Bureau of Prisons: Methods for Cost Estimation Largely Reflect Best Practices, but Quantifying Risks Would Enhance Decision Making
Released: 2009-11-10T00:00:00

Letter

BOP Estimates Costs for Its Annual Budget Using Three General Steps

When developing its annual budget submission, BOP uses three general steps to estimate costs for its two budget accounts—the Salaries and Expenses account (known as its operational budget) and its Buildings and Facilities account. First, BOP estimates cost increases for maintaining the current level of services for operations as provided in the prior year’s enacted budget. These include costs to address mandatory staff pay raises and benefit increases, inmate medical care, and utilities. BOP primarily analyzes historical obligations from the past five years to identify average annual operating cost increases. BOP also considers economic indicator information to estimate general inflationary cost increases, using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index, among other sources.

Second, BOP projects inmate population changes for the budget year and for several years into the future. BOP uses a modeling program that identifies each inmate as a unique record tied to variables such as conviction year, sentence term, and conviction type, with data obtained from a variety of sources, including the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. The model identifies the number of inmates currently in BOP’s system and the length of those inmates’ sentences, as well as the number of inmates estimated to enter the BOP system and the length of their sentences. For example, for the fiscal year 2010 annual budget submission, BOP projected a net growth in its inmate population of 4,500 inmates.

Third, BOP estimates costs to both house the projected number of new inmates, including building and facility requirements, and fund any new initiatives. According to BOP, a rising inmate population is the primary driver of new service costs (see figure 1 for graph showing federal inmate population growth from fiscal years 2000 through 2009). Thus, for any budget year, BOP uses inmate population projections to determine the necessary bedspace to house additional inmates. BOP estimates these associated incarceration costs by (1) determining how to distribute the incoming prisoners across newly activated facilities, existing facilities, or contract facilities; and (2) calculating staffing and other operational costs to manage the additional inmates at its facilities. BOP also identifies and estimates costs for new initiatives, such as the activation of a new BOP facility, by reviewing the proposals submitted by its divisions and regional offices, as well as historical data on costs for implementing such initiatives.

For its Buildings and Facilities account, BOP identifies new program costs associated with new construction and maintenance and repair of existing facilities. Using its long-term inmate population projections, BOP considers new construction proposals based on need, funding, and the anticipated speed of construction. BOP estimates construction costs largely by using analogous building costs for similar security level facilities, as well as considering assumptions, such as the rate of inflation and when potential construction would begin. BOP ranks maintenance and repair proposals by assigning safety the highest priority and estimates costs based on information it obtains from a construction cost estimation company.

BOP’s Methods for Estimating Costs Largely Reflect Best Practices

BOP’s methods for estimating costs in its annual budget requests to DOJ largely reflect the best practices outlined in GAO’s Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide. Specifically, BOP followed a well-defined process for developing a mostly comprehensive, well documented, accurate, and credible cost estimate for fiscal year 2008. For example, BOP used relevant historical cost data and considered adjustments for general inflation when estimating costs for its budget request to DOJ. Moreover, BOP’s methods for projecting inmate population changes have been largely accurate. For example, we found BOP’s projections were accurate, on average, to within 1 percent of the actual inmate population growth from fiscal year 1999 through August 20, 2009.

We identified two areas where BOP could strengthen its methods for estimating costs in its annual budget submission. First, according to best practices described in GAO’s Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide, it is better for decision makers to know the range of potential costs that surround an estimate and the reasons behind what drives that range rather than just having a point estimate from which to make their decision. An uncertainty analysis provides a range of costs that span a best and worst case spread. While not required by OMB or DOJ in annual budget development guidance, conducting an uncertainty analysis of this kind is a best practice. BOP has not conducted an uncertainty analysis, and therefore has not quantified the level of confidence associated with its cost estimate. By providing the results of such analysis to DOJ, BOP officials could share advance information on the probability and associated risks of operating expenses exceeding enacted funding levels— a situation BOP faced in fiscal year 2008.

Second, during our review of documentation for BOP’s fiscal year 2008 cost estimate, we sometimes required the guidance of BOP budget analysts to identify backup support. This was because the documentation BOP provided was insufficient to allow someone unfamiliar with the budget to locate detailed corroborating data. For example, in reviewing BOP’s fiscal year 2008 cost estimate for a health service initiative related to expanding kidney dialysis treatment for inmates, we required a budget official’s assistance in locating supporting formulas used to calculate the estimate. Best practices for cost estimation include providing enough detail so that the documentation serves as an audit trail that allows for clear tracking of cost estimates over time. By documenting all steps for developing its budget cost estimate, BOP would be better positioned to recreate its estimates in the event of attrition within its budget office among those who developed initial budget cost estimates.

In providing feedback on our initial findings, BOP budget officials indicated that taking these steps would strengthen their methods for estimating costs in their annual budget submission to DOJ.

Costs for Key Operations Have Exceeded the Funding Levels Requested in the President’s Budget in Recent Years

BOP’s costs for key operations to maintain basic services, such as those for inmate medical care and utilities, exceeded the funding levels requested in the President’s budget from fiscal years 2004 through 2008, limiting BOP’s ability to manage its growing inmate population. During this period, BOP’s annual non-salary inmate medical care and utilities costs exceeded funding levels in the President’s budget request by a total of about $131 million and $55 million, respectively, largely due to inflation and inmate population growth.

According to BOP, from fiscal years 2004 through 2008, BOP’s annual non-salary inmate medical care costs increased by a total of about $146.5 million. In contrast, during this period, the President’s budget requested funding increases for non-salary inmate medical care totaling approximately $15.4 million.

According to BOP, from fiscal years 2004 through 2008, BOP’s annual utilities costs increased by a total of $87 million. In contrast, during this period, the President’s budget requested funding increases for utilities totaling approximately $31.6 million.

Table 1 compares BOP’s rates of annual cost growth due to inflation and inmate population growth with the President’s budget requests for funding for non-salary inmate medical care and utilities from fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

When BOP has not received funding to cover the operational cost increases it has incurred, in some years it has used Salaries and Expenses funding planned for other areas to cover these costs. For example, one of BOP’s highest priorities is to increase staffing levels of corrections officers. However, BOP officials reported using Salaries and Expenses account funds initially planned for hiring additional corrections officers in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 to instead cover base operations cost increases related to inmate medical care, utilities, and personnel salary and benefit adjustments that were unfunded in the President’s budget requests.

As with any other DOJ component, BOP’s budget requests are governed by DOJ and OMB budget development guidance. For example, DOJ budget development guidance for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 required components to limit cost growth for current services to no more than 4 percent greater than prior year levels. DOJ reported that this guidance was a general instruction given to all components, but recognized that BOP is different because its costs are less discretionary since BOP does not control the number of inmates for which it must care. In this way, DOJ reported that it did not automatically reject budget submissions from BOP that exceeded the cap, but instead required BOP to submit substantive information to justify need.

DOJ also reported that OMB does not automatically provide funds for inflationary cost increases. DOJ cited OMB policy stating that inflationary adjustments for discretionary costs (such as utilities) can include some, all, or no allowance for inflation. DOJ officials reported that OMB typically does not include general inflationary adjustments that DOJ submits on behalf of BOP.

Nonetheless, DOJ has reported to OMB that other DOJ components could reduce operations, implement across-the-board hiring freezes, and implement policy changes that would reduce costs if faced with funding shortfalls similar to what BOP has faced in its operations budget. However, DOJ reported that BOP has already implemented significant reductions to programs and streamlined and centralized administrative functions to eliminate 2,300 positions. DOJ also reported that BOP has limited flexibility because almost all of BOP’s operational costs are devoted to staff salaries and provision of services. According to BOP data, in fiscal years 2007 and 2008, 99.5 percent of BOP’s Salaries and Expenses budget was fixed for its operations for paying staff salaries and providing services to house and care for the inmate population.

Conclusions

In each of the last 2 fiscal years, BOP has needed additional funding to meet its operating costs for managing its growing inmate population. However, we found that BOP’s cost estimation methods largely reflect GAO’s cost estimating best practices. Furthermore, BOP officials reported, and DOJ officials acknowledged, that BOP has already implemented significant reductions in operations costs, such as by eliminating positions and centralizing administrative functions. Given BOP’s unique responsibility for managing this population, and its limited discretion when costs for key operations exceed funding levels, it is especially important for BOP to develop accurate cost estimates and clearly convey to decision makers the potential risk of costs exceeding funding levels.

In light of these circumstances, BOP’s budget cost estimation practices could be strengthened in two ways. First, although BOP is not required to report in its annual budget submission the extent to which actual costs may be expected to vary from cost estimates, we have identified the provision of an uncertainty analysis as a best practice. If BOP identified its level of cost estimation confidence and provided this information to DOJ, DOJ could more fully understand the range of potential costs—and the potential need for more funding—if estimating assumptions for key cost drivers, such as inmate population growth, do not hold true.

Second, by improving documentation of all steps for developing its cost estimate, BOP would be better positioned to re-create its estimates in the event of attrition within its budget office among those who developed initial cost estimates.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve transparency in BOP’s cost estimation process, as well as DOJ’s annual budget formulation and justification process, and to provide DOJ with more detailed information to consider when deliberating its budget proposal for BOP, we recommend that the Attorney General take the following two actions: instruct the BOP Director to require the BOP budget staff to conduct an uncertainty analysis quantifying the extent to which operations costs could vary due to changes in key cost assumptions and submit the results along with budget documentation to DOJ so that DOJ could be aware of the range of likely costs and BOP’s associated confidence levels; and instruct the BOP Director to require the BOP budget staff to improve documentation of calculations used to estimate its costs.

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to DOJ for its review and comment. The BOP Director provided written comments on this draft and concurred with our findings and recommendations. BOP stated that including the results of an uncertainty analysis in the budget document would provide DOJ, OMB, and Congress better context for decision making and stated that it would include such analysis in preparation of its 2012 budget submission. BOP also stated that if time permits, it would work with DOJ and OMB to incorporate an uncertainty analysis into the President’s 2011 budget. BOP’s comments are reproduced in appendix II.

We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General and interested congressional committees. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

Should you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9627 or by e-mail at maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.

Appendix I: Briefing Slides to Congressional Staff

Briefing Overview

Conclusions Recommendations Agency Comments Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

To assess the reliability of the information we obtained about BOP's

methods for estimating costs for its annual budget submission, we compared the documents BOP provided supporting its budget estimates for fiscal years 2004 to 2008 with information contained in the President's budget request for BOP for those years to determine the consistency of the information.

We also interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about controls in place to maintain the integrity of (1) inmate population and sentenced offender data BOP used to populate its inmate population projection model for fiscal years 1999 to 2009 and (2) data on annual operations costs BOP reported between 2004 and 2008, including inmate medical care and utilities. As a result, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2009 to September 2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the work to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives.

To improve transparency in BOP’s cost estimation process, as well as DOJ’s annual budget formulation and justification process, we plan to make two recommendations to the Attorney General

1. instruct the BOP Director to require BOP budget staff to conduct an uncertainty analysis quantifying the extent to which operational costs could vary due to changes in key cost assumptions—and submit the results, along with budget documentation, to DOJ so that DOJ can be aware of the range of possible costs and BOP's confidence levels associated with each point along the range; 2. instruct the BOP Director to require the budget staff to improve documentation of calculations used to estimate its costs.

DOJ and BOP generally agreed with our findings and provided technical comments, which we integrated into our findings as appropriate.

Through the multi-phase federal budget formulation process, BOP is required to identify resource requirements and estimate costs for its annual budget request to DOJ. This process is guided by OMB, which makes decisions on executive agencies’ budgets and submits them as the “President’s Request” to Congress. Key steps in this process involve:

Figure 1

BOP’s appropriated budget is comprised of the Salaries and Expenses (S&E) and Buildings and Facilities (B&F) accounts.

The S&E account—known as BOP’s operations budget—includes sub-accounts covering costs for staffing; medical care; food; and utilities, such as water and gas. In fiscal year 2009, staffing costs for employee salaries comprised about 60 percent of this account.

The B&F account has sub-accounts covering costs for design and construction of new facilities and modernization and repair (M&R) of existing facilities.

S&E expenses have accounted for the vast majority of BOP’s annual enacted budget from fiscal years 1999 through 2008—averaging about 90 percent.

The President’s fiscal year 2010 budget request for BOP’s S&E and B&F accounts totals $6.1 billion, which is 23 percent of DOJ’s $26.7 billion budget.

Figure 2 compares the President’s request for BOP to its enacted funding levels from fiscal year 1999 through 2009, and figure 3 shows the composition of the President’s request (S&E versus B&F) for BOP over the same period.

Figure 2

Figure 3

A 2005 BOP study found that an increase in crowding levels or inmate to

staff ratios leads to an increase in serious violence among inmates.8 As of August 1, 2009, BOP reported being staffed at 34,829—about 88 percent of its authorized Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staffing level of 39,692. About half of its authorized positions are for corrections officers.

Figure 4 compares BOP S&E staffing levels to its inmate population beginning in fiscal year 2000.

Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, The Effects of Crowding and Staffing Levels in Federal Prisons on Inmate Violence Rates (Washington, D.C., 2005).

Figure 4

First, BOP estimates cost increases for maintaining the level of services— operational costs—provided in the prior year’s enacted budget for the S&E account.

These costs include adjustments to address mandatory staff pay raises and benefit increases, inmate medical care, and utilities across BOP’s 115 facilities.

BOP primarily analyzes historical obligations from the last 5 years to identify average annual operating cost increases.

BOP also considers economic indicator information to estimate general inflationary cost increases, using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index and other sources.

Second, BOP projects inmate population changes for the budget year, and for 9 years into the future.

BOP uses a modeling program that identifies each inmate as a unique record tied to variables such as conviction year, sentence term, and conviction type.

BOP’s model uses data and information from a variety of sources, including the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys to identify Number of inmates currently in prison and the length of their sentences, and Number of inmates estimated to enter prison and the length of their sentences.

For the fiscal year 2010 annual budget submission, BOP projected a net growth of 4,500 inmates.

Third, BOP estimates costs to both house the projected number of new inmates, including building and facility requirements, and fund any new initiatives.

According to BOP, a rising inmate population is the primary driver of new service costs.

For the budget year, BOP uses inmate projections to determine necessary bedspace to house additional inmates.

For future years, BOP uses inmate projections to plan for long term capacity needs, including new construction and arrangements for contract confinement.

BOP estimates the associated incarceration costs by (1) determining how to distribute incoming prisoners across newly activated facilities, existing facilities, or privately operated facilities, and (2) calculating staff and other operational costs at each facility type.

BOP identifies and estimates costs for new initiatives/program increases, such as activation of a new BOP prison facility, by reviewing the proposals submitted by its divisions and regional offices, and historical data.

Using its long term population projections, BOP considers new construction

proposals based on need, funding, and the anticipated speed of construction.

BOP estimates construction costs (for new prisons or expansions to existing facilities) largely by using analogous building costs for similar security level facilities. Cost estimates are also based on assumptions, including the rate of inflation and when construction will begin.

M&R project proposals are ranked by assigning safety the highest priority, with lesser importance given to improving accessibility and updating facilities more than 50 years old. BOP estimates costs for replacement values through information it obtains from a construction cost estimation company.

Since fiscal year 2005, OMB has placed a moratorium on new BOP prison construction because OMB has focused on contracting with private prisons to address bedspace needs. However, BOP has identified new construction plans and included proposals for new construction as part of its capacity plan.

As table 1 illustrates, we found that BOP’s methods for estimating costs met

one and substantially met three of these four practices. The following explains the definitions we used in assessing BOP’s methods for estimating costs in its annual budget submission to DOJ: Met – BOP provided complete evidence that satisfies the entire criterion; Substantially Met – BOP provided evidence that satisfies a large portion of the criterion; Partially Met – BOP provided evidence that satisfies about half of the criterion; Minimally Met – BOP provided evidence that satisfies a small portion of the criterion; Not Met – BOP provided no evidence that satisfies any of the criterion.

DOJ officials reported being satisfied with BOP’s cost estimation methods, noting that they could not identify any area needing improvement.

Best practice

Satisfied?

Credible

The cost estimates should discuss any limitations in the analysis performed due to uncertainty surrounding data or assumptions. Further, the estimates’ derivation should provide for varying any major assumptions and recalculating outcomes based on sensitivity analyses, and their associated risks/uncertainty should be disclosed. Also, the estimates should be verified based on cross-checks using other estimating methods and by comparing the results with independent cost estimates.

Comprehensive

The cost estimates should include both government and contractor costs over the program’s full life cycle, from the inception of the program through design, development, deployment, and operation and maintenance to retirement. They should also provide an appropriate level of detail to ensure that cost elements are neither omitted nor double counted and include documentation of all cost-influencing ground rules and assumptions.

Consistent with best practices, BOP used relevant historical cost data and considered adjustments for general inflation when estimating costs for its fiscal year 2008 budget request to DOJ, and its methods for projecting inmate population have been largely accurate.

Non-salary inmate medical care costs refer to the amount BOP spent on pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, and outside medical care (community hospital services and a portion of guard escort service and a portion of salaries (overtime).

Figure 5

Table 2

We reviewed BOP’s fiscal year 2008 budget request to DOJ and supporting

documentation and found budget officials had documented the formulas they used to calculate cost elements for new initiatives, such as activation-related costs for a new prison facility planned to open in the budget year. In some cases, however, we required the guidance of BOP budget analysts to identify backup support because the documentation was insufficient to allow someone unfamiliar with the budget to locate detailed corroborating data. For example, in reviewing BOP’s fiscal year 2008 cost estimate for a health service initiative related to expanding kidney dialysis, we required a budget official’s assistance in locating supporting formulas used to calculate the estimate. Best practices include providing enough detail so that the documentation serves as an audit trail to allow for clear tracking of cost estimates over time.

Documenting all steps for developing its cost estimate would better position BOP to recreate its estimates in the event of attrition within its budget office among those who have developed initial cost estimates.

Consistent with best practices, BOP performed independent government cost estimates related to constructing new prisons and used historical data to estimate key operational costs, including utilities and inmate medical care, and its calculations and results substantially met characteristics for credibility.

BOP performed cross-checks by benchmarking new estimates against historical data, such as by estimating medical care costs based on cost obligations in recent years and developed numerous risk analyses and impact scenarios of funding cuts.

Although not required to do so by OMB or DOJ annual budget development guidelines, BOP did not perform an uncertainty analysis consistent with best practices to quantify the risk associated with changes to various assumptions that drive its cost estimates.Major assumptions include the inmate population projection; inflation indices for medical care and utilities; and annual salary increases.

Such an analysis would help provide DOJ, Congress, and other stakeholders with information to determine the probability that costs for key operations, such as inmate medical care and utilities, may exceed funding levels requested in the President’s budget.

Consistent with best practices, BOP detailed pertinent costs related to its S&E and B&F accounts across sub-accounts. This level of detail helped ensure that no cost elements were omitted or double counted in its budget request submission to DOJ, and that BOP’s calculations and results substantially met characteristics for comprehensiveness.

BOP relied on ground rules and assumptions, such as using inmate population projections to drive cost estimates for capacity needs and using historical obligation trends to estimate growth for utilities and inmate medical care costs.

However, as noted earlier, BOP did not determine risk distributions for all assumptions, which would enable it to perform an uncertainty analysis for key cost elements.

Objective 3 – To what extent have BOP’s costs for key operations

exceeded requested funding levels in the President’s budget in the last five fiscal years, and how has this affected BOP’s ability to manage its growing inmate population?

Costs for key operations to maintain basic services, such as those for inmate medical care and utilities, have exceeded the funding levels requested in the President’s budget over the past five fiscal years, and this has limited BOP’s ability to manage its growing inmate population.

From fiscal years 2004 through 2008, the funding levels requested in the President’s budget for BOP have been insufficient to cover annual cost growth for maintaining existing services, including inmate medical care and utilities. Moreover, population adjustment funding—necessary to cover expenses associated with housing a growing inmate population in BOP- operated facilities—has not consistently been included in the President’s budget, with BOP receiving no funding adjustments in some years.

As a result, BOP has faced funding gaps in its operations account that has left it with limited flexibility to manage its continually growing inmate population.

Objective 3 – Costs to Maintain Key Operations and Accommodate a Growing Inmate Population Have Exceeded Funding Levels Requested in the President’s Budget

BOP’s annual cost growth to maintain key operations exceeded annual funding adjustments requested in the President’s budget from fiscal years 2004 through 2008. For example, during this time, costs for non-salary inmate medical care and utilities exceeded funding levels by about $131 million and $55 million, respectively. BOP attributed the cost growth to inflation and inmate population growth.

Medical care costs: From fiscal year 2004 through 2008, BOP’s annual non-salary inmate medical care costs increased by about $146.5 million. In contrast, during this period, the President’s budget requested funding cost adjustments for non-salary inmate medical care totaling about $15.4 million.

In fiscal year 2008, non-salary inmate medical care and utilities costs were $430.5 million and $234 million, respectively.

Objective 3 – Costs to Maintain Key Operations and Accommodate a Growing Inmate Population Have Exceeded Funding Levels Requested in President’s Request

Utilities costs: From fiscal year 2004 through 2008, BOP’s annual utilities costs increased by a total of $87 million. In contrast, during this period, the President’s budget requested funding cost adjustments for utilities costs totaling about $31.6 million.

Table 3 compares the rates of BOP’s average annual cost growth for non- salary inmate medical care and utilities to average rates of annual funding adjustments requested in the President’s budget, from fiscal year 2004 through 2008.

Table 3

Inmate medical care (non-salary)

Objective 3 – Costs to Accommodate a Growing Inmate Population and Maintain Staffing Levels Have Exceeded Funding Adjustments Requested in the President’s Budget, According to BOP

As with any other DOJ component, BOP’s budget requests are governed by

standard DOJ and OMB budget development guidance.

For example, DOJ budget development guidance for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 instructed components to limit cost growth for current services to no more than 4 percent greater than prior year levels.

DOJ reported that the 4 percent cap guidance is a general instruction given to all components but recognizes that BOP is different because its costs are less discretionary. Furthermore, DOJ reported that it did not automatically reject budget submissions from components that exceeded the cap, but instead required components to submit substantive information to justify need.

In each of the last 2 fiscal years, BOP has needed additional funding

to meet its operating costs.

However, we found that BOP's cost estimation methods either met or substantially met GAO’s cost estimating best practices.

Further, BOP officials report, and DOJ officials acknowledged, that BOP has already implemented significant reductions in programs by eliminating positions and centralizing administrative functions. In addition, the current level of overcrowding within BOP facilities presents an already serious safety challenge. Given BOP’s unique responsibility for managing this population, it has limited discretion when costs for key operations exceed funding levels.

Second, by improving documentation of all steps for developing its cost

estimate, BOP would be better positioned to recreate its estimates in the event of attrition within its budget office among those who have developed initial cost estimates.

To improve transparency in BOP’s cost estimation process, as well as DOJ’s

annual budget formulation and justification process, and to provide DOJ with more detailed information to consider when deliberating its budget proposal for BOP, we recommend that the Attorney General of the United States take the following two actions: instruct the BOP Director to require the BOP budget staff to conduct an uncertainty analysis quantifying the extent to which operations costs could vary due to key cost assumptions changing and submit the results along with budget documentation to DOJ so that DOJ could be aware of the range of likely costs and associated confidence levels; and instruct the BOP Director to require the BOP budget staff to improve documentation of calculations used to estimate its costs.

We provided a draft of this report to DOJ and BOP for review and comment. We also verbally described our findings and proposed recommendations to DOJ and BOP officials in a meeting on August 31, 2009. Additionally, we received technical comments from DOJ and BOP, which we incorporated where appropriate.

DOJ and BOP generally agreed with the findings. DOJ and BOP will formally review our recommendations when we submit our final product in fall 2009.

We made several requests to meet with OMB, but we were unable to schedule a meeting during our review.

Appendix I – GAO’s 12 Step Cost Estimating Practices

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Joy Gambino, Assistant Director, and Jay Berman, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this assignment. Pedro Almoguera, Tisha Derricotte, Geoffrey Hamilton, Marvin McGill, Karen Richey, Adam Vogt, and Melissa Wolf made key contributions to this report.