use of T&M in general and for  the acquisition of commercial services in particular. In June 2007, we  reported that DOD’s use of T&M contracts had steadily increased and that  contracting officials frequently failed to ensure that this contract type was  used only when no other contract type was suitable. Little effort had  been made to convert follow-on work to a less risky contract type when  historical pricing data existed, despite guidance to do so. Based on our  recommendations for improved oversight, DOD’s Defense Procurement  and Acquisition Policy office, in March 2008, began requiring military  departments and defense agencies to establish procedures for analyzing  whether T&M contracts and orders under indefinite-delivery contracts are  used when other contract types are suitable. Each department or agency  was to provide an assessment of the appropriate use of T&M contracts for  any contracting activity that obligated more than 10 percent of its total  fiscal year 2007 obligations for services using T&M contracts or orders.  The assessment was to include actions that will be taken to reduce the use  of T&M contracts whenever possible.
Further, the Acquisition Improvement and Accountability Act of 2007  required DOD to revise its acquisition regulation to require contracting  officers to determine in writing that the offerer has submitted sufficient  information to evaluate price reasonableness for commercial services that  are not offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the  commercial marketplace but are “of a type” offered and sold competitively  in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace. The act also  specifies that DOD’s revised regulation shall ensure that the procedures  applicable to T&M contracts for commercial services may be used only for  the following:  services procured for support of a commercial item;  emergency repair services;  any other commercial services only to the extent that the head of the  agency approves a determination in writing by the contracting officer  that  the services to be acquired are commercial services;  the offeror has submitted sufficient information to evaluate  the price reasonableness of the services, if they are not  offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in  the commercial marketplace;  such services are commonly sold to the general public  through use of T&M or labor-hour contracts; and  the use of a T&M or labor-hour contract type is in the best  interest of the government.
We did not assess DOD’s compliance with these provisions because they  have not yet been implemented.
section_title: Federal Agencies Have Reported Limited Use of T&M Contracts for Commercial Services but Reliability of Data Is in Doubt
paragraphs: Federal agencies have reported relatively limited use of T&M contracts  and GSA schedule T&M orders to purchase commercial services, based on  those obligations coded in FPDS-NG as using T&M contracts and orders  under commercial item procedures. From February 12, 2007, when the  FAR change that allowed T&M acquisitions for commercial services was  implemented, to December 31, 2008, $4.4 billion—less than 1 percent of  total federal obligations for services—was reported.
Figure 1 presents information on the total reported obligations for services  (i.e., commercial and noncommercial) compared to obligations coded as  (1) having acquired commercial services, (2) as T&M contracts for  services, and (3) as T&M contracts for commercial services from February  12, 2007, to December 31, 2008. (.5% of total)
Obliation coded a T&M contract for commercial ervice $4. billion (0.% of total)
The vast majority of the $4.4 billion in obligations coded as T&M for  commercial services were for services actually acquired under GSA  schedule contracts ($3.1 billion). The FPDS-NG user manual defines  commercial item procedures as those that use FAR Part 12 acquisition  procedures, but our analysis of FPDS-NG data showed that these orders  had been issued through FAR Subpart 8.4, pertaining to GSA schedule  contracts, and thus had been miscoded based on the definition in the user  manual. Although our overall focus was on nonschedule T&M orders for  commercial services, we identified additional obligations under T&M  orders placed on GSA schedule contracts. From February 2007 to  December 2008, approximately $6 billion of the $47.6 billion in obligations  coded as T&M contracts were through the GSA schedule program, in  addition to the $3.1 billion that had been miscoded as having used FAR  Part 12. Thus, the full picture of the government’s use of T&M for  commercial services for this time period was approximately $10.4 billion— about 90 percent of which was under GSA schedule contracts.
Agencies reported purchasing a variety of commercial services using T&M  contracts and orders during this time period. The top 10 types of  commercial services reported as purchased using T&M contracts were as  shown in table 3.
Our sample of 149 contracts and orders provides additional details on the  variety of commercial services procured under T&M contracts. For  example:    The Army purchased patent legal services for inventions resulting from  biomedical, chemical, and other research.
The Indian Health Service, within HHS, entered into a contract for  emergency nursing services and inpatient nursing services for a  healthcare center.
The Navy contracted for repair services for a Navy vessel undergoing  overhaul at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard.
The VA purchased project management services for its MyHealtheVet  Web site, which provides access to health information, tools, and  services.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) purchased certified  gunsmith services to repair and perform preventative maintenance on  firearms.
NASA entered into a contract for translation, interpretation, visa  processing, and logistical support services.
subsections: section_title: Errors, Misunderstandings, and Differing Opinions Cast Doubt on Reliability of Reported Data
paragraphs: Maintaining accurate data is an essential component of good oversight and  helps lead to informed decisions. In our sample of T&M contracts for  commercial services, we found that the quality of the data reported in  FPDS-NG was compromised in several ways.
First, 28 of the 149 contracts and orders in our sample from October 1,  2001, to June 30, 2008, were incorrectly coded in FPDS-NG. Our review of  the contract files revealed that 19 were coded as having acquired  commercial services when they did not, and 10 were coded as T&M  contracts when they were fixed-price, as shown in table 4.
Several of the contracting officers we interviewed attributed these  miscodings to errors made during input of data into the federal  procurement data system. For example, the Air Force had planned to  establish indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts for advisory and  assistance services using FAR Part 12 acquisition procedures for  commercial services. However, because cost-reimbursement orders were  contemplated under the contracts—which the FAR prohibits for  commercial services—the Air Force decided not to award the contracts  using FAR Part 12 acquisition procedures. Agency officials stated that the  contracts were then mistakenly coded as having used acquisition of  commercial item procedures.
In addition, we found that T&M contracts for commercial services may be  underreported based on a misunderstanding about contract type among  contracting officials in most of the government agencies in our review.  Some contracting officers had the incorrect belief that the fixed labor rate  component of T&M contracts renders them fixed-price.  In fact, some  contracts in our sample were referred to in the contract file as “firm fixed  price labor hour,” a contract type that does not exist. Despite the fact that  labor rates are fixed under T&M contracts, the overall ceiling price is not a  firm, fixed price because the contractor will be paid based on the number  of hours worked (up to the ceiling price). Some contracting officers  acknowledged having coded other similar contracts outside of those in our  sample as fixed-price, thus potentially understating the use, and correlated  risk to the government, of T&M contracts. Following are some examples  that highlight contracting officials’ confusion about fixed-price versus  labor-hour contracts (even though these contracts in our sample had been  correctly coded as labor-hour).
Contracting officers at HHS’s Indian Health Services stated that  although a few of their contracts for medical professionals had been  coded as labor-hour, these contracts were typical of the contracts they  usually code as fixed-price. One contracting officer explained that if  the hours are reasonably well known in advance—“shift labor,” for  example—then the estimated hours written into the contract are  considered fixed-price. However, another contracting officer explained  that Indian Health Services pays contractors for actual hours worked,  regardless of the estimate written into the contract.
A contracting officer at HHS’s Program Support Center told us that a  contract in our sample, for maintenance and repair services, had  mistakenly been entered as a labor-hour contract in FPDS-NG. He  believed it should have been coded as fixed-price because the dollars  obligated reflected a fixed hourly rate multiplied by the hours worked,  but later conceded that the contract was actually a labor-hour  contract.
An FBI contracting officer maintained that a labor-hour contract in our  sample, for gunsmith services, should have been coded as fixed-price  because the labor rate was fixed. The contract purchases the services  of one person to repair and maintain firearms for FBI training teams.  Although the contract requires these services during “normal business  hours” 5 days a week, it also allows the contractor to bill for  preapproved overtime when necessary and includes a maximum  number of hours to be billed on the contract.
When we raised this confusion about contract type with officials from the  Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), they agreed that  clarification to the contracting community on what constitutes a fixed  price versus a labor hour contract would be beneficial.
We also spoke with contracting officers about how they generally define a  service as commercial and found that individuals had different opinions  about whether or not certain services are commercial, which may be  contributing to issues with data reliability in FPDS-NG.  Many  contracting officers defined a commercial service as being readily  available in the commercial marketplace. However, several officials told  us that in certain cases, a service could reasonably be considered either  commercial or noncommercial. For example, a DOD official stated that a  contract for aircraft repair services could be considered either a  commercial or noncommercial purchase depending on the contracting  officer’s interpretation. On the other hand, Air Force officials we spoke  with view aircraft maintenance—even on military aircraft—as  predominantly commercial since aircraft mechanics are broadly available  commercially. Some contracting officers stated they would consider  services that require specific knowledge of government requirements to be  noncommercial. For example, a DOJ procurement policy official told us  that although a contracting officer used FAR Part 12 commercial  acquisition procedures to award a contract for technical services,  including the installation of modules for DOJ’s financial management  system (one of the T&M contracts in our sample), he did not consider the  service to be commercial because it was specific to DOJ’s needs. He cited  a contract for trash pick-up as an example of a commercial contract. In  another example, a Navy contracting officer explained that although the  majority of her purchases are for commercial items or services, if a  purchase is completely exclusive to the Navy—such as for equipment used  on submarines or Navy ships—she would consider it noncommercial.
In addition, although all services available on the GSA schedule are  described as commercial in the FAR, we found cases where agencies  ordering these services did not consider them to be commercial. GSA  officials confirmed that they consider everything under the schedules  program to be commercial, even if items or services are slightly modified  to meet specific requirements. However, they acknowledged that if  significant modifications are made, the items ordered may be out of scope  of the underlying GSA contract. The following are some examples from  our review where agency officials used the GSA schedules program but  considered the procurement to be noncommercial.
At one Air Force location, contracting officers told us that they did not  consider any of their seven GSA orders in our sample, such as an order  for program management and technical support for the Air Force’s  telecommunications monitoring and assessment program, to be  commercial. They only discovered that these orders were being  automatically coded in FPDS-NG as having used commercial  procedures when we identified them in our sample for review.
NASA had purchased environmental management and safety support  services under a GSA schedule contract, but, according to NASA  contracting officers, the actual services ordered were so technical and  specialized that they did not consider them to be commercial services.  They had used the GSA schedule primarily to identify qualified  commercial vendors who could perform this specialized work.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) at HHS issued  an order under a GSA schedule contract for the design and build of a  knowledge management system for CMS’s Center for Beneficiary  Services. According to the contracting officer, because the system was  custom-designed for CMS, it is not commercial.
section_title: FAR Safeguards for T&M Contracts for Commercial Services Rarely Used
paragraphs: Under FAR Part 12, T&M contracts or orders may be used to acquire  commercial services if the contracting officer executes a D&F which sets  forth sufficient facts and rationale to justify that no other contract type is  suitable. At a minimum, the D&F must:  1. include a description of the market research conducted;  2.  establish that it is not possible at the time of placing the contract or  order to accurately estimate the extent or duration of the work or to  anticipate costs with any reasonable degree of certainty;  3.  establish that the requirement has been structured to maximize the use  of fixed-price on future acquisitions for the same or similar  requirements; and  4.  describe actions planned to maximize the use of fixed-price contracts  on future acquisitions for the same requirements.
Of the 149 contracts and orders in our sample, 82 were subject to this D&F  requirement. Of these 82 contracts and orders, only 5 had a FAR Part 12  D&F that addressed each required element. No D&F had been prepared for  many of the contracts and orders. Further, for almost half of the contracts  and orders, contracting officials had improperly used the less rigorous  Part 16 D&F instead of the Part 12 D&F for commercial services. We found  a general lack of awareness of the Part 12 D&F requirement at the  agencies in our review. Many contracting officials, including some policy  officials, across the agencies in our review were unfamiliar with this Part  12 safeguard. We raised this issue with officials from OFPP, who were  concerned at the general lack of compliance with this key safeguard  pertaining to T&M contracts for commercial services.
Table 5 sets forth the breakdown of D&Fs for the 82 contracts and orders  in our sample that were subject to the Part 12 D&F.
In some cases, contracting officers had incorrectly concluded that a D&F  was not necessary. For example, two contracting officers at the Navy told  us that they did not complete a D&F because they did not believe  contracts below the simplified acquisition threshold required a D&F— which is inconsistent with the FAR.  In another instance, an Air Force  contracting officer who had included Part 12 D&Fs in two contracts in our  sample executed only a Part 16 D&F for a third contract because he  believed that a Part 12 D&F was not required for a simplified acquisition.
The nine D&Fs in our sample that had some but not all of the discrete  elements required by FAR Part 12 typically omitted a description of the  market research conducted or actions planned to maximize use of fixed- price contracts for future acquisitions for the same or similar services. For  example, one D&F for a DOJ contract for consulting services for the  National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, awarded on a sole-source  basis, included information on the services needed but did not describe  the market research conducted. The D&F states that neither the scope of  work nor the contractor’s level of effort can be determined with a degree  of accuracy necessary to develop a reliable cost estimate on which to base  a fixed-price award. It further states that the work entails professional and  other administrative services for which no reliable specifications exist,  and the precise method of accomplishment cannot be established in  advance. However, the D&F does not describe actions planned to  maximize the use of fixed-price contracts on future acquisitions for the  same requirements.
The five FAR Part 12 D&Fs we found that addressed all the required  elements included the rationale for a T&M contract and discussed how  future requirements could potentially shift to a fixed-price contract. For  example, in preparing a D&F for a Navy contract for the overhaul and  repair of naval vessels, contracting officials not only described the market  research, but thoroughly documented the market survey performed,  including a description of applicable services provided by potential  bidders in the marketplace. They also described how they would employ  fixed pricing for stable labor expenses and monitor the volatility of other  labor categories to determine if the services could be purchased on a  fixed-price basis in the future. In another example, at HHS, a contracting  officer completed a Part 12 D&F for a contract for less than 6 months of  network administrative support services. The D&F stated that the market  research had identified an 8(a) company to provide the services. It also  explained that the requirement had been structured to maximize fixed  pricing by limiting the period of performance and that there was no  anticipated need for this service to continue in the future. In yet another  example, at the Air Force, the contracting officer prepared a complete Part  12 D&F for a contract for intelligence support services that addressed all  of the required elements. The D&F explained that a small business was  identified as the best option for the procurement and described the  outcome of the market research conducted. Further, the D&F stated that  information obtained from the procurement would be used to develop  fixed pricing for future procurements, which would be better defined and  more concise.
In addition to a more detailed D&F, the FAR also requires the contracting  officer to document that each change to the ceiling price of a T&M  contract for commercial services is in the best interest of the procuring  agency. In general, the contracts in our sample that were subject to the  FAR Part 12 requirements did not have increases in the ceiling price.  However, in the instances where an increase did occur, contracting  officers did not always follow the FAR requirement. A contract at HHS for  financial services management more than doubled in value over the  original “estimated not-to-exceed” cost. No written justification was  provided for why this increase was in the best interest of the procuring  agency. The contracting officer stated that the not-to-exceed amount on  the contract was only an estimate and had not identified a separate ceiling  price—which is required by the FAR Part 12. On the other hand, some  contracts with ceiling price increases did include a description of why the  increase was necessary. For example, we reviewed three orders at the  Army for patent legal services that documented why ceiling price  increases were necessary—which was essentially due to a change in the  acquisition strategy for obtaining these services. After establishing a  multiple award contract with 23 vendors, contractors were asked to  submit proposals to complete ongoing work that, according to contracting  officials, was previously purchased on government credit cards. In one  case, a task order increased from approximately $100,000 to $500,000  because the contractor had initially misunderstood the request for  proposals and submitted a proposal for only a limited scope of work; it  subsequently revised its proposal to address all of the Army’s stated  requirements. In another example at the U.S. Marshals Service, the ceiling  price on a contract for aircraft maintenance services increased from  $250,000 to $400,000 through three successive modifications, and all the  modifications included a detailed description of the need for additional  funds.
subsections: section_title: Agency Training and Contract Review Processes Did Not Include FAR Part 12 Safeguards
paragraphs: Clear guidance and training are needed to successfully introduce and  implement changes to regulations. The DOD offices we visited were the  only locations in our review that provided general training seminars or  guidance on the changes to FAR Part 12 permitting the use of T&M  contracts for commercial services, but none provided written guidance or  training on the more detailed D&F requirement. Navy contracting officials  recognized this omission during our visit and subsequently provided  additional training to their contracting officials. Army officials told us  that they had discussed the new D&F requirement in a meeting with  contracting officers but had not issued any written guidance. None of the  civilian agencies in our review had provided formal guidance or training to  their contracting officers on the safeguards.
Officials who were aware of the Part 12 safeguards frequently found out  through their own initiative. For example, in our sample of 17 HHS  contracts subject to the FAR Part 12 D&F requirement, 2 contained partial  D&Fs and 1, issued by the Program Support Center, contained all of the  D&F elements. The contracting officer responsible for the complete D&F  indicated that he became aware of the D&F requirement through his own  FAR research and had not received guidance from headquarters. The other  2 partial Part 12 D&Fs were issued by another HHS component, the Food  and Drug Administration. The head of contracting who signed these D&Fs  said that she had also learned of the Part 12 D&F requirement by  researching the FAR. At DOJ, officials at the Office of Justice Programs  explained that they became aware of the FAR Part 12 D&F requirement  through a paid subscription for updates to a contract checklist from an  outside vendor. When awarding a contract for consulting services, a  contracting officer from that office prepared a Part 12 D&F in the file, but  it did not address all of the required elements. Several contracting officials  at different agencies noted that their contracting staff is very overworked  or inexperienced, which may have contributed to the general lack of  awareness of the new D&F requirement.
Internal controls, such as contract reviews, administered by informed  agency personnel can also help ensure that policies and processes are  translated into practice. In some cases, the contracts in our sample had  been reviewed by staff, including legal officials, who did not detect that  the required Part 12 D&Fs were missing. For example, while six of the  eight contracts at the Air Force were reviewed by attorneys or contract  management officials, five contract files still contained the incorrect Part  16 D&F rather than the Part 12 D&F for commercial acquisitions. At the  Navy, one attorney reviewing a contract file identified the need to include  the Part 12 D&F, but another attorney reviewing a different Navy contract  failed to do so. In another example at NASA, an attorney and associate  division chief had reviewed the contract and did not identify that the Part  12 D&F was missing, but the associate division chief did inquire as to  whether part of the work could be fixed-price. In other cases, contract  reviews either failed to ensure that any D&F was included in the contract  file or there was no evidence that reviews of the acquisition approach had  occurred. Four of the five VA contracts we reviewed were subject to  internal reviews by VA technical and legal staff based on factors such as  value and contract type, yet none contained a D&F of any type. At the  Army location we visited, there was no indication that the contracts’  acquisition approach had been reviewed, and most of the contracts in our  sample contained the Part 16 D&F or had no D&F at all. However, this  Army contracting activity updated its internal contract review checklist in  December 2008, after our visit, to include a reference to the Part 12 D&F  requirement.
Our review of contract files and interviews with agency officials further  revealed that awareness of the new D&F requirement even varied among  the staff of a single contracting office. For example, three T&M contracts  for commercial services were issued during a 6-month period by U.S.  Marshals Service contracting officials for aircraft maintenance and pilot  services in Puerto Rico. One contract file contained a partial Part 12 D&F,  one contained a Part 16 D&F, which is less rigorous, and the third had no  D&F.
section_title: FAR Part 12 Safeguards Have Not Been Applied to GSA Schedules Program
paragraphs: The vast majority of reported obligations for commercial services acquired  through T&M contracts went through GSA’s schedules program from  February 2007 to December 2008, but the FAR Part 12 D&F requirement  has not been applied to the use of schedule contracts. The February 2007  revisions to FAR Part 12 did not specifically address the applicability of  the D&F provisions to GSA schedule contracts or orders issued under  them. Further, the section of the FAR that governs ordering procedures  for GSA schedules contracts does not refer to the Part 12 D&F  requirement to either make it explicitly applicable or inapplicable as it  does with other FAR provisions.  GSA has not incorporated the D&F  requirement in its own acquisition manual, for use by its contracting  officers, and has not instructed ordering agencies to comply with the Part  12 D&F requirement when issuing T&M orders under its schedule  contracts. For example, the Part 12 D&F is not discussed in GSA’s  ordering guidance for schedule contracts or in the frequently asked  questions on the schedules program Web site. Accordingly, there is  uncertainty in the contracting community about the extent to which the  Part 12 D&F is required for schedule orders. Our file review revealed that  only 2 of the 19 GSA orders we reviewed that were awarded after the  February 2007 FAR changes contained the Part 12 D&F. Eleven of the  orders contained the less rigorous FAR Part 16 version which would be  properly used in conjunction with the purchase of noncommercial services  using T&M contracts, and 6 had no D&F, as shown in table 6.
Further, the FAR Part 12 requirement to document ceiling price changes  on T&M contracts is not included in FAR Subpart 8.4, which pertains to  schedule purchases. We found a few GSA orders at the VA location we  visited that had ceiling price increases with no documentation on why the  increase was in the best interest of the VA. For example, one order for  information technology support services increased from $3.5 million to  almost $4.8 million with minimal explanation as to why this increase  occurred.
GSA policy officials told us that the statutory authority that created the  schedules program is unique and allows the administrator the flexibility to  decide what procedures to apply to the schedules program. They noted,  however, that they were planning to issue a procurement information  notice in the spring of 2009 to put in place a Part 12 D&F for the entire  GSA schedules program. It is not clear how this D&F will address the  specific elements required by Part 12 of the FAR, or how it will act as a  safeguard to ensure that each agency using GSA’s schedule contracts has  made the necessary determination that no other contract type is suitable.
On March 6, 2009, we requested a legal opinion from GSA on the  applicability of FASA section 8002(d), as amended by section 1432 of  SARA, and the implementing FAR section 12.207(b) D&F requirement to  the GSA schedules program. In its April, 15, 2009, response, GSA stated  that the statutory language of FASA is not explicit and is unclear regarding  applicability of the FASA provisions to the GSA schedules program, and  therefore concluded that applicability is uncertain with regard to T&M  commercial services contracts and orders under the program.  In this  regard, GSA recognized congressional concerns expressed regarding the  use of T&M contracts for commercial services, which in some cases have  led to inefficient and costly procurements. Specifically, GSA recognized  the concern of the Senate Armed Services Committee that T&M  commercial services contracts “are potentially subject to abuse because . .  . it  very difficult to ensure that prices are fair and reasonable.” GSA  stated, however, that it “has exercised the agency’s authority over the  Schedules program to create safeguards so as to mitigate the issues  presented by T&M commercial services contracts” and that existing  provisions in the GSA Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) and FAR Subpart 8.4  “satisfy any concerns about the use of T&M orders in the Schedules  program.”
It is not apparent to us that the regulations cited by GSA provide the  government with risk mitigation equivalent to that provided by the Part 12  D&F requirement that T&M contracts will only be used when no other  contract type is suitable. For example, GSA points to the FAR Section 8.4  requirement for the ordering activity to document the rationale for using  other than a firm-fixed price order for services.  This documentation  requirement is minimal, requiring only the “rationale” for using other than  a firm-fixed price order rather than the more detailed rationale required in  FAR Part 12 to demonstrate that there is no other suitable contract type.  GSA also points to two existing price reasonableness requirements as  safeguards: (1) the GSAR requirement that before a schedule contract is  awarded, the GSA contracting officer must determine that the prices  offered are fair and reasonable and (2) the FAR requirement that the  ordering activity contracting officer must consider the level and mix of  labor proposed and determine that the total price of the schedule order is  reasonable.  Again, these provisions do not address the more detailed  rationale required in FAR Part 12.
We see no reason why the concerns which led Congress to require the Part  12 safeguards for the use of T&M contracts would be any less compelling  in those instances in which an agency proposes to use a GSA schedule to  obtain commercial services on a T&M basis. GSA did not provide any  rationale why T&M contracts and orders for commercial services should  be treated differently under the GSA schedules program, or be subject to  fewer safeguards than those purchased outside of the GSA schedules  program where the more heightened FAR section 12.207 requirements  would be required. Further, we note that in section 8002(d) of FASA, as  amended, there is no indication that the D&F requirement cannot apply to  the purchase of any commercial item or service to include items or  services available for purchase under the GSA schedules program.
section_title: Conclusion
paragraphs: The FAR Part 12 D&F requirement for the use of T&M contracts to acquire  commercial services helps to ensure that this contract type is used only  when no other contract type is suitable and to instill discipline in the  determination of contract type with a view toward managing the risk to  the government. The general lack of awareness of this requirement among  contracting officers across all agencies in our review—more than 2 years  after its implementation—coupled with the failure of management to  detect the lack of compliance with this key safeguard suggests that further  actions are necessary. In addition, miscoding of labor-hour contracts as  fixed-price, when based on a misunderstanding about this contract type,  potentially understates the risk to the government. Further, the fact that  the safeguards put in place by Congress are not applied to GSA schedule  contracts or orders raises concerns that the safeguards are not being used  for the vast majority of T&M contracts for commercial services. When  these safeguards are not used, the government may be assuming more risk  than necessary.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help ensure that the risks associated with T&M contracts are  understood and that safeguards are followed and to ensure consistency in  the use of T&M contracts regardless of which part of the FAR authorizes  their use, we recommend that the Administrator of the Office of Federal  Procurement Policy take the following three actions:  amend FAR Subpart 16.6 (T&M, Labor-Hour and Letter Contracts)  and FAR Subpart 16.2 (Fixed-Price Contracts) to make it clear that  contracts with a fixed hourly rate and an estimated ceiling price  are T&M or labor-hour contracts, not fixed-price-type contracts  and  amend FAR Subpart 8.4 (pertaining to the GSA schedules program)  to explicitly require the same safeguards for commercial T&M  services—i.e., the FAR Part 12 D&F and the justification for  changes to the ceiling price—-that are required in FAR section  12.207.
Provide guidance to contracting officials on the requirements in FAR  section 12.207 for the detailed D&F for T&M or labor-hour contracts  for commercial services and encourage agencies to provide training  regarding the D&F requirement.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We requested comments on a draft of this report from OFPP, NASA, HHS,  GSA, DOD, VA, and DOJ. In oral comments on a draft of this report,  OFPP’s Acting Administrator concurred with our recommendations.  In  written comments, included in appendix II, NASA stated that the report  provides a balanced view of the issues. HHS also provided written  comments. Although our recommendations were directed at OFPP, HHS  stated that it agrees with them and outlined several steps it is taking to  reinforce the need for its acquisition community to comply with  requirements for T&M and other contract types. HHS’s comments are  included in appendix III. In comments provided via e-mail, DOD’s Director,  Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, concurred with our findings  related to DOD contracts.  The Director stated that DOD fully supports the  objectives of promoting awareness and compliance with existing  requirements related to the safeguards employed to ensure that T&M  contracts are used only when justified.
GSA, DOJ, and VA provided no comments.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees; the Secretaries of Defense, Justice, Veterans Affairs, and  Health and Human Services; the Administrators of the General Services  Administration, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, and NASA. In  addition, this report will also be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site  at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report or need additional  information, please contact me at (202) 512-4841 or huttonj@gao.gov.  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public  Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.  Staff  acknowledgements are provided in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of this review were to assess (1) the extent to which  agencies have reported using time-and-materials (T&M) contracts and  General Services Administration (GSA) schedule T&M orders for  commercial services and what they are acquiring using this contract type,  (2) the degree to which agencies complied with the FAR Part 12  safeguards and (3) the applicability of these safeguards to the GSA  schedule program. To address these objectives, we identified through the  Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) all  reported T&M contracts and orders—including GSA schedule orders—that  were coded as using commercial item acquisition procedures from  October 1, 2001, to June 30, 2008. We then selected five federal  departments to review—based primarily on their high-dollar obligations  and high numbers of contract actions—which represent 97 percent of total  obligations coded as T&M contracts awarded using commercial item  procedures for this time period:    Department of Defense (DOD)    Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)    Department of Justice (DOJ)    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)    Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
While the focus of our engagement was non-GSA contracts awarded after  the February 2007 changes to the FAR, we also reviewed some GSA orders  and contracts awarded by selected defense and civilian agencies prior to  the FAR changes to get a better understanding of the circumstances of  those procurements—such as whether the contracts were miscoded. We  corroborated contract file information by interviewing over 100  contracting and policy officials at all of the selected agencies.
subsections: section_title: Army
section_title: Air Force
paragraphs: Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Agency,  Lackland Air Force Base; San Antonio, Texas    Air Combat Command Acquisition Management and Integration Center,  Langley Air Force Base, Virginia (Contracts at this location were awarded  prior to the FAR change)
section_title: Navy
paragraphs: Fleet Industrial Supply Center, Norfolk; Norfolk, Virginia; Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania; Portsmouth, New Hampshire; Millington, Tennessee; and  Great Lakes, Illinois.
At the Army’s Medical Research Acquisition Activity, we randomly  selected 20 non-GSA schedule contracts awarded after the February 2007  FAR Part 12 change, 5 non-GSA contracts awarded prior to the FAR  change, and 5 GSA schedule orders issued after the FAR change. Ten of  the 20 non-GSA contracts were indefinite-delivery contracts and 2 were  blanket purchase agreements. For these, we reviewed 13 T&M orders  under the indefinite-delivery contracts and 3 orders that had been placed  under 1 of the blanket purchase agreements. At the Navy, we reviewed all  of the non-GSA schedule contracts awarded during our selected time  period of October 1, 2001, to June 30, 2008, which included 20 contracts  awarded after the FAR change and 5 awarded prior to the FAR change.  We also reviewed 5 randomly selected GSA schedule orders that were  awarded after the FAR change. At Lackland Air Force Base, we reviewed  all non-GSA schedule contracts reported as T&M using commercial items  acquisition procedures, including 1 awarded prior to the FAR change. We  reviewed all 7 GSA schedule orders awarded after the FAR change that  were reported as using T&M contracts for commercial services. At Langley  Air Force Base, which had the largest obligations reported as T&M  contracts for commercial services prior to the enactment of the Services  Acquisition Reform Act in November 2003, we selected and reviewed 2  non-GSA T&M orders awarded prior to November 2003 that had been  recently modified to better understand the circumstances of these  contracts. These 2 orders turned out to have been miscoded in FPDS-NG  as having used commercial items acquisition procedures.
section_title: Department of Justice
section_title: Health and Human Services
section_title: Veterans Affairs
paragraphs: Cleveland Business Center; Cleveland, Ohio    Acquisition Management Section; Austin, Texas  Table 7 contains details about the distribution of our contract sample  across the agencies in our review.
To identify the extent to which agencies have reported using T&M  contracts and GSA schedule orders for commercial services, we used  FPDS-NG data to determine the obligations reported as T&M awarded  using FAR Part 12 commercial items acquisitions procedures between  February 12, 2007, when the FAR change authorizing T&M contracts for  commercial services went into effect, and December 31, 2008. We  compared this figure to total reported federal obligations for services,  obligations coded as having acquired commercial services, and obligations  coded as T&M contracts and orders during the same time period in order  to demonstrate the relative magnitude of T&M contracts for commercial  services. We discovered that many GSA schedule orders for T&M services  had been miscoded as having used FAR Part 12 procedures (when they  had actually used procedures under FAR Subpart 8.4) and brought this  issue to the attention of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy officials.  To determine the full picture of T&M obligations for commercial services,  we identified GSA schedule T&M orders that had not been coded as having  used commercial item procedures. We also used FPDS-NG data to assess  what proportion of the total reported T&M contracts for commercial  services was purchased through the GSA schedules program.
To test the reliability of FPDS-NG data, we used information from the  contract file and discussions with contracting officials. We confirmed that  a contract was used to acquire commercial services by reviewing the  contract for relevant commercial clauses (52.212-4—Contract Terms and  Conditions—Commercial Items) and other contract file documentation— such as the acquisition plan or the standard contract form for commercial  item acquisitions (SF 1449)—that indicated that commercial services were  purchased. In some cases, in which the evidence in the files was not  sufficient to make this determination, we confirmed that commercial  services were acquired by speaking with the contracting officer. To  confirm that a contract was T&M, we reviewed relevant contract  documentation such as contract line item notations (CLIN) and invoices,  spoke with contracting officers, and applied FAR descriptions of T&M or  labor-hour contracts. To identify the types of services agencies are  acquiring using T&M contracts for commercial services, we used FPDS-NG  data to identify the top 10 commercial services purchased under T&M  contracts from February 12, 2007, to December 31, 2008. We also analyzed  the statements of work from selected contracts in our sample to provide  more detailed examples of the types of services agencies are acquiring  using these contracts.
When we discovered that some contracting officers had mistakenly  interpreted the fixed labor rate component of T&M contracts to mean that  these contracts are fixed-price type contracts, we decided to review a  nonrepresentative sample of contracts labeled as fixed-price in FPDS-NG  that were coded for the same types of services as the T&M contracts for  commercial services identified in our sample. Using DOD’s electronic  database, we conducted a preliminary review of 60 DOD contracts that  had been coded as fixed-price contracts and selected 16 that possibly  could have been T&M, based primarily on our interpretation of language in  the contract that suggested that the contract was not fixed-price. To  confirm whether these contracts were T&M, we spoke with contracting  officials and requested additional contract documentation for 10 contracts  at Lackland Air Force Base and 6 managed by the Fleet and Industrial  Supply Center at Norfolk Naval Base. Of these 16 contracts, 3 were  confirmed to be incorrectly coded as fixed-price in FPDS-NG due to data  entry errors, and should have been coded as T&M contracts.
To determine the degree to which agencies’ use of FAR Part 12 to acquire  T&M services complies with the safeguards as incorporated in the FAR,  we reviewed the contract files for our sample contracts. Specifically, we  assessed: 1) whether the files contained a determination and findings  (D&F) stating that no other contract type is suitable; 2) if applicable, the  extent to which the D&F included FAR Part 12 or Part 16 requirements for  T&M contracts; and 3) whether ceiling price increases included written  documentation from the contracting officer that they were in the best  interest of the procuring agency. We determined that a D&F met all the  criteria if it made reference to FAR Section 12.207 and at least mentioned  all of the required elements. For example, if a D&F stated the outcomes of  the market research conducted but did not describe the research  conducted, we still gave credit for having addressed the requirement in  FAR Section 12.207 to describe the market research conducted. A partial  Part 12 D&F included some but not all of the four required elements. We  also reviewed federal and agency-specific acquisition guidance and  regulations.
To determine the applicability of these safeguards to the GSA schedules  program, we reviewed GSA’s ordering guidance to agencies and to its own  contracting officers and interviewed GSA policy and legal officials. We  also sent a letter on March 6, 2009, to GSA’s General Counsel seeking an  opinion on the applicability of Section 8002(d) of FASA, as amended, and  FAR Section 12.207 to the GSA schedules contracts. We received a  response on April 15, 2009. Finally, we reviewed relevant past GAO and  Inspectors General reports on T&M contracts and commercial contracts  for context.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to June 2009,  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.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from NASA
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements
subsections: section_title: Acknowledgements
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Michele Mackin, Assistant  Director; Nicholas Alexander; Keya Chateauneuf; and Tatiana Winger  made key contributions to this report. Marie Ahearn, Arthur James, Jr.,  Julia Kennon, and Kenneth Patton also made contributions.